|
Post by PeterB on Sept 8, 2005 21:18:12 GMT -4
Well, yes I have. Here: www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htmThe article suggests several things: 1. It includes people who died in what were very obviously accidents; 2. It includes people with no direct contact with Clinton; 3. It includes people who died of natural causes; 4. It includes people who died before events they were supposedly killed for having knowledge about; and 5. It *doesn't* incude people who could have been killed before they became famous/notorious. Develop a similar list for yourself. That is, people you personally know or know about who have died in the last ten years.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 8, 2005 22:49:07 GMT -4
How about the infamous Lincoln/ Kennedy coincidence. What do you think if this?
· Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. · John F Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. · Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. · John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. · The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters. · Both were particularly concerned with civil rights. · Both wives lost their children while living in the White House. · Both Presidents were shot on a Friday. · Both Presidents were shot in the head. · Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy. · Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln. · Both were assassinated by Southerners. · Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson. · Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. · Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908. · John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839. · Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939. · Both assassins were known by their three names. · Both names are composed of fifteen letters. · Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.' · Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln.' · Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse. · Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater. · Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials. AND HERE'S THE KICKER: · A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland. · A week before Kennedy was shot, he was in Marilyn Monroe.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 9, 2005 2:47:11 GMT -4
Well first I think we need to post an actual bona fide conspiracy theory body count, like this one. It gives a better version of the other side of the story. Then start debunking. www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html This isn't a complete list either. I found one that had something like 80 names on it., but this one has pictures. BTW I saw the Thompson videotape of what happened at Waco. The 4 FBI agents climbed up the side of the compound into an upper story room. It looked like a bedroom judging by the curtains. The first three went in through the window. When the fourth man got there, instead of going in, he raised his weapon and shot the first three who went in. There was quiet, then they, or at least one of them, returned the fire, hitting the agent who was still on the roof. All four died. They were all former Clinton bodyguards. As for Clinton having a squad of hitmen, well, why not? He was a governor, then a president. He could get what he wanted. He could grant immunity to the killers and he had his own personal M.E. Which brings me to another coverup. It's rumored that Clinton is the great grandson of David Rockefeller. Or was it grandson? Or illegitimate son of Winthrop Rockefeller. He wasn't some good ol' boy who done good. Anyhow, I don't have anything concrete because I've just recently run across that info.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 9, 2005 2:53:24 GMT -4
Well, read the link I gave you.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 9, 2005 2:55:29 GMT -4
Those JFK/Lincoln coincidences can all be explained by logical reasoning. But these ones are downright scary... - Lincoln's father was a pioneer who built his own log cabin; Kennedy's father was a racketeer who built his own financial empire. - Lincoln was famous for his trademark beard and Kennedy was known to have the ability to grow a beard. - Both were elected president by a majority of the voters-in the same country! - Lincoln was born in his father's log cabin. Kennedy once spilled Log Cabin Syrup in his father's Lincoln. - Neither Lincoln or Kennedy ever got to see their own image on coins because they both mysteriously died before they were minted!
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 9, 2005 3:02:00 GMT -4
Well, read the link I gave you. I did. Not impressed.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 9, 2005 3:27:48 GMT -4
Why not? It discussed the circumstances of their deaths, and explained why their deaths were unsuspicious (apart from a couple where investigations are continuing).
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 9, 2005 8:53:46 GMT -4
Those JFK/Lincoln coincidences can all be explained by logical reasoning. But these ones are downright scary... - Lincoln's father was a pioneer who built his own log cabin; Kennedy's father was a racketeer who built his own financial empire. - Lincoln was famous for his trademark beard and Kennedy was known to have the ability to grow a beard. - Both were elected president by a majority of the voters-in the same country! - Lincoln was born in his father's log cabin. Kennedy once spilled Log Cabin Syrup in his father's Lincoln. - Neither Lincoln or Kennedy ever got to see their own image on coins because they both mysteriously died before they were minted! LOL
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 9, 2005 12:41:08 GMT -4
I found one that had something like 80 names on it., but this one has pictures.
Are there any with evidence?
BTW I saw the Thompson videotape of what happened at Waco.
Ah, yes. Linda Thompson, the "Bart Sibrel" of the Waco conspiracy theory. Next time you see her, ask her why she takes all that raw news footage and edits it into bits and pieces that she can rearrange in whatever order she wants to tell almost any story. Is she afraid you won't draw the "right" conclusions if she leaves the evidence unaltered?
The 4 FBI agents climbed up the side of the compound into an upper story room. ... The first three went in through the window. When the fourth man got there, instead of going in, he raised his weapon and shot the first three who went in.
No.
This is an excellent example of how "reading between the lines" makes for a hopeless investigation. The video does not show the fourth "cover" man shooting the first three agents; it shows him shooting through the window. That is a very important difference. In your version -- liberally decorated with your own interpretation and opinion -- there is no question what the fourth agent is shooting at. However, the evidence does not actually show what his target was.
There was quiet, then they, or at least one of them, returned the fire, hitting the agent who was still on the roof. All four died.
No again.
You're reading all the "important" bits of information into the evidence, not taking that information from it. I cannot begin to emphasize how unproductive and unrevealing it is to make those kinds of inferences.
In fact, the person who shot the fourth agent is not visible in the video.
You assumed the fourth agent was shooting at the other three. You have no evidence that this is the case. You assumed that the three agents inside are the ones who shot the fourth; you have no evidence for that either.
One of the most frustrating things about eyewitness testimony is getting people to separate observation from interpretation. The story you get is a mixture of what was seen, and what the witness guessed happened. It is human nature to try to tie observations together into a sort of coherent whole so that it makes sense, but it's also human nature to fabricate whatever has to fill the cracks. In an investigation you want to draw an inference at a much higher level than one single test or witness. You want to get an accurate picture of the facts from all witnesses first, before trying to put any inferences to it.
Here's a different scenario. The procedure of sending part of your force in while keeping some of them behind is a standard deployment technique for armed incursion. The people in back "cover" the advancers by watching for people sneaking up on them from behind. If everybody just ran into, say, a room in one big group, they could all be ambushed.
The three agents entered the room and the fourth covered them from the roof. He opened fire after seeing the agents come under fire from assailant(s) in the room, who later shot out through the window killing the fourth agent.
That is a more parsimonious interpretation of the evidence -- what actually is seen on the video. A critic might say that it is not a "simpler" explanation since it involves assailants for which there is no direct proof. That is not really what is meant by "simpler" in the context of parsimony. My interpretation is simpler because it relies only on things known to happen, and reasonably expected to happen in this type of scenario. An armed incursion into a building known to contain armed individuals is likely to meet with armed resistance. The pattern of fire is consistent with a fire team having been successfully ambushed in restricted surroundings. Your interpretation is not as "simple" because it requires a motive or explanation for something that almost never happens: intentional friendly fire. The explanation is given simply as supposition deriving from the Clinton body count conspiracy theory. And since this incident is cited as evidence for that theory, all you have now is a big wad of circular reasoning.
But the overriding point here is not to mix inference or assumption with observation. It seems an easy task, but many people seem utterly unable to distingiush between them.
As for Clinton having a squad of hitmen, well, why not? He was a governor, then a president. He could get what he wanted.
No. Elected officials don't just get whatever they want. In fact, elected officials come under far greater scrutiny than ordinary citizens.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 9, 2005 12:42:41 GMT -4
I did. Not impressed.
I have to persist also. We gave you reasons why we did not accept your sources. You may disagree with those reasons, but they're available to talk about. What specific aspects of the Snopes.com investigation make it untrustworthy?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 9, 2005 12:44:01 GMT -4
But these ones are downright scary...
I discovered that Kennedy and Lincoln each once lived in the same house!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 9, 2005 13:25:24 GMT -4
Oh... my... goodness.
