fake ears

[paulicista]

I know I'm not posting something new. It's just some screencaps that I took from an interview that PWR non believers say is the proof for PIA or PWNR

Fake ears, screencaps from interview '68.

Orejas falsas que saqué del video: Entrevista a John y a "Paul" en el '68.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0i90n0BP8

[JeremyHBoob]

Faul is like Mr Potato Head, he simply pulls out the old ears and puts in the new ones!

[ramone]

This one pic on its own tells you something was up.
The one on the left should basically look like a mirror image of the right.
And that's certainly true of the ears -
It's almost laughable to even suggest these ears are the same.
If someone disagrees - how different do they have to be to be
declared 'officially different'?
(one is upside down, horizontal.....?)

[buckprivate]

Nov 8, 2012 17:59:33 GMT -5 ramone said:

This one pic on its own tells you something was up.
The one on the left should basically look like a mirror image of the right.
And that's certainly true of the ears -
It's almost laughable to even suggest these ears are the same.
If someone disagrees - how different do they have to be to be
declared 'officially different'?
(one is upside down, horizontal.....?)

[JeremyHBoob]

Nov 9, 2012 10:35:17 GMT -5 buckprivate said:

Nov 8, 2012 17:59:33 GMT -5 ramone said:

This one pic on its own tells you something was up.
The one on the left should basically look like a mirror image of the right.
And that's certainly true of the ears -
It's almost laughable to even suggest these ears are the same.
If someone disagrees - how different do they have to be to be
declared 'officially different'?
(one is upside down, horizontal.....?)

[buckprivate]

Nov 11, 2012 12:42:49 GMT -5 JeremyHBoob said:

Nov 9, 2012 10:35:17 GMT -5 buckprivate said:

[Silversong]

A few more for consideration.

In the video of With a Little Luck, I got a close-up of his ear, but I can't figure out what that is "in" his ear. A remote control device? A Velcro fastener? if it was a hearing aid, it would be in the ear canal, but this isn't. And look at the lobe next to his face.


After watching the video again, now I see his right ear is also fake.


With a Little Luck
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFqKN8yhA54

These are screenshots from the video Coming Up:

The lead singer - ear and a 'pouch' by his left eye?


The one dressed as "Beatle Paul":


Linda dressed as a male:


Everyone else had hair covering their ears, so I couldn't get good shots of them, but it's hard to believe they're all the same "Paul" or "Faul" because of the different heights, body sizes, and facial features.

1972

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaZ9s7S26qg

From 1975 performance of Black Bird.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lfy0S40ZM0&feature=related
img]http://www.thebeatlesneverexisted.com/faces/75fea2.jpg[/img]



I know these are on different sides of his head, but the noses look different, too. Notice in the first one, the ear has an attached lobe and sits slightly in front of his jaw, but in the second one it is a detached lobe and sits behind his jaw, with a LOT of white outlining around it.


1964


1965






2011


A rare look at both ears during the same event. Fake again?


1976






A closer view.

[Silversong]

Nov 8, 2012 17:59:33 GMT -5 ramone said:

This one pic on its own tells you something was up.
The one on the left should basically look like a mirror image of the right.
And that's certainly true of the ears -
It's almost laughable to even suggest these ears are the same.
If someone disagrees - how different do they have to be to be
declared 'officially different'?
(one is upside down, horizontal.....?)

Don't these two have the have the same bulbous cranium, and same profile, eyebrows, etc? There's too much hair covering his ears on the right for comparison, andt's possible to get an inaccurate comparison by looking at different sides of the head in the above photo. A lot of people have one larger ear, one lower ear, etc.

Why did Paul seem to have 5 different types of eyebrows, both attached and unattached earlobes, and both a higher and lower left ear, as well as placement both in front of and behind the jaw on the same side of his head? All of these happened in each era.

[ramone]

Interesting pics of John above.

See if you can spot any ear differences here -

[ramone]

or here -
(not just ear)

[vOOdOOgurU]

Nov 8, 2012 17:59:33 GMT -5 ramone said:

This one pic on its own tells you something was up.
The one on the left should basically look like a mirror image of the right.
And that's certainly true of the ears -
It's almost laughable to even suggest these ears are the same.
If someone disagrees - how different do they have to be to be
declared 'officially different'?
(one is upside down, horizontal.....?)

There's no way the ears are the same, not only in physical appearance, but the distance between the "edge" of the ear and the tip of the nose.

It's easy. You just take a piece of paper. Hold it up to the monitor, mark the spot where McCartney's nose (the tip) ends, and mark the distance between the tip of his nose and the farthest point of his ear relative. Then see if that is the same distance in the other photo. Doesn't matter if it's left profile or right. Because if one of his ears sat THAT far back on his skull, while the other remained the consistent distance, people would call him old wonky ears McCartney.

It is very easy to see that Paul McCartney, circa HELP 1965, has ears very set back on his skull. The distance is greater between the tip of his nose, to the relative edge of his ear. They are not the same person. Unless McCartney between 1965 and 1967had the incredible surgery known as MOVE MY EARS CLOSER TO MY NOSE. Impossible.

[linus]

Nov 8, 2012 17:59:33 GMT -5 ramone said:

I'm not saying those are the same guy, or that those aren't fake ears, but it's important to note that these two shots were taken with very different types of lenses and film formats. Note how much bigger Help! Paul's head is than SFF Paul's (Isn't only Faul supposed to have a bigger head?) These two photos aren't the greatest for comparing facial measurements with.

And for those keeping score at home of all facial measurement discrepancies of pre-67 vs. post-66, be sure you are holding the same standards with all the pre-67 Pauls and all the post-66 Pauls. And don't just use one photo of each, like almost every PID presentation I've ever seen. Also, be sure to hold the same standards for fake ears pre-67, and to hold the same standards for surgery possibilities.

[vOOdOOgurU]

Dec 16, 2012 15:46:41 GMT -5 linus said:

I'm not saying those are the same guy, or that those aren't fake ears, but it's important to note that these two shots were taken with very different types of lenses and film formats. Note how much bigger Help! Paul's head is than SFF Paul's (Isn't only Faul supposed to have a bigger head?) These two photos aren't the greatest for comparing facial measurements with.

And for those keeping score at home of all facial measurement discrepancies of pre-67 vs. post-66, be sure you are holding the same standards with all the pre-67 Pauls and all the post-66 Pauls. And don't just use one photo of each, like almost every PID presentation I've ever seen. Also, be sure to hold the same standards for fake ears pre-67, and to hold the same standards for surgery possibilities.

Unless you fish eye lens a picture one thing is going to remain constant. The ratio of point A to point B, in relation to point C to point D. Say Paul has point A being the tip of his nose, point B being the farthest point that his earlobe reaches before forming the arcs all human ears do. For Faul its point C to point D. No matter what the lens the scaling, that distance between those two points will remain the same, it is just an issue of scaling to see if the A:B is equal to C:D. And just one look at the pictures above tells me, that the distance between Point A to Point B on Paul, is greater than the distance between Point C and Point D on Faul. Or whatever you want to call him.

It's like that image of him holding his stepsister in 1966, wearing a t-shirt with a white anchor on it. He is then pictured circa 1967/1968 wearing this same t-shirt, but outside the gates of his house.

Now everyone goes all crazy with he's different, trying to prove it, because in one picture he's holding a small girl, and the other his arms are free. So you have a discrepancy there. Next is, he has obviously lost weight in 1967/1968, so people battle about that.

What's the one constant you have in the pictures?

The Anchor on his shirt. It's going to be the same size relative to itself, no matter what lens is used, no matter what camera. The dimensions of the anchor are a constant. It is the one thing in both pictures that gives you point A to point B. And in both pictures, the distance it takes to get across the width of his chest, or arms, or neck, should all be made relative to that Anchor that is pictured on his shirt.

You just do it to scale. Use math. You don't even have to have exact pictures, like the most similar side profile of him found in March 1964, with this shot of him on a boat we found from June 1969. You just have to get the dimensions of his face, and .... use Math. Its very obvious, to move his ears from where they were in 1965, to where they end up in 1967, would take surgery that .. is impossible. You'd have to remove the whole ear canal and move it further up his skull.

[vOOdOOgurU]

What's your point of reference.

The Anchor.

Already looking at both pictures wearing the same shirt, you don't even need to look at his jawline, arms, chin, face. You just look at the anchor. The anchor tells you that the person in picture 2 (67/68) has a broader chest. There is more "blank space" separating his shoulders from the anchor in the centre of his chest. Greater distance. Picture 1 shows a compact chested man. Even with holding a little girl, you can see that the blank space between centre of chest and shoulders, is less. The anchor tells you that these are physically different men. It is the same shirt, and no amount of weight loss, is going to make you taller. Which is what that picture from 1967/68 is telling you. If the shirt has been stretched out, then even the anchor will tell you how much that "stretch" has been, and STILL give you accurate dimensions of that person's body frame. You can use the anchor to measure his whole body its that useful.

Attachments:

[vOOdOOgurU]

The Anchor can be used as a measuring stick . How many anchors does it take in Picture 1 to get from POINT A: Paul's elbow tip, to POINT B: His shoulder, or top of his arm.

No matter what lens was used, camera, the Anchor in picture 2 should equal the same amount of anchors when measuring that same distance.
If it takes 5 anchors to go from the very tip of his elbow, to the top of his shoulder in 1966, it should take that many in 1967.

That Anchor is Magic. It tells you everything you need to know and whether this man's bone structure took a sudden leap after the mature/bone growth stopping age of 21. And if it was done in less than year.

[vOOdOOgurU]

Knowing that at least the height of the anchor should remain unchanged, even though it sits on stretchable material, should give you your frame of reference. Your ratio. The width of the anchor can depend on what fabric it was made out of . If it is an imprint on the shirt, or its threaded in as a separate cloth. As "he" is relaxed in both photos to a degree that the cloth does not seem stretched or imbalanced by folds, we can propose that the HEIGHT is equal, if not the WIDTH. The width looks uncompromised to me in both pictures.

If you place ANCHOR B (1967/8) on top of ANCHOR A (1966) and scale it to be the same height/dimension, and this does not necessitate you scaling the picture, and squeezing this in and pushing that out. It's a straight scaling, with a slight rotation to place them together so you have an anchor on top of an anchor that looks like it belongs on the same shirt. That's your framing scale reference.

The rest is cake.

The first thing it tells you is:
The length of the Radius/Ulna in McCartney 1966, is longer than McCartney in 1967/8.
This is from the very tip of his elbow, to his wrist bone (the Carpus). The wristband that Faul wears is the huge tip off that he has a shorter Radius/Ulna than his predecessor. If you've scaled the anchors correctly, and overlay Faul next to Paul, you'll see the scaling is quite accurate. You can almost make it appear as if Faul is holding Ruth, just in a slightly different position.

The wristband falls far short of where it would lay on Paul's arm. You couldn't even call it a wristband. If I were to say to you, at the age of 25, there was this guy I knew, whose Radius/Ulna shrunk in size within a year, but he was doing fine, you'd look at me like I was crazy. It just doesn't happen.

The Anchor and the Neckline:
It is very obvious when you place those anchors together, that 1967/8 Faul has suddenly increased the height of his chest. This is so glaringly out of kilter with eachother, the neckline in 1966, and the one in 1967/8 it is practically altogether a different shirt. I don't even know how to explain that. You just have to do it for yourself. When you see where the neckline of the shirt falls on Paul, and where it falls on Faul, you just sit back and think ... that's not right. They don't even come close to being the same distance from the anchor that they should be. Did the shirt get stretched? Is the anchor lower?

