|
Post by lili on Nov 1, 2006 13:28:26 GMT -5
I have already admitted more than once that in certain photos & comparisons, the resemblence between the two men is uncanny. However, this is only in certain comparisons. In most comparisons, the differences between them are very obvious. From that same profile thread. Paul Faul Faul's ear looks fake. Paul Bill No matter how you look at it, Paul's ears are larger than Bill's original ears were. Paul Bill You can clearly see the line at the bottom of the fake ear. There is no denying that in some photos the two men greatly resemble each other. What kind of double for Paul would Bill be, if he didn't greatly resemble him. I'm sure that you people have heard of " Legends in Concert" & other shows that feature celebrity impersonators that can pass for the originals ! www.legendsinconcert.com/
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 1, 2006 13:33:06 GMT -5
What the hell is up with you guys & the press?? Y'all just like to go 'round the same post over & over again don't ya. Why don't you call the press? And while yer at it, call the folks with the facial recognition programs so they can shut y'all up once & for all. The press? The PRESS?!!! Oh, gawd, NO, never call "the Press"..............uh-uh, nope, na-da, ookey, nein, never. You forgot nunca.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 1, 2006 13:54:00 GMT -5
Must be the moustache... I wonder what anyone can say to this obvious example of attached vs. detached earlobes... put a 66 vs 67 pic, rigth before and rigth after of what you call replacement, because what you show there are only age issues.
|
|
latvietis too lazy to log in
Guest
|
Post by latvietis too lazy to log in on Nov 1, 2006 14:05:04 GMT -5
I wonder what anyone can say to this obvious example of attached vs. detached earlobes... put a 66 vs 67 pic, rigth before and rigth after of what you call replacement, because what you show there are only age issues. So you're saying it's normal, that your earlobes detach with age? Wow! I didn't know that!
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Nov 1, 2006 15:02:50 GMT -5
Bill You can clearly see the line at the bottom of the fake ear. No fake ear there, it is an early 70's pic., just a detached ear lobe.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 1, 2006 15:15:16 GMT -5
1966 vs 1967 rigth before rigth after
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 1, 2006 15:15:41 GMT -5
I wonder what anyone can say to this obvious example of attached vs. detached earlobes... put a 66 vs 67 pic, rigth before and rigth after of what you call replacement, because what you show there are only age issues. A comparison like that can be found easily.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 1, 2006 15:40:47 GMT -5
I wonder what anyone can say to this obvious example of attached vs. detached earlobes... put a 66 vs 67 pic, rigth before and rigth after of what you call replacement, because what you show there are only age issues. The post coloured pic looks attached becase the lines was lost in the coloured proces
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 1, 2006 15:50:19 GMT -5
see here looks like attached ears?
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Nov 1, 2006 15:58:01 GMT -5
Every time someone takes a color pic of me, my earlobes look attached. I hate when that happens.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 1, 2006 16:05:13 GMT -5
Please tell me you know the difference between a shadow and a real detached earlobe, MCIII.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 1, 2006 16:18:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 1, 2006 16:50:00 GMT -5
Very good FP!, thats the diference, and now who got the attached or dettached ear lobe? or are only ligths and shadows?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 1, 2006 17:36:52 GMT -5
This one: And others at this thread. The uniformed Paul was at a 21st birthday party for "Fame fiancee" Carmen Jiminez, January 8, 1967. (from the book 'The Beatles Files', a collection of stills from the Daily Mirror)
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 1, 2006 17:40:43 GMT -5
Very good FP!, thats the diference, and now who got the attached or dettached ear lobe? or are only ligths and shadows? Muddying the waters. In the pic on the left, there is a shadow. The pic on the right is obvious photo doctoring.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 1, 2006 17:57:11 GMT -5
Very good FP!, thats the diference, and now who got the attached or dettached ear lobe? or are only ligths and shadows? Muddying the waters. In the pic on the left, there is a shadow. The pic on the right is obvious photo doctoring. The easy way out Why? because not serve to PID/PWR propouses? and JoJo, sorry, but those are not attached ears, anyone with eyes can see the ear lobe
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 1, 2006 18:01:46 GMT -5
For those who don't know this is an attached earlobe
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 1, 2006 18:06:54 GMT -5
put a 66 vs 67 pic, rigth before and rigth after of what you call replacement, because what you show there are only age issues. So you're saying it's normal, that your earlobes detach with age? Wow! I didn't know that! Oh, I am beginning to think that a LOT of things begin to detach with age. Anything that hangs down, sticks out, or is free to wiggle. It is the interplay of cartilage, muscle, and adipose tissue. The body, weary of contending with gravity for so long, strikes a deal with the forces of "down", which says, "Here, you want it? You can have it." and the jowls stretch another inch closer to terra firma. My mirror is reporting this to me on a regular basis. Ear lobes? They thin out and lengthen, creating a ever greater drooping bottom edge. As the lowered edge extends below the original point of attachment, the illusion of a detached lobe is created. With older men, it is commonplace to note how often this condition is indicated by their own testi- monials.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 1, 2006 18:15:53 GMT -5
Every time someone takes a color pic of me, my earlobes look attached. I hate when that happens. How sarcastic! That's happen wen you coloured an black and white pic
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 1, 2006 18:29:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 1, 2006 19:02:16 GMT -5
Very good FP!, thats the diference, and now who got the attached or dettached ear lobe? or are only ligths and shadows? In the pic on the left, there is a shadow. The pic on the right is obvious photo doctoring. In the pic on the left, I see the same thing happening with the 70's pics JoJo just posted. Second pic doctored? Yeah right.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Nov 1, 2006 19:12:30 GMT -5
Must be the moustache... I wonder what anyone can say to this obvious example of attached vs. detached earlobes... They'll just ignore the stuff they can't refute, as usual. There are enough unequivocal photos of both Paul and Bill to show that Paul's were attached, Bill's were not. All it takes is two good photos to prove the case.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 1, 2006 19:31:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 1, 2006 19:33:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Nov 1, 2006 20:06:48 GMT -5
In the pic on the left, there is a shadow. The pic on the right is obvious photo doctoring. In the pic on the left, I see the same thing happening with the 70's pics JoJo just posted. Second pic doctored? Yeah right. So ...... you see a poorly-fitting plastic ear with a wedge missing on the left picture of JPM as well? Really? That's game, set and (mis)match; JPM was replaced, case closed. JoJo, how appropriate those Faul disguise-kit photos are for this Halloween time ....... of course every day is getting to be like Halloween (pre-election orange and black alert).
|
|