Monday, February 5, 2007

Controversial Tattoos

Given the speculation about the alleged incident discussed in various tabloids and newspapers around the world, the world is now being bombarded with mistruths about the tattoo on Keith Urban's wrist. The tabloids and newspapers and general public of Australia would have you believe that the tattoo was changed in 2005 around the time Keith Urban met Nicole Kidman. I'll give the people of Australia a break since what goes on the United States sometimes doesn't reach their shores in a timely manner.

But pictures do not lie, especially when they are transmitted on televisions or in pictures for the whole U.S. to see. The famous "Meet the Parents" pictures that surfaced in November 2005 have a picture of Keith and Nicole where Keith is proudly displaying the old tattoo. Those pictures were taken, depending upon what story you believe either 5 or 11 months after the two started their courtship.




The old tattoo was also still there when Keith performed at the Grammy awards in February 2006 as shown in the picture below.



Additionally, many fans who attended concerts that same month have concert pictures clearly showing the old tattoo. Other pictures show the old tattoo on March 20, 2006 with a caption indicating the picture was taken March 2, 2006 in West Hollywood. And we all know that People does not lie. The first public appearance of the new tattoo was on the CMT Awards in April 2006 and can be seen in the picture below from that event.



And why does this matter to me? It doesn't. But for some reason changing the timing associated with the tattoos is very important to someone.


source: http://www.intheranch.com/

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the timeline. That clears up alot of the wrong information that is out there.
Pictures don't lie.

Anonymous said...

Obviously it does matter to you otherwise you would not have written about it.

It's clear he changed the tattoo after he "re-affirmed" his committment to her and the wedding was on.

This is why you should NEVER get a tattoo with someone's name (unless it's your mother's) or one that is known to symbolize a lover. Get one that is meaningful to you that you can carry with you the rest of your life and not have to cover up should your life circumstances change.

the bunny hunter said...

Thanks for coming up with the timeline. Once again, if you were a true fan of Keith's, you knew when he changed the tattoo, and it DEFINITELY was not at the beginning of his relationship with the botox skank. This just shows her PR team will go to the ends of the Earth with their lies to prove that she is so loved that we all can hear it. Please pass the barf bag now.

Anonymous said...

I've been irritated by the stories about the tatoos, also! Whether any of the Amanda pictures were since NK & Keith got engaged (which is estimated to be Oct 2005)... who knows. None showed the new tatoo...but he definitely had the old tatoo up til March 06. Somewhere between March and the CMT awards in April, he got the new tatoo. It really doesn't prove anything as far as the time line with Amanda except that it doesn't disprove her story!

Anonymous said...

It just exposes another 'untruth' to add to the growing collection. If she's as loved as she wants us to believe, then why all the lies? It's a bit pathetic really isnt it?

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how many lies have been going around in the press and I'm sure that her and her people have had nothing to do with it....YEAH RIGHT!

She obviously must think that his fans are complete morons. (Ok well some are but there are some sane ones out there) That they won't catch onto the inconcistency of the "stories."

The sooner this os over the better off he'll be and it can be about the music again. Not the freakish sideshow...aka his wife!

curious said...

The tattoo timeline is STILL being written about in the tabs (incorrectly). Why is it so important?

What will the monkeys do if more photos surface with Ms. Amada and it shows him sporting the NEW tattoo?

Anonymous said...

"curious said...
The tattoo timeline is STILL being written about in the tabs (incorrectly). Why is it so important?

What will the monkeys do if more photos surface with Ms. Amada and it shows him sporting the NEW tattoo?"

Some of them will probably blow a gasget. Others will just come up with another implossible explaination. My question to everyone is why one or the other PR team isn't just letting the Amanda story die. Trying to offer explainations does nothing to make Amanda's story any more or less true, all it does is keep it in the media. I say Amanda has had her 15 minutes of fame, leave it alone and let the story die.

I honestly think that a certain PR team is using the Tatoo alibi as a means to keep the Amanda Story in the tabloids to reasons of their own.

Not Buying It It Nashville said...

Anyone who goes out in Music City knows that the Amanda story is true, and it was going on after he was married.

This marriage is nothing but a joke, just like Keith Kidman's career!

Anonymous said...

If the Amanda story is true into the marriage, I find it hard to believe that there isn't any independent proof of it out there.

Anonymous said...

I heard there was more than just Amanda. It sounds like they used her as a scapegoat to stop all the other stories from coming out.

I don't think any of the tabs said those pics were taken after his marriage but they are bringing up the tattoo alibi a lot. If his Camp wanted to deny it, they could but never did.

Anonymous said...

I just love how everyone heard about Keith and his dalliances. Funny how they never seem to really show up in print. You know, he has some of the most "earnest" fans around and not much seems to get past them, including his love life, yet these extra curricular activities all seem to have flown under their radar (and cameras).

music said...

Did you miss the October Porn star / 3 hour sensation story, and all the intimate details from Amanda Wyatt that were splashed in newspapers around the world??

Anonymous said...

Keith's fans have been talking about his "dalliances" for a long time. Just not to the press.

Anonymous said...

Amanda Wyatt was OLD news and the tats prove it, the porn star thing ?? Any tat pic's to prove when?

Anonymous said...

"Amanda Wyatt was OLD news and the tats prove it, the porn star thing ?? Any tat pic's to prove when?"

The tattoos just prove that there are no pictures published of Keith with Amanda after April 1, 2006. Nothing more...nothing less. He was supposed to be engaged to Ms Kidman in Oct. 2005...and those pictures could easily have been taken between October 05 and the end of March 06. No one knows for sure. Maybe we should ask Ansel Davis, Keith's attorney. He was in one of the pictures with Keith and Amanda...he obviously could give us a time frame!

Anonymous said...

Bottom line is Keith has always been an unfaithful sort, not just to Nicole Kidman. I can't see that changing anytime soon despite his attempt to rehabilitate himself. Still, I'll continue to be a fan of his music. He's one talented sleezebag!