Sunday, April 8, 2012

P/Faul McCartney's hair part and head size

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://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/Paul19663.jpg


http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album ... terb04.jpg



http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/Eyes642.jpg


http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/beautifulPaul2.jpg

Also take note of his head size.

http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/james_paul_mccartney_66_avatar.jpg

Parted on the left, here.

http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album ... y65_21.jpg

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


http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/Beatles%20Story65%207.jpg
http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/PaulMcCartneyinspacesuitaa.jpg



We see he was combing his hair forward in 1966, and even earlier sometimes?
Image

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.
Image


And here, where 'Faul's' hair is parting on his left.

(not flipped, see watch)

http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Beatles_Monthly_Misc/Beatles_Monthly_54/BM54_02.jpg



Seems his hair wants to part in the middle, here.

Hair acting the same in these instances.
http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/TW008.jpg



In this photo, his hair is parted on the left, but his cowlick is more towards the middle.
Image
as you can see here.
Image

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.
Image
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.
Image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qft8Nq3y01Q

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://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/Paul06.jpg


http://www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album ... ook_21.jpg



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


http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/Help_16_Mag/16Help39.jpg


http://jojoplace.org/Shoebox/James_Paul_McCartney.org/happywetpaul.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.
Image

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.
Image

For those that claim "Faul" obviously wore a wig, how do you explain this?



From the Plasticmacca blog. Two photos of Paul using his right hand, hair parted in middle, and a giant head. Doesn't that mean it's Faul?

Their excuse when someone else posts pictures like that is "they're doctored" or "flipped", but not when 'they' post them? They seem to be immune from their own PID rules and guidelines. Or... are they trying to show everyone they know better than what they're pretending to believe.

No comments: