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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
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.


Problem is it's not about doubting your theory, it's that there is nothing to back it up and if you look at the history of 60's music and culture you'll see the theory is not true for many reasons.

There are hundreds if not thousands of witnesses to the Beatles rise to fame.

And again you can't fabricate popularity. There are hundreds of bands fabricated by some producer or whatever every week, maybe 1 gets a contract and even less get well known, and about 0.000010% get as big as the Beatles did.

How could they predict the outcome? Why would they put a lot of time and money into a band that more than likely would flop? The chance of the illumati, or whoever, of picking the right band to fullfill an agenda would be like hoping to win the lottery if you only buy one ticket your whole life.

Yeah they could help push the band by hyping them in the press etc..Opening some doors. But still ultimately if the kids don't like 'em, they don't sell. And like I said the odds of being successful are extremely slim, even in those days.

[edit on 6/5/2006 by ANOK]




posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Anok, I agree with most of what you say. But, not for a second do I believe that fame and popularity is left to the public. Our 'stars' are chosen. Sure some flame out and wither away, but look at the survivors over time and it would be my contention that along with some talent their image and amount of ink, camera time are heavily controlled. The Beatles, Bowie, Rolling Stones, Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath and U2 would all fit the mold.
It won't be a laborious or overt effort on my part but I will "i promise" to seek out something solid to back up my claims. I've been suspicious for years as to why certain marginally talented people get the 'pub' , get the tv appearences and seemingly arrive out of nowhere. Aren't you?

examples:
Madonna-Reeks of MKULTRA
Brittany-Disney product
Ricky Martin-Former minuto cog
Cindy Lauper-Just freekin weird
Helen Reedy-Feminist Mantra provider
Christina Agulera-Disney product
Justin Timberlake-Disney product



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
But, not for a second do I believe that fame and popularity is left to the public. Our 'stars' are chosen. Sure some flame out and wither away, but look at the survivors over time and it would be my contention that along with some talent their image and amount of ink, camera time are heavily controlled.


You think camera time makes you a star? Tom Cruise is in front of the camera more than ever, and is probably less popular than he was in the late 80's. None of it matters unless you have success. Tom Cruise comes out with MI:3, he is everywhere but does anyone really consider him to be a better actor than his co-star Philip Seymour Hoffman? Anyone who has any movie sence, No. So how can camera time decide who is and is not a star. Most people probably don't even know who Hoffman is, (Best Actor 2006), while Tom Cruise (Has Never Won an Oscar) is well known. Yet camera time is a leading contributing factor to who is succesful?

When it comes to the music industry, Sure you need publicity to become a mega star. Some of the greatest talent this world has known was on the underground scene. But without the publicity, you do not recieve the recognition. However publicity is only your first step. Talent has to take over. What you are saying is that the industry controls our mind and tells us who we should and should not like. We are unconsciously forced to go out and purchase the records? I think not.



examples:
Madonna-Reeks of MKULTRA
Brittany-Disney product
Ricky Martin-Former minuto cog
Cindy Lauper-Just freekin weird
Helen Reedy-Feminist Mantra provider
Christina Agulera-Disney product
Justin Timberlake-Disney product


Madonna.. MKUltra? How? Why? For what reason?

Disney products, sure the Mickey Mouse club helped these guys have a fan base.

Lauper.. weird, yeah thats a no brainer but what does it have to do with this argument?

Reedy, Mantra? So what? What does it prove for your argument?



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
YAIWETA, now that is an interesting theory, that you even mention the Tavistock Institute in connection with John Lennon. I really would be interested though in what brings you to that conclusion? And even though it may sound far-fetched, for some reason it also seems to have some validity to it though Im not sure what gives me that feeling. Any more you can offer on that would be appreciated.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by tracer]

[edit on 7-5-2006 by tracer]

Heres is a link I came acroos in regards to Lennon and the Tavistock Institute.

www.konformist.com...

www.illuminati-news.com...

