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: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/Beatles_PL1.jpg
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.
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: http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/TW009.jpg
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: 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!
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.
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: 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.
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.
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).
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".
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.
Here is a video version of the Beatles height presentation: