Sunday, April 8, 2012

P/Faul's teeth

According to the un-thorough Itilian Wired article, 'Faul's' upper-left molars are supposed to arc in a straight, almost-outward angle, while the "real" Paul McCartney's upper-left molars are misaligned and angled inwards. They say Faul had a wider palate, while Paul's was more narrow.

Here's some vintage scans of some early Pauls with their left molars arcing outwards, with the wider palate.

link: ... bum=Album9

Link: ... n_64_3.jpg
Ed Sullivan show 1964

From the vintage albums The Beatles Story and The Beatles Second Album.

In the film A Hard Day's Night. (also holding a fake nose).

Live at the BBC 1964(?)

Interview with Ken Dodd 1963

Here's a shot of his teeth from one scene in Another Girl. They are more straight, or slightly arced outward. Just like the 'Faul' in the article.

Compared with this Paul from the beginning of the film.
When has any other Paul had molars that crooked?

Certainly not here.

From the The Night Before segment in Help!
This one has top teeth that angle in on the left.

And this one has top teeth that arc outward on the left.

The Night Before
There are two different Pauls in the same music video. If they can't even keep the Pauls identical or consistent in one movie, let alone in one song, how can this all be doctoring?!

Some Pauls had that scar on the chin, some didn't. Same with the 'Fauls'. This was the Paul used in the teeth chapter of the Wired article. If you read the whole article you'll see they use different Pauls and different Fauls, to illustrate which ever point they're trying to make.

It's like they searched for the two most different extremes of molar angles that could be found across the two eras.

From the vintage American album Beatles VI

Oh, 'Faul', aren't your molars supposed to arc outwards? 1968 Revolution promo film.

India. Misaligned "real Paul" teeth with horribly fake ear.

Uh oh, 'Faul'... I've got a feeling your molars are supposed to arc outward.
(on rooftop).

These look almost exactly like the teeth Paul has in the Wired article.

And notice in these photos, Faul has swooped eyebrows, but Paul doesn't. Would they doctor the eyebrows and not the teeth? I claim no photos of one guy were doctored to look like another.

Two more Let It Be 'Fauls' with slightly misaligned teeth

And during his wedding, 1969

From I Am The Walrus, hard to tell, but the molars look misaligned.

Here is an excerpt from the Wired article regarding surgically altering the palate:
'A change of the shape of the palate, Carlesi concludes, 'in the Sixties was not impossible but would be very traumatic, the result of an actual intervention maxillo-facial. In practice McCartney should have been subjected to an operation that would involve the opening of the suture palate, broken bone and then a long prosthetic and orthodontic treatment. In other words, for a change so sensitive in the sixties to McCartney would be required not only a particularly painful and bloody, but also the use of a fixed orthodontic multiband then, for over a year. Which would not have been possible to hide and would be obvious repercussions on the performance of a vocal professional singer.’”

From the back cover of the Wings at the Speed of Sound album.

From the Wings TV Special 1973.
Mary Had A Little Lamb



The Paul in the With A Little Luck video has very misaligned, wonky teeth.


Here's some screengrabs from the Today Show in 1982. Straight upper-left teeth.

The Late Breakfast Show, 1983. Crooked upper-left teeth.

1985 straight teeth with the wider palate.

And from The Wogan show in 1990. Crooked teeth, narrow palate.
Then in this 1990 interview in Japan, he has straighter teeth.

So, there were different P/Fauls with different kinds of teeth at least as far back as 1963, and continuing onward to at least 1990.

As you can see, the problem with PID research up to this point is that they just take one pre-67 photo and compare it with one post-66 photo. Many photos from each era must be used to conduct a thorough analysis. I'd like to see these forensic scientists compare multiple photos within each era and point out the differences, which can even be seen with the naked eye.
Most PIDers also only look for the differences when comparing 'Paul & Faul', not the uncanny, unexplainable similarities. And only look for the similarities when viewing photos & videos of Paul, not the differences! Don't hold double standards in your research!
We've taken this research to a new level, and we ask that our viewers be objective when viewing our evidence.

Here is a video version of this presentation:

Paul cross-era match-ups

If these two aren't the same guy, I'll be a monkee's uncle.

Even the hair flows the same way.

Same chin, same eyes, same everything.

