|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 4, 2004 11:55:12 GMT -5
1) Okay, we all know this pic, right? 2) I scanned a pic from a magazine (40th Anniversary Collectors Edition The Beatles ) and it's a pic of early Paul with the same expresion. He's standing with George and John, it's a famous pic. Here: 3) What do they look like next to each other? What does this prove? Nothing yet. 4) On photoshop I was able to put the 67 pic on top of the early one. Where does it get interesting? I was able to fade the 67 pic 50%. THEY MATCH PERFECTLY. Larry even did an animation of the fade. Thanks Larry! img36.exs.cx/img36/7861/Paul67Fade.gifUnlike a bunch of other fades where just the eyes and head shape match up, here EVERYTHING does. The nose, the ears, the chin, and the head shape. I don't see how 2 different people can make the same expression. If Faul had all this plastic surgery to look like Paul, wouldn't his face look hard, tight, and unnatural like Michael Jackson and/or Joan Rivers? No, his face looks normal, and soft, IMO. I don't expect to convince you guys with this, I just want to see how you'll respond.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 4, 2004 14:30:32 GMT -5
Shocking!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 4, 2004 15:25:26 GMT -5
Please feel free to call me over-slimplistic, but here goes:
What are the odds of a "Paul look-alike" having these characteristics in common with the pre-accident Paul.
1.) Looking like him in appearance, speech patterns AND mannerisms. 2.) Be not only left-handed, but be able to PLAY MULTIPLE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS like the early Paul. And play them left-handed. 3.) Not only play (no. 2) but sing in a convincing enough manner to sound like the early Paul. 4.) Be musically talanted enough to continue a career in music and write symphonic music as well as pop. 5.) And most importantly: HAVE ALL THESE CHARCTERISTICS IN ONE INDIVIDUAL!
I also find it hard to believe that in the last 38 years NOT ONE PERSON has come forward demonstrating first-hand info involving the cover-up, either through complicity, first-hand involvement, or what was uncovered. I'd like to see an expert in statistics make up a program putting the odds on that one!
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 4, 2004 16:34:44 GMT -5
Please feel free to call me over-slimplistic, but here goes: What are the odds of a "Paul look-alike" having these characteristics in common with the pre-accident Paul. 1.) Looking like him in appearance, speech patterns AND mannerisms. 2.) Be not only left-handed, but be able to PLAY MULTIPLE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS like the early Paul. And play them left-handed. 3.) Not only play (no. 2) but sing in a convincing enough manner to sound like the early Paul. 4.) Be musically talanted enough to continue a career in music and write symphonic music as well as pop. 5.) And most importantly: HAVE ALL THESE CHARCTERISTICS IN ONE INDIVIDUAL! I also find it hard to believe that in the last 38 years NOT ONE PERSON has come forward demonstrating first-hand info involving the cover-up, either through complicity, first-hand involvement, or what was uncovered. I'd like to see an expert in statistics make up a program putting the odds on that one! What he said! ;D But the admins will just tell you to go here. Any skeptics of PIA please give us an explanation of why the eyes, ears, nose and head shape match up!
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 5, 2004 1:02:07 GMT -5
What he said! ;D But the admins will just tell you to go here. ;D LOL LOL Flaming Pie do know me well by now yes, because it happens every day. Definitely not all to the same degree, but that topic details two specific examples of which I am personally aware. Certainly there are others. at the risk of sounding like Sun King, I don't have much faith in any photos that were published after 1966. The fade is interesting, but doesn't change my opinion....(and in all fairness to FP, he said up-front that wasn't his intention in posting the pic, anyway.)
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 5, 2004 1:04:36 GMT -5
...If Faul had all this plastic surgery to look like Paul, wouldn't his face look hard, tight, and unnatural like Michael Jackson and/or Joan Rivers? no, Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers are both examples of people who have 'abused' plastic surgery, and had it done countless times. For example, Elizabeth Taylor had her share of plastic surgeries, as did Marilyn Monroe -- and neither of them ever looked "hard and unnatural".
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 5, 2004 1:44:35 GMT -5
I am going to go off on a tangent for a minute, but it is to make a point. You know. I like to have fun and tease the SunKing stuff and all, but I agree with the point about the reliability of photos. But I think photos both before and after 66-67 are unreliable. Not because of physical alteration, but because the nature of photos is not precise. I have mentioned it on my site, but I have not emphasized it enough. people think the photos on my site are used to prove Paul is alive. In fact I use only because it is a web site and needs somethig interesting to stir the mind. I think I have been unfair to PID. Much of my responses on my site are because of SunKing, not PID. I will recompile the info and also make the PID section more inclined towards the original and evolved PID theories, not the SK garbage. Read the info here carefully, I clearly state that photos can't be used for or against PID. www.paulisnotdead.com/index-2.php?secct=pind&toppic=pind&subbt=photos&pagge=1The above section will remain pro-PIA, but will not mix up PID with 60if. I will also change the below listed section to be more pro-PID. I will confine the pro-PIA comments and explanations on a PID rebuttle page in the section. Any suggestions for what should be in the redesigned PID topic? Please send e-mail to the webmaster from the homepage. www.paulisnotdead.com/index-2.php?secct=conspiracy&toppic=conspiraciesnz&subbt=pidComments on the nose and eyes matching up? Great match. I find it difficult to believe that the alledged "Faul" would match his facial characteristics so well with Paul's younger self when most Pro-PID people say that Faul's features do not match Paul. I realize this could sound conflicting to my points about unreliabilities of photos, but the reason I think this one may be good is because I believe the subjects were in focus, were not too far to the edges of the frame, were not too small in the negative (therebye less prone to normal lense distortion) and were not at too different an angle from each other. Oh. I forgot. What makes this image exceptional is that the lighting appears to be from the same angle. This makes the shadows on his face, the outline of his head, and the subtle lines around his eyes, nose and mouth very apparent. They are the same, even with the age difference. Any comments on this?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 5, 2004 20:16:04 GMT -5
Please feel free to call me over-slimplistic, but here goes: 1.) Looking like him in appearance, speech patterns AND mannerisms.! Wrong. If you'll study it further you'll see that Bill doesn't act like Paul. Bill's more arrogant & selfcentered & unsure of himself than the easy-goin' & very self confident JPM. 2.) Be not only left-handed, but be able to PLAY MULTIPLE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS like the early Paul. And play them left-handed.! Wrong. JPM was a natural. Bill had to work at being a so-so stand-in. Compare Ed Sullivan to MMT. He did a good job overall & has FINALLY been able to release some interesting material over the last few years. It took him long enough. 3.) Not only play (no. 2) but sing in a convincing enough manner to sound like the early Paul. If anything, Bill has a better singing voice than JPM, but it's DIFFERENT. Listen more carefully. JPM has a more natural deep-end. Bill can handle the highs. 4.) Be musically talanted enough to continue a career in music and write symphonic music as well as pop. ! I think the "Paul" solo career has been, for the most part, crap. You'll find many critics who'll agree. Although he has started winning me over lately. A JPM solo career wouldn't have been so forgetful, but if that was JPM; there wouldn't be much of a solo career coz he never woulda let The Beatles break up in the first place. 5.) And most importantly: HAVE ALL THESE CHARCTERISTICS IN ONE INDIVIDUAL!! Wrong. The majority of pics show 2 distictly different people. Look at more pics. I also find it hard to believe that in the last 38 years NOT ONE PERSON has come forward demonstrating first-hand info involving the cover-up, either through complicity, first-hand involvement, or what was uncovered. I'd like to see an expert in statistics make up a program putting the odds on that one! That's the big mystery, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 5, 2004 20:22:47 GMT -5
1) Okay, we all know this pic, right? [ Well that's some interesting stuff there FP. Probably yer best one yet. Y'all are a good'ol bunch of PIA'ers so I'm glad to see y'all can find a reason to hoot & holler once in a while.! But the fact is that with most of the pics out there, the pre 66 pics do not match the post 66 pics & are obviously another guy. I certainly don't need fades to realize there are at least 2 "pauls". Some of the PIA'ers will even admit that SOMETHING screwy happened. And besides, both sides have agreed that although the fades etc are fun & interesting, they're kinda worthless. And yes FP, that one is very interesting. Yer gonna work tirelessly at this until ya can score a convert aren't ya?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 5, 2004 20:39:03 GMT -5
I have to agree with everything that eyesbleed said with the exception of Bill having a better voice that JP. He could hit certain notes better than JP, but JP's voice was much stronger. Compare 'Kansas City Hey Hey Hey' to 'Maybe I'm Amazed'.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 5, 2004 20:55:42 GMT -5
I can certainly see we don't have many professional musicians here. This thread contains some of the most absurd conclusions about Paul's voice and "naturalness" I have ever heard.
lol ;D
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 5, 2004 21:39:42 GMT -5
I can certainly see we don't have many professional musicians here. This thread contains some of the most absurd conclusions about Paul's voice and "naturalness" I have ever heard. lol ;D "better" wasn't the best word to use obviously! But what's so absurd about noticing that JPM was better at the lower stuff while the replacement is better at the higher stuff? Check for yerself. ...lower stuff vs. higher stuff. Hows that for pro-musician talk?
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 5, 2004 21:54:18 GMT -5
I can certainly see we don't have many professional musicians here. This thread contains some of the most absurd conclusions about Paul's voice and "naturalness" I have ever heard. lol ;D oh, get over yourself you are welcome to your own opinion; but do not generalize and insult other members of this forum.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 5, 2004 22:06:01 GMT -5
The timbre of a singers voice can change dramatically over a fairily short period of a few years with constant use (and abuse). That fact that Paul's lower range became thinner is an example of this.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 5, 2004 22:31:03 GMT -5
Let's not get into a debate about Paul's voice, or him as a musician. Let's just stay on the subject of his face, please.
