|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 10, 2004 5:43:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 10, 2004 14:39:54 GMT
So how did I get dragged into this one?  Believe me I can see the differences...but I also see similar and often just as striking differences in the other 3 lads. That's the genesis of my problem with the photographic evidence. Photos are just images caught at a certain angle at a certain time and are dependent on many, many variables. For this reason I've always put more weight in first-hand encounters rather than photographs. There are probably 100,000 photos of the Beatles in the 1960's yet we continue to see the same 250 photos in rotation. When somebody says "he was a different man than the one I met in 1965" then I pay attention (and yes, I do realize people have said that here) But as for photos...for every photo you show me that shows "Faul" with a crooked nose, I can show you him with a rounded nose. I can show you photos of John Lennon in the late 60's that make him look nothing like the guy on the Sulivan show on 1964. The frustrating part is "photographic evidence" really is a circular argument with no way to agree. If I find a photo that disagrees with your POV, I'll be told my photo was "doctored". If I find overlays that appear to matchup I'll be told he is wearing false ears and nose-tips to make the image match. If that was the case you'd think he would have tipped off his friend Michael Jackson about where to get good nose-tips, cause Mikey needs one BAD Seriously, I enjoy the topic of PID and do not mean to put anyone down for their beliefs. I just feel in the age of PhotoShopping what is offered as "photographic evidence" has to be taken with a grain of salt. Sure everybody "says" their images are "vintage" and/or "untouched" but I know for a fact several images that used to be used all the time were either stretched or flipped (not saying the author did this intentionally, but this added to the reason the image of Paul/Faul looked so different) LarryC at his forum provided evidence of this type of manipulation. So, in short, photos don't do it for me. All the Beatle changed in apperance to varying degrees. But DNA tests, first-hand encounters, and fingerprints -- THAT to me is where we can talk about evidence. Hope I didn't ruffle any feathers...this is just my opinon. My moniker was mentioned so I felt a need to respond. Best wishes to all. |
|
|
|
Post by devilsadv on Jun 10, 2004 14:57:01 GMT
Good to see Silver Beatle again!
By the way, it's rubble ears.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 10, 2004 17:35:13 GMT
The reason Bill wouldn't mention anything to Mikey is because he truly hates him for buying the song rights to the Beatles' songs.
Some pictures we know to be authenic because some of us were around in the 60's and remember the ones in the fan mags. There was no reason to "doctor" anything back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 10, 2004 18:10:29 GMT
True! ;D
I was honestly just making a little joke. Somebody at one point in time here made a reference that "Bill/Faul" used multiple fake noses and rubber ears depending on the photo presented. I was using Michael as an example of how difficult it is have extensive, massive surgery to the face (let alone in 1966). Granted Jacko went overboard but you get the drift...my opinion is that if there was a switch is wasn't dependent on a ton of top secret plastic surgery. Was probably just a good look-a-like with a nip and tuck here and there (not fake noses and ears)
Believe it or not somebody claimed that even vintage stuff was doctored. The claim was many pre-1966 photos were intentionally warped to appear more like "Bill/Faul" and only the earliest of early fan mags would have the real McCoy. Seems awfully labor intensive if you ask me. I mean, leaders of countries have been known to have many spot-on body-doubles (Saddam, Idi Amin, Mao, etc) but none went to the lengths suggested here. Simply wasn't necessary and world leaders are some of the most photographed faces anywhere. Why would the Beatles receive the massive attention to detail that a Chairman Mao doesn't? So..I'm not putting down the notion Paul may been replaced, I just think if he was they worked with "Bill" pretty much as he was and nobody went about retouching old photos. If they got caught, so be it...
Once again just an opinion
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowsub2 on Jun 11, 2004 6:11:49 GMT
Yeah, I know abbey! Obviously I can't say to you that paul / faul look the same in the photos you posted. But in this yellow submarine footage, if faul looked SO similar to paul, that long time members in here debate who it really is, then why did faul keep going with the plastic surgery after he had reached this close to perfect? basically silverbeatle got in there first, and much more eloquently (sp?) so this is all I can really say! About the date of the piece - John's hair was that long from very late 67. It's really a very easy photo to date. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 11, 2004 18:00:37 GMT
Faul continued with the plastic surgery to "tidy up" things like having plastine ears and nose tips; making his teeth have that overlap tooth like Paul's. And Paul was hairy, but did not have a hairy chest. Faul was NOT hairy, but did have a really hairy chest that had to be shaved or waxed or something.
