[QUOTE] [b]hachiman wrote:[/b]
I read that if you look closely, Freddie has his arm around Terry's to guide him because of his failing sight.[/QUOTE]
:S :/
Costa86
Thread
Posts in chronological order
miraclesteinway
All I can add is, thank God that HIV treatment is now at a stage where a person can live a healthy and full life. It's very sad that so many people had to die - needlessly because of the worldwide governments' refusal to invest in the problem in the early stages - and now let's hope that in areas of the world where people don't have access to medication for whatever reason, that they may get it.
It's sad seeing Freddie like this, and now that I look I can see that he's holding on to his bodyguard. In general, the world has come a long way since 1991, and the media's attitude to HIV has largely softened, but there's still a long way to go, still work to be done.
Looking back it's quite sick isn't it, how they hounded Freddie, trying to flush him out, and how they wouldn't give him a minute's peace even in his own home and yet, when he died, many of these same people became quite weepy and shed tears for him, paid tribute to him and expressed a deep sense of loss for Freddie Mercury the musician and showman. Of course there were scum tabloids who focused on his sex life and came up with all kinds of lurid stories to sell the papers, but there was this kind of ironic juxtaposition in the press at the time.
If only they had shown him that compassion and privacy while he was alive, if only they had just allowed him to get on with his tasks, we wouldn't even have these photos to look at.
There is a part of me that wrongly thinks that perhaps Freddie should have just made a statement sooner, and he might have been left alone (that is, in my view, the only good reason to make the statement), but it probably wouldn't have worked. The press would have followed his story and it might have become a 'How ill is Freddie Mercury this week?' in even greater measure than it was. If this was happening to Freddie now, in 2015, (and of course the difference would be that the medication would save him), then he would find the press more compassionate, and more able to talk about these things, but at that time there was still a huge fear factor surrounding AIDS and a massive stigma, so Freddie had a genuine and real need to protect his family and friends. I don't remember his parents or sister being photographed or questioned by the press at the time, although perhaps it did happen and they were able to deal with it, but obviously Freddie and his family had found a way to deal with the pressure. In not actually telling his family he had AIDS he did them a favour at that time, not because he wanted to lie to them, but think about it - if the press had called up Mrs Bulsara and questioned her, she wouldn't have had to lie. Mrs Bulsara strikes me as the type who would be able to say 'I'm not talking to you' or 'You've got the wrong number sorry' to any press vulture anyway.
It's sad seeing Freddie like this, and now that I look I can see that he's holding on to his bodyguard. In general, the world has come a long way since 1991, and the media's attitude to HIV has largely softened, but there's still a long way to go, still work to be done.
Looking back it's quite sick isn't it, how they hounded Freddie, trying to flush him out, and how they wouldn't give him a minute's peace even in his own home and yet, when he died, many of these same people became quite weepy and shed tears for him, paid tribute to him and expressed a deep sense of loss for Freddie Mercury the musician and showman. Of course there were scum tabloids who focused on his sex life and came up with all kinds of lurid stories to sell the papers, but there was this kind of ironic juxtaposition in the press at the time.
If only they had shown him that compassion and privacy while he was alive, if only they had just allowed him to get on with his tasks, we wouldn't even have these photos to look at.
There is a part of me that wrongly thinks that perhaps Freddie should have just made a statement sooner, and he might have been left alone (that is, in my view, the only good reason to make the statement), but it probably wouldn't have worked. The press would have followed his story and it might have become a 'How ill is Freddie Mercury this week?' in even greater measure than it was. If this was happening to Freddie now, in 2015, (and of course the difference would be that the medication would save him), then he would find the press more compassionate, and more able to talk about these things, but at that time there was still a huge fear factor surrounding AIDS and a massive stigma, so Freddie had a genuine and real need to protect his family and friends. I don't remember his parents or sister being photographed or questioned by the press at the time, although perhaps it did happen and they were able to deal with it, but obviously Freddie and his family had found a way to deal with the pressure. In not actually telling his family he had AIDS he did them a favour at that time, not because he wanted to lie to them, but think about it - if the press had called up Mrs Bulsara and questioned her, she wouldn't have had to lie. Mrs Bulsara strikes me as the type who would be able to say 'I'm not talking to you' or 'You've got the wrong number sorry' to any press vulture anyway.
cmsdrums
[QUOTE] [b]hachiman wrote:[/b]
I read that if you look closely, Freddie has his arm around Terry's to guide him because of his failing sight.[/QUOTE]
It does look that way on first glance, but look properly and you can make out the line of Terry's shoulder and arm, and Freddie's arm and hand are behind, possibly just putting his hand in his pocket and NOT linked in Terry's.
I read that if you look closely, Freddie has his arm around Terry's to guide him because of his failing sight.[/QUOTE]
It does look that way on first glance, but look properly and you can make out the line of Terry's shoulder and arm, and Freddie's arm and hand are behind, possibly just putting his hand in his pocket and NOT linked in Terry's.
Pokemaniacjunk
I'm pretty sure this is during the headlong filming his shirt is yellow with a grey collar exactly like the sweatshirt in headlong
Costa86
[QUOTE] [b]Pokemaniacjunk wrote:[/b]
I'm pretty sure this is during the headlong filming his shirt is yellow with a grey collar exactly like the sweatshirt in headlong[/QUOTE]
Good spot.
I'm pretty sure this is during the headlong filming his shirt is yellow with a grey collar exactly like the sweatshirt in headlong[/QUOTE]
Good spot.
Costa86
[QUOTE] [b]miraclesteinway wrote:[/b]
All I can add is, thank God that HIV treatment is now at a stage where a person can live a healthy and full life. It's very sad that so many people had to die - needlessly because of the worldwide governments' refusal to invest in the problem in the early stages - and now let's hope that in areas of the world where people don't have access to medication for whatever reason, that they may get it.
It's sad seeing Freddie like this, and now that I look I can see that he's holding on to his bodyguard. In general, the world has come a long way since 1991, and the media's attitude to HIV has largely softened, but there's still a long way to go, still work to be done.
Looking back it's quite sick isn't it, how they hounded Freddie, trying to flush him out, and how they wouldn't give him a minute's peace even in his own home and yet, when he died, many of these same people became quite weepy and shed tears for him, paid tribute to him and expressed a deep sense of loss for Freddie Mercury the musician and showman. Of course there were scum tabloids who focused on his sex life and came up with all kinds of lurid stories to sell the papers, but there was this kind of ironic juxtaposition in the press at the time.
If only they had shown him that compassion and privacy while he was alive, if only they had just allowed him to get on with his tasks, we wouldn't even have these photos to look at.
There is a part of me that wrongly thinks that perhaps Freddie should have just made a statement sooner, and he might have been left alone (that is, in my view, the only good reason to make the statement), but it probably wouldn't have worked. The press would have followed his story and it might have become a 'How ill is Freddie Mercury this week?' in even greater measure than it was. If this was happening to Freddie now, in 2015, (and of course the difference would be that the medication would save him), then he would find the press more compassionate, and more able to talk about these things, but at that time there was still a huge fear factor surrounding AIDS and a massive stigma, so Freddie had a genuine and real need to protect his family and friends. I don't remember his parents or sister being photographed or questioned by the press at the time, although perhaps it did happen and they were able to deal with it, but obviously Freddie and his family had found a way to deal with the pressure. In not actually telling his family he had AIDS he did them a favour at that time, not because he wanted to lie to them, but think about it - if the press had called up Mrs Bulsara and questioned her, she wouldn't have had to lie. Mrs Bulsara strikes me as the type who would be able to say 'I'm not talking to you' or 'You've got the wrong number sorry' to any press vulture anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with what you say - however, regarding the first part on how many people died needlessly, it think this is a point of great contention.
Somebody like Margaret Heckler would maintain that as much money as was needed was invested into researching the new illness that was HIV, and that it was only a question of scientists needing quite a lot of time to understand such a complicated virus, and eventually coming up with HAART in 1996.
I do agree that the Reagan and Bush administrations ignored the issue and didn't give it the importance it deserved - at least from a public information standpoint. But in terms of funding towards finding some sort of scientific solution, I'm not sure one can safely say that people died needlessly because not enough was invested in HIV research in the 80s.
HIV is an extremely complex retrovirus, and is in a class of viruses which makes finding a vaccine or cure very difficult, if not impossible, and this is mostly because of the imperfect way in which it replicates. Top HIV scientists nowadays will tell you that a cure in their lifetime is highly unlikely, as is a vaccine (which Heckler infamously proclaimed would be expected to be made available within a few years of the AIDS-causing virus having been discovered). The only person ever cured of the virus was the Berlin patient, and this involved a bone marrow transplant amongst other things.
In my opinion, it would still have taken ~14 years to come up with an effective therapy (HAART), no matter how much money was invested.
All I can add is, thank God that HIV treatment is now at a stage where a person can live a healthy and full life. It's very sad that so many people had to die - needlessly because of the worldwide governments' refusal to invest in the problem in the early stages - and now let's hope that in areas of the world where people don't have access to medication for whatever reason, that they may get it.
It's sad seeing Freddie like this, and now that I look I can see that he's holding on to his bodyguard. In general, the world has come a long way since 1991, and the media's attitude to HIV has largely softened, but there's still a long way to go, still work to be done.
Looking back it's quite sick isn't it, how they hounded Freddie, trying to flush him out, and how they wouldn't give him a minute's peace even in his own home and yet, when he died, many of these same people became quite weepy and shed tears for him, paid tribute to him and expressed a deep sense of loss for Freddie Mercury the musician and showman. Of course there were scum tabloids who focused on his sex life and came up with all kinds of lurid stories to sell the papers, but there was this kind of ironic juxtaposition in the press at the time.
If only they had shown him that compassion and privacy while he was alive, if only they had just allowed him to get on with his tasks, we wouldn't even have these photos to look at.
There is a part of me that wrongly thinks that perhaps Freddie should have just made a statement sooner, and he might have been left alone (that is, in my view, the only good reason to make the statement), but it probably wouldn't have worked. The press would have followed his story and it might have become a 'How ill is Freddie Mercury this week?' in even greater measure than it was. If this was happening to Freddie now, in 2015, (and of course the difference would be that the medication would save him), then he would find the press more compassionate, and more able to talk about these things, but at that time there was still a huge fear factor surrounding AIDS and a massive stigma, so Freddie had a genuine and real need to protect his family and friends. I don't remember his parents or sister being photographed or questioned by the press at the time, although perhaps it did happen and they were able to deal with it, but obviously Freddie and his family had found a way to deal with the pressure. In not actually telling his family he had AIDS he did them a favour at that time, not because he wanted to lie to them, but think about it - if the press had called up Mrs Bulsara and questioned her, she wouldn't have had to lie. Mrs Bulsara strikes me as the type who would be able to say 'I'm not talking to you' or 'You've got the wrong number sorry' to any press vulture anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with what you say - however, regarding the first part on how many people died needlessly, it think this is a point of great contention.
Somebody like Margaret Heckler would maintain that as much money as was needed was invested into researching the new illness that was HIV, and that it was only a question of scientists needing quite a lot of time to understand such a complicated virus, and eventually coming up with HAART in 1996.
I do agree that the Reagan and Bush administrations ignored the issue and didn't give it the importance it deserved - at least from a public information standpoint. But in terms of funding towards finding some sort of scientific solution, I'm not sure one can safely say that people died needlessly because not enough was invested in HIV research in the 80s.
HIV is an extremely complex retrovirus, and is in a class of viruses which makes finding a vaccine or cure very difficult, if not impossible, and this is mostly because of the imperfect way in which it replicates. Top HIV scientists nowadays will tell you that a cure in their lifetime is highly unlikely, as is a vaccine (which Heckler infamously proclaimed would be expected to be made available within a few years of the AIDS-causing virus having been discovered). The only person ever cured of the virus was the Berlin patient, and this involved a bone marrow transplant amongst other things.
In my opinion, it would still have taken ~14 years to come up with an effective therapy (HAART), no matter how much money was invested.
hachiman
[QUOTE]
[b]Pokemaniacjunk wrote: [/b] I'm pretty sure this is during the headlong filming his shirt is yellow with a grey collar exactly like the sweatshirt in headlong[/QUOTE]
He looks to be wearing different trousers though. In headlong, he wore dark jeans.
[b]Pokemaniacjunk wrote: [/b] I'm pretty sure this is during the headlong filming his shirt is yellow with a grey collar exactly like the sweatshirt in headlong[/QUOTE]
He looks to be wearing different trousers though. In headlong, he wore dark jeans.
popy
[QUOTE]
[b]akan wrote: [/b] it should be this location
https://www.google.it/maps/@51.510003,-0.152014,3a,75y,113.44h,86.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su5YnvK0xwWcPVv-r3EcUMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=it[/QUOTE]
Wrong. It's here [url=https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5101747,-0.1520992,3a,15y,150.68h,87.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPbbFkSkoGVNeW74pZHSF6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5101747,-0.1520992,3a,15y,150.68h,87.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPbbFkSkoGVNeW74pZHSF6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656[/url] Google Street View gives an almost perfect match.
[b]akan wrote: [/b] it should be this location
https://www.google.it/maps/@51.510003,-0.152014,3a,75y,113.44h,86.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su5YnvK0xwWcPVv-r3EcUMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=it[/QUOTE]
Wrong. It's here [url=https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5101747,-0.1520992,3a,15y,150.68h,87.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPbbFkSkoGVNeW74pZHSF6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5101747,-0.1520992,3a,15y,150.68h,87.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPbbFkSkoGVNeW74pZHSF6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656[/url] Google Street View gives an almost perfect match.
e-man
Never seen the photo before - thanks! (Not morbid IMO)
Seems to be the headlong outfit - when was that shot? He could of course use the same clothes on different occasions!
To me, this looks like early 91
Seems to be the headlong outfit - when was that shot? He could of course use the same clothes on different occasions!
To me, this looks like early 91
musicland munich
For the sake of "On this board you have to prove everything"
Freddie (86`) wears outfits more often than once.
The gap between these both pictures, would be around three or four Years.
Freddie (86`) wears outfits more often than once.
The gap between these both pictures, would be around three or four Years.
musicland munich
Picture two around 90´ ( scene is discribed in Jim Hutton`s book)
BradMay
Picture 2 looks to me like it's 89 (Around the time the IWIA video was shot)
hachiman
I think so too because Freddie was more thinner in 90.
e-man
Never seen the last two either! Who is the first woman?
hachiman
Mary Austin.