Don't BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES ? Come HERE!!!

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by facelift
 


HEY there so glad you dropped by !

You want names ? Oh I got names don't worry but unlike YOU I give people the chance to explain themselves first .
[[[snip]]]


Ther's nothing to really explain, as I've already stated it many times- if the conspiracy theorists don't accept the widely accepted account, fine, but it becomes their obligation to provide an alternative scenario that better fits the facts...and that's ALL the facts, not just one or two cherry picked tidbits they've found that kinds sorta look the way they want them to look. Yes, the explanation may explain A, but if it can't explain B, C, D, or even E then it isn't a realistic explanation, regardless of how much you want to believe in it. Tryint to fit a square peg into a round hole doesn't work for conspiracy theories any more than it does anyone else.

Oh, and this seems to be a universal trait for all conspiracies- the more questions I seem to ask about these conspiracies, the likelihood becomes greater and greater that the explanation is going to eventually involve armies of sinister secret gov't agents working in hive minded unthinking zealotry to trick you. Biblle thumpers use the "magic" crutch to explain everything from how human beings spontaneously appeeared out of clods of dirt to why the Earth is really only 10,000 years old, and conspiracy theorists use the "secret gov't agents" crutch to explain everything from how explosives spontaneously appeared in a heavily occupied building in downtown Manhattan to how the moon landing was faked in front of the entire world's eyes. To them, this is an explanation. To me, this is making crap up off the tops of their heads out of desperation because they don't want to admit they're wrong.

I will say to the conspiracy people the same thing I say to the Bible thumpers,- you can come up with any explanation they want, but at the end of the day, the burden of proof is on them, not me or anyone else.
edit on 1-3-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)
edit on Tue Mar 1 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: member name removed




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


but I don't think he wants to see people suffer and die any more than the rest of us.

I disagree friend because his and other elites agenda is depopulation and eugenics the trademark of the nazis

I dont want the elite to die as you put it , I'd bring back stocks put them in there and sponsor underprivilged kids to throw rotten kiwis at them .

Yes I have ideas to make the world fairer but to be honest this thread is not for that reason .
I made it so the people that attack and ridicule us for spealking out can share their perspective .

I have layed my heart bare but they have not .


There will be a day when we take back power peacefully and we will ensure the safety of the Whole human race .

Peace to you .



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here .
In your opinion there have never been any false flags or conspiracies involving the US or even UK government ?
I know your opinions on 911 but I'd prefer to ignore that issue for now.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
I disagree friend because his and other elites agenda is depopulation and eugenics the trademark of the nazis

Yeah, I've heard that, but never understood it. If the elites are all about power, money, and control, why would they want to kill off those from whom they get money, have power over, and control?

I dont want the elite to die as you put it , I'd bring back stocks put them in there and sponsor underprivilged kids to throw rotten kiwis at them .

I think those kids would rather have fresh kiwis to eat, but I have to say I've always kinda liked the idea of stocks.

Yes I have ideas to make the world fairer but to be honest this thread is not for that reason .
I made it so the people that attack and ridicule us for spealking out can share their perspective .

Fair enough. Since you asked me the same question I assumed it was ok to ask you.
It's not up to me to define your thread, however.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by Doomzilla
I disagree friend because his and other elites agenda is depopulation and eugenics the trademark of the nazis

Yeah, I've heard that, but never understood it. If the elites are all about power, money, and control, why would they want to kill off those from whom they get money, have power over, and control?

Because they are very near to total dominance of the worlds resources. They will then crash the monetary system. They have control of REAL assests not worthless paper remember . Once this is done comes the culling .
The culling has already happened but not of us we are the last to go through this process.
Right now the target is 3rd world and Middle East .


I dont want the elite to die as you put it , I'd bring back stocks put them in there and sponsor underprivilged kids to throw rotten kiwis at them .

I think those kids would rather have fresh kiwis to eat, but I have to say I've always kinda liked the idea of stocks.

Im my world essentials are free , your hungry ? take an apple from the tree . No greed just equality and love .


Yes I have ideas to make the world fairer but to be honest this thread is not for that reason .
I made it so the people that attack and ridicule us for spealking out can share their perspective .

Fair enough. Since you asked me the same question I assumed it was ok to ask you.
It's not up to me to define your thread, however.


You can ask me what you want my friend , We need to get rid of unethical practises , we need to judge people on the goodness of their heart not salary sexuality race or religion .
We need to turn the pyramid system upside down .
WE the people the majority have the power , without us they are no longer elite, just normal people .
We need to make sure every child has food clothing and shelter
The world belongs to all and imo the meaning of life is as follows .
To enusure the survival of the human race and planet earth .
The elite do not think like this and this is why the earth is in such peril .

Peace
Postive Energy And Concscious Exsistence .

edit on 2-3-2011 by Doomzilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
Because they are very near to total dominance of the worlds resources. They will then crash the monetary system. They have control of REAL assests not wortless paper remember . Once this is done comes the culling .
The culling has already happened but not of us we are the last to go through this process.
Right now the target is 3rd world and Middle East .

I can see where that viewpoint might come from, but that still doesn't explain why they would want to kill the people who harvest their assets, or give them someone to control and weild their power over.

Im my world essentials are free , your hungry ? take an apple from the tree . No greed just equality and love .

That's a wonderful thought, and I'd love to live in such a world. Unfortunately, if history shows us anything it's that people either can not or will not live this way. For every peace loving person to tend an apple tree so others may eat freely, there's anothr who feels he has to take the tree for his own and use force to keep everyone else away. When the tree finally dies due to lack of care, they move on and take the next tree. I don't like it, but that's the reality of the situation.

You can ask me what you want my friend , We need to get rid of unethical practises , we need to judge people on the goodness of their heart not salary sexuality race or religion .

I'm down with that. But once again, when half the people in the world judge people by "I can take him, so he better do what I say" it's not going to happen. Unless, of course, someone "culls" all those people. I'm sure you see the problem there.

WE the people the majority have the power , without us they are no longer elite, just normal people

This goes back to my earlier point. Why would they want to kill the very thing that makes them "elite"?

The world belongs to all and imo the meaning of life is as follows .
To enusure the survival of the human race and planet earth .

I can go along with that.

The elite do not think like this and this is why the earth is in such peril .

I would imagine that they would argue that they are indeed working to preserve the race and the planet, at least from what I've read about their agenda. Every time I see a quote from the elite about eugenics and such, they seem to claim it's necessary so as to not overbuden the planet, thus destroying it. Different paths to the same end, although I'd prefer that we not have to kill lots of people to get there.

Maybe, just maybe, we will some day socially evolve enough to live in the world you envision, but I seriously doubt it will be in our lifetimes. However, I commend you for wanting to work towards such a world. I hope you get there some day, and if you do, I'll gladly help tend the apple trees.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here .
In your opinion there have never been any false flags or conspiracies involving the US or even UK government ?
I know your opinions on 911 but I'd prefer to ignore that issue for now.


Nice post, I enjoyed the bantering between you and GoodOlDave, but, I'm very curious, why did GoodOlDave bail as soon as he got asked the tough question????

From appearances it would seem that whenever a "Debunker" gets asked a tough question they flee, and then a replacement steps in???? Of course this is just my opinion, but, it does appear to be a pattern.................

S&F



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


You are right brother , for all our good intentions their will be those who want to destroy our way of living .However the same can be said of the present .
It make take years of sacrifice but I truly believe freedom is in our grasp .
More and more people are rising up . They may not be truthers such as myself but never the less they know that we are being royally shafted .
We just have to channel our anger into a peaceful movement . Because if we fight fire with fire we will get burnt not the elite .
Regarding depopulation they want to "dispose" of 80 to 90 % of the worlds population . Just because they dont use the same methods as Hitler (yet) doesn't mean they are not wanting the same results .
Depopulation = slow burning genocide .



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here .
In your opinion there have never been any false flags or conspiracies involving the US or even UK government ?
I know your opinions on 911 but I'd prefer to ignore that issue for now.


Of course there were. Iran Contra, Watergate, Bay of Pigs, the sleight of hand the US (and arguably our allies) did in getting a certain Japanese emperor who was up to his eyeballs in war crimes complicity to appear like he was a powerless figurehead in order to get his Japanese minions to swallow US occupation, and so on. I suppose even the Northwoods document *could* be construed as a conspiracy attempt, even though it never got off the drawing board. This is how I can tell the real conspiracies frome the make believe lunacy a bunch of paranoid crackpots are pulling out of their butt- there's a clearly defined end goal to them all. Iran-Contra was an end-around to arm the contras while getting Iran to help us get our hostages freed. Watergate was to steal intelligence to use against Nixon's political enemies. Northwoods was to frame Cuba in order to invade and remove Castro, and so on. The conspiracy was designed as a means to an end.

These 9/11 conspiracies on the other hand are the most convoluted, Rube Goldberg-esque scenarios that I've ever heard of- someone supposedly faked four hijackings to cover up secretly hidden controlled demolitions planted in two *occupied* buildings, with a cruise missile that may or may not have hit the Pentagon, with a crash site in the middle of nowhere which may or may not have been staged, all to frame some worthless toilet of a country that even the Soviet Union didn't think was worth fighting over. Of course, this involves 100,000 other conspiracies, secret plots, and coverups for the grand conspiracy to succeed, from NORAD being crippled to the 9/11 commission, NIST, and FEMA being infiltrated by secret agents, to the FBI confiscating compromising video footage, to the 10,000 disinformation agents manufacturing fake evidence and providing fake eyewitness accounts. It's as if the conspiracy planners were two or three stoned high school kids who got together and held a contest to see who could come up with the most stupid sounding thing they could.

Does that answer your question? It's one thing for the CIA to secretly mine the harbors of Nicaragua to weaken the Ortega gov't. It's another thing entirely to stage a false flag attack to invade Iraq...by framing Afghanistan.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Skate
 


No doubt! Fly by and I got the all the Sweets we need! Stay high!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParkerCramer
Nice post, I enjoyed the bantering between you and GoodOlDave, but, I'm very curious, why did GoodOlDave bail as soon as he got asked the tough question????


Ummm, because I do have a life outside of ATS?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yes all those cases were conspiracies but you missed out the most scandalous one MK ultra .
Our governments sunk to the lowest depths and perpetuated severe crimes against humanity .
A leopard cannot change its spots it is said , maybe they are still performing attrocities but it is more hidden ?

You also missed out RFK - it was proven in 2008 that Sirhan Sirhan did not fire the fatal bullets .

JFK - E Howard Hunt confessed to being part of the big event , he was in the tramp photo - Oh yeah he was involved in watergate and argueably the attempted assassinations on Castro .

I put it to you that the elite are behind every major event .

I put it to you that there is NO chance that the worlds superpower, the country that spends billions and billions on "defense " "security " and on spying/surveillance would let 9/11 happen.
The elite planned and allowed it to happen because They are the only ones who benefited from it .

The elite have no allegiances to you or any country only themselves .

The only people you can trust are family and friends .



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yes all those cases were conspiracies but you missed out the most scandalous one MK ultra .
Our governments sunk to the lowest depths and perpetuated severe crimes against humanity .
A leopard cannot change its spots it is said , maybe they are still performing attrocities but it is more hidden ?


I've no doubt that I've missed a few. I've likewise no doubt that you've missed a few. When someone in an office of authority allows power to go to his head he becomes arrogant. This has been true throughout all of recorded human history and it is horribly naive to presume American leaders are somehow immune solely because they are American.

My point is that it's likewise horribly naive to automatically presume ALL leaders allow power to go to their head, or that this human characteristic is exclusive only to American leadership. Many people in office genuinely do want to help others, and there genuinely are arrogant douchebags out there in the rest of the world. Do you agree or disagree?


You also missed out RFK - it was proven in 2008 that Sirhan Sirhan did not fire the fatal bullets .


If that were conclusively proven true it would be common knowlegde outside your exclusive conspiracy cliques. I myself am going by an interview he made with a representative of an Arab-American league where he admitted he did it becuase he was drunk and angry at Israel. I suspect that when you say, "it was proven" what you're really saying that there's an alternative explanation that you yourself prefer to be true.


JFK - E Howard Hunt confessed to being part of the big event , he was in the tramp photo - Oh yeah he was involved in watergate and argueably the attempted assassinations on Castro .


I am open to the possibility there were additional people involved in the JFK conspiracy that were never caught. My contention is with the quasi-religious zeal for conspiracy theorists to be apologists for Lee Harvey Oswald when all the facts show that he himself was involved up to his eyeballs in the assassination, regardless of whether or not there were additional conspirators involved.


I put it to you that the elite are behind every major event .

I put it to you that there is NO chance that the worlds superpower, the country that spends billions and billions on "defense " "security " and on spying/surveillance would let 9/11 happen.
The elite planned and allowed it to happen because They are the only ones who benefited from it .


I would put it to you that you are allowing your own personal abject paranoia to impact your view of how the world really operates. The gov't isn't any disembodied brain sitting in a vat of fluid, nor is it any supercomputer in an underground facility somewhere, so there is no leopard to "change it's spots" to begin with. The gov't is a committee based upon many, many, MANY people, some being greedy and heartless, some being of good heart, some being dead wood who contribute the barest minimum required, and some being completely incompetent idiots, and any gov't plan is only as successful as the least productive member involved in the plan allows it to be. That's why we can send a man to the moon but can't hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels. These "billion dollar defense systems" are therefore only as good as the high school dropout pushing the buttons on the terminal. In the case of 9/11, the 9/11 commission report already covered the multitude of compounded errors that were made that allowed the attack to succeed...and if you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, it's your obligation to already know what they are before you make any comment on them...so I won't repeat them here.

Plus, I don't need to point out that there's a whole world outside of the United States. Yes, there are other countries, cultures, and viewpoints out there, and yes, they can and do have their own personal agendas saparate and distict from what the US is doing. It seems horribly myopic to me for someone to automagically assume the 9/11 attack was some sinister secret internal plot somehow when it's been demonstrated that Islamic fundamentalists are so outer space religious zealots that they'll even riot over cartoons of Mohammed in Danish Newspapers, or issue a death fatwa on someone simply for writing a book, or stone raped women to death because they didn't have enough male witnesses to vouch that it wasn't adultery. Plus, they already have a preestablished patter of behavior in performing hijackings, suicide attacks against innocent civilians, and promoting terrorism.

It seems to me John Wayne Gacy has bodies buried in his basement, and you're insisting he's innocent and it's all some secret plot staged by The Three Stooges. Pull my other leg, why don't you.
edit on 3-3-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


FYI The Guardian is NOT a "conspiracy site " .

Also, there are two pairs of double shots that occurred so close together it is inconceivable that Sirhan could have fired them all. The third and fourth shots and the seventh and eighth were separated by 122 and 149 milliseconds respectively. In tests, a trained firearms expert firing under ideal conditions could only manage 366 milliseconds between shots using the same weapon. And he was not being pinned to a table at the time.

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


FYI The Guardian is NOT a "conspiracy site " .

Also, there are two pairs of double shots that occurred so close together it is inconceivable that Sirhan could have fired them all. The third and fourth shots and the seventh and eighth were separated by 122 and 149 milliseconds respectively. In tests, a trained firearms expert firing under ideal conditions could only manage 366 milliseconds between shots using the same weapon. And he was not being pinned to a table at the time.


You are changing your story now. Originally you said it was proven that "Sirhan Sirhan didn't fire the fatal bullet" and now you're saying Sirhan Sirhan couldn't have fired ALL the bullets. In case you haven't noticed, there's no such thing as a bullet that's beneficial to the victim's health. if Sirhan Sirhan fired even *one* bullet then he's equally guilty of murder regardless of whether he was alone or part of a team.

This is what I object to about the conspiracy theorist movement. Everything they touch, they grossly embellish it in some way, shape of form to the point where it becomes a complete misrepresentation. You've spent all this time aguing over Sirhan Sirhan when at the end of the day, you STILL haven't shown why anything I said was incorrect- Sirhan Sirhan really did shoot RFK. All you're saying is that there might have been others who shot him too...and if there was, it's entirely in your own mind that the second gunman was sent by the gov't, rather than his brother, one of his Muslim buddies who was also drunk and angry, or whatever. Moreover, you have provided no reason why I should accept the Guardian's account over Sirhan Sirhan's own admission that he did it because he was drunk and angry, and gave no indication there were others involved. The person who interviewed him was with some Arab American society and had have zero reason to misrepresent him.

Remember what I said about the conspiracy people cherry picking how their scenarios explains A, while completely ignoring how it doesn't explain B, C, D, or E? You are not proving me incorrect on that either. Propaganda is still propaganda regardless of who it's coming from, don't you agree?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




This is what I object to about the conspiracy theorist movement. Everything they touch, they grossly embellish it in some way, shape of form to the point where it becomes a complete misrepresentation.

Movement? I wouldn't classify it as a movement at all unless your are going the "truther route." Conspiracy theorists = THEORY: meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.
What misrepresentation do you speak of and in what terms? Seriously? What info are you going to use to counter a theory suggested - MSM? Government? Alternative Press? Eyewitness accounts?
Your logic is flawed in many various aspects just with stating that you object to the conspiracy theorist "movement" because of how it misrepresents issues... but yet, they are just Theories.



Remember what I said about the conspiracy people cherry picking how their scenarios explains A, while completely ignoring how it doesn't explain B, C, D, or E? You are not proving me incorrect on that either. Propaganda is still propaganda regardless of who it's coming from, don't you agree?


Which completely negates the logic of your post. So, you come to a conspiracy web site to push an agenda that conspiracies are flawed because they don't add up because they are... theories?
How many variables need to be added to said conspiracy? What if there was only one variable? Or even two?
I don't think people are talking about scenarios at all.

A variable is: a logical set of attributes.
Scenarios do not have to be logical because they "paint a scene."
Scenario: is a synthetic description of an event or series of actions and events.

I think why many people come up with conspiracy theories is because of the use of variables, not scenarios. Perhaps your perception of the "movement" of conspiracy theorists is a bit .... wrong/flawed and illogical?
edit on 3/4/2011 by kroms33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I tried to talk you man to man but you have resorted to what you always do .
You claim to believe in conspiracies but ASSUME they no longer occur .
This is fair enough and your right to say this .
However I prefer to be less trusting of the government .

I wish you good luck in all you do .

Peace



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kroms33
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Movement? I wouldn't classify it as a movement at all unless your are going the "truther route." Conspiracy theorists = THEORY: meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.


I sincerely hope you can remind some of your fellow conspiracy theorists here of that, as they seem to have forgotten this. All to often I'm seeing that their agenda is NOT to learn any of the fact behind the events of 9/11, but to zealously promote some conspiracy theory or another regardless of what the facts are. Case in point- it would seem to me that the first step for ANY person to learn about 9/11 is to start by reading the 9/11 Commission report. If you accept that it was a legitimate terrorist attack it gives details on how the attack was organized and the gov'ts response during the attack, and if you don't accept that it was a legitimate terrorist attack then you need to know what the lies are in the report before you can even accuse them of being lies, particularly if you can demonstratively show they are lies. I think I've met perhaps only TWO conspiracy theorists who claim to have read it. The remainer openly state they refuse to read it becuase "it's a pack of lies". The only reason how someone can declare something is a pack of lies without knowing what the lies even are is if they want it to be a pack of lies.

Tell me, did you read it?


What misrepresentation do you speak of and in what terms? Seriously? What info are you going to use to counter a theory suggested - MSM? Government? Alternative Press? Eyewitness accounts?
Your logic is flawed in many various aspects just with stating that you object to the conspiracy theorist "movement" because of how it misrepresents issues... but yet, they are just Theories.


Glad you asked! It's less the case that I have resistance to the idea there's some conspiracy going on and more the case the conspiracy theorists are relying on outright falsified information and therefore have little credibility. Some examples are-

-"All the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn before the attack", which is a distorted way of saying the NYPD bomb dogs were temporarily assigned to the WTC to augment the NYPA's own bomb dogs after a phony bomb scare. The NYPD's dogs were withdrawn but the NYPA's dogs were always there. One of them, named, "Sirius", was killed in the collapse

-"Cheney's stand down order", which is a distorted way of saying there was a shoot down order and Mineta heard someone ask Cheney whether the order still stands. Mineta said in the very next sentence that he later found out it was a shoot down order they were referring to.

-"Silverstein's, "Pull it"" which is a distorted way of saying the fire department pulled the firefighters out of WTC 7 becuase the fires were out of control and there was enough loss of life as it was. "Pull it" is demolition lingo for demolishing a building BY PULLING IT DOWN WITH CABLES, like the way WTC 5 was demolished.

There are other examples, but you get the idea. The conspiracy theorists always always always leave out some critical detail that, if they actually revealed it, would show the exact opposite of what they're attempting to prove. There's no way such misdirection like this can be accidental.



Which completely negates the logic of your post. So, you come to a conspiracy web site to push an agenda that conspiracies are flawed because they don't add up because they are... theories?
How many variables need to be added to said conspiracy? What if there was only one variable? Or even two?
I don't think people are talking about scenarios at all.


ATS is not a conspiracy web site, per se. It's more like a conspiracy discussion forum where many different conspiracy theories are discussed and anyone on either side of the issue can come and have their say. True conspiracy web sites (I.E. Loose Change) have an in-house conspiracy they're peddling at the expense of open discussion up to and including outright censorship. I know this because I was banned from their site after about two weeks, and their YOU ARE BANNED message to me they *specifically* said it was because I was posting material they didn't want to be posted there. Another person posting "no planes" conspiracy theories was banned after only one week.

Tell me now, in all honesty, is THIS consistant with ATS' mission statement to, "Deny ignorance"?



I think why many people come up with conspiracy theories is because of the use of variables, not scenarios. Perhaps your perception of the "movement" of conspiracy theorists is a bit .... wrong/flawed and illogical?


I cannot address this one way of the other since I'm not certain in what context you mean by, "use of variables". To me, to develop an explanation, one needs to listed to the evidence and then draw up an explanation which best fits the evidence. The conspiracy theorists on the other hand draw up an explanation first and then cherry picks the evicence that supports the explanation and intentionally ignores the evidence that refutes it. Case in point- the OP's asserion Sirhan Sirhan's assassination was a gov't conspiracy. He suggests there were multiple shooters other that just Sirhan Sirhan but he surmises the second shooter was a gov't agent. All right, let's assume there was a second shooter. How do we know it wasn't Sirhan Sirhan's brother? How do we know it wasn't yet another drunk and angry muslim? How do we know it wasn't some street thug hired by Sirhan Sirhan to assist him? There is zero evidence showing who that secondary shooter could have been but the OP assumes all on his own the second shooter was connected to the gov't because the explanation conforms to his own antiestablishment outlook on life, which he himself admits he has.

Change, "Sirhan Sirhan" to, well, pretty much any other conspiracy, and the situation is exactly the same. How any variables would come into play here, I cannot say. Please explain.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I tried to talk you man to man but you have resorted to what you always do .
You claim to believe in conspiracies but ASSUME they no longer occur .


On the contrary, it is you who are doing what conspiracy people always do- you just come up with whatever explanation that suits your purpose regardless of what other people are actually saying. I am going by what YOU are posting, and in one post you said, "Sirhan Sirhan couldn't have fired the fatal shot" and in the next post you say "there had to have been additional shooter". These are your words, not mine. The fact that there may have been additional shooters doesn't negate the fact that Sirhan Sirhan himself did in fact take potshots at RFK. I'm trying to ask you to explain yourself like an adult and now you're bailing.

Nowhere have I ever said conspiracies no longer occur. That's also entirely your own invention.


This is fair enough and your right to say this .
However I prefer to be less trusting of the government .


Nowhere have I ever said I was trusting of the gov't either. That's entirely your own invention as well.


I wish you good luck in all you do . Peace


I do thank you, but in all honesty I'm not the one here who needs it. It's almost as if you sincerely believe, "mistrusting the gov't" and, "believing the 9/11 attack was the work of terrorists" are polar opposites and cancel each other out somehow. They do not.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


No Dave , I gave no opinion on the RFK issue . I merely offered that in 2008 tests were done and they reached those two conclusions .
Unfortunately it has taken over 60 years to realise the official story has holes in it .

Remember I said forget 9/11 for now ?
Well you haven't , so let me reign you in there .

Can you justify what your government and Canadas government did to its Own Inocent people during (CONFIRMED CONSPIRACY ) MK ULTRA ?
I'd like to see your rationale for that please .





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join