Well if you placed both Paul's side by side in overlay style, you'll see, they really haven't been stretched or moved. You can literally make it look like they're standing side by side, or Faul even holding Ruth. The anchor is in the same place on his chest it should be in both pictures. Except it takes longer to get to Faul's neckline, than it does Paul's. He is not a broad chested man. He is compact. His shirt tells you so.

Speaking of that shirt in 1966, does it not look incredibly ill-fitting for him? He is about to burst out of it in the sleeves alone. So we say, okay in 67/8 he had some weight loss. Great for him. Well then, that shirt should "hang off him" then. It shouldn't be larger, wider, longer in any areas. It should actually, with the weight loss, fit him perfectly. And it does if you look at it again. It's too bad that Faul's physical structure requires different clothing measurements!!! You can easily tell this by the anchor. His left sleeve suddenly grows in length down his shoulder/humerus region. Seeing how taut it is on his shoulder/humerus in 1966, it actually should appear flayed and stretched by 1967/8. But it doesn't. It sits comfortable without any signs of being stretched too far. Except its longer than it should be. There wasn't enough material in 1966 to make that much of a sleeve to cover that much of his shoulder.

I could go on. I may in fact later on. But to me, the 1966 - 1967/8 anchor photos were the ones that sealed the deal for me. It convinced me where every other photo comparison left me in doubt if I was seeing things correctly.

O what a tangled shirt we weave?

Attachments:

[vOOdOOgurU]

That neckline just sticks out like a sorethumb to me. I cannot get over how long Paul's neck actually appears, from the neckline of the shirt, to his jaw, in comparison to Faul. Even though Faul has his head turned slightly downward, and Paul is looking upward (with a shadow under his jawline) you can still see that the neckline, and that distance between it and the jaw, are different for both men. The neckline of the shirt tells you Paul has a long neck, a shorter Clavicle,
and a smaller face sitting on top of this long neck ...

Faul has a longer face, smaller neck, and longer Clavicle.

The neckline of the shirt also tells you where his ears sit on his skull, and the difference between Paul and Faul. The neckline and Paul's left ear. Look how high up his ear appears away from it. Probably because he had a longer neck! And a differently shaped skull. Faul on the other hand, and I hate to say it, looks proportionately more pleasing? It just appears to me that Paul had this tiny face sitting on top of this long neck, whereas Faul had more balanced features. I don't know, the neckline of the Anchor shirt tells me this.

[linus]

Sure, sure. Good work, but I just want to reiterate the main thrust of my post - Which is: when investigating discrepancies between pre-67 Pauls vs. post-66 Pauls, be sure to hold the same standards within each specific era. Do all the Pauls match the description one has decided upon in their minds? And do all the Fauls?
By that I mean: PIAers are always pointing out the similarities between the two different eras, and PIDers are always pointing out the differences between the two eras. But it seems most people haven’t made much effort to point out the differences found within each.
--Use all these measurement tips and more with EACH photo you see, not just when comparing pre-67 vs. post-66. And again, when possible use more than just one photo of each.

Another interesting question, why does he sometimes have fake ears and sometimes not? And why place the fake ear where it doesn’t match up with Paul’s ear placement? And why give him a fake ear with detached lobes, when Paul's were (supposedly) always attached?
And if one believes photo-doctoring is taking place, please for once, back it up, or at least explain which attributes of one guy was used to doctor the other & vice-versa. People can’t keep haphazardly playing the doctored card every time their theory is called into question.

Are Faul’s ears in the same place in the SFF photo and the anchor shirt photo? Or in all the other photos?


And I’m glad you mentioned the bone growth topic. (Be sure to use the same standards with all photos).

[vOOdOOgurU]

Dec 19, 2012 15:49:53 GMT -5 linus said:

Sure, sure. Good work, but I just want to reiterate the main thrust of my post - Which is: when investigating discrepancies between pre-67 Pauls vs. post-66 Pauls, be sure to hold the same standards within each specific era. Do all the Pauls match the description one has decided upon in their minds? And do all the Fauls?
By that I mean: PIAers are always pointing out the similarities between the two different eras, and PIDers are always pointing out the differences between the two eras. But it seems most people haven’t made much effort to point out the differences found within each.
--Use all these measurement tips and more with EACH photo you see, not just when comparing pre-67 vs. post-66. And again, when possible use more than just one photo of each.

Another interesting question, why does he sometimes have fake ears and sometimes not? And why place the fake ear where it doesn’t match up with Paul’s ear placement? And why give him a fake ear with detached lobes, when Paul's were (supposedly) always attached?
And if one believes photo-doctoring is taking place, please for once, back it up, or at least explain which attributes of one guy was used to doctor the other & vice-versa. People can’t keep haphazardly playing the doctored card every time their theory is called into question.

Are Faul’s ears in the same place in the SFF photo and the anchor shirt photo? Or in all the other photos?


And I’m glad you mentioned the bone growth topic. (Be sure to use the same standards with all photos).

Great post/reply.

There's a lot of differences outside of the facial/bone growth/ears that people sometimes miss. The one thing that was clearly observed from the Anchor shots, is that matching both Paul's at the same neckline of the same shirt, gave you two different people -- you couldn't match them up if you tried. Well if you seriously manipulated the picture to do so. But if you did, it would show in telltale fashion -- The Anchor. You would seriously have to manipulate that photo to leave the Anchor untouched, but the rest of the comparisons compromised.


One thing I don't see people often notice is Paul's playing style change. This is observed, not only as a person who looks at stuff(!) but is also as a musician. I can think of dozens of musicians playing over the last 3 decades. And when I think of those musicians, I think of their posture/stance/playing style. Did they close their eyes when playing? Look at the audience? Did they jump around? Stand still?

Think of Bass players like Entwistle, Squire, Lee. To name Bassists who had/ve extremely complicated bass lines, and sing at the same time (barring Entwistle depending on the tune.) Did they all play the same? Nope! Squire jumps around, very animated, looks at the audience on occasion when singing, playing, looks at the guitar neck during complicated passages. Entwistle, very still, very concentrated (or bored) --- anyway - you get my drift. These people have signature moves and styles that stayed intact their entire music careers.

Not Paul McCartney.

He literally changed his playing style overnite. He went from barely looking at the neck of the guitar when either playing and/or singing lead-harmony, to turning looking at the neck into a part-time job. If you watch any performance of The Beatles 1962 - 1966, you will see Paul McCartney was the most professional of the group. He constantly engaged the audience with eye contact, would only look where he was on the fretboard very quickly depending on the difficulty of the section, and then instantly go back to what he was doing. If he did it on a particular section, he would vary to a degree that you would think he didn't actually have to look at all. If he looked once on the first pass through, and then twice on the second pass through, he left that first pass through of the section "sight unseen" almost the whole way through its course. If he looked twice during the section, you'd get no sense that he had to at all. He's just doing it.

The guy had so much confidence on both Bass and Acoustic Guitar, that to look at the neck of the guitar seemed pariah to him. He rarely did it. No matter how complicated the part.

Zoom forward to 1967, and he can't even get through a lip synch performance of Hello Goodbye in front of a camera crew without looking at the neck of the guitar. Nor I Am the Walrus in MMT. Nor Blackbird in film footage from 1968. Nor the Let It Be rooftop performance and sessions. From 1967 onward, this man went from not needing to look at all, unless it was a difficult part, to looking at the neck of the guitar multiple times. And at points that 3 years earlier, he needed not look at all for.

And continues on to this day. This shorter Radius/Ulna problem also comes up with this. Because if you look at him playing acoustic guitar in 1965 (particularly performances of Yesterday) and watch him play it in the past 40 years, he's not only changed the way he originally played it, some of its chord structures, but also his arm doesn't reach the soundhole as it used to. It is literally he can't reach it. Watch Yesterday 65. His left hand is very close to the soundhole of the guitar. He uses a "Cup and Flay" style strumming technique, where he cups his hands, then flays his fingers out to play the song. This is consistent through every performance he did of this song until it was no longer performed with The Beatles.

Now watch Australia 1975. Or 2011. Or anytime he's played this song in the past 40 years. One, his left hand is completely in a different position than pre-1966. It hangs more by the bridge of the guitar. He also fingerpicks it. Which is more synonymous with his "later" acoustic strumming technique. But i find it odd that the strumming technique he WROTE Yesterday with, would get abandoned so suddenly. It also appears when he plays this in the last 40 years, that
A. He doesn't know some of the original chords
B. His fingers are not long enough to actual form some of the chords the 1965 Paul McCartney reached with ease, and actually looked like his fingers were too long to play guitar. Hence Bass.
C. He's lowered the acoustic so it hangs around his mid-section/stomach. Yet still his left hand hangs around the bridge of the acoustic. In 1965, he kept the guitar around his mid to upper chest region, and his left hand fit comfortably almost on top of the soundhole. You can see in the Blackbird 68 footage, that even sitting down, with the guitar sometimes just under his throat, that still his left hand only reaches as far as to rest around the bridge. The arm hooks around the body of the guitar. It's as far as your arm is really going to go if something massive is blocking it like a guitar. I even tried this at home. No matter what position I was standing or sitting in, leaning or hanging back or whatever, the length of my arm does not change when positioned on the guitar to play numerous playing styles. It remains where it is, because that's as far as it can go when you hook your arm to play the thing. Unless you hang your arm over the guitar (which would look and feel awkward) your arm only goes so far.

And I think that's why finger picking is the option for Faul. Because he can't reach as far as Paul could on Acoustic. It's a theory. The acoustic of course, also looks quite small on Faul, compared to how it looked when Paul played it. He looked a bit dwarfed by it IMHO. I think he looks where he is on the fretboard, because he is an uncomfortable lefty. If he had handlers or trainers, they couldn't quite get him adjusted to left hand playing, so he has to look where his right hand is on the fretboard, because ... well ... he's not as confident a player as Paul McCartney was. There's no doubt in my mind about that. Paul exuded confidence when it came down to playing/singing/eye contact. Look where my fingers are? Why? I know this song.

Faul on the other hand, plays songs for the past 40 years, like he's still learning them. And that to me -- is the smoking gun as it were.

Check it out when you can. There was no reason for Paul McCartney to drastically change his playing style, literally within months, with the added fact he no longer had "eyes" on him or was required to play live anymore. But he just can't keep his eyes off the neck of the guitar.

Just wanted to bring that up, because it plays a part in different bone structure.

Why does he have fake ears is a great question! What is the purpose of these? The only thing I can think of, is to cover surgery.

[vOOdOOgurU]

WATCH


His left hand could easily cover the soundhole if he wanted it to. His arm reaches that far even when held back by the acoustic's body. 1:55 is a good view of this

WATCH
And these are the times that modern live filming/editing techniques get on my nerves. I don't need to see the audience really. If i was at the concert, I would not really be focused intently on the crowd around me. I'd be looking at the performer I just paid to see. So why concert film makers insist on showing me everything but the performer, i don't know. Very annoying. But you can see in this clip that the guitar is hung much lower, but regardless, his arm is still only going to reach so far no matter where it hangs on him. And you can see his reach is not what it was. But that's not age. That's length of bone.


It's not age, as its the same story here. I think this is as far as his arm can go to play.
WATCH

[vOOdOOgurU]

Pause Yesterday 1965 and Blackbird 1968.
You'll see his thumb can easily reach over the soundhole in 1965, but in 1968, does not. He's actually using the low E string to rest his thumb on during the cup and flay strumming approach. And that thumb reaches at least to the middle of the soundhole, if not farther.

In Blackbird, his thumb just reaches the soundhole. It reaches just slightly over it. Despite having the guitar in a seated position, with it almost reaching his throat at certain points. Seated is a far more comfortable position to be in to play acoustic. It still doesn't change the fact that he can't reach that soundhole like he could back in 1965.

It's just, to me, a clear indication that Paul McCartney 1965, had longer fingers and a longer forearm Radius/Ulna, than the Paul McCartney that started hanging around after 1967.

[vOOdOOgurU]

Note where Paul's thumb is and the position of his hand relative to the soundhole of the acoustic in 1965.

Attachments:

[vOOdOOgurU]

Now look where his thumb is, and the rest of his hand relative to the soundhole. This is consistent with Paul AFTER 1967. He has a shorter arm and shorter fingers. He can't reach the soundhole whether sitting down or standing up. Because his arm length is not going to change to accommodate an inanimate object that does not change its size no matter whether you stand up with it, or sit down with it. Your arm can only go as far as it can. This man cannot reach the soundhole, whereas Paul McCartney in 1965 could.

Attachments:

[linus]

Here's another anchor shirt for you all.



and here's some more questionable ears.

Notice this fake ear has an attached lobe, while the SFF ears have detached. And I suspect the fake ears are accompanied with fake sideburns.


Japan 1966.


More fake ears with detached ear lobes from the 1965 Sullivan appearance. (Big head, too).

(See other shots from this performance earlier in this thread).


Really bad fake ears in India.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kszI3ZmhZGU

and notice his misaligned "real Paul" teeth. (according to Wired).


Maybe they went to India to get real ears for the Beatles.

(and note his arm/hand relation to his guitar)

(watch the whole Blackbird footage and see that he is capable of reaching the sound hole.) (note: I'm not saying it's the same guy!)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrxZhWCAuQw


From the Help! film.






See the airbrushing by Paul's ear? (get out your vintage LP).


Ouch?


Were the studio lights melting the Lee press-on ear glue, and causing the ear applique to peel off away from his face?

What's with the dark patch in front of his ear where his sideburns would go?


From that same photoshoot. Flipped around, then autographed.

ear glue coming undone, again.

As seen in the JPM vintage magazine album: www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Album7/TLoct64001.jpg
twice: www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Album2/misc1964_196611.jpg





and more bizarre ears, here:

vintage scan - www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Album7/serious.jpg

and here, see the long droopy detached ear lobe from 1963, with notch in front:

vintage scan - www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Album8/TwistandShout2.jpg


See the excess plastic by his sideburn. This is at the Sept. 1966 Melody Taker Award ceremony.



It looks like he has a new ear growing in next to his old ear. Maybe the Beatles' ears molt, like bird feathers or snake skin

And see the weird ear on Ringo during the And I Love Her interlude in the AHDN film.



And then there’s this odd-ball Ringo from the Beatles second appearance on the Ed Sullivan show. Everything seems wrong with this Ringo, particularly the fake-looking ears.



I question the validity of these ears in HDN.





In the Goodnight Tonight video, he has detached lobes on fake looking ears. Why put fake ears on him and get the lobes wrong? So much for having world-class surgeons working for them.


In the Coming Up video the lead singer has attached lobes...


but these P/Fauls don't.




Same thing with Beatlemania-era Pauls. Sometimes the earlobe is attached.


Sometimes it is detached


Here's some vintage scans of Paul with detached earlobes.

www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Album2/66tokyo.jpg


www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Album7/seriousHelp.jpg

www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Album5/paulface1.jpg

www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=JPM_011/65ohhh.jpg


These ears all look very similar.



(actually, the older one’s lobes aren’t quite as droopy).

[vOOdOOgurU]

Firstly -- you are awesome Linus. Great pics.

Secondly - no he's not capable of reaching the soundhole. Look where the guitar is on his leg. That's not where you normally play a guitar, either sitting down or standing up. So his arm is closer and not resting in the same position it normally would rest if he was playing it less laconically. Yes he can reach it --- but only if he tries real hard and cheats a bit