|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 28, 2008 3:35:03 GMT -5
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Dec 28, 2008 7:40:31 GMT -5
I don't understand, Red Lion.....what are we supposed to be looking at here? To me, Paul looks just as much like "JPM" here as he does in any other photos from '68.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Dec 28, 2008 11:04:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 28, 2008 18:35:38 GMT -5
JPM in 1968
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 28, 2008 23:52:34 GMT -5
JPM in 1968 Show something substantial and that might be worth entertaining, other than that it is hollow opinion.
|
|
|
Post by thefool on Dec 29, 2008 0:24:41 GMT -5
Reckon that was the urn to shoot him into space?
Some folks here are starting to dig it.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 29, 2008 0:33:36 GMT -5
Reckonthat was the urn to shoot him into space?
Some folks here are starting to dig it. It's never too late.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 29, 2008 1:05:57 GMT -5
JPM in 1968 LOL. Good one.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 24, 2009 0:50:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 26, 2009 14:08:21 GMT -5
Yes, he resembles Paul. Again, isn't that the idea. However, his forehead is larger and his ears are covered up. You rarely see photos of Paul in which you can't see his ears. Paul's ears were large enough that they usually stuck out of his hair/sideburns. It's hard to say this with total certainty, since both photos were taken at a different angle, but Faul's eyes also seem to be closer together.
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 26, 2009 19:03:08 GMT -5
Yes, he resembles Paul. Again, isn't that the idea. However, his forehead is larger and his ears are covered up. You rarely see photos of Paul in which you can't see his ears. Paul's ears were large enough that they usually stuck out of his hair/sideburns. It's hard to say this with total certainty, since both photos were taken at a different angle, but Faul's eyes also seem to be closer together. his ears are covered with hair!!! i can show you 50 pictures of "JPM" where his ears are covered with hair! here is one: his forehead is larger?? no it isn't! that is called a haircut!
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 26, 2009 20:14:40 GMT -5
Yes, he has hair covering his ears. The thing is, you can still see his ears underneath where his hair ends. In the photo of Faul, his ears are TOTALLY covered. There are no ears visible. And, the fade that you're using is photos from totally different angles. I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that. I have comparison after comparison of photos on my forum showing that Faul had a larger forehead than Paul. From what I have been able to ascertain, photos in which the forehead looks similar have either been tampered with prior to us finding them, or it's a different Faul with a smaller forehead. In every case when dealing with an early Faul, the ears always look funky. It seems to me that we are just destined to be in disagreement about this.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 27, 2009 14:03:01 GMT -5
his ears are covered with hair!!! i can show you 50 pictures of "JPM" where his ears are covered with hair! here is one: his forehead is larger?? no it isn't! that is called a haircut! Thanks for the fade, every facial feature matches very nicely, definitely JPM.
|
|
|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Jan 27, 2009 14:44:21 GMT -5
I can't put my finger on it, but there is definately something in those pictures that tells me that there were two Paul's.
The one in the pics at the top are the real man of course, as for the overlay, the head shape is different for 2 reasons
1 - different wig
2 - bad overlay
rotate the image
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 27, 2009 16:57:53 GMT -5
I can't put my finger on it, but there is definately something in those pictures that tells me that there were two Paul's. The one in the pics at the top are the real man of course, as for the overlay, the head shape is different for 2 reasons 1 - different wig 2 - bad overlay rotate the image yes, you are right. i did a quite bad overlay. i'm not very good at photoshop. the picture pre 1967 is larger then the 1965 (?) picture. but it should still be obvious that this shows the same guy
|
|
|
Post by FP on Jan 27, 2009 19:44:56 GMT -5
i'm not very good at photoshop. the picture pre 1967 is larger then the 1965 (?) picture. but it should still be obvious that this shows the same guy You can't change their minds. No matter what. I've tried for years, and I was even great at photoshop. I just signed up cause I saw someone needed the chords to Big Barn Bed.
|
|
|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Jan 27, 2009 19:53:57 GMT -5
We're not trying to change anyones minds here. What are forums for? To discuss, opinionate, isn't it?
Like I've said a number of times, I don't believe Paul died. Well, I'm not going to say I never believed it, but as time went on, I took more reasonable theories as to what might have happened.
Trust me, we've all tried to proove our points with Photoshop. It never works, but not because you didn't do something properly, because forums aren't meant to be groups of people that solve mysteries. It's a discussion forum, everyone gets negative replies to their work.
In my opinion, that's James Paul McCartney in these pictures, even in 1968.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Jan 27, 2009 20:03:27 GMT -5
We're not trying to change anyones minds here. What are forums for? To discuss, opinionate, isn't it? Like I've said a number of times, I don't believe Paul died. Well, I'm not going to say I never believed it, but as time went on, I took more reasonable theories as to what might have happened. Trust me, we've all tried to proove our points with Photoshop. It never works, but not because you didn't do something properly, because forums aren't meant to be groups of people that solve mysteries. It's a discussion forum, everyone gets negative replies to their work. In my opinion, that's James Paul McCartney in these pictures, even in 1968. Agreed. I was pretty much just responding to the statement "it should be obvious."
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jan 27, 2009 22:00:32 GMT -5
We're not trying to change anyones minds here. What are forums for? To discuss, opinionate, isn't it? ... It's a discussion forum, everyone gets negative replies to their work... Ain't that the truth? Gotta keep it in perspective.
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 28, 2009 3:04:26 GMT -5
We're not trying to change anyones minds here. What are forums for? To discuss, opinionate, isn't it? Like I've said a number of times, I don't believe Paul died. Well, I'm not going to say I never believed it, but as time went on, I took more reasonable theories as to what might have happened. Trust me, we've all tried to proove our points with Photoshop. It never works, but not because you didn't do something properly, because forums aren't meant to be groups of people that solve mysteries. It's a discussion forum, everyone gets negative replies to their work. In my opinion, that's James Paul McCartney in these pictures, even in 1968. good post!
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Jan 28, 2009 6:28:44 GMT -5
Yeah, Paul is alive. To this day. Doesn't mean there's no Bill or that the story isn't as interesting. Maybe it lacks the dark undertones it once had, but where it loses tantalization it gains logic. Every questionable photo of Bill that is explained away as being doctored? Most likely that's Paul. Every questionable photo of Paul that looks like Bill? More than likely it's not Bill we're comparing it with.
For the early years, you can "follow the Sun" on the back of Ram.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Jan 28, 2009 20:49:20 GMT -5
It looks like you guys thought I was telling ph0neyprophet that he can't change people's minds, but I was talking to pauliedied, a fellow PIAer like me. I'm jut trying to save him some time if he thinks he can change your minds, no matter how obvious we think it is.
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Jan 29, 2009 3:00:46 GMT -5
It looks like you guys thought I was telling ph0neyprophet that he can't change people's minds, but I was talking to pauliedied, a fellow PIAer like me. I'm jut trying to save him some time if he thinks he can change your minds, no matter how obvious we think it is. and you are right. but i am here (although iam PIA) because i am also "PID-curious"
|
|
|
Post by eyeseeyou on Jan 29, 2009 14:57:47 GMT -5
Jan. 4, 1968
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 29, 2009 17:46:56 GMT -5
Yeah, Paul is alive. To this day. Wings, gimme some clues(other than the words of ACV) that could lead one to conclude that JPM survived past 1966....
|
|