I disagree that I am required to consider everything before reaction a conclusion. Science most certainly does not work that way. Science looks for the cause in the most likely places. If the cause is not found, the circle is widened to the next most likely places.
When I am missing a shoe, I don’t consider the dog dragging it away, and elves taking to a hidden workshop for repair, to deserve the same consideration as I begin looking.
From Wikipedia
OK, so I was wrong about the suicide, but it wasn’t cancer either.
I’m curious: If there are any doctors here, how easy is it to make it appear that someone died of pulmonary embolism? (e.g. by injecting them with something)
I don’t know all the details about Ruby’s last days, but a final event like pulmonary embolism is not incompatible with a cancer diagnosis.
The terminal event in cancer can be a variety of things relating to the body’s weakened state and related to organ failure, malnutrition, or pulmonary embolism (there are carcinomas which are especially associated with hypercoagulable states and resultant emboli).
Most sources note that he died of cancer.
Possible, I suppose; just not very likely. And it’s hard to imagine why somebody would go to the trouble to knock off a dying man after he’d had all that time already to spill his guts about The Grand Conspiracy.
Ruby himself allegedly told people he thought his cancer was due to his being injected with cancer cells. If you want a far fetched conspiracy theory, that’s a doozy (your own cancer cells potentially can propagate if injected elsewhere, but someone else’s are extremely liable to be rejected).
I’d say not. Most of the people who bring out the “tinfoil hat” comments are just throwing up an ad hominem so they won’t have to defend something. Occasionally they actually believe that there has never been a case of collusion between anyone, anywhere, but those types are usually so inept they can’t get the computer to work.
Exactly. Commiting the act is not the thing here - I’m perfectly willing to believe that large groups of people are capable of bringing complicated plans to fruition; take D-Day, for instance, or 9/11. Assasinating someone is easy, because all you have to do to succeed is to be successful once. Covering your tracks, on the other hand, is very, very hard, becaue all you have to do to fail is to be unsuccessful once. No three people or more can keep a secret forever.
I believe in conspiracies. I don’t believe in cover-ups.
Just to clarify - that should read “your own cancer cells potentially can propagate if injected elsewhere in your body”.
Indeed, in fact the running joke is that the conspiracy theorists are the only ones with any faith in a effectively functioning government.
I have accepted the possibility that Oswald fired all of the shots that hit Kennedy, though I’m still iffy about “magic bullet.” However, one thing I don’t get is why Oswald was allowed back from the USSR so quickly and seemingly happily, “all is forgiven,” and all. Still smells off.
Oh, I buy him as the lone gunman easy. It’s the “acting alone” bit that doesn’t pass the giggle test. So he was acting alone, and Jack Ruby killed him out of what? Patriotism?
Easy to understand once you understand the real positions of the President and the Governor, not the nonsense the conspracicts have been pushing.
He was hardly unique. Several hundred American citizens were repatriated in the same year as Oswald. It took a lot of red tape and time, especially since he got married during that time.
You have to realise that the US has accepted that there are many young hotheads who try to renounce their citizenry and soon come to regret their actions. The US embassy told him to think bout it for a few days when Oswald tried to renounce his citizenship. That delay prevented him from making that critical step, and made his repatriation a lot easier, but by no means easy.
Jack Ruby was a hothead, according to all those who knew him. Keep in mind that he was busy at the Western Union up to mere moments before the transfer, hardly the act of a conspirator. Especially when you consider that Oswald changing his shirt delayed him long enough for Ruby to arrive.
Ouch! I still feel guilty entering debates there without tossing out a fuck or an asshole.
So you pick an example that is about ME asking whether or not a particular “conspiracy” has any merit. We had a brief thread on what, if any, part did GWB & friends play in the death of the woman who claimed he raped her. I thought it actually DID meet a standard that at least approached reasonable. The woman, an acquantance of GWB had filed charges against him for sexual assault. IIRC the claim originally was that he had taken advantage of her while in an intoxicated state. It later took on some seriously paranoid and schizophrenic details. OKAY (But not until a little digging was done.)
After a few trips around the media circus and several variations of the story, SHE was found dead with a 9MM. bullet in her brain, supposedly by her own hand.
I was simply curious as to whether or not this particular conspiracy had been discussed. My point in the thing was that (true or not) the BUSH family has too many coincidences in their past.
BTW the case was ruled a suicide…despite the fact that the 9mm Glock handgun found at her side was not registered to her or anyone else AFAIK. The owner was never revealed to my knowledge. The whole thing kinda got swept under the rug.
The facts of the case were that she and GWB knew each other. (fact, reasonable)
She had filed charges against GWB for rape. (fact, reasonable)
She was paranoid that she would be murdered for what she knew. (that she believed it, is reasonable)
She died before trial via “suicide”. (fact, reasonable)
Question - Was this woman killed by ANYONE other than herself?
(reasonable or not?) I don’t know. But I feel like it wouldn’t be the first time somebody was killed to shut them up.
You know what? When I see stories like that in the news. I’m going to at least check it out a bit more before I just blow it off.
To rephrase the OP: "Does debunking and obliterating a conspiracy theory convince those who are blind to the possibility?
Obviously not.
I would disagree. The fact is that the coverup only started in the last days or weeks of the war and prior to that the atrocities were a part of business as usual in one of the world’s largest and most documentation-obsessed nations. There was FAR too much evidence to destroy and FAR too many people (thousands of them) involved for any form of coverup to succeed. The more reasonable (less insane) assasination theorists describe conspiracies on a far more modest scale undertaken by people and organizations obsessed with secrecy. As for the less reasonable theorists, well, I know I wasn’t involved but I’m not so sure about ANYBODY else who was alive at that time. 
Unfortunately, this is a lovely example of the knee-jerk dismissal that this thread is about. t-keela listed facts and left open a possibility–not a suspicion, not a claim, and not an insistence of fact, but just a possibility–that the woman’s death was not by her own hand and Jackmannii went beyond simple denial in order to make a snide comment that dismisses t-keela as a tin-foil hatter for even raising the possibility.
Nonsense.
As the linked thread demonstrates, t-keela has made a habit of nuzzling up to far-fetched conspiracy theories, including the Nigerian claim that polio vaccine was part of a U.S. plot to spread AIDS, and the “JFK/Bush/CIA conspiracy”, whatever that is. As to GWB’s allegedly masterminding a conspiracy to repeatedly rape a Texas woman (and her husband) and cover it up using Federal agents, if such ravings (there’s a linked lawsuit filing - read it) don’t convince you that this is bunkum, consider that no one has even demonstrated that Bush ever met this woman or provided the ghostliest shred of evidence that any of this ever occurred outside of the woman’s imagination. It reads like a classic example of paranoid delusional thinking.
Repeatedly advancing this sort of nonsense along the lines of “Well, I’m not saying it’s true, but - that’s an awful lot of coincidence, and…yeah, it does sound far out, but wow, it would blow my mind if it were true, and no, there’s no evidence but…think of all the evil done throughout history, and…” is a ploy aimed at having your cake and eating it too. You can claim that you never really endorsed a conspiracy theory, but if you keep throwing it out there despite a complete lack of evidence, you’re helping to perpetuate it.
Hard-core conspiracy addicts, whether on the subject of JFK, the Elders of Zion, the Masons, or Our Vital Bodily Fluids are never going to be satisfied, no matter how often they are presented with facts and reason. Add a little scorn to the mix, and they might keep their mutterings down to a tolerable level.
Hey, if you tossed the fucks and assholes out of the pit, there’d be nobody left… boom-boom, tish!
Jack
you keep quoting me out of context and I’m not gonna sit for it too long. You make it seem that I claimed or supported the following.
“including the Nigerian claim that polio vaccine was part of a U.S. plot to spread AIDS”
That is a fucking lie. I never supported the idea that the US spread AIDS in any conspiracy.
What I said was that the the spread of AIDS was increased early due to unsanitary syringe practice then cited evidence.
If you are going to cite my posts at least keep your remarks honest.
The fact that I don’t think the Bushes are sqeaky clean is no secret. Regarding the woman’s claim. If you had read the newspaper reports and watched the televised reports. They didn’t mention any of the psychotic behavior the woman supposedly had. That little detail didn’t show up until later.
dropzone basically I’ve got an anti-fan. Someone who follows me around crying wolf at the first sign. I didn’t say Bush killed anyone. I never claimed the US conpired to spread AIDS either. You’re right…it’s a fine example. I have often asked about this or that…as have many other members here. Some questions turn out to be bullshit some not. There’s an ignore switch I think I’m going to have to start using. It’s getting old to have the same person cruising the board after you.
Notice that they rarely disprove the evidence or events…only the possibility of a bigger picture.
BTW GWB and the lady in question knew each other from school. That’s old news however and I’m not about to start that debate.
Certainly no conspiracy is perfect, but some at least might have been good enough.
I would think that the general model would be something like this:
If some sort of evidence, really good stuff, came to light showing quite clearly that JFK was killed by Elvis from the Grassy Knoll, the momentum against this explanation would be considerable.
If only pretty good evidence surfaces that challenges the established truth, it is too easy to poo-poo it as Tinfoil Hat Stuff. Of course most of it is, but still…
As quoted in the linked thread, t-keela on the claim that the U.S. wants to spread AIDS in Nigeria via the polio vaccine:
t-keela on the GWB rape/murder/coverup allegations:
In both cases, exactly the sort of conspiracy facilitation I described, i.e. “Well, I’m not saying it’s true. But wow, isn’t it plausible?!”
And we’ve seen zilch from you or anyone else on the claim that Bush ever met the woman claiming multiple rapes. But don’t let that stop you.
Feel free to ignore rationality or whatever else is inconvenient to your world view.