|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 3, 2004 7:15:52 GMT -5
Pupils? They fricken change in size depending on the amount of light. FP is right on target. Yes and you and FP are absolutely right! What I meant was the size of the iris. In the pic JP's are bigger and if it is a match they should be the same size. Agreed?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 3, 2004 12:49:51 GMT -5
Yes and you and FP are absolutely right! What I meant was the size of the iris. In the pic JP's are bigger and if it is a match they should be the same size. Agreed? The contrast of a pic can change what the iris size looks like.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 3, 2004 15:47:40 GMT -5
The contrast of a pic can change what the iris size looks like. ...only in extreme light where the iris appears smaller.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 3, 2004 16:17:02 GMT -5
...only in extreme light where the iris appears smaller. I'm using a vintage Paul pic, the eyes and the head shape match up, and you still say "Faul's head was taller". I've proved that wrong in ALL my fades. And so has KHAN, Kazu, and Larry. I don't care if you still think they're 2 different people. I just want you to realize that they have the same head shape and eye distance.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Nov 3, 2004 18:32:17 GMT -5
I don't care if you still think they're 2 different people. I just want you to realize that they have the same head shape and eye distance. Well don't hold yer breath or anything. Individual still pics tell a very different story. No fades needed. They do not have the same head shape & that is very obvious.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 3, 2004 18:39:39 GMT -5
Well don't hold yer breath or anything. Individual still pics tell a very different story. No fades needed. They do not have the same head shape & that is very obvious. Yes they do, we've shown you guys that about 100 times. You haven't posted any fades or anything where they don't.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Nov 3, 2004 18:51:31 GMT -5
Well fine... whatever.
But, I believe my lyin' eyes.... (I've read that before around here)
And besides..... even if they did have simularly shaped heads, which they don't..... But if they did, that still doesn't address all the other differences.
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Nov 3, 2004 18:52:14 GMT -5
This question has probably been asked 100 million times, but how do you make fades.. as i would like to give it a go
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 3, 2004 19:00:01 GMT -5
This question has probably been asked 100 million times, but how do you make fades.. as i would like to give it a go Well, I like use Photoshop... do you have that?
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Nov 3, 2004 19:08:30 GMT -5
yeah i do.. i'll give it go. Thanks mate
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 3, 2004 19:23:51 GMT -5
yeah i do.. i'll give it go. Thanks mate Well first you have to know how to do it. ;D I'm bad at explaining things , so I'll just tell you some things you need to know. Each layer counts as a frame of the animation. When you have all the frames, make sure they're all in order, then go to File > Save for Web. When you have the Save for Web window open make sure you're saving it as a gif, and make sure to check the boxes that say "animate" and "loop".
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 3, 2004 19:58:21 GMT -5
I'm using a vintage Paul pic, the eyes and the head shape match up, and you still say "Faul's head was taller". I've proved that wrong in ALL my fades. And so has KHAN, Kazu, and Larry. Sorry. Although very clever, your fades didn't prove anything to me ....or any of the mods or the PIDers on this board. Or any other fades done by the others. It's the truth. No they don't. Faul has a longer head, an oval face and a larger forehead. Paul's head was round and the eyes are placed differently on his face. Wider and lower in proportion to his face. ;D
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 3, 2004 20:09:07 GMT -5
Yes they do, we've shown you guys that about 100 times. You haven't posted any fades or anything where they don't. As I've tried very patiently to explain, fades don't work. A 100 times? yeah it's possibly that many times. I haven't done any in a long time, if I did, it would only show I could find material that makes our point just as easily as yours does. it's a guess, but I think it will be fairly easy. i wonder what excuse will be offered if a fade shows a difference? Different angles? Too old/young? head tilted? I seem to have a general recollection that those flaws are ok with your fades.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 3, 2004 20:25:22 GMT -5
As I've tried very patiently to explain, fades don't work. A 100 times? yeah it's possibly that many times. I haven't done any in a long time, if I did, it would only show I could find material that makes our point just as easily as yours does. it's a guess, but I think it will be fairly easy. i wonder what excuse will be offered if a fade shows a difference? Different angles? Too old/young? head tilted? I seem to have a general recollection that those flaws are ok with your fades. Do a fade matched up by the eyes, and if the head shape doesn't match up, then maybe I'll start thinking.
|
|
|
Post by lj on Nov 4, 2004 10:14:29 GMT -5
then maybe I'll start thinking. you mean... for real? hahahaha sorry, that was too easy. ;D ;D I don't want to repeat what others have said a million times already, but... I thought it was clear that fades don't really prove anything because you can use them to prove EITHER side. So, what's the point? Well, the thing is no matter how many times a picture of "Paul" after 1966 looks like Paul before 1966, that will never explain the other hundreds that DO NOT show the same person. So, you can be posting fades until the day you die, that won't prove anything because that won't explain why he sounds different, acts different AND look different in a thousand pictures and videos before and after 1996. Sorry to repeat the same thing, but I guess a hundred times is never enough so... let's try 101.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 4, 2004 12:01:19 GMT -5
I thought it was clear that fades don't really prove anything because you can use them to prove EITHER side. I haven't seen 1 PID fade matched up by the eyes, at the same angle, where the head shape doesn't match up.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 4, 2004 12:55:04 GMT -5
Let's see.
