JFK murdered 50 years ago this November

[Hardy]

They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.

Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.

1. JFK Junior's log book stated that he had 220 hours as of the end of 1998. He died the following July. He was a complete novice as a pilot.

2. He didn't have an Instrument Rating which meant he could only legally fly when the weather was particularly good. This isn't usually a problem in the States, however many inexperienced pilots overestimate themselves and underestimate the weather.

3. There was no co-pilot, the aircraft only had JFK Jr, his wife and her sister on board. The Saratoga he owned was designed for single pilot operation.

4. Please stop now.

Ah Muppet! I was enjoying the story. I'm still expecting the clincher argument: "How do you know all this?". "Uri Geller told me."

[BennyCake]

They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.

Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.

1. JFK Junior's log book stated that he had 220 hours as of the end of 1998. He died the following July. He was a complete novice as a pilot.

2. He didn't have an Instrument Rating which meant he could only legally fly when the weather was particularly good. This isn't usually a problem in the States, however many inexperienced pilots overestimate themselves and underestimate the weather.

3. There was no co-pilot, the aircraft only had JFK Jr, his wife and her sister on board. The Saratoga he owned was designed for single pilot operation.

4. Please stop now.

Isn't Wikipedia great? 

He was very experienced, and almost good enough to be an instructor himself. And he never flew at night without an instructor. The way the plane plunged into the sea was similar to a suicide pilot.

The planes locator device was turned off, and logbook missing.  Also, the battery for the black box was removed so conveniently, all cockpit conversations were unavailable. 13 or 14 hours before a search team was despatched. Yes, it was all just a terrible accident 

[muppet]

They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.

Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.

1. JFK Junior's log book stated that he had 220 hours as of the end of 1998. He died the following July. He was a complete novice as a pilot.

2. He didn't have an Instrument Rating which meant he could only legally fly when the weather was particularly good. This isn't usually a problem in the States, however many inexperienced pilots overestimate themselves and underestimate the weather.

3. There was no co-pilot, the aircraft only had JFK Jr, his wife and her sister on board. The Saratoga he owned was designed for single pilot operation.

4. Please stop now.

Isn't Wikipedia great? 

He was very experienced, and almost good enough to be an instructor himself. And he never flew at night without an instructor. The way the plane plunged into the sea was similar to a suicide pilot.

The planes locator device was turned off, and logbook missing.  Also, the battery for the black box was removed so conveniently, all cockpit conversations were unavailable. 13 or 14 hours before a search team was despatched. Yes, it was all just a terrible accident 

Instructors of small aircraft are, in the main, building their hours and experience until they get a job on the next rung up the ladder. That is usually as a co-pilot on some small transport category aircraft in the States but can be a jet elsewhere. But they are all usually very inexperienced. Being an instructor at that level is not as grand as you seem to think it is.

"And he never flew at night without an instructor. " - Except of course the night he died.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/celebs/jfk_jr.htm

Just read the above.

Either it is all made up in which case how do you know he is actually dead?

Or it is a clear case of a novice flying at night, over water, with no clear horizon and becoming disorientated. In that scenario the sky and the water blur and it is difficult to fly level as you don't know where to point the aircraft. Pilots with an instrument rating don't need to look out, but as I said he wasn't sufficiently qualified for that.

The different radar returns showing him climbing and descending and not maintaining an altitude are consistent with that finding.

[J70]

It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.

Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.

Grade: F

Must try harder

The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.

I think you get the picture. Then again...

I do get the picture.

An F was to generous.

Are you going to suggest what might have happened, or just stick to claim that what we were told didn't happen, because the media are big fat liars?

Which bit are you referring to?

JFK Junior.

The media said he crashed and died and you say the media are liars.

They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.

Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.

Regardless of all that, the main thing was that JFK Jr had to be taken out. He was outspoken about his fathers murder, and wanted to bring those responsible to justice, one of them being Bush senior. He would have run for president, and as he was a charismatic, good looking guy, and a Kennedy, he would have been a popular choice. But hes taken out, and any hope of an investigation into JFK's assassination dies with him. And who ends up as president a short time later? Bush junior.

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? 

[Tony Baloney]

It would hardly be reported on the mainstream media though, would it? All people heard was, ah those poor Kennedy's, they have had their fair share of tragedies, unlucky family etc etc.

Cause of death: Murder
Evidence: Because the mainstream media said it was an accident.

Grade: F

Must try harder

The mainstream media also stated that George W Bush won the US election in 2000, when in fact Al Gore won it. The same MM reported that WTC 7 collapsed BEFORE it actually did. The same MM reported Saudi hijackers killed themselves on 9/11, when most of them were found alive in Saudi Arabia.

I think you get the picture. Then again...

I do get the picture.

An F was to generous.

Are you going to suggest what might have happened, or just stick to claim that what we were told didn't happen, because the media are big fat liars?

Which bit are you referring to?

JFK Junior.

The media said he crashed and died and you say the media are liars.

They spun stories like JFK Jr was an inexperienced pilot, he was reckless etc. He was very experienced and confident pilot. The plane nose-dived suddenly, and the fuel was switched off. A brainwashed co-pilot was the cause. The search team were deliberately sent in the wrong direction, so that even if they did survive the crash, the freezing temperatures would certainly finish them off.

Of course the evidence of this co-pilot was got rid of to make it look like it was JFK Jr's recklessness/inexperience that caused the crash. The plane contacted air traffic control updating them a few times, but of course this was denied. George W Bush went missing the day of the crash for 3 days. He had no alibi, and has never been questioned as to where he was. Obviously he was overseeing the whole thing.

Regardless of all that, the main thing was that JFK Jr had to be taken out. He was outspoken about his fathers murder, and wanted to bring those responsible to justice, one of them being Bush senior. He would have run for president, and as he was a charismatic, good looking guy, and a Kennedy, he would have been a popular choice. But hes taken out, and any hope of an investigation into JFK's assassination dies with him. And who ends up as president a short time later? Bush junior.

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? 

[BennyCake]

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too?  

The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.

The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report?  Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?

I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.

So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.

[balladmaker]

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? 

The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.

The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report?  Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?

I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.

So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.

+1

[J70]

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? 

The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.

The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report?  Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?

I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.

So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.

You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.

[BennyCake]

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? 

The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.

The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report?  Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?

I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.

So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.

You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.

That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.

I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.

Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.

[J70]

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? 

The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.

The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report?  Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?

I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.

So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.

You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.

That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.

I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.

Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.

I'm not going to go back and search for every conspiracy theory discussed here to see where you stand. But its a safe bet to predict which side you will come down on any given "controversy".

I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination. 9/11, not so much.

[Main Street]

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? 

The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.

The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report?  Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?

I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.

So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.

You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.

That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.

I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.

Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.

I'm not going to go back and search for every conspiracy theory discussed here to see where you stand. But its a safe bet to predict which side you will come down on any given "controversy".

I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination. 9/11, not so much.

Its good to know that you know the absolute truth of everything out there that you'll give a J70 pass on the kennedy shooting theories because people are susceptable to bull and speculation   There are theories and there are crackpot conspiracy theories. There is a difference between them.
There are some very rational people who found it hard to accept the 3 bullets fired  inside 5 seconds from a ramshackle gun and 2 hitting the almost impossible target, then stomach the magic bullet theory and then just exactly where did the 3rd bullet come from,  and have methodically examined the evidence and offered some plausible alternatives. The lone gunman theory is just the most plausible, not a scientific fact proven beyond doubt.
Possibly there are people who blindly accept something coming from a government source like the Widgery report because it has all the trapping of officialdom. Italians are chronically conspiratorial because, you guessed it, a history of rampant  corruption and bribery of public officials. Most everything about the Kennedy assassination  screams some cover up somewhere.  And Oswald was killed before his psychosis could be fully revealed. Nearly every piece of evidence has taken a hammering and survived. The smoking gun theory discussed here was not a crackpot theory, it was a theory supported by some science and a methodical investigative approach but ultimately had little corroboration.
There is a tendency for reformed conspiracy advocates to rush to the other side of the fence and pour cold water over any utterance that questions the validity of any part of the evidence against Oswald, screaming 'down with such heretic whispers of deviation from the most plausible version'.

[J70]

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? 

The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.

The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report?  Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?

I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.

So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.

You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.

That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.

I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.

Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.

I'm not going to go back and search for every conspiracy theory discussed here to see where you stand. But its a safe bet to predict which side you will come down on any given "controversy".

I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination. 9/11, not so much.

Its good to know that you know the absolute truth of everything out there that you'll give a J70 pass on the kennedy shooting theories because people are susceptable to bull and speculation   There are theories and there are crackpot conspiracy theories. There is a difference between them.
There are some very rational people who found it hard to accept the 3 bullets fired  inside 5 seconds from a ramshackle gun and 2 hitting the almost impossible target, then stomach the magic bullet theory and then just exactly where did the 3rd bullet come from,  and have methodically examined the evidence and offered some plausible alternatives. The lone gunman theory is just the most plausible, not a scientific fact proven beyond doubt.
Possibly there are people who blindly accept something coming from a government source like the Widgery report because it has all the trapping of officialdom. Italians are chronically conspiratorial because, you guessed it, a history of rampant  corruption and bribery of public officials. Most everything about the Kennedy assassination  screams some cover up somewhere.  And Oswald was killed before his psychosis could be fully revealed. Nearly every piece of evidence has taken a hammering and survived. The smoking gun theory discussed here was not a crackpot theory, it was a theory supported by some science and a methodical investigative approach but ultimately had little corroboration.
There is a tendency for reformed conspiracy advocates to rush to the other side of the fence and pour cold water over any utterance that questions the validity of any part of the evidence against Oswald, screaming 'down with such heretic whispers of deviation from the most plausible version'.

Snarkiness aside, you haven't said anything I disagree with. My point about the JFK industry us that there are so many claims and counterclaims, whether legit or not, that it is hard for the average person to come down on any side with any certainty. That's hardly the case with most of the other typical examples.

[Main Street]

Are there any conspiracy theories you do NOT subscribe too? 

The reason there are so many "conspiracy theories", as you call them, is because there are many people who have used their brains, and know that certain things do not add up. But of course, anyone who goes against the grain, and doesn't believe everything that the media/government spoonfeed to them, is considered a nutcase.

The thing is, for those living in the North, they have seen many "conspiracies" throughout the troubles, and still continue to. Was the shooting of Aidan McAnespie not a "conspiracy theory", or did the rifle just happen to go off while the soldier was cleaning it, like official reports said? Do any of you believe it was an accident? I'd say there'd be very very few who do. What about Majella O'Hare? A young girl out for a walk. Do any of you believe the crap on that report?  Finucane? Nelson? Was there not collusion going on with each of those, or are we all just nutcases for thinking there was more to it than we were told? Sure, the British government wouldn't lie, would they?

I would have thought people in this part of the world would be, moreso, open to the possibilities that things like JFK, 9/11 etc didn't happen like they say it did, as they've seen lies, propaganda all around them for decades. I still see lies and propaganda being spun all the time; the media constantly hyping up the threat from dissidents, digging up anything they can on Sinn Fein etc to serve the current political agenda. They might not be as big as 9/11, JFK etc, but they still continue before our very eyes, and some people still swallow every word of it, without even giving it a second thought.

So, to answer your question. I don't subscribe to all "conspiracy theories", but I'm open to the possibility of foul play where things don't add up. It's not too far-fetched to think that "conspiracy theories" might actually be more truthful than the official story, considering the lies been spun by the mainstream media/British/US governments in the past.

You've been an advocate of just about every conspiracy theory there is on this board at some point (am I mistaken in that you even mentioned the "fake" moon landing on this thread?). No one is saying that cover-ups/dirty tricks don't occur - to do so would obviously be absurd. But you have to posit some kind of real and serious reasons for siding with a conspiracy theory, as you continually do, otherwise you're just a crank (amusing and all as that might be to others, assuming you're serious). Throwing out some half-baked bollocks about volcanic eruptions being a much more significant cause of climate change than man-made causes, as you've done here in the past, is not very good for your credibility. Same with the 9/11 stuff and so on and on.

That only a few conspiracies you've mentioned. It's hardly every conspiracy out there.

I'm not here for credibility. If I have an opinion I'll say it.

Speaking of credibility, it doesn't do much for some people's if they still believe in "half baked" ideas like Oswald shot Kennedy, or Bin Laden masterminded 9/11 etc. But that's just my opinion.

I'm not going to go back and search for every conspiracy theory discussed here to see where you stand. But its a safe bet to predict which side you will come down on any given "controversy".

I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination. 9/11, not so much.

Its good to know that you know the absolute truth of everything out there that you'll give a J70 pass on the kennedy shooting theories because people are susceptable to bull and speculation   There are theories and there are crackpot conspiracy theories. There is a difference between them.
There are some very rational people who found it hard to accept the 3 bullets fired  inside 5 seconds from a ramshackle gun and 2 hitting the almost impossible target, then stomach the magic bullet theory and then just exactly where did the 3rd bullet come from,  and have methodically examined the evidence and offered some plausible alternatives. The lone gunman theory is just the most plausible, not a scientific fact proven beyond doubt.
Possibly there are people who blindly accept something coming from a government source like the Widgery report because it has all the trapping of officialdom. Italians are chronically conspiratorial because, you guessed it, a history of rampant  corruption and bribery of public officials. Most everything about the Kennedy assassination  screams some cover up somewhere.  And Oswald was killed before his psychosis could be fully revealed. Nearly every piece of evidence has taken a hammering and survived. The smoking gun theory discussed here was not a crackpot theory, it was a theory supported by some science and a methodical investigative approach but ultimately had little corroboration.
There is a tendency for reformed conspiracy advocates to rush to the other side of the fence and pour cold water over any utterance that questions the validity of any part of the evidence against Oswald, screaming 'down with such heretic whispers of deviation from the most plausible version'.

Snarkiness aside, you haven't said anything I disagree with. My point about the JFK industry us that there are so many claims and counterclaims, whether legit or not, that it is hard for the average person to come down on any side with any certainty. That's hardly the case with most of the other typical examples.

The average person? I could read something into your usage of the term 'the average person' but I'll restrain myself to just say that both the average and the above average person can come down on either side of the fence re  the Warren report findings and still be well within the realms of rational thought.

"I'll give anyone a pass on JFK given that a cottage industry of speculation and bullshit has built up around his assassination"
I took that to be generally dismissive of all the investigations, down through the years, picking at holes and possible holes in the Warren Commission report, as all part of speculation and bull.  Otherwise no need to give a pass just because you subscribe to one theory, which so far you regard as more plausible than others. But possibly I overreacted.
I'll give you a pass this time but I'll keep an eye on your future conduct

[Saffrongael]

I find it unlikely that Oswald acted alone. To get away that many shots as accurately in such a short space of time is some feat. Even elite marksmen would struggle to recover their aim after each shot when looking through a sight at a moving target.

He also seemingly waited until the cavalcade was moving away from him before shooting, turning down an earlier chance to shoot at Kennedy from the front as he was coming towards him. Assuming he was part of a hit squad, he was obviously under instructions to wait until Kennedy came into the range of a shooter from the front.

The conspiracy theories behind the motives are fairly wacky as this is a mini-industry. Goes to show there are 1001 reasons why a president will be disliked. Obama could potentially be bumped off by anti-Medicare loons.

Oswald was about 90 yards away from Kennedy, he was classed as a "sharpshooter" by the Marines. So it's not that difficult a shot(s) for him.

[BennyCake]

I find it unlikely that Oswald acted alone. To get away that many shots as accurately in such a short space of time is some feat. Even elite marksmen would struggle to recover their aim after each shot when looking through a sight at a moving target.

He also seemingly waited until the cavalcade was moving away from him before shooting, turning down an earlier chance to shoot at Kennedy from the front as he was coming towards him. Assuming he was part of a hit squad, he was obviously under instructions to wait until Kennedy came into the range of a shooter from the front.

The conspiracy theories behind the motives are fairly wacky as this is a mini-industry. Goes to show there are 1001 reasons why a president will be disliked. Obama could potentially be bumped off by anti-Medicare loons.

Oswald was about 90 yards away from Kennedy, he was classed as a "sharpshooter" by the Marines. So it's not that difficult a shot(s) for him.

It would have taken one hell of a sharpshooter to shoot Kennedy in the front, while (supposedly) being behind him!