Now look at the lack of hair on his hands in the alleged "Faul" period: Īs I said (and let me repeat) I don't believe in the Replaced-by-a-Double Theory. Paul after 1966 seems to have a different body-hair patten.) See here: Look at the hair on his hands: (Paul in 1964, for instance, has tons of hair on his knuckles, hands, arms, etc. But I do admit that the loons have made some good points regarding the height change, the shape of the ears and head, and the sudden loss of body hair.
So I'm not saying I buy into the replaced-by-a-double thing. Who the hell has a growth spurt at the age of 25? And on "Abbey Road," he's not even wearing shoes, and he looks like he has a couple of inches on Lennon and Harrison. So the height discrepancy is even more massive than the picture shows.īefore Paul Is Dead, I independently noticed the height thing: In the early Beatles, Paul looked about the same size as John and George. What makes it even worse is that the early Paul is wearing Cuban heels, so he's actually even shorter than 1969 Paul (who is wearing flat shoes). Using the bass as a reference-point, they positioned the two "Pauls" side-by-side, and it's blatantly obvious that there's something terribly wrong. Because, though I know that the Paul-is-Dead myth is absurd on its face, its adherents really do make some good points. I've always championed the theory that parallel universes are real, and that occasionally we swap without realizing it.
0 kommentar(er)
