|
Post by revolver on Apr 12, 2004 13:37:13 GMT -5
Here are some family photos showing PFaul's 1 dramatic change in height relative to Paul's father. Thanks to 'Billy Jones' for the Paul photo. The rest came from www.rarebeatles.com/ Paul was just an inch or two taller than his father. Their eyes are almost at the same level. Faul is more like half a foot taller! His mouth is at the same level as Jim McCartney's eyes. Did Paul take human growth hormone or what ? 1 From now on, when referring to Paul and Faul as if they were one person, I decided to use the name PFaul.
|
|
|
Post by eggy on Apr 12, 2004 13:57:30 GMT -5
Nothing to say Revolver, your pics speak for itselfs
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 12, 2004 14:25:11 GMT -5
Paul is definately only a little taller than his father, and I seriously doubt dad wore lifts in his shoes..
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Apr 12, 2004 15:45:56 GMT -5
those are great pictures revolver.. they speak volumes.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Apr 12, 2004 17:46:37 GMT -5
Ya... very good pics. I guess I never realized just how short Paul was & what a small build he had. At least not untill I got all involved in this PID stuff. Once I started examining old pics a lot more closely, I was a little surprised by that.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Apr 13, 2004 20:16:48 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]WOW[/glow] awesome, Revolver. Thanks!
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 13, 2004 23:36:20 GMT -5
It's like I said: a person's ears can't just move about one's head! James Paul's ears are noticeably lower than Sir Faul's.
It's all the same things: Faul's face is longer, thinner (and compare the chins, Faul's now-famous leaning to left chin), bigger forehead, taller head, EYES CLOSER TOGETHER, hair part all wrong, etc, etc
And all this apart from the fact that Faul is obviously lots taller than Paul.
I never said there wasn't a resemblance, just that this can't be thought of as a match. They don't match.
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 13, 2004 23:41:03 GMT -5
And poor father McCartney.....
I'm sure he was visitied by the proper government authorities, who informed him of the plan.
They probably told him that the idea of "Paul" was now bigger than just a human life, and needed to be maintained for the good of his country.
Here we have Father McCartney, posing with this impostor, probably doing his English best for his country, and his own life!
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 14, 2004 1:18:05 GMT -5
A one of a kind situation required a one of a kind solution.
|
|
madtitan125
For Sale
"There is no knowledge that is not power!"
Posts: 99
|
Post by madtitan125 on Apr 14, 2004 11:15:22 GMT -5
Who knows? It is possible that even the wedding was a set up by the ones behind the replacement.
Publishing pictures of the impostor with JP's family would throw off the few considering PID at the time.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 18, 2004 19:12:01 GMT -5
Here's the height increase relative to Jane Asher.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Apr 18, 2004 20:37:43 GMT -5
Great pics Revolver!
Everything to me points to the fact the Paul was about 5'11". John was about 5'10" and George somewhere in between, like 5'10 1/2". Ringo 5'7". There's a picture of them with Muhammed Ali, who is 6'3", which Ringo is holding up a sign saying this. George is standing right next to him and looks about 5 inches (or more) shorter than Ali. Ali is also wearing shoes with heels and the Beatles are wearing flat doc shoes so it makes him seem a little taller.
Faul, in my opinion, is about 6'1". However since he is probably over 70 now he has shrunk an inch or two like you do at that age I would bet.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 3, 2004 13:04:37 GMT -5
Since none of the pics here clearly show the feet of the people in the photos, I think this is a more fair example of Paul's height post '66. Of course this doesn't prove Paul wasn't replaced, but the pre and post '66 "Paul" were clearly of similar stature.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 3, 2004 15:02:51 GMT -5
Since none of the pics here clearly show the feet of the people in the photos, I think this is a more fair example of Paul's height post '66. Of course this doesn't prove Paul wasn't replaced, but the pre and post '66 "Paul" were clearly of similar stature. Actually that's not a fair example of the true height of the Beatles post '66. First, the feet are not parallel to your red line. Look again at the bottom and Ringo's feet are higher up than Faul's. The picture is tilted. If you don't believe me, draw your red line at the bottom straight across the page and you can see this. Secondly, it's not hard to assume that Faul was wearing flat shoes and John was wearing lifts(see the odd way John is descending the stairs in the video) because Faul looks taller than George eventhough the picture is tilted(see above paragraph). This was discussed at great length on a previous board.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 3, 2004 16:03:40 GMT -5
You know what happens when you assume. ;D If Faul were 3 or 4 inches taller than Paul, it would be pretty obvious here. If by the other board you mean the one that produced this picture that was rotated to the left and picked out the one frame where Paul was at his highest point and the other three were at their lowest. I was scolded before for not posting examples that were not taken exactly from the source material (even though I explained exactly what I did). Yet the above (doctored) pic was used by the other board as "Full Legal Proof". The above pic is "Caca4Ever". ;D
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 3, 2004 17:25:40 GMT -5
Yes they posted a rotated pic, not fair, mmm hmmm. I agree, ok? ;D It is odd that the camera was tilted slightly, because I don't think the floor was angled in any way. It was I believe (if I'm not mistaken) an old military airplane hanger. But whatever, yes there isn't much to see here height wise, they were bouncing up and down, so you could cap a frame that makes John taller if you wanted. The one and only odd thing is what DarkHorse mentioned, John looked like he was going to seriously lose his footing at one point as they were descending the stairs. And you can't really get a good fix on what their shoes look like. So... who knows...
