|
Post by paul62is on Aug 7, 2004 16:14:01 GMT
"we" is the general viewing public. Are you denying that we have something on film here? No..I don't have the original filmstock..it appears you already know who does have it.
Now..what proof do you have this is tampered with to look like Paul's face? If that quote from Vincdent Joliet is the best you can do, not many people are going to buy it. They wanted to achieve the "desired effect". Why should that mean anything other then "as good looking a video as possible" How do you make the jump from that to "we were tampering with videos to put in more PID clues?"
"we worked with Flame to achieve the desired results= The tree (hey, you admit I'm right, it is a tree!) was grahically altered to look like Paul's face? You're just accusing folks of tampering with the video, the only reason this accusation is being made, is because it fits the 60if theory. There is no "proof" this was done. In fact, the link provided by TI even says the video was approved by George and Ringo.
Well..how about we move on? I really do desire civil talks, and feel both me and those oppossed to my point of view are letting this one slip away.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Aug 7, 2004 16:49:33 GMT
"we" is the general viewing public. Are you denying that we have something on film here? No..I don't have the original filmstock..it appears you already know who does have it. Now..what proof do you have this is tampered with to look like Paul's face? If that quote from Vincdent Joliet is the best you can do, not many people are going to buy it. They wanted to achieve the "desired effect". Why should that mean anything other then "as good looking a video as possible" How do you make the jump from that to "we were tampering with videos to put in more PID clues?" "we worked with Flame to achieve the desired results= The tree (hey, you admit I'm right, it is a tree!) was grahically altered to look like Paul's face? You're just accusing folks of tampering with the video, the only reason this accusation is being made, is because it fits the 60if theory. There is no "proof" this was done. In fact, the link provided by TI even says the video was approved by George and Ringo. Well..how about we move on? I really do desire civil talks, and feel both me and those oppossed to my point of view are letting this one slip away. So Bill72is wrote: There is no "proof" this was done. In fact, the link provided by TI even says the video was approved by George and Ringo. Excellent counter proof. BTW Only George and Ringo approved.... and Bill? I really do desire civil talks...you mean "I am right you are wrong"?
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 8, 2004 2:44:21 GMT
Gentlemen, gentlemen, please...
|
|
madtitan125
Contributor
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 126
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 22, 2004 17:37:40 GMT
Hi everyone!
Concerning the b&w pic showing Paul's corpse's face...has anyone noticed how much more authentic it looks if you look at the car window UPSIDE DOWN?
Comments?
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Sept 22, 2004 19:47:50 GMT
Hi everyone! Concerning the b&w pic showing Paul's corpse's face...has anyone noticed how much more authentic it looks if you look at the car window UPSIDE DOWN? Comments? one of you tricksters please post this please and let's see.
|
|
madtitan125
Contributor
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 126
|
Post by madtitan125 on Sept 23, 2004 18:32:16 GMT
The way I have always interpreted this picture is that the left side of the picture (the right side of Paul's face) is still intact.
Inside the white area (his face), his closed right eye is visible. Further down, his mouth is partially open.
His face is framed by his hair, covering his right ear.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that the whole left side of Paul's face was torn apart, including his nose.
That is the way I have always seen this image, and thought that everyone else did, too, until I saw on a thread here somewhere a different interpretation.
Curious to see what everyone else thinks...
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Sept 28, 2004 3:57:58 GMT
The corpse picture is real enough. Just ticks me off when some idiot tries to convince us it is leaves and sky. I had SK do a comparison between the corpse and a particular picture of Paul. If a person covered up the face and looked at the eyes; covered up the lips in the "alive" picture, it was sadly very obviously Paul.
I see a corpse with one side of his face intact, lips missing, hair outlining the face, and it seems eyes are still there. I had always believed that birds went for the eyes first.
I had once wondered if he had been bound and gagged and vomited; the vomit soaking the gag; and he would have suffocated by inhaling the vomit. The "food" around the lips would be enticing to scavengers and might be a reason why the lips were eaten away. Sorry, that is truly a gross scenario, but it IS a possibility.
|
|
TheDZ
Provocative Operator
Posts: 435
|
Post by TheDZ on Mar 14, 2005 6:13:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Mar 14, 2005 7:37:50 GMT
hmmm....from a reviewer at amazon.com: The Great Imposter: When Being Yourself Is Not Enough, July 22, 2002 Reviewer: Martin Asiner (jersey city, nj United States) - See all my reviews
Nearly everyone has at one time or another wished to be other than who they are. The reaching out to be more than one is has often formed the staple of Hollywood. The result is humorous more often than not. In THE GREAT IMPOSTER, director Robert Mulligan provides a darkly comical aspect of a subject that, in this film at least, is only a hairsbreath away from tragedy. Tony Curtis plays Ferdinand Waldo Demarra, a young man who from early childhood cannot make his own mark on the world and determines to make a series of marks by stealing the identities of more qualified others. In a series of vignettes whose only link is to show that Demarra's quest for recognition by using the names of others whom he deems as more worthy than himself is each time an exercise in futility. It does not matter whether he impersonates a physician, a warden, or even a police officer. In each case, he performs flawlessly to such an extent that he is the victim of his own celebrity and talent. When he is exposed, he moves on, shedding his previous identity before assuming a new one. The irony is that Demarra refuses to believe the sincerity of the accolades that he truly earns. The more his peers praise him, the more he cannot accept that praise at face value. Nowhere in the film does he provide a meaningful rationale for his futile gropings for self-esteem. His deficient ego is simply there, daring both himself and the audience to wonder what drives on a man who has such limitless talent at improvisation but such limited belief in his own identity as Demarra. By the movie's end, he has gone full circle. He has learned nothing about what fuels his desire to be someone else, and when the audience sees that he has been hired to catch himself, the humor of this irony covers a mystery that may never be revealed.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Mar 14, 2005 14:44:30 GMT
Excellent, DeZom & Perplexed. I'd love to see more revelations like this one ;D
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Mar 15, 2005 1:52:03 GMT
The corpse picture is real enough. Just ticks me off when some idiot tries to convince us it is leaves and sky. Hey! I resemble that remark! I've said the same thing on other threads. It is trees and a landscape that's reflected in the window. But that's not what's important! The significance is how "impossible" it is that a trees and landscape would look like Paul's face. WHO THE H*** WOULD KNOW THAT???!!! Who would know that the words, "I never could see any other way" reversed would say "Will Paul come back? He's Superman"? Who would know that Paul would disappear after 9/09/66 when they'd been singing "the one after 909" for years, and the lyrics PERFECTLY MATCHED what happened?! There are many posts on this board that are amazing beyond words to describe them. And the 2 or 3 posts above this one are among them! Combine what Dezombifier has shown in the post above, along with the description of the plot of the Great Imposter provided by Perplexed, with page two of "Re: Billy Shepherd" thread in the CLUES section where Beatle Paul shows a picture of Angela Lansbury when asked by Perplexed what Paul would look like "face on" and what do you come up with? It is connected to a HUGE, BIG, ENORMOUSLY SIGNIFICANT CLUE on Abbey Road which no one here has hit on yet (if I do say so myself, and I do, so obviously I feel I know what it is. And I would show it to you, except I feel I am forbidden to for now.)
|
|
TheDZ
Provocative Operator
Posts: 435
|
Post by TheDZ on Mar 15, 2005 3:24:08 GMT
That's the quote I was hoping someone would see. Right on Perplexed. Notice the Date. July 22, 2002 and #22 .Probably a coincidence, but surely curious.... Any how, Byrdman has me on the edge of my seat! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Mar 15, 2005 3:38:44 GMT
This is getting to be a bit too, too too, terribly too, so so, too too two too tutu incredibly 2 around here. Doubly so. Doubly so! Yes, doubly so. Twice!
That's WHY I love it around here so, too.
A couple of more things:
By showing us Miss Angela Lansbury, you aren't saying that Paul was into some kind of kinky transy thing with wigs in 1966, are you? You aren't telling us he is alive as Paulina McCartney, are ya? I mean, like, whatever is fine with that, you know I would be surprised but like you know, each to his own and stuff...
That isn't Paul Photoshopped into Angela, is it?
That would be hard to see. In fact, I can't see past Jessica Fletcher........maybe I'm not supposed to......
hmm..next stop.......Murder, She Wrote..........in double time.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Mar 15, 2005 3:42:15 GMT
Sorry i think ive missed something, "no change there then" they all say but can u explain byrd, this important clue? My apologies again
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Mar 15, 2005 3:57:02 GMT
Plastic Paul, it would not have the significance it's supposed to have if we skipped over the content of Abbey Road. That's all I can say for now. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Mar 15, 2005 4:25:14 GMT
Noted! Now, do I need to grab the CD cover, or will playing the music be a more productive avenue?
I have both, you know. (lol) I have the cover AND the contents.
As far as I know, there is no "face on" photograph of Paul anywhere on the Abbey Road album.
There are other images and "sublims" that we can talk about. Perhaps one people have generally missed?
I am looking. Hmm, the gatefold has some interesting shapes and shadows. Hmm Ooh, that's strange.
Well, more later.
My microscope and staining dishes will come in handy. I dont know what to do with that big old freezer, though.......
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Mar 15, 2005 4:40:42 GMT
That's all I can say for now. Sorry.
I call bullsh1t. You can say whatever you wish.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Mar 15, 2005 6:43:37 GMT
I dunno. My shock absorbers are in pretty good shape.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Mar 15, 2005 15:18:34 GMT
Same here. Byrds, let's here it. I'm going to say something, & I'm probably going to catch flack for saying it. Just because BP says or posts something, doesn't mean that it's the WORD OF GOD Jasus Caaarriisssttt He's only a MAN, not the Messiah. He's out here struggling along with the rest of us. You're coming up with all of these assumptions concerning why he posted that photo of Angela Lansbury. Did you think to simply ASK him what he meant by it ? I haven't seen the aforementioned photo yet. I have heard tell of it though. So, if BP has explained the meaning behind the photo I humbly apologize. I will read that thread before I leave the forum today. Sis
|
|
|
Post by Palin on Mar 17, 2005 16:53:54 GMT
Why do the lyrics sheets always say, "She's the kind of a girl who makes the News of the World" when on the older recordings it sounds as if John says, "the kind of a girl who makes a musical fail?"
It doesn't sound like that at all. Lennon sings in a thick Scouse (Liverpudlian) accent at this part vis "She's the kind of a gel that makes the New of the Weld"
Too bizarre
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Mar 18, 2005 12:55:11 GMT
I've deleted the post you're refering to Palin, but the readers of this thread can understand from your post what the comment was. Any way: I've heard the version you're talking about, but on my old vinyl record from 1970 the words come out like: "the kind of a girl who makes a musical bill" or "the kind of a girl who makes a musical fail". I'm thinking it was one of those clues that were sneaked in, like "Nobody was really sure if he was from the house of Paul" even 'tho the lyrics show "house of Lords". I'm thinking that somebody caught it in the years after the original was released, and fixed it. Two weeks ago I bought the CD of Magical Mystery Tour (the album), and when it get's to the "Everybody's smoking pot" part where all the subliminal clues were hidden on the record, they do a quick fade so you can't hear any of them! I think it's the same kind of manipulation.
|
|
|
Post by beatled on Mar 18, 2005 14:41:23 GMT
Two weeks ago I bought the CD of Magical Mystery Tour (the album), and when it get's to the "Everybody's smoking pot" part where all the subliminal clues were hidden on the record, they do a quick fade so you can't hear any of them! I think it's the same kind of manipulation. Wait, what?? What part of the album is that?
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Mar 18, 2005 15:02:26 GMT
I believe it's at the end of I am the walrus.
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Mar 19, 2005 17:43:27 GMT
Sister's right. The part at the end of "I am the Walrus." And (duh) I think I realize why they had to get rid of that "musical bill" (Bill) clue now that I think of it. Couldn't leave that in there now could they.
|
|