James Paul McCartney (1942-1966)
[back] Music
Web: http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html http://xoomer.alice.it/james_paul_mccartney/fc1.html
The Beatles, Coleman, Adorno, and the Walrus (Oct. 17, 2009)
Pictures from (the Jane Asher/Paul height photo is the most striking) http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html
Before we move on, let's look quickly at some
more pictures of pre-67 Paul (on the left) and post-67
"Paul" (on the right): http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html |
Here we will look for put forth evidence of the height difference between the real Paul McCartney and his look-alike replacement. http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc1.html |
We know that John, Paul and George
were all approximately the same height, 5'11". Here are
John and Paul standing side by side during their last
performance on Ed Sullivan on August 14th 1965:
Paul was still the same approximate height as
John three months later, during the filming of the Day
Tripper video on November 23rd 1965; it's hard to
capture on their exact heights in a frame like this, as
they bop around a lot while performing, but they appear
roughly the same height:
Now we see "Paul" from the cover of Sgt. Pepper; he suddenly appears to be a few inches taller than the others. It would appear this man is roughly 2 to 3 inches than taller in real world terms. This difference is also seen in the inside photo:
We see this difference in height again in the film Magial Mystery Tour. Here we see the boys standing side by side, again wearing matching shoes; "Paul" is on the right end and clearly stands a few inches taller than John and George. His shoulders in particular are considerably higher. You can also just make out the infamous "black carnation" clue; the others wear red carnations, while "Paul" is singled out by wearing a black carnation:
And here we see a frame from "I Am The Walrus"; note that he is actually wearing no shoes in this video sequence, and yet he still appears taller than the others. Could this man really be the same height as John Lennon and George Harrison?
So let's come back to the comparison from the introduction page:
Although the angles are a little different, I
think with the other evidence and the fact that the head
size is the same result as the head size comparison make
this comparison at least partly reliable. Again, the
bass is the same model, a Hofner 500/1, and the
headstock, neck length and fret spacing has been
equalized close enough to say that these pictures are
now on the same scale. Below we see two picture's supposedly of "Paul" with his girlfriend Jane Asher; one taken before 67, and one taken after:
|
Now and now the photo from after 67:
The difference in height is immediatly
obvious; his nose now rises well past her forehead, and
her eyes are level with his chin. It is of course
possible that she is wearing heels in one, but not the
other. However, this change is perfectly consistent with
the other photos shown above, as well as the scale
comparison. Now what about eye color. Is it possible to find a this good a look-alike who just happens to have the same eye color? |
To conclude, let's look at a few
more pictures of Paul and "Faul". You decide if there's
a difference... |
Once again, THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY PAUL MCCARTNEY: |
And this is "Faul", a convincing imposter, but in the end his face simply does not match: Well friends, I think that we've pretty much
covered the facial comparison. While there are
similarities in these men's features, the overall
differences in the size and shape of the skull make for
a very convincing evidence that this is in fact a
different man, and the fact that distinct and deliberate
changes have taken place in this second man's face
further demonstrates his attempts to look more like the
real Paul McCartney. Poor, poor Paul; we love you Paul,
you are sorely missed. |
Return to Main Page |