Conspiracy Theories

[coprolite]

8 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

Great flood conspiracies (I don't know if that's the right word, more like pseudoscience) are great too.

Stuff like this article about Graham Hancock. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-there-wasnt-an-advanced-civilization-12-000-years-ago/

That specific one is clearly nuts. 

I do think that some archaeologists and historians  have historically been too quick to reach conclusions from limited evidence. Or at least they present their working theories in public as if they were conclusions. 

There was a huge rise in sea levels 12-8,000 years ago and the humanity's most significant settlements have more often than not been on low lying or coastal land. Add the tectonic movements of the eastern med and middle east and there is potentially a lot underwater. 

With advances in underwater excavation techniques i think we're heading into an exciting era of discovery that will probably push back the origins of what we think of as civilisation by thousands of years. 

It's a shame that a lot of it will get claimed as evidence of the lost pyramid builders or aliens

[Shotgun]

I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist but I'm something of a cynic and quite often find myself thinking "Something no' right there" when it comes to the official explanations of certain events. The McCanns story of their role in Maddy's disappearance and the passports of not one but two 9/11 highjackers being found perfectly intact in the rubble to name just two.

Seeing as we're talking about the Kennedy assassination; can any of the "Oswald acted alone" proponents tell me their thoughts on the Magic Bullet theory? I've yet to see an explanation that doesn't sound like an utter crock of shite.  

Copyapasta'd from Wikipedia:

The theory says that a three-centimeter-long (1.2″) copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5×52mm Mannlicher–Carcano rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck and went into Governor Connally’s chest, went through his wrist, and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, seven layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of muscle tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone. The bullet was found on a gurney in the corridor at Parkland Memorial Hospital after the assassination. The Warren Commission found that this gurney was the one that had borne Governor Connally.[4] This bullet became a key exhibit for the Commission. Its copper jacket was completely intact. While the bullet’s nose appeared normal, the tail was compressed laterally on one side.

In its conclusion, the Warren Commission found “persuasive evidence from the experts” that a single bullet caused the President’s neck wound and all the wounds found in Governor Connally.[5] It acknowledged that there was a “difference of opinion” among members of the Commission “as to this probability,” but stated that the theory was not essential to its conclusions and that all members had no doubt that all shots were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building.

Most pro- and anti-conspiracy theorists believe[6] that the single-bullet theory is essential to the Warren Commission’s conclusion about how Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. The reason for this is timing: if, as the Warren Commission found, President Kennedy was wounded some time between frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film,[7] and Governor Connally was wounded in the back/chest no later than frame 240,[8] there would not have been enough time between the wounding of the two men for Oswald to have fired two shots from his bolt-action rifle. FBI marksmen, who test-fired the rifle for the Warren Commission, concluded that the “minimum time for getting off two successive well-aimed shots on the rifle is approximately 2 and a quarter seconds” or 41 to 42 Zapruder frames.

[Boo Khaki]

The thing that I think most stinks of 'conspiracy' regarding the entire JFK episode, is not the President's assassination itself, but the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby. 

We're supposed to believe that Ruby was so incensed by JFK's death that he wanders into the car park off his own back, pulls out a revolver, and guns Oswald down in front of an array of local enforcement officers and media types. Nobody has ever come up with any sort of plausible explanation for Ruby's motives or actions beside claiming that he was so stricken by grief and embarrassment that he felt driven to 'put it right'. That's wholly inadequate in my opinion, and there's plenty of testimony that suggests Ruby wasn't remotely bothered by, or particularly interested in the fate of JFK in the immediate aftermath.

[Detournement]

5 hours ago, Grant228 said:

As per with most conspiracy theories you're game for taking one side of the story, while blindly ignoring anything else. In this case the commite said it was likely based on acoustic evidence, which was then heavily discredited. 

 

I've read a good bit on it, and came to the conclusion he'd done it on his own. 

 

There's some proper batshit logic that gets applied to "He cAnT HAvE doNe iT hiMSElf" including that a bloke who's grown up with rifles, including going through service can't have hit a target at less than 100 metres? Aye, settle down. 

If you had done more reading you would know expert marksmen - far better shots than Oswald - from the military and the police couldn't replicate the shots with a better version of the rifle Oswald used. 

There is loads of evidence pointing to Oswald not acting alone but for me the most convincing things are Oswald being impersonated trying to contact the KGB head of assassinations in Mexico City and Oswald running a pro Castro campaign out of a building that was primarily used by right wing lunatic Guy Bannister and his associates. 

 

[Fullerene]

8 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

The thing that I think most stinks of 'conspiracy' regarding the entire JFK episode, is not the President's assassination itself, but the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby. 

We're supposed to believe that Ruby was so incensed by JFK's death that he wanders into the car park off his own back, pulls out a revolver, and guns Oswald down in front of an array of local enforcement officers and media types. Nobody has ever come up with any sort of plausible explanation for Ruby's motives or actions beside claiming that he was so stricken by grief and embarrassment that he felt driven to 'put it right'. That's wholly inadequate in my opinion, and there's plenty of testimony that suggests Ruby wasn't remotely bothered by, or particularly interested in the fate of JFK in the immediate aftermath.

The book "Four Days in November" says that he was appalled that someone could shoot "our president" and also that shooting Oswald meant that Jackie would not have to return to Dallas for a trial and relive the event.

[DiegoDiego]

There was a huge rise in sea levels 12-8,000 years ago and the humanity's most significant settlements have more often than not been on low lying or coastal land. Add the tectonic movements of the eastern med and middle east and there is potentially a lot underwater.

I somewhat disagree with you. The most significant settlements have rarely been coastal. Mesopotamia, Persia, inland China and India and the upstream Nile were the sites of the largest cities around the 2000 BC mark. Most of the capitals were on elevated ground for obvious reasons.

There probably is a lot underwater (e.g. Doggerland) , and if the technology and money is there we're quite likely to find some interesting stuff, but the most important sites have always been inland.

[NotThePars]

My totally ignorant take on Kennedy, 9/11 and the Boston bombing is that the perpetrators were well known to US intelligence and a lot of the suspicion around the official narrative is fuelled more by the authorities trying to downplay the extent to which they were aware of something potentially happening rather than them being directly involved.

[Savage Henry]

32 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

My totally ignorant take on Kennedy, 9/11 and the Boston bombing is that the perpetrators were well known to US intelligence and a lot of the suspicion around the official narrative is fuelled more by the authorities trying to downplay the extent to which they were aware of something potentially happening rather than them being directly involved.

Generally most conspiracies can be explained by Occam’s razor, or never attributing to malice what can be explained by sheer incompetency.  

[Shotgun]

40 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

My totally ignorant take on Kennedy, 9/11 and the Boston bombing is that the perpetrators were well known to US intelligence and a lot of the suspicion around the official narrative is fuelled more by the authorities trying to downplay the extent to which they were aware of something potentially happening rather than them being directly involved.

I wasn't aware of a conspiracy around the Boston Bombing. In that particular case, I thought the official explanation sounded quite reasonable. They studied the CCTV footage and noticed 2 men wearing backpacks who were perfectly calm while everyone else was running around in a panic. Ergo, they were the only people not surprised by the explosion. Is there more to it than that.

8 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

Generally most conspiracies can be explained by Occam’s razor, or never attributing to malice what can be explained by sheer incompetency.  

Also a perfectly reasonable statement when taken in isolation. But it doesn't address the questions I mentioned above. The magic bullet from the Kennedy assassination or the pristine passports in the rubble at Ground Zero. Both of those reek of planted evidence and I don't see incompetence there. Malice, almost certainly.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

48 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

My totally ignorant take on Kennedy, 9/11 and the Boston bombing is that the perpetrators were well known to US intelligence and a lot of the suspicion around the official narrative is fuelled more by the authorities trying to downplay the extent to which they were aware of something potentially happening rather than them being directly involved.

I think this is absolutely correct. The 'cover up' is actually nothing to do with carrying out the event, but everything to do with the authorities trying to cover their own arses. The inconsistencies end up giving oxygen to the nutty theories.

[Detournement]

36 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

I wasn't aware of a conspiracy around the Boston Bombing. In that particular case, I thought the official explanation sounded quite reasonable. They studied the CCTV footage and noticed 2 men wearing backpacks who were perfectly calm while everyone else was running around in a panic. Ergo, they were the only people not surprised by the explosion. Is there more to it than that.

Also a perfectly reasonable statement when taken in isolation. But it doesn't address the questions I mentioned above. The magic bullet from the Kennedy assassination or the pristine passports in the rubble at Ground Zero. Both of those reek of planted evidence and I don't see incompetence there. Malice, almost certainly.

The issue with Boston bombing is the bombers' family connection to the CIA and particularly the older brother's strange activities travelling back and forth to the Caucasus which didn't set off any alarms (very similar to the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi). 

He also seems to have got away with a triple murder the year before the bombing. And there is the strange death of his mate who was shot in the head during a very irregular FBI interview. Not long after the Boston bombing a lot of senior Boston FBI officials were moved aside. 

The CCTV identification is also an issue. We know that they were both persons of interest but despite the fact that it should of been a simple task to ID them from that it took four days. 

Edited August 1, 2020 by Detournement

[Fullerene]

Also the Boston Marathon bombing happened on April 15th as did the sinking of the Titanic, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the death of Kenneth Williams, Tommy Cooper and Arthur Lowe as well as Greta Garbo, Joey Ramone and R Lee Ermey .. and Pol Pot.

Nobody is going to tell me that is just a coincidence.

[Detournement]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/06/bedsit-nazi-man-killed-jo-cox-thomas-mair

This is an interesting one. The police claim to have no idea and no leads on how Thomas Mair obtained the gun he used to kill Jo Cox. There is no ongoing investigation into the matter.

The journalist who wrote this article wrote to him and asked but the reply was blocked by the prison censor. 

 

[ICTChris]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/06/bedsit-nazi-man-killed-jo-cox-thomas-mair
This is an interesting one. The police claim to have no idea and no leads on how Thomas Mair obtained the gun he used to kill Jo Cox. There is no ongoing investigation into the matter.
The journalist who wrote this article wrote to him and asked but the reply was blocked by the prison censor. 
 

I thought there was a strong suggestion he made the gun himself but from that article it has been stolen. Interesting.

[HoBNob]

16 hours ago, Detournement said:

If you had done more reading you would know expert marksmen - far better shots than Oswald - from the military and the police couldn't replicate the shots with a better version of the rifle Oswald used.

Bollocks, absolutely, and utterly bollocks. It wasn't that hard a shot. 

[Highland Capital]

[ICTJohnboy]

6 hours ago, ICTChris said:

 

I thought there was a strong suggestion he made the gun himself but from that article it has been stolen. Interesting.

 

 

I was under the impression he had made the gun himself but newspaper/news headlines can be very misleading.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/jo-cox-trial-thomas-mair-used-homemade-gun-and-knife-to-murder-mp-a3395496.html

What a horrific and thoroughly depressing event that was.

[Shotgun]

8 hours ago, Detournement said:

The issue with Boston bombing is...

OK, thanks. Obviously I hadn't followed it very closely.

[throbber]

9 hours ago, Fullerene said:

Also the Boston Marathon bombing happened on April 15th as did the sinking of the Titanic, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the death of Kenneth Williams, Tommy Cooper and Arthur Lowe as well as Greta Garbo, Joey Ramone and R Lee Ermey .. and Pol Pot.

Nobody is going to tell me that is just a coincidence.

Hillsborough was 15 April as well.

[Detournement]

8 hours ago, Grant228 said:

Bollocks, absolutely, and utterly bollocks. It wasn't that hard a shot. 

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm

This shows that only one out of four expert marksmen managed to recreate the shots.

However there's a bit more to it than that. Oswald missed the first shot which the marksmen obviously made then hit the second and third which no one can recreate. 

Oswald also used a telescopic sight which in testing made the rifle unreliable after firing. In the above test they didn't even bother trying with a scope.