|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Apr 22, 2009 18:40:17 GMT -5
This is also pretty laughable. So, we are supposed to believe that Paul's advanced age of 25 in 1967 changed his eye color to green from brown or dark hazel? Wow, that's pretty remarkable. lol
Anyway, I've never heard about people's eyes changing color, be it from calcium deposits or otherwise. I think you need to post a link to a reputable medical site if you're going to make such a claim.
And as for the "low-resolution cameras" ... What? I would think that the original photos were at least 300 dpi - certainly high enough res to be able to decipher eye color.
|
|
|
Post by sirwalterraleigh on Apr 23, 2009 15:50:53 GMT -5
First of all- I was not stating that age was the cause of Paul's supposed "eye color change" in the mid sixties, I was only using that fact as a possible reason for his eyes being so light in the photo from 2008. [in which he IS at an advanced age] Secondly, according to Dr. Burt Dubow, ophthalmologist and senior partner at Insight Eye Care, the color changes in our eyes can be caused by a combination of ambient light and reflections of other colors we may be wearing. When I called him to ask, he also informed me that it is even possible for people's eye color to change with their mood! As someone whose eye color changes often, I'm not surprised. If you wanted, I could even post my own photo of my changing eye color as evidence, though I wouldn't want to bore you. He also mentioned that eye color can also change due to illness, cataracts, Fuch's heterochromic iridocyclitis, Horner's syndrome or pigmentary glaucoma. These are often preceeded by a sudden and striking change in color, so if your luck changes and you see evidence of eye color change in your own eyes, it might be a good idea to get them examined. This article goes over some of what I spoke to Dr. Dubow about. www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/eye-color.htmAnd here, an ophthalmologist from Yale, Brian DeBroff, and Richard A. Sturm, a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, discuss the reasons why our eyes lighten as we age. www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-10-08-wonderquest_x.htm
Finally, though I definitely don't claim to know everything about photography or the equipment of the trade, I do know that in the early 60s, color processing was still imperfect, I mean, the C-41 color negative process wasn't even introduced until 1973, and it was much more accurate than C-22. And the type of film and equipment available really isn't the point. What is the point, however, is the quality of these scanned images of aging photos--they were most likely at least 26 yrs old when able to be scanned onto the internet, which would have happened at the earliest in 1992 [The year the first ever image was placed on the internet], and something that must be considered is how primitive OUR equipment was at that time [or a least what was available to the public]
|
|
|
Post by sirwalterraleigh on Apr 23, 2009 16:01:49 GMT -5
Oh. I've also noticed there has yet to be a rebuttal to my statement that the shape of Paul's occipital orbits has remained unchanged throughout the years.
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Apr 23, 2009 17:50:02 GMT -5
I think the pictures speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by sherlok on Apr 23, 2009 18:06:23 GMT -5
Finally, though I definitely don't claim to know everything about photography or the equipment of the trade, I do know that in the early 60s, color processing was still imperfect, I mean, the C-41 color negative process wasn't even introduced until 1973, and it was much more accurate than C-22. Color processes of the 1960s were perfectly adequate to distinguish eye color. BTW, C-41 is a film process which produces negatives, it's not a print process and all the images in question as far as I know are prints, not negatives. It's true that the permanence of both negs and prints from that era was not the greatest but I think you are exaggerating the point. The printing process of colors negs allows for color casts which are corrected during printing as a normal procedure. If a negative has shifted so badly that eye color became false then this would be evident in the other colors of the image as well. There are also many, many photographs from the 1960s that show reasonably accurate color. Accurate enough to tell a person's eye color. You brought it up, not me. A negative can be printed at any time. A print is always newer than the negative it was printed from, whether the negative was produced an hour earlier or 26 years earlier. So, it's not necessarily true that these images came from "aging photos." They did probably come from older negatives but that doesn't mean the color can't be corrected in the print if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by sirwalterraleigh on Apr 23, 2009 23:13:37 GMT -5
This "correction" would be one of my main qualms with the images, the other being technicolor, which is present in many of the film stills used as evidence. My goal, and the goal of many others when correcting the color in images digitally, is to make the picture appear as striking and as visually pleasing as possible, and I believe that many [but of course, not all] of the images available to us have likely been overexposed with the contrast and levels adjusted to a bit higher than what you would see in real life. Now, I'm not saying that this equals a definitive reason as to why Paul's eye color is different in some photos, [especially since my main argument for that, a medical one, has been supported by three accredited sources] but it's something to think about. That's all.
As for the images of Paul and Ringo:
It's extremely clear in the first image that Paul's knee is bent and he is leaning forward. In the second image, he's standing straight. And in the first image, Ringo is stretching his neck up quite a lot [he's like me, he's got a height complex haha] and though yes, in the second image he is also stretching his neck, it's easy to see that he's stretching even further in the first image by examining the space between his neck and his collar. Not to mention the fact that Paul's hair is HUGE in the second photo. Oh trends.
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on Apr 24, 2009 0:48:24 GMT -5
You know what? In both pictures of "Paul," one knee is slightly bent. Faul still towers over Ringo. Nice try, though. Oh, & btw, even if Faul & Paul had the exact same eye color, they still don't have the same face, head shape, or height. Nope - not even close.
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Apr 24, 2009 5:08:47 GMT -5
And pls, take a look at his eyebrows.... They became shorter in a few years all out of a sudden?
|
|
|
Post by sirwalterraleigh on Apr 24, 2009 8:31:54 GMT -5
[/quote] He is not bending his knee in the second photo. Look at the angle of his feet and the slope of the curve of his leg! That slope could NOT be created with a bent knee. Plus, look at the fold of his pants on the unbent knee in the first picture and compare it to the pant legs on both knees in the second picture. Same fold. Unbent knee. Not to mention, you haven't even attempted to rebuke the fact that he is clearly leaning forward in the first photo, or that Ringo's stance is different in each photo. Oh, and yeah, even if his face shape and "height" were different- still doesn't discount the fact that his occipital orbits have the exact same dimensions. Maybe you should try tackling that fact. And to Artemis: Oh my God! His eyebrows are different! That's like saying "Oh look, he's a different person. His hair is all of a sudden shorter." Styles change. Androgyny was out. The crazy long crazy arched brows had to go. He got made fun of for them, you know.
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Apr 24, 2009 9:02:57 GMT -5
Arguing with ppl like u is like hitting the head against a wall. Give me and others from this forum a break. End of it all.
|
|
|
Post by sherlok on Apr 24, 2009 9:27:14 GMT -5
This "correction" would be one of my main qualms with the images, the other being technicolor, which is present in many of the film stills used as evidence. My goal, and the goal of many others when correcting the color in images digitally, is to make the picture appear as striking and as visually pleasing as possible, and I believe that many [but of course, not all] of the images available to us have likely been overexposed with the contrast and levels adjusted to a bit higher than what you would see in real life. Now, I'm not saying that this equals a definitive reason as to why Paul's eye color is different in some photos, [especially since my main argument for that, a medical one, has been supported by three accredited sources] but it's something to think about. That's all. Color correction occurs with all color images regardless of the technology used to produce the original image. It occurs just as much with digital as with film. Personally, I am not an expert in the subject of Paul's apparent change of appearance in the 1960s but it seems to me that the eye color issue is only a very small part of it. The 'later Paul' simply seems like a different guy to me than the 'original Paul.' There is a near-infinite number of factors that make up a person's appearance, many being undefinable. Some people can see the difference and some can't (or won't), it appears.
|
|
|
Post by sirwalterraleigh on Apr 24, 2009 9:52:33 GMT -5
To Sherlok: I completely agree- I think there is a change. Sometimes it's highly visible, sometimes not. Even my mom thinks he aged differently than she expected, and she never notices anything. However, I just can't get past the fact that in all these pictures, with any changes that might be noticed, the biggest thing I notice is what stayed the same. His eye shape, the size and orientation of his occipital orbits, and even the way one eye is sometimes more closed than the other is consistent throughout, and I hope you think about that, just as I will think about the points you've raised.
To Artemis: I have a right to voice my opinion here just as much as you do.
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Apr 24, 2009 15:23:05 GMT -5
I am locking the thread because I feel it has been hijacked.
Sirwalterraleigh, you are welcome to post in this forum but to continue this subject you must start your own thread.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Apr 29, 2009 3:14:33 GMT -5
Anyone want to edit this wikipedia page or add external links? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_deadPaul is dead From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Paul McCartney Dead: The Great Hoax", a magazine reporting on the rumours concerning McCartney."Paul is dead" is an urban legend alleging that Paul McCartney of The Beatles died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike and sound-alike. The legend hinges on supposed hints among the Beatles' many recordings and presumed to be deliberately placed by The Beatles or others. Hundreds have been cited at various times; they include statements heard when a song is played backwards, symbolic interpretations of obscure lyrics, and ambiguous imagery on album covers. Some of these have become well known, such as the fact that on the cover of Abbey Road, McCartney is the only barefooted Beatle and is out of step with the others. It is often unclear how many proponents of this story spread it as a joke, as opposed to a real conspiracy theory. The rumour has been the subject of much sociological examination, since its development, growth, and rebuttal took place very publicly. A claim that a hoax was perpetrated by The Beatles themselves, either as a joke or to stimulate record sales, has been denied by the band members. Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 The story of the alleged death 3 References 3.1 By members of the Beatles 3.2 By others 4 Notes 5 References 6 External links
|
|
|
Post by faulconandsnowjob on May 3, 2009 22:55:26 GMT -5
|
|