Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I believe that Diana was murdered.
What's YOUR shameful conspiracy sympathising?
at the top of the Gherkin in London
the Gherkin is pretty 2.0
EXACTLY ONE YEAR AND ONE WEEK AGO
Any weird vibes?
it was a bit tatty and i ate some mcdonalds and drank a pint of Fat Tire beer
This Websense category is filtered: Tasteless.
If any of them had a rational explanation they wouldn't be conspiracy theories
MPBH being DoC
see also Lockerbie - what the fuck happened there?
there's a Sweden-centric conspiracy theory around that too
I remember a discussion in the office around the time Megrahi's release was being mooted where I realised I was the only person who believed he'd been fitted up. I had thought the holes in the case were common knowledge.
and there's loads of weird details
but basically the Swedish diplomat and politician Bernt Carlsson was at the time Assistant-Secretary-General of the United Nations and United Nations Commissioner for Namibia (at the time still called South-West Africa and under direct control of apartheid South Africa)
He was on the Lockerbie flight and was on his way to the UN in New York to sign the papers that would hand over transition of Namibian independence to his office so that they could enter into a peace plan (there was a 'civil war' going on at the time between Namibian and South African interests) and form a Namibian constitution
The weirdness begins when you consider that he was never supposed to be on the Lockerbie flight - he was instead supposed to be on an earlier flight but received an urgent call in London to visit the offices of DeBeers (the diamond merchants) who had extensive interests in Namibia and were part of the wider consultation regarding Namibia's economic future and natural resources
So, Carlsson put his luggage in a lock-up at Heathrow and got a cab to DeBeers.
Meanwhile, the South Afican delegation travelling to London on their own private charter flight who WERE supposed to be arriving to get on the Lockerbie plane to NY changed their flight plans while in the air and made an unscheduled stop at Frankfurt, catching a connecting flight to NY from there
Back in London Carlsson was sitting waiting for his meeting and the contact at DeBeers - after 3 hours - never showed up and he missed his connecting flight.
So, crucially, a DeBeers secretary arranged for him to fly on the Lockerbie plane to New York. Put him in a cab back to Heathrow and he picked up his luggage and got on the plane.
A short time later BOOM
Interestingly, the luggage that contained the bomb on the Lockerbie flight was a suitcase directly on top of Carlsson's two suitcases in the luggage hold
When his wife and children were given the remains of his belongings to identify after the accident they testified that, although they recognised the luggage the contents - remains of clothing and personal items - were not Carlsson's or at the very least were not recognised by them.
Meanwhile the South African delegation arrived at the talks in NY and in Carlsson's absence basically negotiated South Africa's overseeing (read - controlling) of the constitution and peace plan for Namibia (which incidentally Thatcher actually forcibly got involved in during a 1989 visit to SA).
Now, if you add to this the fact that Bernt Carlsson had since 1970 been Special Adviser and close personal friend to Olof Palme then you get even deeper;
Palme was Prime Minister of Sweden when he was assasinated on the streets of Stockholm just 2 years before Lockerbie by an unknown assailant. One of Palme's most noted political actions during the previous year or so was in giving the ANC public offices in Stockholm to use to form a South African Government-in-exile while pushing for their recognition at the UN.
that's the gist of it
And I mean, how many people even know that the Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations was killed in Lockerbie?
"how many people even know that the Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations was killed in Lockerbie?" –– not me, that's for sure. I'd heard of Olof Palme but Carlsson is a new one on me.
there is a real triangulation between UK, South Africa and Israel too and much of it involves or hints at Israel's secret nuclear programme - there's a LOT of people who think British intelligence was involved in either Palme's murder or the cover up in the aftermath
and Thatcher HATED Palme, didn't even send any official representative to his funeral
The same Thatcher that apparently lefties were being churlish about by not attending her funeral? Riiiiiight.
so it doesn't really stand up as a comparison
I'm simply saying it's interesting how much shit people were given for being dogmatic in their hatred of her, given it's clearly a trait she both followed and probably would have completely accepted. I didn't mean the the two instances were analogous, sorry.
Well, as above, it wasn't a comparison of them as individuals, it was a reflection on right wingers being snivelling shits.
there are enough high profile names in there to kind of dismiss the South African link - it's no more suspicious than the fact that quite a number of senior CIA officials were on the plane too:
It's also worth noting that it's not 'THE' Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, but 'A' Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations.
There are dozens, hundreds of them at any one time, working under the fifty or so programme directors (Under Secretary Generals): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant-Secretary-General_of_the_United_Nations
who were supposed to be on that flight switched to an earlier flight
whereas Carlsson, who was supposed to be on that earlier flight ended up on the fatal flight after a goose chase call from DeBeers
also, I don't remember where I read it but I did read somewhere that the CIA were tracking some members of the South African delegation who were rumoured to be involved in the procurement of uranium for Israel's secret nuclear programme
but anyway, we'll never bloody know - seems stronger motives if true however than straight terrorism and hatred of the west
they'd be plenty of last minute bookings/cancellations.
I'm not suggesting that politicians make last minute bookings and that diplomats are notorious cancellers. Apols for any confusion/offence caused.
if you wanted to kill a specific individual almost literally any other time except when they're in an airplane would be easier and simpler. and the more complex the plot gets, more chances there are you may have to involve someone who then fucks up, or freaks out about not only killing the target but 200+ other people as well
and make it look like the other guy did it ?
But I did read it all and it's well interesting.
I thought that was some normal flight but it looks crammed full of officials.
I'm convinced now.
Why would the Royal Family want her dead? Seriously?
and being a hero.
Oh hang on.
I still pay for the tiger killing cunts house.
You cannot under any circumstances have the royal family tree intertwined with Mulsim blood.
she married into the Royal family and then divorced. Surely any Princess title she kept was just token and it wouldn't have been passed to any children.
Diana was collateral damage
The most well known woman on the planet. She was fraternising with a Muslim and it looked like they might get together. She was openly humiliating the institution of the British crown and had to go.
She was divorced and had given us an heir thus no longer needed. Top the troublesome bitch.
needn't have been the Royals who murdered her
interesting that Sophia pegged old Liz(ard) as the culprit without any prompting
The Queen would have to be actually evil to kill the mother of her grandchildren.
I can believe Charles did. But to be honest, they're all completely dotty, inbred, out of touch morons, the Royals. Although I do think Charles is a ruthless fucker.
I'd have thought it was more about protecting the institution of the crown rather than have them involved. So something like MI5/6 intervention.
and how everyone was hating on Charles whilst she was swanning around in a leopard bikini with a damn Mulsim.
The hussy. Call MI6
and a big, high profile problem that could turn into a huge disaster. She was a nuisance and needed to be dealt with. She said herself in a letter she thought she might get topped.
I know it's a bit nuts, but I did state it's a shameful sympathising with a conspiracy theory.
LEOPARD SKIN BIKINI!!!!!!!!!!1111111111
How come she's still alive?
about 1000 times less influential
about 2000000000 times less appealing in a LEOPARD SKIN BIKINI!!!!!!!!!!!1111111
Also: No Muslims.
And she walked away from a divorce with her husband in tact and her mouth closed. Fergie knows which side of her bread is buttered with money. Or something.
i don't think they were that bothered.
Her work eradicating landmines was causing problems for arms and munitions firms. There's a recent documentary called 'Unlawful Killing' which can be found online, although it's not allowed to be shown in the UK unless they make something silly like over 40 edits.
I've had a quick glance on youtube. It features images, moving and still, of moving and still, of Royal people. that alone, if not properly legally cleared, and I suspect it's not, would mean no broadcaster would touch it, even if it was a film about how marvellous these royals are.
As far as I know. Hence what's-her-name with her breasts out.
between broadcasters, representatives of "The Palace", rights-holders and what-have-you where every use of an image has to be approved, and UK broadcasters would be royally fucked, obviously, if they crossed the line whereas an Italian or French supermarket tabloid woudn't give a toss
a) stay friendly with the Royals, take the piss out of them in the occasional panel show, get access to everything and nice shots of Kate's baby, business as usual.
b) broadcast paranoid ramblings which piss off the palace, say goodbye to your media privileges, waste hundreds of thousands of pounds over a image or footage that turned out not to be cleared properly and get the daily mail mob picketing your offices.
I doubt keeping on the good side of The Palace was ever the intention of the film-makers. I suppose you're right in that the BBC or even ITV or Channel 4 might be reluctant to screen it, although it would definitely pull in the viewers - it's a subject that most people in Britain have an opinion on, not just the tin foil hat brigade.
Piers Morgan is also interviewed in it, wouldn't have thought he'd want to be associated with that sort of thing.
probably wasn't oswald
I'm not really one for conspiracy theories as a rule but anyone who thinks that Oswald acted alone and without influence is a bit of a plum
- the Reagan campaign doing a deal with the Iranian hostage takers so that the hostages didn't get released until after the 1980 election.
- Nixon deliberately scuppering the Vietnam peace talks ahead of the 1968 election.
- the faking of evidence by the US prior to the Bay Of Pigs invasion, the Vietnam war, Korean War, first Gulf War and Iraq invasion.
- the various coups that were supported to overthrow democratically elected governments in central and southern America.
- CIA selling heroin to fund insurgency forces in SE Asia and S America.
- cover up and smear campaign between the government, police and press over Hillsborough
- cover up and smear campaign between the government, police and press over Bloody Sunday
- Collusion between the RUC and Loyalist paramilitary groups
It's better to start from the default position that the US Intelligence community are a bunch of animals.
But yes, a bunch of animals indeed.
not that it was a controlled detonation or anything mad like that but I don't think its unreasonable to believe that its gonna come out in 50 years time that some people made a lot of money out of it when they shouldn't have or that it could'ave been handled in ways that it should'ave been that it wasn't.
Doesn't mean they caused it to happen though.
I have yet to see / read a convincing argument to suggest that 9/11 was anything more than what it is commonly believed to be
that the 'official story' tells it exactly how it happened.
I think even the most basic 9/11 conspiracy would need at least 50 people involved, with perhaps some of them willing to die for the cause, and of course nobody who took part (or even was approached to take part) to have ever had an attack of guilt and decided to speak out.
I suppose you could say the Al-Qaeda motive was to 'strike America' - not a very strong motive and no motive at all for that specific target when there are millions of others much more accessible and much more likely to be successful
and there would be no way that Al-Qaeda would discount retribution
in which case you're looking at a motive of wanting to spark the US Army into invading the Middle East in order to what? To galvanise resistance to the west ?
Well, if you think that is their motive then you are ascribing to them a moral/religious/political fervour to reach their own ends that you are kindly denying the Americans from ever being so extreme as to have (sacrificing their own citizens etc. having such a complicated plot, going through the risks in order to reach the outcome)
I'm not saying "9/11 was an inside job111!!1!" but a lot of reasons given for not believing the US (Govt. CIA, NSA whoever) could ever have been complicit in 9/11 are not afforded to the 'other' side
even the most basic 9/11 conspiracy would need at least 50 people involved, with perhaps some of them willing to die for the cause, and of course nobody who took part (or even was approached to take part) to have ever had an attack of guilt and decided to speak out.
but that's true of both sides - why automatically rule it out on one and not the other?
especially given that the (predictable) consequences of the attack has been a boon for the American military apparatus worldwide and not so much for anyone else
which of course, it isnt.
That they busted Bin Laden's grandma at?
You seem to be conflating 'invading Afghanistan' with 'invading Al-Qaeda'. Al-Qaeda are still around (so are the Taliban, but that's by the by) and are a global organisation, you can't invade them. And I don't agree with the idea that the Afghanistan/Iraq invasions were an inevitable consequence of 9/11 - with the benefit of hindsight maybe, but it's incorrect to portray it as a guaranteed outcome. And what's to say the Iraq/Afghan invasions couldn't be beneficial to Al-Qaeda? The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is one of the main reasons the Taliban/Al-Qaeda came into existence in the first place.
Anyway, before I get bogged down, I really don't think it's that hard to ascribe a motive for terrorism just because it's on a large scale. What was the IRA's motive? What was ETA's motive? What about the 7 July bombings? 19th century anarchists? The Munich Olympics? Same as anyone's - a show of strength against your perceived oppressor and a way of drawing attention to your cause.
I also don't think it would take a massive amount of organisation to carry out 9/11 - it didn't involve buying and transporting explosives/guns, it didn't require an escape plan, it didn't require any training in the kind of things that would draw attention, just buying some plane tickets and flying lessons.
Thousands of people have worked at Groom lake (Area 51) - yet it doesn't exist, apparently.
just that there's no official confirmation of it because of the secretive nature of the work there?
I'd argue that's a bit different too - it's one thing signing a contract at work saying you're going to keep your work a secret (I've done that myself at various jobs!) and agreeing to a project that involves killing 4000 of your own civilians. Anyone who works for the military (particulary in research) is obviously going to accept they're going to work on top-secret projects and need to not reveal what they're doing. Anyone who signs up to that is going to agree to it and won't have any problems.
On the other hand, barely anyone who signed up to work for the military or secret services - let alone potentially WTC or airline staff who might need to be in on the conspiracy is going to expect to be asked to take part in an operation to kill 4000 of their own civilians. For 9/11 to work, it would involve the people who organised the plot to be certain that literally every single one of the 50+ people they approached said yes and didn't blab to the media or anyone else and that every single one of those people would keep their secrets years after the event - even after their bosses have resigned, the government's gone out of power etc. That is a massive, massive risk for the secret services to take and I don't find it plausible they'd do it or it'd work.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting 9/11 can't be a conspriracy because I think people are sunshine and lollipops, just because it's way too risky an operation to make logical sense. Especially when you could have used a more straightforward plan and still got the terror of an attack on US soil.
The first one I couldn't be arsed to check the exact toll
The second one - I'm not saying the nationality should be important. Just that I'd presume anyone in the US secret services even remotely near a mindset where they'd be prepared to commit mass murders in a presumed national interest (if it were a conspiracy) would probably take a very different view on patriotism to me.
2,605 of them US citizens including 343 first responders (mainly fireman)
I was a bit alarmed at your inflating of the figures
As for your second point - Pearl Harbour?
This thread is about to go up a gear.
the documents were declassified that proved at least that FDR had been threatened in advance by the Japanese
here's a telegraph article about it
though this article states
"This memo is further evidence that they believed the Japanese were contemplating a military action of some sort, but they were kind of in denial because they didn't think anybody would be as audacious to move an army thousands of miles across the Pacific, stop to refuel, then move on to Hawaii to make a strike like this"
So Roosevelt 'knew' of an imminent attack and did nothing about it - we can only guess at why
Here's the first part in case you missed it:
"Based on all my research, I believe that neither Roosevelt nor anybody in his government, the Navy or the War Department knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour. There was no conspiracy."
As for your last sentence, I think the quote you just gave answers it.
but that's one guy's opinion in an article in the Telegraph
doesn't make it open and shut
Have a read of this
and you'll get an entirely different view based on a chronological sequence of contemporary accounts
all research is selective
whether you believe his guiding principle (that war could have been averted and that the pacifist movement was crowded out of the dialogue - sound familiar?) or not, there is plenty in that book that you wont have heard about before and will make you wonder why certain things have been selected out of our collective received memory of what led to WWII
But there's a huge difference between researching something in the spirit of rational enquiry and to try and identify 'facts' and coming up with a conclusion in advance and then trying to find facts to fit the conclusion, which is what Nicholson Baker is generally accused of. That's simply poor research.
That said, I've not read the book of course. I might do later this year if I can get a copy at the British Library.
it's a worthwhile read and fantastically well researched actually
What was he supposed to do, though? Given that the article also mentions the Panama Canal and the entire West Coast as possible targets. It's not like they knew the time and location of the attack.
Also guyhouser was talking "commit[ting] mass murders in a presumed national interest", which is why I mentioned a false flag – I think there's a distinction to be made between carrying out an attack yourself and letting one happen, although obviously we can argue about how big a distinction you think that is...
but if you follow this sub thread up we're not really making a distinction between carrying out an attack and letting one happen
we're looking at the distinction between believing the official account of 9/11 versus believing a sequence of events, facts or dynamics that are pertinent to 9/11 but are edited out of the public domain and public knowledge
(as well as the obvious moral gradient)
9/11 is an enigma though for sure
doesn't equal conspiracy, or even 'allowing it to happen'. An attack on Pearl Harbor was hard to credit before it happened. And even if they'd boosted defenses and were ready for the unlikely event--even if the US suffered no loss of lives and no loss of ships--an attack on American soil would have had the same effect at the end of the day, wouldn't it?
It's that pesky "why" standing in the way.
the "why" was because Roosevelt was champing at the bit to get the US involved in WWII. Mainly for economic reasons.
And... it worked. Whilst his New Deal policies did a great job in the 30s (before being outlawed), it was only with the US wading in on WWII that lifted the US economy out of recession.
if the Pearl Harbor attack had been expected, preparing for it and informing Pearl Harbor wouldn't have hurt the outcome of America becoming involved. It would no longer have been "Europe's war" after that, even if the Japanese attack was completely stymied.
bit risky though
also the 'surprise attack' angle helps to demonise the dirty little Jap without risking the humiliation of good 'ol US boys if they were ready but heavily defeated by the superior skills and firepower of the enemy
i guess exploding ships and 2000 lives lost sells it better. i guess i'd just like to think it *wasn't* a sales pitch.
the main idea for the conspiracy comes from a misunderstanding. I.e. that, based on a couple of sources, people think the US had actually cracked Japanese codes prior to Pearl Harbour and so knew they were going to be attacked.
If I recall what I've read correctly, the actual source for this is someone who wrote a letter saying they had made a breakthrough on the code a few weeks before Pearl Harbour and so were at a position where they were closer to unscrambling it. But I'm not aware of any reliable evidence to suggest that the code had actually been cracked and messages could be read.
Just wanted to point out that things can be kept secret in exceptional circumstances.
I wonder if they still deny it's existance now? Its on g maps ffs!
I just think gambling on those huge numbers of people to keep everything a secret is a bit high-risk.
Especially as - even if the US government did plan things like this - someone could have achieved pretty much the same results by, say, placing explosives at the foot of the World Trade Centre...
you've got your radical terrorists, right? so what, a few of them on each flight as per the official story. Then you'd need a couple of CIA guys to plant some explosives in WTC 1 & 2 and BUILDING 7. Another guy to rig up explosives in the pentagon, and hey presto - we're going into the middle east, boys. Quite easy when you think about it.
And we don't really know for sure about that. The security forces continually claim they constantly foiling plots and also point out they hear word of things all the time. We don't really have any evidence that isn't really the case, although we have a lot of government mistrust, itself not really based on the strongest of evidence.
My point here is more about how the human mind is actually pretty poor at being coldly logical. Just look things like the Monty Haul problem where the maths shows what the right course is but in your head you're thinking, "Nah, it's just not likely".
So to come back to the point, if there are loads of such conspiracies and attacks going on, it's natural that we would first see this as a surprisingly out of the blue sort of assault, apparently disproportionate and also weirdly baiting the US into war. But also you'd see things like key people being apparently evacuated in advance, something that looks like over-caution until that one attack happens, whereupon it looks like conspiracy.
You CAN NOT blow up a building the size of WTC with a couple of CIA guys planting bombs.
A lot of people point to the way in which it fell as being evidence of a controlled demolition, but in order for a controlled demolition to take place whole floors need to be gutted and explosives rigged in very precise places. Can't be done by a couple of guys, or without anyone noticing.
boab's yer uncle. Ain't no-one gonna question that. "What you doing mate?" "renovations" "aye, nae bother pal."
I don't believe it but and David Icke is a total legend.
feeding off human negative energy, brought on through humanity being trapped in a fake reality beamed onto earth by a giant amplifier disguised as the moon?
Not sure ;) <-----safety wink!!!!!!!!!1111111111
Not sure if I believe it or not, but it's certainly believable.
There's a more plausible motive than most conspiracies (certainly far more so than Diana) but the combination of the fact that the chain of events is such that there's no obvious place for outside intervention to have occurred, the idea that he wasn't depressed isn't really true and the fact that the idea it was unlikely he would die from his injuries is a red herring.
Pretty much all the doctors who formally raised doubts at the time dropped their issues once the postmortem and toxicology reports were produced.
killing a whistleblower just after his blown the whistle, on the week when he's the most talked about person in the whole country, would seem a little silly.
and her posts are most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells from looking at your screen for too long.
i'm mostly blind and use a braille pad; never actually saw a wishpig post. always assumed it was some DiSism I didn't fully get. fascinating stuff!
actually an ancient starship.
NASA are probably not covering this up tho.
bit weird how its EXACTLY the right size the cause the occasional eclipse and turns at EXACTLY the right speed to never see the other side of it.
but when the Moon was formed, surely its heavier matter would have gravitated towards the Earth, subsequently establishing an axial rotation that would keep this 'heavy side' Earth-facing
happens to most moons - don't really understand it
Not necessarily fixing matches or results, but fixing a lot of the other stuff they do. There have been statistically abnormal results in their draws for years, unlikelihoods the likes of which would result in organisations commissioning immediate independent investigations in any other vaguely comparable business, if only for PR and to clean house. But because of the nature of football, you can't say it without your own motives being questioned.
Don't pay attention to the 'bigger' conspiracies tbh.
like say if two english teams came first in the CL group stage and two game second and they were drawing the second round.
The draw for the semi-finals vs. the draw for the 2nd round will have wildly different odds.
