|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 21, 2009 10:07:57 GMT -5
SK can not be taken serious. i mean, come on: that is a joke That 'Faul' doesn't look like anyone, that is one of the stranger (more odd) pics. i can tell you why: SK "invented" Faul. He disturb and flipped that image: a few seconds into the video, he looks quite normal:
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Jan 21, 2009 10:23:55 GMT -5
Where is the video of that interview, I have seen it but can't seem to find it on youtube? Can anyone help? Oh, no worries I found it! uk.youtube.com/watch?v=11bAPZL_bysFor anyone who wants to see it.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 21, 2009 13:31:47 GMT -5
Putting a mustache on Paul does NOT make him look like Faul. Faul has a longer, narrower face. As far as SK's ORIGINAL fades, I stand by what I said. He did a very good job, AT THE TIME, illustrating how Paul had a smaller rounder face compared to Faul's longer thinner face. I'm talking about Faul in 1967 of course.
|
|
|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Jan 21, 2009 16:24:02 GMT -5
The Beatles' at the Grammys in '71 for "Let it Be" is Faul.. Clearly there is a big difference in the Paul at that event, and the interview I posted in the JPM section.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 21, 2009 22:08:27 GMT -5
I'm not convinced that's Paul on the right. His hair looks really weird - the eyebrows, too. Paul on Aug 19, 1966: Apologies...Just an experiment of mine, a bit stupid i know, just seeing what would happenI love it when PIA'ers get caught w/ their doctored photos. Someone tried the same trick w/ this monstrosity (the one of the right): ^ Actually from this "official" photo :-o
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 22, 2009 2:51:22 GMT -5
Putting a mustache on Paul does NOT make him look like Faul. Faul has a longer, narrower face. As far as SK's ORIGINAL fades, I stand by what I said. He did a very good job, AT THE TIME, illustrating how Paul had a smaller rounder face compared to Faul's longer thinner face. I'm talking about Faul in 1967 of course. that is the whole point. The ones i posted ARE original SK comps. and very lame IMHO. not only ridiculous, but also doctored. SK was hoaxer..he invented Faul to fool people.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 22, 2009 3:17:56 GMT -5
"he invented Faul to fool people."
Then who's the guy pretending to be Paul?
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 22, 2009 5:07:34 GMT -5
"he invented Faul to fool people." Then who's the guy pretending to be Paul? i dont know, that must be this guy: www.paulmccartneylookalike.com/but not him thats paulie:
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Jan 22, 2009 8:32:17 GMT -5
Sun King's fades are, at the risk of sounding a teensy bit vulgar, an absolute fucking joke. Even some PIDers could see that! He uses the most different angled photos, and at a different size, and then makes them too fast! And don't even get me started on those (god-awful) Pearl photos! He sharpened the Paul photos, and blurred the Pearl, in a vain and shockingly stupid attempt to make them match, and fool the loonies. You people...you think you're open-minded, but the only difference between you and people closed-minded towards PID, is the difference in opinion! Go on the MaccaFunHouse, tell me how many times you see KHAN or Diablo saying "Paul is obvously and definetley alive and the PIDers are just plain stupid and closed-minded"? Not a whole fucking lot. But here, it's a different story. You're more closed-minded then PIAers! I would consider PIA if any debunkable evidence was shown to me. But at MFH, they come up with VERY logical, and proven debunks for most of Sunny Boy's bollocks. Whereas here, and The King is Faked, your "debunking" goes a little something along the lines of "PID is faked...end of". No real proof whatsoever. Don't drink the fucking Kool-Aid, and if you need me i'll be at the MFH.
Peace Out, i guess.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Jan 22, 2009 9:07:04 GMT -5
OK bye!
At the risk of sounding vulgar and all that.....
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jan 22, 2009 9:17:03 GMT -5
Sun King's fades are, at the risk of sounding a teensy bit vulgar, an absolute joke Peace Out, i guess. Well, that mirror-image attempt should be tossed out. There very well may be others that are shoddy. This board is Paul was Replaced, so there is a difference between this forum and TKIN. That Pearl is Paul or Paul is Pearl proposition is right up there with Don Knotts, I think.
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jan 22, 2009 9:18:41 GMT -5
"he invented Faul to fool people." Then who's the guy pretending to be Paul? i dont know, that must be this guy: www.paulmccartneylookalike.com/but not him thats paulie: Pretty convincing similarity.
|
|
|
Post by P(D)enny La(i)ne on Jan 22, 2009 10:35:00 GMT -5
Pretty convincing similarity. Startlingly similar, actually. So much so that I wouldn't be shocked to find out that most of the bottom half of the early photo is shopped from the MMT photo. Aside from a teeny bit of shading, the expression of these two mouths are EXACTLY the same, right down to the shading below the lower lip. It's TOO exact.
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jan 22, 2009 11:07:37 GMT -5
Startlingly similar, actually. So much so that I wouldn't be shocked to find out that most of the bottom half of the early photo is shopped from the MMT photo. Aside from a teeny bit of shading, the expression of these two mouths are EXACTLY the same, right down to the shading below the lower lip. It's TOO exact. Yeah, you might be right there. Upon closer inspection/magnification, the top image is somewhat 'washed out' of detail, similar to the detail washing that was used on the first image JS2 posted. They are extremely similar, that's for sure.
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Jan 22, 2009 12:44:54 GMT -5
OK bye! At the risk of sounding vulgar and all that..... Yeah, i said bye, 'cause i reckon a ban is on the way for moi... If i'm not, i will certainly keep a low profile.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 22, 2009 15:00:42 GMT -5
"It's TOO exact." Well, we do know that they are not above tampering w/ photos to make the 2 men look more similar. Other pics of Faul from MMT really don't look like Paul:
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 22, 2009 15:49:27 GMT -5
Pretty convincing similarity. Startlingly similar, actually. So much so that I wouldn't be shocked to find out that most of the bottom half of the early photo is shopped from the MMT photo. Aside from a teeny bit of shading, the expression of these two mouths are EXACTLY the same, right down to the shading below the lower lip. It's TOO exact. how can it be TOO exact? you want paul dead? here are the photos in a different size: both are from PID mISS HIM forums. oh and the mouth is not same, there is a scar on MMT PAul (and there should be)
|
|
|
Post by P(D)enny La(i)ne on Jan 22, 2009 16:38:13 GMT -5
Startlingly similar, actually. So much so that I wouldn't be shocked to find out that most of the bottom half of the early photo is shopped from the MMT photo. Aside from a teeny bit of shading, the expression of these two mouths are EXACTLY the same, right down to the shading below the lower lip. It's TOO exact. how can it be TOO exact? you want paul dead? here are the photos in a different size: both are from PID mISS HIM forums. oh and the mouth is not same, there is a scar on MMT PAul (and there should be) Here's what I said: "the expression of these two mouths are EXACTLY the same" Meaning that the width and height of the mouth, as well as the openness of the mouth are the SAME. Further, the "smirk-factor" is the same (the left to right angle of descent), and the way the left corner (OUR left) is more pursed than the right. Finally, the shading under the lower lip is EXACTLY the same in both pics. As you pointed out, the scar is there in the MMT pic, but the ever-changing scar is worth a conversation on its own, and I'll point out that the "future" location of the scar in the "early" pic has a strange shine to it, as if it may have been shopped away. These two expressions, their angle from the camera, and the way in which the light is hitting them are startlingly similar. Early Mouth: MMT mouth: Do you really not see that these are almost exactly the same, and that the minor differences can be explained by manipulation?
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 22, 2009 16:55:28 GMT -5
This pic of Paul looks weird to me. Is it just me, or does it look like he was hit in the nose by a football?
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 22, 2009 17:06:15 GMT -5
that is what makes a good comparisons..
but PID logic is untouchable:
1. they look the same: doctored!
2. they look different: PID!
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Jan 22, 2009 17:25:47 GMT -5
that is what makes a good comparisons.. but PID logic is untouchable: 1. they look the same: doctored! 2. they look different: PID! I don't know, but it seems that it would be quite difficult to take two random pictures of someone where pretty much everything matches. e.g. the outline, the shading, the shape... The mouth area in the two pics really match up more than one would expect, I think.
|
|
|
Post by P(D)enny La(i)ne on Jan 22, 2009 17:31:22 GMT -5
that is what makes a good comparisons.. but PID logic is untouchable: 1. they look the same: doctored! 2. they look different: PID! If you'd lower your inner jerk long enough to digest what I've written, you'd understand that I'm comparing their mouths. Period. I'm not claiming Paul is dead. I'm not claiming Paul is alive. I'm not claiming that Paul is a Protestant elepahant kisser. I'm not claiming anything other than my belief that THESE TWO PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPHS appear to have the same mouth, albeit with a bit of touch-up work done to the early one to get rid of the scar. It's a very specific argument, and as such, can exist outside of your "dueling paradigm", PID/PIA existence. You, on the other hand, came barrelling into the room, complete with your anti-PID baggage, looking for a fight. Well, you're not going to get it from me beyond this point. I've posted the two cropped mouths and indicated why I believe there's a good possibility that they're from the same source. There's really not much else to say, other than THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I TRY TO NEVER GET INVOLVED WITH PHOTO COMPARISONS...
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 22, 2009 17:32:27 GMT -5
Well, obviously, Faul *looked* like Paul. That is the point of a double, isn't it? But just b/c he *looked* like him doesn't mean it was him. And anyway, I don't think that pic of MMT Faul really looks that much like Paul (the eyes are difft). I would not be surprised if it had been doctored, b/c they've been caught doctoring photos before. It's a possibility, I think, that should be borne in mind.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jan 22, 2009 18:54:22 GMT -5
OK bye! At the risk of sounding vulgar and all that..... Yeah, i said bye, 'cause i reckon a ban is on the way for moi... If i'm not, i will certainly keep a low profile. I almost missed this, as I got bored/burned out with Paul/Faul comparisons years ago.. I suppose it's fun to have one for old times sake, with the emphasis on OLD. Especially when someone feels they must bring up the SK fades, as if it was five years ago and that was still a hot topic.. It isn't. Don't assume you will be banned, but all the same there's no point in trying to redirect the forum back to.. Well, the argumentative tone that used to exist here.. We all grew tired of it.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 22, 2009 19:27:39 GMT -5
I'm surprised that noone mentioned the ears. The ears in the Paul pic are definitley larger than the ears of the man in the MMT pic. Their mouths might look similar, but I have found years ago that Faul has a larger, wider mouth than Paul had. P(D)enny, thank you for the two mouth comparison. As far as I can see, they're not exactly the same. Paul had a fuller lower lip, it was poutier. And NO I DON'T want Paul dead. That is a mean & hurtful thing to say. We are here to try to determine what exactly happened to Paul. If you don't believe that anything at all happened to him, WHY are you here ? JS2, JoJo is being very fair minded with you. I might not be so lenient if you keep mouthing off on my forum !
|
|