This is the danger with generally conspiratorial thinking (Hi Family Member).

Every once in a blue moon something legitimately shady happens and it gets tossed aside along with a bunch of legitimate rubbish.

A secret is something known to two people, one of whom is dead.

Conspiratorial thinking happens when people feel like they are not getting honest answers. The media feeds this when it fails to ask the right questions.

That's probably one way conspiracy theories happen. They also happen because it's been an evolutionary advantage to look for patterns and reasons even though sometimes there are none. Creating or subscribing to a conspiracy theory also can create a sense of belonging for an individual within a smaller group that subscribers to the theory that they'd never get in the main stream. There is a great documentary about the flat earth society that drives that point home well.

They also happen because when people are deeply committed to being “in-the-know” at the expense of sounding rational, it’s a fairly cheap way to feel like you know something that the sheeple don’t ;)

^^ THIS ^^

In the absence of the truth, there will ever only be theories.

Not really, the truth when presented to a conspiracy type will be rejected because it does not match their preferred worldview.

Unless one of those people is my cousin Charlene. Then everyone already knows and that's on you.

That's what the GP is saying. It's very difficult to keep a conspiracy secret unless one of the conspirators ensures all of the others are dead.

Or only one. As an example.

> Assuming Charlene isn't a murderer or a ghost

Honestly it's a coin toss

Now I'm picturing a séance and the medium is saying "That's nice Charlene, but this lady would really like to speak to her late husband, Bob, now."

brilliant

The real conspiracy is how crazier conspiracies are pushed to discredit fairly well documented ones.

They don't have to be crazier, but you have to have enough out there to make people wonder what's what. Eventually people will lose all confidence in official sources --which seems to be happening slowly.

In between the "we had Mutual Assured Destruction[0] drills at school" generation and the "we had active shooter drills at school" generation, there must have been a (relatively) well adjusted "we had no such drills at school" generation?

[0] get under your desk, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye.

The 90s before Columbine were pretty chill on this front. Just had to worry about bullies, not shooters or nukes.

1982 through 1992, at least, had neither. There were fire evacuation drills twice a year, and a schoolbus evacuation drill a couple of weeks after school started in the fall.

Depends on where you lived. Where I lived, we had air raid drills. We also had tornado drills.

Where I lived we had earthquake drills...and earthquakes. Not a lot of fear mongering though during that time so that was nice.

Growing up in the 80s in the southern US we had earthquake drills and tornado drills. I feel lucky that those were the biggest threats I felt as a child.

> well adjusted

We just grew up with AIDS, the ozone hole, global warming, the gulf war, Panama, Somalia, gang shootings on the freeway, the massive earthquake that was supposed to crack California off and set it adrift in the sea...

AIDS, Iraq, Panama, and Somolia are avoidable.

Wear sunscreen.

Most murders are targeted and chances of getting randomly shot are low.

Earthquakes are scary but you can prepare for them to reduce your risk of injury or death.

AIDS is avoidable now. It wasn't when nobody knew what caused it, and it was in the blood supply, and educating people about condoms was prohibited.

I you had said Acid Rain i would have thought you were quoting Bill Murrays Scrooge promo from Scrooged.

We didn't start the fire, it's always been burning since the world's been turning.

Jesus, the first guy to ever get 'cancelled' for mere words.

a little more than mere words; IIRC the "Cleansing of the Temple" involved at least a whip...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

Yeah, born in 1971 and graduated HS in 1989 and was in between the nuclear war drills and the active shooter drills.

Of course we did see The Day After on live TV and caught the tail end of the cold war.

Someone born in 1980/1981, graduated in 1999 would have been 4 or 5 by the time the Reagan-Gorbachev summit happened and then would have only had a few months in HS after Columbine happened. So optimum sanity was probably the cohort born around 1976-1980 or so.

Those of us born in 1986 (in New York at least) had neither form of drills

> Soon after the shooting at Columbine High School in April 1999, schools began implementing active shooter drills. Soon, districts across the country followed suit. By the 2005-06 school year, 40 percent of public schools drilled students on lockdown procedures.

Probably started almost immediately after you graduated.

I went to school in Australia from about 2003 - we never had anything other than fire drills.

Please tell me this is a joke. I can't tell on the internet anymore

There really isn't any political leanings to that theory, go away.

Ok, removed the phrase "right-wing".

What recent events? I would like to hear your response to that which will tell me a lot about your thresholds for suspicious.

I think he's referring to the Epstein/Maxwell situation, in which two lone child traffickers trafficked children with no customers or collaborators (at least not any who have been charged with anything).

At least, that's the closest recent situation I can think of.

Nice try :)

I had something in mind, but it works better as a fill in the spaces game. FWIW, it wasn't Epstein's death, I don't know if it's being called a conspiracy theory, maybe because nobody is very vocally demanding the truth.

I wanted to see if you were a trumper or something about kanye west lol

Mr. West is not in his best moment. He's not well known here in Spain. I mean, everybody knows he's a singer and was married to the exotic lady, but I don't think I've heard him sing.

He's anti-semite now. A lot of supposed conspiracy theory types have racial or anti-<some group> sentiment and the conspiracy is just an outlet fot that nastiness. Of course, i am not saying you are, i was just curious. A lot of people have conspiracy theories based solely on critical thinking as well.

I wonder how many people know about Dorothy Kilgallan. Her story really makes one think. She was a famous investigative reporter who got involved, contemporaneously, in trying to understand what happened after JFK's assassination. She told people she had a big file on what she was discovering. Then she died from an "overdose" of alcohol and barbiturates.

Why would somebody make loud claims they had something big without at the same time making use of that big thing? For a comparison, if you just brandish a gun without using it, you're just putting yourself in danger - which she likely did.

She was also great on What's My Line. Really amazing to see old game shows with intelligent people on them.

There are things that one is not supposed to touch. Remember the recent events? They didn't even bother hiding the motivation or making the actions more natural. There are two worlds, two laws.

What recent events are you talking about? Your tone is very conspiracy-theorist sounding.

Epstein's death comes to mind.

Seems like he had plenty of reasons to not want to make it to trial.

And plenty of opportunity, and perhaps a gentle push in that direction?

Told people and never shared anything? Look at modern news cycle and you'll see the same thing all the time. It's a pretty consistent story arc that every time a suspicious event occurs, someone will claim to have proof then never put up. I'm thinking in particular of Michael Avenatti who spent months very confidently asserting he was going to bury Donald Trump then getting fired and later arrested and jailed and never proving a damn thing.

She directly interviewed Jack Ruby and leaked information in the Warren Report before Congress could report it. They got mad. She had the credentials, and wasn't a flake like Avenatti.

of course, statistically, for everyone high-profile assassination there will be people who a. don't agree with the prevailing narrative and b. die under strange circumstances. but how would you determine the mean and variance for such a thing?

That's hard to say, but there's just too many strange coincidences with regards to JFK. And the list of them just keeps growing.

Just like with Hillary

And Abraham

Never heard of her, but here's what I found [0]. It doesn't really make me think, but it does make me feel sorry for her untimely death.

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20210102194128/http://mcadams.po...

  > She told people she had a big file on what she was discovering.

That was the mistake, wasn't it ?

I wasn't aware that the belief he was paid by a powerful organization is regarded as absurd. I don't think that's silly. I do think it's far fetched to believe that the CIA as an organization orchestrated it. That was the main one I've heard.

Why would that be hard to believe? The CIA regularly does terrible things. I'd argue that the CIA is probably the most powerful drug cartel in the world- and the only reason that would be contentious is that we'd be arguing about which cartel is actually the most powerful, not whether or not the CIA is involved in drugs and arms trafficking.

Because there's a gigantic gulf between "is involved in drugs and arms trafficking" and "assassinated the US President?" Note that there are many people who have no problem believing the former and a big problem believing the latter. That's because they're vastly different claims.

Yup that would basically be my response lol. Could it be conceivable one or two lone actors in the CIA did it? Maybe? But on an organizational level the risk to "reward" is so high it just seems absurd to consider.

Especially risky since the conspiracy has them not just assassinating a president, but killing multiple people (you see at least a couple of others mentioned in this discussion), while relying on multiple highly unstable people outside the organization to put the plot into motion and trusting they won't reveal anything. All because people think Kennedy would curtail their operations somewhat.

But then a decade later you have the Church Committee directly investigating abuses from all of these agencies, which results in President Ford issuing a congressional order that explicitly forbids U.S. involvement in assassinations (going further than what people claim Kennedy was trying to do), and these agencies do...nothing.

Risky? I'd say it was very low risk considering the lack of ubiquitous technology that we have today. No cell phones, no cameras, and a very centralized media.

Unstable people are easily discredited. The CIA literally coined the term "conspiracy theory" in response to people not trusting the narrative as a means to preemptively discredit any unwanted suspicions. That's totally something a legitimate organization would do.

And stating that Kennedy would "curtail their operations somewhat" is a gross understatement. Kennedy was costing the Dulles brothers lots of money. Bay of Pigs, literally averting the takeover of a country that the CIA attempted to kick into motion- that's a bit more than curtailing somewhat.

And the Church committee was toothless. No legislation resulted from it- simply an executive order. The Church committee is also credibly accused of limiting the scope of it's inquiry in order to protect the CIA. And of course the agencies did nothing - they didn't need to do anything, they continue to operate without real oversight to this day. Spying on the Senate, then lying to Congress...zero repercussions. The Bushes, Clinton- all presidents that had interesting CIA connections.

The biggest issue they have now is competing with other Intel agencies, foreign and domestic.

It's not like the CIA is inexperienced in regime change. [0]

[0]: https://www.history.com/news/us-overthrow-foreign-government...

Ah yes, the "CIA has done X, therefore all actions are CIA doing X" argument.

We're a long time since MKULTRA or Salvador Allende.

Also, history channel is a weird source. Last i knew they run programs about ghosts.

Iraq and Afghanistan don't belong on that list either. Those actions were both done out in the open. I really vehemently disagreed with the Iraq war. But you can't say it was covert regime change.

Again, there is a gigantic gulf between regime change in countries largely outside of American public consciousness and assassinating the US President.

Cuba is outside of American public consciousness? Could you expand on why you believe there is a massive difference between the two? If an organization takes no issue with overthrowing democratic governments (like Guatemala), what makes their own government unique?

The fact that it's their own government?

It's really not that hard to understand.

We pay the CIA to forward American interests. Most of their actions, even the most nefarious ones I'm aware of, have a somewhat believable rationale as to how they fit into that overall priority - often extremely imperfectly in both ends and in means. So if someone could put forth a theory for how assassinating JFK would benefit CIA or the US then sure. But largely the CIA implication is just "big shadowy CIA is responsible for all the unexplainables."

> So if someone could put forth a theory for how assassinating JFK would benefit CIA or the US then sure

There are plenty of theories where the CIA benefit from his assassination.

> Shortly before Hunt's death in 2007, he authored an autobiography which implicated Lyndon B. Johnson in the assassination, suggesting that Johnson had orchestrated the killing with the help of CIA agents who had been angered by Kennedy's actions as president. [0]

Some think he was removed due to his immanent withdrawal from Vietnam. [1]

Nonetheless, if you are the head of an organization that deposes governments by assassination, is it really _that_ far fetched to think you are above the law and would use the tools and your disposal and experience to dispatch anyone in your way?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Kennedy_assassination_cons... [1]: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strateg...

Yes because in one case your actions are in service of your country and in the other you will be declared a traitor and executed as such.

Edit: Did you read the "JFK decided to withdraw" link? He allegedly decided to withdraw 1000 of 17,000 Americans in Vietnam. This one step forward two steps back military strategy is par for the course for the duration of the Vietnam War. Doesn't substantiate at all why CIA would be so upset about it as to assassinate POTUS. Per your own link, it was a minor enough move that they didn't feel the need even to consult or notify South Vietnamese President Diem.

> The fact that it's their own government?

There are a lot of examples in history when this was not a problem.

> It's really not that hard to understand.

It is. When all their actions show something else.

> We pay the CIA to forward American interests.

Yes. But your's "American interests" might not be CIA's "American interests".

This is a whole lot of “something spooky over there that need not be named.” What are you on about?

"Couldn't happen here."

~ Famous last words.

Are you sure ?

I wonder if there's a tally anywhere... I suspect that if you look at attempted vs successful regime changes, the CIA isn't actually that good at it (at least in cases where the US avoided more overt actions, like sending in the military)

Is there a huge gulf? They are the three main crimes all drug cartels commit. Seems more like a natural progression than a gulf.

Gee wiz, has a drug cartel ever assassinated a sitting US President?

Not that far-fetched. Just look at their history of shady and unethical shit. Their planning/proposal of Operation Northwoods, carrying out of MKULTRA, Iran Contra Affair, engineered coups across Central and South America, Mosaddegh, Lumumba, etc.

This doc released was interesting, asking to use stench-devices and itching powder at a fairground to disrupt the chicoms https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/10...

Some time ago Joe Rogan thought this joke video[1], showing a Boston Dynamics robot being trained for the military which goes rogue and attacks his human handlers when they try to have it shoot a robotic dog, was real. He was talking to Lex Friedman about how the video tricked him, but that the scary thing was how close the video was to reality. Friedman tried to explain to him how things that seem human like, such as the movement that the actual Boston Dynamics robots make, doesn't mean they're anywhere close to actually thinking like a human.

The thing is, when someone is outside of a field, it's easy to misunderstand things and assume a capability that's not there. If you've never dealt with the CIA or FBI, it's easy to imagine that they're some all powerful organization that's able to kill off any politician they like at a moments notice with no scrutiny and silence anyone who even raises any questions. If you are familiar with the organizations, this point of view is as naive as someone who says, "Oh, you program? I came up with the idea for a game where the player can do anything they want and AIs will just generate the content for them. You think you can program that?"

And the issue with conspiracy theories is that any fact that gets presented just gets funneled into the preffered hypothesis. For instance, you mention "Oswald was killed before he could speak." But that's not true, he was answering questions from reporters before he was shot[2]. And the guy who killed him, Jack Ruby, wasn't. So supposedly these powerful agencies want him dead so he won't tell anyone what happened, but instead of shooting him when they find him and saying he was resisting arrest, they arrest him alive, let him talk to reporters, hire an unhinged local criminal to kill him, and then let the unhinged guy they hired live and don't worry about him talking? The more you look at the details of what actually happened, the less they support the conspiracy theory.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3RIHnK0_NE&vl=en [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=_kmVEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT10648&lp...

We'll just tie up this loose end...with this other loose end! Brilliant!

Some of the early testimony given to the dallas police was never released.

The JFK coverup psyop is what introduced the phrase "conspiracy theory" to the modern lexicon.

I heard Jeffrey Epstein had some weird conspiracy theories as well. It would have been fun to make fun of him for those—such a bummer he suffered from depression and killed himself. Double bummer that the security cameras monitoring his cell went out just as he killed himself. Such bad luck.

He had psychic powers.

Or he upsetted the wrong guys :)

But in this very case, there is two theories: on that someone killed him, the other that he was given the means to kill himself.

If the first case is true, i can't imagine this had gone quietly, and that the legists didn't see a thing. So i'd say at least 8 people were necessary, but closer to 20 if you count the administrative demand (putting the right guardians and the right legists at the right timing etc)

The second case is much more probable imho, and only demanded the intervention of one, maybe two people. It's easier for them to keep quiet if only one was involved, and if two were, they only have to trust each other, so the information will probably never get out.

And in the second case, anyone rich and powerfull could have done it. Gislene, Prince Andrew... Or current powerfull politicians and businessmen.

The issue with what's called "conspiracy theories" is that they involve a lot of different people being on the payroll. And because of the way trust works, i don't see how a conspiracy of more than 6 people directly involved work (just look at history, the "French connection" but also the testimonies of captured bank busters and criminal groups).

In the same way, i don't think you can think "CIA" when looking at the murder of JFK. If you say "one or two high-ranked CIA officers and one of their mafia informant + Oswall", i still wouldn't really care, but i wouldn't think this is a conspiracy theory. Am i making sense?

> Am i making sense?

Absolutely. And I agree with your assessment that you can't just say "CIA". I usually think things like this are 1 - 10 bad apples.

HOWEVER, I think you do get loads of cowardly leaders who later learn the truth and turn a blind eye (perhaps they think it's the lesser of two evils to just let past lies be and focus on their positive agendas). See the Catholic Church for an example.

Eventually those lies fester and turn into infections and you have to deal with them. A lot of leaders just hope to get out so they aren't the ones that have to clean up the messes of their predecessors.

Or in other words, 1% bad apples, 88% Switzerlands, and 1% Churchill's. (The 10% is reserved for my uncertainties)

Fear.

People who dismiss plausible theories about uncertain events are afraid of what it would mean if those theories were correct.

UFOs are very likely something other than aliens. But ridiculing people who say 'maybe aliens' is a defensive mechanism for those who really, really don't want to entertain the idea that maybe aliens are in fact paying us a visit.

If I said UFOs were actually Santa Clause I wouldn't be ridiculed. Because that's silly, not scary.

Ditto the big scary government stuff. I'll pick one at random that I heard:

"Covid vaccines and the aggressive / mandatory campaign was cover for mass sterilization because the planet is overpopulated with humans"

Dismissing that is a lot easier than thinking about what happens if a government decides to sterilize you against your will. Or that a government would arbitrarily deny any freedom.

Of course when we say government we mean us. Are we really capable of these things? Well, historically, obviously we're capable of some seriously heinous shit.

But we are not capable of that. Says the coward.

I believe that Oswald was there to prevent the assassination from happening. And that there were two Oswalds, making him the perfect fall guy. MrChrillemannen on Youtube has video about 'the two oswalds', Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM8pDhviTo8 . The bad one was likely the one who shot JD Tippit, went to the embassies in Mexico, Cuba Helsinki, Russia, etc.... The good one wanted to stop the assassination, was the real hero, was anti-Cuba.

He was one of many who knew the truth and were silenced for it. His own words are "I'm a patsy". Sadly, since we can't get his testimony, we won't ever know the truth.

If this is true, then he is a true hero. Judyth Vary Baker, his ex gf from new orleans, believes this.

Also, why did they postpone the unsealing of the still sealed records after the initial seal order expired? It's probably not much to chew on, but it definitely gives the appearance of "hiding" something untoward.