|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 27, 2003 1:24:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Dec 27, 2003 11:04:30 GMT
Which of those links show Paul's eyes as green? Are you colourblind? None of those picture show green eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Dec 27, 2003 20:54:19 GMT
They definitely don't show brown eyes though...or at least very dark brown eyes. Maybe it's you who's color blind, man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 28, 2003 1:43:29 GMT
I'm pretty sure the bottom link gives very defined green eyes. The top is more green/blue, DEFINITELY not brown.
And I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult me and ask if I'm colorblind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 28, 2003 1:45:09 GMT
The top link actually shows it MORE defined. The bottom is DEFINITELY not brown eyes.
|
|
Pat
Contributor
Posts: 69
|
Post by Pat on Dec 28, 2003 1:58:07 GMT
light brown on top (from weird lighting porbably)
and the bottom one is clearly blue eyes.. probably a tampered with photo, or he had blue contacts in for some reason... how the hell can you say these are green.. lmao
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 28, 2003 4:44:55 GMT
;D lmao, how can you say the top isn't green? That is obviously green. Brown is close to black, which the top picture is definitely not. Are you in denial?  The bottom is light blue. If his eyes are hazel, they could change, which is apparent from those pictures. |
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 28, 2003 4:48:30 GMT
So, the top picture is at least hazel, but it looks green to me.
The bottom is bluish, maybe even a tint of green, and now it's tampered? So people are gonna tamper ONE picture? When will you people stop being so dense? You can't see past your own beliefs for a second. Everytime a picture matches, it MIGHT be tampered with. And then if people say that you guys tampered your photos, it's an insult, and why the hell would anyone say that?
If it is contacts, then "Faul" could have easily been wearing contacts all those times you caught him with eyes that were not brown. If his eyes are hazel, then that would explain everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by raymi46 on Dec 28, 2003 7:11:39 GMT
I have 2 pre-67 original album covers and he definitely had brown eyes. If i could figure out how to post them here, I would.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 29, 2003 0:02:41 GMT
I've seen "Faul" with brown eyes as well (Sgt. Pepper. White Album, Let It Be). The point is that he was seen without those chocolate brown eyes at least twice, probably more, pre-67.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 29, 2003 0:06:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 29, 2003 0:35:24 GMT
That's a picture of "Faul"; I remember seeing it a while ago while lurking. That looks like the real Paul to me, and his face does not look long at all.
Also, what does this have to do with the two Paul pictures I pointed out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Dec 29, 2003 0:51:22 GMT
It proves that Faul's face could be altered, so why couldn't Paul's eyes be altered?
|
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Dec 29, 2003 1:29:33 GMT
Even if colorblind , if this is James Paul I am a monkey's uncle ! |
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 29, 2003 2:36:46 GMT
It proves that Faul's face could be altered, so why couldn't Paul's eyes be altered? With all due respect, open your mind. Why would they alter just a few pics? Why not longen the face too while they're at it rather than just change the color a bit? Makes no sense at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 29, 2003 2:55:07 GMT
Along with what I just said, there seems to be a problem. I have read posts here, and some PID believers claim that it's funny that "Faul" was seen with green eyes many times after 66, yet Paul was NEVER seen with green eyes; only chocolate brown ones. And now that I show you two pictures to disprove that, I get "Well, they could be altered."
Imgonnaopenmymind, Open Your Mind then. You can believe as STRONGLY as you want that JPM is actually dead, but that belief won't convince ANYONE else. And everytime a picture matches when overlapped, or we show you that JPM was seen with non-chocolate brown eyes pre-67, skeptics get a "Doctored pic" response. And that logic makes no sense.
For example in some pictures, "Faul's" face looks shorter than usual. Are you telling me they only doctored a few photos of "Faul's" face but left the rest alone?
Some pictures of Paul are supposedly stretched. But I see some that aren't. Why change a few but not all?
Paul having green/blue eyes, which could indicate that his true color is hazel. Why doctor two photos and not all the others? Why not make his eyes green/hazel/blue AND longen the face? Why just do one to certain photos? That does not add up.
Beldabeast, your belief that my claim is ridiculous is mutual when I look at what you said. If that's not JPM, then monkeys take shelter in my mouth, I have $100,000,000,000 in a safe in my mansion, I can speak to animals, and FDR is still alive and takes frequent visits to my mouth. See what these statements accomplish? Absolutely nothing. I think your claim to that picture being "Faul" is just as ridiculous as your thoughts about my claims.
One last thing in regardes to Imgonnaopenmymind: Your claim, "It proves that Faul's face could be altered, so why couldn't Paul's eyes be altered?" rests on the belief that "Faul" DOES exist. I don't think he does, and these pictures help prove MY point-of-view. You see, if Paul was scene with green eyes, blue eyes, and brown eyes, and so was "Faul", then there is no eye color discrepancy. This would help prove that JPM is still alive and with us. So your comment about "Faul's" face being altered is negated, as I am a skeptic to the PID theory, and his face LOOKING like JPM gives me all the more reason to remain a skeptic.
|
|
|
|
Post by marthadear on Dec 29, 2003 5:54:54 GMT
Actually, the eyes in that particular photo (in this thread) look blue to me, but that could be due to reflection, light, etc.,...
Speaking from experience, my father had hazel eyes. In some photos they look brown, but in others they look green. It all depended on what he was wearing, the light, reflection, and such. They did not look 'sort of' green or brown in these photos but rather 'either-or'. My theory is that he has hazel eyes.
By coincidence, I have a sister with definite brown eyes and a brother with green. LOL* Both my fathers biological children. Go figure.....
However; if there was someone doctoring photos, I doubt they could get to them all. Some would undoubtably slip by. I can concede to that. Think of the wide spread fame of "The Beatles". Lots of photos out there. Right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 29, 2003 6:04:51 GMT
Why would they rig a picture by stretching and now make the eyes green too and vice versa? Makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 29, 2003 11:02:04 GMT
Well, this much us true:
A) As a common practice, MANY publicity photos of many stars are enhanced, doctored, "retouched", processed, filtered, colorized if originally not, resized for publication, mirror-printed for various reasons, cropped, sepia-toned; stretched, glossied, matted, texturized, and contrast altered. It goes on daily as a matter of course all over the entertainment world. So there is just no good debating whether it is done or not, IT IS DONE.
B) Arguing about Paul's eye color is an issue to be sure; but remember that the vast majority of Beatle photos prior to '66 (and some after) were simply Black & White. Its a matter of facial contouring, feature proportion, eye-"cast", and cranial geometry that seem to "pop" out to some peoples eyes at least. Not for everyone, it seems.
Liz Taylor has those rare beautiful "indigo" eyes. But even if they retouched them green, the unique qualities in her face would make her recognizable to you and me. Pop fan magazines are infamous for retouching pictures in inaccurate ways. That "colorized" photo of Paul, above, would probably be very accurate without the addition of the chalky-crayola tones.
Find some photos of Vivien Leigh from the late 30's early 40's and a few shots of Jean Simmons (the actress) from the 50's. They looked tremendously alike. But most people can tell the difference.
Get a recent photo of Michael Jackson, and study pictures of him from 1982 or so thru the mid 90's . Surely there is a Michael Jackson fansite with such photos. Its in the eyes. I mean, Michael's skin color has changed, nose, cheeks, eyebrows, make-up techniques, etc. But the eyes still identify him. With EVERYTHING altered that is surgical possible, we still see Michael's eye-cast coming through. Well, alledgedly altered. He says not so it seems--------I can't absolutely state anything, 'cause I wasn't there. But to me, it would seem so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcomer on Dec 29, 2003 22:43:27 GMT
Nice post, Perplexed  To respond to a few points: 1) Oh, I believe you with many pictures being doctored. I'm just talking about doctoring the photo SPECIFICALLY to throw off PID believers. What would be the point of doctoring it blue when "Faul" seems to have green eyes mostly (although they look hazel to me)? That part does not calculate or add up. 2) If almost all photos are doctored, then what about the "authentic" ones? Since I don't know SK, I can't say whether or not he would doctor them, and I will NOT take the board's word that he doesn't. So I'm cautious when looking at them. And even if he DIDN'T doctor them, who's to say they weren't doctored before in the 60s? See how many discrepancies there are when you look at this issue more deeply? Aside from that, I did enjoy reading your post, Perplexed . I was really getting annoyed with the colorblind/lmao remarks addressed to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 30, 2003 3:30:42 GMT
Well, yes, the point is well taken that photos go thru a lot.
Part of my point, also, is that this while retouch issue, though, doesn't seem to interfere with most of us recognizing Ringo (who could ever really look like Ringo?--no offense to Ringo, but his facial look is really very distinctive) and George and John. Even in John's "hunger strike--macrobiotic--narcotics years", (alleged) his thiness and all; it still looks like Lennon.
Rare, surviving images from Ed Sullivan and a couple of other early things THAT I REMEMBER though, do not ally with later images of Paul, in a familial way. I watched Ed Sullivan religiously as a kid; something about McCartney's charisma and innocent enthusiasm fascinated me. I was like, 7 years old in 1964. But I remembered well enough to be sure to view Sullivan each time they were on, on those Sunday nights on CBS. I was a major TV addict in the sixties. I new the line-up and episodes and co-stars by heart in the third grade to most shows. What a nerd. Oy. Anyway, as I have said before, when I bought the Hey Jude sheet music (first thing I ever bought of Beatles) the pic of Paul on the cover was like, where's the guy gone to? Is this him? This is not what I remember. Anyway, I recently found a few Sullivan pics, and others, and voila. There is the face, though bent somewhat from "kinescope" reproduction, that I remember.
Well, I hope that my childhood story wasn't too dull or dubious, but I can still see the faces of Captain Kangaroo, Sherry Lewis, Red Skelton, Nick Adams, and many others clearly in my head. I just started seeing reruns of "Laugh IN' again (from 67-70) after NOT seeing them since 1970 or 1971. From Ruth Buzzy, to JoAnn Worley, to a young Goldie Hawn (she looks so much the same in spite of 33 years passing; good maintenance!). The minds' stored treasure house of faces had retained everyone.
Plus, my mother's side of the family being majorly Irish, there are a number of people in my family with that James Paul nose. The nostrils, the "spreadability", and the bulby tip--this is a familiar family type of nose. The somewhat rounded but wide nose. I hated my nose in high school cause it spread all over my face when I smiled. I secretly wanted a nose job. But now, I think, no. I've decided I'm rather pleased with it afterall.
So, I am saying that we have a panoply of photos; some Paul pics are a wide faced leprechaun with a devilish grin; some are longer headed with a more serious look; some are slightly chubby, some are skinny, some are post-surgery; some are with facial hair and dyed hair; some are widened, lengthened, fattened, Photoshopped, Face-It enhanced, matte-processed, old and new,torn discolored, out of focus and out of scale. And I think the greatest balance of these comes from PR effeorts by EMI, Apple, Beatles, and everyone else marketing "Beatles." I do believe that Sun King, and XPT, Long John, and most others are merel;y showing us what they have discovered and collected for many years. I don't think they are manipulating or altering those images from the way that they have found them to be. I realize they are presenting them utilizing these new-fangled "dissolves"; this is in order to show the striking contrast (many of us sense) between many of these photos of James Paul's countenance.
And. otherwise, your point being well stated, the photos in wide circulation may be subject to a certain amount of "evolution", but, even so, deep down, some people may actually posess a reasonable memory of James Paul's face from the earliest days............
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 30, 2003 4:16:41 GMT
But also, Newcomer, dogmatically asserting that we have all the answers is, well, many a slip 'twickst the cup and the lip.
I will say that my impression of Sun King is very favorable, as well as several others.
But I know there are tense moments on the forum sometimes.
Many believe in this issue strongly-----------on BOTH sides------and zeal accompanies passion.
And it isn't a matter of "them" doctoring photos to throw "us" off as PID people.This evokes paranoid notions of a cottage industry of anti-PID staffers, and pro-PID staffers, working 24/7 out of rented secret offices trying to keep the balance of power at a parety(-sp.?) in the PID world. Which leads us to a PID agency, running a PID corporation with a PID tower in central Manhattan; where secret workers, who are maintaining the status quo, seek out and disable PID terrorists in guerilla pajamas, camped out at computer terminals in their basements in the wee hours gulping down Dorito's and Jolt! while listening to Art Bell on the staticky AM radio which is tucked away in the corner.
Pro-PID "sandonistas" spend consecutive sleepless days combing websites and the E-bay for any trickle of evidence, while counter forces hole up in state of the art photo labs cranking out modified "Paul-Faul" photomelds which will ostensibly counter any leftover early Paul pics that fell through the cracks of the great Paul Photo Purge of 1967,(which was led by a forgotten, ambitious secretary at the EMI main offices. She later coached Rosemary Woods on how to erase incriminating cassette tapes during the Watergate Investigation.)
That was all fiction; intended as point-making comedy. After all, we all know Rosemary Woods, like Lee Harvey Oswald (which one?) acted alone!
