|
Post by kazu on Oct 6, 2004 3:10:41 GMT -5
It does seem like some of the Faul head is cut off. That is where the yellow boxes come in. This is the area of question. It is too hard to determine from a flat image, but anyone who looks down enough will show the top back of their head and this can be interpreted as a taller head in a flat image. The same goes for Jane. Only the red and green marks are the same. The yellow is there to draw attention to an obscure area.
I am not saying I am the all end conclusive authority. I am just trying to be a bit more exact than subjectively saying something is bigger. Aside from the obscure area, everything that can be clearly seen is basically the same.
Flaming Pie has found a great image where the 4 Beatles are laying their heads on the floor. This is probably the best example ever since one can't be too far closer to tha camera than another.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 6, 2004 7:42:35 GMT -5
Head size schmead size....... squiggly lines here & there. I don't care coz I don't need any of them to very clearly see 2 different people. How can y'all NOT see that? Welp.... that's all the time I have to invest in this topic, I gotta get ready for work. BTW, thanks for posting this Morph, I've been wanting these two pics put together just like this.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 6, 2004 10:45:08 GMT -5
kazu, as others have already commented (thanks guys!) your lines are suspect. You've made heavy, rough lines atop thumbnail-sized faces to show...what exactly? I could do what you've done and "tweak" the opposite conclusion, but why bother?
Doesn't Paul in the 1966 photo look like he's arching forward? I'm looking at the angle of his shirt collar (see how much higher the back is to the front, then look at Faul's) and tie (Faul's tie, otoh, is just crooked). His chin seems to be thrust out with respect to his neck, as opposed to him simply tilting his head. Faul's standing straight (like a policeman or sumthin), he does that quite a bit. If this is the case, it may not a make a huge difference...maybe throw it off by a few pixels.
Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 6, 2004 14:59:26 GMT -5
Thanks for ignoring my links, PIDers.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 6, 2004 15:23:09 GMT -5
Thanks for ignoring my links, PIDers. I looked, I saw, but I didn't get it..
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Oct 6, 2004 17:24:04 GMT -5
Eyesbleed is correct that the Paul on the left is a bit forward from his body compared to jane. However, the Paul on the right is standing a bit more forward that Jane, as you can see he has his arm around her and her shoulder is snug under his arm. I agree that images like this mean nothing. My freehand sucks big time. But like you said a few pixels mean nothing. On you comment about seeing 2 different people. i think that Jane looks just as different in the images as Paul. Anyone disagree?
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Oct 6, 2004 17:30:07 GMT -5
I find if funny that one person says his head is beiiger, then when it is demonstrated that it may not be bigger, another person says is may be because the Paul on the left is closer to the camera. Then it always goes back to "knowing" it is a different person. Quite frankly, my gripe with the images and reasoning has nothing to do with if these are the same people or not. I am not here to tell you if this is the same person. Know why? I have no proof. I don't know him. I can't provide anything that shows these images are the same person. I only argue the reasoning and methods.
So then, why is Jane so short next to Paul on the left? (Not the correct thread, but maybe someone will take this to the hieght discussion.)
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 6, 2004 17:37:00 GMT -5
I looked, I saw, but I didn't get it.. What do you mean? In the first 2 pics, you can see Paul's head was pretty much the same size as John's. In the third pic, "Faul's" head looked kinda small compared to John's!
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 6, 2004 18:33:12 GMT -5
i think that Jane looks just as different in the images as Paul. Anyone disagree? yes.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 6, 2004 19:37:11 GMT -5
I only argue the reasoning and methods. So then, why is Jane so short next to Paul on the left? (Not the correct thread, but maybe someone will take this to the hieght discussion.) Even tho I may not always agree with ya, I appreciate yer neutral approach to this stuff. There's not many neutrals around here! I'm thinkin' (& could be wrong) that yer leaning more towards PIA, but you do a good job of staying neutral around this forum. The pic of "paul & jane" on the boat was brought up before in another thread. Can't remember where. I dunno, there's something really screwy about that picture. It's almost like they were both pasted on there, coz she looks way too small & he looks way too big. That is one screwy picture! Just compare it to the 2 pics Morph posted. Something is VERY wrong with that boat pic.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 6, 2004 21:03:45 GMT -5
Any PIDers wanna comment about those pics? Red Lion?
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Oct 6, 2004 21:54:39 GMT -5
....The pic of "paul & jane" on the boat ....she looks way too small.... don't you think that's simply because she is barefoot?
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Oct 6, 2004 22:13:13 GMT -5
Eyesbleed. You are correct. I lean towards PIA, but only because that is the starting point. Paul was alive and if he is not here anymore, then proof must be provided. It would make no sense to start out with PID and then try to prove him alive. I know he looks odd after a certain time. I see inconsistencies. I am not willing to just assume he was replaced.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 6, 2004 23:21:56 GMT -5
don't you think that's simply because she is barefoot? Ya... could be. And maybe it's just one of those odd pics that looks funny, I dunno, but that pic never has looked natural to me.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Oct 7, 2004 1:09:43 GMT -5
Jane is probably small because she has her rear foot planted lower than Paul's foot. Paul is tip toing on one of his feet to balance his other foot on the railing thing. Then the barefoot shortens her because she always wore high heels or boots in public. Basically she was always short. Watch her in movies. She is next to known start with known heights. She is not that tall. 5"5' to 5"7' maybe. Lots of internet images of her from movies with the likes of Vincent Price and others. www.paulisnotdead.com/index-2.php?secct=pind&toppic=pind&subbt=height&pagge=5Drat. This is off topic again. Sorry. Please don't respond to my post about hieght over here.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Oct 7, 2004 1:36:42 GMT -5
Any PIDers wanna comment about those pics? Red Lion? If you insist. In your first two photos John's facial area and head size is noticeably larger than Paul's. This is always the case when they are photographed together at an equal distance from the camera. Your third photo only shows a profile and John's long hair conceals the outline of his head so "no comment." When Faul and John are photographed together their facial area and head size are equal, indicating Faul/Paul are two distinct entities. As to your question " is Faul's head smaller than Paul's?" The answer is no, but even IF it were, that would still make them two different people. The point of this thread was that if indeed JPM was not replaced Faul's head size, relative to John, should be the same. It is not. So draw your own conclusions, but one thing is certain, Paul's head and Faul's head are very very different.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 7, 2004 9:08:35 GMT -5
but that pic never has looked natural to me. Yes I seem to agree with you eyesbleed. It's a very odd picture of Jane. She looks small and very skinny and her face looks different. It's just one of those odds pics I guess as you had said. But she does look quite different in that pic, which was taken around 1964 or so, compared to, say, pics in 1967. She is heavier in '67 and I think it was the stress of dealing with Paul's death. A lot people lose weight because they stop eating when dealing with grief. I think it might have been the opposite with Jane. She gained weight. She later on lost the weight and is thinner to this day.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 7, 2004 13:27:56 GMT -5
If you insist. In your first two photos John's facial area and head size is noticeably larger than Paul's. This is always the case when they are photographed together at an equal distance from the camera. Your third photo only shows a profile and John's long hair conceals the outline of his head so "no comment." When Faul and John are photographed together their facial area and head size are equal, indicating Faul/Paul are two distinct entities. As to your question " is Faul's head smaller than Paul's?" The answer is no, but even IF it were, that would still make them two different people. The point of this thread was that if indeed JPM was not replaced Faul's head size, relative to John, should be the same. It is not. So draw your own conclusions, but one thing is certain, Paul's head and Faul's head are very very different. RL, img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/Member27/PID/heads2.jpgI don't see John with a bigger head there. And you're saying in the 3rd we can't really tell because John has a beard? Look at your starting post in this thread. 1st pic: John's head looks bigger because he's closer to the camera. 2nd pic: Looks the same size to me. 3rd pic: Once again, John is closer to the camera. 4h pic: Paul's head is closer to the camera. Let's comepare Paul's head with George's. 1st pic: George has a bigger head than Paul. 4th pic: Same.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 7, 2004 13:52:31 GMT -5
And yes DH, Faul's forehead is massive. Regardless of who you may think is in this fade. There is certainly no "MASSIVE" forehead to be found.
|
|
|
Post by lj on Oct 7, 2004 14:13:46 GMT -5
Regardless of who you may think is in this fade. There is certainly no "MASSIVE" forehead to be found. the second picture of this fade, ie, faul's pic, shows a different head position... i thought the rule about fades was to show the same exact position of the face and all that
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Oct 7, 2004 14:46:33 GMT -5
exactly, kaz. also check the shoreline.
this ain't exactly rocket science, people.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 7, 2004 15:00:24 GMT -5
the second picture of this fade, ie, faul's pic, shows a different head position... i thought the rule about fades was to show the same exact position of the face and all that Yeah. It's really hard to to be coming up (*pun alert*) with perfect angles when there are so few examples of pre and post '66 pics with the forehead completely exposed. In this case however, I don't think that a few degrees of tilt to the left or right would make fauls forehead to go from 'MASSIVE' to 'tiny'. ;D
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Oct 7, 2004 15:01:28 GMT -5
Hey there, l'il stalker. I can't answer your question without violating this board's "no politics" rule. And since, unlike you, I attempt to be a courteous guest; I'll refrain from doing so. Feel free to direct your inquiries to me privately; but don't be surprised if I ignore them.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 7, 2004 22:43:32 GMT -5
Yeah. It's really hard to to be coming up (*pun alert*) with perfect angles when there are so few examples of pre and post '66 pics with the forehead completely exposed. In this case however, I don't think that a few degrees of tilt to the left or right would make fauls forehead to go from 'MASSIVE' to 'tiny'. ;D If that's a person tilting their head left and right, it's strange the ear postition doesn't rotate up and down with the rest of the face. Faul is tilted up, and Paul is tilted down. The fact that Faul's foreshortened forehead appears the same as Paul's emphasized forehead speaks volumes. Thanks for the fade!
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Oct 8, 2004 9:30:34 GMT -5
My question was not political in nature.
Heh. You don't understand your own question.
|
|