What's the Big Friggin' Difference?! - Come Together

  • 82 Replies
  • 7383 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline itsall4love

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 204
About the picture in which MJ looks "older" and "darker": Could it be that they took an original photo from that session and just added "the face" after? I mean, maybe Michael recently posed with his head in the same position as in the original, then - in photoshop, they pasted the "new face" onto the old body and background, fitting it and matching the colors? Maybe it would explain the "older looking" face. Dunno why someone would do this...but who knows?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline EternalBliss

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 121
Quote from: "~Souza~"
And for the comparisation next to each other:

..................
I think the cleft,tells the WHOLE story of this one.Enough said.
....EternalBliss
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
One Day.....but until then,Thank You.

Offline SEHF

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
Oh you mean the one that was removed with photoshop  :lol:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MJJLives

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 130
Quote from: "itsall4love"
About the picture in which MJ looks "older" and "darker": Could it be that they took an original photo from that session and just added "the face" after? I mean, maybe Michael recently posed with his head in the same position as in the original, then - in photoshop, they pasted the "new face" onto the old body and background, fitting it and matching the colors? Maybe it would explain the "older looking" face. Dunno why someone would do this...but who knows?

I had the same thought exactly.  It could certainly be done in Photoshop or a similar Program.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

I am obsessed with a man I have never met, yet, I feel like I have known him forever.

mykidsmum

  • *
  • Guest
these pictures are the result of some editing magic...If we could see all pictures in magazines before retouching...we would all be shocked!  Models wouldn't be models if we could see their flaws  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline EternalBliss

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 121
Quote from: "SEHF"
Oh you mean the one that was removed with photoshop  :lol:
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :oops:  :roll:  :D  :D  ;)  :o  :x  :twisted:  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
One Day.....but until then,Thank You.

Offline Datroot

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1314
The problem with pics is that you never know what is true.  This investigation can't really rely pn photographic evidence unless one of us has taken the photo.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


I'M A LOVER, NOT A FIGHTER

Offline Chuyuri

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 8
Quote from: "misha86"
Quote from: "Chuyuri"
Quote from: "misha86"
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.

Quote from: "misha86"
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

 

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal