|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 18, 2003 21:38:44 GMT
Refer to your own antecedents.
And believe me, your subliteracy bores me more than your confusion tires you . . .
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Nov 18, 2003 22:29:32 GMT
Refer to your own antecedents. And believe me, your subliteracy bores me more than your confusion tires you . . . hahahaha oh how witty. I'm not the one who is a "Reatard." (What is that, by the way? ) And I believe, considering, YOU are the one going against the world's popular opinion that Paul is still alive, or in this case, you being against the topic creator's views, that you should make your case instead of arrogantly making a statement with no PROVEN and KNOWN facts accompanying it. Subliteracy? Nice one, bud.
|
|
Danthology
Contributor
"For awhile we can sit, smoke a pipe and discuss all the vast intricacies of life..."
Posts: 47
|
Post by Danthology on Nov 19, 2003 0:58:57 GMT
They did; Klaus Voorman; and he would. P(f)aul is actually playing bass on the Let It Be sessions. Look at the live rooftop concert footage. It is Paul.
|
|
|
Post by thoughtmonkey on Nov 19, 2003 2:04:30 GMT
It is Paul
|
|
|
Post by gm1276 on Nov 19, 2003 2:26:53 GMT
+1
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 19, 2003 5:19:20 GMT
Listening to "Get Back", "Come Together", and "Ballad of John and Yoko" earlier today. The ensemble on these seem very tight to me; geat playing. The bass work drives those tunes, with Ringo. Whoever is playing bass is secure and commanding, on those tracks. If it is Bill, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Nov 19, 2003 10:29:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Nov 19, 2003 11:26:56 GMT
Mmmm...
Sun King, what do you think of those pictures?
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Nov 19, 2003 14:51:03 GMT
Mmmm... Sun King, what do you think of those pictures? They are always from the same guy with the same method...faking! They talk for themself Look at page counter...is always the same!
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 19, 2003 15:47:33 GMT
Nice job on the site thoughtmonkey. I too think Paul is alive and well and he has a new child.
I think a few people have been duped.
We only see a few pictures of Paul on this site, but there are hundreds of them. I have a good link which I will post when I get home, in which there are hundreds on one message board. Great for future animations and comparisons.
It seems to me it is the pictures of Paul shown on this site that could be doctored, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by ZioMarco on Nov 19, 2003 16:08:29 GMT
Nice job on the site thoughtmonkey. I too think Paul is alive and well and he has a new child. I think a few people have been duped. We only see a few pictures of Paul on this site, but there are hundreds of them. I have a good link which I will post when I get home, in which there are hundreds on one message board. Great for future animations and comparisons. It seems to me it is the pictures of Paul shown on this site that could be doctored, not the other way around. James, you've got all the rights to think what you want, but i'd like to know how can you say that Paul's pictures on this site could be doctored. Please demonstrate it to me I would like to think that Paul is alive too; now I can't.
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 19, 2003 16:14:05 GMT
James, you've got all the rights to think what you want, but i'd like to know how can you say that Paul's pictures on this site could be doctored. Please demonstrate it to me I would like to think that Paul is alive too; now I can't. I'm not making a claim that they have, just that they could have been. People on this board comment that pictures of 'Faul looking exactly like Paul', have been doctored (Paul's head stretched etc), all I am saying is, I feel that if any pictures have been doctored, it is more likely to be those on this board (desperately trying to claim Paul has been replaced). Many pictures of Paul/Faul I have found outside of this site, look far more alike than those shown here. Either this site uses misleading photos, they have been doctored, or everyone else in the world outside this site is doctoring images. Make your own mind up which is more likely.
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 19, 2003 16:24:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ZioMarco on Nov 19, 2003 16:28:39 GMT
Many pictures of Paul/Faul I have found outside of this site, look far more alike than those shown here. Either this site uses misleading photos, they have been doctored, or everyone else in the world outside this site is doctoring images. Make your own mind up which is more likely. Okay James, please show links to this other sites so I can make up my mind.
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 19, 2003 16:32:47 GMT
Okay James, please show links to this other sites so I can make up my mind. I pasted a link above. There are lots there.
|
|
|
Post by ZioMarco on Nov 19, 2003 16:35:36 GMT
I pasted a link above. There are lots there. Sorry James, I was writing the answer to your previuos post when you send the link.
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Nov 19, 2003 16:46:31 GMT
That's true actually. I love Let It Be, Long and Winding Road, Fool on the Hill, Golden Slumbers, Hey Jude... all that. Some of my favorites songs from the Beatles... I just wish it could have been Paul that did all that. I would'nt be too sure about that . There is quite a time lag from the time a song is written and recorded and "album-ated" and released ! Sept 66 to late 69 ? Quite reasonable to me !
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Nov 19, 2003 16:53:01 GMT
Mmmm... Sun King, what do you think of those pictures? The James Paul pics have been stretched a lot .
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Nov 19, 2003 17:25:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thoughtmonkey on Nov 19, 2003 17:51:28 GMT
They are always from the same guy with the same method...faking! They talk for themself Look at page counter...is always the same! Actually they are not faked at all. I have nothing to hide with them. Nothing has been stretched which, if compared to your own pictures sunking, should testify. That is unless your pictures have been faked also. I purposely checked the proportions before I used any pictures. But respectfully, I would not accuse anyone of faking just to try to win an arguement unless there was some truth to the statement. The reason I have not purposely posted the link is because I do not see the need to ram my beliefs down peoples throats on a site that is for believing in 60if. I came here to read what this place was about, not to cause trouble by arguements or other such silliness. There seems to be enough Trolls on here of one kind or another already. As for the counter, it is moving more rapidly than I expected and I am greatly surprised by the number of views it has had and the private responses, so many thanks for posting it xpt626 because if I had of done the very same thing, it would have been deleted like the last time. Twice.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Nov 19, 2003 18:42:01 GMT
ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM ABOUT THE SOURCES!The ORIGINAL Beatles' Albums! .....and original photos from 1964 - 66
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Nov 20, 2003 3:27:07 GMT
As someone noted a little while back, lookin' thru that Fave Pics thread at the Mc site is like............. Paul, Bill, Bill, Bill, Paul, Paul, Bill, Paul, Bill..... it's so easy when ya know what to look for. Anybody ever posted on that thread something like... DON'T YOU FOLKS KNOW YER POSTING PICS OF 2 DIFFERENT PEOPLE?
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 24, 2003 6:08:45 GMT
Listening to "Get Back", "Come Together", and "Ballad of John and Yoko" earlier today. The ensemble on these seem very tight to me; geat playing. The bass work drives those tunes, with Ringo. Whoever is playing bass is secure and commanding, on those tracks. If it is Bill, so be it. *That's taking alot for granted, there. For instance, Faul supposidly played drums on 'Ballad of john & Yoko' not ringo, who was unavailable and george was out of the country. So, John handled all the guitars, and faul played bass (I think; not sure) with Lennon playing excellent multiple guitar textures. Also note that the band was so particular by the late 60's when it came to interpreting their own songs, the author of the respective tune could have constructed those 'secure, commanding' bass lines and simply taught or showed it to Faul...or did it themselves. By '68 it wasn;t unusual for the three studios in Abbey Road to have a different Beatle in each one, playing and constructing their own tunes, in their own little worlds... I would never paint myself into the proverbial corner and say it was definitive that it was Faul playing all the bass parts... we just don't know and cannot prove anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 24, 2003 7:15:20 GMT
Thanks Ian--I'm still new at studying all this, so I am having several flawed posts lately. But I am glad for the info, and it makes sense.
The point of curiosity for me is song 8-16 that flow together. How was this achieved. The more I hear it, the more I love it. Its a fun journey thru those short, connected songs. Hard to know whose playing when, I guess here?
Someone posted a book about this(the details of the recording sessions)--I'll look for that post for the title and search up the book.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 24, 2003 13:20:19 GMT
Thanks Ian--I'm still new at studying all this, so I am having several flawed posts lately. But I am glad for the info, and it makes sense. The point of curiosity for me is song 8-16 that flow together. How was this achieved. The more I hear it, the more I love it. Its a fun journey thru those short, connected songs. Hard to know whose playing when, I guess here? . I know what you mean. It seems so highly technical and futuristic at first, but really, all songwriters have bits and pieces, verses but no choruses...you know, snippets of songs but no total song. So they capitalized on these fragments. I would have to say in this case, George Martin did the grunt work, physically editing all the bits together, slowing down or speeding up tape slightly to get the song keys in harmony, etc. So, as far as the "suite" of bits and pieces goes, yeah --it's awesome, no doubt. For the Rock world, it was a fresh concept but has been going on in musicals and such for decades. As far as the mind-cramp that is stoically maintaining that Faul played all the bass, etc. goes, I personally catch myself too and remind myself to not embrace any one tact or direction or beliefs connected to all this. That is doing a disservice to the intricate nature of this cover-up and inpersonation. I keep the doors of possibility open a bit. To champion any one frame of conjecture would be to eliminate too many others, and plays right into the disinformation scheme... Looking for the book is the way to go. I advise reading any and all books on the Beatles. Knowledge is power. You will soon get a feel for it all and develop a good 'third sense' regards to what is plausible and what is disinfo.
|
|