|
|
Post by nolimitz13 on Sept 1, 2003 19:44:19 GMT
Couldn't have Paul gotten major reconstructive surgery for whatever reason???
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 1, 2003 20:46:18 GMT
No
|
|
|
|
Post by nolimitz13 on Sept 1, 2003 21:31:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 1, 2003 21:37:23 GMT
Please read the FAQ before... |
|
|
|
Post by nolimitz13 on Sept 1, 2003 23:23:53 GMT
Ya, I did...Isn't it possible George Harrison might be lying??...
We all know the Beatles hated eachother by the end of there run.
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 1, 2003 23:32:05 GMT
Couldn't have Paul gotten major reconstructive surgery for whatever reason??? Because it cannot stretch your skull or move your eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by zeleny on Sept 2, 2003 2:57:44 GMT
I posted in response to another post somewhere on this forum about a cranio-facial disease called Crouzon's (I had the spelling wrong in the previous post) in which the face is abnormal and the eyes are spaced too far apart in addition to other problems. www.hopkinsmedicine.org/craniofacial/Family/Research.cfmThey can and do perform surgeries on these patients to correct the spacing of the eyes and ears, so it isn't a leap to think that it could have been done on Paul, however Faul really looks very little like Paul so I can't figure it. Paul was very good looking to start with. |
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Sept 2, 2003 17:21:48 GMT
Ya, I did...Isn't it possible George Harrison might be lying??... We all know the Beatles hated eachother by the end of there run. It's also known by his close friends that George was a practical joker who had a great deal of contempt for the hardcore Beatle fans. |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 2, 2003 17:30:30 GMT
It's also known by his close friends that George....had a great deal of contempt for the hardcore Beatle fans. "a great deal of contempt" toward the people who feed you is a lousy attitude -- from George Harrison or anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Sept 2, 2003 17:33:57 GMT
"a great deal of contempt" toward the people who feed you is a lousy attitude -- from George Harrison or anyone else. Agreed, but remember that George didn't really want the fame and fortune and attention, he just was interested in playing music -- 'Didn't want to be a star/Wanted just to play guitar/In this Cockamamie Business.' He was very much a man of contradictions -- very spiritual and yet a very earthy sense of humour. I really would've liked to've heard the last conversation between him and Faul/Paul/whatever you believe. |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 3, 2003 9:45:59 GMT
Couldn't have Paul gotten major reconstructive surgery for whatever reason??? An operation with this result? ...animation loading...please wait... As John Lennon told: "Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long."from: "I Am the Walrus" Magical Mystery Tour" Album Complete analysis at: digilander.libero.it/p_truth/other.html |
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Sept 3, 2003 13:25:37 GMT
Actually, the more I look at that photo, the younger Paul is not scaled properly to the Pepper P/Faul -- the mouths are not in the same position, and I suspect if they were, the eyes would match a bit more. I may muck about and see to a more accurate scaling -- it won't address the fact that the Pepper P/Faul's head is narrower, but some of that could be attributed to the '66 post-tour fat that they all had that they shed during their four months off -- you can see it in John as well (he looks ematiated there).
Question everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 3, 2003 19:53:04 GMT
why would someone as good looking as paul have surgery to change his entire skull structure?  thats harder to believe than him being dead! |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 3, 2003 22:25:22 GMT
Yes very hard to believe, almost impossible!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 4, 2003 0:30:21 GMT
Actually, the more I look at that photo, the younger Paul is not scaled properly to the Pepper P/Faul -- the mouths are not in the same position, and I suspect if they were, the eyes would match a bit more. I may muck about and see to a more accurate scaling -- it won't address the fact that the Pepper P/Faul's head is narrower, but some of that could be attributed to the '66 post-tour fat that they all had that they shed during their four months off -- you can see it in John as well (he looks ematiated there). Yes, John looks ematiated but his skull dimension doesn't change (for this reason). James Paul has his mouth opened. Faul's not James Paul's head could look even shorter with his mouth closed.....hmmmh hmmmh hmmmh |
|
|
|
Post by DevilsAdvocate on Sept 4, 2003 13:10:45 GMT
Now you're making fun of me. I don't appreciate it, especially when I'm searching for the truth, same as the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Sept 5, 2003 11:43:13 GMT
I was born in 1957, so I grew up hearing the early Beatles while in elementary school. I never paid a lot of attention to their appearance, except that when I bought the sheet music to "Hey Jude" I thought, who is this one pictured here, is this Paul McCartney? His face looks all different." But I really didn't care much. I was playing piano at 4 and 5, and in 1970 I bought some pop sheet music, (I prefered classical a the time) and pounded away at their tunes etc. Later I remember hearing Lady Madonna and asking a friend which Beatle sang it. I never bought their records (only classical stuff then) but merely heard their tunes all the years on the radio. I remember thinking in the late 70's that Paul McCartney, as a solo act, was very different musically from his roots, but that seemed plausible. Later someone pulled out some ancient Beatles phonograph albums. I had never really seen the covers, but as I looked at it, I think it was the first album where they are looking over some stairs in a mall or such place, and Rubber Souls, I said to myself, who is this Beatle? I even asked my friend did they change personel at some point--this one is different from Paul McCartney and seems much handsomer. Well, of course I read and was told that was Paul. I just wrote it off to getting older and weight changes and so forth. It was mid 70's, I was not yet 20, so to me 30 and up was OLD. And older people just looked way different. Now I am of course 46, and realize that hair and complexion age in predictable ways, wrinkles come etc, but there is something in the fundamental QUALITY of the face, an over-all impression, that does not usually change, without trauma.
I had paid little attention to the little bit I heard about the Paul-is-dead theory over the years. How could it be so, I thought. I had actually believd other stranger tales, but the whole Beatles mystery seemed beyond the realm. It also seemed pointless. There seemed to me to be no good reason for these ideas or suspicions. In college, a couple of times it came up in dorm or party conversation, but then most folks balked and went on to discuss the Who and Yes and CSN and Y and why the hell won't they sing as a quartet again and on and on. I found the details of the "clues" difficult to grasp, tiring, and parabolic. I thought why? and would leave one group of people for another. I was immune. Or perhaps I was just dull. I was more concerned about why Robert Schumann went crazy, heard A440 ( or slighrtly flatter) all the time and got put away by his "beloved" wife, Clara. And what was Brahms' relationship with her? Anyway........
Concerning faces............Now I am older. My face (such as it is) still bears certain qualities that it had at 19. Well, I look older of course. I look 40 ish, of course, ; but I have facial fat and that same kind of straight brown hair that makes a good Beatles cut. All I am saying is that 27 years leaves vestiges o traits very intace for some people. Also, my eyes ARE hazel, and they NEVER look brown. NEVER. Green or bluish or a grey-yellow. But never brown.
Also no matter which way I comb my hair, the left side part is the only way that looks right. I have weighed anywhere from 160 tp 220 on my 5'9" frame, so yes I have been overweight a lot. No one has ever not recognised me at any of these weights. So I look at what you say about Paul and eye color, hair, nose, chin, skull width, etc, and I realize that Aug 1966 photographs and Jan 1967 photographs are puzzlingly inconsistent. I mentioned this to a couple of people at work tonight and they changed the subject. One said "You have to be kidding". She said, of course its the same Paul McCartney, are you falling for that?" She laughed. So I came back to look at pictures again on different sights on the web of Paul. Many I have never seen. I also rented Hard Days Night ( I had never seen it) and of couplke of video anthologies, and one new DVD , one in a series of 7. OK. Something bizarre and troubling happens to the person that is called Paul. Like I said, Igrew up not paying attention to the Beatles appearence. Something IS wrong, inconsistent. Actually, I really only thought o fPaul the way i is 80's and sooner. I emember some video he made with Michael Jackson. Say You, Say Me, I think. This person I am seeing in these old videologs--well, just looks like a different man. In fact, that would be my automatic conclusion if I had no one to say otherwise. The young Paul, whom I know is north country Brit, has a almost Graeco-Roman feature, like the fellow in "Romeo and Juliet" directed by Franco Zephirelli. This other peron's face is more like a long-head Saxon----it seems England has so many types. Pauls hair texture is inconsistant with the later. My hair grows in that early pattern (people always said I had a Beatles cut, and it was not intentional. It just looks that way when it gets long) My hair wont do a lot of the things that the later persons hair does. I don't look like Paul (either one) but I know my hair. I know how it behaves in pictures, and combing , and heat and cutting and styling. Also the eyebrows-----thin verses thick, and the way that early Pauls brow and nose make a long line if you see him with his brows raised up. Also, that rainsing of the brow thing effects the other fellows face differently.
If you take a sraight on shot of a face a create a triangle between the pupils of the eye, as tow points, and the center of the lips and mouth, esp closed, and draw this triangle you get anywhere from an equilateral triangle (on the more pleasant faces) to a steep isocoles triangle (on the longer type face). No offence intended to a person pf a longer face. There are many beauties with long faces. (My face is kind of middlin' and I ain't no beauty) So I mean this only to say, I don;t think you can adjust the triangle a whole lot. I have heard that in Europe they have techniques of smashing the skull with a hammer while one is sedated, then rearanging and changing the look. Who knows........
Anyway, I don't know what happened to Mr. McCartney. I plan to read more, and much of what I have read here is, at first, very much astonishing. I found the sight 4 days ago. Prior to this I would hear none of it. Well, it is a complex issue, it seems. A lot to digest. And I can see that this type of material won't make everybody happy, understatement.
And this idea of hidden clues seems plausible; I found the Shakespeare-Bacon_Beacon connection a couple of years ago. The bible seems to have a lot of double-loaded language ( I choose to see this as inspired pf God, regarding scripture) But it seems that encryption, or codeing, or "sealing" as it was said in King Iames I and VI's time, has been going on for a long time. And the images and themes to be reused over and over again. A lot. A reference here points to a reference there and so on and so forth. I have babled on and I apologize. All I meant to say was that the photos are surpring. Of course, then there was Mark Hamill. Butg in his case, the skull and head look the same, his nose spread out and got flatter, his chin and cheek seemed a little different, but from many angles he still seemed like, well, Luke Skywalker. The thing is, ALL of these issues are those of which any decent casting directory in the free world can look at a head shot and know if there is some strangness. They are paid to recognize these issues. Put photos down from both esides of 1966 in front of Jay Bender (who does all the broadway casting) and others and it seems like they would say--this is two different people. Triangles triangles. 3 points: either center of pupil to tip of nose, or centers of pupils to mout, or chin. These relationships add up in the left side of our brain. If the numbers, which we subconciously measure, don't add up, the mind becomes perplexed.
|
|
|
|
Post by beldabeast on Sept 5, 2003 13:11:53 GMT
[ bought the sheet music to "Hey Jude" I thought, who is this one pictured here, is this Paul McCartney? His face looks all different."
radio. I remember thinking in the late 70's that Paul McCartney, as a solo act, was very different musically from his roots, but that seemed plausible. Later someone pulled out some ancient Beatles phonograph albums. I had never really seen the covers, but as I looked at it, I think it was the first album where they are looking over some stairs in a mall or such place, and Rubber Souls, I said to myself, who is this Beatle? I even asked my friend did they change personel at some point--this one is different from Paul McCartney and seems much handsomer.
Great stuff ! Recounted memories of feelings " in the back of our heads " or things we could'nt put our finger on , but we knew something was wrong !
I think these are very important !
I have some too ! I will post them once I get all the posts read .
|
|
thats harder to believe than him being dead!
