|
Post by JoJo on May 20, 2004 16:51:19 GMT -5
Well many professional photographed portraits are hardly left untouched after the negative gets printed on the paper, and they just leave it at that. Even my yearbook picture, (which I won't post here) a low budget operation I'm sure, airbrushed the imperfections out of my and my 400 classmates' faces. Is that "natural"? Well no, if my pimples get covered up, then there's a little (very little I admit) deception there.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 20, 2004 18:30:07 GMT -5
fades have been proven useless time and time again here.... Not if they are done correctly with the stringest of rules. The only thing shown here and on 60IF is how someone can break the rules of photo fades and how no-one will challenge them.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on May 20, 2004 19:26:48 GMT -5
You can't do the fades correctly, because they're flat out wrong, to many variables for anyone to consider, Sunking often said FULL LEGAL EVIDENCE, well find me a court that takes it as legal evidence and you can use photo fades.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on May 20, 2004 19:28:25 GMT -5
fades have been proven useless time and time again here.... True.... but they are kinda fun & sometimes interesting. I would hate to do anything like ban fades simply because of the "fun/amusement" factor.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on May 20, 2004 19:33:58 GMT -5
One thing I know with absolute certainty..... THIS IS NOT JPM (thanks for reposting that pic JoJo) This one is one of the more obvious. But I thought the 2 pic of Paul w/dad & Faul w/"dad" was also very obvious, so I posted those on another forum & everybody sez.... "They look the same to me..... & yer insane for thinking Paul is dead.... some conspiracies never die"
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 20, 2004 19:54:27 GMT -5
You can't do the fades correctly, because they're flat out wrong, to many variables for anyone to consider, Sunking often said FULL LEGAL EVIDENCE, well find me a court that takes it as legal evidence and you can use photo fades. They CAN be used correctly if the pictures are from the correct angle and are not warped and have the same facial expression. For instance, the picture of Paul on the cover of 'With the Beatles' along with the picture of Paul on the cover of the butcher album. However I agree they don't work in many instances and with many of the Beatles' pictures. To me those fades were just a little technique used to point out the obvious differences between JPM and Faul and Sun King took the technique a little too far.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on May 20, 2004 20:15:58 GMT -5
To me those fades were just a little technique used to point out the obvious differences between JPM and Faul and Sun King took the technique a little too far. Sure.... & those fades were the bait-hook that pulled me into this deal in the first place. The main thing that turned me against them was the fact that they can be used with equal effectiveness to argue the PIA side. That alone renders them useless for either side. But with the proper varification, a fade could be done properly & convincingly.... I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 20, 2004 20:58:36 GMT -5
Our entertaining friend said a lot of things... I don't think you'll find anyone coming to defend THAT position here. Three catchy sounding words do not a legal doctorine make, I think that's obvious. Talking about that is so... I agree, there are uses for them, I don't believe in a ban either. Just that if anyone considers taking it on, I hope they would map out all the possible counter arguments first and have a somewhat cogent response ready.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on May 20, 2004 21:36:04 GMT -5
Noone answered my question about the lower eye...
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 20, 2004 23:13:36 GMT -5
Well, my reaction is that most of the world including legal folks are aware of the common practice of photo retouching. It's expected, isn't it? How could you really ever say much about it?
OK, Jojo, you clocked me. I ought to take it off. How tacky of me.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on May 21, 2004 2:10:16 GMT -5
And Flaming-about the lower eye thing------I can think of no explanation at the moment. Can anyone else? Well, other than its the same person. Or coincidence. I yield the floor. How does the Senator from Texas vote? Sorry....oops........I had a small lapse.
Actually, all silliness aside, the two photos do make me wonder if there is common source material between the two (aside from ther being a common "subject") and that somehow there has existed, prior to photoshop et al, some techniques of "importing" or overlapping partial image imformation. Were there undetectable "smooth" compositing methods at one's disposal in recent decades? Methods that are employed in a dark room, not on a computer.
Partial graphic insertion? The results of a lot of that procedure might yield a large number of "hybridized" prints that exibit a large degree of image variety, concerning the subject of the prints. They could also turn out to be butchered, implausible photos with no commercial use.
