Anybody have any good examples?
For example...while I was caught up saying "Epstein didn't kill himself" and others were saying "of course, I trust the government's story" those of us who don't trust the government we puffed up on the idea that we weren't suckers....but what I think most likely happened is that he was smuggled out of prison and there was a body swap.
But the story that he was seen elsewhere or not really dead was always there is the background. People like me wanted him dead so at least it seemed like there was some justice in this world. However, when even the normies came to the conclusion that the Epstein story didn't add up....the 2nd layer of narrative was there...which is to say that he got away with it. THAT is what they really want you to take away from the whole thing.
Or at least that's my opinion.
Any other examples?
It was only in retrospect that I figured out "They" have been using this technique a long time. For those that think "conspiracy theory" was birthed because of the JFK assassination, they were using it back then too.
The simple and direct truth is that Jackie was an MK-Ultra assassin and she pulled the trigger. The are various items of evidence suggesting and even pointing strongly towards that conclusion. These are all subject to interpretation and argument, but the point is not to argue them here.
There is a certain piece of evidence consistent with that conclusion, which may be subject to interpretation but not to existence. That is, LHO's best friend in Dallas was George de Mohrenschildt. It turns out that a close friend of the Bouvier family, who almost married Jackie's aunt and who Jackie referred to as "Uncle George" was that same man.
While that's meaningless in and of itself, it is so ridiculous a coincidence that the only reasonable explanation--as wild as it may be--is that Jackie was involved in something very shady from childhood, and that same thing eventually culminated in front of the TSBD. All else is details of the journey.
After I found this out, my question become, "How was the fact of this relationship dealt with by the researchers that had literally written books on it, people that had studied it for years like Mark Lane, Vincent Bugliosi, G. Robert Blakey and others? What did they make of it? Had I missed something key that made it make sense?"
The answer is they didn't deal with it at all. Never mentioned it as if it was not worth mentioning. That is... not reasonable.
Numerous others had written books on the assassination, and probably much of it was based only on adding something to what the primary researchers had already said, not going back to question their faulty conclusions. Those primary researchers had already quietly steered everyone around the entrance to the tunnel that would lead to any important truth.
Sometime later I heard Mae Brussell--held up as a conspiracy theory legend--talking about the assassination of RFK. Which was totally and crudely faked, BTW. However, within about 20 seconds, Brussell's analysis had led to the Propaganda Due lodge in Italy and blah blah blah. I thought, "Oh I see, this bullshit has been going on forever, in all corners you would never expect. The hole is far deeper than I guessed."
The rule now boils down to, "The harder and deeper something is pushed in conspiracy theory circles, the more certain you can be it is not where you should be looking."
While I don't think Jackie did the need, that last sentence is genius.