|
Post by abbey on Dec 15, 2004 21:12:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 17, 2004 6:15:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 17, 2004 7:43:55 GMT
It looks like billy had a penchant for wearing "high-waters." I suppose that's better than stepping all over the cuffs as you troddle down the street.
Such elegant ankles belong only to the high born. Or an Erté model.
Well, I don't know how good ankle identification is going to be in this exercise. Men's calves all look basically alike to me.
Kneecaps--now that's a place to look. Square, rounded, saggy, taut, wide, protuberant, bony, flabby---kneecaps show some variety.
Lookin' at a bunch of feet, though, I don't know. Feet's is feet.
Have we reviewed all the elbow shots as of this date? I remember we did wrists a long time ago--there was a lot of flap about that............
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 17, 2004 15:56:35 GMT
Perplexed, you crack me up ;D Actually, now that you mention it.... Faul's knees are larger than Paul's were. Someone ( probably Chris ) did a comparison on that awhile ago. I'll try to dig up some photos to bring it back to the forefront. No biggie... I can see why you might say feet is feet. However, you have very keen powers of observation. I would think that you'd have noticed something different concerning these two men's feet. Faul's foot is LONGER than Paul's was. Look at it again. I will continue to try to find more examples to bring out the differences.
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 18, 2004 7:38:53 GMT
Well, OK, fair observation. Some people are able to pick up on feet, legs, arms, so forth.
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Dec 20, 2004 0:55:08 GMT
Check it out. Faul has hammer toes and Paul doesn't. One way of getting them is by wearing shoes that are too small.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 20, 2004 14:57:35 GMT
What are hammertoes? Are they toes that overlap ? Faul's did & Paul's didn't ! They have different sized & shaped toes !
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 20, 2004 15:02:38 GMT
Faul had hammertoes and Paul didn't. In the picture of Faul's feet you can see the hammertoe effect between toes 3-5. Hammertoe is where they cross over or seem to be close to crossing over.
|
|
|
Post by valis on Dec 20, 2004 15:56:38 GMT
wow The evidence keeps piling up
I am really glad that I have JPM toes ;D
But seriously,after your forming years your toes can only deform if you wear too small shoes for too long a time. And does anyone seriously believe that Paul didn't have enough money to buy a better pair of shoes if his shoes are too tight?
"Tell me is something eluding you sunshine is this not what you expected to see if you wanna find out what's behind these cold eyes you'll just have to claw your way through this disguise"-Roger Waters 79
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 20, 2004 16:10:35 GMT
I believe that one of the 1st things Paul did as soon as he HAD money was have his shoes specially made. Both for comfort, and to increase his height.
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Dec 20, 2004 21:54:31 GMT
Check it out. Faul has hammer toes and Paul doesn't. One way of getting them is by wearing shoes that are too small. If you want to use this comparison, you'll need some more convincing photos.........
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Dec 21, 2004 4:10:13 GMT
Here's what hammer toes look like. They also tend to cross one another when they get bad enough. People with normal toes cannot flex them into this position. I think SMA's photo makes it sufficiently clear that Faul has the condition. Paul never had it. It doesn't just go away when you change your shoes. Take another look Lucy or try to come up with pictures showing Faul with normal feet. The number 1 cause of hammer toes is flat feet.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 21, 2004 22:09:24 GMT
I will continue to look for better photos. It seems to have become the bane of my existence
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Dec 23, 2004 1:27:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 23, 2004 15:10:35 GMT
The shape of their feet is also different. Bill has narrower, LONGER feet than Paul had !
Great job, gracemer !
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Apr 10, 2005 0:57:41 GMT
I have more pictures of Paul's barefeet; however Paul's left barefoot compared to many shots of Bill's hammertoes should answer the question. I will continue to look & post what I find.
Just for you, Duke
|
|
|
Post by The Duke of Spiders on Apr 10, 2005 2:26:48 GMT
That would be great, I would be very interested in that. Thank you very much!
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Apr 10, 2005 2:46:16 GMT
Here is one. Maybe you can use a magnifying glass. But he doesn't have hammertoes. ;D I know there are other pictures and I will keep looking through our collection and post them as I find them.
|
|
|
Post by gracemer on Apr 12, 2005 6:21:16 GMT
Funny thing. I erroneously posted that the leading cause of hammer toes was too small shoes, but it turns out that the leading cause is flat feet. Faul has really deformed toes, but he doesn't have flat feet. I'll bet there's a name for his condition.
|
|
|
Post by TPIMaster on Apr 12, 2005 19:41:39 GMT
Probably the Billy-condition or something Well, it's really noticable that those pairs of feet are totally different... Another great clue to add to the database
|
|
|
Post by Moped on Apr 14, 2005 14:46:51 GMT
Paul definitely wore lifts:
|
|
|
Post by cavendish on Apr 14, 2005 16:04:08 GMT
Moped, can you please explain why you are saying this ? I can see that Paul's are the only feet that seem different. The toes of his shoes are pointing upwards. What does this mean ?
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Apr 14, 2005 16:30:39 GMT
Look at the angulation of the foot inside the shoe. Geometry is not an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Apr 14, 2005 23:52:59 GMT
It appears from those latest pictures that paul had smaller feet, the angle looks different but probably only coz u can see the whole thing with pauls boots but not on johns.
Anyway Paul wasnt always the little one in pics, thats quite subtle really.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Apr 16, 2005 19:57:45 GMT
Look at the angulation of the foot inside the shoe. Geometry is not an opinion. Yes, BP, they are. Paul had lifts built into his shoes so the angle of his foot is similar to a girl wearing heels. If you even stand on your tiptoes, the angulation of your foot is higher/different. There is a picture I'll have to find of Paul and the others being interviewed and Paul's foot is resting on a table. There again you can see that the top of his foot his higher than it would be for anyone else wearing loafers. The lifts raised his foot so it appeared very visibly to be quite a bit higher than the other Beatles' feet inside their "Beatle boots". Paul would have the lift built inside the boots and then the boot had a 2 or so inch heel. There was a place in London that would do specially built shoes for people.....prosthesis, lifts, etc. I think we have established that Paul was only 5'8".
|
|