|
|
Post by JoJo on Feb 28, 2010 22:09:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 28, 2010 22:55:36 GMT -5
The best answer is that they were forced to fake the old photos because the new Paul wasn't ready to be photographed yet. They couldn't just take current photos of the Beatles in the studio without Paul so they modified the old photos to appear more current, an obvious cover up of Paul's replacement. The magazine is from March '67. The "not ready to be photographed" argument doesn't hold up because there are dozens of photographs of him between November and March. Like I said, none of what you're saying specifically points to Paul. It probably took much longer back then to write, edit, and print a magazine then it does now. A monthly fan magazine couldn't find a more recent photo of Paul to put on their March 1967 cover than one from no later than September, 1966. So they air-brushed a mustache on it instead of just using a more current photo. That's your Occam's razor argument? All to avoid accepting the possibility that Paul was replaced.  |
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 28, 2010 23:37:26 GMT -5
The magazine is from March '67. The "not ready to be photographed" argument doesn't hold up because there are dozens of photographs of him between November and March. Like I said, none of what you're saying specifically points to Paul. It probably took much longer back then to write, edit, and print a magazine then it does now. A monthly fan magazine couldn't find a more recent photo of Paul to put on their March 1967 cover than one from no later than September, 1966. So they air-brushed a mustache on it instead of just taking a more current photo. That's your Occam's razor argument? All to avoid accepting the possibility that Paul was replaced. But why make it about Paul? They did it with all of them. There are other examples on the forum where a 1966 magazine uses pics from 1963! |
|
|
|
Post by faulguy on Feb 28, 2010 23:41:46 GMT -5
  ahhh... that fake ear again ..... "This video, an interview in 1968, is clearly Paul" Nope... it's not Paul, but you're right the ear looks pretty suspect. The top five photos are all of Paul. ^ Interviewer - "One final question.... In all the time you've been Beatles, before you were just people from Liverpool..." Faul - BIG WINK, and John cracks up. It's better quality on this vid at 2.55 - Also note at 20 seconds in when the interviewer asks how are Ringo and George... John sarcastically replies "lovely...very healthy" - Faul tenses up and looks away. |
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Mar 1, 2010 1:45:07 GMT -5
If you suppose that Paul was replaced... ... then the idea, that they took an old photo of Paul and edited a moustache onto the photo to make it more closely resemble the replacement Paul, (who had a moustache at the time), makes 'Occamic Razory' sense. You'd have a much stronger case if they only did it to Paul. I could make a case with that logic about any of the other three. There's also the question about whether or not the replacement was wearing a fake moustache. There's the video (ADITL?) where you could see the moustache pulling away when he rubbed his nose. Was it just for kicks? Perhaps. It could also have been intended to conceal something or to make it more difficult to notice differences between the two. And there is the fake moustache in the Pepper insert. |
|
|
|
Post by SS on Mar 1, 2010 7:37:46 GMT -5
Here was a replacement in plain sight which fooled no one and to this day who knows what it accomplished.
"About 14 years ago, the Dalai Lama recognized a small 6-year-old Tibetan boy by the name of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the 11th reincarnation of the Panchen Lama. Just three days later, the Chinese government abducted the 6-year-old and his entire family. The photograph to the right is the last known picture taken of the boy. The Chinese then quickly appointed another child the “Official Chinese Panchen Lama” who of course the government has complete control over. Obviously, the world’s Buddhist population has never accepted the Chinese Government’s claim. It would be like Osama bin Laden telling us that one of his sons is the second coming of Jesus Christ."
Sorry, didn't have time to find and upload photos but the fact of the matter speaks for itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Mar 1, 2010 14:54:50 GMT -5
Pardon the infusion - For J: Yes, the first song was 'Fool on the Hill'. Scroll down if you want to see the other one. I don't doubt there'll be some amazing happenings. At the same time - what was that song? - "And if I claim to be a wise man, well It surely means that I don't know" Have I done it again - have I confused myself? I fooled myself with talk capn Byrney. Sometimes in that roller rink of cognition, I just don't know when to take the skates off. And when that organ grinds out another tune, it's - oh round and round and round.... while keeping perfectly still. "I fooled myself with talk capn Byrney." capn is equated with head - as in capitol - etc talk(ing) heads - (whose head was David Byrne(y)) Byrne had the line - 'I fooled myself!' ( sideways connection with the first song come to think of it) And the song it's from - 'DRUGS' (Fear of Music) (yeah, maybe only a Headaphile would know that one) And now, digressing from our digression, back to our regularly scheduled light hearted repartee. |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Mar 1, 2010 21:39:47 GMT -5
But why make it about Paul? They did it with all of them. They added the mustaches to make the older photos look current. If they did it to Paul, they'd have to do it to all of them. That doesn't explain why they didn't just use more recent photos of the Beatles if, as you believe, nothing had changed. There are other examples on the forum where a 1966 magazine uses pics from 1963! Perhaps, but they weren't trying to pass them off as current photos were they? |
|
|
|
Post by FP on Mar 1, 2010 23:48:49 GMT -5
But why make it about Paul? They did it with all of them. They added the mustaches to make the older photos look current. If they did it to Paul, they'd have to do it to all of them. That doesn't explain why they didn't just use more recent photos of the Beatles if, as you believe, nothing had changed. There are other examples on the forum where a 1966 magazine uses pics from 1963! Perhaps, but they weren't trying to pass them off as current photos were they? I don't know how many months it took back then to publish a magazine. I do know that they didn't just skip that period. In the thread for Valis's great collection of post -66 pics, they have plenty of material starting from December '66. I just don't know what months they were published. It would be interesting to find out exactly which pics are from the Feb '66 issue. How strange would it be if we found out they used recent pics in the Feb. issue, and airbrushed pics in the March one? JoJo, do you know if they airbrushed pics inside the Feb. issue? |
|
|
|
Post by GN on Mar 2, 2010 9:38:15 GMT -5
ahhh... that fake ear again ..... "This video, an interview in 1968, is clearly Paul" Nope... it's not Paul, but you're right the ear looks pretty suspect. The top five photos are all of Paul. ^ Interviewer - "One final question.... In all the time you've been Beatles, before you were just people from Liverpool..." Faul - BIG WINK, and John cracks up. It's better quality on this vid at 2.55 - Also note at 20 seconds in when the interviewer asks how are Ringo and George... John sarcastically replies "lovely...very healthy" - Faul tenses up and looks away. I 've replied "You are right" in braille since that language is for blind people.... life is easy with eyes closed ... I was not referring to the true blind in eyes people but to true blind people in mind .... Yeah that photo stripe DOES PROVE that in genuine photos Paul NEVER changed his face features ... and the guy in that 1968 video is not Paul at all ... A better Paul resemblance for Faul there BECAUSE that was a full mask and not a partial make-up.... |
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Mar 4, 2010 16:21:39 GMT -5
ahhh... that fake ear again ..... "This video, an interview in 1968, is clearly Paul" Nope... it's not Paul, but you're right the ear looks pretty suspect. The top five photos are all of Paul. ^ Interviewer - "One final question.... In all the time you've been Beatles, before you were just people from Liverpool..." Faul - BIG WINK, and John cracks up. It's better quality on this vid at 2.55 - Also note at 20 seconds in when the interviewer asks how are Ringo and George... John sarcastically replies "lovely...very healthy" - Faul tenses up and looks away. The most telling part of the interview as far as I'm concerned is what transpires at 2.00. What is said (paraphrased): Interviewer: I talked to you a year after the JFK assassination and you said that it alarmed you, did you feel the same about Martin Luther King? John Lennon: Sure (pauses then says looking almost maniacally serious) What do you think we are? Deadbeats! (Carries on blah blah) I thought "They've got another fella have they? They've Done it again, who is it?" You know? Those words have a definite subtext to me. |
|
|
|
Post by dude on Mar 5, 2010 4:04:52 GMT -5
John and Paul are sooo stoned in that video.  thats why they can't have a proper conversation |
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 5, 2010 12:09:23 GMT -5
I like what plastic paul wrote. Interesting take on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by P(D)enny La(i)ne on Mar 5, 2010 14:58:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by GN on Mar 6, 2010 5:43:07 GMT -5
 You can zoom the clip. That's a mere mask. |
|
|
|
Post by faulguy on Mar 7, 2010 3:00:45 GMT -5
You can zoom the clip. That's a mere mask. That's an interesting point. It's possible that whoever played the role of Faul in "Hey Jude" was also wearing a mask. The facial "skin" appears unnatural - stretched tightly, blemish free, with no wrinkles (which Paul had). Someone commented on this Smothers Bros piece before (intro into Hey Jude). Was Faul irritated by the mask just as the song was beginning? See the way he blows lightly to one side (54 seconds in) - |
|
|
|
Post by GN on Mar 7, 2010 12:06:47 GMT -5
You can zoom the clip. That's a mere mask. That's an interesting point. It's possible that whoever played the role of Faul in "Hey Jude" was also wearing a mask. The facial "skin" appears unnatural - stretched tightly, blemish free, with no wrinkles (which Paul had). Someone commented on this Smothers Bros piece before (intro into Hey Jude). Was Faul irritated by the mask just as the song was beginning? See the way he blows lightly to one side (54 seconds in) -  Yeah! |
|
|
|
Post by faulguy on Mar 9, 2010 8:02:02 GMT -5
Yeah! Great pics, as you pointed out the sides of the mouth don't look right at all. It's as if the lips stop yet the mouth continues to crease outward. To me that's most likely a mask which if anything is a little tight for the person wearing it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2014 9:44:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by linus on Jun 16, 2014 16:19:57 GMT -5
The one thing that interests me about this, given that no matter what brand of 'investigation' we're all on (mine being that Paul and possibly Neil were developing PID autonomously at this time), the issue with that famous 'FALSE RUMOUR' report has been flagged as suspicious and Neil Aspinall has been known to write for the magazine under pseudonyms. It was most likely Neil who was writing under the name Billy Shepherd. The name Billy Shepherd has been associated with the Beatles as far back as 1964, as a writer of articles in Beatles Monthly Magazine. The magazine was launched with the permission of Epstein & The Beatles. Some claim Billy Shepherd was the pen-name for Neil Aspinall. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Book     He also wrote the 1964 book, The True Story of the Beatles.   |
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jun 16, 2014 17:57:38 GMT -5
I realise you are just bating people like me (it is easy to do,lol)but here goes anyhow. With the pictures you SEEM to prove that they were ALL replaced EXCEPT Paul. OK so John, Ringo and George were all long dead and Paul is still alive! That must mean Paul is behind it all! Explain that. Anyhow you making it all too complicated with all these pictures. Just do what I just did. Get on YouTube and look at the Beatles doing "Twist and Shout" in 1963 in front of Royalty. Then look at them on the Apple roof top doing "Get Back" in 1970. Four TOTALTY DIFFERENT PEOPLE in '70 than '63! If you can't see they are different people than I have no idea what you are doing here.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jun 17, 2014 12:44:59 GMT -5
I understand your thinking but I don't understand your thinking. Or to put it another way, when me and my siblings were kids in the UK, there came a week of terrible weather during the summer holidays and the annual Wimbledon tennis coverage was rained off two days in a row. To fill in the BBC showed 'Help' on the first day and we absolutely loved it and got to know the name 'Beatles'. The following day they showed 'Let It be' and I remember thinking we must have been watching The Monkees the previous day. Who WERE these boring people with beards?  Yes who were they? That is the BILLION DOLLAR question! |
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jun 17, 2014 19:15:39 GMT -5
John Paul George and Ringo. Their followers have known and valued them for all this incredible accelerated zappery. I think a lot of PIDers either aren't fans, weren't fans or aren't quite clued up as to the 'mainstream' story which was one of everyone being constantly shocked at their pace. Somehow there seems to be this idea in PID that 'how could these be the same people?' although I think that might itself be getting a little old over the past decade now that people are beginning to be photographed often as The Beatles were with the constantly-on technology of selfies etc etc. Compare your selfies! I have noticed this with many "conspiracies", the charge is that the "nutbar" wears a "tin foil hat" and they "don't really know their stuff". The problem is I have NO IDEA what the "non- conspiracy" person knows because they NEVER SAY ANYTHING (except "tin foil hat" and "Paul took drugs". For the record I don't think "Paul" OR "Faul"took that many drugs it was just a cover). I have seen and studied THOUSANDS of postings and spent hours and hours listening to Beatles music and movies since I was 12 YEARS OLD (1970). I have read probably hundreds of books on the Kennedy assassination (Jackie did it) and books about the Beatles and other books about the music industry. I also spent MONTHS studying 9/11 (Isis did it). I have been reading and posting on "Doppelganger" and TKIN and "Paul is Dead, Miss Him" and NIR for something like ten years. If a "non- conspiracy" person has done all that and STILL can't see a conspiracy I am speechless! |
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jun 17, 2014 19:31:39 GMT -5
John Paul George and Ringo. Their followers have known and valued them for all this incredible accelerated zappery. I think a lot of PIDers either aren't fans, weren't fans or aren't quite clued up as to the 'mainstream' story which was one of everyone being constantly shocked at their pace. Somehow there seems to be this idea in PID that 'how could these be the same people?' although I think that might itself be getting a little old over the past decade now that people are beginning to be photographed often as The Beatles were with the constantly-on technology of selfies etc etc. Compare your selfies! I have noticed this with many "conspiracies", the charge is that the "nutbar" wears a "tin foil hat" and they "don't really know their stuff". The problem is I have NO IDEA what the "non- conspiracy" person knows because they NEVER SAY ANYTHING (except "tin foil hat" and "Paul took drugs". For the record I don't think "Paul" OR "Faul"took that many drugs it was just a cover). I have seen and studied THOUSANDS of postings and spent hours and hours listening to Beatles music and movies since I was 12 YEARS OLD (1970). I have read probably hundreds of books on the Kennedy assassination (Jackie did it) and books about the Beatles and other books about the music industry. I also spent MONTHS studying 9/11 (Isis did it). I have been reading and posting on "Doppelganger" and TKIN and "Paul is Dead, Miss Him" and NIR for something like ten years. If a "non- conspiracy" person has done all that and STILL can't see a conspiracy I am speechless! If they haven't done all that then they probably don't know what I do and they should LISTEN UP! |
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Jun 18, 2014 17:21:41 GMT -5
I have seen this happen time and again. People who start talking about Paul not being replaced then mention other people for comparison and ALMOST ALWAYS the other people they mention were themselves replaced! Talk about IRONY! You mention Prince, Elvis, Madonna, and Bowie.They were ALL replaced. Elvis was replaced a NUMBER of times! Madonna was a BAD replacement and it is obvious she is different. Before you start name dropping get on TKIN and "Doppelganger" or other sites and DO RESEARCH (something you accuse others of not doing).
|
|
thats why they can't have a proper conversation
