by guruilla » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:55 pm
I'm not sure where, or even if, this thread is going.
The intention in laying out the facts in a potentially coherent order is not to prove a case so much as to see how well the pieces fit together and if the coherence is just an appearance or something deeper. For those people it doesn't persuade, there's nothing further to say or do, they can just go about their day and forget they ever saw that particular arrangement, in the same way we all forget about a movie or TV show a day or two after seeing it. For those it does persuade (myself being one, obviously), the effect may be the reverse: it leaves a question in the mind, like a splinter that can't be ignored. Since the surface semblance of coherence suggests a deeper coherence, a hidden narrative, I get like Jeffrey Beaumont, feeling the thrill of "seeing something that has always been hidden." The brain can't rest, because the mystery is undeniable but unsolved, and the brain can't stand an anomaly: it either forgets it entirely or it becomes disproportionately focused on it, & has to keep returning to it to try and make sense of it.
In retrospect, the reason this thread has a question mark was more than just caution; arriving at that question, the knowing that something is going on but not the exact nature of what, why, how, is the whole point, and I guess that feeling is what brought most people to RI to begin with ~ not a desire to argue but to explore the mystery together.
For me, the bodies I am seeking to disinter are, finally, the bodies in my own backyard. Cohen is just a safe-distance case study, like Strieber was, a "control" to help me stay grounded as I continue to overturn all the top soil of my own family cover-up. The context for this investigation isn't simply "Could a popular folk singer also be an MKULTRA operative?" but what are the ways in which this particular case study intersects with other evidence I, or we, have already uncovered? How is this all part of one cultural agenda? So many of the things cited as evidence at this thread might be less than meaningful without that context. I had expected RI-ers to be familiar with the larger context & not to focus so relentlessly on the minutiae of this one case; for example, the historical re-evaluation of the camping movement, early wicca, vegetarianism, and progressive schools already done at the Occult Yorkshire thread, without which the facts about LC going to summer camp might not signify much at all. Yet within the larger picture, they are a notable correspondence.
One thing that may be little understood is that intuition and imagination may actually overlap. There's an upside and a downside to that obviously, but the overriding meaning is that, without imagination, rationality and rigor is like a lead balloon.
Anyway, my point was not to complain or explain, just to emphasize how unproductive it can be to turn an imaginative exploration of a mystery (which is about following the leads that are most promising) into a rational argument about what constitutes proof or not (which entails ignoring the mystery and getting lost in semantics). I never came here with an argument, only with someone's testimony and the surrounding facts.
I am sure there are many areas still to explore and uncover around this (I know it); but it will require some new voices (or a least new perspectives) at this point, if that's ever going to happen.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
