It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:58 PM
How could the history of the Beatles have been fabricated?

That's just laughable.

So the thousands of ppl who were involved, personally and in business, are all in on the lie?

Epstein died of drug overdose, happens all the time.
George died of cancer, happens all the time.

People die guys, and if you look at the music industry ppl tend to die younger.
Maybe it's the dugs and stressful lifestyle??? Huh?

As for the Sgt.Pepper cover, they were just ppl who the band either admired or they thought were controversial and well known at the time.
Yes there was '___' references, but how many times to I have to say that it DID NOT create the drug culture, they were just following it.
You give them too much credit.

Again John called Paul stupid for thinking basically the same thing, that the Beatles were influencing culture when in reality they were just following it.
Youth culture always starts in the underground and only becomes the mainstream if the media gets hold of it for some reason.

If any one is to blame for spreading drug use it's the media not rock bands.

Rock music started out as a rebellion against normal society, but the mainstream got a hold of it and took it's power away and turned it into a gravy train.
This silly theory of yours doesn't help, stop trying to discredit the bands and look at those that run the music industry.

I've never heard of Paul saying Norwegian Wood was about a lesbian, where did you get that from?
But seeing as how John wrote that song, what would Paul know anyway?

And I don't deny there was some drug influence, of course there was, but not in the way you are claiming. All you have to do is look at the history, start around 1955 and work your way up to the end of the '60's and you'll see how silly this theory is.
Many bands were far more open about drugs than the Beatles, especially American artists, Gratefull Dead, Hendrix, Joplin, Jefferson Airplane etc..far more open about drugs than the Beatles were.

And Dock6

You also need to read some more, the Beatles didn't have a 'meteoric rise to fame', it was long hard slog for them, as it is most bands.
And what bit in between has been left deliberately vague?
John didn't befriend Brian Epstein, well not till later
, again read something...
And what is so strange about John meeting Yoko at the Indica Gallery, ppl meet like that everyday.
You present a very simplified version of the breakup, didn't go down like you think.
Paul broke the Beatles up, his attitude wasn't going down well with the rest of the boys. They were growing up, getting married, making lifes outside of the band.
John especially was tired of the whole scene and Paul was trying to push the band in his own direction, Paul with the Beatles as baking band.
John didn't like this, he was always the leader, but he was too involved in other things to assert himself as leader again.
John was the first to quit but was advised by Alen Klein to not say anything. Then Paul stole Johns fire once again and publicly quit the band.

As far as Johns change, he's talked about that a lot. For one it's called growing up. He was trying to ease his own guilt, but it was mostly a front. He didn't really change that much.
You do know about the 'lost weekend' right? A year of drugs and violence in '74. No more mr.peace.

The 'official" Beatles story you talk about has been written by hundreds of different people, including friends, relatives, co-workers. How come they don't contradict each other?
I've talked to ppl who were there (Gerry Marsdon for one). Was he part of it too?

But the real qustion is, do drugs help or hinder society? I believe they help.
Do you think there would have been ANY of the classic rock songs we have if it wasn't for drugs?
If it was a plan to bring society down with drugs, then their plan back fired.

[edit on 12/5/2006 by ANOK]

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 04:57 PM
Lol. Yes, I thought Yaiweta handled it brilliantly. And I relate so much to what he/she's expressed, because I gained a very strong sense that Yaiweta would give an arm and a leg NOT to believe as he/she now does and would much prefer the Beatles to have remained forever in his/her mind as they once WERE to him/her. At least, that's how I feel.

No, I don't believe the Beatles would have been the same if Backstreet Boys had been slipped onto the stage in those pastel blue Beatles suits. Not for a moment.

For me, the Beatles were unique and a great part of their success (imo) was attributable to their individual personalities, voices, opinions, actions, etc. That was their appeal: they came on like Gang Busters. The air around them fairly crackled with energy.

The Beatles weren't perfect and didn't try to be, particularly at the start. They were larrikins. They were having the time of their lives and it was infectious; we could feel it; they made us laugh; they surprised us; they were fresh; we loved it.

I don't believe they were as naive as they may have appeared to some. They were spontaneous -- and that's a youthful and delightful characteristic often taken for inexperience. But those boys had been around. And people from that part of England mature early; they're men at an age when American males are still having their hair combed by their mothers. That's not to say the Beatles didn't know how to behave; they did, as was obvious. They could play the role of respectful young lads, because it was expected of them in certain circumstances and they'd been raised to do the right thing at the appropriate time. But they would have been pretty savvy. Hamburg would have been quite an all-round 'finishing school'.

Spontaniety, energy, enthusiasm, humour, sensitivity, realism, cynicism, tenderness, optimism ... these are what personified the Beatles. They were battlers who gave it their best when they got their big break.

Then you see them a few years down the road -- the light's gone from their eyes.

In retrospect, you can see it. And you wonder why you didn't see it earlier. But most of us didn't want to see it. It was only the observant few who picked it up.

Now, of course, when you see the photo of False Paul superimposed over the real Paul McCartney's face, it's horrifyingly clear that these are two different men. It's physically impossible, for instance, for the genuine Paul McCartney's eyes to have moved considerably close together at the same time his face lengthened and narrowed. Then there's the difference in height between the original Paul and the long-time pretender. Real Paul was not a tall man. His substitute is several inches taller. You compare the photos, study the album covers and comments, and it's all there. It's not easy to accept. We've had Faux Paul for so long now, that it's hard to remember the real one. And of course, Faux Paul has done a sterling job of it.

Now, we read that John, George, Ringo were deeply depressed; began heavy drug use; went to India to heal their spirits and to summon Paul's spirit into Faux Paul. And were disillusioned; heart broken; afraid; sick in spirit and sick of all of it.

When real-Paul was killed, the other Beatles knew these characters were playing for keeps. The fun was over. This nightmare was for real. Something had died in them. They split the way a married couple might if their child has died. Remaining together is too painful. They'd tried to avenge Paul by inserting 'clues'. It was risky. They'd been told very clearly that they were Beatles-the-Product. They were 'property'. They'd been robbed of themselves. So each, in his own way, tried to keep safe whilst taking back and putting out as much as they could of who and what they'd been when they began.

John seems to have been selected for 'special treatment': I don't think he cared at the end. He wanted to leave. Despite the fables we've been told.

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 05:10 PM
I say this with fear of insulting you, but it is not meant to be no insult, you are a great story teller. Not to say this is only a story, but you express it well.

Can you provide us with these images that you speak of? So we can decide for ourselves with the same image you have had the luxury of coming to a conclusion?

Listening to your story is giving me DaVinci flash backs, and I say well how can I believe one, and then proclaim the other one is rubbish. Well I guess I can't.

Hold on though, I am in no way shape or form saying I believe what you say.

It does seem that your alittle stuck in the middle yourself on the argument. You say each member was important and played a role obviously, since they were not replaceable. But yet claim they were fabricated? If they were fabricated what does it matter who was in the group?

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 05:23 PM
I have to leave in a moment, because the sun came up an hour or so ago and I haven't been to sleep 'tonight' yet.

I agree with you. The media strongly promoted the drug culture.

But let's not put the cart before the horse. Those who have the power to plan youth revolutions and drug use, own and control the media.

They couldn't promote -establish youth revolutions, women's lib movements or drug cultures (or useful groups like the Beatles) UNTIL they'd gained control of the media and of those politicians prepared, coerced and/or threatened to support the agendas.

If you research the monopoly that currently exists re: worldwide media, you can follow it, like a game of dot to dot, as these characters gained control of the media worldwide. It took a lot of time, money and patience. But the payoff's been worth it. Those who control the media control the public's opinions, to a large degree. Those who're capable of independent thought are described as 'conspiracy theorists'. The rest believe most of what the media tells them to believe.

The Beatles were simply ONE tool used to establish acceptance of drug use: to portray it, inadvertently or not, as 'cool', as beneficial, as revelatory, as 'natural', as 'harmless' and ordinary. In the same way 'free love' and 'quickie divorce' was portrayed as normal, harmless. As 'dropping out' was portrayed. As maturbating on stage was portrayed. As referring to a child's father as 'sperm donor' was portrayed. The aim seems to be have been to destroy Western society from the inside out. (Just as they promised they would).

At the same time, drug use was being demonised by the authorities. Of course it was. You can't very well make a fortune to fund your black budgets if people are able to grow the drugs you've ruthlessly promoted (via your own whore media) in their own backyard ! No profit for the cabal in that, is there? So first you create demand. Then you satisfy demand by creating ready supply. Then you cut off supply, in this case by prohibiting all those drugs people had been encouraged to become addicted to. They've done the same with petrol. And with mobile phones. That's marketing. That's monopoly. That's power and control. That's how you make a fortune. And all it takes is a few billion dollars expenditure to establish monopolistic control of the media, plus (in this instance in this thread) a few bands which you promote via your whore media. People follow the heavily promoted band the way children followed the legendary Pied Piper. History repeats. WE forget our history (because we're too busy watching carp on tv) but 'they' NEVER forget. They know better than to mess with a winning system.

So now all those people are addicted to drugs and petrol and credit cards and mobile phones --- and they can't remember for some reason, that they used to get along fine without them. And of course, the Beatles are still bringing in a profit too, because it seems some people prefer the myth over reality. To each his own.

Have to go :-)

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 05:35 PM
LOL ! Gee, Chissler, my eyes are falling out of my head yet every time I start to get up from the desk, I see your latest post and ...

Ok. Doctors prescribe tranquilizers for Aunty Doris after her poodle dies. The pills ease her anxiety and grief. Doris takes her tablets every day. She's afraid to stop, in case the pain of grief comes back. But Doris' family are concerned. So they visit Doris' doctor who assures them he'll solve the problem. " Don't tell Doris that we've been to see you " say the family anxiously. They're worried that if Doris finds out they're trying to keep her beloved tablets from her, she'll cut them out of her Will.

' Don't worry', replies the doctor, ' She'll never know'.

Doris continues taking her tablets, unaware that anything's changed. Five years later, she's still taking them. She still gets a pleasant buzz every time she swallows one.

Unbeknown to Doris, the doctor substituted sugar and water pills -- yes, the famed placebo -- five years ago. Look the same, taste the same

Why tell Doris? She's happy. And her relatives stand to gain so much money from the subterfuge. Perfect all around. It's called 'ignorance is bliss'. And it is, quite a lot of the time. Look at small children and the mentally challenged: they're in clover.

Anyway, bye for now and thanks for the discussion; it's been really enjoyable

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 05:36 PM
Here are the comparison images of Paul...

There's a better site but I can't find it now...

But most of those pics compare a very young Paul, still with 'baby fat' in his face, to an older Paul who is now fully grown and his features mattured.

Personaly I very much doubt Paul was replaced. Too many ppl would know. You can't keep that many ppl fooled...

As far as the hidden messages, like 'I burried Paul' for example, was actualy John saying 'cranberry sauce' (just a studio out-take). So you can't believe all you hear, or what others tell you you hear

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 05:38 PM
I enjoyed it myself. Thanks for the story.

I'll foil my knuckles and expect round 2 another time.

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 05:45 PM
This is how misleading these web sites can be.
Supposedly this is a pic of Pauls head, after the car crash, taken from the "Free as a Bird" Video.

Look hard, is that a Human Head? Or just a building or tree on the right and bushes on the left, reflected in the cars mirror? I'd go with number two...

And Don Knotts, a replacement for Brian Epstein??? That couldn't be funnier

They not only don't look anything alike, their personalities couldn't be more different.
What are these people thinking???

[edit on 12/5/2006 by ANOK]

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:01 AM
I appreciate your imput here greatly. 50 yr male btw. An interesting side note here is that your ability to so eloquently express yourself does make for a great read and I noticed far more acceptence of your assertions than mine. You're exactly right on the issue of my wish that none of this was true.
I wasn't really ready for the whole faux Paul angle, but I can certain see the ramifications and breakdown of the unity amongst the boys. Just like I was not prepared to 'go there' I can also see where the diehards aren't prepared to accept any of this.
In reading recently that a former Illuminati trainer's claim of up to 1% of the population of North America and Europe is mired in the NWO cause it is easy to see how this charade has been kept under wraps. What many people fail to realize or accept really is the brilliance of the architects of this ultimately destructive plan.
I will still contend that the kids I knew in 67' here in the states had by 71' rapidly become angry, detached and forlorne. I knew then something had happened which wasn't natural.

btw-What's a larrikin ?

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 01:30 PM
How can you still hold on to this silly theory after it has been pointed out by myself and Chissler that ALL the so called evidence for this theory is untrue?

Every point that web site made was untrue, outright lies, or just lame rumours.

Whoever wrote that theory has no idea what really happened, or what the world was like in the 60's.

Study the times for yourself, stop believing some silly website on the net.

Every point I bought up can be verified, and cross referenced in hundreds of places.
Can you say the same for your theory? Both the MKUltra and the Paul is dead rumours.
The Paul is dead rumour was an inside joke, and you are all falling for it....

You have no evidence except a web site by someone who obviously, as has been pointed out, has NO clue, how can you expect us to take it seriously?

For some reason you want to believe this story so bad you are totally ignoring the points I or Chissler bring up, this is a discussion board so why not discuss the points we bring up instead of just saying you're stupid not to believe this stupid theory?

I'm not trying to be rude to you, but my head is starting to hurt and there's a dent in my wall now!

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 02:50 PM
Anok, maybe we should all get together , have a few pops and play the White Album backwards. I know I haven't convinced you of anything.....and ....I don't care....sorry!

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 04:54 PM
Wow way to debate!

No rebuttal to my comments? Got nothing to say?

No you won't convince me, you have not said anything to convince anyone.

All you've done is show a lame web site and insinuate I'm closed minded for not believing a wild, obviously blatant hoax.

I have provided evidence and logic that shows how ludicrous that web site is, yet you are the one who refuses to believe...the obvious truth.

Most ppl dismissed these silly tales yrs ago as the real meaning for most of the myths have been revealed, one way or another.

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:30 PM
ANOK.. how we have enjoyed this thread.

I do not share your frustration anymore. As I've said in another thread, it is the members like YIAWETA and dock6 that make ATS so great. If they agreed with what we said, how enjoyable would the argument be?

Yes it can be frustrating to listen to a member argue for a side that literally is beyond acceptable or basically goes against common sence. But if everyone were to go against common sence wouldn't ATS grow alittle boring.

So even though me and ANOK are alongside on this argument.. I am applauding YIAWETA and dock6 for the argument they are making.

dock6 has really put an argument together, following up on everything YIAWETA has introduced to us. I firmly believe myself and ANOK have created a more solid argument and referenced our beliefs accordingly. But again, if we were to give up on what we believe, where would that leave ATS?

This thread has been a bright spot on ATS in the last while, kudos to those involved.

I hope this is not the end of it, I await the other side of the coin to fire back strongly so me and ANOK can fire back once again.

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:38 PM
Greetings all i hope and wish u all well.
I must say that this truly is an interesting thread indeed.
Your posts are all very smart and the argument is great because unlike others,
U r using factual evidence to support yourselves and u have my respect for that as there are so many people that grill people without any reinforcement of there words what so ever,
As i said before Great posts
and keep up the good work

Blessed be


posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:40 PM
The John and Paul is dead rumours is related to John Paul II in my opinion.
And the guy who shot lennon had an obsession with the wizard of oz. Enough said...

posted on May, 27 2006 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by kiMMii
The John and Paul is dead rumours is related to John Paul II in my opinion.
And the guy who shot lennon had an obsession with the wizard of oz. Enough said...


What exactly do you mean, John and Paul is linked to the pope? Or Chapman had an obsession with the wizard of oz?

Enough said?

Take a moment and elaborate please. Fill the rest of us in.

Im not familiar with what your pointing to.

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:44 PM
If there was ever an older thread of ATS that could use a bump, it is this one.

The discussion myself, ANOK, dock6 and YIAWETA had a few months ago was one of the greatest I have ever had on ATS. I would love to see this discussion take life again.

Interested if anyone has any fresh opinions on this event.

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by ANOK

here is some inside info..yes the beatles were shaped by The Tavis gang through George Martin...this from me...a recording artist from the 90's who has worked with some big name producers and have heard over the years all about that Tavis place in London and how "Producers made 'em all" which is what they tried to do with us..two of us didn't want to conform and three did..we broke up..I wrote the songs, so they were f'ed without me. SO..there is truth in the Tavis thing. I have heard it from the horses'ssss mouths

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Hmmmm and I'm supposed to believe an anonymous poster?

How would George Martin have anything to do with what happened to the Beatles career, other than producing their music in the studio?

Please explain...

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:49 PM

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in