Quote bren2k="bren2k"Conspiracy theorists are difficult to engage with when they take on the condescending, wall of noise superiority of Flat Stanley; a constant barrage of self-affirming nonsense lauded as 'proof' that they are right, together with a tendency to deride people as 'sheep' if they aren't instantly convinced - it's not a very inclusive presentation style and suggests more than a hint of anxiety and emotional distress. That perception is amplified if the theorist in question believes every conspiracy that's available to them - that suggests the opposite of what they would have you believe; that they have diligently researched the issue and come to a logical conclusion. Rather, it suggests that they're cynical to begin with, suspicious of authority/politics/religion - whatever - and will simply adopt any theory that paints those bodies in a negative light; it's called a monological belief system.
Personally, I'm certain that throughout human history, there have been events that power-brokers have engineered specifically to create a certain set of circumstances; I'm happy to hear other people's thoughts on that and to do my own reading around it. I'm certainly not happy though, to believe that every single event that has any sense of uncertainty attached to it is based on the covert actions of a government, military or corporate entity - that way lies madness, as this thread clearly demonstrates.'"
Among the first responses one usually hears whenever the question of conspiracy arises is: how is it possible for so many people to stay so silent for so long?
I like to give three good examples - the cases of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy & Martin Luther King.
The first of the trio is particularly relevant since we have recently passed the 50th anniversary of that murder. Throughout the year there were as many as three dozen films, documentaries and major print media pieces devoted to what took place in Dealey Plaza.
When quizzed on the question of "Who killed JFK?" most people respond in one of two ways. Either they believe the official explanation (Lee Harvey Oswald did it) or there was a conspiracy involving X, Y & Z.
But this is completely bizarre because the OFFICIAL explanation, delivered in the late seventies by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, is that Oswald was most probably involved in a conspiracy. Since Bill Clinton signed the JFK Records Act into law following the furore kicked up by Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK", it's now possible to all but completely rule Oswald out entirely.
This begs two important questions - if (at the very least) Oswald was officially recognised as being one member of a conspiracy to kill the President - why does the mainstream media continue to uphold the findings of the Warren Commission (a verdict which is no longer valid)? Even more importantly - if Oswald was part of a conspiracy why, in the FORTY YEARS since the HSCA, have there been NO EFFORTS WHATSOEVER to track down and arrest his accomplices? We're not talking about the robbery of the school tuck-shop here - this is one of the biggest crimes of the century!
Which brings us nicely to Martin Luther King. Now, the King case is nowhere near as high-profile as JFK ("why?", is an interesting question for another debate). Ask most people to name King's killer and you'll be lucky to find 5% who'll respond with the name, "James Earl Ray". Virtually NO-ONE is aware of the fact that in the late nineties the King family won a major civil trial (in Memphis, no less!) at the end of which the jury decided that King was assassinated by agents acting on behalf of the United States Government and involving members of the local police department working in conjunction with the mob, FBI and military intelligence. The entire court transcript can be found on the Martin Luther King website (a decision which cost the family dearly, I might add). Throughout the trial NOT ONE of the major news channels or newspapers even bothered to send a reporter. After the verdict was read NOT ONE local or federal law enforcement body bothered to investigate the court's findings.
Now on to the case of Robert F. Kennedy. Like the King case, few people know the name of RFK's killer, Sirhan Sirhan. Unlike the JFK & King cases - even conspiracy theorists don't doubt that Sirhan Sirhan was present when RFK was murdered and that he fired a gun. So what's the issue? Well, it turns out that of the three cases I've listed proving the existence of a conspiracy is the easiest for RFK. Of the ninety or so eye-witnesses to the RFK killing every single one of them placed Sirhan Sirhan immediately in front of Kennedy. The exact distance is hotly debated. Some say as little as two feet. Some say as far as ten feet. But everyone agrees that Sirhan Sirhan was ONLY EVER in front of Kennedy. Yet in arguably the most exhaustive post-mortem report ever conducted (described by perhaps the finest American forensic scientist of the last fifty years, Cyril Wecht as "the best he's seen"), the equally esteemed California pathologist, Thomas Naguchi, stated that Kennedy was shot at "point blank range" and "from behind".
Did the California police department attempt to find this second gunman? On the contrary - they tried to sack their own pathologist!
What are we to make of the above? Is it conceivable that neither the media nor the various branches of law enforcement are aware of these facts? Is it conceivable that they believe it's no longer all that important to pursue the accomplices of the man who murdered one of the greatest presidents in American history, or those members of the government who plotted to kill the most famous and influential American civil rights leader - a man who was practically beatified last year?
I mean, I'm a pretty open minded individual - but if this is not convincing evidence of not just major conspiracy, but major conspiracy carried out in conjunction with ALL elements of government and the mainstream media I really don't know what is.
I'm always fascinated to hear what people think CIA Director, Richard Helms, [imeant[/i when he said he had nearly a thousand active agents working in TV, print journalism and academia at the HSCA in 1978? Do they think the CIA just pays them for sitting there and doing nothing? Bear in mind this number has probably quadrupled today with all the spending that has been ploughed into covert activities.
