|
Post by trutha on Dec 21, 2008 0:23:07 GMT -5
^ plus there's a huge "scar" on his left cheek where they stuck the 2 pics together. & the eyebrows are drawn in like w/ a freakin' marker :-P
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Dec 21, 2008 0:37:37 GMT -5
Yeah, i was thinking the same thing about the hair - looks like black magic marker. I hadn't noticed the cheek line thing. Maybe the stubble was added to muddy things up a bit.
Anyone think this hasn't been fooled with?
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Dec 21, 2008 0:44:40 GMT -5
^ Yes, he looks like he's had black paint poured on top of his head!
I think the pic they used of Faul just had more stubble on it. However, it is possible they added it to hide the seams.
The crease in the cheek on his right side doesn't match up, either.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Dec 21, 2008 0:57:48 GMT -5
Oh, i see that. Good eyes.
Not very good is it?
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Dec 21, 2008 18:55:57 GMT -5
^ Well, if you're not really alerted to the fact that photos have been tampered w/, you might not even notice. That's kind of scary to think that your mind can just overlook so many things. A lot of people will just think that's Paul, & that'll be the end of it. But yeah, if you really start looking at that picture, it's a total hack job - lol :-P
|
|
|
Post by B on Dec 28, 2008 11:36:19 GMT -5
^ plus there's a huge "scar" on his left cheek where they stuck the 2 pics together. & the eyebrows are drawn in like w/ a freakin' marker :-P It looks like in 1975 James Paul returned. Look at the short neck, smallish (compared to Bill) feet and shape of the skull www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuv0kiuDJM8Michelle, the whole point of trutha's post was that the photo on the right has been tampered with, and can not be considered valid.
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Dec 28, 2008 15:16:41 GMT -5
I think it's just bad photo quality. Many old pics seem "painted", if you will. It's just definition.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Dec 28, 2008 17:29:43 GMT -5
It's not just bad photo quality. The photo has been tampered w/. Here is the group picture: (from gallery.pictopia.com/memphiscom/gallery/S591993/photo/395357/?o=0)It was taken the day of the Aug 19, 1966 Memphis interview: www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1CidMWUfbwPaul's hair has been blackened-in, his eyebrows have been drawn in, he has more stubble, & the cheek lines have been broken where they stuck 2 different photos together. As you can see, he did not look like that at the interview. Compare the picture on the left (a screenshot from the interview) to tho photo of Paul from the group picture.
|
|
|
Post by GN on Dec 29, 2008 8:03:43 GMT -5
Good analysis trutha.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Dec 29, 2008 16:41:31 GMT -5
That means alot, coming from GN !
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Feb 3, 2009 5:00:43 GMT -5
topic of this thread is "Did JPM return?" I say yes, if he was ever replaced, then he did return:
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Feb 3, 2009 18:22:50 GMT -5
Let's play a game. Keep in mind that I firmly believe that Paul was replaced but have long since unsubscribed to the notion of him being dead: 38 pictures. Without reference, can you say how many are before and after the fall of '66?
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Feb 3, 2009 20:23:26 GMT -5
Based on a very quick scan, I reckon...
16 pre
22 post
What do I win!?
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 3, 2009 20:44:11 GMT -5
Not a bad test, assuming that the one being tested isn't able to rely on memory of having seen a particular pic before.
I am pretty sure that I recall one of the pics as being from the 1966 Melody Maker awards.
Assuming that memory isn't a factor, then obviously, in order for it to be a good test, all of the images with facial hair had to be removed and all of the images where he'd aged sufficiently to date it as a later pic also had to be removed.
Notwithstanding that, I would agree that there are most "post" than "pre", but for most of the pics, it's hard to tell.
It's more of a test for those who believe that there was a permanent replacement than for those who believe that there wasn't since it would be incumbent upon those who believe that there was a permanent replacement to identify the differences quickly and easily.
However, as a general rule of thumb, "pre" is more likely to have a dreamy expression or a genuine smile and "post" is more likely to have a cynical expression.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Feb 3, 2009 21:02:23 GMT -5
Fair enough 65, but are you going to put your money where your mouth is and have an actual guess? Initially it's just a bit of fun, but perhaps we could have a regular test/game to play regarding PID.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 3, 2009 23:16:06 GMT -5
Fair enough 65, but are you going to put your money where your mouth is and have an actual guess? Initially it's just a bit of fun, but perhaps we could have a regular test/game to play regarding PID. Although (as I said), I think that I recall one of the pics from memory and although (as I said), I think that it's more of a "test" for those who believe that McCartney was permanently replaced (and therefore that the differences in the supposed later version are "obvious") -- sure, I'll play along. Just give me a few minutes.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 3, 2009 23:33:11 GMT -5
All right; I said earlier that I agreed with plastic paul that there were more "post-autumn-1966" than "pre-autumn-1966".
But after an independent reckoning, I get exactly 19 "pre" and 19 "post".
Some were very close and could have gone either way -- I all but flipped a coin.
A few seemed obvious to me. A few of the "posts" seemed obvious -- the ones where he seems to have that leaner and more cynical expression. There were a disproportionate number of "posts" in the top row.
And...although I don't think that it's possible that all of these photos are from the same era, I have a feeling that this test is a trick of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Feb 4, 2009 1:57:27 GMT -5
Let's play a game. Keep in mind that I firmly believe that Paul was replaced but have long since unsubscribed to the notion of him being dead: 38 pictures. Without reference, can you say how many are before and after the fall of '66? I am not sure of the total, but a number of them pass muster. Several are Paul, a handful are some kind of tricky retouch mastery, and a few are just fakes of William. I require time to assess.
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Feb 10, 2009 3:15:16 GMT -5
another one of JPM in 1968
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Feb 10, 2009 7:02:43 GMT -5
First one = watermarked... We all know what that means... TAMPERED! Oopsie, I seem to have forgotten, I have sense. Quietly ignore this post...
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Feb 10, 2009 10:52:42 GMT -5
Pauliedied, of course Faul ( no matter what year the photo is taken) resembles Paul. If he didn't CLOSELY resemble him MOST of the time, what use would he be as a replacement ?
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Feb 10, 2009 14:02:31 GMT -5
within your pattern of interpretation thats true. i say: Paul was never replaced. that is way he looks so much like himself! he sure changed with the year 1967. but he also stayed the same. that was the year of pauls enlightment through LSD, him pushing his ego through cocain, him realizing he was actually the leader of the greatest popgroup of all times. he lost weight, he gained weight. he was a mess like all 4 of them. still it was his most creative time. without paul they would have probably split up in 1968. read geoff emericks book, he was best with paul from the begining in 1963 until 1970. he adored Paul in 1965 as in 1967. no one was replaced. by calling him Bill and Faul, you are actually disparaging (that the right word?) Paul, the man you claim to like so much. very long post (at least for me!)
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Feb 10, 2009 14:43:56 GMT -5
Hear, Hear. Especially the "calling him Bill" bit. They all simultaneously insult and worship the same man. o.O (You know who you are).
One question; Why pauliedied, if you are one of the few who doesn't think?
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Feb 10, 2009 15:58:53 GMT -5
JPM his wearing his top-wig... Sir FAUL's ear is smaller... hair parted the "wrong" way as usual etc etc. JPM RIP 1966, get over it.
|
|
|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Feb 10, 2009 17:58:09 GMT -5
The ear factor doesn't prove anything, nor does the wig.
It's all in the hands.
|
|