Conspiracy Theories

[BobbyB]

When I'm at work, I pass the downtime by scanning the internet for as many conspiracy theories that I can research as possible.

No matter how unlikely, I still find them fascinating.

Anyone else enjoy investigating them? Are there any theories you believe?

There's a couple I think are true.

Sometimes I think there are parts (Certainly not all of) the Dave Chappelle conspiracy to be true. I think he may have been strong armed, just not as severely as suggested.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I think there's probably something to the Bilderberg Society story.

[Yoda]

I think the more shocking conspiracy theories are the ones we don't know anything about. I think if all were brought to light, we'd find that almost all the "popular" (or at least, oft-mentioned) theories were bunk, but we'd learn a few things that we never really expected.

So, I generally take the stance that conspiracies exist, but are probably small, close-knit affairs, and are not usually of remarkable significance to mankind. I don't think significant conspiracies are even plausible in this day and age. It's just too hard to hide information.

[BobbyB]

Well, I will say that I believe that Oswald didn't work alone.

How's that for a conspiracy theory? :#

[Sir Toose]

Well, I will say that I believe that Oswald didn't work alone.

How's that for a conspiracy theory? :#

I'd say you were probably correct.

I'd say that Kennedy announcing that he was going to pull troops from Vietnam at the conclusion of his tour got him killed. I believe "I am just a patsy" were words spoken in truth.

[Tatanka]

I don't think we should be too surprised to discover that nation-states, power-seeking/wielding factions and individuals have conspired against one another. History is replete with such examples.

Could some less palatable conspiratorial designs be floated as smoke screens to conceal what may be actually happening (or may have already happened)- like Al Gore being a shape-shifting reptilian- (for one way-out example)?

Additionally, the problem with the general populace and what could be connoted by the term "conspiracy theory" is partially the result of the inability of people to sustain inquiry long enough to arrive at a plausible-enough explanation that matches reality-- regardless of how damning the explanation or the reality may seem in light of one's prior perceptions.

[fbi]

I beleive kennedy was assasinated by or with the backing of the u.s government. I just cant buy into the fact that a lone nut like oswald was solely responsible.

The bay of pigs, cuba, vietnam and his vow to crackdown on organised crime made many enemies for kennedy.

I dont believe all the conspiracy theories but anyone who thinks that governments and high ranking officials around the world are angels and are incapable of the most atrocious crimes even against their own people are just plain naive.

[Powdered Water]

Conspiracy Theory? OK, here's one. How come we, supposedly the most powerful nation on the planet can't find the supposedly biggest terrorist on the planet? Answer because The Bush administration doesn't want us too, it's bad for war business.

[Caitlyn]

Well, I will say that I believe that Oswald didn't work alone.

How's that for a conspiracy theory? :#

I'd say you were probably correct.

I'd say that Kennedy announcing that he was going to pull troops from Vietnam at the conclusion of his tour got him killed. I believe "I am just a patsy" were words spoken in truth.



I don't think that Lee Harvey Oswald just woke up one day and decided to assassinate Kennedy on his own either... someone gave him a push.... I do, however, think that Jack Ruby just decided to take Oswald out on his own....

[cinemafan]

I don't think that Lee Harvey Oswald just woke up one day and decided to assassinate Kennedy on his own either... someone gave him a push.... I do, however, think that Jack Ruby just decided to take Oswald out on his own....

Very naive and somewhat contradictory. Either both Ruby and Oswald were part of the mix or they both acted alone, the latter being an impossibility.

[Caitlyn]

Very naive and somewhat contradictory. Either both Ruby and Oswald were part of the mix or they both acted alone, the latter being an impossibility.


You think it impossible that Ruby just wanted his 15 minutes of fame?

[cinemafan]

I think it impossible for Ruby to gain access to Oswald without help.
What, he was just allowed to walk up and shoot as an oversight?

[Caitlyn]

I think it impossible for Ruby to gain access to Oswald without help.
What, he was just allowed to walk up and shoot as an oversight?


It is possible.... out of curiosity, if you don't mind me asking, what did you do before you retired?

[cinemafan]

I workd for the criminal justice system.

[Memnon]

Very naive and somewhat contradictory. Either both Ruby and Oswald were part of the mix or they both acted alone, the latter being an impossibility.

I don't know what Jack Ruby's personal political views were, but calling another person's thoughts on the subject naive and contradictory doesn't make any sense to me... unless you have some verifiable info to back up your claims.

From what I have read, he could have been part of a conspiracy, could have acted on orders from some other group, or could have just been acting on his aggressive tendencies. There really is no way to know now.
I find someone reacting to another person killing a much loved president by trying to take revenge to be not only plausible, but very possible.

[cinemafan]

I don't know what Jack Ruby's personal political views were, but calling another person's thoughts on the subject naive and contradictory doesn't make any sense to me... unless you have some verifiable info to back up your claims.

From what I have read, he could have been part of a conspiracy, could have acted on orders from some other group, or could have just been acting on his aggressive tendencies. There really is no way to know now.
I find someone reacting to another person killing a much loved president by trying to take revenge to be not only plausible, but very possible.

I guess it was just a coincidence that Ruby knew the exact time and place to walk up to Oswald unhindered so that he can plug him.
Carefull how you use the word sense, it's so easily misused.

[Memnon]

I guess it was just a coincidence that Ruby knew the exact time and place to walk up to Oswald unhindered so that he can plug him.
Carefull how you use the word sense, it's so easily misused.


OK... then DO you have any verifiable proof that your statement is any more possible than anyone else's that has been said in this thread? Otherwise, I'm sticking by my statement that saying someone else's thoughts are naive and contradictory don't make sense...

Ruby was well known by the Dallas police. He was often seen walking in the halls of the police station, so is it possible that he knew Oswald was being held there, and was waiting for his opportunity to kill him out of revenge, yes...

[cinemafan]

OK... then DO you have any verifiable proof that your statement is any more possible than anyone else's that has been said in this thread? Otherwise, I'm sticking by my statement that saying someone else's thoughts are naive and contradictory don't make sense...

Ruby was well known by the Dallas police. He was often seen walking in the halls of the police station, so is it possible that he knew Oswald was being held there, and was waiting for his opportunity to kill him out of revenge, yes...

Yeah, right. Ruby just knew what Dallas police station Oswald was held at so he just figured he'll spend the day hanging out at the corridor unchecked and shoot Oswald when he gets the chance.
Of course he did this because he was a great American patriot and he and his mob buddies just loved John and Bobby Kenedy and WERE REALLY SORRY TO SEE THEM GO. Hey, I shouldn't be here, I so obviously don't know what I'm talking about. I think I'll just mosey on back to the movie forum. Now, that's something I think I know .
Of course, there will always be someone with your sense that probably figures that i don't know anything. Good night dude and have fun debating subjects with others that have the same sense as you. As far as I'm conserned before you talk to me, you need to get a clue.

[mark f]

First off, although we didn't live in a totally media active zone, everybody knew where Oswald was. All they had to do was follow the TV cars. Oswald was where everybody was. I saw Oswald get shot live, on TV, so even I knew where he was. The non-mediaish TV showed me, live. Yeah, it was a trip, but it was true. Did a seven-year-old think about what he was watching? No. My dad had control of our TV!

[cinemafan]

First off, although we didn't live in a totally media active zone, everybody knew where Oswald was. All they had to do was follow the TV cars. Oswald was where everybody was. I saw Oswald get shot live, on TV, so even I knew where he was. The non-mediaish TV showed me, live. Yeah, it was a trip, but it was true. Did a seven-year-old think about what he was watching? No. My dad had control of our TV!

You saw Oswald get shot copming out for a new's conference and how do you know it was live and not a tape? Prior to that, how was he transported and where was he held? Who was holding him at the time he got shot? Who allowed Ruby to come close enough to take his gun out and shoot?How many shots did Ruby fire and did anyone attempt to stop him? What did Ruby do after he finished shooting? What about the detectives around Oswald? How soon after Oswald did Ruby die and how did he die? How was Oswald tied in to Cuba? Who tried to help the CIA assassinate Castro? How was Ruby tied in to those people? Unless you have answers to those questions
(and they are a matter of public record, you just have to know where to look) I don't see the relevance of your comment.

[Tatanka]

I dont believe all the conspiracy theories but anyone who thinks that governments and high ranking officials around the world are angels and are incapable of the most atrocious crimes even against their own people are just plain naive.

One could find at least a few declassified government documents ("Northwoods" for one) to support this.

Very naive and somewhat contradictory. Either both Ruby and Oswald were part of the mix or they both acted alone, the latter being an impossibility.

I am hoping that you are questioning the untenability of what you perceive to be a contradiction in Caitlyn's premise as opposed to impugning her perspective, which would be unfair. The position of the Ruby/Oswald "lone agency" (I think) is a supportable one...why not go ahead and offer your support for that claim (which is part of what I presume Memnon may be asking)?

Hey, I shouldn't be here, I so obviously don't know what I'm talking about. I think I'll just mosey on back to the movie forum. Now, that's something I think I know .
Of course, there will always be someone with your sense that probably figures that i don't know anything. Good night dude and have fun debating subjects with others that have the same sense as you. As far as I'm conserned before you talk to me, you need to get a clue.

Why shouldn't you be here? I would think it a loss of sorts to see you duck out at this stage, so, give us a chance to hear what you're talking about. Not everyone on this forum (speaking for myself) who desires a healthy debate necessarily has the same sensibilities as you surmise. As you may know, we generally hold to our positions because we believe they are supportable until a more compelling case is made to the contrary, our current sensibilities notwithstanding. We can certainly afford one another that chance.

[mark f]

I realize now that my answer didn't go through. I'm not sure that your heated reply deserves a second response. You were apparently a teenager, but you didn't see what a simple seven-year-old did. It was live. It was vivid and real, and I'll never forget it. Maybe you were off somewhere scoring touchdowns. I just don't understand your attitude. Ruby plugged Oswald with a gut shot. No biggie. Ruby died about four years later in prison. Maybe there was a conspiracy, but a seven-year-old would have no reason to know that. I would also have no reason to know any tie Oswald had to Cuba. You don't see my relevance, and I certainly don't see yours, but it doesn't matter so much to me, I guess.

[Memnon]

Yeah, right. Ruby just knew what Dallas police station Oswald was held at so he just figured he'll spend the day hanging out at the corridor unchecked and shoot Oswald when he gets the chance.
Of course he did this because he was a great American patriot and he and his mob buddies just loved John and Bobby Kenedy and WERE REALLY SORRY TO SEE THEM GO. Hey, I shouldn't be here, I so obviously don't know what I'm talking about. I think I'll just mosey on back to the movie forum. Now, that's something I think I know .
Of course, there will always be someone with your sense that probably figures that i don't know anything. Good night dude and have fun debating subjects with others that have the same sense as you. As far as I'm conserned before you talk to me, you need to get a clue.

...ummm, wow... yes, good night, please get some sleep before you start getting nuts... this is a simple forum discussion, and if I want to express my viewpoint here, I have every right, if you would like to put me on ignore, go right ahead, but don't start making personal attacks, I do not enjoy dealing with people who feel they have to act like children or bullies, and will take whatever action I need to, to stop it. In the meantime, I'll try to continue to have a fun debate on possible conspiracies... but before I let anyone, including you, off the hook for making sweeping statements such as yours, I would still like to see some valid proof, not be derided and pretty much told that I must be stupid if I don't believe your point of view, just because its your point of view. ...trust me, I have a clue, and I know how to use it... :)

[cinemafan]

...discussion,... but before I let anyone, including you, off the hook for making sweeping statements such as yours, I would still like to see some valid proof,:)

"sweeping statements" ????? " valid proof " - other than declassifying the Kennedy file the only proof is common sense after you have researched the answers to the questions that I posed earlier in this thread but why bother when you can simply hide behind the " where is the proof " question posed by many like minds that won't or can't think for themselves

[cinemafan]

[quote=Tatanka;392465]One could find at least a few declassified government documents ("Northwoods" for one) to support this.




Why shouldn't you be here?quote]

Quite a few reasons ,actually, the first one being, I don't have the patience to wait 20 minutes or longer for a response to a topic that I know more about ( judging by the statements and responses).
I clearly strayed to sub-forum. I like movies and like to discuss them and that's why I'm on this forum to begin with. Now if I really wanted to get political, there are specialty forums for that. Back to movies, I'm not here to impress anyone with my movie knowledge, although I probably could, as I've seen over 10,000 movies of which I own 3,000, but I'm sure that there is going to be someone to question those stats and ask for the proof. Now if I can truly find someone that's in the same league, then being part of this whole shabang will be worth while to me, otherwise, I rather spend my time watching movies instead of discussing them and that goes for any other topic as well.

[Sir Toose]

"sweeping statements" ????? " valid proof " - other than declassifying the Kennedy file the only proof is common sense after you have researched the answers to the questions that I posed earlier in this thread but why bother when you can simply hide behind the " where is the proof " question posed by many like minds that won't or can't think for themselves

I personally cannot see why you choose to stay in this thread at all. Your motivations could only be to teach people what you know, or to lord what you perceive as your knowledge of this case over others. Obviously, the former is not the case because your demeanor precludes it. The latter is iffy as well because when asked a question you go on the defensive and attack which is certainly not the way to get your point across either.

Most people here, myself definitely included, don't appreciate the attitude. Also, believe me when I tell you, suggesting that the site collective isn't worthy of your stunning mental acuity is laughable.

Drop the attitude, please. This is the one nice warning you're going to get.

[Tatanka]

Quite a few reasons ,actually, the first one being, I don't have the patience to wait 20 minutes or longer for a response to a topic that I know more about ( judging by the statements and responses).

Taking into account the time required to acquire the information, weigh the premises, compare the worldviews behind them and deduce your conclusions, arriving at your position on the subject must have taken longer than 20 minutes, I presume. Granting people the time to consider your claims-- no matter how authoritative you are-- is a part of the rhetorical process.

I clearly strayed to sub-forum. I like movies and like to discuss them and that's why I'm on this forum to begin with.

These sub-forums exist because, in the process of talking about what we love (movies), we discover we also have other shared interests that we can banter about in the sub-forums. That the forum members express the multiple dimensions of their lives is a testament to the longevity of the forum and a qualification of their interest in cinema to begin with. This certainly helps to inform their commentary all across the board.

Now if I really wanted to get political, there are specialty forums for that.

True. But our conversation is here for the time. However, if you participate in such forums, feel free to invite us there if you are more comfortable with that.

But if we really wanted to delve into the etymology of the word, we would have to conclude that this forum is a virtual polis of sorts. It would be absurd to assert that our discussion of cinema would not (by proxy) encompass these dimensions of life that we like to discuss in these sub-forums. It just appears to me that this is what follows of shared interests and cyber-friendships and the subjects are not mutually exclusive.

Back to movies, I'm not here to impress anyone with my movie knowledge, although I probably could, as I've seen over 10,000 movies of which I own 3,000, but I'm sure that there is going to be someone to question those stats and ask for the proof. Now if I can truly find someone that's in the same league, then being part of this whole shabang will be worth while to me, otherwise, I rather spend my time watching movies instead of discussing them and that goes for any other topic as well.

Simply quoting such tallies mildly betrays your assertion that you're not here to impress. However, having seen 10,000 and owning 3,000 is a feat for which I'm not inclined to require proof from you- I can take you at your word and anticipate that as you establish your presence here over time, the fruits of these numbers will bear out, despite your preclusion of forum members and relegating yourself to a league of your own.

[cinemafan]

.



Simply quoting such tallies mildly betrays your assertion that you're not here to impress. However, having seen 10,000 and owning 3,000 is a feat for which I'm not inclined to require proof from you- I can take you at your word and anticipate that as you establish your presence here over time, the fruits of these numbers will bear out, despite your preclusion of forum members and relegating yourself to a league of your own.

No, I don't think that I'm in a league of my own but I know I'm certainly in a different league from most members and am looking to share my knowledge with those who are as dedicated as I am, hence the stats to let people know where I'm coming from. I'm a serious afficionado and am looking for like-minded individuals that have movies as a primary hobby and are not here just to throw in their two cents in the hopes of impressing or killing time.

[Sir Toose]

But if we really wanted to delve into the etymology of the word, we would have to conclude that this forum is a virtual polis of sorts. It would be absurd to assert that our discussion of cinema would not (by proxy) encompass these dimensions of life that we like to discuss in these sub-forums. It just appears to me that this is what follows of shared interests and cyber-friendships and the subjects are not mutually exclusive.


Well said, as per your usual modus operandi :)

The intermission forum was created because the discussion of film naturally branches into other meaningful topics that are not strictly adherent to the topic. Just because the site is branded a movie forum certainly doesn't imply that the users are not otherwise well read. That would be an absurd assumption for anyone to make.

[Tatanka]

No, I don't think that I'm in a league of my own but I know I'm certainly in a different league from most members and am looking to share my knowledge with those who are as dedicated as I am, hence the stats to let people know where I'm coming from. I'm a serious afficionado and am looking for like-minded individuals that have movies as a primary hobby and are not here just to throw in their two cents in the hopes of impressing or killing time.

Good deal, then. I know you will find (or are finding) some like-minded people here for sure, even if they aren't as well-versed or haven't had the exposure to an enormous body of material such as yourself. To me, after the short time I've been around and after all may be said and done, I've found the unifying factor is that most people here are movie-lovers (which ought to cover a multitude of misunderstandings). The cool thing is, most have a forté within a few genres, artists, directors, actors, etc., but I am enjoying things I am learning from others that I have tended to overlook or just plain didn't know about.

[Tatanka]

Well said, as per your usual modus operandi :)

Preeshate it!;D

[chet seven]

Has anybody seen the movie Zeitgeist? It's a 3 part movie. Part II is the 9/11 Conspiracy. That everything was an "inside job". I haven't watched part 1 or 3 yet, (b/c i'm choosing to do my english term paper on the 9/11 conspiracies), but i found it rather interesting. Before watching it I didn't believe it, i just thought to myself "how could anybody have that on their conscience! Be responsible for so many deaths, just to gain access to take the war on terror to the next level" (invade iraq (most say for oil))

After watching it, I seemed to be convinced. But then I was like thats what it was suppose to do. So, of course, i tried to look up some counters to this theory. After reading/watching stuff that "debunked" the conspiracy, I was back to my first view.

So check it out and please tell me what you think.

Zeitgeist - The Movie (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/)
The 9/11 stuff is about 36 mins in

Counter 1 (http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html)
Counter 2 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4)


There's conspiracies for almost everything. Some say we didn't land on the moon...

[chet seven]

bump

[Lockheed Martin]

Conspiracy theories are great fun, the only problem is they all assume that someone, somewhere knows what's going on and has the power to do anything about it.

Which is an immensely comforting thought, really.

Sadly, I'm a cynic. I don't believe people are smart enough to orchestrate a deception on a national scale, most politicians can't even cover up affairs or homosexual escapades let alone prepare and enact a phony terrorist attack on their own country, in the middle of the day, in a way that requires the co-operation of hundreds of other human beings without anyone slipping up or having an attack of conscience. Most governments can't even get the buses to run on time or cover up a little electoral fraud.

The only conspiracy theories I believe are the ones that are all too mundane, like billion-dollar tobacco firms finding out their product is a little deadly to humans and employing every dirty trick in the book to keep the secret hushed up. But hey, that didn't pan out.

That said, there's the mystery of the Marconi Scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Scientists that's utterly ****ing terrifying.

[linespalsy]

most politicians can't even cover up affairs or homosexual escapades let alone prepare and enact a phony terrorist attack on their own country

The stuff you're talking about is just bread and circus, man! Don't you realize it's to the Templars' advantage to make you think everyone's too incompetent to pull anything off? They show you this to lull you into a false sense of security while they grab control of the telluric currents.

[Lockheed Martin]

The stuff you're talking about is just bread and circus, man! Don't you realize it's to the Templars' advantage to make you think everyone's too incompetent to pull anything off? They show you this to lull you into a false sense of security while they grab control of the telluric currents.

Like I care, I've got my Victory cigarettes and all the soma I can eat. It's all double-plus good, my friend.

[Tatanka]

Conspiracy theories are great fun, the only problem is they all assume that someone, somewhere knows what's going on and has the power to do anything about it.

If you meant "someone" in the singular sense, I think it would be a problem if there were one group or one person who was THE group or THE man wielding all the power, but that's probably not the case. More than likely, the structure is more nebulous and made up of competing factions whose power and influence ebbs and flows according to the eventualities of their agendas as well as the reactions of their recipients.

Which is an immensely comforting thought, really.

But not as comforting as a population who's not only aware of the forces aligned against them but one that's imbued with the will to do something about it.


Sadly, I'm a cynic. I don't believe people are smart enough to orchestrate a deception on a national scale, most politicians can't even cover up affairs or homosexual escapades let alone prepare and enact a phony terrorist attack on their own country, in the middle of the day, in a way that requires the co-operation of hundreds of other human beings without anyone slipping up or having an attack of conscience. Most governments can't even get the buses to run on time or cover up a little electoral fraud.

A healthy dose of cynicism isn't a bad thing. "Smarts" isn't the only guarantor of the success of an attack on a target or subject (be it unilaterally swift or ongoing). Efficiency is also ensured by the culminating presence of one "attack" after another and manipulation of the perception of it before, during and after the event. If you have an abulic populace, scale isn't much of an issue if the perpetrators are patient and indeed risky enough. Conscience does indeed figure heavily by its stark absence. The real problem lies with what it is we're "looking" at to begin with....is it what we should be seeing or what someone else wants us to see?

The real perpetrators and their methods are increasingly right before our eyes because I don't think the point is to "cover up" as it may have been a few decades ago and prior. The perpetrators are emboldened and even empowered (in the own minds) by the revelation of the method in kind of a freeze/thaw mode (such as the systematic revelations surrounding the Kennedy assassination and others....9-11 being most sweeping and recent). Because of the general public's disdain for attending to the possibility that there might be hostile powers arrayed against them and that they jockey for position in the highest places (maybe in their own governments), they find the real truth before them to be incredulous when it is laid out. The response is either: 1) to ignore it (relegating it to "conspiracy," the connotation of which serves useful purposes for the conspirators) and go to Wal Mart; or, 2) actually sustain inquiry long enough to arrive at the truth regardless of how unpalatable.

The only conspiracy theories I believe are the ones that are all too mundane, like billion-dollar tobacco firms finding out their product is a little deadly to humans and employing every dirty trick in the book to keep the secret hushed up. But hey, that didn't pan out.

You've identified a legitimate and well-known conspiracy few would refute. Beyond the believable ones, though, is the necessity to first identify what it is about our worldview that allows for a particular belief system or another, especially if there is the slightest possibility that an implausible scenario is indeed the case.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Scientists that's utterly ****ing terrifying.

Yes....nasty stuff. But, what is it that is particularly more terrifying about this than a live-action, mass, blood-ritual involving two iconic towers?

[Lockheed Martin]

Okay, my first problem with most conspiracy theories is they don't have any evidence to support them. Humans are by nature rational, and you're not going to convince a normal person that the Queen's a giant lizard if you can't produce a monarch-shaped shed skin or even a picture of her lying out on a warm, sunny rock. The same goes for 9/11 and the Kennedy assassinations, without any actual substantive proof to support your claims you may as well say it was all a plot by the RIAA to increase sales of Patriotic folk-rock for all the water it'll carry.

My second problem is the fact conspiracy theorists cherry-pick and distort or misunderstand facts to support their claims. They also fixate on what's missing from official explanations and ignore everything that contradicts them. Let's use the supposed lack of wreckage from the grass outside of the Pentagon as an example, based on one photograph they jump to the conclusion that it was a missile that hit it instead of a commercial jet. They then ignore eye-witness testimony from rescue workers, decent people with absolutely no motive for misleading anyone, that claim there was indeed a great deal of wreckage and strewn body parts.

Third, there's the matter of Occam's razor. On the simple balance of probabilities which is more likely? The US government, a democratic, liberal and highly sophisticated state apparatus with one of the highest standards of internal scrutiny and openness in the world somehow managed to plot and put into action a conspiracy that not only requires the involvement of hundreds of people but also puts everyone involved at massive risk of exposure, or that a group of really determined psychopaths in the name of an ever more psychopathic faith committed an act of terrorism? Think about it. American business leaders and politicians are already the richest and most powerful people in the world, why would they gamble on those stakes for no real benefit? Not to mention the fact they're they're human beings, not monsters. Conversely, people who follow that particular brand of twisted Islam are world-famous for blowing **** up, **** connected to Israel in particular. They have the motive, the means and the precedence.

Fourthly, conspiracy theorists tend to suffer from a degree of out-group polarisation. Most that I've met despise the average person and only consort with those who agree with them. This can distort their perception of reality a little and they tend to believe they posses a genius or unique insight that your average Wal*Mart shopper is not privy to. I don't believe this is the case, excluding those who're medically intellectually sub-normal most people are highly perceptive, critical and, linking back to my first point, rational. If they don't "see" the Illuminati hiding behind every little thing that goes wrong, it's not because they're cowed cattle stumbling through life in ignorant bliss it's because a convincing case has not been made.

Anyway I'll wrap this up now. It's getting late. I'll conclude by saying I'm a scientific skeptic, I don't dismiss these theories out of hand I'm just not going to live my life like they're true.

[BobbyB]

Bumpity Bump!

Bored again at work.

Did you guys know that Ronald Reagan had the government brain wash Mark David Chapman so that John Lennon's pull with the public wouldn't drive people away from his presidency? LOL!

That's seriously one I have read. These things (Conspiracy theories) are so great because it shows people who are so broken up over something that they can't accept the truth and just start throwing out wild accusations. And sometimes, they hit.

Only a person who was truly shaken up over an event could concoct the ideas necessary to expose a theory. Usually they just hit on one small point in a sea of many and it causes for others of sound mind to unravel the rest.

I don't know...no matter how crazy they may be, I'm always interested in why people believe in conspiracy theories.

[John McClane]

Did you know that the Indians were, in fact, not environmentalists and that the white man wasn't to blame for the massive death toll of the buffalo? Elaborated in THIS (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Lies-About-American-History/dp/1595230513) book. The book is, without a doubt, one of the worst and most obvious attempts at rewriting history.

[king_of_movies_316]

Whats the freakiest conspiracy theory you guys have heard?

[Yoda]

I've heard too many to possibly pick one as the craziest, but I'd say all this stuff about various world leaders being "reptoids" (IE: lizard people, basically) probably takes the cake.

[Iroquois]

I've heard too many to possibly pick one as the craziest, but I'd say all this stuff about various world leaders being "reptoids" (IE: lizard people, basically) probably takes the cake.

http://vivirrodando.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/they_live_obey.jpg

[Lucifer Prometheus]

Well, you know who got my vote this year:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/prophet4profit/Batshtno-fashprintsizejpeg.jpg

[Redux]

I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't even shoot at Kennedy.

[Sedai]

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what happened that day. ;)

[Blix the Goblin]

I've heard too many to possibly pick one as the craziest, but I'd say all this stuff about various world leaders being "reptoids" (IE: lizard people, basically) probably takes the cake.Ah yes, David Icke. I once leafed through his book "The Biggest Secret" at a bookstore, and... yeah. Of course, many think his works are allegorical, but that certainly doesn't stop plenty of people from taking it seriously.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Ah yes, David Icke. I once leafed through his book "The Biggest Secret" at a bookstore, and... yeah. Of course, many think his works are allegorical, but that certainly doesn't stop plenty of people from taking it seriously.

I did more than leaf through his books. I came across Children of the Matrix at a bookstore for $3 and was intrigued because I was into The Matrix movies at the time. I admit I actually took what he was saying seriously (Oh no! The reptilians are reading!) I didn't read the book thoroughly, but I did come across another one of his books years later and I used to read articles on his website. But I was always a kooky kook who naively believed in liars and sociopaths like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, you name it. It's a distressing way of living and sad to reflect upon and it can be hard to convince others to think differently if they're enmeshed in it because they're cult leaders will just tell them something like, "That person who's telling you not to believe in me is brainwashed! He's a reptile, too! He's a dark soul."

Now I look at that stuff and I find it nauseating and very un-empowering, for the most part. All those people who think LOVE and niceness is the answer to everything. Heh.

[will.15]

Kennedy wasn't in Dallas.That was an impersonator. It was all a hoax gone horribly wrong. Kennedy was tired of being president and his marriage and hired a double to take his place so he could party with Kim Novak. When J. Edgar Hoover found out he had the impersonator killed so the real Kennedy could not fill out his term.

[Gabrielle947]

I not a fan of conspiracy.I don't believe that US government planned 9/11,I believe that Americans landed on The Moon and I believe that Kurt Cobain killed himself.I've also heard something about Walt Disney being a satanist. :D
Anyway,I have no problem with people who are interested in them but I am annoyed when they really start believing these idea and pretending like they know more than ordinary people.

[Sexy Celebrity]

and I believe that Kurt Cobain killed himself.

Are you nuts? This is a psycho killer!

http://www.rocksbackpages.com/public/img/artists/10363.jpg

[Blix the Goblin]

Kennedy wasn't in Dallas.That was an impersonator. It was all a hoax gone horribly wrong. Kennedy was tired of being president and his marriage and hired a double to take his place so he could party with Kim Novak. When J. Edgar Hoover found out he had the impersonator killed so the real Kennedy could not fill out his term.There were also rumors he was plowing Janet Leigh as well as Audrey Hepburn. All three of them would be worth it.

[Gabrielle947]

Are you nuts? This is a psycho killer!
No!! Leave Courtney alone! :D

[Redux]

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what happened that day. ;)

You're absolutely right. Too much smoke.

[Sexy Celebrity]

You're absolutely right. Too much smoke.

For both of you!

[gandalf26]

Here's an interesting theory for you guys.

The Phantom Time Hypothesis.

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

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-phantom-time-hypothesis/

The Phantom Time Hypothesis suggests that the early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D.) never happened, but were added to the calendar long ago either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents, or by deliberate falsification by calendar conspirators. This would mean that all artifacts ascribed to those three centuries belong to other periods, and that all events thought to have occurred during that same period occurred at other times, or are outright fabrications. For instance, a man named Heribert Illig (pictured), one of the leading proponents of the theory, believes that Charlemagne was a fictional character. But what evidence is this outlandish theory based upon?

[will.15]

God conspired to create false evidence of evolution in the fossil record to weed out the non believers.

[The Rodent]

Are you nuts? This is a psycho killer!

http://www.rocksbackpages.com/public/img/artists/10363.jpg

No!! Leave Courtney alone! :D


I thought she died years ago... turns out she didn't. Weird.

Sister thread for They Died? needed I think... They're Not Dead?

[Dani8]

This is an oldie. I was hoping for a thread on conspiracy theories. I think this flat earther has a very good point...I just dont know what it is.

https://www.facebook.com/VICE/videos/1807683152879059/

[ynwtf]

The Mandela Effect.

[Yoda]

The Mandela Effect.

We talked about this a lot on the podcast going up in a couple days. Not sure how much will make the final cut. But probably some.

[Dani8]

If the earth was flat wouldnt the international date line be non existent? We'd all be in the same time zone. How much easier would life be. No more international calls at stupid o'clock.

[Dani8]

If the world was flat you wouldn't be able to buy a round the world ticket. It would be renamed there and back again. Twice as expensive because double the flying time. And if it was flat I wouldn't be able to dig to China.

[matt72582]

There's no way in hell JFK was killed by some magic bullet...

[Citizen Rules]

There's no way in hell JFK was killed by some magic bullet... I use to think that too, until I seen a documentary that explained that the Presidential car that JFK was in, had been modified to raise a seat up and over to one side.

Once the correction for the altered seat alignment was figured in, the magic bullet was no longer magic, but had a straight trajectory as one would except it to.

[Yoda]

There's some good stuff about the JFK shooting in Bill James' Popular Crime, but the relevant bit, assuming I'm not confusing that book with something else I read, is that it's not magical for bullets to tumble in bizarre ways when they're hurled into things (particularly people) at high speeds. They do insane things even when studied in controlled environments.

[Citizen Rules]

I found a number or articles that detail how the 1961 Ford Lincoln Continental that JFK was in was heavily modified from the original stock. JFK was in a special jump seat that was not directly behind Governor Connally but over to the side and higher. This has been overlooked by a lot of people, but when taken into account the magic bullet idea falls apart.

Excerpt from here:
http://dyingwords.net/the-magic-bullet-in-the-jfk-assassination/

Victim Alignment

http://dyingwords.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A71.jpg (http://dyingwords.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A71.jpg)Much has been made of the “Magic Bullet” having to zig-zag in flight to align with the wounds evident in Kennedy and Connally. The Oliver Stone movie “JFK” was a terrible offender in perpetuating misinformation about how the trajectories were impossible based on the limousine layout.
http://dyingwords.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A61.jpg (http://dyingwords.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A61.jpg)Stone and other conspiracy theorists failed to study the seating arrangements where Connally was not directly in front of JFK, rather he was in a jump seat below and inward of the President. Taking the true picture, the trajectory in the limo accounts perfectly for the properly recorded wounds.

[matt72582]

What about the bullet that was found unscathed on the stretcher? There are many inconsistencies in the Warren Report, and by the 70s, the government (House on Assassinations Cmte.) dug up and said they believed in was a conspiracy, but they didn't know who..

The FBI did have to admit (1980 I think) that Oswald worked for them... Speaking of books, I read some of David Talbot's "The Devil's Chessboard" and if I had to make an educated guess, I would say Alan Dulles (ex-CIA director who was fired after Bay of Pigs) probably organized it with ex-CIA and State Department guys.. I'm betting they'd use anti-Castro rebels just in case some were caught (there was a recent story about this.... JFK told Hoover to stop, he over-rode his command)... It's also Texas state law that a body can't be moved without an autopsy.... I could go on and on, but I also find it interesting that Oswald's only friend in Dallas was George du Morenschildt (CIA)... What's equally as important is the question of WHY?

JFK didn't go along with the original plans for Nixon, and even then, thought it was still a mess. He took the missiles out of Turkey, and promised sovereignty to Cuba to get the missiles out.. There's video a few months before he died specifically saying "I spoke with General Maxwell Taylor, and the plan is pull a 1,000 advisers and have them all out by 65'"... Within a year, there were 500,000 troops.... The unfortunate thing is that there's SO MUCH on this case, so I try to make sure I know which source came from, because this mystery is a money maker, so there are a lot of non-experts who have a good vocabulary and video-making skills, but I'd avoid them... Here are some discussions in somewhat pop culture...

Mark Lane - Rush To Judgement - this is kinda what started things..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w4sQtwWfBo

The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson (with DA Jim Garrison)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZN2FGHKzQI&t=1993s

Former Late Host Steven Allen w/ Jim Garrison and others to debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGQrnB-x7fM

And then MLK (FBiand then RFK after he won the California Primary... Malcolm X, Medgar Evars... Here's an article about the latest developments from Coretta King - https://newsone.com/2843790/did-you-know-us-govt-found-guilty-in-conspiracy-to-assassinate-dr-martin-luther-king-jr/

The unfortunate thing is that there are many trying to find the truth, but even more (Alex Jones and others) who make a business out of this, and the more sensationalist the story, the more money they make... Sometimes powerful people get killed, and people want an explanation of something more than just a "regular" murder (John Lennon), but it also seems that at any point someone wants to discredit anyone, just mention the word "conspiracy theorist" and usually people will remain silent to avoid association.

And along the lines of what Yoda was saying earlier -- just imagine what we do NOT know... And from what the government admits to, it's pretty bad.

[Swan]

IMO the bullet was a magical one created by Gandalf.

[thePrimeOne]

I think there's probably something to the Bilderberg Society story.

But the Bilderberg Society isn't considered as a conspiracy anymore though, right?

[thePrimeOne]

I beleive kennedy was assasinated by or with the backing of the u.s government. I just cant buy into the fact that a lone nut like oswald was solely responsible.

The bay of pigs, cuba, vietnam and his vow to crackdown on organised crime made many enemies for kennedy.

I dont believe all the conspiracy theories but anyone who thinks that governments and high ranking officials around the world are angels and are incapable of the most atrocious crimes even against their own people are just plain naive.

I think the Bilderberg assassinated him.

[Sir Toose]

In general, no one ever claimed the magic bullet (the second one according to the Warren Report) was the kill shot. What's interesting is Connally's insistence that he wasn't hit by the second shot. He never backed off of that.

So, bullet one (allegedly) misses by a country mile and hits the curb in front of James Tague who's standing by the underpass. Chip of concrete from the impact hits him in the face accounting for one shot. The third is the gruesome one (aka) the kill shot so that leaves #2, the magic bullet, to do all the rest of the damage.

Another interesting rathole is the bullet hole in the limo window. If the magic bullet fell off a gurney at the hospital (in pristine condition), and the first and third shots are accounted for then what caused the hole in the limo window? Not even mentioning the street sign that was removed and replaced.

Best conspiracy theories are the ones the public will mostly buy (like the Warren Report and the 911 commission report...etc).

[gandalf26]

JFK assassination has crossed over into accepted fact, rather than conspiracy theory. If people can't accept that he was killed in a massive conspiracy then there's no hope for them,. The only questions are who gave the order? Who was on the ground carrying it out? And most importantly why?

[gandalf26]

IMO the bullet was a magical one created by Gandalf.

Nope not me.

[Yoda]

JFK assassination has crossed over into accepted fact, rather than conspiracy theory. If people can't accept that he was killed in a massive conspiracy then there's no hope for them
If it had actually crossed over into "accepted fact," wouldn't you just post the proof, rather than assert it was an accepted fact?

I have little doubt this is treated as accepted fact by some, but I think that's more a reflection of associating with the like-minded and a general disinterest in seeking out contradictions, both of which are necessary for conspiracy theories to thrive.

[gandalf26]

Do you think there was a grassy knoll gunman/team Yoda? Given the smoke, the sound, hundreds of witnesses running I'm that direction looking for someone, JFK s head lashing backward, the FBI putting pressure on those witnesses to recant or refusing to include many of them in the Warren C report.

[Yoda]

Serious question: have you Googled counterarguments or explanations for any of those things? Because, as I said, conspiracy theories thrive when people have a disinterest in disproving them.

[gandalf26]

Honestly no, I would be happy to look at those with an open.mind though.

For JFK you coukd literally spend an hour listing all the unusual events of the day/following days that lead you to only one possible conclusion that it was a conspiracy followed by a cover up.

Of all the "major" conspiracies out there JFK is the clear winner in terms of public belief/likeliest to be true.

[Yoda]

Honestly no, I would be happy to look at those with an open.mind though.
Wouldn't an open mind would've gone looking for them already? Anyone who cares about facts goes looking for them before forming conclusions. If they don't, that suggests the belief is more about emotion or gut feeling. Which is probably why so many people who believe in one conspiracy actually believe in five others: because it's less a series of conclusions than it is a personality trait.

I'm only pointing this out to save myself some time; if you didn't come to believe in a conspiracy because of information, why would different information change your mind?

For JFK you coukd literally spend an hour listing all the unusual events of the day/following days that lead you to only one possible conclusion that it was a conspiracy followed by a cover up.
Of course it was unusual: someone shot the President! And literally anything looks unusual if you devote tens of thousands of hours to studying it. Any day, any event, and especially anything dramatic like a shooting, particularly the shooting of someone with influence.

There isn't any day where you could shoot the President that would not, in retrospect, look ominous, because they're wielding power and managing conflict with different countries, individuals, and agencies every single day.

[matt72582]

And then Oswald being shot and killed being guarded by 22 Dallas police officers, 23 if you count Ruby :)

[Yoda]

If somebody doesn't care what happens to them, it's really hard to stop them from shooting someone else. Presidents get shot with more (and better trained) people guarding them than a couple dozen police officers.

[gandalf26]

And no record kept of the lengthy interview of Oswald. Possibly the most important interrogation of all time.

[gandalf26]

If somebody doesn't care what happens to them, it's really hard to stop them from shooting someone else. Presidents get shot with more (and better trained) people guarding them than a couple dozen police officers.

Even the fact that Oswald was taken through that very public area full of press and who knows what is very suspect.

[Yoda]

And no record kept of the lengthy interview of Oswald. Possibly the most important interrogation of all time.
But it's so easy to think of reasons for this stuff that don't suggest a conspiracy. For example, the officers knew this was an important interrogation, and that it was going to be scrutinized to death. They have no idea what this guy will say. Maybe they don't trust themselves not to rough him up, or at least go a little beyond normal interrogation techniques, given the stakes.

Even the fact that Oswald was taken through that very public area full of press and who knows what is very suspect.
Are you familiar with the building layout? Was there another way to get him through? What are the legal implications of not allowing press in a courthouse? This is just off the top of my head.

It's easy to raise vague questions to make things sound suspicious if you don't actually care what the answers are.

[matt72582]

How convenient to put information in the archives for 75 years (average life expectancy)

[Yoda]

Why is that convenient? Seems perfectly logical: it should be public, but only when the principals are gone.

What's going to be convenient are all the new workarounds for conspiracies people will come up with when it's released. ;)

[matt72582]

Why is that convenient? Seems perfectly logical: it should be public, but only when the principals are gone.

What's going to be convenient are all the new workarounds for conspiracies people will come up with when it's released. ;)

I'll let the Establishment answer my question... "If you didn't do anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

[Yoda]

There's a pretty huge chasm between "have nothing to hide" and "is hiding a massive conspiracy."

That's kind of what I'm talking about when I say there are non-conspiratorial reasons. People cover their asses or do odd, suspicious things all the time. The explanation doesn't have to be innocent to avoid being conspiratorial.

[matt72582]

There's a pretty huge chasm between "have nothing to hide" and "is hiding a massive conspiracy."

That's kind of what I'm talking about when I say there are non-conspiratorial reasons. People cover their asses or do odd, suspicious things all the time. The explanation doesn't have to be innocent to avoid being conspiratorial.

It's the same typical statement they use against the public.... Before (like now), any question is answered with "national security"...

I also find it odd that the public won't believe something until it's confirmed by mainstream media, when they have a business agenda mixed in with politics...

Ok, I'll go in that direction.. The House on Assassinations Committee (did you ever see the Church hearings, they are on C-Span, CIA director describing the heart-attack gun that leaves no trace).... And this is straight from the archives.

"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy."

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy."

(they add "Cuban Government" and "national syndicate of organized crime, as a group")

The committee concluded there were more than 3 shots fired (they believed four, because audio couldn't confirm the fifth, which they say could have been a ricochet).... They say the 3rd bullet came from the grassy knoll..

I'd also consider those on the grassy knoll and citizens in general with their information; people who have nothing to hide, people who were there to see the President, who had no idea what was going to happen.

[seanc]

Since I am completely ignorant on this subject pass what I learned on a very forgettable Stone film and Seinfeld, I have to ask a question. Who does the conspiracy think killed Kennedy? I really didn't realize so many have accepted the alternative as the truth.

[Swan]

Since I am completely ignorant on this subject pass what I learned on a very forgettable Stone film and Seinfeld, I have to ask a question. Who does the conspiracy think killed Kennedy? I really didn't realize so many have accepted the alternative as the truth.

Even my dad believes that stuff. Dammit, pops!

[Citizen Rules]

@matt72582 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=85325);

Matt, that was a good post and I wish I was versed enough in the subject to discuss all of that with you, but I'm not. It's been many years since I was interested in the JFK assassination and watched a bunch of documentations on it. So just a few thoughts:

What about the bullet that was found unscathed on the stretcher?I believe that was covered in the doc that I watched, but I can't remember what they said. I would surmise that an unscathed bullet neither proves or disapproves additional shooters. I mean if it was a bullet fired from a gun then it doesn't matter what gun, it should have some marks on it. I would guess whoever examined the bullet was wrong in their conclusion that it was unfired.

I was going to ask you who you believed was behind a conspiracy to kill JFK, as I have a hypothesis that people have their own spin on it based on their own political beliefs.

Like you, I'm mostly liberal-independent (depends on the issue) and for most of my adult life I believed right wing elements in the CIA and FBI had JFK killed. Many liberals who believe there was an assassination think like wise.

Now I've read conservatives who also believe it was a conspiracy and they often believe it was the Soviets or Cubans behind it.

And non political people will often say it was the Mafia who did it....

It's telling that each of those three groups lean towards a belief that supports their own viewpoints. Which I found telling.

I'd say: the phenomenon of the JFK assassination conspiracy is caused by the human need for people to write their own narrative.
People have a tendency not to except such a great and unexpected loss.

Think of how many people believed Bruce Lee, Jim Morrison and Elvis all faked their own deaths and are still alive. Especially Elvis, people still today believe the death was faked and involves conspiracy and cover up. I'd say that's an emotional reflex to deal with something that is so shocking. Much like looking at the stars and connecting random dots and making a pattern.

A comparison:

The Roswell UFO incident of 1947. An Army official who believed he had recovered an alien flying saucer, said so...and much like the officials who wrote the Warren Report, he misinterpreted some of the evidence including the strange ultra light weight alien metal that could be folded up in one's hand then would returned to a perfect straight state.

The Army official was convinced that it was indeed alien in origin as he hadn't seen anything like it. No one had. It was similar to chrome mylar which we now use in children's balloons but at the time was part of a top secret nuclear test surveillance balloon which the Army official didn't know about, so he drew the wrong conclusions drawing from his own imagination.


But as his name held great weight, conspiracy and UFO believers latched onto the idea that an alien craft had crashed at Roswell. And despite the government declassify in the 1990s what the actual cause was, Project Mogul...people today still believe that a alien craft crashed at Roswell. Then even go as far as to think that alien bodies were recovered.

Roswell UFO incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_incident)

[Yoda]

It's the same typical statement they use against the public.... Before (like now), any question is answered with "national security"...
Well, yeah, but now you've shifted from arguing a conspiracy to arguing that you think the government is hypocritical, which wasn't the question.

Ok, I'll go in that direction.. The House on Assassinations Committee (did you ever see the Church hearings, they are on C-Span, CIA director describing the heart-attack gun that leaves no trace).... And this is straight from the archives.

"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy."
Counterargument (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/11/john_f_kennedy_conspiracy_theories_debunked_why_the_magic_bullet_and_grassy.html):

According to the House report, an acoustical analysis of the tape revealed that four gunshots were fired—and that, given the echo patterns and the officer’s location, one of those shots came from the grassy knoll.

The report stirred such commotion that the National Academy of Sciences conducted its own analysis of the tape—and concluded that the House report was hooey. First, it turned out that some of those four gunshot-like sounds were not gunshots. Second, the motorcycle cop in question was not where the House report claimed, so even if the sounds had been gunshots, a revised echo analysis put them someplace other than the grassy knoll. Third, some of the sounds on the tape occurred a minute after the assassination.
This is why I asked earlier about whether people had bothered to Google any counterarguments. They're usually sitting right there for anyone who puts in even a tiny effort.

Also, what a crappy conspiracy, if there's an entire committee out there contradicting the company line! This is where conspiracy theorists end up arguing against themselves: one second they have to argue that the cover-up is elaborate and carefully orchestrated. The next they have to argue that there's so much evidence and that it's so obvious to anyone looking. Which is it?

I'd also consider those on the grassy knoll and citizens in general with their information; people who have nothing to hide, people who were there to see the President, who had no idea what was going to happen.
Yes, and when we look at what they say, we get a mishmash of contradictory answers, which is exactly what you'd expect from a gun shot, with buildings around, and a lot of ensuing chaos. The reasonable response to this is not to just pick whichever witness testimony you like, ignoring the rest, but to simply recognize that it's really hard for people to determine the source of something like that, since dozens of people who were right there apparently can't agree on it.

[matt72582]

The investigation never stops.... And without counter-questions, it's pointless. People should be flexible to change their minds with new information. Maybe people have something to say that others didn't consider.

For example, "The government has promised to release as many documents as possible in October, 2017, the 25th anniversary of the JFK Records Act, in which Congress mandated that all efforts be made to release everything in Washington’s possession unless an overriding case can be made for withholding in the national interest."

Part of me thinks the best thing one can do is read EVERYTHING, but there's too much, and a lot IS baloney, and that can distort and turn off people searching for the truth. I guess I trust the public with the truth, and what happens, happens. The truth might hurt, but the lies will kill the soul of a country.

Again, I think after you get the facts, it becomes faith. We know people in the government lie on purpose, and we know people make mistakes.

[Gangland]

http://www.legacyofsecrecy.com/images/newest-marcello-confession.jpg

I think people put too much stock into the number of shooters. Oswald could have been the sole shooter and it still could have been the result of a conspiracy. Above is an FBI document, which is the founding document for Lamar Waldron's Legacy of Secrecy, which claims that New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello was involved with JFK's assassination.

But playing Devil's Advocate, even this document really doesn't prove anything. As I state in my blog post Bunk Buddies, Marcello Cellmate Talks (https://louisianamafia.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/bunk-buddies-marcellos-cellmate-talks/), the FBI started to question Marcello's mental state at the time.

I've read through 200+ pages of declassified FBI files that basically ends with the FBI not taking anything that Marcello said during this period too seriously (the portion of the FBI report I'm referring to is Marcello "owning" Governor Edwin Edwards), and everything he says is greatly exaggerated. There were areas where agents thought that some of his comments were part of an act, but by large the FBI found that Marcello was suffering from the affects of severe dementia and short term memory loss. Waldron's book fails to mention this, and should be taken into consideration when analyzing this evidence.

[matt72582]

Here's something I think most will enjoy...

General Smedley Butler (gotta trust a General, right? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI3lckqaSk0&t=587s

[seanc]

@matt72582 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=85325)Like you, I'm mostly liberal-independent (depends on the issue) and for most of my adult life I believed right wing elements in the CIA and FBI had JFK killed. Many liberals who believe there was an assassination think like wise.

Now I've read conservatives who also believe it was a conspiracy and they often believe it was the Soviets or Cubans behind it.


Yeah, I was wondering if it was something like these. I am not saying there is no chance but these vast conspiracies are a hard pill for me to swallow. Two people can hardly keep their mouth shut about work gossip. Conspiracies like this that would have to have many people who all have different agendas involved. Fat chance everyone keeps quiet. Three jokers couldn't break into a hotel and plant a mic without everyone in government finding out about it.

[Yoda]

Yeah, the conspiracies that do get exposed make it pretty hard to swallow the idea that there are conspiracies several orders of magnitude larger kept under wraps for literally decades. Even before you get to the facts, human nature itself is pretty hard to reconcile with most of it.

[Sedai]

RE: Marching the guy out through a crowd.

I was in the jury pool for a pretty high profile federal case in Boston (James "Whitey" Bulger). I didn't make the jury or anything exciting, but they had to bring the guy in and out of the federal courthouse on certain days of jury selection, as they would bring him in and sit him down in front of the potential jurors along with his team of attorneys. They brought him right through the front entrance for all to see, and there was plenty of press waiting outside at the times I entered and left the building. There were also police with dogs and semi-automatic assault weapons.

I am unsure if there is a back entrance to the courthouse, but if there is, they weren't using it that day. Whitey is certainly not a presidential assassin, but I am pretty sure there plenty of people/criminals/mobsters who wants to eighty six the guy. *shrugs*

[Gangland]

Here's something I think most will enjoy...

General Smedley Butler (gotta trust a General, right? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI3lckqaSk0&t=587s

War is a Racket (https://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/1503081575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499707203&sr=8-1&keywords=War+is+a+racket) is a great book.

[Citizen Rules]

JFK s head lashing backwardPeople mention that as 'proof' that JFK was shot from the front by of the car by someone on the Grassy Knoll. They fail to realize Kennedy was wearing a full metal back brace that held him stiffly upright. He couldn't double over at the waist like someone without the back brace could. When you take that into account it's normal for a shot from behind to cause his head/body to momentarily move forward, then, sprung back upright by the metal back brace. So his head lashing backwards makes sense for a lone gun shooter from behind.

[matt72582]

War is a Racket (https://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/1503081575/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499707203&sr=8-1&keywords=War+is+a+racket) is a great book.

Great book indeed.. And it's free to read down below.

https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARacket/WarIsARacket_djvu.txt

[Sir Toose]

For me, it (JFK Murder) boils down to the bullets and the gun.

The official evaluation necessitates this idea of the the super bullet which, according to the report, was found in pristine condition on a hospital gurney. The anti conspiracy theory crowd hinge their entire argument on the possibility that this could (and did) happen. IMO, this is an unreasonable position to take. Sure, a bullet could smash through two people, cause mass injuries and somehow dislodge itself intact from a body but the probability of that happening? For the people always touting the 'simple explanation' this convoluted chunk of improbability lies in the center of their argument.

Also consider the witnesses who testified about the shots (all witness testimony available HERE (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Main_Page.html). Most say they heard Pop, pause Pop,Pop with the last two happening in quick succession. A manual recycling rifle is not capable of that.

But back to the bullets:

Shot 1: Hits curb in front of James Tague, cuts his face.
Shot 2: "Magic Bullet"
Shot 3: "Kill Shot"

So which bullet was it again that made the hole (inward) in the windshield (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143)? Two Dallas cops, one Secret Service agent, one reporter and one ER Doctor testified that they personally saw and examined the bullet hole and the dented exterior chrome trim.

"Commission finding—The windshield was not penetrated by any bullet."

Dallas Police Officer H. R. Freeman will note: “I was right beside it. I could have touched it. It was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.”

Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis remarks, “You could put a pencil through it.” A Secret Service agent tries to persuade Ellis that what he is seeing is a “fragment” and not a hole. Mr. Ellis is adamant: “It wasn’t a damn fragment. It was a hole.”

You can see the thing in Z225 (http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Frame-225-640x482.jpg) before the kill shot.

Anyway, there's also HIGH weirdness RE: Officer Tippet & how exactly a police task force arrived at the Texas Theater in response to some guy who walked an entry ticket shortly after the President had been shot. I'd think the cops would have been too busy to respond. The 'evidence' for Tippet/Texas Theater only becomes more ambiguous with further reading so I rest my opinion on the bullets.

[Citizen Rules]

...Most say they heard Pop, pause Pop,Pop with the last two happening in quick succession. A manual recycling rifle is not capable of that.. Have you ever fired a manual bolt rifle, I have, it is quite possible to fire 3 shots in rapid persuasion as Oswald did.

Here's a short video in which the same gun a 6.5mm Mannlicher rifle fires 6 shots in 5.1 seconds. I've also seen this test repeated many times, it was completely possible for a rifle marksman like Oswald to make the shots and in the time frame he had.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4c5Zr7hzzA

[gandalf26]

Yea Oswald the marksman who was mediocre at best during his Marine shooting certification whilst "TAKING HIS TIME, SHOOTING AT STATIONARY TARGETS".

You can link all sorts of quotes from people he served with, shooting experts etc, who say he was ****. One even says;

If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There's no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas. (REASONABLE DOUBT, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, p. 99)

I suppose that can be waved away as "opinion" though by the doubters. I've googled it (without to much effort) and it's hard to find the counter arguments that Oswald sucked at shooting.

Some of the people in this thread will no doubt say, "he probably practised intensely before the assassination attempt" or "there's an element of variance", maybe he only could've done that shoot 1 in 10 attempts, but the actual assassination was the 10% shot, never mind the fact that he had to have been nervous, shaky about the magnitude of what he was doing. Fact is he never showed any aptitude for shooting, then some years later carries out an incredibly difficult shoot in 1 attempt.

I doubt any shots were fired from the Book depositary that day, Oswald was likely lined up as the Patsy months before the event.

[Sir Toose]

Have you ever fired a manual bolt rifle, I have,

Yeah sure ... but I couldn't make it fire twice without recycling it once.

[Yoda]

I doubt any shots were fired from the Book depositary that day
While some of the questions about the number or trajectory of bullets (or how they ricocheted) are quite reasonable, this statement is pretty much impossible to defend. Apart from the dozens of people who heard a shot coming from the depository (far more than thought they heard one come from the grassy knoll, and including people inside the depository themselves, on the floor just below), we have multiple witnesses who say they saw a man fire a weapon from the sixth floor.
Here's a list (https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#near).

Oswald was likely lined up as the Patsy months before the event.
So they had months to line up a patsy...and they chose someone that anyone could see from public records was just a so-so shooter? And they shot him from an angle that would make his head move the wrong way? And they got the timing between shots wrong? :skeptical:

It's just like I said earlier: most conspiracy theorists end up making mutually exclusive arguments. On one hand, they have to claim that the people behind it are incredibly precise, careful, and powerful, so they can dismiss any official findings or expert testimony that contradicts them as fake. But on the other hand, they'll tell you the evidence of a conspiracy is clear and undeniable, which means the borderline omnipotent "them" has to also be randomly and convenient incompetent enough to leave all these massive clues lying around, too. That just straight up doesn't make sense.

[Citizen Rules]

There's a number of real world test where it's been demonstrated that a shooter could have hit JFK from the position Oswald was at. I've seen several test in different docs. Besides, for those who believe that there was another shooter on the grassy knoll, why is it then also important to believe Oswald couldn't do it? If there was a conspiracy, the more skilled shooters the better chance of succeeding.

Here's just one I found quickly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GtnZhjQNKg

I'm pretty sure I've seen photo of him with a marksman award from the Marines.

This is interesting little known trivia about him
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-lee-harvey-oswald/

[Yoda]

I'm pretty sure I've seen photo of him with a marksman award from the Marines.
Oswald took the shooting test twice. The first time, he earned "Sharpshooter," which is actually above Marksman. The second time, Marksman. Obviously when people want to come to a certain conclusion, they tend to repeat this in subtly different ways until, fifth-hand, we've gone from "he wasn't anything special with the rifle" to the idea that he was a horrible shot.

I also find the whole "MOVING TARGET" thing to be weirdly overblown. It was moving at a slow, steady speed, through a predetermined path.

[gandalf26]

Oswald took the shooting test twice. The first time, he earned "Sharpshooter," which is actually above Marksman. The second time, Marksman. Obviously when people want to come to a certain conclusion, they tend to repeat this in subtly different ways until, fifth-hand, we've gone from "he wasn't anything special with the rifle" to the idea that he was a horrible shot.

I also find the whole "MOVING TARGET" thing to be weirdly overblown. It was moving at a slow, steady speed, through a predetermined path.

.

------Oswald's Marine Rifle Scores------
Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.
The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify.

[Yoda]

Yeah, literally all of that is totally consistent with what I said.

[gandalf26]

In addition to Sherman Cooley, Henry Hurt interviewed over fifty other former Marine colleagues of Oswald's. Hurt reported the results of those interviews:
On the subject of Oswald's shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to Delgado's opinion that it was laughable. . . .
Many of the Marines mentioned that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that, they felt, was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot. They believed it was the same deficiency in coordination responsible for his reported inability to drive a car. (REASONABLE DOUBT, pp. 99-100)
The 12/2/63 edition of the NEW YORK TIMES contained an interview with a Mr. Felde, who had served with Oswald in the Marines. Among other things, the article reported the following:
Mr. Felde . . . said he did not recall that Oswald had been an exceptionally good shot on the rifle range. (Mark North, ACT OF TREASON, New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 1993, p. 455)
Oswald was in the Soviet Union from October 1959 till June 1962. For most of his time in Russia, he lived in the city of Minsk. While there, he belonged to a gun club. The members of his gun club reportedly viewed him as a poor shot:
Members of the club reported that Oswald had been considered a poor shot. (G. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, FATAL HOUR, New York: Berkley Books, 1992, p. 139).
Recent press releases out of the former Soviet Union have likewise reported that Russians who saw Oswald shoot considered him to be a bad shot.]

So even during his bizarre stint in Russia he continues to be a bad shot, and the bolded quote suggest that Oswald was the goof of the class, you know the guy at school who no matter how hard they tried they were just basically bad at everything.

[matt72582]

I'm sure for every guy who can shoot the targets, 100 couldn't, and thus not on video... Going by what witnesses said, it sounds like triangular fire.

[Yoda]

Whether or not you're a "bad shot" is relevant to the context. A "bad shot" in the Marines is probably a great shot compared to 99% of the population. The only relevance is whether or not he could plausibly make that shot.

Also, even assuming he was a bad shot (as opposed to just an okay one, for which there is arguably more evidence), I already responded to the idea:

So they had months to line up a patsy...and they chose someone that anyone could see from public records was just a so-so shooter? And they shot him from an angle that would make his head move the wrong way? And they got the timing between shots wrong? :skeptical:

It's just like I said earlier: most conspiracy theorists end up making mutually exclusive arguments. On one hand, they have to claim that the people behind it are incredibly precise, careful, and powerful, so they can dismiss any official findings or expert testimony that contradicts them as fake. But on the other hand, they'll tell you the evidence of a conspiracy is clear and undeniable, which means the borderline omnipotent "them" has to also be randomly and convenient incompetent enough to leave all these massive clues lying around, too. That just straight up doesn't make sense.

[gandalf26]

Yeah, literally all of that is totally consistent with what I said.

Your post is worded to make it sound as if he was a good shooter.

What it should say is, he qualified just above the minimum for a B grade (ABC or fail being the possible scores), then later barely qualified for a C grade.

So being kind he was in the bottom third of his class, being highly critical you could say he was near bottom of the class.

[Yoda]

Your post is worded to make it sound as if he was a good shooter.
Exactly. That's exactly my point. Someone with an agenda could say "barely qualified," but "qualified" is just as accurate. It's also just as accurate to say "he passed the test twice, once with room to spare."

Virtually all conspiracy theories do this: even when an argument is technically true, it's surrounded by little embellishments to create impressions that could've easily been described in less leading ways.

What it should say is, he qualified just above the minimum for a B grade (ABC or fail being the possible scores), then later barely qualified for a C grade. So being kind he was in the bottom third of his class, being highly critical you could say he was near bottom of the class.
Yeah. In the Marines.

[gandalf26]

While some of the questions about the number or trajectory of bullets (or how they ricocheted) are quite reasonable, this statement is pretty much impossible to defend. Apart from the dozens of people who heard a shot coming from the depository (far more than thought they heard one come from the grassy knoll, and including people inside the depository themselves, on the floor just below), we have multiple witnesses who say they saw a man fire a weapon from the sixth floor.
Here's a list (https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#near).


So they had months to line up a patsy...and they chose someone that anyone could see from public records was just a so-so shooter? And they shot him from an angle that would make his head move the wrong way? And they got the timing between shots wrong? :skeptical:

It's just like I said earlier: most conspiracy theorists end up making mutually exclusive arguments. On one hand, they have to claim that the people behind it are incredibly precise, careful, and powerful, so they can dismiss any official findings or expert testimony that contradicts them as fake. But on the other hand, they'll tell you the evidence of a conspiracy is clear and undeniable, which means the borderline omnipotent "them" has to also be randomly and convenient incompetent enough to leave all these massive clues lying around, too. That just straight up doesn't make sense.

It's not like "they" can go digging around interviewing his ex marine buddy's or commanding officers like can happen after the event. It's enough to look at his record and see that he qualified as "Sharpshooter". It's only later that "they" realise the mistake and that in fact Oswald was fairly useless with a rifle.

"They" can make lots of mistakes by being a little overconfident that the plan will work and not too much scrutiny will be placed on the details.

The evidence of a conspiracy in the case of JFK is clear and undeniable.

[gandalf26]

Whether or not you're a "bad shot" is relevant to the context. A "bad shot" in the Marines is probably a great shot compared to 99% of the population. The only relevance is whether or not he could plausibly make that shot.

Also, even assuming he was a bad shot (as opposed to just an okay one, for which there is arguably more evidence), I already responded to the idea:

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.
The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:
I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!
I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)
Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,
Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.]

No one disputes that trained Marines shoot better than as you say 99% of the population. Problem is Oswald was and continued to be later a poor shot within that 1% of professionally trained shooters, or gun club members in Russia.

The above states that the elite of the elite marksmen couldn't replicate the "shoot" in multiple attempts, and Oswald below average in his class of elite Marines could.

[Yoda]

It's not like "they" can go digging around interviewing his ex marine buddy's or commanding officers like can happen after the event. It's enough to look at his record and see that he qualified as "Sharpshooter".
So they planned "for months," but only glanced at his military record? Huh?

It's only later that "they" realise the mistake and that in fact Oswald was fairly useless with a rifle.
Literally nothing you've posted supports the assertion that he was "fairly useless with a rifle." That's pure embellishment.

"They" can make lots of mistakes by being a little overconfident that the plan will work and not too much scrutiny will be placed on the details.
How convenient: they're just powerful enough that you can handwave away expert testimony and committee findings, but somehow still incompetent enough that there's tons of proof lying around!

Amusingly, by your own evidentiary standards, your own answers would be "suspicious."

The evidence of a conspiracy in the case of JFK is clear and undeniable.
No, it isn't. And frankly, the fact that you keep appending stuff like this, which is literally no more substantive than saying "I'm right!," just seems like overcompensating.

[gandalf26]

So they planned "for months," but only glanced at his military record? Huh?


Literally nothing you've posted supports the assertion that he was "fairly useless with a rifle." That's pure embellishment.


How convenient: they're just powerful enough that you can handwave away expert testimony and committee findings, but somehow still incompetent enough that there's tons of proof lying around!

Amusingly, by your own evidentiary standards, your own answers would be "suspicious."


No, it isn't. And frankly, the fact that you keep appending stuff like this, which is literally no more substantive than saying "I'm right!," just seems like overcompensating.

Sure, they are not all knowing beings, they have a short list of candidates for a patsy, "hey look at this guy", "Marine check", "qualified as sharpshooter check", "gun club in Russia check", "picture of him with his rifle, check". Then later "oops" seems his shooting record doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

"Fairly useless" fair enough that's a generalisation, Lets use a Golf tour analogy, lets say Oswald plays on the B tour, clearly better at Golf than 99% of the population, he plays on the tour right? he's a pro right? then he goes on and does something in ONE attempt that Tiger Woods and the elite cant match despite multiple attempts.

They can be confident that any commission will cover up the assassination and that's exactly what happened.

[Citizen Rules]

Whether or not you're a "bad shot" is relevant to the context. A "bad shot" in the Marines is probably a great shot compared to 99% of the population. The only relevance is whether or not he could plausibly make that shot.
Good point.

...What it should say is, he qualified just above the minimum for a B grade (ABC or fail being the possible scores), then later barely qualified for a C grade.

So being kind he was in the bottom third of his class, being highly critical you could say he was near bottom of the class.In comparison one of us, would probably test at the firing range at Z grade!

Just because someone is not the best driver at Formula One racing and is ranked at the bottom of the race drivers, doesn't make that race driver a poor driver, or no more skilled that the average commuter.

I use to go Duck hunting when I was a kid, ducks are really small and I could shoot them a long ways away, flying fast in the sky, and they could be approaching, receding and even on a diagonal path and I could still shoot them. You lead them a bit with the gun. If a goofy kid could do that, I'm sure a Marnie trained shooter could do what Oswald did.

Besides if it's a conspiracy theory why use a 'crummy shot' like some contained Oswald was.

[gandalf26]

Good point.

In comparison one of us, would probably test at the firing range at Z grade!

Just because someone is not the best driver at Formula One racing and is ranked at the bottom of the race drivers, doesn't make that race driver a poor driver, or no more skilled that the average commuter.

I use to go Duck hunting when I was a kid, ducks are really small and I could shoot them a long ways away, flying fast in the sky, and they could be approaching, receding and even on a diagonal path and I could still shoot them. You lead them a bit with the gun. If a goofy kid could do that, I'm sure a Marnie trained shooter could do what Oswald did.

Besides if it's a conspiracy theory why use a 'crummy shot' like some contained Oswald was.

Using the Formula One analogy, the elite of Formula One couldn't match his acheivement despite Oswald being a Formula 3 at best driver.

Because on paper Oswald could look like a very competent shooter, but put that under intense scrutiny afterwards and it doesn't hold up.

[Yoda]

The above states that the elite of the elite marksmen couldn't replicate the "shoot" in multiple attempts
...and there are plenty examples of other people who have. In fact, the first one below is from CBS, same as your source says, so either they did it twice (with different results), or he's wildly misrepresenting the report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcjKYBccoqs

[Yoda]

Sure, they are not all knowing beings, they have a short list of candidates for a patsy, "hey look at this guy", "Marine check", "qualified as sharpshooter check", "gun club in Russia check", "picture of him with his rifle, check". Then later "oops" seems his shooting record doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

"Fairly useless" fair enough that's a generalisation, Lets use a Golf tour analogy, lets say Oswald plays on the B tour, clearly better at Golf than 99% of the population, he plays on the tour right? he's a pro right? then he goes on and does something in ONE attempt that Tiger Woods and the elite cant match despite multiple attempts.
Geez, this isn't even close to true. Where to begin?

1) These guys aren't the Tiger Woods of shooting. The ones in the video I posted are state troopers and weapons engineers, not Olympians or Marines.

2) It has been matched. Just not every single time, obviously. And that's the important part because, as we've seen with all the witnesses, any time you have dozens of inconsistent results to choose from, the conspiracy theorist can pick whichever one confirms their belief and ignore the others (or, more likely, never hear about them because they never go looking, because they already have what they want).

3) "One attempt" is misleading, because he took three shots. And missed with the first one, I might add. So, just to confirm: in all the months they were planning this, they not only failed to find an accomplished rifleman as a patsy, but the guy they hired to shoot from the grassy knoll missed anyway? Is that what you're going with?

They can be confident that any commission will cover up the assassination and that's exactly what happened.
This is what it all comes down to, right here: any evidence that can't be debunked just gets swept under the "cover up" rug.

These discussions are inherently ridiculous because the standard of evidence fluctuates. Any random evidence you throw out has to be definitively debunked, at which point it's discarded and a new claim replaces it. But if someone posts something you can't debunk, well, that was just part of the cover-up.

[gandalf26]

...and there are plenty examples of other people who have. In fact, the first one below is from CBS, same as your source says, so either they did it twice (with different results), or he's wildly misrepresenting the report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovyEqfR8Hg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcjKYBccoqs

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.]

This is what the best of the best had to say replicating a test;

Retired Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock is likewise skeptical of Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Hathcock is a former senior instructor at the U. S. Marine Corps Sniper Instruction School at Quantico, Virginia. He has been described as the most famous American military sniper in history. In Vietnam he was credited with 93 confirmed kills. He now conducts police SWAT team sniper schools across the country. Craig Roberts asked Hathcock about the marksmanship feat attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission. Hathcock answered that he did not believe Oswald could have done what the Commission said he did. Added Hathcock,
Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.]

And to throw a somewhat neutral post out there, it's actually difficult to completely replicate the test;

As mentioned, no rifle test has ever included all of the factors under which Oswald would have fired. What would, therefore, constitute a valid "Oswald" rifle test? What would a test need to include in order to qualify as a genuine simulation of Oswald's alleged shooting feat? Such a test would include the following conditions:
* The riflemen cannot have scored above the level of "Sharpshooter" in the Marines (or in the Army).
* The riflemen must have little target practice during the forty days prior to the test.
* The riflemen must have been known to be somewhat uncoordinated while in the Marines (or in the Army).
* The riflemen cannot have any "practice shots" on the day of the test.
* The riflemen must use the alleged murder weapon itself, or another Carcano with a difficult bolt and an odd trigger pull.
* If a different Carcano is used, it must be established, by expert shooters who fire the rifle just to see how fast it can be operated (with or without minimal accuracy), that the weapon cannot be fired faster than 2.3 seconds per shot.
* The target silhouette must be mounted on a car.
* The car carrying the target must be the same size and shape as Kennedy's limousine.
* There must be a tree that is the same size as the oak tree in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and that is in the same position in relation to the window and the road on which the target car is moving.
* The riflemen must fire from a window that is open by no more than 15 inches.
* The window from which the riflemen shoot must have two pipes to its left on the inside. These pipes must be positioned so that they inhibit the riflemen from firing markedly to their right. To get an idea of the degree to which the pipes would have inhibited a sharply rightward shot, see Jim Marrs, CROSSFIRE, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1989, seventh photo page, and Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, New York: Viking Studio Books, 1993, p. 125; cf. Harrison Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH, New York: Carroll and Graf, 1993, second page of second photo set.)
* The riflemen must fire from an elevation of 60 feet.
* The riflemen must score at least two hits out of three shots in less than 6 seconds ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT.
* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, then they must so misaim their first shot that they COMPLETELY MISS the target car.
* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, not only must they completely miss the target car with their initial shot, but they must also score at least two hits out of their next two shots ON THEIR FIRST ATTEMPT.
* If the riflemen are given 8.4 seconds to fire, they CANNOT deliberately miss the entire target car with their first shot (or with any shot, for that matter), but must miss the whole car without trying to do so.
* The target car must travel the same speeds that the limousine was traveling, and at the appropriate points, from frames 140-313 of the Zapruder film.
No "Oswald" rifle test has ever included all of these conditions. On this basis alone it can be said that no rifleman, no matter how skilled, has ever duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat.
The conditions listed above are entirely factual and will not be disputed by anyone familiar with the assassination. Personally, I would add the following two factors, which, though supported by good evidence, are disputed by lone-gunman theorists:
* The riflemen must have a shield of boxes behind them that allows them no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel and fire. (Photos of the supposed sniper's nest show that a gunman would have had no more than 30-32 inches in which to kneel.)
* The riflemen must fire two of their shots in no more than 1.5 seconds. (Numerous witnesses, from all over the plaza, said that two of the shots came so closely together that they were almost simultaneous. Some witnesses even said they sounded like a single burst from an automatic rifle.)
In closing, I quote from an internal Warren Commission memo that was written by Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler. Liebeler was commenting on the various rifle tests that were done for the Commission, on the marksmen who took part in them, and on the way in which those tests were being cited as "evidence" that Oswald could have done the shooting:
The fact is that most of the experts were much more proficient with a rifle than Oswald could ever be expected to be, and the record indicates that fact. . . . To put it bluntly, that sort of selection from the record could seriously affect the integrity and credibility of the entire report. . . . [These] conclusions will never be accepted by critical persons anyway.]

[gandalf26]

Geez, this isn't even close to true. Where to begin?

1) These guys aren't the Tiger Woods of shooting. The ones in the video I posted are state troopers and weapons engineers, not Olympians or Marines.

2) It has been matched. Just not every single time, obviously. And that's the important part because, as we've seen with all the witnesses, any time you have dozens of inconsistent results to choose from, the conspiracy theorist can pick whichever one confirms their belief and ignore the others (or, more likely, never hear about them because they never go looking, because they already have what they want).

3) "One attempt" is misleading, because he took three shots. And missed with the first one, I might add. So, just to confirm: in all the months they were planning this, they not only failed to find an accomplished rifleman as a patsy, but the guy they hired to shoot from the grassy knoll missed anyway? Is that what you're going with?


This is what it all comes down to, right here: any evidence that can't be debunked just gets swept under the "cover up" rug.

These discussions are inherently ridiculous because the standard of evidence fluctuates. Any random evidence you throw out has to be definitively debunked, at which point it's discarded and a new claim replaces it. But if someone posts something you can't debunk, well, that was just part of the cover-up.

1) In my post below yours the "Tiger Woods" of shooting (Carlos Hathcock) discuses the attempts to replicate the shoot, I was never referring to people in the CBS video.

2) It hasn't been matched. The guys in your vid aren't simulating the test, different weapon.

3) One attempt to replicate Oswalds feat of 2/3 shots.

So, just to confirm: in all the months they were planning this, they not only failed to find an accomplished rifleman as a patsy, but the guy they hired to shoot from the grassy knoll missed anyway? Is that what you're going with

They ****ed up, they thought they had an accomplished shooter, or he was the best option, remember he was one of their guys, like a spy unknowingly sent on a suicide mission, they could tell him where to be that day with him being oblivious to what was going to happen. The grassy knoll shot IS the killshot I think, not sure why you think I'm saying they missed.

This is what it all comes down to, right here: any evidence that can't be debunked just gets swept under the "cover up" rug

What evidence in the JFK case cant be debunked?

[Sir Toose]

By the by, those two latest videos prove my earlier point RE: timing.
Bang cycle Bang cycle Bang - 3 shots similarly timed apart vs the many witnesses (watch Rush to Judgment & the interviews of Roger Craig and other Dallas PD officers on the scene). That rifle can't make a Bang cycle Bang Bang. You need an auto for that or two rifles. That brings up another point RE Roger Craig who was there when they recovered the rifle. He says the rifle had Mauser stamped on the barrel like other Mausers he'd seen. The Carcano was one of two rifles, according to him (well respected Dallas motor cop (and he's not alone in stating this).

Another thing, if the shots came from a coke drinking, breakroom sitting Oswald why didn't he shoot when the motorcade turned onto Houston when it was coming straight at him? Why wait for the difficult shot?

And again RE: Shots/bullets -
A trajectory was done between the 6th floor window and Tague's position by the underpass (first bullet). If that shot came from the book depository it went 22' over the top of the limo in order to hit the curb in front of Tague. Just a bit high - even for a bad marksman.

Last thing for tonight:
Just to inspire further confidence in the Warren Commission Report, take a look at exhibit 237 - a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/09/warren-commission-photo-oswald.jpg

[matt72582]

By the by, those two latest videos prove my earlier point RE: timing.
Bang cycle Bang cycle Bang - 3 shots similarly timed apart vs the many witnesses (watch Rush to Judgment & the interviews of Roger Craig and other Dallas PD officers on the scene). That rifle can't make a Bang cycle Bang Bang. You need an auto for that or two rifles. That brings up another point RE Roger Craig who was there when they recovered the rifle. He says the rifle had Mauser stamped on the barrel like other Mausers he'd seen. The Carcano was one of two rifles, according to him (well respected Dallas motor cop (and he's not alone in stating this).

Another thing, if the shots came from a coke drinking, breakroom sitting Oswald why didn't he shoot when the motorcade turned onto Houston when it was coming straight at him? Why wait for the difficult shot?

And again RE: Shots/bullets -
A trajectory was done between the 6th floor window and Tague's position by the underpass (first bullet). If that shot came from the book depository it went 22' over the top of the limo in order to hit the curb in front of Tague. Just a bit high - even for a bad marksman.

Last thing for tonight:
Just to inspire further confidence in the Warren Commission Report, take a look at exhibit 237 - a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/09/warren-commission-photo-oswald.jpg


I have the Warren Report, so I'll take your word, but that looks less like Oswald and more like Ruby. (but actually doesn't look like either).

The Warren Report is not only inconsistent, but they dedicate a lot of time to things NOTHING related... For example, a janitor who is questioned who work at a night-club (wasn't established if it was Ruby's, I would guess yes)... The guy said it was a rough club. He was pressed on. The janitor said there was some dirty dancing, and that he'd rather not describe it.

"Describe the dance!"

"It's dirty, if you do it right".

(paraphrase).

Or Doc Whithead, a 90-yr old black man who the judge doesn't seem to care for.... Every time he's referred to as "doc" the judge has furrows of worry. So the judge asks "Are you a doctor?" - "No"... "Do you have a medical license?" -- "No"...

"Then why do they call you Doc?"

"It's like when they call you 'Your Honor' -- it don't mean nothing.

[Yoda]

1) In my post below yours the "Tiger Woods" of shooting (Carlos Hathcock) discuses the attempts to replicate the shoot, I was never referring to people in the CBS video.
The source you quoted referred to CBS' investigation. So either they did two, or the details your source mentioned were way off.

2) It hasn't been matched. The guys in your vid aren't simulating the test.
Then, once again, the arguments have contradicted each other. You can argue "they can't really replicate the test" or you can argue "other shooters can't do it," but you can't argue both.

different weapon
The first video explicitly says it's the same kind of gun, unless you mean literally the same weapon (and not just the same model), in which case, see the above bit about contradictory arguments.

3) One attempt to replicate Oswalds feat of 2/3 shots.
...of which several people in the videos I posted (and others I haven't bothered to) were able to achieve.

The guy took three shots and only one was seemingly on line: the first was a miss and it stands to reason the headshot was a bit of a miss, too, since he'd more likely have been aiming for the midsection.

They ****ed up, they thought they had an accomplished shooter, or he was the best option, remember he was one of their guys, like a spy unknowingly sent on a suicide mission, they could tell him where to be that day with him being oblivious to what was going to happen.
He would've known the second he got there. Have you ever seen the grassy knoll? It's not hidden away, it's in plain view (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/knoll.jpg"). There was absolutely no way anyone would have thought someone could just stand there, take a shot, and get away with it. I've heard a lot of people say they bought into this stuff until they went to the Plaza, and realized how small it is, and how close everything is to each other.

And "they ****ed up" isn't really much of a reason. If you can make them out to be masters of manipulation one second and totally incompetent the next, you've effectively given yourself license to believe whatever you want without evidence. And if you can do that, why can't Oswald suddenly be good or bad at things as the argument requires, too? As I said before, there are clearly inconsistent evidentiary standards here.

The grassy knoll shot IS the killshot I think, not sure why you think I'm saying they missed.
Because you said you doubted any shots came from the depository.

What evidence in the JFK case cant be debunked?
The long list of witnesses I mentioned (and sourced) earlier. Almost all of them heard shots come from the depository, some of them were right underneath it or in the depository itself, and we have multiple eyewitnesses who saw a shooter in the window, too.

If someone is willing to believe, contra all that, that no shots came from the depository, then they're basically admitting they don't care about evidence at all.

[gandalf26]

The top part of your post is waffle. You can't dispute what Hathcock has to say about the shoot.

Replication of the exact shooting conditions is difficult because Oswald was a poor marksman, so instead they use elite marksmen so can't replicate what Oswald did and nearly universally have doubts that Oswald could do that.

Re Grassy knoll, from memory there is a fence behind which the shot came, no one would have been looking that way when jfk was going past. Was there not a witness who saw a cop there moments before the shot, a witness who later turned up dead. Convenient.

Who ever said they were "masters of manipulation", they came up with a plan, executed it well, and got away with it because the investigation was rigged.

JFK has to be the only conspiracy where these who rigidly defend the official version cone across as deranged as opposed the other way around.

There are polls conducted that show as little as 10-12% of the American public believe the lone gunman theory, for a 20 year period through the 70s to the 90s.

[Yoda]

The top part of your post is waffle. You can't dispute what Hathcock has to say about the shoot.
Why do I have to rebuff someone's opinion, particularly when there are other, contradictory ones? You've given no reason why this opinion trumps another, except of course that it happens to confirm what you already believed. And I say "already" because I strongly suspect that you discovered this quote after you'd decided there was a conspiracy, right?

Replication of the exact shooting conditions is difficult because Oswald was a poor marksman, so instead they use elite marksmen so can't replicate what Oswald did and nearly universally have doubts that Oswald could do that.
This. Is. False.. Are you even reading this stuff, or watching these videos? You keep saying "nobody can do it," and I'm literally showing you that's false (and I can show you more), and you simply keep repeating that nobody can do it as if nothing had happened. Hell, even people who doubt the official line (like the guy with the Hickey theory) have done it.

Re Grassy knoll, from memory there is a fence behind which the shot came, no one would have been looking that way when jfk was going past. Was there not a witness who saw a cop there moments before the shot, a witness who later turned up dead. Convenient.
Source this, please.

I don't think it's a coincidence, by the way, that people peddling conspiracies tend to have such poor sourcing habits. Conspiracies thrive on ambiguity and secondhand embellishments, as has been proven several times in this thread already.

Who ever said they were "masters of manipulation", they came up with a plan, executed it well, and got away with it because the investigation was rigged.
You did, by suggesting they could, ya' know, rig a Congressional investigation. Have you really thought about how many insane things they would have to do, and how many people they would have to do them to, in order to rig something like that? The fact that "the investigation" is a singular noun does not mean they "just" had to rig that one thing. It contains hundreds of people. It was sprawling, far-reaching, and cited to death. The number of people they would have to have gotten to in order to falsify the details within is staggering.

JFK has to be the only conspiracy where these who rigidly defend the official version cone across as deranged as opposed the other way around.
I'm sure that's exactly how it looks from inside the conspiracy bubble, yeah.

But really, don't waste your time or mine with flat assertions that boil down to just "I'M RIGHT." They don't add to your argument, and if anything, they undermine it.

There are polls conducted that show as little as 10-12% of the American public believe the lone gunman theory, for a 20 year period through the 70s to the 90s.
Source, again?

And why stop at the 90s? Could it be that modern technology has largely answered most of the questions raised, both about the "magic" bullet (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27705829/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/tech-puts-jfk-conspiracy-theories-rest/) and the source of the kill shot (http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/11/tv-discovery-channel-says-jfk-shot-from.html)?

Did "they" get to those people, too, by the way?

[Yoda]

That second link at the end is, I think, particularly damning. You can go back and retroactively add it to my response to your "which evidence cannot be debunked?" bit.

[Sir Toose]

My take:

I think it's possible to probable that shots were fired from the School Book Depository. I cannot say whether or not it was Oswald who fired them.

Now, I'll present a specific challenge:

From The National Archives Findings (https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html):

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy; the second and third shots he fired struck the President; the third shot he fired killed the President.

The first shot, the one that missed, is represented in The Warren Report as having struck the curb in front of James Tague and resulting in a facial laceration.

So far so good.

The Problem:

Look at frame 260 of the Zapruder Film:
https://themindlessphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/on-the-zapruder-film.jpg
The SECOND shot had hit Kennedy (even if I concede it was from the back) and he puts his hands up to his throat. At this point the SECOND bullet (the magic one) had not struck John Connally. Connally said he heard a shot and turned around to see what happened. As he was turning back around he felt himself being shot - listen for yourself:
https://youtu.be/I3-lZNR_yAc

SO... video evidence and Governor Connally's own statements disprove the magic bullet beyond a shadow of a doubt (not that it's impossible or couldn't happen - but that it didn't happen in this case). Shot 2 and the one that hit Connally were NOT the same shot.

If anyone can explain how 3 bullets can make 4 shots please do so.

Also,

Here's a slowed down version of the Z film:
https://youtu.be/iU83R7rpXQY

You can see that Kennedy is hit, Connally turns to see, turns back around as he describes, and then the fatal shot is fired.

[Yoda]

Sorry, meant to reply to this earlier. Busy weekend.

I think it's possible to probable that shots were fired from the School Book Depository. I cannot say whether or not it was Oswald who fired them.
Fair enough. That part is less definitive, to be sure. The evidence that someone fired from there is pretty overwhelming, though, so when I hear someone say that they don't even believe that much, it tells me that their belief is not the result of a dispassionate look at the evidence, but rather the reflection of a general worldview. I think, for a lot of conspiracy theorists, the questions is not "did this happen?" but "do I trust the powers that be?" And the question of each individual conspiracy is just used as a proxy for that question.

This would explain why you see so many non-sequitur responses about the people that believe the official line: because it's mostly just about signaling that you're not one of those people.

Look at frame 260 of the Zapruder Film:
https://themindlessphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/on-the-zapruder-film.jpg
The SECOND shot had hit Kennedy (even if I concede it was from the back) and he puts his hands up to his throat. At this point the SECOND bullet (the magic one) had not struck John Connally. Connally said he heard a shot and turned around to see what happened. As he was turning back around he felt himself being shot - listen for yourself:
https://youtu.be/I3-lZNR_yAc

SO... video evidence and Governor Connally's own statements disprove the magic bullet beyond a shadow of a doubt (not that it's impossible or couldn't happen - but that it didn't happen in this case). Shot 2 and the one that hit Connally were NOT the same shot.

If anyone can explain how 3 bullets can make 4 shots please do so.
The National Academy of Sciences (http://www.jfk-online.com/nas00.html) analyzed that very tape, I believe, and concluded that some of the sounds simply weren't gunshots, assuming I'm understanding you correctly.

That said...I actually don't feel very strongly about most of the specifics. I find it entirely plausible that the Committee is wrong about relatively minor details like the timing of shots, or how they ricocheted, etc. The number of variables involved are astronomical and would be difficult to pin down even today, let alone back then, with mediocre audio and grainy video.

But there are, of course, a world of conclusions between "everything about this was setup" and "the Committee was 100% right." I'm pretty comfortable believing the Committee's conclusions were not right in every detail without feeling obligated to go much further than that. Framing this (and I'm not describing you here) as a false choice between either a total setup or a completely accurate report is stacking the deck for the conspiracy side.

[Sir Toose]

I was going to quote/argue several points but I think I'll just nutshell it instead because, at the end of the day, we're not that far apart.

I realize that it's not so much the Warren Comm report that I take issue with as it is with people who don't care enough to educate themselves a little (at least enough to be able to see the flaws in the document). I go to Dealy every few years and stand where Zapruder stood and then out in the center of the plaza and up behind the fence. It's always fascinated me (well at least since Geraldo aired the Zapruder film for the first time and it became such a thing of consternation). Without fail I overhear people say things like it doesn't matter now, it happened a long time ago etc.

To me, this assassination, and the coverage thereof, represents the time where government became hyper aware of the power of media (and the burgeoning television audience) and began to use it for the purposes of spinning events.

The Warren Commission had some of the best minds of the time and their only job was to unravel this thing.
I think your comment:
I think, for a lot of conspiracy theorists, the questions is not "did this happen?" but "do I trust the powers that be?" ... hits dead center on one of the many themes I find troubling. If the public can see (without having all of the evidence available) that basic things like the shots don't add up, the story doesn't match witness testimony (even their own experts), important witnesses were not interviewed, protocols for handling evidence were ignored and on and on. Many of these witnesses aren't Joe off the street either - they're Dallas cops, government agents of one sort or another, doctors from the hospital where JFK was taken - it's a long list. With so many glaring inconsistencies it becomes hard to trust the official document especially when the authors won't concede any of those points. That kind of 'shut up and believe it' attitude doesn't serve the people.

I've spent the last 10 years down this rabbit hole, lol. I don't think there's a book I haven't read on the subject or a film or documentary I haven't seen. Most focus on proving one or more points are possible but usually outside of the context of the event in its entirety.

One interesting thing I did was to collect all of the films from the day (Zapruder wasn't the only one with a camera rolling) and then plot those locations on a map of the plaza so I could see angles etc. One of the more recent (90's) theories to come out is that the Zapruder film was doctored during the time it left his hands and ended up at Time Magazine. There's a documentary that shows an interview with the man who was the lab manager at the place where the film was developed. He says the one Geraldo shows is different and points out some weird stuff like cars in the background not matching and the infamous Amoeba Man:
http://www.morgue.mattgleason.com/mofo/Amoebaman.png
Several witnesses said the limo stopped in the middle of the street and that is why it was necessary for the film to be altered. Certainly there are visible cuts even in the official version. Perhaps some creative zooming and painting can explain the presence of our friend above in the Z film.

Didn't mean to go so long.

I don't think the Warren Commission members are all nefarious men serving the illuminati. I think some had the power to push things through (perhaps even for the sake of expedience) and they made some serious errors and many of those errors are alluded to in their own documents.

I think in general it's become en-vogue to refer to anyone who questions the official story of any major event as a tin foil hatter, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary.

Maybe most of the folk are right. The world spins, life goes on. For some reason these things bother me enough to dig in.

Now pray no one starts a 9-11 thread. :)

[Yoda]

Yeah, I dig that, we are pretty close here. I think we're both generally against kneejerk reactions, in other words: either accepting something just because it's the official line on your end, or positing massive conspiracies out of general distrust for authority.

I agree with what you said about how messy it all looks, but I also can't help but notice that everything looks like this when we look at it up close. Every big splashy public trial, or investigation, or whatever, has tons of unanswered questions and weird coincidences. My operating theory is that pretty much every event is like this, but we just don't look at most of them closely enough for it to be obvious. I suspect if we took some boring old convenience story robbery and put it under the same kind of microscope, it would look just as inexplicable.

My general posture on almost every situation like this is: it probably didn't happen exactly the way most people think (or exactly as we're told, because truth is hard), but it probably also didn't happen in some overly dramatic or shocking way that would upend our entire understanding of the event.

[Citizen Rules]

After reading this thread, I watched 3 really excellent and informative documentaries about different aspects of JFK and the assassination.

The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After
JFK the lost bullet
JFK the definitive guide

I've seen a lot of crap docs on JFK and all of these are top notch.

[matt72582]

After reading this thread, I watched 3 really excellent and informative documentaries about different aspects of JFK and the assassination.

The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After
JFK the lost bullet
JFK the definitive guide

I've seen a lot of crap docs on JFK and all of these are top notch.

Any deductions?

[Citizen Rules]

Any deductions? What I loved about these three docs is that they didn't spoon feed the audience. But used different methodologies to examine the events. I've seen a lot of cheap, rehased docs on the assassination. These three are top notch.

The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After (2009)
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1549069/)is a History Channel, 2 hour documentary that gives a minute by minute accounting of the events that took place immediately after the assassination. It's not about the assassination per say, but is about the posturing and actions of LBJ, RFK and the Kennedy family in the resulting crisis. The information is factual in nature and is based on actual documents. I was surprised how much I like this. It's well done. It's on Youtube:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MyCzf8pUW-E


National Geographic Explorer JFK: The Lost Bullet (2011) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2179851/)
is a National Geographic 2 hour doc...
that examines what happened to the first bullet fired at JFK. It re-evaluates the famous Zapruder film that shows the murder of JFK and states that Zapruder stopped filming and missed the first shot fired which changes the timeline of the bullets fired... The documentary also features other home movies taken on the day. This was my favorite, it used hard science and looked at all the home videos taking that day and then finds the exact spots the film makers were standing in and in relation to the timeline and the Presidential motorcade. Just as impressive, and I don't know how they got permission to do this but they stopped traffic in Dealey Plaza and had stand ins in the Presidential car which they then used to map out the position of the car in realation to the different home movies. AND they had a shooter with a laser site rifle simulating Oswald so they could line up the shots and determine where the bullets would have landed.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/cd/5d/32/cd5d322ee1f9729ff731ad86bb70f517--traffic-light-high-definition.jpg

JFK Assassination: The Definitive Guide (2013)
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3354220/)a 2 hour doc by the History Channel, that explores the views of Americans on who did what and why in the JFK shooting. Very illuminating and detailed polls that takes into account demographics.

The History Channel did the largest survey ever in regards to the murder of the president and this show presents all the findings. If you're into one of the conspiracies then you're really going to enjoy this film because pretty much every rock is looked under including there being a second shooter, Oswald being attached to the mafia and then there are some really wild theories about Kennedy being killed due to him asking too many questions about the government's knowledge of UFOs.

There's also some bizarre stories about the driver of the limo turning around and finishing Kennedy on that final head shot. The Mafia, the Catholic church and various other theories are looked at and discussed in great detail.

It's interesting to see that the majority of the people simply don't trust the government. There's also talk about everyone Kennedy upset in his short years in the office and why there are currently over two-hundred theories on who killed him and why. There's even details given as to why Oswald was the only shooter. Fans of history will certainly enjoy this film as there's quite a bit going on and a lot of great opinions expressed.

[matt72582]

What I loved about these three docs is that they didn't spoon feed the audience. But used different methodologies to examine the events. I've seen a lot of cheap, rehased docs on the assassination. These three are top notch.

The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After (2009)
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1549069/)is a History Channel, 2 hour documentary that gives a minute by minute accounting of the events that took place immediately after the assassination. It's not about the assassination per say, but is about the posturing and actions of LBJ, RFK and the Kennedy family in the resulting crisis. The information is factual in nature and is based on actual documents. I was surprised how much I like this. It's well done. It's on Youtube:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MyCzf8pUW-E


National Geographic Explorer JFK: The Lost Bullet (2011) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2179851/)
is a National Geographic 2 hour doc...
This was my favorite, it used hard science and looked at all the home videos taking that day and then finds the exact spots the film makers were standing in and in relation to the timeline and the Presidential motorcade. Just as impressive, and I don't know how they got permission to do this but they stopped traffic in Dealey Plaza and had stand ins in the Presidential car which they then used to map out the position of the car in realation to the different home movies. AND they had a shooter with a laser site rifle simulating Oswald so they could line up the shots and determine where the bullets would have landed.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/cd/5d/32/cd5d322ee1f9729ff731ad86bb70f517--traffic-light-high-definition.jpg

JFK Assassination: The Definitive Guide (2013)
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3354220/)a 2 hour doc by the History Channel, that explores the views of Americans on who did what and why in the JFK shooting. Very illuminating and detailed polls that takes into account demographics.

Nothing about the CIA, Military, Vietnam, Cold War?

[Citizen Rules]

Nothing about the CIA, Military, Vietnam, Cold War? Yup those were mentioned too, in JFK Assassination: The Definitive Guide (2013)...which looks at all the major and minor conspiracy theories that are out there. I thought the UFO one was out of this world:p But a small percentage of American's believe it.

[DrJacoby]

People who believe conspiracy theories have been brainwashed by a top secret organisation that is successfully taking over power, to destroy the world but first by deceiving uncritical minds that don't fully process the evidence. This is also why they take your blood around Christmas time, it profits them, I know this to be true.

[gandalf26]

Epstein "suicide".

Anyone believe he really killed himself?

Broken cameras outside cell, I've seen posts from tech/camera guys who say failure rates of video cameras are 0.1%.

Too many powerful people involved, did he have to be silenced?

The rich and powerful getting away with paedophilia has been a long standing conspiracy, has it been proven right?

[Yoda]

I'm not sure. I do know that the stuff about how the guards could never be that incompetent is wrong, though. I've heard from people who work in and deal with that area, and they say staggering displays of incompetence or oversight are unfortunately quite common.

So, don't really have an opinion, except to say that a lot of the particular arguments, where people just sort of guess as to what sounds plausible in terms of competence or institutional failure, is often pretty off-base.

[gandalf26]

You would think that with such a high profile potential witness there would have been extraordinary measures in place, even FBI presence.

Also we have the pathologist on TV in the past week saying Epsteins strangulation wounds are much more consistent with homicide than suicide.

I remember the guy who leaked all the stuff to wiki leaks about a decade ago being subject to extraordinarily security, such that even if he attempted to do a press up in his cell he would be restrained.

Maybe Epstein saw nothing to live for and wanted to die but that's a whole different question, why was he allowed to do so?

Very fishy.

Prince Andrew can't escape the association/accusations. Some people are too big to be prosecuted I guess, Trump friendship with Epstein too.

[WrinkledMind]

Agree with Yoda's comment on gross incompetence, but Epstein's death wasn't suicide.

[matt72582]

Epstein "suicide".

Anyone believe he really killed himself?

Broken cameras outside cell, I've seen posts from tech/camera guys who say failure rates of video cameras are 0.1%.

Too many powerful people involved, did he have to be silenced?

The rich and powerful getting away with paedophilia has been a long standing conspiracy, has it been proven right?


No way I believe that baloney. How convenient for the elite.

[JoaoRodrigues]

I don't really think the 1% enjoy/do pedophilia as a ritual. But that's a theory that is constantly mentioned, in films, the most famous recent ones, you have for example You Were Never Really Here and True Detective Season 1. I don't really follow news anymore, I had to read about the subject to make a comment. The 50-years old in experience forensic detective says he never saw thyroid fractured bones in victims of suicide by hanging, is commonly attached to strangulation. I mean the two cops both started sleeping in the exact same time the inside cell cameras stopped working? It's an homicide, and I can't say if it's political or not because I don't know how many people have been killed in that exact prison, how common it is, and if many did die, for what crimes exactly? Gang related?

[gandalf26]

Well we've seen the stats from the movie Spotlight that 5% of priests were pedophiles.

The general estimates are less than 5% of males are pedophiles, much less for women. If true that's a hell of a lot of pedos among the elite.

It sounds like Epstein was the go to for the powerful, royalty, CEOs, powerful Government figures, Sport stars etc. Too many people scared of being named I think, they wanted him silenced.

[Stirchley]

Epstein "suicide". Anyone believe he really killed himself?


Does it really matter now? Whether he violated his own body or someone else violated him, he’s dead & can’t hurt anyone on earth again, which is a blessing.

Our priest today on All Saints Day encouraged us to pray for someone in purgatory. Maybe I will say a prayer for Epstein.

[gandalf26]

It's a shame he can't hurt his partners in crime.

[GulfportDoc]

You would think that with such a high profile potential witness there would have been extraordinary measures in place, even FBI presence.

Also we have the pathologist on TV in the past week saying Epsteins strangulation wounds are much more consistent with homicide than suicide.

I remember the guy who leaked all the stuff to wiki leaks about a decade ago being subject to extraordinarily security, such that even if he attempted to do a press up in his cell he would be restrained.

Maybe Epstein saw nothing to live for and wanted to die but that's a whole different question, why was he allowed to do so?

Very fishy.

Prince Andrew can't escape the association/accusations. Some people are too big to be prosecuted I guess, Trump friendship with Epstein too.
The hyoid fractures were what did it for me, which are extremely unlikely in an actual hanging. In addition there was no way he could have physically hanged himself. Those "bedsheets" are made to tear apart, specifically to prevent hanging.

Epstein had too many secrets on too many movers and shakers. There wasn't any way he was going ever to get into a courtroom.

What surprises me is the shocking brazenness of the wealthy crony class in this instance, along with the deep state. Their main goal is to squelch any information they want to keep hidden, and to worry about the coverups later. With ready help from their accomplices in big media, they know that in a year from now no one will even remember the story.

~Doc

[Mesmerized]

I'm not sure. I do know that the stuff about how the guards could never be that incompetent is wrong, though. I've heard from people who work in and deal with that area, and they say staggering displays of incompetence or oversight are unfortunately quite common.

So, don't really have an opinion, except to say that a lot of the particular arguments, where people just sort of guess as to what sounds plausible in terms of competence or institutional failure, is often pretty off-base.

I think it's more than incompetence, they just dont give a damn about the flaws in the system. It's above their pay grade.

[Yoda]

The hyoid fractures were what did it for me, which are extremely unlikely in an actual hanging.
From what I can tell there's actually plenty of debate about this: some studies say it's incredibly rare, others find incident rates as high as 67% (http://medind.nic.in/jal/t13/i3/jalt13i3p239.pdf).

One very important note is that the incidents seem more common among older people, which certainly factors in here and might explain the variance in study results, as well.

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/TaraLaRosa/status/1190835713475932160

[thegoldenfatty]

There are many conspiracy theories that I personally believe are true.

1. WWF wrestler Owen Hart was murdered by Vince McMahon, Stone Cold, and other freemasons, since he nearly broke Stone Cold's neck in a 1997 Summerslam match. I believe it was an Illuminati blood sacrifice.

He fell over 100 feet and broke his neck when he hit the ropes. Now, you say accidents happen, but don't you find it odd that when he finally did fall off the zipline or whatever, he was well away from the crowd. They even had a full tribute show to Owen in his honor. Looked like a lot of orchestrated work as if they knew he would die.

2. 9/11 was an inside job. This I believe very much to be true. And here are some questions you should ask yourself.

- Why did Anti Aircraft not knock out the plane when it came in US airspace?

- And how does a plane crashing in the top of a building make both completely crumble and fall at the rate of gravity? Bombs had to have been placed on the bottom.

- They invented this scenario to bring chaos to The Middle East.

3. Vaccines

People say vaccines are good for you when in fact there have been proven cases of autism, (the companies actually shoveled out billions of dollars to kids that have been affected by them)

People say it is a conspiracy and that you are a fruitcake because you don't let kids get vaccines, well let me leave you with this story.

My nephew, who is a baby, a completely lucid, and aware and happy baby got vaccinated and right after that he banged his head on the walls, screamed all of the time, among other things. In short, my nephew had become autistic.

My niece was vaccinated. It had given her strange food allergies. Her face would swell up, and she couldn't believe. If it weren't for the epipen, she would have died. The nurse my sister met up with told her, she has only seen these types of outbreaks in vaccinated children.

Bill Gates pushed vaccinations in India which caused THOUSANDS to be paralyzed. From a man that said we need to decrease the worlds population by 10%, I bet he was happy with this result.

Bill Gates father was involved in Planned Parenthood, and the main point of that is population control, population control by killing countless millions of children. Well, I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

What they put in the food, chemicals, food additives, to what the planes spray from up ahead (chemtrails) is a way to make us sick, and eventually make us die.

Psych meds such as paliperidone, seroquel, risperdal, abilify are by its very nature designed to decrease your life by making the drugs so addictive that you can't get rid of them. The invega sustenna shot alone has stuff you put in facial cleansers, Some contain aluminum and formaldehyde, both of which can be found in vaccination shots. In short, they trying to kill you, and get rid of useless people deplorable people who do nothing for society.

Eugenics has a history in this country, when Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood founder) wanted to eugenecise the African Americans with abortion and contraception, and also the poor. Since they found them as dumb, and useless.

Eugenics.

Population Control.

Freemasons.

Illuminati.

They are very much real. And they want to get to your kids,

Don't vaccinate them, and if possible, homeschool.

[JoaoRodrigues]

2. 9/11 was an inside job.
Is that still a conspiracy?

[gandalf26]

2. 9/11 was an inside job. This I believe very much to be true. And here are some questions you should ask yourself.
- Why did Anti Aircraft not knock out the plane when it came in US airspace?

This is an extremely silly question on so many levels. The planes were already in US airspace and there was tremendous confusion on the day. The military did actually seek permission to shoot planes out of the sky but by then it was mostly all over.

Watching Paul Greengrass's "United 93" gives excellent insight into the Government/FAA/Military response on the day.

Actually another conspiracy on the day is that United 93 was shot down, and the heroic last stand by passengers was bull****. Possible I guess, I don't know.

- And how does a plane crashing in the top of a building make both completely crumble and fall at the rate of gravity? Bombs had to have been placed on the bottom.

Building 7's collapse remains far more suspicious than the two towers.

- They invented this scenario to bring chaos to The Middle East.

America is in the business of war and needs an enemy, also they don't want the ME selling oil to China. Now we have a continuous never ending war on terror.

All I know is 9/11 happened, then the US criminally linked it to Iraq as an excuse to invade and also went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then due to monumental incompetence in Iraq and Afghanistan completely failed to stabilise both countries leading to a long bloody insurgency in Iraq, then resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Years later the Arab spring destabilised the Middle east which led to the rise of ISIS in Syria, and due to the US catastrophic handling of Iraq ISIS took over half the country causing another bloody mess. Who knows what's next.

Along the way supposedly Osama Bin Laden was killed even though we cant be shown proof and he was insta dropped in the sea. Maybe he was or maybe he was the phantom bogeyman that never really existed, at least not the way we've been led to believe.

[Yoda]

Is that still a conspiracy?
To people in the habit of occasionally investigating common counterarguments, yes.

That's kind of my general response to thegoldenfatty, too. I strongly suspect the stuff about demolitions and gravity was heard, ingested, and accepted, without so much as Googling "building demolition debunk" or anything like that. Popular Mechanics wrote a pretty detailed series of responses to common conspiracy theories (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/) on this front.

So, that's always my first question: have you heard these responses, and when you inevitably say "no," ask yourself: why not?

[Captain Steel]

2. 9/11 was an inside job. This I believe very much to be true. And here are some questions you should ask yourself.

- Why did Anti Aircraft not knock out the plane when it came in US airspace?

- And how does a plane crashing in the top of a building make both completely crumble and fall at the rate of gravity? Bombs had to have been placed on the bottom.

- They invented this scenario to bring chaos to The Middle East.



I have to reiterate what Gandalf said about the planes on 9/11: they took off in U.S. airspace and never left U.S. airspace! They were U.S. planes! :) No one realized the plan of the hi-jackers to turn them into bombs until it was too late.

I don't believe the U.S. has ground based anti-aircraft weapons along our coastlines (I could be wrong about that, but I've never heard of any such thing out side of anti-aircraft guns aboard naval vessels - and those usually have limited range: they are for protecting the ship from low-flying aircraft). I believe our way of dealing with rogue aircraft would be up the the Air Force and their fighter jets. On 9/11 the element of surprise delayed scrambling of fighter aircraft until at least three of the hi-jacked planes had already crashed.

The rest of your issues on this point are valid questions / points.

[Yoda]

Let's break those three "points" down:

The first is nonsense, as already demonstrated, even by people who kinda think something was fishy about 9/11.

The second doesn't even make sense. What do you mean how does a plane crashing into the top make a building crumble at the rate of gravity? What would you expect to have happen instead? Have things not fall at the rate of gravity? I assume there's a coherent question in there somewhere, but it's not being asked right, whatever it is.

The third isn't a point at all, it's just a flat statement. It's also a weird statement, since it's not like the Middle East as a paragon of geopolitical stability beforehand.

So we have three points: one is nonsense, one is incoherent, and one isn't a point at all. This is, I'm sorry to say, par for the course with most conspiracy theorists.

[jiraffejustin]

epstein didnt kill himself

[Captain Steel]

Let's break those three "points" down:

The first is nonsense, as already demonstrated, even by people who kinda think something was fishy about 9/11.

The second doesn't even make sense. What do you mean how does a plane crashing into the top make a building crumble at the rate of gravity? What would you expect to have happen instead? Have things not fall at the rate of gravity? I assume there's a coherent question in there somewhere, but it's not being asked right, whatever it is.

The third isn't a point at all, it's just a flat statement. It's also a weird statement, since it's not like the Middle East as a paragon of geopolitical stability beforehand.

So we have three points: one is nonsense, one is incoherent, and one isn't a point at all. This is, I'm sorry to say, par for the course with most conspiracy theorists.

For the incoherent question, I think the poster was asking why both the buildings collapsed just like buildings do in a controlled demolition using carefully placed explosives after being hit near the tops by airplanes... (some have answered they were designed to collapse that way in a catastrophe, such as in fires with temperatures hot enough to melt structural steel).

It is a controversy as other similar buildings since the dawn of skyscrapers have been hit by planes or have suffered tremendous fires and did not collapse at all or did not fall apart in a way that looked like a perfectly controlled demolition.

[Yoda]

For the incoherent question, I think the poster was asking why both the buildings collapsed just like buildings do in a controlled demolition using carefully placed explosives after being hit near the tops by airplanes...
Yeah, this was my best guess, too, but the bit about "gravity" makes no sense in that context, so there's clearly a lot of confusion there, whatever the intention.

Technically, a poorly-worded question or argument does not mean someone's position is invalid, but sloppy phrasing, in my experience, correlates heavily with sloppy thinking. Listing a claim as if it were a question/point is another example of this. It doesn't lead me to believe the person has a good grasp on the distinction between claims and evidence, for example, or evidence and motive.

Anyway, these arguments tend to veer all over the place (usually by just introducing more claims when you question the first ones), so you've gotta nip it in the bud by asking for a basic level of clarity and specificity. I'll admit it doesn't often help much, though.

(some have answered they were designed to collapse that way in a catastrophe, such as in fires with temperatures hot enough to melt structural steel).
"Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is the meme, but what most of them don't bother to learn is that steel is significantly weakened long before it melts, and jet fuel burns more than hot enough to cause steel to lose over half of its strength. That, and jet fuel obviously wasn't the only thing burning after impact, anyway.

Just another one of those "why didn't you bother to learn this?" kind of questions that reveal a lot about a person's mindset, and whether they're really skeptical, or just selectively skeptical.

It is a controversy as other similar buildings since the dawn of skyscrapers have been hit by planes or have suffered tremendous fires and did not collapse at all or did not fall apart in a way that looked like a perfectly controlled demolition.
Feel free to elaborate, but I suspect the fulcrum of this claim will be "similar buildings," which they probably were not.

Here's Popular Mechanics' explanation for the "looked like a controlled demolition" thing:

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

[GulfportDoc]

Interesting reading, debunking the PM article:

https://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/


and this:

http://911-questions.com/popular-mechanics-caught-lying-about-911/

[Stirchley]

They were U.S. planes! :) No one realized the plan of the hi-jackers to turn them into bombs until it was too late.

Tragically, a huge red arrow was overlooked when the hijackers were taking flying lessons. Apparently, they told their instructors they had no interest in learning how to LAND a plane.

[Stirchley]

So we have three points: one is nonsense, one is incoherent, and one isn't a point at all.

And there you have it. :)

[Yoda]

Interesting reading, debunking the PM article:

https://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/


and this:

http://911-questions.com/popular-mechanics-caught-lying-about-911/
This is exactly what I described in my previous post:

Anyway, these arguments tend to veer all over the place (usually by just introducing more claims when you question the first ones), so you've gotta nip it in the bud by asking for a basic level of clarity and specificity.
This is standard operating procedure: post a big ol' infodump, rather than something specific and focused, so that anyone who wants to dispute it has to do a lot of homework first. Most conspiracy theorists don't so much win arguments as they eventually just convince the other person to tap out.

Suffice to say, even just skimming that first link, it becomes obvious it's not a debunking at all, unless you think "debunk" is just a synonym for "say something in response." Which seems to be what that site thinks: you can see that the goal is not to actually levy (or dispute) a meaningful claim, but just to say A Thing in response to each bit.

For example, one of the very first sections ("Intercepts Not Routine") cites as evidence another conspiracy site (OilEmpire.us), if you can believe that. Almost immediately afterwards you see tell tale phrases like "It is safe to assume that..." So, circular citations and an unexplained assumption, right off the bat.

Another example: the section on demolition, which is the focus of the part of the article I quoted above. They don't seem to be able to dispute any of the technical claims, so they resort to saying the choice of photo "minimizes the explosiveness of the event" and complains that the article talks about "dust" rather than "concrete" (nevermind that the "dust" is "concrete dust"). It also makes a very strange distinction between one type of demolition conspiracy and another:

The article's lead point in the World Trade Center topic is an obscure idea that explosives in the basements of the towers damaged the lobbies at about the time the planes hit. This claim is difficult to find in 9/11 skeptics' literature, and is entirely distinct -- in both the support that exists for it, and the support that it provides for "conspiracy theories" -- from the contention that explosives brought down the towers (56 and 102 minutes after the plane crashes).
Does it go on to explain why this distinction is important, because the explanation provided explain the first thing but not the second? Why no, no it doesn't. But it doesn't matter, because they have successfully posted a paragraph, full of actual words, in response. Debunk complete!

In that same section, they imply the explanation is invalid because it doesn't explain "where the concrete dust came from, or even attempting to quantify the amount of dust that should be expected in the absence of explosives." In other words, they don't even have anything to contradict the testimony in question, they just have some follow-up questions that were not preemptively and explicitly addressed, which...makes the explanation suspect? Somehow?

This is how these exchanges always go. It starts off with accusations of contradictions, lies, or falsehoods ("how do you explain THIS?"), and when someone sits down and takes those seriously, it quickly shifts to "well what about this other thing?" Suddenly it's no longer contending that something is false or making a clear contention, it's just prodding at anything which hasn't been discussed in granular detail, which is a pretty substantial retreat.

[Sedai]

Curious about what people think about the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org).

A collection of kooks that all happen to be based in these professions or...

[Captain Steel]

If I remember correctly, wasn't there recently some NYC Fireman's association calling for a new investigation of 9/11 (as they felt the whole truth still has not been revealed)?

[Yoda]

Ah yeah, that's another issue with this stuff: equating "we don't know the whole truth," which is a pretty mild statement when you think about it, with the way more grandiose "it was an inside job and/or people are deliberately lying about important stuff." It's a classic motte-and-bailey.

[Captain Steel]

I know it can't and should not be compared to the scope and scale of 9/11, but the Las Vegas massacre in 2017 seems a much deeper mystery with even less answers.

Maybe deeper isn't the right word, but the most "quickly forgotten" or "swept under the rug" incident (considering it was the single largest gun mass murder in U.S. history).

The way it seemed to be so quickly dismissed by the authorities & the media in the face of so many unanswered questions and conflicting narratives almost makes it seem like some kind of mass hypnosis. (Now that's a conspiracy!)

[GulfportDoc]

Curious about what people think about the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org).

A collection of kooks that all happen to be based in these professions or...
I think that it's a pretty impressive group of architects and engineers whose scientific approach and conclusions to the causes of the 9/11 catastrophe are very difficult to dismiss-- certainly as being "kooks". And none of the 3200 or so stand to gain financially from their opinions.

The same might be said of the opinions of the large pilots and aviators group, the University of Alaska, and other scholars.

Here is partial listing in no particular order of websites containing information that answer a lot of questions for me. And the last is a link showing how in the 1960s the CIA coined the term "conspiracy theorist" in order to belittle and marginalize those who questioned the opinions of government investigations.

Some sources for 9/11 skeptics:

Major University Study Finds "Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 On 9/11"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/major-university-study-finds-fire-did-not-bring-down-tower-7-911 (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/major-university-study-finds-fire-did-not-bring-down-tower-7-911)

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: (over 3000 architects and engineers disprove the official story)
https://www.ae911truth.org/ (https://www.ae911truth.org/)

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice: scholars examine and research 9/11 unanswered questions
https://stj911.org/ (https://stj911.org/)

Journal of 9/11 Studies: peer reviewed research on 9/11
http://www.journalof911studies.com/ (http://www.journalof911studies.com/)

Pilots for 9/11 truth: aviation professionals and pilots do not accept the 9/11 commission report
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html)

9/11 Hard facts: lists some of the better websites, videos and books on the subject
http://911hardfacts.com/report_23.htm (http://911hardfacts.com/report_23.htm)

CIA coins the term “conspiracy theorist” to belittle disagreement of official stories:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
(https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge)

[Yoda]

Hey look, I called it again. ;)

This is exactly what I described in my previous post:

Anyway, these arguments tend to veer all over the place (usually by just introducing more claims when you question the first ones), so you've gotta nip it in the bud by asking for a basic level of clarity and specificity.
This is standard operating procedure: post a big ol' infodump, rather than something specific and focused, so that anyone who wants to dispute it has to do a lot of homework first. Most conspiracy theorists don't so much win arguments as they eventually just convince the other person to tap out.
Somebody gimme a prod when they're ready to have a sustained conversation about the evidence.

But remember this: if you go looking for confirmation, but never for contradiction, then you're not really investigating anything. You're not doing research. You're not even being honest with yourself.

Genuinely skeptical people, genuine truth-seekers, try just as hard (harder!) to invalidate what they believe as they do to validate it. It's very telling when someone is familiar with the arguments for what they think, but not at all familiar (or prepared to deal with) even the most common and obvious responses to it. That's a dead giveaway that they're not interested in the truth.

[JoaoRodrigues]

Genuinely skeptical people, genuine truth-seekers, try just as hard (harder!) to invalidate what they believe as they do to validate it.
The only agreement we had in a long, long time. Except the part about truth.

[JoaoRodrigues]

https://nonsubmersibleunits.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/se7en_0001_layer-14.jpg
Don't ask me to pity those people. I don't mourn the 2,996 that died in those towers, any more than I do for the 182,000 civilians that died in the Iraqi war.

[Yoda]

https://nonsubmersibleunits.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/se7en_0001_layer-14.jpg
Don't ask me to pity those people. I don't mourn the 2,996 that died in those towers, any more than I do for the 182,000 civilians that died in the Iraqi war.
That's a pretty awful sentiment, dude. Also a confusing one, since I think most people with a basic amount of human empathy would indeed mourn the civilians that died in the Iraq war, as well.

I guess maybe you're trying to make a pithy point about what 9/11 led to and what you feel is a disproportionate amount of attention paid to the former group, but you accidentally phrased it in a way that makes it sound like you don't care about any civilians deaths at all, but who knows.

[chawhee]

Just to lightly touch on it, because the conversation about vaccines is kinda tired as well, but I've heard nothing about this 'Bill Gates Foundation vaccination project causing widespread paralysis in India' story....I agree that delivery of vaccines has had a spotty history, but it's still much more advantageous to receive one than not.

[JoaoRodrigues]

since I think most people with a basic amount of human empathy would indeed mourn the civilians that died in the Iraq war, as well.
Yes they should, but I'm guessing that overall, they did not. In the very deep essence of it all, I don't make a distinction between human beings, I don't care if you cured cancer, you're equality important and unimportant in my eyes.

I guess maybe you're trying to make a pithy point about what 9/11 led to and what you feel is a disproportionate amount of attention paid to the former group, but you accidentally phrased it in a way that makes it sound like you don't care about any civilians deaths at all, but who knows.
And your guess would probably be correct. I do think one had a huge amount of attention while the other had none (comparing), but I understood it. And yes, I used this quotation from the famous movie understanding that would lead people to think that I don't care about any of those casualties. But my quest is the exact opposite of the Joe Doe's.

[Yoda]

I don't really follow what you were trying to do with the quote, or why, but yeah, as I said, the literal meaning of what you posted is that you don't care about any.

One group got a huge amount of attention specifically because of the circumstances. It's exceptional and unusual for people to die in a stable, democratic, wealthy, first-world country in what appears to be relative safety, with no warning or clear connection between them and their killers.

It's the same reason people react differently to a sudden murder or kidnapping in an affluent area than they do to another random drug murder in the bad part of town: not because they have wildly fluctuating values for human life, but because one is a lot more predictable and foreseeable than another.

People die every day, and we have all internalized that. What gets our attention or scares us are when those deaths appear random or arbitrary, or even counterintuitive to circumstance.

[gandalf26]

I always felt the Joker explains the last couple of posts rather well with his "all part of the plan" monologue.

[Yoda]

I always felt the Joker explains the last couple of posts rather well with his "all part of the plan" monologue.
Yeah, exactly. Things going wrong in places full of poor or desperate people "make sense" in that we understand the relationship between these things and the dangers they often result in.

It's the seeming lack of cause and effect that really unsettles people.

[gandalf26]

It's a shame though when bad things happen as a result of rich countries foolish actions and no attention is paid. Example Baghdad bomb killing 50-60 same day as Boston bomb, all due to the US inventing reasons to invade and destabilise. How many have died since in Iraq, indirectly or directly? Maybe a million.

Vietnam, 58,000 US deaths, maybe 2 million from the other side, never needed to happen. Massacres like Mai Lai swept under the rug, the perpetrators unpunished, the whistle blowers given extra dangerous missions.

American media only goes on about US casualties.

Rambling a bit here but you start to see why the US is justifiably hated in many places.

[JoaoRodrigues]

Rambling a bit here but you start to see why the US is justifiably hated in many places.
Yep. And that's my main reason for it.
About the Joe Doe: I just try to bring movies to discussions in movie's forum's.

[Yoda]

Yep. And that's my main reason for it.
About the Joe Doe: I just try to bring movies to discussions in movie's forum's.
I can appreciate using movie quotes to enhance discussions, sure...just not if using the quote causes your statement to mean something you're not actually trying to say, of course.

[gandalf26]

Back onto Epstein there's been a leak of an off air recording of ABC news anchor Amy Robach complaining that they've been sitting on the Epstein story for 3 years, and quote "had" Clinton (Bill), but the story has repeatedly been killed. I believe she also complained about the pressure the Palace (UK royalty) put on them about linking Prince Andrew in the story.

I guess this would have been extremely damaging to Hilarys presidential campaign.

Also the employee who leaked the footage, despite now working for CBS has been fired. Strange, it's almost like all these huge media companies are being run by the same tiny group of elites who have friends/family linked to Epstein..... Oh wait!

What a great country USA no1, a choice betwee a protected paedo's wife or a reality TV star incompetent for President. Wait a go. (I can't talk, the Queens son is involved too)

[Yoda]

The Epstein thing seems at least plausible to me, yeah. I don't think we'll ever know what happened, but it wouldn't shock me. Wouldn't shock me if it was really incompetence, either. People routinely underestimate how many people screw up, and how often, even with high stakes.

Don't really have any doubt he probably had damning information on several very well-known people, too, who might never be caught now. Disturbing.

[Ami-Scythe]

My husband came up with a funny one. Not as an actual "Ah, yes! Without a doubt, that happened," but as a joke:

Heat is a government scheme created by President Bush to sell air conditioners. The files for this were in the twin towers so....

[Captain Steel]

The Epstein thing seems at least plausible to me, yeah. I don't think we'll ever know what happened, but it wouldn't shock me. Wouldn't shock me if it was really incompetence, either. People routinely underestimate how many people screw up, and how often, even with high stakes.

Don't really have any doubt he probably had damning information on several very well-known people, too, who might never be caught now. Disturbing.

I have no trouble accepting incompetence, but it's difficult to accept surrounding Epstein... because he was extremely high profile.

The guards had to be briefed and repeatedly nagged about not slacking around him or letting anything go wrong.

I was a security guard for several years, and on a couple occasions the Governor came to our site for a presentation or to speak - we went through months of preparation: practice drills, inspections, coordination meetings, long lectures from our bosses, etc., all to make sure that everyone was at the top of their game, at their posts, on their marks, and that no one would foul up on the day the Governor came. For us it was a high profile guest and I imagine it would be similar in a holding facility for a high profile criminal who still hadn't been sentenced.

[Yoda]

I wouldn't accept incompetence as an explanation once they decided to make special allowances for him, because he's high-profile, but it works great as an explanation for not making those allowances in the first place. Or if the guards tune that stuff out.

Re: security guard. Private company, or government entity? I imagine that makes quite a difference. Some pretty unbelievable stuff happens under the purview of prison guards. It's not particularly well-screened or well-compensated, from what I can gather.

[Captain Steel]

I wouldn't accept incompetence as an explanation once they decided to make special allowances for him, because he's high-profile, but it works great as an explanation for not making those allowances in the first place. Or if the guards tune that stuff out.

Re: security guard. Private company, or government entity? I imagine that makes quite a difference. Some pretty unbelievable stuff happens under the purview of prison guards. It's not particularly well-screened or well-compensated, from what I can gather.

My experience was with a private company (pharmaceutical). Our bosses were former State Police and they ran the security dept. like the military. I used to say it was like going into the army for 8 hours a day. I'd probably still be there if they hadn't outsourced the dept to a private contractor company.

I realize it's different from being a prison guard (as a couple of my co-workers went into that profession - apparently they regretted the decision, saying they hated it... some hated it just for the depressing atmosphere of being surrounded by people who were incarcerated and so much negative energy).

[Yoda]

Yeah, it's hard to say. I don't have firsthand knowledge, just know some lawyers and other people with some proximity to it who've expressed bewilderment over how it's run sometimes, and talked about how it can be bad enough that it really does look indistinguishable from actual malice/intent.

[gandalf26]

It's weird that he was even held there and not some super secure facility with FBI guards, think Frankie in Godfather 2 on his army base surrounded by Feds, cause they want him to name names right??!.......right?...... Nope do(did) they **** want him to talk.

[Sedai]

GulfportDoc Just to clarify, I wasn't claiming that group of engineers were kooks. I framed that as a question just to get people talking about that side of things. I haven't spent enough time researching that particular group to have an opinion on the issue.

[GulfportDoc]

@GulfportDoc (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=96919) Just to clarify, I wasn't claiming that group of engineers were kooks. I framed that as a question just to get people talking about that side of things. I haven't spent enough time researching that particular group to have an opinion on the issue.
Oh no, I wasn't suggesting that you believed the group to be kooks, but were simply wondering which end of the spectrum others perceived them to be.

In my view, those who are interested in this type of thing generally fall into two camps: those who are inclined to believe the government, and those who are inclined to think that the government lies. I'm in the latter group, and have been so since the truth started coming out about the JFK assassination years ago. Others believe that the government would never lie to the public. But one thing is for sure: everyone is entitled to their own opinions....so far..;)

~Doc

[Captain Steel]

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting that you believed the group to be kooks, but were simply wondering which end of the spectrum others perceived them to be.

In my view, those who are interested in this type of thing generally fall into two camps: those who are inclined to believe the government, and those who are inclined to think that the government lies. I'm in the latter group, and have been so since the truth started coming out about the JFK assassination years ago. Others believe that the government would never lie to the public. But one thing is for sure: everyone is entitled to their own opinions....so far..;)

~Doc

I feel un-inclined either way.

I trust people, but am skeptical. I have faith in law enforcement, but believe many are corrupt. I can believe the government to an extent, but I also know many within it lie. This is probably why politically I'm an independent.

Basically I base my opinions on evidence and take each issue or incident independently (without influence from party or philosophy). And this case has a preponderance of questions over a guy that had so many devastating secrets that a lot of people would want him shut up permanently - so this story about so many particulars going wrong at one precise moment for this guy to kill himself in a place designed to prevent such things all seems a little too convenient as to be believable. Possible? Yes. Plausible? No.

[Yoda]

I don't think that's an accurate bifurcation. For one, there's a huge logical leap from "will lie" to "will murder thousands of their own civilians." For another, I'm pretty conservative, and thus not inclined to think much of the government, and yet I don't believe in any far reaching 9/11 conspiracy.

In fact, that's one of the reasons I don't believe it: it would be difficult for someone who generally found government ineffectual (which describes you, I'm guessing, based on other interactions--correct me if I'm wrong) to somehow carve out the huge exception to that belief necessary to believe the government was competent enough to sustain a lie of this magnitude. Seems like cognitive dissonance.

[Captain Steel]

I don't think that's an accurate bifurcation. For one, there's a huge logical leap from "will lie" to "will murder thousands of their own civilians." For another, I'm pretty conservative, and thus not inclined to think much of the government, and yet I don't believe in any far reaching 9/11 conspiracy.

In fact, that's one of the reasons I don't believe it: it would be difficult for someone who generally found government ineffectual (which describes you, I'm guessing, based on other interactions--correct me if I'm wrong) to somehow carve out the huge exception to that belief necessary to believe the government was competent enough to sustain a lie of this magnitude. Seems like cognitive dissonance.

As said, I take each issue / event individually.
In my last post I was addressing the Epstein "suicide".

I generally accept the government's explanation for 9/11 (although I admit, like in most major crimes or mass murders on a huge scale, there are still some unanswered questions, or answers that don't make total sense).

For one, there's a huge logical leap from "will lie" to "will murder thousands of their own civilians."


I agree with this - I don't think Bush or even Cheney were "evil" enough to murder thousands of their fellow Americans as a "false flag." And I don't think they or their agencies would buy into the twisted logic behind such a scheme. Plus, in the last 20 years, I've learned a lot about Islamic Terrorism and have little doubt that that ideology was behind 9/11 and many other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

But with Epstein - too many coincidences and "conveniences" surrounding this one guy who could potentially bring down entire dynasties for the suicide narrative to be believable.

[Citizen Rules]

I haven't read this thread so I don't know the particulars surrounding the death of Epstein or what other's have already said...It could be likely that he was killed during a beating and then there's a coverup of the murder.

Remember the serial murderer/human cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer? He was murdered in prison by a fellow inmate, probably because his crimes were so heinous that it evoked rage, rage enough to kill him. In the Dahmer case it was a fellow inmate who did him in. But what if Dahmer had been beaten to death be a couple of prison guards? Then they cover up their crime as they didn't want to end up on the other side of the bars.

In the same vein, I can see a guard or two beating Epstein just because of the nature of his crimes. That beating could have been fatal and then a coverup by the guard or guards involved. No grand conspiracy is needed to explain the mystery, if it is indeed a mystery.

[JoaoRodrigues]

That's plausible, the guards beating Epstein, but I don't think is the most probable. He was shocked to death, no punches, no nothing, he was shocked until he couldn't breath anymore, there was no signs of being brutalized, I don't think a guard would take pleasure in shocking a inmate until he died for personal gratification, sense of justice served, punching the hell out of him, yeah, sure, it's very possible, making his life a living hell, very probable, but even that I think is not that probable, because they see crimes like his every single day. We're talking about someone relatively famous and with some power, a prison guard would know that if he showed any signs of beating, Epstein lawyers would get that to the press and that sounds like troubles. But look, I don't know, I guess no one will ever know. Him being killed by an inmate is also possible, but, the cameras had 0.1 percent of failure and the two guards had to be both sleeping at the same time, and that is not probable at all, that means that inmate had to have enough money and power to pay those guards, and those guards had to anticipate the events Epstein death would lead to, and that is a lot of money I don't think an inmate would have, or even pay just to kill a guy. I don't believe in the possibility of incompetence of the guards, because, even, let's assume, the guards were really both sleeping at the same time and the inmates could see the guards sleeping, something I don't think they could, but let's assume they did, and they decided to take there change in bringing justice, they would have to know the cameras were turned off, someone had to tell them that. The only reason we don't have some inmate saying he killed Epstein is because that inmate would have to be killed as well.

[JoaoRodrigues]

https://i.redd.it/dmj4sza12x041.jpg

[TheUsualSuspect]

I'm not going to go through every page so if this was already said, my apologies.

The government actually puts out some crazy conspiracy theories for people to latch onto so that the real ones get lost in the mix as well and are considered "just as crazy".

[gandalf26]

I'm not going to go through every page so if this was already said, my apologies.

The government actually puts out some crazy conspiracy theories for people to latch onto so that the real ones get lost in the mix as well and are considered "just as crazy".

Yea quite clever actually, associate conspiracies or people who believe them as one crazy entity.

There are people who talked about pedophile rings amongst the rich and famous or Area 51's existence who were ridiculed.

On the flipside though there are people who believe "everything" is a conspiracy, and really come across as lunatics. See anti vaxers or flat earthers etc. The problem is level headed professional people, for example architects and engineers for 9/11 truth or firefighters going against the official narrative just get lumped in with the crazies.

I've learned over the years that you have to apply a bit of level headed reasoning to any potential conspiracy, and you can't just accept spooky you tube videos which present facts that are unvetted or downright false. Sometimes an event can happen that seems like it would be greatly beneficial for a group/country but random events happen. You can think of your own masters as evil but then look at Russia, NK, China and what's going on in Hong Kong and you realise we're all just varying shades of grey with our own propaganda.

[GulfportDoc]

Until learning the other day that Epstein had ties to both Israeli and American intelligence agencies, I'd only considered that Epstein was a threat to some well known powerful people and celebrities. If intelligence agencies felt threatened, that opens up a whole other avenue of possibilities in Epstein's demise.

Whitney Webb is a journalist and researcher who has done important work on the Jeffrey Epstein case for MintPressNews.com (http://www.mintpressnews.com/). Of particular interest is her findings re Epstein and the intelligence community:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/

[Citizen Rules]

My conspiracy theory is that Bobby B. was abducted by aliens in the summer of last year. Which aliens I can not say.

[Yoda]

Ah yes. "Ties."

[Captain Steel]

My conspiracy theory is that Bobby B. was abducted by aliens in the summer of last year. Which aliens I can not say.

Who is Bobby B.?

[Citizen Rules]

Who is Bobby B.?See what I mean:yup:...Whoosh, gone without a trace.

[JoaoRodrigues]

My favorite YouTube series of all time is, Humans the Movie. It's divided in three chapters, that I'll post under. My favorite is from Atman. It's hart to pick a favorite because there are dialogues, phrases there, that are just speechless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWe2753yfyg

Volume 1 (https://tinyurl.com/reb4uxx)
Volume 2 (https://tinyurl.com/t5eq633)
Volume 3 (https://tinyurl.com/w6ej456)

[gandalf26]

Well well well, Ghislane Maxwell in custody and Co operating with the FBI, this could be interesting. Hopefully she doesn't hang herself, or die or corona virus..... Or get struck by a bolt of lightning.

[Nephilim]

With the coronavirus there's been a slew of conspiracy theories floating around. G5 technology being part of the equation; the virus hsving been created in a lab.

Adrenochrome is another conspiracy theory I've learnt about pretty recently.

[gandalf26]

With the coronavirus there's been a slew of conspiracy theories floating around. G5 technology being part of the equation; the virus hsving been created in a lab.

Adrenochrome is another conspiracy theory I've learnt about pretty recently.

https://i.imgflip.com/47d4nf.jpg

[Citizen Rules]

With the coronavirus there's been a slew of conspiracy theories floating around. G5 technology being part of the equation; the virus hsving been created in a lab.

Adrenochrome is another conspiracy theory I've learnt about pretty recently.You want this thread:
Coronavirus Conspiracy theories, do you believe??? (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=61287)

Unless there's a conspiracy at foot to avoid it:shifty:

[Captain Steel]

https://i.imgflip.com/47d4nf.jpg

That gave me a chuckle! :D

[Nephilim]

https://i.imgflip.com/47d4nf.jpg


From what I've read -- and also watched on some youtube videos -- there's this satanic ritual practice among the elites dating back to centuries. Hollywood is no exception.

It consists on torturing young children to a certain point where the adrenaline they pump is so high and pure that it is then extracted and drunk by the elites. It has a rejuvenating effect.

Now I can't remember if there are some other properties and if the term adrenochrome is derived from the fact that the adrenaline obtained is then manufactured as medicine.

This satanic ritual abuse would explain the numerous children kidnappings around the world, according to this conspiracy theory. Pizzagate and black masses at the Vatican aer signaled by some as part of this mosntruous scheme.

[Nephilim]

We should do a zoom chat and talk movies and conspiracy theories one day!

[gandalf26]

Headline today is Ghislane Maxwell claims to have 2 US politicians on tape having sex with kids?

Very interesting. Clinton seems a strong candidate, wonder who else.

Also wonder if those tapes will be "mishandled" "lost" "damaged".

[Inmyseat]

Of course there are...The JFK Assassination[lone gunman-really?]....The Trump Victory[A back door deal?]

[matt72582]

The CIA used the term "conspiracy theorist" in the 60s as a pejorative.. All it takes is more than one person to be a conspiracy. I can't imagine any big event being done by a single person (attempts to overthrow a government, etc).


Also, I think the CIA (and others) will purposely throw out RIDICULOUS stuff out there to discredit them all.

[John McClane]

The Trump Victory[A back door deal?]What?! Trump is gay?!? :eek:

:lol:

[Captain Steel]

Ever wonder about all those virus protection features & programs some of us pay for?

Or all those ads for various security / insurance programs they want you to buy to protect against identity theft and various electronic crimes?

I'm not saying there are not actual criminals out there infecting computers, using ransom wear or stealing identities... but did you ever wonder why or how you can't get a virus on an Apple computer or how you don't need virus protection for them? (Seriously, I have no idea how that works... or if people need virus or identity protection for their Smart Phones.)

Maybe... just maybe... the back door was left open on purpose. Create a threat, then charge people to pay the money to protect them from the threat (which basically defines extortion if the victim knows they are being threatened by the same people who will withdraw the threat if they get paid off). But we don't know if the people promising to protect against the threat are the ones who created the threat in the first place.

If some computers that access the Internet don't need virus protection, then why do any of them?

How do we know the companies charging us to protect us from viruses aren't the same people who invented the viruses, or invented the technology, making it purposefully so susceptible to viruses (when apparently they don't need to be)?

[Yoda]

It's based on market size. People have often said "there are no viruses for Linux," but that's simply because there's no reason to make a virus for a tiny segment of the computer-using population (and, in Linux's case, a *very* disproportionately tech-savvy segment). It changes as other platforms gain market share.

[John McClane]

Apple does have viruses: it's called Apple Updates.

Linux is not targeted because the people making viruses are usually using Linux to do it. And it is setup in a vastly different way so that, if you're not skilled, someone can get access without even having to hit you with a virus.

Also, most viruses are innocuous annoyances and nothing more, so yeah, it mostly is a bull**** excuse to get your money.

Before Windows 10 was released (it has free anti-virus built-in) I hadn't run an anti-virus program in over 5 years.

But truly, viruses are soooo last century. The thing you really need to be worried about today is social engineering.

https://i.imgflip.com/4b195l.jpg

[Captain Steel]

I (obviously) know little about computer programming or development. I can barely operate one (and I've never used a laptop and if someone hands me a tablet or a smartphone and tells me to feel free to go post on the MoFo site - they might has well have handed me a rock and told me to use it to design a space shuttle). I'm lost without a keyboard - as typing is my one real-world skill I learned in high school.

But your line: "Also, most viruses are innocuous annoyances and nothing more, so yeah, it mostly is a bull**** excuse to get your money." does confirm that I'm not completely off base despite my technical lack of knowledge.

What's disturbing is I've had Windows 10 for a few years now and pay McAfee over $100 a year for protection (should I drop that)?

I'd be scared because I seem to get viruses even with the protection (or is that just McAfee telling me it's blocking them so I continue to pay their "protection money")?

I also had one computer completely destroyed by a virus (according to experts that said my drive was damaged beyond repair) WHILE paying full price for Norton protection.

And what, exactly, do you mean by social engineering? (Does that include things like choosing your baby's eye color and cloning?) ;)

[Citizen Rules]

...Linux is not targeted because the people making viruses are usually using Linux to do it. And it is setup in a vastly different way so that, if you're not skilled, someone can get access without even having to hit you with a virus... That's very true, Linux operates different than Windows and that's the main reason it's much more secure.

Linux desktop usually doesn't have a problem with viruses/malware unless the end user does something wonky. That's because executable files don't run on Linux unless you give it permission by entering your password. I have Linux on my computer and I don't have any virus protection software or malware protection software and I don't need it.

This explains better than I can:
https://easylinuxtipsproject.blogspot.com/p/security.html

[Citizen Rules]

....What's disturbing is I've had Windows 10 for a few years now and pay McAfee over $100 a year for protection (should I drop that)? Yes, you should drop McAfee, but ONLY if you use Windows 10 built in antivirus called Windows Defender instead, as you do need to have some virus protection on your Windows computer. Windows Defender should be preinstalled on your computer and you would need to activate it, it's free and I've heard it's better than McAfee or Norton.
Read this article:
https://www.howtogeek.com/220232/how-to-use-the-built-in-windows-defender-antivirus-on-windows-10/

I also had one computer completely destroyed by a virus (according to experts that said my drive was damaged beyond repair) WHILE paying full price for Norton protection.I doubt a virus/malware could destroy your hard drive, but it could destroy Windows, that's what back ups are for.

And what, exactly, do you mean by social engineering? (Does that include things like choosing your baby's eye color and cloning?) ;)Social engineering means fake pop up ads that tricks someone into clicking the wrong thing and ends up downloading a virus/malware.

[MonnoM]

To add to what CR said, you can also get yourself an adblocker (uBlock origin being among one of the best) and NoScript. All of these combined should keep you mostly safe.

[John McClane]

Windows has come a LONG way. Their Windows Defender app is designed to set the standard for all other apps.

So basically, Windows Defender is the minimum level that is being set by Microsoft and, while some apps might run better, other free apps have to meet this standard for a variety of features to work. I read an interesting article about how Microsoft is using it as a collection tool to improve its performance and thereby setting an increasingly higher level of security every 6 months.

Re: social engineering. So that recent twitter hack with the bitcoin stuff was done by pretending to be an IT worker and redirecting the internal workers to outside sites that were built to look the same to collect their passwords. A lot of these hacks are dependent upon the user giving secure information over freely.

As far as security goes...the safest way to get online is via an up to date mobile device (latest Android OS security updates or latest iOS update).

[Yoda]

But your line: "Also, most viruses are innocuous annoyances and nothing more, so yeah, it mostly is a bull**** excuse to get your money." does confirm that I'm not completely off base despite my technical lack of knowledge.
I'm not sure how? It seems totally orthogonal. He's saying viruses aren't a big threat, not that viruses are released in some kind of mafia-protection-style racket, which is what I took to be your implication.

But yeah, I don't pay for antivirus stuff, and I don't know that you should, either, unless you have an unfortunate habit of clicking on links you don't know are from a trusted source or downloading lots of sketchy stuff. If you're moderately careful, the built-in stuff should be plenty. There's no conspiracy, there's just people who are worried and would rather pay than have to think much about it.

And what, exactly, do you mean by social engineering? (Does that include things like choosing your baby's eye color and cloning?) ;)
It means hackers who do things like call your ISP or some other service provider and find ways to wiggle details out of them while pretending to be you, claiming such-and-such thing is lost, blah blah. Basically, human error of some kind though manipulation.

[Captain Steel]

I'm not sure how? It seems totally orthogonal. He's saying viruses aren't a big threat, not that viruses are released in some kind of mafia-protection-style racket, which is what I took to be your implication.

But yeah, I don't pay for antivirus stuff, and I don't know that you should, either, unless you have an unfortunate habit of clicking on links you don't know are from a trusted source or downloading lots of sketchy stuff. If you're moderately careful, the built-in stuff should be plenty. There's no conspiracy, there's just people who are worried and would rather pay than have to think much about it.


It means hackers who do things like call your ISP or some other service provider and find ways to wiggle details out of them while pretending to be you, claiming such-and-such thing is lost, blah blah. Basically, human error of some kind though manipulation.

I think I'm suggesting something more like "planned obsolescence" rather than mafia style extortion.

A flaw is built in (a weakness or something designed to fail) - so then you have to buy more stuff from the same people who put the flaw in there to protect yourself from the flaw = in this case you need to buy the software to protect you from computer viruses.

The only reason I'm thinking along these conspiratorial lines is that it seems like the technology exists to build the protection right in at the start - which would make all the extraneous protection you have to purchase a racket and a mutual profit gain between computer developers (who could build the protection in, but won't) and the protection companies for something that is really unnecessary.

It's kind of like the plot of V for Vendetta! ;)

[Yoda]

That's quite a theory. Which is my polite way of saying I think it's pretty out there. ;)

I think antivirus programs are totally on the up-and-up in that sense, I just think they're dying off and/or primarily for people who want to think less about what they click on. There is, sadly, no shortage of real-world risks, so I imagine making things easier for virus creators would be totally unnecessary. Overwhelmingly, the risks are still human error/insufficiently cautious clicking/downloading, to the point where it's hard to imagine there'd be even a noticeable blip in demand even if they wanted to risk their entire company on such a thing.

[Redapplecigz]

Operation Northwoods was pretty insane.

Crazy to think the US government planned to attack and murder its own innocent citizens in Miami as a False Flag operation, yet nobody seems to care about that.

Very hard to trust the government about anything after that.

[Flicker]

Very hard to trust the government about anything after that.

Yes. Sad thing is the wackiest conspiracy theorists always have this kind of argument in their favor. "What about Gulf War WMDs", etc. Governmental lies are a thing. They're so big a thing that politicians can lie openly, or even brag about lying, without fearing any loss of support. Whichever their ideological side. "Ends justify means", etc.

So, conspiracies can be wrong, or unlikely. They can be abusively assumed without any genuine grounds for it. But... can they be truly "crazy" ?

And this is the tip of the iceberg. There is no correlation between conspiracy beliefs and intelligence or idiocy, or irrationality. In fact, many radical systems of beliefs stem from "hyper-rationality" (that is : taking one postulate and pushing it faithfully to its logical, inhumane extremes, step by step) and "critical thought" (that is, not taking for granted the words of imposed authorities - even if this often leads to enormous blind spots about selected authorities). This, added to a collection of confirmation biases filtering contradictory information or over-blowing exploitable factoids, often motivated by self-investment, is why they form a closed, coherent system very difficult to dismantle. Intelligent people are actually very, very good at rationalizing their gut feelings (and quick to disqualify others). Manipulative people are very good at making others feel their ideas came from themselves, and this making them "own" these ideas as some intimate identity to defend.

If God exists then it's logical that His Word matters more than any earthly consideration, law or morals, and that any sacrifice of the self or of others in His Name is justified - but most people's own red flags get raised down such train of thoughts. If your Political Theory is truly the way to mankind's eternal happiness, then of course any temporary evil justifies eternal collective bliss. If humanity is endangered by this or that minority (of irredeemably scheming subhumans), then of course any drastic purification is justified for the sake of the Greater Good (the Greater Good !). Showing doubt or pity is just weakness, it's the proof of weak or dishonest beliefs. It is illogical, it is irrational.

And the logical, rational rabbit hole goes far, with a new "IF THEN" at each step. If they lied on this wouldn't they lie on that ? If the Guru guessed your feelings, can't he guess your mind ? If he reads your mind, can't he levitate ? If their goal is to achieve world dominance, would they have qualms about organizing this ? Each logical step is small, along a path which extremities would look absurd to each others. This is why cults try to sever their members' links with relatives still grounded in a different normality. Your reference point must stay your latest former step. "Far fetched" is relative - far from what ?

Ah, what I'm saying is that our relation to reality is fragile and mediate. It doesn't take an abnormal brain to lock itself in a bubble of radically alternative interpretations. Heck, even scientists live in a world of counter-intuitive causalities (anthropologists see cultural constructs in what societies deem "natural", quantum physicists see discontinuous grids of energy where we experience matter, geologists dwarf our notions of duration, biologists see your body as an ecosystem hosting quantities of lifeforms, astrophysicists see time when we see distance, etc). What is common sense ? Where do our worlds overlap, and when ?

This is not without consequences. Murder and destruction is sometimes at the end of these chained leaps of thought. And yet, they are so normal. So encoded in our limited fields of vision and cognitive processes. It frightens me how vulnerable we are to these paths of life. We all, we normal people, we functional human brains. Not the reassuring "them the crazies with their dysfunctional minds".

We the normal people who elected Hitler in Germany and genocided our Tutsi neighbors in Rwanda.

[Yoda]

Operation Northwoods was pretty insane.

Crazy to think the US government planned to attack and murder its own innocent citizens in Miami as a False Flag operation, yet nobody seems to care about that.
There's a couple of inaccuracies here.

First, that they "planned" it; it was kind of floated, speculatively, but there's no evidence it was ever really considered, let alone had any chance of being enacted. I'll bet a lot of crazy ideas get merely floated (even just for the sake of analysis) over decades.

Second, the idea was not to "attack and murder its own innocent citizens," it was to fake such an attack. I'm kind of amazed at how many people I've heard misconstrue this part, which unfortunately speaks to the confirmation bias and telephone-esque nature of a lot of conspiracies.

[Redapplecigz]

There's a couple of inaccuracies here.

First, that they "planned" it; it was kind of floated, speculatively, but there's no evidence it was ever really considered, let alone had any chance of being enacted. I'll bet a lot of crazy ideas get merely floated (even just for the sake of analysis) over decades.

Second, the idea was not to "attack and murder its own innocent citizens," it was to fake such an attack. I'm kind of amazed at how many people I've heard misconstrue this part, which unfortunately speaks to the confirmation bias and telephone-esque nature of a lot of conspiracies.

It was approved by the joint Chiefs of Staff. The only reason it didn’t happen was because JFK wouldn’t sign off.

And they were going to kill American citizens. They were going to blow up an airliner filled with passengers and shoot and kill people in the streets of Miami.

The documents are all there to view under the Freedom of Information Act. If you feel inclined, have a look.

[Yoda]

Re: government lies and conspiracies.

I'm someone who has a very healthy distrust of government, but part of that is about its competence, and doubts about its competence cut directly against its ability to enact (and keep secret) conspiracies.

It's really hard to keep big secrets among any significant number of people. Any conspiracy theory, therefore, has to have a specific explanation (beyond something handwavey about how everybody but the theorists are sheep, or something) about how its managed to avoid exposure, and the more people would have to be in on it, the more robust that explanation has to be.

[Yoda]

It was approved by the joint Chiefs of Staff. The only reason it didn’t happen was because JFK wouldn’t sign off.
The document says "preliminary planning," and more to the point, the operation as a whole includes several things that have absolutely nothing to do with U.S. citizens, so to whatever degree it did advance can be said to reflect consideration of those things, and not every single idea mentioned therein. It even specifically says things are to be considered on a "case-by-case basis." Then it says it again later.

And they were going to kill American citizens. They were going to blow up an airliner filled with passengers and shoot and kill people in the streets of Miami.
I have no idea where you're getting this. The actual memo specifically makes reference to "mock funerals" (in the case of a ship) and an "a drone (unmanned)." The reference to a civilian aircraft later, expounding on the latter, specifically details the creation of a duplicate to move the passengers to and a lot of comically convoluted ways of making it seem real.

The documents are all there to view under the Freedom of Information Act. If you feel inclined, have a look.
I have.

[Jinnistan]

I think I'm suggesting something more like "planned obsolescence"
There's plenty of other examples of this. A famous one is when Apple got caught automatically throttling their phones' speed in older models. The excuse was that it helped battery power, but it was clearly meant to coerce customers into buying new phones. Apple paid out 113 million to settle the case.

[Jinnistan]

Yeah, I put Northwoods in the same category as the CIA plot to defoliate Castro's beard.

[Jinnistan]

I don't think I've seen or read through this thread yet.


There's a very good introductory essay at the beginning of Robert Anton Wilson's Everything Is Under Control, an amusing but perfunctory encyclopedia of online conspiracy theory in the late 90s. It deals with the psychology of conspiracy theory, which can manifest as 'conspiracism', which some consider to be a mental illness but is actually a form of other illnesses through the filter of conspiracy beliefs. I enjoy conspiracy theories, whether as intriguing alt-history or as feral entertainment. Going down a rabbit hole is great fun as a creative exercise. And, obvious to anyone with a basic standard of literacy (ie, Machiavelli), there have been and are conspiracies in our midst.


But I think we all probably know somebody who we may call a conspiraholic, someone who simply can't handle the intoxication of revelation. There are those who simply have never met a conspiracy theory that they're incapable of disbelieving, and this usually produces some wildly convoluted mega-theories which are also fun in a mad-libs kind of way. (ex: Obama being a subject of a CIA Martian teleportation study in college.)


I think that the optimal approach to conspiracy research is to avoid belief at all cost. Not that you wouldn't make truth-value assessments at times (another ex: I'm currently inclined to believe the WIV leak theory), but that in such scenarios, we should avoid any absolute convictions. This is not only important in cases where further information may embarrass your premature judgment, but also to prevent the kind of "I Want To Believe" enthusiasms, a zealotry that rivals religious fervor or tribal identity, from taking root. Too many conspiracy theories are engined by such motivated certainty that it's all too easy to dismiss. But good conspiracies are like successful lies, they tend to have a percentage of truth within them, and all too often, in a parallel fallacy of binary absolutism, many people will see a BS shell and discount the authentic kernal.


I wish more people were more wise.

[Captain Steel]

Since this thread has been bumped... one of the biggest recent stories that fits the topic is the Covid-19 origins.

For over a year, anyone who even brought up the idea of a lab origin for the virus was called a conspiracy theorist (in some cases even called "racist" for mentioning the possibility) and there seemed to be a concerted effort to silence anyone who'd voice or entertain this theory.

But now, after a little more evidence comes out that makes the lab origin seem far more probable, even those who accused others of being conspiracy theorists are giving the theory credence.

But what seems to be lacking is any withdrawal, retraction, correction or apology from those who labeled others "crazy conspiracy theorists" or other names for a theory they are now saying is not only possible, but probable.

[CringeFest]

There are squirrels living in my butthole.

[Captain Steel]

There are squirrels living in my butthole.

Is that a theory or a fact?

[Jinnistan]

Since this thread has been bumped... one of the biggest recent stories that fits the topic is the Covid-19 origins.

For over a year, anyone who even brought up the idea of a lab origin for the virus was called a conspiracy theorist (in some cases even called "racist" for mentioning the possibility) and there seemed to be a concerted effort to silence anyone who'd voice or entertain this theory.

But now, after a little more evidence comes out that makes the lab origin seem far more probable, even those who accused others of being conspiracy theorists are giving the theory credence.

But what seems to be lacking is any withdrawal, retraction, correction or apology from those who labeled others "crazy conspiracy theorists" or other names for a theory they are now saying is not only possible, but probable.
I agree that the initial "consensus" response was irresponsible, and we're already seeing some use the pseudo-logic of "if it's this, then that" to further question everything from mask efficacy to the 2020 election.


I became intrigued by the theory of the lab-leak with the release of two State Dept. cables, reported by Josh Rogin in the Washington Post. Here's the best rundown of Rogin's reporting (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322). When it became clear that Pompeo had deliberately leaked these (incomplete) cables, as a way to shift blame from Trump's horrendously botched response to the outbreak back to the CCP, many in the mainstream were content to ignore it. However, two things can quite frequently be simultaneously true: the cables have been shown to be authentic, and Trump still, through a combination of arrogance, inepitude and deceit, greatly exacerbated the pain and death the Americans suffered from the virus. (And, ironically, the portion of the cables that Pompeo chose not to release show that the Trump admin refused WIV's request for additional funding and training for the safety protocols that could have prevented the leak.)


What we can determine as fact is that the CCP engaged in a massive cover-up, restricting acess to the patients and their medical records, engaging in mass cremations of victims, shutting down any media access to the area, and arresting any medical professional who spoke out against the party narrative. As we've seen in other conspiracies, the cover-up itself allows room for the kind of vacuous ambiguity that enables speculation to thrive. But the fact is that due to this cover-up, we may never have the evidence necessary to confirm what actually happened.


What ended up being more persuasive for me is when I looked back at the little-noticed but still very publicly available news surrounding the WIV's efforts in the years prior to the outbreak. Shi Zhengli was an internationally recognized WIV scientist studying SARS-CoV for a decade. In 2017, WIV scientists released a paper (here's the layman article at the time (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07766-9), and here's the full paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/)) which noted that they had extracted up to 15 variations of SARS-CoV virus from a bat cave in Yunnan, and that these samples were being held at the Wuhan lab (note the use of 'WIV' as individual viral prefix identifiers). (fwiw, Yunnan is nowhere near Wuhan, being some thousand miles away in southwest China). The actual paper is pretty dense for someone (like me) who doesn't hold a degree in virology, but it does have a couple of important quotes which stand out: "In this cave, we have now obtained full-length genome sequences of additional 11 novel SARSr-CoVs from bats"; "In addition, we have also revealed that various SARSr-CoVs capable of using human ACE2 are still circulating among bats in this region." So WIV had a dozen strains of coronavirus from bats who were 1000 miles from Wuhan on the other side of the country, and that at least some of these strains already showed a possible capability of direct human infection, via the ACE2 lung receptors. (In addition, the wet market in Wuhan did not sell bats; it was a seafood market.)



The primary rationale for shooting down the lab-leak theory was that the virus' genome showed no evidence of laboratory manipulation or tampering. But the stated purpose of the research involved "monitoring of SARSr-CoV evolution", not genetic engineering. (For the record, we should throw the entire 'bioweapon' theory out for complete lack of evidence.) Did this research involve exposing these SARS samples to the DNA of other animals, or, possibly, human cellular tissue in order to monitor its natural mutations? Does the use of 'chimeric viruses' to augment the proteins of SARS-CoV amount to what's called 'gain-of-function'? I've seen arguments on all sides of these questions, but I haven't seen much in the way of consensus. And with the omission of any actual WIV documentation, it's unlikely that we'll have any. But, long story short, the excuse that the genome showed no evidence of laboratory engineering is now shown to be irrelevent given the fact that the research was designed to look as natural as possible (which is the only way it would be beneficial for the purpose of studying how it would naturally mutate).


One other thing that I will weigh in on, which is that I think that the recent attempt to paint Dr. Fauci as some sort of diabolical villain in all of this is so obviously erroneous that this alone should be an effective metric for whether to take anyone's theory seriously. All of the Rand Paul's and Scott Atlas' of the world are just sore about Fauci proving their feeble and cruel notions of herd immunity patently false, and, for them, this is their paleocivic version of payback. As Steve Bannon said, Fauci didn't "get with the program".

[Redapplecigz]

There are squirrels living in my butthole.

Tell them the nuts are on the other side

[CringeFest]

I was joking before, cuz i'm honestly a little sick of conspiracy theories (there are conspiracies everywhere, duh...), but on a serious note i was in ""9/11 truth" during college, around 11 years ago. I was won over by the idea that "building 7 couldn't have collapsed on its own, and the twin towers looked like controlled demolitions but may not have been". I no longer believe this trash, even though ithink one should not suspend their disbelief right off the bat.


One thing I've learned over the years (some radical writer talked about this), is that the news media basically elects the president. I don't vote, but i've watched the last two U.S. elections. During the first one, the news media just really liked trump because he was great for their ratings, and exploded all of his petty controversies and idiocies. The result is he beat hillary pretty badly, and hillary ****ed up by trying to portray all trump voters as "deplorables". This mistake not only effected her run, but had a net-negative impact on the democratic party for years to come.


However, the news media went in the opposite direction this time around. People have been anxious for COVID to be put under control and for trump's psychotic twitter-fest to come to a halt. I was pretty divided on who i thought was going to win, but after news media people started portraying biden as "the more empathetic candidate", trumps fate was sealed, and trumps debate performance ensured his defeat.


I think trump is going to have a much better chance of winning this second time around, given that the COVID nightmare has chilled out a little since, but he may have already ruined his chances since his social media account got banned by twitter, and he will be remembered by the establishment as a dangerous psycho.


Anyone else wanna speculate???

[ScarletLion]

I was joking before, cuz i'm honestly a little sick of conspiracy theories (there are conspiracies everywhere, duh...), but on a serious note i was in ""9/11 truth" during college, around 11 years ago. I was won over by the idea that "building 7 couldn't have collapsed on its own, and the twin towers looked like controlled demolitions but may not have been". I no longer believe this trash, even though ithink one should not suspend their disbelief right off the bat.


One thing I've learned over the years (some radical writer talked about this), is that the news media basically elects the president. I don't vote, but i've watched the last two U.S. elections. During the first one, the news media just really liked trump because he was great for their ratings, and exploded all of his petty controversies and idiocies. The result is he beat hillary pretty badly, and hillary ****ed up by trying to portray all trump voters as "deplorables". This mistake not only effected her run, but had a net-negative impact on the democratic party for years to come.


However, the news media went in the opposite direction this time around. People have been anxious for COVID to be put under control and for trump's psychotic twitter-fest to come to a halt. I was pretty divided on who i thought was going to win, but after news media people started portraying biden as "the more empathetic candidate", trumps fate was sealed, and trumps debate performance ensured his defeat.


I think trump is going to have a much better chance of winning this second time around, given that the COVID nightmare has chilled out a little since, but he may have already ruined his chances since his social media account got banned by twitter, and he will be remembered by the establishment as a dangerous psycho.


Anyone else wanna speculate???

The media definitely plays a part. Here in the UK it is equally awful. A scandal broke 2 weeks ago where the top health minister was caught on CCTV having an affair.

A newspaper broke the story with pictures on the front page. That day - the BBC did it's daily round up of the front pages of all the UK tabloid newspapers but it ommitted one - guess which one? That's right - the one with the picture of the health minister kissing his secretary. And is it a coincidence that the Director General of the BBC is a donor of the party that is in Government? I think not.

What is scary though is that you mention ratings and news channels will do whatever boosts them. That, to me, is terrifying on a Cronenbergian level - that the news channels will report whatever makes people watch their programmes. The ramifications of that on the socio-political landscsape are potentially huge.

[CringeFest]

The media definitely plays a part. Here in the UK it is equally awful. A scandal broke 2 weeks ago where the top health minister was caught on CCTV having an affair.

A newspaper broke the story with pictures on the front page. That day - the BBC did it's daily round up of the front pages of all the UK tabloid newspapers but it ommitted one - guess which one? That's right - the one with the picture of the health minister kissing his secretary. And is it a coincidence that the Director General of the BBC is a donor of the party that is in Government? I think not.

What is scary though is that you mention ratings and news channels will do whatever boosts them. That, to me, is terrifying on a Cronenbergian level - that the news channels will report whatever makes people watch their programmes. The ramifications of that on the socio-political landscsape are potentially huge.


Videodrome was a nice surrealist commentary on televised media, that's just as relevant as it was back in 1983. People become engulfed in television, whether it's you tube, local news broadcast, and as you've pointed out simple pictures in print media also have their role to play.

[matt72582]

I think the CIA purposely throws out all the ridiculous crap (90% of the theories) to discredit all the legitimate ones. After all, they weaponized that word after the JFK assassination. But it works, and the "tin-foil" baloney. Has anyone ever seen someone with a "tin-foil hat"? I doubt it. Does anyone really think only ONE guy can take over a country (Guatemala, Iran in the 50s for example)? It's impossible. I'm sure there are a lot of things done by one guy, but nothing major.

[ScarletLion]

Here's my go:

What has Ghislaine Maxwell got on the FBI?
Where are the cctv tapes from Epstein's townhouse? What's on them?
Why did the FBI not properly convict Epstein in Florida?
Why did the FBI not listen to the victims allegations about Epstein's abuse in the early 2000s?