|
Post by FlamingPie on Jan 14, 2005 21:27:08 GMT -5
Another one of Matchbox's great comparisons. Imagine Paul with longer hair, and at the same angle as "Faul", with his mouth open slightly more. When I imagine Paul like that, I don't see one difference. Do you? If so, tell me.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jan 14, 2005 22:28:46 GMT -5
Faul on the left seems to have longer upper central incisors relative to the lateral ones, compared to Paul. Was the Paul photo before or after the 26 Dec 1965 moped accident? Remember Paul got only one tooth capped, not both.
Also it's another good shot of Paul's attached left ear lobe.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jan 14, 2005 22:32:16 GMT -5
So how much time do you guys spend goin' thru Macca pics to find these?? That's a good comparison alright. I dunno, any slight differences could be argued coz the face is a bit contorted when yer full-out laughing, but I'm seeing slight differences in the eyes & eyebrows, and a slight difference in the noses especially at the point of the nose.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jan 14, 2005 22:51:09 GMT -5
Then there's Faul's chest hair, which we know Paul didn't have much if any.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jan 15, 2005 0:05:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jan 15, 2005 0:12:24 GMT -5
The previous photo and many others show chest hair, so obviously he shaved it.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jan 15, 2005 0:34:03 GMT -5
The previous photo and many others show chest hair, so obviously he shaved it. We don't even know when the first pic was taken. Do you?
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jan 15, 2005 2:59:05 GMT -5
...Another one of Matchbox's great comparisons. Matchbox chose to leave this forum, so I wish you would stop carrying his "stuff" over for him.
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Jan 15, 2005 9:50:20 GMT -5
I don't see one difference either.... there are several. Pick something, it's different. Look at the lips for example, there's a difference. Then there's the eyes, eyebrows, nose, longer face, chin, neck...
I can see where, at first glance, the untrained eye would not notice. Most people have always assumed that Faul is Paul.
But when you really look, how can you not see a difference.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jan 15, 2005 13:52:49 GMT -5
Matchbox chose to leave this forum, so I wish you would stop carrying his "stuff" over for him. I don't see why you have a problem with that, but fine.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jan 17, 2005 18:11:50 GMT -5
We don't even know when the first pic was taken. Do you? What difference would it make when the photo was taken? If just one photo shows chest hair, that proves Faul has it.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jan 17, 2005 18:19:45 GMT -5
What difference would it make when the photo was taken? If just one photo shows chest hair, that proves Faul has it. Yes, he does. But he can make it look like he has none or less by shaving it, which is what I believe Paul did.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jan 17, 2005 18:44:01 GMT -5
"I don't see one difference either.... there are several. Pick something, it's different. Look at the lips for example, there's a difference. Then there's the eyes, eyebrows, nose, longer face, chin, neck...
I can see where, at first glance, the untrained eye would not notice. Most people have always assumed that Faul is Paul.
But when you really look, how can you not see a difference. "
You can't even see the tip of Pauls nose, shadow has distorted it, how are the lips different? The face isn't longer, his eyes are closed, a bit like yours, for one whos eyes are so well trained, I'd have to say that you missed a bit
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Jan 17, 2005 19:23:49 GMT -5
Hmmm.... must be karma from a past life- I don't recall having been snarky with anyone on this board, yet I seem to bring out the "snark" in some people... FYI, I have taken the shadows into account before commenting. If you can't see what I see, that's fine. We both are entitled to our opinion. It is my opinion that there clearly are differences. When I referred to the "untrained eye", I was referring to the generally unassuming public, not anyone here. So don't get personal. Lips? Paul's are fuller. Period. Always have been. Oh, and someone else mentioned eyes... guess I'm not the only one, huh? Even though theirs are closed, I can still see that Paul's brows are always closer to his eyes than are Faul's. So, even though my eyes are "closed", they can still see, perhaps better than some with their eyes "open".
