|
Aha!
Sept 7, 2004 23:15:00 GMT -5
Post by revolver on Sept 7, 2004 23:15:00 GMT -5
Original Faul photo? Wait, what fade are you talking about? And in my fade with the red lines, you can see the outside of his right ear (our left) pretty clearly. img36.exs.cx/img36/7861/Paul67Fade.gif^ Larry's fade of my comparison. Ears match up. I was talking about your avatar: In Larry's fade, Faul's ears are covered by too much hair to be used for comparing the ears. In your other fade with the red lines, weren't you showing a Paul to Paul fade? Paul's right ear lines up quite well with himself. No suprise there. The slight shift is due to the difference in camera angle.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 7, 2004 23:22:23 GMT -5
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 7, 2004 23:22:23 GMT -5
I was talking about your avatar: In Larry's fade, Faul's ears are covered by too much hair to be used for comparing the ears. In your other fade with the red lines, weren't you showing a Paul to Paul fade? Yes. I gave a link to the original of each pic in my first post in this thread. You can see the outsides of Paul's ears in Larry's fade. They match.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 7, 2004 23:29:19 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 7, 2004 23:29:19 GMT -5
"The Yellow Sub pic FP used looks very JPM-like, except for the way he's towering over George. " (from EB post) Too bad you can't see their feet in that pic. But you can see their feet in your own pic here. Once again, Paul was replaced before 66! I was aware that the feet didn't show in my Faul pic you used, that wasn't the point. The guy looks like "Paul" in that pic except he "seems" too big (imo) I fail to see what yer response pic is supposed to mean. The pic with George doesn't matter coz both of them are boppin'. The pic with John does show them to be the same height, so what's the point? You had a fairly good thing goin' there. Not perfect, but pretty close! But Matchbox's fade matching JPM with some squirrely fem has once again shown what we already know. Fades can be used either way to show what ya want to show.... either way.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 7, 2004 23:38:48 GMT -5
Post by matchbox on Sept 7, 2004 23:38:48 GMT -5
We're havin' big fun tonight! ;D
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 7, 2004 23:39:51 GMT -5
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 7, 2004 23:39:51 GMT -5
I was aware that the feet didn't show in my Faul pic you used, that wasn't the point. The guy looks like "Paul" in that pic except he "seems" too big (imo) I fail to see what yer response pic is supposed to mean. The pic with George doesn't matter coz both of them are boppin'. The pic with John does show them to be the same height, so what's the point? You had a fairly good thing goin' there. Not perfect, but pretty close! But Matchbox's fade matching JPM with some squirrely fem has once again shown what we already know. Fades can be used either way to show what ya want to show.... either way. I meant the pic with Paul and George. Both their legs are in the same position, yet Paul is taller. I was trying to show you guys that Paul can look taller than he really is. Yet if Paul and the "squirrely fem" are different people, why does the head shape AND the eyes match up so well?
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 7, 2004 23:51:31 GMT -5
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 7, 2004 23:51:31 GMT -5
We're havin' big fun tonight! ;D Easy for you to say, you're in the audience.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 8, 2004 3:41:45 GMT -5
Post by southpaw on Sept 8, 2004 3:41:45 GMT -5
for once PIA'ers try using a picture of paul from post 65 to match your favorite replacement in fades.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 8, 2004 7:38:14 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 8, 2004 7:38:14 GMT -5
Yet if Paul and the "squirrely fem" are different people, why does the head shape AND the eyes match up so well? Don't know. There's a lot of stuff about this mystery that I'm not 100% sure about, but I am absolutely positively sure that the "squirrely fem" is not JPM. If you guys actually think that that vintage picture is who it says it is, then I'm done arguin' with ya.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 8, 2004 7:43:22 GMT -5
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 8, 2004 7:43:22 GMT -5
Don't know. There's a lot of stuff about this mystery that I'm not 100% sure about, but I am absolutely positively sure that the "squirrely fem" is not JPM. If you guys actually think that that vintage picture is who it says it is, then I'm done arguin' with ya. Vintage? Faul? Does it matter if a pic of Faul is vintage or not? Wait, what makes a pic of Faul "vintage"? All the them were published after '67...
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 8, 2004 11:27:52 GMT -5
Post by matchbox on Sept 8, 2004 11:27:52 GMT -5
I think it means the picture was taken and published in '67.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 8, 2004 11:43:33 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 8, 2004 11:43:33 GMT -5
I think it means the picture was taken and published in '67. Ya, that pic is from our personal collection. That particular magazine belongs to XPT & was published in 67. (I think) Naturally, vintage pics that are from magazines that we own are better sources than just any ol' pic. That's not sayin' it's totally reliable, but it helps.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 8, 2004 15:24:12 GMT -5
Post by revolver on Sept 8, 2004 15:24:12 GMT -5
Yes. I gave a link to the original of each pic in my first post in this thread. You can see the outsides of Paul's ears in Larry's fade. They match. Sorry, but an outline of one ear covered by hair isn't good enough for making valid comparisons, especially regarding how far the ears stick out. And there are plenty of other photos that conclusively show their ears don't match. One iffy photo doesn't override all the others.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 20, 2004 23:46:01 GMT -5
Post by kazu on Sept 20, 2004 23:46:01 GMT -5
Paul just has one of those rubber faces. Look at him in frame A, then he changes to "THAT OTHER GUY" we see in frame C (but not smiling). Then Paul returns in frame F. [/img][/center] These are unretouched captures from A Hard Days Night. It seemed like Paul took a breath, but he was not tired or exhausted, nor yawning or anything. He simply spoke and took a breath. He was not even taking a deep breath to speak again. Paul just seems to have a really wide range of rubbery facial expressions. So we catch him with them more often throughout the late 60s, 70s and 80s and 90s. I mean think about this,... more images of Paul in odd expressions in 3 1/2 decades compared to the early 60s. Go figure. And his face is not especially rounded or anything. It seems kind of long with a longer upper lip than most Paul images. Seems more like an alleged Faul shape.
|
|
|
Aha!
Sept 21, 2004 8:32:07 GMT -5
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 21, 2004 8:32:07 GMT -5
C'mon. Don't insult our intelligence Kazu. He still looks like a different person. And everyone's face looks longer from the side.
|
|