|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 28, 2006 8:53:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by That Latvian Guy on Oct 28, 2006 9:44:06 GMT -5
I was waiting for you to post this picture ;D Look at his left ear (our right - his left), why is it dissappearing on Faul? Maybe because it's not the same person?
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 28, 2006 10:30:12 GMT -5
Or maybe because in the old pic Paul is facing foward, and in the newest pic even his facing foward to he was a little inclined. And, of course the hair cover part of it.
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 28, 2006 15:55:26 GMT -5
These compares should give LarryC some fits then. Have a look at the nose bridge wrinkle and forehead wrinkles.. He really hasn't changed that much in 40 years fellas.. ...and I can see why you prefer 50% overlays McIII. Even compressed pictures of !Paul can't really match the real thing. Keep trying though!
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 28, 2006 16:17:11 GMT -5
i'm got nothing to probe to you, you are for the 0,001% of the web population who think that Paul McCartney was replaced, so you and youre friends have to probe the thing. Im only get fun of PID/PWR stuPIDity, and get more fun with PIDiots like you atd. So keep on with this nut job peep, is still funny to me. McCartneyIII
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
Post by ggee on Oct 28, 2006 17:13:02 GMT -5
Here's that "match" without the glacial intermediary frames to fool the eye: That pic is just a PIA fantasy anyways, like a cartoon or the gatefold: so it stands to reason it would be embraced by MFHland.
|
|
|
Post by MccartneyIII on Oct 28, 2006 17:27:43 GMT -5
atd with the tipical caccamania ala sunking ggee with his track-track fades ala BeatlePaul
hum, to manny alter egos for one day (in the life)
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
Post by ggee on Oct 28, 2006 17:37:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 28, 2006 18:52:44 GMT -5
atd with the tipical caccamania ala sunking ggee with his track-track fades ala BeatlePaul You can't hide the differences, McIII, when the fades are done fast like that.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Oct 28, 2006 20:45:37 GMT -5
[/img] And you know that matches up better than the fade on the top of this page. [/quote] You know, it would all be nice, but LOOK AT THE EARS![/quote] What about them? They're covered by hair. Oh, and for once atd, can we ever post a fade without you dragging 600 unrelated pictures into it? None of those fades show that it's still the same guy. You see, when our fades look like that, they're different people, but when it's Faul not matching with Faul, one of them is "unreliable". What you have posted really implies that Paul was replaced AFTER 1968.
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 29, 2006 0:37:53 GMT -5
Why do you fellas consistently and constantly try to bound the debate FP?
First, we can't compare pic of recent McCartney to early McCartney because of some bogus crap about too much time having passed, or plastic surgery changing the basic facial proportions....
Then when I post evidence to counter that claim, you say that it's all irrelevant and that these pictures are unrelated..
You know exactly what my point is and you know exactly why I'm doing it and yet you play dumb in order to make some kind of point.
Let me spell it out... JPM was replaced in the fall of 1966 The man who replaced him had a similar but different facial proportion.. The differences can be spelled out as follows.. His face, when compared to pre fall 1966 pictures of JPM is LONGER in proportion.
That is : When the inside corner of the eyes are indexed properly, and the angle of head to the camera is the same then the replacement has ears which drop lower and narrower, a nose which is longer and a jaw which is lower.
In order to disguise the fact of these discrepancies, many photographs of !Paul have been vertically compressed in order to tighten up the proportions to a more compatible range.
However, because of a basic underlying difference in facial structure this compression is not enough to disguise him completely.
The people who get this perceive two different people... It's not self hypgnosis or delusion, it's not the hair...it's just the way it is.
You folks have claimed that we use stretched pictures of !Paul in order to bolster our claims.... One side in this debate is correct, the other, wrongo... Somebody is messing with a lot of pictures of Sir !Paul McCartney and I know it's not me...
|
|
|
Post by FP on Oct 29, 2006 1:35:29 GMT -5
First, we can't compare pic of recent McCartney to early McCartney because of some bogus crap about too much time having passed, or plastic surgery changing the basic facial proportions.... No one thinks he's had plastic surgery, that's what you guys believe. As for age, yes, the ears, nose, cheeks, everything on your face droops as you get older. Because we're still discussing the original pictures posted, and you throw us a bunch of new ones which need a separate discussion. And what's that underlying difference in facial structure, after a pic has been "compressed"? We know. If you gave me two versions of the same photograph, one vintage, one doctored (not stretched, actually doctored) to look like Faul, I would believe PWR. There would be no explanation for that. But, the only thing you do is say "this is unreliable because it doesn't match up with this". Tell me, what's the difference between a pic being "unreliable" and "a different man"?
|
|
|
Post by That Latvian Guy on Oct 29, 2006 2:14:11 GMT -5
I've found a doctored picture from 1966, but I still have'nt found the original picture. Still looking.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 29, 2006 8:28:59 GMT -5
atd, PID vs PIA apart. 1)Are the photograps the perfect reflex of a person? 2)Dont you think the ligths and shadows of the place, indoor/outdors, and their reflections over the subjet got a lot of influence over the photographed person, more is this person got asimetrical face proportions? 3)The kind of lens used for the photograp, the perspective, the anlge, don't play an important roll on it? 4)The objets (walls, trees, people,...) around the subjet don't play any rol on the final result?
