Does anybody here believe it? I've noticed that that theory is different from a paranoid theory that has no facts, events, testimony, or circumstances to back it up or even make it seem possible. There is an online tabloid source that claims it real. http://factually.gizmodo.com/no-a-cia-agent-didnt-just-admit-to-murdering-marilyn-m-1699022274
Just because a tabloid posts an article doesn't negate that there may be other evidence that proves it may be true, but based on what I know about it, it's not just a conspiracy "theory"-it seems like a probability that it's true. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-Kennedy-family-secrets-new-book-claims.html
It's hard to say if that author just made it up to sell books and tell an entertaining story. I do believe some of it could be exaggerated even if it was true. This definitely makes more sense than crazy conspiracies with almost no evidence that can back up the alternate explanation even possible (ie, the government did 911, many of the tragedies on the news are false flag operations, moon landing hoax, Tupac is alive). Those theories don't even offer evidence that begins to make as much sense as the official story.
I believe conspiracies that offer an alternate explanation for something need extra proof to back them up than conspiracy theories that believe in a new claim with no connection to commonly perceived fact (chemtrails, HAARP-that i happen to believe are real).
I used to think this belief was crazy, and I almost wrote this in the thread, but after looking at the type of evidence the author wrote about, I believe the probability is very real.
Just because a tabloid posts an article doesn't negate that there may be other evidence that proves it may be true, but based on what I know about it, it's not just a conspiracy "theory"-it seems like a probability that it's true. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-Kennedy-family-secrets-new-book-claims.html
It's hard to say if that author just made it up to sell books and tell an entertaining story. I do believe some of it could be exaggerated even if it was true. This definitely makes more sense than crazy conspiracies with almost no evidence that can back up the alternate explanation even possible (ie, the government did 911, many of the tragedies on the news are false flag operations, moon landing hoax, Tupac is alive). Those theories don't even offer evidence that begins to make as much sense as the official story.
I believe conspiracies that offer an alternate explanation for something need extra proof to back them up than conspiracy theories that believe in a new claim with no connection to commonly perceived fact (chemtrails, HAARP-that i happen to believe are real).
I used to think this belief was crazy, and I almost wrote this in the thread, but after looking at the type of evidence the author wrote about, I believe the probability is very real.
