JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Jan 30, 2009 15:09:06 GMT -5
First off, this is not a "See, he's live" Type of thing. It just shows that the forehead difference isn't as big as some people think. These pics were posted by Mommybird, and all i did was resize them so they were similar (with aspect ratio maintained, just check GIMP, that's how it does things) and crop them. First, the pics, cropped but otherwise untouched. Now, with measuring lines added. What's that you say? Not accurately sized? See here. I added the eye from one to the other, to show that it's the same size as the other. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by FP on Jan 30, 2009 16:26:52 GMT -5
Even though the eye looks the same size, it has to be scaled by both eyes so the overall proportions are correct. But even when they are, you have to be sure the vertical angle of the pics are close enough. The vertical angle is the key to accurately matching up forehead height, nose length, jawline, and ear placement. Just try looking up and down in the mirror. I remember a while ago I matched up that early Paul pic with the cover of his McCartney album. Different lighting, but the same angle.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 30, 2009 17:17:23 GMT -5
That IS the same guy, try using a picture of "Bill" , js2.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Jan 30, 2009 18:32:37 GMT -5
Err.. I think you'll find that a leaning forward JPM against a leaning back Faul will create that apparent illusion. Not that photo evidence has ever been my issue, because it's so easily altered or certain pics can back up one point and not another. I guess I'm saying that photos can be hypocritical!
My other point (not that I think it will make an ounce of difference) is, why did you swap the photos around?
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Jan 31, 2009 10:46:47 GMT -5
The only reason I appear to have "swapped them around" is because that's the order I did them in. Coincidence. And I used those because MB used those as a forehead comp.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 31, 2009 11:56:30 GMT -5
A member of my forum is working on this right now. I will have something to post here shortly. Looking at those two photos I still see Paul with the smaller face, forehead, and head compared to Faul with the larger face, forehead & head. And their noses are different. < shrugs>
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 31, 2009 13:06:48 GMT -5
Great comparison JS2. Really convincing.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 31, 2009 13:42:17 GMT -5
It's not just about the forehead. Faul has a longer, narrower face than Paul's round face. At least *this* Faul has :-o Is there really, honestly any way to mistake these 2 for being the same person?
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Jan 31, 2009 14:57:14 GMT -5
Am not arguing PID! This is just to show that the forehead height disparity is not as large as one may think, so stop with the comparisons and such.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Jan 31, 2009 16:24:56 GMT -5
That IS the same guy, try using a picture of "Bill" , js2. Yikes. If the man in both photos is Paul, then who is Bill? Or are you saying in a roundabout way that PIA?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 31, 2009 17:34:46 GMT -5
Is there really, honestly any way to mistake these 2 for being the same person? It's not so crystal clear. Photography can play tricks with images. Even aside from that, I think that one or more events happened between the last concert in August 1966 and the public resurfacing of the Beatles in late 1966 and early 1967 which either "changed" the physical appearance of James Paul McCartney or led to a temporary substitution. But regardless of whether "Paul 1966" and "Faul 1967" are the same person, these two people are the same person: Same face. Yes, the older man has an idiot mullet haircut and an older face that is also marred by the physical effects of drug abuse. But it's the same face. Same basic features. Same right ear and no difference between "attached" and "detached" earlobes. More crucial, the two men have the exact same unique set of front teeth. There's no way that one human being could be given a set of teeth to match another human being, and I'm not interested in hearing about MI6 gnomes that are running around retouching old photographs. The younger man from 1964 may or may not have been temporarily replaced by a "Faul" or a "Bill" in late 1966/early 1967. If he was temporarily replaced or replaced for some purposes, these were probably limited to certain publicity photos and public appearances. It is doubtful that he was ever replaced as a musical talent. But he obviously didn't die in 1966 from an automobile accident or from murder or from anything else because in the 1970's, he eventually became this dorky guy with the mullet.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Jan 31, 2009 18:08:17 GMT -5
Actually, they're not the same teeth. See if you can spot where.
(many sets look very close to one another - at least without a detailed look. We have the same incisors, cuspids, bicuspids and all that)
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 31, 2009 18:18:28 GMT -5
"Photography can play tricks with images." Those are just screenshots from interviews on youtube. No fancy photography involved. Just straight-up head-on shot showing it's not the same guy.
"These two people are the same person:" I have to disagree. They don't look like the same person at all.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 31, 2009 18:35:01 GMT -5
Actually, they're not the same teeth. See if you can spot where. I give up. They look the same to me. Here, however, in both pictures, we have numbers 3 and 4 on the subject's right hand side (left-hand side from the perspective of anyone looking at the photo) somewhat out of place and coming together to make a "V" shape. And Number 2 from the right-hand side is receding behind numbers 1 and 3. Looks like a unique set of front teeth to me.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 31, 2009 18:43:19 GMT -5
"Photography can play tricks with images." Those are just screenshots from interviews on youtube. No fancy photography involved. Just straight-up head-on shot showing it's not the same guy. I didn't say that there was any "fancy photography" involved. I just said that the camera can play tricks. I decline to express a firm opinion on whether "Paul 1966" and "Faul 1967" are the same guy. I don't have one. I'm just saying that Paul never died and that if there was a "Faul", his involvement was minor and his presence as a replacement was only temporary. The earlier one was taken in 1964. The more recent one was taken no earlier than 1972. Add a mullet and 8+ years of aging and drug use and you have a match. The teeth are certainly the same. I used to be more firmly planted on the fence than I am now, but the teeth cinched it for me. Every picture that I have ever seen that was taken of Paul McCartney in which his front teeth are visible -- regardless of when it was taken -- shows the same set of front teeth.
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 31, 2009 19:48:05 GMT -5
Actually, they're not the same teeth. See if you can spot where. (many sets look very close to one another - at least without a detailed look. We have the same incisors, cuspids, bicuspids and all that) I give up too. What are we spotting Ramone??
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 31, 2009 19:58:27 GMT -5
"I'm just saying that Paul never died and that if there was a "Faul", his involvement was minor and his presence as a replacement was only temporary."
That's your opinion, but not something you can know for sure. Personally, I have never seen a pic of Paul post 1966. Aug 1966 to be precise.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 31, 2009 20:11:39 GMT -5
"I'm just saying that Paul never died and that if there was a "Faul", his involvement was minor and his presence as a replacement was only temporary." That's your opinion, but not something you can know for sure. Personally, I have never seen a pic of Paul post 1966. Aug 1966 to be precise. Actually, I'm confident that you have seen many of them and that you just don't believe it or want to acknowledge it. I guess that in the absence of real hard evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, you can call it a matter of "opinion" and simply say that we have differing opinions, but the tie doesn't go to the one with the more unusual claim. Every time we can see McCartney's front row of teeth in any picture taken during the 1960's or 1970's, the teeth look the same, though he's since lost some teeth in his senior years. How do you explain the similarity between the front row of teeth?
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 31, 2009 21:02:06 GMT -5
Actually, I'm confident that you have seen many of them and that you just don't believe it or want to acknowledge it. No, sorry, I've seen thru the veil. I used to think they were the same person b/c I was conditioned to, but not anymore. It's really obvious to me that they're not the same.
I guess that in the absence of real hard evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, you can call it a matter of "opinion" and simply say that we have differing opinions, but the tie doesn't go to the one with the more unusual claim. Oh, I love how people who really know nothing about the law of evidence try to argue that photos are somehow not good evidence. Yeah, it'd be great to have fingerprints or DNA, but that's not available, so I guess photos will have to do. And the photos show different people.
Every time we can see McCartney's front row of teeth in any picture taken during the 1960's or 1970's, the teeth look the same, though he's since lost some teeth in his senior years.
How do you explain the similarity between the front row of teeth? Teeth are easy to fix. How do you explain the difference in the shapes of their heads & how their faces look?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 31, 2009 21:44:04 GMT -5
Actually, I'm confident that you have seen many of them and that you just don't believe it or want to acknowledge it.No, sorry, I've seen thru the veil. I used to think they were the same person b/c I was conditioned to, but not anymore. It's really obvious to me that they're not the same. I guess that in the absence of real hard evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, you can call it a matter of "opinion" and simply say that we have differing opinions, but the tie doesn't go to the one with the more unusual claim.Oh, I love how people who really know nothing about the law of evidence try to argue that photos are somehow not good evidence. Yeah, it'd be great to have fingerprints or DNA, but that's not available, so I guess photos will have to do. And the photos show different people. Actually, I've been a member of the bar for a good number of years and have tried a number of cases and written a number of briefs on evidentiary issues. I guess that my knowledge of the "law of evidence" is pretty fair and probably at least as good as yours. I didn't say that photographs weren't "good evidence". I said that they weren't "hard evidence" in the same sense that fingerprints and DNA were -- though even fingerprint science and DNA science have been subjected to legal challenges. I didn't say that photographs weren't good evidence but for something like this, there is clearly a lot of room for subjective interpretation and a lot of potential for distortions. Notwithstanding any possible distortions, I'm confident that the two photos that I showed of a young man from 1964 and an older man in the 1970's with a mullet haircut are photos of the same man -- and as you indicate, only a naif would suggest that these photos are not "good evidence". I'm an attorney, however, not a forensic pathologist. I'm not competent to render a professional opinion based on photo comparisons. Unless you're a forensic pathologist, you're not also not competent to render a professional opinion based on photo comparisons. So, once again, you can say that we have a "tie", if you like, but once again, the "tie" doesn't go to the one with the unusual claim. As far as I know, no forensic pathologist, let alone a RESPECTED forensic pathologist, has suggested that there is photographic proof of two different Paul McCartneys. Until you can produce an opinion from such a person, you're still stuck at square one. I'm willing to allow for the possibility that the two photos that have been labeled as "1966 Paul" and "1967 Faul" may (or may not) have been two different people. I've acknowledged that there may have been a temporary and/or limited substitution in some instances or for a brief period of time during that time period. But as for your argument that Paul hasn't been seen since August 1966... In the two photographs that I've submitted (McCartney 1964 and McCartney with a mullet from the 1970's), I see no differences in the shape of their heads or in how their faces look, other than those that would have been produced by age and lifestyle. And I don't believe for one minute that "teeth are easy to fix". I have never never never in my life heard of one person being given a set of teeth identical to someone else's as a means of disguise. Never! How could such a thing be done? What proof do have that it HAS been done? What proof do you have that "teeth are easy to fix"?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 31, 2009 21:50:38 GMT -5
The teeth are similar. But as you can fix teeth to make them straight, you can also fix them to be crooked...and to go to the degree of plastic surgery on the face, it wouldn't make any sense to not do the same with the teeth.
I also think there are differences in the teeth which I have noticed. One is that Paul's front incisors are narrower than Faul's for one. And as trutha said, there are differences in the shape of the head and the face, etc. which requires logical explanation.
Anyway, you should know by now you are wasting your time with this group. We are more confident now of this replacement than we were several years ago when the MFH group tried their best to convince us otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 31, 2009 22:09:14 GMT -5
Darkhorse wrote: Anyway, you should know by now you are wasting your time with this group. We are more confident now of this replacement than we were several years ago when the MFH group tried their best to convince us otherwise.
This is very true. Which is why I am not engaging 65if2007 on this. We're both obviously on different sides of the fence & I don't have the energy to waste on this argument.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Jan 31, 2009 22:14:00 GMT -5
The teeth are similar. But as you can fix teeth to make them straight, you can also fix them to be crooked...and to go to the degree of plastic surgery on the face, it wouldn't make any sense to not do the same with the teeth. I have never heard of such a thing, and I suspect that, in fact, you CAN'T do that. Nor do I see the motive in doing so. Beatlemania may have been rampant in 1966, but the world-wide web wasn't and there were not so many photographs of Paul McCartney available for comparison. Assuming that such a thing is possible and was possible in 1966, there would still be no perceived need for fixing someone's teeth to be crooked. Is it really likely that teeny boppers in that era without access to Google Images would have otherwise said, "Hey, wait a minute, that can't be Paul. That man's teeth are too straight"? At this point, the discussion reaches a level where if such things could be taken seriously, we really WOULD be living in a world where "nothing was real". If you're getting around to measuring the width of someone's incisors, I suspect that you could take a photograph of Barack Obama on Election Night 2008 and compare with one taken today and find differences akin to something like that. As far as I'm concerned, there are no such differences in the photographs that I've submitted. I don't think that you're speaking for everybody, but at any rate, I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I never try to do that. However, I guess that my mind has remained open because my position has evolved from middle-of-the-road to PIA/PWNR -- with the caveat that there may have been an unannounced substitution for certain purposes during the Pepper years -- though I doubt that there was ever a creative substitution. And I think that it's incumbent upon me to show how it is that my position has evolved.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Jan 31, 2009 23:06:03 GMT -5
"Unless you're a forensic pathologist, you're not also not competent to render a professional opinion based on photo comparisons." I'm really quite confident in my ability to tell the difference between these 2 people: ^ I don't think you have to be a forensic pathologist to tell the difference. And as you are aware, ordinary folks are competent to pick suspects out of line-ups & photo ID arrays. So, you are insinuating that you have to be an expert to recognize a face, which is not a legal requirement. I hope no one is suggesting that lay people are incompetent to testify as to their impression of appearance. "I have never heard of such a thing, and I suspect that, in fact, you CAN'T do that." You've never heard that people can have their teeth changed? Really? You should look into spycraft - how they disguise themselves. Changing teeth is relatively easy. The motive would be to make Faul look more like Paul. "As far as I'm concerned, there are no such differences in the photographs that I've submitted." They are obvious to us. We have spent a lot of time looking at pictures of Paul & Faul. We have trained our eyes to notice such differences.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 1, 2009 0:30:42 GMT -5
If you're gonna make a Paul vs. Faul comparison, why use a big blurry still where the side of his mouth is blocked, from after the Beatles broke up? If the differences are so different, why not try to show it when all the variables are as close as possible? Like the Penny Lane photographs from Valis: Now that would make a much more accurate comparison. And I'm not trying to take any sides.
|
|