SCEPCOP Forum

Skeptics,
I have an interesting question.

1. Do murders to silence people with incriminating evidence ever take place? If so, are they ever made to look like suicides so as to not arouse suspicion?

If so, can you give some examples of such cases?

2. What about these cases?

Thomas Baron - He was a safety inspector who had damaging info about the NASA program that he was going to present to Congress. Before he could do so, he and his wife and daughter were found dead when their car was hit by a train. The police ruled it a suicide. And the Baron report disappeared and was never found. Do you buy that?

Daniel Carlosi - During the Iran Contra Scandal, he had incriminating evidence that was going to expose some key figures in the scandal. But he was found dead before he could go to trial with it. It was ruled a suicide. Do you buy that? Is the official version of everything always the truth to you?

The DC Madam - I forget her name, but she was found dead by hanging. Yet she told Alex Jones on his show that she would never commit suicide, so if they got her, she wanted everyone to know that she was murdered. Plus women do not hang themselves. That's something men do. Women will take pills if they want to commit suicide. Brandy Britton, who was part of the DC Madam's ring, was also found dead by hanging and ruled a suicide. So what's your call? Official report = truth?

Of course you may argue about evidence, but if a murder is set up to LOOK like a suicide, then that's the kind of evidence they'd leave behind. They wouldn't leave evidence pointing to a murder, of course. So how can you expect to find evidence when pros made sure it was covered up?

So it is your position that if the police rule a death a suicide, then it MUST be a suicide, since conspiracies and secrets DO NOT exist in your view?

Is that true?

3. Is it your position that conspiracies and secrets don't exist, that everything is out in the open? If not, can you name some conspiracies that happened?

4. Why is it that in the 60's and 70's, every influential leader who opposed the establishment, opposed war, or the Fed, got assassinated by a lone nut with no motive? And some of them, such as Sirhan Sirhan, don't even remember shooting anybody. Is that a coincidence to you?

I mean big influential leaders like JFK, RFK, MLK, and others. Why were they killed by lone nuts acting on their own? Do you buy that? Are you 100 percent sure that the official story MUST be the only truth? Do you have zero suspicion about those things?

Remember, if JFK hadn't been killed, the Vietnam War probably would have never happened, and 58,000 Americans and a million Vietnamese wouldn't have died. Does that tell you anything?

What is your official position on these things? And are you 100 percent sure about them?

5. One final question: Suppose you were murdered and it was made to look like a suicide, and the police bought it and concluded that you committed suicide, even though you didn't. Does that mean than that you did commit suicide, since the official report says so, and we all know that whatever is official is the only truth? Yes or no?

PS - One more question. What is the purpose of HAARP? There are no secrets right? If so, then whatever HAARP tells the public must be the true and only purpose for its existence right? There are no secrets right? Only nutcases believe that there are secrets and conspiracies right?

The evidence doesn't matter right? Only crazy people suspect conspiracies and cover ups right? Everything official is the only truth right?

Your honest answers please?

One more question:

When John Hinckley tried to assassinate President Reagan, it was later found out that Hinckley's brother was a family friend of Vice President George Bush's son or daughter. Considering the fact that Bush had something to gain from getting Reagan out of the way, is that just a coincidence, since no secrets or conspiracies exist? Are you sure?

Also, before Hinckley's assassination attempt, he was waiting for a phone call everyday by the pay phone, instead of using the phone in his motel room. Why is that?

Also, why was he carrying a copy of the book "Catcher in the Rye", the same book that Mark David Chapman was carrying when he shot John Lennon? Coincidence? Or MK-ULTRA?

Are you 100 percent sure either way?

Good point WIlhelm.

It does seem that some people have a need to believe in conspiracies and see them quickly while connecting dots, while others have a psychological block and never see them anywhere. There are highly intelligent people on both sides.

The ones with a block will never consider a conspiracy, and if you show them evidence or give them a great film to watch that shows a lot of evidence, they will simply not be interested and make excuses to get out of assessing it. I know some of these people. When you give them evidence of a conspiracy at work, they don't assess it or tell you what they think, they simply say "This subject just doesn't interest me" and conveniently avoid it. I don't see why. Mysteries and puzzles are always fascinating to me. But some just tune it out, even if they don't ridicule it, they always find an excuse to not pay any attention to it, or they act like they have zero interest in even pondering the subject at all. Some of these people are very intelligent and deep in other areas, but when conspiracies come up, there is some block in them.

Why is that I wonder?

Aren't any of you skeptics going to answer the question?

Anyway, I have something else to ask you skeptics.

We all know that it's a fact that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking for many years (to fund its black ops programs without Congress approval perhaps), assassination attempts, and more. Yet the police can't do anything about it cause the CIA is higher up than the police and protected by the shadow government.

Are you guys able to tell it like it is and declare that the CIA is a criminal organization?

If not, why not? Is it cause you fear authority? Worship authority? Or because your brain's programming won't allow you to make such bold statements? If so, doesn't that mean that you are mind controlled and living in fear, instead of liberated and free, like I'm trying to help you to be?

Why can't you call it like it is??? What's the problem?

Also, we all know that the Federal Reserve is a private bank, and unaudited, unaccountable, and can get away with anything. It is a scam cause it makes money out of nothing. Someone who borrows money to buy a house, gets money that the bank creates out of nothing, but he has to spend his whole life toiling to pay it back. If that isn't a scam, I don't know what is.

We all know this. But the people that run the Fed and the CIA are unaccountable and above the law. That's a fact.

So again, why can't you rightfully call the Fed a scam?

Is it because power and establishment are always right, and dissenters are always wrong?

Is it cause you're afraid to tell the truth? Or cause it goes against your programming to criticize the establishment?

Why can't you tell the truth the way it is? What's holding you back?

Did the St. Louis organization encourage the use of steroids? Was it a policy? Then they aren't a criminal organization.

These are loaded words, anyway. Criminal, Illegal, Unlawful. They all mean different things. If the actions performed by CIA agents were performed by you or I, it would be illegal and we would be criminals.

The coke trafficking was done to fund the Contras and their activities. The Contras were murderous thugs. Does a socialist Nicaragua make you any less safe? Does a Nicaragua run by the type of people who assassinate Bishops make you any more safe?

Waterboarding is unlawful, and it is disgusting. Not to mention, it's well acknowledged that torture rarely gets you good info. More often than not, it gets you invented intel, and people waste their time following up on it. But if you support torture, your opinions are pretty much irrelevant. This is why the entire world thinks America is a big pile of shit.

Don't play dumb ProfWag. Look it up. Lots of evidence, paper trails, testimonials, whistleblowers, declassified info, etc. Do your own homework.

If they wanted to end the war on drugs, they can do it easily. Obviously they don't want to for some reason. Think about that.

Watch the 60 minutes program about it by Mike Wallace. It's on YouTube. In it, ex-CIA agents reveal the truth.

ProfWag, what do you think of the CIA assassinations? Are they justified to you?

No they are not there to protect you. Are you that dumb? My God. If you think the CIA is doing everything it does to protect you personally, then you are hopeless sheep. They don't give a rat's ass about you.

You are expendable to them. That's why they urge you to get a swine flu vaccination even though they know it's harmful to you.

Wake up dude.

ProfWag, question for you:

Suppose you were murdered and it was made to look like a suicide, and the police bought it and concluded that you committed suicide. Does that mean than that you did commit suicide, since the official report says so, and we all know that whatever is official is the truth?