Top Ten Real Conspiracies.

Also, while we're playing the 'discredited' game, since you brought up Pepper:

"Three months later, there was another civil ruling with relevance to the King case. Billy Ray Eidson, whom Pepper's 1995 book had accused of involvement in King's death, turned out to be alive, and unhappy that a book was calling him a murderer. He sued Pepper for libel, and in October of 2000, a judge awarded him $11 million in damages."

That was written by Mike Pearl. Not sure if that discredits the facts or not.

www.vice.com...

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: blackaspirin
Who was found guilty, again?

There are two answers to that.

The first is that no-one was found "guilty", that's a criminal standard for conviction, and the 1999 trial was a civil case. Again, this is elementary stuff.

The second is that the US Government was found to have entered into a conspiracy, by civil standards of proof, and the US Government can be treated as a "legal person" in court, so the lack of individual names is irrelevant.

This is the third time that I have pointed this out to you, and it clearly isn't sinking in at all.

So who was the DOJ supposed to defend, after-the-fact, for not being guilty?

a reply to: blackaspirin

Yeah, Pepper screwed up there. No problem admitting that. He should have waited to test that aspect of his case in court, rather than rushing into print with it (the claim was removed from subsequent editions and revisions of Pepper's book).

But coming to a mistaken conclusion is not the same thing as ripping off the work of other writers, or inventing quotes. You're talking apples and oranges.

Most writers run the risk of libel when they publish something contentious. Not every writer, or even a sizeable minority of writers, has to resign after being found out as a chronic liar and cheat.

This is the same William Pepper, right?

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: blackaspirin
So who was the DOJ supposed to defend, after-the-fact, for not being guilty?

I've answered this three times now, and that is twice too often. Go back and read. You have not got a "killer question", you have got an irrelevant question.

originally posted by: blackaspirin
This is the same William Pepper, right?

www.youtube.com...

He's entitled to his own personal opinions in his private life. As far as I know, he's never sued the Government over 9/11.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: blackaspirin
So who was the DOJ supposed to defend, after-the-fact, for not being guilty?

I've answered this three times now, and that is twice too often. Go back and read. You have not got a "killer question", you have got an irrelevant question.

I don't recall saying it was a killer question - I think it's a very simple one. I saw your reference to government personhood, but that still doesn't address the question.

What motive would the DOJ have to go back and re-hash a circus civil trial, if 'various government agencies' aren't found guilty of a crime? Did they pay a share of the 100 dollars that they might want back?

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: blackaspirin
This is the same William Pepper, right?

www.youtube.com...

He's entitled to his own personal opinions in his private life. As far as I know, he's never sued the Government over 9/11.

That's fine, but from here it looks like "Posner is full of crap", and that counts against him and even the facts he presented. They're suddenly not factual because he's been discredited.

When I point out that Pepper was found guilty of libel in regard to charges he made in this case, it's somehow a different standard. It doesn't discredit him. Why is that?

originally posted by: blackaspirin
That's fine, but from here it looks like "Posner is full of crap", and that counts against him and even the facts he presented. They're suddenly not factual because he's been discredited.

When I point out that Pepper was found guilty of libel in regard to charges he made in this case, it's somehow a different standard. It doesn't discredit him. Why is that?

Pepper was found to have committed libel on a point from an earlier book, not on anything relating to the court case. The injured party in the libel case did not figure in the 1999 trial.

Also, committing libel is not something that an author sets out to do deliberately, for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, wholesale professional fraud in the form of plagiarism and fabrication is something that it is exceedingly difficult to do by accident.

So again, you're taking two dissimilar things and asking me why I don't think they are similar. I mean, I'm a patient kind of guy, but you're just wasting my time. Fortunately, since I am on the internet, I was already wasting time anyway, but I have to say that this isn't the kind of time-wasting I had in mind!

a reply to: audubon

Technically, these things are a waste of time in almost every instance, if the goal is to get the other party to change their mind. You were in the 9/11 thread, so I know you're aware of the obvious.

If Pepper's libel charge doesn't count because it was earlier and wasn't part of the case, then Posner's charge of plagiarism doesn't count either, because it was later and also wasn't part of the case.

The facts I cited about the government agencies not being named, nor being called to defend themselves in the trial, stand. They are not dependent on Gerald Posner in any way, so we can stop wasting time trying to discredit single individuals in order to skirt the facts.

originally posted by: blackaspirin
If Pepper's libel charge doesn't count because it was earlier and wasn't part of the case, then Posner's charge of plagiarism doesn't count either, because it was later and also wasn't part of the case.

No, you are completely wrong, and I have already explained why.

The facts I cited about the government agencies not being named, nor being called to defend themselves in the trial, stand. They are not dependent on Gerald Posner in any way, so we can stop wasting time trying to discredit single individuals in order to skirt the facts.

I can't be bothered to argue with this sort of bone-headedness. OK, so you aren't relying on Posner any more. Wise move, if a bit late. Kindly restate your original argument, without any reference to Posner.

Actually, this is in danger of thread derailment. Let's take it elsewhere. I've started a spin-off thread (in "People and Politicians") and will be glad to continue this discussion over there.

Edited since the thread has now been moved, sorry for any derail of this thread.

Very interesting.

Fascinating.

Fascinating.

Awesome article. It satisfied my appetite. But, I really wanted to see the Moon Landing conspiracy here and a new one - Cryptocurrency conspiracy. I'm working on this one haha

Awesome article. It satisfied my appetite. But, I really wanted to see the Moon Landing conspiracy here and a new one - Cryptocurrency conspiracy. I'm working on this one haha

a reply to: anneflemmings

You referring to the first moon landing, or all of them?

The Sun is a real conspiracy.