|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 30, 2004 18:07:12 GMT -5
FP, this isn't the "dark side"....in fact, we're more like the rebellion. ;D Know what? It was my fault to categorize one side as good, one side as bad. It's not like that. We both equally suck. I just don't believe there was a "Death Star For Cutie", and I don't believe that "Paul was the Wookie". Hehe, just made those up. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Dec 30, 2004 18:35:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Dec 31, 2004 1:53:53 GMT -5
about the eyes things.. call it womens intuition or whatever, but john damn i am good at reading people! I freak myself out sometimes. As for the Beatles.. can't really tell much about Ringo and George. But pre 67 Paul.. he had a sparkle, warmth, mischeviouness. Pre 67 John, had a 'i'm gonna conquer the world' and a slight look of insecurity at the same time. Post 67 Paul, i can't read anything, his eyes are dead. And as for John.. his eyes are an open book and all i see is sadness. Remember the eyes are a window to the soul, and they never lie!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 31, 2004 2:22:41 GMT -5
No cold eyes there. Nope, that IS James Paul McCartney. Everything about it says so. I don't even need a fade or comparison for this.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 31, 2004 3:56:56 GMT -5
Perhaps so. In my new, current mood, I am tending to think that Paul McCartney, the original, actually DID live through some kind of ordeal. I contemplate there IS a continuing replacement, the man we know as Sir Paul. I fear the first Macca suffered a permanent debilatation. I suspect it was a brain trauma. I suspect he has been protected and taken care of (imagine---- he might still be alive today!) and kept out of the public eye. Out of respect and compassion, the family and everyone else has supported this whole enterprise in order to protect a wounded loved one. I fear that his injury has made him unable to be social, or public. I think he is the one we see photographed with Linda on the magazine cover in 1969.
Paul is alive; but has a man representing him. To save him from being taken advantage of, or further hurt, or put to public humiliation, he's been shielded from view. I imagine his condition to be that severe.
Otherwise, think of paparazzi, reporters, con artists, etc., misusing or harrassing him. I think not. Remember the climate in 1966. The crazed crowds, the constant news stories, all that pressure and attention. Where do you put a precious friend who's now incapable of personal defense?
Out of sight. Easy to do. IF YOU AREN'T A WORLD FAMOUS BEATLE.
If you aren't dead, then you can't say, "He's dead."
Get it?
You can get a qualified person to step in, and act for them maybe...........
If Paul had died, personal resentment might have sent the people close by into enough resentment that they wold have eventually talked about it.
But, this situation? You'd glady NEVER say a word. Why? Love. Concern.
Juse more musings from your friendly neighborhood PhD. Well, false doctor. OK, your roving, raving Foctor.
Meet the Foctor. Faul'sFoctor. Everybody should have one.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Dec 31, 2004 5:02:15 GMT -5
That's an alternate theory I'm somewhat leaning towards as well. Paul might be alive, but there might be two Pauls running around. The one we call Faul is the one you see most often since late '66... something happened to the other one during this time that neccesisitated a replacement.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Dec 31, 2004 6:59:14 GMT -5
back it up.. if you make a statement like that and have nothing to back it up you just look like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
btw another reference to religion and you will have strike one, its in the forum rules i suggest you read them again just as a refresher.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 31, 2004 7:15:28 GMT -5
back it up.. if you make a statement like that and have nothing to back it up you just look like a child throwing a temper tantrum. That's one of the most hypocritical things I've ever heard. All the time I'm hearing "Faul had a taller head" "his eyes are closer together" "that's obviously not Paul" "how do you explain the voice changes?" "That's more of a PID fade than a PIA fade" "The features don't line up" "Paul was shorter than Faul" All the time here I have to go through that. Statments that aren't being backed up AT ALL. Sorry. I mean, I wasn't taking sides or giving my opinion on anything...
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Dec 31, 2004 7:23:43 GMT -5
you obviously have not grasped the difference between opinions and what you said as a statement of fact. if you feel its a fact then tell us why, otherwise make sure its clear that you are stating an opinion.
and as i said to your friend eddy, the mods here have been very patient so far, i do not feel the need to do so. I'm back and i'm not in a good mood.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 31, 2004 7:38:13 GMT -5
you obviously have not grasped the difference between opinions and what you said as a statement of fact. if you feel its a fact then tell us why, otherwise make sure its clear that you are stating an opinion. You're right about that. I didn't make it clear enough that I was stating my opinion. 5 of the quotes in my last post, I'm hearing constantly around here. They're backed up like 5% of the time. I back up my statments by making fades, but the others here "trust their eyes" and act like everything their eyes tell them is true. Eyesbleed says this all the time: "They are two different people whether you like it or not. And that is a FACT" Well don't take it out on me.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Dec 31, 2004 7:41:36 GMT -5
and fades are more reliable than the human eye? oh dear god what planet do you live on.
as for don't take it out on you. remember one thing.. you are a guest here. keep that in mind before you go any further with me. i don't play around your next statement to me could be your last.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 31, 2004 7:44:35 GMT -5
I thought there was a "3 strike" rule here....
I'm not going to argue anymore. It's not worth risking my account.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Dec 31, 2004 7:49:30 GMT -5
i don't go with the three strikes. i've watched for the past year as the mods have put up with you bumping your own threads, throwing temper tantrums when no-one replies to it and being obnoxious.
being nice isn't something i concern myself with. i won't lose sleep. if you have any complaints i suggest you take it up with admin. of course i'm not sure i will be that sympathetic to your plight.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 31, 2004 9:15:14 GMT -5
No cold eyes there. Nope, that IS James Paul McCartney. Everything about it says so. I don't even need a fade or comparison for this. What's up FP? Ya need a little backup?? That pic does have some JPM characterisics & I suppose that is one of a few possibilities here. Y'all are experts at finding the pics that are harder to tell the difference, but I think y'all need to be finding reasons for all the pics that obviously show someone else. And concerning Doc's post.... & I've brought this up before but no PIAers ever respond.Why aren't you guys working on finding out why there are obviously 2 Pauls? Granted, y'all concentrate on the pics that back up yer argument, yet you ignore the ones that obviously show something else. JPM does NOT have to be dead for their to be a replacement.... either permenent or temporary. PID could very well be WRONG, but that does not tell us why we see pis of another man using JPM's name. It sems to me that PIDers & PIAers SHOULD have a lot of common ground in trying to figure this out... but NOOO! (and in all fairness Jonna... the only reason religion was brought up is coz FP felt like we were trying to "convert" him.)
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 31, 2004 9:58:07 GMT -5
What's up FP? Ya need a little backup?? That pic does have some JPM characterisics & I suppose that is one of a few possibilities here. Y'all are experts at finding the pics that are harder to tell the difference, but I think y'all need to be finding reasons for all the pics that obviously show someone else. And concerning Doc's post.... & I've brought this up before but no PIAers ever respond.Why aren't you guys working on finding out why there are obviously 2 Pauls? Granted, y'all concentrate on the pics that back up yer argument, yet you ignore the ones that obviously show something else. JPM does NOT have to be dead for their to be a replacement.... either permenent or temporary. PID could very well be WRONG, but that does not tell us why we see pis of another man using JPM's name. It sems to me that PIDers & PIAers SHOULD have a lot of common ground in trying to figure this out... but NOOO! (and in all fairness Jonna... the only reason religion was brought up is coz FP felt like we were trying to "convert" him.) Yes EB, I need lots of backup right now. I just posted that pic saying I don't see coldness in the eyes. I made a little mistake of claiming that it's Paul McCartney without backing it up, then I'm one inch from being banned for rules that aren't even in the rules list. Jonna, have people complained about me? I don't remember throwing temper tantrums when people don't reply to my threads, or being obnoxious.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 31, 2004 10:00:57 GMT -5
Yes EB, I need lots of backup right now. I just posted that pic saying I don't see coldness in the eyes. I made a little mistake of claiming that it's Paul McCartney without backing it up, then I'm one inch from being banned for rules that aren't even in the rules list. Yer not an inch away from being banned.
|
|
|
Post by lj on Dec 31, 2004 10:05:13 GMT -5
yes! exactly! [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"] [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"]
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 31, 2004 10:12:08 GMT -5
There have been fades I made where I don't think they look much alike... but they match up. They always do. I know, I know, Larry and Crosby match up, but do they make the EXACT same expressions, same eye wrinkles, same voice, same height? Because in my opinion Paul and Faul do.
|
|
|
Post by lj on Dec 31, 2004 10:16:55 GMT -5
Because in my opinion Paul and Faul do. well it´s funny because making that distinction is like admitting there is a paul AND a faul. ;D
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 31, 2004 10:19:41 GMT -5
well it´s funny because making that distinction is like admitting there is a paul AND a faul. ;D I just forgot to put quotes on "Faul" that's all...
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Dec 31, 2004 12:20:44 GMT -5
[img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"]
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Dec 31, 2004 13:21:41 GMT -5
refer to my last post on fades. perfect example. this is the last i'm going to comment on this.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 31, 2004 20:28:41 GMT -5
My guess is the The Great Larry C will not even remember. It's no big deal. It was no big deal a long time ago. If anything, that is the better way to run a topic-specific forum. Following M4E's example, we should move all PIA discussion to a separate category called 'The PIA Hoax' Seriously, I think we should.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 31, 2004 20:46:12 GMT -5
Following M4E's example, we should move all PIA discussion to a separate category called 'The PIA Hoax' Seriously, I think we should. Not a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 31, 2004 20:51:30 GMT -5
Something to take under advisement, yes.
|
|