It takes super close looking, but it is Faul. John's hair, as well as the others, got even longer and more scraggly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Power 2 The People on Jun 12, 2004 1:53:35 GMT
I have to agree with you Paul Bearer. They cleaned up their look after Sgt Pepper. They grew the mustaches to resemble Faul who needed it to cover some plastic surgery scars until they healed. ABBEY, my theory is that Faul's mustache may have been mostly a distraction to fool the public, rather than a cover for surgery scars. Since wearing a mustache changes one's appearance, people would just assume his change in appearance was due to the mustache. Then the other Beatles had to wear mustaches so Faul's wouldn't stand out. After more corrective surgery, Faul could shave the mustache because he looked close enough to Paul at that point. |
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Jun 12, 2004 2:09:51 GMT
I think it's a picture of Faul because Paul always parted his hair on the left. Always. Faul failed to do this in the early days, then he parted on the left for a while, and now he's back to parting on the right again.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 12, 2004 13:43:41 GMT
I think trolls are always self-injurers.
Someone is talking about a "photoshop" era where everything is no more reliable....that's true but
...WHAT ABOUT TRUE VINTAGE DOCUMENTATION....SilverBeatle?
Trolls are always self-injurers...as always ....because weird liars.
BTW This site was made for TRUE BEATLES FANS who have still TRUE VINTAGE DOCUMENTATION where to check directy....THE TRUTH they have suspected from ALWAYS...
To stop to this non sense discussion..... John never wore glasses and long sideburns in photo shots BEFORE September 1966.
Check photos about please.
BTW....BILL DID NEED to marry in a hurry his "personal" photographer.....Linda....
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 12, 2004 13:53:07 GMT
Good to see Silver Beatle again! By the way, it's rubble ears. : Perfect!   Magical Mystery ... Variable Ear Position.... |
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 12, 2004 16:19:34 GMT
S.K. - nice job ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Jun 12, 2004 18:24:36 GMT
I think trolls are always self-injurers. Someone is talking about a "photoshop" era where everything is no more reliable....that's true but ...WHAT ABOUT TRUE VINTAGE DOCUMENTATION....SilverBeatle? Trolls are always self-injurers...as always ....because weird liars. BTW This site was made for TRUE BEATLES FANS who have still TRUE VINTAGE DOCUMENTATION where to check directy....THE TRUTH they have suspected from ALWAYS... To stop to this non sense discussion..... John never wore glasses and long sideburns in photo shots BEFORE September 1966. Check photos about please. BTW....BILL DID NEED to marry in a hurry his "personal" photographer.....Linda.... LONG LIVE THE KING! Does Linda get a lot of photo credits in published work we may have seen? |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 12, 2004 19:18:00 GMT
LONG LIVE THE KING! Does Linda get a lot of photo credits in published work we may have seen? E.G. ...... ...here it is LUCY! (BTW: Thank You!)  taken from WHITE ALBUM POSTER REAR |
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jun 13, 2004 7:32:07 GMT
Here are 2 photos from end clip of yellow sub. Sure looks like Faul.   |
|
|
|
Post by yellowsub2 on Jun 13, 2004 13:37:37 GMT
I think trolls are always self-injurers. Someone is talking about a "photoshop" era where everything is no more reliable....that's true but ...WHAT ABOUT TRUE VINTAGE DOCUMENTATION....SilverBeatle? Trolls are always self-injurers...as always ....because weird liars. BTW This site was made for TRUE BEATLES FANS who have still TRUE VINTAGE DOCUMENTATION where to check directy....THE TRUTH they have suspected from ALWAYS... I'm sure everyone can fight their own battles, (  ) but once a vintage document is scanned into a computer, it is as easily photoshoped as any other document. BTW - I'm a little dissapointed because I think that people aren't checking their vintage documents (see my post "Paul's image faking during the beatles Is anyone looking at their original copy of the White Album?) ha ha - I'm such a nag! ;D Other vintage documents maybe people haven't looked at themselves are the footage of faul's first/lsd interview (as opposed to individual stills), and the dancing down the stairs shots from magical mystery tour. I read a lot on this forum before I joined, and I joined so that I could ask questions and understand, but I find myself holding back,  because I'm not sure debate is welcome...(although Abbey did offer me a cup of tea - thanks mate ;D) |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 13, 2004 15:10:02 GMT
I'm sure everyone can fight their own battles, ( ) but once a vintage document is scanned into a computer, it is as easily photoshoped as any other document. Please excuse me but all that is referred to ...who? So it's easy to prove that someone has doctored scanned images but strangely noone has shown that here... Sorry what post? Are you referring to my page at: digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/f_d_t_b.htmlThis forum was made for debate. Please show me the subjects to debate I will be happy to help you... |
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 14, 2004 3:08:17 GMT
To Red Lion, I agree fully it is definitely Faul. You are also welcome to pull a chair up to the fire and warm yourself. I'll get you a nice cupp.
Thank you, Yellowsub2. Yes, debates are welcome. Some of us may seem a bit brusque at times because we have answered the same questions before. But please do not take it personally. Sometimes we forget when we were once new to the topic; forget that we once accepted Faul as Paul until we started to notice and hear differences. Have another cuppa. Would you like a biscuit or two (cookies)?
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowsub2 on Jun 14, 2004 6:05:45 GMT
Please excuse me but all that is referred to ...who? So it's easy to prove that someone has doctored scanned images but strangely noone has shown that here... Sorry what post? Are you referring to my page at: digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/f_d_t_b.htmlThis forum was made for debate. Please show me the subjects to debate I will be happy to help you... ok - first point - What I meant was that I'm sure SilverBeatle can stand up for himself, but I think I see his point of view. I certainly didn't want to start an argument with you! Now, if you read my post that you are quoting, what I said is that a vintage photo can be altered once it is scanned. No need to get defensive as this is just a statement of fact, not a personal attack. I shouldn't need to say this, because of course you know that this is true. second point - the post I mentioned is at 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=document&action=display&thread=1086785628and you made the last post there. Thanks for replying there cause I'm dying to talk to someone about it! The reason I want to talk about it is to find out where this particular picture came from. Hey everyone - have a look! I've said before, I think, that I'm here to learn, not to attack anyone that doesn't have the same opinion as me. If I do have a difference of opinion, I really like to talk to that person and find out about what they think. Thanks everyone who's patiently answering my questions that they've heard over and over again (Abbey ;D) ((munches cookie!)) |
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 14, 2004 13:09:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Jun 14, 2004 13:54:21 GMT
The above posts from another forum sum up the problem with photo comparisons made by "hobby beginners". Yes, that analysis is absolutely NOT reliable.... Sorry for you trolls but I am a CE certified techinician... The "troll" term is used EXCLUSIVELY for who is in this forum for SO MUCH TIME and has NOT visited our FAQ yet... There you can see that a device called ARGUS FaceIt uses THE SAME procedure of ALL the animations (animated comparitions) on 60IF sites |
|
|
|
Post by BillyJones on Jun 14, 2004 14:45:44 GMT
Also, Silverbeatle, some of the photos being used at the Maccaforever site, were proved by S.K. as having been DOCTORED. So of course, if they use a DOCTORED photo of Paul and it matches up to a photo of Faul, it is doing what it's SUPPOSED to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by SilverBeatle on Jun 14, 2004 15:07:48 GMT
I do not know what a CE certified technician does but I never questioned your authority or integrity. I never accused you of any wrong doing. I only hoped to demonstrate a few flaws in the photo comparison argument. Several posters at "that other forum" do computer graphic work for a living so they are very versed in this type of thing. Is not accurate IMHO to label them all "amateurs"
I have read all the FAQ. I come here because I enjoy the PID/PWR topic and find it fascinating. I am open-minded and willing to believe new ideas but ask questions when I have doubts. I am inquisitive by nature and I enjoy intelligent debate. I do not come here to cause trouble. I try to offer another healthy POV. If the argument for PID/PWR is valid you have nothing to fear by my presence or questions. My questions should only strengthen your arguments. I feel you are not being fair by labeling me a "troll", but it's your site so I suppose if that is how you feel I will just have to accept it. I would hope that adults could debate without resorting to this type of adolescent behavior but different strokes for different folks I guess.
Sure. Side A always says Side B is doing such and such with the photos. Is the crux of the problem. As yellowsub mentioned in another post, once you scan a photo into a computer pretty much anything goes.
Did you know 90%-95% of images in the entertainment industry are "doctored" these days? Sometime it's just a little airbrushing of skin but other times its chopping a head to a different body. If you are not at least a little suspect about images you see posted in the year 2004 than you are naive at best.
The argument to the above will be "look at your own vintage material" and I agree with you in that aspect. Absolutely. But at the same time don't post it as "vintage" and expect me to blindly embrace it. I don't know you from Adam (or Eve).
In short, I just think there are other avenues besides photo comparisons that you should focus the bulk of your energies in this PID/PWR quest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delta on Jun 14, 2004 20:18:37 GMT
In short, I just think there are other avenues besides photo comparisons that you should focus the bulk of your energies in this PID/PWR quest. agreed. the PID/PWR-case is made up of more than photos. it also contains visual and lyrical clues, comments made in interviews, voice comparisons, tv and movie appearances etc. most of which is also extensively covered on this board. every one of these categories has its own weaknesses, like you tried to explain regarding the photo comparisons. but all this stuff together, that's what it should make this case clear. there are just too much things that don't match up (visual, lyrical etc.) and they all, IMO, point to the same conclusion: paul was replaced. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Jun 17, 2004 13:53:03 GMT
There are many other comparisons that have been done. It was rather odd that the doctor who did the voice comparisons said he noticed 3 voices. Then all of a sudden he wouldn't say anything more or come forward. Something tells me he was threatened with death to himself or his loved ones. The way these jerks work, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
|
|
) but once a vintage document is scanned into a computer, it is as easily photoshoped as any other document. 
because I'm not sure debate is welcome...(although Abbey did offer me a cup of tea - thanks mate ;D)