|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 5, 2004 7:23:36 GMT -5
I still can't come up with an explanation for why his eyes changed shape, color & moved closer together. To me, everything looks the same in the pics I posted, exept for the lighting. In fact, FAUL's eyes look further apart than Paul's. To me, it's obvious these are the same men, and if there was a switch, it didn't happen yet. As for the pic on Uber's site, I too find it hard to belive that that man is JP.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 5, 2004 14:29:14 GMT -5
I can't edit out the moustache on my way to simple "paint" program, so I pasted part of another pic on. Who does it look like now? I think it looks more like Faul without a mustache, although Paul's mouth does add to the illusion. If you listen to the interview video JoJo put together in this thread invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1081117125 though, you'll hear how much his voice was different than Paul's. I don't think angled shots like those make for good comparisons - too much information is lost in the foreshortening and the angles are hard to determine. There's no question Faul resembled Paul pretty well under the right conditions. But resemblance doesn't prove identity as we saw in this photo of Keith Allison in which he could almost pass for Paul. In most of the other photos he doesn't look that similar.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 5, 2004 14:51:00 GMT -5
Posting photos isn't a real big deal, but you do have to have some kind of web storage space. if you have the URL of the photo you want to post, just click on the little picture above the angry smilie and paste the URL between the 2 "img" tags.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 5, 2004 21:24:55 GMT -5
Beatles Ultimate Experience: The Beatles Interview Database www.geocities.com/~beatleboy1/db.menu.htmland compare the photos posted of “Paul” from • 8/28/66 Beatles / Los Angeles and • 12/20/66 Beatles / Abbey Road Studios. Great link, thanks! There are a lot of full text interviews, that could be useful.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 6, 2004 0:11:31 GMT -5
But resemblance doesn't prove identity as we saw in this photo of Keith Allison in which he could almost pass for Paul. Because it's from a far distance. The 2 pics I posted, how do they look like two different people?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 6, 2004 0:51:21 GMT -5
There is strong resemblance between these two pictures.
Now, regarding the Allyson pics, he seems to have a more juvenile face, softer, than either or any of Paul or Bill. To me, Paul didn't have quite that much of a baby face, youthful yes, but not quite so soft. Keith seems void of any strong angularities. So, I don't see that much of a resemblance. the far away pic is, well, far away.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 6, 2004 1:05:50 GMT -5
IMO, if there was a replacement, then this guy: was replaced by this guy: To me, they look like different people.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 6, 2004 11:29:24 GMT -5
Just 2 photos to compare there, but I see your point. How 's this for a plan: "Paul looks different than he did in 1966, because he always looks different from day to day in 1967!" So that would not seem so unusual, see? Then at some point the permanent replacement settles in. (to this day, and when the look has finally been sculpted to their satisfaction.) Just a thought..
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 6, 2004 11:34:42 GMT -5
Quite possibly. Maybe the difference (the nose!) has to do with surgery?
There's no way that second picture is of James Paul. No way!
For one thing, his head shape is totally different. This is not JP's roundish head.
And the hair part orientation is all wrong. There really isn't much similarity between JP & this guy.
We have just become so used to accepting this image as Paul, I think we're all having a hard time shaking it, even though it's kind of obvious.
If we could place James Paul's only known hairstyle on this guy (especially 2nd pic), we'd find out it just wouldn't fit!
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 6, 2004 14:10:23 GMT -5
Just 2 photos to compare there, but I see your point. How 's this for a plan: "Paul looks different than he did in 1966, because he always looks different from day to day in 1967!" So that would not seem so unusual, see? Then at some point the permanent replacement settles in. (to this day, and when the look has finally been sculpted to their satisfaction.) Just a thought.. The argument against multiple replacements is that Paul's speaking voice seemed to change from '66 to '67 but stopped changing after that point. Today Faul's voice modulation sounds pretty much the same as it did in '67: 1966 Paul1967 Faul2002 FaulThis is just one example. When I first listened to the 1966 interview, I was suprised how different Paul's voice sounded than what I was expecting, having gotten used to Faul's voice all these years. I honestly thought it was George speaking at first until I saw Paul's lips moving!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 6, 2004 22:56:00 GMT -5
Just 2 photos to compare there, but I see your point. How 's this for a plan: "Paul looks different than he did in 1966, because he always looks different from day to day in 1967!" So that would not seem so unusual, see? Then at some point the permanent replacement settles in. (to this day, and when the look has finally been sculpted to their satisfaction.) Does anyone know what the dates are for those 2 pics I posted?
|
|
surreal
Hard Day's Night
What...me worry?
Posts: 2
|
Post by surreal on Apr 7, 2004 0:32:05 GMT -5
To me, the first picture posted by Flaming Pie looks like Paul with a really bad fake moustache. Could James Paul have worn this immediately before the switch to get us used to seeing the future Paul (Faul) with one? (This assumes that Paul was replaced and in on the whole thing rather than killed). It's weird though that I never thought that the man in that interview could be Paul until now... And of course there is no way that the guy in the second pic could even pass for Paul...oh wait, he already did . It's funny that one of the few similarities I see between the two pictures is that awful mustache, except for the fact that the moustache in the second pic looks a little more like actual facial hair (well, marginally anyway). I'm suprised that more people haven't mentioned the moustache in the first pic being fake. To me, it's a dead give-away....
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 7, 2004 0:40:19 GMT -5
The second pic doesn't look like Paul or Faul!
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 7, 2004 0:47:15 GMT -5
That second pic still, at a glance, makes me think of Annie Lennox doing male drag. Have you seen her Elvis? Its cheeky fab; campy. She did it in videos in the mid 80's. Lennox and the Eurythmics are favorites of mine----and I know that ain't her. But the head seems narrow and the features so very delicate, just in that photo-------with "stipled" on facial hair maybe (now I get it) it really makes an unusual impression. But I guess that's just one more strange shot among many. It really doesn't fit any concept I may have entertained of "Paul" or "Bill."
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 10, 2004 17:54:01 GMT -5
Just the one that really made me start to wonder way back. Unflattering at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 11, 2004 1:16:52 GMT -5
so many different noses...........Im not saying any particular nose is bad........but most people only get one nose, short of rhinoplasty....
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 1:54:04 GMT -5
so many different noses...........Im not saying any particular nose is bad........but most people only get one nose, short of rhinoplasty.... Who's noses are these?: Look hard. You've seen'em before.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 11, 2004 2:32:09 GMT -5
Ok, ok, I am Mr. Wide Nostrils on the right (evokes porcine likenesses ) but I can't deduce the left one......hmmmmmmmmm.
My "piggy" nose is the same 30 years later (that's a 1974 pic)---I could get a snip-snip, maybe, but why bother at this point.........
So, who is the left one??? Nanette Fabray? Are we seeing up into nostirls? Is that nose as narrow as it appears?
Am I TOO "nosey"? A nose by any other name smells a sweet. (Im gonna get banned soon I just "nose" it.......)
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 2:43:05 GMT -5
Here's a hint:
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 11, 2004 2:55:14 GMT -5
I compared his nose to Nanette Fabray on an post somewhere months ago. That image just stays with me. I thought of Jackson but I thought, the skintone is too light. I forgot, ya' know, about the other.............
And, if the ABC special had any truth, is that, then, MJ wearing the "nasal appliance"?
I guess I'm like so many other people--------we wished Michael had just left a couple a'things alone in his life-------------he had it all. Number one---his face. He was beautiful before he EVER had any surgery. And, he was still beautiful pre and post "Thriller", and for several years after that. I think, if he had just stopped it all right after "Thriller" and sought counseling and meaningful relationships with PEERS..............
its none of my business....but that photo breaks my heart.....
Meantime, I'll choose to remain happy with my relative Bulbosity. Just call me "Bulbo."
*P.S., Ms Fabray's nose is fine, and in good proportion to her face. I had just noted that years ago, it looked to me to be a very petite nose. A noteworthy characteristic----fit well into her Hollywood glamour years image.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 3:20:44 GMT -5
You don't wan't to see the entire photo...
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 11, 2004 3:27:08 GMT -5
Well, why not? We've all seen Jackson before? What, is there something unsightly on this particular pic? We're brave enough here. Show it, please, if you deign.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 11, 2004 3:29:54 GMT -5
Is it a question of it being too distorted?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 3:50:44 GMT -5
No, just that you didn't like seeing one part of it. I'll post pics tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Apr 11, 2004 14:45:47 GMT -5
|
|