The Beatles, Conspiracy and the Supernatural

[John Wilson]

I appreciate your love of the Fabs and that you think about the World we cohabit (which is why we're all here), but I think we might not come from the same angle?

If the Walrus had no significance, then why in God does he admit that it was really him? Are they being honest? And beyond that do they know the whole story?

By this time I believe that John, who wasn't talking to his old friend and rival Paul, was being antagonistic. He even said the Beatles went 'through a divorce'- we all know what they're like?

What is your reaction to Paul putting Aleister Crowley on the screen behind him when he plays Helter Skelter in concert? Does that seem like a sensible thing to do if you want to in fact dismiss theorists who read things into the songs? Or does it seem like something someone would do to continue to in fact fuel speculation while dismissing the whole notion in interviews?

Paul was always the 'stable' one, never in the papers for being out of control as was John. If he did this (I'm not refuting it) maybe he was just another fascinated famous guy regarding Crowley as were David Bowie and Jimmy Page? I think that it- like all of their album covers and lyrics- was either pure chance or a tease for fans? Nothing cosmic.

The point is this. Most people took Paul is Dead to be either a hoax or coincidence or real. There are still to this day entire forums dedicated to Beatles mysteries. Nothing is Real and The King is Naked being two of them. The Iamaphoney series on Youtube is also dedicated to this. The theories are mostly about Paul, some are rather intriguing, but the point is that the reason why people continue to search through this is because of the sheer volume of items that are bizarre and unique to every other artist.

I think that these people have emotional or mental problems? Something is lacking in their lives, polarised further by illness? I think George Harrison even said something like this, he hated fans by the late 60's.

You of course realize I cannot state much of what I believe to be fact, so John's assertion that it cannot be refuted does have a place, but that doesn't make it untrue either. I spent 2 hours last night looking at everything related to John Wesley Harding due to the presence of the Beatles in a tree when you turn the LP upside down. My conclusion was nothing, I don't have any idea what the significance of the LP is as it relates to my beliefs. I look at these things anyways because it's what I research; I don't personally think my conclusions are irrational but they are definitely off the beaten path.

Again I refer to my original point, there is a case to be made of looking too hard at nothing in order to see something?

I do look at it though and I don't follow the party line as to which Beatles items are significant; a lot of them aren't to me, including some that you are mentioning but I haven't, but a number of things are and I don't believe the Beatles did a lot of them on purpose. No differently than me believing Bobby Kennedy having dinner with Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate the night before he died is quite significant but not because of anything that anyone deliberately did.

Pure coincidence and happen-stance? Just as if I hadn't walked to get the papers, and missed a car careering onto the pavement? Only I ain't famous enough to make it exciting?

[Will Emaus]

I appreciate your love of the Fabs and that you think about the World we cohabit (which is why we're all here), but I think we might not come from the same angle?

If the Walrus had no significance, then why in God does he admit that it was really him? Are they being honest? And beyond that do they know the whole story?

By this time I believe that John, who wasn't talking to his old friend and rival Paul, was being antagonistic. He even said the Beatles went 'through a divorce'- we all know what they're like?

What is your reaction to Paul putting Aleister Crowley on the screen behind him when he plays Helter Skelter in concert? Does that seem like a sensible thing to do if you want to in fact dismiss theorists who read things into the songs? Or does it seem like something someone would do to continue to in fact fuel speculation while dismissing the whole notion in interviews?

Paul was always the 'stable' one, never in the papers for being out of control as was John. If he did this (I'm not refuting it) maybe he was just another fascinated famous guy regarding Crowley as were David Bowie and Jimmy Page? I think that it- like all of their album covers and lyrics- was either pure chance or a tease for fans? Nothing cosmic.

Not claiming it is cosmic. Why do it if you don't want people to read things into it? If the Warren Report was presented to LBJ with a portrait of Crowley behind them, would you be skeptical (more skeptical)?

The point is this. Most people took Paul is Dead to be either a hoax or coincidence or real. There are still to this day entire forums dedicated to Beatles mysteries. Nothing is Real and The King is Naked being two of them. The Iamaphoney series on Youtube is also dedicated to this. The theories are mostly about Paul, some are rather intriguing, but the point is that the reason why people continue to search through this is because of the sheer volume of items that are bizarre and unique to every other artist.

I think that these people have emotional or mental problems? Something is lacking in their lives, polarised further by illness? I think George Harrison even said something like this, he hated fans by the late 60's.

Can you compare this with believing Ronald Reagan had John Lennon assassinated?

You of course realize I cannot state much of what I believe to be fact, so John's assertion that it cannot be refuted does have a place, but that doesn't make it untrue either. I spent 2 hours last night looking at everything related to John Wesley Harding due to the presence of the Beatles in a tree when you turn the LP upside down. My conclusion was nothing, I don't have any idea what the significance of the LP is as it relates to my beliefs. I look at these things anyways because it's what I research; I don't personally think my conclusions are irrational but they are definitely off the beaten path.

Again I refer to my original point, there is a case to be made of looking too hard at nothing in order to see something?

I'm fine with that. I think I'm accomplishing something even if others don't.

I do look at it though and I don't follow the party line as to which Beatles items are significant; a lot of them aren't to me, including some that you are mentioning but I haven't, but a number of things are and I don't believe the Beatles did a lot of them on purpose. No differently than me believing Bobby Kennedy having dinner with Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate the night before he died is quite significant but not because of anything that anyone deliberately did.

Pure coincidence and happen-stance? Just as if I hadn't walked to get the papers, and missed a car careering onto the pavement? Only I ain't famous enough to make it exciting?

Like Chappaquiddick? What if it happened often enough to make you question whether or not it's a coincidence? The third Kennedy to be denied the White House, but no other people caused this one. We can agree to disagree, but I think it has some value to consider a different angle to a number of the conspiracies that took place in this era.

[John Wilson]

So where do we draw the line? Are all rock stars in touch with some ethereal force which auto-signatures their lyrics?

I think we're blurring one point into another, I answered one at a time.

[Will Emaus]

So where do we draw the line? Are all rock stars in touch with some ethereal force which auto-signatures their lyrics?

I think we're blurring one point into another, I answered one at a time.

I got a tip some time back to look at the early deaths in Rock as a potential tie-in to JFK. The suggestion was that there was something possibly spiritual at work. John Lennon/The Beatles was the last one I looked at, and probably the one I least wanted to see because I've always been a big Beatles fan. I saw interesting things with Elvis, more with Led Zeppelin, but no one else hit me over the head like the Beatles did.

I'm not sure exactly where one does draw the line but for me it has to do with volume and extremely precise synchronicity, not just sort of close. I have a lot of Dylan backwards, very entertaining passages in either direction but nothing that screams conspiracy. To me, the Beatles are on a completely different plane and Pink Floyd might be second but I haven't seen consistent, compelling evidence from any other artist. If someone else did, I'd probably look, there's a guy on YouTube that writes me all the time about My Chemical Romance but I don't get it the way he does apparently.

And to be honest, I don't think this idea is totally unknown in Rock circles either. Did you ever read the lyrics to the Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking 5:01AM? Every early death in Rock or Politics is overhyped except for John Lennon's, which seems blatantly understated.

[John Wilson]

Lennon's death "understated"? Did you live on the Moon since late 1980?

Here in the UK his death reached saturation point, and then some? And still his death attracts attention- just not in the same zany American way?

I think we're in crackpot territory now- it's totally different to assassinations and wotnot.

[Will Emaus]

Lennon's death "understated"? Did you live on the Moon since late 1980?

Here in the UK his death reached saturation point, and then some? And still his death attracts attention- just not in the same zany American way?

I think we're in crackpot territory now- it's totally different to assassinations and wotnot.

Maybe its different in the UK John, you don't have Lennon sightings and such in the US and I happen to believe that if you had a Kiss Kiss Kiss type clue not to mention the others regarding Elvis no one would ever let go of it.

As far as the crackpot thing, I get that this is your goal...

[John Dolva]

Will, I'm still trying to understand where you are coming from. There's a lot I don't get because I don't think that like that tho much of my life has been spent knowing people who believe all sorts of things that more conservative Christians would call wicca or new age and I've always been tainted by this angst ridden Lutheran Rationalism. Still I had to live with them and accept that there were thnigs that people believe in that to me are Peculiar. Even today a number of my closest friends believe some pretty interesting things. somehow it doesn't matter. We still have fun. Maybe because of just that :"It doesn't matter". Who gives a s..t? Our friendships are so much more important.

Anyway. Ok you have considered that (past exchange) and I take it you reject the suggestion as being valid?

Also, I still don't , for some reason, understand where this supernatural influence manifests itself. I wonder, exactly in what way does it influence and what does it influence? Does it influence?

[Will Emaus]

Will, I'm still trying to understand where you are coming from. There's a lot I don't get because I don't think that like that tho much of my life has been spent knowing people who believe all sorts of things that more conservative Christians would call wicca or new age and I've always been tainted by this angst ridden Lutheran Rationalism. Still I had to live with them and accept that there were thnigs that people believe in that to me are Peculiar. Even today a number of my closest friends believe some pretty interesting things. somehow it doesn't matter. We still have fun. Maybe because of just that :"It doesn't matter". Who gives a s..t? Our friendships are so much more important.

Anyway. Ok you have considered that (past exchange) and I take it you reject the suggestion as being valid?

Also, I still don't , for some reason, understand where this supernatural influence manifests itself. I wonder, exactly in what way does it influence and what does it influence? Does it influence?

It's not that I reject it John, I fully understand that I focus on these things and why, however the hill I have to climb is to get beyond what is different about my beliefs and instead on why Yoko Ono said "I shot John Lennon" backwards in a song released weeks before his death.

I have tried to articulate why I believe this is viable within the context of Christianity and is not the equivalent of believing no one landed on the moon. Your line of commentary makes me believe that I have failed to do so; that is my only frustration, it isn't personal at all...

James Randi started offering his reward for provable paranormal activity in 1964 and no one has ever been able to cash in. Here is a question for you. How do you reconcile Jesus assertion that a person with faith should be able to tell a mountain to fly through the air with the apparent fact that no one is presently capable of doing so?

In other words, the supernatural is regarded as viable within Christianity but in this age unable to ever prove when someone offers $1,000,000 to display it. Why is that?

[John Dolva]

Good question, Will.

I don;t know. .... Ok first he hungered and then saw the figtree and went to it and found it without fruit ''if not leaves only'' which I can't interpret (others have though and I could repost them here but an Ixquick search will have : http://interlinearbi...tthew/21-19.htm where you can click back and fourth in the chapter and read the various bibles translations. Also there are lots of links to persons offering interpretation (on Ixqick search page (key words Jesus move mountain)), then

kai

καὶ

And

exēranthē

ἐξηράνθη

dried up

parachrēma

παραχρῆμα

immediately

ē

ἡ

the

sukē

συκῆ .

fig tree

This is to be believed, it's just as important as the mountain. The disciples marveled etc..

I think a read through the entire chapter and backing off yet and look at other gospels and look everything in context. is necessary.

edit add Ok I've pondered it a bit. This is a description by a disciple who came up to Jesus by the fig tree after the description of what he saw Jesus see. I wonder if it then a deflection by Jesus to educate His followers about the primary importance of faith?

______

I don't know if a craving for money is the path to divinity.

Edited November 9, 2011 by John Dolva

[Will Emaus]

Good question, Will.

I don;t know. .... Ok first he hungered and then saw the figtree and went to it and found it without fruit ''if not leaves only'' which I can't interpret (others have though and I could repost them here but an Ixquick search will have : http://interlinearbible.org/matthew/21-19.htm where you can click back and fourth in the chapter and read the various bibles translations. Also there are lots of links to persons offering interpretation (on Ixqick search page (key words Jesus move mountain)), then

kai

καὶ

And

exēranthē

ἐξηράνθη

dried up

parachrēma

παραχρῆμα

immediately

ē

ἡ

the

sukē

συκῆ .

fig tree

This is to be believed, it's just as important as the mountain. The disciples marveled etc..

I think a read through the entire chapter and backing off yet and look at other gospels and look everything in context. is necessary.

______

I don't know if a craving for money is the path to divinity.

Exactly. It's possible to see the supernatural, but seemingly extremely unlikely in a situation in which personal gain is involved.

This is what I'm driving at; as opposed to the artists of the late sixties who seemed to believe that they were able to harness such power, if such power is manifested it is most likely happening due to a situation in which there is a spiritual agenda involved, because based on the evidence that is the most likely scenario in which seeing supernatural activity in this age is viable.

So, to explain what is happening within a certain era in which I believe (and without question so did many of the artists of the era, LSD fueled or otherwise) supernatural activity is being manifested one would have to search through scripture to find a passage(s) that accurately explains said activity.

This is exactly what I believe Romans 9:22 and James 1:13 does. It gives God license to use any person for a spiritual purpose and yet as a result of His inability to abide in sin, which is necessary to put a person in such a position, God instead hands this person over to Satan and Demons in order to put this individual into the position to become an Object of Wrath and Destruction.

This coupling gives the demons involved foreknowledge because they have a task to carry out regarding this person. John Lennon among others imo, was such an individual. The communications, displayed through temptation of unsuspecting artists, foreshadow his death.

So when encountering I shot John Lennon, John Lennon by himself, the best way to go is by MDC, Attica State, Razzle Dingley, Dimebag Darrell Abbott, Manson, Sharon Tate, Roman Polanski and the Dakota, etc...there is a reason why this fits within a spiritual context and isn't just a group of coincidences. Because spiritual "handlers" were plotting an agenda.

But when you look at JFK, Bobby, Ted, Nixon, and others from this era, there is also similar evidence which suggests that whatever forces are arranging for something relating to a Beatle must be also at work beyond just the group. The Gulf of Tonkin just so happened to be overseen by Jim Morrison's dad? ...and Jim Morrison was born on the same date Lennon died on?

If the first broadcast of Beatlemania in the US, the Beatles 2nd LP, the deaths of Lewis and Huxley all happen on the day JFK died, doesn't that suggest a possibility that the same agenda could involve ALL of these events?

If the CIA could have caused all of this, would we be dubious then?

[John Dolva]

Why can't the CIA be under satanic influence?

What was the apple? Manna? Water to wine? Krishna is the God of pot. Lennon said he had taken 1000 trips. I doubt there were many people in the scene who hadn't taken some mind altering drug. Throughout history mind altering drugs in so many cultures has been a way to a ''dreaming''. Artists, whether Poe or Dali or whoever through history have used something, laudanum, absinthe etc etc etc and they create with that, however there are clear indications of a biological reason. Again, isn't it all about what one believes?

[Will Emaus]

Why can't the CIA be under satanic influence?

What was the apple? Manna? Water to wine? Krishna is the God of pot. Lennon said he had taken 1000 trips. I doubt there were many people in the scene who hadn't taken some mind altering drug. Throughout history mind altering drugs in so many cultures has been a way to a ''dreaming''. Artists, whether Poe or Dali or whoever through history have used something, laudanum, absinthe etc etc etc and they create with that, however there are clear indications of a biological reason. Again, isn't it all about what one believes?

They could John, whether the tools are the CIA or Oswald or both, they most certainly could be.

My question is whether the evidence to us goes beyond the drug or the dream. I don't see everything Syd Barrett saw nor do I treat it with validity, but I see how much more Lennon said than he actually seems to have intended or realized. Again, it isn't that there aren't biological causes, but how does temptation function within them to say something real?

Did he want Yoko to say I shot John Lennon? Remember they are supposed to be screening these releases in reverse...

[John Dolva]

I don't know if we're on the same wavelength here but craving is a strong experience in just about everyones life, even if it's craving to not feel aversion or indeed a craving for it. For those on a path of self awareness it can be seen as a flag for paying attention and this keeps it within every persons self and given that it still gets back to what each individual chooses to believe.

[Will Emaus]

I don't know if we're on the same wavelength here but craving is a strong experience in just about everyones life, even if it's craving to not feel aversion or indeed a craving for it. For those on a path of self awareness it can be seen as a flag for paying attention and this keeps it within every persons self and given that it still gets back to what each individual chooses to believe.

Sure John, just like it requires faith to believe that the rainbow means what the Bible says it does.

[John Dolva]

What does the Bible say? Bow or Rainbow? : A covenant.

Rainbows are actually circular, as can be seen from cliff tops or even a garden spray plus it is actually two rainbows the inner dimmer and inverted in color sequence. A natural phenomenon that God assigns a status of covenant to. I got no problem with that,. still, humans being humans are destroying the environment so if the future is full of floods it's not a sign of God not keeping his word but rather humans thinking they can keeps things going better, so yes faith is important.