Reply #44: I think you're overestimating and underestimating . . .

[defendandprotect]

When you said "small" I was taking it that you meant it in the sense of something minor.
However, I don't think the numbers that we may estimate really tell us anything.
Control comes from the top as we can see with the great deal of damage that Bushco did.

There are also incidental casualties -- such as the 100's who died evidently trying to
tell us the truth about the JFK assassination. Many knew, many tried to reveal what they knew.

How many people were involved in the horrendous damage done to Iraq and more than a million
innocent citizens in Iraq killed? They were taking instructions from the White House via
lawyers who twisted and tortured our laws.

I think the Moon Landings have to be a separate subject because it is an extraordinary suggestion
which supposedly doesn't take place on this planet. Somewhere along the line we should have
those who have the most information about this run a thread and discuss it. I believe there
are some here who could do that.

However, re the numbers involved in such a conspiracy and its relationship to having the
secret kept, I don't see that as the large problem you see. Many secrets have been kept by
many people for questionable reasons -- at least I think we'd question the reasons --
and presume there may still be secrets bigger than the Moon Landing.

However, what I am saying to you about the Moon Landing is that when you look at the long
history of conspiracies by this nation, it becomes obvious that that this would simply be one
more.

It's occurred to me that perhaps you think that when we talk about various conspiracies that
you suppose we mean that they are all unrelated -- ? What I think most of us are talking about
is global fascism and the continuing patterns and agenda to have total control over others --
to move the wealth and resources of every nation from the many to the few.

I'm sure you wouldn't argue with the idea that Hitler rose only with much behind the scenes assistance -- and that he rose under power of political violence? This is the same thing, essentially. The right wing cannot come to power without violence, intimidation,
assassinations and election steals.

And, of course, our elections are another obvious conspiracy -- certainly not tracking back
simply to 2000 and 2004. The computers began to come in during the mid-late-1960's and our
elections haven't made much sense since then.

Some say that the knowledge of the election steals beginning at that time may have been one
factor in the Watergate breakin . . . since information on an investigation of the computers
at that time was passed on to the Chair of the DNC. Additionally, certainly Nixon's efforts
in back channels to keep LBJ/Humphrey from succeeding with peace negotiations re VN were done
for his benefit and were treason. Not unlike Reagan's "October Surprise." Same thing.

And this comment is what makes me think that you may not understand that all of these
conspiracies are related and inter-related . . .

I'm not getting into Iran/Contra et al because I'm not going to get into an utterly-beside-the-point case-by-case on every possible conspiracy that can be brought up.

This is somewhat unclear --
However, neither can you suggest that since you only find Watergate a believable conspiracy (a gratuitous misrepresentation of what I've said -- as if I'm under some obligation to enumerate every single conspiracy I think has happened, and somehow implicitly disbelieve everything I don't explicitly confirm belief in) that there weren't many other conspiracies -- and that the Moon Landing wasn't one of them!

if you're interested in arguing it, you'll have to restate it --


And this does give me more of a clue that perhaps you see these events as being isolated from
one another...

That Watergate happened is mutually independent of any other conspiracy that may or may not have happened. It's a perversion of the burden of proof to imply that all possible other conspiracies must be disproved.

No -- Nixon was planning a false flag operation -- akin to Operation Northwoods --
in order to halt the elections of 1972. See The Huston Plan. And it included murder.
Nixon is involved in many ways in the JFK assassination. As LBJ was.
If you haven't seen the video of Madelaine Brown, JFK's mistress, as she describes who
attended the dinner and private meeting the night before the assassination at Clinton
Murchinson's home, I'd suggest you view it. She also recites the long list of names of
those involved.

Meanwhile, in verification of that meeting and all the attendees, journalist Helen Thomas just
happened to have been invited that evening to the social event. The day after JFK's assassination
Helen Thomas filed an affadavit naming all of the participants in that meeting --
Nixon, LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and many, many more notables were there - including John McCloy,
if you know anything about him.

Unfortunately, global fascism wasn't defeated in WWII -- hundreds of thousands of Nazis were
brought into our country under Operation Paperclip under the guidance of Allen Dulles.
They were used to found the CIA, they were funneled into the FBI - and NASA.

Human nature is enough to tell us that there have been, there are, and there will be many conspiracies. Some will eventually be uncovered, some will successfully be concealed. What that doesn't tell is which ones are real or not. Each must be proved or disproved by evidence and on individual merit.

Most of the details of all the conspiracies are known -- they do eventually get written about
but not necessarily in school textbooks. Unfortunately, the power of the right wing to keep
coverups going has not dissipatated.

If you wish to keep discussing this civilly, I'd be happy to --

If you want to move on -- I understand.