|
Post by jerriwillmore on Oct 13, 2005 16:33:12 GMT -5
It has been posted on the TKIN board that he took over as Paul McCartney, I find it even less likely than Billy Pepper, sorry. I saw Neil being interviewed in "The Beatles Anthology for Christ's sake! Also whatever happened to "William" or "Billy?" Or is that Neil's middle name? Anyone care to check? Oh yeah... as Neil is still alive, maybe someone could contact him...... or do a "Neil-Feil" fade? ;D
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Oct 13, 2005 17:23:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 13, 2005 19:08:45 GMT -5
It has been posted elsewhere that he took over as Paul McCartney, I find it even less likely than Billy Pepper, sorry. I saw Neil being interviewed in "The Beatles Anthology for Christ's sake! Also whatever happened to "William" or "Billy?" Or is that Neil's middle name? Anyone care to check? Oh yeah... as Neil is still alive, maybe someone could contact him...... or do a "Neil-Feil" fade? ;D Well... what the hell... someone elsewhere also managed to bring Don Knotts into the mix somehow. I don't recall anybody around here ever claiming anything like this. It had been speculated that Neil was a possible candidate for some occational ghost-vocals in the early no-Paul days, but nothing beyond that. Whatever happened to Billy? He's on the cover of the new Rolling Stone.
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Oct 14, 2005 14:56:52 GMT -5
I saw that on the TKIN board, forgot to mention it.
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Oct 14, 2005 17:08:03 GMT -5
To be (slightly) clear, if I understand them correctly, the explanation is in that case it is Faul (Neil Aspinall) on the right and a second fake-Aspinall imposter on the left, seen in other photos, beetle. They have not said who really is the Feil.
So we have:
Faul (Neil Aspinall) and Feil (another imposter) and who is Bill Shepherd/ Sheppard and is he just a role of Liverpool Art Student Neil Aspinall?
|
|
|
Post by outthere on Oct 14, 2005 22:09:42 GMT -5
That's pretty much as I understand it, Beatlies. Young Neil appears different to me than older Neil. It makes sense that the record company would try to use somebody who knew Paul and his mannerisms to replace him, especially if they had very little time in which to do so. In the photo comparisons at TKIN, the eye/nose/mouth proportions are exactly the same between young Neil and Faul. The eyes (irises) are the same size and the mouth is the same shape. The Aspinall picture that Jojo supplied appears to have been taken at close range so there may be some lens distortion.
Old Neil (The replacement Aspinall) appears to have a larger chin and deeper set eyes than the man he replaced. His true identity is unknown thus far..
Seems plausible to me...just wish there were more photos of Aspinall Before/After 1966.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Oct 14, 2005 22:25:33 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but it's a theory that's as ridiculous as Don Knotts as a replacement Brian Epstein, Vivian Stashnall actually being Bill Shepherd in Magical Mystery Tour, and a picture of George Martin on the piano being, again, Bill Shepherd.
Just because something is outlandish at the starting line (Paul McCartney being replaced) doesn't mean every little detail for the rest of the race has to be equally shocking. That's why I believe when and if we finally do get the definite answer we're seeking, it won't be very far off from what's layed out in "The Story": Paul was in a car crash and he was replaced on behest of the British government by a man named Bill Shepherd.
|
|
|
Post by outthere on Oct 14, 2005 23:03:58 GMT -5
Whoa there, I was replying to the topic of Neil Aspinall, that's it. I'll gladly discuss the other things you've raised in the appropriate thread.. If you find things ridiculous that's fine with me.
Like I said, the facial proportions match up nicely. Does anyone have a reply that's not based on charged up feelings? It's pretty obvious that there are some here who will blanket dismiss everything that is raised on TKIN without even trying to discern whether or not it is plausible. I'm sorry, but that's as irrational as believing it without even testing it...
The art of disguise...Hollywood is built on it, spies depend on it. If it didn't work then 'they' wouldn't use it.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 15, 2005 7:33:28 GMT -5
Like I said, the facial proportions match up nicely. Only the eyes do and as we've seen on Maccafunhouse, it's easy to match the eyes up.......with ANYBODY! The rest of the face has to match up. Neil's nose is bigger in that fade. That is obvious by itself. Also, the jawlines are different and the chins are different. Neil's ears are like James Paul's not Bill's in that they stick out. That's just a few differences right there. PLUS, if you've seen any amount of Beatle pics or videos you would know that Neil was shorter than James Paul and the other Beatles except Ringo and still is to this day!!!(see Anthology where Neil meets up with Ringo...there's a clear shot of them standing next to each other) The 'charged up' feelings you talk about are people being fed up with this type of stuff going on, i.e. Don Knotts as an example, being purported as the truth and people not only believing it but defending it(Don't get me wrong, I appreciate TKIN and all it's contributions to PID, but this stuff lately is downright absurd). Some things don't take much time to discern. They are that obvious from the very beginning. There is testing here going all the time. The people here are highly intelligent and we are also rational. True. But does that automatically make Neil the same person as Bill?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 15, 2005 7:48:51 GMT -5
I'm surprised no one dug this one up, Neil replaced...GEORGE! Well, this is obviously in need of a caption, this is from a collection I saved from someone else's site, so i don't know what or why here.. www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Beatles.20pictures/BeatlesFiles_csg027.jpgIn the back of my mind, I think I remember this as a situation where George was not feeling well, and so Neil filled in for the rehearsal? (totally guessing) There are perhaps misc factors to consider, but Neil isn't taller than Paul, right?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 15, 2005 10:32:56 GMT -5
The top pic, featured with the Beatles, is Neil Aspinall.
The middle pic, featured with Stu Sutcliffe, is someone different than Neil, perhaps Tony Sheridan. I can't say as I don't know what Tony Sheridan looks like.
The bottom pic is Neil on the left and Daltry on the right. If you think it's the same person, well, then look at the chins, for instance....among other things.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 15, 2005 11:05:51 GMT -5
Whoah, that pic of Neil is from a section in the Anthology book that discusses the Philippines tour, with pictures to accompany. This is the uncropped version, there is Mal beside him..
|
|
|
Post by outthere on Oct 15, 2005 13:43:30 GMT -5
This is the proper orientation of that pic, all of the Beatles at that time parted their hair on (their) left side. The Beatles played with Tony Sheridan at the beginning of their careers, in Hamburg. That picture appears to have been taken after the Hamburg days. ( Note style of dress ) Your confusion as to who that is, Black Beetle, seems to indicate that you think that he does not resemble Neil Aspinall, which would tend to support the theory that Neil was replaced. To my eyes, early and later Neil look fairly different, different as in different people. With regards to the apparent ridiculousness of the claims made at TKIN, I would say this.. It probably took you some time to see the differences between Paul and his replacement when you were first exposed to the proof. For some (MFH), time was not enough. It's not about intelligence, it's about being willing to consider ideas that at first glance, may seem preposterous. The very idea that an inconsequential popstar could be important enough to replace is inconceivable to some.. That doesn't make them stupid..or irrational.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 15, 2005 14:06:24 GMT -5
With regards to the apparent ridiculousness of the claims made at TKIN, I would say this.. It probably took you some time to see the differences between Paul and his replacement when you were first exposed to the proof. If you're talking to me, no, it was instantaneous after I saw that first series of fades on the original TKIN website. Did anyone say they were stupid? I don't remember that. Irrational? Well do you think Don Knotts and Frian are the same person?
|
|
|
Post by outthere on Oct 15, 2005 14:35:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 15, 2005 15:55:21 GMT -5
It probably took you some time to see the differences between Paul and his replacement when you were first exposed to the proof. I'll echo what DarkHorse said, in that it was pretty quick for me, concluding that at the very least Paul was replaced. I think because the groundwork had already been laid, I knew something was wrong in the back of my mind, since I was a little kid really. Consciously I accepted that it was a "hoax", but what the Beatles were attempting to tell us in so many words (and images) filtered through somehow, it only needed to be looked at from another angle to make the connection. I believe you are sincere Outthere, and I think you are a good guy, but I can't bring myself to get on board with this one. I scanned that pic yes, because I was partly curious as to where this was going, and partly that I'll help out anyone as long as it's not too much work. (I gotta really like you to spend some serious time on a project) To confine myself to this particular issue, it's possible that Neil could have been used as temporary vocal fill in, of course who knows what his talents are in that regard. Perhaps he kept them amused imitating Paul while joking around, and they said hey.. why not, at least for a little while. But I can't see them seeing that face as a template to build a "Faul". I can however see the possibility of Bill being someone who was within a somewhat wider than real close circle, ala Billy Pepper..
|
|
|
Post by outthere on Oct 15, 2005 19:24:58 GMT -5
Perhaps I should clarify..'some time' could be seconds, minutes, hours, days or even weeks... If you immediately, without reservation, without questioning what you were seeing, 'saw' the truth, then here's some questions. Why did you wait for SunKing to show everyone? Why did it take 35 years for someone to offer definitive proof ? Didn't the question of 'why would they do that'? come to mind? I, like you, Jojo and Darkhorse, 'felt' it before I saw it. Seeing it spelled out was a confirmation of something that had nagged at me since I was a child...I couldn't reconcile the image of Paul on the cover of Meet the Beatles with the 'Paul' of today. I , like most, filed it away. After all, the Beatles themselves didn't seem to care Now here's the thing...some people refuse to acknowledge the truth, that James Paul McCartney was indeed replaced...even after having the visual evidence placed directly and repeatedly in front of them. Why is that? Here's another thing...I've done the pic comparisons on my own and do indeed see some discrepancies between Young Neil Aspinall and Faul, but I expected that! Faul is in disguise! It's been stated many times on TKIN that Faul had plastic surgery and extensive makeup to accomplish his trick of simulating JPM. When I match the irises on various pictures, the mouth matches and the shape of the face is really close. Indeed the nose seems slightly longer on Neil, but it doesn't seem to be out of range of surgery. Please , what is it that is so outlandish about this?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Oct 15, 2005 20:13:39 GMT -5
Not so much outlandish, as I just don't see it, and so I guess I know how some PIA people feel, strangely enough.
