|
Post by matchbox on Aug 8, 2004 11:04:29 GMT -5
This example compares Paul's ear from the '60's to recent times. ----------------- Paul's hands. (Pre '66 b/w, post '66 in color. Edited to add the original "Recent Paul" pic.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 8, 2004 11:32:24 GMT -5
Can you do me a favor? In the ear pic where the ears match up so well, can you show the rest of Faul's face keeping the ear the same size?
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 8, 2004 12:16:06 GMT -5
I sent kazu a PM (he made both of the examples on this thread). If he can get the pic to me, I'll post it here.
The structure of the ear is like a fingerprint. No two ears are exactly alike. I believe this is very strong evidence that this is the same ear. Every nook and crannie matches up extremely well considering these examples are seperated by about 35 years.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 8, 2004 17:58:31 GMT -5
I am at work right now. I will post it when I am at home. The rest of the head is not at quite the same angle, which is why I did not leave it in. Originally the fade was made to compare the structure of the ear, not to say it is an exact angle match.
MB THX for not hotlinking them.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 8, 2004 21:10:09 GMT -5
MB THX for not hotlinking them. It's not just the right thing to do. It's the law.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 9, 2004 11:13:02 GMT -5
I'll agree that no two ears are identical, I'm the one that put up the scans from that book that mentions that ear ID system. I did read a study on the web somewhere that said blind studies having people compare sets of ears shown from different angles was essentialy a failure, they couldn't distinguish identities any better than still photos.A prosecutor in one case also tried to use the method of proof, the judge ruled against it's use as evidence in the case. Having said that, yeah, no one is going to mistake Ringo's huge ears for Paul's, etc. One other thing, and yeah it's gonna get you mad, but 35 years is a long time to "get things right". Even the lobe is a little longer, with all else staying the same, just as it's supposed to in the normal course of aging. Oh but if there was a real clear copy of that footage from the "ADITL" footage I posted here. I would venture to say you'd have a little bit of harder time getting that to match. Thnaks for your thoughtful approach Kazu. Your stuff is so good, others are hurrying you up a little it would seem...
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 9, 2004 12:52:06 GMT -5
One other thing, and yeah it's gonna get you mad, but 35 years is a long time to "get things right". Even the lobe is a little longer, with all else staying the same, just as it's supposed to in the normal course of aging. A wise man once said, "nothing to get hungabout" ;D And what was the line preceding that? Hmmm... I just can't remember. I personally don't believe in the plastic surgery angle, but it is possible I suppose. I really have no idea what is possible, then or now. It would be great if we had access to a professional opinion on these things.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 9, 2004 16:21:58 GMT -5
Hey Jojo, Interesting read.
Ayone have other ear images? I have noticed that I find more Paul right ears than left ears. Anyone have left ears? Also the lobe part getting all jelloy and longer has happened to my grandparents and my mother over years. I wuold be interested, then, if anyone can find good close ear images from the 70s or 80s. The hard part is finding good ear images from the early 60s. How do you do that with a man famous for wearing a mop top haircut?
I noticed in interviews, Paul pulls his right earlobe. Years of stretching? HA!
Hmm. In retrospect, years of stretching can account for this longer lobe. African tribes do this. Medical science calls it tissue traction. I does not take a long time to do this.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 9, 2004 18:40:56 GMT -5
Anyone notice Pauls eyebrows? They are thin sometimes. Did he have them plucked in the 70s?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2004 18:46:33 GMT -5
Anyone notice Pauls eyebrows? They are thin sometimes. Did he have them plucked in the 70s? I highly doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 9, 2004 23:11:10 GMT -5
Anyone notice Pauls eyebrows? They are thin sometimes. Did he have them plucked in the 70s? img36.exs.cx/img36/7861/Paul67Fade.gifI have noticed too, that for some strange reason, his eyebrows always seems to go back and forth. From thiner to thicker. I have no idea why.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 10, 2004 14:52:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 10, 2004 15:40:15 GMT -5
I got a new dvd of promo vids, bootleg of course, but not too bad in quality. Probably not the clarity you're looking for, but here goes. I capped a few frames from ADITL, and the first one is a little strange. The ear is a little different then the next two. Look up at the top half of the ear. I believe this video was a shoot of the rehearsals, in dec 1966? I think film used to capture the top pic is flipped horizontally (not by you). The hair along the ear, and the little point at the end of the bangs match in the bottom 2 pics. In the top pic, the hair is different, it comes down straight along the ear without the curve like the bottom 2.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 10, 2004 16:25:04 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 10, 2004 16:39:02 GMT -5
This example compares Paul's ear from the '60's to recent times. When can we see the rest of the head of Faul that goes with that ear matched up to JPM's head?
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 10, 2004 16:46:15 GMT -5
When can we see the rest of the head of Faul that goes with that ear matched up to JPM's head? I don't understand. It's the pic on the right in your post.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 10, 2004 17:22:50 GMT -5
You may be correct, so let's see it flipped: Cropped and enlarged a bit: A pic of paul from a magazine published in 1964: A crop of this pic next to the above crop: I don't know, neither one is especially clear, please, your expert opinion Kazu!
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 10, 2004 18:43:54 GMT -5
Paul's right ear. (circa) 1964, Dec. 1966, 2000 ------------------------------------- More left ear action. The color pic is from the Wings video for "Goodnight Tonight"
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 10, 2004 19:07:40 GMT -5
I still see two people, I guess that makes me a PID'er, but I admit some indications are contradictory. There ARE ear similarities. There are many similarities, but something in the final add-up suggests to me that there is a difference, IMHO.
I watched a movie today "Joyride." They televised all 3 alternate endings to the movie. All interesting, all flowed out of the bulk of the movie naturally (except maybe one) and all were suspenseful.
Does PID/NIR/PIA have multiple endings? Is there a director's cut? Can we vote on the ending? Will there be advertisements strewn througout?
There are at least 4 possible endings to all of our speculations, including PIA.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 10, 2004 20:52:19 GMT -5
The Goodnight tonight appears to be the same ear structure. The images above that, they are at a very different angle. All the parts are there and I want to say it looks exactly the same, but that would just be me wanting it to be. Maybe we should compare ears of other peolpe to see how similar or different ears really look. Perhaps the other Beatles compared to Paul?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 10, 2004 21:50:29 GMT -5
Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song...
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 10, 2004 23:45:01 GMT -5
All I can find are good right ears. All the left ears I have are covered by hair or something. www.mousefight.com/faul/pm-ear2.jpg[/img] MB. The left ear images you have are good. I was also trying to find the ears under different lighting angles. Faces and ears can look similar under bright lights, but when shadows start to fall on them, you get a better 3d impression of what the shape really is. So far post and pre 66 PM ears look like the same ears to me.
|
|
|
Post by Jai Guru Deva on Aug 11, 2004 1:08:59 GMT -5
The structure of the external ear is basically the same for everybody. Where it differs is in the shape of the ear--some are larger, others smaller, some may be more round, other more oval, others more angular... The inside features of the ear do vary in size and shape from person to person (Fossa Triangularis, Concha, Scapha, Helix, Anti-Helix, Tragus, Anti-Tragus, Lobule). Also, the fleshiness or fattiness of the ear varies and the earlobe may be attached or unattatched. Gray's Anatomy: www.bartleby.com/107/229.html
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 11, 2004 3:55:40 GMT -5
I am not certain what you are trying to say with the anatomy lesson. Are you saying ears don't matter because the structure is the same? If so, faces are are also structured the same, but we can tell them apart. Also, just to be clear, I am not saying "The ears match, it must be Paul". I am trying to see if the ears don't match, because that would be a dead giveaway of a Paul replacement. Here I randomly found 4 ears of people off the Internet. i cropped it, because these are random people and have ID's they probably don't want here. The last one, I thought was close to Paul's ear, but the edge of the ear that moves down and becomes the lobe is a bit too large as it traces the edge of the ear. So then. These ears have similar structures, but they are very different from each other. But as we can see, it is possible to find an ear similar to Paul. At least in this lighting. And it is only the right ear, though we can't see the top. The top might be completely different. BTW, this guys facial structure is nothing like Paul. I have just now continued to try to find close Paul ear matches. I have looked at 2 dozen clear full ear images. Some have come close, but there is always something wrong. If the inner structure is close, maybe the ridge along the edge goes down further. Or the lobe is too detached, or the complete opposite. Some aer close, but there is a fusing of a few millimeters halfway up the outer edge, or something. As far as I can tell, ears are pretty unique.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 11, 2004 14:38:36 GMT -5
|
|