Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Biggest Conspiracy


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1    Dowdy

Dowdy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,186 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

  • "The one thing we have learnt from history is that we learn nothing from history." Albert Einstein

Posted 12 July 2001 - 07:23 AM

Probably the biggest conspiracy in history that is not E.T. related – The Kennedy Assassination

On the day of Nov. 22, 1963 the President of the United States rode in his limousine down Elm Street through Dallas when all of a sudden shots rang out. The president, John F. Kennedy, was fatally wounded in the head and neck and John Connally, the passenger in the front seat, was hit three times. The President's wife Jacqueline Kennedy grabbed her husband, as his blood sprayed on to her, in this terrifying scene.

The President was quickly brought to the hospital. He never regained consciousness and was pronounced dead thirty minutes later.

The shots were believed to have come from the Texas School Book Depository Building. An identified worker at the depository building named Lee Harvey Oswald, was taken into custody as the alleged assassin.

Two days following the assassination, as Oswald was being moved through the basement of the Dallas jail, a .38 caliber bullet pierced Lee Harvey Oswald's left side causing him to fall to the concrete floor. The man who pulled the trigger to kill Oswald was Jack Ruby. People say Ruby killed Oswald to keep him from talking, but if he did plan this, why didn't he kill Oswald the day the President was slain instead of waiting two days if he was to kill Oswald to keep him quiet?

There are several theories of how J.F.K. was killed. Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill John Kennedy by himself, or did a conspiracy do it? And if a conspiracy did it, did the conspiracy include Oswald and what was his motive?

BEFORE
image


AFTER
image


Could Oswald do all that damage...alone???

THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. Can you? ;)

#2    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 12 July 2001 - 11:21 AM

Dowdy

You stated it's the biggest conspiracy not E.T. related. That would depend on your beliefs.  http://www.mj12.org/mj12/mj-12sec.htm      gives a very detailed and very lengthy description on how the two are related. It's really quite rediculous in my opinion, but I just thought I would give a site that relates the two.

There are so many theories. One popular theory involves former President Bush, Nixon, Pepsi Co executives, and many others at this site   http://www.alienjoes...acy/realist.art

Although I'm not a conspiracy nut, this is one incident that I do believe was a conspiracy, and that Oswald wasn't alone.

Homer[glow=color,strength,width]

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#3    Dowdy

Dowdy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,186 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

  • "The one thing we have learnt from history is that we learn nothing from history." Albert Einstein

Posted 12 July 2001 - 11:45 AM

I'm just wondering. Is it true that they took a few seconds out of the Zapruder film because it actually showed who kill Kennedy?!?

Is that myth or fact?

and Homer you MIGHT be right about it not being the biggest but it is definitely the most controversial case in modern American history.
Homer, what conspiracy (not E.T. related) would you consider to be the biggest?

THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. Can you? ;)

#4    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 12 July 2001 - 08:43 PM

Dowdy,

  The idea that there are missing frames from the Zapruder film is a myth. There was a conspiracy involved in his death, but I think the bigger question now is 'what does it matter'? Nearly all the supposed conspirators are dead (depending on which 'theory' you subscribe to) or no longer retain any position of power or influence. If the truth were ever to be revealed, about the only satisfaction anyone could claim was the ability to say "we told you so". Additionally, there is this to ponder, this event has given birth to dozens of conspiracy 'senarios' over the last 40 years and has developed into a cottage industry of tens of millions of dollars of book sales, movies, and other forms of entertainment. If the TRUTH were to be revealed, do you think everyone would believe it? I don't think so. There are far too many people whose livelihood depends on perpetuating this 'mystery'.

   Homer is somewhat correct in his assesment about the importance of this incident. Many other questionable events have occured over the last 40 years that are just as serious to some people as the Kennedy assassination. Race, religion, political affiliation and the generation you were born into are all factors to consider when measuring degrees of importance. The passing of years has also revealed unflattering information about the Kennedy administration, effectively shattering the "Camelot" myth within many peoples minds. The significance of this event will continue to dimish over time and I doubt if we will ever learn the 'truth'.

