Info on this photo?

[ramone]

Does anyone know about this pic ?
Supposedly JPM in the 70's
Doesn't really look like him. But, if he
was involved in an accident-well, people
can look very different after. anyone?

[Jude]

It's as though someone took a photo of Paul/Faul's face and then mis-matched it with John's body, hair, and head shape. Bizarre! Where'd you find this?

[percythrillington]

yes looks like a badly done photoshop job ahaha

[ramone]

Found it on a forum.
I figured if anyone would have a clue,
somebody here would.
Could be a pic of some guy.
Could be a pic photoshopped.
Could be what it's rumored to be.
We'll see what comes up.

[Jude]

Until I find evidence that would prove otherwise, I'll go with my hunch that it's a photo of John (from the "Something" video shoot) with Paul's face pasted in.

[plastic paul]

I think it was featured on TKIN at some point.

A very bad photoshop (sorry) ....

[ramone]

any other input?

[Jude]

I think it's a photoshop. It's really not that hard to do this sort of thing.
For example....here's JPM in New York City, 1979:

[skyward]

ramone said:

any other input?

It is an obvious photoshop, and whoever did it didn't even try to match the shade of the forehead with the face. The light source is hitting the guy's left side, check his hair, yet his forehead looks like the full moon reflecting light. If it was a flash, then you wouldn't have the light reflecting off his hair.

[stevarne0]

haha this is a very bad photoshop job. the thing that sucks the most is that this is the kinda stuff people will hear about and it will be a good reason to think were all crazy. heh

maybe we are?

[iameye]

only if you start talking about Chicago again ;D

[65if2007]

stevarne0 said:

haha this is a very bad photoshop job. the thing that sucks the most is that this is the kinda stuff people will hear about and it will be a good reason to think were all crazy. heh

maybe we are?

Who's to say that PIA's don't photoshop?

It's that celebrity doubles thing -- that subsection of this board which suggests that other celebrities have been replaced with doubles -- which looks especially crazy.

I'm willing to allow that the Beatles in general and Paul McCartney in particular were so unique and were perceived as such a valuable asset to a number of people that the idea of replacing a dead Paul with a talented double is plausible -- especially given the overall weirdness that was going on in Beatles world during the 1966-69 time frame. Those Mal Evans photos of "Paul" in Kenya are mind-boggling.

But the idea that this is a regular occurrence and that NUMEROUS celebrities, including Frank Sinatra and Doris Day, have been replaced -- without discovery -- by doubles over the years strikes me as just plain weird.

And I won't even get into what I think of all that Don Knotts/Brian Epstein/Neil Aspinall/Vivian Stanshall talk.

PID can only maintain whatever credibility it has by proposing that what must have happened here was UNIQUE.

[65if2007]

jude said:

I think it's a photoshop. It's really not that hard to do this sort of thing.
For example....here's JPM in New York City, 1979:

It's Joe DiMaggio! Makes sense. In the late 1960's, people openly wondered where he had gone, as well.

[MikeNL]

welcome to the cork
i guess u all know why were here

my name is iamaphoney, and i cracked the code this year


i remember it was somewhere on this forum... but where



back on topic:
i dont really have a response to that photo, i'm sick

[percythrillington]

"Those Mal Evans photos of "Paul" in Kenya are mind-boggling."
Which photos are those??

[iameye]

mikenl said:

welcome to the cork
my name is iamaphoney, and i cracked the code this year


i remember it was somewhere on this forum... but where

mike

what the hell are you talking about? announcing one has cracked a code yet not revealing said code is equivalent to being an encoder as well. Even worse, it's collusion. Enough already.

[ramone]

""Those Mal Evans photos of "Paul" in Kenya are mind-boggling."
Which photos are those??"

Mal Evans took some video of 'Paul' taking video
in Africa. If anyone says that is THE JPM, imo
they're on drugs.

Thanks for the input on the above pic.
I didn't know if it's been circulating for a while or what.
Figured if it was, somebody would've seen it long ago.
Maybe it's a recent outcropping.

Mike-what was that about?

[JoJo]

The Mal Evans home movie thread: LINK

[iameye]

I can't get it JoJo, but it's probably just me.

[JoJo]

You mean the movie? I have it up at Veoh, but right now Veoh is in maintenance mode. The link to the original video I posted way back is working for me.

[iameye]

65if2007 said:

stevarne0 said:

haha this is a very bad photoshop job. the thing that sucks the most is that this is the kinda stuff people will hear about and it will be a good reason to think were all crazy. heh

maybe we are?

It's that celebrity doubles thing -- that subsection of this board which suggests that other celebrities have been replaced with doubles -- which looks especially crazy.

I'm willing to allow that the Beatles in general and Paul McCartney in particular were so unique and were perceived as such a valuable asset to a number of people that the idea of replacing a dead Paul with a talented double is plausible -- especially given the overall weirdness that was going on in Beatles world during the 1966-69 time frame. Those Mal Evans photos of "Paul" in Kenya are mind-boggling.

But the idea that this is a regular occurrence and that NUMEROUS celebrities, including Frank Sinatra and Doris Day, have been replaced -- without discovery -- by doubles over the years strikes me as just plain weird.

And I won't even get into what I think of all that Don Knotts/Brian Epstein/Neil Aspinall/Vivian Stanshall talk.

PID can only maintain whatever credibility it has by proposing that what must have happened here was UNIQUE.

First of all, you are mixing forums here, so don't generalize. Secondly, even in these off-shoot discussions, you will note that not everyone participates in these "concepts" yet an open discussion is allowed by the MODS to encourage healthy debate, and in HEALTHY debate the cream shall rise to the top ( 2%) . And of course, it is not inconceivable that perhaps we have a few "trolls" in the pack posing and posting at their leisure to distract and derail . Recent examples are self evident, but I don't care to point them out. It's a non issue. We ( me, myself and eye), know who they are, it's bound to happen.

I don't think many of us are here to be "taken seriously" , rather to TAKE seriously, and forge on. Whatever truth surfaces shall be truth and truth only, and that's supposed to be enough.

[JoJo]

iameye said:

I don't think many of us are here to be "taken seriously" , rather to TAKE seriously, and forge on. Whatever truth surfaces shall be truth and truth only, and that's supposed to be enough.

Thank you I, couldn't say it better.. (and I've tried on occasion)

[65if2007]

iameye said:

65if2007 said:

It's that celebrity doubles thing -- that subsection of this board which suggests that other celebrities have been replaced with doubles -- which looks especially crazy.

I'm willing to allow that the Beatles in general and Paul McCartney in particular were so unique and were perceived as such a valuable asset to a number of people that the idea of replacing a dead Paul with a talented double is plausible -- especially given the overall weirdness that was going on in Beatles world during the 1966-69 time frame. Those Mal Evans photos of "Paul" in Kenya are mind-boggling.

But the idea that this is a regular occurrence and that NUMEROUS celebrities, including Frank Sinatra and Doris Day, have been replaced -- without discovery -- by doubles over the years strikes me as just plain weird.

And I won't even get into what I think of all that Don Knotts/Brian Epstein/Neil Aspinall/Vivian Stanshall talk.

PID can only maintain whatever credibility it has by proposing that what must have happened here was UNIQUE.

First of all, you are mixing forums here, so don't generalize. Secondly, even in these off-shoot discussions, you will note that not everyone participates in these "concepts" yet an open discussion is allowed by the MODS to encourage healthy debate, and in HEALTHY debate the cream shall rise to the top ( 2%) . And of course, it is not inconceivable that perhaps we have a few "trolls" in the pack posing and posting at their leisure to distract and derail . Recent examples are self evident, but I don't care to point them out. It's a non issue. We ( me, myself and eye), know who they are, it's bound to happen.

I don't think many of us are here to be "taken seriously" , rather to TAKE seriously, and forge on. Whatever truth surfaces shall be truth and truth only, and that's supposed to be enough.

I'm not in the least confused.

I'm perfectly aware that the Brian Epstein/Don Knotts discussions -- and perhaps the Aspinall/Stanshall discussion, as well, are largely a product of a different forum entirely.

Discussions about supposed OTHER celebrity doubles, however, take place in a separate sector of THIS forum.

I'm not talking about any one forum or any one sector, but I'm talking about PID, as a whole.

I'm perfectly well aware that many who are interested in PID/PWR, including myself, don't think highly of those other more outre areas of inquiry -- but it's very easy for us to get lumped in with those who do, and that just makes it hard for others to take the concept of PID very seriously.

That having been said, I have not suggested that anyone be silenced or denied a forum.

[iameye]

I'm not in the least confused.

I'm perfectly aware that the Brian Epstein/Don Knotts discussions -- and perhaps the Aspinall/Stanshall discussion, as well, are largely a product of a different forum entirely.


so why bring it up? you wanna know how to make a kick ass souffle or talk about the NYR win last night too?


Discussions about supposed OTHER celebrity doubles, however, take place in a separate sector of THIS forum.
like that's controllable. address that as an issue, that's all



I'm not talking about any one forum or any one sector, but I'm talking about PID, as a whole.


PID is three words. Goggle around. I'm sure there's more out there to compare to, let alone a three word concept.


I'm perfectly well aware that many who are interested in PID/PWR, including myself, don't think highly of those other more outre areas of inquiry -- but it's very easy for us to get lumped in with those who do, and that just makes it hard for others to take the concept of PID very seriously.

censorship = read a book for one opinion. Hey man, I agree about the BS, it sucks.


I'm not talking about any one forum or any one sector, but I'm talking about PID, as a whole.

roll with it. it got YOU here. RIGHT?


That having been said, I have not suggested that anyone be silenced or denied a forum

Separate the wheat from the shaft. Standard procedure.


Have a nice day

[mindgames]

That's Andy from Raggedy Ann and Andy!!!!

65if2007 said:

jude said:

I think it's a photoshop. It's really not that hard to do this sort of thing.
For example....here's JPM in New York City, 1979: