|
Post by revolver on Mar 27, 2004 22:56:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 27, 2004 23:44:17 GMT -5
Ya Revolver.... I think we've all run circles around the same thing for way too long. I mean... who even needs those lines that don't match up, anyway?? It's obvious those are pics of 2 different people with or without the lines.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 27, 2004 23:49:26 GMT -5
But my lines do prove that "Faul" does not have a longer face.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 27, 2004 23:54:43 GMT -5
But my lines do prove that "Faul" does not have a longer face. Well... maybe so maybe not (too many margaritas for important decision-making or straight vision) But it's still Faul/Bill
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 27, 2004 23:57:27 GMT -5
Hold on, I thought you guys said that Faul have a LONGER face? ...But my lines do prove that "Faul" does not have a longer face. Yes he does - longer as in narrower. We're talking proportions of height to width.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 28, 2004 0:15:45 GMT -5
To address the face longer issue, the horizontal lines are what we are talking about... Starting from the top: Line 1: Below Paul's eyebrows, above Faul's Line 2: Through Paul's pupils, through the top of thewhites of Faul's eyes Line 3: A hair below Pauls's nose, at the bottom of Faul's nostrils. (which seem more visible, like you can see the holes better) Line 4: The lines go between the upper and lower lips in both, looks like a match. Line 5: Could be a match, it's hard to tell with the Faul pic where the jaw ends and the neck begins. In the Paul pic it's a little more clear cut. Seems to get better as you get to the bottom of the face, again, the jaw line is hard to be sure about. If I were TKIN, I wouldn't have gone out a limb like that..
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 28, 2004 0:21:06 GMT -5
Well... maybe so maybe not .....But it's still Faul/Bill That's where I am as well Eyebleed.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 28, 2004 1:07:12 GMT -5
That's strange.... LarryC's fade shows that they stay the same: (give it time to load)
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 28, 2004 2:46:53 GMT -5
That's strange.... LarryC's fade shows that they stay the same: Even though the yellow pepper pic of Faul was clearly altered back in '67 to look more like Paul, the eyes still don't match. Notice how cold and dark Faul's eyes look on Paul, even though Faul was smiling.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 28, 2004 3:13:46 GMT -5
IMO, those eyes match perfctly.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 28, 2004 3:28:45 GMT -5
If I were TKIN, I wouldn't have gone out a limb like that.. I think he (SunKing) was right about Faul's facial proportions (height to width) being greater than Paul's. Whether the chins line up all depends on how you scale the two photos. When the eyes are spaced the same, then Faul's chin is lower. When the chins line up, then Faul's eyes are too narrow. That's what the PIAers can't seem to grasp. You can always make one part of the face be the same size, but never the whole without some kind of distortion. We have more than enough unaltered photos to show that. Ones lifted from the original Sgt. Pepper album jacket are more likely to be altered. The Sgt. Pepper CD liner photos were less likely to have been altered due to the passage of time, now that people are more familiar with Faul's appearance than Paul's.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 28, 2004 11:37:09 GMT -5
That's strange.... LarryC's fade shows that they stay the same: (give it time to load) The great LarryC does some entertaining fades alright. With ENTERTAINING being the key word here. I save some of LarryC's work to my Beatles folder also. Then, when I've finally convinced somebody of the validity of PID, I show them some of LarryC's work & then send'em home to sort it out themselves. Actually, I've only convinced 2 people..... everybody else is certain I've gone off the deep end (again)
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 28, 2004 14:20:16 GMT -5
IMO, those eyes match perfctly. As SK pointed out, the original Sgt. Pepper yellow gatefold shot of Faul is not a valid reference photo to use for any comparisions. That photo is clearly a composite of Faul's and Paul's features (as is the cover shot) so the public wouldn't immediately notice the difference and could subconsciously get used to new "Paul". Even still, the eyes are not a match IMO, esecially Paul's on Faul.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 28, 2004 14:58:04 GMT -5
As SK pointed out, the original Sgt. Pepper yellow gatefold shot of Faul is not a valid reference photo to use for any comparisions. That photo is clearly a composite of Faul's and Paul's features (as is the cover shot) so the public wouldn't immediately notice the difference and could subconsciously get used to new "Paul". Even still, the eyes are not a match IMO, esecially Paul's on Faul. Very well said. They did the same thing on the cover.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 28, 2004 17:12:35 GMT -5
Even though the yellow pepper pic of Faul was clearly altered back in '67 to look more like Paul, the eyes still don't match. Do you know how hard it would be to do that? You would need some program like photoshop, but they had nothing like that in the 60's.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 28, 2004 17:25:17 GMT -5
Do you know how hard it would be to do that? You would need some program like photoshop, but they had nothing like that in the 60's. It's called air brushing. It's been around at least since the 1950s. They also could have altered Faul's facial proportions with an optical printer.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 28, 2004 18:46:45 GMT -5
I've never heard of those before. Please explain what those are.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 8, 2004 17:42:18 GMT -5
Well here's a fade of a famous person that was done by pros, and it illustrates the problem with fades pretty well. In the Queen video "One Vision", they fade from that famous scene at the begining of the Bohemian Rhapsody to a scene exactly like it 10 or so years later. I capped some stills and used gif animator to make the gif, but otherwise it's the makers of the video who did the work. Probably the problem here is that although they did the best they could to match positions and camera angle, it's still not exact, perhaps an almost impossible order. Here it is, although it's old to young, it doesn't make any difference...
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 8, 2004 20:39:22 GMT -5
The picture of Faul used in the gatefold of "Sgt Pepper" is universally known to have been altered.
Compare the gatefold "photo" of Bill with the other unaltered photo of Bill in the Sgt Pepper CD booklet side-by-side.
The original pix of Faul look nothing like the doctored pic in the gatefold.
Fades are not the ultimate proof, but I think a fade between the gatefold "photo" of Bill and the unaltered photo of Bill in the CD booklet would be enlightening to some here...
Bill's chin on the cover of Sgt Pepper and Bill's whole face in the gatefold were obviously altered.
Just as Bill's jaw was on Abbey Road, with a gray tone.
LarryC's fade shouldn't be given any credence at all because he is using an altered photo (I consider it more of a PAINTING). I don't even feel comfortable calling the gatefold illustration a photo.
And let's not forget those gigantic, shiny brown contacts.
Try to place James Paul's left-to right part, original hairdo on the gatefold "illustration". There's just no way!
I don't have the technical know-how to do this, but don't you think we'd have a really funny looking guy if we did?
Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 9, 2004 1:18:31 GMT -5
What about "recognition?"
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 20:23:50 GMT -5
As SK pointed out, the original Sgt. Pepper yellow gatefold shot of Faul is not a valid reference photo to use for any comparisions. That photo is clearly a composite of Faul's and Paul's features (as is the cover shot) so the public wouldn't immediately notice the difference and could subconsciously get used to new "Paul". Even still, the eyes are not a match IMO, esecially Paul's on Faul. So you say that's a doctored photo? I just found this page that was under Kazu's "links" list, and somehow this guy was able to match up the "undoctored version: www.geocities.com/thoughtmonkey2000/paul2.html
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 11, 2004 21:43:59 GMT -5
Well, yeah, his presentation does a good job making them match up.
Does anyone have the color pic of Paul on Ed Sullivan, I think it is from the Yesterday appearance, he is just standing there, holding his bass, it looks like a shot made from the from the first row on the floor in the audience, it is looking somewhat up, and appears to be a sound check time etc. where he is just standing there idle, looking out. It may have been during the show, but he is not playing or singing, just looking pensive. There are some abstract curved chaser lights in the background.........this pic was somewhere on one of these boards, but it went away. I have it somewhere but cant locate right now..........
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 11, 2004 21:47:54 GMT -5
Animations are too easily "adjusted". All the proof we need is from candid audio and stills:
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 21:51:04 GMT -5
Animations are too easily "adjusted". What do you mean?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 11, 2004 22:03:13 GMT -5
Adjusted meaning that one or both can be shrunk, stretched, enlarged to make your point more believable. And yes this can happen on either side of the argument. Fades need to big a leap of faith on the part of the viewer in the honesty of the creator of the fades. And then, even if he's honest, he may be working with material that for non nefarious reasons has been touched up before it was published wherever. Fades.. just say no.. ;D
|
|