|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Sept 22, 2003 19:01:32 GMT
 The William Sheppard who explored Africa, aka Bungalow Bill |
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 22, 2003 19:16:23 GMT
Great work Total!!!!! ;D ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Sept 23, 2003 4:50:45 GMT
I wonder if he has any grand children..................
|
|
|
|
Post by MrMustard on Sept 23, 2003 11:47:59 GMT
 Whoa, that's freaky......I seriously think this Apollo guy is onto something, he should really tell us more....  |
|
|
|
Post by JamesPaul & Brian on Sept 23, 2003 18:59:09 GMT
The William Sheppard who explored Africa, aka Bungalow Bill That William Sheppard had a double!  Who is that man? Pablo Fanque: the owner of "Mr. Kite" circus ;D BTW Do you want to know the "real" name of "Mr.Kite"? William Kite |
|
|
|
Post by MrMustard on Sept 23, 2003 23:19:35 GMT
Wow! I think you're onto something here..... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by LUCY on Sept 24, 2003 2:34:00 GMT
are you saying the bust on sgt pepper is Pablo? I think it's someone else ... but  ?? Possiblly the last bust in on the left in line may be lewis carrol, but it's ify. What happened to this estate? any ideas? |
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 24, 2003 11:40:07 GMT
By the way. You surely know this, but Pablo is the Spanish for Paul. Maybe we could find some other meaning to Fanque? Just a thought  |
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 24, 2003 13:23:16 GMT
Still more ! Pablo is the Spanish for Paul, but do you know what was the REAL name of Pablo Fanque? William !!!  Pablo Fanque was an equestrian performer and Britain’s first black circus proprietor. Born in Norwich in 1796, his real name was William Darby. His father was a butler who had probably been brought over to Britain as a slave. He began his circus career with William Batty’s travelling circus where he was apprenticed after becoming an orphan. In December 1828 he was billed at the Norwich Parthenon as ‘Young Darby’. He performed as a rider, acrobat and ropewalker. He became the proprietor of his own circus called the Circus Royal, in 1841, joined by the famous clown William Wallett. The Circus Royal toured mainly in the north of England but Pablo also appeared at Astley’s Amphitheatre in London in 1847.
Pablo Fanque continued in circus management all his life. He died in Stockport in May 1871. His body and his favourite horse ‘Wallett’ were brought from Stockport to Leeds for a spectacular funeral procession which featured Wallett and a circus band.
|
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 24, 2003 14:10:09 GMT
In a way we could say that "In the benefit..." talks about a man named William who changed his name to Paul, couldn't we?
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesPaul & Brian on Sept 24, 2003 14:33:18 GMT
In a way we could say that "In the benefit..." talks about a man named William who changed his name to Paul, couldn't we? Bingo! |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 24, 2003 20:29:39 GMT
...except the lyrics were derived wholly from an antique circus poster "late of Pablo Fanque" probably means "straight from..." like modern theatre posters say, "straight from Broadway" or, "fresh from Ringling Bros."
There is a photo of John, circa 1967 holding up the poster he purchased, with the words clearly visible, and they do seem to constitute the complete lyrics of the song.
|
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 25, 2003 8:28:43 GMT
Yes, but both things are compatible. Maybe John knew or found out some facts about Pablo Fanque's life, like his real name, and thought it was a good idea to include a song about him on the Pepper's album, the one with more references to Faul's real name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Sept 26, 2003 5:02:45 GMT
The surname "Fanque" suggests either French, or a Spanish origin. I suppose it is a derived of made up name. What could "fanque" have meant to this man? Maybe he just liked the sound of it..............
Actually , in French, I would tend to see it spelled rather as "Finque" pronounced
Phah-KAY' (phah rhyming with "vin" or vhah(n) with that unique French nasality on the end.) I put the n in parentheses because the French don't quite say the final 'n'. They just kinda push the vowel preceding it into the nose.
Maybe it is "FAW(N)'-kuh.", like the way some people say "funk."
|
|
|
|
Post by MotherNaureSon on Sept 26, 2003 15:47:24 GMT
The surname "Fanque" suggests either French, or a Spanish origin. Mmm... Well, in fact it's not Spanish. I think it's not a word in any language. Maybe the William to Pablo conversion is all there is. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Oct 11, 2003 23:45:48 GMT
good job, you guys!!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Oct 12, 2003 2:38:16 GMT
William Kite.....hmmm..............
And a kite does not have "wings" of its own, so it depends upon (1) a human operator to hold the string and (b) a lot of wind to keep it aloft.
"Wings" could enable a "kite" to fly independently.
also:
(from "Good Morning", on Sgt Peppers...)
"Nothing to do to save his life, call the "wife" in."
If "his life" refers to Paul's, and if the wife is a parabolic term for the replacement (call the wife in)..........I mused............
What are ways in which one symbollically satisfies the domain of, "wife?"
The attributes of a wife include, in some general ways are:
(a) "She" takes someone elses' name, and operates legally underneath it "her" whole life.
(b) She vows to maintain "fidelity" and "loyalty" to her "husband" throughout "her" entire life, and
(c) she dedicates herself to sharing her life fully with the "husband."
(d) Her business and affairs become synonymous with his. (before women's lib, at least)
(e) She strives to always act in the best interests of her husband.
The husband has his share of obligations in return.
The husband and wife are only bound to each other legally as long as both parties are alive, or at least, apparently alive in the eyes of the law.
Upon death of one party, the other is free to seek other relationships.
A citizen is not LEGALLY dead until a proper death certificate has been issued, notarized and filed in the proper office. A biologically dead , but legally alive husband is still under "marital contract" with a living wife until a declaration of death is properly completed. This occasionally confuses the "on paper" status of wives with "missing in action" spouses.
When people die in the US, in most places, the 'will' can not be "executed" until the death has been published, and for a certain time period. A last will and testament doesn't legally go into force until death is legally declared, and published, as in an obituary. A predetermined period of time (often 6 months) must then pass before full disposal of assets, etc.can be accomplished. At least, this was true with several old relatives of mine.
I querry: Does the funeral scene on the front of Sargeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band album constitute anything like a PUBLIC annoucement of a funeral? Could it be said to carry legal weight, since it is WIDELY published and well known? Can information placed in wide distribution (on commercial record jackets) but COVERTLY presented pass legal muster? Who would know this?
If the deceased's teeth are all pulled out of the skull before burial, is this corpse beyond all hope of positive identification, provided all sources of DNA have been, er, uh, made unavailable?
Without a valid Certificate of Death on file, are some cadavers without teeth put forever in legal limbo? Can a body be legally endowed with another legal ID, perhaps by pre-burial tampering?
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Oct 12, 2003 8:15:46 GMT
thats a lot of interesting thoughts and questions. sorry i cant answer your questions though. but good thinking!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheeCavendeshLane on Oct 15, 2003 12:58:58 GMT
Looking for clues is one thing
Looking for evidence is another
If Paul is dead there is actual evidence out there
aside from anything any one put on the album covers.
The weird thing about The King Is Dead is that everyone
really noticed the switch at the time , the change in appearance
and the change in his voice , but the reality of the difference
was too easy to explain away because the possibility of an
actual replacement just didnt occur to people. I remember looking at photographs purporting to be photos of Paul and thinking that the Beatles were playing some sort of Joke , or that the magazine photographer didnt know his Beatles and photographed the wrong
guy. Sgt Pepper was very strange at the time and not well received
by the fan. The explanation for the differences in Paul's appearance are actually masked by the clues because people look for clues and
not evidence. People asked for explanations to account for the changes in Paul's voice--Paul at one time said he had a cold and at another claimed to be using his Elvis voice--really there is a long list of
explanations to explain the apparent differences in his voice---people
asked about the changes in appearance--why the facial hair? The answer covered up the reasons for the facial hair like the facial hair
covered up Paul's face. I dont know whether the clues were meant to inform or to be a yet another layer of deception--not just a wild goose chase but another thing the mind could grasp onto if it happened to notice the differences and not be satisfied by the other explanations
--oh, its just clues, its just a hoax. After all, people still argue that the clues themselves are not there. So one starts trying to prove the existance of the clues rather than the fact of Paul's replacement. I still cant otherwise figure out why on Earth some one would cover up the replacement yet allow albums to be made with clues all over the place, so I think the clues are part of the cover up and not part of the revelation. I think that up until Magical Mystery Tour what we see is more like evidence--we see the differences in height and we hear the differences in voice. Magical Mystery Tour operates to turn the evidence that we can see and hear on Sgt Peppers into mere clues.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 15, 2003 15:12:07 GMT
Just another "TheeCavendeshLane's" [glow=red,2,300]MASTERPIECE!!![/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by AlfredBeach on Oct 15, 2003 16:41:25 GMT
I gotta be honest with you guys, I can’t tell any difference in voices. To me, the photographic evidence and the almost certainly planted clues are VERY interesting, but I don’t hear any difference in Paul/Faul’s voice. People’s voices change.
Take a listen to an early Queen album, or even something from the middle of their career, then listen to something from the mid 80s, before Freddie Mercury got sick. The difference is startling. It becomes even more pronounced on their last record, after Mercury was definitely ill.
Or listen to Robert Plant from Led Zeppelin. He sounds nothing like he used to.
[glow=red,2,300]Voices Change[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Oct 15, 2003 18:32:35 GMT
At the urging of a Miami disc jockey, Dr. Henry M. Truby, director of the university's language and linguistics research laboratory, put the McCartney riddle to a "sound fingerprint" test. After 20 hours of running experiments on dozens of Beatles records dating from the early 1960's, the professor said there is "reasonable doubt" that three voices popularly atrributed to McCartney are produced by the same set of vocal chords. "I hear three different McCartneys," Truby said From Uberkinder's site |
|
|
|
Post by JamesPaul & Brian on Oct 15, 2003 20:14:37 GMT
To me, the photographic evidence and the almost certainly planted clues are VERY interesting, but I don’t hear any difference in Paul/Faul’s voice. People’s voices change. [glow=red,2,300]Voices Change[/glow] Yes, voices change. Within a month a year or.... Have you visited this link? The note is quite high. Why did I changed my beautiful timbre? |
|
|
|
Post by Curious on Oct 15, 2003 21:09:50 GMT
Voices can change dramatically in weeks, with the right tuition - but usually for the better...
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Oct 15, 2003 21:29:42 GMT
AlfredBeach: [glow=red,2,300]WELCOME!!![/glow] Yes, Bill was a James Paul's voice good imitator but... just an imitator!
|
|
?? Possiblly the last bust in on the left in line may be lewis carrol, but it's ify.
