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.

 

John Lennon Was Killed By The Beatles!

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   
This sounds weird, but the other day i was having a discussion with some one at work who described that John Lennon may have been killed or his murder, linked to the other Beatles!

Now Absurd as this sounds, I should put forward that the points made are that the Beatles, wanting to break up no matter what, kept on coming together ( no pun intended) and recording more music no matter what such as let it be, white album etc etc. Now we further discussed that apparently other then intellectual reasons to break up such as solo careers etc there was no other reason so their needed to be a real "tragedy" that would glorify the music and end an era of music. Unfortunately John Lennon, due to the influence and the other Beatles hatred of Yoko and more or less her "interference" with their circle was put as the target.

We also concluded that it could have a been a government hit on Lennon due to his political views and his assassin was under mind control such as MKULTRA.

Now keep in mind it was monday morning and was a quite day so could be very far out there but worth a thought. Please take into consideration I am also a HUGE Beatles Fan.




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
There were plenty of reasons The Beatles broke up. Mainly they really didnt like each other that much after 1968. They were sick of each other. Imagine what it would be like working in a studio with those HUGE egos for six months at a time.

They fought constantly, the vibe was so bad Geoff Emerick, the engineer who had worked on every album with the group and came up with thier most innovative sounds, quit working with them when they were the most popular band in the world.

They had nothing to do with lennons murder. It was just a crazed fan who wanted to be famous.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I thought so too, but wasnt it ironic that Lennon was becoming very political and very famous with opposing views from the mainstream



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Reagan hired King

to kill Lennon.


-

[edit on 14-5-2008 by prevenge]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 


why?/How?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
John Lennon was labeled a terrorist by the US Gov't since 1962 when he put a cherry bomb into a hotel room toilet. He also spiked the punch with '___' at a Parliment function. Connect the following dots; Parliment - MI6 -CIA - mind controlled crazd fan - lone assassin.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by q_ball
I thought so too, but wasnt it ironic that Lennon was becoming very political and very famous with opposing views from the mainstream


Yeah in the early 70s... by 1975 he wasn't out there having bed ins, or causing much drama... he was pretty much a house father for his son Sean. Why have him killed in 1980, when he wasn't really doing political stuff or anything really of that nature... as said it was just a crazed fan.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Now Absurd as this sounds, I should put forward that the points made are that the Beatles, wanting to break up no matter what, kept on coming together ( no pun intended) and recording more music no matter what such as let it be, white album etc etc.


First of all, the 'Beatles' hadn't recorded togethet for nearly 10 years prior to JL getting shot. He did do some work with George and Ringo on separate projects but as a group no. In fact JL and Paul would never have worked together. One thing that tells me this is the song 'how do you sleep' (ya c*** as JL sang)

I do feel though and have for a while that the government was involved. Mark Chapeman has been up for parole many times but has been rejected 'aparently' on Jokos say. (No its not a typo...I said Joko

And he was still politically minded and active but not in such a public way as he had been.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
This is interesting thought..


WHO inherited John Lennons wealth?

What was it worth?

Did it go up when it died?

Also if im right, didnt the beatles sel the rights to their music to Michael Jackson? Was this after the death?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Drock,

Have you read Emerick's book? It's a fantastic read.

On another note, according to May Pang, John was interested in maybe hooking up with the other three to have a go in the studio again. I think Ono "talked" him out of it.

Regarding the murder, I don't believe for a second that there's any possibility of a conspiracy. Certainly not one that involved the other former Beatles.

F



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
There has been talk of CIA/US Gov conspiracy on this for some time. I was going to post here about it when I first joined but there are a few old threads already.

Check some of them out for some other ideas that have been suggested. I am not saying discontinue this one though. It is always good to get some fresh eyes on the subject.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


I was hasty with my previous message.

A CIA conspiracy? Yeah, maybe. He was a troublemaker, as far as the US government was concerned.

A Beatles conspiracy, no.

F



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by q_ball
Also if im right, didnt the beatles sel the rights to their music to Michael Jackson? Was this after the death?


Actually what happened was the publishing rights (song books, sheet music) was controlled by Northern Songs, a public company in which the Beatles all had shares. But the biggest share, owned by someone in their management, was sold to another company, which is what Michael Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for ownership of at auction...Macca couldn't raise enough dough...


Oh yeah I guess I should comment on the topic lol.
I don't see any reason for the Beatles to have John Lennon killed 10 years after they officially broke up.

They didn't keep breaking up and getting back together. They all, but Paul, left at some point and came back one way or another. It was John who first called for the actual breakup but was talked out of it by Paul, who then turned around and made the break up announcement. There was a struggle for control between John and Paul since the beginning. Paul couldn't stand John getting the attention for such an anouncement, he was in full control mode by then.
John was always traditionally considered the leader, but after Brian Epstein died John all but gave up and Paul took the chance to control the Beatles output, and from 65 on he pretty much did. John just got moody and jaded until he met Joko, and then he started his vindictive attack on Paul and his Beatles. Joined often by George and Ringo who both also resented Pauls controlling manner.

Most people don't realise but a lot of what John did in the late 60's early 70's was a dig at Paul and the Beatles, an image he hated from the beginning that was supported fully by Paul. The resentment started as soon as Brian Epstein put them in suits and Paul agreed to it. The bed in wasn't about peace it was about attention for John that wasn't associated with the Beatles, he was trying to distance himself from that image 'Beatle John'. He wanted no more of it. The actual bed-in and bagism stuff he did was all Joko's ideas that she had done before. John was very easily lead by 'mother figures' who Joko was, since Johns mother died when he was young he craved a mother not a wife. Cynthia was his wife, Joko was a replacement for mother....

If anybody had him killed it was the FBI but I doubt it, but then again you never know...

[edit on 15/5/2008 by ANOK]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   
thats an interesting point about the competition that was occuring. Though i watched the 60 minute interview with Lennons murderer and i have to say he seems wierd, like he had no idea what he was doing. Brainwashed almost. I understand he is a mental patient but seems just crazy.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Anok,

That's one hell of a post and you obviously know your stuff. And you know it better than I do, unequivocally.

But the one point of contention I have with your post is your stating that "John was always traditionally considered the leader".

After reading Geoff Emerick's book, I want to bring this up:

Emerick comments that contrary to the public's perception of John as the leader, it was Paul who acted like the leader.

I'm paraphrasing.

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if Geoff's comment was in regards to "Please, Please Me" or "Revolver" (and I know a lot happened in between).

My understanding is that Paul remained enthusiastic throughought, although he became increasingly frustrated. Meanwhile, John fairly quickly became indifferent...then utterly disinterested.

Regardless, my point is that, at least according to one of their engineers, wasn't it Paul who was in charge (at least until things got ugly [and uglier] and Lennon sank into progressively worse drug problems (and Joko problems)?

Regards,
F



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Fuggle
 


Fuggle,

Thats what i was led to believe, however perhaps during the power struggle some more sinister plots may have occurred...though i am being given no solid evidence to support this !



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Just a note about the competition John may have been considered the leader but McCartny was the real genius behind the group. He was a better guitar player then both john and George. He was actually a better drummer then ringo was. He would write a lot of the parts and had to teach the others how to play them. So yea maybe he liked control but without it, they might not have been who they were...
That being said, i just don't think the other Beatles had him killed. I do think somebody other than the " crazed" fan killer was up to it.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by LucidDreamer85]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fuggle
But the one point of contention I have with your post is your stating that "John was always traditionally considered the leader"...


Thanks.

Yeah he's right on, Paul acted like the leader but John was always perceived by fans, and other band members, in the early days that he was the leader. It was his band, he started it. He even believed it himself to be leader, but Paul was pulling strings that the others didn't even notice if you know what I mean? He was a manipulator. It was when John gave up, after Epstein died, that Paul didn't have to hide behind John anymore, and his control become more open and obvious.
It's like any group of people with big ego's that work together, they'll be one who is a bit more pushy and controlling, the guy who is liked the most, and the rest of the band is apathetic and side with the guy they like most while still allowing the pushy guy to get his way cause they won't stand up to him. Paul was the best muso in the band and could play all the instruments better than the rest could, including drums.
So he knew he was indispensable, whereas George and Ringo were not. lots of ammunition for resentment.

It all started with Stuart Sutcliffe, who was Johns friend and alley, with them together Paul had less control. He wanted Stuart out all along, once that happened he got more control over the Beatles. The reason they replaced Pete Best is because John and Paul wanted the control and Pete had his own ideas.
Ringo was a perfect replacement, towed the line and did as he was told no questions. Just like George, who was in awe of John and Paul his seniors and would do whatever they asked.

Yes Paul was the most enthusiastic, that's why he got control so easy. Yes John was indifferent and tired of playing 'Beatle John' and I think '___' played a big part there, and later Coke then Heroin. Yes Paul was frustrated with the apathy that set in after Sgt.Peppers. The rest of the band resented Pauls 'enthusiasm', on top of already simmering resentment, because they had lost interest and were ready to move on. They were growing up and getting their own ideas that didn't always jell.
I think John was pretty lazy, and with no real reason to work anymore he lost interest. Until the 70's when he realised the money was getting low. Johns obsession was his personal lifes nightmare, not entertaining people. Paul was the opposite.
Anyway sry I'm rambling again, its the medication...
...



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by q_ball
reply to post by prevenge
 


why?/How?



Anyone who wants people to think and promotes love is and is that huge is usually got rid of.

Think about it, its not wat the Illuminati want is it?

He isn't the only one, it doesn't fit in with the status quo.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by DigitalKid]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
He was actually a better drummer then ringo was. He would write a lot of the parts and had to teach the others how to play them. So yea maybe he liked control but without it, they might not have been who they were...


Hehe just noticed we both said this, ya beat me to it. But it's true. Paul played drums and guitar on 'Back in the USSR', I believe? As well as others.

Paul taught John and George new guitar chords.

And you're are right without Paul, as much as I hate him arrrggghhh(lol), the Beatles would probably never have left the Pool...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join