Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by fenson76
I couldn't help but to notice that your ignorance precedes you.
In fact the car was tested by those in control of the investigation. The Proof is in the fact that it hasn't been upgraded to a homicide. So,
regardless of the car being held by those "Investigators", the fact remains that any testing has already been done.
Seems ignorant to say that it's not something when you can't prove either way
While you are mentioning that, make sure you let everyone else know too.
The problem is that Nearly Everyone believes that this was Murder when there is absolutely No Proof At All to substantiate those claims.
There is in fact more evidence to support that this was just an "Accident"
To speculate an say that this was a murder because he wrote emails, was under investigation, was going off of the radar, and that his car exploded is
an absolute act of retardation.
Maybe you should re-evaluate what you really believe happened, but, go by the facts and Not speculation.
edit on 17-8-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)
See, here's the thing, this doesn't solve the "car exploded before it hit the tree" thing going on in this topic.
You assume that if the CIA actually did blow up his car they'd be using something that would have left evidence of that (crater, etc) But of course,
if the CIA DID blow it up (hypothetically) they wouldn't want to use something that would leave evidence, would they?
So what would they use? Anybody who knows anything about the CIA during the Cold War knows they got incredibly inventive and intuitive with their
hidden technologies. We have no idea what they cold have used. But if they DID do this, it makes sense they'd use their magic-like tech nobody can
explain or identify. (For that is the whole point of secret technology.)
So no, there being a lack of evidence of "explosives" on a vehicle does not convince me that it's impossible it was an assassination, in fact that's
more or less what you'd have to expect if it WAS a CIA hit.
And journalists have a track record that draws one to think, cases that are way better supported than this one (don't know any, because it was a long
time ago that I read them, and I ask people not to try and find them because I don't want this derailing the current direction of the thread.)
Oh, and he went off the radar? Didn't know that. Do you know why?
Oh, and here's the thing about researching possible CIA assassinations; if they actually happened, then it's logical to assume that the CIA tries to
make those investigating it look as stupid as possible. This is the liberty one must take when doing such a task - there really is no other way to go
about it, and that might not be inherently our own fault.
It wouldn't suprise me, for example, if they exploded the car 2 seconds early on purpose just to make everyone here notice so as to make skeptics roll
their eyes and say, "You really think they'd be that sloppy with the explosive timer?" and make the ATS members look stupid. No, I don't think with
the CIA (hypothetically speaking) there's EVER an accident. I think, if it happened, they'd pull stuff like this to make ATS member's claims all the
more unbelievable. Hiding in plain sight taken to the next level.
If the CIA did this and wanted to cover it up, this is the most logical way in which it would do so. It's a way of using the skeptics here in their
favour. Completely unprovable, undoubtedly makes me "look" more stupid (as per design) but a possibility. I don't think there's any way to denounce
this without saying "it just sounds so elaborately stupid" which of course would be the entire point.
edit on 18-8-2013 by LoveFurther because: few more points to add
edit on 18-8-2013 by LoveFurther because: adding more
edit on 18-8-2013 by LoveFurther because: last point added