The 'Paul is dead' myth | Page 33 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

JPM-Fangirl said
Ah, it’s down to ears now. FYI, cpmparing ears for identification is not an accepted science. It’s pseudo-science. But, you want ears. I can give you ears.

 

 

I thought you might like these as well.

 

Not only ears, I haven’t been convinced by any other features either. The only thing I have had confirmed is I can’t differentiate a set of disembodied eyes.

Ears a pseudo science? Having detached or unattached lobes is 101 in biology and genetics.

I can give you ears too.

Photo top right has JPM with attached lobes, and older Paul with unmatched (the shot is from a video clip, where it is very clear). Photos can be manipulated. Video less so. Video is Monkberry Moon Delight . Clearly seen at 2.26.

Comparative interviews. Young Paul is witty, erudite, warm, polite, succinct. Not to mention gorgeous.

Older Paul? No comment.

JPM-Fangirl said
What’s next, Tina? Your upside-down, photo-negative comps of photos that have completely different lighting, angles, an expressions? The relaxed face versus the puffed out cheeks to ‘prove’ his lips are different? A smiling Paul next to a neutral expression to show his nose has a different shape? A load of tampered photos to ‘show’ his face got long?

If you plan on taking that path, and I think you are, going by what you’ve posted so far, save yourself the trouble. You have already blown your cover, I know who you are and I bet others have caught on, too. I am very tempted to keep up this game, but enough is enough.

Paul has one particular dislike I happen to share: dishonesty. He hates it when people aren’t truthful. Well, I have caught you being dishonest a few times now, and I don’t appreciate dishonesty either. So tell me, why exactly should I keep up this discussion with you? 

I’ll happily continue to fangirl and picspam this thread, if only because it brings me and many others joy to see those pictures of a man we all love so much. However, until you stop this nonsense and start acknowledging your mistakes, I am not responding to you anymore. 

Peace and love. And for whom it might concern, wisdom.

Are you talking to me? I am not Tina whoever. My name happens to be Andrew. Which is more than I know about you. Please answer this. I don’t appreciate being accused of being someone I’m not, OR of being dishonest. If this was addressed to me @Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, I would like an apology.

And how do you know Paul hates dishonesty? He seems to have fun perpetuating the myth that he died. He plays games with it and brings it up again and again. Is that honest? (Unless it really is).

And for the hell of it, because he was beautiful:

O Boogie said

Sceptic said

And how do you know Paul hates dishonesty? He seems to have fun perpetuating the myth that he died. He plays games with it and brings it up again and again. Is that honest?

“MYTH that he died” .. Yea, that’s what it is, a myth. Nice to see you say that as well. Or was it a Freudian slip? 

He doesn’t perpetuate it nor does he bring it up. It’s well documented that he was irritated by it, especially when it started to gain momentum when he retired to Scotland for a while.

The recent interview where it was brought up, his recollection of it’s origin was woefully wrong. Hardly perpetuating it.

I was aware of that when writing it. I was too lazy to use quotation marks. He was irritated in 1968, but more recently he plays on it. He has 2 of himself in lots of things.