lux wrote:I did not say such a thing as this ...
Maat wrote:Lux, can you explain why you don't believe it's possible that an intelligent but immature larrikin with prodigious talent could mature and change his behavior and style in any way?
That was just my natural question prompted by what you wrote:
"John" also had important behavioral & personality differences before and after 1966. The original John Lennon had an acerbic wit and a prankster mentality. He was a genius but not particularly a nice guy (e.g., his infamous "Jesus" comment and frequent insults). He was also a writer of several books. The post 1966 "John" wrote no books and had a completely different personality, more of a "peace-nik" and "Free Love" proponent -- nothing like the original. John Lennon also had a distinctive stance whenever he performed while playing guitar which suddenly disappeared and was never seen again after 1966. You can see it in many early Beatle vids on YouTube. Not an easy habit to break for a musician.
So 'normal' people can mature and change their behavior, style etc. without being assumed to be 'imposters', but not John Lennon?
... nor have I made a particular point of ..
"As for their sounding crappy live ..."
... so I can't comment on those things.
That was my inference from their decision to stop playing concerts and, as you said, the Candlestick Park one had
"received more than a few bad reviews." Also that
"they then suddenly stopped playing live concerts citing 'we can't hear ourselves play because of the screaming girls' (yeah, what a pain that must be for guys in their twenties)"...Why would serious musicians of any age not want their music properly heard?
As for your comment on a hypothesis regarding how it is done, I would ask you: Do you really need to know how the magician 'saws the lady in half' to know that he does not really saw the lady in half? In other words if you don't know how he does it, does that mean it must be done by magic?
Or, if I don't explain how NASA faked Apollo astronaut voice transmissions coming from the Moon does that mean they really went there?
Sorry, I can't see how those are relevant analogies. Creating visual and aural
illusions with psychological trickery, sleight of hand and/or film fakery has no equivalence to supposedly
duplicating a physical person with unique features, persona, personal history and relationships in
reality.
I'm simply trying to understand how
you believe such a thing is possible and
why.
I am not a cosmetic surgeon nor a geneticist and I can't give you the details of how the tricks of replacements are done. I suspect a combination of methods are used. This may include surgery. It may also include the use of lookalikes, twins or siblings. It may even include genetic technology that is not publicly known. These are among the speculations which I am considering. Cloning, we are told, is a reality at least in some forms. So are other genetic manipulations -- genetically modified plants and animals have become an everyday part of human life (unfortunately), for example. And, secret research and technologies in many fields do evidently exist -- sometimes we find out about them later and sometimes we don't [...]
It wasn't long ago, for example, that the idea of an aircraft being invisible to radar was considered sci-fi. At least until such aircraft began dropping bombs on Iraq about 20 years ago. Now we're told they have or will soon have aircraft that are invisible to human sight as well.
Actually, real breakthrough discoveries in science, technology etc.
begin in the private sector, commercial enterprise, not government controlled anything. The perfect example
is that "stealth bomber" which took 20 years to develop under government control and even then can barely fly, needing computers to constantly correct its instability.
But this Beatle thing is about something claimed to have been done in
1966!
All I can say is that after a considerable amount of study I feel certain that a "magic trick" has been performed as regards The Beatles and after 1966 they were not the same people. But, again, this is something that is hard or perhaps impossible to prove and I have no desire to try. IMO it's one of those things you have to look at yourself and make your own decision about. I did supply a link above to some scientific evidence (the Italian Wired article translation) that supports the idea that PM was replaced but, again, the "how" is not known.
Lux, there are plenty of things we may see that only appear peculiar because we
don't know and can't see all the real facts behind them.
But is that second-hand, agenda-driven commentary on some Italian
Wired magazine article
that no longer exists really supposed to be a 'serious' analysis?
All based on the dubious opinions of a couple of obscure Italians (allegedly an IT guy & a "medico-legal") with even more dubious government & media associations, using only "
two photos dated before 1966 and
two after 1967", plus the already disproved allegations of some German claiming to be his illegitimate daughter for money — and that's 'scientific method'!
Very goldbug-esque face and ear 'comparisons' from different angled/distanced (admitted "scaled") photos of McCartney — years and decades apart!
(Newsflash: facial muscles + gravity x time = change)
Yeah well, like "Judy Wood" had a Phd
And
this [Google trans] is the main reference for that "Gabriella Carlesi" character.