|
|
Post by Elidor on Apr 26, 2004 15:45:14 GMT
To provide what would be undeniable proof positive of the switch, I would very much like to see a cross fade of John from the same butcher session photo as the one of Paul, compared with the Pepper session shots. It seems an obvious thing to do (in my view anyway) and if the pictures of John match perfectly, the case would be incontrovertible.
Another one that would help would be a cross fade of the With the Beatles picture of Paul with the Pepper shot. If this could be done, I would imagine a decent court case could be pulled together.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 26, 2004 15:57:19 GMT
To provide what would be undeniable proof positive of the switch, I would very much like to see a cross fade of John from the same butcher session photo as the one of Paul, compared with the Pepper session shots. It seems an obvious thing to do (in my view anyway) and if the pictures of John match perfectly, the case would be incontrovertible. Another one that would help would be a cross fade of the With the Beatles picture of Paul with the Pepper shot. If this could be done, I would imagine a decent court case could be pulled together. Hey....they are STILL on 60IF site (from always)! digilander.libero.it/p_truth/other.htmlPlease visit also: james-paul-mccartney.netfirms.com/fc1.htmldigilander.libero.it/jamespaul/ref_on_ref_comparison.htmland digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/animations.htmlHeavy to download...please be patient waiting for... Elidor: if I didn't check the case as "incontrovertible" I never publish 60IF. |
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Apr 26, 2004 22:53:13 GMT
it would probably be best if you had an the Butcher Album, then had both of their heads appear at the same time, I didn't see that on those pages
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 26, 2004 23:20:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Apr 27, 2004 0:35:19 GMT
now one of john, and if you can (only if you can) get one of them together on the butcher, then fade in sgt pepper heads
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 27, 2004 9:59:25 GMT
Within Me Without You: Thank You! Elidor: Let's go on court!
|
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 27, 2004 13:31:52 GMT
What amazes me most is that if you look at Paul from 1966 & Faul from 1967, they really DON'T look identical to each other. Faul resembles Paul just enough to make the switch possible. In other words, noone anticipated the extent of today's technology. Noone at that time took into account people in our time digging the way we are! We CAN do this people. With perseverance & the power of good behind us.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Apr 27, 2004 19:37:35 GMT
What amazes me most is that if you look at Paul from 1966 & Faul from 1967, they really DON'T look identical to each other. Faul resembles Paul just enough to make the switch possible. In other words, noone anticipated the extent of today's technology. Noone at that time took into account people in our time digging the way we are! We CAN do this people. With perseverance & the power of good behind us. Not only didn't they have the technology then, but I think Faul was supposed to stay around a few years and then retire peacibly to his farm in Campbell Town and raise sheep  However, I think Faul liked the limelight, the fans and all that comes with fame. So he kept on......probably what's saving his life is that a 3rd Paul would be a bit unbelievable. And again technology would figure it out a lot faster now. |
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 28, 2004 12:37:43 GMT
Not necessarily. He's old enough now that him dying of a "heart attack" probably wouldn't even cause an inquest. I'd guess that as he gets older he gets more & more paranoid about his own well-being!
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 28, 2004 13:36:57 GMT
What amazes me most is that if you look at Paul from 1966 & Faul from 1967, they really DON'T look identical to each other. Faul resembles Paul just enough to make the switch possible. In other words, noone anticipated the extent of today's technology. Noone at that time took into account people in our time digging the way we are! We CAN do this people. With perseverance & the power of good behind us. [glow=red,2,300] MASTERPIECE[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 28, 2004 13:37:24 GMT
Not only didn't they have the technology then, but I think Faul was supposed to stay around a few years and then retire peacibly to his farm in Campbell Town and raise sheep However, I think Faul liked the limelight, the fans and all that comes with fame. So he kept on......probably what's saving his life is that a 3rd Paul would be a bit unbelievable. And again technology would figure it out a lot faster now. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 28, 2004 13:46:19 GMT
 Thank you S.K.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elidor on Apr 28, 2004 16:29:42 GMT
Sun King - that's good. Could you do that using the picture from the 60's LP rather than the CD from the 80's as the 2 pictures look a little different? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 28, 2004 20:08:35 GMT
Sun King - that's good. Could you do that using the picture from the 60's LP rather than the CD from the 80's as the 2 pictures look a little different? Thanks. What pictures? Those ones? Yes ...they are slighly different.... Infact in the "oldiest" one Faul is more similiar to...Bill! (less chin) All you need is....at this site: james-paul-mccartney.netfirms.com/fc1.html...full conclusive (see the matching with McCartney II cover picture. Thanks) P.S. Please...dont' forget this one:  |
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Apr 29, 2004 5:14:20 GMT
I'd like to see a cross-fade using Paul from With the Beatles and Faul from Sgt. Pepper. I didn't see it on your links, SK. With the Beatles is a sharper image. Most of my friends don't even recognize it's Paul from the Butcher shoot, he's so chubby and the photos are so grainy. SK? Anybody?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 29, 2004 8:00:18 GMT
I'd like to see a cross-fade using Paul from With the Beatles and Faul from Sgt. Pepper. I didn't see it on your links, SK. With the Beatles is a sharper image. Most of my friends don't even recognize it's Paul from the Butcher shoot, he's so chubby and the photos are so grainy. SK? Anybody? Since all those are scientific analyses (appling anatomy mathematical laws) so it's valid the algebra's Transitive Property of Equality: if a = b and b (different from) c, then a (different from) c So if James Paul McCartney on "With The Beatles" is identical to that of "Butcher session" and that of the "Butcher session" is different from that of Sgt. Pepper so James Paul McCartney of "With The Beatles" IS different to the one on Sgt. Pepper.
  There were made so many other comparisons those years.....  ALL with the same result gracemer: most of your friends NEVER knew the TRUE James Paul McCartney so it's naturat that "don't even recognize it's Paul from the Butcher shoot". Please go at: james-paul-mccartney.0catch.com/fc3.htmlor james-paul-mccartney.0catch.com/fcconcl.htmlNo animation needed! |
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Apr 29, 2004 19:43:01 GMT
Since all those are scientific analyses (appling anatomy mathematical laws) so it's valid the algebra's Transitive Property of Equality: if a = b and b (different from) c, then a (different from) c So if James Paul McCartney on "With The Beatles" is identical to that of "Butcher session" and that of the "Butcher session" is different from that of Sgt. Pepper so James Paul McCartney of "With The Beatles" IS different to the one on Sgt. Pepper.
There were made so many other comparisons those years..... ALL with the same result gracemer: most of your friends NEVER knew the TRUE James Paul McCartney so it's naturat that "don't even recognize it's Paul from the Butcher shoot". What you say about a = b, etc. is true. I just dislike the Butcher Paul photo for comparisons, yet it's always being used, which I understand because it's one of the last photos before he died. However, it's a grainy photo and the details aren't visible. Of course we knew what the real Paul looked like. We were in our teens in the early 60s and were totally in love with him--saw him on the first Ed Sullivan broadcasts and saw him live in concert in 64. But neither I nor my friends remember the fat photos. We remember him as slim and cute. After '66, we didn't remember him being so funny looking and wondered what we ever saw in him.  Anyhow, it was just a suggestion. I know it would help me when I show the comparisons to people. |
|
|
|
Post by Palin on Apr 29, 2004 20:08:51 GMT
It just occurred to me that Paul looks strangely like a young Mark David Chapman in that particular photo from the Butcher session.
(What is it with assassins and three names?)
Sun King, if you could do the cross fade with the earlier McCartney photo you put up it would be much appreciated. BTW, what is the application you use to do the cross fades? I'd like to get hold of it and try some myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 29, 2004 21:03:50 GMT
Go for it Palin. Hopefully S.K will also share with you some expert advice on how to work the program also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 29, 2004 21:52:13 GMT
 Well, from the 1973 Columbia High School Yearbook. We are all entities with legal "nominatives." . Your "name" at the bank or on your driver's liscense maybe Jink R. Smarth, as being a citizen of the corporation if THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which is a legal entity, corporate in nature. However, that can change. If you are charged with a felony, somehow there is a change of jurisdiction and you become, in maritime law, in maritime courts, JINK RICARDO SMARTH. Your name will appear in that fashion in all legal documents. THe news reporters go with that when reporting a crime, because it is JINK RICARDO SMARTH that is being charged or investigated or arraigned or whatever, not Jink R. Smarth. I have made up the name JINK RICARDO SMARTH as an example. Any resemblance to a person living or dead is coincidental. I'll have to look, but I believe that your name, how it is shown (in all caps or mixed letters) is a legal distinction. MARK DAVID CHAPMAN is an entity pertaining to the crime and the charges of the crime of assasination,but Mark D. Chapman in the American citizen and classmate we knew at Columbia High......... Obviously, SIRHAN SIRHAN came up a little short that way. And what would Doris Do-dah Day say about all this? KAY SIRAH SIRAH.
|
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 30, 2004 12:19:38 GMT
You are so brilliant Perplexed. You really SHOULD write professionally. Your use of the English language is so unique. It kind of reminds me of what Johnny used to do!
|
|
|
|
Post by Elidor on Apr 30, 2004 15:15:06 GMT
Perplexed - eh - I'm alookin' at your photo and MDC's....anythin' you wanna tell us....?
Disclaimer - Elidor does not believe that Perplexed and Mark D Chapman are the same person (although he has never seen them in a room together at the same time and doesn't know if Perplexed has 3 names).
|
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 30, 2004 15:19:03 GMT
Elidor - using forensic examination, I'd have to say that they could NOT be the same man. MDC has a wider nose and mouth. Perplexed definitely is cuter ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Elidor on Apr 30, 2004 15:27:04 GMT
anyone wanna run a cross-fade?
|
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 30, 2004 16:28:05 GMT
Wish I could. S.K is the resident master at that |
|
However, I think Faul liked the limelight, the fans and all that comes with fame. So he kept on......probably what's saving his life is that a 3rd Paul would be a bit unbelievable. And again technology would figure it out a lot faster now. 
Thank you S.K.
