|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 6, 2004 14:07:23 GMT -5
I agree with xpt. Most of the time i can see the difference between Faul and Paul. Perhaps about 80-90% of the time and in the 2 pictures presented above it is very obvious. However, i can also relate not being able to trust the pics of 'Paul' after 1966 because, in my opinion, they were doctored, air brushed, touched up, whatever you want to call, manipulated in some way to make them look more like Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Aug 6, 2004 21:54:13 GMT -5
However, i can also relate not being able to trust the pics of 'Paul' after 1966 because, in my opinion, they were doctored, air brushed, touched up, whatever you want to call, manipulated in some way to make them look more like Paul. Probably the biggest reason for Faul's inconsistent appearance.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 6, 2004 23:50:20 GMT -5
So you all agree that they match up because one of them was doctored?
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 7, 2004 1:44:59 GMT -5
So you all agree that they match up because one of them was doctored? Doctored Schmoctored. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 7, 2004 6:14:38 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply. Sorry about the hyjacking...not my intent.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 7, 2004 6:25:10 GMT -5
Flaming Pie: Your point on question #4 is VERY well taken. Couldn't the same argument be made for John as well? Especially after he hooked up with Yoko. I'm wondering if in both cases we're seeing a classic example of syngery at work. Both parties (John AND Paul together) creating something (no pun intented!) together that neither could fully realise individually. Your thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 7, 2004 6:33:46 GMT -5
So you all agree that they match up because one of them was doctored? I don't see that anybody has drawn that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Aug 7, 2004 8:22:49 GMT -5
well well well ecenzo1, looks like i overlooked you and considering the moxy you have i'm surprised. just a friendly warning right now.. you mix manure on this forum and it will be the last time you do it here. I've found that the aroma off cow sh@t is best suited for 60IF. If you need the link i will be happy to supply if for you. In the mean keep in mind one thing. If you were visiting someones house would you be rude and obnoxious? well this is our house and i will not tolerate it here or via pms to other admins. have a nice day
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 7, 2004 12:43:42 GMT -5
I don't see that anybody has drawn that conclusion. I'm pretty sure Darkhorse and xpt were indirectly saying that. I don't think I've seen them give another reason that they match up.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 7, 2004 16:49:35 GMT -5
Inspite of all the controversy I supposedly started, I want to thank EYESBLEED. He (assuming a "he" and not a "she" behind the moniker) at least took time to thoughtfully respond to my original comment. THANK YOU. I incorrectly ascribed the response to Flaming Pie. It is this type of dialog and feedback I intended all along.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 7, 2004 17:21:34 GMT -5
Inspite of all the controversy I supposedly started, I want to thank EYESBLEED. He (assuming a "he" and not a "she" behind the moniker) at least took time to thoughtfully respond to my original comment. THANK YOU. I incorrectly ascribed the response to Flaming Pie. It is this type of dialog and feedback I intended all along. Eyesbleed is a he. You can tell by the male gender sign under the IM button.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 7, 2004 19:48:32 GMT -5
Yea, I saw the gender mark after I made the post.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 8, 2004 11:19:17 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Darkhorse and xpt were indirectly saying that. I don't think I've seen them give another reason that they match up. What I am saying was that the pics of Faul from 1967-1970 when he was with the Beatles were manipulated in some way, in my opinion, to look more like Paul. Look at the cover of Sgt. Pepper for an example. Faul's head looks shaped differently than on the insert pics. On the cover pic his head has been manipulated to look more round imo. As far matching up is concerned, the times some of you have been able to match up Faul with Paul is always the exception and not the rule. The MAJORITY of the time they don't match up. Try to match up any picture of Faul with Paul as well as, say, the 'With The Beatles' cover Paul with the 'Butcher' album cover Paul. That's a perfect match. And Paul was heavier on the Butcher album cover!
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 11:44:56 GMT -5
What I am saying was that the pics of Faul from 1967-1970 when he was with the Beatles were manipulated in some way, in my opinion, to look more like Paul. Look at the cover of Sgt. Pepper for an example. Faul's head looks shaped differently than on the insert pics. On the cover pic his head has been manipulated to look more round imo. As far matching up is concerned, the times some of you have been able to match up Faul with Paul is always the exception and not the rule. The MAJORITY of the time they don't match up. Try to match up any picture of Faul with Paul as well as, say, the 'With The Beatles' cover Paul with the 'Butcher' album cover Paul. That's a perfect match. And Paul was heavier on the Butcher album cover! The MAJORITY match, and M4E has been proving this time and time again. You guys have found a dozen pics that don't and claim the majority don't. There's a TON of fades we've posted that match. Don't give us this MAJORITY talk.... the majority is in the PIA favor.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 8, 2004 12:19:19 GMT -5
The MAJORITY match, and M4E has been proving this time and time again. You guys have found a dozen pics that don't and claim the majority don't. There's a TON of fades we've posted that match. Don't give us this MAJORITY talk.... the majority is in the PIA favor. The large majority of the time, there's a simple explanation as to why they "appear" to match. Fades are not needed to see there have been AT LEAST 2 men playing the part of "Macca" since the mid 60's. So saying the majority of pics will match isn't even worth argueing with. And to quote another M4E PIAer.... a post from FP admits..... "Okay, I'll say it in English: Sometimes I see that pictures of pre '66 Paul look identicle to post '66 Paul. Sometimes pre '66 Paul and post '66 look like two different men. Every picture of pre '66 Paul look the same BUT post 66' Paul doesn't always match with other pictures of post '66 Paul. Was that better?" ( 95 Clues / Re: What About the Teeth?... on: May 19th, 2004, 10:05pm Started by Harb | Post by Flaming Pie ) I'll have to agree with FP here. How can MOST pics match up when the majority of us, including a few PIAers, can see some obvious differences after 66 without the aid of fades etc etc??
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 14:10:45 GMT -5
EyesBleed, we've seen that not all pictures of John and Harrison look the same either. I can EASILY point out a post-66 picture of John and a pre-66 picture of John. So Fohn Fennon is here too? Fingo Farr? Feorge Farrison? Bull. They weren't replaced, and neither was Paul. There are differences amongst ALL the men from pre-66 to post-66. I guess The Featles really know how to continue a band
|
|
|
Post by lennonlives on Aug 8, 2004 14:27:12 GMT -5
EyesBleed, we've seen that not all pictures of John and Harrison look the same either. I can EASILY point out a post-66 picture of John and a pre-66 picture of John. So Fohn Fennon is here too? Fingo Farr? Feorge Farrison? Bull. They weren't replaced, and neither was Paul. There are differences amongst ALL the men from pre-66 to post-66. I guess The Featles really know how to continue a band john's face matches up, if you take a photo of him in the hamburg days and compare it to one days before his death they match exactly!, so your constant denial of any possibility shows a closed mind, when i first considered this, the possibilities blew my mind. While you use these boards perhaps you can show a modicum of respect for others beliefs, thoughts etc. and not trash them publicly.
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 14:36:09 GMT -5
john's face matches up, if you take a photo of him in the hamburg days and compare it to one days before his death they match exactly!, so your constant denial of any possibility shows a closed mind, when i first considered this, the possibilities blew my mind. While you use these boards perhaps you can show a modicum of respect for others beliefs, thoughts etc. and not trash them publicly. Please don't make baseless statements -- I'm tired of them. If you're gonna make a statement like "Every picture of Lennon in the world matches" then at least show me 20 fades that match "exactly." Here's a good link to provide food for thought: macca4ever.proboards26.com/index.cgi?board=PID&action=display&thread=1090693919Everyone's faces GREW. We can surmise by this that everyone was replaced.
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 14:37:04 GMT -5
Not only did all the faces grow, but all the jaws look different. There's SOMETHING that looks different about everyone!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 8, 2004 16:27:35 GMT -5
EyesBleed, we've seen that not all pictures of John and Harrison look the same either. I can EASILY point out a post-66 picture of John and a pre-66 picture of John. So Fohn Fennon is here too? Fingo Farr? Feorge Farrison? Bull. They weren't replaced, and neither was Paul. There are differences amongst ALL the men from pre-66 to post-66. I guess The Featles really know how to continue a band Great point Frightwolf. I always hear people saying "oh, I can always point out post and pre '66 Pauls" Yeah, so can I. I can also point out pre and post '66 pics of the other Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 8, 2004 17:16:48 GMT -5
Hi Ho. I am a PIA'er, but I admit I find many images of pre and post Paul to not mtch. the problem I have had (And the reason I scraped most of them) is that they never "not match" in the same way. But I don't think that anyone would claim that there are a dozen or more Fauls. Here is a general summary of what I have seen and what i am going to do about it. Initially I used still images. But as I have demonstrated on my site in the PID FAQ / Photos section, still images are not only unreliable because of the camera variables, but you can never tell what section of the original negative an image is cropped from and that can add a world of distortion to the comparison (hence a dozen Fauls). I admit, if there is a Faul or 2, then distortion may even be able to make him look more like Paul. www.paulisnotdead.com/index-2.php?secct=pind&toppic=pind&subbt=photos&pagge=6...But I digress... I have not produced anything new because I am scouring movie film footage that was originally on 70mm film. I am going to scrap the Ed Sullivan footage I have been looking at because the cameras they used and the method of zoom appears to distort people with the degree depending on how close the person is to the camera. I guess the tv cameras they used then are very different from the movie cameras. I think I will try a john and george match up. i am certain I can make them not match. Here is the interesting thing I find recently. In most of my "rush job, just to see for myself" matches, I have had an easier time matching pre-66 Paul to Paul in the 80s. For some reason, I find it harder to match Paul in the 70s to Paul in the 60s. Likewise, it is harder to match Paul in the 90s to Paul in the 60s. Isn't that odd? I do realize that there may have been some movie camera tricks to make people appear thinner on screen. What do I hope to do whith these new movie comparisons? First of all I plan to get a general idea of the post 66 ratios. If not all the post 66 movie comparisons match, I hope to a least get a running hypothesis as to the estimates ratios of how much they don't match. That will give me an idea as to the error percent caused by the camera. The trick here is to see if the distortion is evenly distributed across his face. If it is not, then I can't say it is the same guy. If evenly stretching or shrinking one image across another forces a match, then I have to say it is possible that it is the same guy. Keep in mind, I am only talking about post-66 movies. Then after that, I can introduce pre-66 movies and see if it falls within the same scope and range of error. Again, this proves nothing exept that cameras are unreliable and that pre and post 66 could be the same guy, or could be 2 very similar different guys. BTW, I am also working on voice prints. Not from songs, but frmo movies or interviews.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 8, 2004 18:55:10 GMT -5
Flaming Pie: I saw you were on line. Just a quick question. I don't know the bios of any of the members but a thought crossed my mind. Has anyone thought to submit "pre" "post" pictures of Paul to someone with a photo analysis background to see if anything unusual pops up? Could be someone on the site falls into this category. I just don't know enough of the participants backgrounds. For all I know there is at least one individual with this type of expertise. I realise this type of photo anaylsis would probably cost mucho $$$, but it may bring some type of clarity to the picture debate...
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 23:37:10 GMT -5
Great point Frightwolf. I always hear people saying "oh, I can always point out post and pre '66 Pauls" Yeah, so can I. I can also point out pre and post '66 pics of the other Beatles. Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by lennonlives on Aug 9, 2004 6:25:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 9, 2004 8:50:30 GMT -5
Hi Ho. I am a PIA'er, but I admit I find many images of pre and post Paul to not mtch. the problem I have had (And the reason I scraped most of them) is that they never "not match" in the same way. But I don't think that anyone would claim that there are a dozen or more Fauls. Here is a general summary of what I have seen and what i am going to do about it. Initially I used still images. But as I have demonstrated on my site in the PID FAQ / Photos section, still images are not only unreliable because of the camera variables, but you can never tell what section of the original negative an image is cropped from and that can add a world of distortion to the comparison (hence a dozen Fauls). I admit, if there is a Faul or 2, then distortion may even be able to make him look more like Paul. www.paulisnotdead.com/index-2.php?secct=pind&toppic=pind&subbt=photos&pagge=6...But I digress... I have not produced anything new because I am scouring movie film footage that was originally on 70mm film. I am going to scrap the Ed Sullivan footage I have been looking at because the cameras they used and the method of zoom appears to distort people with the degree depending on how close the person is to the camera. I guess the tv cameras they used then are very different from the movie cameras. I think I will try a john and george match up. i am certain I can make them not match. Here is the interesting thing I find recently. In most of my "rush job, just to see for myself" matches, I have had an easier time matching pre-66 Paul to Paul in the 80s. For some reason, I find it harder to match Paul in the 70s to Paul in the 60s. Likewise, it is harder to match Paul in the 90s to Paul in the 60s. Isn't that odd? I do realize that there may have been some movie camera tricks to make people appear thinner on screen. What do I hope to do whith these new movie comparisons? First of all I plan to get a general idea of the post 66 ratios. If not all the post 66 movie comparisons match, I hope to a least get a running hypothesis as to the estimates ratios of how much they don't match. That will give me an idea as to the error percent caused by the camera. The trick here is to see if the distortion is evenly distributed across his face. If it is not, then I can't say it is the same guy. If evenly stretching or shrinking one image across another forces a match, then I have to say it is possible that it is the same guy. Keep in mind, I am only talking about post-66 movies. Then after that, I can introduce pre-66 movies and see if it falls within the same scope and range of error. Again, this proves nothing exept that cameras are unreliable and that pre and post 66 could be the same guy, or could be 2 very similar different guys. BTW, I am also working on voice prints. Not from songs, but frmo movies or interviews. Hey Kazu... Thank you for some SENSIBLE postings..! I think I speak for a lot of us here when I say that, even tho my mind is pretty made up on this matter, I'm always open to learning more. There are so many questions & so few answers. This research project yer describing sounds very interesting & I'll be lookin' forward to yer conclusions in the future.
|
|