And if so, which are your favorites?

???

I like the old conspiracy started by Torey/Silver Power about Red Ant not being who he thought he was. It was on this site a while back.

The moon landings were all faked on a Hollywood sound stage....

And the government is telling the TRUTH about 9/11!
:D :D :D

And if so, which are your favorites? ???


All conspiracy theories are simultaneously true, false, and both true and false at the same time.

fnordSo any similarities between the plot of the following 1975 book and the events of 9/11 are entirely coincidental.fnord

So I can say nothing more than that I love all of them.

fnordIf you noticed any such similarities, try not to be grateful for the fact that the building in question featured multiple concentric rings, and the inner ones remained intact.fnord

At the very least, you'll learn why there's an eye in the pyramid of the one-dollar bill, who shot JFK, and what really happened to Atlantis.  So you'll have that going for you the next time you watch a movie about John Dillinger.

All conspiracy theories are simultaneously true, false, and both true and false at the same time.

fnordSo any similarities between the plot of the following 1975 book and the events of 9/11 are entirely coincidental.fnord

So I can say nothing more than that I love all of them.

fnordIf you noticed any such similarities, try not to be grateful for the fact that the building in question featured multiple concentric rings, and the inner ones remained intact.fnord

At the very least, you'll learn why there's an eye in the pyramid of the one-dollar bill, who shot JFK, and what really happened to Atlantis.  So you'll have that going for you the next time you watch a movie about John Dillinger.


It's funny. I read The Illuminatus! Trilogy about 15 years ago, and a few days after 9/11 I remember thinking about the building in question.  :o :o :o

I believe they (and by they I mean them) conspire to crush us. 

There are no riddles to solve.  It's just out there in general politics. 

Nobody is better off today because JFK got shot, but he got shot.
:(

I believe they (and by they I mean them) conspire to crush us. 

There are no riddles to solve.  It's just out there in general politics. 

Nobody is better off today because JFK got shot, but he got shot.
:(


There's so much "divide and conquer" going on right now, I'm surprised more people don't find it so obvious.  :-\\

No there is alot of this in pro sports: I don;t believe in them.

All conspiracy theories are simultaneously true, false, and both true and false at the same time.

fnordSo any similarities between the plot of the following 1975 book and the events of 9/11 are entirely coincidental.fnord

So I can say nothing more than that I love all of them.

fnordIf you noticed any such similarities, try not to be grateful for the fact that the building in question featured multiple concentric rings, and the inner ones remained intact.fnord

At the very least, you'll learn why there's an eye in the pyramid of the one-dollar bill, who shot JFK, and what really happened to Atlantis.  So you'll have that going for you the next time you watch a movie about John Dillinger.


Bill Gates, Yoko Ono, David Rockefeller, and Queen Elizabeth II are all in the Illuminati.  They get together at Windsor Castle during the gibbous moon and transmogrify into dinosaurs and killer robots and dance around a bonfire singing death to humanity.  Then they order some pizza and chicken wings and watch Bergman movies until dawn!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_farao.gif

My friend who is the son of a drummer in a moderately famous rock band says Mick Jagger works for the MI5. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif

Haha i think i'm just being very open minded about all these conspiracies crap :p

i like to believe so but sometimes it can be an imaginary thing as you dont really see it sometimes

but yeah i am basicaly keeping up to date with these stuff :p

not believing in any conspiracy theories is even more ridiculous than believing in all of them.

My conspiracy theorist friends insist Osama has been dead for 10 years. 

They revile the U.S. government and the big money interests. As do I.  But they refuse to believe in a "common good."  Therefore, any event of political or economic significance must ALWAYS involve a sinister cabal of connected powers working in shadowy concert to further their own interests -- not any of ours.  Such paranoia also gives the paranoid a sense of self-righteous superiority.  They're clued in and you're a dupe!  I have also witnessed a significant moral nihilism among the conspiracy theory believers.  Since those in power (be it government, business, or church) have no true interest in a common good, why should I?  I'll write code, smoke weed, and be a total dick to everybody!
::)

My conspiracy theorist friends insist Osama has been dead for 10 years.  


LOL.

I used to think we might have nailed him at Tora Bora in 2001, but (lacking actual proof because if we had, all that would have been left was a puddle of jello in a cave), we decided to pretend he was still alive because it was a good way to keep Emmanuel Goldstein on the telescreen and the HomeSec dollars flowing to the contractors.  (And the bad guys were fine with this arrangement, because it let them continue to rally their supporters... and we were fine with that because their actions let us shovel more money to the security theater industry!)

I was floored a couple of weeks ago when it turned out that we not only had been looking for him all along, but that when the time was right we decided to nail him to the wall.  It's not the sort of thing you can expect to get away with lying about.  Doubly so given that the people who did the job left enough witnesses alive that even the bad guys acknowledge we dun it.

For those who still wear tinfoil, tighten down the straps and dig this: it doesn't matter whether you believe there are two Parties or one Party.  If there are two Parties, it would have happened in May of 2008, so that President Cheney could have remained in power for a fifth term instead of handing it over to Obama.  If there's only one Party, it would have happened in May of 2012, so that The Party could re-elect Obama.

There's absolutely nothing to be gained in terms of political payoffs for either the Jackasses or the Elephants by nailing Osama in early 2011, and yet that's when we nailed the bugger.  The only reasonable hypothesis is that on this issue, our government properly set politics aside, really was tracking him down all this time, and really did finish the job.  

I like good conspiracy theories, but the "We faked OBL's death" isn't one of them.  Much like the birthers, the deathers wouldn't know a good conspiracy theory if it kicked them square in the balls.  

The difference between someone who merely enjoys conspiracy theories as a postmodern art form, and the birther/deather crowd, is that when I'm faced with contradictory evidence, I change my opinion within hours, if not minutes.

LOL.

I used to think we might have nailed him at Tora Bora in 2001, but (lacking actual proof because if we had, all that would have been left was a puddle of jello in a cave), we decided to pretend he was still alive because it was a good way to keep Emmanuel Goldstein on the telescreen and the HomeSec dollars flowing to the contractors.  (And the bad guys were fine with this arrangement, because it let them continue to rally their supporters... and we were fine with that because their actions let us shovel more money to the security theater industry!)

I was floored a couple of weeks ago when it turned out that we not only had been looking for him all along, but that when the time was right we decided to nail him to the wall.  It's not the sort of thing you can expect to get away with lying about.  Doubly so given that the people who did the job left enough witnesses alive that even the bad guys acknowledge we dun it.

For those who still wear tinfoil, tighten down the straps and dig this: it doesn't matter whether you believe there are two Parties or one Party.  If there are two Parties, it would have happened in May of 2008, so that President Cheney could have remained in power for a fifth term instead of handing it over to Obama.  If there's only one Party, it would have happened in May of 2012, so that The Party could re-elect Obama.

There's absolutely nothing to be gained in terms of political payoffs for either the Jackasses or the Elephants by nailing Osama in early 2011, and yet that's when we nailed the bugger.  The only reasonable hypothesis is that on this issue, our government properly set politics aside, really was tracking him down all this time, and really did finish the job.  

I like good conspiracy theories, but the "We faked OBL's death" isn't one of them.  Much like the birthers, the deathers wouldn't know a good conspiracy theory if it kicked them square in the balls.  

The difference between someone who merely enjoys conspiracy theories as a postmodern art form, and the birther/deather crowd, is that when I'm faced with contradictory evidence, I change my opinion within hours, if not minutes.


Yes, yes, quite right, old chap, I agree with you entirely.
:)

It depends. Things like area 51 where they tell you the truth, so you think they're lying. We all know whats there and whats there. Experimental stealth craft that have lead up to things like the B2 and the SR-71 are there such as the Tacid Blue. There's also alien's and the like there. I believe that they may have the big foot there and that he may be an alien of some sort and not "the missing link".

There was a movie that came out called Black Sacrafice. Originally from youtube, speaks about how black actors and music artist are a pat of the Illuminati. All the celebrity deaths such as Aliaya  and LeftEye's where actually sacrifices for  members. Oprah and T.D. Jakes are supposedly in the higher rankings. My question is if white people know of this and are they members. I don't know if I should believe this or not.

Then there's Atlantis. There have been known instances of islands sinking. In our very river there have been at least two.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. I doubt we will ever find out who was on the grassy knoll though. I have read several books on the subject and I find them fascianating.

But I don't believe Paul Mccartney died in the mid 60s and was replaced by William Campbell.

  HAARP

It has been blamed for everything from hurricanes to chronic fatigue syndrome.

We never went to the moon.  The Apollo missions were faked in the Nevada desert.  My friend Dave REALLY believes this!
:o

We never went to the moon.  The Apollo missions were faked in the Nevada desert.  My friend Dave REALLY believes this!
:o


I know people who believe that too. This leads me to wonder; Do more people believe that the moon landings were fake than the people who think 9/11 was an inside job? or vice-versa.

We never went to the moon.  The Apollo missions were faked in the Nevada desert.  My friend Dave REALLY believes this!
:o


I know people who honestly believe this one as well. There is one person I know that will argue all of these points about it-he has really thought it out.

I have long been watching those who believe in conspiracy theories, and in general I find them disturbing and fascinating.

I honestly believe (and many researchers are releasing studies) that belief in conspiracy theories is a kind of mental illness.  More and more when I find somebody who believes in a conspiracy theory, they tend to believe in a bunch of them.  I often joke that these individuals "never met a conspiracy theory they did not like".

Myself, I pretty much reject them all.  Being the ultimate skeptic, I am also aware of what is involved in trying to keep such things a secret.  And looking at them logically, it just doe snot make sense.

I mean, look at one past "conspiracy", and you have a perfect example.  In 1972 we had a simple burglary foiled in action, and a few individuals arrested.  No real big deal.  Yet in the aftermath the #3 man in the FBI went to the press and turned over sensitive information to the media.

Over a burglary, where nobody died, he went to the press.

Then a few decades later we had a few relatively minor arms deals, which in short order became major headlines around the world.  The secretary of one of the individuals involved was reported to have snuck out classified materials to be destroyed by shoving them in her bra.

And this is the same government to have masterminded 9-11?  And out of all the individuals who are claimed to be involved in this (including the puppet shows, brass bands and hootchie-cootchie girls), not a single individual who has been involved in, or can provide real proof has ever come forward in over 11 years.

When I compare most conspiracy theories against Occam's Razor, I find that most of them simply slit their wrists.

I can honestly say that the only "conspiracy theory" I can say I believe in is what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.  And odds are no more then 4 or 5 people ever knew what happened to him, and now all are dead.

People look at me like I'm a sap when I say this about JFK. 

There's motive and there's evidence.

There is plenty of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald, but the further you move way from LHO, the thinner the evidence gets. 

Then there is motive.  Who had motive to kill JFK?  The CIA, the Cubans, the Russians, the mafia, the military-industrial complex, LBJ, and your Uncle Dave. 

However, the evidence against the conspirators never stands up to scrutiny.  Am I saying LHO acted alone?  I don't know.  I just don't pretend to know any better.
::)

My dad ate a sandwich. True or false? That's what's important, time for detective work everybody. >:(

:.runs away to research:.

Then there is motive.  Who had motive to kill JFK?  The CIA, the Cubans, the Russians, the mafia, the military-industrial complex, LBJ, and your Uncle Dave. 

However, the evidence against the conspirators never stands up to scrutiny.  Am I saying LHO acted alone?  I don't know.  I just don't pretend to know any better.
::)


I have long believed that he was actually trying to kill John Connally, but was not as good of a shot as he thought he was.

The record of Oswald shootings goes back to 1963 and the attempt on retired General Edwin Walker, and includes Governor Connally and President Kennedy, as well as Officer Tippet.  And for a Marine that was trained to shoot at targets 500 yards away with iron sights, shooting an individual less then 100 yards away (81 yards actually) with a scope is childsplay.

My dad ate a sandwich. True or false? That's what's important, time for detective work everybody. >:(

:.runs away to research:.


The sandwich ate itself, your father is just to add confusion and throw off the real research.

I have long believed that he was actually trying to kill John Connally, but was not as good of a shot as he thought he was.

The record of Oswald shootings goes back to 1963 and the attempt on retired General Edwin Walker, and includes Governor Connally and President Kennedy, as well as Officer Tippet.  And for a Marine that was trained to shoot at targets 500 yards away with iron sights, shooting an individual less then 100 yards away (81 yards actually) with a scope is childsplay.


I think the lone gunman is scarier than any conspiracy.  It lets us know how vulnerable we are.

I think the lone gunman is scarier than any conspiracy.  It lets us know how vulnerable we are.


I think that is one reason why many people actually cling to such theories.

The thought that a single individual (or small group of individuals) being able to kill important individuals or cause massive damage is truly frightening to many people.  They want to feel safe and secure, so in able to prove that line individuals or small groups can do such massive things, their mind invents shadow cabals and secret governments and organizations that do it instead.

Because of course everybody knows that nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

JFK, RFK, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, 9-11, Pope John Paul I, Sandy Hook, the list simply goes on and on and on.  And I bet if Presidents Ford and Reagan had died in one of their attempted assassinations, there would be conspiracy theories about them as well.  But notice that they both survived, and I really can't think of any theories about them.

Nobody wants to think that an ex-Marine who had been kicked out could kill the President.  Or that 2 former soldiers who had a grudge against the government could kill over 160 men, women and children with a bomb made out of diesel fuel and cow sheesh.

I know people who believe that too. This leads me to wonder; Do more people believe that the moon landings were fake than the people who think 9/11 was an inside job? or vice-versa.

Yeah my son is into that whole 9/11 being a conspiracy, he claims there were inspectors at the towers before hand and I'm not sure but maybe they placed or did something to help the buildings collapse faster. His father and I thought he was nuts, so we just shook our heads.

Ever since I first read about it (or learned about it in school?) around when I was in the 4th or 5th grade, I've been fascinated with the JFK assassination and had been wanting to go to Dallas to visit the actual crime scene ever since. I finally went last September and it was a fascinating if somewhat surreal experience.

My observations: First of all, Dealey Plaza is actually a much smaller area in person than it appears to be in all the films. I had always been under the impression that the grassy knoll was something like 100 yards away but it's right there next to the street.  Meaning that if there was a second gunman, he wouldn't have been very far away at all, certainly less than 50 yards. Perhaps if he had been on top of the railroad underpass he could have fired a shot off and ran away before anyone could have gotten a good look at him. But I wasn't really too concerned about that.

