|
|
Post by fixingahole on Dec 28, 2003 20:51:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Dec 28, 2003 22:06:55 GMT
You can see, and it was brought out some time ago, that Faul's eyes are almost straight. Look at him on the right....his left eye is straight across from his right.
|
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Dec 28, 2003 23:34:03 GMT
Yes, I can see in this pic and others, Paul's eyes aren't symmetrical. His left eye is very slightly lower and narrower than the right.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 28, 2003 23:38:37 GMT
fixingahole: Good work! But....that James Paul's image is clearly doctored. For comparisons please use "certified" vintage images such as:  
|
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Dec 29, 2003 6:02:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Dec 29, 2003 6:12:42 GMT
Certainly many pics have been doctored but are you saying all newly published pics, including Daily News and Daily Mail archives are suspect? What would be their incentive?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Dec 29, 2003 8:04:44 GMT
Well, it's been nearly forty years since James Paul died... vintage Beatles photos are few and far between now. By doctoring older photos and videos, making them look slightly like "Paul" does today (of course, even with the doctored photos they can't turn JP into Faul, but just enough to divert suspicion), then it sends what James Paul really looked like down the memory hole. Billy has been "Paul" now longer than James Paul ever got a chance to be. He is what the public knows as Paul McCartney.
They still alter Faul pictures too, in order to create a middle-ground between round-headed Paul and oval-headed Bill. Poor James Paul... to not only be murdered and have your identity stolen, but to have your life " doctored" in order to give your imposter a free ride... nobody deserves that.
|
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Dec 29, 2003 8:33:50 GMT
Referring to one book mentioned on this forum, "The Beatles Unseen Archives, Tim Hill and Marie Clayton, 2003:
"With 600 fabulous photographs from the archives of the Daily Mail...The collection includes over 200 photographs from negatives never previously printed and they are published here for the first time."
I can't believe any reputable news organization would risk doctoring their photos. For a Beatles photo book? They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. If they had any concerns about not altering photos, they wouldn't publish the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 29, 2003 18:51:08 GMT
Well, it's been nearly forty years since James Paul died... vintage Beatles photos are few and far between now. By doctoring older photos and videos, making them look slightly like "Paul" does today (of course, even with the doctored photos they can't turn JP into Faul, but just enough to divert suspicion), then it sends what James Paul really looked like down the memory hole. Billy has been "Paul" now longer than James Paul ever got a chance to be. He is what the public knows as Paul McCartney. They still alter Faul pictures too, in order to create a middle-ground between round-headed Paul and oval-headed Bill. Poor James Paul... to not only be murdered and have your identity stolen, but to have your life " doctored" in order to give your imposter a free ride... nobody deserves that. : another [glow=red,2,300]MASTERPIECE[/glow] Incredible.  The words exactly I was ready to post about.  fixingahole: Perfect work now! -full legal value!- Please notice: EVEN "The Guardian" photo that was "the start of all the legal proofs" is slightly retouched. Please see the thread at: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=document&thread=1071893714&action=display&start=15 |
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Jan 5, 2004 1:11:55 GMT
In case anyone is wondering, I removed my photo comparisons from this thread because I don't believe they prove anything. And with everything online being up for grabs, I don't want anyone using my comparisons to argue something I don't believe. I made them, so I can take them away.
|
|
|
|
Post by JaiGuruDeva on Jan 7, 2004 9:53:30 GMT
Good idea with the split photos... Say, I think someone should post pictures of Paul and Faul on one of those "rate my picture" sites and see which one people think is cuter. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Quarryman on Jan 9, 2004 4:05:14 GMT
Sun King, who made you the final arbiter of what is a genuine photo? How can you say that you know which ones are "certified" genuine unaltered photos?
You're having a lot of fun with this, which is fine, except you have a lot of people who believe whatever you tell them.
Why not start a cult? You seem to have the popularity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Jan 9, 2004 8:01:59 GMT
It's having access to all of those vintage Beatles photographs that came with the 60IF document.
You can verify his claims if you want by obtaining vintage Beatles merchandise that came out before 1967, and comparing them with the same ones "rereleased" in formats like the Anthology. Sometimes it seems as if they didn't bother to doctor some photographs, and other times the differences are shocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quarryman on Jan 10, 2004 4:17:05 GMT
I already HAVE vintage Beatles merchandise. I saw the Beatles in concert in 1965, and have been a collector ever since. I have photos of Paul that show him having BLUE eyes due to photographic retouching, I have others where they are definitely brown.
In fact, one of the books I bought around 1978 or so is called "Growing Up With The Beatles" has pages and pages of vintage photos from the author's own collection, and some of them are the same items I obtained when they came out. Surprisingly, the items match PERFECTLY, which is strange because Schaumburg's book SHOULD have been retouched to fit the Faul scenario, and it wasn't.
Sun King SAYS he has the documents and vintage things that prove all the retouching and stuff has been done. I also SAY that I have documents and photos that show that no tampering was done and people have glommed onto an urban legend and found odd-looking photos to fit the myth.
Why should I be believed any less than SK?
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jan 10, 2004 4:48:57 GMT
one of the books I bought around 1978 or so is called "Growing Up With The Beatles" has pages and pages of vintage photos from the author's own collection, and some of them are the same items I obtained when they came out. Surprisingly, the items match PERFECTLY, which is strange because Schaumburg's book SHOULD have been retouched to fit the Faul scenario, and it wasn't.
Calm down and think it through.
"Vintage" merchandise released from Sept. 1966 on would have been retouched before release.
I don't think anyone has said photos necessarily were altered for that particular book. (Though some may have indeed been.)
Why not scan in some of your photos and tell us the source, so we can compare them?
|
|
