|
Post by ramone on Jul 2, 2008 22:13:26 GMT -5
''Please bear in mind, too, that I wouldn’t have even considered rebutting to this at all if it weren’t for the highly despicable act of pretending some poster was Neil Aspinall on the very day that he died, or soon thereafter. I kind of accepted this as a just a bunch of white middle-class people with too much time on their hands having fun on the internet. But when you started disrespecting people and their families at the time of their deaths just to add a bit more artificial mystery to the farce, then this stops being fun and starts to be worthy of serious criticism. I’ll gladly stop my critique when the figure responsible for such appalling behavior apologizes.''
I think anyone with an ounce of empathy would feel for a family if they thought said family was being taken advantage of.
The summation of your arguments really is that we should have our ducks in a row, our abcs and ds laid out before coming to a conclusion.
Are you sure you have your info and evidence down and in order to be on solid ground in making such a statement (accusation)? You want others to play by 'the rules', but are you sure you're not breaking them yourself? Have you considered that perhaps there's info you're not personally aware of? Are you cognizant of all that's transpired here? Are you drawing a conclusion first without fully putting things together? - putting the cart before the horse?
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jul 2, 2008 22:18:09 GMT -5
Please bear in mind, too, that I wouldn’t have even considered rebutting to this at all if it weren’t for the highly despicable act of pretending some poster was Neil Aspinall on the very day that he died, or soon thereafter. I kind of accepted this as a just a bunch of white middle-class people with too much time on their hands having fun on the internet. But when you started disrespecting people and their families at the time of their deaths just to add a bit more artificial mystery to the farce, then this stops being fun and starts to be worthy of serious criticism. I’ll gladly stop my critique when the figure responsible for such appalling behavior apologizes.
that's not even close to what happened, totally non-factual. And you certainly do not know all the facts involved. .
unless of course, that figure is you.
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jul 2, 2008 22:19:41 GMT -5
''Please bear in mind, too, that I wouldn’t have even considered rebutting to this at all if it weren’t for the highly despicable act of pretending some poster was Neil Aspinall on the very day that he died, or soon thereafter. I kind of accepted this as a just a bunch of white middle-class people with too much time on their hands having fun on the internet. But when you started disrespecting people and their families at the time of their deaths just to add a bit more artificial mystery to the farce, then this stops being fun and starts to be worthy of serious criticism. I’ll gladly stop my critique when the figure responsible for such appalling behavior apologizes.'' I think anyone with an ounce of empathy would feel for a family if they thought said family was being taken advantage of. The summation of your arguments really is that we should have our ducks in a row, our abcs and ds laid out before coming to a conclusion. Are you sure you have your info and evidence down and in order to be on solid ground in making such a statement (accusation)? You want others to play by 'the rules', but are you sure you're not breaking them yourself? Have you considered that perhaps there's info you're not personally aware of? Are you cognizant of all that's transpired here? Are you drawing a conclusion first without fully putting things together? - putting the cart before the horse? you mean arriving at a conclusion and working backwards to support a theory, Ramone?
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jul 2, 2008 22:37:20 GMT -5
Not only does it not “wash in the courts of law” but, as a science experiment, the photo comparison is even more disreputable. Furthermore, the “reasonable doubt” is explained quite easily, and I have already done so. Angles, lighting, and resolution can all radically change the way someone looks in pictures – the differences are not “curious”, they are outright expected. If Paul looked the same in every single picture, I think you would probably have more reason to be curious. Furthermore, the very premise becomes undone when you realize that you are not simply comparing photographs from two different eras – you are comparing only the ones where stark differences are pronounced and omitting the ones where stark differences don’t exist. When one so clearly displays their bias in their examples (which are poor in the first place and do not constitute evidence), the whole theory is undermined, and quite severely. I won’t deal with “his face is way too long”. This again comes down to the nature of photography – a truism that you seem incapable of understanding. I fully comprehend the nature of photographic discrepancies that might arise depending on a variety of variables. Still, it is not enough to wash away the impression that I get when I view batches of photos that seem to show two different people. The nose is a sticking point, JPM had a shorter nose, from between the eyes to the tip. JPM had a straighter tip to his nose, in profile, whereas Macca's curved slightly downward. There is a slight flair difference in the left nostril... These differences can be seen across a batch of photos. Yeah, they really do look similar, in many ways, but I just can't reach the same point that I can when I compare photos of John over the same span of years. From TKINI don't know if there are similar reference photos here, sorry if I missed them: Another point to consider is the eye fold and flap of skin that appears over Macca's left eye that GN pointed out. Compare the pictures and that area over their left eye. A nice side-by-side scroll comparison pics at TKINOne example from the above link, compare their left eye lid, heck, even the left eye itself. The moustache whisker shadow, too. TKIN resource links
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 3, 2008 7:19:58 GMT -5
people with too much time on their hands having fun on the internet. It's obvious to anyone here that you are the guy with too much time on his hands.
|
|
|
Post by GN on Jul 3, 2008 7:35:05 GMT -5
“Unlike four years ago, our tolerance level is much lower.. Please bear that in mind” Please bear in mind, too, that I wouldn’t have even considered rebutting to this at all if it weren’t for the highly despicable act of pretending some poster was Neil Aspinall on the very day that he died, or soon thereafter. I kind of accepted this as a just a bunch of white middle-class people with too much time on their hands having fun on the internet. But when you started disrespecting people and their families at the time of their deaths just to add a bit more artificial mystery to the farce, then this stops being fun and starts to be worthy of serious criticism. I’ll gladly stop my critique when the figure responsible for such appalling behavior apologizes. “We're open to being called foolish if we say that we see differences, because, as you assert, it doesn't wash in the courts of law, but I also think that reasonable doubt rears its lenient head when comparing images that have curious differences” Not only does it not “wash in the courts of law” but, as a science experiment, the photo comparison is even more disreputable. Furthermore, the “reasonable doubt” is explained quite easily, and I have already done so. Angles, lighting, and resolution can all radically change the way someone looks in pictures – the differences are not “curious”, they are outright expected. If Paul looked the same in every single picture, I think you would probably have more reason to be curious. Furthermore, the very premise becomes undone when you realize that you are not simply comparing photographs from two different eras – you are comparing only the ones where stark differences are pronounced and omitting the ones where stark differences don’t exist. When one so clearly displays their bias in their examples (which are poor in the first place and do not constitute evidence), the whole theory is undermined, and quite severely. “The facial hair & weird clothes & very different music did the job” The music isn’t all that different. Sure, it’s a departure for The Beatles, but there’s nothing on Sgt. Pepper that wasn’t predicted by Revolver or inspired by Pet Sounds. I’ve already dealt with “facial hair” elsewhere, and “weird clothes” is laughable. “Yet the guy in Pauls place doesn't really look like JPM. He's WAY too tall, & his face is way too long. Ya got this big lanky guy who looks a little like JPM standing in JPM's place, yet millions of people weren't freaking out wondering what happened to Paul” I have heard this “Paul is taller” thing before and I find it unconvincing. First of all, photographs cannot tell you someone’s height, so if you’re judging someone’s height by a picture, then your bias is clearly showing. One might use the Sgt. Pepper cover as a case of Paul’s height because all The Beatles are standing next to each other. In the cover itself, Paul looks like he’s about two inches taller than John and about one inch taller than George (which should immediately call into question the whole premise, given that they were all the same height). If you look at Mark Lewisohn’s book “The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions” though, you will see why. In it, there are many outtakes from the cover art photo session. On page 116, you see a shot where the positions are reversed with Ringo and John flanking the drum kit, and George and Paul in the middle (positions reversed). In this shot, George looks about two inches taller than Paul. This is all, in fact, very easily explained. If you look at the front cover, Paul is standing in front of Ringo, who is standing in front of John. Paul was also standing slightly in front of George. The positioning then would naturally make Paul look the tallest – a bit taller than George, and much taller than John, who is basically standing the farthest behind on the cover. On page 118, we see outtakes from the centerfold photo shoot. There are two pictures – one where both Paul and George are the same height and John, who is slouching (like he is on the front cover, explaining THAT height difference) is about two inches shorter. In the other picture, George looks a little bit taller than Paul, who looks a little bit taller than John. But Paul is slouching a little, and John is slouching a lot. In fact, the only consistent thing in any of these photos is that John looks shorter than Paul and George, when in reality he wasn’t. But what all of this shows is that proximity to the camera, and the position of the body itself can alter the way someone looks (including their height) dramatically. Again, though, because the very nature of your investigation is so flawed from the start, it is only natural that you should choose such appallingly poor examples in an attempt to reinforce your claims. I won’t deal with “his face is way too long”. This again comes down to the nature of photography – a truism that you seem incapable of understanding. “And it's obviously still working on anybody who doesn't care to just stop & open their eyes” Again, thank you for the conspiracy theory lingo. Your examples and rhetoric have helped to make me even more unconvinced. Again, as I have been saying from the beginning, provide an actual piece of legitimate evidence, and I will actually consider it. Here it is. I can't wait for your explanation about the fake ear.
