Did the CIA kill John Lennon?

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Our political beliefs are a product of many things. If you think the media has no significant influence on people then you are being naive. He doesn't have to want to "overturn this established order" to be a threat to it.



Someone does not create a movement to be dangerous for the establishment. Creating an anthem, a rallying cry, a symbol for an existing movement can be even more threatening than starting the movement.



Why is the motive weak? Lennon had a significant impact on people's attitudes at a sensitive time before so it is understandable why his re-emergence would be seen as a serious threat when the wheels were just starting to turn in Central America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. Think for a moment about what makes a movement a revolution. A bit of hostility towards U.S. activity would be expected, but imagine a figure like Lennon putting out a defining song for the opposition or making a bold statement about the renewed conflict akin to the Bed-In. Even if that alone was not enough it could still be the spark that lights the powder keg. Give the commoners a bit of inspiration, a bit of hope, and they are liable to explode. In many ways Lennon was an old vestige of the bygone 60's era of wild abandon and antiestablishmentarianism. Consider it a symbolic signal of the final end to that era and its commensurate dangers. The motive could be as simple as sending a message.

You're missing the point. What movement was there for him to lead or support? What threat was the man fighting?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The Counterculture Movement may have indeed been on its death bed, and Lennon may have indeed been de facto retired as a counterculture icon. However, he was still despised by Reaganite Reactionaries who were blooming at the time of assassination, having just taken over the White House.

Understand that there does not necessarily have to be a practical motive for the assassination of Lennon. The assassination may have simply been part of a greater celebration regarding the triumph of the emerging Neo-Conservative Movement over the dying Counterculture Movement, similar to the assassination of Vercingetorix during the triumph celebration of Julius Caesar in 46 BC.

So the government is going to risk backlash in order to remove a dissident that does not pose any threat to the regime?

 

[Red_Dave]

So the government is going to risk backlash in order to remove a dissident that does not pose any threat to the regime?

I think on the contrary if they wanted to discredit the new left the best thing they could so would be to keep John Lennon alive....

 

[Ben K.]

Why is the motive weak? Lennon had a significant impact on people's attitudes at a sensitive time before so it is understandable why his re-emergence would be seen as a serious threat when the wheels were just starting to turn in Central America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. Think for a moment about what makes a movement a revolution. A bit of hostility towards U.S. activity would be expected, but imagine a figure like Lennon putting out a defining song for the opposition or making a bold statement about the renewed conflict akin to the Bed-In. Even if that alone was not enough it could still be the spark that lights the powder keg. Give the commoners a bit of inspiration, a bit of hope, and they are liable to explode. In many ways Lennon was an old vestige of the bygone 60's era of wild abandon and antiestablishmentarianism. Consider it a symbolic signal of the final end to that era and its commensurate dangers. The motive could be as simple as sending a message.

The narrative you just provided shows why it's a weak motive as far as conspiracies go. It would require a hypothetical sequence of anticipated events to merit the action. Furthermore, the message was sent to no one, since he wasn't a leading anti-establishment voice at the time and as far as everyone knows a nut-job killed him.

 

[Demon of Light]

You're missing the point. What movement was there for him to lead or support? What threat was the man fighting?

Actually, you are clearly missing the point. There are several ways to manage dissent just like there are several ways to manage crime. You are only thinking of the reactionary approach where you wait until the dissent manifests before stifling it. Preventative measures are preferable to the former. Insuring that no well-known face that has already established dissident credentials can take charge of or inflame opposition to an intended resurgence of certain establishment activities is a perfectly logical motive.

So the government is going to risk backlash in order to remove a dissident that does not pose any threat to the regime?

The backlash is only a serious risk if there is a reasonable chance of getting caught in the aftermath. Were we to find out now, 30 years later, that it was an operation by government actors it would not create backlash for the government today. Everything would be spun into irrelevancy by the media as it was "decades ago" and "much has changed" in that time, along with it likely only falling on the lower level parties since they're the only ones who could probably be proven as culpable in any meaningful way.

The narrative you just provided shows why it's a weak motive as far as conspiracies go. It would require a hypothetical sequence of anticipated events to merit the action.

See above. It wasn't that hypothetical. There was a surge of foreign meddling with severe human consequences that generated hostility towards the establishment. Had someone like John Lennon been there to fan the flames of dissent no one knows where it would have gone. It would have been a serious risk to hedge on that not happening.

Furthermore, the message was sent to no one, since he wasn't a leading anti-establishment voice at the time and as far as everyone knows a nut-job killed him.

You don't understand what I was saying. The message would not be "this is what you get for opposing us" but "those times are over" so it actually is more compelling to have a "lone nut-job" with no connection to the State do the deed. A political killing makes him a martyr for the cause and inflames dissent, while a seemingly mundane and average killing makes it a tragic nail in the coffin of the 60's and 70's time of liberating abandon and diminishes the hopes of dissenters.

 

[usda select]

Seems possible as he may have been considered a threat to national security...

So they killed him on the street in front of witnesses. Unlikelyy

 

[Awesome!]

So they killed him on the street in front of witnesses. Unlikelyy

I think the CIA operates just this way. They are right under your nose so to speak. For example, project Azorian.

The more I delve into this question though it seems to me like it wouldn't be a directive from the president, but rather, a fiefdom in the CIA that did it on their own because they wanted the leftist's/liberal's poster boy to be out of the way especially with all the projects/operations that happened in the early 80's. At the very least his killing was a message that they were still in control, and punk hippies were not in control even with all their cute idealist poems and songs....

 

[Sig]

So the government is going to risk backlash in order to remove a dissident that does not pose any threat to the regime?

No. "The government" certainly did not assassinate Lennon. "The government," our government, is not nearly so extreme in its dealings with high profile dissidents. Indeed, our government can barely find the nerve to execute dangerous and incorrigible criminals when all sense of logic, law, and morality indicates that it is the correct thing to do.

No, Lennon was likely assassinated by a particularly powerful and reactionary private cabal which may have wielded considerable influence over our government (and may even still) but is nevertheless completely independent of it.

 

[Surtr]

No, Lennon was likely assassinated by a particularly powerful and reactionary private cabal which may have wielded considerable influence over our government (and may even still) but is nevertheless completely independent of it.

He was killed by Mark David Chapman, a man who was, by any standard, mentally unsound. He was completely obsessed, and outraged by Lennon's music, statements and life. He was admittedly a fan, but claimed Lennon to be a blasphemer, and a communist. He had become obsessed with the book A Catcher in the Rye, and the protagonists arguments against hypocrisy in society. Chapman killed Lennon, because he was, and still is, a ****ing lunatic.

 

[Luna Tick]

No. The Vietnam war was over. Lenin was just a musician. Mark David Chapman was a loon out for attention. He was not a hire by the CIA.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Actually, you are clearly missing the point. There are several ways to manage dissent just like there are several ways to manage crime. You are only thinking of the reactionary approach where you wait until the dissent manifests before stifling it. Preventative measures are preferable to the former. Insuring that no well-known face that has already established dissident credentials can take charge of or inflame opposition to an intended resurgence of certain establishment activities is a perfectly logical motive.

That does not change the fact that the FBI itself said that Lennon wasn't a threat.

The backlash is only a serious risk if there is a reasonable chance of getting caught in the aftermath. Were we to find out now, 30 years later, that it was an operation by government actors it would not create backlash for the government today. Everything would be spun into irrelevancy by the media as it was "decades ago" and "much has changed" in that time, along with it likely only falling on the lower level parties since they're the only ones who could probably be proven as culpable in any meaningful way.

Yet the risk is always there.

See above. It wasn't that hypothetical. There was a surge of foreign meddling with severe human consequences that generated hostility towards the establishment. Had someone like John Lennon been there to fan the flames of dissent no one knows where it would have gone. It would have been a serious risk to hedge on that not happening.

The FBI apparently did. They said he was no threat.

You don't understand what I was saying. The message would not be "this is what you get for opposing us" but "those times are over" so it actually is more compelling to have a "lone nut-job" with no connection to the State do the deed. A political killing makes him a martyr for the cause and inflames dissent, while a seemingly mundane and average killing makes it a tragic nail in the coffin of the 60's and 70's time of liberating abandon and diminishes the hopes of dissenters.

This is exactly my point Demon. Even if half the things you say about the government were true, killing Lennon would only risk making things worse. There is no benefit to killing Lennon. If it was done to send a message, it would just piss people off. If it was to kill some random left-winger, nothing would have happened anyway. There is no way for the government to benefit here.

 

[Demon of Light]

That does not change the fact that the FBI itself said that Lennon wasn't a threat.

That is an oversimplification of what was said. Rather the whole quote is: “Lennon appears to be radically oriented however he does not give the impression he is a true revolutionist since he is constantly under the influence of narcotics.” Mainstream media, naturally, took that as saying the FBI thought he couldn't be a threat. However, the hippies were all about being constantly under the influence of narcotics yet there is no question the hippie movement was considered a threat at that time.

Yet the risk is always there.

Such a risk exists with all the dirty deeds of the American government. That hasn't stopped them because so far it has never had serious blowback. People got the surface coverage on Iran-Contra, got angry, but a few years later the government was back doing the same things because the story was sufficiently managed so that no one cared enough about it. Today we have "Operation Fast and Furious" that could easily expose a whole dirty underbelly of our government's deeds, but the media has put forward the "incompetent" sting cover story and it has quickly faded into irrelevancy. You can say it is a risk, but they have been doing this long enough to know how to minimize the damage. I doubt many of them would see the murder of a beloved singer on U.S. soil as something entailing much risk as a result.

This is exactly my point Demon. Even if half the things you say about the government were true, killing Lennon would only risk making things worse. There is no benefit to killing Lennon. If it was done to send a message, it would just piss people off. If it was to kill some random left-winger, nothing would have happened anyway. There is no way for the government to benefit here.

You have to think a little more poetically. Say it is true that Lennon was killed at the behest of forces in government. The message has already been received and people weren't pissed at the government, because the government wasn't implicated. Implicating the government would make Lennon a martyr. Having him offed by a "crazed fan" makes him just another tragic victim of prole-on-prole crime. The government is not the enemy in this scenario because it locked up the perpetrator nice and tight. We become the enemy of ourselves and the government our silent protector. An iconic figure of the 60's era is gunned down by a fan who feels he is a "phony" to the cause at a time long after his heydays were done. For us there is no poetry to that death, no rallying cry to make it more meaningful. It is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Were I trying to maintain a system of social control and suppress the people's yearning for revolution, I would want that kind of death for such a figure. Leave the people in shame and disgust at their government then they are more likely to rebel. Leave the people in shame and disgust at themselves then they are more likely to submit.

 

[Sig]

He was killed by Mark David Chapman, a man who was, by any standard, mentally unsound. He was completely obsessed, and outraged by Lennon's music, statements and life. He was admittedly a fan, but claimed Lennon to be a blasphemer, and a communist. He had become obsessed with the book A Catcher in the Rye, and the protagonists arguments against hypocrisy in society. Chapman killed Lennon, because he was, and still is, a ****ing lunatic.

If Chapman had been a native New Yorker, living in close proximity to the Lennon residence at the time of the assassination, there would be little reason to suspect him of being in conspiracy with some mysterious cabal. However, Chapman traveled all the way from Hawaii, TWICE, in order to kill Lennon, and he did so on a security guard salary, just as he had gone on a six-week, round the world vacation in 1978. From whom was this ****ing lunatic obtaining such financing, and why?

What is more, just how does a ****ing lunatic of this caliber manage to travel back and forth, from Hawaii to New York to Atlanta, back to Hawaii and then back to New York again, all by himself? That's an awful lot of long distance travel for someone with an apparently disintegrating personality to undertake so successfully with little or no assistance. Even if the ultimate truth is that, oddly, Chapman did indeed act alone and was entirely self-motivated in his assassination of Lennon, on the face of it, this case stinks of conspiracy.

 

[Surtr]

If Chapman had been a native New Yorker, living in close proximity to the Lennon residence at the time of the assassination, there would be little reason to suspect him of being in conspiracy with some mysterious cabal. However, Chapman traveled all the way from Hawaii, TWICE, in order to kill Lennon, and he did so on a security guard salary, just as he had gone on a six-week, round the world vacation in 1978. From whom was this ****ing lunatic obtaining such financing, and why?

Obviously he was getting money from working, like most people do.

What is more, just how does a ****ing lunatic of this caliber manage to travel back and forth, from Hawaii to New York to Atlanta, back to Hawaii and then back to New York again, all by himself? That's an awful lot of long distance travel for someone with an apparently disintegrating personality to undertake so successfully with little or no assistance.

You apparently know nothing about psychological disorders.

Even if the ultimate truth is that, oddly, Chapman did indeed act alone and was entirely self-motivated in his assassination of Lennon, on the face of it, this case stinks of conspiracy.

If the CIA killed him, they wouldn't have hired some nut from Hawaii.

 

[Empirica]

It certainly makes sense. People may ask about motive, but the motive would be pretty obvious. Lennon was a dissident and so getting rid of him would be important for clearing out all prominent dissent.

I don't believe that simply being a dissident would be enough to motivate the government to murder someone.

I would hope that someone would have to at least be considered a threat to warrant such an extreme reaction.

I am in fact hoping that more than 50% of americans are dissidents and will express their dissent in November.

 

[Demon of Light]

I don't believe that simply being a dissident would be enough to motivate the government to murder someone.

I would hope that someone would have to at least be considered a threat to warrant such an extreme reaction.

See my comments above. I am certainly not suggesting that being a dissident on its own is enough. Only the most isolated and static totalitarian states in the world, basically North Korea, would be so intolerant of all dissent. Pretty much every government in the world allows at least a modicum of dissent because it keeps the populace hopeful, which is important. In the United States and other managed democracies a lot of "dissent" is allowed because the "dissent" is focused on public individuals and general policy matters. So long as it doesn't upset the current power structure it is not a threat.

Lennon was always a lingering threat because he could help rekindle the dissident movements of the 60's. Since many important establishment machinations were getting set in motion at the beginning of the 80's it is only natural that the establishment would want him removed from the picture.

I am in fact hoping that more than 50% of americans are dissidents and will express their dissent in November.

Unless they vote for a third party they are not going to be showing much dissent. Of course, the third party route would just be a more radical surface measure.

 

[Sig]

Obviously he was getting money from working, like most people do.

Obviously, it is just not sinking in. I'll try this again:

CHAPMAN WAS A SECURITY GUARD IN HAWAII!!!

HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU THINK HE MADE???

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE COST OF LIVING IS IN HAWAII???

ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, DO YOU KNOW WHAT A PLANE TICKET FROM HAWAII TO NEW YORK COST BACK IN 1980??

THE MONEY TRAIL DOES NOT ADD UP!!!

THINK, MAN, THINK!!!

You apparently know nothing about psychological disorders.

Actually, I know considerably more than you, at least from the clinical and academic point of view.

If the CIA killed him, they wouldn't have hired some nut from Hawaii.

I already stated that the CIA did not necessarily have to be the culprit in the assassination. I do not care to repeat this a third time. In fact, I seriously doubt that any active CIA agent had anything to do with the assassination. The assassination could have been (and likely was, if conspiracy be the case) the work of a private reactionary cabal with deep pockets and access to sophisticated mind control techniques and/or assets. If there is any truth to the myth of the programmed sleeper-assassin, Chapman certainly seems to fit the bill.

So why use such a programmed sleeper-assassin in the first place? Would it not be easier to simply hire a merc sniper to plant a round in Lennon's ear?

Yes and no.

A professional-looking hit on Lennon would have precipitated an endless investigation by the FBI, MI5, MI6, and INTERPOL. It would have been far more ideal to have a "crazed lone gunman" do the deed, especially one that would hang around the crime scene until the police arrived to arrest him so that he could confess to the crime, thereby closing the case.

 

[Sig]

No. The Vietnam war was over. Lenin was just a musician. Mark David Chapman was a loon out for attention. He was not a hire by the CIA.

 

[Surtr]

Obviously, it is just not sinking in. I'll try this again:

CHAPMAN WAS A SECURITY GUARD IN HAWAII!!!

HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU THINK HE MADE???

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE COST OF LIVING IS IN HAWAII???

ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, DO YOU KNOW WHAT A PLANE TICKET FROM HAWAII TO NEW YORK COST BACK IN 1980??

THE MONEY TRAIL DOES NOT ADD UP!!!

THINK, MAN, THINK!!!

Um, security guards can actually make a lot of money. Especially those who are certified to be armed guards, like Chapman was. The fact that he had to get bullets from a friend speaks volumes, since he likely spent all of his money on the trips from Hawaii to New York. I don't believe he felt money was very important, compared to his mission, which was to rid the world of social hypocrisy, and blasphemers like Lennon, and the other celebrities he had planned to murder. The only reason he killed Lennon is because he was the easiest to access. Had he killed George C Scott, or Elizabeth Taylor, I doubt this would even be a discussion. People simply can't accept that their idols were victims of senseless violence.

Actually, I know considerably more than you, at least from the clinical and academic point of view.

Obviously not, if you think having a psychotic disorder means being unable to travel places without accompaniment.

I already stated that the CIA did not necessarily have to be the culprit in the assassination. I do not care to repeat this a third time. In fact, I seriously doubt that any active CIA agent had anything to do with the assassination. The assassination could have been (and likely was, if conspiracy be the case) the work of a private reactionary cabal with deep pockets and access to sophisticated mind control techniques and/or assets. If there is any truth to the myth of the programmed sleeper-assassin, Chapman certainly seems to fit the bill.

And I'm sure you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such "cabals" exist.

So why use such a programmed sleeper-assassin in the first place? Would it not be easier to simply hire a merc sniper to plant a round in Lennon's ear?

Yes and no.

A professional-looking hit on Lennon would have precipitated an endless investigation by the FBI, MI5, MI6, and INTERPOL. It would have been far more ideal to have a "crazed lone gunman" do the deed, especially one that would hang around the crime scene until the police arrived to arrest him so that he could confess to the crime, thereby closing the case.

Then why not just have someone get drunk, and hit him with a car, or covertly inject him with a common, but fatal illness? I mean, if we're dealing with dark, shadowy cabals with deep pockets and access to failed CIA pipe-dreams here...

 

[Sig]

Um, security guards can actually make a lot of money. Especially those who are certified to be armed guards, like Chapman was.

Actually, he was an unarmed security guard at condominium complex. I doubt that he made much more than minimum wage, which, incidentally, does not get you very far in Hawaii. Apparently, Chapman had generous friends who were eager to lend him travel money.

The fact that he had to get bullets from a friend speaks volumes, since he likely spent all of his money on the trips from Hawaii to New York. I don't believe he felt money was very important...

In other words, he did not have much money of his own, and was apparently assisted in the assassination by friends. Correct?

compared to his mission, which was to rid the world of social hypocrisy, and blasphemers like Lennon, and the other celebrities he had planned to murder. The only reason he killed Lennon is because he was the easiest to access. Had he killed George C Scott, or Elizabeth Taylor, I doubt this would even be a discussion. People simply can't accept that their idols were victims of senseless violence.

Yes, it is always easier to fly to New York from Hawaii than to fly to California from Hawaii.

Obviously not, if you think having a psychotic disorder means being unable to travel places without accompaniment.

Obviously, you described Chapman as a ****ing lunatic, suggesting that his psychotic disorder was debilitating in the extreme. Would you like to amend your diagnosis?

And I'm sure you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such "cabals" exist.

Reactionary cabals?... Certainly.

The Anti-Masonic Party, the Nativists, the APA, the KKK, the Black Legion, the Defenders of the Christian Faith, the Silver Shirts, the Fascists, the John Birch Society, the American Independent Party... is it really your contention that reactionary cabals are a historical myth?

Then why not just have someone get drunk, and hit him with a car, or covertly inject him with a common, but fatal illness? I mean, if we're dealing with dark, shadowy cabals with deep pockets and access to failed CIA pipe-dreams here...

I might imagine that such a cabal would have killed any number of people using such methods. With Lennon, however, they may have chosen the more sophisticated method of a programmed sleeper-assassin simply because they spent a lot of money developing it and were eager to see it actually employed on someone they vehemently despised. Perhaps, they were even testing the logistic capabilities of the method. After all, Hawaii is about 5,000 miles away from New York City. Who knows their reasons? Does it really matter?

Once again, you are attempting to evade the obvious: What makes the assassination of Lennon so suspicious of conspiracy is the peculiarities of the assassin himself (namely his frequent flyer miles on a peon's salary combined with a debilitating mental illness) and not the particular method he employed to kill Lennon, which was anything but sophisticated: he shot Lennon to death at close range using a handgun.

 

[Mya]

John Lennon killed by the CIA?

Nope

The only John who was killed by the CIA was a President and his last name was Kennedy my dears, John F Kennedy.

Fun thread!

 

[Demon of Light]

Um, security guards can actually make a lot of money. Especially those who are certified to be armed guards, like Chapman was. The fact that he had to get bullets from a friend speaks volumes, since he likely spent all of his money on the trips from Hawaii to New York. I don't believe he felt money was very important, compared to his mission, which was to rid the world of social hypocrisy, and blasphemers like Lennon, and the other celebrities he had planned to murder. The only reason he killed Lennon is because he was the easiest to access. Had he killed George C Scott, or Elizabeth Taylor, I doubt this would even be a discussion. People simply can't accept that their idols were victims of senseless violence.

Actually, his obsession with Lennon was pretty well-documented. It was not simply killing someone famous. The whole "kill someone to get famous" rationale is basically a myth fabricated for political purposes or as a coping mechanism. People don't do that, not even crazy people.

Then why not just have someone get drunk, and hit him with a car, or covertly inject him with a common, but fatal illness? I mean, if we're dealing with dark, shadowy cabals with deep pockets and access to failed CIA pipe-dreams here...

There is no poetry to that. You only do stuff like that if you don't want a lot of fanfare. Here the fanfare was a crucial part of the narrative.

 

[Surtr]

Obviously, you described Chapman as a ****ing lunatic, suggesting that his psychotic disorder was debilitating in the extreme. Would you like to amend your diagnosis?

I called him a lunatic, in that most people, even those with psychotic disorders, don't gun people down in the streets.

is it really your contention that reactionary cabals are a historical myth?

Ones that use "sleeper assassins"? Yes.

Once again, you are attempting to evade the obvious

Well, at least I'm not fabricating the truth. The money is all your argument has. Illuminatiesque cabals with access to failed and abandoned CIA projects, and Manchurian candidates? You need to step away from the tv.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Who knows what the CIA does? *shrugs*

I mean, they spied on Bhutto....

We know they like to play with the stock market.

Like hookers.

Always mixed up with drugs and "failed terrorist double-agents" *cough* setup *cough*

I wouldn't be surprised if many CIA big wigs are drunk with power.

 

[Sig]

I called him a lunatic, in that most people, even those with psychotic disorders, don't gun people down in the streets.

So, in other words, you don't really believe that Chapman was literally psychotic, you were using the term "lunatic" in a generically pejorative kind of way.

Ones that use "sleeper assassins"? Yes.

And you know this how?

Well, at least I'm not fabricating the truth. The money is all your argument has. Illuminatiesque cabals with access to failed and abandoned CIA projects, and Manchurian candidates? You need to step away from the tv.

I'm not fabricating anything. Chapman really did fly from Hawaii to New York, TWICE, on a security guard's salary, just to shoot John Lennon.

What I am engaged in here is called THINKING, as opposed to duckspeak, which is what you are engaged in. You do know what duckspeak is, don't you? (...of course you don't..) Duckspeak is an Orwellian term for speaking (or blogging) without thinking. A perfect example is when somebody simply repeats the conclusions which have been spoon-fed to him by the mainstream news media about a particular incident, without ever questioning such conclusions, regardless of all glaring inconsistencies.

You quack as if the fact that Chapman was not financially self-sufficient enough to carry out the assassination all by himself is nothing to be concerned about. You quack about his being a "****ing lunatic" and then back away from your own diagnosis as soon as the issue over whether or not he had the mental competency to carry out the deed is introduced.

1.) Chapman did not have the financial wherewithal to do the deed by himself.

2.) Chapman did not have the mental competency to do the deed by himself.

These are NOT trivial issues. They require explanation in order to conclude that Chapman acted alone. And yet, you seem perfectly content to overlook them and mindlessly reiterate the mainstream narrative as if, like Chapman, you are apparently also under the spell of some posthypnotic suggestion.

...or maybe you're just a gullible, duckspeaking fool.