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
Post by ggee on Oct 29, 2006 9:20:21 GMT -5
Both Fauls are from MFH "matching fades" with JPM: and now they're trying to argue that distortion is not doctoring.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Oct 29, 2006 11:32:04 GMT -5
Both Fauls are from MFH "matching fades" with JPM: and now they're trying to argue that distortion is not doctoring. You see, you have no way of identifying what's a distorted version of the same person, and undistored versions of two different people. Any one looking at that might say Paul was replaced after 1967. Anyway, atd, take a look at this, I think you'll find it pretty interesting. What do you think?
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
Post by ggee on Oct 29, 2006 16:00:37 GMT -5
Both Fauls are from MFH "matching fades" with JPM: and now they're trying to argue that distortion is not doctoring. You see, you have no way of identifying what's a distorted version of the same person, and undistored versions of two different people. I can't recognize anyone I meet either. I'm like you in that way, apparently... Why don't you ask yourself some questions, then, since you say there's "no way" of knowing: Why are JPM pics constantly being elongated, while Bill pics constantly being distorted the opposite direction, if it's just some randomly occurring aspect of graphics? If you don't accept that Bill is being "compressed" and really think it's JPM, stretched, for the majority of photos out there that don't match, then why are those photos being included in album and single covers, magazines, candid shots, etc. etc., as they really aren't all that flattering. And further, how is it that so many "Paul" pictures from '67 on manage to be "stretched" to the same degree, over the course of several decades, by different photographers and graphics folks? If it's just some random occurence, the distortion should be all over the place, but strangely it isn't. According to your logic then, Bill was replaced in the middle of a photo shoot:
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Oct 29, 2006 21:04:26 GMT -5
For those who believe that "Bill" is really JPM, why are you in this forum? Why do you constantly debate in a place that clearly feels that there are suspicious things regarding JPM and the changes since 1966?
You can do as many fades as you like, it won't change the fact that there was a change. The music was drastically different, there was no chemistry between the band members after 1966. It explains why John hated the band in the last days of the Beatles and why they never got back together after 1970.
You can babble all you wish, and cling to the thread that you believe it's the same man. But the voices are different as well as height, facial shape, ears, chin, etc.
Get over the fact that the entire world has been duped into thinking Sir Paul is really Paul Mc Cartney, because it is NOT the same man!
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 29, 2006 21:09:26 GMT -5
i really wish he was dead, beacuse i won it! poor insane girl
|
|
|
Post by FP on Oct 29, 2006 21:58:09 GMT -5
You see, you have no way of identifying what's a distorted version of the same person, and undistorted versions of two different people. But you need a provable method of identifying what's a distorted version of the same person, and undistorted versions of two different people. I haven't seen that, and that's the biggest hole in your argument. You're assuming that I/we agree that post-66 pics have been compressed. I don't remember seeing any. It's not always that they're stretched... sometimes the mouth is open inside, and usually, the angle is off. No, I'm sure there are "inbetween" pics that we've dismissed as unstretched. What do you mean "all over the place"? According to your logic then, Bill was replaced in the middle of a photo shoot: That's not even matched up properly. Anyway, it's your logic ("if it doesn't match up, it's two different people").
|
|
|
Post by FP on Oct 29, 2006 21:59:26 GMT -5
Oops, read inside the quote.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Oct 29, 2006 22:07:10 GMT -5
Here's that "match" without the glacial intermediary frames to fool the eye: It's very simple, really. Paul had the unique ability to move his ears in and out. Before 1967 he preferred to leave them out. Then, after taking too much LSD, he decided to leave them in from that point to the present. See, it really makes sense after all.
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
Post by ggee on Oct 30, 2006 9:16:26 GMT -5
According to your logic then, Bill was replaced in the middle of a photo shoot: That's not even matched up properly. Anyway, it's your logic ("if it doesn't match up, it's two different people"). From the master of "matching" himself...tell you what, why don't you fix it.
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
Post by ggee on Oct 30, 2006 9:18:17 GMT -5
Oops, read inside the quote. Too small.
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
Post by ggee on Oct 30, 2006 9:22:06 GMT -5
Here's that "match" without the glacial intermediary frames to fool the eye: It's very simple, really. Paul had the unique ability to move his ears in and out. Before 1967 he preferred to leave them out. Then, after taking too much LSD, he decided to leave them in from that point to the present. See, it really makes sense after all. That, plus the moustache, the brand of film used in the camera, and the notion that his mouth is open, all cosmically align to provide the mountain of excuses needed. ;D
|
|