|
|
Post by djmartins on Dec 6, 2003 13:06:21 GMT
Check out the following photo at the Tower Ballroom, September 21st 1962 personal.nbnet.nb.ca/mccorp/babysinblack4.html Look at the long upper lip, funny shaped chin, and long face. I fully expect a few people to say that this photo was also "doctored". I you really believe that, then you must believe the consprirators had a full time staff and photo lab for the purpose due to the large amount of photo they "doctored" DJ |
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Dec 8, 2003 22:00:33 GMT
Um...lemme see...Paul was kidnapped in 1966...this is 2003...that would give them 37 YEARS! Plenty of time to doctor photographs, if I (an ex-photo analyst, by the way) do say so myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Dec 8, 2003 22:23:58 GMT
DJ, why don't you rent or puchase one or all of the following Beatles videos?: A Hard Day's Night Help! The Beatles' First US Visit Get them on VHS only and tell me after viewing them that Paul McCartney has a long face. I'm sure you will find just the opposite.  |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Dec 8, 2003 22:25:52 GMT
Also notice in the picture above that Paul's mouth is open. Your face will get longer if you open your mouth thereby elongating your jaw!
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Dec 8, 2003 22:30:38 GMT
P.S. That picture doesn't look like it is from '64 anyway. More like September of '63 unless they all got haircuts at the same time!
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 8, 2003 22:46:34 GMT
 Hmmh....In 1964 (actually 1962-1963 -please "djwhat" study Beatles chronology, thanks-) James Paul didn't need underskin filler injections (aka botuline, botox etc...).....YET! ;D ;D ;D Funny too funny.... |
|
|
|
Post by djmartins on Dec 9, 2003 1:21:36 GMT
Bahahahah! This is getting too damn funny! They had botuline and/or botox in the 1960s? Oh yeah, I remember, y'all decided that even though it wasn't invented then, y'all believe that the evil people who killed Paul had it. After all, they have unlimited funds, agents, and technology that the public can only dream about. I mean, they killed one of the world's most famous musicians in 1966 and substituted an imposted for almost 40 years and gotten away with it! They had a few full time photo labs doctoring photos for THIRTY SEVEN years, with agents substituting these documents every chance they had! Wow! Except for the apostles of SunDing-a-ling, who alone has the holy document that PROVES this happened! He alone knows the TRUTH and the WAY! But he is scared they will KILL him if lets any but the most devoted of followers see it. After all, if other's could examine this (likely imaginary) document it would be torn to pieces as a hoax. Bahahahahahahahahaahaha!! ROTFLMAO! PS - SunDing-a-ling, please study REALITY. You need a big dose of it, pal! Why is John's Rickenbacker black in this pic?  |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 9, 2003 3:26:36 GMT
then you must believe the consprirators had
a full time staff and photo lab for the purpose
due to the large amount of photo they "doctored"
Uh, not exactly. They "photoshopped" Oswald with a rifle in 1963 and by 1969 had pulled off the Apollo 11 scam. The technology has been around a long time. They had 33-37 years to alter whatever prints this Peter McCormack scanned in to his website. That would not require a full-time staff in perpetuity; though I would imagine manhours would spike as needed when a project like Anthology is underway.
Hope this helps.
BTW, nice formatting. WebTV? Or just importing these brilliant comments of yours from another program?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Dec 9, 2003 3:45:36 GMT
haha, come on "dj". "sunding-a-ling"?! ?! how old are we?
|
|
|
|
Post by djmartins on Dec 9, 2003 11:14:45 GMT
Hi again Total Information,
I REALLY like this one:
"Uh, not exactly. They "photoshopped" Oswald with a rifle in 1963 and by 1969 had pulled off the Apollo 11 scam. The technology has been around a long time."
Yeah, I remember Photoshop in 1963!
Bahahahahahaha.
So, from this statement I see you don't believe in
the Apollo missions! I heard about idiots about you,
I just didn't think they used computers at all as
I heard they were afraid of Satan hiding in the
keyboards taking thier souls!
"BTW, nice formatting. WebTV? Or just importing these brilliant comments of yours from another program?"
WebTV? Is that what you use?
How about using <ctrl-c> and <ctrl-v>.
It has worked for me since 1983, especially on
chat programs when I am talking piss with morons
who couldn't understand a tenth of the technology
available in 1963.
And before you comment about this,
I was using chat programs on university CDC Cyber
mainframes back in the early 80s.
Despite consisting of college users,
I was totally amazed by the consistent ignorance
and rudeness displayed by people as soon as they
thought they were anonymous!
DJ
PS -
666
( )
(0)
Hey Watusi, I was just having a little fun throwing
sophmoric insults back to the source!
I'm sorry you didn't find it amusing.
Next time I will aim a little lower and see if you
can get it, ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 9, 2003 11:28:52 GMT
DJ, this is no way to act here. You are wittering on about appropriateness and manners, and then display none yourself.
If you have something to discuss, then do so in a civilised and socially acceptable manner. If you are unable to do this, you will have to put up with others treating you less than courteously.
|
|
|
|
Post by djmartins on Dec 9, 2003 11:53:31 GMT
Curious,
Please pay attention, pal.
I reply with courtesy to those who reply with courtesy.
Rudeness to those who reply with rudeness.
I really like this post of yours:
"And you, djmartins? What kind of a person are you?
Aside from an irritating, mindless little troll, that is... "
Is this your idea of courtesy?
What a stupid question of me to ask!
OF COURSE you think so, as long as YOU are
the one acting uncivilized and without courtesy!
Next time use the brains in your head instead of your
ass to reply.
I'll discuss things with anyone, but I'll tailor my
discussion to whatever level that individual
insists on bringing things to.
NEXT!
DJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 9, 2003 12:17:53 GMT
I simply turned your own impertinent question to Sun King back onto you. As the old saying goes, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
People on this board have made every effort to be polite, informative and helpful. You can't blame them when your endless trolling and insults start to get them down and they respond in kind. I am one of these people who is simply getting fed up with your pointless and, quite frankly, irritating posts. You have yet to bring up more than one or two salient points for discussion, preferring, instead, to attack the members in a personal manner. That's no way to go about being welcomed in ANY forum, not just this one.
I've just been dealing with a similar troll on another forum, who did as you do - insinuating yourself into any thread you can, whether you have any relevant points or not, simply in order to disrupt. This person on the other forum has just been banned for a gross breach of forum rules.
Can I suggest that you tone it down, before you annoy the admins once too often for your own good, and they have no other option than to ban you? I feel that you might have a valid contribution to make - if you could only stop yourself from commenting in an inappropriate manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 9, 2003 13:59:13 GMT
I used the verb "photoshop" in quotes to get across a simple concept to your simple mind. Had I been referring to the software, I would have not used the quotes and capitalized the proper noun.
And by "importing," I did indeed mean cut and paste. You may want to check the spell-check software in whatever program it is you're cutting from as a number of errors are still slipping by. For that matter, you may want to upgrade to one with rudimentary grammar check.
And thanks for reconfirming your susceptibility to pedestrian mass mind control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 9, 2003 14:45:33 GMT
TotalInformation, think it would help if I went into the exact processes of how they doctored Oswald's picture, just in order to enlighten DJ?
Or would I be wasting my time?
Anyone who minded to read your post properly would understand that you werre referring to advanced photomanipulation techniques of the day, NOT the current digitised processes.
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 9, 2003 15:27:15 GMT
Pearls before swine. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by DayTripper on Dec 9, 2003 17:05:52 GMT
For all it's worth, the "Oswald with a Rifle" picture looks very fake. His head looks too big for his body:  His head doesn't look disproportionately large to his body in any of the other pictures of him. |
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 9, 2003 17:31:07 GMT
Exactly! And if you look carefully, you can see a "cut" line at the bottom of his chin.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Dec 9, 2003 17:57:26 GMT
Now dj, i wasnt attempting to offend you or anything. and it wasnt even a joke with a punchline, thus making it obvious that its not something i could or couldnt "get." and your apoligies are accepted, although unnecessary; keep in mind that if i didnt find something that basic and silly amusing that i wouldnt of taken time to comment on it; on the contrary, it, as well as you, do amuse me.
|
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Dec 10, 2003 4:19:42 GMT
djmartins:
It figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 10, 2003 4:39:50 GMT
True, and while "Photoshop" © by Adobe (or whoever) ha n't been around all that long, professional grade "matte" processes have been used since the silent film days. Superimposition, "glass" shots , matte paintings, hanging models (that finish off a room ceiling or corner), double exposures, split screen images, games with the perspective on and on, the list of camera "tricks" is long and old.
Nowadays people look for things like motion artifacts, or strange little artifacts from digital manipulations. BUt , the old school tricks leave small markers too, that experts can discern and elaborate on.
The point is, what is the purpose of this in any shots of the Beatles? And why weren't they used on John and George and Ringo? These were young men with good, healthy appearences (we thought). For what did they ever need any "enhancements."
|
|
