|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 23, 2006 23:28:45 GMT -5
I'm with beatlies on this one. Doc, you know that I love you  However, from my own investigations over the past four years I am firmly convinced that Paul did indeed die sometime in Sept. 1966. There was a car accident involved, but it didn't necessarily kill him. The reactions of the others in 1967 point towards Paul being dead. It killed John's marriage to Cynthia, and George looked very tired & very drawn. I wouldn't be surprised if it also killed his marriage to Patti !  Yes, John's downward spiral, or I should say, his seeming downward spiral of mood, and enthusiasm for doing the Beatle-thing, imply grief, an unhappiness maybe related to Paul's death after the rumored car accident. |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Sept 24, 2006 10:44:22 GMT -5
In this case, a picture speaks louder than words:  |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 24, 2006 12:55:21 GMT -5
Not to mention Jane Asher's expressions in many of the pictures of her taken with Bill...the body language so different from pics of her with JPM.
|
|
|
|
Post by lili on Sept 25, 2006 8:10:43 GMT -5
I don't know about that. Jane & Paul really didn't have the greatest relationship. Think about it for a minute. If she truly was in love with him, she wouldn't have been able to keep her mouth shut, no matter what she was threatened with. I know that I wouldn't have. I would rather be dead. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that the person that I loved was killed & replaced. I would have to do something about it, even at the risk to myself. If it meant risk to others around me, I would do it in a way that it couldn't be traced back to me. She didn't love him. It must've been a nightmare for her to be stuck in the situation she was in. She had to pretend to care for Bill, even though he was a stranger to her. I'll always wonder if Jane & Bill were ever intimate with each other. [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"] Jane & Paul:    Jane & Bill:     |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 25, 2006 15:45:40 GMT -5
[/quote]  What is this? The first two pics of the red haired lady is Jane Asher with a slight cleft in her chin...But this B&W shows a woman with no cleft at all! The fair red haired Lady Jane has hooded and somewhat droopy eyes, not quite as much as JPM's, and her face it a bit more round than the B&W woman. That is NOT the same woman! No Way! Jane Asher had a famous brother Peter Asher, from Peter and Gordon fame, if we could see some pics of him from that era we could see the similarities of features, though they would not be identical. It would be helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 25, 2006 16:00:41 GMT -5
[/IMG] [/quote] From the appearance that we have here comparing profiles, I'm not getting any impression that it's the same person. Something is dreadfully wrong here. The jawline doesn't look the same. The real Jane had a fuller jawline, whereas Fane has a different jawline altogether. I'm not one to say, "Hey, a replacement!"...but considering the feature comparison, this does not look like the same girl. Whether she actually replaced Jane totally, as JPM and Sylvie was, or if this was a double...it's not the same woman! One can gain weight or lose weight, one can age through natural ways over time, or through grief, but your eye placement does not change, and your jawline does not change. One can use and abuse drugs or alcohol, but it cannot change your features from one shape to another. Wrinkles, sagging of skin and facial muscles may cause "jowls"...but over the course of two or three years would not change a face! |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 25, 2006 16:15:21 GMT -5
Not to beat this to the pulp, I don't see this as the same woman. And it would stand to follow what Lili mentioned. If this is a Fane, she would not have the same feelings toward JPM because she wouldn't be the same woman. She wouldn't even have real feelings for Bill either. The body chemistry with the real Jane and JPM was more realistic than the lack of chemistry with Fane and Bill. Thinking back on the original facial comparison site, they showed a fade of Jane and how she looked today. They said she had some plastic surgery...but the jawline didn't match, there, but I thought maybe it was just the fact the pictures didn't line up completely. But seeing Jane with JPM and compared to the woman with Bill, I am not getting that it's the same girl. at least not the pics showed here. |
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Sept 25, 2006 16:41:19 GMT -5
Jane & Paul: These two pictures have appear to have been photoshopped. Look at his mouth on the right hand picture. He has the more pouty LIB Paul mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 25, 2006 16:47:56 GMT -5
[/quote] Noodles, I would think that if there was doctoring , it would be to disguise the changes in JPM to Faul-ish looking.... But looking at the B&W pics, these don't look like the same woman either... So how can you explain the difference in the facial shape and eyes? |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Sept 25, 2006 18:08:58 GMT -5
I have to say, LR, that I missed this one completely. I'm speechless. |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 25, 2006 20:45:39 GMT -5
Lili, if you have the time, and the resources, if you could find any pictures of Jane's brother Peter just to compare facial shapes and the possibility if they resembled each other enough for this research. Or even if you could run some pics of Jane just to see if this was some sort of "doctoring" or if we do have some major discrepancies in the facial features.
I know this should be in the celebrity replacements, but I don't know how to cross thread pictures.
|
|
|
|
Post by lili on Sept 26, 2006 11:42:43 GMT -5
I'll give it a shot. It might take awhile. Here are a few photos that I found. Peter is the guy with the eyeglasses on:    |
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Sept 26, 2006 14:19:26 GMT -5
Noodles, I would think that if there was doctoring , it would be to disguise the changes in JPM to Faul-ish looking.... They can only doctor pictures that have not been published before, pictures that they own (including the negatives). Otherwise they'd be spotted. The trick is to confuse the mind so it can't see an obvious timeline where one Paul changes into another. If you look at current Beatles books you'll generally see one or two pictures from 1967 that have been photoshopped to look like JPM. I'm sure ideally they'd like to doctor every picture from 1967 but they don't have that luxury. As long as they can have outr mind going "Paul looks weird there...oh he looks like his old self in this picture" then everything is fine. |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 26, 2006 21:09:02 GMT -5
Fool most of the people most of the time, would fit this scenario...
|
|
|
|
Post by lili on Sept 27, 2006 10:59:48 GMT -5
Exactly !!!   Hey, has anyone else noticed the resemblance between Peter & Austin Powers  I wonder if this was done on purpose ?! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 28, 2006 21:52:24 GMT -5
In this case, a picture speaks louder than words: Talk about body language......John looks like he's off in his own world, and away from Bill. George Martion looks like he's trying to figure out what to do with the situation.. And Bill plays bass as if nothing is going on... It reminds me of some "Beatle" movie that was on about them in the 1970's and I can't even remember the title of it. It was a made for tv film, and not a great production. They portrayed Paul as being a dictatorial type in the studio...and it was a shock to me because they always had the image of getting along so well. Which would explain the bad "vibes" with John and Bill. If Bill came in and acted like he ran the show...it would be difficult for John and George. The chemistry, or lack of in in LIB was very disturbing to watch when it first came out. It was like the JFK image and the "Camelot" thing they talked about. It was something that was gone too soon. Even though I was too young to really remember JFK's assassination, I do remember the aftermath.... When something so big and so unique is fading or gone, it's hard to witness.  |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Sept 30, 2006 13:01:04 GMT -5
LR you truly have a way with words. I couldn't have expressed it better. I was very young when the Beatles broke up, but it still left a lasting impression on me.
For a very long time I blamed Linda & Yoko.
|
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Oct 1, 2006 17:39:00 GMT -5
I also blamed the wives...but looking back on it all, how could they really be the reason? They may have been part of the bigger problem, but not the true issue. Thanks for the compliment on my "deeper" posts.  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 1, 2006 23:39:07 GMT -5
I also blamed the wives...but looking back on it all, how could they really be the reason? They may have been part of the bigger problem, but not the true issue. Thanks for the compliment on my "deeper" posts. If I had a nickel for every time I have heard someone blame Yoko for the break-up, I could have dinner at the Blue Water Grill every Friday night for a year. Of course, that much plane fare might really come back to bite me in the butt, but going bankrupt never tasted so good. D*mn I should'a kept all those nickels. |
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Oct 2, 2006 14:56:48 GMT -5
For the "insiders" in the music industry the rumors began in September 1966. They knew right away something was up.
See also the New York Times clipping on the talk of London cocktail parties regarding Paul and the Beatles, on the JoJo shoebox site (I don't have the link right now).
|
|
I wonder if this was done on purpose ?! ;D
