|
|
Post by ramone on Feb 24, 2010 23:57:52 GMT -5
Well, as long as we're pic comparing - If you know who this is, don't tell. The pics are either the same real guy, or, they're both doppels, or, one is real and one is a double. If so, which is which?   Whaddya think? There were alot of comparison pics earlier in the thread of Pauls. Trying to bring in Ed Sullivan, Ed Asner, or Eddie van Halen as Paul probably sorta wouldn't work. So we know there was quite an effort to bring in a bona fide lookalike. So, there are going to be comparisons that look very convincing. Some might say - 'but you can't find someone that looks that close!' Look at the two pics of the guy above. Same chin, ears, cheek bones, eyes, - even those lines above the bridge of the nose between the brows. C'mon - same guy right? |
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 25, 2010 0:33:57 GMT -5
Look at the two pics of the guy above. Same chin, ears, cheek bones, eyes, - even those lines above the bridge of the nose between the brows. C'mon - same guy right? Those are just two pics. Do we know anything about their voice, mannerisms, expressions, musical talent, or how well they'd match up in a fade over and over again when comparing two pics from the same angle? Or what about the social aspect? Why would Paul's father be seen hanging out and laughing with the guy who replaced his son? Was there a gun pointed to his head, or was he replaced too? If you told me the name of those guys, and I actually had a chance to see as much of them as I can of Paul, I'd be sure I can point out some consistent differences. Consistent differences is something you guys can't even agree on. |
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Feb 25, 2010 0:53:16 GMT -5
"The plan was code-named Operation Copperhead
Operation Copperhead
Operation Copperhead was a small British-run deception operation run during World War II.It was one of many deceptions run prior to the invasion of Normandy . For instance, General Patton was supposedly in command of a fictitious army massing for a crossing to Calais...
and Clifton James was assigned to Montgomery's staff to learn his speech and mannerisms. Despite the problems that he had with alcohol (Montgomery did not drink at all), and the differences in personality, the project continued. He also had to give up smoking. Clifton James had lost his right-hand middle finger in the First World War and so a prosthetic finger was made."
Yes, mannerisms (and other things).
They go that far -
why? -
because it's necessary for the objective.
Yet, a reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Feb 25, 2010 1:11:14 GMT -5
"Why would Paul's father be seen hanging out and laughing with the guy who replaced his son? Was there a gun pointed to his head, or was he replaced too?"
Why are these the only possibilities?
What if JPM wanted perhaps, desperately, to get out from under the lights.
Yet doesn't want to blow it for his band mates by him leaving.
Solution? - Leave, but don't leave.
Win win for everyone.
It's been shown over and over family members will help family
members time and again. (close friends too)
It's not a stretch at all that people would help someone they're close to when a special plea for that help asked.
People give organs to relatives, money for different reasons,
help of all sorts.
Is taking some pictures (etc.) with someone really out of the realm
of possibility?
If so - why?
A side point too is (going with JPM's still around) - it's at least possible there could be pics of him taken back then - so this would add somewhat to the confusion - comparison wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 25, 2010 1:33:54 GMT -5
That's the only picture picture I can find of M. E. Clifton James.
Now who exactly was he trying to fool? Some Germans who barely know Bernard Montgomery's face and voice? You have to admit, there's a huge difference between making a few public appearances where most people see you from 100 feet away, and completely taking over someone's life, singing, with a camera zooming in on your face while being broadcasted live for people who are obsessed with you. Look at people who made a living trying to imitate Bush. The public knows Bush's face so well, the best impersonators wouldn't fool anyone. Same with any human who the public has gotten familiar with.
|
|
|
|
Post by faulguy on Feb 26, 2010 19:15:17 GMT -5
...... the best impersonators wouldn't fool anyone. Same with any human who the public has gotten familiar with. ^ "Eriksson lookalike fools Mexico" - news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7512387.stm "To be honest I was quite amused," Mr Ferretti said. "The fake Eriksson told me that he was watching my players ahead of his next call-ups, and I believed him." The Eriksson lookalike was given a tour around the field, accompanied by two glamorous women, and then allegedly issued a statement to unsuspecting journalists and posed for photographs.   ^ Sven   ^ Impersonator
|
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 26, 2010 21:20:15 GMT -5
That's weird... after browsing the web and looking at pics of each of them, I can tell the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefool on Feb 26, 2010 22:25:45 GMT -5
That's weird... after browsing the web and looking at pics of each of them, I can tell the difference. The question is... If this was not a harmless prank, and the fake Eriksson was presented as the real thing, would all concerned just follow along? Perhaps not those who have those keen observation skills such as FP, but most would. |
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Feb 27, 2010 5:47:50 GMT -5
Wow, how did they fall for that?
As soon as I scrolled down without having yet read anything, I saw a guy and thought, "He looks like a poor-mans Sven Goran Eriksson"
Having said that, being a long suffering England fan I probably know him better than a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
Post by 65if2007 on Feb 27, 2010 13:27:44 GMT -5
That's weird... after browsing the web and looking at pics of each of them, I can tell the difference. In the mid-1960's, the public did not have this capability. |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 27, 2010 16:03:04 GMT -5
ineedglasses, why did the Beatles feel the need to "photoshop" a mustache on an earlier photo of Paul (see avatar) if he weren't replaced? Just one of many anomalies. All been covered before.
|
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 27, 2010 16:38:33 GMT -5
i needglasses, why did the Beatles feel the need to "photoshop" a mustache on an earlier photo of Paul (see avatar) if he weren't replaced? Just one of many anomalies. All been covered before. We've shown that they did that with all the Beatles. In the mid-1960's, the public did not have this capability. People could see their TV appearances, buy their magazines, posters, movies, and their albums of course. Girls were obsessed with him. Some still are. |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 27, 2010 17:56:41 GMT -5
i needglasses, why did the Beatles feel the need to "photoshop" a mustache on an earlier photo of Paul (see avatar) if he weren't replaced? Just one of many anomalies. All been covered before. We've shown that they did that with all the Beatles. Link? First you guys denied there were any painted on mustaches. Now you claim they did it to all of them. The bottom line is why the sudden need for historical revisionism in late '66 Beatles photos. The best explanation is that they all grew mustaches to better obfuscate the "new" Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 27, 2010 18:46:28 GMT -5
Link? First you guys denied there were any painted on mustaches. Now you claim they did it to all of them. The bottom line is why the sudden need for historical revisionism in late '66 Beatles photos. The best explanation is that they all grew mustaches to better obfuscate the "new" Paul. Link? You were the first to reply, lol! invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=pidpix&thread=4488&page=1 Which fits occam's razor the best? 1) In 1967, it was already known that the Beatles had facial hair, and they wanted to appear up to date. 2) They all grew mustaches because Paul was replaced with a lookalike/soundalike/actor/singer/musician starting in Sepember or October of 1966. |
|
|
|
Post by faulguy on Feb 27, 2010 20:56:35 GMT -5
In the mid-1960's, the public did not have this capability. Precisely, and with proper research today it's not difficult to see Paul McCartney has a double. Many top political leaders have body doubles. So a question you have to ask is... "am I seeing who the mass media tells me I'm seeing, or am I being lied to?" People are being lied to all the time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_decoy * Saddam's Wife (of 25 years), angrily said the Prisoner was NOT Saddam, but one of his doubles
* Saddam's Mistress said the Prisoner was NOT Saddam, but one of his doubles
* Saddam had even, pristine teeth, the Saddam double's teeth were/are uneven and ragged
EX-MISTRESS SAYS IT WAS A DOUBLE
ABC News, March 21, 2003 - Excerpts only...
Parisoula Lampsos, who says she was Saddam's mistress over a period of nearly 30 years, told U.S. officials and ABCNEWS that the man who appeared on TV was not Saddam.
For starters, she said, the real Saddam has an unusual tattoo: two dots on his left hand that he received in prison years ago. But his eyes are the real giveaway, she said.
Mrs Saddam says Saddam is not Saddam
Joe Vialls | June 18 2004
Sajida Heiralla Tuffah, after the Russians demanded she be allowed to visit her imprisoned husband Saddam in Qatar:
"Sajida arrived from Syria with her official escort Sheikh Hamad Al-Tani, and then entered the prison, emerging only moments later pink with rage and shouting, "This is not my husband but his double. Where is my husband? Take me to my husband".
American officials rushed forward to shield Mrs Saddam from perplexed Russian observers, trying to insist that Saddam had changed a lot while in custody and she probably didn't recognise him. This was certainly not the best way to handle the Iraqi President's wife. "You think I do not know my husband?" Sajida shouted furiously, "I was married to the man for more than twenty-five years!" Then she stormed off, never to return."  If it became public knowledge that Paul McCartney was replaced in the Beatles, this would open a nasty can of worms for certain others and the agencies behind them. People would have to ask themselves "if a well known "pop icon" can be replaced, then who else is not who I thought they were." |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 27, 2010 21:11:45 GMT -5
Link? First you guys denied there were any painted on mustaches. Now you claim they did it to all of them. The bottom line is why the sudden need for historical revisionism in late '66 Beatles photos. The best explanation is that they all grew mustaches to better obfuscate the "new" Paul. Link? You were the first to reply, lol! invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=pidpix&thread=4488&page=1 Which fits occam's razor the best? 1) In 1967, it was already known that the Beatles had facial hair, and they wanted to appear up to date. 2) They all grew mustaches because Paul was replaced with a lookalike/soundalike/actor/singer/musician starting in Sepember or October of 1966. Thanks for the link. It makes no sense for a fan mag to go to the trouble and expense of hiring an air brush artist to professionally add facial hair to a number of Beatles photos, unless they were trying to cover up something rather big. Clearly they had wanted it to appear that the Beatles' sudden change in plans, both musically and in appearance, had happened earlier than it actually did. In reality it was the direct result of Paul's unexpected death (or early retirement as some believe). And don't forget the numerous anecdotal stories of news reports in late '66 of a fatal car crash involving an unidentified Beatle: invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=2847invanddis.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6033 |
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 27, 2010 23:37:37 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. It makes no sense for a fan mag to go to the trouble and expense of hiring an air brush artist to professionally add facial hair to a number of Beatles photos Sure it does. I told you why. Thinking it has to do with Paul is taking your assumption and working backwards, since none of this specifically points to Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by GN on Feb 28, 2010 9:58:49 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQjcG9tXY5E&NR=1Of course Paul is alive. Please use your noggins. Subject your own photos of yourselves to your comparisons of before and after. This video, an interview in 1968, is clearly Paul. He's still clearly Paul now. Hope you all get real and find some peace. You should take responsibility that you might be really breaking hearts and frightening gullible sensitive souls. Blessings...   ahhh... that fake ear again ..... "This video, an interview in 1968, is clearly Paul" |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 28, 2010 17:06:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. It makes no sense for a fan mag to go to the trouble and expense of hiring an air brush artist to professionally add facial hair to a number of Beatles photos Sure it does. I told you why. Thinking it has to do with Paul is taking your assumption and working backwards, since none of this specifically points to Paul. You haven't addressed the main point: Why would a fan magazine waste time and money updating old photos? As you pointed out, some fans knew that they were growing mustaches. Why wouldn't the magazine just take new photos showing the Beatles with real facial hair? Wouldn't that be easier? According to you, all the original Beatles were alive and well. Taking new photos of them in the studio would be no problem. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 28, 2010 17:32:57 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. |
|
|
|
Post by skyward on Feb 28, 2010 17:56:11 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by faulguy on Feb 28, 2010 19:19:54 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. There is no video footage of Paul McCartney after September 1966. Those photos you refer to are of the man who replaced him. McCartney never grew a moustache and the picture you've pointed out is an old shot of Paul with the ridiculously poor effort of a tash added for the cover. Reason for the tash - The man who replaced Paul was at the time wearing one.  ^ Photo on the left is the original and you can see the false moustache was sketched on. Jacket was blacked out and you can see that Paul wore a black shirt underneath the jacket. Unfortunately many original Beatles photos have been tampered with, and we know why. |
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Feb 28, 2010 19:25:41 GMT -5
Exactly
|
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Feb 28, 2010 19:35:07 GMT -5
And yet another example (oh, why not)  A guy named Stalin. A guy that took his place - "He spent months in training, some of it under the eagle eye of Lavrenty Beria, Stalin's feared chief of secret police. He watched movies of Stalin to perfect the mimicry of his movement and intonation." Think only people seeing from a distance could be fooled? "Spot the difference: Felix Dadaev even fooled Stalin's closet aides." Guess who was Felix. Maybe you can, if not - the link. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559234/The-man-Stalins-body-double-finally-tells-story.html |
|
|
|
Post by FP on Feb 28, 2010 21:53:40 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. |
|
