[onlooker]

Are they really Conspiracy theories or the truth?
http://www.neonnettle.com/feed/198-top- ... to-be-fact
Top 20 'Crazy' Conspiracy Theories That Were Proven to be Fact

[Rod_Cloutier]

Broken link. We likely have threads to every conspiracy theory known here already.

Still, I'm really worried about chemtrails though:

https://youtu.be/TDvLCPe8viU?t=261

This stuff is really scary if true...

[SeaGypsy]

Contrails are, chemtrails are a made up load of bollocks designed to add discredit to the whole notion of conspiracy. One step away from flat earth. 1/ contrails are a totally natural effect of aircraft changing air pressure & condensation, they provide no evidence of chemical application. 2/ there's zero evidence of the supposedly vast amount of chemicals being- supplied, stored, or any mechanism installed on the 10s of thousands of aircraft supposedly involving. 9/11 is the real deal, these idiot theories only exist to make anyone questioning 9/11 appear as stupid as possible- aka flat earth.

[charmcitysking]

Consortium News has put out a few articles recently following the 50 year anniversary of the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Even the MSM has picked it up - Washington Post published an article about RFK Jr. questioning the official narrative after meeting Sirhan Sirhan in jail.

Also, the concept of 'State Crimes Against Democracy' (SCADS) is a fascinating area of academic research into potential 'conspiracy theories'

[Newfie]

I’m not big on conspiracy theories. Except
1) Oswald May have shot at JFK, he may have even fired the fatal bullet. But that’s not all that happened there and there was at least a second shooter.
2) RFK - do t know much about that, never followed it. Seems fishy. But if JFK was taken out then it follows RFK would be also.

Chemgdails? No.

911 - Probably things we don’t know, but the basic facts sound correct.

[Cog]

Sometimes you can get lucky with shooting. With a scope, at a short distance, its not a impossible shot to make. JFK was a moving target from Oswald's perspective, but he was moving away vertically and not laterally away. That is a much easier shot to make. Remember, Oswald missed with one of his three shots. No information has been released that would have required a second shooter. Just a somewhat lucky Oswald.

[Plantagenet]

Washington Post published an article about RFK Jr. questioning the official narrative after meeting Sirhan Sirhan in jail. '

It creeps me out that that decades after Sirhan Sirhan shot RFK his son RFK Jr. would go and meet his dad's killer in jail and have a friendly chat.

There are odd things about SIrhan Sirhan and it isn't quite clear what led him to to commit RFK's murder, but there isn't any doubt that Sirhan SIrhan had a gun and that he shot RFK Jr.

[Newfie]

Cog,

That’s a pretty glib statement, you can explain a lot with “luck.”

AFAIK a test team of 3 professional marksmen were unable to duplicate this feat with that rifle. First the action jammed on about every fith round so most sequences were not completed. Second they were not able to do it consistently even when the rifle did not malfunction. Third they were shooting at a stationary target. Fourth they were shooting at a TARGET not the President. Talk about buck fever. Fifth it was the 3rd bullet that did the deed. By that time Kennedy and Connelly were reacting to the first hit. They were not stationary in any plane.

But there was luck that day, the lucky bullet that fell out of Kennedy’s body onto the stretcher. The one that matched Oswald’s rifle but that had no impact marks.


I don’t expect to convience you but a proof that rests upon “luck” is like saying “well it COULD happen.” Well anything is possible but I’m changing my mind based upon “luck.”

I said I believe Oswald was A shooter and unlikely but perhaps even the fatal shooter. I don’t believe he was the only shooter. That seems to be the crux of the argument in the RFK assination as well.

But we have beaten this aground before. Let’s let it rest.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Contrails are, chemtrails are a made up load of bollocks designed to add discredit to the whole notion of conspiracy. One step away from flat earth. 1/ contrails are a totally natural effect of aircraft changing air pressure & condensation, they provide no evidence of chemical application. 2/ there's zero evidence of the supposedly vast amount of chemicals being- supplied, stored, or any mechanism installed on the 10s of thousands of aircraft supposedly involving. 9/11 is the real deal, these idiot theories only exist to make anyone questioning 9/11 appear as stupid as possible- aka flat earth.

So some conspiracy theories are there to discredit the "valid" conspiracy theories, like 9/11?

Wow, that sounds like the grand conspiracy, like conspiracy cubed or something. (And of course, EXACTLY the kind of things conspiracy fans would often just love to believe in).

Wait! I need to check to ensure bad guys aren't hiding under my bed!

[Rod_Cloutier]

Did any of you actually watch the link I presented above? This looked like clear and unequivocal evidence that people are using weather modification techniques. The speaker is well informed and quite eloquent in his presentation.

It's worth the watch.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Did any of you actually watch the link I presented above? This looked like clear and unequivocal evidence that people are using weather modification techniques. The speaker is well informed and quite eloquent in his presentation.

It's worth the watch.

When you say you're really worried about chemtrails, don't expect educated people to jump at spending time looking at "evidence" via links.

People have long been interested in weather modification. Ever hear about cloud seeding?

http://www.weathermodification.org/faq.php

(And no, there is no link between cloud seeding and chemtrails -- see FAQ 12).

[Outcast_Searcher]

Did any of you actually watch the link I presented above? This looked like clear and unequivocal evidence that people are using weather modification techniques. The speaker is well informed and quite eloquent in his presentation.

It's worth the watch.

So he's an anti-vaccine wacko. He sounds hysterical, not eloquent or informed. But thanks for playing.

