|
Post by eyesbleed on Nov 2, 2006 19:56:17 GMT -5
don't you know the diference between the shape of the hair style and the shape of a head? We do know how to tell the difference between JPM & "Paul". The same way I can tell the difference between my brother & my mom, or my boss & a client. Every case there's 2 different people with easily recognizable traits. It's a very simple recognition process but you guys are to blinded by the forrest to see the trees.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Nov 2, 2006 21:21:02 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. For those insisting that JPM is the same individual as Faul, you might want to consider an alliance with the Flat Earth Society, who also specialize in developing arguments that are anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-physical proof to defend state religions and faith. From their website: Argument Five - Difficulties in maintaining a functional Earth-bound atmosphere and ocean1) The fluid problem Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface. Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field. But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere. And windblown rainclouds carry vast quantities of evaporated seawater across miles of ground, releasing their load far from its starting point. Water or air that (according to "round-Earth" theory) starts on one side of the planet could end up completely on the other side in a matter of only a few days. With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all. 2) Thermodynamic complications Taking into account the "gravitational charge" analogy once more, and assuming that for some reason the atmosphere was able to align itself with the new direction of the theoretical "gravitational field", we are faced with a new problem involving another branch of physics known as thermodynamics. Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth. The Flat Earth Society
|
|
|
Post by Bill Shears on Nov 2, 2006 21:21:33 GMT -5
We do know how to tell the difference between JPM & "Paul". The same way I can tell the difference between my brother & my mom, or my boss & a client. Every case there's 2 different people with easily recognizable traits. It's a very simple recognition process but you guys are to blinded by the forrest to see the trees. More than a PIDiot, an AShole
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 2, 2006 21:37:23 GMT -5
We do know how to tell the difference between JPM & "Paul". The same way I can tell the difference between my brother & my mom, or my boss & a client. Every case there's 2 different people with easily recognizable traits. It's a very simple recognition process but you guys are to blinded by the forrest to see the trees. More than a PIDiot, an AShole Even for the relaxed rules here in the guest section McIII, I'm getting fed up with your nonsense. Yeah I know your proxies, and yes I'm willing to to play whack-a-mole with them, if that's what you want.. Ciao.
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Nov 2, 2006 22:10:13 GMT -5
don't you know the diference between the shape of the hair style and the shape of a head? Yeah hair is similar head is not, MccartneytardIII.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 2, 2006 23:20:24 GMT -5
For those insisting that JPM is the same individual as Faul, you might want to consider an alliance with the Flat Earth Society, who also specialize in developing arguments that are anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-physical proof to defend state religions and faith. From their website: Argument Five - Difficulties in maintaining a functional Earth-bound atmosphere and ocean1) The fluid problem Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface. Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field. But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere. And windblown rainclouds carry vast quantities of evaporated seawater across miles of ground, releasing their load far from its starting point. Water or air that (according to "round-Earth" theory) starts on one side of the planet could end up completely on the other side in a matter of only a few days. With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all. 2) Thermodynamic complications Taking into account the "gravitational charge" analogy once more, and assuming that for some reason the atmosphere was able to align itself with the new direction of the theoretical "gravitational field", we are faced with a new problem involving another branch of physics known as thermodynamics. Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth. The Flat Earth Society I've come across them once before, and they still reminded me of you guys.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 3, 2006 0:00:13 GMT -5
I've come across them once before, and they still reminded me of you guys. *still remind me of you guys
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 3, 2006 0:48:30 GMT -5
Why don't you call the press? Since you ask, about two years ago I gave an audio briefing of about 30-40 minutes to va long-standing acquaintance/friend-of-a-friend who writes about BEATLES for the New York Times. He said that roar at the beginning of MMT sounded like some kind of clue about an airplane. But beyond that; we are the press, right here. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Nov 3, 2006 12:13:58 GMT -5
Arguing over detached earlobes is beyond a waste of time.
For those who still want to live in the land of La La, and believe that Bill is really JPM...let me take you down cause I'm going to La La Land, Nothing is Real, and Penny Lane is in my detached ears and in my doctored eyes. There beyond the blue skies I sit and meanwhile back....picture yourself on a computer and see detached ears and flaming pies....somebody argues that Paul was not replaced and the man we know as Mountain Man Bill plays bass. He sings Silly Love Songs, the bull grows incredibly high....Suddenly there appears pics of two men that someone tries to show they're the same....Loosely in disguise with diamonds...aaaahhhhh
Somewhere someone has purchased seashore property in Utah......and Don Knotts was Brian Epstein....there's an island filled with JPM look a likes and some evil mad scientist is playing with what's left of our minds....
Let's Go to Jr's Farm!
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 3, 2006 16:06:32 GMT -5
For those who still want to live in the land of La La, and believe that Bill is really JPM...let me take you down cause I'm going to La La Land, Nothing is Real, and Penny Lane is in my detached ears and in my doctored eyes. There beyond the blue skies I sit and meanwhile back....picture yourself on a computer and see detached ears and flaming pies....somebody argues that Paul was not replaced and the man we know as Mountain Man Bill plays bass. He sings Silly Love Songs, the bull grows incredibly high....Suddenly there appears pics of two men that someone tries to show they're the same....Loosely in disguise with diamonds...aaaahhhhh Wow, thanks for showing me the light.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Nov 3, 2006 18:58:17 GMT -5
Yah just gotta love our LR ! I think that Doc & her should get together & write a book ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by lili on Nov 3, 2006 19:23:03 GMT -5
Back to using vintage material. I can't prove to you that these photos haven't been tampered with. All I can do is post them as I found them. They're vintage & I don't think anyone has messed with them. Bill & Mickey Dolenz, 1967: Paul, from the Revolver Sessions, 1966: Another, 1966 The Beatles, 1964: Beatles, 1968/69: Paul, 1965/66: Faul, 1967:
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 3, 2006 19:53:47 GMT -5
You see lili, I can find pics that'll match up with what you posted (I actually have used a few of those pics for fades), but you or someone else will just say it's doctored because it matches up more than you think it should.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Nov 3, 2006 21:44:14 GMT -5
I've only seen one Bill all along.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Nov 3, 2006 23:19:22 GMT -5
Me too. His speaking and singing voice stayed much the same since '67, not counting impersonators. You can hear Bill's normal singing voice on the '67 Christmas record. It sounds pretty close to his Wings voice. BTW, the reversal of that clip sounds to me like he's singing "hey everybody, it's not me, McCartney"
|
|
|
Post by That Latvian Guy on Nov 4, 2006 1:35:04 GMT -5
Me too. His speaking and singing voice stayed much the same since '67, not counting impersonators. You can hear Bill's normal singing voice on the '67 Christmas record. It sounds pretty close to his Wings voice. BTW, the reversal of that clip sounds to me like he's singing "hey everybody, it's not me, McCartney" The reversal sounds more like "Hey, everybody, it's not me me me me".
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 4, 2006 12:11:38 GMT -5
This looks like a totally different Faul...this is the "pretty" Faul...the one someone calls "Mountain Man" his face is more like JPM's but it's not Bill. Who the heck is "mountain man"? "Faul" with facial hair? I hope you don't think the guy in Let It Be isn't the guy we know today.
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
Post by ggee on Nov 4, 2006 21:58:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 4, 2006 22:45:01 GMT -5
A slight difference in angle and lighting doesn't change the fact that it's the same guy. That's the kind of comparison that can be perceived either way.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Nov 5, 2006 1:54:42 GMT -5
Me too. His speaking and singing voice stayed much the same since '67, not counting impersonators. You can hear Bill's normal singing voice on the '67 Christmas record. It sounds pretty close to his Wings voice. BTW, the reversal of that clip sounds to me like he's singing "hey everybody, it's not me, McCartney" The reversal sounds more like "Hey, everybody, it's not me me me me". The "McCartney" part is sung as if with a Boston accent as "mick-hot-knee". That's how I hear it, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by That Latvian Guy on Nov 5, 2006 2:43:09 GMT -5
The reversal sounds more like "Hey, everybody, it's not me me me me". The "McCartney" part is sung as if with a Boston accent as "mick-hot-knee". That's how I hear it, anyway. Now I hear Mickhey (Mickey Mouse? ;D). Maybe they WANTED it to sound like "McCartney", but didn't want to make it TOO evident when played forwards.
|
|
ggee
Hard Day's Night
Posts: 9
|
Post by ggee on Nov 5, 2006 7:19:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 5, 2006 11:20:45 GMT -5
Now here's what it's supposed to look like, the McCartney left ear: Hmm, got it right this time. (Coming Up video, 1980)
|
|
|
Post by FP on Nov 5, 2006 12:14:10 GMT -5
What's with you guys and pics of him when he's old with completely different expressions? It's also funny how you're completely ignoring the pic on the left. [quote author=jojo board=guests1 thread=1162322369 post=1162743645] Hmm, got it right this time. (Coming Up video, 1980)[/quote] Yep, just like in 1966: www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Valis/1_17_05/bill4.jpg
|
|
|
Post by fourthousandholes on Nov 5, 2006 12:46:10 GMT -5
"It's also funny how you're completely ignoring the pic on the left."What about it? What should we be noticing? Are you refering to this set of pics, FP? Or were you refering to these?:
|
|