By Salvador Astucia, May 10, 2003

Full article (37 pages) can be viewed at:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_intro.htm

Here is a summary of the findings:

* Lennon’s wounds are on the wrong side of his body from where Chapman reportedly stood when he allegedly shot Lennon. Chapman was reportedly standing behind Lennon and to his right. (to Lennon’s right) Before firing, Chapman

reportedly called to Lennon who turned towards Chapman. All four wounds were on the left side of the body. They should have been on the right.

* The doorman at the Dakota on the night of the shooting was an anti-Castro Cuban, Jose Perdomo; Chapman’s primary accuser. It is widely known that Cuban exiles have been used extensively by the intelligence community since the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

* Patrolman Peter Cullen, one of the officers in the first police car responding to the shooting, believed the shooter was a handyman at the Dakota, not Chapman. Cullen thought Chapman "looked like a guy who worked in a bank." Perdomo convinced Cullen that Chapman was the assailant.

* Hours after the shooting, the New York Times reported that Lennon was shot near concierge stand next to the courtyard gates in the Dakota entryway. The next day the NYT reported that he was shot near the entrance of the Dakota, nearly 40 feet away from the spot originally reported. The shift in location was apparently needed because police and witnesses found Chapman at the entrance of the Dakota building, not 40 feet inside.

* Lennon’s true assassin was probably the handyman (aka, elevator operator) who fired from inside or near a service elevator located across from the concierge stand where Lennon collapsed after being shot. Shooting from the service elevator would easily hit the left side of Lennon’s body which is where the wounds were located.

* Mark David Chapman has never been judged legally insane, although opinion leaders within the American news media continually portray him as crazy. He pled guilty to the crime, thereby forfeiting his right to a trial. As a result, he has spent the last 22 years of his life in Attica State penitentiary for a crime he did not commit.

* Facts indicate that Chapman was likely the victim of mind control—a combination of drugs, hypnosis or both--which caused him to commit numerous self-incriminating acts; however, murder was not one of them. Ironically, Chapman himself believes he shot Lennon, although he cannot recall several key details of the crime. The power of suggestion is a powerful tool.

* There are no known witnesses to the crime; however, several "crime scene witnesses" observed events shortly before and after the shooting. But I have found no statements from any person who actually observed Chapman shoot Lennon; not even Yoko Ono.

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_intro.htm […]

======= Message # 2 ======

From: Willie Nelson (the_liquid_moamo@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-11 15:50:00 PST

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:<20030511000735.29137.00000237@mb-m16.news.cs.com>...

> Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

> New research exonerates murder suspect Mark David Chapman.

>

> By Salvador Astucia,

<bullshit snipped>

Take your crap elsewhere you spamming creep.

======= Message # 3 ======

From: Sean Carroll (sean@kua.net)

Subject: Re: Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-11 16:41:17 PST

On 11 May 2003 15:50:00 -0700, the_liquid_moamo@yahoo.com (Willie

Nelson) wrote:

>salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:

>> Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

>> New research exonerates murder suspect Mark David Chapman.

>> By Salvador Astucia,

><bullshit snipped>

>Take your crap elsewhere you spamming creep.

How exactly was that 'spam'? There was a link at the very end where you could buy this guy's book, but that was all the way down in his signature; the rest of it was a straight link to an article with a summary of some of the ideas in it. Spam is unsolicited commercial advertisements. I don't see how the word 'spam' even remotely applies.

And as far as taking it elsewhere, where exactly do you think would be a more on-topic place for something about John Lennon's murder than a Beatles newsgroup? Perhaps you think it would have been a better idea for him to post it to alt.tv.er, or sci.physics, or a mailing list for sharing cake recipes?

If you want to say this guy is an idiot and a jackass who deserves to be ignored, then just *say* that -- or, better yet, take your own advice and ignore him. But calling something spam when it's not spam, and pretending that it's unrelated to the topic of this newsgroup when it clearly *is* related, are not good ways to convince people you're much more worthy of attention than the original poster of this thread.

