This week I just finished watching an
excellent six part series, Evidence of Revision,
covering various conspiracy theories.
Profiled are assassinations of John F. Kennedy in
1963, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968, and the
Jonestown Guyana suicides of 1978.
A conspiracy, as defined in the
dictionary, is "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or
surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more
A conspiracy, by definition, needs at least two people.
A wrongdoer cannot conspire by himself.
A conspiracy theory, by extension, is a posited
story about such an unlawful or treacherous plan.
The official stories explaining John F.
Kennedy's, Robert Kennedy's, and Martin Luther King's
assassinations and the Jonestown residents' mass suicide
are, therefore, not conspiracies at all, because each of
these atrocities can be pinned to one man working solo.
Lee Harvey Oswald,, Sirhan Sirhan, and James Earl
Ray, by official accounts, were the lone gunmen responsible
for JFK's, RFK's, and King's deaths, respectively.
Jim Jones, as the hypnotic leader of the Peoples
Temple, apparently convinced his flock to follow him over to
the Other Side after he had a visiting congressman and
several others killed.
9-11 is the most recent major
conspiracy to command serious attention.
The official story for this one is, technically, a
conspiracy theory because more than two people conspired to
make it happen.
The official (conspiracy) theory states that 19 al-Qaeda
terrorists hijacked four passenger jets.
Two were commandeered into the World Trade Center
towers and one hit the side of the Pentagon.
And yet few would view the official
9-11 story as a conspiracy theory.
They would just call the most commonly accepted view
the official story.
The term 'conspiracy theory' has rather negative
conspiracy theory is considered a way-out there story, a
fringe theory bordering on the preposterous.
When watching Evidence of Revision
and other newer documentaries about the 9-11 attacks, when
presented with the facts, one can't help but comment that
it's the official stories that look preposterous.
I won't go into how the official stories in all these
cases are full of holes.
Other websites, books, and documentaries cover that
in full detail.
Recently, I tried to direct a friend to some of that
material to outline why the 9-11 story, as told by the
government, doesn't hold water.
He believes the official version of events for all
the above incidents, as far as I know.
His logic is that the U.S. government is too
incompetent to pull off covert assassinations and plane
hijackings and that if conspiracies were truly behind the
events, too many people would have to be involved, the
extent of the cover up would have to be so great, that the
truth would eventually emerge as those-in-the-know broke
Those two arguments collapse almost
Yes, the U.S. government is incompetent.
It's fiscally incompetent, it deregulates financial
industries which later caused the savings & loan debacle in
the 1980's and the subprime mortgage mess recently, and it
overpays politicians for producing very little value.
I would call all these areas purposeful incompetence
instead of sheer ineptitude.
The government and most of those higher ups working
for it serve the interests of lobbyists and powerful
backers, not the people who allegedly elect it.
Those in the government are actually quite
competent at being purposely incompetent.
And the U.S. government, along with its investigative
and intelligence agencies, is extremely competent at
achieving their own objectives most of the time.
They failed to assassinate or oust Fidel Castro, but
they got rid of Mosaddegh in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq,
and Noriega in Panama when they wanted to.
As for too many people knowing about
such a massive secret to keep a lid on it, I'll just repeat
an argument posed by theologian David Ray Griffin.
The Manhattan Project that led to the development of
the first atomic bomb employed more than 100,000 people and
cost more than $24bn in today's money, and yet Vice
President Harry Truman didn't find out about it until after
he became president. Far
less than 100,000 people would've been required to execute
assassinations and plane hijackings.
After viewing all these documentaries
about conspiracies, whether you believe in conspiracy
theories or not, you begin to see common threads in them all
and realize it isn't as difficult as one might imagine to
Here's a short cut guide to planning your own conspiracy
you have a large budget and lots of connections across
EXTENSIVE PRE-PLANNING THROUGH COVERT OPERATIONAL
For a secret operation to remain
secret, it obviously cannot be planned out in the open.
Official channels can't know about it and must always
have an option of plausible deniability.
If power brokers want to assassinate a foreign
leader or even a domestic one like JFK, the idea can't be
vetted through Congress for a vote.
Private subcontractors like the mob or ex-military
must be recruited.
Diligently choose the proper venue.
Assassinating JFK in Texas made the cover up
infinitely easier than if he'd been shot in Massachusetts or
New York. Some
venues will provide more chaos, an easier escape route
for the real culprits, and better support for the subsequent
SET UP THE PATSY
Even before the first bullet has been
shot or building bombed, significant time must be spent in
setting up a back story that the press can easily reprint
without question afterwards.
Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK's alleged assassin) defected
to the Soviet Union in 1959, four years before JFK was
killed, making it very easy to paint him as an anarchic
Sirhan Sirhan (RFK's assassin) was a Jordanian citizen.
It's irrelevant that he's a Christian and that the
Muslim-Jewish issue in Israel wouldn't have incited him like
it might an Islamic Jordanian.
When the press got hold of the story afterwards, him
originally being from the Middle East was enough to sketch
out a motive.
James Earl Ray (King's supposed assassin) was an escaped
convict, a societal outcast.
No would question that this felon didn't really do
perpetrators were portrayed officially as Islamic
fundamentalists with a deep hatred of the West.
Why wouldn't they attack symbols of Western
capitalism and government?
Detailed character development isn't
Think of this as a Hollywood action film.
Good and evil are clearly defined, and cruel
intentions, however shallow, are obvious.
Keep the bad guy(s) one dimensional.
Insure there is plentiful written,
photographic, fingerprint, or video surveillance 'evidence'
linking the patsy to the crime.
Subtlety not required.
Sirhan Sirhan had written in his diary that Robert
Kennedy must die by June 5, 1968.
James Earl Ray's fingerprints were all over
possessions left near the boarding house from where King was
A 9-11 hijacker had his fully intact
passport fall out of the World Trade Center's fire and
land, unburnt, on the ground.
can plant the evidence, brainwash the patsy, or enlist him
in what he thinks is a completely different plan. It'll be
all the same to him dead or on fifty consecutive life
This evidence should be easy to find and unambiguous
to interpret, so that the crime can ideally be "solved"
within 24-48 hours.
CONTROL THE INVESTIGATION
The crime has been committed.
If major carnage has resulted or major personalities
murdered, a thorough investigation is bound to take place.
Thorough investigations can prove a bullet was fired
from a particular place that's at odds with the official
story. It can
show bomb explosive residues in the (9-11) wreckage.
If all these leads get chased up, the official story
buckles, and you'll get caught.
If you're a fine conspiracy planner,
the investigations shouldn't go this far.
You'd use the FBI to control the subsequent
If you chose your assassination/bombing venue well, you'd
have contacts in the local police force to steer the
investigation off course or halt further inquiries.
The great news is that there's no need to control
everyone. If the
higher ups are under your thumb, they can intimidate the
lower tiered officers to fall into line.
SUPPRESS CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION
No matter how well you've conspired on
your plot, no matter how brilliant or convincing your patsy back story,
because your story is a fabrication, it's impossible to plug
every single hole.
There will be inconsistencies.
In the JFK assassination, you had eyewitnesses swear
they heard gunshots come from the grassy knoll.
In the RFK assassination, witnesses say they saw an
attractive woman in a polka dotted dress flee the scene
shouting, "We shot Kennedy!" Police accounted for more than
8 bullets. That was a
real doozy! The
gun Sirhan Sirhan was wielding could only fire eight, so
where did those other bullets come from?
On 9-11, firefighters vouch they heard explosions,
like detonations, going off in the base of the buildings.
You can't get all these people to keep
their mouths shut and stop disseminating genuine info.
Luckily, you don't have to.
You have an easier option.
Just ignore their testimony.
You ignore it, first, by having those
controlling the investigation not follow up on or officially
print any statements which contradict the official story.
Then, you have your cronies in the media repeatedly
present your version of events, so often that it becomes the
Initially, when the event is first reported, glimmers of the
truth will be seen.
After the JFK assassination, the national news
outlets reported that a German Mauser rifle was used for the
long after, the story was instantly revised, with no
explanation, that the rifle was actually an Italian-made
Carcano-type Model 91/38.
How could the press make such a glaring error?
Easy, if JFK was really shot with a Mauser but you
had mail order and photographic 'evidence' of your patsy
with a Carcano.
Right after the horrific event occurs,
the press will be on the scene well before full suppression
can take place.
In prior eras, this was no problem.
Contradictory information might be aired until it was
later revised to fit the circumstances of the official
official story would be repeated ad infinitum until the
originally presented information was all but forgotten.
Today, with the internet and the ability to circulate
information widely and quickly, contradictions can't be
covered up so cleanly.
It's far more important to initiate the investigative
control virtually at the moment the event occurs so that the
contradictory (i.e. real) information barely has time to
surface before it's suppressed.
Still, with any conspiracy, you can't
suppress everything, and for that, there are old standby
techniques to get the official story to stick.
Witnesses who refuse to recant their original stories
can be intimidated, harassed, discredited, or eliminated if
they continue to remain a thorn in the side of the official
version. Usually, this isn't necessary.
As the media continues to propagate in drips and
drabs the official story over and over and over again, most
of the public will believe it.
It's not necessary that everyone does.
BE IN CHARGE OF THE COMMISSION OR ORGANIZATION WHICH
INVESTIGATES THE EVENT
Forming a commission to get to the
bottom of the matter, while a farce, is absolutely critical
to make the official story officially official.
You would put friends and cronies in charge and try
to staff as many of the commission members with your own
stooges would guarantee that only certain questions got
asked and answered.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, fingered as a culprit in
JFK's assassination, formed and manipulated the Warren
lover Philip Zelikow was chosen to be director of the 9/11
As a result, Bush and Vice President Cheney were
interviewed together by the commission and not under
oath. Without a
puppet running your commission, the commission may actually
pick up and investigate discrepancies, and your goose could
The Commission would blatantly ignore
any contradictory information in their findings which
happened to get past the fourth step.
The Commission report should be long,
boring, and tedious to read.
The Warren Commission report was 888 pages.
The 9/11 Commission Report is over 600 pages.
Remember, you don't actually want anyone to read your
report. You only
published it in the first place to create an illusion of
transparency. If it
happens to sell a lot of copies and earn great royalties,
all the better.
Make a fanfare about donating a portion of those to a
charity for the victims.
If you control the charity, too, administrative costs
can eat up most of that donation and go right back into
DEPENDING UPON HOW RESISTANT THE PUBLIC IS TO YOUR
OFFICIAL STORY, REINFORCE IT FROM TIME TO TIME WITH FURTHER
DOCUMENTARIES, MOVIES, BOOKS
Pulling off an assassination in the
1960's and getting the public to believe the official story was
Too easy. There
were few television stations and no alternative press.
Official stories stuck, and even if the public at
large scratched their heads that certain things didn't add
up, they couldn't really pursue it.
The public today isn't so trusting.
They're still malleable and easily manipulated, but
you have to go to more effort to get them to tow the line.
9-11 is a good example of this.
A low budget
documentary Loose Change was released on the internet
in 2005 and got many people to question the official version
who otherwise would not have.
In response, the editors of Popular Mechanics,
a respected American magazine, featuring sections on
science, technology, and automotive topics, released a book
debunking a lot of the theories put forward in Loose
is not relevant that this follow up book refutes every conspiracy point
or contains credible answers to the skeptics' questions.
Few in the mass public are going to read it.
Just the fact a respectable publisher produced a
book supporting the official story is enough to convince the
public at large that the official story is true.
You need to pull the strings of your
friends in high places to produce these 'impartial' books,
documentaries, or movies.
United 93, a film, came out the same year as
the Popular Mechanics book.
Both propped up the official story.
Conspiracy theorists are welcome to
show up at conferences where the new book or film is being
promoted and call the writer or producer on his pile of
no cause for concern. The speaker/conspirator/propagandist
is in full control to choose whom to ask, ignore a question,
move on for lack of time, address the question inadequately
without giving the interlocutor a chance to follow up, etc.
Those in the government practice this avoidance
technique in press conferences all the time.
A word of warning, however:
do not ever have your propaganda tools go
head-to-head with knowledgeable conspiracy theorists.
You have nothing to gain.
The director and researcher of Loose Change
debated the editors of Popular Mechanics after
Popular Mechanics' book was published.
Regardless of which story you believe, from a
debate standpoint the Loose Change guys won.
They were able to credibly and cogently argue and
cite supporting evidence.
The Popular Mechanics guys could ignore
or gloss over details in their book, but when confronted
directly by the opposition, their omissions and run around
answers looked pathetic.
If you can't control the debate, don't
DON'T GET PARANOID ABOUT GETTING CAUGHT.
YOU WON'T. ALWAYS KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE UPPER HAND
BECAUSE YOUR STORY IS OFFICIAL.
This could well be the most important
step of all.
If you've perpetrated your nefarious
plot and covered it up to this point, congratulate yourself.
Bask in the glory that information, regardless of
source, propagated through official media channels like CNN
or Fox News sounds truer than some guy on the fringe
editing a low budget documentary on his computer and
circulating it through the internet.
Realize that if you're working with
your cohorts in the mainstream media, you have the upper
hand because you get to define what "fringe" is, and fringe
theorists, regardless of belief, are looked on as kooks.
So right off the bat, anyone contradicting your
official story has to fight the stigma of being considered a
Money matters here, and if you're launching conspiracies,
you have more of it than the conspiracy theorists. Pat
yourself on the back.
And your most important weapon is one
you don't even have to use.
Your victims are already using it against themselves:
IDGAS, which stands for "I don't give a shit."
The masses today
don't give a toss whether the government orchestrated 9-11,
the Oklahoma City bombings, or politically motivated
They're too busy trying to make a living.
Powerful government conspirators are fully aware of
this and can be more careless with steps one through six and
still get away scot free.
So don't be scared, future
With the right friends in the right places and following
these seven steps, you can get away with almost anything,
too. Good luck!