|
|
Post by il ras on Jul 22, 2006 12:02:55 GMT -5
We've seen this photo many times...  and everybody says:"Paul here really looks like the Paul we know today" That's a zoom on his face:  What's wrong with that? In Germany they are selling the original photos, taken when the Beatles were there and....  Think that I don't need to make any comment... |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jul 22, 2006 15:43:34 GMT -5
That is amazing, ilras ! Thank you for sharing that with us. Paul really does look rough & tough in the German photo !  |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Jul 23, 2006 14:20:40 GMT -5
The "resources" we get our information and pictures from give us a muddled image so we can't really see the difference in Bill and JPM.
But with this clear picture, we can see that the young man in the photo is not the same man "Bill".
My next question is to see closeups on John's face from the German pics? Maybe we could see drastic differences IF in fact such a character as Charlie Brill could have been a double for John...
Also good to see JPM's face before the moped scars and ravages of fame and time on his face!
|
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jul 24, 2006 20:52:15 GMT -5
As someone elsewhere made me find more evidence, I think it is a good thing to post it here too. a couple of better version of the picture...   and a comparison....  |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jul 25, 2006 10:47:01 GMT -5
In the doctored photo, Paul's chin looks odd. He looks rather "beefy" in the German pic. Too much braunsweiger, I'd suspect ! You KNOW those German girls must've LOVED to feed him ! ;D In the doctored photo, his features look blurred ! |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Jul 25, 2006 15:31:33 GMT -5
I agree with Lili about JPM's features. The doctored picture makes Paul look more like Bill when he first appeared as Paul in 1967.
But look at John, how much fuller his face was eating bratwurst, braunshweiger and knockwurst....
John's jawline looks fuller too. So emaciated in his later years.
That pic of Pete Best shows he really was good looking and not the strange Ritchie that we've come to know as Ringo.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 25, 2006 15:59:24 GMT -5
John's was face skinny for two reasons: 1) Loss of appetite due to enormous stress in the form of a tragedy. 2) Drug abuse I don't know if the tofu fritters could make him look that emaciated.  |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jul 25, 2006 16:23:29 GMT -5
I think that Rita was only kidding. I have to agree with Darkhorse. The drugs & loss of both Paul & Brian really did a number on John's health. He looked AWFUL from 1967 through 1970. He seemed to look better for a short time & then he started to look emaciated again the last few years of his life. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"]
|
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jul 25, 2006 17:15:18 GMT -5
KHAN, in the guest section, makes me notice that the two pics aren't from the same shot.  I thank him for the help. Anyway, this doesn't change the substance of what I meant: the most known pic is for sure modified and the demonstration is that the other one shows that Paul's face had at that time different features, features that were removed in the other one as in all the other pics taken at that time... In fact, those features can't be found in any of the other pics from that period...        Just another note: the two pics are taken one right after the other, the four guys make just little movements but... .... can some one tell me why in the not retouched one (in my opinion) the shadows are so clear (we can clearly distinguish the Hofner's one) and in the other one they are still present but in a more confuse way? signs of doctoring? |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jul 25, 2006 22:36:39 GMT -5
John's was face skinny for two reasons: 1) Loss of appetite due to enormous stress in the form of a tragedy. 2) Drug abuse I don't know if the tofu fritters could make him look that emaciated. Nothing that a Big Mac and a giant order of fries couldn't have fixed..  |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 25, 2006 22:45:42 GMT -5
Good job KHAN. I've seen a lot worse cases of photo doctoring of JPM. No offense to the poster, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jul 25, 2006 23:20:37 GMT -5
The shadows on the wall seem to be different; this implies that a lighting change, maybe a couple of lighting instruments were added in the brighter picture. Lights high up and shining down and slightly behind them.
If not, maybe a difference in the process of development. Or, maybe, different scaling settings in a computer program.
The pics indicate a near simultaneous exposure. As far as WHY they were made to appear different--maybe it was just a product of trying different processes to make a nice picture.
Not really all that different. Background details like shadows are as ripe for retouching as
a foreground face is. No mystery, just "artifactual "examples of Photo Geeks playing with an image.
I use "Geeks" as a term of respect for the technically gifted. Without those drab, protractor wearing savants, the world would soon disintegrate into another cultural Dark Age dominated
by the strong and the beautiful.
Remember, neither brute force nor glamourous passivity can program a TV remote worth a d***.
Some photography devotee spent hours preparing those two pictures from old negatives.
He wanted to attain a certain commecial aesthetic from old, not doubt damaged nagatives.
Or else, some one flipped the switch to some big klieg lights in between those two shots.
|
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jul 26, 2006 13:28:09 GMT -5
In the third pic i posted in this thread, Paul is clearly fatter, among other differences. To the ones that seems to not understand my poor english (my fault): OK I MADE A MISTAKE: WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PICS BUT, IN ONE OF THEM, PAUL'S FACE WAS MODIFIED AND, IN THE OTHER ONE, IT WASN'T. Hope I'm not the only one to see it... no offense for who didn't understand the meaning of my post and paid attention just to understand it was the same shot |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jul 26, 2006 13:56:14 GMT -5
Okay, lets look at a comparison made by Really Really Dead a while ago:  It's pretty obvious that they're two different men. The man in the second photo has a larger forehead, longer face & his ears are closer to his head ( among other things ) ! I agree with ilras that Paul's face looks fuller in the German photo that he originally posted. |
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jul 26, 2006 14:01:15 GMT -5
lili, following the reasoning of some of our friends, that's not true cause it's not the same pic (jokin' ) |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jul 26, 2006 14:04:18 GMT -5
I know that I've seen a really great comparison to show tampering somewhere. I'm in the process of looking for it now, so that I can add it to this thread. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"]
|
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jul 26, 2006 14:26:02 GMT -5
I found it at the Sea of Green: This photo was supposedly taken while filming Help !!! Look at his forehead  In this photo, Paul has lines on his forehead. Paul did NOT have lines on his forehead in 1965 ! His eyebrows appear to be higher on his face, & his face appears to be elongated. This is a photo of Paul, taken during the filming of AHDN in 1964. There are NO lines on his forehead.   A photo of Bill from Mal Evan's home video, taken in Kenya November 1966. Bill has the same lines on his forehead as they placed on the tampered photo of Paul ! I find the whole thing disgusting !   |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 26, 2006 17:12:35 GMT -5
To the ones that seems to not understand my poor english (my fault): Hey yer english is just fine... If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jul 26, 2006 18:22:38 GMT -5
I found it at the Sea of Green: This photo was supposedly taken while filming Help !!! lili, that pics says it all... we should add also these:  Making him taller...  supposed to be taken in 1963  really a bad work: brown spots and a different air cut, comparing it to the one he has in MMT not to mention the following...   as above... same session but: the first one is genuine, the second features another face directly pasted on the original body |
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Jul 26, 2006 20:03:30 GMT -5
This might even be Dino: |
|
lah' mah
Help! 
lah' mah means "Light" in Hawaiian.May we bring "Light" to what really happened to JPM.
Posts: 94
|
Post by lah' mah on Jul 28, 2006 0:38:55 GMT -5
I agree this does not look like Paul here, but the timing is off. The occasion of the picture was when the Beatles received medals from the queen. The date was October 25th 1965, which was 10-11 months before Paul disappeared.www.triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/royalty2.shtmlUPDATE: No one has addressed my question here. This photo was taken October 25th, 1965. I thought the date of Pauls death was sometime in early September 1966? If that's the case, then who is this person posing with the other lads in October 1965? An early double or what?
|
|
lah' mah
Help!
lah' mah means "Light" in Hawaiian.May we bring "Light" to what really happened to JPM.
Posts: 94
|
Post by lah' mah on Jul 29, 2006 13:40:00 GMT -5
I agree this does not look like Paul here, but the timing is off. The occasion of the picture was when the Beatles received medals from the queen. The date was October 25th 1965, which was 10-11 months before Paul disappeared.www.triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/royalty2.shtmlUPDATE: No one has addressed my question here. This photo was taken October 25th, 1965. I thought the date of Pauls death was sometime in early September 1966? If that's the case, then who is this person posing with the other lads in October 1965? An early double or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Jul 29, 2006 15:17:10 GMT -5
It very likely is an early double.
Who knows how many there were?
Doc showed a picture of "Paul" on French TV early on that looks nothing like him.
I'll try to locate it, but Doc, feel free to post it 'til I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jul 29, 2006 16:29:37 GMT -5
Actually, I think that photo is Paul. The reason he looks so tall is because it was either tampered with, or he was trying to look taller. Also, it appears as if his hair has been teased up. I highly doubt that Paul would miss getting his MBE. He was a British citizen & was raised to respect Royalty. At the time, it was considered a great honor. |
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jul 29, 2006 19:23:28 GMT -5
maybe it's Paul and the pic was modified to make him as tall as Bill is.
|
|
