|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 7, 2011 15:41:22 GMT -5
I put this together using The Beatles For Sale cover, George Harrison's 1968 "White Album" photo, a 1967 photo of Lennon, and a 1968 photo of McCartney. It was just to show a "perfect fit" of a person's face despite a 3 or 4 year gap, and a NOT perfect fit of a face.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 7, 2011 17:51:35 GMT -5
Thank you JoJo for fixing it, I didn't quite know what went wrong. If anyone knows of other shots of McCartney (and Ringo) post 67, that match their positions on the cover of Beatles For Sale, please post them. The George one was just common sense, and the John one was a lucky find, plus the cigarette helps but i'd just like to be able to prove it over and over again that McCartney's not right. And when you place him amongst faces that don't alter to such an alarming degree other than age/weight ... well. I did this one as well Uploaded with ImageShack.usLennon is 1965/1980 Harrison (1968/1974) shows that even with his face in a slightly different pose, his features match up. Even with it being in a different position, it was not difficult to get his eyes/lips lined up without effort. McCartney? Impossible to line him up. I could only get his right eye to match up. And he's in primarily, the same pose as the 65 shot. I'm guessing the photo of him later is from about 76? 77?
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 7, 2011 17:57:38 GMT -5
and the close up of that Paul overlay. Uploaded with ImageShack.us
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 8, 2011 20:37:19 GMT -5
Voodooguru, go to the Imageshack link, click on "embed" and then cut/paste the "forum" link to your post here. Any other way of doing it seems to not work.
Hint: View your post in another company's browser to be sure it works.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 8, 2011 21:30:39 GMT -5
Thanks JoJo. It worked I wondered if anyone can answer some questions I have: 1. What part(s) of Africa did McCartney go in 1966. And what was his verified return date. Barry Miles states it was the 9th November, 1966. but I've read this is an error. 2. Many PIA supporters state that McCartney's moped accident, which I've seen reported as happening in December 65, contributes to the PID theory. His chipped tooth being evidence of the accident in the Rain/Paperback Writer promos. But these were filmed in May 1966. The likelihood that McCartney walked around with a chipped tooth for nearly 6 months without being photographed once and it being blatantly evident seems ... pretty bull. Or even going to a dentist about it. Unless the tooth chipped 6 months after the fact. Which is possible. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 8, 2011 21:42:32 GMT -5
I ask this simply because .... of I Am the Walrus
and the "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." which is said to be based off of March to Pretoria. Which is of course, in Africa. South Africa to be precise, where in August of 66 The Beatles songs were banned from being played for a period of 5 years. The ban was lifted on McCartney/Harrison/Starr, but not on Lennon after the initial 5 years.
I just find it interesting that he would "base" a lyric from a song about marching to Pretoria, South Africa, where their music was banned following his statements on Jesus Christ & Christianity. As said, during apartheid, they did NOT lift the ban on Lennon's material, only the other three. Where am I going with that? I don't know. Other than saying that I Am the Walrus is not "nonsense" lyrics. It's making particular points. And I'd just like to find out where exactly McCartney went on his trip to Africa. Seeing as how even by 1994, Neil Aspinall couldn't even say in Anthology where Paul went.
I was a Beatles fanatic for years. Absolute years. And I can never recall a story in any biography mentioning anything about McCartney going to Africa. All mention was on Lennon, Harrison and Starr's "break" in 66. Not even 1994/1995 alluded to any trip this man made to the continent. When I eventually saw home movie footage of this trip i was shocked. I had never EVER seen any of that. Not even a photo. McCartney's Africa trip in 66 I can assuredly say, was never mentioned once in any film, documentary, or book/magazine I had read. I have an incomplete collection of The Beatles Monthly, second printing (in the 70's), sent to me from England by my grandparents, so I may have missed such mention in the fanzine. But i do have many of the issues from 1967 - 1969. One of the older ones I have is from 1965, and in it is an article entitled The Many Faces of Paul, which uses multiple photos of him 63 - 65. I'd scan it, but i have no scanner.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 8, 2011 21:51:32 GMT -5
And another interesting thing I've noticed for years, but rarely anyone comments it, is Lennon's preoccupation with water/yellow/green for a period of 2 years. So much so you can write other lyrics around it.
When I'm in the middle of a dream Stay in bed, float upstream Picture yourself in a boat on a river Turn off your mind Relax and float down stream Semoc niar eht fi But listen to the colour of your dreams Yellow matter custard Cellophane flowers of yellow and green you've seen seven wonders And your bird is green
a small sample. When researching Monarch Programming, MK Ultra, another interesting thing happens. You have the different degrees of "brainwaves"
red beta consciousness orange alpha lucid yellow theta meditation green delta dreamless sleep
watch.
Picture yourself in a boat on a river with tangerine trees and marmalade skies somebody calls you you answer quite slowly the girl with kaleidoscope eyes
cellophane flowers of yellow and green towering over your head
red / consciousness PICTURE yourself in a boat on a river. Imagine it in your conscious state.
Anyway! The man couldn't mention any other colour for about two years apart from yellow and green, and alluded to water, streams, floating numerous times. That's fixation. Either me noticing it, or him doing it. Take your pick. But it FOLLOWS the writing of Nowhere Man. And ends with the full appearance of Ono in his life, as in the relationship was in full bloom.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Sept 8, 2011 22:18:06 GMT -5
If you want the PIA response to this, come on our forum, since most of you guys get annoyed by me posting here.
But I'll just say this:
1) When making an overlay, you have to match it up by the eyes, always. If one photograph is titled, of course the eyes won't line up!
2) We've shown many times that A) Paul can line up pre/post '66 just fine when the angle and expression is the same, and B) it's very easy to make the same person not line up. You don't even need us to show that, just take a look at SK's claims about there being a Fohn, Feorge and Fingo.
|
|
|
Post by lilyknows on Sept 9, 2011 6:14:10 GMT -5
how to match them up correctly: Paul and Paul - not impossible to match up at all
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Sept 9, 2011 15:15:44 GMT -5
how to match them up correctly: Paul and Paul - not impossible to match up at all Not impossible to match up? I'm a PID/PWR agnostic, and yet here I would say that you have two people who look very much alike -- alike enough to fool the casual observer or unsuspecting -- but who really don't match up at all. I'm not sure what you did to make these "match". But looked at separately, all of the features that the average PID/PWR true believer -- including nutcases like Tina Foster -- would point to are present here: the differing eye colors (my understanding is that eye color -- or appearance of same -- can vary at different times, depending upon age, mood, background, lighting, etc.), the different-sized foreheads, the differing noses, the different placement of the ears - the left ear anyway doesn't even come close to overlapping in your attempt to make a "match". Some of the other features, though, such as the teeth and the lines underneath the eyes are remarkably similar. But I wouldn't call this a "match". I'm still not expressing a firm opinion because I don't feel qualified to express one, nor is the average observer qualified. This is the sort of thing that can really only intelligently be discussed by experts in the field. I really would have loved if anyone trained in biometrics had followed up on the Carlesi-Gavazzeni article from a couple years back.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 9, 2011 15:39:22 GMT -5
You haven't matched it. You've edited it. If you had overlayed the images, we should see both the image of his bottom lip (1965) and the image of his bottom teeth (apx 76/77)
What we see is your edited version minus his bottom lip from 1965.
Next please.
|
|
|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Sept 9, 2011 15:50:44 GMT -5
You haven't matched it. You've edited it. If you had overlayed the images, we should see both the image of his bottom lip (1965) and the image of his bottom teeth (apx 76/77) What we see is your edited version minus his bottom lip from 1965. Next please. paul invented photoshop you idiot
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 9, 2011 15:54:41 GMT -5
You haven't matched it. You've edited it. If you had overlayed the images, we should see both the image of his bottom lip (1965) and the image of his bottom teeth (apx 76/77) What we see is your edited version minus his bottom lip from 1965. Next please. paul invented photoshop you idiot No wonder Adobe and Apple can't reach compromise. Next please.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 10, 2011 3:28:40 GMT -5
As asked, I have matched the eyes up. 70's photograph has been scaled down by 10% to make it proportionate to the 1965 photo. This also required a rotation to the left. Uploaded with ImageShack.usAs you wish. Eyes match up perfectly. It's the bottom half of his face and his ears that are all wrong. His mouth is lower, his jaw line drops down, his ears stick further out. But his eyes match!!! Thank heavens we got that to match up! ;D If I move the 70's image UP I can get his mouth to match, but of course his eyes go all out of sync, his jaw line STILL is longer than it was in 1965, and his ever present ear size problem. Matching one thing up on his face, leads to 3 other things not matching at all. NOT a problem with John Lennon in 1965 and 1980. Same dude. But the eyes! They match
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 10, 2011 3:40:42 GMT -5
... and of course it can (and may be) said that his mouth is more open in the 70's picture, which is causing his chin/jaw to drop down. But a simple test with your hand will tell you, that even as your mouth opens and the chin drops down, your ears don't go suddenly jutting back like a cat ready to attack! At least my ears don't! Their movement is so slight whether talking, holding mouth open, closing, I mean it shouldn't matter what position your mouth is in, it has nothing to do with your ears. And his ears grow. It's either the Popeye Effect with his jaw, or the Vulcan Effect with his ears. You can't win with post-67 Paul.
Unless of course you kind of edit some of his modern features into the old photographs. A nose here, an ear there, you know. Editing.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 10, 2011 4:02:45 GMT -5
Thanks JoJo. It worked I wondered if anyone can answer some questions I have: 1. What part(s) of Africa did McCartney go in 1966. And what was his verified return date. Barry Miles states it was the 9th November, 1966. but I've read this is an error. 2. Many PIA supporters state that McCartney's moped accident, which I've seen reported as happening in December 65, contributes to the PID theory. His chipped tooth being evidence of the accident in the Rain/Paperback Writer promos. But these were filmed in May 1966. The likelihood that McCartney walked around with a chipped tooth for nearly 6 months without being photographed once and it being blatantly evident seems ... pretty bull. Or even going to a dentist about it. Unless the tooth chipped 6 months after the fact. Which is possible. Anyone? I'm going to answer question 2 - My guess is he had the chipped tooth fixed by at least June 1966, judging that it appears chipped in the Paperback Writer/Rain promos, but appears "fixed" in the photo of The Beatles celebrating Paul McCartney's 24th birthday on June 18th, 1966. (A photo exists online, I found it in a book I own, and checked to see if someone had it online. Thing to notice in that picture is McCartney's height. Anyway ... January 1966 he is best man at Harrison's wedding. Cannot find "smiling" photos of McCartney. March 1966 is photographed with Jane Asher at the premiere of Alfie. Tooth appears chipped in the one photo of this. March 1966, Butcher Cover Photo Sessions. Of course the main image that is used for this "banned" cover, shows McCartney with a fixed tooth, but we know this isn't "possible" because in May he is captured on film with a chipped tooth. Which looks far worse than when Whitaker DID photograph that chipped tooth at the March 1966 sessions. Questions questions. So June 1966 tooth is fixed. It appears so in the birthday photo. And the subsequent last tour. I also like the Beatles Monthly book that claims the rumour is false that Paul crashed his car on the M1. His black Mini Cooper. (But he didn't own one. He owned a Green Mini Cooper. John & George owned black mini coopers, and John's mysteriously vanished or got stolen at an unspecified date.) What I like about that article is the articles surrounding it. One that mentions a Moped, and one that mentions moustaches. I like how these 3 things are newsworthy all at the same time. An article that claims no crash happened, but names the wrong colour car. An article about John riding his moped over to Ringo;'s house. (very newsworthy!!) and The Beatles new moustaches. Paul's reason for growing a moustache. To cover the scar on his lip. A scar he had had since December 1965. A chipped tooth for 6 months doesn't bother him. But a scar that's been around for almost a year by that time suddenly does. Strange man. I've chipped my tooth 3 times. The first time when I was a kid, falling off a ten speed bike, when the brake cable & handle came off and went into the front wheel at full speed, flipping me off the bike face first into the pavement. Chipped my front tooth, the same one as McCartney in 1965. It was fixed very quickly. At least before school started again. I chipped it again while on holiday in South America. Fixed upon return. I chipped it again a few years ago. It wasn't fixed immediately. But fixed. And one thing about a chipped tooth. It's annoying. How he walked around with one for 6 months, without catching his lip on it, or accidentally biting down on his lip with a bit more pain than usually happens, well. He's the man. That a scar bothered him, but not a chipped tooth, being a high profile member of the public, and also The Cute One, with tons of dentists at his availability, and income, just seems a bit weird to me. Is not like they were touring constantly the first half of 1966. They barely made any concert appearances by the looks of it. Is not that the Moped article mentions an accident John had riding over to Ringo. I just like that these three things, that help substantially in building a Paul Is Dead theory, a moped, the moustaches, the car accident, all appear in this one news column. And an article that says McCartney has a black mini cooper, when there's tons of evidence that says he owned 2 cars. A blue Aston Martin, and a green custom built Mini Cooper. Could be a mistake on Beatles Monthly's part. That the same black mini cooper is mentioned again in a 2000 article, is just ... a lotta bull.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 10, 2011 4:12:32 GMT -5
Ahhh and another thing about a chipped tooth. He was a smoker at the time. (Don't even know if he is now - don't care) If he got the entire thing capped the discolouration between his real teeth and the "faked" up one, would be noticeable at certain points in his photographed life. He's a pretty photographed dude. You can see in that photo from the 70's, the very tooth that was chipped in 1965, is a bit brighter than his other teeth. Well, if we're talking about the same dude? Who knows anymore. But you can see the hint of discolouration I'm talking about with real teeth and supplied teeth, when you're a smoker.
Just an added point. About teeth.
|
|
|
Post by lilyknows on Sept 10, 2011 7:09:04 GMT -5
bla... these photos show the same dude 10 years apart. do really think that the dude from the seventies is a "doppelganger" a "lookalike"? do you really believe that someone faked these photos?
|
|
|
Post by GN on Sept 10, 2011 8:45:20 GMT -5
how to match them up correctly: Paul and Paul - not impossible to match up at all I'd like to know the source of both photos, from what newspaper from what magazine ... The ear of the guy on the right was clearly bad drawn
|
|
|
Post by FP on Sept 10, 2011 10:49:52 GMT -5
Hey, Voodooguru, match those up by the eyes and lets see how well the ears, chin, and teeth line up.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 10, 2011 17:49:24 GMT -5
bla... these photos show the same dude 10 years apart. do really think that the dude from the seventies is a "doppelganger" a "lookalike"? do you really believe that someone faked these photos? Don't cry for me Argentina
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 10, 2011 18:56:56 GMT -5
Hey, Voodooguru, match those up by the eyes and lets see how well the ears, chin, and teeth line up. Nuh uh, not doing it, nope!
|
|
|
Post by FP on Sept 10, 2011 20:41:56 GMT -5
I don't blame you for not wanting to.
But I know what'll happen. They won't match up.
They'll match up just as badly as the comparison you're using for evidence that they're not the same person.
Which means two things.
1) Both pics are of different people, and Paul was replaced before '66.
2) The same person isn't going to match up perfectly ALL THE TIME.
I know which I think is more likely.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 10, 2011 20:58:46 GMT -5
I don't blame you for not wanting to. But I know what'll happen. They won't match up. They'll match up just as badly as the comparison you're using for evidence that they're not the same person. Which means two things. 1) Both pics are of different people, and Paul was replaced before '66. 2) The same person isn't going to match up perfectly ALL THE TIME. I know which I think is more likely. well it's not going to match up for obvious reasons, one his face is in a slightly different position (much like Harrison in 1974) but you can tell the focal length is different of the camera used. Regardless, it's a hard match to make because of the angle, but the distance between certain points (ie brow to nose, philtrum, lip to chin etc) should pretty much remain the same despite. I mean things would be out of place obviously, but i think you'd find the distances between points A and B would match up regardless. And that's what should be looked for -- does A and B correspond with A and B in another picture. And they don't in that comparison of 65/7*. Nor in 64 to 68. It was very easy to match Lennon and Harrison, not easy to match McCartney. And that shouldn't be. Honestly.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Sept 10, 2011 21:14:15 GMT -5
Actually it's really not that hard. Check out our forum for a goldmine of these.
|
|