|
Post by DayTripper on Nov 25, 2003 20:40:12 GMT
I guess most of us have a "pet" clue we always look for between Paul and Faul. For me, it's the shape of the face. Paul had a round, "puffy" face, while Faul has a long, "dug" face. Sure, there are differences between eye distance, chin, etc...., but the first immediate tipoff for me is the overall facial shape.
What's your most immediate clue?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 25, 2003 21:55:06 GMT
Easy, it's those eyes, not the color, just the hard, mean, look he has that is missing from Paul. He can paste a phony smile on, and the plastic surgeons helped,but that look is still there.
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Nov 25, 2003 23:09:09 GMT
I look at a picture and ask myself, "is he cute?" If the answer is no, it's Faul. He lacks that Certain Something that made Paul so attractive--it's physical and I just can't put my finger on it. But to really answer your question, I can almost always pick out Faul's pointy nose.
And you're right JoJo, there's something a little brutal looking about Faul in a lot of his photos.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Nov 25, 2003 23:53:47 GMT
Please remember friends that Faul's look is a faked one. It's just Bill + plastic surgery (and sometimes +rubber ears!) so.....
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Nov 26, 2003 0:47:31 GMT
I can always tell them apart if I first notice Faul's long face. His long face stands out the most where Paul's was round.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 26, 2003 2:02:08 GMT
What is a "dug" face? hat expression appears in 60IF, but I have not seen it before. Is this a bad translation from the Indian or Paki tongue? Maybe the word "dug" was picked instead of the name of a long implement, like spade or some other "longish" garden tool. Maybe there is only one word in Paki (or whatever the heck it was) for both the (1) name of the implement and (2) what it does. Use the hoe and hoe the garden. Use the spade and spade up the soil. Spoon up some cobbler with your spoon. Maybe there is a word for a tool that digs, the "digger", and it looks the same in present tense as in past tense instead of our dig vs dug, maybe it was a word with only one form.
Anyway, just a guess. maybe someone will tell me that a "dug face" is a familiar old english expression, that I apparently missed.
|
|
|
Post by onlooker on Nov 26, 2003 2:49:43 GMT
My best visual clue: Seeing Paul in 1966 (close proximity) and then meeting Faul in the mid 70s. Paul was about 5'11" Faul seemed to be about 6'2" Paul was charming and naturallly nice, though tired. Faul was sickeningly sweet, trying to prove himself (!!!!) Paul had a round boyish face with a friendly smile and a warmth in his brown eyes. Faul had a long face with a self-satisfied look in his green eyes. I suppose that's about it for my initial clues - so many here are contributing great clues that bring the whole thing home to me.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Nov 26, 2003 3:49:49 GMT
Onlooker, thank you, "self satisfied" look in eyes is the way to put it. Perplexed, I was wondering about that "dug" thing myself. From the Oxford unabridged dictionary, a definition that may or may not be relevant: The pap or udder of female mammalia; also the teat or nipple; usually in reference to suckling. As applied to a woman's breast, now contemptuous. 1530 Palsgr. 280/1 Tete, pappe, or dugge, a womans brest. 1583 Stanyhurst ?neis i. (Arb.) 34 Her dug with platted gould rybband girded about her. 1592 Shakes. Ven. & Ad. 875 Like a milch doe, whose swelling dugs do ache. 1607 Topsell Four-f. Beasts (1658) 519 The number of young Pigs+I finde to be so many as the Sow hath dugs for. a1628 Preston New Covt. (1630) 477 The promises are full of comfort as a dugge is full of milke. 1713 Derham Phys. Theol. iv. xv. 256 With Duggs and Nipples placed in the most convenient part of the Body of each Animal. 1878 H. M. Stanley Dark Cont. II. iii. 75 The enormous dugs which hung down from the bosoms of the women. And this: Üc. dug-tree, an old name of the Papaw-tree (Carica Papaya), apparently from the milky juice exuded by all parts of the tree when wounded. Well if a word exists, it probably is in that dictionary. Sorry if that was a little explicit...
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Nov 26, 2003 7:37:18 GMT
For me it's the head and face, which was always a subconscious red alarm for me before I even realized they were two different people. I knew young Paul had a shorter, fatter head, and older Paul had a longer, thinner head, but I never thought twice about it (and therefore never examined it)
Another thing that tips me off is the smile (when there is one). Faul's smile always seems to contain more of a smirk in it, while Paul's doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Nov 26, 2003 9:39:11 GMT
My best visual clue: Seeing Paul in 1966 (close proximity) and then meeting Faul in the mid 70s. Paul was about 5'11" Faul seemed to be about 6'2" Paul was charming and naturallly nice, though tired. Faul was sickeningly sweet, trying to prove himself (!!!!) Paul had a round boyish face with a friendly smile and a warmth in his brown eyes. Faul had a long face with a self-satisfied look in his green eyes. I suppose that's about it for my initial clues - so many here are contributing great clues that bring the whole thing home to me. I was talking with a customer at that shop I work in, and "Sergeant Peppers" was on in the background. She squnited in distaste, and said, "that's not the Beatles!" I asked her what she meant, and showed her the CD case to prove that I was, indeed, playing the original album. "That's not Paul. The voice is all wrong." So I asked her how she knew this. It turns out she had met Paul and John after a gig in 1963. She had queued for hours to get tickets, and was a manic George fan. She had hung around afterwards with her friends, hoping to meet George. However, only Paul and John came out to meet the fans afterwards. She chatted with Paul for a couple of minutes, and found him to be "far sexier up close, with a really strong accent and gorgeous puppy-dog brown eyes". He was extremely friendly, and posed for photographs, as well as signing autographs. Four years later, in 1967, the Beatles returned to the city on the Magical Mystery Tour, and she met all four of them while they were relaxing. She said that Paul was much taller and thinner, and was a "right miserable old b*stard". His accent was almost gone, and he was the only one out of the band who refused to sign an autograph and pose for a picture. His eyes were bright green, and she was sure it was a different person. What reminded me of this conversation was seeing two pictures from a Beatles series in a local art and photography gallery. One photo was taken in 1963, at the gig the woman attended, and the other was taken in 1967, on the MMT, with the band looking out to sea. I cannot believe that anyone was taken in by Faul that early on! The profile (a right hand profile) in the 1967 picture is so long that it almost looks like the British football pundit Jimmy Hill! If I could afford these pictures, I would, but they are strictly limited edition, and cost £50 each. I mght try to sneak my camera up to the shop window and get some pics, though...
|
|
|
Post by ZioMarco on Nov 26, 2003 10:13:03 GMT
The clue that has convinced me is the difference of the faces between the cover of Let it Be and the movie.
After this I've noticed the others differences.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Nov 26, 2003 14:40:22 GMT
Perplexed, I was wondering about that "dug" thing myself. From the Oxford unabridged dictionary, a definition that may or may not be relevant: The pap or udder of female mammalia; also the teat or nipple; usually in reference to suckling. As applied to a woman's breast, now contemptuous. 1530 Palsgr. 280/1 Tete, pappe, or dugge, a womans brest. 1583 Stanyhurst ?neis i. (Arb.) 34 Her dug with platted gould rybband girded about her. 1592 Shakes. Ven. & Ad. 875 Like a milch doe, whose swelling dugs do ache. 1607 Topsell Four-f. Beasts (1658) 519 The number of young Pigs+I finde to be so many as the Sow hath dugs for. a1628 Preston New Covt. (1630) 477 The promises are full of comfort as a dugge is full of milke. 1713 Derham Phys. Theol. iv. xv. 256 With Duggs and Nipples placed in the most convenient part of the Body of each Animal. 1878 H. M. Stanley Dark Cont. II. iii. 75 The enormous dugs which hung down from the bosoms of the women. And this: Üc. dug-tree, an old name of the Papaw-tree (Carica Papaya), apparently from the milky juice exuded by all parts of the tree when wounded. Well if a word exists, it probably is in that dictionary. Sorry if that was a little explicit... Boy the term "I really dug her" takes on a whole new meaning. ;D
|
|
|
Post by DayTripper on Nov 26, 2003 15:41:32 GMT
A better word than "dug" is probably "ruddy." Faul has a "ruddy" face. Many people (like myself) of Irish and/or Scottish descent have ruddy faces.
|
|
OPD
Contributor
Posts: 17
|
Post by OPD on Nov 26, 2003 22:37:10 GMT
For me it was the sadness looking of John that trigger the all trip I had heard ''I buried Paul'' in the single just before the album came out That was the beginning
And the funeral cover
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Nov 27, 2003 2:41:45 GMT
That would be great!
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Nov 27, 2003 9:00:20 GMT
I'm working all weekend, so if the woman comes in again, I'll ask if she still has the pictures she took with John and Paul in 63, and the ones from 67. There might be a hint of Faul in the background.
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Nov 27, 2003 18:30:16 GMT
My main visual clue is Faul himself from his head till his toes!!!! Hes the main clue!!!!;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Nov 28, 2003 6:15:25 GMT
I'm long on intuition and "gut feelings," but also educated to the point I require tangible proof. So, for me, the kicker would have to be the change in eye distance. There is no possible way to alter the distance between your eyes; surgery won't do it...nothing can. having said that, the too obvious change in cranial shape and the ever-changing, revolving chins were strong evidence for me also. The height discrepency is obvious too. Lastly, though not least for me, is the dreadfully low albeit consistent quality of FAUL solo works. The music is beyond lackluster, with few exceptions. The lyrics are innane and painfully redundant. Without the name recognition -in my opinion- the majority of this crap would never have warranted the cost of recording! It is obvious to me that the genius who created and performed 'Elainor Rigby' among others, had nothing to do with the mediocrity I call solo Faul. 'nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Dec 2, 2003 22:28:41 GMT
I'm long on intuition and "gut feelings," but also educated to the point I require tangible proof. So, for me, the kicker would have to be the change in eye distance. There is no possible way to alter the distance between your eyes; surgery won't do it...nothing can. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but: www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/archives/000564.html You can change where your eyes are located. Just found out today
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Dec 2, 2003 22:33:10 GMT
The position of her eye sockets haven't changed though, unlike Paul to Faul.
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Dec 2, 2003 22:45:09 GMT
The position of her eye sockets haven't changed though, unlike Paul to Faul. One eye is higher than the other, and the eyes looked longer before surgery. After they seem Faul-like. The Hey Jude-Real Paul overlay showed that the eyes were still in the same position, just that Faul's were more circular. So it is possible, and another thing is that everyone says one of Paul's eyes are higher than the other (I was making a debate about this once because I felt the Let It Be Paul might actually be PAUL, not Faul). So without a shadow of a doubt, if that is true, surgery could fix it. Feels weird seeing this kinda proof. Something about Faul seems Faul, and 60IF makes too much sense, but let's not get carried away on what's NOT possible and what IS. It IS possible by use of surgery.
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 3, 2003 9:52:34 GMT
If you look at the shape and positioning of the browbone, there is a distinct difference between Paul and Faul. That CANNOT be changed through surgery. All that can be done is the skin peeled back to reveal more of the eyeball.
|
|
|
Post by peoplepeople on Dec 3, 2003 23:25:49 GMT
I'd like again like to refer you to the link which disproves that (the eyesballs just don't reveal more), and please tell me what site says this can't happen.
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Dec 4, 2003 5:38:00 GMT
Re: What's your main visual clue? « Reply #23 on: 12/03/2003 at 18:25:49 »
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like again like to refer you to the link which disproves that (the eyesballs just don't reveal more), and please tell me what site says this can't happen.
I checked your link and all I saw was a before and after of Marie Osmond. Her eyes look a little farther apart in the post-surgery picture, but her head is at a slightly different angle. I'd like to see an overlay and other photos of her, also with overlays. That's not "proof" of anything. It's one photo.
I don't know of any other site that's doing this kind of comparison so can't "prove" it isn't possible. We might all like to check out some books on plastic surgery to correct facial deformities, but common sense tells me that in order to move the eyes farther apart it would require bone implants between the bridge of the nose and the eyes. I know this is so because I saw a surgery to move eyes closer together (terrible facial deformity) and the doctors had to remove bone in this area in order to move the eye sockets.
So your point is what? That Paul had surgery to move his eyes closer together? Or he had surgery to make his eyes rounder? Or that Faul's eyes are the same distance apart as Paul's?
What is it you're trying to say?
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 4, 2003 5:59:29 GMT
Plastic surgery to move eyes closer together?
Vectoring the possibility around a little bit, it emerges:
a) get a skull from some college anatomy department and examine it. See how the sutures and connections might be reformed to make this possible. LIke windows on the front of a house, if you take from one side you have to cover the slack you created. You would have to change the orientation of the cheek bones, , you'd have to alter the cheek bones relationship to the place they attach to the side of the skull near the ears.
b) There is life important soft tissue, nerves, and brain matter nearby. The medulla oblongata lies centrally within and you would not want to squeeze it any tighter in its little cubby. Optic nerves, auditory nerves are behind the "drywall" too, hard to alter those delicate spaces.
c) Would three months and 11 days be long enough for such alterations to heal, in and out?
d) changing the nasal cavities and sinus structures might alter the tone of the voice----can't risk the bread winner
e) Why would anyone WANT to?
f) If it was all just corrective surgery after a car wreck or other trauma, why go to such links to cover it up?
Just a couple of thoughts.
|
|