|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 17, 2007 18:44:46 GMT -5
PID with reservations. The principal reservation would be the obvious one of the sheer enormity of pulling the whole thing off. On its surface, that woud seem to be virtually impossible - not so much the finding of the replacement as keeping the whole thing hush-hush for all of these years. No Beatles insider has ever stepped forth with a PID-related story. I generally don't care much for conspiracy theories precisely BECAUSE of the difficulty that large numbers of people usually have in keeping secrets. Finding the replacement, to my mind, would not pose the difficulty that others think. I don't believe in the secretive frantic search for a replacement -- that's just one more thing that would be hard to keep secret. I think that "Faul" -- if that's who he is -- was always traveling with the band as a double -- not unheard of in celebrity circles -- and he was probably used as a replacement on occasions before any need arose to permanently replace JPM -- even if they were usually just non-musical meet-and-greets. I don't believe in an individual who was really named William Shepherd, or Shears or Campbell or anything like that -- though any of these names might have been assumed as sort of a secret or clue within a larger secret. If there was a double, he was probably not a stranger but an unknown relative whose resemblance to JPM and whose musical talent were matters of genetics and not lucky coincidence. Native ability would explain how the Beatles were able to continue, and genetic similarity would explain some PIA fades -- some PIA fades would really be comparing young Faul to old Faul. Still, I lean PID because of the drastic differences that USUALLY exist between the 1966 and 1967/1968 images. I look at those and my first inclination is to marvel at what sheep the public at large and the mainstream media are. Fades generally don't matter to me because they shouldn't be necessary to "prove" that an earlier photo is of the same individual as the later photo. There's usually no problem discerning that. You can look at any two pictures of Frank Sinatra without wondering if it's the same individual or not. You don't need a "fade" for that purpose. No one wonders if "young Elvis" and "Vegas Elvis" are the same individual because no one sees any differences between the two that one can't accept as resulting from the deterioration in his condition as he got older and more disillusioned. No one needs a "fade" to tell that "young Elvis" and "Vegas Elvis" are two different depictions of the same individual. There are no facial differences between young Elvis and Vegas Elvis that jump out at you. There are remarkable facial differences between 1966 Paul and 1967 Paul/Faul that fades might more readily hide than display. But that having been said, those differences do somewhat recede over time. The individuals in the following two images -- probably taken about 45-50 years apart -- look more like each other than do the individuals portrayed in the average 1966 and 1967 photos. Four explanations that I can think of: 1) We're wrong. Paul has always been Paul, and the physical changes that take place in late 1966/early 1967 are not all that drastic after all or have reasonable explanations. 2) These really aren't picture of the same guy. There's drastic differences between them -- other than those produced by aging -- that I'm not picking up on. 3) This is actually another Faul/Faul comparison; or 4) This is the same guy and what happened was that Paul was replaced for unknown reasons in 1966, remained alive and dormant for some time afterwards (also for unknown reasons; equally unexplained would be the hoaxed clues pointing to his death) and some time after that hiatus came back to reoccupy the old role that he abandoned in 1966 -- and it really is PJM that we see today, while Faul disappeared...where? No. 4 strikes me as the most unlikely of the four possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 17, 2007 19:14:44 GMT -5
4) This is the same guy and what happened was that Paul was replaced for unknown reasons in 1966, remained alive and dormant for some time afterwards (also for unknown reasons; equally unexplained would be the hoaxed clues pointing to his death) and some time after that hiatus came back to reoccupy the old role that he abandoned in 1966 -- and it really is PJM that we see today, while Faul disappeared...where? No. 4 strikes me as the most unlikely of the four possibilities. Funny, you may be partly correct, I'll say the unlikely part is only that Paul came back to re-occupy his old role. I'm PWR with no reservations, my PID belief has dwindled quite a bit over the years though.. About the business of keeping it a secret, information is compartmentalized in any organization; anyone who truly knows the key facts also has something to lose if they come out and say anything. Enron is a good example of that, where highly placed insiders conspired to keep the company's troubles out of public view, and were quite successful until the company's worth became garbage.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 17, 2007 20:26:18 GMT -5
4) This is the same guy and what happened was that Paul was replaced for unknown reasons in 1966, remained alive and dormant for some time afterwards (also for unknown reasons; equally unexplained would be the hoaxed clues pointing to his death) and some time after that hiatus came back to reoccupy the old role that he abandoned in 1966 -- and it really is PJM that we see today, while Faul disappeared...where?
No. 4 strikes me as the most unlikely of the four possibilities. Funny, you may be partly correct, I'll say the unlikely part is only that Paul came back to re-occupy his old role. I'm PWR with no reservations, my PID belief has dwindled quite a bit over the years though..
About the business of keeping it a secret, information is compartmentalized in any organization; anyone who truly knows the key facts also has something to lose if they come out and say anything. Enron is a good example of that, where highly placed insiders conspired to keep the company's troubles out of public view, and were quite successful until the company's worth became garbage. Thank you for your response. This secret must have been kept by those who aren't necessarily members of the Beatles inner circle but who still knew, such as JPM's family -- though that might have been a little easier if the replacement was a member of that family -- yet another reason why I like the idea that he was. Well, if you are PWR without reservations and feel that it's unlikely that Paul ever came back to reoccupy his old role, then presumably you completely reject #1 and you think that #2 or #3 is the most likely solution (unless you've thought of something else). Do you feel then that these are pictures of young and old Faul? Or are they pictures of young Paul and old Faul and there are differences between the two individuals that are not that apparent to me? The younger man's ears seem to be further removed from his head than are those of the older man, but I don't know how important that is, and nothing else other than the age difference jumps out at me. Isn't it supposed to be Paul that has the attached earlobe and Faul that has the disattached one? Wel-l-l-l-l-l, the bridge of the young man's nose might be a little thicker; that would be consistent with other Paul/Faul comparisons. But really, this is SUCH a good likeness between two men 45-50 years apart, that it's just one more reason to believe that if there was a "Faul" guy, he just HAD to have been a relative.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Nov 18, 2007 16:08:37 GMT -5
65if, they started tampering with photos of Paul as soon as he was removed from the scene, most likely as early as October 1966. I am PID without reservations. I have my reasons as to why I believe that Paul was replaced & couldn't come back. They are documented for the most part on my forum, PID MISS HIM. The photo that you are using for comparison is one that has been questioned as to it's validity. There are those of us who feel that it has been tampered with. There are lines in Paul's forehead that were not in existence in 1966. Since the photo of Paul that you are using was taken in 1960/61 that makes no sense whatsoever. His forehead appears larger, and his eyebrows appear sculpted. I have a thread on my forum concerning photo tampering, if you would care to see it for yourself. I have many comparisons between Paul of 1966 & Faul of 1967 & onwards on my forum. Unless Sir Paul's forehead has become smaller, and his eyes become further apart, he is still not James Paul. There are explanations as to why Sir Paul looks more like Paul than he did in the beginning. The most logical one is various plastic surgeries over many years. This is all IMHO of course.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 18, 2007 18:39:12 GMT -5
65if, they started tampering with photos of Paul as soon as he was removed from the scene, most likely as early as October 1966. I am PID without reservations. I have my reasons as to why I believe that Paul was replaced & couldn't come back. They are documented for the most part on my forum, PID MISS HIM. The photo that you are using for comparison is one that has been questioned as to it's validity. There are those of us who feel that it has been tampered with. There are lines in Paul's forehead that were not in existence in 1966. Since the photo of Paul that you are using was taken in 1960/61 that makes no sense whatsoever. His forehead appears larger, and his eyebrows appear sculpted. I have a thread on my forum concerning photo tampering, if you would care to see it for yourself. I have many comparisons between Paul of 1966 & Faul of 1967 & onwards on my forum. Unless Sir Paul's forehead has become smaller, and his eyes become further apart, he is still not James Paul. There are explanations as to why Sir Paul looks more like Paul than he did in the beginning. The most logical one is various plastic surgeries over many years. This is all IMHO of course. mommybird, I had not thought of possible photograph alteration as a fifth option. And I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I just have a problem with conspiracy theories that run into complications. I have a generalized problem with conspiracy theories as a whole, and the reason why this one interests me is because I recognize there are undeniable clues dropped by those who were responsible for production of the tracks (and some marginal clues, as well). And the extent and nature of those clues (and the efforts that must have been taken to manufacture them) seem too great to allow one to merely palm them off as marketing ploys or