|
Post by DarkHorse on Apr 27, 2005 6:17:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jan 8, 2006 15:20:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jan 9, 2006 2:56:43 GMT -5
Well, most of the pictures in the 1964 edition are cropped differently. A few are totally different. The ones credited in my edition to someone named 'Bryce" are not in your edition. ONe of those was a purported picture of "Billy Shepherd," an old rumpled guy, taking notes whilst chatting w/ the Fabs in Bournemouth Aug 63. I think that's been posted elsewhere on teh net, though? Teh back cover of teh 64 edition sayd "This is our true stroy as told to Billy Sheherd," then their four autographs.
I"ll try to scan in a couple of the JPM shots soon so folks can look for differences. Eyeballing them, they lok about the same, but theya re cropped differently. And the 64 ones are printed darker.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jan 14, 2006 10:40:09 GMT -5
Nice photos. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Jan 2, 2009 12:45:02 GMT -5
I see no difference in all the page one pics. That is how PIAers (like me) explain it. Everyone's entitled to an opinion though
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 2, 2009 19:15:48 GMT -5
Paul [ Sir Faul with two DIFFERENT ears. The 1st photo is from the 1970's, the second one is from MMT. Paul Sir Faul, 1967 Paul ] ^ The above photo of the "Rebel" Sir Faul is from the 1970's.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 2, 2009 22:40:52 GMT -5
Mommybird, these Fauls look different to me: MMT Faul v. SFF Faul Paul v. SFF Faul I know this is an ear comparison, but I'm noticing that Faul from Strawberry Fields has an extremely weak chin. The Faul from MMT doesn't seem to have such an extreme profile. Maybe he has a chin enhancer, but it doesn't really seem like the same guy to me. Plus, there are other differences I'm sure you will pick up on :-)
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 3, 2009 15:47:21 GMT -5
They could very well be different men. The Strawberry Field's Faul most definitely had a very weak chin. Speaking of weak chins, check out this photo of Faul: Paul
|
|
|
Post by eyeseeyou on Jan 4, 2009 0:51:13 GMT -5
You are right mommybird but maybe I've been looking @ tooooo many photos !
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 4, 2009 11:31:14 GMT -5
from tkin its all a matter of angle and perspective
|
|
|
Post by eyeseeyou on Jan 4, 2009 11:46:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 4, 2009 20:19:07 GMT -5
eyeseeyou, it's funny that you posted that photo of Paul & Brian. I just finished posting a bunch of comparison photos of Brian vs. Frian under the MMT Documentary thread. ;D I feel like I just gave BIRTH ! EEK !!!!
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 5, 2009 6:59:41 GMT -5
from tkin its all a matter of angle and perspective (this time the pic should show up)
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 5, 2009 23:06:03 GMT -5
Can anyone say POORLY photoshopped ? The way the light hits the ear is different from the way the light is hitting the face. The face has the light from an angle and the ear has the light hitting it straight on. The ear is also at an impossible angle to the head. This is all coming from my husband who has been involved with photography his whole life ( and digital stuff since he first sat at a computer in 1997 ). He says that he could do a better job with a pint of gin in him. FYI - he spends all of his spare time on Second Life. PID/PWR holds no interest for him ! ;D I am looking to see if I can find the original of that photo. Until then, I'm going to just have to find other photos of Paul from that or a similar angle, in which his ear looks perfectly normal ( and attached ). vintage From AHDN
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 6, 2009 6:32:20 GMT -5
from tkin its all a matter of angle and perspective (this time the pic should show up) mommybird, that piccture is vintage, original from tkin. the thing is, that every time a picture seems to be in favor of your case it is "very true" and "very telling". every time a picture is against your case it is "doctored" or "photoshoped". you are not even open for discussion or any arguments against your story. that - i have to say that - is realy boring. no offense
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Jan 6, 2009 9:10:29 GMT -5
Mommybird wrote: Faul with two different ears.
Also Faul with two different angles. And any of the 'Tache pics from '67 that have been posted have him looking weird, taking a drag off a ciggy in both.
|
|
|
Post by eyeseeyou on Jan 6, 2009 14:57:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 6, 2009 20:11:11 GMT -5
[ Sir Faul with two DIFFERENT ears. The 1st photo is from the 1970's, the second one is from MMT. I stand by what I posted. Angle has nothing to do with it. It's obvious that in the 1st photo his ear appears to be hanging, while in the second photo it's close to his head and the lobe is much smaller. However, I will be a sport. I will endeavor to find a photo of Faul from the angle in the 1st photo in which it is evident that his earlobe is smaller & attached. Where this photo came from is irrelevent. My husband just happened to glance over my shoulder while I was looking at it, and I posted his comments concerning it. I then went into my photobuckets to find photos of Paul showing that his ear lobes did not hang off like that. I am as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. That is why I do not usually enter into debates with PIAers.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 6, 2009 20:50:55 GMT -5
Paul's ear were attached, Faul's were not. At least, they were not always attached! And pictures of Paul's ears seem to have been tampered w/. That doesn't surprise me now that I've seen quite a few photos that have been tampered w/. ^ Shows Paul did not have a "loose lobe." This lobe does not look the same:
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 6, 2009 22:31:40 GMT -5
Good job, Trutha. I have been hard at work on my forum on a thread concerning Faul's many eye colours. I have not yet had a chance to look for a comparison to the one Faul photo that is now in question. I will have to find a comparison to it another day. Although... That photo you just used might not be perfect ( as far as ANGLE goes ) but it should do for now: ] The photo of Paul is vintage & untouched.
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Jan 7, 2009 12:08:24 GMT -5
[ Sir Faul with two DIFFERENT ears. The 1st photo is from the 1970's, the second one is from MMT. I stand by what I posted. Angle has nothing to do with it. It's obvious that in the 1st photo his ear appears to be hanging, while in the second photo it's close to his head and the lobe is much smaller. However, I will be a sport. I will endeavor to find a photo of Faul from the angle in the 1st photo in which it is evident that his earlobe is smaller & attached. Where this photo came from is irrelevent. My husband just happened to glance over my shoulder while I was looking at it, and I posted his comments concerning it. I then went into my photobuckets to find photos of Paul showing that his ear lobes did not hang off like that. I am as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. That is why I do not usually enter into debates with PIAers. Thinking about the weak chin though, i just forgot to say that. My bad...
|
|
|
Post by eyeseeyou on Jan 7, 2009 17:08:36 GMT -5
From '65
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 11, 2009 22:41:02 GMT -5
While looking for something completely different ( isn't that always the way ? ), I came across this photo:
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 12, 2009 17:12:04 GMT -5
^ More evidence of photo tampering, it seems. That's pretty messed up!
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 16, 2009 23:13:43 GMT -5
|
|