|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 23, 2009 17:51:16 GMT -5
Any thoughts on this cover pic? "Paul" is too short to be Bill here. The height is more in line with JPM, not Bill. Don't have time to actually read the article so somebody else can elaborate on that.  |
|
|
|
Post by B on Aug 23, 2009 18:36:31 GMT -5
I disagree. I think that "Paul" is tall enough to be Bill/Faul on that cover.
In any case, there may have been some computer graphics work involved in creating that cover anyway.
I believe I have that issue in my collection at home, so I'll look for it when I have a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 23, 2009 18:42:14 GMT -5
It looks like they photoshopped the other Beatles to make them bigger or make Faul appear smaller, take your pic. Perhaps the original pic:  See how John suddenly appears smaller. |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 23, 2009 19:15:25 GMT -5
Good points guys. Fudge the height issue... of course. This was messing with my tired head.  |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 23, 2009 19:19:25 GMT -5
Well it was a good way to show how they're doctoring pics. There was no reason to change that original photo save closing the gap between George and Faul.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 23, 2009 19:54:52 GMT -5
Haven't gotten it in the mail yet. Cool, a new Matt Taibbi Article!
About the contents, will be interesting to see how close it is to the stories we've heard before.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 23, 2009 20:38:43 GMT -5
Well it was a good way to show how they're doctoring pics. There was no reason to change that original photo save closing the gap between George and Faul. The forehead & space between the eyes sez Bill, but the height thing suggests JPM.... good pic, I wasn't familiar with the original. |
|
