Conspiracies

[TexMadrid]

I have actually posted these 2 videos somewhere in this forum before but I don't remember where. I think the test is very convincing.

Firm (Anatomical Surrogates Technology) sets out to test whether the single bullet theory, as laid out in the Warren Commission Report and the HSCA report, is indeed feasible and correct.

Part 1
Part 2

It is possible LHO did not act alone and it is possible that he did act alone. But I do believe that he was the sole shooter.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by rustler

The Lusitania was carrying some munnitions, but it was allowed to by international law

If it was carrying munitions, it was also allowed to be sunk

Is there any argument about this?

[rustler]

Originally Posted by TexMadrid

But I do believe that he was the sole shooter.

I do not believe that he was even there! There are 'witness's' that testify that they saw him, but given the circumstances, they are, IMHO, discountable.
Why did the FBI, go, fully armed, to the theatre to arrest a person who had supposedly gained admission without buying a ticket??? LHO, was a patsy.

[rotobott]

Originally Posted by palo5

If it was carrying munitions, it was also allowed to be sunk

Is there any argument about this?

But how did the submarine captain know it was carrying munitions?

[rustler]

Originally Posted by palo5

If it was carrying munitions, it was also allowed to be sunk

Is there any argument about this?

Yes, it was allowed by international law to carry a certain amount of munnitions amongst its general cargo.

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by rotobott

But how did the submarine captain know it was carrying munitions?

German spies were active in the US at this time. Being a neutral conunty, it wasn't exactly difficult to find out what was happeneing.

I don't understand this "Churchill was involved" theory! Is it being suggested that Churchill "arranged" for the Lusitania to be sunk in order to bring the US into the war?

Lusitania sunk on 7th May 1915
US entered the war on 6th April 1917 ... 23 months later!

[rustler]

Originally Posted by squigg58

I don't understand this "Churchill was involved" theory! Is it being suggested that Churchill "arranged" for the Lusitania to be sunk in order to bring the US into the war?

Lusitania sunk on 7th May 1915
US entered the war on 6th April 1917 ... 23 months later!

That is exactly the suggestion!

As regards the Lusitania being sunk in 1915 and the USA not entering into the war until April 1917, we have a joke in England that all Americans are deaf - we blew the bugle in 1914, but the USA didn't hear it until 1917, and the same thing happened in 1939, but the USA didn't hear it until 1941!

Churchill made no secret of his desire to have the US involved in The Great War. The sinking of the passenger liner Lusitania, was as one historian has said, was , 'By far the most stupid thing the Germans could possibly have done!' That said, obviously, the British press milked it for all it was worth!

[Davemetalhead]

Originally Posted by rustler

Th Moon landings.... I vividly remember watching the Moon landings in July 1969, I was ten years old. I didn't belive that they were on the Moon then, and I do not believe it now. That said, I do belive that man has set foot on the moon since then, But not that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first.

So why don't you believe that Apollo 11 was the first to land on the moon? Why was that one staged but others weren't?

[squigg58]

I'm still none the wiser about the Lusitania issue! How exactly was Churchill supposed to have "arranged" for the Lusitania to be sunk?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by rotobott

But how did the submarine captain know it was carrying munitions?

The Lusitania regularly carried munitions. New York was crawling with German spies in 1915, and many of the New York stevadores were of Irish-American descent, and their sympathy with the British cause would have been less than wholehearted, in view of past history. In fact, three German speaking intruders were arrested aboard the ship shortly before she sailed by her crew and were not handed over to American authorities; they were held perhaps illegally and being taken to Liverpool to be interrogated and perhaps worse. By May 1915 her repeated activities would have almost certainly been reported to the German naval authorities by their intelligence service.

Originally Posted by rustler

Yes, it was allowed by international law to carry a certain amount of munnitions amongst its general cargo.

I thought this was illegal under the international law of the time; Lusitania was a passenger liner and carrying ammunition (she had a large consignment of British calbre .303 rifle bullets on board) was quite inconsistent with the declared non-combatant status of the passengers and civilian crew. To further cloud the issue, she was nearly requisitioned in 1914 for conversion to an auxilliary cruiser armed with 6" guns, rather like the luckless Rawalpindi and the valiant HMS Jervis Bay in WW2, but the Admiralty changed their minds. However, due to this order/counter-order/disorder situation, an erroneous entry appeared in the 1914 edition of Janes Fighting Ships listing HMS Lusitania as a warship. This wouldn't have helped the Germans much if they were trying to decide if she was a legitimate target or not.

Some theories have been advanced that the Lusitania and her people were deliberately set up. It is certainly true that the British exploited the deaths of 128 Americans among the 1,201 people killed as a major lever in swaying American public opinion in favour of declaring war, although it was almost two more years before American did declare war. Recruitment in Irish regiments of the British Army was galvanised by the revulsion felt in many parts of Ireland when the news of this undeniably callous act by German forces so close to Irish waters became widely publicised. Ironically, quite a few of the "rebels" who served under Michael Collins and later, against him too, were trained and fought for Britain in Irish line regiments in WW1, sometimes with distinction. But it's not all that easy to arrange a sinking such as this; enemy action is as capricious as the weather, and the conduct of the men aboard Lusitania such as Captain Turner couldn't be controlled by people not aboard. Turner was nearly ruined by the subsequent Board of Trade enquirey; there was a concerted attempt from the British Admitalty to scapegoat him in order to divert attention from the woeful failure for naval units based at Queenstown to put to sea and rescue survivors, and the damning truth that Lusitania was left unescorted in seas where several ships had very recently been sunk by a German submarine. It was not in Turner's interests to knowingly make his ship vulnerable to enemy action and it goes against the basic instinct of any professional mariner to do such a thing. Some of his actions were questionable and may have stemmed from error of judgement, but the idea that he would have deliberately colluded in letting his ship be sunk is one heck of a leap of the imagination.

I don't believe in this conspiracy to allow Lusitania to be sunk. I do believe that the Royal Navy were greatly to blame; they resisted implementing a convoy system until later in the war, when German U Boats had almost succeeded in blockading Britain and they had stubbornly insisted that convoys would dilute their strength and would be ineffective. The convoys dramatically curtailed losses to U Boats and proved the Admiralty did not know what they were talking about. Lusitania sailing independently was very vulnerable. The subsequent rescue operations were ineffective; local fishing boats acting on their own initiative saved many lives, as did a steamer called the Bluebell which just happened to be in the area and risked herself to rescue shipwrecked mariners in line the First Law of the Sea. Meanwhile the cruiser Juno and other British naval units stayed at anchor. It was a rather pusillanimous display; I can quite see that the Navy didn't want their timidity, totally against the declared traditions of the service, to become too widely reported. Conspiracy; I don't think the British authorities were slick enough to pull one off, let alone conceal it afterwards. Cover up; yes. The Navy had plenty to hide, not least the fact that the British systematically abused the status of passenger ships by loading them with ammunitions; had that come out, American public opinion would have been unimpressed by attempts to pin the deaths of 128 Americans on a U Boat acting with complete legality.