Lennon assassination second gunman?

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby streeb » Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:42 pm

I dunno. Saw Paul the night it happened, and I thought it was a "shocked and stunned" (Spinal Tap) reaction fairly typical of a well-medicated rocker-hipster type. (Who may also have been scared shitless for any mundane--- or wildly speculative-- reason you might name.)


Thumbs up
User avatar
streeb
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: Zona, BC
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby waugs » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:08 pm

vince wrote:
But, the one time I saw this 'lie-indicator' , and took it for fact, was in "The Devil And Daniel Johnston", when Gibby from The Butthole Surfers is asked if had ever given Daniel acid, and he said, "Oh, God, no.", as he does the same face-touch as Paul did!



Hold on there with your "fact". I have it on good authority that the Butts NEVER gave Daniel hallucinogens. They're friends with him and were fully aware of his mental problems.

And as for that Paul clip, if some jackass was sticking a microphone and cameras in my face after one of my best friends was murdered, I'd probably be feeling a weird and be a bit curt with them as well. Not to mention that the guy's a huge stoner and probably wasn't in his right mind after leaving the studio.
User avatar
waugs
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby Simulist » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:15 pm

waugs wrote:And as for that Paul clip, if some jackass was sticking a microphone and cameras in my face after one of my best friends was murdered, I'd probably be feeling a weird and be a bit curt with them as well. Not to mention that the guy's a huge stoner and probably wasn't in his right mind after leaving the studio.

Thanks for that. I agree.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:36 pm

waugs wrote:
And as for that Paul clip, if some jackass was sticking a microphone and cameras in my face after one of my best friends was murdered, I'd probably be feeling a weird and be a bit curt with them as well. Not to mention that the guy's a huge stoner and probably wasn't in his right mind after leaving the studio.


Very good point indeed. And they do seem to be quite the jackasses, those fools with the microphones, don't they? Certainly no regard for another's privacy or space, always desperate for that 'lead angle', the first to a 'story' or fanning the flames of the latest celebrity gossip and/or memes...

vultures and amplifiers they are.

Still, I hold firm with my contention that Pauly has since become a tool for the elite/handlers/Wizards of Oz/Landlords of Reality, etc
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 2481
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:36 pm

Simulist wrote:
waugs wrote:And as for that Paul clip, if some jackass was sticking a microphone and cameras in my face after one of my best friends was murdered, I'd probably be feeling a weird and be a bit curt with them as well. Not to mention that the guy's a huge stoner and probably wasn't in his right mind after leaving the studio.

Thanks for that. I agree.


I can't argue with this sentiment, but I must point out that Paul McCartney has generally bent over backwards to be almost sickeningly cordial while presenting himself in the best possible light. He's always seemed to be HYPER aware cameras and microphones, and has seemingly always tailored his behavior in ways that make him seem to be a super duper good guy.

With that in mind, this reaction is REALLY odd. Unless, of course, he specifically wanted to give the impression that he didn't care about the news he was just given.

And for that, we don't need to go nearly as far as suggesting that he was replaced. Lennon and Harrison had been feuding pretty publicly with McCartney since Paul broke up the Beatles.

So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise
You better see right through that mother's eyes
Those freaks was right when they said you was dead
The one mistake you made was in your head
Ah, how do you sleep?
Ah, how do you sleep at night?

You live with straights who tell you you was king
Jump when your momma tell you anything
The only thing you done was yesterday
And since you're gone you're just another day
Ah, how do you sleep?
Ah, how do you sleep at night?

Ah, how do you sleep?
Ah, how do you sleep at night?

A pretty face may last a year or two
But pretty soon they'll see what you can do
The sound you make is muzak to my ears
You must have learned something in all those years
Ah, how do you sleep?
Ah, how do you sleep at night?

Image

Image
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:58 am

Wait, John Hinkley Sr, the close Bush family friend who's son shot Reagan...was head of World Vision? Man what a small world. The connections between Hinckley and the Bushes were never hidden which is odd. And of course Hinkley is practically a free man now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinck ... Elizabeths
I imagine, if he didnt have such powerful friends he'd either be on death row or in a padded cell.

But Ive noticed there are two, though sometimes overlapping, school of theories when it comes to "lone assassins".

1. They are mind controlled assassins, but do not do the actual killing which is by a second or third gunmen ala Parallax View

2. They are mind controlled, and physically pull the trigger

Then there is the case of Martin Luther King, which may have simply have been a contract hit.
I recommend the amazing documentary "RFK Must Die" for anyone who has any doubt that Sirhan Sirhan was setup

82_28 wrote:Holy crap MinM! Paul seriously didn't give a shit and/or was aware it was going to happen. I am so surprised I have never seen that before. Wow.


Wow. "drag, isnt it? ok, cheers"

I mean, I know British folk are known for being a bit coy with emotions, but this takes the take.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12106
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby whipstitch » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:39 pm

Bruce Dazzling wrote:I can't argue with this sentiment, but I must point out that Paul McCartney has generally bent over backwards to be almost sickeningly cordial while presenting himself in the best possible light. He's always seemed to be HYPER aware cameras and microphones, and has seemingly always tailored his behavior in ways that make him seem to be a super duper good guy.

With that in mind, this reaction is REALLY odd. Unless, of course, he specifically wanted to give the impression that he didn't care about the news he was just given.


I think he's careful enough that this is the only time he was ever videotaped stoned out of his mind in public. Who are any of us to judge someone's immediate emotional reaction to the murder of a close friend? Geeze?!?!
User avatar
whipstitch
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:53 pm

whipstitch wrote:
Bruce Dazzling wrote:I can't argue with this sentiment, but I must point out that Paul McCartney has generally bent over backwards to be almost sickeningly cordial while presenting himself in the best possible light. He's always seemed to be HYPER aware cameras and microphones, and has seemingly always tailored his behavior in ways that make him seem to be a super duper good guy.

With that in mind, this reaction is REALLY odd. Unless, of course, he specifically wanted to give the impression that he didn't care about the news he was just given.


I think he's careful enough that this is the only time he was ever videotaped stoned out of his mind in public. Who are any of us to judge someone's immediate emotional reaction to the murder of a close friend? Geeze?!?!


It wasn't an immediate reaction, whipstitch. He'd heard about the assassination in the morning, and this interview took place that evening, so he had time to plan what he surely knew was going to be the most important public reaction to Lennon's death. Just as people lived vicariously through the Beatles, they also sought the comfort of knowing that their hero's partner was as crushed by his demise as they were.

And I think by any standard, "drag, innit" is a pretty regrettable response.

And like I said earlier, assuming he really was crushed by it, his reaction was very odd coming from someone who'd always been so calculating and image-conscious.

And he IS a celebrity, and as such, his public utterances become fair game.

Is that unfortunate to some extent?

Probably, but you take the good with the bad.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby Cordelia » Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:06 pm

^^
Gee, you’d really think that, in the space between morning and evening, a celebrity, especially, could sort out his emotions and plan his public persona and even have a comforting press statement at hand after hearing the news. But the mind just doesn’t work that way and it does some strange things while adjusting to overwhelming events.

I was shocked too when I watched the video, but now I’m more shocked with myself for being shocked by his behavoir because, not to be maudlin, I’ve experienced hearing such news about someone close and one really does say and do things that seem completely inappropriate or irresponsible, but, given the circumstances, probably aren’t. So, yeah, ‘odd’ reactions are understandable.

Plus, I wonder if he was scared, because how could he know that he wasn’t next?
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Another Patsy is denied Parole

Postby MinM » Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:40 pm

Image
Imagine the doorman on duty, one Jose Perdomo, supposedly screamed "Leave! Get out of here!" Then he asked Chapman, "Do you know what you've done?" "I just shot John Lennon," Chapman said matter-of-factly. Then we're told, Chapman threw down his gun, took off his coat, folded it at his feet, and calmly started reading a paperback, Catcher in the Rye. Perdomo kicked the gun away. One wonders why Perdomo told him to leave, after reminding him of his crime. Perhaps Perdomo was the shooter and planted the gun.

Imagine, minutes later, Perdomo identified Chapman as the killer as the cops arrived. Patrolman Peter Cullen didn't believe it. He thought Chapman looked too straight. But Perdomo insisted and Officer Steven Spiro arrested Mark. The cops could also see that Lennon was dying. Instead of waiting for an ambulance, they lifted him into a patrol car and rushed him to nearby Roosevelt Hospital. But Lennon died in the emergency room.

Imagine Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo. According to Cuban Information Archives and Salvador Austucia, author of Rethinking John Lennon's Assassination, Perdomo was also known as "Joaquin Sanjenis," and "Sam Jenis." He was mostly known as an anti-Castro Cuban exile and a member of Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961, a miserably failed CIA operation, which cost Company Head Allan Dulles his job, and maybe John F. Kennedy his life, also by a mythic lone gunman, who turned out to play patsy, too. In fact, during that evening, while Chapman waited hours for Lennon's return, Perdomo had spoken at length with him about the invasion and Cuban American politics. Strange topics for strangers, one waiting for a rock star.

Imagine Officer Cullen remained troubled with Perdomo's claim that Chapman was the killer. Cullen later told reporter James R. Gains of People Magazine in a Feb. 23, 1987, piece, "The Man Who Shot Lennon" that: "He [Chapman] looked like a guy who worked in a bank, an office. Not a loser or anything, just a guy out there trying to earn a living. I remember taking a look at him and saying, 'Why? What did you do here?' He really had no answer for it. He did say several times, 'I'm sorry I gave you guys so much trouble.'"

Imagine Perdomo had reason to insist Mark was the man. Perdomo, aka Sanjenis, had worked side by side, ah yes, with convicted and now deceased Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis for about a decade on the CIA payroll. Sturgis misleadingly claimed Joaquin Sanjenis died of natural causes in 1974. He claimed it was the Company's way of keeping Sanjenis' anonymity. His family wasn't even notified of his supposed death till after the funeral. In fact, Sanjenis/Perdomo may still be alive, plumbing in some near or far outpost. There's always work for anonymous men who know how to do what needs to be done and vanish. Ole!

Imagine Perdomo was so invisible that he wasn't identified by name for more than six years after Lennon's murder. He was mistakenly referred to first as Jay Hastings, the bearded, burly desk clerk who worked in the lobby, and was on duty the night Lennon was killed. In fact, Lennon ran from the shooter, and collapsed before Hastings and Yoko. This information is mentioned in the book, The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of the Beatles, written by one of the group's management team, Peter Brown -- along with Steven Gains.

Imagine from the book, The Fish is Red: The Story of the Secret War Against Castro, by Warren Hinckle and William Turner, these descriptions of Sanjenis/Perdomo:

"Sanjenis was an opportunistic little man who managed to punch a CIA meal ticket the rest of his life. When he met [Frank] Sturgis he was filling a bucket or rotten eggs, which would become Operation 40 -- the secret police of the Cuban invasion force. The ultrasecret Operation 40 included some nonpolitical, conservative exile businessmen, but its hard core was made up of dice players at the foot of the cross -- informers, assassins-for-hire, and mob henchmen whose sworn goal was to make the counterrevolution safe for the comfortable ways of the old Cuba. They were the elite troops of the old guard within the exile movement, who made effective alliance with CIA right-wingers against CIA liberals . . .

"Sanjenis got Sturgis a CIA maildrop and gave him the right phone numbers, and Sturgis agreed to coordinate his own operations with Sanjenis and work on a contract basis on special agency assignments . . .

"Sanjenis had launched scores of ships and planes on clandestine raids against Cuba and had sent hundreds of men on missions from which there had been no return. . . . There were no official missing-in-action reports in the Secret War against Cuba. It was Joaquin Sanjenis' job to keep his troops, as himself, faceless." And so he was, and lived up to his character references.


The Entry Wounds on the Left Side of Lennon's Body


Imagine the theory we've been told: that Lennon had walked past Chapman, who was to the right and then rear of him in the dark entryway. If Chapman had called out, "Mr. Lennon," and John stopped and turned, it was possible though difficult for him to hit Lennon in the left shoulder, and then as Lennon turned to flee, to hit him in the upper left back. Yet Chapman told Judge Dennis Edwards at a sentencing hearing that he didn't say anything to Lennon, just that he fired.

Imagine a second theory: Perdomo or another operative fired from the doorway leading to the service elevator, which was at the left of the walkway and in front of Lennon. There are two series of two shots. First, two shots hit the left shoulder. As Lennon runs towards the lobby stairway, two other shots hit his upper left back. Shooting from that doorway seems a more plausible way to make those hits. Since the autopsy was not made public, we don't know if three of the five shots exited, grazed or missed Lennon to hit the glass lobby door.

Imagine crime scene witnesses varied in their accounts of whether or not Chapman called to Lennon. No convincing evidence was presented that Chapman had caused Lennon to turn. Also, this wasn't a trial since Chapman had already confessed. It was simply a sentencing hearing. There was no official testimony or any witnesses. The case was declared closed on the night of the murder, and the police report is lacking in any substantive detail. Yet what it does say is that Chapman was carrying $2,201.76 in cash when arrested and declared himself unemployed. You wonder why eyes didn't open at that, and a complete inquiry wasn't made into the death of a figure like John Lennon. Could it possibly be a cover-up? Had assassinations liked this ever happened before?

Imagine author Salvador Astucia's somewhat offbeat scenario: "As Lennon passes Chapman, a member of the FBI's assassination squad somehow transmits an audible message to Chapman . . . which places him in a semi-hypnotic trance . . ." Perhaps Jose Perdomo simply whispered in his ear something that had been programmed into Chapman's psyche earlier: "Kill Lennon." Chapman had claimed he heard a voice, although Astucia believes he is clearly not psychotic. I don't agree, and will address that point in a moment. The message, however delivered, does trigger Mark's mind to think he is about to kill Lennon. And so for me, we have a classic patsy on autopilot.

Who Was Chapman and How Did He Get to Be a Patsy?

Read more: On the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's assassination, imagine...

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Image
John Lennon killer Mark David Chapman denied parole for sixth time
Image
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby The Consul » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:31 pm

Paul is Paul and John is dead, shot down perhaps by a man as deflty handled as a ray-gun drug store truck drivin' man.
" Morals is the butter for those who have no bread."
— B. Traven
User avatar
The Consul
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Ompholos, Disambiguation
Blog: View Blog (13)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby SonicG » Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:38 pm

Could not the timing of Lennon's death been to draw attention away from the suicide of rising punk-rock superstar Darby Crash!? I always wondered about that...Nah, actually, I wanted to post the lyrics to the Meatmen's "One down three to go" but they would definitely offend some sensibilities here...
Oh, and whither the Stephen King did it conspirology??
"a poiminint tidal wave in a notion of dynamite"
User avatar
SonicG
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby whipstitch » Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:28 am

Image
User avatar
whipstitch
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby The Consul » Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:03 pm

SonicG wrote:Could not the timing of Lennon's death been to draw attention away from the suicide of rising punk-rock superstar Darby Crash!? I always wondered about that...Nah, actually, I wanted to post the lyrics to the Meatmen's "One down three to go" but they would definitely offend some sensibilities here...
Oh, and whither the Stephen King did it conspirology??


apparently the song has been updated

" Morals is the butter for those who have no bread."
— B. Traven
User avatar
The Consul
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Ompholos, Disambiguation
Blog: View Blog (13)

Re: Lennon assassination second gunman?

Postby compared2what? » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:20 pm

streeb wrote:
I dunno. Saw Paul the night it happened, and I thought it was a "shocked and stunned" (Spinal Tap) reaction fairly typical of a well-medicated rocker-hipster type. (Who may also have been scared shitless for any mundane--- or wildly speculative-- reason you might name.)



Thumbs up


I was just going to post to the same effect. I also saw it when it happened, and it looked to me the same way it does now: He's furious that on top of everything else, he can't set foot out the door without tripping over rubber-necking voyeurs and emotionally predatory reporters with cameras who feel entitled to a piece of his grief and his shock. And maybe also his fear for his own safety. Or some form of guilt or remorse for his role in past conflicts untold. Or some form of anger and resentment toward John Lennon for dying before those conflicts were resolved. Or all of the forgoing. He also looks non-specifically high, although that could just be heart-pounding agitation.

But basically, I thought then and still do think that he was in an emotional state that put him beyond giving enough of a fuck about his image to bother concealing his contempt and anger over the limitless nerve of a world that doesn't even have the decency to offer its condolences before asking him what he was working on that day and when he heard about the death of someone with whom he'd had such a unique, strong and intimate bond that in one way or another it had been a major defining feature of his identity for the whole of his adult life.

He's not a very likable or admirable figure in some ways, but I find it difficult not to feel some sympathy and also some pity for him in this context. He never got over that break-up and still hasn't to this day, really. And to add insult to injury, if anything, it's an understatement to say that wasn't at all a two-way street, John Lennon had already moved on in most ways long before their (figuratively speaking) separation and divorce.

I don't know. He lost whatever good will I had left for him when he licensed that footage to the post-September-11th-2001 Superbowl. But it must be tough to be locked in an eternal competition with someone you'll never be able to beat because he's dead and is therefore even less affected by your efforts to turn the tables on him than the not-at-all that he was when he was still alive.

Know what I mean?
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests