|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 8, 2004 4:06:17 GMT -5
Looks like this: Nothing matches up. You're thinking "the only reason Faul matches up with Paul most of the time is because he had lots of plastic surgery". How much? So much that he'd end up looking like Michael Jackson or Joan Rivers. "Faul's" face always looked so natural to me, never seemed paralyzed or anything. He has all the flaws/details in his face that Paul always had, and seems to be fine with it, letting cameras get closeups. What's the deal?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 8, 2004 16:52:38 GMT -5
You're thinking "the only reason Faul matches up with Paul most of the time is because he had lots of plastic surgery". Who said Faul's face matched up with Paul's in the fades? I certainly am not. Some have been able to get one thing to match up but never the whole face.....never the whole face.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 8, 2004 17:07:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 8, 2004 19:25:55 GMT -5
Well the ears STILL don't match up. And Paul was a baby then and his face was still growing and changing. Care to post a fade with Paul as an adult? And where EVERYTHING matches up with Faul? Let's see it.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 9, 2004 7:11:13 GMT -5
Well the ears STILL don't match up. And Paul was a baby then and his face was still growing and changing. Care to post a fade with Paul as an adult? And where EVERYTHING matches up with Faul? Let's see it. Yes... the ears match up in that. And are you telling me that Paul's face was identicle to Faul's when he was young?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 9, 2004 7:47:20 GMT -5
Yes... the ears match up in that. And are you telling me that Paul's face was identicle to Faul's when he was young? No they don't. If they were the same ears, they'd be sticking out thru his hair more, but the neck is WAY off, like I said in another thread, JPM's neck is always shorter & thicker. That isn't even close to a match. Matchbox did a good excercise in tryin' to match 2 different people with this fade, but they don't match. JPM-Squirrely Fem....JPM-Squirrely Fem Hey it's almost poetic!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 9, 2004 8:33:57 GMT -5
I don't see what you mean by "squirrely"... Do you see a resemblance? Relatives, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 9, 2004 8:46:46 GMT -5
Yes... the ears match up in that. And are you telling me that Paul's face was identicle to Faul's when he was young? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 9, 2004 8:51:13 GMT -5
Well, using my razor sharp analytical eye, I discern that the subject on the right may possibly be distant kin to said left subject, from such indicators as cranial shape, the common longitudinal axis of the right eyes, certain chin and mandibular similarities and a striking similarity of hair texture and type. Noses are of similar tribal form as well.
However, it all falls apart when viewing the lips, mouths, ears, and especially cheek bones; not to mention that the subject on the right is clearly wearing oversized, opalescent contact lenses, which completely obscure the irises. Without validating the "iridic mosaic", it is impossible to make a definitive match. **
**Just a little bit of the old "I stayed up all night B.S. & listen to me drone" from Doctor Perplexed.
Now, the top most fade on this thread is surely John to Paul, right? That's not Paul to Paul or Paul to Faul or Paul to Bill, etc, that Paul to John?
And, actually, eyesbleed---the FP pic fade that you have labeled "JPM to squirrely femme"!? does actually have points to rcommend it. The eyes and irises, the corneal situation, seem nearly identical I can't see a difference there, really--so, I think FP may be onto something-----
Now, about that squirrel..........or is that a chipmunk!!!! AHA!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 9, 2004 9:06:36 GMT -5
Well, using my razor sharp analytical eye, I discern that the subject on the right may possibly be distant kin to said left subject, from such indicators as cranial shape, the common longitudinal axis of the right eyes, certain chin and mandibular similarities and a striking similarity of hair texture and type. Noses are of similar tribal form as well. However, it all falls apart when viewing the lips, mouths, ears, and especially cheek bones; not to mention that the subject on the right is clearly wearing oversized, opalescent contact lenses, which completely obscure the irises. Without validating the "iridic mosaic", it is impossible to make a definitive match. ** **Just a little bit of the old "I stayed up all night B.S. & listen to me drone" from Doctor Perplexed. Now, the top most fade on this thread is surely John to Paul, right? That's not Paul to Paul or Paul to Faul or Paul to Bill, etc, that Paul to John? And, actually, eyesbleed---the FP pic fade that you have labeled "JPM to squirrely femme"!? does actually have points to rcommend it. The eyes and irises, the corneal situation, seem nearly identical I can't see a difference there, really--so, I think FP may be onto something----- Now, about that squirrel..........or is that a chipmunk!!!! AHA! The "squirrely fem" fade is matchbox's. And I don't see why EB calls "Faul" squirrely, I posted a comparison with "Faul" and a squirrel, and I don't see that much of a resemblance. And the top pic is Paul to John.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 9, 2004 9:14:01 GMT -5
You are right--Im am skimming the page--I see it was matchbox via eyesbleed, brought from another thread. Kidding about the squirrel, of course.
Actually, yes, I see that's a 68-69 pic I surmise, of Paul(Bill?)......... Seems more like Paul from earlier years than certain Pepper images do from early '67.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 9, 2004 9:22:29 GMT -5
You are right--Im am skimming the page--I see it was matchbox via eyesbleed, brought from another thread. Kidding about the squirrel, of course. Actually, yes, I see that's a 68-69 pic I surmise, of Paul(Bill?)......... Seems more like Paul from earlier years than certain Pepper images do from early '67. Well it's "Faul" talking to John during the Abbey Road shoot.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 9, 2004 9:52:44 GMT -5
right I recall seeing a couple of those somewhere
maybe Paul came back
maybe the so-called "Faul" pictures in that '66-'67 window are just shots made up to confuse everybody who might notice them
just a big PR game ion that case, or
maybe there was a contract lapse that prevented Paul from being photographed for a while (that would be most unusual) and substitutes were used for a season
maybe all of us PIDer's are astigmatic, or have an unexplicable and irrational need to nurture one deep, mysterious rock and roll secret.
But I can't in fairness speak of anyone but myself; I have no call or reason to indict anyone else of such------
but it really doesn't matter. it's fine either way to me.
I just want 6.5 good solid hours of deep REM sleep.
And to try to remember that friends here are collecting money and goods to send to the Florida hurricane victims. What should I send? What is the right thing(s) for me to send......
This is the important question, I think.........
But about that John/Paul fade------why do the eyes match so well? They do change--but yet there is an affinity in shape I never noticed before-------
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 9, 2004 10:10:10 GMT -5
right I recall seeing a couple of those somewhere maybe Paul came back maybe the so-called "Faul" pictures in that '66-'67 window are just shots made up to confuse everybody who might notice them just a big PR game ion that case, or maybe there was a contract lapse that prevented Paul from being photographed for a while (that would be most unusual) and substitutes were used for a season maybe all of us PIDer's are astigmatic, or have an unexplicable and irrational need to nurture one deep, mysterious rock and roll secret. But I can't in fairness speak of anyone but myself; I have no call or reason to indict anyone else of such------ but it really doesn't matter. it's fine either way to me. I just want 6.5 good solid hours of deep REM sleep. And to try to remember that friends here are collecting money and goods to send to the Florida hurricane victims. What should I send? What is the right thing(s) for me to send...... This is the important question, I think......... But about that John/Paul fade------why do the eyes match so well? They do change--but yet there is an affinity in shape I never noticed before------- I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say about the eyes matching... You're always supposed to match up the eyes in fades to see what changes in the face... And I know what it's like being stuck in the middle of this. It's confusing, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Sept 9, 2004 13:37:13 GMT -5
Yes... the ears match up in that. And are you telling me that Paul's face was identicle to Faul's when he was young? The outside edge of Faul's ear appears to be aligned with Paul's left ear. Without the rest of the ear showing, there's no way you can conclusivley determine a match. Why not find a photo of Faul with his ears fully exposed and try to match that a similar photo of Paul?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 10, 2004 0:35:56 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say about the eyes matching... You're always supposed to match up the eyes in fades to see what changes in the face... And I know what it's like being stuck in the middle of this. It's confusing, isn't it? Well, right, of course you have to line up the eyes as nearly as possible in a same angle shot---to get anything like a comparison---so I know that technically--but I meant that the quality, even though the eyes change shape a bit, the quality of the left eye of Paul and John is simialr. The way the left side of their left eye turns down, the overall shape--John and Paul left eyes (not so much the right) are very similar. I know see how the eye goes lower for John etc--its the shape though. The right eyes have no particular similarities IMO. Just a little thing to notice. Maybe that left eye thing gave them empathy. I dunno. Just a stray impression.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 10, 2004 8:11:29 GMT -5
The "squirrely fem" fade is matchbox's. And I don't see why EB calls "Faul" squirrely, I posted a comparison with "Faul" and a squirrel, and I don't see that much of a resemblance. . The Faul half of Matchbox's fade is the most "feminine" looking pic of Faul I've ever seen. And I guess y'all aren't familiar with the term "squirrely" or it's meaning, oh well. I doubt that that particular picture is one of Faul's favorites either, so I'll bet he wouldn't even mind! That fade looks good at first glance Dr.R, but the neck, ears, & the shape of the head all move back & forth during the fade. Lots of problems with that fade.
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Sept 10, 2004 16:47:00 GMT -5
Eyesbleed, the two Pauls are identical in your fade except for ears. Sorry. I guess he couldv'e had his ears done or just glued them back (didn't Bing Crosby do that also? ;D
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 10, 2004 20:38:08 GMT -5
Eyesbleed, the two Pauls are identical in your fade except for ears. Sorry. I guess he couldv'e had his ears done or just glued them back (didn't Bing Crosby do that also? ;D At first it seemed like another excellent fade to me too, sure, but the more I studied it, the more problems became evident. ....I'll add it is my favorite fade at this time tho! Even tho FP's is still the best one. At least I'm not the only one around here who doesn't see a convincing fade. But I'm so done arguin' about fades, I don't really care. I don't need a fade to tell the difference anyway...... most of the time. I'm surprised that there's not more PIA'er's considering some alternate possibilities. Even if PID was off-base, PWR should still merit consideration..... At least PWTR (paul was temp. replaced). Of course I don't think PWTR is a plausible answer coz I a very solid PIDer, but ya gotta admit there's a LOT of pics out there with JPM's name tagged to them that are obviously not JPM. This doesn't have to include PID if ya don't want it to. ^^^ Yet another reason why most fades are nothing more than pointless fun.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 10, 2004 20:50:40 GMT -5
but ya gotta admit there's a LOT of pics out there with JPM's name tagged to them that are obviously not JPM. Admit it EB, it's not so "obvious" if billions of people don't see the differences and if you can't tell right away when we do one of those "who is this?" threads.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 10, 2004 21:38:35 GMT -5
Admit it EB, it's not so "obvious" if billions of people don't see the differences and if you can't tell right away when we do one of those "who is this?" threads. Right... I said MOST of the time. And y'all can find some good ones, no problem there. When I can't tell, I always admit it up front, no problem. No games or excuses here.... I've definately got more questions than answers... I've always been the first to admit that. So I have no idea what yer gettin' at. And I can't adress the "billions of people" part without entering a taboo subject for this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 10, 2004 21:54:54 GMT -5
I am so 'PR entrained' at times, that, when I merely see the word "billions", my first association is "McDonalds." (Billions and billions served, see the golden arches)
Which, at least, reminds me of the situation that "billions" of people often resort to the most convenient alternatives, at least for getting hold of a quick bite to eat. Or maybe just millions of people, several times a week.......I wonder how many McDonald burgers on average are consumed per capita in the US alone every year.......I'm guilty too, but I'm a little more of a "Wendy's" guy..........
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 10, 2004 22:31:01 GMT -5
I am so 'PR entrained' at times, that, when I merely see the word "billions", my first association is "McDonalds." (Billions and billions served, see the golden arches) Which, at least, reminds me of the situation that "billions" of people often resort to the most convenient alternatives, at least for getting hold of a quick bite to eat. Or maybe just millions of people, several times a week.......I wonder how many McDonald burgers on average are consumed per capita in the US alone every year.......I'm guilty too, but I'm a little more of a "Wendy's" guy.......... What the heck are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 10, 2004 22:47:16 GMT -5
What the heck are you talking about? LOL LMAO LMFAO
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Sept 10, 2004 23:09:08 GMT -5
Right... I said MOST of the time. And y'all can find some good ones, no problem there. As we discovered in another recent thread, these "good" ones probably work because one or both photos are "morphed" slightly to better fit, or they were already altered at the source. That's another reason why fades are not reliable.
|
|