Sunday, April 8, 2012

P/Faul's height in comparison to his dad, Jane, Mal.

PIDers claim "Faul is taller than Paul" by comparing their heights to his elderly father Jim McCartney.

Here are all the Beatlemania-era shots I could find of Paul & Jim together standing. I would estimate that the top of Jim's head comes up to slightly past Paul's eyebrows/lower forehead region.
From the Vintage August 1964 issue of Teen Life magazine, we see the image of Paul & his father, notice the height ratio between the two men in these images.

I tilted this horizontally level.

Here is the one shot of Paul & Jim that PIDers use, this is also a vintage scan found at 

As it is, Jim comes up to about Paul's hairline. If Paul were to stand out side-by-side with Jim, the top of Jim's head would be lower on Paul's forehead. Much more like in the previous photos. Also note where Jim's shoulder comes to on Paul's chest

(^Also it seems the photographer is crouching down, which could be playing a factor).

Here in the late-60s, we see a Paul & Jim that are basically at the same height ratio range as before. With Jim somewhere between Paul's eyebrows and hairline.

^Now here in 1972 we see that Jim seems to come up to about Paul's eyebrows.

This is the one shot of 'Faul' & Jim that PIDers use. In using it, they claim 'Faul' is 2-4 inches taller than Paul.

However, for one, this 'Faul' is only about one inch taller than the shortest Paul/Jim comparison we have seen so far. Second, Jim was age 70 here and can only be expected to have shrunk somewhat. To only shrink that much at that age only helps prove that 'Faul' was not any taller than 'Paul'.
Third, we don't know what kinds of shoes were being worn in some of these photos etc. (Or how many Jims there might have been).
Notice though, that Jim's shoulders come up to the usual spot on Paul. (This could also be a tall-headed P/Faul).

Here is one other photo that some PIDers also use. They use it to not only show how much taller 'Faul' is in comparison to Jim, but also in comparison to Jane.

(besides, as it is, Jim comes up to the middle of Paul's forehead)

However, staying true to PID form, they do not include this photo. Where we can see that Jane is not only wearing non-heels, but that she is standing in a downward slope.

which brings me to my next point...

Here are the two classic examples PIDers use to claim that “Faul is so much taller than Paul” by comparing their heights to Jane.

The classic graveyard photo from Mike’s wedding, where they say, “See, Faul’s nose is over Jane’s head.” (which it isn’t).

Again, they are on uneven ground, and in mid-stride. Paul’s left leg is straight up putting him at full height. Jane is bent at the knees, hip, lower back and neck. Of all the 40+ photos of Paul with Jane I’ve found, this is by far the worst one to try to use for a height comparison. A jury would laugh this out of the courtroom.

And here is their other favorite comparison. On the left is from the Alfie premeire in March 1966 (Paul with chipped tooth), and the date on the left is probably sometime in 1967.

First, they are again in mid-stride on the right. Second, I will show that their height ratios aren’t any different.

I want to go back to Mike’s wedding first. In the first post we saw that there wasn’t a taller Paul at the wedding. An uncropped photo shows that Jane was standing on a steep downslope, etc.

Here are 8 more photos from that day. Photos that PIDers don’t bother including in their presentations. PIDers love to only use one photo from each era.

As we can see, Jane’s shoulder comes to somewhere around Paul’s armpit, and the top of her head comes up to just over Paul’s eyebrows usually around the middle of his forehead. This is the case in all occasions since they started dating, as we will see in this presentation. 

Now back to the Alfie premeire.

It would be interesting to see if Jane is wearing heels at the Alfie premiere, most likely. As we saw at Mike’s wedding, she was not!
Either way, see how Jane’s shoulder is right around Paul’s armpit, and the top of her head is just over or near his eyebrows. The bottom-right photo is from a vintage magazine. Paul is bending down in it, but as you can see from the array of photos, his height is little to no different than that seen at Mike’s wedding. At most there may be a quarter-inch difference, taking into account Jane could be wearing heels.
Say what one will about the facial features, between Alfie Paul and Mike's Wedding Paul - and any other Paul - But careful analysis will show all of those factors remain consistent within a 95-98% range when comparing any two P/Fauls picked at random. Considering all the various factors.

Here’s some other vintage scans of Paul with Jane. They aren’t great for height comparisons, but see what you see.

Here they are on their India trip

without heels on their sandals.
Granted, the ground isn’t completely level, but even so, if ‘Faul’ is supposed to be “so much taller than Paul”, would their height ratios be that close? He should still be towering over her.
Notice his height with John is consistent with their ’64-’80 ratios, as well. Compensating for John being in a ditch. (Before 1964, they fluctuated greatly. Another thing PIDers never mention, (or notice?))

More from post-66. The top-right is from the same night as the photo used In the PID comparison at the top of this post. Notice Jane’s head goes up to the middle of Paul’s forehead.

