|
Post by trutha on Feb 1, 2009 1:17:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 1, 2009 1:32:26 GMT -5
"Unless you're a forensic pathologist, you're not also not competent to render a professional opinion based on photo comparisons." I'm really quite confident in my ability to tell the difference between these 2 people: [/quote] Yes, I can tell the difference also. The large blurry color photo shows him at a more advanced age and with facial hair. You're attempting to assume the point that you wish to prove (i.e., that there is a "difference") but not even quite getting that right. There is undoubtedly a "difference". One would expect a "difference" of one sort or another between any two photographs taken at different times. What I asked you was if you knew of any forensic anthropologist who was willing to state as a professional opinion that pictures of early Paul and late Paul are pictures of two different people. I'm glad to know that. But you'd better keep reading. I have Googled up the phrases "spycraft" "disguise" and "teeth" and can find no indication that "changing teeth" for the purpose of assuming the identity of another is even possible, let alone relatively easy. As I doubt that anyone would notice or "catch on" if the supposed "new Paul" were to appear with a different set of teeth, "changing teeth" -- even if it were possible -- would hardly be necessary or even desirable in a singer, as it might have an effect on his ability to sing. Your argument falls of its own weight anyway. You're saying that the conspirators went to such extraordinary lengths that they even made the teeth appear identical but that they failed to clear up (what you regard as) more obvious differences. Your argument falls apart again of its own weight. Most people don't think that the current incarnation of Paul McCartney is a replacement for an earlier version. That argument wouldn't sway me because I wouldn't care about what "most people" think. However, you are the one who just got through saying that "ordinary folks" are competent to make this determination. Then why don't more "ordinary folks" think that Paul was replaced? Your explanation is that "we" have "trained our eyes" to notice this. But you just got through saying that no special training is necessary for this purpose. You just got through saying that no "expertise" is necessary for this purpose. Then why is it important that "we" have trained our eyes? By the way, beware of "we". The group can be a source of comfort and support at times, but the group can also sometimes be a demanding mistress. Anyway, either expertise is necessary or it isn't. If expertise isn't necessary and "ordinary people" are competent to decide, then you have to deal with the fact that the overwhelming majority of "ordinary people" don't think that Paul was replaced. On the other hand, if expertise IS necessary, then you don't have the professional training to wield it. You only have the lay knowledge gathered as a result of "training your eyes" to see what it was that you were already determined to see. That isn't enough knowledge to enable the one making the extraordinary claim to prove her point.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Feb 1, 2009 1:59:00 GMT -5
The large blurry color photo shows him at a more advanced age and with facial hair.Those pictures are ONE year apart. I'm surprised some facial hair can fool you so easily. Well, there are other comps that are sans facial hair. I have Googled up the phrases "spycraft" "disguise" and "teeth" and can find no indication that "changing teeth" for the purpose of assuming the identity of another is even possible, let alone relatively easy.Oh, ok. You do a google search, & don't find anything, so that's the final word, huh? I don't think so. Why don't you try reading this, just for starters. Then maybe you will start to get an idea of what is possible: Inside the CIA: Revealing the Secrets of the World's Most Powerful Spy Agency Ronald Kessler www.amazon.com/Inside-CIA-Revealing-Secrets-Powerful/dp/067173458X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233471170&sr=8-5But bear in mind the information in that book has been vetted & is only telling what CIA is ok w/ people knowing. Your argument falls apart again of its own weight.My "argument" is that there are 2 different people being represented as "Paul McCartney," which is *obvious* from the photographs & videos. Most people don't think that the current incarnation of Paul McCartney is a replacement for an earlier version.Most people have been *conditioned* into thinking they're the same person. Actually, back in 1969, there were quite a few people who figured out something had happened to Paul (maybe they didn't watch as much TV back then?), but I guess they got lulled back to sleep. However, you are the one who just got through saying that "ordinary folks" are competent to make this determination.Yep, you don't need to be an "expert" to recognize a face. Then why don't more "ordinary folks" think that Paul was replaced?See above - they've been *conditioned* to see them as being the same. Your explanation is that "we" have "trained our eyes" to notice this.No, we have trained our eyes to see the subtle differences, the little details. You don't need a trained eye to see they're difft people, only an unbiased one. People who are unfamiliar w/ the Beatles & Paul McCartney can spot the diff pretty quickly, & actually think it's ridiculous that people think they're the same person. This could be a fun experiment to try w/ some kids. See what they say. I know you're very focused on the teeth, but did you notice the different colored eyes? I really think it comes down to this: The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend. ~ Henri L. Bergson A lot of people seem to think it isn't possible that Paul was replaced, so they can't see that he was.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 1, 2009 3:06:54 GMT -5
The large blurry color photo shows him at a more advanced age and with facial hair.Those pictures are ONE year apart. Can't be only one year apart. The older picture of the younger man would have to be from 1966 or before. Actually, I think that I recognize it from an August 1966 interview. The later picture of the older man is taken from the Iamaphoney video, Rotten Apple 73, in which McCartney responds to the question, "Are you dead? So it can't have been taken any earlier than October 1969. I think so. The burden of proof isn't on me anyway. Why don't you give me a cite to prove your point? I'm not going to buy and read an entire book that I hadn't planned to buy or read just to look for a nugget about forging the teeth of another to assume his identity. I did use the Amazon software to "search inside the book" looking for references to "teeth". Nothing relevant. If you have read the book and have a passage from it in mind, why don't you cite it? The reasoning which you used to arrive at that conclusion falls apart of its own weight. I don't blame you for not repeating it. You need to make up your mind. Now you're saying that the judgment of ordinary people can't be trusted, whereas before, you were saying that the judgment of ordinary people COULD be trusted. Maybe, in fact, you are the one who has been *conditioned* into thinking that Paul was replaced. They "figured it out" because, in fact, the Beatles dropped hints that Paul was dead. I don't have very much doubt that the Beatles did leave clues to that effect, for reasons that yet remain unclear. You've been reduced to arguing that expertise IS necessary whenever it suits your purpose to argue that it is and to arguing that expertise ISN'T necessary whenever it suits your purose to argue that it isn't. Well, I say that the Beatles "conditioned" you to think that they are different. And I'd like to have the opinion of a forensic anthropologist whose training should enable him to avoid "conditioning" altogether. Or perhaps you've just trained yourselves to magnify their importance. I'd still like to hear from someone who has professional training. I'm not impressed with your training. Then you should have no problem finding a professional to opine that they're different people -- if training isn't even needed. Even if it isn't "necessary" to use a professional, a professional should be able to pick up a hundred little things that you didn't pick up. But until you've found one, I'm not impressed. As far as bias goes, I think that you overrate the importance of this in the public mind. There would be no reason for anyone to have a "bias" on this particular issue. I don't have a bias one way or the other. I was open to the notion that Paul was dead or had been replaced for some time. Even now, I still think that many hardline PIA'ers miss the point. I'm not interested in anecdotal stories about how you thrust different pictures of Paul McCartney in the faces of family members at the most recent family dinner and demanded to know whether they thought these could possibly be pictures of the same person and about how they agreed with you that they couldn't be the same person, just to avoid an argument.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 1, 2009 3:25:20 GMT -5
What happens when you show some kids a picture of Grandpa when he was a young man? What do they say? Eyes can change color over the course of a lifetime and they will also change appearance depending on lighting conditions, background, etc. Here are two pictures of a brown-eyed Paul and a green-eyed Paul, both taken in 1964. In this case, it's the man's teeth that settle the issue. Not everyone has your objectivity and your devotion to empirical reasoning.
|
|
JS2
For Sale
Goo Goo G'Joob etc.
Posts: 192
|
Post by JS2 on Feb 1, 2009 10:07:31 GMT -5
Actually, they're not the same teeth. See if you can spot where. (many sets look very close to one another - at least without a detailed look. We have the same incisors, cuspids, bicuspids and all that) Is it perhaps the front teeth, that he would've had to have replaced after that moped crash somewhere in the middle of the two pictures being taken?
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Feb 1, 2009 13:31:10 GMT -5
If you're gonna make a Paul vs. Faul comparison, why use a big blurry still where the side of his mouth is blocked, from after the Beatles broke up? If the differences are so different, why not try to show it when all the variables are as close as possible? Like the Penny Lane photographs from Valis: Now that would make a much more accurate comparison. And I'm not trying to take any sides. Looks like the exact same damn person to me. Sorry trutha, I'm siding with 65if2007 on this one.
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 1, 2009 14:35:37 GMT -5
If you're gonna make a Paul vs. Faul comparison, why use a big blurry still where the side of his mouth is blocked, from after the Beatles broke up? If the differences are so different, why not try to show it when all the variables are as close as possible? Like the Penny Lane photographs from Valis: Now that would make a much more accurate comparison. And I'm not trying to take any sides. Looks like the exact same damn person to me. Sorry trutha, I'm siding with 65if2007 on this one. Thank you, Jude. As I have said before, you are among the most level-headed on this topic. After accouting for the mustache and the different facial expressions, I think that it looks the same also. The hair is also of a different shade, but all of those differences are cosmetic. The vast majority of differences that are perceived as genetic are probably only cosmetic. I've conceded, though, and concede again that there are some pretty weird-looking Pauls floating around during the late 1966/early 1967 time period. The Paul that's traveling with Mal Evans through Nigeria is pretty damn weird. The Paul being interviewed in front of EMI Studios in December 1966, as dramatized in Iamaphoney's RA 30, is kind of weird. The Paul from the LSD interview is kind of weird. The lanky surly mustached Paul who is complaining in a separate TV interview about all of those "rules" which "don't work anymore" is SUPER-WEIRD and IMHO is the best example of the possibility of a replacement having been used on at least one occasion. This guy might be the same as the guy in the Nigeria and EMI videos, though the "LSD Paul" seems to have a less harsh tone of voice. However, the Penny Lane videos were shot in late January/early February 1967 so it does seem as if the original Paul, if you will, was back in business then and stayed in business thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Feb 1, 2009 14:46:49 GMT -5
These guys do NOT look the same at all. Penny Lane Faul is not attractive at all. He would def never qualify as "the cute Beatle." (and those pics are 1 year apart, but he looks about 10 yrs older.) It's a little disturbing to me that some people can have their vision clouded so that they see these obviously two different men as being the same. The only thing I can think of is that they've been *trained* to see them the same. :-o I guess it's not a problem for people to rationalize the fact that they have difft color eyes. Well, at least you have creative & flexible minds :-P
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 1, 2009 15:24:39 GMT -5
These guys do NOT look the same at all. I think they do. OOOOOOHHHH! So THAT'S it! Not that I ever really doubted it. There's a very heavily estrogenized aspect to PID. And in late 1966/early 1967, Paul stops looking CUTE. He stops looking like the adolescent object of your teen fantasies. That's inexcusable. So the "real Paul" must have died or at least disappeared entirely in order to remain "forever young" in your eyes, and this monster -- who doesn't even look CUTE and who continues to GROW OLD (which Paul never would have done) -- must have taken Paul's place. Again, there's a very heavily estrogenized aspect to PID. It's true that the Penny Lane videos didn't take place all that long after that August 1966 interview from which that black and white still is taken. But McCartney describes very plausibly in his biography (though I'm sure that you think it's just a cover story) about how he and the other Beatles were getting tired of that mop-topped adolescent image and resolved to change it in 1967. Specifically, he says, "We were men, not boys." So it's likely that he simply didn't take as much care to preserve his youthful image starting at that time. You can say, if you want, that the Penny Lane McCartney looks ten years older (i.e., 34 instead of 24), if you like. But that would make him almost 77 now, instead of 67, a pretty advanced age at which to still be touring and performing live. That's fine. And I think that you're the one who's had her vision clouded so that you see one person as being two. You've accused us of allowing ourselves to be deceived by others. I accuse you of deceiving yourself and of buying into a hoax that the Beatles and their promoters created. But that's what makes an argument. It isn't a problem. I provided you with two pictures of Paul McCartney -- both taken from 1964 -- one with green eyes and one with brown eyes. Eye color -- especially in eyes that are photographed -- is variable. You contend, in effect, that eye color is permanent and that McCartney's eye color radically and unexplainably changed after 1966. The two 1964 photos that I showed you disprove that contention. So you ignore those photos. <Sigh> At least, we have minds.
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Feb 1, 2009 15:39:24 GMT -5
they are always using picture were he looks different to prove a point.. why not use pictures where he resembles "himself"?? thats more like it !! beside that: 65if: youre right. your last post was very good
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Feb 1, 2009 15:51:01 GMT -5
It's a little disturbing to me that some people can have their vision clouded so that they see these obviously two different men as being the same. The only thing I can think of is that they've been *trained* to see them the same. :-o I guess it's not a problem for people to rationalize the fact that they have difft color eyes. Well, at least you have creative & flexible minds :-P harsh daylight vs flash on camera, trutha.......color satuartion, printing etc.....would be your culprit But, yes Virginia, there still is a Santa Clause
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Feb 1, 2009 15:58:51 GMT -5
and the forehead / haircut argument IS a valid one! check this out: 1st pic 1966, 2nd pic 1968, 3rd pic 1968 (photoshoped hairstyle) looks like JPM to me! that is NOT bill
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 1, 2009 16:02:30 GMT -5
they are always using picture were he looks different to prove a point.. why not use pictures where he resembles "himself"?? thats more like it !! beside that: 65if: youre right. your last post was very good Thank you, pd.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Feb 1, 2009 16:32:32 GMT -5
Even if you think that Paul now is the same as Paul pre-1967(how you do that is beyond me) how do you explain all the OTHER replacements (Frank Sinatra, Kieth Richards, David Bowie, Eric Clapton, Doris Day, Courtney Cox,etc,etc etc)? IMO some were better then the Macca replacement, some worse. We are dealing with systematic deception not just a one time thing.
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Feb 1, 2009 16:52:40 GMT -5
Even if you think that Paul now is the same as Paul pre-1967(how you do that is beyond me) how do you explain all the OTHER replacements (Frank Sinatra, Kieth Richards, David Bowie, Eric Clapton, Doris Day, Courtney Cox,etc,etc etc)? IMO some were better then the Macca replacement, some worse. We are dealing with systematic deception not just a one time thing. We can't because it's ( all of those people) unsubstantiated, and therefore, moot.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 1, 2009 17:20:42 GMT -5
Even if you think that Paul now is the same as Paul pre-1967(how you do that is beyond me) how do you explain all the OTHER replacements (Frank Sinatra, Kieth Richards, David Bowie, Eric Clapton, Doris Day, Courtney Cox,etc,etc etc)? IMO some were better then the Macca replacement, some worse. We are dealing with systematic deception not just a one time thing. We can't because it's ( all of those people) unsubstantiated, and therefore, moot. So is Paul therefore unsubstantiated in your mind?
|
|
|
Post by trutha on Feb 1, 2009 17:55:49 GMT -5
they are always using picture were he looks different to prove a point.. why not use pictures where he resembles "himself"??LOLOL! That's hilarious. He looks different b/c he IS different. Sorry if Faul doesn't resemble Paul more. Here's a nice shot of Faul's green eyes: Paul had brown or hazel eyes - not green. Yeah, sorry. These guys just aren't the same.
|
|
|
Post by pauliedied on Feb 1, 2009 18:10:49 GMT -5
oh yeah? well he does look like himself: and the forehead / haircut argument IS a valid one! check this out: 1st pic 1966, 2nd pic 1968, 3rd pic 1968 (photoshoped hairstyle) looks like JPM to me! that is NOT bill
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Feb 1, 2009 18:32:33 GMT -5
We can't because it's ( all of those people) unsubstantiated, and therefore, moot. So is Paul therefore unsubstantiated in your mind? no, IT lol
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 1, 2009 19:01:25 GMT -5
they are always using picture were he looks different to prove a point.. why not use pictures where he resembles "himself"??LOLOL! That's hilarious. He looks different b/c he IS different. If that's your explanation for why he looks different when he looks different, what's your explanation for why he looks the same when he looks the same? I think that McCartney resembles himself very well. Here are two photographs that must have been taken 40-50 years apart. I have no other but a woman's reason: I think him so, because I think him so. - Shakespeare, The Two Gentleman of Verona, Act I, Scene 2
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 1, 2009 20:20:01 GMT -5
I don't think that Paul/"Faul" looks any older with facial hair in Penny Lane than any of the other Beatles. George, the youngest, looks like the oldest.
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Feb 1, 2009 20:40:14 GMT -5
Some ears really look like they're sticking outward like radar dishes compared to some others. Are there any "Faul" pics, with shorter hair, that show that type of 'ear radar'?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 1, 2009 22:29:37 GMT -5
If that's your explanation for why he looks different when he looks different, what's your explanation for why he looks the same when he looks the same? He looks different a lot more often than he looks the same. We've been through this many times before. This discussion is getting old.
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Feb 1, 2009 22:39:27 GMT -5
*Yawn*
It's the same old story, trutha. Your posts remind me of how ugly that particular subset of the PID scene is. I refer to, of course, the women of PID: Miss Him, Miss Him, Miss Him! (No offense, mommybird and Blackbird). Your story as a PIDer could probably be summed up as follows:
1. You grew up listening to the Beatles, fawning over them and their irresistible cutness (especially Paul, of course).
2. Later, when discovering the "truth", you felt betrayed.
3. You started diverting all your angry feelings to Paul, who subsequently became "Faul" and in your opinion, quite ugly.
Therefore your argument (and sadly the arguments of many of the posters I've seen at PID: MHMHMH) can be summed up as: "Paul is adorable, Faul is ugly, therefore I love Paul and hate Faul". You ignore every immediate similarity between the two allegedly different men and put on this holier-than-thou attitude of knowing better than everyone else, even when people like 65if2007 point out similarities that have yet to be accounted for.
|
|