It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Shooting of John Lennon

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I really have a hard time getting my mind around the idea of the goverment being responsible for Lennons death. If he was killed by the government due to the concern over his ability to influence, why wait so long? Why let him get his word out there, only to make a martyr of him.

If the government was behind this, it would of happened alot earlier than 1980.

This was a tragic day that people thrive off of to debunk different scenarios.

Chapman was hungry for fame, and the only way his pathetic life was ever going to be acknowledged was to kill a famous person. When he was younger he was a massive fan of Lennon, but after hearing some of his lyrics in Imagine where John talked of a world without possession, he felt he was a hipocrite. Over time he developed this plot, that when he finally carried out he sat next to the lifeless body until the police arrived to bask in his glory.

Chapman had a terrible background, his mother was constantly sleeping around with younger men and blaming all of her problems on him. In reading Catcher in the Rye he felt a bond with the theme behind it. Through all of these ingredients, a psycho was born.




posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
I really have a hard time getting my mind around the idea of the goverment being responsible for Lennons death. If he was killed by the government due to the concern over his ability to influence, why wait so long? Why let him get his word out there, only to make a martyr of him.

Yeah I'm on the fence with this one also but...

If it was the gov the reason they waited so long was the fact that he was not active for about 5 yrs and was kinda forgotten about. Then suddenly he decided to make a comeback, and was recording his new album when he was killed.
It maked sense if it was the feds, they didn't want him becoming a popular public figure again.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by chissler
I really have a hard time getting my mind around the idea of the goverment being responsible for Lennons death. If he was killed by the government due to the concern over his ability to influence, why wait so long? Why let him get his word out there, only to make a martyr of him.

Yeah I'm on the fence with this one also but...

If it was the gov the reason they waited so long was the fact that he was not active for about 5 yrs and was kinda forgotten about. Then suddenly he decided to make a comeback, and was recording his new album when he was killed.
It maked sense if it was the feds, they didn't want him becoming a popular public figure again.


This seems like a plausible explanaition ,However i highly doubt that the feds would merely "wait" to see if Lennon would come back before making there move .
They have records and these records have been existent since the time when J Edgar Hoover was exlaiming that he didnt want Lennon in the US and had close eyes on his every move.
Personally i am not sure why the feds waited so long to make there move , perhaps they were seeking someone whowas fit for the job , or perhaps they were preparing for all the waves of confusion and questions or maybie this whole thing was MKULTRA related and they needed this time to get everything down pat.Who knows maybie all these aspects come into play here?
I also would like to know that if this was just a mere madman fanatic killing then why
would the FBI and the CIA still keep there records on Lennon out of public veiw ? And if the time comes where they do leak some documents out i have no doubt that we will still not get the full story.There is info that Chapaman worked very closely with or in the CIA and if this is true then it means that the MKULTRA theory is most definetly a plausable one indeed.

I have done some more research on this and this is what i have found. please be sure to read the links as they are somewhat interesting also.Many thanks.

DAVID CHAPMAN PICS COURTESY OG WWW.GOOGLE.COM





The above two images are Mark David Chapmans Mug shots and the bottom one is one of him being escorted arfter the first time he decided to speak to see if he could get parole in 2003 (he never spoke to media of any sort and he only spoke to his parole officer) ...He failed.
These photos were taken in New York's Attica prison where he is still held today and will not give any interviews .( To me he seems oddly calm about the whole thing what are your thoughts? )





Mark David Chapman, Assassin
* Born: 10 May 1955
* Birthplace: Fort Worth, Texas
* Best Known As: The man who killed John Lennon
On December 8, 1980, Mark David Chapman shot and killed musician John Lennon outside the Dakota Apartments in New York City. Chapman was a former security guard from Hawaii who came to New York specifically to attack the famous ex-Beatle. Though Chapman's lawyer initially entered a plea of insanity, Chapman later changed the plea to guilty. He was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison, a sentence which he is serving in New York's Attica prison. Chapman became eligible for parole in 2000, but has been denied parole in multiple hearings since then.

Cheers
Omega

ps. i would appreciate your thoughts on this . .........
Omega


[edit on 25-4-2006 by Omega85]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Omega85]

[Mod Edit: When quoting form an external source please use the External quote tags and include a link to your source - Jak]

[edit on 26/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Greetings all i hope u r all well.
Just for research purposes i have found a picture of the same gun Chapman used to take the life of the musical geniouse John Lennon .
Picture supplied by google.com - Same gun used to take Lennons life as givin as evidence in court



This is the gun that Chapman used to kill John Lennon , it has the exact same bullets that were found in the body and it is told then on the night of December 9 1980 when John Lennon got out of his cab Chapman yelled out "JOHN!" that is when John turned and was shot four times(originaly there were five bullets shot but one missed)and fataly wounded Lennon . oddly enough the killer confessed right away and was taken without struggle . Still he remained silent in prison for a very long time and to me this seems very strange indeed ...MKULTRA perhaps??It is also noted that Chapman heared voices in his head telling him to kill Lennon .Lennon later died in Roosevelt Hospital after two bullets passed through his left side of the back shattering bone,piercing his lung and passing through his chest. A third bullet had shattared his shoulder and a fouth hit the same shoulder and droveitself into his chest , severing his windpipe and aorta.Voices of the devil , Subliminal messages or the MKULTRA project. what do you think?

I have included a picture of The Dakota Building the place which entry point Lennon was shot. many thanks to google for these pictures .




i cant wait to hear you thoughts on this
i respect all opinions and wish u all well.
Cheers

Omega


[edit on 25-4-2006 by Omega85]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
my family and i just moved from the sf bay area. while living there i listened to the local talk radio. for the longest time, there was this guy who would at first, talk about the current topic. then after about two sentences, would switch over to this insane theory that stephen king was the person who actually shot lennon. most of the time, the hosts would just hang up. one day, a host, brian copeland, finally let him talk and plead his case. it was hilarious. this guy drives around a van with his theory plasterd all over it and has a site called something like johnlennontruth.com.
last time i heard him, he is becoming more mean spirited. he actually said "not any more disgusting lol:


(mind the use of words)

[edit on 27-4-2006 by asala]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omega85

This seems like a plausible explanaition ,However i highly doubt that the beds would merely "wait" to see if Lennon would come back before making there move .


I don't think the feds would have been waiting. After John disappeared off the scene the feds probably stopped surveilling (sp?) him (which apparently they were in the early 70's) thinking he was no longer a threat and public interest would die.
Then out of nowhere the big comeback, and obviously public interest in John was still high, so they renewed their interest in him and decided they wouldn't risk him being a big influence again.

But having said that I lean more toward no fed involvement, even though I don't rule it out completely. To me it don't really make sense to create such an elaborate plan as to brainwash someone to do it, why go to all that trouble to kill him, unless it was an experiment to see if it would work and John was just used as an unfortunate victim.
Also if it was the feds using Chapman they must have decided to kill John yrs ago, even before he got involved in politics. Yeah the more you think about it the less sense it makes really.

Chapmans attitude does seem strange though, I wonder what life in jail is like for him? Is he in solitary all the time? I'm surprised he hasn't been hurt by other inmates, gotta be some Lennon fans in there??

Thanx for posting the pics and doing the research, I've been to the Dakota building a couple of times.

[edit on 25/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackthorne
my family and i just moved from the sf bay area. while living there i listened to the local talk radio. for the longest time, there was this guy who would at first, talk about the current topic. then after about two sentences, would switch over to this insane theory that stephen king was the person who actually shot lennon. most of the time, the hosts would just hang up. one day, a host, brian copeland, finally let him talk and plead his case. it was hilarious. this guy drives around a van with his theory plasterd all over it and has a site called something like johnlennontruth.com.
last time i heard him, he is becoming more mean spirited. he actually said "not any more disgusting as the public has been by sucking stephen king's d..."


However humorous this is . Dude you gotta cut the impliable profanity out of it man .
I just thought that i would tell you before the mods do and then youll be warned and then they will give you the biggest thrashing of your life

JUST KIDDING.
but really dude try not to imply that sort of thing. otherwise your opinions are most welcomed here!!
what was that site that guy has on his van?? i might just check it out.
Cheers

Omega



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Omega85

This seems like a plausible explanaition ,However i highly doubt that the beds would merely "wait" to see if Lennon would come back before making there move .


I don't think the feds would have been waiting. After John disappeared off the scene the feds probably stopped surveilling (sp?) him (which apparently they were in the early 70's) thinking he was no longer a threat and public interest would die.
Then out of nowhere the big comeback, and obviously public interest in John was still high, so they renewed their interest in him and decided they wouldn't risk him being a big influence again.

But having said that I lean more toward no fed involvement, even though I don't rule it out completely. To me it don't really make sense to create such an elaborate plan as to brainwash someone to do it, why go to all that trouble to kill him, unless it was an experiment to see if it would work and John was just used as an unfortunate victim.
Also if it was the feds using Chapman they must have decided to kill John yrs ago, even before he got involved in politics. Yeah the more you think about it the less sense it makes really.

Chapmans attitude does seem strange though, I wonder what life in jail is like for him? Is he in solitary all the time? I'm surprised he hasn't been hurt by other inmates, gotta be some Lennon fans in there??

Thanx for posting the pics and doing the research, I've been to the Dakota building a couple of times.

[edit on 25/4/2006 by ANOK]


Hey there dude hows things??
No probs about the pics is the place as nice as it looks in real life??
Well in my opinion i believe that even though things went a little quite during the seventies before Lennon nade his "Big Comeback" John Lennon was a very powerfull
Anti War and peace campagner , i mean he was protesting against Veitnam and everything and to me this would give the goverment the sort of reason to have him eliminated...Its just my opinion but I know that the government at that J Edgar Hoover didnt like him at all , He even tried to ban him from the US . I think that perhaps Hoover was worried that John Lennon being the poerfull peace campagner that he was might have had the power to convince voters not to realect hoover and he might have also been trying to pull out from the Veatnam war...This is just one of my thoughts.By the way .

I also did some research on the wars that were going on in the seventies when John Lennon went "underground" so to speak.
Here is a list of those that happend in the seventies.
=Oh by the way i know Vietnam ended in seventy three but it is was still raging in the seventies so i will include it along with the rest of this list=



the following details in BOLD letters are from www.globalsecurity.org...


Afghanistan 1970s Coups 1973-1978
Angola National Liberation 1961-1974
Angola First War with UNITA 1975-1992
Argentina Dirty War 1976-1983
Bolivia 1971 Coup 1971
Bolivia Transition to Democracy 1978-1982
Burundi Ethnic Strife 1970-1974
Cambodia U.S. Invasion 1970
Cambodia Civil War 1970s
Cambodia Intra Party and Vietnam Conflicts 1970s
Canada Quebec Separatism 1960s-1970s
Chile Coup Against Allende 1973
China Invasion of Vietnam 1979
Comoros Independence 1975
Comoros Independence 1975
Uganda The War in the Bush 1980-1985
Thailand 1970s Unrest 1970s
Pakistan Baluchistan Insurgency 1973-1977
Pakistan 1971 War with India 1971
Pakistan Domestic Instability 1960s-1980s
North Korea North Korea-South Korea Tensions 1960s, 70s, 80s
Israel Iraq Nuclear Reactor 1981
Israel Terrorist Attacks 1960s-1980s
Iraq Kurdistan 1960s-2003
Iran Civil Strife 1970-1974
Ireland (Britain) Religious Conflict 1969-1999


Could Lennons peace campagne for veitnam have become to hot to handle for the government?? it would make sense to take out a target that would less there money and wealth.... i mean look at 9/11??
what do you think people?
i am open to all opinions.

Many thanks

Omega


[edit on 25-4-2006 by Omega85]

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Omega85]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   


This picture absolutely amazes me. One of those most tragic events of all time caught on camera hours before it goes down. This was when Chapman meant to kill him, but he just could not bring himself to do it. John gave him an autograph and asked if he required anything else of him.

