"...have there ever been proven conspiracies?..."

Bubba

Banned
B
Joined
Oct 1, 2014
Messages
6,556
From another thread:

Azrael 5 said:
A little off subject but not topic, have there ever been proven conspiracies? Not on scale of 9/11 etc obviously, but false flags etc? Let's say in peacetime?
Click to expand...

( That is from: "Boston Marathon bombing deniers -have they ever been able to prove their theories?" ...http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292864 )


To the above question:

"...Disguised as Arabs, the Irgun planted a bomb..."

(That is from wikipedia's "King David Hotel bombing"....it is on wikipedia at the moment, anyway...Maybe it will change after this is posted, ya never know re wikipedia.)
Click to expand...

Search results for King David Hotel bombing :

https://www.google.com/search?q=king+david+hotel+bombing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Any 'agent provocateur' operation involving two or more people would IMO effectively constitute a False Flag Attack (FFA) type of conspiracy, especially if they are dressed to deceive. Same goes for the Operation Northwoods proposals (including FFAs) allegedly approved by Joint Chiefs in 1962.

I dont know whether or not the King David Hotel bombing actually was a false flag attack orchestrated by Irgun/Menachim Begin. If it was, some may claim it supports other claims of mossad FFA tactics, and that it would support claims of jews/zionists attacking others, including jews, in FFA mode.

This is about conspiracy/FFA, not about jews/zionists/mossad. The King David Hotel bombing merely provides an example of the type raised by the question quoted above. Any nation or group could employ FFA tactics. ...and why wouldn't certain determined ones among them do so with or without official approval, if they think it will succeed, ie go undetected, and further their agenda?

Item:
I recall a state official (who obviously would know better) was somehow recorded on audio suggesting "sending in some troublemakers" (agents provocateur) to disrupt and discredit a peaceful demonstration. IIRC, that was during the fight over 'right to work' legislation in either Wisconsin or Minnesota. If true, that represents a proposal to conspire and commit a FFA type deception.

Item:
"Operation Northwoods" (in case someone hasn't heard)
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662


From Operation Northwoods spoiler above:
"America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,"
Click to expand...
That reminds of FFA claims regarding the USS Maine exploding and sinking in Havana harbor in 1898.

To the OP question...nothing proven AFAIK, but these are a few items to consider regarding some FFA/conspiracy theories, and maybe provide food for thought re the opening question: "...have there ever been proven conspiracies?"..

False flag type operations are in theory effective and relatively easy and inexpensive. Therefore it would not be a big surprise if some have been implemented successfully. If so, we have been bamboozled. and we cannot know how many times we have been bamboozled by conspiracies/False Flag Attacks.
.

from 2006: Celebrate the Bombing of the King David Hotel www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60973
 
Yes, there are proven conspiracies. To say otherwise is inherently ridiculously. Case in point: when an intelligence agency does covert work it generally means that they are creating conspiracies given that their profession must break laws/norms/standards in order to get a completer picture of what other people are doing, planning to do or are involved in. Getting to know a subjects pattern of life is not possible without the law being bent or broken entirely. When they are following someone, taking pictures, going through their garbage, surreptitiously entering their homes, going through their belongings and installing bugs I.e. surveillance 101, they have created a conspiracy. There are security service personnel all over the world at this very moment who are creating, engaged in or are plotting to be a part of a conspiracy.
 
LSSBB said:
I believe there is a conspiracy to keep creating "have there been real / proven conspiracies" threads in the conspiracy sub-forum.
Click to expand...

Cui bono? All the people trying to suppress the Jade Helm thread!!
 
LSSBB said:
I believe there is a conspiracy to keep creating "have there been real / proven conspiracies" threads in the conspiracy sub-forum.
Click to expand...


Evidence? Citation? Links? Pics? Funny stories? YouTube?
 
 
 
 
Posted by Gawdzilla Sama
You simply phrased it wrong. "Have there ever been conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true by the proponents of the theories?"

No.
Click to expand...


Darat said:
Roman Catholic church international cover up of child abuse.
Click to expand...

So...

There was no CT that has ever been proven true?

There was no child abuse by priests ?

Louis CK weighs in:



Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to add NSFW tags


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From:http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/conspiracy.aspx

CONSPIRACY

Introduction

The crime of conspiracy is traditionally defined as an agreement between two or more persons, entered into for the purpose of committing an unlawful act. At first carefully delimited in scope, conspiracy evolved through a long and tortuous history into a tool employed against dangerous group activity of any sort. The twentieth century in particular has witnessed an expansion of conspiracy law in the face of modern organized crime, complex business arrangements in restraint of trade, and subversive political activity. At the same time, indiscriminate conspiracy prosecutions have sparked great controversy, not only because the vagueness of the concept of agreement and the difficulty in proving it frequently result in convictions with only a tenuous basis for criminal liability, but also because conspiracy law involves a number of extensions of traditional criminal law doctrines. The principal extensions are the following:
Conspiracy criminalizes an agreement to commit a crime, even though an attempt conviction would not be permitted because of the highly preparatory nature of the act.

(continues..)
 
There are conspiracies.
They look nothing like the majority of CTs advocated by CT enthusiasts.
Often CT enthusiasts make theories about the real conspiracy that strays into the realm of fantasy.

Pointing out there were real CTs rarely offers any credence to CT advocates whose posting history speaks for itself. And never substitutes evidence for an unrelated CT. Pointing out there was child abuse in a church does not make the Bilderberg theories, or 9/11 truth any more likely.
 
Tomtomkent said:
There are conspiracies.
Click to expand...

Of course.

Tomtomkent said:
They look nothing like the majority of CTs advocated by CT enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

Sometimes they do though: Stargate, Eugenics, Human experimentation, MKUltra, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, "Downwinders", detonating over 1,000 nuclear bombs, torture, renditioning, indefinite detention, black sites, unmanned aircraft, recon drones, armed drones, mini drones, generalized indiscriminate spying, surreptitious entry, mail opening, putting chemicals in the water, the air and the food, stomping out protests, eroding the U.S. Constitution, legislature and executive orders that turn citizens into slaves, having plans and spending the money to keep designated people alive...

Tomtomkent said:
Pointing out there were real CTs rarely offers any credence to CT advocates whose posting history speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
...it goes on and it is all true, it has all happened, a whole bunch of exposed conspiracies and a good sense of character as the atrocities and crimes have never stopped because the scandals keep on rolling, which is conveniently omitted or ignored when "debunking" conspiracy theories.

The point of pulling off those band aids is to try and get people to contemplate even for a moment that, 'Well, they have done bad things before, lied about it and tried to cover it up. Are they doing that with (insert government claim here)?'

You know, be just a little bit skeptical.

Tomtomkent said:
Often CT enthusiasts make theories about the real conspiracy that strays into the realm of fantasy.
Click to expand...

That is correct.

Tomtomkent said:
And never substitutes evidence for an unrelated CT. Pointing out there was child abuse in a church does not make the Bilderberg theories, or 9/11 truth any more likely.
Click to expand...

Of course not. But an honest examination (being a little more skeptical) of the evidentiary base is recommended, whether the person is a debunker or a conspiracy theorist, before any sort of serious belief is firmly internalized. That clearly is not the SOP for many of the belligerents.
 
Rum said:
From:http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/conspiracy.aspx

CONSPIRACY

Introduction

The crime of conspiracy is traditionally defined as an agreement between two or more persons, entered into for the purpose of committing an unlawful act. At first carefully delimited in scope, conspiracy evolved through a long and tortuous history into a tool employed against dangerous group activity of any sort. The twentieth century in particular has witnessed an expansion of conspiracy law in the face of modern organized crime, complex business arrangements in restraint of trade, and subversive political activity. At the same time, indiscriminate conspiracy prosecutions have sparked great controversy, not only because the vagueness of the concept of agreement and the difficulty in proving it frequently result in convictions with only a tenuous basis for criminal liability, but also because conspiracy law involves a number of extensions of traditional criminal law doctrines. The principal extensions are the following:
Conspiracy criminalizes an agreement to commit a crime, even though an attempt conviction would not be permitted because of the highly preparatory nature of the act.

(continues..)
Click to expand...

And now, please, the definition of "conspiracy theorist". I'll be at the pub, mate. ;)
 
JFK

"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy"

AARB

The board concludes that the medical/legal autopsy evidence is compromised to the point that no further investigation can be warranted.
Robert Kennedy disposed of this material in an unlawful manner.
 
