33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should Know . . .

[Quix]

33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should Know . . .

http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

6 Jan 2010

New World Order Report

A partial listing--the link has the rest of them and the paragraphs that go with each one.

1. The Dreyfus Affair  (1800's)

2. The Mafia

3. MK-ULTRA

4. Operation Mockingbird 1950's to 70's CIA paid journalists, movies etc.

5. Manhattan Project

6. Asbestos

7. Watergate

8. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study

9. Operation Northwoods {pretexts to be created for war}

13 BCCI Scandal

14. CIA Drug Running in LA

15. Gulf of Tonkin Never Happened

16. The Business Plot against FDR

21. CIA Assassinates A Lot Of People (Church Committee)

22. The New World Order

23. Kennedy Assassination--. . .

26. CIA Drug Smuggling in Arkansas

27. Bohemian Grove

28. Operation Paperclip Nazi scientists in high positions in government--particularly for research, etc.

29. The Round Table Rhodes et al

30. The Illuminati

31. The Trilateral Commission

32. Big Brother or the Shadow Government

33. The Federal Reserve Bank

=  = = =

And from Wikipedia:

CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE

http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-conspiracies-from.html

1 Jan 2007

From 1st century BC

The second Catiline conspiracy RE Cicero

44BC

Caesar assassination plot

1600's

The Gunpowder Plot

1700's

[Small pos infected blankets given to Native Americans[/b]

etc. etc.

[Ghost Bear]

I was about to type, "They left off Operation Paperclip!" when I saw it on the list.

33 conspiracies, hmm?  I'm sure the authors choosing that number was just a coincidence...   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

The infected blankets to the Indians is a myth of Hollywood. That has been thoroughly debunked, several times over.

[Sanguine]

The infected blankets to the Indians is a myth of Hollywood. That has been thoroughly debunked, several times over.

Yes, it has.  Was that one on the list?  (I won't go anywhere near infowars.)

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Yes, it has.  Was that one on the list?  (I won't go anywhere near infowars.)

It was listed on the other link
http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-conspiracies-from.html
which links back to reference.com for its source. 

PS. And in digging to see where they came up with it all the links are dead so I guess we are just supposed to trust them. LOL

[Quix]

Sorry about the small pox blankets . . . was dubious about that one but went with  it anyway . . . some of my friends were quite  convinced of it. LOL.

Though . . . I do wonder . . . how certain can we be--given the times then--that NO group of whites gave any Native Americans blankets with small pox??

Heading for shower and a nap. Should be back later.

[Quix]

@Idaho_Cowboy
@Sanguine

More on smallpox blankets:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox

. . .
Cecil replies:

A common reaction to this story is that it has to be folklore. Giving infected blankets to the Indians — why, that's awful! That's disgusting! That's … ethnic cleansing. Hmm. Maybe this story bears a closer look.

Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it.

The exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

    P.S. I will try to inocculate  [sic] the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

    P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

    I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.

. . .

= = =

http://cherokeeregistry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=407&Itemid=617

Smallpox blankets
.
In 1738, a major disaster struck the Cherokee when their towns were swept by an epidemic of smallpox. The Cherokee Chief Oconostota, accused the British of deliberately planting smallpox germs in the trade goods, they had shipped to the Cherokees.
.

The desire of Whites to occupy Indian lands, and the rivalry between French and English for control of the fur trade conducted through Indians, led to the French and Indian War of 1763. In the summer of 1763, attacks by Native Americans against colonists on the western frontier seriously challenged British military control. Lord Jeffery Amherst (who commanded the British military forces stationed in North American during this time), discussed with his troops the advantages of hunting down Indians with dogs, versus infecting them with smallpox.
. . .

Bouquet wrote back, "I will try to innoculate [them] with some blankets that may fall in their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself."  There is evidence that the Captain at Fort Pitt (outside Pittsburgh, PA -- then the western frontier) did give two infected blankets and one infected handkerchief to Indians in June of 1763. This action happened before Amherst mentioned the idea in his correspondence.
.
It proved particularly effective because the Ohio tribes had little immunity having missed the 1757-58 epidemic among the French allies contracted during the capture of Fort William Henry (New York). The Shawnee were fighting the Cherokee in Tennessee at the time, and they carried the disease to them, and then the Shawnee living with the Creek Confederacy. From there it spread to the Chickasaw and Choctaw, and finally the entire southeast. Before it had run its course, the epidemic had killed thousands, including British colonists.
.
There is an often repeated story that the Cherokee were given blankets infected with smallpox from a hospital in Tennessee during the Cherokee removal (Trail of Tears). We have found no historical basis for this story. Though thousands died during the removal west, there is no evidence of a major smallpox outbreak along the trail. In fact, the Cherokee population had been greatly reduced by several epidemics in the previous hundred years.
.
. . .
{then it gets into the hideous Ward Churchill blather}

= = =

Wikipedia on
.
Native American  disease and epidemics
.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics
.

. . .
This event is well known for the documented instances of biological warfare. British officers, including the top British commanding generals, ordered, sanctioned, paid for and conducted the use of smallpox against the Native Americans. As described by one historian, "there is no doubt that British military authorities approved of attempts to spread smallpox among the enemy", and "it was deliberate British policy to infect the indians with smallpox".[12]
.
In this instance, as recorded in his journal by sundries trader and militia Captain, William Trent, on June 24, 1763, dignitaries from the Delaware tribe met with Fort Pitt officials, warned them of "great numbers of Indians" coming to attack the fort, and pleaded with them to leave the fort while there was still time. But the commander of the fort refused to abandon the fort. Instead, the British gave as gifts two blankets, one silk handkerchief and one linen from the smallpox hospital,[13] to two Delaware delegates after the parley, a principal warrior named Turtleheart, and Maumaultee, a Chief. The tainted gifts were, according to their inventory accounts, given to the Indian dignitaries "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians".[14][15]
. . .
{bold & underline emphases & extra paragraphing added below}
Dissent against the history of biological weapon usage

There has been some dissent to the accepted history that certain outbreaks of smallpox were caused by the intentional spreading of disease, for example when smallpox-infested blankets were intentionally given to Native Americans in 1763 at the Siege of Fort Pitt. Nineteenth century historian Francis Parkman, the first to research these events, described "the shameful plan of infecting the Indians" as "detestable."[19] It is likely such incidents have occurred more frequently than scholars have acknowledged, but with such actions considered beyond the pale of civilized behavior, incriminating documentation would be scarce.
.
Efforts have ever since been made to reduce the stigma associated with being the perpetrators of such acts.[13][20] Captain Ecuyer's official report, written at the time of the incident and in great detail, notably did not mention the tainted gifts. According to biological warfare expert Mark Wheelis, Ecuyer considered concealing the event and acknowledged the deed in his ledgers only after learning that his superiors were ordering the same course of action.[21]
.
The most widely cited expert on the subject, Elizabeth Fenn, has observed, "It is also possible that documents relating to such a plan were deliberately destroyed."[13] Peckham noted that, "oddly enough", the incriminating pages from Amherst and Bouquet were missing from the Canadian Archives transcripts as well as the collection published by the Pennsylvania Historical Commission.[14] Likewise, Mann has described documents which have gone missing after "later sanitation", and has documented efforts by "Amherst apologists" and others who conjecture about, minimize and even dispute the instances of European perfidy.
.
One historian says that though blankets containing smallpox were distributed to Native Americans by the Europeans, they may have been given with good will and intentions, instead of for the purpose of disseminating disease, contrary to what was recorded in the trade ledgers. Additionally, scholars such as Gregory Dowd, are of the opinion that disease was also spread by Native Americans returning from battling infected Europeans, and therefore it may also have been spread by Native Americans to their own people.[22]
.
Dixon has suggested that the attempt to infect the Indians near Fort Pitt "may well have been a failure",[12] and Ranlet has speculated that "either the smallpox virus was already dead on the unpleasant gifts or that the presents simply failed to fulfill Trent's ardent desire to infect the Indians."[23] Mann has called such assumptions "demonstrably false", and Wheelis has concluded that while there may have been several simultaneous routes of transmission for the epidemic, and the effect of each attempt is impossible to determine, "the act of biological aggression at Fort Pitt is indisputable".[21]
. . .

At this point, my own moderately cursory scanning of a number of pages on the topic reveals a mixed bag of expert opinions.

My own sense is that there may well have been some  BRITISH use of such infectious objects deliberately given to Native Americans. There does not appear to be solid evidence of American military use of such. Some contend that the level of knowledge of the white (often illiterate) settlers of the time about the  small pox contagion was probably not that robust or accurate and therefore it would have been a stretch for most of them to even come up with such an idea, in the first place.

Nevertheless, there is some significant evidence in documents from the era that the British did engage in and certainly did discuss doing such horrific deeds against the Native Americans.

[Quix]

It was listed on the other link
http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-conspiracies-from.html
which links back to reference.com for its source. 

PS. And in digging to see where they came up with it all the links are dead so I guess we are just supposed to trust them. LOL

imho, Most of the items on the list have been verified and discussed in the historical literature quite extensively.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Interesting, thanks @Quix for the diggin' on that. I'll have to check what I've read in the past. I remember reading about the letter, but not with the details given here.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

imho, Most of the items on the list have been verified and discussed in the historical literature quite extensively.

I've heard of a lot of them. They make too exciting of topics for adventure writers like WEB Griffin or Clive Cussler. Even Shakespeare got in on the Caesar assassination one. Truth is stranger than fiction and fiction with its roots in weird history is stranger still.

[Quix]

Interesting, thanks @Quix for the diggin' on that. I'll have to check what I've read in the past. I remember reading about the letter, but not with the details given here.

You're welcome.

You likely know it's not my style to dig that deep that often to verify something. LOL.

I tend to rely on 70 years of extensive reading and my gut . . . and given my tendencies, that means I fall prey to a percentage of false positives.

Yet, the naysayers seem wedded to false negatives, imho. LOL. So maybe we provide some  balance for one another occasionally.

But that one has always bugged me--assuming it was true so many decades because my military buddies insisted it was . . . it bugged me that people could be so heartless . . . and then the 'debunking' narrative . . . so I had to check it out to deal with it niggling at me. LOL.

[Quix]

I've heard of a lot of them. They make too exciting of topics for adventure writers like WEB Griffin or Clive Cussler. Even Shakespeare got in on the Caesar assassination one. Truth is stranger than fiction and fiction with its roots in weird history is stranger still.

Indeed. Well put.

Prayers for our beleaguered Nation today.

[Sanguine]

...
Prayers for our beleaguered Nation today.

Amen!

[Quix]

Amen!

THANKS  THANKS.

I believe our prayers will have far more impact than our votes.