Momopi, are murders ever set up to look like suicides?

[Winston]

Momopi,
I have an interesting question.

1. Do murders to silence people with incriminating evidence ever take place? If so, are they ever made to look like suicides so as to not arouse suspicion?

If so, can you give some examples of such cases?

2. What about these cases?

Thomas Baron - He was a safety inspector who had damaging info about the NASA program that he was going to present to Congress. Before he could do so, he and his wife and daughter were found dead when their car was hit by a train. The police ruled it a suicide. And the Baron report disappeared and was never found. Do you buy that?

Daniel Carlosi - During the Iran Contra Scandal, he had incriminating evidence that was going to expose some key figures in the scandal. But he was found dead before he could go to trial with it. It was ruled a suicide. Do you buy that? Is the official version of everything always the truth to you?

The DC Madam - I forget her name, but she was found dead by hanging. Yet she told Alex Jones on his show that she would never commit suicide, so if they got her, she wanted everyone to know that she was murdered. Plus women do not hang themselves. That's something men do. Women will take pills if they want to commit suicide. Brandy Britton, who was part of the DC Madam's ring, was also found dead by hanging and ruled a suicide. So what's your call? Official report = truth?

Of course you may argue about evidence, but if a murder is set up to LOOK like a suicide, then that's the kind of evidence they'd leave behind. They wouldn't leave evidence pointing to a murder, of course. So how can you expect to find evidence when pros made sure it was covered up?

So it is your position that if the police rule a death a suicide, then it MUST be a suicide, since conspiracies and secrets DO NOT exist in your view?

Is that true?

3. Is it your position that conspiracies and secrets don't exist, that everything is out in the open? If not, can you name some conspiracies that happened?

4. Why is it that in the 60's and 70's, every influential leader who opposed the establishment, opposed war, or the Fed, got assassinated by a lone nut with no motive? And some of them, such as Sirhan Sirhan, don't even remember shooting anybody. Is that a coincidence to you?

I mean big influential leaders like JFK, RFK, MLK, and others. Why were they killed by lone nuts acting on their own? Do you buy that? Are you 100 percent sure that the official story MUST be the only truth? Do you have zero suspicion about those things?

Remember, if JFK hadn't been killed, the Vietnam War probably would have never happened, and 58,000 Americans and a million Vietnamese wouldn't have died. Does that tell you anything?

What is your official position on these things? And are you 100 percent sure about them?

5. One final question: Suppose you were murdered and it was made to look like a suicide, and the police bought it and concluded that you committed suicide, even though you didn't. Does that mean than that you did commit suicide, since the official report says so, and we all know that whatever is official is the only truth? Yes or no?

PS - One more question. What is the purpose of HAARP? There are no secrets right? If so, then whatever HAARP tells the public must be the true and only purpose for its existence right? There are no secrets right? Only nutcases believe that there are secrets and conspiracies right?

The evidence doesn't matter right? Only crazy people suspect conspiracies and cover ups right? Everything official is the only truth right?

Your honest answers please?

[Winston]

One more question:

When John Hinckley tried to assassinate President Reagan, it was later found out that Hinckley's brother was a family friend of Vice President George Bush's son or daughter. Considering the fact that Bush had something to gain from getting Reagan out of the way, is that just a coincidence, since no secrets or conspiracies exist? Are you sure?

Also, before Hinckley's assassination attempt, he was waiting for a phone call everyday by the pay phone, instead of using the phone in his motel room. Why is that?

Also, why was he carrying a copy of the book "Catcher in the Rye", the same book that Mark David Chapman was carrying when he shot John Lennon? Coincidence? Or MK-ULTRA?

Are you 100 percent sure either way?

[momopi]

I do not have the time or patience for your ad nauseam Q&A. If you want a scapegoat for your problems, get a goat.

[Winston]

I'm not looking for a scapegoat. I'm trying to liberate your mind and figure out why you have a psychological block to objective clear thinking?

I am a liberator.

[Winston]

Just one question for you then:

Suppose you were murdered and it was made to look like a suicide, and the police bought it and concluded that you committed suicide. Does that mean than that you did commit suicide, since the official report says so, and in your view whatever official is the truth right?

Simple question.

[momopi]

Plurium interrogationum.

[Winston]

Plurium interrogationum.

I'm not playing games here. I'm using psychoanalysis to try to help you liberate your mind from mind control. I'm trying to get at the core of what drives you and controls your mind.

As I told Ladislav in the other thread:

"Why do you think that whenever I ask Momopi the honest question, "Why do you believe everything official with unquestioning faith, and that reality is whatever the media/government tells you?" he runs away and can't answer it? It's cause his programming programs him to ridicule and deny such a notion. That's why he can't confront it and must avoid such questions. If he faced such a question, it would undermine his "programming". Think about it.

If he was free of mind control and was totally objective and truth seeking, he would answer that question honestly. Look at me. I answer ALL questions straight on and without avoidance. Why is that? How come others can't do the same?

If you don't want to believe something, fine. But do so cause of the EVIDENCE, and your open minded unbiased analysis of it, not because of some dogmatic belief that everything official is the truth and that no secrets/conspiracies exist.

Meditate on that, and try to break the trance you're under.

True freedom and skepticism/freethinking begins in your MIND."

Makes sense doesn't it?

[momopi]

I'm not playing games here.

You didn't pass my lplurium Interrogationum filter.

I'm trying to get at the core of what drives you and controls your mind.

A healthy dose of apathy. Right now I'm thinking, I can type one-liners and get you to reply with 2 pages. That's a pretty good exchange ratio.

[Rock]

Plurium interrogationum.

I'm not playing games here. I'm using psychoanalysis to try to help you liberate your mind from mind control. I'm trying to get at the core of what drives you and controls your mind.

As I told Ladislav in the other thread:

"Why do you think that whenever I ask Momopi the honest question, "Why do you believe everything official with unquestioning faith, and that reality is whatever the media/government tells you?" he runs away and can't answer it? It's cause his programming programs him to ridicule and deny such a notion. That's why he can't confront it and must avoid such questions. If he faced such a question, it would undermine his "programming". Think about it.

If he was free of mind control and was totally objective and truth seeking, he would answer that question honestly. Look at me. I answer ALL questions straight on and without avoidance. Why is that? How come others can't do the same?

If you don't want to believe something, fine. But do so cause of the EVIDENCE, and your open minded unbiased analysis of it, not because of some dogmatic belief that everything official is the truth and that no secrets/conspiracies exist.

Meditate on that, and try to break the trance you're under.

True freedom and skepticism/freethinking begins in your MIND."

Makes sense doesn't it?

So Winston, now you're a psychoanalyst? And your own 'analysis' is completely unbiased?

Don't you know by now momopi is just playing you, probably just for cheap easy entertainment? And he's pretty good at winding you up. His accurate one word/one line retorts and to the point visuals elicit 'keyboard diarrhea' (I made that term up) outta you turning the exchange into a joke which you're the butt of.

Did it ever occur to you that he, like many others here, may not give a shit, one way or the other, whether or not the official versions of things, CTs, ETs, paranormal, out of body consciousness and other pseudo science, etc. is true or not. Perhaps he doesn't buy any of it or maybe he just denies it to miff you. Either way, why does it matter?

You act like this shit is some sort of religion and you're the preacher on a mission to save everybody. And don't you have another board for this stuff anyway?

[momopi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Loaded question is an informal fallacy.[1] It is committed when someone asks a question that:

presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved (a complex question) and
contains controversial assertions and/or loaded language.

This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[1] An example of this is the question "Do you still beat your wife/husband?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he or she will admit to having a spouse, and having beaten them at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[1] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[1] Hence the very same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

<snip>

The term "loaded question" is sometimes used to refer to loaded language that is phrased as a question. This type of question does not necessarily contain a fallacious presupposition, but rather this usage refers to the question having an unspoken and often emotive implication. For example, "Are you a murderer?" would be such a loaded question, as "murder" has a very negative connotation. Such a question may be asked merely to harass or upset the respondent with no intention of listening to their reply, or asked with the full expectation that the respondent will predictably deny it.

A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" would be either "I have never beaten my wife" or "I have never had a wife."[5] This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the askers of said questions have learned to get around this tactic by accusing the one who answers of "dodging" the question. A rhetorical question such as "Then please explain, how could I possibly have beaten a wife that I've never had?" can be an effective antidote to this further tactic, placing the burden on the deceptive questioner either to expose their tactic or stop the line of inquiry. In many cases a short answer is important. I neither did nor do I now makes a good example on how to answer the question without letting the asker interrupt and misshape the response.

--------

The quick and simple response to a loaded question, is to refuse the question. Everyone should bookmark this and build your plurium interrogationum ("of many questions") and loaded questions check-list. If the person asking the question fails the check-list, either refuse the question or reply with Jabberwocky.