Michael Connell died in a plane crash last night...

[Zep]

Yes, I believe hypothetically, that such a person is capable, as you do.

And I believe that, hypothetically, he was capable of hiring Bigfoot to do the job.

Or using aliens and space-beams.

Or of using thermite on the plane.

Imagination is a wonderful thing.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Any suggestion of foul play is unsubstantiated paranoid speculation at best.

So if he slipped on ice on his front step would the paranoia lead to...

"he uses his front step everyday and we are suppose to believe he simply FORGOT to salt it!"

TAM

Although i agree with your logic completely i am annoyed at how easily people around here dismiss any ideas that can be somewhat CT'ish.

I understand evidence is needed for all statements and critical thinking, but what evidence can honestly be provided with small aircraft mishaps? To me it seems like the easiest way to kill off someone and get away with it, if you have the power to do so.
I find it odd that it happened, yet still wont jump on the "He was killed by our gubmant" bandwagon.
Instead i would try to prove the CT myself and when i couldn't, then i would lean back towards "it was an accident", but all while never really denying it for i can never be positive.

I just dont understand how everyone here can be so dismissive...
It seems more arrogant and mind numbing.
Id like to think that if something was going on behind the curtains when people first hear of it, they arent calling everyone nutters and totally shooting it out of the sky. Even if it is 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of a CT being true.

Just my thoughts.

Also if this man had something that important to say wouldnt he have it saved somewhere in backup files or something? I would really be interested on what he was going to speak of. His is loss would be terrible if he actually had something significant to say and because of this tragedy we will never be informed.

 

[Zep]

Seriously, try putting it in a list of probable causes, ranked high to low. E.g.:

1) Aircraft technical problem - fuel leak, component failure, etc.
2) Maintenance error.
3) Weather problem.
4) Pilot error.
5) Navigation issue.
6) ...
...
98) Gubmint (Rove) did it.
99) Dr No's death ray.
100) Godzilla swatted him.


Conceivable, yeah. But really? C'mon!

 

[RedIbis]

Hank's an idiot. He's got his dad's loud mouth, but none of the business sense. Hal holds all the real power.

and what do the Yankees want with yet another DH? Is Giambi somehow going to get Liddle'd?

Tex is a first baseman. Giambi wasn't resigned, thank goodness.

 

[Donal]

Ya, who needs an outstanding OBP when you can get another flashy name?

Hey, how about spending some money on an actual shortstop. Instead of Captain Flatfoot over there.

 

[JihadJane]

Although i agree with your logic completely i am annoyed at how easily people around here dismiss any ideas that can be somewhat CT'ish.

I understand evidence is needed for all statements and critical thinking, but what evidence can honestly be provided with small aircraft mishaps? To me it seems like the easiest way to kill off someone and get away with it, if you have the power to do so.
I find it odd that it happened, yet still wont jump on the "He was killed by our gubmant" bandwagon.
Instead i would try to prove the CT myself and when i couldn't, then i would lean back towards "it was an accident", but all while never really denying it for i can never be positive.

I just dont understand how everyone here can be so dismissive...
It seems more arrogant and mind numbing.
Id like to think that if something was going on behind the curtains when people first hear of it, they arent calling everyone nutters and totally shooting it out of the sky. Even if it is 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of a CT being true.

Just my thoughts.

Good to see that at least some critical thinking survives on JREF.

 

[Donal]

So, its only critical when its defending you?

How come "stop jumpijg to conclusions and wait for proof" isn't critical thinking? I could have sworn that was text book critical thinking.

 

[JihadJane]

So, its only critical when its defending you?

How come "stop jumpijg to conclusions and wait for proof" isn't critical thinking? I could have sworn that was text book critical thinking.

"stop jumping to conclusions and wait for proof" and ridiculing the slightest possibility of political murders are not synoymous.

 

[Drudgewire]

"stop jumping to conclusions and wait for proof" and ridiculing the slightest possibility of political murders are not synoymous.

Yes, as if there's no in-between there.

I can't stress enough that I'm ready to back any CT the second there's a reason to, but at least on this forum these threads are a broken record. You know in advance who's going to immediately believe the theory, who's going to stick up for it, and who's going to accuse everyone else of a lack of critical thinking when it gets brought up that we have nothing but paranoid speculation to go on at this junction.

If this was Above Top Secret or something where the point is to speculate wildly then you'd be onto something with our responses. But this is, in case nobody has noticed, a SKEPTIC'S forum. Without proof, without solid evidence, without substance behind the speculation, scorn is the only response one should expect. Not because there's no chance the conspiracy isn't a real one, but because "it's possible" has never been, will never be, and is rightfully taken as an insult if expected to pass muster as "good enough" in the realm of critical thinking.

Got proof? Present it. Got "Rove is evil, didn't like this guy, now he's dead and here are some bloggers that agree with me?" You're a silly goose.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yes, as if there's no in-between there.

I can't stress enough that I'm ready to back any CT the second there's a reason to, but at least on this forum these threads are a broken record. You know in advance who's going to immediately believe the theory, who's going to stick up for it, and who's going to accuse everyone else of a lack of critical thinking when it gets brought up that we have nothing but paranoid speculation to go on at this junction.

If this was Above Top Secret or something where the point is to speculate wildly then you'd be onto something with our responses. But this is, in case nobody has noticed, a SKEPTIC'S forum. Without proof, without solid evidence, without substance behind the speculation, scorn is the only response one should expect. Not because there's no chance the conspiracy isn't a real one, but because "it's possible" has never been, will never be, and is rightfully taken as an insult if expected to pass muster as "good enough" in the realm of critical thinking.

Got proof? Present it. Got "Rove is evil, didn't like this guy, now he's dead and here are some bloggers that agree with me?" You're a silly goose.

As someone said it on the bautforum:

"Conspiracy theorists are like a guard dog that barks at every shadow. It thinks its doing a great job. in fact it is worse than useless."

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't see the analogy you're making next, however, since I don't see "truthers" as being as dangerous to Rove as someone like Connell. Apparently, Connell had much more damaging testimony and direct knowledge of Rove's activities.

Which implies, therefore, that no truther has yet come close enough to knowledge of any real conspiracy to be a significant threat. Which implies that everything the truth movement has said is so far off the mark as to be irrelevant. In other words, if there is a conspiracy, it bears no resemblance to anything the truth movement has dreamed up, and the supposed evidence uncovered by the truth movement is equally spurious and irrelevant. Reasonable conclusion?

Dave

 

[dtugg]

OK, let me see if I am getting this right. Some guy that may have information that is harmful to the Bush Administration died in a plane crash. Therefore, Karl Rove ordered a hit on him. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. And CTs wonder why normal people regard them as stupid and/or crazy.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Which implies, therefore, that no truther has yet come close enough to knowledge of any real conspiracy to be a significant threat. Which implies that everything the truth movement has said is so far off the mark as to be irrelevant. In other words, if there is a conspiracy, it bears no resemblance to anything the truth movement has dreamed up, and the supposed evidence uncovered by the truth movement is equally spurious and irrelevant. Reasonable conclusion?

That smarts.

Cue the Reading Rainbow sound effect. Bah-dum-Dum!

 

[RedIbis]

Which implies, therefore, that no truther has yet come close enough to knowledge of any real conspiracy to be a significant threat. Which implies that everything the truth movement has said is so far off the mark as to be irrelevant. In other words, if there is a conspiracy, it bears no resemblance to anything the truth movement has dreamed up, and the supposed evidence uncovered by the truth movement is equally spurious and irrelevant. Reasonable conclusion?

Dave

No, it's not a reasonable conclusion. There is no star witness to a conspiracy on 9/11 who is ready to testify. Instead of drawing the conclusion you did, you should see how dangerous Connell was to Rove. Please review the fallacy of false analogy.

 

[Drudgewire]

No, it's not a reasonable conclusion. There is no star witness to a conspiracy on 9/11 who is ready to testify. Instead of drawing the conclusion you did, you should see how dangerous Connell was to Rove. Please review the fallacy of false analogy.

Except you have no idea how dangerous Connell was to Rove. You have some blogger telling us how dangerous Connell was, based on stuff "he was going to tell me."

Again, while it's fine when commenting on youtube videos... skeptics demand more than that before accepting anything as fact.


ETA: And as mentioned, life isn't like a TV show where any evidence the guy had was all in his head. In real life he'll have a paper trail that would just make Rove look worse if he did indeed off the guy.

 

[GStan]

No, it's not a reasonable conclusion. There is no star witness to a conspiracy on 9/11 who is ready to testify. Instead of drawing the conclusion you did, you should see how dangerous Connell was to Rove. Please review the fallacy of false analogy.

The reason why there is no star witness is what makes it a credible analogy. That reason is, as many here have been pointing out for years, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever about which any hypothetical star witness could testify that would implicate anyone other than the 19 hijackers and the radical Islamists who were giving them their orders.

 

[RedIbis]

The reason why there is no star witness is what makes it a credible analogy. That reason is, as many here have been pointing out for years, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever about which any hypothetical star witness could testify that would implicate anyone other than the 19 hijackers and the radical Islamists who were giving them their orders.

If only you didn't agree with the prevailing bias, this would be a stundie winner for sure.

Connell was potentially the most devastating witness to Rove, not just on election fraud but missing emails at the Justice Dept.

In fact, Connell felt threatened by Rove.

Read more:

The immunity request from Arnebeck to the Ohio AG was triggered by information from a confidential source that Karl Rove, a kingpin GOP strategist, threatened that if Mike Connell doesn’t go in the tank for cyber-rigging the 2004 election in Ohio, his wife will be sued for lobbying law violations.

http://thejournal.epluribusmedia.ne...munity-request-to-ohio-ag-by-election-lawyers

 

[Drudgewire]

Holy crap you're right! "Wife will be sued" to "murder." It's a straight evidentiary line.

 

[GStan]

If only you didn't agree with the prevailing bias, this would be a stundie winner for sure.

Really? Please explain which part is wrong. That fact that there is no evidence for the conspiracy? (If there is evidence, please share it.) The fact that there is no star witness for the 911 conspiracy equivalent to what Connell was to Rove? (If that's wrong, please share the name(s) of those witnesses) Or the fact that total lack of evidence is the reason there are no star witnesses? (If so, please share the correct reason.)

 

[RedIbis]

Really? Please explain which part is wrong. That fact that there is no evidence for the conspiracy? (If there is evidence, please share it.) The fact that there is no star witness for the 911 conspiracy equivalent to what Connell was to Rove? (If that's wrong, please share the name(s) of those witnesses) Or the fact that total lack of evidence is the reason there are no star witnesses? (If so, please share the correct reason.)

Let's not get too far off the mark and make every thread about 9/11. If this had something to do with 9/11 it would be in the other forum. To reset:

1) Connell felt threatened by Rove
2) Connell was preparing to testify about his first hand knowledge about voter fraud and missing Justice Dept emails (both extremely serious offenses)
3) Connell's attorney asks for an immunity request
4) Connell is dead from a plane crash
5) Rove will enjoy a very Merry Christmas

If it makes you "skeptics" feel any better, Rove is simply the luckiest man on the planet.