Sunday, April 8, 2012

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.

Image
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: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/Beatles_PL1.jpg
and here

vintage scan: http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album ... 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: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/16M0765003.jpg

Again, compared to this short Paul & George.
Image
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.
Image
link to vintage scan: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/TW009.jpg
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:
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/02/this-photo-is-property-of-indiana-state.html



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.
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEqJcmnrMo8
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: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/BeatlesStory6512.jpg
v Notice Paul's big head here.

Vintage scan: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/misc1964_196608.jpg
and video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4_74XhHmlM

vintage scan: 
http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/teenville_nov_64__09.jpg
and video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWnr-C8KN6E


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!

Image
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"
findheight.com/celebrity-height-eleanor+bron.html

www.imdb.com/name/nm0571674/bio


Here is John next to McKern

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


from vintage magazine: www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Help_16_Mag/16Help18.jpg
from vintage magazine: www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Help_Book/Help_Book_1.jpg




Paul towering over Ringo.
Vintage: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/BF6_index_htm.jpg

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.


http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2013/10/help.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2013/04/meeting-fan-in-manila.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2009/10/some-small-photos.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2012/09/the-truth-abotu-my-romance-with-beatle.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2013/06/boys-and-cars.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2014/02/i-want-to-hold-your-hand.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2009/12/what-is-this.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2014/05/thumbs-aloft-for-last-press-conference.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2010/12/more-crazy-press-conferences.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2011/01/glasgow-65.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2014/01/well-at-least-i-now-know-what-big-bug.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2013/10/so-there-misbelievers.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2014/04/albany-beatles-winners.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2014/02/more-from-nyc-good-guys.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2013/06/atlantic-city-pd.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2012/10/police-headquarters.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2011/05/oh-canada.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2011/05/keys-to-city.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2014/06/meet-press-for-real.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/04/im-happy-just-to-sign-for-you.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/03/gone-fishing.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/04/a-hard-days-family.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/08/beatlemania-aboard-703-beatles-007.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/08/the-beatles-take-it-to-city-hall.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/08/garments.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/08/the-award-winning-beatles.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/08/the-mccartneys.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/07/help-in-color.html
http://www.meetthebeatlesforreal.com/2015/06/arriving-in-genoa.html


singer Sylvie Vartan is 5'6"
http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Sylvie_Vartan
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: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/Beatles_Files_H1.jpg


Here you can see a tall, lanky Paul on the set of Help! wearing slip-ons. No shoe-lifts.
Image
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: 
http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/Beatles%20Story65%206.jpg
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVPvr2LVw
Revolution

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: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/All_About_The_Beatles_11.jpg

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W71-Lljwzdc

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

i get what your saying with his height and everything, but in some pictures they are slouching and bending their knees, in others the ground is uneven making the height considerable different in each photo

Linus said...

Hi, thanks for your comment.
Yes, I'm very aware of those instances, and take them into consideration (unlike many people). I have been hyper-analyzing this for two years, so far. Plus I am a pro film & photographer, and I have an understanding of how the sizes and heights of a subject can appear under many circumstances.

Overall, it can be determined that there are no major fluctuations in height amongst the Beatles after 1963. But it sure 'seems' that there are some minor to major fluctuation up through 1963.

The standard PID theory is that "Faul" is taller than "the real Paul", but I have clearly shown that whoever is "Paul" from 1964+ has a consistent height.

Going by height alone; If there was a replacement, it took place before or during 1963, and was only temporary. Not to mention George's fluctuations during 1963.

Linus said...

Update: there were a few not-so-great examples in there, that I have now taken out. I put this piece together over a year ago, and am still fine-tuning it.

But again, in terms of the big picture, taking all the evidence into account, there doesn't seem to be the 'so much taller McCartney' of post-66 that is falsely, and under-researchedly plaguing the Beatle research community.
Say what one will about other features, but the post-66 height issue should be nullified. There is simply no evidence of a Paul being any taller than the one on the back of the vintage Help! album cover.
(guitar comps have been taken with differing lenses and distances from subject).
Let's concentrate on what was going on in 1963.

Gerard Tomoculus said...

"Let's concentrate on what was going on in 1963."

