|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 15, 2004 8:45:55 GMT -5
AHA! Look at the hair part in those pics!!! Yeah ignore the obvious and create a diversion.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 12:31:45 GMT -5
Oh, come on. He noticed something and pointed it out, and even JoJo said it was a good point.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 12:38:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 13:08:07 GMT -5
Thanks Bug. Detached.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 15, 2004 13:29:34 GMT -5
They were detached. It became more pronounced as he got older, but many things do. You seem to be inferring that a curve at the bottom of the earlobe means that it's detached. An attached lobe will also look round at the bottom. It's the inside edge that we're interested in. Does it connect or doesn't it? None of those photos can tell us for certain because they're either from the wrong angle or obscured by hair, but all of them are consistent with attached lobes. We've already seen enough clear photos to verify that the left lobe was indeed attached. The odds are good the right one was attached as well. One clear photo overrules any number of ambiguous ones.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 14:15:51 GMT -5
What about the one I just posted Revolver?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 16:05:22 GMT -5
Thanks Bug. Detached. I'm talking about the inner edge. Looks detatched as much as some of the later Paul pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 16:10:22 GMT -5
Looks every bit attached as any of the earlier pictures. Cool guitar, too.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 15, 2004 19:26:53 GMT -5
Not a good angle on either of those to tell one way or another. We already know they're detached from other photos.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 15, 2004 19:33:10 GMT -5
What about the one I just posted Revolver? That's the only photo I've seen of Paul's right lobe that looks possibly detached, but it's still ambiguous because we can't see the gap. We do have clear photos of both Paul and Faul's left lobes. That's all we really need to show the difference.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 19:34:04 GMT -5
Not a good angle on either of those to tell one way or another. We already know they're detached from other photos. Uh, the first one is at a perfect angle. And what about the one I posted?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 15, 2004 19:42:46 GMT -5
Uh, the first one is at a perfect angle. And what about the one I posted? Looks like it may have been retouched by someone (not accusing you). Note the light patch around the inner earlobe while the surrounding area is darker.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 19:46:36 GMT -5
Looks like it may have been retouched by someone (not accusing you). Note the light patch around the inner earlobe where the rest is in shadow. It was actually taken from Sun King's site. Now why would he doctor something to go against his case??
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 15, 2004 19:48:25 GMT -5
It was actually taken from Sun King's site. Now why would he doctor something to go against his case?? It could have been retouched before he scanned it.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 19:53:18 GMT -5
It could have been retouched before he scanned it. I thought he always used vintage pics, and loves to point out how non-vintage pics were "doctored"?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 15, 2004 19:59:21 GMT -5
I thought he always used vintage pics, and loves to point out how non-vintage pics were "doctored"? I don't know where he got the photo. I'm just saying it looks suspect to me. And it's the left lobe that got this all started, not the right.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 20:08:01 GMT -5
I don't know where he got the photo. I'm just saying it looks suspicious to me. So if it looks suspicious to you, it's no good for anyone here. I guess you can say that about anything that goes against your case, just say it was doctored. Neither of us can prove if it was shopped or not, to me, it looks like a shaved area of his sideburns. It appears that Paul's right lobe was attached also:
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 15, 2004 20:25:41 GMT -5
c'mon, you don't expect to be able to tell anything from those do you? ;D Those are professional publicity shots, and are guaranteed to have been "airbrushed" extensively. Not just in the case of P/Faul, but for any celebrity.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 15, 2004 20:46:11 GMT -5
It was actually taken from Sun King's site. Now why would he doctor something to go against his case?? The visual examination was of the left lobe, not the right, if we may go back to the beginning of this, if that's alright with you.. Maybe if one is attached, the other should be, but that's not the same as a close examination, so as far as I'm concerned, the right one is off the table. (for the moment) Show all the left sides that are attached that you want, but no one is supposed to have both, (scenarios) why is that so difficult to comprehend?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 20:52:38 GMT -5
Oh, come on. When FP or I present pictures, the claim is that they are doctored or airbrushed (like they are really going to airbrush his earlobe.) But of course, the very poor quality video captures and newspaper b&w photos are PROOF POSITIVE.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 15, 2004 20:52:49 GMT -5
I guess you can say that about anything that goes against your case, just say it was doctored. No, what's been said is that if anything came after 1966, it's possibly suspect, so don't use it to make your point. Anything before can be used as a baseline, so all after must agree. If it doesn't, ask yourself a common sense question...Why? If it agrees, well then I guess you can be all happy, more power to ya.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 15, 2004 20:58:07 GMT -5
Oh, come on. When FP or I present pictures, the claim is that they are doctored or airbrushed (like they are really going to airbrush his earlobe.) Why not, if it's something that needs fixing? Denial...
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 21:03:40 GMT -5
Wow, I'm really starting to get sick of this thread. KHAN just posted a really nice left-ear comparison, but I'm not posting it here, not now, your minds are going to be set on this ear lobe sh... stuff no matter what.
I won't be posting in this thread anymore for tonight.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 15, 2004 21:09:35 GMT -5
Oh, come on. When FP or I present pictures, the claim is that they are doctored or airbrushed (like they are really going to airbrush his earlobe.) But of course, the very poor quality video captures and newspaper b&w photos are PROOF POSITIVE. it's an established fact that celeb publicity portraits are airbrushed and/or retouched. Have been since the silent movie days. If you're not aware of that, then you need to go back to square one and collect some info (read: knowledge) before offering opinions on photos.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Dec 15, 2004 21:42:23 GMT -5
That pic looks to me like his facial hairline (whats the word again?) is what causes the light and dark patches, simply whiskers growing in, happens to me too.
|
|