Harb
Help! 
Posts: 74
|
Post by Harb on Apr 9, 2004 14:14:44 GMT -5
I spent the last hour or so finding some profile photos of Paul and found one from 1964 and another from 1967. I then did a fade-in comparison between the two...  Personally, I can't see any real differences. Can anybody else? |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasflammel on Apr 9, 2004 16:32:48 GMT -5
In my observation the location of eyebrows,bridge of nose, and the shape of nostril, lips,cheekbone,ear lobe and inner shape of ear all appear to be very different.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasflammel on Apr 9, 2004 16:36:35 GMT -5
In addition JP's forehead seems to recede as well.  |
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 9, 2004 16:36:54 GMT -5
The picture of Paul used in your fade seems to be slightly larger than the pic of Faul.
Darkhorse made a similar point in a photo comparison on page 2 of the string "Re: YESTERDAY TODAY & PAUL -THE ART OF UNCLOTHING"
That's why the size of Paul's head is larger than Faul's in this fade.
It's also why Paul's lips grow and his nostrils are wider.
Ears aren't in the same place, either.
An outline of their head shapes in your fade would prove useful to demonstrate this point.
Paul's head is larger, especially on top!
Anyone familiar with Faul/Paul comparisons knows that not only is Faul's face longer, his head is also taller.
It's also a lot less rounder!
And his eyes are a different color/closer together, his forehead is larger, his hair is parted in the opposite direction/straighter, he's taller/has a totally different body shape, blah, blah...
Of course we can find some similarities.
It just seems to me some on this board are grasping at any little thing they can in order to keep themselves in a state of doubt.
Is the idea of Paul being replaced really that hard to come to terms with? Bye for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 9, 2004 16:46:05 GMT -5
Just repeating what others have said, but the lower ear seems to be moving up and down, with Faul's lower on his face. Faul's nostrils are a little higher, Paul's lips are fuller. So yeah there are slight differences IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 9, 2004 19:32:17 GMT -5
The differences are more noticable from the stills. Faul's neck is straighter and longer, like that of a taller person. His nose is narrower and lips thinner.   |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 9, 2004 20:23:18 GMT -5
Why is the animation so shakey?
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 9, 2004 21:03:17 GMT -5
Why is the animation so shakey? Didn't you hear? Paul had Paulsy.  |
|
|
|
Post by seraphim on Apr 10, 2004 6:21:12 GMT -5
Wasn't there a site that had a TON of these pics? Can anyone link me there?
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Apr 10, 2004 11:04:54 GMT -5
Wasn't there a site that had a TON of these pics? Can anyone link me there? my guess is that you're thinking of Uberkinder's site, and last I heard, he had taken it down. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 10, 2004 11:07:04 GMT -5
A gentleman named Uberkinder used to have a PID site, with lots of fades to illustrate his point. He has since "retired" from all that.. Edit: Oops we think alike Xpt, hehe |
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 10, 2004 17:06:40 GMT -5
Uberkinder's current site is devoid of editorial content, but still has most of the pictures and fades. You can find it here: uberkinder.5u.com/paul/ |
|
Harb
Help!
Posts: 74
|
Post by Harb on Apr 10, 2004 17:57:15 GMT -5
The picture judders a little because I was doing it quickly and on a couple of the cut'n'pastes I didn't get the size exact unfortunately. Since the photos could have easily been stretched and so forth during their lifetime, I changed the heigh and width until they both matched with features and back and top of the head.
The one thing that did strike me as kind of odd is the dramatic earchange. That can't be explained as Paul's facial muscles being more relaxed than in another photo, which is how the eye and nostril could be explained.
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 11, 2004 11:00:56 GMT -5
A person's ears just can't move about their head,
That is kinda a permanent thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by oracledelphi on Apr 20, 2004 6:27:54 GMT -5
I spent the last hour or so finding some profile photos of Paul and found one from 1964 and another from 1967. I then did a fade-in comparison between the two... Personally, I can't see any real differences. Can anybody else? 1st question -WHERE those pictures are from- 2nd question- Michael (Harb) please change "mind glasses"- JoJo showed us full VINTAGE Paul/Faul profiles. No further documentation needed! |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 20, 2004 11:48:30 GMT -5
Well sure more would help, doncha think? And that wasn't my favorite thing, I haven't done a fade since, because fades cause troubles... (for the hundredth time) Not my angle of attack any more, and I see that as my first try at this, not as something to be taken as proof of anything. So... just who am I speaking to here Mr. Oracle? |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 20, 2004 17:23:47 GMT -5
Uh not sure what that means, (hmmm situation normal.. ) But harb has a useful and informative site and has contributed in a very helpful way to the discussion here. Please read all his previous posts before responding... ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by oracledelphi on Apr 23, 2004 9:08:51 GMT -5
Well sure more would help, doncha think? And that wasn't my favorite thing, I haven't done a fade since, because fades cause troubles... (for the hundredth time) Not my angle of attack any more, and I see that as my first try at this, not as something to be taken as proof of anything. So... just who am I speaking to here Mr. Oracle? I was not talking about fades. Your documentation has always clear declared source. Others' never. |
|
|
|
Post by oracledelphi on Apr 23, 2004 9:20:16 GMT -5
Uh not sure what that means, (hmmm situation normal.. ) But harb has a useful and informative site and has contributed in a very helpful way to the discussion here. Please read all his previous posts before responding... ;D ;D ;D ;D I well know that site. I was wondering why all PID sites had (and unfortunately still have) ONLY photos about Faul NEVER vintage Paul's ones. That was THE MAIN problem of such kind of sites. It's very easy talking about an hoax without a verify. "Obviously Paul is not dead".....all those say... "Obviously" is the main word against science. Always. Collecting what Beatles have left as clue is really interesting. Without any preface. |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Apr 23, 2004 17:29:33 GMT -5
The differences are more noticable from the stills. Faul's neck is straighter and longer, like that of a taller person. His nose is narrower and lips thinner.   It just wouldn't be right if I didn't chime in on this comparison...hehe...I've been sitting on my hands on this one for about as long as I can. The biggest problem which I can see about this comparison is the way he is facing. His head is turned a few more degrees away from the carmera in the later pic than it is in the earlier one. This will do a couple of things...and God knows with all the comparisons I've done of my own I am confounded by it...the first thing it does is make the opening of his ear appear slightly more elongated and his ear appears out of position...only a few degrees of turn will do this. This will also affect the way the bridge of his nose protrudes and the apparent position and shape of the nostrill, move the corner of his mouth forward, etc. The lips are subjective in that I would dare say he was probably speaking in one or both of these pics when they were taken, and pronouncing different words will require that the lips be in different positions when they are spoken. The neck and shoulders will look different between shots of the same person when they are sitting in one photo and standing in the other. The later pic appears to be one of him sitting...but then we don't see the lower portion of his upper torso so that is only a supposition on my part. Does anything I've pointed out prove or disprove anything about what anyone else perceives? Not hardly, and THAT is my point. Photo comparisons of similar poses may or may not prove anything at all, in fact they can prove both arguments. Photos can only be useful in arguments when they are included with known facts as supporting evidence...basing an opinion solely on photographic proof goes nowhere, unless, of course, it is presented by a private detective who has photographed your indiscretions with someone of the opposite sex outside of your marriage and is used in a court of law... ;D Jeesh...sorry guys...I couldn't sit on my fingers any longer ;D |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 23, 2004 17:37:56 GMT -5
No sweat, no one expects you too, it's gets a little dull when everyone nods in agreement all the time.. |
|
