Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:17 AM
Original message
33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True
Pretty good piece here

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx

The first 15 (original link has links and videos):

1. The Dreyfus Affair: In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer Émile Zola).

2. The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society's secrets to law enforcement officials. What was known was that organized crime existed, but not that the extent of their control included working with the CIA, politicians and the biggest businesses in the world.

3. MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a "truth serum" to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.

4. Operation Mockingbird: Also in the 1950s to '70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda. The CIA also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated "Animal Farm," by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed the activities in 1975.

5. Manhattan Project: The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. The project was led by the United States, and included participation from the United Kingdom and Canada. Formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), it refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. The project's roots lay in scientists' fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret. With the total involved, this makes it one of the largest conspiracies in history. Entire towns were built for short periods of time, employing people, all under secrecy and top national secrecy at that. The government never admitted to it, the media never reported on it, and people had no idea for over 25 years. Project research took place at over thirty sites across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at what is now the Hanford Site, the uranium-enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the weapons research and design laboratory now known as Los Alamos National Laboratory. The MED maintained control over U.S. weapons production until the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947.

6. Asbestos: Between 1930 and 1960, manufacturers did all they could to prevent the link between asbestos and respiratory diseases, including cancer, becoming known, so they could avoid prosecution. American workers had in fact sued the Johns Manville company as far back as 1932, but it was not until 1962 that epidemiologists finally established beyond any doubt what company bosses had known for a long time – asbestos causes cancer.

7. Watergate: Republican officials spied on the Democratic National Headquarters from the Watergate Hotel in 1972. While conspiracy theories suggested underhanded dealings were taking place, it wasn't until 1974 that White House tape recordings linked President Nixon to the break-in and forced him to resign.

8. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972. During the study the men were given false and sometimes dangerous treatments, and adequate treatment was intentionally withheld so the agency could learn more about the disease. While the study was initially supposed to last just six months, it continued for 40 years. Close to 200 of the men died from syphilis or related complications by the end of the study.

9. Operation Northwoods: In the early 1960s, American military leaders drafted plans to create public support for a war against Cuba, to oust Fidel Castro from power. The plans included committing acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, killing innocent people and U.S. soldiers, blowing up a U.S. ship, assassinating Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees, and hijacking planes. The plans were all approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but were reportedly rejected by the civilian leadership, then kept secret for nearly 40 years.


10. 1990 Testimony of Nayirah: A 15-year-old girl named “Nayirah” testified before the U.S. Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators, causing them to die. The testimony helped gain major public support for the 1991 Gulf War, but — despite protests that the dispute of this story was itself a conspiracy theory — it was later discovered that the testimony was false. The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony. It turned out that she had taken acting lessons on request of the CIA and was actually the niece of a major politician in Kuwait. Nayirah was later disclosed to be Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus, of which Congressman Tom Lantos was co-chairman, had been responsible for hosting Nurse Nayirah, and thereby popularizing her allegations. When the girl's account was later challenged by independent human rights monitors, Lantos replied, "The notion that any of the witnesses brought to the caucus through the Kuwaiti Embassy would not be credible did not cross my mind... I have no basis for assuming that her story is not true, but the point goes beyond that. If one hypothesizes that the woman's story is fictitious from A to Z, that in no way diminishes the avalanche of human rights violations." Nevertheless, the senior Republican on the Human Rights Caucus, John Edward Porter, responded to the revelations "by saying that if he had known the girl was the ambassador's daughter, he would not have allowed her to testify."

11. Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s: COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. The FBI used covert operations from its inception, however formal COINTELPRO operations took place between 1956 and 1971. The FBI's stated motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order." According to FBI records, 85% of COINTELPRO resources were expended on infiltrating, disrupting, marginalizing, and/or subverting groups suspected of being subversive, such as communist and socialist organizations; the women's rights movement; militant black nationalist groups, and the non-violent civil rights movement, including individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, the American Indian Movement, and other civil rights groups; a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society, the National Lawyers Guild, the Weathermen, almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, and even individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; and nationalist groups such as those "seeking independence for Puerto Rico." The other 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert "white hate groups," including the Ku Klux Klan and National States' Rights Party. The directives governing COINTELPRO were issued by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who ordered FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders.


12. The Iran-Contra Affair: In 1985 and '86, the White House authorized government officials to secretly trade weapons with the Israeli government in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages in Iran. The plot was uncovered by Congress in 1987.

13. The BCCI Scandal: The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a major international bank founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani financier. The Bank was registered in Luxembourg. Within a decade BCCI touched its peak, it operated in 78 countries, had over 400 branches, and had assets in excess of US$ 20 billion making it the 7th largest private bank in the world by assets. In the late 1980's BCCI became the target of a two year undercover operation conducted by the US Customs Service. This operation concluded with a fake wedding that was attended by BCCI officers and drug dealers from around the world who had established a personal friendship and working relationship with undercover Special Agent Robert Mazur. After a six month trial in Tampa, key bank officers were convicted and received lengthy prison sentences. Bank officers began cooperating with law enforcement authorities and that cooperation caused BCCI’s many crimes to be revealed. BCCI came under the scrutiny of regulatory bodies and intelligence agencies in the 1980s due to its perceived avoidance of falling under one regulatory banking authority, a fact that was later, after extensive investigations, proven to be false. BCCI became the focus of a massive regulatory battle in 1991 and was described as a "$20-billion-plus heist". Investigators in the U.S. and the UK revealed that BCCI had been "set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection."


14. CIA Drug Running in LA: Pulitzer Prize Award winning journalist Gary Webb exposed this alongside LAPD Narcotics Officer turned whislteblower and author Michael Ruppert, CIA Contract Pilot Terry Reed, and many others. In August 1996 the San Jose Mercury News published Webb's "Dark Alliance", a 20,000 word, three-part investigative series which alleged that Nicaraguan drug traffickers had sold and distributed crack cocaine in Los Angeles during the 1980s, and that drug profits were used to fund the CIA-supported Nicaraguan Contras. Webb never asserted that the CIA directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras, but he did document that the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by the Contra personnel. "Dark Alliance" received national attention. At the height of the interest, the web version of it on San Jose Mercury News website received 1.3 million hits a day. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the series became "the most talked-about piece of journalism in 1996 and arguably the most famous—some would say infamous—set of articles of the decade."

15. Gulf of Tonkin Never Happened: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in the sinking of one of the torpedo boats. This was also the single most important reason for the escalation of the Vietnam War. After Kennedy was assassinated, the Gulf of Tonkin gave the country the sweeping support for aggressive military action against the North Vietnamese. The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated “It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night…” In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2. In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there." In 1981, Captain Herrick and journalist Robert Scheer re-examined Herrick's ship's log and determined that the first torpedo report from August 4, which Herrick had maintained had occurred—the "apparent ambush"—was in fact unfounded. In 1995, retired Vietnamese Defense Minister Vo Nguyen Giap, meeting with former Secretary of Defense McNamara, categorically denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers on August 4, while admitting to the attack on August 2. In the Fall of 1999, retired senior CIA engineering executive S. Eugene Poteat wrote that he was asked in early August 1964 to determine if the radar operator's report showed a real torpedo boat attack or an imagined one. In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded that the motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence errors.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Those who.....
do not believe in conspiracies have never experienced real power.

Et tu Brute?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ummm, dude...
you do, of course, realize that a hit rate of 33 out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of conspiracy theories that have been put out, actually proves most conspracy theories are utter nonsense, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HannibalCards Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Sshh
... don't step on his dream.

It's all he has, instead of evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
erikdane Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Dude, you also realize
that the above listed theories ere the ones we know that to be true? That does not mean that more theories are not true, only that they haven't been proven yet. It works both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Bullshit.....
if the preponderance of them were true, we'd know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. prove it
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Dude....
what more proof do you need? Doesn't it bother you that conspiracy theorists can rarely, if ever, prove their claims?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. doesn't it bother you ... oh crap, about lots of things?
like most of these conspiracies weren't found out about until years and years later?

As far as proof, the proof is there. People predicted these conspiracies-- and years later they were shown to be true! It'd be nice if you actually bothered to read these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Who predicted Operations Northwoods before the government released the proposal? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Dude...
with all the hundreds or even thousands of conspiracy theories, you can only find 33 which proved to be true? What conclusion would YOU draw from that? What kind of a hit rate do you think pure chance would produce? Maybe you should study "cold reading" or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Who ever said that *ONLY* 33 conspiracies were true?
This is just a short list. The author even says he has a much longer list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Dude...in order for the list to be accurate....
wouldn't they have to be an actual CT that was later proven to be true? As Bolo asked, who theorized Northwoods?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-08-10 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
33. I'm not aware that anyone theorized Northwoods specifically
but people have theorized that the US would use false-flag terrorism, or create a bogus attack, to spark a war.

Yes, I know Northwoods wasn't carried out, but clearly our leaders developed plans to do such a thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
79. What does that say?
So what does that tell us then, that there's a number of corrupt fascist greed pig conspiracies going on that we never even hear about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
erikdane Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
40. I actually think you will loose
if it was a numbers game. lots of people are convicted everyday in this country on conspiracy charges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. Dude...
for the last fucking time...no one is saying there is no such thing as a conspiracy. The issue is whether a significant number of conspiracy theories turn out to be actual conspiracies, rather than the imagination of conspiracy theorists working overtime.

My money's on their imaginations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
78. Major ones only
these are 33 major conspiracies

please list the "hundreds or even thousands" of MAJOR conspiracy theories that have not been proven to be true

better yet since these were proven to be true, list all the MAJOR ones proven not to be true. LOLZ, have fun!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #78
81. Dude....
take a Logic class...you're asking me to prove a negative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Choices
I gave you choices

of course you ignored them because you have no good answer.

where's your list?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Utter nonsense
> People predicted these conspiracies...

Uh, no they didn't, not for MOST of the items on that list (some of which were never proved to be true, anyway), which makes the title of the article the kind of intellectual dishonesty I've come to expect from the "truth movement." In fact, if I wanted to find a lesson in that list, I'd say that is shows that conspiracists are just as devoid of psychic abilities as everyone else, since they consistently miss the real conspiracies while they're off on their ghost hunts. Even in cases on that list where there were reasonable suspicions about conspiracies, such as Watergate after the burglars were caught, nobody that I know of called those "conspiracy theories." That's because that specific term has come to mean something more than "a theory about a conspiracy." Due to the behavior of conspiracists themselves, it has come to mean a near-religious and completely unshakable belief in highly implausible conspiracy speculations, devoid of any good reasons for such conviction.

And furthermore, since I've never heard anyone suggest that there have never been conspiracies, even if the title weren't a large fat lie, the entire article seems to be an invitation for fuzzy thinkers to jump to illogical conclusions -- which is another thing I've come to expect from the "truth movement." The fact that there have been conspiracies before does not make idiotic "controlled demolition" and "no plane" theories any more plausible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I'm not claiming that large numbers of conspiracists were promoting these stories
Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 06:40 PM by spooked911
but I think it likely that there were some early truth-tellers who were laughed off.

In fairness, "predicted" is not really the right word.

In any case, I wasn't saying these theories *proved* anything except that secret conspiracies exist. Mostly I thought it was an interesting article, worth sharing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
erikdane Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. So its a numbers game?
Conspiracy theories are only true if a majority have been proven to be true? That makes no sense at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Which is not remotely what I said...
read my post again, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
55. That "proves" nothing of the sort.
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 11:53 PM by sofa king
Except, perhaps, that such an argument is a viable first line of defense for conspirators.

I should add that the controversy over 9/11 revolves around the question of which people conspired to commit the crime. That it was a conspiracy is not in doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Actually, it does....
Are you honestly claiming a low hit rate says nothing about the veracity of the claims?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
I think what you're trying to claim falls along the logical lines of one of my favorite sayings: "a teaspoon of wine in a gallon of sewage makes sewage; a teaspoon of sewage in a gallon of wine also makes sewage."

In the right circumstances, that adage can be true.

But not in this case, because each conspiracy story (and the inevitable conspiratorial sub-variants they spawn) is supposed to be a defended by a unique web of evidence. They cannot be proven or disproven by simple comparison to all other yarns, most of which are bullshit. That can allow you to make a helluva good guess.

But the guess can be wrong.

Imagine being locked in an old mailroom, with hundreds of pigeonholes along the walls. You're told there's a key to the exit in one of the pigeonholes, and that there's not a poisonous spider in the pigeonhole where the key is.

But it's an old, unused room and there are are spiderwebs in every single pigeonhole. Almost none of them actually have spiders in the webs, but some of them might.

Now, you could say to yourself, "well, I see plenty of empty webs, and that means there are no spiders at all," and start methodically sticking your hand into the back of each pigeonhole. And who knows? Maybe you'll get lucky, find the key, walk out, and be able to say "there are no spiders at all in there." But it wouldn't be true.

The truth is, even if you get away with that approach, you still don't know if there are spiders in there or not. If there are, you don't how many there are, you don't know what kinds of spiders there are, which ones are the offspring of which, which ones are deadly and which ones just hurt bad, and so on.

If you continue to be locked in the same room day after day and you continue to take that approach, sooner or later you're going to get bit. Because the webs don't spin themselves!

If, on the other hand, you take the time to look carefully at each pigeonhole, or a lot of them, you can draw different sorts of guesses about them. Dusty webs might be more likely to be empty, while fresh ones might be less likely to be empty, but then again, there can still be spiders in both. You can make some comparisons between different pigeonholes and the webs in them, but you still have to look closely at each one to make sure there's not a spider in it. Because each pigeonhole is unique, and if it's my hand that's gonna get bit, I don't want to rely on statistics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Dude...
simple question: if most of the comspiracy theories are true, wouldn't it logically follow that evidence of them would emerge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Yes.
However, most conspiracy theories are not true, and the evidence showing some few of them to be true sometimes takes decades to emerge, sometimes against the best efforts of the conspirators themselves to keep the evidence concealed. So I'm not sure where you're going with the question.

Imagine that list above is fifteen different butterfly mines that will blow off your hand, tossed into a bag filled with fake butterfly mines.

How many fake butterfly mines have to be in the bag before there are no real butterfly mines in the bag?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. "most conspiracy theories are not true"
Aren't you conceding my point here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. Is that all your point is?
If it is, then yes, I'll happily concede that point. Most conspiracy theories are not true.

But be careful about how you wave it around, because that statement does not say anything about the truth or falsity of any individual conspiracy theory. It doesn't prove anything about any individual conspiracy theory. It puts probability on your side, but it also automatically means that you can never be certain until you look at it.

Again, back to the bag of real mines and fake mines. No matter how many fake mines are in the bag, there are still real mines in the bag, too. There is no power of reasoning that will make the bag become a bag that won't blow your hand off if you go rooting around in it.

Some of the snarks are boojums. That's all I'm sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. I never made any claim about any...
individual conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Okay, well then I take it all back.
I still don't know where "most conspiracy theories are crap" is going to get you, but I agree heartily. Most lottery tickets are losers, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
duphase Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #57
86. david ray griffin is at it again. good grief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #56
84. Statistics
""a low hit rate""

where's your actually documented numbers that it is a low hit rate?

put up or shut up
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
12. Well, literally..
to 'conspire' means to 'breathe together.' Common usage has associated it with illegal, criminal activities. Technically, any criminal action planned by more than one person is a conspiracy. Dozens of conspiracies are tried every year in courts across the nation. That's why there are RICO laws.

Conspiracies come in all sizes, for all prizes.

