Do you subscribe to any conspiracy theories?

[Lonemagpie]

You'd want the shot from the rear because it's completely open. From the front there's not just Connally and the driver in the way, but also the windshield itself - and *that* would also be reflecting a lot of glare, which isn't something you want to be staring into through the scope.

 

[FPAlpha]

The conspiracy I actually give some credence to is not on the list.

That is:

Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union (during the Cold War).deliberately covered up a number of violent encounters (mainly at sea) in order to avoid calls for war

For example I do believe that K-129 did sink either as a result of an attempt to launch a nuclear missile at Pearl Harbor or because of a collision with a U.S. nuclear sub.

I believe that months later the Soviets sank the U.S.S. Scorpion in retailation.

I believe that during 1950 the U.S. Navy sank a Soviet submarine in Korean waters during the early days of the Korean War.

And I believe that the actual number of exchanges of fire between U.S./allied aircraft and Soviet aircraft was far greater than has been admitted.

That is not too hard to believe since it has real world involvement anyone can understand. During the height of the Cold War i can see that some diehard, gung ho commanders may have taken it a bit too far and through either accident or foolishness caused damage to the other side.. both countries knew they don't want to go to war with each other and so they agreed to cover it up so no one gets forced into a war.

Personally i have two conspiracies i believe:

- The JFK assassination.. so much went wrong that day and later. No professional sniper (and Oswalt was anything but a good marksman) could pull off that shot from where he was with that equipment, then evidence got lost and video evidence point to a totally different shooting place that from where Oswalt was standing.
As to who and why JFK was assassinated.. who knows? Maybe it will never been known with so much evidence lost but something is fishy about the whole thing.


- Government are keeping the knowledge about UFOs and Aliens

Personally i believe there is intelligent life out there.. it is inevitable given the vast scope of the universe and even if the chance of life developing on a suitable planet is 1 in a billion and of that to get to sentient life is again 1 in a billion the universe is big enough to make that a possibility. Then there is so much that we don't understand about the physics of the universe.

Einstein has postulated that matter can't travel faster than light and to date that formula stands and couldn't have been disproven but then again take someone from the stone age or before and tell him that man is going to set foot on the Moon and he will not believe. Who knows what feat of engineering and science are needed to make FTL travel possible? Humanity has barely existed in the scope of the universe or even Earth itself and just see at which frantic pace technology and knowledge evolves so i can't rule out that travel between stars will be possible at some point in the future.

So this brings me to the conclusion that aliens might visit Earth but for whatever reason have not decided to do so publicly.. it could be that they were intelligent enough to realize we'd panic and tear us apart in riots and mass hysteria and so they elected to contact the major governments and make themselves known. Maybe there is a long term plan to get this public, maybe there isn't but i believe the world would devolve into mass hysteria at first and it would take quite a while to calm everyone down. This could be why governments are keeping it from us because they believe that our whole social construct would be torn apart and they don't know what would emerge from that and that uncertainty is not that they would gamble with.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't go for any conspiracy theories. I'm a skeptic, so I prefer to have evidence of something before I believe it.

That said, there is one option that I almost voted for. Specifically, "Revolutionary technologies / inventions suppressed by a conspiracy of big businesses / gov'ts"

While I don't think there's some magical engine out there that can let a car drive a million miles on a cup of water, I do think it is likely that big companies like those in the petroleum industry have brought patents to technologies that will allow fossil-fuel-free energy production for vehicles in order to prevent them from being used and taking away their money.

I also have suspicions about the JFK assassination and the building of the pyramids. In both cases, there's more going on that we don't know.

 

[Lonemagpie]

- The JFK assassination.. so much went wrong that day and later. No professional sniper (and Oswalt was anything but a good marksman)

Patton Oswalt's probably a crap shot, but Lee Harvey Oswald's military record shows he *was* a very good marksman

could pull off that shot from where he was with that equipment,

Except for all the people who have done (see above)

and video evidence point to a totally different shooting place

Except that none of it does.

 

[Knight Templar]

- The JFK assassination.. so much went wrong that day and later. No professional sniper (and Oswalt was anything but a good marksman)

Patton Oswalt's probably a crap shot, but Lee Harvey Oswald's military record shows he *was* a very good marksman

could pull off that shot from where he was with that equipment,

Except for all the people who have done (see above)

and video evidence point to a totally different shooting place

Except that none of it does.

Right. Everything I've read about Oswald was that while he was in the Marines, he was considered a good, even an exceptional marksman.

The only people I've ever heard of saying that Oswald was a poor shooter was a Soviet agent who secretly observed Oswald while he was out hunting while in the U.S.S.R.

 

[Lonemagpie]

The only people I've ever heard of saying that Oswald was a poor shooter was a Soviet agent who secretly observed Oswald while he was out hunting while in the U.S.S.R.

And Oliver Stone, obviously

 

[JoeZhang]

Even if he wasn't a great marksman, why couldn't he just get lucky?

 

[Knight Templar]

Even if he wasn't a great marksman, why couldn't he just get lucky?

True.

Remember, he fired what? Three shots. One was a clean miss, one was a nonlethal injury. The last was a kill shot.

 

[Brent]

I'm not really big into conspiracy theories, but I thought I'd put out a general poll to see what the TrekBBS community thinks.

Please tell me if I've left any major ones out of the poll.

I don't really have any hardcore conspiracy theories. I pretty much take stuff at face value.

However, I do have a suspicion when it comes to secret organizations such as the freemasons, illuminati, or any other secret organization. The fact that it's secret means you never really know what is going on in there and what is being discussed or happening. So perhaps these organizations try to have some sort of power in or over the government and its people, so I i'm suspicious about them a bit just cause its secret. Humans love power, and history has shown how humans and groups of humans want to gain power over people.

 

[Orac Zen]

...or the "Paul McCartney is dead" and accompanying "evidence" drivel...

I don't know, I saw his performance at the end of the Olympics opening ceremony. That's pretty convincing evidence to me.

But that's Fake!Paul (Real!Paul "died" in 1966), so it doesn't count.

 

[Lonemagpie]

...or the "Paul McCartney is dead" and accompanying "evidence" drivel...

I don't know, I saw his performance at the end of the Olympics opening ceremony. That's pretty convincing evidence to me.

But that's Fake!Paul (Real!Paul "died" in 1966), so it doesn't count.

I also saw the Olympic opening- that *was* the Paul who died in 1966, and sang like it too...

 

[E-DUB]

Being six floors up pretty much gives you an "unobstructed view" of anybody in an open car. At least it seems that way to me.

 

[M'Sharak]

Being six floors up pretty much
gives you an "unobstructed view"
of anybody in an open car.
At least it seems that way to me.

♪ Let me take you down,
'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields... ♫

 

[Silvercrest]

Being six floors up pretty much
gives you an "unobstructed view"
of anybody in an open car.
At least it seems that way to me.

♪ Let me take you down,
'cos I'm going to Strawberry Fields... ♫

Wait a minute... you mean Oswald killed Paul, too?

Anyway, I thought it was established that Edward Blake was the second gunman.

 

[ichab]

- The JFK assassination.. so much went wrong that day and later. No professional sniper (and Oswalt was anything but a good marksman)

Patton Oswalt's probably a crap shot, but Lee Harvey Oswald's military record shows he *was* a very good marksman

Except for all the people who have done (see above)

and video evidence point to a totally different shooting place

Except that none of it does.

Right. Everything I've read about Oswald was that while he was in the Marines, he was considered a good, even an exceptional marksman.

The only people I've ever heard of saying that Oswald was a poor shooter was a Soviet agent who secretly observed Oswald while he was out hunting while in the U.S.S.R.

Guys, a "Marksman" in the marines is the lowest form of shooter. There is no such thing as a good "Marksman." You are either a "Marksman" "Sharpshooter" of "Expert."

 

[Silvercrest]

That's true, but the term "marksman" is also used generically to indicate that you know how to shoot. That's how it's used here.

If he'd qualified at the Expert level, people wouldn't go around saying "he was a good, even exceptional Expert."

 

[FPAlpha]

It's something different to shoot at a range at a still target with no pressure on time.. something entirely different shooting at a small, moving target with a gun which was not in prime condition.

Oswald was a mediocre shot at best, at times barely qualifiying for his marksman badge so for him to get off 3 shots at a moving target with a bolt action rifle and no professional sniper training is questionable.

I don't rule out luck.. it is possible to get these shots off in the time but part of the fun of conspiracy theories is to debate about them and try to convince the other.

For me there are just too many coincidences and too much luck involved to believe that Oswald pulled it off on top of all the other irregularities and vanished evidence and breaches of protocol in the aftermath that further complicated the fact finding about the assassination.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't know if this is a *conspiracy* theory, as such, but it's one that I've developed:

All reality TV is faked. It's rigged. You know it's true. Don't even try to tell me that shit is genuine. It's all scripted in advance (or at least heavily influenced). It's got to be. They wouldn't get ratings if it wasn't.

Reality TV is no more genuine than professional wrestling.

 

[Gary7]

It's something different to shoot at a range at a still target with no pressure on time.. something entirely different shooting at a small, moving target with a gun which was not in prime condition.

Oswald was a mediocre shot at best, at times barely qualifiying for his marksman badge so for him to get off 3 shots at a moving target with a bolt action rifle and no professional sniper training is questionable.

I don't rule out luck.. it is possible to get these shots off in the time but part of the fun of conspiracy theories is to debate about them and try to convince the other.

For me there are just too many coincidences and too much luck involved to believe that Oswald pulled it off on top of all the other irregularities and vanished evidence and breaches of protocol in the aftermath that further complicated the fact finding about the assassination.

One could speculate that he got lucky. However, based on the direction the car was traveling and how Kennedy was hit in two different directions (and I don't buy Connally was hit by a ricochet), there's just no plausible way Oswald could have done it alone.

Contrary to the Warren Commission, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The HSCA found both the original FBI investigation and the Warren Commission Report to be seriously flawed. While agreeing with the Commission that Oswald fired all the shots which caused the wounds to Kennedy and Connally, the HSCA stated that there were at least four shots fired and that there was "...a high probability that two gunmen fired at [the] President."

Now... one could argue that the commission felt they'd never catch the 2nd shooter, so they fought tooth and nail to keep it isolated to Oswald. They didn't want to leave a dangling loose end. Or, someone had a vested interest to minimize the involvement because they didn't want anyone snooping further.

The political situation leading up to the JFK assassination brings a lot of questions to bear. The president expressed concern over the power of the CIA and planned to significantly limit the reach of this organization. Then you put Hoover and Johnson into the mix, two people who would implicitly benefit from JFK's death. Yes, it could be coincidence, but what are the odds on so many things lining up like this? I definitely think there's more to it than what the public was lead to believe. Why don't we know about it today? Because of the embarrassment. Even though all of the participants have been long out of office... just the suggestion of this kind of impropriety wouldn't look good for the CIA. It would beg to question what they're doing now, if they got away with the JFK assassination back in the early 60's.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

Probably should replaced lizardman with Bilderberg even if the meeting is a conspiracy fact reported by the Guardian.