Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > General Conspiracy Discussion
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-20-2009, 04:37 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic


Quote:
Originally Posted by galexander View Post
Having just posted my justification of why I believe the secret services were unjustifiably lax in allowing three separate gunshots, the last of which was fatal, to be fired at JFK before taking any concerted action at Dallas 1963,
You have changed the subject. The subject was the reaction time, not the unguarded motorcade.

I posted this to counter the idea of the lax reaction time...

>>And how long did it take for the G-Men to react with JFK? All we have is the Zapruder film which shows very little of the scene. Agents may have heard the shots and reacted instantly.

Which NOBODY had countered. Just as I was saying about how the debunkers have had the last word.

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-20-2009, 04:44 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

>>Anyway.... Doesn't the Zapruder film show the shot that killed JFK couldn't possibly have been fired from the building Oswald was supposebly located at?

How? It has been proven with computerised mock ups. This is a first level argument. Take it up a few notches and catch up with the big boys. And don't just say "Those recontructions were done by the Illuminati" as most nust will do. You have to PROVE they were done by the Illuminati. Or whatever you call your culprit.

EVERYTHING I've read on this site is old news.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-20-2009, 04:49 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Case in point.

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/...c-10389-3.html

I debunk some of the evidence regarding JFK on this part of the thread but the guy never gets back to me about it. And nobody else has on here. But apparently the debunkers are steps behind you guys. HAH!

You guys have never even come up against a debunker, have you? Admit it. If so, show me the evidence of this transaction of info.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-20-2009, 04:58 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Page

Get on here and debunk the debunker. Challenge the LATEST thinking about the subject. Or don't be taken seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-20-2009, 10:44 AM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
The CIA didn't SUGGEST that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 911, they stated this as FACT.
I don't see your point. The 9/11 truth movement also states its claim that 9/11 was an inside job as FACT.

Anyway, the CIA's claims about 9/11 are most definitely a "conspiracy theory" that's in fact far more fringe (from a logical perspective) than the "inside job" hypothesis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
You are confused as to the term "Conspiracy Theory."
Conspiracy :
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

Theory :
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Although the term "conspiracy theory" is currently abused as a reference to theories suggesting a conspiracy not accepted by the mainstream, "conspiracy theory" is a neutral descriptor for any claim suggesting a conspiracy. The CIA claims about a supposed international terror network called "Al Qaeda" are therefore a conspiracy theory too... a conspiracy theory that has been debunked by many independent researchers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Could be THEY assassinated ABE because he freed the slaves.
Unlikely. It's more likely that he was murdered by the radical liberal elements within his own office because Lincoln refused to be a mere puppet of theirs (much like the Kennedy brothers).

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
Rubbish. So why are you ALL using old arguments that I've seen debunked? Why aren't you using the arguments that have passed through the debunkers?
You're confusing "passed through the debunkers" with "debunked". For example, just because the NIST report addressed some of the issues involving 9/11 that doesn't mean it debunks the "controlled demolition" theory. In fact, the NIST report itself has been debunked itself. Yet, I still frequently see the NIST report pop up as an argument by so-called "sceptics".

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
I've NEVER seen a conspiracy theory taken past the debunking level. And I've looked. I've been on many forums such as this and debunked many theories and NEVER seen a jot of counter evidence. The nuts just call me a shill and then vanish or ignore me.
First of all, you must distinguish between various so-called "conspiracy theories". First of all, there's theories dealing with specific events (eg. 9/11, political assassinations, the origins of WW2, the Holocaust, ...). Second, there's theories dealing with certain elitist groups seeking power (eg. CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, Club of Rome, ...). Then, there are theories involving cultural manipulation (eg. Frankfurt school, control of the press, liberal bias in academia, ...). Then, there are theories involving ethnic manipulation (eg. Jewish and zionist propaganda, "multi-culturalist" propaganda, ...). Finally, there's the tin foil hat theories (Creationism, chemtrails, "reptilian lizards", underground bases, UFOs, Hollow Earth theory, ...).

Some of the above theories are based on wild speculation, others are a convolution of fact and speculation and still others are based on strong evidence. One must not just throw all of these theories on one heap and pretend they can all be ignored. That would be intellectually dishonest and misleading.

For those based on strong evidence (eg. the 9/11 inside job theory or the liberal bias in academia), I've seen no serious arguments that even come close to debunking them. Unfortunately, many so-called sceptics just like to pretend their arguments have not been debunked and keep repeating those same arguments over and over while accusing the other side to do exactly that (as you have been doing here).

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
So I really don't know what you are talking about. I think you THINK you have gone to the end of the argument. I challenge you to go to a proper debunking site and pose one of your theories. You'll soon find out what you know is bull.

Here's one.

JREF Forum?
I posted for some time at The Skeptics Society Forum under a different alias. My comments regarding the narrowminded and prejudiced attitude of so-called "sceptics" is based on my experiences on this forum and elsewhere. While I agree that many so-called "conspiracy theorists" are unwilling to contemplate the arguments of their oponent at all, I see the exact same thing among "sceptics". An open mind and an unprejudiced attitude are very rare on both sides.

The problem is that most people are unable to seriously contemplate any concept beyond their own frame of reference, espectially if they contradict their prejudices. Just like a Christian tends to automatically reject any arguments against the claim that Jesus did not exist or was just an ordinary human, most humanist "sceptics" will automatically reject any argument that contradicts the viewpoints of mainstream historians, physicists or chemists... regardless of how much counterevidence can be provided. Both will almost always attempt to discredit the source of this counterevidence or throw in a few strawman arguments rather than seriously attempting to counter the actual counterevidence itself. There's but very few people who do not show any signs of such behavior and you'll find them no more among the so-called "sceptics" than among other groups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
You don't understand why this means nothing, do you? You'd have to prove these guys were corrupt in the first place for your theory to stand up.
Having studied regional, national as well as international politics from various perspectives, the assumption of innocence and impartiality seems a lot more farfetched than the assumption of guilt and involvement. I've also heard many claims that a lot of evidence that contradicted the Warren's Comission report was simply not included in the report. Although I haven't been able to verify these claims yet, it is definitely not implausible.

Anyway, can you prove the Warren Comission did NOT leave out a lot of evidence in their report? Can you prove the people involved were in fact innocent and impartial? If not, why do you believe the burden of evidence is solely on the side of the so-called "conspiracy theorists"? Just because their viewpoint is not mainstream?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
IF these guys control who gets in then why would a rebel like JFK get in in the first place? Surely they would have arranged to get their own guy in.

Hence no assassination needed. Why let an enemy in?
Most highly placed politicians have some dark secrets (eg. sexual exploits), making it easy to keep them in line through blackmail. When a politician feels confident enough to ignore his handler's commands, the media "exposes" one or more of such secrets and usually the politician will cease his rebellion. The next step is disinformation in an attempt to further defame the individual and/or lobbying to remove the him from office (eg. the efforts to impeach Clinton and Nixon). Assassination occurs only when all these methods are either unavailable or unsuccesful or when there is no time for black propaganda.

Basically, JFK was a puppet who turned "rogue". He was assassinated because his handlers could no longer control him and black propaganda was not or no longer considered an option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
These were things everyone knew. They want to draw a crowd so they advertise where JFK was coming. That's logical. Oswald got lucky. It was the same with Ruby. Everyone knew where he was being kept. All Ruby had to do was wait. There's nothing odd about any of this. I don't think you guys understand what makes good and bad evidence.
If Oswald was not shot for knowing too much about the JFK assassination conspiracy, why was he shot? What motive could a well-connected night club owner like Jack Ruby possibly have? What about indications that Oswald was an intelligence asset and that Ruby was involved with the maffia?

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
Just as I was saying about how the debunkers have had the last word.
They do? How did they disprove the claims of CIA, FBI, Maffia and/or Mossad involvement in the assassination? How did they disprove the theory that the shot that killed JFK came from the grassy knoll? How do they disprove eyewitness testomonies concerning the faking of the forensic report or the claim that more than one shot was fired? How do they explain the claims that many witnesses were not included in the Warren comission report? etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
How? It has been proven with computerised mock ups.
Any links to sources that elaborate on these computerised mock ups?

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
And don't just say "Those recontructions were done by the Illuminati" as most nust will do. You have to PROVE they were done by the Illuminati.
The source is irrelevant. What matters, is whether or not the mock up matches what we see on the available footage as well as other evidence and that is is physically possible. Just because you can model an event a certain way, that doesn't mean it's an accurate depiction of the event.

Anyway, I'd love to see some sources that elaborate on this mock up so I can judge for myself how strong their case really is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
You guys have never even come up against a debunker, have you?
I've been having this sort of discussions with so-called "sceptics" for about 10 years now, although I haven't been very active during the last year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
If so, show me the evidence of this transaction of info.
I've only been using this alias fairly recently and I rather not have it linked to my previous alias. I started to get too much attention from the thought police by using the same alias at too many forums and I prefer to fly more under the radar these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
Get on here and debunk the debunker. Challenge the LATEST thinking about the subject. Or don't be taken seriously.
That's quite a lot of text. Since you claim to know so much about this topic and since you're the one referring us to this website, could you gives us a few arguments from this disproving the very arguments made in this thread? Just posting a link to a website is not a very constructive way to debate such a topic. Anyone could post a link to a website attempting to prove CIA, Maffia or Mossad involvement as a response and this wouldn't get us any further.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-20-2009, 01:08 PM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Who said anything about 911 not being an inside job?
You said : The CIA didn't SUGGEST that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 911, they stated this as FACT. What was your point when you said those words?!?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-20-2009, 04:58 PM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
My comment was to the OP who said that the CIA SUGGESTED that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were responsilble for 911.

My point to the OP was that the our GOVERNMENT didn't SUGGEST that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 911.

THEY STATED IT AS FACT.

What is your point?
I wanted to point out that both explanations are stated as fact by those who defend them. Therefore I don't really get your point....
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:15 PM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Therefore, I don't really get why you think you're making a point when the point has already been made.
Maybe the point you made got lost in translation. Let's just ignore this totally irrelevant and pointless topic and move on to the juicy stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
I believe that you, too, are in the SPIN cycle and, therefore, need to hit the STOP button and hang yourself out to dry.
I moved out of the spin cycle eons ago. In fact, I pretty much stopped watching TV and listening to the radio altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
What is your opinion, Outside of the Box?

Do you believe that 911 was orchestrated by elements of the SECRET GOVERNMENT or completely the work of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden?

Either way, they're both INSIDE JOBS.

Don't you agree?
Based on my research, It seems pretty obvious 9/11 was orchestrated by a Western intelligence agency (most likely the CIA, the Mossad or a collaboration of both).

Osama Bin Laden is just a figurehead and Al Qaeda is not even a real organisation. All this nonsense about "international Islamic terrorism" is just black propaganda to fuel the phoney "war on terror" (there are Islamic militant organisations in countries like Syria, Pakistan and Palestine, but they operate only in their own countries or neighboring countries).

link --> Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist <-- link
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.