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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Please, these were four kids. The dynamic was fabricated. It wouldn't have matter who was in that group.




posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Please, these were four kids. The dynamic was fabricated. It wouldn't have matter who was in that group.


I do not normally like to create assumptions or talk to us as the individual, but you obviously know nothing about music.

McCartney and Lennon were probably two of the greatest musicians as an individual, group these guys together with talking monkeys and your going to create history. Fabrication? Are you kidding me? You can not fabricate the reaction the fans had to these guys, it still happens today.

I have not until now knocked your belief, I have even attempted to respect what you believe but you continue to knock everyone elses thoughts while you believe these conspiracies that some whacko came up with.

I really wish you would expand on just one of your posts, and tell us how this was fabricated. Its not simply enough to say it, explain how they are possibly fabricated or how they introduced Americans into drugs. As ridiculous as what you have to say seems to me right now, I am honestly interested in hearing what you have to say. Whether it be in this thread, u2u or even email I am very interested in hearing what it is that makes you believe this.

It has to be more than one website someone has come up with.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
LOL how did they fambricate their popularity?

Were people forced to go see them? Forced to go buy their records?

You have nothing to back up your assumption other than a web site.

You obviously don't understand the phsycological dynamic that goes on within a band.
I am a guitar player and have been in many bands, the ones that work are the ones that balance out so each personality works off the others. Do some research into this and you'll see what I'm saying.

Dismissing the Beatles as being manufactured, just from one web site, is rather naive don't you think?

Have you read anything about how they were formed, their history?
Were all the people involved, press agents, tour managers, roadies, studio engineers, photographers, etc...All in on it. Cause if they weren't I think the beans (jelly) would have been spilt by now. People love to spread rumours about famous people.

[edit on 28/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Please, these were four kids. The dynamic was fabricated. It wouldn't have matter who was in that group.


I Absolutely dissagree with u . they were not Fabricated?!
there fame was earnt by nothing other then brilliant music and great and meaningfull songs.There music was great and there lyrics were phenomenol.
lennon and paul were and are the greatest songwriters that ever lived in my opinion .
And the beatles to this day remain one of the top bands to have ever lived.
it was those four that made it what it was because of there own genius and work .
noone else could have accomplished what they have or what they did.
Listen to the words of Imagine and tell me that was fabricated?
Its One of the greatest and beautifull songs i have ever heared.
just my thought .

Omega85



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
All valid points from both of you. I'll give you some insight how my perspective was formed. In 1967 I was 11 years old and lived in Lowell, Ma.. I was an Air Force brat. We moved from Lowell to Sudbury,Suffolk England. We spent four years in England. During that time frame the Beatles were at their height of popularity. Incidently , their popularity in England never met the heights it did in the states. When we returned to Massachusetts in 1971 the transformation the kids my age had been through was staggering. These were all straight laced catholic school kids who had become angry pot smoking pricks. Yes, these ages do represent probably the most volitile and impressionable in ones young life At the time I didn't understand what had happened and still today I certainly don't pretent to understand it all.Shortly there after however I did see how rapidly American society had changed. The two constants in the equation at the time were rock and roll and drugs. Certainly not wanting to be the fifth wheel in the group I too smoked pot and couldn't get enough rock music. I mention this because I don't want to appear to be a hypocrit. I am not a bible beater either. But, societies as I've come to realize don't rapidly evolve in four short years. These experiences certainly don't add up to the Beatles being the sole reason for our youths decay around that time, but it does point to the imposition of a genre and it's results.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
What you're saying is true, but it wasn't the Beatles that caused kids to smoke pot.

The kids were smoking pot before the Beatles even discovered it.

It's not like they were saying, hey kids smoke this...

Society as a whole was discovering new drugs and ways of life, the Beatles were a part of that, not the instigators of it.

Drug use in Britain started with the Mods, amphetamines...blues, purple hearts etc...They also smoked hash mixed with tabaco (no green bud in Britain then).
Mods were not Beatle fans.

If anything encouraged drug use it was the press...

The Beatles discovered hard drugs, coke, herroin, '___' when they came to the states.
So drug use was already a popular pastime in the U.S. The Beatles came too late to everything to be accused of starting it. They just joined the bandwagon.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
YIAWETA I appreciate that you are attempting to follow up on some of your off beat comments, but I still don't see any real evidence of anything really.

You said the success of the Beatles was complete fabrication, yet you have not elaborated on this. This is a pretty bold statement to make without a more solid explanation.

As ANOK has just said, drug use was rampant in the United States well before the Beatles were on the scene. I am sure they did not help the situation, but clearly their was never any direct link between the Beatles and drug use with the youth. Indirectly however, is alittle naive to think never existed but can they be to blame?

They write some songs, the fans go wild and love it hence millions of records sold. So they write some more songs, and the circle continues. How can they be guilty of anything other than providing the fans with exactly what they wanted. Nobody was forced fed here.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Chissler,
I know this is just theory on my part. I am not one to feel the need to make everyone believe what I believe. Still, no one seems to want to deal with the fact that these lads from Liverpool arrived on the shores as stars. So , I'll again ask , How do you explain the fact that from day one their popularity was never greater ?....I find that highly suspicious....I think I always did !



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
How does that prove anything? They were popular before coming to America, so what? Why would they bother coming if they were not already popular? Would a band go to a country where there is no demand for them? Not likely.

The simple fact the Beatles were popular before coming to America proves nothing on your end of the argument.

This comes back to the fact you still believe the Beatles were complete fabrication. Elaborate on exactly how the measures of success they have seen over the years were fabricated. From the early days in Liverpool to what McCartney still has today.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
So then why do u think that lennon was killed???
there had to be a reason.
to me it dosent seem like Mark David Chapman would just go up to him and kill him for no reason at all .
He would have to be driven by something.
Lennon was under survelience for a long time .
There were agents out the front of his house,His phone was tapped and the cia were watching him very carefully.
He even made a public announcement about this and said "If anything happens to me or Yoko , You know whos to blame"
To me this seems very odd.
Why would they have been following him and watching his everymove??
This to me seems like chapman was driven by the government to kill him
Why? i dont know ,But know doubt it is sad none the less.
There has to be something more to this.
As if the media would tell us the real reason for what happen anyway.
they are not the most reliable source for this kind of infomation.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
The most tragic part of the shotting of John Lennon was that out of all those shots Chapman couldnt have saved one bullet for Yoko Ono.......LOL

I agree with yall...there popularty couldnt have been manufactured



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
The most tragic part of the shotting of John Lennon was that out of all those shots Chapman couldnt have saved one bullet for Yoko Ono.......LOL

I agree with yall...there popularty couldnt have been manufactured




Alot of people are deffinately scratching their heads over that one.

We still await to see how the success of the Beatles was completely fabricated.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
lol
Amuk thats not very nice

tis true though allas we wait .

Omega



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
to the doubters,
I have neither the time nor inclination to prove to anyone what I feel. The notion of the Beatles being something other than the musical backdrop and thus the fabric of a generation or two is quite discerning I realize. These days we all seek the comforts of what we feel shaped our very existence so to depart from that and finally understand what I felt was a fraud from the start is far from comforting. Believe what you will and so will I.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I both understand and respect your right to believe what you wish. My purpose is not to change your thought, or for you to change mine. But ATS is a discussion board, it is why we have all come together.

So to simply post your thought and say, I don't have to defend it so let me believe whatever I want, is against what ATS is all about.

You don't have to defend your argument, its just what is sometimes expected on ATS.

Maybe another day.

If you ever want to u2u me about this subject, please do I would love to discuss it.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I have found out that Yoko Ono still lives in that same place where out the front that unfortunate incident occured.
I wonder how she feels and what goes through her head everytime she goes out the door
I have noticed that she has been very quit since though and i wonder how much of a toll this whole ordeal has taken upon her mind.

Omega



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I find the correlation between the JFK hit and the rise of the Beatles in the U.S. fascinating.


Dave Marsh writing in Rolling Stone magazine (Feb. 24, 1977): "The Beatles have always had an intimate connection to the JFK assassination. He was shot the week before Thanksgiving 1963. By February 1964, the Beatles were number one in the national charts and the climactic appearance on Ed Sullivan's TV show occurred. Even Brian Epstein (the manager of the Beatles) believed the Kennedy assassination helped their rise -- the Beatles appeared to bind our wounds with their messages of joy and handholding... And the way was paved, replacing Camelot with Oz."



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I have no doubt that lennons assassination was very similarly planned to that of jfk.
This simply amazes me and by the way nice post beelzebub

Omega



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Again I'm sorry but this is all tosh.

Lennon was talented but nowhere near the level of Macca and, to some, only just ahead of George. He was a fading bitter ex-rock star and was killed by a loony in a country where guns are easily-available.

There's something in the American psyche that craves a conspiracy / grand order to events that just happen. The mawkish memorials for this odd-ball are truly a bit wierd (EG Strawberry Fields etc etc). Yoko has been instrumental in perpetuating these silly myths and celebrations (that daft stage show that wrote McCartney out of history etc) - let's face it she's famous for nothing else

If Lennon had been killed in Barnsley or Old Swan then there wouldn't be half this fuss.

Maybe George was poisoned by the Hare Krishna's


[edit on 5-5-2006 by Strangerous]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Again I'm sorry but this is all tosh.

Lennon was talented but nowhere near the level of Macca and, to some, only just ahead of George. He was a fading bitter ex-rock star and was killed by a loony in a country where guns are easily-available.

There's something in the American psyche that craves a conspiracy / grand order to events that just happen. The mawkish memorials for this odd-ball are truly a bit wierd (EG Strawberry Fields etc etc). Yoko has been instrumental in perpetuating these silly myths and celebrations (that daft stage show that wrote McCartney out of history etc) - let's face it she's famous for nothing else

If Lennon had been killed in Barnsley or Old Swan then there wouldn't be half this fuss.

Maybe George was poisoned by the Hare Krishna's


[edit on 5-5-2006 by Strangerous]


A loony in a country where guns are easely available??!
And transportation of guns through high security airports is available too i take it??
And if lennon was killed in another place by an X cia opperative who somehow managed to managed to smuggle a weapon through 2 high security airports one after another , Yes i think there would be as much fuss.
Just a thought

Omega85







 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join