NAYDON
For Sale
I believe in Jehova!
Posts: 237
|
Post by NAYDON on Mar 16, 2019 5:02:22 GMT -5
I have a good friend of mine who told me this is the real James Paul McCartney What do you think about that?
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Mar 16, 2019 9:28:39 GMT -5
Same guy that's performing today. And I don't think it's JPM (or been for years).
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 20, 2019 21:39:13 GMT -5
We've posted here many times about the 'two Fauls'. What some people (who tend to be younger than the baby boomers) think they see is 'Faul and Paul'. In the video below, Faul is 'Silly Willy' and Paul is 'sweet aaa-paul'. (As they see it.)03/18/2019 Silly Willy Shepherd The Sweet Applewww.youtube.com/watch?v=8BXgFxFql14I am not on board with this notion. Neither of the two in the video above look like Paul to me. This guy comes pretty close: the real deal, of course, imo: --------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 21, 2019 14:52:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 21, 2019 14:59:09 GMT -5
I realize this is an old thread, but it is mind-boggling to me that anyone -- particularly anyone on a board such as this -- could possibly mistake the TWO Old Fauls presented at the OP for the same man. Mind boggling. & they're both wearing cheap wigs. There was, also, a third "Paul" during the Mills-Divorce-Era. I believe this older "Paul", above, right, has retired from performing (if he was ever used for performances), but he's been seen strolling with Nancy. The heights of the 3 (or 4) remaining Pauls vary greatly. Please, take note of the usual "crinkles" below/aside the eyes of the "Paul" on the left: this is not a feature all the Pauls shared and is useful for telling them apart. Also, note that this "Paul" on the left has that peculiar curled skin fold at the right edge of his mouth (others have referred to it as a "skin pocket"); if you keep an eye out for that skin curl, you will find that this "Paul" matches the '64 Ed Sullivan "Paul". invanddis.proboards.com/thread/3334/more-faul?page=4
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Mar 21, 2019 16:44:30 GMT -5
I realize this is an old thread, but it is mind-boggling to me that anyone -- particularly anyone on a board such as this -- could possibly mistake the TWO Old Fauls presented at the OP for the same man. Mind boggling. & they're both wearing cheap wigs. There was, also, a third "Paul" during the Mills-Divorce-Era. I believe this older "Paul", above, right, has retired from performing (if he was ever used for performances), but he's been seen strolling with Nancy. The heights of the 3 (or 4) remaining Pauls vary greatly. Please, take note of the usual "crinkles" below/aside the eyes of the "Paul" on the left: this is not a feature all the Pauls shared and is useful for telling them apart. Also, note that this "Paul" on the left has that peculiar curled skin fold at the right edge of his mouth (others have referred to it as a "skin pocket"); if you keep an eye out for that skin curl, you will find that this "Paul" matches the '64 Ed Sullivan "Paul". invanddis.proboards.com/thread/3334/more-faul?page=4So you are saying the "Ed Sullivan 1964" Paul had the SAME eye colour and voice and ht. as one of the "Fauls"? Cause they sure don't look the same!
|
|
iameye
Electric Arguments
Posts: 1,119
|
Post by iameye on Mar 21, 2019 17:25:38 GMT -5
lol oh! yeah* I'll
tell you something I think you'll understand...*
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Mar 22, 2019 0:52:55 GMT -5
Mar 16, 2019 6:02:22 GMT -4 @naydon said: I have a good friend of mine who told me this is the real James Paul McCartney What do you think about that?
No such thing. Show us 3 pictures of "the real James Paul McCartney" from any time between 1956 and 1961. And which specific features do you not see as matching? Because this is actually one of the most clear cut Paul matches I've come across in my enumerating of Pauls. Hell, this "Paul" even has real ears.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Mar 22, 2019 1:43:09 GMT -5
the real deal, of course, imo: You think these two guys, one whom who has a neck that is approx. 2.5 inches longer than the neck of the other guy, are the same person?
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Mar 22, 2019 11:40:17 GMT -5
Mar 16, 2019 6:02:22 GMT -4 @naydon said: I have a good friend of mine who told me this is the real James Paul McCartney What do you think about that?
No such thing. Show us 3 pictures of "the real James Paul McCartney" from any time between 1956 and 1961. And which specific features do you not see as matching? Because this is actually one of the most clear cut Paul matches I've come across in my enumerating of Pauls. Hell, this "Paul" even has real ears. The video below is who I think you are talking about as far as the "Second Faul" but that is STILL not JPM! His voice is different and he looks at his fingers all the time when he plays! Besides if you going to make the case that one of the "Fauls" is one of the JPMs then HE WAS NOT REPLACED and your forum is pointless! www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDWfOSKccLM
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Mar 22, 2019 12:46:16 GMT -5
hotman637 ........ ?? Not my forum. I think you are confusing me with B. The only thing B and I can be counted on to agree about is our mutual disdain for one another. And I do not subscribe to a belief that there was one original James Paul McCartney, a working class boy from Liverpool whose mother died when he was fourteen, who joined up with one John Winston Lennon and, later, one George nomiddlename Harrison to play in a band that eventually became a quartet called 'The Beatles'. Nor do I believe that this one original James Paul McCartney had one or more replacements ('Fauls'), as a result of his being unable or unwilling to keep being a Beatle. As such, I do not believe in the concept of a 'First' or 'Second' Faul; if there is no real Paul, there can be no fake Paul. I have encountered what, to me, is ample evidence (photographic, film, audio, writing style & quality, and yes 'clues') that all The Beatles were portrayed by multiples, starting many years before they were even grouped as 'The Beatles'. I think it's possible, even likely, that at least one of the Pauls died, at some point. I, also, think it's obvious that at least one of the Pauls sustained serious injuries to the right side of his face and body. I, further, see indications that another of the Pauls was imprisoned for an extended period of time. The Achilles' Heel of PID/PWR replaced 'research', as I see it, is the blind adherence to a belief in an original, single individual who was 'The Real Paul', a kneejerk fixation with '66 as 'the year *something* happened', and a refusal to really examine documentation of 'Paul' and the other Beatles prior to Beatlemania. "Nothing you can see that can't be shown"...but one must look. My original inquiry into this mirrored funhouse was to clarify when and why 'Paul McCartney' began wearing fake ears. In quick order, it became obvious that there was more than one McCartney and many pairs of, still inexplicable, fake ears. Frankly, I probably would have let this all go and be onto another mental adventure, if I could just get a plausible explanation for all of the non-matching fake ears.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Mar 22, 2019 15:52:20 GMT -5
hotman637 ........ ?? Not my forum. I think you are confusing me with B. The only thing B and I can be counted on to agree about is our mutual disdain for one another. And I do not subscribe to a belief that there was one original James Paul McCartney, a working class boy from Liverpool whose mother died when he was fourteen, who joined up with one John Winston Lennon and, later, one George nomiddlename Harrison to play in a band that eventually became a quartet called 'The Beatles'. Nor do I believe that this one original James Paul McCartney had one or more replacements ('Fauls'), as a result of his being unable or unwilling to keep being a Beatle. As such, I do not believe in the concept of a 'First' or 'Second' Faul; if there is no real Paul, there can be no fake Paul. I have encountered what, to me, is ample evidence (photographic, film, audio, writing style & quality, and yes 'clues') that all The Beatles were portrayed by multiples, starting many years before they were even grouped as 'The Beatles'. I think it's possible, even likely, that at least one of the Pauls died, at some point. I, also, think it's obvious that at least one of the Pauls sustained serious injuries to the right side of his face and body. I, further, see indications that another of the Pauls was imprisoned for an extended period of time. The Achilles' Heel of PID/PWR replaced 'research', as I see it, is the blind adherence to a belief in an original, single individual who was 'The Real Paul', a kneejerk fixation with '66 as 'the year *something* happened', and a refusal to really examine documentation of 'Paul' and the other Beatles prior to Beatlemania. "Nothing you can see that can't be shown"...but one must look. My original inquiry into this mirrored funhouse was to clarify when and why 'Paul McCartney' began wearing fake ears. In quick order, it became obvious that there was more than one McCartney and many pairs of, still inexplicable, fake ears. Frankly, I probably would have let this all go and be onto another mental adventure, if I could just get a plausible explanation for all of the non-matching fake ears. Sorry Kaleidoquake I did mistake you for B! B used to like me but then he banned me for a while but for now I am back! Anyhow if you take your theory at face value NOTHING makes ANY SENSE! If nothing makes any sense then it is a useless theory! BUT in a way I agree with you but what about certain periods of "Pauls" life? For example where he is living with Jane Asher and her father was found dead under mysterious circumstances? Or the band "Rory and the Hurricanes" and the connections to all the "Beatles"? Were ALL these people and situations fake? I tend to think they took real people and situations and worked the "Beatles" into the mix so there was at least SOME reality! At any rate this video by Monster Magnet may make some sense out of PID! They are great! www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKj5cJ9_KSg
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Mar 22, 2019 22:15:28 GMT -5
Anyhow if you take your theory at face value NOTHING makes ANY SENSE! If nothing makes any sense then it is a useless theory! Well, that's a bit hyperbolic, eh? I, actually, think multiple men playing the roles of the four Beatles answers a lot of otherwise unanswerable questions, such as: how do their heights keeps changing? how do their immutable cranio-facial features keep changing? how could they perform multiple shows a day for years on end with only one of them ever getting ill, once? how could they have possibly written so much material while touring globally and making numerous additional public appearances and partaking in endless press conferences and photo shoots and televised interviews? how did "Paul's voice" change from a deep, bluesy baritone to a reedy tenor? why does "Paul" have blue eyes, brown eyes and green eyes in different photos and footage? And on and on and on. In fact, the only reasonable, earthly explanation for the avalanche of incongruities between "The Beatles" from day to day is that there were multiple men playing the roles of John, Paul, George and Ringo. However, that's not a theory. That's simply the logical conclusion to what any man can see with his own eyes...if he's actually looking. And I don't, necessarily, have a theory as to why this was done or how it was pulled off or how many people were involved. One can bandy about a variety of scenarios in which having a rotating cast playing public figures might seem like a solution to a myriad of problems or potential problems. But I've seen nothing that *explains* the why of any of it enough that I'd place a bet. & it sure doesn't seem like anyone involved is going to be confessing, accidentally or otherwise, any time soon. Regardless, you can't look at these two boys, on their right and our left in both photos, both of whom are officially identified as "Paul McCartney" and tell me you think they're the same kid. They are simply not the same kid. I don't know who they are. And I don't know who these three (of many more...) guys, all officially identified as pre-66 "Paul McCartney" are, either: It's worth noting that none of those guys are are the men 66ers insist are 'The Real JPM'. And yet, all of them, and many more, were presented to the public as being 'The Real JPM' before Beatlemania went viral. I am very curious about what really happened to Dr. Asher and why. I hope that, eventually, even if posthumously, Jane will reveal what she knows. I think she knows everything. Given the sheer quantity of suspicious deaths that befell The Hurricanes and those in their circle, it seems reasonable to posit that they were silenced. The question is not 'did these other people exist?' The question is 'which Beatles did they know and how much did they know about them?' I'd say too many and too much. Just like Mel. And Stu. And Brian. And Joe Orton. And... The issue isn't a dearth of reality. The issue is too much reality at once. You've got a dozen + guys sharing the name and persona "Paul McCartney". I will take a look at this video. But anything that hinges on '66 is disinfo, intentional or otherwise. No one who takes the time to actually look at photos and footage of "Paul McCartney" from boyhood through 1963 can honestly report that they see One Real Paul nor that the most frequently photographed "Paul McCartney" prior to Beatlemania bears much, if any, resemblance to the '64/'65/'66 Paul s they claim are the one man who is "The Real JPM". Anyone doing so is willfully ignoring facts that poke holes in their precious narrative. You don't investigate anything by coming up with a theory and then cherrypicking supportive documents while burying any evidence that contradicts what you want to be true. That's just writing historical fiction. The truth of this story began long before 1963 and so data from those years prior must be included in any serious inquiry. I do not see the objective here as being the creation of a slick, seamless, easily digestible story, but rather to ask the questions that will help to detangle this clusterfuck of a mystery. And that mystery is not 'Did Paul McCartney die in 1966 or was he otherwise replaced that year?' The mystery is 'Why the fuck were there a dozen different guys pretending to be each Beatle, why did they wear fake ears that didn't even match and why are there still at least three different guys taking turns playing one man named "Paul McCartney"?' Which do you prefer, Tall Pauls or Small Pauls? 1960 - Tuesday, May 10th: 1960 - August 17th: 1961 - Summer: 1962 - Late September: 1963 - October 23rd-31st: 1963: 1963: 1964 - Week of April 4th: 1964 - June: I mostly prefer the Small Pauls, with a few exceptions.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 23, 2019 11:21:46 GMT -5
Not my forum either. I only work here. Tall Paul was Annette Funicello's boy friend! Annette Funicello-Tall Paul (Music Video)www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQqGMMnGIi4I've pinned this thread because the start of this video, which was originally posted here as a video unto itself, speaks to what this forum is all about. It would be nice to know how the video maker 'knows' all this, of course, and to have some documentation of the allegations made. To be sure, none of the claims made may be true; but on the chance they are, it is worth having the video readily accessible. The Paul replacements are covered in the first three minutes of the video. REPLACEMENTS - In Your Face par 49 from Hammer Anvil www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUHbcba55BUIf the first Paul died in 1959, then "he was just 17". This video ^ ^ ^ is pretty interesting, and after the Beatle segment, the music matches what's on the screen.
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 23, 2019 13:08:48 GMT -5
apropos of nothing Stewart Swerdlow Caucasians Are Easier To Mind Control ------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: "why does "Paul" have blue eyes, brown eyes and green eyes in different photos..?" www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWc-R3R4ohU --------------------------------- DracoReptoidsExposed Published on Mar 23, 2019
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 23, 2019 13:20:33 GMT -5
I have a good friend of mine who told me this is the real James Paul McCartney What do you think about that?
Well, if it's your good friend, then I'm convinced. Case closed. Should have said so earlier. Could have saved us years of research.
|
|
|
Post by IWILL on Mar 23, 2019 16:08:17 GMT -5
I have a good friend of mine who told me this is the real James Paul McCartney What do you think about that?
Well, if it's your good friend, then I'm convinced. Case closed. Should have said so earlier. Could have saved us years of research. Red Lights, Green Lights Strawberry Wine A Good Friend Of Mine Follows The Stars
lol
|
|
iameye
Electric Arguments
Posts: 1,119
|
Post by iameye on Mar 23, 2019 16:14:42 GMT -5
apropos of nothingStewart Swerdlow Caucasians Are Easier To Mind Control ------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: " why does "Paul" have blue eyes, brown eyes and green eyes in different photos..?" www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWc-R3R4ohU --------------------------------- DracoReptoidsExposed Published on Mar 23, 2019
|
|
iameye
Electric Arguments
Posts: 1,119
|
Post by iameye on Mar 23, 2019 16:30:45 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihiloIs nothing if you wanna B with me! "A widely supported hypothesis in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. It has been argued that this is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing. Such a universe would have to be flat in shape, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error" don't yuh r'member I told ya..... lol
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 23, 2019 21:07:00 GMT -5
it became obvious that there was more than one McCartney and many pairs of, still inexplicable, fake ears. Frankly, I probably would have let this all go and be onto another mental adventure, if I could just get a plausible explanation for all of the non-matching fake ears. Lend me your ears, and I'll sing you a tune, and I'll try not to sing out of key! SCIENCE AND SORCERY - In Your Face part 48youtu.be/lTq1xuvlNHk?t=352 ------------------------- Welcome to the hotel California. -----------------"Circle Sky"(from "Head" soundtrack) Circle sky Telling lies Here I stand Happy man And it looks like we've made it once again Yes, it looks like we've made it once again! Color sound All around Wing-tip smile Sees for milesAnd it looks like we've made it once again Yes, it looks like we've made it once again! It's a very extraordinary scene To those who don't understand But what you have seen you must believe If you can If you can Hamiltown Smiling down Telling more Than beforeAnd it looks like we've made it once again Yes, it looks like we've made it to the end!
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Mar 23, 2019 21:31:42 GMT -5
That marionette/dwarf dance is possibly the creepiest sequence in a music video for a love song that I've ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 23, 2019 21:42:12 GMT -5
Lol
But it speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Mar 23, 2019 21:43:56 GMT -5
OK but if there are a dozen "Pauls" then how can ANYONE come up with a narrative that makes ANY SENSE!
Without some sort of consistant narrative we can never SOLVE anything!
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 23, 2019 21:52:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 23, 2019 22:15:10 GMT -5
OK but if there are a dozen "Pauls" then how can ANYONE come up with a narrative that makes ANY SENSE! Without some sort of consistant narrative we can never SOLVE anything! Paul McCartney 20 de Marzo 2019 Estadio Nacional, Chile Concierto Completowww.youtube.com/watch?v=peaWwVglGzQ
|
|