[edit on 7-5-2006 by tracer]

[edit on 7-5-2006 by tracer]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
As well as the mention of the Tavistock institute, the Stanford Research Centre is mentioned as well. I found it interesting that there is a belief that Theodore Adorno (Tavistock) wrote all the Beatles songs.

This theory springs from the writings of one Dr. John Coleman, a one time agent of MI6.

Coleman

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Beelzebubba]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Chissler, as you can see I'm not the only one who 'feels' there's something amiss here. If you cannot see how Madonna of all people would fit into the mold of 'perpetually reinvented' there may be no convincing you of anything. Here's someone who is all about shock and awe. Just take a look at her career and see she has been all over the map, sexually, morally and religiously.Remember she has posed nude and written childrens books....WUWT????? Not to mention how she quite easily slips from her mid-west accent to a quasi- British one rather seemlessly.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
How does any of that make Madonna MKUltra?

What she does is called 'keeping your career alive'. Have you ever notice most of the artists out there keep their popularity by changing their act once in awhile?
There are some exceptions of course (AC/DC)...

And the overt sexuality, you must have notice she's a woman, and unfortunately the music industry still thrives on exploiting female (and male) sexuality.
Madonna knows what sells, and once you get trapped in the entertainment industry it's about making money, not art. Artists don't make money, exploiters do. Most ppl who get a whif of fame and wealth drop the art and become exploiters. That's the only control going on here, the capitalists stranglehold, hard to resist. What's your soul anyway? Surely worth a life of attention and comfort beyond our dreams?

And the accent, well she is an actor and has I believe taken acting classes.
So nothing weird there either IMO.

[edit on 8/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Exactly!

Sure you make valid points, which is a knock to the individual. But what does it have anything to do with MK Ultra? She becomes whatever the media wants her to be in order to stay in the spotlight, MKUltra?

You say your not going to convince me of anything, at this pace no but I am wide open to suggestion. I am open to hearing other theories which is why I have said countless times please back up what your saying and discuss it.

You bring up a theory, we present a flaw and you respond with well I believe it and you dont have to. Thats fine, but in the spirit of ATS lets try to make a thread out of this.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I posted that I thought Yiaweta had an interesting theory about Lennon and the Tavistock Institute, now that is not to say that I believe the Beatles success was fabricated, because I dont. I believe that I looked at it in a bit different way. Which is to say that the whole idea may possibly have been to steer or control the youth of America into the culture of drugs and such much deeper than they may have been and what better way to do it than by having a major group such as the Beatles to begin that control. I fully believe in the idea of divide and conquer as a way of controlling people and overpowering them and I just looked at this situation along those lines. And can we agree that the era of the Beatles was a change of cultures in this country for us all, I myself believe it was and that some of the bands of that era had a lot to do with it.
Im just trying to explain what I meant when I posted that Yiaweta had an interesting theory, and I do think it can be researched further and who knows where it will lead. Im sure we all know what comes out of the Tavistock Institute.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Thx Tracer for your imput. I honestly feel that once one is able to separate their fan based emotions from how things really transpired the realities of the British invasion of r&r through the sixties and seventies will be seen as a cultural invasion timed to follow the JFK assasination.I also feel that you who have to be currently over fourty to even have a feel of what was going on in 1963-70 America. Like all activities originated from the Tavistock Institute there are few footprints to clearly track their efforts.
This thread started out regarding Lennon's murder. I'll go back there and cite that the methods and general demeanor of his assassin mirrors that of Reagan's would-be assassin. Both fall into the lonely , Catcher in the Rye reading droid. Much like the old pre-pc parental adage 'I brought you into this world and I'll take you out of this world too", the powers that put Lennon in place decided it was his time to go!
I understand how most of you posters feel. My wife refuses to buy into the 9/11 official story and like myself sees the media as solely a social manipulator. But, don't touch 'my Beatles' she demands , and I don't. The mere thought tares away at too much of the integral fabric that makes up one's sense of being. I guess , because I always had a sneaking suspiscion about them it's been easier for me to at least address their impact. BTW-I continue to seek out info to back up my claims.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Look, it's nothing to do with being a fan, I'm 42, I'm not a star struck fan. Just someone who has studied 60's culture and music quite extensively over the years.
It's obvious from what you have said, you don't know too much about that time yourself, other than the overblown exaggerated media version.

I am the first to question the government, if you've read any of my other posts here you'd know that. It's not about refusing to believe in what you're claiming, it's about there being absolutely nothing in the real world that even comes close to making me believe your claim. I've never even heard it mentioned before.

Maybe if you could supply some kind of evidence for this claim?

As I've already said, drugs were here in the U.S. way before the British invasion.
Pot use was very common in the music industry before the 60's for example, especially with jazz and folk singers, like Bob Dylan who introduced the Beatles to pot, not the other way around.

When the Beatles first came to the U.S. they weren't even using drugs, they followed what was going on in society, not the other way around. It always looks like those that are in the media are the ones leading the cultural change, but if you look deeper you'll usually find the stars are just copying and exploiting what is going on in the "underground" away from the mainstream. Then the media and the "stars" make it mainstream for the sake of a profit. It's happened with every youth movement there has been.

Show me anything from the Beatles that overtly promoted drug use. Even the later subtle references weren't picked up by the mainstream, only other drug users caught on.

So if they were put together and used to promote decadence they didn't do a very good job.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Anok , even in your own signature you elude to the rich's privledge and manipulation of the masses. Why wouldn't the Beatles fit into being a cultural tool.?Where do you get off telling me I apparently wasn't aware of what was going on in my own world. Talk about an insulting reach. If you can't discuss the matter without coming out with personal insinuations, get off the thread!



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Dude relax man, you were making the same insults, just giving it back...

Sry I just know too much about their history to believe your theory.

Just because I question government doesn't mean I automaticlay believe every theory out there.
If you know the history of youth and drug culture, other than what the mainstream is telling you, you would know where I'm comming from.

So was the Beatles and the whole 50, 60's history written by the MKUltra guys?
Sry but no, I know it wasn't.

All I asked was something to back up your claim, which you haven't done. Now you're just getting frustrated becasue I don't agree with you.
Go debate with Chissler I'm done, you don't want to listen to reason...



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Greetings all,
people please try and keep the peace in this thread we are all entitled to our own opinions and must not flame or bite at each other for it.Instead respect all opinions and if u dissagree with something prove yourself with solid facts instead of grilling each other, thats what this place is about.just a thought.
Nice posts guys
keep up the good work


Omega



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I still await to see if my proposal is being accepted, Still no reply to my u2u.

YIAWETA will you debate over this in a structured environment?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Chissler, I'll keep my comments on the board. Thanks anyway !


I came across a letter from John to Paul and Linda. Linda and John apparently hated one another.

www.beatlesagain.com...



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I did come across this from Dr. Henry Makow. It pretty much mirriors what I've claimed here regarding the Beatles. I know, I know...it's just another website.

www.savethemales.ca...



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
I came across a letter from John to Paul and Linda. Linda and John apparently hated one another.

www.beatlesagain.com...


What does that have to do with Anything?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
"Do you really think most of today's art came about because of the Beatles? I don't believe you're that insane. Paul , do you believe that? When you stop believing it you might wake up! Didn't we always say we were part of the movement, not all of it? Of coarse we changed the world, but try and follow through, get off your gold disc and fly!"

Maybe you should read that Yiaweta....


All the Beatles hated Linda (except Paul of course)...She was another gold digger like Yoko. She tried to hustle, through Paul, the management of the Beatles by her father Lee Eastman.

John, George and Ringo would have nothing to do with him, they chose Alen Klein (obviously another gold digger but...)

Of course it also had a lot to do with Paul's particularly public dislike of Yoko.

Nothing to do with MKUltra, just the music business.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Chissler and Anok,No comment on the Makow piece.?....What's the matter, not fitting in to your reality?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join