• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any valid CTs?

Most of the CT's that I think have merit involves the cia ousting some communist leader in some way. I.e. Castro, Guetemala, Iran, Egypt, etc.
 
Wouldn't the UN Oil for Food Scandal count, assuming it were true? (My first inclination is to believe it is, but I have yet to do any real research of the facts and evidence surrounding it.)

Hmm... seems worthy of some of my time.
 
Overman said:
There are many famous CTs, and many are famous for having insane irritional followers, or people who just don't know better...

Are there any CTs that are likely to be real, or real events that have proven to be a conspiricy? I would Imagine that people in power would have covered up some dirty deed on some large scale somewhere on Earth before...
Click to expand...

Are you specifically looking for government or grand conspiracies? I mean: there are probably tens of thousands of conspirators in jail for writing bad cheques or holding up liquor stores. As long as there's two or more crooks working together, it's a conspiracy.

I saw the list so far, and would like to add: JFK (Oswald and his wife) and the Iran-Contra affair. There are bucketloads of examples.

Skeptics don't reject conspiracy theories if they have good supporting evidence.
 
If you thought the 2000 US Presidential election was weird, check out the 1876 Presidential election. Republicans made some shady deals and Democrats used intimidation tactics to disenfranchise voters. Two conspiracies working against each other.
 
Are there any CTs that are likely to be real, or real events that have proven to be a conspiricy? I would Imagine that people in power would have covered up some dirty deed on some large scale somewhere on Earth before...
Click to expand...
The attack on the USS Liberty, or rather, the coverup of same.

There are sooo many sources that indicate Israel knew exactly what they were doing.

I don't need to provide links...plug 'USS Liberty' into Google and you've got a week's worth of reading.
 
To many people there appears to be a conspiracy/cover-up in the Australian Government over Wheat exports to Iraq prior to the current war there.
Large transport fees paid to Jordanian trucking companies which were actually a front for the Iraqi government.
I haven't followed it that closely, but it does appear highly likely.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a case of public servants not doing their homework.
Last I heard it was still being investigated.
 
Well, there is that one conspiracy, although it's hard to call something a conspiracy when it involves everyone in the world except for one person. You know which one I mean, the conspiracy to keep that one person (who coincidentally reads this forum) from ever being as happy and successful and popular as they truly deserve, which we do just for the hell of it...oops, that person is reading this post now!
 
Dazed said:
The Committee investigated until 1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, probably as a result of a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Except they based that "conspiracy" conclusion only on the acoustic analysis that said there were gunshots from somewhere else besides the TSBD. Otherwise, they found no evidence of a conspiracy. Shortly afterwards, the acoustic analysis was proved invalid, so their conclusion, although never formally retracted, has been pretty much vacated.

And someone mentioned that it was a conspiracy between Lee Oswald and Marina - did Marina know ahead of time that he was planning to shoot Kennedy? She knew about his attempt to assassinate General Walker, after he had attempted and missed, but I'm not aware that anyone outside of Lee knew of his plan.
 
Stellafane said:
Well, there is that one conspiracy, although it's hard to call something a conspiracy when it involves everyone in the world except for one person. You know which one I mean, the conspiracy to keep that one person (who coincidentally reads this forum) from ever being as happy and successful and popular as they truly deserve, which we do just for the hell of it...oops, that person is reading this post now!
Click to expand...
How did you find out about this conspiracy? There's no point to it now. :p
 
Biggest CT Proven True

Semantic and procedural suggestions:

In the context of this forum, I think a CT would refer to a conspiracy of substantial magnitude with little supporting evidence that is widely ridiculed, like the 9/11, JFK, and Moon Hoax CTs. Any old "conspiracy" woudn't qualify, nor would any old government secret like Britain and the US's Enigma decryption efforts. A true CT, in my opinion, is one taken largely on faith before proven true.

What would be the biggest, and most ridiculed, CT that was ultimately proven true? Any candidates? I can't think of any bigger than Watergate right now.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Scott said:
What would be the biggest, and most ridiculed, CT that was ultimately proven true? Any candidates? I can't think of any bigger than Watergate right now.
Click to expand...
USS Liberty and the cover up has been ridiculed in some quarters. The cover up is still a sore spot.
James Ennes retired from the Navy in 1978 as a lieutenant commander after 27 years of enlisted and commissioned service. He was a lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Liberty on the day of the attack. His book on the subject, Assault on the Liberty (Random House, 1980), is a "Notable Naval Book" selection of the U. S. Naval Institute and was "editors' choice" when reviewed in The Washington Post.
Click to expand...
I read his book as a junior officer. My memory is vague, but here is something I do recall. LCDR Ennes went to some pains to explain that an order to move the Liberty (before the attack) farther from the area of conflict had been given, but apparently (despite Immediate or Flash precedence, I forget which) it took some hours for it to get to the ship.

Why that order was given (phonecall from Irael? Other input? Commander Sixth Fleet getting nervous?) is another matter that I don't remember any detail on.

However, the cover up is no secret, and going to the Liberty Crew's web site is an exercise in disgust for the government of LBJ.

-excerpted from The Washington Report on Mideast Affairs
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm
(NOTE: not a purely objective source, IMO, on Mid East matters) but this commentary is in general harmony with the web page run by USS Liberty crew . . .
Israeli Pilot Speaks Up

Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. (last sentence, and obvious inflammatory remark edited out by me)

Key members of the Lyndon Johnson administration have long agreed that this attack was no accident. Perhaps most outspoken is former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer. "I can never accept the claim that this was a mistaken attack," he insists.

Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk is equally outspoken, calling the attack deliberate in press and radio interviews. Similarly strong language comes from top leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency (some of whose personnel were among the victims), National Security Council, and from presidential advisers such as Clark Clifford, Joseph Califano and Lucius Battle.

A top-secret analysis of Israel's excuse conducted by the Department of State found Israel's story to be untrue. Yet Israel and its defenders continue to stand by their claim that the attack was a "tragic accident" in which Israel mistook the most modern electronic surveillance vessel in the world for a rusted-out 40-year-old Egyptian horse transport.
(My note: the electronics were modern, the ship itself was no great shakes in terms of naval architecture.
The 1966-67 issue of "Janes Fighting Ships" describes the ship as follows:

A Technical Reseach Ship

Converted from SS Simmons Victory AG-168 (A WWII freighter)

Displacement: 7,190 tons light

10,680 tons fully loaded
Dimensions: 455 x 62 x 24 feet
Machinery: (steam) turbine. S.H.P. 8,500
maximum speed 18 knots (about 20 MPH)
Complement: 280 men

General: Modified "Victory" ship. Conversion completed by Williamette Iron & Steel, Portland, Oregon, in December, commissioned 30 December 1964. Mobile base for research in communications and electromagnetic radiation.)
Despite the evidence, no U.S. administration has ever found the courage to defy the Israeli lobby by publicly demanding a proper accounting from Israel.
Click to expand...
That last remark strikes me as disingenuous and inflammatory. The Israeli government did indeed pay damages, accept responsibility for the attack, etc.

They just wouldn't admit it was deliberate. I understand their political leaders' reluctance to do so, since attacking an American ship on the High Seas would have been an act of war, and committing an act of war against an American warship would put Israel is a disastrous position, politically, as the 1967 war came to a halt.

As Daniel Ellsberg never tires of remarking: "Governments lie."

DR
 
Disgusting story, eh?

I read Body of Secrets by James Bamford a few years ago. The book devotes a chapter to the attack on the USS Liberty, and I could not believe what I was reading.

A bit of online research and I was utterly convinced.
 
EchoWars said:
Disgusting story, eh?

I read Body of Secrets by James Bamford a few years ago. The book devotes a chapter to the attack on the USS Liberty, and I could not believe what I was reading.

A bit of online research and I was utterly convinced.
Click to expand...

I would agree that the coverup of the Liberty could well be a valid CT.

Also the assination of MLK always seemed fishy to me. Exactly how did a very poor bush leauge petty thier life James Earl Ray suddenly aquire the means to globe hop with convincing stolen idenities?

There have also been a number of CTs where, even though I don't think the overall CT is true the theory does bring to light some interesting facts that the government would rather not talk about.

Then again I can't possibly hold the above opinions because I don't belive the 9/11 CTs and therefore am a brainwashed government dupe.
 
Two more.

The Dreyfus episode in turn of the 20th century France.

and...

The one that really has me wondering.....

Just who is Carly Simon singing about in "You're So Vain".
 
milesalpha said:
Two more.

The Dreyfus episode in turn of the 20th century France.

and...

The one that really has me wondering.....

Just who is Carly Simon singing about in "You're So Vain".
Click to expand...
She's taking that secret to the grave.

My money was on Mick Jagger, who sang back up vocals on the original single.

DR
 
milesalpha said:
Just who is Carly Simon singing about in "You're So Vain".
Click to expand...
Interesting, this subject came up just two weeks ago as my wife and I were driving across West Texas. It was one of those rare moments when we were actually within range of an FM radio station (you can hit the "seek" button in West Texas and the radio will loop through the FM band and then startle you when it finds a station an hour later), and the song "You're So Vain" came on. I recalled how that confused me when I was a kid (I was 12 when the song was a hit in 1973), because, obviously, the song is about him.

A couple of songs later, a James Taylor song came on, and I commented that that must be intentional, because James and Carly were famously married and divorced. But my wife said that there was more - the Vain song was actually about James. I doubted this, because I thought that the relationship happened later than the song.

I just looked and found this page which proves us both wrong. The song was a #1 hit just a month after they got married, so it was about the same time, but wouldn't have been about James. And she doesn't say who it's about. I think it's just a song.

Sorry for the sidetrack...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom