There is a behavioral pattern that unites just about all the naysayers to the archetype of The Cowardly Lion: to those having something over him he is yellow, but if he is behaving at the behest of controllers, he becomes to us a lion. Which university professor will bite the hand that feeds him? Which member of the press will ask difficult questions if they aren't backed up by strong powers? Sometimes, though, one is different than that. For example, in the case of The Amazing Randi, because he has made a career of tricks and bamboozlement he assumes that anyone introducing something out of the norm must be in the same boat. However, include him in this: the people of this grouping will only attack that which is an easy target, one that is safe just as a lion in the wild preys upon the weak, the young, the old and the infirm. There are ruins of undersea civilizations at many places on the earth but they won't go into this category because it may lead back to Atlantis. And, if they seem to go into a sensitive area (such as 9/11), the deck will always be stacked, the game will be rigged; almost always there will be a stooge as opposed to the debunker who will bring up divergences that will be easy to refute. Think of the scoffers in this light: they rose to a high level by playing the game as it is; they excelled in the established system so, consequently, they have loyalties that bolster the present framework. Another unifying attribute is that there is no such thing as an open mind here. They live in an animal sort-of hierarchy; the only way they'll examine anything fairly is if it is somehow accepted by the upper levels of society – if the roosters standing over them in the barnyard mentality say it's okay then it must be so.
I can't cite an instance when any of these people introduced an original thought or presented an idea of something new. In their education they become performers, but a savant can – at the same time – be an idiot. They are against originality because this is an area of lack. If you try to introduce something new you're liable to get your words twisted; because of an overblown ego they'll try to ignore what you have come up with and, instead, talk only of me, my stuff, and me. What I suspect here is they have a nagging, background fear that eats at them: someday people may discover that they aren't real, that they are actors – therefore paid liars – merely playing a role.
Remember the high-school "in crowd"? These are the kind of people who have considerations other than the quest for truth and reality. Instead, they hold in high esteem acceptance and popularity.
In the shadows, away from our public eye, they are often whores, selling themselves to agents who remain unknown to us. This is one of the tools of the "Sons of Darkness." In the study of Roman history you'll come in contact with the system of Patron/Client; this is known as a cornerstone of their ancient civilization. This is not to be understood as being of that time only; in truth, it has been going on since Akkad and Sumer and it still is very much in operation today. The most useful tools for the handling-patrons are almost always bribery and coercion, such as blackmail, but the threat of the loss of something of value is also something that can be brought to bear. "If I get off the boat in this I could lose my job and be blackballed, and never be able to work again."
On the way to a specific case I want to say that the reason why Reich was so viciously persecuted was because he was getting too close: His Orgone theory of sexual energy touched upon rites and rituals involving orgies employing sexual magic that have been in use for thousands of years by the elite of the Earth. Forget Aleister Crowley; he was a disinformational agent, and there's a rule here: if a so-called antiestablishment person gets a lot of publicity it usually means that he or she is being handled and controlled. Suspects from my generation include Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Gloria Steinem, and Jane Fonda.
In the film Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley Kubrick opened the curtain a little to show the public just a touch of what the elite sometimes do… And then he died. Now examine two of the films made by Roman Polanski: Rosemary's Baby and The Ninth Gate. The first is about bringing a spawn of Satan into the world, and the second is about a book that Satan, supposedly, co-authored. Realize that he was conveniently away when the murders occurred. His wife was Sharon Tate. The rumor is that the police found pornographic films in the house that featured (among others) Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner. After the event McQueen went abroad. This has to be taken in the context of the times; in the late '60s and early '70s pornography was exclusively controlled by underground elements, and in particular, the Mafia. During the trial it was said that at one point Manson turned and said that the La Biancas were purveyors of child pornography.
The young man murdered in the driveway, Steven Parent, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time; the hairdresser, Jay Sebring, was a drug dealer to the stars. (Again this goes back to underground criminal elements.) Abigail Folger was among the idle rich; she was there with her lover, Wytek Frykowski. In the world of filmmaking sometimes there is a disagreement, a falling out that can get people killed. See the strange cases of George Reeves and Marilyn Monroe.
Who benefits? There was a good reason for ordering Manson to have these people killed: Charlie was a fraud hippie, but if his gang did these things and got caught the media would see to it that the flower children would be given a bad name. The common people would associate the real hippies with this fake. The establishment could breathe easier now that they smeared all the gentle people.
A few years ago the prosecutor at the trial published a book about the JFK assassination. In it, for the most part, he debunked the critics and whitewashed the Warren Commission. After having him on his program Alex Jones said that he was a "know-it-all." I would add that this is a mentality not unlike that of cartoon character Eric Cartman on South Park. If you try to present any information different from his he may stick his fingers in his ears and say, "Yada-yada-yada, I can't hear you." It is not out of the question to strongly suspect that he had been approached by an agent who presented Mr. Bugliosi with an offer he couldn't refuse: if he would be a good boy he would get help with the writing and publishing of the book, but if he didn't go along a lot of damaging information would come out about the Tate/La Bianca murders, information that was damaging to him.
So be wary, be careful. Filter the presented information. Remain suspicious.