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 5, 2004 22:41:48 GMT -5
Alright gang. More manure stirring!!!
As I have read all the evidence over the years concerning the "cover up," one very important question has yet to be answered to my satisfaction: WHY? What earth-shattering consequences would have arisen by admitting the truth of Paul dying in a car crash? This is entertainment not world politics. In a short period of time any worthy Paul replacement would have been accepted and the death of PM would fall into the annals of Rock and Roll legend like Buddy Holley, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and others. Besides, The Who had no problem telling the world about Keith Moon. The Stones admitted losing Brian Jones (and yes, I'm aware that he was released by the Stones a few months before his death) So, why all the fuss? And more importantly, IF THE REMAINING BEATLES STOOD TO LOOSE FUTURE REVENUE BY THE REVELATION OF PAUL'S DEATH, WHY GO AROUND AND HINT OF THE DECEPTION? If, for example, loosing my business partner would cause me to loose business and jepordize future revenue, WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH WOULD I GIVE CLUES TO MY OWN DECEPTION and risk not only discovery but the legal and financial ramifications that would surely follow? If anything, the clues to Paul's death would put not only his fans on a wild goose chase ( as it obviously has), BUT EVERY OTHER CREDITOR, LITIGATOR AND ANY STRING OF INDIVIDUALS BOUND AND DETERMINED TO ATTEMPT GAIN FROM PAUL'S ESTATE. And yet 38 years later we hear of NO such individuals or institutions attempting to confirm the death in an attempt to place leins on his estate. The payment of life insurance is a matter of record. It may not be public information, but records would be available. I have a feeling insurance companies and investment bankers would go to much greater measures than any PID "reseacher" to verify or refute Paul's death than any of us would have time or finances to do. And yet, 38 years later and not one law suit or court action over the consequences of Paul not being alive. Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 6, 2004 0:49:49 GMT -5
first of all, settle down. You're on your way to a heart attack, or a stroke at the very least. second of all, don't confuse this forum with the fantasies of Sun King and 60IF. I am not aware of anyone here who has alleged of a "massive coverup" to financially benefit the remaining Beatles. It is very possible that The Beatles continued as a group in order to secure Britain's financial independence. There was an article published in the 60's stating how revenue from The Beatles was going to do just that. There was even a corporation formed to keep track of said earnings. Loyalty and the good of one's country used to come before the needs of an individual.... There are all sorts of possibilities. The rabid group over at 60IF that accuses Ringo and John of complicity in murder, among other things, does not represent the thoughts of this forum. I personally do not believe the "whys" or "hows" will ever be completely known. But I am never going to be able to look at these two peep and see the same man: The life insurance angle is very subjective. Who's to say, at his age, that JPM even had life insurance? I don't, and am quite a few years older than "the cute Beatle" was at the height of Beatlemania. Also -- Elvis had life insurance policies that were never collected on. Make of that what you will. ***by the way -- you hijacked FP's photo thread. Your post should've started a thread of its own.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 6, 2004 1:02:23 GMT -5
....Yer gonna work tirelessly at this until ya can score a convert aren't ya? at least he's not passing out purple Kool-Aid like Sunny Bob ;D
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 6, 2004 1:16:45 GMT -5
But I am never going to be able to look at these two peep and see the same man: Well according to you, I don't have much faith in any photos that were published after 1966. So how do you know what "Faul" really looks like? ;D
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 6, 2004 7:13:43 GMT -5
And yet, 38 years later and not one law suit or court action over the consequences of Paul not being alive. Interesting... If we had all the answers, there wouldn't be much to discuss now, would there?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 6, 2004 7:19:07 GMT -5
The timbre of a singers voice can change dramatically over a fairily short period of a few years with constant use (and abuse). That fact that Paul's lower range became thinner is an example of this. That doesn't change the fact that they are 2 distictly different voices with different characteristics. Usually when singers get older, they have a harder time hitting the high notes, not the other way around. But then, I'm only a professional artist, not a professional singer, so what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 6, 2004 7:33:51 GMT -5
Well according to you, So how do you know what "Faul" really looks like? ;D FP, I don't understand your question. I own the photo that's labeled "Faul". It is in an early 1967 Teen Magazine. It's not a newly published pic, or something Photoshopped over at 60IF; although SK did put the name over the pic. I sent him the photo by email when I got the mag.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 6, 2004 12:18:25 GMT -5
It is in an early 1967 Teen Magazine. And you said you don't have much faith in photos after 1966.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2004 13:04:43 GMT -5
And you said you don't have much faith in photos after 1966. Most publications run 6 months ahead of release. This photo would have very likely been taken in the early fall of 1966.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 6, 2004 14:05:22 GMT -5
And you said you don't have much faith in photos after 1966. ......that resemble Paul. This one, very obviously, doesn't.
|
|