An important note for those that say everything is doctored and/or composited.
For the image to look right, not only does the lighting and the position of the subject and the camera have to be the exact same, but also the film and lens need to be the same. And the tampering has to be seamless and undetectable. The odds of all of that happening successfully are very slim. 

The only time any photo can be a real successful composite, is if they were taken in the same studio at the same time, and the subjects swapped places moments apart. And if that were the case, that means the Beatles would've had to have been coexisting with the 'Featles'.

Height fluctuations and comparisons

Some 1960-62 shots. John, Paul & George are all close to the same height. Sometimes Paul is a little taller. They seem to be wearing the same kinds of shoes in each respective photo.
Was Paul wearing lifts? Note, lifts do not add length to a person's arms or torso. Notice the fluctuating heights amongst the photos.

In these shots from early 1963 John is tallest, while 
George & Paul seem to be between Ringo & John's height range. Yes, John is closer to the camera, but even if he were to scoot back, he would be a little taller than Paul, which is not the case before this.

John tallest again, now George is very short. Are Ringo & John standing on something?

They are all barefoot here in 1963 and John, Paul & George are all equal in height, with Ringo noticeably shorter.

roughly same heights here

vintage scan:
and here

vintage scan: ... 64__01.jpg

but later that year and onward Paul is taller than ever before. George .5" taller than John.

Notice Ringo shooting Paul.

Most notable in all of these, the Ringo/Paul ratio

Here's a scan from a vintage mag, that looks like it's from the same time frame of the Swedish ad. I don't think it's the same Paul though because the eyebrows and chin are too different.

links to vintage scans:

Again, compared to this short Paul & George.
Here they are in the same photo-shoot from a slightly different angle. As you can see neither John or Ringo is standing on a phone book or anything. Although, it does seem like Paul is wearing high-sole shoes.
link to vintage scan:
other angles.
Yeah, they are angled back, but their height ratios are still more off than they should be. They are all bending their left knee to the same degree.

Tall Pauls from 1964-1965

Ed Sullivan appearances from 1964 & 1965
and two photos taken by a fan. source:

Don't let Muhammad Ali throw your perspective. Here the Beatles all are wearing sandals and Paul is tallest of the four. If it helps, cover M. Ali up with your hand. Or watch the video.
Also notice Paul is about 4-5 inches shorter than M. Ali who is 6’3” – Putting Paul McCartney at about 5’11” in sandals!

vintage scan:
v Notice Paul's big head here.

Vintage scan:
and video:

vintage scan:
and video:

From the vintage magazine Romance Show, June 1964

On the set of AHDN. Paul 3rd from left.

backside of vintage album cover

You might be thinking “Paul & George weren’t done growing, it’s not uncommon for people to continue growing into their 20’s”. Yes, we know that. Growing a half an inch is not uncommon. Growing 1 inch is possible, but quite extraordinary. If Paul & George continued growing in their 20’s they would’ve had to have suddenly grown 3-5 inches in just a few months as adults.

No shoes (or lifts) for Paul during this session, and look at how much taller than Ringo he is. How does an adult suddenly grow 3-5 inches in his 20's?

Look at Paul's legs compared to Ringo's. One simply cannot play the 'shoe-lift card' or the 'continued adult growth card' here. Sure, some people continue to grow in their early-20s...

But not 3-4 inches in a short period of time!

And If the vintage album covers and magazine scans weren't enough, here's a news article from 1965 showing a very tall Paul from that Help! photo shoot at the beach.

Eleanor Bron is 5'7" and Leo McKern is 5'6"

Here is John next to McKern

Eleanor Bron is 5'7", putting McCartney, again, at about 5'11"

from vintage magazine:
from vintage magazine:

Paul towering over Ringo.

and companion vintage newsclipping.

Here is a collection of images taken by fans, which show us Paul's height in relation to the other Beatles.
As established, Paul was about 5'11" from mid-63 onwards.
We see he is the tallest Beatle, towering over Ringo by appx. 4 inches. The same ratio before and after 1966.
Ringo is always up to Paul's eyebrows, and his shoulders are always up to Paul's armpits.
Below are the links to the photos which have been taken by fans and have been in their homes all these years; from the blog Meet The Beatles For Real - run by and for fans.

singer Sylvie Vartan is 5'6"
Again, putting Paul at appx.  5'11" in 1964.

Here is a another shot from '63 with a short George.

In all of these Beatlemania era shots, George is the tallest, or he and Paul both are.

vintage scan:

Here you can see a tall, lanky Paul on the set of Help! wearing slip-ons. No shoe-lifts.
Still wearing those slip-ons.

Here he is in spring '63. Short Paul, small build. The same height as the girls. In the photo above he is holding one and swinging her around effortlessly (and she's fairly tall for a woman). I would estimate these two Pauls' height difference to be appx. 3 inches. (give or take, due to make of shoe). Can you conceal a 3-inch lift with those slip-ons? Can a 20-something really grow that much in that short of time? (maybe it was from all those preludes they took in Hamburg).

Here’s a Paul from 1961 that towers over the female fans. (is he taller than george?)

link to vintage scan:
very tall and lanky again in Help!.

These sure don't seem to be the same 4 guys with shoe-lifts or continued adult growth. And these are not Bills or Phils or Fauls, they all look too similar. The other possible explanation is that these are all duplicates of some kind, which is also a very serious problem.

As we see from the back of the vintage Help! record album, Paul is tallest, followed by George by about .5 inch, then John, and Ringo is about up to Paul's eyes.

Same height ratios in 1964

And again at the NME Awards, and in Tokyo, 1966.

You can see Paul's chipped tooth in the NME Awards footage.

LA press conference, 8-28-66, same height ratios.

This seems to be the usual height ratio from about 1964 onward.

In March 1966, Maureen Cleave interviewed Paul McCartney for the London Evening Standard. The fourth paragraph begins with, "He is tall..."

More Pauls towering over the others in '66.

Here we see the same height ratios in these photos & videos from 1967-69
When you watch the videos you get a good sense of their heights. I tried to grab screenshots where they are all standing straight up.
Penny Lane

Strawberry Fields Forever (height ratios staying consistent with other shoots, it’s safe to assume the ground here is mostly level).

All You Need Is Love

Your Mother Should Know, (Here John & Paul are practically the same height).

Hello Goodbye

India, George & Paul wearing sandals. Notice they are the same heights as in the photo with M. Ali in 1964, when they were also wearing sandals.

Mad Day Out photo shoot. Paul barefoot in top photos, George wearing shoes in both. With or without shoes, Paul is still only .5-1 inch taller than George.

Abbey Road outtakes

I know everyone says the Abbey Road cover has been "doctored to look like Paul" and that it's not usable due to Faul being barefoot and in mid-stride. But they're all in mid-stride to the same degree. And we have seen in the other photos that they weren't wearing lifts in their shoes. As you can see here, Faul being barefoot only bumps the height ratios about half an inch.

Last photo shoot, 1969

Interesting how this is always basically the only photo PIDers use to show "Faul being taller than Paul"? Not only is he closer to the camera, but he's far out in front of John & Ringo. I'm sure if they were to stand straight, shoulder to shoulder, the height ratios would be the same as always.
Funny that the PIDers never include this photo on the right.

As we can see in both eras, the height ratios amongst the four Beatles stay relatively consistent whether some or all four of them are barefoot or wearing slip-ons/sandals. Yes, there were multiples of each Beatle, but after 1963 the height ratios remain mostly the same.
If all four were replaced by human look-alikes, what are the odds that the height ratios would stay the exact same, (but still forget to part "Faul's" hair on the left).

This is a comparison PIDers use to illustrate how "Faul is much taller than Paul".
Yes the ’68 Paul is a little taller than the ’63 Paul, but as we have seen; Ringo and Paul have been at that height ratio on the right since 1964!

The photo on the left is from the rehearsal for the Royal Variety Show in November 1963, Ringo seems to be up to Paul’s hairline, rather than his eyes.
The woman is Marlene Dietrich, who is on the Sgt. Pepper's cover.

This isn’t quite a 5’11” Paul, but he is still noticeably taller than Ringo, with what seems to be a George that may be slightly taller than Paul, which is not rare at this time. (Paul is a little further back and seems to be bending his knee a bit. And of course, John is out in front). Marlene seems to be up to George's and Paul's eyebrows.

vintage scan:

Notice here, Paul's shoulder is a good 3-4 inches above Ringo's shoulder.

As can be seen in the other photos w/Dietrich, Paul's shoulder is still noticeably higher than Ringo's, even when bending. Plus, Paul is a little closer to the camera in the '68 photo.

Here is a video version of the Beatles height presentation: