|
Post by matchbox on Jul 15, 2004 19:07:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 15, 2004 21:38:02 GMT -5
Hmm, a toughie, this reminds me of the post of the pic of Paul in the prison in Manilla. Like this one, the markers that could help out are missing. Hair parted down the middle, nope no help there. Everyone in the photo doctoring camp insists that Paul's eyes are dark brown, more light brown here. It might lead one to believe that since the face looks a little "long" rather than "round" as the facial feature folks insist is the difference, that this is the "bullet headed saxon mother's son" John sang about. (couldn't resist) The shirt may or may not be a help, but never mind that.
My question, before I answer yours is this: How is it that you know that there is a difference in appearance such that you (must) comb through as many pics as possible so that you fnd one that may be confusing? In other words you too must by necessity of purpose SEE a difference! How else could you possibly determine which picture would serve this purpose?
It's Paul..
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 15, 2004 21:58:31 GMT -5
My question, before I answer yours is this: How is it that you know that there is a difference in appearance such that you (must) comb through as many pics as possible so that you fnd one that may be confusing? In other words you too must by necessity of purpose SEE a difference! How else could you possibly determine which picture would serve this purpose? It's Paul.. Fair enough. However, I don't have time to be combing through tons of pics to find ones that support my veiwpoint. I was on the offical Macca forum and was looking through the picture thread, when this one just sort of popped out at me. When I look at my avatar, I see only one man. But that is not my point here. I feel that this picture is sort of a "Missing Link" between the man commonly referred to as Paul, and Faul. I found it to be interesting because it has a unique combination of pre and post PID features.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 16, 2004 5:43:21 GMT -5
Interesting, it is indeed a "missing link" as you say.. I should have qualified what I said for you who feel it's the same man, I mean it's a pic of Paul taken in a year less than or equal to 1966. Not to be flippant here, but if you wanna play, you gotta pay.. I'm wading into dangerous waters here, but the picture has been shopped IMO. I'll confine myself to the obvious, the shadowing indicates lighting that was slightly from above and moderately to the left. Yet there is a huge black area in the middle, my point being that area has no business being in shadow. Not something inclined to lead you in any particular direction perhaps, so why, if I'm correct was it done? No idea, but if someone lies about one thing, you tend to wonder what else they are up to...
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 16, 2004 7:00:56 GMT -5
Well, yer doin' better than I am, if ya feel sure it's 66 Paul. It's a rare occation when I can't instantly say if it's Paul or Bill.
Who knows..... but it is a possibility that this is a very well crafted morph.
Yes, that pic woulda caught my attention too..... Good find there, Matchbox.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 16, 2004 7:39:47 GMT -5
It's Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jul 16, 2004 11:25:05 GMT -5
Another photo from same shoot.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 16, 2004 11:36:43 GMT -5
Thanks Red Lion! Looks more like the man we know as Paul than the first one does. The lighting is way more to the left in this one, maybe they were moving lights around, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 16, 2004 12:11:56 GMT -5
RL, Do you know the date of that pic?
My main reason for posting this pic was to show that Paul had (has) hazel eyes. They were never brown, no matter what Sun King said. The pic I posted has a somewhat yellow tint, but Red Lion's pic shows the eye color even better.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jul 16, 2004 12:20:37 GMT -5
Sorry I do not. Based on Paul's appearance I would concur with Jo Jo that it is late 65 or 66. BTW if you know how to make pic larger so we can see eyes better please feel free to do so. I'm not sure how to.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 16, 2004 13:02:10 GMT -5
....BTW if you know how to make pic larger so we can see eyes better please feel free to do so. I'm not sure how to. does this help, RedLion? or this? Matchbox's pic: RedLion's pic:
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jul 16, 2004 13:15:36 GMT -5
Thx XPT
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 16, 2004 14:59:32 GMT -5
I'll agree with the eye color thing in that it seems that with real good lighting, Paul's eyes are what I thought was considered "light brown", and the dark brown business was something that was another source of rancor and shouting matches. To settle this in my own mind, I went to this web site: www.coloredcontacts.com to see what they consider hazel. I borrowed a couple of examples. Here is a hazel colored eye: Darned if that doesn't look like light brown, but i guess that's the proper term.. I always thought hazel was like my eye color which is like this: Nope, that is considered green. Are there pics of post '66 Paul with green eyes? Well maybe yes and maybe no, some video stills seem to lean in that direction, but bootlegs are too washed out, trusting the color is not a good idea. Keep a lookout I guess, but remember, hazel is not green...
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 16, 2004 16:30:50 GMT -5
In some pics Paul's eyes look quite dark. They still look dark to me in this pic because I am taking into consideration the strong lighting. Often strong lighting can make brown eyes appear lighter.
Overall, i would say that Paul's eyes were medium brown. They were lighter than George's eyes but darker than John's, which were hazel.
Also, that doesn't explain why in some pics Faul's eyes look green not hazel.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 16, 2004 16:47:40 GMT -5
Well I'm glad that's settled coz that pic was drivin' me a little crazy!
I never paid any attention to the eye color thing coz that can be so easily changed by either lighting, contacts, or general screwin' around with the pic. So I always thought that was a very weak argument.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 16, 2004 16:50:02 GMT -5
In addition, all one needs to do is to watch the movie Help! and you can see for yourself that Paul's eyes were dark and not light colored. They were brown not hazel. I would suggest A Hard Day's Night too but it is in black and white so it's not as reliable. Pictures can be doctored in ways to change eye color as is possible in the pictures here.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 16, 2004 17:03:24 GMT -5
Not to put too fine a point on this, but I'd say the first pic was messed with, in that a dark area appears where lighting should have illuminated the strands of hair. There's no way to tell if anything else was done, my point was simply if one thing was changed or manipulated or shopped, whatever, then do they stop with that? We don't have any way of knowing for sure, it's just loses ground in the trust department when something, anything gets changed.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 16, 2004 20:01:52 GMT -5
Well, If you can look at this pic and say that you see brown eyes, then I guess all I can say is OK.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 16, 2004 20:09:27 GMT -5
Well hell, I guess I'm off to half.com to get that dang Help dvd then!
(needed to get it eventually anyway, of course)
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 16, 2004 22:29:58 GMT -5
Eyesbleed, this is a color pic you uploaded to our www.jamespaulmccartney.org site: (a little plug) Well it's light brown again (or hazel) with big pupils! But I noticed something else a while back, that picture is flipped! I know you didn't do it, so weird that they published it like that in 1964. Here's the thing, the difference between light brown (hazel) and dark brown is to close to ever hope to distinguish between the two, or as a way of arguing for doctoring. Differing shades of brown are never gonna lead to anyplace but a dead end and constant circular arguments. the focus should be on a post 1966 Paul running around with green eyes. Find that, and you really got something there, no?
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Jul 28, 2004 6:12:01 GMT -5
When pupils are as big as that, I have a tendancy to think the publishers had it airbrushed so he would appear friendlier. Paul was being marketed as the cute one. It is not difficult to think that every publicity photo had to pass some test. For all we know they colored his eyes brown in the begining. Then after Brian died, the restrictions were lifted. I mean.... He does not have brown eyes in the movie HELP. Lastly, the range of color that is called "hazel" is too wide. I would not use an example that looks like it was taken off a colored contact lenses web site as a control for eye color.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 28, 2004 6:52:33 GMT -5
Hazel is not so broad as to cross into green, I'll quote someone from another thread:
Also, dictionary.com mentions:
2. Of a light brown color, like the hazelnut. ``Thou hast hazel eyes.'' --Shak. Maybe that's the source, Shakespearian writings? Who knows?
Because it illustrates the dictionary definition quite closely, that's why i put up the contact lens still. You and others may feel vague and uncertain about the definition of "hazel", I submit that the people in the business of selling contact lenses are not.. The fact that they do their business on the web is not an isue, they still are subject to all same the rules and regulations as other opticians.
Btw, the photo is flipped, did anyone notice that? Not on topic, but interesting.
As for "Help", I'll take the DVD and make some stills, something I've been meaning to do for some time. Since that whole "doctoring of videos" thing is the biggest red herring of all time, I'm sure it will suffice to illustrate the point.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 28, 2004 8:18:29 GMT -5
He does not have brown eyes in the movie HELP. What are you basing this on? What scenes do his eyes not appear brown?
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Jul 28, 2004 20:51:58 GMT -5
Take a good look when he is looking out of the tank in the field. His eyes are not brown. they are not quite green either. John and George appeared brown. I guess I have to go get it again. I watched an old VHS tape.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 29, 2004 22:47:47 GMT -5
Take a good look when he is looking out of the tank in the field. His eyes are not brown. they are not quite green either. John and George appeared brown. I guess I have to go get it again. I watched an old VHS tape. Forget that ol'VHS tape! The DVD is amazingly sharp & clear. I've been too busy this evening to really watch it, but I did catch a couple of sceens where I could clearly see JPM's eyes & they look brown to me... not quite as dark as George's, but they're still brown. I'll really watch it over the weekend. The previous posts that mentioned Help & got me to lookin' for it was great timing!! I went to half.com as soon as I posted & sure 'nuff, an individual who was selling a few things had a "like new" dvd up for $30. I've checked several times since then & I haven't seen another copy on there for less than $85!!! YEA! Excellent timing for sure! Coughing up $90+ for Help woulda been a bit painful.
|
|