• 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.

"...have there ever been proven conspiracies?..."

spooky24 said:
As always I stand by my statement. If someone is posting in a forum that is exclusively about conspiracies how can that someone not know about the government findings about the JFK assassination? Perhaps the best known conspiracy in all of history-that was decided 40 years ago.

Also, your memory is shot. You haven't called me a 'government shill' or 'CIA stooge' in the 3 days or so I have started posting here again.

Or my personal favorite an FBI 'asswipe'

You guys have just blown all your wheels.
Click to expand...
Did you notice who the House Select Committee decided was the only one who shot JFK?

As for the faulty evidence they used to come to their conspiracy conclusion, I highly recommend you peruse the THREE JFK assassination threads to find more information and discussion regarding that. That's the proper thread for this topic, not here.

/derail
 
Probably the closest I'm aware of is "Operation Himmler," the German attempt to fake an invasion from Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

While there are of course other conspiracies, for me this seems to cleave closest to the theatrical and overdone nature of most CTs, and the one that really seems implausible but is backed up historically.
 
spooky24 said:
As always I stand by my statement. If someone is posting in a forum that is exclusively about conspiracies how can that someone not know about the government findings about the JFK assassination? .
Click to expand...

We know full well about the conclusions of the HSCA. However, I would say that if someone is posting in a forum about conspiracies and invoking the HSCA, how can that person not know that the conclusions of the HSCA are completely wrong?

You, of course, know that the conclusion of the HSCA was based on the "acoustic evidence" that was claimed to show evidence of a 4th gun shot, right? Given that, the HSCA said, wow, there were 4 shots but damned if we know who did the 4th. Must have been a conspiracy of some sort. We don't know who or how, but that's the only explanation for the 4th shot.

However, the claim of 4 shots based on the acoustic evidence was predicated on the assumption that the "open mike" that made the recording was on Officer McLain's motorcycle, in a position that was essentially the corner of Houston and Elm. It REQUIRES that to be true in order to hold up. When the evidence was presented to the HSCA, it was asserted that this was correct. Unfortunately, the committee was out of time and never had time to investigate that premise to see whether it was true.

However, afterward, photographic evidence as well as McLain's own testimony confirm that McLain was no where near that position, and he was close to the south end of Houston when the shots were fired. Moreover, he denies that his mike was stuck open (there WAS an officer who admitted his mike was stuck open, but he was no where near the assassination). Therefore, the acoustic evidence of a 4th shot completely falls apart. So the evidence the HSCA used to decide there was a fourth shot has subsequently been found to be nonsense. Without that evidence, there is no evidence for a conspiracy.

There is an internet meme known as Pablo's First Law of Internet discussion, which says, regardless of the topic, assume someone participating knows more about it than you do. The reason no one here brings up the conclusions of the HSCA as the evidence of a conspiracy is because they know that they are wrong, and they know WHY they are wrong.

Make no mistake, many participating here know full well about the conclusions of the HSCA. In fact, it appears they know a lot more about them than you do, because they know they are baseless. That's why JayUtah and others have advised you to go over to a JFK thread so maybe you could actually learn more about it. If you think anything I've said is wrong, bring it over there and bring it on. We'll have that discussion.
 
spooky24 said:
As always I stand by my statement.
Click to expand...

Then stand by it with something other than bluster.

HSCA did not prove a conspiracy. They admitted they had no idea who else could have been part of it, and concluded that no bullets struck Kennedy other than those fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. As has been explained, they inferred that a conspiracy might explain what they, at the time, thought was evidence of another gunshot -- evidence which was rather quickly explained by other means after the committee disbanded.

Moreover, the committee investigated the then-notable conspiracy theories put forward by other authors and concluded that there was no merit to any of them. This not only continues but underscores the notion that there are actual conspiracies and then there are conspiracy theories, and the two categories have no significant historical events in common.
 
Spooky24, You produce the following
spooky24 said:
The board concludes that the medical/legal autopsy evidence is compromised to the point that no further investigation can be warranted.
Robert Kennedy disposed of this material in an unlawful manner.
Click to expand...
which you suggest is a quote from the findings of the ARRB, which you consistently misstate as "AARB."

When asked to provide substantiation for it, you say only

spooky24 said:
AARB [sic] Final report and volume 5
Click to expand...

If the quote is a direct quote, why do you refer to two separate references? The materials published by the ARRB contain no "volume 5." Further, the ARRB Final Report was issued as a searchable electronic document. It does not contain this statement or any reasonable paraphrase of any part of it.

Please revise your claim and provide an precise reference including document and page number where the ARRB makes the statement you attribute to it.
 
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln and attempted assassination of Secretary of State Seward. A good example of a Real Conspiracy, as opposed to the fantasies of the Conspiracy Theorists. A handful of people...five or six rather then a massive plot involving hundreds of people.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln and attempted assassination of Secretary of State Seward. A good example of a Real Conspiracy, as opposed to the fantasies of the Conspiracy Theorists. A handful of people...five or six rather then a massive plot involving hundreds of people.
Click to expand...

For some CTists, that's not enough- there has to be more to it than that handful of people, Stanton (or whoever) must have been behind it all. And that points up the difference between "conspiracy theorists" who work to prove the theory and prosecute the conspiracy, and CTists who not only won't do that work, they usually don't even have a coherent theory from which to work, just suspicions (and they're often inexplicably proud of that approach). But they like to use proven conspiracies as camouflage by which to blend themselves and their fantasies in with the first group- "Lincoln's assassination was the result of a real conspiracy! Who's to say my 'theory' about [insert hobbyhorse here] isn't just as valid?" The qualitative difference is the work and in the result.
 
dudalb said:
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln and attempted assassination of Secretary of State Seward. A good example of a Real Conspiracy, as opposed to the fantasies of the Conspiracy Theorists. A handful of people...five or six rather then a massive plot involving hundreds of people.
Click to expand...
Or the Confederate attempt to burn New York in 1964 perhaps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom