This is also my first post. I was seven years old in 1964 when the Beatles came to the U.S. I saw them on the Ed Sullivan show. I was a Beatles fan through 1966. The Beatles that emerged beyond that were dark and odd. I had no interest in them and didn't even follow anything about them. I became a fan of the Monkees and other groups of that era like the Cowsills and Paul Revere and the Raiders.
I found this message board as a a result of actually reading Ringo Starr's information these past few days that Paul had died in 1966. This is something I never knew about and as i read more information would think it just very terrible as human beings that if that were true, that the public should be made aware just like any other popular music artist. To read about album after album insinuating that a band member is dead all those years is not something too go along with. It's wrong! And it's not funny.
Anyway, to why I am posting on this particular thread: The first thing I have done these past few days is find pre 1966 video/audio of Paul McCartney. From what I see and hear: this is the same person as today. His mannerisms are identical in how he moves his eyes when thinking and responding to questions. Also he is a bit rigid in his movements and I have seen Sir Paul McCartney on the U.S. television at least two--three times in the last year and his movements are the same. The other thing is the person's essence. It is identical. The earlier look of Paul, I have to say he reminds me of Sly Stallone in his eyes and hair color. The later Paul with the shorter/layered hair does raise his forehead but so is the foreheads of all the other Beatles. As well the other Beatles look slimmed in the face, too. On some Album covers there is one that doesn't look like John and one cover that doesn't look like George. We also don't know (or I don't know) how well magaziine could manipulate through a sort of photoshop at those time framees. What records of nip and tucking was going on in the 600's with the fab 4. Do we really know? The only thing that I dont' know is the eye color. For that is a problem unless Paul had decided he liked his eyes another color and opted more for the blueish. When contact lenses offered this option and who had the money to make those choices. There needs too be forensic investigating on this by someone qualifiied to do so. Those who know that were close to any of the Beatles should really come forward. Because if Paul McCartney did die in 1966, he deserves his spot in Music history and deserves to be acknowledged. Bands change people all the time. I really don't see any reason to lie to the public. It didn't happen regarding Elvis orr Ricky Nelson or the Peggy Sue guy or the Gibb Brothers nor the musician from Jan and Dean and etc.,
Welcome to the forum, naj. First I would say, take a look at this video below, and stop it at 1:14. That is supposed to be Paul McCartney in 1966 and 1967 (one year apart). I think you would have to admit, this does not appear to be the same person.
The current "Paul", "Sir Paul" may have the same movements as the original, but not many people here believe he is the same guy. If he is, you can still see that in 1967 at least, someone else was pretending to be Paul McCartney.
The name of this forum says "Paul was Replaced". I think you can agree to that much if you look at the video above, even if it was only a temporary situation.
Ironic that that video starts out with the clip from AHDN where the studio director, played byVictor Spinetti, is saying, "I'm quite happy to be replaced."
When Paul's Grandfather tries to cause trouble at the tv studio, the director says this, while the camera cuts to Paul as he frowns and shakes his head.
How 'bout that for "nothing is real". (by that I mean, the Strawberry Fields Forever video that cuts to Paul every time John sings "Nothing is real.")
Not only are there as many PID winks and clues before 1966 as there are after, but there's as many differences between the Pauls before as there is after. The differences at 1:14 in that vid may be less subtle (to some) than the ones between the Pauls before 1966, as Javlim posted, but they are there. Even in vintage materials.
It's also ironic that they threw this in the vid. Isn't that a PIA comp?!
Usually, when we hear or read something new,
we just compare it to our own ideas.
If it is the same, we accept it and say that it is correct.
If it is not, we say it is incorrect.
In either case, we learn nothing.
~ Thich Nhat Hanh ~
Sherlock Holmes to Watson: "Never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
I really don't know what to think. Like I said I just found out about all of this. To me someone who does research in this area that has the tools and experience and qualifications to investigate on all levels is needed. "If there is anyone out there who has those qualifications that has done the work and has made a legitimate documentary. I would be very interested in that".
I just saw the George Harrison DVD online but as someone who doesn't know all the history of the Beatles that was not properly presented (IMHO). If there is any such person who has done the work on this, I'd be interested in reading those things. I can see what you are saying by your comparisons and maybe since I didn't follow along with the Beatles I don't see what those who have followed the group do see. The early talk with Paul McCartney---he seems rather shy and child like but maybe he didn't understand how "big" he was then. To me I'm pretty sensitive seeing a black and white picture compared to a color picture with a hair style cut change. Maybe Paul lost some weight. When one loses weight the face changes....although early pictures of Paul her was very slim. I guess I should poke around here.
thanks for your posts!
Last Edit: Mar 6, 2015 13:28:16 GMT -5 by naj: forgot word