Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Entertainment Industry

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-01-2015, 09:44 PM   #21
i_am
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 37,018
Likes: 1,300 (633 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
Thanks, but I'm not saying Paul is Dead. I'm saying there's much more to the picture of The Beatles and Paul McCartney than meets the eye, and using some of the Paul is Dead docs to illustrate my point. No need to put the cart before the horse......
Horse, cart whatever, it has all been said before and it has always attracted a few aggressive posters. IF that sort of thing happens again, it will be closed ...end of

Why don't you do a search for faul, McCartney, Beatles, Winged Beatles etc. It is all there.

Your Title is PID Theory, not the Beatles so one would imagine that is what people are going to want to discuss.
i_am is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2015, 10:08 PM   #22
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
I always wonder about the dark secret Heather Mills spoke about.
The media have always made her out to be crazy and a gold digger.
Why did Paul pay £12m to destroy all the copies of the Anthology 11?
Seemingly Heather has a shoebox full of tapes containing incriminating things Paul has admitted to.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...tv-rant-517994

Quote:
Why did George call him Faul?
George referred to him by his name, Paul. A PIDer edited the audio to make it sound like he was saying 'Faul', in an attempt to trick people into thinking Paul died. As they seem to enjoy doing.

Here is the original video. Starting at 2:50.



Quote:
What did you make of the Italian Wired magazines forensic analysis of his face?
A load of rot. They did the same kind of analysis that PIDers like to do, taking pictures from different angles, lighting and time periods and trying to compare them. They used the odd photoshopped picture for their 'analysis' as well, which doesn't help their credibility at all.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2015, 11:12 PM   #23
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am View Post
Horse, cart whatever, it has all been said before and it has always attracted a few aggressive posters. IF that sort of thing happens again, it will be closed ...end of
So nice, you had to say it twice! Duly noted... again....

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am View Post
Why don't you do a search for faul, McCartney, Beatles, Winged Beatles etc. It is all there.
Yes, I posted it all in the OP or not long after.

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am View Post
Your Title is PID Theory, not the Beatles so one would imagine that is what people are going to want to discuss.
Yes, the PID theory has a lot of clues and info that are valid to what I'm trying to say. And that is, for some reason, it appears McCartney had a double, and just what is his connection to Crowley? The Winged Beetle series doesn't make me think Paul died, it makes me think that something completely different happened.

If those bad people show up, I'l try to steer them to more friendly discussion. This isn't about Paul being dead, it goes much deeper.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2015, 11:24 PM   #24
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
Seemingly Heather has a shoebox full of tapes containing incriminating things Paul has admitted to.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...tv-rant-517994
She even went further in a vid I posted, she has info that would ruin McCartney, and for some reason suggested that she might even be killed for it. She said the info would still go to the right people if that was the case. People forget that she was a "someone" before meeting McCartney -- she caught his eye, he arranged the meeting. She was a former model who did a lot of charity work on behalf of handicapped people, with her own money. She somehow became a "psycho, gold digging bitch" after leaving Paul, and who do you think has the media on their side?



Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
George referred to him by his name, Paul. A PIDer edited the audio to make it sound like he was saying 'Faul', in an attempt to trick people into thinking Paul died. As they seem to enjoy doing.

Here is the original video. Starting at 2:50.

Good catch. Eliminate that one. There is still that funny one where John and George are working on How Do You Sleep? and George says something about Beatle Bill. It appears to be a nickname-in joke referring to Paul.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
A load of rot. They did the same kind of analysis that PIDers like to do, taking pictures from different angles, lighting and time periods and trying to compare them. They used the odd photoshopped picture for their 'analysis' as well, which doesn't help their credibility at all.
This one's pretty good though, check this out, different guy. One year to the next, and even in the same year.



That's what I mean; in amongst the fudging and all that, for that period, there appear to be a few different looks, and heights for McCartney. A stand in, and the real thing. Unfortuantely for the PID theory, a lot of people have had to stretch things to make them fit the narrative. However,a lot of the info is head scratching -- at least to me.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2015, 11:53 PM   #25
twilight_sparkle
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 4,885
Likes: 27 (19 Posts)
Default

Wasn't there a DNA test done on Paul's alleged love child also, which didn't match Faul?
twilight_sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 12:58 AM   #26
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronisron View Post
Good catch. Eliminate that one. There is still that funny one where John and George are working on How Do You Sleep? and George says something about Beatle Bill. It appears to be a nickname-in joke referring to Paul.
Beatle Phil. Phil Spector. John's then producer.

Quote:
This one's pretty good though, check this out, different guy. One year to the next, and even in the same year.



That's what I mean; in amongst the fudging and all that, for that period, there appear to be a few different looks, and heights for McCartney. A stand in, and the real thing. Unfortuantely for the PID theory, a lot of people have had to stretch things to make them fit the narrative. However,a lot of the info is head scratching -- at least to me.
Paul was always the tallest Beatle, and remained that way throughout the years. There just happen to be a few photos around which confuse people due to Paul looking taller or shorter as a result of angles and distance from the camera.

As for his face etc, he's just a person who happens to sometimes look different from one picture to the next. Due to lighting, angles, facial expression, different haircut/facial hair etc. Take these two pictures from the early 60's for example:





Looks rather different from one to the next.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 02:13 AM   #27
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
Beatle Phil. Phil Spector. John's then producer.



No, he's quite clearly saying Bill, not Phil, or Pill for that matter. 0:18. "I see Beatle Bill's making a pig of himself" Very clear. No F, hard B sound. That's not doctored. You did catch that Harrison one, thanks for clearing that one up. I assume Beatle Ed refers to Ringo....



Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
Paul was always the tallest Beatle, and remained that way throughout the years. There just happen to be a few photos around which confuse people due to Paul looking taller or shorter as a result of angles and distance from the camera.

As for his face etc, he's just a person who happens to sometimes look different from one picture to the next. Due to lighting, angles, facial expression, different haircut/facial hair etc. Take these two pictures from the early 60's for example:





Looks rather different from one to the next.
Not really though. As for the bolded, that's not a compelling argument.



Left is 1967, right is 1966. The guy on the left looks like Paul that had plastic surgery or something. That's a massive difference, forehead especially noticeable. They do look like they're related though......... this one too. Not quite the same...



..... though we'd both agree, "That's Paul McCartney.... and..so is that" But not quite the same. That's all.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 02:38 AM   #28
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

Those are also studio photos paired with unflattering outdoor pictures where he's making a different facial expression and has his hair styled differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
As for his face etc, he's just a person who happens to sometimes look different from one picture to the next. Due to lighting, angles, facial expression, different haircut/facial hair etc.
From the same photoshoot.



See what I mean about angles and facial expressions etc.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 03:42 AM   #29
iamwhoam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 421 (280 Posts)
Default

Maybe it was a symbolic death and rebirth into the knowledge of the mystery schools or secret societies.
__________________
Occult Corporate Logos Summary: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...postcount=1173
iamwhoam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 09:30 AM   #30
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamwhoam View Post
What about the name Ringo Starr? As in ringed star? As in Saturn? As in the god of the secret societies?
Yep, that's something I've always been curious about too, what a weird and "out there" name to use. Please anyone do not tell me that Ringo is just a silly shorterend or nickname word for Richard, because I have never heard anyone called Richard who has been called or referred to as Ringo, either before the Beatles or since, and besides, it sounds nothing like Richard. The same goes for Starr. How can someone with the surname of Starkey come up with the name of Starr?. It's ashame people just never question that, even if all the other theories about them don't stand up. For me, that alone kinda makes me question The Beatles a little more. I know of one other place where I've heard the word "Starr" and this is a place in Blackpool, Lancashire called Starr Gate. Even though the Saturn and rings association sounds absurd at first, it does seem to make more sense when you put Ringo and Starr together.

The problem I have with this, however, is, wouldn't Ringo be aware of this or know it's not really meant to be shorterned version or stage name of his real name?.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 09:46 AM   #31
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

You seriously don't get how Starkey could be shortened to Star?.....

As for the name Ringo, he was nicknamed that because of all the rings he would wear.
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 09:59 AM   #32
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
A great many celebrity backstories are fabricated, you need only to look at the X Factor to know that, eg Leona Lewis being a secretary, when really she was an already signed artist who had been working with Ludacris and went to the Brit School! Adele and Katherine Jenkins also.

I think that what tends to happen is the record company has a concept for a new " product", and have to cast an actor to play the role given to them. Britain's Got Talent, has done this twice with rags to riches stories, Paul Potts and Susan Boyle, both actors who were scouted to play storylines written for them just like in WWE wrestling!
I agree and believe that alot of people from the likes of x factor, Britains Got Talent etc who've "made it" no doubt have dubious or highly fabricated backstories and lifestories, but that's something most thinking, but non-conspiractorially-minded people will assume anyway; ask anyone on the street about Leona Lewis being a secretary before her fame, or Adele, and you'll find alot of people will say "that's aload of shite, she was never that..". So people in a way aren't that stupid. The problem is with the Beatles is that almost everyone (not people on here) 90% believe all the recorded and documented history of the fab four - give or take a few things for sensationalism or artistic license reasons to make their life story sound more exciting, from their birth (come on, why would we be able to visit McCartney's home or Lennons school if they never went there?), right upto their "discovery" in the Cavern Club. Even if you can fabricat bios and so forth within books, you still have a problem with the people who knew them directly or personally like relatives and friends, and the places they went, such as schools, neighbours, etc before they were well known. But saying that, how many people do we know (and we could've lived on the very street or gone to the school were attended) that knows them personally or knows someone who someone else that does? nobody I can think of. I think alot of people naively believe that they know a certain an individual or famous person, when in fact they know very little about them, I think that's down to two things: the media and partly due to hearsay from people allegedly claiming to know them. No doubt someone over the years you knew who claimed they knew or knew someone who knew one of the Beatles, but likely chance they were either bullshiting or just wrongly believed they did. But, you're right in a sense that the more info you put out there in the media, literature, etc, the easier it seems to hide the real history behind them or something, because the oversaturation in information becomes too much to disect and seperate inidividually for analysis, and so, people become engrossed in (what is likely) trivial lifestories about them which were likely never true to begin with to keep their minds at so-called rest.

Last edited by techman; 05-01-2015 at 10:50 AM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 11:27 AM   #33
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
Those are also studio photos paired with unflattering outdoor pictures where he's making a different facial expression and has his hair styled differently.



From the same photoshoot.



See what I mean about angles and facial expressions etc.

We both agree that Paul can look vastly different from some pics to others though?

I would like to strrip away all the fallacies of the PID theory, there are a lot. They have fudged some things to make their point. I want to work with what's left.

I had to give some ground to the PID theory, because I noticed something that I explained away as 'Paul must've had plastic surgery" -- but there are pics where you can say "No, that's him, it doesn't look like that". Some pics look like plastic surgery, some don't. Some look much different, some the same. LOTS of different looks for Paul but no one noticed any differences with the other three, regardless of fashion or facial hair. Just Paul... tangible differences. You sort of said the same thing above. I had to acknowledge "It seems they used a stand in for McCartney a time or two...for whatever reasons..."

Iamwhoiam said;

Quote:
Maybe it was a symbolic death and rebirth into the knowledge of the mystery schools or secret societies.
And I believe that's part of it too. Paul did sort of "disappear" from public view end '66 until the beginning of '67.

And Paul was still showing Crowley's image on the big screen behind him during his latest concerts. Not significant by itself, but combine the Beatles history with Jimmy Savile, and the need to include Crowley on Sgt Pepper... Something freaky going on. "iamaphoney", who is behind the Winged Beatle series, says in an interview posted earlier in this thread that Paul was the man pulling the strings there.

Last edited by ronisron; 05-01-2015 at 12:09 PM.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 12:17 PM   #34
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
You seriously don't get how Starkey could be shortened to Star?.....

As for the name Ringo, he was nicknamed that because of all the rings he would wear.
That's the point of bios, or repeating the story as we've been talking about. He's called Ringo because of his "rings". See how I did that? They told us why he's called Ringo. "Ring O' Star".... And the point was driven home by having Ringo be photographed displaying his "rings" - a LOT. Just Google 'Ringo Starr's rings'. "See? He always wore a lot of rings.." Yes, they make it very obvious that he did. Is that an acknowledgement of Saturn? We're just speculating.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 12:33 PM   #35
twilight_sparkle
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 4,885
Likes: 27 (19 Posts)
Default

I think the true Beatles story goes something like this.
Tavistock in conjunction with the CIA had an agenda to create a counter culture for teenagers, who were no longer being conscripted to the military. They knew from their trials with Bill Hayley and Elvis they had a new " teenager" market, who enjoyed black music, blues, later rock and roll.
They searched for four working class lads who were physically attractive and set about training them. I guess Pete Best want psychologically suited, and they didn't like his mom being involved, so they recruited Ringo, who was in on it. They used mind control and psychoactive drugs to do this, and assigned handlers, including the Marahishi. Anyone who didn't go along with the story were either bumped off our paid off, this is probably why the original McCartney was disappeared. They arranged for their songs to be written by renowned musicologist Theodore Adorno, as he knew what psychological buttons to push to get the right reaction from the public. Basically, the Beatles was a reality show, and they needed actors to play the band. Even the famous Beatlemania was staged, they shipped in girls and paid them to scream at a band they'd never heard of, then others came and joined in and it became mass hysteria.
All in all, what you usually get from Beatles fans is cognitive dissonance, they can't believe that they have spent their lives in a dreamland. All the Beatles had doubles, ready to step up if one of them were incapacitated. it made good business sense to do that.

Last edited by twilight_sparkle; 05-01-2015 at 01:07 PM.
twilight_sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 04:44 PM   #36
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
I think the true Beatles story goes something like this.
Tavistock in conjunction with the CIA had an agenda to create a counter culture for teenagers, who were no longer being conscripted to the military. They knew from their trials with Bill Hayley and Elvis they had a new " teenager" market, who enjoyed black music, blues, later rock and roll.
Absolutely. Take a look at films of rock shows from the 50's. Stage diving? Check. Destroying theaters and halls? Check. Bedlam needing to be controlled by the police? You bet. What was causing this reaction? Rock n roll, which is slang for having sex, music. That beat and rhythm which has it's basis in blues, which has it's roots in Africa, where music was used to cast spells, make people dance as dervishes, send tribesmen off to battle..... that beat was also behind rhythm and blues, which is part of the fusion that became rock music. These kids were losing it, and it was not looked upon favorably. The establishment set out to shut down guys like Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry and Eddie Cochran. They then turned out cheap imitations like Fabian, all those "Bobby" acts, Frankie "Avalon"...... then along came the Beatles in the early '60's and that initial excitement was all carefully recreated with Beatlemania. But this wasn't that early rock n roll, it was a decent facsimile.... They got it under control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
They searched for four working class lads who were physically attractive and set about training them. I guess Pete Best want psychologically suited, and they didn't like his mom being involved, so they recruited Ringo, who was in on it.
I don't know if they were that deliberate in recruiting them, they may have been looking for a group that was already intact, which fit the bill to a point. They just needed to be willing to go along. The fact that they were Northerners, or as we might call them "hicks" in North America, was attractive because of their lack of sophistication. Easier to impress with money and flash, popularity, and hey, young girls. And I believe this is what happened to Pete Best, as you are saying in so many words. Pete was fine to play drums for the Beatles in Liverpool, then in Hamburg.... but wasn't suitable for THE BEATLES. Enter "Ring O' Star" and all his many rings.... yes. Saturn. Richard from the council flats must have been delighted to be designated with such a position.


Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
They used mind control and psychoactive drugs to do this, and assigned handlers, including the Marahishi.
George Martin, Robert Fraser, Jimmy Savile, Yoko Ono.....many people around to "influence" the Beatles


Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
Anyone who didn't go along with the story were either bumped off our paid off, this is probably why the original McCartney was disappeared.
I don't think the original McCartney went anywhere -- except when he was moving further up the ladder he was climbing and had to go away for a while, hence the cease to touring and the need of a stand in for public appearances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
They arranged for their songs to be written by renowned musicologist Theodore Adorno, as he knew what psychological buttons to push to get the right reaction from the public.
Adorno was conducting experiments in Germany using music to psychologically affect children. I believe he provided the range, or scale of notes and frequencies required to achieve the desired effect of making the Beatles reach as many people as possible, to permeate the consciousness like they did. Later LSD was used to really accelerate the process. Sgt Pepper was made to be listened to while under the influence of LSD.

Adorno's, ond of course Martin's involvement may explain why the Beatles had such old time, schmaltzy music that Mom and Dad would prefer, like "Michelle", "Yesterday", "In My Life" and all those other campy "classics" the Beatles released.



Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
Basically, the Beatles was a reality show, and they needed actors to play the band. Even the famous Beatlemania was staged, they shipped in girls and paid them to scream at a band they'd never heard of, then others came and joined in and it became mass hysteria.
The landing at JFK and the first Ed Sullivan appearances?? .... Yes, staged for maximum effect. Like the Kennedy assassination, all Americans of a certain age can remember the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. It was big news... for some reason.


Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight_sparkle View Post
All in all, what you usually get from Beatles fans is cognitive dissonance, they can't believe that they have spent their lives in a dreamland. All the Beatles had doubles, ready to step up if one of them were incapacitated. it made good business sense to do that.
I find the inability of people to move beyond the "established history" of the Beatles to be fascinating -- to a point. Fine line between "fascinated" and "distressed".

All had doubles? I can see McCartney's..... Look above at the photo that kiwi posted. 6 shots of Paul McCartney, each look different from the other. maybe that was the point of the sheer proliferation of Beatles photos over the years showing many different faces to each member. It's hard to get a real definition of what they looked like.... Mop tops in Nehru jackets? Long hair with bushy beards? Glasses? Many different hairstyles, fashions, facial hair, political perspectives -- all jammed into what amounts to be a 7 year period when they were an active band. 7 years between "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "Dig a Pony", etc. And the introduction of every established entertainer's hand signals. Horns and 666. The happy, clean cut Beatles started "The Sixties!", disheveled, burned out hippy Beatles whose White Album allegedly led someone who looked like them, and was in fluenced by them, to kill on their instruction, and WAR, ended "the sixties"..... "HELTER SKELTER" "PIGS" written in blood.

Back to Jimmy Savile and Crowley.... no. Lets leave that one for a while.

Last edited by ronisron; 05-01-2015 at 04:49 PM.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 09:01 PM   #37
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Elvis, Little Richard, Eddie Cochran, etc where shut up?, makes sense in some way, plus Elvis we know, after his stint (or maybe deliberate forcing?) into the army in 1958 was all planned so that he could be changed, which of course in a way was what happened to him, or rather his image and music after he returned back home in 1960. I don't know about Little Richard and Eddie Cochran (although Coichran's accidental death in the UK is abit suspiscious), to me they were just regular rock n roll stars of the time and very big ones at that. I heard Elvis was alleged to be a pedophile (I think I heard Mark Devlin mention this in a talk which is on youtube, and, as far as I know, he's the only researcher who has claimed that: don't know where he gets his information from), so not exactly a good guy. I think the hysteria around Elvis was also a little manipulated and staged, although you didn't need to be Einstein to know why girls went crazy after him (unlike the Beatles who were ordinary looking men with silly mopped hairstyles; Ringo attractive?, what with that whopper of a hooter of his?, you gotta be joking, typical scouse inbred lol). Elvis on the otherhand oozed looks and seziness and talent, there's no question about that, but The Beatles were the opposite, nothing to shout about, which imo is what the manipulation or fake hysteria was all about, making average looking people with little or no talent into pop stars and seeing if people go mad after them. There's a fairly well known piece of archive film of girls going bonkers over photos of Elvis (maybe at a gig), and to me that footage looks rather fake and staged, much like the fans going crazy over the Beatles whenever they went somewhere.

Last edited by techman; 05-01-2015 at 09:19 PM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2015, 10:36 PM   #38
kiwi_
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,450
Likes: 162 (99 Posts)
Default

On a different note, did you guys catch this in the news the other day?

http://www.3news.co.nz/entertainment...#axzz3NsfuSkVW
kiwi_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2015, 12:16 PM   #39
twilight_sparkle
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 4,885
Likes: 27 (19 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi_ View Post
On a different note, did you guys catch this in the news the other day?

http://www.3news.co.nz/entertainment...#axzz3NsfuSkVW
All this is its people trolling, nothing more.
twilight_sparkle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2015, 12:41 PM   #40
ronisron
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,108
Likes: 2,842 (1,323 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
Elvis, Little Richard, Eddie Cochran, etc where shut up?, makes sense in some way, plus Elvis we know, after his stint (or maybe deliberate forcing?) into the army in 1958 was all planned so that he could be changed, which of course in a way was what happened to him, or rather his image and music after he returned back home in 1960. I don't know about Little Richard and Eddie Cochran (although Coichran's accidental death in the UK is abit suspiscious), to me they were just regular rock n roll stars of the time and very big ones at that. I heard Elvis was alleged to be a pedophile (I think I heard Mark Devlin mention this in a talk which is on youtube, and, as far as I know, he's the only researcher who has claimed that: don't know where he gets his information from), so not exactly a good guy.
Elvis got drafted, cut off his hair, and went to Germany for two years, after that it was all movies and music for old ladies. Eddie Cochran -- he died. Chuck Berry was arrested and jailed for illegally transporting a minor across state lines -- he gave a groupie a "ride" to the next town on the tour -- but she was white. Little Richard was homosexual... he wound up getting married, gave up music and became a preacher...??? Jerry Lee Lewis was embroiled in scandal after marrying his 13 year old cousin, he was 19. Buddy Holly and Richie Valens went down in a plane crash at the end of 1959. You know? They were all effectively done, and so was that music -- until the Beatles. Elvis a pedo? He started a relationship with Priscilla, his future wife, when she was 13 or 14, and her parents signed guardianship of her over to Elvis so she could go and live with him until she was old enough to get married. Pedo? In all fairness, he married her and she still runs his estate. I've never heard of him doing anything but getting with women like Ann Margret, Natalie Wood, various beauty queens.... his last girlfriend was 20, but she was more like a companion; after 1973 until his death, Elvis was allegedly so incapacitated he couldn't have sex.



Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
I think the hysteria around Elvis was also a little manipulated and staged, although you didn't need to be Einstein to know why girls went crazy after him (unlike the Beatles who were ordinary looking men with silly mopped hairstyles; Ringo attractive?, what with that whopper of a hooter of his?, you gotta be joking, typical scouse inbred lol). Elvis on the otherhand oozed looks and seziness and talent, there's no question about that, but The Beatles were the opposite, nothing to shout about, which imo is what the manipulation or fake hysteria was all about, making average looking people with little or no talent into pop stars and seeing if people go mad after them. There's a fairly well known piece of archive film of girls going bonkers over photos of Elvis (maybe at a gig), and to me that footage looks rather fake and staged, much like the fans going crazy over the Beatles whenever they went somewhere.
Teenagers are easy to manipulate, are easy to "sell" to. All they had to do was show them how folks went crazy over a certain artist a time or two, arrange for 10 or so girls and boys at a gig to start going ballistic, and everyone else follows suit. Jim Morrison said he studied how to manipulate crowds, the psychology behind it, how to get the desired effect.... as for The Beatles, they were ordinary, but there was a chemistry and a balance to how they all looked together, and that was the trick. If you remember, it wasn't four separate guys at first, it was JohnPaulGeorgeandRingo. It was a coillective. Then it was "who's your favorite?" and they were all given "personalities". John - smart Beatle. Paul - cute Beatle. George - quiet Beatle. Ringo - funny Beatle. They basically told these kids how to like them, and yes, created the whole thing around them. And it's a gamble, it is putting all the ducks in a row then hoping for the desired effect -- in this case, it far exceeded expectations I'm sure. Look at what they accomplished with that one band. The blueprint.

The Monkees were just too close to the truth of the situation.
ronisron is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.