Log In
Register
5.58pm
1 November 2012
Offline
The problem with conspiracy theories is not that they may not be true, but rather that they are systemically constructed in such a way that they cannot be disproven.
As scientists know, the point of a credible scientific theory is its inherent possibility to be disproven.
The main mechanism conspiracy theorists use to exclude disproof is essentially their conviction that any and all counter-evidence is really false evidence manufactured by the evil powerful people who did the evil deed in the first place. That means that there is no evidence the conspiracy theorist will ever consider on its own merits: All potential counter-evidence you can try to point out is, in their minds, already tainted, already corrupted, already compromised — before it ever gets put on the table for consideration.
Added to this problem, the conspiracy theorist tends to be obsessive with details, amassing a bewildering jungle of data with a thousand interlocking connections; and any time one objects and demands some simple clarity, they say that clarity is really supporting the conspiracy, because any criticism of their construction must be, you see, part of the “cover-up”.
With this mindset and methodology, one obviously cannot have a rational conversation with a conspiracy theorist.
I also find it ironic and amusing that 99% of Hollywood movies and TV shows involving political thrillers are structured along the lines of conspiracy theory, where the bad guys are invariably Evil White Silver-Haired Globalist Corporate Shadowy Government Fat Cats. I.e., our own culture for like 50 years now has been purveying this comically alienated and gnostic view; which makes one wonder, if the world is being manipulated by such types, why would they be allowing billions of dollars in marketing and production to cultivate a mass pop culture exposing them?
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
7.26pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
It is the insanity of the true believer. I am so glad that in the hours since I put up my first reaction to Clare’s first post on our website, nobody has said that she should be listened to, and that I was wrong in my vehement dismissal of the view of 8 December 1980 that she was offering. And, while it may have become obvious to those who read her post, I did not point out that it was her distortion of that dreadful day. The interview she was guiding us to, she was one of the main interviewees.
I agree with all that Funny Paper has said in dismissal of conspiracy theories, and the problems with dismissing them to the true believer. One point I think FP missed though, that so much of their evidence is based upon the initial confused accounts that come out of the horrific events that conspiracies are so often built on. If someone they’re quoting at the moment of tragedy contradicts themself after they have had time to process what they witnessed, then they have been got to by the evil-doers.
As I went into the site to see whether it was a link worth following, my fears raised when I saw their most recent exposé was on the horror of Sandy Hook. I watched the confusing messages coming out of 24-hour media as it unfolded, and you can be sure they will be playing on everything that was later corrected to prove we’re being lied to. Preying on the grief of distraught parents.
Sometimes this world appalls me. I am glad we can laugh at the “Paul Is Dead” theories here, because they are so obviously BS, but seem unwilling to much more than short shrift to those that try and turn John’s tragic and pointless murder into something else.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
8.31pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I am torn over the JFK murder, i dont think it was as clear cut as is reported to be but the large majority of what is said to be conspiracies at hand is complete bullshit as well. You might as well start digging thru I Am The Walrus to discover the True Message or claim to know when the world is definately ending after ‘solving’ The Book of Revelation.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.54pm
5 November 2011
Offline DrBeatle said
Back on topic, the conspiracy theories about John’s murder are a bunch of BS. Supposedly Sean even believes the US government had his dad killed, which is pathetic if true.
I read that Sean said that as a publicity thing for his album, so people would go out and buy it. I think that sounds stupid. John Lennon is a musician, who cares what his political opinions are? People like to pretend that he had some kind of impact on American government, but I don’t think so.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
9.11pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Surely Sean wouldnt use Johns murder to sell/promote his album?
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.22pm
5 November 2011
Offline I think it was Cynthia Lennon who thought that’s what he was doing. It was something like he decided to put out an album the same time as Julian, and then he was doing an interview and said that.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
11.09pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
Depends on the context of the interview and the circumstances around the line of questioning and answers given. You see it all the time, someone gives an interview and the press take a comment and turn it into a huge headline. Not saying Sean didnt and that Cyn was wrong, would just like to see the full transcript of what was said.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
11.31pm
5 November 2011
Offline I never read the interview, but that’s how Cynthia and Julian perceived it. They could be wrong, I guess, but Sean’s daft for saying that either way.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
10.58am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Sadly it seems, in 1998 at least, Sean was entertaining the conspiracy theories. The interview in question appeared in the 20 April 1998 edition of The New Yorker under the title of “Department of Legacies”, was promoting his “Into the Son” album, and was conducted by Rebecca Mead.
Sean was quoted as saying:
“He was a counterculture revolutionary, and the government takes that kind of s**t really seriously historically,” the Columbia University dropout tells this week’s New Yorker.
Adds Sean: “[My father] 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.”
The official story fingers Mark David Chapman, noted Catcher in the Rye enthusiast, as the lone assassin in the murder outside Lennon’s Manhattan apartment.
Sean, who was 5 when his father died, begs to disagree with the official story.
“Anybody who thinks that Mark Chapman was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his personal interests is insane, I think, or very naive,” he says.
Not been able to see the interview since not a New Yorker subscriber, the above is taken from what appears to be a press release trailing the upcoming interview on the 13 April. I found it on The Internet Beatles Album, link http://www.beatlesagain.com/breflib/sean.html.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
1.20pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Cool find MJ.
Well based on that Sean sees it differently to me and thinks im naive. I trully cannot be bothered going digging into the whole conspiracy theories to see if im wrong and he is right.
Personally I dont think the US Government in 1980 cared what John was doing to the extent of ordering his assassination. According to some he was a supporter of Reagan but who knows what that meant back then.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.54pm
12 November 2012
Offline As an American, I agree with you. In 1980, the U.S. government had no reason to worry about what John Lennon was doing. The Vietnam War and his days of protesting were over. That was the only reason why Richard Nixon didn’t want John in the country. The U.S. actually got involved in Vietnam because Nixon lied about the Watergate Scandal, and he had to resign once people found out in 1974. That war was worth protesting about.
"The world is a very serious and, at times, very sad place - but at other times it is all such a joke."-George Harrison
8.24pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline 
Even in the heyday of crazy activists in the 60s and 70s, weren’t there more important ones the US Gov’t could’ve gone after and killed if they’d really wanted to? Such as the people that were actually PERPETRATING the crimes/bombings, like Tom Haden, Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dorn, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, etc? John mouthed off a lot but he wasn’t bombing and attacking people like those ^^ and other nuts were.
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
2.01am
1 November 2012
Offline “[My father] 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.” — Sean Lennon
LOL, what a flaming bloody idiot. If 10,000 people are going to commit mass destruction, then I want my government to protect me for f**k sake. But, of course, Sean’s luridly puerile (i.e., Leftist) imagination is getting carried away.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
6.07am
27 December 2012
Offline Lots of conspiracies here, like the “Reagan” conspiracy.
Not sure where I am getting this from but I think Chapman thought he was John Lennon , since John Lennon was taking a “break” from music. When John Lennon came back, Chapman couldn’t become Lennon, the only way he could become John Lennon again was by “removing” John Lennon thus killing him.
6.26am
5 November 2011
Offline thewordislove94 said
As an American, I agree with you. In 1980, the U.S. government had no reason to worry about what John Lennon was doing. The Vietnam War and his days of protesting were over. That was the only reason why Richard Nixon didn’t want John in the country.
Even in the sixties and seventies, when John was protesting, the US government had nothing to worry about. I doubt anybody (sans Beatle/ John fans) really cared about what John was preaching. Who was going to take him seriously with the ways he was going about it, anyways? I would assume that most people dismissed much of what he was preaching as infantile drivel, and when people read about it, they probably thought something along the lines of “that guy’s a weirdo.”
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
11.15am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Funny Paper said
“[My father] 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.” — Sean Lennon
LOL, what a flaming bloody idiot. If 10,000 people are going to commit mass destruction, then I want my government to protect me for f**k sake. But, of course, Sean’s luridly puerile (i.e., Leftist) imagination is getting carried away.
When I found the quote that was the line that struck me as most absurd. What PACIFIST would ask those who followed them to go out and commit violence in their name?!!!
I was sad to discover Sean saying such things, and a little relieved I couldn’t find anything similar more recently. I like to think they are the words of a naive 22-year-old who was attempting to find more meaning than there was in the single day that had overshadowed more than three-quarters of his life. I like to hope that in the 15 years since, he has come to accept his father’s death for the pointless, without rhyme or reason, act that it was.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.53pm
1 November 2012
Offline mja6758 said
Funny Paper said
“[My father] 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.” — Sean Lennon
LOL, what a flaming bloody idiot. If 10,000 people are going to commit mass destruction, then I want my government to protect me for f**k sake. But, of course, Sean’s luridly puerile (i.e., Leftist) imagination is getting carried away.
When I found the quote that was the line that struck me as most absurd. What PACIFIST would ask those who followed them to go out and commit violence in their name?!!!
And more to the point, what pacifist followers would go out and follow his orders to kill and destroy property? Of course, there are lunatics like that — but Sean was simultaneously implying that they would do that, and that it would be immoral for the government to try to stop them to protect innocent citizens. In fact, Sean’s mentality is precisely why violent movements get started — you know, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” — starry-eyed pacifists ending up putting thousands of people in mass graves. The 20th century is littered with the bones of people mass-murdered for “good intentions” (e.g., the ideals of Communism).
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
8.16pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline As said above by mja6758 i personally think what Sean said would have been founded upon trying to find reason for the murder of his Father in the madness of what Chapman did. Thank God i have never been in that situation but it must be incredibly difficult to grow up without a parent, especially when they are taken away in such a horrific manner.
I may be wrong and he does totally believe that it was a conspiracy having looked into it all.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
10.38pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Funny Paper said
And more to the point, what pacifist followers would go out and follow his orders to kill and destroy property? Of course, there are lunatics like that — but Sean was simultaneously implying that they would do that, and that it would be immoral for the government to try to stop them to protect innocent citizens. In fact, Sean’s mentality is precisely why violent movements get started — you know, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” — starry-eyed pacifists ending up putting thousands of people in mass graves. The 20th century is littered with the bones of people mass-murdered for “good intentions” (e.g., the ideals of Communism).
Unfortunately, history is littered with followers of pacifists who twist their messages into reasons to go out and commit disgusting acts of violence. The figures upon which most religions were founded were pacifist revolutionaries, and yet look what has been done in their names over the centuries!
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
12.51am
1 November 2012
Offline mja6758 said
Funny Paper said
And more to the point, what pacifist followers would go out and follow his orders to kill and destroy property? Of course, there are lunatics like that — but Sean was simultaneously implying that they would do that, and that it would be immoral for the government to try to stop them to protect innocent citizens. In fact, Sean’s mentality is precisely why violent movements get started — you know, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” — starry-eyed pacifists ending up putting thousands of people in mass graves. The 20th century is littered with the bones of people mass-murdered for “good intentions” (e.g., the ideals of Communism).
Unfortunately, history is littered with followers of pacifists who twist their messages into reasons to go out and commit disgusting acts of violence. The figures upon which most religions were founded were pacifist revolutionaries, and yet look what has been done in their names over the centuries!
But remember, Sean’s quote clearly says that John would/could tell his followers to go out and do violent terrorism — there’s no implication of any “twisting” involved:
“…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.”
God , what an idiotic statement! It gets worse each time I read it…
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
1 Guest(s)