|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 17:04:43 GMT -5
and the tip of the nose...which apparently happened in 1967 No, I see no hook developed in 1967. like lookalikes? And sound-alikes? And plastic surgery? And the "public" use of "doubles"? And airbrushing / retouching photos? Where is all of this research on earlobes. I saw none. "adequately" = to satisfy you? nothing that has, or ever will be, written at this site will be 'adequate' for you. adequate to satisfy a skeptic. It's easy to satisfy the hard-core believers. oh, come on. You're the king of that. Ok, show me my smarta** remarks.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 16:53:17 GMT -5
I would say that it's very highly unlikely. Why would "the cute Beatle" need a facelift in his mid-20's? And since he never made it to 30, I seriously doubt it. Sigh. 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. This would be a possible explanation as to why the earlobes would have changed when compared to those photos from the 80's, 90's or 2000's. This thread has been about the change in appearance of his earlobes. The conclusion jumped to was that it proves that Paul was replaced. I was merely providing alternative explanations as to why there could have been a change over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 16:42:55 GMT -5
I'm strictly speaking of the ear lobes in those photos. Faul's is detached Paul's is not period. The lens, angle, lighting, and hairstyles are immaterial. And in the quote you have from me, I address the earlobe issue. That photo does not provide enough resolution to make a definitive evaluation. But the issue at hand was a general comparison, not earlobles. The quote I was referring to was: I get an F in Psychology 101 For Dummys [glow=red,2,300]Note put-down remark[/glow] But we are talkin' about folks who think these two guys are one & the same, so why am I surprised? Here, after the insult, this person used these pictures to indicate that these two persons are one and the same. Of course with all of the hundreds of comparisons done, the one comparing pictures taken over 40 years apart is chosen. Then came your response: These pics are just a few years apart. Whats the excuse for here? BTW notice the incredible You presented a comparison "a few years" apart although you give no date or cite for the picture. You did not specify that you were looking strickly at earlobes, so I looked at it as a general comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 8:56:36 GMT -5
I can cut 'n paste too! Amazing! Another put-down. It's not the cutting and pasting, it's the research. It's like a term paper. The physical act of typing 20 pages does not take that long. It's the reasearch that takes the time. Some here thought is so funny (LOL) about my talking about the earlobes drooping with time. Well, it seems no one here takes the time to research things before they jump to conclusions. I took the time to research and back up what I said to which no one here has adequately responded. All I get is smart-a** comments and people saying "they're two different people."
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 8:50:35 GMT -5
How the hell did the same ear end up on 2 different people?? So there's one comparison 40yrs apart,,... what the hell are ya talkin' about?? There are MANY comparisons around this forum comparing 2 pics taken one year apart. The difference is obvious. It doesn't matter if it's 40yrs or 1 yr... they don't match. You guys will argue with anything. You never change. You are the one who used that particular comparison to make the point that they are two different people. Why did YOU choose to use a photo comparison of pictures taken over 40 years apart? You say "So there's one comparison 40yrs apart." So why do you keep using that ONE?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 18, 2004 8:45:28 GMT -5
Now we're at a nose job and a face lift, care to try for a third? Actually, I'd say he was due for an overhaul here, he looks much less "worn out" a year later in "Broad St." And what's going on with the skin over his left eye? Looks like a shade that's been pulled down.. He's only 42 years old here for Pete's sake, I'm 42 myself, and gravity hasn't come close to having it's way with my earlobes yet. It has been shown that face lifts do affect the earlobe, especially the older techniques. Are you saying it is not possilble that Paul had a face lift? I am close to 42, and my earlobes have been affected. My grandfather's hair went grey at 18, while my dad's did not start until he was in his 50s. So? Things happen to different people at different times in life. Also, as stated above, different people age differently. You would have us believe that all persons of all races age the same way at the same rate. It can happen with aging, but not every person on earth is going to age in the same exact manner. Ear lobes start to lengthen at an advanced age. 42 is not an advanced age, if you think that, you must be twelve... That is NOT correct. They do NOT START to lengthen at an advancED age. They lengthen with advancING age, and your age is advancing from the day you are born. I am 41 and mine are drooping. Maybe yours are not, but there is this thing called genetics. Every person is DIFFERENT and we have different lifestyles. Therefore using one person as an example does NOT prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 17, 2004 14:38:47 GMT -5
I was actually referencing this insulting post. Ignore the obvious & post a few pics that perpetuate the illusion. I get an F in Psychology 101 For Dummys But we are talkin' about folks who think these two guys are one & the same, so why am I surprised? As far as the two pictures you presented, I don't know when the one on the left was taken. As far as the ear, at that distance, I can not tell much. Any darkness may be due to shadow, fold in skin or hair. The one on the right is very poor quality. I notice different lighting, hair styles, camera angles, expressions, facial hair. And I have no idea about the different lenses used. It has been demonstrated many times that comparisons of other pictures can give much different results. I guarantee that I can show two pictures of my wife, one from our wedding and one from her drivers license taken closer together in time than these you presented and they look nothing alike. I don't know who that woman is on my wife's drivers license, but I know she wasn't replaced.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 17, 2004 13:29:40 GMT -5
"This study establishes normative data for ear morphology and clearly demonstrates the changes of earlobe morphology with advancing age." www.drsullivan.com/earlobe.html"(3) ENLARGED, DROOPING EARLOBES These are a consequence of the natural aging process." www.womenfitness.net/beauty/skin/rejuvenation.htm#er3"There are a variety of techniques used to address the aging face. As the procedures have evolved, an emphasis has been placed on improving the resulting scars and retaining the patient's natural hairline. In an attempt to correct the patient's aging concerns, Dr. Sheffield may suggest a combination of procedures. Often times the face lift is performed in conjunction with laser resurfacing and/or eyelid and brow lifting. It is very important to avoid the telltale signs of older techniques such as noticeable scars, absent sideburns, protracted earlobes and horizontal facial lines. " Facelifts have definite affects on earlobes. sbplasticsurgeon.com/santa-barbara-facelift.shtml"Earlobes may be curved and hanging or straight and attached to the side of the head. With age, earlobes become longer at the base" www.facial-plastic-surgery.org/patient/fps_today/vol17_2/vol17_2pg4.html
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 17, 2004 10:33:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 17, 2004 9:14:27 GMT -5
Oh come now.... You have got to be kidding! No, I am not. That is the same ear structure. No replacement is going to have that same structure. Clever to compare two pictures taken over 40 years apart. Hell, I can show you two pictures of my mother-in-law only 10 years apart and the difference would be much more surprising than those two of Paul. But hey, you think you've got the smoking gun here? Then go for it. Let's see some guts. Get an attorney and sue for fraud. There's any number of anti-establishment lawyers out there that would love to make names for themselves. Go to some news organizations (CBS comes to mind) and/or the hundreds of conspiracy theorists out there who make millions selling conspiracy books. Try the History Channel. They present many programs about conspiracies. Present this absolutely undeniable evidence to them and let's get this over with. I will bow to your feet and humble myself to you be it true that Paul was replaced. So enough with the name calling and put-downs. Take some action. If you are so sure this is the smoking gun, then by God, do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 16, 2004 8:42:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 20:52:38 GMT -5
Oh, come on. When FP or I present pictures, the claim is that they are doctored or airbrushed (like they are really going to airbrush his earlobe.) But of course, the very poor quality video captures and newspaper b&w photos are PROOF POSITIVE.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 16:10:22 GMT -5
Looks every bit attached as any of the earlier pictures. Cool guitar, too.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 16:05:22 GMT -5
Thanks Bug. Detached. I'm talking about the inner edge. Looks detatched as much as some of the later Paul pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 12:38:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 15, 2004 12:31:45 GMT -5
Oh, come on. He noticed something and pointed it out, and even JoJo said it was a good point.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 14, 2004 15:08:10 GMT -5
But you don't understand. As part of his interest in eastern religions, he was doing these exercises daily:
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 14, 2004 13:53:36 GMT -5
Couple of things. That last photo is really lousy quality. Can't tell much from that. But he is much older, and I know from personal experience that soft things start to sag as you get older. My earlobes have gotten bigger, sag more and some other not so pleasant looks. The soft tissue at the tip of the nose starts to sag, too, which can give a hook look to it.
The pictures I posted above are clearer and to me are very similar
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 14, 2004 12:10:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Hair
Oct 28, 2004 8:37:20 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 28, 2004 8:37:20 GMT -5
But the real Paul was bald, so it wouldn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Jul 14, 2005 11:10:36 GMT -5
**the foolishness below was written by our old know-it-all friend, TheBug** ***************************************** Some comments about their new "story." First, as I have stated before, I knew someone from Liverpool who actually knew and grew up with Paul McCartney. She said the whole PID thing is rubbish. Second, this whole concept of the Crown deciding to replace Paul due to the "money" really makes me laugh. Were the Beatles the entire British economy? Did those earnings go to the royal family? Let us take a look. These are all estimates, but it will give an idea of what was going on. For 2001, the GDP of the United Kingdom was $1,782,000,000,000. That's 1.8 trillion. Using the GDP deflator back to 1966, that comes to a GDP of $399,274,047,187. According to court records, from June 1962 through December 1968, the Beatles earned 7,864,126 pounds. Using the exchange rate at November 1967, that converts to $18,952,544. Not a bad sum. I would take it. Converting that to a yearly figure you come up with $2,878,867, which means that the 1966 earnings for the Beatles accounted for .00072% of GDP for the United Kingdom. That's 7 ten thousandths of one percent. Hardly material to the British economy. I'm sure the royal family made much more than that on investment income in 1966. In addition, the tax revenues on those earnings do not go into the royal family's bank account. Some things to remember. While $18 million is a lot to you and me, it pales in comparison to the earnings over the same period of other Britsh institutions such as BP, Britsh Airways, Rolls Royce and other large companies. In addition, there were many in Britain who had much higher incomes and were worth quite a bit more. Remember we are looking at what they were worth at September 1966. The $18 million figure includes earnings for 1967 and 1968. As of 09/1966, the Beatles were just not worth that much financially in relation to the rest of the economy, and with their decision to stop touring, the Beatles as a going concern was in doubt anyway. I also believe that it is foolish to assume that if Paul had died, that the earnings from the Beatles would have stopped. They could have replaced Paul publicly and kept going. Sales may have slipped, but mabey not. The Beatles broke up in 1970 and John died in 1980, but the Beatles still managed a few years ago to be the top selling group for the year. So even with John and George dead and the group disbanded, they are still making a great deal of money. ***************************************
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 4, 2004 11:47:46 GMT -5
If you BELIEVE it's the same guy, then your mind won't let you see the differences. That works the other way around, as well. All of this is subjective. Where's the beef?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 10:38:07 GMT -5
I have been duely whacked for attacking TI.
I have removed all offending posts and changed my avatar.
I apologize to the moderators for causing offense. I had no intention of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 22, 2004 16:29:59 GMT -5
Oh, the guitar is sure a strange one, five strings? And the edges look like pieces of a puzzle. (well that it is for sure..) Guitar with five strings? No. It's a music staff. The guy was a trained musician. Three beetles because there are three corners to the shield.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 21, 2004 12:07:05 GMT -5
Here's one from the Strawberry Fields video. I don't see anything unusual in his iris here. A better response than mine: "At NIR, they used the close up of Paul (Their Faul) that I purposely did not use in the initial comparison, because the pupil was so small. But since they brought it up, here is that image compared to the initial image I was going to use. Of course they expect you to see everything with the naked eye. But here it the enhancements so you don't have to strain. I am not going to explain the enhancements or why they are not all the same except to say that each image started with a different color map, so it would be silly to do the same enhancement on them. Suffice to say, color will not appear where it is not already. What you see is really there. Keep in mind the double flases also mess with things a bit. I concentrated only on the one "lightning bolt" because it is very distinct and has a good contrast. The other areas are a mix of brown and green (hazel) so they appear different depending on the frequency of light that is reflecting off of his eyes.
|
|