|
Post by JoJo on Dec 26, 2004 12:08:59 GMT -5
Many thanks to Valis for scanning this!
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 26, 2004 16:33:46 GMT -5
And another cover:
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 26, 2004 23:17:43 GMT -5
Piece of cake.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 27, 2004 0:00:48 GMT -5
Piece of cake. More like another slice of pie. ;D
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 27, 2004 2:06:16 GMT -5
More like another slice of pie. ;D Uh, does that mean you think it's one of my better fades? ;D It's too bad imageshack made it look real giffy. The one on my desktop is better quality. Oh well, I still like it.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 27, 2004 3:22:45 GMT -5
It's a good fade, FP.
I had thought fades had become unpopular, sort of an unwritten status of being "out", but I dunno. It's a convincing fade, granted. I am not sure sometimes who we might be looking it; I am not sure I know anymore what "New Paul" looks like versus "Old Paul". Or 1st and 2nd, or what-have-you. I used to think I had an idea. Now I am not so sure.
But,it really doesn't matter anymore. Fade away, FP, you enjoy it so, you've been creative doing so. Some will see them and say "Oh my, yes", and some will say "Oh my, no". But you're working hard, that is clear......
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 27, 2004 3:51:32 GMT -5
It's a good fade, FP. I had thought fades had become unpopular, sort of an unwritten status of being "out", but I dunno. It's a convincing fade, granted. I am not sure sometimes who we might be looking it; I am not sure I know anymore what "New Paul" looks like versus "Old Paul". Or 1st and 2nd, or what-have-you. I used to think I had an idea. Now I am not so sure. But,it really doesn't matter anymore. Fade away, FP, you enjoy it so, you've been creative doing so. Some will see them and say "Oh my, yes", and some will say "Oh my, no". But you're working hard, that is clear...... Thanks Dr. Robert. It is true, I do enjoy doing this. I enjoy making the fade, scaling the pics, watching the features naturally lock into each other, creating the layers, saving it, posting them here, and reading everyone's responses to them, postive or negative. Heh, I guess you can call it an obsession. ;D So, you're still a fence sitter? I remeber what that was like, not knowing which side was right or wrong, always in the confusing, silent middle. Sorta like the eye of a hurricane. Right in the middle of all the madness. ;D SK's and Uberkinders poorly scaled fades pushed me from an average person, not knowing about PID, to a fence sitter, leaning towards PID. Then I did some of my own research and comparisons of Paul, and that's what made me the hardcore PIAer I am today. The point is, don't listen to me, JoJo, Revolver, Larry, KHAN, SK, or anyone else about who's right or wrong. Do it yourself. Make your your own decision about PID based on your comparisons, and conclusions. Not mine or anyone else's fades. Well, that's all I've got to say for the night. PEACE
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 28, 2004 5:18:41 GMT -5
Robert, did you read what I said?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 28, 2004 8:13:39 GMT -5
Yes, I did, FP. Fine, what you do is fine, what you feel is fine. Maybe I'm just a little nuts.....I percieve something, something different, someone else, something. I dunno. Another earlier person--hidden away somehow, precious few images remaining, but I dunno.....your fades basically do work. Thee is one that I question---I'll delve into that later, but I see plainly that many pictues are of, in fact, the ID some of us here think of as Bill........ Make-up and lights, etc, many things make a photo. Certainly, they did an amazing job of, if they did do a job of, making someone to be a double out of thin air. Yet, even twins have differences. I know two old grand ladies here in GA. They are octogerian twins. One of them has the eyes spaced a LITTLE bit wider than the other. I learned years ago to "see" her eyes, I call her Ruby. She is pleased--her sister approaches, I know she is Ruth. Ruth's eyes are, somehow, closer to the middle. I mean, they are identical twins--but even THEY have subtle differences. And, all of us that know them learn the diffference. They dress exactly alike. They wear their hair the same! From a few paces away, you can't tell. But, inside personal space, looking directly at their eyes---you CAN! Everybody at their church CAN. They learn how. (BTW THey are dear sweet ladies who do many good works. And participate in life like they were still 50. Amazing.) So, I dunno. Maybe I am just stuck. I believe in a replacement. If you NEVER do, so then it goes just as well for you, then! Probably better......you don't have to feel like a lunatic every now and then like I do.........[DocRob bays at the moon, which set hours ago...] So, fade on and on as you like. I will see your fades, be struck or impressed with them, yet, still dim-wittedly hang on to my "concept" of how it might be in the alternative scheme of things....... This allows me to continue making meaningful contact with the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus. But, the good news is, they only come around once a year to visit me. Most years, anyway. But seriously, I know how whacky all this seems to be. Would it be so horrible to you to imagine that, after some unforseen tragedy took a popular man, in order to save many young people from anguish and keep a profitable thing for a nation going, that a kind of elaborate "solution" might have been engineered? Of a long or permanent duration?..... Still, how could anyone be blamed IF they happened to notice? Or, are they just nuts for thinking they do? I used to really scoff at the peple who thought Paul died, when I was in college. I lambasted them. Am I paying for my ridicule now? For a mocking I made lo, so many years ago? I guess I march to the different beat of some unknown drummer. Who plays while wearing a straightjacket and handcuffs. Elvis and Morrison ARE dead. At least I've got those two right.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 29, 2004 1:10:38 GMT -5
Uh, Robert, I don't exactly get what you were trying to sget at in that post. Are you saying P/F's eye distance changes?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 29, 2004 2:51:11 GMT -5
YOu see, FP, IMO, regarding your fades and photos: It's all the same person. It's all Sir Paul.
Of course those pics will fade together well, allowing for subtle variance of angle, age of pic, lens type, lighting, etc.
Look at eyesbleed's avatar. THAT is James Paul. Click on it to "view image". It will display larger. At least, it does on my computer, anyway. Try it. Then, study it. {IMO} That is another person. That is 23 year old James Paul from 1965. I admit it is not the clearest picture in the world. Understatement.
I have only found 4 or 5 more pictures that agree with this one. I suspect that there are few JP pictures left. The rest of what is available ARE of the same person, Sir Paul. The 99%. Print eyesbleed's avatar. Draw a square around his features with a pencil. You can. A nearly equal sided square. Width and height nearly th same. He is looking nearly square on the camera. Chin is vey slightly raised. Insignificant.
Sir Paul pictures, however, require a tall rectangle. Which is normal--most people do fit best within a rectangle.
Which indicates to me that many of SK's pictures, and quite a few picture by Uberkinder---are actually of Sir Paul, not James Paul. Which is a tribute to how amazingly well the photo aspect has been handled. Resemblance---without the right geometry.
There are simply not enough pictures of James Paul remaining in circulation, or perhaps existence. There are virtually NONE that are full sized and clear. It is evident now, IMO, any remote concept of "proof" of this issue is, at this time, perhaps for all time, is impossible. There is insufficient material worthy of effective display for making any kind of convincing case; PID is itself dead in the water. All that there is left to do is rehash the errors, and the misinterpretations.
It's over, people. The world will never know any more than it thinks it does now; 99% of talk on this topic only serves to wreck your own credibility. "PID talk" is "blithering talk" to the world.
It's done. Finished. Through. Have we got something new to discuss and study?
Huh? Well, I actually believe that we did go to the moon.
Next!
Pollution?
That may work. We can ALL see it in the air.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 29, 2004 3:01:29 GMT -5
Dr Robert, all the pics in my sig of JP ARE JP.
I took the 1st from JoJo's avatar on 60IF, the 2nd from JoJo's scan of With The Beatles, and the 3rd from Eyesbleed's site.
All vintage.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 29, 2004 4:03:30 GMT -5
Vintage? yes. 1968, or 1969 is "vintage." Many remakes are vintage. A Star is Born is a great "vintage" movie. 1936, 1954, AND 1976. One original, TWO remakes. What I do not believe you are using, necessarily, is originals. Because you can't find any. And, if you could, you would not use them. You would not EVEN recognize them. I know what reshoots are. Reshoots are done all the time. YOu can recreate a scene with a different actor if you can get the background elements reconstructed. You can fly back to Sri Lanki (Baby Elephant Walk, when Elizabeth Taylor replaced the ailing Vivien Leigh); you can pull costumes out of the costume shop, or the closet; you can reset the scene, hopefully the same season of the year or you may have grass when there was none before; you can put prostetics and stuff the clothes and put on lifts and everything else in the world Hollywood has been doing for a hundred years. IT'S ROUTINE! And now we have CGI and all kinds of computer programs to perfect imaging. Shadows, placement. You can do all this all day long. For years. But what you can NEVER do, is once a person has SEEN a person enough to recognize them, to know their face, you can NOT override most people's natural ability to KNOW someone at sight. You have never seen the first James Paul. You do not know what he looked like. JoJo's avatar is Bill, it's Sir Paul. It's from a reshoot. There are only 4 or 5 long shot or shadowed profile shots of JP remaining in the current DVD version of the movie. NO ONE has an original of Help! No one. It was unavailable for MANY years. It was not shown; it was not seen. It was pulled out of circulation in 1966. The radio announcer on WQXI-AM in Atlanta tried to find out why. His report came back: we could not get a reason. HE asked when will it come back? He was told that they did not know when if ever it would be shown. I remember the radio broadcast from 1966 in Atlanta. I was disappointed. I wanted to see it. MANY people called into that radio station about it. It had been showing second run at a drive-in theatre on Piedmont Road. It was pulled with no notice. No explanation. There was quite a row about it. Most people in this town who were at least 10 at the time remember it. The ultimate reason given? Copyright restrictions! What movie in history, with tremendous proven earning potential, can not be shown? besides the Manchurian Candidate? What producer would...never mind. Its not just me. Many people 40, 45, 50 years old have a LONG memory. They notice a lot of this, too. I know many people who agree that Paul started to look different. LOTS of people said it to me over the years. I ridiculed them for thinking there could be a switch. I did. I was harsh. Plenty think so now. They just don't believe that a "switch" could ever go undetected. And they are right. It has, and it always will. It will never be seen. You will never see it. No one at macca4ever will ever be able to fathom this. A miniscule number of people can see this. One in a million. No. Not that many. I can spend the rest of my life, then, second guessing my ability to make distinctions in sound and form. Convinced I see and hear blatant inconsistencies. Dazzling similarities, yes------but small, consistent differences. You have never seen JP, and you never will. You have heard him, however. But, you do not know when. Without MUCH listening, and relistening, you never will divide between. Nobody is interested in spending any time or effort in doing that. That is OK, most people have more important things to do, more important in running their personal lives. You would be wasting your time to do so. So, don't try. You can't hear it. You'll never hear it. YOu have heard Abbey road. You have heard Revolver. And you haven't noticed it. So, therefore, you can't. I do. I am either crazy, or right. I either have keen discernment, or I don't. I did! So, I would have then, lost it. I would have to decide that, well, I have lost my ability to discern. It is working on OTHER avenues of my life. Why would it fail me, here, in this place only? Why would I be, in effect, adding TO the sounds of images that go with the Beatles? Am I hysterical? Am I neurotic? Am I touched in the head? Obsessed over an error? Am I a fanatic now over mistakes in perception? Am I super-imposing a layer of non-reality on ONLY what I see and hear relating to the Beatles? And I was the guy who got offended at a party in college where the other 8 people got into a PID session and even pulled out the d*mn album covers etc. They were onto it! They believed it! I laughed! I scoffed! I yawned! Who cares! He looks the same to me. They don't play classical music. It isn't Poulenc, Brahms, or Stravinsky! Screw this! I am calling Dominoes for a pizza! I did. I sat and stuffed my face full of pizza while the heightened talk raged on across the dormitory room. "Y'all, this is SOOO stupid." "It is impossible. This could NEVER happen in the real world. All it is, they pulled a stunt to make MORE MONEY. That is all it is. More money. Garbage. Lies. Don't fall for it." I think I was 19 years old. I knew everything back then. I was so wise. I just knew what was right, and what was wrong. I had discernment!!!! Sounds like I haven't changed a bit, doesn't it? FP, I have to honest with myself about what I am looking at. I didn't really look baclk then. Well, when the sheet music to Hey Jude came out, I bought it, and thought somehow his face looked different, but it never dawned on me that it could be different man. That was not a concept I could see in, I think 1968 when I was maybe 11. So, what about it? Well, I guess dead men don't know anything, so the first man is ignorant of his obscurity. So, what does it matter. Although John first took official credit, the first Paul goes on being buried today. Maybe one day someone will see him in their holiday cranberry sauce, and auction him off on eBay. Jesus in the spaghetti, Mary in the cheese, and Paul in the sauce. Next will come the Mama Cass-erole Dish.......
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 29, 2004 4:13:45 GMT -5
What I meant was that the pics of Paul in my sig are pics released before the time he was "replaced". And by the gist of your post, it sounds like you're a PIDer who thinks everything is doctored, not a fence sitter in the middle anymore.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 29, 2004 4:34:49 GMT -5
....by the gist of your post, it sounds like you're a PIDer who thinks everything is doctored, not a fence sitter in the middle anymore. FP, I truly don't think you will find very many "fence sitters" spending a lot of time at our forum.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 29, 2004 4:42:20 GMT -5
FP, I truly don't think you will find very many "fence sitters" spending a lot of time at our forum. For the last month or so I thought Dr. Robert as sort of in the middle. And Jerri Willmore is slightly a fence sitter.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 29, 2004 5:17:58 GMT -5
Vintage? yes. 1968, or 1969 is "vintage." Many remakes are vintage. A Star is Born is a great "vintage" movie. 1936, 1954, AND 1976. One original, TWO remakes. What I do not believe you are using, necessarily, is originals. Because you can't find any. And, if you could, you would not use them. You would not EVEN recognize them. I know what reshoots are. Reshoots are done all the time. YOu can recreate a scene with a different actor if you can get the background elements reconstructed. You can fly back to Sri Lanki (Baby Elephant Walk, when Elizabeth Taylor replaced the ailing Vivien Leigh); you can pull costumes out of the costume shop, or the closet; you can reset the scene, hopefully the same season of the year or you may have grass when there was none before; you can put prostetics and stuff the clothes and put on lifts and everything else in the world Hollywood has been doing for a hundred years. IT'S ROUTINE! And now we have CGI and all kinds of computer programs to perfect imaging. Shadows, placement. You can do all this all day long. For years. But what you can NEVER do, is once a person has SEEN a person enough to recognize them, to know their face, you can NOT override most people's natural ability to KNOW someone at sight. You have never seen the first James Paul. You do not know what he looked like. JoJo's avatar is Bill, it's Sir Paul. It's from a reshoot. There are only 4 or 5 long shot or shadowed profile shots of JP remaining in the current DVD version of the movie. NO ONE has an original of Help! No one. It was unavailable for MANY years. It was not shown; it was not seen. It was pulled out of circulation in 1966. The radio announcer on WQXI-AM in Atlanta tried to find out why. His report came back: we could not get a reason. HE asked when will it come back? He was told that they did not know when if ever it would be shown. I remember the radio broadcast from 1966 in Atlanta. I was disappointed. I wanted to see it. MANY people called into that radio station about it. It had been showing second run at a drive-in theatre on Piedmont Road. It was pulled with no notice. No explanation. There was quite a row about it. Most people in this town who were at least 10 at the time remember it. The ultimate reason given? Copyright restrictions! What movie in history, with tremendous proven earning potential, can not be shown? besides the Manchurian Candidate? What producer would...never mind. Its not just me. Many people 40, 45, 50 years old have a LONG memory. They notice a lot of this, too. I know many people who agree that Paul started to look different. LOTS of people said it to me over the years. I ridiculed them for thinking there could be a switch. I did. I was harsh. Plenty think so now. They just don't believe that a "switch" could ever go undetected. And they are right. It has, and it always will. It will never be seen. You will never see it. No one at macca4ever will ever be able to fathom this. A miniscule number of people can see this. One in a million. No. Not that many. I can spend the rest of my life, then, second guessing my ability to make distinctions in sound and form. Convinced I see and hear blatant inconsistencies. Dazzling similarities, yes------but small, consistent differences. You have never seen JP, and you never will. You have heard him, however. But, you do not know when. Without MUCH listening, and relistening, you never will divide between. Nobody is interested in spending any time or effort in doing that. That is OK, most people have more important things to do, more important in running their personal lives. You would be wasting your time to do so. So, don't try. You can't hear it. You'll never hear it. YOu have heard Abbey road. You have heard Revolver. And you haven't noticed it. So, therefore, you can't. I do. I am either crazy, or right. I either have keen discernment, or I don't. I did! So, I would have then, lost it. I would have to decide that, well, I have lost my ability to discern. It is working on OTHER avenues of my life. Why would it fail me, here, in this place only? Why would I be, in effect, adding TO the sounds of images that go with the Beatles? Am I hysterical? Am I neurotic? Am I touched in the head? Obsessed over an error? Am I a fanatic now over mistakes in perception? Am I super-imposing a layer of non-reality on ONLY what I see and hear relating to the Beatles? And I was the guy who got offended at a party in college where the other 8 people got into a PID session and even pulled out the d*mn album covers etc. They were onto it! They believed it! I laughed! I scoffed! I yawned! Who cares! He looks the same to me. They don't play classical music. It isn't Poulenc, Brahms, or Stravinsky! Screw this! I am calling Dominoes for a pizza! I did. I sat and stuffed my face full of pizza while the heightened talk raged on across the dormitory room. "Y'all, this is SOOO stupid." "It is impossible. This could NEVER happen in the real world. All it is, they pulled a stunt to make MORE MONEY. That is all it is. More money. Garbage. Lies. Don't fall for it." I think I was 19 years old. I knew everything back then. I was so wise. I just knew what was right, and what was wrong. I had discernment!!!! Sounds like I haven't changed a bit, doesn't it? FP, I have to honest with myself about what I am looking at. I didn't really look baclk then. Well, when the sheet music to Hey Jude came out, I bought it, and thought somehow his face looked different, but it never dawned on me that it could be different man. That was not a concept I could see in, I think 1968 when I was maybe 11. So, what about it? Well, I guess dead men don't know anything, so the first man is ignorant of his obscurity. So, what does it matter. Although John first took official credit, the first Paul goes on being buried today. Maybe one day someone will see him in their holiday cranberry sauce, and auction him off on eBay. Jesus in the spaghetti, Mary in the cheese, and Paul in the sauce. Next will come the Mama Cass-erole Dish....... Your best of many great posts.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 29, 2004 5:30:36 GMT -5
For the last month or so I thought Dr. Robert as sort of in the middle. we'll have to fight over him then I claim Doc in the name of PID ;D
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 29, 2004 9:13:36 GMT -5
For the last month or so I thought Dr. Robert as sort of in the middle. Maybe... in a sense, but I think you've misunderstood what he's been trying to say. Dr. has raised the question of exactly who or what it is in the photos being faded. Images of the real true untouched JPM are disappearing.... the world has accepted the image of Faul as JPM & when folks like us question that, we get knocked around. There are many reasons why some of yer fades line up as good as they do... (still not perfect tho) and it's not because JPM was never replaced. I am 100% sure of that fact. I think you should re-read Doc's posts from this last month. He's on to something that I've been thinking about for some time now, but I just haven't figured out the best way to voice it.... but Doc's done a great job of that recently.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 29, 2004 10:20:34 GMT -5
Fence sitter? Nah not the Doc. Not to embarrass you friend, but Doc is the best at discerning a genuine JPM from anyone, whether it's Bill, JPM made to look like Bill, and no matter how subtle the change, he can call it, yay or nay. It may get to be too much to take in at times, as he said, you can get punchy after a while. NO ONE has an original of Help! No one. As you know, when you first proposed this, I was pretty skeptical, but...I think you are on to something, yes. One thing I noticed was a subtle change in Ringo, how he looked a little older and careworn in one scene from one frame to the next. (Outside playing the drums in the cold) There's more, but who would believe it? But if it's true, what then? About the only thing you can trust is something you either bought yourself, or have first hand knowledge of who and when. Vintage? Well that's a dangerous word to use, no? Your best of many great posts. Agreed, thanks for saying it Doc.
|
|