|
Post by matchbox on Sept 15, 2004 22:43:43 GMT -5
The famous " '87 CD Red Pepper" photo from the original Uberkinder site has been used many times in pre/post '66 PID/PIA comparisons. But a funny thing happens when you compare Andrews pic with this scan made by LarryC of the same pic from the '87 CD booklet. Like so much of UK/SunnyBob's 'legal proofs', this too is bogus.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Sept 16, 2004 2:00:12 GMT -5
The sequence below shows the original red pepper photo isn't distorted, since it matches later photos pretty closely. So it can be used as a reference photo. It doesn't seem to match photos of Paul quite as well. Man, Paul sure changed in a year's time. Must've been the acid... yeah, that's the ticket! ;D Will the real Sgt. Faul please stand up!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 16, 2004 2:07:32 GMT -5
The sequence below shows the original red pepper photo isn't distorted, since it matches later photos pretty closely. So it can be used as a reference photo. Pretty closely? Either Larry's "undoctored" pic will line up better, or worse.
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 16, 2004 12:26:50 GMT -5
Watching you, Flaming Pie, and your new cohort Matchbox try to show these two obviously different men are one in the same is getting old.
Matchbox, the picture fade you use near your name is bogus.
The Sgt Pepper "pioto is more of a painting than a picture, much like the "photo" used in the gatefold of the album. Does the word airbrush mean anything to you?
Compare Faul's chin on the original, unretouched photos from the Sgt Pepper session to the so-called photo used on the cover.
Obviously modified to compare favorably to the chin of the real JPM.
Same thing was done for the photo used on the cover of Abbey Road. They always airbrush the chin.
Both of you need to open up your eyes once and for all.
By the way, Paul was a man's man. He was an artist. He was many things, but he could never be confused for the sometimes effeminate, cutie pie that Faul posed as during "Paul's" early solo career.
Will someone start a thread?
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Sept 16, 2004 12:37:25 GMT -5
Watching you, Flaming Pie, and your new cohort Matchbox try to show these two obviously different men are one in the same is getting old. Matchbox, the picture fade you use near your name is bogus. The Sgt Pepper "pioto is more of a painting than a picture, much like the "photo" used in the gatefold of the album. Does the word airbrush mean anything to you? Compare Faul's chin on the original, unretouched photos from the Sgt Pepper session to the so-called photo used on the cover. Obviously modified to compare favorably to the chin of the real JPM. Same thing was done for the photo used on the cover of Abbey Road. They always airbrush the chin. Both of you need to open up your eyes once and for all. By the way, Paul was a man's man. He was an artist. He was many things, but he could never be confused for the sometimes effeminate, cutie pie that Faul posed as during "Paul's" early solo career. Will someone start a thread? Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing. This thread is about the fact that Uberkinder/SK stretched the photo from the Pepper CD. Nothing else implied. Your ramblings are irrelevant. Please stay on topic.
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 16, 2004 14:12:55 GMT -5
Matchbox, no one is full of "sound and fury"! Ha ha
As long as I am posting about the fact that Paul Was Replaced (the name of this message board, by the way), I'm always on topic.
You are the one off topic.
Yeah, yeah "I can voice my opinion, too.." Blah, blah...I just can't really take you too seriously (like many on this board).
Its hard to believe you've studied the video, the audio, the pictures and still come to the conclusion that Faul and Paul are the same. I'm not the only one on this board who feels this way, either. Believe me.
Signifying nothing? The fact that Faul's chin was airbrushed on both Sgt. Pepper AND on Abbey Road signifies a lot.
The fact that Capitol Records used an airbrushed photo (almost a painting) of Faul in the gatefold, rather than an actual photograph doesn't doesn't that trigger any questions in your mind?
There were monetary and socialogical reasons for keeping the idea of a "Paul McCartney" alive. Research the connection between EMI and the House of Windsor.
Once you get a grasp of the forces that really control world events, that control governments, then you'll have a starting point as to the "why" something like this would happen and the "how", as well.
Limitless resources to gain worldwide objectives such as the introduction of drugs into mainstream society, for one. Not going to go off on all of this right here, since I might get scolded into "staying on topic" again. Ha ha!
But I see where you are coming from. If I was just trying to find a way to propogate this ever-crumbling illusion of Faul being Paul, without any understanding of the mechanism behind all of this, I guess I can see myself falling into the trap of seeking the easy way out and believing the lie. Just remember, as long as I'm talking about Paul Was Replaced, I'm always on topic. How about you?
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Sept 16, 2004 14:35:19 GMT -5
Just remember, as long as I'm talking about Paul Was Replaced, I'm always on topic. How about you? JoJo has stated his views on the importance of using authentic sources. The Uberpic is not authentic, it's doctored. I believe that discussing the validity of source images is on topic. Changing the subject and standing on your soap box is not.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 16, 2004 15:18:29 GMT -5
JoJo has stated his views on the importance of using authentic sources. The Uberpic is not authentic, it's doctored. Yes indeed I have stated that very thing. Let's go back a ways and discuss a little history here. Way back when there was all this talk of doctored/stretched pics, I got excited to be on that bandwagon, I scowered my collection of old vintage mags, and then looked for reprints in picture books published years later. Imagine my excitement when I found this: (1964 first, then a 2002 reprint) I even made a fade, i must have tossed it tho.. However, I've learned a few things over this past year, one is not to get excited by something like this which has a really much more... well certainly more likely explanation: The 2002 pic was printed in a small pocket book which has a less "rectangular" dimension, it's almost square. Therefore, to make ALL of the photos they reprinted fit better, they are ALL stretched. Some perhaps more than others, the point is, there was no effort on their part at aspect ratio integrity, I guess they figured ah who cares, it's a little throwaway paperback... This is but one example, and so I must grudgingly admit that any source can be potentially useless for creating a fade, especially for the purpose of accusing the PTB of a concerted effort at doctoring the old pics, or the new ones as well. I don't know where UK got those Pepper pics, I don't have them in my old vinyl copy, is that just from the cd reissue? I'll perhaps give UK the benefit of the doubt, (I know, there were other "issues" with his material) and perhaps he just got his pepper pic from a source that was simply trying to make it fit in the space allotted. You see, it's a mistake to jump to conclusions, there is no way to know what the source has been through before it got to the consumer. I would say that video stills may be the most reliable, they were shot in 4:3 aspect ratio back then, and that's how they make their way to us now. (ignoring the camera lens and color issue momentarily) One exception might be the old Sullivan shows, they look like they were "kinescoped" so I don't know what that may do to the image afterwards. A little more hardcore about this than I am MT, I still see two different guys, but if others don't, and I've done what I can to put forth some arguments, I really can't do much more, nor can I judge anyone who doesn't see it my way. My way or the highway is not for me... (too stressful) ;D
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 16, 2004 16:11:19 GMT -5
I hope I haven't come off as "my way or the highway", Jo Jo. But I just can't see Faul as Paul anymore.
Can we do a side by side: Original untouched shot of Sgt Pepper Faul (from CD booklet) and any shot of the one, true James Paul facing camera?
Look at his chin. That was an early dead giveaway before the chin somehow mysteriously changed shape!
No time for surgery before the album was released. That's why it was airbrushed for the cover.
If Faul were JPM, why would Paul's chin on the album need airbrushing? Why on Abbey Road? The gatefold of Sgt Pepper (good grief)!
I sure would like some insight regarding all of the photo doctoring, the big brown contacts, Faul's never-ending height reducing stances in pix, etc. from a PIA'er. I just don't get their point of view.
What is their explanation for all of this?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Sept 16, 2004 16:24:41 GMT -5
JoJo has stated his views on the importance of using authentic sources. The Uberpic is not authentic, it's doctored. I believe that discussing the validity of source images is on topic. Changing the subject and standing on your soap box is not. Exactly how is it doctored, when it obviously matches the proportions of Faul's later photos? Are those photos doctored too? I suggest you carefully look again at the above photo sequence and observe how Faul's features continue to line up from Sgt. Pepper all the way to 2002. None of my animations use fading techniques, so the original stills can be shown to be free of distortion. Check for yourself. The second photo in your animation above is just an inferior multi-generation copy and/or low res scan of the original. It doesn't prove that Uberkinder's red pepper photo was doctored. It merely shows there are bad copies of the original photo in circulation.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Sept 16, 2004 16:33:13 GMT -5
Pretty closely? Either Larry's "undoctored" pic will line up better, or worse. I was being conservative. They line up quite well. Check for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 16, 2004 18:16:09 GMT -5
Do Uberkinder's and Larry's look slightly differerent? Yes, that's self evident. But again, without knowing the source, it's a problem. Honestly, I could live my whole life without seeing a fade again. Except for one thing, which is access to the negatives, BOTH sides are going to have problems, because due to whatever processing goes into making the final product, you can never be 100 percent, really really sure enough to fade one into the other and say, "see" they do/don't match in the eyes, ears, etc. It's gonna always be a case of being tantalisingly out of reach, this "smoking gun"... But... I can tell two people apart. Is that as scientific and logical as measuring distances between facial features? No, but there it is. It's a pity really, because there's so much more to this story to discuss, and it always gets bogged down in this one area, and goes around in circles. The more you look into this, the more questions there are than answers. It's more about connect the dots, (like the Abbey Road cover, there is perhaps more than one meaning there alone) looking at the big picture, not this one microscopic focus.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 16, 2004 19:15:07 GMT -5
...Honestly, I could live my whole life without seeing a fade again. me, too...and it's often forgotten that we don't see all these "odd" photos of anyone else... Everyone else looks like the same person over time -- especially over a period of one year, which is when the "drastic" changes in "Paul's" appearance occurred....
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Sept 16, 2004 23:52:48 GMT -5
Can we do a side by side: Original untouched shot of Sgt Pepper Faul (from CD booklet)... The point is there IS nothing 'untouched' about the Sgt Pepper CD booklet. With the exception of the the cover on the front of the book, and the first two pics in the booklet which are black and white, every other picture in that booklet has been touched, mishandled, and cut out of it's original background so poorly that it looks like a 3rd grader did it with a pair of round-tipped scissors. You will have to show me the air brushing on the gatefold. I have 2 copies of the LP, one of them purchased in 1968, and the image is HUGE and you can see it CLOSE, and there is NO signs of any airbrushing. Yet, I can look at the CD images and show you a bazillion signs of 'touching'. You mention dark lenses...can you think back a little bit and see if you can remember when you could first get eye-color changing contacts? Dwell on that for a moment before answering. I think there have been plenty of examples shown, one from a vintage shot ('63?) of JPM, where it shows his eyes are greenish...and the color matches that of the in-your-face shots of his eyes from Fool On The Hill. It's on another thread somewhere...I'll locate it for you. The height issue is a red herring. His playing form, shape of his hands as he plays, both the bass and keyboards, is a match. His mannerisms and playing syle is a match. I'm not talking about mimmicked, I'm talking about the root mannerisms and the shape of the fingers. I suppose that is something only a musician will be able to see though. You can't really see it as well in still frames as you do in motion either, and the motion is what you need to be looking at in the first place. Back on topic...matchbox was merely attempting to show how the image used by either Andrew Spooner, or Sun King, was manipulated when compared to another of the same image. I would not say that either one of THEM were responsible for stretching or pinching the image, just that they were using it and it's aspect has been manipulated. Look closely at the overlay of John Lennon from the Butcher picture on his image on uberkinder's sgt pepper pic...it is not a match. Some things will match, but because it is skewed it isn't... Sorry, JoJo. I sort of got snipity here. As to your example of the republished pics, there is only enough difference in them to indicate that the process for reproduction has changed over the years. Yea, it appears his jawline was shortened a bit, but I doubt it was done so intentionally. So many people out there do not understand aspect ratio and dpi and all the stuff that goes into the resolution of photos these days. I think what you have is the difference between a film-based negative and a digital-based image...thus the difference in contrast. Just a guess, however, as I have no clue of the source of the newer pic.
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Sept 17, 2004 0:02:09 GMT -5
The second photo in your animation above is just an inferior multi-generation copy and/or low res scan of the original. It doesn't prove that Uberkinder's red pepper photo was doctored. It merely shows there are bad copies of the original photo in circulation. You are wrong in a sense. I scanned it from my own CD booklet, but I used a low resolution setting for the sake of file size. If it would please you I can make a new scan of said booklet when I am home next week and I will use a much higher resolution...600 dpi good enough? I scanned it at 100, and converted it to a 72dpi gif, thus the grainy look. The graininess of the second image has no bearing on how the other one was pinched or stretched. That was the point of the original post on this thread. Funny how it got steered clear off topic the way it did.
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Sept 17, 2004 0:18:13 GMT -5
me, too...and it's often forgotten that we don't see all these "odd" photos of anyone else... Everyone else looks like the same person over time -- especially over a period of one year, which is when the "drastic" changes in "Paul's" appearance occurred.... On the contrary xpt ;D Look at the CD booklet pics and compare every image of George Harrison. Those pics were so wrecked for the CD that he looks like a different person even in the same photo shoot, especially the ones where he is showing his profile. The reason there have been no comparisons of the others is because Paul has always been the focus. I have a fade comparison of Ringo that shows a big difference between shots...4 of them in fact, all from the same photo session. I'm going to do one of the others too, I've just been busy with real life issues lately...like my new guitar
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Sept 17, 2004 2:06:05 GMT -5
I would not say that either one of THEM were responsible for stretching or pinching the image, just that they were using it and it's aspect has been manipulated. If the aspect of Faul in the red pepper photo is so skewed, why does it closely match so many other photos of Faul? They can't all be stretched, can they? I notice no one has an answer for that other than to repeat the original assertion.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Sept 17, 2004 2:23:28 GMT -5
The graininess of the second image has no bearing on how the other one was pinched or stretched. That was the point of the original post on this thread. Funny how it got steered clear off topic the way it did. The Uberkinder scan looks like the same aspect as the one in my CD booklet. Your scan doesn't look that much different. Neither look like Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Sept 17, 2004 12:43:55 GMT -5
I think the more interesting comparison is the one between the original LP and the CD release. They are much different.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 17, 2004 14:46:01 GMT -5
I scanned it at 100, and converted it to a 72dpi gif, thus the grainy look. What I do, is scan at 300, then change the size to a width no more than 700 so it doesn't run off edge of the screen. Than us Photoshop's "save for web" and make a jpeg. Looks nice and sharp and the file size isn't too huge. Helpful hint..
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 17, 2004 23:05:25 GMT -5
I agree that photo evidence means nothing. The pepper photo was taken from so far frmm the subjects, with paul close to the centerline, I would never expect that particular image to match most close up Paul photos. This is hard to do, because most 35mm film is too low a resolution to to nice blow ups, but take a shot of yourself from head to toe, then another of your self with your head centered showing at least up to your stomach. Develop these, blow them up, crop them and see how well the features match. Some really good digital cameras may be able to work, but they better be more than 4megapixels. Keep ni mind this is with yourself centered. Try it again with yourself to the left or right facing the camera and see the wopper of differences in your own face.
Also, there is no way the pepper image was made with 35 mm film. Which means we know nothing of the accuracy of the lens. Other pepper pics floating around out there that do not seem to show a long Paul face could very well have been taken with a completely different camera on the same set on the same day. Aren't there other pics of him that day that look just like Paul. Yes there are.
I believe the Uberkinder image is stretched, but I also believe that it does not need to be stretched to not look like Paul. This image is just messed up.
In reference to the animated gifs in this thread. I was able to match the Faul images to the Paul images with the same degree of error that the Faul images match to each other.
This can go on forever. PID says that a few matching images do not mean post and pre66 Paul matches, but PIA says that a few unmatching pre and post 66 images don't mean Paul does not match. Tiring isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 17, 2004 23:46:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 18, 2004 9:38:09 GMT -5
This can go on forever. PID says that a few matching images do not mean post and pre66 Paul matches, but PIA says that a few unmatching pre and post 66 images don't mean Paul does not match. Tiring isn't it. I vote yes.. But anyone who wants to keep beating that dead horse, feel free.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 18, 2004 13:49:24 GMT -5
Ok. I'll give. Arguing is tiring, but finding matching and unmatching images are kind of fun.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Sept 21, 2004 20:31:29 GMT -5
Guess "camera distortion" only affects Paul.
|
|