|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 2, 2004 18:45:25 GMT -5
Don't be so sensitive, and that's not my point at all. I'm saying we all have other ways of recognizing who someone is. A little anecdote to illustrate that point. I'm assuming that someone will have a forthcoming reason why that's not applicable here, but your reasoning was not what I was anticipating, good grief! Again, that's not what I was saying, please! JoJo, I was joking, I thought you would be able to tell by the " " smiley.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 2, 2004 19:24:45 GMT -5
Yeah Jojo even I picked up on that. Usually I am the too serious one and you are the cool, collected one. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 2, 2004 20:46:39 GMT -5
Maybe Paul wasn't replaced. Maybe he was in an auto accident. Hit his head, and suffered some sort of mental issue that changed him slightly. Like he forgot everything that happened up until that point. Maybe he even had to learn how to sing like himself again. Same voice, but different style. Certain habits that felt natural were intact, like the way he held his bass. He still felt the same urge to create and play, and eventually did in the 70s. He created a whole new McCartney. And now that so many years have passed, he plays the old Beatle songs again, but George and Ringo were upset during the anthology. Not so much at Paul, but at the lack of the Paul they used to know.
Just my imagination going with me.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 2, 2004 20:50:25 GMT -5
Maybe Paul wasn't replaced. Maybe he was in an auto accident. Hit his head, and suffered some sort of mental issue that changed him slightly. Like he forgot everything that happened up until that point. Maybe he even had to learn how to sing like himself again. Same voice, but different style. Certain habits that felt natural were intact, like the way he held his bass. He still felt the same urge to create and play, and eventually did in the 70s. He created a whole new McCartney. And now that so many years have passed, he plays the old Beatle songs again, but George and Ringo were upset during the anthology. Not so much at Paul, but at the lack of the Paul they used to know. Just my imagination going with me. Nah, I doubt that. If that happened, wouldn't we all know?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 3, 2004 11:33:23 GMT -5
Ok, ok, it's been a long week, I've had one day off in two weeks, so I'm a little ragged around the edges. The ability to discern sublties is the first to go I think. My bad, oops.. <--- means just joking, got it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 3, 2004 11:45:56 GMT -5
Ok, ok, it's been a long week, I've had one day off in two weeks, so I'm a little ragged around the edges. The ability to discern sublties is the first to go I think. My bad, oops.. <--- means just joking, got it! ;D Dr.Eyesbleed Rx........ 2 Days off & an extended Margarita Happy Hour!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 3, 2004 14:36:41 GMT -5
Anyway, what's the point of any fades or comparisons if we don't know if the post '66 was or wasn't doctored?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 3, 2004 15:23:53 GMT -5
Anyway, what's the point of any fades or comparisons if we don't know if the post '66 was or wasn't doctored? Well if the picture was doctored, it was doctored to LOOK like Faul, i.e. stretching the face to make it appear longer. That doesn't mean that the face would always match up in a fade. To me, fades are only reliable if the pictures of Paul are first, taken from an original publication, NOT from the Anthology or anything similar or recent; also the angle must be the same and the facial expression must be the same.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 3, 2004 16:03:07 GMT -5
Well if the picture was doctored, it was doctored to LOOK like Faul, i.e. stretching the face to make it appear longer. That doesn't mean that the face would always match up in a fade. I'm said post '66.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 4, 2004 2:08:29 GMT -5
How can these be two different people??
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 4, 2004 10:51:28 GMT -5
How can these be two different people?? Very easy. Connect the bodies that go with these heads and then compare the body size.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 4, 2004 17:03:39 GMT -5
How can these be two different people?? Well, ya see, they find this guy who sorta resembles JPM, (if yer eyes are bad) & they do some plastic surgery, throw a few altered pics out there in the mix, get the other 3 Beatles to drastically change their looks to help throw everybody off balance, make him watch JPM on film until his eyes bleed, or until he becomes "paul", whichever comes first, & give him a bass. ;D
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 4, 2004 18:23:21 GMT -5
Well, ya see, they find this guy who sorta resembles JPM, (if yer eyes are bad) & they do some plastic surgery, throw a few altered pics out there in the mix, get the other 3 Beatles to drastically change their looks to help throw everybody off balance, make him watch JPM on film until his eyes bleed, or until he becomes "paul", whichever comes first, & give him a bass. ;D Ah, it all makes so much sense now! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Sept 4, 2004 22:36:35 GMT -5
"...which ever comes first & give him a bass." Sorry folks, now I've got to jump in with both feet. Making that statement really shows how little knowledge and respect is given to to that instrument. Among bassists PM is considered one of the best bass players of the sixties and in many people's book one of the top ten of all time. PM is up there with James Jamerson, John Entwistle, Duck Dunn, Larry Graham just to name a few early bass gods. To insinuate that by just throwing a Hofner in Faul's hands could EVER make him the bass legend (with or without the Beatles) that is PM is just plain ignorance and demonstrates a lack of appreciation of that wonderful instrument.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Sept 4, 2004 22:48:29 GMT -5
"...which ever comes first & give him a bass." Sorry folks, now I've got to jump in with both feet. Making that statement really shows how little knowledge and respect is given to to that instrument. Among bassists PM is considered one of the best bass players of the sixties and in many people's book one of the top ten of all time. PM is up there with James Jamerson, John Entwistle, Duck Dunn, Larry Graham just to name a few early bass gods. To insinuate that by just throwing a Hofner in Faul's hands could EVER make him the bass legend (with or without the Beatles) that is PM is just plain ignorance and demonstrates a lack of appreciation of that wonderful instrument. I meant no disrespect to bass players. That previous post was an exercise in silliness. It was meant as a joke. I LOVE bass players. I love the bass period. John Entwistle is VERY high on my respect list, along with JPM & others. I could type out a LONG list of bass players that I have high respect for if ya like. I've been collecting music for decades, & have invested more in music than I have my house, so believe me, I've got respect for a LOT of bass players. "Bill" probably already was a real musician (imo), & did a hell of a job. If he wasn't already a musician, he did an even better job. I quit the slam-faul camp a little while back. Actually, I thought that was quite the funny post, sorry if I offended. dave
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 5, 2004 0:50:06 GMT -5
How can these be two different people?? So what differences in the face do you see?
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Sept 5, 2004 12:14:19 GMT -5
well one of them is much paler than the other
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Sept 5, 2004 21:27:47 GMT -5
This photo is very strange looking, especially George, Ringo, and John's faces. It's like they're faces are "squished" ...
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 5, 2004 22:03:01 GMT -5
This photo is very strange looking, especially George, Ringo, and John's faces. It's like they're faces are "squished" ... What??
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Sept 5, 2004 22:07:32 GMT -5
hes just looking for an excuse to say the photo was smooshed so Pauls face would look round
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Sept 5, 2004 22:16:22 GMT -5
hes just looking for an excuse to say the photo was smooshed so Pauls face would look round Ya think? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Sept 6, 2004 0:51:03 GMT -5
The aspect ratio looks off to me, based on other photos of John and George I've seen where they're heads are tilted up...they both had pretty long faces. Although not as extreme, it's like when a widescreen movie is fitted to a standard video screen, except in this case it's along the vertical axis instead of the horizontal.
|
|
|
Post by Morph on Sept 6, 2004 0:56:18 GMT -5
hes just looking for an excuse to say the photo was smooshed so Pauls face would look round That's interesting. If that's the case, then it could also be said the photo was posted originally, under the guise of being accurately proportioned, as an excuse to say Faul's face is shaped like Paul's.
|
|