[charmcitysking]

There are odd things about SIrhan Sirhan and it isn't quite clear what led him to to commit RFK's murder, but there isn't any doubt that Sirhan SIrhan had a gun and that he shot RFK Jr.

Absolutely correct on all accounts - there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Sirhan Sirhan had a gun and shot RFK. But what isn't exactly clear is whether Sirhan Sirhan delivered the fatal shot to RFK. The forensic evidence suggests that the shot which killed RFK was delivered at point blank range and from behind - which would make it impossible for Sirhan to have killed Bobby Kennedy.

Another important point to mention is that none of the evidence which could have exonerated Sirhan as RFK's killer was heard at his trial, due to Sirhan's lawyers encouraging Sirhan to accept a guilty plea, so as to push for a lenient sentence.

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/06/05/r ... of-an-era/ - an interesting read.

[Newfie]

Yes the coroners report seems to be in direct conflict with Sirhan being the one who delivered the fatal shot. Plus there were 13 shots fired from Shirrans 8 shot gun.

There seems to be a LOT of credible evidence of a cover up.

[charmcitysking]

Wow, that sounds like the grand conspiracy, like conspiracy cubed or something

Are you familiar with the origin of the term 'conspiracy theory'?

It originates from a de-classified, internal CIA memo instructing their agents to push the phrase onto their contacts in the MSM and have them use it in publications. The purpose of this strategy was to discredit and discourage persons whom were criticizing the flawed Warren Commission report following JFK's assassination. I could provide you with a link to the memo if you would like to read it. It's very interesting.

If it is was the CIA who literally invented the term 'conspiracy theory' in order to obfuscate their possible complicity in the Kennedy assassination, it's not beyond the realm of thought that they (or other parties) could float a few red herrings in order to detract from legitimate research.

[Newfie]

Sure, pass a link.

From Wiki


Etymology

The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event". It cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example,[9][10] although it also appears in journals as early as April 1870.[11] The word "conspiracy" derives from the Latin con- ("with, together") and spirare ("to breathe").

According to John Ayto, the phrase conspiracy theory was originally a neutral term and acquired a pejorative connotation only in the 1960s, with an implication that the theorist is paranoid.[12] Lance deHaven-Smith has suggested that the term was deployed in the 1960s by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to discredit John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.[13] Robert Blaskiewicz rejects such claims, asserting instead that the term has always been derogatory and pointing to examples demonstrating that this has been so since the nineteenth century.[14][15]

[onlooker]

When you say you're really worried about chemtrails, don't expect educated people to jump at spending time looking at "evidence" via links. 

That is the problem so called educated people become close minded and stubborn about what they know or think they know. If it is "not officially" sanctioned or they cannot directly confirm it, then it must NOT exist or be.

As for the original meaning of conspiracy theory, well that has become irrelevant give that now in politically correct circles, it has assumed a perjorative denotation, to mean a crazy extreme position. How convenient for the powerful entities.

[Outcast_Searcher]

When you say you're really worried about chemtrails, don't expect educated people to jump at spending time looking at "evidence" via links. 

That is the problem so called educated people become close minded and stubborn about what they know or think they know. If it is "not officially" sanctioned or they cannot directly confirm it, then it must NOT exist or be.

As for the original meaning of conspiracy theory, well that has become irrelevant give that now in politically correct circles, it has assumed a perjorative denotation, to mean a crazy extreme position. How convenient for the powerful entities.

How about the idea that unless a reasonable amount of EVIDENCE can be presented (vs. strong emotional belief backed up by lots of intuition, ranting, etc), that we don't take extreme positions as seriously as say, mainstream positions which ARE backed up by a reasonable amount of actual evidence?

Examples:

1). The popular meme among AGW deniers that AGW is just "liberal propoganda" aimed at making government bigger.

2). 911 truthers -- given all the physical evidence, math, physics, etc. from credible sources.

3). The Kennedy conspiracy -- given that all sorts of scientific experiments, measurements, math, physics, etc. have discredited the ideas like "the magic bullet", etc.

4). The flat earth conspiracy -- that the world really IS flat, despite all the physical evidence. And that any other evidence like photographic evidence, etc. is all another conspiracy that the government (via NASA, etc.) is lying to make the earth seem round to the masses.

5). The US moon landings never occurred in the Apollo mission era; it was all faked conspiracy.

...

The examples above just happen to be the ones I'm fairly familiar with off the top, and have taken a look at the evidence (or mythology) on either side.

So really ... is the earth more likely to actually be flat via some complex web of conspiracies and despite all the physical and scientific evidence, or is there a giant conspiracy to call such ideas "crazy" or "extreme" to help make the case against otherwise (ahem) credible conspiracy theoies?

Given the things you tend to believe in, I wouldn't be surprised to see you come out in favor of the conspiracies. Just don't expect people who like evidence and science to be swayed a whole lot.

And like it or not, wanting to see meaningful evidence over time doesn't mean closed minded.

For example, I actually was sort of 50-50 on the Kennedy conspiracy until "Myth Busters" completely decimated the importance of the "magic bullet" on one of their shows with a well-presented scientific experiment.

[charmcitysking]

Outcast - are you saying that you believe Oswald fired the fatal shot that killed JFK? There's more evidence to suggest that Kennedy was shot from the front than just the 'magic bullet' theory.

Also, plenty of scientific evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. But it falls into that realm Onlooker described, that because it's not 'officially sanctioned' it gets ignored/discredited.

[Cog]

Do you have any understanding of how much prepatory work goes into conducting the controlled demolition of a building? In a practical sense, you have to gut the building to expose the support columns. There is zero evidence such work was ever done on any of the WTC buildings.