|
Post by lilyknows on Mar 7, 2011 3:03:59 GMT -5
Thinking of one of GN's Do you really need biometrics for this one? Looks like his ears are almost stapled to his head relative to JPM's. Do you really think if someone had no idea who Paul M was, and they were shown these pics - that they wouldn't think these were different people - just based on ears? I mean if you said they'd be given 10 grand for their best one guess evaluation - the $'s riding on it.... (and yup, there's a reason I picked age difference pics) you should never trust GN comps. that is the reason why a biometric analysis of photos taken from PID-sites will always show that there are "two" people. because they strech and squish'em like hel...
|
|
|
Post by Jai Guru Deva on Mar 7, 2011 11:57:08 GMT -5
that is the reason why a biometric analysis of photos taken from PID-sites will always show that there are "two" people. because they strech and squish'em like hel... Wow, that's some assertation there Lily... www.youtube.com/watch?I believe Il Ras needed some photos...
|
|
|
Post by obladiblada on Mar 7, 2011 12:06:32 GMT -5
I really see two different guys. One have a long face and a long chin, have eyes closer, the other have round head, small chin, smaller nose etc… in the session there are some photos with “Paul round-head” and others with “Paul long-head”. I don’t believe it depend on the light but by the fact that the whole session is a clue: they wanted people to look better and to notice what was happening. But what we see seems to be a subjective thing. Well.. I don’t know if those picture can serve, the quality is not excellent. But if an expert could examine the photo session would lead to interesting conclusions .. Obviously if I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Mar 7, 2011 12:09:48 GMT -5
(that's why I put in this too - just as an additional - this seems about 'normal') Same deal really - 10 grand hanging in the balance!....
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Mar 7, 2011 12:38:56 GMT -5
Thinking of one of GN's Do you really need biometrics for this one? Looks like his ears are almost stapled to his head relative to JPM's. Do you really think if someone had no idea who Paul M was, and they were shown these pics - that they wouldn't think these were different people - just based on ears? I mean if you said they'd be given 10 grand for their best one guess evaluation - the $'s riding on it.... (and yup, there's a reason I picked age difference pics) you should never trust GN comps. that is the reason why a biometric analysis of photos taken from PID-sites will always show that there are "two" people. because they strech and squish'em like hel... First of all, you can't paint any particular source with such a broad stroke as to dismiss (or accept for that matter) everything. But, c'mon, if you look at the large JPM pic and your small 'original' below, you see no difference? (you as a generalization) Did that adjustment make those ears on 'faul' become carbon copies of the ears on the large JPM pic? (as should be if it truly is the same (carbon copy) person) If they're not carbon copies - why aren't they? If you see a mushroom growing on a tree trunk - over time that shroom will continue to grow outward. It's size and shape become more pronounced. Ears are one of the few things that can be seen as growing with age. If anything, Paul's ears 'sticking out' should be MORE pronounced with age. And yet some how, thru fanciful thinking, it's supposed the ears have decided on their own to grow the other way. I've seen many men grow into their older years, and i've seen earlobes grow, other parts do the same, but I've never seen an ear do what's, in a sense, being proposed here. -that everything's happening in the opposite direction - by I guess some as yet unknown physical/biological phenomena.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 9, 2011 12:36:09 GMT -5
Thinking of one of GN's Do you really need biometrics for this one? Looks like his ears are almost stapled to his head relative to JPM's. Do you really think if someone had no idea who Paul M was, and they were shown these pics - that they wouldn't think these were different people - just based on ears? I mean if you said they'd be given 10 grand for their best one guess evaluation - the $'s riding on it.... (and yup, there's a reason I picked age difference pics) you should never trust GN comps. that is the reason why a biometric analysis of photos taken from PID-sites will always show that there are "two" people. because they strech and squish'em like hel... My very limited understanding of biometrics is that differences in photographic quality, perspective, editing, etc. are taken into account when making comparisons and that if the biometric analyst can't eliminate such factors, he will discard the photographs in question as irrelevant to a biometric analysis.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 9, 2011 12:45:05 GMT -5
