|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Oct 4, 2010 4:08:28 GMT -5
You could literally picture this guy with a moustache and he'll be identical to the Paul on the cover of Pepper. I don't know if it's something that he does with his face, squints his eyes or something, but if you slap a mustache on him, you'll see he resembles Billy Shears.. Then again, this IS Billy Shears afterall, right? If you actually listen close enough, somebody asks "Do I know you?" right before Paul says it's a drag, maybe he wasn't talking about John's death? Golly. But wait a second! I've been saying for the longest time that the original Paul came back in 1980! Surely, I must be wrong.. or am I? If I am, I must be a phoney then..
|
|
|
Post by B on Oct 4, 2010 11:24:05 GMT -5
So what's your point?
|
|
|
Post by FP on Oct 4, 2010 22:39:23 GMT -5
But wait a second! I've been saying for the longest time that the original Paul came back in 1980! I know which ones I think are the real Paul.
|
|
|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Oct 5, 2010 20:36:16 GMT -5
There is no point, reallyy.. The Paul that I posted clearly resembles the original, but with the angle and the way he's looking, you can clearly see the resemblence to "Faul"
As for the 4 images, they're all very close except the one in '69.. But the two in the middle resemble the real Paul the best, just because of the headshape..
The one on the far right and the far left have similiar head structures..
|
|
|
Post by B on Oct 6, 2010 22:05:17 GMT -5
None of them. imo.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Oct 6, 2010 23:58:36 GMT -5
But wait a second! I've been saying for the longest time that the original Paul came back in 1980! I know which ones I think are the real Paul. Let's funnel this down. The guy that is with Heather on right is Bill. (or Billy Faul Paul) He married Linda. Easy to see (from real vintage pics) it's not JPM that married her. This is the same guy all thru. imo Exact same brows. Slightly diff hair - but you expect that. And notice a peculiar consistency - start at '69 and work left noticing Faul's left (his) eyelid. Droops lower than his right. And around 1980 there's some painfully obvious work done (at least) on his left eye (corner).
|
|
|
Post by B on Oct 7, 2010 9:30:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ph0neyprophet on Oct 7, 2010 23:43:59 GMT -5
I never saw that before.. If that is Paul at the same time the picture was originally taken, he doesn't resemble any of the Paul's to date.
|
|
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 5, 2010 8:27:28 GMT -5
I know that both sides of the camp love to do photo comparisons but they never stand up for me either way. Why? Because of paul's makeup. yes, he and all the Beatles have been known to wear makeup in studio shoots. I know many don't like that fact, but it's a theater thing. There are photos of them putting it on and in the Anthology, they talk about the first time they wore eyeliner and pancake powder for the stage and laughed at each other. (I can look up the page number if you don't believe me) But my point is that makeup can really make one's eyes look different. That's why women wear it. It's also why Paul's eyes seem different in SOME photos. He's wearing stage makeup versus candid shots. but as a result, photo comps just don't usually do it for me to convince me either way. especially when it's obvious Paul is wearing stage makeup in some of these photos and not others.
|
|