Will Emaus

Is it possible though John that certain paths become blocked by influences we can't see? Here's the relevance. If God authored the crucifixion, do you think it would have been possible to prevent it once Jesus said yes to allowing it? If you could demonstrate a supernatural component to events of an era like the sixties, would it then have value to consider the possibility that an event like the assassination of JFK could not only have had a supernatural helping hand but maybe some of these witnesses that died afterwards may not have been killed in fact by a hand that we could see...maybe it was supernaturally covered up as well. Something to consider...

John, between the Hiroshima bomb and John Lennon's death was exactly 1844 weeks, or two sets of exactly 922 weeks. On April 8th 1963 Julian was born, that date is exactly 922 weeks after Hiroshima and exactly 922 weeks before his father's death. How precise does something have to be to say "not a coincidence"?

A couple of weeks later, after John apologizes, Longview Tx radio station KLUE organizes another Beatle record bonfire and then its transmission tower is struck by lightning on August 14th 1966. http://www.beatlesbible.com/1966/08/14/klue-radio-texas-is-struck-by-lightning/

Case in point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVPdT5ib7F4&feature=player_embedded The wild-eyed dude at the beginning of this 1965 interview believes there is some type of significance applied to Bob Dylan's Triumph and Dylan's bemused response suggests that he doesn't share in that significance. Dylan then crashes that Triumph 8 months later on the same day that John Lennon's more popular than Jesus comment is published in the US on July 29th 1966...

I think an eclipse is the question, although it did coincide with a prayer request for that event to happen.

Yeah sorry John, I spend a lot of off-line discussion time on Apophenia vs. true spiritual discernment and if its possible to differentiate between the two, if a Six-Sigma type statistical standard template could help in some way, so I thought I would throw that in there myself. I mean the belief that "self" and interpretation of events within the self can create an event captured in Scripture as well as what I am trying to apply to this era. Joshua believed the sun was stopped for a day in order to allow for a battle to continue. Did that really happen due to the supernatural or did he just believe it did?

So John is it OK then to assert that your statement regarding belief doesn't just apply to an interpretation of events in the past few decades but the whole of the past 6000 years? That the potential for Apophenia didn't just start with The Beatles?

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

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...

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?

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?

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...

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.

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? 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? 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)? 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? 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. 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, I think they did. John Lennon said Lucy was about a friend of Julian's. Absolutely true. In 2004 Paul then says that of course, Lucy was also LSD. 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? 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? 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. 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. 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. In my view its a breadcrumb trail.

John, do you assume I haven't? Part of the reason for going through this is to separate fact from fiction, people's conspiracies from what is left over. One of my YouTube channels has well over 100 reversed songs on it. I consistently receive comments to the effect that people will hear whatever they want to hear, that you can find backwards messages in anything. And yet if you review the songs and the comments to the songs, you will see that probably over 90% have nothing coherent at all. The Beatles on the other hand, almost half of their songs do have a discernible message, and they relate to messages in other songs. Why? Because they did that intentionally? Possible. Or is it something else? It's an open question and I research in order to find out, among other topics in which I'm doing the same. But if you think I came up with this in a vacuum and haven't had substantial leadership and guidance to come to this conclusion you are mistaken. In fact, my experience is the opposite; people do more to invent reasons why something isn't there because it's more socially acceptable. Take each item, evaluate it honestly; if its not real, fine. If it is, ask why? What does it relate to?

Well I have a different take John, but no I don't think John's lyrics were as much of a threat as his potential presence at any gathering in 1972. Nixon seemed to genuinely fear his "clout", maybe moreso than what his songs actually said...John may have sort of marginalized himself in '73/74 in Los Angeles, although seemingly happy to. Interestingly, both John Lennon and Ronald Reagan were on this MNF broadcast on December 9th 1974.

