|
Post by Piggies on Mar 2, 2004 22:44:16 GMT -5
Although I've seen many photos of Paul from the late 60's that look quite odd, I believe this comparison on paulisnotdead.com shows quite convincingly *IMO* that the Paul from 1963, and the Paul of today are the same man. 1963 Late 70's nostalgia shot. Combined I can not understand how anyone could look at these two photos and think that they are of different men, but I would be interested in some theories.
|
|
Fun King
Help!
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
Posts: 59
|
Post by Fun King on Mar 3, 2004 3:41:02 GMT -5
OK, since we're managing lots of different theories, here's a new one.
Could the replacement replace Paul just for a short time, or maybe in certain ocasions?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 3, 2004 8:16:09 GMT -5
I will say, though that certain videos I have looked at show that pre 'Sept66 Paul and '67 Paul have, really, the same mannerisms and speech habits. Practice may make for perfect, but it seems like one person from these videos. But, again, there are things about 66-77-68 that seem to suggest another person in the pix. Paul's appearence seems to kind of "go back to normal" after these years. How could all these things be. I mean, if it is the manufacture of a double---so much trouble and effort and no doubt money for surgeons and coaches. And yet nobody ever "lets on." The unanswerable question. Grappling with a mystery. Will we all wake up one morning (or afternoon in my case ) and so, "Ah, so what. We've done the Beatle thing for long enough. NEXT! Let's all study the movie "Casablanca", or the tragic losses of Glenn Miller and Amelia Earhart. Let's get fired up about Sasquatch and Mothman. Let's look into the Bermuda Triangle and the un"fathomable" sinking of the Titanic. These are things we are never, never going to know any more about. If we found out the mysteries, what THEN would we do? Isn't having questions and being miffed by something we just don't get part of what keeps us going? More than half the world goes to bed everynight hungry, the other "half" wonders why. We'd rather ponder on it than actually FEED them. OK, my one big question that has NO answer. So, when Jim Morrison went to Paris for his "final days," why didn't he just chill? You're in Paris for God's sakes. Go shopping. See the museums and landmarks. Do the Eiffel Tower. Binge on Baguettes and Beignets. Moon DeGaulle! Go to see the naked ladies dance at the Follies Bergere!!! Paint something! Don't just lay in your bedroom and overdose................yikes...............how boring. Paris! Paris has got to be so cool. And all he wanted to do was to lay back into the bubbly bathtub and croak. Planes, cars, and drugs. Just ask Jim Croce, Ricky Nelson, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Cass Elliot, James Dean, Jayne Mansfield, Big Bopper, Richie Valens, Buddy Holly. They died and got no doubles. Why not? If Paul had died, why not just tell everybody? If he did die, and none of us know it, then surely, if he had killer(s), they must not know it either. They probably would think they had botched the attempt. Which means they never saw him dead, or die. This plausible ifear would remain open for them: It NEVER came out in the news--maybe they messed up and he made it, after all" Why wouldn't THEY brag about it? If he had been killed by killers, why would they keep it a secret? So, if he did pass away by foul play---it seems that someone thought it was very important that the perpetrators never know if they had been successful or not. Which leads to the idea that the authorities either knoew, or had a pretty strong suspision that the thugs didn't even know the outcome of their little attack or whatever it may have been. At least it seems then that the authorities (who might have engineered a replacement) had a strong feeling that they would never come forward. Or, the idea was to force them to blow their own cover by the shock of seeing Paul still alive. Either way----they had to have a 'plan a' and a 'plan b'. And both plans had to include a convenient public explanation. If the authorities have NEVER yet discovered who might have done such a thing--they are now in a position of maintaining the replacement EVEN if they(the hoodlums) came out or tried to derail the plan. The other hand says that Paul might have died accidentally, or while under the influence. The other possibility is that Paul is alive; and I am spinning a tire in a mud patch. With so many possibilities to consider, I think that I will never be able to just pick one. So, I'll never know, and I'll never decide on any one particular scenario. As long as I have so many long winded excuses for my own tardiness in action, I can walk past that hungry man and not even hand him a $5 bill. When he holds out his hand, I'll regale him with my latest concerns over Aristide and Bin Laden and should the Bush administration be reviewed over intelligence errors. He will be so glad to hear how deeply concerned I am for the state of everyone else around me. Later that day I'll buy a pair of pants I don't need, spend too much at dinner, and throw more money away in a bar. Aren't I a good person? Oh, yes, because I'll share my deep concerns over poverty in India and the Area 51 debate over a Bailey's Irish Creme. At seven dollars a pop PLUS tip. I'll meet that man on the way out the door of the bar. "How'd you get all the way over here? Are you following me?" I'll ask him defensively. He'll say: "I could ask YOU the same thing, but let's just say I must be your conscience. I must be here to help YOU!" "What a relief", I'll say," I thought you were gonna ask me for a hand-out." "I'm not gonna ASK you for anything. But I bet you'll give me something, this time" the poor street man said confidently. As I pass him a few paper bills, I ask him resignedly, "How did you know that I would, this time?" He said, "Well, if you HAVE to ask me that, then I guess you'll just never know the answer to the question, now will you?" I stared dumbfounded at the foggy early morning street as he sauntered away with a cheerful whistle. And then, suddenly, for just a moment or two, I thought I understood EVERYTHING.
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 3, 2004 8:43:51 GMT -5
Will we all wake up one morning (or afternoon in my case ) and so, "Ah, so what. We've done the Beatle thing for long enough. NEXT! Let's all study the movie "Casablanca", or the tragic losses of Glenn Miller and Amelia Earhart. Let's get fired up about Sasquatch and Mothman. Let's look into the Bermuda Triangle and the un"fathomable" sinking of the Titanic. How about investigating the only REAL murder in the Beatles; the assassination of John Lennon? That would be a good place to start.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 3, 2004 19:46:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Mar 3, 2004 21:17:25 GMT -5
I don't like that guy very much.
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Mar 3, 2004 21:19:06 GMT -5
I'm not really seeing any debunking of my debunking. Or as I like to call it " DeSunKing " I would really like some of the people who believe that Paul was (or may have been) replaced to explain how these two pics taken 15 years apart of supposedly different men show that it is obviously the same man.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 3, 2004 22:13:00 GMT -5
The two photos indicate the same man at different ages. That's all I can say. (cue up some def "beats" from a jiggy-bop jammin' 12-inch) Bosch-di-di- BOP, ka-BOOSH, tah-kah shak-a-tak-ah (loop it) "I am not able to debunk your debunk. Dat means I flunk, so I guess we's sunk.....My confidence is shrunk so I wanna get drunk, and get into a funk until I stink with a stunk that's funky like a skunk or an unwashed monk whose been dunk with some spunk from a floatin' trash junk, now I's feelin' like a punk all covered up in gunk, you'll find me Jones all slunk up like a sweater in a trunk up in the attic where I'm chillin' 'cause dis' rap is so fullfillin") [sound of record needle scratching way across the vinyl ] Ok, I counter with silly things when I have no argument to present. It's apparently two pics of the same person.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Mar 3, 2004 23:55:24 GMT -5
The problem is, that's not a perfect fade. The '70s shot looks to have been slightly stretched within the animation. In the one outside of the fade, his eyes and ears still appear to be positioned differently, as well as vintage Paul retaining a "pumpkin head" while '70s Paul has a "watermelon sitting upright" head (terrible ways of describing them, I know).
Fades are not a good method of silencing either side, because they can be easily manipulative to prove a point. I still see two men within those two pictures.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Mar 3, 2004 23:59:47 GMT -5
I will say, though that certain videos I have looked at show that pre 'Sept66 Paul and '67 Paul have, really, the same mannerisms and speech habits. Practice may make for perfect, but it seems like one person from these videos. But, again, there are things about 66-77-68 that seem to suggest another person in the pix. Paul's appearence seems to kind of "go back to normal" after these years. How could all these things be. I mean, if it is the manufacture of a double---so much trouble and effort and no doubt money for surgeons and coaches. And yet nobody ever "lets on." I think, if there was any tomfoolery going on, that Paul was at the very least replaced in those three years you mention. However, you can see the progress the alledged replacement made... how he slowly transformed himself back to Paul McCartney, so by the time the '70s rolled around, he would have settled into the role quite nicely. That is of course, if he was replaced, and I do have my doubts. Most likely, if there is a replacement, it's the same man playing the role today.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 4, 2004 3:35:41 GMT -5
....Fades are not a good method of silencing either side, because they can be easily manipulative to prove a point. I still see two men within those two pictures. very well said, -Wings-. George Washington can become George Jetson if one is so inclined. Someone (can't remember who, sorry) posted once on the 60IF board that bank tellers learn to tell counterfeit money from real money not by studying counterfeits, but by constantly looking at "the real thing". I spent (quite literally) hours scanning many, many photos of Paul from 60's teen mags. After doing that, I could look at any photo and immediately distinguish Paul from Faul. However, after some time passes, you get "lazy" and your mind's eye blurs the two together once again. And I have seen celebrity doubles who, if their photo were published/posted as a photo of the actual star, no one would think twice.
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 4, 2004 8:10:46 GMT -5
Oh Please... you don't actually swallow that "lone nut" conditioning, do you? That is SO 1963....oh, wait, and 1863 too. Lame.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 4, 2004 10:28:49 GMT -5
What happened in 1863?
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Mar 4, 2004 11:40:12 GMT -5
The problem is, that's not a perfect fade. . True. I've never seen a perfect fade. But this one always struck me as really good though. I can only see one man at different ages here, but I accept the fact that you and some others don't see it that way. Open uncensored discussions are the only way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Mar 4, 2004 11:56:33 GMT -5
as well as vintage Paul retaining a "pumpkin head" The whole "Young Paul had a short round head" thing was a lie purpetrated by Sun King as a way to show Paul was dead. xpt626 has posted tons of authentic pre '67 pics that show that Pauld head was much longer than any of the pics used by SunKing.
|
|
Fun King
Help!
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
Posts: 59
|
Post by Fun King on Mar 4, 2004 12:31:55 GMT -5
By the way, look the last picture. Paul is much taller than John.
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 4, 2004 16:00:35 GMT -5
...Lincoln assassinated by a "lone nut" which later was revealed to be wide conspiracy with several others executed for complicity.
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Mar 4, 2004 18:00:44 GMT -5
not in 1863 my friend, 1865, in 63, the civil war was in its death throws, but Lincoln lived
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 4, 2004 18:09:59 GMT -5
not in 1863 my friend, 1865, in 63, the civil war was in its death throws, but Lincoln lived OK, so I'm off by 2 years! ;D
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Mar 4, 2004 18:26:18 GMT -5
I'm not really seeing any debunking of my debunking. Or as I like to call it " DeSunKing " I would really like some of the people who believe that Paul was (or may have been) replaced to explain how these two pics taken 15 years apart of supposedly different men show that it is obviously the same man. Oh believe me, I'd love to jump in & argue PID a little, but I would need at least enough free time to collect my thoughts first I think. I can see why all you PIA folks would like that fade.... and I certainly don't have an explaination for it, I'm pretty much starting from scratch. But a good fade like that isn't gonna change my mind. I've seen a few dozen good fades proving the opposite, so I don't plan on using any of them. With ALL things considered, I personally find it impossible that there has only been one "Paul". I've noticed one thing. After the 60IF forum, nobody wants to bring up the dreaded & tired "altered photo" theory. Who's to say that the "Coming Up" pose pic wasn't fixed & put out there for you to find??? Ya never know...............
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 4, 2004 18:42:20 GMT -5
Bleeder,
I know you to be sincere, so please therefore check out my thread on "Arguments against PID."
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 4, 2004 19:47:24 GMT -5
Well, Ian, I don't know. We've all most likely seen the alternate/conspiracy allegations floating about-----but I have no idea but that Mark lost his mind in some way and wound up shooting Lennon 5 or 6 times, killing him.
Whether or not others were involved---something was going on very dark in his mind and it's as tragic as what he did. I did not know him except in passing---he lived two doors from my best friend and I knew OF him, but we weren't friends. My other friends knew him a bit and said that he was OK in high school. Wha' hah-pend?
|
|
|
Post by Ian777 on Mar 4, 2004 20:06:35 GMT -5
Well, Ian, I don't know. We've all most likely seen the alternate/conspiracy allegations floating about-----but I have no idea but that Mark lost his mind in some way and wound up shooting Lennon 5 or 6 times, killing him. Whether or not others were involved---something was going on very dark in his mind and it's as tragic as what he did. I did not know him except in passing---he lived two doors from my best friend and I knew OF him, but we weren't friends. My other friends knew him a bit and said that he was OK in high school. Wha' hah-pend? You need to locate and study a book by Fenton Bresler, titled "Who Killed John Lennon?" Perhaps you would be interested in knowing that MDC had the same psychologist as Sirhan Sirhan, and there is substantive evidence Sirhan was utilized much like the lead in the "Manchurian Candidate" classic fim...which, also interestingly enough, was pulled from distribution for 11 years following the assassination of JFK...
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Mar 4, 2004 20:35:05 GMT -5
Oh Please... you don't actually swallow that "lone nut" conditioning, do you? That is SO 1963....oh, wait, and 1863 too. Lame. ENOUGH FROM YOU. DoctorRobert attended school with Chapman. He's not "channeling" dead Beatles to write his music....get my meaning? I'm tired of you hopping thread-to-thread spewing negativity and being pompous. I am a mod here and would love nothing more than to ban you....there have been several people complaining about your attitude....so consider yourself warned.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 4, 2004 21:27:25 GMT -5
Actually, xpt, thanks for the word there--but I'm OK with what Ian said. Ian has a , hmm, sharper style sometimes------but a sharp mind to go with it. Yes, let me say that I've heard a little of what you mentioned, ther Manchurian Candidate thing, the mind-control MK ultra scenario, the whole Sirhan Sirhanthing, the mysterious Dr. West, so forth and so on. But after Mark graduated, that was it. I heard nothing about him till that horrible news report in 1980. I threw little objects around my room and yelled, "What the f--- happened to you?What the h---- were you thinking!!!! It was a very embarassing day fropm Columbia High School Alumni. It's talked about but no one ever knows anymore-he went away, to CA or Hawaii or someplace and there was no contact. I think I had played yard games of football and such when I was in 10th or 11th grade with several kids on the street. He was just regular I thought. It wasn't like he had any history of being weird or sad or prankish or whatever. He had been religious-----i donknow.
It is hard to see him going that crazy without some kind of, help, or influence. The idea that he thought Lennon was a phony and that he woukd become famous by this heinous deed is a strange idea. Infamy ain't fame----and its just put him in the pathetic "seat" for life. He is hated, People shake their heads over him. They cuss him. And what of "Catcher in the Rye?" Ms. Dodd put it on her reading list as a choice. So that means 30 kids times five classes a day of 9th and/or10th grade English students may have elected to read it. I read "A Seperate Peace" or "The Heart is A Lonely Hunter." instead. The point is, A LOT OF US READ IT. (I never did)and the other possibly 100-400 students who read it during that period didnot lose their minds. I guess maybe he chose to revisit that book later. But, it WAS on our reading lists. And so was Of Mice and Men, Grapes of Wrath, Romeo and Juliet, As You Like It, etc. just like thousands of other high schools around the country.
Life mag or Look mag did reveal that he was pursuing a carerr in intelligence, or the FBI etc. He was, as we read, struggling along as a night watchman in Hawaii.
Ian, I'll get your Fenton Bressler book and read it. I'm sure he researched it a lot, Thanks for the tip.
But, you know either way, my point is that we will never get to ask him. In his probable mental condition, he probably coouldn't tell us much---if he was brainwashed then you know they wiped ouot his memories of all that stuff anyway. If he was a lone gunman, he's got lifelong mental troubles that defy answers.
They say Nixon really hated him----and other republicans later. His politic was not popular with those types---and he had so much influence really. I think at times he regretted the influence that he had.
|
|