The gentleman eschews "conspiracy theories" but then he quotes a woman whose very point can (and will) be dismissed as just that ~ a conspiracy theory. Of course, the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist(s)" come right out of that same Warren Commission whose coverup of the Kennedy Assassination was so blatant and obvious that some name had to be given to those who refused to swallow the "one gunman" narrative. I did not know that this was the ONLY Trump rally to be covered live by the TV news media. Indeed, that should have been a (excuse the expression) "dead" giveaway! Excellent piece. I just hope that these evil creatures do not triumph, even for a short time.
In all fairness (to myself!), I *did* qualify what would have been a bit of Conspiracy Theory hypocrisy by introducing Sarah's brilliant piece! Indeed, the Govt needed a CYA scapegoat in light of the helium-filled Warren Commission "report." so CT was born and fast-tracked into circulation. Here's another tidbit to snack on: The photograph of a bullet whizzing past Trump’s head was taken by a NY Times photographer at 1/8000 of a second. Had that bullet hit Trump’s head the exploding head would have been caught in living color. A Pulitzer Prize-winning picture for history. Why send a newspaper photographer with a high-speed camera to record the VP choice? Who made THAT assignment....?
Timmy, of course they would have a cover story, but my (admittedly slender) perusal of the media did not show any real thirst to know who The Donald would choose for that spot. Oh, of course, it was "newsworthy," but in that they NEVER covered his rallies "live" on the Mainstream Media it seems strange that information hardly acute in its need would cause a full-scale coverage of this particular rally! On the other hand, NOBODY would want to miss the opportunity to cover live a truly gruesome (and so welcome!) event!
I don't know why it is that we need to have far more than sufficient evidence to "prove" our viewpoint when our enemies nearly need to call us names and that can put us in prison.
Lady Val, I don't know the answer to your question, but it has always been that way throughout history. Truth wins in the end, but lies have a huge head start.
Your "Wolverine" friend is right. "Shock & Awe" gets the job done. "Kill a chicken to scare the monkeys."
Thanks for the podcast.
The gentleman eschews "conspiracy theories" but then he quotes a woman whose very point can (and will) be dismissed as just that ~ a conspiracy theory. Of course, the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist(s)" come right out of that same Warren Commission whose coverup of the Kennedy Assassination was so blatant and obvious that some name had to be given to those who refused to swallow the "one gunman" narrative. I did not know that this was the ONLY Trump rally to be covered live by the TV news media. Indeed, that should have been a (excuse the expression) "dead" giveaway! Excellent piece. I just hope that these evil creatures do not triumph, even for a short time.
In all fairness (to myself!), I *did* qualify what would have been a bit of Conspiracy Theory hypocrisy by introducing Sarah's brilliant piece! Indeed, the Govt needed a CYA scapegoat in light of the helium-filled Warren Commission "report." so CT was born and fast-tracked into circulation. Here's another tidbit to snack on: The photograph of a bullet whizzing past Trump’s head was taken by a NY Times photographer at 1/8000 of a second. Had that bullet hit Trump’s head the exploding head would have been caught in living color. A Pulitzer Prize-winning picture for history. Why send a newspaper photographer with a high-speed camera to record the VP choice? Who made THAT assignment....?
Thanks for being here. Enjoyed your comments.
Lady Val, The media was covering this Trump rally because Trump was going to announce his choice for VP (or at least that is their cover story.)
Timmy, of course they would have a cover story, but my (admittedly slender) perusal of the media did not show any real thirst to know who The Donald would choose for that spot. Oh, of course, it was "newsworthy," but in that they NEVER covered his rallies "live" on the Mainstream Media it seems strange that information hardly acute in its need would cause a full-scale coverage of this particular rally! On the other hand, NOBODY would want to miss the opportunity to cover live a truly gruesome (and so welcome!) event!
Lady Val, It's always about "plausible denial." Who told the media to cover the Trump rally and when? We'll never know.
I don't know why it is that we need to have far more than sufficient evidence to "prove" our viewpoint when our enemies nearly need to call us names and that can put us in prison.
Lady Val, I don't know the answer to your question, but it has always been that way throughout history. Truth wins in the end, but lies have a huge head start.
The lie never wins IN THE END, but as you remark, it certainly is able to hold its own for a damned long time.