While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind of sh*
t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was dangerous to
it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 5:22:45 AM UTC-7, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind of sh*

t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was dangerous to
it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

So, according to Sean, MDC worked for the government? Nothing ever came up about brainwashing or payouts. Did his theory sell more albums? Does he still stand by his theory? Yoko's thoughts?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

John was one of many who wound up on Nixon's enemies list back then,
after Nixon resigned in disgrace no one in the US government cared what
John did (or where he lived).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind of sh*

t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was dangerous to
it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of a
threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:22:28 AM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind of

sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was dangerous
to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of a

threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, >such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

I believe Chapman was nuts and acted alone. And he supposedly thought Lennon was a 'phony.' Other than that, has he ever explained WHY he committed the murder?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 5:22:28 AM UTC-7, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind of

sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was dangerous
to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of a

threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

That sounds like a book I don't need to look for. The possibility you raise, that Sean read it, is interesting, however.

I read a biography of MDC called Let Me Take You Down. The book is alright, but I never found Chapman interesting -- and I'm a true crime nut. MDC was a pathetic person who was rendered psychotic through excessive LSD use. Sort of like some of Manson'
s followers (though some of those people had potential before Manson ruined their minds).

BTW, what is it with Catcher in the Rye? I've known a few people who loved it. I read it twice in high school and never saw anything interesting in the narrator or the book in general.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 5:22:28 AM UTC-7, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind of

sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was dangerous
to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of a

threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

IIRC, Sean Lennon tried to push his "My dad was murdered by the government" conspiracy theory in his embarrassing 1998 interview with music journalist David Fricke.. He treated this as an opportunity to promote Yoko's worldview, i.e., that she came from
a grander musical and artistic background than that of the Beatles; that, if Lennon had a message, it was, "Yoko is *IT*, man"; that John had a violent temper and was a macho asshole until Yoko "tamed" him; and, oh, yeah, John cheated on Yoko with Jerry
Rubin's girlfriend in the early 70s. It could have been Elliot Mintz -- or even Yoko herself -- talking.

I wonder if Sean ever wondered why Sam Green had been named as his (Sean's) guardian in the event of Lennon's death in Lennon's last will and testament. When Sean gave that interview in 1998, Sam Havadtoy was still living with Yoko in the Dakota. I
wonder if Sean ever wondered about that relationship -- when and how it started, for example.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 2:46:47 PM UTC-5, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:22:28 AM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind

of sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was
dangerous to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of a

threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, >such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

I believe Chapman was nuts and acted alone. And he supposedly thought Lennon was a 'phony.' Other than that, has he ever explained WHY he committed the murder?

That is what we are supposed to believe.
I don't think Chapman has given us a real motive. But he did plead guilty, which prevented a trial from taking place. More information would probably have come out in a trial...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 4:29:00 PM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 5:22:28 AM UTC-7, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind

of sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was
dangerous to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of a

threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

That sounds like a book I don't need to look for. The possibility you raise, that Sean read it, is interesting, however.

I read a biography of MDC called Let Me Take You Down. The book is alright, but I never found Chapman interesting -- and I'm a true crime nut. MDC was a pathetic person who was rendered psychotic through excessive LSD use. Sort of like some of Manson's

followers (though some of those people had potential before Manson ruined their minds).

BTW, what is it with Catcher in the Rye? I've known a few people who loved it. I read it twice in high school and never saw anything interesting in the narrator or the book in general.

Yes, Who Killed John Lennon is a page-turner.
I'll check out Let Me Take You Down.
There is a constant theme here of a mind-control experiment, though. That is interesting...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 8:45:56 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 5:22:28 AM UTC-7, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind

of sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was
dangerous to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of a

threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

IIRC, Sean Lennon tried to push his "My dad was murdered by the government" conspiracy theory in his embarrassing 1998 interview with music journalist David Fricke.. He treated this as an opportunity to promote Yoko's worldview, i.e., that she came

from a grander musical and artistic background than that of the Beatles; that, if Lennon had a message, it was, "Yoko is *IT*, man"; that John had a violent temper and was a macho asshole until Yoko "tamed" him; and, oh, yeah, John cheated on Yoko with
Jerry Rubin's girlfriend in the early 70s. It could have been Elliot Mintz -- or even Yoko herself -- talking.

I wonder if Sean ever wondered why Sam Green had been named as his (Sean's) guardian in the event of Lennon's death in Lennon's last will and testament. When Sean gave that interview in 1998, Sam Havadtoy was still living with Yoko in the Dakota. I

wonder if Sean ever wondered about that relationship -- when and how it started, for example.
That is just awful. That is the 'blame-the-victim' mindset. That is the basis of the cover-up of what really happened to John. That he was spouting this speaks volumes to the possibility that Yoko has something to hide, in my book...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:51:02 PM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 2:46:47 PM UTC-5, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:22:28 AM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that kind

of sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was
dangerous to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of a

threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, >such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

I believe Chapman was nuts and acted alone. And he supposedly thought Lennon was a 'phony.' Other than that, has he ever explained WHY he committed the murder?

That is what we are supposed to believe.
I don't think Chapman has given us a real motive. But he did plead guilty, which prevented a trial from taking place. More information would probably have come out in a trial...

What do you think happened that hasn't come out?

It doesn't seem like a lot has come out. The default position, which AFAIK is accurate is that Chapman was insane....but as for why he chose to kill John, I'm drawing a blank.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:51:02 PM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 2:46:47 PM UTC-5, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:22:28 AM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that

kind of sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was
dangerous to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of a

threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, >such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

I believe Chapman was nuts and acted alone. And he supposedly thought Lennon was a 'phony.' Other than that, has he ever explained WHY he committed the murder?

That is what we are supposed to believe.
I don't think Chapman has given us a real motive. But he did plead guilty, which prevented a trial from taking place. More information would probably have come out in a trial...

What do you think happened that hasn't come out?

It doesn't seem like a lot has come out. The default position, which AFAIK is accurate is that Chapman was insane....but as for why he chose to kill John, I'm drawing a blank.

Chapman has yet to provide a clear motive. Based on the Bresler book, Who Killed John Lennon?, I am starting to think that this was because he was being mind-controlled by someone else and acted out of some sort of order from a controller.

To support this assertion, Bresler makes a stunning discovery; namely, that Chapman did not make his final trip from Honolulu to New York, as has been commonly accepted, but to Chicago, where he spent three days prior to going to New York. Something
happened in Chicago.

Then, after the assassination, when the authorities went to Chapman's hotel room, where he had laid out all kinds of evidence of what he had done, the flight information had been altered, so that it looked like he flew directly from Honolulu to New York.
Bresler doesn't think Chapman did this.

If so, it opens up a huge Pandora's box.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 8:11:15 AM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:51:02 PM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 2:46:47 PM UTC-5, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:22:28 AM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that

kind of sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was
dangerous to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of

a threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, >such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

I believe Chapman was nuts and acted alone. And he supposedly thought Lennon was a 'phony.' Other than that, has he ever explained WHY he committed the murder?

That is what we are supposed to believe.
I don't think Chapman has given us a real motive. But he did plead guilty, which prevented a trial from taking place. More information would probably have come out in a trial...

What do you think happened that hasn't come out?

It doesn't seem like a lot has come out. The default position, which AFAIK is accurate is that Chapman was insane....but as for why he chose to kill John, I'm drawing a blank.

Chapman has yet to provide a clear motive. Based on the Bresler book, Who Killed John Lennon?, I am starting to think that this was because he was being mind-controlled by someone else and acted out of some sort of order from a controller.

To support this assertion, Bresler makes a stunning discovery; namely, that Chapman did not make his final trip from Honolulu to New York, as has been commonly accepted, but to Chicago, where he spent three days prior to going to New York. Something

happened in Chicago.

Then, after the assassination, when the authorities went to Chapman's hotel room, where he had laid out all kinds of evidence of what he had done, the flight information had been altered, so that it looked like he flew directly from Honolulu to New

York. Bresler doesn't think Chapman did this.

If so, it opens up a huge Pandora's box.

I seem to remember that MDC signed in at the hotel as 'John Lennon.' Also his wife was (is?) Japanese-American. Did he think he was JL?

Considering the notoriety of the crime, I do feel that very little is known about the perp.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 8:11:15 AM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 3:28:21 PM UTC-5, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, October 9, 2022 at 1:51:02 PM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 2:46:47 PM UTC-5, RJKe...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 8:22:28 AM UTC-4, pamel...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 7:22:45 AM UTC-5, Norbert K wrote:

While promoting his first album, Sean Lennon gave an interview with New Yorker in which he claimed that "the government" had murdered his father. "[John Lennon] was a counterculture revolutionary," Sean stated, "and the government takes that

kind of sh*t very seriously. Anyone who believes that MDC "was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his own personal reasons is insane, I think, or hasn't thought about it clearly." John was killed by the government, Sean claimed, because he was
dangerous to it.

My first reaction to this is that Lennon had vigorously disavowed his brief supposed revolutionary stance, admitting that it was phony *and* that it had nearly ruined his career.

There was absolutely nothing revolutionary about Lennon's Double Fantasy songs (musically they were retro; thematically they were tributes to life with Ono) or the interviews he gave to promote them.

My question is: Did Sean actually *believe* this conspiracy theory -- or was this an Onoesque attention-garnering ploy to attempt to boost the sales of his very mediocre music?

Sean may have read Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bressler. That book makes a good case for Chapman being mind-controlled with Catcher in the Rye being the trigger.

Ironically, Bressler opens the door for other supposed lone-nut killings to be assessed in the same light. And, of course, the CIA is the bad guy. But his hypothesis falls short, however, as you have pointed out, as by 1980 John was not much of

a threat to the government. And, in even greater irony, Bressler raves about Yoko and John's relationship at that time, without bothering to ask himself what, if anything, she may have had to do with what happened to John.

In fact, he ultimately comes across as another of Yoko's buddies doing her bidding by perpetuating a myth, >such as Rosen with Nowhere Man...

I believe Chapman was nuts and acted alone. And he supposedly thought Lennon was a 'phony.' Other than that, has he ever explained WHY he committed the murder?

That is what we are supposed to believe.
I don't think Chapman has given us a real motive. But he did plead guilty, which prevented a trial from taking place. More information would probably have come out in a trial...

What do you think happened that hasn't come out?

It doesn't seem like a lot has come out. The default position, which AFAIK is accurate is that Chapman was insane....but as for why he chose to kill John, I'm drawing a blank.

Chapman has yet to provide a clear motive. Based on the Bresler book, Who Killed John Lennon?, I am starting to think that this was because he was being mind-controlled by someone else and acted out of some sort of order from a controller.

To support this assertion, Bresler makes a stunning discovery; namely, that Chapman did not make his final trip from Honolulu to New York, as has been commonly accepted, but to Chicago, where he spent three days prior to going to New York. Something

happened in Chicago.

Then, after the assassination, when the authorities went to Chapman's hotel room, where he had laid out all kinds of evidence of what he had done, the flight information had been altered, so that it looked like he flew directly from Honolulu to New

York. Bresler doesn't think Chapman did this.

If so, it opens up a huge Pandora's box.

There's an interview with Gloria Hiroko Chapman (yep, she stayed with the sick freak) on The Dun Online where she says Mark told her of his murderous intent two months before he did. I'd have had the fat fuckup committed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)