|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 2, 2004 16:43:23 GMT -5
FP used a special brush for the beard, did other stuff for the part in the hair. That's the same guy.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 15, 2004 11:15:45 GMT -5
You mean...
SHE'S BACK?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 14, 2004 13:24:07 GMT -5
Michelle66...
Writing posts like that. Signs name in lower left.
Hmmm.....
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 10, 2004 12:22:53 GMT -5
FP
It is not PID fade. Shows same guy.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 8, 2004 9:41:11 GMT -5
Why do you mention only the parts you can't look at? What about the eyes, nose and teeth? Teeth are crooked in the same way, folds around eyes are the same. What did they do, give faul rubble teeth?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Apr 25, 2005 11:27:41 GMT -5
Testing...
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 23, 2004 9:46:07 GMT -5
It's a great book. There was a mini-series on Bravo a few years back that was the best on-screen rendition. Others are good, but are not long enough to do justice to the story.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 22, 2004 17:45:52 GMT -5
Thanks for the PMs. It has been a big help!
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 22, 2004 16:01:39 GMT -5
My father-in-law went to the emergency room this morning because he was unresponsive. He has alzheimers disease and is not doing very well. He thinks my wife is his sister and he thinks he's a kid.
Anyway, in the emergency room, with nothing to do other than to stare at him, I noticed his earlobes. They are attached, but now that he is older, the base of the earlobe droops a lot, making it look unattached. I can see how that can be confusing.
He came around and all tests were negative, but they still don't know why he went unconscious. If anyone has had similar circumstances, let me know if you have any ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 20, 2004 12:11:14 GMT -5
Dang, that was 3 days ago. Can't you come up with something recent? ;D I had just been reading how eyesbleed called the W. Campbell stuff I was posting was crap. I guess I got agitated.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 20, 2004 11:54:11 GMT -5
I'd want to engage her in conversation, along the lines of Onlooker, who posts here occasionally. We did engage her in conversation-for hours and hours; and not just about Paul, but the others as well. She isn't lying. She was there. She knows him. Her opinion gets a great deal of weight in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 20, 2004 11:15:51 GMT -5
Any comment about the woman from liverpool and Paul's neighborhood who knew Paul pre '67 and post '66 who knows he is the same person?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 20, 2004 10:19:10 GMT -5
Bug, I think you misinterpretted eyesbleed's 'Psych for Dummies' comment. Those '... for Dummies' books are for newbies where the reader is assumed to be the dummy, not the subject matter. Based on what I've read over at M-what-ever, most of them do think we're full of it. That's OK by me. They're entitled to their opinions as are we. PIDers get treated with a lot less tolerance there than PIAers do here. I do believe I saw you refer to our site as "cr*p" at least once. ;D I said that on this board? I don't remember saying that on any board. Could you please cite that?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 20, 2004 10:06:25 GMT -5
Again, that's easy for you to say. There's tons of art I can only dream of getting around to & music that will never get recorded because I don't have the time or the resources. I have to work every single day to not quite get all the bills paid each week. Believe me, if I had only a fraction of the time & money this would take to get SIR Paul into court, I would invest it in myself & be a much happier & more accomplished artist. Are you the only one on this board? What about colaboration? Submit your proof to conspiracy authors. Send it to different news organizations. There are many things that can be done that will cost very little money and not take much time, especially if you divide up the tasks.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 20, 2004 10:00:36 GMT -5
1967: I was talking about the ones showing the earlobes. This does not in any way show the earlobes.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 16:12:47 GMT -5
But your conclusions are always correct and ours are erroneous? Correct? 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.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 16:05:30 GMT -5
It's not being "sat" on, it's right here, right out in the open. It's a hobby, it's a board, it's just us talking, chill.. (you don't need to flood the board with posts to make a point btw) I really don't mean to flood the board with posts, but I find it easier to respond to things one at a time, and many poeple are posting things to respond to and I am only one. I just find in more managable to do small posts adressing specific issues rather than one big post trying to respond to dozens of issues brought up by many people. Does this include the word "crap"? Is tolerant and respectful include referring to dummies, accusing people of being in fantasyland and calling them blind? Was it respectful to FP to jump on him because he just made an observation about a recent post, accusing him of ignoring the obvious and trying to change directions? Is it respecting other peoples work saying "I can cut and paste, too." The rules say PIA opinions are welcome and arguments from both sides are welcome. But when we do present our side, there is not an adult exchange challenging the position. Most of the time, it is personal attacks on the poster, ridiculing and belittling the person and the position. All need to respect the rules, not just the PIAers.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 15:09:28 GMT -5