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jul 3, 2008 10:32:12 GMT -5
"I kind of accepted this as a just a bunch of white middle-class people with too much time on their hands having fun on the internet." jguildersleeve
Don't you just love the condescension, Mr. Intellectual stomping his feet and snorting at all the uncultured and ignorant plebs who are all just loitering in the back alley with no credentialed voice to offer meaningful opinions.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Jul 3, 2008 10:57:09 GMT -5
Sorry but I have to ask... what has race or class got to do with anything?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 3, 2008 11:55:00 GMT -5
"I kind of accepted this as a just a bunch of white middle-class people with too much time on their hands having fun on the internet." jguildersleeve Don't you just love the condescension, Mr. Intellectual stomping his feet and snorting at all the uncultured and ignorant plebs who are all just loitering in the back alley with no credentialed voice to offer meaningful opinions. Well, I missed that one, have to confess to just skimming his posts. I suppose you think commenting on the alleged race of the posters here is OK if you assume they are white.. Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jul 3, 2008 12:24:00 GMT -5
here it is: where do you see a fake ear??? and by the way: i see paul
|
|
|
Post by realreality on Jul 3, 2008 12:35:06 GMT -5
Re the 'fake ears' pic: Just because you assert he's sporting a fake left ear does not make it so. How can this be regarded as good evidence that the person in the photo is an imposter? Re the validity of photo comparisons: I came across this pre '66 pic of The Beatles. To me, that looks nothing like McCartney - if anything he looks like a young Leonard Nimoy. Does this mean Nimoy may have replaced Paul at some point? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. However, using your logic I can still confidently say that the man on the far left is NOT Paul McCartney. I mean, his nose looks completely different and he appears to be taller than the rest of the Beatles. If this was a post '66 photo I imagine it would be PID gold dust.
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jul 3, 2008 15:18:58 GMT -5
Re the 'fake ears' pic: Just because you assert he's sporting a fake left ear does not make it so. How can this be regarded as good evidence that the person in the photo is an imposter? Re the validity of photo comparisons: I came across this pre '66 pic of The Beatles. To me, that looks nothing like McCartney - if anything he looks like a young Leonard Nimoy. Does this mean Nimoy may have replaced Paul at some point? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. However, using your logic I can still confidently say that the man on the far left is NOT Paul McCartney. I mean, his nose looks completely different and he appears to be taller than the rest of the Beatles. If this was a post '66 photo I imagine it would be PID gold dust. A single photo displayed on its own might not present much of anything, I believe we all realize that. I do think your grainy photo would resemble JPM if it were a bit clearer. I don't know what is going on with the 'fake-ear' picture, but it does look like something is not natural with a portion of the ear that spreads out toward his sideburn. Anyone who entertains the notion that there was a replacement realizes that the two (or more) people under scrutiny are going to look very much alike. In certain cases (photos), we might see incredible similarity. That is what was necessary for it to be a successful replacement, so we know we have to look for finer details, and we know the finer details might be skewed by all the various photgraphic variables that have been mentioned previously by jguildersl33t. What we also know is that there are a bunch of photos that seem to represent one person and another bunch of photos that represent another person. The finer details of each bunch seem to match the general perception that many people have concluded, that there are two people. The left eye-lid crease and skin flap is just one point of reference to cross-check in the photos.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 3, 2008 17:51:41 GMT -5
Re the 'fake ears' pic: Just because you assert he's sporting a fake left ear does not make it so. How can this be regarded as good evidence that the person in the photo is an imposter? Well, we have spent a few years goin' over all the finer details. Attached earlobes vs. detached earlobes, & so on & so on. We may have major disagreements on the basic PID theory, but we can (almost) all easily agree on the existence of at least one replacement "Paul" No doubt in my mind..... beyond that... who-the-hell knows, we all have our own theories.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jul 3, 2008 18:13:35 GMT -5
He's definitely surpassed Aspinall's ghost as the forum's biggest douchebag. "I kind of accepted this as a just a bunch of white middle-class people with too much time on their hands having fun on the internet." jguildersleeve Don't you just love the condescension, Mr. Intellectual stomping his feet and snorting at all the uncultured and ignorant plebs who are all just loitering in the back alley with no credentialed voice to offer meaningful opinions. Well, I missed that one, have to confess to just skimming his posts. I suppose you think commenting on the alleged race of the posters here is OK if you assume they are white.. Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jul 3, 2008 18:17:44 GMT -5
You're right. It's a real ear, falling off. The man obviously suffers from leprosy; and it's uncouth to point this out in public. We shal never speak of it again. Thanks so much for helping us out on this. You can go now. Re the 'fake ears' pic: Just because you assert he's sporting a fake left ear does not make it so. How can this be regarded as good evidence that the person in the photo is an imposter?
