| « Paul Walks Funny | Mannerisms in Video Evidence » |
The Photographic Evidence?
The Photographic Evidence?
Photographic evidence can not be used to make a case for or against the PID rumor. Why is that? Photos capture a moment in time. Often there is not clear point of reference or control. What I mean is when you compare 2 images, unless you controlled the distance to the subject, the angle, the lighting, and even the expression on an individual's face, there are many variables that can invalidate your data. On top of that, photos can now be altered digitally with very little evidence. Basically photos are good for general things like seeing if Paul had long hair or short hair. Maybe we could use it to build a case if he had a scar or not at all, but we can't use photos to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paul is not Paul because of a scar or long or short hair.
Before I go any further, I will just show this and explain what I have heard about it.
Follow up:
Big deal. Right? Notice how they both seem to be Paul, but there is something not right when you compare them. There seems to be something drastically different about them. The one on the left is from the inside of the SGT. Pepper LP (Record Album) from the 60's. The one on the right is from the inside of a CD in the 80's. PID believers claim that the man on the right is not Paul because his face is too long and nose to small, etc... But if Paul was deceased when the Pepper photo was taken, then where did the photo of the real Paul on the left come from? And if photos were being altered to look more like Paul as PID believers claim, why would the photo on the right be released in the 80s without being altered to look like the original Paul? Could Paul have taken the picture before his death, foreshadowing a need to have the image for an album they had not yet conceived? Of course not. Maybe the one on the left is the altered one and the one on the right was mistakenly released. PID believers shoot themselves in the foot on this one. A more reasonable explanation is that the photos in the re released CD are of Paul, but stretched to either fire up the PID rumors or more likely because the graphic artist thought it looked interesting or because the image wouldn't fit in the space otherwise.
The bottom line really is that photographic evidence can't be used for or against the PID rumor, because there is no good way to determine what is or isn't accepted as vintage photos; Images can be, and were altered for legitimate reasons; Digital versions of these images could have been altered for malicious reasons; and lastly, there isn't anyway to prove or disprove any of the previous reasons.
Based on a relatively small amount of images like this, PID believers claim that the original Paul's eyes are further apart, and his head is shorter. The imposter is supposed to be 2-4 inches taller in stature and have different color eyes. They go on further to claim that all the other photos that do not display this have been doctored. In the end it is more reasonable to think the exact opposite.
People can argue about it for an eternity when basically, the point is moot. I will explain in the next few pages.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
2 comments
Even if he was a look alike, then why has it not been made official yet? Two of them are dead, and what's the sense in hiding it; they're not together anymore.
Anyway, I appriciate this greatly. Thank you. :)
Comment feed for this post