Conspiracy Theories

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

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)?

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.

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.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

...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...

__________________
The Divide by Zero Foundation - Where the real world ends... and mine begins

"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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Preeshate it!

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
The 9/11 stuff is about 36 mins in

Counter 1
Counter 2


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

__________________
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens. ~ Jimi Hendrix

bump

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.


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?

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.

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.

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 book. The book is, without a doubt, one of the worst and most obvious attempts at rewriting history.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza