Conspiracy Theorists Unite!!!

[sugaree]

aims said:

What I want to know is, why was the autopsy of a president done by a totally inexperienced doctor?

Courtesy of Wikipedia, here's the list of medical personnel present:

Medical personnel and assistants

* Chester H. Boyers: Chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology
* John T. Stringer: the autopsy medical photographer
* Paul Kelly O'Connor: laboratory technologist
* James Curtis Jenkins: laboratory technologist
* Edward Reed: X-ray technician
* Jerrol Custer: X-ray technician
* Jan Gail Rudnicki: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant on the night of the autopsy
* James E. Metzler: hospital corpsman
* James H. Ebersole: Assistant Chief of Radiology
* Dr. George Bakeman, U.S. Navy.
* Adm. George Burkley, M.D., U.S. Navy, the President’s personal physician
* Robert Frederick Karnei, M.D.: Bethesda pathologist
* Captain David P. Osborne: chief of surgery
* Commander J. Thornton Boswell: Chief of Pathology of Bethesda
* Commander James J. Humes: JFK's chief autopsy pathologist, conducting autopsy
* Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck: chief of the wound ballistics pathology branch at Walter Reed Medical Center, entered while autopsy is in progress

Crapload of various muckety-mucks present observing as well.

[aims]

Oh so there seemed to be adequate personal present at the autopsy. I thought I had read on the Crime Library site that they trusted a doctor with stuff that he wasn't qualified to handle. I should definitely read the book Monkey suggested.

Has anyone read about the Roswell incident?

[Mugsy]

Re: People who espouse multiple conspiracy theories (as opposed to someone interested in alternate theories about one event). I think they tend to be generally paranoid types, always thinking everyone is "out to get them". Everything is shady, everyone is trying to do them wrong.

A cartoon version of this is KOTH's Dale Dribble, who was hilariously taken down a notch when he discovered that his entire Kennedy assassination theory was wrong because he had the car going in the wrong direction.

An actual human versioin of this is my brother - the world is conspiring against him. If he gets the wrong change ina store, the clerk is trying to rip him off. If his mail goes to the wrong house, 'someone' wants to read it. If a sale item is sold out when he gets to the store, it's because they saw him coming and are out to get him. Etc. etc. IT's exhausting. Of course, he believes ALL conspiracy theories.

My husband is pretty convinced that the air force shot down United 93, that it didn't crash because of some onboard battle between passengers and highjackers. There was a surprising lack of debris after that crash, even the hole was tiny for the size of a jet. Every other plane crash on land has left acres of debris, with pieces of all sizes. It's like United 93 mostly disintegrated before it hit the ground. Thoughts?

[Door]

mugsy said:

My husband is pretty convinced that the air force shot down United 93, that it didn't crash because of some onboard battle between passengers and highjackers. There was a surprising lack of debris after that crash, even the hole was tiny for the size of a jet. Every other plane crash on land has left acres of debris, with pieces of all sizes. It's like United 93 mostly disintegrated before it hit the ground. Thoughts?

I'm inclined to believe this as well. Perhaps the passengers were simultaneously staging an uprising, but how could military officials have known that in the moment? All the military knew was that three planes had already caused destruction and a fourth plane wasn't sticking to the flight plan. I hate to say it, but what else could they do? I'm no strategist, but it would make sense to shoot the plane down over a field instead of waiting to see its intended target. Of all the 9/11 conspiracies, this one makes the most sense to me.

[Sunbaby]

jenius said:

Any 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

*sheepishly raises hand* Me. Sort of. And it's a pretty recent development. I won't go into details, because I'd be afraid it touches on politics a bit too much, but I've really started to question some stuff.

Me too. But no way am I going to discuss it first. ::shakes head::

I like how on Seinfeld they spoofed the JFK assassination with the "magic lougie". LOL

[sugaree]

I think that Flight 93 might have been shot down too. I don't know enough about crashes/missals to really have an opinion scientifically, but it makes sense.

But if that's the case, it will come out. Maybe next year, maybe fifty years from now. That's the thing about conspiracies, the real ones...they involve people, and people talk. Conspiracies always come out.

[rantingraven]

Have any of the 9/11 theorists here seen "Loose Change"? I liked some of the ideas it forwarded and some of the "evidence" it presented.

[Peggy Lane]

I don't typically believe in conspiracies, but I totally think that the JFK assassination is all kinds of weird and wrong in ways that just don't make sense. I read "Case Closed" hoping it would convince me, but alas I am still convinced that the mob was involved and that there was a conspiracy.

[heyalice]

My brother had heard that there were nine planes in the sky on 9/11. Had anyone heard that one? Also there was a plane that sat on a runway up in the Yukon. Is that the plane that Jean Chretien (former CDN PM) said the US said he could shoot down?

[Sukie]

UA 93 being shot down is the one 9-11 conspiracy that I am inclined to believe as well, though I love reading about all the other ones. The thing with flight 93 that I always questioned was why all the secrecy on releasing the cockpit recordings? All other crashes have had the transcripts released as soon as they were available, but in this case nothing was released. The relatives got to go to a private listening (months later) but were not allowed to take notes. I know they always said it was due to the prosecution of Moussaoui (sp?), but it just seems strange.

Another interesting theory is the connection between 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombing. Terry Nichols had traveled to the Philippines and there are some theories that he met with Al Qaeda while there. His wife was from there and he spent a great deal of time. Plus, there was the whole suspect #2, which just was kind of dropped by the media.

As far as why to people buy into conspiracies, I think there are a couple different types. There are your real wackos, who think everyone is out to get them and see black shadows everywhere. And then you have relatively normal people ( ahem, me!) who take events like 9-11, JFK, etc. and see at the least, gross incompetence and possibly more.

Major, traumatic events are always going to be looked at, dissected, and critically examined because I think it is the way some people can process such events and try to make sense of them.

eta:

Have any of the 9/11 theorists here seen "Loose Change"? I liked some of the ideas it forwarded and some of the "evidence" it presented.

I have seen it. I thought it was presented in a really easy to follow format. I saw the three guys interviewed for a special on, I think the History Channel, about 9-11 conspiracies. What I really liked is that they have taken some of the criticisms from the first two versions and are making another one. They have backed away from some of the claims ( flight 77, the planes flying w/o passengers) but are still critically examining the facts.

Has anyone else read the entire 9-11 timeline that was prepared by Paul Thompson? It is very interesting. You can access it here.. It makes some very interesting points and references all the media sources it uses.