There's so much wrong with that point of view. that I can't even begin....maybe I should start with where you are right.
Yes, getting to the truth of an issue takes time. The reason it takes time is because most people don't want to believe bad things, not because of a conspiracy to cover things up. It's human nature to exaggerate, so a natural response is to say "No way!"
In several of the situations you use as examples, there are highly implausable (not impossible) circumstances. Ritual Satanic murders of child prostitutes in the midwest linked to political figures? Where did the bodies go? Did Satan dispose of them?
See that's the problems with conspiracies. They are like an inverted pyramid. They require more and more work to believe in, the deeper in you delve. Pretty soon, you are expected to believe in something fantastical, to support it all. Chances are there's a far more mundane explanation (Fell asleep at the wheel, income tax fraud, wants attention, wants attention, disgruntled ex-employee, or an former Marine who was a really good shot).
That's why it's best to vette those ideas through the established process. This way the pyramid isn't inverted, but has a stable base.
And here we go, one of the 2 most common types of rebuttals to these "nutty theories"(and with an example of the other one by DACrowe later on that same page). One saying it's simpler to believe in consiparices rather than the "boring" truth, the other, yours, saying it's harder to believe in them because there's so much work and thought and complexity to it. So which one is it folks? Too complex or too simple? If you're going to criticize it, might as well be consistent in the criticism. But I digress.
Those examples I used, they aren't based on speculation, specifically the one that you glossed over and more or less shrugged off by citing the "radical" nature of it(which, again, is a common practice when faced with a situation or a crime that "shouldn't or couldn't" happen). It happened, simple as that. If you really want to go over the details on it that make it indisputable, we can take it to PMs just because there's a lot to it.
In general, yeah it may sound like something out of a corny B-movie, but real people died, a plane crash destroyed evidence of the crimes as well as the special investigator who uncovered it, and the witnesses who didn't recant their original testimony from the first trial either ended up in prison on account of perjury (even though they never changed their story) with relatives being suddenly killed and
then changing their story or being killed themselves or all the above.
Again,I know how it all
sounds, but that's what really happened. Can't make that up, those people are dead. And the roots of all that came from one little city in Nebraska that no one heard of and the story of which was mostly buried, along with a documentary that was canceled and never shown on TV ("Conspiracy of Silence", although you still can find it in bad quality on Google Video or youtube).
That was a couple decades ago and they knew then they were only on the brink of something much bigger ( maybe,
just maybe, like the Afghan "Dancing Boys"?). Unfortunately, all the remaining evidence was turned over for destruction back in 2007. That's the "established process" at work for you. At what point do you think, in this "established process" would we had ever heard anything about that child sex ring? Or the "Dancing Boys" for that matter?
Even with them working tirelessly on it through this "established process", it really didn't register more than a blip on the radar, you had the grand jury for the case actually saying things like,"Children do have the right that if they exhibit reasonable behavior, to not be abused. " and,"It was a carefully crafted hoax." Not in support of the case, but in argument
against it. That this already very involving conspiracy and criminal activity was much bigger and more involving as it was all a set up
just to make it look like a conspiracy. Soooo yeah, so much for the "established process" and their stable base keeping us all grounded and in reality.
Going back to my stance about releasing the info: Go ahead and continue to do it. Because it's shown time and time again that this "established process" will do anything and everything to keep, or delay as much as possible, the releasing of any kind damaging information on certain groups or individuals, not because it risks national security, but because it risks implicating those even higher up the chain, in the highest offices of government. A Laurence King can be sentenced to 15 years, that's an "acceptable loss" but you sure as **** better not implicate a George Bush in that case, even though it has evidence pointing up that high in government.
People like that deserve to be outed, and "playing by the rules" isn't going to get it done when they are the ones who make up the rules.
