|
Post by lili on Nov 13, 2006 12:57:43 GMT -5
Another comparison: Paul Bill
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Nov 14, 2006 22:38:01 GMT -5
Another comparison: Paul Bill What's with his ear? Is there a strange second flap of skin, or is that a shadow? Maybe I need some rest, and my eyes are seeing something that really isn't there? Speaking of ears, though, the placement of the ear on JPM's head is back further than Bill's. What I mean by this, is the space from the tip of the nose to where the ear is placed, there is more space on JPM's face, whereas Bill's ear is closer than JPM's. Although some of my posts as of late have dealt with ears, some may think I have an ear fettish...
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 15, 2006 2:21:26 GMT -5
Hey, Lovely Rita--at least it isn't armpits or feet. Then we'd have to spray. Man, Dr. Scholls must have been pretty kinky in his day.
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Nov 15, 2006 9:38:08 GMT -5
Lovely Rita wrote: "What's with his ear? Is there a strange second flap of skin, or is that a shadow?"
It's just a wayward strand of hair.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Dec 6, 2006 12:39:08 GMT -5
A new photo of Paul that I've acquired: A photo of Bill from his wedding day to Linda From a magazine being sold on E-Bay. Paul: Bill & Linda, from the 1970's Paul Bill
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 7, 2006 7:08:22 GMT -5
Bill & Linda, from the 1970's He almost pulls the look off there, almost. Is that Rod sStewart with them?
|
|
|
Post by lili on Dec 7, 2006 8:34:36 GMT -5
Yep, it is. Linda looks out of it. She's probably trashed ! ;D Bill may have the look down, but his eyes are still too close together & his nose is too narrow !
|
|
|
Post by lili on Dec 8, 2006 9:24:45 GMT -5
Some more comparisons: Paul Bill Paul Bill
|
|
|
Post by lili on Dec 28, 2006 14:04:05 GMT -5
Two more: Paul Faul
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 28, 2006 21:49:55 GMT -5
Sorry lil but the latter is too small for me to tell personally, if it was bigger I may be able to form an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Dec 29, 2006 8:08:04 GMT -5
Yeah, your right. I guess I should change that one. I changed the photos in my above post. Paul Bill
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jul 30, 2007 11:38:27 GMT -5
Vintage photo of Paul
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 13, 2021 12:48:29 GMT -5
A new photo of Paul that I've acquired: A photo of Bill from his wedding day to Linda From a magazine being sold on E-Bay. Paul: Bill & Linda, from the 1970's Paul Bill Don't think the guy in the brown suit holding the bass with his tongue showing is doe-eyed Beatlemania Paul. Looks like a masked up older person to me. Doe-eyed Beatlemania Paul did not have bags under his eyes, and this person does. Those bags, where I see them, look like evidence of masking to me.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 13, 2021 15:25:56 GMT -5
Easiest way to tell the difference between Paul and Faul is a slight down slope of Faul's right eye. Also Paul is genuinely cute, and I don't mean that in a gay way. The hair rests differently on each, even when styled in the same way. The texture of their hair is also different with Faul's being shinier and Paul's having more split ends.
You have to understand that once Paul is replaced, the cult are doing as much as they can to sow confusion amongst the public. This includes multiple Fauls and many disguises.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 13, 2021 18:49:41 GMT -5
I've spotted an older looking guy who seemed to have been running around during the Beatlemania period masked up to look like doe-eyed Paul. Once he is standing with a woman, another time sitting on a sofa with George and Ringo, and I believe this is him above in the brown suit holding the bass. Don't believe he is a blended photo of Beatlemania Paul and Billy shopped up for the Internet to confuse people about what doe-eyed Paul looked like. Because when I spot him, he presents with eye bags and with some tell tale stretching in the skin that appear to be signs of a mask. This stuff is really weird when you start taking a close, hard look. Went to a party last night and people were all talking about the Get Back film on Disney. They're just eating that stuff up. No one sees it for the CGI mess it is and no one sees how staged the Roof Top concert was. Nothing I could do about it. Just had to sit and listen to all the talk because I am tired of being called a Conspiracy Theorist.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 14, 2021 2:53:34 GMT -5
God I feel like a spectre at a seance held by people who were taught to never learn to read, "T-H-A-T-I-S-F-A-U-L"
"Is there anybody there?"
|
|
|
Post by B on Dec 14, 2021 19:53:07 GMT -5
Except that it clearly isn't. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 15, 2021 11:50:48 GMT -5
Easiest way to tell the difference between Paul and Faul is a slight down slope of Faul's right eye. Also Paul is genuinely cute, and I don't mean that in a gay way. The hair rests differently on each, even when styled in the same way. The texture of their hair is also different with Faul's being shinier and Paul's having more split ends. You have to understand that once Paul is replaced, the cult are doing as much as they can to sow confusion amongst the public. This includes multiple Fauls and many disguises. I think an easy way to tell the difference between Beatlemania Paul and our 1967 and onward Faul, is that Beatlemania Paul had an Italian looking right profile. This is evident many times, but particularly in a train scene from A Hard Day's Night. Post 1966 Faul never presents with this Romanesque right profile.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 15, 2021 11:56:24 GMT -5
Except that it clearly isn't. Not even close. You mean brown suit guy isn't 1967 and onward Faul? If that's what you mean, no I don't think he is either. But I don't think he is Beatlemania Paul, who doesn't present with eye bags. And who looks younger than brown suit guy, when you can find photos of him that are not shopped and blended with another face. Which is hard. But brown suit guy does seem to have the disproportionately long legs, which is a bio marker Beatlemania Paul. And then there is the ID bracelet, which is plainly visible. This particular photo has always puzzled me.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 15, 2021 15:19:43 GMT -5
I can see why Bill wore a full beard for the Get Back/LIB film sessions. (I don't subscribe to the theory that it was Paul.) A photo of Bill from his wedding day to Linda
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Dec 15, 2021 16:22:44 GMT -5
Two videos from 1964 and ten months later in 1965. The degenerated performance standard, a wildly different John, and the audience disappointment as the show drags on, makes it undeniable that all four Beatles got replaced.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 15, 2021 16:32:59 GMT -5
Two videos from 1964 and ten months later in 1965. The degenerated performance standard, a wildly different John, and the audience disappointment as the show drags on, makes it undeniable that all four Beatles got replaced. I've wondered if there were two different touring groups during Beatlemania. A first string and a second string, so to speak. And do you not see any evidence that the better band from your 1964 video performed during 1966 in the last tour? I am looking to see what I think about the performances from the 1966 tour. That 1966 tour with related interviews is particularly perplexing. We definitely see different Pauls giving interviews. In one of those 1966 interviews, a sharp reporter seemed to catch on to the shell game and asked them point blank whether they used doubles (which, naturally, they denied). But I really think the 1966 Memphis interview is the main Bealtemania Paul, just has on an awful wig. He seems to have the right bio markers in terms of the length of his nose, the distance from the nose to the top lip, the narrow mouth when speaking or when the mouth is closed, and the philtrum shape. Hard to tell for sure though, because of all the make-up he's wearing and that ridiculous wig. Gives his head the appearance of a bowling ball. On Edit: Whoops, gotta edit this again. I just took another hard look at the 1965 performance. While I see a different John and Ringo in the 1965 performance as opposed to the 1964 performance (and maybe a different George), I'm as sure as I can be that this is the main Beatlemania Paul in 1965. You can't go just by the face because the videos are sometimes tampered. Just looking at the left foot pat, the positioning of the bass in his hand, the characteristic head bob and listening to the rasp he put in his voice on She's a Woman, I am concluding that we are seeing our main doe-eyed Paul in the 1965 performance. Just wearing yet another weird ugly wig.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 15, 2021 16:38:03 GMT -5
I can see why Bill wore a full beard for the Get Back/LIB film sessions. (I don't subscribe to the theory that it was Paul.) A photo of Bill from his wedding day to Linda I always get a laugh from these wedding photos. Looks like he's got on a load of facial filler. The overall effect looks like he got stung by bees and is having an allergic reaction or something. Also, it's always appeared to me that we are seeing Linda doubles in different photos throughout the years.
|
|