What? You sound just like that nut. You're giving me cause for concern.
So, you're saying that:
A) There is no evidence of corrupt guns/drugs activity on the part of the military.
B) Colonel Shawbaw's family is wrong, and there is no evidence that his death is anything but a suicide.
Just to get things on the record -- would you stand behind Statement A and Statement B?
Christian: I'm a Christian.
Steve: Hm.
(Some Christian Extremist Allegedly Shoots Some Muslims)
Christian: So, yeah, I'm a Christian.
Steve: What? You sound just like that murderer. You're giving me cause for concern.
To dismiss arguments on the basis that someone who subscribed to them is questionable is a logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
No, you miss the point. You asked how likely it was that someone like this would put in a proposal to DARPA. I've worked with DARPA on and off for over 15 years, and they get such proposals from such people with surprising frequency. It all has to do with the paranoid/conspiracy mindset -- It's All About Me is a common theme. Those folks are often drawn to prove how brilliant they are by proposing to DARPA and other agencies. Occasionally, the proposals are even good ones. Crazy does not necessarily mean stupid.
You got proposals from people who were strongly against the activities of the US Military, and suspected them of involvement in horrible conspiracies?
Police question lots of people who turn out to be unconnected to crimes. Deal with it.
This is not what I was saying -- I was saying that it would be impossible for police to have imagined questioning/investigating a second person when they, in reality, did not.
The problem is that we have not heard a whisper about this second person since the earlier reports. If they had been cleared of any connection to the crime, then we would have been told as much.
This person was seen speaking with Bedell immediately prior to the shooting:
"The police said they had ruled out the possibility of a second gunman
even though they saw Mr. Bedell, who was killed in an exchange of gunfire, speaking to someone before firing on the officers. Federal authorities also said there was no indication that Mr. Bedell had a connection to any domestic or international terrorist group"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/us/06gunman.html
Two bare assertions, and both of them wrong.
Surely you won't deny that surveillance tapes depicting crimes are released to the public in many cases. As for the latter assertion, what reason would they have to conceal the footage?
I'll see your circumstantial evidence and raise you actual evidence. His shooting skills sucked. I teach marksmanship. There's no excuse for his performance. I'm glad, by the way, that he sucked.
I don't believe that an assumption based on the scenario that has been presented to us can pass for "actual evidence". What if (and this is pure speculation, but I'm simply showing you that other scenarios can be proposed):
Bedell, who (based on his 2004 proposal) was clearly interested in participating in military/government-type work, was recruited to participate in a police training exercise: a continuation of the exercises that had occurred only shortly before. He was told that he was going to play an actor in a scenario in which a shooter ambushed the Pentagon subway station. He was given a gun, and told that it could only fire blanks. He was then told by his handler/supervisor (the "second man" who was seen speaking with Bedell prior to the shooting, who the media has not followed up on, and whose existence is not even acknowledged by reports) to commit the crime, assuring him that the officers are participants. An unsuspecting Bedell coolly and casually takes out his gun and fires at the officers (Coolly and casually because he suspects that he is simply part of a drill, and that the officers are in on the game). After his second shot, he realizes that he was not firing blanks. At this point, he is shot by the self-defending officers and taken into custody, where he is either left to die from his wounds or finished off.
Just because you're suspicious doesn't make them suspicious. I'd be willing to wager you're "suspicious" about all kinds of mundane things.
They are suspicious when they form a consistent pattern, and when a document like
Deception 101 gives meaning to that pattern.
... looks like I win my wager. That was easy.
What's mundane about Operation Mockingbird and the Garrison Investigation?
I was completely civil. If you're going to write crazy things, I'm entitled to make snide comments. It's a kind of Quid Pro Quo, you see.
You are not behaving like a good person, or like an adult. I can't take one seriously who behaves like you do -- Quid Pro Quo.
