|
Post by ekauqodielak on Aug 14, 2019 16:07:51 GMT -5
This is a game called: ' Is that the same guy‽' Common Markers That Are Largely Irrelevant In Enumerating Pauls: • Most Pauls wear fake ears so their size, shape and placement is mutable • Many Pauls wear fake chins & noses so they cannot be used to identify anyone • Many Pauls use makeup to reshape their eyebrows and others have had their brows altered by photo retouchers • Eye Color (photo retouching muddies this up) Markers We Can Use: • Height • Skull Shape • Eye Distance • Lip Size & Mouth Shape • Hand and Finger Irregularities • Hair Part/Hair Whorl/Presence or Absence of Wig • Body Language between the Paul and Jane/Linda/Etc. ____________________ #1: Shadow PaulThis is a Paul who is rarely seen in nature. So rarely is he seen, in fact, that he's nearly a Paul Of The Mind. Are these all pictures of the same guy?
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Aug 14, 2019 18:55:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Aug 14, 2019 19:53:50 GMT -5
Different
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Aug 14, 2019 20:18:25 GMT -5
Different from each other or different from #1?
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 14, 2019 21:17:57 GMT -5
The one with him lounging in a chair with his feet up... well I think I've already mentioned Faul looking like a "Scarface era Pacino" on here before. #1 is different to the Scarface one and the Wings era one. I would say the MBE Buckingham Palace one is different still and the Rishikesh one also.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Aug 14, 2019 21:48:31 GMT -5
The one with him lounging in a chair with his feet up... well I think I've already mentioned Faul looking like a "Scarface era Pacino" on here before. #1 is different to the Scarface one and the Wings era one. I would say the MBE Buckingham Palace one is different still and the Rishikesh one also. The one with his feet up is a Small Paul. All of those I grouped as Shadow Paul are Small Pauls, amongst other similarities. He can't be the person (sometimes people…) most often noted as being Sir Billy/Faul. Too Short. I'm not saying everyone in #1 is the same guy. (Same goes for group #2). But I think they're close enough that I want outside eyes to either agree or tell me what details I've been blind to. Do you have any pix of McPacino for reference? Also, please, tell more about Brian dying in Wales. I don't think I've heard about this before.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Aug 15, 2019 0:55:13 GMT -5
The one with him lounging in a chair with his feet up... well I think I've already mentioned Faul looking like a "Scarface era Pacino" on here before. #1 is different to the Scarface one and the Wings era one. I would say the MBE Buckingham Palace one is different still and the Rishikesh one also. The one with his feet up is a Small Paul. All of those I grouped as Shadow Paul are Small Pauls, amongst other similarities. He can't be the person (sometimes people…) most often noted as being Sir Billy/Faul. Too Short. I'm not saying everyone in #1 is the same guy. (Same goes for group #2). But I think they're close enough that I want outside eyes to either agree or tell me what details I've been blind to. Do you have any pix of McPacino for reference? Also, please, tell more about Brian dying in Wales. I don't think I've heard about this before. This is a still from the Ed Sullivan Show on their first trip to the USA that made me think of Al Pacino. Brian died while The Beatles were on a Maharishi's retreat in North Wales in August 1967. The Beatles didn't travel to India until February 1968.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Aug 15, 2019 3:00:37 GMT -5
The one with his feet up is a Small Paul. All of those I grouped as Shadow Paul are Small Pauls, amongst other similarities. He can't be the person (sometimes people…) most often noted as being Sir Billy/Faul. Too Short. I'm not saying everyone in #1 is the same guy. (Same goes for group #2). But I think they're close enough that I want outside eyes to either agree or tell me what details I've been blind to. Do you have any pix of McPacino for reference? Also, please, tell more about Brian dying in Wales. I don't think I've heard about this before. This is a still from the Ed Sullivan Show on their first trip to the USA that made me think of Al Pacino. Brian died while The Beatles were on a Maharishi's retreat in North Wales in August 1967. The Beatles didn't travel to India until February 1968. That one is still around! He's the one I call Workhorse Paul. He's got that exact same scar running across his cheek. I assume it was intended to mimic the shape of cheeks of…actually none of the Pauls because those were prosthetic cheeks to cover completely different scars, but---when he's smiling, you can't really notice it, but when he's not smiling it still looks very much like that in your photo. What's your take on what the Maharishi stuff was really about? Northern Wales is also where huge quantities of LSD were being manufactured and trafficked out of at the time.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Aug 15, 2019 5:09:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cypher on Apr 27, 2020 13:56:01 GMT -5
That's akin to playing an interdimensional Mahjong game.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Feb 9, 2022 16:35:43 GMT -5
Ah, there he is!!!!! The first photo in this grouping is the very image I first ran across this past summer that convinced me that the 66er narrative didn't make sense. For these reasons: - The guy is frowning. His countenance reminds me more of Jim Morrison's official promo images than those of the grinning doe-eyed Beatlemania McCartneys. Though even Jim beamed brightly in photos taken by fans and friends.
- He looks older than the given 1942 birth year. He is not all cute and doe-eyed which seemed to be the desired template settled upon for Beatlemania Pauls.
- He clearly pre-dated the happily smiling wide-eyed Beatlemania Paul images.
Looks like that is him again in photo 2. Based on the shape of the cheeks, everything about the eyes, and the distance between the nasal spine and the top lip. And again, just his general countenance which is something you can't quite put into words. I wish we could get a look at his teeth. I think that this guy also appears on an October 1962 cover of Mersey Beat with the title "Beatles Record for EMI". As for the other images, I believe the Wings era guy who looks like he is wearing yet another wig, could well be him. Same sneering countenance. The philtrum doesn't look the same in the Japan arrest photos, and I don't think the philtrum can be altered much in terms of plastic surgery. It looks like a flatter philtrum in the arrest photos than in photos 1,2, and 4. I don't know about photo 3, as everyone looks different from the right and left profile, and most of the other images in this grouping are left profile. Considering these photos altogether, I can see why you grouped them. Looks to me as though very early Pauls were revolved back into play following Beatlemania. Revolver, the 1966 album name, hmmmm....... And I might add one more element to your list of irrelevant bio-markers. The shape of the eyelids. I believe I've seen evidence of stretchy prosthetic materials used on the eyelids as well as on the cheeks. Here's what I never understood about the fake chins: Why don't they all match? Some are square (and short), some are rounded, others are long and oval.
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Feb 11, 2022 17:39:05 GMT -5
________________________ #3: Paul of Blank Eyed GloomSame guy or different guys? …any plausible explanation for the bend of that left knee-?… Nice job grouping photos of this sad-eyed man. Same guy. He is heavily made up in all photos, though the Wings era photo is a different kind of paint altogether. "They have to paint your face red before they chop. I think it's a different religion from ours". The line from the film Help went something like that, I think. I don't believe we ever saw this guy perform in the U.S. Maybe, he never performed at all as it looks as though he may be missing a left leg or the leg may be too short. Either way, they did a bad edit job trying to make it look as though the leg is just bent back naturally in the stool photo, as the knee looks HUGE. What is the strange chair he is seated in for one photo? Does it look like a sort of footrest, as in a wheelchair? It could be a fake (or too short) left leg propped on the footrest, with the normal right leg dangling down off the footrest. Another early appearance of a square chinned Paul who doesn't match up to Beatlemania Pauls with rounder chins, such as the Paul in the I Feel Fine YouTube video. I still think the I Feel Fine Paul is a match to the Coming Up video Paul who seemed to be playing the part of Ozzy Osbourne.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Feb 11, 2022 18:39:30 GMT -5
________________________ #3: Paul of Blank Eyed GloomSame guy or different guys? …any plausible explanation for the bend of that left knee-?… Nice job grouping photos of this sad-eyed man. Same guy. He is heavily made up in all photos, though the Wings era photo is a different kind of paint altogether. "They have to paint your face red before they chop. I think it's a different religion from ours". The line from the film Help went something like that, I think. I don't believe we ever saw this guy perform in the U.S. Maybe, he never performed at all as it looks as though he may be missing a left leg or the leg may be too short. Either way, they did a bad edit job trying to make it look as though the leg is just bent back naturally in the stool photo, as the knee looks HUGE. What is the strange chair he is seated in for one photo? Does it look like a sort of footrest, as in a wheelchair? It could be a fake (or too short) left leg propped on the footrest, with the normal right leg dangling down off the footrest. Another early appearance of a square chinned Paul who doesn't match up to Beatlemania Pauls with rounder chins, such as the Paul in the I Feel Fine YouTube video. I still think the I Feel Fine Paul is a match to the Coming Up video Paul who seemed to be playing the part of Ozzy Osbourne. This sets back the whole "Paul is Replaced" 20 years! You show a number of lousy pictures that don't really show anything! The color picture is the only one than has any value! They have been showing pictures of "Paul" vs. "Faul" for decades and I have NEVER seen a "Faul" that was the same as a "Paul"! "Faul" was TALLER and different color eyes and six toes and longer face and different voice etc. etc.! This is what happens when people start seeing a million "Pauls" they FORGET what "Paul" looks like AND they forget what "Faul" looks like!
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Feb 11, 2022 19:02:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Feb 11, 2022 23:57:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Feb 12, 2022 11:15:49 GMT -5
Ruby Tuesday She would never say where she came from Yesterday don't matter if it's gone While the sun is bright Or in the darkest night No one knows She comes and goes Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday Who could hang a name on you? When you change with every new day Still I'm gonna miss you Consider these lyrics by the Stones. Ruby Tuesday. People have pointed out that the title obviously refers to the myth of the car accident where Paul was supposedly killed early on a Wednesday morning. Ruby referring to blood, of course. Referencing a "she", but probably meaning "he". Why does he come and go, while no one knows? Different Pauls inserted in and out of the picture all along up to the point Ruby Tuesday was recorded? A revolving door of Pauls? Why does he change with every new day? Because it was different Pauls all along? Why could nobody hang a name on him and he would never say where he came from? Because no one knew the true identities of this revolving door of Pauls? Why are the Stones going to miss him? Ruby Tuesday was recorded by the Stones in December 1966. The Revolver album came out that year. The door was revolving, Beatlemania Pauls exiting (at least temporarily, except Beatle Billy, I think). Other pre-Beatlemania Pauls re-entering the scene here, there, and everywhere. That's what I see at this point in looking over photo evidence. I was a 66er, too. Till suddenly, last summer, I spotted the photo of the very early Paul leaning up against the house which I commented on up thread. I explained why that photo turned my thinking around completely. Some people believe in PID/PWR/PIA. Others, including myself, see a fourth theory (or reality) when going back and looking at very early Paul photos that do not match up to the Beatlemania Paul doe-eyed image.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Feb 12, 2022 14:45:02 GMT -5
Ruby Tuesday She would never say where she came from Yesterday don't matter if it's gone While the sun is bright Or in the darkest night No one knows She comes and goes Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday Who could hang a name on you? When you change with every new day Still I'm gonna miss you Consider these lyrics by the Stones. Ruby Tuesday. People have pointed out that the title obviously refers to the myth of the car accident where Paul was supposedly killed early on a Wednesday morning. Ruby referring to blood, of course. Referencing a "she", but probably meaning "he". Why does he come and go, while no one knows? Different Pauls inserted in and out of the picture all along up to the point Ruby Tuesday was recorded? A revolving door of Pauls? Why does he change with every new day? Because it was different Pauls all along? Why could nobody hang a name on him and he would never say where he came from? Because no one knew the true identities of this revolving door of Pauls? Why are the Stones going to miss him? Ruby Tuesday was recorded by the Stones in December 1966. The Revolver album came out that year. The door was revolving, Beatlemania Pauls exiting (at least temporarily, except Beatle Billy, I think). Other pre-Beatlemania Pauls re-entering the scene here, there, and everywhere. That's what I see at this point in looking over photo evidence. I was a 66er, too. Till suddenly, last summer, I spotted the photo of the very early Paul leaning up against the house which I commented on up thread. I explained why that photo turned my thinking around completely. Some people believe in PID/PWR/PIA. Others, including myself, see a fourth theory (or reality) when going back and looking at very early Paul photos that do not match up to the Beatlemania Paul doe-eyed image. What you cannot seem to see is that "Paul is Dead" is BLACK MAGIC! Just like COVID! The more you look the more you see and it leads to a BLACK HOLE that NEVER ENDS! I have seen this happen to other forums where there are a BILLION "Pauls" and a billion "Fauls"! You can spend the rest of your life chasing this maze of confusion! Don't end up in a straight jacket in a mental ward! Good luck! I for one say there is a "Paul" and a "Faul" and they are NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER! Of course there may be more then one of each but so what?
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Feb 12, 2022 14:51:45 GMT -5
WHAT is "debunked"? They are OBVIOUSLY two different guys a "Paul" and a Faul"! That is the premise of this forum! If that premise is false why does this forum exist?
|
|
|
Post by kvo on Feb 12, 2022 16:00:47 GMT -5
Ruby Tuesday She would never say where she came from Yesterday don't matter if it's gone While the sun is bright Or in the darkest night No one knows She comes and goes Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday Who could hang a name on you? When you change with every new day Still I'm gonna miss you Consider these lyrics by the Stones. Ruby Tuesday. People have pointed out that the title obviously refers to the myth of the car accident where Paul was supposedly killed early on a Wednesday morning. Ruby referring to blood, of course. Referencing a "she", but probably meaning "he". Why does he come and go, while no one knows? Different Pauls inserted in and out of the picture all along up to the point Ruby Tuesday was recorded? A revolving door of Pauls? Why does he change with every new day? Because it was different Pauls all along? Why could nobody hang a name on him and he would never say where he came from? Because no one knew the true identities of this revolving door of Pauls? Why are the Stones going to miss him? Ruby Tuesday was recorded by the Stones in December 1966. The Revolver album came out that year. The door was revolving, Beatlemania Pauls exiting (at least temporarily, except Beatle Billy, I think). Other pre-Beatlemania Pauls re-entering the scene here, there, and everywhere. That's what I see at this point in looking over photo evidence. I was a 66er, too. Till suddenly, last summer, I spotted the photo of the very early Paul leaning up against the house which I commented on up thread. I explained why that photo turned my thinking around completely. Some people believe in PID/PWR/PIA. Others, including myself, see a fourth theory (or reality) when going back and looking at very early Paul photos that do not match up to the Beatlemania Paul doe-eyed image. What you cannot seem to see is that "Paul is Dead" is BLACK MAGIC! Just like COVID! The more you look the more you see and it leads to a BLACK HOLE that NEVER ENDS! I have seen this happen to other forums where there are a BILLION "Pauls" and a billion "Fauls"! You can spend the rest of your life chasing this maze of confusion! Don't end up in a straight jacket in a mental ward! Good luck! I for one say there is a "Paul" and a "Faul" and they are NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER! Of course there may be more then one of each but so what? I promise not to end up in a straight jacket. It's just an interesting intrigue. A puzzle to assemble. And I was right there with you on the one real Paul then one Faul thought process for the longest time. I bought into the notion that all Beatlemania era Paul photos that didn't match up exactly to the one main Beatlemania Paul image, were doctored to confuse people as to what "real Paul" looked like. But at that time, I'd neglected to look back, way back, in Beatle history. When I finally did, I found the older looking early Paul, leaning up against a building, pictured earlier in this thread. His face didn't look at all like the young, exuberant doe-eyed template. I had to ask myself: Why wasn't his face doctored to match to some degree, the Beatlemania wide-eyed, rounded chin Paul image? His mug couldn't confuse anybody into thinking he is the doe-eyed Beatlemania Paul. He looked utterly different from the Beatlemania Paul image I'd always had in my head. And he's not the only early Paul I found that didn't match up to the Beatlemania Paul image. Check the photo of the Paul that appears on the September 1962 Mersey Beat cover with the accompanying article titled "A Little Bare". It's on the Fireman thread in the General Forum. If there was only ever one Paul before 1967, then who are these very early guys presented as Paul? And that's just Paul. The same things seem to have occurred with the other three Beatles. How could they have been so many places and accomplished so much from 1963 through 1966, unless there was a whole battalion of them? A whole Sargent Peppers Loney Hearts Club MARCHING BAND of these guys.
|
|
|
Post by hotman637 on Feb 12, 2022 16:15:17 GMT -5
What you cannot seem to see is that "Paul is Dead" is BLACK MAGIC! Just like COVID! The more you look the more you see and it leads to a BLACK HOLE that NEVER ENDS! I have seen this happen to other forums where there are a BILLION "Pauls" and a billion "Fauls"! You can spend the rest of your life chasing this maze of confusion! Don't end up in a straight jacket in a mental ward! Good luck! I for one say there is a "Paul" and a "Faul" and they are NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER! Of course there may be more then one of each but so what? I promise not to end up in a straight jacket. It's just an interesting intrigue. A puzzle to assemble. And I was right there with you on the one real Paul then one Faul thought process for the longest time. I bought into the notion that all Beatlemania era Paul photos that didn't match up exactly to the one main Beatlemania Paul image, were doctored to confuse people as to what "real Paul" looked like. But at that time, I'd neglected to look back, way back, in Beatle history. When I finally did, I found the older looking early Paul, leaning up against a building, pictured earlier in this thread. His face didn't look at all like the young, exuberant doe-eyed template. I had to ask myself: Why wasn't his face doctored to match to some degree, the Beatlemania wide-eyed, rounded chin Paul image? His mug couldn't confuse anybody into thinking he is the doe-eyed Beatlemania Paul. He looked utterly different from the Beatlemania Paul image I'd always had in my head. And he's not the only early Paul I found that didn't match up to the Beatlemania Paul image. Check the photo of the Paul that appears on the September 1962 Mersey Beat cover with the accompanying article titled "A Little Bare". It's on the Fireman thread in the General Forum. If there was only ever one Paul before 1967, then who are these very early guys presented as Paul? And that's just Paul. The same things seem to have occurred with the other three Beatles. How could they have been so many places and accomplished so much from 1963 through 1966, unless there was a whole battalion of them? A whole Sargent Peppers Loney Hearts Club MARCHING BAND of these guys. My point is that it is NOT A PUZZLE! I have been looking at these forums for over twenty years and they FURTHER THEN EVER from "solving" it! Put all the information into a computer the computer would BLOW UP! Black magic is not something we can solve!
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Feb 13, 2022 4:12:57 GMT -5
I promise not to end up in a straight jacket. It's just an interesting intrigue. A puzzle to assemble. And I was right there with you on the one real Paul then one Faul thought process for the longest time. I bought into the notion that all Beatlemania era Paul photos that didn't match up exactly to the one main Beatlemania Paul image, were doctored to confuse people as to what "real Paul" looked like. But at that time, I'd neglected to look back, way back, in Beatle history. When I finally did, I found the older looking early Paul, leaning up against a building, pictured earlier in this thread. His face didn't look at all like the young, exuberant doe-eyed template. I had to ask myself: Why wasn't his face doctored to match to some degree, the Beatlemania wide-eyed, rounded chin Paul image? His mug couldn't confuse anybody into thinking he is the doe-eyed Beatlemania Paul. He looked utterly different from the Beatlemania Paul image I'd always had in my head. And he's not the only early Paul I found that didn't match up to the Beatlemania Paul image. Check the photo of the Paul that appears on the September 1962 Mersey Beat cover with the accompanying article titled "A Little Bare". It's on the Fireman thread in the General Forum. If there was only ever one Paul before 1967, then who are these very early guys presented as Paul? And that's just Paul. The same things seem to have occurred with the other three Beatles. How could they have been so many places and accomplished so much from 1963 through 1966, unless there was a whole battalion of them? A whole Sargent Peppers Loney Hearts Club MARCHING BAND of these guys. My point is that it is NOT A PUZZLE! I have been looking at these forums for over twenty years and they FURTHER THEN EVER from "solving" it! Put all the information into a computer the computer would BLOW UP! Black magic is not something we can solve! Yeah, you've been on these forums for over twenty years. You've not produced anything in those years. Why are you here? What is your purpose? To me you are one of a class of people whose job it is to make sure no one comes to any conclusions. This is the purpose of PID - to get anyone investigating it trapped in a mystery or if they do solve the mystery, dismiss them as "conspiracy theorists." I have seen your Paul is Dead and raised it. All The Beatles are dead. They all got disappeared and were never seen again. D'you know what I call black magic? Lies. That's all it is - lies, deception, dishonesty, impostures etc etc. The rest of your class come up with all manner of stupidness, "Oh, Paul never existed." "There were innumerable Pauls." You all give the game away simply by looking in the other direction and pretending not to see or hear. All the evidence to say with certainty The Beatles were all replaced is out there in the public domain. People simply cannot be that stupid or ignorant that they will not watch two videos and say, "Yep, that's different guys." Every tap on your keyboard; every time you hit "Create Post" you out yourselves as people who know The Beatles were replaced with imposters. This forum is more the Faul McFetal fan club than it is an investigation into the replacement of Paul McCartney. Y'all have to stick to the same tired old conspiracy theory of him dying in a car crash in 1966 and the rest of The Beatles took the imposter replacement into the band. It's laughable, but at the same time it's pretty sick.
|
|
|
Post by bandi on Feb 13, 2022 9:56:37 GMT -5
The 4th photo down, next to the 'Paul' with the young woman on his arm---that looks like a similar photo of Laurence Juber of one of the Wings' lineup...I could be wrong. However when I first saw this pic I laughed because I thought "AHA !! FINALLY caught the sneaky sumbitch playing right handed guitar"...but it turned out to be LJ. He sure resembles JPM in this particular photo.
|
|
|
Post by ramone on Feb 13, 2022 13:36:03 GMT -5
There was a thread that touched on this a while ago. It sure looks like JPM. The thing is - (could be wrong, but ) I think LJ had longer hair at this point in time. And if memory serves Paul (Bill) was playing an upright bass in the room. So, if this is Paul and not LJ - this a big!
Why he's playing right handed is a point for discussion. It's very possible that Paul and Bill had a cordial relationship. (esp if Paul wanted out and Bill is helping the cause by taking on the role) Is it possible he at times dropped in on sessions like this from time to time? Maybe.
And if JPM, he could be goofing around with a right handed guitar that was lying around.
Just speculation, but wow! - it does really look like him from that pic.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Feb 13, 2022 19:53:26 GMT -5
The 4th photo down, next to the 'Paul' with the young woman on his arm---that looks like a similar photo of Laurence Juber of one of the Wings' lineup...I could be wrong. However when I first saw this pic I laughed because I thought "AHA !! FINALLY caught the sneaky sumbitch playing right handed guitar"...but it turned out to be LJ. He sure resembles JPM in this particular photo. It's not Juber.
|
|
|
Post by ekauqodielak on Feb 13, 2022 20:02:48 GMT -5
|
|