--Sean

http://www.livejournal.com/users/spclsd223/

======= Message # 4 ======

From: voice from the past (timagine@hotmail.com)

Subject: Re: Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-11 20:06:05 PST

the_liquid_moamo@yahoo.com (Willie Nelson) wrote in message news:<aa1a1cbf.0305111450.4c45e5b0@posting.google.com>...

> salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:<20030511000735.29137.00000237@mb-m16.news.cs.com>...

> > Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

> > New research exonerates murder suspect Mark David Chapman.

> >

> > By Salvador Astucia,

>

> <bullshit snipped>

>

> Take your crap elsewhere you spamming creep.

Willie:

Are you on the road again?

voice from the past

======= Message # 5 ======

From: Beatlles4ever (beatlles4ever@aol.com)

Subject: Re: Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-11 16:20:25 PST

To clarify whether Yoko witnessed the shooting or what happened after the shots were fired ..Yoko was questioned by the police very early that next morning and she said that after the shots at first she didn't realize that John had been hit because he was still walkin sometimes ahead of her sometimes behind until she realized what happened and told John in her panic to lay down in the office where he then collapsed..There is a transcript of what she said in a book I think called "Lennon... his life in pictures and words" sadly it took just one nut to take away a musical genius.

May 23, 2003

In my research of the Lennon case, I quickly realized that details about the crime scene are sketchy at best. Clear unobstructed photographs of the Dakota's entrance are simply unavailable to the public. Internet photos of the Dakota have the entrance blacked out. This fact alone suggests there is more to the Lennon case than previously thought.

To remedy the situation, I traveled to Manhattan--on the weekend of May 18, 2003--and personally photographed about 35 pictures of the Dakota complex with emphasis on the entrance, the area where Lennon was shot. At this time I would like to present these photographs to the world.

To read the entire article about Lennon's murder, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

====

To view the new crime scene photos, and accompanying text, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#crimescene

====

To view an interactive map/photo gallery of the Dakota complex, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/app_a_intmap.htm

Salvador Astucia [...]

==== message # 7 =====

From: dlarsson (derek larsson@attbi.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-23 14:09:10 PST

[…]

Salvador, I think you seriously discredit yourself with all that wild stuff and ranting in there about Jews and Hitler and Jews and Christians, etc. and suggest that you delete this from your presentation.

This just detracts from the otherwise factual conflicts and serious intelligent questions that you have raised about the specific details of the crime scene .. which appear unresolved and do merit serious objective study and investigation.

If Lennon was killed by the U.S. Intelligence community, then the motive here would be the exact same motive that also caused them to engage in illegal and abusive 24-hour surveillance against him, wage a punitive and destabilizing Deportation heist against him, and attempt to set him up for a ( planted by FBI ) drug bust, and to have extensive stacks of FBI files on him .. many of which are still "Classified" (withheld) due to "National Security" reasons. ( all of which did happen ).

This U.S. Intelligence " Get-Lennon " campaign occurred because of Lennon's progressive and anti-war political activism, outspokenness, his willingness to contribute financially and in-person to progressive causes including the mobilizing of support against Nixon, and his large cultural influence.

G. Gordon Liddy ( CIA ) confirmed that this indeed was the motive for their efforts to neutralize Lennon when he stated right on VH-1:

"John Lennon was not Britanny Spears; this was not just another pop singer. He had a kind of power and influence that no other singer had back then or for that matter has had since."

-G. Gordon Liddy ( CIA clandestine criminal, Right-wing radio host ).

This is why Lennon was targeted. What is then left to demonstrate was whether the 1980 murder was related to this same offensive effort perpetrated by the U.S. clandestine network. Given their demonstrated track record, history and demonstrated anti-Lennon motive and capacity for murder and violence - they have to be regarded as the prime suspect to which Mark Chapman may have been either an active or a passive contributory component. - Derek [...]

==== message # 8 =====

From: Sixties Gen (sixtiesgen@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-23 20:31:39 PST

[...]

Very well said, Derek. It's unfortunate that this Salvador character is an anti-Semite, and holocaust denier...otherwise he would have more credibility. The questions he raises about Lennon's assassination are valid, and deserve more scrutiny.

==== message # 9 =====

From: Dale Houstman (dmh7@citilink.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-23 21:56:16 PST

[...]

The fact that he is an anti-Semite and holocaust denier merely "diminishes" his story in your eyes? What would he have to do to completely banish himself from your consideration: kill and eat a woman in the Rose Garden? dmh

==== message # 10 =====

From: Sixties Gen (sixtiesgen@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-24 10:35:56 PST

[...]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here, Dale. So, I'm guessing that you don't think it's possible that Lennon's murder was something more than one crazed gunman, angry at Lennon because John made money from recording his songs, and thus, in the murderer's mind made John a hypocrite. Fine, it's a nice tidy analysis. I happen to think there is a possibility more was involved. I've thought so for many years, not since this Salvador character appeared on RMB. I think that Salvador is correct that there may have been a plan to eliminate John. I don't think his idea as to how it happened is accurate. I tend to favor the "Manchurian Candidate" aspect. In my previous post, I was saying that his Jew-hating and absurd claims about the Nazi Holocaust counters whatever he is trying to accomplish, however, as misguided as Salvador's assessment is, it may get others interested in finding out the truth about the Lennon assassination. All I want is the truth, just gimme some truth. As far as eating a woman in the Rose Garden...I'll bet Clinton did.

==== message # 11 =====

From: UsurperTom (usurpertom@aol.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-24 16:04:51 PST

[...] Derek has been posting this bullshit on this newsgroup for five years. Tom

==== message # 12 =====

From: dlarsson (derek_larsson@attbi.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-25 20:13:26 PST

[...] U.S. Intelligence has a history of collaborating with all kinds of low-lifes, Mafia, Cuban-exiles, thugs, as well as people in private industry. Chapman's background ( Japan, Hawaii, YMCA, Georgia, etc. ) along with doorman Jose Perdomo ... appear to fit in with other intelligence scenarios ... rather than conflict.

[…] Hoover's ( FBI ) Counter-Intel department was precisely that a domestic "dirty tricks" operational program .. which has historically included murder. It is widely believed Dr. King's death was a direct result of the FBI ( Ray was proved not guilty in a civil court case ).

[…] Lennon was factually targeted by the FBI, CIA. Jon Weiner's documents show that FBI tried to set him up for a drug bust (planted). He was followed 24 hours and had his phones bugged. He was deported and would have been thrown out of the Country had the timing of "Watergate related" resignations .. not helped him out.

So the point is, whether or not Lennon was actually "a threat" the U.S. intelligence community had him on their own "blacklist". Once you are on the "blacklist" .. you stay there. During 1975-1979 Lennon was retired. In 1980, though he was an active music figure again .. so whatever was in the works from 1971-1974 would be pursued again. Since when do U.S. Intelligence clandestine creeps exclude murder from their repertoire -?

[…] Look at the Sirhan Sirhan situation in 1968. Sirhan was not an operative either .. he was just used. Sirhan shot at Robert Kennedy in the kitchen from about 4 yards away and facing him ... yet Robert Kennedy was hit from point-blank range in the back of the head ( by "security guard" Thane Eugene Ceasar ) and there were other people shot at and hit in the kitchen as well and other bullet holes on the doors and ceilings of the kitchen. So it was not a "one-guy" thing at all.

The research on this indicates that Sirhan was an MK-ULTRA ( hypnotized or psychologically induced ) to fire without really knowing what he is doing. In the commotion, the real fatal shooting is carried out. I am not saying this necessarily happened with Chapman. But the crime scene details do indicate problems with the accepted story .. and also a departure from the very first report (which would point away from Chapman based on where he was located ).

Was Chapman a decoy? Was he a "Sirhan shooter" ( while someone else killed Lennon )? Was he the shooter and murderer? The point is ... if there are loose ends and things that do not fit - then all of this should be objectively investigated. - Derek

==== message # 13 =====

From: SHERIFF OF HONK HONK (pawpaw_nbt@yahoo.com)

Subject: Re: John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-25 11:20:42 PST

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in message news:<20030523030707.15778.00000231@mb-m28.news.cs.com>...

> John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene

>

> May 23, 2003

>

> In my research of the Lennon case, I quickly realized

Piss off asshole.

By Salvador Astucia, May 30, 2003

I added a new section to the report on John Lennon's assassination. It explains the real reason why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio in 1967. The drug thing was a pretext for something more serious, a matter of state. In addition, there is a strong possibility that Paul McCartney was recruited by Lennon's enemies to stab his friend in the back in order to thwart Lennon's political influence over his millions of fans. In return, strings were pulled and the media raised McCartney's artistic status to Lennon's level.

Here's an excerpt:

---quote on---

If someone wanted to weaken Lennon, the smartest thing to do would be to turn McCartney against him. Despite his vast success, in many ways, McCartney must have felt cheated. He lived in the shadow of Lennon's brilliance. He was quite talented, a powerhouse singer, a talented and prolific songwriter, a top-notch bass player, a not too shabby pianist, and a hot guitarist. (NOTE: McCartney played the cutting edge guitar break in the middle of Ticket to Ride, not Lennon or Harrison.) Few stars have grown as much as Paul McCartney after achieving such monumental early success. Still he lacked something. He simply did not have Lennon’s inspiration, his creativity, or his charisma. McCartney did not have Lennon’s mind or his wit.

---quote off---

To read the new section, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#dayinthelife

To read the full article, click here:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com […]

==== message # 15 =====

From: mm (mm@mm.mm)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC Radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-30 09:31:40 PST

This is starting to get funny.... [...]

==== message # 16 =====

From: Danny (danny__grant///@hotmail.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC Radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-30 15:54:49 PST

"mm" <mm@mm.mm> wrote in message

news:MHLBa.16851$8g5.283233@news2.e.nsc.no...

> This is starting to get funny....

>

Starting?

==== message # 17 =====

From: Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-30 17:37:24 PST

[....]

Is that why he used to give the Heil Hitler to the Germans? Shemp

==== message # 18 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

View: Complete Thread (83 articles)

Original Format

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 11:24:40 PST

[...]

[Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com) asked:]

> Is that why he used to give the Heil Hitler to

> the Germans?

From what I've read, Lennon and the other Beatles often gave Nazi salutes to large crowds, not just Germans. This was in the early years, 1964-65, but it was done in a humorous way. It wasn't really a political statement, but it showed an irreverence for something that would later become quite sacred: the Holocaust story, which is half true, half myth.

I am not prepared to claim that Hitler was a great guy, but it is absurd to portray him as a monster and not criticize President Truman for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.

Many Germans are driving an historical revisionist movement to tell the full unbiased story about World War II and Hitler. To read about revisionists in general, click the following

URL:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/revisionists.htm

Germar Rudolf is one of the better German revisionists. He has written some excellent things which refute the conventional view that gas chambers were used in a lethal manner. Here is a good example of his work:

"Some considerations about the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau" by Germar Rudolf http://vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html

Because of Lennon's intellect and the time he spent in Hamburg, and the friends he made there, I expect his views on the Holocaust were closer to Germar Rudolf's than Meryl Streep's.

(NOTE: My research indicates that a huge propaganda campaign began in 1978—two years before Lennon’s murder--to "re-educate" the public about the period from 1938 through 1945 known as the Holocaust. In fact the word Holocaust was introduced in 1978 in the TV mini-series, The Holocaust, directed by Marvin Chomsky and starred Meryl Streep and James Woods. Before 1978, the term Holocaust was not associated with Nazi Germany and Jews. In 1976, William Stevenson wrote a book, A Man Called Intrepid, which discussed the deaths of six million Jews during World War II a great deal, but Stevenson never used the term Holocaust because that term had not been introduced to the public in 1976.)

Salvador [...]

==== message # 19 =====

From: Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 12:11:11 PST

salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter) wrote in

news:20030531142341.28330.00000219@mb-m06.news.cs.com:

>

> I am not prepared to claim that Hitler was a

> great guy, but it is absurd to portray him as

> a monster and not criticize President Truman

> for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.

We were at war with Japan. Japan attacked the US. The war needed to be stopped. How would you suggest that this could have been accomplished? Asking the Japanese to please stop it? Thus, the bombs were dropped on a hostile nation. Comparing Truman with Hitler is just plain idiotic. So there.

Shemp

==== message # 20 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 15:08:42 PST

[…]

Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com)

> […] Comparing Truman with Hitler is just plain idiotic. So there.

The same argument can be made about Nazi Germany. Prior to 1938, Germany was being strangled economically by worldwide Jewish groups. What did you expect him to do? Ask THEM to please stop?

He struck back. Again, I am not saying he was a great guy, but there was one outcome of his regime that was extremely positive and remains with us today. He destroyed the colonial empires of England and France. He did to them what they had been doing to others for centuries. He lost the war but he struck at the heart of imperial oppression and destroyed it. For that one thing, he deserves some credit.

After watching How I Won the War, I am confident that John Lennon held a similar view. This is why A Day in the Life was banned. Lennon plugged the movie and the book on which the movie was based.

Salvador

PS. If the BBC was truly concerned about drug related lyrics, why didn't they ban Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds? Food for thought.

==== message # 21 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 17:47:04 PST

[....]

[Salvador:]

> The same argument can be made about Nazi Germany.

> Prior to 1938, Germany was being strangled economically

> by worldwide Jewish groups. What did you expect him

> to do? Ask THEM to please stop?

Fuck off, you idiot scumbag.

==== message # 22 =====

From: Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 17:52:02 PST

[....]

[Salvador:]

> The same argument can be made about Nazi Germany.

> Prior to 1938, Germany was being strangled economically

> by worldwide Jewish groups. What did you expect him to do?

> Ask THEM to please stop?

Oh of course. Now I see the whole picture. You are in fact a neo-fascist. Have you had tea with Herr von Ribbentrop lately? Have you shattered any windows lately? You are ignorant my friend. Just plainly ignorant. It is your kind that caused the holocaust, but you don't believe in that, right? You'd better get wise to yourself palsy..........

Shemp

==== message # 23 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-05-31 17:46:19 PST

[…]

[Shemp (richard_hell@excite.com) :]

> […] Comparing Truman with Hitler is just plain idiotic. So there.

Since an idiot is doing it, that makes sense.

==== message # 24 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 02:00:34 PST

On 31 May 2003 18:23:41 GMT, salvadorwriter@cs.com

(Salvadorwriter) wrote:

> (NOTE: My research indicates that a huge propaganda

> campaign began in 1978—two years before Lennon’s

> murder--to "re-educate" the public about the period from

> 1938 through 1945 known as the Holocaust. In fact the

> word Holocaust was introduced in 1978 in the TV mini-

> series, The Holocaust, directed by Marvin Chomsky and

> starred Meryl Streep and James Woods. Before 1978,

> the term Holocaust was not associated with Nazi

> Germany and Jews. In 1976, William Stevenson wrote

> a book, A Man Called Intrepid, which discussed the

> deaths of six million Jews during World War II a great

> deal, but Stevenson never used the term Holocaust

> because that term had not been introduced to the

> public in 1976.) You grossly mis-represent Stevenson's

> book. Yes, it does mention Hitler's policy on the Jews.

> It does NOT - that I can find - discuss "the deaths of six

> million Jews during World War II". The book's sub-title

> is "The Secret War 1939-1945" and that's of course it's

> main focus. It's a detailed book written by an honorable

> man who fought the Nazi's - not someone who devotes

> themselves to an apologia. Don't associate him with your

> views. Thanks. [...]

==== message # 25 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 22:53:54 PST

Comments below are reactions to the following article:

Why ‘A Day in the Life’ was banned by BBC Radio

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#dayinthelife

To read the entire report on John Lennon's death, go to:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Comments begin here:

================

[…]

[Stephen Carter:]

> […] Don't associate [William Stevenson] with your views.

> Thanks

Look, Genius, I am not "associating" Stevenson's views with mine. I am merely pointing out that Stevenson's book, A Man Called Intrepid, was written in 1976 and did NOT use the word HOLOCAUST when discussing the time period from 1938 through 1945 in Nazi Germany. The book discusses what would today be called the Holocaust, but Stevenson did not call it the Holocaust in 1976, when the book was published, because the term Holocaust--for discussions about Nazi persecution of Jews--was not introduced until 1978. That was only two years before Lennon was killed.

Salvador [...]

==== message # 26 =====

From: Rynosseros, The Untouchable (avoiding.yucky.email@eotworld.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 23:13:15 PST

[…]

[Salvador:]

> […A Man Called Intrepid] discusses what would today be

> called the Holocaust, but Stevenson did not call it the

> Holocaust in 1976, when the book was published,

> because the term Holocaust—for discussions about

> Nazi persecution of Jews--was not introduced until 1978.

> That was only two years before Lennon was killed.

Sally totally ignores facts:

From http://www.jerseyheritagetrust.org/holocaust/exhibition.html

Holocaust - Literally "fire that causes destruction", it has become associated virtually exclusively with the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis during WWII. As a term holocaust was first coined in 1189 by Richard of Devizes when describing the massacre of Jews in England following the coronation of Richard the Lionheart.

===========================================

Which might explain why the term was already in use in my hearing during my childhood. I was well into my twenties by 1978. [...]

==== message # 27 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 02:01:08 PST

On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:00:04 GMT, Shemp

<richard_hell@excite.com> wrote:

> Oh of course. Now I see the whole picture. You are in

> fact a neo-fascist. Have you had tea with Herr von

> Ribbentrop lately? Have you shattered any windows

> lately? You are ignorant my friend. Just plainly ignorant.

> It is your kind that caused the holocaust, but you don't

> believe in that, right? You'd better get wise to yourself

> palsy..........

Actually it's probably David Irvine writing under another name! […]

==== message # 28 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 22:01:02 PST

[....]

[Stephen X. Carter:]

> Actually it's probably David Irvine writing under another name!

You're really off the mark on that one Stephen. After communicating extensively with David Irving it became obvious that he is an agent of Zion, not a neo-Nazi as you claim. Read the following emails:

David Irving, Another False Prophet (?)

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/d_irving_emails.htm

Salvador […]

==== message # 29 =====

From: UsurperTom (usurpertom@aol.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 19:42:53 PST

[Shemp:]

> Oh of course. Now I see the whole picture. You are in fact a

> neo-fascist. Have you had tea with Herr von Ribbentrop lately?

> Have you shattered any windows lately? You are ignorant my

> friend. Just plainly ignorant. It is your kind that caused the

> holocaust, but you don't believe in that, right? You'd better

> get wise to yourself palsy..........

It would be better ignored this insidious troll. Replying to him only gives him the attention that he wants.

Usurper

==== message # 30 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-01 22:05:03 PST

[...]

[usurpertom@aol.com (UsurperTom):]

> It would be better ignored this insidious troll. Replying

> to him only gives him the attention that he wants.

> Usurper

Nothing like sharing ideas in an open discussion. :-)

Salvador […]

==== message # 31 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 01:40:31 PST

[....]

[Salvador:]

> You're really off the mark on that one Stephen. After

> communicating extensively with David Irving it became

> obvious that he is an agent of Zion, not a neo-Nazi as

> you claim.

Although I do believe (qv) that David Irvine is a neo-Nazi, where in my NINE word posting do I claim that? :-) Frankly, if I had to chose between your judgment of Mr Irvine's political leanings, and the judgment of the court system in UK, I guess I'd go for the UK courts! LOL!

==== message # 32 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 05:48:08 PST

[Carter:]

> Although I do believe (qv) that David Irvine is a neo-Nazi,

> where in my NINE word posting do I claim that? :-)

> Frankly, if I had to chose between your judgment of Mr

> Irvine's political leanings, and the judgment of the

> court system in UK, I guess I'd go for the UK courts! LOL!

BTW, Genius, his name is IRVING, not IRVINE. You're obviously not much of an expert on his trial if you don't even know his name. And stop clipping the URL! Here it is again.

David Irving, Another False Prophet (?)

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/d_irving_emails.htm [...]

==== message # 33 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 15:03:15 PST

[Salvador"]

> BTW, Genius, his name is IRVING, not IRVINE. You're

> obviously not much of an expert on his trial if you don't

> even know his name. And you're obviously not much of

> an expert on The Beatles if you think Paul played a

> guitar break in the middle of "Ticket To Ride."  And stop

> clipping the URL!

Sorry, no one wants to let you promote your bullshit here.

==== message # 34 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 14:54:57 PST

[... BlackMonk:]

Piss off. No one here buys your idiotic, bigoted bullshit.

==== message # 35 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 01:40:40 PST

On 02 Jun 2003 05:05:00 GMT, salvadorwriter@cs.com

(Salvadorwriter) wrote:

> Nothing like sharing ideas in an open discussion. :-)

Exactly. What you write is nothing at all like sharing ideas in an open discussion! [...]

==== message # 36 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 20:46:18 PST

[Salvador:]

>> Nothing like sharing ideas in an open discussion. :-)

[Carter:]

> Exactly. What you write is nothing at all like sharing

> ideas in an open discussion!

What are you guys afraid of? [...]

==== message # 37 =====

From: .Tna Yzarc!.. (hebbell@helle.co.ukkllk)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 22:13:04 PST

[Salvador:]

> What are you guys afraid of?

moron, please. RMB aint afraid of nothin!

==== message # 38 =====

From: Stephen X. Carter (steve@[127.0.0.1])

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 01:35:47 PST

[...]

[Salvador:]

> Look, Genius, I am not "associating" Stevenson's

> views with mine. I am merely pointing out that Stevenson's

> book, A Man Called Intrepid, was written in 1976 and did

> NOT use the word HOLOCAUST when discussing the time

> period from 1938 through 1945 in Nazi Germany. The book

> discusses what would today be called the Holocaust, but

> Stevenson did not call it the Holocaust in 1976, when the

> book was published, because the term Holocaust--for

> discussions about Nazi persecution of Jews--was not

> introduced until 1978. That was only two years before

> Lennon was killed.

Thank you for the flattering adjective (Genius), but flattery of me will not permit me to allow you to further obfuscate this issue. I took issue with your claim that Stevenson's book "discussed the deaths of six million Jews during World War II a great deal" (direct quote from your original posting). I have that book (2 editions actually), so please help me (ObBeatles) by citing the page references (plural, since you say "a great deal") where he discusses this matter. I pose that he does NOT discuss it "a great deal", so it's hardly surprising that he does not use the word "Holocaust". :-) [...]

==== message # 39 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 05:43:08 PST

Comments below are reactions to the following article:

Why ‘A Day in the Life’ was banned by BBC Radio

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#dayinthelife

To read the entire report on John Lennon's death, go to:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Comments begin here:

[...]

[Carter:]

> […] I took issue with your claim that Stevenson's book

> "discussed the deaths of six million Jews during World

> War II a great deal" (direct quote from your original

> posting). I have that book (2 editions actually), so

> please help me (ObBeatles) by citing the page

> references (plural, since you say "a great deal") where

> he discusses this matter. I pose that he does NOT

> discuss it "a great deal", so it's hardly surprising that

> he does not use  the word "Holocaust". :-)

I don't understand your point. You've already admitted two major things which make my point that the book discusses what is known as the Holocaust, but it didn't use that particular word. First, you stated that the book "does mention Hitler's policy on the Jews." Are you now claiming that this is not equivalent to mentioning the Holocaust? Second, you reminded readers that the "book's sub-title is 'The Secret War 1939-1945.' " Are you claiming that this is not a reference to Holocaust? Since you've already mentioned that the book deals with the Holocaust, it is unclear exactly what you want me to cite or why. Just look at the book in general. There's no need to go to any specific page. Just flip through it. It is obvious you are trying to confuse the issue, but I'm not going to let you get away with it. Bottom line: The book, A Man Called Intrepid, discusses the period known as the Holocaust. Whether it is discussed a great deal or to a lesser degree is a moot point. The point is the topic of Jewish persecution by Hitler was mentioned enough that the word Holocaust should have been used, but it was NOT. Why? Because the term had not been introduced into the English language for that purpose yet. Yes, the word existed, but did not apply to Hitler's Germany and his treatment of Jews. And when was the term introduced? In 1978 when the Movie "The Holocaust" was released, just two years before Lennon was killed. Who knows, maybe the term would have been introduced years earlier, but Lennon thwarted it by releasing his movie, How I Won the War, in 1967. The next year (1968) Roman Polanski portray Jews in an extremely bad light with his movie, Rosemary's Baby.

Salvador […]

==== message # 40 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 14:58:33 PST

"Salvadorwriter" <salvadorwriter@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20030602084223.07518.00000820@mb-m22.news.cs.com...

> Comments below are reactions to the following article:

>

> Who knows, maybe the term would have been introduced

> years earlier, but Lennon thwarted it by releasing his

> movie, How I Won the War, in 1967.

Lennon didn't release it, and it wasn't Lennon's movie. Lennon acted in Richard Lester's movie. I have no idea who released it, but it wasn't either of them. I'll forego expressing my contempt for you this time because you've already made yourself look foolish enough.

==== message # 41 =====

From: Salvadorwriter (salvadorwriter@cs.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 19:11:09 PST

Comments below are reactions to the following article:

Why ‘A Day in the Life’ was banned by BBC Radio

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/john_lennon/lennon_report.htm#dayinthelife

To read the entire report on John Lennon's death, go to:

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

Comments begin here:

======

[Salvador:]

>> Who knows, maybe the term would have been

>> introduced years earlier, but Lennon thwarted it

>> by releasing his movie, How I Won the War, in

>> 1967. The next year (1968) Roman Polanski

>> portray Jews in an extremely bad light with his

>> movie, Rosemary's Baby.

[BlackMonk@email.msn.com:]

> Lennon didn't release it, and it wasn't Lennon's

> movie. Lennon acted in Richard Lester's movie.

> I have no idea who released it, but it wasn't either

> of them. I'll forego expressing my contempt for

> you this time because you've already made

> yourself look foolish enough.

Thanks for being such a gentleman. :-) And thanks for not snipping the part about Roman Polanski and Rosemary's Baby. On that topic, do you suppose Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in retaliation for Polanski's depiction of Jews as bloodthirsty witches in his renowned movie?

I deal with Talmudic references to witchcraft in Chapter 13 of my book, Opium Lords. Take a look:

Chapter 13: Politics and Religion

http://www.jfkmontreal.com/religion_and_politics.htm

Happy reading. :-)

Salvador [...]

==== message # 42 =====

From: BlackMonk (BlackMonk@email.msn.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 19:16:44 PST

[…]

[Salvador"]

> Thanks for being such a gentleman. :-) And thanks for not

> snipping the part about Roman Polanski and Rosemary's

> Baby. On that topic, do you suppose Polanski's wife,

> Sharon Tate, was murdered in retaliation for Polanski's

> depiction of Jews as bloodthirsty witches in his renowned

> movie?

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say how accurate your interpretation is, but it's doubtful that she was murdered for that reason.

> I deal with Talmudic references to witchcraft in Chapter 13

> of my book, Opium Lords. Take a look:

>

> Chapter 13: Politics and Religion

> http://www.jfkmontreal.com/religion_and_politics.htm

I find your interpretation of the Talmud very suspect. Tell me, did you read it in the original language or a translation? If a translation, which one? Did you read every volume of the Talmud? Where did you learn your methodology for interpreting the Talmud? Obviously, you realize that with a work of that magnitude, serious study is required and a few quote from a website mean nothing.

[Note: Several days later, Salvador advised Black Monk that he used the Soncino Talmud, Copyright 1973 by Judaica Press, Inc; Copyright 1965, 67, 77, 83, 84, 87, 88 & 90 by Soncino Press, Ltd.]

==== message # 43 =====

From: Ryno, Comte de Bugtussle et Montemerde (scarcely.found@Eotworld.com)

Subject: Re: Why 'A Day in the Life' was banned by BBC radio

Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles

Date: 2003-06-02 05:32:12 PST

[…]

On 02 Jun 2003 05:53:16 GMT, in article

<20030602015316.20861.00000515@mb-m02.news.cs.com>, salvadorwriter@cs.com stated:

>> […] the term Holocaust--for discussions about

>> Nazi persecution of Jews--was not introduced

>> until 1978. That was only two years before

>> Lennon was killed.

[interstate5:]

> Needless to say, that is an outright lie. The term

> was commonly used to describe what happened to

> the Jews in Nazi Germany as early as the 1950s,

> and there are known references to the Nazi

> persecution of Jews as a "holocaust" dating back