The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is probably the prime example. But also, I’m not just counting the successful conspiracies, which by nature are going to be dominated by conspiracies of professionals and other competent actors. I’m also talking about folks like the chuds who plotted to kidnap the governor of Michigan, probably some percentage of the January 6th rioters, or basically the entire history of the KKK.
Not yet. I was hoping to do some reading and see if it resolves all my doubts. Tackling a 1600 page book is probably not in the cards.
I will say that the general tone of this thread is causing me to bristle a bit. In these times where conspiracy theories have become both incredibly stupid (flat earth, crisis actors) and aggressively politicized (Q etc.) the current kneejerk reaction is to dismiss and deride every conspiracy theory as equal. We’re now in a climate in which the conventional wisdom seems to be that no conspiracy has ever or could ever happen. I find that reductive and deluded.
OK thanks yeah the Whitmer yokels were like the gang in a Don Knotts movie.
Which one? IIRC He survived around 40 assasination attempts.
I doubt you’d find many people going to such an extreme. The Watergate burglary? That was a conspiracy. Some of the shit that Trump has tried? Also conspiratorial.
The key, though, is that those conspiracies a) are usually small in measure; needing hundreds or thousands of participants won’t be successful, b) frequently fall apart once somebody talks or, over time, evidence is leaked, and c) credibly accounts for all of the evidence.
This last part is key, in my opinion. In most JFK conspiracies, the theorist is trying to debunk or identify one small point or detail to undermine the whole official story, when no amount of hair splitting will manage to avoid the maintain of evidence that overwhelmingly explains the events of this murder.
What you’re basically saying is that we know about every conspiracy that ever was. That’s it’s literally impossible for a conspiracy to exist where the parties involved are competent enough and fearful enough to keep quiet and stay out of view. You’re using the exact same fallacy that the theorists are
A tiger got him:
And yes, that is Bill Nye.
I don’t think that’s true. There are plenty of conspiracies that have been exposed. I think the conspiracies we know about are a useful source of information that we can apply to conspiracies that are only alleged.
A few have already been mentioned. I find Project Azorian to be an interesting example. The U.S. tried to salvage a sunken Soviet submarine under the cover story that Howard Hughes was mining the sea floor for manganese. The New York Times knew the truth even before the recovery attempt was made, but held off publishing until after.
So we’re lumping every covert action into the argument now? You’re basically saying “we eventually learned about this one, therefore any we haven’t yet learned about must be bogus.”
With your use of the term “must be” it sounds like you are trying to force absolutist language into a discussion where other people are not being so extreme. How about we rephrase this as “in the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe in a conspiracy.“
It’s not quite the same thing as saying it’s not worth entertaining the possibility of a conspiracy. But it does lead us to the position but there’s no reason to believe in the conspiracy unless there’s some evidence to prove it. And that evidence usually comes from the conspirators themselves because people can’t keep secrets.
Nobody here has said this, basically or otherwise.
Nobody here has said this, basically or otherwise.
I don’t know if you were replying to me or not, but that’s not what I’m saying. I just think that we can look at known conspiracies (who engaged in them, what steps did they take, how was it exposed, and how long did that take) and possibly apply those lessons to the alleged, but unproven, conspiracy theories.
For example, I think that the more people are alleged to be in on a conspiracy, the faster it will come to light. When someone says that JFK was killed by a conspiracy of the CIA and the Mob, I think that’s ridiculous.
It is all well and good to talk about conspiracies crumbling because evidence comes to light, but it is a bit silly when discussing one where it is known that evidence is being withheld from disclosure.
Facts may or may not be withheld, but how do you know that actual evidence pertaining to the case is being withheld?
How do you know it isn’t?
These statements seem to be at odds.
Fine. Change the second “evidence” to “facts”.
So the situation is that evidence for a conspiracy must be produced while facts are known to be withheld.
Same question -
How do you ‘know’ that evidence/facts are being withheld?
If said facts/evidence are being withheld - how do you ‘know’ that they support said theory?
What is the topic of this thread?
If you are saying that some sort of relevant “evidence” is being withheld from public view by some sort of conspiracy, such a conspiracy would have to involve a large number of people keeping a secret for over six decades now. Just on its face, that makes the existence of such a conspiracy extremely improbable.
You appear to be saying that the classification of the files the thread is about is not actually withholding any information.
And you have defined the national security apparatus as a successful conspiracy, or determined that the classification system cannot withhold any information of public interest since it would surely leak.