|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 9, 2003 13:55:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 9, 2003 14:00:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Aug 9, 2003 14:02:31 GMT
Skeptics all! They wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees. I can see perhaps one or two pictures would not be the basis for our argument, but it is hard to deny all the pictures, sound bites, clues, etc. All of these make the whole.
All I have to say is: see for yourself, listen for yourself and you will know the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 9, 2003 14:05:35 GMT
Eggman! Please learn how to...with girls ;D ;D ;D Kisses to Queen Spanky  |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 9, 2003 14:19:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rachel on Aug 9, 2003 19:13:02 GMT
Hello, everyone. I'm new to the board here. I find all of the information on the site quite intriguing. Just a few points I'd like to mention in regards to Paul's change in appearance- and I'm looking forward to your comments on them. If indeed Paul did have IBS, it can cause a dramatic loss of weight. From personal experience, the symptoms of IBS can stop, as I had it for 10 miserable years and have been free of it now for seven years. As for differences in facial appearance, is it not possible that Paul did have rhinoplasty? A change in the bridge of the nose might make the set of the eyes look different. Having such surgery might also account for perceived differences in the tone of Paul's voice as it was mentioned that Faul had a more nasal quality in his voice. I guess the only way to really prove if the man alive today is the real Paul is to compare DNA samples with his brother? Would that do it? Looking forward to your replies.  |
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Aug 9, 2003 20:28:02 GMT
Thought of that myself. Perhaps Paul was in a bad car accident and messed up his face. He could have had plastic surgery done, but like I said in a post: one or two pictures does not an argument make, it is the whole. You have to look at all the evidence: height difference, teeth difference, etc. to come to your own decision. Clues in songs help a whole lot too.
It seems that the whole mood of the group and individual attitudes changed from '67 till the break up. Especially Paul (Faul). I would consider him to be the main contributing factor to the Beatles breakup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 9, 2003 22:04:15 GMT
Plastic surgery cannot alter the height and width of the skull. The head's are different sizes and shapes. This is the single most damning piece of evidence; Paul's skull was short and round, Faul's is significantly taller and thinner. There's no getting around that.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 9, 2003 22:22:29 GMT
Plastic surgery cannot alter the height and width of the skull. The head's are different sizes and shapes. This is the single most damning piece of evidence; Paul's skull was short and round, Faul's is significantly taller and thinner. There's no getting around that. Perfect, Andrew!  Sun King |
|
|
|
Post by newave on Aug 9, 2003 22:42:06 GMT
There was something else I noticed on Uberkinder's site: Look at the Sgt. Pepper cover and look at John. Compare his picture on that cover to a picture of John during "Beatle Mania". John's head has morphed like Paul's. His head is rounder during the sixties. Someone compare a few pictures and explain this...
|
|
|
|
Post by Renee on Aug 9, 2003 22:49:22 GMT
You know, my dad and I were having a conversation about something somewhere along the lines of that. If any of the Beatles changed a lot, it was definitely John! He did a whole turn around on us!
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 9, 2003 22:57:58 GMT
There was something else I noticed on Uberkinder's site: Look at the Sgt. Pepper cover and look at John. Compare his picture on that cover to a picture of John during "Beatle Mania". John's head has morphed like Paul's. His head is rounder during the sixties. Someone compare a few pictures and explain this... HhhhMmmhhhh Alex... I've just noticed you HAVE NOT studied ALL "60IF" pages welll... Just a sample... John's "heads" perfectly matching,.....just smiling  |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 12, 2003 19:19:40 GMT
Hello, everyone. I'm new to the board here. I find all of the information on the site quite intriguing. Just a few points I'd like to mention in regards to Paul's change in appearance- and I'm looking forward to your comments on them. If indeed Paul did have IBS, it can cause a dramatic loss of weight. From personal experience, the symptoms of IBS can stop, as I had it for 10 miserable years and have been free of it now for seven years. As for differences in facial appearance, is it not possible that Paul did have rhinoplasty? A change in the bridge of the nose might make the set of the eyes look different. Having such surgery might also account for perceived differences in the tone of Paul's voice as it was mentioned that Faul had a more nasal quality in his voice. I guess the only way to really prove if the man alive today is the real Paul is to compare DNA samples with his brother? Would that do it? Looking forward to your replies. finally, someone with some intelligent debate! |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 12, 2003 20:36:28 GMT
"A change in the bridge of the nose might make the set of the eyes look different" Yes, in a skull made by rubber. ;D Sorry I had that operation. My eye orbits positions never changed.  By that reason the facial comparisons have full legal value. I hope this is the last time I have to repeat that.  |
|
Matt
Contributor
Posts: 99
|
Post by Matt on Aug 12, 2003 21:35:27 GMT
Good points, Rachel. Please give us more!
