The Relevant Questions Theory

Regarding conspiracies, I have a theory I call "The Relevant Questions Theory". It is quite obvious theory, but it can be useful to put it written.

The theory is as follows: if the official version of an event, can not answer 5 relevant questions succesfully, then the conspiracy theory is justified. Notice that the "relevance" of the questions is what will determine the number of unanswered questions that are needed to doubt the official version.
For instance, one question can be enough to justify doubting the official version, if this question is relevant enough. A recent example: the (staged) chemical attack in Douma. The official version is not able to answer the most relevant question of all: why would Assad do it? In this case, one single question is enough to doubt the official version.


If we apply this theory to the event that has likely generated the biggest amount of conspiracy theories of the XXth century, the killing of John F. Kennedy, we can without much thinking, write more than 5 unanswered relevant questions:

- Why Oswald is allowed to come back from the Soviet Union without any trouble? Even bringing his wife Marina, who was the niece of a colonel in the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs, with him...
- Why Oswald buys the rifle by post?
- Why Oswald takes a photo with the rifle? (Without considering if the photo is legit or not) Why gives this photo to a friend? Why is it found so late?
- Why shoot Kennedy at Dealey Plaza and not at Houston Street? [https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/10/26/20171027_jfkpara2.jpg]
- How Jack Ruby was allowed to kill Oswald?
- How could JFK's brain get lost? [https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/oct/21/presidents-brain-missing-mislaid-body-parts]

But there are many more.

Regarding 9/11 -despite I do not want to believe it was an "inside job"-:
"the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. (...) In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport." [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/19/september11.iraq]
How could Atta's passport, who was piloting one of the planes, survive the plane crashing the tower, the fire in the tower, and the final tower collapse?

But probably this question does not support the "inside job" theory but just arises (very serious) questions about the investigation of the attacks, which is maybe as scary as the "inside job" theory itself.


But "the 5 questions theory" can also be used nowadays, to "quarantine" the stories that the mainstream media tell us.
For instance, regarding the Skripal case:
Did you know that Skripal was caught by the russians in 2004?! I always assumed he had been discovered recently, but no. He was condemned in Russia to 13 years, and exchanged for other spies later...
- So why would the russians want to kill Skripal after 14 years...?
- Why would they exchange him if he was so important as to kill him later...?
- Why would they want to kill him if he was only condemned to 13 years (what for a traitor spy seems a pretty light sentence)...?


Or, as we commented, about the chemical attack in Douma, Syria:
April 04: Trump says the US are going to leave Syria
April 07: Assad accused of chemical attack "forcing" the US to stay
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/world/middleeast/syria-trump-assad.html]

If you don't see anything suspicious here...



Sometimes, questions have the opposite effect: they serve to weaken a conspiracy theory. The best example is the "moon conspiracy". Here, one simple question, is enough to discredit all moon conspiracy theories: why did not the Soviet Union claim that the moon landing was a hoax, if it was so? So far, I haven't heard anybody answer this question (reasonably).



Another good example, well-known in Spain, explained (only partly and leaving out many important facts) in the Netflix documentary "The Alcasser Case" is one of the darkest episodes in the Spanish 90s decade: the triple murder of Alcasser [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcasser_Girls]:
- DNA from between 5 and 7 different people were found on the corpses, that didn't belong to the suspects (one was later condemned, another ran away and has never been captured) [https://elpais.com/diario/1997/06/03/espana/865288822_850215.html]. Still now, this mistery has not been solved [https://elpais.com/diario/1996/11/10/espana/847580419_850215.html].
- How could the police find a hospital document that allowed to track one of the accused, in the burial site of the victims in the country after several months, after all kind of weather including windy and rainy days? This document, that had the name of the brother of one of the suspects, didn't fall from a pocket, as it had been torn in several pieces... Meaning that the suspect had allegedly torn it and thrown it away... exactly were he and his accomplices buried three murdered girls...
- How could such a suspect (who forgets a document with his brother's name on a burial site of a triple murder, escape the police and never be found?

I have no theory about what happened, it was such a monstruous crime I have usually avoided it, but such questions require a reasonable answer.


Do you have any such questions to share? About these or any other cases?

NYT Logic

We talked the other day about how the establishment tries to avoid reasonable questions like who benefits from any certain event...

Like we said, the NYT tried to answer this question about the chemical attack in Syria.

This article was interesting for several reasons. First the alleged answer given to this question:

"Yet, rather than an inexplicable act, analysts say, it is part of a carefully calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians."

First, this "analysts say" sounds too much to the "some people say" of the Fox News.

Second, amb most important, it just doesn't answer the question seriously. Even if this alleged "calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians" was real, it doesn't answer the question "WHY NOW?". Let's be serious here, if Assad wanted to do this, he could just perfectly wait until his position was safe.


The only interesting thing in this article is this sentence:

"In 2015, a mix of Qaeda-linked and other rebels, some supported by the United States and its allies, drove government forces from Idlib, the capital of Idlib Province."


PS: I find this absolutely remarkable:

"Correction: April 7, 2017

An earlier version of this article rendered incorrectly a quotation from Dr. Monzer Khalil, the health director of Idlib Province in Syria. He said, "But in Idlib we have 2.2 million people, and how many Qaeda fighters? You cannot kill the two million for their sake." He did not say 3.3 million people and three million fighters."


Makes you wonder how they write the articles, doesn't it?

CUI PRODEST

"Cui prodest" (or "Cui bono") is a latin phrase meaning "whom does it profit?". It points out that "the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain" [Wikipedia].

Cicero attributed this expression "a very honest and wise judge". And it seems indeed that this reasoning, "who profits of something?", should be the first question when looking for a culprit (this does not mean that it has to be the only question).

But as we know that common sense is the less common of all senses, it is often just ignored by the media and the population who benefits from a certain action, and it is often that the person or people blamed by the media do not only not benefit from that act, but the contrary.

I will now put a perfect example of this: the "famous" chemical attack in Syria, that all Western media attributed to Assad even before knowing about the attack. But the thing is, why would Assad do it?! What does he achieve with that?

This question, this doubt, is so obvious that even the New York Times tried to explain it to its readers:

"The diplomatic situation had been looking bright for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. With the help of Russia, he had consolidated his power, the rebels were on their heels and the United States had just declared that ousting him was not a priority.

So why would Mr. Assad risk it all, outraging the world by attacking civilians with what Turkey now says was the nerve agent sarin, killing scores of people, many of them children? Why would he inflict the deadliest chemical strike since the 2013 attacks outside Damascus?"

I absolutely recommend you this article from NYT because you will see how they completely FAIL to give a reasonable answer.

"Hit Him Hard"

September 2013.

The Economist is owned by: Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder and Agnelli families 

[The Economist Group]. via Nardeep Pujji