US Govt killed MLK

[JaiDee]

 

 

Someone who's views I greatly respect, has stooped to the level of those hurling the tinfoil hat insults? 

 

  So I can only assume you don't respect MY views greatly?  Thanks a lot, ol' pal, that hurts!

 

  By the way, it's ''whose'', not  ''who's''.......that would come out as ''someone who is views I respect greatly''

[deepthroat]

They killed Kenny! Those BASTARDS!!!!!

 

[SiamSam]

Et tu Sam?  

 

Someone who's views I greatly respect, has stooped to the level of those hurling the tinfoil hat insults? 

 

I was just goofing around Lefty. Wasn't hurling anything at you directly. You know I could never do that. 

[Lefty]

 

 Snick and Pig Dogg and others are also surely having a head-shaking moment as well but are smart enough not to put in their 2 cents worth;

So, you are saying Pig Dogg thinks I am a nut job, but is just too polite to say anything? I'm sure he appreciates your putting words in his mouth or thoughts in his head. 

[Lefty]

I was just goofing around Lefty. Wasn't hurling anything at you directly. You know I could never do that. 

It's ok, I was not entirely serious in my response to you.

[Lefty]

 

      Before this thread dies lets throw out some possibilities I just found; seriously, why are these any different than what you and Paccie have found out about King, Lennon and RFK?

 

 

They are different because they are separate events, with different people and different set of circumstances. For you to say if JFK, MLK and RKF's murders were a conspriacy, then the attempt on Reagan must have been or is as likely to have been too, WADR is simply ridiculous. 

I have never really done any research on the Reagan assassination attempt, because I never gave  a  damn about the piece of shit.  The one bad thing if it had been successful is it would have put that spook Bush in the WH sooner. If it were up to me, spooks wouldn't be allowed to run for president or VP. You can say you are former CIA, but that is not really true. Once a spook always a spook. 

[ArchieBunker]

You're gawd damn right you do, and so do I. I find it rather funny yet pathetic how any of us who do not blindly believe the govt's stories on all these things are referred to as the tin foil hat brigade or some such. I guess just trusting the govt is much easier and less stressful than, you know, actually thinking for oneself. 

 

 

For a guy who thinks for himself, all you do is repost OTHER PEOPLES thoughts/articles from the wild, wild web.  You continously point to them and shout-WHAT HE SAID!!!!!

[ArchieBunker]

They are different because they are separate events, with different people and different set of circumstances. For you to say if JFK, MLK and RKF's murders were a conspriacy, then the attempt on Reagan must have been or is as likely to have been too, WADR is simply ridiculous. 

I have never really done any research on the Reagan assassination attempt, because I never gave  a  damn about the piece of shit.  The one bad thing if it had been successful is it would have put that spook Bush in the WH sooner. If it were up to me, spooks wouldn't be allowed to run for president or VP. You can say you are former CIA, but that is not really true. Once a spook always a spook. 

 

 

Again, this is yet another example of the intolerance of the supposed "tolerant".  I think Obama is/has been a disaster but I never refferred to him as a piece of shit, a Muslim, a black bastard, or even worse................

[JaiDee]

I have never really done any research on the Reagan assassination attempt

 

 Well, maybe you should, whether you liked Reagan or not.

 

Your big concern in all these threads about conspiracy is that we are being lied to by our government, and the sheep who can't see that are too stupid to open their eyes and see the truth, damn it!  I can only assume you don't want to be one of those sheep who just blindly eat up what the government tells us, so maybe some research is in order. Not because you like Reagan, but because you don't like the government lying to us about these assassinations.

 

       In this thread, it appears to me this is the case; the 4 guys who died, all were obviously victims of conspiracy and the underlying theme is that the government set it all up and that the 4 lone nutjubs were not able to pull it off themselves; something like that would obviously have to include more players. And, as we all know, they are all dead.  And yet ....not saying you specifically but the public at large.....totally believes Hinckley did his work himself; maybe because Reagan didn't die? 

 

   So, just to be sure I understand conspiracy logic because after all I am not bright enough to think for myself; 4 major world figures die by assassins bullets, and there's no way they could have just been lone nutjob assassins.One guy gets badly wounded in the same exact manner, but HIS shooting was just one lone nutjob. Despite the fact the guy "waiting in the wings" as Ollie Stone would say, was the ex -head of the CIA.   Because that guy didn't die. Or something like that.

 

Seems to me if there was any case for conspiracy amongst the 5, Reagan's would be leading the list.

[pacman]

There's more than enough intolerance in this thread already. I resent the depiction of the "insane conspiracy nonsense" because someone chooses not to accept it. I have no quarrel with anyone exercising their freedom to decide what they want to believe but it has to cut both ways.

 

And I don't like the idea that someone who entertains a conspiracy theory is to be considered so irrational that they must believe in every other conspiracy going with all the implications regarding their intelligence that goes with it. This has moved on from debating a theory on its merits to trying to destroy the credibility of anyone who dares suggest such things might be possible.

 

That meets my definition of intolerant but I will carry on despite the naysayers. 

 

For the record, I don't deny that Oswald was shooting at JFK. How could I? All I believe is that he was part of a bigger plan because we have been lied to about nearly aspect of the whole sorry tale. If Oswald was the lone gunman why was 6 seconds removed from the Zapruder film? Why do some of those appointed to the Warren Commission complain they were being used as part of a cover-up? Why do the witness accounts vary? Someone isn't telling the truth but why? If Oswald did it, what's the big secret?

 

Anyway, that's been flogged to death & apart from Lefty, all the Americans on this board are laughing themselves silly. I wish one of them would offer some sort of explanation to any of those questions. They won't because they can't. They just KNOW that they have the truth & that other stuff? Well, it's too hard to argue against all the conflicting evidence so label all the dissenters as crazy.

 

I don't subscribe to any theory about MLK, I just think it's plausible that James Ray was part of something bigger. I didn't always think so but when he wants to recant his confession & isn't allowed, the cynical part of my brain demands to know what is that all about. But stories of 8 man sniper teams, sorry, that sounds ridiculous when only one bullet was fired. 

 

RFK? Again, I don't follow any theory about him, it's a romantic notion that if they killed his brother than surely they would want to knock him off. But where's the chink in the official story? Where's the smoking gun that provides the seed of truth from which any good conspiracy theory grows? I am not even interested to look. If there's ever new information, sure, I would be curious as to what it said but naah, nothing to see here folks.

 

Marilyn Monroe's death? I shouldn't have even mentioned it but as she was part of a huge cover-up, it all points to a pattern of behaviour. And as she didn't commit suicide, why wasn't her death investigated? Because they knew who did it & the suicide story was the perfect cover. It doesn't matter that everyone who knew her claimed she had no reason to do it, why she was getting married again in the next month or so, the fix was in & that was that.

 

And then there's John Lennon. The details of how Mark Chapman finished up outside his apartment with a loaded gun are very disturbing. Nixon & Hoover hated the guy, Lennon that is, not Chapman. That was enough for me. I loved Lennon & hated those other two so it pleases me to carry a grudge. I should be allowed my opinion & when there are documentaries & websites all supporting it, I have no interest in looking any further. Blind prejudice? You betcha!

 

Finally there's Ronald Reagan. That incident doesn't belong here. If there was something to it, where's all the smoke indicating fire? JaiDee is being very disingenuous by raising Reagan's assassination attempt. Throw the idiots another bone, watch them get excited about another shooting. I have zero interest in taking the bait. 

 

Very few conspiracy theories stand up to any sort of scrutiny. I have just detailed how only two of the above stories are strong enough to appeal to my logical brain. That hardly qualifies me as a conspiracy theorist. And as for Lennon, his story is different. There hasn't been the forensic analysis of his death like the other two but I don't care. I get to choose my own opinion about what happened to him  & I choose the one described above. 

[JaiDee]

Paccie, I really appreciate your thoughts and I do read all your posts, even if I disagree with most of them.  As you say, at least SOME of us are discussing these things; dozens of people read these threads but only 4 or 5 comment which is too bad. Their choice of course, and I don't comment on every post I read either.  Same as you I wish they would because it would make this all much more interesting, but it is what it is.

 

    I wasn't attempting to ''throw you a bone" with the Hinckley stuff, I was dead serious!  Because, and this is 100% honest from my end, I have never until this week - ever, even one time - heard anything about some conspiracy in Lennon's or MLK's assassinations until this week on this very message board.  Really.  Maybe I just don't go looking for that stuff, who knows,  but never once in my life have I heard anything other than Mark Chapman and James Earl Ray committed those crimes.  So, if Lefty could dig up stuff on MLK and you already had that stuff on Lennon, why is it so outlandish for me to dig up stuff on Hinckley and Reagan? And frankly, why is it so hard to believe there was a conspiracy there; just because YOU haven't looked into it and may not believe it, others have and concluded there indeed was.

 

   In my 5 minutes of research I came across multiple conspiracy theories [there were surely dozens, maybe even hundreds; I stopped after the first page]; I posted links to 4 of them,  also to 2 Youtube clips which I found.   Sorry, but in my opinion those have as much credence as anything you and Lefty said about the other 2 killings. In essence, just fictional, unproven stories found on the vast cesspool that is the internet. True or not, they are out there, and you and I can choose to believe or not to believe any of them. I don't believe any of them myself, not even one;  again, simply 5 unhinged, lone nutjob losers who wanted to make themselves famous and boy, did they ever do the trick.

 

   Marilyn.....from what I understand she died of an overdose of drugs.....probably downers and painkillers, she was addicted to both, probably valium and a few others as well.  Lots of alcohol as well. Hendrix and Joplin died this way, Morrison as well, Amy Winehouse,  Bon Scott from your country drank himself to death, Belushi shot a speedball into his arm.....I know Marilyn was a celebrity and connected to the Kennedy's and all that but I haven't seen anything, anywhere which leads me to believe she was anything but another tragic person like the others whose life ended in a tragic way due to drug use. She *may* have even killed herself, who really knows?

 

    One last thing I will say about these 6 deaths and any other unsolved conspiracies out there; where are the real, honest-to-goodness,  hard-hitting reporters working on these?  I mean, if someone could uncover how and why Marilyn was killed or the vast network of shooters behind the King shooting - or the Holy Grail, who was behind JFK - they would not only win the pulitzer prize for literature, they would become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and become famous, literally forever.   It just always  seems to be some 2nd or 3rd hand reports from shadowy figures on grainy and dark Youtube videos and on websites run by guys who drink way too much coffee.   You can believe them, Lefty or anyone else can believe them; I have the same right not to believe them.

 

Always fun debating with you

[JaiDee]

So, you are saying Pig Dogg thinks I am a nut job, but is just too polite to say anything? I'm sure he appreciates your putting words in his mouth or thoughts in his head. 

 

  Show me where I said that.....I said exactly this;   ''Snick and Pig Dogg and others are also surely having a head-shaking moment as well but are smart enough not to put in their 2 cents worth''.  Which just means they surely don't want to get involved, which is probably a smart move, I wish I never had. Who knows which side they come down on, or anyone else who hasn't contributed to this thread;  I surely don't.

 

  YOU said "so you think Pig Dogg thinks I am a nut job but is too polite to say anything.''  You said that, I never did.

 

 Anyway, what are you concerned about? You have the ability to think for yourself without caring what others think, you should have the courage to stand by your convictions no matter how they may sound to others.

[SiamSam]

Oh for Goodness sakes!!! Will you two just get along before I have to bend you both over my knee and spank the living daylights outta ya. I would enjoy that, especially with you Lefty my precious. 

[ArchieBunker]

  Show me where I said that.....I said exactly this;   ''Snick and Pig Dogg and others are also surely having a head-shaking moment as well but are smart enough not to put in their 2 cents worth''.  Which just means they surely don't want to get involved, which is probably a smart move, I wish I never had. Who knows which side they come down on, or anyone else who hasn't contributed to this thread;  I surely don't.

 

  YOU said "so you think Pig Dogg thinks I am a nut job but is too polite to say anything.''  You said that, I never did.

 

 Anyway, what are you concerned about? You have the ability to think for yourself without caring what others think, you should have the courage to stand by your convictions no matter how they may sound to others.

 

 

I am not paranoid you know but all these motherfuckers ARE out to get me.........

[pacman]

Oh for Goodness sakes!!! Will you two just get along before I have to bend you both over my knee and spank the living daylights outta ya. I would enjoy that, especially with you Lefty my precious. 

 

I second that emotion Sam. Once these threads stoop to the personal they become toxic & no right minded person wants to get involved. All these presumptions about what people are thinking, it's stupid & unfair. 

 

It also overlooks the individual's capacity to change their mind. I mean we do change it occasionally, don't we? Anybody? Hello...   

[pacman]

    One last thing I will say about these 6 deaths and any other unsolved conspiracies out there; where are the real, honest-to-goodness,  hard-hitting reporters working on these?  I mean, if someone could uncover how and why Marilyn was killed or the vast network of shooters behind the King shooting - or the Holy Grail, who was behind JFK - they would not only win the pulitzer prize for literature, they would become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and become famous, literally forever.   It just always  seems to be some 2nd or 3rd hand reports from shadowy figures on grainy and dark Youtube videos and on websites run by guys who drink way too much coffee.   You can believe them, Lefty or anyone else can believe them; I have the same right not to believe them.

 

I have commented enough on the other stuff...   for now...   so I will respond to your final point. 

 

Those hard hitting reporters are out there, because they are not on your radar doesn't mean they aren't probing. The biographer Donald Spoto is one. I read his book on Marilyn, an excellent précis of her life full of information. I thought it odd how he ended it without answering the question about her death.

 

He came to Australia on a book tour & was interviewed by a local journalist. It's a long interview where he completely drops his guard. I was listening to it in my car when the journalist pins him with the question "so did she commit suicide or not?" 

 

He ummed & ahhed before finally saying he couldn't address the question in the States because he would be immediately in trouble. But as he was outside their jurisdiction he thought he was safe to answer. OMG, I can remember the feeling I had knowing the relevance of what he was about to say. He went on & told the journo that Marilyn had enough sedative in her system to put the entire population of LA to sleep. It had been forcibly inserted anally by men who arrived & left in the middle of the night. 

 

Now if Dr Ralph Greenson had done it, he would have been arrested. Marilyn's housekeeper Mrs Murray was present, she witnessed the whole thing, even washing the sheets afterwards. But nothing was done at all except for a finding of suicide. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

 

I am not as familiar with the efforts of other journalists but the prospect of making money, lots of money plus the fame is sure to be keeping them busy. There's an entire industry dedicated to titillating the public with various conspiracy theories. Every time another book is published someone is making money. And every theory that contradicts the last one only makes the cynics more cynical.

 

I am also a cynic but I love the melodrama surrounding a good theory. I read them for the visceral thrill not because I can't wait to buy into them & swallow the story hook, line & sinker. I enjoy the exercise of following the author's logic (or lack of it) & seeing how he/she arrives at their conclusion. Conspiracy theories challenge how we think, they can exist because we live in democracies where people can still speculate freely. Rather than attacking someone for thinking outside the orthodoxy, they should be looked at with healthy suspicion & an invitation for the author to convince us. 

 

That's all I want. Show me, prove it, don't tell me it happened because you said so, I will listen to your story & make up my own mind.

 

As for the *big one* JFK, there is hope we might get the full story in our lifetimes. I wonder what information Edward Snowden has among the millions of files he has. After all, one senior figure has said "those files contain the keys to the kingdom". 

 

Does that mean he has the dirt on all the activities of the FBI & the CIA over the years? Sure sounds like it to me. Whatever your feelings are about Mr Snowden I really hope he blesses us with some of this stuff. It would be wonderful to read what really happened.

[pacman]

Always fun debating with you

 

Likewise.

[ArchieBunker]

So if someone killed MMonroe who was it??  I would go for Bush!!!

[pacman]

Archie, he didn't say, he didn't have to say. 

 

If the law wasn't interested then one must assume they were above the law. 

 

As for Bush, the reason he comes in for so much criticism from those outside the US can best be illustrated by conversations I had with a friend of mine over many years. He lives in Manhattan & watches as many of the nightly news reports as reasonably possible.

 

I started out asking him what he thought of some silly thing Bush did that was on every TV station here in Australia. He didn't know what I was talking about. This then became part of our regular conversation. There were more than a few times there were reports of Bush mangling his speech or walking into something or whatever on our evening news which he never saw. There were exceptions but as he said to me on more than one occasion, if it wasn't for me pointing this stuff out he would never know about it. And his colleagues were just as incredulous.

 

There is a real disconnect between what you think about Bush & what non-Americans think of the man. We have both been fed different versions. You got the sanitised version, we were served up every last detail the news rooms could squeeze out. The sanctimonious grins of the talking heads did nothing to help either.

[JaiDee]

Funny thing is,  if you read the right-wing websites and blogs....and for some unknown reason I torture myself from time to time by doing this.....they all say the same thing about Obama.  "Embarrassing us in front of the world",  "other countries are laughing at us",  "we are the laughingstocks of Europe", etc.......the same exact stuff they were saying about Bush on the left-wing websites when HE was in office. 

 

It never ends,  just the commander-in-chief and the people who support them do.

[pacman]

For those outside the US who were so disappointed with Bush, Obama was the best thing that could have happened. He was the circuit breaker who resurrected the office of President. I can't overstate just how much his election was seen as a wonderful thing. 

 

However.....  he's a bit like the curates egg..   good in parts. I don't disagree with Archie that he has proven to be something of a disappointment. I know much of it isn't his fault, the Republicans doing everything to undermine & block him at every turn is the most unedifying spectacle. But he is a fence sitter when the world needs somebody making big decisions when it comes to the Middle East, China, Russia & the other hot spots. Putin is making him look weak & ineffectual & I don't know whether Obama even has a foreign policy plan. If he has he is sure keeping it to himself.

 

He has a couple of years to redeem himself. The world can't wait till the next election, I just hope Barack doesn't spend all his time on the golf course.

[Lefty]

For a guy who thinks for himself, all you do is repost OTHER PEOPLES thoughts/articles from the wild, wild web.  You continously point to them and shout-WHAT HE SAID!!!!!

Since you weren't present at any of the events in question you are also basing your opinions on what other people said about it. 

[deepthroat]

Since you weren't present at any of the events in question you are also basing your opinions on what other people said about it. 

 

Credibility of your respective sources is on JaiDee's side by a veritable landslide though.

[Lefty]

Credibility of your respective sources is on JaiDee's side by a veritable landslide though.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. Some people consider Fox News credible for example. 

[strocube]

Wow, buncha shit chucking apes up in here. Just kidding, lads:)

I have been pondering these ideas of the dominant narrative versus creating your own models for most of my life. This is an ongoing work in progress that will end when I croak. Anyway, it seems to me, that ontology is best approached as a DIY project.

That said, one of the things that has helped me sort through some of this stuff is to try and reconcile these two seemingly opposing ideas. The first is by Terence McKenna. He states: "Conspiracy theories are epistimological cartoons." The other is just based on my own observations, that is "conspiracies are just business as usual."

Just off the top of my head, based on information you can find on line with out too much trouble, here a some actual conspiracies: LIBOR, current NSA survaillance scandal, Wallstreet (pick a scam, any scam), two fake wars, etc, etc, ad nauseum. How are these things not conspiracies? Conspiracy defined: when two or more people conspire to do a crime and then keep quiet about it. That's it. Not complicated. This happens all the time. People get busted for conspiracy everyday. You think it's just small time crooks doing petty crimes? Fuck no! The real money is in major crime, so that's where the major criminals go. They go into banking, the military, etc.

I would also like to point out that "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" have become terms of derision. They essentially refer to anyone or anything,that is deemed by anyone in a position of authority, as being beyond the pale of rational thought. They function as our current taboos.

I have noticed that there have lately been a lot of pieces on line, at various sites, questioning the sanity of anyone who dares challenge the ideas presented by the dominant narrative. Any counter-narrative that is deemed potentially threatening is colored with the term "conspiracy" so that "right thinking" people can ignore those ideas as whacko and not worth any consideration. It's a neat little trick.

Edit: Now this is just my own thing, but I figure since I do not know everything and it is impossible for me to know everything, about the best I can do is "suppose" something is this way or that way. I can never know anything for sure, with 100% certainty. About the best I can do is simply say how it looks to me at any given moment. Belief is not your friend, and if you are trying to formulate your own models of reality, neither is culture.