Call me Mr.Pessimist, but I don't see how a small group of folks online could prove to the world in a court of law that JPM was replaced. Take it to court against SIR PAUL? Easy for you to say. Do YOU have the time & money? A small group on the internet exposed forged documents used by CBS, so that now several there will be fired. In the mid 1800's a woman wrote a book that played a major part in leading the U.S. to civil war. One person, or a small group can do big things. Don't be so modest. If this earlobe thing is REALLY a smoking gun; if it really is proof, then of course you can prove it in a court of law. But don't ignore the other suggestion. Write a book. Make millions. Others have done it with other conspiracies. But I can't believe that all here would sit on a story that would prove to be one of the biggest stories of the latter half of the 20th century.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 14:58:55 GMT -5
So... again, if yer so certain that we're full of crap & don't know what we're talking about, then why spend so much time with us? Is it just our lucky day? I refuse to use that kind of terminology about the people of this board. I respect what you did when you left 60IF and I thought you did what needed to be done. When certain others were upset and were posting things saying you were wrong and cruel for what you did, I defended the people here and I stand by that. I realize that there is nothing that I can present or say that will change the minds of some here, but I will continue to present alternative theories for the fence sitters and visitors to this board who do not have a hard and fast opinion. I see no harm in challenging things that may lead to erroneous conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 14:51:21 GMT -5
if you think those photos are of the same man (and the same nose!! ), there is no point in discussing anything else with you. The nose can change shape with different facial expressions. I can flare my nostrils, make them smaller and elongate my nose. It is made of cartilage and changes shape with muscle movement. Other fades have shown that it is the same nose. It is misleading to show two pictures with two different facial expressions and use that to show that they are two different perople.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 14:43:18 GMT -5
Guess that moped accident left a lot more damage than first thought... You mean just like you thought it was so funny about earlobes drooping with age? Well as shown, I was quite right about that.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 19, 2004 14:38:47 GMT -5
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? 1. Never did I say that Paul got a facelift at age 24. 2. No photo on here shows 1967. Most of the photographs look to be from the 1980s or later. One photo may be earlier, but there is no cite where the photo is from or from what year. I have asked, bot no one has provided it. 3. The fade provided compares Paul pre '67 to Paul in the late 70s. That fade shows the same ear structure with a small difference in the earlobe due to aging or, perhaps, a face lift. A replacement would not have such a matching ear structure. 4. You talk about "women" noticing a difference. In my younger days, when I was playing in a band, I had the fortune to know a woman from Liverpool who grew up with Paul as well as George Ringo and John. They used to talk together. She used to go see them at the cavern. She was a coworker of one of my best friends. Her husband was German and used to run an Octoberfest at a German club here in town. They were fun to go to because some of his friends were in the German Luftwaffe and they would show up with some of their medals and tell stories about their time in the war. Being musicians, my friends and I would pepper this woman about the Beatles; their history, personalities etc. Our band played for her kid's wedding. We were a little nervous because we played some Beatle tunes, and she used to listen regularly to the real thing. One thing I can tell you. She did not believe Paul was replaced. According to her, he remained the same old Paul; same personality and everything. I certainly give great weight to her opinion since she certainly knows more than anyone here. Well, I have made my points in a calm manner. I did not refer to dummies, accuse anyone here of being in a fantasyland, or say that I don't give a damn about any of your opinions. The vitriol comes from somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 17:29:14 GMT -5
How the hell did the same ear end up on 2 different people?? You guys will argue with anything. They can't. It's the same person. The fade shows the ear structures are the same, with some minor changes due to aging and possibly due to a face lift at some point. The ears shown in that fade are about 14 to 15 years apart. If the older Paul was a replacement, those ear structures would not match so well. My point is that there are other more simpler explanations for a change in the appearence of the earlobe than a huge complicated conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 17:19:23 GMT -5
Don't make me laugh too. The earlobe comparison is the best piece of evidence for PID we have seen in long time. Please refer to reply #84. People have called it the "smoking gun" and undeniable. Well then, bring it to court. Write a book and make millions of dollars for exposing this cover-up. Then you can have the laugh on all of us PIAers. If you REALLY believe you have the smoking gun, then let's see some action.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 17:11:04 GMT -5
well, in his case, that must've happened around 1967 Even though that one on the right is a poor quality b&w picture, there is no hook nose there. The nose has a slightly different shape because of the different facial expression, but the tip is not hooked.
|
|