|
Post by ElementryPenguin on Sept 7, 2003 1:42:22 GMT
Why isn't it all over the papers then?
|
|
|
Post by ElementryPenguin on Sept 7, 2003 1:48:09 GMT
I don't care if I sound naieve. Faul or whoever he is, is very convincing. When you watch him on the anthology, he knows what he's talking about. The memories of the early days are his memories. He knows things that we don't know because he experienced the whole Beatles thing, not just half of it. He doesn't tell the stories that he talks about as if he is reciting someone else's memories, he tells them as if they are his own, because they are his own. One very touching memory in particular is from "Hey Jude". He always gets emotional and thinks about John at the line "the movement you need is on your shoulder" because Paul was going to change that line and John told him to keep it and that it was the best line in the song. Even if he is an imposter, I like him because he's genuine. But imposters generally aren't genuine. That's why I believe he is Paul and not Faul.
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Sept 7, 2003 1:50:12 GMT
i respect your opinion but until you have viewed all the evidence i can't see how we can have a real debate
as for faul, i personally have a great fondness for him but its not the same guy
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 7, 2003 1:53:56 GMT
But imposters generally aren't genuine. That's why I believe he is Paul and not Faul. This statement makes no sense. How many impostors do you know? A few posts ago, you said it was impossible for anyone to be this type of impostor...you're contradicting yourself. BTW, nothing wrong with liking Faul and his music. I've seen him in concert and like a lot of his stuff. There are other people here who are "purists" (original "Paul/Beatles music") and don't care for it. To each their own.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 7, 2003 1:55:48 GMT
ElementryPenguin: "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see." John Winston Lennon, 1967 from "Strawberry Fields Forever " FYI The "see" in green means that it' s a link....all my posts are quite enough...
|
|
|
Post by MrVanderbuilt on Sept 7, 2003 8:50:03 GMT
...but can you sing with a strong scottish accent because in some songs faul managed to do that... Aye aye Angus, shure ye can! Have you ever heard of Roger Waters, former lead singer/bass player from Pink Floyd? He's as Scottish as my French neighbour and yet he manages to imitate a flawless Scottish accent. (See track 6, disc 2 of Floyd album "Ummagumma") Lot of people have the talent and ability to imitate wide array's of voices and accents, no big deal.
|
|
RZ4
Contributor
Posts: 17
|
Post by RZ4 on Sept 8, 2003 0:47:37 GMT
Have you read the 60IF document yet, ElementryPenguin? If not, then I'd recommend you give it a read. Many of the points that you've brought up will immediately be shot down.
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Sept 8, 2003 1:49:34 GMT
i was unaware of any deep emotion that faul showed... if you have info on this i would love to hear it... His first response was ' Drag, innit "?
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 8, 2003 18:51:27 GMT
yeah thats not really deep emotiont. its more of indifference
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 9, 2003 4:05:05 GMT
When was Live And Let Die released in relation to John's death? You know, I wonder if Faul knew what was coming...
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 11, 2003 7:05:51 GMT
yeah but you must remember, "live and let die" was the name of the bond novel that inspired the movie that inspired the song.
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Sept 12, 2003 19:22:25 GMT
His first response was ' Drag, innit "? That quote was taken out of emotional context. The first thing said when Mother Mary died was, 'What are we going to do for money?'
|
|
|
Post by zeleny on Sept 12, 2003 23:47:06 GMT
Alright everyone! Lots of people have hazel eyes. Sometimes they look very brown, sometimes they look very green. My sister and daughter have hazel eyes, as did my father.
Paul, however, had deep, dark chocolately puppy dog eyes. Faul does not have those eyes.
Sheesh!
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Sept 13, 2003 1:03:25 GMT
That quote was taken out of emotional context. The first thing said when Mother Mary died was, 'What are we going to do for money?' Huh?
|
|
|
Post by AlfredBeach on Oct 21, 2003 22:43:54 GMT
John's death was a tragedy. Even people who quarrel can care deeply for each other. I'm sure what happened to John affected everyone close to him...even Faul. Faul was affected genuinely by the death of John. I buy that. But why then were the Beatles so unaffected by the death of the REAL Paul, the man they loved, their childhood friend? Instead of paying tribute, or even seeming down in the dumps at all, EVER, they made fun of it and planted macabre clues, made sick jokes about it and even positioned images of death and Paul’s corpse in their album literature and videos? Faul’s emotion over the death of John seems a lot more human than the Beatles lack of same over the death of Paul.
|
|
|
Post by SgtPepper on Oct 22, 2003 14:54:06 GMT
I doubt the 3 remaining Beatles were without sorrow after Paul's death. This is not what's conveyed in 60IF, and they were of course very close. Yet self-interest evidently caused them to eventually do all those things after the initial shock wore away.
These are also my sentiments though, and why I think they ultimately deserve most of the blame for this situation. Though they theoretically could've been forced to hire the replacement, I can't really imagine it happening without their consent.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Oct 22, 2003 20:37:01 GMT
;D SO YOU'RE BRAINWASHED, EH ELEMENTRY? NOW WE KNOW WHAT GEORGE HARRISON MEANT ON HIS LAST ALBUM EVER..TITLED BRAINWASHED!
HE TIPPED US OFF!
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 30, 2003 16:12:48 GMT
Ok, i have a question for you all in reference to uberkinder's website and all those who look to the animations as hard evidence that pre 66 and post 66 paul are not the same person.
How can we be sure that the different photos that are superimposed upon each other are taken a) with the same lens and b) with the subject (paul) the same distance away from the camera each time.
I don't mean to offend anyone here, especially uberkinder but i am a little confused on this matter.
I have seen many instances of dialogue on this site whereby one person claims that Paul never died and was never replaced for the otherperson to retort something along the lines of : "someone's eyes cannot move closer together - your skull does not change shape" etc. - you've all seen these exchanges.
But how do we know that?
Without measuring Paul and Faul's heads with calipers (which lets face it is an impossibility) and comparing them in real life (yes i know this can't be done, im talking hypothetically) one cannot be sure of his dimensions changing.
When putting forward arguments like the one above (ie. "his skull changes shape") we cannot be certain of the truth in them. Yes the photos show a bizarre change in dimensions between the two pictures however these could just as easily be caused by slightly concave or slightly convex lenses being used for the shot (Sgt Peppers would have needed a wide angle lens for example).
When comparing the butcher album paul with the sgt pepper album paul we can not be certain that there was equal distance between him and the camera in each shot. Most likely, there wasn't because lets face it, why would there be?
What i'm trying to say is that i do not believe we can use these photographic animations as "proof" that he died.
Alas it is a shame if this is the hardest evidence that exists.
We also do not KNOW that his head has changed in dimensions and that is an undeniable fact.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Oct 30, 2003 16:26:57 GMT
Well, it's strange enough that comparing Sgt. Pepper's and the Butcher's Cover, for instance, the dimensions of John's head don't seem to change at all, while Paul's face grows.
And the lenses are the same for them both.
|
|
|
Post by yellowmatter on Oct 30, 2003 17:46:49 GMT
ok forget the lens distortion thing and just go with the distance away from the lens issue.
iwould like to see john's head from butchers superimposed on seargant pepper album- would like to se if that matches up
Even distance away from the lens would make his head look bigger, smaller etc.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 30, 2003 20:06:57 GMT
Yes, but PROPORTION is the object, not image SIZE. If you make coordinates of a geometric shape match, you can make thw whole image match, if its the same image. You can change the size of the image up and down till key coordinates match, like the center of the eye, where the ear meets the head, bottom of chin up to bridhe of nose between eye, etc. It helps for head to be represented from two nearly identical or similar angles.
What about doing a "Crouching Tiger...." style rap around meld-together. I guess there might not be enough pics from some acute facial angles of Paul to go all the way 360, but maybe profile to profile. Just a thought. (The background would flutter change.)
|
|
|
Post by TheeCavendeshLane on Nov 8, 2003 19:54:05 GMT
To say that Paul is alive because the Beatles did not show any emotional reaction is absurd -- There is no doubt that they were seriously effected by several deaths during this time period. And the Beatles did show signs of emotional upheavel-- They went from being innocent and care free and fast cars to the maharishi and an apparent obsession with death. They stopped touring. They started using drugs. Turned away from material things. Their appearance changed. Also, in my opinion, there music changes fundamentally, and becomes tragic in nature--Revolver is about death if you ask me--the cover of Sgt Pepper is a funeral or at least a memorial--( Magical Mystery Tour is God Knows What ) and The Beatles is eerie. Compare the gravity of these albums to the pap The Who were pushing---Compared to Sgt Peppers and The Beatles everything else is a silly love song and there is nothing wrong with that.
|
|