reply to post by faulconandsnowjob
I assume this won't be taken well, but here goes anyways. If you want to seriously research this, and I applaud your tenacity despite the fact that
I disagree with you, then you need to research information on lighting and anatomy.
The upside down pictures that you posted with references to the nose length and face size is odd because of the lighting differences in the photos.
The way light shines on an object can greatly influence the way we perceive the depth, shape, and volume of the object to be. Also the contrast plays
a role in some of these pictures too, the gaps in Pauls teeth that you mentioned didn't seem to be there. The picture 'with gaps' has a much
higher contrast level than the more grey 'without gaps' picture.
Look, I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm saying the pictures your choosing to compare have variables like shadow and contrast which make it
unable to verify your claims. Even assuming you are right about all of this, those pics still wouldn't hold as evidence because of these marked
differences.
With the nose pictures he's clearly making a different face in the older, curved down nose pic. Remember, your nose is cartilage and muscle, except
for the small portion of the skull which extrudes near the bridge. The end of your nose can be pulled different ways by the muscles surrounding the
cheeks and mouth, and since it isn't pulling on bone there, the appearance of the nose shifts. Here is a pic of some of those muscles.
Again, I'm really not trying to call you out entirely, I'm just saying to find better examples. Because when you show examples that can be
invalidated by shadows or anatomy then it makes your whole argument less believable. Not due to the concept itself, but the evidence you are showing.