Mal Evans

It's Paul Is Dead related, and not related. It's just something that's been on my mind for a few years. 

I have a hard time with the Beatles mythology. It paints a portrait where everything is peace and love, and the good works of the gods shine down on the people, and all was well. It's a landscape pastoral, and the sun always shines. 

Why when I read the back stories about them, and the unfettered truth about it all, I recoil in shock. And disbelief. Have I become that jaded I ask myself. Can I not see that there is good, and there is bad in everyone. Like McCartney would have me believe, but not unless it's marketed and digested off the shelves like canned peaches? 

Maybe I'm jaded. But then again, piano keys are made from Ivory. Save the elephants, if not for the sake that we don't get something like Ebony & Ivory hit our airwaves again. Then at least for the sake of the animals killed for our pleasure.

I look at the story of the life and death of Mal Evans, and think, there's something wrong with this, no? Is it only me that sees this? Or is my perspective somewhat skewed in the big picture. What I see is a person who was employed by The Beatles. And he drove them here. And he drove them there. He drove them everywhere. Up and down dark motorways in the beginning. Possibly past cavalcades of screaming fans in the middle. Out to get them a cucumber sandwich later on. He did everything for them without question. He probably saved their lives a couple times too. He probably had to, considering the frenzy that surrounded them between 1964 - 1966. When it all got bigger than life, and they were whisked from this hotel, to that venue, back to that hotel and beyond. I'm fairly sure he may have gotten them out of some very bad situations, and was sometimes, their only link to the outside world. Could you get us a newspaper Mal, if we go outside we'll be mauled to death. Sure boys, anything for you. 

So why was this man gunned down? Well we know why, as police reports stated. He was holding an air rifle, told to put it down, didn't, and then he was gone. Below is a synopsis:

On 5 January 1976, Evans was so despondent that Hughes phoned his collaborator on his book, John Hoernie, and asked him to visit them. Hoernie saw Evans "really doped-up and groggy", and Evans told Hoernie to make sure that he finished Living The Beatles' Legend. Hoernie helped Evans up to an upstairs bedroom, but during an incoherent conversation Evans picked up a 30.30 air rifle. Hoernie struggled with Evans, but Evans, being much stronger, held onto the weapon.
Hughes then phoned the police and told them that Evans was confused, had a rifle, [and was on valium.] Four policemen arrived and three of them, David D. Krempa, Robert E. Brannon and Lieutenant Higbie, went up to the bedroom.They later reported that as soon as Evans saw the three policemen he pointed a rifle at them.The officers repeatedly told Evans to put down the rifle (which they did not know at the time was an air rifle) but Evans constantly refused.The police fired six shots, of which four struck Evans, killing him instantly. Evans had previously been awarded the badge of "Honorary Sheriff of Los Angeles County", but in the Los Angeles Times, he was referred to as a “jobless former road manager for The Beatles”.

Evans was cremated on 7 January 1976, in Los Angeles. None of The Beatles attended his funeral, but Harry Nilsson and other friends attended, although Harrison arranged for Evans' family to receive £5,000, as Evans had not maintained his life insurance premiums, and was not entitled to a pension.

Okay. Charles Higbie you will find very involved in the investigation of Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's assassin. You'll also find him making things very difficult for investigators in OPERATION ROLLOUT. 

An Oct. 12, 1980 article in the Los Angeles Times says:

“Operation Rollout, Dist. Atty. John Van de Kamp’s much-publicized effort to investigate police shootings, continues to meet resistance from the Los Angeles Police Department despite high-level talks in May that were supposed to have ironed out problems, according to prosecutors assigned to the program.

“At the center of the conflict is Lt. Charles Higbie, a 24-year Police Department veteran who is chief investigator for all officer-involved shootings in the department and wields great influence with Police Chief Daryl Gates.

“Members of Van de Kamp’s Special Investigations Division…complain that they receive minimal cooperation from Higbie, that he withholds information from them and is overly protective of the officers he investigates.”

I reached Garcetti by telephone last Friday. He was in New York for an exhibition of his photographs. Higbie, he says, “was one of the most powerful police officers in the LAPD,” commenting:

“As a lieutenant, that speaks volumes.” The former district attorney points out that Higbie “reported to the chief directly” and “didn’t let captains, commanders, deputy chiefs or assistant chiefs tell him what to do.”

Garcetti recalls that Higbie “acted like second-in-command at LAPD” whenever it came to “officer involved shootings or in-custody deaths.”