Links?

Screw that.

Your in a discussion about conspiracies-and perhaps the most famous of all conspiracies-you know absolutely nothing about-but you are gun-ho about adding your opinion to something that you know nothing about.

How about this:

HSCA Final report and volume 7 conclusions

AARB Final report and volume 5

Lazy lazy lazy
 
spooky24 said:
...something that you know nothing about.
Click to expand...

The JFK thread in this forum has been split twice already (for size) and contains considerable discussion of the HCSA and AARB findings, their basis and implications. Perhaps before concluding that no one here knows anything about it, you should head over there and check it out.
 
spooky24 said:
Links?

Screw that.

Your in a discussion about conspiracies-and perhaps the most famous of all conspiracies-you know absolutely nothing about-but you are gun-ho about adding your opinion to something that you know nothing about.

How about this:

HSCA Final report and volume 7 conclusions

AARB Final report and volume 5

Lazy lazy lazy
Click to expand...


Can we start a betting pool for how many posts this user manages to rack up before earning the Golden Boot?

Put me down for 125.
 
Of course, though oftentimes they are as messy, disorganized and incompetent as you would expect any big group of people to be. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a conspiracy which almost failed but Gavrilo Princip happened upon the Archduke right in front of him in a stalled car after the earlier assassination attempt failed.

Similarly the men who killed Caesar were part of a large conspiracy that was so large and poorly kept Caesar was given warning but didn't read the note and they failed both to kill Marc Antony (due to some of the conspirators opposing it) who was Caesar's right hand man and held all legitimate authority after Caesar's death, as the sole living consul, and got spooked and didn't follow through on the part of the plan where Caesar's body was to be thrown into the Tiber River. The backlash against the assassins, appropriately enough really got started at the eulogy for Caesar given by Antony.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
"Lazy lazy lazy."
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of a line from a 19th century book, the cite I have unfortunately lost but the sentence was:

He was a fine man who unerringly each day went to a butcher shop and obtained a pound and a half of tripe which he used as a substitute brain
Click to expand...
 
Conspiracies get proven all the time.

Not by conspiracists, but by people who actually know what they are doing: police and corporate investigators, journalists, historians, auditors, etc.
And the occasional whistle blower.
 
My apologies go to anyone offended by language in the video Louis CK learns about the Catholic Church, which I linked to regarding the Roman Catholic church international cover up of child abuse, above. Shameful.
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Can we start a betting pool for how many posts this user manages to rack up before earning the Golden Boot?

Put me down for 125.
Click to expand...
Which will then be used as proof of the conspiracy theory that the ISF ban hammer is used to silence the opinions of "free thinkers". Of course, such bannings have nothing to do with the banned person's behavior.

But mark me an optimist, I'm going with 200 posts.
 
Bubba said:
My apologies go to anyone offended by language in the video Louis CK learns about the Catholic Church, which I linked to regarding the Roman Catholic church international cover up of child abuse, above. Shameful.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize to me. I could not imagine how a comedy sketch could meaningfully contribute to subject, so I skipped the video.

Is there a relevant point from the comedy bit that you wished to make?
 
Ladewig said:
No need to apologize to me. I could not imagine how a comedy sketch could meaningfully contribute to subject, so I skipped the video.

Is there a relevant point from the comedy bit that you wished to make?
Click to expand...

I find satire can be more effective than other info delivery. Comedic exaggeration will sometimes get the point across to someone that wasn't getting it otherwise. IMO that video nailed it.
 
Bubba said:
I find satire can be more effective than other info delivery. Comedic exaggeration will sometimes get the point across to someone that wasn't getting it otherwise. IMO that video nailed it.
Click to expand...

Wow.
I just watched the video and I have absolutely no idea what point you were trying to illustrate with that video.

Can you explain how that video advances this discussion in any meaningful manner?
 
Last edited:
As always I stand by my statement. If someone is posting in a forum that is exclusively about conspiracies how can that someone not know about the government findings about the JFK assassination? Perhaps the best known conspiracy in all of history-that was decided 40 years ago.

Also, your memory is shot. You haven't called me a 'government shill' or 'CIA stooge' in the 3 days or so I have started posting here again.

Or my personal favorite an FBI 'asswipe'

You guys have just blown all your wheels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom