|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 18, 2003 13:49:42 GMT
I recently caught an old episode of Saturday Night Live(for those of us who live in the states) in which Alec Baldwin was the host and Paul McCartney(Faul) was the musical guest. At the end of the show, you could see Alec and Faul standing right next to each other and Alec seemed to be at least an inch and a half taller than Faul, maybe more. He made Faul look small, really.
Does anyone know how tall Alec Baldwin is? If so it will give us a clue as to the height of Faul which might prove my theory that James Paul might not have been as tall as we think, more like in the 5'9"-5'10" range(along with George and John).
|
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Sept 18, 2003 13:52:41 GMT
Alec Baldwin is 5 foot 11 inches  |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 18, 2003 13:57:17 GMT
I think DH had proved his theory!!! |
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 18, 2003 14:28:52 GMT
Looking in lots of web pages, I have always found that George, John and Paul's height was 5'11''
It's so difficult to have a picture that proves definetively that Faul is taller that Paul. I've seen tones of them, and in some Faul looks taller and in others shorter.
It's difficult to find any where you can see him with some other Beatle from feet to head and clearly at the same distance of the camera. Of course, there are also problems with the shoes or the position of the bodies.
I found one I think it's quite good. During the TV performance of "hello Goodbye", you see John, Faul and George side by side (apparently), and Faul looks taller, but I think he's a bit closer to the camera than the others.
How I long for a picture that completely convinces me !
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 18, 2003 14:34:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 18, 2003 14:37:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 18, 2003 14:41:27 GMT
OK SK,
I take the AHDN picture to accept that Paul was of the same height of the other two.
But in the one with the colour jackets notice that he looks as tall as George, and we've always accepted that George and John were equally tall, even though in this picture John seems shorter.
|
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 18, 2003 14:42:26 GMT
Sorry Eggman, I called you SK...  |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 18, 2003 14:47:03 GMT
No problem friend!!! ;D ;D For me Faul is a little taller than George in that pic, look at his shoulders and George's shoulders |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 18, 2003 14:49:43 GMT
In the "Sgt. Pepper" photo session ALL the Beatles quite barefoot...just in slippers!
Check it out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 18, 2003 14:51:31 GMT
Yes SK!!! The mother of all clues!!! |
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 18, 2003 14:53:06 GMT
Ok, but in the cover I think he must be standing over something, since he looks "too much" taller. It's like they wanted him to be clearly taller than the others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 18, 2003 14:57:35 GMT
It could be, remember, they were introducing Sgt Sheppard to the world!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 18, 2003 15:03:19 GMT
Yes, but what I mean is that there are two different evidences: One --> They tried to make clear that the Paul in the cover of Pepper's is much taller that he used to be (Probably by standing over something) Two --> Faul is no as tall as it seems in the cover, but slightly taller than Paul. That's where I'm still looking for a better photographic evidence. If you take, for instance, the cover of "Beatles Again", they are standing in a row and he looks as tall as the other two.  |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 18, 2003 15:35:43 GMT
...heights naturally... Please be careful MNS: most of the original documents were doctored with the "Anthology" operation. The truth is in the Beatles collector's original documents! |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 18, 2003 19:20:22 GMT
Mother Nature's Son, we've discussed the fact that Faul is 2 to 2 1/2 inches taller than James Paul several times on this board. There is a lot of evidence that many people have done to conclude this fact. For example, look at this: uberkinder.5u.com/paul/fc42.htmlP.S. Spanky, how do you know Alec Baldwin is 5'11"? |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Sept 18, 2003 21:36:42 GMT
i looked it up on a profile page... |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 18, 2003 22:55:19 GMT
But in the one with the colour jackets notice that he looks as tall as George, and we've always accepted that George and John were equally tall, even though in this picture John seems shorter. notice that george is a little closer than everybody else |
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 19, 2003 7:31:10 GMT
Yes, and I had seen Uberkinder's page, but I don't know why I didn't remember height's comparisson.
OK boys, it's obvious then:
[glow=red,2,300]Faul is taller !!! [/glow].
Well, ain't that a hell of an evidence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 19, 2003 16:00:56 GMT
There are plenty of pictures and evidences that Faul is taller. All of the Beatles movies, the Anthology book and video/dvd, all of the Beatles pictures you can get your hands on. Prove it for yourself! |
|
