|
Post by plastic paul on Nov 1, 2006 20:39:12 GMT -5
McIII Have you noticed that the ear is about an inch or two further back from where the jaw comes up, does that not suggest doctoring to you? If you still say no then thats even more of an obvious difference between the two men!!
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 1, 2006 20:42:02 GMT -5
The press? The PRESS?!!! Oh, gawd, NO, never call "the Press"..............uh-uh, nope, na-da, ookey, nein, never. You forgot nunca. Dang. I ALWAYS forget nunca. It's gravity pulling on my detached mind.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 1, 2006 20:58:56 GMT -5
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). Maybe its a case of one ear is attached, and one ear is detached. Or a flexible flap. Maybe one of them "sticks" sometimes. Those are not reasonable explanations. Wa if JPM had some outer ear damage, and to compensate, the make-up people gave him some ear glue ons. When they were bringing Bill in, smoeone noticed how inconsistent Paul's ears were from picture to picture, so, to make this agree with Paul's photos, they have recreated the same inconsistent ear job for him. Reaching, aren't I? This ear thing has NEVER been one of our best topics, has it? OK, last ditch attempt. Perhaps back then, the photographic retoucing department for the Beatles were to blame. Maybe he has ears that are semi-detached, but when the individual photo retouchers begin the work on their assigned allotment of photos, this was unsuitable to leave as such, and since there was never a clear policy in any memos on whether to (a) airbrush them to look connected or, (b), air-brush them to look seperate, one or the other. Retouch artists, a zealous lot who focus maniacally on the tiniest of details, would get stuck on this very issue, connecting and disconnecting the ears on the same picture, back and forth, over and over again, leaving smudges, until they fell behind in their work and the Batch Managers would come around and gather the work in whatever state it had reached. What a state of affairs as this divided the work teams into various little warring factions. Which goes to show that in some cases, Lobe is a Many Splintered Thing. The Retouching Approval Committee would receive these for review, and, of course, find fault with this and realizing that it was an insidious problem, so they convened to make a answer. They came up with this: Sub-team A would always do attachment work, and Sub-team B would always do detachment work. They were known as the Stiff-Lobers and the Floppy Lobers. This way, the SAME number of attached to detached ears would be in circulation, and nobody would be able to make an issue of it, as the weight of the differences was presented equally. With equal support for opposing options in equal availability, any complaint would be rendered moot. The questioning public would conclude, "Well, that's just how it is", because that is what we cattle do when confronted by contrasting alternatives that we can not reconcile. Ergo, Macca, JPM, Sir Paul, et al, have both kinds of ear lobes, somehow, that's just how it is. End of story. Any problems? I thought not.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 1, 2006 21:35:42 GMT -5
Hey guys, why don't accept Paul as the same ear lobes, yesterday and today? if yours replacement theory is true, don't you think the illuminatis, CIA, FBI,M16, EMI, The Queen made a good pair of ears for him? and nobody notice it. Aparently they made a good dental protesis (in yours theory), so can they forgot the ears? no. So the comparnision between paul at his 20's whit Paul at his 40's 50's 60's is not valid (for me) there are a lot of agin issues. The best comparnisions are 1966 / 1967, rigth after rigth before the supposed replacement. Like this butcher photo session (1966) vs Sgt Pepper party (1967) unfortunately diferents angles for a fade or an overlay, but anyone with common sense can see the same man.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Nov 1, 2006 22:02:07 GMT -5
That shows an attached ear lobe, dude. An attached lobe can be curved at the bottom. That's how mine are.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 1, 2006 22:14:47 GMT -5
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. I don't see a fake ear on anyone.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Nov 1, 2006 23:19:34 GMT -5
From a camera crew surprising Paul and Linda in New Orleans, they mentioned "the upcoming album Venus and mars", so what.. 1974 or '75? Comments? So you're saying that is not a fake ear?
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Nov 1, 2006 23:53:23 GMT -5
Wearing a fake ear in the 70's would serve no purpose.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 2, 2006 0:38:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Nov 2, 2006 1:01:27 GMT -5
Come on, that guy can't sing.
I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 2, 2006 1:08:23 GMT -5
Come on, that guy can't sing. I rest my case. What? "Faul" can sing.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 2, 2006 12:06:13 GMT -5
who got ears to see speak! (of course, the easy PID/PWR answer is : Doctored!) (so to this answer i made the same question again: Is posible that somebody (Iluminatis, CIA, M16, Goverment, ...) collected all the Beatles/McCartney pics (from books, Magazines, LP's EP's Singles, postcards, amateur polaroids...) and films (movies, news, ...) arround the whole wordl to retouched and redistribuited it again to the place they belong the last 40 years? N.I.R. Nobady Is ReplacedBeatles arriving Munich 1966 vs Mike McCartney weeding 1967
|
|
|
Post by lili on Nov 2, 2006 12:19:13 GMT -5
What other explanation could there be, McCIII ? The people who are active members at the PID/PWR sites are convinced that Paul was replaced. If you look at vintage photographs & compare them, that would put this whole matter to rest. The thing is, we could buy magazines from EARLY 1966 & then late 1967 or 1968. I say this, because then they would have to use current photos of Faul, rather than old photos of Paul that they have in stock. Even if we scanned them & then posted them UNTOUCHED at this forum, there would be people who would question their validity. There is nothing that we can do to prove what we believe to you. People who are avid PIAers need to buy the magazines themselves & do the comparisons. That is if you can keep an open mind about the outcome. JoJo, those photos that you posted of Bill & Linda are wonderful. I wonder why Linda didn't tell him that his ear looked odd
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 2, 2006 13:01:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Nov 2, 2006 13:04:24 GMT -5
Love your pictures. The entire head is a different shape. Soon with a little practice , you'll be as good as FP at making a case for PWR. Thanks a bunch.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Nov 2, 2006 14:04:40 GMT -5
I agree, RL. McCIII, that comparison is just plain weird. It reminds me of Mad Libs, instead you're using parts of a photo & putting them in place. In Mad Libs, you have a story & there are blank spaces throughout it. You ask someone else to give you random words to place in those spaces. They have no idea what the story is about. Then, you read the story out loud. This often results in some hilarious stories. The Sgt. Pepper photo that you used has been challenged over & over again. We believe that it's a composite of Faul & Paul. Even with this, you can see that they have different shaped eyes & noses. Paul's face is wider, while Bill's is longer. Bill's chin appears a little longer & wider than Paul's. IMHO of course.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 2, 2006 15:47:06 GMT -5
The problem, is with Paul ears or with yours eyes boys? Yesterday at Japan 1966 Rain video 1966
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 2, 2006 15:49:34 GMT -5
who got ears to see speak! N.I.R. Nobady Is ReplacedBeatles arriving Munich 1966 vs Mike McCartney weeding 1967 You got it spelled wrong. You switched an "a" for an "o". It's supposed to be: N.I.R. Nobady Is ReplocedThank you.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 2, 2006 16:16:36 GMT -5
HEY! We have already conclusively established that Sir Paul can definitely sing, definitely compose, and definitely get around on bass, guitars, piano, synths, drums, and probably the trumpet. (?!) Yes, I said the trumpet. He probably goes down into the basement at 4 in the morning some sleepless nights and plays be-bop on a silver Martin-LeBlanc to pre-made rhythm section backing tracks.
I would like to hear "Daahoud", "Boplicity", "Four", "Straight, No Chaser", and "Ornithology", and maybe even "Stolen Moments" and "Cherokee" with "'Round Midnight" as an encore. And, say, "Giant Steps" is more of a tenor sax number a chorus or two on trumpet might be nice..........does the basement bar come stocked with Three Olives Vodka?
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Nov 2, 2006 16:26:12 GMT -5
The problem, is with Paul ears or with yours eyes boys? Well, as RL already pointed out, the 2 stills you posted are very good for showing PWR. That's another good example of the 2 differently shaped heads of the 2 men. It's not our eyes that are in question.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 2, 2006 16:45:25 GMT -5
Well, as RL already pointed out, the 2 stills you posted are very good for showing PWR. That's another good example of the 2 differently shaped heads of the 2 men. It's not our eyes that are in question. Are you sure?
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Nov 2, 2006 16:50:38 GMT -5
Long head vs round head, its always been that way.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 2, 2006 17:00:37 GMT -5
Poor PIDiots!
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Nov 2, 2006 17:13:29 GMT -5
don't you know the diference between the shape of the hair style and the shape of a head?
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 2, 2006 18:37:44 GMT -5
Well, as RL already pointed out, the 2 stills you posted are very good for showing PWR. That's another good example of the 2 differently shaped heads of the 2 men. It's not our eyes that are in question. Are you sure? I can't see the last 2.
|
|