posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:41 PM
This conspiracy theory has the merit of passing my first test.
1. If it's a conspiracy no one should know about it.
After reading the article though,
this guy covers pages of conspiracy
lists tons of names, and seems to be commenting
on everything the public has been shown on TV since the 70's.
For instance the Manson murders in california were, as he says,
"a plot by the CIA to portray all these flower girls as evil." Which brings
me to my second rule of conspiracy theories.
2. How is this theory trying to appeal to me on an emotional level.
And by that rule it fails categorically. Every single line is an emotional appeal.
There are plenty of specific names, and testimony to having seen documentation,
but it spends most of it's time discussing emotional cause and effect, painting a picture
of twitchy easily offended government that likes to squash opposition like bugs, all while admitting
the copious amount of drugs that were around during this mans life. This is demagogery not evidence.