|
Post by Sun King™ on Oct 26, 2006 21:20:50 GMT
...please wait ... heavy image ... The picture above speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by JamesPaul & Brian on Oct 26, 2006 21:40:54 GMT
|
|
ilras
Contributor
Posts: 62
|
Post by ilras on Dec 4, 2006 11:11:49 GMT
my opinion is that there where some attempts to put Paul's face on Bill's head and body, during post production. I'll put here a post I made somewhere else last January.
|
|
ilras
Contributor
Posts: 62
|
Post by ilras on Dec 4, 2006 11:27:29 GMT
[img src=" i107.photobucket.com/albums/m281/ilras/teste.jpg"][/img] Something looked strange to me in that head, even if in a first moment I wasn't able to understand what it was. Then i realized that the face (nose, mouth, eyes..) were a little smaller than it were supposed to be, comparing it with the rest of the head and of the body. Really not much but the difference was there (3/4%). So, with the help of my bro, we zoomed on the head and, first of all, noticed that there wasn't hairline at all in those areas of the head so the wind wasn't a sufficient explanation. BTW, even if there was wind, why John's hair is still? Then we noticed that a strange line was crossing his front as it was an hairnet (it can be also the sign of a photomontage), or a wig. Also the shape of the forelock is strange: if there was wind, why it doesn't move? As i said before i don't think the shape of the hair was due to the wind: in this case it seems to me more a strand of hair falling on the eyes There is also another thing we found (hope you didn't get bored yet): the shadow in the face is not gradual, it goes directly from dark to bright ( proof of a photomontage? btw the rays of the sun should come from that direction, as the shadows show) So: in a first moment for us the face was smaller than it was supposed to be, then we noticed the things I mentioned above, so we start to wonder if it was all a big photomontage and how could the head look like if we removed all the excess hair. that's the result (excuse us if the line is not very accurate). After that u see it for the first time, it will always pop out... Now, looking at all this things, at the profile of the guy and at the photos from the same session (in which the face is different, "bigger") ... ... we start to suppose... Could it be Paul's face (with hair falling!) on the Abbey Road cover?
|
|
|
Post by jucom on Dec 5, 2006 10:18:23 GMT
That is quite reasonable.
As for me, the first thing I thought, when I saw the Abbey Road cover photo, was "Oh, so nice: Paul cut his hair and looks as in the old days". Really, it was a kind of reminiscence from 1965.
Strange thing: on other photos from the Abbey Road session we can see, that Faul's hair is rather long; but on the main photo it looks as if he had "classical Beatle" haircut of 1963-66.
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Dec 29, 2006 0:22:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 29, 2006 1:21:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 29, 2006 2:46:59 GMT
Great shout Doc!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Dec 29, 2006 3:19:11 GMT
What are you trying to say here exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Dec 31, 2006 11:39:51 GMT
Yes, but......when he's 74!Nice try but nothing of Donald Rumsfeld is matching there... Instead there is no solution of continuity among the "two" persons in the original comparison.... Doc, you told me that you was listening to the REAL Paul on some songs on the "Paul McCartney" last album .... Now you SEE the reason why....
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Dec 31, 2006 11:41:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Dec 31, 2006 21:05:24 GMT
We were right all along. Paul really IS dead! ;D But seriously...you've got to be kidding. This is a joke right?
|
|
|
Post by PaulDead66 on Jan 1, 2007 5:53:50 GMT
Sorry, but I can't belive it too This man doesn't look like Paul... Paul was more sweety ... I don't think that the Beatles gave us clues to say that Paul is really dead, when Paul is alive My mother and I, we are agree that Paul is dead
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 1, 2007 15:03:47 GMT
Yes, but......when he's 74!Nice try but nothing of Donald Rumsfeld is matching there... Instead there is no solution of continuity among the "two" persons in the original comparison.... Doc, you told me that you was listening to the REAL Paul on some songs on the "Paul McCartney" last album .... Now you SEE the reason why.... Because.......Paul IS Donald Rumsfeld? But Rumsfeld can't sing. That's obvious. He'd rather retire than sing......surely that wasn't true of Paul?
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 1, 2007 15:11:34 GMT
Just kidding in my last post.
So, there were Two Faul's? An Aspinall Faul and a Bill Faul?
No iI suspect there were several. A face within a face behind a face inside a face beside a face.
A Russian Doll? "Spring" one open and there is always one more lurking within.
Why? It's a Doll's Life. Hello, Goodbye Dolly.
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Jan 1, 2007 18:38:57 GMT
Just kidding in my last post. So, there were Two Faul's? An Aspinall Faul and a Bill Faul? No iI suspect there were several. A face within a face behind a face inside a face beside a face. A Russian Doll? "Spring" one open and there is always one more lurking within. Why? It's a Doll's Life. Hello, Goodbye Dolly. WOW! You, a beautiful mind....
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Jan 1, 2007 18:40:11 GMT
We were right all along. Paul really IS dead! ;D But seriously...you've got to be kidding. This is a joke right? "The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated"It seems to be NOT a joke at all.... "Where is the Walrus?" On top of Gibraltar?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Jan 1, 2007 21:38:04 GMT
I'd be more inclined to be believe that Paul is dead but that they cloned him - and Donald Rumsfield was the result. Did someone mention Dolly? Maybe that's what A Doll's House was really about - cloning experiments. And Dolly was the code name.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Jan 2, 2007 2:49:05 GMT
I'd be more inclined to be believe that Paul is dead but that they cloned him - and Donald Rumsfield was the result. Did someone mention Dolly? Maybe that's what A Doll's House was really about - cloning experiments. And Dolly was the code name. No "kidding." HELLO DOLLY! How are ewe? Hmmmm.....there's them sheep again. Will A Shepherd be cloned for the sheep?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Jan 2, 2007 3:37:17 GMT
I'm trying to find that picture of Paul using some aging software and haven't been able to find it. I think it would be good to compare it alongside Donald Rumsfield.
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Jan 5, 2007 22:38:21 GMT
Small retouches on the right places
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Jan 7, 2007 23:12:12 GMT
Paul was the Butcher Paul was the Walrus (The Bad Boy) Paul was the Guilty Smoking the last cigarette before being brought to the POLICE van
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Jan 8, 2007 0:00:54 GMT
From what you've just said there, I need to ask whether you're saying Paul was "brought to the Police van" as an injured party/victim or as a suspect...? Please give the answer we all want! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Jan 9, 2007 7:10:02 GMT
From what you've just said there, I need to ask whether you're saying Paul was "brought to the Police van" as an injured party/victim or as a suspect...? Please give the answer we all want! ;D "Now I NEED a place to HIDE away"
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Jan 2, 2013 19:35:30 GMT
The person that pepperformed the character of Neil,the van s driver, was the same person who pepperformed Paul s character(FAUL,BILL)after the replacement of the ORIGINAL ONE AND ONLY ONE Paul McCartney, and these same Paul, the original and unic, started to PEPPERFORM Neil s "VACANT" character,up to his 2008 "death".THINK.2 Pauls , and 2 Neils. Paul was WAREWOLF Neil.Donald Rumiant Dolly is not NeilPaul(pre 67), nor NeilBill(post 66). And the Bush Neil was Oliver Stone pepperformiong as NeilPaul!
|
|