Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

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.

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'.

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.

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 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.

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?

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'.

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

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..

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Jim Jenkins? Or you talking about someone else?

That is it. Unbelievable video. Thanks.

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.

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, nope. Neither is an accurate description of my position.

Lol, do feel free to give your position in that case, as it remains a dancing circle of mystery.

If you need help just answer Y/N to this very very simple clear question, many thanks:

Q. Should all CTs be dismissed, or are there some plausable ones?
A. Y/N?

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

So

3rd or 4th time asking. It's really quite a simple question.

Which Princess Diana conspiracy theory is "credible" according to you? who killed her?

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Q. Should all CTs be dismissed, or are there some plausable ones?
A. Y/N?

No one in this thread has the position that all CTs are to be dismissed

It's something you invent and attribute to others, which you then argue, until it's pointed out (over and over) that no one has that position

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Lol, do feel free to give your position in that case, as it remains a dancing circle of mystery.

I've stated my position pretty clearly already. You just seem determined to dishonestly misrepresent it.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

If you need help just answer Y/N to this very very simple clear question, many thanks:

Well the last time I directly answered your yes or no questions you edited those answers out and falsely accused me of not answering them...
And on the same token there are many points I've made that you've entirely ignored.
You're being a touch hypocritical.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Q. Should all CTs be dismissed, or are there some plausable ones?
A. Y/N?

No, not all conspiracy theories should be dismissed out of hand.

However if a conspiracy theory makes vague insinuations and doesn't make concrete falsifiable claims, then it can be dismissed out of hand.
If the conspiracy theory is claiming things that are patently false, then it can be dismissed out of hand.
If the conspiracy relies on tiny clues (like the wrong colour of rearview mirrors) gathered from YouTube videos, then it can be dismissed
If the theory relies on ALL experts either being in on it or being less expert than some rando on the internet with zero training and zero knowledge on the subject, then it's dismissible.
If the theory is just a rehash of previous failed conspiracy theories, then it should be dismissed. (Eg the various virus theories. School shootings being fake.)
If the conspiracy relies on supernatural things, then it can be dismissed. (Eg end of the world Bible prediction stuff)
And if it's just based entirely on racist propaganda, then it can be dismissed out of hand. (Eg Holocaust denial or the Great Replacement stuff).

I've not seen a conspiracy theory that falls outside of those categories.
You aren't providing any examples.

There might be a conspiracy theory outside of those. I'm open to that possibility.
But I would be very surprised.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No one in this thread has the position that all CTs are to be dismissed

Ok, finally. You have answered, and agreed with the OP's question.

In which case we can all agree and accept there are indeed many valid CTs, and should not all be ballparked in the same selective category as e.g. flat-earth theory (as has been done in this thread, hence the objection).

Each one simply needs examined on a case by case basis.

Unfortunately, time itself isn't infinite to trawl through each and every single one, but do keep an open mind, and perhaps concentrate on the topical ones at your leisure.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

and should not all be ballparked in the same selective category as e.g. flat-earth theory (as has been done in this thread, hence the objection).

.

But no one did that.

Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

Each one simply needs examined on a case by case basis.

Unfortunately, time itself isn't infinite to trawl through each and every single one, but do keep an open mind, and perhaps concentrate on the topical ones at your leisure.

Does this include the ones that you believe were artificially created by The Shadowy They to discredit "real" conspiracies?
How do you personally tell the difference?
Why do you dismiss theories like flat earth out of hand?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

3rd or 4th time asking. It's really quite a simple question. Which Princess Diana conspiracy theory is "credible" according to you? who killed her?

This is the 3rd of 4th time in correcting you, that I never stated 'credible' but rather plausable (possible).

i.e. The theory (again for the 3rd or 4th time telling), is the accident may not have been an accident, due to a strong motive, along with various contextual and contemporary factors.

It now appears that you are looking for exact names, parties, and all and every inch of the fine exacting details, or you will completely dismiss this event.

An interesting approach (or indeed, tactic).

i_surge

I once met a lad who was telling me the story of what really happened Jesus Christ way back when, as if he was there himself to witness it.

I get the same sense when I see people argue to the death over stuff they can never possibly know for sure.

King Mob wrote: »

But no one did that.

Read the thread from page 1.

King Mob wrote: »

But no one did that.
Does this include the ones that you believe were artificially created by The Shadowy They to discredit "real" conspiracies? How do you personally tell the difference? Why do you dismiss theories like flat earth out of hand?

Lol, what on earth is this jibberish that I have just read?

Think you need to chillax, or something.
Anyway good evening/night.