|
Faked?
Jul 31, 2006 20:30:09 GMT -5
Post by KHAN on Jul 31, 2006 20:30:09 GMT -5
A perfect example of PID logic. MCIII posts 2 pics with a similar expression and from the same approximate angle. And eyesbleed posts 2 pics with totally different expressions from completely different angles. And we are told that we just don't get it.
|
|
|
Faked?
Jul 31, 2006 20:34:12 GMT -5
Post by revolver on Jul 31, 2006 20:34:12 GMT -5
Gatefold Bill (yellow pepper) is compressed vertically. We know this because it doesn't line up with most later photos of Bill. So it's not valid for use in comparisons with Paul. Vintage is supposed to mean unaltered candid photos, not album artwork, which should be suspect by default, especially around 1967. Either way, that fade supports PWR, not PIA, IMO. Edit: Also notice how the irises grow from Paul to yellow pepper. And no, it's not the drugs. LSD makes the pupils dilate, not the iris.
|
|
|
Faked?
Jul 31, 2006 20:41:21 GMT -5
Post by KHAN on Jul 31, 2006 20:41:21 GMT -5
Gatefold Bill (yellow pepper) is compressed vertically. We know this because it doesn't line up with most later photos of Bill. So it's not valid for use in comparisons with Paul. Vintage is supposed to mean unaltered candid photos, not album artwork, which should be suspect by default, especially around 1967. But Red Pepper is good right? lol ;D So I guess vintage docs are essential unless you deem them inadmissible? How omnipotent of you. I wish you guys would settle on a single set of 'rules'.
|
|
|
Faked?
Jul 31, 2006 20:56:04 GMT -5
Post by revolver on Jul 31, 2006 20:56:04 GMT -5
But Red Pepper is good right? The red pepper photo was released in 1987, long after the need to transition Paul's image to that of his replacement. People were more familiar with Paul's double than the original Paul at that point. We've already shown that the red pepper shot matches most of his later photos a lot better than the gatefold one.
|
|
|
Faked?
Jul 31, 2006 21:26:31 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Jul 31, 2006 21:26:31 GMT -5
I posted what I posted coz mc3 posted it a few posts earlier & claimed to not be able to see 2 different people.... so I reposted the same pic right back atcha. You know nothing about my logic.
|
|
|
Faked?
Jul 31, 2006 21:29:54 GMT -5
Post by atd on Jul 31, 2006 21:29:54 GMT -5
Cheaters....cheating. Here's a solid rule for all you truthseekers...if the MaccaMadhouse folks don't cheat (like they sometimes do), the compares they provide are always proof that PWR. You merely have to look at the details, and see for yourself.
|
|
|
Faked?
Jul 31, 2006 21:43:49 GMT -5
Post by LOVELYRITA on Jul 31, 2006 21:43:49 GMT -5
This is one strange shot of Bill. Was this in India? It looks like he's a bit under the influence here....
|
|
|
Faked?
Jul 31, 2006 22:15:51 GMT -5
Post by KHAN on Jul 31, 2006 22:15:51 GMT -5
Cheaters....cheating. Here's a solid rule for all you truthseekers...if the MaccaMadhouse folks don't cheat (like they sometimes do), the compares they provide are always proof that PWR. You merely have to look at the details, and see for yourself. Cheating is a pretty serious accusation. My pic (actually it was 2 frames taken seconds apart), was a direct screen grab from Anthology. There was no cheating involved.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 0:24:48 GMT -5
Post by McCartneyIII on Aug 1, 2006 0:24:48 GMT -5
Im still see the same man Eyesbeld
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 2:25:55 GMT -5
Post by beatlies on Aug 1, 2006 2:25:55 GMT -5
Im still see the same man Eyesbeld Hmmm "eyesbleed" replaced with "Eyesbeld" .... evidence growing of an ophthalmological or visual cortex problem.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 6:37:06 GMT -5
Post by McCartneyIII on Aug 1, 2006 6:37:06 GMT -5
I'm proud of my mioPIA Beatlies, and for you information english is not my first language.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 6:52:42 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 1, 2006 6:52:42 GMT -5
I'm proud of my mioPIA Beatlies, and for you information english is not my first language. Well, I suppose ya should be proud of'em. It can't be easy matching up 2 distinctly different men. You guys have to find just the right pics to use... like the compressed pepper pic (the eyes are further apart that they should be) And you still can't make a perfect fade. You certainly can't take just any pics & make a fade, like you easily could if we were talkin' about 1 guy. So you guys with too much time just keep on workin' away, but remember.... fades can show either argument so THEY ARE WORTHLESS. THEY ARE WORTHLESS (that's why we're not makin'em) And secondly....I STILL haven't had my question answered... Why is it that JPM NEVER had a replacement? Photos seem to prove otherwise... over & over again.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 7:00:26 GMT -5
Post by Doc on Aug 1, 2006 7:00:26 GMT -5
I'm proud of my mioPIA Beatlies, and for you information english is not my first language. Well, I suppose ya should be proud of'em. It can't be easy matching up 2 distinctly different men. You guys have to find just the right pics to use... like the compressed pepper pic (the eyes are further apart that they should be) You can't take just any pics & make a good fade, like you easily could if we were talkin' about 1 guy. So you guys with too much time just keep on workin' away, but remember.... fades can show either argument so THEY ARE WORTHLESS. THEY ARE WORTHLESS (that's why we're not makin'em) And secondly....I STILL haven't had my question answered... Why is it that JPM NEVER had a replacement? Photos seem to prove otherwise... over & over again. Yes, fades are pointless and go nowhere. Comparisons are sometimes useful but not always. But here is a small montage that attempts to prove---absolutely nothing. It is, rather, to show Paul in a variety of modes. Enjoy. Though it is small. You may need to squint.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 9:31:17 GMT -5
Post by FP on Aug 1, 2006 9:31:17 GMT -5
And you still can't make a perfect fade. You certainly can't take just any pics & make a fade, like you easily could if we were talkin' about 1 guy. You obviously don't know much about making fades. I have yet to see a "perfect" fade of anyone. You can't just take two random pictures and make a fade. Not even of myself. And secondly....I STILL haven't had my question answered... Why is it that JPM NEVER had a replacement? Photos seem to prove otherwise... over & over again. How can we answer that when we disagree with the second part? I'll repeat what I said before: can you give me an example showing that everyone else did? If all the other Beatles had one, and Paul didn't, your question would make sense. BUT, we also claim that none of the other Beatles had replacements either. So, what's so weird about Paul?
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 9:33:16 GMT -5
Post by ReallyReallyDead on Aug 1, 2006 9:33:16 GMT -5
Im still see the same man Eyesbeld Paul's head is facing downward, thus making his nose long enough to compare with Fauls. the nose is the same length, but the ears are higher on Paul, violating the rule of ears up/nose down that atd was talking about, hence Faul != Paul
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 9:37:05 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 1, 2006 9:37:05 GMT -5
OK, I'm such a nice guy I'm gonna take another minute outta my busy workday & try to help you guys out! y'all would seem so much more legitimate if you'd just admit that there are a few unexplainable pics out there that don't seem to be JPM... BUT he certainly didn't die & he certainly wasn't replaced permanently. That would be a P.O.V. that I could respect & totally understand.
But since you guys insist on maintaining yer hardline stance & refuse to consider a reasonable explaination for the pics we have all seen, then y'all are really just a waste of time.... & yer makin' yerself look kinda silly
Ya... I know I just totally wasted a few minutes of my workday coz I know you guys will refuse to consider a reasonable explaination..
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 9:40:03 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 1, 2006 9:40:03 GMT -5
You obviously don't know much about making fades. Why would I want to know anything about fades? AGAIN... THEY ARE WORTHLESS
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 10:09:53 GMT -5
Post by FP on Aug 1, 2006 10:09:53 GMT -5
Im still see the same man Eyesbeld Paul's head is facing downward, thus making his nose long enough to compare with Fauls. the nose is the same length, but the ears are higher on Paul, violating the rule of ears up/nose down that atd was talking about, hence Faul != Paul What's going on with the middle line? Why would I want to know anything about fades? Well you should know what you're talking about when you make claims about how easy it should be to match up the same guy.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 10:35:49 GMT -5
Post by ReallyReallyDead on Aug 1, 2006 10:35:49 GMT -5
What's going on with the middle line? on the left is Paul's ear height, on the right is Fauls, and in the middle spacetime is warped.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 10:35:58 GMT -5
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 1, 2006 10:35:58 GMT -5
I sorta disagree with EB a bit on the fades. It's not so much that fades don't work, it's the INTERPRETATION by PIAers that I have a problem with. For instance, the fade below is supposed to match up..... Huh? Matching up the eyes and nose is not enough. The chin is one obvious difference. And the overall shape of the face. The fade below posted by atd is a good fade imo. Or to put it better it is a MATCH. Look at how almost everything matches up and you can tell it's the same person. It's similar to making a film based on a series of still shots and then putting them together and having the characters appear as if they are moving. It wouldn't work with the first fade.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 10:37:46 GMT -5
Post by ReallyReallyDead on Aug 1, 2006 10:37:46 GMT -5
the same thing is happening here (Paul's ears are higher) watching those irises grow is creeping me out!
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 10:49:03 GMT -5
Post by McCartneyIII on Aug 1, 2006 10:49:03 GMT -5
You guys have to find just the right pics to use... like the compressed pepper pic (the eyes are further apart that they should be) And you still can't make a perfect fade. You certainly can't take just any pics & make a fade, like you easily could if we were talkin' about 1 guy. So you guys with too much time just keep on workin' away, but remember.... fades can show either argument so THEY ARE WORTHLESS. THEY ARE WORTHLESS (that's why we're not makin'em) And secondly....I STILL haven't had my question answered... Why is it that JPM NEVER had a replacement? Photos seem to prove otherwise... over & over again. Personaly i'm don't belive that a fade, an overlay or a pic sequence shows or probe something that does not exist (PWR for me, PIA for you), but there are something in photography called perspective distortion (link), a same person u object can show diferences by the mod the photo was taken (the distance of the objet and the lens, the angle of inclination of the objet, if the photo was taken in motion or quiet, posing, casual, the use of zoom, the mm of the lens, if the photograp was taken from low to high, high to low, in front.....), but i found funny the search of similarities, i really don't care if the eyes distances matches or the ear lobes are low or wide, because the photos was taken with thousands of cameras around the world (amateur, profesional) from 1957 til today, and God only knows in what conditions of perspective distortion are taken. Now, forgot the (for you) dubious photos, what proofs or facts PWR got?
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 11:19:51 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 1, 2006 11:19:51 GMT -5
open minds... common sense... eyes & ears. (no fades needed)
That all sounds good Mc3, but y'all can't explain yerselves out of this corner you've painted yourself into.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 12:41:30 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 1, 2006 12:41:30 GMT -5
I sorta disagree with EB a bit on the fades. It's not so much that fades don't work, it's the INTERPRETATION by PIAers that I have a problem with. For instance, the fade below is supposed to match up..... Huh? Ya, what I'm referrin' to is the fact that for every fade the PIA'ers make to ATTEMPT to show 1 person, we could make 10 that show they are different people. Next thing ya know there's fades flyin' all over the place. So it seems to me that they cancel each other out. Now that I think about it.... the PIA fades do have an occational value I suppose.... more evidence of PWR. It's really unfortunate that you guys insist on this baseless hardline P.O.V. If it weren't for that hardline stance we could have some interesting & worthwhile debates.
|
|
|
Faked?
Aug 1, 2006 14:03:35 GMT -5
Post by revolver on Aug 1, 2006 14:03:35 GMT -5
watching those irises grow is creeping me out! Yep, I don't think they can explain how someone's irises could increase in size like that. That's something that can't be changed with surgery. The eyes are still the easiest way to tell the difference between the two. Here's another one showing Bill's irises in 1967: Another possibility is that he was wearing colored contact lenses back then to better match Paul's darker eye color. That could have the effect of making the irises look larger.
|
|