Most definitely, there is truly something odd happening in 1962 thru 1963. The heels of the shoes worn do not justify the height fluctuations that are occurring, nor does the age they are all at respectively. (late teens to early 20's)

Maggie said...

I think getting someone's exact can be a tricky thing. Seems strange, but true, I continued growing until I was 21 years old. When I graduated from high school at the age of 18, I measured 4ft 11in; at the age of 21, I was 5ft 1.5in tall. Consequently, I'm reluctant to question someone else's height.

Linus said...

Sure. But what I'm trying to point out here is that with Paul & George in mid-1963, there seems to be a SUDDEN noticeable DECREASE in height. Only to later Suddenly change back to their previous height.
It only happened in mid-63. After that the heights seem to return to their original ratios and remain consistent.

Maggie said...

I do understand what you're getting at Linus. I'm not disagreeing with you on this one. I will go back and reexamine your post showing the difference in Paul and George. Thanks for the reply.

Linus said...

Disagreeing is fine. It only helps bring about further investigation and sounder evidence.

Thanks for posing your inquiry. Sometimes I don't know if I'm making my presentations clear, which is one of the many reasons I encourage feedback.

I have reworded some things in hopes of making it clearer for everyone.
But it all seems to come down to Paul appearing a couple inches shorter than usual for a very brief time in mid-63. Which is also when George's height seems to fluctuate noticeably.

Anonymous said...

Interesting Job Linus!.
Apart of the tall of Paul,
Do you think in the theory that Faul is not Paul?
You are Photographer, I guess that you noticed changes in the face and head (long) between Paul Pre 13 September 1966 and "Paul" post November 1966 or not?
Cheers and thanks for responding.

Linus said...

I do not believe there is an impostor/replacement.
I also do not believe there is only one Paul McCartney.
I believe there are more than one, even several. However they are too similar to be impostors, yet too different to all be one guy.
Either it IS one guy, and he wears various prosthetics to play into a multiple theme, or there are multiples created through some technology the public is not aware of.

I have noticed changes. However, as stated all over this blog, the changes occur as far back as the early-60s Hamburg & Cavern Club days.
It seems there has been more than one Paul from early on.
I can not say which is the real Paul, how would one know? One can only guess.
WAS there a real Paul? How can one know for sure?
Therefore, I have to work on the basis that they are all “Fauls”.

All in all, there is no proof that anybody died. Only that there is more than one.

Anonymous said...

On the theory of multiples Paul,
could be that he could have a brother?
http://data2.whicdn.com/images/56198123/thumb.jpg
Greetings friend.

Anonymous said...

Well I'm glad someone is taking extensive pains to dismiss the 'Tall Faul' nonsense so beloved of what I would tend to call the rabid section of the PID crowd. Rabid, that is, in the sense of a dog who comes in from nowhere and begins frothing over and chewing something without much attention to what it is.

But there's a factor that's well-known in common experience (perhaps under-documented but that's because it's well-known) which is that men's spines grow and shrink.

I experienced this personally with several girlfriends who were shorter than me 'on paper' but who sometimes could suddenly be the same height or close to it, even when unshoed etc.
Of course it would be they who would tell me (women seem to know more things somehow) the reason and it is very common for men to be up to several inches shorter in the morning until the spine expands. Sleep is not the only reason contraction can occur though but I leave it for you to investigate further yourself rather than for me to attempt to persuade without examples (finding these in pics, for example, would be 'scientifically' difficult)

Given that The Beatles were working 24/7 internationally across timezones during their early period and that Paul is seen in the 'What's Happening'/'First US Visit' (and reported elsewhere in biogs) to be the one who was the regular night owl, then could differing sleep patterns account for some of the discrepancies based upon the spine factor?

damoopies said...

Why would an unknown band in 1962 embark in an elaborate doppelganger conspiracy?

Anonymous said...

On the Please Please Me cover, Paul is the shortest, even shorter than Ringo. I've seen other height discrepancy sites. This is the most telling era, '62-'63, where he was short, then after that, he was taller. I've recently found a new theory about him being twin brothers. It made a lot of sense to me. But still figuring out how it accounts for him being the shortest briefly, then same as John & George, then taller. There's no end to this rabbit hole. :(