Yer Blues

October 31, 2013, 6:32 pm

≪ Previous: Looking through a Glass Onion

Yes I’m lonely. Wanna die.
Yes I’m lonely. Wanna die.
If I ain’t dead already,
Girl, you know the reason why.

–John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “Yer Blues,” The Beatles, 1968

Looking up stuff for something you’ve already worked on before can become tedious. You have to wade through all of the stuff you already knew, all the references you’ve already got in your notes, just to find new bits of information that you either missed, or deemed irrelevant.

In this case, Doc T. (not to be confused with our biochemist cyberpal from Georgia Tech) provided a few leads, some of which were interesting and possibly relevant. At the very least they were new items to look at. But in reality, most of what I began looking at here was not so much new stuff, but rather a shift in focus, looking at old things in a different way, especially if they initially seemed irrelevant to the Paul-Is-Dead rumor. For example, as mentioned in the PID series, one can find a number of “clues” in the Beatles’ movies, especially Magical Mystery Tour. Add to that George Harrison’s work in film, along with the post-Beatle film work of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and Richard Starkey. But there were a number of items, including scripts and footage that never saw the silver screen, and these all seem to explore some of the ideas surrounding the PID story in more depth, when viewed in toto. So in this instance, the focus shifts from the movies specifically mentioned in conjunction with the rumor to the entirety of the Beatles’ film work, both together and alone.

So here are some of my tentative, preliminary thoughts on the subject.

1. Usually, when I do a series, there’s far more material offline than on. There was obviously a lot of online material about the subjects of the previous series. But the bulk of it consisted of the subjects’ blog, along with posts by people writing about them, most of which consisted of commentary as opposed to information. The actual information one could find on them was relatively sparse compared to the opinion, and overwhelmingly consisted of links to the already well-known articles by several writers. But hard-copy information about the ill-fated couple consisted of approximately 200 articles, most of them written during their lifetimes.

So naturally, one can contribute to the online knowledge of a subject by referencing, citing, or summarizing the hard-copy material that has yet to find its way to cyberspace.

The Paul-Is-Dead rumor is really the first subject I’ve come across where the information available online actually dwarfs the information one can readily find in hard-copy media. While many of the ancillary topics (those aptly covered by Doc T) are consistent with the normal ratio to hard-copy to cyberspace resources, actual information about McCartney’s putative death, or even the nature of the rumor itself, is relatively scarce. The initial coverage consisted of Fred Labour’s report, and the wire service reports derived from it. Most biographers mention the rumor in a paragraph or two.

2. Doc T brings up a lot of interesting points, but I’m only going to summarize one here. Within a twenty-six month period, six individuals connected to the Beatles died suddenly: record producer Joseph Meek (3 February 1967); playwright John (known to friends as “Joe”) Orton and his boyfriend Kenneth Halliwell (9 August 1967), Beatles manager Brian Epstein (27 August 1967), Beatles attorney David Jacobs (15 December 1968), and Sir Dr. Richard Asher (25 April 1969).*

The closeness of these people to the Beatles, and thus their relevance here, varies. Obviously, Epstein and Jacobs were very near to the group, and involved with their business and personal affairs. Dr. Asher, father of McCartney’s girlfriend Jane, was a personal friend who allowed Paul to live with him and his family for a brief period. The Beatles commissioned Orton to write the screenplay of their third movie, after their dissatisfaction with Help!.** Meek, working primarily out of Abbey Road studios, was more famous for turning down Epstein’s offer to produce the band than for his biggest hit record.

As for common threads (other than the Beatles), one can note that five of the six (Meek, Orton, Halliwell, Epstein and Jacobs) were gay, and in the closet because of the then-laws prohibiting their existence as such.*** Four of the deaths (Meek, Halliwell, Jacobs and Dr. Asher) were officially ruled suicides, and one (Epstein) was reported to the public as a suicide, but officially ruled an accidental overdose. Police ruled that shortly before their deaths, Meek murdered his landlady, Violet Shenton, and Halliwell murdered Orton.

Meek’s suicide doesn’t appear to be all that suspicious. Associates noted that he suffered from depression and describe his actions as paranoid. Phil Spector saw Meek as paranoid, and--let’s face it–Phil knows a thing or two about the subject.

Dr. Asher’s death isn’t all that suspicious at first blush, for he too showed symptoms of severe depression. Although some sources say that he ended his practice five years earlier in 1964, just as Beatlemania began, Philip Norman gave an indication that he was still very much involved with his profession during McCartney’s residence:

The Ashers’ house on Wimpole Street was plagued by telephone gigglings and breathings which Sir Richard could not shut off because the line belonged to his surgery. What few people knew, even within the Beatles’ entourage, was that Paul now spent all his time in London with the Ashers.

Dr. Asher was a .highly esteemed physician in his day, known for solving complex medical problems through critical evaluation. As head of the mental ward of Central Middlesex Hospital, one could speculate that he might have advised or consulted mind-control experimentation projects for British, or perhaps even American Intel. This has led some to further speculate that far from retiring in 1964, Dr. Asher took on a top-level assignment: namely, the programmed manipulation of McCartney. Stretching the conjecture out even further, at the time of his death, McCartney had ditched his daughter, and had married Linda Eastman, thus suggesting that Asher’s assignment had come to a close, and that, in order to tie up a loose end, the good doctor might have had some, well, assistance in his suicide. Yet, all that is highly speculative, without any really good evidence to support it. So unless someone can come up with some, this death is also not all that suspicious.

On 8 September 1967, a coroner’s inquest found that Epstein died from an overdose of carbamazepine, an anti-convulsion drug sold under that brand name Carbatrol. It would seem that Epstein had used the drug as a sleep-aid, and had ingested it so often that it accumulated in his body. Thus, the fatal dose that killed him wasn’t much of an overdose, if it was an overdose at tall.

There were indications of high strangeness in Epstein’s death. A minor point, but one to raise: his bedroom door was locked, forcing his assistant, Peter Brown, and an unnamed physician to break it down. Brown characterized the locked door as unusual. They found Epstein covered by letters and business papers. The curtains were completely drawn. .

What’s worse, Epstein’s former business partner, Nicky Byrne, received two anonymous telephone calls in the weeks leading up to Epstein’s death. The first was from a man with a “very low, very polite” voice who asked if he had settled his suit against Epstein. When Byrne confirmed that he did, and asked why the speaker wanted to know, the caller hung up. A few days later, Byrne received another call from the low, polite voice. As he told Norman:

In August, I was uin Florida–actually on my boat–and I got another call. That same very quiet, polite voice. ‘Mr. Byrne,’ it said, ‘you’re going to hear soon that Brian Epstein has met with an accident.’

Police ruled that Halliwell bludgeoned Orton to death with a hammer, then intentionally overdosed on Nembutel in a murder-suicide. What’s odd here is the fact that rarely does the murder victim outlive the murderer. Police investigating the crime noted that Halliwell’s corpse was quite cold, whereas Orton’s was still warm. This would indicate that Orton died well after Halliwell.

Although rare, one could note that the conditions do not disprove a finding of murder-suicide, especially since it might have taken Orton hours to die from his head injuries, and considerably less time for the Nembutel to take effect. The suicide case was augmented by two credible witnesses. First, Kenneth’s doctor called the night before to arrange a visit with a psychiatrist, and this after the doctor had prescribed him anti-depressants. Secondly, Peter Nolan, a friend, told a coroner’s inquest that Orton said he wanted to break up with Halliwell, but didn’t know how to do it.

Out of the six, Jacob’s passing seems the most suspicious. A close friend of his, actress Suzanna Leigh, arrived at her home in London after spending time in Los Angeles. She picked up the paper, and the mail. In the paper, she read that Jacobs had hanged himself in his garage. In the mail, she saw a postcard from David setting up a lunch date the following week. She then noted that the postmark indicated that he had dropped the card in the mail shortly before he died. It didn’t make sense to her that he would set up a lunch date with her if he planned on offing himself an hour later, so she took the postcard to the police. She also told him that lately he feared someone wanted to murder him. They told her they would look into it. After getting no further response, she pestered them to do something about what she increasingly suspected was her friend’s murder. After spending the next few days badgering the cops, Leigh received a visit from a couple of detectives who informed her that they too suspected that two suspects murdered Jacobs, but that they didn’t have much of a case against them. They told her not to worry, because they had the suspects in custody for another murder in which they had a much stronger case, one sure to put them behind bars for the rest of their lives.

While one might suspect the police told Leigh this just to get her off their backs, they weren’t lying. They did have two suspects in custody. Moreover, these suspects had a motive to murder Jacobs. Worse still, the motive could have been Beatles-related.

__________________
*Philip Norman, one of the most widely read and respected Beatles biographers, wrote that Jacobs’ death occurred several weeks after that of Brian Epstein, which would make the date sometime in September 1967. But every other source I can find gives 15 December 1968 as the date of Jacob’s demise.

**Commenting on Help!, John Lennon complained that he and the other three felt like extras in their own movie.

Orton allowed the group considerable input as to the film’s subject matter and content, and came up with a screenplay titled Up Against It, which depicted the Fab Four as terrorists buffeted by uncontrollable forces. The band loved the idea, but Epstein nixed it. The Beatles subsequently settled on Yellow Submarine, in which they only had a cameo role. Orton redrafted Up Against It as a stage play, which received its first performance on 14 November 1989.

***Meek was actually arrested and prosecuted for a gay-related offense in 1963, and fined fifteen quid.

↧

The Silver Hammer

November 7, 2013, 7:12 am

≫ Next: Out of Order, Chaos

≪ Previous: Yer Blues

Bang! Bang!
Maxwell’s silver hammer
Came down upon his head.

Clang! Clang
Maxwell’s silver hammer made
Sure that he was dead.
–John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer,”Abbey Road, 1969

(2. Continued)

Identical twins Reginald and Ronald Kray (left) grew up in London’s violent east end, amid the raging carnage of the Battle of Britain. In short, they were tough. Real tough.

They put that toughness to use as professional prizefighters. They also led a criminal gang that specialized in protection rackets, muggings, and murder-for-hire. They parlayed the money they got from all of these enterprises into a chain of nightclubs, starting with their flagship operation, Esmeralda’s Barn.

Despite the name, the club attracted such local celebrities as Diana Dors. Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland, and Frank Sinatra also frequented the place when in town. The Krays ingratiated themselves with the glitterati, many of whom warmed to the genial, albeit dangerous hosts.

The Krays made a special point of getting friendly with John Lennon, J. Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Richard Starkey right after Beatlemania had rendered them arguably the most famous four people on the planet. But according to a 21 June 2009 story by Zee News, the Krays weren’t schmoozing the Fab Four for celebrity’s sake alone. The twins aimed to get rid of Epstein, and take over the Beatles themselves:

It has also been revealed that Reginald ‘Reggie’ Kray and Ronald ‘Ronnie’ Kray, the foremost organised crime leaders dominating London`s East End during the 1950s and 1960s, asked Glasgow crimelord Arthur Thompson for advice on their plan. . . .

The meeting between the three feared crime bosses took place in the early 1960s in the now-demolished Cockatoo Bar in Govanhill.

At the end of their discussions, the Krays stunned the Glasgow Godfather by telling him they were taking over Beatles manager Brian Epstein`s music empire.

It is believed they had been planning to blackmail the fabulously rich pop guru into handing over his business.

The report goes on to say that Thompson had to talk them out of a hostile takeover of the Beatles. One might suspect, given their history, that they could have ignored Thompson, and nevertheless considered murdering Brian Epstein and David Jacobs (respectively, the Beatles’ manager and attorney) to achieve this purpose.

The twins indeed murdered, either through their henchmen, or on their own. On 9 March 1966, Ronnie gunned down rival gangster George Cornell at a local pub, after the latter allegedly made threats against him and called him a “fat poof” to his face. The shooting occurred in front of a bar full of witnesses, all of them too intimidated to talk to police, at least initially. In October 1967, Ron held one of their fellow gang members, Jack McVitie, so that Reg could stab him to death. The twins paid McVitie £1,500 up front for a hit that Jack never carried out. They murdered him for reneging on the contract, and for being a general pain in the can.

It took a couple of years to amass a case against them, but Inspector Leonard Reed finally took the brothers, and fifteen members of their gang, into custody on 8 March 1968. They were subsequently convicted of murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Ron died behind bars in 1995. In the year 2000, the government gave Reg a compassionate release after the surviving Kray came down with inoperable cancer.

Reg lived eight weeks as a free man. During this time he gave a controversial interview with BBC, during which he claimed to have committed one additional murder that police had missed. Although that one death would bump the brothers’ official body count by 50%, there were indications that this unnamed victim might have represented only the tip of a very large iceberg.* In 2002, someone very close to Reg would declare that the brothers carried out at least one more murder, and successfully disguised it as a suicide.

The informant, born 1979 as Bradley Allardyce, grew up hearing about the Kray twins’ exploits.** Indeed, in some circles the pair had become folk heroes. So, as a child, he became Reg’s pen pal, and met finally met him in 1991 at Gartree Prison. A few years later, Bradley embarked on his own life of crime, and wound up becoming his idol’s jailmate. It was at this time when the relationship between Allardyce and Kray became intense, and, as Brad would later declare, sexually intimate.

In 2002, two years after the last Kray brother’s death, Allardyce stated publically that Reg confessed to him his darkest secret: specifically, the murder of his first wife, Frances. Police ruled that a distraught Frances committed suicide after she and Reg became estranged. But according to Allardyce, Reg told Ron to force her to swallow sleeping pills at gunpoint. (One might also imagine that he might have threatened harm to other family members..)***

What this all means is that (1) the Kray twins wanted to take control of the Beatles; (2) weren’t above murdering others to achieve these goals; and (3) had some facility for disguising deaths as suicide. So one could naturally imagine them forcing someone like Epstein to swallow a lethal dose of carbamazepine, impressing on the manager that if they couldn’t have the Beatles, no one would, even if it meant killing all four of them. Even though in custody during the death of David Jacobs, one has to keep in mind that the brothers engaged in murder-for-hire. They would know quite well how to arrange a hit “on the outside,” especially if they believed that they could beat the rap, and reap the rewards of Beatles’ management.

Then too, there could have been another, more personal motive. Ron vehemently, sometimes violently, reacted when someone accused him of being gay (as did his victim, Cornell). He instead, in his later years, that he was bisexual. Note that five of the six men mentioned by Doc T. (Epstein, Jacobs, Kenneth Halliwell, Joe Orton, and Joe Meek) were not only gay, but also networking, socially and professionally, through this discreet, underground social scene. This has led to some speculation that Ron (and perhaps Reg) both belonged to this underground at various times, and worried about exposure should the others, because of their distaste and disgust at the brothers’ tactics, out them.

There are two major problems with the hypothesis that the Kray brothers murdered Epstein and Jacobs in order to takeover control of the Beatles. First, there’s the obvious: lack of evidence. Even if we stipulate that the twins murdered, and that some of these murder were never solved; even if we concede the possibility that they were adept at disguising murders as suicides, then we would still have to admit that we don’t have evidence for this hypothesis at all. Instead, we have conjecture and the realization that the evidence available doesn’t preclude this as a possibility.

What casts severe doubts about this hypothesis is that it presupposes that the Krays would have disobeyed crimelord Arthur Thompson, or could without suffering disastrous consequences. For all we know, Thompson might have talked them out of the plan because another, more powerful gang, had already staked out the Beatles as their territory.

_________________
*Inspector Reed believed that the victim was Teddy Smith, one of Ron’s former paramours.

**At some point, Allardyce legally changed his name to Kray. Most sources nevertheless refer to him as Allardyce.

Brad and Reg shared a mutual fantasy that they were father and adopted son. They referred to each other as such n their correspondence. Thus the change in name most likely aided in this fantasy.

***Upon hearing Allardyce’s allegation, Inspector Reed found the story credible enough to have been investigated had he known about it at the time. But by 2002, when Brad made this statement, both Kray brothers had already died. Thus, Reed found no reason to embark upon further investigations into possible crimes they might have committed.

↧

Out of Order, Chaos

November 21, 2013, 9:30 pm

≫ Next: A Chat with Gordon

≪ Previous: The Silver Hammer

* Abraham Lincoln defeated incumbent Vice President John Breckenridge to gain the US presidency in 1860. John Kennedy defeated incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon to gain the US presidency in 1960.

* Abraham Lincoln’s assassin shot him in a theater and fled to a warehouse. John Kennedy’s patsy supposedly shot him in a warehouse, and fled to a theater.

You’ve seen these before, I assume. But if you haven’t, these are a list of connections between the JFK and Lincoln assassinations.

* Both Lincoln and Kennedy ‘were concerned’ about African American civil rights.

* Lincoln’s son, Willie, and Kennedy’s son, Patrick, died during their fathers’ tenure in the Oval Office.

Many of these connections are quite accurate. Some, however, are not.

* Lincoln had a personal secretary named Kennedy. Kennedy had a personal secretary named Lincoln.

In the above, for example, we know for a fact that JFK had a personal secretary named Evelyn Lincoln. In fact, I’ve cited her memoir on The X-Spot. But there’s no record or indication that President Lincoln ever had a secretary named Kennedy.

Of course, when people make lists such as this, they’re on a roll and hard to stop. When you’re on a roll, it’s almost unconscionable to let accuracy get in the way of a good myth.

And, perhaps a myth is precisely what we’re looking at. The original author of this list will forever remain a mystery. Yet, we can show that it came into existence less then a year after JFK’s demise. An article in the 10 August 1964 edition of Newsweek reported its presence in the G.O.P. Congressional Newsletter.

* President Lincoln was shot at Ford’s Theater. President Kennedy was shot in a Lincoln, a car manufactured by the Ford Motor Company.

* Lincoln’s Vice President, a southerner named Andrew Johnson, succeeded him. Kennedy’s VP, a southerner named Lyndon Johnson, succeeded him.

In the previous series, and in the sporadic posts I’ve put up recently regarding the Paul-Is-Dead rumor, I’ve noticed a tendency to make connections such as these. I obviously don’t think there’s anything wrong with making connections. That’s what we do here. The problem is the lack of critical evaluation of information that assesses its relevance. Consequently, many of these connections don’t mean very much, and have led some very bright researchers down the garden path to self-discrediting.

What makes a connection meaningful? Oftentimes, that’s difficult to tell. A datum might have significance later on if it is consistent, or inconsistent with a narrative. And you might not see its importance at first. Yet oftentimes, these stray bits of information don’t really address the critical matters at hand, and at worst distract from examination of important evidence. Moreover, many of these items can be explained fairly easily simply by looking at the context of the connections. For example, the fact that Lincoln was elected in 1860 and Kennedy in 1960 isn’t that remarkable in and of itself when you point out that US presidential elections occur every four years. After all, 100 is just a dumb number. It’s only human perception that endows a century, or a round figure, with special significance. One can also note that Johnson is a rather common American/British name. There’s nothing spectacular in that as well. Also, a number of incumbent vice-presidents (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, George H. W. Bush, Albert Gore, Jr.) have run for the presidency. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But it’s not an uncommon occurrence. So there’s nothing particularly meaningful about that connection either.

In other words, some things are better and more satisfyingly explained as coincidence. In the natural order of things, synchronicity happens. When it doesn’t happen at all, that’s something to take note of. When someone presents a story where there is no chance of randomness in any facet, I get more than a tad suspicious.

* Both the names Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth have fifteen letters.

* Both Andrew and Lyndon are six letters.

Another weakness in these types of connections is the perceptual fallacy of forcing meaning onto randomness. The Cosmos isn’t scripted. Yet some act as if it were. One can note a number of times when somebody attempts to show a pattern of deliberate action by only citing data that affirm their ideas, and dismissing information that doesn’t. In any two instances, you can draw at least one similarity between event A and event B. In the case of Lincoln and Kennedy, the fact that most people will never be President of the United States, and that most US Presidents do not die in office, let alone by dint of assassination allows more similarities to be drawn. Yet, one can find many more dissimilarities between these two men that seem to escape mention in this presentation of fact. For example, Kennedy was a New Englander, Lincoln a Midwesterner. Kennedy had a rather pronounced libido, Lincoln did not. Kennedy believed in racial equality, whereas Lincoln (despite the Emancipation Proclamation) believed in white supremacy.* Lincoln lived and died in the Nineteenth Century, Kennedy the Twentieth Century. Lincoln was born in 1809, Kennedy in 1917. Lincoln died at age 56, Kennedy at age 46. Lincoln never traveled outside the US while in office, but Kennedy did. Lincoln faced danger from a divided country, where alien enemies actively sought to kill him. Kennedy faced danger from a united country wherein enemies of the state had seized some measure of control over the government and threatened him from within the system. President Kennedy had to contend with the CIA. Lincoln’s Intel concerns were not nearly so hairy or complex. The technology of the 1960s was vastly different than the cutting edge of the 1860s, thus Kennedy could more readily communicate and become a “personality” with the public than Lincoln.

I could go on and on (and sometimes I do), but you get the point, right? The selective culling of facts does not for good research make.

* The names Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy both contain five syllables.

On the one hand, you might say that the very existence of these noted connections, circulating as they did less than a year after the assassination, most likely reflected the actual feelings of the public at that time. As I researched the JFK assassination over the years, one thing that astonishes me is the degree to which many sectors of society doubted the single-shooter hypothesis from the outset. These sentiments grew more vocal after the Warren Commission published its findings. Yet, this rumor might have given voice to those dissenting from the information gleaned from contemporary television and news reports by linking Jack’s death to that of Lincoln, whose assassination was officially ruled a conspiracy.

Consequently, the connections became part of American lore, a tale spun in many different media. I first encountered them as a child in the 1970s as presented on a bubble gum wrapper (I kid you not). I’ve since seen them on TV, heard them on radio, and spotted an allusion to them in a comic book. I’ve even heard a musical rendition of this list.

Figure 1. Musical rendition of the Lincoln-JFK connections (Buddy Starcher).

At the same time, these connections do not support any finding of truth in the JFK assassination, and often undermine serious inquiry into a very serious and somber subject matter. For example, in 1992 the Skeptical Inquirer held a “Spooky Presidential Coincidences Contest.” Contestants were able to come up with similar lists when comparing most US Presidents. Not surprisingly, some have used such lists to “debunk” the notion of a conspiracy in Dallas on 22 November 1963, although that type of specious reasoning seems to exemplify the same type of logic that went into this original list.

Like the Paul-Is-Dead clues, people have since come up with more connections. For instance, in his 200 book UFOs, JFK and Elvis: Conspiracies You Don’t Have to Be Crazy to Believe, comedian Richard Belzer came up with yet another one:

* The year before his death, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland. The year before his death, Kennedy was in Marilyn Monroe.

_____________________
* While one can certainly argue that Lincoln advanced the cause of African American civil rights in the US, one has to also note that the Emancipation Proclamation had no legal bearing on slavery. When Lincoln issued it (1 January 1863), the directive only applied to states within the CSA, which at that time was a foreign, enemy nation. The President cannot really make an enforceable law for a foreign nation, especially an enemy one. Moreover, the Proclamation exempted slave states that were part of the Union (e.g., Tennessee, the counties of Virginia that were in the process of becoming the state of West Virginia).

Legal slavery in the US actually ended with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution on 18 December 1865.`

↧

A Chat with Gordon

November 21, 2013, 10:00 pm

≫ Next: Assailing the Tender Age: How to Beat It All the Way to Ohio

≪ Previous: Out of Order, Chaos

From a 2010 interview with Gordon Novel for NewRealities.

↧

Assailing the Tender Age: How to Beat It All the Way to Ohio

November 21, 2013, 10:30 pm

≫ Next: Out with the Old...

≪ Previous: A Chat with Gordon

Thursday, 20 November 2003. On this date, thousands of anti-war activists were preparing for a weekend of international demonstrations against the United States’ impending invasion of Iraq. But this event received little press.

Another story upstaged it.

Television stations went live around the US to report that a plane from Las Vegas would be landing sometime in Santa Barbara, CA.

Pop star Michael Jackson had taken the flight in order to turn himself in to local authorities following an arrest warrant for child sexual abuse. The subsequent news coverage of the arrest and ultimate adjudication of the case added mew meaning to the cliche “media circus.” Amid Jackson’s ultimate acquittal on all of the fourteen charges against him on 13 June 2005 were numerous doubts regarding his innocence in the matter. However, the Wilshire division of LAPD and the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services had concluded in a 26 November 2003 investigation that the charges were “unfounded.” Also other celebrities, most notably Tonight Show host Jay Leno, swore or testified that the family of the boy appeared to want to shake them down. And the family itself insisted on 19 February 2003, six days after the LAPD investigation began, to British documentary producer Martin Bashir, that no molestation took place.

Figure 1. Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services Report.

Of course, that leads to the question of why the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office would spend so much of its resources prosecuting a case that its own investigators characterized as “unfounded.” Between 2003 and 2005, I noted how the intense coverage of this case dominated the mediasphere to the distraction of more important stories, among them the prosecution of the war in Iraq, the sharp increase in wealth disparity that had occurred during the Bush administration, or the unsound trading practices that would shortly lead to an economic crisis in the US.

Sources conflict as to the origins of one hypothesis explaining the prosecutor’s office dogged pursuit of Jackson. What’s not in dispute is that a private investigator hired by Jackson, one Gordon Novel, disclosed the particulars of it to Vanity Fair reporter Maureen Orth in 2005. According to him, Michael’s brother, Jermaine, suspected that SONY records, it’s former head Tommy Mottola, and Deputy District Attorney Tom Sneddon had conspired against his brother. The point would be to bring criminal charges. A conviction would lay the foundation for a civil case that would bankrupt Michael and force him to sell off his assets, among them all of his intellectual property. This included Northern Songs, a gold-mine firm that among other things administers the rights to the Beatles catalogue.*

According to some sources, Novel left Jackson’s employ because he felt Mottola too dangerous a person to tangle with. But Novel said that he quit the case because Jackson stiffed him for five grand of his $25,000 retainer. Novel then approached news outlets in an attempt to sell his knowledge about the case. As Orth pointed out, however, Vanity Fair had a policy of not paying for information.

As you are probably aware, there have been a number of conspiracy hypotheses surrounding Jackson’s death in 2009--ranging from speculation that Sir J. Paul McCartney masterminded Michael's demise in order to finally gain control over his own music, to reports that Jackson faked his own passing. Obviously, there’s no reason to take such stories seriously. Yet, I’m intrigued by how much of the conjecture centers on the relationship between Jackson and Novel.

Novel had a, let’s just say “colorful,” past that entangled itself with ufology and other parapolitical tales. But it’s his involvement with one particular conspiracy story that compels our attention on 22 November 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of the JFK assassination.

Novel, a New Orleans native, had a fairly broad background, studying engineering at Northrup Aeronautical Institute of Technology, and continuing his education at Louisiana State University and the University of Southern California. Before working as a private investigator, Novel also tried his hand in showbiz, serving as a director for films shot in conjunction with the Pasadena Playhouse. According to one researcher, Alan J. Weberman, Novel also belonged to a neo-Nazi group, an involvement that led to his arrest for the bombing of a Metairie, LA movie theater that allowed integrated audiences.

As a private investigator, he worked on some fairly high-profile cases, among them the defense of automaker John DeLorean against drug charges. He also worked for Uncle Sam, investigating the deaths of seventy-six adults and children at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX.**

Most important,, he worked for Orleans Parish District Attorney Jim Garrison on the JFK assassination.

Garrison told Novel to beat it after a number of suspicious actions led him to believe that the latter was deliberately trying to thwart his investigation.*** Garrison subsequently learned of other things, which convinced him that Novel was a CIA contract agent, starting with his close association to David Ferrie and Guy Banister. As Garrison explained in an October 1967 Playboy magazine interview:

In 1961, he [Novel] raided a munitions bunker in Houma, Louisiana, with David Ferrie and a prominent anti–Castro exile leader, and the weapons seized were subsequently shipped by CIA agents to the counterrevolutionary underground in Cuba. He also worked for the Evergreen Advertising Agency in New Orleans, a CIA front that alerted anti–Castro agents to the date of the Bay of Pigs invasion by placing coded messages in radio commercials for Christmas trees. Novel himself was a paid employee of the CIA.

As I mentioned earlier, Novel’s own lawyer, Stephen Plotkin, has admitted that his client is a CIA agent. On May 23, 1967, Plotkin was quoted in the New Orleans States–Item as saying that his client ‘served as an intermediary between the CIA and anti–Castro Cubans in New Orleans and Miami prior to the April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion.’

Garrison subsequently sought his former investigator for questioning. But Novel wouldn’t wait around for the third degree. He fled New Orleans. Garrison cited a newspaper source reporting that days after he left the Big Easy Novel was present in McLean, VA, a town near the CIA’s headquarters in Langley. Yet, in his haste to avoid the District Attorney, Novel left behind yet one more piece of incriminating evidence:

After Novel fled the city in March, my investigators and the city police both scoured his apartment for evidence, but Novel appeared to have covered his trail pretty effectively. I’m afraid, in this case, we weren’t as efficient as two young girls who moved into Novel’s apartment a few weeks later and, during a thorough house cleaning, found a penciled rough draft of a letter under a strip of linoleum on the kitchen–sink drainboard. One of the girls gave it to her boyfriend, a student at Tulane University, and he in turn passed it on to one of his professors, who subsequently showed the letter to Hoke May, a reporter for the New Orleans States–Item. May had the letter examined by an independent handwriting analyst, Gilbert Fortier, who compared it with other samples of Novel’s writing and determined that the draft had been written by Novel — a fact that was confirmed by Novel’s attorney, who said that 'everything in the letter as far as Novel is concerned is actually the truth.'

This letter makes fascinating reading. It is addressed to a Mr. Weiss, Novel’s apparent superior in the CIA. Novel tells Weiss: ‘I took the liberty of writing you direct and apprising [sic] you of current situation expecting you to forward this through appropriate channels. Our connection and activity of that period involved individuals presently about to be indicted as conspirators in Mr. Garrison’s investigation.’ Novel goes on to warn that my probe was in danger of exposing his ties to the Double–Chek Corporation in Miami, which the book The Invisible Government exposes as a CIA front that recruited pilots and saboteurs for the Bay of Pigs and subsequent anti–Castro adventures.

Novel writes in the letter: 'Mr. Garrison … is unaware of Double–Chek’s involvement in this matter but has strong suspicions.' He also adds that he lied to the FBI: 'I have been questioned extensively by local FBI recently as to whether or not I was involved with Double–Chek’s parent -holding corporation … My reply on five queries was negative. Bureau unaware of Double–Chek association in this matter.' The letter indicates that Novel was growing edgy, because he complains: 'We have temporarily avoided one subpoena not to reveal Double–Chek activities … We want out of this thing before Thursday, 3/ — /67. Our attorneys have been told to expect another subpoena to appear and testify on this matter. The Fifth Amendment and/or immunity and legal tactics will not suffice.'****

After Virginia, Novel’s movements became more difficult to trace. But Garrison finally tracked him down to Ohio, where he sought Novel’s extradition to Louisiana for questioning. Curiously, Ohio Governor James Rhodes denied the request unless the Orleans Parish District Attorney specifically promised not to ask him questions about the JFK assassination.

Of course, that would kinda defeat the purpose of bringing him down to New Orleans.

Novel’s involvement in a lot of weird, high-profile and conspiracy cases is something worth noting. Not just because of Novel’s knack over the years for sticking his fingers in a lot of interesting pies, but because it exemplifies something that I and a number of other writers have observed.

On The X-Spot you will find the JFK assassination mentioned in seemingly unrelated stories. For example, former Harper’s editor Jim Hougan, CBS newsman Daniel Schorr and former Nixon-Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman all discovered a link between Kennedy’s assassination and the events of Watergate. Mae Brussell noted that Ed Butler Lawrence Schiller and Larry Ball, all of whom played critical roles in propagating the single shooter story, attempted to crystalize public opinion against black militancy and the youth counterculture in the wake of the Tate-LaBianca slayings.***** The role of Kerry Thornley, a reputed second-Oswald and a confirmed (yet spurious) witness for the Warren Commission, in forming Discordianism, the very existence of which confounds serious inquiry into sensitive political issues, came up in the story of Jeremy Blake and Theresa Duncan. The previously cited JFK researcher A.J. Weberman came up in The Grounded Walrus series, due to a declassified FBI item documenting his harassment of both John Lennon and Bob Dylan.

And we’re just getting started. There are a lot of other cases where you can find the footprints of JFK assassination issues crisscrossing the path of understanding. Over the years, I’ve occasionally seen self-described skeptics depict the overlapping of personnel between the JFK assassination and other conspiracy stories as "proof" of the latter’s implausibility: the gist of them is that shadowy people like Novel, the CIA, the military industrial complex serve the same function as other putative “villains” of spurious conspiracy lore, such as the Freemasons, the Illuminati, and certain ethnic groups.

To me, the appearance of the same characters in so many stories seems more indicative of well-trained and experienced professionals who, by now know what they are doing when it comes to shaping public opinion, especially with respect to politically sensitive topics.

Gordon Novel passed away in his sleep on 3 October 2012.

__________________
* Mottola stepped down from his stewardship of SONY in January 2003, a month before the investigation into the child sex abuse case against Jackson began.

**Specifically, he was tapped by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to investigate David Koresh et al.

***Novel is loosely fictionalized in Oliver Stone’s JFK as Bill Broussard, played by actor Michael Rooker.

****The Double-Chek Corporation was a CIA money-conduit front that maintained the cover of a private holding and investment firm. Headquartered in Miami Springs, FL, it secretly funneled money on behalf of the Agency. For example, when four CIA-backed pilots illegally participating in The Bay of Pigs Invasion–contrary to orders of President Kennedy–were shot down, their widows were paid a $450/month “insurance” benefit by the Double-Chek Corporation. In their aforementioned 1964 book The Invisible Government, David Wise and Thomas Ross felt that this money was used to silence the widows, or dissuade them from contesting the official story given them: namely, that their husbands died as test pilots for experimental aircrafts.

*****Ball consulted for the Warren Commission, and later with Susan Atkins. Schiller recorded Ruby’s fraudulent confession for Capitol Records shortly before the nightclub owner’s death, and co-wrote Atkins’ memoir, which honed the dubious Helter-Skelter motive. Butler hosted Oswald’s radio appearance with Carlos Bringuier, thus painting Lee as a Communist, and possibly a Soviet or Cuban fifth columnist, and wrote an op-ed piece titled “Did Hate Kill Tate?” in which he blamed the Tate-LaBianca killings on the Black Panthers.

↧

Out with the Old...

December 30, 2013, 4:07 pm

≫ Next: The Inner Darkness

≪ Previous: Assailing the Tender Age: How to Beat It All the Way to Ohio

Well, here we go with another year.

This year, and the one before it were two of the most stressful I’ve had in the blogosphere, and they came at the worst possible time: when my freelancing started picking up, and amidst the death throes of my beloved laptop due to a Kentucky Fried Motherboard.

I just got a new laptop a few days before Christmas, and it took about a day to download my backup files and software onto the new machine. To speak the plain truth, it’s kinda nice to have a new machine, free of freezes and blue screens. It’s got double the RAM of the old one, four times the cores, and one magnificent TB of hard-disk space.

On top of this, I’ve been in the process of moving for the past several weeks. So, for me, 2014 will look very different than 2013. Then again, nothing lasts forever.

I haven’t given up blogging, for I have tons more to write about. But, as you can see with me puttering around with a long–dead series, I’ve been more or less vamping until I can write what I really want here.

For those of you who’ve hung around, I thank you and wish you a fantastic new year. We’ll get back on track, eventually. And I look forward to getting back on track sometime around May or June. Until then, be sure that you all are in my thoughts and prayers.

↧

The Inner Darkness

January 31, 2014, 9:21 am

≫ Next: The X-Spot, Year Eight

≪ Previous: Out with the Old...

Without going out of your door,
You can know the ways of Earth.
Without looking out of your window,
You can know the ways of Heaven.

The farther one travels,
The less one knows.
The less one really knows.
---George Harrison, “The Inner Light” (1968)

3. As alluded to in an earlier post, the Paul-Is-Dead rumor has received more and deeper scrutiny in the last ten years than it did in 1969. To a large degree, this illustrates one of the most critical aspects of the Internet. It's a medium that allows for the instantaneous dissemination of information (and, for that matter, misinformation) without the restrictions of editors, publishers, movie studios, record labels or any other cultural gatekeepers.

Conversely, the 'Net offers these traditional gatekeepers new means and opportunities to increase the presence, and consequently the value, of their brands. In the previous series, I mentioned the utilization of Alternate Reality Gaming (ARGs) in publicizing Hollywood movies and other products. More important, the buzz created around a viral media sensation can likely crossover to exposure and success in such older electronic media as radio and television.

When looking at the Paul-Is-Dead hoax from that perspective, one immediately discovers the hubs that keep the story percolating. A couple of them, The King Is Naked and the Nothing Is Real

boards have been up for a long time. There are a number of other sites, including that of our friend Doc. T, that continue to examine the question.

Yet, there is one hub that everyone discusses at some length. On 10 November 2006, a mysterious netizen going by the handle Iamaphoney posted the first of what would be a series of seventy-eight YouTube videosdedicated solely to the rumor. The content of the videos began simply enough, with the same rehash of backwards messaging and “clues.” One could readily find such information in any other discussion of the topic. But what made this series more compelling, in the sense of being fun to watch, was the numerous photos, film footage, interviews and special effects interwoven with a Beatles soundtrack.

Over the course of the series, Iamaphoney introduced certain items that, at first, seemed out of context, but would later be revisited. This gave the video series something resembling a narrative, albeit not a very clear one. In these diversions one finds Aleister Crowley, Charles Manson and later a cavalcade of other characters (e.g., the guy I call suitcase man). The implication here is that sometime during his life, Sir J. Paul McCartney had become a posthumous acolyte of Thelema, and that he and John Lennon had some nebulous connection to the Tate-LaBianca murders.

Although Iamaphoney seemingly tried his deliberate best to be vague, he occasionally made short, unambiguous, sensational claims that aren't readily substantiated. In one video, for example, he declared that McCartney met Manson at Dennis Wilson's house on 28 July 1968.* In another he declared that he had solved the Paul-Is-Dead rumor and was now staking a claim for the prize that (rumor has it) accompanies the feat.

As for the latter declaration, who would know whether or not he she or they actually submitted anything to Apple Corps limited, and won the fabled prize of a hundred grand for their troubles? In other words, it's the statement of a fact that's highly dubious, and can't be readily verified. As for the former statement, one could see that it involves a fair degree of speculation.

Of course, many critics have taken Iamaphoney to task over the years. Sometimes they chided his, her or their deceitfulness. For the most part, they question the presumed authority and confidence he/she/they exude(s).

Most important, they question Iamaphoney's identity and purpose.

______________

*In case you're wondering, many sources place McCartney in the Los Angeles area on that date. He went to California to show the brass at Capitol Records a promotional video for Apple Records, hoping that the EMI subsidiary would distribute their line in the US, which they did for many years. While there it's possible that McCartney visited Wilson, and if so might have come across Charles Manson or Charles Watson. But I have yet to find corroboration of this.

To be continued.

↧

The X-Spot, Year Eight

February 11, 2014, 12:30 am

≫ Next: Elementary Penguins

≪ Previous: The Inner Darkness

Well, here I am, in the eighth year of my five-year blogging plan. Still haven't gotten everything out that I wanted. But we'll get there. So what if it takes another five years.

I don't know if this is noticeable or not, but there are certain conventions that I want to adhere to regarding this page. I want to put up at least one post every month. I also want to post on April 1 (April Fools Day), November 22 (anniversary of the coup in Dallas), and February 11, the date on which I accidentally started this blog.

So, I'm not getting into much depth here. After the brouhaha of the last series (which thankfully happened in my in-box, for the most part), it's been kinda quiet, with me vamping on an old familiar topic until I can get my second wind.

Meanwhile, I'm researching a couple of new series that I'll post once the half-year project starts winding down.

In other words, I haven't left this blogosphere quite yet. As CJ might put it, you can think of this page as the bad penny.

Or a boomerang. They're coming back, you know.

↧

Elementary Penguins

March 30, 2014, 4:05 pm

≫ Next: You're a Good Man, Akhenaten

≪ Previous: The X-Spot, Year Eight

As I was saying....

Expert, textpert choking smokers
Don't you think the Joker laughs at you?

--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “I Am the Walrus,” Magical Mystery Tour(1967)

The YouTuber going by the handle Iamaphoney has drawn considerable attention from those looking into the Paul-Is-Dead narrative, and not only because of his/her deceptive presentation in some of the videos, or because of the scatter-shot delivery of unverifiable information. Rather, many have fixated on Iamaphoney because of the mystery surrounding his/her identity. Obviously, someone like me can understand the need for a fellow netizen to maintain a modicum of privacy by using a carefully guarded nom de plume. Some, however, feel that the identity of the poster might possibly shed some light about his/her motivations, and consequently the purpose of the videos.

While some names (e.g., Heather Mills) have been playfully thrown into the list of usual suspects, it's curious to see that much of the speculation centers around people associated with the Beatles or Apple Corps Ltd.

There's good reason for the speculation. For the bulk of its history, Apple Corps has aggressively protected its trademark and copyrights. The company forced settlements with such corporate titans as EMI and Nike in 1979 and 1988, respectively. On 5 February 2007, the Beatles ended what had become an epic struggle between themselves and Apple Computers with a settlement that allowed the latter to purchase all rights to the corporate name 'Apple' in return for a nine-figure sum.* In return, Apple Computers granted the Fab Four an exclusive license to continue using the Apple Corps brand for all Beatle-related projects and business interests.

The lengths to which Apple Corps has gone to ensure its trademark and copyright seemed rather odd in light of the fact that Iamaphoney has made available voluminous amounts of Beatles music, film clips and photography that extend far beyond fair usage. One of the main tests of fair usage involves the issue of diminished monetary value. In practical terms, if someone wanted to be entertained by the Beatles, could they go to Iamaphoney's free YouTube channel instead of buying a CD or DVD licensed by Apple?

In this case, the answer is definitely yes. The Iamaphoney videos are extraordinarily entertaining precisely because of their Beatles content.

Earlier, in an update to the original PID series, I cited the declaration made by moderators of the Nothing-Is-Real board, a forum for the Paul-Is-Dead rumor, that one of their main posters, Apollo C. Vermouth, was in fact former Apple Corps CEO Neil Aspinall. Vermouth not only knew of Iamaphoney's videos but alluded to them. If Aspinall and Vermouth were one and the same, then it's clear that he did not wish to pursue litigation against Iamaphoney—or at least force YouTube to remove the offending material, something one often finds on the site when potential copyright violations have occurred. This would imply that at the very least Aspinall endorsed the Iamaphoney project.

Some contend that Aspinall did more than simply endorse Iamaphoney. If, for instance, you ask Wikianswers, “Who is Iamaphoney” you'll get the following response:

The iamaphoney org was formed by Neil Aspinall in 1990 to set the record straight about the death of Paul McCartney in 1966. Knowing it might scare most fans they decided to tell the truth (the revelation) over a decade.

Neil Aspinall died in 2008 and left the org without any directions and a true false flag operation was planned. Now in 2009 the rotten apple series are run by MPL, Paul McCartneys own firm. **

Yeah, I don't know who pens these replies for Wikianswers, either. But I do know the genesis of the supposition. As Aspinall told author Peter Dogget shortly before the former's death:

Paul called me...saying, 'You should collect as much of the [film] material that's out thee, get it together before it disappears.'***

This conversation between McCartney and Aspinall occurred in 1970, in the context of McCartney's absolute (and for excellent reason) distrust of Allen Klein, who only months before had taken the helm of Apple Corps. This collection effort ultimately culminated in the broadcast of Anthology, a 1995 documentary mini-series produced by Apple Corps.

The point of this conversation was to develop a hidden cache of material away from Klein's ability to horde and subsequently exploit it.**** And the Beatles had a mechanism with which to do this: namely a clustersmurf of subsidiary corporations that ex-Python Michael Palin gleefully called 'The Money-Go-Round;” myriad companies created, sometimes on an ad hocbasis, for cross-collateralization and tax-sheltering reasons.

Dogget mentioned one such company hidden within this web called Stand By Films, ostensibly formed in 1970. If you go to its website, you'll find a rather Spartan page, its sole (hidden) link connecting to an e-mail address (info@standbyfilms.com).

Odd. You'd think the Beatles could afford to hire a webslinger, someone who could really make a snazzy page.

Online PID researchers have speculated that Stand By Films produced the Iamaphoney videos. Blogger Redwell Trabant, posting at a site simply titled Beatles Conspiracygave a somewhat comprehensive run-down of links between Apple Corps and the Iamaphoney videos.***** First off, Trabant noted that one Billy Martin, a man claiming credit for the Iamaphoney videos on his LinkedIn page, listed his employer as Stand Up Films. When Trabant wrote Martin, asking about a possible connection between that company and Stand By Films, he/she got the following reply.

Figure 1. Screenshot of LinkedIn page.

Trabant then followed up with what purports to be a balance sheet of Stand By Films. Dated 31 March 2007, it lists an expected outlay of £213,362 to unnamed creditors for 2006-2007.

Figure 2. Alleged balance sheet.

Iamphoney posted the first video on 10 November 2006. Anonymous speculated that this balance sheet entry was in fact a payment for the first batch of Iamaphoney videos.

One feature of the videos noted by virtually everyone who has seen them is that their quality improves as the series progresses. But if you view them semi-carefully, you'll notice jumps in this improvement. One such jump can be seen between Episode 26 and Episode 27, which one can note literally within the first ten seconds. The intro features what sounds like a very familiar recording, namely “Let It Be.” But there's a difference. First off the voice does not sound like McCartney as he sounded on the original track, but rather how he sounded in his late-sixties, early-seventies; the voice here is deeper, heavier, with a bit of rasp, and limited vocal range. More important, there is a change in lyric that directly addresses the PID rumor, specifically the addition of the name 'Bill,' an obvious reference to Billy Sheppard/Campbell/Pepper/Shears who supposedly replaced McCartney in 1966.

The reason this strikes me as interesting is two-fold. One, Iamaphoney posted this on 7 February 2007. In other words, this was the first video posted after the settlement with Apple Computers. Two, Episode20, posted on or around 24 December 2007, was pulled. According to a statement on the player, YouTube pulled the video because it violated the copyright of Apple Corps Ltd.

You read that right.

That's a real screamer of a reason, since the entire series features substantial Beatles material. If someone at Apple objected to the release because it contained Beatle material, you'd think they'd pull the plug on the others as well. Seeing that it's clearly listed with the episode number of, um, 20, they'd have realized that there were nineteen other episodes. Yet they zeroed in on that one.

Speculating just a bit, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Iamaphoney is either endorsed by, connected to (via joint venture) or a part of Apple Corps Limited. Note the date of Episode 20 and the context. Apple Corps is in the fight of its life trying to establish control of the Apple brand. It's facing an uphill struggle, one which will require it to make a severe compromise six weeks later. I've never seen the video, nor a description of it. But if we suppose that the subject of the video might have been Apple Computers, or in some way touched upon the ongoing dispute with the company formed by Steves Jobs and Wozniak, then we would have one explanation for why the record-label pulled the video. It could have possibly violated Apple Computer's licensing, or have fallen into a real legal gray area. For all we know, it could have been vetted by Apple's attorneys, and given the thumbs down. If that were the case we might even consider the possibility that in a fit of cheekiness Apple Corps released—or allowed and/or encouraged the release—a pre-censored video, or a video that very few would see before its swift and complete redaction from YouTube.

One could further conjecture that any backing the Beatles might have given to the Iamaphoney project had been kept hush-hush while the lawsuit pended, not only because viewers could then easily discern the purpose of the videos, but because, by calling it “The Rotten Apple” series, they might have fanned the legal flames that characterized The War of the Apples. If McCartney indeed contributed the opening to Episode 27, it could have represented a celebration, of sorts. Perhaps with the weight of litigation off its back, Apple could kick up its heels a little and participate more directly in this series' production.

Okay. That's not a bit of speculation. That's a whole lot of speculation. The reason I offer it here is that it is so very consistent with other observations that require no speculation at all.

________________

*You'll have to forgive me, but the computer that I started this series on has bit the dust, and have since had to replace it with a new one. In the process, I lost some of the notes I had not yet backed up, including the exact price involved. If memory serves, it was somewhere in the $360 million range.

**More accurately, MPL is the parent company of McCartney's other businesses.

***Dogget, Peter. 2009. You Never Give Me Your Money. New York: HarperCollins.

This book features a pretty interesting business history of the Beatles and their unbelievably complex corporate structure.

****This is precisely what Klein did with the Sam Cooke catalog. He kept tight controls with respect to licensing Sam's music.

*****Note the URL. There's an American film company called Beacon Films , but I was unsuccessful in locating a British company with that name. But you can see that this Beatles Conspiracy page has a UK web-address. Were some of our old friends from the previous series around, they could, with good reason, suspect an ARG of some sort.

↧

You're a Good Man, Akhenaten

April 1, 2014, 4:00 am

≫ Next: I Imagine You Don't Sleep too Well—Just a Feeling

≪ Previous: Elementary Penguins

You're a good man, Akhenaten.
You're the kind of reminder we need.
You have humility, nobility and a sense of honor
That is very rare indeed.

You're a good man, Akhenaten,
And we know you will go very far.
Yes it's hard to believe. Almost striking to conceive
What a good man, you are!

--Anonymous ancient hieroglyphics from Memphis men's room (1353 B.C.)

Wouldn't you know, historical revisionists have pounded my inbox these past two weeks to disagree with a previous post. I have clarified this issue I don't know how many times.

Okay, so I only clarified the issue once. You'd think that would be enough. I nevertheless have to do it again. So, for those who couldn't see the truth if it slapped them repeatedly in the face whilst singing “Yankee Doodle,” we'll go over this one more time.

Here's a sample of what I'm talking about:

X,

Your statement about Robert Palmer being Linus van Pelt is incorrect. I have proof positive that Linus was none other than the current usurper of the Oval Office, Barack Hussein Obama. Everyone over at Prism Planet knows this. Why can't you wake up and smell the bacon?

You're just assuming that because Linus and Robert Oalmer [sic] look exactly alike they must be the same person. But what you fail to understand is that Soviet plastic surgery methods perfected the art of making anyone look like anyone else. Robert Palmor [sic] was in fact a KGB agent named Stanislav Richterkov. He was part of a Rusky plot to unload a secret shipment of tainted soft drinks in order to impurify, infiltrate, corrupt and sap our precious bodily fluids. Click here for proof positive.

Have you seen the video? [The correspondent doesn't specify, but I'm assuming he's referring to 'Simply Irresistible']. The women in it look nothing like Linus' sister, Lucy. They're actually clones of Pottsylvanian superspy Natasha Fetale [recte:Fatale]. Now Natasha was a cartoon who had the steroid 3-D treatment. And this is where you made your mistake. You mixed her up with Palmerr [sic], and Palner [sic] with Linus.

Now, if you know anything about the Peanuts comic strip, you'd realize that Lucy isn't Linus' sister. She's his mother. She's always bossing him around and putting him in his place when he gets going with all that uppity talk, or when he can't let go of that pinko blanket. And she didn't stay a cartoon, no way Jose. She went 3-D too. And if you look very closely, you'll see that they are a dead ringer. I'm attaching an instagram of both of them at the end of this e-mail so that even you can make the connection.

In case you're even stupider than I thought, let me repeat this shortly and sweetly: Linus van Pelt is Barack Obamination. He is not Robert Oalnorr [sic].

Tired of this bullshit,
Jack D. Tripper
2012 Presidential nominee, Tea Smoking Party

Figure 1. Attached Instagrams of Dr. S. Ann Dunham and Lucy van Pelt Schroeder.

I don't really know where to begin with something like this. It's clear these people have no serious evidence. And you'll note there's a bit of inconsistency here. He's making the connection between van Pelt Schroeder and Dr. Dunham based on similarities in physical appearance. However, he dismisses the connection between Palmer and Linus for the same reason. And frankly, these two women don't look much alike, other than their hair color.

I also find that e-mails such as these insult the intelligence of the average person. Then again, I guess we've gotten used to it, what with the President accused of (1) being born in Kenya, (2) being a mind-controlled robot of communist 1960s terrorists—the worst kind, (3) being a terrorist, (4) being a Muslim, (5) being a Muslim terrorist, (6) participating in cocaine-fueled gangbangs with gay midgets in the back of a Kia Sephia, (7) causing earthquakes in California, (8) creating the common cold in a laboratory, (9) selling the nation into slavery to pay off the mortgage on his house, (10) forcing Catholics to wear condoms and have sex at atheistic state hospitals where only Obamacare is allowed and abortions are strictly enforced, (11) being the anti-Christ, (12) being a 1960s communist terrorist Muslim anti-Christ, and so on.

To date, mainstream pundits have leveled, encouraged, or supported forty-five unfounded conspiracy hypotheses against the President, the latest, of course, his allegedly secret past as Linus van Pelt.

I realize that you're all too smart to believe that.

Besides, everyone knows that President Obama is actually the clone of the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten.

Seriously.

You don't believe me? Watch this.

Figure 2. Important, rational political-historical analysis done by a keen expert mind.

So, there you have it. There's your proof positive.

Obviously, going from Pharaoh to President constitutes a severe demotion for Mr. Obama. But he seems to be tolerating the situation quite well. And I kinda like the fact that we have a chief executive with some experience in the role, for a change.

Regarding the Linus van Pelt issue, I'm hoping that I've finally made this clear: van Pelt and Robert Palmer are one and the same. Case closed..

↧

I Imagine You Don't Sleep too Well—Just a Feeling

April 29, 2014, 10:32 pm

≫ Next: A Secret (?) Spot of Fun

≪ Previous: You're a Good Man, Akhenaten

Everybody had a hard year.
Everybody had a good time.
Everybody got a wet dream.
Everybody saw the sunshine.
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “I've Got a Feeling,” Let It Be (1970)

Those freaks was right when they said
You was dead.
The one mistake you made was
In your head.
--John Lennon, “How Do You Sleep?” Imagine (1971)

While one might speculate about whether or not the mysterious YouTuber going by the handle Iamaphoney has some sort of connection to Apple Corps Ltd., there's one thing that's beyond speculation. Although he/she and others have generated a lot of Internet buzz about the Paul-Is-Dead rumor over the past five years, the most visible, long-term and mainstream propagators of the legend have always been the Beatles themselves.*

Let's face it, there have been celebrity death rumors for centuries, as Britney Spears and Bob Dylan can tell you. So could Daniel Boone, Mark Twain and Vince Lombardi, were they still alive. But in all of the above cases, the celebrity in question stopped the rumor simply by appearing.

And initially, the PID rumor ended when the 1 February 1967 edition of the Beatles' official fan newsletter announced that Sir J. Paul McCartney had not died. In the fall of 1969, the rumor ended again when McCartney gave an interview to Life magazine. The numerous and indignant denials from the likes of John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Derek Taylor Rick Sklar and others in the weeks immediately following the Russ Gibb WKNR broadcast gave the impression that the Beatles, their company and their loyal fans wanted the morbid fascination to end once and for all. Yet, in reality, the rumor would have probably died years ago were it not for the fact that the Beatles, most consistently McCartney himself, kept reminding everyone about it.

For the moment, I'd prefer not to offer any conjecture as to why they did this, but instead offer a few select examples showing in no uncertain terms that they did. Starting with this one:

Figure 1. Clip from Imagine**

Imagine, a 1972 film depicting a day in the life of Ono and Lennon, is in large part documentary. So, when Lennon and colleague George Harrison have what appears to be a private conversation about Beatle Bill and Beatle Ed, it would appear that this was a serious, sober and rational matter for them to discuss in the course of their normal business together. The same goes for Harrison's reference to the Beatles as the Fab Three, instead of the Fab Four. The two seem to come to the awkward realization that cameras have just captured these intimate ramblings for all posterity, embarrassing Lennon into give the viewer an exaggerated wink. It's as if he's just gotten caught with his britches down and is trying to laugh it off saying, “I meant to do that.”

The irony here is that Lennon and Harrison might have really meant to do that. Imagine was only partly a documentary. To a substantial degree, it was also a mockumentary that included various gags scripted by Ono and Lennon. In one sequence, for example, the couple get lost and separated on the expansive grounds of their estate, Titenhurst Manor. One of the running jokes featured a number of their celebrity friends, among them dancer Fred Astaire, acting as their personal servants. In this vein, one could easily see the above scene as a very subtle and sly reference to the PID rumor by invoking the name of the alleged Faul.

The reference to the Fab Three likewise calls to mind one of the more legendary clues featured in the TV movie Magical Mystery Tour. In the video for the song “I Am the Walrus,” writing on the drum kit appears to say, “[Heart] 3 Beatles.” (left).

While these references are quite subtle, tempting one to dismiss their implications in the rumor as coincidence, what follows isn't subtle at all, namely the recording session for the aforementioned “How Do You Sleep.” Lennon which makes an unambiguous allusion to the rumor, addressing McCartney directly in response to what he interpreted as slights against him on the latter's Ram album. This lets us know concretely that both Harrison and Lennon had a familiarity with the rumor, and strongly implies that they had some idea about its nature and content.

In the video for his 1987 single “When We Was Fab ,” Harrison made another subtle allusion to the rumor when at exactly the two-minute mark we see a left-handed bass player dressed in the very walrus costume that McCartney, another left-handed bassist, donned during the “I Am the Walrus” sequence in Magical Mystery Tour.

This and many other post-Beatles PID “clues” have become a subject of interest for those advancing the notion that McCartney died in 1966. While one can easily see the connections as meaningless, a case of reading way too much in a given text, one has to realize the craftsmanship and deliberation that goes into making both a song and video. One would also have to realize that after living with the rumor for what would turn out to be decades, the folks at Apple would have to be keenly aware of the semiotics involved with it. It's therefore unlikely that any connection between the Walrus sequence of “Fab” and the rumor were unintentional.

Over the years, gossip depicts McCartney as highly aggravated by the rumor, which has unfairly dogged him since 1969. Yet, he, above all others has stoked interest in it. As an actor, Paul made numerous allusions to it, from his guest appearances on The Simpsons and Saturday Night Live. In a 1987 black comedy titled Eat the Rich, McCartney and wife Linda Eastman, playing themselves, are herded, killed and eaten by cannibals, despite McCartney's feeble protestation, “I'm with the group.” Again, McCartney's poking fun at his own putative demise. In a flippant way he's offering, or participating in, an alternate version of PID.

In numerous interviews he's willing to discuss the topic.

Figure 2. 15 July 2009 McCartney Appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman***

Looking at the above interview, one might suspect that Letterman ambushed McCartney with questions directly involved with the Paul-Is-Dead rumor. I can assure you that was never the case. If you've ever had the (ahem!) pleasure of interviewing a celebrity, even if only for academic reasons, you'll know that a day or two before your conference you'll get these papers from their publicist. The papers outline what the celebrity wants to talk about and what he or she is willing to talk about. The papers also express up front, and in unequivocal terms. what you are forbidden to discuss. Moreover, by signing the paper you allow the celebrity to not only terminate the interview at that point, but to prevent you from publishing anything said previously in the interview. Shows like Letterman are prerecorded, so the host were to ask a question that McCartney feels uncomfortable with, he would certainly have to edit that out. Of course, Letterman is an important figure for entertainers, who rely on him to promote their work. So Dave might get away with a mere redaction. Then again, he might not and the celebrity in question might force him to scrap the interview. Either way, any awkward material would not air.

And McCartney definitely has things he doesn't want to talk about. For instance, you won't hear him saying much about ex-wife Heather Mills. Furthermore, he's not shy about terminating an interview. The 2008 documentary Heather Mills What Really Happenedshows a clip of McCartney abruptly leaving (presumably because of a question about Mills) at the 9:11 mark, with McCartney telling the interviewer, “Are we somewhat breaking away from the script? [Without waiting for reply] Yes we have.” and then rising.

McCartney clearly does not have the PID rumor on his list of forbidden subjects. In fact, there were times when other interviewers didn't bring it up, so he did. In a 2001 interview for NPR's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross, who had yet to mention the rumor, asked him about the nature of his collaboration with Lennon. McCartney explained that in the later years the collaboration took more of the form of a vetting process. Using the song “Glass Onion” as an example, he said:

There was a song of his called 'Glass Onion,' where he had a line about the walrus, here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul. And he wanted to keep it but he needed to check it with me. He said, 'What do you think about that line?'

I said, 'It's a great line. You know, it's a spoof on the way everyone was always reading into our songs.

So here, McCartney not only alludes to the rumor independently of the interviewer, but gives some commentary about one of its key issues, namely the misinterpretation of popular song lyrics, especially his and Lennon's.

Back in the 1970s, McCartney took a deliberate stab at propagating the rumor when commissioning famed writer Isaac Asimov to write a screenplay for him, according to Beatle biographer Peter Doggett. The story was about two bands; an original, and their extraterrestrial imposters. As McCartney explained, "The real one would be in pursuit of the imposters and would eventually defeat them, despite the fact that the latter had supernormal powers."

The project never got past Asimov's final draft, McCartney opting instead to do something else. Looking back on the incident, Asimov mused, “It's tempting to imagine that the project collapsed because McCartney knew subconsciously that he was aligned with the losing side.”****

Others connected to McCartney have issued statements that fueled the PID hypothesis. Of course, the Beatles most likely did not generate these themselves, but either declined to challenge them or played a passive role in their dissemination. An example of the latter would be Terry Knight's 1969 song “Saint Paul,” licensed by Maclen Publishing, Paul and John's personal firm. An example of the former occurred in October 2007 when Mills, responding to the negative publicity received in the wake of her divorce to McCartney, made a slew of cryptic comments. The pro-PID camp came to regard such statements as evidence that she came to a specific (not to mention dramatic) realization: the man she married wasn't the man she thought she married:

I've protected Paul for this long. And I am trying to protect him now. I am trying. And I'm being pushed to the edge. And that's as much as I can say or I go to jail for telling the truth...I know everything. I know the truth...I have a box of evidence that's going to certain persons should anything happen to me. [Looks directly at camera.] So if you top me off, It's still going to go that certain person, and the truth will come out. There's such a fear from a certain party of the truth coming out.... I'm not allowed to talk about it because it's a criminal act. You have no idea what's going on.

Granted, Mills has a reputation, deserved or not, for (how can I say this?) playing fast and loose with the truth. Heather Mills: What Really Happened unabashedly depicts her as a second-generation grifter who, unlike her dad, pulled off the greatest swindle in the history of crime and never spent a day in jail. But with respect to this particular rumor, that doesn't matter. The inference still remains that McCartney has kept some gawd-awful secret from the public. Also, there's the lure of concrete proof in the form of a “box of evidence” to find. What's more, Mills allegations found incorporation into the 2010 PID rumor, in which she plays a rather significant role.*****

We have also witnessed a number of other parties aggressively generating interest for the rumor, whose connections to the Beatles are quite possible, but unconfirmed. If, as the Nothing Is Real board insists, poster Apollo C. Vermouth was really former Apple Corp CEO Neil Aspinall (at one time a prime candidate for Fauldom), then we could see a very direct link to Apple. As our friend Redwell Trabant noted on his blog, there might even be a paper trail that connects Aspinall to Iamaphoney, who's stock and trade has been promoting the Paul-Is-Dead rumor on YouTube (see previous post). At the very least, we have good reason to consider some kind of connection between Iamaphoney and Apple due to the former's extensive and unchallenged use of the latter's licensed material without apparent compensation. This is quite important to note because Apple is a company well known for rigorously defending its copyrights. If nothing else, Apple has certainly tolerated Iamaphoney's copyright violations, and from this we can only surmise that Iamaphoney is not working counter to the corporation's interest.

In summary, we can say with some confidence that the Beatles not only knew about the rumor, but also knew some of the details involved with it. After all, they've lived with it for almost forty-five years and counting. They would not have needed an in-depth knowledge to poke fun at it, or to bring it to public attention. Rather, they would only have to invoke a few loaded terms (e.g., “clue,” double,” “Bill,” “Billy,” “William”) or symbols (e.g., walrus, an automobile, etc.). And if need be they can (and did) directly bring up the subject in a tongue-in-cheek way.

Let's face it. Celebrity death rumors are as old as the concept of modern celebrity. They're a penny a dozen. They come and go. They're not stories that the public holds onto for any length of time, usually. Conversely, celebrity life rumors have, in showbiz parlance, shown more legs, and for reasons not difficult to understand. It's kinda cool to think that such favorites as Elvis Presley, Tupac Shakur, Jim Morrison, Marilyn Monroe and Michael Jackson might still walk this planet, giving us (i.e., their fans) a chance to meet them sill.

And, as mentioned before, the PID also died out initially. And most likely it would have died permanently except for the fact that those closest to the story continued to perpetuate it for decades.

So that prompts a rather obvious question: why would they do that?

_____________

*By Beatles, I'm not only referring to Harrison, Lennon, McCartney and Richard Starkey, but to their friends, family, and associates at Apple Corps.

**Iamaphoney's edit of this scene (appearing forty-four seconds into the video) omits any reference to Beatle Ed, who is the true antecedent of the “number five in Sweden” comment. Since legend has it that Faul's name was Billy Shepherd, one could only guess, from this abridged version, that they can be talking about no one else but the phoney McCartney. Yet, the original cut, as aired, puts the conversation in a very different context.

***One can see another sly allusion to the rumor when McCartney mentions the first name of someone in Michael Jackson's entourage: Billy—the same name of the fictional double.

****I'll defer commentary on Asimov's remarks for the time being, but keep them in mind. Cryptic as they are, we're left with the question of what they mean.

*****I obviously didn't talk about the 2010 rumor during the original series because I posted that in 2007. In brief summary, the events are pretty much the same as in the 1969 rumor, but with a few twists. In this one, traffic cop Rita was not on duty when the accident occurred, but rather a passenger in McCartney's car. (And no, Doc T., I haven't forgotten about Tara Browne. Later.) Although quite shaken by the crash, she nevertheless survived with only minor injuries. Instead of being asked to go along with a charade involving the Canadian Provost Corp (C Pro C), as the 1969 rumor would have it, MI6 gave the group and Epstein no choice in the matter. The spymaster heading the op was known to them all only as Maxwell, and he threatened to kill any one of them should they ever divulge the secret. As with the 1969 rumor, Lennon did his best to undermine the plan by including clues in the lyrics, music and artwork.

Maxwell eventually had to kill a number of people who threatened to blow the lid, starting with Epstein, and eventually including road manager Mal Evans, Knight, and even Lennon. Lovely Rita was also targeted for a hit, the assassin's weapon of choice being an automobile. But the assassin didn't finish the job. Rita survived, but she lost a leg. This left her hopping mad, so she decided to get even by undergoing this amazing cosmetic surgery and assuming the identity of Heather Mills. (Note, Mills was born in 1968, two years after McCartney's putative death.) Mills then blackmailed the phoney McCartney (or Faul) into marrying her, so that she could get a share of the hush money when she divorced him two weeks before his sixty-fourth birthday (so I guess the answer to that musical question would be 'No!').

Like the 1994 rumor, someone credited George Harrison as the source. But unlike the 1994 tale, which simply featured an Internet statement that anyone could have written, Harrison supposedly divulged this information in five audiocassete tapes mailed to California filmmaker Joel Gilbert, who used them as narration for the 2010 film Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison. The premise here is that Harrison began this series of recordings less than forty-eight hours after Michael Abram tried to murder him. The narrator (presumably George) felt strongly that Maxwell attempted to silence him because of his own decision to expose the plot. The tapes subsequently served as an insurance policy, of sorts.

↧

A Secret (?) Spot of Fun

May 29, 2014, 2:59 pm

≫ Next: All You Need

≪ Previous: I Imagine You Don't Sleep too Well—Just a Feeling

The theories of CIA, KKK, UFO's, Paul in space, Don Knotts....fucking hell!!! I'M JERKING YOU OFF????? Keep it simple, follow the clues, have a spot of fun, That is the "story line" NOW. There is a method to my madness.
--Apollo C. Vermouth (possibly former Apple Corps Ltd. CEO Neil Aspinall), Nothing Is Real online forum (January 2008)

Listen.
Do you want to know a secret?
Do you promise not to tell?

Whoa, whoa,

Closer,
Let me whisper in your ear.
Say the words you long to hear...
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “Do You Want to Know a Secret?” Please Please Me (1963)

Whoever, or whatever the poster going the handle Apollo C. Vermouth was, I find a certain wisdom in his thoughts, or as he said a method to his madness. And for a few posts, I'll be taking his advice and having a spot of fun with the topic.

Of course, one person's fun can be another's drudgery. In many of these posts I have to rely on the expertise of others—court officers, investigators, pathologists, engineers (e.g., our friend John B), pilots (again, our friend (John B.), psychologists (you know who you are), artists (ditto, Russell, Foam, K9), those who witnessed or participated in the stories that I've recounted (e.g., Jackie, Judy, Stephanie, Keith, Erik, etc.), and so on. So it's kinda fun for me when I have an opportunity to use some of my own expertise for a change.

And what is that, exactly?

Good question. Let's just say my day gig involves analyzing texts. Textual analysis cannot prove intent, but can shed light on it. The real purpose isn't to put thoughts or motivations into the author's head—especially if these are contrary to what she truly thinks or feels. Rather, what people like me attempt to do is demonstrate a consistency of expression, if necessary assess the amount of conscious or unconscious deliberation that went on in the making of said expression, and correlate the intended meaning to the perceived, or some cases perceivable, meaning(s).

People in my field have long understood that when an artist creates a piece of work, that work no longer belongs to them. That might seem contrary to commonsense (not to mention intellectual property rights). But in reality, art is communication. It takes two to tango, as the old saw goes. For true communication to exist, there must be both a sender and receiver.

Most texts contain a combination of conscious and unconscious intent. The receivers of these messages (for our purposes here, let's just refer to them as 'audiences') will usually pick up on most of the conscious meaning, and to varying degrees some of the unconscious meaning that the sender didn't intended to convey, but nevertheless did. We often describe this as the blindness or self-delusion of speakers, especially those we see as pompous, cocksure, egotistical, ignorant, and so forth. As illustrated in Johari Window diagrams, we have sides to ourselves that we never see, but others do. So, when we express, what lies hidden to us becomes visible to everyone else.*

Figure 1. Johari Window

Consequently, when an artist produces a text, he or she can still deny that it has an unintentional meaning specified by others, and be quite sincere about that belief. Moreover, the artist might attempt to control perception of the unintended meaning either by vehement denials or ridicule, public relations, or in rare cases finding some way to silence the observation. But, as stated earlier, the artist no longer has total control of the message once its disseminated.

While audiences tend to make earnest attempts to receive the artist's message faithfully, their perception would also filter through biases or motivations that they are unaware of in themselves. Thus, in that box labeled 'Hidden' lies all of the meaning that the audience adds to the text, that the artist knows isn't there. It's here where the artist might observe that interpretation says more about the receiver than it does the message itself. Moreover, the artist can become keenly aware that the audience has or has not understood the intended expression.

And then, there's that fourth box labeled 'Unknown.' With respect to the Paul-Is-Dead mythology, it's where much of the speculation, discovery, hypothesizing and so on occurs. Consequently, it's a gray area where poking around is a lot of fun.

My point is that the Paul-Is-Dead hoax contains a storyline that audiences have largely generated themselves. Yet, there remain a small number of items, “clues” if you will, that the Beatles, individually and collectively, deliberately and unconsciously interjected. And these point to a specific narrative that centers on McCartney. Apollo likened this to a novel in everyone has read the entire book except for the last chapter.

I have no clue what that final chapter consists of. Nor do I care to discover it, despite the rumored money prize to the person who “solves” the mystery.**

What I'd prefer to do is write my own final chapter to this story. One can take that for what it's worth. But at least I'd consider that fun.

_____________

*The old story of the “Emperor's New Clothes” is a perfect example of the concept. The king intends to demonstrate his superior understanding, sophistication and power. Of course, he is unwittingly telling his subjects that he is a vain and foolish man. What's worse, his subjects see that (and presumably much more), yet say nothing. They work harder at maintaining the illusion than the king himself.

**According to some, that's a $100,000 prize.

↧

All You Need

June 25, 2014, 11:17 am

≫ Next: Losses

≪ Previous: A Secret (?) Spot of Fun

There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say, but you can learn how to play the game.

It's easy.

Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do, but you can learn how to be you in time.

It's easy.

All you need is love.
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “All You Need Is Love” (1967)

Bang, bang! Maxwell's silver hammer came
Down upon her head.
Clang, clang! Maxwell's silver hammer made
Sure that she was dead.
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “Maxwell's Silver Hammer,” Abbey Road(1969)

Love is all and love is everyone.
It is knowing. It is knowing.

And ignorance and hate may mourn the dead
It is believing. It is believing.
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “Tomorrow Never Knows,” Revolver(1966)

Whatever happened to
The life that we once knew?
Can we really live without each other?
Where did we lose the touch
That seemed to mean so much?
It always made me feel so...
--John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Richard Starkey, “Free as a Bird,” Anthology (1995)

“Now my advice for those who die:
Declare the pennies on your eyes.”
--George Harrison, “Taxman,” Revolver(1966)

Just like little girls and boys
Playing with their little toys,
Seems like all they really were doing
Was waiting for love.

Don't need to be alone.
No need to be alone.
It's real love, it's real.
Yes it's real love, it's real.
--John Lennon, “Real Love,” Anthology2 (1996)

I'd like to be
Under the sea
In an octopus's garden
In the shade
--Richard Starkey, “Octopus's Garden,” Abbey Road (1969)

Spread the word, and you'll be free.
Spread the word, and be like me.
Spread the word I'm thinking of.
Have you heard? The word is 'love.'
---John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “The Word,” Revolver(1965)

Eleanor Rigby
Died in the church and was
Buried along with her name.

Nobody came.
--John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Mal Evans, “Eleanor Rigby,” Revolver(1966)

Everywhere,
People stare,
Each and every day.

I can see them
Laugh at me,
And I hear them say,

'Hey! You've got to hide your love away.'
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “You've Got to Hide Your Love Away,” Help! (1965)

Hey Bungalow Bill!
What did you kill,
Bungalow Bill?
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill,” The Beatles (1968)

All these places have their moments,
With lovers and friends I still can recall.
Some are dead and some are living.
In my life, I loved them all.
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “In My Life,” Rubber Soul(1965)

Black, White, Green, Red,
Can't I take my friend to bed?
Pink, brown, yellow, orange,
Blue, I love you.
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “All Together Now,” Yellow Submarine (1969)

The traffic light changed from green to red.
They tried to stop but they both wound up dead
--Vivian Stanshall and Neil Innes, “Death Cab for Cutie,” (movie) Magical Mystery Tour (1967)*

I look
At you all,
See the love
There that's sleeping,

While my guitar gently weeps.
--George Harrison, “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” The Beatles (1968)

I'm sorry that I doubted you.
I was so unfair.
You were in a car crash,
And you lost your hair.
--Richard Starkey, “Don't Pass Me By,” The Beatles(1968)

Love is old. Love is new.
Love is all. Love is you.
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “Because,” Abbey Road(1969)

I read the news today, oh boy,
About a lucky man who made the grade.
And though the news was rather sad,
Well, I just had to laugh.

I saw the photograph.

He blew his mind out in a car.
He didn't notice that the lights had changed.
A crowd of people stood and stared.
They'd seen his face before. But nobody was really sure if he was from the house of Lords.
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “A Day in the Life,” Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band(1967)

If you want to know what's up with these song lyrics, then watch this space.

______________

*Performed in the film by Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band, and featured on their 1967 album Gorilla.

↧

Losses

July 31, 2014, 2:25 pm

≫ Next: The Word

≪ Previous: All You Need

I'm a loser,
And I've lost someone who's near to me.
I'm a loser,
And I'm not what I appear to be.”
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, “I'm a Loser,” Beatles for Sale (1964)

We can examine many different aspects of the various texts released under the Beatles' name. For starters, their physical appearance became a method for both identifying them, and identifying with them, We can add to this their speech, mannerisms (on stage and off), their movies, their individual and collective biographies, their television appearances, the artwork on their album, and so forth.

The sonic text of their music offers much to the musician/musicologist. And we can see these in context of various influences, chief among them rhythm & blues, British Music Hall, raga, British and American folksong, and music of the Common Practice.

Only recently have musicologists begun to look at song lyrics as part of the sonic text. In more general terms, scholars have felt more comfortable in examining lyrics as literary artifacts. Looking at the literary component of Beatles' songs one can see two very dominant themes, usually expressed separately in individual tunes, but sometimes combined in the same work.

The subordinate theme is death. For a band depicted by detractors as being little more than bubblegum, Beatles lyrics contain numerous allusions to sudden and/or violent demise and other morbid imagery.

If you're thinking that songwriters make deliberate, conscious attempts to include certain themes and, for a lack of a better term, embed clues into their lyrics, then I can tell you haven't written many songs. There's little to indicate that any of the four engaged in the type of conscious textual layering that comprise a bulk of the clues.

Songwriters, for the most part, have conscious inspirations, and things they intentionally mean to get across. But in addition, the songwriter brings her or his own history, feelings, emotions, private thoughts and unconscious machinations to the process. What lies below the threshold of consciousness might very well come out in verse. When the songwriter, or fan, looks back at the song from any appreciable distance, they can perhaps see that the songwriter, in today's parlance, might have divulged TMI.

Simply put, any songwriter—perhaps any writer period—is apt to divulge something that they did not intend to, but is nevertheless weighing heavily on her mind: something that is either on the back burner of their thoughts, something that they're in denial about, or something they can't really articulate.

It's in this context where we can discern the first authentic Paul-Is-Dead clue—i.e., an item that points towards an unambiguous narrative concerning McCartney's demise in a 1966 automobile accident. If I were forced at gunpoint to bet on it, I'd wage a dollar that the group didn't initially plan on taking up this narrative. Yet, it could very well have accurately reflected something on the band's mind.

Figure 1. Sgt. Pepper cover

Peter Blake, one of the artists who designed the now-iconic photo, maintained as late as last Marchthat the event depicted is an old fashioned band concert in the park.* Okay. Maybe everyone involved with the project had a band concert consciously in mind. However, it's not all that farfetched to view the Sgt. Pepper cover as a funeral scene. We have a daytime outdoor setting. (Have you ever been to a nighttime funeral?) We have flowers, a headstone (in the shape of a drum), and a host of celebrity mourners.**

By the summer of 1967, the time of Sgt. Pepper's release, the Beatles individually and collectively had seen death strike close to home. John Lennon was severely traumatized by the death of his mother, Julia Stanley, and shaken by the death of his uncle George Smith, the only father-figure he really knew. Together, the band dealt with the passing of former-member Stuart Sutcliffe (who appears on the Sgt. Pepper album cover, left edge, midway back). And during the recording session itself, the Beatles had fresh reason to mourn.

During the fall of 1966, two friends of the band died suddenly, violently. The first, Kevin MacDonald [left], remains rather obscure, with very little information about him outside of the normal PID channels. The vast majority of Beatles biographies do not mention him at all. Yet, according to contemporary sources cited by such researchers as R,E, Prindle, and our friends Dr. Tomoculus and Redwell Trabant, he received financial backing from George Harrison to open up a trendy discotheque known as Sybilla's. In their 2009 book The Beatles' London: A Guide to 467 Beatles Sites in andAround London, Piet Schreuders, Mark Lewisohn and Adam Smith affirm the connection writing:

The basement of this building [at 9 Swallow Street, Mayfair] seems always to have housed night-clubs, right from its 1915 opening as the Studio Club. Between 22 June 1966 and 5 August 1968 it was Sybilla’s, a fashionable London venue part-financed by George Harrison and named after an aristocratic model, Sybilla Edmonstone. All four Beatles attended a private launch party here on 22 June 1966. (On the actual opening night, 23 June, they were in Germany.)

Sybilla’s was designed by David Mlinaric and operated by the company Kevin MacDonald Associates. An advertising copywriter, MacDonald recruited influential and wealthy friends to finance and support the venture, although he died on 15 October 1966, less than four months after it had opened.

According to most sources, MacDonald fell ten stories to his death in 1966, Sources conflict, however as to some of the details. Some say he simply walked off the roof of a building he'd never been to before. Others say that police found his fingerprints on a tenth-floor window ledge, thus indicating defenestration. Whatever the case, his death is generally characterized as a suicide.***

What's important to note here is MacDonald's connection to old money. Specifically, he was the great-great-nephew of media mogul Viscount Rothermere (Harold Farnsworth), founder of the Daily Mail. Philip Norman and other biographers have noted the Beatles', in particular McCartney's, desire for social mobility. In effect, this meant leveraging their fame for peerage (which they received and subsequently rejected) and/or higher social status. The opportunity not only to hobnob with aristocrats but partner with them as well seemed like something that all four would have seized upon given the chance. MacDonald encouraged such alliances by stating his open support for a reorganization of power away from aristocracy and towards a meritocracy, where the best and brightest would rule regardless of class or race. A 23 July 1966 Evening Standard interview cited by Prindle quotes MacDonald as saying.

Sibylla’s is the meeting ground for the new aristocracy of Britain...And by the new aristocracy I mean the current young meritocracy of style, taste and sensibility.... We’ve got everyone here.... The top creative people.... The top exporters.... The top brains.... The top artists.... The top social people.... and the best of the PYPs (swingingese for pretty young people). We’re completely classless.... We are completely integrated.... We dig the spades man.

Another aristocrat often cited as a co-founder of Sybilla's, has drawn considerably more attention from Beatles biographers. Tara Browne (right), a scion of the Guinness brewing family, is often credited as the one who personally introduced McCartney to LSD. As Steve Turner wrote in The Gospel According to the Beatles:

Paul didn't take LSD until late 1966, after the release of Revolver. He took it at the Eaton Row, London home of Tara Browne, the socialite and heir to Guinness money, who was soon to die and be immortalized in the Beatles''A Day in the Life'.... John had warned Paul that he would never be the same again after it, and he has since said that this proved to be true.

Browne died from multiple head injuries following a collision with a parked vehicle on 18 December 1966. His passenger, model Suki Portier, received minor injuries. Again, many of the details remain a subject of debate. Some say that he was traveling in excess of 105 m.p.h. after failing to note that the light had changed from green to red. But some contend that Portier didn't say anything about excessive speed or traffic lights when describing the incident to authorities. More contentious, police reported that neither alcohol nor narcotics played a role in that evening's tragedy. Yet Marianne Faithful, a mutual friend of Browne and McCartney, spread the story that Tara was tripping on acid when the collision occurred.

Although McCartney disputed it, Lennon openly stated that Browne's death became the inspiration for the first verse of “A Day in the Life,” telling Playboy days before his death in 1980:

I was reading the paper one day and I noticed two stories. One was the Guinness heir who killed himself in a car. That was the main headline story. He died in London in a car crash.

And the circumstances fit. The press prominently covered Browne's death. Regardless of what the police declared, Lennon might have very well taken at face value Faithful's contention that Browne was tripping out at the time (hence the line “He blew his mind out in a car”). He could have also believed other gossip concerning the crash.

Yet a very curious passage appears before Lennon's description of the catastrophe. Line-by-line:

And though the news was rather sad.

That seems a tad odd. Okay, maybe Lennon wasn't nearly as close to Browne as McCartney. It nevertheless seems a detached, depersonalized way to discuss the death of even a casual acquaintance. Perhaps it's stereotypical on my part (and British readers can correct me if I'm wrong), but I've noticed that the English often tend to downplay their personal grief, using such terms as “rather sad” to mean something utterly devastating. At the same time, they tend to hyperbolize the emotional impact of the trivial (e.g., this example is frightfully obvious).

Well, I just had to laugh.

Why would Lennon and/or McCartney laugh at the death of a friend, or anyone else for that matter? In the next line, Lennon explains:

I saw the photograph.

John's specifically referring to this photograph, published in the Daily Mail.

Figure 2. The remains of Browne's Lotus Elan

By many accounts, the car had become highly associated with its owner, for like Browne, it symbolized wealth, elegance and class. So it's not that difficult to speculate, because of his relationship to McCartney, that Tara might have driven Paul in that exact vehicle. Speculating further, one might imagine, because McCartney stipulated that Browne had introduced him to LSD, that the two at some point rode around under the influence. If that were true, then Lennon's laughter stemmed from a profound irony: his realization that McCartney could have very well have met the same fate had he continued hanging out with the beer heir.****

What's not speculation are the similarities between the facts and scuttlebutt surrounding Browne's demise, and the 1967, 1969 and 2010 Paul-Is-Dead rumors: a vehicle crash, a female witness, a failure to notice a change in traffic lights, McCartney's putative presence in the car, the deliberate allusion to the event on a track of the Sgt. Pepper album, and a (perhaps) unconscious allusion to it on the album's cover and liner sleeve.

I would posit that the first seeds of the Paul-Is-Dead rumor were planted earlier, in 1964, with the release of several albums by the band calling itself Billy Pepper and the Pepperpots. At this time, there was no master narrative, only a strategy and the practical expression of a collective ideology; an ideology that would develop and expand as the 1960s continued; an ideology that would realize its first substantive expression in the founding of Apple Corps Ltd. Sgt. Pepper planted more seeds, incorporating conscious examination of death, and in turn inspiring the particular narrative that took hold concerning McCartney's fate.

One can imagine how such a narrative would have formed. If someone saw McCartney riding around with Tara Browne, they could have also associated Paul with that automobile. So when a famous photograph of said car made headline news, it would be a short step from saying, “The Lotus McCartney was riding in crashed,” to “That's McCartney's Lotus what crashed.”

Couple this with McCartney's first tentative steps into LSD experimentation, along with Lennon's admonishment that the experience would irrevocably change his life. In a sense, this means that whatever McCartney was before LSD would cease to be. While in western culture we tend to view death as a terminal event, one has to keep in mind the Beatles' fascination with Eastern culture, and their growing belief in cycles of death and rebirth, as exemplified in the song “Tomorrow Never Knows” (see previous post). Hence, we (and perhaps even McCartney) could say that he experienced a metaphoric death and rebirth during the fall of 1966.

While one would have to believe that the Beatles could very well distinguish between metaphorical death and its literal counterpart, these factors provide a basis for the development of a narrative that consciously focuses on McCartney apart from the other three. As many who have chronicled the PID rumor for some time have noted, McCartney is repeatedly singled out in the artwork and visual media produced by the Beatles. This often occurs through the positioning of someone's open hand over his head, or a by a different coloring scheme, or (as the case in Yellow Submarine) the inclusion of a duplicate McCartney.

Adding to this is the fact that McCartney had two audio doubles, as confirmed in voiceprint analyses performed by Dr. Henry Truby (linguist, University of Miami, FL), and the likelihood of at least one visual double.

In toto what this strongly implies is that there were deliberate allusions to McCartney as somehow separate from the other three as early as 1967, Tara Browne's passing, McCartney's relationship to Browne, and unconscious expression of grief over the losses of Epstein, Jacobs and others. There's nothing to indicate, however, that the band and their associates were specifically thinking of a PID storyline until fans made their own connection in 1969.

My first guess is that the Beatles were shocked, perhaps even horrified by the notion that fans would think that McCartney died in 1966. McCartney himself might have been further non-plussed with the realization that some of their fans might secretly hope the rumors were true. Moreover, both Lennon and McCartney openly expressed frustration at fans who read too much into their lyrics, despite the fact that they most likely included a number of in-jokes referring to the latter's separatism.

But, after thinking about it for awhile, Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starkey, Aspinall, Evans, Taylor et al might have begun to see this particular narrative as something they could exploit for positive, maybe even altruistic ends.

___________________________

*Co-created by Jann Haworth. Actual photo taken by Michael Cooper.

**There are tons of material written about who is on the cover and why. I don't wish to get into a lengthy discussion about that, but you can find out more at Wikipediaand elsewhere.

***Doc T. expressed some doubts as to Harrison's actual ownership, citing in part a letter in which George writes the partnership to explain that he will settle his bar tab with them when he comes back from abroad. The question would be why he would have to settle a bar tab at his own club. Of course, depending on their own policies, each owner might have been held accountable in order to keep from drinking up the profits, an arrangement not unheard of in such partnerships.

****I actually came upon some accounts that McCartney had ridden in the vehicle less than twenty-four hours before the incident, but have not verified them.

↧

The Word

August 31, 2014, 2:51 pm

≫ Next: In the End, Pt. I

≪ Previous: Losses

Love, love me do.
You know I love you.
I’ll always be true.

So please
Love me do.
–John Lennon and Paul McCartney, "Love Me Do" (1962)

As anyone casually acquainted with Beatles’ music could tell you, the word ‘love’ crops up quite a bit in their titles and lyrics. During the heartthrob days of Beatlemania (1964-1965), it’s no surprise that the they used this term almost exclusively in the context of sexual or romantic love.

Yet, as the band matured, the word ‘love’ took on a broader meaning in their conscious expression. By the time of Sgt. Pepper’s release, their use of the term had expanded. We can see this in numerous lyrical allusions to post-sexual romance (e.g., "Real Love"), the non-sexual love of friends ("In My Life") and family ("Julia"), and a broad love of humanity, much resembling the Christian concept of caritas ("While My Guitar Gently Weeps").

At the same time, the word became more than an expression of sentimentality. From their lyrics, the Beatles seemed to view love as either an ideology within itself, or a key component to any meaningful social reorganization. While that’s speculative (obviously McCartney and Starkey could shed more light on this point), what’s beyond dispute is the evangelic tone of some of their work, rallying support for a new world based on love ("The Word,""All You Need Is Love").

In order to understand the importance of love in Beatles’ lyrics, it’s perhaps helpful to examine the broader context in which this took place. Many, at the time (and to less an extent now) saw the 1960s as a revolutionary period, with permanent changes to Western ideas of class, race, gender equality, and power. As arguably one of the most visible figures in contemporary culture, the association between the Beatles and the changing ethos came from many sources. For example, a 7 September 1966 Variety article titled "Beatles Unwitting Agent of Red Revolution, Sez One Right-Wing Group" chronicled ardent ultraconservative fears that the Beatles, through their music and celebrity, could wreck the prevailing social order. Likewise, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman and others understood the group’s ability to marshal public opinion toward a more enlightened society, and consequently attempted to involve individual members (particularly John Lennon) into their activities and public relations.

Between the right-wing hardliners and the leftist protesters, the band’s sympathies lay closer to the latter. It seems clear in hindsight that its individual members--perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly-- saw it as their responsibility to do what they could to effect what they saw as positive social change. To some extent, they networked with the above radicals and others. But as noted earlier in the series on Lennon, both John and McCartney grew apprehensive about the unclear goals and haphazard methodology of the New Left as exemplified by Rubin and Hoffman. In their words, they really needed to see a plan of action.*

With no plan forthcoming, Lennon and McCartney formed their own, an envisioned "Western communism." The immediate practical application of this plan resulted in the formation of Apple Corps Limited. While ostensibly a business, Apple Corps was structured differently than most. For starters, there were the numerous subsidiaries and joint ventures mentioned earlier. There was also a different air about it. For example, the company had a position titled House Hippie, filled by writer Richard DiLello. In his 1973 memoir The Longest Cocktail Party: An Insider’s Diary of the Beatles, Their Million-Dollar ‘Apple’ Empire and Its Wild Rise and Fall, DiLello chronicled what he saw as futile attempts to implement this ideology in a business setting.

Worse, the band was in the process of personally and professionally coming apart at the seams during Apple’s launch. And before they could realize this vision, they split up for good, with the company now under the stewardship of a hostile party, namely Allen Klein.

Just speculating, but if the Beatles saw themselves as bearing some responsibility for this positive social change, then in addition to all of the other negative things associated with the breakup they might have also had a nagging feeling that they had let down their audience, or betrayed the optimism of the era. What’s certain is that some regarded the creation of Apple as devolution into the status quo, a sellout gesture. In his 2005 book Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band that Shook Youth, Gender and the World, Voice of America commentator Steven Stark quoted Marianne Faithful as saying, "People had lost faith in the Beatles....They seemed phony and hollow by this point."**

While love as a component of ideology was neither unique to nor pioneered by the Beatles, the band nevertheless championed the notion that this should serve as a basis for society, and love became the dominant literary feature of their music. Of course, that wouldn’t explain the communist aspects of a "western communism." After all, the term ‘communist’ would imply a redistribution of wealth, or more accurately a redistribution of capital and power.

So, what (and for that matter, whose) capital did the band plan to redistribute? More importantly, what does that have to with the Paul-Is-Dead rumor?

The answer to the first question: a capital that wasn’t monetary. Answer to the second: their own.

Answer to the third question: see next post.

_______________
*Lennon expressed this sentiment directly in the song "Revolution," writing "You say you got a real solution/Well, you know,/We’d all love to see the plan."

**Stark’s characterization of both rise and decline of Beatles’ influence is somewhat overstated in both respects. He implied that the Beatle’s cultural importance was Pollyannish in nature, overestimating the good will of fellow human beings. They subsequently lost out to more reactionary and aggressive tendencies then evolving within the counterculture:

The new mood hardly comported with the Beatles' commitment to an exuberant vision of collectivism. To many, the band now seemed strangely irrelevant.

Also, you’ll note the above link on the term Voice of America. I do this because I want to make clear for readers unaware of the organization that its viewpoint is hardly neutral, and was created specifically for official propaganda purposes.

↧

In the End, Pt. I

September 12, 2014, 8:38 am

≫ Next: In the End, Pt. II

≪ Previous: The Word

What would you think if I sang out of tune?
Would you stand up and walk out on me?
Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song,
And I'll try not to sing out of key.

Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends.
--John Lennon and Paul McCartney, "With a Little Help from My Friends,"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)

I don’t really want to stop the show
But I thought you might like to know
That the singer’s gonna sing a song,
And he wants you all to sing along.

So may I introduce to you
The one and only Billy Shears,
And Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band [yayand].

Billy Shears..."
--John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Mal Evans, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band,"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)

Birth of a Rumor

In my initial series on the Paul-Is-Dead rumor, I speculated that it evolved from an earlier hoax that the Beatles pulled off in 1964, namely the establishment of a fictional band, Billy Pepper and the Pepperpots. This led me to think that the Beatles’ had developed an in-joke, which took on a life of its own independently of the group.

Imagine that the rumor's evolution began with the photo of the crashed Lotus in British newspapers. There were people who had witnessed McCartney in the car with Browne, maybe even within twenty-four hours of the accident. Someone sees the car on the front page, and realizes that McCartney was in it. Like the game of telephone, the story passes from person to person to the point, each changing the narrative slightly, to the point where McCartney is no longer merely an occasional passenger in the car, but rather the car’s owner, and the true victim of the crash.*

Messages Intentional and Otherwise

The release of the Sgt. Pepper album augmented the perception that McCartney died in a crash because the public misconstrued references to Browne as references to Paul. John Lennon confirmed the unambiguous allusion to Tara’s passing in "A Day in the Life." Not only does the album cover depict a funeral scene, but the bass-drum headstone also contained a deliberate message. If you hold a mirror horizontally to the mid point of the drum, as many have done for decades, you get:

Figure 1. Mirror held to bass drum on Sgt. Pepper album cover

Over the years, a number of students, mentors and colleagues extremely knowledgeable about graphic arts have impressed upon me the degree to which major projects painstakingly hammer out the most minute details. Artists and graphic designers typically fret about a number of issues, among them getting across subtle points, creating subtexts, and, most importantly, looking out for details that might undermine, distract from, or run contrary to the overall message. The Sgt. Pepper album cover was unique in a number of ways. Yet the importance of the project was evident in its enormous cost, £3,000--approximately sixty times the average cost of producing an album cover in 1967. A change in fonts, spacing, letter height could have blunted or perhaps even eliminated the effect seen above. Italics would have definitely obscured the message.

I am thus inclined to believe to see this as a deliberate communication: "1 ONE1 X [pronounced space] HE [diamond shape/arrow pointing at McCartney] DIE." But while some have used this as evidence of McCartney’s passing in November of 1966, one could interpret this character string very differently given other items on that cover. For example, you could read this as an overlapping phrase. In this instance, the first two characters, ‘1' and a capital letter ‘O’ could be read as the number ten. Their associate, Kevin MacDonald, died in October, the tenth month of 1966. Taking into account the first part of the character string as a whole, one can read the string as "10 one 1," or ten plus one plus one plus one, or twelve. Browne died in December. The arrow pointing to McCartney could signify nothing more than the fact that McCartney was closer to Browne and MacDonald than the other three. "HE DIE" is rather obvious, although given the white car placed in the lap of the Shirley Temple doll (see image in previous post, far right corner), and the account of his passing in the song "A Day in the Life," it would seem more likely that the primary decedent alluded to here isn’t McCartney, but Browne.

One could argue that McCartney metaphorically died and emerged reborn in 1966. The same could hold true for the other three, as symbolized by the wax figures of themselves from the mop-top days. Of course, allegorical and literal death are hardly the same animals.

Integration of Memes

The Sgt. Pepper album also contained a semi-intentional "clue" as it were. I say "semi" because it constituted a deliberate subtext, but not one alluding to McCartney, or anyone else’s, demise.

The title track has always been credited to John Lennon and Paul McCartney. But evidence would eventually surface that Beatles road manager, Mal Evans, co-wrote the song.** According to Tony Bramwell, Evans’ contribution to "Sgt. Pepper" was an open secret around Apple Corps, and McCartney and Lennon agreed to acknowledge this in 1975. But when Evans died in January of 1976, they dropped the subject.

Further evidence of Evans' authorship came to light on 20 March 2005, when the Times of London published excerpts from his diaries.*** In an entry dated 27 January 1967, he documented his co-creation of the song:

Sgt Pepper: Started writing song with Paul upstairs in his room, he on piano....Did a lot more of ‘where the rain comes in.’ Hope people like it. Started Sergeant Pepper.

In the above passage, Evans not only states that he co-wrote one of the Beatles’ most famous tunes, but strongly implies that he substantially co-wrote (or wrote in its entirety) another song eventually titled "Fixing a Hole," which also appeared on the Sgt. Pepper album. On 1 February 1967, he gave further indication that he expected some form of compensation for his efforts:

‘Sergeant Pepper’ sounds good. Paul tells me that I will get royalties on the song--great news, now perhaps a new home.

According to some sources, longtime Beatles associate Neil Aspinall came up with the idea of an emcee character who would introduce the fictional band and then offer closing remarks to clap them off the stage in the form of a reprise towards the end of the album. Quoting from the above link:

The inspiration is said to have come when roadie Mal Evans innocently asked McCartney what the letters ‘S’ and ‘P’ stood for on the pots on their in-flight meal trays, and McCartney explained it was for salt and pepper.

That’s a nice story, isn’t it? But upon closer inspection, it doesn’t seem to hold water. Are we to think that Evans, from the same socioeconomic background as McCartney and seven years older, has never seen a pepperpot before? He really needed McCartney to identify it for him? He couldn’t figure that out just by looking at the ‘S’ and ‘P’?

This explanation has all the earmarks of a leg pull. The events, as stated, could very well have happened verbatim. But if Evans asked McCartney to identify the vessel in front of them, it wouldn’t be because of the former’s ignorance, as this tale implies. It’s far more likely Mal meant to call Paul’s attention to a source of inspiration: specifically, the make-believe band that he and Aspinall formed with a little help from their friends, Lennon and McCartney. In this case, ‘salt and pepper’ became the similarly sounding "Sgt. Pepper[pot]," as in Billy and the Pepperpots.

In other words, the song seems to be a homage to the pseudo-group that had become a private joke amongst those involved. Evans and McCartney worked on the song together, consequently celebrating the fantasy . If that sounds farfetched, consider the lyrics. We have Sgt. Pepper’s band, and a lead singer named Billy, in the surname of whom we can see as a bit of wordplay (Billy Shears/Billy’s here). If Sgt. Pepper is the leader of the band, and the lead singer’s name is Billy, then it’s not really going far off a limb to suggest that Billy is really Sgt. Pepper, then that would make him Billy Pepper, the name attached to both the leader of the Pepperpots and to the rumored false Paul.

What’s critical to realize with Sgt. Pepper is that it's where the two critical PID memes first met in a concrete sense: McCartney’s putative death, and the existence of a secret replacement named Billy Sheppard/Shears/Campbell/Pepper. It would not appear that the Beatles deliberately bridged these two themes. Neither did their fans in 1967. That would occur over the following two years.

Singled Out

Myriad examples depict McCartney as separate from his colleagues. They are too numerous to give an exhaustive rundown, but would include such things as him wearing a different colored flower in the finale of Magical Mystery Tour, a different colored background on the Let It Be album cover, numerous examples of hands placed over his head (but not the others’), the intentional backmasking on "Sgt. Pepper’s Inner Groove," a second McCartney during a brief scene of Yellow Submarine, and so on.****

These don’t seem to be clues as much as they appear to be an expression of a reality that the group had lived with for some time. For most of the band’s existence, Lennon served as it’s presumed leader (e.g., one of their prior names was Johnny and the Moondogs). Yet, McCartney showed signs of chafing under this structure (as did George Harrison). For as long as he would live, Brian Epstein managed to keep everyone’s ego in check. But Epstein died just weeks after Sgt. Pepper’s release, and the tensions between Lennon, McCartney and Harrison quickly rose to the surface.*****

One could coarsely see this as a power struggle between Lennon and McCartney. It might have been partly that. It might have also been the case of people once close beginning to grow apart. What’s clear is that McCartney did feel an increasing independence as his fame, accomplishments and songwriting catalog grew.

Along these lines are the subjects of doubles. In 1969, Dr. Henry Truby (Linguistics, University of Miami), determined through voiceprint analysis that voices identified as Paul McCartney actually belonged to three separate men. One of the voices could have belonged to Harrison, who supposedly did a pitch-perfect impersonation of both McCartney and Lennon. It could have possibly belonged to Geoff Hughes, the actor who portrayed McCartney in Yellow Submarine. We know that one of these men was Apple employee Tony Bramwell, who impersonated McCartney in telephone interviews when Paul declined to do them himself. In this instance, we can see yet another example of separating himself from the others, and from the Beatles.

Was there a conscious effort by the band to single McCartney out? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe partly. Whatever the case, this became a key line of evidence in the Paul-Is-Dead mythology. Yet, it didn’t really seem to spring from a deliberate crafting of a Paul-Is-Dead narrative. Rather, McCartney, perhaps unconsciously, took steps to establish his independence in ways small and large.

Dissemination

We know about some of the gossip shuffled back and forth in the wake of Browne’s fatal crash, such as the contention that he was intoxicated at the time. It’s quite likely that at this early stage, from December 1966 to February 1967, that rumormongers eventually switched McCartney and Browne’s identities. But when the official newsletter debunked the rumor, and Paul subsequently made public appearances in different venues, this caused a bit of cognitive dissonance for those who couldn’t let go of a juicy story. And since there were no public or official acknowledgment of McCartney’s death, the legend-makers countered that the band must have secretly replaced him with a double. The Sgt. Pepper album, released in the summer of 1967, provided an identity to this supposed imposter. Someone who knew about the Pepperpots three 1964 albums subsequently added this background to the narrative.

The rumor probably grew underground for a little over two years, as people distorted the tale from telling to telling, and embellished the account with other items. From then on, selective cognisance would have led such people into seeing any and all artistic statements made by the Beatles as affirmation of this hypothesis, contrary evidence be damned. With the release of each subsequent album or movie, those within that very small circle of humanity received more grist for the rumor mill.

The gossip would have first circulated in England, perhaps within music circles, and spread to the US via traveling musicians. These musicians subsequently regaled fellow American rockers with the tale until it reached the ears of Drake University (Iowa) student Dartanyan Brown. Brown told his roommate, Tim Harper, who on 17 September 1969 wrote the account for their campus newsletter, The Times-Delphic. The Times-Delphic story then spread among the students of that campus, and to those students visiting that campus until the story began to percolate in the US Midwest. On 9 October, Larry Monroe of Ann Arbor station WOIA discussed the rumor on air, thus introducing it to southeastern Michigan. Three days later, Eastern Michigan student Tom Zarski brought the rumor to the attention of WKNR DJ Russ Gibb. One-by-one, radio stations across the country patched into the live broadcast of Gibb’s subsequent discussion until the story received national US exposure, which then turned into international exposure.

It’s nearly certain that this narrative evolved independently of the Beatles themselves, who were probably shocked that anyone would think something like that could have occurred. McCartney might have been even more upset to realize that some of his so-called fans might have secretly wished the rumor were true, which in effect meant that they secretly wished he were dead.

__________________

*Something else might have also fueled gossip about McCartney’s supposed demise. Apparently, a simultaneous January 1967 rumor held that Monkee Davy Jones had secretly died.

The Monkees were deliberately based on the Beatles. Producers Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider pitched the show to Screen Gems as an American TV version of the Beatles film, A Hard Day’s Night. Critics often derided the group as the Pre-Fab Four. So naturally there were intentional parallels between specific members of each band. George Harrison and Michael Nesmith were the sour ones, Richard Starkey and Peter Torkelson the friendly get-alongs who smoothed things over. John Lennon and Mickey Dolenz played the smart-asses. McCartney (dubbed by fans "the cute Beatle") and Jones were the heartthrobs. Thus, there seemed to be an overlap in their stories at this time.

In reality, Jones went into seclusion in January 1967 to fast. Although a citizen of the UK, he had received his draft notice from Uncle Sam, a turn of events that could have possibly ended the show. By fasting, he hoped to fail the physical. Following a rather spirited demonstration by British fans held outside the London US Consulate that March, the US Armed Forces declined to induct him.

**In his final interview with Playboy, Lennon casually mentioned that Evans co-wrote the song "Eleanor Rigby." That could imply that Evans’ input into the group’s creative work might be more profound than previously stipulated.

***A year earlier, someone presented what appeared to be Evans’ diaries to the general public. These turned out to be forgeries. In 1986, a publishing house employee told Yoko Ono that during cleaning they had discovered a trunk of items belonging to the Beatles. Ono arranged to fly it and its contents to Mal’s estate in London. Evans’ widow, Lily, subsequently obtained the authentic diary, and did not release any contents to the public until after the phony diaries emerged.

****If you look closely, the internal logic of the clip suggests that there are two Pauls because McCartney’s second image comes via an onboard video monitor.

*****In his 1981 book Shout! The Beatles in Their Generation, Philip Norman underscored the importance of the watershed events of 1967 with respect to how the four interacted, writing, "In general, the [Sgt. Pepper] session proceeded with a friendliness that no Beatles album was ever to know again."

↧

In the End, Pt. II

September 16, 2014, 9:19 am

≫ Next: Ask for Natasha

≪ Previous: In the End, Pt. I

What in the world you thinking of?
Laughing in the face of Love?
What on Earth you trying to do?
It’s up to you.

Yeah, you....

Who on Earth do you think you are?
A superstar?
Well, right you are!

Well, we all shine on.
–John Lennon, "Instant Karma" (1970)

And in the end,
The love you take
Is equal to the love
You make.
–John Lennon and Paul McCartney, "The End,"Abbey Road (1969)

Western Communism

Capital, in both a Marxist and classical sense, narrowly refers to the money used in the exchange and production of hard goods and services. Here, the term ‘money’ is loosely defined to include not only cold hard cash, but also the thought or appearance of cash, such as debt obligations (i.e., cash in the future) and so on. But over the years, the notion of capital has expanded to include a number of things that can either define, create or add value to a good, service or sometimes to a relationship (e.g., a partnership, joint venture or corporation).

What we’re primarily looking at here is ‘social capital,’ or the wealth accrued in public/social position, identity or overall goodwill. As the World Bank describes it:

The broadest and most encompassing view of social capital includes the social and political environment that shapes social structure and enables norms to develop. This analysis extends the importance of social capital to the most formalized institutional relationships and structures, such as government, the political regime, the rule of law, the court system, and civil and political liberties. This view not only accounts for the virtues and vices of social capital, and the importance of forging ties within and across communities, but recognizes that the capacity of various social groups to act in their interest depends crucially on the support (or lack thereof) that they receive from the state as well as the private sector. Similarly, the state depends on social stability and widespread popular support. In short, economic and social development thrives when representatives of the state, the corporate sector, and civil society create forums in and through which they can identify and pursue common goals.

The Beatles were not economists. With the possible exception of Neill Aspinall, it’s not likely that they could have defined ‘social capitalism’ if you asked them. On the other hand, it’s quite evident they undersood that they had something in overwhelming abundance; in fact, way too much of it, more than they could use. Moreover, this something that they had was a perfect example of social capital.

The Beatles obviously had tremendous amounts of capital in both the Marxist and classical sense when comparing them individually to Joe Schmo on the streets. But in the grand scheme of things, it was, and continues to be, peanuts. For an individual, or several individuals, to attempt to eliminate such things as poverty simply by redistributing his or her tangible assets would be folly. For example, we know that Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire. Were she to redistribute her wealth to the rest of humanity, then everyone else’s income would increase about twenty US cents. That’s hardly something that would effect social change, and would only result in penury for Winfrey.

On the other hand, the Beatles had a social capital that was unique to them: namely, their fame. As US radio personality Jean Shepherd characterized his experience with them, this fame came with a lot of perks--ardent adulation, money, sex, and the ability to practice the crafts that each truly loved. Yet, it became quite evident in the early days of Beatlemania that it had a severe downside: they had forfeited a good deal of their privacy; they became alienated from the rest of humanity, for they couldn’t securely go anywhere in public; they faced constant, unyielding demands for their attention; many of their relationships, most notably to each other, were jeopardized, and in some cases torn asunder.*

What’s worse, as the saga of the band continued, they paid steeper and steeper prices for that fame. First off, there was the machinations of the Kray twins and later Allen Klein to gain control of them. There were the untimely deaths of many of those associated with either them or Brian Epstein: Joseph Meek, Joe Orton, Ken Halliwell, David Jacobs (their attorney), Sir Dr. Richard Ashur, Macdonald, Browne, ex-Beatle Stuart Sutcliffe, and even Epstein himself. It’s clear that the Beatles held no culpability in the demise of these men. Moreover, the band consciously realized this. Still, one might suspect in the backs of their mind they wondered if their fame played a role in these premature passings. What if, for example, they one day thought that the Kray twins murdered Epstein and Jacobs to take control of them? If so they might have lived with the nagging suspicion that at least these two would have lived longer lives had Beatlemania never existed.

As mentioned in the previous post, they also felt pressure as representatives of their generation and the emerging ethos it symbolized. In some cases, they experenced this as attempted manipulation by those within the counterculture. In the most horrific sense, however, the introduction of their lyrics into evidence at the Tate-LaBianca murder trials in Los Angeles demonstrated their powerlessness to prevent others from perverting the intent of their music.**

At the same time, the group had become keenly aware of the disparity of this particular capital when looking at their support staff, especially Evans and Aspinall. As Shepherd pointed out in his monologues chronicling his time with the Beatles, he too was seduced by this fame. A legendarily cynical curmudgeon, Shep laughed at himself for basking in the glow of this fire, the giddy feeling that came about not only because of the fact that the individual band members knew him, but seemed to genuinely like him. He also realized that he would have loved to have had just a piece of that particular fame for himself.

I would suspect that the band itself was quite aware that Evans and Aspinall shared Shepherd’s feelings in this regard, but to a much greater extent. After all, those two faced much of the same suffocation that the Fab Four did, on a daily basis, yet didn’t fully enjoy the benefits of their famous friends.

I would also suspect that this played a role in prompting Lennon and McCartney to help their friends and supporters set up Billy Pepper and the Pepperpots. In a sense it was a sharing of this fame, a chance for their unknown staff to be rock stars, or at least play at being rock stars. While not wholly successful, the composition, recording and release of "Sgt. Pepper," and "Fixing a Hole" gave this effort a last hurrah, and a pretty triumphant one at that, although all parties preferred to keep that secret.***

Although Billy Pepper and the Pepperpots never became household names, they did perhaps demonstrate a method for actuating a western communism where the social capital chiefly manifested itself as the Beatles brand, which not only liquified into money, but also, hopefully, Love.

I’m a Beatle, He’s a Beatle, She’s a Beatle, We’re a Beatle; Wouldn’t You Like to Be a Beatle Too?

A report in the 12 February 1976 issue of Rolling Stone disclosed that Evans was set to deliver the manuscript of his memoirs to Grosset and Dunlop on 12 January, exactly a week after his death. Titled Living the Beatles’ Legend, it presumably would have spent most of its ink talking about his connection with the group. As to what it actually said, no one knows. The manuscript went missing. Despite the above report, some have express doubts as to its existence.

Whether it existed or not, the title seemed particularly appropriate. After all, we know that Evans, Aspinall, Derek Taylor, Tony Bramwell and others received some prominence during their lives because of their association with the Beatles. But on a deeper level, Evans and Aspinall also got to live out a Beatles fantasy in the form of the pseudo-knockoff band, the Pepperpots. Aspinall might have also played out a more intimate Beatles fantasy.

Figure 1. McCartney Imposter (left), Neil Aspinall and John Lennon (right)

One can tell that the person on the left looks like McCartney, but is not him. Indeed, the facial shape, with the elongated and pointed chin, does not belong to Paul, but to Aspinall. Since I’ve seen this disguised face in several different photographs, and moving in film footage, I’m fairly confident that this wasn’t simply photoshopped, but an actual, raw image. Nothing Is Real poster Apollo C. Vermouth stressed that in addition to two voice doubles, there was a visual double. If Vermouth and Aspinall are one and the same, as claimed by the board’s moderators, then he should know, especially if he were the visual double.****

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that everything stated in the previous paragraph is not speculation, but fact. In that case, it seemed to represent the same mindset that created Billy Pepper and the Pepperpots. The band offered Aspinall a chance to be like a Beatle. The disguise, however, offered Neil a chance to be a specific Beatle: McCartney.

Stepping out of the speculative, we can see that the Beatles actually took concrete steps to share the social capital afforded by Beatleness. The most interesting example of this: when Apple Corps Ltd. first hung out its shingle, it put out a call to the great unwashed for films, scripts, visual art and music, presumably to be published/released by the new company. The strong association between the band and the corporation would effectively given any previously unheard of artist produced within this process the Beatles’ imprimatur. They would bear the Beatles’ brand. They would become part of the Beatles legend. Such would be a perfect example of redistributing social capital within the context of business, or in other words a perfect example of a Western communism.

This aspect of the plan didn’t work out that well, for reasons you’ve most likely already surmised. The volume of submissions completely swamped the company, which couldn’t physically look at all of these entries, let alone consider them and develop them.

What’s worse, by the fall of 1969, the Beatles would effectively dissolve, with Apple Corps now under the direction of Allen Klein, a man who, frankly, couldn’t care less about the company’s ideological underpinnings. Thus, there would be no practical way to make this dream of a Western communism a reality.

At the same time, both Lennon and McCartney still seemed supportive of democratic celebrity, as it were. John gave voice to the notion in the song "Instant Karma." More interestingly, in the Playboy interview he and Yoko Ono recounted an incident involving their son, Sean. They explained that they tried to shield him from their fame, never telling him that they were celebrities. But when Sean stayed overnight at a friends house, whereupon they watched the movie Yellow Submarine on television, the younger Lennon couldn’t figure out why his father was a cartoon on television, and a Beatle. His father explained that he was a Beatle. His mother was a Beatle. In fact, everyone was a Beatle.

I don’t know when or why it happened, but it would seem that at some point in the 1970s that McCartney began to take a second look at the pesky rumor that had once gotten on his nerves. We can see he had it somewhere in his mind when commissioning famed sci-fi author Isaac Asimov to write a screenplay based on a direct Paul-Is-Dead theme: namely the secret replacement of a Beatles-like band by doubles.

As mentioned earlier, Asimov commented on this effort, and why it was scrapped, cryptically saying, "It’s tempting to imagine that the project collapsed because McCartney knew subconsciously that he was aligned with the losing side." In terms of a plotline for a screenplay, the remark would make little sense. A writer can manipulate the story in any number of ways to allow justice to prevail, or for the white knight to rescue the damsel in distress, or so on. With respect to winning or losing at the box office, again, the writer and production team can tinker with the project to attract a larger audience.

In this statement, Asimov implied that there was more at stake here than simply a movie. The winning side or losing side could not be determined by a screenwriter or production team, but by reality itself.

Maybe it’s not what they had in mind, but the Paul-Is-Dead rumor brought with it a wealth of intrigue, mystery, curiosity, et cetera. In showbiz parlance, it’s a sexy story, a narrative that invites the reader to engage in not just the history of McCartney, but of the other three band members, their wives and kinfolk, their support staff, their friends, and, now, other researchers of the Paul-Is-Dead story (e.g., Iamaphoney). The fact remains that people (and I’m not counting myself as one of them) have devoted a lot of thought, energy and research into resolving the potential hidden mysteries this narrative has yet to reveal, the "Final Chapter" as Vermouth would call it.

If Aspinall and Vermouth were indeed one and the same, it’s clear, especially given that during the bulk of his contributions to the Nothing Is Real board, that he is affirming the existence of a specific narrative. More important, he's averring that the Beatles stated it consciously through subtext. And he has an interest in seeing that it’s either revealed or developed:

The story line? In all truth, about 65% of what is written [regarding the Paul-Is-Dead rumor] is based on things that actually happened. The remainder, sheer fantasy. Now, to figure what is, and what isn't. It was agreed, BY ALL INVOLVED, that once the ‘story’ is told, not to deviate from any previous statements. You know, and I know, that there ARE clues to be found on Pepper. Just what those "clues" allude to, has not yet been figured out. But, when asked of John, George, or Ringo, there was always the ‘total rubbish’ response. That is the story line. Deny! I have been accused of ‘jerking you all off’ with my cryptic responses. Truth is, you've been jerked off from day one! THAT was part of the ‘story line.’ A little mystery for you to figure out.

When things began to turn a bit ‘beyond the beyond,’ I tried to get the loonies back on the right path.

The theories of CIA, KKK, UFO's, Paul in space, Don Knotts....fucking hell!!! I'M JERKING YOU OFF????? Keep it simple, follow the clues, have a spot of fun, That is the ‘story line’ NOW. There is a method to my madness.

What Vermouth is actually describing in the above passage is a culture jam. And that’s exactly what it still looks like to me after examining this story. Thus, we would have to look to see what the culture jam actually was, and its purpose.

As I mentioned earlier, the specific Paul-Is-Dead narrative occurred independently of the Beatles, but became entangled with the deliberate message the band first put out. Instead of continuing to fight it, McCartney and the others most likely acquiesced and embraced it in an effort to continue what they had begun as a Western communism, the endeavor to redistribute the social capital of a brand that has now thrived for a half-century and counting.

In other words, the power of the Paul-Is-Dead mythology lies in its ability to entice the curious, the researcher, or the Beatlephile to explore the mystery, and as a result take on a role that many--including Evans and Aspinall--played for years: the expansion and development of the Beatles legend, and consequently the growth of the social capital built up by the Beatles fame. In this sense, the Paul-Is-Dead rumor is the hook, a request for interested parties, especially those who never saw the Sixties, or who had only a passing knowledge of the Beatles, to dig deeper. While all the Paul-Is-Dead stories and their variations are inaccurate, they will eventually acquaint the seeker with the actual subtext that the Beatles deliberately incorporated into their music and art.

While we can’t say that those partaking in the dissemination of PID info and opinion have become Beatles per se, we can see them as taking part in the legend, in a sense partnering with the Beatles in this effort. Or to put it another way, those lurking and posting on The King Is Naked and Nothing Is Real Boards, Iamaphoney, our friends Dr. Tomoculus and Redwell Trabant, and anyone else exploring this mythology have all become part of the Beatles story. If Redwell’s speculation is true that Iamaphoney partnered with Apple subsidiary Standby Films to produce his/her YouTube videos, then that would demonstrate an even more intimate partnering and support in a manner identical to the intent of Apple’s initial call for submissions.

In that light, we can see Asmiov’s comments as his own cynicism that a Western communism, such as the one his screenplay tried to stoke, could never come to pass. Of course, if he’s correct, then it could have also reflected McCartney’s doubts that he could include large swatches of humanity under a Beatles tent. Nevertheless, it would seem clear with McCartney’s--and to a lesser extent Harrison’s, Lennon’s and Starkey’s--constant references to the rumor over the following decades that they weren’t about to give up on that dream.

How do I know all this?

I don’t. At least entirely. I’m simply having a "spot of fun" with the topic, as per Vermouth’s instructions.

And maybe that’s the point of the Paul-Is-Dead rumor. Maybe we haven’t read the last chapter because it hasn’t been written yet. Fans have to do that. After all, it would be pointless to include the public in a partnership, to offer it part of the Beatles’ brand/identity, only to give it a passive part to play. For the exercise to be meaningful, everyone would have to have a piece of the action.

Then again, even after the last chapter’s completion, there could be other chapters down the road. In short, the point is the same as when Apple first put out the call for submissions; for the public to exercise its artistic, intellectual and spiritual muscle in order to create a more positive culture, and to find success under the power of the Beatles’ aegis.

Or to put it crassly, it’s an invitation to be a Beatle--although it’s not really an invitation, and the band has been defunct for forty-five years.

Sound nuts?

Well, consider this. In the past seven years, I’ve seen an amazing evolution in the Nothing Is Real board as posters have more or less stopped, as Doc T. would say, looking for a body, and have instead begun to delve into the subtext that Vermouth (whom they generally consider to be Aspinall) said existed in the first place. I’ve also witnessed the emergence of art inspired either directly by the Paul-Is-Dead culture jam, or indirectly by it’s memes. In addition to the aforementioned YouTube series by Iamaphoney, there’s also Redwell’s 2012 book The Sgt Pepper Code and documentary, as well as numerous others on YouTube. I could point to such books as Alan Goldsher’s 2010 novel,Paul Is Undead, Lissa Supler’s short story "The Mysterious Disappearance of Paul McCartney" and Andru Reeve's 2004 nonfiction paperback Turn Me On, Dead Man: The Beatles and the "Paul Is Dead" Hoax

Just by chance, I came across Greg Taylor’s 2011 teen novel The Girl Who Became a Beatle, which incorporated the two of the critical memes mentioned above.***** In this story, a twenty-first century high-school musician and her three bandmates suddenly become the Beatles. In this we can see the theme of replacing the Fab Four with what most of us would consider to be imposters. More important, it’s the story of someone literally becoming a Beatle.

And that’s not even the tip of the iceberg.

I don’t know, really, how much capital these efforts have accrued in either a Marxist or classical sense. But I would suspect that those works published by major houses would have gotten some. Perhaps Iamaphoney and Redwell have, or will, find some kind of monetary remuneration for their efforts. If not, they have both achieved a certain prominence on this "interweb."

If nothing else, those searching for the "Last Chapter" could honestly say that they participated in the legend, and if nothing else received at least a tiny measure of the fundamental currency in this "social capitalism": Love. We’re not just talking about the flutter-your-eyelashes, big sloppy Valentine, mushy kind of love, but the love that enures through pain and tragedy despite or in conjunction with the type of animosity that the Beatles often had to each other, and that they sometimes had for their fans.

Okay, that sounds sappy. Truth be told, a number of writers peg McCartney as a sentimentalist. But then again, as Lennon said in "Instant Karma," who are we to laugh in the face of Love?

If any of this is true, then it would seem that the degree to which Love can transfer, or liquidate (in economic terms) into other forms of wealth would depend on how ardently or smartly one engages in the subject. What one gains personally for embarking on this search would depend on how much effort, skill and merit their individual project entails.

Consequently, it would literally be the case where the love one takes, would be equal to the love he or she makes.

_________________

*A former employer told me that she attended a 1964 Los Angeles party, at which the Beatles were the guests of honor. She expressed her surprise when she saw them emerging from the limo chained together. She later asked Harrison about the shackles, and he explained that there was always a constant fear that fans might pick one of them off, and, in the throes of mania, cause great physical injury. They felt that if they were chained together, it would be harder for a mob to spirit off with one of them.

**As mentioned earlier, Iamaphoney stated in one of his/her videos that McCartney met Charles Manson at the home of Dennis Wilson when visiting Los Angeles in late-June 1968. I have found no confirmation of this meeting yet, although I have verified that McCartney was in LA at the time in question. I did find another source quoting Terry Melcher as saying he introduced Paul to Charlie during a party at the home of Papa John Phillips. This too I have not been able to corroborate by a second source.

***In the 2003 book The Beatles off the Record: The Dream Is Over, Keith Badman quoted an audiotaped interview where Evans claimed:

"[Paul told me] ‘We are really a hot item and we don't want to make it [songwriting credit for ‘Sgt. Pepper’] Lennon-McCartney-Evans. So, would you mind?’ I didn't mind, because I was so in love with the group that it didn't matter to me. I knew myself what had happened.

****From the picture, you’ll notice that Aspinall stands about two or three inches shorter than Lennon. Lennon and McCartney both stood at 5'11". I bring this up because some cite a difference in height between Paul and the Faux Paul (Faul).

*****Feiwel and Friends, the novel’s publishers, are an imprint of Macmillan. Doc T. could very well tell you that former PM Harold Macmillan, who succeeded his father as head of the family publishing firm, was a friend and political ally of Viscount Northcliffe, grandfather of McCartney’s friend, Kevin MacDonald.

↧

Ask for Natasha

October 31, 2014, 3:33 am

≫ Next: Sitting Here Watching the Wheels Go ‘Round and ‘Round

≪ Previous: In the End, Pt. II

Cyberpal Deanna Meske (left) has just posted the third episode of her Web series Government Lies. She not only conceived of the show, but produces and stars in it as well.

I'm quite excited for her. If you click on the above link, you'll see this is a bit more than the I've-gotta-barn productions that I normally promote. Deanna not only established her own production studio, but is an accomplished actor. Moreover, everyone else in front of and behind the camera has professional experience, most notably soap star Lane Davies. And for something shot on absolutely no budget at all, it looks really good.

Best of all, Government Lies centers around one of my favorite subjects: conspiracy. So, grab some popcorn, and a drink of your choice. Click on the link and enjoy the show.

↧

Sitting Here Watching the Wheels Go ‘Round and ‘Round

November 13, 2014, 6:38 pm

≫ Next: Mr Occam and Mr. Oswald

≪ Previous: Ask for Natasha

Don’t worry. This isn’t another post on the Fab Four.

First off, thank you all for your support and company during the weeks of my recovery. I can’t tell you how much it meant to hear from all of you. Some of you I’ve corresponded with, and IM’ed, but hope to do more in the future.*

I’m still kinda written out, so I thought I’d take more time to research a few things.

(1) The Murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman

Think this is an open and shut case? Well, it has its strangeness. For example, biological material scraped from underneath Brown’s fingertips indicates that she struggled with her attacker. This DNA does not belong to O.J. Simpson.

Also, autopsy photographs of Goldman’s right hand show myriad cuts and other damage. Of course, he was a martial artist; hardly a pushover. So it shouldn't surprise us that he valiantly fought against his attacker. Even though his skilled fists were no match against a sharp knife, it’s highly unlikely that his killer got away completely unscathed. The murderer would thus bear marks from punches Goldman threw, punches that damaged the young waiter’s hands. Yet, jail nurse Thanos Peratis personally witnessed LAPD Detectives Tom Lange and Philip Vannater telling Simpson to strip so they could photograph his nude body. Thanos told private detective/writer William Dear that he saw no marks on Simpson except for a very small cut to one of his fingers.

And these two data come nowhere close to scratching the surface.

Of course, none of the above would mean anything to me unless there were political or parapolitical undertones to the story. Indeed some have proposed them. Were I to do a series on this, you’d best believe I’d look into them.

(2) The Death of JonBenet Ramsey

You’ll note that I wrote ‘death,’ and not ‘murder.’ While the latter is more probable than not, some evidence actually suggests manslaughter. In either case, everyone agrees that the child died as a result of homicide.

In their memoir, The Death of Innocence: The Untold Story of JonBenet’s Murder and How Its Exploitation Compromised the Pursuit of Truth, John and Patsy Ramsey said that a 1999 grand jury refused to hand down an indictment against them. But years later, we would find this wasn’t true. The jury did, in fact, indict them. But Boulder County DA Alex Hunter refused to sign off on the indictment and pursue a criminal case. Moreover, the District Attorney’s office kept mum on the grand jury’s findings until 27 January 2013, prompting a reporter named Charlie Brennan to file a lawsuit to release them--in order to verify that such an indictment really existed. On 25 October 2013, a judge finally ordered the indictment’s release to the public.

The case is intriguing because, on the one hand, there’s no solid evidence proving the Ramseys murdered or accidentally killed JonBenet. On the other hand, there’s evidence that John and Patsy attempted to thwart a meaningful investigation. The infamous ransom note is especially damning, and for numerous reasons. But here, I’ll cite just one, namely this passage:

You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills.

First off, $118,000 is a rather strange amount. It’s not a round figure like $100,000, or $125,000 or even $120,000. Second, this sum happened to equal John Ramsey’s annual employment bonus for the year 1996.   One would thus have to wonder how many people, among their family and friends (or for that matter professional contacts), knew this exact figure. It’s quite possible that only the Ramseys would have had that information at their fingertips.

As for the political significance of this case, it’s difficult to express in a few words. But I began looking into it when I saw similar stories cropping up in conspiracy lore. Most of the allegations I’ve come across surfaced well after public awareness of the Ramsey case. Yet, some of them predate JonBenet’s death by at least ten years.   And while the facts don’t point to a specific chain of events, they are nevertheless consistent with these outre stories, and offer a quantity and quality of evidence that other conspiracy allegations cannot.

(3) The Zodiac Murders

I went into some depth with this story, and have only recently begun to back away from it. It’s one of those mysteries that develops an intense interest within a small group of people. At some point, it begins to take over their lives. I don’t know if I want to delve into anything that deeply yet.

The political ramifications of the case are quite obvious, and concisely outlined by Mae Brussell, in her constant reference to “The California Violences.” In a nutshell, she felt that a lot of brutal actions, starting in 1968, were designed to discredit leftist dissent and support police excesses against law-abiding activists by depicting them as run-amok marauders. Believe it or not, there were two counter-cultural figures implicated in these assaults, not to mention former Manson associate Bruce Davis.**

This case has drawn in so many amateur sleuths, each championing a specific suspect. But here’s the problem: there are five slayings that everyone attributes to Zodiac. These are often referred to as the “canonical” murders: Betty Lou Jensen (20 December 1968), David Faraday (20 December 1968), Darlene Ferrin (4 July 1969), Cecelia Shepard (27 September 1969), and Paul Stine (11 October 1969). If Zodiac killed one, the presumption is that he killed them all. But we can exclude the most popular suspects from at least one of the slayings. For example, Stine’s murderer left behind DNA evidence that police preserved and posthumously compared to their prime suspect, Arthur Allen. But the DNA did not belong to Allen.   According to witnesses, another popular suspect, Richard Gaikowski, wasn’t even in the US during at least two of the murders.

This has led some to speculate that there wasn’t a Zodiac killer, per se, but rather Zodiac killers (or ‘Team Zodiac’). In this scenario, the police are always chasing their tail because they assumed that one person not only committed all the canonical homicides, but also mailed taunting letters to them and the press. It never apparently dawned on them to look for a murder conspiracy where different people took on different roles.

One point of contention, with respect to the canonical murders, is the connection between each of these individuals. While police maintained that these were five random people who never knew each other, there were others who insisted that one of these five victims, Ferrin, knew all of the other four. If true, that would give strong evidence to the supposition that these murders were anything but random.

________________
*There's something else I just received from a much beloved canine, but I wanna post about that later.

**As I and others (e.g. Vincent Bugliosi and Stephen Kay) have pointed out numerous times, the Mansonites weren’t hippies, a group they outwardly despised. Yet, numerous sources continue to depict them as such.

↧

Mr Occam and Mr. Oswald

November 21, 2014, 10:00 pm

≫ Next: James Tague (1936-2014)

≪ Previous: Sitting Here Watching the Wheels Go ‘Round and ‘Round

I might say that the evidence exonerating Oswald is so complete that had he lived they could not have had a trial. They would not have dared to come to trial.
--Jim Garrison, lecture (unknown date).

Figure 1. Recording of the lecture quoted above.

We can see the JFK assassination in terms of a pop-culture understanding of Occam’s Razor, and we can see it in terms of Occam’s Razor. We can see simplicity in terms of the most simple and straightforward explanation, or we can see it in terms of the explanation requiring the least plurality, or additional proofs.

According to this first viewpoint, the simplest, most straightforward answer is that a single shooter, Oswald, acted alone. One person, one gun, one intended victim, and two accidental ones that got in the way. You could also think that, with respect to plurality, one shot, specifically the fatal head wound, did the bulk of the damage. Only one shooter needs to have performed this. Thus, you need not have other shooters, or for that spotters or any other assistants in your explanation.

Yet when looking at the particulars of the case, one has to weigh, in terms of necessary proofs, which explanation contains less plurality--the Oswald alone hypothesis, or the multi-shooter hypothesis. Speculating about the motivations and the preparation behind the assassination might be interesting, but irrelevant for our purposes here, just as it would be irrelevant to speculate on Oswald’s motives were he the lone assassin. Here, we’re simply talking about the physical possibility of explanation A versus explanation B.

A multi-shooter explanation requires the following proofs: (1) shooters having access to two or more positions, (2) one of the shooters having a relatively flat trajectory, and (3) positive identification of any and all shooters, spotters and assistants.   Fleshing this out a bit, we must first assess the value of this hypothesis. President John Kennedy’s head jerked suddenly to his back and left. The Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) loomed to his back towards his right. The physical properties of inertia would lead one to suspect that had an assailant administered the fatal shot from that position, President Kennedy’s head would have moved sharply forward and to the left. Also, Parkland doctors observed that the fatal bullet entered from the front and exited toward the back (entrance and exit wounds usually differ in size).   A number of civilian and police witnesses heard or saw shots coming from the grassy knoll area in front of the President. In later years, some would photograph, get testimony from and identify conspiracy suspects. In 1969, Garrison won indictment and brought one of them (Clay Shaw) to trial. Towards the end of his life, E. Howard Hunt detailed his involvement in the conspiracy. So it’s not like these people are completely obscure, or unknown.

Meanwhile, witnesses not only saw a gun retract from the sixth floor of the TSBD, but heard it firing from there as well, among them Dallas Police officer Marion Baker. The bullet that grazed bystander James Tague came from a direction inconsistent with that of the fatal head shot.    This indicates at least two shooters from very different positions.

Conversely, if one explains the JFK assassination as Lee Oswald’s lone homicide then the number of necessary proofs begin to increase. For starters, you would (1) have to place him on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. You would subsequently have to (2) have him fire three times in 6.7 seconds with a cantankerous bolt-action rifle, the sight of which had not yet been adjusted. Oswald would then have to have (3) hit James Tague with a bullet or fragment, (4) fired off the magic bullet that produced seven wounds in President Kennedy and Gov. John Connally, and (5) scored a shot to the head from behind that either hit Kennedy in the front, or left a much larger wound in the back of his head contrary to the typical patterns of entrance and exit wounds–and all of this through dense foliage. You would have to (6) also show how Oswald could have fired the rifle without a trace of nitrate on his cheek and (7) have done so without leaving prints discernable by the FBI (but apparently not to local police, who found a five-point palm print match a week after the Bureau tests). You’d then (8) have to prove that Oswald neatly lined up three shell casings side-by-side, stashed the rifle behind some boxes, and ran down to the second floor within ninety seconds.

Officer Marion Baker of the Dallas Police Department heard shots ring out from the Texas School Book Depository. He raced inside and found Oswald’s boss, Roy Truly. Baker asked Truly to escort him to the roof, where the cop believes a sniper would be. They try taking one of the two working elevators, but they’re both on the fifth floor. Truly started rushing upstairs, but Baker stayed behind after catching a glimpse of Lee in his peripheral vision. Drawing his weapon, the officer asked Truly to identify Oswald when Lee and the officer came face-to-face, only a yard or two apart. Baker specifically noted that Oswald was neither mussed nor sweaty.*

Before coming to this point in the story, Baker painstakingly retraced his steps for the Warren Commission, even going go far as to go on site to recreate the events. Both parties determined that this took 90 seconds. In a 1992 interview, Former Orleans Parish DA Jim Garrison outlined how difficult this would be to do:

Furthermore, it was a physical impossibility for Oswald to get downstairs in that short of time. Especially if he had to wipe off the fingerprints, and hide the gun under the boxes, go to the sixth to the fifth, fifth to the fourth, fourth to the third, third to the second in the same time that Roy Truly and Marion Baker went from first to second...If he had been able to do that, he would have been the decathlon champion of all time....In conducing their tests to see if he could do it....they found...that if the man ran fast enough--I think they got somebody, some track star from recent track events and had him run him down the steps [sic]. They found that they could get him down there at maximum speed to reach the Coke machine, but could not get the Coke out of the Coke machine.

Note, Oswald was no track star. By the same token, he was at best a mediocre shot, according to his Marine Corps records. Although Oswald tested positively for nitrate residue on his hands, the same tests on his cheeks were negative. If Oswald fired a rifle, he would have shot from the hip or chest, thus delaying the manual loading mechanism necessary for that rifle, and seriously compromising his aim. Still, according to the single-shooter hypothesis, he had tremendous luck on that time, managing to squeeze off not only the magic bullet, but the anomalous head shot was well. I’ve read in some sources where this might be theoretically possible. But after fifty-one years and millions of trials and simulations, no one has ever replicated this shot under ideal circumstances with ideal weapons and training, much less under the conditions Oswald faced, and the limitations that he had.
When Baker and Truly arrived at the fifth floor, they noticed that only one of the elevators remained on that floor. The other one had descended. So they took the first one to the roof to look for evidence or culprits, completely bypassing the sixth floor. Whoever might have been in that second elevator would have had ample time to finish their business and head downstairs without much notice.

Of course, the point here isn’t to rehash evidence that every JFK assassination researcher and her Aunt Mathilda already knows. Rather, it’s to demonstrate a few things about the application of Occam’s Razor to conspiracy issues, starting with the JFK assassination. First off, the public understands this tool to be something different than what it actually is. Second, while the Razor might be useful for many things, it might not be useful in subjective matters, in no small part because of how the individual using it understands the phrase sine necessitas. Some scholars and scientists have developed anti-razors in order to challenge complacent, comfortable allusions to Occam. As Fr. Ernesto Obregon wrote in a post dated 19 November 2012, exclusive use of the Razor, even when not misapplied, could be problematic:

...the anti-razors are most often warnings to scientists, mathematicians, and secularists, against the dangers of over-simplifying the data to the point where they actually misunderstand what is the actual explanation of the data or the events.

Later, Fr. Obregon quoted science philosopher Dr. Dieter Gernert (Technische Universität München) as saying:

The philosopher of science Henry H. Bauer...disputes the common view that scientists are open-minded and strive for new cognition and insight. By way of contrast, he states that open-mindedness for the new exists only as long as the new things are not too new. Bauer makes a distinction between the ‘known unknown’ which can be derived from secured knowledge (and hence is suitable for research proposals), and the “unknown unknown” that cannot be expected on the basis of the state of knowledge.

One can extend the concept to any skeptic or cynic. I would disagree that scientists–or for that matter debunkers, some of whom are actually compelling and helpful–are so overtly biased that they indiscriminately filter out any and all dissonant information. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that for all the strengths of the scientific process, its practice is often relegated to human beings who bear the same emotions, and some of the same prejudices, as the population in general.

And I’m not alone in thinking this way. Such academics as Drs. Thomas Kuhn (Princeton) and Norwood Hanson (University of Indiana) have written about the social context of science. (One could easily broaden this to include many of the other liberal arts, including the soft sciences and the humanities.) All in all, most professionals are actually pretty good at maintaining objectivity and not falling into groupthink, but only in relation to the rest of us. Consequently, over-relying on such things as Occam’s Razor might be problematic in the best of skilled hands. Imagine the havoc it could wreak in the hands of the dilettante.

But here’s the weird thing about applying Occam’s Razor to conspiracy hypotheses in general, and the JFK conspiracy hypothesis specifically: when weighing the simplicity of conspiracy and non-conspiracy explanations, the latter might not be a shoe-in to win. While J. Lee Marks and others might see the Razor as “the bane of conspiracy theory,” that’s not always--or perhaps not even often--the case. If someone truly believes this, then he or she might have a bias, a predetermination that the conspiracy explanation is always going to be less accurate. Maybe it is; maybe it isn’t. But pre-judgments and over-generalizations won’t show this any more than they would show that conspiracies lurk around every corner.

________________________
*Baker gave three separate accounts of this incident. The above is the one given in his testimony to the Warren Commission. In previous versions he said that Oswald had approached from the opposite directions, or that he was in the back of the lunchroom taking a Coke out of the vending machine. Obviously, this one is most favorable to the single-shooter hypothesis, but it’s still good enough to prove the unlikeliness of Oswald being on the sixth floor, especially given that he has not been sweating. Even the track star sweated.

Truly said he had started going to the third floor when he noticed Baker not with him. Moreover, he saw that Baker had drawn his weapon at someone in the lunchroom. This would imply that Oswald was already there, and jibes best with the Coke machine version of Baker’s stories.

↧