> "Evidence is the bane of the conspiracy theorist." If they had any
> evidence, they could be testifying before congress--assuming that congress
> wasn't "in on the cover-up." :-)
Definitely a naive assessment.
How so? I included the potential for a congressional cover-up :-)
Plenty of evidence in the JFK
assassination, for example.
Such as? :-)
It never goes anywhere because the media and
even the House Assassination Committee worked hard to make sure it never got
off the ground.
That much seems *apparent.* Subsequent "investigations" revealed only reticence on the part of those involved. *I think (but have no proof)* that there are bigger stories behind that incident than can be accounted for by the facts as presented. *I think* there *might* be something to Cynthia McKinney's allegations on a *global* basis, but, again, I have no proof.
Notice the qualification; "I think"? True conspiracy theorists THEORIZE! They do not make statements as fact without proof.
Even so the HASC concluded it was probably the result of a
conspiracy.
Probably? On what do you base this assumption?
Evidence is not the bane of the conspiracy theorist at all.
There's simply too much institutional control for the evidence to see the
light of day.
Perhaps. You have THEORIZED this to be the case. By the use of the qualifier "probably," you have implied that such is not fact. In this case, you are a true conspiracy theorist :-)
Edward ><+>
If you have fifty problems and one of them is government, you have only one problem.
http://www.global-connector.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reality_pump/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
