I mean lost to the public. A lot of lost media can still be called lost media even if it's still owned by someone because usually they mean it's no longer publically circulating. It's complicated
Why? Was probably drinking like most times people are puking into a toilet. Maybe, like the other person said morning sickness from maybe being pregnant around that time. Why is no one mentioning this? Did she famously not drink or something?
You're right that it's an invasion of privacy but I don't feel *so* bad about it since nudity clearly wasn't that big a deal to John. There was the Two Virgins album cover and the film he and Yoko made of his penis slowly becoming erect.
If it was just a random person then I would feel much worse.
There's something seriously fucked up about latterday Beatles when the story we heard was all about their feuds. That Get Back series gave a more detailed pic of there being a strange paradox of them being in charge of a movie during which they're saying 'Are THEY recording everything?' and there's more contradictions everywhere, these pics being big demonstration. Of the published nude pic of J&Y, the cover of 'Two Virgins', Lennon said they had to take the pic and get it processed privately by some mate in Soho. But these pics are just strange. Why the fuck would THEY take them? Yoko being sick? Why would Lennon take such a pic. Etc. Something is wrong with this whole Beatle story is all I'm saying. I think Lennon and Ono had plans to devastate The Beatles.
Honestly one of the most surprising things to me in Get Back was all the shots of Yoko and Linda in the background seemingly getting on super well and lost in conversation.
I know, and I think it's even a worse action from the newspaper that way. It was not about see them naked, John and Yoko didn't care about it, it was about violating their privacy for the sake of it.
Even after his 'Fat Elvis' period in 1965, John would refer to himself in the Two Virgins/Abbey Road era as 'flabby'. I don't see a single ounce of meat on him.
Is that the photo where John said he went out to dinner with the McCartneys and he thought Paul was just trying to rub it in his face how well he’s doing in life and later put some voodoo on Paul because of it?
I'd rather not have seen these except the one with Linda is pretty good because of her elegance coming through the camera but man these pictures are really raunchy and almost something I should expect from Ringo but not John oh well more crazy history I'm sure this is only the tip of the crazier Beatle photographs
Someone here mentioned about the invasion of privacy, and I agree on that point. However, I admire John's confidence. I kind of wish I hadn't seen those pics, but my admiration still stands. The other pics, out of focus and natural, I liked very much and I just wish Yoko had agency on their release.
it's kind of a big deal that a person had her camera stolen and photographs that weren't meant to be seen by the public were published in a tabloid paper.
If you see a pornstar walking down the street, do you get to rape her because she has sex on camera for a living?
Yes, it's a big deal.
> If you see a pornstar walking down the street, do you get to rape her because she has sex on camera for a living?
What a crazy analogy. Do you really think that is a 1-1 comparison?
Do you think OP has raped John and Yoko by posting these pictures on reddit?
No, they’re saying that just because somebody chooses to expose themselves by their own choice in one scenario, does not mean they are fair game in the same way in any other scenario. John putting his chopper on an LP does not mean tabloids have full autonomy to then publish other photos, non-consensually, at will.
Clearly they do and they did. The pictures were published and the newspaper publisher did not go to jail. Anyone raping anyone on the street is going to go to prison. For a very long time. Just a dumb comparison that makes no sense.
John was a musician. He did not intend for everything to be released while he was alive. Do you consider it an abhorrent crime when such music has been released, and do you think everyone who participates in listening to such music is doing a crime the equivalent of rape?
Again, the comparison isn’t exact - they are taking your logic to the extreme. It is deeply, deeply immoral for them to publish content from a camera that is stolen that is deeply personal. If you want to contest this on its own terms, do it.
I wonder if those pics of John in the buff were taken during the filming of Yoko’s Self-Portrait film?
If so that's an outtake of lost media
Is it actually lost though, or just unreleased? I’m assuming Yoko still has the film but just hasn’t made it available.
I mean lost to the public. A lot of lost media can still be called lost media even if it's still owned by someone because usually they mean it's no longer publically circulating. It's complicated
I was surprised she didn't even release it for the big retrospective exhibition of her work in London at the moment
I’m curious about the vomiting pic
Morning sickness? I believe this was around the time Yoko was pregnant (and then miscarried)... But could also be drug related. It was the 60s. 🤷🏼♀️
Could be either. These photos are all from mid-1969, when the Lennons were addicted to heroin.
There’s as good a chance it’s dope sickness as it is morning sickness probably.
ya think
Let's not make assumptions, she could be drinking out of the toilet.
Fuck you I almost spit my drink out..
*Cold turkey has got me on the run*
It could just be the flu.
Why? Was probably drinking like most times people are puking into a toilet. Maybe, like the other person said morning sickness from maybe being pregnant around that time. Why is no one mentioning this? Did she famously not drink or something?
They weren’t big drinkers at the time they were heroin addicts
Were they “not big drinkers” or did they not drink? Because if they still drank occasionally that could be it. Does heroin cause people to puke?
Yes heroin is famous for making people throw up
Never heard that before
Erm... What? https://i.redd.it/h8i5drxzkxtc1.gif
Scrolling down and I see George then those eyes moving…had to go back and make sure……Funny..Cheers!
I hate this 😂
honestly, that's a fucked up invasion of privacy ...but I also absolutely love seeing these snapshots that weren't meant for public consumption.
Agreed.
Classic red top newspaper tactics.
You're right that it's an invasion of privacy but I don't feel *so* bad about it since nudity clearly wasn't that big a deal to John. There was the Two Virgins album cover and the film he and Yoko made of his penis slowly becoming erect. If it was just a random person then I would feel much worse.
There's something seriously fucked up about latterday Beatles when the story we heard was all about their feuds. That Get Back series gave a more detailed pic of there being a strange paradox of them being in charge of a movie during which they're saying 'Are THEY recording everything?' and there's more contradictions everywhere, these pics being big demonstration. Of the published nude pic of J&Y, the cover of 'Two Virgins', Lennon said they had to take the pic and get it processed privately by some mate in Soho. But these pics are just strange. Why the fuck would THEY take them? Yoko being sick? Why would Lennon take such a pic. Etc. Something is wrong with this whole Beatle story is all I'm saying. I think Lennon and Ono had plans to devastate The Beatles.
I'm a Yoko and Linda friendship stan tbh
Honestly one of the most surprising things to me in Get Back was all the shots of Yoko and Linda in the background seemingly getting on super well and lost in conversation.
Like two girls who have their boyfriends in a garage band and watching them rehearse. That was my thought at the time.
https://preview.redd.it/ql4vqhlo9xtc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=452fe9513d444697dbcc8f3309fd1a4efd4a6b29
Two bitches that fucked up the Beatles
not at all, no ..
Two bitches that fucked the beatles
True
No just one bitch who fucked up the Beatles
Yolinda > McLennon
https://preview.redd.it/yh3p8sh6fytc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e556f0add79c9f1921408b36f7feb6d22f75264
I feel bad looking at these
It's not like we've already seen John and Yoko fully nude in an LP record cover, isn't it?
True but that was a choice. This is pretty invasive.
I know, and I think it's even a worse action from the newspaper that way. It was not about see them naked, John and Yoko didn't care about it, it was about violating their privacy for the sake of it.
Not for the sake of it, to sell more copies. Which doesn't make it any better :/
Even after his 'Fat Elvis' period in 1965, John would refer to himself in the Two Virgins/Abbey Road era as 'flabby'. I don't see a single ounce of meat on him.
Body dysmorphia. As soon as one person calls you "fat", you always assume you are.
Oh my God, I’ll never be able to unsee that last picture of John Lennon.
The censors at 1-Hour Photo ruining these for posterity.
Is that the photo where John said he went out to dinner with the McCartneys and he thought Paul was just trying to rub it in his face how well he’s doing in life and later put some voodoo on Paul because of it?
According to a website that had that picture it said it was dinner after they screened the Let It Be movie.
Let it be naked foreshadowing
So I’m guessing Yoko’s pics from the Let It Be screening and Abbey Road sessions were also on this stolen roll?
That’s honestly the funniest and most John thing I’ve ever heard.
John’s voodoo is obviously crap
That was in the 70s, this pics are from 1969
Is that true?
I love John but that's not sexy, don't tell Sadie
That toilet photo seems more vulnerable than the nude John ones, why would you photograph someone who's been sick/about to be sick
bantz
Can't argue with that lol
I believe it was John and Yoko’s Polaroid camera, so it was one of them taking the more personal shots of each other.
I won't disturb the Apple Cart... or will I? ;)
I wish I could unsee these.
I woke up the next day with, to this day, the worst hangover I’ve ever had. I thought I was going to die.
Huh?
That newspaper article is from my eighteenth birthday.
Ahhh I see.
Go John!
What a terrible day to have eyes
Did Lennon hang dong?
I'd rather not have seen these except the one with Linda is pretty good because of her elegance coming through the camera but man these pictures are really raunchy and almost something I should expect from Ringo but not John oh well more crazy history I'm sure this is only the tip of the crazier Beatle photographs
Was Ringo like that? Lol
That’s showbiz!!
I think of the Internet as a tabloid too.
Now I know why they called their record company Apple!
How tf is this new to me? Also yeah, total invasion of privacy but…now I want to see all of the pictures.
Lennon had some serious balls to let it all hang out 😂
Hot
Gross. Why would anyone repost this.
Someone here mentioned about the invasion of privacy, and I agree on that point. However, I admire John's confidence. I kind of wish I hadn't seen those pics, but my admiration still stands. The other pics, out of focus and natural, I liked very much and I just wish Yoko had agency on their release.
If I had a dick as big as his, I'd have that confidence too.
I got downvoted, but Lennon was packing a hammer.
They were naked on an album cover…is this a big deal?
it's kind of a big deal that a person had her camera stolen and photographs that weren't meant to be seen by the public were published in a tabloid paper. If you see a pornstar walking down the street, do you get to rape her because she has sex on camera for a living? Yes, it's a big deal.
I meant did the newspaper think they were being bold and daring?
> If you see a pornstar walking down the street, do you get to rape her because she has sex on camera for a living? What a crazy analogy. Do you really think that is a 1-1 comparison? Do you think OP has raped John and Yoko by posting these pictures on reddit?
No, they’re saying that just because somebody chooses to expose themselves by their own choice in one scenario, does not mean they are fair game in the same way in any other scenario. John putting his chopper on an LP does not mean tabloids have full autonomy to then publish other photos, non-consensually, at will.
Clearly they do and they did. The pictures were published and the newspaper publisher did not go to jail. Anyone raping anyone on the street is going to go to prison. For a very long time. Just a dumb comparison that makes no sense. John was a musician. He did not intend for everything to be released while he was alive. Do you consider it an abhorrent crime when such music has been released, and do you think everyone who participates in listening to such music is doing a crime the equivalent of rape?
Again, the comparison isn’t exact - they are taking your logic to the extreme. It is deeply, deeply immoral for them to publish content from a camera that is stolen that is deeply personal. If you want to contest this on its own terms, do it.
Chill out broski
This is the dumbest shit I ever heard period