Did Paul McCartney have attached earlobes or detached earlobes?
Using images from vintage magazines only, we'll see Paul with detached earlobes and with attached earlobes.
The images are scans from vintage magazines that are from this website.
Ran by the two men who started the Nothing Is Real forum. http://invanddis.proboards.com/
Detached Earlobes
link to vintage image: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/serious.jpg
And
Attached Earlobes
I encourage readers to look through vintage sources yourself and look for discrepancies among the Beatles.
Also look through this blog which is dedicated to photos of the Beatles taken by fans. Are we seeing only one kind of every facial feature?
Also, be sure to see the post on fake ears, which can be seen as far back as 1964, here.
Here's a video on these subjects.
5 comments:
Hi, I just reviewed these photos and there are differences with the ears but the post 1966 pics are the ones that have a strange unnatural look to them. The 1965 screen capture of Paul from the Ed Sullivan appearance if look carefully at the video performance where the pic is from you can see that his face is a different shade of color than his ears, his nose was also being altered during that performance and many others. Nice job of finding those other pics of Faul's funny looking ears.
Thanks for the comment, Anon.
You would have to show me how and where the videos have been altered. If the ’65 Sullivan video was doctored why wouldn’t they make sure to get the skin colors to match? I too noticed the skin color differences and have spent many months looking into that. I have found that to be a common occurrence in videos and photos of all people. Also, if his nose was altered in the video, how were they able to match the color for that but not the ears?
Also, why would they go to the trouble to doctor photos & videos of Paul to look like “Faul” and photos & videos of “Faul” to look like Paul, why not just doctor one to look like the other. If you theory is correct they are making matters worse for themselves.
I contend that NO photos or videos of one guy were doctored to look like another, there was no need to. They were all very similar looking simulacra/clones – not human replacements. I still have yet to see a convincing occurrence of a photo or video being doctored to look like another person. Cosmetic touch-up, yes. The other, no.
Also, have you noticed the personality differences between the ’64 Sullivan Pauls and the ’65 Sullivan Pauls? In ’64 he was confident, cheerful and genuinely enjoying the audience. In ’65 he was disingenuous, cocky and almost menacing, he also has a very large head and leathery skin. This is also when Lennon says, “Thank You Paul McCartney, that was just like him.”
You’re also not taking into account the teeth differences between the two Sullivan Pauls. Please see my teeth post if you have not already.
I have another question: If they are going to go through the trouble of removing "Faul's" ears and put fake ears on him, why are they putting fake ears with detached earlobes on him? If the point is to make him look like Paul, why aren't they putting fake ears with attached lobes on him?
There is much about this (PID) that leaves more questions than answers as I have found out. I am still sifting thru this but I believe I at least know more now then I did before. I recently looked at 2 Door's vids from 1967, one was from the Ed Sullivan show. What I immediately noticed was how clean the vids were; I mean clean relatively speaking compared to what I saw with the Beatles. It was not due to higher resolution just the absence of the type of tampering going on with the Beatles. Why didn't they get the skin colors to match? How did they match the color for the nose? To the 1st question the answer is because the quality of the tampering depends on the competence of the person/people doing the tampering. In some vids/films the work they have done is more subtle ..ie less noticeable because they were more careful such as with the film "A Hard Days Night" But with the music vid "Paperback Writer" (black&white versions) they were sloppy. To the 2nd question, they did not match color with the nose but the color varies which can be shown with screen caps. The better vid for showing this though is with Paperback Writer.
As for doctoring Paul's image to look like Faul and vice versa; first of all it is not vice versa and I do not believe the tampering is to just make him resemble Faul but to deface his true image from the the public eye which would accomplish the same result...confusion.
If I understand you correctly, this masterfully orchestrated murder/replacement and campaign to confuse the public is taking place, and they hired someone that is capable of putting an ear on every frame at the right angle, lighting etc. but was too incompetent to get skin colors to match, sometimes?
You will have to explain what you mean by “make him resemble Faul while also defacing the true image of Paul.” And again, you would have to show me what you’re talking about with the videos you’ve mentioned. The blog comment format here is no longer conducive to the continuation of this conversation. But I want to see what you are talking about.
I am part of a forum that you can join or post in the guest area if you wish.
http://fabfourdozen.proboards.com/index.cgi
Thanks!
Post a Comment