Skeptic Project

Say in 1954, members of this site were alive and well, chatting in some local bar every night. Someone comes in and tells the members that he has inside info regarding the NY Times and the CIA. He says they are in cahoots regarding a coup in Guatemala. The only evidence he can provide is that he is a janitor at the NY Times and has heard rumors about not only the coup, but also the NY Times' cooperation.

This type of evidence doesn't seem to be credible enough. Members would likely ask for more concrete evidence, which the janitor simply could not provide.

Would the members claim that he is lying? Would they denounce his claims?

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/07/us/role-of-cia-in-guatemala-told-in-files-of-publisher.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Many conspiracy theories rely on shaky evidence. Does that mean, however, that they are all untrue?

What you're saying is that you are open to the possibility that it is true; but you will not act on or accept its truth until you have more well-founded evidence.

Sounds good to me. The reason I bring this up is that it fascinates me to consider what offices in our government may be doing at this very moment. And are there conspiracies that get disregarded that may actually be true? Just something to think about.

That's true.

@ Edward:

By "false-flag" attacks, do you mean the likes of Operation Northwoods?

I mean people calling OKC and 9/11 "false-flags" and also the recent suicide plane attack on the IRS building, and the guy getting gun down by security guards outside the pentagon. Any event, EVER, is a false-flag attack according to Alex Jones, period.

Northwoods was a bunch of bullshit, as well as MKULTRA. There's a reason you don't hear about successful operations from declassified documents. The FOIA can be revoked if it's a matter of national security, so why in the hell wouldn't Nothwoods or MKULTRA be a matter of national security if they weren't failed ideas and projects?

@ Edward: The concern with Operation Northwoods is that members of the government would write up a document proposing such ideas. Of course, some CTers will also suggest that Kennedy's rejecting of the plan had to do with his assassination.

>> The concern with Operation Northwoods is that members of the government would write up a document proposing such ideas.

Welcome to the real world.

>> Of course, some CTers will also suggest that Kennedy's rejecting of the plan had to do with his assassination.

That or they say because he "tried to end the federal reserve" which isn't even remotely true.

"The reason this thread exists is because I've gotten the feeling that people on this forum immediately mark any conspiracy theory as crazy."

This misconception comes from never having anything new to say.

How many times do you think I've had this conversation with someone about Northwoods?

>> The reason this thread exists is because I've gotten the feeling that people on this forum immediately mark any conspiracy theory as crazy.

You're mixing conspiracies and conspiracy theories. COINTELPRO was a set of conspiracies against various groups in the United States. Northwoods discussed creating a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy theory that northwoods has anything to do with 9/11, that's because there's no evidence other than saying "LOOK, THERE ARE PLANES IN BOTH!"