The U.S. vs. John Lennon (Page 2 of 4)

How is it strange?  People still have the right to make movies, "they" can't stop pople from making movies.

I think people genuinely do not care.

My brother showed me the trailer to this movie - and up until now, he has never been into that sort of thing.  He was pretty into what Lennon was saying, and has also been very anti-gov. in recent months.

So I said - "Well, that's why they had him killed."

He said "Who?  He was shot by one of his fans..."

So, the point gets totally missed even when spelt out in LARGE LETTERS.  I can't help thinking it doesn't matter any longer that this stuff gets out.  After a while, he had given it some thought and said "No one can know who killed Lennon."  And shrugged his shoulders.

Maybe it's just more distraction.  After all "conspiracy" seems to have become quite fashionable in the last few years.  And that is a pretty neat sleight of hand on behalf of the powers that be.

This is something that I have often wondered at too.  I find it very strange indeed.  Yet - it seems to clearly illustrate just how deep the conditioning goes.  You can almost visualise it in the examples you used...each time Joe Average reads a conspiracy article or whatever, a big LIGHTBULB appears above his head.  He wakes up momentarily.  After that the Lightbulb switches off and he returns to sleep and his conditioning.

So that puts a different spin on things on the whole “why?"  question.  Sure; people don't care - but maybe we shouldn’t assume that this materials release is down to apathy on behalf of the controllers.

If people don't care - then how do you make them care?  I was thinking about this a bit, and then read what Toad_in_the_Matrix wrote on the Scanner Darkly thread.  He pretty much wrote what I have been thinking.

As you mentioned people are so asleep that they don't apply the things they learn to their daily lives.  But what would happen if they did start doing this?  When I step back and really look at what is going on with the media recently, it really looks like they are trying to incite anger, fear and almost rebellion.  Traditionally the media has let people focus their hostility upon the "unfairness of life".  But we also know how the media is used in a very targeted manner.  Are we being given a very clear and very large target?

If so I gotta wonder why.  Why is this material being allowed out there now?  What happens when an entire population realises its leaders are a bunch of phoney manipulators?

I can't help thinking it is all very staged and controlled at this point - just as it has ever been.

Either that - or the so called "forces of light" or human consciousness is taking a drastic shift for the better.  Or perhaps the shit has to hit the fan before that can happen?

For some strange reason, Marcus seems to have just deleted his comments I'm replying to:

I guess to some extent a lot of things have changed, depending on what you're looking at. Anything that's related to technology, like positive things (such as the internet) or negative things (such as increased surveillance) has certainly changed a lot in the last 10 years.

My comments we're mainly aimed at the idea of us being oppressed. The truth is that right now I don't feel any more or less free than I did 10 years ago. I don't really feel that there's anything I can't do right now, that I could have done 10 years ago. And outside of London, in my experience, the number of police that you see on the streets doesn't seem any different to 10 years ago.

Over the last 10 years, including the present day, I've known a lot of, shall we say interesting, people who don't exactly keep within the law, and I don't think I've personally known one person who's ever been arrested, or even fears being arrested.

As to people attitudes, well I guess that's a difficult one for me to comment on. I have a small family, a fairly small circle of friends, and also because I work from home, I don't have a great deal of contact with a lot people. I tend to attract cool and interesting people into my life, so long may that continue!

Now I'm certainly not saying the UK is a wonderful place to live, it's not. I could write a list as long as my arm of all the things that are wrong with this place, and I agree that things seem to be going further downhill. However, a couple of years ago I had a real sense of urgency about leaving this country. I don't really have that anymore. Things seems more positive now, although I think that's just a shift in my own way of thinking rather than because of something that's actually changed.

Perhaps things are about to take a huge turn for the worse, but right now I feel quite happy about the way things are going, at least in my life anyway.

John had a double, as did the other Beatles.  That's right, there was "another" John, an impersonator who acted as John for various public appearances, photo shoots and who knows what else.  This can be verified by analyzing facial characteristics.

John's double apparently came on the scene around the same time that Paul was officially replaced, in Sept. 1966.  This time period is still something of a black hole in Beatles history with many conflicting stories about who was doing what.  However John by all accounts was busy on the set of the film "How I Won the War", and John's double makes an appearance in this film as well.  [This seems to be a common method for introducing doubles (and various other deceptions) to the public, by alternating or blending images of what is real and what is "not real" so the mind of the viewer is trained to see them as the same.]

After 1975 it seems there are NO pictures of the real John Lennon.  According to the official story, from that time John became a recluse, a "househusband" staying home with his son Sean.  Also there are many people who say that this was a cover story, and in reality he was virtually kept a prisoner by Yoko in their Dakota apartment, drugged and deluded out of his mind.

Then in 1980, he suddenly came out of hiding, made an album called DOUBLE FANTASY, and just when he seemed to be coming back into the public eye, he was promptly shot.  But...it seems that all of the pictures of "John" from this time period are instead of his double!  Very curious...and that last album really sounds like a poor imitation of his musical style.

All of this begs the question, what happened to the real John?  The last pictures that can be verified as the real John Lennon are from the time when he was still living with May Pang, the so-called "lost weekend" when he was separated from Yoko. 

The best case scenario would probably be that he found a way to escape his Truman-esque life as a celebrity, and simply was not heard from again...after all he was very intelligent and for years had observed all the best strategies for changing identities.

Or maybe he was actually killed in 1975?  Either way, the years of his life from 1975-1980 would have been staged - the fantasy life of a double - and his assassination in 1980 would have been a hoax...and there's no need to point out the negative impact his death has had on millions of people the world over...

But there are other possibilities...maybe the simplest explanation would be that John was truly still alive in those years, living in the Dakota as a mind-controlled zombie, with a double making all his public appearances, until he was finally led to slaughter in a genuine assassination.

All of this might sound completely bizarre....but sometimes when cover-ups are seemingly exposed in the media, it is actually intended to distract people from finding deeper truths.

"Looks like" and "sounds like" is exactly the point of it, and a brief study is not enough to perceive the differences. 

Doubles are generally not born, they are made with ordinary cosmetic make-up, prosthetics, skin injections, plastic surgery, orthodontic work and various other tricks.  Granted, it is easier to use a natural lookalike, and John's double appears to be one of the best.  The key difference is jaw shape...

JOHN <-------------------------------------> FAUX JOHN

Paul McCartney's replacement is definitely NOT a natural lookalike, so the differences are more obvious (height, head shape, nose, etc.)

Fake....why?
Both images are from www.redferns.com

As for the comparison you posted, it is actually from the website of a person who now does believe that John had a double.  It is just showing John compared with John, which does not rule out the possibility of a double.