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jan 17, 2005 19:50:20 GMT -5
"I don't see one difference either.... there are several. Pick something, it's different. Look at the lips for example, there's a difference. Then there's the eyes, eyebrows, nose, longer face, chin, neck... I can see where, at first glance, the untrained eye would not notice. Most people have always assumed that Faul is Paul. But when you really look, how can you not see a difference. " You can't even see the tip of Pauls nose, shadow has distorted it, how are the lips different? The face isn't longer, his eyes are closed, a bit like yours, for one whos eyes are so well trained, I'd have to say that you missed a bit so do you have any strikes without? cause if you talk to another member like that you will have. their was no need to be so snippy with girl. We both know your issue is with me so take it out on me not her. understood?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jan 17, 2005 20:28:19 GMT -5
" You can't even see the tip of Pauls nose, shadow has distorted it, how are the lips different? The face isn't longer, his eyes are closed, a bit like yours, for one whos eyes are so well trained, I'd have to say that you missed a bit Hhmmmm, I didn't see you complaining about our "closed eyes" when we were congratulating FP on his recent work & commenting on how things were lining up so well.!! At least we call it as we see it... even if it does (on the surface) work against us somewhat. There are SEVERAL differences in the comparison on this thread. The new FP fade works better & we said so. What is really astonishing is the fact that you guys claim every single weird looking picture is JPM, even tho a few obviously are not. Now PLEASE explain how it could be us with the closed eyes? Oh ya... our eyes are only closed part of the time. We opened them just long enough to enjoy FP's work & then closed them again... is that it??
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jan 17, 2005 23:01:48 GMT -5
No, see, the beauty of you guys complimenting him is that, when you get accused of something, you can point them out and say "oh we're so fair(not an actual quote from the forum)" ignoring the fact that you call us ignorant and say that "once you see it, you always see it(paraphrase)" It's purely a political manouvre, designed to make you look more innocent.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jan 17, 2005 23:06:46 GMT -5
so do you have any strikes without? cause if you talk to another member like that you will have. their was no need to be so snippy with girl. We both know your issue is with me so take it out on me not her. understood? Actually I've never had an issue with you, I wasn't being snippy with her because I'm an ass (I know, the irony) I was doing it as a parody of her response to FP, I was basically giving responses in the way that she gave her views in a way that was similar to the way she posted, I notice that you find it snippy when I do it, but we won't go there, we don't want to start any issues
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Jan 18, 2005 0:43:49 GMT -5
WHAT?? Similar? Apples & oranges... (again) I stated an opinion, however biased you think that may be, and a very general response. It was not a personal attack on FP, so I can't fathom why you felt the need to RUSH to his defense. You, on the other hand, delivered a direct hit to me personally: Did I even say anything about the training of MY eyes? Did I ever suggest that I had attained perfection and have earned my masters degree in PID-ology? As I explained earlier, the untrained eye means the general public who flip through the damn magazines, put them away, and get on with their lives. Maybe they're better off.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jan 18, 2005 8:05:29 GMT -5
well when i said strike thats not what i had in mind for within me but hey works for me
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jan 18, 2005 8:56:48 GMT -5
No, see, the beauty of you guys complimenting him is that, when you get accused of something, you can point them out and say "oh we're so fair(not an actual quote from the forum)" ignoring the fact that you call us ignorant and say that "once you see it, you always see it(paraphrase)" It's purely a political manouvre, designed to make you look more innocent. None of my responses are "designed" for anything. Period. I have way too much goin' on to waste time with that sort of soap opera game. I call it as I see it.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jan 19, 2005 1:00:30 GMT -5
Yes, he does. But he can make it look like he has none or less by shaving it, which is what I believe Paul did. I believe that's what is known as an 'ad hoc hypothesis' since we have no reports or anecdotes that Paul shaved his chest. From The Skeptic's Dictionary:An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s theory.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jan 19, 2005 1:14:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jan 19, 2005 1:21:46 GMT -5
or, Make it up as you go along.
Improvise.
Create afresh.
Jazz!
Of course, good jazz, without an adequate back-up, falls flat.
And likewise, a freshly spun story.
In good jazz combos, the rhythm section well supports the saxophone, the guy who is making it up on the spot.
If your "solo improv" goes poorly, you can always blame the drummer or the bass player.
I conclude; never lie without bringing your back-up; that way, you can always blame it on the bass player..........
Oh, yes? Sorry, what? What has my diatribe to do with fades and supporting your points?
Shoo-wey, whoa, well, er-uhm, lemme ask the drummer.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jan 19, 2005 21:57:30 GMT -5
Must have been a full moon that day. Come on, that one is in the shadows with the contrast turned way up. Here's some more from that same set scanned by JoJo, that shows Paul had some chest hair, and didn't shave it. It also shows he had a lot less than faul, when he wasn't shaving it off. Paul probably had as much or more arm hair than faul, but not nearly as much chest hair. I adjusted the brightness down to sharpen the contrast.
|
|