|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 18, 2004 10:48:11 GMT -5
Are you saying it is not possilble that Paul had a face lift? . I would say that it's very highly unlikely. Why would "the cute Beatle" need a facelift in his mid-20's? And since he never made it to 30, I seriously doubt it. Now Beatle Bill's another story! If he's not carefull, he may end up looking like Michael Jackson.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 18, 2004 10:51:29 GMT -5
Why did YOU choose to use a photo comparison of pictures taken over 40 years apart? You say "So there's one comparison 40yrs apart." So why do you keep using that ONE? Because I don't have a lot of time & it was the first good one I came across at that moment. Yer point may have meant something if we only used 40yr comparisons, but that's rarely the case & you're here enough to know that. Therefore the only reason I can see for yer post was to perpetuate the agument.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 16:42:55 GMT -5
I'm strictly speaking of the ear lobes in those photos. Faul's is detached Paul's is not period. The lens, angle, lighting, and hairstyles are immaterial. And in the quote you have from me, I address the earlobe issue. That photo does not provide enough resolution to make a definitive evaluation. But the issue at hand was a general comparison, not earlobles. The quote I was referring to was: I get an F in Psychology 101 For Dummys [glow=red,2,300]Note put-down remark[/glow] But we are talkin' about folks who think these two guys are one & the same, so why am I surprised? Here, after the insult, this person used these pictures to indicate that these two persons are one and the same. Of course with all of the hundreds of comparisons done, the one comparing pictures taken over 40 years apart is chosen. Then came your response: These pics are just a few years apart. Whats the excuse for here? BTW notice the incredible You presented a comparison "a few years" apart although you give no date or cite for the picture. You did not specify that you were looking strickly at earlobes, so I looked at it as a general comparison.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 18, 2004 16:48:52 GMT -5
Some here thought is so funny (LOL) about my talking about the earlobes drooping with time. and the tip of the nose...which apparently happened in 1967 like lookalikes? And sound-alikes? And plastic surgery? And the "public" use of "doubles"? And airbrushing / retouching photos? "adequately" = to satisfy you? nothing that has, or ever will be, written at this site will be 'adequate' for you. oh, come on. You're the king of that. that's what the admins of this forum see, which is why it was established. it's the premise of this forum. perhaps you would be happier elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 16:53:17 GMT -5
I would say that it's very highly unlikely. Why would "the cute Beatle" need a facelift in his mid-20's? And since he never made it to 30, I seriously doubt it. Sigh. The point I was making is that at some point down the road, Paul McCartney could have had a face-lift in order to remain the "cute" one. This would be a possible explanation as to why the earlobes would have changed when compared to those photos from the 80's, 90's or 2000's. This thread has been about the change in appearance of his earlobes. The conclusion jumped to was that it proves that Paul was replaced. I was merely providing alternative explanations as to why there could have been a change over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 17:04:43 GMT -5
and the tip of the nose...which apparently happened in 1967 No, I see no hook developed in 1967. like lookalikes? And sound-alikes? And plastic surgery? And the "public" use of "doubles"? And airbrushing / retouching photos? Where is all of this research on earlobes. I saw none. "adequately" = to satisfy you? nothing that has, or ever will be, written at this site will be 'adequate' for you. adequate to satisfy a skeptic. It's easy to satisfy the hard-core believers. oh, come on. You're the king of that. Ok, show me my smarta** remarks.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 17:11:04 GMT -5
well, in his case, that must've happened around 1967 Even though that one on the right is a poor quality b&w picture, there is no hook nose there. The nose has a slightly different shape because of the different facial expression, but the tip is not hooked.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 17:19:23 GMT -5
Don't make me laugh too. The earlobe comparison is the best piece of evidence for PID we have seen in long time. Please refer to reply #84. People have called it the "smoking gun" and undeniable. Well then, bring it to court. Write a book and make millions of dollars for exposing this cover-up. Then you can have the laugh on all of us PIAers. If you REALLY believe you have the smoking gun, then let's see some action.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 17:29:14 GMT -5
