Customer Discussions > History forum

Ten Tips to Becoming an Accomplished Conspiracy Cultist


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 254 posts in this discussion
Posted on Nov 9, 2012 2:41:14 PM PST
A bunch of ignoramuses will always believe that there are no conspiracies. That position is as stupid as believing that everything is a conspiracy. One can only wonder why the deniers get so upset about, "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists."

What compels the deniers to blindly support the authoritarian version of events? What compels the authoritarian wanna-bees, to, for example, watch the twin towers and WTC 7 to collapse at free-fall speed, into their own foot-prints, and say to themselves, "Either my eyes are lying to me, or my government is lying to me. Hmmm.... Must be my own eyes are lying to me. The government would never lie to me."

Have any of you deniers noticed that you are being left in the dust-bin of history? I mock you. I scoff at you. I laugh openly at you. You're the type who have access to information, but choose to ignore what doesn't suit your, "normalcy bias." Like the fact that there was more lead left in Connolly's wrist than was missing from the, "magic bullet."

But worse, your ilk ignores the facts which are not presented to you in familiar formats. How many of you, "deniers" know that E. Howard Hunt left a death-bed confession to his/CIA involvement in the JFK assassination. What? You knew that? Then why can't you acknowledge it? Did you know that a civil jury found that Hunt and the C.I.A. did indeed, assassinate J.F.K. What? You knew that? Then why can't you acknowledge that fact?

You know the Senate held hearings and determined that JFK was the victim of a larger conspiracy. Why can't you acknowledge that? You know that Gerald Ford admitted to altering the findings of the Warren Commission. Why can't you acknowledge that?

No... for the deniers, coincidence accounts for *anything* they cannot explain away. Like the "coincidence" of driving Kennedy around a tight corner in an open vehicle, past the open windows of a building containing one, Lee Harvey Oswald, who had a CIA 201 file and an F.B.I. nanny. Sure.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 2:50:03 PM PST
Suet says:
How do you feel about the 1605 Gunpowder Plot? Some people say it was an inside job and Guy Fawkes was a patsy.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 4:12:03 PM PST
Boy, you are all over the reservation here aren't you Lefty?

A few comments. Much of what you wrote is historically wrong to begin with. Of course as I've said several times in the past, I do not debate 9/11 conspiracies with the 9/11 Truthers. Someone else can waste their time with that bunch of kooks.

So I will skip to your Kennedy assassination claims.

1. You clearly don't have the foggiest clue what the Miami jury decided in the Howard Hunt v. Liberty Lobby case and your comment proves this. The issue at hand was "Was Howard Hunt in Dallas, Texas on 11/22/63?" The question of CIA involvement in the assassination NEVERF came up even one time during the trial and it was NOT a part of their verdict (contrary to your erroneous claim.) The magazine said Hunt was in Dallas (nothing more) Hunt said he wasn't. The court placed the burden on Hunt to prove he was NOT in Dallas on the day of the assassination--in essence challenging Hunt to prove a negative. Since the assassination had occurred twenty-two years earlier (the trial was held in 1985) it is not surprising that Hunt could not prove that he was NOT in Dallas on that day. Therefore with the burden on Hunt to prove his whereabouts two decades earlier the jury ruled that Liberty Lobby had not defamed Hunt after all. NO WHERE in the jury's finding did they claim that the CIA was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy. This nonsense was fabricated in the mind of Mark Lane and written about in his horribly-written book "Plausible Denial." Lane's ONLY footnote to establish the veracity of his "The CIA did it" claim was ONE reference to ONE juror, forewoman Leslie Armstrong who said that it was HER opinion (NOT the opinion of the jury) that SHE thought the CIA did it. Mark Lane in his dishonest writing style led his gullible readers (of which Left Coaster is clearly among) that the jury reached this verdict. They didn't. The records of this trial are readily available to the curious researcher and they can read and learn that EVERYTHING I just wrote is 100% accurate and what Left Coaster wrote is 100% wrong.

2. Hunt's deathbed confession provides NO evidence that the CIA or any other group was responsible for the assassination of Kennedy. In the event you don't read much about the law, a confession means virtually NOTHING without corroborating evidence. Do you remember John Mark Karr, he confessed to murdering Jon Benet Ramsey, and many people (not me) were ecstatic that the killer had come forth. Then police learned he was in Europe the night she was killed. False confession. Do you remember reading about the Lindbergh baby kidnapping? HUNDREDS of false confessions have been filtered through over the years but no supporting evidence points any guilt away from Richard Bruno Haupman. The Boston Strangler killed women around Boston during the fall of 1963 and winter of 1964. Before Albert DeSalvo was captured police were plagued with dozens and dozens of false confessions. As of this writing there is NO physical evidence linking E. Howard Hunt or any of those individuals he mentioned in his so-called "confession" to the assassination in any way. Simply because a senile man on his deathbed confesses to a crime certainly does not mean the crime has been solved, Lefty.

3. You said the Senate held hearings and determined that JFK was the victim of a larger conspiracy. First of all it was the House of Representatives, the Senate had nothing to do with it. And secondly, the ONLY reason the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations) reached this conclusion was because of an 11th hour study claiming to have found sound impulses on a DPD motorcycle officer's microphone that two acoustics experts from NYU claimed represented gunshots. This of course turned out to be bogus evidence and in 1982 the National Academy of Science reviewed the NYU study and found a multitude of errors and the findings were totally discredited. Today the two men responsible for this bungled analysis no longer stand behind their 1978 findings. Without that erroneous study there was NOTHING that the HSCA found that would support belief in a conspiracy. They stated in their final report that ALL shots to strike Kennedy came from Oswald's rifle, all striking shots were fired from above and behind (Oswald's location) and IF there was another gunman he missed the president, his wife, the governor, his wife, the driver the secret service passenger, and the entire limousine as well. This is quite the assassin you've chosen to believe in there, Lefty. He managed to miss EVERYTHING in Dealey Plaza.

4. Lefty claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had a CIA 201 file. Oh yeah? Prove it. I will bet you never respond to this challenge with ANY hard evidence. This is a tired old claim that is totally, 100% false. If you have such evidence lay it on the table and let's have a look at it. If I don't hear you bring this up again we will all know you got caught making up claims that you can't prove. And an FBI nanny? What on earth is this making reference to? What was her name? I would like to read more about this.

Clearly you are in way over your head trying to sound articulate in discussing the Kennedy assassination.

I anxiously await your information so I can get to work reading about it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 4:23:29 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 3, 2012 11:46:16 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 4:23:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012 4:32:23 PM PST
left coaster said: "Have any of you deniers noticed that you are being left in the dust-bin of history? I mock you. I scoff at you. I laugh openly at you. You're the type who have access to information, but choose to ignore what doesn't suit your, "normalcy bias." Like the fact that there was more lead left in Connolly's wrist than was missing from the, "magic bullet."

Nope, you're wrong. That's a conspiracy myth.


"But worse, your ilk ignores the facts which are not presented to you in familiar formats. How many of you, "deniers" know that E. Howard Hunt left a death-bed confession to his/CIA involvement in the JFK assassination."

Actually, no. He blamed others, claiming no involvement by himself. Another myth.


"What? You knew that? Then why can't you acknowledge it? Did you know that a civil jury found that Hunt and the C.I.A. did indeed, assassinate J.F.K. What? You knew that? Then why can't you acknowledge that fact?"

No, they didn't. That's an outrageous lie. Hunt sued a tabloid for publishing claims he was involved. The suit was a civil suit over libel. The jury had to find either the claim was published with malice and find for the plaintiff, Hunt, or find no malice and find for the defendant. They found no malice and found for the defense. The suit did not involve trying the CIA or Hunt for the assassination. The suit was brought by Hunt. Ask yourself why a man involved in an assassination would bring a libel suit if he was actually involved. Does that make much sense to you? You're just BSing your way past the graveyard.


"You know the Senate held hearings and determined that JFK was the victim of a larger conspiracy. Why can't you acknowledge that?"

