# Ask the conspiracy theorist **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 27, 2012, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012 "2012-10-27T05:07:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/441 "2013-01-18T20:25:38Z")
Anarch may be a term of convenience rather than the person’s supposed job title, but **Kozmik** blurs a lot of distinctions. He doesn’t always make it clear if he thinks something is happening or if he’s just arguing that it could happen, and I’m not sure about his ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/442 "2013-01-18T20:54:15Z")
As annoying as **Koz** can be and how pointless this thread is, I cannot tear myself away. I guess I am hoping he will see the light of day, not counting on it just hoping. Kinda like watching a slow motion car wreck. **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/443 "2013-01-18T21:04:31Z")
If you’re enjoying the show and want to see what this sort of “thinking” can lead to when put into practice, be sure to check out [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=679081). Which is not to suggest that **Kozmik** himself would engage in harassment, and he has stated that he doesn’t believe the Sandy Hook event was a hoax— but it’s precisely that kind of crap that prevents me from seeing kooky conspiracy theories as harmless fun anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/444 "2013-01-18T21:55:22Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > If you’re enjoying the show and want to see what this sort of “thinking” can lead to when put into practice, be sure to check out [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=679081). > > Which is not to suggest that **Kozmik** himself would engage in harassment, and he has stated that he doesn’t believe the Sandy Hook event was a hoax— but it’s precisely that kind of crap that prevents me from seeing kooky conspiracy theories as harmless fun anymore. Have been lurking in that one don’t want to post because I have a cousin who believes that Aurora and Sandy Hook are related conspiracies because of LIBOR. She also believes the flouride thingy, you should see her rotten mouth. She makes me stabby **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/445 "2013-01-19T21:22:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This is the thing I’ve always wondered. Who’s in these secret organizations and how do they operate? Let’s start with a small group of men sitting in a room somewhere making decisions about world events (we’ll call them the Illuminati). How do they cause these decisions to be carried out? > > Let’s take the JFK assassination as an example. I’ll assume the Illuminati didn’t order Kennedy to report to Dallas to be killed. But did Kennedy know the Illuminati existed? Did they show up at the White House after Kennedy was elected President to explain to him that he was supposed to follow their orders? Or did he already know that he needed their permission to be elected President? Did Nixon know the Illuminati had decided he was going to lose when he was running for President in 1960? I’m glad someone is using “suspended judgment”. You are asking inquiring questions. That is good. Who is in these secret organizations are those who are “at the very top of the pyramid”, those who are “above”, those who are “higher”. They operate something like an amalgamation of the heads of government and the royal family. Do you not see that “authority” throughout history changes? The Emperor. Then the Pope. Then the Pope and the kings. Then the kings. Then the heads of government. Kennedy knew of the Illuminati. Did you ever listen to his “[secrecy speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA)”? Nixon not only understood in 1960 that he was going to lose the 1960 election but he understood also that he was going to win in 1968 and 1972. Nixon did not know of the Illuminati. Remember that he was Eisenhower’s VP. Eisenhower knew of the Illuminati. Remember also that Nixon was very paranoid. Nixon was wrong about the Jews, though. Nixon was also very naive. Paranoid and naive - usually not a good combination! > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The breakdown occurs with the secrecy. When I was a lowly worker bee, I knew who my boss was and I knew who his boss was. I could, if I wanted to, trace my way up the chain of command until I theoretically reached the President of the United States. Every link in the chain was a known figure that people recognized as holding that position. > > So why would this system suddenly change at the very top? Why would the members of the Illuminati be invisible? They supposedly run the world after all - they have nothing they need to hide from. The people who give orders to the heads of state should be just as well known as the heads of state. > > And that recognition is a major source of people’s authority. People obey a leader because they know he’s the leader. An unknown leader has no authority. > > Let’s say you’re a sentry at some military base. Two cars race up and two men get out. One’s Barack Obama and one’s a guy you’ve never heard of who tells you he’s Barack Obama’s boss. They both give you conflicting orders. Which one do you think you obey? You assume that the 192 heads of government is “the very top”. That is why I created the thought experiment of the G-192 summit. The Illuminati would not necessarily, in your words, be “invisible”. They would be anonymous, hidden in plain sight. Think purloined letter. Yes, they run the world. However, their only weakness, their “kryptonite”, their “Achilles’ heel” is that they must remain anonymous. You’re analogy is not apt. Let’s say you’re a sentry at Tehran in 1943. Two cars race up. Three men get out of the first car: Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. One man gets out of the second car: an Illuminatus. Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin appear to disagree amongst themselves. They seem to settle upon one course of action or inaction. The Illuminatus talks to them and they reply to him. The Illuminatus gives you a conflicting course of action or inaction. Which course of action or inaction do you take? > [@Muffin](#): > > I’m curious as to what makes a conspiracy theorist (or makes any true believer, be it religious or not) – why do their minds function such that they believe the things they believe. To that end, a non-hostile thread such as this is more useful than a hostile thread in the pit. I anticipated that someone would make this important point which is why I created the “hostile thread” _before_ I created the “non-hostile thread”. I understand chess. I’m smarter than most people think. I also know more than most people realize. > [@Loach](#): > > And I have dealt with bureaucracy my entire adult life, from the inside. To think that humans could run an efficient one is pretty funny. Maybe it really is lizard people. Do you know the origin of bureaucracy ? > [@](#): > > Thus, Diocletian designated the consuls; the senators no longer collaborated in the making of laws ; the imperial counsellors (_consilla sacra_) were distributed among specialized offices, and their functions were strictly defined so that the power of the praetorian prefects (personal bodyguards to the emperor) was limited; the specialization of administrative work grew; and the number of bureaucrats increased. This was the beginning of the bureaucracy and technology that was eventually to overrun modern societies. cite: Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Diocletian” > [@Loach](#): > > You say back in the 1500s the pope is a decoy for the Anarch. However the term Anarch was invented in 1977 in a book you have not bothered to read. Yet somehow you have recently latched on to the term. The Pope is a decoy for the Illuminati. **sisu** seems to understand that whether or not he or she believes it. At least **sisu** is exercising “suspended judgment”. The term Anarch may have been invented in 1977; however, the term Illuminati was not. hint: The Anarch is to the heads of government what the Pope is to the rulers of Europe. > [@DrFidelius](#): > > Apologies for the double post, but I took more than five minutes to collect further thoughts You need more time. > [@DrFidelius](#): > > Precedence among ambassadors is currently (mostly) determined by the length of time that a particular person has held the position in a given capital city. Yes, “currently”. > [@DrFidelius](#): > > The 1504 Papal order of precedence applied ONLY to ambassadors to the Vatican, and was rendered moot by the Reformation soon after. The Papal order of precedence applied to those kings who recognized the Pope as their overlord. Not all kings did: > [@](#): > > Several European Kings (e.g. King of Sweden, Tsar of Russia) were not present on the list, which was, at least originally, only for those who recognized the Bishop of Rome as their overlord. Can you understand this? Overlord. Understand? > [@JohnT](#): > > You forgot the most obvious objection: > > 13 years later Christendom was shattered by the actions of a [pissed-off monk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther). Who ordered _that_? How did the Reformation assist an organization that exerted its power through the authority of the Papacy? Good question, though your question has a narrow view. One result of the Reformation challenging the authority of the Pope, was that the kings would not have an overlord. One consequence of this is that, for example, the king or queen of England is _Fidei defensor_. Another thing to keep in mind is that after the Roman Emperor Diocletian created the _Quattuor principes mundi_ among him, Galerius, Maximian, and Constantius, in 3_13_, Constantine converted to Christianity. Then after the fall of the Roman Empire, there would be kings and the Pope, until, of course, after the Reformation, when it would just be kings. The Illuminati exerted their power through the Emperor, then the Pope, then the Pope and the kings, then the kings, and now the heads of government. > [@Smeghead](#): > > Why do you think any of this makes sense? What was it that got this all into your head? What supporting evidence do you have for any of it? I will answer these condescending questions with this answer: It doesn’t matter what I believe. > [@DocCathode](#): > > Why Diocletian? Why not some other Roman emperor? Excellent question. Remember that Diocletian in the line of Roman Emperors was before Nero, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and after Diocletian was Maximian, Galerius, Constantius (three of the _Quattuor principes mundi_), Constantine, and Romulus Augustus. According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan), the Roman Empire reached its greatest territorial extent under Trajan. Then Marcus Aurelius maintained that expanded Empire. Nero, of course, is known for his persecution of Christians. It was likely decided when the \*Quattuor principes mundi \* was established among Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius that each would succeed each other, first Maximian, then Galerius, and finally Constantius. Constantine converted to Christianity and I don’t think I need to explain the significance of that. Last but not least, Romulus Augustus was the last Emperor with the fall of the Roman Empire. All this paved the way for the Papacy who’s authority would be challenged with the Reformation. > [@sisu](#): > > In olde times most rulers claimed divine right to rule, the Pope was no different really. The real power came from having the ability to reliably tax their subjects and therefore build big arse armies wrapped up in a scary God. > > Assuming the Illuminati are the power behind the Pope, how do we explain the often portrayed link between Illuminati and Freemasons and the hatred of the Church to Masons? Another excellent question. The Illuminati is the power behind the Pope - that is the assumption. From Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > In 1983, the Church issued a new Code of Canon Law. Unlike its predecessor, it did not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies it condemns. It states in part: “A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.” This named omission of Masonic orders caused both Catholics and Freemasons to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted, especially after the perceived liberalisation of Vatican II.[78] However, the matter was clarified when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations, which states: “… the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.” Thus, from a Catholic perspective, there is still a ban on Catholics joining Masonic Lodges. For its part, Freemasonry has never objected to Catholics joining their fraternity. Also: > [@](#): > > In contrast to Catholic allegations of rationalism and naturalism, Protestant objections are more likely to be based on allegations of mysticism, occultism, and even Satanism. So the Illuminati, which is behind Catholicism, Protestantism, and freemasonry, (1) forbides Catholics to become Masons, (2) does not object to Catholics being Masons, and (3) instigates Protestant objections which may or may not have a grain of truth to them. > [@DocCathode](#): > > I thought the old timey popes got their power from > > material wealth > > a large and loyal army > > and the fact that faithful Catholics think the pope is Christ’s vicar on earth. Yes! Vicar. And what does “vicar” mean? > [@DrFidelius](#): > > Oh come now. He’s using “Anarch” as a shorthand title for the Powerful Person Who Pulls All The Strings Of The World. I prefer “Illuminati Primus” myself, but we all know that an office, entity or thing can exist well before the current name for it was coined. > > You are being disingenuous. Thank you. > [@Marley23](#): > > Anarch may be a term of convenience rather than the person’s supposed job title, but **Kozmik** blurs a lot of distinctions. He doesn’t always make it clear if he thinks something is happening or if he’s just arguing that it could happen, and I’m not sure about his ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. Reality [defined](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality). Take your pick. Also notice reality check - “something that clarifies or serves as a reminder of reality often by correcting a misconception”. As in: _The New York Times_ is my reality check. > [@Capt\_Kirk](#): > > As annoying as **Koz** can be and how pointless this thread is, I cannot tear myself away. I guess I am hoping he will see the light of day, not counting on it just hoping. Kinda like watching a slow motion car wreck. > > **Capt** How condescending! Also **Muffin** would disagree with you. (See above, in this post.) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/446 "2013-01-19T21:46:13Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Kennedy knew of the Illuminati. Did you ever listen to his “[secrecy speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA)”? Weird how the all-powerful global conspiracy that can get whatever it wants with a simple phone call didn’t think to call the president and tell him not to give a public speech about them. Oopsie. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/447 "2013-01-19T21:46:52Z")
Nine pages and your explanation still boils down to “I believe it because I believe it” with no hint of proof or evidence. We get it. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/448 "2013-01-19T21:55:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Weird how the all-powerful global conspiracy that can get whatever it wants with a simple phone call didn’t think to call the president and tell him not to give a public speech about them. Oopsie. Weird how the message was received in Dallas in 1963. Oopsie. > [@Loach](#): > > Nine pages and your explanation still boils down to “I believe it because I believe it” with no hint of proof or evidence. We get it. It doesn’t matter what I believe. Do _you_ get it? Do you? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/449 "2013-01-19T21:59:28Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Weird how the message was received in Dallas in 1963. Oopsie. Nope, that’s a total failure. You’ve proposed a conspiracy that can pull off all kinds of convoluted nonsense and can get whatever it wants with a phone call. Now you’re saying JFK not only defied the all-powerful conspiracy by speaking openly about it in April 1961 (and nobody else confirmed what he was saying), but in addition to failing to stop him, they couldn’t even get back at him for another two and a half years. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/450 "2013-01-19T22:11:22Z")
**Kozmik** it is in no way condescending to hope that a fellow Doper who lives in a fake town populated by washed up child actors might see reality. This is IIRC the first time you have actually responded to me directly, how about a reply on the factual stuff? **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/451 "2013-01-19T22:18:40Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Nope, that’s a total failure. You’ve proposed a conspiracy that can pull off all kinds of convoluted nonsense and can get whatever it wants with a phone call. Now you’re saying JFK not only defied the all-powerful conspiracy by speaking openly about it in April 1961 (and nobody else confirmed what he was saying), but in addition to failing to stop him, they couldn’t even get back at him for another two and a half years. They didn’t want to make it look obvious. They waited until after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. They wanted to make it look like it was communism that was behind the assassination. And who could confirm what he was saying? > [@Capt\_Kirk](#): > > **Kozmik** it is in no way condescending to hope that a fellow Doper who lives in a fake town populated by washed up child actors might see reality. This is IIRC the first time you have actually responded to me directly, how about a reply on the factual stuff? > > **Capt** Here’s exactly what’s condescending: > [@Capt\_Kirk](#): > > and how pointless this thread is and what’s not condescending: > [@Muffin](#): > > I’m curious as to what makes a conspiracy theorist (or makes any true believer, be it religious or not) – why do their minds function such that they believe the things they believe. To that end, a non-hostile thread such as this is more useful than a hostile thread in the pit. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/452 "2013-01-19T22:33:27Z")
Have you noticed the forum you are in? Also it is pointless to talk in circles to someone who seems immune to logic or evidence. The only reason I am here is the vain hope that atleast once you will see one of your theories is hogwash and begin to see the world as it actually is. That whole “Fighting Ignorance” thing, which unfortunately in your case, is going to be a steep climb. **Koz** I hate to say it but you are ignorant as to how the World works, and all the time you have wasted on all this BS will all be for naught. Sorry if this sounds harsh or condescending, but it is true **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/453 "2013-01-19T22:36:35Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > They didn’t want to make it look obvious. They’re doing an outstanding job of that. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/454 "2013-01-19T22:37:47Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Weird how the message was received in Dallas in 1963. Oopsie. > > It doesn’t matter what I believe. Do _you_ get it? Do you? Do you understand that is gibberish? Do you? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/455 "2013-01-19T22:37:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by JohnT > You forgot the most obvious objection: > > 13 years later Christendom was shattered by the actions of a pissed-off monk. Who ordered that? How did the Reformation assist an organization that exerted its power through the authority of the Papacy? > Good question, though your question has a narrow view. One result of the Reformation challenging the authority of the Pope, was that the kings would not have an overlord. One consequence of this is that, for example, the king or queen of England is Fidei defensor. Another thing to keep in mind is that after the Roman Emperor Diocletian created the Quattuor principes mundi among him, Galerius, Maximian, and Constantius, in 313, Constantine converted to Christianity. Then after the fall of the Roman Empire, there would be kings and the Pope, until, of course, after the Reformation, when it would just be kings. 😕 But the kings already have an overlord - the Illuminati, right? 😕 Why go from a situation where you have an all-powerful Papacy who can rank the kings in some sort of order which they must accept to a situation where the Illuminati now have to deal with dozens, hundreds of different rulers? How does that even begin to make sense? If I want to give an order to an employee of mine, I don’t hire somebody else (or 200 somebody elses) to dilute my message. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/456 "2013-01-19T22:45:21Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > They didn’t want to make it look obvious. No, you’re dodging the first question: how did they fail to stop him from speaking? Presidents don’t write their speeches alone. They discuss them with teams of speechwriters and others. If there were a conspiracy, why didn’t they know and how did they not stop it? And why do they care if it looks obvious? Don’t you think their plans appear in the New York Times? > [@](#): > > They waited until after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. They couldn’t have manufactured a reason earlier? > [@](#): > > They wanted to make it look like it was communism that was behind the assassination. The Cold War was already tense. If they had made up the Oswald story, they could have made up something substantially the same before April 1961 or right after. > [@](#): > > And who could confirm what he was saying? All the other world leaders who have to answer their phone calls. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/457 "2013-01-19T23:01:34Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > 😕 But the kings already have an overlord - the Illuminati, right? 😕 > > Why go from a situation where you have an all-powerful Papacy who can rank the kings in some sort of order which they must accept to a situation where the Illuminati now have to deal with dozens, hundreds of different rulers? > > How does that even begin to make sense? If I want to give an order to an employee of mine, I don’t hire somebody else (or 200 somebody elses) to dilute my message. Not only that, the “all-powerful papacy” was for a relatively short time. When there was too much power there was a natural push back against it. Two popes, the reformation, the rise of science… Not to mention it wasn’t all powerful in a large section of the world. His whole logic is that some people have more power than others therefore there has to be one person pulling all the strings. And his misfiring neurons can not grasp that there is no logic there. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/458 "2013-01-19T23:04:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, you’re dodging the first question: how did they fail to stop him from speaking? Presidents don’t write their speeches alone. They discuss them with teams of speechwriters and others. If there were a conspiracy, why didn’t they know and how did they not stop it? And why do they care if it looks obvious? Don’t you think their plans appear in the New York Times? > > They couldn’t have manufactured a reason earlier? > > The Cold War was already tense. If they had made up the Oswald story, they could have made up something substantially the same before April 1961 or right after. > > All the other world leaders who have to answer their phone calls. :rolleyes: The beauty is that all questions can be answered with “because that’s what they wanted to do” and you can’t refute it. No matter how illogical a sequence of events can be to a supposed worldwide conspiracy, they meant to do that. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/459 "2013-01-19T23:29:30Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > No matter how illogical a sequence of events can be to a supposed worldwide conspiracy, they meant to do that. There’s no way to distinguish between a carefully crafted, long term, complex plan and random shit happening. That’s the beauty of it. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012/460 "2013-01-19T23:52:36Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > There’s no way to distinguish between a carefully crafted, long term, complex plan and random shit happening. That’s the beauty of it. Which is exactly what they wanted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-conspiracy-theorist/639012.md?page=24)