|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Aug 29, 2003 20:12:51 GMT
Another good match That said, here's another frontal animation. The Paul_63 photo does seem to make a pretty good match with every Faul photo I've tried it with.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Aug 29, 2003 20:14:16 GMT
Sun King, why shouldn't he take those photos and do crossfades? They match it seems
|
|
|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Aug 30, 2003 0:57:46 GMT
Oh, and I'm still waiting for a reply to my 2nd point.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 30, 2003 16:30:23 GMT
..but you see my answer is AlREADY in this thread....
Never a faked comparison made by not official documents
...it's simply
|
|
|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Sept 1, 2003 2:33:42 GMT
Still waiting... how is it that William and the Sgt. Pepper McCartney are the same WITHOUT A DOUBT when his head GROWS, and that was one of the reasons why the McCartney photo and the Sgt. Pepper photo showed that it wasn't the same person?
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 2, 2003 18:57:32 GMT
those pics of paul that match the ones of faul have been tampered with.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Sept 5, 2003 2:52:08 GMT
Jake - do you understant the principles of the photographic argument? I have doubts. Do you understand my point with William matching Paul? I have doubts.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Sept 5, 2003 2:52:41 GMT
those pics of paul that match the ones of faul have been tampered with. And you know this how? Maybe the ones that don't match have been tampered with by people who want to sabotage McCartney. Now THERE'S something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Sept 5, 2003 14:11:12 GMT
Dr. Robert,
Didn't you even notice that the pictures you posted..the ears do not match. Pre 67 Paul's ears are farther apart than post 67 Faul's ears.
Explain please.
|
|
|
Post by Provincial on Sept 5, 2003 14:40:22 GMT
This is in response to dr. robert concerning posts # 10 / # 18 & #23. The "Paul" picture appears to differ slightly from other more confirmed images of Paul but there are still differences in your comparisons nontheless.
While you have matched up the eyes: there are still some glaring inconsistencies. The eyes of the "Faul" picture still appear closer in him than the distance that they are in the Paul picture. There is only a slight brief illusion of similarity simply because the pictures have been matched up by the eyes when in reality the distance between the eyes are different in both individuals featured in the pictures.
This fact is quite noticible when viewing the pictures as a whole compared against one another in relation to the actual proportions.
Some other inconsitencies stand out. The eyebrows are most noticible. The "Paul" picture shows a much higher & arched eyebrow while the "Faul" picture does not. A person's eyebrows do not change so radically over time as noticed in the comparison pictures you supplied.
Faul's nose is longer most noticably in the comparison pictures of your post # 18. The cartilage around the nose in your picture comparisons is noticibly different. So is the legnth & width of their noses. Faul's nose is also noticibly thinner than Paul's.
The most glaring discrepancy is that Paul's ears stand out past Faul's ears especialy in post # 23. Once again even your comparisons show that Paul's head was wider than Faul's even though the manner in which the pictures have been manipulated give the illusion of being the same size. A side by side comparison of proportional dimensions shows that Paul's head was wider than Faul's. As well as there being more space bewtween Paul's eye's.
The shape of the lips also changes in boths images. Also:
The jawline dramatically changes from image to image.
So while there is a brief illusion of similarity a more carefull examination demonstrates that there are proportional differences between the pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Sept 5, 2003 14:49:43 GMT
Thanx Provincial.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Sept 5, 2003 19:57:42 GMT
A lot of the things Provincial said I don't see.
|
|
|
Post by dwhite154 on Sept 7, 2003 3:08:24 GMT
I have to agree with JohnJakeUp. I don't see many of the differences either, except that the younger Paul's ears seem to protrude a bit more. Of course, if Number 9 is right and the source photo(s) have been altered, then any comparison is meaningless. On the other hand, if the source photos are genuine, then they certainly would appear to be of the same person. One of the nice things about this forum is the sheer amount of photos available, not only in the archives, but in the posts of visitors. Anybody can do just what I did, and try some comparisons for themselves, and I encourage them to do so. But the trouble with photo comparisons is evident in the posts on this thread: the comparisons are rather like ink-blot tests, in that the viewer sees what he wants or expects to see. I doubt that any skeptic nor true-believer has changed his mind as a result. So I think the photo comparisons, while fascinating to some of us (like me), are ultimately too ambiguous to serve as strong evidence one way or the other. That said, I always enjoy seeing new ones!
|
|
|
Post by JohnJakeUp on Sept 8, 2003 19:43:29 GMT
I have to agree with JohnJakeUp. I don't see many of the differences either, except that the younger Paul's ears seem to protrude a bit more. Of course, if Number 9 is right and the source photo(s) have been altered, then any comparison is meaningless. On the other hand, if the source photos are genuine, then they certainly would appear to be of the same person. One of the nice things about this forum is the sheer amount of photos available, not only in the archives, but in the posts of visitors. Anybody can do just what I did, and try some comparisons for themselves, and I encourage them to do so. But the trouble with photo comparisons is evident in the posts on this thread: the comparisons are rather like ink-blot tests, in that the viewer sees what he wants or expects to see. I doubt that any skeptic nor true-believer has changed his mind as a result. So I think the photo comparisons, while fascinating to some of us (like me), are ultimately too ambiguous to serve as strong evidence one way or the other. That said, I always enjoy seeing new ones! I have to agree with you here. But Number 9 says the photos have been tampered with, yet give no proof that they were.
|
|