You are reading the older HTML site
From Clark Johnsen's Diaries: Dateline Dec.
8, 2005 - IT WAS TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY
That John Lennon ceased to play.
Where were you, on that fateful day?
Exiting a limo on 72nd Street? (John and Yoko)
Standing in front of the Dakota? (Mark David Chapman)
Watching a Patriots-Dolphins game? (Many) (The Pats lost 16-13 in overtime.)
Otherwise tending to life? (Most)
And how did you find out?
From Howard Cosell? ("An unspeakable tragedy confirmed to us by ABC News in New York City...") (Monday Night Football, the nation's second-longest-running television show, has just been cancelled.)
From a telephone call?
From the Eleven O'clock News?
Or from the papers the next morning (like myself)?
Already I have written what a fool you are to listen to the news at night. Who needs that aggravation before sleep? If the bad news appears during a football game or a good TV show in a bottom scroll or on a break-into, that's something else. It's not as though you wished it on yourself, as when watching the news. You go to bed content that at least you didn't intend for that crap to disturb you. Aren't the headlines on our doorsteps each morning, sufficient? At least then we have a pot of coffee brewing and the whole day to help us face up. But sleeping on bad news? No, thank you. At the end of the day I'll head beddy-bye. Dream sweet dreams. Wake up to the world situation later: WAR DECLARED! 900 POISONED! PRESIDENT ASSASSINATED! IDIOT REELECTED!
So there was I, in the full flush of founding The Listening Studio ("World's First... Too Many Recording Studios... But No Competition... We Don't Record... And They Don't Listen!"), still constructing it actually, in the environs of eight thousand square feet in a sturdy loft where space had become available. Fourteen-foot ceilings, sixteen-inch floor joists, maple planking. All that remained was to erect the walls, which I was in the middle of doing on December 9th, 1980, as I picked up the papers at the front door.
For December it was a warm day so I stood on the stoop and unrolled my Boston Globe. And there I saw the blaring headline:
Beatle John Lennon slain… Hawaii man, 25, charged
Indoors the coffee was ready. Mechanically I drank it, finished the paper, and continued to absorb the enormity. Later I ventured outdoors and chatted with neighbors, but all construction work was halted for that day.
Only much later did I learn the truth about Lennon's assassination. If you haven't heard yet, let me acquaint you. And you won't find this on Google.
Back in the day
Back in the day of their initial appearance I was not a huge Beatles fan. In fact I was not one at all. Disdain them thoroughly, I did, along with the Beach Boys and all other B-boy Bands without a single listen. As an early rock'n'roller these recent teeny-bopper groups were beneath contempt, and besides, by then I was thoroughly into classical music. So what grabbed my attention? The Sixties, I suppose. That milieu drew one into the vortex of youth culture. Whereas adult activity had forever been the topic of society coverage, suddenly the emphasis shifted to the young and their ways. Why?
Good question! But nonetheless it did, hence, the Beatles, the Stones, the Airplane and others came to my ears' attention and you know what? They weren't so bad! (Although, this confession: the Ronnettes' "Be My Baby" had already fascinated me with its four-part writing and I often played it to musical friends. Still have my original 45. Hey! What's that worth on eBay?)
Thus was I caught up, like so many just slightly older people, in the ascendant youth culture. Only later did I learn that the counterculture was not produced spontaneously by a youth stratum. Reference point: "The British Invasion." I.e., of America, just like the War of 1812 all over again. And that's the key to my argument, of British subject John Lennon's assassination by his own.
Motive, Means, Opportunity
While those comprise the Classic Three of criminal investigation, here I'll take a variant tack: Why would he be killed? Then, who would kill him? Let's be clear on one thing from the start: It was not the mad act of a lone assassin. However much you have been told otherwise, you must dismiss that stock explanation from your mind, as I have done. Or at least set it aside for now.
That trite phrase, "conspiracy theory"...? It's utilized against anyone who suggests that events may have unfolded in a manner unacknowledged by the press. The press, and the TV, provide fully acceptable explanations and if one should question them, well... especially if one should suggest that more than one person was involved in any act where they tell us it was only one person, well... don't most of us laugh outright at anyone who would be so foolish as to claim otherwise?
To which I reply, Good Lord, people! Look at ourselves!
Recently I read in two locations—Reason magazine, normally an oasis of rational thought, and American Heritage—that so-called conspiracy theorists have cooked up unlikely plots to explain straightforward events like 9/11. The bland plausibility of that assertion, at least to media-saturated readers, dodges the ugly fact that the downing of the Twin Towers and a hit on the Pentagon must have been very much a conspiracy. As though all those attacks just happened to happen together? Good grief!
What the deriders of "conspiracy theory" (Why do they never say "conspiracy fact"? Tens of thousands of people are in prison for committing criminal conspiracy.) hope to derail, is a suspicion among the populace that what's called "conspiracy theory" is simply the next level beyond whatever the press cares to reveal.
In this matter of assassins, would-be or otherwise, look at the case of John Hinckley, Jr. (And just to hint at where this is going, both Hinckley and Chapman carried a copy of The Catcher in the Rye along with them. Hey! Doesn't everyone?)
Linda de Hoyos, an expert in the field of intelligence, wrote in Campaigner magazine for July 1981, in an article entitled, "There Are No Lone Assassins":
There we have the basis for a working assumption that clean-cut, baby-faced Mark Chapman did not act alone, if indeed he acted at all: the patsy explanation. Yes, just as with Lee Harvey Oswald. Granted, these men may have had guns on their persons... But ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I shall prove to you the innocence of Mark David Chapman..
Now let's return to that earlier pair of questions: Who would kill Lennon, and Why? They can be treated in either order and with equal interest and abandon. Must I choose already?
First step: Thicken the plot
Few people today know that Andrew Carnegie and Cecil Rhodes inter alia shared this vision: To return the United States to the Queen. Or, King. Prince Regent. Whoever.
Don't abandon me now. Hang on! The final, suppressed chapter of Andrew Carnegie's 1886 tome Triumphant Democracy was entitled, "A Look Ahead". Why has it been suppressed? Wasn't Carnegie a Great Man? Didn't he found libraries in hundreds of American cities and towns that otherwise lacked them? Yes he did. Didn't he fund The Carnegie Endowment? Yes he did. But he also endorsed a full return of the American colonies to Mother England, and wrote thusly:
Fairly astonishing, yes? Coming from an American "industrialist"??
Then we have that perfervid Englishman himself, Cecil Rhodes, an Empire man through and through, he of Rhodes scholarship fame, rewriting his will several times to perfect his goal. Let's join him in the fashioning:
Prof. Carroll Quigley notes in his The Anglo-American Establishment:
Christopher Hitchins, writing in The Nation, 14 December 1992, further observes:
From a secret society modeled on the Jesuits, over the course of seven wills Rhodes finally hit on the perfect solution: The Rhodes Scholarships. Who would ever suspect? A few more names: Dean Rusk, Daniel J. Boorstin, Nicholas Katzenbach, Stansfield Turner (Director, CIA), John Turner (Canadian PM), Richard Lugar, Paul Sarbanes, Neil Rudenstein (President, Harvard), Joseph Nye (Dean, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard), Jonathan Kozol (social activist), Lester Thurow, David Souter, James Woolsey (Director, CIA), David E. Kendall (Clinton's lawyer), Strobe Talbott, Ira Magaziner, James Fallows, Russ Feingold, George Stephanopoulos, Naomi Wolf… Oh, the Board has chosen well and wisely indeed, to reach every segment of American public life.
What has all this to do with John Lennon's death, you ask? OK, you deserve to know, having slogged through until now.
John came to realize that he was a mere pawn in an Empire game he thought he had understood. But he had been used and so, as was his wont, he began to reveal these facts to his friends and in various interviews. Word of this activity got out and because he was deemed dangerously believable by the former youth stratum, John was snuffed.
Furthermore, ladies and gentlemen, this move was not accomplished by "the CIA". That was cover-up dis-info provided by the perpetrators and gratefully accepted by a government-suspicious public. How easy we are!
A personal time out
If I may, to maintain some equilibrium in my mind (Hey, I'm the writer here!), I must mention John's ghostly connection to the greatest discovery (rediscovery, actually) I've ever made in audio. This would be Absolute Polarity, the physical phenomenon I call the sine qua non of correct audio practice, however much it be denied by those in charge. The episode is recounted in my 1988 book The Wood Effect:
Starting Over. How... appropo! But John was gone, over two years dead. That the truth of his death has yet to be told, weighs heavily on me.
So here goes.
John, this one's for you, baby.
Everyone remember this:
No such thing as a lone assassin.
Well maybe sometimes, but mostly, no. Lincoln? Booth did not act alone; indeed, no one at the time thought so and in fact another man was executed as well. McKinley? No. Archduke Franz Ferdinand? One account reads:
Omigosh! Shades of a certain procession in November, 1963.
We are reminded again of Reagan's attacker John Hinckley. This guy shares an astounding biography with the Chapman chap. What's up with that? Plus, that telltale The Catcher in the Rye. And even the physical description, and especially the psychological profile. Could there be — a school for scoundrels?
Now I must confess, while I would greatly enjoy convincing you, this modest diary of mine consists only of my personal observations, library reading and total speculation. I deny any real knowledge, nor do my files at home or in my office contain any evidence whatsoever, no need to break in, please. I have proved nothing! Let me live! I have children! (I don't, actually, but that's what one must say, under these circumstances.)
And now: Presenting Yoko Ono. Jose Padermo. Sean Strub. Jay Hastings. You'll see.
Or, not. I may have no time left.
Running the clock down, here.
People who reveal this stuff have unfortunate histories.
But surely, you ask, not here? Not here the darkness, in this twittering world?
We keep coming back to that, don't we?
OK. The actual killer was Jose Perdomo, the Dakota doorman. He did it from inside (as it were) because John was about to blab in public.
Happy with that information? You can stop reading now; or, do you want to continue?
A television non-appearance
Invited by my friend Pat McGrath, local performance artist and used-record-store owner, to appear on stage with him for a filming event, I shared that honor with several musical groups, notably and most enjoyably Consolidated Edison, a UFO fantasist, and penny-whistle blower (also zany local cartoonist) Scott Getchell. I came on well into the night, introduced honorably but also (by then) somewhat drunkenly as a "conspiracy theorist".
Man, nothing can destroy your cred faster than that.
So there I was, trying to explain to an audience of two hundred in a nightclub in the People's Republic of Cambridge, on camera, amidst almost immediate jeering, the exact circumstances of John Lennon's death.
They wanted no part of it.
Best of all, a skinny little Brit dropped from the balcony onto the stage to shoot me down. You know how uppity they can be. He took control and, aided by 1:00 A.M. drunken audience energy, proceeded to subdue me. Uninterested in argumentation, or facts, he repeated the conventional thinking (available everywhere) to great applause, wiping out (in the British mode) my opposition with benefit of the microphone. As the clock ticked down on my segment, he sneeringly dominated the final moments and indeed drew them to a close.
Grabbing the mic, I said, "See what you get? From... them...?" The audience booed and hooted.
The event was never broadcast.
Sir Joseph Lockwood
Here was a man who knew his business. Aristocratic origins and a stellar career in MI6, plus money, eventually resulted in his appointment as Director of EMI, Electrical and Musical Industries, at that time truly "The Greatest Recording Organisation in the World". Also, as fate would have it, a leading research organization in intelligence technology. Sir Joe, as he was known, had not strayed far from his beginnings. Charged with the re-emergence of Empire and versed in the wiles and ways of the Frankfurt School, he was not slow to see some possibilities in the demo tape played to him by the unctuous Brian Epstein. He proceeded accordingly. From an anonymous website commentary:
From the beginning, E.M.I. created the myth of the Beatles' great popularity. In August of 1963, at their first major television appearance at the London Palladium, thousands of their fans supposedly rioted. The next day every mass-circulation newspaper in Great Britain carried a front page picture and story stating, "Police fought to hold back 1,000 squealing teenagers." Yet, the picture displayed in each newspaper was cropped so closely that only three or four of the "squealing teenagers" could be seen. The story was a fraud. According to a photographer on the scene, "There were no riots. I was there. We saw eight girls, even less than eight." In February 1964, the Beatles myth hit the United States, complete with the orchestrated riots at Kennedy Airport. To launch their first tour, the media created one of the largest mass audiences in history.
Profits from Beatles albums sustained EMI for two decades.
The Frankfurt School?
Before the War a number of specialists and researchers in social psychology were grouped in Frankfurt, Germany. While their work was utilized by the nascent Nazi regime, the latter proved resistant to the Jewish aspect of the enterprise, so the principals were forced to flee. Many ended up in America, most notably Theodore Adorno, whose The Sociology of Music became the text for certain later developments.
Princeton was the locus of the Frankfurters. There they developed the Princeton Radio Project, a research program for mass communications techniques that later morphed into the U.S. Army's Psychological Warfare branch. A young man by the name of William Paley signed on, and after the war Paley, whose family had purchased the historic Columbia Records label at depression prices, was charged with organizing the Columbia Broadcasting System, CBS. Thus was born a radio (later, a television) network incubated in studies of population manipulation.
CBS was especially effective with its "news" department. The name Edward R. Murrow strikes a note of reverence in American hearts even today, especially with a George Clooney movie about him now on theatre screens. What was Morrow's crowning moment? All would agree, the showing-up of Joe McCarthy.
Let's take a closer look at that. McCarthy was your veritable loose cannon, waving around lists of fancied Communists, grandstanding on the Senate floor, imbibing heavily and consorting with known homosexuals. Think about it: Is this not a man ripe for blackmail and machination? And look what happened: Just look! After Murrow's anti-McCarthy campaign the anti-Communist cause nearly collapsed. Became a laughingstock. An object of parody throughout the country.
All we are saying, is... Look... Life… Edward R. Murrow... The Princeton Radio Project... Psyops... George Clooney...
Adorno's book, although purporting to be an academic analysis of how music affects society, serves equally well as a guided tour to providing such effect when read between the lines, as it was fully intended to be. Do you want to invade another country, or society? Why, no better means obtains, than music. Even Plato would agree, music can and often does corrupt. That's why he wisely limited music to the human voice in The Republic. Instrumental accompaniment only leads to debasement.
Say what you may, the man had a point.
And today? "Rock, properly understood, is music warfare waged upon an unsuspecting society by guitar-gunners who are frequently fully aware of what they are about." (David Tame, The Secret Power of Music) Camille Paglia, no less aware of this imperative, has observed that had she been a musician rather than a disruptive writer, she'd have been a rock guitarist. (You go, girl!)
Mick Jagger too once spelled it out with absolute clarity: "We are moving after the minds, and so are most of the new groups." Sir Mick graduated from the London School of Economics, British locus of the former Frankfurt School staff—as did Valerie Plame. (Thanks to Wikipedia for that very special insight.)
American composer and conductor Howard Hanson has signed in as well, regarding pop music trends: "If the mass production of this aural drug is not curtailed, we may find ourselves a nation of neurotics which even the skill of the psychiatrist may be hard pressed to cure." No offense, Dr. Hanson, but the psychiatrist's office may be the last place on earth you'd want to send your children.
Here's a concept of mine: the doctrine of successive revelation. Whenever a psyops exercise unfolds, you can rest assured that multiple levels of exposure have been pre-programmed. Ceremonial psychodrama is ever part of the plot. After-the-fact revelations comprise more of the assassination scenario than the murder and its initial cover-up. The killing of the king occurs right in front of a nation's eyes and a scapegoat takes the blame. Stay tuned to CBS for further developments.
The first King John's assassination (he of Camelot) was no less fraught with significance and subsequent revelation. Here was a staged psychodrama with classical precedents: Os-wald and Ruby slippers. An umbrella man. A grassy knoll. George de Mohrenschildt. The two Oswalds. The four vagrants. Mark Lane. David Ferrie. Clay Shaw. Colonel Fletcher Prouty, the original "deep throat".
(CBS News: "George De Mohrenschildt was found dead this afternoon on the very day he was to be heard by a House Subcommittee on Assassinations investigator. He was killed by a bullet in the mouth. The coroner has declared it a suicide. In other news…")
Own the coroner and you own the town, they say.
Two weeks before the attempt on President Reagan's life a new program, The Greatest American Hero, premiered on TV. The hero was named Hinckley and the ad reproduced here, as you can see, mentions "government" and "hired killers", and "He's just learning how to become invisible." Then on Fox an offshoot of The X Files, The Lone Gunmen, entertained viewers in the spring of 2001with a plot wherein a commercial airliner was winging to Manhattan to destroy a World Trade Center tower. All this, again right in front of a nation's eyes. Where do writers come up with this stuff?
One might as well ask, Andrew Loog Oldham?
And well one might.
One the manager of the Beatles, the other of the Stones—the "nice boys" and the "bad boys". But Brian was gay. Could a homintern level have been functioning here? A level subject to non-disclosure agreements? Or worse, to being operated upon, even against what one might otherwise think of as, one's best interests?
Lennon was not always a darling. Not to his bandmates, nor to his friends, nor to his wives and sons, nor to his handlers: "This is the man, remember, who, in front of a packed dressing room, shouted 'QUEER JEW' in response to Brian Epstein fussing, 'Now what shall I call this autobiography of mine?'" *The Guardian
Jeff Godwin, in Dancing with Demons, observes:
And he was such a handful. Yakking, yakking, yakking. Endlessly running off at the mouth, everyone recognizes the type except that type itself.
But slowly a realization dawned on John: He had been had. And he began to talk about this to anyone who would listen.
Not a diversion! Not just about LSD either, as many imagine. Somewhere back in the Seventies this project was first exposed as a nasty program of "the CIA". Ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell you, whenever you hear someone use that term "the CIA" you are in the presence of a person who is wholly unaware of conflicting multiplicities present within any intelligence organization, or who is a witting agent of disinformation. The former also is likely blind to historic international arrangements.
One such is that between certain departments of the American intelligence apparat and British counterparts. Some of the strongest ties involve Naval Intelligence, because navies frequently call at foreign ports, unlike armies and air forces. The strongest ties however are non-military, among university and institution circles. They are also the most perfidious and corruptible. The worst of these may be the Tavistock Institute, where the MK-Ultra program was hatched. Linda de Hoyos again:
Yes, they engaged Aldous Huxley of Brave New World fame, and The Doors of Perception, to proposition young people with drugs. They may also have employed Albert Hoffman at Sandoz in Switzerland to synthesize the first artificial hallucinogen, LSD, the received version notwithstanding. But there was more, much more.
Tavistock, a total MI6 production, was further charged with the intelligence task of studying nation management, with a view towards taking nations over. What more delicious opportunity could present itself, than regaining the former American colonies as Cecil Rhodes had visualized?
And so they set about their nefarious task, having absorbed the lessons of The Republic, The Sociology of Music, Triumphant Democracy and other scripts, eventually settling upon a long-range plan for undermining the culture with psychedelic drugs and rock music.
The British Invasion!
To whatever extent "the CIA" participated, they were hapless dupes of the Crown. Even Rhodes Scholar Americans are like country cousins to a powerful City financial empire that does not slack from its charge to regain lost ground by whatever means possible.
And there you have it: The central belief among most "conspiracy theorists", well-hidden from everyone by the press, is that not the Jews, nor the Communists, nor the Muslims, nor the Vatican, nor global corporations control the match—rather, the Brits!
Did you know the worldwide price of gold is fixed each morning, and again each afternoon at the Rothschild Bank in London? That's just for starters.
If you find all this hard to swallow, you have only the press to thank. Yes: The majority of "conspiracy theorists" put Great Britain at the top of the evil heap. Think of it this way: The sun once never set on the British Empire. Brittania ruled the waves. The British East India Company ran all the dope, most of the rum and a good portion of the slaves. That's a tough position to quit. So, why should they?
Here's how it worked against John
Everyone tells us that a person cannot be programmed to kill against his will. Although probably true in the vast majority of cases, even the possible exceptions needn't concern us here. Hinckley and Chapman were not programmed to kill, rather to appear on a crime scene looking guilty as hell. If they do kill, so much the better, but not to worry, professional backup is always provided. That's how it worked with Jose Perdomo, reportedly an anti-Castro Cuban exile and member of Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961.
While there is no question that Perdomo was the doorman at the Dakota that fateful night, interestingly his name seems not to have appeared in print until over six years later. His stated role in events was simply that of "the doorman", even in the detail-minded NY Times. The media did, however, name the fellow who was inside at the desk, one Jay Hastings, who was not an eye witness. Perdomo's identity was voluntarily divulged neither by the press nor by public authorities.
From reports at the time (and later), "the doorman" asked Chapman if he knew what he had done. "I just shot John Lennon" was the murmured reply. When the police arrived it was "the doorman" who told them that Chapman had just killed Lennon. Even at that time doubt existed in some minds. Herewith an excerpt from "The Man Who Shot Lennon" (People Magazine, Feb. 23,1987), by Jim Gaines:
The Patrolman's instincts are vindicated by early, unretouched press reports. In the Boston Globe, Dec. 9:
And Dec. 10:
And in the Boston Herald American, Dec. 10:
Those responses well comport with what a conditioned person would manifest, experts agree.
Then there was Sean Strub, a fellow who happened to be in the vicinity when he heard shots fired. Following a squad car to the Dakota front door, and proving to be something of a camera hog, he granted an interview shortly afterwards to Channel 2.
CBS: Was there any kind of exchange, do you know, between Lennon and the suspect?
Stroud: That's what the doorman said, that there had been some sort of altercation or argument... I heard someone say that the guy had apparently been hanging around all evening, and another person said he'd been there all week and he was just kind of like waiting for him.
And that's the story the media flew with, a rank second-hand account; nor did they endeavor to interview "the doorman", who for all we know was whisked away.
Film footage of the crime scene still exists, close analysis of which, plus the police report, serves to exonerate Chapman of killing Lennon—as documents referenced at the end attest.
To take just one example: The layout of the Dakota entranceway and the whereabouts of the players establish that Chapman stood to the right and rear of Lennon as the latter stepped towards the doorway. Indeed that is the picture most people have in their minds and it is probably correct. Yet the coroner's report says that two shots entered Lennon on his left side, none on his right. Whether or not there had been an altercation (likely not), had Chapman been the shooter the wounds would have appeared in Lennon's right side, or in his front.
Then there's the vexing question of Yoko Ono. She exited the limo before John and reportedly was some thirty to forty feet ahead of him, well within the safety of the inner entranceway, indeed out of sight, when the shots were fired. Was she accustomed to walking that far ahead of her reconciled husband? The question must arise, considering the Ono family background, her antagonistic behavior in general, and her hauteur. Not to mention her keen interest in "new age" pursuits. After his not altogether happy encounter with Transcendental Meditation, she got John interested in Primal Scream, Esalen, Scientology (briefly), astrology and the Tarot.
Yes, the Tarot. For perhaps two years John and Yoko had a "professional reader" on call, one John Green, who wrote a memoir of his time with them: Dakota Days. One wonders to what degree Lennon actually submitted to all this, or whether he may have himself been conditioned to some degree. In fact I met John Green once, on a weekend at the Cape where we were guests of mutual friends. At that time Green was manager of a band called Mande Dahl and the leader, Mande Dahl herself, was present too. While the cottage and most of the crowd were summer informal, Green wore jackets and Mande, she wore heels. High heels. More than just a whiff of darkness surrounded them, especially the egoistic Green, and I recall thinking to myself, "This guy's a Tarot reader?!" Now I'm inclined to say he was… an agent, of something.
So: "Was Mark David Chapman (Lee Harvey Oswald... Sirhan Sirhan... Squeaky Fromme...) the victim of mind control? Did he actually shoot Lennon or was an obsession to shoot Lennon planted in his brain by 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?"—Salvador Astucia
Was the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate, withheld from the public for over twenty-five years after its initial release, designed as a blueprint for assassination? Has an undercurrent of the hallucinogenic driven population manipulation since the Sixties? Was the videodrome merely an extension of the radiodrome? ("Without radio," Hitler once remarked, "we could never have conquered Germany.") Is there a musicdrome too? Is the blind reverence with which American society accepts the pageant, the ceremonial psychodrama played out before them proof that the Republic has been lost?
Can those questions ever be answered? Don't touch that clicker, stay tuned to CBS.
Hints and suggestions. Hints that something's happening here and You don't know what it is, Do you, Mr. Jones? Suggestions that minds can be manipulated to kill kings and carry around copies of The Catcher in the Rye in the pocket. How can that be?
Plainly stated, Mark David Chapman and John Hinckley, Jr. inter alia were victims of an artificially induced model psychosis. At some point in their unfortunate young lives they (and many more) were subjected to drug conditioning along lines developed by the Tavistock Institute. For a complete explanation I send you to this location, which describes everything in lurid and rather depressing detail. Fail not to go there afterwards.
But here's the problem
The process of successive revelation must culminate at some point. Thus can one never count on being taken by the hand all the distance to the truth. One marches alone, unaccompanied.
Consider the above title/site. Excellent and eye-opening as it is, you will see "the FBI" blamed, and "the CIA". You will also find other "culprits": Richard Nixon (of course), the not-yet-President Ronald Reagan and, most astonishingly, Edward Teller. While the two government agencies are indeed culpable, you can be assured they did not act independently either. What's to be gained by fingering only them? Bless me, I don't know! Well, just this guess: By reducing the operational scale to a familiar and lesser unit, minds are comfortably dropped into an accustomed groove, and the shadow shall prevail.
This article dedicated with love to Barry Griglio.
Response to NBC Dateline’s program about John Lennon’s murder
Is Mark David Chapman a crazed
killer, or a patsy?
Mark David Chapman is completely innocent. Compelling evidence points to Dakota doorman Jose Perdomo as Lennon’s true killer.
Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo,
John Lennon's true assassin(?)
Newly discovered information about doorman Jose Perdomo suggests he may have been John Lennon's true assassin and Mark David Chapman was merely a patsy who confessed to the crime while under the spell of relentless mind control techniques such as hypnosis, drug abuse, shock treatment, sleep deprivation, and so on. Perdomo was tasked to provide security for Lennon at the rock star's upscale apartment complex, the Dakota, the night of the murder. Records reveal a "Jose Joaquin Sanjenis Perdomo" (aliases: "Joaquin Sanjenis" and "Sam Jenis") was an anti-Castro Cuban exile and member of Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961, a failed CIA operation to overthrow Fidel Castro.
New evidence further exonerates Chapman
Analysis of film footage, from Dec. 9, 1980, NYC, suggests bullet holes in Dakota's lobby door were likely not caused by Chapman.
Copyright © 2005, all rights reserved, by Clark Johnsen. No reproduction or reposting without express permission.