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jul 3, 2008 22:02:28 GMT -5
He's definitely surpassed Aspinall's ghost as the forum's biggest douchebag. aw c'mon, acv was nothing of the sort..I can't think of one reason you would say that, nevermind a whole bagor are you talking about the actual ghost that showed up at the seance?
|
|
|
Post by thespacebetween on Jul 3, 2008 22:47:16 GMT -5
Not to rain on anyone's parade but.... This picture is neither proof of a fake ear nor of a detached earlobe... ..it is proof of of how visual ambiguity can allow for dogmatic beliefs to color the perception of reality. Depending on the angle of lighting, attached earlobes can look detached if the shadow cast by the ear lobe itself falls on the crease between the lobe and head.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 3, 2008 23:54:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by realreality on Jul 4, 2008 4:14:11 GMT -5
You're right. It's a real ear, falling off. The man obviously suffers from leprosy; and it's uncouth to point this out in public. We shal never speak of it again. Thanks so much for helping us out on this. You can go now. Re the 'fake ears' pic: Just because you assert he's sporting a fake left ear does not make it so. How can this be regarded as good evidence that the person in the photo is an imposter? Well, no. As thespacebetween said 'it is proof of how visual ambiguity can allow for dogmatic beliefs to color the perception of reality' - which is what I was getting at, but he put it far more eloquently. Is that explaination more likely than the idea that it's a fake ear and therefore proof that the man in the photo is an imposter? Well, I think so. 'You can go now'. Why be so rude?
|
|
|
Post by GN on Jul 4, 2008 5:43:11 GMT -5
Both pictures are from the same footage. Yes, as everybody knows a man can change the position of his ears.
|
|
|
Post by GN on Jul 4, 2008 5:51:54 GMT -5
Not to rain on anyone's parade but.... This picture is neither proof of a fake ear nor of a detached earlobe... ..it is proof of of how visual ambiguity can allow for dogmatic beliefs to color the perception of reality. Depending on the angle of lighting, attached earlobes can look detached if the shadow cast by the ear lobe itself falls on the crease between the lobe and head. Dear, YOUR " direction of illumination " is clearly wrong. According to YOUR arrow Faul's right forehead could be in the shadow. So actually it is EXACTLY the opposite. I need fun. I' d like an explanation from you about WHAT IS on Faul's forehead in this picture. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jul 4, 2008 6:11:14 GMT -5
GN, please stop posting these ridiculous grandmother Pauline pictures. the right place for that is here: 60if.proboards21.com/Back to topic, i really do not see a fake ear.. it is only a shadow under the earlobe... the guy looks just like Paul. this is still much more disturbing:
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jul 4, 2008 10:22:21 GMT -5
GN, please stop posting these ridiculous grandmother Pauline pictures. the right place for that is here: 60if.proboards21.com/Back to topic, i really do not see a fake ear.. it is only a shadow under the earlobe... the guy looks just like Paul. this is still much more disturbing:the rest of the photo
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jul 4, 2008 12:22:34 GMT -5
they even wear the same sweater!
|
|
|
Post by GN on Jul 4, 2008 12:27:35 GMT -5
GN, please stop posting these ridiculous grandmother Pauline pictures. You are right. Pauline is ridiculous with that make-up on HER forehead.
|
|