|
Post by Goldfinger on Jun 18, 2004 9:38:33 GMT -5
I just wanted to get your thoughts on this.
I went to see Ringo and his band last summer and thought the show was great. Ringo is a first class act and the crowd loved him. He is professional and totally unpretentious.
I recently read a review by some pop critic. He said the show consisted of a "group of has-beens that managed to be mildly entertaining."
Who the &*$#@ is this pip-sqeak to be calling Ringo and the other fine musicians has-beens and mildly entertaining?
Sorry, just had to get that out of my system.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Nov 10, 2004 14:17:13 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 10, 2004 14:17:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 22, 2004 8:45:46 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 22, 2004 8:45:46 GMT -5
Let us look back at the context in which he said it. He was responding to a letter from a student that said: "Following the usual expressions of adoration, this lad revealed that his literature master was playing Beatles songs in class; after the boys all took their turns analyzing the lyrics, the teacher would weigh in with his own interpretation of what the Beatles were really talking about. (This, of course, was the same institution of learning whose headmaster had summed up young Lennon's prospects with the words: "This boy is bound to fail.") John and I howled in laughter over the absurdity of it all."
When he said f*ckers, he was referring to this literatur master and all like him who would try to find the hidden meanings in their songs. Not so much the fans, but the critics and high brows that thought they knew what the Beatles were actually writing about.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 20, 2004 9:36:12 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 20, 2004 9:36:12 GMT -5
This excerpt is from Pete Shotton's excellent book 'The Beatles, Lennon And Me' (originally published as "John Lennon In My Life", 1983, Stein and Day Publishers :
From page 217:
"One afternoon, while taking "lucky dips" into the day's sack of fan mail, John, much to both our amusement, chanced to pull out a letter from a student at Quarry Bank. Following the usual expressions of adoration, this lad revealed that his literature master was playing Beatles songs in class; after the boys all took their turns analyzing the lyrics, the teacher would weigh in with his own interpretation of what the Beatles were really talking about. (This, of course, was the same institution of learning whose headmaster had summed up young Lennon's prospects with the words: "This boy is bound to fail.") "John and I howled in laughter over the absurdity of it all. "Pete," he said, "what's that 'Dead Dog's Eye' song we used to sing when we were at Quarry Bank?" I thought for a moment and it all came back to me: Yellow matter custard, green slop pie, All mixed together with a dead dog's eye, Slap it on a butty, ten foot thick, Then wash it all down with a cup of cold sick.
"That's it!" said John. "Fantastic!" He found a pen commenved scribbling: "Yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye...." Such was the genisis of "I Am the Walrus" (The Walrus itself was to materialize alter, almost literally stepping out of a page in Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass') Inspired by the picture of that Quarry Bank literature master pontificating about the symbolism of Lennon-McCartney, John threw in the most ludicrous images his imagination could conjure. He thought of "semolina" (an insipid pudding we'd been forced to eat as kids) and "pilchard" (a sardine we often fed to our cats). Semolina pilchard climbing up the Eiffel Tower....," John intoned, writing it down with considerable relish. He turned to me, smiling. "let the f*ckers work THAT one out, Pete."
