|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 8:07:29 GMT -5
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 14, 2006 8:07:29 GMT -5
This pics comes from jpm.org, the last resource of undoctored James Paul McCartney pictures
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 11:01:38 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 14, 2006 11:01:38 GMT -5
Good job there mc3 I recently added lots of pics that all came from one source. I tried to weed out anything that wasn't "vintage", but leave it to you guys to find anything that may be questionable. That pic is one of the recent additions, so I'll check with my source & see if they can remember where that pic came from. But sayin' that jpm.org is 100% undoctored pics may be a bit of a stretch. I'll see what I can find out about that pic.
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 11:08:49 GMT -5
Post by lili on Oct 14, 2006 11:08:49 GMT -5
Some Sgt. Pepper photos have been doctored. For all we know, that photo of Paul might be the photo that they used to make Faul look more like Paul in that Sgt. Pepper pic. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"]
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 13:37:14 GMT -5
Post by FP on Oct 14, 2006 13:37:14 GMT -5
Do you have any idea how... er... "silly" it makes you guys look when you use the "one of them must be doctored" argument? How will that hold up in court? Maybe neither were doctored and it's the same guy?
Nah, that's way too "out there" for you.
Now atd is going tell you that they match up because the Paul pic is distorted by the camera; isn't that right atd? And guess what, it is. But he won't be able to prove that the Pepper pic isn't also distorted by the lens. They were both taken at a close distance.
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 13:42:37 GMT -5
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 14, 2006 13:42:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 14:48:22 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 14, 2006 14:48:22 GMT -5
There's nothin' silly about it FP.
It's very easy to tell the difference between the 2 guys MOST of the time. If it were really all one guy why is it that we all see Bill in some pics & we all see JPM in other pics & we all agree which is which. There's no confusion here, we don't argue & disagree about which ones are JPM... it's obvious to anyone who knows what to look for. Some pics are a little tricky for various reasons, but 95% of the time, we can easily seperate the 2 guys in a stack of photos. If this was all in our heads there should be much more disagreement among us regulars as to who's who.... but that just doesn't happen. What's the explaination for Mc3's comparison? I have no idea & I'm not gonna pretend to know, but Lilli's explaination is a possibility... who knows. We can all easily see it...(most of the time) you guys choose not to... end of story.
So how come you guys haven't come up with an explaination for the discrepency in shoe sizes of the TWO MEN? Any ideas? Did JPM's feet grow when his face grew long??
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 15:21:03 GMT -5
Post by beatlies on Oct 14, 2006 15:21:03 GMT -5
Are you sure Lili?, because there's a diference between in what we know and in what we want to believe we know. People have pointed out before that the B & W teenage picture of "McCartney" above has mis-matched, seemingly spliced together backgrounds; apparently doctored like other McCartney photos that have been shown to be fakes and composite-doctoring/retouching frauds. "there's a diference between in what we know and in what we want to believe we know" Ah, McArgentine Third, thy name is irony ...
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 16:35:21 GMT -5
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 14, 2006 16:35:21 GMT -5
"to be fakes and composite-doctoring/retouching frauds."
Who collected all the Beatles/McCartney pics (books, Magazines, LP's EP's Singles, postcards, polaroids...) and films (movies, news, ...) arround the whole wordl to retouched and redistribuited it again to the place they belong the last 40 years? and, do you really believe it's posible?
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 17:38:48 GMT -5
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 14, 2006 17:38:48 GMT -5
Is better than be a subversive, believe me.
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 18:06:44 GMT -5
Post by lj on Oct 14, 2006 18:06:44 GMT -5
How will that hold up in court? in court?! are you serious?! LOL!!!!! (sorry but THAT IS funny)
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 18:50:08 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 14, 2006 18:50:08 GMT -5
Didn't you know? I just withdrew 10 million dollars from my offshore account and have a team of lawyers on retainer! (but don't tell anyone, shhh...it's a secret!)
Apparently we are being slackers at taking this to the press, one of his other suggestions, so court would be the next logical choice.
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 18:54:38 GMT -5
Post by FP on Oct 14, 2006 18:54:38 GMT -5
I'm not saying anyone's going to sue you. I'm just saying if you guys decided to take PID to court for whatever reason, the baseless 'doctored' argument would only make your case look weaker. I got the concept from AU. ;D
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 18:59:23 GMT -5
Post by JoJo on Oct 14, 2006 18:59:23 GMT -5
I know what you meant.. And I don't see why you would get it into your mind that we would ever consider it.
I know someone said "full legal proof" sometime, somewhere.. Rest assured, it wasn't me or most people here..
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 20:05:34 GMT -5
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 14, 2006 20:05:34 GMT -5
I'm not saying anyone's going to sue you. I'm just saying if you guys decided to take PID to court for whatever reason, the baseless 'doctored' argument would only make your case look weaker. I got the concept from AU. ;D You guys are so silly sometimes! If this was in a court the solution would be very easy... it's called facial recognition technology.... but this will never end up in a courtroom, I can assure you.
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 14, 2006 22:53:30 GMT -5
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 14, 2006 22:53:30 GMT -5
"to be fakes and composite-doctoring/retouching frauds."Who collected all the Beatles/McCartney pics (books, Magazines, LP's EP's Singles, postcards, polaroids...) and films (movies, news, ...) arround the whole wordl to retouched and redistribuited it again to the place they belong the last 40 years? and, do you really believe it's posible?
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 15, 2006 0:53:10 GMT -5
Post by Doc on Oct 15, 2006 0:53:10 GMT -5
I'm not saying anyone's going to sue you. I'm just saying if you guys decided to take PID to court for whatever reason, the baseless 'doctored' argument would only make your case look weaker. I got the concept from AU. ;D You guys are so silly sometimes! If this was in a court the solution would be very easy... it's called facial recognition technology.... but this will never end up in a courtroom, I can assure you. Courtroom? Heavens no, leave all that stuff to Judge Judy and Perry Mason. Really, I think that absolutely nobody here at NIR has any desire for that to happen. And, well, plus, I feel strongly by instinct that that is simply never going to happen. It is a bad joke, and a waste of time, as a concept. Whatever happens on the mountain, stays on the mountain. i.e. these theoretical "hashings" of ours are too unusual for most people. There is no potential in these matters to anticipate a vectoring out. And nearly all of our theories would be incomprehensible outside this board. Our premise is without a future, or maybe a tiny future, where only a handful may roam. The only way that PWR could ever get into court is if we all got together to play tennis. Love, all. Whose volley is it?
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 15, 2006 1:06:29 GMT -5
Post by revolver on Oct 15, 2006 1:06:29 GMT -5
MCIII and FP, we know the SP gatefold of Bill (yellow pepper) is distorted because it doesn't match any of Bill's later photos, unlike the red pepper photo which does. Thus comparing the gatefold photo to Paul is a waste of time. We also know that Paul's head was smaller than Bill's (see signature), so PIA head comparisions between the two are also meaningless.
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 15, 2006 1:24:06 GMT -5
Post by Doc on Oct 15, 2006 1:24:06 GMT -5
"to be fakes and composite-doctoring/retouching frauds."Who collected all the Beatles/McCartney pics (books, Magazines, LP's EP's Singles, postcards, polaroids...) and films (movies, news, ...) arround the whole wordl to retouched and redistribuited it again to the place they belong the last 40 years? and, do you really believe it's posible? No. But I remember growing up, that when 1970 came, and mom was doing spring cleaning, and really finding a lot of old things, and a few magazines (no Beatles, sadly, as I was not allowed to collect them-though I got away with Mad Magazine and why?)--but the rule was-anyperiodicals, papers, magazines from before 1970 got thrown out. Mom (unlike me) did not suffer from packrat-itis, and the more closets and shelves that became empty, the happier she was. So you see, it's perfectly natural I think that milions of people pitched it all away because it was getting to be too much clutter! Nobody said, "Oh, why yes, I'll keep all my Beatles mags JUST IN CASE in 30 years there coms out some big Beatle conspiracy which attracts 97 people on the internet, which psychically I know will exist then....." No. What if the replacement theory had been Barbara Eden instead? Herman's Hermit's? We would have kept all out "I Dream of Jeannie" TV Guides, All our Teen mags of the Hermits. But, I didn't buy any of those------------just Mad Magazine. But who could know? Who had the foresight? NOBODY! So we threw all that sh*t away! Gladly! And made room for MORE sh*t! Sh*t in, sh*t out! That's what we do. We're consumers, not historical archivists. We didn't care. We wanted more sh*t and we needed more space for all that new sh*t. Old sh*t has gotta go! So we had yard-sales. Lots of 'em. Reglarly. What do you always see at yard sales? Magazines! And people buy them (happily for you having the sale) and take them home, read them once--and then----off to the garbage dump! Why? Because they bought too much sh*t at the yardsale! Or else, we bundled them all up and took 'em to Goodwill. Or, we used it for kindling. Somewhere in a fireplace somewhere in America are the ashes of a "Hard Day's Night" monthly circular, burned up decades ago in the antiquity of our "Paul is Replaced" innocence, by a spinster who FINALLY got central heat and then never cleaned her hearth from that day forward. And by God, she's warm, and she doesn't have to stoke her fires anymore, but she doesn't know sh*t about PWR! Can science help us reconstruct those magazines from their powdery, whispy ashes? No! They're gone! Kaput! eyesbleed, Jojo, and a few others have been damn lucky to find all the good things that they've managed to collect and storehouse at jpm.org. Fortune smiled on these efforts, 'cause I suspect that there are few authentic examples left outside of that excellent collection. Sometimes people keep certain magazines. Their favorites; the ones they treasure most. The ones that speak to their particular personality; their wants, their loves, their ambitions, their very core essence. You know a little about a man who still has issues of National Geographic from the 1950s. You can tell a lot about a lady who kept all of her Ladies Home Journals from 1961, or the retired banker who keeps his U.S. News and World Report, the couple who save the Reader's Digest, the Saturday Evening Post; the boys all grown up who still have Popular Mechanics and Sports Illustrated or Scouting; girls who read the Redbook, Good Housekeeping, or, conversely, Cosmo! Professional men who read Esquire and GQ; sophisticates in the Big Apple who kept up with the New Yorker and trendy jet setters who thrived on Vogue. Wow. See, we're all so compartmentalized. The mags we choose reflect who we really are deep inside. Like me. Shoot, what did I read? Oh, yea. Right. Mad Magazine.
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 15, 2006 11:26:44 GMT -5
Post by FP on Oct 15, 2006 11:26:44 GMT -5
We also know that Paul's head was smaller than Bill's (see signature) We're waiting for you in the MF PID board, there's a new rebuttal for that.
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
jpm.org
Oct 15, 2006 12:04:57 GMT -5
Post by ggee on Oct 15, 2006 12:04:57 GMT -5
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
jpm.org
Oct 15, 2006 12:08:01 GMT -5
Post by ggee on Oct 15, 2006 12:08:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 15, 2006 23:13:08 GMT -5
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 15, 2006 23:13:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 16, 2006 1:24:59 GMT -5
Post by Doc on Oct 16, 2006 1:24:59 GMT -5
MCIII and FP, we know the SP gatefold of Bill (yellow pepper) is distorted because it doesn't match any of Bill's later photos, unlike the red pepper photo which does. Thus comparing the gatefold photo to Paul is a waste of time. We also know that Paul's head was smaller than Bill's (see signature), so PIA head comparisions between the two are also meaningless. What's the problem with the head? Their is nothing wrong with his head. The problem is, that JPM and William looked a great deal alike, and we are never going to be able to separate fully all these images, because it is proving to be an optical challenge greater than I first estimated. D*mn it.
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
jpm.org
Oct 16, 2006 18:49:52 GMT -5
Post by ggee on Oct 16, 2006 18:49:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
jpm.org
Oct 16, 2006 19:00:15 GMT -5
Post by FP on Oct 16, 2006 19:00:15 GMT -5
You realize there's a difference between doctored and stretched?
|
|