Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2004 18:02:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 9, 2004 19:06:13 GMT -5
So Faul now is about 6' tall or even 5'11 1/2"?
Being in his 60's or 70's now he is probably shorter than he was 30 years ago. My grandfather was 6'3" most of his life but was about 6'1" when he died at age 69. People shrink as they get older especially after age 60.
My best guess is that Faul was 6'1" when he was with the Beatles. But this is just a guess.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 9, 2004 19:19:35 GMT -5
Being in his 60's or 70's now he is probably shorter than he was 30 years ago. My grandfather was 6'3" most of his life but was about 6'1" when he died at age 69. People shrink as they get older especially after age 60.. Colin Powell was born in 1937. That would make him older than Paul.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 9, 2004 20:56:17 GMT -5
Colin Powell was born in 1937. That would make him older than Paul. The point IW and DH were making is that based on that photo Faul is at least 6'1", even after possible "shrinkage". Much taller than Paul ever was.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 9, 2004 20:56:56 GMT -5
I wonder how much shorter Macca would look with a short buzzcut instead of that beaver pelt on his head. I'm guessing about 1". The two men are standing shoulder to shoulder, and Macca's shoulder looks to be about 3" below Powell's. I just don't see how this proves anything.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 9, 2004 21:06:22 GMT -5
I wonder how much shorter Macca would look with a short buzzcut instead of that beaver pelt on his head. I'm guessing about 1". The two men are standing shoulder to shoulder, and Macca's shoulder looks to be about 3" below Powell's. I just don't see how this proves anything. Shoulder height isn't relevant - Powell's neck is shorter. Faul's hair isn't puffed up or permed so it wouldn't add more than 1/4". Sir Faul is taller than Paul; that is all.
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 9, 2004 21:27:34 GMT -5
The camera man could move the camera up or down, snap another picture and make Paul taller or shorter. None of this is relevant at all. None. Nothing is relevant unless you can see everyone's full stature. They are standing straight. And they are exactly the same distance from the camera. Look below. This is an example of why it all means nothing. John and George are the same height. Here they are standing next to each other (John slightly forward as Paul is in the Colin image). George is obviously not standing upright. John is. Can't see their heels, but I am thinking that John is wearing tall heels, because otherwise, when George does not stand straight, he loses 4 inches to his height. I don't think that is the case. If George and John can vary like this, Paul, Faul, or anyone else can also. [/img][/center] And anyway, the shot I see with Colin and Paul is not straight. Look at the posts in the background. It favors Paul being taller, but not much. It is hard to see because the resolution has blended pixels in the post. I tried to get a shade variation sampling of pixels up and down any verticle edges to make sure, but there is too much variance in lighting. Does anyone have a higher resolution version? Not saying it was done on purpose. The camreaman was running around, I am thinking. *** Ok. I retract the rotated image statement. Although my years of image processing experience tells me there are too many clues pointing to it, it is only an opinion. Unless someone can provide me with a higher resolution image to examine, I take it back and leave this for everyone to read.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 10, 2004 7:44:48 GMT -5
Colin Powell was born in 1937. That would make him older than Paul. Good point. However we don't know if Powell also was taller than 6'2" when he was younger.
|
|