|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 21, 2004 9:52:59 GMT -5
Also looks like another clear shot of Paul's attached lobe. And notice that the oldest Paul has the earlobe attached, but the base droops quite a bit just as doctors say can happen with aging.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 21, 2004 9:48:15 GMT -5
I still don't see the iris business in this much clearer pic. As for the vintage pic, which is one of ours perhaps, I don't know, I don't see the line coming off the right outer corner of the eye of the first Bill pic. As for the fold, since I'm totally lost on that one, with this battle of the fuzzy pixels, I'll refrain from comment.. This isn't as much of a close up. Did you increase the highlights of the red and green to bring out the green and brown areas. It's like when nasa shows color enhanced photos of the planets and their moons to show features not noticeable with normal lighting. He also explained the proper lighting conditions to see it best. You have not said whether this particular photograph meets the criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Dec 20, 2004 11:24:49 GMT -5
Following is not my work, but it is extremely "eye-opening" "The original images were not adjusted, however the highlights of only the red and green were increased slightly to bring out the green and brown areas. Notice an odd swirl on the bottom of his right cornea (our left). This is only visible in images where the ambiant lighting is bright enough to clearly light his cornea. Also, it is only consistent in images where the flash (If there is one) is coming from straight ahead. In other early and later images, this anomoly is still there, but fainter. Also notice what appears to be a bump or small growth on his bottom eyelid. What is that? It is in all 3 images and seems to become more pronounced with his age." "I used the closeup in the middle as a model for the red lines and transfered them to the other two images...that is why there is a little bit of a size difference as these images are not exactly to scale with each other, or his pupils are at different sizes due to the variations in lighting. The swirl in the left most image is a bit less distinct than it is in the others...this could be due to a combination of age, lighting, pupil dialation, etc. There is NO SUCH THING as PLASTIC SURGERY on the IRIS. No amount of plastic surgury will change your iris, and his are just as asymetric as the rest of his face. Side-shot images show that his iris is flat and a contact lens put over his cornea would make it appear to protrude. That would rule out the assertion that an imposter wore contact lenses in order to change his eye color." One thing I want to add. Notice the earlobe on the oldest Paul. It is attached, but the base of the earlobe droops quite a bit, just as the doctors said could happen with age.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Jun 23, 2004 9:12:12 GMT -5
Don't worry....my arguments are always science-based SilverBeatle. Ex members of this forum have just discovered a book where they have found what I've said and done is all valid (scientifically speaking). I have no problem about.....my only problem is not being of english language..... He is stating that y'all have validated what he has been doing. Is that true?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 14, 2004 11:33:35 GMT -5
Read above posts and the links. Most of the "clues" have been debunked and/or explained. Many were just plain made up by people. MYTH: The story was based on "clues" from record sleeves, songs, etc. that "proved" Paul had been killed in a car crash in November *1966*. Researchers "discovered" that a crash had occurred around that time which involved a young dark haired male who was disfigured beyond recognition. REALITY: Paul did suffer a minor motorcycle accident in Dec. 1965, and chipped a tooth; you cans see the as-yet-uncapped tooth in the "Rain" promo and in a filmed Ed Sullivan appearance in June 1966. This accident may be the source for the story of Paul's "car crash death". MYTH: Then the Beatles, in the winter of 1966, held a "Paul look- alike" contest but no winner was ever announced. BUT - there was a winner....his name was William Campbell, and he was paid a considerable amount of money to play along with the facade - he was to be the NEW Paul. He supposedly looked enough like PM to sit in with the other Beatles for photographs, sometimes even fooling the photographers. Strangely, nothing was ever heard of William Campbell again. His picture is included on the poster that came with the White album in the lower right-hand corner. Looks like Paul with glasses, mustache, and combed back hair. William Campbell has this faint scar on his upper lip, PM doesn't. REALITY: Such a contest was actually held, co-sponsored by an American teen magazine (perhaps "Tiger Beat"?) and Dick Clark of the TV show "American Bandstand". The winner of this 1965 contest was Keith Allison, who had a brief brush with fame on teen shows such as "Where The Action Is" and apparently later joined Paul Revere and the Raiders, circa 1966. The real Paul *does* have a faint scar on his upper lip from the above-mentioned motorcycle accident. No William Campbell ever won a Paul look-alike contest. The William Campbell clue was invented by Fred LaBour. MYTH: Since then, the Beatles supposedly started putting clues on their album sleeves and even in their music so that their poor fans would find them and thus the shock of Paul's untimely death would be assuaged. REALITY: All four Beatles, John included, denied any involvement in the Paul Is Dead hoax. CLUES: Yesterday...and Today Paul looks like he's in a coffin in the cover shot. "Yesterday and Today" was released in mid 1966 (supposedly just prior to Pauls demise) with the famous "Butcher Cover". As we all know, these albums were recalled just after they were released (right after Paul "died") and 'pasted over' with the now familiar 'Trunk Cover'. MYTH: This was allegedly done not because the buying public was outraged at the original "Butcher" cover (as was 'officially' announced by Capitol) but because the cover too closely depicted the carnage that occured in that deadly 'car crash' and the Beatles themselves demanded that Capitol remove it from the market. REALITY: None of the above is true. There was no "death of Paul" and memos exist explaining why the "butcher cover" to "Yesterday and Today" were being withdrawn. BTW, the "butcher cover" shot was actually photographed as a promotion for the "Paperback Writer" single; it was used on "Yesterday and Today" only as an afterthought. More of MYTHS and REALITY at this website: www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/faqs/pid.html
