We can debate all we want about whether or not we think one coverup or another is true, but at the end of the day it's a distraction because we don't have access to the classified information that could itself prove or disprove the issues.
There should be a unified force fighting for disclosure whether or not you trust the government. Only then can we start a mature conversation. Whether you love or hate conspiracy theories, you should want the information out because you are obviously curious yourself for debating it. Wouldn't it be funny if the so-called skeptics and truthers joined forces temporarily to get the information out?
Ask your rep, "If there's nothing to hide, then why not disclose?" Ironically that's what we are told to think about surveillance, but it's really the same question we should be asking the state.
The age-old excuses is that our "National Security"will be compromised if we declassify. Well, maybe on some level, but the much greater risk to our national security is excessive secrecy that makes majority of our country's history classified and causes total internal chaos and corruption. Yes a large percentage of our nation's history is secret. Refer to Trevor Paglen's book Blank Spots on the Map to learn more.
So, can someone please explain why we continue debating issues when we clearly know that we are not being given the full scope of knowledge necessary to have an intelligent dialogue? This is literally all the press should be talking about if they care about the truth, but yea... not a single question about it in the debates in all the debates I have ever seen. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) holds politicians and public officials accountable, so clearly you aren't going to find many lawmakers who want to expose themselves. There's a conflict of interest.
Good news is that FOIA reform happened last month in the house. Bad news is that almost no one talked about it. It's called H.R. 653, the FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act and it significantly broadens criteria for freedom of information requests. If you care about real change then get the word out about this or confront your senator or something. Anything.
Now there is certainly already data in the public domain that certainly warrants debates to be occurring. It's only with citizen investigation that we actually get anything done, but without legal energy into FOIA and government secrecy we are forgetting a whole element of the equation. Luckily there are great orgs like EFF and Judicial Watch and others who are on top of this, but it needs to be more. It needs focus and virality.
Leaks will occassionally happen, as a natural survival valve for humanity, but they can't be relied on. It'd be way better if whistleblowers were revered and felt safe to conduct the exposure legally. Unfortunately, the precedent for nearly every whistleblower you hear is that they are attacked and/or detained indefinitely without a trial. You know who they are.
Surveillance, drones, the black budget, Pearl Harbor, JFK, 9/11, UFOs, GMOs, advanced energy technology, false flags, it doesn't matter the issue because we know that there is still extensive suppressed information regarding all of the subjects, which fuels conspiracy theories. Let's be clear. To be pro or anti 'truth' or 'conspiracy theory' makes absolutely no sense at all. The only logical way to evolve is to constantly be open to new information about specific topics.