Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

24567…44

Comments

  • #52
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    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?


  • #53
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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?


  • #54
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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


  • #55
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • #56
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    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.


  • #57
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • #58
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    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).


  • #59
    i_surge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭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.


  • #60
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Ok, finally. You have answered

    Addressed this already, and it's in the 2nd post of the thread, which I already pointed you towards.

    You have put forward that the princess Diana conspiracy theory is credible, yet when you're asked what the theory is you don't know.

    Just to get this straight, you think information you can't even detail is credible? how does that work?


  • #62
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    i_surge wrote: »
    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.
    Cool story.


  • #63
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

    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.

    Right, so no actual theory or details.

    Just some vague allusion to it "may not have been an accident" furnished with nothing else remotely credible. Yup, sounds like a typical conspiracy "theory" presented here.


  • #64
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Read the thread from page 1.
    I have.
    No one did that.
    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Lol, what on earth is this jibberish that I have just read?

    Think you need to chillax, or something.
    Anyway good evening/night.
    You are dodging the point as well as many others.

    You have claimed that some conspiracy theories are fake and are created by some party to discredit "real" conspiracy theories.
    This is a contradiction to your philosophy of keeping an open mind.

    So the question I asked you is: how do you tell when a conspiracy theory is a fake one planted by the government?

    You've demanded we answer your questions.
    Then you ignore our answers when we do.
    Then you ignore all the questions and points to you.

    Like I said previously, you're not helping your argument that conspiracy theories should be taken seriously.


  • #65
    Irishman80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭Irishman80


    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
    522220.png


    National Archives.

    Broken Window belonging to Kennedy car placed inside a FBI labeled Wooden box
    522221.png

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

    Yep, if we accept the Single-Bullet theory is garbage, there must be at least two shooters. Even the Warren Commission recognised that.

    It’s probably unfair to call the theory garbage though. It’s similar to theories like the Ptolemaic geocentric system - the predictive accuracy of the theory is good, the formulation is extremely creative and impressive, but the assumptions underlying the model are unlikely and now as we know untruthful.

    People really need to think about it: A bullet makes 7 exit and entry wounds in two men, shatters bone and rips muscle apart, goes through their clothes, leaves fragments in their bodies, just happens to fall out on a gurney in hospital with little damage, and has no traces of bone, blood, or clothes on it.

    And that’s before we even consider any of the other issues with the official account.


  • #66
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Irishman80 wrote: »
    Yep, if we accept the Single-Bullet theory is garbage, there must be at least two shooters. Even the Warren Commission recognised that.

    So would you say the conspiracy theory is credible, and what is that conspiracy theory?

    Do you apply the same level of scrutiny to it..


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You have put forward that the princess Diana conspiracy theory is credible, yet when you're asked what the theory is you don't know.
    Just to get this straight, you think information you can't even detail is credible? how does that work?

    Again for the 5th time your using your own phrases not mine.

    Credible is a very selective word that only YOU keep using, in place of plausable and/or viable. This is very dishonest word trickery of you.

    Your technique is clear for all here to see, you keep playing dumb and asking 'so whats the theory' (see above), even after it has been presented to you e.g. Diana may have been knocked off in the Paris car 'accident'. Simple. How does this work that you can't accept a simple theory?

    You are then asking for credible 100% proof.
    A theory needs only a reasonable motive and intent to exist, along with contextual or complimentary factors that support its justification.

    When the apple fell on Einstein's head, he didn't say this was 100% gravity, he theorised that it might be, and later was proven right, in that case no external 3rd party evidence was required.

    Indeed 100% proof isn't always readily available if evidence is hidden and destroyed, you fail to comprehend this small matter. In Diana's case there was no independent investigation, nor independent doctor at the post mortem.

    You (or KM) already admitted there are viable CTs out there, yes?
    So either you give an example of some CTs right now, that are viable/plausable, or as you call it 'credible'.
    Or we can return to the theory that you (and KM) don't accept a single CT. Not one.
    And are thus trying to poo-poo each and every one in existance, which I suspect has always been your position and agenda. At this stage, it appears to be your sole purpose on this planet.


  • #68
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

    Credible is a very selective word that only YOU keep using, in place of plausable and/or viable. This is very dishonest word trickery of you.

    It's the topic of the thread
    to you e.g. Diana may have been knocked off in the Paris car 'accident'. Simple. How does this work that you can't accept a simple theory?

    Read the OP again.

    According to you, "the princess Diana theory" is an example of one that holds up if we take a closer look. Cool, there are several, which one holds up according to you?

    This shouldn't be difficult, flat-earthers and moon landing hoaxers can outline their theory, but you are already struggling on that first step..


  • #69
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,013 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Irishman80 wrote: »
    People really need to think about it: A bullet makes 7 exit and entry wounds in two men, shatters bone and rips muscle apart, goes through their clothes, leaves fragments in their bodies, just happens to fall out on a gurney in hospital with little damage, and has no traces of bone, blood, or clothes on it.

    All of the injuries on both men are consistent with one bullet from behind, as are the entry and exit wounds on Connelly. Even the bullet being found on the stretcher makes sense when you look at the last shallow wound in his thigh.

    Connellys entrance wound is from a bullet tumbling which can only happen from a bullet thats already passed through something (JFK).

    There is bullet wipe on JFKs jacket but not on Connellys. Thread and cloth carried into Connollys wounds.

    Why would "they"plant a near pristine bullet on the stretcher? Surely a smashed up one makes more sense to remove suspicion? Makes no sense.

    Anyway one for the JFK thread maybe.
    joeguevara wrote: »
    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.

    Thats not true. It was never aired and went unnoticed. He went on to have a very successful time with PiL.

    But yeah, there was a huge conspiracy to protect all those paedos, clearly. For decades.


  • #70
    patsman07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭patsman07


    The windscreen could have been damaged from a piece of bone sent flying from the impact of the fatal bullet.

    That said, I think of the "main" conspiracy theories the JFK assassination is one of the few plausible ones. Mainly because of Oswald's back story-the ease with which he moved back to the USA from the USSR, his simultaneous friendship with right wing Russians and membership of Communist organisations, his strange trip to Mexico, his claim that "I'm just a patsy" & ultimately his own assassination.


  • #71
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's the topic of the thread
    Read the OP again.
    Fair enough, problem is credible suggests fully proven, however a theory is always going to be a theory, by it's very nature. It's also a very subjective phrase.
    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    According to you, "the princess Diana theory" is an example of one that holds up if we take a closer look. Cool, there are several, which one holds up according to you?
    Again you've altered and twisted words (typical!).

    I never said holds up, I said it is plausable and viable. There is a strong motive (the contextual preggers theory only increases this further), and many other factors regarding the scene of the accident. Suggest you read up on it, rather this begging for 100% proof of every single detail from the outset.

    Again you've failed to back up your earlier claim that not all CT are to be dismssed.

    So, again.....Give us one single example of a CT that is as you say 'credible'.
    Or, again.... I'll assume you're 'agenda' here is to dismiss 100% of all CTs.

    Waiting...


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,013 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    patsman07 wrote: »
    The windscreen could have been damaged from a piece of bone sent flying from the impact of the fatal bullet.

    Its the only possible theory. That r bullet fragments. Otherwise a shooter would've had to be lying in the middle of the road 20 feet in front of the car to shoot JFK With an inch to aim at between the other passengers.

    There was no one lying in the middle of the road 20 feet in front of the car.
    patsman07 wrote: »
    That said, I think of the "main" conspiracy theories the JFK assassination is one of the few plausible ones. Mainly because of Oswald's back story-the ease with which he moved back to the USA from the USSR, his simultaneous friendship with right wing Russians and membership of Communist organisations, his strange trip to Mexico, his claim that "I'm just a patsy" & ultimately his own assassination.

    Theres nothing really that unusual about his return to the US. His US citizenship was never renounced and he never defected as the USSR never accepted him. Legally, its as easy as him going to Canada and then coming home.


  • #73
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

    I never said holds up, I said it is plausable and viable. There is a strong motive (the contextual preggers theory only increases this further), and many other factors regarding the scene of the accident. Suggest you read up on it, rather this begging for 100% proof of every single detail from the outset.

    Never asked for 100% proof. I'm simply asking for the theory, which you are refusing to provide. All you can provide is some vague doubt of the event.

    Which just underscores the point of the original poster - many of these popular conspiracy theories crumble the moment we take a closer look at the theory
    So, again.....Give us one single example of a CT that is as you say 'credible'.

    Sure, the conspiracy to poison Sergei Skripal.


  • #74
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Irishman80 wrote: »
    Yep, if we accept the Single-Bullet theory is garbage, there must be at least two shooters. Even the Warren Commission recognised that.

    It’s probably unfair to call the theory garbage though. It’s similar to theories like the Ptolemaic geocentric system - the predictive accuracy of the theory is good, the formulation is extremely creative and impressive, but the assumptions underlying the model are unlikely and now as we know untruthful.

    People really need to think about it: A bullet makes 7 exit and entry wounds in two men, shatters bone and rips muscle apart, goes through their clothes, leaves fragments in their bodies, just happens to fall out on a gurney in hospital with little damage, and has no traces of bone, blood, or clothes on it.

    And that’s before we even consider any of the other issues with the official account.

    Gov Connelly doctor described Connelly body wounds on this video.



    This is the problem the bullet found at Parkland was only missing a few grains at the tip, the rest of the bullet shape remained intact and did not deform. Every expert who attempted the same shot on video has noticed the body of the bullet deforms out of shape.

    Doctor Shaw Connelly Doctor even said on video he doesn't believe the one bullet theory.



  • #75
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    patsman07 wrote: »
    The windscreen could have been damaged from a piece of bone sent flying from the impact of the fatal bullet.

    Fundamental problem with that theory is, there is a glass partition in the middle seat of the car. You can even see this on the first photograph i posted. The crack seems to have got caused by an impact from the front ( window outside the driver seated position)


  • #76
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    .

    You (or KM) already admitted there are viable CTs out there, yes?
    So either you give an example of some CTs right now, that are viable/plausable, or as you call it 'credible'.
    Or we can return to the theory that you (and KM) don't accept a single CT. Not one.
    .
    But that's what what either of us have said.
    Why are you constantly misrepresenting stuff when it's right there?


  • #77
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's what what either of us have said.
    Why are you constantly misrepresenting stuff when it's right there?
    Non comprendo (i.e. the above is jibberish).

    This is black and white, it's a very simple A or B choice:

    (Again) I ask:
    Either you(s) can give an example of a CT (conspiracy theory) that is viable/plausable, or as you call it 'credible'.

    Or we can return to the theory held, that you (KM & DJ) don't (and won't) ever accept a single CT.
    Not one.

    Thus, you(s) have an 'agenda' to discredit all and ever CT outright, am I correct or not?


  • #78
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,367 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    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).

    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).


    The latest one I heard was that the USA created the virus and released it near the lab in Wuhan to wreck Chinas economy, but make it seem that China had released the virus. :) But it got out of control.


  • #79
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »

    Or we can return to the theory held, that you (KM & DJ) don't (and won't) ever accept a single CT.
    Not one.

    Yeah if you could stop attributing a completely false position to me, thanks. And read the thread.


  • #80
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Yeah if you could stop attributing a completely false position to me, thanks. And read the thread.

    Am asking you a very, very simple question, and your refusal to address it, can only mean one thing, surely.

    You, outright, will not accept, a single conspiracy theory in the history of mankind as potentially 'credible'.
    If this is wrong, do feel free to correct and clarify, ideally by suggesting a single CT that you consider 'credible', or if you prefer 'plausable'.

    I'm really not being unfair by reaching the conclusion that your position (actually, an agenda) is to dismiss outright, each and every single CT in existance.


  • #81
    quickbeam
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 16,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭quickbeam


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Or we can return to the theory held, that you (KM & DJ) don't (and won't) ever accept a single CT.
    Not one.

    Thus, you(s) have an 'agenda' to discredit all and ever CT outright, am I correct or not?

    Mod: Are you deliberately winding posters up, Alonzo Witty Visitation? Both posters have answered you explicitly on this already:

    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    No one in this thread has the position that all CTs are to be dismissed
    King Mob wrote: »
    No, not all conspiracy theories should be dismissed out of hand.


