I hink it was mentioned,but pretty Interesting

[Isodee]

Rhoads Rock Photographer, to be as certain as you are you must've done a fair amount of checking into it, which is cool by me. But I wouldn't close of all possibility of such a tape existing.

You're sure that it would've surfaced by now? Why?

Yep, we're still waiting...

I smell something y.

[RhoadsRockPhotographer]

Rhoads Rock Photographer, to be as certain as you are you must've done a fair amount of checking into it, which is cool by me. But I wouldn't close of all possibility of such a tape existing.

You're sure that it would've surfaced by now? Why?

Yep, we're still waiting...

I smell something y.

The burden of proof isn't on ME, to prove there's NOTHING.

The burden of proof is on YOU, to prove there's SOMETHING.

How VAGUE a reference (in a book) to a "tape" being sold to another party - yet it never sees the light of day.

REAL SIMPLE SOLUTION ... ask the author of the book, for more specificity.

He obviously DOESN'T KNOW, or else he would have INCLUDED more specificity, in the book.

[whoopiecat]

I suck at posting quotes, but on the 17th, you did say that you could "guarantee" us that no footage exists "Period".
More than one person, (including myself), asked how that is possible, so the "burden of proof" does lie with you.
As an aside, I have contacted the author. I've yet to hear from him and maybe never will, but fuck it, I can say I tried.
Perhaps if everyone were to contact him with the same question, he'd provide an answer.

T.

[RhoadsRockPhotographer]

I suck at posting quotes, but on the 17th, you did say that you could "guarantee" us that no footage exists "Period".
More than one person, (including myself), asked how that is possible, so the "burden of proof" does lie with you.
As an aside, I have contacted the author. I've yet to hear from him and maybe never will, but fuck it, I can say I tried.
Perhaps if everyone were to contact him with the same question, he'd provide an answer.

T.

You better put on your reading glasses and try again.

What I said was .... the "allegedly sold for $100K video," REFERRED to, has no "Randy footage." Period.

Swinnnnnng and a miss.

You don't pay $100K to purchase a VALUABLE and TRULY RARE video and then "sit on it." That makes zero sense.

I call that investment. Maybe the buyer thought the time wasn't right and decided to sit on it. Isn't that the case with all investments?

No, it's not the case with all investments.

Unless you're a clueless investor.

I guarantee you any such video does NOT contain Randy Rhoads footage.

Period.

[Tito]

DAMN RRP WHATS UP WITH THE HARDLINE NASTY REPLIES??PEOPLE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHATS OUT THERE...EVEN IF YOUR 100 % RIGHT I DONT SEE A REASON TO BE NASTY WITH YOUR REPLIES DUDE..

[Ritchie]

the smell of arrogance wafts slowly through this thread ..

[whoopiecat]

Keep avoiding the question, buddy. I've been more than polite, but I refuse to kiss your ring just because you took some pictures of a guitarist I like that are nearly thirty years old.
Going back through this thread, you used the word "GUARANTEE" twice in a post, (I missed the 15th, and the 17th, like I pointed out.), yet you're avoiding that and choosing to be a wiseguy toward folks instead.
So people want to speculate that there's footage out there, what is it to you? Most of us lead ordinary lives and daydreaming about stupid stuff like this is what gets us through.
You claim that you are able to GUARANTEE that Randy is not in the footage Machat is speaking of. We, (or at least I), am asking how you are able to GUARANTEE this?
Did you once work with Machat, Arden, Jet or Sony?
You are under the impression that anyone sitting on footage of Rhoads is a fool and that it makes zero business sense to do so. Therefore it must not exist, correct?
Well, someone, (more than likely Ed and Al), is sitting on two full videotaped Van Halen shows from Oakland in 1981. Millions could be made off of a DVD of that footage, but in the vault it stays. Making no one any money and making zero business sense.
Unseen footage of Randy Rhoads does indeed exist, but remains unreleased due to legal issues with Bob, Lee and Randy's estate.

Tom

[Tito]

NOW THATS THATS A TRUE BEANTOWN BEATDOWN RIGHT THERE WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hansolo]

Gimme it. I'm in

[The Flying Dutchman]

Come on guys, calm down a bit....
Really no need to react that harsh.
Agree to disagree if nothing else!

[Cryptic Night]

I can see Whoopiecat's point of view on this, it seems like most of what RRP says is pretty condescending towards others. (Not just in this thread, but most threads)

But, I agree with Dutchman that Whoopiecat's post was pretty harsh. If you have something to say, you should speak in pm's.

I'm in no way trying to say that RRP is "above the law" here or anything (I'm no mod, though I'm sure I sound like one right now) but there's no need to try and make us lose more members. Randy Rhoads doesn't have as many fans as someone like EVH, so by yelling at each other over supposed footage and angering everyone, doesn't help. If someone's a fan of Randy Rhoads and comes to this site to join and they see hateful messages such as this, what do you think they're going to think about us (Or Randy's legacy, possibly)

"I was going to join, but everyone seemed so full of hate I decided not to." Is that really the kind of message you want people to think of us? (You could probably say "I don't give a rat's ass about what other people think of me", but I'd rather have a bigger community than the 5-10 people who post regularly on this site and RR.TK)


I know threads don't often get deleted, but is there any chance this one could be? A lot of hate here that shouldn't be here....


EDIT: Sorry if it seems like I trailed off a little there.. It's late.

[Isodee]

I guarantee you it didn't contain live Randy footage.

I guarantee you any such video does NOT contain Randy Rhoads footage.
Period.

The burden of proof isn't on ME, to prove there's NOTHING.
The burden of proof is on YOU, to prove there's SOMETHING.

Lot of guarantees and not a word where all this wisdom comes from. People just wanted know how you KNOW this for a fact. And for the record your last quote makes no sense at all, after all this is a DISCUSSION board. A place where people share their thoughts but in case someone CLAIMS to know something is asked for argumenting. At this point you're just stating your opinion.

Keep avoiding the question, buddy. I've been more than polite, but I refuse to kiss your ring just because you took some pictures of a guitarist I like that are nearly thirty years old.
Going back through this thread, you used the word "GUARANTEE" twice in a post, (I missed the 15th, and the 17th, like I pointed out.), yet you're avoiding that and choosing to be a wiseguy toward folks instead.
So people want to speculate that there's footage out there, what is it to you? Most of us lead ordinary lives and daydreaming about stupid stuff like this is what gets us through.
You claim that you are able to GUARANTEE that Randy is not in the footage Machat is speaking of. We, (or at least I), am asking how you are able to GUARANTEE this?

Thank you. Me neither thought it was too much to ask for but boy we were wrong......

[The Flying Dutchman]

I think it's time to drop this. RRP has pretty much said what he had to say.

And I think this pretty much sums it up:

SOMEONE would have been distributing it, LONG AGO, if it contained Randy.
You don't pay $100K to purchase a VALUABLE and TRULY RARE video and then "sit on it." That makes zero sense.

He has the right to give this opinion. He explained why he thinks it can't be Randy footage. He could be right and for sure he has a point, but still he is 'assuming' as well. Anyways there is no point to keep haunting him about his opinion. It's just one opinion
Agree to disagree, life is too short!


*also lets not forget RRP gave us some stuff in the past:

[GUITARIDOL5682]

Keep your bad energy for people who deserve to be blackened. Not people who are obvious fans. You can argue about this 'til the cows come home MOOO!!.. It's speculation on both parties and the words found in a book. All we want at the end of the day is some good watchable footage. It ain't worth getting wound up about it.

[Gus]

OK....in legal terms, RRP takes a 'beyond reasonable doubt' view while a bunch of us say a 'balance of probabililities'. There'll be no agreeing methinks.

Has anyone proven beyond reasonable doubt that there's additional pro footage-well, in the sense that none of us have seen it yet, no.

But the balance of probabilities is just that: all things considered something is more likely than not.

Randy was in Ozzy's band in an era when the following occurred:
- Bands that recorded live albums sometimes filmed the concert in question, but didn't officially release it. AC/DC, Van Halen, Michael Schenker.
- Bands that played in foreign countries sometimes took the time to arrange filming: eg. AC/DC, Van Halen, Rose Tattoo, Saxon. Randy/Ozzy played in just about every music market of the day 'cept for Japan and Australia.
- Randy played at at least one venue where acts were known to be filmed. eg. Passaic, NJ.
- Bands with a lower profile and less money made full length pro-shot concerts. eg. Rose Tattoo, Venom.

Other points:
- Pro cameras filmed Randy onstage before two 'Diary' shows: San Francisco & Beaumont.
- Concert footage in recent years is being released 29 years after it was filmed. eg. Lez Zep, Lynyrd Skynyrd. Dunno why-maybe something to do with copyright and legal.

Can I prove to you right now BRD that footage exists?-no, only the people who own it can do that. Do I believe that video is likely to exist even though I haven't seen it yet? Hell yes!!