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
  #11  
Old 10-07-2009, 03:50 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic


The planted bullet? It looks suspicious, true. But you are bound to get the odd thing that looks suspicious in a massive investigation. It's statistical. That's the answer that settles my nerves, anyway.

The last wound caused by the bullet was a slight one, just the breaking of the skin on the thigh. The bullet passed through the trousers and therefore would have been slightly in the thigh and if knocked would have fallen into the trousers. Considering he was sat up and had his knee bent the bullet would have fallen to the knee at least. He would then have been taken from the car and placed on a stretcher, at no time being upright, so the bullet would have had to have been still in his pants. After being transported to a hospital he would have remained on one gurney, probably as his pants were cut away and the bullet will have fallen out where it was found. The bullet has not acted bizzarely at any point. If he had been up and walking around then I would expect the bullet to have been found on the ground. He was laid down from the point of being shot so it was found where it should have been.

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-07-2009, 08:10 AM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laokin View Post
The JFK assassination had physical evidence that couldn't be explained. This is why there are conspiracy theories about it. It was also widely believed if you shoot some one in the back of the head, the brain matter would go forward. JFK's went backward. Modern science has proved why that would be, but still can't explain away the planted bullet.

When there is a shadow of a doubt, it usually means something else happened. What actually happened is just total speculation as nobody really knows except those involved.

Also, it's pretty obvious the government does things without informing it's people. This is by definition a conspiracy, they are called theories for that exact reason. Some are absurd, others are probably true. What do we know? We know Mr. Obama hasn't really done anything but continue bush's crusade. This is a far cry from him saying the troops were coming home during the campaign.

What changed his mind?
When they are involved in a CRIME, they muddy the waters so that the true circumstances of what actually occurred cannot be detected.

In essence, they create the conspiracy surrounding the crime in which they were involved.

Keeps many people busy for DECADES presenting THEORIES as to what really happened, but once the evidence has been tampered with, it is almost an impossibility to know the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-08-2009, 03:34 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
When they are involved in a CRIME, they muddy the waters so that the true circumstances of what actually occurred cannot be detected.

In essence, they create the conspiracy surrounding the crime in which they were involved.

Keeps many people busy for DECADES presenting THEORIES as to what really happened, but once the evidence has been tampered with, it is almost an impossibility to know the facts.
But that is assuming there was a crime in the first place that wasn't simply done by Oswald. To properly appraise the info is to start from the basis that people are innocent until proven guilty. It is not the fun option though. Much more ENTERTAINING to assume he was assassinated by CIA etc. That's the basis conspiracy theorists start from. What is the most ENTERTAINING alternative and see if we can prove THAT happened, no matter how grey the evidence is.
Because it IS a hobby, like fishing.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-08-2009, 07:54 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
But that is assuming there was a crime in the first place that wasn't simply done by Oswald. To properly appraise the info is to start from the basis that people are innocent until proven guilty. It is not the fun option though. Much more ENTERTAINING to assume he was assassinated by CIA etc. That's the basis conspiracy theorists start from. What is the most ENTERTAINING alternative and see if we can prove THAT happened, no matter how grey the evidence is.
Because it IS a hobby, like fishing.
You don't belong on a conspiracy forum if you think they weren't involved in JFK's assassination or his son's plane crash.

99% of the population probably believes the CIA blew JFK's brains out.

But, you're one of the hold-outs.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-09-2009, 03:57 AM
albie albie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 418
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

I don't believe because the evidence is not very good. I come to these places to find out the latest evidence, which always turns out to be not very good. You shouldn't be angry at people who criticise your belief system when that system is based on bad evidence. You should accept that base your beliefs on little or nothing.

And I doubt 99% share your views of JFK. Those that do would believe anything anyway.

Also, did you not see this thread?

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/...en-6372-2.html

I didn not outright deny the possibility of Atta's luggage being suspect. I even took the subject to the James Randi forum.

Atta's conveniently late luggage - JREF Forum

Who were not too good in pouring cold water on the whole thing.

Last edited by albie : 10-09-2009 at 05:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-12-2009, 11:52 AM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattos_12 View Post
Hey chaps,

I don't want to be offensive, but I wonder about conspiracy logic. I mean, I think if you balance evidence on most things you realize conspiracies are often clearly wrong, or simply highly improbable.

the full string of my logic is:

The Secret Rulers of The World | PurpleSlinky

Would be interested by your response.

Best Regards

Matt
I understand the logic Matt of questioning conspiracy theories if you are new to the subject.

But is the allegation that Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were resposible for 9/11 not a conspiracy theory itself? It surely is?

Is the suggestion that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman not also a conspiracy theory? It surely is.

I would very much question the logic myself when it comes to conspiracy theories and especially when they derive from the government.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-13-2009, 04:22 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
I understand the logic Matt of questioning conspiracy theories if you are new to the subject.

But is the allegation that Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were resposible for 9/11 not a conspiracy theory itself? It surely is?

Is the suggestion that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman not also a conspiracy theory? It surely is.

I would very much question the logic myself when it comes to conspiracy theories and especially when they derive from the government.
And you base your distrust in the government because? Don't tell me, because they shot JFK and blew up the towers, therefore you wouldn't trust them.
Your distrust of the government is a cyclical argument if so.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-13-2009, 11:33 AM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by albie View Post
And you base your distrust in the government because? Don't tell me, because they shot JFK and blew up the towers, therefore you wouldn't trust them.
Your distrust of the government is a cyclical argument if so.
On the contrary, albie, the logic of my argument is as follows:

Since the government's account of 9/11 and the assassination of JFK are conspiracy theories and all conspiracy theories are wrong, what the government has told us about 9/11 and the JFK assassination must be wrong also.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-13-2009, 08:32 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by galexander View Post
On the contrary, albie, the logic of my argument is as follows:

Since the government's account of 9/11 and the assassination of JFK are conspiracy theories and all conspiracy theories are wrong, what the government has told us about 9/11 and the JFK assassination must be wrong also.
You would be wrong.

The government's account of 911 and the assassination of JFK are not considered to be conspiracy theories.

The theories presented which are in direct contrast to the government's reporting as to these events are considered to be CONSPIRACY theories.

Obviously, you don't belong on a conspiracy site, if you believe that all conspiracy theories are wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-14-2009, 12:27 PM
galexander galexander is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bucks, UK
Posts: 405
Default Re: A question about conspiracy logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
You would be wrong.

The government's account of 911 and the assassination of JFK are not considered to be conspiracy theories.

The theories presented which are in direct contrast to the government's reporting as to these events are considered to be CONSPIRACY theories.

Obviously, you don't belong on a conspiracy site, if you believe that all conspiracy theories are wrong.
Blueangel, I was playing what is known as devil's advocate.

In my opinion the government's account of 911 and the JFK assassination are conspiracy theories. This is because it is widely accepted that the CIA have never conclusively proved that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 911. Some of the alleged hijackers are still alive and this fact has been widely reported in the international press. Look-alike Osama's have been used on video and besides how do we know he is genuine anyway and telling the truth?

In the case of the JFK assassination Lee Harvey Oswald was never tried for the crime, he was silenced before he had the chance to prove he 'was just a patsy'. And why did Jack Ruby, who reputedly had low-life connections in Dallas, step in to silence Oswald? This fact was never satisfactorily explained. But what is perhaps even more blatant is the circumstance that the assassin's gun was not designed to take a telescopic sight and the sights would have been put out of line after the first shot when the gun was reloaded. So how did Oswald managed to fire the third fatal shot to the head?

I think you'll find that these are CONSPIRACY THEORIES and no where near certifiable fact.
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 08:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.