Here's one you don't know about and unfortunately the main witness now suffers from Alzheimer's but nevertheless. A close associate of mine was once the international sales manager for McDonnell Douglas' F-4 program. In the 80's I was shocked to hear that the Iran embargo was being broken as they were getting F-4 parts for the fleet the revolutionary regime inherited from the Shah. I questioned my associate, how could he be a part of this? He said he wasn't. He said Israel was violating Douglas' US patents and manufacturing them themselves and trading directly with the Iranian regime. Not the biggest of conspiracies of course but a significant action that remains undisclosed and unpunished and required the participation of at least several people even if the operation was highly compartmentalized.

So, people who don't believe that conspiracies exist (yawn), don't know squat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Could you please point to ANYONE here...
who has ever denied that conspiracies exist? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. Why don't ....
you tell me of a conspiracy (besides the 33 linked above) that you believe or know to have happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Quit deflecting, dude...
please point to anyone here who denies that conspiracies exist. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. No deflection...
if there's not a conspiracy that you believe or know to have happened, that infers you don't believe that conspiracies exist. So, pls. answer my question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I meant to say implies, not infers
So what's it gonna be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Jesus, dude...
Watergate, Iran-Contra, the outing of Valerie Plame, the firing of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration for political reasons and countless others. Now, quit deflecting and kindly point to ANYONE here who denies the existence of conspiracies. Hint: no one here does, dude. Your "point" is stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. You forgot....
19 hijackers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Look up the meaning of...
"countless others", dude...and your "point" is still stupid. Can you point to a SINGLE person here who denies the existence of conspiracies or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-08-10 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Very strange...
that here, of all places, in the September 11 forum, you wouldn't mention the most basic conspiracy of the hijackers. Very telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-08-10 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. What bullshit....
Edited on Fri Jan-08-10 03:02 AM by SDuderstadt
what do you think that tells you? I'm all ears.

You know...you didn't mention your mother in your post. That probably means you hate her.

See how that works?

I notice you STILL can't point to a single person here who denies that conspiracies exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-08-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. The last refuge...
of a scoundrel is in audacity. Tacitus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-08-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Dude...
no one buys your goofy CT bullshit because of your lack of proof, so you can drop your tired "you're not really a liberal because you don't embrace my conspiracy theories" nonsense, okay?

Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
erikdane Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
41. but but but
the outing of Valerie Plame is not a proven conspiracy. So you are a conspiracy theorist?
Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury, not of any conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. More bullshit....
you seem to believe something can only be a conspiracy if it violates the law. dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #41
64. Oh No!
Surely you're not saying that SDuderstadt believes in a conspiracy for which there is no proof. Heavens!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. No, I don't...
this is stupid. Bye, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. No, DUDE....
you're OWNED. You stated you believe the Valerie Plame case was a conspiracy. I, along with you and many others here also believe that. But where's your proof? You have none. So you believe in a conspiracy for which you have no proof. The same situation for which you disparage everyone here who is skeptical of the official versions of 9-11 events. You're just a gatekeeper for 9-11. Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
twhite1 Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. Very fair observation.

Maybe the poster will have a rational, substantive response. Maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #67
69. Yeah...read what I wrote to NH...
the same goes for you. I don't take "no-planers" seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. It's pretty stupid to claim that the Bush administration...
Edited on Tue Jan-12-10 11:54 AM by SDuderstadt
didn't conspire to out Valerie Plame and even more stupid to claim there's no proof for it. It's patently stupid to claim I believe it without proof. Did you follow the case at all?

Do you honestly think I care what some conspiracy theorist thinks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
twhite1 Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Speaking only for myself

I honestly can't figure out if you are just joking or if you really do believe "patently stupid claims".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. DONE...
D
O
N
E
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. Took his ball....
and went home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Aaaaah....
true to form. Semper Gumby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nathan_Hale Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #68
74. But in the end...
You have no proof, do you`?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. As I asked earlier...
did you follow the case, dude?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. "He said Israel was violating Douglas' US patents and manufacturing them themselves"

And that assertion makes sense to you?

I gotta hear this....

How, in your estimation, does one go about violating a US patent in Israel?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
erikdane Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
43. A Us Patent can be registered in Israel
Most intellectual property can be registered in another country, making the patent protection global. A US patent can be violated in Israel. Pretty simple actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. You might want to Google "John Berryhill"...
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 03:48 PM by SDuderstadt
before you stick your foot in your mouth further, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #43
71. No, it can't

In order to get rights in Israel, you must file for an Israeli patent. They do not simply accept whatever was issued in the US and make it a patent in Israel.

You can, if you want, file your Israeli application up to one year after your US application, and claim the benefit of your US filing date, but that Israeli application will still follow its own independent course through the Israeli patent office.

You cannot "register a US patent" in any other country. They do not care what issues as a patent in the US, and you quite literally have no clue what you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zinnisking Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Yes. Its perfectly ethical to try to normalize the fact that states
and powerful people engage in organized and deviant conspiracies.

Good on DUers like spooked911 and others for their efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
17. 33



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Speaking of RollingRock...
whatever happened to him/her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. Granite slab...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zinnisking Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-07-10 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
21. I think the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission
and its clandestine activities and actions are profound enough, and maybe even better than any of the given examples, to be included in this summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Sovereignty_Commission

Keep it coming. I'm sure there are other lurkers like me who appreciate your research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-08-10 03:38 AM
Response to Original message
32. Wait, what..?
Edited on Fri Jan-08-10 03:38 AM by KDLarsen
New World Order, Bohemian Grove, Illuminati, The Trilateral Commission have been proven to be conspiracies?

Not to mention, how exactly is the Federal Reserve Bank a conspiracy? Let alone a 'proven' one?

Seems like the author of that article confused actual conspiracies with conspiracy theories :rolleyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-08-10 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
36. The Manhattan Project was a THEORY?
WHOA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-08-10 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. "Truthers" don't have to be accurate....
didn't you know that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-08-10 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I have actually suspected that for a long time, but you never know...
I was thinking though that there were going to be some pretty pissed off Japanese when they found out that Little Boy and Fat Man were merely theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #36
80. NO
it was a conspiracy that was hidden from the public

remember the gov backed by the MIMC knows what's best
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
twhite1 Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
46. Most people who know much about U.S. history, know that

there was a conspiracy to change the leadership of the U.S. at the highest level, in 1963.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. More bullshit....
if you're about to crack the JFK assassination, please go ahead. My money's on Oswald. There's actual proof there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
twhite1 Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. It's already been cracked. Your BS about Oswald notwithstanding.

The mafia didn't do it. Neither did Castro or the Soviets.

And Harvey Oswald was a Russian-speaking doppleganger who took part in a false defector program and assumed the role of Lee Oswald, who was born in New Orleans. He didn't realize, until it was too late, that he had been designated to be the Patsy in the case.
Which raises the question in the minds of many people of whether Osama was also an innocent Patsy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Oh, jesus...
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 06:29 PM by SDuderstadt
Not this Harvey/Lee bullshit.

The case against Oswald is overwhelming. Read "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi. Your CT nonsense is laughable and doesn't have a lick of proof.

I'll gladly go head-to-head with you on the JFK assassination anytime, anyplace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
twhite1 Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Jesus won't change history.

There is no case against Oswald, except that he was an innocent Patsy. Rewriting History is an embarrassment and I'm surprised
that you would cite it. It has been thoroughly debunked, and I'm not just referring to the documented charges against
Mr. Bugliosi's personal and professional ethics-challenged background.

Here's a link for anyone who isn't aware of what a disaster his latest book is: http://www.ctka.net/home.html

If your "case against Oswald" consists of a citation to Bugliosi's book, your side is in real deep doo doo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. I'm not impressed with a conspiracy website's supposed "debunking" of...
findings that blow their nonsense out of the water. Like I said, anytime and anyplace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
twhite1 Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. No thanks. I'm not interested in wasting time over things that

have been long proven. If anyone else here is interested in an honest, respectful discussion about any aspect of the JFK
case like was the Z film altered, did LBJ have any advance knowledge of the plot, to what extent is the SS culpable, how many
times was JFK shot and from which direction, who ordered Ruby to murder Oswald - and what is the evidence proving it was
a premeditated hit, who murdered Tippit and why, the on-going conspiracy to cover-up the coup d'tat, examples of similar
tactics used in the JFK conspiracy from more recent operations (e.g. two Oswalds, two Osamas), was Reagan the victim of
a conspiracy to assassinate HIM and did GHW "Poppy" Bush have any foreknowledge of any such plan.

Sorry, Mr. SDuderstadt, I'm just not interested in "debating" whether the Earth is flat or the Lone Nutter theory, either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Of course you're not...
you're only interested in "debating" it with someone who largely agrees with you. Tell me something...if you're wrong...as you surely are....how would you ever find out?

Typical conspiracy theorist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #52
77. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
82. Dude...
have you ever walked into a casino? have you ever noticed that they feature prominent photos of big winners? What do you think would happen if, instead, they featured pictures of everyone who lost money there?


Your post reminds me of that tactic, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #82
85. Numbers
There are numbers for casinos.

but you haven't shown us any numbers for the "33 out of the hundreds, if not thousands, of conspiracy theories" that you claim

back up your claims if you're capable

but I kind of doubt your capable
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Dude...what part of "I don't engage with people who...
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 12:27 PM by SDuderstadt
claim that Obama is worse than Bush" is over your head?

Go badger someone else, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #87
88. LOLZ!!
You've only replied 5 times to my posts in the last 24 hrs. More than anyone else.

Of course NONE of your replies address any of the substantial points I made like

where's your link to statistics of "only 33 true theories in 100's or 1000's"

Like what part of "ban conspiracy theories" doesn't mean laws and prosecutions.

Lots of whining about side issues, but ZERO real engagement on meaningful factual points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
duphase Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. dude

winning a debate, carrying the day can be defined in more than one way. if we are talking about something and I keeping bringing up something about my dog Elsie until you stop trying to show off your trial lawyer skills, a lot of people will say that yes, YOU lost the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #89
96. You can't lose
if the other side never even engages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. Actually, duphase already "lost", dude.
check out his/her profile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
90. Point of order....
if I'm trying to put together a counterlist of "Conspiracy Theories that fell flat on their faces", can I count each separate JFK assassination conspiracy book as a different CT? It seems to me to make sense, because if you were going to try to harmonize the hundreds of such books out there with each other, it would appear that at least 50 different people supposedly fired the fatal shot from at least as many different locations around Dealey Plaza and at least several hundred shots were fired. I think that would be fair, although I am starting to develop a strong suspicion that JFK was not shot at all, but in the same way that 9/11 witnesses were somehow fooled into thinking they saw planes that simply didn't exist, I'm thinking that both JFK and Connally were fooled into thinking they had actually been shot. There is that small inconvenient fact that JFK actually died but, thanks to Spooked, I believe I can establish that he was actually killed by either "mini-nukes" or nanothermite-laden paint used on the right rear quarter panel of the limousine.

In case anyone scoffs at the idea with some lame objection that nano-thermites did not even exist then, I'm pretty sure we can establish that the CIA used "secret government technology" to travel back in time and paint the car from the future. I also believe they took cloning technology back with them and there were at least 125 Lee Harvey Oswalds involved. Oh where, oh where are DRG and Steven Jones when you need them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-19-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. Oops. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. LISTS
"I'm trying to put together a counterlist of "Conspiracy Theories that fell flat on their faces""

I'll put it on the list of "counterlists that fell flat on their faces"

LOLZ!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
duphase Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
92. Conspiracy to remove JFK in a coup d'etat by his national security state
is arguably the most important conspiracy of the past 50 years. Yes, even more important than the 9/11 conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. And one for which you have even less evidence...
dude. Tell me something. Read EMK's excellent memoir "True Compass" and tell us why he endorsed the conclusions of the Warren Commission. Was EMK "in on it" too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-20-10 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
94. Kicked for reply from Spooked to my...
point of order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC