|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 7, 2005 11:11:09 GMT -5
As far as the "husband cheating" reference, she could be secretly referring to Paul. Many of us agree that Paul had that relationship with Anita Howarth with whom he had a son with and that was around the time Paul was with Jane. And don't forget groupies. Paul was probably the most desired man in Rock and Roll at that time.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 6, 2005 20:36:37 GMT -5
I'm sure it's also painful to think about as well. Her attitude is completely understandable. Yeah I think that's the key point. What's weird about Jane is she seemed to gain weight after Paul's death where most people would be thinner from the emotional turmoil. Just look at the difference in John's face and to an extent George's too from 1966 to 1967. Big difference. I wish I had the pics of Jane before and after but she seemed to gain weight and looks heavier in the 67 and 68 pics compared to the earlier pics. The weight gain could also be a result of having to play boyfriend/girlfriend with Bill. Having to deal with that whole scenario might make you wanna eat more. There's a certain amount of psychology to go with that theory also.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 7, 2004 14:33:11 GMT -5
Yea, in the UK the Revolver LP was released in August, 1966. Although in America, the songs Dr. Robert, I'm Only Sleeping and And Your Bird Can Sing were released in July on the Yesterday and Today LP. So comparisons between songs on Revolver and songs on Magical Mystery Tour (Maybe For No One and Fool on the Hill) could be a good idea. One thing I've noticed that is on the song Blackbird Paul's voice sounds a lot weaker, with him having difficulty in keeping on the long notes. However, in Till There Was You Paul easily managed to keep straight on the final long note. Blackbird is probably sung by someone other than Faul. It sounds like the imitator who sung 'When I'm Sixty Four' and 'Lovely Rita'. You can download a live version of Blackbird by Faul off Kazaa and see the difference. Instead of trying to pump out that long note like the imitator does, his voice goes higher, which is typical of his style.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 7, 2004 14:26:15 GMT -5
According to a Google search, Revolver was released August 5, 1966 Yes you are right. So the cover is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 7, 2004 7:54:33 GMT -5
Faul's singing voice usually sounds like Paul until you hear Paul's voice again. Then you realize how different they were. Same for speaking voices. Exactly true! Couldn't have said it better. On a different note, does anyone know when the Revolver album was released? I believe it was November of 1966. I used to think that Paul's face on the cover 'looking away' couldn't possibly be a clue because they recorded the album when he was alive but if he died in September of 1966, then they had 2 months to prepare an album cover. It's interesting that Ringo is looking up at him and John is glancing at him. A clue?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 6, 2004 18:49:45 GMT -5
Good job! The version by James Paul is very impressive. His voice is definitely stronger than Faul's. The differences aren't drastic but they are there.
It's interesting that that part in the movie where Faul sings that is one of the only times John smiles in that movie. Probably because it reminded him of James Paul.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 6, 2004 13:17:53 GMT -5
Here's the photo I was telling you about. It was taken on 2nd August, 1966... Looks like JP to me. However, they covered up the chip in his tooth it looks like.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 6, 2004 10:26:58 GMT -5
As for the voice, one song that was sung pre and post 1966 was Bessa Me Mucho. Paul's version is on the Anthology cd, and "Sir Paul's" version is in the Let It Be movie, though not on the album of course. Sounds like a good post, I'll work on it. One of my favorite visual clues is the stills from the Mal Evans home movie, it's here on the board somewhere. I look at Paul from the Paperback Writer video, or the Revolver press conference, and then just 3 or 4 months later to my eyes, he looks taller, skinnier, and most of all like a drastically different person. The key is get as close to the last "Paul" pics and as close as possible to the beginning of the "replacement's" photos and compare and contrast. Use whatever you want from what I've posted here if it's any help... That's awesome JoJo! I always thought it would be cool to have tapes of James Paul writing/singing songs like Let It Be in a recorder (in his hotel room or wherever) when the songs were still raw and comparing them to the recorded versions where Faul is singing. It's likely George Martin has tapes like these or maybe Neil Aspinall does.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 30, 2005 18:57:22 GMT -5
I agree with eyesbleed. The photo looks stretched.
It's also from the Help! period where JPM was wearing his hair longer and looked more like Bill.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 1, 2006 21:21:41 GMT -5
Jojo,
I was just about to bring up the Bill Harry thing. Also, from what I remember, Bill Harry was not the only person she talked to that denied ever hearing of the Pepperpots.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 11, 2005 18:20:02 GMT -5
Ben Stein with an afro? Wooooow. I thought it was 2 Manson family members. The woman looks like Leslie Van Outen.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 31, 2005 16:38:48 GMT -5
The fake Doris: The real Doris: One obvious thing when first seeing the two Doris' is how broad the shoulders of the real Doris are. This is one thing you can look for. Fake Doris' first movie as Doris Day was titled "Julie" and it was released in 1956 or 1957. The real Doris Day's last movie was called "The Man Who Knew Too Much" released in 1956. She was probably replaced in late 1955 or early 1956 right before the filming of Julie.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 3, 2004 16:09:30 GMT -5
Well, the seperate parts never matched the genius of the whole. Specifically, John & Paul went the way of every other mega-successful songwriting duo; their partnership worked, generated amazing artistic and financial success, then the rot set in between them, and they poisoned their own well, as it were. A classic tragedy repeated for infinity: Simon & Garfunkle Henley & Frey Perry & Tyler Jagger & Richards Taupin & John Nicks & Buckingham Waters & Gilmour etc. etc. etc. Don't forget Heckyl and Jeckyl. ;D
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 2, 2004 20:33:54 GMT -5
I for one am of the opinion that Paul was replaced. I think it naturally follows if that is true, then why? Why is a seperate question, although it would seem the only obvious reason would be that he is no longer with us. And yes, there are "oddities" on the albums from Sgt. Pepper on that strongly suggest clues that Paul is indeed dead, not just replaced. I think the best order of business is decide if he's replaced first, then is he dead. However, "Paul is dead" is linked too closely with the replaced question, the clues or alleged clues if you like are going to be part of the discussion. Is PID putting the cart before the horse, or is it too close to call? Tough to decide.. Spoken like a true investigator!
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 2, 2004 16:00:13 GMT -5
Hey thanks to you both! I rather like George's pants don't you? He wore them on the rooftop concert. I don't like the whole 'replaced' notion. If he was replaced, he is most definitely dead in my opinion. If you believe the clues that Lennon left, they are that Paul was dead not just merely replaced. So I like it the way it is. P.S. LarryC, how is that Concert for George? I was thinking of buying it.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 2, 2004 15:25:50 GMT -5
Please let us know what you think.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 7, 2006 16:47:56 GMT -5
The British/Liverpool accent is evident in almost all of Paul's singing. It seems to disappear when Bill sings. This is an easy way to tell the difference.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 6, 2005 16:03:32 GMT -5
but then, after that, she had to hang out & smile with this other creepy guy.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on May 3, 2005 18:32:23 GMT -5
20 Jul 1968 Jane Asher announces that their engagement is off after finding Paul in bed with another girl, Francie Schwartz. Handy story.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 20, 2005 18:07:02 GMT -5
Hey thanks Andru for that info. But the real hoax is that the Sir Paul of today is the original Paul McCartney born in Liverpool in 1942 and an original member of the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 25, 2006 22:45:42 GMT -5
Good job KHAN. I've seen a lot worse cases of photo doctoring of JPM. No offense to the poster, though.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 25, 2006 15:59:24 GMT -5
John's was face skinny for two reasons: 1) Loss of appetite due to enormous stress in the form of a tragedy. 2) Drug abuse I don't know if the tofu fritters could make him look that emaciated.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 19, 2004 15:53:33 GMT -5
Now that is clever thinking DarkHorse. Faul certainly has left his share of clues on his album covers over the years. I would not rule out your idea for one second. Thanks for that but I am not sure it was my idea. I think someone mentioned that back on 60IF awhile back.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 18, 2004 20:39:56 GMT -5
Exactly what I was wondering. Faul is enjoying the birthday celebration that should be attributed to James Paul McCartney. Happy birthday to Paul June 18 1942. To Faul, happy birthday should be left for the correct date. Faul may have been born in March or April because he may be an Aries. I am referring to the name of one of his albums, Ram. Maybe it was a clue to his zodiac sign? So maybe he was born March/April sometime in the mid to late 1930's?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jun 18, 2004 15:09:20 GMT -5
There were two, possibly three of Paul, the rest were Faul. The one in the uniform with the stars on the collar is probably Paul, tough call though. Yeah I would say that is Paul too.
|
|