If the butcher cover was recalled end of May, early June 1966, and the replacement "stick-on" trunk covers appeared within days to take the place, when was the "trunk" photo, and similar ones, made? Was that part of the "butcher cover" session? Why are there no large posts of the trunk cover? Its hard to make out the image as small as one normally sees it on the net. John looks especially strange in one of those. Anyone got a large version, or the actual record from the times? Can the cover be posted in a fairly large scale? Do I need glasses?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 21, 2004 4:20:00 GMT -5
I had to go back a page to figure out what you were talking about. ;D That's ok, you'd have to track down the original yearbook photog, and then he or she would have to dig through the archives, if they still exist. (same with me of course)
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on May 21, 2004 15:18:29 GMT -5
I'd still like it if they did a fade of those two pics. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by revolver on May 26, 2004 20:34:34 GMT -5
One thing I know with absolute certainty..... THIS IS NOT JPM (thanks for reposting that pic JoJo) This one is one of the more obvious. But I thought the 2 pic of Paul w/dad & Faul w/"dad" was also very obvious, so I posted those on another forum & everybody sez.... "They look the same to me..... & yer insane for thinking Paul is dead.... some conspiracies never die" I can understand the disinclination to believe something that contradicts official history like PWR or the CIA killed Kennedy. Once it is accepted or even thought to be plausible, it creates a much less comfortable view of the world and how it operates. I'm not saying that's true of the PIAers here, who I believe are honestly skeptical of the theory based on the evidence presented so far. But it may explain why many people refuse to even look at the possiblilty of such a thing that goes against the conventional wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by jpm4266 on May 27, 2004 3:51:56 GMT -5
I've noticed that in early photographs of Paul where's he's smiling enough to show his teeth, he has a rather distinctive upper bridgeline where it seems that the front of the top jaw(at the incisors and front teeth) points downwards... Are there any photos of post 1966 Macca with the same smile, and if his teeth are the same in terms of alignment?
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on May 27, 2004 9:24:17 GMT -5
That's perfect - that's it exactly - and I could never get my head round it. How does that work then - multiple post '66 Pauls?
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Jun 1, 2004 14:46:29 GMT -5
Does look like 2 different guys. Scary, but could he have had his teeth filed?
|
|
|
Post by AUSTON on Jun 1, 2004 22:20:36 GMT -5
I am new to this forum, but from looking at the two photos they are two different guys. The differences are very subtle. Faul is probably the only person in the world who had his teeth made crooked, etc. to try to complete his "Paul" look.
|
|
|
Post by jpm4266 on Jun 2, 2004 5:10:57 GMT -5
That's perfect - that's it exactly - and I could never get my head round it. How does that work then - multiple post '66 Pauls?
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 5, 2004 1:29:49 GMT -5
FYI. That 'Paul in disguise' pic from the White Album that Sun King has been using for "Full Legal Value" has been flipped.
Check your albums/CD's.
Sun King : FULL LEGAL BUFFOON!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 5, 2004 7:35:10 GMT -5
FYI. That 'Paul in disguise' pic from the White Album that Sun King has been using for "Full Legal Value" has been flipped. Check your albums/CD's. Yeah, I was the first one to mention that. But it does look slightly strange when it's unflipped...
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 5, 2004 9:53:23 GMT -5
First off, yes, the pic SK uses was flipped horizontally from the original WA poster. I believe there was a reason given, probably as a way of stating that the original was flipped in the first place. So buried somewhere in a post over there, they do state it was flipped, but I guess he hasn't mentioned it in some time.
|
|
|
Post by jpm4266 on Jul 6, 2004 7:59:51 GMT -5
First off, yes, the pic SK uses was flipped horizontally from the original WA poster. I believe there was a reason given, probably as a way of stating that the original was flipped in the first place. So buried somewhere in a post over there, they do state it was flipped, but I guess he hasn't mentioned it in some time. In spite of these operations today's traces of the old scar can still be seen on Faul's chin along with ears which are orientated differently; a nose that does not look the same overall: Faul's is smaller and is not shaped the same; but above all the distance between the eyes is completely different: Paul's were much wider. This is the main reason why many photos were retouched. And the old Faul - what happened to him? That's right, he's the one in the ticket photo in the left bottom side of the White Album poster. To divert suspicion the photo was mirror printed.invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&username=matchbox]FULL LEGAL BUFFOON!sunking do not link to your website from here.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 6, 2004 10:35:45 GMT -5
Well that shows how long it's been since I read that uh document.. Ok so the idea was that it was flipped on the WA poster, so the subsequent postings are the "correct" one according to this theory. The problem is, every time that flipped picture is shown, it should be footnoted as such, yes, each and every time!
Having said that, since Paul always parted his hair back in 1966 on his left, and then the poster has it on his right, that's one discrepancy anyway.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 6, 2004 12:30:46 GMT -5
If anyone he thinks that I am Sun King, you are WAY OFF BASE.
|
|