Julian's specific quote: Gimme some truth... Maybe now it's time to tell the Truth... I & My Mother will not be eradicated from History

But the thing is, they are there. What they intended, who knows for sure. Here's Julian Lennon asserting that there is more than meets the eye and I could fill the page with others alleging something similar. http://www.denverpost.com/celebritybuzz/ci_19248071 Don't get me wrong, I love the music too and fun is fun. But there is more there than they intended...

Good stuff John, I feel Jesus believed there was urgency to save souls during His ministry which demonstrated risk implying free will. Jesus treatment of the Rich Young Ruler wasn't very loving as it pertained to the ruler's life as he may well have gone through life being poor, but Jesus saw the bigger picture and defined love in that sense. Likewise with Judas; he got a real tough lot in life at the end but his own choices ultimately determined the fate of his soul, not his possession by Satan. I'm looking forward to King's book quite a bit, authors in my view sometimes say more than they intend in their work and he's one of them. Who knows, maybe there's a fibonacci sequence buried in all of this too. King's timing is quite Don McLean'ish (MAP)...

Oh OK John I got it, I was double checking the arithmetic just in case I regard Judas as a Romans 9:22 Object of Wrath and Destruction. When James 1:13 is added to this principle it dictates that demons have to implement the principle of Romans 9:22 because God cannot have anything to do with sin. What this means is that Satan had awareness of Jesus' fate before the crucifixion not just because of prophecy, but because he had a role in causing it. This is why precognition is not a fairy tale but a real phenomenon within Christianity if you believe in that. I think this case is straight Christianity, but the dark side of Christianity because God doesn't seem to be directly involved. If Satan was given the authority to cause an assassination as part of an attempt to bring down the United States, you would expect a signature or a bread crumb trail. November 22nd 1963 being 922 days away from 6/66 is such a signature imho. As is Nixon's declaration of withdrawal happening 922 days before Watergate. I think it's a signature stating that the principles of Romans 9:22 are at play and who (demons) are manipulating these events to happen when they do. I think it's a bread crumb trail; I've taken John Lennon as being the key piece to this but it goes beyond just the Beatles. So consider demons communicating as if they were military intelligence intentionally planting clues; they would presumably synchronize events to be understood by a particular audience, I assume the United States because it's easy for me but also because they seem to be the Country targeted.

John, you're losing me man. Are my numbers off?

I'm not sure John, I'm still trying to unravel this. I had a discussion yesterday in which someone asked me whether Romans 9:22 + James 1:13 might = (1035) JFK's presidency and it almost did, off by 1 day at 1036 days so I did the math on some other dates. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of everything needing to add up to the beast/apocalypse but I thought the numbers were interesting nonetheless. As soon as I saw that 922 added to a December 8th was June 17th including a leap year I knew Watergate had to be involved...

December 8th 1969 - Nixon holds a press conference detailing plans to withdraw from Vietnam. 922 days later Watergate happens. May 14th 1961 - The first freedom riders embark. 922 days later JFK is assassinated. 922 days beyond this will be June 1st 1966 (6/66)

John, the early working title to Tomorrow Never Knows was Mark I. The early portion of the book of Mark was very devoted to Jesus' encounters with demons. When Jesus later stated Get Thee Behind Me Satan to Peter, He was acknowledging a spirit presence within Peter and in fact was addressing the spirit directly. Are we then to assume that Jesus had no awareness of left/right brain phenomena or dissociative issues relating to ego state? Janov not only fails to identify where in the mind temptation occurs, he seemingly considers it an either/or proposition, as if "both" couldn't be an option. How would an Object of Wrath and Destruction get built, other than an implicit command over psychology and cause and effect? Total consciousness could account for Don Henley having Revolution Number 9 buried on the fringe of his conscious mind while writing Hotel California; but how could it account for John Lennon being mentioned backwards in a song whose LP is released on the eventual date of his death, when also most likely that release date was determined by someone else? There are multiple unrelated consciousness' involved over a period of years.