|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 22, 2004 20:07:17 GMT -5
 I would also like your reason if you're willing to reveal it |
|
Abbey
Hard Day's Night 
Posts: 10
|
Post by Abbey on Mar 22, 2004 21:04:23 GMT -5
Since I don't believe Paul died, or was replaced, in my mind it must be Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 22, 2004 21:04:27 GMT -5
Can I give the answer? I mean, can I say when and where this pic is from?
|
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 22, 2004 21:07:12 GMT -5
well you ruined my point, which was how similar they began to look, but go ahead and tell the place and time
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 22, 2004 21:16:10 GMT -5
How did I ruin the point? I was only asking a question...  Anyway, you got it from the Beatles Anthology book. The pic was taken 1966, July I think, and they were in some holding cell in the Philippines.(?) |
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 22, 2004 21:19:42 GMT -5
thats the one, but you ruined it by being the only one to vote, then claiming you knew the answer, of course if you voted for Paul, then say you know the answer, then everyone will follow your lead. How did you recognize that from all the pics in that book?
Now, that looks a lot like Faul, and I don't want to hear TKIN's standard about the anthology, because its bull, who wants to explain?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 22, 2004 21:59:31 GMT -5
Because I'm honest, and before I change my mind, I admit my first reaction was Faul. also i would place it as a late 1967-1968 pic, that's what he looked like then. The features were right on the money by then, but there's that face that looks too long.
Rather than go there with Anthology and that old argument, I'll simply say that when i see a picture of Paul that (at this point) my gut reaction is Faul, then I have to wonder why?? Why was the part of my brain that knows right away at this point fooled? The pointers, whatever they are, for myself as well as others out there were manipulated somehow. That's my belief anyway...
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 23, 2004 1:12:46 GMT -5
thats the one, but you ruined it by being the only one to vote, then claiming you knew the answer, of course if you voted for Paul, then say you know the answer, then everyone will follow your lead. Actually, I didn't vote!  Abbey, was that your vote? |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 23, 2004 2:14:41 GMT -5
...Now, that looks a lot like Faul, and I don't want to hear TKIN's standard about the anthology, because its bull, who wants to explain? yes, it does. But it's not the first time I've seen a celebrity "double" that can pass for the original.  |
|
|
|
Post by eggy on Mar 23, 2004 16:01:57 GMT -5
I have to admit that i didnt know if to say Paul or Faul |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 23, 2004 20:50:22 GMT -5
Now, that looks a lot like Faul, and I don't want to hear TKIN's standard about the anthology, because its bull, who wants to explain? Well whether you like Sun King or not I have to agree with him that some of the early photos of Paul are stretched to make his face look long. It's quite obvious in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 23, 2004 21:06:56 GMT -5
How can you solidly prove that they are stretched? If you can, I'll gladly agree with your point
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 23, 2004 21:28:33 GMT -5
Actually, I didn't vote! Abbey, was that your vote? |
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 23, 2004 21:37:00 GMT -5
OKOK, I get it, sorry for accusing you, I just saw your post and one vote, so I assumed it was you
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 23, 2004 22:00:42 GMT -5
How can you solidly prove that they are stretched? If you can, I'll gladly agree with your point My head tells me. Can you look at something and make your own judgement or does some 'expert' have to prove it for you? The photos look stretched to me. When I see Paul's face in one photo and it looks a certain way and then in another photo it looks unusually long then I think something has been altered in the photo. It's not like I only notice it every now and then. I see it all the time including the cover of the book I got for Christmas, The Beatles: Unseen Archives. |
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 23, 2004 22:04:33 GMT -5
how do you know they didn't stretched the sides to make his head look round? Judgement is one thing, but think of all the options first
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 23, 2004 22:06:08 GMT -5
how do you know they didn't stretched the sides to make his head look round? Judgement is one thing, but think of all the options first Because I've seen VIDEOS of Paul and have seen the shape of his face!  |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 23, 2004 22:15:37 GMT -5
How can you solidly prove that they are stretched? If you can, I'll gladly agree with your point This is one actual good use for fades, but you need both an old photo time stamped in some way less than or equal to 1966, and pretty much anything printed afterwards. So you need the same photo from different times, then you can see if one was stretched. (quite easy really) So... there's your "how". The photo is stretched or is obviously longer, shorter or whatever, that is not argued, what then gets debated is the "why". Ah, there's the rub. There's no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the photo wasn't stretched to meet the confines of a book's dimensions, it may have been a "mini book" for example. Or a calander, or oversize book, or the publisher had a bad day, who knows! It's to many of our eyes that we see it too often, and without a reasonable explanation, that makes us go hmmm... Is it some effort to manipulate our subconscious perception, or just a publishing technical issue? |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 23, 2004 22:20:09 GMT -5
Well would that be the result of deliberate planning??
|
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 23, 2004 22:21:37 GMT -5
OK, simple enough, anyone have the original? If so then post it, but if not then you still can't prove it was stretched
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 23, 2004 22:29:28 GMT -5
No, not this particular one, but the general idea applies, even if i did, the examples of the arguments of "why", or others like it, would quickly be brought up. It's been done with similar photos way back when... so I know from where I speak.. |
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 23, 2004 23:10:34 GMT -5
thats fine if you can prove it for other photos, but you can't for this one, and its very close to the time of Paul's "death" which makes me think, maybe it really was Paul, I mean, some have admitted that they didn't know which was which.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 23, 2004 23:40:35 GMT -5
Well whether you like Sun King or not I have to agree with him that some of the early photos of Paul are stretched to make his face look long. It's quite obvious in my opinion. Ya agreed. I don't know why the topic of some pics being purposely altered is such a bad thing coz it is obvious. Occationally.......... I'm not saying this one has been, but this pic is one of those occational pics that's really tough. |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 23, 2004 23:44:37 GMT -5
It's a tough one, but I'm gonna say Paul.
Paul had a baby-face quality Bill never had, & Bill had a sleazy quality Paul never had, & I'm seeing the baby-face in that pic.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 24, 2004 7:31:56 GMT -5
OK, simple enough, anyone have the original? If so then post it, but if not then you still can't prove it was stretched And you can't prove that it wasn't!  |
|
Abbey, was that your vote?
