Log In
Register
10.19pm
4 April 2010
Offline
Von Bontee said:
And didn't Albert Goldman (in his offensive-in-so-many-ways Lennon bio) attempt to hint that Yoko Ono was somehow behind Paul's Japanese pot bust? (Or did I dream that one?)
Sounds like something Yoko would do.
"The best band? The Beatles. The most overrated band? The Beatles."
10.32pm
14 December 2009
Offline 
“Sounds like something Goldman would write”, you mean!
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
10.50pm
13 November 2009
Offline Judging from what I've read in Goldman's book so far, probably. It's pretty tame compared to his other accusations.
Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time! So much to know!
1.25pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline 
MrBig said:
I do believe Chapman had ties with the government in his life.
Zig said:He does have ties – they are called handcuffs.
MrBig said:
I didn't mean it that way. I meant that he might've been sent by the US Government to kill John Lennon . It's a hypothetical, but not an impossible one.
I know – I was being facetious. Hard to see sarcasm in print!
Yeah, there are a lot of theories out there. Just my opinion, but I feel all the various theories could be out there because so many of us can not wrap our brains around the fact that some loser flew all the way to NYC just to kill John.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
6.57pm
23 February 2010
Offline
Chapman was a patsy set up for the hit by the CIA's MK-Ultra
program. Why? Because Lennon was due to win his U.S.
citizenship a few months later, and they needed to eliminate the chance that
Lennon would have joined the opposition to their murderous counterrevolutionary
wars in Central America (esp. Nicaragua and El Salvador), just getting underway
as Reagan's transition team was taking power in December 1980. Think that's nuts? Read _Who Killed John Lennon ?_ by Fenton
Bresler, and _The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: the CIA and Mind
Control_ by John Marks. And rent the movie _RFK Must Die_, where you can listen to one of the world's experts on clinical hypnosis, Dr Herbert Spiegel of Columbia U. (recently deceased) explain why he's certain that Sirhan Sirhan was hypnotically programmed to shoot Robert Kennedy — then just plug in Chapman/Lennon. Yes it did really happen this way. And visit
ciakilledlennon.blogspot.com
7.02pm
4 April 2010
Offline alan said:
Chapman was a patsy set up for the hit by the CIA's MK-Ultra
program. Why? Because Lennon was due to win his U.S.
citizenship a few months later, and they needed to eliminate the chance that
Lennon would have joined the opposition to their murderous counterrevolutionary
wars in Central America (esp. Nicaragua and El Salvador), just getting underway
as Reagan's transition team was taking power in December 1980. Think that's nuts? Read _Who Killed John Lennon ?_ by Fenton
Bresler, and _The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: the CIA and Mind
Control_ by John Marks. And rent the movie _RFK Must Die_, where you can listen to one of the world's experts on clinical hypnosis, Dr Herbert Spiegel of Columbia U. (recently deceased) explain why he's certain that Sirhan Sirhan was hypnotically programmed to shoot Robert Kennedy — then just plug in Chapman/Lennon. Yes it did really happen this way. And visit
ciakilledlennon.blogspot.com
I agree with this man.
"The best band? The Beatles. The most overrated band? The Beatles."
6.51pm
1 May 2010
Offline alan said:
Chapman was a patsy set up for the hit by the CIA's MK-Ultra
program. Why? Because Lennon was due to win his U.S.
citizenship a few months later, and they needed to eliminate the chance that
Lennon would have joined the opposition to their murderous counterrevolutionary
wars in Central America (esp. Nicaragua and El Salvador), just getting underway
as Reagan's transition team was taking power in December 1980.
Think that's nuts? Read _Who Killed John Lennon ?_ by Fenton
Bresler
Ok so I'm reading this book and I just came across an absolutely massive fault. He's talking about a nude photo of John and Yoko being banned and this is word for word what it says:
They were on the cover sleeve of Lennon and Yoko's recently released album Two Virgins (better known in the United States as the White Album ).
Now, maybe this guy just isn't really a fan, but if he made a mistake like this, what else could he have screwed up?
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
8.06pm
27 March 2010
Offline Haahahahahahaha wow 
I'm in love, but I'm lazy.
11.01pm
12 September 2009
Offline Interesting, if it's true that Chapman had targetted others, like Macca.
Leads to an interesting hypothetical: what if Paul had been the one murdered? How different would the world be today? How would the Beatles post-breakup history have gone forward? Would there have been a couple of Anthology songs? How would Paul rate today? How would the world have reacted? What would have happened to John?
This is probably off-topic – I may repost this idea somewhere else. Hope no one takes offense.
"We were just a band, who made it very very big, that's all."
3.26am
1 May 2010
Offline alan said:
Chapman was a patsy set up for the hit by the CIA's MK-Ultra
program. Why? Because Lennon was due to win his U.S.
citizenship a few months later, and they needed to eliminate the chance that
Lennon would have joined the opposition to their murderous counterrevolutionary
wars in Central America (esp. Nicaragua and El Salvador), just getting underway
as Reagan's transition team was taking power in December 1980. Think that's nuts? Read _Who Killed John Lennon ?_ by Fenton
Bresler,
Well I just finished with this book and there were some fascinating parts of it, but I don't really know where I stand on this. On the one hand, the evidence is very convincing in the book, Mark Chapman clearly was not an insane man, but something about the Catcher in the Rye enticed him enough to carry out a murder that he had no real motive for. He wasn't a Lennon fan and didn't really have a problem with John's “phoniness”, so what could have pushed him over the edge? Could it have been the “demons” inside of him, or maybe a controller at the other end telling him what to do?
On the other hand, this book fails where so many other “conspiracy theory” books have failed in that the connections made are not really plausible. Just because A is true and B is true, that does not mean C is true, and this is where the book ran into trouble. I also have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that John was important enough to have killed. He hadn't really done anything of any political significance in 7 or 8 years and he had spent the last 5 years as a house-husband. He wasn't a real threat at the time, but it is possible that he could have started again after his career was a bit more on track. Anyway, good read!
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
5.23am
18 April 2010
Offline This is unlikely but, in Catcher in the Rye, Holden talks about putting moments of innocence in jars to perserve them. Like when he was walking in Central Park and everything was really calm. Holden thought that was the world at best and he thought that the world would lose this in the future. Mark took the role as Holden while John was the moment in Central Park.
5.43am
13 November 2009
Offline Perhaps not insane, but he's a creepy bastard. I read a letter he wrote casually asking how much the album John signed for him was worth – the money would go to a charity, naturally. (Some body bought it didn't they?)
If he was a hired gun, you would think he would have met with an “accident” before now.
Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time! So much to know!
8.09pm
1 May 2010
Offline skye said:
Perhaps not insane, but he's a creepy bastard. I read a letter he wrote casually asking how much the album John signed for him was worth – the money would go to a charity, naturally. (Some body bought it didn't they?)
If he was a hired gun, you would think he would have met with an “accident” before now.
He did the same to Yoko, he basically asked her if she would be okay with him being involved in the making of a book if his profits would go to charity. She obviously didn't respond.
The strangest thing about this is what happened to him immediately after he was put in jail, where he was completely free to make and receive phone calls and he was free to meet with any visitors that came, but no one recorded who visited or called him so maybe that same controller gave him a few reminders of the truth that was set into him. His confession to guilt was so precise and sounded so scripted that the judge himself ruled that Mark wasn't insane right there on the spot despite whatever the psychologists were saying about him. He accepted guilt against his lawyers wishes, so his lawyer didn't drill that admission into him, so it is possible that someone else could have.
So that's where I'm at with this book, neither the official story nor this story really makes complete sense, so I think I need to do more research.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
8.50pm
13 November 2009
Offline Still seems easier to kill him. Really, was his reward life in prison?
Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo! So little time! So much to know!
9.28pm
1 May 2010
Offline skye said:
Still seems easier to kill him. Really, was his reward life in prison?
But then why didn't he try to escape? He shot John at night and he was literally across the block from a subway station. He could have jumped on the subway then flown back to Hawaii that night because he was carrying over $2,000 in cash with him that night. Is it likely that they would have caught a man in Hawaii for a murder that happened in New York City?
I'm just saying no one has any idea what was going on in Mark's mind and after reading this book it is hard for me to believe that the Catcher in the Rye would have had such an impact on a sane mid-20s married man with a career waiting for him with the YMCA. There was no formal investigation into the murder because Mark just admitted his guilt, but why did he do it? No one's really ever tried to find out, they just accepted that he was insane and this book took control of his mind. It just doesn't really add up.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
10.35pm
9 June 2010
Offline 
I don't think he was sane. I'm positive that he was nuts. I don't really think that there was a “controller” or anything. After all, before the 8th, he went to New York to kill John, then “snapped out of it.” He went back to Hawaii and told his wife that he thought he was going insane. He even made an appointment with a psychologist. Then, he skipped the appointment and flew to New York, got his album signed, and waited outside the Dakota to kill John.
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
12.14am
1 May 2010
Offline MeanMrs.Mustard said:
I don't think he was sane. I'm positive that he was nuts. I don't really think that there was a “controller” or anything. After all, before the 8th, he went to New York to kill John, then “snapped out of it.” He went back to Hawaii and told his wife that he thought he was going insane. He even made an appointment with a psychologist. Then, he skipped the appointment and flew to New York, got his album signed, and waited outside the Dakota to kill John.
I just don't agree with you, everyone interviewed from his past said that he was just like a normal guy, no one mentioned anything of any kind of insanity. He didn't just work for the YMCA, he was a representative. They sent him overseas to represent the YMCA, so they obviously didn't think he was nuts. The judge at his trial didn't think he was insane.
But all of the sudden, this book comes along and a few years later he kills John Lennon and claims that the book was his motivation. People from his past don't even recall him being obsessed with the book, they knew he had read it, but it wasn't an outward obsession.
He flew into Chicago first for a few days before coming to New York, but no one seems to mention that. He didn't even buy a ticket to New York from his home airport of Honolulu, so clearly he wasn't intending to come back and finish off what he had started a month earlier when he had come to New York seeking Lennon. He knew no one in New York or nothing about the city, but a few days before he took a cab around to all of these different non-tourist locations where he appeared to be running a few errands, even though he supposedly knew no one in the city.
There are just a lot of parts of this story that don't add up and I don't think blaming the Catcher in the Rye for this murder is enough of a band-aid to cover up the lingering questions.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
5.57am
9 June 2010
Offline Meh, but making up insane conspiracy theories won't bring John back.
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
6.06am
4 April 2010
Offline MeanMrs.Mustard said:
Meh, but making up insane conspiracy theories won't bring John back.
Burying him in the Pet Cemetary….
No, no, I'm losing myself 
"The best band? The Beatles. The most overrated band? The Beatles."
