|
Post by beatlies on Nov 4, 2005 0:32:05 GMT -5
Lennon Assassination: New Disinformation Movie Mind Rape, Coming to Your Screen Soon "you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." ---George Walker Bush Headline on the front page of http://www.yahoo.com: Film to explore the mind of John Lennon's killer By Steve Gorman Thu Nov 3, 7:26 PM ET LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Twenty-five years after the murder of former Beatle John Lennon, a Canadian-based film company is set to explore the mind of his killer in a movie starring Lindsay Lohan and Jared Leto, backers of the project said on Thursday. Leto, who played a heroin addict in "Requiem for a Dream" and a cocaine-snorting arms dealer in [anti-Russian, CIA/Pentagon-whitewashing propaganda movie] "Lord of War," has signed on to portray Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, in the upcoming independent film "Chapter 27." Lohan, the teenage "Mean Girls" star last seen in "Herbie: Fully Loaded," [Don Knotts alert!] will play a fictional [!! So much for any semblance of truth in the movie] Lennon fan who befriends Chapman during the weekend he kills the musician outside his Manhattan apartment building. Leto, 33, and Lohan, 19, are rumored to be dating, but her publicist told Reuters only that the two have spent time in recent months "doing research for the movie together." The parts of Lennon and wife Yoko Ono have not been cast. Peace Arch Entertainment President John Flock, whose Toronto-based [Ontario Provincial Police?] company is financing the picture, said the character of Lennon himself would get relatively little screen time as the movie focuses on Chapman in the days leading up to the murder. The role Lohan will play was created as a plot device to help filmmakers deconstruct Chapman and his motivation for killing the rock celebrity, Flock said. "It's a psychological study of (Chapman)," Flock told Reuters. "I wouldn't call it a sympathetic portrayal of him, but you do kind of get into Chapman's head." Likewise, Flock suggested the murder itself would be depicted in a relatively circumspect manner. "It's the most significant event in the movie, but we're not planning on giving it much if any screen time." Chapman, currently serving a prison sentence of 20 years to life, shot Lennon to death outside the Dakota apartment building on December 8, 1980, hours after getting the former Beatle to autograph a copy of his newly released comeback album "Double Fantasy." Flock said the title of the film, "Chapter 27," is a reference to the 26 chapters in the J.D. Salinger coming-of-age novel "The Catcher in the Rye," which Chapman cited as his inspiration for the murder [according to a PBS documentary so did Chapman's doppleganger, his fellow CIA agent John Hinckley, a millionaire Bush family friend, when Hinckley supposedly shot Ronald Reagan several months later. Their motive scripts overlapped with Hinckley's extended to include Jodie Foster]. Chapman has said he identified with the book's hero, who hated phonies, and gunned Lennon down because he thought him a hypocrite. Production on the film, the brainchild of first-time writer and director Jarrett Schaeffer, is set to begin January 16 in New York, with producers aiming for a commercial release late next year [Dec. 8?], Flock said. JARED LETO LINDSAY LOHAN
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 5, 2005 4:55:57 GMT -5
All that so freaks me out-----as I have told before, I went to high school with him. I didn't know him really, he was a neighbor and we had mutual friends, and after 1973 he was graduated, but thinking that all that money and time and effort spent on someone who............went down and down mentally, and then for whatever reason people who lose their grip on reality do so, committed a senseless, tragic, grievingly stupid murder.
Makes you wish fate had stepped in and somehow kept Chapman from having any opprotunity whatsoever to get near the poor man. Sheesh, two hours of watching a dramatization of an old classmate lose his marbles and commit cold-blooded crazy on a (generally) well-loved pop icon. Does not appeal to me.
Bleah. While I'm slightly curious as to how they'll "work up this story" and present it, honestly, at the moment, I don't have the remotest inclination to ever watch that film. There isn't enough buttery popcorn in the world to make it watchable for me.
Actually, since it sounds so fictionalized at the core of it anyway, I'd as soon they just change the whole damn ending, and instead of the truth as we remember it, let Lennon live. In the movie. let's have Chapman interrupted or intercepted in route to the Dakota--or , better still, I'd prefer to see Yoko come from nowhere and kick the gun out of his hands and clobber the living sh*t out of MDC. That would be a total fallacy (and absurdist) but watching the truth will be grueling. I don't want to sit thru and relive that night of the news stories.
Sorry. Y'all enjoy it if you feel you would like to see it.
I just want to hear Mark publicly say: "It was wrong. God didn't have me do any such thing. I was crazy. I did the most horrible thing; I know I can't fix it. I bitterly regret doing it. I know I'm in here for the duration."
Sorry about the rant. I just wish he had gotten drunk or fallen asleep that ight and slept away the night and then just gotten up the next day and gotten out of NYC; then gone and gotten loads of professional mental assistance.
Killing Lennon made him the phony. He deprived John, Yoko, Julian, Sean, and many others, years of growing up and learning about life. He took away that which he could never restore. He robbed (that night) from the present and the future. He took that which wasn't his. And thru his own life away. What bad, insane choices to make. Just unbelievable. I want to reach back 25 years and just scream at him thru the air :"Get a grip! Wake up, you are out of your mind! Your notion is a really, really bad idea! Plus, it's vicious, illegal, and serves no good purpose whatsoever."
OK rant over. Time for bed. I guess I need to do some forgiving myself. None of us can help what happenned. Only, (as far as what I believe) God can do anything in eternity to fix the harm done-----a mystery.
I leave it at that sentence; for those of you who are more agnostic, atheistic, or differently believing, I understand your outlook and admit also that I know that I don't have a direct line to the will of the cosmos. I merely choose, in faith, to believe that somehow God has options of restoration and healing beyond our present knowledge of this lifetime.
Still, we should all live this present life to the fullest, while respecting the life of all men and women.
I am telling myself to hush now before the trumpets and violins start playing.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 5, 2005 16:21:28 GMT -5
OK so I went to work earlier and did a short show for a banquet, and while I was there playing I had an epiphany. I realized that I hadn't thought his whole movie thing thru all the way, and that I missed something important.
First of all, I am not the only one with these dangling, left over emotions of frustration and dissapointment at Chapman. I mean, it hurt us all from our high school, the anger, the embrassement. And it hurt many people all over the world. And those are emotions that went buried for a long time, but talking about it here made me face them and think about the thing Chapman did.
A lot of people want to work it out in their heads, the emotions, you know, wrestle with it, thnk about it. Adversity changes you. Bad news changes you. How you handle and work things like this out change a person. Lennon was loved and his murder hurt us all.
So, these people making the movie are people like us who've been affected too. This is an opportunity to do something with and about those emotions. I presume that the creative people, actors, et al, wil make this a labor of love, since it was about John, who sought love and struggled to discover it. This could really be an opportunity to make something that ties John's life and death back into the idea of love, and all you need is love.
Jessica Blankenship was one of Mark's girlfriends, and one who tried to keep Mark "right with the Lord" and taking care of himself and being positive and responsible.
I specifically remember a time when I was a junior at CHS that she counseled me in the Lord and in His love and how I could find real love in seeing Him, seeking God whole heartedly. She was a wonderful, sincere unselfish person. From what I gather from the press and three people I know, as long as Mark stayed in the company of loving people, and support, he was apparently OK. When he sought isolation, like when he went to Hawaii and ran away from life, he got away from his normal conduit to love. He went away from the love. Away from the love, and into the dark place that became the mental environment that made his violent act possible.
Maybe the producers will research that a little bit; the info is there in the "Look" or was it "Life" article (which I forget), Jessica is mentioned and interviewed. We all knew what a lovely lovely person she was (is). No, I am not in contact with her nor do I plan to contact her. I am not opening up old wounds, or getting into a place with her that we never had; she and I never talked about Mark, only Christianity.
But I know how loving and kind she was, and also how good the Columbia kids in general were. It was a good school. Mark needed to always ground himself in loving people and sustain it, sustain the love, to counteract whatever sickness came from deep inside. I do think professional help was definitely needed.
But, the movie makers are going to add in this Lennon fan, as a dramatic foil, to provide a way to give the audience exposition on Mark's inner turmoil. This is a common form of dramatic license, totally legit and commonplace, and may prove to be an effective way to get at the truth of how messed up his head was. "Made-up" charactors like this aren't devised to decieve the story (shouldn't be anyway), only provide a cogent method of presenting Mark's mental state to the viewer. The other choices might be voice-overs, having Mark log a diary for us, or having other charactors exposit about him. Since the main subject of this film is Mark's mind, and you can't read minds, you find artifices to make his "mind" accessable to the viewer. Of course, none of use really knows what was in his mind; so much conjecture from evidence is neccesarily involved.
But, I don't want 270 million Americans to have only half of the picture. Mark knew good people, he knew how to be good, he had a lifetime (albeit with some problems) of normal thinking and acting before he got so crossed up.
There were 2500 people at Columbia High School in 1973, and 2499 who did not succomb to such personal demons. Mark had friends, good sane friends who are still leading sane lives------it was not like a modern day Columbine or such with those kinds of kids. I fear they might look for a dark back story to explain his descent into craziness-----but the kind of background he really had was not so unusual or by any means dark. The poor relationship he had with his father was not unlike several people that I knew at CHS, all of whom are successful, positive, law-abiding citizens.
From what I have read and heard, Mark chose self-pity and isolation rather than earnest love and support from people who would have been glad to help him. So, IF they make it a story about poor mistreated Mark with bad parents in a bad school etc etc----I, and most of the student body, or at least the classes of '73 and '74 at CHS, will know better. Hopefully that won't be the case.
At any rate, I have decided that I am going to go see the movie--with an open mind, grateful that a deeply committed director is going to do his best to spotlight one of America's most infamous tragedies, and exposit the personal stories of some of those that were a part of that.
I repeat, I did NOT know him well, only casually around school and the neighborhood. I do still know three of what WERE his friends then pretty well, and I they've made it clear enough to me that Mark had similar advantages and victories as any of the rest of us.
It's not what happens ot us in life that makes us, it's how we decide to react to it. And THAT is part of the story that I hope they tell, and not paint some macabre fiction similar to "Sybyl" or other melodramatic fare; because that simply won't be the truth.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 6, 2005 23:24:14 GMT -5
Interesting stuff, PeprBob.
Your nigh-friend MDC was eventually brainwashed by sophisticated psychologists trained under Mengele.
I'd like to know more about Columbia HS, incidentally -- what kind of charter was it operating under?
Anyway, if it's any consolation, he likely as not was shooting blanks, the true assassin being the doorman, a CIA Cuban operating under orders of Sir Poppy Bush KBE, (himself in Her Majesty's secret service.)
Jose has a new gig heading up HUMINT in Langley.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 7, 2005 4:13:34 GMT -5
Interesting stuff, PeprBob. Your nigh-friend MDC was eventually brainwashed by sophisticated psychologists trained under Mengele. I'd like to know more about Columbia HS, incidentally -- what kind of charter was it operating under? Anyway, if it's any consolation, he likely as not was shooting blanks, the true assassin being the doorman, a CIA Cuban operating under orders of Sir Poppy Bush KBE, (himself in Her Majesty's secret service.) Jose has a new gig heading up HUMINT in Langley. I think Mark went crazy on his own. Nobody did that to him. He needed help. Mind control people would have to have broken him down first, then created all these layers. and then programmed elaborate trigger mechanisms, created alters, scenarios, etc, at least, according to the many blogs about mind control all over the net. Could they have? Maybe, if the subject consciously assents to it. No one can make another person do anything contrary to that which they deep down inside do not want to do. I suspect Mark is a severe schizophrenic who desperately needs medication to curtail his voices and delusions. I think it was his delusions that drove him to violentally to act against Lennon. But, this kind of outlook is typically found on the net: www.raven1.net/disinfo.htmWhile I don't doubt the existence of mind control implementation in the black ops world, I see it often used as the explanation for every kind of mysterious goings-on, like it's rampant and un-checked. Why hasn't someone rich, famous, and powerful blabbed about it by mistake or from "coming clean"? Al over the net there are conspiracy theories about everything under the sun. If it is that widespread and out of control, why isn't the news leaking out all over like a New Orleans levee? Are there millions of people keeping there mouth shut? Because if you add up all the effects as claimed by the net, tens of millions of people are being affected every day. How long can a million people keep a million secrets? Five years ago I knew few people who knew the general "drift" of the conspiracy talk on the net and on short wave radio. Now, most everyone I know at least knows generally about it, maybe not every little wrinkle. How long can you hide an elephant in your living room? Katrina nearly did the job. Everyone I knew, at the height of the horror of the abandoned people in the 9th ward, remarked to me that they wondered if maybe something diabolical was going on. Total, if you are right, and Mark was some kind of programmed killer, than I have to think, sadly, he must have WANTED to be. He must have willingly and consciously submitted to whatever mental preparations might go with such a thing. You can't hypnotize someone and expect them to act on the suggestions unless they want to consciously comply with you. Hypnosis works only on the willing. The adult subconscious mind vigorously resists ideas and suggestions that it does not believe in or approve of. So, if you're right, he must have been already willing to murder and I have erred in my estimation of his core charactor. I'm looking at web sites and photos about this and it's sickening--so I leave this topic for now. It's so d*mn sad. As far as our school charter, what are you pointing out about it? I'll try to find out what it was back then, it may be the same now.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 15, 2005 12:15:49 GMT -5
The willing and the weak, yes. But as I said, he was NOT THE KILLER. It's a different kind of mind control than the type that begins in early childhood.
The hardware to plant "delusions" and "voices" in people's heads was around for decades before Lennon was killed.
I'm not pointing out anything about your school's charter, I'm asking. Was it outside your typical school board with the typical state curriculum. (For instance, Columbine had the country's first "death education" classes.)
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 15, 2005 18:43:15 GMT -5
No, I mean, Columbia was a typical Dekalb county high school. One out of a few dozen, with average 2500 enrollment per year. Mark was just part of the mix, belonged to clubs and things like everybody else, lived two doors down from my best friend, played ball with us out in the front year, liable to all the same pressures and influences that everybody else was, all 2499 other people. His parents weren't remarkable, other than I think not getting along (but my folks had them outdistanced in that regard.)
I mean, I saw the gamut of sucess and failure, emotion, talent (we produced some wellknown football and basketball guys, some business leaders, etc) why do none of us have any inclination to do such a crazy thing? What he did doesn't even make sense. I seriously doubt if he had any special types, any Tavistock ot CIA or FBI or Dr. Green's anywhere in his life at that time. Or else we all did. And I don't believe that for a minute.
Whatever hapenned to Mark, started either in his own head, alone, by himself, or from others AFTER 1973. Too many people knew him and knew his comings and goings. I don't want to "ask around",. I think it's thought of as a big reproach at "class reunions" to do so, but, really, ---it wasn't like that. Not during school. There weren't any funky--mind twisting--programming classes at Columbia.
I would actually believe that Northwoods HS and other in North Fulton, from about 1980 onward-----I think it's more possible. My nephews---the things they told me and my sister about their classes------some things were creepo. The sex ed, the humanistics, the "life conditioning" etc.....My sis was over there a lot with many parents fighting over a lot of issues.
There was one big stink over the elimination of "Easter" and all religious ideas whatsoever, and that pareants could not tell their kids anything contrary to the schools curricula on sex. Big mess.
But it was very traditional when I went.
I will say that we were, at the time, thought a "better school" with a higher than usual per capita income (although that changed downward after 1974), and the enthusiasm and participation of students in wholesome sports and music and club activities was very high; drug use and crime rate low.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 19, 2005 5:40:57 GMT -5
Read this: www.lennonmurdertruth.com/introduction.aspAbsolutely, totally, completely wrong. Too many people knew Mark saw the picture of he with Lennon. There were plenty of phone calls that night between many ex Columbia students. We were sick about what happenned, that Mark had done it. We all believed he had done it, we saw the photograph. To say that the man with Lennon in the photo looks like Stephen King is out and out absurd fantasy. To claim that it IS King is either intentional hoaxing, or foolish ramblings of a man who is a little off his rocker. None of us from CHS could ever be sold such a bill of goods. We are eye witnesses as far as to knowing Mark's appearance. It WAS Mark in the photo. Sorry. There were probably over two hundred people who could have said with complete confidence, under oath, that that photo was of Mar David Chapman with John Lennon. Period. Done deal. Over and out. His look changed by 1980, Mark had gotten rather fat, but Jessica Blankenship and others knew him through that time and witnessed his change of appearance. Lightfoot's web allegations are preposterous. Why does he aver these things? I know in my heart, personally, for myself, he is wrong. I may share this, actually, with as many Columbia alumni as I possibly can. Yes, as a matter of fact, I am.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 19, 2005 17:29:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 19, 2005 19:56:17 GMT -5
Lightfoot's Steven King thing is transparent disinformation.
I would encourage you to share something serious, such as Mack White's "Dead Silence in the Brain" with your friends instead. Hopefully they'll take a look at it if you haven't poisoned the well with Lightfoot already.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 20, 2005 5:54:41 GMT -5
Lightfoot's Steven King thing is transparent disinformation. I would encourage you to share something serious, such as Mack White's "Dead Silence in the Brain" with your friends instead. Hopefully they'll take a look at it if you haven't poisoned the well with Lightfoot already. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 20, 2005 23:02:53 GMT -5
I seriously doubt if he had any special types, any Tavistock ot CIA or FBI or Dr. Green's anywhere in his life at that time. Or else we all did. And I don't believe that for a minute.
Most researchers point to the time he spent with Worldvision as when it started, which was certainly after high school.
drug use and crime rate low.
The NBC News program that aired Friday night certainly implied that he he used both LSD and heroin during high school. It is possible they took stylistic liberties with explicating the storyline however.
Anyway, and thanks for being so frank with us, I have another question.
You once remarked that your grade school played the top Bealtes hits over the intercom at the height of Beatlemania in 1964. Was MDC attending *that* school with you?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 21, 2005 3:13:34 GMT -5
I seriously doubt if he had any special types, any Tavistock ot CIA or FBI or Dr. Green's anywhere in his life at that time. Or else we all did. And I don't believe that for a minute.Most researchers point to the time he spent with Worldvision as when it started, which was certainly after high school. drug use and crime rate low. The NBC News program that aired Friday night certainly implied that he he used both LSD and heroin during high school. It is possible they took stylistic liberties with explicating the storyline however. Anyway, and thanks for being so frank with us, I have another question. You once remarked that your grade school played the top Bealtes hits over the intercom at the height of Beatlemania in 1964. Was MDC attending *that* school with you? Yes, so history says that in March of 1964 "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" followed quickly by "She Loves You" were number ones. With reflection, I remember the school, the lunchroom/auditorium with the wierd high windows and the library that overlooked it, our trays, that fact that the one day both of those songs were played during lunch--- They were everybody's favorite for about a month! And I remember how easy it was to sing along with them, we all did this one day, with great enthusuasm-----I think we got shushed by an adult. You remember grade school. I don't know why I remember that one day, I just do. Mark didn't attend there, if he did I didn't know it. I never knew of him till high school, really till about my third year of high school, only because of a mutual friend. I guess there were some "druggies" at Columbia, I knew about a couple. My particular "clique" was the band folks, we were into instruments and scores and band camp (oh, yes) and band festival----nerds I guess we were. But, we liked it that way, and none of us did the "experimenting" till later, much later.......... Heroin though, now that idea shocks me. Pot, yes, Pot was around, I never encountered it till college. Liquor was around. I started to drink beer as an underage senior.....(16) Cocaine and heroin I think would have been major rare then. LSD.........yes. Look, I was pretty watched over until I was 18, so the beer thing alone was a huge shocking deal to my parents at the time. I wasn't really hip to OR interested in anything about drugs. I didn't even want to know or experiment with them--I viewed it as a waste of time. I only cared about the piano, the orchestra, the concert band, the chorus, etc...... So, maybe that is true about Mark. I just didn't know...........
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 21, 2005 3:34:09 GMT -5
So, I googled around some more and found: www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/chapman/3.htmlAll that talk about how mean Mark's dad was, and the incidents. Well, I had exactly the same kinds of things. Try having your father chase your mom with a gun like I did. Or wake up to see him toss her into a plate galss window like I did. Or your dad beat you with a rake in the yard when you missed a few leaves--in plain view of your neighbors and passers by. Or back hand you across the face with a heavy mason ring on. Or, when you were sick in the first grade, and you threw up on yourself after breakfast , and you were still made to go to school with the stink of vomit on your clothes all day long . Yes sir. I did. The kids were SOOO nice about that.....not. I forgive him. Yes I really do. He is dead, but I'll see him again. But I never wanted to hurt anybody. I never fantasized about little people or being their king or blowing up things. Never. Never crossed my mind. I am not saying that I am superior in any way. I just don't understand Mark's reaction. They called me names and stuck pins in me in seventh grade! They called me a female name for 6 months! They taunted me with questions about sex, and the mentioning of body parts and acts I knew nothing about whenever the teacher left the room that year. 1969. It was horrible. The kids beat the living crap out of me one day after school. They laughed at me, tore up my homework, kicked me, even conducted a mock trial in my honor. HA! Still, I wish NO ONE any ill will, none of them. I would like to have some of those people come to understand how painful some of the things they did was, but I don't wish them any pain. Why is that an excuse for Mark? I am sorry. Why does psychoanalysis make those choices understandable? Oh well, I am sorry. I do not mean to boast of a kinder temperament; I just don't understand why he was so attracted to violent thoughts. Sorry. I will try to have more understanding to that.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 21, 2005 4:40:16 GMT -5
I think her full name was Sarah Jessica Blankenship. I think she went by Sarah until after she graduated. I seem to remember someone saying that. There is no Jessica Blankenship appearing in any consecutive Columbia High School annual from 1970 - 1974. She is called Sarah in every case: Mark Chapman is also in the above picture, thanks to the alphabet!Actually, I see now that I confused Blankenship with Debbie Blanton. Debbie is the girl that I thought of when I saw Jessica's name. Time and memory, oops! And, just happens to be next to her, another accident of the alphabet. Is it a plot? No. My memory screwed up. I never knew Sarah Jessica Blankenship personally, I thought I did but did not........I knew Blanton......anyway, I digress........ Also, in that article, a Michael McFarland is mentioned as being the one who gave Mark the book "Catcher in the Rye." Well, there was never a Michael, his name was Mark. He was president of the National Honor Society at our school in his senior year. He is in the bottom most picture, astride the high horse, with long hair. He must have bee very bright. NHS only accepted the top 5% of students in high schools at that time, and at CHS we were on a 4.0 max system. So, you had to have a 3.8 I think to get in. Back to "Catcher in the Rye", the official CIA mental-mayhem book. It was a known and read book at Columbia. OMG, we were the Catcher in the Rye School! ARGH!!!!! Panic! Horrors! There was a certain Mrs. Dodd was one of our English teachers, among several others. She taught 8th, 9th, 10th grades English Literature. I wound up in her Eng. Lit classes twice, in 9th and 10th grades. She made all her classes read: "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter", "A Separate Peace", "Of Mice and Men", "To Kill a Mockingbird", "The Grapes of Wrath", some assorted Shakespeare, and, yes, "Catcher in the Rye" was on the list. And I have forgotten everything about that book.
Many of Mrs. Dodd's students probably read it. I didn't like it or identify with it.
I might suppose Mark McFarland had been in one of Mrs. Dodd's English classes. I can say confidentaly that her repetoire of required reading was predictable. I remember making jokes in later grades to other students who got her class, "Is she making you read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, with the sex scene in the last part?" Anyway, from the article I listed in my last post, it appears that Mark McFarland recommended the book to Chapman for self-help. (!) It would also appear that Mark C. identified with it. It looks to me as if he had a big psychological wound that he tried to nurse away with fantasy, first his little people, then later his Holden Caulfield story. I guess he felt like a loser from an early age and just could not shake it.
I just really don't believe that there were any government programmer's around Columbia........if there were, then that means that they got to Mrs. Dodd in the early 1970's, who was then programmed to give it to Mark McFarland the brainiac, who was then programmed to give it to poor maladjusted Mark in 1972 so that he would go crazy in 1980.
Naw.
I read that book. I think it was common highschool reading fare then. Didn't every eighth grader have to read "Charlotte's Web"? Anyway, from all these books, I didn't go crazy.
After all, I am the one who saw the David Frost broadcast that time in 68 on TV and thought---that's not the same guy.....and I had a very volatile family relationship with violence. I didn't have any crazed, violent impulses toward a Beatle, or any persons because I was a loser and my parents fought. Four or five years later I too would read Catcher in the Rye, and Of Mice and Men, and I didn't flash back to the Beatles and think I gotta get 'em! They're phonies with too much money and Paul might even be a new guy! I just didn't have thoughts like that ever. I don't know anyone who had "let's get 'em" thoughts. I mean, if I had even thought SirPaul really was a replacement at that moment, I never thought he was a phony. Just, like, I would have decided that something happened and they took care of it. And Lennon never offended me. Admittedly, Lennon's political moves were far above my socially slow head........but I thought he was way cool.
I, too, had periods of brooding and self-doubts, self pity, sadness. I was a year younger than the other kids, I was book smart(127IQ) but socially stupid; I was "off and on chubby", and, yes, probably somewhat effeminate. I was a complete dud at sports. But, you know, in general, I got along in high school with FAR fewer incidents than elementary school esp 7th grade.
Because I turned to music, making and studying music. And, I always thought, and still always think, that God is my friend, and will help me through. That is the basis of my religion. The rest of the dogma and details, I believe that God will explain them to me either thru-outthis life, or in the life to come. And yes, I do believe that, with all my heart, I will live again, as most everyone will, in staggered companies in overlapping eras of time.
I also had a quasi religious moment at a Billy Graham crusade, though I had always believed in Christ from a very tender age.....perhaps 5 or 6.
Reading "Of Mice and Men" did not make anyone commit mass murder to an innocent family. Reading "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" did not make anyone fornicate-----that wasn't already doing it.
Reading "The Grapes of Wrath" and "Mockingbird" didnot cause racial unrest in school or get people hyped up the Depression issues.
I always had hope, made hope, sought hope, or recieved hope. God is a good supplier of hope. I am thinking now that Mark could not latch on to hope or accept it gladly. Or if he did, he couldn't hold on to hope at the time of his crime. What he did was like the act of throwing your soul away.
If what you say is right, Total Info., that there is some kind of programmer person in a covert agency that did use him to either perpetrate, or simply just show up and take the blame for the deed, then I think they must have encountered Mark somehow and they met him, talked to him, and realized-----hey this poor guy is messed up enough to do so-and-so for us. Crazy enough to do the deed, or pathetic enough to stand there and soak up the blame. That's ugly stuff, TI. In other words, he would have been walking into something dirty n the making, and he was already pretty crazy from a lifetime of mental self-mutilation.
How would they have picked him out of the crowd? Did he just go to them?
I don't think they baked this bisquit from scratch, is what I am saying. Mark wasn't somekind of a Montauk Boy programmed from early on to shoot on coommand. No. This bisquit came pre-cooked and ready to serve..............sadly.The things he is credited a saying don't even make sense, they present a disorganized mental state. His mind somewhere grew incompetent to understand reasonable things. That is the way his statement to the judge etc sound. His mind is a muddle.
Frankly, if his mind had been a muddle in 1972, Mark McFarland would not have wasted anytime associating with him.
Or, my mutual friends, who I will call "Reggie". "Reggie" was a fantastic debater, chess player, German student, high IQ, trumpeter, and he liked the company of people he could debate issues with, really tussle with and challenge. We debated religion and politics and philosophy all hours of the night in Denny's at one time. I know him well. He could not bear to be with somebody whose mind was teetering. And "Reggie" and Mark were very close friends just before he and I became nearly best friends......Mark receded to weirdness at one point. I do not choose to reveal Reg's ID here out of respect for his privacy.
Interesting: His sister once told me-----"You replaced Mark in "Reggie's" life."
Which I never thought much of it till all this. I am happy to have been his replacement, though glad I wasn't his duplicate............
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 21, 2005 9:20:16 GMT -5
Well, I just reread all that at: www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/chapman/1.htmland see that I had certain ideas wrong. His confessons to the judge actually make sense, he plead guilty and he was. I suppose I was confused. I half remembered reading his wanting the trial to cause the public to buy the book "Catcher in the Rye", and for what? That was strange. I had really not read before about the part about where he claims he expelled some entities, or demons, from his mind. Perhaps there is something to that. Hard to say....... Total, there may be "Manchurian Candidate" operations. They may exist. Are you possible thinking that if some other real conspirators were brought to light, then Mark would be proclaimed innocent and set free? And I have seen the assertion somewhere else on the net that his disorganized behavior in the time leading up to the deed is typical supposedly of what such Candidates exibit. IS this your thought as well? Well, a person with a history of so much depression, and what seems to be OCD and some borderline schizophrenia, under the influence of psychoactive drugs, and I guess "hypnotized" or otherwise mentally conditioned, might perform in similar ways. Considering how eeratic his impulses were, shifting at any moment, new ideas and obsessions flowering at a whim, why would "the plotters" decide to use someone who might deviate from plan at any moment and do something unpredictable? Mark's obsession and self-projection into Holdon Caulfield was a unique wrinkle that he invented. Or perhaps, fell deluded into. I saw a web site once that said that the intelligence agencies were using that book on a large scale to trigger their subjects into doing their bidding. Trying to seed the world with an army of "catchers" i.e. assassins. Sorry, I can't buy that. If you have a person locked up, captive, in an installation, and subject to injection of psycho-active drugs, and given Machiavellian mind conditioning for hours on end for a period of time, AND THEY ARE WILLING, I guess anything is possible. Mark was drifting between GA, ARK, CA, HA, NY, and indulging in compulsive, unorganized behavior. Do you think that peope in vans followed him around and aimed mind stun beams at him in his alone hours? Set up a surveillance outside the various YMCA's and sent microwave messages at ultra-low frequencies to entrain his mind? With buried subliminals such as: "Lennon is a greedy son-of-a-so-and-so. Do him in! By a firearm! Haunt the Dakota!" Total, friend, I believe that it was all stuff that evolved in his tortured mind. I admire your consistent desire to alert innocent, everyday people to possible subversions and hidden evils. Hey, we can jaw about some other big debacles (Katrina, Waco, JFK, Marilyn Monroe, the some of banking things) and probably find plenty of common ground. They may have near robotic performance of mind control stuff today, or may be closer to it. As for David Moore of the YMCA program in Arkansas, to me, it seems too far fetched to think he was a programmer. Five years out? The thing that triggered Mark's "Lennon is a rich phony" obsession was a book he read relatively close to the time of the shooting. It seems too much to make this a five year or longer plan; it begs money, resources, and such intricate, incomprehensible steps to lead to the result. If you want to say that somebody hired a skilled assassin to do the job, and that a couple of people were able to "nudge" Chapman into showing up in time to collect on guilty, that is a plausible idea. Now, keeping him from telling people that he was lured or set up or invited or even helped to get there would have ben difficult. He could have told his parents, some interviewer, the judge. Surely you don't think they drugged and hypnotized him into pleading guilty? All that is just to complicated to accept! At any turn, the programming or the plan could fail, then what a mess. For Jose Perdomo, if he is as you some suggest, accessoried to the event, wouldn't they have needed communication from Mark affirming how and when specifically that he would act? Are the spies psychic? Or was it really Stephen King there with the gun that night? He left and came back! Was that a glitch in the plan? Did they design it for him to show up, get an autograph, get cold feet? Which required more hidden little speakers in his miserable rotten little room at the YMCA chanting, "Do it, Mark, Just do it." See, it becomes like a far0out episode of "The Prisoner" to accept these ideas of a conspiracy to this top happen. After rereading it all, the whole sad, tormented tale, of MDC, I think it is totally a case of one fellow acting alone in a state of dementia to commit a crime. Temporary dementia, or demonic possession, or just very twisted self-determination, Mark got himself there and commited the crime. Plus, he needed bullets. From the article: He called Dana Reeves, now a sheriff's deputy in Georgia, and said he wanted to visit his old friends; Reeves invited him to stay at Reeves' apartment. Chapman flew to Atlanta. While there, he told Reeves he had bought a gun for personal protection while he was in New York but he needed some bullets "with real stopping power." Reeves supplied him with five hollow-point cartridges the kind that expand as they pass through their target. END QUOTE. Naive, and trusting Mark, but NOT a conspirator. Sorry. No. Why didn't THEY set him up with bullets? Mr. Reeves may an unknowing mistake, but he wasn't in cahoots. Chapman called HIM. also, this paper says this: www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/Chapter03.htmQUOTE: Second, Chapman had a friend, Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott), who certainly fits the profile of a southern cop with ties to the FBI. Reeves was a policeman for the sheriff’s office in Henry County, Georgia. As previously stated, Reeves gave Chapman exploding hollow-point bullets which were allegedly used to kill Lennon,1 although I have already presented forensic evidence which exonerates Chapman as Lennon’s killer. Also stated earlier, Lennon’s wounds were on the wrong side of his body, plus, there is a major question as to whether the .38 revolver found at the crime scene is the same weapon purchased by Chapman on October 27, 1980 from J&S Enterprises Ltd, a gun shop in midtown Honolulu. In addition, Albert Goldman asserted—in his book, The Lives of John Lennon—that Chapman threw the gun and bullets in the ocean while in Honolulu some time between November 10 and December 6, 1980. Given Goldman’s dubious track record for accuracy, this assertion is questionable; but no one has challenged it to my knowledge. Therefore, the fact that Chapman had exploding bullets in his possession during his first trip to New York—from October 29, 1980 through November 10, 1980—is somewhat irrelevant; however, the fact that exploding bullets were given to him by a policeman is not. This fact alone points to FBI involvement. Why would Dana Reeves, a policeman, be so closely involved with the man who would later be sent to prison for murdering John Lennon? To answer this question, allow me to present some background on the relationship between the FBI and police forces throughout the United States. The late William Sullivan—a high-ranking official at the FBI—described in his book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI, how the FBI grooms officers in police forces across America, thereby running what is tantamount to a national secret police force. END QUOTE. Chapman and Reeves were old friends. That is why he was involved with him. I may look into that "A.K.A" Gene Scott stuff. I dont know where that came from. See, its like, do these writers just make up stuff? It kills me when people do research and write things with no feeling or sense of reality. Just spinning more conspiracy stuff. And why did Dana get him a night watchman job? Cause Dana was in enforcement and those guys often know about openings for such jobs. He was helping his friend, Mark. For goodness sakes he didn't know Mark was planning to commit a murder My endless rebuttal may be exasperating to you, Total, but, really, I knew people closer to the situation than some conspiracy blogger Mr. Salvadore Astucia. This one happened more or less the way we've been led to believe. For once perhaps!
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 21, 2005 10:02:58 GMT -5
they must have encountered Mark somehow and they met him, talked to him, and realized-----hey this poor guy is messed up enough ... he was already pretty crazy from a lifetime of mental self-mutilation.
How would they have picked him out of the crowd? Did he just go to them?
Yes, exactly, he "went to them" when he got involved in John Hinckley Sr.'s WorldVision, an intelligence operation.
Mark's obsession and self-projection into Holdon Caulfield was a unique wrinkle that he invented.
No, it was not. It was also the trigger text for John Hinckley, Jr.
The thing that triggered Mark's "Lennon is a rich phony" obsession was a book he read relatively close to the time of the shooting. It
Yes, that was when the programmers finally decided what his mission would be. He was groomed as a dupe and a pawn for several years, but his exact assignment wasn't decided on 'til it was time.
If you want to say that somebody hired a skilled assassin to do the job, and that a couple of people were able to "nudge" Chapman into showing up in time to collect on guilty, that is a plausible idea
Exactly.
For Jose Perdomo, if he is as you some suggest, accessoried to the event, wouldn't they have needed communication from Mark affirming how and when specifically that he would act?
You have to remember Perdomo was already there, at the Dakota, where he had been keeping an eye on Lennon for however many years. Assuming MDC was being tailed as well as manipulated, as the evidence indicates he was (remember, someone altered his plane tickets to cover his tracks to some extent), Perdomo would have been alerted to MDC's presence in NYC beforehand, yes.
(Your friend Reeves and his bullets are really beside the point...)
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Nov 21, 2005 10:14:13 GMT -5
Disturbing, Total. I dunno. It's all too weird. But why? With Chapman crazy as a motive, it makes some sense. Crazy people act crazy.
But why would "the establishment". or some clandestined sector of it, wish to make an end of Lennon?
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 21, 2005 15:47:16 GMT -5
Now I'm sure *that*'s been covered. He was more popular than Jesus and gearing up to preach again. "Give Peace a Chance" is a dangerous enough message, but layer on "Paul is Dead miss him miss him misshim, it's a double fantasy," well the risk of that is just too much. He was walking on thin ice by putting himself out there again.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Nov 29, 2005 4:15:58 GMT -5
Hello again, DocRob. Did you see the Dateline special? I'm wondering if you have anything in response to the following by one alleged "Salvador Austica." I got a distinctly creepy vibe from McGowan when I saw him on the NBC program.
-----------------------------------------------------------
What kind of person was the Reverend Charles McGowan? He was Chapman’s religious guide. In Ms. Kotb’s presentation, Reverend McGowan insinuated that he did not like Lennon because of Lennon’s 1966 remarks about the Beatles being more popular than Jesus. Does Reverend McGowan feel any guilt about Lennon’s death?
"I remember that comment vividly," McGowan recalled. "People generally saw it as a very blasphemous comment—very arrogant, very blasphemous."
Arrogant? Blasphemous? Those are harsh words. Was Reverend McGowan simply expressing the general sentiment of people from in Georgia in 1966 regarding religious comments Lennon made at that time, or was he expressing his (McGowan's) personal views of Lennon today. Most people today think the press was unfair to Lennon because he was not boasting when he made the religious remark. It was simply a casual remark taken completely out of context. But Reverend McGowan said that Lennon’s comments were viewed as arrogant and blasphemous without stating that these were unfair views. Perhaps he didn’t think they were unfair.
From what I understand about Reverend McGowan (per Fenton Bresler's book), the Reverend was/is a fundamentalist Presbyterian, a born again Christian. Ms. Kotb presented McGowan as a responsible citizen, but she failed to state that his beliefs are similar to those of people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, the sort of people that the majority of Americans consider to be extremist religious nuts. Based on another set of interviews that Chapman gave to Jim Gaines of People Magazine in 1987, Chapman had some very strange experiences with the born again Christian crowd in Decatur, Georgia. The following is an excerpt from Jim Gaines’ article:
-- "Before [Chapman] left for Fort Chaffee [in August 1975], he began seriously dating Jessica Blankenship, a friend from fundamentalist [Christian] prayer groups. In one such group, led by a Decatur [Georgia] psychologist, Chapman and Jessica had their first experience with some of the rarer, more dramatic forms of charismatic Christianity: the laying on of hands, miraculous healing, speaking in tongues, the gift of prophecy and the deliverance from demons. "At times I would be on my back and five or six people would be laying on hands," Chapman recalled years later. "At other times there would be manifestations of demonic power. I remember one man barking like a dog and then assuming a karate position… We talked about demons more than we did about Jesus."
(Jim Gaines, People Magazine, Feb. 23, 1987, "The Man Who Shot John Lennon"; p 71) __ What Chapman described to Gaines was obviously a form of mind control. Was Reverend McGowan a member of the same fundamentalist Christian church that allowed a psychologist experiment on its members?
Was Mark David Chapman the victim of mind control? Did he actually shoot Lennon or was an obsession to shoot Lennon planted in his brain through hypnotic suggestion combined with mind-altering drugs? Once Chapman saw that Lennon had been shot, did he talk himself into believing he was the shooter?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Feb 15, 2006 7:34:02 GMT -5
February 4, 2006 -- All Headline News
Bijou in a Tizzy Over Sean's New Girlfriend
Notorious party-girl and ex-girlfriend to Sean Lennon, Bijou Phillips, is reportedly spitting fire over rumors that Sean is now dating Lindsay Lohan.
One question, who ISN'T Lindsay Lohan dating? Anyway, Bijou dated John Lennon's son Sean for four years, which is an eternity among the Hollywood set, and she was overheard at the L.A. club Teddy's screaming, "Lindsay Lohan dating Sean? How could he?! How could he stand to be with her?"
Lindsay's mother Dina seems to enjoy getting some shine, even if its second hand shine from her daughter. She told reporters, "Sean is a really good friend of hers. More power to them. I'm not going to say they're dating, or not dating."
An insider whispered to reporters of Bijou's outburst in the club, "It's pretty clear she's still in love with him. She was jealous."
|
|
|
Post by mysteryboy on Jul 3, 2006 23:03:30 GMT -5
Fuk him and the movie. From Sean's lips: John Lennon's youngest son yesterday blamed the fatal shooting of his father almost 20 years ago on a conspiracy backed by the United States government.
Sean Lennon, who made his debut as a solo artist last month, told New Yorker magazine that the ex-Beatle was a "counter-cultural revolutionary" who the American government could not ignore. He said: "He was dangerous to the government. If he had said, 'Bomb the White House tomorrow', there would have been 10,000 people who would have done it. These pacifist revolutionaries are historically killed by the government.
"Anybody who thinks that Mark Chapman [who shot Lennon outside his New York apartment in 1980] was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his personal interests, is insane. Or very naive. Or hasn't thought about it clearly. It was in the best interests of the United States to have my dad killed. Definitely. And, you know, that worked against them because, once he died, his powers grew . . . They didn't get what they wanted."
The lead detective never believed it was the Beast, either.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Jul 4, 2006 3:38:28 GMT -5
Fuk him and the movie. From Sean's lips: John Lennon's youngest son yesterday blamed the fatal shooting of his father almost 20 years ago on a conspiracy backed by the United States government. Sean Lennon, who made his debut as a solo artist last month, told New Yorker magazine that the ex-Beatle was a "counter-cultural revolutionary" who the American government could not ignore. He said: "He was dangerous to the government. If he had said, 'Bomb the White House tomorrow', there would have been 10,000 people who would have done it. These pacifist revolutionaries are historically killed by the government. "Anybody who thinks that Mark Chapman [who shot Lennon outside his New York apartment in 1980] was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his personal interests, is insane. Or very naive. Or hasn't thought about it clearly. It was in the best interests of the United States to have my dad killed. Definitely. And, you know, that worked against them because, once he died, his powers grew . . . They didn't get what they wanted." The lead detective never believed it was the Beast, either. While I agree that revolutionaries are seen a threat and probably targeted as you said, and while it is likely that there were high-up people in American politics that would have liked seeing Lennon eliminated, it remains a fact in my mind that Mark Chapman operated his crime out of largely a woefully insecure, troubled, and frankly schizoid mental state. His parents divorced and his mother fled away, moved out of state after the crime. His father stayed alone in the house for some years, even fencing in the yard, but I hear that people bothered him at the house of Greenforest Drive--so eventually he moved away. His father was not rich, not an oil magnate, and not a government operative. If you lived here in Atlanta, I cold introduce you to people that could tell you first hand (and not with any hesitation) about Mark's mental state. We were not friends; I did see him around; and he was a near neighbor. I had several friends who did know him pretty well.) His conversations frankly scared Jessica Blankenship away from continuing to date him. Unstable. Now, I guess you could make some kind of case for him being influenced and pulled in. The biggest problem is that he came back to Georgia to get bullets. How disorganized. Also, people wonder about his plane fares-----I think his parents, whle not rich, made enough money to spot him a few trips on an airplane. Casa Linda Estates was a middle class neighborhood. Here Google this old address--I don't care, I have not been there in over 30 years. 2254 saratoga dr, decatur, GA 30032 The old neighborhood. Mark was at the southeast corner of Greenforest and Kennard Lane. Please don't bother that house now! The residents have nothing whatsoever to do with this today! The Chapmans are long gone.
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Jul 5, 2006 4:53:22 GMT -5
My opinion is that, at a certain point of his life, Mark Chapman was conditioned (may be with lsd, food and sleep deprivation) to react to a later "triggering". The ultimate goal of this conditioning wasn't (IMHO) to make him shoot JWL. If u were a, let's say for example, a secret service's agency, would u give to a such "disturbed" guy a mission as important as that? I think that the scope of his conditioning was to make him go there, try to shoot at John, be convinced to have done it, sit and wait to be arrested. At the same time, someone else (a professional) did the job.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Jul 5, 2006 6:20:02 GMT -5
Jose Perdermo....
|
|