you should never trust GN comps. that is the reason why a biometric analysis of photos taken from PID-sites will always show that there are "two" people. because they strech and squish'em like hel... First of all, you can't paint any particular source with such a broad stroke as to dismiss (or accept for that matter) everything. But, c'mon, if you look at the large JPM pic and your small 'original' below, you see no difference? (you as a generalization) Did that adjustment make those ears on 'faul' become carbon copies of the ears on the large JPM pic? (as should be if it truly is the same (carbon copy) person) If they're not carbon copies - why aren't they? If you see a mushroom growing on a tree trunk - over time that shroom will continue to grow outward. It's size and shape become more pronounced. Ears are one of the few things that can be seen as growing with age. If anything, Paul's ears 'sticking out' should be MORE pronounced with age. And yet some how, thru fanciful thinking, it's supposed the ears have decided on their own to grow the other way. I've seen many men grow into their older years, and i've seen earlobes grow, other parts do the same, but I've never seen an ear do what's, in a sense, being proposed here. -that everything's happening in the opposite direction - by I guess some as yet unknown physical/biological phenomena. However, ears sticking too far away from one's head is a phenomena that can be corrected through surgery. It's called "otoplasty". www.ehow.com/about_6620058_surgery-pinning-ears-back.htmlJust to confuse the issue more, one of the best "proofs" of the possibility of a replacement -- certainly from a dramatic standpoint -- is the Iamaphoney feature, Rotten Apple 30. I'm too lazy right now to use Microsoft Paint to post freeze-frame images. But what happens is that while a sinister reversed version of "Strawberry Fields" is playing in the background, the camera flashes back and forth between the happy-go-lucky boyish JPM of late August 1966 and a more sinister somber older-acting McCartney of late December 1966. At the very least, they could be taken for two different individuals -- it's in the eye of the beholder whether they really are. And the December 1966 "replacement", if that's what he is, has ears protruding away from his head. If anything, they seem to be further away from the head than are the ears of the August 1966 "original".
|
|
|
Post by P(D)enny La(i)ne on Mar 9, 2011 13:44:10 GMT -5
First of all, you can't paint any particular source with such a broad stroke as to dismiss (or accept for that matter) everything. But, c'mon, if you look at the large JPM pic and your small 'original' below, you see no difference? (you as a generalization) Did that adjustment make those ears on 'faul' become carbon copies of the ears on the large JPM pic? (as should be if it truly is the same (carbon copy) person) If they're not carbon copies - why aren't they? If you see a mushroom growing on a tree trunk - over time that shroom will continue to grow outward. It's size and shape become more pronounced. Ears are one of the few things that can be seen as growing with age. If anything, Paul's ears 'sticking out' should be MORE pronounced with age. And yet some how, thru fanciful thinking, it's supposed the ears have decided on their own to grow the other way. I've seen many men grow into their older years, and i've seen earlobes grow, other parts do the same, but I've never seen an ear do what's, in a sense, being proposed here. -that everything's happening in the opposite direction - by I guess some as yet unknown physical/biological phenomena. However, ears sticking too far away from one's head is a phenomena that can be corrected through surgery. It's called "otoplasty". www.ehow.com/about_6620058_surgery-pinning-ears-back.htmlJust to confuse the issue more, one of the best "proofs" of the possibility of a replacement -- certainly from a dramatic standpoint -- is the Iamaphoney feature, Rotten Apple 30. I'm too lazy right now to use Microsoft Paint to post freeze-frame images. But what happens is that while a sinister reversed version of "Strawberry Fields" is playing in the background, the camera flashes back and forth between the happy-go-lucky boyish JPM of late August 1966 and a more sinister somber older-acting McCartney of late December 1966. At the very least, they could be taken for two different individuals -- it's in the eye of the beholder whether they really are. And the December 1966 "replacement", if that's what he is, has ears protruding away from his head. If anything, they seem to be further away from the head than are the ears of the August 1966 "original". Here you go.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Mar 9, 2011 15:50:22 GMT -5
As far as making ears wider - as in above pic - well, that's probably fairly easy. i mean hey, if we're discussing replacements - once in that realm we may as well consider that it's not out of the question. (otherwise let's all shift to the bowling forum) (Spock looked pretty good in the 60s)
And as far as going in the other direction, I'm well aware there's an operation for that. But is there any proof or evidence it was done? JPM was doing just fine and dandy - girls galore, talent, money etc etc Why go thru that hassle?
I just happened to catch a show where this girl got all sorts of work done (incl ears brought in) Asked if she regretted anything she's done - immediately she said the ears. She said if anyone had told her in advance just how bad it would be she wouldn't have done it. No way. She said they pretty much cut your ear off. The pain had been terrible.
Gotta wonder if JPM would go thru THAT 'having it all' anyway. He was doing fine as is.
Now to say Faul got it done - well, again, what's the motivation? If he had ears sticking out in the first place that would be (as M. Python line said) 'an absolute boon!' He's TRYING to look like JPM. Why mess with something that's about 'there' look wise anyway?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 9, 2011 20:49:20 GMT -5
Now to say Faul got it done - well, again, what's the motivation? If he had ears sticking out in the first place that would be (as M. Python line said) 'an absolute boon!' He's TRYING to look like JPM. Why mess with something that's about 'there' look wise anyway? Exactly. You're assuming the point that you want to prove -- i.e., that JPM was replaced by a "Faul". On the one hand, you say that there are two different men -- and as proof, you point to the ears unattached to the head in the earlier version and the ears attached to the head in the later version. Then, I point out 1) that surgery could account for the difference and 2) that the ears are still unattached to the head in an early pic of "Faul", which pretty much negates your argument that two different sets of ears are proof of two different men. And you responded by asking rhetorically why "Faul" would have chosen to have surgery to attach the ears to the head. Why would he indeed? The whole issue in the first place is whether there is a "Faul" to begin with. If JPM was replaced by a "Faul" whose principal motivation would have been to look as much like JPM as possible, then Faul wouldn't have had that surgery. The fact that the ears are unattached in an early photo of "Faul" and attached in a later photo of "Faul" is an argument against the notion of the existence of a "Faul" trying to impersonate JPM in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Mar 9, 2011 22:37:27 GMT -5
"Exactly. You're assuming the point that you want to prove -- i.e., that JPM was replaced by a "Faul"."
Of course - making a hypothesis and then seeing how available evidence weighs in.
Are you referring to the pics PD La. posted in #32?
ps, I never followed up - do you still have the briefcase and contents from that road trip? just wondering that was kind of fun waiting for your report
|
|
|
Post by spiritchaser21 on Mar 9, 2011 23:20:01 GMT -5
I'm feeling that whether the ears are attached or not to his head is an irrelevant point. It's something that's easily done with a little bit of surgery (sure it's painful, but it's not hard to do at all). Instead of focusing on something that can be so easily modified, what should be looked at are the parts of a person's anatomy that can't be so easily changed. You can change a person's facial structure to some extent, but that is exponentially more difficult than changing how someone's ears look, or giving them a nose job. Skeletal features are more likely to be different between the two, as they are the hardest to change.
I also feel, back to the subject of the difference in ears, was that the plan was not for Faul to look exactly like Paul for the rest of his life. I think that immediately after the change was when it was most crucial for them to look the most alike- bridging the gap, so to say. Then, as time passed and people got more used to the new 'Paul', and their memory of the original Paul got fuzzier, he could change things around slightly, to make things easier for him.
Looking at recent pictures, and especially videos, it seems at times that Faul is just phoning it in. I saw some video, can't remember which one, but his accent seemed very off. It must be hard being a man almost in his 70s, trying to take the place of a person when your last point of reference was him in his 20s. It almost seems easier to generally keep things the same, but try and make it your own as well.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 10, 2011 1:40:43 GMT -5
"Exactly. You're assuming the point that you want to prove -- i.e., that JPM was replaced by a "Faul"." Of course - making a hypothesis and then seeing how available evidence weighs in. Are you referring to the pics PD La. posted in #32? Well, I was referring to the footage from that video and PD Laine was kind enough to do what I was too lazy to do and provide stills from that video. Actually, it's only been a couple of weeks since I actually learned how to freeze a video and copy and paste the still image. Thank you. I had fun doing it -- more or less -- and it's still sometimes fun to go back to three years ago and read my dispatches. And as far as the briefcase and the contents go, yes, I still have all that *&%#. God knows why. My common sense tell me that it's absolutely worthless. Then again, people who know of my interest in PID think that I abandoned my common sense a long time ago. And I suppose that there's a one in a million chance that my common sense is wrong and that I really do have something of value and that I would regret it as soon as I threw it all away so I tell myself that I'm just keeping relics of the great adventure. I have everything except the Magic Christian LP, which I later sent to JoJo.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 10, 2011 1:46:31 GMT -5
I'm feeling that whether the ears are attached or not to his head is an irrelevant point. It's something that's easily done with a little bit of surgery (sure it's painful, but it's not hard to do at all). Instead of focusing on something that can be so easily modified, what should be looked at are the parts of a person's anatomy that can't be so easily changed. You can change a person's facial structure to some extent, but that is exponentially more difficult than changing how someone's ears look, or giving them a nose job. Skeletal features are more likely to be different between the two, as they are the hardest to change. I also feel, back to the subject of the difference in ears, was that the plan was not for Faul to look exactly like Paul for the rest of his life. I think that immediately after the change was when it was most crucial for them to look the most alike- bridging the gap, so to say. Then, as time passed and people got more used to the new 'Paul', and their memory of the original Paul got fuzzier, he could change things around slightly, to make things easier for him. Looking at recent pictures, and especially videos, it seems at times that Faul is just phoning it in. I saw some video, can't remember which one, but his accent seemed very off. It must be hard being a man almost in his 70s, trying to take the place of a person when your last point of reference was him in his 20s. It almost seems easier to generally keep things the same, but try and make it your own as well. Interesting that you would say that spiritchaser. To my eye, senior citizen Paul McCartney looks like a pretty good - uh - replica of an older version of the younger JPM. It's the EARLY post-autumn-1966 pictures -- including the footage from Rotten Apple 30 that I just alluded to, as well as pictures from the Sgt. Pepper/White Album era -- that look the funniest and that interest me the most.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Mar 10, 2011 8:58:32 GMT -5
I'm feeling that whether the ears are attached or not to his head is an irrelevant point. It's something that's easily done with a little bit of surgery (sure it's painful, but it's not hard to do at all). Instead of focusing on something that can be so easily modified, what should be looked at are the parts of a person's anatomy that can't be so easily changed. You can change a person's facial structure to some extent, but that is exponentially more difficult than changing how someone's ears look, or giving them a nose job. Skeletal features are more likely to be different between the two, as they are the hardest to change. I also feel, back to the subject of the difference in ears, was that the plan was not for Faul to look exactly like Paul for the rest of his life. I think that immediately after the change was when it was most crucial for them to look the most alike- bridging the gap, so to say. Then, as time passed and people got more used to the new 'Paul', and their memory of the original Paul got fuzzier, he could change things around slightly, to make things easier for him. Looking at recent pictures, and especially videos, it seems at times that Faul is just phoning it in. I saw some video, can't remember which one, but his accent seemed very off. It must be hard being a man almost in his 70s, trying to take the place of a person when your last point of reference was him in his 20s. It almost seems easier to generally keep things the same, but try and make it your own as well. Interesting that you would say that spiritchaser. To my eye, senior citizen Paul McCartney looks like a pretty good - uh - replica of an older version of the younger JPM. It's the EARLY post-autumn-1966 pictures -- including the footage from Rotten Apple 30 that I just alluded to, as well as pictures from the Sgt. Pepper/White Album era -- that look the funniest and that interest me the most. www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtnXnWpC9GEThat looks weird to you?
|
|
|
Post by spiritchaser21 on Mar 10, 2011 19:27:53 GMT -5
I agree with his looks being off during the Sgt. Pepper/White Album period. I don't know how anyone could think that they were the same person. I just think that little by little he's stopped trying so hard to be Paul. He's doing things a bit more his way now. Listening to him talk, he sounds nothing like pre-1966 Paul, and some of his mannerisms are just bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 10, 2011 23:34:03 GMT -5
Interesting that you would say that spiritchaser. To my eye, senior citizen Paul McCartney looks like a pretty good - uh - replica of an older version of the younger JPM. It's the EARLY post-autumn-1966 pictures -- including the footage from Rotten Apple 30 that I just alluded to, as well as pictures from the Sgt. Pepper/White Album era -- that look the funniest and that interest me the most. www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtnXnWpC9GEThat looks weird to you? A little. The original video might look a little weirder. This one is also pretty weird.
|
|
|
Post by lilyknows on Mar 11, 2011 2:59:08 GMT -5
A little. The original video might look a little weirder. This one is also pretty weird. this proves one thing: crappy old video quality = Faul good source = Paul
|
|
|
Post by FP on Mar 11, 2011 7:52:37 GMT -5
A little. The original video might look a little weirder. This one is also pretty weird. this proves one thing: crappy old video quality = Faul good source = Paul Haha, exactly.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Mar 11, 2011 12:04:21 GMT -5
A little. The original video might look a little weirder. This one is also pretty weird. this proves one thing: crappy old video quality = Faul good source = Paul That presumes that the edited video isn't the more distorted version, which may or may not be true. Either way, there's a weirdness about Paul McCartney starting in late 1966. There's a weirdness about all of the Beatles starting from that time period because they're all getting bored with their celebrity, getting more heavily into drugs and changing their appearance and the direction of their music. But McCartney's weirdness might be a little more pronounced than that of the others and he might be looking and acting a little more artificial. Or maybe not. He strikes me as being more of a tightly-springed wind-up toy than the others. Or maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by obladiblada on Mar 11, 2011 13:58:01 GMT -5
|
|