|
|
Post by lucy on Jan 24, 2011 20:56:01 GMT -5
Hey in the video with Jimmy Nichols..that looks like the straight nosed Lennon/Fennon...was this a launch of imposters?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jan 27, 2011 20:17:49 GMT -5
The one, true, original Paul McCartney  The first Paul McCartney clone. Notice the bigger ears and different shaped chin  |
|
|
|
Post by bzzerk on Jan 28, 2011 0:06:24 GMT -5
The one, true, original Paul McCartney The first Paul McCartney clone. Notice the bigger ears and different shaped chin At the risk of playing devil's advocate, what's the say the first photo has not been tampered with? To my eyes, the first pic looks like a younger version of the post 1966 McCartney. This makes me think it may have been altered to make it look more 'faul-like'. Here's Faul in 1968  To me, the eyes in this photo look identical to the first photo in your post. This makes me think that some photos of the original Paul have been altered to make then have Faul-like features. In my very humble opinion, the Paul in the 2nd photo of your post, is actually the original. |
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jan 28, 2011 3:56:25 GMT -5
The one, true, original Paul McCartney The first Paul McCartney clone. Notice the bigger ears and different shaped chin Looks like we're going around the circle. Again that FAUL-ified, stretched picture? No way, sorry. Its damm altered and it was said that from the 1st time it got posted. |
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jan 28, 2011 8:49:22 GMT -5
The one, true, original Paul McCartney The first Paul McCartney clone. Notice the bigger ears and different shaped chin Looks like we're going around the circle. Again that FAUL-ified, stretched picture? No way, sorry. Its damm altered and it was said that from the 1st time it got posted. But even when the picture is "un-stretched" so that James Paul McCartney has a rounder head, the facial features are still quite different. As an aside, I can't help noticing the odd "Eye of Horus" right eyebrow arch on him in this photograph. |
|
|
|
Post by artemis on Jan 28, 2011 8:53:06 GMT -5
The eye of Horus comes from the Faul-ification of the pic... FAUL has it, he has always had. I know ure gonna hate me for saying that, lol...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jan 29, 2011 9:47:26 GMT -5
Looks like we're going around the circle. Again that FAUL-ified, stretched picture? No way, sorry. Its damm altered and it was said that from the 1st time it got posted. It's more than altered, it's a different person. |
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jan 29, 2011 9:49:24 GMT -5
But even when the picture is "un-stretched" so that James Paul McCartney has a rounder head, the facial features are still quite different. As an aside, I can't help noticing the odd "Eye of Horus" right eyebrow arch on him in this photograph. Yes, it's more than just being stretched. There are many other differences like the eyebrows. And why would they alter this one picture and leave all the rest of the early pics the same? |
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jan 29, 2011 9:51:01 GMT -5
The eye of Horus comes from the Faul-ification of the pic... FAUL has it, he has always had. I know ure gonna hate me for saying that, lol... It just so happens that 'Faul' has a long face similar to the ORIGINAL Paul McCartney.  |
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Jan 29, 2011 10:13:45 GMT -5
The eye of Horus comes from the Faul-ification of the pic... FAUL has it, he has always had. I know ure gonna hate me for saying that, lol... It just so happens that 'Faul' has a long face similar to the ORIGINAL Paul McCartney. Yes, that's true: how ironic.... |
|
|
|
Post by marisabia on Jan 29, 2011 12:16:55 GMT -5
As "doc"/"perplexed" once posted in the NIR forum, "I'm seeing fauls, phauls, nauls..." of false Paul McCartneys in photos and videos prior to the big psychdelic switchover of autumn 1966. I suspect that prior to that "9-11 HE DIE" 1966 NewFeatles flip there was a "core" group of Featles, 1963-1966, that performed live and in the studio (with occasional add-on vocal impostering in the recording studio by non-Featles). But in this 1963-1966 period there were also "stand-in" Featles, e.g. the guy described once in a posting as the tiny "munchkin" Faul, who showed up for non-singing media appearances, interviews, and lip-synch film and video sessions such as this 1965 We Can Work It Out video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Our0ZsO7L68&feature=relatedNow compare the aboue Faul, Fohn, Feorge, Fringo with these actually-singing, live in concert Featles, 1966, at Budokan, Tokyo, Japan: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cj6zHzTumE&feature=relatedand at Shea Stadium , NYC 1965: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mUXwnEWEnE[youtube] www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mUXwnEWEnE[/youtube]The shea stadium video was bizaarly insane on so many levels but what I found most interesting was the 3 songs featured which were : shake it up baby, which is the same tune as la bamba, a mexican folksong made popular by rocker Ritchie Valens, who died in the infamous The Day thr amusic Died, the second song has them singing "oh dear what can I do baby's in black and I'm feeling blue" followed by " I'm down, I'm really down. Down on the ground" please feel free to correct any lyrical errors I've made,as the expertise on this forum in this area well surpases mine.all to me very telling, and very disturbing because of how the tunes were so joyously belted out as if all of them thought aomething was quite amusing. |
|
|
|
Post by sherlok on Jan 29, 2011 20:37:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mask on Jan 29, 2011 20:40:48 GMT -5
Thanks sherlok.
Now look at the smaller ears and the different shaped chin in addition to the different eyebrows already mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jan 30, 2011 14:11:29 GMT -5
So, if the real Paul Mc Cartney had a longer and thinner face than the one we had thought was James Paul, of the Fab Four era of the Beatles/Featles, could "Faul" actually be the brother to the real Paul? Then FauxPaul is really a Faux Faul...an imposter replacement of an imposter replacement?  |
|
|
|
Post by sherlok on Jan 30, 2011 18:08:42 GMT -5
BTW, I said the photo is not as stretched as the one posted earlier.
Doesn't mean it isn't stretched at all. To me it still does look a bit distorted.
This could be due to the way the photo was originally printed or later scanned.
As for the other claimed differences, I don't see much evidence. Chins and
eyebrows are movable parts and they change appearance with head position,
expression, etc. As for the ears, I haven't seen enough of a difference to
support the idea of replacement at this early date. But, that's my view.
I have no problem with the 1966-67 replacements of all 4 of them.
|
|
