John Lennon Did Not Die a Slow Death

[acebackwords]

My own theory is that MDC was an asshole and a dimwit who blew out what little brains he had by taking all that LSD when he was 14 and grooving to the Magical Mystery Trip.

[lowbasso]

Aug 27, 2013 19:36:16 GMT -5 acebackwords said:

Ursa, That Guy That Shant Be Named was a nut who flew from Hawaii for the express purpose of killing Lennon. He bought the gun which was directly traced to the murder. He gave a detailed account of exactly how he did it. Which was verified by all the eye witness accounts and the physical evidence at the crime scene.

I'll probably regret this but could you give me a quick synopsis of what your conspiracy theory is?

Can somebody e-mail me when this thread is finished?
Perhaps it can be moved to another place on the board where only people interested in discussing it further can see it while the rest of us don't have to view it while skimming the other current subjects?
I find it difficult to log onto this site and see it continue to be discussed over and over, like beating a dead horse. I know I can skip over the subject, but I find it very depressing to skim the board subjects and see it's subject title come up over and over again.
It really is getting to be morbid to see it on a Beatles Board that is supposed to celebrate the band. It's a sick topic.
I'm going to take a break from the board for awhile until hopefully it dies out. It just turns my stomach to see it go on endlessly. And I cannot stand seeing the subject title appear over and over again. I have of course stopped reading the threads.

Steve, MikeV or JoeK; my e-mail is [e-mail]
Let me know when it dies out and you don't have to see it anymore when skimming the current subject threads being discussed.

[John S. Damm]

I don't understand your point lowbasso. This is the Beatles Book Section. This Thread's title is the name of the book that was in the news when I posted it. I am on Google alert for any and all news on Beatles, John, Paul, George and Ringo and this book lit up my mailbox. Actually the full title is John Lennon Did Not Die a Slow Death: Dislodging an Urban Legend About a Legend (And 9 Other Stories).

Are you saying a thread on this book is inappropriate? Many of us read everything we can on that horrific event because it was one of the worst things many of us have ever experienced in the sense of losing a musician we loved. I said from the start the title seems distasteful. Yet this same author also wrote one of the best books ever on the Beatles so that was another reason I reported it here in the book section. The author is legit but this book is surprising in its topic.

I resent like hell your implications here lowbasso that I somehow started an inapproriate Thread about a real book in the Board's Book Section. John Lennon's murder was real, it f_ck_ng sucks but it is real and we must deal with it. It is apparent from the discussion that many here have read a lot about John's murder. There are disagreements on what exactly occured but it is a very serious topic that demands attention from fans.

John's murder killed Pepperland. Our hobby, our love was never the same again. But we can't ignore it because to ignore it is to risk repeating it.

[Joe Karlosi]

Aug 27, 2013 19:28:03 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

If you go to youtube you can see footage of who killed JFK. It was the driver of the car and it is clearly visible, left arm over the right shoulder, real quick and unless you look for it you won't notice it. Jackie Kennedy scrambling at the back of the car was scared she was going to be shot as well. It's all there plain as day you just need to open your eyes.

Are you kidding me about the JFK killing? Jackie Kennedy scrambling away to avoid getting shot too, that is something she would have done no matter WHERE the bullet came from. It's an instinctive reaction of shock in a matter of instant seconds. I've already seen who killed JFK -- it was Oswald, who acted alone. Even entertaining the fantasy that it wasn't Oswald, it sure as hell was not "the driver of the car". That is the craziest thing I have ever heard.. So "it's all there plain as day", and yet for 50 years people and experts have been so stumped? All the documentaries and intense studying and theorists, and all this time it was always right there on screen with the driver of the car openly killing Kennedy, huh? How did the driver escape? How was he never apprehended? Wow, this is just crazy stuff --

In the UK they're re-investigating the death of Diana with the possibility it was a conspiracy, most people at the time felt it was a conspiracy and not some accident, remember the white Fiat in the tunnel ? Still not found.

Speaking of "still not found", then where is Lennon's "real killer"?
Where is JFK's "real killer"?
Where is Diana's "real killer"?
Where is Nicole Brown's "real killer"?

So yeah I take everything I'm fed by the media with a grain of salt, the media is owned by large corporations that lend alot of monetary support to governments and there are vested and conflicted interests everywhere you look and these things happen for a reason.

You don't believe that sometimes a famous person just got killed by a simple, everyday person for whatever their personal reasons? What about the fan who stalked and killed actress Rebecca Schaeffer? Was he also some kind of govt plant? Was there some deep, dark, hidden scandal involved there as well?

Did something personal happen to you with the media or govt to make you so suspicious? Look, I am not the biggest fan of the media ... but really, it's so easy to see that you are one of those "conspiracy theorists" who instinctively doesn't take ANYTHING at face value. Here you are thinking ALL these killings were some kind of "conspiracy" -- Lennon, JFK, Diana....

You have to come up with more of your own theories and back it with evidence. Who do you think killed John Lennon, then? You're spouting all this stuff but are avoiding answering questions. Do I understand you correctly that you don't believe MDC pulled the trigger? If he didn't, who did? And also, I could maybe see you thinking that MDC was merely the pawn in some grandiose govt plot (well, not really! ) ... but to deny that he was the actual gunman? That's just crazy.

[Joe Karlosi]

Aug 27, 2013 22:28:22 GMT -5 John S. Damm said:

I don't understand your point lowbasso. This is the Beatles Book Section. This Thread's title is the name of the book that was in the news when I posted it. I am on Google alert for any and all news on Beatles, John, Paul, George and Ringo and this book lit up my mailbox. Actually the full title is John Lennon Did Not Die a Slow Death: Dislodging an Urban Legend About a Legend (And 9 Other Stories).

Are you saying a thread on this book is inappropriate? Many of us read everything we can on that horrific event because it was one of the worst things many of us have ever experienced in the sense of losing a musician we loved. I said from the start the title seems distasteful. Yet this same author also wrote one of the best books ever on the Beatles so that was another reason I reported it here in the book section. The author is legit but this book is surprising in its topic.

I resent like hell your implications here lowbasso that I somehow started an inapproriate Thread about a real book in the Board's Book Section. John Lennon's murder was real, it f_ck_ng sucks but it is real and we must deal with it. It is apparent from the discussion that many here have read a lot about John's murder. There are disagreements on what exactly occured but it is a very serious topic that demands attention from fans.

John's murder killed Pepperland. Our hobby, our love was never the same again. But we can't ignore it because to ignore it is to risk repeating it.

Exactly. This is always a big problem with message boards of any kind -- many different people partake in them, all with different ideas of what should or shouldn't be discussed, and different values, beliefs, expectations, sensibilities, whatever. There is just no way every single member is going to love and approve of every single thing that goes on. The murder of John Lennon is an unpleasant subject but part of the history and should not be avoided, IMO. Those with weak stomachs may just sit it out. Maybe come back in a month, or for awhile opt not to use the "current posts and topics" options. . I may not like to give John's killer a lot of name recognition to feed his own ego, but I will not pretend this tragedy never occurred and just sit around singing "I Want To Hold Your Hand".

[andyb]

[/quote]If you go to youtube you can see footage of who killed JFK. It was the driver of the car and it is clearly visible, left arm over the right shoulder, [/quote]

A fascinating case with unanswered questions because of conflicting evidence etc. Probably the only conspiracy worth looking at, but was it a conspiracy or just a flawed investigation? I go for flawed. As for other onspiracy theories, I have no time for them. Especially of the moon landing variety.

Can someone point to a resource online for the murder of John that details exactly what happened etc?

[andyb]

Oh, and by the way, the driver definitely didn't shoot JFK. I'll stake all three of my testicles on that.

[mikev]

Aug 28, 2013 6:55:23 GMT -5 andyb said:

Oh, and by the way, the driver definitely didn't shoot JFK. I'll stake all three of my testicles on that.

I actually recenty heard of a theory (not so much a conspiracy-but maybe a cover-up)that the driver did shoot JFK...by accident. Panicking from getting shot from behind, started shooting indiscriminantly behind him-kind of like George Costanza in a fire. The cover up was to protect the Secret Service-the higher ups (even including Bobby Kennedy) didn't want them to be "compromised" by such a major goof up.

I don't really believe that, but it is much easier to swallow than the "Mad Mad Mad World" theory of the Mafia, the Russians and Johnson doing it.

[andyb]

There's various videos on youtube were people have zoomed in on the driver and claim they see a gun when he turns round one time. The problem being that, if I remember right, you can see both his hands still on the wheel and the supposed gun is just the sun shining off the brylcream in the hair of the other agent. It's bollocks. Pardon my anglo-saxon.

[mikev]

Aug 28, 2013 7:16:48 GMT -5 andyb said:

There's various videos on youtube were people have zoomed in on the driver and claim they see a gun when he turns round one time. The problem being that, if I remember right, you can see both his hands still on the wheel and the supposed gun is just the sun shining off the brylcream in the hair of the other agent. It's bollocks. Pardon my anglo-saxon.

I have to find the article again, it might have been the guy on the rider's side.

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes, Andy -- I've just done some research, and found this pretty straight-forward and undeniable frame by frame debunking of the "shooting driver(s)" theory -- there was no gun, just the glare off the passenger's hair, for cryin' out loud! So Ursamajor, are you now ready to abandon your "JFK Driver Theory"?

[Joe Karlosi]

Yeah, so just imagine -- the driver waits until that very last moment while being fully exposed in front of everyone and driving the car, to shoot the president. Couldn't he just taken him out privately or before they got into the limo? Gawd, these conspiracy theorists know no bounds.

I think Jackie Kennedy actually shot her husband and was trying to get away by climbing out of the car...

[andyb]

I'm sure I saw it mentioned somewhere that someone hid in the boot(or trunk??)of the car and shot from inside there.

[ursamajor]

Aug 28, 2013 8:21:39 GMT -5 Joe Karlosi said:

Yes, Andy -- I've just done some research, and found this pretty straight-forward and undeniable frame by frame debunking of the "shooting driver(s)" theory -- there was no gun, just the glare off the passenger's hair, for cryin' out loud! So Ursamajor, are you now ready to abandon your "JFK Driver Theory"?

No I don't agree with that, it's clear to me that the driver uses his left hand over his right shoulder , it's really quick, you can even see abit of recoil and then he turns around quickly and continues driving like nothing happened. Also, because he was so close you can see how big of an impact the shot had.

A few seconds later there is a shot from somewhere else. Definitely an inside job.

[debjorgo]

Aug 28, 2013 16:48:51 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

Aug 28, 2013 8:21:39 GMT -5 Joe Karlosi said:

Yes, Andy -- I've just done some research, and found this pretty straight-forward and undeniable frame by frame debunking of the "shooting driver(s)" theory -- there was no gun, just the glare off the passenger's hair, for cryin' out loud! So Ursamajor, are you now ready to abandon your "JFK Driver Theory"?

No I don't agree with that, it's clear to me that the driver uses his left hand over his right shoulder , it's really quick, you can even see abit of recoil and then he turns around quickly and continues driving like nothing happened. Also, because he was so close you can see how big of an impact the shot had.

A few seconds later there is a shot from somewhere else. Definitely an inside job.

Can you point us to the video that shows this?

[ursamajor]

Aug 28, 2013 6:22:02 GMT -5 Joe Karlosi said:

Aug 27, 2013 19:28:03 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

If you go to youtube you can see footage of who killed JFK. It was the driver of the car and it is clearly visible, left arm over the right shoulder, real quick and unless you look for it you won't notice it. Jackie Kennedy scrambling at the back of the car was scared she was going to be shot as well. It's all there plain as day you just need to open your eyes.

Are you kidding me about the JFK killing? Jackie Kennedy scrambling away to avoid getting shot too, that is something she would have done no matter WHERE the bullet came from. It's an instinctive reaction of shock in a matter of instant seconds. I've already seen who killed JFK -- it was Oswald, who acted alone. Even entertaining the fantasy that it wasn't Oswald, it sure as hell was not "the driver of the car". That is the craziest thing I have ever heard.. So "it's all there plain as day", and yet for 50 years people and experts have been so stumped? All the documentaries and intense studying and theorists, and all this time it was always right there on screen with the driver of the car openly killing Kennedy, huh? How did the driver escape? How was he never apprehended? Wow, this is just crazy stuff --

In the UK they're re-investigating the death of Diana with the possibility it was a conspiracy, most people at the time felt it was a conspiracy and not some accident, remember the white Fiat in the tunnel ? Still not found.

Speaking of "still not found", then where is Lennon's "real killer"?
Where is JFK's "real killer"?
Where is Diana's "real killer"?
Where is Nicole Brown's "real killer"?

So yeah I take everything I'm fed by the media with a grain of salt, the media is owned by large corporations that lend alot of monetary support to governments and there are vested and conflicted interests everywhere you look and these things happen for a reason.

You don't believe that sometimes a famous person just got killed by a simple, everyday person for whatever their personal reasons? What about the fan who stalked and killed actress Rebecca Schaeffer? Was he also some kind of govt plant? Was there some deep, dark, hidden scandal involved there as well?

Did something personal happen to you with the media or govt to make you so suspicious? Look, I am not the biggest fan of the media ... but really, it's so easy to see that you are one of those "conspiracy theorists" who instinctively doesn't take ANYTHING at face value. Here you are thinking ALL these killings were some kind of "conspiracy" -- Lennon, JFK, Diana....

You have to come up with more of your own theories and back it with evidence. Who do you think killed John Lennon, then? You're spouting all this stuff but are avoiding answering questions. Do I understand you correctly that you don't believe MDC pulled the trigger? If he didn't, who did? And also, I could maybe see you thinking that MDC was merely the pawn in some grandiose govt plot (well, not really! ) ... but to deny that he was the actual gunman? That's just crazy.

The reason these murders have conspiracies associated with them is so the killer remains unknown and either a patsy is setup to take the fall or it's made to look like an accident. The reason for that is that on closer investigation the details of these murders don't stack up.


Mohammed Al Fayed has been on a crusade to find the real killer of Diana and his son. He thinks it was the Royal Family or more specifically, Prince Philip that set it up. The biggest issue here is that the driver Henri Paul within 24 hours of the accident was being blamed for driving "like a lunatic" through the tunnel while "drunk as a pig". But the head of Scotland Yard, Lord Stevens said he was not drunk at all as he only had two drinks on that night after he met Henri Paul's parents. Then a month or so later in the report of the accident he did a 180 and said he was drunk and was driving twice the speeding limit. The judge has now decided to disregard the report of Lord Stevens and its contents have been removed from the official website that is linked to the inquest. The judge that is acting as the coroner has already said that there are still 20 vital questions on Diana's death - and possible murder - that still have to be answered.

As in the John Lennon case, if this really was just an accident that involved a famous person there wouldn't be so many question marks and red flags surrounding the case. I have no idea who killed John or Diana, I have a theory on John's murder but that means nothing.

[Joe Karlosi]

Aug 28, 2013 17:08:39 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

As in the John Lennon case, if this really was just an accident that involved a famous person there wouldn't be so many question marks and red flags surrounding the case.

There are no question marks, and especially not in the John Lennon Case, which was all very cut and dry. The only time "loopholes" appear in these things is when fetishistic conspiracy theorists start looking for them.

And the Lennon Case was not just an "accident"; it was a pre-meditated killing hatched by a mentally ill 'fan' .

I have no idea who killed John or Diana, I have a theory on John's murder but that means nothing.

After being so sure it wasn't MDC (or if it was, that he was just some govt patsy), why won't you "enlighten" us and the rest of the world with your "theory"...?

[Joe Karlosi]

Aug 28, 2013 16:48:51 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

No I don't agree with that, it's clear to me that the driver uses his left hand over his right shoulder , it's really quick, you can even see abit of recoil and then he turns around quickly and continues driving like nothing happened. Also, because he was so close you can see how big of an impact the shot had.

Are you sure you watched the video clip above? Of course the driver turned to see momentarily what had happened. But his hands both remain down, as the enhanced film quality here clearly shows. So then even with this blatant video showing that no such driver shooting ever occurred, you are so set on your obsessions that you refuse to see the reality on film? You're scaring me, Ursa. (Besides, Kennedy was struck in the head from the back, not the front).

Definitely an inside job.

"Definitely"? No.

Why didn't "the driver" just kill the president before they even boarded the limousine? Why did he have to drive the president and wait for a moment to "turn quickly like nothing happened, and hope nobody would ever notice" while driving in a car full of passengers, as well as hundreds of onlooking witnesses?

[ursamajor]

Aug 28, 2013 17:31:52 GMT -5 Joe Karlosi said:

Aug 28, 2013 16:48:51 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

No I don't agree with that, it's clear to me that the driver uses his left hand over his right shoulder , it's really quick, you can even see abit of recoil and then he turns around quickly and continues driving like nothing happened. Also, because he was so close you can see how big of an impact the shot had.

Are you sure you watched the video clip above? Of course the driver turned to see momentarily what had happened. But his hands both remain down, as the enhanced film quality here clearly shows. So then even with this blatant video showing that no such driver shooting ever occurred, you are so set on your obsessions that you refuse to see the reality on film? You're scaring me, Ursa. (Besides, Kennedy was struck in the head from the back, not the front).

Definitely an inside job.

"Definitely"? No.

Why didn't "the driver" just kill the president before they even boarded the limousine? Why did he have to drive the president and wait for a moment to "turn quickly like nothing happened, and hope nobody would ever notice" while driving in a car full of passengers, as well as hundreds of onlooking witnesses?

Yes I did but there is another one but not on youtube, it went around on email as a .wmv and you can see the drivers movements and the gun alot clearer.

This one seems to indicate that the gun was shiny and was reflected by sunlight so the top of the other guys head gives the illusion of a gun. The gun wasn't shiny.

This is just another smokescreen as far as I'm concerned.

To answer your question, no one would have ever picked the driver as the shooter, it's only when people were told to pay attention to him that something strange seems to unfold.

As to the rest of the questions, if you look at the footage that you posted it wasn't just one shot, there were at least two, it seems that JFK was hit before what I think was the driver shooting him which made the big impact and then there was another shot the came from the side a few seconds later. So who knows why the people who organised it chose this moment at this parade ?

As to why JFK was murdered, I believe it was because he tried to arrest control of the Federal Reserve Bank back to the US government. The US govt does not print it's own money , did you know that ? They get loans from the Federal Reserve which is owned by the mysterious people out there that pull all the strings.

[Joe Karlosi]

Aug 28, 2013 23:24:54 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

but there is another one but not on youtube, it went around on email as a .wmv and you can see the drivers movements and the gun alot clearer.

Can you point us to this video? I find it very hard to believe. How can THIS video clearly show that the driver's hands never leave the bottom, but somehow YOUR video is different? Besides, why do you ignore the fact that Kennedy was hit from BEHIND?

This is just another smokescreen as far as I'm concerned.

If it was the driver, why would there need to be any "smokescreen" on his behalf? Why would he have to be protected or hidden? Why would there be a "secret video to protect him" that only went around as a guarded email that only Ursamajor could see? If he was the shooter, he was the shooter -- and there would be no way he could pull that off with all these witnesses and continue driving the car and get away with it. What about the passenger in the front seeing this too? Do you realize how outrageous your claim is?

As to the rest of the questions, if you look at the footage that you posted it wasn't just one shot, there were at least two, it seems that JFK was hit before what I think was the driver shooting him which made the big impact and then there was another shot the came from the side a few seconds later. So who knows why the people who organised it chose this moment at this parade ?

If you've watched footage, how can you miss that JFK was shot first in the back and the bullet exited through his throat, and then the next fatal bullet struck the back of his head...? How do you see things that are not there, but miss what is blatantly there? Or should I ask "WHY" do you think the way you do on these matters? Have you ever had a problem with the govt or the media to make you always distrust them, no matter what the case is, or who the victim is?

As to why JFK was murdered, I believe it was because he tried to arrest control of the Federal Reserve Bank back to the US government. The US govt does not print it's own money , did you know that ? They get loans from the Federal Reserve which is owned by the mysterious people out there that pull all the strings.

And you believe this why? We can each choose any reason we like, doesn't make it accurate. Hell, John Hinckley tried to kill Reagan just to impress Jodie Foster... nothing at all "political". Or do you not believe that one either?

[ursamajor]

Aug 29, 2013 6:08:28 GMT -5 Joe Karlosi said:

Aug 28, 2013 23:24:54 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

but there is another one but not on youtube, it went around on email as a .wmv and you can see the drivers movements and the gun alot clearer.

Can you point us to this video? I find it very hard to believe. How can THIS video clearly show that the driver's hands never leave the bottom, but somehow YOUR video is different? Besides, why do you ignore the fact that Kennedy was hit from BEHIND?

This is just another smokescreen as far as I'm concerned.

If it was the driver, why would there need to be any "smokescreen" on his behalf? Why would he have to be protected or hidden? Why would there be a "secret video to protect him" that only went around as a guarded email that only Ursamajor could see? If he was the shooter, he was the shooter -- and there would be no way he could pull that off with all these witnesses and continue driving the car and get away with it. What about the passenger in the front seeing this too? Do you realize how outrageous your claim is?

As to the rest of the questions, if you look at the footage that you posted it wasn't just one shot, there were at least two, it seems that JFK was hit before what I think was the driver shooting him which made the big impact and then there was another shot the came from the side a few seconds later. So who knows why the people who organised it chose this moment at this parade ?

If you've watched footage, how can you miss that JFK was shot first in the back and the bullet exited through his throat, and then the next fatal bullet struck the back of his head...? How do you see things that are not there, but miss what is blatantly there? Or should I ask "WHY" do you think the way you do on these matters? Have you ever had a problem with the govt or the media to make you always distrust them, no matter what the case is, or who the victim is?

As to why JFK was murdered, I believe it was because he tried to arrest control of the Federal Reserve Bank back to the US government. The US govt does not print it's own money , did you know that ? They get loans from the Federal Reserve which is owned by the mysterious people out there that pull all the strings.

And you believe this why? We can each choose any reason we like, doesn't make it accurate. Hell, John Hinckley tried to kill Reagan just to impress Jodie Foster... nothing at all "political". Or do you not believe that one either?

If the driver shot JFK then everyone else was in on it, that's why it was a conspiracy. It doesn't matter who shot him it was a conspiracy because the official line of Oswald being the sole assassin doesn't wash. People that are experts with guns say that shot was impossible to be so accurate. Also, he wasn't shot from the back he was shot from the front, the video that you posted shows that I believe, I perceive the shots to have come from the front but one thing is clear there was more than one person shooting at him so the Oswald lone assassin theory can be debunked.

I'm not going to continue any further with this as this has gone way off topic, also I'm not going to make any further comments regarding John Lennon's assassination, it doesn't bring John back, my personal views are all about finding out the truth so if there was a conspiracy then those people should be brought to justice for John's sake. This is my last word on it.

[Joe Karlosi]

Aug 29, 2013 7:09:14 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

If the driver shot JFK then everyone else was in on it, that's why it was a conspiracy.

Oh, sure -- everyone else was in on it. Including the governor, the governor's wife, and The First Lady, Jackie. I guess that's why none of them ever fingered the driver as the shooter, they were in on it too. I think Governor Connally even took a shot himself to make it look good.

It doesn't matter who shot him it was a conspiracy because the official line of Oswald being the sole assassin doesn't wash. People that are experts with guns say that shot was impossible to be so accurate.

I have seen just as many experts say otherwise.

Also, he wasn't shot from the back he was shot from the front, the video that you posted shows that I believe.

Do you have access to different autopsy photos that show the wounds differently, then (particularly the fatal head wound)?

I'm not going to continue any further with this as this has gone way off topic, also I'm not going to make any further comments regarding John Lennon's assassination, it doesn't bring John back, my personal views are all about finding out the truth so if there was a conspiracy then those people should be brought to justice for John's sake. This is my last word on it.

I think that is a very wise attitude to have. But maybe then you shouldn't start tweaking the situation in the first place, when this topic arises again in the future. You write wise-guy stuff like:

"Funny how no one knows exactly what happened at the scene.

Everyone seems to have "heard stories".

Hmmmmm , I wonder why."

--- and then you want to dodge all sorts of questions asked of you from others who react, and you won't provide evidence to support your wild ideas. So Yes, I do think it will be a wise idea for you to keep silent on this "conspiracy crap" when it comes to John Lennon in the future. I do think you've got issues as to why you need to think the way you do, Ursa.

[ursamajor]

Aug 29, 2013 16:29:48 GMT -5 Joe Karlosi said:

Aug 29, 2013 7:09:14 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

If the driver shot JFK then everyone else was in on it, that's why it was a conspiracy.

Oh, sure -- everyone else was in on it. Including the governor, the governor's wife, and The First Lady, Jackie. I guess that's why none of them ever fingered the driver as the shooter, they were in on it too. I think Governor Connally even took a shot himself to make it look good.

It doesn't matter who shot him it was a conspiracy because the official line of Oswald being the sole assassin doesn't wash. People that are experts with guns say that shot was impossible to be so accurate.

I have seen just as many experts say otherwise.

Also, he wasn't shot from the back he was shot from the front, the video that you posted shows that I believe.

Do you have access to different autopsy photos that show the wounds differently, then (particularly the fatal head wound)?

I'm not going to continue any further with this as this has gone way off topic, also I'm not going to make any further comments regarding John Lennon's assassination, it doesn't bring John back, my personal views are all about finding out the truth so if there was a conspiracy then those people should be brought to justice for John's sake. This is my last word on it.

I think that is a very wise attitude to have. But maybe then you shouldn't start tweaking the situation in the first place, when this topic arises again in the future. You write wise-guy stuff like:

"Funny how no one knows exactly what happened at the scene.

Everyone seems to have "heard stories".

Hmmmmm , I wonder why."

--- and then you want to dodge all sorts of questions asked of you from others who react, and you won't provide evidence to support your wild ideas. So Yes, I do think it will be a wise idea for you to keep silent on this "conspiracy crap" when it comes to John Lennon in the future. I do think you've got issues as to why you need to think the way you do, Ursa.

Yes a few people have asked me what I think the conspiracy was but by going into that things can get negative and I will prefer to just leave it at that. I would have preferred I had not made those comments you pointed out and will stay away from this topic if it comes up again in the future.

One word of advice to you though, just because you don't agree with what I say you shouldn't judge me or anyone else for that matter. Your comment that I have issues crossed the line as far as I'm concerned, I know sometimes things can get heated because we're all so passionate about what we believe in but you don't me personally to make comments like that. I'm all for everyone speaking their mind and feeling free enough to express their views no matter how radical or controversial but nothing justifies getting personal with anyone. I'm not attacking you , I'm just saying that I don't appreciate that comment.

[John S. Damm]

Good rule of thumb Ursa about all of us staying civil. Joe is very passionate and the murder of John Lennon, and we all agree that he was murdered(just some difference on who did it and why), stirs up intense emotions in all of us. Yes, we are all passionate in our beliefs but as posting friends you are right, we should be able to freely discuss our beliefs even in disagreement. I think Joe agrees. He's passionate too. Joe respects vigorous debate.

The bottom line is we all miss John horribly. I am in this complete rebirth of his solo career where I am truly loving his solo music, even most of STINYC! It is killing me that it abruptly stops in 1980. The Dream Weaver was reborn with W & B's "No. 9 Dream" and John was cooking again with "Double Fantasy." I fully believe we were about to see John's second wind as a musician. If not earth shattering music then just damn great Rock/Pop.

[Joe Karlosi]

Aug 29, 2013 21:13:00 GMT -5 John S. Damm said:

Good rule of thumb Ursa about all of us staying civil. Joe is very passionate and the murder of John Lennon, and we all agree that he was murdered(just some difference on who did it and why), stirs up intense emotions in all of us. Yes, we are all passionate in our beliefs but as posting friends you are right, we should be able to freely discuss our beliefs even in disagreement. I think Joe agrees. He's passionate too. Joe respects vigorous debate.

The problem is, Ursa does not debate nor discuss. He pops into threads like this to make some sort of "conspiracy-based" wisecracks, and then does not even present his evidence or ideas on who killed John Lennon. When he is asked questions he doesn't want to answer them. He shouldn't toy with people and then not follow through with the "specifics and why's" as to his findings.

Even a simple question like "Do you think the killing of actress Rebecca Schaeffer was also some sort of conspiracy cover-up?" goes unanswered. "Do you not believe that Hinckley tried killing Reagan to impress Jodie Foster" goes unanswered.

I maintain that there is a type of skewed mindset that a person possesses in order to always have a suspicious mind geared against ever taking issues of celebrity deaths at face value. Maybe they have been a victim of government hostility or secretive conspiracy themselves? Maybe they were done some disservice by the media themselves? Whatever the case, SOMETHING is consistently preventing them from ever accepting a celebrity death case as it is generally described. Maybe it is something as simple as the thrill of it, the excitement and enjoyment of always playing detective. Either way, I have a right to say I think that type of mindset is silly, wrong-headed, or whatever I choose.

And of all these cases we can discuss (JFK, Diana,, etc) the one cases that is the most cut and dry and not conspired is the shooting death of John Lennon.

[Joe Karlosi]

Aug 29, 2013 19:31:43 GMT -5 ursamajor said:

One word of advice to you though, just because you don't agree with what I say you shouldn't judge me or anyone else for that matter. Your comment that I have issues crossed the line as far as I'm concerned, I know sometimes things can get heated because we're all so passionate about what we believe in but you don't me personally to make comments like that. I'm all for everyone speaking their mind and feeling free enough to express their views no matter how radical or controversial but nothing justifies getting personal with anyone. I'm not attacking you , I'm just saying that I don't appreciate that comment.

What do you mean, "advice"? When I need advice from you I will ask for it. I stand by what I said regarding the "issues" thing... you're right that I don't know you personally, so I have to arrive at my own guesses as to why you're thinking the way you are on all these celebrity cases. I have asked you if you've ever been a govt target or had troubles with the media, but you won't answer. Okay, that is your right to keep silent on those things -- but you need to understand that when people won't openly discuss and allow others to get to know them somewhat, of course it's only logical that others will begin to arrive at their own conclusions.

Another thing that will be controversial here. I don't agree with that old saying that "we must respect everyone's opinions". That's a load of garbage. I will always respect someone's RIGHT to have an opinion, but depending on what their ideas are, I do not have to respect those opinions themselves. For example, I do not respect any music-lover's opinion when they say they cannot stand The Beatles, or "The Beatles Had No Talent". In that case I think they're fools and don't know good music... I am not going to respect opinions like that. Also, when clueless people say things like: "I think The Beatles were like The Backstreet Boys or Milli Vanilli". I think that is a dopey opinion, in addition to being dead wrong (yes, some opinions can be wrong). I also think these conspiracy notions you have regarding JFK and especially JL are dopey. Okay, so I won't be getting a Christmas Card from you after saying that -- but it's how I truly feel. I respect your right to be free to say it, but that's all.

[John S. Damm]

Aug 30, 2013 6:13:37 GMT -5 Joe Karlosi said:

Another thing that will be controversial here. I don't agree with that old saying that "we must respect everyone's opinions".

That's not controversial. I think as long as we are respectful to each other as fellow posters, we can disagree with each other's opinions. You can think my opinion on Macca and his fans sabotaging or marginalizing John's solo music to thus cast doubt on John's significant contributions as a Beatle is crap and not respect the opinion itself but hopefully you know I sincerely hold it and wouldn't call me a name for stating it.

Maybe the saying is respect the poster if not his/her opinion on a given topic. Surely there is common ground on other topics to prevent judging one as a total "fool" for a belief on a single topic. A guy may tell you he thinks the Beatles are terrible and you have said Joe that you would view him as a fool and not respect that opinion. I agree that the opinion is whack.

But that same guy is a huge Mets fan and you two share stories on your team. Now you are thinking this guy is not a total fool, he is just wrong about the Beatles. You would still be courteous to him even if you disrespect his Beatles opinion. You no longer disrespect the man as a whole and will be courteous to him even if you still mock to his face his Beatles' opinion! You are mocking though the opinion not the man.

In a perfect world we wouldn't even mock others' opinions but politely disagree. We don't live in a perfect world so we must try to just stay civil with each other on a personal level. Ursa feels a line was crossed and I am trying to smooth ruffled feathers.

[Deleted]

This has evolved into a very humorous thread , i can't tell if some of you are serious or you're taking the p*ss

[Joe Karlosi]

Aug 30, 2013 10:37:04 GMT -5 John S. Damm said:

But that same guy is a huge Mets fan and you two share stories on your team. Now you are thinking this guy is not a total fool, he is just wrong about the Beatles.

A guy is also a fool for liking The Mets -- I know that as a Mets Fan I often feel rather foolish following a losing team every season!

You would still be courteous to him even if you disrespect his Beatles opinion. You no longer disrespect the man as a whole and will be courteous to him even if you still mock to his face his Beatles' opinion! You are mocking though the opinion not the man.

Depends on the opinion. For instance, if someone thought it was great that John Lennon was eliminated and that person also thought John's killer was some kind of hero who performed a public service, I would never respect that person as a "person". I wouldn't care what other opinions we shared together on some other favorite topic.

Ursa feels a line was crossed and I am trying to smooth ruffled feathers.

I can certainly understand how he feels, and why. I still would be curious to know what personally possesses him to think the way he does whenever it comes to the subject of any celebrity death, though. That is what I meant by "issues". It's like if you had a doctor who killed your loved one by malpractice or something, you grow to distrust all doctors from then on.

[acebackwords]

Aug 27, 2013 20:13:10 GMT -5 lowbasso said:

Aug 27, 2013 19:36:16 GMT -5 acebackwords said:

Ursa, That Guy That Shant Be Named was a nut who flew from Hawaii for the express purpose of killing Lennon. He bought the gun which was directly traced to the murder. He gave a detailed account of exactly how he did it. Which was verified by all the eye witness accounts and the physical evidence at the crime scene.

I'll probably regret this but could you give me a quick synopsis of what your conspiracy theory is?

Can somebody e-mail me when this thread is finished?
Perhaps it can be moved to another place on the board where only people interested in discussing it further can see it while the rest of us don't have to view it while skimming the other current subjects?
I find it difficult to log onto this site and see it continue to be discussed over and over, like beating a dead horse. I know I can skip over the subject, but I find it very depressing to skim the board subjects and see it's subject title come up over and over again.
It really is getting to be morbid to see it on a Beatles Board that is supposed to celebrate the band. It's a sick topic.
I'm going to take a break from the board for awhile until hopefully it dies out. It just turns my stomach to see it go on endlessly. And I cannot stand seeing the subject title appear over and over again. I have of course stopped reading the threads.

Steve, MikeV or JoeK; my e-mail is [e-mail]
Let me know when it dies out and you don't have to see it anymore when skimming the current subject threads being discussed.

I admit im surprised when Lennon fans find threads like this offensive or in bad taste. Would Lennon himself find this thread offensive? I doubt it. Lennon after all was famous for making outrageous and irreverent comments on often sensitive subjects.