What About the Teeth?...

[Harb]

I've noticed that in early photographs of Paul where's he's smiling enough to show his teeth, he has a rather distinctive upper bridgeline where it seems that the front of the top jaw(at the incisors and front teeth) points downwards...



Are there any photos of post 1966 Macca with the same smile, and if his teeth are the same in terms of alignment?

[FlamingPie]

[Harb]

Well that's cleared that up then

[DarkHorse]

The teeth do look different in the two pics but I am surprised at how similar they look also. Could it have been possible that they reconstructed the teeth to look like Paul's in addition to the nose, mouth, eyes and cheeks?

[JoJo]

Well isn't is as simple as a set of matching dentures? Well, maybe a little more than that perhaps. What i notice looking through my collection is how difficult it is to find pictures of post 1966 pictures where he is smiling in the way he is in the old picture. Mostly the smile shows a little bit of his upper teeth, but you can't get a good look, the upper lip is covering the gums and the top of the teeth. Brother Michael's wedding picture that i posted before is one of the only ones from the early days i could find:



I wish this pic could be clearer, but it wasn't part of the "Day in the Life" video they showed on Anthology, that's for sure. More of the same here: www.jojoplace.org/MovedPages/DayInTheLifeStills2/

I was thinking about the line in that song where John sings:

I read the news today oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And although the news was rather sad
I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph......

[FlamingPie]

The pic I posted is meant to support PIA. Look at the top of the eyes. Look at how the left eye bulges out more than the right one, which is being covered by a flap of skin. Look at the wrinkles under the eyes, the expression in the face.

They cannot be two different people, IMO. Although I do belive that there was another man involved.

[jonna]

so which is it?.. is he alive or is another man involved cause lets face it if he was alive why would another man need to be involved?

[DarkHorse]

Flaming said:

The pic I posted is meant to support PIA. Look at the top of the eyes. Look at how the left eye bulges out more than the right one, which is being covered by a flap of skin. Look at the wrinkles under the eyes, the expression in the face.

They cannot be two different people, IMO. Although I do belive that there was another man involved.

The point I've tried to make several times with photo comparisons like the one above and the ones at Paulisnotdead.com is that the heads are out of proportion to each other. This is true is almost every case. That's the only way they were able to make the eyes and nose match up. The picture of Paul on the left was a closer shot than the one of Faul on the right.

[FlamingPie]

DarkHorse said:

The point I've tried to make several times with photo comparisons like the one above and the ones at Paulisnotdead.com is that the heads are out of proportion to each other. This is true is almost every case. That's the only way they were able to make the eyes and nose match up. The picture of Paul on the left was a closer shot than the one of Faul on the right.

But I'm talking about the individual features. The eyes are shaped the same way. And the wrinkles, nose, eyebrows.

so which is it?.. is he alive or is another man involved

I belive both.

cause lets face it if he was alive why would another man need to be involved?

I don't know, but that's what this forum is for, isn't it?

[jonna]

yes that is what this forum is for
i'm just curious to know what stance you are taking with it.. you don't have to be either a believer or a skeptic but i don't see why the need for a replacement if he isn't dead...

can you elaberate?

[JoJo]

Well we need a dentist on board here, but the picture on the right looks like the teeth are a copy of the teeth on the left without any of the minor imperfections. Like the surgeon mapped out the overall shape, but didn't have a perfect eye for detail.

I'll buy that the wrinkles around the eyes are seemingly where they should be. But the eyes are too close together on the picture on the right, and in many other pictures.

As for another man being involved, well that's what I believe. But I have to ask as Jonna did, why? The simplest reason is man #1 isn't around anymore. A scenario with both around is up for discussion of course, but the ball is in your court from now on...

[FlamingPie]

Okay, pre '66 Paul is A and post '66 is B.

Sometimes I see that A = B.
Sometimes I see that A doesn't = B.
A always = A.
BUT B doesn't always = B.

Sorry if that was confusing. Was it?

[jonna]

not if you have a degree in algebra.. oh wait i do. ;D
and yet after all that you still believe that paul is alive and well?... you may want to go back to your calculations because it doesn't add up to me

[revolver]

I believe the occasional photos of Faul that resemble Paul are almost always the ones that were intended to be published in one form or another. The candid ones of Faul taken by family and friends almost never show much of a resemblance to Paul, either in body or facial proportions. Those photos are the most reliable record of Faul's true appearance while he was a Beatle because they are less likely to have been altered, and Faul is less likely to be "made up". They also fully support the PWR/ID theory IMO.

[FlamingPie]

Okay, I'll say it in English:

Sometimes I see that pictures of pre '66 Paul look identicle to post '66 Paul.

Sometimes pre '66 Paul and post '66 look like two different men.

Every picture of pre '66 Paul look the same

BUT post 66' Paul doesn't always match with other pictures of post '66 Paul.

Was that better?

[revolver]

Flaming said:

Okay, I'll say it in English:

Sometimes I see that pictures of pre '66 Paul look identicle to post '66 Paul.

Sometimes pre '66 Paul and post '66 look like two different men.

Every picture of pre '66 Paul look the same

BUT post 66' Paul doesn't always match with other pictures of post '66 Paul.

Was that better?

The simplest explanation for that is post-66 "Paul" was undergoing plastic surgery along with cosmetic and photographic enhancement before and during his stint as a Beatle. So naturally his resembance to Paul and earlier photos of himself would change over time. He was a moving target. The real Paul stayed the same while he was a Beatle.

[FlamingPie]

Remember that interview on the street (late '66 I think)? There were some big debates about that. I said it looked like Paul. But, in some 67 pic, posted here somewhere, it looks nothing like either Faul or Paul, IMO.

[Doc]

Flaming said:

Okay, I'll say it in English:

Sometimes I see that pictures of pre '66 Paul look identicle to post '66 Paul.

Sometimes pre '66 Paul and post '66 look like two different men.

Every picture of pre '66 Paul look the same

BUT post 66' Paul doesn't always match with other pictures of post '66 Paul.

Was that better?

Actually, I think I concur. Pre=-Oct'66 Paul pictures appear mostly consistant. Sometimes I see one that, for one reason or another, looks odd, but that's true for John and George sometimes, too. And I don't think John and George had replacements or doubles. Well, except during the Sgt Pepper video, George, if that is supposed to be George, looks like a short Grizzly Adams version of George. But pitures of George later in '67 and forever onward look like the same old George, with facial hair, and possibly some jaw, chin, and dental work. I mean, George has a pointy, narrow elfin chin until Pepper. Always later, it seems squarer and more masculine.

We'd all have little fixes done if we had the money. Or, insurance coverage for cosmetic procedures...............

I dunno though. After about 42 years old I was happy to be middle aged and alive and who cares about a few acne scars, turkey neck, some lines, and a general jowliness. Who cares. I'm not in my twenties; I shouldn't try to look like I am. Let us now celebrate our crow's feet and say, "Oh, Shan-dala, sham-balah." Ching!

Anyway,we've all by now seen the vast array of photos of Paul in this site, and several others. And many are from '67 onward. And what Flaming says is a thing I have thought------many photos, many seemingly different "Pauls" from 1967 and forward.

I finally gave in and against my better judgement showed a lot of this to a friend of mine that does make-up, hair, prosthetics, movie make-up, run-way etc, the whole nine yards. Of course, I should have known. Ever skeptical of anything that suggests conspiracies (he scoffs at the word) he looked, and told me that I was mistaken. He said, clearly, these little films and pictures and posters and record cover are ALL of the exact same man. He thought that Paul on Dec. 20 1966 outside Abbey Road was a vicitim of poor outdoor video lighting in a primitive time, and he looks exactly like Paul in pre Candlestick Park videos and after. All looks just exactly like the same man. He said, "No one has eyes like that. Only Paul McCartney." He told me that what I was percieving was nothing more that just different hair-cuts, camera angles, film stock, distance of shot, and mainly, lighting, lighting, lighting. Of course he recommended that maybe his make-up person was inferior in that '66 time period and he could have done a better job himself.


?!!!!!!!!!

I told my friend I thought he should call Apple/EMI and try to see if he could get a staff position doing makeovers.

Still, I perceive remarkable differences between early and later pictures, beyond ordinary maturing, hair-cuts, make-up, and, oh yeah, lighting, lighting, lighting.

I'm ready for my close-up, Max....................

[FlamingPie]

Nice job Dr.!
Just wanted to post these:



(Note Paul's eye color and how they both have the same lower eye.)

[JoJo]

Well hardly a candid photo is it? That one is from Let It Be is it? All I can do right now is repost this one, but something was done, either with surgery or photo magic..

[FlamingPie]

JoJo said:

Well hardly a candid photo is it? That one is from Let It Be is it? All I can do right now is repost this one, but something was done, either with surgery or photo magic..

Probably a shot from the White Album photo session. Not Let It Be. What's wrong with those pics? Just because they're not candid means they must have been doctored? They both look natural to me.

And the pic you just posted, I don't know if that's Paul, but I do know that I see one man in the the pics I posted.

Same lower eye! Even in the candid shot!

[jonna]

I have to disagree flaming.. Of course it’s just my opinion but in the two pictures you posted I still see very different facial characteristics. The nose is all wrong and even they eyes on the later picture look exaggerated. Theirs the cleft in the chin and the overall appearance to the skin is different.

at first glance they are very good pictures to compare until you start to look closely at the details..

[eyesbleed]

Jonna said:

at first glance they are very good pictures to compare until you start to look closely at the details..

Ya, the PIA pics that FP has been posting are good ones.
98% of the people out there would take a look at those & be certain that they are both pics of JPM.... end of discussion. Most people aren't gonna do more that glance at'em, be fairly certain that they're looking at a post-66 pic of JPM & be on their way... certain that those PID-ers are a little looney!

It occationally drives me a little crazy, coz I see all these post-66 pics that look nothing like JPM. It's so obvious I wonder why more people don't notice..... but every once in a while, there's that picture that's pretty darned close.
Thankfully, some of y'all have some sharper eyeballs than I do & point out some stuff that I might not have noticed otherwise.

[jerriwillmore]

Why not do a "fade" comparing those two pictures? Interesting!

[jonna]

fades have been proven useless time and time again here....