|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 7, 2003 13:33:34 GMT
Welcome friend!!!! ;D Add the change in his voice range too!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 7, 2003 14:18:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Aug 7, 2003 14:56:06 GMT
Great points Jae. Number 5 is incorrect, though. James Paul was still the tallest of the band members or at least the same height as George and John. It's just that Faul towered over them. He was at least 2 inches taller than James Paul was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 7, 2003 17:31:50 GMT
Yes, I'm glad you noticed the angle. Almost all of the promotional films with frontal shots were filmed with slight slants so that Faul could stand on the lower end of the slant and appear shorter, or with the other Beatles standing slightly in front of him. He also wore socks or flats in several of them. And "Let It Be" is filmed from such uncomfortable angles that you barely see a single frontal shot of them standing side by side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 7, 2003 21:59:29 GMT
I think that in October 1966 they were crazy looking for a look-alike or making the first round of plastic surgery in Faul's face. Very strange as always!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 8, 2003 13:59:28 GMT
The "smaller" of the Band was "always" Ringo. ;D October 1966: [glow=red,2,300]"THE BEATLES' ALL CHRONOLOGIES BLACK HOLE"[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 8, 2003 14:03:33 GMT
Great points Jae. Number 5 is incorrect, though. James Paul was still the tallest of the band members or at least the same height as George and John. It's just that Faul towered over them. He was at least 2 inches taller than James Paul was. hey DH. do we know how tall Faul is. In the John lennon companion book it says John, George and Paul were 5 foot 11 inches. |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 8, 2003 14:12:58 GMT
Yes my dear spanky!!! They are 5' 11'' tall ...I once had a girl or should I say.... Sorry just singing |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Aug 8, 2003 14:40:17 GMT
Spanky, my guess by looking at them is that John, Paul and George were all about 5'10". Since most people exaggerate their height by at least a half inch , I would say this could be accurate. In Sun King's comparison, they are all the same height on the Help cover, maybe with James Paul being slightly shorter that George and John. But if you notice the picture, Paul's legs are about two feet apart making him shorter, while the other two's legs are together. It is my best estimate by looking at MANY photos of the early Beatles(as many as I could find) and videos too, that John and George were literally the exact same height and Paul was about a half inch to three quarters of an inch taller than both of them. I am gonna guess that Faul is about 6'1". |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 8, 2003 14:43:35 GMT
hahahahaha Eggy your being bad... thanks DH i thought as much... |
|
|
|
Post by Rojopa on Aug 9, 2003 13:54:17 GMT
I posted a picture of the Beatles at Candlestick Park and it shows that Paul and George are the same height. Here it is again.  |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 9, 2003 17:47:27 GMT
Another evidence:  From HDN movie |
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 9, 2003 17:48:48 GMT
once again you can see the height....  |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 9, 2003 17:53:33 GMT
Yes, yes the height......... |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Aug 14, 2003 12:34:42 GMT
At that time Faul was not ready in many aspects to do a tour: as bassman, as singer, etc.... |
|
|
|
Post by Uberkinder on Aug 15, 2003 5:45:18 GMT
Yes, and you can hear Faul's bass is painfully out of tune on the roof-top. One string is correct, two are sharp and one is flat. I doubt Paul would give his last performance with his bass out of tune. I doubt Faul even new how to tune a bass (if he's really playing it; his fingers appear completely out of sync in certain parts.)
Perhaps this represented how Faul was happy being there (one in-tune), George wanted to leave the band (one flat), and John and Ringo would have stayed if real Paul was still there (two sharp). Maybe I'm wrong about their specific feelings at the time.
|
|
seibu
Contributor
Posts: 13
|
Post by seibu on Aug 21, 2003 14:32:56 GMT
this thread was argued against by one 'b.j.rowan' on his website here. Hmm. This guy writes quite amusing prose, so I'm surprised he pretends to miss the whole point of UK's site - the eye distance/chin & ear position comparison. Surely he couldn't be stupid enough to think posting two pictures of John Lennon which show er... he got older and lost some weight .. in any way tackles UK's argument that Paul's face changed in *impossible* ways. How could you read the site and miss the whole point of it? Seriousy - I would be delighted if somebody dubunked the whole thing and Faul was proved to be the real James Paul. So why are all "refutations" of UK's work and 60IF so half-arsed? |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 21, 2003 14:36:23 GMT
Hmm. This guy writes quite amusing prose, so I'm surprised he pretends to miss the whole point of UK's site - the eye distance/chin & ear position comparison. Surely he couldn't be stupid enough to think posting two pictures of John Lennon which show er... he got older and lost some weight .. in any way tackles UK's argument that Paul's face changed in *impossible* ways. How could you read the site and miss the whole point of it? Seriousy - I would be delighted if somebody dubunked the whole thing and Faul was proved to be the real James Paul. So why are all "refutations" of UK's work and 60IF so half-arsed? Don't worry, already done. Please visit the FAQ at: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=document&action=display&thread=1060491028&start=0at the bottom of the page. |
|
