As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up American airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. (
Thing is, the US joint chiefs wasn't willing to kill US civilians. The plan itself involved switching an aircraft with American civilians on board with an aircraft with no civilians on board. Blow up the aircraft with no civilians on board, and blame it on the Cuban government. These civilians would already be given a cover story beforehand, so nobody would ever wonder why those civilians suddenly reappear in American society after being supposedly blown up.
Even when plotting a false flag operation to justify a US intervention, the US joint chief of staff had drawn a line at killing US citizens. And no point did the US joint chief of staff wanted to kill US civilians. It forces an "update" on one's "priors" on trutherism...in the sense that the US military does not support killing Americans. That doesn't mean that 9/11 wouldn't happen...it just means that the US military wouldn't want any civilians to die in the process, and would have to "switch" the planes as well as everyone in those two towers. [Or, you know, you could assume that there's turnover in the US chief of staff, and that the preferences of Kennedy's chief of staff may differ from Bush's chief of staff.]
As a side note: The US joint chiefs of staff was willing to blow up Cuban refugees though ("real or simulated"). Take that what you will.
What would be the point of having a conspiracy betting market? Conspiracy theories aren't rational/scientific to begin with, they are a form of religion. Besides most people do not have the expertise to judge conspiracy theories accurately and the people that have that expertise may still be wrong because real conspiracies are often very "original". Finally, what's the point of having such a long term betting market, the update cycles take so long that the amount of active conspiracy theories could fluctuate wildly in the meantime and one conspiracy theory turning out to be (not) true doesn't say much about the next theory when it's decades later and the world and the world's leading people have changed a lot?
Prediction markets aside, the revelation about the joints chiefs unanimously recommending terror against U.S. citizens is hugely significant in its implications. Added, that Kennedy was apparently content to allow these generals to remain in their positions of power despite their rejection of elementary civilized morality.
It forces an "update" on one's "priors" on trutherism. But more than that, it refutes a traditional view of the U.S. military as committed to basic democratic values, such that it would not usurp power--say, when the regime is faced by a popular socialist movement. If the top levels of the military are willing to kill U.S. civilians as a pretext to invade a country, it cannot be reasonably said that they are incapable of any violation of "democratic values."
"Such conspiracies aren’t always, or even usually, uncovered eventually..."
How would you know this, without knowing the number of conspiracies, known and unknown, to use as the denominator? My hunch is that most conspiracies that accomplish historically significant aims are usually uncovered. But again, I admit it's only a hunch.
Such a betting market would give P(conspiracy is discovered, conspiracy exists), which equals P(conspiracy is discovered|conspiracy exists) * P(conspiracy exists). In other words, if many people think there exists a conspiracy but that it would never be discovered, this would be indistinguishable from the case where people don't think there is a conspiracy at all.
I'm thinking of auctioning a 9/11 conspiracy confirmation futures contract on eBay: http://blog.knowinghumans.n...
Thing is, the US joint chiefs wasn't willing to kill US civilians. The plan itself involved switching an aircraft with American civilians on board with an aircraft with no civilians on board. Blow up the aircraft with no civilians on board, and blame it on the Cuban government. These civilians would already be given a cover story beforehand, so nobody would ever wonder why those civilians suddenly reappear in American society after being supposedly blown up.
Even when plotting a false flag operation to justify a US intervention, the US joint chief of staff had drawn a line at killing US citizens. And no point did the US joint chief of staff wanted to kill US civilians. It forces an "update" on one's "priors" on trutherism...in the sense that the US military does not support killing Americans. That doesn't mean that 9/11 wouldn't happen...it just means that the US military wouldn't want any civilians to die in the process, and would have to "switch" the planes as well as everyone in those two towers. [Or, you know, you could assume that there's turnover in the US chief of staff, and that the preferences of Kennedy's chief of staff may differ from Bush's chief of staff.]
As a side note: The US joint chiefs of staff was willing to blow up Cuban refugees though ("real or simulated"). Take that what you will.
Good one.
What would be the point of having a conspiracy betting market? Conspiracy theories aren't rational/scientific to begin with, they are a form of religion. Besides most people do not have the expertise to judge conspiracy theories accurately and the people that have that expertise may still be wrong because real conspiracies are often very "original". Finally, what's the point of having such a long term betting market, the update cycles take so long that the amount of active conspiracy theories could fluctuate wildly in the meantime and one conspiracy theory turning out to be (not) true doesn't say much about the next theory when it's decades later and the world and the world's leading people have changed a lot?
It's the country code for Denmark. Unless the letter combination means something else in this case. Don't know what that would be.
A lot of people seem to suspect the "DK". It's clearly a threat to consider.
Prediction markets aside, the revelation about the joints chiefs unanimously recommending terror against U.S. citizens is hugely significant in its implications. Added, that Kennedy was apparently content to allow these generals to remain in their positions of power despite their rejection of elementary civilized morality.
It forces an "update" on one's "priors" on trutherism. But more than that, it refutes a traditional view of the U.S. military as committed to basic democratic values, such that it would not usurp power--say, when the regime is faced by a popular socialist movement. If the top levels of the military are willing to kill U.S. civilians as a pretext to invade a country, it cannot be reasonably said that they are incapable of any violation of "democratic values."
The poll question seems ambiguous, since it doesn't distinguish blowback from active conspiracy.
"Such conspiracies aren’t always, or even usually, uncovered eventually..."
How would you know this, without knowing the number of conspiracies, known and unknown, to use as the denominator? My hunch is that most conspiracies that accomplish historically significant aims are usually uncovered. But again, I admit it's only a hunch.
How would a betting market for conspiracy theories work? I mean, how often are conspiracist beliefs like this actually *resolved*, one way or another?
New Zealand has form for helping the US shut down businesses without proper due legal process. http://arstechnica.com/sear...
Such a betting market would give P(conspiracy is discovered, conspiracy exists), which equals P(conspiracy is discovered|conspiracy exists) * P(conspiracy exists). In other words, if many people think there exists a conspiracy but that it would never be discovered, this would be indistinguishable from the case where people don't think there is a conspiracy at all.