|
Post by il ras on Jan 29, 2006 9:17:49 GMT -5
It's an error of Getty site! They say that all the following pics (plus the one already posted) were taken on 6/22/1966 And I think that everybody will agree that's impossible (especially if you look at john).
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jan 29, 2006 9:22:46 GMT -5
Btw, is Paul wearing glasses here?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 29, 2006 11:41:09 GMT -5
Looks like he is unless he has two black eyes.
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jan 29, 2006 15:13:50 GMT -5
It looks to me as he has glasses on but also 1 black eye (his left one) behind them.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jan 29, 2006 15:53:08 GMT -5
It's an error of Getty site! They say that all the following pics (plus the one already posted) were taken on 6/22/1966 And I think that everybody will agree that's impossible (especially if you look at john). I think June 22, 1966 sounds about right for those train photos. They were on the European leg of their tour. What's unusual about John in those photos?
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jan 29, 2006 16:47:25 GMT -5
I meant to say that John in the last pic looks completely different from the other three (much more than Paul) demostrating that is impossible that's the same day.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jan 29, 2006 22:11:41 GMT -5
I see what you meant. The last photo is also mislabelled as being from '66.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jan 29, 2006 22:30:12 GMT -5
It looks to me as he has glasses on but also 1 black eye (his left one) behind them. You are correct, (about the glasses, wire rim) I have a pic in a book I just aquired that shows it clearly. (will scan/post tomorrow)
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Jan 30, 2006 11:32:42 GMT -5
Here's one that FP (aka Larry King) posted at MMH. What's odd is the caption says June 22, 1966 for the Revolver sessions! The Beatles were touring by June 22, '66, weren't they? Revolver was already finished by then. It's most likely a year, 2 albums and a singer off. I don't think there's any question, it's Bill in '67. No, it's Bill in B.C. Jerusalem entering Solomon's Temple to sprinkle incense. Pardon my fascination with the milieu of the ancient Hebrews, but this strange, voluminous garment is as "mod" as it is from antiquity. Shalom, y'all. I think you have something Dr. Robert, except, it's not the Orthodox Jew, but the Kaballist, the Jewish Mysticism, which isn't the material covered in the Torah, the first 5 books of the OT, but an alternative religion. Hollywood stars and other celebs sport a red string which is association with the Kabballah.
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jan 30, 2006 11:40:38 GMT -5
To be sincere looks more as a typical african suit (cameroonian?) to me.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jan 30, 2006 17:55:12 GMT -5
Same pic, but the glasses are a little more distinct:
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Jan 30, 2006 18:28:19 GMT -5
Ahh thanks JoJo, that clears it up a little.
So are they shades or prescription?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 30, 2006 20:30:43 GMT -5
Probably prescription. There are other pictures of him wearing glasses.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Jan 31, 2006 0:37:55 GMT -5
I thought I had seen pics of Paul with Buddy Holly type of glasses.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jan 31, 2006 7:41:09 GMT -5
I thought I had seen pics of Paul with Buddy Holly type of glasses. He's probably goofin' around with somebody elses glasses here.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Jan 31, 2006 11:26:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Jan 31, 2006 23:08:58 GMT -5
Those are great pics lili....even the first one with the Harold Lloyd, round lenses.
That's the real Paul. The true Paul Mc Cartney. I've said it before, but it bears repeating, it's been so long since I've seen that face...meaning that the man we know of as Paul is not this man at all. And seeing these that haven't been faultered.
|
|
|
Post by lenmac on Feb 1, 2006 0:31:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Feb 1, 2006 0:50:05 GMT -5
Well, yes, yes, they sure could be Paul, JPM, as they certainly don't resemble William (Sir Paul)very much------and they seem to be like what I dimly remember from earliest recollections. Most of those could be, there is one I want to check on though, but all the rest must finally be right ones. Thanks for posting!
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Feb 1, 2006 1:38:25 GMT -5
Here are some revolver session pics I have saved: I have a question about this picture. Can't locate a web image of the back of this British release (Aprill '66) of Aftermath. We must see what it is that JPM is reading on the back. This could be an important link to the events which were to tragically follow only a scant 4, maybe 5 (unless it was 6) months later. THe album, people, is called "Aftermath." Which means, what it is that happens, when it's all over. All over. Done. Get it people? JPM could be reading his bleak future in coded form encrypted on the back of this album jacket. And, he could be thinking, Mick, what are you trying to say, Mick? No, it can not be so...... Is he smiling in the photo? I don't think so. This could be a revilatory indecater. What I said.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Feb 1, 2006 1:57:52 GMT -5
It's an error of Getty site! They say that all the following pics (plus the one already posted) were taken on 6/22/1966 Aye, but I have a question. Look at the window pane. There is the reflection of a man. An imposing, dark man, facing us out of the reflection. AHA! That man can not really be there. He has been added in to hide something. But what? I don't know, but clearly this is post-developmental photographic image manipulation of a tall order. And a tall order it was. That man is a stranger and an unknown, a nobody, a real jack-a-napes in this whole Beatle fantasmagorical blunder-bloop. He has been inserted, certainly, assertively, but as of yet unattributably. Not only as an assignation, but not discernably so. i.e. Who is he and why is he there? This remains to be ascertainably explained, or seen. What I am saying, is the window region of the picture is a fake, a hoax, a mock-up, a pretension, a miscreation, a flight of fancy, a specious and feignful work, a prevaricative artifact. I am not kidding. Ringo barely matches. Where is George? Where is the cameraman in the reflection? What a sloppily produced travesty, a farce. And the irony is, they've incompetently left JPM in the shot. He's right there plain as day in the picture. No Faul. Just Paul. Uh-huh. Sorry. SO! They were SO-OOOOO busy creating a decievious backdrop that the genuine article just gets left right there in the foreground in plain sight. It might as well be a close-up at point blank range. There he is. The real Paul. And its too late now, the cat is out of the proverbial cat-bag. They are starting to make mistakes, left and right, and it's very telling. The picture department will become a house of cards soon with blatant oversights like that one. I am saving these to my desktop.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Feb 1, 2006 4:31:11 GMT -5
Maybe I'm sounding monotonous but the phatasmagoric man across from JPM in the window reflection looks a lot like former Liverpool resident Hitler. The date on the photo is significant also, DoctorRobert --- June 22, 1966 is the 25th anniversary of Hitler's surprise, unprovoked, blitzkrieg invasion of the Soviet Union and a major day (June 22)of celebration and reverance for Nazis and other fascists because it marks the start of the destruction, pillage and killing of 20 million "subhuman" communists and Russians. The "22" is also symbolic to them of the "SS" of the Nazi SS, the "supermen" leaders of the master race, global war and the Holocaust.
Were they in their former host country of West Germany or traveling through Germany on this date when the photo was shot?
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Feb 1, 2006 9:16:59 GMT -5
nothing phatasmagoric; just a guy sitting across the isle in the dining cart!
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Feb 1, 2006 10:31:26 GMT -5
To me, seems similar to Bill in the Strawberry FF clip. Btw, where's the photographer? Ok, he is not at the same level of the guys (his camera, at least) but where is his body, the feets...? May be Dr.R is right when he says that the window has been retouched
|
|
|
Post by lenmac on Feb 1, 2006 11:19:17 GMT -5
according to a site I found the liner notes for aftermath:
In this business of dubious standards, it's been great working with the Stones In July 1964, I was engineering a session for Jack Nitzsche at RCA in Hollywood; the song was Yes sir, that's my baby. In walked The Rolling Stones and Andrew Loog Oldham, who had stopped by to say hello to Jack, a friend they met thru Phil Spector. In December of 1964, we did our first session together. Andrew had phoned me from England, and wanted to do a session en route to Australia. I was thrilled; since then, we have worked together thru The Last Time; Satisfaction; Cloud; Breakdown and a number of albums, in a way that has been rewarding both artistically and professionally, for working with The Stones is extremely exhilarating. To some many hours later, at a final take, - it's all great. They never go the easy route; - from the moment Mick and Keith run a song down to the rest of the group, - to Brian deciding on an acoustic or electric guitar, or something more bizarre, - to Bill sorting out a bass pattern, - to Charlie laying down the tempo; - to their friend Jack Nitzsche (always on the dates) or Road Manager Stu picking out chords on piano, organ, harpsichord or anything else that happens to be lying around. To some many hours later, at a final take, - it's all great. In this business of dubious standards, it's been great working with the Stones, who, contrary to the countless jibes of mediocre comedians all over the world, are professionals, and a great gas to work with.
Dave Hassinger, Engineer
|
|