|
Post by strawberryfields on May 21, 2005 17:18:38 GMT -5
Let me tell you, I am a diehard PIAer. When I first stumbled across TKIN long ago, I was impressed. Then I stumbled across LarryC's site, then his forum, M4E, and now I'm a part of the Macca Funhouse. Not only have I been convinced of PIA completely from evidence by others, but evidence that I have made myself. I'm just curious to what you guys have to say about this. After all, isn't one of the best ways to prove an argument disproving the other? Hard Day's Night + Spies Like us Where is the different head shape? Take this... img244.echo.cx/img244/1556/13bj1.jpgThen add this... img244.echo.cx/img244/7576/26pa.jpgAnd you get this img244.echo.cx/img244/9065/37tj.jpg Could the nose match any better? LSD interview That's hair up there, folks. The mouth opens, and the hair changes. Thats all. Same scar So I ask you. Where is the different head shape? Where are the different features? Where is there any difference at all? And no, we do not doctor our fades. Not only are we not the kind of people to do such things, but if we had to do that, that would defeat the whole purpose of making evidence. I wouldn't waste my time with that. I'm sorry if this is considered disruptful. I'm just trying to contribute, in a way. I'm also really frustrated that people actually believe this, but each to his own.
|
|
|
Post by ReallyReallyDead on May 21, 2005 18:34:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 21, 2005 18:56:06 GMT -5
I was gonna say, i don't know if there are any left who want to revisit this, but I guess i was wrong. Carry on RRD, I ain't got the energy..
Only wish to comment on this:
Mmm, I'd say it's not really something worth bothering yourself over. You guys are wrong, (no offense) I (and others here) can deal..
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on May 21, 2005 19:07:05 GMT -5
Ahhh... kinda like ol' times So if anybody's been missing the regularly posted PIA fades from a while back, this oughtta help fill the void. A couple of those are fine fades, but the prizewinner for the best PIA fades by far is still FP. Try all ya want but yer not gonna be able to top a couple of those. But seriously..... y'all can make all the fades that are needed to help y'all keep believing in the illusion. I know that it's a very important illusion for DIE-hard Macca fans.... But none of those reconcile the hundreds of photos that are obviously not JPM....remember the guy in Help & A HDN? Fades are not needed with these pics coz it's so obvious it's not JPM.... so why would they be saying it is? The most obvious examples coming to mind are on Mal Evans Home Movies & the ADITL video. To say there was never ever a replacement is obsurd & not really worth arguing about...... we've already wasted lots of time arguing the obvious & I'd rather it be quiet around here than return to the running-circles-around-the-same-bush exercise. No fades are needed really. I have a folder of Bill pics & I'll have a doubting friend first spend a few minutes hitting the random button at jamespaulmccartney.org, then have them browse my Bill folder. If that isn't enough, then there's no need for me to waste my valuable time trying to convince them.
|
|
|
Post by ReallyReallyDead on May 21, 2005 20:41:50 GMT -5
eyesbleed, dunno if anyone has suggested this, but maybe you or someone should make a website of Faul pix (williamsheppard.org? ) After all, a picture of JPM is only half of a succesful fade, comparison, or what have you.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on May 21, 2005 21:32:39 GMT -5
I've said this before...
If you're at all familiar facial biometrics, you should know that FALSE POSITIVES are a much bigger problem than FALSE NEGATIVES.
I.e., of the errors found when using this technology (which under a new law, will be a part of all US drivers' licenses w/in three years), there is a greater likelihood that the error will be of "person x" registering as "person y" than an error in which "person z" does not register as "person z." E.g, you're more likely to find a fade where Faul is Paul than when George isn't George.
Do you follow?
This is why I am slow to embrace some of the newer fades being done that seem to show "Faul" to be someone else in the public record.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 21, 2005 21:37:01 GMT -5
eyesbleed, dunno if anyone has suggested this, but maybe you or someone should make a website of Faul pix (williamsheppard.org? ) Hehe an interesting idea. It occured to me that I wonder what the odd web surfer stumbling across JPM.org must think. They may wonder, why on earth does this site stop short of all images after 1966? Just got a fixation on that era perhaps? No, we deliberately left the motive completely unsaid. Unless you know of these forums, that missing piece of information, you would not know the whole story. My point being that as in the example above, the whole story is not apparent with only one piece of information..
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on May 22, 2005 3:01:29 GMT -5
... I'd rather it be quiet around here than return to the running-circles-around-the-same-bush exercise. ditto, kiddo.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on May 22, 2005 7:04:18 GMT -5
No, we deliberately left the motive completely unsaid. Ya... kind of a PWR site without ever being labeled as such. Let the visitors figure it out for themselves. Before the site went up, there was one person who suggested a seperate Bill section, but I was very much against that idea. Granted the intention of jpm.org is left very vague, but that's the way we thought would be best. We wanted a gallery of JPM pics & ONLY JPM pics, there are plenty of Macca & Beatle galleries out there, but as far as I know, ours is the only one that's completely absent of Bill pics.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 22, 2005 9:54:26 GMT -5
I've said this before... If you're at all familiar facial biometrics, you should know that FALSE POSITIVES are a much bigger problem than FALSE NEGATIVES. I.e., of the errors found when using this technology (which under a new law, will be a part of all US drivers' licenses w/in three years), there is a greater likelihood that the error will be of "person x" registering as "person y" than an error in which "person z" does not register as "person z." E.g, you're more likely to find a fade where Faul is Paul than when George isn't George. Do you follow? This is why I am slow to embrace some of the newer fades being done that seem to show "Faul" to be someone else in the public record. Yes and I've never seen a Paul-Faul fade match up perfectly. Not one. I've seen many Paul-Paul and Faul-Faul fades match up perfectly. The strictest rules have to be incorporated with these fades.
|
|
|
Post by strawberryfields on May 22, 2005 14:06:12 GMT -5
Yes and I've never seen a Paul-Faul fade match up perfectly. Not one. I've seen many Paul-Paul and Faul-Faul fades match up perfectly. The strictest rules have to be incorporated with these fades. Apparently, you haven't seen this Flaming Pie's Ultimate Masterpiece!!That's a perfect match How do you explain that?
|
|
|
Post by ReallyReallyDead on May 22, 2005 17:11:59 GMT -5
That's one of only convincing PIA fades to me ;D
|
|
|
Post by revolver on May 22, 2005 17:39:43 GMT -5
As TI pointed out, in a 2D image, biometric false positives can happen between photos of different people, and are more likely than false negatives between the same person. I don't see Paul in the left photo. The main reason is subtle differences in the shape and alignment of the eyes. Also, the noses appear similar at these camera angles, but we've seen many others where they don't match as well. Even here, Paul's nose is more rounded at the tip than Faul's.
|
|
|
Post by strawberryfields on May 22, 2005 19:14:01 GMT -5
The eyes are a perfect match. Look at the fade. There is absolutely no significant difference in the nose, either. Here is Flaming Pie's "Mr. Potato Faul" This is the same man.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on May 22, 2005 20:44:36 GMT -5
Yep FP has gotten to be a master at those PIA fades. I'd say that one is as good as his best previously. You obviously need to believe it's the same man. Fine, nobody here's gonna make it a priority to "convert" ya. The Bill-half of FP's fade is from a period when he was looking the most like JPM, & he does look very much like JPM. I remember FP doing a nice fade using this pic also.. Could've been taken at the same event.(?) ...nope, different tie & shirt... image.inkfrog.com/pix/eyesbleed/BF12_index_htm.jpg[/img] But even if that were really JPM in both parts of the fade, that still doesn't address who the hell this guy is image.inkfrog.com/pix/eyesbleed/Faul_backseat.jpg[/img]or this guy I could keep goin' for a long long time, but I'm not that concerned whether or not yer ever gonna see the light. I'm sure you've seen'em-but-not-really-seen'em all anyway.... so what's the point. This is what I mean by runnin' circles around the same bush.... you've gotten some good, solid responces to yer inquiry, but haven't acknowledged any of them. Instead we just get another fade that's not much more than entertainment for us. (not meanin' to critisize FP's EXCELLENT work.... but we've been over this exact thing enough times before that he should know that)
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on May 22, 2005 21:00:48 GMT -5
with all due respect, StrawberryFields, if this is all you have to offer to this forum, please don't waste your time and ours. FP is not welcome here, for reasons which are well known to him. And since we tired of his fades well before that point, please don't trot them over for him. We've seen them. Too many times.
|
|
|
Post by strawberryfields on May 22, 2005 21:09:45 GMT -5
I have seen the replies. There are two things that bother me. First of all, everything ReallyReallyDead posted has already been debunked, mostly by FP. That bottom one he posted is new (I think), and I just debunked it myself. In fact I made a really good comparison with that pre-66 photo. I could post all of it if you wanted me to, which you probably don't.
The other thing that bothers me is that I never got the answer to my question(s). All I got was essentially "no, you're wrong", only put much nicer than that. I have not gotten the answer I'm looking for, and I have the feeling I'm not going to get it. How come we can debunk PID evidence, but nothing we have done has been debunked? Yelling "doctored!" and "plastic surgery" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
Those two pictures you posted... The first I feel as if I could make a fade with it right now. I can see why you don't see Paul there...but I honestly do. The second is scary. That mullet...yikes! But I still do see Paul there, and I'm sure I (or someone else) could come up with something.
I'm not going to do that though, because I've had a rough weekend and I don't have the energy right now.
However, I appreciate the fact that you are accepting this (sort of), and that I am not being answered rudely or anything. I have to thank you for that. If this was TKIN I would probably be banned by now. If you'd rather I stopped this, though, I will.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on May 22, 2005 21:17:13 GMT -5
well well well look what we have here, a flaming pie groupie or do you prefer just being called flaming?
you have been a member for so long and now decide to parade out FP's little ole fades, the very ones that were debunked again and again. We seem to bother you yet you keep coming back. wonder why?
i'm not amused by this.
let me say this just once to you DO NOT PARADE FP'S FADES, THEY ARE NOT WELCOME HERE AND NEITHER IS HE.
|
|
|
Post by strawberryfields on May 22, 2005 21:22:24 GMT -5
Well, I wasn't trying to amuse anyone.
I'm not a Flaming Pie "groupie", nor am I him. We come from the same forum and have a common goal, and I admire his, and many others' work.
You say his fades have been debunked. Where? I'm really curious. Really, I just want to see. Besides, just because I posted one fade by him doesn't mean I'm trying to fill the forums with his fades. The rest are mine, blame me.
Please, I'm trying to be polite about this. Please Jonna, calm down.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on May 22, 2005 21:32:04 GMT -5
i am calm, this is me very calm. i'm not really in the mood to deal with it just curious to know why after a year you have decided to come here and start posting.
I have no problem with PIA'ers, i have no problem with posters that don't believe but you came here with the attitude that we bother you because of our beliefs, that bothers me. I will tell you i haven't even read what you wrote, thats not an insult to you just an honest remark from someone who is tired of dealing with people that we 'bother'
as for the debunking, do a search on flaming pie and get stuck in for a night of good reading. you are welcome to post as long as you are respectful of all members and do not become argumentative. also no more FP fades.
you won't have to ever deal with me again as long as the above are followed
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on May 22, 2005 21:32:28 GMT -5
I really don't understands the point of fades, or trying debunk PID. You either see it you don't. It doesn't make us stupid if we can't see the same person, nor does it make you stupid because you can. You can't debunk a personal opinion. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"]
|
|
|
Post by revolver on May 22, 2005 21:38:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by strawberryfields on May 22, 2005 21:42:34 GMT -5
Jonna, the reason I just started posting now is that I forgot I ever even registered here. But recently I found out I did, so here I am.
I am not trying to say you people bother me. Honestly, PID does, but people who believe it do not. I didn't mean to make that impression.
I have searched and read some debates you have had with FP. This will probably bother you, but I personally agreed with him in those discussions, and didn't really see this debunking.
PennyLane The reason we make fades is because we are showing you what we see. It really is the best way to show that. They're supposed to make you realize that, despite the fact that you guys see two different people, they are indeed one in the same. But if you don't like fades, I'm fine with that.
Revovler, I already made a big thread about that interview at the funhouse.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on May 22, 2005 21:46:13 GMT -5
ok just one more question. if you know you are not going to change our minds and we know we are not going to change your's why post? to me that seems like a waste of time, at least mine anyway
|
|
|
Post by revolver on May 22, 2005 21:51:06 GMT -5
Revovler, I already made a big thread about that interview at the funhouse. Yes, I know all about the camera angles, lighting, lens, focal length, etc. arguments. But PIA seems to only worry about those factors when dealing with photos that don't look like Paul.
|
|