- Oct 27, 2006
That may be a good way of describing the majority of 'conspiracy theorists', but I have to say that conspiracies are incredibly common, albeit usually benign and non-criminal. Whenever two or more individuals work or plan together to accomplish a task or set of tasks, it is a 'conspiracy'.Originally posted by: Vic
I was speaking in general. The only thing noto12ious "said" was to post a couple of youtube links with no genuine commentary of his own.Originally posted by: TheSnowman
You have obviously been halucenating, noto12ious didn't say anything about any woman woman in a polka-dot dress. And like Arkaign expalined above, noto12ious's 13 shots claim is based on an audio recording of the incedent, not any pockmarks.
That, in fact, is the "official" belief.Turned around and pushed back first?
Most conspiracy theories evolve from human incompetence. The whole act of creating conspiracies in these high-profile events is to fabricate scenarios inside the blanks of what we do not know, particularly those facts lost due to faulty eyewitnesses or just through time. To a conspiracy theorist, it is never a possibility that we do not know what really happened and might never know. Someone always knows and is hiding the truth.
With that established, it's easy to look at the evidence available and determine that Sirhan Sirhan was not the only person firing a weapon in that room at that time.
With that established, it gets murkier. The question of what the relationship (if any) was between the other gunman/gunmen and Sirhan is indeterminate at this time. The question of intent is indeterminate as well, but I'd have a hard time believing that anyone else 'accidentally' shot RFK in the back multiple times, at such a close range.
Another indeterminate and complex issue is the possible connection between the perpetrators and the authorities. It seems that the investigation and evidence collection/analysis was possibly criminally botched, it was so poorly handled. To suppress evidence for so long, to lose/destroy evidence to the point that the city had to pay for their mishandling/destruction of it speaks volumes. The question is, was it merely a series of unintentional blunders, or was there an intentional path followed?
And finally, looking at motive of the unknown assassin(s), things get cloudier fast. It's extremely easy to see a variety of people and organizations that either professed outward hate and opposition to RFK's goals and agenda, or would gain considerably by removing him from the picture. He had made many many enemies, so with such a wide set of possible perpetrators, narrowing it down is pure guesswork without an official investigation.
My best educated guess would be a CIA assassination. Looking at declassified documents on CIA techniques from that era, and at other wet work done on those lines, it very much has the fingerprints of the agency. The CIA's prime motive for such an action would be their very existence as they knew it. Wide autonomy, black budgeting, and a virtually unlimited playground on the world stage to kill, blackmail, steal, and infiltrate. Who wouldn't kill to protect this kind of unlimited money and power?