Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Do you buy that Linda McCartney was the love of Paul's life?

I just don't get it! What did he see in her!???

Are we sure she wasn't his beard? She looks like a lesbian in some photos!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 600October 31, 2019 4:31 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1September 15, 2019 7:05 PM

I'm rarely invested in celebrity relationships, but if I ever learn the McCartney marriage was a sham I'll be legitimately sad. They seemed so in love.

by Anonymousreply 2September 15, 2019 7:05 PM

Just...really???

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3September 15, 2019 7:05 PM

Are we sure he wasn't bearding his whole life? I mean this was his first love apparently?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4September 15, 2019 7:06 PM

He clearly wanted to be a family man but what was it about Linda?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5September 15, 2019 7:07 PM

Here she is cooking! I mean I am sorry but she looks like Debbie Rowe! I would think she was a lesbian!

I don't see the magical charm! What am I missing!???

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6September 15, 2019 7:09 PM

Sorry but I don't see him kissing Linda like that.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7September 15, 2019 7:11 PM

There's no way they didn't do more than that.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8September 15, 2019 7:13 PM

It doesn't make any sense.

She looked like a horse.

That is all.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 9September 15, 2019 7:16 PM

Isn't she the heiress to some camera fortune (I'm too lazy to look it up)? He married her back before the Beatles were super-super rich.

by Anonymousreply 10September 15, 2019 7:16 PM

[quote]Isn't she the heiress to some camera fortune (I'm too lazy to look it up)?

NO.

by Anonymousreply 11September 15, 2019 7:19 PM

Enough with the obsession with her looks. She wasn't gorgeous (nor were either of Lennon's wives), but he must have really loved her. God knows only love could make her attempts at singing seem good.

She was a good photographer though, and had shot multiple rock stars before snagging McCartney.

by Anonymousreply 12September 15, 2019 7:20 PM

He’s not the only hot guy who fell in love with a plain woman, married her, and had kids and stayed with her. British tend to have lower standards anyway due to lack of gorgeous women

by Anonymousreply 13September 15, 2019 7:21 PM

Geee, it's so hard for you to imagine pop star falling in love with someone who wasn't model material?

by Anonymousreply 14September 15, 2019 7:21 PM

NEVER understood Linda’s appeal! Jane Asher, I could definitely see, but Linda?! And that 70s-era hairdo was especially awful!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15September 15, 2019 7:23 PM

[quote]She was a good photographer though, and had shot multiple rock stars before snagging McCartney.

What's amazing is she never had a lesson. By accident went to a gig with a camera and was asked to take pics of the Rolling Stones, that people liked, and she had a career!..and photographing everyone.

One year later she's in London photographing The Beatles.

by Anonymousreply 16September 15, 2019 7:24 PM

Paul McCartney was a hot guy?

by Anonymousreply 17September 15, 2019 7:35 PM

What do you call a dog with Wings? Linda McCartney.

by Anonymousreply 18September 15, 2019 7:40 PM

Paul McCartney was ugly but compare him with someone like Rod Stewart, or Mick Jagger who famously married models.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19September 15, 2019 7:40 PM

She was an ugly woman. I’m sure he loved her for her big cock

by Anonymousreply 20September 15, 2019 7:42 PM

Rod Stewart was ugly but Britt Ecklund and most of the women he dated were not. He was British too, so he liked beauty.

But is he really gay?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 21September 15, 2019 7:42 PM

R10 Linda Eastman - Eastman/Kodak.

by Anonymousreply 22September 15, 2019 7:43 PM

[quote][R10] Linda Eastman - Eastman/Kodak.

I already said NO to that. Listen UP!

by Anonymousreply 23September 15, 2019 7:45 PM

Please, Paul McCartney is worth close to a billion dollars. He didn't need her money. She wasn't the heiress to that fortune anyway.

by Anonymousreply 24September 15, 2019 7:45 PM

She was the only one willing to peg him with a big black dildo. Paul is a hypocrite

by Anonymousreply 25September 15, 2019 7:46 PM

Maybe it's more likely to be closeted gay to beard yourself with a woman you think people want you to get with, than with someone you really like.

Leonardo DiCaprio!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 26September 15, 2019 7:47 PM

But she made MILLIONS from her veggie food line. She left £22 Million in 1998.

by Anonymousreply 27September 15, 2019 7:47 PM

Linda's father was a high-profile corporate lawyer. His engaging him instead of the lawyer the other Beatles used is what started the disintegration of the Beatles.

I read something Macca said in an interview, which I thought was one of the loveliest things I've read. The interview asked if he and Linda spent many nights apart, and he said that, throughout their marriage, they had spent just one night apart. When the interview asked why, Macca responded "Why would I want to?"

by Anonymousreply 28September 15, 2019 7:48 PM

R23 What is your problem, lol!

by Anonymousreply 29September 15, 2019 7:48 PM

Why doesn't he have any hair near his junk?

by Anonymousreply 30September 15, 2019 7:48 PM

For smoking weed in Japan. Idiot.

Linda just wanted him because he was a Beatle!

Do you guys see what he saw??

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 31September 15, 2019 7:53 PM

Paul was an artist; Linda both encouraged it and understood it but also gave his life structure and was the head of the family.

I do think they were deeply in love.

by Anonymousreply 32September 15, 2019 7:54 PM

She was a character, that's for sure. When Wings were recording in Bum F@#K Scotland, the members bought their wives. Well, that didn't set well with Linda, insecurity? They stayed one day at Paul's farm until she sent them back to the closest city. Same when Wings recorded on a yacht in the Bahamas, the wives weren't allowed on board. She alienated her closest friends as well when she married Paul. Howard Stern had a hilarious tape, the "best" of Linda McCartney. Isolated vocals from concerts. he played her caterwauling Hey Jude. But what the hell, the kids seem well adjusted, Stella a self made millionaire designer. In hindsight, Paul was right about the Eastmans handling his career, the other Beatles went with Allen Klein, who ripped off not only the Rolling Stones, but the Animals and Herman's Hermits as well.

by Anonymousreply 33September 15, 2019 7:58 PM

She was a character, that's for sure. When Wings were recording in Bum F@#K Scotland, the members bought their wives. Well, that didn't set well with Linda, insecurity? They stayed one day at Paul's farm until she sent them back to the closest city. Same when Wings recorded on a yacht in the Bahamas, the wives weren't allowed on board. She alienated her closest friends as well when she married Paul. Howard Stern had a hilarious tape, the "best" of Linda McCartney. Isolated vocals from concerts. he played her caterwauling Hey Jude. But what the hell, the kids seem well adjusted, Stella a self made millionaire designer. In hindsight, Paul was right about the Eastmans handling his career, the other Beatles went with Allen Klein, who ripped off not only the Rolling Stones, but the Animals and Herman's Hermits as well.

by Anonymousreply 34September 15, 2019 7:58 PM

Linda was willing to totally devote herself to Paul and his career. Jane Asher, whom he wanted to marry, wouldn't give up her acting career for him. Considering how many groupies, celebrities, and prosties the Beatles banged in the 60s, by the end of the decade I think all of them just wanted to settle down with a nice woman who would be there when they woke up in the morning.

by Anonymousreply 35September 15, 2019 8:01 PM

[quote] Stella a self made millionaire designer.

The children of extremely famous millionaires are never self-made.

by Anonymousreply 36September 15, 2019 8:02 PM

It’s not about how she looked. It was about how she made him feel.

by Anonymousreply 37September 15, 2019 8:25 PM

believe it or not, not everyone judges another person by their looks or the size of their dick. Those people have evolved beyond what you understand.

by Anonymousreply 38September 15, 2019 8:27 PM

Paul and Linda asked for Phoebe Snow to be in a threeway. She refused. Linda looks like she was a lady lover.

by Anonymousreply 39September 15, 2019 8:33 PM

No Heather Mills was the love of his life. Impeccable taste in women.

by Anonymousreply 40September 15, 2019 8:34 PM

Linda was a no nonsense New Yorker, something Paul found very exciting. She was also a bit of a groupie before she met him, he wasn't the first music star to bang her.

by Anonymousreply 41September 15, 2019 9:25 PM

Ummm R34, their son looks on the spectrum. Now that I think about it Linda seemed Aspie herself.

Stella's line is only good because of who she is.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 42September 15, 2019 9:28 PM

This bitch was more annoying than Yoko

by Anonymousreply 43September 15, 2019 9:28 PM

Seventies hair aside, she looks like she might be attractive in person...just not covered with makeup to look good in pictures. Plus, haven't we all discovered that some of the homeliness people can be attractive by way of their attitude, sense of humor, etc.?

by Anonymousreply 44September 15, 2019 9:35 PM

R43 Right? Like even Yoko yodeling like a goat was more appealing. At least she had some life! Linda I just do not get it at all! It had to have been love, but why, well, you would have to be McCartney to understand that one!

by Anonymousreply 45September 15, 2019 9:36 PM

She was in his video for 'Say Say Say'.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46September 15, 2019 9:46 PM

I think both Linda and Yoko grew up as rich girls from Scarsdale. The confidence of a NY girl in the 60s and the fact that they didn’t faint and fawn all over John and Paul probably made them more attractive to them.

by Anonymousreply 47September 15, 2019 9:47 PM

eww that was Latoya Michael was eyeballing!

by Anonymousreply 48September 15, 2019 9:52 PM

OP = Heather Mills, still defending myself

by Anonymousreply 49September 15, 2019 10:09 PM

R47 They didn't seem to care to get all dolled up in fancy dresses to impress men. They seemed to understand the concept of how to make money.

Yoko was a banker's daughter, and was very good at handling their finances and investing it. When they got together John was worth less than 50 million and at the time of his death around 300 million.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 50September 15, 2019 10:22 PM

R19 He denied assisted suicide but I can understand if it was.

by Anonymousreply 51September 15, 2019 10:23 PM

A book I read about Linda said she liked three ways with black women, for what it's worth...

by Anonymousreply 52September 15, 2019 11:28 PM

R27 Linda died in the US because her true wealth was tied up in a testamentary trust, we'll never really know what she was worth. Estimates put it between $150 -$200 million, mainly the income from the vegetarian food line and I suppose a bit from Wings.

You can read her horribly complex will below.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 53September 15, 2019 11:42 PM

I think he liked that she was American and I know he liked how natural she was and how she already had a child - he lost his mother at 14 so family was incredibly important to him. They were together for 30 years, which is astounding for anyone, let alone a rock star. I think she was a fabulous mom, photographer and her frozen veggie dinners and cookbooks were sooo good. This is one of the last public photos of them together - she died a few months later in Tucson.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 54September 15, 2019 11:57 PM

R27 I think she died in Tucson on their ranch because it was her favorite place in the world. She went to uni there.

by Anonymousreply 55September 16, 2019 12:01 AM

Paul McCartney and John Lennon were both strange guys. They could have had any woman in the world, but ended up with women who were not even what you would call attractive.

I never thought Linda Eastman was good looking at all. Even when young she had a kind of faded, washed out quality about her. But men found her attractive; she was considered a "man's woman" who was very attentive to the needs of the men in her life. She was a groupie; she tried to make it seem like she was a "photographer" but she was just a groupie with a camera. She was quite a contrast to McCartney's former girlfriend Jane Asher. Jane Asher was very pretty, very independent, with a career of her own as an actress. Their relationship ended due to McCartney's infidelity. Then along comes Linda Eastman, who was totally subservient and passive. She pampered Paul and worshipped him. She'd tell him what an honor it would be to bear his children (yuk!). He must have really liked that. Anyway, he was so besotted by her that he changed due to her influence. Previous well groomed, he grew a sloppy beard and started wearing clothes that made him look like a homeless person. He became a vegetarian. He and Linda both became incorrigible potheads; Linda even smoked it while pregnant. Since John started doing musical projects with Yoko, Paul figured he could do the same with LInda (he and John were always trying to one up each other) even though Linda was completely talentless musically. They became, in their own way, as insufferable as John and Yoko. But they obviously loved each other, that much was true. They had a good marriage until death did them part.

by Anonymousreply 56September 16, 2019 12:23 AM

Paul was attracted to her for a number of reasons. He explained later: "I liked her as a woman, she was good-looking with a good figure, so physically I was attracted to her." But he also liked her sense of independence:

"Her mental attitude was quite rebellious ... [growing up] she was the kind of kid who would hang out in the kitchen with the black maids" to learn cooking. She disliked socializing. They both liked natural surroundings, he said, and they shared a love of nature, which became one of their most important emotional links. He knew that because of her "very free spirit," she was considered a rebel and a black sheep by her family for avoiding excelling in education, unlike her father and brother. "She was an artist," Paul said, "and was not cut out to be an academic."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 57September 16, 2019 12:37 AM

"Are we sure she wasn't his beard?"

GOD you're a stupid asshole OP. But dream on.........

by Anonymousreply 58September 16, 2019 12:40 AM

Like John Lennon, Paul needed a maternal figure in his life--both their mothers died when they were young. I'm not sure why we have to be nasty about that.

by Anonymousreply 59September 16, 2019 12:44 AM

It was the first of many cases I’ve seen - people who live extremely “healthy” end up getting cancer and dying relatively young,

by Anonymousreply 60September 16, 2019 1:18 AM

[quote]Paul and Linda asked for Phoebe Snow to be in a threeway.

Now, THAT is bad taste in women!

by Anonymousreply 61September 16, 2019 1:21 AM

I thought her favorite place in the world was with Paul in Scotland

by Anonymousreply 62September 16, 2019 1:22 AM

R60 so much for vegetarianism. maybe if she ate more protein?

by Anonymousreply 63September 16, 2019 1:22 AM

Linda had a leg up on Heather Mills.

by Anonymousreply 64September 16, 2019 1:24 AM

R59 well there we go. That explains it. He lost his mom and she replaced that. She is a very matron looking woman.

by Anonymousreply 65September 16, 2019 1:25 AM

She knew he wasn't the real Paul McCartney and loved him anyway. That's why they stayed together. Some say they were together before he became Paul McCartney. Jane Asher was in love with a different, earlier McCartney, the one whose face got all fucked up.

by Anonymousreply 66September 16, 2019 1:26 AM

They were supposedly inseparable during their long marriage, only spending like one night apart in all that time. Mated for life like ducks.

by Anonymousreply 67September 16, 2019 1:29 AM

[quote]Like John Lennon, Paul needed a maternal figure in his life

Paul’s mother died of breast cancer when he was quite young, same thing that killed Linda.

by Anonymousreply 68September 16, 2019 1:31 AM

Paull had a noticeable chip out of his tooth in the Rain video (filmed at Chiswick House) after a motorbike accident, I think. That's it.

by Anonymousreply 69September 16, 2019 1:42 AM

I heard them being interviewed once. She affected a Liverpudlian accent like Paul’s and was totally lame and obsequious.

by Anonymousreply 70September 16, 2019 1:43 AM

Rod Stewart was the ugliest man who ever lived.

by Anonymousreply 71September 16, 2019 1:45 AM

R70 Right? The pretentious accent? Like Madonna!

by Anonymousreply 72September 16, 2019 1:46 AM

She probably picked up the accent from spending so much time with Paul. Accents can be very plastic. My sister's picked up one from 2 months in Dublin with her fiancé.

by Anonymousreply 73September 16, 2019 1:55 AM

Her "sense of independence?" What hooey! She was of the "anything you say dear, you're the boss" variety. Everything Paul said about seems delusional. She was no "artist"; she was a groupie who carried around a camera to make it seem like she wasn't a groupie.

by Anonymousreply 74September 16, 2019 2:05 AM

"Paul and Linda asked for Phoebe Snow to be in a threeway."

Now where did THAT rumor come from? Seems pretty outlandish to me.

by Anonymousreply 75September 16, 2019 2:09 AM

Her "sense of independence?"

Linda had a generous trust fund from her show biz lawyer father. She didn't need McCartney's $$$

by Anonymousreply 76September 16, 2019 2:10 AM

R74, I have to agree. I watched several interviews and she seems to always be looking at him, even stopping what she was saying or smiling if she looked at him and noticed he wasn't smiling. Interesting dynamic they had. Like tailoring her personality to his ego.

I want to believe that they were everything and all but some of it just seems off. Or is that every relationship?

by Anonymousreply 77September 16, 2019 2:20 AM

Linda would probably roll her eyes at anyone calling her marriage ideal or easy. I remember a quote of hers that people thought she and Paul had a marriage akin to a boat on a placid lake, but it was actually like trying to steer through the middle of a bunch of rapids.

by Anonymousreply 78September 16, 2019 2:26 AM

"He’s not the only hot guy who fell in love with a plain woman, married her, and had kids and stayed with her."

Paul McCartney never was "hot", he is actually borderline ugly.

by Anonymousreply 79September 16, 2019 2:30 AM

Maybe he discovered that no gorgeous model would ever really love him. Could that be it? Maybe he was deeper and needed love? Maybe he plowed through dozens of gorgeous woman and wanted a normal woman who wouldn't leave.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80September 16, 2019 2:32 AM

I do believe they very much liked and loved each other. Marriage is hard work and it's impressive they stuck with it.

by Anonymousreply 81September 16, 2019 2:33 AM

R79, then why was he always called "the cute Beatle"?

by Anonymousreply 82September 16, 2019 2:34 AM

Ok, after seeing this, it had to have been love.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 83September 16, 2019 2:34 AM

R82, because the others were even uglier than he was. And he was called "the cute one" for about 2 minutes in the early 60s when they all had that youthfulness and vigor that makes up for a shortfall in looks.

by Anonymousreply 84September 16, 2019 2:49 AM

If their marriage lasted so long, it was probably because she catered to his every need and was subservient to him. Paul is known as a control freak.

by Anonymousreply 85September 16, 2019 3:08 AM

I think his relationship with Linda was a response to John’s relationship with Yoko. John made Yoko his entire life. All John talked about was that he finally found true love and true happiness with Yoko and how they were a team and there was nothing better in the world than true love with your soulmate.

I think Paul decided he needed a soulmate, almost in competition with John and Yoko. Linda was from a rich family and Paul liked rich girls. Linda lost her mother in a plane crash, Paul lost his mother to cancer. Lee Eastman was an entertainment lawyer, so he was not only not starstruck by McCartney, he gave him good advice about The Beatles. When Paul decided Lee made sense & he wanted Lee to represent him, the other Beatles were very angry with him. This made Paul even closer to the Eastman family. It was Paul (and Linda and Lee) against the other 3 Beatles. Linda had a daughter and Paul liked kids and wanted his own. He met someone who lost a mother and who was a mother. I think that really appealed to him. I think he felt really comfortable with the Eastmans the same way he felt very comfortable with Jane Asher’s family.

So yes, I do think he was faithful to Linda and saw Linda & himself as a unit.

by Anonymousreply 86September 16, 2019 3:13 AM

R77 I remember seeing an interview with them and thinking at the time what the fuck does he see in her? She seemed so vacuous and vapid.

by Anonymousreply 87September 16, 2019 3:13 AM

[quote] Isn't she the heiress to some camera fortune

Her grandfather made a fortune in the women’s clothing trade. Her father was a very well connected entertainment lawyer.

by Anonymousreply 88September 16, 2019 3:18 AM

[quote]She seemed so vacuous and vapid.

Both vacuous AND vapid, dear?

by Anonymousreply 89September 16, 2019 3:19 AM

He should have stuck with Jane. Jane seemed to have a good head on her shoulders. Plus she's alive and still looking good.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 90September 16, 2019 3:22 AM

Yes both, R89. And not very bright either, as I recall.

by Anonymousreply 91September 16, 2019 3:25 AM

I've always liked Jane Asher and thought they made such a cute couple.

But I guess Paul needed someone he could control.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 92September 16, 2019 3:27 AM

He was fucking around big time on Jane Asher. Peggy Lipton, Francie Schwartz and who knows who else. Of course Jane broke up with him over that.

by Anonymousreply 93September 16, 2019 3:34 AM

OO No one but the couple knows what two people see in each other.

by Anonymousreply 94September 16, 2019 3:38 AM

I guess she was.

by Anonymousreply 95September 16, 2019 3:43 AM

She wasn't plain, she just dressed that way and never wore make up. She was allergic to makeup so she rarely wore it. There are pics of her all made up and she looks stunning. She has good bone structure and a knockout figure (big boobs) which she hid with loose mousy clothes.

Maybe McCartney wanted her to dress down so she wouldn't attract other men.

by Anonymousreply 96September 16, 2019 3:48 AM

They were stoners who had a lot of fun and food and a family together. +Wings

It was a 70s idyll.

by Anonymousreply 97September 16, 2019 3:54 AM

I went to Scarsdale high school many years after Linda McCartney. I was a nerd and I would sit in the principles office and pour over old yearbooks. I saw her photo in the 1960 yearbook. In those days all the activities you participated over the years were listed under your name. Linda EASTMAN had NOTHING listed under her name.

by Anonymousreply 98September 16, 2019 4:36 AM

She was very genuine and unaffected. It was her who chose to live in the country and have a life of animals and children.

Her photography books were pretty excellent.

And all this stuff about her being ugly - she was very fair and needed makeup. When she did makeup she was a good looking woman.

Paul was also a good-looking guy in THE REAL WORLD and knocks all the fugs considered "hawt" on DL out of the ballpark.

& all this adoration of Jane Asher. She was a sour old cunt and a very mediocre actress. I grew up in England and had much more exposure to her "work" and given all the opportunities she had, she came up with nothing memorable at all.

There was a running gag about Jane Asher on French & Saunders for years...that was all about her mediocrity and over-exposure at that time.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99September 16, 2019 5:13 AM

Yes, and it was obvious that she was the love of his life.

by Anonymousreply 100September 16, 2019 5:18 AM

Paul was dreamy

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 101September 16, 2019 5:23 AM

Paul McCartney was good looking. Typical DL TROLLS saying he was ugly.

by Anonymousreply 102September 16, 2019 5:29 AM

He had the look of his era.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 103September 16, 2019 5:36 AM

"Paul McCartney" is a collaborative character who have been played by, at minimum, a dozen different guys since 1957. "The Beatles" never existed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 104September 16, 2019 5:40 AM

Tall Pauls, Small Pauls…

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 105September 16, 2019 5:49 AM

What do you think of the Faul rumors, after "the original Paul" was seriously injured/died in a traffic accident after a supposedly contentious recording session? Hype for pap attention?

by Anonymousreply 106September 16, 2019 6:30 AM

r106, that was a story concocted to cover the fact that there had always been Beatle multiples and they'd cast a Paul who looked very little like previous Pauls. Also, the introduction of widespread color film fucked up the game with Pauls who had brown, green and blue eyes. All the current Pauls have light colored eyes.

by Anonymousreply 107September 16, 2019 6:35 AM

Paul had brown/green hazel eyes, he still does. He was good looking, not model perfect. He had really good skin, long dark lashes, thick shiny dark hair, he was slim and had pretty nice shoulders(though in keeping with his slimness, not muscular he-man shoulders). Sometimes it's easy forget how young the Beatles were, I mean when they broke up, after 7 years of insanity surrounding them in one form or another, none of them had yet reached 30. Video of Paul below from 1964, it's a couple weeks before his 22nd birthday.

I do think Linda was the love of his life - she was steady and warm and loving. A lot of people who were friends with them say that - Linda wasn't "the famous" one she became famous by extension, the whole giving interviews, etc thing wasn't easy for her that's why she would come across as stiff or cold, but in their real lives, she was generally the sociable one - because Paul in his own way was as damaged by the whole Beatlemania thing as any of them, because you can't go through that sort of all encompassing madness for that long and not have it affect you. He never knew who to trust, who genuinely liked him, she was the person he looked to help him figure out who was real(which could explain the fiasco of Heather Mills, Linda was no longer there to help him figure what a total phony she was).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 108September 16, 2019 8:08 AM

[quote]which could explain the fiasco of Heather Mills,

Funny thing is - Heather Mills looked very like the young Jane Asher - maybe not in still photos, but if you watch anything she filmed in the 60s (not much) you'll see the similarities.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 109September 16, 2019 8:19 AM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 110September 16, 2019 8:21 AM

And a color music video from 1967, just try to ignore the rather tragic facial hair situations. You get more close ups of the band once the song really gets going. Paul was not a bad looking guy.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 111September 16, 2019 8:23 AM

The only similarity between Heather and Jane is a little around the mouth, other than that they had different shape faces, entirely different noses and the set of their eyes was different(Jane's more wider set) and of course different coloring. Jane was not all that. It's great that she had her own career but it doesn't seem like she ever really cared about anything Paul was going through and to be fair he was probably much the same with her. They just weren't that compatible. What they had in common was a love of the arts and creativity, in their respective fields, but other than that they weren't very similar. And by the late 60's Paul was a mess, even if not as obvious a mess as John.

by Anonymousreply 112September 16, 2019 8:32 AM

The 62/63 Pauls were marketed as being brown eyed and 5'11". In fact, his big brown eyes were played up as being the 'cutest' things about him. George and John were also supposed to be 5'11", the former with brown and the latter with hazel eyes. Ringo was stated to be 5'7" with blue eyes.

Interesting fingers on this 'Paul'…

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 113September 16, 2019 8:59 AM

Is this one missing half of his index finger?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 114September 16, 2019 8:59 AM

What the hell is going on with this one's hands?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 115September 16, 2019 9:00 AM

Does this look like a real hand to you? Zoom in.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 116September 16, 2019 9:01 AM

The Georges had some interesting hands, too.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 117September 16, 2019 9:01 AM

Again, worth zooming in on:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 118September 16, 2019 9:02 AM

How many fingers does this John have?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 119September 16, 2019 9:03 AM

What happened to this Paul's face?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 120September 16, 2019 9:05 AM

And this Paul's face

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 121September 16, 2019 9:06 AM

And this Paul's face

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 122September 16, 2019 9:07 AM

face

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 123September 16, 2019 9:08 AM

mask

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 124September 16, 2019 9:09 AM

And where is the rest of this Paul's nose?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 125September 16, 2019 9:10 AM

How many fingers does this John have?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 126September 16, 2019 9:10 AM

Mighty Tall Paul in June '63

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 127September 16, 2019 9:11 AM

Small Paul, April '64

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 128September 16, 2019 9:11 AM

Linda always reminded me of trailer park trash, look wise at least.

by Anonymousreply 129September 16, 2019 9:12 AM

You say goodbye, I say what the fuck happened to your right hand???

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 130September 16, 2019 9:15 AM

The graphics on those old pics are bad, that's why you think you're seeing things.

by Anonymousreply 131September 16, 2019 9:22 AM

The rest of his index finger is where?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 132September 16, 2019 9:23 AM

These are not the same fucking person. They're just not.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 133September 16, 2019 9:24 AM

The lunatics have taken over this asylum, it seems.

by Anonymousreply 134September 16, 2019 9:57 AM

r134 = Helen Keller

by Anonymousreply 135September 16, 2019 9:58 AM

Nobody cares about your "multiple Pauls" obsession, troll. Prove I'm wrong by starting your own thread and getting the hell out of this one.

by Anonymousreply 136September 16, 2019 10:51 AM

r136, It's not my fault you have prosopagnosia.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 137September 16, 2019 11:16 AM

Has anyone seen a right arm bend like the one of the Paul in this photo?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 138September 16, 2019 11:38 AM

At least one Beatlemania Paul was bald

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 139September 16, 2019 11:57 AM

It's only one lunatic posting his multiple Paul theories, R134. Block him and all those disappear.

by Anonymousreply 140September 16, 2019 12:02 PM

Just look at the fucking pictures.

by Anonymousreply 141September 16, 2019 12:03 PM

R139 seems to be off their meds again.

by Anonymousreply 142September 16, 2019 12:51 PM

So, ad hominem attacks rather than any attempt whatsoever to explain the height differences, the eye color differences, the entirely different skull structure and vocal registers of The Pauls. Very persuasive. You're clearly strong thinkers.

by Anonymousreply 143September 16, 2019 12:55 PM

She probably looked like his mom. She had the same shaped eyes as Paul. It was probably a familial thing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 144September 16, 2019 1:09 PM

Paul was the "cute" Beatle because he was the feminine looking one - the girly boy pre-teen girls go nutty over. There was one brief moment Paul was hot when he was in his early 30s. However, as Paul aged, the nose job he had post-Beatles made him look like a little eagle. See pic @ R133.

by Anonymousreply 145September 16, 2019 1:43 PM

Many years ago I read an interview with Annie Leibovitz. Annie outed Linda Eastman as a super groupie who tried to fuck every rock star and movie star that she could. She revealed that Linda had herpes. She also revealed that Linda hooked up with Warren Beatty. At least Warren was smart enough not to marry Linda.

by Anonymousreply 146September 16, 2019 1:50 PM

Is it so hard to believe in real deep love/partnership that lasts through all the phases of life beyond sex? Beyond the infirmity of one partner or the other, or both? Haven’t you ever seen an old man cry in a nursing home because of his removal from the life he had with his wife? Get real. What an obstinately stupid and ignorant line this thread starts out with

by Anonymousreply 147September 16, 2019 1:58 PM

OP is gross. And really unfunny.

by Anonymousreply 148September 16, 2019 2:02 PM

R66 is a fucking idiot.

by Anonymousreply 149September 16, 2019 2:08 PM

Paul married Linda because he cannot be alone. She was there and they liked each other. BIGGEST reason - Linda was a mother, she could reproduce and was willing to have more children. Paul was desperate for children, and no skinny I have my own career trophy wife was going to fill that role.

by Anonymousreply 150September 16, 2019 2:10 PM

This thread was taken over by an insane person who believes that different people played all the Beatles. Jesus Christ, what an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 151September 16, 2019 2:18 PM

R143 when someone accuses you of "ad hominem attacks" you know they're a genuine Trump supporting nut case.

People change as they get older. And people look different when photographed from different angles. If you truly, actually believe that different people played The Beatles, you belong in a mental hospital.

by Anonymousreply 152September 16, 2019 2:25 PM

Exactly, R152. However, Paul's nose job was completely unnecessary, and makes him look like a little old English woman in his old age.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 153September 16, 2019 2:34 PM

A good comparison for the nose job:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 154September 16, 2019 2:38 PM

I'm surprised the nose job isn't more common folklore.

by Anonymousreply 155September 16, 2019 2:40 PM

Paul looks like he has alcohol fetal syndrome eyes with the angle his outer eyes point down.

by Anonymousreply 156September 16, 2019 3:58 PM

my friend married denny laine, paul's lead guitarist in Wings, Linda was a controlling jealous paranoid woman. No women were allowed alone round him/paul and she tried to get rid of joanne, dennys wife, but by got joanne stood her ground.

all 4 beatles had miserable wives !!!!

by Anonymousreply 157September 16, 2019 4:02 PM

It had to be tough being a Beatles wife knowing that millions of women wanted to fuck your husband.

by Anonymousreply 158September 16, 2019 4:11 PM

Linda made a move on an ex of mine when she was about 19 and he was 15. She had zero gaydar.

by Anonymousreply 159September 16, 2019 4:12 PM

She had very close gay male friends from all the way back to the '60s who she remained friends with all her life. One who died of AIDS.

It's a shame people from Paul & Linda's corner of society did...from what I can tell, nothing for AIDS. It's not a direct criticism of her or Paul, but at the time any sort of gesture was a big deal.

by Anonymousreply 160September 16, 2019 4:51 PM

Denny Laine was a domestic abuser. He beat his wife.

by Anonymousreply 161September 16, 2019 5:07 PM

yes, im glad joanne divorced him, they had 2 kids, very nice they turned out I hear. joanne was AWESOME

groupies that surrounded the rockers were fascinating, much more so than the rock stars themselves...wish there were more accurate / complete biographies of them...

by Anonymousreply 162September 16, 2019 5:16 PM

This is Denny Laine's son...Laine Hines.

The sons of this era of pop star often tried to have music careers, but how many made the big time?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 163September 16, 2019 6:26 PM

Julian Lennon? He had a few top 10 singles in the US and UK.

by Anonymousreply 164September 16, 2019 8:00 PM

A couple of top ten singles isn't too impressive. Not exactly the big time.

by Anonymousreply 165September 16, 2019 8:58 PM

Zak Starkey has been with The Who for decades. Keith Moon gave him drumming lesssons. His father Ringo couldn’t be bothered. Zak and Ringo did not get along for a long time.

by Anonymousreply 166September 16, 2019 9:43 PM

Ringo had a severe problem with booze going back to his Beatle days.

by Anonymousreply 167September 16, 2019 10:05 PM

Zak Starkey was a drunk by age 14. He only cleaned up after he got a bad reputation and no one would hire him.

by Anonymousreply 168September 16, 2019 10:24 PM

There were rumors that when Linda was trying to ingratiate herself with the same social circle that The Beatles ran in, she made people believe that she was from the prominent Eastman family of Eastman-Kodak wealth. She was as much of a fame whore as Yoko was but she was never as vilified as Yoko. Both women had minimal musical talent yet was thrust into bands with their husbands. Both were into the drug culture along with their husbands. But it was Yoko got all the hate and then some. Of the two though it's Linda who was really the social climber/ wealth seeker. Yoko came from a very wealthy, prominent Japanese banking family with American ties, her family's prominence went back centuries and the family name was in ways similar to British dukedom. She even attended primary school with the Prince Akihito (later Emperor Akihito). What I was respect about Yoko is that she was a lunatic and never apologized for being one, while Linda was fake nice and normal with her Go Veggie! shit. Yoko is fucking still alive today at age 86 after doing god knows how many types of drugs for most of the 1960s-80s. Gotta respect a bitch for still kicking it.

by Anonymousreply 169September 17, 2019 12:02 AM

Not really, R169, the press picked up on Eastman must be Eastman-Kodak in 1969 (I was around) because they could. It was easily checkable and not denied that the family name was originally Epstein.

Additionally, the reason no-talent Linda joined Wings was that Paul was constantly touring and wanted his wife with him. HE wanted her there. She wasn't keen about it but realized it was imperative to sustain their marriage. Yoko, another story. Linda was not a social climber nor a wealth seeker, a fame whore perhaps. I'm from Scarsdale (1960s), I know the type.

As far as Linda acting all affected during interviews (noted in this thread), I agree. However, Paul acted like a jerk too - most of the time he acted like Beatle Paul circa 1964 in A Hard Day's Night at age 40+. Shaking his hair and mugging for the camera. They were embarrassing. Saying "you know" this and that like English was not his first language. It was only after Linda's death that Paul acted like an adult in an interview.

by Anonymousreply 170September 17, 2019 12:28 AM

[quote]They were embarrassing. Saying "you know" this and that like English was not his first language.

They were high.

by Anonymousreply 171September 17, 2019 12:36 AM

Yup, I was around at the time too and the press repeatedly said Linda was not from the Eastman-Kodak company, that her father was a lawyer in NY and that the real last name was Epstein.

Also John Lennon hated Lee Eastman because Lennon wanted Allen Klein as the Beatles lawyer and called Lee Eastman some kind of name because he changed his name to “hide” that he was Jewish.

by Anonymousreply 172September 17, 2019 12:52 AM

I was high too, R171. That doesn't mean I lost 100 IQ points, I didn't.

by Anonymousreply 173September 17, 2019 1:43 AM

I did. Maybe that's why I love Wings.

by Anonymousreply 174September 17, 2019 1:48 AM

What do you call a 🐕 with wings? Linda McCartney.

by Anonymousreply 175September 17, 2019 3:26 AM

First of all, I am a retired news reporter/anchor/producer and worked my entire career for the NBC affiliate here in New Orleans, LA. From 1971-1976, I was a 24 year-old "special segments" writer/producer for the late news (10pm cst). In the fall of 1974/spring of 1975, Paul McCartney began appearing in town fairly often, being seen by many frequenting French Quarter restaurants and popping in and out of jazz clubs. Come to find out, he was laying the groundwork details for the recording of his album "Venus and Mars," alot of which was recorded here from what I recall.

Well, it didn't take long for the "newshounds" to sniff out his accomodations - he was staying at the Richelieu Hotel on Chartres Ave. Needless to say, many hours were spent by myself and other young journalists of every media stripe hanging around the hotel and the studio, trying to get a few words from Paul. You'd be surprised just how accomodating he was.....at times. I'd say about 1/3 of the time, he'd give us a curt little nod, a quick wave, or a funny face as he rushed by us down the sidewalk or into a waiting car. Another 1/3 of the time, he'd sort of stick around for a few minutes and simply banter with us, just joking around and what-not. But, the other 1/3 of the time, he'd hang around, often by himself, for a half-hour to an hour or so. A couple of times, an editor-friend of mine actually went for drinks with him at a bar called Napoleon's.

He was exceedingly witty, bright, and talkative. I remember there being something slightly condescending about him, not in a haughty way, more that he had simply become accustomed to "always being right." Totally friendly, though, was he on these occasions.

OK, now for the weird stuff (and there's ALOT of it---moreso than I can get into now). The friend mentioned above was with a now-defunct New Orleans newspaper (The States-Item) in 1964 as a "beat reporter." He tended to do write-ups on local club/restaurant openings, high school sports, fads, etc.

He was also fortunate enough to have met all four Beatles when they came to New Orleans for a 1964 concert at City Park, and to have been present at a "press conference"-style interview (along with about 75-100 other reporters) and a smaller radio interview session (about 10-12 media people in attendance). During the radio interview, he was about 6 feet away from each Beatle, at various points standing even closer, shaking their hands, and getting a friendly clap on the back from Ringo.

by Anonymousreply 176September 17, 2019 3:56 AM

Fast forward to 1968: New York - same friend finds himself covering several appearances by Paul McCartney for a now-defunct local music magazine. He attends a press interview at The Americana, but doesn't get to ask any questions. Plus, he's confused. Although he is less than twenty feet away from Paul, something about his appearance makes my friend wonder if his eyes are beginning to fail.

Two or three days later, he and a reporter from the NY Times meet Paul in the lobby of the Americana. He stops to talk for a few minutes, seeming to recognize the NY Times reporter, who introduces him to my friend. My friend has said (paraphrase):

"MrKite, I tell you there is no single doubt in my mind that the man I met in 1964 and the one I met in 1968 were two different people. When he first came out for the press conference in New York, I and a few others actually laughed aloud, one reporter asking, 'What's the joke?' He was so obviously not Paul McCartney. I actually thought at first, 'Damn, that guy looks a lot like McCartney!' and was surprised he had someone in his entourage that resembled him so closely. Once I realized that this guy was supposed to be Paul, I just figured 'Okaaa-aay, whatever!' and dutifully recorded the interview. In the lobby of the hotel, up close, I was surer than sh*t it was a different person! No look of recognition coming from him either, even when I mentioned the radio interview and certain things said back in 1964."

Now, it gets weirder: fast forward again to 1974/1975 - this same friend, who had drinks with Paul, claimed that, yet again, he was sitting with a man who was different from both the 1964-Paul AND the 1968-Paul. He sat within arms reach of Paul for at least an hour, and he swore that his bone structure, hair texture, mannerisms, and overall look was but a good approximation of the "other Pauls" he had met.

I myself can personally attest that the Paul here in New Orleans in the mid '70s (who was recording an album) that I personally spoke to on a number of occasions (probably 20-30 times over a few months for a total of about 5-10 hours) was a different man than the one who gave "official" interviews here in New Orleans during the same span of time.

No doubt about it - case closed. I and a few colleagues thought maybe he looked different because he was made-up. Not so. Again, no look of recognition when I queried him. Physically, "official" Paul was a broader, taller specimen with a more sing-song quality to his voice. What's more, his hair was a different length! Yep, "official" Paul's hair was a good two inches longer than "studio" Paul's.

Plus, my friend who sat for drinks with Paul agreed with me. Especially since "official" Paul had responded to an aside comment from him after the interview about their conversation at the Napoleon House with, "I don't know what you're talking about, bub." It was so obvious there were two Paul's running around that it became an in-joke among those of us who hung around the hotel and studio.

I know this was massively long, but I thought it would have a bearing on things. There is alot more to this stuff, as my friend actually drove himself into bankruptcy investigating certain aspects of the anomalies we'd experienced. We all remembered the Paul-is-Dead rumors. What we saw and heard made us consider that there could have been some validity to the alleged rumors.

My friend ended up penniless, divorced, and marginally insane (in my opinion). He had become obsessed with McCartney and, according to him, discovered plenty of info, even claiming to have solved the riddle, to his satisfaction at least. I had less and less contact with him throughout the late '80s and mid-'90s, as he began to spend more and more time abroad, mainly in England and Scotland. He has told me some things that have strained credibilty; however, he was always intelligent, fair-minded, and tenacious in his research.

I have no reasons not to believe him other than my own predisposition not to want to.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 177September 17, 2019 3:56 AM

She was a very self-assured, intelligent and interesting woman. He chose well.

There's more to life than looks - and I'm sure if you had met her, you would be charmed as well.

by Anonymousreply 178September 17, 2019 3:57 AM

R153 the real Paul McCartney

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 179September 17, 2019 4:19 AM

"Paul McCartney" has never existed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 180September 17, 2019 4:38 AM

For those who insist that his looks changed because of bad nose job, when did he have this nose job? What year?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 181September 17, 2019 4:42 AM

Paul had horrid taste in women, not only prickly Linda, but the one with one leg who got a fourth of his fortune......I rest my case.

by Anonymousreply 182September 17, 2019 8:04 AM

I don't find her very attractive, but apparently HE DID, which is what matters. She also offered the family he was looking for at that time. Maybe Paul has different aesthetic preferences than average, considering that even when he did the marrying a much younger model thing (Heather Mills), she wasn't so beautiful either (in my opinion), and bitch is missing a leg too! I'm sure Paul and Linda connected on a deeper level which kept them together even if he wasn't the hottest chick around. Besides, there are those threesome rumors.

by Anonymousreply 183September 17, 2019 12:19 PM

He also looks like a lesbian in some photos

by Anonymousreply 184September 17, 2019 12:28 PM

Wow r181, how many Kim Kardashians are there?

by Anonymousreply 185September 17, 2019 4:14 PM

r185, no idea. I try to avoid looking at pictures of Kardashians.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 186September 17, 2019 4:56 PM

Different set of Beatles

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 187September 17, 2019 4:56 PM

1961

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 188September 17, 2019 5:19 PM

Ringo was goofy cute.

by Anonymousreply 189September 17, 2019 5:22 PM

1963

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 190September 17, 2019 5:27 PM

r189, which 'Ringo'? The one with the boxer's nose or the one with the long wormy nose or one of the other ones?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 191September 17, 2019 5:32 PM

This Hurricanes-era 'Richard Starkey' with the aquiline nose looks like he'd throw a mean fuck.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 192September 17, 2019 5:34 PM

This one, not so much.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 193September 17, 2019 5:34 PM

Or maybe this 1963 Tallest Ringo Ever is the one you like best

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 194September 17, 2019 5:39 PM

The Beatles never existed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 195September 17, 2019 5:55 PM

R195, So did they use session musicians? How could there be any cohesion in a group where members were constantly changing. Also doesn't make sense how there could be consistent pap stories as each man would have his own girlfriend/family.

Did read that the original Paul fathered a son by an older woman. There are/were pictures online of the now grown man with his own children.

by Anonymousreply 196September 17, 2019 6:16 PM

r196, yes, they used session musicians. And writers. They didn't have to worry about the Stage Beatles being able to really play because no one could hear over "the screaming". Some people think they had 'Street Beatles' for public events and parties and things and other Beatles for interviews. I don't think it was that organized. If you look at the photos, the different Beatles aren't always with the same other different Beatles. All of them were known to be fucking around constantly so I don't think having an official wife or girlfriend mattered much. Most people get stuck on "Paul suddenly looking different" and ignore the 57-63 groups. They were never one group. Why they kept being sent to the red light district in Hamburg instead of staying in the UK to build a same language fan base is never answered. Why the Hamburg Beatles look absolutely nothing like The Cavern Beatles is never answered. Why none of the instruments were plugged in for the Last Rooftop Concert is never answered. etc. etc. etc. The whole thing is completely bizarre.

by Anonymousreply 197September 17, 2019 6:28 PM

To the posters who believe that there were multiple Ringo's and Paul's, and that the Beatles never really existed, do you have any links where this topic is discussed and analyzed? How could TPTB get away with it?

Then again there are those who claim there were 2 different Prince Harry's too.

by Anonymousreply 198September 17, 2019 6:28 PM

r198, here's a blog that lays things out in an ok introductory manner, The Fab 4 Dozen:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 199September 17, 2019 6:31 PM

And here's a forum that courts many theories. The predominant theories are PID (Paul Is Dead) and PWR (Paul Was Replaced). But there are many who see evidence of Multiple Pauls and others who see evidence that The Beatles Never Existed (i.e. they were all multiples from go).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 200September 17, 2019 6:33 PM

You take 10 pictures of a friend from the ages of 16-40 and tell me if your friend hasn't been replaced.

by Anonymousreply 201September 17, 2019 6:47 PM

R63...she smoked, as evidenced in MANY photos.

by Anonymousreply 202September 17, 2019 7:26 PM

Interesting posts from R176 ... anyway, I love Le Rich, highly recommended, and with Croissant d’Or just around the corner for breakfast. My ex’s mother was friends with the owner.

by Anonymousreply 203September 17, 2019 8:35 PM

I heard the reason he married Linda was because she was pregnant. Would he have married her if she hadn't gotten knocked up? Who knows? Also John had married Yoko by that time and they made a spectacle out of it, spending their honeymoon greeting reporters from their bed, all dressed in white, babbling about "peace." Paul probably wanted to show John that he too could get married and have it be a big deal. And it was. Paul McCartney getting married! Oh the broken hearts!

by Anonymousreply 204September 17, 2019 8:41 PM

Did Linda and Yoko spend any time together? Wonder how they got along.

by Anonymousreply 205September 17, 2019 8:57 PM

hahaha session musicians, EMI saved every tape, over and over it's the 4 Beatles take after take, making mistakes etc. What nonsense these posters post.

by Anonymousreply 206September 17, 2019 9:04 PM

"To the posters who believe that there were multiple Ringo's and Paul's, and that the Beatles never really existed..."

Although I think the (those) posters are fucking nuts, it would be fascinating if it were true.

R206, I guarantee you that the early Beatles arrangements were not theirs, and that George Harrison did not play the studio solo on Till There was You. George Martin produced and package The Beatles in the studio, arrangements, session musicians and all. That's not a bad thing, and it doesn't take anything away from most of their LPs especially Rubber Soul on. Thinking musical groups make ALL their decisions and play ALL of their instruments ALL of the time, is naive dumb teenager stuff.

R204, you should read the thread before commenting, we've been through all that.

by Anonymousreply 207September 18, 2019 12:19 AM

I agree, R206, there's the session drummer on Love me do. George Martin himself played piano on Not a second time. I was posting about these delusional or troll posters. who think their were imposter Beatles.

by Anonymousreply 208September 18, 2019 12:39 AM

Absolute insanity here.

by Anonymousreply 209September 18, 2019 12:49 AM

^^^ I agree, it's worse than the UFO conspiracies.

by Anonymousreply 210September 18, 2019 4:51 AM

Eric Clapton played lead guitar on "George Harrison's" 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps'. Does that make any sense? If you were the lead guitarist and supposed virtuoso in the band and you only got one two songs an album, why would you give away the fancy solo to a competitor, who isn't even in your band?

No 21 year old man in the history of the species has shrunk 5 inches over 12 months and then shot up again, shrunk again, grown again, shrunk, randomly over the next several years -- except "Paul McCartney". To believe that "Paul McCartney" is one person is to believe that he is either a shapeshifter or that human bones are elastic. Which seems more reasonable, that a highly profitable enterprise that was put on a grueling schedule four 4 years, nonstop, had an A Team, a B Team, a C Team, etc. to make sure all bases were covered or that "Paul McCartney" can grow and shrink half a foot, at will?

by Anonymousreply 211September 18, 2019 7:23 AM

Sometimes McCartney is in the foreground by a foot or so in some of these photos, which would make him look taller than the others...sometimes the Beatles wore "Beatle boots" (remember those?) with a heel - some did, some didn't in the same photo. There are too many variables.

I was 14 when the Paul is Dead story was launched. I decided then that it was a phony because even of they could find an identical double (even identical twins don't look *exactly* alike), they wouldn't be able to find one with an identical voice. I have not followed the story or what McCartney has said since, but I believe it was a publicity gimmick that was launched going back to the 1967 Magical Mystery Tour LP. Yes, I know the 1966 "Got to get you into my life" supposedly described the auto accident that killed McCartney, I'm referring to the ridiculous visual "clues" such as Paul sitting at a desk with the sign "I Was" in front of him (MMT).

by Anonymousreply 212September 18, 2019 1:08 PM

r212, not in any of the photos I posted. In the photos I posted the Pauls are standing evenly with the others. Click on the pictures and look at their feet. PID is a bullshit story invented by AppleCo to try to divert attention from the fact that all the Beatles were multiples.

by Anonymousreply 213September 18, 2019 4:19 PM

[quote] It was her who chose to live in the country

Oh dear

by Anonymousreply 214September 18, 2019 6:21 PM

Kim Wilde and Jeff Buckley had a modicum of success.

by Anonymousreply 215September 18, 2019 9:59 PM

For R213 and the other lunatics: Faul takes over! We know that because this photo was in the Magical Mystery Tour album.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 216September 18, 2019 11:47 PM

[quote] they wouldn't be able to find one with an identical voice.

Exactly. Most of the pics this idiot has been pointing out are old and grainy. But the voice has always remained the same.

by Anonymousreply 217September 18, 2019 11:48 PM

Everyone knows Paul is dead because he wears the BLACK carnation in the back of the Magical Mystery Tour LP inside booklet.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 218September 18, 2019 11:49 PM

ha the reason was they ran out of red carnations. George and Eric were close friends, George co wrote and played on a couple of Cream tracks. Also Billy Preston played on Beatles tracks, SO WHAT?

by Anonymousreply 219September 19, 2019 12:12 AM

"they ran out of red carnations."

R219 = gullible

They were trying to fool your naive ass.

by Anonymousreply 220September 19, 2019 12:24 AM

Paul is high maintenance. He wanted a woman who would be by his side night and day. He can be a very controlling asshole

by Anonymousreply 221September 19, 2019 1:29 AM

Which one of these guys is the supposed 'Real Paul McCartney' and why is the one on the right wearing fake ears?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 222September 19, 2019 3:23 AM

[quote]Compare with attached lobe in 1965, and sitting further back behind the jawline (although one is attached and the other detached).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 223September 19, 2019 3:25 AM

I once skimmed through one of Linda McCartney's vegetarian cookbooks. A lot of the recipes were laden with cheese, eggs, and butter. It was unsophisticated and unhealthful plus the fact that she smoked it's not a huge surprise that she got cancer.

by Anonymousreply 224September 19, 2019 1:11 PM

r224 she got cancer because of all the soy she ate. Soy is an estrogen mimic. It's the cause of the current "obesity crisis". If you don't have an estrogen deficiency, and very few people do, eating large quantities of soy will give you an endocrine disorder. Unfortunately, the US food supply is thoroughly contaminated with soy, from animal feed to being used as unnecessary filler in everything from salad dressing to meatballs to cheeses to juices. Naked Juice (owned by PepsiCo) was sued for using soy as a filler in its drinks without listing it on the ingredients. No one has checked to make sure they (and other beverage makers) are not still doing that.

by Anonymousreply 225September 19, 2019 1:19 PM

"Soy is an estrogen mimic. It's the cause of the current "obesity crisis".

Many car makers use soy materials over wires under the hood today - mice crawl in and chew 'em. Soy is evil! Btw, if you're American, R225, learn that the quotation mark goes outside the period - "...obesity crisis."

by Anonymousreply 226September 19, 2019 1:40 PM

R226-R225 is probably British, where the period gos outside the quotation.

by Anonymousreply 227September 19, 2019 2:34 PM

DUH, R227. Note I said "if you're American." Though I wouldn't count on it.

by Anonymousreply 229September 19, 2019 2:56 PM

Jesus fucking christ. When this Paul is dead nonsense came out, they were all soaked in potent LSD. What's your excuse? Linda reminds me of a better titted Gywneth Paltrow. Are Stella McCartney and Gywnnie still hanging out?

by Anonymousreply 230September 19, 2019 4:02 PM

I'd like to hear from the Faul fan which two songs that feature Paul I would listen to if I want to hear two different McCartneys.

Because they all do sound alike. Paul has one of those distinctive voices that makes a pop star.

by Anonymousreply 231September 19, 2019 7:48 PM

r231, my background is in film and fine arts. I'm a sculptor, amongst other things. The immutable structures of a human face, such as eye distance and length of the nasal spine, are glaringly obvious to me. I'm not a musician. However, many musicians and other people who are more aurally oriented than I am have studied the oddities in the vocal register and voice prints of "Paul McCartney". A google search for "Paul" + "Faul" + vocal OR voice range OR register will bring up many links on the subject. Additionally, many people who subscribe to PWR (Paul Was Replaced) also believe that there has always been a 'Studio Paul' who, either recorded all vocals and instruments attributed to 'Paul McCartney' or who only did the vocal recordings.

A word of warning about this entire line of investigation is that many people become convinced of PID (Paul is Dead and he died in 1966) and try to fit the facts to that belief. Objectively, the facts to not show that Paul died in 1966 and was replaced with one imposter (Faul). The situation, whatever the fuck it is, is far from being that linear. A close study of footage and photos of "McCartney" from his teen years on, instead, show that there have always been multiple men publicly using the name "Paul McCartney".

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 232September 20, 2019 4:31 AM

Another more thorough audio analysis:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 233September 20, 2019 4:39 AM

1978 - November - UK, ENG, London, EMI Studios - Christmas session - Two Pauls in the studio:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 234September 20, 2019 4:56 AM

The most hilarious thing about the multiple-Beatles troll is that all the pics he's posted only serve to show that the four Beatles obviously were the same four people throughout the years.

by Anonymousreply 235September 20, 2019 5:14 AM

r235 = Helen Keller

I guess you're the only other man on earth who shrank 5 inches when he was 21 years old.

by Anonymousreply 236September 20, 2019 5:17 AM

That pic at R234, obviously photoshopped.

by Anonymousreply 237September 20, 2019 5:18 AM

LOL, r236. Paul does not in fact appear to be 5 inches taller in some pics than others, and the Beatles' faces remain completely recognizable as the same guys from one pic to the next; the only differences are the normal differences that occur with aging, varying haircuts and facial hair, and different poses and camera angles.

by Anonymousreply 238September 20, 2019 5:32 AM

"You're really one of the best Paul McCartney impersonators, I mean, ever!" - Jimmy Fallon

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 239September 20, 2019 5:33 AM

Cavett: You're only the second member of your former organization that I've ever met.

Geo: You didn't meet the other eight?

Cavett: No, no, were there that many?

Geo: Yeah. There's hundreds. You didn't hear of the 18th Beatle?

Cavett: There were rumors that The Beatles were not always the same person.

Geo: No.

Cavett: In fact, there was once a rumor that it wasn't even the real four of you that came over here on one trip, they just sent --

Geo: We just sent four dummies out there.

Cavett: That and that you were actually all bald and had no hair, so you could go out in the street and not be recognized.

Geo: It's all the truth, it's all true.

Cavett: Oh, it is?

Geo: Yeah.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 240September 20, 2019 5:48 AM

"People don't want to know what the truth is because they could never, ever handle it, they'd be too devastated." -- Heather Mills, on reason for divorce filing

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 241September 20, 2019 5:58 AM

R241-Mills was referring to her allegations that Paul was abusive and even beat Linda. Paul, one of the most famous potheads of all time, was according to her a real rager.

by Anonymousreply 242September 20, 2019 2:26 PM

r242, you wanna cite a source?

by Anonymousreply 243September 20, 2019 2:35 PM

R242, pot makes you mellow and non-violent, unless it's laced with another drug. There had never been anything that said McCartney was an abuser, not ever. If he had hit Linda she'd have been out of there like a shot. I do wish he or someone had slapped Heather Mills, however.

by Anonymousreply 244September 20, 2019 2:40 PM

There was a People Magazine story out at the time of the divorce. Mills was claiming that Paul got high one night while smoking pot on the sofa and knocked her around. She also claimed he whipped a pot of ketchup at her over dinner. She said he beat Linda and Linda was frightened of Paul. I remember reading the story in a doctor's office, and it was just so bizarre. I thought no wonder Stella loathes Mills. And of course pot makes you mellow. That's why it was absurd. Mills is clearly a liar and was looking to drum up support. It fell flat. I couldn't find the exact article, but here's some of the crap.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 245September 20, 2019 3:23 PM

r245, hmmm. Well, that story you've related doesn't jive at all with her comments on the Access Hollywood clip.

by Anonymousreply 246September 20, 2019 3:50 PM

I buy that McCartney is arrogant and controlling - his ego was enormous even in the early days - but he just doesn't vibe as violent. He'd be more likely to be emotionally distant.

by Anonymousreply 247September 20, 2019 4:03 PM

Every woman who has ever dated McCartney said he was sweet and a great kisser, exactly like you'd imagine he'd be. The controlling part was mostly at work.

by Anonymousreply 248September 20, 2019 4:07 PM

Everyone knows John was the rageaholic. I believe he slapped Yoko around. Not Paul's MO.

by Anonymousreply 249September 20, 2019 5:09 PM

Why on earth would EMI release a photo with two Pauls?

by Anonymousreply 250September 20, 2019 6:02 PM

I was the love of Paul’s life. He would have known that if we had only met.

by Anonymousreply 251September 20, 2019 7:31 PM

r250, I'm not sure it was officially released by EMI. I found it on a site by a fan who was documenting all of post-Beatle Paul's recording sessions. There's are other pictures of multiple Pauls in the same photo: Three Pauls On A Boat, Two Pauls By A Hollywood Pool, Late-Era Beatles Two Pauls In The Studio With Other Beatles, and others, surely.

by Anonymousreply 252September 21, 2019 2:50 AM

r249, he routinely battered Cynthia and nearly beat a DJ to death (not hyperbole) for suggesting he and Brian Epstein were lovers.

by Anonymousreply 253September 21, 2019 2:52 AM

r253 Lennon did fuck Epstein, so it is no surprise that he was sensitive about the subject.

by Anonymousreply 254September 21, 2019 7:31 AM

Did Andy take off his wig for sex? Did Fohn?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 255September 21, 2019 8:57 AM

As a general rule, Englishmen have shit taste in wives.

Trudie? Bloody cow. Yoko, anyone? Cumberbamble's bitchy beard? And so forth.

But I agree on Linda. Then again, IMO, Paul is not a catch lookswise, either.

by Anonymousreply 256September 21, 2019 9:20 AM

There were a couple of really good looking Pauls

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 257September 21, 2019 9:42 AM

[quote] IMO, Paul is not a catch lookswise, either.

Yes, we get that this is THE GAY opinion. Half the female world fell in love with him in the 60s.

by Anonymousreply 258September 21, 2019 9:44 AM

^^ Ooops, I "we" trolled and I HATE we trolls.

by Anonymousreply 259September 21, 2019 9:45 AM

This one was not cute

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 260September 21, 2019 9:47 AM

r258, this is GAY site. There should be no opinions here that are not GAY. If you're not GAY, fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 261September 21, 2019 9:48 AM

[quote]There should be no opinions here that are not GAY.

Sorry, but not all opinions fit into your stereotype.

[quote] If you're not GAY, fuck off.

Well, I am GAY even if no one seems to guess it, so I'll stick around.

by Anonymousreply 262September 21, 2019 10:04 AM

Cookies?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 263September 21, 2019 10:43 AM

Paul's not cute now but he's a thousand years old (as are we all) and now he's Paul fucking McCartney so it doesn't actually matter what he looks like. Legends have their privileges. Back then we had lower standards and he was, indeed, the "cute" one.

I have a bone to pick with you about your disgraceful and unwarranted attacks on the late Lady Macca's contributions to Wings. First of all, she could tambourine like nobody's business and she did all the phone sound effects in Admiral Halsey - flawless!

It doesn't matter that she couldn't sing and it's not like Macca didn't know. He's never been deaf. He loved her, he wanted her in the band. Symbiosis 24/7 seems to have been his thing.

Didn't Jane Fonda say Ted Turner was like that? Turner strikes me as a lot crazier than Macca's ever been except maybe for that freakish one-legged whore marrying phase.

by Anonymousreply 264September 21, 2019 10:51 AM

A younger Paul & Linda strongly remind me of that small one from One Direction & his girlfriend, lookswise at least. They have a similar feel as a couple too - afaik they've been together a while I don't think the gf does anything but chaperone him, take photos for IG and model on occasion.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 265September 21, 2019 12:38 PM

R258 I'm female. Your point again?

by Anonymousreply 266September 21, 2019 1:15 PM

Either you're a lesbian, which nullifies your evaluation of a man's sexual magnetism, or you're a frau, in which case your opinion on anything is void of value and you shouldn't be fucking posting here on a site created by and for gay people.

by Anonymousreply 267September 21, 2019 2:01 PM

R267 I am the OP and I logged on to tell you to calm the f down, please. I started this little post and I happen to have a vagina, so you wouldn't be having this little pow wow if it weren't for me. You can just stop with the whole "your opinion doesn't matter because you're x." It doesn't mater what anyone is, a concept that most people have been fighting for. Basic respect. I also started the "who is the most beautiful man of all time post" with Alain Delon and hey, I can't help it if I naturally sound like a gay man. Gay people are awesome and so are you, and we don't have to insult people and tell them they can't be here.

If we're all reincarnated and you have a vagina and I have a dick someday, what the fuck does it matter? Who gives a shit?

P.S. All you people who obsess over the Beatles lineup change need to get a new hobby. It's kind of scary to read someone went bankrupt investigating this.

by Anonymousreply 268September 21, 2019 2:19 PM

R267-ooooh, look, everyone. It's the GAY hall monitor! He's going to demand proof of your gayness at every post because he runs the whole show! If you're not gay, don't make eye contact and just back slowly away.

by Anonymousreply 269September 21, 2019 3:01 PM

r268, this is a site for gay people. If you're not gay, you shouldn't be posting here. You're not welcome. There are plenty of sites for fraus to post on. This is not one of them.

by Anonymousreply 270September 21, 2019 3:34 PM

[quote] I started this little post and I happen to have a vagina

Who IS you, gurl?

by Anonymousreply 271September 21, 2019 3:47 PM

"Half the female world fell in love with him in the 60s."

Not exactly. More than half of the female TEEN population was in love with him. He was the "pretty" and he had an androgynous quality that teen and pre-teen girls go crazy for. My parents (in their 30s in the 1960s), were hung up on the Beatles' hair, "they look like fairies" stuff. There was something feminine about The Beatles in the 60s, especially Paul, that didn't go over well with adults. Decades later my mother thought the band was "cute," but no one - no one - in her age group were "in love" with any of them.

by Anonymousreply 272September 21, 2019 4:27 PM

[quote]Not exactly.

I didn't mean "exactly" for goodness sake. It's a turn of phrase.

Are you that frau, still posting?

by Anonymousreply 273September 21, 2019 4:53 PM

Duh, R273. The major point is that you don't apparently know the Beatles were an obsession of teenagers in the sixties. And no, I am not your frau. So easy to dismiss an opinion that differs from your by calling it a frau's, isn't it?

by Anonymousreply 274September 21, 2019 5:01 PM

I'm going to see if there's a Nancy Shevell thread. I find her mysteriously interesting, and their marriage unlikely in its own way.

by Anonymousreply 275September 21, 2019 5:45 PM

Nancy looked like every other Jewish girl I knew in high school, R275, and I don't find her interesting in the least. Her family and background is not unlike Linda's, in fact, Linda graduated from my high school in the NY burbs. (20 years before me).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 276September 21, 2019 5:50 PM

Nancy is in the Alana Stewart school of anti-aging. The woman has young elbows and knees. Just incredible.

by Anonymousreply 277September 21, 2019 5:53 PM

So which of the Paul's was Linda married to?

by Anonymousreply 278September 21, 2019 5:56 PM

[quote]Duh, [R273]. The major point is that you don't apparently know the Beatles were an obsession of teenagers in the sixties

But that wasn't the point you made. DUH!

& of course I know that. I grew up in fucking London in the 60s. Paul McCartney & Linda lived up the road from us and knew my parents. (My father knew her brother from New York). My best friend lived opposite them and I used to see the gurls climbing the wall of his house just so they could stare in. So I think I have a better first hand knowledge of this than you do.

by Anonymousreply 279September 21, 2019 6:15 PM

r278, she seems to have legally married the "Half-Face" Paul, but she appeared to be sexually into the one who looked like a Mime and the one who looked like a Meathead.

Half-Face Paul:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 280September 21, 2019 6:27 PM

Mime Paul

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 281September 21, 2019 6:28 PM

Meat Head Paul

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 282September 21, 2019 6:29 PM

[quote]Previous well groomed, he grew a sloppy beard and started wearing clothes that made him look like a homeless person.

Or the hottest fuck of the 70s. Point of view.

by Anonymousreply 283September 21, 2019 6:30 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 284September 21, 2019 6:33 PM

Awfully touchy, aren't you, R279. That chip on your shoulder is not attractive. I'm a New Yorker, darling, grew up in the 1960s. My cousin was a classmate of one of the Eastmans. As good or better that your "fucking London" story anytime.

by Anonymousreply 285September 21, 2019 6:35 PM

I don't know why they kept this Paul around. He always looked dumb and dazed and didn't seem to be able to sing or play anything.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 286September 21, 2019 6:35 PM

The small, ugly Paul is the one who interests me. I suspect he's "The Real Paul" if there ever was such a thing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 287September 21, 2019 6:40 PM

How many Pauls are there? Which one is the current Paul?

by Anonymousreply 288September 21, 2019 6:49 PM

Wait, R280. How many different Pauls did Linda get to fuck? All of them?

by Anonymousreply 289September 21, 2019 6:50 PM

Do all the Pauls live together? Do they fill each other in regularly and debrief so they can keep their stories straight?

by Anonymousreply 290September 21, 2019 6:53 PM

[quote] Do all the Pauls live together? Do they fill each other in regularly and debrief so they can keep their stories straight?

And do they get to decide which one "plays" Paul for the day? I have many questions on the multiple Paul theory.

by Anonymousreply 291September 21, 2019 6:56 PM

R291-I'm sure there's a color-coded schedule in place.

by Anonymousreply 292September 21, 2019 7:24 PM

[quote]My cousin was a classmate of one of the Eastmans. As good or better that your "fucking London" story anytime

No, it's not - doesn't come close to my bunch of connections to them and this story. God, you're stupid.

by Anonymousreply 293September 21, 2019 7:31 PM

There were 4 beatles, at least one of them must be gay... i’ll bet on Lennon (he probably slept with Epstein and Stu)

by Anonymousreply 294September 21, 2019 7:36 PM

BINGO! R293, you're an ass.

by Anonymousreply 295September 21, 2019 7:54 PM

No, you are with your spastic posts. Bingo, my ass!

I'll be looking out for more lame comebacks from you. They're starting to be funny.

by Anonymousreply 296September 21, 2019 7:59 PM

We only look for tantrums from you, R296.

by Anonymousreply 297September 21, 2019 8:17 PM

Not hard for me to believe these "multiple Pauls" theories. After all, Vanilla Sky was Tom Cruise's final film. The new one's done everything since.

by Anonymousreply 298September 21, 2019 8:36 PM

r291, I don't know the answer to that, but I don't think it's as a linear as trading off days. I think they have different skill sets and serve different functions.

r289, Mary McCartney looks nothing like Stella or James so I'd say that Linda fucked, at minimum, two Pauls.

r288, I'm trying to figure out how many Pauls there have been. Many, is my answer for now. I've logged, at least, 6 of them pre-Beatlemania. The early concerts are problematic due to lack of footage and, as I noted, I'm not a musician so I won't pretend to guess how many different people recorded under the name "Paul McCartney". I can only try to catalogue the Pauls who appeared publicly. Right now, there are two Pauls appearing in concert and…at least, two other Pauls. One does interviews. Another seems be effectively retired from public Pauling. And there may be more.

I don't know how they organize themselves or WHY. I can only say with certainty that there have been many men, who frankly don't look much alike, performing the public character of "Paul McCartney" since around 1958.

by Anonymousreply 299September 21, 2019 9:02 PM

This is Fireman Paul. Something terrible happened to him. If you frame by frame through the music video for Wonderful Christmastime you can get more glimpses of him. Also: notice his hands or the prosthetic "hand gloves" over whatever is left of his hands.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 300September 21, 2019 9:07 PM

Clown Brows Paul with Denny Seiwell in 2012

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 301September 21, 2019 9:12 PM

Beaked Paul with Denny Seiwell in 2014

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 302September 21, 2019 9:12 PM

A Small Paul with Abe Laboriel Jr & Denny Seiwell in 2009

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 303September 21, 2019 9:14 PM

A very similar but taller Paul (with a right tilt nose and different chin) with Denny & Monique Seiwell in 1999

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 304September 21, 2019 9:17 PM

Paul was played by quintuplets. Everybody knows that.

by Anonymousreply 305September 21, 2019 9:22 PM

This was a pretty cute Paul

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 306September 21, 2019 9:26 PM

And this one had to hold his face on with his fingers:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 307September 21, 2019 9:28 PM

Some these Pauls are kinda creepy

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 308September 21, 2019 9:30 PM

And a couple of them were missing fingers

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 309September 21, 2019 9:32 PM

This is the Ringo who is Zak Starkey's father:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 310September 21, 2019 9:34 PM

This Ringo had the smallest nose in the band:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 311September 21, 2019 9:36 PM

Here's Linda showing more skin than she usual.

Linda had naturally big boobs. If only she didn't have that ugly mullet, she'd actually look beautiful.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 312September 21, 2019 10:49 PM

The kids are not as attractive as the parents.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 313September 21, 2019 10:54 PM

I know what you mean, R313.

by Anonymousreply 314September 21, 2019 10:56 PM

Again, I ask you blind ones, during which year did the One And Only Paul McCartney have this supposed nose job (that resulted in him having the physicality of a dozen different men from 1957-present)?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 315September 21, 2019 11:42 PM

Four Dummies

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 316September 21, 2019 11:45 PM

R315-you do realize that things like camera angles, lighting, stage make-up and aging affect how noses appear, correct?

by Anonymousreply 317September 21, 2019 11:47 PM

R276 That’s exactly why I find her interesting - that THAT girl we all knew in high school got the cute Beatle. Eventually, anyhow.

by Anonymousreply 318September 21, 2019 11:49 PM

1963

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 319September 22, 2019 12:04 AM

c. 1957

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 320September 22, 2019 12:07 AM

A person's look changed in 6 years. Fancy that! Add changes in hair style, weight fluctuations and grainy photography in different qualities of light, well, it's hardly an open and shut case that there were multiple Pauls running around. In fact, I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that's the exact same fella-just 6 years older, thinner and with different hair in the first photo. Gasp!

by Anonymousreply 321September 22, 2019 12:17 AM

1964

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 322September 22, 2019 12:26 AM

Mr. Potato Paul

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 323September 22, 2019 12:39 AM

All of the rolling Stones we're gay and didn't really hide it. The Beatles were very intense. It wasn't just luck. I think the intensity came from being gay. Glenn Campbell was intense but I think his intensity came from being dirt poor and no other prospects. His family were sharecroppers.

by Anonymousreply 324September 22, 2019 1:53 AM

George Harrison was best looking but he lacked charisma, to say the least. He often looked like a visitor.

by Anonymousreply 325September 22, 2019 2:41 AM

Harrison was a dour, resentful man.

by Anonymousreply 326September 22, 2019 2:45 AM

Sometimes charisma is not picked up by the camera? I've seen her in interviews and no signs of charisma though. I always thought she was rich girl who snagged poor boy

by Anonymousreply 327September 22, 2019 2:52 AM

None of royal family has been able to use their wealth to attract an attractive mate. Kind of depressing. I thought maybe they could introduce some smarts into the family.

by Anonymousreply 328September 22, 2019 2:56 AM

I can’t stop laughing w/ this troll and his Pauls theories lmao. Paul is like Morty (rick & morty) with all his differents versions from other alternative universes?

by Anonymousreply 329September 22, 2019 3:05 AM

I love the Pauls theories, R329. They make me laugh and I know a very annoying Paul McCartney fan that I can "trigger" with them.

by Anonymousreply 330September 22, 2019 5:40 AM

r329, no, the public character "Paul McCartney" and the ensemble who enacts him are all very much of this world.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 331September 22, 2019 8:46 AM

If you genuinely lack the ability to visually discern between the completely different right ears shown on the two entirely different Pauls below, I don't know how you manage to get through the day without disaster. I cannot comprehend a life of being incapable of differentiating between vaguely similar shapes and colors somewhere near one another on the spectrum. Is it a matter bias blindness, is it an inability to focus, is it a learning disability, are you legally fucking blind?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 332September 22, 2019 9:13 AM

This is my favorite Paul McCartney video. It's not doppelganger related.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 333September 22, 2019 10:06 AM

George Harrison was best looking but he lacked charisma? George was nice looking but not girly pretty like Paul, therefore, there was less interest from teenage girls.

by Anonymousreply 334September 22, 2019 1:53 PM

Just scrolled through some of the posts by abrasive idiots I've ignored in this thread. More things you're wrong about: the pic @ r234 is NOT photoshopped and I'm as far from a Dump supporter as anyone could possibly get. Your inability to *see* what you're looking at, and I'm sure this applies across the entirety of your life, should concern you. That you can't tell the difference between a man who is 5'6" and one who is 6'3" raises serious questions about your ability to intake and process visual information. You should see a neurologist, or at the very least an optometrist. Additionally, you should realize that your assertion that *no one* can discern the content of non-digital photographs, is both laughable and, again, suggests there is something wrong with your vision.

by Anonymousreply 335September 22, 2019 2:11 PM

Don't get your point, R234/335.

Paul is on the left of the picture, playing the bass. You can't even make out the features of the others. And the ear is the same - just taken at a different angle.

Don't know whether Linda was a beard, but always thought it was strange that she looked liked Paul in the same way that John Looked like Yoko. What's even stranger (or maybe not) is that Nancy Shevell looks like John.

by Anonymousreply 336September 22, 2019 2:27 PM

Great insights provided by op. Reminds me of when I discovered that all of Melissa Gilbert's boyfriend's were gay including tammy cruise and Rob lowe. Pulitzer deserving.

by Anonymousreply 337September 22, 2019 2:47 PM

How about Clint Eastwood and Sondra lock? Sondra was married to openly gay writer.

by Anonymousreply 338September 22, 2019 2:53 PM

All the Fauls in one place.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 339September 22, 2019 3:57 PM

Hey multiple Pauls theorist. Years ago I heard that there were multiple Jon Bon Jovi's, any thoughts on that theory?

by Anonymousreply 340September 22, 2019 3:59 PM

R339-Coming Up was just a painful, painful video. It's kind of like watching your father think he's being cool. The farther Paul got from the Beatles, the more dreadful his music.

by Anonymousreply 341September 22, 2019 4:24 PM

R341, I don't think he was trying to be cool, I just thinking he was having a little bit of fun. Now whether it worked is another matter.

by Anonymousreply 342September 22, 2019 4:29 PM

r336, of course, one can make out the features of the people in the photo. Again, there may be something wrong with your vision…or, more generously, with the screen of whatever device you're using right now. Yes, the Faul on the left is playing an upright bass and the Faul towards the center of the frame is playing *right handed* guitar.

by Anonymousreply 343September 22, 2019 9:57 PM

r340, I don't know anything about Bon Jovi, really, and haven't noticed his name being brought up in discussions of other public figures who have possibly been performed by multiple people.

I have never been a Beatles fan, in fact, I find most of their music aggressively unpleasant to listen to. I dismissed the PID theory the first time I encountered it because it seemed too absurd to possibly be true. About a year and a half ago I fell down a Mandela Effect wormhole and came across a video that, tangentially, delved into the multiple Pauls theory. Looking into it further, I became perplexed by the fact that the Pauls' ears were so frequently different, did not match image to image, could not possibly be the ears of the same person. FYI ears are used as biometric identifiers on par with fingerprints in Germany. While the lobes may grow with age, the inner contours do not change and are entirely unique to every individual. In addition to having a wide variety of ear shapes, the set and location of the Pauls' ears differ, the lobes vary between being connected and unconnected and several Pauls frequently appear to be wearing prosthetic ears of really dodgy quality. This applies to all of 'The Beatles'. I had thought it would be fairly simple to figure out when 'Paul' started wearing fake ears, I'd just go back through photos and it would be obvious. Instead, what I found was that there were multiple Pauls, multiple everybodies, and that the ear weirdness in no way compared to the oddities of the hands of several members of the various Beatle groups. There are many theories that propose to explain 'what it's all about'. I don't subscribe to any of them. I don't think enough information has been uncovered to begin trying to stitch the pieces together. Much inquiry suffers from the personality flaws we've seen run rampant from antagonists in this thread: people begin with a conclusion and dismiss evidence that challenges what they want to be true, rather than allowing the evidence to stack up into a conclusion. A lot of people don't enjoy learning and don't know how to learn.

by Anonymousreply 344September 22, 2019 10:15 PM

R342-I get what you're saying, but he as trying to have fun in that way dads do in front of their friends. The way that just makes teens cringe and want to die.

by Anonymousreply 345September 22, 2019 10:15 PM

[quote] I don't see the magical charm! What am I missing!???

The wisdom and maturity to understand that what humans seek in a partner varies widely from one individual to the next and it's really not that odd that the love of one person's life might be completely unattractive to someone else? Are you on the spectrum by chance? You come across the way in your posts or maybe you're just very, very childish.

by Anonymousreply 346September 22, 2019 10:32 PM

[quote]Looking into it further, I became perplexed by the fact that the Pauls' ears were so frequently different, did not match image to image, could not possibly be the ears of the same person.

Right, like in the pics you posted at r332 wherein Paul's ears look different because his hair is longer and covers more of his ear in one photo than the other and they are shot from slightly different angles? Super convincing. And then there's "missing fingers" Paul at r309, whom upon closer inspection has 10 intact fingers but is simply holding the index and middle fingers of his left hand very close together. Again, highly convincing.

At least you are rather hilarious in your lunacy. Tell me, do you look back at old photos of yourself and wonder if you have several impostors when you don't look exactly the same in every photo?

by Anonymousreply 347September 22, 2019 10:40 PM

R347-I half wonder if that poster has facial blindness or the mental illness where people believe people have been replaced by imposters. It's called Capgras syndrome or Capgras delusion. It's just so bizarre.

by Anonymousreply 348September 22, 2019 10:51 PM

R346, nobody even wants to be friends with someone asymmetrical let alone reproduce with them unless they are extremely charismatic . Neither Linda nor Yoko possess charisma. Melissa gilbert is extraordinarily ugly yet she dated only handsome men.ie Tom cruise, Rob lowe, etc. Anyway, all the men in this story are gay. Physically ugly people can actually be attractive. Rod Stewart, mick Jagger, Keith Richards, etc. Even Conan O'Brien Has a certain attractiveness despite being about as ugly as is possible.

by Anonymousreply 349September 22, 2019 11:23 PM

Melissa Gilbert isn't ugly. She's perfectly, passably average, but I guess in Hollywood that qualifies as ugly if you're a woman. Although I'd argue Rod Stewart and Conan O'Brien completely lack anything redeeming when it comes to looks. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards when they were young were beautiful. Back to Paul-he had that female quality cuteness that adolescent girls lose their minds for. All these years later, who ever would have guessed that Ringo Fucking Starr would be the Hot Beatle?

by Anonymousreply 350September 22, 2019 11:32 PM

John was obviously!

by Anonymousreply 351September 22, 2019 11:55 PM

But the Faul center frame R343 is Laurence Juber.

by Anonymousreply 352September 23, 2019 12:25 AM

r352, Nope! People thought that and researched it and: nope! Just google the pic and you'll find conversations about it.

by Anonymousreply 353September 23, 2019 12:40 AM

Juber is one of the two fellows on the right. Center Paul is Small Troll Paul.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 354September 23, 2019 12:44 AM

I think this is the same one in the 80s (with daughter Heather See):

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 355September 23, 2019 12:47 AM

June 22nd, 1966

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 356September 23, 2019 12:55 AM

June 26th, 1966

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 357September 23, 2019 12:55 AM

August 12th, 1966

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 358September 23, 2019 12:57 AM

August 13th, 1966

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 359September 23, 2019 12:58 AM

August 23rd, 1966

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 360September 23, 2019 12:59 AM

August 29th, 1966

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 361September 23, 2019 1:00 AM

Also, August 29th 1966

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 362September 23, 2019 1:01 AM

Also, August 29th 1966

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 363September 23, 2019 1:01 AM

Yeah, r348, if this dude's not just trolling, he clearly has some sort of brain damage/dysfunction. It's nuts how he's posted dozens of pics of what are obviously the SAME person and keeps frantically, adamantly asserting that we're all blind not to realize that Paul at 50 can't be the same guy as Paul at 25, and Paul with a mustache must be someone different from Paul with no facial hair. Not to mention, what on earth would even be the point of having a zillion Beatles multiples?

by Anonymousreply 364September 23, 2019 1:02 AM

And Simian Paul from June '66 returns during the 1967 Magical Mystery Tour Shoot

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 365September 23, 2019 1:03 AM

She was the daughter of the Eastman Kodak guy so good at that high society world and not going for Mc's money. So he could relax. And they gave us Stella so that is nice too. I don't think it was a bullshit relationship (Heather Mills, though... Jesus).

by Anonymousreply 366September 23, 2019 1:16 AM

r366, if you'd bothered to read *any* of this thread before posting, you'd know that wasn't true. Nobody wants to intake any information, they just want to scream into the void.

by Anonymousreply 367September 23, 2019 1:19 AM

Okay r349, now I'm more convinced than ever that you're either on the spectrum or just terminally immature. Attractiveness and charisma are subjective. There are no hard-and-fast rules governing whom somebody might be attracted to as a friend, hookup, or lifelong partner. What you find "extraordinarily ugly," somebody else might find perfectly acceptable. What you find ugly but sexy, someone else might find repellent. And for some people, a partner's appearance isn't high on the list of things that matter, or y'know, maybe it does matter, but in a different way that it does to you; e.g, for some people a nice rack might make up for a not-so-hot face. It's kind of weird that you've reached adulthood without realizing these things.

by Anonymousreply 368September 23, 2019 1:39 AM

Reply 350, young teen girls are attracted to dirty,macho, lots of facial hair.

by Anonymousreply 369September 23, 2019 1:42 AM

R365 Look at their beautiful clothes. Where are all those groovy clothes worn by rock stars in the 60s?

by Anonymousreply 370September 23, 2019 1:44 AM

R366 No, she wasn't a Kodak Eastman. Many people thought that, and she probably didn't do much to disabuse people of the notion. I actually have a distinctive last name, a rich family's name. People sometimes ask if I'm related, and I don't outright lie; I just brush it off, act like I don't want to talk about it, heh heh. Which of course impresses them.

by Anonymousreply 371September 23, 2019 1:55 AM

Paul McCartney is a total fake! All he’s been doing since Linda McCartney died was to post stuff about her. He never had the balls to move on with his life, living with regrets for the better life that he could’ve had. On top of that, he has destroyed the life of his recent wives, including the one he is right now and that he will divorce soon. he has been associated with dark entities for so long to serve a musical conspiracy purpose and it’s only way to try to regain a little bit of humility has been to share his love for Linda McCartney with the public. He is pathetic. I don’t know how can people support his cause when he is a narcissist sack of shit. Hopefully he will be gone soon and we wont hear from him anymore. The world need more positivity and less whiners.

by Anonymousreply 372September 23, 2019 4:39 AM

[quote] I don’t know how can people support his cause

What cause would that be?

by Anonymousreply 373September 23, 2019 4:40 AM

"Many people thought that, and she probably didn't do much to disabuse people of the notion"

R371, the family name was originally EPSTEIN. The Eastman Kodak bit taken on by the press in 1969 was immediately corrected. Try to remember this.

The duplicate Pauls bullshit should be a separate thread.

by Anonymousreply 374September 23, 2019 12:38 PM

Nancy is from a mob family. Not a great idea to try to divorce the mob. They aren't splitting up any time soon.

by Anonymousreply 375September 23, 2019 1:47 PM

"Try to remember this" - I don't like your tone, young lady. Why so touchy?

by Anonymousreply 376September 23, 2019 1:55 PM

5 Pauls in these Band On The Run polaroids from Lagos, 1975

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 377September 23, 2019 2:47 PM

Paul is friends with shady people in the media as Oprah, idk if he’s friends with Harvey’s too.

by Anonymousreply 378September 23, 2019 3:49 PM

Linda addressed the Eastman Kodak confusion in a print interview I read years ago. She said that as a photographer starting out, she wasn't about to correct someone if they made that assumption, and it helped her. She didn't lie. She just didn't correct. She was pretty matter-of-fact about it.

by Anonymousreply 379September 23, 2019 5:40 PM

Got it, thanks. Somehow I made it to a ripe old age without ever knowing that Linda was not the Kodak heir.

by Anonymousreply 380September 23, 2019 7:02 PM

Topps Trading Card, circa '63

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 381September 24, 2019 12:32 AM

"Paul McCartney" - 1967, during Magical Mystery Tour shoot

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 382September 24, 2019 12:33 AM

GOD! Paul was 5'11" and 158??? I am so much fatter. Well......I work out.

by Anonymousreply 383September 24, 2019 12:34 AM

Dark Brown Eyed McCartney jugging a coconut in Key West, 1964

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 384September 24, 2019 12:39 AM

Brown Eyed "Paul", Scotland, circa '78

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 385September 24, 2019 12:42 AM

Two Pauls

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 386September 24, 2019 12:47 AM

R396, you neglect to mention the nose thinning surgery Paul had circa 1970.

by Anonymousreply 387September 24, 2019 1:44 AM

"You never heard of the 18th Beatle?" - George Harrison to Dick Cavett

Still below from 'Give My Regards To Broad Street':

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 388September 24, 2019 2:19 AM

'Give My Regards To Broad Street' still, reflection flipped:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 389September 24, 2019 2:22 AM

'Give My Regards To Broad Street' still, reflection flipped & proportionally stretched:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 390September 24, 2019 2:23 AM

I like the "Coming Up" video and DID when I was a teenager. It was a hit song, it went to #1. There's nothing terrible and embarrasing about it. He did the video it for a laugh(and I guess to show he could still wear his original Beatle suit with no tailoring LOL, hey he was 38 at the time, one wants to brag if one can still fit into the suit you wore when you were 20, at least if you were an attractive, slender 20 year old) and because at the time it was somewhat technologically interesting to be able to have all those "Paul's" in one video.

Some people take things way too seriously.

by Anonymousreply 391September 24, 2019 3:18 AM

She had big ta-tas and they don't look fake.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 392September 24, 2019 4:42 AM

Really, R391? I was a huge Beatles fan, absolutely huge, when Coming Up came out, and I felt embarrassed for him when I saw it. That's when as a teenager I learned that the people we put on pedestals are very human after all.

by Anonymousreply 393September 24, 2019 10:51 AM

I agree with R393. I was in my twenties when Coming Up came out and I found the entire thing - regardless of how high it was on the charts - a total embarrassment. For a decade I was hoping to see Paul write ONE song as good as he did with The Beatles (trunk songs like Maybe I'm Amazed don't count), and was disappointed again and again. Coming Up, and the insipid video, was drek. Was it because George Martin was responsible to producing all the Beatles stuff?

by Anonymousreply 394September 24, 2019 12:32 PM

r394 The theory is that Lennon and McCartney forced each other to write good songs. Once they broke up, they had no critical voice, they indulged themselves, and both wrote crap songs.

by Anonymousreply 395September 24, 2019 12:44 PM

A more plausible explanation is that the Paul McCartney who wrote Eleanor Rigby and the Paul McCartney who wrote Bip Bop are two completely different fucking people.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 396September 24, 2019 12:57 PM

R395-it helped I think that they were so hyper competitive with one another. They brought out the best in each other.

by Anonymousreply 397September 24, 2019 12:58 PM

Oh yes, R396, that's more plausible. Far more plausible. Jesus Christ.

by Anonymousreply 398September 24, 2019 1:01 PM

IAMAPHONEY was a dubiously esoteric multimedia/geocache project, produced by Neil Aspinall/AppleCo, which reiterated and expanded upon the official propaganda of One Paul - One Replacement. The multi-volume 'Memoirs of Billy Shears', also funded by Macca, similarly insists upon trying to force through this narrative that an 'original' Paul was killed in a car wreck in '66 and replaced with a single lookalike. Anyone who takes the time to actually examine photographs and footage of 'Paul McCartney' and 'The Beatles' from 1957 through early 1963 will clearly see that there is no earthly way for there to have been one 'original Paul' who performed with The Quarrymen/The Silver Beatles/Johnny & The Moon Dogs/etc.

IAMAPHONEY's 'The Winged Beatle':

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 399September 24, 2019 2:49 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 400September 24, 2019 4:50 PM

The interview last night on Colbert (thanks R400) with McCartney was absolutely charming. He has 8 grand-kids now, I think he was completely capable of loving Linda, he's pretty down to earth.

by Anonymousreply 401September 25, 2019 1:34 AM

That was a charming interview. His poor voice sounds so shot now.

by Anonymousreply 402September 25, 2019 4:16 PM

But how could Talk Show Paul's voice be shot when so many Pauls shared singing duties over the years?

by Anonymousreply 403September 25, 2019 5:53 PM

R403-maybe that Paul has been shouldering the majority of the burden these last few years. Kidding aside, I remember his singing Hey, Jude during the opening of the London Olympics and feeling really badly for him. Usually I notice it more when a female singer's voice is gone, but it's been pretty apparent with Paul for awhile.

by Anonymousreply 404September 25, 2019 6:48 PM

Paul is quite the charmer and I think it's genuine. Not to say there isn't the jerk part of him too, and which is also genuine, but I don't think the charm is all an act, I think it's a genuine part of his personality because from descriptions he's been that way since he was a small child. He's a complex person, the good and the bad elements of his personality can both be genuine just like for most other people.

As a nearly lifelong fan, part of me has always hated him being "reduced" to the Cute One by so many assholes, it being used as a way to belittle his talent and accomplishments, when he's such a genius and gifted song writer and performer. But sometimes, he could be so very "cute", cute as a button, in the right situation. It's not even about looks because even as an old man, he still has his cute moments. It's a personality thing where sometimes he could just be incredibly adorably cute.

by Anonymousreply 405September 26, 2019 1:39 AM

[quote]Before I begin, I need to say that I have wanted to write this article for a very long time- but I have been hesitant to do so. Some of you may roll your eyes at what I am about to describe here, and others may eat it up in a frenzy. It’s going to most likely be an unpopular account of my experience of seeing Sir Paul in concert not once, but twice and NINE years apart. Both times in Los Angeles and both in extraordinarily epic and historical form for two very different reasons as you will understand as we get into the thick of it below. This is not a critique of his performances, this is not a review of his set list, this is not a bashing of his (what some critics say) diminishing vocal talent. No -- this is something a bit different.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 406September 26, 2019 1:56 AM

I love the multiple Pauls troll. He's hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 407September 26, 2019 2:10 AM

I had to block them. I usually have a high tolerance for trolls, and seldom block anyone, but this really pushed me over.

by Anonymousreply 408September 26, 2019 2:14 AM

There's the real multiple Paul troll and then there are several fake multiple Paul trolls. The grammar, spelling, and punctuation they use in their posts are slightly but indisputably different, and it's SO OBVIOUS that multiple multiple Paul trolls have invaded DL.

by Anonymousreply 409September 26, 2019 2:29 AM

R409 Ha!

by Anonymousreply 410September 26, 2019 3:11 AM

R405, cute is the word pre-teen girls call handsome guys, it has nothing to do with belittling his work. Paul as "the cute one" was probably part of Brian Epstein's marketing. The media stopped calling him cute in 1967 when the mop tops has turned into something else.

by Anonymousreply 411September 26, 2019 1:24 PM

R409-I didn't even know there were Paul trolls!

by Anonymousreply 412September 26, 2019 1:29 PM

The only trolls in this thread are those who claim to be unable to tell the difference between a man who is 5'6" and another man who is 6'3". These are the same people who launch into vituperative attacks accusing anyone who doesn't agree with them about political strategy of being Russian trolls. These are the same morons who can't bother reading articles but manage to form immutable knee-jerk opinions based upon nothing other than their "gut instincts" and the first 3 words in the article title. These people are idiots. Idiots don't like new information because they're incapable of learning. They want a static, simple universe which bears no resemblance to reality, just as the Small Paul and Giant Paul of the spring of '63 bore no resemblance to one another.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 413September 26, 2019 2:01 PM

R413 ???? Paul hasn't been 5 ft 6 since, well, since before he met John Lennon. Even Paul's first show with the Quarrymen, he was as tall as John and he was 15 years old. George was absolutely adorable when he first joined, he's only 9 months younger than Paul but I guess his spurt hadn't hit yet and was about 5 or 6 inches shorter he looked like someone's dad had said "you can only be in the band if you let Georgie join too!"

When do the Paul is Dead trolls believe he died if they think a supposed height difference in 1963 because the angle in some pictures makes him look smaller than usual?? Plus Paul is nearly always as tall and sometimes slightly taller than the other Beatles in pictures(John Paul and George all claimed 5 ft 11 but I think John was actually a tiny bit shorter whereas Paul and George make it) . So what the short Paul was only used a couple times?

by Anonymousreply 414September 27, 2019 3:05 AM

r414 - your post indicates that you have neither read any of my posts nor taken the literal seconds it would have taken you to look at the comparison images I've posted. No one in this thread has professed a belief that Paul Is Dead (PID). And, contrary to your assertion, there are two photos from the spring/summer of 1964 posted in this very thread which show "Paul McCartney" both one inch shorter than Ringo and four inches taller than George and John. So, if you want to actually take a look at the data and then have a conversation about, I'd be happy to do so. But engaging with facts, reality or human beings, is clearly not why you're here.

by Anonymousreply 415September 27, 2019 11:00 PM

So where are all the Pauls now? Have some of them died? Does only one remain?

by Anonymousreply 416September 28, 2019 4:14 AM

r416, there are least two still touring. One of them with darker hair plays on stage, while the one with silver hair appears on the screen. The one on stage has the fucked up face. There's another who does interviews. There's another who rarely appears in public, but was at the exhibit of Linda's photos with Yoko in I think 2013 or thereabouts -- he's the small troll one who looks like he's wearing a mask. I guess the really tall one with the clown eye brows is probably still alive, but I haven't seen photos of him for several years and he only made public appearances, didn't perform. I have no idea about the others, whether they're dead or just retired. I'm, also, not sure if The Fireman is Troll Paul or if he got burned up later on in the game. One Eye Paul seems to either be dead or retired. The blank eyed one vanished, too. Many vanished.

Linked is the earliest pic I've found of Clown Brows, 1960 - 08.17 - DE, Hamburg, The Indra (compare with the pic I posted upthread of Clown Brows with Denny Seiwell):

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 417September 28, 2019 2:02 PM

[quote]I have an old book called 'John Lennon: Death Of A Dream', by George Carpozi Jnr. The book itself is a bit of a hodgepodge of info, and all it has something of a rushed feel about it - it actually says it was printed in 1980, so they certainly didn't waste any time from getting on the bandwagon. Anyway, the book contains an interveiw with Rick Sklar, a radio DJ and longtime personal associate of the Beatles, conducted by Martin A. Grove. An interesting tidbit from the interview:

[quote]GROVE: I've recently been going through stacks of photographs of The Beatles, taken over a period of probably 10 years. Some of them are included in this book. As you look at their pictures it is, in many cases, actually difficult to identify the people in the latter period photographs with the people in the earlier photos. They physically do not look close to being the same. If you look at such a wide range of pictures you will find there's even a middle period in which the same people don't resemble the people in the late period or the early period! Why do you think all four of them went through so many physical changes?

[quote]SKLAR: There's no question that they did go through these changes. There's no question the changes were real in terms of the productivity of the work they were doing, the type of work, their physical appearances, their outlook on life and that changes like these do not normally occur in an individual or group. In fact, most artists over the years try to reatin a certain youthfulness that they had earlier. They literally try to present the same face to the public. I imagine that - and I can only speculate here - the changes were caused by the intensity of the pubic reaction to them and its effect upon them. This was a very unusual experience for a human being to go through, and here four of them went through it. The thought of public reaction - reserved in ancient Rome for the Emperor, reserved in ancient Egypt for the Pharoah! It's very rare that you get this kind of reaction by a public to a human being, placing them in semi-Godlike status. That has to have some kind of an effect after time on the individuals involved, who after all are mere mortals. You know, they're people like us. And yet they're subject to this almost deification in the generation in which they are playing. In that ten year period that has to have an effect. Perhaps this is what we are seeing when we see them go through these intense changes unlike other groups of artists.

[quote]So there you have it, according to Grove and Sklar the four Beatles went through some rather bizarre physical changes over the course of barely a decade, and Sklar puts an end to the question of why with the perfectly sensible suggestion that it was literally nothing more than public adulation that made there faces and bodies go through these noticable, incredible changes!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 418September 28, 2019 2:08 PM

One Eyed Beatlemania-era Paul

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 419September 28, 2019 2:24 PM

A very different Beatlemania-era Paul, with lip scar, eye crinkles and huge chin:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 420September 28, 2019 2:25 PM

1963 - October 23rd-31st - Stockholm, Sweden

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 421September 28, 2019 2:28 PM

1963 - July - Margate

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 422September 28, 2019 2:32 PM

1963 - November 4th - Prince of Wales Theatre, London - Royal Variety Performance

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 423September 28, 2019 2:36 PM

1963 - September - London - Alley to the left of Abbey Road Studios

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 424September 28, 2019 2:37 PM

They all look like exactly the same person taken from different camera angles.

by Anonymousreply 425September 28, 2019 3:22 PM

Well she was a hell of a sight better than that one legged hellion he married and divorced.

by Anonymousreply 426September 28, 2019 3:25 PM

r425, maybe if you're legally blind. You're unable to visually comprehend that one man is taller and another is shorter? Have you taken the prosopagnosia test I linked to upthread?

by Anonymousreply 427September 28, 2019 4:30 PM

[quote]In a 2009 Wired Italia article, Francesco Gavazzeni and Gabriella Carlesi, two Italian forensic scientists, conducted a biometric analysis of images taken of the Beatle both before and after 1966 for what was originally intended to be a piece debunking the conspiracy theories.

[quote]To their surprise, the scientists found measurements of the shape of the skull and jaw, the curve of the jaw, the ear, palate and teeth displayed marked differences between the Pauls, leading them to conclude with a “high degree of probability” that they were in fact two different men.

[quote]“The mandibular curve between the two sets of photos showed a discrepancy of over 6 percent, well beyond the threshold of error. But there was more, before 1966 each side of the jaw is composed of two curves, since 1967 it appears to be a single curve”, the article explained.

[quote]Gavazzeni and Carlesi outline several other significant morphological differences in Paul’s lips, eyes, nose and teeth; too many, they say, to be down to the natural fluctuations you would expect between different photos of the same person.

Link to scans of the article and a lousy machine translation:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 428September 28, 2019 4:53 PM

Google Translation (also lousy) of the Wired study:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 429September 28, 2019 4:55 PM

A solid analysis of the Wired study:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 430September 28, 2019 5:09 PM

OP's photo is of the place and night they met. She had already inveigled herself into his milieu by being a "Rock photographer," for which pursuit Linda had abandoned husband and child in the US. She is the Groupie on the back of the album "Super Sessions."

By all accounts and ironically, it was her maternal nature---and build---that attracted Paul.

Linda was no dummy about the lifestyle of a famous Rock star, which is why she became part of "Wings."

by Anonymousreply 431September 28, 2019 5:18 PM

Another recapitulation of the Wired article from a (presumably) non-antisemitic blogger:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 432September 28, 2019 7:19 PM

The multiple Paul troll is an anti-semitic sick fuck. The articles he loves to submit as compelling evidence pose questions such as "How long are we going to let the Jews get away with this?" FFing his ass every chance I get.

by Anonymousreply 433September 28, 2019 7:34 PM

r433, I am not antisemitic. I provided you with a summary of the Wired article because it is in a foreign language and the auto-translations are terrible. Like you.

by Anonymousreply 434September 28, 2019 9:57 PM

Multiple Pauls person, can you take that shit to ANOTHER THREAD? You've ruined this one.

by Anonymousreply 435September 28, 2019 11:22 PM

What happened to all the Fauls? Were they pensioned off or assassinated?

by Anonymousreply 436September 28, 2019 11:36 PM

R431 Linda didn't leave her husband to do this. She and her husband had divorced months before. She was already back living in New York, with her daughter Heather whom she never abandoned, working as a receptionist and editorial assistant for Town & Country magazine when she got into rock photography. She'd became interested in photography while living in Arizona attending the University of AZ, majoring fine arts. She loved the natural beauty in AZ. She also always loved rock n roll. One of her first relationships after the break up with her first husband was with another photographer and he commented on the relationship between her and daughter and how it was very charming to watch.

When back in NYC, working for the magazine, some invitations came in for the Rolling Stones yacht press conference, so she saw her shot, took it and that was that. She was the only female photographer, young, tall and blonde to boot, who showed up on the dock - and THAT is why she was the only photographer chosen to go on the boat. Which was total luck.

(Also kind of answers the OP's questions about her looks. She didn't need to be all that attractive. She was blonde and straight men lose all judgement with blondes. A blonde can be a dog facially, which Linda wasn't and with a little make up she could be very attractive, but all they see is the blonde hair and that's enough. Whenever you see an ugly blonde and wonder how she got a hot man's attention in the first place, look no further than hair color, that is the answer to the question)

Afterwards all the other media outlets had to buy her pictures to illustrate their articles about this Rolling Stones event and that is how she got her start in rock photography. Say what you want but she took a lot of great pictures of rock stars. She had a great eye.

by Anonymousreply 437September 29, 2019 12:33 AM

Who are you, R437, and where did you get that shit?

by Anonymousreply 438September 29, 2019 12:51 AM

So what happened to all the different Pauls,multiple Pauls troll? Are they all still alive? Who's the current Paul, or are there multiple Pauls playing him as well?

by Anonymousreply 439September 29, 2019 12:55 AM

R438 Decades of research--reading lots of books about The Beatles, Paul McCartney and Linda. Information from Linda herself and her own family including her kids in interviews. LOL That sort of thing. It's also pretty common knowledge to anyone who pays attention to things like dates and events as opposed to taking the sour grapes of fangirls from the 1960's that she got the last unattached Beatle and the angry fanboys who probably wouldn't have picked on her but they hated Paul for "breaking up the Beatles" and figured one way to get back at him was to disparage his wife as gospel. The quote from the photographer she dated after moving back to NYC is on Wiki. It's also well known she didn't abandon her kid, because her kid was with her frequently. People she dated knew her daughter, her friends knew her daughter, Paul met her daughter when their relationship was just starting, so very early into it, because her daughter lived with her in her apartment in NY. One of the things he admired about her was how she balanced her work and motherhood.

Yes Linda slept around pre Paul and sometimes it was with some of the rock stars she photographed. She never hid it, Paul knew it. Paul of course was well known for sleeping around with way more women than she did men. But that doesn't make her a groupie. She had sometimes had sex with people she first met while doing her job - which is not unusual at all. It was behind the camera rather than in front of it but they still ran in the same circles which is how most people met their romantic/sexual partners in those days.

by Anonymousreply 440September 29, 2019 1:35 AM

In a way, a lot of Paul's life has been defined by sudden/premature losses: his mother, John and Linda. I don't care how wealthy or famous you are, that's rough.

by Anonymousreply 441September 29, 2019 2:50 AM

r436, Fuck if I know. I didn't kill them. Some people think one of the Beatlemania-era Pauls became (or returned to being) John Halliday, who was the caretaker of McCartney's childhood home until attracting too much attention. Similarly, there's a man named Colin Unwin who is the caretaker of Lennon's childhood home and bears a striking resemblance to one of the stocky strong jawed Beatlemania-era Johns.

r439, as mentioned above, there are at least two current touring Pauls and a third who does interviews. The stage Paul has mostly brown hair/wig and the stadium screen Paul is all silver. The screen Paul is horsier looking than the the one who does interviews. The latter looks more like a mouse. The right side of the stage Paul's face is fucked up.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 442September 29, 2019 3:53 AM

There are so many references to a Paul dying in a car wreck that it raises the possibility that one of them did died in a wreck. But you have to factor in Tara Browne's staged death crash when considering that possibility.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 443September 29, 2019 4:09 AM

I do have to wonder why someone is so intent upon spreading mis/dis-information in this thread. Your vitriolic personal attacks against me and dubious claims of blindness, only serve to highlight your irrationality and the obvious facts which you deny and from which you attempt to distract; you are causing a Streisand Effect. So, good luck with that.