About Paul's voice; especialy in the latter half of their career the Beatles were pretty wild in the studio, and it wasn't uncommon for them to slightly speed up or slow down a track, not to mention all the other treatment given to the vocals.
|
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Aug 14, 2003 2:05:16 GMT
john's sgt. pepper jacket is open to reveal his black t shirt.
he so was in mourning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Sept 8, 2003 11:58:57 GMT
There were three other Beatles. They changed their appearences, alos, very drastically, in the late '67 and onward. But they don't elicit a feeling of something is wrong.. They "jive" with our inner eye. As I said in another post, yes, I paid little attention to the Beatles in the 60's, I wasn't born till '57. But I bought the sheet music to Let It Be" before I ever heard anything about the Paul rumors. I had heard absolutely nothing about it. At all. Nada. Zip. And I still have the sheet music. And I am looking at the four head shots on the cover, and I still react knee jerk the same way as in 1969 or 70, whenever I bought it. Paul's face is all different. I could remember Paul's face from something earlier in my life just well enough to have cognitive dissonance. That is not true for any other Beatle on my front cover of this music. The other three all jive. Please don't think: "You're mind was making you see that back then." No it wasn't. I had never heard of the PID stuff till later on in High School. He just wasn't the same!!!
I had a chance meeting with a woman that I had worked with years ago, recently. I provided music for her temple production. That was in 1976. Then I saw her once for five minutes in 1980. I saw her NOT AGAIN until early this year, 2003. She came up to me and said, You don't know me but..." I interupted her and said "Ah, but I do! You are Mrs. So & So." She was aghast. So was I. Something in the way she moved and spoke (sorry about the lyrical illusion, but maybe THAT song is a big fat clue, too!) and especially HER EYES made me know who she was. We are talking 23 years later + 25-30 extra pounds!!!! I knew her. I do this all the time. I play in musical comedy pits and cabaret shows and so on, and I meet people and then see the, again years later. And they are still wearing their EYE-VOICE-BODY LANGUAGE signatures. Why do so many skeptics make hard statements on here all the time that , you know, like nobody has good face recognition? Are we all headed for Asperger's Syndrome? Doesn't everybody, mostly, have this ability at times? Aren't we proud of it when we pull a stunt of long shot recognition? And what's wrong with that? It doesn't make it invalid! It was the lady I thought it was. And I did the same thing wwith a 7th grade teacher last year. I had not seen her since 1969! (I skipped a grade, in case you are adding up years)She came in and just said she had taught me at one time (that was a clue) but I went right to her proper memory, school, subject she taught me, etc.
How can we function in life if we can't make eyeball measurements and make quick judgements!!
Let me tell you something. A casting director would lose his/her job if she hired a phony off the strret for a movie, believing it was Renee Zellwigger. There are probabl;y look-a-likes, and you know not one would be fooled!!! If it is your job to distinguish between things using the optical analysis that we all have, believe me you will use it to the fullest, and TRUST it totally.
I have perfect pitch. I am not bragging. It just is. And if you ask me for a440 I can give it to you. I don't have to have a tuning fork, or a oscillator or pitch pipe. When I listen to classical concerts of tonal music, I can immediately hear the changes and do harmonic dictation. This is how I make my living. Not bragging, but I intimidate a lot of other keyboard players sometimes because I am so fast and accurate at that. I knew pitches and chords when I was 5 and 6 years old. I have refined it, but I have always had it. (You are going, big deal, I am sick of hearing this man brag about his gifts). Well, I am ashamed to brag further. But my purpose is to point out to every one on this site, that some folks have astute abilities to recognise things accurately, whithout the help of machines, to do an effective job. And their abilities are proven and tested DAILY! However, I realize that, yes, legally you have to have expert scientific evidence to establish these disputes of identity in a court of law. You can't just eyeball the evidence. They want measurements down to the micron for proof. (I think that court action on these issues is a very bad path to follow, personally. The man should be left alone, he is legally entitled most likely to his name as a corporate entity. Like Liberace was, like Cher is, etc. etc. .
I know an Ab7(9)(#11)(13) chord if you play it to me, and I can correctly notate it to you as far as voicing--fairly immediately. For me this is a given, a well established ability (there are MANY people in my town who will attest to this.) I guess I have a certain expertise to do my my job, as I know all of you have.
Similarly, there are MANY people on this site who have talent, only it is VISUAL. Most people analyze faces pretty well. In fact, are there not studies of the brain in which it is demonstrated that there are areas of the brain specifically activated in recognising people? And are they not inactice, or challenged in people with poor sight recognition? Honestly, stop and consider the artist who speciallizes in portraits. Now, he's a real expert with line and proportion, and a person who migh have accurately drawn a 20 year old Paul might have been stymied redrawing a few years later. Half way thru the drawing, his artistic processing would have told him whether or not this was the same man. Otherwise, my friends, he could HAVE NEVER PAINTED or CHALKED the first one in any kind of lifelike fashion.
Are we just going to throw out 2500 years of art history? Haven't we all scene the statues of Hadrian and Constantine and the Dying Gaul and so forth.... We are taught in art class that the Greeks did accurate, lifelike renderings. Testimony of living historians of those times confirm, for instance, that sculpted likenesses of Hadrian's young lover were very much like the actual person.
And what do we do with human memory?
Do we say that no one could really remember Paul from 1964.? Is everyone's memory deficient?. Nobody thinks that Ringo has been swaaped out. Why? We have never, or at least seldom, seen a Ringo double. (I wonder about all the images on Sgt. Pepper.) Why does no one question images of Jim Morrisson, or Helen Reddy or Julie Andrews? Why are we focusing on one fellow? And why have so many? Because it makes us question our ability to judge identity. We rely on it every day to get thru, and then this is positted to us. And our minds says there is a mis match.
If I sing a long to a recording, and if I am following sheet music that is in the wrong key, my ear goes crazy. I can't stay on pitch, I want to sing the note I see, and the yet still stay in the key I am hearing. It is confusing because I can make an accuarate visual judgment, and an accurate aural judgement at the same time, but I can't sing in two keys at once.
I can't file away two differen human likenesses under the same identity either. It is confusing!
I found an old copy of Help and HDN. Oh...my ...gosh............I held up the front of my tattered old sheet music of Hey Jude as I watched HDN. Why would someone ask me to believe that this was the same human being? (Then maybe John Lennon was really Edye Gorme, maybe Ringo Starr was actually Dick Van Dyke. Oh yes of course, I see now. Jean Simmons, Vivian Leigh, and Elizabeth Taylor, really are the same woman!!)!
Vivian Leigh had emotional trouble (God rest her souls, I adored her) filming that movie with Baby Elepahant Walk as the theme. I forget the title just right now. Anyway, they replaced her with Jean Simmons becaause the casting directors felt she had similar features, and even used certain scenes I believe of Leigh that were long shots already filmed, to avoid reshooting. So of course, close-up nobody ever confuses the two, but with Leigh;s face obscure by means of angle and distance, they could use footage. You can use a double if their are concealing elements----for goodness sakes I work in theatre a lot.