What can we ever be sure of? So and so is "trying to get you," "they are after you", "you know too much". Oh such paranoid Stop this drivel!We know we all live in a world of peace and cooperation, where all the leaders love us and give us everything we need like the little babies that we are (my ass included) and we're all jes'gonna snuggle up together and sail calmly into that good night..................
I am facetious.
Maybe "they" are plotting and planing, and working at infiltrating and dividing. Or maybe there is no unfounded "they" at all; but just common folks, who, by human nature get sick of other people crying and freaking out over sordid issues, can't help but to protest and slam the whinings of the conspiracy happy crowd.
Maybe "Chicken Little" is misguided, and inherently annoying to most other people.
I wonder if "Chicken Little" ever spent anytime in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? It doesn't matter; they would not have believed him anyway......................
|
|
ArtistFormerlyKnownAs Piggies
Guest
|
Post by ArtistFormerlyKnownAs Piggies on Dec 30, 2003 4:41:11 GMT
But also, Newcomer, dogmatically asserting that we have all the answers is, well, many a slip 'twickst the cup and the lip. I will say that my impression of Sun King is very favorable, as well as several others. But I know there are tense moments on the forum sometimes. Many believe in this issue strongly-----------on BOTH sides------and zeal accompanies passion. And it isn't a matter of "them" doctoring photos to throw "us" off as PID people.This evokes paranoid notions of a cottage industry of anti-PID staffers, and pro-PID staffers, working 24/7 out of rented secret offices trying to keep the balance of power at a parety(-sp.?) in the PID world. Which leads us to a PID agency, running a PID corporation with a PID tower in central Manhattan; where secret workers, who are maintaining the status quo, seek out and disable PID terrorists in guerilla pajamas, camped out at computer terminals in their basements in the wee hours gulping down Dorito's and Jolt! while listening to Art Bell on the staticky AM radio which is tucked away in the corner. Pro-PID "sandonistas" spend consecutive sleepless days combing websites and the E-bay for any trickle of evidence, while counter forces hole up in state of the art photo labs cranking out modified "Paul-Faul" photomelds which will ostensibly counter any leftover early Paul pics that fell through the cracks of the great Paul Photo Purge of 1967,(which was led by a forgotten, ambitious secretary at the EMI main offices. She later coached Rosemary Woods on how to erase incriminating cassette tapes during the Watergate Investigation.) That was all fiction; intended as point-making comedy. After all, we all know Rosemary Woods, like Lee Harvey Oswald (which one?) acted alone! What can we ever be sure of? So and so is "trying to get you," "they are after you", "you know too much". Oh such paranoid Stop this drivel!We know we all live in a world of peace and cooperation, where all the leaders love us and give us everything we need like the little babies that we are (my ass included) and we're all jes'gonna snuggle up together and sail calmly into that good night.................. I am facetious. Maybe "they" are plotting and planing, and working at infiltrating and dividing. Or maybe there is no unfounded "they" at all; but just common folks, who, by human nature get sick of other people crying and freaking out over sordid issues, can't help but to protest and slam the whinings of the conspiracy happy crowd. Maybe "Chicken Little" is misguided, and inherently annoying to most other people. I wonder if "Chicken Little" ever spent anytime in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? It doesn't matter; they would not have believed him anyway...................... Now THAT'S Entertainment.  |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 30, 2003 4:57:15 GMT
Let me clarify my opening sentence; I was meaning that for US here, to say we have all the answers, is a wrong attitude. We don't-----who does?,we merely search for SOME answers. My first sentence, when I reread it, was vague in direction, and sounded scolding. And I did n't mean that. What I mean, in general, in these matters, we shouldn't overstep or overstate.
That is my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 30, 2003 7:20:56 GMT
Perplexed, You are a one man army to bring reason and rationality to the debate here, thank you.
;D Well I'm a little bit guilty of that. Somewhere along the way I got a really good Beatles video collection, graduating to collector status. Watching all those videos, you get a feel for the way Paul looked and how he related to the others and the press when they asked him questions. As you said, you have the face in your mind. I'll watch hours of 1966 and before footage, and then put on Hey Jude for example, and my brain cramps up "trying too fill in the blanks" to paraphrase you from your response to my Lennon video stills post. Watching Paul to the point of overdosing and then putting on Faul... just for a minute and you get it, simple as that. The problem also simply stated is knowing it and proving it are two different things.
|
|
