|
|
Post by luxinterior on Dec 2, 2018 6:59:20 GMT -5
(I'm new) I was looking at my Beatles albums the other day and was studying the booklet from MMT, in particular the last page, which is a group shot of the cast and crew... the group shot: imgur.com/a/3eQFqOGI noticed this guy on the far left: imgur.com/a/SEX7YXCdoesn't he look incredibly similar to the guy in the background of the photo from the Beatles first tour in America? i.imgur.com/OhUY6YC.jpg behind George i'm certain the 1964 picture has been discussed before.... who is that man? weird! |
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Dec 4, 2018 23:08:32 GMT -5
They do look alike. But I don't think the right ears match (although, Beatle-related ears seem to not adhere to the normal laws of matter or human anatomy...). I, also, think the hair swirl pattern is a mis-match; however, the amount of brylcream the guy in the airport photo has on his head makes it hard to say for sure. On Google Groups (which may or may not have already shut down as a service, I don't know), there is (or was) another PID group, which was founded with the inexplicable belief that Phil Ackrill, whose immutable facial specifics (like the distance between the eyes, vertical length of the nose, etc.) unquestionably eliminate him from ever having played the role of 'Paul McCartney', was the lone man who took over playing the role of 'Paul McCartney' after, they believe, the one and only true Paul McCartney's supposed '66 death. Amongst their 'evidence' are *thousands* of spam-pic re-posts of that guy at the airport, whom they seem to believe is Phil Ackrill, waiting in the wings  to take over for the "Paul" in the foreground, waving to fans. I don't understand the genesis of that theory, but I assume the person who brewed it up is either legally blind and/or wholly unfamiliar with what 1960s plastic surgery could and could not do -- or, for that matter, what current plastic surgery and even fx makeup/facial prosthetics can and cannot do. Anyway, I'm glad you've joined us. It's been a bit quiet lately. |
|
|
|
Post by luxinterior on Dec 19, 2018 11:06:21 GMT -5
thank you for your reply!!
yes, I knew he had been discussed before as a possible replacement, I do find it creepy the way he is just lurking in the 1964 photo, smiling like he knows something.... and then that MMT picture just jumped out at me, but as you say it's not the same man. although they do look oddly similar.
so much shadiness surrounding the Beatles.
|
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Dec 25, 2018 14:44:03 GMT -5
Usually, when you come upon a "mystery" like this, you can decide based upon the available evidence and analysis whether it's bunk or not pretty quickly. Depending on the breadth of the topic, it could take a few hours to a few months to make your mind up about whatever it may be. With this subject, the available information does not help to narrow down the odds of anything being real or fake, but somehow presents a dozen additional mysteries at ever turn. It's so bizarre. And gets weirder and weirder and more and more confusing the more information you uncover.
|
|
|
|
Post by beatlas231 on Dec 26, 2018 7:42:29 GMT -5
Usually, when you come upon a "mystery" like this, you can decide based upon the available evidence and analysis whether it's bunk or not pretty quickly. Depending on the breadth of the topic, it could take a few hours to a few months to make your mind up about whatever it may be. With this subject, the available information does not help to narrow down the odds of anything being real or fake, but somehow presents a dozen additional mysteries at ever turn. It's so bizarre. And gets weirder and weirder and more and more confusing the more information you uncover.
interesting article date, considering Iamaphoney didn’t officially release Now and Then until later on in that year. (Hey, see!? I could work for the FBI too with that investigative work) ;-) ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Dec 26, 2018 12:43:35 GMT -5
Again, the left ear, left eye and chin are high-lighted, without explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by maclen on Dec 28, 2018 15:48:02 GMT -5
that third image is of course a photo of the replacement before the replacement. it is also the founding photo of our group 'we buried faul', a google + community . and, no, the photo and subject matter have not been discussed, here. there, but, not here - despite us having posted the pic, here, about a year ago. but, we'll discuss it if you'd like - it's a feature for feature match that has not, nor, ever will be debunked. the first two fotos are quite interesting, but the isolated shot of that particular individual shows very bizarre unhuman type ears. knowing the deceptive nature of beatle media in '68, we'd say it's a retouched frame whereas faul is doctored in so we get a shot of him as he was before the switch and in his then current role as 'paul' - much like the three pauls on a boat picture taken the same year
|
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Dec 29, 2018 6:03:06 GMT -5
Well, the one thing we can all agree upon is: "WTF is up with their ears‽"
|
|
to take over for the "Paul" in the foreground, waving to fans. I don't understand the genesis of that theory, but I assume the person who brewed it up is either legally blind and/or wholly unfamiliar with what 1960s plastic surgery could and could not do -- or, for that matter, what current plastic surgery and even fx makeup/facial prosthetics can and cannot do.
