This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Chuyuri
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: [1]
1
« on: December 22, 2009, 02:14:31 PM »
Also when I say older I mean the one where mike looks older not the original phoyo with him lighter
You still don't make sense..why would they thin out his hair instead of fill it out like in the older photo? And obviously there not the same because we jus listed the differences....and he can have the same clothes and fly aways because they added them 2 the older photo 2 make them look the same..yes the body and flyaways are the same but the face is not..
They didn't thin out his hair. His hair looks different because of the CONTRAST RATIO. I've said it time and again.
I'm not making sense? You change your explanation every time I point out that it's impossible for the two pictures to be 20 years apart. You're the one who's not making any sense.
So ur saying that when they airbrushed the picture it made his hair look thinner from the contrast ratio?
NO. The unairbrushed picture is the one with the higher contrast ratio, NOT the other way around. And I haven't changed my explanation....that is a new picture of mike...I have seen plenty of pictures of mike from the 80s and never has he had lines on his face and looked that old. Your the one not making sense and you still haven't explained why at he funeral they would use an untouched photo from 20years..as a matter of fact where would they get the untouched picture from......so what's more logical mike redid this picture so that we could notice,esp since liberian girl and come together are major factors of the hoax
Or they decided to use an unedited photo of mike for no reason at all First you said it was a completely new picture, then you said it was just his face. Of course they would use an untouched photo for the funeral-- that's the Michael they know! Not some airbrushed representation of him. And of course they would have access to his portfolio. You're mistaken. First of all, this was late 80s and Michael already had the cleft in his chin (check VIDEOS, not pictures). He doesn't look old to me at all in the untouched photo, he looks like he did in the late 80s. People like you will never get far in this "hoax investigation". You get so blinded by your beliefs that you rationalize everything in your mind to suit whatever you want to believe, and meanwhile, there's important things flying right by your head. This isn't a clue. This isn't a "new picture". This is an old picture that you (and now I) have wasted our time on. And that's all there is to it.
2
« on: December 21, 2009, 03:19:17 PM »
Also when I say older I mean the one where mike looks older not the original phoyo with him lighter
You still don't make sense..why would they thin out his hair instead of fill it out like in the older photo? And obviously there not the same because we jus listed the differences....and he can have the same clothes and fly aways because they added them 2 the older photo 2 make them look the same..yes the body and flyaways are the same but the face is not.. They didn't thin out his hair. His hair looks different because of the CONTRAST RATIO. I've said it time and again. I'm not making sense? You change your explanation every time I point out that it's impossible for the two pictures to be 20 years apart. You're the one who's not making any sense.
3
« on: December 21, 2009, 09:19:52 AM »
so between 1 second his hair is fuller,hes darker,he looks older,get gets a dimple in his chin and his eyebrows change :lol:
mjj29081958 has already done me the favor and clarified this for me (thanks, by the way =D ) but just so I make myself clear:
The "younger" photo is *airbrushed*. So you have two factors. One, Michael moved between one picture and the next, and two, one picture has been altered. That's not mentioning the contrast issues.
If you look CLOSELY, the cleft in his chin is still there in the airbrushed picture. It's more prominent in the non-airbrushed picture because the contrast ratio is higher which emphasizes shadows. His hair looks fuller for the same reason-- contrast brings out the darker aspects of a photo (which is also why his skin looks darker), and because his hair is black, the contrast brought it out.
The rest of the differences are airbrushing.
Guys, there is *no possible way* for someone to take a new picture that looks *that* similar 20 years after the fact. Some of you are pointing out a couple of easily explainable differences, but I can spot *curls of hair* that are in precisely the same position in both pictures (even some flyaways, and you just can't reproduce that-- ever). I see wrinkles in his clothes that are in precisely the same position. What you're suggesting (that he took a new picture trying to replicate one taken over 20 years ago) is impossible. There's details in those photos that simply can't be duplicated, even if you try.
I know you guys want to see clues...but this isn't one.
ok well tell that to jay'z and mariah carey who both remade there album covered from over the years for comercials and mariahs new album..the pictures look exactly like they did when they were first taken
and that doesnt make sense for the non airbrushed picture to have a better quality than the airbrushed picture...why would the "younger" air brushed picture look 20 years old?
Sure, they look "exactly" the same. That's because they're from the same PHOTOSHOOT. A photoshoot is not just one picture, or even just a collection of pictures in different poses, it's several pictures of each pose. Now, I haven't seen Jay Z or Mariah Carey's album covers, but I can guarantee you that they didn't have FLYAWAYS in the exact same position on both covers. IT CANNOT. BE DONE. EVER. And I explained why the airbrushed picture looks older. BEFORE there was photoshop, there was AIRBRUSHING. Airbrushing makes pictures look more like paintings (like this one). Which is why it looks *older*. But they were taken within seconds of each other. I've already explained this as many times and as many ways as I can think of. If some of you still don't get it, whatever. Waste your time trying to find something that isn't there, I won't waste mine anymore.
4
« on: December 20, 2009, 02:30:36 AM »
so between 1 second his hair is fuller,hes darker,he looks older,get gets a dimple in his chin and his eyebrows change :lol: mjj29081958 has already done me the favor and clarified this for me (thanks, by the way =D ) but just so I make myself clear: The "younger" photo is *airbrushed*. So you have two factors. One, Michael moved between one picture and the next, and two, one picture has been altered. That's not mentioning the contrast issues. If you look CLOSELY, the cleft in his chin is still there in the airbrushed picture. It's more prominent in the non-airbrushed picture because the contrast ratio is higher which emphasizes shadows. His hair looks fuller for the same reason-- contrast brings out the darker aspects of a photo (which is also why his skin looks darker), and because his hair is black, the contrast brought it out. The rest of the differences are airbrushing. Guys, there is *no possible way* for someone to take a new picture that looks *that* similar 20 years after the fact. Some of you are pointing out a couple of easily explainable differences, but I can spot *curls of hair* that are in precisely the same position in both pictures (even some flyaways, and you just can't reproduce that-- ever). I see wrinkles in his clothes that are in precisely the same position. What you're suggesting (that he took a new picture trying to replicate one taken over 20 years ago) is impossible. There's details in those photos that simply can't be duplicated, even if you try. I know you guys want to see clues...but this isn't one.
5
« on: December 19, 2009, 04:40:52 AM »
Those are pictures from the same photoshoot. One has been airbrushed (which is what was done before there was photoshop, and it's also why the "younger" picture looks a little more like a painting than a photo) and the other hasn't. If you believe the '92 conversation with Glenda, MJ even mentions that they airbrushed his face for album covers/magazines, etc.
Usually when photos are airbrushed/photoshopped, they often smooth out fine lines, perhaps fill out the brow a bit more, or smooth out the corners of the mouth (as they obviously did here). It's not unusual that any of those differences are there. Also, one picture obviously has a great deal more contrast which emphasizes shadows which could make the face look different.
As for the bonus footage picture, I don't know. It looks like an old picture to me.
6
« on: November 24, 2009, 06:48:21 PM »
Bearden was likely referring to being in trouble with Sony/AEG for leaking something that's going to be on the DVD.
7
« on: November 24, 2009, 06:41:16 PM »
I don't think this is really a slip up (Kenny Ortega, I mean). I'm pretty sure he was referring to bringing Michael into the room with him in a spiritual sense.
8
« on: November 23, 2009, 11:21:31 PM »
They weren't really very good friends anymore after Ratner refused to testify in Michael's defense at his trial, iirc.
Pages: [1]
|
Show Posts