Conspiracy Theories, and Number of People Involved

[arthwollipot]

The JFK assassination could have been a conspiracy of one.

And why are there not conspiracies about the John Lennon assassination? Huh?

 

[Soily]

No.

Ok, so if you yourself were to engage in a criminal conspiracy, you'd make sure as many people were involved as possible? Preferably people who are a bit wooly and likely to blab at the first opportunity? Presumably you'd also write all your heinous plans down in black and white and sign them? Make you entire plot as leaky and likely to be rumbled as possible? My hypothetical conspirators are slightly less bungling than you.

 

[Soily]

The JFK assassination could have been a conspiracy of one.

And why are there not conspiracies about the John Lennon assassination? Huh?

How can you have a conspiracy of one?

Lennon, i'm sure there are conspiracies about that, but I can't call any specific ones.

 

[drkitten]

I don't believe for a second that 911 was a grand conspiracy and find most of these theories utterly preposterous. But I can certainly envisage a viable, if entirely imaginary scenario were it could have been run like a military or intelligence operation with perhaps 10s or hundreds of people directly involved.

No, it couldn't.

Both those bodies are inherently good at keeping secrets

Not that good.

You used the Bletchley Park example. You are aware that one of the security officers at at Bletchley Park was Kim Philby, the noted Soviet spy? Stalin had better access to BP material than Roosevelt, because Roosevelt had to go through British channels; Philby could simply help himself to anything he liked. The "secrecy" of the Bletchley Park project was breached almost from the start, because there are/were people whose loyalties were to other groups than the project.

Fortunately for the conduct of the war, everyone involved seems to have been loyal to the idea of winning the war, so they didn't tell any of the Germans or Japanese about it. They also generally knew exactly what they were doing and knew why it was important not to tell the Axis about their work. Even after the war, the honest patriots could be expected to keep their mouths shut because they knew how important SIGINT still was during the Cold War.

An "honest patriot" asked to rig explosives in the WTC would either have to be told the big picture (in which case he would be highly likely to spill the beans) or would have to be left in the dark,... in which case, he would know as soon as the event happened what he had been involved in and he'd be highly likely to spill the beans.

What happened.

and when you factor in self incrimination it's not massively implausible that it could be kept secret.

Hardly. A whistleblower could easily arrange immunity from prosecution.... if necessary, just flee to another country and seek asylum.

If it was left entirely to the Nazis I doubt we would have found out about the holocaust, as the participants were fully intent on keeping it totally secret.

Actually, "we" (Allied intelligence) knew about the Holocaust in 1943. The Jews knew about the Holocaust more or less as soon as it started happening, but there wasn't much to be done about it at the time.

Another really bad example -- or really good example about how you can't keep a conspiracy of that size secret without active buy-in from everyone involved.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ok, so if you yourself were to engage in a criminal conspiracy, you'd make sure as many people were involved as possible? Preferably people who are a bit wooly and likely to blab at the first opportunity? Presumably you'd also write all your heinous plans down in black and white and sign them? Make you entire plot as leaky and likely to be rumbled as possible? My hypothetical conspirators are slightly less bungling than you.

The non-retarded position is that many people are required to be "in the know" for a conspiracy of any scale to be accomplished. Wishful thinking that a few people can pull it off simply don't work. Sorry.

 

[drkitten]

let's accept the possibility that they'd be clever enough to make sure any conspiracy contained the minimum number of participants possible and all those participants would be bound by shared guilt.

It's literally not possible to "make sure" "all those participants would be bound by shared guilt." How do you make sure that no conspirator will turn State's Evidence in exchange for immunity from prosecution? How do you make sure that no conspirator will flee to France and tell Le Monde everything from the security of a hotel suite in Nice?

 

[Horatius]

And regarding any high level direct players in the conspiracy, it's self evidently absurd that those people are ever going to talk, unless they wanted to end their days in prison or the electric chair.

Or unless they decide to make a deal with the prosecutors and testify against their fellow conspirators. Or they have a religious conversion and confess to "save their souls". Or figure out some Evil Means to rat out their pals so they get the whole world for themselves (Hey, they're evil right?).

 

[Soily]

The non-retarded position is that many people are required to be "in the know" for a conspiracy of any scale to be accomplished. Wishful thinking that a few people can pull it off simply don't work. Sorry.

I like the way you worded that to pass off your opinion as some widely accepted truth, which it isn't. Sorry.

 

[Soily]

It's literally not possible to "make sure" "all those participants would be bound by shared guilt." How do you make sure that no conspirator will turn State's Evidence in exchange for immunity from prosecution? How do you make sure that no conspirator will flee to France and tell Le Monde everything from the security of a hotel suite in Nice?

For the same reason the bush neocons or Tony blair's inner sanctum don't suddenly see the light and spill the beans on the lies and unethical behaviour they got up to in office. The apparatus of the state is full of ideological psychopaths, you don't even have to venture into conspiracy territory to see that. The whole Iraq war project involved a war of aggression, blatant lies and propoganda, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, illegal prisons and grotesque abuses of human rights, murder and torture. All committed by people so unwaveringly wed to their cause that they are capable of almost anything and rationalising it as right in the name of some wider cause. Tony Blair will not for the rest of his life maintain he did anything other than the right thing. How many Nazis ever saw the light and admitted they were wrong? These aren't petty criminals, they're intelligent people who spend their life wed to an idea or a cause. When you have people so ideologically skewed combined with criminality I think the idea that they'd suddenly see the light and turn their back on everything they did and believed is a bit fanciful.

The point you make isn't completely invalid, just massively overstated.

 

[Soily]

Also dr kitten, bletchly park was secret for over 30 years as far as the public was concerned, which is all that counts.

And the Nazi example, if they'd won the war its perfectly reasonable that they could have kept then holocaust secret. That was always the intention. The pertinent point is we didn't find out about the holocaust because one of the nazi conspirators blabbed about it.

 

[Horatius]

The whole Iraq war project involved a war of aggression, blatant lies and propoganda, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, illegal prisons and grotesque abuses of human rights, murder and torture.

And how do you know any of that....?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The cover up in the jfk case involved hundreds, if not thousands of people, but I think few if any were part of a conspiracy. There are different reasons to cover things up beyond trying to conceal criminal activity. In the jfk case, the coverup was a mixture of institutional prejudice, a fear the incident could open a pandoras box or escalate to war and the general tendency of state institutions to not wanting to air their dirty linen in public.

I like the way you worded that to pass off your opinion as some widely accepted truth, which it isn't. Sorry.

Juxtaposition is not your friend.

Dave

 

[Soily]

Juxtaposition is not your friend.

Dave

It's a documented fact that Johnson wanted the Warren commission to get something out there to show Oswald did it rather than, say the Russians or the cubans because he feared a nuclear war. I believe there's even an audio tape of him saying it. Johnson himself knew the Warren report was wrong because there's also an audio tape of him saying he didn't believe the single bullet theory, a feeling shared by half the Warren commission. Yet they still endorsed the Warren commission findings. If that's not a cover up and don't know what is. Yet there is absolutely no evidence any of these people were involved in the actual assassination conspiracy.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's a documented fact that Johnson wanted the Warren commission to get something out there to show Oswald did it rather than, say the Russians or the cubans because he feared a nuclear war. I believe there's even an audio tape of him saying it.

Evidence?

Johnson himself knew the Warren report was wrong because there's also an audio tape of him saying he didn't believe the single bullet theory, a feeling shared by half the Warren commission. Yet they still endorsed the Warren commission findings.

Evidence?

If that's not a cover up and don't know what is. Yet there is absolutely no evidence any of these people were involved in the actual assassination conspiracy.

1) Belief in something != evidence it's wrong
2) You don't know what a cover up is.

 

[drkitten]

Also dr kitten, bletchly park was secret for over 30 years as far as the public was concerned, which is all that counts.

Only because the Sov's had no incentive to share their knowledge of it.

And the Nazi example, if they'd won the war its perfectly reasonable that they could have kept then holocaust secret.

Really? They couldn't keep it secret until 1943, but if they had won the war in 1945, they would suddenly have had the ability to travel back in time and keep it secret?

 

[drkitten]

For the same reason the bush neocons or Tony blair's inner sanctum don't suddenly see the light and spill the beans on the lies and unethical behaviour they got up to in office.

And how do you know about the "lies and unethical behavior", then?

Tony Blair will not for the rest of his life maintain he did anything other than the right thing.

Probably not. Which is why a conspiracy of one -- Tony Blair -- might be kept secret.

But the mere fact that you can point to public evidence of his actions shows that he didn't do a really good job of keeping his own people in line.

 

[SpitfireIX]

For the same reason the bush neocons or Tony blair's inner sanctum don't suddenly see the light and spill the beans on the lies and unethical behaviour they got up to in office. The apparatus of the state is full of ideological psychopaths, you don't even have to venture into conspiracy territory to see that.

Bull. The fact that you vehemently disagree with a person's politics doesn't make that person an "ideological psychopath." And demonizing the other side isn't going to help you win any political arguments.

The whole Iraq war project involved a war of aggression, blatant lies and propoganda, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, illegal prisons and grotesque abuses of human rights, murder and torture.

In your opinion. Many people are of the opinion that Western intelligence services' estimates of Saddam's capabilities were exaggerated largely for innocent and understandable reasons.

All committed by people so unwaveringly wed to their cause that they are capable of almost anything and rationalising it as right in the name of some wider cause. Tony Blair will not for the rest of his life maintain he did anything other than the right thing.

And you know this how? You can read their minds? No allowance for the fact that they might have genuinely believed, based on the information available to them, that Iraq was a serious threat to their nations' interests?

How many Nazis ever saw the light and admitted they were wrong?

Godwin's Law. You just lost the argument. Fail.

These aren't petty criminals, they're intelligent people who spend their life wed to an idea or a cause. When you have people so ideologically skewed combined with criminality I think the idea that they'd suddenly see the light and turn their back on everything they did and believed is a bit fanciful.

Yet more demonization.

 

[Soily]

Only because the Sov's had no incentive to share their knowledge of it.



Really? They couldn't keep it secret until 1943, but if they had won the war in 1945, they would suddenly have had the ability to travel back in time and keep it secret?

You seriously think if hitler had won he'd have given free reign to the defeated allied leaders to blab about the holocaust? They'd both have been in a reverse Nuremberg for crimes against the Nazis (well not Roosevelt he was dead). Robert Harris' fatherland is a credible scenario in my opinion.

Anyway, this is a tangent from the original point and this thread. We didn't find out about the holocaust from one of the Nazi conspirators. If this assertion were that no conspiracy can be kept secret because one of the participants would talk is true, how come there were no Nazi whistleblowers when the extermination of the jews began in the late 30s? Probably the biggest conspiracy in history and yet Not one of the thousands upon thousands of Nazis involved in the holocaust sent some photos and documents to the new York times or something?

 

[Soily]

Bull. The fact that you vehemently disagree with a person's politics doesn't make that person an "ideological psychopath." And demonizing the other side isn't going to help you win any political arguments.




In your opinion. Many people are of the opinion that Western intelligence services' estimates of Saddam's capabilities were exaggerated largely for innocent and understandable reasons.




And you know this how? You can read their minds? No allowance for the fact that they might have genuinely believed, based on the information available to them, that Iraq was a serious threat to their nations' interests?




Godwin's Law. You just lost the argument. Fail.




Yet more demonization.

Mm you don't know what godwin's law is do you? Your incorrect use of it suggests, well in your words - fail.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle itself is frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

...