Conspiracy theories and the like are occasionally countered hurriedly by official government responses of “Nothing to see here, move on!”
More often than not, additional intelligence, claims, accusations, and sometimes even witnesses appear later on that put the denials to the test. If the past in any guidance to the future, one observation appears to be true: the faster and more vehement the official denials appear, the more likely things are not as being described.
The Purpose of Denials
After all, the purpose of denials is to blunt the expected storm of outrage. Therefore, why not discredit the information or its source before the news ever hits the airwaves or whatever communication channels there are? At the very least, a large percentage of the readers would become unsure about the whole thing, the claim and counter claim, statements by persons claimed to have unsavory alliances, misrepresentations by the media, mistaken opinions by low-level functionaries, et cetera. The litany of possible excuses is quite long.
As in many things you read, hear, or see, it is difficult to get an accurate picture of a situation if you don’t happen to have in-depth personal knowledge of critical facts. Of course, there are always many possibilities for honest mistakes everywhere. However, there is, in my experience, one sure sign to make you wonder about the veracity of a report and this is the time elapsed between the actual event to the appearance of an official statement explaining it. As the old adage goes: time is of the essence.
Time is of the Essence
Indeed it is if you are facing a fixed deadline drawing close or trying to get something completed before the competition catches wind of your intentions. However, there are sometimes news items giving an official explanation of an event that hardly anybody had even heard of yet. That sure makes me wonder: how come the cause of the problem has been recognized before the problem itself? Is there more to the story than what we are being told?
Case in Point
A case in point is the news of the death of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who was found Sunday (Jan. 18, 2015) evening with a gunshot wound to the head. One day later, Bloomberg News reports that the lead investigator in the case said “there was no intervention of any third parties [in Mr. Nisman’s death].” In other words, Nisman’s death was determined to be a suicide.
It is doubtful that the world will ever get to hear the full story of Mr. Nisman. Suicides (real or imaginary) preclude the possibility of querying the likely most knowledgeable person on the subject there was. That’s why suicides are a convenient means of getting rid of both the knowledge and its bearer in one fell swoop. Problem solved.
As it so happened, the said Mr. Nisman was scheduled to visit the U.S. and provide evidence to a closed-door hearing of a Congressional committee the day following his apparent suicide. Not likely to be a coincidence but was the reason for the “suicide” that he felt cornered or did he know too much and was likely going to “spill the beans?”
There have been other suicides around the world that may fall into the same category; I can think of a few. However, they are not the only way to dispose of persons with knowledge that is deemed necessary to be buried for good. All kinds of accidents can happen and sometimes they even do; time may tell.
Perhaps you should thank your good fortune, don’t watch too many whodunit movies, think time, and keep well!
