|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 17, 2005 15:23:51 GMT -5
Well, I don't know about y'all, but I find that when I'm out partyin' while wearing a cartoon character/mascot outfit;... it's never a good idea to drink too much beer ;D
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 17, 2005 15:42:42 GMT -5
Esp. if the cartoon image you are dressed as is popular with small children
|
|
|
Post by FP on Dec 18, 2005 1:20:23 GMT -5
You think that's the one, JoJo? I can post several other pics you could be thinking of, but that one stood out a bit.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Dec 18, 2005 1:29:51 GMT -5
Edit: Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 18, 2005 5:46:03 GMT -5
Edit: Heh. Well, slightly, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 18, 2005 10:06:03 GMT -5
The resemblance of the Denny Laine and Bill pic is uncanny.
The post with the pic of Billy Shears before surgery where did you find that one? Could that be set beside the pic that is supposed to be Bill from the Pepperpots? He looks like he was mauled. Or should I say "Fauled"?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 18, 2005 10:18:48 GMT -5
You think that's the one, JoJo? I can post several other pics you could be thinking of, but that one stood out a bit. Heh yeah that's it alright. Spooky that we're on the same wavelength! ;D I'm sure you remember times when you determined that a pic was mirror printed because of that business of his right eye (our left) kinda looking to the side with his left eye looking straight ahead. I think that's what I was seeing here, and just in general, you get that "hit the mark" feeling here. It isn't like this in later pics of Denny really, and no I'm not suggesting there's a Fenny..
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 18, 2005 10:41:02 GMT -5
The post with the pic of Billy Shears before surgery where did you find that one? Could that be set beside the pic that is supposed to be Bill from the Pepperpots? He looks like he was mauled. Or should I say "Fauled"? That may just due to it being a cruddy copy of a worn out page from the underground newspaper that is mentioned in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Dec 19, 2005 7:56:53 GMT -5
You think that's the one, JoJo? I can post several other pics you could be thinking of, but that one stood out a bit. Heh yeah that's it alright. Spooky that we're on the same wavelength! ;D I'm sure you remember times when you determined that a pic was mirror printed because of that business of his right eye (our left) kinda looking to the side with his left eye looking straight ahead. I think that's what I was seeing here, and just in general, you get that "hit the mark" feeling here. It isn't like this in later pics of Denny really, and no I'm not suggesting there's a Fenny.. Heh, I still see and point out mirror printed pics today. Have you seen the cover of that new Beatles Biography book? It drives me crazy every time I see the cover! So what exactly are you trying to say? That pic doesn't look like Denny to you?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 19, 2005 9:37:21 GMT -5
I meant you don't see this simlilarity to the Pepper era Paul that you do in this one particular picture. Maybe it's the angle, lighting, who knows. I have some more I could scan, it's clearly him, just evokes something that it doesn't usually.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Dec 19, 2005 16:12:16 GMT -5
I meant you don't see this simlilarity to the Pepper era Paul that you do in this one particular picture. Maybe it's the angle, lighting, who knows. I have some more I could scan, it's clearly him, just evokes something that it doesn't usually. Well "Bill" doesn't look much like the Pepper era "Bill" in that pic either. Why? In my opinion, it's because the hair. "Bill" and Denny resemble each other slightly in that pic, just like they resemble each other in the shadow-faced pics. Get what I'm saying? BTW, does that guy in the middle remind anyone of Vivian, just a little?
|
|
lovelyritametermaid
Guest
|
Post by lovelyritametermaid on Dec 26, 2005 22:04:02 GMT -5
The above posted picture is from about 1975? Bill doesn't look as much like Paul as he did at first, but definitely more than now. I'm not just talking about the aging process, but as one who has gotten alot of plastic surgery in his younger days, his face is "fauling". His eyes are not as dark as when he first played Paul, but not as light as I've seen lately.
IMO I think the more time passes by, the less Bill is trying to look like Paul, and just trying to look younger than what he really is. It has been posted several places that Bill is older than JPM would have been.
Denny doesn't even look as much like JPM as they tried in the Pepper era. By this time, it was clear that Denny's role was no longer a Faul, but himself.
The guy in the middle doesn't look like Vivian to me....Linda looks more like Vivian...and that's not even close.....But wasn't Bill supposedly still posing as Vivian during this time? That I have a hard time believing. He's got the role of Paul, why would he still pose as Vivian? That's a very disturbing comparison.
There have been some disputes that early pics of Linda look different than the Linda pictured above. I don't even want to go there with "Finda".
|
|
|
Post by lili on Dec 27, 2005 9:16:07 GMT -5
Finda ? Geez Now they're trying to say that Johnny had a double. When will this insanity end ? I have to agree with Rita on all points. Bill has stopped trying to look like Paul. Right now, he's just trying to keep himself as youthful as possible. After all, he's almost twice as old as Heather is ! His eye-color is up to interpretation. I'd have to say that he has light hazel eyes, that can appear bluish gray at times ! If Bill was imitating Viv, that makes him a criminal. Viv married during that time period & had a daughter. That would make Bill a bigamist !
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Dec 27, 2005 18:34:09 GMT -5
Apparently both George and John did have doubles. You can see in the photographs. A Fohn holding a book about the Long March is posing with Yoko Ono!
As for Vivian Stanshall he could be a real person whom Sheppard imitated occasionally, or both he and Neil Aspinall could be ficitious identities created by the "clandestine services"; we don't know unless we do research into these people. Spy agencies create fake people all the time, with fake wives and fake children. This is easy to do if we don't live in a democracy and we don't.
Stick with the physical proof: the photos prove there are Fohn, Feorge and F-I-N-G-O.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 27, 2005 18:54:37 GMT -5
Stick with the physical proof: the photos prove there are Fohn, Feorge and F-I-N-G-O. Well, what alarms me to no end is that RIDICULOUS claims like this are becoming attached to the PWR effort. You speak of research, a few pirated copies of photos from a professional photog site is enough to convince you a few days after the initial post?? don't you know the joker laughs at you...
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Dec 27, 2005 19:31:18 GMT -5
Stick with the physical proof: the photos prove there are Fohn, Feorge and F-I-N-G-O. Well, what alarms me to no end is that RIDICULOUS claims like this are becoming attached to the PWR effort. You speak of research, a few pirated copies of photos from a professional photog site is enough to convince you a few days after the initial post?? No, no just a few photos, it's something I've noticed for a long time about Lennon and Harrison's mysteriously changing features. It has been suggested on one of these boards that all the Beatles had some plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons, to explain the anomalies. don't you know the joker laughs at you...It's "don't you THINK the joker laughs at you," Einstein, [laughing] and let's leave Laura Bush out of this !
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 27, 2005 19:42:48 GMT -5
. It has been suggested on one of these boards that all the Beatles had some plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons, to explain the anomalies. Ah ha..Two distinctly different issues! Yes, it's possible that the others had minor work done to look a little older, John said it in song in a demo: Everybody had a hard year, everybody had a face lift..That's called using a supporting argument, albeit a fragile one.. Doubles that looked nothing like doubles in professionally done shoots, what is the purpose here?
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Dec 27, 2005 20:04:41 GMT -5
. It has been suggested on one of these boards that all the Beatles had some plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons, to explain the anomalies. Ah ha..Two distinctly different issues! Yes, it's possible that the others had minor work done to look a little older, John said it in song in a demo: Everybody had a hard year, everybody had a face lift..That's called using a supporting argument, albeit a fragile one.. Doubles that looked nothing like doubles in professionally done shoots, what is the purpose here? That "everyone had a face lift" version came to my mind when thinking about this. It's not just a supporting argument; my point is: people are noticing that the faces of John and George also seem to have acquired distinct differences than from the pre-1966 moptop period. Your statement of them getting surgery "to look older" as opposed to simply growing facial hair, wearing glasses etc. is the first I'd heard of that motive. The tacitly implied guess that I read for the inferred plastic surgery of John, George and Ringo was that they wanted to look better, e.g. John chiseling his nose a little. In any case, people are noticing their different features, but what if's not just plastic sugery but actor doubles? Can we agree now that the anomalies in the different JPMs seen before September 1966 are caused, at least in some cases, by the use of a JPM double(s) such as Dino Danelli? There's a photo of John Lennon standing with the Beatles looking at his look-alike during the filming of Help!Doubles can look any way they want them to appear for the purposes needed, there is no rule for "professionally done shoots" dictating the way a double has to look. The issue of "what is the purpose here" is secondary to the physical evidence, and once that is established then we can determine the motives. The "Dragnet" "just the facts Ma'am" is the best place route with which to begin. I'm beginning to think, however, that the fraud of the Beatles goes much deeper and with much more disturbing aspects than just the JPM-Brian Epstein-Neil Aspinall fakes.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 27, 2005 20:17:31 GMT -5
Where? Are you talking about the beach scene from the end of the movie?
Again, WHAT physical evidence?? A few pictures, that's all that been presented to support this new idea.
The common theme I see here is.. taking a few suppositions and things people have intuited, and presenting them as declared facts. That kind of carelessness is aggravating, do you understand?
Don't push it..
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Dec 27, 2005 20:40:57 GMT -5
Where? Are you talking about the beach scene from the end of the movie? Again, WHAT physical evidence?? A few pictures, that's all that been presented to support this new idea. The common theme I see here is.. taking a few suppositions and things people have intuited, and presenting them as declared facts. That kind of carelessness is aggravating, do you understand? Here is the thread that you yourself started with the picture to which I'm referring: [ftp]http://invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1131817319[/ftp] Maybe you misunderstand me: I'm stating my opinion that it seems likely that John, George and Ringo doubles were used. This is based on the photographs, many of them, not just the ones on the PWR web site boards. To what goal I'm not ready to say yet. I think that at the least we should start looking into the possibilities. I am NOT saying, for anyone who might read it this way, that John and George were replaced as it appears JPM was replaced with a complete identity theft imposter.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Dec 27, 2005 22:10:48 GMT -5
It's not just a supporting argument; my point is: people are noticing that the faces of John and George also seem to have acquired distinct differences than from the pre-1966 moptop period. By "people", I'm guessing you mean BP? Come on, he thinks everyone either used a stand in or was replaced.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 27, 2005 22:18:55 GMT -5
Right, but you said: There's a photo of John Lennon standing with the Beatles looking at his look-alike during the filming of Help!
Of the photos I posted, not one has two Johns, double or otherwise, there is only one per video grab.
I'll walk you through this...I read an entry at IMBD where it was mentioned that John had a double in that beach scene. I said mmm OK, I'll grab some stills, put 'em up, and see what others might think. (I didn't see it myself) After some discussion, and with the most salient point being that IMBD is like Wiki, in that anyone can add information, it seemed to be the concensus that there was not much to this. As a side note, Wiki and IMDB can have some real gems hidden away, but you have to be careful.
Yes, agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Dec 27, 2005 22:41:31 GMT -5
Oh, and LovelyRita, RRD got the "Faultered" pic from here. Eyesbleed said it's a '64 publication.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 27, 2005 22:51:12 GMT -5
Eyesbleed said it's a '64 publication. Yep... got it right here. Pictures for Framing sez 64. Hutchinson & Co.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Dec 27, 2005 23:01:26 GMT -5
Right, but you said: There's a photo of John Lennon standing with the Beatles looking at his look-alike during the filming of Help!Of the photos I posted, not one has two Johns, double or otherwise, there is only one per video grab. I'll walk you through this...I read an entry at IMBD where it was mentioned that John had a double in that beach scene. I said mmm OK, I'll grab some stills, put 'em up, and see what others might think. (I didn't see it myself) After some discussion, and with the most salient point being that IMBD is like Wiki, in that anyone can add information, it seemed to be the concensus that there was not much to this. As a side note, Wiki and IMDB can have some real gems hidden away, but you have to be careful. Yes, agree with that. No need to review what's on the look-alike thread in terms of there being something to this, all one has to do is focus on that one movie still with what looks like a John double stand-in, and say well it looks like him or it doesn't look like him. The imdb writer says "In the beach scene towards the end of the film, John Lennon had an appointment and could not be present. Another actor stood in for him." Maybe that's incorrect and it's just a coincidence that there is man who looks like John on the beach with him and the other Beatles. To me he looks like John, although it is distantly shot and one cannot say definitively. That is of course, different from the kind of close double of the Dino Danelli and Faul types. You don't think he looks like John, and observers might differ in their opinion, but I think others would agree that he does look like John in that photo; we don't have the comments of enough observers to form a plausible majority consensus one way or the other.
|
|