|
|
Post by nolimitz13 on Aug 30, 2003 17:34:53 GMT
I just want to see one picture of Paul without a mophead to compare to a Faul picture.
For all we know, Paul could have a long forehead underthere etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 30, 2003 18:49:36 GMT
For all we know, Paul could have a long forehead underthere etc... True, but that has nothing to do with his chin, or his skull shape... |
|
|
|
Post by scowl on Aug 30, 2003 20:17:31 GMT
I think well-known problems of portrait photography can account for all of the differences between the Paul/Faul pictures. Photography is far from perfect and it's certainly closer now than it was forty years ago when these pictures were taken. In fact I think McCartney's face is a great example of how difficult it is to photograph a person's face consistantly. McCartney appears to have a long face and that contrasted with his boyish looks in his twenties. People with long faces are notoriously difficult to photograph and through the decades portrait photographers have developed techniques to take attractive protraits of these people. The best way to shoot them is facing the camera at an angle below their chin. It's important to use a long lens since from this angle their chin will be the closest feature to the camera and you'll want to use the "perspective compression" that long lens will provide. A large mop-top haircut will also help to balance the perspective! Posing is very important for making attractive protraits of people with long faces. Generally these subjects are asked to pull their heads back as far as possible and then raise or lower their head slightly (depending on whether the camera is above or below their face). You can even feel how this pose reduces the length of your chin. Put the top of your hand under your chin so your index finger is against your neck. Now pull your head back and your shoulders forward. Usually the end of your chin will be even with your middle finger. To the camera, half of your chin will not be visible and you will appear to have a rounder fuller face. For people with long and unattractive chins, this can be the difference between an attractive portrait and an unattractive portrait. This is just one of a very large bag of tricks that portrait photographers have been using for a hundred years. McCartney's chin has one feature that I'm sure has always been a challenge to protrait photographers: the right side (his left) of the cleft is larger than the other side. Asymmetric features will usually go unnoticed but some can be important to deal with. A cheekbone larger than the other will often not be noticed but any feature that defines the outline of the face (like a large chin) requires the photographer to carefully select angles that won't emphasis this. I'm sure photographers have carefully posed him to minimize this feature. I see McCartney's uneven chin in many "Paul" and "Faul" pictures. In those that I don't, the outline of the chin isn't visible due to light direction or camera perspective. Other photographic clues are just not significant. Comparing a man's height in two similar pictures taken under completely different conditions is hardly scientific. It only takes a distortion of three or four percent to make two six foot lengths appear to be different lengths. Distortion is introduced in every step of the photographic process. Even before the picture is taken, you have the variables of camera distance, camera angle, lens length and slight distortions in the lens. Once the film has been exposed you have the problem of temperature and the development stretching the film (these should be insignificant if done properly but professionals aren't always perfect!). When you get to the printing process once again you have the problem of projecting the image onto another media through lenses and equipment that can often cause slight distortion that no human would notice. Who can say how many times these pictures have been through processes that compounded their distortion? I don't see "Faul" in these pictures. I simply see Paul McCartney's less attractive facial features being magnified by angle, perspective and light direction. In fact a number of pictures of Paul taken before 1965 look more like "Faul", not the round face that McCartney supposedly had (just as some recent pictures of "Faul" look more like the "real" McCartney).  Surely this angular face cannot belong to the real McCartney:  And if the light had been lower in this shot, the shadow behind McCartney's chin wouldn't have revealed its length.  |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 31, 2003 1:31:32 GMT
I just want to see one picture of Paul without a mophead to compare to a Faul picture. For all we know, Paul could have a long forehead underthere etc... Ladies and Gentlemen, for the hundredth time:   ------- James Paul McCartney ------- ------- Bill Sheppard alias Faul ------ |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 31, 2003 1:45:38 GMT
scowl, please look at: ...image loading...please wait... JUST A WRONG RESHAPED NOSTRIL...and what about ear reshaping scars?Problems in printing? |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 31, 2003 2:05:05 GMT
still more compelling proof.. also look at the lips.....
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 31, 2003 2:09:53 GMT
...my beloved Queen...  |
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Aug 31, 2003 2:18:21 GMT
Sun King,
I basically buy your Paul replacement idea, but
you may be on thin ice with ear "scars". For example, the line near the earlobe appears with age and corresponds with heart health. (If line is really pronounced, person usually has heart blockages.)
I'd have to say the ears in the old and young picture look incredibly similar. (Incredible if Faul's ears were re-shaped.)
|
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 31, 2003 2:57:22 GMT
i understand your point about age but those are more than age wrinkles...
|
|
|
|
Post by TheeCavendeshLane on Aug 31, 2003 5:05:39 GMT
The ears appear to be identical suggesting that both photos
are of the same individual. The ears are too identical I think to
be the result of reconstructive surgery.
Are you sure that the photo of the young McCartney is McCartney and not Faul? Im pretty sure they must have used faul to make a batch of photographs that would appear as if they were photographed during the years before the use of the replacement Paul precisely to convice people if need be that the replacement is not a replacement --They could point to a pick that appeared as if it was made during
Help days and say look her this pick of Paul from Help shows
the exact ear as this guy you are calling Faul. They would do this
to disprove anyone who did a picture comparason.
You know theoriginal McCartney being and entertainer and therefore somewhat vain may have undergone some minor plastic surgery to clean up his appearance. This is why you need a morph of the
white album william sheppard against several shots of the young
real McCartney --the more comparasons of those two images that
dont match up the more we are sure that there was a replacement
because thanks to the work of Sun King we know the white album
poster william sheppard does match up to Faul.
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Sept 1, 2003 15:28:32 GMT
I just had a horrible thought. The ears are too identical for it not to be the same person UNLESS they had Paul's ears to make a mold of. What was that in 60if about animals had eaten away at his face? Animals indeed!  |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 1, 2003 15:52:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Sept 1, 2003 15:58:55 GMT
Sorry Sun King, they look the same to me, but then, I can't tell Mary-Kate from Ashley either. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 1, 2003 16:40:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by scowl on Sept 4, 2003 4:25:59 GMT
The "Faul" picture is taken from a slightly lower angle and his head is turned slightly more to his left (you can't see "Faul's" left eye). That will make the nostrils and the entire nose look longer in that picture. That's what makes your GIF animation look so awkward -- the Paul picture has facial features that the "Faul" picture doesn't. It makes it look like Paul is turning his head towards you.
Lips are terrible features for identifying faces. They are loose flaps of soft tissue connected to several muscles and are designed to be pulled, enlongated and retracted into the mouth in order to form words and express emotions. Note that Paul's expression is something like surprise in that picture and that's expressed by puckering the lips with an open mouth. "Faul" is expressing a relaxed smile. His cheeks are somewhat dimpled which indicates his cheek muscles are pulling his lips back. His lower lip appears to be retracted into his mouth which is perfectly normal. Perhaps he was about to say the name "Faul".
Ears on the other hand are excellent for identification in photographs. They're usually flatter than other facial features so perspective distortion isn't as much of a problem. They also can't be distorted by facial muscles. Best of all, most of the ear is formed by hard cartilage which retains its shape as soon as it's fully grown.
I can see absolutely no differences in the cartilage area between Paul's ear and "Faul's" ear. Every ridge and valley is a perfect match. Note the angle of the upper rim of the ear (known as the helix). The angles are exact. Note the three legged star shape to the left of the inner lobe (this is called the antihelix). Perfect match. Even the fleshy parts of the lobe have matching features. Note one dimple directly below the inner lobe and another dimple below the left side of the antihelix. Both ears share these dimples. "Faul's" ear has longer more pronounced dimples but that's common in sixty year old skiin.
I see nothing that resembles scars. I learned about ear structure after I managed to injure one of mine a few years ago. All the incisions were made on the back of my ear so no surgical scars are visible. I'm sure that's common practice in reconstructive surgery. In fact no one even noticed the several dozen stitches I had on the back of my ear for a week (until I showed them off). However, if you shine a flashlight behind my ear you can easily see where they sewed the cartilage back together and it didn't heal perfectly. This is fun to do at parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 4, 2003 11:51:06 GMT
Ok friends, you can discuss the ears for years but the first comparision placed a 100 times by Sun King (Butcher cover - Sgt Pepper) speaks for itself. There's nothing to discuss seeing those pics. And remember, in the Sgt Pepper's pic we have THE MORE GENUINE BILL SHEPPARD!!!! After, he had a lot rounds of plastic surgeries to correct many things till today. But the truth is in the Sgt Pepper's pics!!!! Just my thoughts  |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 4, 2003 11:56:00 GMT
Sun King, my friend, if you can put Faul's pic of Strawberry Fields promo, the one that Faul looks like Vincent Price!!! There we have another "genuine pic" of Bill Sheppard!!!! Thanks!!! |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 4, 2003 21:38:08 GMT
Thank You, Eggman My Dear Friend! Those below are the LAST comparisons/animations I made. I won't compile animations anymore. I think that's really enough. Dedicated to you, my Dear Friend Eggman! ...animations loading...please wait     |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 4, 2003 21:58:04 GMT
Thanks a lot SK!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Sept 4, 2003 22:22:16 GMT
I dunno, guys. Ear looks the same to me and scowl brought up a lot of interesting points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 4, 2003 22:25:21 GMT
You're right, but after years of plastic surgeries |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 4, 2003 23:52:40 GMT
Those below are the LAST comparisons/animations I made. I won't compile animations anymore. I think that's really enough. Those are AWESOME Sun King  thank you for them. I know you get tired of doing these over and over, but I really like seeing them. |
|
thank you for them. I know you get tired of doing these over and over, but I really like seeing them.