#1 - Beatles HEIGHT Discrepancies
by showing height comparisons which are
specifically focused on Paul. This all by itself
should provide enough evidence of fraud and
deceit. How they did this is not completely
known. We have words such as "simulacra",
"cloning", "synthetic humans", "robotoids", and
so on, but exactly what was happening here is
still a bit of a mystery. What we can clearly
see, though, is they are too similar each time
to be explainable as human doubles (even with
surgery because that doesn't account for the
other nuances), yet too different to be the
exact same person. Human replication of whatever
form usually yields a 95-97% identical copy, and
that is what we are seeing here.
Not only are the heights different, but as
I'll show on subsequent pages, so are the shapes
and lengths of his eyebrows, the different types
of earlobes, and the size and angles of his
teeth. But that will be for later. For now,
let's concentrate on the height
differentiations, and focus on Paul.
Here is a
comparison of two different heights for Paul
in 1963. What can account for this?
Some say "shoe lifts", but those don't cause
his arms, legs and torso to be longer, too.
Are your eyes playing tricks on you, or was it
Now compare the
short height on the left once again in
1963 with the taller height in the middle
and on the right in 1964.
Did he have a
sudden growth spurt of several inches in
less than a year?
If you think it's possible, wait until I
show what happens later.
His heights fluctuate like a yo-yo all
through Beatlemania, as they did through
Wings, and as they are continuing to do in
the Macca era.
can't be more than about 5' 6" here.
The girls aren't wearing heels, but he
Now compare his short height
in 1963 again, with how much taller he is
Taller even than in some pictures of 1964.
Here is a comparison of them
on stage in 1963, 1964 and 1965.
I never find the very short Paul
performing on stage.
He was only involved in this mess for a
few months in the Spring of 1963,
apparently only for photos.
This is a
comparison of the short 1963 Paul,
then taller in 1964, and taller yet in 1965.
is the way he flip-flopped as to whether
he had rhythm and could dance and sway to
the beat of the music.
They look much older here
to me. Notice
how un-rhythmic he is in this video from
notice how rhythmic he is in this 1965
performance of Ticket To Ride
-- as well as his height proximity to
And also this performance
of Help! -- Notice a difference in
It was either very unflattering lighting, or we
were being tested.
I'm from this generation, and I have to say we
he isn't as tall anymore.... most of the
His stage presence fluctuates from rhythmic
to non-rhythmic or semi-rhythmic.
to wear dark glass in some of the
Sometimes he's sitting during a performance,
instead of standing.
Is it to hide the fact that he's shorter
than he was the year before?
say it's obvious it is no longer Paul
because he's smoking right-handed at
the L.A. Interview:
apparently either don't notice or just
don't mention he does the same during
the Memphis Interview, and those same
people usually believe this is the
Appearing in the 1967 Hello,
he is once again very non-rhythmic, with a
stiff, uncoordinated style.
And why did
they keep blurring his face?
Could it be because we had never seen
this particular Paul from the early 60s
perform on television,
and was he only in photo shoots before
on to the current era of 2010+, he fluctuates
as to his ability to dance, be coordinated,
and sway to the beat in synch with the music,
as well as showing up short one day and tall
the next. In all the eras, he also fluctuated
in his ability to sing well, to sing high or
low, and to be hyper-active, flirtatious or
subdued. This seems to have more to do with
something besides being in different "moods"