|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 27, 2006 17:26:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lili on Mar 28, 2006 10:59:27 GMT -5
Those photos are strange alright. I'm trying to think what it could've been that would've caused all of their eyes to become so bloodshot & to tear like that. Maybe the room that they were in was really smoky. Back then everyone used to smoke, so I doubt that it could be that.
For the most part, they look like they're trying to get through it. I don't think that any of them enjoyed that particular photo session.
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Mar 28, 2006 19:48:46 GMT -5
It was probably meant to be an endearing photoshoot "The Beatles are sensitive young men" though I don't believe it myself.
I'm more shocked by the first montage, are they definitely all from the same shoot because they show at least two different people, maybe even 3 or 4!!!?
|
|
|
|
Post by yellomattercustard on Mar 28, 2006 20:26:08 GMT -5
Those are JPM right? It definately looks like people who are not used to smoking pot, after having smoked a bunch of it!
And I oughtta know - Sheesh!
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Mar 29, 2006 0:02:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Mar 29, 2006 0:16:28 GMT -5
Is that an implication that it was not JPM but Denny Laine? I wonder if the glassy eyed look came from a lack of sleep. Like they arrived for the photo shoot after an "all nighter"? Lack of sleep can cause that glazed over look too. While the first pic that Noodles showed looks like JPM, why does this one, next to Denny Laine's resemble Bill? Could this have been doctored? |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Mar 29, 2006 0:34:10 GMT -5
noodles is the best position to say whether or not they've been doctored.
|
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Mar 29, 2006 1:31:08 GMT -5
It appeared to look like Bill because the face looks longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by lili on Mar 29, 2006 10:04:17 GMT -5
In the first montage, 2 3 & 4 looks different from 1 5 & 6. 1 & 3 look very different from each other, even though he's in a very similar pose. In 5 & 6, his eyes appear larger, nose looks longer, and his mouth appears wider than in any of the other photos.
What gives ?
|
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 29, 2006 16:14:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Mar 29, 2006 17:11:33 GMT -5
Noodles, I think you're on to something. #1 is Faul-ish, #2, Bill, and #3 JPM
Does anyone know when this photo session took place? If someone tells me 1966, I think I'll turn in my meter maid's uniform for a straitjacket.
|
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 29, 2006 17:38:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Mar 29, 2006 17:45:14 GMT -5
can't they just be pics featuring JPM retouched in a second time to make him looking as Bill or whatever you want to call him?
Second possibility: someone's head (Bill...) directly put on JPM body, this helped by the black clothes.
|
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 29, 2006 18:16:46 GMT -5
It could definitely be a cut and paste job but it's hard to tell because the quality of the pictures is too low. They were certainly cut and pasting pictures by the time they got to Sgt Pepper.  |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Mar 29, 2006 22:34:24 GMT -5
We should really try to find copies of these prints from fan mags or what have you that were struck before Sept. 1966.
Post-66 doctoring could be an explanation here; but anything from after August 65 needs to be closely inspected for possible contemporary use of doubles and/or more trickery..
|
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Mar 29, 2006 23:22:45 GMT -5
 This person's left cheek to me seems bigger and more pronounced. Perhaps he's pushing it out with his tongue. Tongue in cheek? |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Mar 30, 2006 11:03:18 GMT -5
Noodles, those comparisons are amazing. Either Bill was at that photoshoot, or there was some hanky panky done with the photos afterwards.
I'd also like to see the vintage photos from before 1966.
|
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 30, 2006 15:25:16 GMT -5
Yeah I'm going to see if I can find anything. If anyone knows of any publications that printed any of these pictures or can find out where then that would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 30, 2006 19:10:42 GMT -5
I'll keep an eye out Noodles, as of now I don't have anything from the era with that photo shoot.
I can only add that that there seem to be different looking Pauls in the very same shoot, a puzzler to be sure.
The Life Mag Paul is a strange one, perhaps "mountain man" was simply out of the picture for a short while?
|
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Mar 30, 2006 20:25:23 GMT -5
in this  and this  pictures, Paul has strange swelling under his pullover, such as his real harm/s was/were under it (a proof of the doctoring?). |
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 31, 2006 13:05:39 GMT -5
I'll keep an eye out Noodles, as of now I don't have anything from the era with that photo shoot. I can only add that that there seem to be different looking Pauls in the very same shoot, a puzzler to be sure. The Life Mag Paul is a strange one, perhaps "mountain man" was simply out of the picture for a short while? Baby faced Paul seems to be 'Bill'. At certain points across the (roughly) two years he was Paul his face will suddenly change but not in any obvious way. There doesn't seem to be any surgical changes and I'm guessing it's more likely to be drugs, maybe injections or perhaps some other face treatment procedures. The pictures below are slightly out of sequence. The far left is 1967, the next one probably dates to around the time Apple was launched (May 1968). The next one is apparently from February 8th 1968 and then obviously the next one is 1969 (June I think presumably taken in May??).  My guess is they inject something into his face to make it puff out and look rounder and more Paul-like and over time that wears off until he's back to looking like himself again. I suspect that 'Mountain Man' (I should have come up with a better nickname for him) looked too little like Paul for the 'Paul's not dead' Life magazine photoshoot so they brought 'Bill' out of retirement, administered a dose of face injections and persuaded Heather to go along with it. 'Mountain Man' seems to turn up with the filming of the 'Let It Be' movie (start of 1969) and all the Beatles pictures from the first half of 1969 seem to be MM. The Life photos are the only Bill pictures I've spotted so far.  'Bill'/'Mountain Man' comparison  'Bill' was a good pretend Paul but he couldn't deliver the musical side of things. MM looks the least convincing but was left handed, played guitar and piano and could sing much better than the impressionists they were using through 1967-68. That's my guess anyway. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Mar 31, 2006 16:00:03 GMT -5
Dude, "Mountain Man" was just Sir Faul with a big beard. The Let It Be shoots lasted all day, for hours. Shaggy hair and beard was a safger bet than makeup and prostheses that could sweat off under studio lights. think it thorugh. The LIFE photo is from oct/nov 69 when Sir Faul was *surprised* by LIFE mag in the wake of PID breaking in the states.. There was no time to get "another Paul."
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 31, 2006 19:03:09 GMT -5
We can argue about the finer details, but I'm sorta on board with the concept of multiple Fauls, especially in the beginning, and used as needed, depending on the situation. At some point, and not very long into the process, (maybe just a couple of years) they settled on just one, yes.
About the Life Mag PID article, I always wondered if "surprised" should be written just like that, with quotation marks..
But anyway, the story goes: The photogs started clicking away the second he appeared in view. He gets mad, tells them to "get the hell off my property" or some such, reemerges smiling and charming before they can leave, and promises an interview if they will hand over the film. (which he no doubt exposed to the sun) Take that for what you will, but it seems like he needed that film back...(at any cost)
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Mar 31, 2006 20:00:30 GMT -5
I see at least 3 different people.
I see long face Bill, I see JPM and I see Dino Danelli.
|
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Apr 1, 2006 7:20:40 GMT -5
Life magazine is November 7 1969. Not sure where I got the June date from but I stand corrected on that. Beyond that I don't want to get into an argument about it. I'm just saying what I see.  I'd highly recomend watching these two videos ('Hey Jude' on Frost and 'Let It Be' from the movie) back to back. They look different, have different mannerisms and different voices. |
|
