# To argue against conspiracy theories, is it valid to say "this would be a secret too hard to keep?" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2010, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603 "2010-11-23T01:03:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/61 "2010-11-27T15:44:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Jumping up and down and tap dancing around the issue is amusing, but Lane can not be trusted, even if one ignores Hunt. I’m not tap dancing around the issue: I’m trying to ignore it. I’m not saying crap about Hunt \*\*or \*\*Lane! Go back and reread my posts! It isn’t about JFK, Lane, or your beloved Hunt. Or the Warren Commission. Or LBJ. Or Bobby Baker. Or general Walker. Or Marina Oswald. Or Spartacus, the Greek or the website. Or jackie or john-john or… It is about the nature of conspirators. Correction: about the nature of debates about conspiracies. I got onto Lane just as a way of saying that somebody pointed out flaws in the WC, early; so get off of it! I don’t care about debating about any of them! I’m using analogies, and you’re dragging in Hunt, Lane, Plausible Denial, Liberty Lobby, who cares… First Hunt. Then Lane. Then both. My brain…brain… Best wishes, hh ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/62 "2010-11-27T15:54:48Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > I’m not tap dancing around the issue: I’m trying to ignore it. I’m not saying crap about Hunt \*\*or \*\*Lane! > > Go back and reread my posts! > > It isn’t about JFK, Lane, or your beloved Hunt. Or the Warren Commission. Or LBJ. Or Bobby Baker. Or general Walker. Or Marina Oswald. Or Spartacus, the Greek or the website. Or jackie or john-john or… > > It is about the nature of conspirators. Correction: about the nature of debates about conspiracies. I got onto Lane just as a way of saying that somebody pointed out flaws in the WC, early; so get off of it! > > I don’t care about debating about any of them! I’m using analogies, and you’re dragging in Hunt, Lane, Plausible Denial, Liberty Lobby, who cares… > First Hunt. Then Lane. Then both. My brain…brain… > > Best wishes, > hh Well, all people who are reading do care when your evidence is crappy. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/63 "2010-11-27T19:53:46Z")
Karen Silkwook Vince Foster Louis Le Prince Lee Oswald Tom Ogle That is how the conspiracies remain secret. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/64 "2010-11-27T20:18:35Z")
[http://www.clipshack.com/Clip.aspx?key=B75E19DAB20D9E4E](http://www.clipshack.com/Clip.aspx?key=B75E19DAB20D9E4E) How about this? Planet X being in it’s 3600 year orbit of Niburu ,which Sumerians called Zehirda Sitchen, will come near allowing the aliens called Annuraki to return and enslave us. I bet you did not know about that well kept secret. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/65 "2010-11-27T20:31:34Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Karen Silkwook > Vince Foster > Louis Le Prince > Lee Oswald > Tom Ogle > > That is how the conspiracies remain secret. Hardly impressive as all of those cases have already better explanations than a conspiracy to silence a witness, is there anything \*\*new \*\*regarding those cases? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/66 "2010-11-27T21:27:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Hardly impressive as all of those cases have already better explanations than a conspiracy to silence a witness, That’s what THEY want you to think ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/67 "2010-11-27T21:30:50Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > That’s what THEY want you to think That better be an attempt at a whoosh. If not, I have to press the issue, **any new evidence to consider regarding those cases**? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/68 "2010-11-28T06:33:00Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Tuskeegee is an excellent example of [a non-conspiracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment). > > _“The Tuskegee Study published its first clinical data in 1934 and issued their first major report in 1936. This was prior to the discovery of penicillin as a safe and effective treatment for syphilis. The study was not secret since reports and data sets were published to the medical community throughout its duration.”_ > > Tuskeegee was ignored until the early '70s which is scandalous, but has nothing to do with people conspiring to keep it a secret. > > I’ll second (or third) the argument that secrets like the Manhattan project are kept because they involve righteous security matters. Bizarre plots such as the ones the 9/11ers want us to believe (huge numbers of people keeping the lid on the kidnappings/murders of thousands of Americans for insanely nefarious purposes) are not going to command such loyalty in an age when whistleblowers are revered and can count on lucrative public appearances and book sales (not to mention big payouts for exposing corporate malfeasance).If one just _has_ to believe in a conspiracy, anything can be twisted to make “sense”. A story that big that would have caused a huge uproar was just not mentioned? It used to be the papers did their jobs. They reported and investigated. No way i buy it was well known and not considered a story. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/69 "2010-11-28T09:10:03Z")
[Quote=t-bonham@scc.net] Probably not. That was 45 years ago. The people who ordered it are probably long dead. Even if they got some young guy rather than an experienced person to actually do it, that guy would be past retirement age now. More likely dead – in that business, longevity is not common. [/quote] > [@handsomeharry](#): > > Well, the Kennedy thing was longer ago. Those people are, mostly, long dead. Doesn’t mean there wasn’t a conspiracy. This was responding to “somebody knows where he’s buried”. Nothing to do with any ‘conspiracy’. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/70 "2010-11-28T10:05:57Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > A story that big that would have caused a huge uproar was just not mentioned? It used to be the papers did their jobs. They reported and investigated. No way i buy it was well known and not considered a story. Perhaps it wouldn’t have caused a huge uproar, and that’s why it wasn’t mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/71 "2010-11-28T16:36:09Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > A story that big that would have caused a huge uproar was just not mentioned? It used to be the papers did their jobs. They reported and investigated. No way i buy it was well known and not considered a story. Two words: Jim Crow. The (White owned and operated) papers didn’t give a shit about a bunch of poor niggers unless there was a Black-on-White crime involved. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/72 "2010-11-28T18:02:11Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > A story that big that would have caused a huge uproar was just not mentioned? It used to be the papers did their jobs. They reported and investigated. No way i buy it was well known and not considered a story. It’s highly doubtful that Tuskeegee was “well known” outside of a limited medical circle. Still, that’s not because of any conspiracy, but because people who should have known better didn’t give a damn. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/73 "2010-11-28T23:51:05Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > … > Still, that’s not because of any conspiracy, but because people who should have known better didn’t give a damn. This ^^^ History is chock full of “people who should have known better [but] didn’t give a damn.” No “conspiracy” is needed to explain people not giving a damn, and so not doing a damn thing about something we find unconscionable, today. Even a previous poster’s mention of Karen Silkwood (if you assume it was “silencing a witness”) could be adequately explained by 1 or 2 people willing to commit murder to “shut the bitch up” because she’s agitating about something nobody “gives a shit about”, and it would interrupt their version of “MY ‘Rice-Bowl’, the bitch!”. I’m not saying that _ **is** _ the case with Silkwood, just that if enough people “don’t give a shit”, it would be a sufficient explanation in hers or many other cases. It does, however, take considerably more than that to make the average CTer’s theory’s level of “conspiracy”. Even a couple dozen low-level players could have killed her, or made Hoffa disappear, or killed JFK, without requiring “The Grand Conspiracy” the typical CTer postulates. That would be a “conspiracy” (in the legal sense), but not a “CONSPIRACY” (in the typical CTer’s sense). The TL,DR version: Never assume malevolence [or CONSPIRACY] when simple stupidity or venality is a sufficient explanation. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/74 "2010-11-29T01:06:41Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > A story that big that would have caused a huge uproar was just not mentioned? It used to be the papers did their jobs. They reported and investigated. No way i buy it was well known and not considered a story. You are conflating two separate issues. It was not really “well known,” but there was no conspiracy of silence. It was not well known, simply because not enough people who were aware of it cared enough to get excited and make a big deal of it. There was not, however, a conspiracy to keep it covered. Ongoing results were routinely published in various journals. No one was sworn to secrecy. No one was threatened with violence to prevent them from speaking out. No one tried to get the story published, only to have it quashed by some shadowy power. Those actions would have been the actions of a conspiracy. Instead, a handful of poor black men were denied penicillin after it was developed, (around ten years into the study), and no one thought it worthwhile to challenge the protocols of the study for another twenty years after penecillin was discovered to be effective. That is clearly an ethical failure on the part of hundreds of people, but it is not a conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![randy054](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/54ee81/32.png) [@randy054](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randy054)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/75 "2010-11-29T03:57:27Z")
Another thing to keep in mind is that, who is it that is calling something a conspiracy theory. For example, the existence of the Bilderberg group where high ranking people gather to talk about financial policies of the nations was considered a conspiracy theory by some, but truth has come about that they do exist, and high ranking people do go to these meetings once a year. [Bilderberg Meeting - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group#Recent_meetings2005) (5–8 May) at the Dorint Sofitel Seehotel Überfahrt in Rottach-Egern, Germany[35] 2006 (8–11 June) at the Brookstreet Hotel in Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada[36] 2007 (31 May – 3 June) at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel,[37] in Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey. 2008 (5–8 June) at the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia, United States[1][38] 2009 (14–16 May) at the Astir Palace resort in Athens, Greece[39][40] 2010 (3–7 June) at the Hotel Dolce in Sitges, Spain[41] Or, how about the conspiracy theory that high ranking politicians have been attending parties deep in the woods in California celebrating over a burning owl. Which is where the Manhattan Project was hashed > **[Bohemian Grove](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_grove)** > > Bohemian Grove is a restricted 2,700-acre (1,100 ha) campground at 20601 Bohemian Avenue, in Monte Rio, California, United States, belonging to a private San Francisco–based gentlemen's club known as the Bohemian Club. In mid-July each year, Bohemian Grove hosts a more than two-week encampment of some of the most prominent men in the world. > The Bohemian Club's all-male membership includes artists and musicians, as well as many prominent business leaders, government officials, former U.S. presi... Or how about the conspiracy theory that corporations were moving and outsourcing to emerging markets to fill their wallets faster, when they were only trying to raise the standard of living of those impoverished outside America. Or how about the policies of the US Government and other nations moving toward a new world order where corporatism in conjunction with the state have complete control over people. Read about Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the former National Security Advisors. A book he wrote titled, :The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives written well before 911. I don’t think 911 was carried off by our government, but do believe it was allowed to happen for geo-strategic importances. There is nothing moral about our government. Look at the instances where fbi offices were ignored in pertaining to information that would have prevented it. Anyways, Zbig’s book was written prior to 911 From [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) > **[The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives:...](https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261)** > > The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives \[Brzezinski, Zbigniew\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives The first comment on the book, like many others says it all. Like others offering their reviews, I rate this book very highly not because it is a real “page turner” or is particularly well written, but because of its cold Machiavellian analysis of the need to protect and expand the American Empire and what that means to the ordinary Joe and Jane Citizen. Three things in this book made my blood run ice cold. The first is the complete absense of any sense of morality in the whole discussion. I do not mean that this is an _im_moral book, it is not a moral book, it is _a_moral in that there is literally no discussion whatsoever whether what is being proposed is RIGHT or should be done. That the recomendations to grow the American Empire are valid is simply assumed, not proven or even argued. The second thing was the whole discussion on how the political center of mass was Central Eurasia (i.e. the region between Turkey and Pakistan and between Iran and Turkmenistan) and how unlikely it was that we were going to be able to have a substantial presence in the region (in the near term) unless we have SOME PERL HARBOR CLASS EVENT to accelerate the populations willingness to accept the costs. Also, This Was Bad because it would delay our needed expansion. Then, just on cue, we have the 9/11 attacks, and dang if we don’t end up with a Whole Bunch of military presence all throughout the heart of Eurasia… Coincidence? Makes one wonder. As if that is not enough, the book closes with a clear and unambiguous reference to the steps needed to get us to the One World Government of the New World Order. Read it and weep because, as another reviewer stated, he is not predicting the future, he is _planning_ the future. Coldly. Methodically. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/76 "2010-11-29T11:31:43Z")
> [@randy054](#): > > Read about Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the former National Security Advisors. > […] > Read it and weep because, as another reviewer stated, he is not predicting the future, he is _planning_ the future. Coldly. Methodically. You are cumming all over yourself having read Brzezinski? Try Kissinger. It’s called _realpolitik_, and it’s nothing new. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/77 "2010-11-29T12:56:25Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > You are cumming all over yourself. . . . This sort of comment is [against the rules](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4749265#post4749265). Do not repeat this behavior. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Namaste\_Che](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Namaste\_Che](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Namaste_Che)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/78 "2010-11-30T06:18:02Z")
I find GOD to be the greatest conspiracy theory and like all CT’s I cannot prove either way so debate is pointless without new tangible evidence. Some have argued that CT’s cannot be kept for more than a few years while F-117 went 20 years and CT’s about JFK began within a few years (I believe) and Moon landing CT books were written within 5 years. If these CT’s though discredited were in fact true then they’d fit this model and support the theory that misinformation was released early and key witnesses silenced or character assassinated. Science fiction often precedes science, so could a CT precede a confirmed fact? I like CT’s for no other reason than I like challenges to the norm, even if statistically implausible. Nothing is certain like a closed mind. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603/79 "2010-11-30T07:15:33Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This sort of comment is [against the rules](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4749265#post4749265). Do not repeat this behavior. > > [/Moderating] Didn’t know the rule. Didn’t mean offense. I think the outlawing of rhetorical-question-colloquialisms-with-irrelevant-sexual-connotations is disheartening. But OK. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-argue-against-conspiracy-theories-is-it-valid-to-say-this-would-be-a-secret-too-hard-to-keep/561603.md?page=3)