|
Post by EricHufschmid on Dec 7, 2004 7:47:37 GMT
I have been busy, so I haven't been here for months, but I told a friend about your site, and he was especially interested in the ears of Paul and Faul, since ears are are as unique as fingerprints. A few days ago his discovered he had an old photo of Paul that Charley Finley had given to him many years ago. Finley was the person who brought the Beatles to America for the Ed Sullivan show. So he scanned it and emailed it to me.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 7, 2004 9:39:24 GMT
I have been busy, so I haven't been here for months, but I told a friend about your site, and he was especially interested in the ears of Paul and Faul, since ears are are as unique as fingerprints. A few days ago his discovered he had an old photo of Paul that Charley Finley had given to him many years ago. Finley was the person who brought the Beatles to America for the Ed Sullivan show. So he scanned it and emailed it to me. FANTASTIC DOCUMENT!Now we know what photos were doctored and what not. Thank You EricHufschmid!
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 7, 2004 17:38:02 GMT
Notice in this somewhat candid photo that Paul does not appear much larger than Ringo. The perspective is askew, but use for reference John & George seated below, who are about the same size as each other.
It becomes more and more apparent that just as later publicity photos were composed so as to downplay FAUL's being larger than John and George, so were early publicity photos composed so as to downplay Paul's being smaller than J&G.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 7, 2004 18:09:20 GMT
Which is exactly what Chris & I have been saying all along ! There are so many photos that it seems apparent that James Paul was no more than 2 inches taller than Ritchie. I don't even think that Ritchie was 5ft. 7in. tall. I believe Ritchie was either 5ft. 5 or 5 ft. 6 in. tall. This would put James Paul's true height at either 5ft. 7 or 5 ft. 8 in. tall !
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Dec 7, 2004 19:58:53 GMT
.... a simple overlay...
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 7, 2004 21:04:44 GMT
So, BeatlePaul, are you stating that both of those photos are truly vintage photos of James Paul ? From the overlay you did, that's what it looks like to me. Back to what T.I is saying, here are some photos that I feel show James Paul's TRUE height. They put the two shorter boys on either end. John appears to be slouching a little. Paul appears to be shorter than John & George in this lineup. Ringo is the only one with a hat on. Why ? Again, his height & Ritchie's look pretty close. He looks maybe an inch or two taller than Ritchie. Paul is obviously shorter than George in this photo. Notice John & George in one carriage, Paul & Ritchie in the other. I feel this is because they liked to pair up the boys who were closest in height to each other. In this photo, Paul's legs don't look much bigger than Ritchie's do. In this photo, Paul & Ritchie are again next to each other. They are at an odd angle to each other, but their heads almost line up with each other. Again, Paul looks no more than an inch or two taller than Ritchie is in this photo. One of the famous butcher photos. In this photo, Paul & Ritchie's shoulders line up, as well as their heads. It's obvious, even though Ritchie is leaning forwards. John is leaning in towards Paul, but you can still see how much larger a man he was than Paul was ! This photo has been used before to try to illustrate Paul's height in comparison to Ritchie. I like it, so I'm using it again ! Ritchie is leaning in towards Paul to try to skew the results. Paul has his arms crossed, raising his shoulders higher. Ritchie is standing slack, to bring his shoulsers downwards. Even with that, Paul appears to be no more than one or two inches taller than Ritchie was in this photo.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Dec 7, 2004 21:35:15 GMT
So, BeatlePaul, are you stating that both of those photos are truly vintage photos of James Paul ? From the overlay you did, that's what it looks like to me. The dimensions are untouched. But small details were alterated in the one on the left: - increased mouth aperture on the left (Paul's rigt) side - erased a bit of chin with a fake shadow (because Paul's chis was really bigger than Faul's The rest is still genuine cleft chin that Faul never had for real included....
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 7, 2004 21:38:52 GMT
That is true. Paul did have a TRUE cleft in his chin. Early photos of Faul THERE IS NO CLEFT !
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 8, 2004 10:36:31 GMT
I have been busy, so I haven't been here for months, but I told a friend about your site, and he was especially interested in the ears of Paul and Faul, since ears are are as unique as fingerprints. A few days ago his discovered he had an old photo of Paul that Charley Finley had given to him many years ago. Finley was the person who brought the Beatles to America for the Ed Sullivan show. So he scanned it and emailed it to me. Dedicated to your friend.You can check Faul's true ear lobe here:
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 8, 2004 22:47:09 GMT
So S.K. , in the bottom photo "Faul " has been placed in Paul's spot using CGI ? It's obvious that it's not really Paul. The body type & height is all wrong. Not to mention the shape of his face & head ! I can't make out his ears, so I'll take your word for it !
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 9, 2004 1:39:55 GMT
So S.K. , in the bottom photo "Faul " has been placed in Paul's spot using CGI ? It's obvious that it's not really Paul. The body type & height is all wrong. Not to mention the shape of his face & head ! I can't make out his ears, so I'll take your word for it ! The important was that comparison. Never mind the DVD cover.
|
|
|
Post by beatled on Dec 9, 2004 2:01:45 GMT
Right, the left ear of the pic on the left is not explained by the slight earlobe lengthening that can be explained by aging. And no, ears don't change, other than that one minor thing.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 9, 2004 2:09:25 GMT
Right, the left ear of the pic on the left is not explained by the slight earlobe lengthening that can be explained by aging. And no, ears don't change, other than that one minor thing. Right. James Paul McCartney ear lobe is completely "attached" to the skin of his mandible. Faul's ear lobe is perfectly separated from the skin of his mandible. and.... what about the chin! Now we know THE REASON WHY James Paul McCartney ear lobe was doctored in the Beatles documents.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Dec 9, 2004 17:50:44 GMT
Right. James Paul McCartney ear lobe is completely "attached" to the skin of his mandible. Faul's ear lobe is perfectly separated from the skin of his mandible. and.... what about the chin! Now we know THE REASON WHY James Paul McCartney ear lobe was doctored in the Beatles documents. .... not only about the lobe ... all the ear is just .. perfectly different
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 9, 2004 18:56:41 GMT
Agreed. Paul's ear is shaped differently than Faul's. Even WITH the surgery that Faul has had to try to make his ears look more like Paul's.
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 14, 2004 5:26:55 GMT
I was just looking a picture of Faul and his right ear is all messed up. Wish I had a scanner and could send the picture out to you. It is absolutely the funniest ear I have ever seen, and Paul never had an ear like that.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Dec 15, 2004 21:11:54 GMT
Faul's picture is a frame from his interview about Geroge Harrison's death directly taken from this DVD:
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 15, 2004 21:15:39 GMT
Nice comparison.
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Dec 16, 2004 23:22:24 GMT
Found another "full genuine" James Paul McCartney's picture
|
|
|
Post by abbey on Dec 17, 2004 1:24:54 GMT
Yes you have ;D
|
|
lazur
Welcome new member
Posts: 8
|
Post by lazur on Nov 3, 2006 19:41:24 GMT
While I'm aware that old Paul pics are sometimes 'stretched' to make them appear more like Faul, it also seems that -Faul- shots have been 'stretched', to accent, (some would say create), the difference. These Faul photos seemed stretched. Newer videos of Faul performances have nowhere near the length and narrowness of skull that this shot indicates. This is a shame, since so many other characteristics here prove well enough that these -are- two different people. Altering photos weakens the case.
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Nov 4, 2006 0:30:20 GMT
While I'm aware that old Paul pics are sometimes 'stretched' to make them appear more like Faul, it also seems that -Faul- shots have been 'stretched', to accent, (some would say create), the difference. These Faul photos seemed stretched. Newer videos of Faul performances have nowhere near the length and narrowness of skull that this shot indicates. This is a shame, since so many other characteristics here prove well enough that these -are- two different people. Altering photos weakens the case. I saw Billy live. He has a "natural" stretched head ....
|
|
|
Post by hellopeople on Jan 2, 2007 10:55:08 GMT
I've read this site. There is scant evidence that Paul died in the 60's. You guys are a bunch of diehards!
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Jan 2, 2007 23:20:20 GMT
I've read this site. There is scant evidence that Paul died in the 60's. You guys are a bunch of diehards! Have you any of the original documentation to share here such as that one? Credits to JoJo
|
|
|
Post by Sun King™ on Jan 5, 2007 21:46:10 GMT
Well none of the 'evidence' presented anywhere on this site proves a thing. So, it's your belief against mine. I'm not inclined to scoop up handfulls of images, fade them together and call it conclusive proof. Have you any of the original documentation to share here? www.identix.com/products/pro_sdks_quality.htmlHave you any scientific documentation as reference? Or your opinion is just blah blah..
|
|