|
|
Post by ZioMarco on Oct 28, 2003 17:09:19 GMT
BUT why would the photo be dated as the 13th. It would be dated as the 9th cause people knew a show was not live back then, so why make a photo false with a date?  That to me does not make sense. The photo seems to be taken from a magazine; maybe the author of the article knew only the date when TV had transmit the show. |
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 28, 2003 17:25:59 GMT
Also, back in the 60s, awards ceremonies were often kept pretty private, in order to stop members of the public mobbing the stars. Perhaps printing the date it was shown on TV, rather than the actual date of the ceremony, was to avoid a media and public frenzy, as well as to give the time to edit the show. The public were also opften led to believe, in the 60s, that prerecorded shows were live.
Sorry for the bitty post - just needed to get everything out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Oct 28, 2003 18:25:38 GMT
BUT why would the photo be dated as the 13th. It would be dated as the 9th cause people knew a show was not live back then, so why make a photo false with a date? That to me does not make sense. Or maybe it has to much sense. Perhaps it was the first step of this conspiracy: Confuse the people with false dates  |
|
|
|
Post by Karma76 on Oct 28, 2003 19:21:10 GMT
Or maybe it has to much sense. Perhaps it was the first step of this conspiracy: Confuse the people with false dates I Think that is pushing it only cause too many people would be involved. the magazine and the awards would be sucked in for a cover up and not ONE person spill. too bad dusty springfield was not alive to ask. |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 28, 2003 19:33:29 GMT
Find some old timer in British TV journalism. Ask, if in the 60's, perhaps, was it policy to give the dats of shows as the AIRED date, not filmed date, when showing stills and clips from the show later.
|
|
|
|
Post by bilthy on Dec 15, 2003 10:42:25 GMT
just another possibility regarding dates
9/11 may be in fact november 11, november originally was the ninth month
number nine!
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 15, 2003 11:19:03 GMT
We have found witness about Faul on October 15th 1966 "..."Paul" seemed like an arab...   |
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 23, 2003 6:01:01 GMT
I truly believe in 60IF. The eyes, eyebrows are the main differences. Although that scar tissue issue is interesting because thought I saw a pic of Paul with the this scar tissue, but I could be wrong. Is it possible to have a computer enhancement of what James Paul McCartney would have looked like IF he were still alive? ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Dec 23, 2003 7:23:22 GMT
Sun King, that's interesting.... if those photos are from October 15th, that's less than a month from when they found Paul's body. Would that be enough time to prepare Faul?
|
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 23, 2003 10:22:02 GMT
Many facial surgery scars, unless they are DIRECTLY on the front of the face, can be hidden with makeup and hair. I've seen someone after a nose job, less than 2 weeks after the event, looking more or less normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 23, 2003 12:58:54 GMT
Sun King, that's interesting.... if those photos are from October 15th, that's less than a month from when they found Paul's body. Would that be enough time to prepare Faul? No. Faul (Bill) in those photos had still his "natural" look.   See also: digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/t-g-a-e.htmlAs you see he had "still" different cheecks and troubles with his chin. His right ear lobe is "still" attached on his jawbone (awesome evidence!!!) The first plastic surgery about on November 9th 1966. According with all the chronogies, Faul totally disappeared on November 1966 then he "reappeared" on December 20th 1966. |
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Dec 23, 2003 13:33:38 GMT
There were various conflicting rumours, I believe, such as he was on safari, in America, in Scotland and busy in the studio.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Dec 24, 2003 8:33:41 GMT
Okay, I see now... yeah, that certainly looks like the grainy black and white photograph of Bill. This certainly is the most convincing proof yet of the switch. Compare these photos to the shot of James Paul at the Melody Maker Awards.
Who took these photos of him? Was he already being touted as James Paul when these were taken? If so, how did ANYONE fall for this scheme?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 24, 2003 8:48:55 GMT
Okay, I see now... yeah, that certainly looks like the grainy black and white photograph of Bill. This certainly is the most convincing proof yet of the switch. Surely! Mal Evans It's strange but: yes! -Please for details see www.beatlesonvideos.com/free/1966_x.htm - Those frames were quite "private" ones. |
|
|
|
Post by hipmama1970 on Dec 24, 2003 19:05:11 GMT
Is it possible to have a computer enhancement of what James Paul McCartney would have looked like IF he were still alive? ?? Actually, this is really intriguing. It would be something to see a picture made like they do those age enhancements for missing children and parents who've abducted them. They use the last picture they have and compare them to other siblings and parents to see how they might age. That really could be something interesting to see. Does anyone know if something like this has been done? |
|
|
|
Post by Sawlur on Feb 16, 2004 23:00:26 GMT
Perhaps an elaborate shell game has been sustained concerning all 1966 Beatle dates, in order to insure that nothing like an accurate timetable can ever be established. This would prevent a credible scenario from ever publicly emerging.This way, accounts that arise will never tally properly with one another, holding the entire affair in perpetual "check", but not really "checkmate." Like a rubicks cube, one may try to manipulate dates and events in frustration and tears until the formula for resolution is tried. How this comes to one's comprehension is a mystery. Let's face it; via organs of the print media et al; the water is very, very muddy. Perhaps starting with a smaller set of sure parameters will remove some of the conflicts. There are so many dates and events in this year from all you are saying----I could never resolve it. Maybe the sources closer to the Beales, and the ones with easiest access to Beatle-minutia is the least reliable. Not because they are lying, but just because some might be eager to disinform them. Perhaps some American sources in odd places, with little motivation to promate the Beatles either way might be good places to look. Like a newspaper in Podunk (any small cow town). Their honest reflections on things might lead to more things. Or, foreign European papers not sympathetic to English record companies................ If all the events with the dates won't cram into cohesioin, somewhere, some of them must be wrong. I say a mouthful--and I am helpless to answer this question....but how could one establish which "facts" are faulty? This might be a step in cleaning up the "muddy " water. Somebody's paying attention! Good for You. Massive "Undertaking"...and then some! |
|
|
|
Post by unrepentant on Feb 16, 2004 23:53:44 GMT
"There were various conflicting rumours, I believe, such as he was on safari" "in case of accidents, he always took his ma". lennon seemed to think that line belonged in the BUNGALO BILL song. i wonder if an older woman with the last name SHEPPERD boarded a flight to africa late in 1966 with "paul" and mal evans? maybe JAMES PAUL ("i'm back") might know.... where IS he, anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Mar 8, 2004 13:31:00 GMT
[quote author= TEXT link=board=paul&thread=1066858237&start=66#4 date=1076975624]"There were various conflicting rumours, I believe, such as he was on safari" "in case of accidents, he always took his ma". lennon seemed to think that line belonged in the BUNGALO BILL song. i wonder if an older woman with the last name SHEPPERD boarded a flight to africa late in 1966 with "paul" and mal evans? maybe JAMES PAUL ("i'm back") might know.... where IS he, anyway?[/quote] Great note unrepentant! The answer in "Free As A Bird" Video  |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Mar 9, 2004 4:40:12 GMT
And she's totin' what looks to me like a old timey "doctor's bag" , rather blatantly, cause I guess she's useful in an accident!!!!! That's why she's useful-------maybe she'a doctor......
Dr. Sheppard?
or just a female surgeon of some type...........
your mother makes your physical development possible; the doctor delivers you to the world.............. interesting when they are rolled into one...
|
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Mar 10, 2004 21:46:03 GMT
.............or she could be a make-up artist.......
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Mar 11, 2004 9:17:52 GMT
.............or she could be a make-up artist....... There was ALWAYS a girl filmed with Faul and Jane when they were in India. She ACTUALLY was Faul's personal make-up/underskin filler artist. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Mar 12, 2004 2:54:36 GMT
on Mar 5th, 2004, 03:49am, Curious wrote:At last! Hurray! Thanks to the new board for that one. NB: If you want to see the original quote you have to register with that new board.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Mar 12, 2004 9:30:58 GMT
on Mar 5th, 2004, 03:49am, Curious wrote:At last! Hurray! Thanks to the new board for that one. NB: If you want to see the original quote you have to register with that new board. What "new board"? ..and....where is Curious? |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Mar 12, 2004 10:49:32 GMT
Curious is still registered here but he hasn't posted since the end of October. Guess he's busy with the other forums now. The new forum is the one they've just set up after closing down the temporary bitchy witchhunt forum:  Anyway, I'm just glad that has been cleared up regardless of where it came from. That Melody Maker Awards date has been an anomaly with us for a while now...the photos says Sept 13th - the timeline says Sept 19th - both definitely WRONG! It was before Sept 11th which is the main thing. This was probably just about Paul's last photo alive. So...next question. Where exactly was the ceremony held? |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Mar 12, 2004 13:09:04 GMT
Curious is still registered here but he hasn't posted since the end of October. Guess he's busy with the other forums now. The new forum is the one they've just set up after closing down the temporary bitchy witchhunt forum: Anyway, I'm just glad that has been cleared up regardless of where it came from. That Melody Maker Awards date has been an anomaly with us for a while now...the photos says Sept 13th - the timeline says Sept 19th - both definitely WRONG! It was before Sept 11th which is the main thing. This was probably just about Paul's last photo alive. So...next question. Where exactly was the ceremony held? You Thomas... John 11.16 |
|
That to me does not make sense. 