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 14, 2004 10:43:37 GMT -5
I am not necessarily talking about today either. Allow me to get conspiratorial here in saying that I think the threat of "death" was over their heads at the time so they couldn't leak it. So they had to leave clues.....a way of telling the public without really telling them and without anyone actually knowing it. P.S. Believe me, I think Lennon would have loved to send a letter to the press like yours but he couldn't imo. Like I said, there were too many "higher ups" involved and death would be there for anyone daring enough to do so. I once had a job that involved confidential information about cetain vips. We were warned about not giving out such info to anyone on pain of immediate termination. If I had wanted to, I could have leaked all kinds of information without anyone knowing who did it. I don't mean he should sign the letter and let people know who sent it. He could have leaked the letter along with documentation without anyone knowing who did it. Whoever these "higher-ups" were, could not go ahead and kill everyone involved. I think it would look a little funny if all of the beatles along with their family members and close friends and associates died suddenly. By the way, why would "Faul", who was making all this money pretending to be Paul, take part in leaving clues indicating that he was a phoney? Seems to me he would want to keep it a secret.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 11:15:38 GMT -5
It was "out" in 69. I've got several hours of radio shows on this subject, & there have been other printed articles also. All they had to do was go on hiding the truth in plain view for all to see & deny everything. "How can I be dead when your interviewing me & taking my picture?" The fact that all of the "insiders" denied the existance of every single clue, both audio & visual is absurd. How could every single clue either be an "accident" or a "coincedence"? So do you believe that too? First, it was "out" in 1969. If the media is so contolled, how could there have been hours of radio shows and so many articles? And this was just base on clues that the participants in the PID story later admitted were made up. All the stuff in 1969 was based on funny clues. Why wasn't it leaked in 1966 or 67? And if you leak it, why do it through rediculous clues. Leak it with hard facts and documentation that can be verified and investigated? See post above. As to the clues, yes I believe most are made up or concidences. See the following sites: www.amuseyourself.com/amuse-2000/epitaph/paulisdead/paulisdead.htmlwww.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/faqs/pid.html
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 10:28:09 GMT -5
Yes and who's going to believe it? People believe what they hear and see on the news and the news is very controlled as to what gets shown, etc. I'm sure it has been leaked from individual to individual many times, but to the masses no. And who is gonna come forward and say they know the McCartney of today is a double? I wouldn't if I still cared about my reputation as a celebrity or a person of high power. I am not talking about today. If they did not like what was happening, as I figure John Lennon would not have been happy with it, why not leak it in 1967 or 68. And not with obscure clues, but with real facts. Why not send out something like the "60If" document such as follows: "A fraud is being perpetrated on you by the governments of the UK and the USA as well as the media. Paul McCartney was killed on 9/11/66 in an auto accident. The record companies did not want to give up the revenue produced by the beatles, so they decided to replace Paul with a look alike and make out that nothing happened. That is why we stopped playing live in public and instead stayed in the studio. Plastic surgery was done to make the replacement look more like Paul. The doctor who did it was Dr. NNNNN and the surgeries took place on mm/dd/yy and mm/dd/yy. The replacements name is William Campbell and he is from Ottawa Canada. He was working at such and such and went to school at such and such. You should be able to check on people who knew him there. Pauls body is buried at such and such cemetery and exuming his body could verify this story. The rest of the group has remained quiet due to threats to them as well as to their families. This is notice so that if family members and close friends of the Beatles start dying at an alarming rate you will know they are being murdered by the powers that be. The songs X and Y on Sgt Pepper were recorded while Paul was alive, but you will notice the rest of the Paul songs have a different voice. Song Z was sung by Neil...." A type-written document such as this, with hard facts and accompanying documentation, could have been sent out to several media outlets, authors, radio stations, universities and underground newpapers. Such an effort with hard facts and documentation that could be investigated and verified would have dwarfed the coverage the story got based on the rediculous clues and rumors. The powers that be would not know who leaked it, and they couldn't kill everyone involved. Killing anyone even to make a point would raise suspicion after the leak and cause more problems. If I were in Lennon's place, that is how I would have leaked it. Not by using backwards passages on records and obscure clues, hoping that someone would piece them together.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 9:56:01 GMT -5
WHO do you think "owns" the "press" ? Ever read Media Monopoly? EDITED TO REMOVE POLITICAL CONTENT.
this is not the forum for discussing Vietnam, Watergate, JFK, etc. as per the forum rules from day one.
Stop trying to fly things under the radar...
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 11, 2004 9:45:58 GMT -5
[img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 8, 2004 12:59:23 GMT -5
If this happened, then they would have to be willing participants. It would have been easy enough for any or the parties, and there would have to be many, to leak the information to the press. It happens all the time. If they wanted to get it out, it would have been out and nobody would ever know who leaked it.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 8, 2004 8:40:17 GMT -5
I won't quote your apples and oranges analogy, it was not too uh.. pleasing to read, to put it mildly.. I modified it. See above. But it is not apples and oranges. An accusation is being made, not only about Paul McCartney, but about John, Ringo and George, along with others like George Martin, Jane Asher, Linda McCartney. I admire and respect some of these people and the reason we PIAers passionatley post our opinions and rebuttles is precisely because we believe there is NO truth to the allegations, not because we are "threatened" or we believe there is some truth to it. Another person I admire and respect is Wynton Marsalis. Played trumpet with him in high school. If someone was making allegations about him that I belived were not true, I would do my best to set the record straight. I would not be threatened, I would do it because I believed them NOT to be true. This idea that the reason we post what we post is because we believe that PID/PWR is true is rediculous.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 7, 2004 13:35:37 GMT -5
EXACTLY!!! Exactly wrong. If I stated on this forum that Revolver is a known **Sun King worshiper"**, would you fight the allegation only if you thought there was some truth to it? Wouldn't you defend Revolver just as much, if not more, because you know that there is NO truth to it? No one is "threatened" by PID/PWR. We just don't believe it to be correct and that it is wrong to slander another human being without damned good proof. **Modified to make more pleasant. I don't want to cause any trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 7, 2004 10:28:52 GMT -5
- Somehow I don't think you guys would be so threatened by PID/PWR if you didn't sense there was some truth to it. Else, why not laugh it off rather than getting hostile?
There is this logic again. It is flawed. It is just because I believe there is NO truth to it that I speak against it. If someone falsly accused me of a crime, I would fight like hell because I knew there was no truth to it. People fight quite hard when they feel lies are being spread because they want the record set straight. I do not feel "threatened" by PID/PWR. What the hell does it matter to me? (Now if I were in line to inherit his millions, I'd care a great deal, but no such luck.) I just don't believe it is true and will voice my opinion to say so.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Sept 7, 2004 13:35:45 GMT -5
Does anyone know why George used "Dark Horse" for the name of his label? What is the origin?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Mar 4, 2004 8:27:35 GMT -5
Agree 100% After I got it, I watched it over and over again. I only wish George didn't have to die in order to get such a concert of his music.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Mar 1, 2004 10:08:40 GMT -5
Could you be more clear? What are you getting at?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Jun 7, 2004 11:30:37 GMT -5
Who are you talking about?
|
|
|
WMWY
Aug 16, 2004 7:34:38 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Aug 16, 2004 7:34:38 GMT -5
Can anyone give me information on TotalInfo on the 60if board? Is he really crazy, or is it an act?
|
|
|
WMWY
Jun 30, 2004 12:40:04 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Jun 30, 2004 12:40:04 GMT -5
Great!
Let's get to it.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 8, 2004 10:51:34 GMT -5
Check out this 60IF parody board (I'm pretty sure it's a parody - they've got posts from "Chris" who's already in guest status) I'd like to know which recovering 60IF member threw this thing together. claptongone.proboards30.comIt was me who posted as Chris, just playing around. I felt bad dragging her name out again so I deleted the membership and apologized to the moderators. Someone over there thinks its someone from NIR. I told that person that I think that highly unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Aug 20, 2004 9:56:06 GMT -5
Now this is a thread I can get into!
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 12, 2004 16:28:26 GMT -5
I surmized that had something to do with it, but I was not sure if there was some specific reason he picked that at the time. Just wondering.
Thanks for the site. It has some great photos.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 12, 2004 13:29:07 GMT -5
I have always been curious about what the significance of the name "Dark Horse" that George used for his label.
Do you know?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 25, 2004 16:17:36 GMT -5
Actually, I agree with you.
But I just put the 9/11 date in a post as a reference. I made no statements about it, offered any opinions, or made any political statements about it whatsoever. Why was I called on it for being "political?"
|
|