i redact my article regarding the updated list of the best birds
it was gruff towards my colleague
harrison im sorry pls forgive me
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Sunday, March 22, 2020
The Truth About The Beatles
You've all heard of the Beatles: John, Paul, George and Ringo, The Fab Four, the most influential band of all time. But how much do you really know about them? Today we'll explore three theories about this Lonely Hearts Club Band, and I'll let you decide what's real.
Theory 1: Faul (Fake Paul)
Of the four men who formed the group, two have passed on. John Lennon was famously killed by some phony in December of 1980. George Harrison, the greatest Beatle, was taken by lung cancer in November of 2001. But Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney are still alive, and still performing to this day. Or so we're told. In reality, it may be that Ringo has already secured his place as both last to join the band, and last to leave this earth. Paul, the real Paul, died in a car wreck in November of 1966, at the height of Beatle-mania. Not wanting to let their fans down, the band chose to soldier on with a body double, a man by the name of Billy Shears.
In 2015, the World News Daily Report declared the following in an article:
In an exclusive interview with the Hollywood Inquirer, Mr. Starr explained that the “real” Paul McCartney had died in a car crash on November 9 1966, after an argument during a Beatles’ recording session. To spare the public from grief, the Beatles replaced him with a man named William Shears Campbell, who was the winner of a McCartney look-alike contest and who happened to have the same kind of jovial personality as Paul.”When Paul died, we all panicked!” claims Ringo, obviously very emotional. “We didn’t know what to do, and Brian Epstein, our manager, suggested that we hire Billy Shears as a temporary solution. It was supposed to last only a week or two, but time went by and nobody seemed to notice, so we kept playing along. Billy turned out to be a pretty good musician and he was able to perform almost better than Paul. The only problem was that he couldn’t get along with John, at all.”
The band would leave numerous clues about this old fashioned switcheroo throughout their later works. The cover of Abbey Road, for example, depicts the band in a funeral procession for Paul. Billy, playing the part of Paul, the dead man, wears no shoes. John wears white and leads the way, representing the priest. Ringo, in all black, represents the undertaker. And George, at the end of the line and wearing a blue collar denim affair, represents the grave digger. This theory is just the tip of the iceberg, and I would urge all of our readers to look deeper into this very serious public deception.
Theory 2: Klaatu, the Beatles reborn
In 1976, the album 3:47 EST was released by Capitol Records. No identifying information was known about the artist, nor was any offered, except for the name "Klaatu." People around the world took one listen and immediately saw the truth: it had been six years since the Beatles' tumultuous breakup, but they had gotten back together, and were once again making music together under the name Klaatu. Obviously they had changed their name to avoid the kind of press and fame that had ultimately led to their falling out the first time around. This time, they wanted the focus to remain on the music. Now, there are those who claim that Klaatu was not the Beatles reborn, but merely a trio of men from Canada (Terry Draper, John Woloschuck, and and Dee Long), but I defy you to listen to "We're Off You Know" and tell me that's not the Beatles.
Theory 3: The Beatles Never Existed
Ok this one may be the greatest conspiracy yet. You've all heard of the 2019 film Yesterday. It revolves around the premise of a struggling young musician who wakes up from a serious accident to find that he is the only one in the world who remembers the Beatles. No one else has any knowledge of their existence. Well here is a theory which posits that this is a near example of art imitating life, except that in real life, the inverse is true. That is to say, we all remember the Beatles existing, when they never did in the first place. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.
Ok have you picked your jaw up off the floor? Good. So basically this theory boils down to the idea that the Beatles were really just a rotating cast of artists, playing the characters of "John" "Paul" "George" and "Ringo." There were also a series of clones involved. Eventually, the band became a sort of musical version of Finland (see our previous post), so governments and corporations everywhere agreed to maintain the ruse. One brave soul learned the truth and attempted to spread the news, via the website thebeatlesneverexisted.com, but the site was taken down and has never been restored. On can only assume that the poor creator is locked up in Guantanamo, subjected to daily bouts of water torture. The very fate, I fear, that awaits myself as I attempt to share the truth with you all through this blog. But it is a fate I willingly accept, because this site is just that great, and you, my dear readers, deserve this high tier, top notch content that I produce for you.
Theory 1: Faul (Fake Paul)
Of the four men who formed the group, two have passed on. John Lennon was famously killed by some phony in December of 1980. George Harrison, the greatest Beatle, was taken by lung cancer in November of 2001. But Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney are still alive, and still performing to this day. Or so we're told. In reality, it may be that Ringo has already secured his place as both last to join the band, and last to leave this earth. Paul, the real Paul, died in a car wreck in November of 1966, at the height of Beatle-mania. Not wanting to let their fans down, the band chose to soldier on with a body double, a man by the name of Billy Shears.
In 2015, the World News Daily Report declared the following in an article:
In an exclusive interview with the Hollywood Inquirer, Mr. Starr explained that the “real” Paul McCartney had died in a car crash on November 9 1966, after an argument during a Beatles’ recording session. To spare the public from grief, the Beatles replaced him with a man named William Shears Campbell, who was the winner of a McCartney look-alike contest and who happened to have the same kind of jovial personality as Paul.”When Paul died, we all panicked!” claims Ringo, obviously very emotional. “We didn’t know what to do, and Brian Epstein, our manager, suggested that we hire Billy Shears as a temporary solution. It was supposed to last only a week or two, but time went by and nobody seemed to notice, so we kept playing along. Billy turned out to be a pretty good musician and he was able to perform almost better than Paul. The only problem was that he couldn’t get along with John, at all.”
The band would leave numerous clues about this old fashioned switcheroo throughout their later works. The cover of Abbey Road, for example, depicts the band in a funeral procession for Paul. Billy, playing the part of Paul, the dead man, wears no shoes. John wears white and leads the way, representing the priest. Ringo, in all black, represents the undertaker. And George, at the end of the line and wearing a blue collar denim affair, represents the grave digger. This theory is just the tip of the iceberg, and I would urge all of our readers to look deeper into this very serious public deception.
Theory 2: Klaatu, the Beatles reborn
In 1976, the album 3:47 EST was released by Capitol Records. No identifying information was known about the artist, nor was any offered, except for the name "Klaatu." People around the world took one listen and immediately saw the truth: it had been six years since the Beatles' tumultuous breakup, but they had gotten back together, and were once again making music together under the name Klaatu. Obviously they had changed their name to avoid the kind of press and fame that had ultimately led to their falling out the first time around. This time, they wanted the focus to remain on the music. Now, there are those who claim that Klaatu was not the Beatles reborn, but merely a trio of men from Canada (Terry Draper, John Woloschuck, and and Dee Long), but I defy you to listen to "We're Off You Know" and tell me that's not the Beatles.
Theory 3: The Beatles Never Existed
Ok this one may be the greatest conspiracy yet. You've all heard of the 2019 film Yesterday. It revolves around the premise of a struggling young musician who wakes up from a serious accident to find that he is the only one in the world who remembers the Beatles. No one else has any knowledge of their existence. Well here is a theory which posits that this is a near example of art imitating life, except that in real life, the inverse is true. That is to say, we all remember the Beatles existing, when they never did in the first place. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.
Ok have you picked your jaw up off the floor? Good. So basically this theory boils down to the idea that the Beatles were really just a rotating cast of artists, playing the characters of "John" "Paul" "George" and "Ringo." There were also a series of clones involved. Eventually, the band became a sort of musical version of Finland (see our previous post), so governments and corporations everywhere agreed to maintain the ruse. One brave soul learned the truth and attempted to spread the news, via the website thebeatlesneverexisted.com, but the site was taken down and has never been restored. On can only assume that the poor creator is locked up in Guantanamo, subjected to daily bouts of water torture. The very fate, I fear, that awaits myself as I attempt to share the truth with you all through this blog. But it is a fate I willingly accept, because this site is just that great, and you, my dear readers, deserve this high tier, top notch content that I produce for you.
Saturday, March 21, 2020
Questions Without Answers
Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night with a sudden burning question in your mind? One that you can't stop thinking about, and try as you might you just can't fall back asleep?
I remember a little while back this happened to me. The question was "Why do nearly all animals have 5 'fingers' and 'toes'?" obviously things like birds or dolphins or dogs don't really have digits in the same sense as humans or monkeys, but I recalled seeing skeletons of those animals showing what appeared to be 5 phalanges. After rolling in bed for a couple hours, I eventually started googling. I found that the reason was simple enough- given that all living things are connected via one huge evolutionary tree of life, the obvious-once-you-know-it explanation is that one common ancestor evolved the 5-phalange pattern before branching off into mammals and birds and reptiles etc. I never did really find why 5 was the magic evolutionary number though. Like I remember hearing the theory of dogs having four legs because in the wild, it is not uncommon to lose a leg, and three legs is the minimum needed for them to walk normally. I like this theory because it has a concrete mathematical basis- 3 points define a plane, so for a dog to remain upright on a defined plane, it needs three legs. Obviously two legs is a possibility (see: human legs), but that requires balancing, which is far more difficult for dogs given the shape and structure of their feet compared to ours. So to me, the four leg theory makes prefect sense from an evolutionary standpoint: the minimum number required to function, plus one extra, given that the world is rough and if a man's gonna make it he's gotta be tough, and is therefore likely to lose a leg at some point. The animal with an extra leg is by default more fit to survive than the one without. Meanwhile, the one with two extra legs is probably just redundant, and given that five is an uneven number, it leads to a necessary asymmetry. Since we no nature loves symmetry (see: eyes, ears, fins, flower petals, pinnate leaves, etc.), five legs is probably a no go. and six legs would mean a) twice as many legs as necessary, and b) a rather extreme genetic mutation to lead to such a divergent phenotype. So I'm very happy with the four leg reasoning. I get why many animals have four legs (probably a mix of divergent and convergent evolution), and I get why the magic number is four. The five finger reasoning is a little less satisfactory- I see why all different animals share the trait (divergent evolution), but five being the magic number is still something of a mystery to me. If anyone knows, please let me know.
But I digress. This post is because last night, I once again awoke with a burning question: why are lakes named the way that they are? Ok hear me out. Let's name some bodies of water that aren't lakes. Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Hudson Bay, San Francisco Bay, Bandon Bay, Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, South China Sea, Black Sea, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, Mississippi River, Amazon River, Nile River, Zambezi River, Yellow River, Vulga River, Rhine River, etc.. Notice the order of all these titles: (name) followed by (body of water). There are a handful of non-rivers that are in reverse, but all that I can think of are qualified with an 'of' : Gulf of Mexico, Bay of Biscay, Gulf of Thailand, Gulf of Oman, Bay of Bangkok, Strait of Gibraltar, Strait of Magellan, etc. And some lakes also follow this convention: Crater Lake, Laguna Lake, Crystal Lake, Great Salt Lake, etc. But the overwhelming majority are reversed, and with no 'of' to be seen: Lake Chad, Lake Tahoe, Lake Nicaragua, Lake Titicaca, Lake Michigan, Lake Baikal, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Victoria, Lake Mercer, Lake Mead, etc. So my question is, why? Why flip the naming convention for what seems to be the majority of lakes around the world? One answer on Quora postulates that it is because of differing grammar rules in other languages, so when we translate the names of lakes to english, the order is flipped. But that's a load of crap. If that were the case, why is the same not true for other bodies of water? For example, the Amazon River, in it's local Spanish, would be Rio Amazonas- River Amazon. But we had to problem flipping that order to fit with english naming conventions. And Lake Mead was man-made, created by Americans when we built the Hoover Dam, yet it too has the inverted naming scheme. So why is it are lakes different? I need to know. I've been awake for two and a half hours now thinking this over. Throw me a bone here people.
I remember a little while back this happened to me. The question was "Why do nearly all animals have 5 'fingers' and 'toes'?" obviously things like birds or dolphins or dogs don't really have digits in the same sense as humans or monkeys, but I recalled seeing skeletons of those animals showing what appeared to be 5 phalanges. After rolling in bed for a couple hours, I eventually started googling. I found that the reason was simple enough- given that all living things are connected via one huge evolutionary tree of life, the obvious-once-you-know-it explanation is that one common ancestor evolved the 5-phalange pattern before branching off into mammals and birds and reptiles etc. I never did really find why 5 was the magic evolutionary number though. Like I remember hearing the theory of dogs having four legs because in the wild, it is not uncommon to lose a leg, and three legs is the minimum needed for them to walk normally. I like this theory because it has a concrete mathematical basis- 3 points define a plane, so for a dog to remain upright on a defined plane, it needs three legs. Obviously two legs is a possibility (see: human legs), but that requires balancing, which is far more difficult for dogs given the shape and structure of their feet compared to ours. So to me, the four leg theory makes prefect sense from an evolutionary standpoint: the minimum number required to function, plus one extra, given that the world is rough and if a man's gonna make it he's gotta be tough, and is therefore likely to lose a leg at some point. The animal with an extra leg is by default more fit to survive than the one without. Meanwhile, the one with two extra legs is probably just redundant, and given that five is an uneven number, it leads to a necessary asymmetry. Since we no nature loves symmetry (see: eyes, ears, fins, flower petals, pinnate leaves, etc.), five legs is probably a no go. and six legs would mean a) twice as many legs as necessary, and b) a rather extreme genetic mutation to lead to such a divergent phenotype. So I'm very happy with the four leg reasoning. I get why many animals have four legs (probably a mix of divergent and convergent evolution), and I get why the magic number is four. The five finger reasoning is a little less satisfactory- I see why all different animals share the trait (divergent evolution), but five being the magic number is still something of a mystery to me. If anyone knows, please let me know.
But I digress. This post is because last night, I once again awoke with a burning question: why are lakes named the way that they are? Ok hear me out. Let's name some bodies of water that aren't lakes. Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Hudson Bay, San Francisco Bay, Bandon Bay, Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, South China Sea, Black Sea, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, Mississippi River, Amazon River, Nile River, Zambezi River, Yellow River, Vulga River, Rhine River, etc.. Notice the order of all these titles: (name) followed by (body of water). There are a handful of non-rivers that are in reverse, but all that I can think of are qualified with an 'of' : Gulf of Mexico, Bay of Biscay, Gulf of Thailand, Gulf of Oman, Bay of Bangkok, Strait of Gibraltar, Strait of Magellan, etc. And some lakes also follow this convention: Crater Lake, Laguna Lake, Crystal Lake, Great Salt Lake, etc. But the overwhelming majority are reversed, and with no 'of' to be seen: Lake Chad, Lake Tahoe, Lake Nicaragua, Lake Titicaca, Lake Michigan, Lake Baikal, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Victoria, Lake Mercer, Lake Mead, etc. So my question is, why? Why flip the naming convention for what seems to be the majority of lakes around the world? One answer on Quora postulates that it is because of differing grammar rules in other languages, so when we translate the names of lakes to english, the order is flipped. But that's a load of crap. If that were the case, why is the same not true for other bodies of water? For example, the Amazon River, in it's local Spanish, would be Rio Amazonas- River Amazon. But we had to problem flipping that order to fit with english naming conventions. And Lake Mead was man-made, created by Americans when we built the Hoover Dam, yet it too has the inverted naming scheme. So why is it are lakes different? I need to know. I've been awake for two and a half hours now thinking this over. Throw me a bone here people.
Friday, March 20, 2020
The Bachelor
Hey Birdos.
So recently I watched the Bachelor for the first time. Watching Peter try to find love this season has given me a lot to think about. About the show, and its viewers, and love, and life. Here are some of my thoughts:
- Why is Peter so dense?
- Why are we supposed to be rooting for Peter?
- Why are we supposed to be entertained by this show?
- Why would someone create a show who's very premise is so uncomfortable to even think about, let alone see with our own eyes?
- Why does no one want to bang me as bad as Peter wanted to bang what's-her-name?
- Why did Peter think that having a scar from running into a golf cart was cool?
- Why did what's-her-name wreck marriages for fun?
These are just a few of my thoughts. I'd love to hear some of yours in the comments below. Until next time, here's hoping they cancel the Bachelor.
So recently I watched the Bachelor for the first time. Watching Peter try to find love this season has given me a lot to think about. About the show, and its viewers, and love, and life. Here are some of my thoughts:
- Why is Peter so dense?
- Why are we supposed to be rooting for Peter?
- Why are we supposed to be entertained by this show?
- Why would someone create a show who's very premise is so uncomfortable to even think about, let alone see with our own eyes?
- Why does no one want to bang me as bad as Peter wanted to bang what's-her-name?
- Why did Peter think that having a scar from running into a golf cart was cool?
- Why did what's-her-name wreck marriages for fun?
These are just a few of my thoughts. I'd love to hear some of yours in the comments below. Until next time, here's hoping they cancel the Bachelor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)