|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 2, 2005 13:43:33 GMT -5
Wrong. He clearly states he started working at EMI in 64/65, and he started working at Abbey Rd. in 67 after Pepper.
|
|
|
Post by mciiii on Dec 2, 2005 14:16:32 GMT -5
Sorry but the only wrong and inconsistent is the Neil/Feil/Veil/Heil/Zeil theorie.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 2, 2005 15:38:07 GMT -5
Take another ESL class.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 2, 2005 18:17:11 GMT -5
Let's clear this up..
He started working at EMI in 64/65, but Beatlies is the closest in regards to when he started work at Abbey Road Studios.
From a book entitled "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions", an entry from Jan. 1969, the Let It Be sessions. (p.164-165)
Alan Parsons, later a top engineer and producer and, later still, the man behind the highly successful Alan Parsons Project, was in January 1969 a teenage tape engineer newly employed at Abbey Road, and he went down to Apple along with borrowed equipment.
(referencing a crisis with recording equipment, won't bother getting into it here)
I don't think that mystery man in the WA poster was Alan, yes I know some don't think it's a mystery at all..
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 2, 2005 21:02:23 GMT -5
The man next to Bill on the WA poster is Neil Aspinall.
|
|
|
Post by mciiii on Dec 4, 2005 21:12:25 GMT -5
Wrong. He clearly states he started working at EMI in 64/65, and he started working at Abbey Rd. in 67 after Pepper. The conspirancy to cover the JPM replacement, for death or whatever other reason, is full of lies and liars, what make you think Alan tell the truth if nobody does it?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 4, 2005 21:32:29 GMT -5
The conspirancy to cover the JPM replacement, for death or whatever other reason, is full of lies and liars, what make you think Alan tell the truth if nobody does it? Maybe, the one thing that seems odd is how he went from practically anonymous EMI apprentice to working closely with The Beatles at Abbey Road, and all he had to do was write a letter? Raises a flag maybe.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 13, 2005 22:19:11 GMT -5
I don't think the young Neil is Faul. He has deep set eyes and a prominent forehead. The other picture of Neil that has been overlaid with Faul looks like a different man. That Neil has larger eyes.
Now are there two Neil's? One that was the bodyguard and one who was the vocal double? Just seems like a lot of body doubles and replacements in this setting around the Beatles. Was this some bizarre experiment on taking people making them famous musicians and then replacing some of them with patients who have undergone massive plastic surgery and using the doubles?
Makes one wonder if there isn't some island, or a mansion, where famous "dead" people live? Just thinking about the mansion in "Death Becomes Her" when the characters played by Goldie Hawn and Meryl Streep go to this witch who gives them "eternal youth" and they went to her mansion and Elvis, Jim Morrison were there. I know that is Hollywood, but the illuminati has been known to use movies to telegraph things they have done or will do.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Dec 15, 2005 14:31:39 GMT -5
It's funny that you brought that up. The scene in death becomes her when they enter the room full of "dead" stars has always given me the willies. At this point, nothing would surprise me. I believe that Neil was replaced. The person who is Neil now is not the same Neil Aspinall that went to school with Paul. I'm with you as far as asking WHY ? There really is no logical reason for him being replaced. Unless, TPTB didn't want too many deaths around the boys. Maybe they felt it would raise a red flag ? Maybe you're right, & replacing Paul was part of an experiment. That would explain why so many people have been "silenced" over the years.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 16, 2005 22:08:07 GMT -5
Now, I know that in some of the other forums there have been bizarre ideas that certain people are also Bill. Not that I buy into all of that, but it's just funny that so many different people are "Paul" Vivian, Adrian, Neil, Denny Laine, Alan Parsons, the guy at the back of the bus....Who hasn't replaced Paul or who hasn't Bill imitated? It reminds me of this...
I am he, as you are he, as you are me and we are altogether......it's replacement kinda thing...
|
|
|
Post by mciiii on Dec 17, 2005 14:10:54 GMT -5
First, i'm not think or believe Neil was Faul, Paul or Bill, but this pic of Neil intrigues me and makes me think. The Pepper pic looks (for me) like a composite image of James Pul over Neil face.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 17, 2005 15:10:04 GMT -5
Bill has rounder eyes, the Pepper eyes appear to be droopy like JPM's. I think the mustache style was popular in those days. Most of the rock stars sported that about that same period. But maybe there was something symbolic, I called it the "Walrus" mustache.., and they all wore it to honor JPM.... That's my strange take on the mustache...
|
|
|
Post by mciiii on Dec 17, 2005 15:15:09 GMT -5
I'm say again, i'm not believe Neil is Faul. but, how about the chin SisterRita ?