You can read more about Operation Rollout here:
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/perspectives050509.htm

But I guess the point of this blog isn't about getting to the bottom of Mal Evans death. It's more about, why didn't John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr take care of this guy? Even after they dissolved. It shouldn't have even been a question of their togetherness or Apple's disintegration. It's a matter of a man who did a lot for them. And asked for nothing. So he got ... nothing? Is this what this says about giving? That if you ask for nothing in return, you get nothing. And expect no less! The love you take, is equal to the love you make? Well, Mal Evans surely gave a lot of his love to The Beatles. And they surely took it. So where was his suite? His villa? Why was he divorced? Why didn't he have enough money for a house for his family? His employment to The Beatles lasted years, and he was a loyal employee. One of their most trusted, if not the most trusted employee they had. They made him manager of Apple until Allen Klein stepped in. But this isn't the point. 

I have a problem with this, even with Harrison. It's just ... not enough. Yes Harrison gave the family money. And yes he gave Evans a songwriting credit on the RINGO album. Which reportedly is something McCartney promised, but never lived up to that promise going back to Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. If Evans story is true with this, he truly got burned. And that house and mortgage was never forthcoming. But yes Mal, keep getting us our tea. And I'd like a sandwich please. Yes boys. Anything for you. And when the parade was all over, and there was no more tea to get, where would Mal Evans go? Why did he not have a permanent job with one of them? Or some of them? Why was he ever "without". And he was without a lot. By the end he was without a family. And a wife. And in the very end, he was only full of air against bullets. And he wouldn't win. 

Why does this story not say to Beatles fans, cool music, but what shitty people they were? Honestly. It doesn't speak well of people caring about one another at all. And when they were done with Mal Evans, they were truly done. Was he that expendable? Regardless if he was going to release his memoirs. Regardless if he was their caretaker of artifacts and Beatle legends. Regardless of his access to all 4 of them, and the stories he could tell, but never told. Were he alive today, he'd be the single greatest story teller of the Beatles mythology going. He kept a diary. He was with them seemingly 24/7. I'm surprised every Beatle home did not have a Mal Room in it. There's many 5th Beatles. Mal is in contention to being at least Beatle No.5.4, after George Martin, Brian Epstein, Paul McCartney and then ... Mal. Neil Aspinall would be Beatle 5.5. And yeah. I added an extra Paul in there, because they told you all along there were two of him. (See how I made this truly PID related) ;)

Anyway. The story of Mal Evans truly bothers me in their mythology. He's the servant of the gods, beaten down, made to serve, forever on bended knee. I mean, I make it sound atrocious, and he seemed quite a happy man doing such things. At the same time, the gods should have rewarded him for his faith and loyalty to them. Unless of course, they were like God in the Old Testament. Burning people up if he didn't ask for an offering today. Or they did it the wrong way. Maybe Mal did something wrong, and was never going to get the love he made back? It's like the story of Job. Man that guy got burned by God. On a bet with the Devil no less. Mal Evans is like Job. Except he never got chance to get that reward for being so faithful. Is that his fault? When everything is taken away from him after giving his all to it? Did this man not deserve to have his faith restored at the last minute by some miracle? Some intervention? Did Mal Evans not deserve to have a happy home?

Does anyone else have a problem with the humanity in this story? Does it not strike you a little sad? A man is celebrated for a song about a 5 year old boy, though looking at the lyrics, the song has very little to do with that 5 year old boy's situation. Or the advice you'd even give to a child. But it makes for great sell, doesn't it? This song was written for a tiny little boy who was going through the awful breakup of his mummy and daddy. Daddy actually let mummy find out about his special friend quite cruelly. And then daddy told his best friend to tell mummy they were splitting up. But the friend refused. (If I was Pete Shotton, I would have refused too.) Na Na Na Na Na Na. This song has nothing to do with that situation for the little boy. But Beatles fans LOVE to say how much Paul cared for Julian in this situation. And how much closer he was to John. And they make up these glorious fantasies in their heads about Julian possibly sitting on Paul's knee as he sings him this 7 minute opus saying, I wrote this for you kid. And Julian looks up and says, "so I should go out and get her". And Paul says, "as long as she's of age kid, as long as she's of age. Now singalong with me."

It's really the stuff of fantasy. Or Disney. In reality though, that song has so little to do with a little boy, it's amazing it's even mentioned he had any inspiration for the song. But that's how mythology works. And that's how the gods seem to shower down blessings, when in truth, they are as self-serving and oblivious to the sufferings of mankind as that old God in the Testament who was silly enough to put a tree in a garden knowing curiousity was a trait inherent in humans. He should know. He made them. 

So rest in peace Mal Evans. There's at least one of us here on Planet Earth who is wondering why you did it. Did you get anything for it, except for a bullet to the body? Does your ghost grow restless in its urn as McCartney slams an injunction on your beloved ex-wife for selling items you had kept from your days of employment? Were you saving that as a nest egg one day? Did you think your employers would mind if you took a little of this, and maybe a piece of that, because it seems they ignored giving you much in the first place? Were you constantly finding a way of creating your non-existent pension? The one that was never offered? Were you hoping Ringo would release an album one day, and maybe someone would give you credit there? Would the royalties from it, pay you back what you felt you were owed? What did you do it for Mal? What was it for?

The goodness in your heart I imagine. Maybe you're Don Quixote for real. Maybe your faith in humanity was greater than its true worth. I would hate to think that. But I cannot find where you did wrong. You're an example of how others do wrong, if you ask me. 

Rest in peace. 

Five and Five and One

A very interesting tale about Isaac Asimov and an unfinished project. 

http://plasticmacca.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/paul-is-dead-clue-isaac-asimovs-five.html

Rotten Apples

This in fact, looks so Apple controlled and issued, that I don't know why nobody gives a toss about it.

Something said in a previous blog. And I'll tell you something. I do know why no one gives a toss about it. And it's something I'm sure Apple realises. And McCartney may wake up at night in a cold sweat fearing. 

That The Beatles Legend will die with the generation that tells it. 

It's just something we all have to face here. When Lady Gaga has 151 million views on Youtube, whether this pays or not, it speaks volumes about generational gaps. And the relevance of an artist to the generation it speaks to. You may believe the Lady only deserves 1 view. You may think she's deserved of all she gets. What has to be noted is that these views cannot be found for The Beatles. Or Paul McCartney on his own, the richest musician in the world. 

Now if I was a business executive, or advertising marketer, I'd be sitting in Apple's offices saying: Damn. How am I going to get these things to sell. The people born in the 1940's are soon to die, or dead already. The people born in the 50's are on their way, but probably are pretty techno-phobe about the internet. The people born in the 60's, well The Beatles are still pretty relevant to them. That's pretty much my market now. The people born in the 1970's, possibly. I can sell them something surely. People born in the 1980's. Hmmm, little bit of a tougher sell. Make sure Helter Skelter is advertised as the first grunge tune for these people. People born in the 1990's. Damn there's Grunge. Okay, these people are going to be a hard sell. Hopefully the music speaks for itself. People born in the 2000's. Hmmm. The generation of  ... whatever they are. 

How do you make a 1960's band still push units to a public where some of your consumers are dying off, some of your consumers have heard just about everything you can put out, because the band broke up before these people grew up, some of your consumers look at 60's music as totally antiquated, some don't even care and have moved on into Rap and Electro Pop and the myriad of genres that have opened up since ... Pop was Born. 

It's a losing battle. Beethoven made a resurgence in the Disco era, but did he make any cash off of it? Hell no he didn't. He was long dead. Do you see how fragile this mortal coil is? The band you love will one day lose its appeal, simply because those who it appealed to, died. So one has to keep pushing, pushing, pushing legends and tales of yore for future generations to make this band magical and forever yield capital. How are you going to make a box of Cornflakes forever be in production? Well, since it's food, you're pretty much guaranteed people can't survive without food. So that's a no brainer. How will people survive without a Pop Band? Pretty easily my friend. Pretty easily. 

So Paul Is Dead as campaign into the stuff of Legend and Myth, that will keep future generations looking back on this band, long after everyone involved is a corpse in the ground, or scattered ashes, seems ... in vain. Honestly. Are you going to care if people still talk about you when you're dead? Maybe you'll care that your name lives on. And this I can see as a valid reason to do such things. But I'm pretty sure the name BEATLES will live on. 200 years from now, BEATLES will be like Mozart or Beethoven is to us today. It will be that era's music. What they used to do with it. It will be a thing of the past. Whether we choose to listen to it or not, or what is out RIGHT NOW, is a choice we make. Personally, I love classical music. I think it's still relevant. And in all honesty, I don't really see where music has progressed in Western hemispheres much beyond what the classical composers were already doing. It's still the same 12 octave scale. Still the same harmonic tones. What's new to do with it? Great songs still come out of this box though, no matter what decade or era it is. 

Do you wonder why The Beatles are sold with so much mythology and little fact? I mean, look at their story. It is filled with so many holes. And sometimes they mention things. And other times they don't. And what they choose to mention at any given time, conflicts with something said earlier. How hard is it to truly market The Beatles to new generations? If I were that ad exec, I would be beating my head against a wall saying why couldn't they just have stayed together like The Stones???? It would be so much easier. I could still sell them. 

iamaphoney. Is this an attempt to make them relevant to a new generation, with talks of Devil Worship, Organised Crime, Suspicious Deaths, Mysterious Messages, and all sorts? Why bother? It actually just tarnishes their name in truth. They resorted to cheap tactics and gimmicks to get our attention, yet all the while tell us they were about Peace and Love? (This always makes me wonder how banging a person's head in with a silver hammer has anything to do with the aforementioned peace and love sell, but eh.) Does any of this make sense to you as BEATLES SALES EARNER? Any of it? It doesn't to me. 

Plus with the other things I know about Beatles products that were never mentioned once in the 50 years it was done to their products. And seemingly shared between competing record companies, while kept hidden from the public until someone just happened to have this tool, with that product, and discovered it by accident. I'm waiting to say what this actually is. Waiting for what? I don't know. Half of the people that sell Beatles memorabilia at outrageous prices will be dead soon. Those that buy it at outrageous prices will be dead soon too. And the generations following will say, why would I want to buy that piece of memorabilia? This band doesn't mean much to me. But sell me something Nirvana did, or Lady Gaga did that's rare, I'm onboard! Do you see what I mean? The only people that make Beatles albums worth the amount they are, are people who are one foot from the grave themselves. And when they die, selling a Beatles album still in the shrinkwrap isn't going to matter diddley squat to the generations born in the 90's and on. Not a squat. They will ask, why is it shrinkwrapped in the first place? And eventually, maybe, what is an LP? Technology forever moves forward. Some technology has been around for 40 years that they're just allowing you to have now to keep you entertained. Other technology is of that sort by the rebels and outsiders to the industry. Which eventually gets absorbed and collected by that industry. Do you see? The Beatles AREN'T going to be relevant fairly soon. And selling them to a public will go the way of the sellers. Who will be in the grave themselves. And all their shrinkwrapped albums will go to auction, or to their next of kin. And maybe you might get $1600 for it. Or you might have to drop that price down, because someone is far more interested in Dr.Dre. And can't see the reason why this album is worth anything compared to what they listened to growing up, and what spoke to them. 

I know. This blog is a bit of a downer. But it's a fact. Go to Youtube and see those 1 million views of McCartney's "Coming Up". And then go over to Rihanna. Or Adele. Or Lady Gaga. The people watching McCartney and The Beatles are disappearing. Not because of disinterest. It's because most are dying too. 

So You Think the Joker Laughs at You

First things first. This picture found, where McCartney is holding the hand of his daughter Mary. Sometime in early 1971 (by hairstyle and beard.)

We're looking at the symbols that appear on his left hand, which do not look drawn in by magic marker. And if they are, the symbol closest to his sleeve is quite detailed. Obviously some time was spent on these markings. A bigger scan would be much needed, unfortunately this was the only image of it I could find. But I'll keep looking.

Okay, next order of business. In a previous blog I noted the PID As Marketing Ploy is just nonsensical. I know it's a hopeful wish by Paul McCartney and Beatles fans, but in my mind this notion is based on myopic perspectives. It's a marketing campaign that seems not to want to make money. It's more like a shell game. A marketing campaign that actually uses PID as its selling point, would surely seek to yield capital right from the get-go. Not wait two years before anyone realises such a campaign is being employed, with a fanbase that had already purchased the albums in question, and need not go out and purchase them again. Also with a consumer base that would either not believe it, somewhat believe it, or believe it wholeheartedly. There's really only one of these clientele that would encourage others to seek out the images and associated media to purchase them. Unless they just let them borrow it. 

With the dissolution of the band in 1970, what is then the point of continuing on with this marketing campaign on their own solo albums? Why would, let's say George Harrison, intentionally reference PID on solo releases, or John Lennon. Here is a rumour that like "Are You Getting Back Together Again" is asked of each member, on a continual basis, for a period extending almost 50 years. Why would you even keep something like that "alive" to be repeated at you every time a microphone was pointed in front of your face?

This topic and blog was spawned by a conversation with fellow blogger Annabelle Lee. The Joke aspect of this. The Beatles were playing a joke on everyone with PID. It's their British sense of humour. 

Well, for one, the person most likely to raise his hand and say, please say I'm the dead one would be John Lennon. His sense of humour was more caustic, he had a tendency to be incredibly inflammatory towards homosexuals, cripples, people of race (see Little Richard/Rolling Stone 1984 about his meeting with Lennon pre-Beatlemania) and his personality just says "I want attention". In your mind, with the dynamic of The Beatles and their personalities and complex relationship, do you think John Lennon would be all that pleased that Paul McCartney was being singled out as Beatle No.1 in the dead sweepstakes? It brings attention to him. His songs are more popular with the Beatlemaniacs, especially by 1966, when Harrison and Lennon were NOT writing songs that She Loves You fans were squealing about. They didn't understand them. Songs by McCartney were still understandable. And remained so. John Lennon's a jealous guy. John Lennon would see the attention already given to "Yesterday" and say, you know what? This guy doesn't need any more attention on him. By 1969 finding out that "this guy" had acquisitioned more shares in your publishing firm than you had, behind your back, you'd most certainly come out and say that whole Paul Is Dead thing was a hoax we pulled, and now I'm tired of it. You would stop. Especially when the dead one was suing you. And you maybe wanted to expose him for a fraud, or had issue with the verdict given in the end. It would be the perfect time to expose the Paul Is Dead campaign for what it was. And call into question the man who played along with it, and whether his claims that business decisions by Klein/Lennon/Harrison/Starkey were being made without his knowledge or consent. 

Of course I'm presuming what Lennon would do. Judging by "How Do You Sleep" I think this is a good presumption of the McCartney/Lennon relationship from 1969 - 1971. Battle lines were drawn. Lennon completely disengaged any relationship he had with certain members of the Apple management team, and then some. 

So if someone was going to have a laugh at the Beatlemaniacs expense, it would be John Lennon. And I'm pretty sure he'd elect himself to be the chosen one. He's got 2 months away in Spain that can be used for this ploy. He's got a missing car in the beginning of 1967. He's got the 9th November, 1966 inconsistencies, and whether Yoko Ono knew about The Beatles prior to their meeting, working for him in John Is Dead. 

So let's look at this Joke. Is it actually funny? Well, no, not really. It's about a man being decapitated in a car accident, his burial being kept secret from the public, his band members finding a replacement, and continuing on with a ruse. A ruse made public through backwards messages, imagery, and every media outlet possible. And other people brought into the Joke that would have to be kept quiet about its origins. Too many cooks in the kitchen if you ask me. Here's another thing.

Would you tell the same joke for 45 years? I mean, two of them can't tell it anymore. But the other two still tell the Joke. Have you ever watched the reaction of individual Beatles members when asked the question "Are You Getting Back Together Again?" Watch as agitation and impatience rises in their voices and faces. Especially Ringo, George and sometimes John. Depending on if he was with Yoko Ono or not. Paul McCartney will use The Beatles Reunion in times of promotion. And suggest collaboration to the public, without even asking the person he wants to collaborate with. See George Harrison/Rock and Roll Hall of Fame era interviews about this. This question was asked of them continually, without fail. Can you imagine being asked the same question every time someone came up to you? And depending on your mood, your answer would be blasted out to the public, and of course if you were for or against the idea, the criticism that would accompany your reply. "Why doesn't he want to do it? The others do." You cannot win answering this question. "The only one that doesn't want to do it is ... George." Reasoning says, well then, do it without him. Well dummy, that wouldn't be The Beatles then would it. That would be John, Paul & Ringo. Take out any one of the people, and you don't have The Beatles. 

Oh you can say John & Paul don't need the other two, but you'd be hard-pressed to call them The Beatles if an album appeared with just the two of them, and loads of session musicians. You'd actually see them criticised for this action by the fans, no matter how good the songs were. Yes you'd have public exclamation of happiness in the reunion, but you'd get the detracting element that a majority of the people listed on the album credits, were people you never heard of. And how can it be The Beatles with session guitarists numbers 1 through 6. When George Harrison is sitting there, who was a Beatle, but not asked to be at this reunion. Or Ringo Starr. You can see examples of this when John Paul Jones is not included in Jimmy Page/Robert Plant reunions. And they certainly do not call those reunions Led Zeppelin. 

It's a fickle business music. And very very choosy about what you call product A, and whether it is the same product you want. 

So getting back to Death is a Funny Business. I'm remembering Monty Python in particular about Death being funny. And you know what? They didn't repeat that joke endlessly, throughout every movie. I mean like, the same way every time. You have the man in the cart "Bring Out Your Dead" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Well, you don't see him again in Life of Brian do you? Or Meaning of Life. Or even in Palin & Jones "Ripping Yarns, or Cleese's "Fawlty Towers", or Idle's "Rutland Weekend Television". You don't find an allusion to it even in the television series that ran from 1969 - 1974. They told the joke once. And that was it. They may have made broad comments about Death continually in their work, but they did not tell the same joke over and over again. Why? Because it isn't funny anymore is it?

So why would you tell the Paul Is Dead Joke for over 45 years? Do you still laugh at jokes you told as a teenager to your friends? Do you even remember jokes you told back about 20 years ago? Do you still laugh at the same things you did when you were younger? Has your sense of humour changed? Do incest jokes no longer tickle your funny bone? Is death a no-no area to go to when laughing? Ask yourself these questions. Has my sense of humour changed over the years. I can tell you from my standpoint, my sense of humour has changed vastly from the time I was a teenager into adulthood. You know who repeats a joke over and over again? 

Children.

Children will repeat something they find funny over and over again to the point that you're not sure if they're stuck, or just don't know when to stop. Ever hear 10 year olds say something they found funny again and again? Repeating it for every thing a person says back to them? I remember doing this definitely. You find or hear something, and it makes you laugh. You then incorporate this phrase into EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION YOU HAVE.   This can last anywhere from days, into weeks. Sometimes even years. It may get used less as the months go by, but it'll pop up somehow, someway. Especially if certain friends found this funny. It's association. Teenagers are prone to do this with certain phrases and events found funny, but the shelf-life is shorter. It's only funny for so long. And really, a child's use of humour is in a learning stage. They're just finding out what is Funny. What is Humour. They don't know what a punchline is. They don't even know what it means. Or what relevance it has to the story that precedes it. They have no concept of Humour. They just know what makes them laugh. And if it made them laugh the first time, well, 50 times later, logic says it will make you laugh the same. In a child's logic. Because they have no true concept of FUTURE. They don't understand that they won't be living with you when they become 30 years old. They think everything will be just as it is right NOW. They'll just be older, they'll have a car. But they'll still be living with you, and see no reason why this would not be the case. They have no concept of FUTURE. So a funny phrase or image will make them laugh the first time, and time number 50. As will that movie they've seen 100 times, and still wonder "what happens next" even though they know exactly what is going to happen. 

You're equating The Beatles to having children's mentality and comprehension of humour. They tell the same joke for 40+ years and can't help themselves because they still find it funny. Even though every time they appear in public, they have to answer to this joke time and time again. And deny its content. With a straight face even. They can't even laugh about it in public. 

Does this joke pay off for them in the end? What are the gains by telling this joke? I'm sorry, but I just can't see Paul McCartney giggling to himself after 40+ years of people saying he's dead, while he plans a new way to say it all over again. And still get a kick out of it. That's almost OCD in behaviour. It's ritualistic moreso. I'd get the guy some help. 

All Together Now 1, 2, 3 ...

This is just a fun project you can try at home!!!

Below are three images. What I'd like anyone to do if they have a photo editing software, is make these three images match up. Meaning, Get 1 to match to 2. Get 2 to match to 3. Get 3 to match to 1. And if you do this, please leave the BIG numbers I've placed on the images. Not because I can't tell the difference between the images. 1 is from I believe 1962. 2 is from late 1970/early 1971, and 3 is from probably 1968. That's a guess. But judging by hair length, yeah, about 1968. 

My educated guess right now is, you're going to have not many problems matching 3 to 1.
But you're going to run into problems matching 2 to 1. And it's not because his head is in a slightly different position. You can just rotate image 2 to fit 1, because his eyes are going to be the same distance from one another no matter what. Being the same person and all. You'll have to shrink image 2 so the eye proportions are consistent to image 1 (otherwise, you'll just be wasting your time comparing things, and this exercise will be futile.) And I know exactly where you're going to run into problems. I'll let you be the judge of what the problems are though. 

Good luck campers :)

R A N T in EMinor

Sometimes it just gets to you. Admitting such things does not bother me. And usually out of a rant, a line of thinking happens that wouldn't otherwise in calmer waters. 

I don't even know exactly when I began thinking there might be something to Paul Is Dead. In all honesty, I was looking for something else entirely. And you know when you have those moments when something just clicks, and a whole new perspective opens up before you. Well, that must have been somewhere around 2002/2003. I never paid any mind to Paul Is Dead before that. 

I'd say from 1973 til 2001, I was a Beatles fanatic. And there was not one album I ever purchased solely to reveal clues about PID. Not one. I honestly paid it no attention whatsoever. I knew the clues, I knew the story. But I don't think for one minute did I ever entertain the notion it had any relevance or truth to it. I bought the albums for one thing. The music. I thought that was enough reason to buy them. 

There's a part of me that looks at Paul Is Dead as marketing ploy, with a hint of contempt. And I have to be honest about that. I bought these albums for one reason. I loved the band and its music. In all honesty, Paul was never a favourite. I remember seeing Let It Be when I was very young, maybe about 10 years old. And I just did not like him. He was easily the least favourite Beatle by leagues. There was George. Then there was John. Then there was Ringo .......................................................... then Paul. I didn't really like his songs. Some of them. The early ones, before Sgt.Pepper, especially 1963 - 1964 era McCartney I like a lot. I think And I Love Her is beautiful. I just never found him funny, or with much personality. George was funny. John was funny. Ringo had tons of personality. Paul seemed like flotsam. In Let It Be, he speaks, but nothing comes out of his mouth. And I don't think I've ever quite shaken that feeling about him from youth. So one would say I'm LOOKING for something to be wrong with him. And you could say that. Then again, I'm not much of a fan of Lennon these days either. Back in the day, he was just 2 steps behind George in my books. I thought both of them were the best Beatles, and had the more interesting songs. And I didn't buy the albums because I liked their clues better either. 

Lady Gaga's "Poker Face" has 151,288,292 views on YouTube since 2009. 

In comparison, iamaphoney's TheWingedBeatle, uploaded just over 2 years ago, has 143,515 views. 

To the people that don't take this seriously, or see it as marketing ploy, or whatever. Here's a thing you have to realise about iamaphoney videos. 

1. In the 7 years they've been on YouTube, they have not been slammed once with an Apple copyright claim. Or maybe they have, and you just didn't know it.  Considering the amount of content that is owned by various networks, affiliates, and Apple itself, this is surprising. It's actually stunning. Because I get slammed with them for 2 seconds of sound appearing in a video. Or 10 seconds of silent footage from this source or that source.
2. Even with releasing two volumes of Beatles derived material on iTunes, iamaphoney is STILL not slammed with an Apple copyright infringement suit, or one by Sony ATV. Maybe they just don't see it as important to do so. I doubt this, because when Neil Innes and Eric Idle came up with The Rutles, a satire of The Beatles history, Innes was slammed with a copyright suit by Apple. Did some of The Rutles songs sound like Beatles songs? Yup. Do iamaphoney's songs sound like Beatles songs? well, yeah. But in reverse. Though I know there are some very forward samples of their work contained within those reversals. It's still Beatles work, regardless of forwards or backwards. And you can still purchase it.
3. The footage iamaphoney uses had material in it I had never seen between the years of 1973-2001. My Beatles fanatic years. And I had every book, every magazine, everything you could think of. I was obsessed. Though I own more Harrison solo albums than Beatles albums, amongst my collection you would find the solo works of McCartney, Lennon and Starr as well. Surprisingly enough, more McCartney than Lennon & Starr combined. I almost owned as many Paul albums as George albums. But that's only because he released more to buy than Harrison did. Sometimes I think Harrison was smarter in these aspects. Getting back to the material though, the very fact of McCartney going to Africa in late 1966, I never heard about until iamaphoney came along. That was the first I had heard of it. They don't even mention it in Anthology!

It's these 3 things that any viewer of iamaphoney's videos has to take in. As the videos increased, the editing and quality of them improved. And there were some serious graphics and video tools being used. This wasn't someone's bedroom computer project. This in fact, looks so Apple controlled and issued, that I don't know why nobody gives a toss about it. As a marketing campaign to get people to watch a Beatles orientated product with views the likes of which Lady Gaga is accustomed to, it has failed miserably. It's why I think Paul Is Dead Marketing Campaign, is just fantasy. It didn't work. It certainly didn't work in my personal experience, because I never bought a product of theirs looking for clues. Remember? I bought them for the music and how good they were. And it certainly isn't working now, because if I want to hear McCartney's "Gratitude" in reverse, I just type it in to YouTube's search bar, and voila. It's there. I don't have to buy the album it's sourced from. Look.

See how easy that was. Do you think Apple/McCartney/Ono/Starr/Arias shed a tear each time someone just types in something and doesn't purchase the brilliant marketing strategy, once again? It failed. No one's buying it. On many levels. 

Which is interesting, because the lengths to which it's being pushed that there is more to McCartney than just charming little songs, and alludes to him being the son of Aleister Crowley is the stuff of slander. Really. If you think about it. If it ran in a newspaper, the likes of McCartney would sue the hell out of that publication for the allegation. Lesser things have been said and had this happen. When the very premise of iamaphoney links The Beatles much closer to Charles Manson than Vincent Bugliosi would like to have you think, that's a whole other issue. Why would The Beatles want anything to emerge that would link them closer to one of the most famous murder events in American history? In some aspects, the granddaddy of all killing sprees. The one that set precedent. In the scope of murder and genocide in human history, it was quite miniscule. It's the ramifications of the very events that make it iconic. It was how it was portrayed, built up and displayed to the public. It was the death of the 1960's. And certainly of any "freedom" movement, or any altruistic vision a group of people may have had about the future and their place in it. Why would Apple want to put out a product that links McCartney much much closer to Helter Skelter than just singing it. 

Or that he had a double. 

As said many times. It failed. No one's interested. I can think of a million reasons why someone should be interested in this. And the clues keep coming, and the evidence keeps mounting. It's not a marketing ploy or hoax. It's a distraction from other events. Actually, at this point in time, I'm not sure what it actually is. But it as Hoax/Marketing seriously does not wash with me. There's other things in Beatles products out there that have me baffled as to why no one's said a thing in almost 50 years about them. When everything about Commerce tells me they should have been announced when they came out. That's just capitalism. 

Paul Is Dead. 10 years ago, I would've said to you, I know about it. Never thought much about it though. Today I say, there's more to this than anyone can even imagine. It has ramifications I'm unsure we'll ever uncover completely. But what is there so far leads me to believe, all is not well in the world. It's the amount of "stories" released by Apple as an entity, where none of the details match up to evidence and facts. Like Epstein's "discovery" of The Beatles. Or the sacking of Pete Best. The death of Stuart Sutcliffe. The 9th November and John/Yoko. The Moped Crash. When did this picture actually get released to the public?

Who released it? Where did it appear first? Was it included in 2004's Many Years From Now by Barry Miles? Does anyone question this picture and its validity? Who took it? Was it after the sutures and fix-up? Just after the accident? Why do we even believe this is 1965? Because his hair is parted to the right? He hit his face on pavement going 30MPH. This looks more like a man who got into a fight with someone. Not came off something at a speed that could have killed him instantly. Especially landing on his face. 

Does he look like he was in an accident to you? This is three weeks later. 21st January, 1966. With a suture that had to be done twice on his lip, and not even at a hospital, he looks like NOTHING HAPPENED TO HIM TO EVEN SUGGEST HE WAS IN AN ACCIDENT GOING 30MPH AND LANDED ON HIS FACE. Right now I have a hard time believing there ever WAS an accident. 

No remaining scar or abrasions on his left eye, lip, nothing! Not even the hint of major or minor damage suffered in a fast traveling motor vehicle accident. This whole Moped story right now, looks to me as a complete lie. Something definitely happened to him, but what that is I don't know. But coming off something at 30MPH and landing on your face is not what happened!

Two Sides

And this:

In 1967 Charlie (Lennon - Alfred Lennon's brother, John Lennon's Uncle)  heard that John had slammed the door in Freddie's face and became angry. He wrote to John, putting forward Freddie's case, how it wasn't his fault that the marriage had broken up, how he came home from sea to find his wife pregnant by another man, how he forgave her and took her back and how she still walked out on him and placed John with his auntie.

 http://www.triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/unclecharlie.shtml

Mythology and Truth. And never the twain shall meet.