MAGIKMAN

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#5    SpaceyKC

SpaceyKC

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,349 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United States

  • Thank you TO

Posted 12 July 2001 - 11:13 PM

     Magikman,

     When you said what good would it do to find out if there was a conspiracy or not, I thought about my late father.  It was such a 'touchy subject' with him, that I think what bothered him was the fact that the GOVERNMENT couldn't be trusted, not necessarily the individuals involved.
      Just a thought.

    NORA

"Science may have found a cure for most evils;  but it has
         found no remedy for the worst of them all --- the apathy of human beings."
                                                     Helen Keller

#6    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 13 July 2001 - 01:21 AM

Nora,

     What you say is very true. My father was the same way, as was just about any adult of their generation. Here were people who sacrificed a great deal, whether it was serving in the military during WWII or the Korean War, or at home supporting what they perceived was a just cause for a nation and a government that stood for truth and justice.  My father served in the Army during WWII, and was adamant about his feelings regarding freedom and the righteousness of our government. I believe, however, as he grew older and was confronted with the ever growing evidence of government corruption and conspiracies, he began to understand that his way of thinking was old fashioned. You have to understand, there was nothing like the investigative reporting we see today back in the fifties and early sixties. The ‘Sixty Minutes’ approach to uncovering scams and untruths started in the mid to late ‘60’s. This type of reporting was highly controversial, and yet was pivotal in opening many peoples eyes, especially the older generation. My father told me that he had wished his generation was as inquisitive and demanding of answers. This ‘openness’ has gone a long ways in improving our understanding of the degree of deceit and corruption that can be expected now. Is that a sad indictment of our sense of things? Possibly, but consider the alternative. It certainly makes it that much harder for those who wish to deceive us to be successful at it, irregardless of some of the more outrageous claims made by others.

  Returning to the point I was trying to make. If someone were to say, 'this is the truth', how would we be able to determine that anymore? What could be offered up that would convince us 100%? My intent was not to disparage those seeking the truth, its only my opinion that too much time has passed to expect uncontroversial proof. Those conditions could never be met, and an onslaught of detractors and nay-sayers would be on hand to further muddy the waters with their 'theories' and 'evidence'.

MAGIKMAN

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#7    SpaceyKC

SpaceyKC

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,349 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United States

  • Thank you TO

Posted 13 July 2001 - 04:25 AM

 Magikman!!
 
     It's so nice to get back to good ole' bantering back and forth!! It is refreshing,again. And you are spot on, you give so many angles to one simple thought.
    Like when you said too much time has passed.  While I agree with you, I immediately thought of The Lost Colony of Roanoke.  Someone has just found new evidence to show what they think happened to them.  I haven't read the book yet, but I thought that those researchers sure were/are diligent to keep at that after so long a time, don't you think?
             
:-/NORA

"Science may have found a cure for most evils;  but it has
         found no remedy for the worst of them all --- the apathy of human beings."
                                                     Helen Keller

#8    Dowdy

Dowdy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,186 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

  • "The one thing we have learnt from history is that we learn nothing from history." Albert Einstein

Posted 13 July 2001 - 05:05 AM

Magikman,
        your right, nearly 200+ people who knew anything about Kennedy are dead. Most of them are natural but some of them were murdered, car accidents etc.
If they were to tell the truth about the assassination i wouldn't do anything, but if other people found out that it was the KKK who killed kennedy (Angered by Kennedy's stance on African American civil rights) or the Mafia (Did not like Robert Kennedy) there will be alot of 'heroes' trying to kill all the KKK (nothing wrong about that) or the Mafia (nothing wrong about that either) and alot of innocent people would get killed in the process. If people were told that it was a the CIA that killed Kennedy (The CIA wanted Kennedy dead. Kennedy was angry at the CIA for the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and had threatened to dismantle the CIA and to reorganise it into several different organisations. The CIA also took a hard-line stance against communism and were upset at Kennedy's uncommitted stance in the Vietnam War) there would be a shit load of protests and the CIA MIGHT actually be shut down. So if people were to find out the truth it wouldn't be a "we told you so" situation.

And your right. It has given birth to dozens of conspiracy 'senarios'. I was looking on the internet to see what people thought killed Kennedy and i found the most interesting senario - the 'umbrella man' was alot more than just a signal for a hidden gunman. Researcher Robert Cutler claimed that the umbrella may have been a dart-firing weapon. This is supported by the testimony of a CIA weapons developer in 1975. He told the Senate's Intelligence Committee that such an umbrella was in use in 1963. He described the weapon as looking like an umbrella. He explained the dart gun was silently operating and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was opened. He also said that the CIA ordered about 50 of such guns and that they were operational in 1963. Furthermore, Cutler theorized that Kennedy's throat wound could have been a wound caused by such a dart. This would also explain Kennedy's lack of motion during the shooting sequence.

image

Interesting, isn't it :o

THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. Can you? ;)

#9    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 13 July 2001 - 07:42 AM

Dowdy,

  You make general statements which are simplistic in nature, ignoring the time period in which this event occurred. To wit: if the conspiracy would have been immediately discovered, some of what you stated my have turned out to be true to a degree. Certainly the KKK would have suffered the most, they were already under attack from several fronts, and involvement in the killing of the President would have been their death knell. The Mafia is a different story, responsible specific Mafia families may have suffered, not the entire syndicate. If the CIA were found responsible, the public would never have found out about it and the individuals dealt with secretly and internally(several theories exist regarding this scenario). The government would never have allowed the disolution of the CIA, it was the only safeguard the country had in the 'Cold War'. As I stated in my previous post, it was a very different country back then. There were some rumblings when Oswalds Russian involvement was revealed, yet the public deferred to the US governments statement that the Russians had nothing to do with the assassination.
  Yes, there are so many conspiracies out there now that it makes your head hurt. The umbrella theory advanced by Robert Cutler is one of the more ridiculous ones, as this explanation points out;
          --------------------------
This is a key issue.  It's difficult to tell from the drawing, how big the dart was.  Hard to really define the size, as this is just a drawing without measurements, so do not know the size. However, unless microscopic, it would leave the slit tracks of the wings, I am fairly certain.  This would also limit the amount of drug it could deliver, the depth it could
penetrate, and the materials it could be made from. As autopsy x-rays were taken of the neck area, most metals would show up if it was still in the
body. Not sure what the development of plastics were in during 1963, but there were not as many types available then as we have now.  IV's and
blood were still stored in glass bottles. Most needles were still metal, some of the cutdowns were plastic, but still had to be introduced with
metal needles as the plastic themselves not strong enough to penetrate the vein (in cutdowns a scalpel was used to incise the skin).  If the flechette had been even an inch long, then I think the Parkland MD's would have seen it when they did the trach, if it was there.As far as how much penetration power the flechette had, I do not know. However, to shoot something with the batteries (pre-energizers) of 1963,that could fit in an umbrella handle, I would think would be very limited?  None of this even addresses what drugs were available in 1963, that
could be delivered intramuscular or subcutaneously that could act so quickly on a human body. Even intravenous drugs takes awhile, a few seconds to minutes at the least. There is no way with such an imprecise method they were able to hit a vein or artery, so that leaves a real time problem, space problem and drug problem in my opinion.(Robert Cutlers entire theory hinges on instantaneous paralysis- my note.
Another thought, if it was very small, then how could they be sure it would get past his clothes.  I am assuming you think the tie nick and the
shirt hole were added later?  But the main
point is, the dart would have to be large enough or traveling at a tremendous speed to penetrate his coat, shirt, etc., to be sure of a hit.  
None of this seems likely from that weapon, the imprecision of the weapon, the battery powered projectile from such a weapon, the type of drug that
could have caused such a quick response and the lack of any evidence that it happened. If it had lodged in the neck, would the autopsy have found it?  Was the autopsy a genuine search for truth? I think it would have been found yes. They did explore the neck, just did not remove the neck organs, there is a difference. If it was metal, it would have shown up in the x-rays. More importantly, the Parkland MDs would have also noticed any such item not microscopic in size. But then, if the flechette was big enough to make the neck wound, there would have had to be slits next to the opening for the wings. The last thing to consider is what happened to the flechette if it was not discovered on the body. Would it not have been found in the subsequent search of the car?
       ------------------------
 Most of Cutlers other evidence is circumstantial and unsubstantiated. He trots out testimony that vaguely mention exotic weapons and the possibility of their use, but no where does it go into detail as to the effectiveness of their use except against guard dogs. As explained above, there is a great difference in dosage and reaction time needed to immobilize a human versus a dog.

MAGIKMAN

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#10    Homer

Homer

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,814 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 July 2001 - 10:16 AM

Dowdy

To answer your question, I think perhaps you're right in that this is the biggest conspiracy not E.T. related(at least in the U.S. in the 20th century)

Like Magikman said though, too much time has passed, too many people that were involved dead. I will tell you this, there is a huge archive of information, possibly millions of pages, locked up somewhere. If this information ever gets released to the public, it wont be until many years AFTER everyone who was even old enough to remember have died, and there is still a lot people that were around then.

Homer[glow=color,strength,width]

אַ֭תָּה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעִ֑י

#11    Dowdy

Dowdy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,186 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

  • "The one thing we have learnt from history is that we learn nothing from history." Albert Einstein

Posted 13 July 2001 - 11:20 AM

Magikman,
        you pointed out alot of good points. For the umbrella 'gun' to be operated electronically the dart would of have to been metal. i believe it could of operated like a BB gun for it to shoot a plastic dart. You have to remember that the government made the umbrella. It's common knowledge that when the government makes something they pour more money into making the product than they need and make the product of a superior standard (especially with weapons) You also have to remember that he was only less than 5 meters away from Kennedy so you wouldn't need alot of force to shoot the dart and to pierce the skin. I also believe that there were toxins in 1963 that would of been able to take effect instantly (the most powerful toxin today is 150,000 times more potent than cyanide and if they had a toxin back then a fraction to that it would of most certainly have taken effect instantly).
All i'm saying is that this theory can not be ruled out, i don't necessary believe it. :)

THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. Can you? ;)

#12    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 14 July 2001 - 08:50 AM

Nora,

  I'm always open to "friendly" bantering. :D Also critical dissemination, deductive reasoning, logical analysis, subjective prostelizing, sarcastic humor, and Anunnaki bashing. :D

 There are many 'angles' to any subject, and its important to understand that each 'angle' must be studied and verified before accepting it as being credible. Its obvious I have little tolerance for those who espouse the 'possiblities' of things. Possibilities are conjecture without verifiable evidence. In life anything and everything is 'possible', theoretical probabilities must undergo strict examination before any assessment can be given. Therein lies the fault with many of the explanations to the majority of the subjects discussed in this forum. There are far too many 'open minded' people who will freely subscribe to some of the most ridiculous garbage imaginable, and do it without even attempting to verify the credibility of the information they put their faith in. There is a great truth in the old adage 'if you assume something to be true' the only thing you have accomplished is to make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'.

  As an example, and I'm not picking on Dowdy here, but it illustrates my point. He states in his post that he read about someone advancing the idea that an 'umbrella' weapon was used in the Kennedy assassination. I present evidence that strongly refutes this individuals theory, referencing data that clearly points out faults to the credibility of his claims, and yet Dowdy maintains that he 'assumes' there was a toxin available that could 'instantly' paralyze a human being back then, without even attempting to back up his opinion with credible, historical fact. He also chose to ignore the fact that anything introduced into the human body still needs to follow the circulation system, effectively eliminating the 'instantaneous' time frame. Assumptions based on little or no knowledge can only mean trouble. Any 'possibility' has credence if you look at it half-assed.


MAGIKMAN

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#13    Dowdy

Dowdy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,186 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

  • "The one thing we have learnt from history is that we learn nothing from history." Albert Einstein

Posted 14 July 2001 - 12:13 PM

My theories on the umbrella gun are based on the ASSUMPTION that the umbrella was a weapon - i'm not saying it was a weapon. i never said i believed the theory.

THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. Can you? ;)

#14    Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 July 2001 - 03:36 PM

::)Ok, well I think that this just might be the perfect time for me to interject here.
 The 'Umbrella' has been around a long time, and there are drugs that have been around for ages, that can instantly render a person immobile.  Let's just think about the powder that is made, out of natural ingredients, that has been used in Voodoo rituals' for centuries.  When taken either by mouth, or injection, it immediatly immobilizes anyone.  The same effect as an ephideral, only stronger, and longer lasting.  Now the problem with this is that, it is totally organic, which means that you have too precisely get the measurements correct, whitout error, and you also have to have the plants readily available.  Plants that are not grown in America, not to say that it could not have been cultivated in a greenhouse somewhere.
 My second issue is this,  with the 'Umbrella', you cannot be aiming at any specific target.  How would you ever be able, even as close as he was, to make such a target without hitting the First Lady?  You could try, but you would not be certain that the wind, or several other factors would not change the course of the dart.  Anyone using this weapon, would have too know the exact speed at which the car was going, without change;  they would have to know the exact time at which the car would pass in front of them, which brings me back to my first point.  How could anybody use this without knowing for sure that the plans could change in an instant.  Let's just keep it real and think logically, as nice as the 'Umbrella' is, it is certainly not meant for a 'Sharp Shooting' situation.  As refined as it has become, to this day, if I was to take it too try to shoot a SPECIFIC target, without a SCOPE, I would have about a 10% chance of a hit. (that is a very kind percentage)That is not even figuring in, the multiple people that surround the presidents' car.  Or the many onlookers.  Something of this magnitude, should stay in the movies. Never in a million years, would ANYBODY use such an unrefined weapon to make an exact hit, in such an exact fashion.??  To take a chance like that, would be a chance that certainly anyone trying NOT too be found out would not take.
   Reese   :-*


#15    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 14 July 2001 - 07:21 PM

Teresa,

  While you are certainly free to ‘inject’ (just a little play on words) :D your opinion, you have to be able to offer credible ‘proof’ of your claims. I don’t want to sidetrack the subject pertinent to this thread by arguing ‘mythical’ Voodoo magic and its effect on a people greatly influenced by occult mysticism. Poisonous toxins are used by many cultures, my point is that there cannot be an ‘instantaneous’ reaction to it. What is your perception of instantaneous? Fifteen seconds to a minute? Cutlers premise was that total paralysis took place in under 1 and a half seconds. That is absurd, especially considering the smallish amount of drug delivered by the dart. Again, time is needed for the drug to actually begin its assimilation into a human body, and there are many internal processes occurring that will eventually produce the desired effect, but not instantly. Try to find a credible example of any drug ‘instantly’ having an effect on a full grown human being that has nothing to do with assumptions made by ‘part-time’ experts, and I may back off my opinion.

  I used your post as an example, Dowdy. I read where you said you didn’t necessarily believe it, but you did say ” All i'm saying is that this theory can not be ruled out”
  My point was that your assumptions were lending credence to a theory that is flawed and  has no credible substance, thus making your statement seem rather ludicrous. Again, the underlying problem with many controversial subjects is the lack of intelligent examination and irrational dependence on improper reporting to form beliefs.

MAGIKMAN

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users