Conspiracy Theories, and Number of People Involved

[Soily]

Can you please answer this question, Soily?

Have you not been reading the papers the last 8 years? Many lawyers have argued the war was illegal, the secretary-general of the united nations kofi anan has said the war was illegal, the British deputy prime minister and the British governments most senior legal advisor have both said the war was illegal, a Dutch panel of senior European lawyers and judges declared the war illegal. Many other senior legal figures have said the war was illegal, I suggest you use google. Various surveys of the death toll post 2003 the death count as a consequence of the invasion at anywhere from 100,000 to as high as 600,000. The dodgy dossier, 45 minutes, Guantanano Bay, Abu Ghraib, CIA torture flights, do I have to go on?

 

[Sledge]

Err except loads have. The 3 members of the Warren commission all publicly expressed their doubts in the subsequent years. Senator Russel even launched his own private investigation because he felt the WC was a whitewash. Gaston Fonzi who was part of the hsca investigation came out and detailed what he felt was another cover-up. Although the hsca actually eventually came out in favour of conspiracy. G robert blakey, the head of the hsca not only believes in conspiracy, but has railed against the CIA for withholding key evidence from the committee. Jesse Curry the police chief in Dallas at the time expressed his doubts about the verdict when he retired. E Howard hunt confessed to inclement on his deathbed. Of course those that do speak out are all kooks aren't they?

Make your mind up, then. I suggest you sit down and have a good think about what you're trying to say. First you try to claim that the JFK conspiracy simultaneously involved only a handful of people and several thousand. Now you're trying to tell me that everyone involved kept it secret and many people broke ranks. You can't have these things both ways.

What's coming across here isn't that you have a well-thought out alternate explanation to the JFK assassination but that you're disagreeing with anything anyone says. This is not an effective debating tactic, it is the action of a petulant child.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Err except loads have. The 3 members of the Warren commission all publicly expressed their doubts in the subsequent years. Senator Russel even launched his own private investigation because he felt the WC was a whitewash. Gaston Fonzi who was part of the hsca investigation came out and detailed what he felt was another cover-up. Although the hsca actually eventually came out in favour of conspiracy. G robert blakey, the head of the hsca not only believes in conspiracy, but has railed against the CIA for withholding key evidence from the committee. Jesse Curry the police chief in Dallas at the time expressed his doubts about the verdict when he retired. E Howard hunt confessed to inclement on his deathbed. Of course those that do speak out are all kooks aren't they?

So your argument is that there was a cover-up because nobody spoke out against the findings of the Warren Commission, and your evidence for this is a list of people who spoke out against the findings of the Warren Commission? And this is supposed to support the contention that nobody would have given away the conspiracy, based on the number of people who seem to think they've given it away?

Sorry, but your whole line of argument is so stupidly self-contradictory as to defy characterisation.

Dave

 

[Soily]

Make your mind up, then. I suggest you sit down and have a good think about what you're trying to say. First you try to claim that the JFK conspiracy simultaneously involved only a handful of people and several thousand. Now you're trying to tell me that everyone involved kept it secret and many people broke ranks. You can't have these things both ways.

What's coming across here isn't that you have a well-thought out alternate explanation to the JFK assassination but that you're disagreeing with anything anyone says. This is not an effective debating tactic, it is the action of a petulant child.

No this is a mischievous exaggeration and distortion of what I said. My argument is quite clear. Lots of people consciously and subconsciously contributed to a cover-up for a whole variety of reasons given. You might not share that particularly line of reasoning but its a perfectly clear proposition. It's a deterministic argument rather than a conspiratorial one. If a black man married a white woman in the early 60s in Dallas, do you think a large number of people in Dallas would be opposed to that because they all got together in a darkened room and agreed to be racist and keep this secret for ever? Or is it because many of them shared a collective mindset due to their background and upbringing? By and large there is no secret to keep, because for most the cover-up was not about consciously concealing criminal wrong-doing. It is others who repeatedly make the bogus argument about why no one ever talks, and I merely pointed out that some people have talked.The world's a complicated place sledge, and your attempts to simplify things into a series of black and white categories does you no favours. And you could also perhaps try growing up a bit yourself rather than throwing insults at people because you don't agree with them.

 

[Soily]

So your argument is that there was a cover-up because nobody spoke out against the findings of the Warren Commission, and your evidence for this is a list of people who spoke out against the findings of the Warren Commission? And this is supposed to support the contention that nobody would have given away the conspiracy, based on the number of people who seem to think they've given it away?

Sorry, but your whole line of argument is so stupidly self-contradictory as to defy characterisation.

Dave

No, again that's a mischievous distortion of what I said. You are also conflating other peoples arguments and attributing them to me. I'm not the one arguing that nobody ever talks, I have argued the opposite of that. You appear to have an oddly black and white view of the world where only 1 thing or another can be true at the same time. It's perfectly possible and indeed the expected outcome, that of the number of people who would consciously and unconsciously take part in some degree of cover up, some of them might have doubts and recriminations and come forward. Which is what has happened. Not that the die hard supports of the official account acknowledge this. They want to have it both ways. For them it's both the repeated assertion that 'somebody would have talked' and when you point out that someone did talk, such as the 3 members of the warren commission who did not believe the key finding of the warren commission, they resort to the predictable slurs of those people. It's an endless merry-go-round.

 

[Sledge]

So you are claiming that a large number of people subconsciously decided to cover up what really happened in the JFK assassination. So we're moving away from your earlier claim that only a few people were involved. Excellent, it's good to see that you're making your mind up on this one. Unfortunately, what you're saying is still batsqueak insane. People subconsciously covered up the conspiracy to murder the US president? You're going to need to explain this one more. We'll leave the issue of how many people were involved until this is settled.

However, something we can address is insult. Please stop it. Rule 12 is pretty clear on this one. I haven't insulted you, and even had I done so, replying in kind is still against forum rules. An apology wouldn't go amiss.

 

[Soily]

I would have thought calling someone your trying to have a grown up conversation with on a forum a petulant child is an insult.

Again, your are not representing what I said correctly. People cover up things for a variety of reasons. I have not for one second said the Dallas police or the FBI consciously covered up the conspiracy to murder jfk. That hey knew someone else killed jfk and they were covering this up and framing oswald. Please provide an instance where I said this. What I said was institutional prejudice led to the dallas police wanting to nail a commie pig like Oswald. I'm quite sure the vast majority of them thought he did do it. That's not the same thing as investigating it in an impartial and fair way, gathering the evidence properly and giving Oswald due process. This never happened. I'm not sure if you have some idea that the dallas police and FBI in the early 60 were some paragons of uncorruptible virtue but this is fanciful to say the least. Please read Jim DiEugenios essays on this in response to reclaiming history where he goes through the process with a fine toothcomb. And we know from johnsons own words that he was scared that if anything came out pointing to the ussr or Cuba it might end in nuclear war. Whether he felt as a matter of personal opinion Oswald did it or not is irrelevant, he still contributed to the cover up. And John Newman in Oswald and the CIA makes a forensic case for why the CIA covered up their involvement. And we know for certain that they delibretly concealed George Joannides involvement with Oswald from the hsca. And just so I can make it clear for you one more time so you don't keep misrepresenting what I say, the actualy criminal conspiracy and the cover up are two separate things. I'm actually agnostic on the conspiracy. I'm pretty certain it didn't happen as per the official account, but I don't believe there is enough evidence left to instruct any detailed alternative scenario. That there was a cover-up afterwards, of that I am certain.

 

[Sledge]

Please learn to read. I did not call you a petulant child. Can you follow this? I'm not going to waste time on anything you say if any response I make is going to be filtered through your misunderstanding.

 

[Soily]

Please learn to read. I did not call you a petulant child. Can you follow this? I'm not going to waste time on anything you say if any response I make is going to be filtered through your misunderstanding.

What's coming across here isn't that you have a well-thought out alternate explanation to the JFK assassination but that you're disagreeing with anything anyone says. This is not an effective debating tactic, it is the action of a petulant child.

Since I believe you're repeatedly misrepresenting what I say, and you think I'm misrepresenting what you say, we should probably call it quits on our exchanges. I'm not interested in squabbling with you.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Have you not been reading the papers the last 8 years?

You seem to have lost the context, Soily. You were attempting to support your claim that it's possible for large conspiracies to be carried out with only a few people "in the know", which would prevent the truth from getting out. You used the Bush Administration and various events that occurred during their time as an example.

So, if it's all been the papers, you must agree that was amazingly poor example to use in support. Correct?

 

[aggle-rithm]

What I said was institutional prejudice led to the dallas police wanting to nail a commie pig like Oswald.

Well, it's a good thing Oswald actually did it.

 

[Soily]

You seem to have lost the context, Soily. You were attempting to support your claim that it's possible for large conspiracies to be carried out with only a few people "in the know", which would prevent the truth from getting out. You used the Bush Administration and various events that occurred during their time as an example.

So, if it's all been the papers, you must agree that was amazingly poor example to use in support. Correct?

This thread was about how conspiracies would always be discovered because someone involved always talks. I was merely pointing out that this was wrong, the perpetrators of conspiracies are capable, for a whole variety of reasons, of keeping their mouth shut forever if need be. That there are other ways we find out about their conspiratorial behaviour is irrelevent to the point of the original post. I completely agree that the more people that are involved, especially just in the cover-up or concealment of the truth the more likely that someone will talk. But the idea that someone within the core of conspirators themselves would talk is not backed up by reality in my opinion.

 

[aggle-rithm]

This thread was about how conspiracies would always be discovered because someone involved always talks. I was merely pointing out that this was wrong, the perpetrators of conspiracies are capable, for a whole variety of reasons, of keeping their mouth shut forever if need be. That there are other ways we find out about their conspiratorial behaviour is irrelevent to the point of the original post. I completely agree that the more people that are involved, especially just in the cover-up or concealment of the truth the more likely that someone will talk. But the idea that someone within the core of conspirators themselves would talk is not backed up by reality in my opinion.

In order to believe in conspiracies that are kept secret forever because no one talks, you have to believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Sorry, can't do it.

 

[Soily]

In order to believe in conspiracies that are kept secret forever because no one talks, you have to believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Sorry, can't do it.

Show me the Nazi who blabbed about the holocaust. Show me the CIA officials who spilled the beans about MK Ultra. None of the direct participants at Bletchley Park talked for 30 years. Show me the key players in watergate talking prior to it's exposure. I mean show me the actual direct conspirators spilling the beans? I think it rarely if ever happens. People do talk, but usually those peripherally or marginally involved, usually in the concealment of evidence rather than the criminal conspiracy.

 

[Sledge]

Since I believe you're repeatedly misrepresenting what I say, and you think I'm misrepresenting what you say, we should probably call it quits on our exchanges. I'm not interested in squabbling with you.

There's no "I think, you think" here. You are misrepresenting what I said. I have responded to what you said each time, only for you to say I'm wrong. This isn't debating. This is what kids do. I have a goddaughter. This is how she reacts to a lot of things. You ask if she wants an apple, she says she doesn't like apples. Five minutes later, she sees you eating an apple and wants some. You remind her she doesn't like apples. She starts trying to justify the switch in attitude with something like "I like apples sometimes" instead of just acknowledging she replied without thinking before. When a child does it, it's fine. When you do it, and in a written format where you can check what you've said before posting... it's silly. If what you've written isn't what you mean, change it. Don't complain that other people are misrepresenting you by repeating what you said.

 

[Soily]

There's no "I think, you think" here. You are misrepresenting what I said. I have responded to what you said each time, only for you to say I'm wrong. This isn't debating. This is what kids do. I have a goddaughter. This is how she reacts to a lot of things. You ask if she wants an apple, she says she doesn't like apples. Five minutes later, she sees you eating an apple and wants some. You remind her she doesn't like apples. She starts trying to justify the switch in attitude with something like "I like apples sometimes" instead of just acknowledging she replied without thinking before. When a child does it, it's fine. When you do it, and in a written format where you can check what you've said before posting... it's silly. If what you've written isn't what you mean, change it. Don't complain that other people are misrepresenting you by repeating what you said.

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I said, conflated my arguments with arguments I never made, and editoriliazed in a way that can charitably be described as mischievous. The fact you feel the need to caricature people who disagree with you, question their motives and equate them with children shows you argue in bad faith. This is unbelievably tedious for everyone and I have no desire to continue to talk to you.

 

[BeAChooser]

I've thought about this, and when it comes to secrecy, and "need to know", it could easily be possible for hundreds of people to be involved in a conspiracy, with only a few people on the top actually knowing the full details and directing everything, where most of the players only know very small bits and pieces, just what they need to know. In many cases, so little as to make it virtually impossible for most of them to piece everything together.

I'll give you two excellent examples of that. That's exactly what happened in the death of Ron Brown and the death of Vince Foster.

 

[Sledge]

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I said, conflated my arguments with arguments I never made, and editoriliazed in a way that can charitably be described as mischievous. The fact you feel the need to caricature people who disagree with you, question their motives and equate them with children shows you argue in bad faith. This is unbelievably tedious for everyone and I have no desire to continue to talk to you.

You do realise people can read the thread? Asserting that I've misrepresented you isn't going to fly. Please stop making yourself look silly.

 

[Soily]

You do realise people can read the thread? Asserting that I've misrepresented you isn't going to fly. Please stop making yourself look silly.

I see, you have now nominated yourself as the spokesman for the thread? I missed the election.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I was merely pointing out that this was wrong, the perpetrators of conspiracies are capable, for a whole variety of reasons, of keeping their mouth shut forever if need be.

None of the direct participants at Bletchley Park talked for 30 years. Show me the key players in watergate talking prior to it's exposure.

30 years isn't forever. "Prior to exposure" isn't forever.