|
Post by Moped on Mar 13, 2005 15:38:30 GMT
People don't remember that: Bill was set up to be as more as possible similiar to Paul, on the contrary,The Beatles and all the rest of the organization would risk too much. Many Billy's early photos were "Paulizer". When people got used to see Billy then the old Paul's photos were "Faulizer" and many "vintage" documents reprinted too. Candid photos of Billy show his true "long and winding" face. See his last book cover too. Since Linda has died the doctored photo were few That's exactly how the "phasing in" happened, right there. Manipulate the media and you manipulate the perception of reality.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Mar 13, 2005 20:22:09 GMT
That's exactly how the "phasing in" happened, right there. Manipulate the media and you manipulate the perception of reality. EXACTLY.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Mar 13, 2005 20:43:31 GMT
Thanks BP. I realize this board is already well aware of the photo distortions, and that it's an "old subject", but it continues to happen, and the PIA people continue to rely on fakery. PIA folks love the Faul on the Sgt. Pepper cover and gatefold, but they really hate that red pepper photo, huh? ;D Here are all the "Paul's" pictures taken on front on Sgt. Pepper CD booklet. #1 #2 #5 are on the first release too. What's the right ones what's the wrong (doctored) ones? Well I purchased that DVDand found inside the interview Billy Shepherd had the day after George Harrison death. I took a still frame: and made a comparison: The restult is: the #3 is FULLY RELIABLE and Billy didn't change AT ALL his skull feature within 35 years.
|
|
|
Post by Power 2 The People on Mar 14, 2005 4:22:24 GMT
Yes, the PIAers love to say how stretched the red pepper CD photo is. They simply ignore how it exactly overlays so many later Faul photos from the seventies and beyond. It only looks stretched compared to the doctored photos, like the Sgt. Pepper cover, gatefold, etc. and to candid photos of Paul.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Mar 14, 2005 5:11:46 GMT
I'll have some of what FP's smoking if he thinks the beard makes them look the same. The PIA'ers have eyes and cannot see.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Mar 14, 2005 12:19:32 GMT
Yes, the PIAers love to say how stretched the red pepper CD photo is. They simply ignore how it exactly overlays so many later Faul photos from the seventies and beyond. It only looks stretched compared to the doctored photos, like the Sgt. Pepper cover, gatefold, etc. and to candid photos of Paul. That's amazing! This picture is in the first release of Sgt. Pepper too. So there are 3 picture with THE SAME features and ONLY 1 with "other" features. Statistic science tells that the only 1 is tampered. I'd like to know WHY that photo was tampered for them. I'd like to know another justification for their fantasy and tampered world.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Mar 14, 2005 16:45:09 GMT
BP - concerning the photo of John with his hand on Paul's head. I honestly can't see that much of a difference between the two photos. However, I will happily take your word for it & thank you for giving me the original
|
|
|
Post by Moped on Mar 14, 2005 17:12:33 GMT
Here are two more from MaccaCentral. Like night and day. They have eyes but cannot see. Here's the same, using a more authentic picture: Whoa, they wouldn't let something like this slip through... Besides the stretching, they fuzz the resolution, which helps get rid of the eye sparkle that Faul doesn't have.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Mar 14, 2005 18:04:23 GMT
The "old good" animations.... The same old differences....
|
|
|
Post by Moped on Mar 14, 2005 18:59:36 GMT
Sheesh, once Faul appeared on the scene, with him came a flood of different aspect ratios...Now, I've done some graphic design, printing, photo developing, silkscreening, prepress...you name it. I'm not a graphic pro by trade (architect here), but I will assert that the equipment used by the professional graphic design and printing industries is notoriously accurate, and has been for some time. There simply isn't room for this much error, as the equipment is designed to minimize it as much as possible. In design college, the graphics lab I used was comprised mostly of equipment purchased in the 50's...cameras, screen and offset-plate burners, photo developing and printing equipment, etc. This equipment was completely sound, and accurate, and used every day. And yes, this equipment predated 1967, when apparently some big revolution happened with the technical side of photography, graphics, and printing, according to PIA "theory" anyway. The most distortion happens with printing (magazines, album covers, etc., not photographs)...bleeding, saturated paper will shrink when dried, this sort of thing. Some small warpage can occur, but decent-quality print paper is engineered to minimize these effects. Uniform bleeding and shrinkage in one direction simply doesn't happen on its own, certainly not to the degree we're looking at. Further, given the graphics pros I've worked with, they by and large were precise. They simply wouldn't allow this level of distortion to occur, unless they were specifically requested to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Moped on Mar 14, 2005 19:14:39 GMT
The "old good" animations.... The same old differences.... "hey, that's because they used different lenses" "he's smiling more" etc.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Mar 14, 2005 20:40:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Mar 15, 2005 1:28:19 GMT
Moped, BP, thanks. This is a great thread; some of the best posting we've had in a while. Very compelling points.
|
|
|
Post by Power 2 The People on Mar 15, 2005 2:39:33 GMT
Here's the same, using a more authentic picture: Whoa, they wouldn't let something like this slip through... Besides the stretching, they fuzz the resolution, which helps get rid of the eye sparkle that Faul doesn't have. According to my calculations, the maccaCentral version is stretched vertically by about 3.8%. Not a lot, but enough to blur the differences. (I first adjusted the photos so the eyes are the same width.) The more they stretch him, the more he looks like Faul, up to a point. They never really look the same.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Mar 15, 2005 16:41:55 GMT
Is it just me ? Can't you all see the sadness in Paul's eyes. Bill almost always had that empty smile going. It never TOTALLY reaches his eyes. When Paul smiled, his whole face lit up !
|
|
|
Post by Moped on Mar 15, 2005 17:22:39 GMT
Moped, BP, thanks. This is a great thread; some of the best posting we've had in a while. Very compelling points. According to my calculations, the maccaCentral version is stretched vertically by about 3.8%. Not a lot, but enough to blur the differences. (I first adjusted the photos so the eyes are the same width.) The more they stretch him, the more he looks like Faul, up to a point. They never really look the same. Yeah, it's not stretched that much, but it does the trick. Key word: trick. If you see "macca" in the url, one must proceed with caution. Further, it looks like they split the difference, as that Faul's been altered in the opposite direction:
|
|
|
Post by Moped on Mar 15, 2005 17:32:34 GMT
Is it just me ? Can't you all see the sadness in Paul's eyes. Bill almost always had that empty smile going. It never TOTALLY reaches his eyes. When Paul smiled, his whole face lit up ! When Paul smiled, he projected joy, and it made those around him smile. Bill... just doesn't have this. His is the smile of self-satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Mar 15, 2005 17:33:12 GMT
This HALL OF FAUL gallery is really amazing! It proves completely: - Faul's varying features. - Photo doctoring 1- Photo n.1 (from the left) - It really seems a Paul face components collage in the Faul's face outside (hair ears -always funny- and neck all Faul's typical ones). Billy NEVER had so "matching" features. 2- Photo n.2 Billy Long Face with eyes doctored to be more similiar to Paul's ones and a too much "pumped up" chin. 3- Photo n.3 n.4 n.5 ALL coherent each other. On the Rolling Stone cover Faul showing his bright eyes (but still with Polaroid contact lenses on) without being ashamed.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Mar 15, 2005 17:52:53 GMT
The right "flow chart" is the following: ALL the rest is chatting.
|
|
|
Post by Moped on Mar 15, 2005 21:30:10 GMT
Thanks BP. The "Hall of Faul"...I like that! ;D
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Mar 16, 2005 15:32:29 GMT
Truly incredible stuff ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Moped on Mar 20, 2005 22:02:25 GMT
That's Paul with a Frankenstein's monster skull cap, lol. You could put an afro on Paul's head, that don't make him Linc from the Mod Squad. I think someone did that once for fun.. ;D So let's get this straight: Select a photo where JPM's hair is fluffed up in order to infer a larger cranium, and as an added bonus, one where he's contorting his mouth so his jaw juts like Bill's. sheesh ;D
|
|
|
Post by Moped on Mar 20, 2005 22:20:32 GMT
Here's some of what helps give Bill those big dreamy Paul eyes (yeah right...). From a distance, or with a quick glance, it's quite effective...Bills eyes are much smaller that Pauls, so any increase helps. The first example shows how they give an increase to the apparent width: The second example shows how they give his eyes more "white": So when you see a "matching" fade, what often is happening is that the Paul's eyes are overlaying Faul's eye makeup and doctoring,not his actual eyes.
|
|
TheDZ
Provocative Operator
Posts: 435
|
Post by TheDZ on Mar 21, 2005 0:07:38 GMT
Two Touchdowns! Priceless!LMAO! PIA/Trollbots built themselves a pretty good casket, huh?. Thanks for Nailing the lid on! Awesome work Moped!
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Mar 21, 2005 10:56:31 GMT
Here's some of what helps give Bill those big dreamy Paul eyes (yeah right...). From a distance, or with a quick glance, it's quite effective...Bills eyes are much smaller that Pauls, so any increase helps. The first example shows how they give an increase to the apparent width: The second example shows how they give his eyes more "white": So when you see a "matching" fade, what often is happening is that the Paul's eyes are overlaying Faul's eye makeup and doctoring,not his actual eyes. Taken from: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=Essential&action=display&thread=1085815478
|
|