But never mind, cast your mind back to the pictures of the man who was supposed to be Paul McCartney on that safari in Africa. Now HE is clearly IMO someone with a BIG running start at looking like JPM, no doubt his original, or quite close to, original look.
Paul was replaced seems impractical and absurd on the surface, but that issue has been studied from every angle 'till Tuesday for more than two years on these forums.
Consider this, Neil was someone who was able to "hold it all together" as Olivia Harrison said. I don't doubt that for a minute, that was certainly his greatest skill, operating from behind the scenes, keeping everything from falling apart. Would it make sense to change his "place" so drastically, or keep him where he most belongs?
Comfort zone gets misplaced.. They feel they can't possibly feel the same about the music, the people involved, especially "Paul". Say it ain't so, they would cry. Well, myself and others here, have come through the process, reached the other side, and found we really have no problem with ANY of those issues. So, as to this particular idea, i don't think it some kind of "emotional lockdown", it simply that there needs to be some more study first. Yeah, our examination has been of the informal, "good enough for the internet" type at times, but when you look at the balance sheet, the discussion of Paul's replacement has been quite rich and varied.
This has been discussed at length, but listen to those radio programs from the 60's posted here, they discussed the clues, and then proceeded to point out how "ridiculous" they were. Not one, I repeat one commentator EVER discussed the idea that Paul looks and/or sounds different than he used to. Classic misdirection, and it worked for all those years, the most obvious arguments were swept under the rug.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 16, 2005 5:12:39 GMT -5
It's pretty obvious that there are some here who will blanket dismiss everything that is raised on TKIN without even trying to discern whether or not it is plausible. Well.... after a few years of delving into this mystery from every angle possible (i think), most of us have finally settled into the scenerio we now feel is the correct one.... Granted, this still doesn't answer the question of whether JPM actually died in 66 or was taken out of the game by a serious injury. None of us feel that this mystery is solved, by any means; so it's always good to be lookin' for the unexpected turn of events. However.... the knee-jerk reaction to stuff comin' from TKINland should be expected. After sooooo much outlandish stuff bubbling up from over there; I find that I rely on that forum for comic relief, not substance. Kinda like an old friend I recently tried to start a band with.... after so many outlandish stories & lies from him, I had enough & left; & will never listen to another word he sez. Old friend or not.... doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 16, 2005 5:32:48 GMT -5
Why did you wait for SunKing to show everyone? Why did it take 35 years for someone to offer definitive proof ? Didn't the question of 'why would they do that'? come to mind? Why would they do that? is the easiest part... just follow the money. The Beatles were the biggest money maker for an entire nation in 1966.. Never been anything like that & never will be again. I had a friend tell me about listening to a PID radio show & said a website was mentioned. (that was the last time I saw that friend coz he died of a heart attack a few days later) I was startled by the fades & dove in immediately, but the fades aren't what really convinced me in the long run. It 's the way everything else falls into place once you study The beatles from this other perspective. Now here's the thing...some people refuse to acknowledge the truth, that James Paul McCartney was indeed replaced...even after having the visual evidence placed directly and repeatedly in front of them. Why is that? People are just very suggestable I guess (is that a word?) Looking back, the guy on Sgt.P doesn't look anything like JPM.... that's so weird, but I never gave it much thought when I was younger. The illusion worked on me just fine. I dunno..... why do conservatives, christian evangelicals, & Texans rally around "their" guy Bush when he's none of the above?? I guess people are just basically goofy & see what they're told they're seeing..... I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Oct 16, 2005 18:33:31 GMT -5
I have an easy solution.
Sunking is a wanker! He's playin everyone. WAKE UP!
|
|
andrewexelor
Hard Day's Night
Well Shake it up Baby Now!
Posts: 19
|
Post by andrewexelor on Oct 18, 2005 16:37:29 GMT -5
Just thought I might share this... YES: ABSOULETLY NO: This is based on me trying to match up one eye and the chin, and guess what. Nope. Billy's head is bigger then PAUL's and NEIL's
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 18, 2005 16:57:28 GMT -5
Thank you Andrew. Good job.
|
|
andrewexelor
Hard Day's Night
Well Shake it up Baby Now!
Posts: 19
|
Post by andrewexelor on Oct 18, 2005 17:28:50 GMT -5
Ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to accept the "Temporary Ban Of TKIN!" Award. An Error Has Occurred Sorry, you have been banned from this forum. Your ban will expire on Oct 19, 2005, 8:23pm Thank you, Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 18, 2005 18:24:34 GMT -5
Well I agree with you that Neil is not Bill/Faul for obvious reasons.
But Bill/Faul did have plastic surgery...and plenty of it.
|
|