|
Post by Red Lion on Aug 31, 2006 1:53:12 GMT -5
Rita, this guy ? Its Mike Mcgear , Paul's brother.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 31, 2006 2:17:39 GMT -5
From the 1973 McCartney TV special, comes this image. Seems a little bit like John, though the chin and nose seem wrong: Why show the audience this? Oh, a coincidence. Or this, cause it makes me sort of see Epstein a little bit: who was long in the grave by this time. Is it shadows emanating? Is it prophetic, or is it metaphoric? Is is symbolic, or merely a passing reference, a subtle "nod"? Has my blood oxygen level slipped below 85%, or is it just a flashback from that one, crazed party, oh so long ago?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Aug 31, 2006 2:59:10 GMT -5
A few more ;D Warning Yoko's chest can be seen ! My fav. of Paul. Yoko's chest? Well, at least it isn't Davy Jones Locker. About that NEW butcher photo. I always thought there were just NINE photos from that session. But now, the website that told me there were just 9 now tells us that the TWO have recently resurfaced, bringing the grand total AWWLLLLL THE WAY UP TO ELEVEN. www.rarebeatles.com/butchabm/butchabm.htmThey offer this invitation: We welcome any additions, corrections, contributions and / or comments about The Butcher Cover Photo Album. All Butcher cover photos © Robert Whitaker/Apple Here: www.rarebeatles.com/album2/butcher/butchall.htmThey tell us that there are two new ones, yet they don't post them. How is it you were able to beat Robert Whitaker to the punch? But, I'm glad you did. And, I may have been on to something about Macca's Giant Photo Album Collections: www.rarebeatles.com/album/album.htmIt's all good. Tonight I am in sync with the universe. I am happy with my belly button. And Dr.Rob's gotz his groove onnnnne.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Aug 31, 2006 4:34:12 GMT -5
Are these the same guys in both photos?
|
|
|
Post by tkp66 on Aug 31, 2006 13:06:59 GMT -5
Butcher cover
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Aug 31, 2006 14:34:26 GMT -5
Are these the same guys in both photos? NO.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Sept 1, 2006 1:01:00 GMT -5
Are these the same guys in both photos? NO. Ladies and gentlemen please fasten your seatbelts, the TKIN train will be departing shortly.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Sept 1, 2006 11:05:17 GMT -5
RedLion wrote: Dare we to dream ?! Here's an interesting comparison: Paul Bill It never fails to amaze me how much larger Bill's face & forehead are. Even though Paul wore bangs, it's obvious how much smaller his forehead was.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Sept 1, 2006 11:15:18 GMT -5
What a beautiful baby Mary was: Bill, 1967 Bill 1968
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Sept 1, 2006 11:30:08 GMT -5
Lili wrote: "Dare we to dream ?!"
Well, that's one interpretation, but I think Red Lion was suggesting that I was about to open the TKIN door here; and in fact, that may be true to some degree, but not entirely. None-the-less, for the picture in question, I see George and John as possibly real, "Paul" (obviously not) and "Ringo" as not. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Sept 1, 2006 18:45:50 GMT -5
"Ringo" as not. Just my opinion. Would you eleborate as to why anyone here should entertain that ?
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Sept 1, 2006 19:51:49 GMT -5
They just look like two different people to me. People here are free to see whoever they want. I'll try to point out what seems different in this particular set of photos to me. Ringo (bottom picture) has a slightly more "U" shaped face than more "V" faced Ringo in top picture.. Bottom Ringo's eyes have a slightly more "triangular" look than stand in-Ringo, whose eyes are slightly farther apart. The jaw to ear angles seem different, with real Ringo more level than the fill-in's. The hair sweeps slightly in opposite directions. That and 85 cents will get you coffee, but there's a remote possibility too that the two statues in front somehow are meant to suggest two "models" standing in. Here's a slightly weird way to test this: Ask yourself "How would that face feel if I were in it?" and then see if you don't feel a difference between the two. Cream and sugar? ;D
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 1, 2006 20:07:35 GMT -5
From the 1973 McCartney TV special, comes this image. Seems a little bit like John, though the chin and nose seem wrong: Has my blood oxygen level slipped below 85%, or is it just a flashback from that one, crazed party, oh so long ago? Not as bad as experiencing total oxygen deprivation.... That first pic looks like a young Richard Gere dressed as John Lennon.... Okay, that is strange...but that's what struck me at first. When I saw that one bootleg white album poster pic of JPM and the guy who someone said was his brother Mike....looked like at a glimpse the guy from the Pepperpots album cover, which would have been a kick to see a picture with JPM and a man who would try to replace him. That would be a bizarre twist. Then Doc compares JPM's legs to Betty Grable... and if that isn't strange enough, he posts Fang from Paul Revere and the Raiders.... And wondering what the significance of that was....Or was Paul Revere replaced? If so, how many cares? Would there be all of these forums discussing it? DOUBT it...
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Sept 1, 2006 20:45:22 GMT -5
They just look like two different people to me. People here are free to see whoever they want. Thats fine, but your response to a question posed was a resounding "NO", which sounded a lot more like fact than opinion. It was statements like that which spiralled TKIN into a forum of disinformation, and was detrimental to anyone sincerely interested in this subject. I'll try to point out what seems different in this particular set of photos to me. Ringo (bottom picture) has a slightly more "U" shaped face than more "V" faced Ringo in top picture.. Bottom Ringo's eyes have a slightly more "triangular" look than stand in-Ringo, whose eyes are slightly farther apart. The jaw to ear angles seem different, with real Ringo more level than the fill-in's. The hair sweeps slightly in opposite directions. That and 85 cents will get you coffee, but there's a remote possibility too that the two statues in front somehow are meant to suggest two "models" standing in. Here's a slightly weird way to test this: Ask yourself "How would that face feel if I were in it?" and then see if you don't feel a difference between the two. Cream and sugar? ;D Just cream, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 1, 2006 21:46:42 GMT -5
Where's that White Album poster lookalike from? As for the "can you pick out something from the pic" question, relates to John somehow? I would like a better scan of that WA poster lookalike, like little oddities like that. When I asked if it related to John, it occured to me now that it might seem I was suggesting there was something funny about John himself.. No, something very simple, looks like he is clasping something in his hands, like... well I don't know really, but take a look.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 2, 2006 4:27:53 GMT -5
They just look like two different people to me. People here are free to see whoever they want. Thats fine, but your response to a question posed was a resounding "NO", which sounded a lot more like fact than opinion. It was statements like that which spiralled TKIN into a forum of disinformation, and was detrimental to anyone sincerely interested in this subject. I'll try to point out what seems different in this particular set of photos to me. Ringo (bottom picture) has a slightly more "U" shaped face than more "V" faced Ringo in top picture.. Bottom Ringo's eyes have a slightly more "triangular" look than stand in-Ringo, whose eyes are slightly farther apart. The jaw to ear angles seem different, with real Ringo more level than the fill-in's. The hair sweeps slightly in opposite directions. That and 85 cents will get you coffee, but there's a remote possibility too that the two statues in front somehow are meant to suggest two "models" standing in. Here's a slightly weird way to test this: Ask yourself "How would that face feel if I were in it?" and then see if you don't feel a difference between the two. Cream and sugar? ;D Just cream, thank you. teehee--Nice, nice. I'll take two packages of "Equal" in mine, tonight, what's a little Aspartame© poisoning when your ex-best friend has committed a heinous treachery agin' ya'? Aye, what a brigand, a scoundrel 'e is, that one I tell ya'! Oh, but my stars and garters Lillian I'll get over it, sooner or later, sure as shootin'. But what's that to do do with this post? OK< nothin; [DocRob thinks fast on how to get outta this one] OK, I got two bizarre pics of the Beatles and all four of them look WRO-ONG! and I'll..... [creating suspense] .....why, just post 'em up nice and big in the mornin'! Aye! Arggh!
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Sept 2, 2006 5:54:27 GMT -5
They just look like two different people to me. People here are free to see whoever they want. Thats fine, but your response to a question posed was a resounding "NO", which sounded a lot more like fact than opinion. It was statements like that which spiralled TKIN into a forum of disinformation, and was detrimental to anyone sincerely interested in this subject. The use of a Ringo double has been discussed before on this board. And John Lennon being switched was central to the Charlie Brill thread. In fact doubles for all of them have been discussed so I don't see what's different about this. I only asked the question because I'm curious if other people are noticing the same things I'm noticing. I understand why people are cautious about discussing the use of doubles or even permanant replacements of other band members but if we don't ask questions, examine evidence and discuss then we'll never know. I have zero desire in taking this or any topic into the ridiculous realms of TKIN. I'm far more interested in the facts than in creating more theories. This is one of the reasons I started digging deeper into the Billy Pepper thing. Of course it just results in more implausible theories (Yoko Ono & the Pepperpots anyone?). The main complaints about TKIN seem to be their pushing of theories based on little or no evidence and their enforcemment of those beliefs by banning people who disagree. So as long as people here demand evidence and as long as the mods don't start banning people for holding an alternative viewpoint then we'll be fine. At least I think we will. Isn't this from 1968 too, lili?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 2, 2006 9:44:31 GMT -5
I think so too, and the heavy handed moderation over there is/was so disagreeable to us, which is why we tend to allow a free reign. Some might think a little too free, but it's the best choice IMO. The exception of course is people who want to do nothing but argue over the basic premise of the board, a waste of all our time. That freedom also means any member may counter any points he/she feels are a little too out there with their own.. A better scan of the alt WA poster, in case anyone is interested, thanks Tkp66. Alt WA Poster
|
|
|
Post by lili on Sept 2, 2006 15:47:46 GMT -5
Noodles, I don't see how it can be from 1968. Bill broke up with Jane in 1967. Why would she accompany him anywhere after that Jo, I can't find the two statues that everyone is discussing. Could someone repost the poster with the two statues circled on it ? I just looked at the alt. poster, & the head of "Paul" on the top right looks NOTHING like JPM !
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Sept 2, 2006 16:20:35 GMT -5
Noodles, I don't see how it can be from 1968. Bill broke up with Jane in 1967. Why would she accompany him anywhere after that They didn't officially break up until 1968. According to this Jane Asher biography, "In 1968, Jane accompanied Paul and the rest of the Beatles' circle to Rishikesh, India." "Jane announced their break-up on July 20, 1968 on the BBC show Dee Time."
|
|
|
Post by tkp66 on Sept 2, 2006 21:10:58 GMT -5
JoJo, looks like John might be giving us a clue. Hari-Kari, called also a “happy despatch,” a form of suicide, now obsolete, permitted to offenders of high rank to escape the indignity of a public execution; the nature of it may be gathered from the name, “a gash in the belly.”
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Sept 2, 2006 21:43:39 GMT -5
Those twin freak statues reminds me of a cross between the Easter Island Heads and Homer Simpson. Now that is FREAKY!
About John in the odd picture with the statues..We have talked about how thin and fragile he looked after JPM's death...and how he looked stoned. But in this picture, his face appears a bit fuller. And between the lighting and those glasses, makes his eyes to appear almond shape...It just doesn't look right to me.
|
|
|
Post by tkp66 on Sept 2, 2006 22:06:44 GMT -5
Here are the Beatles with another statue. Plus here is Bill/Faul and Ringo with the same clothes on as in the twin statue photo. This photo is dated Dec. 1966
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Sept 3, 2006 0:19:26 GMT -5
Here are the Beatles with another statue. Plus here is Bill/Faul and Ringo with the same clothes on as in the twin statue photo. This photo is dated Dec. 1966 George has on more eye make-up than Johnny Depp as the Pirate. Hmm...the bottom pic...when did Paul (Bill?) play alongside Ringo on the traps? Dec 66 is early in William's "run" as 'Paul'.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 3, 2006 0:30:16 GMT -5
This is 1968: Looks like a still from the footage of the Hey Bulldog/Lady Madonna videos. (they used footage of the same studio rehearsal for both) Could some other day, but that's 1968 Paul, pretty sure.
|
|