    Cut out the mis-representing posters and get back to a proper debate if you want one.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Non comprendo (i.e. the above is jibberish).
    It's pretty clear. I'm using very direct and simple language.
    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    This is black and white, it's a very simple A or B choice:
    It's not. You're using a false dichotomy. You're offering only two false choices when there is other possibilities you are ignoring.
    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    (Again) I ask:
    Yes again you demand an answer while ignoring the answers already given and the questions asked of you.
    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Either you(s) can give an example of a CT (conspiracy theory) that is viable/plausable, or as you call it 'credible'.
    I can't give one because I've never seen one. I have not claimed otherwise.
    There might be one out there. I'm very open to that possibility a d willing to be shown one.
    But you aren't showing one.
    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Or we can return to the theory held, that you (KM & DJ) don't (and won't) ever accept a single CT.
    Not one.

    Thus, you(s) have an 'agenda' to discredit all and ever CT outright, am I correct or not?
    You are incorrect.


  • #83
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Am asking you a very, very simple question, and your refusal to address it

    I've addressed it, multiple times

    Here is the latest
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114233642&postcount=73


  • #84
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    King Mob wrote: »
    I can't give one because I've never seen one.

    Ok, this is perhaps the closest to an answer that well ever get, fair enough we can leave it as that:
    I.e. for the record: you can't give one (not a single CT, that you consider credible).

    Also for the record, an not trying to wind anyone up, simply asking a simple question.




    And yes, I've already suggested a couple (Diana and the {ongoing/developing} Epstein ones).

    Have used Diana simply as this is very popular (like JFK etc), widely published, and consider it to be plausable (likely motive, and contextual circustances).


    Is it credible? Could be, and but that is entirely subjective.
    Can it be proven beyond doubt? Only if one was able to obtain inaccessible documents/reports etc, which is highly unlikely.
    Is there reasonable suspicion? Yes, but again this is subjective.

    There are no shortage on books and movies on this particular one to peruse:
    The Murder of Princess Diana is a bestselling 2004 book (and also telemovie adaption) by British journalist Noel Botham which disputes the official version of events and suggests an orchestrated conspiracy.
    Unlawful Killing, a British documentary film about the deaths of Diana and Dodi, was shown May 2011 in Cannes, while the 2011 Cannes Film Festival was in progress.
    It was directed by Keith Allen and funded by Mohamed Al-Fayed.
    Anyway that's probably enough on her for the time being.
    Is there other potentially credible CTs, would assume so, plenty.


  • #85
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Ok, this is perhaps the closest to an answer that well ever get, fair enough we can leave it as that:

    I.e. for the record: you can't give one (not a single CT, that you consider credible).
    I'm not sure what more of an answer you were expecting.
    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    And yes, I've already suggested a couple (Diana and the {ongoing/developing} Epstein ones).
    Yes and it's already been explained to you why what you are suggesting aren't credible or aren't conspiracy theories in the first place.

    I've also asked you many times about your claim that some conspiracy theories are artificially created to discredit "real" ones.
    You've ignored that point entirely.


  • #86
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I've addressed it, multiple times
    Sorry, but the supplied link does not answer Y/N, to this simple question.
    Can you give a single CT, that you consider might be credible?


  • #87
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Sorry, but the supplied link does not answer Y/N, to this simple question.
    Can you give a single CT, that you consider might be credible?

    jesus christ..

    Please explain how this is not an answer...

    So, again.....Give us one single example of a CT that is as you say 'credible'.
    Sure, the conspiracy to poison Sergei Skripal.


  • #88
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Alonzo Witty Visitation wrote: »
    Sorry, but the supplied link does not answer Y/N, to this simple question.
    Can you give a single CT, that you consider might be credible?

    yes it does. I strongly suggest you read it again. /mod


  • #89
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Ok, fair enough, my correction/mistake, DohnJoe has presented one the conspiracy in relation to the poison of Sergei Skripal.

    It's easy to confuse that poster with KingMob (no CTs presented),
    as they often post at the same time, and on the same threads, almost in unison.

    Progress has been made.


  • #90
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Mod: Accumulator take a 24 hour break from posting in this thread so you can re-read it more slowly and deliberately and differentiate between users.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,013 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Fundamental problem with that theory is, there is a glass partition in the middle seat of the car.

    No there was not. Stop spreading lies.

    There was a fitting for the bubble top. There was no glass in it.

    rawImage.jpg

    To add to the OPs question - maybe if there weren't so many unreliable and dishonest conspiracy theorists, as above, some of the theories would be more credible and taken more seriously. Like, 57 years later and we're now adding a layer of glass that didn't exist into the car. FFS.


  • #92
    CoBo55
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,315 ✭✭✭CoBo55


    The only one I believe is that the St. Phelim was hit by a drone, most likely accidentally but covered up none the less. The fact they accused both pilots of sightseeing over New Ross I find particularly disgusting.


  • #93
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    No there was not. Stop spreading lies.

    There was a fitting for the bubble top. There was no glass in it.

    rawImage.jpg

    .

    That's factually untrue, the car was fitted with privacy windows. You can see the glass here. Someone would have to deliberately remove the glass for it to be no longer there. Just another angle to the conspiracy ;)
    522278.png

    Either way missing glass or not, theres no evidence a piece of human bone impacted the glass here. We have plenty of evidence for gunshots and Kennedy and Connelly hit by bullets.


  • #94
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    The Nal wrote: »
    Its the only possible theory. That r bullet fragments.

    That some bullet here doing all this with just a very tiny piece at the edge of the tip broken off. Even debunkers have failed miserably here trying to replicate the shape here after firing a rifle. Everyone of the bullets they found after firing the rifle, got bent and warped out of original shape.

    Connelly 5th rib got hit here, it's a joke to think the bullet would be like this still. Especially the round top where it's hit hard bone.

    This bullet just got stuck inside Connelly pants and just happens to fall onto a stretcher at Parkland?

    522281.png


  • #95
    quickbeam
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 16,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭quickbeam


    Mod: specific CT discussions should go in their own threads.


  • #96
    Lord Fairlord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 180 ✭✭Lord Fairlord


    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?
    You may or may not find this interesting: https://listverse.com/2017/08/18/top-10-conspiracy-theories-that-were-actually-true/


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    joeguevara wrote: »
    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

    I listened to a podcast recently which claimed that the Scorpions cross over hit single " winds of change " was actually penned by the CIA with the insinuation that it was written to promote perestroika and to facilitate anti communist sentiment amongst the youth of the former soviet bloc. It was number 1 all over eastern europe and in Russia. The song was translated into Russian, German, English.

    Not all that far fetched. The podcast also investigated the acquital of a drugs smuggler who was caught red handed with a boat of charlie in the carribbean in the early 80's. The same guy brought a host of popular US bands to Moscow for a rock concert the same year the Scorpions song was released. Intriguing enough conspiracy all things considered. Seemingly the podcast producers found it astonishing that the band manager/drug smuggler walked from the drugs charge, did no time whatsoever. 3 years later he is bringing skid row, bon jovi ,poison , scorpions etc to moscow for a gig as big as Live Aid.


  • #98
    Hoop66
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    splinter65 wrote: »
    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.

    I do. A drunk limo driver drove too fast and crashed. The passengers that were not wearing seatbelts - Diana, Dodi - were fatally injured.


  • #99
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    I do. A drunk limo driver drove too fast and crashed. The passengers that were not wearing seatbelts - Diana, Dodi - were fatally injured.

    Yup but if you can't explain every tiny detail and nuance of the event to someone, then that someone can claim there's "something fishy" going on, without having to detail what it is exactly.

    That is the backbone of most modern popular conspiracies, e.g. the princess Diana death


  • #100
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,013 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Operation Himmler is probably the biggest proven theory I can think of. Well, somewhere between a conspiracy theory and a false flag but interesting either way.


  • #101
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The Nal wrote: »
    Operation Himmler is probably the biggest proven theory I can think of. Well, somewhere between a conspiracy theory and a false flag but interesting either way.

    Operation Northwoods.

    Should have mentioned this at the start of the thread honestly.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement