|
|
Post by maryjane on Nov 25, 2005 21:41:30 GMT
It looks obvious to me that Faul's chin is smaller and recedes more than Niels. Faul's forhead is MUCH higher, too. I also read somewhere that on the "Anthology" video Neil is seen with the other Beatles and he is shorter than most of them. Could anyone verify it? Finally- Faul is supposed to have green eyes, Neil doesn't. And there are all those clues pointing toward Faul being named William. John apparrently refered to him as "Beatle Bill," not "Beatle Neil." Where did the name William come from? The last photo by the way is definately not a painting. Even if it is, it is true to life. ;D    |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 26, 2005 5:41:50 GMT
Niel- jutting chin Faul- receding chin I'll look into the height next. ;D Yes, the chins go opposite and that's something that is hard to disguise. Ask Carol Burnett---no, LOOK at Carol Burnett in 1967 and 1994. She had some major work done. I always thought she was adorable and infectious no matter how she looked, but she chnaged her jaw and chin dramatically. I rather liked her original looks but people have a right have the work done if they can write the check. That picture of billy, I must say, is one of the nicest, most flattering ones I have ever seen. That is part of the Abbey Road photo day, isn't it? John is in another one similar to it on his right, I believe? The type of color film,sunlight and angle it's taken from all contribute to making it so good a shot. Good hair color.......  The inky jet black of the "Let it Be" video----that seemed, IMO, a tad severe compared to this color option. Anyone wonder---could this medium brown have been billy's natural hair color? Also, I haven't found where Neil's eyes "furrow" the same way. Doesn't strong direct sunlight usually tend to make lighter-colored eyes scrunch up a bit for protection, shielding the eye's aperture? A feature or two may seem similar, as a comparison or two recently aimed to show, but the sum of the parts, to me, does not seem similar at all. |
|
|
|
Post by maryjane on Dec 7, 2005 20:27:19 GMT
What do the rest of you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Dec 12, 2005 17:59:21 GMT
What do the rest of you think? .... that the picture of Faul you posted is just an artwork... |
|
|
|
Post by maryjane on Dec 17, 2005 0:51:10 GMT
Hey I would like more feedback thanks....
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Dec 17, 2005 1:01:58 GMT
I think it's too difficult to provide a definite answer either way. Don't get me wrong (I find myself saying this a lot!) I believe PID but fades can work to prove and disprove the exact same argument!
Whether the two are compatible or not, it certainly makes sense that "they'd" replace JPM with someone who was involved with the group from early on.
One crucial aspect is, who wrote under the pen-name "Billy Shepherd" as this is crucial.
To be fair, I think it is possible to make anyone look like anyone with enough work, but i can be proven wrong on that front fairly easily i expect.
That's as good feedback as I can provide at the moment, i hope it's good enough for you!
|
|
Lic.Teish
Contributor
There's nothing you can't see that isn't shown
Posts: 161
|
Post by Lic.Teish on Jul 14, 2012 20:19:52 GMT
Paul was Neil WAREWOLF(thanks you BeatlePaul!!!!)
|
|
