Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

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.

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.

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.

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

National Archives.

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

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.

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..

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.

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..

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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