Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Mr_Muffin

I've never come across a conspiracy theory that I thought could actually be true. It seems that when you delve into one, it doesn't take long to see if it usually based on questionable logic.

Admittedly, I've never delved into any conspiracy with great detail, as I found it difficult to decipher the facts from some wack jobs take on things.

Are they are that actually hold-up if you take a closer look?

Dohnjoe

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

I've never come across a conspiracy theory that I thought could actually be true. It seems that when you delve into one, it doesn't take long to see if it usually based on questionable logic.

Admittedly, I've never delved into any conspiracy with great detail, as I found it difficult to decipher the facts from some wack jobs take on things.

Are they are that actually hold-up if you take a closer look?

Conspiracies happen all the time, open any newspaper and you'll find stories of collusion, sleaze, corruption, conspiracies and so on

History (especially periods like the Cold war) is also littered with extreme plans, questionable tactics, false flags, you name it

However if you are referring to modern popular conspiracy theories, e.g. the moon landing hoax, then no. In my experience over years browsing conspiracy forums I've yet to come across users solely "uncovering" a real conspiracy

As an example, conspiracy theorists themselves will often point to stuff like Snowden's leak, but they typically fail to mention or realise that he has scoured all the files and found nothing about e.g. popular conspiracy theories. Or the fact that domestic surveillance was no secret, and that Snowden just furnished it with the real details

4068ac1elhodqr

Modern theories perhaps have more going for them than older top10 historical ones, thanks to media, communications and access of information.

Everything about the most recent significant one: (Epstien) stinks. From his decades of evasion, leniency of sentancing, right up to the time/method he popped his clogs, not to mention his partner in crime chillaxing in NH for months without disturbance, unti very recently. Herself now with documents/videos that might never see daylight.

Before this one we had COVID, but only in regards to it's source. This is still a mystery and relies on 'probability/guesswork' that it was a fluke of nature', even though nearby WuhanL4 lab might well have been studying it, tinkering with it, or something very similar.



Most of the more extreme silly ones (flat earth), might be put out there for lols, and to reduce the case value of any more potential genuine ones.
Historical ones that are very fishy include Diana's car crash in Paris and JFK.

Top 10
The JFK Assassination
9/11 Cover-Up
Area 51 and the Aliens
Paul Is Dead
Secret Societies Control the World
The Moon Landings Were Faked
Jesus and Mary Magdalene
Holocaust Revisionism
The CIA and AIDS
The Reptilian Elite

Top 100 or so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
1 Aviation:
1.1 Black helicopters 1.2 Chemtrails 1.3 Korean Air Lines Flight 007 1.4 Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 1.5 Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17
2 Business and industry:
2.1 Deepwater Horizon 2.2 New Coke
3 Deaths and disappearances
4 Economics and society
4.1 New World Order 4.2 Denver Airport 4.3 George Soros 4.4 Freemasonry 4.5 Üst akıl
5 Espionage:
5.1 Israel animal spying 5.2 Harold Wilson 5.3 Malala Yousafzai
6 Ethnicity, race and religion:
6.1 Antisemitism 6.2 Anti-Armenianism 6.3 Anti-Baha'ism 6.4 Anti-Catholicism 6.5 Antichrist 6.6 Bible and Jesus 6.7 Islam 6.8 Anti-Islamic 6.9 Racism
7 Extraterrestrials and UFOs
8 Government, politics and conflict:
8.1 Illuminati
8.2 False flag operations 8.3 9/11 8.4 Sandy Hook 8.5 Clintons 8.6 Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories 8.7 FEMA 8.8 African National Congress 8.9 Barack Obama 8.10 Cultural Marxism
8.11 Deep state 8.12 Sutherland Springs 8.13 Trump and Ukraine 8.14 October Surprise Conspiracy Theory
9 Medicine:
9.1 Alternative therapy suppression 9.2 Artificial diseases 9.3 Fluoridation 9.4 Vaccination 9.5 COVID-19 pandemic
10 Science and technology:
10.1 Global warming 10.2 Weather and earthquake control projects 10.3 MKUltra 10.4 Flat Earth 10.5 Technology suppression 10.6 Weaponry 10.7 Targeted Individuals 10.8 False history
11 Space agencies
12 Sports
12.1 Boxing 12.2 Shergar 12.3 Rigged selection processes 12.4 1984 Pepsi 400 12.5 Ronaldo and the 1998 World Cup Final 12.6 New England Patriots

Alonzo Witty Visitation

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Most of the more extreme silly ones (flat earth), might be put out there for lols, and to reduce the case value of any more potential genuine ones.

Or maybe people genuinely believe these theories because people are capable of believing patently silly, obviously untrue things...

Not sure why it has to be a conspiracy to explain the belief in silly conspiracy theories.
Personally I think it might be because of a discomfort with acknowledging that genuine beliefs can be false.

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Or maybe people genuinely believe these theories because people are capable of believing patently silly, obviously untrue things...

Not sure why it has to be a conspiracy to explain the belief in silly conspiracy theories.
Personally I think it might be because of a discomfort with acknowledging that genuine beliefs can be false.

Sure the flatearthers aren't sane, and represent something like just 0.000000001% of the populaiton.

On the other hand only a minority would believe there isn't something fishy about the whole Epstien incident (perhaps you are one, eh?), perhaps a split 50:50 decision for Diana (we can assume you'd likely dismiss this one too).

COVID isn't as clear cut, and can't be compared to flat-earth theory in any regards.

According to PewResearch “nearly three-in-10 Americans believe that COVID-19 was made in a lab,” (30%) either intentionally or accidentally (the former is more popular: specifically, 23 percent believe it was developed intentionally, with only 6 percent believing it was an accident).

CrankyHaus

Technically every finding of fact within the Tribunals was only a conspiracy theory before then.

Reasonable people none the less found them convincing.

Similarly many well-founded suspicions of British state collusion with Loyalists remain unproven, because the relevant files remain locked up. Anyone wishing to defend the British state could dismiss the suspicions as a conspiracy theory.

The same went for the cover-up of Bloody Sunday until the Saville Report vindicated the "Conspiracy-Theorists".

The same continues to go for the falsification of intelligence for the Iraq War and the death of David Kelly until another Inquiry at some future point overturns the findings of Hutton; allegations of Garda Wrongdoing; the list goes on and on.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

As an example, conspiracy theorists themselves will often point to stuff like Snowden's leak, but they typically fail to mention or realise that he has scoured all the files and found nothing about e.g. popular conspiracy theories. Or the fact that domestic surveillance was no secret, and that Snowden just furnished it with the real details

Snowden information reveals nothing here because we now know there was UFO program inside the Pentagon and it started in 2007 and Snowden never came across it when he searched the files. There supposedly hundreds of files still classified so obviously Snowden had no access to the UFO files

William Binney (NSA employee) was the first to expose domestic surveillance inside the United States. Snowden just came a household name because he stole files from the NSA mainframe computer.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Snowden information reveals nothing here because we now know there was UFO program inside the Pentagon and it started in 2007 and Snowden never came across it when he searched the files.

UFO "programs" have existed in various guises since the 50's. Snowden was specifically scouring the depths of the NSA, CIA and military for direct evidence of real alien contact, he didn't find any

"For the record, as far as I could tell, aliens have never contacted Earth, or at least they haven't contacted US intelligence," - Snowden

Likewise he found no evidence of chemtrails, that the moon landing was faked, of the "climate change" conspiracy. Again, it's further evidence that these popular conspiracies exist only in people's imaginations and wishful thinking, not reality

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Sure the flatearthers aren't sane, and represent something like just 0.000000001% of the populaiton.

On the other hand only a minority would believe there isn't something fishy about the whole Epstien incident (perhaps you are one, eh?), perhaps a split 50:50 decision for Diana (we can assume you'd likely dismiss this one too).

And 40% of Americans believe in ghosts. A huge portion also believe in astrology.

What that does demonstrate is that a large number of people lack basic critical thinking skills. This is why certain conspiracy theories are popular, not because they are true, but because they appeal to people who don't have the ability (or desire) to understand that they are fiction

Grab All Association

The Liam Lawlor was assassinated CT is a good one

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

UFO "programs" have existed in various guises since the 50's. Snowden was specifically scouring the depths of the NSA, CIA and military for direct evidence of real alien contact, he didn't find any

"For the record, as far as I could tell, aliens have never contacted Earth, or at least they haven't contacted US intelligence," - Snowden

Likewise he found no evidence of chemtrails, that the moon landing was faked, of the "climate change" conspiracy. Again, it's further evidence that these popular conspiracies exist only in people's imaginations and wishful thinking, not reality

Depends on what you mean by Alien Contact? Supposedly, UFOs interacted with the Nimitz which is part of Carrier Strike Group Eleven for days and there was an extensive file about the incident archived by the US department of defence. Snowden found not one of these files on the systems he searched. So clearly he did not have access. We know from the pilot testimony fighters jets got up close and personal with the UFOs and multiple surface and sea radar systems tracked the UFOs.

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Again, it's further evidence that these popular conspiracies exist only in people's imaginations and wishful thinking, not reality

Are you saying 100% of ALL popular CT are actually wholly incorrect and unfounded?

There would seem to be some substance just in terms of motive alone in knocking off Diana, would there not?

Same with the Epstien lad, you reckon there is nothing at all fishy regards to his evasion of justice for decades, the CT that he was using blackmail, nevermind of course his passing, under strange circumstances?

Seems you're pushing an actual CT yourself - that no popular CT can exist on merit, it just can't etc.

Alonzo Witty Visitation

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Sure the flatearthers aren't sane, and represent something like just 0.000000001% of the populaiton.

And there's people who would call the conspiracy theories you believe in insane too.
The amount of people who subscribe to your conspiracy theory is also vanishingly small.
There's people who claim your conspiracy theories are the result of a conspiracy to create fake conspiracy theories to make real conspiracy theories look ridiculous.

Again, the point is it's a bit silly to claim that conspiracy theories you don't subscribe to are themselves part of a conspiracy.

It's also a bit telling that you guys don't want to address the fact that conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theories can be completely made up and wrong without government intervention.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

COVID isn't as clear cut, and can't be compared to flat-earth theory in any regards.

According to PewResearch “nearly three-in-10 Americans believe that COVID-19 was made in a lab,” (30%) either intentionally or accidentally (the former is more popular: specifically, 23 percent believe it was developed intentionally, with only 6 percent believing it was an accident).

And this was claimed with every previous outbreak. It was claimed for MERS and SARS. People claim this about AIDS. People claim this about all disease.
Conspiracy theorists claim there's something "fishy" about every event.

You guys are going to claim the same thing about the next new disease.

You're not making a very convincing case for why we should take some conspiracy theories more seriously than others.

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

You're not making a very convincing case for why we should take some conspiracy theories more seriously than others.

You two guys (KM/JD) are not answering questions and not make a convincing case that CT's can't ever exists, and that popular ones are all fake news.

e.g.
Epstein - is there a CT here?
Diana - is there a CT here?

Pleae don't reduce yourself, or insult users, by referring to flat earthers, ghosts and astrology again, as a means of distraction, just answer the two questions set out above.

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Are you saying 100% of ALL popular CT are actually wholly incorrect and unfounded?

Nope.

"Popular Conspiracies" is a broad subject and can include almost anything if people start playing with definitions/semantics. Personally, in over a decade reading conspiracy forums I have never come across an instance where amateurs on a conspiracy forum have uncovered and directly detailed a conspiracy.

There would seem to be some substance just in terms of motive alone in knocking off Diana, would there not?

That's the appeal to motive fallacy. It's what most conspiracies are founded on.

Same with the Epstien lad, you reckon there is nothing at all fishing regards to his evasion of justice for decades, the CT that he was using blackmail, nevermind of course his passing, under strange circumstances?

Nope. You have a constant habit of trying to put words in people's mouths here.

His death is suspicious. However as of yet, there are no direct details of a murder.

Seems you're pushing an actual CT yourself - that no popular CT can exist on merit, it just can't etc.

Nope.

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Epstein - is there a CT here?
Diana - is there a CT here?

The conspiracies are that they were murdered, yet in neither case has it formally determined that they were murdered. Therefore the conspiracies aren't proven or credible.

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope. "Popular Conspiracies" is a broad subject and can include almost anything if people start playing with definitions/semantics. Personally, in over a decade reading conspiracy forums I have never come across an instance where amateurs on a conspiracy forum have uncovered and directly detailed a conspiracy.

Jibberish.

You're simply mashing them all together, rather than examing on a case by case basis. Clearly, yes some can be dismissed, others not so.
You are choosing to dismiss everything. This is itself a CT, well done.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's the appeal to motive fallacy. It's what most conspiracies are founded on.

Diana - is there a CT here?
You have failed to answer this question, but perhaps acknowledge a motive may be present.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope. You have a constant habit of trying to put words in people's mouths here.

You have a habit of dancing around a simple Y/N question.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

His death is suspicious. However as of yet, there are no direct details of a murder.

Epstein - is there a CT here?
You have failed to answer this question wholly^

But by calling his death 'suspicious', you have accepted there is/was grounds for a CT (for that part). You also failed to answer the CT part about his evasion of justice for decades. The other CT issue of blackmailing. The CT issue of his partner chillaxing for many months. You see this multi faceted CT case isn't as easy to dismiss away as you would like it to be.

Alonzo Witty Visitation

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

You two guys (KM/JD) are not answering questions and not make a convincing case that CT's can't ever exists, and that popular ones are all fake news.

Um... that's not a case I was making...

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Epstein - is there a CT here?

Yes, but which conspiracy theorists on the internet actually were able to supply accurate verifiable information before actual investigators?

Cause here, very few people talked about Epstein before the real media talked about him.
Here and in other conspiracy theory places, far more attention was put on a random pizza place that didn't have anything to do with anything.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Diana - is there a CT here?

No.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Pleae don't reduce yourself, or insult users, by referring to flat earthers, ghosts and astrology again, as a means of distraction, just answer the two questions set out above.

But again, your conspiracy theories aren't any different from flat earth or astrology.
Diana conspiracies are on the same level as JFK and Moon landing conspiracies.


For some reason you don't believe that people can just be wrong.
You have to invent the notion that the government goes around inventing wacky conspiracy theories to trick people so they can discredit "real" ones.

That's a bit ridiculous, no?

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The conspiracies are that they were murdered, yet in neither case has it formally determined that they were murdered. Therefore the conspiracies aren't proven or credible.

Epstien is a 'bit more' than his final seconds, it actually spans decades.

For Diana, if you were to ask/surevy even the British public themselves, you'd likely get a different viewpoint. Of course if she was knocked off, there is zero chance this would ever be revealed, you can consider for a second, the likely implications of that press release.

As such it will forever remain a 'theory' (or mystery) even within the British public themselves.

Again these are just two popular CTs, for which there are likely hundreds more. But again, you dismiss every single one, outright.

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Jibberish.

You're simply mashing them all together, rather than examing on a case by case basis. Clearly, yes some can be dismissed, others not so.
You are choosing to dismiss everything. This is itself a CT, well done.

Nope, completely incorrect and again attempting to put words in my mouth

Reread what I wrote, more carefully perhaps.

But by calling his death 'suspicious', you have accepted there is/was grounds for a CT (for that part). You also failed to answer the CT part about his evasion of justice for decades. The other CT issue of blackmailing. The CT issue of his partner chillaxing for many months. You see this multi faceted CT case isn't as easy to dismiss away as you would like it to be.

I am referring to the "popular conspiracy theory" that Epstein was murdered in prison, not anything else.

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

For Diana, if you were to ask/surevy even the British public themselves, you'd likely get a different viewpoint.

This doesn't mean anything. As mentioned, 40% of the public in certain countries believe in ghosts.

Of course if she was knocked off,

Is that a fact or your opinion?

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Um... that's not a case I was making...


..But again, your conspiracy theories aren't any different from flat earth or astrology.

But again, these aren't mine, these are popular theories.
But again, you're tossing in flat earth astrology, lol!
But again, you failed to answer Y/N to the questions, and when on about about some other internet theoriests, diverting away form yourself.


You can either admit some (even one) may have validity or potential case, or dismiss every single theory, which is what you appear to be doing.



I.e. You've taken a stance and won't budge. Fair enough, but looks like a CT in itself.

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is that a fact or your opinion?

Why are you trying to misrepresent part of a entire paragraph?

For Diana, if you were to ask/survey even the British public themselves, you'd likely get a different viewpoint. Of course if she was knocked off, there is zero chance this would ever be revealed, you can consider for a second, the likely implications of that press release.

This says if there was a case, it would not ever be revealed, due to the implicaitons.

It will likely forever remain a mystery: an open case.

Guesstimate would be 80% circa (not 40%), of the British public would view that incident with great suspision indeed.

Cheerful Spring2

Diana conspiracy. Just had a quick read about it, and some evidence a Fiat hit the Mercedes. This was fresh paint that highly suspicious and clear evidence of a collison. When you can't find the driver and the car there's very little you can do to prove it was an murder plot.

Analysis of the wreckage of the Mercedes revealed it had glancing contact with a white Fiat Uno car which left traces of paint on the Mercedes bodywork. Extensive attempts by the French police to find the vehicle involved were unsuccessful.[66] Although no one had seen the Fiat in the tunnel, some witnesses reported seeing an Uno exiting the tunnel.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales,_conspiracy_theories

Alonzo Witty Visitation

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

But again, these aren't mine, these are popular theories.

But I'm refering to the conspiracy theories you do believe in.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

But again, you're tossing in flat earth astrology, lol!

Yes, because they are things people believe. They are just as supported and valid as the silly things you believe. There are people who are as dismissive about your beliefs are you are with others.

I'm pointing out how there seems to be a bit of a disconnect here where you're just assuming your silly conspiracy theories are correct reasonable and generally accepted.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

But again, you failed to answer Y/N to the questions, and when on about about some other internet theoriests, diverting away form yourself.

But I did answer directly with a yes and a no.
You edited out those answers when you quoted my post.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

You can either admit some (even one) may have validity or potential case, or dismiss every single theory, which is what you appear to be doing.

I.e. You've taken a stance and won't budge. Fair enough, but looks like a CT in itself.

No, some might have some validity. But you're not pointing out any.

You're pointing to ones that are not very valid and aren't very different from the vast majority of conspiracy theories or the conspiracy theories you are dismissing as nonsense/government ploys.

Were conspiracy theorists right when the claimed that SARS was a plot to depopulate the world/install a one world government?
If not, how are the modern conspiracy theories about covid different and more valid?

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

This says if there was a case, it would not ever be revealed, due to the implicaitons.

It will likely forever remain a mystery: an open case.

It's your opinion she was "offed" and that it's a "mystery". Yet if I were to ask you details of what you think happened, it's likely your responses would be weak and vague. Which was the point OP was making.

With popular conspiracy theories like Princess Diana, Moon landing hoax, chemtrails - they don't stand up well to scrutiny

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, because they are things people believe.

Flatearthers bear no similarity to folks that consider open case mysteries such as the death of Diana, or the ongoing/developing Epstein scandal/conspiracy.


Your position is that there are no CTs, ever.

Also that they (all) should be considered same, as the theory of flat-earth.


Rather bizzare stance to take. Suit yourself.

splinter65

The only one I’ll even near entertain is princess Diana.
The most convenient thing to happen for the most famous and powerful royal family in the world to happen at that time in their history was that Diana would die.
And that is exactly what happened a perfectly healthy young woman of 37. And no one really knows what happened.

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Flatearthers bear no similarity to folks that consider open case mysteries such as the death of Diana, or the ongoing/developing Epstein scandal/conspiracy.

There are many similarities among people who believe in differing conspiracy theories

Alonzo Witty Visitation

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Flatearthers bear no similarity to folks that consider open case mysteries such as the death of Diana, or the ongoing/developing Epstein scandal/conspiracy.

Why? What's the difference?
How do you know that the flat earth theory was created artificially by the government?

What's the difference between the previous claims about SARS and MERS and AIDS and the currect theories about covid19?

I asked this in my previous post, but you ignored this.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Your position is that there are no CTs, ever.

That's not my position.
As Dohnjoe explained, there's tons of conspiracies out there every day.

Have any ever been uncovered and exposed by random internet detectives use use hints and clues gathered from youtube?
I haven't seen any examples of this and you aren't pointing to any examples of this.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Also that they (all) should be considered same, as the theory of flat-earth.

Rather bizzare stance to take. Suit yourself.

But you can't seem to explain the difference. You are also focusing on this extreme example rather than the numerous ones I've pointed to, for example the previous claims about SARS MERS and AIDS compared to ones about Covid.

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

Why? What's the difference?

You've just perfectly demonstrated, and indeed re-inforced your bizzare stance, and view of the world, by asking this.

You consider the 0.000000001% flat earthers to be the exact same as the circa 80% (estimate) of folks (even in Britian), who think Diana's death was very fishy and suspicious.

The OP asked for any possible credible CTs, this is simply one (of many).

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

The OP asked for any possible credible CTs, this is simply one (of many).

Credible conspiracies which stand up to scrutiny. Your bar seems to be popularity and "stuff that appeals to you".

Which princess Diana conspiracy are you referring to? Can wait while you google and pick one out

Then we can check it's credibility and see how well it stands up to scrutiny

Irishman80

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

I've never come across a conspiracy theory that I thought could actually be true. It seems that when you delve into one, it doesn't take long to see if it usually based on questionable logic.

Admittedly, I've never delved into any conspiracy with great detail, as I found it difficult to decipher the facts from some wack jobs take on things.

Are they are that actually hold-up if you take a closer look?

The Single-Bullet theory in the JFK assassination is by far the most insane conspiracy theory I've ever come across.

RandomName2

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

The JFK Assassination

Mob assassination of Kennedy is more than credible in my opinion.

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Credible conspiracies which stand up to scrutiny.

Scrutiny by whom exactly, you and your friend king mob, as two purveyors of truth n' enlightenment across ye olde internet?

Any CT needs only be plausable, a very strong motive can sway a case when accompanied by other relevant complimentary factors. Reasonable doubt of the given findings might be another case for a CT.

However in many cases it may simply be classed as 'unresolved' if there isn't a sufficent case either way.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your bar seems to be popularity and "stuff that appeals to you".

One simple example, would appear very popular and very well known.

Your own bar seems to be... there is 'no bar'
I.e. no CT can even exist or have a chance of plausability, it just can't, 'cause... you said so, and that's dat.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which princess Diana conspiracy are you referring to? Can wait while you google and pick one out

Hello? Is there really more than one penultimate CT, about Diana?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Then we can check it's credibility and see how well it stands up to scrutiny

Who is we?
What creditials do you have other than irrelevant self-serving opinion?
Phd in the history of all known, and yet to revealed CTs, is it?
So far really haven't seen any evidence of your suitability (see above).

Feel free to correct if you want to, but....:
'it appears you will not accept one single CT anywhere, about anything, ever, as potentially plausable or worthy of investigation'.

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Scrutiny by whom exactly

Basic scrutiny, like anything

Any CT needs only be plausable

Interesting how truth seems to have no part in your equation for choosing the "credibility" of a a theory

However in many cases it may simply be classed as 'unresolved' if there isn't a sufficent case either way.

Every conspiracy theorist seems to claim their pet theory (or theories) aren't resolved. Yet opening an encyclopedia often seems to produce a very resolved, definitive summary of events.

Odd that isn't it.

Your own bar seems to be... there is 'no bar'
I.e. no CT can even exist or have a chance of plausability, it just can't, 'cause... you said so, and that's dat.

Read the second post in this thread. Conspiracies happen all the time.

Hello? Is there really more than one penultimate CT, about Diana?

You're claiming this conspiracy is credible, which one? there are several, please provide the details..

I'm expecting nothing but smoke and mirrors. Asking a CTer for an actual credible evidence-backed theory is like asking a politician for the truth.

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Basic scrutiny, like anything

By yourself, your own subjective view? Pass.

Problem is to date you will not accept the potential plausability of a single CT. Not one, either contemporary, or from the past, you reject these all at the rate of 100%.
Bear in mind CTs of collusion and corruption around the world get proven all the time, before their final conclusion they begin as a CT (theory and suspision). Bribes, sweeteners, scams and so on.

A theory can remain unresolved if the (given) conclusion doesn't fit. Also if the conclusion offered wasn't from a truly independent source, there was motive and contextual factors at play, and so.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Read the second post in this thread. Conspiracies happen all the time.

Sure, hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions of them.
e.g. One of the funniest and very topical ones in recent months, was that Andrew does not sweat, yet there are pictures galore of the chap in sweaty shirts.

Anyway, back to the big issue here, which is that you won't accept a single one, as potentially plausable. This is rather laughable. Looks a lot like 'Deep-rooted agenda bias'.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You're claiming this conspiracy is credible, which one? there are several, please provide the details. I'm expecting nothing but smoke and mirrors...

No need to joke about smoke and broken mirrors, very unsensative, in regards this tragic car 'accident'.

There was escalating and reasonable motives for Diana to be less of a problem, hence the collision. The other sub-theories surrounding this are smaller, contextual, complimentary and numerous to the main one e.g. was she preggers at the time, was the most popular rroyal of all time, planning to marry an Egyptian, Mohamed El Fayed?

Again, we will never know the truth, just what has been presented.

Alonzo Witty Visitation

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

You've just perfectly demonstrated, and indeed re-inforced your bizzare stance, and view of the world, by asking this.

You consider the 0.000000001% flat earthers to be the exact same as the circa 80% (estimate) of folks (even in Britian), who think Diana's death was very fishy and suspicious.

But that's not my argument at all.
You have one again edited out parts of my post and ignored my points and questions.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

The OP asked for any possible credible CTs, this is simply one (of many).

But it's not really.
You haven't offered any reason why it's more credible than other conspiracy theories beyond that lots of people think that there's something fishy.

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

By yourself, your own subjective view? Pass.

When you open up a reference book or encyclopedia, why does it mention and detail, for example, that man landed on the moon?

Because it's what happened, the facts stand up to basic (and also expert) scrutiny

The conspiracy theory on the other hand doesn't.

Problem is to date you will not accept the potential plausability of a single CT.

For the third or forth time this is completely incorrect and wrong.

There was escalating and reasonable motives for Diana to be less of a problem, hence the collision. The other sub-theories surrounding this are smaller, contextual, complimentary and numerous to the main one e.g. was she preggers at the time, was the most popular rroyal of all time, planning to marry an Egyptian, Mohamed El Fayed?

Again, we will never know the truth, just what has been presented.

You've written that the conspiracy theory about Diana was credible, which conspiracy theory?

4068ac1elhodqr

Dohnjoe wrote: »

When you open up a reference book or encyclopedia, .....
....Because it's what happened, the facts stand up to basic (and also expert) scrutiny

Books can't lie?
Do all reports have expert independent scrutiny?

This is debatable,
e.g. Dianas car crash didn't have independent investigations, or independent Doctors for the post mortem.
If anything, the independent press and television put forward numerous CTs (and still do).

Dohnjoe wrote: »

For the third or forth time this is completely incorrect and wrong.

You claim, above (some example CT above) is false, because a big book says so.

Now... all of a sudden you now claim as 'incorrect and wrong' (actually for the 1st time) my claim that you think all CTs are without merit or plausability?

Fine, so you now say some do have merit or plausability?

Ok then, if that's the new stance...
do give example(s) of CT's that actually do have merit or plausability to them.
This could be a first on boards for Dohnjoe folks,
maybe the kingmob chap will follow suit...

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You've written that the conspiracy theory about Diana was credible, which conspiracy theory?

Credible is your choice of words (not mine).

I said plausable (possible) due to various factors and a strong motive, her car accident may possbily have not wholly been an 'accident'.

joeguevara

One conspiracy theory that I definitely believe is that the US war on drugs is a front. So much evidence of government agencies being bigger dealers than the cartels my favourite being the CIA plane crash because it was so overladen with cocaine. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/2007_Yucatan_Gulfstream_drug_crash

Dohnjoe

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

I said plausable (possible) due to various factors and a strong motive, her car accident may possbily have not wholly been an 'accident'.

Right but which Princess Diana conspiracy theory? who killed her?

If you can't even present a theory, yet you're attempting to claim this "theory" is credible..

joeguevara

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Right but which Princess Diana conspiracy theory? who killed her?

If you can't even present a theory, yet you're attempting to claim this "theory" is credible..

I always thought that if it wasn’t an accident it was related to her relationship with Dodi and possibility that she was pregnant with his baby. Recently it was put forward that she was going to blow the whistle on widespread paedophilia in places of power in the U.K. implicating Jimmy Saville, many members of parliament and obviously her ex brother in law.

Johnny rotten was called a conspiracy theorist when he called out jimmy saville in a live interview in the 70s. Overnight his career was destroyed. This is probably the best of example of someone being vindicated.

Alonzo Witty Visitation

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Ok then, if that's the new stance...
do give example(s) of CT's that actually do have merit or plausability to them.
This could be a first on boards for Dohnjoe folks,
maybe the kingmob chap will follow suit...
'.

You keep misrepresenting our positions.
It's very dishonest.

Cheerful Spring2

Irishman80 wrote: »

The Single-Bullet theory in the JFK assassination is by far the most insane conspiracy theory I've ever come across.

Evidence is already available that proves a second shooter was there.

You can see here the crack in the front window where this bullet hit the screen



National Archives.

Broken Window belonging to Kennedy car placed inside a FBI labeled Wooden box


https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

You keep misrepresenting our positions.
It's very dishonest.

So... to clarify your two positions:

Some CT can indeed have merit or be plausable, and they should not all be placed in the vain as e.g. flat earth theory. Each should be taken on their own merit.

If this isn't your position(s), my earlier statement still stands and is accurate and fully representative.

If it is you position(s) do feel free to supply some examples as the OP has requested, and join in the fun.

joeguevara

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Evidence is already available that proves a second shooter was there.

You can see here the crack in the front window where this bullet hit the screen



National Archives.

Broken Window belonging to Kennedy car placed inside a FBI labeled Wooden box


https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143

I can’t find it now but I saw a video on boards in last few weeks where the guy that did the autopsy did his first interview. If anyone can link it it is incredible.

Cheerful Spring2

joeguevara wrote: »

I can’t find it now but I saw a video on boards in last few weeks where the guy that did the autopsy did his first interview. If anyone can link it it is incredible.

Jim Jenkins? Or you talking about someone else?

IAMAMORON

Lady Diana assassination theories are garbage. Even if she was pregnant.

There are so many easier ways for the British Secret Service to kill her. Why wait until she randomly decides to leave a hotel late one Saturday night and then furthermore ram a 500 series Mercedes with a Fiat Phucking Uno?

Get real.

Far easier to get someone to drug her and throw her off a yacht at party in St Tropez. As Colombo says, "That's what I wudda done".

In contrast I think there was a conspiracy in the JFK murder. I think Dealey Plaza was custom built for a triangulated sniper attack. Between that and the Zapruder film and single bullet theories and bullets found on hospital trollies and moving corpses within minutes from Dallas hospital to Air Force One etc etc etc. It just keeps adding up. Back and to the left and following Oswald into a Cinema and different shadows on photoshopped KGB file photos and jack Ruby and the Warren Commission....... Apart from anything else Johnson and his Hawk stooges needed him out of the picture, he had threatened to withdraw from Vietnam, with the lack of war in Cuba they had weapons and arms to sell and use. JFK was definitely taken out by powers within the US government, probably Lyndon Johnson. Any cover up would not be documented, this would explain why Snowden never uncovered any evidence of one, if he ever even looked...

The debate on the great famine continues , there is certainly a lot of smoke around some of the more outlandish claims made by John Mitchell. Genocide seems far fetched, but substantial liberties were taken by Robert Peel in his second term as prime minister from 1841 onwards. It is hard to imagine but fingers could be pointed at his cabinets' complicity in a negligent attitude towards the famine outbreak. You cannot blame them after 1846, this gets dumped on John Russell, but there is scope to point fingers at the Peel administration. They certainly were not overly fussed with how things capitulated over here once the crop started failing. Suspect enough. Charles Trevelyan was a complete scapegoat IMHO. He was unheard of before the fields of Athenry was written in 1979, a nobody.

joeguevara

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Jim Jenkins? Or you talking about someone else?

That is it. Unbelievable video. Thanks.

Alonzo Witty Visitation

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

So... to clarify your two positions:

Some CT can indeed have merit or be plausable, and they should not all be placed in the vain as e.g. flat earth theory. Each should be taken on their own merit.

If this isn't your position(s), my earlier statement still stands and is accurate and fully representative..

Lol, nope. Neither is an accurate description of my position.
You keep misrepresenting things and keep avoiding points.

You aren't making a very good case for the crediblity of conspiracy theories when you use dishonest tactics like this.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

If it is you position(s) do feel free to supply some examples as the OP has requested, and join in the fun.

I'm not aware of any conspiracy theories that:
*Began solely on the internet and where later vindicated.
*Make accurate, clear claims about a topic before those claims are made in the "mainstream" media.
*Make clear falsifiable predictions about a future event that would indicate that the theorist isn't just guessing.
*Use information gathered from YouTube and the internet without any expertise or specialised knowledge that layer turned out to be true.