Conspiracy Theories, and Number of People Involved

[SpitfireIX]

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.

Which has no bearing whatsoever on whether Oswald actually did it while acting alone.

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,

From http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm, "Opinions Are Not Evidence":

Johnson says that he doesn't believe the Single Bullet Theory either. It's difficult to know whether he actually has an opinion, or whether he's just humoring the Senator from Georgia. The latter is more probable, given that Johnson can hardly have studied the Single Bullet Theory days before he's even been given the Commission's Report. . . .

Witnesses, quite simply, can become buffs. And government officials who might seem to have "inside information" can be quite ignorant on issues that go the least bit beyond their official duties. But they, like everybody else, read books and talk to people. And if misinformation is rife in the culture, they will pick some up.[bolding mine]

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.

From Wikipedia "Single Bullet Theory":

The Commission, however, did not conclude the Single Bullet Theory had been proven, as three members of the body, Representative Hale Boggs, Senators Richard Russell and John Cooper thought the theory improbable. Russell requested that his opposition to the theory be stated in a footnote in the report. In the end, the Commission changed the word “compelling” to “persuasive” and stated: “Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds.”

Nevertheless, all seven members of the Commission signed off on the statement: “There was no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President’s and Governor Connally’s wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.” [notes omitted]

Please explain how this constitutes a "cover-up."

 

[Soily]

...

Has to be a dubious moral comparison between the Nazis and the thing discussed to count.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

You compared the actions and fanaticism of Bush and Blair to those of the Nazis. That most certainly does fall under Godwin's Law.

 

[Soily]

You compared the actions and fanaticism of Bush and Blair to those of the Nazis. That most certainly does fall under Godwin's Law.

Citation please.

 

[Soily]

Which has no bearing whatsoever on whether Oswald actually did it while acting alone.

Which in turn has no bearing on the point I made.

From http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm, "Opinions Are Not Evidence":

Again has no bearing on the point made. It's the opinion of johsnon et al that counts, as we have their own words on audio tape.

From Wikipedia "Single Bullet Theory":




Please explain how this constitutes a "cover-up."

Putting their name to something they didn't think was true because they were scared of starting a nuclear war that would kill '40 million americans' is a cover up. It doesn't matter what you think about Oswald's guilt, its not a matter of opinion, their own words speak that they were not interested in finding the unvarnished truth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Irrelevant to the question of whether Oswald did it; Johnson may simply have wanted to quash incorrect speculation because it was well-known that Oswald was the real assassin.

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.

Again, opinions presented as fact; this time, it's your assertion as to other people's opinions.

Yet they still endorsed the Warren commission findings. If that's not a cover up I don't know what is.

Then I can say with considerable certainty that you don't know what a cover-up is.

Yet there is absolutely no evidence any of these people were involved in the actual assassination conspiracy.

Principally because there wasn't an assassination conspiracy for them to have been involved in.

Dave

 

[Soily]

Irrelevant to the question of whether Oswald did it; Johnson may simply have wanted to quash incorrect speculation because it was well-known that Oswald was the real assassin.



Again, opinions presented as fact; this time, it's your assertion as to other people's opinions.



Then I can say with considerable certainty that you don't know what a cover-up is.



Principally because there wasn't an assassination conspiracy for them to have been involved in.

Dave

No, the question of whether Oswald did it is irrelevant to whether there was a cover-up.

I quote:

Russel: "But they said that ... the Commission believe that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally.* Well, I don't believe it!"
LBJ: "Well, I don't either!"

And they were right of course, the single bullet theory is the most ludicrous piece of nonsense in the entirety of conspiracy theory lore. Makes hologram planes look sensible. But that's for another thread!

 

[aggle-rithm]

All these small groups of people worked extremely hard, spending tens of millions of dollars, to produce technology and machines that actually accomplish the goal put to them. In the end, however... none of it was actually used. What a waste.

You just described my job perfectly.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, the question of whether Oswald did it is irrelevant to whether there was a cover-up.

A cover-up of what?

The only piece of plausible evidence you've offered is that three members of the Warren Commission (a minority, by the way) publicly stated that they did not believe that a single bullet had caused the injuries to both Kennedy and Connally, but that they were certain that both had been hit by a bullet fired by Oswald from the book depository, and that Johnson privately agreed with them. Since all this is known, it was a pretty crap cover-up, don't you think?

And they were right of course, the single bullet theory is the most ludicrous piece of nonsense in the entirety of conspiracy theory lore.

You don't seem to be able to resist passing off your opinion as some widely accepted truth, do you?

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

The people at Bletchley Park knew exactly what they were doing, and were willing to keep the secret. Which shows it can be done.

However, as soon as you postulate a situation where catspaws who are ignorant of the aims of the conspiracy have to be used, or where some of those involved are unwilling to keep the secret, you're in trouble.

In the first case, all that's necessary is for one or more of the catspaws to figure out what's going on, which they will probably do after the event if not before, and go to the authorities. In the second case, the unwilling conspirator is going to leak like a sieve.

So find a situation where everyone concerned is wholeheartedly behind keeping absolutely schtumm about what's going on and nobody who isn't in the know is asked to do anything out of the ordinary, and you may have a successful conspiracy.

I reckon it's not as easy as you think.

Rolfe.

 

[tsig]

You're severely underestimating our loyalty to the NWO.

I don't know about loyalty but I sure wouldn't want to lose my jerb or my pension.

 

[aggle-rithm]

During world war 2 in englad there was a top secret code breaking facility called bletchly park. There, the German enigma cipher was broken using one of the earliest programmable computers, probably shortening the war by months. Despite thousands of people working there, all of this was completely unknown for over 30 years, until the story was revealed in the 1970s. 1000s of people kept the secret for decades, not even telling their families in many cases. So of course this tired old canard spouted by the self styled debunkers is nonsense. Not only do 'conspiracy theories' not require many people, if they do it's perfectly possible for a large number of people to keep a secret.

I do work that is somewhat similar to that done at Bletchly park. Despite having done it for ten years, I have been able to keep my activities a complete secret from my wife. Not because it is supposed to be secret, or because I am good at keeping a secret. It's because what I do is so esoteric that even if I told her, it would go right over her head and she would quickly become so bored that she would ask me never to talk about work again.

 

[Soily]

A cover-up of what?

The only piece of plausible evidence you've offered is that three members of the Warren Commission (a minority, by the way) publicly stated that they did not believe that a single bullet had caused the injuries to both Kennedy and Connally, but that they were certain that both had been hit by a bullet fired by Oswald from the book depository, and that Johnson privately agreed with them. Since all this is known, it was a pretty crap cover-up, don't you think?



You don't seem to be able to resist passing off your opinion as some widely accepted truth, do you?

Dave

The single bullet theory was the absolute essence of the Warren commission, without it they believed there had to be more than one gunman. The only evidence ever offered by the warren commission for the single bullet theory was essentially the endorsment of the reputable and respected men on the committee that it was likely. That 3 of those men and the president of the united states actually did not believe the single bullet theory and kept that from the American people was a cover-up pure and simple.

And the single bullet theory is not true, thats a fact not an opinion and I'll happily prove it if you want, although this is probably not the right thread.

 

[Soily]

The people at Bletchley Park knew exactly what they were doing, and were willing to keep the secret. Which shows it can be done.

However, as soon as you postulate a situation where catspaws who are ignorant of the aims of the conspiracy have to be used, or where some of those involved are unwilling to keep the secret, you're in trouble.

In the first case, all that's necessary is for one or more of the catspaws to figure out what's going on, which they will probably do after the event if not before, and go to the authorities. In the second case, the unwilling conspirator is going to leak like a sieve.

So find a situation where everyone concerned is wholeheartedly behind keeping absolutely schtumm about what's going on and nobody who isn't in the know is asked to do anything out of the ordinary, and you may have a successful conspiracy.

I reckon it's not as easy as you think.

Rolfe.

Oh I don't think it's easy at all. But then a conspiracy isn't easy either and we both know they do happen.

All those American and Scottish investigators, do you think deep down they have any doubts about Lockerbie? If so they don't voice them. They continue to parrot the obvious nonsense of the official story as if it was a sacred truth. With some of them its probably not even a conscious thing, their thought processes have become so skewed they probably have convinced themselves that an ohviously false version of events is true.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Conspiracy theories only require one person. One paranoid and delusional person.

 

[Rolfe]

All those American and Scottish investigators, do you think deep down they have any doubts about Lockerbie? If so they don't voice them. They continue to parrot the obvious nonsense of the official story as if it was a sacred truth. With some of them its probably not even a conscious thing, their thought processes have become so skewed they probably have convinced themselves that an ohviously false version of events is true.

I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in that one. People who have convinced themselves that their version of the story is the right one, and of course they're in the know and they're right.

Rolfe.

 

[sts60]

And although the moon landing conspiracy is utterly ridiculous, a reasonable scenario can still be constructed that doesn't involve that many people.

No, it can't.

I am a practicing space engineer. I used to work (long after Apollo, mind you) for the guys who designed the Command Module and its predecessors. I've worked on civil, military, and commercial projects of varying scale, and I've worked with quite a few technicians, engineers, astronauts, and scientists. You really cannot fake a Moon landing without a lot of people being involved, and a heck of a lot of people would be able to see through it.

Hell if we're clever enough to go to the moon in the first place, we're clever enough to fake it and cover it up.

Except that your proposition fails on two counts:

First, we're not clever enough to fake it. I have a reasonably broad understanding of the Apollo record, and you really can't fake it - not convincingly; not to anyone who pays attention and takes a little time to understand things. Faking it is harder than actually doing it in this case.

Second, we're not clever enough to cover it up. There were many tens of thousands of people at the time who could have figured it out, both inside and outside the program. Many of them were from countries with no love for the U.S., who could have easily blown the whistle. I've heard people try to wave this away by saying the whole Cold War was a fake, but that's just piling fantasy upon fantasy.

Worse, though, the Apollo legacy is almost unimaginably vast - not just in terms of huge amounts of still and motion imagery, but also in terms of lunar samples (distributed worldwide), physical artifacts (engineering, test, and flight hardware), code (models, firmware, etc.), enormous amounts of telemetry, and all the scientific, technical, and management expertise and accounting thereof. This record is widely and deeply available for investigation. You would not only have to control all those involved (and their descendants), and fool all the engineers and scientists of the time; you'd have to fool all the engineers and scientists of the future who could see through it. That's, to put it mildly, not credible.

You did get one thing correct in your proposition, however: We were indeed clever enough to go to the Moon.

 

[Soily]

I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in that one. People who have convinced themselves that their version of the story is the right one, and of course they're in the know and they're right.

Rolfe.

I think that happens a lot in hierarchical institutions like the police or politics. Institutions have prejudices just a much as individuals and this can often set them down the wrong path without there been any conscious intent at wrongdoing. I don't think in ultra right wing Dallas in 1963' a commie pig dog like Oswald was ever going to get a fair deal from the dallas police innocent or not.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Oh I don't think it's easy at all. But then a conspiracy isn't easy either and we both know they do happen.

All those American and Scottish investigators, do you think deep down they have any doubts about Lockerbie? If so they don't voice them. They continue to parrot the obvious nonsense of the official story as if it was a sacred truth. With some of them its probably not even a conscious thing, their thought processes have become so skewed they probably have convinced themselves that an ohviously false version of events is true.

Great, you HAD to mention Lockerbie to Rolfe, didn't you?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The single bullet theory was the absolute essence of the Warren commission, without it they believed there had to be more than one gunman.

Even though Oswald fired three shots?