People were analyzing their lyrics long before PID, John knew it, and was playing with these people.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 20, 2004 8:56:44 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 20, 2004 8:56:44 GMT -5
I'd say it was pretty clear: I'd say it's a streeeeetch. You start holding up mirrors against photos, you will find all kinds of strange images. Come on. That is incorrect sir, because those college students you mentioned who it is claimed started the whole thing as a "joke" came one the scene a year later!! (after Glass Onion) There were NO people talking about clues yet. Much to John's frustration perhaps? Baloney. There were people and critics trying to find hidden meanings in Beatle tunes for years and John was annoyed by it. There were those that said "Day Tripper" was about a prostitue and "Norwegan Wood" was about lesbian lovers. When asked about it at a news conference, Paul, annoyed, said they were writing about prostitutes and lesbians. I never said John was trying to confound the PID people in 69. He was doing it for the album critics who he thought were over-analyzing his songs. (Like "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" standing for LSD) He was fed up by it. Here is part of a write up on "I am the Walrus": Here are a couple of quotes from John and Paul about Glass Onion: Here we are 36 years later and people are still going crackers. They were playing around, teasing. People were analyzing Beatle lyrics long before PID and the Beatles knew it. Hell, look at Charles Manson. He took lyrics and turned them into some theory about an upcoming race war that lead to the murder of many innocent people. Here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_the_Walrus
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 19, 2004 14:27:06 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 19, 2004 14:27:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 19, 2004 14:23:25 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 19, 2004 14:23:25 GMT -5
Students and radio jocks were neither involved in the creation of Beatles album covers or their lyrical compositions. The walrus, car crashes, loss of hair, head trauma, death, not arriving , and the name Bill are common recurring themes from Pepper to Abbey rd. The Beatles adamant denial that any clues even existed, after they placed them time and again, should speak volumes to even a casual observer. No they were not involved in the creation, but they were involved in the interpretation and presenting things on the albums as clues that are not clues. Let us look at some of these "clues": -- Hand over Paul's head that is some Indian death sign. Made up - no such Indian sign. -- Phone number on MMT cover - no such number, it was made up so it was not a clue put there by anybody. These were not clues put there by the Beatles or Apple or whoever. They were stuff on the album that these people turned into clues. What about the lyrics? --Walrus - I dealt with that above. How many references to walruses in songs? Two. And the second was referencing the first as described above. --Death - Death is a common theme with many artists, song writers and authors. Death is a big part of life and was a big part of their lives. Stuart died, Paul's mother died, Brian died, John's mother died. There was a war on and there was the drug culture which involved many deaths. That is going to flow through their music. Look at rap music, heavy metal. Lot of death in there, but no replacements in those groups. --How many Beatle songs deal with losing hair? --Bill - How many? Two? Let's see, there were many other names in Beatle tunes. Maxwell, Valerie, Rose, Chuck, Vera, Dave, Rita, Lucy, Rocky, Daniel, Julia and others. Just because Bill shows up a couple of times, that is a recurring theme? I don't think so. --Head Trauma - How many songs about head trauma? If you look through all of their songs, you can find many recurring themes. How about love, guns, dancing, money, Liverpool, smoking, loneliness. These occur just as much if not more as those mentioned above. There are more references about smoking than about burning hair. Seems to me, they just wrote about things that were prominent in their lives just as anybody would. You can't just pick a few words and phrases out of dozens of unrelated songs and point to them as some kind of recurring theme.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 19, 2004 13:35:07 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 19, 2004 13:35:07 GMT -5
The very early & tragic demise of JPM is no joke! If that were true, it would be no joke.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 19, 2004 11:44:13 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 19, 2004 11:44:13 GMT -5
These "clues" were made up, and not by Apple or some sinister group, but by college students and radio jocks. It was a joke.
Keeps appearing? It shows up on MMT because there happened to be a song on it called "I Am The Walrus." Ok, so why Walrus? The Walrus came from the Lewis Carroll poem "Walrus and the Carpenter;" Lewis Carroll was a favorite of John Lennon.
Ah, but what about it appearing in "Glass Onion?" The references to previous songs were written by John in response to critics whom he felt over-analyzed "I Am The Walrus", and whom he wanted to confound. He referenced many prior songs, such as "Fixing a Hole", "Strawberry Fields", "Lady Madonna" and "Fool on a Hill". Walrus was just a reference to his own song just like the references to the other songs and was done to tweke critics which was typical John.
As far as Sgt Pepper using a mirror, never saw that before, but you start holding mirrors to images, you can come up with just about anything.
The point is, it was said earlier that common sense should tell ya that ALL those clues could not just be accidents & coincidences. That is true. Most were just made up, and not by Apple or some government agency, but by students and radio jocks having fun. Other clues are misinterpretations made by people with over active imaginations trying to find PID clues. They are not real and weren't put there to divert attention.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 18, 2004 11:40:57 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 18, 2004 11:40:57 GMT -5
That's yer opinion.... but then, you can't tell the difference between the real clues & the fake/stupid ones. That's because there is no difference. But just for my edification, what are the real undisputable documented clues?
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 15, 2004 8:55:05 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 15, 2004 8:55:05 GMT -5
Dang!
I really messed up PennyLane's thread! Apologies to PennyLane. I ain't going to post to this thread any more.
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 14, 2004 15:51:48 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 14, 2004 15:51:48 GMT -5
I don't need to read any further coz common sense should tell ya that ALL those clues could not be accidents & coincidences. Anybody looking at it should read further because there is a clue by clue analysis toward the bottom showing the problems with many of the clues. If one wants to research this PID story then you should read everything, especially an analysis of all of the clues, even if you don't agree with all of the analysis. Alot of the so-called clues are out and out lies made up by people just like so many other urban myths. It is true that some are accidents & coincidences, but not all. Others are made up while still others are misinterpretations by people with over active imaginations. Go through clue by clue and you find that many of these clues are just rubbish. Just for example, some of the clues are on albums and songs that were released long before Paul was supposed to have died. The so called hand over Paul's head that is an Indian sign for death. No such sign exists. It is a lie. Walrus is a symbol for death in some nordic culture. More BS. No culture has such a symbol. People back then made up a whole score of phony clues, and when you challenge the clues, they say it has be correct because there is a whole score of clues. Well, sure there is if you made them up. **Just as an addition, there is a site out there somewhere that lists a whole bunch of clues that show that John, Ringo and George died Paul was the only one still alive after '66. The clues they present are just as believable as the PID clues and they have just as many if not more. And you know what? They're all wrong.**
|
|
|
Hi guys
Oct 14, 2004 11:58:52 GMT -5
Post by Goldfinger on Oct 14, 2004 11:58:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 9, 2004 17:46:53 GMT -5
Yeah that might be true if only Ringo would turn around and smile for the camera. The real Ringo, or the female Ringo?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 9, 2004 15:38:22 GMT -5
Being all turned around with everybody's backs turned.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 9, 2004 14:50:00 GMT -5
What could this clue imply?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 9, 2004 17:44:28 GMT -5
So I took the time to try & explain why I responded to yer posts in the way I responded. You can agree with me or not, but I feel like I had reason to respond the way that I did.. And besides.... we all now know his real name is Bill Whozit. Let's be formal. It's William Whozit.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 9, 2004 11:27:38 GMT -5
If all the W.Cambell/Gary Patterson school of misinformation was just mentioned in response to a question about the contest, I doubt that I'd think enough about it to merit a response. BUT you've brought up the Cambell/G.Patterson-related stuff several times recently... every chance you get... makin' me wonder why you're bein' so persistant about it & prompting me to single YOU out ALL of my posts were responses to questions. 1. invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=Clues&action=display&thread=1097792849This was the first of the threads that I answered. The original question asked about the theory of PID. I gave a few sites throughout the thread giving some historical background for the whole PID story. G. Patterson was one, but one site I mentioned somewhere was a site of one of your own members. The Campbell item was just a small part of the history presented in the initial response. 2. invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=TAR&action=display&thread=1098182373Here is another thread started by someone else (not me.) Notice the topic of the thread is "William Campbell." I had one post on that thread, and all it did was answer the original post. In no way was it agrumentative. 3. This thread, as stated, asked specifically about the rumored look-alike contest which is the W. Campbell story. Again, I simply answered the question. The idea put forward that it is I who keeps bringing up this subject is factually incorrect, for it keeps being brought up by others. My answers to the OPs were non-argumentative, straight-forward and based on quotes from those actually involved. As far as I know, no one has said that my posts were lies. The argumentative posts came from others who attacked my answers to the OPs.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 9, 2004 8:44:53 GMT -5
OP = Original Poster I am well aware of the content of this entire thread. Your posts, in general, come across as argumentative. of which I am one Thank you for explaining the OP. I know you are a moderator as I have adhered to your requests in the past. I went back and looked and I don't think my answer to IWILL was argumentative. That answer was attacked. Why am I the one singled out for being argumentative?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 9, 2004 8:31:37 GMT -5
It was Barbara Streisand. [glow=red,2,300]MASTERPIECE[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 8, 2004 15:01:32 GMT -5
HMMMMMMM.... What about that photo session where Ringo definitely looks odd...I recall a Nehru jacket and an outside session (playing ball?) does this ring a bell w/ anyone? I wonder if it could be tracked down, that winner vs the weird Ringo session. Maybe he was too bereft to cope for a while..... I have been desparately trying to find a photo of the winner, but have come up empty. Anybody else have any luck?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 8, 2004 13:20:02 GMT -5
and who, exactly, is "we"? You and the OP are not the only people on this thread. Your contempt for us is becoming a little too obvious. Perhaps you would be happier frequenting a different forum. Whoa, I never intended to show contempt for anybody. First, I do not know what "OP" is. I assume that it is not Sheriff Taylor's son. Second, when I said "we", I was referring to "eyesbleed" and myself. In reply #4, eyesbleed specifically mentions the W. Campbell item as misinformation "put out there" to misdirect the masses. In reply #13, where I mention "conspiracy", I am specifically talking about the "clues" that were put out there in 1969. Neither of us ever mentioned the circumstances involving Paul's death, accidental or otherwise. The conspiracy I talked about involved the "cover-up" afterwards which eyesbleed agrees is a conspiracy, so I was correct. IWILL asked about background involving the "rumored" look-alike contest. I provided information about the rumored contest involving William Campbell as well as information on the actual Paul look-alike contest in 1965 giving a couple of reference points for further research. That was it. I took no pot-shots at anyone here, and that was all I intended to post. (of course until I heard about the female Ringo look alike contest, which I have not been able to find anything on.) It was someone else who took the opportunity to express contempt for me by posting "Ya, exactly... misinformation put out there to throw off lots of people like you." I found that unnecessary since I simply answered a question and there was nothing false in what I posted. Later, it was stated that the W. Campbell information I was posting was "crap." Actually, I believed contempt for me was being shown, and I responded. In my first post on this thread, I did not single anybody out, and I did not call anyone's postings "crap." My answer to IWILL was straight forward, accurate and specifically addressed the question which involved W. Campbell and the look-alike contest. Then I get attacked for the "W.Cambell crap you keep posting about" as if I brought up the subject out of thin air. In addition, after having the information I posted called "crap", you put in that it was a "good posting." Contempt was shown for me, not the other way around. If the information I posted is not correct, show me where I was wrong and I will retract it. Show me where I was disrespectful in my post and I will delete it and apologize to everyone involved. I have done that before out of respect to the moderators. But if one of my posts is attacked, and contempt is shown for me, shouldn't I be given a chance to respond?
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 8, 2004 10:01:05 GMT -5
By anti-conspiracy, I mean that there probably was not a conspiracy involved in his death, or injury. It was most likely a simple accident. I already know about all the stuff that happened after the fact & the decision was made. I am fully aware that was a conspiracy, thank you. Thank you, but we were talking about William Campbell and the clues put out there in 1969, not the death itself.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 5, 2004 12:12:45 GMT -5
I think yer getting a bit carried away. I NEVER tried to push any sinister conspiracy theories.... ever. I am very anti-conspiracy when it comes to PID,, why do you think I'm here & not at 60IF?? con·spir·a·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spîr-s) n. pl. con·spir·a·cies 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. If you believe that Paul was replaced, then a whole number of people would know that fact and would be working to cover it up. One person here suggested that Apple was involved in putting out some of the false clues. Following is a quote from you: You say the silly clues were DESIGNED TO CONFUSE &/OR MISDIRECT. My friend, if there is a group of people designing clues to misdirect people in order to cover up the death of Paul McCartney, that is a conspiracy. If there is no conspiracy, then why has nobody spoken up after all of these years to tell the truth. Why didn't Ringo, George, John, Jane, George Martin, Paul's family, Faul's family or any other friends or relatives come out with the truth? If all of these people agreed to cover it up, then BINGO, you have a conspiracy. If these people wanted to tell the truth, but couldn't because of pressure from some group, such as government officials, then BINGO there was a conspiracy by those officials. Any way you slice it, if you believe Paul was replaced, then there had to be a conspiracy. The fact is that some of the clues were indeed put out there on purpose... some started on their own. Which ones are which? I dunno. That's why they call it a mystery. You post the same misinformation all the time like it was the holy grail or something, yet you can't see it when 2 seperate pictures show 2 OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT men. I find that rather interesting.... & it's proof positive as to how well a massive amount of misinformation will work. Yes... I think hundreds or thousands of photos that obviously show somebody else in JPM's place is fairly real.... I'm not sure what's wrong with yer eyes, but that's beside the point. And I think when, all of a sudden, there's a slightly different sounding voice singing & the famous harmonies have mysteriously vanished.... that is a fairly solid lead to work on. Obvious to you and some others. But, as I said, and you ignored, for every person you can find that says there is a difference, I can present a person that says they are the same. "Proof positive" is objective, while beliefs and feelings about photo comparisons and voice comparisons are subjective. Yet this info isn't as important to you as this W.Cambell crap you keep posting about. I don't get it. Umm......Look at the subject of this thread. IWILL specifically asked about the rumoured look-alike contest, which is about, you know, W. Campbell. I simply answered the question and pointed him to "American Bandstand" and Keith Allison for further research. I didn't bring it up out of thin air. You were the one who prolonged the W. Campbell part by responding that it was "misinformation put out there to throw off lots of people like you" which of course was not true.
|
|
|
Post by Goldfinger on Nov 4, 2004 10:48:56 GMT -5
Ok sure.... there was some misinformation out there that took on a life of it's own. That's something that happens all the time. But there was also plenty put out there on purpose. I don't really care how it started, the point is that it served it's purpose. I can't help notice how you, for instance, repeatedly bring up elements of the widely known misinformation; yet discount all of the real information. However it started... it works. And there IS a Beatle Bill. He's the one who sorta looks like JPM but not really. IWILL asked about proof regarding the look-alike contest. I provided the true history about the look-alike contest, the real one and the myth, giving IWILL a starting reference point to do investigation. Everything I put is the truth with no misleading information. You, on the other hand, stated that it was misinformation put out there with the intention of throwing people off the track of the real PID story, then personalized it by directing it at me. That is misinformation because it is simply not true. The truth matters. If you're trying to show some sinister conspiracy, it matters a great deal if the information was put out intentionally as a red herring to cover-up the "real" plot, or it was just something made up as a college prank. What I repeatedly bring up is the truth-the actual documented history. Discount all of the "real" information? What real information? Photo comparisons? That is subjective. For every person you present that believes there is a difference, I can present one that believes they are the same. Same with voice comparisons. These are things that are in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. Clues on record albums or in lyrics? Also subjective. They are interpretations by people based on their own beliefs and preconceptions. Ah, but there are so many. But as shown and documented, many are made up, just plain wrong, contradict each other or are open to many other interpretations. One million wrong clues are just as wrong as 50 wrong clues. A high number doesn't magically change the clues from being false into being true.
|
|