|
Post by GN on Jun 25, 2008 15:03:59 GMT -5
"look, we are all humans, and most of us have the same type of head, when you go and paste heads from other people on other pictures... then most of the time it's a match" That is just flat-out false. Photographic evidence is hardly ever used in cases of identity theft because they are ultimately weak as evidence. Any photographer will tell you that the slightest change in angle and shade can dramatically alter the way someone looks in a picture. This is why there is industry of schooling based on how to best take pictures, what angles to use, what lights to use, etc, in order to make someone look as best they can - or make someone look unlike themselves. This is just basic knowledge. This is why you can find some pictures of Paul that look wildly different, and some pictures of Paul that look precisely the same as the OP has provided. But it's the reason why photographic evidence is worthless, and it's also why the PID movement seems to thrive on it. Dear, you are just not up-dated.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Jun 26, 2008 20:54:01 GMT -5
While that may be true to an extent, that pics can sometimes be deceiving-now they've got some amazing facial recognition software. So, I think GN makes a good point.
And for what most of us do here, yeah - maybe we wouldn't always come to a conclusion based on 'a' photo. But, like many similar things, we look at the body of evidence. -Body of pics pre/post 66/67. And then see how the scale tips.
And concerning the pic above, it certainly doesn't look much like JPM. For many the scale has tipped in the direction that JPM was replaced. Simple as that.
Keep in mind that the photo body of evidence is a sub category of a wider range of body of evidence - not just pics.
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jun 26, 2008 23:05:22 GMT -5
While that may be true to an extent, that pics can sometimes be deceiving-now they've got some amazing facial recognition software. So, I think GN makes a good point. And for what most of us do here, yeah - maybe we wouldn't always come to a conclusion based on 'a' photo. But, like many similar things, we look at the body of evidence. -Body of pics pre/post 66/67. And then see how the scale tips. And concerning the pic above, it certainly doesn't look much like JPM. For many the scale has tipped in the direction that JPM was replaced. Simple as that. Keep in mind that the photo body of evidence is a sub category of a wider range of body of evidence - not just pics. Some of the ways one might explain the differences between the two guys in that fade? A) The passing of time, e.g. age, weight fluctuations, effects from drug usage? Lighting? Facial expression differences and facial positional differences? Or, B) They're not the same person... We have a 'body of evidence', as ramone stated, that makes option B seem very plausible, perhaps even more plausible than option A, as many here believe.
|
|
|
Post by jguildersleeve on Jun 28, 2008 12:07:09 GMT -5
"While that may be true to an extent, that pics can sometimes be deceiving-now they've got some amazing facial recognition software. So, I think GN makes a good point."
GN didn't really make a point, but I think I can gather what you are saying. Unfortunately, the experts do not agree, and in practice this point just has no bearing. Experts will say that even the most advanced facial recognition systems are usually, if not always, thrown off by angles, lighting, change in hairstyle, low resolution, etc. Furthermore, no facial recognition system has ever been effective at recognizing a single criminal. You are correct that facial recognition systems have been more advanced. But what they mostly can tell us is how insubtantial photographs are as evidence, given how the slightest change can substantially alter the way a person looks.
"And for what most of us do here, yeah - maybe we wouldn't always come to a conclusion based on 'a' photo. But, like many similar things, we look at the body of evidence."
The problem is that most in the PID camp have reached their conclusion well before looking at any photographs - which is always the worst way to proceed any investigation. As a consequence, you only see the pictures chosen where you have differences pronounced (in this particular case, see the highly absurd examples in Reply #15). The OP provided pictures however where there are hardly any differences pronounced. So, then, you have a rush of people making comments about the "forehead" which are entirely groundless for the reasons given above.
"Keep in mind that the photo body of evidence is a sub category of a wider range of body of evidence - not just pics"
I'm curious to see some. I haven't seen any evidence at all. Perhaps you could point me to a non-photo thread where some of this evidence is produced.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jun 28, 2008 12:27:09 GMT -5
I just thought I'd make 1 point. You keep referring to PID & technically this isn't a PID forum, it's a Paul Was Replaced forum. Lots of PID'ers here of course, but if you've read this thread, you can see that we are rather strongly divided as to whether JPM died or not.... personally, I don't think he did die. You make plenty of good points about photographic evidence, but really.... take a few minutes & visit www.jamespaulmccartney.org/ & refresh your memory as to what JPM looked like; then go to any gallery with pics of the 1967 "Paul". It very obvious they are (at least) 2 different men. This is one thing most everyone here can agree on. It's as plain as day. Other differences discussed here... height (3-4 inches), body type, singing & talking voice, & so on. These 2 men don't have much in common.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jun 29, 2008 6:52:59 GMT -5
... to continue this... look more closely & you'll see the Beatles really are John Paul George Ringo & Bill. How much evidence do ya need to show that John isn't George, or Ringo isn't John? Same thing goes with Paul & Bill. I believe this thread is the 1st time there's been open disagreement as to whether a pic is of Paul or Bill. 99% of the time we can all agree on the ID of any given pic. Once you get the hang of it, it's easy.... most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 29, 2008 8:03:57 GMT -5
eyebleed knows from which he speaks. He's the person who compiled the JPM website. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jguildersleeve on Jun 29, 2008 10:08:52 GMT -5
"... to continue this... look more closely & you'll see the Beatles really are John Paul George Ringo & Bill. How much evidence do ya need to show that John isn't George, or Ringo isn't John? Same thing goes with Paul & Bill."
Actually, if you look at John pics from 1966 and compare them to John pics from 1967 (take, for example, the Paperack Writer video vs. the Strawberry Fields video), the differences are much more pronounced than Paul's taken from the same period. Once again, though, the problem is that you are looking at the photos with your biased conclusion already intact, so naturally you will only be looking for the stark differences in the Paul photographs and you will not be looking for them with the John. It is only natural that these photos should support your theories, because you are taking the most un-scientific approach imaginable. The overt poorness of this kind of investigation is really quite astounding and staggering. It is also thoroughly unconvincing, given that not one solid piece of evidence has been produced.
"I believe this thread is the 1st time there's been open disagreement as to whether a pic is of Paul or Bill. 99% of the time we can all agree on the ID of any given pic. Once you get the hang of it, it's easy.... most of the time. "
Yes, an extraordinary slim minority of the people can agree and they are located at this website. But the good majority of the fans who have pored over the photographs for decades would never even begin to speculate - and, again, this is purely a consequence of not using the un-scientific method of reaching a conclusion first and building the evidence after. At the same time, if you put up backwards lyrics, everybody then agrees that they can hear them. However, nearly every study shows that rarely does anybody agree on backwards lyrics until they are written down by someone else first - otherwise no one agrees. There have been lots of good studies on this. Again, just another example of if you begin with a conclusion that you construct out of thin air, you can find thousands of examples to back them up if you are looking for it. But this does not constitute evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jun 29, 2008 10:47:44 GMT -5
"... to continue this... look more closely & you'll see the Beatles really are John Paul George Ringo & Bill. How much evidence do ya need to show that John isn't George, or Ringo isn't John? Same thing goes with Paul & Bill." Actually, if you look at John pics from 1966 and compare them to John pics from 1967 (take, for example, the Paperack Writer video vs. the Strawberry Fields video), the differences are much more pronounced than Paul's taken from the same period. Once again, though, the problem is that you are looking at the photos with your biased conclusion already intact, so naturally you will only be looking for the stark differences in the Paul photographs and you will not be looking for them with the John. It is only natural that these photos should support your theories, because you are taking the most un-scientific approach imaginable. The overt poorness of this kind of investigation is really quite astounding and staggering. It is also thoroughly unconvincing, given that not one solid piece of evidence has been produced. "I believe this thread is the 1st time there's been open disagreement as to whether a pic is of Paul or Bill. 99% of the time we can all agree on the ID of any given pic. Once you get the hang of it, it's easy.... most of the time. " Yes, an extraordinary slim minority of the people can agree and they are located at this website. But the good majority of the fans who have pored over the photographs for decades would never even begin to speculate - and, again, this is purely a consequence of not using the un-scientific method of reaching a conclusion first and building the evidence after. At the same time, if you put up backwards lyrics, everybody then agrees that they can hear them. However, nearly every study shows that rarely does anybody agree on backwards lyrics until they are written down by someone else first - otherwise no one agrees. There have been lots of good studies on this. Again, just another example of if you begin with a conclusion that you construct out of thin air, you can find thousands of examples to back them up if you are looking for it. But this does not constitute evidence. You shoulda been here 4 years ago, when there was actually some interest in discussing whether or not there was a replacement.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jun 29, 2008 11:13:21 GMT -5
eyebleed knows from which he speaks. He's the person who compiled the JPM website. ;D With a Lotta Help From My Friends ;D
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jun 29, 2008 11:17:29 GMT -5
"... to continue this... look more closely & you'll see the Beatles really are John Paul George Ringo & Bill. How much evidence do ya need to show that John isn't George, or Ringo isn't John? Same thing goes with Paul & Bill." Actually, if you look at John pics from 1966 and compare them to John pics from 1967 (take, for example, the Paperack Writer video vs. the Strawberry Fields video), the differences are much more pronounced than Paul's taken from the same period. Once again, though, the problem is that you are looking at the photos with your biased conclusion already intact, so naturally you will only be looking for the stark differences in the Paul photographs and you will not be looking for them with the John. It is only natural that these photos should support your theories, because you are taking the most un-scientific approach imaginable. The overt poorness of this kind of investigation is really quite astounding and staggering. It is also thoroughly unconvincing, given that not one solid piece of evidence has been produced. "I believe this thread is the 1st time there's been open disagreement as to whether a pic is of Paul or Bill. 99% of the time we can all agree on the ID of any given pic. Once you get the hang of it, it's easy.... most of the time. " Yes, an extraordinary slim minority of the people can agree and they are located at this website. But the good majority of the fans who have pored over the photographs for decades would never even begin to speculate - and, again, this is purely a consequence of not using the un-scientific method of reaching a conclusion first and building the evidence after. At the same time, if you put up backwards lyrics, everybody then agrees that they can hear them. However, nearly every study shows that rarely does anybody agree on backwards lyrics until they are written down by someone else first - otherwise no one agrees. There have been lots of good studies on this. Again, just another example of if you begin with a conclusion that you construct out of thin air, you can find thousands of examples to back them up if you are looking for it. But this does not constitute evidence. It all depends on what you allow yourself to see (& hear) The 5(+) Beatles are obvious if you just truely open your eyes, because this stuff isn't hidden. It's right in front of you.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 29, 2008 11:20:57 GMT -5
Most people on this website are smart enough to see that eventhough a person can go through many changes in a year's time, that they are still the same person when pics of them are examined intelligently. Here is a pic of Lennon in 1965/1966 compared to Lennon in the late 70's. In over 10 years, he changed quite a bit but I think we all agree this is the same person based on many factors, one of them being the shape of the skull:
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 29, 2008 17:02:12 GMT -5
The look in his eyes is quite different. In the first photo, he seems sad or tired. In the second photo they appear devoid of emotion, they look dead...
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jun 29, 2008 18:11:20 GMT -5
The look in his eyes is quite different. In the first photo, he seems sad or tired. In the second photo they appear devoid of emotion, they look dead... If he was smiling in the photos, would that mean he was happy?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 29, 2008 18:27:25 GMT -5
A lot of times someone can be smiling and seem happy, but their eyes can show a sadder emotion.
Lennon looks wrecked in that second pic. It shows what a decade of drugs, excessive drinking and being under the control of Yoko can do to you.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 29, 2008 20:43:40 GMT -5
My father once said: You can't tell what someone is thinking by looking at them. True to a point, but humans are always leaking information, but it needs to be "live", a still photo captures a small fraction of a second of time.. Just not enough information.
Having said that, a professional photographer trained to observe his or her subjects gets a sense of their feelings and moods and how they express them, and then.. looks for the gem in the collection that hits the mark.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Jun 29, 2008 21:16:20 GMT -5
Most people on this website are smart enough to see that eventhough a person can go through many changes in a year's time, that they are still the same person when pics of them are examined intelligently. Here is a pic of Lennon in 1965/1966 compared to Lennon in the late 70's. In over 10 years, he changed quite a bit but I think we all agree this is the same person based on many factors, one of them being the shape of the skull: It's pretty easy to see in these two pics that the features match very well. Some people gain weight, others lose it over time. John's case is the latter. When that happens features become sharper. Lines and shapes become more pronounced. His nose and lips look the same - given age changes. What little of the ear on his right that can be seen looks close. Thick eyebrows. And the eyes. Both pics show his right eye significantly higher than his left. And this is 15 years difference. Look at the fades of paul. Closer time difference yet they really don't look anything alike. We're talking about pics here. If the pics don't satisfy, go to the vids they're taken from (if they are). Look at the africa vids. Laughable to say they're JPM. That fade may come from the quick interview vid as the lads are heading inside. 'paul' in motion doesn't look like JPM any more than the frozen pic of 'paul'. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 29, 2008 21:30:52 GMT -5
My father once said: You can't tell what someone is thinking by looking at them. True to a point, but humans are always leaking information, but it needs to be "live", a still photo captures a small fraction of a second of time.. Just not enough information. True that you can't tell what someone is thinking by looking at them. But the point I was making was not that you can tell what someone is 'thinking' at that moment in time but you can see emotions in the eyes. As it has been said before the eyes are the windows to the soul. And you'd get a lot of argument from some people that say that you can see sadness, hardship, happiness, etc. by looking into the eyes of someone in a picture.
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jun 29, 2008 21:42:35 GMT -5
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,captures a small fraction of a second of time.. Just not enough information. Having said that, a professional photographer trained to observe his or her subjects gets a sense of their feelings and moods and how they express them, and then.. looks for the gem in the collection that hits the mark. true, enough. But a photographer is also concerened with LIGHT, and to another degree, exposure. That and subject make a photograph. Ev'ry time i see your face, It reminds me of the places we used to go. But all i got is a photograph And i realise you're not coming back anymore.
I thought i'd make it the day you went away, But i can't make it Till you come home again to stay-yi-yay-yi-yay.
I can't get used to living here, While my heart is broke, my tears i cried for you. I want you here to have and hold, As the years go by and we grow old and grey.
Now you're expecting me to live without you, But that's not something that i'm looking forward to.more www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/concertforgeorge/photograph.htm
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 29, 2008 22:03:10 GMT -5
My father once said: You can't tell what someone is thinking by looking at them. True to a point, but humans are always leaking information, but it needs to be "live", a still photo captures a small fraction of a second of time.. Just not enough information. True that you can't tell what someone is thinking by looking at them. But the point I was making was not that you can tell what someone is 'thinking' at that moment in time but you can see emotions in the eyes. As it has been said before the eyes are the windows to the soul. And you'd get a lot of argument from some people that say that you can see sadness, hardship, happiness, etc. by looking into the eyes of someone in a picture. Read what I said above about a professional photographer's methods. You'd almost have to ask them what their intent and observations were. Also, some people can't hide what they are feeling, (yes I get the difference) while others are quite good at cloaking, that includes what their eyes are telling you.. I can't hide a damn thing myself.. Go to a used car dealer to meet someone who knows how to "work" body language. (including and especially the eyes) Millions of actors know what to do as well..
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 30, 2008 9:45:47 GMT -5
Of course not. I was just commenting on how different his eyes looked that's all... Exactly. That's the impression that I got also. Boy, did you say a mouth full. And you KNOW that I have looked at thousands of photos over the past 5 years ! ;D That is so true. Actually, we're trying to talk our one son into becoming a used car dealer since he has the "gift of blarney " ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Jun 30, 2008 11:51:22 GMT -5
Suffice to say that I do believe that sometime in the past the original Paul, James Paul, John Paul, or whatever his real first name was, was killed or died mysteriously. Fine, let me believe what I choose to believe with regards to that. It makes more sense to me that he's no longer a part of this world and thus the need to have someone replacing him. Rather than the idea he's replaced but is still alive somewhere.
But it makes one ask, why would someone be replaced, and then return to the identity later? Do you think the system is going to spend thousands of dollars to surgically work on someone's face to look like, sound like and talk like a celebrity only for a short time until the real thing came back? All of the mental and emotional work that would have to be done for "Bill" to take on the image of Paul Mc Cartney just to have the real Paul return? Whether it be through hypnosis, or some other form of mind alterations in order to have some of the feeded memories that would have been associated with Paul Mc Cartney, rather than memories of his former self.
The pictures offered for comparison look doctored, both what is supposed to be Paul and the replacement, Bill or Faul, or whatever other name has been given to the man who now stands as Paul Mc Cartney.
Maybe calling it TKIN and the Don Knotts thing was more than most readers could take, but when you've been away from the forum for a while, for reasons I don't wish to share why because it would be too time consuming and most readers could care less about issues I was dealing with, and visit to see a thread as such, well, it does take one by surprise. And it did strike me as such. Sorry if it stepped on some toes, but that was my opinion!
So I think Paul was killed or died mysteriously. What is the big deal about that? Even if I did mention Don Knotts, it's extreme from my point of view. So what? Does that mean I have to be attacked for my beliefs? So what if I think some posts on this forum has gone the wayside what's the big deal?
If you choose to think he was just replaced and is still living out there somewhere, that's up to you. If it makes sense to you that he was not killed or died, but just replaced, then you follow your feelings regarding that.
But when you start bashing me for what I believe, I feel that is going too far. If this is supposed to be a place where someone is allowed to share their opinions, then why am I being attacked because my opinion does not agree with yours? And why is it too much for me to say I think it's a bit over the top? Even if you think it's legit, so why attack my opinion when you don't attack others? What is it about ME that you have to attack me and what I believe in?
I don't think it's right to be going on a rant bashing Christianity just because you have had some personal bad experiences regarding someone who hurt you? I'm truly sorry you had a corrupt father and I'm sorry that he abused a position that is supposed to be a calling of a true man of God. There are wolves dressed in sheep's clothing and there have been thousands upon thousands of people who have been abused or are being abused by false preachers/teachers. They are out there and it makes me angry that so many have been led down the wrong path. I've been to several churches and experienced some horrible things myself, as well as to those very close to me and it angers me that people who call themselves Christians do and say horrible things. I read about pastors being arrested for pornography, child abuse and other such atrocities that should not be named among "men of God". It's a horrible thing to see all of the horrible things that have been done and are being done in the name of faith. Those few of us around who still adhere to the Bible are angry with the pain and suffering caused by phonies. Believe me, I've seen and heard enough horror stories, more than I would have liked to see and hear, but I have and that was one of the reasons why I left organized religion. I have not left my faith, but I have left the arrogance and hypocrisy because there is so much bad going on.
But I have to ask, are you going to bash Muhammed because there are terrorists among them? There are good examples from within that faith that are not terrorists.
Are you going to bash other icons of other faiths because of bad examples? And even discussing people outside of any religious affiliations, there are bad among the good and unfortunately it makes the rest appear to be just as phoney, hypocritical and leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. But don't measure everyone against a bad example.
So I think Paul is gone, and you don't, fine. But let's not personally attack each other, or anyone else because they don't agree.
I don't mind if someone does not agree with what I choose to write or believe, whether it's faith, or PID, or whatever, that's not my problem. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but for those who don't agree with me, you don't have to attack my beliefs or me personally! I have a right to say what I feel and think, just as you do. But I don't attack YOU personally, so don't attack me!
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 30, 2008 16:20:38 GMT -5
LR,
I agree with your post for the most part. However, you stated that others should allow people to express their opinions and I think that what was being done about the comments about Christianity. If someone feels it is a bogus religion, then they should have the right to say so. I am sure you agree.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 30, 2008 17:23:24 GMT -5
OT again, oh well.. On topic on this thread also gets people riled up, myself included.. Anyhow..
I think if one were to re-read what EB said, it doesn't disagree with the concept that it's possible to be fed up with organized religion without losing your faith.. EB didn't address the faith issue either way, but didn't say it was wrong to have faith in a supreme being or whatever.. Just in the numerous con men who (believe it or not) claim to have tea and cookies (so to speak) with God on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 30, 2008 18:29:37 GMT -5
Have any of you had the opportunity to watch Sam Kinison in action ? That man had one of the foulest mouths & most outrageous ideas in the comedic community. He made fun of Jesus Christ and the dead. However, his license plate didn't say "Ex-Rev" for nothing. I watched one of his specials, I can't remember which one it was. All I know is that he started talking about how he grew up in a "notch in the bible belt". That his dad was a Reverend, as was his brother & even himself. Then he asked the audience if they thought that he still could do it, if he could still find it within himself, etc., etc. As he said "himself" he started going into the routine that many of us have seen on shows such as "Jimmy Swaggart". He was pacing back & forth on that stage talking about himself doing "God's work". As soon as he finished his spiel, he stood there panting for breath & told the audience that he forgot how "f*cking" much that takes out of a person. Enuf said...
|
|