"because of the moped accident!!"

[xpt626]

the argument:

"it's well known Paul had a moped accident...(a) that accounts for the change in his appearance or (b) he was facially disfigured and had reconstructive plastic surgery"

the evidence:

this article from "Flip" magazine, May of 1966, refers to the accident:





that places the accident prior to spring of '66. Photos of Paul from this time period through late '66 do not show the distinct differences seen in photos from late '66-onward.

here is a photo of the injuries from the accident....hardly 'disfigurement':

[Jude]

I'm really beginning to believe that the differences between the two faces are greatly exaggerated. That post-accident Paul pic looks just like Faul to me. How can you possibly tell that it isn't?

[mommybird]

Paul, after the moped accident
Paul, from the early days of the Beatles
Early "Bill"

[jarvitronics]

jude said:

I'm really beginning to believe that the differences between the two faces are greatly exaggerated. That post-accident Paul pic looks just like Faul to me. How can you possibly tell that it isn't?

Good point. If Paul were replaced, it seems that facial "injuries" due to an "accident" of some kind would be an excellent cover point for the switchover.

Note that this does not imply a belief on my part, one way or another. For me, beliefs muddle truth; your mileage, dear reader, may vary.

-j

[The Deceptionist]

xpt626 said:

the argument:

here is a photo of the injuries from the accident....hardly 'disfigurement':

I had always wondered where that image had come from, what it was about, when it was taken, context etc. I've seen it bandied about in a lot of places with no real explanation - thanks for clearing that up for me; I'd probably have spent hours looking that up otherwise.