|
Post by letitbeatle on Oct 17, 2018 7:00:42 GMT -5
SAME PERSON (1963 AND 2011)
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Oct 17, 2018 12:09:33 GMT -5
What is the 63 image from?
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Nov 2, 2018 1:16:49 GMT -5
Those may be the same Paul, of many. It's hard to say without ears to compare. & wowza look at the pupils on the young Paul. With that much blow in his system it's amazing he was able to sit still long enough for a photo to be snapped.
One of the things the CIA master of disguise guys said was that in creating a character they'd pick something to act as a distraction from the rest of the appearance and also add unlikely details precisely because 'who would bother putting three fake freckles exactly there every day?' When I read that, I immediately thought of John's glasses and then of Paul's lip scar & fake swooping eyebrows, George's unibrow & fangs, Ringo's weird left eyebrow & rings (& in post-64 Ringos, the nose). There are these elements that, whether any of them were occurred organically to begin with, became a kind of short-hand for identifying the character. Oh, glasses, it's John. And then you don't really look at the rest of the face. Or the ears. These almost caricatured elements obfuscate otherwise obvious differences.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Nov 11, 2018 4:06:00 GMT -5
This is a photo from 1965. I've not managed to find more specific date info than that. If you can nail it down or provide context for the shoot, I'd be very interested to know who the photographer was, etc. What do you think of the scars on the face of the Paul in this photo? The lit cigarette and its resulting plumes of smoke seem, to me, to be intentional obfuscation. The tip and bridge of his nose appear scarred to me. Possibly, from a botched nose job. There is at least one later Paul who clearly had a very poorly done rhinoplasty and who, often but not always, appears with a fake nose bridge and tip. The left eye of the Paul in the photo has heavy bruising and swelling on the interior side of the lid. Possibly, from an eyelid job to make the left eye droop more like the left eye of a previous Paul. I, also, see an 'S' shaped scar between his lower lip and chin and a finer scar that winds its way through his philtrum up to his left nostril. The upper left side of his lip appears to have the "moped accident scar" and we might believe he is holding the cigarette in his lips precisely at the place of that scar to hide it. But what I find most interesting is the rectangular swath of skin running diagonally across his right cheek, which appears to either be one big scar healing from something or the worst application of cover-up before a professional photo shoot anyone has ever done. I've found other photos from this set which have been obviously touched up and not particularly well. One scar I don't see at all on this Paul's face is the small, horizontal line pointed out in the photos of the Pauls in the OP. In fact, the two younger Pauls look like entirely different people who would never be mistaken for one another in passing. The older Paul is at too much of a different angle to make an unbiased judgment call.
|
|
|
Post by letitbeatle on Nov 11, 2018 11:48:13 GMT -5
This is a photo from 1965. I've not managed to find more specific date info than that. If you can nail it down or provide context for the shoot, I'd be very interested to know who the photographer was, etc. What do you think of the scars on the face of the Paul in this photo? The lit cigarette and its resulting plumes of smoke seem, to me, to be intentional obfuscation. The tip and bridge of his nose appear scarred to me. Possibly, from a botched nose job. There is at least one later Paul who clearly had a very poorly done rhinoplasty and who, often but not always, appears with a fake nose bridge and tip. The left eye of the Paul in the photo has heavy bruising and swelling on the interior side of the lid. Possibly, from an eyelid job to make the left eye droop more like the left eye of a previous Paul. I, also, see an 'S' shaped scar between his lower lip and chin and a finer scar that winds its way through his philtrum up to his left nostril. The upper left side of his lip appears to have the "moped accident scar" and we might believe he is holding the cigarette in his lips precisely at the place of that scar to hide it. But what I find most interesting is the rectangular swath of skin running diagonally across his right cheek, which appears to either be one big scar healing from something or the worst application of cover-up before a professional photo shoot anyone has ever done. I've found other photos from this set which have been obviously touched up and not particularly well. One scar I don't see at all on this Paul's face is the small, horizontal line pointed out in the photos of the Pauls in the OP. In fact, the two younger Pauls look like entirely different people who would never be mistaken for one another in passing. The older Paul is at too much of a different angle to make an unbiased judgment call. Thats not Paul.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Nov 12, 2018 5:55:44 GMT -5
Huh?
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 12, 2018 21:18:28 GMT -5
Chins are easy to change - the 65 pic is the same Faul as in the 63 pic but with a prosthetic chin to make him look like the real Paul
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Nov 13, 2018 2:46:09 GMT -5
Oh. Well, couple of things...
1) the young 'Paul' in the OP has completely different eyes, brow shape and hair texture than the 'Paul' I posted with the smoke.
2) We've kind of seen "their" success or lackthereof with early 1960s chin augmentation, leading to a peculiar corkscrew scar in the middle of the chin of one of the 'Paul's who is still with us.
3) For photo shoots and highly controlled filming environments (lighting lighting lighting), both of which later have the benefit of editing and gfx, yes, chins and any other feature are augmentable. Within the last 15 or so years, as bio-safer plastics have been incorporated into plastic surgery and, more recently, as bone scarring and regeneration has begun to be used (mostly for age related skull shrinkage of the jaw and cheekbones) in both orthographic and elective cosmetic surgeries, amazing structural changes have become possible. But these nearly seamless surgical options didn't exist sixty years ago and even the best photo-trickery from the 1960s would not pass inspection today. Also, having worked on sets and stages my entire life, I can guarantee you that Jim's chin, in the still you posted above, would not have looked like flesh had you been face to face with him.
4) There are a few widely circulated photos of one of the long headed 'Paul's gripping his jaw in a way that would seem to indicate it is causing him pain. This or a 'Paul' is, also, frequently seen placing and/or holding a finger to his chin in the exact spot most semi-botched oral surgeries cause nerve damage. Before I was willing to accept that there was more than one "Paul McCartney", I tried to find plausible explanations for the glaring skull changes that did not involve multiple human beings. Specifically, I was stunned by the length and size of the noggin on a '67 Paul compared to many photos of a or several 'Paul's in '66. One option I considered was that he had jaw surgery. There is one 'Paul' in particular, whom I refer to as Chinless Wonder Paul, who can be seen all the way back before they even went to Hamburg and during Hamburg, whose chin barely just barely extends beyond the circumference of his neck. If someone wanted to make "Paul McCartney" into a heart-throb, I can see why it might be suggested that the heart-throb have a visible mandible. It would seem reckless to try something like bone grafting on the jaw, at the time, particularly, when deal with a patient who is, for all intents and purposes, supposed to be a singer. I suspect metal was used. And I wonder if he's had it replaced. You'll recall this same "Paul" having a mega-wattle in the early 80s before getting his neck lipo'd (and possibly having the jaw work re-done). Regardless, of what procedure was done on that man's jaw and when and how often, his head would not have increased in upward height, as it did, by having the jaw enlarged (downward and outward).
5) Some Pauls have round chins, some have squared off chins, some have clefts, some have long and jutting chins, some barely have chins at all -- frankly, it doesn't seem like much effort was put into making the chins of all the Pauls we've seen look alike.
|
|