|
Post by B on Mar 21, 2021 10:38:14 GMT -5
What do these few seconds circa 00:04:20 look like to you? To me, they look like a hand burning in a crematory.
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 22, 2021 14:58:43 GMT -5
So where were the spiders (beatles)While the fly tried to break our balls? Just the beer light to guide us So we bitched about his fans And should we crush his sweet hands? Oh yeah genius.com/David-bowie-ziggy-stardust-lyricsMaking love with his ego Ziggy sucked up into his mind (ah) Like a leper messiah When the kids had killed a man ("Paul is dead")I had to break up the band www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qrOvBuWJ-c--------------------------- I think kaleidoquake really is onto something with the mangled hands. Or severed hand, as the case may be. Check out Faul's hand positioning in the video below, that kaleidoquake posted, at the time it plays. youtu.be/O-hmtPVAG-I?t=231Both hands are hidden, suggesting "missing". Then Faul pulls a hand out and waves - as if to say: "Nope; still have my hands! 'Hi!' you bastards!" to whoever cut off his hand(s) and burned it/them. It also may have something to do with why a hand was shown over McCartney on the Sgt Peppper and Magical Mystery Tour albums. Yes, it represents that he was protected, but they could have used other imagery for that. But they used a hand. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Mar 22, 2021 17:25:03 GMT -5
So where were the spiders (beatles)While the fly tried to break our balls? Just the beer light to guide us So we bitched about his fans And should we crush his sweet hands? Oh yeah genius.com/David-bowie-ziggy-stardust-lyricsMaking love with his ego Ziggy sucked up into his mind (ah) Like a leper messiah When the kids had killed a man ("Paul is dead")I had to break up the band www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qrOvBuWJ-c--------------------------- I think kaleidoquake really is onto something with the mangled hands. Or severed hand, as the case may be. Check out Faul's hand positioning in the video below, that kaleidoquake posted, at the time it plays. youtu.be/O-hmtPVAG-I?t=231Both hands are hidden, suggesting "missing". Then Faul pulls a hand out and waves - as if to say: "Nope; still have my hands! 'Hi!' you bastards!" to whoever cut off his hand(s) and burned it/them. It also may have something to do with why a hand was shown over McCartney on the Sgt Peppper and Magical Mystery Tour albums. Yes, it represents that he was protected, but they could have used other imagery for that. But they used a hand. Interesting. This hand shit just seems ways more like mob tactics (think J. Paul Getty’s ear) than something jealous colleagues would do. If “Paul” was replaceable, and they had been using doubles from inception, then they were all replaceable — so why risk throwing it all away for themselves, instead, of just asking to have *that* “Paul” moved to one of the other sets? Also, we were, in another thread, a while back, discussing the idea of touring bands being a great cover for drugs/arms trading (and for espionage, in general). What if Bryan was put up to being their manager? Maybe that’s why it seemed “logical” to him to hire Dezo as a PR photographer. Also:
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 22, 2021 20:36:09 GMT -5
Absolutely! My computer crashed, and this will have to wait for another day . -------
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 31, 2021 15:05:48 GMT -5
Ex-Mob Boss Rates 13 Mafia Movie Scenes | How Real Is It? youtu.be/_HZbkdEggHI?t=183 Insider Feb 17, 2020 "Michael Franzese, a former New York mobster and ex-caporegime of the Colombo crime family, rates classic mafia movie scenes on how accurate they are. The US mafia is featured in many classic movies from the 1920s onwards....."
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 31, 2021 21:26:24 GMT -5
The Mafia's Role In The Music Industry | Michael Franzese (part 1) ---------------------------------------- Mafias Involvement in the Music Industry | Morris Levy with Michael Franzese (part 2)www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8fWBpk8ruU --------- Michael Franzese Sep 29, 2020
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Apr 1, 2021 17:18:19 GMT -5
The Mafia's Role In The Music Industry | Michael Franzese (part 1) ---------------------------------------- Mafias Involvement in the Music Industry | Morris Levy with Michael Franzese (part 2)www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8fWBpk8ruU --------- Michael Franzese Sep 29, 2020 Interesting right hand. Most likely its graphite kind of picture.
|
|
|
Post by B on Apr 21, 2021 23:07:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Apr 22, 2021 17:09:48 GMT -5
It could be an oxygen chamber, but really looks like a crematory to me. An oxygen tank wouldn't have what appear to be all those other materials inside of it as the right side photo does. Still worth considering, though. If they let him smoke inside of it...
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 6, 2021 19:02:02 GMT -5
New member here. This particular thread caught my interest a while back. I used to be a died in the wool 66er. I bought Tina Foster's book, and it made sense to me. But now, I don't know....Because I have recently run across some early Paul photos that don't look like handsome Mr. doe-eyes, nor do they look like the entity know as Billy, or any shopped combination of those two faces. I tried to upload images here but got a message saying the forum had reached its capacity. However, I can say that the image that has me the most perplexed is a Paul photo that appeared in a September 1962 issue of Mersey Beat. There is an article with it where Paul discusses playing for a certain exotic dancer. This Paul has a rough street fighting man looking mug. Nothing like young doe-eyed Paul. When I referred to it on some YouTube videos, I was attacked. Certain 66ers claim the photo and media were faked. But when I questioned them concerning their methodology in determining the media to be fake, I received no logical response. Only nasty insults. Makes me ponder why some people are so emotional about this.
|
|
|
Post by B on Dec 6, 2021 20:05:20 GMT -5
kvo, If you send me the link (web address) to the picture, I'll see if I can post it.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Dec 7, 2021 8:33:39 GMT -5
New member here. This particular thread caught my interest a while back. I used to be a died in the wool 66er. I bought Tina Foster's book, and it made sense to me. But now, I don't know....Because I have recently run across some early Paul photos that don't look like handsome Mr. doe-eyes, nor do they look like the entity know as Billy, or any shopped combination of those two faces. I tried to upload images here but got a message saying the forum had reached its capacity. However, I can say that the image that has me the most perplexed is a Paul photo that appeared in a September 1962 issue of Mersey Beat. There is an article with it where Paul discusses playing for a certain exotic dancer. This Paul has a rough street fighting man looking mug. Nothing like young doe-eyed Paul. When I referred to it on some YouTube videos, I was attacked. Certain 66ers claim the photo and media were faked. But when I questioned them concerning their methodology in determining the media to be fake, I received no logical response. Only nasty insults. Makes me ponder why some people are so emotional about this. I’ve noticed a common behavioral response, not just in conspiracy circles but across the political/ideological spectrum and beyond, where people have a tendency (probably some evolutionary instinct) to hone in on one possibility that “makes the most sense” to them and then put on absolute blinders to all other options. It goes far beyond simply defending one’s thesis and includes completely dismissing and denying any evidence that contradicts the preconceived concept. I think people get emotional about challenges to these set ideas because they know they’re founded on shaky ground; they’ve emotionally committed to an ‘answer’ and fixed facts to justify it, as opposed to having followed the actual evidence to a cumulative conclusion. It’s almost impossible to even get 66ers to look at photos taken before 64: not part of the narrative! What still confounds me, though, is why people have such a hard time admitting they were wrong and moving on from there. No one would ever learn much of anything without having done it incorrectly, at least once. And I don’t get the drive to avoid musing on the possibilities, either — maybe in a more urgent context, but I don’t think Paul McCartney’s identity is really an urgent matter for anyone not in his/their immediate circle. It’s just fucking weird. Would love to see the photo and/or article you mention.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 7, 2021 10:54:48 GMT -5
Thanks so much for your reply. I'd love to send it to you. I had thought when I first registered here that I would be able to post some unusual items have found that don't square with PIA/PID (66er), or with PWR, but seem to open a 4th door. The moderator says I could send links and I will try. My problem is that I was not methodical in my collection of items across the internet. I simply took screen shots and saved them to my hard drive. I should have properly cataloged precisely where and when I found unusual items. Sometimes, I would view some random YouTube video on various Beatle topics, and see images fly past my screen quickly. Going back and freezing these images, I'd find peculiar photos. One in particular was a photo of an early John and Paul. The photo is colorized, with John sitting on a stool and Paul on his feet leaning in beside him. This John looks particularly mature and is more like Ward Cleaver in appearance than our glamorized Beatlemania John. It reminded me of the double speak in A Hard Day's Night (the film) where John says of a woman, "she looks more like him than I do". All the double speak in this film seems to be referencing a different set of Beatles than the ones we are seeing on screen, but that is for another thread. And the Paul who is leaning in beside the older looking John in this odd photo does not look like our doe-eyed subject yet has the curious right-eye tilt. I cropped the Paul face, put it in my YouTube avatar, and waited for the sparks to fly. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take long for the attacks by 66ers to start. Telling me that it was an obviously fake photo, and that I apparently had no idea what "real Paul" looked like. Yet, interestingly, they never offer any means by which to positively to determine some of these early photos to be falsified creations. Again, so emotional about this. Why not just closely examine the evidence at hand?
Actually, I am versed in the biometric markers of our doe-eyed Paul. His nose was short, tilted slightly to the right. The philtrum was curved, the nose bridge was high. Strong jaw bone from the left profile, weaker on the right. Right eye tilted, with a sort of Italian appearance when viewed from the right profile. Small, attached ears, with legs that seemed disproportionally long in relation to his overall height. And an irregular shaped left nipple when photographed bare chested. When I started seeing very early Paul photos that didn't match this description and didn't look like shopped images blending the Billy template with the doe-eyed Paul template, I went on alert. I thought "Who is this now"? (Back-masked question in some Paul song. Gratitude, I believe).
Because I can't post images here, it seems I have some homework to do. I'll have to retrace my steps across the internet and find links to peculiar items I have saved. In the meantime, try searching for September 1962 Mersey Beat for the article with the accompanying photo. The article was titled, "A Little Bare". I believe the photo may be the same guy pictured earlier in this thread where "blurred paws" were noted in every available reproduction. Yet in that photo, he is leaning into a door frame, it appears. In the head on shot in Mersey Beat, his brow appears furrowed, and his face has a hardened look. And yes, I concur that we should consider all that is available to us, then formulate a theory that explains what we see. I rushed into judgement when I first started down this road. I won't make that mistake again. The photos, album covers, promotional films, song lyrics, full length films and documentaries seems like a maze to me. Some trails in this maze lead to dead ends, yet others lead to deeper mysteries.
On Edit: Sorry, I was responding to the Kaleidoquake post just above this. I am used to YouTube posting and neglected to quote, then post. Used to follow and old Doors message board where this was the procedure, so I should have remembered this.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Dec 7, 2021 14:49:41 GMT -5
Thanks so much for your reply. I'd love to send it to you. I had thought when I first registered here that I would be able to post some unusual items have found that don't square with PIA/PID (66er), or with PWR, but seem to open a 4th door. The moderator says I could send links and I will try. My problem is that I was not methodical in my collection of items across the internet. I simply took screen shots and saved them to my hard drive. I should have properly cataloged precisely where and when I found unusual items. Sometimes, I would view some random YouTube video on various Beatle topics, and see images fly past my screen quickly. Going back and freezing these images, I'd find peculiar photos. One in particular was a photo of an early John and Paul. The photo is colorized, with John sitting on a stool and Paul on his feet leaning in beside him. This John looks particularly mature and is more like Ward Cleaver in appearance than our glamorized Beatlemania John. It reminded me of the double speak in A Hard Day's Night (the film) where John says of a woman, "she looks more like him than I do". All the double speak in this film seems to be referencing a different set of Beatles than the ones we are seeing on screen, but that is for another thread. And the Paul who is leaning in beside the older looking John in this odd photo does not look like our doe-eyed subject yet has the curious right-eye tilt. I cropped the Paul face, put it in my YouTube avatar, and waited for the sparks to fly. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take long for the attacks by 66ers to start. Telling me that it was an obviously fake photo, and that I apparently had no idea what "real Paul" looked like. Yet, interestingly, they never offer any means by which to positively to determine some of these early photos to be falsified creations. Again, so emotional about this. Why not just closely examine the evidence at hand? Actually, I am versed in the biometric markers of our doe-eyed Paul. His nose was short, tilted slightly to the right. The philtrum was curved, the nose bridge was high. Strong jaw bone from the left profile, weaker on the right. Right eye tilted, with a sort of Italian appearance when viewed from the right profile. Small, attached ears, with legs that seemed disproportionally long in relation to his overall height. And an irregular shaped left nipple when photographed bare chested. When I started seeing very early Paul photos that didn't match this description and didn't look like shopped images blending the Billy template with the doe-eyed Paul template, I went on alert. I thought "Who is this now"? (Back-masked question in some Paul song. Gratitude, I believe). Because I can't post images here, it seems I have some homework to do. I'll have to retrace my steps across the internet and find links to peculiar items I have saved. In the meantime, try searching for September 1962 Mersey Beat for the article with the accompanying photo. The article was titled, "A Little Bare". I believe the photo may be the same guy pictured earlier in this thread where "blurred paws" were noted in every available reproduction. Yet in that photo, he is leaning into a door frame, it appears. In the head on shot in Mersey Beat, his brow appears furrowed, and his face has a hardened look. And yes, I concur