|
Post by newave on Aug 6, 2003 19:04:33 GMT
What if someone got an old picture of James Paul McCartney, and used some type of software to age him to see what he would look like today, and compare it to this fake Paul today. This could tell whether or not "Paul is Dead" was a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 6, 2003 19:26:48 GMT
Very interesting if anybody could do it!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Aug 6, 2003 23:27:20 GMT
Any good forensic artist can do it. WILL they do it is the question. Most of them are so busy with missing person's cases and murder cases that they probably wouldn't bother with this. I even emailed a forensic artist about this very subject a few months back and got no reply.
|
|
|
Post by therealpaul on Aug 12, 2003 21:22:31 GMT
after using age acceleration software, I have determined that he would look something like this.
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Aug 12, 2003 23:43:54 GMT
:DhaHaa , good one. thats how my laugh sounds, by the way. like this: haHaa, with just that emphasis.
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 13, 2003 7:20:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 13, 2003 12:35:37 GMT
Mmmmm...I don't know
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 13, 2003 12:52:54 GMT
Maybe like: It's Renato Pozzetto, an italian actor. He is a "natural" (without plastic surgery) Faul. He is about 60 (just like James Paul "IF")
|
|
|
Post by Beatlestobattle on Aug 13, 2003 17:23:43 GMT
I tried it myself once as a joke by reconstructing Paul's skull digitally from an online pic that came from around 1964 era when originally published. Then I added the features and I aged it to 64. He looked EXACTLY like your supposed "Faul," only looking older by four years than he is now.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 13, 2003 17:43:02 GMT
I am a little bit curious... Please can you show us that result... ...in an "visible" resolution this time.....
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 13, 2003 18:55:07 GMT
I love to see it!!!!
|
|
|
Post by krysia on Aug 14, 2003 1:03:46 GMT
he would still be hott. looks like that never age. just ask renee
|
|
|
Post by Renee on Aug 14, 2003 1:05:27 GMT
;D Ah, so true, so true...
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 14, 2003 1:42:55 GMT
yeah show us this picture
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 15, 2003 12:17:03 GMT
Bet the "original" 1964 picture was a doctored one and that's why it looks like Faul when aged.
|
|
|
Post by Beatlestobattle on Aug 19, 2003 1:27:08 GMT
Ah, Paul Bearer, the conspiracy theorist of the family. You're wearing so many tinfoil hats here I can't even begin to count them.
This picture was NOT in any way tampered with. I checked it according to your standards, again as a joke. And it still looked like "Faul." He got thinner, the eyes came closer together, he looked two or so feet taller when I stuck the head on a Paul body. In fact, it was an almost perfect match. I say almost because the head looked cropped, but otherwise would have matched perfectly.
Then I aged this same head to 63, three years older than Paul is. Still looked remarkably like "Faul."
Then I continued to age it, stopping at 75. He looked rather youthful for 75, still remarkably a "Faul" look-alike.
You wouldn't believe the results when I aged it to 90. He was bald and the skin was flabbier, but he was most definitely "Faul."
Then I de-aged this head pic to childhood age and it matched up perfectly pixel by pixel with a photo of Paul as a kid.
Eat your heart out.
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 19, 2003 2:18:12 GMT
Uh, your eyes and ears don't get closer together when you get thinner; you just confirmed exactly what PB said, the picture is tampered with. I'm sorry, you're truly dillusional if you think it's possible for your eyes to move closer together.You do realize your head has a BONE in it, right? It's not just some blob of fat that grows and shrinks.
And I'd really love to know what software it is you're using that can do all this stuff for you. How do you "de-age the head to childhood age." If you are using some kind of software that claims to do this, this is NOT how proffessional forensic anthropologists do it. Unless you have a degree in biology, your just screwing around with the picture to make it fit.
And I have already checked many of the "childhood" pictures that came from the Anthology; they are clearly altered in eye-width and spacing.
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 19, 2003 6:19:13 GMT
you still havent shown us these results yet.
|
|
|
Post by maccalindandme on Aug 19, 2003 8:12:52 GMT
what would paul look like? the same as he has for the LAST 62 yrs of his life! he had a car wreck and ran straight into a tree, and lost his front tooth there! in 1966 and he also wrecked his cycle once too! it is just A Rumor, even paul said that! the legend goes on I guess! but contrary to belief, he is Wonderfully Alive! I am 100% Positive! gee who knew it would continue on like this? just soo silly!
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 19, 2003 8:23:16 GMT
well obviously he's gonna deny that he's dead. he would have so much to lose if word got out!
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 19, 2003 9:07:55 GMT
He chipped his tooth in 1965. That story about a possible car crash on Novemember 9 is an innacurate rumor. Patterson has no idea what he is talking about, he kept saying that a crash DID occur then. There is no newspaper record of a crash that day.
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 19, 2003 11:02:25 GMT
I think BeatlestoBattle is a liar. He has probably done no such aging test unless he was just mucking around with a graphics package, and certainly he would not have done any aging in a techniquely correct way. How come he has access to some sophisitcated software that most of us don't? If it was that easy to do such a test, don't you think we would've done one by now? Quite clearly, in the end, he was a troll which is why he has been banned.
Maccalindandme, we don't mind people taking up a contrary position to us or asking questions but if all you do is say "Paul's alive 100%" or somesuch and not have one single valid argument to contribute, you will go the same way as BeatlestoBattle.
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 19, 2003 11:35:58 GMT
Here is what it all comes down to, and maybe Number 9 would like to include this in a more extensive description of the forum. This will be the basic outline of my rebuttle to Patterson's "expert":
If the comparisons are correct in angle and H&W ratio, then they are absolutely physically conclusive and this man is not Paul McCartney. There is no way for these differences to occur naturally or through extensive surgery. The skulls are fundamentally different in size and shape in a way that cannot be caused by growth nor effected through surgery. This is an absolute physiological fact and is not up for debate.
So logically, the following points are the only two points on which a rebuttle of the evidence can be based:
Point 1) The angle. We have deduced through a long string of logical deduction that the angles ARE correct and within a reasonable margin of error by observing the following facts:
The comparison of John from the butcher cover and Sgt. Pepper are from considerably different angles based on the height of the ears in relation to the nose, yet the core features and outline of the skull are a perfect match.
The comparison of Sgt. Pepper to McCartney II is also a conclusive match, despite a large change in angle based on the height of the ears.
The comparison of '65 Ray Davies to '84 Ray Davies is also from a different angle, one being slightly rotated up and away from the camera to the left. Still, the match is completely conclusive.
With these comparisons we have established a significantly wide margin of error which can be used to judge the accuracy of the pre-67 Paul to post-67 "Paul" comparisons. The P to "P" comparisons are demonstrably from much more accurate angles than the comparisons listed above (we can deduce this by the comparative symmetrical distribution of the bridge of the nose and the ears, the orientation of the pupils in the eye sockets and the height of the ears in relation to the nose), and yet THEY DO NOT MATCH. They are WELL within the margin of error established by all the other comparisons, so logically the changes cannot be explained by an inadequate angle.
Point 2) We have deduced through a long string of logical deduction that significant lens distortion, distortion dramatic enough to alter the results, is not present by observing the following facts:
All of the comparison photos used were taken at different times with different lenses, from different distances from the lens and from different areas of the lens. All of the comparisons are a perfectly conclusive match EXCEPT FOR ONE, the comparison of pre-67 Paul to post-67 "Paul". If any of the photos were significantly distorted, this would show up in it's comparison to one or more of the other photos. This does not show up in a SINGLE ONE OF THE OTHERCOMPARISONS It does not, so logically, lens distortion is not occuring in the pre-67 Paul to post-67 "Paul" comparison.
All of this evidence taken together presents an AIRTIGHT case that the pre and post-67 pictures are of two different men.
If you are to disprove any aspect of the comparison, you have to prove that at least one of these logical assertions IS NOT CORRECT. If you cannot do this or are not willing to, then your opinion on the comparisons is irrelevant; they speak for themselves.
Now please, can we actually start debating the COMPARISONS?
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 19, 2003 22:47:33 GMT
excellent! ;D im not sure where/how u want me to put this on the forum though...
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 23, 2003 13:18:34 GMT
and...about lens distrortion. How come lens distortion is so IRRILEVANT in James Paul-on-James Paul and Faul-on-Faul comparisons and so RILEVANT in Faul-on-James Paul comparison?
|
|