|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 20, 2004 11:24:49 GMT -5
Following is not my work, but it is extremely "eye-opening" "The original images were not adjusted, however the highlights of only the red and green were increased slightly to bring out the green and brown areas. Notice an odd swirl on the bottom of his right cornea (our left). This is only visible in images where the ambiant lighting is bright enough to clearly light his cornea. Also, it is only consistent in images where the flash (If there is one) is coming from straight ahead. In other early and later images, this anomoly is still there, but fainter. Also notice what appears to be a bump or small growth on his bottom eyelid. What is that? It is in all 3 images and seems to become more pronounced with his age." "I used the closeup in the middle as a model for the red lines and transfered them to the other two images...that is why there is a little bit of a size difference as these images are not exactly to scale with each other, or his pupils are at different sizes due to the variations in lighting. The swirl in the left most image is a bit less distinct than it is in the others...this could be due to a combination of age, lighting, pupil dialation, etc. There is NO SUCH THING as PLASTIC SURGERY on the IRIS. No amount of plastic surgury will change your iris, and his are just as asymetric as the rest of his face. Side-shot images show that his iris is flat and a contact lens put over his cornea would make it appear to protrude. That would rule out the assertion that an imposter wore contact lenses in order to change his eye color." One thing I want to add. Notice the earlobe on the oldest Paul. It is attached, but the base of the earlobe droops quite a bit, just as the doctors said could happen with age.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 20, 2004 16:22:28 GMT -5
One of the best things to happen to PIA. Thanks Larry. Guys, that's so obviously the same eye/iris. This is the PIA smoking gun. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 20, 2004 19:55:32 GMT -5
One of the best things to happen to PIA. Thanks Larry. Guys, that's so obviously the same eye/iris. This is the PIA smoking gun. Sorry. An eye doctor couldnt tell if these are the same eyes from these cruddy closeups. Furthermore check out the fold in Faul's eyes(left corner) that JP does not have. The PIA gun is shooting blanks. ;D
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 20, 2004 20:14:36 GMT -5
An eye doctor couldnt tell if these are the same eyes from these cruddy closeups. Furthermore check out the fold in Faul's eyes(left corner) that JP does not have. The PIA gun is shooting blanks. ;D Have any better closeups? I don't see what "fold" "Faul" has, and Paul doesn't. Look at the shadow in each pic, and maybe you'll see if that's what creates this "fold" you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 20, 2004 20:24:00 GMT -5
[img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] That just looks like a reflection of the photgrapher at the bottom of Paul's iris. Otherwise it looks normal to me. Also looks like another clear shot of Paul's attached lobe.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 20, 2004 20:51:36 GMT -5
Have any better closeups? Most of us don't need any closeups. We know what we see.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 20, 2004 20:53:40 GMT -5
Most of us don't need any closeups. We know what we see. Eyesbleed, come on, how can those be 3 different eyes?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 20, 2004 21:01:36 GMT -5
Eyesbleed, come on, how can those be 3 different eyes? Easy... they're just two different eyes.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 20, 2004 21:03:06 GMT -5
Easy... they're just two different eyes. Wanna tell me how? What are the differences in the eyes?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 20, 2004 21:35:02 GMT -5
Here's one from the Strawberry Fields video. I don't see anything unusual in his iris here.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 20, 2004 21:55:24 GMT -5
I don't see what "fold" "Faul" has, and Paul doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 20, 2004 22:20:43 GMT -5
You guys never give up, do ya? Btw, thanks for exposing the fold in the lower eye on Faul that RedLion pointed out. You guys are coming around.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 20, 2004 22:50:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 20, 2004 23:14:13 GMT -5
I still don't see the iris business in this much clearer pic. As for the vintage pic, which is one of ours perhaps, I don't know, I don't see the line coming off the right outer corner of the eye of the first Bill pic. As for the fold, since I'm totally lost on that one, with this battle of the fuzzy pixels, I'll refrain from comment..
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 20, 2004 23:34:44 GMT -5
Btw, very astute of you to notice that the original pic was mirror printed, and you corrected it. So does that mean reversing the mirror printed white album glasses picture was the correct thing to do too?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 20, 2004 23:41:43 GMT -5
Btw, very astute of you to notice that the original pic was mirror printed, and you corrected it. So does that mean reversing the mirror printed white album glasses picture was the correct thing to do too? ? I'm still not 100% sure if the White Ablum "Bill" pic was mirror printed or not. What does that have to do with this?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 20, 2004 23:43:23 GMT -5
I'm just saying, if a mirror printed is so obvious in this instance, than why not the WA pic? (which causes so much consternation with your crowd) You've trained yourself to see it, good for you!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 20, 2004 23:53:24 GMT -5
I'm just saying, if a mirror printed is so obvious in this instance, than why not the WA pic? (which causes so much consternation with your crowd) You've trained yourself to see it, good for you! Uh... thanks? Yes, I can see very easily when a photograph of Paul (or "Faul") has been mirrored or not. In the WA pic, half his face is covered by shadow, his eyes are covered by thick glasses, it's black and white, unclear, small, and overall, just a bad quality picture. You can't see details.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 21, 2004 0:22:40 GMT -5
just a bad quality picture. You can't see details. Kind of like the eyes in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 21, 2004 9:48:15 GMT -5
I still don't see the iris business in this much clearer pic. As for the vintage pic, which is one of ours perhaps, I don't know, I don't see the line coming off the right outer corner of the eye of the first Bill pic. As for the fold, since I'm totally lost on that one, with this battle of the fuzzy pixels, I'll refrain from comment.. This isn't as much of a close up. Did you increase the highlights of the red and green to bring out the green and brown areas. It's like when nasa shows color enhanced photos of the planets and their moons to show features not noticeable with normal lighting. He also explained the proper lighting conditions to see it best. You have not said whether this particular photograph meets the criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 21, 2004 9:52:59 GMT -5
Also looks like another clear shot of Paul's attached lobe. And notice that the oldest Paul has the earlobe attached, but the base droops quite a bit just as doctors say can happen with aging.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 21, 2004 12:07:05 GMT -5
Here's one from the Strawberry Fields video. I don't see anything unusual in his iris here. A better response than mine: "At NIR, they used the close up of Paul (Their Faul) that I purposely did not use in the initial comparison, because the pupil was so small. But since they brought it up, here is that image compared to the initial image I was going to use. Of course they expect you to see everything with the naked eye. But here it the enhancements so you don't have to strain. I am not going to explain the enhancements or why they are not all the same except to say that each image started with a different color map, so it would be silly to do the same enhancement on them. Suffice to say, color will not appear where it is not already. What you see is really there. Keep in mind the double flases also mess with things a bit. I concentrated only on the one "lightning bolt" because it is very distinct and has a good contrast. The other areas are a mix of brown and green (hazel) so they appear different depending on the frequency of light that is reflecting off of his eyes.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 21, 2004 16:09:54 GMT -5
Bug, why not start a "Paul Is Alive" forum? There's already a PIA forum. I consider M4E one. I'm there, Larry's there, Bug, Kazu, Within, Matchbox, every PIAer, making PIA threads in the PID board.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 21, 2004 21:44:05 GMT -5
A better response than mine: "At NIR, they used the close up of Paul (Their Faul) that I purposely did not use in the initial comparison, because the pupil was so small. But since they brought it up, here is that image compared to the initial image I was going to use. Of course they expect you to see everything with the naked eye. But here it the enhancements so you don't have to strain. I am not going to explain the enhancements or why they are not all the same except to say that each image started with a different color map, so it would be silly to do the same enhancement on them. Suffice to say, color will not appear where it is not already. What you see is really there. Keep in mind the double flases also mess with things a bit. I concentrated only on the one "lightning bolt" because it is very distinct and has a good contrast. The other areas are a mix of brown and green (hazel) so they appear different depending on the frequency of light that is reflecting off of his eyes. www.paulisnotdead.com/share-bin/eyecomp2.jpgThat little triangle is more likely just part of a reflection of something behind the camera or the camera itself.
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Dec 22, 2004 18:58:55 GMT -5
|
|