More from pre-67. Not ideal for heights, but you should get a general sense, if unbiased.

For posteriry, I’ll include this photo. Some might ask, isn’t Paul taller here? As it is, Jane’s head is level with Paul’s eyebrows. If he were to stand up straight she might come up to about his eyes. Also seems like his heels are taller than hers here.

But in it’s defense, I will include this photo. Again, not ideal, but the heights seem the same as in the photo just above. If there was a taller-than-most Paul, or shorter-than-most Jane, they were around in 1964, too.

Now, notice in this photo, taken by a fan, we see Paul & Jane at their usual height ratio.

Hopefully it can be seen and determined here that the height ratios between Paul(s) and Jane(s) never fluctuated to a noticeable degree. Just as Paul(s) and his father(s). It is important to take into account things like heels, ground surface, body bending, positioning, etc. Essentially, if one insists on only using one photo for your presentation, make it one where they are side by side, straight up, on level ground, where we can see their feet. Or use as many photos as you can find.

Which leads me to another point. If PIDers are so sure Paul was replaced, who is to say Jane and his dad weren’t replaced, too? With what degree of certainty are they making their Paul/Jane vs. Faul/Jane comparisons? They always talk about how Jane was in on the switch and didn’t like ‘Faul’. How do they know it wasn’t ‘Fane’? But I digress.

The point here is only to illustrate that the height ratios of Paul & Jane didn’t suddenly change after 1966.

P/Faul height comparisons to Mal Evans.
Here in the Beatlemania years, though Mal is bending at the hips in the top two photos,
we can see that George & John's shoulders come up to about Mal's nipples,
and the tops of their heads would come up to about Mal's eyes.
In the bottom photo it seems Paul comes up to about Mal's eyebrows or mid-forehead
(if Mal were to stand up straight).

1965, Paul roughly up to Mal's eyebrows/mid-forehead.

Circa 1964-66. The red lines indicate where Paul lines up as-is.
Of course, Paul is bending his knees quite a bit.
The white lines indicate roughly where they would line up if Paul were to stand up straight.
Paul's shoulders seem to line to Mal's armpits.

Another shot from that moment.

Here is the infamous interview from December 1966.
Seems as though "Faul" is not any taller than Paul was in comparison to Mal.


These photos were used at PlasticMacca blog to compare pre-PID and post-PID

In the first photo he's bending his knees, as we've already gone over.
In the second photo Mal is standing on a downslope and bending one knee.
That in tandem with Paul not bending his knees,
creates an appearance of Paul being "taller" than in the first photo.

In this first photo, the white lines indicate where Paul lines up with Mal.
In the second photo, the red lines indicate where they line up as-is
and the white lines are if they were to stand up straight shoulder-to-shoulder.

This P/Faul might be a tiny bit taller than the one in the other photo PlasticMacca used,
but certainly not enough to claim "Faul was taller than Paul"
because this P/Faul is not taller than the Pauls in the first two photos in this post.

Here John lines up with Mal the same as he did in the mid-60s. Ringo is about up to Mal's mouth.

As can be seen here

...but this Ringo seems a little shorter. (thinner neck, too).

At the 4:00 mark in this video Paul, George & Mal's height ratios can be seen.
They're pretty much the same as always.

It's pretty hard to get a good estimate with this photo,
but my guess would be this P/Faul is no taller than any previous P/Faul.

Some of these estimates might be somewhat rough, but at least I'm using every photo I can find,
instead of just using one from each era and calling it good.
Which is more than can be said of all the prominent PIA and PID researchers, so far.

And, for what it's worth here are some comparisons for the height difference between Paul and George Martin.
Taking camera angle and body positions into account,
it seems there were some P/Fauls that were about up to Martin's eyes.

And other P/Fauls taller than that. (Assuming there's only one George Martin).

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).


Anonymous said...

Sterling work, Linus. But again, as an example of something I criticised earlier, when you post the 'vintage scan' of a paper with a pic of Paul and his dad, you add the comment 'Note the height difference' despite the fact that immediately preceding this pic, you've used a pic of Paul and his dad, which is transparently from the same sequence as the 'paper's shot, to show NO height difference.

Great work, bewildering commentary (on occasion)

Also a sterling example of how you can take two photos one straight after the other and use them to 'prove' opposing theorems.

In PID circles, it's as if no-one ever heard a refutation of the dictum 'The camera never lies' while also proposing that all photos of The Beatles have been manipulated retrospectively by those aliens in the Illuminati Lizard mothership.

Frankly, it's sometimes enough to make me run into a room and start frothing over something as if it's food while barking erratically

Linus said...

Thanks. I've never been accused of being good with words.
By "height difference", I meant the difference between Paul and Jim in general. So, what I should've said was, "notice the height ratio between the two men in all these images".
I will edit the post accordingly.

This is one of the reasons why I, unlike PIDers, encourage questions, comments and critiques.

I'll get to your other comments when I have time.