|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 23, 2009 17:41:12 GMT -5
It's really very easy most of the time... not always but most of the time. It's the same as taking a big stack of pics of me & a big stack of pics of Santa Claus. Look at them until you know the difference between Santa & that knucklehead mod EB.... them mix'em up. Most people will be able to pick out the pics of me & seperate them from the pics of Santa. It's exactly the same thing here! And it's very hard to unlearn the differences once you see & take note of those differences. The differences between JPM & the Sgt.P/MMT "Paul" is that drastic. It is just as easy to tell the difference between Santa & me as it is to tell the difference between JPM & 67 Bill. The fact that y'all can't see that is way beyond me..... you'd have to be blind to not see it (I'm famous for saying that ya know) The only difference in these 2 examples is that there isn't a world-wide media constantly telling you that the pics of me are really Santa.... but if that were the case, I assure you that every time I stepped out, people would be giving me their wish lists. ( for those on the ball... yes I did get me & santa messed up & had to swap'em out to make sense.... that's better... pics of me are really Santa, not pics of Santa are really me.... tired )
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 23, 2009 21:33:43 GMT -5
It's really very easy most of the time... not always but most of the time. It's the same as taking a big stack of pics of me & a big stack of pics of Santa Claus. Look at them until you know the difference between Santa & that knucklehead mod EB.... them mix'em up. Most people will be able to pick out the pics of me & seperate them from the pics of Santa. It's exactly the same thing here! And it's very hard to unlearn the differences once you see & take note of those differences. The differences between JPM & the Sgt.P/MMT "Paul" is that drastic. It is just as easy to tell the difference between Santa & me as it is to tell the difference between JPM & 67 Bill. The fact that y'all can't see that is way beyond me..... you'd have to be blind to not see it (I'm famous for saying that ya know) The only difference in these 2 examples is that there isn't a world-wide media constantly telling you that the pics of me are really Santa.... but if that were the case, I assure you that every time I stepped out, people would be giving me their wish lists. ( for those on the ball... yes I did get me & santa messed up & had to swap'em out to make sense.... that's better... pics of me are really Santa, not pics of Santa are really me.... tired ) 1. I don't know how much you actually look like Santa Claus, but if you say the difference between Paul and Faul is the same as the difference between you and him, please let me know what kind of cookies you'd like me to leave this year. 2. It can't be that obvious - many people I show Beatle pictures to usually say John and George look the most different. Plus, even you guys disagree on when Paul was actually replaced. Red Lion sees Paul after '66, while many others claim to see a double before 1966.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 23, 2009 22:16:51 GMT -5
I'm referring to the Sgt.P/MMT era when it is that obvious. There's some later pics that are not that obvious, for whatever reason. Some later pics, I'm not sure about at all. I'm talking PWR, not PID.
.... this Santa prefers brownies ;D
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Aug 23, 2009 22:44:02 GMT -5
Red Lion sees Paul after '66
I think a few '68-'69 pics show JPM. Pepper and MMT clearly show, for the most part, someone who does not resemble the original at all.
|
|
|
Post by D ablo on Aug 24, 2009 2:34:42 GMT -5
Red Lion sees Paul after '66I think a few '68-'69 pics show JPM. Pepper and MMT clearly show, for the most part, someone who does not resemble the original at all. Hi Red Lion, i respect your point and you seem to be respectful person with common sense. So you say: " Pepper and MMT clearly show, for the most part, someone who does not resemble the original at all." Now i wanna show you some picures of the Pepper/MMT era, please tell how "that" Paul doesn't resemble the "original" at all: And last but not least, look at the changes from all the Beatles: Now please elaborate, how you think "he doesn't resemble him at all"? I hope you can honestly answer that question, without the NIR/MFH beef... D.
|
|
|
Post by faulingstarr on Aug 24, 2009 14:58:13 GMT -5
Is the above that guy from MaccaFunHouse (or whatever it is, not sure)?
fs
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 24, 2009 21:43:42 GMT -5
Now please elaborate, how you think "he doesn't resemble him at all"? I hope you can honestly answer that question, without the NIR/MFH beef... D. To me, it looks like somebody did a lot of time-consuming work to find & fix & organize just the right pics. The main problem here that the JPM-never-ever-ever-even-had-a-temporary-replacement crowd don't seem to understand is that they can post page after page of these comparisons & fades, but it doesn't change anything.... other than maybe influence somebody who's unsure about all this. Maybe that's the idea. As I said before.... once you initially realize that you're looking at a minimum of 2-3 people in the "paul" slot, you can not just unsee them at will.... it doesn't work that way. None of this will persuade anybody to go back to "living with eyes closed"
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Aug 24, 2009 22:13:47 GMT -5
Now please elaborate, how you think "he doesn't resemble him at all"?
Some are close, some are not. You may even have one in there that actually shows JPM. The Pepper cover and pictures (in uniform) definitely not the original, and the MMT movie....forget it. I tend to see JPM more in the '68-'69 era.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 24, 2009 22:18:19 GMT -5
Now please elaborate, how you think "he doesn't resemble him at all"? I hope you can honestly answer that question, without the NIR/MFH beef... D. To me, it looks like somebody did a lot of time-consuming work to find & fix & organize just the right pics. The main problem here that the JPM-never-ever-ever-even-had-a-temporary-replacement crowd don't seem to understand is that they can post page after page of these comparisons & fades, but it doesn't change anything.... other than maybe influence somebody who's unsure about all this. Maybe that's the idea. As I said before.... once you initially realize that you're looking at a minimum of 2-3 people in the "paul" slot, you can not just unsee them at will.... it doesn't work that way. None of this will persuade anybody to go back to "living with eyes closed" We're not trying to convert people like yourself, we've given up on that. We're just trying to show that the difference isn't nearly as dramatic as you claim, and in our eyes, no difference at all. I think the original, poorly made comparisons by Sun King are still what comes to your mind when you think "Paul" and "Faul", making you think that our comparisons are somehow less credible.
|
|
|
Post by D ablo on Aug 25, 2009 9:05:30 GMT -5
Now please elaborate, how you think "he doesn't resemble him at all"?Some are close, some are not. Could you be more specific? 'Cause all i see is the exactly the same guy.. Please be more specific... where do you see differences in the above?
|
|
Jude
Hard Day's Night
Acting Naturally
Posts: 34
|
Post by Jude on Aug 25, 2009 9:39:47 GMT -5
Red Lion sees Paul after '66I think a few '68-'69 pics show JPM. Pepper and MMT clearly show, for the most part, someone who does not resemble the original at all. Hi Red Lion, i respect your point and you seem to be respectful person with common sense. So you say: " Pepper and MMT clearly show, for the most part, someone who does not resemble the original at all." Now i wanna show you some picures of the Pepper/MMT era, please tell how "that" Paul doesn't resemble the "original" at all: And last but not least, look at the changes from all the Beatles: Now please elaborate, how you think "he doesn't resemble him at all"? I hope you can honestly answer that question, without the NIR/MFH beef... D. That...was the greatest post in the history of NIR.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Aug 25, 2009 19:00:39 GMT -5
Could you be more specific? 'Cause all i see is the exactly the same guy.. Please be more specific... where do you see differences in the above?
No offense, but I have lost the desire to debate subtle nuances in photos. My interest in this matter lies elsewhere. I will say, however, that when viewing post '66 pics I have no attachment to who I see in them. And there are more than few photos where I see JPM, some of which I have posted on the main board.
You see the same guy? I can respect that.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 25, 2009 19:55:52 GMT -5
We're just trying to show that the difference isn't nearly as dramatic as you claim, and in our eyes, no difference at all. I think the original, poorly made comparisons by Sun King are still what comes to your mind when you think "Paul" and "Faul", making you think that our comparisons are somehow less credible. No, the MFH comparisons are completely worthless. As RL said, it's possible that a couple of those comparisons show JPM against JPM.... so what's the point? This sez nothing about the pics & videos that clearly show somebody else..... zip... nadda..... nothing. I'll never understand why ignoring the obvious temporary replacement is so important to y'all.
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 25, 2009 20:28:31 GMT -5
I 'll never understand why ignoring the obvious temporary replacement is so important to y'all.Interesting opinion from a moderator on a board with over 60,000 posts on that very subject. Y'all seem to have a hard time ignoring your opinions on the subject too.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 26, 2009 7:56:52 GMT -5
Interesting opinion from a moderator on a board with over 60,000 posts on that very subject. Y'all seem to have a hard time ignoring your opinions on the subject too. I don't get it..... I've been pushing this same point on you guys forever. There's been a refusal to address it, so I've kept pushing it. 60,000 posts on how we all ignore the existence of a replacement? You've lost me. This forum is not called "Was Paul Replaced?" It's called NIR Paul Was Replaced (period) because that is the one & only thing about this where there is no question & no doubt. It doesn't specify permanent replacement or temp. replacement... that is up for debate. It's simply Paul Was Replaced.... (period)
|
|
|
Post by KHAN on Aug 26, 2009 14:21:34 GMT -5
I don't get it..... I've been pushing this same point on you guys forever. There's been a refusal to address it, so I've kept pushing it. 60,000 posts on how we all ignore the existence of a replacement? You've lost me. I said "your opinions on the subject". So in do you think it only makes sense to discuss this if you believe PWR? Since I don't, I have no business discussing it?
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Aug 26, 2009 15:32:53 GMT -5
So in do you think it only makes sense to discuss this if you believe PWR?
Since I don't, I have no business discussing it?
Other than promoting your already known opinion regarding this topic, what would you hope to accomplish here?
|
|
|
Post by tenorsfan on Aug 26, 2009 16:05:28 GMT -5
Mr KAHN. It's a different guy. What can you do? Bunch of words can twist anything around. What about the ten billion girls that all loved and adored Paul and then, poof, it was over. It was gone. They all knew, maybe not consciously, but with that mysterious force where a woman suddenly doesn't feel love towards somebody anymore. He wasn't Paul anymore.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 26, 2009 16:22:40 GMT -5
Mr KAHN. It's a different guy. What can you do? Bunch of words can twist anything around. What about the ten billion girls that all loved and adored Paul and then, poof, it was over. It was gone. They all knew, maybe not consciously, but with that mysterious force where a woman suddenly doesn't feel love towards somebody anymore. He wasn't Paul anymore. That's cause they weren't the four mop tops anymore. It happened to all of them, not just Paul. In a few months, their image went from commercial pop to experimental rock. If the Jonas Brothers did the same thing and decided to put out serious music, their teenage girl fan base would shrink too.
|
|
|
Post by 8749 on Aug 26, 2009 17:11:43 GMT -5
Mr KAHN. It's a different guy. What can you do? Bunch of words can twist anything around. What about the ten billion girls that all loved and adored Paul and then, poof, it was over. It was gone. They all knew, maybe not consciously, but with that mysterious force where a woman suddenly doesn't feel love towards somebody anymore. He wasn't Paul anymore. That's cause they weren't the four mop tops anymore. It happened to all of them, not just Paul. In a few months, their image went from commercial pop to experimental rock. If the Jonas Brothers did the same thing and decided to put out serious music, their teenage girl fan base would shrink too. I was an original fan from the '60's and we knew something was definitely wrong when we heard Penny Lane; even with the mono recordings and transistor radios, we knew that wasn't Paul singing the song. You could date it back further with the "butcher cover." It was the real Beatles, but the fact that it was so strange was sending red flags up all over American Beatlefandom.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 26, 2009 18:01:34 GMT -5
That's cause they weren't the four mop tops anymore. It happened to all of them, not just Paul. In a few months, their image went from commercial pop to experimental rock. If the Jonas Brothers did the same thing and decided to put out serious music, their teenage girl fan base would shrink too. I was an original fan from the '60's and we knew something was definitely wrong when we heard Penny Lane; even with the mono recordings and transistor radios, we knew that wasn't Paul singing the song. You could date it back further with the "butcher cover." It was the real Beatles, but the fact that it was so strange was sending red flags up all over American Beatlefandom. Yeah, I admit that I didn't think it Paul on PL growing up. But now it's clear to me that it doesn't sound like Eleanor Rigby or Fixing A Hole because he's singing it in the same high register as Here, There and Everywhere. But everything on Sgt. Pepper that Paul sings sounds exactly like Paul. Even his harmonies on John's songs.
|
|
|
Post by 8749 on Aug 26, 2009 18:24:31 GMT -5
I was an original fan from the '60's and we knew something was definitely wrong when we heard Penny Lane; even with the mono recordings and transistor radios, we knew that wasn't Paul singing the song. You could date it back further with the "butcher cover." It was the real Beatles, but the fact that it was so strange was sending red flags up all over American Beatlefandom. Yeah, I admit that I didn't think it Paul on PL growing up. But now it's clear to me that it doesn't sound like Eleanor Rigby or Fixing A Hole because he's singing it in the same high register as Here, There and Everywhere. But everything on Sgt. Pepper that Paul sings sounds exactly like Paul. Even his harmonies on John's songs. That's because George Martin and Geoff Emerick were fiddling with the sound. Check the "With a little help from EMI's machine" thread on the Clues board, Jul 12, 2008. Martin played with When I'm 64, Lovely Rita , and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds until he had Faul's voice sounding like Paul's.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Aug 26, 2009 19:32:09 GMT -5
Yeah, I admit that I didn't think it Paul on PL growing up. But now it's clear to me that it doesn't sound like Eleanor Rigby or Fixing A Hole because he's singing it in the same high register as Here, There and Everywhere. But everything on Sgt. Pepper that Paul sings sounds exactly like Paul. Even his harmonies on John's songs. That's because George Martin and Geoff Emerick were fiddling with the sound. Check the "With a little help from EMI's machine" thread on the Clues board, Jul 12, 2008. Martin played with When I'm 64, Lovely Rita , and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds until he had Faul's voice sounding like Paul's. I don't buy that. It's the same voice live.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 26, 2009 20:02:54 GMT -5
I don't get it..... I've been pushing this same point on you guys forever. There's been a refusal to address it, so I've kept pushing it. 60,000 posts on how we all ignore the existence of a replacement? You've lost me. I said "your opinions on the subject". So in do you think it only makes sense to discuss this if you believe PWR? Since I don't, I have no business discussing it? Oh... OK gotcha. I guess it depends on where NIR decides to draw the line. A discussion & a little MFH missionary work here on the guest board is pretty harmless to the overall forum... so no problem, right?. But as I said..... it's called NIR Paul Was Replaced for a reason. We try to stay open to any & all new ideas on this, but the craziest theory of them all has to be that JPM never-ever-ever-even-had-a-temporary-replacement, because that is the one point where there is no mystery. It's been fun, but I can't keep running around this same little circle with you guys..... too busy for that. Maybe somebody else will come over & play while I take a break. So have fun & try not to walk into any walls
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Aug 27, 2009 20:42:20 GMT -5
There's a definite difference between vintage Paul's voice and singing voice and later Paul. Like with the visual aspect, when you get that one of a kind JPM voice stamped in mentally, it's fairly easy to 'see' the contrast.
It's a matter of constantly replaying the older stuff, stamping it, and then listening to later stuff.
It most likely is JPM on Pepper. (his songs) The vintage voice seems to be there. Keep in mind being replaced can be a fluid definition. JP could very well have been behind the scenes and still active in different ways. He might have replaced the replacement at different times - or added in an artistic way- (like maybe The WA and A Road).
He also could have popped back visually, but if so I think it was rare. The new guy was or had established himself in this regard. So, there probably wasn't much point.
But, for an artist, it might have been hard to keep his hand out of it completely.
I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. If Paul didn't want to be out there in the public eye, there's only so many things you can do. -Quit - (and ruin the biggest band in history - we're not talking about the Monkees here) (and don't bring up the Stones, etc. - if JPM (one half of the biggest song writing duo in pop and rock history) quit publicly, things would've gone south) -Not quit and be miserable. -Or do both.
Get out and not get out (have a stand in). From their point of view it must have seemed the perfect solution.
|
|