Paul or possibly Faul?

[Serviceable Villain]

While I'm still of the opinion that something fishy may have been going on prior to the summer of 1966, I'd like to attempt to both debunk my post above as well as support the theory that photos of Paul have been doctored.

I took a number of photos from my post above and altered them to either A). Make them look a little more like the round-faced Paul or B). Stretch them to make them look more like the narrow-faced Faul.

Keep in mind, these apply to supposed "authentic" Paul McCartney pics, not this guy:
I doubt I could possibly doctor this photo enough to make it resemble the true Paul.



I'm sure many people roll their eyes over claims of doctored photos of the real McCartney, but its not that difficult to do. I'd say this at least supports the theory that stretching/condensing photos is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Furthermore, I was rather surprised at just how much I could stretch and condense a photo and have the end result still look natural.

Again, this experiment offers no explanation into why "Paul" looks swollen-faced, or way different during the Sgt. Pepper-era, etc. It only shows that certain photos could have been altered to make the face shape a bit more consistent from era to era.

[GN]

Jan 15, 2010 10:44:54 GMT -5 Serviceable Villain said:

Jan 8, 2010 16:02:09 GMT -5 Paul Bearer said:

...and that it had occurred in October 1963. Are we sure then, that the Paul from the cavern days is the same one that appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show? Maybe there have been several Paul replacements.

This is one thing that has really bothered me. All over the internet there are numerous facial comparisons between Paul and "Faul."

After looking at countless numbers of these comparisons I began to ask myself why the "true" pre-1967 Paul had so many fluctuations in his appearance.

Granted, few people look EXACTLY the same from year-to-year and camera angles can do funny things, but what's up with the many faces of Paul McCartney before 1967?

Here is a collection of photos of what is commonly assumed to be the true James Paul McCartney. Why are there so many differences?



-The 3rd pic on the top row doesn't really look like any Paul OR Faul that I've ever seen in any other picture or video.

-The first pic in the second row and the Butcher Cover pic show Paul with a very swollen looking face.

-The pic from the 1962-1966 Red Album also looks way off from most any other picture of JPM I've ever seen. Yes, its a funny angle but the rest of the group looks consistent with other photos I've seen.

-Looking at the 2nd pic in the second row, the face strikes me more of the face usually associated with Faul.

-Compare the bottom two photos. Most people think of the authentic JPM as the second photo: Rounded face with the slightly downward slanted puppy-dog eyes. Yet the photo of young Paul to its left looks more like Faul's long, narrow head with the exaggerated, slanted right eyebrow.

What gives?

I don't consider BOTH as genuine photos





From "Meet The Beatels" to "Seatlle 1966" in UNTOUCHED genuine photos Paul looked ALWAYS the same.