Which Conspiracy Theories do you Accept and Reject

[Awolf26]

Believe:

The Tuskegee Experiment - In 1932, a small group inside the United States government began a program to study the effects of syphilis on human beings. While this in and of itself is fine, the method by which they studied the disease involved infecting a group of people, mostly black males, with the disease without their knowledge or permission. The experiment went on for years, and the test subjects were denied even the most basic care for their ailment. The study went on for roughly 40 years.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident - On August 2, 1964, the USS Maddox, in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of North Vietnam, engaged three North Vietnamese Naval vessels. A few days later, it was reported, the Maddox and a second vessel, the Turner Joy, were supposedly engaged again by North Vietnamese forces, and supposedly US Naval vessels were sunk in the attack. These two incidents were used as the primary reason for the United States going to war military conflict with North Vietnam. It turns out the second attack never happened.

Operation Mockingbird - From the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA paid well-known journalists all over the world to publish CIA propaganda. Journalists at Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CBS were outed during the Church Committee investigations.

Iran-Contra - In 1985 and 1986, the Reagan Administration illegally traded weapons to Iran, which was under an arms embargo, in exchange for the release of American hostages. The funds from the illegal sales of the weapons went to fund the Nicaraguan rebel alliance, the Contras, in their guerrilla war against Nicaragua's then dictatorship, bypassing Congress, which had prohibited Reagan from helping the Contras.

CIA Drug Running - Similar to above, the CIA assisted Nicaraguan cocaine producers in selling their cocaine to Americans (particularly in Los Angeles) as a way of funding the Contras by intentionally not going after the drug dealers.

The Federal Reserve Bank - The Federal Reserve Bank was originally sold as a central American bank, put in place to maintain economic stability by carefully manipulating the value of the US Dollar. In reality, however, the Federal Reserve was easily infiltrated by private interests and largely acts in the interests of specific banks and financial institutions at the expense of the American economy and by extension the world economy. Instead of preventing economic instability, it's largely responsible for economic instability caused for the specific purpose of moving wealth from the average person to the super-wealthy.

I didn't know there was any controversy about the truthiness of these ones.

There is one that I believe, but again I have some pretty solid evidence. James Earl Ray did not kill MLK. The evidence I have is from a book called "An Act of State" by William Pepper. In it, he notes that James Earl Ray was posthumously acquitted, with the help of Greta Scott King and their children. Even if he did, he was paid and paid to confess. MLK started realizing (as did Malcom X) that the majority of the equality issues had less to do with race and more to do with class. Once they started rallying around that issue, both were shot and the killings were blamed on someone else. I don't know much about Malcom X's assassination, but I am pretty sure MLK was executed.

What does everyone think of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case? 


(added)Oh and I pretty much reject all labeled "conspiracy theories". Doesn't mean I believe everything about every story.

[fester30]

Believe:

The Tuskegee Experiment - In 1932, a small group inside the United States government began a program to study the effects of syphilis on human beings. While this in and of itself is fine, the method by which they studied the disease involved infecting a group of people, mostly black males, with the disease without their knowledge or permission. The experiment went on for years, and the test subjects were denied even the most basic care for their ailment. The study went on for roughly 40 years.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident - On August 2, 1964, the USS Maddox, in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of North Vietnam, engaged three North Vietnamese Naval vessels. A few days later, it was reported, the Maddox and a second vessel, the Turner Joy, were supposedly engaged again by North Vietnamese forces, and supposedly US Naval vessels were sunk in the attack. These two incidents were used as the primary reason for the United States going to war military conflict with North Vietnam. It turns out the second attack never happened.

Operation Mockingbird - From the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA paid well-known journalists all over the world to publish CIA propaganda. Journalists at Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CBS were outed during the Church Committee investigations.

Iran-Contra - In 1985 and 1986, the Reagan Administration illegally traded weapons to Iran, which was under an arms embargo, in exchange for the release of American hostages. The funds from the illegal sales of the weapons went to fund the Nicaraguan rebel alliance, the Contras, in their guerrilla war against Nicaragua's then dictatorship, bypassing Congress, which had prohibited Reagan from helping the Contras.

CIA Drug Running - Similar to above, the CIA assisted Nicaraguan cocaine producers in selling their cocaine to Americans (particularly in Los Angeles) as a way of funding the Contras by intentionally not going after the drug dealers.

The Federal Reserve Bank - The Federal Reserve Bank was originally sold as a central American bank, put in place to maintain economic stability by carefully manipulating the value of the US Dollar. In reality, however, the Federal Reserve was easily infiltrated by private interests and largely acts in the interests of specific banks and financial institutions at the expense of the American economy and by extension the world economy. Instead of preventing economic instability, it's largely responsible for economic instability caused for the specific purpose of moving wealth from the average person to the super-wealthy.

I didn't know there was any controversy about the truthiness of these ones.

There is one that I believe, but again I have some pretty solid evidence. James Earl Ray did not kill MLK. The evidence I have is from a book called "An Act of State" by William Pepper. In it, he notes that James Earl Ray was posthumously acquitted, with the help of Greta Scott King and their children. Even if he did, he was paid and paid to confess. MLK started realizing (as did Malcom X) that the majority of the equality issues had less to do with race and more to do with class. Once they started rallying around that issue, both were shot and the killings were blamed on someone else. I don't know much about Malcom X's assassination, but I am pretty sure MLK was executed.

What does everyone think of the Mumia Abu-Jamal case? 


(added)Oh and I pretty much reject all labeled "conspiracy theories". Doesn't mean I believe everything about every story.

Ray was not officially acquitted in a real trial.  It was a mock trial staged by a friend of the Kings.  The Kings did win a wrongful death lawsuit against someone else (and received only 100 dollars in the judgment, as a way of showing they weren't after money).  So Ray may not have killed King, but he was never ACTUALLY acquitted.

[Awolf26]

Ray was not officially acquitted in a real trial.  It was a mock trial staged by a friend of the Kings.  The Kings did win a wrongful death lawsuit against someone else (and received only 100 dollars in the judgment, as a way of showing they weren't after money).  So Ray may not have killed King, but he was never ACTUALLY acquitted.

Good to know. Now that I think of it, the professor that assigned that book, way back when, was pretty good at leaving key information out of his lectures.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think Her Majesty is secretly a vampire. How else can you explain her being like... Five hundred years old and still going strong... Ish..? 

LOL

As for princess Diana, the kamikaze driver story doesn't seem to be plausible. If you wanted to kill someone, there are more subtle and less dramatic ways of doing so which wouldn't draw even more media attention and hype to their situation (with her already going through the divorce and all)....

Also, if I'm not mistaken, she was the so-called commoner, though descended from a line or something.

[Medusa]

I thoroughly believe there is something akin to addictive crack in the Weinersnitzhel chili dog sauce. I find myself licking the very paper clean.

[DaemonWulf]

I'm a 9/11 "truther" in that I want to know what happened. I'm intelligent enough to understand I never will. If there weren't enough people to stand up and rage against all the modifications to the 9/11 Commission's report the first time, we certainly have no chance now that interest has waned. I don't believe bin Laden was anything more than a scapegoat that died in a cave years ago, and I do believe the enemy was from within. I cannot say for sure what that means; government, big business, both... no idea. But I believe with all the conviction I have that explosives were set... I only need to watch video of building 7 to confirm that. Not to mention there was no airplane in that Pennsylvania field, and an aircraft would not have left a hole of that shape in the Pentagon. I will say the Bush Administration would have been too stupid to pull it off if they were depending on their figurehead for ideas, but as conspiracies go it was terribly executed. It was not a victory on the part of the planners, but rather a failure on the part of the people.

[Ihateyoumike]

I'm a 9/11 "truther" in that I want to know what happened. I'm intelligent enough to understand I never will. If there weren't enough people to stand up and rage against all the modifications to the 9/11 Commission's report the first time, we certainly have no chance now that interest has waned. I don't believe bin Laden was anything more than a scapegoat that died in a cave years ago, and I do believe the enemy was from within. I cannot say for sure what that means; government, big business, both... no idea. But I believe with all the conviction I have that explosives were set... I only need to watch video of building 7 to confirm that. Not to mention there was no airplane in that Pennsylvania field, and an aircraft would not have left a hole of that shape in the Pentagon. I will say the Bush Administration would have been too stupid to pull it off if they were depending on their figurehead for ideas, but as conspiracies go it was terribly executed. It was not a victory on the part of the planners, but rather a failure on the part of the people.

I reject this.

[fester30]

I'm a 9/11 "truther" in that I want to know what happened. I'm intelligent enough to understand I never will. If there weren't enough people to stand up and rage against all the modifications to the 9/11 Commission's report the first time, we certainly have no chance now that interest has waned. I don't believe bin Laden was anything more than a scapegoat that died in a cave years ago, and I do believe the enemy was from within. I cannot say for sure what that means; government, big business, both... no idea. But I believe with all the conviction I have that explosives were set... I only need to watch video of building 7 to confirm that. Not to mention there was no airplane in that Pennsylvania field, and an aircraft would not have left a hole of that shape in the Pentagon. I will say the Bush Administration would have been too stupid to pull it off if they were depending on their figurehead for ideas, but as conspiracies go it was terribly executed. It was not a victory on the part of the planners, but rather a failure on the part of the people.

I reject this.

I also reject this.  Just in the case of the pentagon, irresponsible behavior of 9/11 truthers can be seen.  They cherry pick among eyewitnesses to find the few who claim to have not seen an airplane, and they cherry-picked a CNN interview to find where a CNN correspondent said there wasn't any visible airplane wreckage.  What the correspondent was actually saying is there wasn't sufficient airplane wreckage OUTSIDE the pentagon to show that the plane hit the ground prior to entering the building.  However, there was DEFINITELY wreckage there, and in Pennsylvania.  There is no doubt airplanes went into the twin towers, and no doubt about who was on those airplanes to hijack them.  Here is a great website that properly debunks the 9/11 "truth" movement complete with actual facts and sources.

http://www.skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html

[Davin]

I'm a 9/11 "truther" in that I want to know what happened. I'm intelligent enough to understand I never will. If there weren't enough people to stand up and rage against all the modifications to the 9/11 Commission's report the first time, we certainly have no chance now that interest has waned. I don't believe bin Laden was anything more than a scapegoat that died in a cave years ago, and I do believe the enemy was from within. I cannot say for sure what that means; government, big business, both... no idea. But I believe with all the conviction I have that explosives were set... I only need to watch video of building 7 to confirm that. Not to mention there was no airplane in that Pennsylvania field, and an aircraft would not have left a hole of that shape in the Pentagon. I will say the Bush Administration would have been too stupid to pull it off if they were depending on their figurehead for ideas, but as conspiracies go it was terribly executed. It was not a victory on the part of the planners, but rather a failure on the part of the people.

I reject this.

I also reject this.  Just in the case of the pentagon, irresponsible behavior of 9/11 truthers can be seen.  They cherry pick among eyewitnesses to find the few who claim to have not seen an airplane, and they cherry-picked a CNN interview to find where a CNN correspondent said there wasn't any visible airplane wreckage.  What the correspondent was actually saying is there wasn't sufficient airplane wreckage OUTSIDE the pentagon to show that the plane hit the ground prior to entering the building.  However, there was DEFINITELY wreckage there, and in Pennsylvania.  There is no doubt airplanes went into the twin towers, and no doubt about who was on those airplanes to hijack them.  Here is a great website that properly debunks the 9/11 "truth" movement complete with actual facts and sources.

http://www.skepdic.com/911conspiracy.html

Also, this guy was pretty much dedicated to all the 9/11 conspiracy theories:

Debunking 9/11

[DaemonWulf]

I'll begin by saying I strongly disagree with Noam Chomsky and have lost some respect for him from that video. The point I disagree on is that "it doesn't matter" if there was a plot or not. I would say it matters to the point that whoever committed over 3,000 acts of murder against unarmed citizens would then be an enemy of the entire American populace, regardless of who they are; if it were to turn out that enemy were the government, it would have monumental implications. But I don't know who it was, nor why they did it. Discount the hole in the Pentagon, discount the empty field in Pennsylvania... but I've not yet heard (ten years later) ANY credible explanation (including the link posted) for what happened to Building 7. That is enough to make me believe the official story is a lie. Watching that building demolished is enough for me to believe something out of line happened. I understand that many people disagree with me, and they have their reasons. But I've yet to hear a credible explanation for Building 7.

[Davin]

The site I linked has what I found to be all sorts of credible about Building 7.

[McQ]

I'll begin by saying I strongly disagree with Noam Chomsky and have lost some respect for him from that video. The point I disagree on is that "it doesn't matter" if there was a plot or not. I would say it matters to the point that whoever committed over 3,000 acts of murder against unarmed citizens would then be an enemy of the entire American populace, regardless of who they are; if it were to turn out that enemy were the government, it would have monumental implications. But I don't know who it was, nor why they did it. Discount the hole in the Pentagon, discount the empty field in Pennsylvania... but I've not yet heard (ten years later) ANY credible explanation (including the link posted) for what happened to Building 7. That is enough to make me believe the official story is a lie. Watching that building demolished is enough for me to believe something out of line happened. I understand that many people disagree with me, and they have their reasons. But I've yet to hear a credible explanation for Building 7.

Well, you will only hear credible explanations if you listen to credible people. Apparently you haven't been listening to any credible people or you wouldn't have made the post you made. Plenty of information available if you take the time to read it.

On the whole issue with conspiracies and conspiracy theorists - personally, I don't have the time any more to spend trying to present rational arguments with people who refuse to believe rationally, so I just let the conspiracy believers have their fantasies.

[DaemonWulf]

Davin, I've heard those arguments before and they didn't sound any more believable then. No offense; you're more than welcome to believe what you will. I just don't agree.

McQ, in your first post addressing me you managed to both question my intelligence (or at least my judgement) and patronize me as an irrational fool; congratulations. It usually takes people a week or so to insult me that well. Nevertheless, I expected a more open-minded attitude amongst people so used to close-mindedness. Whatever your personal agenda, we are in an adult debate; if you're not qualified to attend, by all means don't bother.

[fester30]

Davin, I've heard those arguments before and they didn't sound any more believable then. No offense; you're more than welcome to believe what you will. I just don't agree.

McQ, in your first post addressing me you managed to both question my intelligence (or at least my judgement) and patronize me as an irrational fool; congratulations. It usually takes people a week or so to insult me that well. Nevertheless, I expected a more open-minded attitude amongst people so used to close-mindedness. Whatever your personal agenda, we are in an adult debate; if you're not qualified to attend, by all means don't bother.

Adults in arguments don't get touchy so quickly, especially in online arguments where you cannot tell a person's demeanor by their facial expressions or body language.  McQ may have been a bit dismissive, however, McQ did not question your intelligence, but simply your rationality, and he's right.  The preponderance of evidence is on McQ's side.  All of the evidence that has been shown to be fabricated or altered has been on the side of the conspiracy theorists, which is common, just like in the JFK conspiracies.  It's one thing if you choose to believe that there is something fishy about building 7.  However, the very brief argument you referenced on building 7 (without sources) is easily debunked by the sources provided by those who replied.  A rational person would more likely accept the evidence and arguments presented by the most experienced, educated persons in the arguments, and not the conspiracy theorists who mostly do not have education or experience in any field required.  So I think the word for you isn't that you aren't intelligent, but instead that you are gullible, which is very easy to do considering how many people follow such conspiracy theories largely based on the lack of evidence or on ignored evidence.

[McQ]

Davin, I've heard those arguments before and they didn't sound any more believable then. No offense; you're more than welcome to believe what you will. I just don't agree.

McQ, in your first post addressing me you managed to both question my intelligence (or at least my judgement) and patronize me as an irrational fool; congratulations. It usually takes people a week or so to insult me that well. Nevertheless, I expected a more open-minded attitude amongst people so used to close-mindedness. Whatever your personal agenda, we are in an adult debate; if you're not qualified to attend, by all means don't bother.

Exactly what fester30 said. You are being way too sensitive to criticism of your argument. As you said, this is an adult debate. If you can't take the heat, get out of it now. And don't presume to know me, my intentions, or presume that I have an agenda. The same lack of critical thinking that goes into belief in conspiracy theories is evident in your presumptions.

I neither said you were irrational or a fool. If I thought that I would say it directly. You spent half of your reply to me trying to insult me, however, which will get you nowhere. I suggest you check that attitude quickly and get back on track.