|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 4, 2004 22:23:39 GMT -5
ENOUGH FROM YOU. DoctorRobert attended school with Chapman. He's not "channeling" dead Beatles to write his music....get my meaning? I'm tired of you hopping thread-to-thread spewing negativity and being pompous. I am a mod here and would love nothing more than to ban you....there have been several people complaining about your attitude....so consider yourself warned. MY attitude? MY conscience is CLEAR...as opposed to POSING and LYING and GAME PLAYING at 60if in order to "trick" and trap the losers there.. Yes, I refer to your conduct on 60if, XPT. You are certainly no better than sun king or paul bearer, or chris or goo goo. YOU ARE DOWN IN THE GUTTER WITH THEM! You messed with me there, nasty skank, and you hold grudges here and now. I have told some of your co-patriots you owed ME an apology after 60if. I was the gracious party to contribute to these sites. So piss off. Go stroke your inflated ego...you indeed stooped as low as those you held in contempt at 60if just to humiliate them. I never acknowledged your presence at 'Only The Truth" or here...you are a NOBODY to me. How's THAT for attitude? To all the rest of you here, I did enjoy contributing information to this site, but Paul isn't dead. Some here mistook my desire to share insights and info as "pompous." That is unfortunate. If you do not like my style of writing, then tough crap. Special thanks to SPANKY for extending courtesy. Some of her partners could learn from her. Go ahead and ban me; big deal. XPT just wants this to be 60if but with those administrators removed...and her in the queen seat. YOU'RE ALREADY ACTING LIKE PAUL BEARER AND GOO GOO, AREN'T YOU, XPT? Maybe you're channeling them!
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 4, 2004 22:37:47 GMT -5
....YOU'RE ALREADY ACTING LIKE PAUL BEARER AND GOO GOO, AREN'T YOU, XPT? Maybe you're channeling them! nope, just Ringo's toaster ;D I suggest you review the rules of conduct for this forum, Ian. You're dangerously close to "strike two".
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 5, 2004 8:32:49 GMT -5
The whole "Young Paul had a short round head" thing was a lie purpetrated by Sun King as a way to show Paul was dead. xpt626 has posted tons of authentic pre '67 pics that show that Pauld head was much longer than any of the pics used by SunKing. OK, to get back to it here......... The JPM-round-head thing is not a SK lie. Like xpt, I'm also gethering up vintage photos, with more on the way all the time. JPM did indeed have a rounder head than "Sir Paul". But when going thru all this stuff, there is the occational pic that's definatly puzzling because it seems to show a longer face. There is one other pic from 63... if I had the time to go find it, I'd post it for you, but it would fit well with yer other pics you posted. BUT... the large majority of vintage pics show a much rounder face. Why a few pics show what appears to be a longer face... I dunno, but going by ONLY vintage pics that I know are not altered,,, it's painfully obvious that there have been (at least) 2 Paul McCartneys.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 5, 2004 8:48:50 GMT -5
Bleeder, I know you to be sincere, so please therefore check out my thread on "Arguments against PID." OK, fine, human nature. Human nature is one of the things that has me so convinced that PID is a fact. Just go back & look at the timeline of events & decisions made by the Beatles during their 6yrs on top of the world. The decisions made after late-66; their attitudes & sadness, their drastic change in songwriting & recording techniques. Every bit of this stuff falls right into place if PID is factored in. It all begins to make sense. So I would say that human nature is a very good argument for PID. That's much more convincing to me than any fades. And why have so many stayed quiet?? My god, there is so much crap going on out there under the surface that people aren't aware of, & aren't allowed to discuss to the press, it's mindboggling. People involved in all sorts of these things value their own personal life's comforts too much to sacrifice everything. And I'm not talking about the Beatles here. SO....once again....You wanna agrue human nature? That can go both ways.
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Mar 5, 2004 17:05:35 GMT -5
The problem is, that's not a perfect fade. The '70s shot looks to have been slightly stretched within the animation. In the one outside of the fade, his eyes and ears still appear to be positioned differently, as well as vintage Paul retaining a "pumpkin head" while '70s Paul has a "watermelon sitting upright" head (terrible ways of describing them, I know). Fades are not a good method of silencing either side, because they can be easily manipulative to prove a point. I still see two men within those two pictures. Howdy Wings, you're playing my song in that last paragraph...that's been my tune from the beginning. However, I have imported all three of these images into photoshop (had to do a screen grab of the animated image to the 70's paul) and did an over lay of the 70's pic with the animated 70's pic with the results being that the aspect is still good, but the 70's pic was enlarged a little only to match the size of the older pic. Every one of these fades we see have required one or the other image to be resized in order to fit, the key is to do it while maintaining the proper height/width aspect ratios...with photoshop if you hold the shift key as you stretch, it will maintain it. (That was for the benefit of non-photoshop users). This particular fade is probably the best I've seen in terms of catching both images in near exact position and camera angle.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 5, 2004 22:01:56 GMT -5
Although I've seen many photos of Paul from the late 60's that look quite odd, I believe this comparison on paulisnotdead.com shows quite convincingly *IMO* that the Paul from 1963, and the Paul of today are the same man. 1963 Late 70's nostalgia shot. Combined I can not understand how anyone could look at these two photos and think that they are of different men, but I would be interested in some theories. It DOESN'T match up. Nice try. Put the arrow on the bottom of Faul's chin and it will rise up at least a quarter inch when Paul's face is shown. Then put the arrow on Paul's right nostril (the left nostril from our view) and when it fades into Faul the nostril/nose gets wider and wider. The nose is much wider on Faul because the head is propotionately larger to make it 'fit'. That website is full of pictures just like that. The only way they were able to make the pictures matchup somewhat was to compare the heads at different sizes. Then put the arrow on the outside edge of the right side of Paul's face and watch as Faul's face gets wider by almost a quarter inch. It may not seem like much but do it on the other side and it will expand on that side too! Plus the fact is that the pictures are faded ultra slow so you can't see the differences unless you use the arrow technique. A major flaw with all of the pictures on that site. Step back from your computer a bit and look at Paul's head and then look at Faul's head. Do you think their bodies would be the same size if the whole picture was shown? Me personally I think Faul's body would be noticably bigger! Most of the pictures from that site and including this one, could be picked apart by a 5th grader......well as long as the 5th grader wasn't a Beatles fan of many years!
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Mar 6, 2004 3:57:29 GMT -5
Most of the pictures from that site and including this one, could be picked apart by a 5th grader......well as long as the 5th grader wasn't a Beatles fan of many years! The differences are the changes in the soft tissues that would naturally take place in someone between the ages of 21 and 38 yrs old. The eyes, bridge of the nose, shape of the chin and teeth are almost a perfect match. Not bad for pictures taken 17 yrs apart by different photographers with different cameras. I see obviously the same man, and I do have a college degree. ...and I think 5th grade was in there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 6, 2004 5:48:43 GMT -5
....The eyes, bridge of the nose, shape of the chin and teeth are almost a perfect match.... the same can be said for some celebrity doubles
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 6, 2004 7:30:43 GMT -5
And, you don't mean tennis! ;D
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 6, 2004 7:35:47 GMT -5
And, you don't mean tennis! ;D great serve! ;D
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 6, 2004 11:02:05 GMT -5
The differences are the changes in the soft tissues that would naturally take place in someone between the ages of 21 and 38 yrs old. Says who? The only thing that match up there are the eyes and the teeth. Like I pointed out before the chin gets longer by a 1/4 inch and the face gets wider on both sides by a 1/4 inch. Plus the nose is very different. Just focus on the nose and nothing else during the fade and you will see an obvious difference. If the fades been done fast, these differences would have been more clear. That's why they did them slow on that site, so the differences wouldn't show. Like that makes a difference. Did you take a forensics class while you were in school?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 6, 2004 13:32:34 GMT -5
Can someone please post a faster version of this fade?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 6, 2004 15:15:10 GMT -5
Here's my version of the overlay. The eyes don't match. Paul's are wider than Faul's. Always. Since eye position can't change over time because their position is limited by the eye sockets of the skull, when the eyes are aligned, the rest of the facial features should match as well. You're never going to find a photo of Faul that looks more like Paul than that one, yet they still don't line up because they're two different people. (IMHO) I believe the above animation was created by morphing the two photos. Either that or they're not scaled correclty.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 6, 2004 15:33:18 GMT -5
I see obviously the same man,.. How? When I watch JPM doing Yesterday on Ed Sullivan, then watch MMTour, I see what is obviously TWO different men. Or watch the Rain video then the Strawberry Fields video....... to the same obvious conclusion. No, I know what yer sayin' tho... yer talking about looking at those pics in particular... I know. But that pic of "Faul" doing Paul just seems weird to me somehow, I don't know what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 7, 2004 1:29:52 GMT -5
eyesbleed: do you have Paul singing "Yesterday" on DVD or VHS or computer?
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Mar 7, 2004 2:00:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 7, 2004 2:21:02 GMT -5
The entire pic of later Paul looks a bit enlarged. Yet, you said you matched up the eyes. Did you? The top and right parts of the eye match up, but the left and bottom doesn't. Plus, early Pauls head is more raised.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 7, 2004 8:55:14 GMT -5
eyesbleed: do you have Paul singing "Yesterday" on DVD or VHS or computer? That's on the Ed Sullivan dvd. There's a 2-dvd set out with all 4 Ed Sullivan shows in their entirety. 3 from 64 & one from Sept.65. I paid less than $20 for this, so it's well worth it.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 7, 2004 13:52:04 GMT -5
The entire pic of later Paul looks a bit enlarged. Yet, you said you matched up the eyes. Did you? The top and right parts of the eye match up, but the left and bottom doesn't. Plus, early Pauls head is more raised. On the contrary, the bottom and top eyelids line up perfectly, as well as the left and right corners. The faces are scaled so all the corners of the eyes line up. Put your mouse pointer on each corner of the eye and you can see they are. That's the best you can do when comparing two different faces. The reason they don't match better than that is because they're two different people. If I enlarged the Paul photo to make the chins match, then the eyes wouldn't be aligned anymore. If they were the same person everything would line up. Clearly Faul's eyes are shaped differently than Paul's. Faul's are more rounded and protruding, Paul's are are more elongated and less protruding.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 7, 2004 13:57:33 GMT -5
If "Fauls" head were this large compared to Pauls, he would look huge when compared to the other Beatles. He doesn't. Many photos show Faul had a bigger head than Paul - in more ways than one. It looks to me that the Faul shot was also shrunk vertically to make him match Paul's proportions better, but even if it wasn't the pictures still don't match IMO. At best, Faul resembles Paul, as would any good impersonator. Another telltale sign is Faul's front teeth never looked much like McCartney's, even after his motorcycle accident in '66.
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Mar 7, 2004 15:52:18 GMT -5
Yes, everything that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul has always been one man is doctored. It's 60IF all over again (with out the channelling). Sheese Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way -
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 7, 2004 16:07:50 GMT -5
Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - Never could see any other way - The same mantra could just as easily be ascribed to the PIA advocates, don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Mar 7, 2004 16:24:28 GMT -5
The same mantra could just as easily be ascribed to the PIA advocates, don't you agree? Absolutely not. Only Sun King and Uberkinders pictures (of which many were shown to be clearly doctored) get that treatment. And I don't see anyone here backing Sun King. But, the PID crew cast any PIND evidence under the shroud of "looks like it may be doctored" to try to create doubt where there really is none. Don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by lj on Mar 7, 2004 16:28:48 GMT -5
It's 60IF all over again (with out the channelling). Sheese that looks too close to an insult, at least to me. please be nice . and if you want to disagree with something someone say, at least try to work on your argument, because just saying "sheese " is not such a strong argument. JMO. and if you just don't like it here, well............
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 7, 2004 16:43:55 GMT -5
Absolutely not. Only Sun King and Uberkinders pictures (of which many were shown to be clearly doctored) get that treatment. And I don't see anyone here backing Sun King. But, the PID crew cast any PIND evidence under the shroud of "looks like it may be doctored" to try to create doubt where there really is none. Don't you agree? None of Uberkinder's or SK's photos were doctored that I'm aware of. Nobody proved anything of the sort. It's these slow fading morph animations that are more likely to be mannipulated than a simple overlay as I've done.
|
|