As has been explored elsewhere, iamaphoney uses editing to create false implications.
Plus, the use of questionable sources, conflicting implications, and misconstruing of non-issues to create an issue out of context.
His interviews with Emilio Lari are no exception.
RA 81a - Interview with Emilio Lari
In this IAAP video, photographer Emilio Lari says "Paul was a small guy" and that "his feet don't reach the floor."
Some have said it is this statement which persuaded them to believe in PID.
However, we see that Paul was sitting on a tv, with his butt hanging over the back end.
He would have to be around 7 feet tall for his feet to reach the floor in this circumstance.
That was a cheap-shot by Lari.
The above photos were also taken by Lari. He did not show these in the video...
Links to the images from Lari's website.
Here, from the same photoshoot, we see Paul's head is about up to the top shelf.
More photos by Emilio Lari.
More photos of Lari's showing a 5'11" Paul:
Later in Help! we see Paul swinging around this full-grown woman.
Could a "small guy" do that?
And if Lari is to be taken exactly at his word, we know his photos aren't doctored, because Lari says in this IAAP video that he had the negatives with him when his house was 'ransacked'.
Therefore we can surmise that none of the other images from Help!, with the big Paul, would be doctored either.
Here from this vintage album cover, we see Paul towering over Ringo.
And we see from this other shot that he was even barefoot at the time.
Lead actress in Help!, Eleanor Bron is 5'6"
and Leo McKern is 5'6"
from a vintage magazine: http://www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Help_16_Mag/16Help18.jpg
from a vintage magazine: http://www.jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Help_Book/Help_Book_1.jpg
More Paul/Eleanor comparisons
Watch footage of her with The Beatles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad24rX929sk
Meeting Cassius Clay (M. Ali).
All of The Beatles are wearing slip-on sandals, and Paul is the tallest.
Also notice he is about 4-5 inches shorter than M. Ali who is 6'3"
putting Paul at about 5'11" in sandals!
Lari also says in the scene on the left, "Look at his eyes. He can't be weird or nasty."
Yet his most famous photograph, and the one he holds up often, is the one with the weird, nasty look in his eyes.
Lari also talks about a car crash and how f'd up and complicated the Beatles mysteries are, and that even "the Devil" is involved. All the while reclining on his sofa with a glass of wine. Odd.
Here's another IAAP video; this time about shoe sizes, which again feature Emilio Lari - focusing on the part where he says, "they got into the house", which PIDers take to mean it was ransacked with the intent of destroying the negatives.
And staying true to form, I would wager IAAP may have manipulated the audio to create certain implications.
The dialogue has been spliced.
Here it is:
"The Apple, the society, the John Mc - Paul McCartney society, they try to-"
"To stop those picture to go into circulations."
"They got into the house-"
"They put everything upside down."
"The negative, they were in my bag, ya know."
Then he is looking at slides or negatives and says something about Paul McCartney.
(This segment is also in the RA 81a video. Notice the splicings in both videos.
And why did IAAP blur Lari out in this video but not the other one?)
People then justify the video by saying, Lari's house was ransacked because 'Faul' wanted to destroy the negatives of a small Paul from Help!, and that he must've been small because IAAP says he wore size 8 boots on the set of Help!
How does IAAP verify that the boots being worn in that bed photo are size 8?
Presumably from this spring 1966 magazine article from Tiger Beat Magazine.
The thrust of the article is on how all 4 Beatles are very similar body-wise. It's no stretch to assume they may have fudged some of the numbers for the sake of the article.
Fan magazines have been known to fudge numbers to appeal to the fans' tastes. Different fan mags had different stats for them.
Beacon says this: "If we assume a multiple Paul theory, then this Tiger Beat article is interesting. Not only is the cover star Keith Allison, who was of course essentially a Paul look-a-like, but, also for the number of times it mentions a Beatle being replaced. It is almost reverse psychology in action.
Also though, the chart at the bottom defines the characteristics to which any replacement would have to conform. I wonder if this is why the 'false moustache' thing became significant? If one Paul had an accident, they would all have to have the same scar, likewise, if one grew a moustache the others would have to have an identical moustache, and facial hair does not grow the same on any two men, no matter how similar in appearance."
Were John, George & Paul all really 5'11?
That article also says Paul's chest is 38". Yet his 1965 "Shea jacket" is size 39.
At a Sotheby's auction in 1994, Russ had paid about $5,000 for a tailored tan jacket, size 39 regular, with epaulets, pleated breast pockets and Nehru collar. It was the so-called "Shea jacket", the very jacket Paul McCartney wore when the Beatles performed at Shea Stadium on Aug. 15, 1965.
If Paul wore a size 39" chest, would he be a small guy?
Now we see the magazine is obviously fudging their sizes, and can't be taken as fact.
And that Lari was calling a big Paul small.
Therefore IAAP's videos can not be taken at face value.
Here are measurements for a jacket ordered by Paul McCartney in 1967 at Dandie Fashions
with a chest size 36. Isn't 'Faul' supposed to be bigger?
Now back to the rest of the video.
IAAP states that '65 Paul wore size 8 boots, and 2006 Paul wore size 9.5
We all know different shoe manufacturers have different standards for determining their sizes.
Different countries have different scales, as well.
Where were the boots & shoes made?
I have sizes 9-10 in my collection. In fact, the last pair I bought, I intentionally got a size to big for the breathing room.
According to the international conversion chart, a size 9 in USA is a size 8.5 in UK.
Merrell (McCartney's black 9.5 shoes) is an American shoe company.
If the boots seen in Help! were made in England, and were size 8, then there's only a difference of approximately one size. Though, we don't know if they were size 8 or not. Or where they were made.
I find it odd that post-66 McCartney would have a smaller chest, but an alleged 1.5 bigger shoe size.
Either Lari was fabricating his story, or there have been a small Paul and big Paul since Beatlemania - if one is to take IAAP, Lari, fan magazines and order slips at face value.
And herein lies the contradiction: Lari says, "Paul was a small guy", yet the fan mags say he was 5'11" - 158 pounds.
Either Lari or the mags are lying (or both); or there was a small Paul and a big Paul from at least '64 to '67. People have to pick one.
Or at least acknowledge that IAAP and teen mags are not to be taken as gospel.
They need to be analyzed critically and peer-reviewed.
If the fan mag is lying, then can IAAP's assertion that the boots are size 8 be taken as fact?
If Lari was lying, can anything IAAP puts in his videos be taken seriously?
If there was more than 1 Paul before 1967, can anything related to the standard PID model be taken seriously?
Taking into account that we do not actually know what size McCartney's boots were in 1965, the fact that he had 9.5 size American street shoes proves nothing. Certainly not that anybody died.
At most, it only suggest there is more than one Paul.
Taken out of the context of a PID video, the things Lari says about the photos and his house (splicing and all) don't necessarily point to it being about covering a conspiracy.
Do we know Lari's house really got broken into? If it was, does he really know it was the "Paul McCartney Society"? Did they tell him it was them?
The McCartney Society could easily have just wanted those photos because he is selling them for $60-100+ dollars a pop.
If the house was ransacked, and it was ransacked for the negatives, I'd wager it was likely a bootlegger.
In line with his track record and M.O., it seems IAAP is again putting things into his desired context and forcing an issue out of a possible non-issue. (UK vs. US shoe sizes).
He seems more intent on conspiratainment than being a purveyor of truth.
From Emilio Lari's Wikipedia:
"Lari is a photographer who started his career by bluffing his way on the the set of Richard Lester's Beatle movie A Hard Day's Night in 1964. On set, the crew and actors happened to be waiting for a photographer from L'European magazine and welcomed Lari accordingly.
Emilio happily played the role until he was exposed when the official photographer arrived. However, his talent and friendly approach led to an invitation to the filming of Help! in 1965.
Lari fibbed about being another photographer. I wonder what else he's fibbed about.
He obviously spun a yarn with the image of Paul sitting on the tv.
Some ask, why would Lari lie, and why would he choose to malign himself with McCartney in such a manner; even calling him a devil?
Well, we know Lari lied on the set of the Beatles' films, and that he is an associate of IAAP's. It's not a stretch to presume he got paid for these interviews, saying what IAAP wanted him to say. And we know that IAAP is constantly stretching things and creating false implications to push a PID agenda.
You know me, I don't believe there was only one Paul, I'm just saying that anything IAAP says should be taken with a gallon of salt and scrutinized in a neutral context.
We here have found there was a smaller Paul, as in appx. 5'9", in the spring of '63.
However, he isn't seen before or after that.
see the heights thread here:
We could surmise that Lari could also mean that the 5'9" Paul of '63 was also around in '65 and Lari snapped a picture of him. But if he did, we haven't seen this photo of his, or anyone else's.
But, given his track record of bluffing and playing along, it's likely he was playing along with the IAAP story.
Incidentally, the two have worked together on other projects, as well.
See Beacon's post on their previous collaborations: