Has there ever been a Conspiracy Theory that was in fact true?

[randman]

I believe he is confusing "secret" with "conspiracy." And again, no scapegoats or ninjas.



If you are claiming the number of individuals involved in MK-Ultra was anywhere near the number required to carry out the 9/11 or Moon Landing CT -



Government plot, scapegoats, ninjas? Criminal enterprise and terrorism still not measuring up to CT descriptions of 9/11 or the Moon Landing.

Certainly the numbers were way above the number of attackers on 9/11 and above the number that would need to be involved if it was a conspiracy, and the Moon Landing, who knows? MK-Ultra and related programs spanned at least 2 decades with both Republican and Democratic administrations involving thousands of people actually and nearly every research hospital in the nation plus quite a few others. It was widely known of in the medical community though not all it's degrees and other agencies such as the military were involved at times.

Pretty much a massive, wild, fantastical conspiracy theory that was true all along.....what more do you want? Does it have to be aliens for it to be a conspiracy?

 

[Scott Sommers]

Robrob has defined what a CT is. I assume everyone agrees that this definition is reasonable? randman has listed several potential CT that are true. I am not going to go though them all. I will look at just one of them to see how well it meets Robrob's definition of a CT.

My reading is that his definition adresses what is refered to as a conspiracy, which is quite different from what is referred to as a conspiracy theory. Try transposing the 2 terms in your daily conversation. See if it leads to any confusion.

But in fact, if we do mean a definition of 'conspiracy theory', I have no agreement with this. No one does. There is quite a discussion among philosophers about constructing a workabel definition of 'conspiracy theory' that differentiates it from other similar phenomena.

testing of STDs on people of color
Here is a link to some information on this issue http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2010/10/guatemalan-std-testing-was-only-tip-of.html
1) Government participation (federal, state or local).
The link says

by United States I assume they mean Federal Government. So this criteria is met.

2) A post-facto cover up. These experiments were not known about until 2010 by the public. So there was a cover up.

3) A logical and cost effective reason to engage in a complex and long term conspiracy.
The experiment was illegal and was done in the 1940s. It was only exposed last year. The fact that it was illegal means that there was a good reason not to expose this experiment. Long term? I think we can agree that the time between the 1940s to 2010 is long term. So this criteria is met.

All three of Robrob's criteria are met. It does not need people trying to expose a CT for one to exist. If I have made an error please show me using a CT commonly discussed in the CT subforum to show that is a CT and the above is not a CT. Otherwise... need I say any more?

I have posted extensive links about this elsewhere. US Government syphilis experiments on humans were in no sense even a conspiracy. They were widely known about and tolerated at the time. Just because the NY Times doesn't write about it doesn't mean that its existance isn't widely known about among technical experts, even those who disagree with it.

My question to you would be, can it be a conspiracy theory if it's not a secret?

 

[bynmdsue]

MK Ultra is not a conspiracy theory. It features in a lot of them, but it, by itself is not one. I wouldn't even call it a conspiracy because that has connatations of criminal enterprise (I don't conspire with others to take a trip to Mount Rushmore but I do to rob a bank). It was covert(a lot of things are) but if they were dosing people without their knowledge, it's wrong. But Ken Kesey and Robert Hunter were volunteers in the program as were many others.

Sirhan Sirhan is the murderer of Robert Kennedy, right? But if you were to say Sirhan Sirhan was an MkUltra mind controlled assassin then that would be a conspiracy theory.

 

[randman]

Another famous conspiracy theory dismissed by liberals and progressives at the time as just a conspiracy theory were Stalin's killing and starving of millions of people in the 30s. Liberals and progressives including one Pulitzer prize winning journalist at the NYTs all derided the claims despite millions of people dying. More pointedly, many did it knowingly as records show they knew in their private conversations what Stalin was doing and yet covered it up.

We're talking millions of people dying and at least a million involved in the conspiracy and yet it was true. Stalin starved and killed millions in the Ukraine as just one example, and it was derided as a conspiracy theory by the libs at the time.

In the 60s, when Christians came out and told of horrible torture by the Soviets to try to "reeducate" them and force them to recant their faith, the lib media derided that as well. One prominent Christian that escaped to the US, when challenged in Congress that he was not telling the truth, lifted up his shirt to show the torture marks. Sometimes, the torturers would be saved by witnessing the grace on those they tortured and they too would then be tortured. Some were emotionally and psychologically destroyed as they endured watching their children and family tortured in front of them.

Conspiracies are a very common aspect of history. Anyone denying that is just ignorant of history.

 

[randman]

MK Ultra is not a conspiracy theory. It features in a lot of them, but it, by itself is not one. I wouldn't even call it a conspiracy because that has connatations of criminal enterprise (I don't conspire with others to take a trip to Mount Rushmore but I do to rob a bank). It was covert(a lot of things are) but if they were dosing people without their knowledge, it's wrong. But Ken Kesey and Robert Hunter were volunteers in the program as were many others.

Sirhan Sirhan is the murderer of Robert Kennedy, right? But if you were to say Sirhan Sirhan was an MkUltra mind controlled assassin then that would be a conspiracy theory.

How is it not a conspiracy theory? Massive government program experimenting on people, sometimes with their consent though maybe not informed consent, but not always. People taken without their consent to be given drugs and even torture such as extreme pain and sleep deprivation in order to have subjects to study how effective brain washing can be, and this goes on for at least 20 years; people saying it's going on and are mocked; the CIA destroys most documents when caught though enough evidence is out there to prove the claims I mentioned.....I mean we're talking anywhere from tens of thousands of victims to who knows? This spanned both democratic and republican administrations.

It has all the characteristics of a conspiracy theory and it was true.

 

[Robrob]

A post-facto cover up. These experiments were not known about until 2010 by the public. So there was a cover up.

There is quite a difference between "not known by the public" and being secret. Likewise, there is quite a difference between your imagining (whole cloth) a cover-up and there actually being one. Finally, no scapegoat or ninjas - just unauthorized medical experiments (IIRC, they lied to the subjects about what they were injecting).

How is it not a conspiracy theory? Massive government program experimenting on people, sometimes with their consent though maybe not informed consent, but not always. People taken without their consent to be given drugs and even torture such as extreme pain and sleep deprivation in order to have subjects to study how effective brain washing can be, and this goes on for at least 20 years; people saying it's going on and are mocked; the CIA destroys most documents when caught though enough evidence is out there to prove the claims I mentioned.....I mean we're talking anywhere from tens of thousands of victims to who knows? This spanned both democratic and republican administrations.

It has all the characteristics of a conspiracy theory and it was true.

Someone is not getting the idea. Lack of informed consent and keeping bio-medical "research" secret =/= the level of complexity for a CT 9/11 or Moon Landing hoax. Scapegoats, ninjas, etc...

Another famous conspiracy theory dismissed by liberals and progressives at the time as just a conspiracy theory were Stalin's killing and starving of millions of people in the 30s. Liberals and progressives including one Pulitzer prize winning journalist at the NYTs all derided the claims despite millions of people dying. More pointedly, many did it knowingly as records show they knew in their private conversations what Stalin was doing and yet covered it up.

Scapegoats? Ninjas? Need for anything more elaborate than guns and herding people around while denying it to the outside world?

We're talking millions of people dying and at least a million involved in the conspiracy and yet it was true. Stalin starved and killed millions in the Ukraine as just one example, and it was derided as a conspiracy theory by the libs at the time.

And was a well known fact to other millions who survived the event. No secret cabal or Illuminati.

In the 60s, when Christians came out and told of horrible torture by the Soviets to try to "reeducate" them and force them to recant their faith, the lib media derided that as well.

More than anything I'm getting the feeling your interests lie in a specific political direction.

Sometimes, the torturers would be saved by witnessing the grace on those they tortured and they too would then be tortured.

OK, now we are venturing off into fringe territory. One government torturing its citizens and denying it, no scapegoats, no ninjas, no Illuminati.

Conspiracies are a very common aspect of history. Anyone denying that is just ignorant of history.

See, now you're just being rude.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the Lockerbie case is just another run-of-the-mill miscarriage of justice where the cops fitted up the wrong guy, just like the Meredith Kercher murder and so many others, why the concerted campaign to have every mention of this moved to Conspiracy Theories?

I find this quite a worrying question, that demonstrates just how easily someone perfectly rational, and with a reasonable position to argue, can fall into habits of conspiracist thinking. It's a classic conspiracist argument to say "Well, if you didn't think it was a conspiracy, you wouldn't bother arguing against it," and the suggestion that there's a "concerted campaign" is itself almost a conspiracy theory. Rolfe, you've made a very good case, repeatedly and thoroughly, for the claim that al-Megrahi's conviction was at the very least unsound; don't go off the rails just because most people can't raise the interest to follow it, and would rather it all just went away.

Dave

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not talking about a conspiracy theory in the forum, I'm talking about a sort of group-think.

I've mentioned this before. There seems to be a group-think in this forum that supports the "official version" as the default position in just about any debate, not necessarily through having examined the case for and against, but simply on a knee-jerk reflex. I think it comes from noting that the "official version" is indeed usually right. Vaccines don't cause autism. Man really did land on the moon in 1969. Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. Homoeopathy is nothing but sugar pills. And so on.

This can, and does, lead to laziness. We see it in the Knox/Sollecito case, we see it in the Galston mine disaster, and we see it in the Lockerbie debate. Posters who have not examined the evidence insist that the authority side of the story is the correct one. We even had someone repeatedly claim that Knox and Sollecito must be guilty, because if they weren't, "that would imply a vast conspiracy". (They were acquitted in the trial of the second instance, for anyone who has recently returned from a short break on Mars.)

Every time I have tried to debate the miscarriage of justice in the Lockerbie case in Social Issues and Current Affairs, I have been met with a concerted barrage of posts which can be summed up as

<============== thataway

This includes one thread started by someone else with the objective of baying for Megrahi to be returned to Scotland to die in jail. Every time I or someone else tried to point out that he didn't actually have anything to do with the crime, we were told (by an admin) that this was off topic, and our posts were moved to this forum.

It makes some people very very uncomfortable to realise that those in charge are not always right. Courts sometimes convict the wrong person. Police sometimes frame innocent people. Governments engage in shady and underhand dealing. Police and emergency services sometimes make tragically wrong decisions, leading to loss of life.

No matter how rational the case for these arguments, it seems to make many people feel better if they can be consigned to the ghetto this forum area is regarded as being. So we can label them "conspiracy theories" and put them out of our minds. Because we all know that once something is labelled as a "conspiracy theory" then it's OK to laugh at it and dismiss is without bothering to find out whether it's true or not. Much more comfortable to deal with Lockerbie like that.

Rolfe.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Would Propaganda Due qualify? Ergenekon?

You beat me to it. I was going to say P2.

And as a part of that, the terrorism in Italy committed by rogue elements of Gladio.

I still want to read up on that, it is quite fascinating.

Maybe now that Berlusconi finally has time to be a "full time suspect" more details will emerge.

 

[Chaos]

I'm not talking about a conspiracy theory in the forum, I'm talking about a sort of group-think.

I've mentioned this before. There seems to be a group-think in this forum that supports the "official version" as the default position in just about any debate, not necessarily through having examined the case for and against, but simply on a knee-jerk reflex. I think it comes from noting that the "official version" is indeed usually right. Vaccines don't cause autism. Man really did land on the moon in 1969. Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. Homoeopathy is nothing but sugar pills. And so on.

This can, and does, lead to laziness. We see it in the Knox/Sollecito case, we see it in the Galston mine disaster, and we see it in the Lockerbie debate. Posters who have not examined the evidence insist that the authority side of the story is the correct one. We even had someone repeatedly claim that Knox and Sollecito must be guilty, because if they weren't, "that would imply a vast conspiracy". (They were acquitted in the trial of the second instance, for anyone who has recently returned from a short break on Mars.)

Every time I have tried to debate the miscarriage of justice in the Lockerbie case in Social Issues and Current Affairs, I have been met with a concerted barrage of posts which can be summed up as

==============> thataway

Actually, it´s

<============== thataway

The way you pointed is FM, but that´s another story.

This includes one thread started by someone else with the objective of baying for Megrahi to be returned to Scotland to die in jail. Every time I or someone else tried to point out that he didn't actually have anything to do with the crime, we were told (by an admin) that this was off topic, and our posts were moved to this forum.

It makes some people very very uncomfortable to realise that those in charge are not always right. Courts sometimes convict the wrong person. Police sometimes frame innocent people. Governments engage in shady and underhand dealing. Police and emergency services sometimes make tragically wrong decisions, leading to loss of life.

No matter how rational the case for these arguments, it seems to make many people feel better if they can be consigned to the ghetto this forum area is regarded as being. So we can label them "conspiracy theories" and put them out of our minds. Because we all know that once something is labelled as a "conspiracy theory" then it's OK to laugh at it and dismiss is without bothering to find out whether it's true or not. Much more comfortable to deal with Lockerbie like that.

Rolfe.

The thing about Lockerbie is, no matter if you´re right or wrong, one version of how things happened is a CT, and thus it belongs here. Assuming you are genereally right about Lockerbie, and I do, the support for the official version is conspiracy, making your version (unusally for this subforum) an actual conspiracy theory (i.e. emphasis on theory here). Assuming you´re wrong, yours is a more typical conspiracy theory (emphasis on conspiracy here).

If it makes you feel any better, let me say that yours is the kind of theory that the CT subforum should be about... somebody with a clue of what they´re talking about presents arguments supported by something more substantial than pure paranoia and JAQing off. Pity we don´t see more of that.

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, it´s

<============== thataway

The way you pointed is FM, but that´s another story.

Oops, sorry, I'll edit my post.

The thing about Lockerbie is, no matter if you´re right or wrong, one version of how things happened is a CT, and thus it belongs here. Assuming you are genereally right about Lockerbie, and I do, the support for the official version is conspiracy, making your version (unusally for this subforum) an actual conspiracy theory (i.e. emphasis on theory here). Assuming you´re wrong, yours is a more typical conspiracy theory (emphasis on conspiracy here).

If it makes you feel any better, let me say that yours is the kind of theory that the CT subforum should be about... somebody with a clue of what they´re talking about presents arguments supported by something more substantial than pure paranoia and JAQing off. Pity we don´t see more of that.

I don't have a problem with that at all. Note that the threads I started about Lockerbie were all (I think) started in this subforum.

What I have the problem with is redefining Lockerbie as "not a conspiracy theory" when it comes to discussions such as this about conspiracy theories that turn out to be true. It's the double standards. Yes, there was and is a conspiracy to conceal the truth about Lockerbie. It's a conspiracy theory by most definitions of the term. It just happens to be true.

The problem comes when people who want to believe that all conspiracy theories are by definition false redefine their terms to suit their argument.

Rolfe.

 

[rjh01]

My reading is that his definition adresses what is refered to as a conspiracy, which is quite different from what is referred to as a conspiracy theory. Try transposing the 2 terms in your daily conversation. See if it leads to any confusion.

But in fact, if we do mean a definition of 'conspiracy theory', I have no agreement with this. No one does. There is quite a discussion among philosophers about constructing a workabel definition of 'conspiracy theory' that differentiates it from other similar phenomena.



I have posted extensive links about this elsewhere. US Government syphilis experiments on humans were in no sense even a conspiracy. They were widely known about and tolerated at the time. Just because the NY Times doesn't write about it doesn't mean that its existance isn't widely known about among technical experts, even those who disagree with it.

My question to you would be, can it be a conspiracy theory if it's not a secret?

What you have written here is rather vague. But it seems to say that

conspiracy theory = a fiction which is believed by several people to be true.
conspiracy = a criminal act by a government that IS true.

If that is correct then by this definition the answer to the question in the thread title is no BY DEFINITION.

You also say that they were "widely known about". But by whom? The general public or just technical experts? Which sort? Was it ever prior to 2010 written about in a scientific journal? As I said what you have written is rather vague. I could have picked other phrases, but that one is the easiest one to show how vague your post is.

 

[Chaos]

Oops, sorry, I'll edit my post.

See? That´s how I can tell you´re not the usual CT nut - your willingness to admit you were wrong.

I don't have a problem with that at all. Note that the threads I started about Lockerbie were all (I think) started in this subforum.

What I have the problem with is redefining Lockerbie as "not a conspiracy theory" when it comes to discussions such as this about conspiracy theories that turn out to be true. It's the double standards. Yes, there was and is a conspiracy to conceal the truth about Lockerbie. It's a conspiracy theory by most definitions of the term. It just happens to be true.

The problem comes when people who want to believe that all conspiracy theories are by definition false redefine their terms to suit their argument.

Rolfe.

Double standards... in this forum... and that surprises you?

 

[Craig B]

Sometimes, the torturers would be saved by witnessing the grace on those they tortured and they too would then be tortured.

What does that mean? What were these people saved from if they were then tortured too?

 

[Scott Sommers]

What you have written here is rather vague. But it seems to say that

conspiracy theory = a fiction which is believed by several people to be true.
conspiracy = a criminal act by a government that IS true.

If that is correct then by this definition the answer to the question in the thread title is no BY DEFINITION.

You also say that they were "widely known about". But by whom? The general public or just technical experts? Which sort? Was it ever prior to 2010 written about in a scientific journal? As I said what you have written is rather vague. I could have picked other phrases, but that one is the easiest one to show how vague your post is.

First about the US Government syphilis experiments. I guess it's hard to expect conspiracy theorists to read things properly. In fact, I have posted them on THIS thread already - post #27. Twenty-seven (27)- got it? Just in case you've missed it, it's the link.

Yes, it was widely published in scientific journals that were available in any library. There would have been huge numbers of people who knew about this and talked openly about it - for decades. The major problem was NOT the availability of the information but the social stigma of the events themselves. It may seem tough for young kids in 2011 to imagine there was a time when human experimentation was OK. And not only experimentation on non-Whites people was considered OK in the USA. All sorts of terrible things were being done on White women and just about anyone who didn't have the authority or power to stop it. Just because only a bunch of book reading folk (and the victims) knew about it certainly didn't make it a conspiracy. It was just not a problem.

About usage of the term 'conspiracy theory'. What I am saying is that there's a clear understanding in the psycholinguistics of native English speakers about how a 'conspiracy' differs from a 'conspiracy theory'. This is why they (we) use different terms in our everyday speech. Because they mean different things and everyone knows this.

There's some attempt by advocates of the collection of strange beliefs that cluster in this term 'conspiracy theory' to promote the idea that this difference in usage reflects some power relationship and not a linguistic understanding. This is a complex question and probably not answerable without powerful experimentation and statistic analysis that has yet to be developed. The thought experiment that I suggested was to try and see if anyone can understand you if you transpose these words. In fact, I suggest an even more radical approach. Every time you're talking about people keeping a secret or trying to hide something, use the term 'conspiracy theory' - or even 'conspiracy' - to label the events. See how others react. Watch your friends who do know there's a difference very quickly become convinced that you're crazy.

And don't forget the fact that medical experiments on Americans were openly conducted for much of the 20th Century. You might not like the idea, but even though it happened before you were born, it is true.

 

[bynmdsue]

What does that mean? What were these people saved from if they were then tortured too?

They were saved from being torturers. I think he means in the "I was blinded by the devil Born already ruined Stone-cold dead As I stepped out of the womb By His grace I have been touched By His word I have been healed By His hand I’ve been delivered By His spirit I’ve been sealed I’ve been saved By the blood of the lamb" kind of Saved.

 

[bynmdsue]

Why is MKUltra not a conspiracy theory? Because it's true. Conspiracy theories are not. Yes, the distinction is really that simple.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Why is MKUltra not a conspiracy theory? Because it's true. Conspiracy theories are not. Yes, the distinction is really that simple.

Certainly I agree, but I can't even understand what would make MKultra a 'conspiracy'. All this brings back the earlier distinction made about secrecy and cover ups. Does the attempt to make something secret make it a conspiracy theory? I can't see how this could be. That would make far too many things into a conspiracy theory (see this). The same goes for the idea of a cover up.The NYPD ticket-fixing scandal was a cover up.

I'm starting to think that what we're arguing about here is weird stuff. MKultra is a 'conspiracy theory' because it's weird. The Syphilis Experiments are weird. Ticket fixing is mundane, so it can't be a 'conspiracy theory'. Even things which are widely known and discussed and fit into the idea of social acceptance become 'conspiracy theories' when later changes in social consciousness make them seem weird.

 

[randman]

So unless aliens or the Illuminati control everything, it's not a conspiracy?

So if someone were today to say that the government went around secretly planting electronic implants in people to see if they could control their minds, that wouldn't be a conspiracy theory as no aliens and the illuminati would not be involved or provably involved? I think by any reasonable definition, it'd be a conspiracy theory.

Same with MK-Ultra but just substitute drugs and brainwashing techniques (for some subjects) for electronic implants.

 

[Rolfe]

Fitting up the wrong guy for a crime isn't weird. So how come it's a conspiracy theory?

Rolfe.