|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 21, 2004 13:29:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Apr 21, 2004 14:40:51 GMT
As I was looking at this picture It looked so familiar to me. Then I pulled out my 'Let it Be' cd and lo and behold: I know the photo has been doctored to look like Paul. But now we know where they got the picture from in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 21, 2004 14:48:13 GMT
...and this one is the very last one.... Good work, BJ!
|
|
|
Post by Elidor on Apr 21, 2004 14:52:58 GMT
There's a head-shot photo of Macca half way up where he's wearing what looks like a space suit without a helmet. He looks different - like the photo's been "faulsified". Face seems longer, bigger chin etc.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 21, 2004 14:55:46 GMT
Thank you my SunKing The amount of time & effort doesn't matter. The truth has got to be kept out in public view.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 21, 2004 14:56:59 GMT
Thanks Rojopa. Could you please repost that second photo? I'm very curious to see how it was doctored.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 21, 2004 14:58:29 GMT
Elidor - great observation. You're probably right. However, the expression on Paul's face is priceless. He looks like he really hated wearing that thing ;D That's why I used it!
|
|
Skydeli
Contributor
food for thought
Posts: 43
|
Post by Skydeli on Apr 21, 2004 16:29:33 GMT
OMG! It looks like more than half of those pictures look "Faulsified" especially the ones taken from "Help!" Ive seen that movie many times as a kid and unfortunatley I have the restored version on VHS that came out and Ive always noticed Paul looked different. I know there is a thread somewhere on this site that talks about the VHS vs DVD version and the differences.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 21, 2004 17:35:27 GMT
OMG! It looks like more than half of those pictures look "Faulsified" especially the ones taken from "Help!" Ive seen that movie many times as a kid and unfortunatley I have the restored version on VHS that came out and Ive always noticed Paul looked different. I know there is a thread somewhere on this site that talks about the VHS vs DVD version and the differences. Absolutely true.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 21, 2004 18:42:10 GMT
Wow, I'm shocked by that. I thought that Paul looks different in some photos. Even some photos from Help! I just thought it must be the angle. I wasn't aware that they could falsify colored images! I thought that they mostly focused on the black & white ones. Especially in 1987. My version of Help! is the 1987 version. I'm going to have to purchase the original release, if I can find it used. Thanks for the heads up Sky & S.K.!!!
Again, WOW!
I will continue to add photos to this thread. PLEASE everyone point out to all of us which photos you feel have been tampered with to make Paul look more like Faul. That is heinous & totally immoral!
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Apr 21, 2004 19:32:58 GMT
Billy, thanks for all your hard work. Those photos are priceless. In some Help ones he does look a bit different, especially sitting on the tank--wider nose. But your time and effort are most appreciated. The a**holes who have done this to Paul need to be identified and eliminated!
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Apr 22, 2004 1:32:53 GMT
So, what we are saying here is that both the VHS and DVD versions have been faulsified. Is that correct?
|
|
Skydeli
Contributor
food for thought
Posts: 43
|
Post by Skydeli on Apr 22, 2004 3:42:01 GMT
Around the same time Anthology came out, there was this 'restoration and preservation of old films' (what happened around 1987 that someone brought up? anyone?) and the movie Help! (especially the first few minutes of the film) was badly damaged. I remember when they did 'A Hard Days Night' as well.. I bought the newly restored version of Help in VHS (thinking of getting AHDN later on) and noticed that the beggining was newly restored. You can still see where there was faults in the film, but I do remember tv airplay before this repair was badly damaged. The color is phenominal and the sound a better quality as well as Pauls face a bit different.. you know that 'eye to brain not clicking' and if anyone were to check this particular film for comparisons, we need someone who has had this film BEFORE the restoration. So, is not so much as VHS vs DVD...its before a certain time and after the repairs.
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Apr 22, 2004 4:10:24 GMT
Sorry about the picture not loading. Don't know what happened. Anyway, here are the pictures for comparison: And from the 'Let it Be' cover: At least I think it's a good match.
|
|
|
Post by MMCDHoward on Apr 22, 2004 4:50:23 GMT
I never understood that, how can you say they seamlessly combined the pictures of two men who, according to you, look almost nothing alike, without the aid of digital technology, and still come up with a flawless composite?
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 22, 2004 8:18:25 GMT
Sorry about the picture not loading. Don't know what happened. Anyway, here are the pictures for comparison: And from the 'Let it Be' cover: At least I think it's a good match. Already checked. Head width and eyes are Paul's. Hair beard nose are Faul's Just a photomontage Please visit: digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/f_d_t_b.html
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Apr 22, 2004 9:35:57 GMT
The pic of Paul above is the classic "Speak no Evil" pose. There was "Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil." Covered ears, covered eyes, covered mouth. Always with arms a kimbo, elbows up, whatever. This was seen on monkey art work and cartoons in the 30s and 40s in America.
|
|
|
Post by Elidor on Apr 22, 2004 10:44:04 GMT
This is just a cautious observation: If you look at the two photos the eyes are actually different. In the mid 60's shot, McCartney is looking into the centre of the lens - straight into the eyes of the viewer, but in the LIB photo, he's looking past the viewer - slightly to your right. And just to confuse things, from memory, I actually think the eyes in the earlier shot bear a close resemblance to McCartney's eyes on the McCartney II album cover. Can anyone post a comparison?
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Apr 22, 2004 15:50:18 GMT
This is just a cautious observation: If you look at the two photos the eyes are actually different. In the mid 60's shot, McCartney is looking into the centre of the lens - straight into the eyes of the viewer, but in the LIB photo, he's looking past the viewer - slightly to your right. And just to confuse things, from memory, I actually think the eyes in the earlier shot bear a close resemblance to McCartney's eyes on the McCartney II album cover. Can anyone post a comparison? Oh yeah!
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 22, 2004 22:14:16 GMT
That is horrible!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Apr 23, 2004 4:05:48 GMT
The pictures that I posted comparing Paul to the picture of Faul on the Let it Be cover was to bring to light that they combined Paul's picture to a picture of Faul during the LIB sessions to come up with the album picture. I know it has been brought up and discussed before.
To me those pictures are a close match. The one of Faul on the cover of McCartney II doesn't match.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 23, 2004 14:31:44 GMT
Rojopa match what? Could you please just explain what you mean a little clearer? To me the photo on the McCartney II cover looks modified to make him look more like Paul. Look at his ears. If you look at early photos of Faul ( 67-68 ) his ears are higher & closer to his head: This comparison of S.K.'s illustrates this perfectly. It seems that Faul FORGOT to put his FAKE ear lobes on for the Hey Jude recording session! Also in Faul's photo you can see how SHINY his cheeks look because he had just gotten underskin filler injections. His cheeks look STRETCHED & PUFFY. Paul's don't because for him it was natural! Then there's the difference in their noses. There's more to this than meets the eye Here's more photos of Faul, from MMT: It looks to me like he wasn't wearing the fake ears in these two photos. My guess? They were uncomfortable, so he would only wear them when he was told to! More photos of EARLY Faul, from MMT. That movie is a GOLDMINE. In none of theses photos was he wearing the fake ears!: A photo of Paul showing his right ear to compare the last photos to. There are three photos in a row of Faul's right ear. So I give you three photos of Paul showing HIS right ear: There is NO way that is the same ear! Here's another photo of Paul's right ear, to show that the last photo is NOT a fluke! The photo right before this was taken from a VINTAGE document. It was in an earlier post from a previous member of this Forum! There is NO way the right ear of Faul in the photos of him from MMT, match Paul's right ear in the three photos of him! Now, I expect the naysayers to say: Well maybe Paul had his ears pinned back around the time of MMT. He DID have pretty big ears! That's a valid observation. However, if that is the case WHY did Paul/Faul later unpin them?! For what purpose?! Check THIS out: I can just keep posting photos showing how Faul had his ears made BIGGER . WHY? What possible LOGICAL reason could he have to do this? There IS none! Again, Faul in 1967, smaller ears: Paul, almost exact same position of head. This photo was taken 1965 or 66: Paul's earlobe is hanging. Faul's is NOT! Faul's earlobes were attached in this photo from 1967 & the other photos of him from MMT. WHY would he UNATTACH them LATER ON! I totally doubt anyone would have surgery to UNATTACH their earlobes. The ONLY logical explanation I can think of is that Faul had his ears made bigger to make himself look MORE like the pre- 1967 Paul McCartney!
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Apr 23, 2004 19:55:19 GMT
Great job!! Paul's ears did stick out a little, not so Faul's. And who would have their ears pinned and then unpinned? ? It's also obvious Paul's ears were longer than Faul's. Faul needs to remember to wear his ear tips when going out in public and trying to convince folks that he is Paul. I really like the picture below 'MMT is a goldmine'...Faul looks like he has a fat lip. Did he sass Linda and she let me have it ;D Or did he overdo the Botox? He looks really funny Fake ear tips, fake nose tips....anything other fake or plasticine parts Sorry, couldn't resist! I also noticed that the little channel or whatever you call it located between the (or part of the ) ear lobe and the entrance to the inner ear is shaped differently in Faul than Paul's I still say that those who say that there was no substitution, actually OPEN their eyes when looking at the pictures pasted here.
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Apr 23, 2004 21:16:38 GMT
Thank you Abbey. It's towards that end that I post so many photos. I'm hoping to open the eyes of the blind!
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Apr 24, 2004 11:54:24 GMT
Billy, This photo: Does not match this one: Which to me proves that they are two different individuals
|
|