|
Post by eyesbleed on Jun 11, 2008 7:08:24 GMT -5
These pictures are already been examinated here, RL, why are you bringing these up again? That's true, & I came to the same conclusion a long time ago as I slowly backed away from the whole PID theory. It seems there's one theory that has never been discussed at length here. The idea that JPM simply walked away to "chase rainbows".
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 11, 2008 7:09:50 GMT -5
Mike, weight difference would not account for a difference in head/facial shape & size. For example, John & Faul taken July, 1968. Paul - most likely taken in 1965 Faul's upper lip is thinner & wider. Paul's lower lip is fuller and his forehead is smaller. I also see a difference in facial shape. The photo of John & Faul was taken from this webpage. If you look through the photos there, you can see how large Faul looks in comparison to the other guys. www.nemsworld.com/beatles/md/md.htmEyesbleed, if I ever saw incontrovertible proof that Paul did indeed do that, it would make me a very happy woman. They've added more photos to the page. I was looking through them, when I came across this one. I find the above photo very disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jun 11, 2008 8:17:22 GMT -5
This isn't a random candid photograph by someone who didn't know what was going on. It is a polished product created by an insider, for a purpose. Keep that in mind. Yes, exactly... who else would be photographing a post '66 JPM? The death clue game would be much more fun for those guys if their dear friend wasn't dead but merely crazy.
|
|
|
Post by blackbird on Jun 11, 2008 9:32:47 GMT -5
TOTALINFORMATION SAID: "but I don't know if I could travel overseas and back without getting fingerprinted, etc. now... US & UK have both degenerated into police state since 9/11. But I digress."
YOU are so right! I wish I was seeing more SERIOUS discussions here about the new videos that are being shown now. The PID story goes SO much deeper and IT REALLY needs to be discussed.
There is just so much reviewing of pictures, etc that can be done and from there it needs to advance......... "DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE"......... to see how FAR it really goes.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jun 11, 2008 11:45:40 GMT -5
Well, it seems as though there is some upset with this thread. For what it is worth I will clear the air a bit. Was Paul replaced? Of course, that is why we are all here. How many it took to replace him and to what extent the charade went on seems to be uncertain. Did Paul die? This is a separate and totally different issue. To date there is ZERO proof of death, no body, no witnesses, no evidence at all that Paul died or was killed. Lyrical and pictorial "clues", do not constitute proof. And yes you can say it was all covered up and everyone kept it hush-hush under threat of death............... a fanciful tale indeed. These were the Beatles, they did what they wanted and no one was going to tell them what to do. Who is the current McCartney? I don't know, but it's not JPM. Hopefully these answers are pretty straight forward. Dare I say that most here would agree with two out of the three. Yesterday at 11:58pm, Mike wrote: These pictures are already been examinated here, RL, why are you bringing these up again?
Perhaps you might be a bit more tolerant of a single thread considering the plethora of IAAP/RA vomit that you contributed to spewing all over this board for months. but there's that larger forehead to consider. If you mean like the guy on top, I concur. Apologies for the difference in angle but the fellow on the bottom seems to be very different from his counterpart. it needs to advance......... "DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE"......... to see how FAR it really goes. In choosing to jump into a "rabbit hole" one must be prepared for what one may find. Sometimes you don't like what you discover. What to do at that point? Turn back and hold onto to what is comfortable? Or forge on and uncover a greater truth? I've rolled with the PID story for some time. It is a dead end. Paul having lived on though? Jump into that rabbit hole and see what you find. It seems there's one theory that has never been discussed at length here. The idea that JPM simply walked away to "chase rainbows". Long overdue isn't it EB?
|
|
|
Post by MikeNL on Jun 11, 2008 12:13:33 GMT -5
Yesterday at 11:58pm, Mike wrote: These pictures are already been examinated here, RL, why are you bringing these up again?
Perhaps you might be a bit more tolerant of a single thread considering the plethora of IAAP/RA vomit that you contributed to spewing all over this board for months. [/quote] That's really an awefull thing to say, of course you can't like my post too much, but vomit? I consider it very rude. and btw, i was only trying to help a little... since i saw these pictures not too long ago on NIR. M.
|
|
|
Post by blackbird on Jun 11, 2008 12:22:59 GMT -5
RED LION: "Perhaps you might be a bit more tolerant of a single thread considering the plethora of IAAP/RA vomit that you contributed to spewing all over this board for months."VOMIT !!?? how ugly!!! So you started a thread making it "seem" that JPM returned And then you say "was JPM replaced? Of Course" you really have me confused .... not to mention new comers to the board .... I DON'T GET IT!!! And the pictures you are posting are definitely NOT JPM -
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jun 11, 2008 12:36:21 GMT -5
Perhaps you might be a bit more tolerant of a single thread considering the plethora of IAAP/RA vomit that you contributed to spewing all over this board for months. That's really an awefull thing to say, of course you can't like my post too much, but vomit? I consider it very rude. he wasn't vomiting today, but speaking of prior vomit ;D
|
|
|
Post by paulumbo on Jun 11, 2008 13:31:10 GMT -5
Eyesbleed wrote a 8:08am today (6/11) that JPM might have simply walked away. I found an article in Newsweek, March 21, 1966 where Paul said: "We think in terms of 40 more years of writing." "I wouldn't mind being a white-haired old man writing songs," adds McCartney, "but I'd hate to be a white-haired Beatle playing at Empress Stadium."
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jun 11, 2008 14:13:55 GMT -5
So you started a thread making it "seem" that JPM returned And then you say "was JPM replaced? Of Course" you really have me confused .... not to mention new comers to the board .... I DON'T GET IT!!! It would be difficult for JPM to return if he hadn't left or been replaced to begin with. As far as newcomers go, they get the short end of the stick if their indoctrination to this subject is PID based as opposed to PWR based. There is little question that the Pepper and MMT era "Pauls" are not the original. After that is gets stickier, witness what some members here see with these pictures. PID theories have been discussed ad naseum on several forums for a long time without any conclusive result. Is it not proper and thorough to explore PWR without Paul being dead? If you have come to your conclusion that Paul died without any proof, power to you. If this thread bothers you as a result of that, skip it, there is plenty of other PID related stuff to indulge in here. That's really an awefull thing to say, of course you can't like my post too much, but vomit? I consider it very rude. Mike, as iameye mentioned I was speaking about the dramatic nonsense that has already occurred with the RA/IAAP saga. Which, either by choice or association, you were a large part of. Vomit was an appropriate word for the debacle that took place. Thanks for trying to help though.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jun 11, 2008 14:17:07 GMT -5
Eyesbleed wrote a 8:08am today (6/11) that JPM might have simply walked away. I found an article in Newsweek, March 21, 1966 where Paul said: "We think in terms of 40 more years of writing." "I wouldn't mind being a white-haired old man writing songs," adds McCartney, "but I'd hate to be a white-haired Beatle playing at Empress Stadium." He made similar statements in the David Frost interview. youtube.com/watch?v=tNYVxqJ83W8
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 11, 2008 14:48:01 GMT -5
When we were discussing the formation of this board 4+ years ago, we made a very deliberate choice.. That choice was to name this forum "Paul was REPLACED" We didn't choose "Paul Is Dead" for the simple reason that the idea that he was replaced sometime in late 1966 was only thing we were (in our minds) certain about. The rest is putting together what little crumbs or puzzle pieces were left out there in the public domain.
So the idea that we have been about "PID from day one" is completely false, at least for this forum. We are also about INVestigation AND DIScussion...
Perhaps RL is a bit more forthright in his opinions than I, but I'll say this about the IAAP material.. the threads that turned into pages of arguments were very frustrating for me, and so it reached the point where something had to be done to slow it down. (without killing it entirely, something I'm loath to do)
Everyone has a say, that's another premise of this forum, although that has to be balanced against those who might show up to do nothing but disrupt. This thread is not a threat, and IMO reacting like it is... is an overreaction.
|
|
|
Post by thisone on Jun 11, 2008 19:24:15 GMT -5
I have trouble with both J and P in the above photo which mommybird posted. This, believe it or not, is Paul. It's a frame from a 1963 TV performance. I looked for a fade frame, more difficult to tamper with, but even so it has been crudely altered at the hair and face. There isn't really a good image of John this is probably the best -
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Jun 11, 2008 23:37:59 GMT -5
The vid RL gave as a link. Notice he mentions he'd like to write songs for other people. And at about 2.00 and 5.00 another statement. Not once but twice he mentions retirement.
If it all became a flop he says it would be sad, BUT it really wouldn't bother him (or words to that effect) ACV mentioned more than once he went on 'holiday'. Exactly how long that would be is any body's guess.
And amazing on top of amazing is when asked about a time frame for retirement- he says 'a couple yrs or so'. The big changes for 'paul' (looks, height, etc...) all happened the end of '66. (the replacement period) This video? - '64- a couple yrs before (give or take)
found dates: interview: 15 April '64 telecast: 18 May '64
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Jun 12, 2008 0:35:49 GMT -5
Yes, exactly... who else would be photographing a post '66 JPM? Worms, maggots, cosmonauts... Your logic is totally backwards. If JPM were "around," anyone could have taken a picture. The question to ask is, "Who could be trusted to release cleverly-edited/airbrushed/cut&paste photographs . . . These pics are more like an album cover than a paparazzi shot. Yeah, well, guess what. Life ain't always fun, people die, and the rest of us muddle and do right by the fallen, even it ain't all roses & lollipops and in fact gets pretty fuckin grim. That's what makes John (and dare I say FAUL? ehhhhhh) a hero in all this, not "fun."
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Jun 12, 2008 7:34:09 GMT -5
I always appreciate your posts TI, but I'll just have to disagree with ya on this one point. And I suppose this is the main point of contention of this entire forum. PID or just PWR. Some of us have been solidly PWR or non-PID for a long time now, so really, this thread isn't anything all that new. And as a previous post stated, there's plenty of threads for the solidly PID folks around here also. I really don't think this main disagreement is ever gonna be resolved.
OK, concerning my last post that you responded to. It seems to me that if JPM wanted out of the limelight, he would have more than enough resources to just "disappear". There's any number of exotic locations around the world where he could "retire" virtually unnoticed. And why would anybody be looking for him.? With Bill doing his job, "Paul" isn't missing so why look for him.? Plus, people are used to Bill being "Paul" & Paul doesn't look that much like Bill... "HEY, aren't you Paul McCartney? No I guess not, but you look a little like him!!"
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 12, 2008 7:40:06 GMT -5
I don't see JPM in any of the post '66 pics. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 12, 2008 8:18:10 GMT -5
I have to agree with DarkHorse. Believe me, I wish that I have come across post 1966 photos of Paul. Then I can wrap this all up & go on with my life. That is why I have found this thread so confusing. I in no way intended to offend anyone. I was just pointing out differences that have always been there. That is part of what PID/PWR is based on. Was I attacking the premise that Paul might've returned ? Not intentionally. I'm sorry if it was interpreted that way. I was just pointing out that like DarkHorse, I have yet to see a photo of JPM post 1966. Although I have to say that this photo posted by GN had me going for awhile. I hadn't followed that thread. I was looking for the photos that I had posted of that same guy, and I came across these further comparisons by GN: When I saw that first photo ( the one in which he wrote PAUL ), I had a strange feeling that someone had done something to it, tampered with it, to make it look more like Paul. It seemed to me that the way that he was standing was distinctly un-Paul like. After I found the other two photos, I had no other choice but to consider that tampering was a distinct possibility. What I don't understand is why someone would want to do that. I hate to disagree with GN, but I DO believe that all three photos are of the same man. GN, since you have come across this photo not too long ago, can you please furnish us with it's source ? Thank you...
|
|
|
Post by GN on Jun 12, 2008 9:49:08 GMT -5
I have to agree with DarkHorse. Believe me, I wish that I have come across post 1966 photos of Paul. Then I can wrap this all up & go on with my life. That is why I have found this thread so confusing. I in no way intended to offend anyone. I was just pointing out differences that have always been there. That is part of what PID/PWR is based on. Was I attacking the premise that Paul might've returned ? Not intentionally. I'm sorry if it was interpreted that way. I was just pointing out that like DarkHorse, I have yet to see a photo of JPM post 1966. Although I have to say that this photo posted by GN had me going for awhile. I hadn't followed that thread. I was looking for the photos that I had posted of that same guy, and I came across these further comparisons by GN: When I saw that first photo ( the one in which he wrote PAUL ), I had a strange feeling that someone had done something to it, tampered with it, to make it look more like Paul. It seemed to me that the way that he was standing was distinctly un-Paul like. After I found the other two photos, I had no other choice but to consider that tampering was a distinct possibility. What I don't understand is why someone would want to do that. I hate to disagree with GN, but I DO believe that all three photos are of the same man. GN, since you have come across this photo not too long ago, can you please furnish us with it's source ? Thank you... Actually the one on the right was from JoJo ... I just did a comparison with a picture of Paul taken from Help! DVD last edition. I didn't believe in what Apollo told until that photo .... ah ... BTW James Paul McCartney was THAT one.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 12, 2008 9:53:55 GMT -5
Thank you, GN... JoJo, do you have a source for that photo ? My son looked at the close up of it and said that the face does appear to have been photoshopped Please, don't shoot the messenger... BTW, I just came across this photo & thought that it was cute: The bass has the letters BILL on it... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jun 12, 2008 10:11:28 GMT -5
Excuse the poor haircut, but no more big forehead.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jun 12, 2008 10:28:00 GMT -5
( only kidding ) OK, TOUCHE... It's obvious that we're both not going to come to an agreement about this. So, I'm going to gracefully back out of this thread. ;D
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jun 12, 2008 14:50:07 GMT -5
JoJo, do you have a source for that photo ? My son looked at the close up of it and said that the face does appear to have been photoshopped Which picture? The B/W one that I made for GN? I made a 600 dpi scan of a page from an issue of Beatles Monthly, (an original from 1967, not a reprint) and GN cropped out the guy next to Lennon. It looks rough perhaps, but a scan that fine is going to capture every imperfection..
|
|
|
Post by thespacebetween on Jun 14, 2008 18:58:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mindgames on Jun 16, 2008 1:30:08 GMT -5
LOOK at that ASS! oh yeah whut about the bass? Thank you, GN... JoJo, do you have a source for that photo ? My son looked at the close up of it and said that the face does appear to have been photoshopped Please, don't shoot the messenger... BTW, I just came across this photo & thought that it was cute: The bass has the letters BILL on it... ;D
|
|