For the person who erroneously claims that Paul wanted to marry Jane Asher:

[quote]"I liked her a lot and we got on very well. She was a very intelligent and very interesting person, but I just never clicked. One of those indefinable things about love is some people you click with and some people who you should maybe click with you don't. Whatever." - Paul McCartney - Many Years From Now, Barry Miles

For the "Beatle fan" who erroneously claims session musicians were not used by 'The Beatles', please, see the linked and extensive, alphabetized list of *known* musicians who performed on Beatles recordings:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 444September 29, 2019 4:48 AM

R442-John Halliday was attracting too much attention so the National Trust fires him and then REALLY attracts attention to Faul? Why, the plan was almost too easy.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 445September 29, 2019 5:51 AM

[quote]Once upon a long ago, lived four young lads I'm sure you know. The other three, you know them two. You'll know me better when this is through. Before the band was on the run, a nature’s child followed the sun. And soon the four became a three, a list of clues for those to see. A story told in fine detail, to keep the loonies on the trail. A coin, a sheep, a favoured son, were welcomed guest when the day was done. Now, those days are gone, the stories told, in rivers of ash, and urns of gold. A final hint to all of those, who refuse to see the Emperor’s clothes. - Apollo C. Vermouth aka Neil Aspinall

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 446September 29, 2019 5:58 AM

Questions about Tara's "fatal" crash:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 447September 29, 2019 6:13 AM

[quote]He has toyed many times in the past with the idea of there being “Two Paul McCartney’s” in his speech, his song lyrics and music videos, and in his cover art. Why does he keep coming back to this theme? Song after song? Interview after interview? Decade after decade?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 448September 29, 2019 6:35 AM

Sounds more to me that Paul suffers from Imposter Syndrome. He's admitted that looking back he can't quite wrap his head around the fact that he actually achieved all he achieved.

by Anonymousreply 449September 29, 2019 6:43 AM

[quote]This was originally sent to me by Neil A and Tina Foster has now posted it on her PID Blog (see below). Neil added: “In another strange coincidence – McCartney worked closely with Alan Parsons, the engineer on Abbey Rd (and Pink Floyd’s Dark Side Of The Moon etc. (Is that a prism or a pyramid on the front cover?)) who later founded the Alan Parsons Project. APP had albums entitled I,Robot (1977), Pyramid (1978) and Eye In The Sky (1982, complete with Eye of Horus cover art and first track ‘Sirius’)”

[quote]Back in 1974, Faul approached Isaac Asimov about making a movie about a band that was being impersonated by ET’s. Ironically, the Faul was going to play one of the impersonators. Here is what wiki had to say about the movie that never happened: Paul (Faul) McCartney approached Isaac Asimov in December 1974 with a possible idea for a sci-fi related project. He had just finished Wings’ Venus and Mars album. In December 1974, former Beatle Paul McCartney approached Asimov and asked him if he could write the screenplay for a science-fiction movie musical. McCartney had a vague idea for the plot and a small scrap of dialogue; he wished to make a film about a rock band whose members discover they are being impersonated by a group of extraterrestrials. The band and their impostors would likely be played by McCartney’s group Wings, then at the height of their career. Intrigued by the idea, although he was not generally a fan of rock music, Asimov quickly produced a “treatment” or brief outline of the story. He adhered to McCartney’s overall idea, producing a story he felt to be moving and dramatic. However, he did not make use of McCartney’s brief scrap of dialogue, and probably as a consequence, McCartney rejected the story. The treatment now exists only in the Boston University archives.

[quote]“Five and Five and One” is a science fiction rock opera suggested to Isaac Asimov by Paul McCartney, but as Asimov noted on the first page of his treatment, “nothing ever came of it because McCartney couldn’t recognize good stuff.” Robotic Revolutions recently had the opportunity to view the Isaac Asimov Collection at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center at Boston University, where we unearthed Asimov’s original treatment.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 450September 29, 2019 7:12 AM

R227, Britons would write oestrogen rather than estrogen. That would be the most obvious shibboleth rather than some obscure grammar.

by Anonymousreply 451September 29, 2019 7:14 AM

[quote]#3 - Fake Ears with Alternating Attached and Unattached Earlobes

[quote]This will be Page One of Ear Comparisons and Analyses, and encompass the years from 1963 through 1966.

[quote]The ears are one part of the body that don't change and are difficult to change. Human ears grow larger with age, but no two people have the same exact ears, so this is the one way we can be certain as to whether we're looking at the same person or different people.

[quote]Now we'll look at Paul's magically-changing earlobes, and the very fake-looking ears in many cases. He goes back and forth between having attached and unattached earlobes, as well as different patterns and sizes, all during Beatlemania. The same issue continues throughout his career to the present day, and I will be showing those comparisons on subsequent pages.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 452September 29, 2019 7:56 PM

"Fake Ears with Alternating Attached and Unattached Earlobes." You really can't make this stuff up. Some people need to reassess their hobbies.

by Anonymousreply 453September 29, 2019 9:09 PM

[quote]Clue #4: Subtly-Differing Teeth

[quote]Here's a look at Paul's teeth, but first it's important to note that he always shows the same basic pattern, having a recessed upper right eye tooth, and a protruding upper right incisor.

[quote]However, even while always maintaining this pattern, sometimes he shows upper left molars that arch outwards, and other times that point inwards.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 454September 29, 2019 9:16 PM

I would love to discuss the findings by the forensic scientists that there have been at least two different Pauls with anyone still clinging to the lie that 'The Beatles' were four guys.

by Anonymousreply 455September 30, 2019 2:41 AM

Here's One Eyed Paul (the upper right quadrant of his face including the bridge of his nose, his right cheek, the right brow and right side of his forehead are all prosthetic) politely suffering through a horrible interview in 1980:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 456September 30, 2019 3:24 AM

Without the facial prosthetic in Portugal, 1968 (notice that even his right nipple is missing):

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 457September 30, 2019 3:29 AM

One Eyed Paul showing off his good eye in Liverpool, 1963:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 458September 30, 2019 3:30 AM

One Eyed Paul's 21st birthday (take a look at his right hand) :

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 459September 30, 2019 3:39 AM

Unexplained still from the 'A Day In The Life' promo film, 1967:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 460September 30, 2019 3:58 AM

Derpy light eyed Paul, practicing playing left handed guitar, 1968 - June 24 - Mike Nichols' Yacht - on the way to/from Santa Catalina Island, California :

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 461September 30, 2019 4:09 AM

R457 The sun has obviously affected the film exposure. The topless little girl is the background is missing her rught nipple too.

It is ridiculous for "scientists" to be making facial determinations based on album covers, which are heavily edited, and old kinescopes of b/w tv shows, as well as photographs that were published magazines or newspapers. The aspect ratio of published photos could have been altered to fit the page.

The comparison of Paul's teeth has one shot that front-on compared to a shot where his head is tilted back.

Aging can account for some of the different looks. Old Paul's clown eyebrows could be due to a brow lift or Botox.

The man who was working with Linda McCartney on her cookbook was rumored to have her talking on audio tape, describing how Paul beat her.

by Anonymousreply 462September 30, 2019 4:28 AM

typo: right nipple

by Anonymousreply 463September 30, 2019 4:29 AM

[quote]The sun has obviously affected the film exposure. The topless little girl is the background is missing her rught nipple too.

Okay, so we're not having a serious conversation because those can't possibly be things you really believe counter the fact that the right side of his face is deformed.

[quote]It is ridiculous for "scientists" to be making facial determinations based on album covers, which are heavily edited, and old kinescopes of b/w tv shows, as well as photographs that were published magazines or newspapers. The aspect ratio of published photos could have been altered to fit the page.

They didn't use album covers, etc. And if you'd read the article you'd know the proportions were checked and corrected for.

[quote]The comparison of Paul's teeth has one shot that front-on compared to a shot where his head is tilted back.

His head is back in both of the Rain comparison shots. His head is in other positions in the other comparison shots.

[quote]Aging can account for some of the different looks. Old Paul's clown eyebrows could be due to a brow lift or Botox.

Sure, it could, if the differences were consistent. But they aren't. However you can match Clown Brows Paul in 2009 to a Clown Brows Paul in 1961, as I've done in this thread. And you can match Beak Nosed Paul to himself in 1962, 1977, 2019. And you can match Troll Paul to himself in various years as well. However, none of them match to each other. There's also the issue of drastically varying heights and eye colors.

[quote]The man who was working with Linda McCartney on her cookbook was rumored to have her talking on audio tape, describing how Paul beat her.

True. Which has absolutely nothing to do with why Heather Mills divorced "Paul McCartney".

by Anonymousreply 464September 30, 2019 4:36 AM

R464 How do you what happened in private between Paul and Heather Mills? I believe he got just what he was after - a blonde woman with huge breasts. He's tight-fisted w/ his money. It took Heather to pry it from his hands and she gave a lot of it to charities.

by Anonymousreply 465September 30, 2019 4:44 AM

haha Heather got much less money than she was asking for and the judge practically outright called her a liar. Paul has given away more to charity than she ever could.

by Anonymousreply 466September 30, 2019 5:46 AM

[quote] [R425], maybe if you're legally blind.

LOL. More like if you're legally SANE.

by Anonymousreply 467September 30, 2019 6:02 AM

[quote]Linda and Yoko grew up as rich girls from Scarsdale.

Yoko may have grown up with the Diet, but the Scarsdale part, not so much.

by Anonymousreply 468September 30, 2019 6:03 AM

R68 After WWII Ono's family did indeed move to Scarsdale NY, she eventually enrolled in Sarah Lawrence College

by Anonymousreply 469September 30, 2019 6:40 AM

R469, I was hoping at least one person would get my joke. Guess not. You do know what the Diet is, right?

by Anonymousreply 470September 30, 2019 4:18 PM

Rest assured, I got the Scarsdale Diet reference, R470. We old, honey!

by Anonymousreply 471September 30, 2019 4:45 PM

Rest assured, I got the Scarsdale Diet reference, R470. We old, honey!

by Anonymousreply 472September 30, 2019 4:45 PM

I was using Scarsdale Diet as a joke, but the "Diet" part is also what the House of Representatives is called in Japan.

by Anonymousreply 473September 30, 2019 5:14 PM

I can't tell if the Beatles imposter person is a troll or really believes this stuff.

This thread should be closed for stupidity. Are we able to delete threads?

by Anonymousreply 474September 30, 2019 5:22 PM

I block fraus because I don't come to a gay website to hear the opinions of straight women, particularly not Good German straight women who have absorbed and enact the worst and most frivolous conceptions of womanhood dreamed up misogynistic straight men. All of that to say, despite the indicator that there should be ten new ideas shared by gay men/lesbians in this thread, on this forum which exists entirely for gay people to share ideas, I see no posts, after my own at r464.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 475September 30, 2019 5:56 PM

Can a woman be gay? Is a gay woman allowed? I'll go away if you really want me too. I just didn't think it mattered, but if it bothers you I can go somewhere else, no prob.

by Anonymousreply 476September 30, 2019 7:16 PM

It doesn't bother me, R476. You seem a lovely sort.

by Anonymousreply 477September 30, 2019 8:31 PM

1963 - July 2nd - London

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 478September 30, 2019 11:27 PM

Two weeks later…

1963 - 07.15 - UK, ENG, Liverpool - Paul & Ringo & Ringo's parents, Elsie & Harry Graves

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 479September 30, 2019 11:29 PM

Two months later…

1963 - September 15th - Royal Albert Hall, London

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 480September 30, 2019 11:31 PM

April 1964

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 481September 30, 2019 11:42 PM

June 1964

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 482September 30, 2019 11:43 PM

October 1964

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 483September 30, 2019 11:50 PM

December 1964

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 484September 30, 2019 11:53 PM

June 1965 - Milan

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 485September 30, 2019 11:59 PM

1965 - Paris

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 486October 1, 2019 12:00 AM

Those last two photos I posted were taken during the same fucking week. If you can't tell the difference between those two people who are both supposedly "Paul McCartney", you need to see a fucking doctor.

by Anonymousreply 487October 1, 2019 12:03 AM

Back to the original topic of this thread. Here's the People Magazine that came out when Linda died. A quote from the article: “Even though we have our ups and downs, we really do like being together,” Paul told PEOPLE in 1993. “My Love,” “No More Lonely Nights,” “The Lovely Linda”—one of the world’s best songwriters could not stop putting his feelings into music. “Any love song I write,” Paul said last year, “is written for Linda.”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 488October 1, 2019 12:18 AM

He has an asymmetrical face like a Picasso painting that leans to one side! Of course his nose will look aqualine in one pic and scooped in another!

You got me troll. Have you ever seen McCartney in person? I saw him with Larry King. I also had Yoko Ono look me in the eyes and smile. I sort of see what John saw in her. She was what's the word... a striver? She was definitely a striver. Tiny little old Japanese lady.

by Anonymousreply 489October 1, 2019 12:19 AM

Linda wanted hearts. Heather wanted diamonds.

by Anonymousreply 490October 1, 2019 12:22 AM

R489-You know, Yoko ain't all bad. When a friend of mine was in middle school, a class project involved writing to a celebrity. She chose Yoko. Not only did Yoko write her back, but for years, Sarah was on Yoko's Christmas card list. She has a box of fucking Christmas cards from Yoko fucking Ono. I don't know why, but that absolutely tickles me.

by Anonymousreply 491October 1, 2019 12:23 AM

[quote] Those last two photos I posted were taken during the same fucking week. If you can't tell the difference between those two people who are both supposedly "Paul McCartney", you need to see a fucking doctor.

He is clearly the same person in both photos. Why would you expect his image to be 100 percent identical in both, when in one he's shot outdoors, looking down, and in the other he's shot indoors, looking straight into the camera?

Have you ever asked yourself a) what the point of having a zillion different Pauls would be? b) why, if the differences among the different Pauls are so obvious that those who can't see them need a doctor, the rest of the world never caught onto the Multiple Pauls thing?

by Anonymousreply 492October 1, 2019 3:19 AM

Can you tell these two people apart?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 493October 1, 2019 6:13 AM

R492, not to mention that if using multiples Pauls was so prevalent and evident someone somewhere down the line would have come forward and dished. But no, all those involved were MI5 level when it came to keeping secrets so it will just stay TOP SECRET.

by Anonymousreply 494October 1, 2019 10:38 AM

I am shocked, R493, SHOCKED! Eddie Simon looks like his brother Paul! Amazing what sharing DNA can mean for physical appearance.

by Anonymousreply 495October 1, 2019 11:21 AM

Multiple Pauls is like a JFK assassination conspiracy theory. The only way you could keep a secret like this is to kill all the Fauls and everyone who knows the Fauls.

by Anonymousreply 496October 1, 2019 11:26 AM

Don't forget the people involved in faking the moon landing and 9/11. The mysterious deaths of all those people connected to the Beatles wouldn't be suspicious AT ALL!

by Anonymousreply 497October 1, 2019 11:32 AM

r496, are you joking? Suspicious deaths of close Beatles associates off the top of my head: Lennon's mother, Stu Sutcliffe, Brian Epstein & his father & his lawyer, Dr. Richard Asher, Joe Orton & his boyfriend, Brian Jones, Rory Storm & his mother, *Paul McCartney*, Kevin MacDonald & Tara Browne, Mal Evans, Tom Evans and Peter Ham, "John Lennon" -- the majority of those deaths occurred between September and December 1966.

by Anonymousreply 498October 1, 2019 3:20 PM

Oh for fuck sake. At what point do you just decide to give up on life when you start believing the bullshit about Paul being dead?

by Anonymousreply 499October 1, 2019 3:23 PM

Where is the belligerent One Paul troll posting from? You type (obese and) shitfaced drunk and it's 11:30am EST. Why you so threatened by the fact that there have been at least two Pauls? Why is that so troubling to you?

Everyone else will notice of course that the rage junkie, in a thread of nearly 500 posts, has still yet to provide any plausible attempts at explanation for the differences between Pauls and relies entirely on personally attacking the messenger. Just like Trump.

by Anonymousreply 500October 1, 2019 3:34 PM

That's right. Mark David Chapman murdered Lennon because John was about to go public that there were multiple Pauls. Hoo boy. R500, you should be very, very careful, because they're coming for you next. Maybe it would be best to toddle off this thread in case they find you. Stay safe!!

by Anonymousreply 501October 1, 2019 4:58 PM

The real Paul is at Area 51.

by Anonymousreply 502October 1, 2019 5:09 PM

R502, with Tupac and Elvis.

by Anonymousreply 503October 1, 2019 5:15 PM

[quote] Where is the belligerent One Paul troll posting from?

Oh, lordy. Honey, while there is only one Paul, there are many people in this thread (i.e., everyone but you) who are not persuaded by your insanity.

[quote] Why you so threatened by the fact that there have been at least two Pauls? Why is that so troubling to you?

Why would we be troubled by something that is clearly untrue?

[quote] Everyone else will notice of course that the rage junkie, in a thread of nearly 500 posts, has still yet to provide any plausible attempts at explanation for the differences between Pauls

Darling, we've given you dozens of plausible explanations for the slight differences in Paul's appearance from one setting and/or time frame to the next. You, on the other hand, have yet to provide even two photos in which Paul looked like two different people. (No, that is not a request for another barrage of photos of the one and only Paul McCartney.)

by Anonymousreply 504October 1, 2019 5:29 PM

R500, sane people who don't believe your bizarre conspiracy theory now have a name.?One Paul Trolls. Dear lord in heaven and Satan in hell. Honest question, you're obviously not changing a single mind here, so why not just find a forum where people will buy what you're selling? You're clearly frustrated, so why continue?

by Anonymousreply 505October 1, 2019 5:41 PM

Is this about as much detail of a human face that you can see, or is it less?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 506October 1, 2019 5:49 PM

Do human faces look more like the below image to you?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 507October 1, 2019 5:52 PM

Poor OP. Threw up a pretty decent thread only to have it hijacked by a loon posting facial blurs. Shit got weird - not to mention just a tad disturbing. OP, are you still with us?

by Anonymousreply 508October 1, 2019 5:59 PM

So, you can discern the physical differences between Eddy and Paul Simon, but you can't tell the difference between these two people?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 509October 1, 2019 6:00 PM

You know how the priest in "The Omen" had his room covered in pages from the bible and newspaper clippings? That's how I imagine this "multiple Pauls" troll lives his/her life. The room covered in Beatles/Paul insanity.

by Anonymousreply 510October 1, 2019 6:02 PM

[quote] So, you can discern the physical differences between Eddy and Paul Simon, but you can't tell the difference between these two people?

Yeah, because Eddie and Paul Simon are actually different people.

BTW, I've taken online prosopagnosia tests before and always score above average in my ability to recognize faces. I'm also pretty good at recognizing a lunatic when I encounter one on DL.

by Anonymousreply 511October 1, 2019 6:08 PM

The Multiple Pauls troll most certainly has a subsidized apartment, which he never leaves during the daytime. Every vertical surface is a cliche red-yarn festooned Crazy Wall, as depicted in this Crazy Walls Tumblr...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 512October 1, 2019 6:11 PM

r512, I own a 3 story house, thanks. You've made a very convincing argument by attacking me rather than attempting to explain how you could possibly believe the men in the photo below are the same guy:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 513October 1, 2019 6:13 PM

So, is Paul McCartney's chin square or round?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 514October 1, 2019 6:14 PM

Does his chin jut out with a nub?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 515October 1, 2019 6:15 PM

Does Paul's chin have a cleft or no cleft?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 516October 1, 2019 6:19 PM

R504, this is all your fault. He's subjecting us to another barrage of photos of the same person. (At different times set years apart, at different weights, with different hair cuts, taken from different angles and lighting with different lenses, in black-and-white and color and while making different faces. Because lord knows, you can't change the shape of your chin by scrunching it up.)

by Anonymousreply 517October 1, 2019 6:22 PM

R504, this is all your fault. He's subjecting us to another barrage of photos of the same person. (At different times set years apart, at different weights, with different hair cuts, taken from different angles and lighting with different lenses, in black-and-white and color and while making different faces. Because lord knows, you can't change the shape of your chin by scrunching it up.)

by Anonymousreply 518October 1, 2019 6:22 PM

I know, r518; sorry!

by Anonymousreply 519October 1, 2019 6:24 PM

You meant well, R504. But tell me, does Paul McCartney have a cleft in his chin? WELL, DOES HE??????

by Anonymousreply 520October 1, 2019 6:26 PM

You meant well, R504. But tell me, does Paul McCartney have a cleft in his chin? WELL, DOES HE??????

by Anonymousreply 521October 1, 2019 6:26 PM

I'm glad the first one is dead. There, I said it, troll. So forget him. He was a loser!

by Anonymousreply 522October 1, 2019 6:27 PM

[quote] You meant well, [R504]. But tell me, does Paul McCartney have a cleft in his chin? WELL, DOES HE??????

I don't know, but if he does, it must be visible in EVERY photo or there's something fishy going on!!!! It's not possible for the SAME person to make DIFFERENT facial expressions in different photos!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 523October 1, 2019 6:34 PM

Look, who the fuck cares. There were dozens if not hundreds of Pauls, sure. You're missing the biggest news story the CIA ever suppressed -- Jim Morrison is still alive only now he's named "Rush Limbaugh"! He's feeding this country more LIES just as you'd expect from the son of Admiral George Morrison, who faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 524October 1, 2019 6:37 PM

Same guy?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 525October 1, 2019 6:37 PM

That's right, R523! It's also not possible for the same person to stand next to another person in different positions so sometimes he looks taller and sometimes he looks - wait for it -shorter!

by Anonymousreply 526October 1, 2019 6:39 PM

When you compare the loves of his life, she certainly has a leg up on Heather Mills.

by Anonymousreply 527October 1, 2019 6:40 PM

Is this the same person? Why, yes it is! She just used make-up to contour her nose and make her eyes look bigger. Now imagine being in the entertainment industry where you have professionals applying make-up to you before stage appearances and photo shoots.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 528October 1, 2019 6:45 PM

Does he have a small round chin?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 529October 1, 2019 6:46 PM

Or does he have a large, long, asymmetrical square chin?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 530October 1, 2019 6:47 PM

Faul Conspiracy Theorist, I have to ask again-what's your goal here? Just being a pain in the ass or do you really believe you can convince people there was a cottage industry of producing Faux Pauls. If it's the former, well done, but if it's the latter, go elsewhere, because it's not working. On the fun side, this thread may make it to the magic 600, wherein it will enter DL lore.

by Anonymousreply 531October 1, 2019 7:02 PM

Does Paul have a 'W' shaped chin or a round chin?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 532October 1, 2019 7:03 PM

Poor Ringo could never get a whole conspiracy about himself like this one. No one would care.

by Anonymousreply 533October 1, 2019 7:04 PM

Faul Troll, here is an experiment you could try. Take out a bunch of candid photos of yourself taken over the years and in various settings. Then examine them to see if your chin, eyes, nose, height in proportion to friends and family, etc. look identical in every photo. You might be surprised ...

Or, maybe you'll become convinced you have an army of impersonators out there who have insinuated themselves into your life without your knowledge.

by Anonymousreply 534October 1, 2019 7:08 PM

And yet in his 70s, Ringo is weirdly hot. No way in a million years I ever would have believed that would have happened, especially given Paul's status in the early years as the Cute Beatle.

by Anonymousreply 535October 1, 2019 7:08 PM

Both of these are the same man?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 536October 1, 2019 7:14 PM

I heard the original Paul is currently pretending to be an adopted 22yo Ukrainian girl.

by Anonymousreply 537October 1, 2019 7:21 PM

I get it now.

For me, someone 'being the same person' means they are just one human being, inhabiting one body, from birth to death.

For you, any number of individuals who take on the role of a public character can be said to 'be the same person', in a Dread Pirate Roberts or a thousands of actors have played Hamlet kind of way. For you, reality is fictive, it's all performance; as long as the persona persists, anyone performing that role on the public stage is entitled to our suspension of disbelief.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 538October 1, 2019 7:27 PM

R537 wins. Thread closed.

by Anonymousreply 539October 1, 2019 8:22 PM

Remember when Ringo got a nose job and lost his left ear? Yeah, me neither.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 540October 1, 2019 8:24 PM

^ His left ear is clearly visible in that photo.

by Anonymousreply 541October 1, 2019 10:06 PM

Listen, I'm sorry that you're disabled or whatever, but I don't have any interest 'listening' to vitriolic, frothing half-wits doing their best Donald Dump impersonations. This is why I've had your posts blocked since you first unleashed your misplaced (drunken?) rage upon me. You can deny the obvious all you like ("living is easy with eyes closed"), but it's it's not going to change the facts, it's not going to alchemize three Pauls into one, it's not going to resuscitate the dozens of Beatles associates who died via foul play and it's not going to make anyone else as blind as you are.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 542October 1, 2019 10:47 PM

Cool Ringo story. A friend brought his father on a trip to London about 15 years ago or so. The father is a recovering alcoholic so he wanted to make sure to attend an AA meeting. Dutiful, doting son dropped dad off at a restaurant where the meeting was taking place. During the meeting the father sat next to the loveliest, nicest guy who welcomed him to the group with a friendly handshake and a "Hi, my name's Rich." H went out of his way to be inclusive. When my friend picked up his father, he about fainted. "Dad, don't you know who that was? That was Ringo Starr!" The dad had no idea.

by Anonymousreply 543October 1, 2019 11:13 PM

I really don't get what is going on here

by Anonymousreply 544October 1, 2019 11:15 PM

R544-think of it like a family dinner when everyone is trying to have a pleasant conversation and the crazy alcoholic uncle no one can stand starts blathering about chem trails and what really happened on 9/11.

by Anonymousreply 545October 1, 2019 11:23 PM

R544, I am actually audibly chuckling at your comment. You're right, this is so odd.

by Anonymousreply 546October 1, 2019 11:54 PM

A rare home movie of the McCartneys. It's cute to see them goofing around with each other, and the flower is pretty touching. They are just so at ease with one another, which you see in couples who have been married a long time. They're very companionable.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 547October 1, 2019 11:58 PM

[quote] Listen, I'm sorry that you're disabled or whatever, but I don't have any interest 'listening' to vitriolic, frothing half-wits doing their best Donald Dump impersonations. This is why I've had your posts blocked since you first unleashed your misplaced (drunken?) rage upon me.

Lord have mercy, which poster(s) are you even addressing?

by Anonymousreply 548October 2, 2019 12:52 AM

All of us, R548, all of us.

by Anonymousreply 549October 2, 2019 1:50 AM

The last two posts were worth the price of admission. I did not think I was all that interested in this topic, but I have read the entire thread.

by Anonymousreply 550October 2, 2019 2:44 AM

The dead one briefly lived with Richard Gere's gerbil.

by Anonymousreply 551October 2, 2019 2:49 AM

Sssssshhhhhhhhh. I think Fingo's gone.

by Anonymousreply 552October 2, 2019 10:50 AM

Now that we appear safe from Fingo and his fuckery, there was actually a Linda McCartney movie many years ago. It starred Elizabeth Mitchell of Lost fame.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 553October 2, 2019 9:27 PM

I MUST find out which Paul was in The Beatles cartoons.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 554October 3, 2019 12:44 PM

It was the short one without the cleft in his chin, R554. The one who was blatantly serving as caretaker of the McCartney family home before he attracted too much attention and fired.

by Anonymousreply 555October 3, 2019 12:46 PM

Can we please go back to discuss what OP said? Or talk about mccartney’s possible bisexuality?

by Anonymousreply 556October 3, 2019 4:56 PM

Okay, R556. I was always impressed that you never heard of any whiff of infidelity around these two. Does anyone know if ever there were rumors? Paul was a dog in his youth, so I was always surprised he settled into domesticity so completely. True or just well managed PR? Any hints he ever stepped out?

by Anonymousreply 557October 3, 2019 5:05 PM

Absolutely never has there ever been a rumor of Paul's homo or bisexuality anywhere at any time, except here at the DL.

Paul settled into domesticity so completely because he wanted children and to be a father. The end.

by Anonymousreply 558October 3, 2019 6:16 PM

R556 I don't even care anymore. Y'all ruined my thread

by Anonymousreply 559October 3, 2019 6:41 PM

It was Fingo, aka the Faul conspiracy theorist, who ruined it, R559. We were all innocent bystanders!

by Anonymousreply 560October 3, 2019 6:55 PM

R558-I meant rumors of affairs with women. That he stayed so besotted with and loyal to Linda is impressive. She always came off as such a dull, cold fish, but I've read that people who knew her said she was quite witty and engaging. The public just never saw that side of her, and good for her for not giving any fucks.

by Anonymousreply 561October 3, 2019 7:13 PM

But r245, if that was what HM said in an interview, then it is not what she thinks would "devastate" us.

Seems to me that Paul made the same rhinoplasty mistake that the young GianLuca of Il Volo has made: Narrow too much a rounded nose end. Now Paul has an unattractive bird beak, and GianLuca has lost his youthful cuteness.

by Anonymousreply 562October 4, 2019 10:41 AM

Bird beak is a good descriptor. I'm always a little surprised that people with so much money end up with botched plastic surgery.

by Anonymousreply 563October 4, 2019 10:47 AM

I have two questions for Multiple Paul's Person(s):

How did the teeth look identical?

Why would Linda, Heather, and Nancy marry "Faul"?

by Anonymousreply 564October 4, 2019 10:53 AM

According to Ringo, R564, the teeth aren't identical, and he'll put up 20 photos taken at different times, in different light, at different angles to prove it, all the while braying, "Doe THIS look like the same man." If you say, why, yes, yes, it does, he'll then stick up blurry faces asking if that's how you see your fellow man. And re Linda, Heather and Nancy-well, Heather was the one whoo figured it out and her interview where she hinted that she knew something that would disappoint fans is PROOF.

by Anonymousreply 565October 4, 2019 10:58 AM

Fingo, not Ringo. According to him, there was a fake Ringo with only one ear running around too. Even autocorrect chuckles at his delusions.

by Anonymousreply 566October 4, 2019 11:00 AM

R563, it wasn't botched, it was what he wanted for some absurd reason. Maybe Linda said, I'll leave you if you don't get ride of that girly Beatle look. All kidding aside, Paul had Linda and the children traveled with Wings precisely so he wouldn't look for other companionship. And there were never rumors of him stepping out.

by Anonymousreply 567October 4, 2019 11:35 AM

[quote] Fingo, not Ringo. According to him, there was a fake Ringo with only one ear running around too.

Yes, and as "proof," he he hilariously posted a pic in which the "missing" ear was clearly visible.

by Anonymousreply 568October 4, 2019 3:44 PM

That was comedy gold, R568. My favorite was the increasingly hysterical tone with which he posted photos, culminating in the bizarre facial blurs. The person who slipped in, took a look around and quietly said, "I have no idea what's going on here" literally made me laugh out loud.

by Anonymousreply 569October 4, 2019 3:48 PM

Damnit, this post has stalled. I was so hoping Faul would drive it home.

by Anonymousreply 570October 16, 2019 11:33 PM

He cried for a year, y'all.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 571October 29, 2019 5:32 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 572October 29, 2019 5:35 PM

Love him.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 573October 29, 2019 5:35 PM

He's still a cheeky, charming rapscallion.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 574October 29, 2019 5:42 PM

[quote] What did he see in her!???

$$$

She was an heiress.

by Anonymousreply 575October 29, 2019 8:53 PM

R575-she really wasn't. Her family was well-off, but they were not part of the Eastman Kodak family. She just let people think that to further her photography career.

by Anonymousreply 576October 29, 2019 9:52 PM

I just can't take that nose job, R572. Linda wan't an "heiress," R576 (you obviously have read very little to none of this thread), but she had a trust fund. Put two and two together - her family was wealthy.

by Anonymousreply 577October 30, 2019 12:32 AM

Geezus Paul didn't need her money, he was a Beatle for cripes sake. He made tons of money as a Beatle, and aside from a brief period when it was tied in lawsuits(after they were already married) he's always had access to it.

Admittedly though, they did help him, as his business lawyers and advisors, build a business that made him a shit ton of money outside the Beatles, with music publishing. That's why he's supposedly worth around 1 billion dollars now.

by Anonymousreply 578October 30, 2019 12:41 AM

DUH, R578. Have you bothered to read this thread? NO.

by Anonymousreply 579October 30, 2019 1:10 AM

R579 Not sure what the "DUH" is for, I was responding to the posts saying he married her for money, which were only a couple above mine.

by Anonymousreply 580October 30, 2019 1:25 AM

Also R579 I have read the whole thread, I started reading it the day it was posted and have followed it since.

by Anonymousreply 581October 30, 2019 1:26 AM

R577-you think Paul, a Beatle and one of the most famous men on the planet, married Linda because her family had some "wealth?" Okaaaaaaayyyyy.

by Anonymousreply 582October 30, 2019 11:14 AM

No dummy R582. Linda DID NOT MARRY PAUL for money.

by Anonymousreply 583October 30, 2019 11:47 AM

I never said she did, R583. Reading comprehension skills slow this morning?

by Anonymousreply 584October 30, 2019 12:01 PM

Now they're trying to Yoko Linda and make it seem like she was way ahead of her time - in this case being Instagram-like before the advent social media. What a pioneer! Sigh.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 585October 30, 2019 12:08 PM

R584, showing how dummies think. You misread what I wrote, then when I explained it to you, you still don't understand.

by Anonymousreply 586October 30, 2019 1:09 PM

Linda was subjected to Clapton on drugs. Like she never dealt with that.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 587October 30, 2019 3:14 PM

Just in time for the holidays! Linda's "vegetarian stuffing balls" (a joke that almost writes itself) and a faux roast that tastes like turkey. If you want a roast that tastes like turkey, you're better off eating the goddamned turkey.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 588October 30, 2019 3:18 PM

R587, what? That article was some AI-generated random gibberish clickbait. It said nothing about anything Clapton did to Linda.

by Anonymousreply 589October 30, 2019 3:19 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 590October 30, 2019 9:17 PM

I can't believe they were ever considered an attractive couple. They don' t just look cooly unkempt; they look like they're kicking back on a council estate.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 591October 31, 2019 1:47 PM

They would have been married 50 years this year. That's an eternity in rock and roll. I know Paul is happily married now, but it's got to be tough thinking you would have celebrated half a century together. Had she lived, I think they absolutely would have stayed together.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 592October 31, 2019 2:03 PM

The Beatles' song "Two of Us" was about Paul and Linda. This is what Linda said in a 1984 interview:

"As a kid I loved getting lost," Linda told Steve Turner in A Hard Day's Write. "I would say to my father – let’s get lost. But you could never seem to be able to get really lost. All signs would eventually lead back to New York or wherever we were staying! Then, when I moved to England to be with Paul, we would put [Paul's sheepdog] Martha in the back of the car and drive out of London. As soon as we were on the open road I’d say, 'Let’s get lost' and we’d keep driving without looking at any signs. Hence the line in the song, 'Two of us going nowhere.'

"Paul wrote 'Two of Us' on one of those days out. It’s about us. We just pulled off in a wood somewhere and parked the car. I went off walking while Paul sat in the car and started writing. He also mentions the postcards because we used to send a lot of postcards to each other."

by Anonymousreply 593October 31, 2019 2:08 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 594October 31, 2019 3:57 PM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 595October 31, 2019 3:57 PM

He looks like an old lady here.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 596October 31, 2019 4:15 PM

It's hard to imagine a prominent wife looking this bad these days. I kind of respect her for not giving two fucks.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 597October 31, 2019 4:23 PM

There is just no way the two of them would have been a celebrity couple. By today's standards, they are cringe-worthy.

by Anonymousreply 598October 31, 2019 4:30 PM

There is just no way the two of them would have been a celebrity couple. By today's standards, they are cringe-worthy.

by Anonymousreply 599October 31, 2019 4:30 PM

So were Paul and John secret lovers?

by Anonymousreply 600October 31, 2019 4:31 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!