Fades don't prove anything.
Clues are not really important.
Voice comparisons - meaningless due to the many effects used by studios and the differences in recording equipment.
What is left? Feelings and beliefs.
Subjective and worthless.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 4, 2004 17:58:09 GMT -5
Maybe if you have the negatives, otherwise no. That's mostly an opinion put forth by you. I disagree. It hasn't been explored in any "scientific" way here, the only thing we have at our disposal is what we hear with our own ears. Voice print analysis is what you are refering to perhaps, I seem to have lost my machine in my last move... It's worthy of discussion, feel free to not take part in any of those if you wish. Meaning is always subjective, you can't discuss the weather without the meaning being subjective, one explanation can be interpreted differently by two different people. If you're married, I hope your wife doesn't know you think feelings and beliefs are useless..
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Nov 4, 2004 18:47:15 GMT -5
I figured out how to do fades but finding pictures of the same angle and same expression i am finding near impossible... cam someone lead me to a site that has loads of pics... ??
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 4, 2004 18:50:08 GMT -5
I figured out how to do fades but finding pictures of the same angle and same expression i am finding near impossible... cam someone lead me to a site that has loads of pics... ?? Right here. ;D Look in the "Paul McCartney" board.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Nov 4, 2004 18:55:31 GMT -5
I don't want to repeat what others have said a million times already, but... I thought it was clear that fades don't really prove anything because you can use them to prove EITHER side. So, what's the point? Well, the thing is no matter how many times a picture of "Paul" after 1966 looks like Paul before 1966, that will never explain the other hundreds that DO NOT show the same person. So, you can be posting fades until the day you die, that won't prove anything because that won't explain why he sounds different, acts different AND look different in a thousand pictures and videos before and after 1996. Sorry to repeat the same thing, but I guess a hundred times is never enough so... let's try 101. Ya exactly. I posted almost the same points a day or 2 ago. It was ignored........ again. We will have to take the time to post these same general points 1001 times coz they tend to ignore this whenever it's brought up.... again.... as they go on with their endless fades that don't really prove anything. Making all those fades has to take a big chunk of time; I can only wish I was blessed with just a fraction of that much spare time.!
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 4, 2004 19:00:15 GMT -5
Agreed, 40+ hours of work every week kinda tends to get in the way.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Nov 4, 2004 19:21:10 GMT -5
Making all those fades has to take a big chunk of time; I can only wish I was blessed with just a fraction of that much spare time.! It's not making the fades that take that long, it's just looking through all the pics in the "Paul" board for a pic of Paul at the perfect angle that'll match up my "Faul" pic. I have lots of pics in my PID folder, always seeing if two will match up, but the angle is always slightly off. Plus it also takes up time keeping up with all the posts in this forum, Larry's, and the other one... and a few others, not realated to PID.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 5, 2004 12:37:50 GMT -5
That's mostly an opinion put forth by you. I disagree. Actually, my opinion was just the opposite. I find the clues important which is why I spent so much time on another thread debunking them. It was PWRs responding to my debunking of the clues that suddenly were saying that the clues weren't important because they were misinfomation designed to confuse the masses. It was them who said the important information was the photographs and voice, not the clues. It hasn't been explored in any "scientific" way here, the only thing we have at our disposal is what we hear with our own ears. Voice print analysis is what you are refering to perhaps, I seem to have lost my machine in my last move... Exactly!! Not scientific. The only thing we have at our disposal is our own ears which are at the mercy of our own feelings and preconceptions along with the fact that what we hear on records is affected by the types of recording equipment used and the studio effects that were used by the recording engineers. If all you have is your ears, then the only way you could do a real comparison is if you were there in person listening to Paul sing pre '67 and post '66. If you're married, I hope your wife doesn't know you think feelings and beliefs are useless.. Yes, I am married and feelings and beliefs are useless in proving that a man like Paul has been replaced. Feelings and beliefs are important in relationships both personal and spiritual. But, of course, that is not what we were discussing.
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Nov 5, 2004 16:31:34 GMT -5
I agree the two faces look a little different, but I've seen other photos of pre "death" Paul in which his head is longer and his eyes are closer together. The "before" photo looks a little distorted, in fact.
|
|