PID - Motivations for the Murder of Paul McCartney

Originally posted by switching yard
Why would "Lennon" get his own history wrong? Because he is deflecting and trying to brush off a probing question. He gives the bogus reason that people were playing tracks backwards and standing on their heads... trying to belittle conspiracy theorists by suggesting they're easy to confuse... when in 1968, he released that Glass Onion track before there ever were any Beatles phenomena conspiracy theorists. He knows it's a bogus excuse and only the most naive and ignorant people have bought that explanation.

Or those who have a vested interest in shutting our eyes, when it's not to shut our mouths. The onslaught of lame brain postings by the PIA gangstas slumming in this thread are to pollute our discussion and sidetrack our investigation. Unless you think that they correspond to the "most naive and ignorant people who have bought that explanation"...

Originally posted by switching yardThis is the impostor (or one of them) who said in the big Rolling Stone interview that he didn't know if the Sgt Pepper release was before or after Brian died. Well, there are ample photos that "John" was at Brian's home with Brian present having the official Sgt Pepper release party! Couldn't remember because he was one in a succession of impostors and the earlier one was there while the Rolling Stone interviewee was not there.

With the magnitude and diversity of corroborating evidence it is clear that these impostors aren't coached professionally enough or don't have enough background info to assume their role adequately. Add to this that they had repeat height discrepancies, in the cases of Ringo, Paul and John and then try to believe that they are the same individuals with memory gaps. LOL

Originally posted by switching yardLook, it's painfully obvious. Something is terribly amiss in the "official story" of Beatles history. Were they all killed? I don't know, but the more you examine things closely, the fishier it all gets.

This is the HUGE CAN OF WORMS to which Tina Foster referred during her Radio interview last month. For some this sort of unpleasantness of confronting an ugly reality is an encouragement to play ostridge and bury their head in the sand. Paul is Alive so of course it can't be true. But if you have the guts to keep your eyes wide open and not wide shut, then it reveals more unpleasantness that not only has our beloved Paul been assassinated and callously replaced by a music hall ham, but the other Beatles and possibly many more individuals have fallen victim to the same heartless war for our minds and conquest of our souls.


Celebrities are opinion makers, and therefore they sway society's behavior by inspiring attitudes and compelling to action where political leaders can only resist or give way to public demands. With the loss of terrain of religious dogma in Western society Musicians and Stars have taken over as instigators of mass consciousness and they are therefore built up from nothing, coordinated, coached and administered, whether they are the original item or a replacement impostor conducting the mission in their stead.


Today's Star Whackers are therefore not a bunch of psychotic irrational scam artists turned violent, they are the tip of the iceberg, the enforcement end of a criminal enterprise called the Hollywood Star System and the Pop Music Industry which are part of the same mechanism as their law enforcement or agency accomplices. Whether their main get together is at satanist human sacrifices or pedophile fleshfests is to be discovered, but we do know that they are organized by an array of secret societies, masonic and occult, which coordinate their nefarious influence over the lives of everyone exposed to media or entertainment.


GS

GS, thanks for those comments about the show. I have added to them to the blog post:

PID Interview on AxXiom Rule of Law Radio now available (updated)

reply to post by Getsmart


Wow if the moderators do anything it should be to stop you and your buddies constant personal attacks on anybody who disagrees with your fantasies.

You should learn to treat other ATS members with some respect. I'm not a gangster, or lame brained thank you.
I'm just a Beatles fan with a lot more common sense than you obviously.

BTW isn't there a 1967 interview with Macca where he talks about fans calling him on backwards stuff on Pepper?

reply to post by someotherguy


This IS about your blog ain't it.

Isn't it against T&C to link to your own blog?

"I've looked at these comparative photos of Paul from 66 and before, and post that time - it's shocking how different they are, and that people couldn't notice that? Um, that's just a normal thing, why would that be different?"

This guy obviously hasn't seen the evidence that the pics he saw were altered. Fooling someone into believing your fantasy doesn't make your fantasy true.

Another chilling passage in Julia Baird's (see above posts in this thread) book...

page 265

"The first time I went to see Mimi (John Lennon's aunt who reared him from childhood) after John died, we talked about him. She had been devastated to find that her house belonged to Apple, just like the house in Liverpool. Mimi had believed the house to be hers, just as Jackie and I (John's half-sisters) had believed the Liverpool one to be ours. John had bought both houses to help his family, to give us an inheritance from him. Now Mimi bewailed the fact that John had left her "beholden to Yoko." I saw framed photographs of Sean as a baby, a toddler and as a little boy all over the house. There had been photographs of Julian all over the house the last time I had visited. I asked Mimi where they were and why all the pictures were now of Sean. There wasn't even one photograph of Julian. Mimi was staring through the window. out to sea, so I didn't think she had heard me. I asked her again.

At last Mimi said, "You never know who is coming."

I couldn't believe what I was hearing."

----------------------------------------------------------

What was Mimi so frightened of that she wanted to please Yoko or Yoko's representatives by playing up to them with all Sean photos in the house and none of Julian? What's going on here?

Apple Corps Ltd. was the Beatles corporation that replaced Beatles Ltd. in 1968.

When the fab four purchased houses they would have been actually purchased by their company, for taxes and other reasons. The houses would have been under their own names, but technically owned by their company.
Cars would be purchased the same way.

A common practice.

Also Mimi received a lifelong allowance from John. I would guess she would be scared of losing that if she upset Yoko? The only conspiracy is Yoko, she was a gold digger from the start.

Originally posted by Dakudo

Please explain what is meant by "here's another clue for you all" in 1968 when there was no controversy at the time the white album was released.

Glass Onion - in which the phrase "here's another clue for you all" appears - was, like, "I Am The Walrus," just another playful song in response to those people who pondered his work looking for hidden clues and meanings.

And as Wally has already posted:

"That's me, just doing a throwaway song, à la Walrus, à la everything I've ever written. I threw the line in, 'the walrus was Paul', just to confuse everybody a bit more. It could have been 'the fox terrier is Paul'. I mean, it's just a bit of poetry. I was having a laugh because there'd been so much gobbledigook about Pepper - play it backwards and you stand on your head and all that."
- John Lennon

There you go - from the man himself.

But I'm sure it won't be enough to satisfy you.

edit on 19-12-2010 by Dakudo because: (no reason given)

Does this guy ever do any research other than reading the crazy theories presented here? The "clue for you all" thing has been explained over and over. John cleared that up over 30 years ago.

Originally posted by someotherguy
PID Interview on AxXiom Rule of Law Radio now available

A4L_2010-11-12_128k.mp3

A4L_2010-11-12_16k.mp3

The PID, Beatles, & the 60's discussion starts at 20 minutes in.

The host agreed Paul was replaced.

Like, that is like a totally incredible interview. *giggle* Sounds totally, like a valley girl telling, like, a crazy story to her, like really cute boyfriend on a, date. *giggle.*

Holy cow, that's embarrassing.

Originally posted by switching yard
The most hilarious thing is the little voice-over intro in the long version of the video you're posting of "Paul" in the pub. I don't know the exact quote because I'm tired of viewing such rubbish, but you know, it's like "Liverpool. A place of ships and the sea. I spent most of me life here."

C'mon now, any of the original Beatles would howl with laughter. That's the stupidest intro ever in the history of anything.

Absolutely NONE of the original Beatles would say those lines for a film. Are you kidding?

The postcard thing... could be a real postcard from Impostor "John" or fake propaganda, take your pick.

Liverpool. A place of ships and the sea. I spent most of me life there.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. ROFL

That's great comedy material. Are you sure that isn't a Monty Python skit?

Well, we have seen from your previous post on that video how poor your observation skills are. You lied about someone calling Paul "Billy" and totally misrepresented what was said between Paul and Tom.

You have failed to address that issue.

Could you now tell us about this close relationship you had with the Beatles that allows you to speak with authority as to what they would have said and how they would have reacted to things?

Originally posted by edmond dantes

Does this guy ever do any research other than reading the crazy theories presented here? The "clue for you all" thing has been explained over and over. John cleared that up over 30 years ago.

Obviously not. Switching yard cannot even accurately assimilate the events occuring in the Paul In The Pub video, so we shouldn't expect too much of his research abilities.

Originally posted by edmond dantes

Like, that is like a totally incredible interview. *giggle* Sounds totally, like a valley girl telling, like, a crazy story to her, like really cute boyfriend on a, date. *giggle.*

Holy cow, that's embarrassing.

Like, that interviewer *giggle* didn't, like, scrutinise and contest/debate her claims at all *giggle*. He just let her ramble on and say anything she wanted and then just agreed with her *giggle*.

"I got completely sucked into this".
- 'Tina Foster'

LOL! You said it!

Nothing much new in that 'interview'. People were discussing those same clues 40 years ago, for heaven's sake.

And she trotted out the same kind of false information she's well known for.

For example:

"The Paul is dead rumour actually started in 1967. It was very widespread in London and it was because people had picked up that there were something different"
'Tina Foster'

Complete and utter bull#.

There was a rumour that Paul had been killed in his mini cooper, but that was quickly squashed:



This rumour had NOTHING to do with him looking "different".

So where is 'Tina's' evidence to support her claim that London was "rampant" with talk that Paul was dead because the 'one' they saw looked "different"?

She hasn't any.

'Tina' also falsely claimed that in the TV special on PID Peter Asher said he "knew both of them" (Paul and 'Faul'). In TRUTH, Asher denied any and all evidence supporting the conclusion that Paul McCartney had met with a tragic demise.

Why go on the radio to lie and misrepresent things? If her 'theory' was true, she wouldn't have to do this.

Sad, really.

And would you trust an interviewee who uses a false name? What has she got to hide? If she hasn't the courage to use her real name when she is making claims that a man is a fraud then she has no credibility in my eyes.

All in all, 20 odd minutes of re-hashed stuff from 40 years ago, unsupported claims, biased opinions and complete lies.

I give it 1 out of 10 (just for turning up).

Originally posted by edmond dantes
Could you now tell us about this close relationship you had with the Beatles that allows you to speak with authority as to what they would have said and how they would have reacted to things?

I'm still waiting for that answer, too.

Originally posted by switching yard
Another chilling passage in Julia Baird's (see above posts in this thread) book...

page 265

"The first time I went to see Mimi (John Lennon's aunt who reared him from childhood) after John died, we talked about him. She had been devastated to find that her house belonged to Apple, just like the house in Liverpool. Mimi had believed the house to be hers, just as Jackie and I (John's half-sisters) had believed the Liverpool one to be ours. John had bought both houses to help his family, to give us an inheritance from him. Now Mimi bewailed the fact that John had left her "beholden to Yoko." I saw framed photographs of Sean as a baby, a toddler and as a little boy all over the house. There had been photographs of Julian all over the house the last time I had visited. I asked Mimi where they were and why all the pictures were now of Sean. There wasn't even one photograph of Julian. Mimi was staring through the window. out to sea, so I didn't think she had heard me. I asked her again.

At last Mimi said, "You never know who is coming."

I couldn't believe what I was hearing."

----------------------------------------------------------

What was Mimi so frightened of that she wanted to please Yoko or Yoko's representatives by playing up to them with all Sean photos in the house and none of Julian? What's going on here?

Hi Switching Yard,


Thanks for your scrupulous research into testimonials surrounding John's death and the Corporate takeover of his assets and those of his entourage. This seems to be apparently part of the standard procedure to ensure that people are kept under their thumb. In this case the person used as a figurehead for the Apple Corporation was Yoko Ono, in other cases it could be a manager or some corporate lawyer.


Some might ask "Why didn't people speak up if they were murdered and replaced?" First, it isn't something which is easy to do if others in the star's entourage were also murdered, and you're worried it might be your turn soon. Who would want to precipitate that? It certainly won't bring them back, and might well take you out of the picture too ! Also, they keep an intrusive presence in your life, owning the home you live in, possibly having people interact with your loved ones so that you know they can reach out at any time to harm them, and most probably sending you direct or indirect messages of what is expected and what might spell trouble.


Looking out the window with anxiety when hosting a house guest isn't exactly relaxed behavior when one is discussing a topic they aren't supposed to talk about. Was she afraid they had been listening in and were coming to get her? I doubt she was just checking to see if the postman was coming. It is an entirely different set of expectations which would motivate to act that way and make such an ambiguous statement that it almost seems as if she was afraid of being understood, no matter what she said.


So thus far, and despite the devious interference in this thread by a gang of trolls, we have made some strides in our investigation.


First we can note that there is a likely connection between the Murder of James Paul McCartney and the Hollywood Star Whackers for a number of reasons. These are that in each similar instance there is a Corporation which takes over the assets, royalties and revenue streams of a given artist, with this being administered afterwards either by a corporate lawyer, an authorized 'Handler' or the Impostor himself, as in the case of Sir Faul.


Second we find that there is a pattern of peripheral assassination and replacement of certain select close family members, for two reasons. One is to ensure that those most attached to the victim do not survive to bide their time in hopes of revenge or to seek justice. The other is that they serve as an example to the others who aren't 'taken out' proving in no uncertain terms that they can be eliminated just as easily if they speak or make trouble.


With all the efforts of a number of dedicated researchers we are bound over time to finally establish by whom and how James Paul McCartney was assassinated, when he was replaced and why an Impostor was used to perpetrate criminal deception as well as misappropriate his assets while forging deviant public opinion and perverting mindsets with cultural propaganda.


Keep up the good work !


Getsmart

Originally posted by Getsmart
Some might ask "Why didn't people speak up if they were murdered and replaced?" First, it isn't something which is easy to do if others in the star's entourage were also murdered, and you're worried it might be your turn soon. Who would want to precipitate that?

Er, so how come you're not worried about being "murdered" when......

Originally posted by Getsmart
With all the efforts of a number of dedicated researchers we are bound over time to finally establish by whom and how James Paul McCartney was assassinated, when he was replaced and why an Impostor was used to perpetrate criminal deception as well as misappropriate his assets while forging deviant public opinion and perverting mindsets with cultural propaganda.

LOL! That second paragraph totally undermines your first paragraph.

You give some old guff about people not speaking up because they were worried the illuminati would kill them for exposing that Paul was dead - and then calmly announce publically that you and Team PID will "establish by whom and how James Paul McCartney was assassinated."

So, how come you aren't too scared to expose the "truth", yet Paul's friends and relatives were???

LOL!

You can't have it both ways, dude.

Well done on a totally illogical, self-conflicting premise.

Or in other words........ a crock of smelly poop.

It isn't clear that Yoko was a "gold digger from the start." She was born into a rich, banker family in Japan. She was most likely not in a financially bad way when she met "Paul" and "John."

I don't think she is or was someone who could be characterized as a "gold digger," however by all accounts, she has been a brilliant investor (makes sense in view of her upbringing as the daughter of a powerful, upper class banker).

If she is and was an intelligence agent, as we in PID strongly suspect, then that would explain both her easy access to "Paul" and "John" as well as the controlling side of her personality.

She and "John" claimed on the Mike Douglas TV talk show that when she met "John," she didn't know who he was or even who The Beatles were. That has to be one of the biggest lies ever told on national television.

How is it that Yoko got easy access to "John" and Linda got easy access to "Paul" and both women went on to have a very similar, abnormal, marital relationship in that they hardly let their spouses stray out of sight for a minute! "Paul" and Linda boasted that they never spent a day or night apart except for the days "Paul" was incarcerated in Tokyo for what was told to the media was pot possession. The pot rap was probably a cover story for the real reason he was in jail --- impersonating the original Paul McCartney. The British government probably did not wish the world press to know that Japanese police were questioning the identity of the man presenting himself as Paul McCartney when they, the Japanese authorities, seem to have had probable cause to hold him in jail for questioning. I seriously doubt the official story that he forgot he had a load of weed in his own, personal suitcase. C'mon, no rock star arrives into a foreign airport holding like that. They aren't quite that clueless or forgetful.

Anyway, the behavior of both Linda and Yoko, in terms of physically maintaining abnormal, shall we say "oversight" of their husbands night and day continuously is suspect. I haven't heard of any other celebrity couples who have had quite that much togetherness in their lifestyles. Once Jane Asher and Cynthia were out of the picture, it was total daily control from then on. Not normal.

Originally posted by switching yard
It isn't clear that Yoko was a "gold digger from the start." She was born into a rich, banker family in Japan. She was most likely not in a financially bad way when she met "Paul" and "John."

I don't think she is or was someone who could be characterized as a "gold digger," however by all accounts, she has been a brilliant investor (makes sense in view of her upbringing as the daughter of a powerful, upper class banker).

Hi Switching Yard,


You're quite right that the Illuminati Elite have used MONEY as a COVER STORY for much of their plotting and scheming. After all, they own the printing presses and can, and do, create electronic funds whenever they choose, falsifying the monetary currency accounting as they please. So if anyone doesn't need money it is them.


However, they use MONEY TO MASK MOTIVES. What the byline is whenever hatching a new scheme goes with the ever present admonishment that their operatives should always ensure that their crimes are profitable, so that Greed will become the most conspicuous motivation thereby burying beneath public gullibility what they are really up to.

Originally posted by switching yard
If she is and was an intelligence agent, as we in PID strongly suspect, then that would explain both her easy access to "Paul" and "John" as well as the controlling side of her personality.

Yoko is not just an "Intelligence Agent" given that she is an Illuminati. This means that she has some higher duties within the Satanic Priesthood as well as other roles in their Sect Community of deranged sickos. How do I know this? Maybe from getting too close when growing up. Spy agency goons are way low down in the hierarchy, meaning not even really there unless they happen to also be Illuminati born - because it is a bloodline, one closely associated with the Black Nobility families through out of wedlock procreation and subsequent interbreeding. Being close to the Japanese Imperial family Yoko Ono is not just an Illuminati but presumably more officially connected by bloodline to that lineage. These are the Masters behind ALL intelligence agencies.

Originally posted by switching yard
She and "John" claimed on the Mike Douglas TV talk show that when she met "John," she didn't know who he was or even who The Beatles were. That has to be one of the biggest lies ever told on national television.

Yoko did go to college, right?

The bigger the lie, the more your repeat it, the more they believe it. Sophomore year Propaganda 101.

Originally posted by switching yard
How is it that Yoko got easy access to "John" and Linda got easy access to "Paul" and both women went on to have a very similar, abnormal, marital relationship in that they hardly let their spouses stray out of sight for a minute! "Paul" and Linda boasted that they never spent a day or night apart except for the days "Paul" was incarcerated in Tokyo for what was told to the media was pot possession. The pot rap was probably a cover story for the real reason he was in jail --- impersonating the original Paul McCartney.

This fact was widely communicated in Japan at the time, as the Japanese border police thought that an impostor (we have come to know as FAUL) was an independent criminal attempting to penetrate their national territory for some unknown purpose disguised under the false identity of Paul McCartney. They did their job professionally, and this is evidence that the Japanese Illuminati hadn't put their low level peons in the airport border security in the know of what was up. The media then fabricated images of trumped up pot charges to program our minds, and put forth a contrived "confession" where FAUL feels compelled to revealingly state: "We had 'this pot', to tell you the truth..." as if he may have considered telling us a LIE ? ! ? His entire life is a lie, thus he lies saying he is telling the truth. When you speak the truth, you don't need to say "To tell you the truth". Here it is at minute 00':42''. Right before making this false statement he has his right finger placed directly pointing into his ear, which is body language which is one of the most recognized indications of lying.





How to detect lies with body language


We know that FAUL deserves far worse than 7 years hard labor. But the Illuminati intervened, not to mention the British Royals and their subservient Tavistock tools. Add a little Pot-Head spin to the story and bingo - you've got perceived innocence plus you add more steam to your drug agenda to dumb down the population.

Originally posted by switching yard
The British government probably did not wish the world press to know that Japanese police were questioning the identity of the man presenting himself as Paul McCartney when they, the Japanese authorities, seem to have had probable cause to hold him in jail for questioning. I seriously doubt the official story that he forgot he had a load of weed in his own, personal suitcase. C'mon, no rock star arrives into a foreign airport holding like that. They aren't quite that clueless or forgetful.

More body language in the above video towards the end shows FAUL pointing his finger at his eyebrow twice while saying about the bag of pot inside this windbag's bag: "I was an idiot" while smirking, showing that he is playing it pretty smart calling himself an idiot when the whole thing is so very clever.

Originally posted by switching yardAnyway, the behavior of both Linda and Yoko, in terms of physically maintaining abnormal, shall we say "oversight" of their husbands night and day continuously is suspect. I haven't heard of any other celebrity couples who have had quite that much togetherness in their lifestyles. Once Jane Asher and Cynthia were out of the picture, it was total daily control from then on. Not normal.

Sure, they became world renowned celebrities because of their psychological weakness and endured decades of relentless public exposure lacking any endurance? Are we to believe they had no backbone to take a stand against the establishment and that it is an illusion that The Beatles denounced Satanic Ritual Abuse in The Butcher Album or were militantly opposed to the Vietnam War? Of course it is because of such flagrant an absence of moral character that both Paul and John sought out women who would boss them around and become buffers between them and the cruel world they were so unable to cope with. LOL.


We already know for a FACT that both Yoko Ono and Linda Eastman were from major Illuminati families. They represented not only the establishment power authority but more appallingly the Sectarian Agenda for Elite Mass Control by those ruling over our destinies. Why a couple of mop haired minstrels? Because they had become planet Earth's leading OPINION MAKERS with power to move the masses so great that John had compared his influence to that of JESUS. Now THAT'S POWER !

THERE'S YOUR MOTIVE FOR MURDER ONE.

GS

Originally posted by Getsmart
We already know for a FACT that both Yoko Ono and Linda Eastman were from major Illuminati families.

LOL. No you don't. You have no credible evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by Getsmart
They represented not only the establishment power authority but more appallingly the Sectarian Agenda for Elite Mass Control

LOL!

You're clearly just making stuff up as you go along to try and impress your PID cronies.

Originally posted by Getsmart
Why a couple of mop haired minstrels? Because they had become planet Earth's leading OPINION MAKERS with power to move the masses so great that John had compared his influence to that of JESUS. Now THAT'S POWER !

Er, no - he did not compare "his influence to that of JESUS".

You're either deliberately lying or have very poor research skills.

Which is it?

Here - I'll help you getsmart:

Correction To Getsmart's Disinfo:

The TRUTH is that he compared The Beatles popularity to Jesus.

We're more popular than Jesus now.
- John Lennon

Moving on.....

Originally posted by Getsmart

THERE'S YOUR MOTIVE FOR MURDER ONE.

Huh? That the Beatles were popular? How is that a motive for murder?!

There were loads of other bands and performers who were popular in the '60's, such as:

James Brown
The Beach Boys
The Supremes
The Rolling Stones
Bob Dylan
Aretha Franklin
Elvis Presley
Sam Cooke
The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Ray Charles
Otis Redding
The Temptations
Smokey Robinson & The Miracles
The Byrds
Marvin Gaye
The Four Seasons
The Who
Wilson Pickett
Stevie Wonder
The Kinks
Roy Orbison
The Impressions
The Shirelles
The Doors
The Drifters
The Four Tops
Led Zeppelin
Martha & The Vandellas
Dion
Jefferson Airplane
The Mamas & The Papas
Sam & Dave
Solomon Burke
Cream
Jackie Wilson
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Booker T. & The MG's
Sly & The Family Stone
The Monkees
The Yardbirds
Chubby Checker
Simon & Garfunkel
The Marvelettes
Joe Tex
Etta James
The Lovin' Spoonful
Del Shannon
The Ventures
Jan & Dean

Have the illuminati killed and replaced all of them too? LOL.

You haven't really thought this through, have you getsmart?

And if the illuminati really wanted to kill The Beatles and replace them because they were popular:

Why did they wait until 1966? The Beatles had been immensely popular for a few years.

So what you are trying to have people believe is this:

'The illuminati waited a few years (for some unexplained reason), then put into operation a gigantic murder and cover-up operation - involving hundreds of people - only to let the most popular band in the world split up a handful of years later.'



Hmmmm.... okaaaay.... that makes sense.

Originally posted by Getsmart

edit on 22-12-2010 by Getsmart because: Paul McCartney was Murdered and we have established the Motive for his Assassination !

LOL..... just...... LOL!

Yoko was cut off from her family when she married a man her parents didn't approve of.

She was on her own financially when she married John, it wasn't until after that she reconciled with her family.

Johns comment about Jesus was taken out of context. What he was trying to say was he thought it was a bad thing that the anything seemed more popular than Christianity. It was a comment about the reduction in church attendance amongst young people. He only said Beatles because it was an easy choice, he could have said television was more popular than Jesus. Beatles wasn't the point.

Of course it was Americans who misunderstood the comment, and many still do. In England it was taken as what it was meant to be, a comment on the waning relevance of the church for the younger generation.

Lennon: "I suppose if I had said television was more popular than Jesus, I would have gotten away with it, but I just happened to be talking to a friend and I used the words "Beatles" as a remote thing, not as what I think - as Beatles, as those other Beatles like other people see us. I just said "they" are having more influence on kids and things than anything else, including Jesus. But I said it in that way which is the wrong way."

Reporter: "Some teenagers have repeated your statements - "I like the Beatles more than Jesus Christ." What do you think about that?"

Lennon: "Well, originally I pointed out that fact in reference to England. That we meant more to kids than Jesus did, or religion at that time. I wasn't knocking it or putting it down. I was just saying it as a fact and it's true more for England than here. I'm not saying that we're better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it's all this."

Reporter: "But are you prepared to apologize?"

Lennon: "I wasn't saying whatever they're saying I was saying. I'm sorry I said it really. I never meant it to be a lousy anti-religious thing. I apologize if that will make you happy. I still don't know quite what I've done. I've tried to tell you what I did do but if you want me to apologize, if that will make you happy, then OK, I'm sorry."

reply to post by Wally Hope

Good points, Wally. And well done using Lennon's direct quotes to highlight how getsmart totally twists his original meaning in order to fool people.