|
Post by matchbox on Oct 8, 2004 11:33:02 GMT -5
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! You're welcome. Since there was a few degrees of tilt between the pics, and the eyes would never line up, I lined up the ears which seemed to be a happy medium between the pics. Thanks for noticing. Since this example was to show forehead size, having perfect angles was irrelevant. Don't believe me? Look in the mirror. Tilt your head a few degrees to the left, and then to the right. Observe your forehead size. If you see a major difference, consult a doctor immediately. Regarding " Faul's foreshortened forehead": And what exactly is a " emphasized forehead" ? ? ?
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 8, 2004 17:09:50 GMT -5
Allright, here's what you posted: Now, you say this is someone seen with a different side tilt angle. As seen from the front, a side tilt looks like: And yes the forehead is the same. In this case, MASSIVE But if you notice, the ears move up and down, rotating with the axis of the eyes. Your fade doesn't show the ear position moving in this fashion. Seen from the front, your fade would look something like this:
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 8, 2004 17:24:10 GMT -5
I think it was Matchbox, he showed, using RL's own pics, that "Faul's" forehed is not "massive".
Look at any of my fades, or Matchbox's, Larry's or Kazu's. The forehead ALWAYS matches up.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Oct 8, 2004 17:31:39 GMT -5
Here's some Paul shots from the side that look like his hair is more matted down.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 8, 2004 19:17:23 GMT -5
Here is a straight on angle. Looks like Paul had a massive forehead too.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 8, 2004 20:59:19 GMT -5
Keep in mind that in that pic you have of a very young McCartney that his face was still changing and it's not very reliable for making fades. He was still a baby. Match up an adult McCartney with Faul and have EVERYTHING match up and I will be impressed.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Oct 8, 2004 21:23:42 GMT -5
Paul was 19 yrs old when that photo was taken (Nov. '60).
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Oct 8, 2004 21:34:29 GMT -5
Keep in mind that in that pic you have of a very young McCartney that his face was still changing and it's not very reliable for making fades. He was still a baby. Match up an adult McCartney with Faul and have EVERYTHING match up and I will be impressed. I showed you a fade with Michael Jackson as a kid and as an adult, and things seemed to match up.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 10:38:07 GMT -5
I have been duely whacked for attacking TI.
I have removed all offending posts and changed my avatar.
I apologize to the moderators for causing offense. I had no intention of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 11, 2004 15:14:04 GMT -5
Very nice, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 12, 2004 13:19:37 GMT -5
I showed you a fade with Michael Jackson as a kid and as an adult, and things seemed to match up. The key word here is seemed. That's the problem with the fades that that PIAers are presenting.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Nov 3, 2004 16:07:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Nov 3, 2004 19:25:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 3, 2004 19:29:11 GMT -5
Looks like something a PIAer would post. Shoulder distance, neck, head, body hair, it all matches up.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 3, 2004 19:53:05 GMT -5
Your favorite expression..
But it don't exactly scream "I'm the same guy" neither..
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 3, 2004 20:09:45 GMT -5
Your favorite expression.. But it don't exactly scream "I'm the same guy" neither.. Of course it doesnt... to you.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 3, 2004 20:27:11 GMT -5
If you BELIEVE it's the same guy, then your mind won't let you see the differences.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 3, 2004 20:34:58 GMT -5
If you BELIEVE it's the same guy, then your mind won't let you see the differences. Can you post a comparison of the differences?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 4, 2004 11:47:46 GMT -5
If you BELIEVE it's the same guy, then your mind won't let you see the differences. That works the other way around, as well. All of this is subjective. Where's the beef?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 4, 2004 18:02:29 GMT -5
Of course it doesnt... to you. Some do look similar, so don't generalise. (about me) It's a preponderance of the evidence thing.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Nov 4, 2004 21:19:42 GMT -5
Looks like something a PIAer would post. It's odd you all never do. What, no fade this time?
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Nov 4, 2004 21:28:23 GMT -5
That works the other way around, as well. All of this is subjective. Not really. For me, I don't rely just on select photos that show a similiarity (subjective). I look at the majority of photos that show a difference (objective). And that's just photos. As JoJo said, "it's a preponderance of the evidence thing."
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Nov 5, 2004 8:44:50 GMT -5
That works the other way around, as well. That's just wrong. The WRONGEST thing you've written yet. I grew up with The Beatles.... literally. That music is a very large part of my youth so this PID stuff is a fairly big deal. When I first noticed something funky goin' on & checked into it further my brain went into total shock. Not just over PID, but over all the other things out there. If PWR was possible then what else? This brain shock was not voluntary. I did not choose to see 2 different guys in all these photos, but there they are.... belive it or not. That is a fact you simply refuse to acknowledge.
|
|