|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 15, 2004 7:19:47 GMT
Everyone loves a good conspiracy, I thought we could have a topic in here for people to post theories they have heard, or formulated themselves and we could speculate on them. Could be a laugh, or perhaps we could really uncover something
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 15, 2004 12:56:49 GMT
Well, it's like this, see. Saddam's actually an alien from Splatulon VII, and he teleported the UN weapons inspectors up there for disection and replaced them with identical automatons armed with Killa-zap guns, who are now going back to '63 to carry out the Kennedy assassination, and then later they're going to form Dire Straits in an effort to bring the civilised world to it's knees. Luckily, using only the miracle of a one-way radio reciever hidden ing his suit, George W. Bush will become superman and, nipping back in time by doing that thing where he flies round the earth, will join the Straits as their drummer and save the day.
Oh, and John Kerry's the Vampire spawn of Margaret Thatcher and John the Baptist.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 15, 2004 15:23:02 GMT
If anyone's been watching the Sky One conspiracy theories series so far then they'll know all about this little, or rather huge, nugget. The Illuminati! Our secret masters who rule the world in shadow, they know everything that will ever happen and everyone that will ever be. Their members are shrouded in secrecy, they run all the elections and indeed everything. Groups such as 'Skull and Bones' and the 'Bilderburgs' (sp?) are all parts of the Illuminati.
The Sky One show about this was so much speculation that it mainly relied on paranoid conspiracy nuts living in Austen, Texas to clue up the presenter on the evil deeds the illuminati are up to. Apparently they worship a giant owl called Molem! The arranged interview with an 'Illuminatus' was obviously a poor set up, with a bloke called Tim driving the presenter to industrial estates, empty for the weekend, and then driving off to fetch 'Mr.A' an apparent member. Obviously every time he returned 'Mr.A' was not there and eventually, 3 industrial estates later Tim said it was being called off! If the illuminati were real then making shows like that about themselves would possibly be the most cunning way to convince the public they didn't exist and were merely a paranoid fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 16, 2004 12:23:38 GMT
The Illuminati are actually real, Rob, but they're little more than a world-wide version of the freemasons.
It's a bunch of lazy rich men having cocktail parties and plotting to rule the world. The Rockerfeller's are members.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 20, 2004 11:17:58 GMT
How about ANYTHING involving the CIA? Since this is for conspiracies, I'll not include the confirmed ones such as:
Any coup in South America during the 1980s. The Afghani hash export scheme. The training and arming of Osama bin Laden. The training and arming of Saddam Hussein. The supplying of arms and weapons, secretly, to Iran, for use against, um, Saddam Hussein. No less than FIVE attempts to assassinate... Saddam Hussein... ANY American dealing with Saddam Hussein since he came to power. MOST US dealings with Saddam Hussein before he came to power. The destruction of the Italian communist party. The arming and funding of Jamaica's People's Party (one of the most violent and dangerous political movements in the world) The training (and supplying of crack cocaine) of Yardie drug barons working against the Jamaican Communist party. Attempts to assassinate Yardie drug barons. More attempts to assassinate Yardie drug barons, including Saddam Hussein. The exporting of heroin from Afghanistan for no purpose other than extra funding for the CIA Supplying Kurdish guerilla troops with weapons for use against, oh just damn well guess who. Support and funding for numerous facist dictatorships across the globe. Support and funding for the Taliban. Well, not any more. Support and funding for Afghan warlords. Support and funding for IRA terrorist suspects. General acts of pure evil.
unconfirmed ones include:
JFK Aliens. They're actually really nice guys.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 20, 2004 12:28:39 GMT
I'd say JFK is as good as confirmed, I mean it's obvious Lee Harvey Oswald didn't do it. Completely the wrong angle, plus all those people who have suffered mysterious deaths since. 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' was pretty much solid from what they had in it, all those people with fairly good evidence that counters the original story are just ignored.
Well, the Illuminati I was talking about is in the scenario where they actually do run the country and know & control everything somehow.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 20, 2004 12:47:50 GMT
Another rumour about the CIA is that they were involved in the murder of John Lennon. The story goes that Lennon had known links to the Irish Republican Army and they decided to bump him off before he could reveal CIA involvement as well.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 20, 2004 13:14:56 GMT
Yeah, but neither of those have actually been admitted to. Yet. Probably because they don't involve Saddam Hussein in some way, so public knowledge would be frowned upon.
Anyway, to move away from the CIA, how's about this:
Who in the world today has gained most from the 9/11 attack on the WTC? Is it Osama 'dyalisis' bin Laden, who's friends have been beated up, who's only safe haven has been destroyed, and who now spends his time running from cave to cave waiting for God? Is it the Taliban, who were desperate to do business with the US, but who had their country taken away? Is it Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with any of it anyway, and is STILL getting blamed?
Or is it a George W Bush, a man who's premiership was only remarkable until that point for the amount of time he'd spent on holiday? A man who's popularity had fallen from day one of that premiership, until the unifying force of a national disaster saved him? A man who openly ignored all efforts to warn him about it, and tried to close down the security proceedures in place to stop it? A man who's family are exceptionally good friends with the rulers of the country most of the hijackers come from?
Did George organise 9/11? Was he in on it, at the very least? He didn't seem overly bothered about any of the warnings. He certainly didn't go after the 'culprits'. And, since his entire re-election campaign is based on terrorising Americans into believing they'll all die without him, you have to wonder what he'd be saying if 9/11 hadn't happened. In fact, most of Bush's presidency is based on the attack.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 20, 2004 18:41:23 GMT
Actually, to a large extent they proved LHO did it. A documentary, using computer imagery, the official report, and loads of other sources, they proved that there were three shots fired, where those shots went, etc.
Having said that, there are several fishy things about the incident. The first is the official report. After he died, there were highly skilled pathologists waiting to do the post-mortem, but the authorities brought in some retired chap who it would be easy to 'manipulate' or fool.
So parts of the official report could be bollocks; where the bullets hit JFK, which could scramble this documentaries findings etc.
The second is that allegedly his brain was removed at some point. Suspicious? And there are a host of other things I don't know about. I just thought I'd offer up the limited knowledge I have on this subject for discussion.
So any comments?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 20, 2004 19:04:55 GMT
Actually, Will, all they ever really proved was that Oswald was there, and he had a gun. A thirty year old gun with an uncalibrated sight. A damaged uncalibrated sight. And his angle was utterly appaling, since he would have had to shoot through a tree. Not the foliage, which a skilled marksman (which LHO wasn't) could just about manage, but through a TREE. A big solid woody tree. Made of wood. Slap bang in his shot.
Also, when JFK was hit, people headed to where the sound of the shots came from, the famous grassy knoll. Which was in the wrong direction, since LHO was in the Texas Book Depository, on the other side.
So, they've proved that LHO was there, and if his thirty-year old gun could fire the mystic magic turny bullets that he traded his mama's last cow for, then... what?
What did Lee stand to gain? The official line was he was a commie sympathiser, and disliked the Bay of Pigs attempt to depose Castro. This is bullshit. Oswald was a communist when he was younger, but later become feverantly anti-Castro and fiercely patriotic. This doesn't add up.
Now, I'm not a conspiricy nut. I'm not going to go to dallas and stand there, or watch the Zapruder footage over and over again, but Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill Kennedy. He may have thought he had, but it was nonsense. He wasn't good enough, he didn't have a good angle, and his gun was truly useless. Trained professional military sharpshooters (not grunts, like Oswald had been, but snipers) have tried, and failed, to manage that shot.
And, if you'll check the CIA post again, you'll notice the word 'assassinate' pops up with reasonable regularity. It's their favorite word, in fact. And they didn't like Kennedy, since he wanted out of Veitnam, which was directly at odds with CIA proceedural doctrine. I'd bet the CIA got him, but they haven't admitted it so it stays in the unconfirmed catagory.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 20, 2004 20:49:48 GMT
Yup, also there is the fact that they figured out the shots could have easily come from a much better place, a storm drain in Deeley plaza. There was the space, the angle, it accounted for the sound from the knoll and you could get far enough from the scene in half an hour, and that's if they were actually going to try and arrest you. One of the best examples of people being silenced was a man called William Bruce Pitzer, he knew Kennedy was killed by someone else and he had some form of evidence (I cant remember as I saw the show ages ago), he was found after apparently shooting himself with his right hand, he was left handed and well known for it, his left hand had been badly damaged. Plus an ex-agent was asked if he would carry out the hit on Pitzer but refused as he was an honest man who wasn't trained to do something like that and was unwilling to. It's all too suspicious really.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Feb 13, 2005 11:59:59 GMT
The shot couldn't possibly have come from the storm drain in fact. Film has been taken from inside the storm drain, and it shows that the position the car was in when Kennedy was hit cannot be seen from the drain.
The shot from the Book Depository, by the way, wouldn't have passed through the tree. The reason why it appears so now is that the tree has grown another fifteen feet or so over the last forty years. In '63 it wasn't blocking the shot. Nevertheless, it's still blatantly clear from the movements of Kennedy's body that the killer head-shot was not fired from the Depository.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Feb 13, 2005 14:25:20 GMT
We should probably leave this to the JFK conspiracy thread, really. Just thought it best to mention that the official report, the Warren Commision, was a bunch of beautiful lies sown delicately onto a framework of carefully constructed bullshit. It was headed up by Alan Dulles, the CIA's old boss, who Kennedy fired for gross incompetence and who stood the most to gain from the assassination than anyone other the Lyndon Johnson. And Johnson didn't really have the smarts to organise a fall from 50,000 feet.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Nov 4, 2005 12:46:35 GMT
As it's that time of year, not to mention the 400th anniversary of Britain's most notorious terrorist attack, I thought I'd examine the conspiracy theory that surrounds the conspiracy facts.
I won't bother going into too many details of what definitively happened in November 1605, as I get the feeling you may just be aware of them already...
But there has been an argument running ever since just a few weeks after the conspirators were hanged, about whether there was more to the plot than we are told in the 'official version'.
The conspiracy theory runs that Robert Catesby, Guido Fawkes, Thomas Percy et al had been provoked into their action by an outside agency hoping to cause an anti-papacy propaganda coup. The man most frequently accused of involvement is King James I's chief advisor and Intelligencer, Sir Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury.
Cecil, who had inherited the mighty spy network of Sir Francis Walsingham, was the son of Elizabeth I's chief counsel, William Cecil, Lord Burleigh. Burleigh was one of the main plotters twenty years earlier who brought about Mary Queen of Scots' execution, and taught his son everything he knew about statecraft and espionage.
The theory goes that Cecil, renowned for his hatred of Catholicism, fielded agents provocateurs to coax Catesby and his friends to rebellion, hoping that catching them red-handed at the last minute would cause a fresh wave of public hysteria against Catholics, and so pressure King James to tighten anti-recusancy laws inherited from Elizabeth.
This theory sounds a bit far-fetched at first glance, but there are some interesting aspects in the official version of how the plotters were captured that don't quite ring true.
The conspiracy was supposedly leaked on October 26th by way of an anonymous letter to an aristocratic 'church papist'{*} called William Parker, Lord Monteagle. The letter advised him not to attend the State Opening of Parliament on November the 5th as it was to be dealt an "unspecified blow." (Monteagle's brother-in-law, Francis Tresham, was one of the conspirators and is generally assumed to be the man who wrote the letter.) Monteagle, who was himself under suspicion of involvement in pro-Catholic conspiracies, and spotting a chance to win new favour with the King, brought the letter to Cecil, who supposedly didn't understand its meaning. So a few days later he took it to the King himself.
The King, the only one equipped by God with the wisdom to see any threat to the stability of his realm, immediately identified the explosive secondary meaning to the word "blow", scolded Cecil for missing it, and commanded a full search of the cellars and apartments around Westminster.
And so, the night before Parliament was to open, Cecil sent in guards to scour the cellars and found Fawkes ready to light the fuse that would trigger enough gunpowder to destroy the Houses of Parliament twenty-five times over.
On November the 8th, after three days of agonising torture and interrogation, Fawkes finally buckled and implicated his fellow conspirators, who the previous day had retreated to Catesby's home in the Midlands, Holbeach House, where they prepared to make a stand against the Government reprisals that they knew would soon be aimed at them; having discovered that their remaining stock of gunpowder for arming their guns with was soaked, they chose, idiotically, to try and dry it out in front of an open fire. The resulting flash-blast of flame somehow failed to kill any of them, although it inflicted some painful wounds.
The next morning the Sheriff of Worcester and his militia arrived at Holbeach and surrounded the house, where, in a brutally brief battle, Catesby, Percy and John and Kit Wright were all killed, three other plotters were captured and whisked off to the Tower of London, and the remaining five escaped only to be hunted down one at a time over the course of the next few weeks.
Can you spot the flaws and implausible elements in the official version of what happened? And what theories do you have to account for them?
{*} 'Church papist' is a derogatory term meaning a practising Catholic pretending to be a Protestant conformist in order to advance his social standing.
EDIT: Added some later details and corrected some punctuation errors.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Nov 4, 2005 13:22:32 GMT
Well, the CIA always had something against James. They obviously did it, probably in another pathetic attempt to get Castro.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Nov 7, 2005 22:04:14 GMT
Yes I had a feeling you'd say something like that... Talk about taking preventative measures to an extreme, 300 years before they even came into existence, the CIA were bringing down rival Governments.
On a serious note, Cecil's spy network was much like the CIA, although proportionally it was vastly more efficient. Therefore, considering the theory that surrounds Cecil, the CIA comparison isn't entirely a joke.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Aug 17, 2006 2:58:28 GMT
Time to bump this thread, methinks.
An interesting theory I came across recently was that American (and perhaps British) officials knew in advance of the Pearl Harbour bombings but let them go ahead in order to give the USA a reason to join in WWII. There are still documents classified from that time that could hold the truth to the theory.
Some posit that while the intelligence was available, it had not been properly processed and taken account of by those in office. Any of this sounding familiar?
One notable quotation comes from the British Minister of War Production, Oliver Lyttleton, who said
... Japan was provoked into attacking the Americans at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history ever to say that America was forced into the war. Everyone knows where American sympathies were. It is incorrect to say that America was truly neutral even before America came into the war on an all-out basis."
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Aug 17, 2006 8:55:18 GMT
Well, to be fair, the US was quite happily working hand-in-hand with the allies throughout the first three years of the war. Of course, while many people celebrate the lend-lease act and such like, they don't mention that the US also produced vast quantities of ammo for sale directly to the Germans, that General Motors and Ford both had German subsiduaries that continued to pump out tank engines for the duration of the war. In fact, the heaviest tank of the war, the German Tiger, needed a Ford-made engine to run.
Of course, Pearl Harbour is a tad odd, if you think it through. For some reason, the US navy sent it's carriers out of the base, just on the day the Japanese were going to attack. Despite the blatant Imperialist ambitions of Japan, the US seemed not to worry about them at all. And, even though the Japanese had actually made it very clear to everyone that they regarded all the Pacific Islands as their property, the Americans didn't seem to notice.
I'd actually imagine that the sham intelligence agency the US had at that time, the OSS, was too bsy plotting daft assassinations in Berlin to actually do any spying. That was the attitude the OSS had of itself, as a club of gentlemen assassins, and so they didn't really pay attention to other countries. As I recall, about 80% of their members couldn't speak any language other than English, almost all of them worked eight hour days, and (unlike their replacement the CIA) they had a pitifully small budget prior to 1942.
Frankly, I the US was aware. The British might have been, and may have tried to tell them, but the US was still stuck in it's Isolationist mindset of the 1920's.
|
|