If Fuddy quietly faded into the night there would be suspicion and no way for people like you to call the skeptics lunatics.
Just about the only argument that has been made against the evidence I have presented that suggests something screwy happened is that it would be just too crazy to believe that somebody did this. Take away that Alinsky argument based on normalcy bias that ignores everything this regime is ALREADY known to have done, and the regime has nothing.
This regime patterns itself after Josef Goebbels, who was able to get the German people to ignore killing factories that burned millions of their fellow humans by simply having the audacity to do it. The reasoning that gave them the audacity to “just do it”? People will believe a big lie before they will believe a little one. Why? Because normalcy bias is such a strong force. Nobody can believe anybody would have the audacity - or reason - to do big evil.
And in this case, the people involved did not believe it was evil, I am convinced. They did what they had to, to protect “their family”.
IMHO
Ray76, the “this is too crazy” argument is about the only argument that people have used on ALL the eligibility evidence. You know that it is not “too crazy” to say that the regime committed massive fraud. The evidence is very clear. And yet they get away with it because the normalcy bias and Alinsky tactics (and a few well-timed deaths like Breitbart...) allow people to think “it could never happen here”. So they are even bolder now than before, seeing how willing the American public is to be duped. They believe that as long as they have “plausible deniability” they’ve got it made. Doesn’t matter if extra people and equipment show up in the water on video; it can always be claimed that it is just “too crazy” to think there’s really that stuff there, and then people won’t believe their “lyin’ eyes”.
What’s sad is that they may well get away with anything they want simply because - like Goebbels - they know human nature and they have the propaganda machine and the ability to silence dissent. A really, really dangerous combination.
I see you are doubling down on your Fuddy isn’t dead theory. In that case you are going to have to explain who has got her and how the hundreds of mourners at her open casket funeral saw nothing amiss. Don’t tell me - they are all in on it. Well, if they are all in on it, I refer to my previous question as to why she couldn’t simply be taken into protective custody with a knock on the door, since anyone that knows her are all in on it anyway.
Good synopsis of the situation.
An observation:
some years back I went to my grandfathers funeral; they had the whole open coffin embalmed body deal.
I commented to my mom after going past his coffin, that grandpa looked like wax (as in wax museum).
She said that that look was from the embalming process.
Similar for when my mom passed and my father in law passed, they had had that done, (but no fancy funeral) and they too had that ‘wax’ look.
It is entirely possible that given the close family members involved in this Fuddy thing, that a switcheroo was done, and there was a body in the casket.... just not a real one.
And, as you said, if they can force silence upon some twenty to thirty Benghazi witnesses, they sure can pay off family members, fellow passengers, etc to keep quiet in this instance.
“Ray76, the “this is too crazy” argument is about the only argument that people have used on ALL the eligibility evidence. “
Describing your theory as crazy is an understatement. Seriously, you may want to seek help. I say that with all sincerity.
Maybe you can explain why the FBI didn’t just take her away in a SUV. But you also need to explain this. You claim the plane crashes were faked to cover Fuddy’s disappearance. Therefore the eight random strangers that were on that flight with her must have done either of the following:
1. The 8 random strangers that were the other passengers on the plane were told in advance that this was a faked crash - that the plane would crash into open water and they would be rescued by helicopter. Knowing this, all 8 nevertheless agreed to board the plane and risk their lives, to save the Goverment embarrassment over Fuddy. They boarded a plane certain to crash with all their luggage that would certainly be lost at sea, and even though they knew they were going to crash into the sea, not one of them had the foresight to put their life jacket on in advance. They all thought it would be more fun to put it on whilst bobbing away, fully dressed in a swell in open water. If you don’t believe that happened, and which sane person would, then you must believe the following alternate theory:
The 8 people boarded a plane not knowing the Government planned to crash it to avoid some unspecified embarrassment. After rescueing these people from up to an hour in open water, it was explained to them that the Government just risked their lives for the flimsiest of reasons. They all love the government so much they all agree to not say a word about it. They attend her open casket funeral without saying a word that her body wasn’t there. Not a single tweet, or comment on FB. Not one from all the hundreds in on the conspiracy. And there’s more. The two telivision stations filming the funeral do not notice that Fuddy isn’t in the casket. And
ABC start “pixellating” their TV film when they read on FR that you have pinged people to a discusion - rather like when you thought Microsoft was sending you secret messages, but they were simply standard the error messages we all get.
So which do you believe? The 8 knew they were going to crash and went on the plane anyway. Or they were told afterwards (by who, when, where?)and didn’t have any problem with their lives being risked and their property lost.
To believe either is absurd.