|
Post by KHAN on Aug 12, 2009 13:29:25 GMT -5
|
|
jilli
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 6
|
Post by jilli on Aug 12, 2009 13:38:00 GMT -5
good one Kahn, that first picture shows that its not Paul. the young Paul and the old Faul. the old Faul's nose is hooked, the nose pushes the mouth down lower then Paul's and the ears dont match. Paul's ears stick out more.
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 12, 2009 13:52:25 GMT -5
good one Kahn, that first picture shows that its not Paul. the young Paul and the old Faul. the old Faul's nose is hooked, the nose pushes the mouth down lower then Paul's and the ears dont match. Paul's ears stick out more. Soft tissue changes over the years. All changes are consistent with normal aging. cosmetic-makeovers.com/2008/05/09/the-aging-nose
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Aug 12, 2009 15:05:17 GMT -5
help me
|
|
|
Post by Wired you insulate on Aug 12, 2009 22:54:45 GMT -5
Nice KHAN job!
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Aug 13, 2009 2:12:27 GMT -5
<shrugs> The individuals quoted in the article -- Carlessi and Gavazzeni -- seem to be real people with genuine credentials. Is there any reason to suppose that they are not? And biometrics is -- or may be -- a valid science. The article says that Carlessi and Gavazzeni initially tried to debunk PID/PWR and found that they were unable to. They could have been drawn to or had their attention directed to Sun King's web page as an example of something to discredit. Sun King claimed to be 100% sure of his conclusions and declared that he had "proved" his underlying point. Carlessi and Gavazzeni stop short of that. And they don't get into the nonsense about Neil Aspinall assuming McCartney's role or Don Knotts assuming the role of Brian Epstein. I agree that if there is a science to this, more comparisons should be done and this analysis should be subjected to peer review. I agree that the opinions of two people fall far short of any sort of scientific consensus. But none of this is any reason to disregard this article entirely. Don't you find a little strange that they are declaring this article as "science" why using a totally streched photo for a forensic picture analysis? And that the source for the other comparisons is Sun Kings PID nonsense site? 65if2007, you have proven yourself to be someone with common sense, doesn't these facts ring an alarm sound or something? Sorry, for the bad english..
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Aug 13, 2009 4:16:58 GMT -5
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Aug 13, 2009 9:08:23 GMT -5
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. ....when you realize that Sir Paul really DID write all of his songs.
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 13, 2009 15:25:16 GMT -5
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. There shan't.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 13, 2009 21:40:12 GMT -5
Just for fun, here are a few actually shot at a similar angle. Ya, you have to be very careful which pics you use for these slick fade-jobs, don't you....
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 13, 2009 22:36:32 GMT -5
Just for fun, here are a few actually shot at a similar angle. Ya, you have to be very careful which pics you use for these slick fade-jobs, don't you.... Yeah, you wouldn't want to use these two: Paul had a noticeably smaller head than Faul when their bodies are scaled to the same height. Pro tip: When doing PIA fades, never show the full bodies so you can play games with the relative scales. Else you might see something like this:
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 14, 2009 1:43:40 GMT -5
Well first, you should show that Paul and Paul, and Faul and Faul match up, to show how easy a body fade should be. I can probably grab two head to toe pics of anyone, and chances are, you'll get something that looks like that. It's just a simple example of perspective distortion. When looking up at something, it seems to get smaller the further from you it gets, like looking up at a building. /\ But when looking down on something, the opposite happens. \/ When pics are taken from a better angle, you get something like this: img190.imageshack.us/img190/4606/bodycomp.gif
|
|
|
Post by SS on Aug 14, 2009 2:14:26 GMT -5
That's what she said
Sorry ;D
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Aug 14, 2009 7:50:36 GMT -5
Well first, you should show that Paul and Paul, and Faul and Faul match up, to show how easy a body fade should be. I can probably grab two head to toe pics of anyone, and chances are, you'll get something that looks like that. It's just a simple example of perspective distortion. When looking up at something, it seems to get smaller the further from you it gets, like looking up at a building. /\ But when looking down on something, the opposite happens. \/ When pics are taken from a better angle, you get something like this: img190.imageshack.us/img190/4606/bodycomp.gifHey, don't spoil revolver's party with logic! Don't you know ignorance is bliss?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Aug 14, 2009 10:23:03 GMT -5
So Jude, are you now 100% PIA? I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that.
A couple of weeks ago, I seem to recall your saying that you "leaned" PIA. I agreed that I "leaned" the same way.
But I'm not certain. You seem to be certain now.
Again, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that. But then what should we do with all of those old "rockxlight" videos?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Aug 14, 2009 10:27:19 GMT -5
Really, I'm getting tired of a representative from one side showing a fade or a comparison that works in one direction and then a representative from the other side showing a fade or comparison that works in the opposite direction.
Everyone should realize by now that each side has its favorite and that each side's favorites essentially cancel each other out.
That's why the idea of objective forensic analysis appeals to me. The WIRED article interests me, and it would have interested me if the individuals cited had come to a conclusion completely opposite from the conclusion that they did come to.
But those who are not expert at this sort of thing are spinning their wheels in posing as experts.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Aug 14, 2009 10:44:53 GMT -5
<shrugs> The individuals quoted in the article -- Carlessi and Gavazzeni -- seem to be real people with genuine credentials. Is there any reason to suppose that they are not? And biometrics is -- or may be -- a valid science. The article says that Carlessi and Gavazzeni initially tried to debunk PID/PWR and found that they were unable to. They could have been drawn to or had their attention directed to Sun King's web page as an example of something to discredit. Sun King claimed to be 100% sure of his conclusions and declared that he had "proved" his underlying point. Carlessi and Gavazzeni stop short of that. And they don't get into the nonsense about Neil Aspinall assuming McCartney's role or Don Knotts assuming the role of Brian Epstein. I agree that if there is a science to this, more comparisons should be done and this analysis should be subjected to peer review. I agree that the opinions of two people fall far short of any sort of scientific consensus. But none of this is any reason to disregard this article entirely. Don't you find a little strange that they are declaring this article as "science" why using a totally streched photo for a forensic picture analysis? And that the source for the other comparisons is Sun Kings PID nonsense site? 65if2007, you have proven yourself to be someone with common sense, doesn't these facts ring an alarm sound or something? Sorry, for the bad english.. Hello, Nick. Thank you for the compliment. Your English is fine. I know nothing about biometrics. I don't even know if it's a legitimate science, though the U.S. government believes in it. That's not determinative, I know. Given that I know nothing about biometrics, I'm not likely to presume to know how to use it to determine if A and B are the same individual. All that I can do is to make the same lay guesses that a non-expert would make. So I can't tell you what photos should and shouldn't be used for comparison purposes. Years ago, both of us would have probably been bemused at the notion that miniscule amounts of genetic matter could legitimately be used for identification purposes and/or to solve crimes. So if there is a legitimate science called "biometrics" and if there are legitimate experts in this science, I'm not likely to tell them how to do their jobs. Whoever it was on this bulletin board that found the similarities/connections between the Italian WIRED article and Sun King's website did a good job. I see three legitimate possibilities stemming from that: 1) The WIRED article is a joke of some sort. 2) The author of the WIRED article and/or the "experts" in forensic identification that the author cites are in league with Sun King somehow. Either way, the information contained in the WIRED article truly is worthless. But then there's also a third legitimate possibility: 3) which, as I said, is that the experts cited in the article are legitimate forensic identification experts with no connection to Sun King but they were drawn to the Sun King website as containing pseudo-scientific PID nonsense ripe for debunking...and found that they couldn't debunk it and that for all of Sun King's nonsense, he'd stumbled onto a kernel of truth. So the suspicions expressed by you and others about the WIRED article are well-taken, but I'm not yet willing to disregard the article.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 14, 2009 11:01:13 GMT -5
That's why the idea of objective forensic analysis appeals to me. The WIRED article interests me, and it would have interested me if the individuals cited had come to a conclusions completely opposite from the conclusion that they did come to. Objective? They used pics from SK's site. If this article is as serious as the PIDers take it to be, shouldn't this have gotten big by now? Actually eyesbleed, we've made fades out of pics used as evidence for your argument countless times. In fact, a few of SK's old fades actually work as PIA fades when scaled correctly.
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 14, 2009 11:22:48 GMT -5
Yeah, you wouldn't want to use these two:
Correct. You wouldn't logically use those. When one pic has the head tilted up enough to see under the nostrils, and the other the head is tilted down enough so you can't see the nostrils at all, a comparison is useless. But you pointed that out already. The Fiddy Cent at the top of the page shows that the head and body are scaled the same. And eyesbleed. Yes you do want to pick the photos carefully. It's a time consuming process to find pics that are several to many years apart, and yet from very silmar distance and angles. You make that sound like it's disingenuous. But it's really just good research.
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 14, 2009 11:52:38 GMT -5
They do however look to be a pretty good comp to show Paul's bow legged stance and overall body size and shape.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Aug 14, 2009 12:03:29 GMT -5
That's why the idea of objective forensic analysis appeals to me. The WIRED article interests me, and it would have interested me if the individuals cited had come to a conclusions completely opposite from the conclusion that they did come to. Objective? They used pics from SK's site. You know what? I've responded to that twice already. I really don't feel like repeating myself again. I have no idea of why some stories grow big and others don't. I doubt very much that it has anything to do with the sensibilities of those who make that determination.
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 14, 2009 14:40:47 GMT -5
I have no idea of why some stories grow big and others don't. Because some stories are based on actual events. Others? Not so much.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Aug 14, 2009 17:42:09 GMT -5
I have no idea of why some stories grow big and others don't. Because some stories are based on actual events. Others? Not so much. Oh, for crying out loud, that has very little to do with whether or not a story is regarded as important enough or substantial enough to become mainstream news. There are important stories that are substantively based that are entirely disregarded by mainstream news media and there are trivial matters that that become headline material.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 14, 2009 20:37:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 14, 2009 20:55:06 GMT -5
Hey, don't spoil revolver's party with logic! Don't you know ignorance is bliss? What is this "ignorance is bliss" bullshit Jude?? So are you saying that everybody here & other forums who can clearly see 2 distictly different men are ignorant? ...And your post was somehow smart?? If you want to go join up with the JPM-never-ever-even-had-a-temporary-replacement-crew... go for it, but you better keep your goddamn insults to yourself.
|
|