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 3, 2004 18:14:53 GMT -5
You know what happens when you assume. ;D If Faul were 3 or 4 inches taller than Paul, it would be pretty obvious here. If by the other board you mean the one that produced this picture that was rotated to the left and picked out the one frame where Paul was at his highest point and the other three were at their lowest. I was scolded before for not posting examples that were not taken exactly from the source material (even though I explained exactly what I did). Yet the above (doctored) pic was used by the other board as "Full Legal Proof". The above pic is "Caca4Ever". ;D Whoever said he was 3-4 inches taller than Paul? In my opinion, Faul is about 2 inches taller than Paul. Either way, your original pic did not prove that Faul was the same height as John and George. And also, how do you know in the above pic that Faul was at his highest?(at least the feet are level) That's assuming.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 3, 2004 19:26:19 GMT -5
And also, how do you know in the above pic that Faul was at his highest?(at least the feet are level) That's assuming. I am not assuming. Save the animated gif to your computer. There are 16 frames. The 60IF photo was taken from frame 7. That is where Paul was at his highest point. Then it was rotated and cropped.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 3, 2004 20:16:05 GMT -5
I am not assuming. Save the animated gif to your computer. There are 16 frames. The 60IF photo was taken from frame 7. That is where Paul was at his highest point. Then it was rotated and cropped. You could be right about that specific pic. I can't tell if that pic is the exact moment Faul is at his highest or not. Again, the pic you posted originally did not prove that Faul was the same height as John and George because the pic/video was tilted whether you did it or someone else did it.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 3, 2004 20:27:29 GMT -5
...another thing, noone here, that I am aware of, posted that pic above as 'evidence' that Faul was taller. It was from someone else's board.
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Aug 3, 2004 20:43:03 GMT -5
I've been sitting here on my hands and can sit on them no more...haha. This issue is such a red herring it's silly because we can go round and round about his height, like Eyesbleed said to me on a different thread, until the cows come home, or hell freezes over, or whichever comes first...;D I've watched the DVD a few more times and I can only barely perceive that John stumbles...maybe he was unsure of his footing as he was having to look straight ahead coming down the stairs...I think I would be too. But I am trying to figure out what DarkHorse means by he is wearing lifts...heels? It looks like they are all wearing balet-type shoes to me...with no heels: This isn't much clearer than the old fuzzy one, but I think we can see that none of them are wearing heels. Old fuzzy HAS been rotated counter-clockwise a few degrees, and I have always asserted that it was most likely for the purpose of leveling out the camera shot as it was not exacly level as we perceive it...it could be camera angle, but at any rate I think we can all agree that the floor in the unrotated pics slopes slightly down toward the right side of the pic: At the suggestion of DarkHorse I have added a lower reference line by their feet...and yes it DOES slope downward to the right. But seeing as how John and Paul are standing shoulder-to-shoulder, and considering the angle of the slope, I don't think it would make enough meaningful difference to be conclusive. I am in the process of making this animation with their feet on the level at the bottom of the frame...this is going to be a MONUMENTAL project as each frame will have to be rotated to the precise same degree and maintained in it's position in order for the animation to look worth a darn. I will show it when, and IF, I am able to do it.
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Aug 3, 2004 20:49:31 GMT -5
...another thing, noone here, that I am aware of, posted that pic above as 'evidence' that Faul was taller. It was from someone else's board. DH, I don't think anyone actually said that...it's just that old fuzzy has been around for a number of years and keeps coming up time and again to prove Paul grew. I don't think anyone said it was espoused on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 3, 2004 20:50:04 GMT -5
That would be a good idea. And if you really want to be crazy and get objective as possible you would compare John's height to George's and see that he is taller than George in this video yet is the same height in the Ed Sullivan appearances. John was wearing lifts. That's why HE is standing next to Faul.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 3, 2004 21:01:37 GMT -5
John was wearing lifts. That's why HE is standing next to Faul. Where is it documented that John is wearing lifts? You are making another assumtion without providing any reference. Where can I see this?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 3, 2004 21:13:59 GMT -5
Where is it documented that John is wearing lifts? You are making another assumtion without providing any reference. Where can I see this? My head tells me. To me, I see John is the same height or slightly shorter than George in all of the other video footage yet he is taller in the YMSK video and he is also positioned between George and Faul and that means to me that they are cleverly hiding the height of Faul. I also think that it's possible that Faul was wearing flatter shoes.
|
|