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 17, 2005 18:53:32 GMT -5
Sorry? Sister Rita, hmmm I already brought that up!
Not that i really care, just find it interesting!
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 17, 2005 23:49:20 GMT -5
What? I'm sorry if I repeated something someone had written earlier...I'mnew here,...
Skuse me for that.
They both have the long faces...yes, the long chins....you're right about that... Maybe they are twins....separated at birth....
Why not?
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 18, 2005 7:57:20 GMT -5
Don't worry, crossed wires that's all, I wasn't having a dig! (PS I'm newer here!
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Dec 18, 2005 9:48:18 GMT -5
as the words in one of the Beatles' songs... I've got nothing to say, but it's ok....
: p
|
|
|
Post by lili on Feb 6, 2006 13:41:19 GMT -5
I've been coming across photos of Neil both before & after 1967. It appears to me that someone else was put in his place in 1967. I think that it was because he was being groomed to fill in for Paul. Something must have gone awry, as now we have Bill instead. I will post photos for everyone to look over as soon as I gather them all up. I'm still recovering from the flu, so I'm not feeling up to doing that today.
|
|
|
Post by mciiii on Feb 6, 2006 14:26:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Feb 7, 2006 11:54:26 GMT -5
Perhaps if you did a side by side pic of Tony with Neil then you can have a better view for comparison. From both of the pics of Tony and Neil, their jawlines are wider than Bill's. But it does add to the mysteries of the Beatles and their associates.
Why do the older versions of these people seem really odd to their younger ones? Besides the normal changes that come with aging, compare the Tony old and young pic as well as the Neil and ones that are supposed to be Neil recently. They really don't resemble the youthful pics. It's like these men were used to become someone's else's identities.
|
|
|
Post by lili on Feb 7, 2006 13:11:47 GMT -5
I will be posting photos as soon as I feel up to it. I have to get off the computer soon, & I STILL feel awful
|
|
|
Post by mciiii on Feb 7, 2006 13:30:12 GMT -5
Perhaps if you did a side by side pic of Tony with Neil then you can have a better view for comparison. From both of the pics of Tony and Neil, their jawlines are wider than Bill's. But it does add to the mysteries of the Beatles and their associates. Why do the older versions of these people seem really odd to their younger ones? Besides the normal changes that come with aging, compare the Tony old and young pic as well as the Neil and ones that are supposed to be Neil recently. They really don't resemble the youthful pics. It's like these men were used to become someone's else's identities. Maybe because Neil is not Faul, is someone else, look in that way i found a little more of sense.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Feb 9, 2006 21:55:50 GMT -5
The later pics of Neil does look very different from the earlier pics. They sure look pretty close to me. Makes me wonder if Tony became the Beatle's close companion under a different name. If there was a real "Neil" in the first place. Neil, Feil, Tony, Fony.....bannana fanna fo fony, fe fi mo mony, Tony...Neil...
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Feb 10, 2006 14:39:50 GMT -5
Surely this is Neil. He was probably a very temporary Paul. This is stage 2 Paul. Who slowly transformed into this. The change is subtle but he certainly became a lot more like JPM. This was another Paul they used early on. Altough I wonder if this is still Neil. Maybe he was a sub for the main Paul and also someone there to distract the public mind away from a single Paul replacement. This is the guy I call 'Mountain Man' inspired by another thread here. This is the guy we people know as Paul McCartney today. He seems to be the only replacement who could handle singing and playing live. He was probably in the background being altered and taught to be Paul until he was ready. His first vocal appearence seems to be on the 'White Album'. His first public appearence is probably sometime in 1968. I suspect he's North American and the real husband of Linda McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Feb 10, 2006 19:57:00 GMT -5
Absolutely agree that from the WA onwards, it's the same guy, mountain man included. It was late 66 to early 68 or so that the vocals were done by..(who knows, but we have a list of suspects) Are you sure about the Jude guy being stage 2, and completely separate from WA (and LIB) guy? Hey Jude...The Long and Winding Road.. Just thinking of those two run together, it's the same voice. Haven't made up my mind about whether the guy at the dinner table is Tony S. or Neil, of course whether Neil was a temporary stand in is another issue. I'll agree that if the situation was dire enough, and there wasn't time to do anything else, (until a more suitable replacement was ready) then you might use someone very inner circle, someone that could be trusted to keep quiet. But I dunno, always wished it didn't require such a big jump, going from someone who was so lacking in the base features, to at least a fair match. (only fair really) Multiple Fauls I can understand and perhaps see, given the changing look depending on which function was being served. (stills, interviews, public appearances, etc.) Well presented Noodles, thanks.
|
|