Is Questioning Conspiracy / Part 3

Having raised Questions, I've asked whether raising questions qualifies as “conspiracy theory”. A question is, after all, neither:

  • “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful”, nor

  • “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained”.

It is simply a request for information. Questioners don't become conspiracy theorists unless they propose answers to the question; especially where such answers are inconsistent with the hard and openly available evidence to hand.

In Parts 1 and 2, neither I nor the videos listed proposed answers to the often frightening questions raised.

However, the questions remain unanswered.

There is no new movement within the legal or legislative establishments to address the significant informational shortfalls so graphically highlighted. The questions continue to be ignored by any and everyone with any chance or capability of responding to them fully and responsibly.

So, who are these people who continue to ignore these questions? What unites them in their determination to avoid dealing with these questions at all costs? And what recourse, if any, do we have?

Setting foot....

Here is where we part from the studied neutrality of sticking to the raising of questions.

If “they” are not going to answer the questions, perhaps it's up to “us” to have a shot.

And it is at this point, at last, that we set foot, unashamedly and in the absence of alternatives, into the land of “conspiracy theory”.

A Rich Man's Trick” picks up from where “Anatomy” leaves off.

At the end of “Anatomy”, David Hooper says he feels that there is a large dark presence at play, but feels uncomfortable trying to identify or quantify it. He is not a conspiracy theorist. He is a questioner and has done his job.

However, another non-corporate production by another internet powered individual – in this case apparently a Yorkshire history teacher – delves into his own inability to accept an earlier Commission's report on an earlier American tragedy – the assassination of JF Kennedy.

This inability leads this historian to delve into the origins of the two World Wars to map out and throw into relief a cast of characters and activities that truly stretch the credibility of any “normal” mind.


Is he mad?

Personally, I don't think so, but have a look and decide for yourself.


© 2016 Deacon Martin

More by this Author


Comments

No comments yet.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working