Do you mean the HSCA? That's the HOUSE Select Committee on Assassinations - not the Senate. You understand the difference here? The HSCA concluded that :
1. Oswald fired three shots at the President; with one striking him in the back and going on to strike Connally, and another hitting Kennedy in the head.
2. On the basis of a dictabelt recording (that recorded the police band radio traffic that day) that was analyzed by BB&N (Bolt, Beranek, and Newman) and they believed they found sufficient evidence to conclude that a fourth shot was fired.
3. The HSCA accepted that conclusion, but found that any shot not from Oswald's rifle missed Kennedy, the other passengers, the limo, the other cars, and all of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza.
4. A private citizen, Steve Barber, listened to the dictabelt and heard the words "Hold everything secure" on the dictabelt at the time that BB&N concluded shots were being fired.
5. Those words were actually spoken into the mike about a minute AFTER the shooting, establishing that the portion of the dictabelt studied by BB&N was too late to contain shots at Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.

So the HSCA found, when the invalid conclusion is overturned, that all three shots fired that day were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, and he alone fired the shots that killed JFK and wounded Connally.


"You know that Gerald Ford admitted to altering the findings of the Warren Commission. Why can't you acknowledge that?"

He modified the language to read neck instead of upper back in one portion of the report. The bullet passed above the scapula and out the throat, passing near and probably fracturing one neck vertebra. Anatomically speaking, the bullet passed through the level of the neck, not the level of the upper back. Ford's language is more precise.


"No... for the deniers, coincidence accounts for *anything* they cannot explain away. Like the "coincidence" of driving Kennedy around a tight corner in an open vehicle, past the open windows of a building containing one, Lee Harvey Oswald, who had a CIA 201 file and an F.B.I. nanny. Sure."

I asked you before if you cared to tell us how Oswald got the job. You never did respond on that point. A 201 file is a newpaper clipping file. It denotes merely that Oswald did something worthy of being noted in the paper and getting a CIA file established on that individual. Oswald's 201 file was most likely opened when he defected to Russia. It was in all the papers at the time. Not sure what you think an FBI nanny is, but the FBI's Jim Hosty was trying to locate Oswald to interview him in the weeks prior to the assassination.

Here's a link to Oswald's pre-assassination 201 file. Let me know where you see a smoking gun:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95567

Do you admit that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK? If not, I fail to see your point in the above.

Hank

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 4:38:22 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 3, 2012 11:46:04 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 4:49:07 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012 4:51:11 PM PST
Hi Greg, thanks for the clarifications. Let me clarify in turn, one of your points:

"The FBI was heavily criticized for not keeping a tighter leash on Oswald up to the assassination. The problem was that there was not the slightest evidence he was a threat. He'd never committed a serious crime and had no history of violence."

First two sentences are absolutely correct. The third is incorrect but it's true that the FBI had no knowledge or inkling that Oswald had attempted to murder a political figure on April 10th of 1963. I'm referring to the attempted murder of retired U.S. Army General Edwin Walker, of course - a noted right wing political figure in 1963.

So it's probably more accurate to say that "To the knowlede of the FBI or Secret Service up to the time of the assassination, he'd never committed a serious crime and had no history of violence."

Hank

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 5:02:20 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 3, 2012 11:45:52 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 7:28:19 PM PST
Debunker says:
Do you even know what "collapse at free fall speed" means? Or are you simply repeating something you read on an idiot conspiracy web site.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 6:36:39 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 6:38:15 AM PST
left coaster says: "A bunch of ignoramuses will always believe that there are no conspiracies. That position is as stupid as believing that everything is a conspiracy. One can only wonder why the deniers get so upset about, 'conspiracy theory' and 'conspiracy theorists.' "

Straw argument. I know of no one who believes there are no conspiracies. For example, I believe JFK was killed by a lone nut, but I also believe the Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. As was the attempted assassination of Harry Truman by two Puerto Rican nationalists, Collazo and Torresola. But the assassination attempt on McKinley by Leon Czolgosz was not a conspiracy.

But I find that most conspiracy theorists believe in conspiracy theories across a broad spectrum -- if they believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, they also believe in 9/11 conspiracies and a Roswell coverup, etc.

How do you feel about the above allegations of conspiracy? I can glean from your posts that you believe that 9/11 and the JFK assassination involved government coverups. But you are pretty much silent on others. So I am curious. Are those the only two government coverups you believe? How about Pearl Harbor? Did Roosevelt know and allow it to happen? How about the planting of the American flag on Iowa Jima? A recreation? How about Roswell? Alien visitations and abductions? The Philadelphia Experiment? The Bermuda Triangle?

You want conspiracy allegations? We got 'em aplenty.

Hank

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 10:42:54 AM PST
Suet says:
Good luck refuting left coaster's specific claims, SV. His comeback will be that you don't get the BIG PICTURE. Such mundane things as evidence and proof follow from the big picture and are entirely secondary.

You want to know the real joke? He claims to be a private investigator.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012 11:02:33 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 3, 2012 11:45:44 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 11:37:50 AM PST
Suetonius, If I had a dime for every conspiracy nut that claimed to be either a: lawyer, private investigator, or college-educated scholar I would not have work for a living.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 2:58:04 PM PST
Ees that your minkey?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 3:52:39 PM PST
Suet says:
Zat ees correct!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 4:04:03 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 3, 2012 11:45:37 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 4:35:58 PM PST
brunumb says:
Thomas Martin: "But of course Napoleon put it best: never look for conspiracies when simple incompetence can explain what happened "

anne: "So you're saying 9/11 can be explained with simple incompetence?"

Responded like a True Conspiracy Theorist™. Someone quotes a statement made by Napoleon, which may or may not even be pertinent, and all of a sudden 9/11 becomes the subject of incompetence. Sheesh.

Posted on Nov 12, 2012 11:56:37 AM PST
Suet says:
For me, the interesting question is: what do conspiracy believers get out of it?

I'm thinking particularly of 9/11 'truthers'. If you read only their websites and publications - and you lack elementary critical faculties - you could get the impression that they are true patriots motivated by pure reason, and everybody else is either a fool or a traitor.

"The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is overwhelming. Most people who examine this evidence with an open mind find it convincing ..."
D. R. Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 1.

Many people in the Muslim World agree.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012 6:16:46 PM PST
Debunker says:
Suetonius,

It's almost like they WANT the US government to have carried it out. What the motivation for feeling that way is I don't know.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012 12:26:27 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012 12:31:34 AM PST
Suetonius, you're such a priss.

This is from October of 2001.

http://www.whale.to/b/bollyn_oct31a.html

I can list all kinds of links to ISRAELIS being busted for 9-11 and quietly shipped back to ISRAEL. You'll just have to get that transfer I suggested. You know... To the, "We don't really control the media and you're a dirty anti-semite if you say we do" Department.

Some of those Israelis even appeared on television and said that their purpose was to, "document" 9-11. How could they be in place to document it, unless they knew it was going to happen? Answer that, shill, or stfu.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012 12:38:27 AM PST
Let me ask you "coincidence theorists" why you are so afraid of so-called, "conspiracy theory." Why does it upset you so much?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 12:39:47 AM PST
There are also a lot of books sold which claim to, "debunk" conspiracy theories. Tons of them.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012 12:47:28 AM PST
So how come you geniuses can't "debunk" the, "conspiracy theorists?"

Oh, I know you THINK you, 'debunk' but the, "conspricay theories" just don't go away. At best, you guys are a bunch of ineffectual losers. You can't debunk diddly so you cast aspersions on people who are more astute and less naive than you are. You just don't understand the way the world works. The "conspirators" love your lame-posteriored, ilk. Your motto, "Jawol! We are sheep! We grab our ankles for you, gladly!"

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 1:08:46 AM PST
Suet says:
< There are also a lot of books sold which claim to, "debunk" conspiracy theories. Tons of them. >

Name three that debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2012 1:12:53 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012 1:15:23 AM PST
Too easy. I didn't write that there are tons of books which claim to debunk 9-11 conspiracy theory. You even quoted me.
< There are also a lot of books sold which claim to, "debunk" conspiracy theories. Tons of them. >

Take that transfer before you get fired, Suetonius.

And I hAven't forgotten the question I asked you....

Explain the Mossad agents on television saying they were there to "document the event" of 9-11. How did they know there would be something to document?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  254
Initial post:  Oct 25, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions