Elvis didn't shoot JFK - Mac Wallace did. Billie Sol said so:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/17/billie-sol-estes
  
             
Billie Sol Estes obituary
Spectacularly successful Texas fraudster who figured in conspiracy theories 
about the death of John F Kennedy  
View on www.theguardian.com Preview by Yahoo  
  


________________________________
 From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: David Lynch Questions 9-11
 


  




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote :


Image if your local police department
reported a murder as "someone shot the person.  Case closed" 
That's almost what the 9-11 official story is like.

You would have been well advised not to use "RationalWiki" which
skeptics don't even like.  Those of us who think there is
something more to a case than reported don't call ourselves
"conspiracy theorists."  That term has come about and used by
PSYOPS to discredit us since the JFK assassination which I don't
think Oswald had anything to do with because he had a cheap gun
and was seen in the lunch room at the book depository when the
assassination took place.  He was a convenience patsy due to his
activities.  If Ruby had not shot him it might have come out that
he got framed.

Jeez, everyone knows Elvis shot JFK. It's hardly news.

Anyone on the right track to solving these crimes who has any
visibility such as a news reporter often gets offed or suicided. 
Some of the "nutty stuff" you will find in "conspiracy theorist"
are PSYOPS trying to "poison the well" lest the truth be known. 
Just think if we could prove beyond a doubt that 9-11 was indeed
an inside job and who the perps were how confidence in our
government would fall, not that it isn't anyway.  And we have long
had little confidence in our corporations and banks which these
days run like gang operations.

After reading the articles Barry posted I was going to write something about 
how conspiracy theories are probably created by the government to distract 
everyone from what a crap job they actually do at running the country. Be nice 
to think there was someone in power who could organise a job that big, we can't 
even make a computer system to link up health districts without the ministry 
going bankrupt and abandoning it. 

The USA is a very dirty place.  It was that way from it's
inception because some of the wealthy landowners didn't want their
workers to have rights and some wanted the US to still be
beholding to Britain.  Our democracy is an illusion and the king
makers hate anyone who points that out.  A lot more people would
have probably taken to the streets during the Occupy Movement but
they feared losing their jobs.  We live in a country of increasing
"have nots", people who have lost even their simple pleasures of
life because a plan to put all but a few in austerity.

So many detractors here seem to have little knowledge of history
and just react emotionally.  I guess some folks want to live in a
simple world of Santy Claus and Easter Bunnies.

Both of which are inventions, just like the conspiracies.

What worries is me that you have such a disconnect from the people that run the 
US that you actually think they would murder thousands of their own people for 
reasons best known to themselves. There's a kind of movement like that in the 
UK about the Islamic terrorist that blew up some tube trains a decade ago. The 
story goes that the government knew about it but let it happen because it would 
be an excuse to rachet up the anti-terror laws, which completely coincidentally 
can also be used to harass innocent people whenever the state feels like it.

I don't believe it for the simple fact that however cynical politicians get 
it's their own friends and family that might get blown up. You don't seem to 
have that sort of human link, sure the govt in the US has blood on its hands 
but the 9/11 conspiracies are qualitatively different from interfering in the 
politics of left wing countries or suppressing anti-capitalist demonstrations. 
It isn't a quantitative thing at all.

I think it's the conspiracists that react emotionally, something unbelievable 
happens and the dots get joined up irrationally, anything to make it make sense 
that doesn't just mean the world is so dangerous a bunch of religious 
fruitcakes can walk onto planes in America and fly them into public buildings. 
I'd hate to live in a country where I thought the government would actually 
blow me up as an excuse for starting a war in a third world country, some of 
the residents of which had already made some bold attacks on the US - unless 
they were conspiracies too.

Because of the crap you can find on youtube, I know people who actually think 
ISIS and Al Queda don't exist at all and were created so the "west" can clamp 
down on personal freedom. We realists know they just used the 9/11 and 7/7 
bombings as an excuse for that.....
 

On 10/11/2014 10:46 AM, seerdope@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>
 
>The term “conspiracy theory”,
though I use it myself, is a two-edged sword that may
have outlived its
usefulness.  Those challenging mainstream
knowledge and conventions are routinely cast as
conspiracy nuts – and implying
that such nut jobs glob onto many such “oddball”
explanations of the universe
as a crutch to cope with reality, It has acquired a
derogatory meaning and can
become a perverse tool applied to dismiss or ridicule
unconventional beliefs, a
tool of suppressing sincere inquiry and challenging of
prevailing norms and wisdom,
defying gut instincts (aka cognitive biases) and seeking
truth no matter where
it takes you and at what costa.  
>Many breakthroughs and new
understanding of how the world works, including
counter-culture ideas, and challenges
to the establishment, have been initially derided as
crack-pot ideas,
conspiracy theories, promoted by nut jobs. Derision of
challenging and
troubling ideas is a core defense mechanism.  
>A vast list of
crack-pot ideas,
inflammatory, and/or conspiracy-driven dibble has
unfolded and become in our
lifetimes mainstream wisdom – a few, both large and
small (may) include (not in
any order of impact or importance:  the
Snowden leaks, Pentagon Papers, Lewinsky’s blue dress,
lack of weapons of mass
destruction, Judith Bourque’s book, Iran-Contra, the
Madoff scandal, genocides
and mass murder of German concentration camps, Stalin,
Mao, Khmer
Rouge, Sudan, Native Americans, “California
real-estate prices never go down”, the USDA’s food
triangle, equal pay for
equal work, segregation, JFK’s affairs, Watergate, MY
Lai, black site prisons,
priest pedophilia, the tech bubble (“you just don’t
GET it”), the housing
bubble, Goldman Sachs, the extent of regulatory
capture, animals having
emotions, Sandusky, celebrities coming out of the
closet, the Higgs Boson, Masters
and Johnson, a black president, LBJ’s decline seek
re-election, the value of
“health foods”, vegetarianism, yoga and meditation,
game-changing technology,
global climate change, etc. More so over the march of
time – much of mainstream
science came from those initially labeled heretics,
crackpots, etc.
>Though many weird, strange,
mind-blowing, unbelievable things have turned out to be
true, that hardly means
that all weird, strange, mind-blowing, unbelievable
things are true.  
>Some core distinctions are
willingness
to systematically, without bias or agenda, challenge
one’s own and society’s views,
models of how the world works, prevailing understandings
and conventional
wisdom. These are high virtues, not something that is
worthy of derision and
labels such as conspiracy theories.. 
>However, it is hardly a virtue
to be driven by conformational bias in assembling facts
to form an apparent,
though illusory random pattern in order to fulfill some
inner need to cast
blows against the empire, exude elitism, deride others,
irrationally attempt to
bring order and make sense of a seemly, at times,
irrational challenging life
and universe.
>A key
distinction is whether one first shoots the arrow or
paints the target, is open to considering all
evidence, a willingness to change
views as new evidence presents itself, always seeking
to find alternative
answers to explain and overturn one’s current pet POV,
having a healthy sense
of both skepticism and optimism, and  having
an identity independent of a particular “truth”.   

Reply via email to