|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 4, 2003 8:14:57 GMT
Peoplepeople, I've been at that site several times before, and I understand what you are talking about. However, I've seen a straight-on view of Marie Osmond VERY recently, and all that's been done is that her eyes appear more slanted because the skin has been stretched so tightly. They are NOT further apart.
Bear in mind that make-up tricks can also make the eyes appear further apart, and women often employ methods such as dabbing white eyeshadow or white eyeliner in the corner of the eye to give the illusion of width. This gives a more youthful, "innocent" appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 4, 2003 15:51:27 GMT
:oEnough about Marie Osmond !!! The only reason anyone would change the orbit of their eyes is if they absolutley have to. Being extremely deformed for example. That's the only reason. It's too dangerous to just do it, to do it. Why would Paul want his eyes closer together  I feel that the whole premise is ridiculous. For me, it's the eyes that prove that they're different men. Like it has been said, Paul is a warm friendly person. His eyes radiate this warmth. Bill is a cold-hearted bastard. Hence the cold-calculated look. They ARE two different people.... Love to all... Chris ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Dec 4, 2003 22:03:50 GMT
Amen, Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 4, 2003 22:20:47 GMT
Re: What's your main visual clue?
« Reply #23 on: 12/03/2003 at 18:25:49 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like again like to refer you to the link which disproves that (the eyesballs just don't reveal more), and please tell me what site says this can't happen. I checked your link and all I saw was a before and after of Marie Osmond. Her eyes look a little farther apart in the post-surgery picture, but her head is at a slightly different angle. I'd like to see an overlay and other photos of her, also with overlays. That's not "proof" of anything. It's one photo. I don't know of any other site that's doing this kind of comparison so can't "prove" it isn't possible. We might all like to check out some books on plastic surgery to correct facial deformities, but common sense tells me that in order to move the eyes farther apart it would require bone implants between the bridge of the nose and the eyes. I know this is so because I saw a surgery to move eyes closer together (terrible facial deformity) and the doctors had to remove bone in this area in order to move the eye sockets. So your point is what? That Paul had surgery to move his eyes closer together? Or he had surgery to make his eyes rounder? Or that Faul's eyes are the same distance apart as Paul's? What is it you're trying to say? : this is your [glow=red,2,300] MASTERPIECE!!![/glow] Not only the eyes distance changes but the whole skull shape and features. Simply. |
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Dec 7, 2003 3:13:04 GMT
:oEnough about Marie Osmond !!! The only reason anyone would change the orbit of their eyes is if they absolutley have to. Being extremely deformed for example. That's the only reason. It's too dangerous to just do it, to do it. Why would Paul want his eyes closer together I feel that the whole premise is ridiculous. For me, it's the eyes that prove that they're different men. Like it has been said, Paul is a warm friendly person. His eyes radiate this warmth. Bill is a cold-hearted bastard. Hence the cold-calculated look. They ARE two different people.... Love to all... Chris ;D F*CK Chris! You always get so "excited" when someone dares questions your views, just f*cking stop it. You wanna know why he'd want eyes closer together? Go f*cking ask him. But quite frankly, the point isn't that her eyes are f*cking closer or farther if you guys would f*cking read. One eye is higher up after the surgery. F*cking geez, take a look. And I didn't f*cking say Paul did sh*t; only that it was possible, so when "at the appropriate time" we reveal this, we can't f*cking say that "Oh, it's not possible" if there's proof that it does. Christ, the hoard comes again  |
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Dec 7, 2003 3:14:26 GMT
gracemer: this is your [glow=red,2,300] MASTERPIECE!!![/glow] Not only the eyes distance changes but the whole skull shape and features. Simply. Actually, it's NOT a masterpiece, but rather him misinterpreting what I said. So I guess it's my masterpiece for confusing all of you. Damn, am I good. This is my MASTERPIECE or whatever the f*ck I have to press to get the big, red letters on. |
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Dec 7, 2003 3:18:35 GMT
I checked your link and all I saw was a before and after of Marie Osmond. Her eyes look a little farther apart in the post-surgery picture, but her head is at a slightly different angle. I'd like to see an overlay and other photos of her, also with overlays. That's not "proof" of anything. It's one photo.  ONE PHOTO? SO F*CKING WHAT? MAYBE THAT'S F*CKING DOCTORED AND ANY PLASTIC SURGERY IS DOCTORED TO COVER UP THAT FAUL REPLACED PAUL! BLOODY CHRIST! Guess what? WE only have a FEW photos that show discrepencies. Granted that we all say that all the photos are doctored. But guess what? There's a ton that match up and a few that don't, so we have to be very bloody careful that someone doesn't notice that when we reveal all this "at the appropriate time". My point? WE only have a few photos, so that one photo better bloody be enough. Double bloody standards are afoot. |
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Dec 7, 2003 5:22:59 GMT
I'm simply making the point that you are using one photo to try to prove your statement that peoples' eyes can be moved father apart via plastic surgery. You didn't even do an overlay. Now you claim that your one side by side comparison nullifies all the photographic comparisons on this site?
That's so preposterous that I thought I must have misunderstood what you were trying to say. That's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 7, 2003 14:10:24 GMT
This is the second time that peopleople has trolled this board - coincidence?  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 7, 2003 14:30:42 GMT
Curious - I don' t think anything is a coincidence. I don't believe in coincidences. My entire life changed the day I received the link to Andy's site. I haven't been the same since !!! I have no idea WHY Peoplepeople became so vehement with me. I think they should calm down, though. Calm down & watch their mouth !!!! Love to all... Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 7, 2003 14:32:27 GMT
Reminds me of the time Peoplepeople's "little brother" trolled the frums a few weeks ago, and ended up getting PP banned.
I doubt that it would happen twice.
|
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Dec 7, 2003 14:46:18 GMT
I'm simply making the point that you are using one photo to try to prove your statement that peoples' eyes can be moved father apart via plastic surgery. You didn't even do an overlay. Now you claim that your one side by side comparison nullifies all the photographic comparisons on this site? That's so preposterous that I thought I must have misunderstood what you were trying to say. That's all. Once again you misinterpret what I say, but at least you think that you may have misunderstood, and you did. Really, if ONE plastic surgery can prove this sort of thing, then why should you have 20 others? Look at it with your naked eye for once. One eye is above the other. How can you not see it??? I've been saying since my Let It Be argument that we need to look at this from all perspectives since we're supposed to be using this in the future. I'm saying we can't claim what is NOT possible and what IS when links like that show up and disprove what we said. So we have to be ready for things like that, because that could drill a hole in what we have to say. Is this all really that difficult to comprehend, because I spoon-fed every sentence this time. |
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Dec 7, 2003 14:47:35 GMT
Reminds me of the time Peoplepeople's "little brother" trolled the frums a few weeks ago, and ended up getting PP banned. I doubt that it would happen twice. Oh please. When I asked him, he said he went on and mentioned making sexual comments when he trolled. So if me going "F off" is considered a sexual comment, then you got me good. |
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 7, 2003 14:48:46 GMT
No, you just came across as an offensive troll, totally different from the style in your previous posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Dec 7, 2003 20:53:45 GMT
No, you just came across as an offensive troll, totally different from the style in your previous posts. Well, right now I'm getting really ticked because people aren't understanding what the heck I'm trying to say, and then they sort of go, "Why would he want his eyes closer together?!?!". I'M NOT DOUBTING ANYTHING! I just said that when we display this, get ready, know your facts, and look at this from all angles so we don't spout out incorrect information. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 20, 2003 8:39:26 GMT
I just wanted to jump in to say that it *IS* possible to surgically move someone's eyes closer together. You can see evidence of this at the website for the Tennessee Craniofacial Center www.erlanger.org/craniofacial/book/Orbital/Orbital_2.htm But, at the same page you can see what kinds of situations such an invasive surgery would be used for. These are people with severe congenital abnormalities, not folks looking for a vanity tune-up. There's very little reason to believe a person with no craniofacial abnormality would choose to have such a surgery performed. It's even less likely that a famous person who is known world-wide on sight would have this procedure done. So, *if* the evidence shows that Faul's eyes are closer together than Paul's, it's extremely unlikely it's because he had a surgical procedure to have them changed. Technically not impossible, but very unlikely. It's far more logical to assume it's not the same person. I'd like to be able to say that no surgeon would perform such an invasive procedure at the whim of a wealthy pop star, but the horror that is currently Michael Jackson's face precludes me from saying that with certainty... |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 20, 2003 9:40:27 GMT
Well, that site is a real eye opener--and a reminder to be thankful.
What the hell have I got to complain about?
Thank God for the technology existing and developing to help all of these people, (some congenital, some in accidents), have hope, restoration and help.
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 20, 2003 20:20:58 GMT
This is the second time that peopleople has trolled this board - coincidence? Third time's the charm....  |
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Dec 25, 2003 2:53:32 GMT
Notice any difference between Paul's left ear and Faul's?   |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 25, 2003 10:16:39 GMT
Notice any difference between Paul's left ear and Faul's? Eyebrows and eyes distance are still the clearer. |
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Dec 25, 2003 13:43:04 GMT
I guess most of us have a "pet" clue we always look for between Paul and Faul. For me, it's the shape of the face. Paul had a round, "puffy" face, while Faul has a long, "dug" face. Sure, there are differences between eye distance, chin, etc...., but the first immediate tipoff for me is the overall facial shape. What's your most immediate clue? The sum total body of evidence ! All the fingers point at 2 Pauls . His face is too long. His eyes are too green He is too tall and robust. His behavior is too evasive The music changed too much too soon. They quit touring . Their main sourceof personal income gone. |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 25, 2003 18:09:32 GMT
The way I see it, it was all for naught. They killed Paul because he wouldn't play ball anymore. He'd had it with the whole rigamaroll. He didn't want to dance anymore. He was REALLY sick & tired of the whole scene. He didn't WANT to tour anymore. So, they killed & replaced him. So that the money making machine known as The Beatles could continue. The ultimate justice They had to give up touring anyway. I guess it took awhile for Bill to get the persona down, so he COULD tour with them. By then, the personality differences between Paul & him had gravely affected the group. The other 3 just couldn't stomach working with Bill... The final straw ( as far as I know ) was the Let it Be sessions...  Love to all... Chris But Chris...this synopsis is very much the opposite of what we know about Paul and his state of mind, and his character right up to late 1966. The real Paul was an unabashed ham and needed to absorb as much fan/audience attention/affection as he could get. He reputedly was the last Beatle to give in to John & George's forceful " '66 tour is the final one" ultimatum. I have seen no evidence he was "sick & tired of the whole scene." Hell, he's the one who would stop in at the little pubs along the way to Father Jim's house, and drink a pint while banging out tunes on the piano, singing. In contrast, it was Lennon & Harrison who, once world domination was achieved, successfully removed and insulated themselves from as much contact with the outside world as possible. I am more inclined to think along the lines of dirty tricks gone bad regarding impending record contract business, and/or International intrigue to take the steam out of the Beatles vise-like grip upon the youth of the world as motives for the removal of Paul and, one musn't forget Brian; their trusted manager who could and would advise them in their best interests...had he lived. So they killed two birds with one stone, as the saying goes. Why Paul? Simply because he was the teeny-bopper poster Beatle. Arguably the most popular at that time, and most visible. If you want to neuter the Partridge Family, you don't take out Danny...you get rid of Keith. Same principle with the Beatles. |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Dec 25, 2003 18:10:57 GMT
Eyebrows and eyes distance are still the clearer. The difference I see immediately is that Paul didn't have a well-defined ear lobe, and Faul has a defined, sculpted earlobe... |
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Dec 26, 2003 16:47:36 GMT
Correct ! What is forgotten nowadays is that back IN the day Paul and Ringo ran rings around John and George in terms of popularity.
John has since gotten his due , owing to his death .
|
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Dec 27, 2003 6:12:40 GMT
I watched the movie 'Let it Be', albeit a bad copy, and I must say that I was rather annoyed at watching and listening to Faul. He is a real ass. However, on the flip side, I do like the song Let it Be.    |
|
I feel that the whole premise is ridiculous.
