Randy article----Vinnie related info

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:45 am

http://www.rockmusicstar.com/randyrhoadsbook/

RMS: If you could, I'd like for you to clear up a Randy Rhoads rumor. For many years, it's been reported that when Randy died, Grover Jackson had given Vinnie Vincent one of the Jackson Shark fin 'V' guitars that were built for Randy just before the time of his death. This one was metallic gold.

AK: At the end of 1981, just before the "Diary of a Madman" tour, Jackson (guitars) made Randy the black (Shark fin 'V') guitar. After he got that guitar, he asked Grover to make three more for him. One of them was going to be another black one, with a tremolo. Another one was going to be just like the first black one, but it was going to be white. The third one was never finished. The white one was accidentally sold at the NAMM show in 1983. The black one was eventually sold as well. The third one very well could be the one given to Vinnie. I asked Grover numerous times about the gold Jackson that Vinnie Vincent had. He said he couldn't remember the exact details, but he believes the one that was given to Vinnie was 'not' the third (Randy) one. Grover told me that he still had the templates for the guitars he made for Randy. Vinnie loved them, so Grover used the template to make one for Vinnie, which became the gold one with the Floyd Rose that Vinnie played on the "Creatures of the Night" tour in 1982/1983. The pink one Vinnie played on the "Lick It Up" tour was one of the first of the mass production models that launched the Jackson worldwide success in 1983.

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:11 am

Good. Thanks rick. Well if its the 3rd and vv tells the truth the hard rock has that now.

Post by **Genebaby** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:23 am

Ha ha, I was just coming here to post this. I'm going to get that Randy book for sure!

It would seem Vinnie didn't get Randy's third guitar, Grover made him one from the template, which would make the gold Rhoads the 5th Rhoads of that newer shape, and the last pre-production Rhoads.

This makes sense as Randy was still using vintage tremolos or none at all.

shramiac · Post by **shramiac** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:41 am

What I've always thought!

And dang!!!!! Conformation of a full pro shot concert of Randy..........that we'll never see!!!!

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:19 pm

shramiac wrote:And dang!!!!! Conformation of a full pro shot concert of Randy..........that we'll never see!!!!

Greedy people.

Post by **Genebaby** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:41 pm

It will come out one day, it HAS to!

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:01 pm

This story above is indeed fact.

The gold guitar was a PRE-production model though.

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:27 pm

Well if vv told the truth which I still question then he had a bad respray job done on a pre production model rr.

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:29 pm

Also vv had a white one on creatures and we guess he may of had two gold ones . He certainly had a resprayed gold one and a non resprayed gold one on Liu euro tour.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:37 am

I'm confused. You are saying it IS the third, but the quote says this:

...but he believes the one that was given to Vinnie was 'not' the third (Randy) one. Grover told me that he still had the templates for the guitars he made for Randy. Vinnie loved them, so Grover used the template to make one for Vinnie, which became the gold one with the Floyd Rose that Vinnie played on the "Creatures of the Night" tour in 1982/1983.

So, it was a guitar made specifically for Vinnie using the Randy template. Or am I misunderstanding?

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:51 am

It ISN'T the third. Vinnie's guitar was made from the template.

I got this information from one of the most reliable sources on that guitar.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:20 am

That's what I thought...but that's not how other people seemed to interpret it. Unless I'm interpreting THEIR replies incorrectly?

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:35 am

erg2 wrote:That's what I thought...but that's not how other people seemed to interpret it. Unless I'm interpreting THEIR replies incorrectly?

Never, Never, NEVER, Go by anything that Dino says.

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:54 am

I dont know anything about the 3rd as Rick suggests. All I know if we take vv's hard rock guitar as truth (and not what a few of us here and at jackson think) then it was used to record creatures in summer 82 making it a prototype I would guess its number 4 then if Rick knows number 3. The only thing that maybe backs up the claim is that i saw no serial number unless its possible to replace or as Jackson Guitars said it wasn't even a Jackson.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:28 am

poserboy71 wrote:Never, Never, NEVER, Go by anything that Dino says.

I have a T-shirt that says exactly this.

metatron · Post by **metatron** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:58 pm

Like the Number Plate

metatron · Post by **metatron** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:41 pm

This one is better. More realistic.

metatron · Post by **metatron** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:53 pm

The truth is Dino know heaps. He like a detective. Finds stuff that has pass me by, or has stared me straight in the face & I've missed.
Example, he knew ,in a matter of fact way, that Roxx Gang's Wade Hayes played a Carvin Ultra V. I can't count how many times I watched the SCRATCH MY BACK video clip...You know what, I missed it. I LOVED this Band. I loved Wade Hayes & research all his stuff, but I missed it until Dino pointed it out. Yep Dino knows his shit.
[youtube][/youtube]

poserboy71 · Post by **poserboy71** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:05 am

Dino is BRILLIANT and he smells nice.

1031 · Post by **1031** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:19 am

There is so much guitar abuse in that video.

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:07 am

i'll reply tomorrow

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:25 am

as for Roxx Gang. I knew Wade had an ultra v because he's holding it in the picture of him in the cd booklet. Also I read an interview when the first album came out that they all went to Los Angeles (I believe maybe they recorded the album in LA , if not they went for something else) and Wade went to all the Hollywood and LA guitar shops to find a black Jackson RR V which he didn't find but when he showed up at the Carvin store in Hollywood they had a black Ultra V that he liked a lot and he took it as a second choice to the RR that he couldn't find. I do believe he recorded all his parts on the record with that Ultra V. To be honest I have not seen the scratch my back video since the year it came out. I do like No Easy Way out a lot and was big Roxx Gang fan along with Vain which I think both came out around the same time, I am guessing late 1989.

metatron · Post by **metatron** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:54 pm

Yer, I loved Roxx Gang. No so much Kevin Steel's voice. But the music was awesome. And I love Wade's playing and style. He's up there as guitarists for me. He looked cool and he played like a mofo. BITD ( back in the day) my band P!nk Champagne would do 'No easy way out' & 'Scratch my Back' and Vain were like the most awesome real sounding band. They sounded the same live as the record. No overdubs, no tricks. Just the real McCoy. And Davy Vain's sounded like a sexual act. You can hear the sex in his voice. Two great bands. Didn't like anything Roxx Gang did after that first album ( there were no orginal members except for Kevin from the 2nd album onwards) but pretty much every Vain album is awesome. And still is. The most resent release, ' enough rope' is great.

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:11 pm

I didn't hear the second Roxx Gang record or the second Vain record that didn't come out. Vain especially should have been big, not sure why not. Maybe they came on to the scene a year too late to establish themselves. I didn't mind the Roxx Gang vocals to be honest but I suppose could have been better.
I think it was the summer of '89 when I was listening to those albums alot. I also liked Riot CD that had just come out with the brass section which I think was a big flop of an album.

1031 · Post by **1031** » Sun Aug 26, 2012 2:12 am

doublev2 wrote:I didn't hear the second Roxx Gang record or the second Vain record that didn't come out. Vain especially should have been big, not sure why not. Maybe they came on to the scene a year too late to establish themselves. I didn't mind the Roxx Gang vocals to be honest but I suppose could have been better.
I think it was the summer of '89 when I was listening to those albums alot. I also liked Riot CD that had just come out with the brass section which I think was a big flop of an album.

There where a lot of great bands that just faded, I think over saturation of these types of bands was part of it, and part of the end of glam rock people were just overloaded and ready for something new.

I think in a way the same thing is happening now with dance pop. Lady gaga, Rehanna , Katty Perry etc. I think you know the music industry has hit that over saturation point when a lot of older pop change up there music to fit and try to cash in. The same of metal now all the bands sound the same. I just wonder whats next ? Or what will recycle.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:56 am

Gene Simmons often likes to blame the internet for the fall of the record industry, but it was only 1 of the many components. The first component was the record companies themselves and greed. Historically record companies have done little to promote unique and interesting artists. As far back as the 40s-50's, if an artist had a successful song then all of the competing record companies would find their own version in an effort to sell product...not art. It was less noticeable because there were fewer national/international record labels. There were even fewer means of marketing.
Then as time progressed, TV progressed, magazines and radio exploding everyone wanted to get a piece of all that available money. More big record companies popped up and the smaller, regional labels got a little bigger. For every Little Richard there was a white version that was sanitized for mass audiences. Then you could start seeing a pattern that became really blatant in the 70's and 80s:
Popular Perfomer > Close Copycats > Female Version > Child Version
Quiet Riot > Poison > Vixen > Trixter
Nirvana > Pearl Jam > L7 > Silverchair
Dr Dre > Snoop Dog > Missy Elliot > Li'l Bow Wow
Backstreet Boys > NSync > Spice Girls > Hanson

Once a trend had been fully saturated and the "Child Version" had come out, then the public was just sick of that and started looking for something new. (Just like if you have to eat bologna every day, you'd start wanting ham.) The record companies were just so greedy that, instead of developing their own artists, they can make money faster and easier by copycatting the existing trend. However, so many try that route that the trend becomes oversaturated and the trend dies.

Post by **Genebaby** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:47 am

I would agree with that.

1031 · Post by **1031** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:47 pm

erg2 wrote:Gene Simmons often likes to blame the internet for the fall of the record industry, but it was only 1 of the many components. The first component was the record companies themselves and greed. Historically record companies have done little to promote unique and interesting artists. As far back as the 40s-50's, if an artist had a successful song then all of the competing record companies would find their own version in an effort to sell product...not art. It was less noticeable because there were fewer national/international record labels. There were even fewer means of marketing.
Then as time progressed, TV progressed, magazines and radio exploding everyone wanted to get a piece of all that available money. More big record companies popped up and the smaller, regional labels got a little bigger. For every Little Richard there was a white version that was sanitized for mass audiences. Then you could start seeing a pattern that became really blatant in the 70's and 80s:
Popular Perfomer > Close Copycats > Female Version > Child Version
Quiet Riot > Poison > Vixen > Trixter
Nirvana > Pearl Jam > L7 > Silverchair
Dr Dre > Snoop Dog > Missy Elliot > Li'l Bow Wow
Backstreet Boys > NSync > Spice Girls > Hanson

Once a trend had been fully saturated and the "Child Version" had come out, then the public was just sick of that and started looking for something new. (Just like if you have to eat bologna every day, you'd start wanting ham.) The record companies were just so greedy that, instead of developing their own artists, they can make money faster and easier by copycatting the existing trend. However, so many try that route that the trend becomes oversaturated and the trend dies.

I completely agree that record company's have a history of cut and paste trend development but regardless of that a new trend was always able to surge because there was money for A&R to take a chance on new band and money for small indi lables to invest in a band. Metallica, Nirvana, Creed even in the 50's trend breakers came from indi lables. With P2P sharing in the mix there is no money for anyone Lables big or small or bands.

I will say the internet would have been the great equalizer for bands if not for mass P2P sharing and copying. It would have given them the power to work out distribution only deals with the record company's and introduced a wider variety of music on a large level. And given a real shot for small bands to self promote and sell product and be self sustaining until they could get a bigger deal . Instead it has turned bands into T shirt salesmen, there's no money in recorded music, merchandise and ticket sales is the only real money generator now.

Even bigger bands that have self released digital have had poor sales over all. The first person to figure out a way to secure a mp3 or new format digital play file that cant be copied is going to be one very rich person and save the music industry on whole. If I were a bad ass programmer I would be spending every waking minute working on that.

ankh · Post by **ankh** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:12 am

they did try something like this a few years ago, but, since it was a program that damaged the pc they got many complaints and also some sues from regular buyers who used only the pc and not a normal hifi system.Another attempt-more elaborate- was tried, but made void by somebody who discovered that by simply using the space bar on the pc keyboard, it was possible to nullify that program.

let's not forget that before the net, many labels belonged also to big manufactureres of tapes and also blank cds and people were forced to pay an extra tax on those items.So, in a way, they were capitalizin both from the reguiar music buyers and the people who copied.Now they've done the same creating a tax on blank dvd's and hard disks, so EVERYBODY is payng more for soemthing tha t it is not even certain will happen(case in point- if i work as a photographer and i need to svae my work on a external hard disk drive, i pay more thna due just the same, since i POTENTIALLY may use it to download programs or music).

Recrod companies didn't understadn what was going on, they were way more thna greedy, and lost the ship.Simple as that.Yet some artists sold more then one million copies(Eagles, AC/DC) even when lots of peole were using p2p.

The net made it possible, for the first time, to buy music directly from the artist, wihtout many greedy hands in the middle.Some artists who had trouble with labels finally could sell their music and not payng so much money to have thier music released.Plus, until the 90's-more or less- the idea of after school or after work entertainement was still based around music and cds', then it did swing towards videogames that offered a lot more, the fashion simply changed.

The music for the masses is a way to decorate fragments of time during the day, to make everyday life more interesting or fun and- to some extents-more beareable.This huge chunk of buyers wanted something quick, easy and especially delivered to their door- or their music retailers.Now with the net and youtube the music lover has an almost infinite source of every kind of music imaginable, as long as he-contrary to the 70's-90's era,when the sources for different kind of music were so scarce-look for it, instead of simply swallowing whatever was presented by media people.Some people still complain about the fact there's no good music anymore.It's not true- there's lots,and you simply have to look for it.

I could say alot more things about how record companies simply digged the hole for themselves, but i don't want to bore anyone.Sorry for ranting a bit

Possio · Post by **Possio** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:53 am

really really well put by everyone!! /Olle

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:58 am

I think (like I said above) that the record companies and their practices were just the first domino in the downfall of the record industry.

DOMINO 1 - major label record industry was lazy and greedy, becoming bloated and unable to react. Yes, they did bring new acts...and in the case of grunge, an entire new genre. But they were flooding the market with like acts with lower quality. Their pricing model was ridiculous. It would cost +$20 to get a CD at Tower Records when you know the physical cost of a CD manufacturing was under $1. So $19 of overhead?!?! That's nearly 2000%. It went to overpaid employees, unreasonable artist contracts, ridiculously overstaffed infrastructure, limitless marketing budget, and on and on. (Let's not forget about payola.)
- So the record companies were the polar opposite of fiscally responsible organizations with lean processes
- They were flooding the market with sound-alike acts
- Passing the costs onto the consumer who were becoming disillusioned with their offering

DOMINO 2 - MTV even further fragmented the audience and gave the labels a more immediate way to push underdeveloped acts and have success, causing the market to become even more flooded.

DOMINO 3 - Grunge. In one of the most obvious examples of the industry pushing a genre, the record companies begin replacing their expensive glam bands whose contracts have matured for affordable new grunge acts. Record companies now show that they do not need to rely on a big-name, established act to sell records. Swop out every 5-6 years when contracts mature and costs increase.

DOMINO 4 - The internet. Suddenly P2P Sharing allowed people to get the music without paying for it. Keep in mind, during the entire P2P run when it wasn't "illegal" yet that sales INCREASED. People would sample a few songs from an artist and then buy the CD. (Check it out, it's true.) The rats that felt they could download whatever they wanted and refused to pay for anything were actually the minority by far.
- People who were going to steal music were NEVER going to pay for it anyway
- People that sampled then bought would've bought more music more often if there was a legal, cost attractive model

Instead of capitalizing on this phenomenon, the record companies attacked. At this point they could've all established their own digital marketplaces OR joined forces on a single solution. Nope. Instead of right-sizing their companies, lowering the cost of overpriced CDs and investing in selling digital music they start fighting the P2P companies. This turned the consumer against the record company. Their greed would only let them see the thousands they were losing instead of millions they could've been making.

DOMINO 5 - iTunes. The record companies could've developed their own music services...or join service...and kept the money. Instead, a computer company had to come along and do it for them. They became the largest music retailer on the planet. And now the record companies have to give iTunes a big cut because they are the biggest game in town and will continue to be without any valid competition. (Which explains how they are able to charge $1.29 per song when song creation and digital overhead probably only costs less than .10¢ per song. Such greed leads people to find music elsewhere.)

DOMINO 6 - Independent release. Because the major record companies only focus on copycat product, many acts started self-releasing. Some were "former" major acts. A lot of these people made (and continue to make) good money because they can sell a lot fewer albums but make MORE money because they don't have to hand over most of it to the record company. Since there is a finite amount of money available for music, this money is cut out of potential major label sales.

1031 · Post by **1031** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:21 am

Theres no doubt that record company's were and are still greedy. But its past that its beyond sticking it to the man now the musician suffers. You tube is another issue its self , more and more people are streaming music as their primary listening choice. You tube is making money on musicians work and not paying them. There ad choice share is a joke and they refuse to monitor fan video rips. So you have the two largest mediums for music and no one is paying the musician for shit. Ask your self why no one is releasing music except mega sellers? Because nothing has changed the record company's only apply the same formula a lot more stringent because they have to factor in a all the sales lost from P2P and streaming. Just look at Any store that sold CDs its down to a couple bins now. They are not making it up in download sales. You guys have connects to a lot of bands just ask them.... They dont sell music, they sell tickets and t-shirts.

shramiac · Post by **shramiac** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:06 pm

Dave Mustaine said that it was a great honour to have the merch truck stolen while on, I think, the Rust in Piece tour!

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:13 am

1031 wrote:Theres no doubt that record company's were and are still greedy. But its past that its beyond sticking it to the man now the musician suffers. You tube is another issue its self , more and more people are streaming music as their primary listening choice. You tube is making money on musicians work and not paying them. There ad choice share is a joke and they refuse to monitor fan video rips. So you have the two largest mediums for music and no one is paying the musician for shit. Ask your self why no one is releasing music except mega sellers? Because nothing has changed the record company's only apply the same formula a lot more stringent because they have to factor in a all the sales lost from P2P and streaming. Just look at Any store that sold CDs its down to a couple bins now. They are not making it up in download sales. You guys have connects to a lot of bands just ask them.... They dont sell music, they sell tickets and t-shirts.

I agree. However, my point is that now it's the wild west and there's not much that can be done other than realize that recording music is a "value add" proposition to get consumers familiar with your "brand" and spend their cash on your other offerings. I'm just saying that, if the music company hadn't started this chain of dominos knocking eachother down...if they had only been ahead of the curve instead of "a head up their ass"...then they could've prevented a lot of this. They were greedy and stubborn. They refused to sell only top notch, unique products. They refused to provide right priced goods. They refused to change their service. The audience voted.

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:56 am

vv's record label was not greedy, they spent a fortune on recording the VVI albums plus 3 videos that were not cheap ones.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:49 am

doublev2 wrote:vv's record label was not greedy, they spent a fortune on recording the VVI albums plus 3 videos that were not cheap ones.

I disagree. In one of my earlier posts I mention how, before P2P even reared it's head, cassettes and CDs were going for as high as $18-$20 when we all know manufacturing cost less than $1 per unit...even back then. Artists were lucky to make $1-$2 of that haul. Over 70% of an album's take went (and still does go) to the record companies.

Gene's argument is that part of that 70% goes toward the recording expenses and marketing expenses like print-ads or music videos. That's all true. It's also true that a company has to break even or (gasp) make profit to continue. It's also true that if the companies had considered lowering their prices they may have moved more product. It all happened during a time of economic downturn, so people were already short on cash and tired of the same old acts. If they would've lowered their prices when the P2P craze exploded, I really think most people would've purchased versus stealing. (As I stated above, the most popular "shared" albums/songs always resulted in increased sales at retail. It's a fact.)

The companies were too greedy. They would not lower their prices. They would not provide a digital service in fear that people would "share" the files. Greed.

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:10 am

i get you.
what i meant was they did put money into vv, but i get what you mean now.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:49 am

They did put money behind the VVI. No doubt about it. Videos, marketing, press, etc. But think about this, Vinnie had a $4-Million contract for 8 records. That's $500K per record. That's $100K per band member per record. (Assuming they split things evenly...ha ha!) They were only going to put out an album every 2 years. So that means they were making $50K per year each.

That is obviously SUPER over-simplified. The payments to the bands are a complicated mix of royalties and record sales mixed with song-ownership, publishing and record company payback for their investment. (Most deals include the record company earning back it's investment before sharing any REAL money with the bands.)

So most likely the VVI members were living off of $30K from the record company contract and concert income. (As an opening band, not much probably.)

If the first VVI album went gold, that means they moved 500,000 units. 500,000 x $12 per cassette = $6-Million. So the album generated at least $5-Million let's say. On top of $500K that was invested in it. My guess is that the record company cleared a profit of at least $1-Million...if not $1.5-Million.

So, do you think they could've sold more units if they lowered their price?
That's the question I am really trying to get at. Would more people have picked up the VVI album had the record company and retail lowered cost? Build a following and make their profit through volume?

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:43 am

you know what, sometimes 75% used to go to the retailer. When I was 16 I worked at Tower Records and they would buy a lot of CDs from the labels for less than $2 and I never saw one bought for more than $3 and they would retail them at 12.99 etc.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:39 am

doublev2 wrote:you know what, sometimes 75% used to go to the retailer. When I was 16 I worked at Tower Records and they would buy a lot of CDs from the labels for less than $2 and I never saw one bought for more than $3 and they would retail them at 12.99 etc.

I am probably wrong about this, but I always thought there was a "split" with whatever albums were actually sold.

The retail outlet pays $2-$3 to share in the production & distribution costs, but if they actually sold one of the CDs then they split the "profit" with the record company. That is why record companies could make demands like they did on behalf of KISS that said "KISS albums are not to be sold in discount bins".

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:23 am

i don't know. I also worked very briefly at an indie music store and they paid the same price as Tower and they didn't get any kick backs from the label but Tower may well have had some arrangement.
Anyone remember Sound Warehouse?

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:27 am

i do agree that labels were too greedy. They had a good run I suppose and they trapped artists into shitty deals a lot of the time. I am not arguing. I know that radio and MTV was as important or more than sales from what people told me.

erg2 · Post by **erg2** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:17 pm

That $2 just sounds weird to me. Maybe as part of a chain these individual stores only had to pay a portion and the parent company paid the rest as part of the franchise fee agreement?

I know from reading some articles that Michael Jackson made almost $3 per album sold. If the record company only charged $2 then they'd be losing money on every album sold.

I found this article that is pretty interesting and explains things clearly-
http://www.theroot.com/views/how-much-d ... eally-make

doublev2 · Post by **doublev2** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:04 pm

Possible I got things mixed up.

metatron · Post by **metatron** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:42 pm

ankh wrote:they did try something like this a few ....Sorry for ranting a bit

Enjoyed your rant.

Also your avatar, is that related to the Annunaki, or the Vril society

ankh · Post by **ankh** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:07 pm

metatron wrote:
ankh wrote:they did try something like this a few ....Sorry for ranting a bit
Enjoyed your rant.
Also your avatar, is that related to the Annunaki, or the Vril society

thnaks,too kind!

The av is based on seomthing more simple and less sinsiter,a.k.a this:

taken off this tv series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(TV_series)

http://ufoseries.com/models/index.html

metatron · Post by **metatron** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:36 pm

Ah, ok cool. I remember that tv series.
I had suggested to Wolfi to have his 40th birthday party at a castle in German that the Vril society once inhabited .

wolfgang161272 · Post by **wolfgang161272** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:57 pm

metatron wrote:Ah, ok cool. I remember that tv series.
I had suggested to Wolfi to have his 40th birthday party at a castle in German that the Vril society once inhabited .

Oh Dannii, *LOL*
You are so funny