|
|
Post by Piggies on Dec 17, 2003 0:27:24 GMT
I can't help but notice that before Paul put on some weight, his face looked a lot more like the person referred to here as Faul. Any other good Quarrymen era photo's would be appreciated.  Here is an interesting 'Faul collage" with the above pic included.  Comments? |
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Dec 17, 2003 1:37:05 GMT
Here's another cool JPM/Quarrymen shot  |
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 17, 2003 16:10:28 GMT
Sorry, Piggies - I disagree. I think that Faul looks completely different - and sounds totally different, also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Dec 17, 2003 21:35:15 GMT
I'll give you the fact that out of all Paul photos, that one comes to the closest to Faul, and without examining it closer, it could be daming to the entire argument. However, the position of the eyes, the nose... it doesn't look like Faul. I admit, the thinner frame threw me for a few seconds, but the face is still Paul's. Do a face morph with Faul, and you'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by innspector on Dec 17, 2003 21:52:00 GMT
I can't help but notice that before Paul put on some weight, his face looked a lot more like the person referred to here as Faul. Any other good Quarrymen era photo's would be appreciated. Comments? Where did you get the first photo from? |
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Dec 17, 2003 23:18:57 GMT
Where did you get the first photo from? I'll give you the fact that out of all Paul photos, that one comes to the closest to Faul, and without examining it closer, it could be daming to the entire argument. However, the position of the eyes, the nose... it doesn't look like Faul. I admit, the thinner frame threw me for a few seconds, but the face is still Paul's. Do a face morph with Faul, and you'll see. Save the collage picture to your harddrive. Open it up and make it large on your screen. Look at the Quarryman face and the one just below and to the left. They match perfectly. The nose
The mouth
Although his eyes are a bit squinted, the distance between and angle of his eyes are a match.
The little creases coming down from his nose and his mouth.
HIS CHIN!!!!!!
Look with your eye and hearts open folks. What do you really see? |
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Dec 17, 2003 23:44:50 GMT
is the top photo doctored......?  |
|
|
|
Post by Piggies on Dec 18, 2003 0:14:38 GMT
is the top photo doctored......? Certainly not by me. I just found it on a fan site. I am hoping people will come up with more Quarrymen era JPM pics. He was much thinner then. All the pictures used for comparison seem to be when he was 20 or 30 lbs. heavier. |
|
|
|
Post by MtBaldy on Dec 18, 2003 2:05:50 GMT
Not only do the pictures used for comparison seem to be from his heavier periods, they also frequently come from prints that are obviously skewed or distorted, whether from a bad newspaper print or just lens distortion (which was VERY common in the sixties - photography has come a looong way). Some of the "Paul" pics are so distorted they don't even look human. And when someone mentions a pic from his thinner days (which certainly got revisited when the drugs became a favorite hobby) , well, it's obviously been "doctored". I came to this sight very intrigued, but fascinating as it all is, I'm quickly confirming for myself that Mr. McCartney is alive and well.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 18, 2003 3:59:15 GMT
Not only do the pictures used for comparison seem to be from his heavier periods, they also frequently come from prints that are obviously skewed or distorted, whether from a bad newspaper print or just lens distortion (which was VERY common in the sixties - photography has come a looong way). Some of the "Paul" pics are so distorted they don't even look human. And when someone mentions a pic from his thinner days (which certainly got revisited when the drugs became a favorite hobby) , well, it's obviously been "doctored". I came to this sight very intrigued, but fascinating as it all is, I'm quickly confirming for myself that Mr. McCartney is alive and well. Nobody stated that the pic is doctored. That was just a possiblity tossed out there. Once you've seen enough TRUE pics of JPM, with that round face, a pic like that will certainly get yer attention. It would be a natural second step to think... Hhmmm, is that stretched, or was he really skinny then??? |
|
|
|
Post by authentic on Dec 18, 2003 4:45:43 GMT
Yes, you can tell that the picture is doctored, you can notice tward the mid section of the chin that it is doctored, its slighty faded and out of place...Its very rare to see a paul picture these days not doctored...
Pauls chin is round...And fat has nothing to do with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 18, 2003 10:49:44 GMT
Even if the pic is doctored, LOOK AT THE EYEBROWS! Paul's eyebrows were arched - extremely so. Faul's brows are dead straight, and they always look very odd when they have been plucked or waxed out to give them an arched appearance.
The eyebrows seem to be the one thing that people forget to consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Dec 19, 2003 1:13:27 GMT
This is not a comment on the photo at the top, but the collage got me wondering whether the real Paul has a widow's peak? I've never seen a picture of Paul with all his hair back to compare. Anybody?
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Dec 19, 2003 3:16:38 GMT
That top photo has been commented on before as clearly being doctored.
I'm afraid perhaps the only way to get true old Quarryman phots is to go to your local library, and look up old newspapers and magazines of from after The Beatles became famous and see if there are any pictures with a "this is how they use to be before they became famous" theme. No doubt there are original photos are somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Dec 23, 2003 22:53:32 GMT
This photo is convincing me that parts of the "Paulie's Grandfather" theory could be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesPaul & Brian on Dec 23, 2003 22:59:56 GMT
Who is the owner of that vintage photo?  |
|
|
|
Post by MrMustard on Jan 7, 2004 22:19:51 GMT
Even if the pic is doctored, LOOK AT THE EYEBROWS! Paul's eyebrows were arched - extremely so. Faul's brows are dead straight, and they always look very odd when they have been plucked or waxed out to give them an arched appearance. The eyebrows seem to be the one thing that people forget to consider. I always look at the eyebrows and you're right about that. However I reckon Paul also plucked his eyebrows - there are photos of him in the early days with really arched but slightly messy eyebrows, and then photos of him (still in the early days, but when they were more famous) with much cleaner, plucked eyebrows. What I don't understand is why Faul didn't just get a brow lift, it's such a simple procedure. |
|
|
|
Post by LordChinfist on Jan 11, 2004 18:15:31 GMT
This photo is convincing me that parts of the "Paulie's Grandfather" theory could be true. Imgonnaopenmymind, yeah, the notion that very old pictures of Paul look like Faul lead me to believe that it is possible that the original Paul is acutally the man we call Faul, then was replaced in the spotlight by the man we call Paul, then was replaced again later by Faul (who was actually the original Paul). This assumes that none of the pictures are doctored. It sometimes seems to me that the very old pictures of Paul (say pre-64) look more like Faul than the 65-66 pictures of Paul. If they were doctored, it got me to think: why would they doctor the very old pictures of Paul much more than they would doctor the mid 60's pictures? Early 60's Paul looks more "Faulish" than mid 60's Paul. This combined with the happy photos of late 60's Paul with his family, as it may have actually been his family and not photos of a complete stranger taking the place of their dead son/brother (but then it might also just be that Faul is a close relative of Paul, which is why they look happy and went along with the deal). |
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Jan 11, 2004 19:16:24 GMT
It sometimes seems to me that the very old pictures of Paul (say pre-64) look more like Faul than the 65-66 pictures of Paul. You're comparing young, thin Paul photos with post-plastic surgery Faul photos, though, right? I've wondered myself how Paul's family could deal with this. Maybe they believed they were doing something patriotic. |
|
|
|
Post by LordChinfist on Jan 12, 2004 0:43:55 GMT
I discussed a possible explanation for the happy "family-like" photos of late 60's Paul with his family in the Paulie's Grandfather theory (as Imgonnaopenmymind coined it) in the "Could Faul Be Paul's Relative" thread, trying to tie it in with some other ideas as well. 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=document&action=display&thread=1072030154Briefly, I was putting forth the possibility that either: A) Faul was a close relative to Paul (which is how they quickly found someone to replace Paul who looked and sounded like him...maybe a half-brother?), and Paul's immediate family accepted the notion of Faul replacing their dead son/brother to keep the Beatles attached to the McCartney's since Faul was in fact a close relative, and so was part of the family and this could explain why we see happy photos of the man we call Faul with the McCartney family. He was carrying on the legacy of Paul and had their blessing (or with the blessing of Paul himself if Paul never died, but rather just wanted to get out of the spotlight and lead a new life). I find this to be at least a possibility, as I find it difficult to believe that the McCartney's could look happy posing with a stranger who is acting as their dead son or brother, even if they were paid a huge sum of money to keep up the supposed charade. Or B) The family the man we call Faul posed with was actually Faul's family, which is why they look happy. Faul was actually the original Paul (hence this is the original Paul's family), and the man we call the original Paul replaced the actual original Paul (who we call Faul) for 65-66, then the original Paul (Faul) came back into the spotlight after 66. Maybe Paul had to take a leave of absence in the mid 60's for whatever reason (health concerns, sick of Beatlemania, etc.). This is discussed more in detail in the "Could Faul Be Paul's Relative" thread. I'm not going to say this is what I definitely believe (I'm still not completely certain if Paul was ever replaced to begin with...I go back and forth about it), but these are just possible theories that may help to explain certain observations, such as why early-60's photos look more like Faul than mid-60's photos (wouldn't they all be doctored equally if they were in fact doctored?), because maybe the photos were never doctored at all, and early-60's Paul is actually Faul (this is a subjective observation on my part) and mid-60's Paul is different from the original Paul. |
|