They do it ALL THE TIME! I played in the pit of Phantom of the Opera for two runs in the metro area in which I live. For those of you who have seen it, you may recall the scene when the Phantom takes Christine from high up in the theatre, to his subterannean lair far below. The audience sees the couple travel by stairs, then across a moat, then on a small canoe right down to center stage. Half the song is taped because, non one knows this, but, their are FOUR SEPERATE PAIRS of Phantom/Christines that make this complicated stage journey!!!! Chrisitine is alwways turned away in the forst three, and this is copious amounts of smoke on stage, and the Phantom had the mask on of course, so the only pair that the audience sees that are the real actors (Michael Crawford, and Sarah Brightman on Broadway) are the last, 4th pair, that finish the song. And BTW, the actresses voice is only on tape part of the time, and the only reason is because she haveing to traverse all around backstage quickly to make it to the canoe in time for the fonal part of the song. here is no way for her to sing while climbing and running behind stage works!!! It isn't because the actresses can't sing it. (I have had so many people critisise the show for this, but they just don't iunderstand theatre)They also run two reel to reel decks on different channels simultaneously so that if Channel A ever breaks, they just turn up the gain on channel B. Problem averted. But the audience would be unhappy if they did not have their illsion. They pay $100, so the show better flow smoothly, right?
whew, sorry about the rant..............
|
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Sept 8, 2003 18:55:59 GMT
So you said this to say what?
That Faul is not Paul?
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Sept 10, 2003 6:15:31 GMT
Much of the discussion on these posts seeks to establish empirical, forensic body of evidence to support the idea of there being a McCartney replacement in the 60's. This is the only approach that can make any tangible impact on the situation.
But,I am not disciplined or experienced in this way as many of you are.
But, I am personally satisfied in this : It is my unscientific opinion that there has been a switch, yes. I see two different men with a strong resemblance. (varying with the vintage of an individual photo).
I can't speak in an expert fashion about the differences; that notwithstanding, I am trusting my instincts and common sense. The non-believers challenge the believers at every turn. They say the comparisons are all baseless for one reason or another, usually due to some technical flaw.
Well, I am not using anything technical. I don't know how. I have no axe to grind, and I have no desire to influence people everywhere to see what I believe I see.
Impressive as the work is,I don't need to see the morphings to be convinced. I priase the abilities of the folks who have made the comparison spreads and the morphing photos.
Look at this a moment:
(I mentioned this before):
Toward the very end of filming the original Star Wars IV in 1976, Mark Hamill had a terrible car crash. His face was seriously affected. They had to fix his nose in a major way, plus lips problems, and cheek contusions and I think jaw-teeth issues. If anyone knows the precise facts and I am somewhat off, correct me. But I think I am close. Anyway,they really rebuilt his face. They did an incredible job. So, the final scene of the first movie is shot at odd angles (close up shot from above looking down, other shots held wide)with specific make-up and lighting to counter the changes. It is a brief scene, the final scene at the end where Princess Lea honors Luke and Han Solo, but neccesary to finish the picture. No one got suspicious about Hamill. The careful shooting worked, no jarring images for the audience to question.
There was no way to hide his reconstruction later: two full length films left. Close-ups would tell iall So the character gets into a major battle with those long-legged robotic things in that Arctic looking first scene, we don't really see his face much before the battle, it is hidden in helmets and such. After the battle we are treated to a scene in the movie of the character's face being rebuilt. Problem solved. Evasion filming!
Did any one ever say "Mark Hamill is dead?" His face does not match the old stills and so forth. Of course not, we all knew why. Even with MAJOR reconstruction on the pointed external parts of the face, we could still recognise Hamill's voice. personality, skull size and shape. He had a different hair cut. But we believe it is still him. He had a dark hair color for the third film. Well,of course it is still him. No rumours, no "Mark is Dead." Why? Because we can all tell it is Mark. The face moves in the same way. He smiles the same, although the nose and lips have a new shape to them.He appears in other movies and interviews and on Broadway.And at the time, the picture made him well known face, and a teen idol as well, as Paul had been.
If Paul had had this same set of circumstances, new lips, new cheeks, new nose, new chin, we would still see Paul, the same way we saw Mark. Nobody did forensics on Mark. Nobody has to.
Try doing comparisons on Mark Hamills face. See Star Wars 4,5 and 6. (The newer ones are prequels, of course.) Can you see the difference? This is what radical facial rebuilding does. Even so, isn't he still recognisable? The surgeons did a primo job, think how much was at stake to keep him looking good!
Everyone has seen the Wizard of Oz. Few people had trouble seeing that it was Bert Lahr underneath all that prosthetic lion make-up!!! Especially folks who lived at the time. Perhaps some did, but no matter. Talk about skull shape------you couldn't find it.
But even without that, his EYES and nose bridge identify him. (and laugh and personality).
Ray Bolger's facial idiosyncrasies are recognisable as the scarecrow.
Billy Crystal and Lorraine Newmann in "Princess Bride?"
Bette Midler in the latter portion of "For the Boys?"
Eddie Murphy in "Coming to America" and especially "The Klumps".
Now, the more outlandish ones are tricky, but isn't there a give-away in most of them? Even the old lady I can see something of MUrphy in that.
Okay, the photos form 68-71 or so. There are no prosthetics, as far as I know. I can not see the old Paul there.
So all I am saying is that I personally put more stock in my gut level reaction to the photos than maybe I should. Some people don't consider that good enough. Maybe they are right. But that is the position that some of us are in. We can not see the same person there. And we are criticized for it.
In my unscientific opinion, there are at least two different Paul's between the myriad of photos.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 10, 2003 6:32:42 GMT
Exactly Perplexed, I guess you're not so perplexed after all. Plain common sense tells us that we can see two different poeple. That is why I am very suspicious of some of the people who have come on the forum lately and nitpick and quibble about things whihc detract from a simple no-nonsense inner instinct. They are either in extreme denial or their motives are suspect.
When we tried to persuade some people at Beatleslinks several months ago, we basically came up against blinded fans in denial. But do you know what? Some of them wouldn't even look at the 60IF "on principle"! Perhaps deep down they were afraid that if they did it would shatter their fantasy world. Of course, we didn't have the wonderful benefit of Uberkinder's site then which has become one of the most persuasive tools we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Sept 11, 2003 3:21:22 GMT
Thank you, Mr Paul Bearer, thank you.
I think Micharel Jackson is an immensely talented performer.
But I find it difficult to believe that he has had only two cosmetic surgeries on his nose.
I deduced this from "powers of observation." (thanks for the phrase, I saw it on another posting awhile ago).
Are my powers of observation off?
I have pointed this discussion board and the Uberkinder and the 60IF sites out to a couple of friends. They made light of it all. They told me that my ability to judge faces was apparently not very good. They asked me why was I taken in by this, and to try not to be so gullible.
I asked them if they thought MJ had only two surgeries, like MJ claimed on national TV.
They just thought it was apples and oranges.
I give up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nortatem on Sept 11, 2003 6:42:13 GMT
First of all I am not attacking anyone here so take no offence please:
Renee: You so believe in the single bullet theory it would be easy for you to be lead like sheep to believe in anything fed to you by the media. I find that really sad that you have a narrow veiw of "conspircy freaks" and think that we all live in mothers attic/basement/garage and smoke pot all day! I do not take offence at your point but some of us are Dr's Lawyers and whathave you. Someof us have little time here it is not like all of us spend all day reading and posting. I am sure there are conspiracy houds on here with too much time on ther hands, but they dig up facts and figures and they make this site fun as well as informative and as well as investigative. I do not mind seeing posts from any body. I just had to ssay I think it is narrow minded for any one to believe that Lee Harvey Oswal killed Kennedy. No way a single bullet could do those shots in a millian years. It was execution style and trianglated. Ever watch the zapruda film. Oh I am sorry for getting in a longwinded rant this is about paul not kennedy.
|
|
