|
Post by lili on Mar 9, 2006 9:09:27 GMT -5
Noodles wrote:
If you don't mind my asking, Noodles, what was it that made you begin questioning the present Paul's identity ?
lili
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Mar 9, 2006 11:08:10 GMT -5
lili, please come back!
|
|
|
Post by lili on Mar 9, 2006 12:27:51 GMT -5
I'm working on it, ilras. I'm waiting for JoJo to reinstate me onto the forum. I do have to say that there have been some interesting posts made today. Too bad I can't reply to any of them lili
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Mar 9, 2006 15:58:08 GMT -5
Noodles wrote: If you don't mind my asking, Noodles, what was it that made you begin questioning the present Paul's identity ? lili Wellllll........*takes deep breath*.......I stumbled onto the website that The King Is Naked message board is attacted to and this forum via another forum. I found TKIN board to be kinda interesting and rather unbelieveable in parts too. I still find much of it to be very over the top but it had a picture of 'Paul' that didn't look anything like Paul although I didn't know where it came from or even if it was meant to be Paul at all so I had to dig around and find it where it came from. It turned out to be the 'LSD interview'. So I lurked around on here for a while still thinking the Paul today is that same original Paul because - as I said when I joined - this place is very interesting and because you are looking at a much wider picture than simply PID or PWR. After a while lurking around here I finally saw enough evidence and deprogrammed my brain enough to see things for how they were.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Mar 10, 2006 13:57:23 GMT -5
It's good to see another person "de-programmed" !
Woohoo !!!!
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Mar 16, 2006 0:11:14 GMT -5
From the Wikipedia site ---they named another of their black dogs "Clinton"! Is there anything they do that isn't full of smirking, vicious hatred? Miss Beazley (dog) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search Miss Beazley at playMiss Beazley (born October 28, 2004), is a dog (Scottish Terrier) owned by U.S. President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush. According to the White House website, the Bush family has nicknamed her "Beazley Weazley". Her mother is named "Bethz", her father "Clinton". [edit] See also Barney [edit] External link Miss Beazley's official site This dog-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. If this is a dog-breed article, see some suggestions for information to add. And I always wondered why the good people of New York changed the name of one of it's seamier neighborhoods, on the maps as well I might add!, to "Clinton"! It's old name? "The Tenderloin District". I bet that chafes Hillary's midriff like a cheap ten dollar girdle. Actually DoctorRobert, there was/ is a neighborhood in NYC called the Tenderloin (as there is in San Francisco) but that name is basically obsolete and now it's called the "meat-packing district," everyone refers to it that way. I was too hasty in the previous posting about this in saying NYC has no "Tenderloin district." It is around the west side of northern Greenwich Village near the Hudson River from about West 12th to West 16th streets. It was where some meat-packing factory operations resided but it is now being terribly gentrified and "Stella McCartney" has an overpriced fashion clothing store in there on West 14th Street. Agent Faul danced with his fake-chipped tooth near the store at the "Hogs and Heifers" bar a couple blocks away, you've seen the photographs.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Mar 31, 2006 22:05:30 GMT -5
JoJo, I'm sorry if this has been asked and/or answered before, but if the Beatles monthly comes out every month with new pictures, shouldn't the issues between Sept. - Dec. fill in that "mysterious" gap? I'm sure we'd all love seeing some closeups from that period.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Mar 31, 2006 22:26:41 GMT -5
I'm just starting my collection here, so I can't tell you, but this one alone was intriguing and fun, I am likely to aquire more. I'm sure you have perused this collection of Valis' scans, and he named them according to issue number. Starting with #45, we get photos from the previous month or two. I'll keep an eye out for the time period you mention, but I'd be willing to bet they avoid anything "current". (we'll see of course)
|
|
|
Post by FP on Apr 1, 2006 0:23:28 GMT -5
I'm just starting my collection here, so I can't tell you, but this one alone was intriguing and fun, I am likely to aquire more. I'm sure you have perused this collection of Valis' scans, and he named them according to issue number. Starting with #45, we get photos from the previous month or two. I'll keep an eye out for the time period you mention, but I'd be willing to bet they avoid anything "current". (we'll see of course) Where did you get it from? Ebay? I'm sure you'll find issues containing pics from that "mysterious gap" wherever you got the March issue. Like Revolver said, I'm seeing a lot of those airbrushed looking mustaches on all the Beatles, not just Paul.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 1, 2006 1:10:53 GMT -5
Yeah I know where to get them, (it was Ebay), but I like to shop around a bit and wait for a seller that isn't out to price gauge. I got this one for 5 bucks, with shipping.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 1, 2006 17:29:54 GMT -5
Like Revolver said, I'm seeing a lot of those airbrushed looking mustaches on all the Beatles, not just Paul.
FP, the most likely reason for that is they felt the fans weren't ready to see the new "Paul," and/or his face wasn't ready for closeups after the surgery. So they couldn't include any of the other Beatles' current photos without it looking odd. Yet the fans probably knew the Beatles were growing mustaches, so they had to "transition" some of the older photos to look more current. That's my theory anyway.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Apr 1, 2006 22:08:41 GMT -5
Like Revolver said, I'm seeing a lot of those airbrushed looking mustaches on all the Beatles, not just Paul.FP, the most likely reason for that is they felt the fans weren't ready to see the new "Paul," and/or his face wasn't ready for closeups after the surgery. So they couldn't include any of the other Beatles' current photos without it looking odd. Yet the fans probably knew the Beatles were growing mustaches, so they had to "transition" some of the older photos to look more current. That's my theory anyway. Cool. You know my theory.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 1, 2006 23:04:30 GMT -5
Cool.
You know my theory. Actually I don't. What's your theory about why they painted on the mustaches? The last time we debated this, I think you said they weren't painted on.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Apr 2, 2006 0:25:18 GMT -5
Cool.
You know my theory. Actually I don't. What's your theory about why they painted on the mustaches? The last time we debated this, I think you said they weren't painted on. I meant that I believe Paul wasn't replaced. I didn't say much about the mustache in that thread on MFH. It was mainly NB and KHAN. The thing is, now that we see some possibly airbrushed/"enhanced" facial hair on the other Beatles, there's no reason to the believe that there's something going on with Paul. I can use the same argument on George and Ringo. It would be awesome if you brought that old thread back to life on MFH. You have a membership.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 2, 2006 3:44:40 GMT -5
The thing is, now that we see some possibly airbrushed/"enhanced" facial hair on the other Beatles, there's no reason to the believe that there's something going on with Paul. I can use the same argument on George and Ringo.
Why would they be painting mustaches on anybody's photo if they weren't trying to cover something up? It makes no sense otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Apr 2, 2006 21:44:10 GMT -5
The thing is, now that we see some possibly airbrushed/"enhanced" facial hair on the other Beatles, there's no reason to the believe that there's something going on with Paul. I can use the same argument on George and Ringo.Why would they be painting mustaches on anyone's photo if they weren't trying to cover something up? It makes no sense otherwise. Because they didn't have any good clear closeups of the others with one? The only Beatle I see with real looking facial hair is George, which looks slightly enhanced anyway in that closeup. Maybe the magazine wanted to look like they had the most recent pics, since the world knew about their new look. Either the cover pics of March and Feb. are old pics the magazine didn't use, or they took those pics in late September or early October while he was growing one, before he got the haircut? I don't have a solid answer to this one, sorry. ...But I sure know that it doesn't involve Paul being replaced.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Apr 3, 2006 22:34:23 GMT -5
Nothing to say, Revolver?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Apr 3, 2006 23:28:48 GMT -5
I see two different people.
|
|
|
Post by Port Chicago on Apr 4, 2006 0:21:22 GMT -5
I see two different people. Correct, no amount of make-up/prosthetics/plastic surgery can cover up Faul's different head shape, size, difference in proportions between features. The voice is also obviously different. See JoJo's smoking gun video of intercut comparisons of the 1966 Los Angeles press conference of JPM and the infamous 1967 British TV-LSD-promoting interview with Faul; that's just one of the many obvious visual/audio proofs we have available. Watch out for photo doctoring.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 4, 2006 13:36:23 GMT -5
In this fade it appears that the top of Bill's head is at least an inch or two taller than Paul's. If they're the same guy, that shouldn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Apr 4, 2006 13:52:02 GMT -5
In this fade it appears that the top of Bill's head is at least an inch or two taller than Paul's. If they're the same guy, that shouldn't happen. Wig levitation. It's what happens when you do the LSD.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Apr 4, 2006 14:55:50 GMT -5
In this fade it appears that the top of Bill's head is at least an inch or two taller than Paul's. If they're the same guy, that shouldn't happen. No, it looks like he had a haircut.
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Apr 4, 2006 16:06:43 GMT -5
In this fade it appears that the top of Bill's head is at least an inch or two taller than Paul's. If they're the same guy, that shouldn't happen. No, it looks like he had a haircut. Surely after a haircut the mass of hair on a persons head becomes smaller rather than larger?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 4, 2006 17:57:30 GMT -5
Surely after a haircut the mass of hair on a persons head becomes smaller rather than larger?
Yes. Unless Bill had a perm in that photo, I don't see how his hair could ride that much higher than Paul's, if they're the same person.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Apr 4, 2006 19:04:09 GMT -5
No, it looks like he had a haircut. Surely after a haircut the mass of hair on a persons head becomes smaller rather than larger? Depends which hairs you cut. And how it's arranged it the back. I don't see his head getting taller. Look at the LSD video. Do you really think that's his head shape? No, he just has a mass of hair there. That's the closest he got to a Marge Simpson haircut.
|
|