But you'll never read about that little "coincidence" in the mainstream media, now, will you?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 9, 2005 13:30:20 GMT -4
Maybe Sonny Bono will be my next thread. The circumstances surrounding his death were mysterious.
Two witnesses told the team they saw George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush at the South Lake Tahoe, Nevada ski resort with Israeli Mossad agent Michael Harari and another Mossad agent who were both seen standing next to Sonny Bono's ski boots--all four were at the resort just two days before the doomed ski boots were donned by Mr. Bono.
Other unnamed witnesses saw the four standing next to a large evergreen downslope. Attempts to contact the tree for interviews were unsuccessful.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 9, 2005 14:13:40 GMT -4
Maybe Sonny Bono will be my next thread. The circumstances surrounding his death were mysterious.Two witnesses told the team they saw George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush at the South Lake Tahoe, Nevada ski resort with Israeli Mossad agent Michael Harari and another Mossad agent who were both seen standing next to Sonny Bono's ski boots--all four were at the resort just two days before the doomed ski boots were donned by Mr. Bono. Other unnamed witnesses saw the four standing next to a large evergreen downslope. Attempts to contact the tree for interviews were unsuccessful. Now there are parts of this story I can believe.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 9, 2005 17:34:44 GMT -4
· Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. · John F Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. · Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. · John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Numerology makes for excellent "coincidences" because of some of the peculiar and counterintuitive ways in which numbers and digits behave.
Elections occur periodically every two, four, or six years depending on the office sought. This limits the years in which someone can be elected to any government office. The only conclusion we can draw here is that Kennedy and Lincoln pursued roughly similar careers, and that this similarity of their careers ought to be considered salient.
But really?
Kennedy first ran for the House and was elected, and then ran for the Senate as was elected. He narrowly failed to be nominated for Vice President, but was then nominated for President.
Lincoln never served in the Senate, having lost that election. He served one term in the House prior to his presidential run. He was treated to a string of political failures before serving two terms as President.
The political careers of these men are really quite different when considered in more detail. Lincoln's is characterized as persevering through a series of defeats while Kennedy's is characterized as a progressive string of successes.
In this case the illusion of a coincidence is established by identifying only the coincident elements in what is revealed to be a largely noncoincident set of events. It is further enhanced by implying a misleading degree of precision in the timing of those events.
· The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.
By my count, eight of the 43 U.S. presidents (19%) have last names that contain seven letters. It is possible to compute the probability of choosing two presidents at random whose names are the same length, but it would be a lengthy and tedious computation that I won't undertake now.
Here again the author has created a "coincidence" by controlling his choice of what to examine. "John", "John F", and "John Fitzgerald", and "Jack" all have different numbers of letters than "Abraham". Thus no combination of either president's full names meets this criterion.
· Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
"Civil rights" is an enormously broad category. Make the target big enough and you're sure to hit it.
A more salient observation might be that Abraham Lincoln presided over a nation in civil war, while Kennedy did not.
· Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
True, but again the details reveal salient differences as well. Mrs. Lincoln bore no children in the White House and lost two children to illness. Mrs. Kennedy bore a premature child in the White House who died after only a few days. The Lincolns lost many of their children to childhood diseases -- a condition of the time -- while the Kennedys lost the one infant and, much later, a son to an accident.
· Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
If two people are shot in separate incidents, the odds are 14% that they will be shot on the same day.
It is perhaps more salient to note that Lincoln was shot on April 14, 1865 and died the next day, while Kennedy was shot on November 22, 1963 and died the same day. Again, the differences outweigh the one similarity. Earlier the author proposes salient coincidences having to do with years, but now he ignores years, dates, and months that differ numerologically.
· Both Presidents were shot in the head.
No other portion of the anatomy presents itself as a target so long as the victim is attacked from behind while seated, as were both Kennedy and Lincoln.
We might consider that posture a coincidence by itself. However, one's chances of success in any attack are increased by attacking from behind, and the seated posture is hardly rare.
· Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
No he wasn't.
· Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Like "civil rights", the category "Southerner" is very broad. Oswald was born in the south, but lived in various parts of the country as well as abroad. Boothe was born in Maryland and lived for quite a while in the north.
Lincoln obviously had much to fear from Southerners. Kennedy did not; we don't have any evidence that Oswald was motivated in any way by Southern sensitivities.
If we divide everyone into two broad categories -- Southerners and Northerners -- then there is a 50% chance that any two assassinated presidents will be killed by someone from the same group.
· Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
To be specific, both were succeeded by their vice presidents. Since both presidents were "Northerners", it makes sense for each to choose a "Southerner" as a running mate in order to increase national appeal. That is, regional disparity is the rule rather than the exception among running mates. And here we're up against the same 50% "either-or" rule: if we take it as a given that the vice president is likely to be from the opposite region, then the correspondence of the vice presidents is simply the mirror of the correspondence of the presidents. Pick any two presidents and there is roughly a 50-50 chance they will be from the same half of the country.
And "Johnson" is one of the most common surnames in the English language.
· Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. · Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
Numerology revisited. Because the careers of Kennedy and Lincoln are approximately separated by 100 years, we would expect their vice presidents to be of approximately the same age and thus to have been born approximately 100 years apart.
This is a more insidious concept to grasp. Because of the broad timing of these two sequences of events, the relative timings of events with them will tend to gravitate toward certain "windows". That is, of all the years in which the vice presidents could have been born under these two administrations, some are simply more probable than others. And so, given that the separation between the administrations is roughly 100 years, the chances that two corresponding dates will differ by exactly 100 years is not on the order of 1 in 100, but perhaps more like 1 in 10.
This also relies on the "round number" maxim of numerology. Numbers like 100 are "magical" in numerology because they occur on pattern boundaries in our positional magnitude number system. Quantitatively a separation of 100 years is no less probable than one of 99 years or one of 103 years. We arbitrarily consider round numbers to be somehow intrinsically more significant than other numbers.
Other traditions such as Judaism have different "significant" numbers: 7, 12, 40, etc. It wouldn't surprise me to discover that the Pharisaical numbers generate just as many "coincidences" as the base-10 "round" numbers.
Qualitatively, Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Johnson couldn't possibly be more dissimilar.
· John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
No he wasn't.
· Both assassins were known by their three names.
The author is woefully inconsistent with how the treats names. While the assassins indeed share this quality, why not the presidents themselves? Or their wives?
Abraham Lincoln had no middle name. Kennedy did, and frequently used it or its initial. Kennedy was also known by the nickname "Jack" and, historically, by the initials JFK.
Mary Todd Lincold is usually mentioned using her three names, while Kennedy's first lady is almost always referred to using her informal nickname "Jackie".
Picking and choosing which correspondences are salient is always a difficult task, made all the more difficult when it is done inconsistently.
We, years hence, use all three names to identify Booth and Oswald, but there is no evidence they used them.
· Both names are composed of fifteen letters.
More numerology nonsense. In some cases the author considers only last names. In other cases he considers the full name. Here, for no apparent reason, the author has summed the length of all three names. Why a different formula or algorithm for each different comparison?
· Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.' · Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln.'
What do a car and a theater have in common?
· Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse. · Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.
A theater is not a cinema. A tobacco shed is not a warehouse. Again, the author simply expands the definitions until the "coincidence" fits.
Salient differences: Booth wasn't caught until days later, in a completely different place. Oswald was caught the same day, in the same city.
· Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
Only if you accept an absurdly broad definition of "assassinated". Oswald was killed by a private citizen in an ambush after having been captured; Booth was killed by federal agents in a shootout, having never been in custody.
· A week before Kennedy was shot, he was in Marilyn Monroe.
Funny, but no. Marilyn Monroe died quite some time before Kennedy was killed. I don't think even JFK would stoop to necrophilia.
If anything this list proves just how prevalent "coincidences" really are -- especially if you subjectively pick and choose what you're going to look at.
|
|