I've worked in Government. There are FAR too many people who would have to be involved in this....and the government isn't that efficient. Someone would screw up. Someone would talk.

 

I would like to see the media do some more of its watch dog role and answer the questions that leave gaping holes. Then this would all make more sense at this point. Its the media who is failing.

 

But as for the comment about someone talking above. How do you reconcile that comment with events of 1974? By the end of the Watergate even we knew that dozens and likely 100s of people were well aware of crimes and massive corruption. The activity was sactioned when in 1971 the 'Plumbers unit' was formed to break into Daniel Ellsburgs office. It involved the President, his closest aides, the attorney general and many others - most of whom served jail time. It actually took down 2 attorney generals.

 

So who 'talked' in the 3 years? No one really. It was the media that forced the story. Even the democrats wanted nothing to do with it. So if you understand Watergate you understand that 'some would have talked' is a failed rationalization. If you had the media functioning in 1972 like it does today Nixon would have served his entire 2 term.

Is the origin of this conspiracy theory Jesse Ventura?

 

Try Watergate. It was just a nutty conspiracy theory for 2 years. Then it was real.

Try Watergate. It was just a nutty conspiracy theory for 2 years. Then it was real.

 

Correct. However, no one was saying deaths of kids were lies.

I really do love conspiracy theories, but this is just not one that I can even remotely get behind. For those comparing this conspiracy to the 9/11, I feel like there is a lot more that potenitally supports the 9/11 conspiracy theory (not saying I believe it) than this.

I guess we can give her an Oscar. :rolleyes:

 

I would like to see the media do some more of its watch dog role and answer the questions that leave gaping holes. Then this would all make more sense at this point. Its the media who is failing.

 

But as for the comment about someone talking above. How do you reconcile that comment with events of 1974? By the end of the Watergate even we knew that dozens and likely 100s of people were well aware of crimes and massive corruption. The activity was sactioned when in 1971 the 'Plumbers unit' was formed to break into Daniel Ellsburgs office. It involved the President, his closest aides, the attorney general and many others - most of whom served jail time. It actually took down 2 attorney generals.

 

So who 'talked' in the 3 years? No one really. It was the media that forced the story. Even the democrats wanted nothing to do with it. So if you understand Watergate you understand that 'some would have talked' is a failed rationalization. If you had the media functioning in 1972 like it does today Nixon would have served his entire 2 term.

 

How many people died in watergate and did we or did we not find out the truth?

 

If this is a hoax, do you think no one died? Apparently that's possible in your mind because you are up in arms about the newspaper who claimed to have spoken to the principal after the shooting.

 

These aren't spies where talking about being hush hush. We're talking about school teachers and children who were brutally murdered.

 

If you want to say the current administration is using the tragedy to push their agenda, I can see that. But to support a theory that this is a hoax, or that its possible it didn't happen...is crazy.

 

And for those who are still talking about inconsistencies..,,what else do you expect from the media? It's not like they report the truth. Wait long enough and someone will give a detailed report on what happened.

I guess we can give her an Oscar. :rolleyes:

 

I thought the same thing. It kinda makes me sick thinking about all the families effected by this, knowing there are these crazy theories about how it didn't happen. I'm sure they all wish that were true.

I would like to see the media do some more of its watch dog role and answer the questions that leave gaping holes. Then this would all make more sense at this point. Its the media who is failing.

 

But as for the comment about someone talking above. How do you reconcile that comment with events of 1974? By the end of the Watergate even we knew that dozens and likely 100s of people were well aware of crimes and massive corruption. The activity was sactioned when in 1971 the 'Plumbers unit' was formed to break into Daniel Ellsburgs office. It involved the President, his closest aides, the attorney general and many others - most of whom served jail time. It actually took down 2 attorney generals.

 

So who 'talked' in the 3 years? No one really. It was the media that forced the story. Even the democrats wanted nothing to do with it. So if you understand Watergate you understand that 'some would have talked' is a failed rationalization. If you had the media functioning in 1972 like it does today Nixon would have served his entire 2 term.

 

 

How do you think that Archibald Cox and also the Washington Post got most of their information?

 

Someone talked. For Woodstein it was "Deep Throat" and for Cox's investigation it was insiders in the White House that revealed the stash of audio tapes that were the "smoking gun." (Of course Cox was canned before the tapes were eventually ordered to be handed over by the Supreme Court.)

 

Segretty talked as well to Woodstein. (That's the short slang for Woodward and Bernstein)

 

Someone always talks. And someone always listens.

How do you think that Archibald Cox and also the Washington Post got most of their information?

 

Someone talked. For Woodstein it was "Deep Throat" and for Cox's investigation it was insiders in the White House that revealed the stash of audio tapes that were the "smoking gun." (Of course Cox was canned before the tapes were eventually ordered to be handed over by the Supreme Court.)

 

Segretty talked as well to Woodstein. (That's the short slang for Woodward and Bernstein)

 

Someone always talks. And someone always listens.

 

Yes, but it took 2 years of diligence and lots and lots of leg work. If Woodstein had not pursued this, with Bradley's support, does this story come out? Probably not. It was considered a dead end story by the entire establishment in 1973. Remember their comment - "its not they are saying no, its how they are saying no". The FBI had the goods on this long before it came out. But they were complicit. Without WaPo, the probably just let it go.

 

I love 'All the Presidents Men'. A favorite movie. My favorite line - "All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate."

 

 

I am making no claims of what did or did not actually happen. But there are bad disconnects. Its the media that should be addressing these. Its their job. There are just no signs they are doing anything but being a sound piece for the authorities and the power structure.

I am not.

 

If you are not scratching your head on this whole thing you are not paying attention.

Hahahahahahaha I love it!

Yes, but it took 2 years of diligence and lots and lots of leg work. If Woodstein had not pursued this, with Bradley's support, does this story come out? Probably not. It was considered a dead end story by the entire establishment in 1973. Remember their comment - "its not they are saying no, its how they are saying no". The FBI had the goods on this long before it came out. But they were complicit. Without WaPo, the probably just let it go.

 

I love 'All the Presidents Men'. A favorite movie. My favorite line - "All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate."

 

 

I am making no claims of what did or did not actually happen. But there are bad disconnects. Its the media that should be addressing these. Its their job. There are just no signs they are doing anything but being a sound piece for the authorities and the power structure.

 

On March 23, 1973, Judge Sirica read the court a letter from Watergate burglar James McCord alleging perjury had been committed in the Watergate trial, and defendants had been pressured to remain silent. Trying to make them talk, Sirica gave Hunt and two burglars provisional sentences of up to 40 years. On March 28 on Nixon's orders, aide John Ehrlichman told Attorney General Richard Kleindienst that nobody in the White House had prior knowledge of the burglary. On April 13, Magruder told U.S. attorneys that he had perjured himself during the burglars' trial, and implicated John Dean and John Mitchell.

 

It began to unravel less than a year after the initial break-in. People like Magruder and McCord began to spill the beans in early '73. It really unraveled with Senate Watergate hearings beginning in Feb. '73.

 

Watergate scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”

 

 

― Edgar Allan Poe

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”

 

― Edgar Allan Poe

 

Which is why I believe none of this conspiracy crap.

I live by the Stone Cold Steve Austin motto D.T.A.

Here some fresh meat....

 

Florida school moves away from professor's claim that Sandy Hook massacre was staged | Fox News

 

"A public university in Florida is distancing itself from the controversial claims of a professor who questions whether last month's horrific school massacre in Connecticut really happened."