practical jokes. I recognize all that, and I also recognize the startling differences that usually exist between the earlier and later Paul. But I have a problem with complications that require and suppose that "they" went back and altered all of the old photographs. How could "they" do such a thing? The more involved a proposed conspiracy gets, the greater my credibility meter is strained. I mean, is it really true that the original JPM had no lines on his forehead? I thought that everyone had those. Might it not be simpler to just maintain that the younger man is really young Faul and not young Paul? I assume that Faul did not simply materialize from thin air in September/October 1966 and that he had a life before then and that in that prior life, there actually might have been occasions where his picture was taken. However, I will check out your forum and the thread that you refer to. In the meantime, here's another early picture on a fan magazine of someone with a long thin face who strikes me as rather Faulish. As I said earlier, I've always felt that if there was a "Faul", he traveled with the Beatles and was a known quantity before there was ever a perceived need to press him into service as a permanent substitute. Same question: Young Faul or tampered Paul? I realize that "maybe we are wrong" is simply not an option.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 18, 2007 19:11:44 GMT -5
I kick around a lot of ideas 65if, best thing to do is let it all play out here. Back when I was 8 or 9 years old, someone told me that the Let It Be Paul was the original JPM returned after a long recovery from a car accident.. Quite a shocker, since I'd never even heard about the PID rumor before. (I live in the sticks, my excuse) I guess I reckon that's not quite correct after all this.. Funny tho, it planted a seed. By theorizing that the young Paul picture could be a early Faul picture, is that another way of saying the present Paul is the same as the man known as Paul in the early days? Or was there a lookalike accompanying them all along? I don't know, while a close relative is something that's come up before, it seems unlikely that they wouldn't be photographed together at least once. The magazine cover you posted looks somewhat off, but when we talk about doctoring or tampering, it went on back then; even if the photo is vintage, there was plenty of post processing, aspect ratio could be changed, teeth whitened, etc. Doing it later post Faul, and in the all encompassing way that would be needed does sound a bit complicated I have to admit.
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Nov 18, 2007 21:43:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GN on Nov 21, 2007 14:54:14 GMT -5
LOOK Similarity is not Identity That's a GOOD picture of James Paul McCartney
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 21, 2007 18:07:03 GMT -5
LOOK Similarity is not Identity What's your point? Who are these people? What are their names? Are these the same people or not? If they are the same people, why do you believe that they are the same people? If they are NOT the same people, why do you believe that they are not the same people? That's a GOOD picture of James Paul McCartney
Isn't this man's face long and thin like a parsnip? Isn't it supposed to be JPM that has a round face and his impersonator that has a long and thin face?
Explain why you think that this is a good picture of JPM and how you reconcile that belief with other pictures showing JPM with a round face. Explain why this picture is compatible with PID or PWR beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Nov 21, 2007 19:54:16 GMT -5
IMO the two photo comparisons are indeed the same person. Faul as a kid and Faul recently, the similarities are obvious.
The point is that pictures of the early JPM are either being tampered with or replaced by pics of the replacement (Faul) to wipe the original JPM out of history.
The other magazine picture is a true vintage picture of JPM. Is that really him in either of the other photos? Not IMO...
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 21, 2007 20:39:54 GMT -5
IMO the two photo comparisons are indeed the same person. Faul as a kid and Faul recently, the similarities are obvious. The point is that pictures of the early JPM are either being tampered with or replaced by pics of the replacement (Faul) to wipe the original JPM out of history. The other magazine picture is a true vintage picture of JPM. Is that really him in either of the other photos? Not IMO... Plastic Paul, that was indeed one of the possibilities that I held out -- the idea that the early black and white was that of young Faul, given its resemblance to the picture of the older Faul. I note that iameye says that "similarity is not identity", which means that he feels differently, and I am asking him to explain further. But why do you feel that the magazine picture is vintage unaltered JPM? Again, isn't the face on the magazine cover longer and thinner than JPM's is? The face on the magazine cover seems to bear a strong resemblance to that of mid-70's Faul, in terms of the shape of the head -- and for that matter, the teeth also look the same.
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Nov 21, 2007 21:44:38 GMT -5
IMO the two photo comparisons are indeed the same person. Faul as a kid and Faul recently, the similarities are obvious. I note that iameye says that "similarity is not identity", which means that he feels differently, and I am asking him to explain further. I never said this, sorry. It was someone else.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 21, 2007 21:48:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 21, 2007 22:17:46 GMT -5
IMO the two photo comparisons are indeed the same person. Faul as a kid and Faul recently, the similarities are obvious. I note that iameye says that "similarity is not identity", which means that he feels differently, and I am asking him to explain further. I never said this, sorry. It was someone else. Sorry, I meant to refer to GN.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Nov 21, 2007 22:49:00 GMT -5
Is this jpm or not? he looks faulish, but the part (hair) looks right.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Nov 22, 2007 12:26:35 GMT -5
Its JPM.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Nov 22, 2007 13:14:21 GMT -5
I realize that "maybe we are wrong" is simply not an option. Why isn't it an option? Why do I get the feeling that I'm the only person who accepts the very real possibility that we're all wrong? Photo-tampering isn't very feasible considering that there are over 2,000 Beatles photos in existence, a large amount of which are readily available on the internet. This is why MaccaFunHouse laughs at most PIDers: there are far too many people that when faced with any evidence that suggests that the two Pauls look exactly or near-exactly alike, chalk it up to photo fakery. It's one thing if you actually find some evidence of tampering; quite another if you just jump to the conclusion that they've been touching up photos for years. Think: is there something to this picture that I'm not seeing yet? Is it possible that Paul looked strange in this photo due to the lens, angle, or simple fact that he lost/gained weight? Is Faul's forehead really larger, or does it only appear that way due the way his hair was cut from '67 through the mid-70's? No offense to anyone, but that all sounds very crazy. Either that is a photo of a young Faul, a young man who looks like Faul, or it is actually Paul (the most likely explanation!). I see no evidence of fakery.
|
|
|
Post by iburiedpaul on Nov 22, 2007 17:41:15 GMT -5
I might be wrong and not just about this :}} if u don't believe me, ask my ex
|
|
|
Post by GN on Nov 23, 2007 16:40:52 GMT -5
I see no evidence of fakery.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 23, 2007 16:56:37 GMT -5
Man, that is ONE weird looking left ear, to say nothing of the **** attached to it.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Nov 23, 2007 16:59:24 GMT -5
I realize that "maybe we are wrong" is simply not an option. Why isn't it an option? Why do I get the feeling that I'm the only person who accepts the very real possibility that we're all wrong? Photo-tampering isn't very feasible considering that there are over 2,000 Beatles photos in existence, a large amount of which are readily available on the internet. This is why MaccaFunHouse laughs at most PIDers: there are far too many people that when faced with any evidence that suggests that the two Pauls look exactly or near-exactly alike, chalk it up to photo fakery. It's one thing if you actually find some evidence of tampering; quite another if you just jump to the conclusion that they've been touching up photos for years. Think: is there something to this picture that I'm not seeing yet? Is it possible that Paul looked strange in this photo due to the lens, angle, or simple fact that he lost/gained weight? Is Faul's forehead really larger, or does it only appear that way due the way his hair was cut from '67 through the mid-70's? No offense to anyone, but that all sounds very crazy. Either that is a photo of a young Faul, a young man who looks like Faul, or it is actually Paul (the most likely explanation!). I see no evidence of fakery. Well Jude, I attached a smiley-face next to my statement to the effect that "maybe we are all wrong is not an option". Obviously, you are NOT the only one who thinks that we might all be wrong. I am on the fence about this too, and that was my whole point in starting a thread entitled "PID with reservations".
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Nov 23, 2007 18:14:09 GMT -5
Sun King: I was talking about photo fakery, not make-up/prosthetics. I've seen no evidence of photos being touched-up (other than the Sgt. Pepper cover that Mystery Boy has).
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Nov 23, 2007 23:07:56 GMT -5
Sun King: I was talking about photo fakery, not make-up/prosthetics. I've seen no evidence of photos being touched-up (other than the Sgt. Pepper cover that Mystery Boy has). I assume you're talking about the photos that were taken prior to 1966. I assume that any photo taken after Faul came aboard could have been touched up or altered prior to releasing or publishing, such as the photo in this thread - BEATLE Paul McCartney, His story by himself. To nobody specific, if Faul had any photos of himself as a young man, wouldn't they not match his current appearance, depending on how much his appearance was surgically altered?
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Nov 23, 2007 23:16:35 GMT -5
Good point. unless the young faul pics were altered so that...-hold it! getting carried away here!
|
|
|
Post by GN on Nov 28, 2007 13:35:33 GMT -5
|
|