How the hell did the same ear end up on 2 different people?? You guys will argue with anything. They can't. It's the same person. The fade shows the ear structures are the same, with some minor changes due to aging and possibly due to a face lift at some point. The ears shown in that fade are about 14 to 15 years apart. If the older Paul was a replacement, those ear structures would not match so well. My point is that there are other more simpler explanations for a change in the appearence of the earlobe than a huge complicated conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 18, 2004 19:31:07 GMT -5
No, I see no hook developed in 1967. if you think those photos are of the same man (and the same nose!! ), there is no point in discussing anything else with you. simple genetics: a dominant allele controls whether the earlobes will be attached or detached. meaning: ear lobe (attached or detached) characteristics are determined by a single gene during zygote formation. meaning: genes determine whether a person's earlobes are attached or detached. The detached earlobe trait is dominant over the attached earlobe trait. 75% of our population have detached earlobes, whereas 25% have attached earlobes. the purpose of this forum has never been "to satisfy skeptics". One of the reasons for its development was to get away from the vitrolic PIA/PID arguments over at the 60IF forum. If you are so convinced PIA, then you are wasting your time and energy (and ours) by being here. You are entitled to your opinions, but PIA is not the basis of this forum and the discussions contained therein. Therefore, I truly doubt the subject matter presented here will ever dovetail with your way of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 18, 2004 22:11:38 GMT -5
If you are so convinced PIA, then you are wasting your time and energy (and ours) by being here. You are entitled to your opinions, but PIA is not the basis of this forum and the discussions contained therein. Therefore, I truly doubt the subject matter presented here will ever dovetail with your way of thinking. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] Hey... (hint) this is a PID/PWR forum. I personally don't give a damn about whether or not you're ever convinced. It's obvious that even if Faul told Bug personally that he wasn't JPM, it wouldn't be believed at this point. So why are you wasting so much of yer time here?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 18, 2004 22:33:31 GMT -5
The point I was making is that at some point down the road, Paul McCartney could have had a face-lift in order to remain the "cute" one. Well it certainly didn't work because according to the women who were young girls during that time, Paul got weirder looking and was not longer nearly as cute in the later days. And do you think he would have a face-lift at 24? Come on, are you listening to yourself? Earlobes are either attached or detached. I think we can all agree on that. Mine happen to be attached. The lobes have grown over the years and are longer now but you can still tell the lobes are attached. And that's 15 years difference! What about the change in Paul from 1964 to 1967?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 18, 2004 23:11:21 GMT -5
What about the change in Paul from 1964 to 1967? Like the moustache? And the hair style? Those are the only changes I see.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 18, 2004 23:22:58 GMT -5
Like the moustache? And the hair style? Those are the only changes I see. I know.
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Dec 19, 2004 4:01:12 GMT -5
Guess that moped accident left a lot more damage than first thought...
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 19, 2004 7:32:56 GMT -5
Guess that moped accident left a lot more damage than first thought... Ya that was one hell of a moped accident. It squished his head to a different shape & stretched him out a little, & somehow detached his earlobes, & changed his voice & his personality!
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 19, 2004 7:59:23 GMT -5
Please refer to reply #84. People have called it the "smoking gun" and undeniable. Well then, bring it to court. Write a book and make millions of dollars for exposing this cover-up. Then you can have the laugh on all of us PIAers. If you REALLY believe you have the smoking gun, then let's see some action. I'm not so sure that the purpose of this forum is to collect evidence to bust somebody. And there are quite a few Faul-fans around here. Call me Mr.Pessimist, but I don't see how a small group of folks online could prove to the world in a court of law that JPM was replaced. Take it to court against SIR PAUL? Easy for you to say. Do YOU have the time & money? I sure don't, just getting the granddaughter a x-mas present is a major problem in my little world this week. I think that idea is a little naive. Busting Billy isn't the purpose of this forum anyway. For me personally, this is more of a Beatles forum where we can discuss the REAL Beatles, not the illusions fed to everybody with all the phoney excuses. So... again, if yer so certain that we're full of crap & don't know what we're talking about, then why spend so much time with us? Is it just our lucky day?
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Dec 19, 2004 9:11:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 14:38:47 GMT -5
Well it certainly didn't work because according to the women who were young girls during that time, Paul got weirder looking and was not longer nearly as cute in the later days. And do you think he would have a face-lift at 24? Come on, are you listening to yourself? Earlobes are either attached or detached. I think we can all agree on that. Mine happen to be attached. The lobes have grown over the years and are longer now but you can still tell the lobes are attached. And that's 15 years difference! What about the change in Paul from 1964 to 1967? 1. Never did I say that Paul got a facelift at age 24. 2. No photo on here shows 1967. Most of the photographs look to be from the 1980s or later. One photo may be earlier, but there is no cite where the photo is from or from what year. I have asked, bot no one has provided it. 3. The fade provided compares Paul pre '67 to Paul in the late 70s. That fade shows the same ear structure with a small difference in the earlobe due to aging or, perhaps, a face lift. A replacement would not have such a matching ear structure. 4. You talk about "women" noticing a difference. In my younger days, when I was playing in a band, I had the fortune to know a woman from Liverpool who grew up with Paul as well as George Ringo and John. They used to talk together. She used to go see them at the cavern. She was a coworker of one of my best friends. Her husband was German and used to run an Octoberfest at a German club here in town. They were fun to go to because some of his friends were in the German Luftwaffe and they would show up with some of their medals and tell stories about their time in the war. Being musicians, my friends and I would pepper this woman about the Beatles; their history, personalities etc. Our band played for her kid's wedding. We were a little nervous because we played some Beatle tunes, and she used to listen regularly to the real thing. One thing I can tell you. She did not believe Paul was replaced. According to her, he remained the same old Paul; same personality and everything. I certainly give great weight to her opinion since she certainly knows more than anyone here. Well, I have made my points in a calm manner. I did not refer to dummies, accuse anyone here of being in a fantasyland, or say that I don't give a damn about any of your opinions. The vitriol comes from somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 14:43:18 GMT -5
Guess that moped accident left a lot more damage than first thought... You mean just like you thought it was so funny about earlobes drooping with age? Well as shown, I was quite right about that.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 14:51:21 GMT -5
if you think those photos are of the same man (and the same nose!! ), there is no point in discussing anything else with you. The nose can change shape with different facial expressions. I can flare my nostrils, make them smaller and elongate my nose. It is made of cartilage and changes shape with muscle movement. Other fades have shown that it is the same nose. It is misleading to show two pictures with two different facial expressions and use that to show that they are two different perople.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 14:58:55 GMT -5
So... again, if yer so certain that we're full of crap & don't know what we're talking about, then why spend so much time with us? Is it just our lucky day? I refuse to use that kind of terminology about the people of this board. I respect what you did when you left 60IF and I thought you did what needed to be done. When certain others were upset and were posting things saying you were wrong and cruel for what you did, I defended the people here and I stand by that. I realize that there is nothing that I can present or say that will change the minds of some here, but I will continue to present alternative theories for the fence sitters and visitors to this board who do not have a hard and fast opinion. I see no harm in challenging things that may lead to erroneous conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 15:09:28 GMT -5
Call me Mr.Pessimist, but I don't see how a small group of folks online could prove to the world in a court of law that JPM was replaced. Take it to court against SIR PAUL? Easy for you to say. Do YOU have the time & money? A small group on the internet exposed forged documents used by CBS, so that now several there will be fired. In the mid 1800's a woman wrote a book that played a major part in leading the U.S. to civil war. One person, or a small group can do big things. Don't be so modest. If this earlobe thing is REALLY a smoking gun; if it really is proof, then of course you can prove it in a court of law. But don't ignore the other suggestion. Write a book. Make millions. Others have done it with other conspiracies. But I can't believe that all here would sit on a story that would prove to be one of the biggest stories of the latter half of the 20th century.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 19, 2004 15:36:13 GMT -5
Please... no one has that kind of ambition here to my knowledge, we're just a (very) small group of people talking over what we see, been just that from day one. If anyone passing by happens to be swayed by your arguments in opposition to ours, well bravo for you!
It's not being "sat" on, it's right here, right out in the open. It's a hobby, it's a board, it's just us talking, chill.. (you don't need to flood the board with posts to make a point btw)
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 19, 2004 16:04:37 GMT -5
I see no harm in challenging things that may lead to erroneous conclusions. But your conclusions are always correct and ours are erroneous? Correct?
|
|