Two Pauls in 1964

[javlim]

Hi everyone, this is my first post, Please compare these two videos, I see the Paul with David Frost younger and diferent like the other one.

What do you think about it?


Merry Christmas !!....................from México.

javlim

[naj]

Hello,

This is also my first post.  I was seven years old in 1964 when the Beatles came to the U.S.  I saw them on the Ed Sullivan
show.  I was a Beatles fan through 1966.  The Beatles that emerged beyond that were dark and odd.  I had no interest
in them and didn't even follow  anything about them.  I became a fan of the Monkees and other groups of that era like the
Cowsills and Paul Revere and the Raiders.

I found this message board as a a result of actually reading Ringo Starr's information these past few days that Paul had died in 1966. 
This is something I never knew about and as i read more information would think it just very terrible as human beings that if that were true,
that the public should be made aware just like any other popular music artist.  To read about album after album insinuating that a band
member is dead all those years is not something too go along with.  It's wrong! And it's not funny.

Anyway, to why I am posting on this particular thread:  The first thing I have done these past few days is find pre 1966 video/audio of
Paul McCartney.  From what I see and hear:  this is the same person as today.  His mannerisms are identical in how he moves
his eyes when thinking and responding to questions.  Also he is a bit rigid in his movements and I have seen Sir Paul McCartney on the
U.S. television at least two--three times in the last year and his movements are the same.  The other thing is the person's essence. 

It is identical.   The earlier look of Paul,  I have to say he reminds me of Sly Stallone in his eyes and  hair color. 
The later Paul with the shorter/layered hair does raise his forehead but so is the foreheads of all the other Beatles. As well the other Beatles
look slimmed in the face, too.  On some Album covers there is one that doesn't look like John and one cover that doesn't look like George.  
We also don't know (or I don't know)  how well magaziine could manipulate through a sort of photoshop at those time framees. What records of
nip and tucking was going on in the 600's with the fab 4.  Do we really know?  The only thing  that I dont' know is the eye 
color.  For that is a problem unless Paul had decided  he liked his eyes another color and opted more for the  blueish. 
When contact lenses offered this option and who had the money to make those choices.  There needs too be forensic investigating on this by
someone qualifiied to do so.  Those who know that were close to any of the Beatles should really come forward.  Because if Paul McCartney
did die in 1966, he deserves his spot in Music history and deserves to be acknowledged.  Bands change people all the time. 
I really don't  see any reason to lie to the public.  It didn't happen regarding Elvis orr Ricky Nelson or the Peggy Sue 
guy or the Gibb Brothers nor the musician from  Jan and Dean and etc.,

[B]

Welcome to the forum, naj.
First I would say, take a look at this video below, and stop it at 1:14.
That is supposed to be Paul McCartney in 1966 and 1967 (one year apart).
I think you would have to admit, this does not appear to be the same person.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsVQ9ixgp-Y


The current "Paul", "Sir Paul" may have the same movements as the original,
but not many people here believe he is the same guy. If he is, you can still see
that in 1967 at least, someone else was pretending to be Paul McCartney.

The name of this forum says "Paul was Replaced". I think you can agree
to that much if you look at the video above, even if it was only a temporary situation.

[linus]

Ironic that that video starts out with the clip from AHDN where the studio director, played byVictor Spinetti, is saying, "I'm quite happy to be replaced."




When Paul's Grandfather tries to cause trouble at the tv studio, the director says this, while the camera cuts to Paul as he frowns and shakes his head.

How 'bout that for "nothing is real".
(by that I mean, the Strawberry Fields Forever video that cuts to Paul every time John sings "Nothing is real.")


Not only are there as many PID winks and clues before 1966 as there are after, but there's as many differences between the Pauls before as there is after.
The differences at 1:14 in that vid may be less subtle (to some) than the ones between the Pauls before 1966, as Javlim posted, but they are there. Even in vintage materials.



It's also ironic that they threw this in the vid. Isn't that a PIA comp?!

[naj]

Hello B,

I really don't know what to think. Like I said I just found out about all of this. To me someone who does research in this area
that has the tools and experience and qualifications to investigate on all levels is needed. "If there is anyone out there who
has those qualifications that has done the work and has made a legitimate documentary. I would be very interested in that".

I just saw the George Harrison DVD online but as someone who doesn't know all the history of the Beatles that was not properly presented (IMHO).

If there is any such person who has done the work on this, I'd be interested in reading those things. I can see what you are saying
by your comparisons and maybe since I didn't follow along with the Beatles I don't see what those who have followed the group do see.
The early talk with Paul McCartney---he seems rather shy and child like but maybe he didn't understand how "big" he was then. To me
I'm pretty sensitive seeing a black and white picture compared to a color picture with a hair style cut change. Maybe Paul lost some weight.
When one loses weight the face changes....although early pictures of Paul her was very slim. I guess I should poke around here.

thanks for your posts!

[B]

Given the title of this thread, I figured I'd post this here, but really, it isn't related to what you've written.

There's Only One Paul McCartney Documentary, 2002
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYdur_IovXs

a mask? That's curious.

[joseph]

Mar 5, 2015 20:25:39 GMT -5 B said:

Welcome to the forum, naj.
First I would say, take a look at this video below, and stop it at 1:14.
That is supposed to be Paul McCartney in 1966 and 1967 (one year apart).
I think you would have to admit, this does not appear to be the same person.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsVQ9ixgp-Y


The current "Paul", "Sir Paul" may have the same movements as the original,
but not many people here believe he is the same guy. If he is, you can still see
that in 1967 at least, someone else was pretending to be Paul McCartney.

The name of this forum says "Paul was Replaced". I think you can agree
to that much if you look at the video above, even if it was only a temporary situation.

I have just joined the forums and only recently realised Paul was replaced too. I think you are right in that Faul was appearing as Paul
before the 1966 date. There is even one of Faul on Ready Steady Go in 1963. He also did live gigs in 1965. I can tell the different
immediately as they are two different souls.

I think it was a long process of him working his way into the band then ousting Paul. Faul has employed the full weight of US and UK
intelligence, plus the masonic structure to perpetuate the deception all these years to sell drugs and war.

[timmyb52]

If I may add something I have always found somewhat odd when it came to the 1966-1967 period is the way The Beatles wrote their music...
it was for the most part {although not always} very fast paced musical melodic structures with very tight harmonies. Then, all of a sudden
with Sgt.Pepper the focus shies away considerably from this style and becomes slower with less of a focus on tight harmonies and melody.
The music becomes a little bit more chaotic and less finely structured as it had been. After Revolver it appears to me that the Beatles
lost something that was integral to that early formula which had made them so successful and famous.

What was it that changed the Beatles so much...in such a dramatic fashion from 1966-1967? It could not have been LSD use IMHO since the
group had been taking mind altering chemicals for some time before that {such as marijuana and speed}.
IMO the group lost a major component that solidified their basic sound and style after Revolver and the drug explanation has never
worked for me to explain this at all.
The pictures of Paul from late 1966 to early 1967 are not of the same man IMHO, nor do they show a Paul who acts or speaks the
same way that he had used too. Something major did happen that affected the rest of the group profoundly...and this seemed to
result in a more depressive type of music presentation after Revolver.
Sure...they continued to try to present a positive upbeat picture of their music and image...but after 1966 it seemed to me
to be disingenuous and not genuine...as if the group was just painting by numbers in a sense.
What happened after Revolver until Sgt.Pepper that caused all of this?

[javlim]

Hi! Joseph, It´s me again a couple of years later; I have a new video about two different Paul in 1964, just at the film "A hard day's night"
voice and face different, judge by yourself.......greetings!!...........

[maclen]

hi - we see one paul from different angles; one from below and one from above making him look different to the innocent eye.
also one of them is glitching and might be sped up. otherwise,great comp

[joseph]

Dec 29, 2017 23:55:58 GMT -5 javlim said:

Hi! Joseph, It´s me again a couple of years later; I have a new video about two different Paul in 1964, just at the film "A hard day's night"
voice and face different, judge by yourself.......greetings!!...........

Attachments:

[joseph]

Well that didn't come out right. I thought I'd entred some text with that photo.

Anyway thanks for the welcome Jaime. I just watched your newest upload and I am in agreement with you.
I posted a comparison of Jane Ashers because they too are from a 1964 movie "Masque of the Red Death"
I sensed last night a slight change in her appearance in her final scene from the previous ones.

I got a shiver down my spine when I looked up Jane Asher's filmography and MOTRD came up.
It's strange how movie scripts can gain deeper meaning many years later when seen through the lens of PID.
The figure of Death being the likeness of Prospero is perhaps a nod to the replacement agenda.