I think it was Ayn Rand who first popularized the term 'checking one's premises,' in trying to get people to think more rationally about things, and not build beliefs on assumptions. Good advice. For example, a fellow applied the principle regarding an aspect of the JFK assassination, which bothered him. He read in detail the description of the head wounds recorded by the Emergency-room doctors in Dallas, and then tried to make sense of what the autopsy reports all the way across the country in Bethesda said about the wounds. Something wasn't adding up. And then he had his Eureka moment: There could have been a change in the 'wounds' in the time between JFK's body being put in a casket in the Dallas hospital and the time it was being looked at on the autopsy table in Maryland. Everyone simply assumed A to B. But then he discovered that there was missing time between the arrival of Air Force One on the East Coast and the arrival of the casket at the autopsy hospital's loading dock. So there could have been a missing piece in there: A to B before C. Which conclusion was supported by the little fact that there was also a matter of different caskets involved...but let's not go there, in detail, here. I'm just making my point: that we often come to conclusions on assumptions.
Another good example was the whole Osama bin Laden caper. We See a video shot of an old bearded man, from behind and to the left, pointing his remote at a TV screen in a small room; and we are Told that this is a video of bin Laden in his last holdout. (Never mind for the moment that an analysis of the man's left ear indicates that this is not bin Laden. Which brings to mind the various videos supposedly of him through the years, which show a different man with an obviously different nose; although we are Told - and, presumably, Sold on the idea - that this is OBL. Over and over again. But let's not go there, in detail, here. Just pointing out a pattern.) We are then Told that a unit of SEALS had taken OBL out in a bit of a private-home compound in Pakistan; are Shown a picture of a terribly damaged face; and, though there are no live pictures of a presumed burial at sea, we are later Shown a picture of some U.S. sailors saluting a casket as it is dumped overboard.
What do we actually Know about all this?? Well, we Know that that picture of the terribly damaged face was not of OBL - because somebody did some sleuthing on the Internet and found it applied to a different context. And which became admitted to. But the image is still there, in the public's mind.1 And we Know that we have seen a picture of a sea burial. Or - hold it: all we Know is that we have seen a Picture of some sailors standing at attention and saluting a casket being sent on its way into the sea, somewhere.
What am I getting at. I am getting at our need to recognize that there are professionals at work in this sort of thing: this thing of, roughly speaking, 'Public Relations'. Aka propaganda. That we are being fed images our whole lives, that may or may not have substance to them. That there is a difference between what we See and what we Assume. And that we are in the hands of people who want to fool us, into believing certain things as Real, in order to control us.
And I come now to the Sandy Hook so-called massacre.
I say 'so-ocalled,' because what do we really Know about it?? I won't go into all the extremely curious, even astonishing, details about it that don't add up; some of which I listed in my last blog. One I didn't, that I came across afterwards, had to do with the tearful story of the purported aunt of one of the little girls purportedly killed, who told us how her niece was such a wonderful example to her two "big sisters". The only trouble with the story is that there has been posted a picture of that family, that shows her two purported sisters both to be younger than her.
And that's not all of the 'problems' with this family unit. But I want to move on to the clincher of my case.
And that is, that I have only found out today (now yesterday) that a) there have been no pictures released of the crime scene, with spent rifle shells purportedly all over the place;2 b) there have been no pictures released of the crime scene itself, i.e., with the bodies of the supposedly dead children and adults still strewn about, and their placements noted, as normal for a crime scene; and most damning of all: c) the parents were not allowed to see their children's bodies.
'Too horrifying,' they were told.
And so they were buried in closed caskets.
That is to say - with the help of our little lesson here: Some closed caskets were buried.
And that's all that we truly Know about the matter.
Oh. We do Know something else now; with the help of skeptical sleuths on the Internet:
that there was an exercise - conducted by the DHS - having to do with 'Emergencies regarding Children' - going on right nearby.
Shades of 9/11. And 7/7 in the UK.
Question: Do they think we are such fools?? And speaking of 9/11: of how, for example, the second plane was purportedly shown on our TV screens crashing into the second tower, when - oops - its nose came out the other side. And the studio controllers of the imagery immediately cut the picture to Black, before the scenario then continued to play itself out, on our screens.
But not before 'the man behind the screen' was shown. Briefly.
To know that The Powers That Be really, now, need to become The Powers That Were. Before any more of this nonsense is tried out on an increasingly alert American public.
And before they use it all to stimulate a reaction sufficient for the Usurper to declare Martial Law, and try to take the country, under the cover of that umbrella, into a socialist New World Order.
That the far Left has been planning for, and organizing for, for years.
With the blessings of the far Right. Who wanted to get there first, under Bush II, with their fascist version of the same totalitarian state (set up by 9/11). And who are apparently assuming that they have cards to play, to be able to hijack the scenario from Obama & Soros & Co.
But then, that's all Conjecture.
At this point in time.
1) Same as the image of Obama, Hillary & Co. in a room looking at a TV screen, with a military man at the controls of what we were at first told was a live feed of the action in the home via a camera on one of the SEALS's helmets - complete with Hillary having a hand to her mouth, as if shocked at the scene. Later when somebody queried the matter, we were told that no, that was NOT a live-feed shot. What was it of, then?? I never heard. All I Know is what is still in the minds of the public, as something that they, purportedly, Know.
2) Perhaps because the rifle purportedly used -according to the testimony of the Medical Examiner - was found later in the trunk of a car; and so the story was changed to say that the purported lone gunman used only some hand guns that he purportedly had.