|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 30, 2008 18:14:44 GMT -5
This is from issue #43, one issue before the one with JPM looking like he has a fake mustache. (actually we proved that it was..) But.. George must be in the land of the looking glass, since his reflection appears to have a mustache, while there is no sign of one on him. IMO it should show anyway.. Opinion?  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNL on Apr 30, 2008 18:39:49 GMT -5
This is from issue #43, one issue before the one with JPM looking like he has a fake mustache. (actually we proved that it was..) But.. George must be in the land of the looking glass, since his reflection appears to have a mustache, while there is no sign of one on him. IMO it should show anyway.. Opinion? that's kinda silly! Photo fakery? |
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Apr 30, 2008 19:22:51 GMT -5
That is so strange...  |
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Apr 30, 2008 22:17:07 GMT -5
That looks very similar to the scene from AHDN night where he "shaves" Shake in the mirror.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on May 1, 2008 13:25:50 GMT -5
This is from the issue before Paul's 'fake moustache', eh? Which would mean its meant to be from some time around mid-1967...?
That picture of George looks to be from from long long long (hehe) before 67. Interesting that the Paul pic wasn't in isolation as a manipulated image though. Have you noticed any other things like this in your big ol' Beatles monthly stash, Jojo?
|
|
|
|
Post by bosshugo on May 1, 2008 13:42:15 GMT -5
The Beatles Monthly knew that the group had grown mustaches from the press interviews outside Abbey Road in late 1966. Since there were very few new photographs available between then and the release of Sgt. Pepper in June 1967, they decided to manipulate earlier pictures to create the impression that they had all-access to the group. That led to quite a bit of fake-mustachery on the whole group.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 1, 2008 14:52:58 GMT -5
This was the one I was talking about, so the one with George was from Feb. of 1967.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on May 1, 2008 15:03:00 GMT -5
do you think that maybe the beatles were an invention..?
a made-up band (like pepper) of 'working class heroes' who's roles (john, george, paul, ringo, brian etc etc etc) were drawn purely from the ether... made up, with numerous actors and singers standing in on TV and records?
the purpose? well - i'm sure you guys can think of an abundance of reasons for why 'they' (whoever that is) may have done this.
its a bit far-fetched... but then, most of this stuff is isn't it?
just a passing thought i decided to grab as it flew by. pay no attention lol
d
|
|
|
|
Post by malus on May 1, 2008 16:28:45 GMT -5
Interesting, brings us back to the Linda Eastman/Eastman-Kodak connection.
Looking back at things with educated eyes, I am starting to see some things. Like a bass-line in the song 'Rain' that is much too complex to be played by Paul, and in the video, none of the Beatles even makes any attempt to fake it, and the whole video is shot around it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ithinkiknow on May 1, 2008 21:57:00 GMT -5
"do you think that maybe the beatles were an invention..?"
I've often wondered this. Not unlike the reality programs where they have singers/band manufactured. There are a lot of bands that were actually.
Maybe the answer is that the band was manufactured from the beginning, for numerous reasons (money etc), and something happened so they replaced paul?
Entirely within reason
|
|
|
|
Post by il ras on May 1, 2008 22:06:30 GMT -5
the elbow also seems different.
The "mustache one" has it more in front of him, the other more laterally
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeroCorpse on May 2, 2008 18:51:59 GMT -5
"do you think that maybe the beatles were an invention..?" I've often wondered this. Not unlike the reality programs where they have singers/band manufactured. There are a lot of bands that were actually. Maybe the answer is that the band was manufactured from the beginning, for numerous reasons (money etc), and something happened so they replaced paul? Entirely within reason When you think of it in this light, it makes the Monkees seem like a conscious, knowing, "wink-wink" stab at the Beatles, rather than just a marketing gimmick whipped up by record executives trying to cash in on Beatlemania. I mean, the Monkees were sold as a manufactured group of actor/musicians (most of them, anyway), each given a particular character to play, songs to sing, and very little to do besides play their roles exactly as told (at least until they staged their revolt and insisted on writing and performing their own music). If we see the Monkees in a world where 'someone' knew that the Beatles were a manufactured phenomenon, and so they answered that with an American parody of what the Beatles really were, we get some interesting fodder for conspiracies and the like. This doesn't discount the talents of the lads, but it does make one think. |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on May 2, 2008 20:38:46 GMT -5
the elbow also seems different. The "mustache one" has it more in front of him, the other more laterally I felt it was a little "off" the first time I saw it, you may be right. May be two pics pasted together, an additional bit of fakery. |
|
joejoe
Hard Day's Night 
Posts: 24
|
Post by joejoe on May 6, 2008 22:34:50 GMT -5
"do you think that maybe the beatles were an invention..?" I've often wondered this. Not unlike the reality programs where they have singers/band manufactured. There are a lot of bands that were actually. Maybe the answer is that the band was manufactured from the beginning, for numerous reasons (money etc), and something happened so they replaced paul? Entirely within reason Of course much of "Beatlemania" was manufactured hype, but the band's songwriting and talent was genuine. You can hear on even the first albums John or Paul's "touch" on the songs. To me as valid as fingerprint or signautre proof of the composer. And the guys could always harmonize like no one else. |
|
joejoe
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 24
|
Post by joejoe on May 6, 2008 22:53:32 GMT -5
"do you think that maybe the beatles were an invention..?" I've often wondered this. Not unlike the reality programs where they have singers/band manufactured. There are a lot of bands that were actually. Maybe the answer is that the band was manufactured from the beginning, for numerous reasons (money etc), and something happened so they replaced paul? Entirely within reason Of course much of "Beatlemania" was manufactured hype, but the band's songwriting and talent was genuine. You can hear on even the first albums John or Paul's "touch" on the songs. To me as valid as fingerprint or signautre proof of the composer. And the guys could always harmonize like no one else. |
|
|
|
Post by percythrillington on May 9, 2008 13:01:15 GMT -5
maybe they were trying to prove the Beatles were grown up by then..... real men with mustaches..
Quite an interesting thing tho...
|
|
