Happiness is a Warm Gun

* chapmans airline ticket, found in his hotel room was a hawaii-new york connection departing december 5, but records show that chapman actually purchased a hawaii-chicago ticket with no connecting flight, departing december 2. the ticket found after his arrest appeared to have been altered.

Ok, my first impression was my god lets not give this peice of trash Chapman any excuse, but this is the one quote that may give me some insight or allow for a possibility of government conspiracy. Same as the creator of family guy who was given the mysteriously wrong departure time on 9/11. Deffinately would be nothing for the government to do something like this sort.

However it makes no sence, what is the purpose? Was Lennon that much of a threat? Was he really in a position to cause anybody trouble? He was in the public eye and easily was able to spread his views, but he did not have the individual power to really make a drastic change. So i have a tough time buying that the government would use mind control to have him assasinated. Sure you can say well Chapman was a normal person his whole life, it does not add up. How about the simple fact that well, he finally realized he was never going to be a big name, seen himself as a nobody. In reading Catcher in the Rye he became fixated. I love these conspiracies and going back and forth over the possibilities; however this is one I am turning my back too, but to quote above; if any documentation is out their to give this some credibility. Im surely open for discussion

Lennons 25th Anniversary Thread

I wouldn't say that the govt. had anything to do with Hutchence's death, but there is a link to the Calabrian Mafia that operates here in Oz and Hutchence's "missing millions".

Music critic David Fricke wrote in "Rolling Stone", "His body bore the marks of a severe beating (a broken hand, a split lip, lacerations)".

There is more, but maybe I should start another thread on this topic?

Aparrenlty Sean Lennon believes his father was killed by the government too.

"[My father] was dangerous to the government. If he had said, 'Bomb the White House tomorrow,' there would have been 10,000 people who would have done it. These pacifist revolutionaries are historically killed by the government."

The official story fingers Mark David Chapman, noted Catcher in the Rye enthusiast, as the lone assassin in the murder outside Lennon's Manhattan apartment.

Sean, who was 5 when his father died, begs to disagree with the official story.

"Anybody who thinks that Mark Chapman was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his personal interests is insane, I think, or very naive," he says.

On his childhood: He led "as close to a normal childhood as one could have if you were John Lennon's kid: the only thing that was different was that I had only two detectives with guns following me everywhere."

www.beatlesagain.com...

I would love to find out what makes Sean Lennon believe this.

From what I could gather "Project Walrus" was in it's planning stages before Lennon's death. This points to a conspiracy, govt. related or not.





[edit on 7-12-2005 by Beelzebubba]

Sorry to tell you, but John Lennon was as influencial as a President.

Think about it for a minute, he was on top of the World. His songs were on the top of the chart, & he was politically outspoken, & was verbally thrashing the US about Vietnam.

Mark David Chapman was a man under the influence of MK Ultra, plain & simple.

You can't make a willing slave, without that person being willing, another words, they need to be susceptable to hypnosis, they need to be of a low self esteem, or easily influenced, & with the right man pulling the strings, any man can be put under.

They couldn't put Me under, I know all the tricks. >=)

Lennon was as influencial as the President

Sorry to tell you, but John Lennon was as influencial as a President.

Think about it for a minute, he was on top of the World. His songs were on the top of the chart, & he was politically outspoken, & was verbally thrashing the US about Vietnam

Alot of people spoke out against the war in Vietnam. He was not the only person in the publics eye who took a stand on this. Are you saying that a band like Green Day today, whether you like them or not. All of their songs are on tops of the chart and speaking out against the war in Iraq. Is the government going to have them assasinated.

No, because the government would not waste their time. They have enough trouble killing their own, *cough*JFK*cough*. Sure some things point towards the possibility of governement involvement. But would they allow him to live? Chapman would of been buried long ago, Oswald didn't have a chance to tell his story. Or has chapman been under this hypnotist for 25 years?

I would suggest reading Fenton Bresler's "Who Killed John Lennon?" This British Barrister spent eight years investigating the murder.

Green Day, are you serious? How could you even compare the two?
There is a difference between activism and some homogenized "punk" band that mainly appeals to fourteen year old girls. They even get to sing their "anti-establishment" songs at major music awards nights.

Seriously, I think the govt. in your country uses a more subtle approach these days. Those that protest the WTO (Yes, I was one of those in Sydney) may get their skulls cracked but what would have happened in the Sixties... Another Kent State perhaps. It was these people who lived with the fact that their own govt. had murdered it's own citizens. It was for these people that Lennon became a symbol.I mean, who was bigger than the Beatles? As Sean Lennon said, If his father had said bomb the White House, there would have been 10,000 people willing to do it. Who would do it for Green Day?

People are lazier now, they don't want to get involved. I think this makes the necessity for assassination of people who apppeal to the youth culture redundant.

I also believe that a lot of "counter" revolutionaries of the Sixties were the victims of assassination. Look at the size of the "Hippy" movement. I'm sure this would have been perceived as a great threat from within by the govt.

Do you think that those of us who still protest will have it easy when the next globalist meeting takes place? Not with the Anti-terror laws that are sweeping the globe. Agents Provocatuer too easily turn a peaceful demonstration into a bloodbath.

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Beelzebubba]

Originally posted by Beelzebubba

Green Day, are you serious? How could you even compare the two?
There is a difference between activism and some homogenized "punk" band that mainly appeals to fourteen year old girls. They even get to sing their "anti-establishment" songs at major music awards nights.

You are right, just a lame attempt at an example in todays society

However, look at the facts in Chapmans life. His parents divorced and his mother moved to Hawaii with him and his wife, she slept with many younger men and had him support her in every way. This was great pain for Chapman who took out all of his frustration out on his wife.

When he was in High school he was a huge fan of the beatles and Lennon, he began smoking up and taking '___' because they did and he thought since they did it must be good. One night when he was drugged up he was robbed by his best friends and this stuck with him. He turned to religion and straightened out. He turned his back on drugs and those who put him on drugs. Especially Lennon.

Another big factor was the lyrics to Johns hit, Imagine. When he says imagine there is no heaven. This really dug deep with Chapman since he turned to religion and really began the wheel in motion. He seen Lennon as a phony a major hippocrit. He spoke of owning no materials but owned many homes and was a millionaire, this drove Chapman to insanity. When reading Salingers book, Catcher in the Rye he became fixated on the charachter Holden. His fixation on the novel was much earlier then a few days before the assisination. He murdered John on December 8th, but it was early to mid November he took his first trip to New York but backed out.

Chapmans need to become a somebody drove him to do this, he made no attempt to run after shooting Lennon. He waited on the sidewalk for the police to come and then confessed. He wanted and needed this recognition.

Can anybody believe the judge gave him a reduced sentence of 20 years to life rather then the maximum of 25 to life, all because he plead guilty. I mean he plead guilty to gain recognition, he gets what he wants plus a reduced sentence.

I see these as real facts, the case for a government conspiracy is all speculation. how about some sort of evidence to show this has some validity. I am more than willing to change my views... I just need some evidence.

In a society that is bombarded with disinformation and government sponsored smear campaigns proof may be hard to come by. I read Bresler's book years ago and am pretty fuzzy on the details, but I do remember that he did raise pertinent points.

The best advice I can give is to read that book. I will admit that he does lean pretty heavily on the conspiracy angle and throws a bit of speculation around, but there are a lot of interesting factors. Here are some excerpts.

Who Killed John Lennon?

I also find it a little strange that Chapman wanted to be sent to the USSR when with the YMCA, but was instead sent to Beirut. William Peter Blatty(of Exorcist fame) ran an assassination camp in Lebanon at the time Chapman was over there.

Ok but basing your whole opinion on one mans thoughts could be alittle narrow. If you read one mans thoughts on the JFK scenario, you could believe Bobby killed him and he is still alive today on a remote island. I mean these radical minded thinkers can slightly back up their thoughts but I do not believe that gives much validity. MHO anyways.

The most disturbing part of the story of John Lennon's death is that his crazy killer was able to so easily get his hands on a lethal weapon. Too bad that Lennon had to pick a nation that has a sick love-affair with handguns in which to live. That the leaders of America are so easily cowed by a creepy gun lobby who deny even the need for the most sensible of gun laws. A two-day waiting period to buy a gun? No way. In my mind, if someone needs a gun so badly that he can't wait two days, that's the best reason for him NOT to be able to get a gun. How about no guns for convicted violent felons? The NRA says "no". Or no guns for people with history of mental illness? Hell, that would mean George Bush might not be able to carry a piece.
I own a couple of handguns. I didn't mind applying for an FOI card so I can have one. I know how to use them. My wife and daughter both know how to use them. I didn't mind one bit that I had to show my driver's license to get my guns and I don't mind that I would have been turned down for gun ownership if I had been previously convicted of robbing a liquor store at gunpoint.
Somehow, the rest of the civilized world manages to get by without absolutely unfettered access to weapons. Are Italy, Germany, France, England, Canada less "free" because they have gun laws? Having travelled widely in "red state" America, I can say with confidence that many of the people I've seen who own guns would have been better served if they'd spent the money on dental care.
And I wish John Lennon was still alive today. It's possible his voice might have made enough of a change in the pathology of American culture that a maniac might not be president and we might not be involved in a useless, expensive, and hateful war.

Originally posted by chissler
Ok but basing your whole opinion on one mans thoughts could be alittle narrow.

Besler's book wasn't only based on speculation.

I guess you could also read the articles written by John Judge, Jim Keith, Jonathan Vankin and Alex Constantine.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Beelzebubba]

I have not read those articles yet, but I assure you the day I finish them all I will continue to post. As this will be still in my favorites, I will post, and advance my thought on whether this is a conspiracy.

I do not see my opinion changing, however I will still allow the possibility of an impossibility and seeing how things end up.

If I change; I will admittingly accept and post my views. However I do not accept much !!!

No problem chissler, I'll be interested to hear your conclusions. I once hated Chapman for what happened at the Dakota, now I feel that he was as much a victim as Lennon himself.

The full transcript of the interview with New York detective Arthur O'Connor is interesting.

Albert Goldman's "Lives of John Lennon" has to be the most disgusting hatchet job, most of his data comes from the mutilated diaries that were poached by Fred Seaman and co. of Project Walrus.

I found this as well Dead Silence in the Brain. Haven't read all the links supplied, but the comic strip is pretty cool.

[edit on 10-12-2005 by Beelzebubba]

These articles do not do much to provide any new information. They keep preaching the same facts over and over, because it is all they have. Their is always some facts that will leave the possibility open to both sides, but this one is alittle lopsided. People who want to create these conspiracy theories can do them very easily, some better then others.

JFK, 9/11, etc.. Lennon is not one of them. They say Chapman had to of been a Manchurian candidate, their was a subway near by that he could of easily escaped too. But he did not want to escape, he only did this to get recognition. What is the point of murdering Lennon if his name was not in the papers for it. They leave out the troubled family life he was living because that would hurt their case. To have a solid conspiracy theory, they should give explanations to the flaws of the case.

They fall short to impress me anyways, but its just my opinion.

i would, at the first glance, dismiss most conspiracy theories surrounding that biz, since pop stars don't seem amount to much in terms of power....

then there's the cynical part of me which believes that anything that's popular is more or less controlled, i mean that's pretty much the only virtue of this system, isn't it? cover all bases, 24/7 and 3 years in advance.

so, i wouldn't focus too much on the tools used, more on the motive, and peculiarities such as seemingly sloppy exectution (think kennedy), undue hurry and so on. that way you might gain a glimpse not so much at their train of thought, but the emotions involved. more dots to connect is always a good thing (tm).

remember: the first few lines in a game of crosswords are the hardest.

For the most 'out there' con theory regarding Lennon, you gotta check this one out: Stephen King Shot John Lennon

[edit on 12-12-2005 by Beelzebubba]

Reveals government codes in major magazines, Including the killers face, and true identity. Mark Chapman's name attached to a letter to the editor printed weeks before the murder and more that proves a Nixon, Reagan, and yes, Stephen King conspiracy.

As John would say; "DON'T LET ME DOWN." Please support me. I can't do it alone. Let's confront the media or they won't tell.

Man oh man, I am urged to buy that just to see what nonsence he has to say. How could you put your name on something like that? This is nothing more then trying to make a quick buck of his name. Put him in the cell with Chapman.

Maybe not that far but lets do something

Having done some research over the past 12 months as well as some thinking about the points made concerning the "why" the govt. would off Lennon, I thought it might be a good idea to revitalise this thread.

First of all, I would like to address the plane ticket anomoly.

Captain Louis L. Souza of the Honolulu police carried out a follow-up investigation on behalf of the New York P.D. He established beyond doubt that on the 28 November, 1980 Mark Chapman purchased a United Airlines ticket (a 'special fare' ticket, number 24-65607-252) for USD $459.86. It was a return flight ticket out of Honolulu bound for Chicago. Contrary to the NYPD report and evidence that was found in Chapman's hotel room, the ticket was a United Airlines Flight 2 at 6:10 p.m. on Tuesday 2 Dember, 1980 for Chicago with a return flight at 11:20 a.m. Thursday, 18 December.

The ticket found at Chapman's so-called 'shrine' was a United Airlines Flight 2 at 6:10 p.m. on Friday, 5 December, 1980, with the same return date of Thursday, 18 December, 1980. The serial number was also the same (24-65607-252).

Capt. Souza was steadfast in maintaining that his evidence gathering was correct and free of any error.

To back up Souza's report is a 10 December, 1980 New York Post article by Sam Rosensohn and David Seifman in which they interviewed Chapman's wife Gloria. In the article they reported that 'last night' Gloria had said 'her husband had left Hawaii eight or ten days ago to go to New York'.

Note that the ticket was a Chicago bound ticket with no connecting flight, yet Chapman's baggage claim check that was also found at the 'shrine' stated: 'Destination LGA, Flight 904. To ORD Flight 2.' In regular language it says that Chapman's luggage went from Honolulu on United Airlines Flight 2 to Chicago's O'Hare Airport and then direct to La Gaurdia Airport on United Airlines Flight 904. So why would this have not been stated on the ticket?

Prosecutor Allen Sullivan made a big point during the trial that Chapman had 'pre-arranged, made reservations and booked all the way through to New York by a variety of airlines to go through at a cheaper rate.'

The thing is that both flights were United Airlines flights.

Now if Chapman had really been trying to save his money, why did he purchase a return flight? If his planning was so meticulous and he had every intention of remaining at the scene so he could have his 'moment in the sun', why the return ticket?

And why didn't Chapman's ticket have all the information on it as is normal with any other multi-destination ticket? Why only Honolulu and Chicago, as the connecting flight was also on United Airlines.

Could it be that Chapman was on a flight to Chicago for a more banal reason with no intention of flying on to New York?

Isn't it strange that both pieces of evidence that were collected from Chapman's hotel (ticket and baggage check) are seemingly at odds with each other? And also at odds with evidence collected in Honolulu?

I meant to post a link to this documentary, when it first came out. Anyhoo, I'll do it now. I believe it reveals quite succinctly how much the U.S. Administration feared Lennon.

The U.S. vs John Lennon


The U.S. vs John Lennon IMDB