History's greatest conspiracy theories

[matedog]

An observation: This is a UK article yet the vast majority of theories are regarding the US.

[JennyB]

28 - AIDs

AIDS was created by God to punish homosexuals.

*EDIT*
almost forgot...

Professor Griff said the jews were experimenting on the Africans with AIDS.

I know that's how I spent the 80's.

[Dr. Medulla]

A few observations.
24. Fluoridation - my hometown didn't flouridate. My teeth, unlike my siblings', who grew up in a different town (we moved when I was three and all but my next oldest sister had moved out), are constantly giving me problems. I brush, floss, use mouthwash like a mofo, but I always have problems. Hmmm …
21. Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen - plausible. Pearl Harbor was a likely attack spot—apparently attacking PH was a standard question in Japanese military schools in the 30s—but whether FDR knew the exact day, well, I'm more skeptical.
16. The Moscow apartment bombings - sure, why not. Plausible, anyway.
13. The disappearance of Shergar - Huh? Who fucking cares?
10. MK-ULTRA - the CIA was trying all kinds of fucked up stuff but their success I'm less convinced. I do, however, think that there was something not on the up-and-up about the RFK investigation.
9. Operation Northwoods - no shock there.
6. The Jesus conspiracy - more likely that he never existed, but if so, it's more plausible that he and Mary started a family than he became a zombie god.
4. Nasa faked the moon landings - the moon landings happened, but some of the photos may have been faked for publicity reasons. If the shots on the moon didn't look good enough, perhaps NASA set up some replacement.
2. The assassination of John F Kennedy - duh. I kinda want to read Bugliosi's massive conspiracy refutation because he's a meticulous guy, but 1600 pp is a bit much, plus I'm doubtful he can come close to pulling it off.
1. September 11, 2001 - like Pearl Harbor, I can buy deliberate neglect, but I'm less persuaded by the more activist role conspiracies.

[dpwolf]

deliberate neglect

get thee to law school !

[Dr. Medulla]

deliberate neglect

get thee to law school !

Had been accepted to Univ of Saskatchewan College of Law after I finished my history MA. About a month before classes were to start, I realized I had no faith in the Canadian legal system, and working to become its proponent and/or defender seemed perverse. I was also in the earliest stages of a depression that led to a near complete nervous breakdown, tho, which likely influenced my thinking at the time.

[dpwolf]

deliberate neglect

get thee to law school !

Had been accepted to Univ of Saskatchewan College of Law after I finished my history MA. About a month before classes were to start, I realized I had no faith in the Canadian legal system, and working to become its proponent and/or defender seemed perverse. I was also in the earliest stages of a depression that led to a near complete nervous breakdown, tho, which likely influenced my thinking at the time.

No faith in the legal system and subject to depression which can possibly influence one's thinking or lead to a complete breakdown ... hmm ... if only you were an alcoholic too; you would've made a great lawyer

[dpwolf]

A few observations.

21. Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen - plausible. Pearl Harbor was a likely attack spot—apparently attacking PH was a standard question in Japanese military schools in the 30s—but whether FDR knew the exact day, well, I'm more skeptical.

10. MK-ULTRA - the CIA was trying all kinds of fucked up stuff but their success I'm less convinced. I do, however, think that there was something not on the up-and-up about the RFK investigation.

4. Nasa faked the moon landings - the moon landings happened, but some of the photos may have been faked for publicity reasons. If the shots on the moon didn't look good enough, perhaps NASA set up some replacement.

2. The assassination of John F Kennedy - duh. I kinda want to read Bugliosi's massive conspiracy refutation because he's a meticulous guy, but 1600 pp is a bit much, plus I'm doubtful he can come close to pulling it off.

1. September 11, 2001 - like Pearl Harbor, I can buy deliberate neglect, but I'm less persuaded by the more activist role conspiracies.

Seems your lack of belief is not found so much in the conspiracy itself but rather their ability - whether ethical and/or practical - to actually pull it off, but is that from weighing the evidence or are you slanting in favor of innocent until proven guilty? If the later, I understand the need for such an approach when it comes to an individual charged with a crime but give government much less deference, particularly when its obvious they are hiding something/lying. In other words, when it comes to the government and when explanation is lacking or intentionally hidden, I think we have the right and duty to assume the worst and put the burden back on the government to explain itself. Perhaps there was a need to hide things from the public for security and/or so people don't panic, a half a century ago, I don't know, but seeing how the government and media love to coordinate effort and make us all panic anyhow, for whatever reason, and with the digital information age it seems there would be no place for that anymore, if there ever was.

[eumaas]

Thing is, I feel that even if one buys the standard 9/11 line, Bush admin's actions are still criminal and worthy of condemnation--no need to embrace a fringe theory to indict the immoral actions of the state.

[dpwolf]

Thing is, I feel that even if one buys the standard 9/11 line, Bush admin's actions are still criminal and worthy of condemnation--no need to embrace a fringe theory to indict the immoral actions of the state.

If I may inquire, to what actions of Bush do you refer?

[eumaas]

Thing is, I feel that even if one buys the standard 9/11 line, Bush admin's actions are still criminal and worthy of condemnation--no need to embrace a fringe theory to indict the immoral actions of the state.

If I may inquire, to what actions of Bush do you refer?

Jesus, it's like a grocery list. Patriot Act is one of the most egregious. Of course, that was more than Bush and the Republicans, it was also all those fork-tongued Democrats who lined up behind the Glorious Leader.

[dpwolf]

Thing is, I feel that even if one buys the standard 9/11 line, Bush admin's actions are still criminal and worthy of condemnation--no need to embrace a fringe theory to indict the immoral actions of the state.

If I may inquire, to what actions of Bush do you refer?

Jesus, it's like a grocery list. Patriot Act is one of the most egregious. Of course, that was more than Bush and the Republicans, it was also all those fork-tongued Democrats who lined up behind the Glorious Leader.

Well, the question is of course did they merely take opportunities afforded by 9-11 or did they intentionally not prevent it and/or actively contribute in some way. I don't need to embrace the later fringe theory but would like to know and it would no doubt help as to any sort of condemnation/indictment. That's what I was trying to say about the Lucy, Pearl Harbor, Cuba and 9-11. With the knowledge that they actually think about such atrocities, at what point do you call their bluff?

PS - As for those fork-tongued Demos, blame fluoride.

[Dr. Medulla]

A few observations.

21. Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen - plausible. Pearl Harbor was a likely attack spot—apparently attacking PH was a standard question in Japanese military schools in the 30s—but whether FDR knew the exact day, well, I'm more skeptical.

10. MK-ULTRA - the CIA was trying all kinds of fucked up stuff but their success I'm less convinced. I do, however, think that there was something not on the up-and-up about the RFK investigation.

4. Nasa faked the moon landings - the moon landings happened, but some of the photos may have been faked for publicity reasons. If the shots on the moon didn't look good enough, perhaps NASA set up some replacement.

2. The assassination of John F Kennedy - duh. I kinda want to read Bugliosi's massive conspiracy refutation because he's a meticulous guy, but 1600 pp is a bit much, plus I'm doubtful he can come close to pulling it off.

1. September 11, 2001 - like Pearl Harbor, I can buy deliberate neglect, but I'm less persuaded by the more activist role conspiracies.

Seems your lack of belief is not found so much in the conspiracy itself but rather their ability - whether ethical and/or practical - to actually pull it off, but is that from weighing the evidence or are you slanting in favor of innocent until proven guilty? If the later, I understand the need for such an approach when it comes to an individual charged with a crime but give government much less deference, particularly when its obvious they are hiding something/lying. In other words, when it comes to the government and when explanation is lacking or intentionally hidden, I think we have the right and duty to assume the worst and put the burden back on the government to explain itself. Perhaps there was a need to hide things from the public for security and/or so people don't panic, a half a century ago, I don't know, but seeing how the government and media love to coordinate effort and make us all panic anyhow, for whatever reason, and with the digital information age it seems there would be no place for that anymore, if there ever was.

(First, make no mistake, I believe that what happened in Dallas was a conspiracy. I also don't think that LHO was one of the shooters. I lean towards the belief that he was an intelligence agent sent to infiltrate those crazy anti-Communists but was set up. Now, who was actually running the conspiracy, I don't know. But when LHO said that he was a patsy, I believe him completely.)

I'd like to think that my perspective is to go with Occam's chainsaw, namely, to see if there's a way of explaining the same events with fewer elements, especially activist elements. How did the apple come to be on the ground at the foot of the tree. Maybe someone came along and knocked it off. Maybe a squirrel. Or maybe a wind caused a ripe fruit to fall. It's quite possible that there was human or animal involvement, but without firm evidence, I go with the simpler explanation. Likewise, even tho there is plenty of past govt malfeasance, I just don't see much value to add that complicating element to explanation until there is either sufficient evidence in that direction and the scenario doesn't make much explanation without it. That applies to Dallas, but not to the others. I accept that it's very possible, but then it's also possible to blame a Jewish conspiracy, Free Masons, or Draconis. Even if, for example, FDR could have betrayed American servicemen in Hawaii and had reason to do so, that's not sufficient for me. But I'm willing to go part way and suggest that FDR knew the US would soon be at war and wasn't inclined to stave it off. That, however, is more neglect of his duty that actually setting things up.

[eumaas]

Hell, I'd say FDR was eager for war.

[Dr. Medulla]

Hell, I'd say FDR was eager for war.

Nicholson Baker certainly makes that point.

[eumaas]

Hell, I'd say FDR was eager for war.

Nicholson Baker certainly makes that point.

and Rexroth:
http://www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/autobio/6.htm