I'm referring to a draw that's already happened. If still_here was interested, he'd know what I was talking about.
Which specific draw are you referring to that repeated itself though?
More than prepared to believe UEFA are bent as fuck - not sure how they'd rig a draw though. Seems pretty difficult.
When Liverpool were drawn against TNS in the pre qualifying stages in 2005/6 CL. A few weeks before when they still hadn;t decided what to do about the CL winners not qualifying, TNS had offered to play us for their pre qualifying spot, but the legaue of Wales overruled them. We then got a *special slot* - meaning that some poor minow wouldn;t have a chance... but oh we got TNS just liike EVERYONE wnated.
The crazy press in America is going after the Saudis involvement in the Boston bombs at the minute.
I can blame somebody else for my poor hygiene
but stuff about things in the bible (chariots of fire, parting of the red sea, pillars of salt, disappearing people, amazingly powerful humans etc) being aliens always seems too plausible. I dont like talking about it too much as it makes me feel like a loon.
theres loads more out there aswell. My practical thinking says its all rubbish but when you read the BOOKs it seems so LOGICAL!
Wasnt he into constellations and layouts of pyramids and stuff. BORING. I want flying cows and laser beams and shit.
I do think that he had some legitimate concerns about the cult of personality that Zahi Hawass has engendered, and his reluctance to thoroughly investigate the Giza site, but Hancock's book seemed to be really meticulously researched and then at the end he just threw in total earth crust displacement as the get out of jail answer to all his theories.
and replaces the need for a crustal displacement theory with some good analyses of global sea rise events following the end of the last ice age
One of those mass releases of MOD files covering all the reported sightings for ten years or whatever. I had to go through and find any local cases to see if we could hash up a story, there were a couple there, so to pad it out I rang up the local UFO Society and had a chat with the secretary. He was a lovely bloke, entirely rational, and I asked if he thought there was any chance that these sightings were real, to which which he answered that he was sure they were bollocks and could be explained in pretty much every case. So I asked him why he was part of a UFO society if he was so skeptical of UFOs, and he said: 'Well, I believe the Alien Astronaut theory is true - there are so many independent cultures who recorded visitations of 'gods' from the skies with similar attributes, that I'm positive that we were once visited by aliens.' Which was a solid answer.
I think this Alien astronaut theory is an interesting one
but I reckon the Aliens are generally not alien enough ie it's totally time-travellers popping through the stargate
either that or mushrooms
Some chumps on a boat turn up from Asia in South America, theyre going to be outlandish and everything they have will be weird. Alos, the amount of items found all around the world from different parts of it is staggering. If all the pyramids and tombs hadnt been looted over the years (and also by antiquarians and natural disasters) there'd be much more evidence of global travel over the last 10,000 years.
Why would something removed from our own planet look, in the scheme of things, a lot like us? Why would their basic anatomy somehow resemble ours?
Basically, why don't we ever see aliens as something that transcends earthly life? Why do they have to have limbs? Can they even be physical entities that we, somehow, can't see? Or physical entities who communicate, move, and maybe exist in a way that humans can't comprehend or visualise?
Like imagine if you've been deaf forever. Hearing is a new alley that's taken for granted and is *normal.*
What if our senses are completely different to the senses of aliens?
cause they're rich m8
I suspect that we'll see a lot of people in government and the royal household implicated beyond the entertainers who have been dragged into it so far.
...more a perfectly logical conclusion to the stuff we've already found out.
Abuse of power ultimately infiltrates everything. And there's too many people with too much power in both government and the Royals for it to be an impossibility...
royal connections to figure that one out.
Sir Jimmy Savile was protected from up on high as he was a purveyor of children for the elite. This is why he had such high connections with the royals. This is why he spent 11 consecutive New Years with Thatcher. This man was more well connected than Keyser fucking Söze.
His back was their back. This whole Yewtree whitewash is arresting people like DLT and Jim Davidson for "touching" adult women in the 70s. It's nothing to do with the real crimes as they can't / won't investigate them.
Edwina Currie talks in her autobiography about covering up the paedophilia in the Tory cabinet. She's talked aobut it / apologised for it on Twitter too.
Sir Edward Heath was a known nonce. Many of the boys he abused (and disposed of) were from that jersey care home. They know many boys went missing which is why they dug the place up recently looking for corpses. As children just disappeared. But they weren't buried there - They were lobbed in the sea off Heath's boat.
There's another investigation into that Elm House B&B that top politicians used. MI5 knew about it - That fat cunt Sir Cyril Smith (notice they're all "Sir") used to go there for sex parties with young boys. MI5 - allowed it as they wanted to get evidence against Northern Irish politicians for blackmail. It stopped as the neighbours complained about the amount of children being ferried there in the later hours. I can't remember it's name It was being investigated by the police just recently - arests were made - until the case was "dropped".
Paedophilia ran (and probably still runs) through the establishment. I dunno why (David Icke says it's the lizards feeding of the children's energy - errr) but anyway, it's there. That's why Savile worked overnight in hospitals and care homes. All of his charity work (ALL OF IT) was to do with covering up for his crimes and getting access to children.
The man was literally the epitome of evil.
look like andy peters
Ted Heath raped and killed young boys then threw them off his yacht.
Show your workings?
The parties that were held on the yacht had high profile people there. They had to get rid of the boys.
This is obviously speculation - But google it.
It's been widely acknowledged that shit loads of boys from various care homes disappeared - Hence the digging.
Can't be bothered to find the links but there's enough hear'say and anecdotal evidence mixed in with some actual facts. e.g. Savile / Elm House / Heath's penchant for boys to make me think it's not true.
I'm willing to believe it after you see how connected and protected Savile was.
But I am talking about it on a conspiracy thread.
that the stuff about Ted Heath was something of an open secret long before Savilegate.
"All of his charity work (ALL OF IT) was to do with covering up for his crimes and getting access to children."
one or the other, surely?
"David Icke saysit's the Lizards feeding off the children's energy"- please tell me you have a link.
Are doping. And that regulatory authorities pretty much permit it/turn a blind eye.
I do think there are particular sports where the testing is too lax (e.g. tennis) and there may well be dozens of pros taking advantage of this. Generally, I think the sports where doping would have a serious affect of the outcome (e.g. athletics) are more often than not on the case and weeding out the cheats
Team sports (as well as the already mentioned Tennis) are terrible at doing drugs testing.
The athletics teams of the USA and Jamaica and various high profile boxers, tennis players etc, and can explain the methodologies, substances and avoidance techniques used, it starts to feel a little like that
But the Australian Football League are fairly corrupt. They don't take bribes and I very much doubt there's match fixing. But they admit to unfair draws (basically getting teams into the finals by making them have easy runs, less travel, shit like that) and, basically, they've allowed the AFL's Leo Messi to get away with recreational drug use.
Melbourne is a great city but it's a city where a large percentage of rumours are true. Unless you're an idiot, you can syphon out the bullshit and, slowly, the truth trickles out.
The AFL turns a bit of a blind eye to doping. I know people who are AFL footballers, but you don't think of it as seedy until it comes out. Injections? Yeah, whatever, everyone else is getting them. It's that mindframe.
1. People don't want to believe that the most reasonable, and ergo most boring, explanation for something is in the overwhelming majority of instances the correct one.
2. Coincidences can be a lot more common than people think.
There we go.
My default position is to despise most conspiracy theories. Diana wasn't murdered for fuck's sake. If "they" were going to murder her, why would "they" have deployed such a high risk strategy (i.e. relying on the compliance of big third parties, relying on a convergence of circumstance regarding her leaving the hotel and doing it when there's LOADS OF PAPARAZZI AROUND?). Come on.
JFK getting murdered is probably the one I'm closest to believing. Too much of that makes too little sense for my head not to be turned.
the paparazzi were agents. why, after getting her in the ambulance, did it take 45 minutes to transfer her to a hospital a mere 5 minutes drive away? why was her body embalmed illegally (answer: to conceal the fact she was pregnant)
I don't know the protocol, or process, for either of those things.
Just because I don't know the answers doesn't mean I instinctively believe that Liz and Pip had her bumped off...
and his connections to Nazi Germany http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LKPTwi5SY1M/TWICdc9IFWI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/HAEoqfBzDek/s320/philip_Nazi_funeral.jpg
it wouldn't surprise me really.
You're part of the most famous car crash in the history of the world and you don't remember / realise?
Also remember she was alive / concious after the crash and was taken away and then died.
Also remember that just before she entered the tunnel ,the securitiy cameras died.
There's about a zillion things. The driver fucked off for a couple of hours before the car ride and they didn't know where. He had unexplained money in his account. Witnesses reported snipers in the tunnel. The crash scene was completely cleared in record time, totally against protocol (especially as it's such a big profile crash) etc etc etc. There's litterally so many things.
Also, people always say "they wouldn't have killed her like that". That's EXACTLY why they did kill her like that. What they gonna do, shoot her? Poison her? Fuck that.
"People always point out staging a car crash in a big city reliant on a chauffeur being exactly the right level of drunk, paparazzi chasing people to the right place, a fiat turning up at the exact right moment, people forgetting to wear seatbelts and a car to hit the tunnel with the right speed and trajectory to guarantee loss of life is impossible to pull off but that's EXACTLY why they chose that method."
and take her away.
Which is what happened. The rest was all co-incidence or chance to the main aim.
I thought they found her head and shoulders in the glove compartment
And a beach.
Loads of people are conscious after accidents and then die etc.
The security cameras died? Well there was about 50 paparazzi chasing after her so there was no lack of witnesses etc. There's also pictures of Diana from after the crash isn't there? Would've thought that'd have been impossible given the plan but there you go.
In this case neither the supposed motive nor the carrying out stack up reasonably for me.
if there were that many there would be insurmountable photo evidence, surely?
Also, re: the White Fiat. A paparrazo said to be in the tunnel owned a white fiat which was repainted and sold shortly after the crash. In a further twist, he was found dead in a burnt out car three years later - the verdict was suicide, despite him having two bullet holes in his skull.
I call bullshit. A noble effort but you've gone too far.
witnesses reported snipers
I think that's the right site. Certainly when you read a lot of stuff to explain things you tend to think there was no conspiracy.
Why is that a surprise?
the emphasis was that they address the conspiracies extensively.
I suppose they have to really. Otherwise people would just come out going "I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T MENTION _________ WHAT AN OBVIOUS COVERUP"
The magic bullet is based on JFK sitting directly behind the guy in front and them both being at the same height. In fact they were at different heights and JFK was to the guy's side. So that odd path the bullet takes becomes pretty much a straight line. Something like that, anyway.
and yes it came out as a straight line.
I stuff I think is strange is Jack Ruby killing Oswald and then dying very soon after himself.
to allow the big clubs to keep winning stuff.
he keeps on bringing out 'stats' about referees making dodgy decisions in favour of specific teams etc.
He's an Arsenal fan though, so that explains a lot.
If an Arsenal fan -- currently 3rd in England's top league -- feels aggrieved at the prevalent unfairness in football, imagine what the other 89 English league clubs below them think.
Dozens, maybe hundreds of people who would need to be involved in something like this and once this element is introduced someone, somewhere is going to blow the whistle (excuse the pun). Agreed, there are exceptions that have involved a significant number of conspiritors (Hillsborough, various CIA/US govt ones) but I think in most cases, once a conspiracy involves more than a handful of willing people, the truth will soon out
unless it was just organised by people like David Gill who are executives at clubs as well as holding positions in the football authorities.
Giant reptile in disguise. A newt - they have gills. And he's called David - like David Icke.
It all adds up
Either a tiny tiny tiny handful know or the government are doing a better job at covering it up than they've even done with anything else, ever.
What with it being so prevalent in Italy and done on such a widespread scale it would be strange for them not to try and get a piece of the biggest league with the most money bet on it.
Everyone who claims to have been there and had a picture taken was lying as part of a sinister MI5 plot to devalue the north of england.
All of those things are answerable. It's a good sketch though.
These two are doing another series, right?
doing 7 or 8 loops in a no-fly zone, and then flying back to Spain (where we don't even have an RAF base).
or something. Been a while since I read about it, but seemed convincing at the time.
It's just the best.
June Sarpong as a hotshot investigator...
Oliver Stone's drug addled son sleepwalking around...
Jesse's 50's greaseball son on a constant coke hunt...
Sensationalist accounts of clearly made up phenomena...
The episode they didnt want you to see
All the songs were written by the guy from The Mavericks (of "Just Want To Dance The Night Away" fame).
the first KOL album is mainly "cowritten" by its producer, Angelo Petraglia. entirely possible that he wrote it all and they got their names onto it to save face.
howeverm Angelo Petraglia was not in the mavericks. the singer from the mavericks, who wrote almost all of their songs, is called Raul Malo.
The bassist from the Mavericks, Robert Earl Reynolds, at some point collaborated on songwriting with Petraglia, but not on Mavericks songs even.
love the subplot about ilovetherazzlekid changing her iconic username
whether it's andrew or just a name given to any one person pretending to be steev at any given time (kind of like tony clifton)
I know you're a big fan of his so I'm sure you know more about it than me, but there's just so much that doesn't really fit.
changed about 5-6 years ago?
its not really a conspiracy
I always assumed that was tongue-in-cheek. And also that all the Steev Mike stuff is basically a clever and mildly amusing PR mind game.
(and it was appallingly written anyway), but there's loads of really strange stuff. Fans swearing that the man they saw live wasn't AWK, his website being hacked by someone called Steev Mike who threatened to expose him, the name Steev Mike appearing in different roles in different album credits and never being adequately explained.
All that could quite easily have been done by his PR people, but what would be the point? It's not like he doesn't have a brand identity.
- people claiming he's part of the Illuminati and so on - but there are definitely things which don't click together, and not just in the sense that all pop artists are manufactured to some extent.
i mean the original "andrew WK" it's obviously the same physical human who is "andrew WK" now.
LOOK AT THE PICTURE OF ANDREW WK
My understanding, having spoken to a few of the people involved, was that he was running a studio/practice space/squat for lots of his friends in the noise scene at his parents' expense, while they expected him to get everything out of his system and return to 'proper' music or get a proper job. Eventually, feeling that he was being taken advantage of by a lot of the people in the scene, his parents offered him an ultimatum - get a proper job or pay us the money back.
And that's how the character of Andrew WK was created - to make the money to clear his debts (financial and otherwise) with his parents. It might have been a cynical reason for creating the character, and it might have been done with the help of his father or his friends initially, but rest of his story is pretty much stacks up.
At least, that's what I've been led to believe.
Just looked this up. Presumably he's bullshitting, but still, WEIRD.
He's the invention of some actor who has managed to troll us all by creating a fictional man and building a successful career with him. He'll reveal all at an Oscar award acceptance speech once *Jack Black* has done a Jim Carey and done a few good serious roles.
conspiracy (I think it's been proven he isn't now).
you all pretend to be normal but you're fucking mad conspiracy twats.
what has been presented as the truth.
Some are outrageous (aliens rule the world) where as some are very plausible (Castro has been dead for a good few years for example).
Knowing now how much governments try to manipulate world affairs without morals (like America in the cold war funding militias to overthrow left wing democratic governments and install US friendly dictatorships) it's fairly likely that some conspiracy theories are ture
Haven't read that link but you know, that or something.
and both sides seem to be going along the lines of conspiracy theories, so I have no idea who to support as I fucking hate conspiracy theories. The warmies think the big oil companies are hushing up proof of global warming, the deniers think it is a huge liberal conspiracy to sell hybrid cars and tax the shit out of us. I am somewhere in the middle, I don't care either way.
but doesnt mean we should just be chucking as much shit into the atmosphere as possible because we can. I think thats the position I find myself in
warmies vs coldies, each insulting each other, citing a different version of a conspiracy theory they have come up with, posting youtube links and countering "expert" evidence with that of their own "expert". It bears no relation to actual climate science of course, because they are all fucking idiots.
when my cousin starts spewing that stuff (Global warming doesn't exist, was made up by the government etc.).
I don't believe the conspiracies but I don't think I believe the official account
I think they reformed Death From Above 1979 just for the money
if you hadn't been conditioned to question it since the assassination
but a mixed race jury has unanimously agreed that martin luther king junior was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy between the memphis police and the federal government. not that anyone talks about it much.
it's interesting that no one talks about this
or about the assassination of Malcolm X either
I wonder why?
given that Talmadge Hayer has always admitted that he did it, unlike James Earl Ray.
just that there was no patsy involved)
as you say, not really a conspiracy when the courts have basically said it WAS a cover-up.
so my conspiracy is theo. theo is a conspiracy
Everything about him, from masterminding 9/11 to being killed and chucked in the sea.
when they said
No photos / no body - For the biggest manhunt in the history of mankind?
If there's no photos and shit in 10 years time then I'm calling it though.
i cant see why theyd have a problem showing osama
Saddam wasn't a martyr to any cause.
Also, people are hanged, objects and male porn stars are hung.
i mean you wont see it on the bbc but theres a hell of a lot of sunnis who see him as a martyr. his stoicism when faced with the gallows is oft applauded.
The comparison with Osama's death doesn't stand up.
the footage made its way onto the internet, whereas the footage of Bin Laden has not (by virtue of not actually existing, obviously).
that he used to get told to touch kids and do weird shit by the government at the EXACT times that some shit goes down in america so they can cover it with him in the media.
"told to touch kids and do weird shit by the government"
he's got an almost identical bit
''we're gonna need you to jerk off another kid, mike. i'm sorry. i am sorry.''
But everything i write makes me look like a nut. I do think it’s not too farfetched to think that assassinations are fairly commonplace, don’t require that much covering up, and if looked at in the same manner as military operations have no real recourse to everyday morality or candidness. You can then extrapolate as far as you like.
There’s also a fine line between active participation and manipulation, and as pretty much everything we’re fed is a heady mix of misinformation and misdirection i don’t think it’s beyond reasonable doubt that we’ve been lead up the garden path on more than one occasion. Frankly, a constant mistrust of those in power and those with vested interests is a pretty healthy and reasonable attitude to have.
Right, that’s about as bland as I can get it
definitely think it's possible that COINTELPRO did more damage than we know of, especially with regards to their nation of islam and black panther party stuff.
also the northwoods and mongoose stuff is interesting and fucked up.
oh wait that one's in plain view! LOL!
should've done that in From Hell - what the hell even happened in that movie?
read the book for a compelling and fun conspiracy rOmP
Not read the graphic novel though
and it is a good read if you can get through the endless EXCRUCIATINGLY BAD expositionary dialogue.
that's great, I'll check it out!
the recorder captured the passengers attempting to break into the cockpit and the terrorists vocally intending to nosedive before they got to them. it all times up.
I'll confess I haven't looked into it in that much depth. There's probably an inverse correlation for a lot of the conspiracy theories in this thread between how much you believe it and how much you've actually read about the background.
But reading up on it, it crashed.
One thing that swung me both ways was the wreckage - the fact that is was found so far away indicated an explosion. Then I found out that it crashed near a lake and the distances had been worked out on google maps which had taken the road route around the lake
because people imagine the plane would get a rocket launcher to the gut and explode in the sky. in reality they'd shoot the engines out.
THE HOLY BIBLE!
Is that they're not actually seedy when they're being thought up or brought into occurrence.
World leaders don't convene in a lair in the arctic, or a dark room, or something necessarily interesting sounding. It's just like any other government meeting. The protocol is pretty normal and it's more of a "so, what should we do now?" scenario.
When you come to realise that, then the stigma of being a conspiracy theorist kind of evaporates.
And there's a huge difference between being a callous, disrespectful, yolo-ing and masturbating teenager thinking they're cracking 9/11 (sorry dudes but people are deluded and fucked up and some of those people to things like kill 3,000 innocent people in buildings) or Sandy Hook.
But there are 'conspiracy theories' which is just information being withheld, twisted, lost in translation, or intentionally glossed over.
It makes the world seem so much cooler, that governments are doing all that shirt
nominees below please!
Coronation street and Eastenders are actually the same show. They just fool everyone by starring different people, being set in different places, and being on at different times on different channels.
Really though they're making mugs of us all.
Can't remember the exact reason but it's something to do with colluding with Cadburys to turn the UK into a Zionist puppet-nation
he'll delete this thread
but it didn't work because the site is so shit
I did not see that twist coming.
the more he denies it the more I believe it
and does not own a television.
I don't think this is based on anything I have read though.
But Radiohead is hiding lots of secrets. No one I know believes me, but I've figured some of them out. Can't say because I suppose there must be an injunction against talking about it, and Sean would get into trouble. I figure most people in the Oxford and London music scenes are aware of it.
yeah, it was kinda touched upon in the £70 ticket thread but not in any detail, not that anyone seems to know many actual details. i do wonder if In Rainbows would've been released today there would have been more suspicion of it. still surprises me there wasn't back then.
Link to that thread?
Somebody say something.
Ok lets say there's this fictional band called.... WIRELESSBONCE.
Now someone tell me what this entirely made-up band might have done.
that was more about them using their own ticket system, but it serves the same ends. don't want to incriminate myself or sean, so i'll leave it there.
Rather, I think Thom Yorke is a bit of a fraud, which is something he's hinted at in interviews for years.
where's it touched upon?
PM me the details pls
Because I recognize him from posting. He hasn't gotten back to me about it.
Westboro Baptist Church
seems so suspicious that I find it harder to believe it was an accident than that he was assassinated.
All apparently because he nationalised the assets of BP. That worked out just perfectly, in the long-run, didn't it?