|
Post by jonna on Jul 6, 2004 13:23:57 GMT -5
no-one said you were sunking
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 6, 2004 13:37:55 GMT -5
The post above (in yellow) confused me a bit.
sorry
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Jul 6, 2004 14:30:14 GMT -5
The post above (in yellow) confused me a bit. sorry Me too.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 6, 2004 14:38:06 GMT -5
I think that was meant as a return shot at you matchbox, but yeah it's a little confusing..
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Jul 7, 2004 7:26:59 GMT -5
The post above (in yellow) confused me a bit. sorry that was my fault I apologize for that. while trying to remove his hot linking I think I messed up the colors he used...
|
|
|
Post by SimMHoward on Jul 7, 2004 15:17:19 GMT -5
In spite of these operations today's traces of the old scar can still be seen on Faul's chin along with ears which are orientated differently; a nose that does not look the same overall: Faul's is smaller and is not shaped the same; but above all the distance between the eyes is completely different: Paul's were much wider. This is the main reason why many photos were retouched. And the old Faul - what happened to him? That's right, he's the one in the ticket photo in the left bottom side of the White Album poster. To divert suspicion the photo was mirror printed.invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&username=matchbox]FULL LEGAL BUFFOON!sunking do not link to your website from here. I would just like to point out how CLEAR the English is on this post, evidently someone can speak it better than he lets on...
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 7, 2004 18:13:33 GMT -5
I would just like to point out how CLEAR the English is on this post, evidently someone can speak it better than he lets on... You've got it bro!
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 14:13:06 GMT -5
Those are not only identical teeth, but they are identical smiles, cheek structure, and nose. Paul lives
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 8, 2004 14:56:46 GMT -5
Those are not only identical teeth, but they are identical smiles, cheek structure, and nose. Paul lives Nope sorry Paul is dead. You happen to love a look-a-like.
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 8, 2004 15:11:33 GMT -5
Nope sorry Paul is dead. You happen to love a look-a-like. You really want Paul dead, don't you? Don't worry, he's old now, poor Paulie. If you don't think those pictures are near identical, then maybe you really do lie. The teeth match (also, the wedding picture's teeth match too). Smiles match. Teeth structure. Nose. Eyes. Same Paul. The fact that you keep denying it makes me suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 9, 2004 9:01:03 GMT -5
You really want Paul dead, don't you? Don't worry, he's old now, poor Paulie. If you don't think those pictures are near identical, then maybe you really do lie. The teeth match (also, the wedding picture's teeth match too). Smiles match. Teeth structure. Nose. Eyes. Same Paul. The fact that you keep denying it makes me suspicious. The teeth do match up pretty well. But that can be accomplished through plastic surgery just like a new nose and cheeks can(that is, how the teeth are placed in the mouth). Suspicious? Gimme a break!
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 9, 2004 9:26:34 GMT -5
The teeth do match up pretty well. But that can be accomplished through plastic surgery just like a new nose and cheeks can(that is, how the teeth are placed in the mouth). The wedding picture where the teeth match up was taken VERY soon after the supposed death of Paul McCartney. I highly doubt the teeth were one of their first targets for plastic surgery. Seriously think about it -- I'd concentrate more on hitting the face than hitting the teeth which people probably HARDLY looked at. Think about this Darkhorse -- let's just say that either people have been being replaced for a while and no one has noticed, OR let's say that this is one of the first times that someone has been replaced. Do you think that you would hit the teeth THAT fast? I would concentrate on the face first and foremost to the FULLEST, because the rumor wasn't even big in 67, so why even bother with the teeth? The teeth weren't one of Paul's defining features, so why hit it first and be so accurate about it? And I would like proof that back in 1966-1967, they had surgery that could be accomplished with the teeth that fast and that accurate.P.S: Is this toned down enough for ya guys? I appreciate the warning of my behavior, not to mention that I'm not being accused of being one of Faul's stooges
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 9, 2004 9:36:10 GMT -5
I fail to see the point of all this. The teeth would've been the easiest part of the cosmetic work. If they'd wanted him to have Dracula fangs at the wedding that wouldn't have been a problem either.
If I had the money & the power of the Beatles in the mid-60's, I could go out right now & come home with Pauls teeth by dinnertime. So what the hell is yer point, other than yer need to argue?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 9, 2004 9:38:58 GMT -5
P.S: Is this toned down enough for ya guys? I appreciate the warning of my behavior, not to mention that I'm not being accused of being one of Faul's stooges P.S. noted. One of Faul's stooges? You keep confusing us with 60IF....
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 9, 2004 11:59:18 GMT -5
.....The teeth would've been the easiest part..... yes, especially if they were capped. That takes virtually no time at all.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2004 12:20:16 GMT -5
Still tagging the end of your posts with sarcastic remarks? One more tagline, just one, and you are gone.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 9, 2004 13:19:46 GMT -5
I fail to see the point of all this. The teeth would've been the easiest part of the cosmetic work. If they'd wanted him to have Dracula fangs at the wedding that wouldn't have been a problem either. If I had the money & the power of the Beatles in the mid-60's, I could go out right now & come home with Pauls teeth by dinnertime. So what the hell is yer point, other than yer need to argue? Are you sure about this? If both people have very similar and straight teeth, then maybe. But Paul's teeth were quite crooked, and that seems like it would be a lot tougher to match exactly, which they appear to.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 9, 2004 13:51:20 GMT -5
Are you sure about this? If both people have very similar and straight teeth, then maybe. But Paul's teeth were quite crooked, and that seems like it would be a lot tougher to match exactly, which they appear to. "they APPEAR to." Am I sure about the teeth being the easiest part of any alledged work? yes Could Bill go to a wedding with Dracula fangs if that was the plan? yes
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 9, 2004 14:12:44 GMT -5
Still tagging the end of your posts with sarcastic remarks? One more tagline, just one, and you are gone. That wasn't sarcastic. That was an allusion to 60if. A joke. I'm very used to arguing in 60if that I come off as aggressive. The P.S. was to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 9, 2004 14:13:15 GMT -5
P.S. noted. One of Faul's stooges? You keep confusing us with 60IF.... It's an allusion to 60IF.
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 9, 2004 14:15:18 GMT -5
I fail to see the point of all this. The teeth would've been the easiest part of the cosmetic work. If they'd wanted him to have Dracula fangs at the wedding that wouldn't have been a problem either. If I had the money & the power of the Beatles in the mid-60's, I could go out right now & come home with Pauls teeth by dinnertime. So what the hell is yer point, other than yer need to argue? Reread the post. I think you totally missed my point, which is why you're not getting it. The point is is that the teeth are NOT the first place I'd hit with making an imposter. That 1967 wedding video has strikingly similar teeth, and that photo was taken very soon after the supposed death. Not to mention that the teeth weren't one of Paul's trademark features, so why bother? The rumor wasn't out yet, so why work on the teeth?
|
|
|
Post by Frightwolf on Aug 9, 2004 14:17:45 GMT -5
Are you sure about this? If both people have very similar and straight teeth, then maybe. But Paul's teeth were quite crooked, and that seems like it would be a lot tougher to match exactly, which they appear to. Never thought of it that way.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 9, 2004 18:30:21 GMT -5
While I agree that teeth would be easy to falsify with enough money, A also agree with what Frightwolf said a while back about the rest of the face. Very hard to deny the similarity. If a person on the street who never knew who Paul McCartney was, or the PID issue. They would probably swear that this was the same man, even if the teeth did not match, because, like many of you may believe as I do. The teeth are easy to change.
|
|