I remember hearing Ono in an interview talking about how John was saying how he was creeped out by Chapman and how odd he carried himself. John was always very approachable to complete strangers, which worried alot of people that were close to him.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
It amazes me also . then all of a sudden Chapman dropped to one knee and opend fire
hmmmmm. just like a millitary trained person would perhaps??
interesting . check out my latest post and tell me what you think people.

cheers
Omega



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omega85
I think that perhaps Hoover was worried that John Lennon being the poerfull peace campagner that he was might have had the power to convince voters not to realect hoover and he might have also been trying to pull out from the Veatnam war...This is just one of my thoughts.By the way .

Could Lennons peace campagne for veitnam have become to hot to handle for the government?? it would make sense to take out a target that would less there money and wealth.... i mean look at 9/11??


IMO what the feds were probably more concerned with was his involvement with ppl like Jerry Rubin (Co-founder of the Yippies a radical hippy off-shoot, coined the phrase "never trust anyone over 30"), Abby Hoffman (co-founder of the Yippies, radical social and political activist), John Sinclair (Leader of local NY hippies and head of the White Panthers), and other New York radicals.

John Sinclair was busted with two joints and jailed for 10 yrs. Lennon wrote the song "Ten for Two" about it, from the album "Sometime in New York".
He was involved in the "Ten for Two" Rally to protest Sinclairs jail term. John had a camera crew film it and he made a radio broadcast advertising it.

John was considered a radical communist drug advocate by the feds and very dangerous considering the ppl he was hanging with.

But it didn't last long, as soon as he figured they were only after his money and the popularity of his name he dropped the whole scene.

John always tried to play the common man, trying to prove he was just a 'working class hero' and that money and fame meant nothing to him. In reality he was bit clueless, having lived most of his adult life as a coddled, pampered pop star.

So he gave it up went to LA with May Pang, and played the spoiled pop star he was.

One weird thing is since as long back as 1965 Lennon would say he thought either himself or Paul were going to be assasinated. Especialy after the bigger than Jesus coment. That was one of the main reasons The Beatles stopped touring.

[edit on 25/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I have also thought about the effect he could have had on voters at that time .
he had many followers especially the younguer and older generation alike.
could it have been an electoral threat or something?? to me this seems plausable.
what do u think?



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Hello Omega
With regard to your comments of the John Lennon killing I think you are missing the point. How or why JL and others such as JFK,MLK etc. were killed is not relevant, what is relevant is the impact these people had on society as a whole. When M Jackson started getting political in his video's it was only a question of time before he would be taken down. You dont have to kill somebody today you can ruin them financialy, discredit them and the media will do the rest. Its simple, speak out against the system, become a threat to the power brokers and see what happens.
But we all have to keep fighing the system in our own way otherwise we will end up like the above mentioned people.
magicmushroom



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Chapman was certainly a manipulated soul. I have no doubt that he was conditioned and sent to kill Lennon. The powers that brought Lennon and the Beatles to the forefront no longer really needed a "Lennon" any longer. I am all but convinced that the Beatles arrival and white hot popularity was all orchestrated by the Tavistock Institute in London. By 1980 , Lennon was too strong willed and maturing beyond their controlling means. The powers that be are mob-like in their mentality that you will play their game indefinitely. Lennon wanted separation from their demands and was heralded enough to be believable in any type of expose.


Keep in mind that Lennon was the same artist who sang of ,'Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you try".............and proceeded to leave Yoko a $300 million estate.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Keep in mind that Lennon was the same artist who sang of ,'Imagine no possessions, it's easy if you try".............and proceeded to leave Yoko a $300 million estate.


Exactly what spun Chapman out of control and convinced himself he had to murder Lennon. He seen him as a hippocrit, but since when do we ever hold any musician accountable for the exact words they speak? Every damn band that comes out today victimizes themself while they are making millions of dollars, yet nobody questions that.

Lennon made alot of money, but he spent alot of his time trying to help those. He was vocal in his peace protests as he was willing to help those in need. In the Imagine documentary you see a homeless guy show up at his estate and John brings him inside to feed him and send him along with some extra cash in his pocket. He talked of a world without material, yes but he did not exploit his good fortune as the rest of the industry did.


Originally posted by YIAWETA
I am all but convinced that the Beatles arrival and white hot popularity was all orchestrated by the Tavistock Institute in London.


Through what evidence? Could you please provide some links to back up your claims. So the conspiracy starts well before they are even popular, how is that even fathomable?


Originally posted by YIAWETA
By 1980 , Lennon was too strong willed and maturing beyond their controlling means.


By 1980 John was out of the public eye for a few years, and was finally making another record. He was more of a family man rather than making weekly protests. Why kill him when he finally settled down? Why kill him at all? Your only going to martyr him and make him forever known. Paul McCartney is a great man, but in 100 years more people will know Lennon because he was martyred. Why would they do this for him?


Originally posted by YIAWETA
The powers that be are mob-like in their mentality that you will play their game indefinitely. Lennon wanted separation from their demands and was heralded enough to be believable in any type of expose.


Who exactly are we talking about here? Again, could you please provide some links to back your claims.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Chissler, Sorry to blow your Beatles bubble. I at one time was a huge Beatles fan. I have come to see them for what they really were, a group to help usher in the drug culture here in the U.S.. Notice how since the early 90's no rock band has emerged?....there's no need any longer because the country is over run with illegal drugs. Bands don't emerge on their own, they are crafted and financed.The Beatles did their job well. Thanks soo much!



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Chissler, Sorry to blow your Beatles bubble. I at one time was a huge Beatles fan. I have come to see them for what they really were, a group to help usher in the drug culture here in the U.S..


Great, I respect your opinion and now try to make an effort to respect mine. I have backed up my opinion now you should try to do the same. Show me an indiciation of why I should believe this?

You actually believe though the Beatles brought drugs to America? Have you heard of Elvis? Johnny Cash?

These guys came out in the '50's and were doing their fare share of drugs themselves. The Beatles did not revolutionize the drug scene in America.


Originally posted by YIAWETA
Notice how since the early 90's no rock band has emerged?....there's no need any longer because the country is over run with illegal drugs.


Nirvana changed the face of music in the early 90's. They created the grunge scene at the time, and music really has not been the same ever since. The music we listen to today has been touched by Nirvana. They were a victim of their own success however, which can be said about many other bands as well.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Actualy the Beatles were introduced to drugs in America.

Bob Dylan introduced them to marjuanna in '65, hence the albums Rubber Soul and Revolver.

They were given '___' at a party unknowingly in '66. spiked punch or tea I forget which.
After that came Sgt.Peppers.

The band did take dexies, a pep pill, in the early days. That started in the Hamburg days when they were playing 8 hrs a day and needed the lift


So I don't buy the Beatles were used to usher in drugs theory.

In fact their drug use was kept pretty quite, didn't come out till the last couple of yrs they were together. Remember the Bealtes were considered the good guys, the Rolling Stones were considered the druggies.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Chissler, I never said the Beatles brought drugs to America. Their music certainly did evoke a message to kids that to experiment with drugs was a rite of passage. C'mon, this is pretty easy to see. Once you understand that much of what we're fed as entertainment in this country is ripe with message and thus control.
Some three months after JFK was killed America was reeling emotionally and was primed for a social evolution. The Beatles arrived here as Stars. When did that happen prior or since?....Sure, four mop headed twenty somethings from Liverpool could muster all the attention of the American media all on their own!. Tavistock created them , in the same manner Jackie Cooper created the Monkees
You have asked for proof. Here is the site where this information is found. I am most disappointed over this whole issue. I adored the Beatles. I feel that they were among the greatest influences in my early life. The reality of what they were and who they represented left me angry and bitter for several months. Take care!


www.illuminati-news.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
So you just believe any website that comes up with wild theories?

I think anybody who has studied or even just read anything about the Beatles would reslize that website is a bunch of BS.

The Beatles weren't the only British band at that time making a hit on America.
The music scene at that time was ripe for it. Just like say Nirvana in their day.
Just that in the 60's there were less bands to compete with.

A band becomes popular because of the chemistry of the members involved, and a huge dose of luck.

They were lucky they found, or he them, Brian Epstein who shaped their image.
They were lucky they found George Martin who shaped their music.

Their four personalities made a complete entity, if that makes sense. Got to know a bit about Human phsycology. If any one of the members had been different then the outcome would have been different.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join