|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 20, 2004 15:49:51 GMT -5
these, too....
|
|
|
Post by TKIN on Mar 21, 2004 5:50:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TKIN on Mar 21, 2004 7:02:12 GMT -5
The effect is REALLY incredible. (Faul on 1968 had his max resemblance with James Paul, then, slowly he "lost" it after that year) but... There are two details absolutely wrong. Try to find them.
|
|
Abbey
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 10
|
Post by Abbey on Mar 21, 2004 14:02:33 GMT -5
Notice the exact same moped scar over his left eyebrow in both pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Spanky on Mar 21, 2004 14:25:56 GMT -5
which can easily be recreated by simply shaving out a section of the eyebrow.
|
|
|
Post by TKIN on Mar 21, 2004 15:53:11 GMT -5
which can easily be recreated by simply shaving out a section of the eyebrow. Exactly! But here the make-up (normal+underskin filler injections) is really on the top....except neck diameter and....moles displacement. It was taken on the Apple first press conference.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 21, 2004 19:08:15 GMT -5
moles displacement? What would that be?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 21, 2004 20:27:50 GMT -5
He means that they put the moles on Faul in the wrong places.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 21, 2004 20:37:43 GMT -5
moles are just pigments, its possible for pigmentation like that to change, its happened to me, I had a mole on my arm for years, it was huge, but it faded off, I also have recently welcomed into my body a mole on my hand, so thats not going to stand up for long
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 21, 2004 22:30:23 GMT -5
Yes, WMWY, point well taken. They do chnge, I've had a few shrink or fade, and new ones come forth. I love your terminology (welcomed them) I guess without the dermatologist ready to snip em off we might as well be cordial to our Pigmentatious acquaintances! But, oddly enough, some seem tenacious. I have two facial ones that appear to have their "arrivals" on my "punam"(face) as early as my eleventh year; I'd look funny if they went away, I think, at least to me...............at least, there's no disconcerting sprouts of hair yet, but then there's always the dermatologist.............
|
|
|
Post by eggy on Mar 21, 2004 22:41:04 GMT -5
The effect is REALLY incredible. (Faul on 1968 had his max resemblance with James Paul, then, slowly he "lost" it after that year) but... There are two details absolutely wrong. Try to find them. The only thing i can say, is that the distance between eyes is completely different, its so obvious.....
|
|
|
Post by TKIN on Mar 22, 2004 3:18:04 GMT -5
The only thing i can say, is that the distance between eyes is completely different, its so obvious..... Exactly... The chin shape, the eyes distance, the nose lenght the skull volume simply don't mach. The trick is that quite all the details are perfect but put on a different head.
|
|
|
Post by scatman on Mar 22, 2004 10:15:09 GMT -5
Please...Paul looks like he's crunching a Gobstopper in the photo on the right.
I guess I've been replaced too based on my own family photo albums. My head at different times appears long, short, round, or oval depending on the angle and my age/health at the time.
Not flaming but give Sun...err, I mean TKIN's photo comparisons a rest, please...
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 22, 2004 16:10:17 GMT -5
Please...Paul looks like he's crunching a Gobstopper in the photo on the right. I guess I've been replaced too based on my own family photo albums. My head at different times appears long, short, round, or oval depending on the angle and my age/health at the time. Not flaming but give Sun...err, I mean TKIN's photo comparisons a rest, please... If those were the only photos that didn't look the same, you might have an argument. The eyes are the give-away. Nobody's eyes change shape that much in just a few years.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 22, 2004 19:26:02 GMT -5
his eyes are still almost the same shape, the difference when I compared them can easily be blamed on angle, I'll post them soon
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 22, 2004 19:43:02 GMT -5
OK got them, now forgive me, I did mess up on one part of the outline, but if you notice it is the same mistake on both of them, now, what I did was trace around Faul's eye thusly: then I moved the outline over to Paul's eye, and using shift+resize (so as not to lose the proportion) I changed it about two pixels on every side, give or take, then it looked like this:
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 22, 2004 19:43:40 GMT -5
Actually, to me, those two pictures, well, it looks like the same face. The jaw is dropped and put forward, the smile goes away, the bottom of the eyes comes down showing whites, the eye orbits, shelf, brow, lashes, all look the same to me. The top one must be Bill as well, or , Bill is Paul. Neither picture look seem to match the earliest Paul pics. JMO. Similarities abound. But yet some things doesn't always match......I mean, not matching is no crime, its just a curiousity. I think it is all too confusing.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 22, 2004 20:03:52 GMT -5
I think it is all too confusing. I'm pretty sure that's something we can all agree on.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 22, 2004 21:52:14 GMT -5
his eyes are still almost the same shape, the difference when I compared them can easily be blamed on angle, I'll post them soon The eyes don't match: BTW I rotated both photos so the eyes were level. The photos are scaled the same as the original photos. The eyes have it. These are the eyes of two different men IMO.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 22, 2004 21:58:32 GMT -5
differences in proportion, even Dr. Robert agrees that they look like the same man, if you look at your comparison, the nose is wrong, out of proportion, so that doesn't cut it
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 22, 2004 22:01:24 GMT -5
differences in proportion, even Dr. Robert agrees that they look like the same man, if you look at your comparison, the nose is wrong, out of proportion, so that doesn't cut it Nope, the scales are correct - same as the original photos. An overlay of the two photos shows they are scaled correctly:
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 22, 2004 22:12:42 GMT -5
I think it is all too confusing. ....and being obsessed with it all for almost a year now doesn't seem to help, or simplify things in the least!! It only seems to get weirder, the more I look into it all.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 22, 2004 22:25:38 GMT -5
Surgeon general's warning:
Overlays/fades are hazardous to the peace and tranquility of a discussion board... ;D ;D
Ok you did a good job setting it up, but the arguments about angles, facial expression et al will start...
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 22, 2004 22:35:35 GMT -5
Surgeon general's warning: Overlays/fades are hazardous to the peace and tranquility of a discussion board... ;D ;D Ok you did a good job setting it up, but the arguments about angles, facial expression et al will start... WMWY started the eye shape comparison. I just took it to its logical conclusion. Now I think overlaying of just the eyes is actually a better way of detecting the differences between two different faces. The brain is designed to notice subtle changes in the orientation of the eyes. We may have stumbled onto a new technique here.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 22, 2004 22:44:12 GMT -5
Surgeon general's warning: Overlays/fades are hazardous to the peace and tranquility of a discussion board... ;D ;D Ok you did a good job setting it up, but the arguments about angles, facial expression et al will start... Hahahahaaaaa.... So true, & I've been the first to dismiss fades as solid evidence... but an occational good fade is still sort of a guilty pleasure... for me anyway. ....but I also like jalopenos & tequila, so I dunno....
|
|