[just the facts, ma'am] closer to incredulity than credulity

It's such a surprise to see the incredulity of the media and supposedly the public that there would, indeed, be a connection between Blackwater and the CIA, that there would be some sort of collusion and some sort of nefarious handiwork.

For those of us who recognize the threat of Them, who know of DID, SRA, MK ULTRA, HAARP and Manchurian Candidates plus all the misery of the intergenerational abuse, those of us who take the mocking from those who would rather cry conspiracy than examine what evidence there is, who are therefore stunned when such evidence then goes mainstream, e.g. MK Ultra [google it] - we're so surprised that these people are so surprised.

Not Chicken Little in the least but programmes and patterns of behaviour which, by definition, are going to be clandestine. For goodness sake, I've read official transcripts and might just post one here, of a hallucinogenic drug experiment done on a U.S. soldier, at the end of which everything was cleared out of the room and the room cleaned down.

So when someone, confronted with an allegation of this, immediately and automatically concludes that it doesn't exist, then that person is being anything but rational. At the other extreme, the more one uncovers, the more one suspects and it is too much to claim every single thing touched by these people is evil.

They have to eat and sleep sometime.

But when there is a fragment of documentation, the truth usually resides somewhere between credulity and incredulity and in my experience, it ends up leaning more to the incredulity end, as agencies and government bodies stretch the boundaries of the possible and the acceptable.

There's a great deal of cash allocated for R&D.

Where the agency doesn't stretch the boundaries, it's public knowledge. Where it does, then it must be hidden. Surely that just stands to reason.

So what should one's attitude be? Well, certainly not that of the so-called "rationalist", whose gung hoedness causes him to snort with derision whenever he sees a "far-fetched" story. Seriously, do these guys live in a bourgeois cocoon or what? Maybe they have a psychological need to deny.

My position is more that of the scientist. "That's an interesting theory," I say. "Have you any evidence for it?"

"Well not concrete, nothing which would stand up in a court of law. But I can't see what else to conclude."

"So, let's have a look at it. I promise I'll listen to your story with an open mind, nothing more."

Now, in being willing to countenance the strange idea, e.g. the Franklin Coverup, until evidence mounts one way or the other, who's the rationalist? The policeman and I or the auto-denier with his buzzwords "conspiracy theory", "[insert your object of ire here] - porn", "wingnuts", "moonbattery", "[insert your object of ire here] -ers", as in "Birthers" and so on.

If you don't understand it - give it a label.

Again, who's the real rationalist here?

Or alternatively, your research uncovers something unusual. You're already so far down strange pathways and byways that it's almost inevitable that something would come up. Then what do you do? No one will believe you and the gung ho, with their unpreparedness to do simple research, requiring everything to be laid down in triplicate on a plate, will wade in and automatically dismiss it.

But they hardly matter.

The people who matter are the open-minded and if they're not convinced, then maybe it's time to go back and re-examine the conclusions and the evidence. If it still seems to stand up, reiterate it. Above all, you have to shear away all the gunk which is not hard evidence and take the few little snippets you have left, in order to construct a model of what might have happened. In the end, this is maybe all you have which is concrete but it still points in a certain direction.

Imagine that I'm returning to earth after 5000 years, an alien from the planet Zork [left myself open here, eh?] and I find a human hand [maybe one left behind by a Sharia Court]. The opposed thumb leads me to speculate that perhaps the creature who owned it was capable of holding a tool and if that can be established - well, think what else he might have done!

That's science. Is it moonbattery? Is it wingnuttedness?

So, this business of CIA-Blackwater connections is just par for the course, as far as I can see.