|
|
Post by lucy on Jan 10, 2011 13:13:23 GMT -5
Lennon with a straight nose, and then you see a bit of a hook..not like "Beakman", but still a different nose....
What the heck???
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jan 10, 2011 14:04:32 GMT -5
Agreed, again this photo looks like it may have been tampered with to give Paul and John, Faul and Fohn-like qualities. It's pretty sad but it's getting harder and harder to find genuine photos of the originals. 45 years on and 'they' are still trying to perpetuate the massive lie and deception. Agreed again, tampered pics. If they are tampering pics, then why are they only doing the really early ones? The fact of the matter is that the Beatles were replaced long before they became famous. I know it's not a popular opinion on this board or any of the other PID boards, but it's the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by bzzerk on Jan 10, 2011 17:48:58 GMT -5
Agreed again, tampered pics. If they are tampering pics, then why are they only doing the really early ones? The fact of the matter is that the Beatles were replaced long before they became famous. I know it's not a popular opinion on this board or any of the other PID boards, but it's the truth. I know we've discussed the possibility of Lennon being replaced before he got famous and possibly McCartney, but do you think Ringo and George were replaced before they got famous too? |
|
|
|
Post by msmoonlite on Jan 10, 2011 19:49:13 GMT -5
I tend to believe that maybe they were all first replaced back when they were playing in Germany, before they rose to popularity.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jan 10, 2011 19:51:33 GMT -5
I know we've discussed the possibility of Lennon being replaced before he got famous and possibly McCartney, but do you think Ringo and George were replaced before they got famous too? I don't know about Ringo, but George yes. The original John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison  The first Beatle doubles  |
|
|
|
Post by bzzerk on Jan 10, 2011 20:22:50 GMT -5
See, in the last (colour) photo, to me, Paul looks like a younger version of the Paul we see post 1966. This leads me to believe the photo has been altered to give the real Paul McCartney Faul-like qualities.
The Paul we see in this photo looks more like the (replacement) Paul we see post 1966, than the Paul we see in photos circa 1964-65.
Isn't it therefore conceivable that the Beatles weren't replaced before they became famous, but rather that many sources of pre-1966 Beatles have been altered to make them look like their replacements?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jan 10, 2011 23:27:45 GMT -5
See, in the last (colour) photo, to me, Paul looks like a younger version of the Paul we see post 1966. Well his face is round in this photo and post 1966 Paul had a longer face. Which photo are you referring to? In the two pics I posted, one Paul has a round face and the other one he has a longer face. The real Paul had a longer face. I know this is hard to take but we've convinced ourselves that early Paul was the original Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by bzzerk on Jan 11, 2011 0:51:54 GMT -5
I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that it's getting harder and harder to use photos as evidence, due to the ability to easily manipulate them. Heck, even some videos appear to have been tampered with.
Who's to say the b&w image hasn't been stretched or had Paul's face stretched a little in order to make his face appear longer?
I certainly agree all Beatles were replaced in 66/67 but it's getting increasingly difficult to determine if the Beatles, say, circa 1965 were the originals because of photo-tampering, which seems to have increased in frequency due to the recent revival of PID interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherlok on Jan 11, 2011 10:00:11 GMT -5
^ I'd have to agree. The fuzzy, grainy B&W photo above and the color photo
where Paul looks like Howdy Doody aren't enough to go on IMO. The boys are
also awfully young in those photos and teenagers change a lot as they reach
adulthood. They're still growing in the early-early photos.
With later, post-fame Beatles' photos we have a lot more to go on plus video
and voice. These early scraps don't tell me much.
|
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jan 11, 2011 19:29:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jan 12, 2011 19:45:00 GMT -5
This is just so crazy....to find vintage photos that have not been tampered with is a very great task. Anything made from the 70's to present day run the risk of being tampered with.
It's not a matter of facing the reality that they were replaced before they were famous, but just the very idea that this happens that is what blows me away.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzerk on Jan 12, 2011 20:16:55 GMT -5
This is just so crazy....to find vintage photos that have not been tampered with is a very great task. Anything made from the 70's to present day run the risk of being tampered with. It's not a matter of facing the reality that they were replaced before they were famous, but just the very idea that this happens that is what blows me away. At least you're open to the idea that it is possible and does happen. Mention this to most of your friends and watch their reaction! Hell, event mention it to people who think they're "awake" and watch their reaction. If you said all Beatles were replaced on the Nothing is Real forum, you'd probably get banned, even though they openly discuss Paul's replacement. |
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jan 13, 2011 20:37:00 GMT -5
At Nothing Is Real, they don't even talk about Paul being dead, or having been killed. They just accept him being replaced.
NOTHING would surprise me at the lengths to cover this up, if they have to dig up the vintage pre fame Beatle pics to cover up that they were replaced, they would make them to look like the ones we thought were the real Beatles.
after seeing the differences in the noses on the pre fame John and the one we thought was the real John...nothing surprises me now.
|
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jan 14, 2011 21:25:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jan 14, 2011 21:37:41 GMT -5
I know we've discussed the possibility of Lennon being replaced before he got famous and possibly McCartney, but do you think Ringo and George were replaced before they got famous too? I don't know about Ringo, but George yes. The original John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison The first Beatle doubles 1965 Rubber Soul (a soul that bounces back from death?) The Featles are standing over a grave (yours) as you (and the rest of humanity) are being buried alive. This album also contained their first narcotics-glorifying, "druggie"-type songs (e.g. "Nowhere Man" and "Girl"): www.jpgr.co.uk/pcs3075_a.jpg 1966 Revolver (a lethal weapon and musical vinyl record and revolving cast of imposters)---the central image of the surreal/druggie cover, by the german, Hamburg-days illustrator, is of the Featles slipping through an hourglass into a melted pool. 1967, May.... Sgt. Pepper cover The Featles 1 and 2 are standing over a grave (as per Derek Taylor's own admission, who called it "a grave" in a 1969 radio interview) of who? The grave of Humanity, of G-d? Both? "9-11 HE DIE" on mirrored drumskin.... 1968 "The Beatles"-titled album cover, empty whiteness, the death void 1969 (Thelema)-"Abbey Road"---"The funeral procession," hidden Adolf Hitler faces visible, a wrongly parked white Volkswagen (co-designed by Hitler) "Beetle" vehicle.... |
|
