Post by seibu on Sept 24, 2003 17:00:18 GMT
Hi, I've been thinking about Paul / Faul for a while. Something's gradually been making an impression on me - the huge diferences between James Paul and Faul's hair.
Sometimes (well, occasionally) I look at one or two pictures of James Paul / Faul from certain angles and think for a second they might be the same person. - The plastic surgery around the mouth and on the ears in particular is extremely convincing. But there's one way I can always tell which one I'm looking at - it's the hair!
James Paul's hair was always very thick and fell naturally into the mop top fringe, covering his whole forehead. Most importantly, it clearly parts on the left hand side of his head (right hand side as you're looking at a photo of him). It sweeps accross his forehead effortlesly from left to right.
Faul's hair usually looks like it's been messed with - that it's not parting in the way it naturally wants to. However, if you look at the photo of Bill Sheppard on the White Album poster, you can clearly see that it naturally parts just right of the centre of his head (just left of the centre as you're looking at a photo). And then, it becomes really obvious who is Faul / Paul in any photo you want to examine.
In any Faul photo, if you check the hair closely, no matter how it has been messed with it never parts from the far left like James Paul's. In fact, you can usually tell that is or wants to part from just to the right of the centre like the Bill Sheppard photo. Naturally, it seems that it wants to fall into a just-right-of-centre parting. Also, it kind of grows up out of his head a bit, instead of naturally flopping down over the forehead like James Paul's. The way Faul's hair really grows is particularly obvious in early photos of him as "Paul" - see particularly the Pepper photo and stuff from around then.
In certain photos an effort has been made to get at least some of the hair to look like it is parting from the left, but they've never done a convincing job of imitating James Paul's distinctive, effortless left to right sweep. Also, Bill is presently sporting a very deliberate comb-over from the left of his head, but it still looks nothing like the hair actually wants to part this way. You can tell by the broken, ragged fringe Faul sports (even allowing for natural hair loss as he ages). The hair is clearly not parting in a natural way. I know from personal experience that combing your hair against it's natural direction makes it impossible to have a sold fringe - and Faul has never had Paul's solid fringe - even a matter of months after he was supposely James Paul.
Finally, surely the "smoking gun" of the hair argument - look at the "Herman Munster" style V shape at the front of the hairline in the White Album "Bill Sheppard" photo. It is very obvious. Faul has always hidden this - as long as he has enough hair. But as his hair has naturally thinned it has become very visible. I don't have a photo to prove James Paul did not have such a hairline (maybe somebody else does?). However, the presence of this distinctive hairline is another piece of evidence to support the idea that the White Album photo is indeed Pre - Faul Bill.
Maybe those behind the switch and the general public overlook all this because hair is so easy to style and change - but you can't easily and convincingly change the *way* it grows. 99% of the time I can tell Faul from Paul by the length of the face and the fact that Faul's face just doesn't look natural. But from a few angles James Paul's face can look a bit long - and it's the hair that always gives the game away.
Sometimes (well, occasionally) I look at one or two pictures of James Paul / Faul from certain angles and think for a second they might be the same person. - The plastic surgery around the mouth and on the ears in particular is extremely convincing. But there's one way I can always tell which one I'm looking at - it's the hair!
James Paul's hair was always very thick and fell naturally into the mop top fringe, covering his whole forehead. Most importantly, it clearly parts on the left hand side of his head (right hand side as you're looking at a photo of him). It sweeps accross his forehead effortlesly from left to right.
Faul's hair usually looks like it's been messed with - that it's not parting in the way it naturally wants to. However, if you look at the photo of Bill Sheppard on the White Album poster, you can clearly see that it naturally parts just right of the centre of his head (just left of the centre as you're looking at a photo). And then, it becomes really obvious who is Faul / Paul in any photo you want to examine.
In any Faul photo, if you check the hair closely, no matter how it has been messed with it never parts from the far left like James Paul's. In fact, you can usually tell that is or wants to part from just to the right of the centre like the Bill Sheppard photo. Naturally, it seems that it wants to fall into a just-right-of-centre parting. Also, it kind of grows up out of his head a bit, instead of naturally flopping down over the forehead like James Paul's. The way Faul's hair really grows is particularly obvious in early photos of him as "Paul" - see particularly the Pepper photo and stuff from around then.
In certain photos an effort has been made to get at least some of the hair to look like it is parting from the left, but they've never done a convincing job of imitating James Paul's distinctive, effortless left to right sweep. Also, Bill is presently sporting a very deliberate comb-over from the left of his head, but it still looks nothing like the hair actually wants to part this way. You can tell by the broken, ragged fringe Faul sports (even allowing for natural hair loss as he ages). The hair is clearly not parting in a natural way. I know from personal experience that combing your hair against it's natural direction makes it impossible to have a sold fringe - and Faul has never had Paul's solid fringe - even a matter of months after he was supposely James Paul.
Finally, surely the "smoking gun" of the hair argument - look at the "Herman Munster" style V shape at the front of the hairline in the White Album "Bill Sheppard" photo. It is very obvious. Faul has always hidden this - as long as he has enough hair. But as his hair has naturally thinned it has become very visible. I don't have a photo to prove James Paul did not have such a hairline (maybe somebody else does?). However, the presence of this distinctive hairline is another piece of evidence to support the idea that the White Album photo is indeed Pre - Faul Bill.
Maybe those behind the switch and the general public overlook all this because hair is so easy to style and change - but you can't easily and convincingly change the *way* it grows. 99% of the time I can tell Faul from Paul by the length of the face and the fact that Faul's face just doesn't look natural. But from a few angles James Paul's face can look a bit long - and it's the hair that always gives the game away.