that we should consider all that is available to us, then formulate a theory that explains what we see. I rushed into judgement when I first started down this road. I won't make that mistake again. The photos, album covers, promotional films, song lyrics, full length films and documentaries seems like a maze to me. Some trails in this maze lead to dead ends, yet others lead to deeper mysteries. On Edit: Sorry, I was responding to the Kaleidoquake post just above this. I am used to YouTube posting and neglected to quote, then post. Used to follow and old Doors message board where this was the procedure, so I should have remembered this. I believe I have found it: www.triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/archives/littlebare.shtmlAnd yes that one is interesting because he's shown in so many early pre-Hamburg photos and then just seems to vanish. I also think he looked enough like the Jim Sr. being used at the time to have been his actual son. From around that same time, here's the bizarre elderly John (and a different set of the rest of the lads): More later…
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 7, 2021 16:14:23 GMT -5
I believe I have found it: www.triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/archives/littlebare.shtmlAnd yes that one is interesting because he's shown in so many early pre-Hamburg photos and then just seems to vanish. I also think he looked enough like the Jim Sr. being used at the time to have been his actual son. From around that same time, here's the bizarre elderly John (and a different set of the rest of the lads): More later… Yep. That is the Mersey Beat article I was referring to. Now why would so many on YouTube attack me viciously when I pointed out the existence of this article with the accompanying photo? One poster even said I was "full of feces". That the media was obviously faked and that I am unable to accept the truth of who the "real Paul" was. But when I asked them how they could demonstrate the Mersey Beat article you linked to be fake, dead silence. I realize, of course, that there is fakery out there. But it is usually more apparent and readily demonstrable. Like instances where backgrounds are inconsistent in photos, such as the Three Pauls in a Boat image you have likely viewed. Or instances in early Beatlemania video performances where you can see one Paul, with a nose shape that seems to morph throughout the performance. The 66ers who so readily attack me believe that photos of Billy and doe-eyed Paul are often morphed to confuse people about what doe-eyed Paul looked like, cognitively erasing the doe-eyed image from history and replacing it with the Billy template. I am sure that kind of thing occurs. But then I found the Mersey Beat article and other early Paul photos that neither look like Billy, nor do they resemble doe-eyed Paul or any combination of the two. Now I have to question why anyone would put out media such as the Mersey Beat photo, thinking it would confuse anyone about what doe-eyed Beatlemania Paul looked like. The Mersey Beat street fighting man looking guy couldn't fool anyone in a dark alley at midnight into thinking he looked anything like smooth faced Beatlemania Paul. Earlier in this thread, you suggested looking at the Meet the Beatles for Real site. I did just that. And found a photo there of an early Paul with short brows and large protruding ears. You have likely seen it. It purports to be a fan photo of Paul taken on the street by "Sheryl". Again, it is not cute doe-eyed Paul. I grabbed it and made it my YouTube avatar (I keep changing that avatar every time I find an early peculiar Paul). Same response from YouTube 66ers. They went bananas. But interestingly, silence so far from PIA. I have NOTHING against 66ers. I would just like to discuss these early Paul photos with them nicely. But on YouTube, only a couple of folks so far have shown any propensity to even consider whether some of these early inconsistencies may be real photos of real "Pauls" who REALLY existed. On this forum, people seem more willing to discuss, regardless of their particular theoretical leanings. And yes, I believe the earlier older John you show in your two photos here, is the same one I have in a saved photo, pictured sitting on a stool with an early older looking Paul standing beside him. Your take the Mersey Beat Paul's resemblance to a Jim McCartney is very interesting. Thanks so much for posting these photos. And I will have to try to find links to some of mine. I'm looking forward to seeing what else you have to post. There is some interesting stuff on the Savage Young Beatles site, of course. Why does this early older Paul in Mersey Beat vanish so soon? I have a theory about who he was and my hunch just got a little stronger when you mentioned his resemblance to an early Jim. Thinking about the lyrics to Drive my Car (the car being the physical body). Those song lyrics sound like a Cyrano de Bergerac story to me. If you think of it as a conversation between two men. And the secretary in A Hard Day's Night saying "well I did tell them not to send us REAL ONES". An indication to me that there in fact WERE biologics (but perhaps not four biologics). Just my thoughts, so far.......no more jumping to conclusions. Maybe I'll post on the Theories thread at some point. Didn't you mention on another thread something about short brows and folded ears being Paul bio markers to look for?
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 8, 2021 9:20:05 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=noq4H7z-OcU&list=RDnoq4H7z-OcU&start_radio=1The Beatles in the recording studio (April 14th 1966) Paperback Writeryoutu.be/noq4H7z-OcUJoseph Alfred Cowan Mar 21, 2021 Hopefully, the link I posted will work. If not, I will see if the moderator can insert it for me. The video purports to be photos from the Paperback Writer recording sessions. Some peculiar stuff here. Do I see THREE DIFFERENT PAULS in this one video? All dressed alike, but of course, never together in the same frame? At 10 seconds is the Paul with the odd left hand that has already been pointed out on this thread, I believe. Then, at 59 seconds, I believe I see a right profile image of doe-eyed Paul, not wearing glasses (all other Paul images are wearing black framed glasses). And the John at 2:48 seconds seems to have the peculiar prosthetic over the right thumb. The type of prosthesis Kaleidoquake has had me on the look-out for. The prosthetic angle is on point with this thread. A curious set of photos, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 8, 2021 13:34:28 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2SFwL3OqD0One more link that may be on point with this thread. Take a look at the Paul photo at 2:04 seconds. Does the thumb on the right hand appear too long and straight to be the appendage it purports to be? It always looked a little weird to me, even before I first saw this thread.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Dec 8, 2021 15:57:38 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2SFwL3OqD0One more link that may be on point with this thread. Take a look at the Paul photo at 2:04 seconds. Does the thumb on the right hand appear too long and straight to be the appendage it purports to be? It always looked a little weird to me, even before I first saw this thread. 3:21 could be actor who played at the time Paul and John.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 8, 2021 16:16:33 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2SFwL3OqD0One more link that may be on point with this thread. Take a look at the Paul photo at 2:04 seconds. Does the thumb on the right hand appear too long and straight to be the appendage it purports to be? It always looked a little weird to me, even before I first saw this thread. 3:21 could be actor who played at the time Paul and John. But wait, if they put the "Paul" ID bracelet on his left wrist and the watch on the right wrist, that automatically made him Paul. Right? No wonder they needed an ID bracelet for Paul. How many of those ID bracelets were there anyway? I have only been looking into this stuff for the better part of this year, but I believe I've read most of the threads here. Some of you may have to catch me up!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Dec 8, 2021 16:32:57 GMT -5
3:21 could be actor who played at the time Paul and John. But wait, if they put the "Paul" ID bracelet on his left wrist and the watch on the right wrist, that automatically made him Paul. Right? No wonder they needed an ID bracelet for Paul. How many of those ID bracelets were there anyway? I have only been looking into this stuff for the better part of this year, but I believe I've read most of the threads here. Some of you may have to catch me up!!!!!!!!!!! Your avatar is your answer, right?
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 8, 2021 17:00:13 GMT -5
But wait, if they put the "Paul" ID bracelet on his left wrist and the watch on the right wrist, that automatically made him Paul. Right? No wonder they needed an ID bracelet for Paul. How many of those ID bracelets were there anyway? I have only been looking into this stuff for the better part of this year, but I believe I've read most of the threads here. Some of you may have to catch me up!!!!!!!!!!! Your avatar is your answer, right? My avatar? What about it? It's the girl who lingered long on Love Street. Doors fan from way back.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Dec 8, 2021 17:17:20 GMT -5
Your avatar is your answer, right? My avatar? What about it? It's the girl who lingered long on Love Street. Doors fan from way back. She looks like Pola Negri
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 8, 2021 17:43:59 GMT -5
My avatar? What about it? It's the girl who lingered long on Love Street. Doors fan from way back. She looks like Pola Negri It's Pamela Courson. Jim Morrison was in the photo with her but was cropped out of this photo I used for my avatar. The song Love Street was certainly about her. She lingered long on Love Street with lazy diamond studded flunkeys, on summer Sundays and a year. You can do a search for the Themis photo session with Jim, Pam, and others if you're interested. Or here she is: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldftoUbM80&list=PLlxeckEGjP3nuv0JrsmZE9VW4Jb9igQuy
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Dec 10, 2021 15:53:45 GMT -5
Thanks so much for your reply. I'd love to send it to you. I had thought when I first registered here that I would be able to post some unusual items have found that don't square with PIA/PID (66er), or with PWR, but seem to open a 4th door. The moderator says I could send links and I will try. My problem is that I was not methodical in my collection of items across the internet. I simply took screen shots and saved them to my hard drive. I should have properly cataloged precisely where and when I found unusual items. Sometimes, I would view some random YouTube video on various Beatle topics, and see images fly past my screen quickly. Going back and freezing these images, I'd find peculiar photos. One in particular was a photo of an early John and Paul. The photo is colorized, with John sitting on a stool and Paul on his feet leaning in beside him. This John looks particularly mature and is more like Ward Cleaver in appearance than our glamorized Beatlemania John. It reminded me of the double speak in A Hard Day's Night (the film) where John says of a woman, "she looks more like him than I do". All the double speak in this film seems to be referencing a different set of Beatles than the ones we are seeing on screen, but that is for another thread. And the Paul who is leaning in beside the older looking John in this odd photo does not look like our doe-eyed subject yet has the curious right-eye tilt. I cropped the Paul face, put it in my YouTube avatar, and waited for the sparks to fly. Unsurprisingly, it didn't take long for the attacks by 66ers to start. Telling me that it was an obviously fake photo, and that I apparently had no idea what "real Paul" looked like. Yet, interestingly, they never offer any means by which to positively to determine some of these early photos to be falsified creations. Again, so emotional about this. Why not just closely examine the evidence at hand? Actually, I am versed in the biometric markers of our doe-eyed Paul. His nose was short, tilted slightly to the right. The philtrum was curved, the nose bridge was high. Strong jaw bone from the left profile, weaker on the right. Right eye tilted, with a sort of Italian appearance when viewed from the right profile. Small, attached ears, with legs that seemed disproportionally long in relation to his overall height. And an irregular shaped left nipple when photographed bare chested. When I started seeing very early Paul photos that didn't match this description and didn't look like shopped images blending the Billy template with the doe-eyed Paul template, I went on alert. I thought "Who is this now"? (Back-masked question in some Paul song. Gratitude, I believe). Because I can't post images here, it seems I have some homework to do. I'll have to retrace my steps across the internet and find links to peculiar items I have saved. In the meantime, try searching for September 1962 Mersey Beat for the article with the accompanying photo. The article was titled, "A Little Bare". I believe the photo may be the same guy pictured earlier in this thread where "blurred paws" were noted in every available reproduction. Yet in that photo, he is leaning into a door frame, it appears. In the head on shot in Mersey Beat, his brow appears furrowed, and his face has a hardened look. And yes, I concur that we should consider all that is available to us, then formulate a theory that explains what we see. I rushed into judgement when I first started down this road. I won't make that mistake again. The photos, album covers, promotional films, song lyrics, full length films and documentaries seems like a maze to me. Some trails in this maze lead to dead ends, yet others lead to deeper mysteries. On Edit: Sorry, I was responding to the Kaleidoquake post just above this. I am used to YouTube posting and neglected to quote, then post. Used to follow and old Doors message board where this was the procedure, so I should have remembered this. I believe I have found it: www.triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/archives/littlebare.shtmlAnd yes that one is interesting because he's shown in so many early pre-Hamburg photos and then just seems to vanish. I also think he looked enough like the Jim Sr. being used at the time to have been his actual son. From around that same time, here's the bizarre elderly John (and a different set of the rest of the lads): More later… So looking at the Savage Young Beatles site, I see another Mersey Beat article that appears to be the same Paul from the September 1962 "A Little Bare" issue. This article comes up on the screen when you click onto the 1962 link, and the page states "Beatles record for EMI". Appears to be the same chin from the Paul in the "A Little Bare" article (though he does look a bit younger). But in the October 1962 link on the same site, I believe I see doe-eyed Beatlemania Paul in a group photo with Little Richard from the Tower Ballroom. Now I am wondering if the "A Little Bare" Paul vanished right about the time the recording contract was signed. So many Pauls to wade through when you start looking back in time, way back.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Dec 18, 2021 5:17:41 GMT -5
|
|