|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 19, 2004 21:26:12 GMT -5
The only strange thing I see in that pic is the nose. Other than that, I see James Paul McCartney. How about the long/oval face?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 19, 2004 16:32:38 GMT -5
No, I have never said that, but when I bring up the possibility of alternative explanations, I am treated as if I must be blind and/or crazy (or maybe a dummy) for even thinking there may be other possible explanations. I have been told that if I do not see that the nose is different in a photograph, there is nothing further to discuss. That is tolerant? I certainly did not say the other person was crazy or blind for thinking the noses are different, I just expressed my opinion. But it seems the PWR conclusion is the only one tolerated and any other is erroneous. We are tolerant for allowing you on this board. More tolerant than many mod's would be. Remember, this is a PID board.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 19, 2004 16:04:37 GMT -5
I see no harm in challenging things that may lead to erroneous conclusions. But your conclusions are always correct and ours are erroneous? Correct?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 18, 2004 23:22:58 GMT -5
Like the moustache? And the hair style? Those are the only changes I see. I know.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 18, 2004 22:33:31 GMT -5
The point I was making is that at some point down the road, Paul McCartney could have had a face-lift in order to remain the "cute" one. Well it certainly didn't work because according to the women who were young girls during that time, Paul got weirder looking and was not longer nearly as cute in the later days. And do you think he would have a face-lift at 24? Come on, are you listening to yourself? Earlobes are either attached or detached. I think we can all agree on that. Mine happen to be attached. The lobes have grown over the years and are longer now but you can still tell the lobes are attached. And that's 15 years difference! What about the change in Paul from 1964 to 1967?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 17, 2004 21:03:25 GMT -5
And PIDers, Bug got you all, this this thread belongs to him now. Don't make me laugh too. The earlobe comparison is the best piece of evidence for PID we have seen in long time.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 15, 2004 8:45:55 GMT -5
AHA! Look at the hair part in those pics!!! Yeah ignore the obvious and create a diversion.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 9, 2004 19:33:37 GMT -5
How can you tell? The pictures are so unclear you can barely see any detail whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 9, 2005 12:59:43 GMT -5
I go best crumbled up on a salad. You must be feta cheese.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 8, 2005 20:43:45 GMT -5
It ain't easy bein' cheesy ;D
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 19, 2004 22:05:43 GMT -5
In that nose, I see very small differences. In Paul and Faul's I see notcable differences and so does just about everyone on this board.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 19, 2004 21:28:31 GMT -5
Are you saying John may have been replaced too? Nope. John's nose looks the same to me.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 16, 2004 11:28:47 GMT -5
His nose goes up and down! He must have been replaced! Why not? If it's the same person the nose should stay the same. The teeth are a different size. "Close enough" doesn't do it, it has to match up perfectly(or near perfect) and it is neither.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 15, 2004 20:18:39 GMT -5
Well if the fade is done at a faster pace the changes would be obvious. Most of us see the difference anyway, but you might notice the difference in the nose and teeth.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 18, 2004 23:01:16 GMT -5
I've been trying to pick this book up for awhile. I've heard he tries to make a case for him(or Paul) being more talented of a songwriter than John.
If he is doing this it goes back to my theory of Faul trying to "attone" for the guilt he has for replacing Paul. What better than to make greater Paul's legacy?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 21, 2004 19:51:35 GMT -5
Comparing the body is MUCH harder than the face. With anyone. If you give me pics of Faul/Paul where you think the pose/camera angle is the same, then I'll see if it'll make a good fade. No. That's not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is in your fade if you show the whole body(if the pic allows it) or at least down to the chest and show Paul's head on Faul's body or Faul's head on Paul's body.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 21, 2004 8:42:16 GMT -5
This was your best fade. I wish you would compare the bodies in this fade so that YOU could see what we are talking about.....
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 21, 2004 8:37:02 GMT -5
So I'm guessing all of you are still in shock by my fade? ;D Is that a joke?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jan 3, 2007 19:56:56 GMT -5
Bill Shepherd bio below. Btw, no mention of the Pepperpots. That's not outrageous but maybe it could be mentioned that he produced a joke album with Jimmy Fraser. No harm and wouldn't take away from his credibility as a recording producer.
Bill Shepherd
* Genre: Easy Listening * Active: '50s, '60s, '70s * Instrument: Arranger, Director, Accompaniment
Biography As a recording artist, Bill Shepherd has released such successful albums as the pop instrumental LP Shepherd and His Flock in 1959 and, in 1968, the Aurora LP. It is as an engineer, and later a producer/arranger, however, that he had a major impact on popular music by virtue of his association with the Bee Gees. The British-born Shepherd had first achieved notice in the pop world in 1959 with his work as producer/composer on a film called Idle on Parade, which attempted to put Anthony Newley into a kind of rock & roll comedy vehicle. He also worked with legendary producer Joe Meek during the early '60s and cut a song with Gene Vincent, conducting the orchestral accompaniment for the American rock legend in 1963 before emigrating to Australia in 1964. Shepherd joined Festival Records and first began working with Barry, Robin, and Maurice Gibb in 1965 on their recording of Arthur Alexander's "Every Day I Have to Cry" and the Barry Gibb-authored B-side, "You Wouldn't Know." Shepherd departed Australia for England in 1966, and by 1967 was back working with the Bee Gees, this time under the auspices of manager/producer Robert Stigwood. He was responsible for many of the arrangements and the conducting of many accompaniments on their '60s recordings, from small string ensembles to 30-piece orchestras, in effect serving the same function with this group that George Martin had with the Beatles. Shepherd's good professional relationship with the group in those years, along with his musical range, allowed him to work in any of the idioms in which they chose to record, from psychedelia to pop ballads, and he was, at least as much as guitarist Vince Melouney or drummer Colin Petersen, a full-time member of the group in everything but name. Indeed, in those years the group often toured England and performed on-stage with an orchestra in tow, and Shepherd was very much the architect of their sound. In 1968, Shepherd also released an album entitled Aurora on which he conducted a soft pop chorus in performances of songs composed by the Gibb brothers. He remained closely involved with all of the group's work up to and including To Whom It May Concern, which was their last album done in England. Only on the rather more ambitious double-LP Odessa did he cede any of the arranging chores, in that instance to Paul Buckmaster. Although his relationship with the group ended in 1972, Shepherd's arrangements and conducting for the group are still spoken of highly by all concerned. ~ Bruce Eder, All Music Guide
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 11, 2006 17:47:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Sept 9, 2006 21:59:07 GMT -5
GG,
Why do you think Bill Harry and others like him deny or have no recollection of Billy and The Pepperpots? I never gave much thought to the Pepperpots having any relevance to PID and I believe you are giving us the truth as best you know it, but when Bill Harry and the like denied having heard of the Pepperpots, it automatically made me suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 12, 2006 21:06:20 GMT -5
Tuesday is never ending... but the papers...what papers? Contracts? Contracts on someone's life? The newpapers.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 11, 2006 23:40:46 GMT -5
**skirmisher, my apologies, as your post was accidently deleted
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 11, 2006 10:47:10 GMT -5
I think it's been long established here and in other places that JPM was significantly shorter than George and John, It has? Where?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Mar 11, 2006 9:49:14 GMT -5
Now that has shocked me, Tom Jones only 5'9''? I frantically tried to find something that might cast doubt over this revelation but alas I couldn't! www.imdb.com/name/nm0429367/bio"5' 10" (1.78 m)" Thats as tall as I can find him, so something is going on in that picture. I would trust the British version over the American version so I am gonna agree that Tom Jones was 5'9". People always exaggerate their heights anyway. And imdb being the American version probably does this also. I wouldn't be surprised if John, George and Paul were not 5'11 as listed on imdb. They could easily be 5'9" or 5'10". What I do know is that Paul, George and John were all basically the same height and Ringo was about 3 inches shorter than them. This is self-evident.
|
|