Even though it is already common knowledge that the first Beatle to pass away was John Lennon via an assassin’s bullet, is there truth behind the rumor saying that Paul McCartney was the first Beatle to pass away?
By: Ringo Bones
As an eight-year-old back then, I am already old enough to know that the Beatles – either as a group or as solo artists - were one of the best musicians in the Western world months before John Lennon’s tragic assassination back in December 10, 1980. Fast forward to 2008 and I accidentally stumbled upon a rather “wacky” conspiracy on the Internet saying that the first of the Fab Four to have passed away was supposedly Paul McCartney. Given that this is such an extraordinary claim that truly demands extraordinary proof, is there really truth in this “conspiracy”?
According to the claim, the “real” Paul McCartney supposedly died back in 1966 and was supposedly since replaced by a very uncanny look-alike. The clues are supposedly – and blatantly – evident all over their iconic Abbey Road album. But is the truth really that self-evident or is it just a very elaborate hoax that’s very hard to either prove or disprove?
When the 40th Anniversary of the Beatles’ Abbey Road album was celebrated back in August 2009, the “Paul McCartney 1966 Death Rumor” conspiracy probably rekindled every Beatle-Maniac’s curiosity about the subject. The iconic album cover was credited to an Abbey Road Studios photographer named Ian McMillan who took the famous photo on a step ladder in the middle of Abbey Road.
McMillan took 6 photos and the one which was chosen for the iconic album cover was photo number 5, thus turning a merely utilitarian zebra crossing of the City of Westminster near the Abbey Road Studios into a prime Beatle-Mania pilgrimage site. In spite of the fact that Abbey Road Studios was more than the Beatles though, scores of other musicians – including scores of Classical Music orchestras and ensembles – had recorded there since the Golden Age of Stereo. Beatle Maniacs and “mere” tourists can even sign their “I was here” graffiti on the wall outside of the famed recording studio.
So did Beatle Paul McCartney really die in 1966 and the proof is there to see in the photos of the Abbey Road album cover? Well, it was so many years ago today that a cold case such as these will be very difficult to solve just by publicity photos used in an album cover alone. If it really is true, then Yoko Ono probably has nothing to do with the breaking up of the Beatles.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Should Wikileaks Be Taken Seriously?
The website was supposedly set up as a safe place for wistleblowers to air out their incriminating evidence for legal scrutiny, should anything posted on Wikileaks be taken seriously?
By: Ringo Bones
Even after the furor of the 90,000 or so leaked documents highlighting the shortcomings of the Bush Administration era War on Terror inexorably died down (has it?), the whistleblowing site Wikileaks had now indisputably become the conspiracy fetishists conversation piece du jour. Though it only confirmed everyone’s concerns on everything that’s wrong with the Bush Administration era War on Terror, it gained a little more air of authenticity after that inexplicably still-born rape and child molestation lawsuit against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Are rattled intelligence agency personnel resorting to Roman Polanski-style intimidation for damage control?
Ever since that incriminating Abu Ghraib Prison scandal photos have been posted on the Internet and “fall-person” US Army Specialist Lynndie England got branded the title moniker of a “sexually-depraved torturer” by the world’s major news providers, on-line whisleblowing on the irregularities of the Bush Administration’s War on Terror finally got the much-needed press attention that it deserve. Worse still, the subsequent whistleblowing incidents only confirmed the rest of the civilized world’s suspicions of the Bush-Cheney run War on Terror as a legitimizing platform of American lunatic fringe organized Christianity that sincerely believes via their religious doctrine that the United Nations and the Geneva Convention are the work of The Devil.
While the gist of the 90,000 or so Afghan theatre of the War on Terror that got Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in trouble centers around the under-reporting of civilian casualties killed by both the Coalition Forces and the Taliban. The under-reporting of incidences of IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) attack, not to mention the Taliban’s not-so-oft mentioned access to man-portable surface-to-air missiles. And the most damning of all is the Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency or ISI colluding with the Afghan Taliban. The Pakistan government’s “rumoured” collusion with the Afghan Taliban probably dates back as far as when Zia Ul-Haq ruled Pakistan deciding to solve the Kashmir problem by whatever means necessary.
Even if the authenticity of most of the leaked documents are yet to be confirmed, an overwhelming majority of the documents seems to be in congruence to the criticisms of those intimately involved with the Bush-era War on Terror. Add to that majority of the world’s population already fed up with their respective governments deciding what kind of information the masses supposedly can handle – and deciding what’s our best interest is. Maybe Julian Assange was right when he said: “Without the truth, no public policy is coherent”.
By: Ringo Bones
Even after the furor of the 90,000 or so leaked documents highlighting the shortcomings of the Bush Administration era War on Terror inexorably died down (has it?), the whistleblowing site Wikileaks had now indisputably become the conspiracy fetishists conversation piece du jour. Though it only confirmed everyone’s concerns on everything that’s wrong with the Bush Administration era War on Terror, it gained a little more air of authenticity after that inexplicably still-born rape and child molestation lawsuit against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Are rattled intelligence agency personnel resorting to Roman Polanski-style intimidation for damage control?
Ever since that incriminating Abu Ghraib Prison scandal photos have been posted on the Internet and “fall-person” US Army Specialist Lynndie England got branded the title moniker of a “sexually-depraved torturer” by the world’s major news providers, on-line whisleblowing on the irregularities of the Bush Administration’s War on Terror finally got the much-needed press attention that it deserve. Worse still, the subsequent whistleblowing incidents only confirmed the rest of the civilized world’s suspicions of the Bush-Cheney run War on Terror as a legitimizing platform of American lunatic fringe organized Christianity that sincerely believes via their religious doctrine that the United Nations and the Geneva Convention are the work of The Devil.
While the gist of the 90,000 or so Afghan theatre of the War on Terror that got Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in trouble centers around the under-reporting of civilian casualties killed by both the Coalition Forces and the Taliban. The under-reporting of incidences of IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) attack, not to mention the Taliban’s not-so-oft mentioned access to man-portable surface-to-air missiles. And the most damning of all is the Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency or ISI colluding with the Afghan Taliban. The Pakistan government’s “rumoured” collusion with the Afghan Taliban probably dates back as far as when Zia Ul-Haq ruled Pakistan deciding to solve the Kashmir problem by whatever means necessary.
Even if the authenticity of most of the leaked documents are yet to be confirmed, an overwhelming majority of the documents seems to be in congruence to the criticisms of those intimately involved with the Bush-era War on Terror. Add to that majority of the world’s population already fed up with their respective governments deciding what kind of information the masses supposedly can handle – and deciding what’s our best interest is. Maybe Julian Assange was right when he said: “Without the truth, no public policy is coherent”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)