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: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Shame on you for underestimating me.

Truth is I am still at work and unable to view the link. I get a surf control which limits me on this network. I am home in exactly 40 minutes however from work, so you can expect a reply to the link in about 50.



I appreciate how many facts on our end of things you dodge, you dodge an organize debate where we can discuss this; however the one time you post an actual reference you think we have no comment.

Actually, make that 45 minutes you will have a reply.





posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by YIAWETA
Chissler and Anok,No comment on the Makow piece.?....What's the matter, not fitting in to your reality?


LOL well that site is so stupid I'm not sure where to start...LOL

First off none of the songs they mentioned were even thought of in 1963 when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. Show me a song from 1963 that mentions drugs.

The earliest one they mention "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" (as in "this girl has gone. Bird is English slang for girl)" 1965, "Rubber Soul", was about an affair John was having (with a bird/girl) but got nervous about Cynthia finding out.
The original words "Knowing She Would" Became "Norwegian Wood".
Also Norwegian Wood is cheap pine used to line walls btw, very popular in 1965 but you know that right?

Here's what John said about the song...

"I was trying to write about an affair, so it was very gobbledegooky. I was trying to write about an affair without letting my wife know I was having one. I was sort of writing from my experiences ... girl's flats, things like that." He also said: "'Norwegian Wood' is my song completely. It was about an affair I was having. I was very careful and paranoid because I didn't want my wife, Cyn, to know that there really was something going on outside of the household. I'd always had some kind of affairs going on, so I was trying to be sophisticated in writing about an affair ... but in such a smoke-screen way that you couldn't tell. But I can't remember any specific woman it had to do with."

"Yellow Submarine", yes some have said it was named after an amphetamine known as yellow submarines. The band has never admitted this and so what? Nobody would have known that in 1967, unless they were already part of the drug culture.
It had no effect on the general public. 1967 the Beatles were doing Acid, but again it was very discreet at the time. Looking back it seems so obvious to us now, but back then Sgt. Pepper was just Alice in Wonderland (which was also drug induced apparently) to the general public. They didn't get the subtle drug references then and most ppl don't now, so how does that boost drug use?

"Hey Jude" about methadrine?...LOL
Hey Jude was Hey Jules, Johns son Julian. Written by Paul after hanging out with Julian. Changed to Jude to fit the song better. The Beatles also had a habit of writing about someone then changing the name slightly, to avoid any law suits probably...

I could go on but the point is made...Learn something about the Beatles and their history and you won't fall for uninformed lies on an ignorant web site.

A little of topic but this made me laugh...

From your site "save the males'

One interesting note about the 1960s "flower child" culture--the peace symbol is actually an upside-down broken cross, meaning rejection of Christianity. And we all know that feminism, "free" love (it ain't free), etc., are things a Christian hates.


The "peace symbol" as it's become known as in the states is the symbol for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, "CND"...
The symbol was designed in the 50's and is made up of 3 semaphore flags for CND.
Nothing to do with Christianity...LOL

Read for yourself...Right from CND's own web site...
www.cnduk.org...

Your site is so full of misinformation and wild assumptions it ain't funny.
Again, the comment I made that you found so offensive is proved once more, other wise you would know that site is BS to the extreme...Sry just 'denying ignorance'



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
So we have this...



"In 1963 the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. They combined rock and mystical music, long hair, and Hindu worship...Drugs were suggested in many of their songs: "Yellow Submarine" (a "submarine" is a "downer"), "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" (the initials of the main words are '___'), "Hey Jude" (a song about methadrine), "Strawberry Fields" (where opium is grown to avoid detection) and "Norwegian Wood" (a British term for marijuana).

John Lennon's song "Imagine" attacked religion ("Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky"), espoused a do-your-own-thing philosophy ("Imagine all the people, Living for today"), attacked nationalism ("Imagine there's no countries"), attacked religion ("It is isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too"), called for the abolition of private property ("Imagine no possessions").


Wow great obvervation. Anyone who listened to a Beatles song and knew anything about a drug could of told you that. That is of course your making a lame attempt at a conspiracy, since when are these songs meant to be taken on a literal basis? Lennon said all of the time his lyrics were not meant to be literal, that he was just writing.



It supported a new international order ("I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man, Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world") and advocated a one-world government ("You may say I'm a dreamer, But I'm not the only one, I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one.")


One World government? I guess you could interpret some of his words like that, but I could also give you several other interpretations. Seems that argument he makes is void.

OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS!



Lennon called for abolition of private property and then left his Japanese-born widow a $250 million estate."


Yeah Damn, that one still bugs me. Ono gets all his cash, eats at me too. The people behind this fabrication let him do pretty well for himself.

And thats it?

A few lyrical references to drugs? A NWO Reference? This all proves the Beatles were fabricated?

Can you please google another link for me to show alittle more. It seems the scale is still slanted our way.

Now again I say, you are in every right to believe whatever you wish. But it is our right to defend what we believe, so please do not respond again with another well its what I want to believe yadda yadda yadda. In all the work there is on the Beatles and the industry, I have a tough time believing that such little text is enough for you to believe in something so ridiculous.

I grant there is a slight argument to make, but I can also say well Jesus slept with Mary Magdalene and had a child that Christianity has been trying to hide for 2000 years. I believe this because of a few discrepancies in The Last Supper by DaVinci. Or that maybe Stephen King actually killed Lennon, or wait Paul McCartney died years ago. Sure there is an argument to make, but is it realistic?

Minus the Jesus/Magdalene example, because that is one I am still on the fence with I want to explore that one alittle more before I come down on either side.

Sorry, I think I went over my 45 minute time frame. Had to do some running around first.




posted on May, 12 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Lennon was just the victim of a deranged fan's pathetic shot at fame. Ono didn't hire Chapman, the CIA didn't hire him either or turn him into a Manchurian candidate. Lennon wasn't a puppet of the NWO or whatever.
What I find reprehensible about this, is that folk continue to question Ono's involvenment, as if she was part of some fiendish plot to kill John for the money. Can't anyone just accept that famous folk are just as mortal as us?
Bruce Lee or Jim Morrison who both died, and in the search for answers, conspiracy theories where made to explain their deaths, because...just trying to find the right words...Okay, this might work.
Famous people can't die ordinary deaths.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Lennon was just the victim of a deranged fan's pathetic shot at fame. Ono didn't hire Chapman, the CIA didn't hire him either or turn him into a Manchurian candidate. Lennon wasn't a puppet of the NWO or whatever.
What I find reprehensible about this, is that folk continue to question Ono's involvenment, as if she was part of some fiendish plot to kill John for the money. Can't anyone just accept that famous folk are just as mortal as us?
Bruce Lee or Jim Morrison who both died, and in the search for answers, conspiracy theories where made to explain their deaths, because...just trying to find the right words...Okay, this might work.
Famous people can't die ordinary deaths.


I dont think mark chapman did it for fame.
he only has done one interveiw and that was to ask for paroll?
he dosent fit the profile of a fame seeking nutcase i think there was something more to this because of the still classified cia docos that exist and lennon was being monitered by them.
Famous people can die ordinary deaths of course. but that dosent mean there is nothing behind it.
just a thought

Omega



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omega85

I dont think mark chapman did it for fame.

Omega


Hes actually admitted several times that the sole purpose of this was to finally achieve some fame and recognition. He wanted his name to be known, and it was obvious at the point in his life it would not be on his own merit. With this admittance, why feed his need? Why grant him the interview?

He has done more than one interview, he had done recordings after he first went into jail and after a period of time that slips my mind.

So yeah, the fame aspect is something Chapman readily admits.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I thank you all for your responses. I also see many discripancies in the Makow piece. Paul at one time had said that Norwegian Wood was a song about a lesbian. So John claims one meaning and Paul another...very strange.

Anok, your denile of the Beatles drug influence on the American youth is laughable. They openly by 1967 advocated '___' and marijuana use. Look at the Revolver cover. Look at their appearence from 64' to 67'.

The biggest 'in your face' aspect was Sgt. Peppers album cover. Look at some of the people this band supposedly hailed.
Aldous Huxley-NWO and Tavistock tool. His 'Doors of Perception' involed his own '___' useage. Worked along side Kurt Lewin to introduce '___' into American culture.
Aleister Crowley-Devout satanist
William S. Burroughs- admitted paedophile, prefered 14 old boys.
Karl Marx-Zionist author, social architect

This album cover is more an ode to the efforts made by Tavistock. It's the Tavistock All-Star team. Sometimes it's just about,'the forest and the trees'



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
No response to good ol' chissler?



Ok here is where I will step up and find some middle ground. As anyone in the public eye, the Beatles had a tremendous influence over those who listened to their music. Promotion of drugs would directly lead to the fans probably giving drugs a shot. But did they publicly promote drugs? You can pick apart lyrics or images and say they have references, but thats all skeptical at best.

I applaud you for admitting the discrepancies, as alot of them are very obvious.

So where do we stand now? I'll say the Beatles may have added to a drug craze, did they create it though? No.

So again, what does any of this have to do with MK Ultra that you keep reminding us of? I do not see the link that you are trying to portray.

How many musicians/bands in pop culture have not influenced some sort of drug onto the fans?

The drug craze of the 60's has turned into the eating disorders of today.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Sorry Chissler,
I'm certainly not trying to leave you out. I realize that much of my contention is not based in verifiable fact. Just like you're on the fence regarding the Da Vinci theory. Possible? ...yes, probable?...no,...impossible?...never! I've been on the fence regarding the Beatles since the day John was killed. That being said, seeing others who have written about the less than grassroots emergence of the Beatles is mere coroboration of what I have believed for sometime. Sometimes on this issue , I feel like Toto from the Wizard of Oz. I can see the man behind the curtain but no one respondes to my barking!..arrf !



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I understand. Agreeing with your argument is something Im probably not going to do, however I do see your side of the coin and I respect you for not backing down. Even when a few of us were jumping at once.


Good Job!




posted on May, 12 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Thanks for the comments Chissler, I have really enjoyed this thread and all participants even though I probably hijacked the thread somewhat.
To show how much I still respect and admire the Boys, just last month my twin grandaughters [age 9] asked me, "Who's your favorite band Papa?". I said the Beatles of course. "Why", they asked. I said they were different and made people happy. They are both violinists and have played for a couple of years now. This past weekend was their birthday party. My daughter had gotten them some Beatles sheet music [at their request] and they performed Yesterday for us all. I really had to fight back the tears , the song and their performance was so beautiful. It was just about that time I thought to myself 'they had to have been real, they had to have been real'!



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
.
Mark Chapman was a tool. Lennon was a tool. The Beatles were a tool. Yoko Ono and Linda McCartney were tools. Anyone who stepped out of line ended up dead. Paul McCartney ended up dead. False Paul McCartney's wife and Ringo's first wife ended up dead. Epstein ended up dead. Lennon ended up dead. Harrison ended up dead. The Beatles story is littered with bodies. Ringo either knows which backside to lick, or he's shaking in his shoes. False Paul is in a cage, unable to escape. He is product. He is money for 'them'.

Do you really believe Yoko is in possession of all that money? Yoko's a figurehead. She works for pay. She generates maudlin sympathy and ongoing worship of Lennon for profit, but that profit goes to the same guys who grabbed control of the Beatles way back when. McCartney objected to be controlled. He was killed and replaced.

John went along with that; they all did, with varying degrees of horror, depression and resentment and fear. The False Paul was installed. False Paul (in the guise of Paul McCartney) and Lennon broke up. We were informed that the Beatles were tired of touring and from now on would concentrate on composing and recording.

John was a loose cannon. They brought in a long-haired, squawky voiced minder. John's brain was manipulated; he ended up a robotic parody of himself.

John had outlived his usefulness. He had broken free of his minder. He wanted to regain some self-respect. He was trying to remember what he'd been programmed to forget. He wanted to be a man before he died. It was time to shut him up permanently. Those responsible knew that, like Van Gogh, he'd be worth more as a dead and 'revered' product, than alive. Chapman was simply a mind-controlled tool.

Everything everyone believes they know about the Beatles and Lennon's death had as its source something printed or announced by the whore media which in turn is controlled utterly by the same ruthless, bloodless, shadowy money-men and opinion-dictators who thrust the Beatles to fame in the 60's. You only know what you've been told, about the Beatles. So who told you? That's right. 'They' did. 'They' invented the CIA conspiracy you believe you thought of yourself. 'They' invented the 'I want fame' motivation of Chapman. 'They' added the 'meaningful' element of Catcher. Etc.

When the Beatles began their rise to fame, teenagers were a very tame bunch. If you need proof, watch Rebel Without a Cause and the Wild Ones. There are Dean and Brando looking laughably impotent in their neatly starched jeans and whiter than white T-shirts. Drugs were largely the province of black jazz musicians. Teenagers of that era were expected to swoon along with Frank Sinatra and Pat Boone or to 'get wild' with Frankie Avalon and Paul Anka --- all of whom sang about young love and pink carnations. DJ's wore suits. The Beatles wore suits !

We've been told a lot about the Beatles early lives and Hamburg days. We've been told a lot about what happened after the Beatles 'meteoric rise to fame'. But the bit in between has been left deliberately vague, along the lines of the Beatles were slugging it out in the Cavern Club when John used his initiative and befriended Epstein and 'the rest is history' -- in the same way as people are only too happy to believe that John (married and with a small son) just happened to pop along to an obscure art gallery one day and looked up to see a weird Japanese woman up a ladder, at which point there was a instant meeting of minds and souls, after which John turned weird as well, grew his hair, wore white suits, became very Japanese-looking himself, turned into neutred lap-dog to his Japanese minder and quit the Fab Four ! And those who believe that, no doubt choose to also believe that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds bears no reference at all to '___' ... and also choose to believe that Hey Jude was all about little Julian Lennon.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
First of all allow me to say great post and well said. Very impressed and I almost began to believe some of it.

You actually believe McCartney was killed and replaced? Ok the band conformed and Paul would not, we'll knock him off and the rest will carry on. Family? Are you telling me Paul's family would not realize the change? Difference? I'm talking cousins, Uncles, Aunts etc. These guys were not completely cut off from reality, they still lived lives. You believe that Paul McCartney could be completely uprooted and replaced without a hitch? Gullable. No wrong choice of words, just looking for a conspiracy would be more fitting.

John was assassinated, George lived for another twenty years, Ringo is alive and ugly, Paul is Alive. Your theory falls short.

Now I don't want myself portrayed as a member only see's the straight and narrow. The lack of definitive proof does not make a conspiracy wrong. We cannot prove the government was behind JFK or 9/11; but it doesn't mean they are innocent. We cannot prove aliens exist; but we can't prove they don't exist. This is the same for alot of other conspiracies, but when it comes to the Beatles, Lennon, etc. the material for your side of the argument is so thin and frail.

Of all the conspiracies we have, this side of the argument on this conspiracy has to be one of the weakest.

I do applaud the amount of material you use to back your argument, it was well said. Spinning the words in such a fine way however does not make the argument correct.

Lennon was murdered by a fame craved madman, the Beatles were an authentic talent.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Wow Dock6,
I've been wondering when someone would step forward with this similar perspective. 'Toto trots behind the curtain only to find Dock6 with a knife to the Wizard's throat' !...nice post!



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
.
Yiaweta's been almost lynched in this thread for suggesting the Beatles played a significant role in the emergence of the drug-culture. It's been remarked that drugs were in evidence prior to the 'metoric rise of ' the Beatles. Sure there were drugs. In the early 60's, Frank Sinatra starred in a movie called 'The Man with the Golden Arm', about a musician who was addicted to drugs. But prior to that, most people had no idea drugs or drug addiction even existed and they cared even less.

Sinatra was high profile when he made 'Man with the Golden Arm'. But he was middle aged. The fact he'd played a drug addict didn't persuade middle aged audiences to experiment with drugs. Nor was Sinatra any longer influential with young people. Young people's idols and role models were Lesley Gore, Fabian, Elvis Presley, Bobby Rydel, Annette Funicello, Sandra Dee. The big tv shows of the day were McHale's Navy, Combat, Rawhide, Bewitched, Lucy, Father Knows Best. Teenagers were regarded simply as creatures poised awkwardly between childhood and adulthood. Drugs were unheard of.

But the zionists planned to change all that; they had a scheduled, divisive Youth Revolution and lucrative Drug Culture to launch. Annette Funicello sure as hell wasn't going to spur teenagers to begin taking drugs, nor was Elvis Presley.

The Beatles were just another struggling band. Liverpool is a hard town, always has been. Not a lot of opportunity there in the 60's, nor now. The Beatles wanted to escape the grind, poverty and hopelesness they saw around them. They wanted buy a decent home and car. Playing in a band offered hope of achieving those seemingly 'wild, ambitious' dreams. They weren't getting too far. There were lots of hungry, talented, self-taught musicians around. Then -- so the story goes --- along came Epstein and stuffed them into sweet little blue suits. The zionists had chosen the Beatles for The Job. The opportunity of a lifetime. The Beatles (cynics to a man) grabbed it with both hands.

To suggest that the Beatles well-publicised drugged-out trip to India did not influence drug experimentation and consumption is naive at best. The Beatles did more to popularise drugs and make them seem innocuous, innocent, even beneficial .... than any other group or individual during that era. No-one in that era was more generally influential than the Beatles. Their fans included pre-teens, teenagers, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60-somethings. They were the friendly, acceptable face of the 'youth-revolution'. In the eyes of most, they could do no wrong. They made drug-taking seem as innocent as drinking tea. The Stones (another Zionist product) were aimed at a darker audience and were never as universally popular as the Beatles. Nor were the Doors, Hendriks, etc. But all had their disciples. And Drugs became 'normal'. In such a short space of time. Mind altering substances have always been available -- millions of years --- yet apart from shamans and indigenous peoples, mankind generally left those substances alone and just got on with life. Until the zionists saw the potential for profit, division and enormous power within the popularisation (and prohibition) of drugs. All the product needed was a bit of highly publiced sponsorship and who better than four likeable lads from over the Pond.

Did the Beatles write the music? Did John quit or was he pushed? Were his services NOW required in the ongoing 'women's lib' movement, via his 'house husband' and 'woman is 'n-word' of the world' campaigns - allied of course with his alleged devotion to 'peace'.

Did John actually write 'Imagine' ? Odd, but no-one's ever explained just when John converted from kicking people's heads in and mocking the handicapped, to becoming a 'peace-maker'. No-one's ever explained how -- at the same time he was playing devoted 'mummy' to Sean -- he failed even to contact his other son, Julian. Yeah John - how DO you sleep? But I loved him



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
How does the "Im Bigger than Jesus" comment play into everything then? If everything was so scripted, why would they ever proclaim to be bigger than the church? Or was this a non-scripted slip up in the saga that is the Beatles?

If their role was to introduce youth to the drug craze, why would they possibly allow anything of this sort to happen?

Its not fathomable to consider that such a well planned scheme would permit such a comment, would never happen.

Fact is, as good as an argument you make, these were a bunch of young kids who were thrusted upon fame and popularity way to fast. They acted like immature kids on and off screen, and spoke before they thought.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
.
Chissler: with all due respect, I appreciate you do not wish to accept or agree with opinions on this topic that clash with your own. I've encountered people who are simply unable to accept or acknowledge that the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Superman may not be 'real'. And they have defended their beliefs with energy and vitriol similar to your own. I respect others opinions, even if they differ to my own. I'm aware I may be incorrect, as may you, as may all of us.

However, please understand that I feel no requirement either to surrender to your passionate need to believe the 'official Beatles story', or to justify to your satisfaction, my own opinions and beliefs. I honestly believe you will cling to the 'official', For-Public-Consumption, zionist & whore-media peddled version of the Fab Four, even if those Liverpool lads jumped out in front of you and advised you not to believe everything you hear just because you like the sound of it.

We don't always get what we want. We sometimes have our illusions shattered. We discover that our parents must have had sex, no matter how much we'd prefer to believe otherwise.

I liked Superman. The world seemed an infinitely safer and nicer place when I was able to believe he was zooming around up there.

I liked it when I believed without question that all adults were 'good' and would take care of me.

I liked believing that policemen were 'good' and would protect us. I liked believing that lawyers would fight for justice on behalf of the poor, the innocent, the victims.

I liked it when I believed that Paul and John were like brothers, with George and Ringo as their trusty sidekicks. It made me feel all warm inside. I liked imagining that they joked and made brilliant music together in their studio, then went outside and did the Funny Walk --- just like in the Abby Road cover. I liked believing they were exactly as portrayed -- in Hard Day's Night -- on the rooftop -- in all those photos I gazed at. At one time, I believed they were One Big Happy Family -- all of them together all the time with their wives and children. I was grateful to them for just existing, for making the rest of us so happpy. I played Beatles music to my babies when they were still in their cots. I was proud of them. I'm from the same part of the world. They did the North proud. And Beatles music -- no matter who wrote it -- will live on and bring happiness to millions for decades to come. It's good music: great music. And the Beatles did a good job of being the Beatles.

But just because I enjoyed the magic of the Beatles does not mean I am prepared to permanently suspend my critical and analytical faculties. Does not mean I'm prepared to ignore what I regard as overwhelming evidence, even though it saddens me.

That's my way of approaching life. And you have yours. There's room in this world for all of us :-)



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
If you read any of my posts, I always try to make it clear that I respect all opinions. My sincere apology if I came off as a critic trying to change the world.

I was merely trying to see how this event surrounding this controversial comment would work into your theory? Like I said, for this to be true it would have to be well planned. Such a slip up is tough to fathom.

How would you work this in?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
.

Only in the United States did the 'We're bigger than Jesus' comment cause such consternation and passionate outrage.

The rest of the world (apart from clergymen etc. keen to be seen to be earning their pay) accepted the truth in the 'offensive' comment. At that time in history, the Beatles were giving Jesus some stiff competition in the devotion stakes. That's a fact. Had you walked then into any teenager's bedroom and offered them either: ' A Day with the Beatles' OR ' A chance to go spend a day with Jesus in Heaven' .... MOST teenagers (and possibly many of those older) would have replied: ' A day with the Beatles! Are you serious? THAT would be heaven ! '

I mean, while we're alive, we enjoy earthly things, don't we? When we're dead and become spirits, then we enjoy the things of the spirit, like heaven. Most people would have grabbed the chance to be with the Beatles NOW, in the belief they'd have the rest of eternity to be with Jesus.

John was simply stating the obvious when he said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus; he was being honest and trying to get people to think about the insanity of Beatlemania and put things in perspective.

And most SANE folk agreed with John.

But hey, sanity and common sense are not what world domination and creating divisions are about , are they?

So of course, those who like to see the world tearing it's own throat out, grabbed John's spontaneous (at least I HOPE it was spontaneous) comment and immediately began using it to drive wedges between various factions. Tried to turn older generations against the younger; tried to turn people into religious fanatics and brand the others as heretics: tried to lay a guilt trip on those inherently desperate for approval. So we saw American high school kids burning records and concert tickets and Beatles photos. And we had to listen to the whore media trashing the Beatles and anyone else handy.

Ridiculous really, because if Jesus had been handy, I'm sure he would have grabbed a microphone and screamed: 'HYPOCRITES ! Get off those sanctimonious high horses of yours before I PUSH you bloody well off ! '

Like the Beatles, Jesus didn't mince his words, bless him.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Good response.

So your stance here is that the Beatles actually were fabricated?

You believe you could have replaced any one of those members with anyone and you still would of had the same outcome?

Remove Paul McCartney and Insert a Backstreet Boy. Remove John Lennon and Insert a New Kid from the Block.

The group would still see the same success?

I cannot deny that groups can be fabricated, boy bands today are meshed together and pulling out one hit wonders left and right. But they are in fact, One Hit Wonders!. The Beatles were one of the greatest band in the history of music, tough to believe this was fabricated.

As you stated earlier, you have your thought and I have mine, true. But isn't it fun exploring each side of the coin?

I've enjoyed this thread and had a smile when I seen another member supporting YIAWETA's cause.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join