egafd.com

A few years ago, I heard a theory about the Titanic that claimed that it was only trying to get to New York so quickly because a fire had broken out onboard that they were struggling to contain. It didn't sound very plausible to me, but had anyone else heard of it?

I don't think I'd ever even heard the expression 'Conspiracy Theory' before around about the time I left school in the late 80's. I remember that there was a documentary on ITV at the time about the Kennedy assassination. I found it a very interesting concept. A few years later, Oliver Stone's 'JFK' came out. That pretty much just blamed Kennedy's political rivals. I came away from that thinking: 'Wouldn't it have been easier if they'd just waited 4 years and put all of that money and effort into beating him at the next election?' I mean, it's not like they'd have been attempting the impossible, running against JFK the Legend, the Martyr. Surely, all that 'mythic' stuff only came about after he'd been killed. Back then, they'd had just been up against a incumbent President that had only won in the first place by the closest margin ever (until the election in 2000).

When I got a PC in the late 90's, I found that conspiracy theories had found a natural home on the web (along with Urban Legends), but by this time there were conspiracy theories about practically everything. I still enjoy hearing about some of them though, but really only in a 'Urban Legend/Campfire tales' type of way....

Ken Shabby wrote:


A few years later, Oliver Stone's 'JFK'
> came out. That pretty much just blamed Kennedy's political
> rivals.

Nice link, Essex Lad.

Oliver Stone is (in my humble opinion) completely over-rated.

Bildeberg is a great one to look into.......a super rich shadow group of the old guard elite running telling government's what to do, when to start wars etc...some of it is funny but a lot of the theory is plausible..

Peter wrote:

> My favourite is Myra Hindley. Apparently the European court was
> going to rule that she had to be released, so the government,
> knowing that the british public would not stand for it, and the
> government would fall if they allowed it, ghosted her away to a
> new life in Canada or New Zealand. She did develop and die from
> cancer (pneumonia) very quickly. Not that I believe that's what
> happened, but it's all very much possible and believable.


Just a piece of fiction.

The European court was actually going to rule that the Home Secretary's life tariff for Myra Hindley should be replaced by a new tariff set by a judge - which could still have been life. But even if it had been less than a full life term Hindley's release or otherwise would still have been a matter for the parole board and nobody else.

The European court doesn't have the power to order the release of a convicted prisoner serving a life sentence, so your stated facts are incorrect. In reality Hindley wasn't close to release from prison at the time of her death.

Essex Lad wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The House Select Committee on Assassinations found that the
> JFK
> > assassination was as a result of conspiracy,
>
> And the Warren Commission found that there wasn't. Read
> "Reclaiming History" by Vince Bugliosi and then try to argue
> for a conspiracy. Every theory is comprehensively rubbished.

I am afraid that if you only read one book on a subject you are not very well informed. Bugliosi's huge tome was out of date before he began it. He has ignored the information provided by the Assassination Records Review Act, and is solely concerned to prove the Warren Commission was right. It is the work of a lawyer acting for a client rather than a historian (which Vince isn't).

For the record, the House Select Committee sat for three years in the 1970s, the Warren Commission sat for about nine months in 1964. Whilst not perfect, the HSCA was a much more thorough investigation.

Flat_Eric wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> > E Howard Hunt confessed on tape before
> > his death that he knew of the plot but did not take part.
>
>
> Well I could to confess on my death bed to shagging Cheryl Cole
> and half the Danish women's Olympic beach volleyball team.
>
> Wouldn't necessarily make it true though would it?!
>
> - Eric
>

It wasn't on his death bed, but he was ill and knew he had a few months left. Hunt had long been thought to have been involved in some way in JFK's death, and had in fact lost a libel case he brought in the 1970s on this very point. The fact that, towards the end of his life, he admitted that there had been a CIA plot, and that he knew of it but did not take part in it, is, to say the least, instructive. But if you believe the Warren Report, you cannot believe anyone who says anything to the contrary. To the Warren Report believer, Hunt must just have been lying for some strange reason.

Flat_Eric wrote:


>
> Well quite clearly you didn't read it properly if that's all
> you managed to cherry-pick out. But no matter.
>
> And no doubt you also missed the bit where it explained how a
> total of 1407 photos were taken on the Apollo 11 mission.
>
> Now I consider myself a pretty poor photographer compared to
> some, but I'm quite confident that even I could manage to take
> at least a few half-decent shots out of 1400+ in pretty much
> any any environment. Especially if I'd been practicing with the
> set-up beforehand as these guys had been.
>
> It's not really such a wild stretch of the imagination Robches.
>
> - Eric

My point is that I have seen some of the Moon photos which contain anomalies. One photo shows the Lunar Buggy in front of the LEM, but the foil covering the Buggy on the LEM is still in place, implying the Buggy had not been unpacked yet. That would make sense if it was a practice photo.

As I said, I am sure the Moon landings were real, and I am equally sure they were using essentially unmodifed cameras and standard film. The idea that poor quality photos may have been bulked out by photos taken on Earth does not strike me as strange. The astronauts themselves did not even have to know this had been done.

Robches wrote:

> It wasn't on his death bed, but he was ill and knew he had a
> few months left.

Hair-splitting.


> Hunt had long been thought to have been
> involved in some way in JFK's death, and had in fact lost a
> libel case he brought in the 1970s on this very point. The fact
> that, towards the end of his life, he admitted that there had
> been a CIA plot, and that he knew of it but did not take part
> in it, is, to say the least, instructive.


You may be right, you may not be. But at the end of the day it's all just conjecture isn't it? "He said / she said" kind of stuff, and uncorroborated. We'll probably never know for sure either way on the JFK shooting.

- Eric

Robches wrote:

> The House Select Committee on Assassinations found that the JFK
> assassination was as a result of conspiracy, and CIA man (and
> Watergate conspirator) E Howard Hunt confessed on tape before
> his death that he knew of the plot but did not take part.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like all conspiracy theorists, Robches is rather economical with the truth.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations did not state as Robches claims that the JFK assassination was as a result of conspiracy. They said it was probably a conspiracy based on the acoustic evidence which if correct suggested to them that Oswald wasn't the only gunman.

Robches fails to mention that 4 of the 12 HSCA members dissented to the HSCA's conclusion of conspiracy based on the acoustic findings, and a fifth thought a further study of the acoustic evidence was necessary.

Robches fails to mention that scientific studies of the acoustic evidence since the HSCA's report have largely debunked that evidence. In fact the investigation conducted by the HSCA has been declared scientifically invalid.

The Justice Department reviewed the HSCA report and the study of the acoustic evidence and found it flawed. It reported to the Judiciary Committee in March 1988 and rebuked the HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy.

The HSCA stated that the acoustic evidence originated from the motorcycle of police officer H. B. McLain. However, McLain adamantly denied that the recording originated from him. Sirens are not heard on the tape until more than 2 minutes after what is supposed to be the sound of the shooting, but McLain accompanied the motorcade to Parkland Hospital immediately after the shooting with sirens blaring the entire time. McLain also said that the engine sound was clearly from a 3 wheeled motorcycle, not the 2 wheeler that he drove, and that the entire HSCA conspiracy theory was therefore based on a fallacy.

The FBI always disputed the HSCA's acoustic evidence findings and manged to prove that their methods of investigation were improper and invalid.

Robches links the House Select Committee on Assassinations report with the claims by "CIA man (and Watergate conspirator) E Howard Hunt", even linking them in the same sentence as though their claims were the same. This is fundamentally dishonest. In fact the HSCA stated that their findings were that the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Opposite in fact to what Hunt claimed, as he said it was the CIA who were responsible.

Hunt's claims are difficult to evaluate of course, as the conspirators and assassins he named were all dead long before and therefore weren't in a position to comment. Hunt unsurprisingly exonerated himself, saying that he knew about the plot but had declined to be involved.

Hunt said that nobody need look for evidence to support his claims as there was no evidence and that he had made his claims as "an article of faith".