The museum is inside the actual book depository and I thought the tour did an excellent job of going through the events leading up to the assassination.

When you get to the 6th floor, the actual window that Oswald fired from is closed off and preserved to appear the way it would have on November 22, 1963. However, you can look out the window right next to it and the difference is pretty much negligible. On the street below, there are three X's painted on the pavement, showing where the presidential limo was when Kennedy was hit. And Mushroom's assessment of it is indeed correct. Having served in the Army myself and having gone through basic rifle marksmanship (although it was probably less difficult than Marine rifle training), I am pretty confident that if I had a rifle with a scope and was focused, determined, and cold-blooded enough to go through with it, I could have hit the target from that location. Indeed, it would have been an easy shot.

And that's what bothered me about it. It was TOO easy. WAY too easy.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/images/route.gif

For you see, if you look at the route highlighted in green, the motorcade could have easily gone straight down Main Street (the middle one) and been nowhere near the book depository (TSBD). Yet for some reason, the Secret Service thought it would be a good idea to instead route the motorcade right on Houston and then do an almost hairpin curve right in front of a seven story building that they apparently failed to sweep and clear and seal off first. It was, to paraphrase Brad Pitt in Inglorious Basterds, a "goddamn sniper's delight."

Sure, there were other factors involved, probably the biggest one being that Kennedy had the option of having a bulletproof glass "bubbletop" installed onto the presidential limo which would have saved him, but he declined that option.

Certainly it's entirely possible that Oswald was just some schlub who found a one-in-a-million opportunity and got incredibly lucky and pulled it off, but just the way that motorcade was routed right in front of that perfect sniper's vantage point seemed a little too coincidental for me.

Sure, there were other factors involved, probably the biggest one being that Kennedy had the option of having a bulletproof glass "bubbletop" installed onto the presidential limo which would have saved him, but he declined that option.


A lot of this is also simply that for the most part, things like security tend to learn from hard learned lessons.  And that politicians will do whatever they want, often times ignoring the advice of their own security people.  Then changes are only made after a tragedy.

Part of this issue with Presidential Security and how we view it exists because most have no idea what was in place prior to President Kennedy.  Most people are amazed that at one time, anybody could just walk up and into the White House.  And the President routinely went around unescorted, on foor or on horse.  This however started to end after President Lincoln was assassinated.

Then more changes happened after President McKinley was assassinated.  The earliest President that most people have seen on film is FDR, and he kept his appearances to a minimum mostly to hide his handicap.  But he was still normally seen riding in open topped convertibles.

With the JFK assassination, that quickly changed.  Now Presidents rarely ride in such vehicles.

And the same goes for how they arrive and depart a location.  There were several attempts on President Ford when entering and leaving buildings, but he was never wounded in them so no steps were made to change this.  Then in 1981 President Reagan was actually shot, and then changes were made.

Now it is very rare for the President to enter and leave his limousine where he is visible.  I remember years ago watching President Carter walk in the open, entering and exiting his car.  When President Obama visited my base a few years ago, he did so under the cover of a hastily erected tent so we could not see that.

*****

Also part of the problem with accurately analyzing the JFK assassination is his martyrdom.  Most do not realize that he was actually doing what he was doing in a desperate attempt to raise his horrible approval ratings.  At the time he was assassinated, the President had the lowest approval ratings numbers ever recorded (30%), and it was looking like he would be easily beaten in 1964.  That is why he was already in campaign mode a year before the election, and was making stops that made little sense, and driving slowly through a popular city in such a way.

The decision to make those slow turns and twisty route was to allow as many to see him as possible, in the hopes of rising his horrible poll numbers.  The same with the open top car.  It was not enough to just see his car, they wanted people to see him and his wife with the Governor.

I can guarantee that if his poll numbers were more like 60%, he would not have taken that route, and would have had an enclosed vehicle.

People look at me like I'm a sap when I say this about JFK. 

There's motive and there's evidence.

There is plenty of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald, but the further you move way from LHO, the thinner the evidence gets. 

Then there is motive.  Who had motive to kill JFK?  The CIA, the Cubans, the Russians, the mafia, the military-industrial complex, LBJ, and your Uncle Dave. 

However, the evidence against the conspirators never stands up to scrutiny.  Am I saying LHO acted alone?  I don't know.  I just don't pretend to know any better.
::)


I pretty much agree with that. Even after all these years, most of the key evidence seems to point directly to Oswald and Oswald alone being responsible for the death of JFK. The biggest reason why I believe this case continues to generate so many conspiracy believers is just how "shady" of a character Oswald really was. I mean, he joins the Marines right out of high school, then gets discharged and immediately moves to Russia? He renounces his American citizenship, marries a Russian woman, then inexplicably decides to come back to the United States just months later? He moves to New Orleans to pass out pro-Castro literature on the streets, but does so while spending most of his time hanging out around rabidly anti-Castro associates like Guy Bannister and David Ferrie?

Then there's all the shady stuff that was happening around Oswald in the time leading up to assassination. Did you know that...

... Oswald was alleged to have visited Mexico City just weeks before JFK was shot in order to secure a visa for him to travel to the Soviet Union, but FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover later told President Lyndon Johnson that it was actually someone impersonating Oswald in Mexico City that day.

... There were also other reported "Oswald impersonation" incidents around this same time period. One of the most credible ones occurred at a Dallas Ford dealership about a month before the assassination in which nearly a dozen employees reported seeing a man claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald taking a car on a test drive along the same route the Presidential motorcade would follow, complaining about the U.S. government, and expressing his preference for the Soviet Union. The man in question was much more heavyset than the actual Oswald, who was at work in the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the sighting anyway.

... FBI agent James Hosty had been assigned by the FBI to keep tabs on Oswald before the assassination. Not only did the FBI never alert the Secret Service that they had a man who worked in a building along the motorcade route under surveillance, but Hosty's superiors also asked him to destroy a note Oswald wrote to him sometime before the shooting.

... Oswald was seen drinking a Coke in the TSBD lunchroom by a police officer about 90 seconds after the assassination, meaning that he would have had to have shot the President, hid his rifle, went down five flights of stairs, and purchased the drink in a minute and a half, all the while appearing calm to a policeman pointing a gun in his face.

... Oswald didn't leave the TSBD for nearly 10 minutes after the shooting, despite the fact that police didn't secure the building for over 20 minutes so he could have left almost immediately if he chose to.

... After the President was shot, Oswald returned to his room at a local rooming house, which he was renting from a woman named Earlene Roberts under the alias O. H. Lee. Mrs. Roberts reported that, not long after Oswald returned to his room, she noticed a Dallas Police car pull up to the curb, honk it's horn twice, then immediately pull away. Oswald left just moments after this without saying a word to his landlady. She later told the Warren Commission that the DPD car was numbered 106, but it has since been discovered that no such DPD car with that number existed.

There's literally hundreds of these weird incidents surrounding Oswald. The fact that he was such a strange character is likely the main reason why the conspiracy theories around him continue to flourish.

There's literally hundreds of these weird incidents surrounding Oswald. The fact that he was such a strange character is likely the main reason why the conspiracy theories around him continue to flourish.


Well, "Oswald Rabbit" (a nickname he got from a pre-Mickey Mouse Disney character) was a rather strange bird, of that there is little doubt.

Now Donald P. Bellisario is a pretty well known creator and producer of television shows.  Among them are NCIS and Quantum Leap.  And at the beginning of the last season of Quantum Leap, he produced a 2 part episode based on the Kennedy Assassination.  And in that episode, (which he himself wrote), he makes the case that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Now what most people do not know is that Mr. Bellisario actually met Private Oswald when they were both in the Marines.  I saw an interview of him several years ago, and he thought he was a (if I remember right) the "Smarmy SOB".

And when his name came out after the assassination, he said he was not surprised at all.

I would take this kind of statement much more seriously then I would some stranger who barely knew LHO, or anybody else who only met him briefly.

He even speaks of firsthand knowledge of Oswald--a chance Marine Corps meeting in 1959 that Bellisario includes in his script. Bellisario and Oswald both served in Marine air control squadrons and they were stationed, at different times, at a base in Tustin.

After completing his service, Bellisario went back to Tustin one day in early 1959 to visit some of his old buddies. There, he recalled, he began arguing with a Marine sitting on the floor in a supply shed who was reading some revolutionary newspaper.

"Here's this Marine telling me something that I would expect to hear coming out of Radio Moscow, a whole load of communist doctrine," Bellisario said. "I got incensed, and if you brought up something he didn't like, he just kind of sneered at you. Finally I just walked away and I asked another Marine there, 'What the hell is with this jerk?' And he said, 'Oh, he does that to everyone. He's harmless.' "

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-09-22/entertainment/ca-1147_1_lone-gunman-theory

And a few years ago Stephen King wrote a fascinating time travel story, which ultimately revolved around the JFK assassination as well.  And he also came to the same conclusion.

Whatever you may say about these individuals, they both have very well organized minds, with great attention to detail.  The other side of the coin however is that most of those that write about the conspiracy theories tend to jump all over the place like a flea with crabs.

Vincent Bugliosi wrote a 1,612 page + 1,000 pages of CD-ROM endnotes book on the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History.  He claims he makes an irrefutable case for the Lone Gunman.  I have a copy, but I've never finished it.  A lot of it is pretty effing dry and tedious. 

The problem is millions of people are psychologically and emotionally invested in the JFK conspiracy theories.  They just say Bugliosi is a CIA plant and keep right on rocking!

I give Bugliosi credit in helping me distinguish between motive and proof. 

Anyway, they call Alex Jones the king of the conspiracy theorists.  Everything from fluoridation to 9/11 is the work of a high cabal of global overlords going back to the Knights Templar or some sh*t.  Nobody can out-conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, right?  Think again.  I was at a party over the weekend and some conspiracy theorists were calling Alex Jones a "gatekeeper," a "double agent," and a New World Order bluff.  Jesus, I thought I was paranoid!
:D :o :D :o

Vincent Bugliosi wrote a 1,612 page + 1,000 pages of CD-ROM endnotes book on the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History.  He claims he makes an irrefutable case for the Lone Gunman.  I have a copy, but I've never finished it.  A lot of it is pretty effing dry and tedious. 

The problem is millions of people are psychologically and emotionally invested in the JFK conspiracy theories.  They just say Bugliosi is a CIA plant and keep right on rocking!

I give Bugliosi credit in helping me distinguish between motive and proof. 

Anyway, they call Alex Jones the king of the conspiracy theorists.  Everything from fluoridation to 9/11 is the work of a high cabal of global overlords going back to the Knights Templar or some sh*t.  Nobody can out-conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, right?  Think again.  I was at a party over the weekend and some conspiracy theorists were calling Alex Jones a "gatekeeper," a "double agent," and a New World Order bluff.  Jesus, I thought I was paranoid!
:D :o :D :o


Wow, I can't believe that I forgot Vincent's book.  While I think he is a bit crazy when it comes to politics, I find it almost impossible to refute him when it comes to anything dealing with crimes.  He also wrote an awesome book about the OJ Simpson case, and of course Helter Skelter.

And yea, Alex Jones is loony tunes as hell.  To him everything in the world is a conspiracy.  Among his claims is that NASA has killed thousands of astronauts, that Sandy Hook was done by the Government to advance it's gun control agenda, is a huge Ron Paul supporter, is a supporter of the Branch Davidians, and believes that the Rothschild Family is the real power in the Obama Administration.

This guy is even crazier then Anthony Weiner and Sarah Palin combined.

And interestingly enough, when a psychologist came out with a study and had it published in a peer reviewed journal which linked conspiracy theories and mental illness (and never mentioned names or groups), AJ attacked both - of course saying it was all a conspiracy to discredit him.

Whatever you may say about these individuals, they both have very well organized minds, with great attention to detail.  The other side of the coin however is that most of those that write about the conspiracy theories tend to jump all over the place like a flea with crabs.


No, I generally agree with their assessments. Like I said, my guess is that, more likely than not, Oswald acted alone. Over my years of looking into the assassination though, I've come across so many strange stories surrounding the event that can't just be summarily dismissed that I've come to understand how it is that so many other people believe he was involved in a larger conspiracy even if I personally don't.

As far as Alex Jones is concerned, I haven't been able to quite figure out what to make of him as of yet. Either he actually believes the garbage he spews, or he's a highly intelligent, conniving troll who took notice of the last untapped audience left in whacko talk radio-ville (you know, the defective ditto-heads who thought Rush Limbaugh accusing Bill and Hill Clinton of offing Vince Foster just didn't go far enough to properly sate their anti-government beliefs) then tapped said audience for all it was worth. One thing I am certain of is that his followers (probably moreso than Jones himself) are a delusional and quite possibly dangerous lot.

No, I generally agree with their assessments. Like I said, my guess is that, more likely than not, Oswald acted alone. Over my years of looking into the assassination though, I've come across so many strange stories surrounding the event that can't just be summarily dismissed that I've come to understand how it is that so many other people believe he was involved in a larger conspiracy even if I personally don't.


There will always be strange stories and unanswered questions.  That is simply part of real life.  In reality, everything tied up in a nice little package with a bow on top only happens in TV shows like CSI and Perry Mason.  In real life, there are always "loose ends".

Like how a victim of Jeffrey Dahmer escaped, went to a cop, and the cop turned him over to Mr. Dahmer.  Conspiracy, or just one of the things that happens in real life?

Or Tim McVeigh is pulled over for the simple reason that he forgot to put the license plates back on his car.  Government patsy, or simply a lucky stop?

And out of all the assassination attempts we have had, Andrew Jackson and Ahmed Dogan both survived attempts when the assailants guns misfired.  Mr. Dogan was able to escape, President Jackson actually assaulted his attempted assassin.

This is simply real life to me.  Personally, I would be more suspicious if there were no questions that were left unanswered.

Like how a victim of Jeffrey Dahmer escaped, went to a cop, and the cop turned him over to Mr. Dahmer.  Conspiracy, or just one of the things that happens in real life?



It was worse than that. A 17-year-old kid ran out naked and hysterical into the street, bleeding from his bum, and screaming Dahmer was trying to kill him.  Dahmer told the police they were just having a quarrel and everything would be okay.  So the officers left the kid at Dahmer's apartment.  Dahmer then killed him and cannibalized him.  If memory serves, the cops radioed back to the station something like, "A couple of queers had a lovers' quarrel! Heh-heh!"  Nice going, cops!
::)

It was worse than that. A 17-year-old kid ran out naked and hysterical into the street, bleeding from his bum, and screaming Dahmer was trying to kill him. 


I knew there was more involved, but I just choose to not say it.  However, for a Conspiracy Theorist this could be the launching point for the police acting in collusion with Mr. Dahmer.  Or in the many cases of other missing children where they are later found living with adults that had kept them prisoner for years.  Many times with repeated meetings with family services or law enforcement.

Collusion, or simply failure to notice things that were not as obvious at the time?

To the CT, these all become proof of a deep conspiracy.  To a skeptic, we just realize that is how real life works.  No conspiracy, no deep dark motive, simply somebody who was going through the motions or missed something.

Mostly, the CTs normally only jump out if it is something major.  I can't think of many CTs about Mr. Dahmer (although there were a few).  However, imagine if it was instead Mr. Kennedy, connected to the political family?  Then I am sure that CTs would be jumping out of the woodwork.

I knew there was more involved, but I just choose to not say it.  However, for a Conspiracy Theorist this could be the launching point for the police acting in collusion with Mr. Dahmer.  Or in the many cases of other missing children where they are later found living with adults that had kept them prisoner for years.  Many times with repeated meetings with family services or law enforcement.

Collusion, or simply failure to notice things that were not as obvious at the time?

To the CT, these all become proof of a deep conspiracy.  To a skeptic, we just realize that is how real life works.  No conspiracy, no deep dark motive, simply somebody who was going through the motions or missed something.

Mostly, the CTs normally only jump out if it is something major.  I can't think of many CTs about Mr. Dahmer (although there were a few).  However, imagine if it was instead Mr. Kennedy, connected to the political family?  Then I am sure that CTs would be jumping out of the woodwork.


Like with Mary Jo Kaopectate? 
???

Sometimes political connection can get you off the hook, sometimes not.  It didn't work for that crazy DuPont guy who killed that wrestling coach.

Like with Mary Jo Kaopectate? 
???

Sometimes political connection can get you off the hook, sometimes not.  It didn't work for that crazy DuPont guy who killed that wrestling coach.


This is where I start to actually break things down a bit into different categories.

I was not even trying to refer to the "Bridge Over Troubled Waters", I was just throwing out a family name that is well known in politics.

To me, a "Conspiracy" and a "Cover-Up" are two very different things.

To have a conspiracy, you have to have the person or group actually trying to attempt to do something.  Take over the world, corner the silver market, fly aircraft into buildings to start a war, assassinate a President to start a war, provoke an attack by one country to justify entering a larger war, things along those lines.  Mostly what is needed is premeditation.

For a cover-up, you just need a bunch of people reacting to something that happened.  And generally it is in panic damage control mode, to either put a spin on what happened, deny what happened, or say that what happened is wrong, and something else really happened.  We see this literally all the time, but that does not mean there is a conspiracy at play.

Now for whatever I may think of Ted Kennedy, I do not believe he intentionally tried to have the girl killed, so as far as I am concerned a conspiracy is out.  Was there a cover up?  Yea, I think that happened without a doubt, but no conspiracy because the premeditation is missing.

Benghazi, cover up but no conspiracy.  Sorry, once again no matter what I think of the Administration, I can't see it purposefully letting the Ambassador to Libya be assassinated.

Then you have the interesting one, Watergate.  There you actually had a conspiracy by a small group, but then the President ends up going down because he participated in the cover up after the fact.

There will always be strange stories and unanswered questions.  That is simply part of real life.  In reality, everything tied up in a nice little package with a bow on top only happens in TV shows like CSI and Perry Mason.  In real life, there are always "loose ends".

Like how a victim of Jeffrey Dahmer escaped, went to a cop, and the cop turned him over to Mr. Dahmer.  Conspiracy, or just one of the things that happens in real life?

Or Tim McVeigh is pulled over for the simple reason that he forgot to put the license plates back on his car.  Government patsy, or simply a lucky stop?

And out of all the assassination attempts we have had, Andrew Jackson and Ahmed Dogan both survived attempts when the assailants guns misfired.  Mr. Dogan was able to escape, President Jackson actually assaulted his attempted assassin.

This is simply real life to me.  Personally, I would be more suspicious if there were no questions that were left unanswered.


I am so glad to read this opinion from someone. It's just stuff that happens, not a conspiracy, I think to myself about most conspiracy theories. You know the reason I think this? It's because I've been living in the world for quite a while now, and I think people are too dumb to come up with complex conspiracies. Lies, yes, people lie like rugs in Koud's oriental rug store. All over the place. But I've watched people try in earnest to get things done, and they screw up all the time.  So how are they going to pull of these complex conspiracies when they can't even do things right, out in the open, in full view of everyone, and with a lot of money and support?  I don't respect conspiracy theorists.  Someone in their household growing up was lying, that's what I think!! Smacks of addictions!!  :D

Someone in their household growing up was lying, that's what I think!! Smacks of addictions!!  :D


Actually, I see it as a type of mental illness.  Some people simply can't accept that "stuff happens".  To them, a single individual can't kill a leader or a bunch of fanatics from far away can't arrange to have a bunch of other's killed in their country, so they create this fantasy of dark conspiracies in order to deny that "stuff happens".

And they tell themselves this often enough that eventually it becomes an act of faith, like a religion.  You can't logically explain religion to anybody, either you have faith or you do not.  You can't simply tell somebody that the Flying Spaghetti Monster sneezed the world out of his nose, it is accepted on faith or it is not.  The same with conspiracy theorists.

At one time, when bad things happened people often wrote it off to punishment for having offended God.  Today, it is almost always a conspiracy.  Sandy Hook, Katrina, 9-11, Boston, Vince Foster, the list just goes on and on and on.  And no amount of logic means anything, these people are basically insane and will never believe any facts handed over to them.

One example I gave recently in another forum was about the Rosenburgs.  Now for many years growing up, I met people who were convinced they were innocent.  At that time all we had was essentially hearsay  and circumstantial evidence, so there was at least some room for reasonable doubt.  But since then, we have had both the release of former KGB files by the Russian government, as well as the release of the Venona intercepts.

And people still try to claim they are innocent!  We have both intercepted communications that talked about their actions, as well as the country they were spying for going "Yea, they were working for us", yet for some reason some people still believe they are innocent.

Insanity at it's finest.  Now I am a skeptic, but these individuals are so skeptic of reality that they have lost all touch with it.

I believe in me.

http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/narcissism.jpg

This is where I start to actually break things down a bit into different categories.

I was not even trying to refer to the "Bridge Over Troubled Waters", I was just throwing out a family name that is well known in politics.

To me, a "Conspiracy" and a "Cover-Up" are two very different things.

To have a conspiracy, you have to have the person or group actually trying to attempt to do something.  Take over the world, corner the silver market, fly aircraft into buildings to start a war, assassinate a President to start a war, provoke an attack by one country to justify entering a larger war, things along those lines.  Mostly what is needed is premeditation.

For a cover-up, you just need a bunch of people reacting to something that happened.  And generally it is in panic damage control mode, to either put a spin on what happened, deny what happened, or say that what happened is wrong, and something else really happened.  We see this literally all the time, but that does not mean there is a conspiracy at play.

Now for whatever I may think of Ted Kennedy, I do not believe he intentionally tried to have the girl killed, so as far as I am concerned a conspiracy is out.  Was there a cover up?  Yea, I think that happened without a doubt, but no conspiracy because the premeditation is missing.

Benghazi, cover up but no conspiracy.  Sorry, once again no matter what I think of the Administration, I can't see it purposefully letting the Ambassador to Libya be assassinated.

Then you have the interesting one, Watergate.  There you actually had a conspiracy by a small group, but then the President ends up going down because he participated in the cover up after the fact.


BTW, the Dike Bridge on Martha's Vineyard still spans the channel from Edgartown to Chappaquiddick Island, but it's only open to pedestrian and bicycle traffic now.  If it was closed to cars in 1969, Kennedy would have had to wait for the ferry the next morning, and Mary Jo would have lived to see him beat Carter in 1980!
::)

BTW, the Dike Bridge on Martha's Vineyard still spans the channel from Edgartown to Chappaquiddick Island, but it's only open to pedestrian and bicycle traffic now.  If it was closed to cars in 1969, Kennedy would have had to wait for the ferry the next morning, and Mary Jo would have lived to see him beat Carter in 1980!
::)


Not that it would have helped him at all.  I think that the Republican Victory in 1980 could no more be stopped in 1980 then the Democratic one in 1976 could have been stopped.

BTW, the Dike Bridge on Martha's Vineyard still spans the channel from Edgartown to Chappaquiddick Island, but it's only open to pedestrian and bicycle traffic now.  If it was closed to cars in 1969, Kennedy would have had to wait for the ferry the next morning, and Mary Jo would have lived to see him beat Carter in 1980!
::)


Possible..but in this case, I'm thinking Ted Kennedy might have been Dems candidate for 1976 instead of Carter.

It's always fun playing the "what if" game.

Not that it would have helped him at all.  I think that the Republican Victory in 1980 could no more be stopped in 1980 then the Democratic one in 1976 could have been stopped.


Yeah, I don't think Kennedy would have beaten Reagan in 1980, but I do think he could have won the primary were it not for Chappaquiddick (which Jimmeh Cawtah mentioned four times in one speech).  Now, Reagan DID have a lot of support for a 1976 candidacy and in that case, unburdened from Chappaquiddick, Kennedy would have beaten Reagan, and certainly Ford, but as Socrates said, if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
:D

Yeah, I don't think Kennedy would have beaten Reagan in 1980, but I do think he could have won the primary were it not for Chappaquiddick (which Jimmeh Cawtah mentioned four times in one speech).  Now, Reagan DID have a lot of support for a 1976 candidacy and in that case, unburdened from Chappaquiddick, Kennedy would have beaten Reagan, and certainly Ford, but as Socrates said, if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
:D


Honestly, while I am sure that it may have happened in the past, I can't think of a single time off the top of my head that a party has failed to renominate it's own current president to continue for another 4 years.

Honestly, while I am sure that it may have happened in the past, I can't think of a single time off the top of my head that a party has failed to renominate it's own current president to continue for another 4 years.


I did some research and it told me this

Four incumbent presidents have been denied a nomination to run by their own party. Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur; but only Pierce had actually been really elected president. The rest were vice president whoa scended to the presidency after assassinations or deaths in office.  So we are talking years ago here.

I did some research and it told me this

Four incumbent presidents have been denied a nomination to run by their own party. Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur; but only Pierce had actually been really elected president. The rest were vice president whoa scended to the presidency after assassinations or deaths in office.  So we are talking years ago here.


*nods*

I knew it had happened in the past, but all over a century ago.  LBJ might have been close, he also ascended after an assassination, but decided not to run.

As for Andrew Johnson, he was never really a Republican in the first place.  A Democrat, he was never really in the Republican Party anyways, but the National Union Party (the coalition Government that President Lincoln formed of Republicans and Pro-Union Democrats).  He was hated by both sides, so his renomination was never in question really, it would never have happened.

Honestly, while I am sure that it may have happened in the past, I can't think of a single time off the top of my head that a party has failed to renominate it's own current president to continue for another 4 years.


Ford was in the unique position of being the house minority leader who became vice president after Agnew resigned as a dirty crook, and then president after Nixon resigned as a dirty crook.  Thus, I don't think it would have been out of the question for the GOP to go with another candidate in '76.  Ford had only been in office since the summer of '74, less than 18 months before the campaign cycle started again.

Possible..but in this case, I'm thinking Ted Kennedy might have been Dems candidate for 1976 instead of Carter.

It's always fun playing the "what if" game.


That is always fun, and one reason why my favorite sub-genre of Fantasy-Science Fiction is "Alternate History".

One interesting anthology I used to have was by Mike Resnick, and had some interesting ones in it.  Of course, Dewey defeating Truman and Nixon beating JFK were common, but also some unusual ones.  Like suffragette Belva Lockwood becoming President, but still being turned away from voting for her own re-election because women were not allowed to vote.

Or Millard Fillmore becoming President under the Know-Nothings, and fighting a New England secession with General Lee leading the Union forces.

Always a fun game.

That is always fun, and one reason why my favorite sub-genre of Fantasy-Science Fiction is "Alternate History".

One interesting anthology I used to have was by Mike Resnick, and had some interesting ones in it.  Of course, Dewey defeating Truman and Nixon beating JFK were common, but also some unusual ones.  Like suffragette Belva Lockwood becoming President, but still being turned away from voting for her own re-election because women were not allowed to vote.

Or Millard Fillmore becoming President under the Know-Nothings, and fighting a New England secession with General Lee leading the Union forces.

Always a fun game.


I enjoy "What if" History games.  "Alternate History"
'What if" The German Luftwaffe were successful in bombing London and capturing it during WW2? How would that have changed the war?
"What if" Kennedy were not assassinated in 1963? How would that affect America in the Vietnam war?
"What if" the Germans made to Moscow in WW2? 

It's all fun.

I enjoy "What if" History games.  "Alternate History"
'What if" The German Luftwaffe were successful in bombing London and capturing it during WW2? How would that have changed the war?
"What if" Kennedy were not assassinated in 1963? How would that affect America in the Vietnam war?
"What if" the Germans made to Moscow in WW2? 

It's all fun.


To me, the single most fascinating "what if" in modern American history is Bobby Kennedy avoiding assassination and ultimately getting elected in 1968. Regardless of what you think of his politics, or what he might have done differently than Nixon in Southeast Asia, his victory in 1968 would mean that Watergate would not have occurred, which would have singlehandedly changed the last 40 years of Presidential history.

To sum it up, without Watergate:

1. Gerald Ford is never in a position to ascend to the Presidency in the first place.
2. Jimmy Carter doesn't get elected in 1976 due to there being less of a demand among the American public for a Washington "outsider".
3. Ronald Reagan doesn't get elected in 1980 due to the failures, and resulting unpopularity, of Carter.
4. George H. W. Bush doesn't get elected in 1988 by virtue of being Reagan's Vice President during a relatively prosperous time.
5. Bill Clinton doesn't get elected in 1992 due to the worsening economy and resulting unpopularity of GHW Bush.
6. George W. Bush doesn't get elected in 2000 due to "Clinton fatigue" and a desire for a President perceived as more morally trustworthy.
7. Barack Obama doesn't get elected in 2008 due to the extreme unpopularity of the outgoing GW Bush administration.

In total that's seven different Presidential administrations potentially altered all by the bullet of an assassin.

No Chappaquiddick.  No Sirhan Sirhan.  Bobby in 68-76, Teddy 76-84. Gary Hart 84-92.

No Reaganomics.

We're all better off for it.

]
No Reaganomics.

We're all better off for it.


You might want to rethink that part, because the idea for "Supply Side Economics" came from President Kennedy.  President Reagan really did not bring anything to the table then what President Kennedy did, and he was lambased by the Republicans for doing the same thing.

And others from Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton to Karl Marx and Arthur Laffer all did studies into this and it's effects on an economy.

This is where I simply view the partaisan bickering as such, and not reflecting on the actual beliefs.  Much like Democrats blasting President Bush for a Surge, and applauding President Obama for the same thing (and Republicans applauding President Bush and condemning President Obama for the same thing).

So in actuality, under a continuing Kennedy Dynasty, you would have had a continuation of Supply Side Economics, and no "Great Society".  You also have to roll back many things that were developed under the Johnson and Nixon administrations.  No EPA,  Widened welfare, enlarged immigration, rehabilitation instead of incarceration for drug use offenses, no Immigration Amnesty.  And no thawing of relations with China.  The list just goes on and on and on.

Remember, President was not called one of the most Liberal Presidents in history for nothing.  As paranoid and aggressive as he was, he did introduce a lot of good social programs that are still in effect today.

You might want to rethink that part, because the idea for "Supply Side Economics" came from President Kennedy.  President Reagan really did not bring anything to the table then what President Kennedy did, and he was lambased by the Republicans for doing the same thing.

And others from Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton to Karl Marx and Arthur Laffer all did studies into this and it's effects on an economy.

This is where I simply view the partaisan bickering as such, and not reflecting on the actual beliefs.  Much like Democrats blasting President Bush for a Surge, and applauding President Obama for the same thing (and Republicans applauding President Bush and condemning President Obama for the same thing).

So in actuality, under a continuing Kennedy Dynasty, you would have had a continuation of Supply Side Economics, and no "Great Society".  You also have to roll back many things that were developed under the Johnson and Nixon administrations.  No EPA,  Widened welfare, enlarged immigration, rehabilitation instead of incarceration for drug use offenses, no Immigration Amnesty.  And no thawing of relations with China.  The list just goes on and on and on.

Remember, President was not called one of the most Liberal Presidents in history for nothing.  As paranoid and aggressive as he was, he did introduce a lot of good social programs that are still in effect today.


Certainly not.  Adam Smith would have found supply-side economics to be anti-competitive.  Kennedy did drop top marginal tax rates from the 90th percentile to the the 70th, a far cry from where they are now a 35%.  The Laffer Curve was a joke and all serious economists said so.
::)

Bill Gates, Yoko Ono, David Rockefeller, and Queen Elizabeth II are all in the Illuminati.  They get together at Windsor Castle during the gibbous moon and transmogrify into dinosaurs and killer robots and dance around a bonfire singing death to humanity.  Then they order some pizza and chicken wings and watch Bergman movies until dawn!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_farao.gif


Apparently Walt Disney is too, at least according to a video I just saw on Youtube.  :D :P

Alex Jones said the U.S. federal government caused the deadly tornadoes in Oklahoma this spring.  I didn't hear his rationale for making such a statement.  Is there one?
???

Alex Jones said the U.S. federal government caused the deadly tornadoes in Oklahoma this spring.  I didn't hear his rationale for making such a statement.  Is there one?
???


Alex Jones ... rationale ...

http://denver.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/thumb/mlfw2281.gif

OK, now that I've stopped laughing.  When in doubt, I'm gonna guess he blamed HAARP.

(Eeyup.  He blamed HAARP.)

HAARP has been making the rounds for 20 years.  It's a neat project that involves people playing with radio signals and aurorae, and knowing more about how the ionosphere works probably helps us improve our ability to communicate with our subs (that was the reason I remember for all the mystery surrounding the project in the early 90s), but as you've probably figured out, it's incapable of the earthquake/tornado/mindcontrol/whatever else that conspiracists ascribe to it.  In the unlikely event that I ever do a 50-state tour of the United States, I'll be sure to schedule my Alaskan tour during one of the open house days  when any civilian can visit and tour the site.  (In any other thread, I'd point out that the sorts of sites at which the really super-secret R&D is being done tend not to hold open houses, but that's just what They'd want me to believe :)

Alex Jones ... rationale ...

http://denver.mylittlefacewhen.com/media/f/thumb/mlfw2281.gif

OK, now that I've stopped laughing.  When in doubt, I'm gonna guess he blamed HAARP.

(Eeyup.  He blamed HAARP.)

HAARP has been making the rounds for 20 years.  It's a neat project that involves people playing with radio signals and aurorae, and knowing more about how the ionosphere works probably helps us improve our ability to communicate with our subs (that was the reason I remember for all the mystery surrounding the project in the early 90s), but as you've probably figured out, it's incapable of the earthquake/tornado/mindcontrol/whatever else that conspiracists ascribe to it.  In the unlikely event that I ever do a 50-state tour of the United States, I'll be sure to schedule my Alaskan tour during one of the open house days  when any civilian can visit and tour the site.  (In any other thread, I'd point out that the sorts of sites at which the really super-secret R&D is being done tend not to hold open houses, but that's just what They'd want me to believe :)


How do you make a tornado with radio frequencies from the ionosphere?
Oh.  I see.

Alex Jones' Federal Government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6OKLgLZHFk

How do you make a tornado with radio frequencies from the ionosphere?
Oh.  I see.

Alex Jones' Federal Government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6OKLgLZHFk


The real Federal Government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7XVcqZodAM

It doesn't have to be smart, it just has to be smarter than us :)

The real Federal Government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7XVcqZodAM

It doesn't have to be smart, it just has to be smarter than us :)


LIFE IS GOOD ®
GOOD IS DUMB
THEREFORE
LIFE IS DUMB

LIFE IS GOOD ®
GOOD IS DUMB
THEREFORE
LIFE IS DUMB


http://i.imgur.com/6eaktkN.jpg

Now I want to start a conspiracy theory that Big Pharma isn't hiding a cure for cancer, but is hiding a cure for baldness until the patents run out on Propecia and Rogaine.  People smart enough to know they're not hiding a cure for cancer might still fall for a baldness-vs-patents theory ;)

Now I want to start a conspiracy theory that Big Pharma isn't hiding a cure for cancer, but is hiding a cure for baldness until the patents run out on Propecia and Rogaine.  People smart enough to know they're not hiding a cure for cancer might still fall for a baldness-vs-patents theory ;)


Speaking of, what's that sh*t they keep advertising that's full of weird chemicals and causes precocious puberty in children and breast cancer in women?
Oh yeah.
Milk.
:-\\


When it comes to conspiracy theories, I agree with Noam Chomsky.  There are conspiracies among the rich and powerful, but it's all right out in the open.  You can pretty much find out for yourself with a little research.  But I'd rather sit back with my Doritos and Mountain Dew and watch Sean Hannity and porn all night!
8)

How do you make a tornado with radio frequencies from the ionosphere?


Aaw, bummer.  After all that fuss, the array is being shut down for lack of funding.  I wonder what sort of kooky stuff the tinfoil crowd will come up with to "explain" the weather in HAARP's absence?

Like, Hi, Fer Shurr,

I not only believe in conspiracy theories, but I believe that anybody who wears a modern pacemaker is being wire-tapped.  Why?

Well, even the pacemaker that I just had replaced was a wire-tapping device, because one day, my doctor asked me what I had been doing at a certain time, on a certain date.  I was shocked!  The pacemaker had recorded me being totally angry about something, screaming, etc., and my doctor knew that my mood had been different, because of the information that the device had stored away.

The entire idea is scary to me, because I can't just, like, reach in and remove a pacemaker when I'm about to be something other than calm, and I need the pacemaker, but if I so much as get upset, fight with somebody, get frisky with some hot guy, etc. (I AM, after all, 34), the Cardiologist will KNOW that I was something other than calm at a certain time...on a certain day!  NOOO!  I say that THAT'S WIRE-TAPPING of the WORST degree!
>:(

Well, even the pacemaker that I just had replaced was a wire-tapping device, because one day, my doctor asked me what I had been doing at a certain time, on a certain date.  I was shocked!  The pacemaker had recorded me being totally angry about something, screaming, etc., and my doctor knew that my mood had been different, because of the information that the device had stored away.

The entire idea is scary to me, because I can't just, like, reach in and remove a pacemaker when I'm about to be something other than calm, and I need the pacemaker, but if I so much as get upset, fight with somebody, get frisky with some hot guy, etc. (I AM, after all, 34), the Cardiologist will KNOW that I was something other than calm at a certain time...on a certain day!  NOOO!  I say that THAT'S WIRE-TAPPING of the WORST degree!
>:(


Not bad!  Hand that off to Alex Jones and see if he rolls with it :)

If you have an ICD or pacemaker, it's just doing its job: monitoring your heart's behavior.  It - and your doctor - have no way of knowing whether your heart was misbehaving due to you being angry, horny, thrilled from skydiving, terrified from nearly being hit by a bus, or any combination of the above.  (If you manage all four at once and live through it, let us know!)

All it knows is that something got way out of whack, it may have had to fire and/or take other corrective measures, and here's what the data looked like shortly before and shortly after the event.  Your cardiologist knows only the date/time of the event, and nothing about why.  He's asking because the answers "Oh yeah, I tried skydiving that day!" versus "Huh?  Nothing, I was watching TV" might indicate different medical issues.

If your pacemaker freaks out while you're skydiving, it's tripping on a perfectly normal reaction to a highly-elevated heart rate, and a hint that skydiving probably isn't a good idea for you.  If your pacemaker freaks out while you're just minding your own business walking down the street, or while you're calmly asleep in bed, there's a different problem.  Your doc is simply trying to figure out if your heart rate was elevated for a reason, or if it just flipped out all on its own.

Not bad!  Hand that off to Alex Jones and see if he rolls with it :)

If you have an ICD or pacemaker, it's just doing its job: monitoring your heart's behavior.  It - and your doctor - have no way of knowing whether your heart was misbehaving due to you being angry, horny, thrilled from skydiving, terrified from nearly being hit by a bus, or any combination of the above.  (If you manage all four at once and live through it, let us know!)

All it knows is that something got way out of whack, it may have had to fire and/or take other corrective measures, and here's what the data looked like shortly before and shortly after the event.  Your cardiologist knows only the date/time of the event, and nothing about why.  He's asking because the answers "Oh yeah, I tried skydiving that day!" versus "Huh?  Nothing, I was watching TV" might indicate different medical issues.

If your pacemaker freaks out while you're skydiving, it's tripping on a perfectly normal reaction to a highly-elevated heart rate, and a hint that skydiving probably isn't a good idea for you.  If your pacemaker freaks out while you're just minding your own business walking down the street, or while you're calmly asleep in bed, there's a different problem.  Your doc is simply trying to figure out if your heart rate was elevated for a reason, or if it just flipped out all on its own.


Is it true the early pacemakers used to get thrown out of whack by TV changers and electric garage door openers.
???

Is it true the early pacemakers used to get thrown out of whack by TV changers and electric garage door openers.
???


Back then, about as true as the idea that cell phone usage is dangerous on an airplane.  In other words, probably not, but nobody wanted to take the chance.  (Today, and by "today", I mean any time in the past 10-20 years, not a problem.)

Early TV changers were ultrasonic or infrared-based.  An infrared LED isn't going to be visible to something buried in your chest, and the same goes for sound.  The only reference I could find towards ultrasonics was this ADA article, and in that case, the risk wasn't the sound of the ultrasonic tooth cleaning gear, it was the EM field emitted by something akin to a Dremel tool.

Garage door openers - or other radio frequency emitters - back in the day, the risk ranged from probably not to maybe but nobody wanted to take a chance.  It wouldn't surprise me if there were interactions with the earliest devices.  The designers had no idea that we'd be living in a world where everyone carried small cheap radio transmitters with ranges measured in feet.  (Fortunately, most of these early devices are no longer in use because their owners - after having had several years added to their life - died of old age.)

Current information says that most stuff you'll encounter outside of a hospital is pretty safe (except for big magnets which can override or suspend an ICD's operation, and arc welders which are basically giant magnets, and moving down the risk scale, you probably shouldn't carry your wireless phone in your chest pocket.)  If I had a pacemaker or ICD, I'd take very careful note of who made it, what model number it was, when it was made, and if I had to undergo a medical procedure, would ask the doctor if there was a risk of interaction between the thing that the doctor's about to use on me and my Foobarmatic 42465.60.  It's up to the doctor to know what a FBM42465.60 is and whether or not his proposed therapy could interfere with whatever gadget I have in my chest.  (Because my doctor might not know everything about the '.60, in a non-emergency situation, I'd also contact my cardiologist, and tell them that I'm about to be treated for Preternatural Dorkitis, and ask if the proposed treatment modalities could interact with my '.60.)

The change in behavior in the presence of big magnets is a feature, not a bug, by the way.  Suppose an ICD is firing when it shouldn't be, or a pacemaker is going wonky.  Someone at the hospital, or even in the ambulance, might have a very good reason to shut it off for a few moments.  Instead of requiring fancy equipment (or doing surgery to pull it out!), you slap a magnet on the patient and wait a few seconds.  ICD says "OK, WTF's up with the big magnet?  Someone wants to talk to me but doesn't have a proper computer.  Fine, I can still work with this -- OK, guy with the big magnet, I'm listening!  I'l beep at you and ask if you want me to shut down, reboot, or whatever.  You tell me what you want to do by keeping the magnet there or moving it away.  And if you're my owner who's just walked into a strong magnetic field, this is your signal to turn the hell around and walk out."

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/square/000/002/395/magnets_c.jpg

Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor.  I know the difference between ICP and ICD, but I didn't know that ICDs and pacemakers could respond differently to magnets as part of their design until I started googling it for this post.  F*bleep*kin' magnets, that's how they work!

Thanks for the research, Foo.

I've wondered about that ever since I saw that cartoon in the National Lampoon!
:-\\

Thanks for the research Foo.  My dad has a defibrillator fitted and has to take precautions and its useful to know exactly why he has to avoid certain things.