|
Post by Red Lion on Oct 1, 2004 19:44:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 1, 2004 19:45:40 GMT -5
Heh. I'm not really sure what to say.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 1, 2004 19:48:05 GMT -5
What stands out to me is how Faul's forehead always looks larger.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 1, 2004 19:57:37 GMT -5
What stands out to me is how Faul's forehead always looks larger. It continues to blow me away that the PIAers see photos like these and think yep, same guy.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 1, 2004 20:03:17 GMT -5
It continues to blow me away that the PIAers see photos like these and think yep, same guy. It is the same guy. The rest of the Beatles were replaced by people who had smaller heads. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Oct 1, 2004 20:04:28 GMT -5
In head size and facial area John's was the largest. Paul was much smaller in comparision. Faul on the other hand is at least equal to John. And yes DH, Faul's forehead is massive.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 1, 2004 23:32:45 GMT -5
Yes, Faul's forehead compared with Paul's IS massive!
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 1, 2004 23:54:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 2, 2004 0:08:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 2, 2004 9:23:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 2, 2004 12:47:51 GMT -5
Holy c**p Matchbox! You da man!
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 2, 2004 13:28:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 2, 2004 13:38:50 GMT -5
Well you scaled Paul's head to sort of line up with Paul's. Since we're comparing Paul & Paul's head size to the other Beatles, that proves absolutely nothing, since you left their heads the same size. But they don't even look like the same guy anyway, so why bother? That's what I was talking about. They just don't look like the same guy regardless of head size.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 2, 2004 13:48:53 GMT -5
They just don't look like the same guy regardless of head size. That's fine. But the title of this thread is "Head Size".
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 2, 2004 13:54:44 GMT -5
That's fine. But the title of this thread is "Head Size". Yes, but changing the scale of a head and planting it in another photo isn't a valid way of comparing head sizes.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 2, 2004 13:57:58 GMT -5
Can all the PIDers just take back the statment of "Faul's" forehead being massive?
Me and Matchbox kinda killed that claim.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 2, 2004 14:06:09 GMT -5
Can all the PIDers just take back the statment of "Faul's" forehead being massive? Me and Matchbox kinda killed that claim. I think the PWR claim is that Paul has a larger head than Paul. So naturally his forehead will be proportionately larger also. The difference is less noticeable in the fades where Paul's head is scaled down to match Paul's as closely as possible.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 2, 2004 14:08:02 GMT -5
Yes, and changing the scale of a head and planting it in another photo isn't valid when comparing head sizes. I'll leave the re-scaling of pics to SK. My examples are always kept at the proper scale. But thanks for the accusation.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 2, 2004 14:13:05 GMT -5
I'll leave the re-scaling of pics to SK. My examples are always kept at the proper scale. But thanks for the accusation. What accusation? Scaling means to adjust in size, keeping the aspect the same. It's what everyone does whenever they make a fade. I'm just saying it's not a valid method of comparing head sizes since it makes both heads the same size relative to the other Beatles. It proves nothing to make both heads the same size.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 2, 2004 14:14:15 GMT -5
I think the PWR claim is that Faul has a larger head than Paul. So naturally his forehead will be proportionately larger also. PIA didn't prove/give evidence that "Faul's" head is the same size as Paul's head compared with the other Beatles yet. We will. But we did show you that everything matches up, including the forehead, eyes, and head shape.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 2, 2004 14:18:00 GMT -5
What accusation? Scaling means to adjust in size, keeping the aspect the same. It's what everyone does whenever they make a fade. I'm just saying it's not a valid method of comparing head sizes since it makes both heads the same size relative to the other Beatles. It proves nothing to make both heads the same size. Okey dokey. But I didn't scale them to make the heads the same size. I scaled them to match eye distance. The fact that the head size is the same speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 2, 2004 16:12:11 GMT -5
^ Posted by Xpt here. Wow, look at how John's head was HUGE compared to Paul, and Paul must have been replaced before '66, look at the height!
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 2, 2004 16:16:28 GMT -5
Matchbox, your fades just whizz by too darn fast! Slow motion, and with a lot more frames please.. Point is, I don't see how this really proves anything, either his (the alleged replacement) hair is all poofed up, or his head is larger. Plus, both foreheads have too much hair covering the key area. Plus, what's up with the nose there? Slowed down, it moves too fast...
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 2, 2004 16:37:32 GMT -5
Hi JoJo. I wouldn't say his hair is "all poofed up". From the center of the head to the right the size matches up quite well. The "poof factor" if you will, seems to be at the part of the hair on the left side.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 2, 2004 16:43:41 GMT -5
Plus, both foreheads have too much hair covering the key area. These are the best examples I have for pre/post '66 forehead examination.
|
|