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

[bynmdsue]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but everyone will die, smokers and non-smokers alike.

Shhhhh!

 

[Robrob]

Two major conspiracies I have not seen listed on this board are:

The Clinton/Janet Reno cover-up of the systematic murder of the Branch Davidians at Waco.

And

The real perps, accomplices and government provocateurs involved in the OKC bombing and the fact that the ATF had advance knowledge and got their people out ahead of time.

Waco/OKC - who were the scapegoats and where were the ninjas?

Some have theorized it was the suppression of liberty as evidenced in the subsequent Patriot Act. Others claim it was just a sting operation that went wrong. It definitely seems to have been a sting operation, for whatever the purpose.

In other words, you have no idea, no plot, no plotters, no evidence of any kind - just a vague distrust of authority?

Also missing from this board are the other suspicious activities involving Bill Clinton as documented in Ambrose Evans-Pritichard's book "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton."

An Amazon review sums it up:

"Cited by White House press secretary Mike McCurry as the origin of every major Clinton scandal story, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has done more than any other journalist to expose the truth about the Clintons. Now Evans-Pritchard is breaking the biggest scoop of all: an assiduously documented expose of "the black-water scandals" - the scandals that have gone unreported in the American media, but that characterize the Clinton presidency as the most corrupt in history. Among the secrets Evans-Pritchard exposes: The Oklahoma City bombing as a government sting operation that flew out of control when the stingers were outstung. Evans-Pritchard tells the story that the FBI and the Justice Department don't want you to know. Eyewitnesses to corruption in Clinton's Arkansas - many have met with brutal harassment, physical intimidation, and, in some cases, even suspicious death. Those who survived tell Evans-Pritchard their story. Bill Clinton's involvement in the drug underworld of Arkansas. ... The true story of Vince Foster's death - what the official report won't tell you, but what eyewitnesses saw, and why the government is being sued for falsifying sworn testimony. In the aftermath of Vince Foster, the shocking story of the murder of Jerry Parks, head of Clinton security in Little Rock. Why Parks predicted his own death..."

OKC/AR/VF - who were the scapegoats and where were the ninjas?

A ridiculous post. Ask a specific question if you want a dialogue, otherwise read a book: "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton" by Ambose Evans-Pritchard. It's all there.

In other words, you don't know so we have to do your homework for you?

 

[LSSBB]

When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

Does the teacher look like Homer Simpson?

 

[Gazpacho]

Since the OP's question turns on definition, here's the one I'm working from:

- There was a conspiracy to do something of national significance.
- The conspiracy was carried out in confidence. Not necessarily in total secrecy, just not openly discussed outside of the social group carrying out the conspiracy.
- The conspiracy was publicly alleged based on indirect evidence. (That makes it a theory.)
- The allegations were dismissed for lack of direct evidence, creating a tradition of doubt and marginalization that equates the indirect evidence to no evidence at all.
- The conspiracy was later confirmed to exist.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The Iraqi Supergun and Arms to Iran scandles were conspiracies. Do they count?

And I think J Edgar Hoover was wrong when he stated there was no Mafia...

 

[Gazpacho]

The existence of the Trilateral Commission, and of its project to halt radical political movements around the world and restore a kind of liberal-authoritarian stability, are documented facts of history. People might be forgiven in the 1970s for not having easy access to those documents, but today you can download them from the Commission's own web site so there's really no excuse.

 

[Robert Prey]

Waco/OKC - who were the scapegoats and where were the ninjas?



In other words, you have no idea, no plot, no plotters, no evidence of any kind - just a vague distrust of authority?




OKC/AR/VF - who were the scapegoats and where were the ninjas?


In other words, you don't know so we have to do your homework for you?

Who says there were scapegoats or ninjas? But accomplices, provocateurs and ATF foreknowledge allowing them to escape, but not the rest of the 168, including daycare children. And that is a high crime.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robrob wrote:

"In other words, you have no idea, no plot, no plotters, no evidence of any kind - just a vague distrust of authority?"

Rebuttal:
In other words you have no idea and no interest in learning anything. When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

 

[Chaos]

Let me try to make it ABC kindygarten simple for you. The OKC bombing has about as much detail in terms of who, how, what and why as the JFK assassination. It would be impossible to answer such open ended questions on this small board without writing a book. Thus, my rule is, one question at a time or forget about it.

So, no evidence from you, nothing. Figures.

Our rule here is, put up or shut up. Which one is it going to be from you, RP?

When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

That would explain why you never saw a teacher.

 

[Robert Prey]

So, no evidence from you, nothing. Figures.

Our rule here is, put up or shut up. Which one is it going to be from you, RP?

Yeah, well you have your rules, and I have mine. I do not answer open-ended sophomoric questions.

 

[Chaos]

Yeah, well you have your rules, and I have mine. I do not answer open-ended sophomoric questions.

What´s so terribly sophomoric about wanting to see evidence for your claims?

If you don´t want to present evidence, don´t make any claims.

 

[Walter Ego]

What´s so terribly sophomoric about wanting to see evidence for your claims?

If you don´t want to present evidence, don´t make any claims.

My assumptions are correct and being common knowledge, are immune from attack.

Evidence? Robert don't need no stinkin' evidence!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robrob wrote:

"In other words, you have no idea, no plot, no plotters, no evidence of any kind - just a vague distrust of authority?"

Rebuttal:
In other words you have no idea and no interest in learning anything. When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

Your rebuttal is simply not true. People would like to learn. Which is why they keep asking for evidence.

Could you ask the teacher to turn up, as the rest of us are tired of talking to you and your dunces cap.


Oh wait? Are you meant to be the teacher? Really?

Then how do you expect to prove anything if you wont supply material evidence?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yeah, well you have your rules, and I have mine. I do not answer open-ended sophomoric questions.

Oh! The Sophmoric question one too! Tell me, will a bird of paradise alight with something soon?

How about you alight some evidence with your answers instead of reheating the same old platitudes in place of answers?

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

I admit it makes me very uncomfortable to have to face the fact that the US, British, and Scottish authorities (and anyone else I'm missing) could have screwed this one up so badly; frankly, that's one reason I don't participate more in your threads on the subject, which is probably to my discredit.

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.

And this in turn gives real conspiraloons an excuse to ignore the refutations of their theories. "See? You wouldn't believe it no matter what."

 

[SpitfireIX]

What element of the sinking of the Indianapolis by the Japanese was a conspiracy?

None. Her captain, Charles B. McVay III^WP, was made a scapegoat for the loss, which deflected attention from the Navy's failure both to provide an anti-submarine escort (which McVay had requested), and to notice that the ship was overdue and initiate a timely search-and-rescue operation. There is no evidence of any deliberate conspiracy to do this, however, and even if there were it still would not fit the accepted definition of a conspiracy theory.

 

[bynmdsue]

Since the OP's question turns on definition, here's the one I'm working from:

- There was a conspiracy to do something of national significance.
- The conspiracy was carried out in confidence. Not necessarily in total secrecy, just not openly discussed outside of the social group carrying out the conspiracy.
- The conspiracy was publicly alleged based on indirect evidence. (That makes it a theory.)
- The allegations were dismissed for lack of direct evidence, creating a tradition of doubt and marginalization that equates the indirect evidence to no evidence at all.
- The conspiracy was later confirmed to exist.

This sounds about right with a heavy emphasis on points 3 and 4. And 5, 5's pretty important too.

 

[Alt+F4]

Since the OP's question turns on definition, here's the one I'm working from:

- There was a conspiracy to do something of national significance.
- The conspiracy was carried out in confidence. Not necessarily in total secrecy, just not openly discussed outside of the social group carrying out the conspiracy.
- The conspiracy was publicly alleged based on indirect evidence. (That makes it a theory.)
- The allegations were dismissed for lack of direct evidence, creating a tradition of doubt and marginalization that equates the indirect evidence to no evidence at all.
- The conspiracy was later confirmed to exist.

Grover Cleveland's top secret jaw surgery!

http://www.healthmedialab.com/html/president/cleveland.html

 

[Patrick1000]

NATO's Secret Armies and Their State Sponsored Terrorism....

Since the OP's question turns on definition, here's the one I'm working from:

- There was a conspiracy to do something of national significance.
- The conspiracy was carried out in confidence. Not necessarily in total secrecy, just not openly discussed outside of the social group carrying out the conspiracy.
- The conspiracy was publicly alleged based on indirect evidence. (That makes it a theory.)
- The allegations were dismissed for lack of direct evidence, creating a tradition of doubt and marginalization that equates the indirect evidence to no evidence at all.
- The conspiracy was later confirmed to exist.

NATO's Secret Armies and Their Program of State Sponsored Terrorism....

Meets every one of your criteria Gazpacho. I mentioned it before, but do so again, only to emphasize it does meet your criteria.....

 

[Robert Prey]

What´s so terribly sophomoric about wanting to see evidence for your claims?

If you don´t want to present evidence, don´t make any claims.

Evidence for what claims??? You see, the word "claims" is an open-ended sophomoric word. Name the claim, and if it's specific, you have a chance to get an answer, that is, if you want to learn something. If you want to just play "gotcha," pack up your mouse and play some place else.

When the student is ready, the teacher appears.