- 2 Jun 2007
- 41
- 1
I'm someone who you would consider a "consperiacy theorist" however I go where there is hard facts and evidence. I don't just sit on my butt and make stuff up. That's just stupid so if you have facts and evidence on your side it is no longer a theory. Where it concerns JFK I am a theorist but only because I've done tons of research on this and am psychic and have had visions dealing with this showing me things that don't match up with the "history." Also Americans don't believe the "Warren Commission Report" because they keep it a secret. If they would just release the information to the public so people could see it for themselves there wouldn't be this suspecion there. Jackie Kennedy also did an investigation on her own but she locked it up until fifty years after either her or her children both died (I believe it was her children and her daughter is still a live and is only in her
30s or 40s so she's still considered young). The whole JFK thing is a whole different thread for a whole different forum so I won't go into that here. I do agree though about us losing our investigative spirit as humans. We're no longer curious and we're too trusting and probably more than likely just plain lazy. Just look at the whole US/Britian Iraq invasion. The station PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) reporter Bill Moyers did a special about the lead up to the invasion of Iraq and the American media and showed how lazy they were but how easy it was to find the truth because this one newspaper company called Knight Ridder did and they just had to use a few contacts and the internet. Look at the United States 111th Congress with the Democrats. They're only doing investigations because of pressure from the people and not because they're curious about the truth or what happened or anything like that. It's really sad.
30s or 40s so she's still considered young). The whole JFK thing is a whole different thread for a whole different forum so I won't go into that here. I do agree though about us losing our investigative spirit as humans. We're no longer curious and we're too trusting and probably more than likely just plain lazy. Just look at the whole US/Britian Iraq invasion. The station PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) reporter Bill Moyers did a special about the lead up to the invasion of Iraq and the American media and showed how lazy they were but how easy it was to find the truth because this one newspaper company called Knight Ridder did and they just had to use a few contacts and the internet. Look at the United States 111th Congress with the Democrats. They're only doing investigations because of pressure from the people and not because they're curious about the truth or what happened or anything like that. It's really sad.
Certain things have to be taken with a grain of salt, but certain things should not be immediately discounted either. If there's enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt that one thing is not 100% as it seems, it's worth a second look. Creating a reasonable doubt is often what sways a court case, if court cases were thrown out or won simply because something seemed a little improbable or everyone just said 'well thats just preposterous', the prisons would be much fuller than they already are.
That being said, sure there are scientists who serve as our logical collective, our investigative mouthpiece, and often we are right to take what they say as the truth because they're the ones who do all the complicated research. But, personally with the character of the media these days who knows anything about what these scientsts are saying, about their backgrounds or motives, etc. I don't want to hijack this thread but there are larger cases of possible 'conspiracy' that come to mind.
For example theres the AIDS virus. There is a group of scientsts and pathologists who believe the AIDS virus is not actually a real virus. I won't hijack this thread with details you'll have to do your own research, but they have some extremely sound and convincing science behind their theories. The media however has branded them as idiots, weirdos, conspiracists, etc. How is their research to be taken seriously now? I'm not saying AIDS doesn't exist, but I'm saying what we currently believe does not contain the entire truth. The main point is, where is the balanced, rational discussion on the issue?
JFK, to this day 2/3's of the American public still believe something fishy happened there. Again, won't go into detail aside from one salient piece of information, which was that the doctor who did JFK's autopsy had never done one before, and the person who usually handled such things (the government's chief medical inspector of the time) was not consulted. Yet, this under-qualified man served as the scientific stamp of approval, he was the logical mouthpiece. But was he in possession of all the facts and pertinent knowledge? It seems not.
If it hadn't been for the 'weirdos', 'blasphemers' and other undesirable people of the world, the Vatican would still be the most powerful political and spiritual entity on the planet and we may very well still believe the Earth is flat. Enlightement philosophy and challenges to the Christian political machine would have never existed.
We've lost our investigative spirit as humans and explorers and while some things are definitely far-fetched, I fear some things which deserve a more serious look are falling through the cracks.