|
Post by JoJo on Oct 2, 2004 16:54:49 GMT -5
The poof factor, hehe.. Anyways, that was weak on my part, what I am mostly inclined to say is that we don't have enough information here. We're talking about the shape of the skull here aren't we? Kinda hard to really...make..that..out... I have a new hobby, slowing down your fades.. On your avatar, the Pepper nose kinda seems to be pointing a lot more straight ahead than the earlier photo that it's faded from. Different camera angle?
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 2, 2004 17:09:47 GMT -5
Here is another forehead example. Regarding the fades. I'm trying to keep the file size reasonable. A 400X400 fade the way you did that one would probably be almost 1 meg, if not more. But hey, feel free to redo any that you like.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 2, 2004 17:45:16 GMT -5
Agree about the file size, and I'm probably done anyway.. But a slower more gradual fade does help make whatever point is trying to be made, no? Should I go back to making fades of my own? But fades are a problem, and I thought I remembered a post from way back when this board opened (almost) that stated why quite eloquently.. Hope he doesn't mind my digging this up..;D The problem with making photo comparisons is there are very few, if any, where the camera angles, ie elevation and azmuth, and the position of the head and shoulders are the same. The slightest variation of any of these factors will cause certain elements to look different, even when comparing two pics from pre-1966 Paul. If his head is tilted back a little more on one, you see more nostrills and earlobes, even with the older pics, and when they fade into each other it looks peculiar.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 2, 2004 18:14:48 GMT -5
As long as fades are not claimed to be "FULL LEGAL PROOFS" or other such nonsense, I think they can be a valuable tool for comparisons. Of course everyone has to deem their value on an individual basis. I admit that I probably value them more than most. But hey, I've gotta be me.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Oct 2, 2004 19:57:34 GMT -5
Ok, we are shown a series of images where the pre66 shots show John a few inches closer than Paul, and the post 66 images where they are closer to the same distance, or Paul is closer to the camera. I don't see what we are trying to prove here.
As far as the forehead comment. If I raise my eyebrows, I can make my forehead look a bit smaller too.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 2, 2004 22:47:56 GMT -5
As long as fades are not claimed to be "FULL LEGAL PROOFS" or other such nonsense, I think they can be a valuable tool for comparisons. Of course everyone has to deem their value on an individual basis. I admit that I probably value them more than most. True, and I've not seen a strong statement made like that by any of you "fadesters" There's been quite a lot, so many that it may appear that that's the only avenue of discussion to the casual observer. But ok, whatever floats your boat. Full legal proof no, but a real real strong sales pitch at times.. ummm... yeah... I think Kazu is saying it's not productive to use images that are poorly suited for uses for which they are purported to be useful. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Oct 2, 2004 23:36:37 GMT -5
Jojo, I'll go along with that.
How about this. Can anyone find images of Paul with wet hair? This may allow a better look at the shape of his head. Maybe a beach or swimming pool image?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 3, 2004 8:21:51 GMT -5
I just wish I had the free time you guys have. Ohhh the artwork that could get done...........
But anyway, I fail to see what the point of all this work is. Except to try & make this look more like a PIA forum than a PID forum.... & that will only last so long.
Y'all's fades are VERY entertaining & all, but that's it. You have not shown the foreheads to be the same, as explained by Revolver. It has already been shown that you have not proved the eyes to be the same. The reason they appear to match up in some fades has already been discussed also.
Notice we are not doing any PID fades....That would be way too easy (as compared to yer task) & secondly, we don't need any fades to very clearly see 2 different people. That is very plain & very clear.
So all this work has been done to show that "they" actually got the plastic surgery to looking pretty close to JPM at some points. So what does that prove? All you have to do is watch Mal Evens Home Movies or any number of other things like MMT to see that there was obviously a replacement.
Permanent or temporary? THAT is what you guys should be working on, instead of using up all yer time to keep us PID'ers entertained.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 3, 2004 8:23:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 3, 2004 11:16:10 GMT -5
OK. Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 3, 2004 12:14:15 GMT -5
sorry to digress, but when this same photo was posted a while back, didn't someone claim that was not Jane Asher? (Which it obviously is.... )
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 3, 2004 12:42:05 GMT -5
OK. Whatever. Those don't load for me.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 3, 2004 16:24:17 GMT -5
I'm sure that's Jane in both photos. I agree Paul's head looks bigger relative to Jane. Good find, Morph!
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 4, 2004 12:07:53 GMT -5
I'm sure that's Jane in both photos. I agree Faul's head looks bigger relative to Jane. Good find, Morph! Yep, that's Jane in both photos. matchbox, puhleez...
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Oct 4, 2004 12:54:17 GMT -5
It seems this thread has struck a major nerve with the PIA camp. Prompting sarcastic (although comical) stretches and irrelevant fades. All one needs to do is to look at any pre 67 photo of John and Paul to determine that Paul's head was much smaller(than John's). Conversely just look at any post 67 photo of John and Faul and you will see their heads are equal in size. How can this be? The answer is simple, obvious, and conclusive. Accepting it appears to be the problem.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Oct 4, 2004 22:38:01 GMT -5
I took this image from the earlier post and added rough lines as a guide. I had to shave 2 pixels off the image on the right to make jane's eyes and nose appear the same size in both images. Aside from Janes thick hair making her taller (See yellow square) and slight head turn causing her to lose a little ear, she is basically the same in both images. Now Paul facing up slightly more in the image on the left. This altered perspective causes his chin to appear larger in proportion to the top of his head compared to the image on the right. But basically, their faces are the same. Their heads are also the same. The image of Paul on the right does have clear evidense that his hair is more mussed, because you can actually see it go down into the part. On top of that, the additional volume on the top is not the front of his head, but the top of his head as it descends to the back. We can't see in the image on the left. The image on the left may have some hair volume, but probably not much. These heads are the same size. If anyone has questions about the top of the head being spherical and the illusion that a head is larger than it is because an image is 2 dimensional. I would be happy to write a book about it here. Let me know if you want to get me started on it. I really don't want to. Those who have said the head is bigger, please explain why these images demonstrate it is not. Thank You.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 5, 2004 10:39:31 GMT -5
In the picture on the right it looks like you cut off Faul's head too short and were pretty generous with Jane's head size don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Oct 5, 2004 16:16:15 GMT -5
Now Paul facing up slightly more in the image on the left. This altered perspective causes his chin to appear larger in proportion to the top of his head compared to the image on the right. But basically, their faces are the same. Their heads are also the same. The image of Paul on the right does have clear evidense that his hair is more mussed, because you can actually see it go down into the part. On top of that, the additional volume on the top is not the front of his head, but the top of his head as it descends to the back. We can't see in the image on the left. The image on the left may have some hair volume, but probably not much. Those who have said the head is bigger, please explain why these images demonstrate it is not. Thank You. In the picture on the right it looks like you cut off Faul's head too short and were pretty generous with Jane's head size don't you think? Whatever are you talking about DarkHorse? Looks like he just used the same overlay markings on both photos and didn't "cut" anything. The only thing out of sorts with the dimensions of his marking overlays is the hair in the photo on the right, and there are two factors at work which would cause this to happen...his head is tilted back more in the left, kazu explained that already, and not only would it cause the chin to appear a little larger but it would also cause his head to appear a bit shorter as well. The eyes, the nose, and other facial features appear to be the same size otherwise. And this is a really dead issue, but most likely two different camera types, make, models, and lenses were used and we have no idea if they were taken from the same distance. Comparing photos proves nothing...fades prove nothing...if the pictures are not taken with the same equipment from the same angles and distance, etc. His forehead. Ok, call me ditsie, call me lame. But someone show me a pre-1966 photo of Paul where you can see he forehead please. I mean REALLY see his forehead. I have one from HELP! where the wind is blowing his hair (singing The Night Before on Salisbury Range) and he is the spitting image of the grainy "just returned from Kenya" pic. There IS a bit of his forehead peeking through on it. A simple change in hair style, no longer covering the forehead, poofing the top of his hair more to be more with the trends of hairstyles (non-beatle types), and suddenly he looks like someone else. It's ok, I don't expect anyone to concede anything. Everyone is pretty much entrenched in their own opinions and beliefs. I think the PIA crew has just been trying to point out logical reasons for what you think you see. Kazu just presented a very good one, yet someone still seems to be accusing him of "cutting" or something. If it matches it's doctored, if it's vastly different, it's the real deal...same old stuff. Peace to all. I'm burned out, seriously burned out, over all this...
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 5, 2004 17:41:14 GMT -5
Hi Larry. It's been ages as they say.. Mmmm I have to respectfully disagree with you on that one, grainy or not. Yes, unfortunately there isn't much in the way of pre 67 stuff in the way of a "non mop top" look. But for us I would guess, and as Eyesbleed has stated it, it's like the Kenya footage is the bottom of a process where he becomes a man that looks more like the pre 67 guy as time goes on, like a line graph. It's true, honest! I agree, fades are pointless, and yet we were not the ones doing it. Again, honest injun! Ok, I admit I got caught up in all that for a while, but that was almost a year ago for pete's sake. If I wanted, I have enough material to do a blitzkrieg of fades, but I wanted to stick to my principles on this one, fades don't work! I like Kazu, and I think he does try to be fair, he has said things that at times harm his own cause, just because it seems (to me) he has a need to be honest. Well that's a good thing of course! I think i see what's he trying to do here. What I would say would be helpful is an overlay or fade (uh oh) of those lines he drew, rough as they are, complete with measurements. Or perhaps just measurements, since one is tilted slightly and one is not. But.. you do have to guestimate with the hair, there's no denying that. As for something being vastly different being the real deal, I repeat, no one here (other than someone who "left" a while back) has done a fade for the purpose of showing a difference, so at this board anyway that's never happened, since the only fades have been from the "same guy" folks. The only crowing in that regard was at... (you know where) I apologise in advance if someone digs something up. (other than TKIN and his other personas) Oh yes my friend, it happens with this subject, no matter which side you're on. I think you don't have to be a great detective to see there have been "drop outs"... There have been times I wished there were "PTB" upset about what we were doing, and shut us down, hehe. ;D But no, we all hang in there. Some have said one needs to resolve this to Paul being alive and well to "go back to enjoying the music". Well I submit it hasn't changed it one way or the other for me, and for some here as well. I love my collection, just for the music mostly, not as a source for the purposes of this board. All this subject matter did was point out to me how incredibly good so much of it is, and so rich in material. And yes, I like the McCartney solo material just fine, although not as strongly as Lennon and Harrison. Ringo's OK too... So peace out to you too Larry!
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 5, 2004 18:06:34 GMT -5
His forehead. Ok, call me ditsie, call me lame. But someone show me a pre-1966 photo of Paul where you can see his forehead please. TRYING . . . . TO . . . .HOLD . . . . B A C K ! ! ! ! !
.
.
MUST . . . . . . NOT . . . . . . . . POST . . . . . . . . F A D E ! ! ! ! !
.
.
.
C A N ' T . . . . . . . . H E L P . . . . . . . . . M Y S E L F ! ! ! ! !
.
.
.
.
.
H E A D . . . . . S I Z E . . . . . . . M A T C H (box)...;D I'm working on it. I promise. John was right. Cold Turkey has got me on the run.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Oct 5, 2004 19:13:14 GMT -5
In the picture on the right it looks like you cut off Faul's head too short and were pretty generous with Jane's head size don't you think? If you actually read what I said, then you can see that there is a dip in the hair of Paul on the right where no head can be seen. As far as Jane goes,,, If I were generous with her head, and not attributing it to hair, then her eyes, nose and mouth must also be in the wrong place. Can you elaborate on the issue you have with this image. Also, adding to the Jane's head size comment. Let me know if you want me to write a book about why her hair is so thick in the left image. I ,messed with trying to comb, braid, style and tie up my young daughter's hair long enought to know all about this. But I would rather not. Also would like to ask for a clarification. Is the claim ... 1: Paul's whole head is smaller than the alledged Faul. 2: Only Paul's face is a different size. 3: Paul's face is the same size, but his head is smaller. If it is 1, then this is not demonstrated in the image. If it is 2, it is not demonstrated in the image. If it is 3, same thing. I don't really know what to focus on unless someone tells me what the specific claim is. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 5, 2004 20:01:22 GMT -5
TRYING . . . . TO . . . .HOLD . . . . B A C K ! ! ! ! !
.
.
MUST . . . . . . NOT . . . . . . . . POST . . . . . . . . F A D E ! ! ! ! !
.
.
.
C A N ' T . . . . . . . . H E L P . . . . . . . . . M Y S E L F ! ! ! ! !
.
.
.
.
.
H E A D . . . . . S I Z E . . . . . . . M A T C H (box)...;D I'm working on it. I promise. John was right. Cold Turkey has got me on the run. Well then, Matchbox, switch to Wild Turkey. (collective groans) OK OK its a good fade. It works. Now, stop that! (just kidding, post as many fades as you wish) Just know that, if you continue posting ones that work well, you will further deflate my already damaged ego, and I will be neurotically unable to continue acknowledging your success. Matchbox:" But, Dr. Robert, I'm not really specifically thinking of you with these..." Dr Robert: (poise growing tentative): Oh, why, yes of course. Ah, yes. Rightly so. Well. Good. Carry on then. Good show. OK I am camping it up. In other words--some of us (I am not alone I dont think) have had to realize that the PIA camp has definitely got some things to show us.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 5, 2004 20:11:47 GMT -5
I took this image from the earlier post and added rough lines as a guide. I had to shave 2 pixels off the image on the right to make jane's eyes and nose appear the same size in both images. Aside from Janes thick hair making her taller (See yellow square) and slight head turn causing her to lose a little ear, she is basically the same in both images. Now Paul facing up slightly more in the image on the left. This altered perspective causes his chin to appear larger in proportion to the top of his head compared to the image on the right. But basically, their faces are the same. Their heads are also the same. The image of Paul on the right does have clear evidense that his hair is more mussed, because you can actually see it go down into the part. On top of that, the additional volume on the top is not the front of his head, but the top of his head as it descends to the back. We can't see in the image on the left. The image on the left may have some hair volume, but probably not much. These heads are the same size. If anyone has questions about the top of the head being spherical and the illusion that a head is larger than it is because an image is 2 dimensional. I would be happy to write a book about it here. Let me know if you want to get me started on it. I really don't want to. Those who have said the head is bigger, please explain why these images demonstrate it is not. Thank You. You have made good points, but you have also created a new party rage. Look out! It's the all new "Space Age Laser Piping Face Mask". Every Haloween party this Fall will have people stepping out to groove in this new exciting way to accessorize. Lightweight and easy to wear; they only require a tiny watch battery taped behind an ear. Guaranteed to stay just as completely lit as you are all night long. Hannibal Lechtor and "Jason" may have to get a fashion overhaul after this. I am just playing. You've succeeded in your point.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 5, 2004 20:41:27 GMT -5
Whatever are you talking about DarkHorse? Looks like he just used the same overlay markings on both photos and didn't "cut" anything. The drawing is what I am talking about. There seems to be another inch or so on top of Faul's head past the line and on the pic on the left of Paul's head the drawing is at the top of the head. Now granted in the Faul pic the hair style is such that the hair sticks up more than on the left "mop top" hair do but it seems to me that the drawing cut off some of Faul's head in order to prove a point to the size of the head in comparison to Jane's.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 5, 2004 21:53:55 GMT -5
|
|