Post by zxcvbn on Nov 1, 2009 20:13:46 GMT
Hello, I read through most of this forum and a few others, including the websites they use as sources, a few weeks ago. I was first exposed to the PID theories when I was around age 15. It stuck with me for years since as a peculiar thing worth keeping in mind. When I saw many of the facial comparisons I found myself unable to explain the obvious differences.
"Obvious" is a difficult word here. It's obvious to intuition, the first flash of recognition we get, and it tells most of us here (whether we drank the kool aid or not) that there are two different people. It's also related strongly to the apparent loss of his former very handsome face with the gain of an expression at times goofy, a face cartoonish, and a total loss of real boyish charm. It can be seen best, IMO, in the comparison pictures of Paul with Jane and Faul with Jane. She looks like she's aged a year or two, naturally, but Faul looks like ten years have passed, his face sags and looks flabby and loose, his expression is tired and distant beyond the superficial put on. Drugs MAY be to blame, if it has been Paul all along. If that's the case, I'd argue that 1) drugs 2) an accident requiring plastic surgery or 4) celebrity vain and drugs influence Paul to get plastic surgery in various places, probably later to his regret, haha.
The music is the most difficult aspect. Have you all seen the Let It Be film? Paul and John joke about songs from their childhoods, or discuss each other "as they were" meaning more than just the past year or two that Faul was there. For example, Paul jokes that while watching footage from India of John walking with Maharishi, he didn't look anything like HIMSELF (implying that he was sucking up to the guru or just awed by him and playing the role of starry eyed boy), which would be a strange comment for a Faul to make, no?
And it is very difficult to say with a straight face that the conspirators found a lookalike (who may have fooled the entire world except the alternate theoriests like here or those who saw old Paul and new Paul and swore them to be different people) who could play bass and guitar and piano and sing just as well as Paul. Paul was the best musician in the Beatles, he made John & George look like amateurs on guitar and bass, same with piano, and as he proves on his first solo album and thereafter he can drum just as well as Ringo as far as providing a good beat for a song goes. Paul was always, pre-67 and post-67 the best musician in the Beatles.
And singing ... the voice is strange around the Let It Be era. His shouting-singing voice sounds, at least, very aged. But then again, they were heavy cigarette smokers and Paul is a well-known cannabis smoker. Smoke alters the voice tone.
These are just some things that I've had in mind.
"Obvious" is a difficult word here. It's obvious to intuition, the first flash of recognition we get, and it tells most of us here (whether we drank the kool aid or not) that there are two different people. It's also related strongly to the apparent loss of his former very handsome face with the gain of an expression at times goofy, a face cartoonish, and a total loss of real boyish charm. It can be seen best, IMO, in the comparison pictures of Paul with Jane and Faul with Jane. She looks like she's aged a year or two, naturally, but Faul looks like ten years have passed, his face sags and looks flabby and loose, his expression is tired and distant beyond the superficial put on. Drugs MAY be to blame, if it has been Paul all along. If that's the case, I'd argue that 1) drugs 2) an accident requiring plastic surgery or 4) celebrity vain and drugs influence Paul to get plastic surgery in various places, probably later to his regret, haha.
The music is the most difficult aspect. Have you all seen the Let It Be film? Paul and John joke about songs from their childhoods, or discuss each other "as they were" meaning more than just the past year or two that Faul was there. For example, Paul jokes that while watching footage from India of John walking with Maharishi, he didn't look anything like HIMSELF (implying that he was sucking up to the guru or just awed by him and playing the role of starry eyed boy), which would be a strange comment for a Faul to make, no?
And it is very difficult to say with a straight face that the conspirators found a lookalike (who may have fooled the entire world except the alternate theoriests like here or those who saw old Paul and new Paul and swore them to be different people) who could play bass and guitar and piano and sing just as well as Paul. Paul was the best musician in the Beatles, he made John & George look like amateurs on guitar and bass, same with piano, and as he proves on his first solo album and thereafter he can drum just as well as Ringo as far as providing a good beat for a song goes. Paul was always, pre-67 and post-67 the best musician in the Beatles.
And singing ... the voice is strange around the Let It Be era. His shouting-singing voice sounds, at least, very aged. But then again, they were heavy cigarette smokers and Paul is a well-known cannabis smoker. Smoke alters the voice tone.
These are just some things that I've had in mind.