Example Of California Murder ... Conspiracy

[Drifter]

lepke wrote:

I have yet to see anyone on the board 'absolutely rule out a conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case'

Oh please! That's disingenuous.

If what you say were true there would have been no need for me to post the original article. Posters who propose even a modest conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case have been ridiculed, laughed at, mocked, and jeered. So much so that several posters have voluntarily left the message board. Others who absolutely rule out a conspiracy have been so hostile I have had to ban them, like the one who posted this, not long ago ...

I think there is a conspiracy to protect EAR by persons accusing LE of participating in a widespread conspiracy to protect innocent POIs and thus divert attention away from a rational investigation trying to identify and apprehend EAR/ONS.

(I have put in bold the word that this person uses to contrast himself in a superior way to those he doesn't like)

The obvious implication is that anyone here who wants to talk "conspiracy" in the EAR/ONS case is ... irrational.  Three other people agreed with the person by clicking the "like" option.

No one that I know of has proposed a "widespread conspiracy" in the EAR/ONS case.  (Skeptics always exaggerate the conspiracy to make it sound irrational).  The fact of the matter is ... we don't know why the EAR/ONS has never been identified. A conspiracy to protect his identity is one possibility, among other possibilities.

But that reasonable conclusion isn't good enough for the narrow minded, closed minded people who hero-worship LE. They too don't know why the EAR/ONS was never identified ... yet ... they're absolutely certain it wasn't because of a conspiracy to protect him.

That obvious contradiction leads me to think these people are not grounded in reality. Instead, they base their idealistic conclusions on their emotional attachment to law enforcement, as a cultural institution. They cannot stand to have their beloved institutions criticized, and will defend them against "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy buffs", phrases that reek of ridicule and disdain.  They follow the "news" media pied pipers who also disdain the concept of conspiracies as an explanation of events.

Even worse, these posters, like the one whose message is quoted above, have made it quite clear they want any discussion of a "conspiracy" banned from this message board, period ... in other words, if they had their way, they would apply censorship to this message board.

We still have some posters here who can't wrap their heads around a conspiracy that would be applicable to the EAR case.  However, these posters have thus far refrained from being abusive or rude to others on the board.  I thus included the original article above to show these board skeptics that LE criminal conspiracies do exist in real life, and that as moderator, I will continue to allow discussion of same as it may apply to the EAR/ONS case. 

Drifter

[lepke]

Aug 17, 2015 0:46:16 GMT albion said:

Aug 16, 2015 22:08:23 GMT lepke said:

Yes, the psychology professor must be a moron. That is a very reasonable conclusion to reach, after reading his article

Thanks. We finally agree on something. The author is a moron. I wonder if Q is familiar with his work?

"Christopher Charles French is a British psychologist specialising in the psychology of paranormal beliefs and experiences, cognition and emotion.[1]"

And possible criminal conspiracies in CA during the 70"s and 80"s??

I'm sure that the psychology professor is on tenterhooks, waiting to find out if Quasar approves of his work, after having dedicated his life to becoming an expert in psychology. The research that you two have done, has to be far more credible than that of the professor

[lepke]

Aug 17, 2015 6:00:21 GMT Drifter said:

lepke wrote:

I have yet to see anyone on the board 'absolutely rule out a conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case'

Oh please! That's disingenuous.

If what you say were true there would have been no need for me to post the original article. Posters who propose even a modest conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case have been ridiculed, laughed at, mocked, and jeered. So much so that several posters have voluntarily left the message board. Others who absolutely rule out a conspiracy have been so hostile I have had to ban them, like the one who posted this, not long ago ...

I think there is a conspiracy to protect EAR by persons accusing LE of participating in a widespread conspiracy to protect innocent POIs and thus divert attention away from a rational investigation trying to identify and apprehend EAR/ONS.

(I have put in bold the word that this person uses to contrast himself in a superior way to those he doesn't like)

The obvious implication is that anyone here who wants to talk "conspiracy" in the EAR/ONS case is ... irrational.  Three other people agreed with the person by clicking the "like" option.

No one that I know of has proposed a "widespread conspiracy" in the EAR/ONS case.  (Skeptics always exaggerate the conspiracy to make it sound irrational).  The fact of the matter is ... we don't know why the EAR/ONS has never been identified. A conspiracy to protect his identity is one possibility, among other possibilities.

But that reasonable conclusion isn't good enough for the narrow minded, closed minded people who hero-worship LE. They too don't know why the EAR/ONS was never identified ... yet ... they're absolutely certain it wasn't because of a conspiracy to protect him.

That obvious contradiction leads me to think these people are not grounded in reality. Instead, they base their idealistic conclusions on their emotional attachment to law enforcement, as a cultural institution. They cannot stand to have their beloved institutions criticized, and will defend them against "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy buffs", phrases that reek of ridicule and disdain.  They follow the "news" media pied pipers who also disdain the concept of conspiracies as an explanation of events.

Even worse, these posters, like the one whose message is quoted above, have made it quite clear they want any discussion of a "conspiracy" banned from this message board, period ... in other words, if they had their way, they would apply censorship to this message board.

We still have some posters here who can't wrap their heads around a conspiracy that would be applicable to the EAR case.  However, these posters have thus far refrained from being abusive or rude to others on the board.  I thus included the original article above to show these board skeptics that LE criminal conspiracies do exist in real life, and that as moderator, I will continue to allow discussion of same as it may apply to the EAR/ONS case. 

Drifter

As far as I can see, a lot of what you have written, is on the basis of seeing what you want to see. Like others, I have never posted that it is impossible for there to have been a conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case, only that I have seen zero evidence for one, so what I have written is not disingenuous.

The second post that you highlighted within yours, was obviously not a wholly serious one, and banning someone for holding opposing views to you in general, without them breaking the rules of the board, is not a way to get a thriving board, but one where everyone ends up singing from the same hymn sheet.

Going down your post, and again you assume that people who argue against the likelihood of a conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case, are saying there is no possibility of it at all. That is the main mistake you keep making, and why you keep getting your knickers in a twist over the issue.

Without having to 'hero-worship LE', an unfounded and repeated slur that makes use of the word 'rational' in a way that you don't like seem very tame, I am still free to believe that EAR/ONS not having been identified yet, is not the result of a conspiracy to protect him.

It is risible that you are accusing others of wanting to ban discussion of conspiracy, when for a long time, you made it impossible for anyone to even write that word on the board. I think that you are so invested on one side of the argument, to see both sides clearly, which effects your moderation of the topic.

You have never apologised for accusing me of colluding with Guessting, which was never the case. 

Just as you seem to mistakenly think that I completely rule out a conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case, because I see no evidence for one, you also seem to think that I am involved in a conspiracy against you, because you see what you want to see, with regard to Guessting and me agreeing on certain issues.

[Drifter]

Lord have mercy!

lepke ...

Almost nothing in your post immediately above is true. As just one example, I don't ban posters for having a point of view that's different from mine. I ban posters because their board behavior repeatedly violates the rules spelled out by Greg in the Forum Decorum section of the Welcome folder.

The point of this thread is to show posters that real-life LE criminal conspiracies do exist, despite some posters' protestations to the contrary, and therefore, since the EAR/ONS case was never solved, we must allow a conspiracy discussion, because it might apply.

In contrast to our open discussion policy here, a serious discussion of "conspiracy" is forbidden elsewhere, which is tantamount to censorship.

If you were actually open-minded to the idea of a conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case, I would expect a less confrontational response from you in this thread. That you want to argue ... incessantly ... tells me and others all we need to know about your intolerance to the idea of "conspiracy" as applied to this case, and thus validates my rationale for posting the article in the first place.

Drifter

[albion]

Aug 17, 2015 9:37:45 GMT lepke said:

Aug 17, 2015 0:46:16 GMT albion said:

Thanks. We finally agree on something. The author is a moron. I wonder if Q is familiar with his work?

"Christopher Charles French is a British psychologist specialising in the psychology of paranormal beliefs and experiences, cognition and emotion.[1]"

And possible criminal conspiracies in CA during the 70"s and 80"s??

I'm sure that the psychology professor is on tenterhooks, waiting to find out if Quasar approves of his work, after having dedicated his life to becoming an expert in psychology. The research that you two have done, has to be far more credible than that of the professor

Yes.. He is most likely holed up in some flat watching Ghostbusters over and over.

[sammyt]

If you don't believe in conspiracies then just research the Sir Jimmy Savile case and you will soon change your mind.

Over his long reign of terror, hundreds of politicians, senior BBC bosses, police chiefs, secret service operatives and members of the judiciary all conspired to ensure that Savile remained protected.

So please let's stop saying that such a conspiracy involving twenty plus people couldn't happen!

[lepke]

Aug 17, 2015 12:05:16 GMT albion said:

Aug 17, 2015 9:37:45 GMT lepke said:

I'm sure that the psychology professor is on tenterhooks, waiting to find out if Quasar approves of his work, after having dedicated his life to becoming an expert in psychology. The research that you two have done, has to be far more credible than that of the professor

Yes.. He is most likely holed up in some flat watching Ghostbusters over and over.

That is no way to write about Quasar - I'm sure he would want to watch something more cerebral, like Harry and the Hendersons.

[lepke]

Aug 17, 2015 11:08:53 GMT Drifter said:

Lord have mercy!

lepke ...

Almost nothing in your post immediately above is true. As just one example, I don't ban posters for having a point of view that's different from mine. I ban posters because their board behavior repeatedly violates the rules spelled out by Greg in the Forum Decorum section of the Welcome folder.

The point of this thread is to show posters that real-life LE criminal conspiracies do exist, despite some posters' protestations to the contrary, and therefore, since the EAR/ONS case was never solved, we must allow a conspiracy discussion, because it might apply.

In contrast to our open discussion policy here, a serious discussion of "conspiracy" is forbidden elsewhere, which is tantamount to censorship.

If you were actually open-minded to the idea of a conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case, I would expect a less confrontational response from you in this thread. That you want to argue ... incessantly ... tells me and others all we need to know about your intolerance to the idea of "conspiracy" as applied to this case, and thus validates my rationale for posting the article in the first place.

Drifter

When has any other poster, ever written that conspiracies involving law enforcement do not exist? I defy you to find an example. No one ever has, so stop trying to misrepresent what people have written.

[thrax]

Just wanted to add that French is about as far from a moron as one can get, being someone who is familiar with his work and who has actually met the man and spoken to him. As far as I can tell, the only way to come to this conclusion about him is to wilfully misread his writing, or perhaps to honestly misunderstand it.

[bob]

- What Lepke said... (paraphrased): If I had a relative who was out raping or murdering, he could expect no help from me.'

I think most of us share that code.

But not all. In the mid 70s, an earons relative with a high-ranking public job who became aware of a petty crime or an "alleged rape" might have covered it up. This would have led to earons being more careful and the conspirator being compromised. 

I believe that someone knows who this guy is. Someone's silence has allowed him to remain uncaught. It may be an occasional accomplice or it could be a relative, but I would be surprised if no one has noticed this guy's stolen stash and nocturnal habits.

[sammyt]

Well there are plenty of examples of influential families protecting rapist sons.

The Deputy Sacramento Sheriff even did it when his own son was caught on videotape gang raping a girl.

The deviant and idiotic rapist was caught on tape, yet his father fought tooth and nail to keep him out of jail, so I don't see how anyone can doubt that such a cover up could happen with the infinately more careful EAR, who didn't leave fingerprints and was never seen by a victim.

[Drifter]

Aug 17, 2015 15:59:56 GMT lepke said:

Aug 17, 2015 11:08:53 GMT Drifter said:

Lord have mercy!

lepke ...

Almost nothing in your post immediately above is true. As just one example, I don't ban posters for having a point of view that's different from mine. I ban posters because their board behavior repeatedly violates the rules spelled out by Greg in the Forum Decorum section of the Welcome folder.

The point of this thread is to show posters that real-life LE criminal conspiracies do exist, despite some posters' protestations to the contrary, and therefore, since the EAR/ONS case was never solved, we must allow a conspiracy discussion, because it might apply.

In contrast to our open discussion policy here, a serious discussion of "conspiracy" is forbidden elsewhere, which is tantamount to censorship.

If you were actually open-minded to the idea of a conspiracy in the EAR/ONS case, I would expect a less confrontational response from you in this thread. That you want to argue ... incessantly ... tells me and others all we need to know about your intolerance to the idea of "conspiracy" as applied to this case, and thus validates my rationale for posting the article in the first place.

Drifter

When has any other poster, ever written that conspiracies involving law enforcement do not exist? I defy you to find an example. No one ever has, so stop trying to misrepresent what people have written.

lepke, you appear to be correct on one minor point about guessting.  So I did want to let you know that.  As a result, I have deleted my incorrect assumption about you.  I have also deleted your responses to my incorrect assumption.  My mistake was to scan a message too quickly.  Sorry about that.

Your response has been useful to me in a way I hadn't expected.  You have, perhaps inadvertently, alerted me to the apparent reality that guessting still reads this board.  Truthy banned her.  She has stated to others that she doesn't read this board anymore.  Which blatantly contradicts your correct observation about her behavior elsewhere.

She is not here to defend herself.  So I will refrain from calling her a liar.  But I think truthy was wise to ban her, and none too soon.  Posters who hero-worship her need to scrutinize their assumptions.  I try to scrutinize my own assumptions, as indicated in my first paragraph.

Drifter

[lepke]

Good.

[albion]

Aug 17, 2015 16:53:24 GMT thrax said:

Just wanted to add that French is about as far from a moron as one can get, being someone who is familiar with his work and who has actually met the man and spoken to him. As far as I can tell, the only way to come to this conclusion about him is to wilfully misread his writing, or perhaps to honestly misunderstand it.

"None of the above should indicate that all conspiracy theories are false. Some may indeed turn out to be true. The point is that some individuals may have a tendency to find such theories attractive. The crux of the matter is that conspiracists are not really sure what the true explanation of an event is—they are simply certain that the “official story” is a cover-up."

First off he negates everything he said prior. Some theories may be true and some may be false. That is not incredibly informative. Can he tell us which ones? I don't believe he can. But, if they are true, then everything he said doesn't apply and he has just been blowing smoke?

Then he says "some individuals". He doesn't say how many. Is it 50%? Or is it 10%? Or less? He might as well say that some are short and some are tall and some like fried chicken and riding scooters. Using the words "some" and "may" certainly makes for a weak argument. What he doesn't say, is that some people who are interested in the possibility of conspiracies may be LE, journalists, politicians, victims of unsolved crimes, or even just people interested in the social sciences. And why didn't Lepke point that out? Is it because he himself is "biased"?

And then French uses the word "tendency". So could I say that some individuals who vote for liberal candidates have a "tendency" to be gay? Or that some individuals who use pictures of themselves as avatars have a "tendency" to be narcissists? Or that some individuals who threaten others with violence on a message board have a "tendency" to be bitter control freaks?

And, honestly, all we need is one "Conspiracist" who doesn't believe that the "official story is a cover up" and French's argument is lost. So was Watergate a conspiracy? Yes. Is the official story that it wasn't a conspiracy? No. 

But to meet you in the middle on this one, maybe it was wrong of me to say that French was a moron. I am not familiar with his body of work. But based on the above paragraph, I am not too impressed. 

[thrax]

You've been remarkably snippy with me the past couple of days, and I've absolutely no idea why. So far as I know, we have had virtually no interaction at all until you decided to simply jump on me out of the blue a couple of days ago. Are you OK? Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? Anyhow...

Aug 18, 2015 1:56:26 GMT albion said:

And, honestly, all we need is one "Conspiracist" who doesn't believe that the "official story is a cover up" and French's argument is lost. So was Watergate a conspiracy? Yes. Is the official story that it wasn't a conspiracy? No. 

Only if you've completely missed the point and the context. You're taking a quick answer from a Q&A section of a magazine and treating it not only as though it were attempting to put forward some sort of carefully presented and nuanced argument, which it is not, but also as though he's referring to everything which falls under the rubric of "conspiracy", which he also isn't doing.

Whether a given conspiracy theory is factually correct or not is quite irrelevant to the actual point he was making. I'd say that this should probably be obvious enough if one reads the entire answer, but I fully concede that this might easily be missed since the article was posted in the context of a fairly nasty debate and presumably meant as an attempt to dismiss your viewpoint as being that of a conspiracy theorist. I get that.

But to meet you in the middle on this one, maybe it was wrong of me to say that French was a moron. I am not familiar with his body of work. But based on the above paragraph, I am not too impressed. 

Well, that's always the danger of making snap judgements based on very little information, I suppose.