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…
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 (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
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
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 immoral book, it is not a moral book, it is amoral 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.
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.
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.
