Paul & Jane vs. Faul & Jane

[BillyJones]

I give you, Paul & Jane. It's at a party maybe 1966?:



Notice how he's not much taller than her at all. Their shoulders & hips appear to line up with each other.

Here's another photo of them:




Same thing. Paul does not appear to be more than an inch or two taller than Jane ( if even that ). Their shoulders almost line up!

This is the last one. It appears to be from maybe 1965? It was posted by a previous member, & was scanned from a vintage magazine:



Again, their shoulders appear to line up. They really did make a beautiful couple. I wonder every day how she can sleep at night.

Onto Faul & Jane:



Once again Mike McGear's wedding. Look how Jane's shoulder fits neatly into Faul's armpit. He's a good 1/2 a head taller than her.

I think this photo may have been taken the same day. They look like they're dressed the same.



Look where Jane's shoulder is in relation to Faul's! She appears quite a bit shorter than him!

This photo appears to be taken around the same time. Their hair styles appear the same:



Again, he appears to be a good 1/2 a head taller than her.

Here's another. It was taken during their time in India. 1968?:




He's still quite a bit taller than her, even though he's nodding his head.

And another:

Jane & Faul in Scotland. I'm unsure if it's 1967 or 1968:



He's resting his bum on the vehicle & she's standing straight. And he's STILL QUITE A BIT TALLER THAN HER.
He was ( & still is ) TALL & THIN.

This is Paul & The Beatles - A Hard Day's Night, 1963:



This is Faul & the Beatles, taken in 1967:



Paul has grown taller than George. How did he do that? After the age of 24?

[MMCDHoward]

Given the fact that you can't see the feet of the people in these photos, you can't use them to make a point, for all you know, Jane was wearing heels in the photos where she matches Paul better

[BillyJones]

Instead of shooting me down, why don't YOU go & find photos where you can see their feet to make your point. All YOU ever do is shoot down the people who work so hard doing this. IT TOOK ME 4 HOURS THIS MORNING SETTING THIS UP TO POST. How long did it take you to TRY to shoot me down. 2 minutes. Put your money where your mouth is Within. Do some legwork for a change! PROVE ME WRONG!

[SunKing]

This photo is about Bill.....soon after Magical Mystery Tour th Film.

That photo is heavly retouched shrinking Faul's head dimension so Faul seems to be really...a monster!

[MMCDHoward]

yeah, think about it, if a Regular Joe can shoot it down in two minutes, imagine what someone whos trained can do

heres the first pic I've gotten, its Abbey Road itself, I put the line on Georges head, and Paul is actually shorter, George looks to me like hes wearing heels that could add a maximum of an inch, so we could say they're the same height to be safe, rather than Paul being several inches taller

[BillyJones]

This was done through a montage. Don't you remember someone posting this photo awhile ago. I don't remember who, I'm sorry
That was a good photo Within. The problem is, they've been playing with us since the VERY beginning. Since BEFORE the Beatles even broke up! Damn I'm under a different sign-on. I have to get my hands on that photo. I'll do it in a minute.

[BillyJones]

::)Sorry, Within you. I can't access it. I'll have the problem fixed by tomorrow. If I'm not mistaken, I also have photos from the original Abbey Road photo section with Faul's head there instead of Paul's. If I find them, I'll post them too.

[Power 2 The People]

Billy said:

This was done through a montage. Don't you remember someone posting this photo awhile ago. I don't remember who, I'm sorry
That was a good photo Within. The problem is, they've been playing with us since the VERY beginning. Since BEFORE the Beatles even broke up! Damn I'm under a different sign-on. I have to get my hands on that photo. I'll do it in a minute.

Yes, album photos, especially covers, can't be trusted. How else could Faul have crossed that hot pavement in bare feet? Also there's no smoke from his right-handed cigarette. I always thought there was something odd about that picture. Faul always looked out of place. Now I know why. Notice how he almost appears to be floating above the pavement.

[SunKing]

Within said:

yeah, think about it, if a Regular Joe can shoot it down in two minutes, imagine what someone whos trained can do

heres the first pic I've gotten, its Abbey Road itself, I put the line on Georges head, and Paul is actually shorter, George looks to me like hes wearing heels that could add a maximum of an inch, so we could say they're the same height to be safe, rather than Paul being several inches taller

Full documentation at:

digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/abbey_road.html

Within Me Without You - some advice:
Before writing such bullsh*t please include your own documentation in order to avoid looking so ridiculous all the time.

[BillyJones]

Notice how Faul has his head down in the two photos posted here. To try to hide the fact that he is TALLER than George. Paul was NEVER taller than George. Even just looking at it without a ruler, I can tell that Faul is taller than George in those photos!
This is the photo I was referring to:



Upon looking this photo over again all I can say is wow. I wish I remembered where I got it from

[MMCDHoward]

Sun said:

Full documentation at:

digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/abbey_road.html

Within Me Without You - some advice:
Before writing such bullsh*t please include your own documentation in order to avoid looking so ridiculous all the time.

hey man, call it bullshit if you will, but it shows their height a lot more clearly than the ones where hes looking down, and at least it shows their feet in this one

[Jilli]

Guys guys guys....you over looked one thing
On the abby road pic where p/f is barefoot, take a ruler and place it on the shadows of George, Ringo and John, now slide the ruler up to the heads of the shadows, only George, Ringo and John's shadow heads show and they all line up.....paul/fauls shadow continues up higher. This is a good indication that Paul/Faul isnt in a straight line with the other guys. He's not floating, He is farther back. To me it looks like this:

.................Paul/Faul.................................
George........................Ringo...........John

this is a good indication that Paul/Faul is taller. Not only is he out of step, he is farther back and out of step to give him the appearance the he is the same height as before. Things recede the farther back they are in a photo...(meaning) they get smaller.

[Perplexed]

The first lesson I remember from high school art class about perspective was for us to draw a railroad track, looking straight down , or a road, looking down to infinity perspective. Basically to address the zero perspective point, or the fact of two lines meeting in 2 dimensions represents two parallel lines that NEVER meet in 3 dimensions. With a background as such, perspective of horizontal elements in the foreground is weakened. If there were a fence, or wall, or house, or a background residing in one clear plane, their comparitive heights might be more obvious. The "road" aspect pulls your eye spiraling into a deep cone; "X" and "Y" planes lose visual dominance, the visual "pull" toward the implied horizon azimuth makes the individual Beatles depth, to the viewer's eyes,seem more
equal than it probably is. The traffic white lines help, the evenness at the top of their "grid" implies that the walkers must be in line with each other.

[LUCY]

you are assuming the road is level

[Perplexed]

"...implies that the walkers must be in line with each other..."

Worded badly. I soun like I think they are. Actually, I don't think they are in line with each other. Paul seems to me, as in your diagram, a little bit "beyond" the line that they are in. A line drawn thru their feet place paul, in 2 dimensions, higher at the foot. So, he walked in a plane slightly behind their's. That I agree with.

I think the street may be close to even, due to the telephone poles and the tree trunks, which SEEM perpendicular---but again, that may be illusory as well.

Other shots Ive seen bboth looking at this angle, and others looking from other places, including behind and looking forward, make Abbey Road seem pretty level and flat. But, when you are talking 2 inches of compensation------a little here little there, voila. So, that may be so, Lucy, maybe its a little lower on one side.

[BillyJones]

From what Jilli & Perspective have said, it seems to me that the Abbey Road photo session was VERY carefully thought out. They did NOT want it known that Faul was so much taller than the others. Check out these photos:






These are from 1969, Tittenhurst - the final photo session. George & Johnny are wearing the hats to mask their height in comparison to Faul. Here's another one:



This was within days of Faul's daughter Mary's birth. Now, they have him next to Ringo. You find that this is VERY common in photos taken of the Beatles post 1966.
Since Ringo is the shortest member of the band, it's easier to hide the height difference this way. Ringo even has his head twisted up in an odd way. I'd say he was told to do this by the photographer to further mask the height difference.
Also, look at the height difference between Linda & her husband, Faul. He is a good 1/2 a head taller than her. I've found that this is true in most of the photos that I have of the couple. You can see their feet in this photo, I believe that it was their true height difference. She's wearing sandals, no heel. He's wearing shoes with maybe an inch heel on them? If even? He was trying to appear as short as possible, so I doubt his shoes could've had a bigger heel than that. I'm bringing this up for a reason. If you would look at the photo that I posted of Paul & his dad Jim McCartney, you can see that he was no more than an inch or two taller than his dad. In the same set of photos, Linda was there in the ones with Faul in them. Faul always seems to be about 1/2 a head taller than Linda. Linda appears to be about the same height as Jim McCartney. SunKing showed through his animation, that Jim McCartney did NOT lose height between 1966 in the photo with his son & 1972 in the photo of Jim McCartney, Faul & Faul's family. In the photos of Jim McCartney with Faul, Faul appears to be 1/2 a head taller than Jim was. I tried to research Linda's height. No luck. Does anyone know how tall she was?
Back to Paul. If Paul was really only an inch or two taller than his dad, how can he possibly be the same person we refer to as Faul. Paul was 24 in the 1966 photo. How could he have changed body type ( Faul has a bigger bone structure ) & grown 3 or more inches taller after his 24th birthday?
I will be starting a new thread in the clues section concerning all of this. I will post photo after photo of Faul & Linda to illustrate that she was indeed 1/2 a head shorter than her husband! Then I will post every photo that I can find with Linda & Jim McCartney in it, to illustrate that they were indeed around the same height!

Back to the Tittenhurst session, from looking at all of the photos it's obvious that someone was trying very hard to mask Faul's true height. He's either standing next to Ringo, the boys aren't lined up next to each other, or he's standing next to George or Johnny with a hat on. In the photos from which they got the Hey Jude album cover, George appears to be slouching to try to mask the height difference. In one photo he 's standing straight & you can see that Faul is taller than him. That is the same photo that I believe was being discussed here at the forum sometime previously.
Here's a link to the Beatles Photo Sessions for all of you to look over at will:

www.nemsworld.com/beatles/

I seem to have contracted the flu yesterday, so I don't know how much of this I will get done today. I feel pretty gawdawful at the moment.

[abbey]

More photos of Bill & Jane :



Photos of Paul & Jane for comparison:

[abbey]

Bumpity, bump !!