• 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?

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...

There was a story going around here in the land of the snow hippie that it was Pierre Trudeau.
 
valis said:
I would agree that the coverup of the Liberty could well be a valid CT.
Click to expand...
Glad not to come off as a 'woo'. I'm a skeptic by nature but the evidence on this one is overwhelming. Shameful!
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?
Click to expand...
Really? Links? Or any published articles or books on the matter?
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.
Click to expand...
Our government is best not looked upon in the bright light of day...resembles too much the ick and ooze that one might find under a large damp rock in the woods. Doesn't make it capable of 1/2 the things the CT's say, but there's always dark corners and 'Little Caesars' looking to ride heard on someone. R.A. Heinlein said that, in a mature society (i.e., one quickly becoming unfit to live in), that 'civil servant' is analogous to 'civil master'. I believe him.
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah...me too...:covereyes
 
zooloo said:
Wasn't it about Warren Beaty?
Click to expand...
I always thought it was about Warren Beatty too.

I saw him in the press box at the LA Coliseum a few months after that movie "Heaven Can Wait" came out...where he played a quarterback for the Rams who dies and comes back, etc. Anyway, he was actring like he was Joe Namath and had two beautiful women with him. Another guy said something referencing the song and he just shrugged and said something along the lines of "the price of fame..." But, at the time, it sure seemed like he was admitting it was about him.
 
IMO, the evidence for a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty is not particularly convincing, when stacked up against the evidence for it being a fog-of-war accident.
 
JamesM said:
IMO, the evidence for a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty is not particularly convincing, when stacked up against the evidence for it being a fog-of-war accident.
Click to expand...


I have to agree. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that it was deliberate.

But more importantly, even if it was deliberate, I don't see that as a conspiracy.

Now, the most common claim is the US Government and Israel conspired together to plot the attack - this WOULD be a conspiracy, in my humble opinion. But a simple act of war (regardless of how dubious the motivation/justification) is hardly a conspiracy - even if it was covered up afterwards.

I'm a little interested in this pilot's testimony though. All I had heard was the attack was called off as soon as one of the pilots identified the ship as American, after which the torpedo boats were sent in to offer assistance.

The Liberty crew misread the torpedo boat approach as another attack and opened fire. The torpedo boats then returned fire on the ship.

I think it's a simple case of trigger happy soldiers on edge during an ongoing conflict, getting foiled by the fog of war.

-Andrew
 
Sorry to dredge this back up, but:
The Liberty crew misread the torpedo boat approach as another attack and opened fire. The torpedo boats then returned fire on the ship.
Click to expand...
The USS Liberty was an unarmed vessel. Where did you hear about the Liberty firing on the TBs? And with what?

I would certainly dismiss anyone who said this was some sort of planned thing on the part of Israel and the US, but the actions of both goverments after the fact certainly constitute a conspiricy by just about anyone's definition.

As far as not being convinced, you either have not looked at much or read much, or simply have decided that you're going to believe what you believe regardless of evidence to the contrary. The evidence is out there, easily accessable, and overwhelmingly listed (pun intended) in the direction of the attack being a deliberate act. Hard to spend as much time as the Israeli's did blasting away at a ship and not read the 10' identifying letters on the bow.

I'm going to drop this whole deal, since it makes me look like 'one of them' to defend my position. Plus...I don't have enough posts to list some good links (several of them affiliated with the US Navy and retired Navy personell). Perhaps if the subject comes up again and I have more posts...

Peace...
 
JamesM said:
IMO, the evidence for a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty is not particularly convincing, when stacked up against the evidence for it being a fog-of-war accident.
Click to expand...
Until you read Ennes' book, I suggest you not make irresponsible remarks like that. He was on the bridge at the time of the attack.

Also, the Liberty's crew has a very extensive web site dedicated to that mess. Those who assert that the US government wanted the Liberty attacked are smoking dope. Those who assert that the Israel command didn't want to attack, particularly in light of the pilot's report back to HQ, are choosing not to look too deeply into it.

Again, a lot of people tend to forget, the Israeli's did admit that it was done, and they did pay damages, etc. What they didn't admit was that it was deliberate.

In a different case, Saddam Hussein's pilots attacked USS Stark from well beyond visual range with Exocet missiles in 1987. His government admitted a mistake, and were probably a bit surprised that the Reagan government let him off the hook with "ah, looks like you didn't mean to attack us" and I'd guess that was due to the US being a bit involved with Iran in the Gulf at the time.

The Liberty was over flown, visually seen, and strafed with bullets, by pilots who could see it, its side number, and its flag.

Mistaken identity? Nonsense.

DR
 
EchoWars said:
Sorry to dredge this back up, but:The USS Liberty was an unarmed vessel. Where did you hear about the Liberty firing on the TBs? And with what?
Click to expand...

The USS Liberty was armed with 4 M2 .50 machine guns.

The claim is what the crew say happened:

the ship was approached by three torpedo boats bearing Israeli flags and identification signs. Initially, McGonagle, who perceived that the torpedo boats "were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude,"[1] ordered a machine gun to engage the boats. After recognizing the Israeli standard and seeing apparent Morse code signalling attempts by one of the boats (but being unable to see what was being sent, due to the smoke of the fire started by the earlier aircraft attack), McGonagle gave the order to cease fire. This order was apparently misunderstood in the confusion, and two heavy machine guns opened fire. Subsequently, the Israeli boats responded with fire and launched at least two torpedoes at Liberty (five according to the 1982 IDF History Department report).
Source
Click to expand...

That account is also collaborated in Ennes' book (Chapter Six):

McGonagle dispatched Seaman Apprentice Dale Larkins to take the torpedo boats under fire from the forecastle...

...Captain McGonagle, looking through the smoke of the motor whaleboat fire, saw a flashing light on the center boat. He called for the gunners to hold their fire while he attempted to communicate with the boats using a hand-held Aldis lamp...

Larkins, who had not heard McGonagle's "hold fire" order, suddenly released a wild and ineffective burst of machine-gun fire and was quickly silenced by the captain. Immediately, the gun mount astern of the bridge opened fire, blanketing the center boat. McGonagle called for that gunner, too, to cease fire, but he could not be heard above the roar of the gun and the loud crackle of flaming napalm...

...Heavy machine-gun fire from the boats saturated the bridge.

...A torpedo was spotted. It passed astern, missing the ship by barely seventy-five feet...
Click to expand...

I have to say, no one but the Israeli pilots know what the Israeli pilots could or couldn't see. Hence why I am so interested in this pilot's claims that he was ordered to attack the ship even though he knew it was American. Does anyone have a link to this testimony?

-Andrew
 
Wowbagger said:
Does Enron count?
Click to expand...

Lots of CT came out of not only Enron but the DOT BOOM. The fall of Grey Davis in Ca was not in small part due to CT's that Davis was if not a participant a dupe to the oil business.

There were lots of CT about the DOT coms that were vaporware, selling nothing and conspiring with brokers to make their stock boom. I even purchased a 1000 shares of stock in a company that had nothing but a name, and went from .06 to 3.45, because they were highlighted on a radio show, when it was exposed as being noting more that a website it fell like a stone. (I bought at .18 and sold at 2.45 on the down slide).

Oh yeah I had 1000 shares of Enron, so I really don't like talking about it.
 
Overman said:
There are many famous CTs, and many are famous for having insane irritional followers, or people who just don't know better...

....covered up some dirty deed on some large scale somewhere on Earth before...
Click to expand...

the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. People were charged with conspiracy, charged with sedition if I recall correctly.

The Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot (assasination).

The attempted assasination of Hitler by a '5th column' within the SS and or Wehrmacht.

The Iran Contra affair.
 
Mr. Scott said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great question. And Watergate is a great example -the American public was disinclined to believe the worst about Nixon and his cohorts. In fact, Watergate may have primed our greater willingness to believe in conspiracies and seek them out post Watergate. It puts the Moon Hoax conspiracy beliefs in context, since the moon landings occured contemporaneously.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Until you read Ennes' book, I suggest you not make irresponsible remarks like that. He was on the bridge at the time of the attack.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I have looked at the evidence. I'm just not convinced by it. Clearly, your mileage varies.

Those who assert that the Israel command didn't want to attack, particularly in light of the pilot's report back to HQ, are choosing not to look too deeply into it.
Click to expand...
The supposed pilot's name is Amnon Tavni. The last time I looked into this, there was no evidence he was ever a pilot in the IDF. According to A Jay Cristol's book on the Liberty incident, when Adrian Pennink, the producer of the Thames TV documentary on the Liberty incident, contacted Tavni, he denied ever making the statement about being commanded to attack the Liberty.
 
The DuPont collusion to hide the harmful effects of leaded products and CFCs in the early 20th Century was pretty successful, even though it was well known due to obvious signs among its work force. Regulation of that crap took over 50 years.

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=173

(See "3 Case Studies")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom