Everyone will agree that Beatlemania-era Paul parts his hair on the left, and that post-66 Paul parts his hair on the right or sometimes the middle. However, he started parting his hair in the middle in 1965, and by mid-66 he was combing it straight forward.
http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album ... terb04.jpg
Also take note of his head size.
Parted on the left, here.
http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album ... y65_21.jpg
We see he was combing his hair forward in 1966, and even earlier sometimes?
Looks here like his bangs naturally want to part on the right-center.
Anytime he gets that perfect coif the slightest bit unfurled...
How are ^ these hair parts really any different than these v ?
starting near the middle and drifting to his right.
And here, where 'Faul's' hair is parting on his left.
(not flipped, see watch)
Seems his hair wants to part in the middle, here.
Hair acting the same in these instances.
In this photo, his hair is parted on the left, but his cowlick is more towards the middle.
as you can see here.
This was made by a PIDer. Notice some of the Pauls have their hair parted very low on the side of the head, and some have their hair parted towards the middle, different hair textures, too.
If 'Faul' is wearing a wig, why didn't they give him a left-part wig? Why not train his natural hair to part on the left? Why go to such painstaking lengths to "make Faul look like Paul" but overlook something so simple?
Why have him perform the legendary Hey Jude broadcast with the 'wrong' color hair and eyes?
This performance is probably their most famous. Seen by tens of millions over several generations. You'd think they'd want to get everything just right for it. Not all wrong.
How 'bout this for an obvious wig. From 1965 in Paris.
Then there's this Paul, again.
Here are Pauls in 1964 and 1965 with wet and or/windblown hair and no sign of wearing a wig.
http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album ... ook_21.jpg
From what I understand, this is Paul waterskiing in 1965.
There sure doesn't seem to be signs of a wig.
This picture was taken in the Bahamas when Paul was water skiing. That is the wind blowing his hair back, so that means there was a bald Paul and a non-bald Paul.
The full picture on the video is this, intended to show a comparison between his forehead - and in fact his whole profile - in the Bahamas and in Kenya. Both pictures were taken in the same year. What it's possible to see of his ear pattern looks identical to me in both pictures.
For those that claim "Faul" obviously wore a wig, how do you explain this?