Why I am a Conspiracy Theorist

[Guest]

The problem with a great deal of this is that many of the 'conspiracies' listed (some of which John doesn't believe in and some he does) are so weak that a 5 year really ought to be able to see through them without too much cerebal activity.

I find this statement offensive. However, that seems to be your style of argument. To say that I believe in conspiracies that a “5 year really ought to be able to see through them without too much cerebal (sic) activity” is of course a ridiculous statement.

I consider myself to be a serious historian and I am willing to debate the evidence with you. Please make it clear which conspiracies fall into this category and I will supply the evidence to show you why some historians believe that there is great doubt about the official story.

Sorry you have chosen to be offended but I am sure my average 5 year old could make short shrift of the following;

9/11, Diana, Marilyn, NHS doctor assassins, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Apollo, Hilda Murrell, David Kelly.

Where would you like to start?

Of those you list the only one I said I believed in was the death of David Kelly. Is that the one you think the "average 5 year old could make short shrift of"?

Which might suggest you were premature to take offence. All of them have featured here at one time and another from people you have invited onto this forum. I cannot be expected to be able to guess which ones you happen to believe or not.

And yes I do think the conspiracy stuff surrounding the death of David Kelly is nonsense.

[John Simkin]

Which might suggest you were premature to take offence. All of them have featured here at one time and another from people you have invited onto this forum. I cannot be expected to be able to guess which ones you happen to believe or not.

And yes I do think the conspiracy stuff surrounding the death of David Kelly is nonsense.

I find it impossible to follow your logic. I started this thread with an explanation why I agreed with certain conspiracies. I listed these conspiracies. You replied with an attack on me for believing conspiracies I do not believe. You now say that you cannot be expected to be able to guess the ones that I believe in. Maybe it would be a good idea to read what I say before making the attack. After all, that is what historians do. They study the evidence rather than making things up.

You also seem to be suggesting that I am responsible for the postings of all other members as: "All of them have featured here at one time and another from people you have invited onto this forum." I have no more invited them to be members than you have. They have joined and then they were free to say what they believed in.

[Guest]

Which might suggest you were premature to take offence. All of them have featured here at one time and another from people you have invited onto this forum. I cannot be expected to be able to guess which ones you happen to believe or not.

And yes I do think the conspiracy stuff surrounding the death of David Kelly is nonsense.

I find it impossible to follow your logic. I started this thread with an explanation why I agreed with certain conspiracies. I listed these conspiracies.

No you didn't. You mentioned two you didn't agree with. The rest we are left to guess about.

You started this thread mentioning my name in your first sentence, decided to take offence when I replied and now 'can't follow my logic'.

However if you wish to engage in discussion about any substantive point in any individual conspiracy theory I suggest you start separate threads as appropriate. I would also value your views on the actual content of my first reply.

[John Simkin]

Which might suggest you were premature to take offence. All of them have featured here at one time and another from people you have invited onto this forum. I cannot be expected to be able to guess which ones you happen to believe or not.

And yes I do think the conspiracy stuff surrounding the death of David Kelly is nonsense.

I find it impossible to follow your logic. I started this thread with an explanation why I agreed with certain conspiracies. I listed these conspiracies.

No you didn't. You mentioned two you didn't agree with. The rest we are left to guess about.

You started this thread mentioning my name in your first sentence, decided to take offence when I replied and now 'can't follow my logic'.

However if you wish to engage in discussion about any substantive point in any individual conspiracy theory I suggest you start separate threads as appropriate. I would also value your views on the actual content of my first reply.

Yes, I did. Here is the contents of my first posting:

I am what Andy Walker would call a “conspiracy theorist”. That is not to say that I think everything is a conspiracy. For example, I do not believe Diana was murdered by Prince Philip or that 9/11 was organized by George Bush. However, I do believe that we are not allowed to know the true facts about major events. There is a simple truth behind my beliefs. The ruling elite will do what it can to protect its power. Sometimes they have to do things that would be totally unacceptable to democratic opinion. This therefore has to be covered-up.

Since the early days of the 20th century the ruling elite have used the intelligence services to deal with people who pose a threat to their power. Recently I have written about the way MI5 have dealt with the peace movement during the First World War (the Alice Wheeldon Case), the overthrow of the first Labour Government in 1924 (Zinoviev Letter) and the attempted overthrow of the Harold Wilson government (the Wilson Plot).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRIwheeldonA.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUzinoviev.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRwilsonHa.htm

I also believe that the FBI/CIA have played a similar role in the USA. That is that they were involved in the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King and the overthrow of Richard Nixon.

This situation continues today. The Iraq War is just one of the latest examples of how governments and intelligence services have joined forces to persuade the general public to be in favour of war. The killing of Dr. David Kelly is another example (one conspiracy often leads to other conspiracies in order to protect the original conspiracy).

I know that to believe these things I will be accused of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist. So be it, but it will not stop me from trying to expose these abuses of power and the corruption of our democratic system.

[Guest]

From this I can deduce that you do not believe 9/11 or Diana conspiracy theories - you also mention a few that you find persuasive.

Am I to now infer that you reject all other conspiracy theories?

[John Simkin]

From this I can deduce that you do not believe 9/11 or Diana conspiracy theories - you also mention a few that you find persuasive.

Am I to now infer that you reject all other conspiracy theories?

It is impossible to reject all "conspiracy theories" without looking at the evidence available.

[Jack White]

Conspiracies exist. They always have. They always will. Ask Julius Caesar.

Andy is clueless about history.

Jack

[Guest]

Conspiracies exist. They always have. They always will. Ask Julius Caesar.

Andy is clueless about history.

Jack

I think it is fair to say that I am significantly better qualified in history than you Mr White

[John Simkin]

The problem with a great deal of this is that many of the 'conspiracies' listed (some of which John doesn't believe in and some he does) are so weak that a 5 year really ought to be able to see through them without too much cerebal activity.

I find this statement offensive. However, that seems to be your style of argument. To say that I believe in conspiracies that a “5 year really ought to be able to see through them without too much cerebal (sic) activity” is of course a ridiculous statement.

I consider myself to be a serious historian and I am willing to debate the evidence with you. Please make it clear which conspiracies fall into this category and I will supply the evidence to show you why some historians believe that there is great doubt about the official story.

Sorry you have chosen to be offended but I am sure my average 5 year old could make short shrift of the following;

9/11, Diana, Marilyn, NHS doctor assassins, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Apollo, Hilda Murrell, David Kelly.

Where would you like to start?

Of those you list the only one I said I believed in was the death of David Kelly. Is that the one you think the "average 5 year old could make short shrift of"?

This subject has been debated at length and at some detail here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3495

[Guest Gary Loughran]

As much as one can be in these situations, I am convinced David Kelly was murdered.

[Guest]

This subject has been debated at length and at some detail here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3495

Not in any meaningful sense of the word 'debate' has it!

Not one shread of evidence has been presented there which undermines the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry. There is a great deal of 'intuition ' and badly informed and wild speculation at play masquerading as both analysis and evidence but no actual evidence.

There are also some quite hilarious errors - Norman Baker is presented as a 'well respected MP' for instance when it is quite clear that the man is a crank. A number of posters also reveal a profound ignorance of suicide as a phenomenon - thanks for pointing out that thread because it confirms so many of my reservations about conspiracy theory outlined here

[John Simkin]

This subject has been debated at length and at some detail here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3495

Not in any meaningful sense of the word 'debate' has it!

Not one shread of evidence has been presented there which undermines the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry. There is a great deal of 'intuition ' and badly informed and wild speculation at play masquerading as both analysis and evidence but no actual evidence.

There are also some quite hilarious errors - Norman Baker is presented as a 'well respected MP' for instance when it is quite clear that the man is a crank. A number of posters also reveal a profound ignorance of suicide as a phenomenon - thanks for pointing out that thread because it confirms so many of my reservations about conspiracy theory outlined here

To describe Norman Baker as a crank is ridiculous. He is a personal friend and is a man of great integrity. In 1997 he became Lewes's first non-Conservative MP since 1874. In his first three months in the House of Commons, he asked more questions than Tim Rathbone, the former MP, had asked in 23 years. Most of his questions concern government corruption. It was his questions and research that resulted in Peter Mandelson's second resignation from government.

Most importantly, in January 2005 he began the campaign to force disclosure of the details of MPs' expenses under the Freedom of Information Act, finally succeeding in February 2007. It is only because of Baker that this scandal was exposed. If he is a crank I wish we had more of them.

I will deal with the Dr. Kelly case later.

[Guest]

This subject has been debated at length and at some detail here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3495

Not in any meaningful sense of the word 'debate' has it!

Not one shread of evidence has been presented there which undermines the conclusions of the Hutton Inquiry. There is a great deal of 'intuition ' and badly informed and wild speculation at play masquerading as both analysis and evidence but no actual evidence.

There are also some quite hilarious errors - Norman Baker is presented as a 'well respected MP' for instance when it is quite clear that the man is a crank. A number of posters also reveal a profound ignorance of suicide as a phenomenon - thanks for pointing out that thread because it confirms so many of my reservations about conspiracy theory outlined here

To describe Norman Baker as a crank is ridiculous. He is a personal friend and is a man of great integrity. In 1997 he became Lewes's first non-Conservative MP since 1874. In his first three months in the House of Commons, he asked more questions than Tim Rathbone, the former MP, had asked in 23 years. Most of his questions concern government corruption. It was his questions and research that resulted in Peter Mandelson's second resignation from government.

Most importantly, in January 2005 he began the campaign to force disclosure of the details of MPs' expenses under the Freedom of Information Act, finally succeeding in February 2007. It is only because of Baker that this scandal was exposed. If he is a crank I wish we had more of them.

I will deal with the Dr. Kelly case later.

It is not 'ridiculous' it is a different opinion to yours. I am aware of his well documented super interrogatory activity in the House of Commons but would dispute that the majority of his questions carried a consistent theme or purpose.

If his book on the death of David Kelly presents any evidence worthy of consideration for conspiracy let's hear it!

[Jack White]

Mr. Walker denies the existence of conspiracies.

I would like to hear his defense of John Wilkes Booth, alleged lone nut assassin of President Lincoln.

Does he maintain that the 8 conspirators hanged for their parts in the plot were innocent?

As a corollary I would like to hear his explanation of why all political killings are the work of lone nuts.

Jack

[Guest]

Mr. Walker denies the existence of conspiracies.

I would like to hear his defense of John Wilkes Booth, alleged lone nut assassin of President Lincoln.

Does he maintain that the 8 conspirators hanged for their parts in the plot were innocent?

As a corollary I would like to hear his explanation of why all political killings are the work of lone nuts.

Jack

I am not sure you have read anything I have posted in this thread have you?

If you wish to discuss John Wilkes Booth please start a separate thread and I will join in where I can.