Rethinking John Lennon’s assassination

Lisa sends –

Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination

The FBI’s War on Rock Stars, by Salvador Astucia


Chapter 4: FBI Surveillance on the Internet
The Internet Police

The Internet Police

In the spring of 2003, I began posting my findings about John Lennon’s murder on an Internet discussion forum about the Beatles: A few people responded in a civilized manner, but overall, the response was vitriolic, demented, vulgar, and sadistic. The participants on quickly became more interested in learning and publicizing my true identity than responding to my research. Their message was clear and uniform: Stop discussing Lennon’s murder! This reaction was not entirely unexpected. Over the past six years, I have posted political and historical commentary on numerous Internet discussion forums and typically I get similar reactions when posting controversial articles. Having stated that, the loathsome comments I received from individuals on in response to my Lennon articles stands out in comparison to other discussion forums. Usually I post to serious, political forums, so a degree of nastiness is expected. Why would I be greeted with such rudeness from an overtly light-hearted forum? It’s the Beatles, after all, so why all the fuss? Because the Beatles’ leader, John Lennon, was one of the most politically active and highly influential voices in the tumultuous Sixties.

Surprisingly, the most viscous and vulgar comments I received from dealt with a lapse in Lennon’s security on the night he was killed. The discussion centered around Jose Perdomo, the security guard tasked to protect the iron-gate entrance of the Dakota on the night Lennon was killed. As previously stated, Perdomo was an anti-Castro Cuban, a group with strong ties to the US intelligence community since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. On June 17, 2003, I started a discussion thread entitled Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard? It was a spin-off from another discussion between Derek Larsson and someone named Cromwell. Derek wrote: “There also seems to be a profound lack of security provided by doorman Jose Perdomo – whose job it was to protect all tenants (several of them celebrities) from strangers and hangers-on and who was the only ‘eye-witness’ to the shooting. His background needs to be investigated.” Cromwell replied: “He was a doorman NOT A BODYGUARD.” I disagreed: “‘Doorman’ is a misleading title,” I remarked. “The doorman at the Dakota is a glorified security guard. I know because I’ve been there. I talked to one of the doormen. He was definitely security…The word ‘doorman’ suggests he is a bellhop. I’m not even sure if doorman is a genuine title or something the media created. The doorman does not stand by a door, he stands at the entrance of the Dakota. The entrance is about 15 feet wide with iron gates on both sides, but the gates are normally open. Derek is correct in stating that Jose Perdomo’s job was to protect the tenants.”

The Internet police immediately launched an assault to thwart the security-related discussion. Someone using the screen name Tna Yzarc re-titled the thread “Salvatorwriter, asshole, bumboy, neo-nazi or security guard?” I responded by changing it back to the original title and recited the poem If by Rudyard Kipling. Tna Yzarc retitled it “Salvadorwriter, moron or murderer?” I continued changing the title back and reciting If a bit more. Tna Yzarc changed the titled to “Salvadorwriter FUCK OFF AND STOP SPAMMING YOU ASSHOLE.” 

Tna Yzarc then wrote the following extremely vulgar comment: “I think you’re a pathetic stupid cunt and you should go back to fucking your mom.” Someone named Jim sarcastically replied, “Wow – what a CLEVER response!!” Black Monk replied, “You think Sally deserves better?” Charlie Gauger (aka, Mister Charlie) remarked, “Hey, it works for me.” Susan added, “A bit crude, but it works.” Charlie Gauger (aka, Mister Charlie) added the following insults: “Of course, like a dog returning to its own vomit Sal comes back yet again.” Someone called “Ehtue” complimented Charlie Gauger on his word choice: “What a turn of phrase! I’ll steal that one for sure some time in the future! Somewhere, somehow.” Fourteen sample messages in the cited discussion thread about Jose Perdomo are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 56 through 69.)

This was a thoroughly despicable display, but it was quite revealing. It was not merely a few cranks blowing off steam. The discussion itself was not political or even controversial in nature. It was politically neutral, a discussion about the crime scene where John Lennon was murdered and a probable lapse in security when the crime occurred. This is the type of information prosecutors need to bring guilty parties to justice. The ensuing assault on me was clearly a joint effort by several people, probably sponsored by the FBI, paid for by the American tax payer. To my knowledge, the topic of FBI activity on Internet discussion forums has never been discussed seriously in any book. I shall attempt to do that now, and I shall use my discussions on Beatles newsgroup,, as a case study for observing FBI activity across the entire Usenet community.
The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

9 Responses to “Rethinking John Lennon’s assassination”

  1. Anonymous says:


    & they can play this trick again & again untill we “FAIL”

    Unless 300 million people (a third of Facebook’s users) vote ‘against’ by Monday, the networking giant will no longer allow users to vote on policy changes.

    By Rob Waugh | Yahoo! News – 2 hours 34 minutes ago

    Facebook’s privacy vote – what the email actually means

    Yahoo! News – To vote, users have to use an app, then select ‘Existing policy’ rather than ‘Proposed policy’. (Image: Facebook)

    Facebook has sent all its users an email this week about a vote on its proposed changes to Data Use Policy – the site’s term for its privacy policy.

    The dry, quietly worded email is more significant than it sounds.

    Unless 300 million people (a third of Facebook’s users) vote ‘against’ by Monday 8pm GMT, the networking giant will no longer allow users to vote on policy changes.

    The move has caused concern among privacy groups, who say it’s “impossible” for 300 million to vote in the time period, and that users are worried that their “voices will no longer be heard”.
    [Related: Apple shares plunge – £22B wiped off value]

    So far, the vote stands at less than half a million, but is around six to one against the new Statement of Rights and Data Usage Policy.

    The wording of the vote itself is not a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ – to vote against, users have to select, ‘Existing Documents: The current SRR and Data Use Policy,’ as opposed to ‘Proposed Documents: The proposed SRR and Data Use Policy’

    The voting page is here.

    Privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Activism Director Rainey Reitman says, “The voting system currently in place doesn’t work; it is simply impossible to get 30% of the users (300 million individuals) to vote on anything on Facebook within 30 days.”

    “The overwhelming majority of users participating in the vote right now are voting against removing the voting system.”

    “We believe this shows that Facebook users are concerned that their voices will not be heard, and do not want to lose the ability have a say in site governance. While the vote may never end up binding Facebook, voters are sending a message about a serious concern, and one we hope Facebook respects and responds to.”

    Facebook claims that the change is to streamline ‘voting’ in favour of a system that allows “meaningful feedback”.

    Elliot Schrage, Vice-President of Communications said, “We’re proposing to end the voting component of the process in favor of a system that leads to more meaningful feedback and engagement.”

    The site says, “Voting will end on December 10 at 8:00PM. If more than 30% of all active registered users vote, the results will be binding. If turnout is less than 30%, the vote will be advisory.”


  2. Anonymous says:

    Esther Rantzen unveils next, “cash cow TARGET”


    Esther Rantzen today unveils The Silver Line which the lonely can ring

    (Esther Rantzen’s new campaign – “Silverline 24hr telephone service” › … › Raising awareness and campaigning
    2 posts – 2 authors – 4 Dec 2011
    The Sunday Times published a story on p.4 today about Esther Rantzen calling for a Childline for the Aged. Unfortunately you have to ..)


  3. Anonymous says:

    Intelligence agency trolls often use violently obscene language as a way of trying to give their attacks on truth-tellers a bit of street cred. These trolls are a permanent presence on 9/11 sites posing as “retired scientists”, or erstwhile 9/11 truthers who’ve seen the error of their ways and have discovered after researching the matter much more thoroughtly don’t you know, that the official story of 9/11 makes a lot of sense. Someone told me that a repentant shill actually confessed that they are given special courses in how to be effective internet trolls – and are even supplied with readymade sarcastic putdowns etc., to use. It baffles me why anti-NWO sites give these guys access to their forums – it’s like David donating his sling to Goliath as a gesture of goodwill. After all when did youn last see the BBC or CNN give a 9/11 truther a voice on their shows? Until they do I think Truthers should practice counter-censorship.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Censor one person, you censor everyone! Freedom means we have to let these morons have a voice but we need to spot them and then stop feeding them, they are best ignored, they get quite upset at that lol

  5. stedra rulz says:

    “Tna Yzarc” or Crazy Ant.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Four working class lads from Liverpool..yeah right. Some of the Beatles lyrics, along with their album covers artwork, show a deep esoteric meaning. Working class they certainly werent.

    OK without a doubt Lennon was murdered, as were many musicians who perhaps realised that they were being used by something dark.

    It was rumoured that the death of the Rolling Stone member had a connection as they had been talking of a supergroup merging, but then so much smoke and mirrors as I recall at the time Lennons lad Julian talking of a conspiracy, and of course it was always said the Yoko was a spook.

    A friend who was once a part of a very up and coming band who’s gigs and future just dried up, told me that they had been “noticed” and that their political leanings and beliefs had been discused by a man in a government issue suit (his words).

    In this peadogangsta controlled world, nothing is as it seems.

  7. Anonymous says:

    9:13 I couldn’t disagree more – the odds are already stacked hugely against those who expose the truth – why stack them even higher by allowing intelligence directed shills to subvert truth-telling? Let them do so on their own CIA/MI5/Mossad funded sites. Establishment liberals pay lip service to free speech but this is just another form of psy-op. For instance I was told a few weeks ago that my comments on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site would henceforth be “pre-moderated” after I posted a conmment querying why the Guardian was paying so little attention to the revelations of paedophilia in previous British governments. I mentioned no names and made no accusations against individuals – yet just mentioning establishment paedophilia was enough to get me identified as a dangerous poster who neeeded monitoring. The powers that be have enormous resources at their disposal to generate black propaganda and to make this propaganda seem like spontaneous expression of opinion – we shouldn’t be aiding them in this endeavour.

  8. Julia says:

    I read a very good book on John Lennon’s Murder awhile back. I think it was Who Killed John Lennon by Fenton Bresler.

  9. Tapestry says:

    Book is $75 and receives very negative reviews. Sure sign it’s onto the truth behind the assassination.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.