Paramedics doubt Dr Kelly's 'suicide' cause

editor said:

Err, and how does this support your assertion that UK scientists were regularly being bumped off by the UK government in the UK?

Click to expand...

editor said:

Sure. But you were claiming that scientists were being routinely knocked off by the UK government just for disgreeing with them.

Click to expand...

how often do i have to tell you not to put words into my mouth?

isn't once sufficient?

Pickman's model said:

how often do i have to tell you not to put words into my mouth?

Click to expand...

So what was such "common knowledge" that you could only find a well dodgy bonkers UFO site and a cricket site to illustrate it?

And who were these top govt scientists 'topped' and by whom?

And, more importantly, what's it got to do with Kelly's death?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4597.htm

ok, i'm probably on the wrong course, but it all does sound distinctly dodge, all these deaths. and if they were killed by the british government, i suspect the last thing i want to be doing is pointing that out.

i think i read something about this marconi affair in lobster, so i'll have a glance there...

but i bet you'd say lobster's crap too...

there's some stuff in lobster but i ain't giving them a fiver just for five minute's reading. i'll have a look in my print copies in the morning.

So it's not quite the "common knowledge" you were claiming earlier, is it?

editor said:

So it's not quite the "common knowledge" you were claiming earlier, is it?

Click to expand...

depends how many people you know who read lobster. it is a while back and i'd forgotten where i'd seen it.

Pickman's model said:

if you worked some place where so many people died by their own hand or in unusual circumstances, wouldn't you be slightly perturbed?

Click to expand...

Before I'd feel perturbed I would do a little research. Did they die by their own hand; did they die in unusual circumstances? Often, and by that I mean nearly always, the facts turn out to be rather different to what they were first presented as.

Pickman's model said:

depends how many people you know who read lobster. it is a while back and i'd forgotten where i'd seen it.

Click to expand...

I've never even heard of the site until you mentioned it here so it hardly helps your 'common knowledge' claim.

But now that I've managed to google it, I see that they've got articles on 'remote viewing', 'UFOs', 'alleged microwave mind control victims' and they are - of course - flogging a book.

I'll keep my five quid in my pocket, thanks.

I heard something today on the grapevine that I must pass on.

Robert Maxwell & Dr. Kelly were secret lovers in the mid seventies.

Uncle Bob bobbed off & replaced his body with someone similar.

Give it a few years, (Don't want to look dodgy ) He arranges for his long lost lover to die when things get a bit stressed.

Unfortunately, Dr K wasn't willing to let more of a pint of his blood be used as DNA evidence at the scene of the "suicide"

HENCE THE LACK OF BLOOD.

He predicted his "death in the woods" cos Uncle Bob told him where he had to be at a certain time. Unproffessionally he let it slip.

Not sure if what I heard was true but it seems to fit in nicely with what else has been said on this thread.

MrSki said:

I heard something today on the grapevine that I must pass on.

Robert Maxwell & Dr. Kelly were secret lovers in the mid seventies.

Uncle Bob bobbed off & replaced his body with someone similar.

Give it a few years, (Don't want to look dodgy ) He arranges for his long lost lover to die when things get a bit stressed.

Unfortunately, Dr K wasn't willing to let more of a pint of his blood be used as DNA evidence at the scene of the "suicide"

HENCE THE LACK OF BLOOD.

He predicted his "death in the woods" cos Uncle Bob told him where he had to be at a certain time. Unproffessionally he let it slip.

Not sure if what I heard was true but it seems to fit in nicely with what else has been said on this thread.

Click to expand...

Sounds about as plausible as the suicide theory

DrJazzz said:

Sounds about as plausible as the suicide theory

Click to expand...

And considerably more plausible than murder.

Just had to skim this thread and offer my 6 eggs worth...

Anyone remember the Hutton Enquiry?

Anyone else actually read the full transcripts?

Anyone else read it and notice that it contains contradictions and inconsistancies concerning the most basic of facts, and that these contradictions are completely ignored by Hutton?

Justin - You're good at books... go on, give it a go. See if you can work out how many people in black combat gear were in the area when his body was discovered.

And on the subject of books, does anyone remember the subject of the book that Kelly was negotiating a publishing deal for when he died?
To quote the commissioning editor: "a title which addresses the relationship between government, policy and war". I'm left wondering exactly which chapters would NOT have posed a direct threat - maybe 'Ethics of biological warfare'? 'The role of the pharmaceutical and biotech industries in biowarfare'?

Three general points spring to mind after reading this thread:

Absence of evidence does not constitue evidence of absence, and;

If the presented version of events is shown to be untrue, the onus to present an alternative or 'true' version does NOT fall on those who are merely pointing it out, and;

Your inability to inform yourself from sources other than what you're spoonfed by the mainstream media does not make those that can and do 'conspiracy theorists'.


Countless people have died as a result of a war that (some of) the UK public were deceived into accepting as neccessary on the basis of an outright LIE. A lie Dr. Kelly publically refuted.

To suggest that there was 'no motive' to bump him off is to reveal the sort of naive, myopic worldview that lets the bastards get away with it. And keep getting away with it.

Spot on, BB; well said.

Backatcha Bandit said:

Justin - You're good at books... go on, give it a go. See if you can work out how many people in black combat gear were in the area when his body was discovered.

Click to expand...

Sorry, is this a gag? How many of these people were in the area? Don't forget to supply a source please.

Backatcha Bandit said:

And on the subject of books, does anyone remember the subject of the book that Kelly was negotiating a publishing deal for when he died?
To quote the commissioning editor: "a title which addresses the relationship between government, policy and war". I'm left wondering exactly which chapters would NOT have posed a direct threat - maybe 'Ethics of biological warfare'? 'The role of the pharmaceutical and biotech industries in biowarfare'?

Click to expand...

I'm at a loss to see the relevance of this point. In what way would publishing a book exposing the government's case - something many people have done - have posed a threat to said government? How come John Pilger's still breathing?

Backatcha Bandit said:

Absence of evidence does not constitue evidence of absence

Click to expand...

No it doesn't and nobody has claimed that it does. However, absence is still absence until shown otherwise. A hypothesis is not a theory until there is postive evidence to support it.

Backatcha Bandit said:

If the presented version of events is shown to be untrue, the onus to present an alternative or 'true' version does NOT fall on those who are merely pointing it out

Click to expand...

No it does not. However, people are presenting an alternative version - a murder - and therefore the onus does fall on them to try and back it up in some way. Which they have not.

Backatcha Bandit said:

Your inability to inform yourself from sources other than what you're spoonfed by the mainstream media does not make those that can and do 'conspiracy theorists'.

Click to expand...

I do find this "spoonfed" term terribly arrogant as well as stupid. The Lancet, for instance - is that some sort of "spoonfeeding" wqhen it attacks the government and questions its account? The "spoonfeeding" nonsense is jsut another cover, I'm afraid, for having no evidence to back up one's case, and it also has the same persistent dishonesty that has run right through this thread, that people who find the murder hypothesis lacking in evidence are somehow just blindly believing what they are told by the Conspiracy. No, these people are often quite critical of what they're told by the government and media. They are critcial because they often find the evidence unconvincing. Unfortunately they have to apply the same principles to the conspiracy rubbish.

Backatcha Bandit said:

To suggest that there was 'no motive' to bump him off is to reveal the sort of naive, myopic worldview that lets the bastards get away with it. And keep getting away with it.

Click to expand...

Once again this completely ignores the arguments that have several times been put against it. There was a motive to find what Dr Kelly said uncomfortable. Unfortunately, that doesn't constitute a motive to kill him. You can't bridge the gap with adjectives like "naive" and "myopic", I'm afraid. All you do - in fact, all your entire posting does - is to shout about how other people are sheep and you - wonderful you - can see the Truth, but you don't actually do any more than say it. What are we suppose to do, believe you because we think you're great?

Demonstrate your case with facts or shut the fuck up. And in the meantime I think I'll start a website claiming that Dr kelly faked his own death. I bet DrJ will go for it.

This is getting stupid and going round in circles. Sceptics have stated that Kelly might have been killed (by the government or other interested parties) because he might have been about to shoot his mouth off about extremely sensitive issues. Justin/editor have taken the frankly ridiculous position that because we can't say what he knew, this therefore invalidates the entire argument! Which is silly.

Buddy Bradley said:

Justin/editor have taken the frankly ridiculous position that because we can't say what he knew, this therefore invalidates the entire argument! Which is silly.

Click to expand...

So if you were going to bump someone off (via bumbling yet invisible hitmen) because they might reveal some dark secrets, would you do it before they'd given a long and exclusive interview with one of the world's largest media organisations, or after?

Buddy Bradley said:

This is getting stupid and going round in circles. Sceptics have stated that Kelly might have been killed (by the government or other interested parties) because he might have been about to shoot his mouth off about extremely sensitive issues. Justin/editor have taken the frankly ridiculous position that because we can't say what he knew, this therefore invalidates the entire argument! Which is silly.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that you don't have any evidence. You can't show me what he was going to say or what he had said. And you can't show me that people who do say very serious things about the govrnment then get bumped off. (Do people get killed for "shooting their mouth off about extremely serious issues"? Who?) So what other position am I supposed to take? I mean I can shrug my shoulders and say "yeah, it's possible", but I don't have any justification for taking it seriously, do I?

To believe things you require evidence. This is why I didn't believe the government over Iraq, for instance. Why should or could I believe wild theories which no-one will or can back up?

As has been pointed out earlier, perhaps 'they' felt that Kelly was reliable, and only after he'd spoken to the BBC (not a "long and exclusive" interview as you keep repeating, but a twenty minute chat in a hotel bar - you make it sound like he was talking to Martin Bashir FFS) did 'they' realise that he might drop them in it.

So they killed the guy on the basis of a quiet chat in a hotel bar? Does that happen often?

Justin said:

You can't show me what he was going to say...

Click to expand...

Well of course I bloody can't, you twonk - perhaps it's because I'm not one of the top WMD scientists in the world who has worked with the government for over 30 years??

If I knew what it was, it wouldn't really be much of a secret worth killing someone over, would it?

Jeez...

Justin said:

So they killed the guy on the basis of a quiet chat in a hotel bar? Does that happen often?

Click to expand...

Your entire argument now seems to revolve around the fact that covert killings aren't overt enough for you.

It's so depressing to have to repeatedly make the point - and without any effect - that "I don't know" doesn't constitute any sort of argument. What's hard about it? There's no equivalance between things we have evidence ofr and things we don't. You cannot give them equal credence. This has been known and understood for at least 2500 years. Why can you not grasp that?

Buddy Bradley said:

Your entire argument now seems to revolve around the fact that covert killings aren't overt enough for you.

Click to expand...

Don't be stupid. It revolves around the absence of any evidence for a covert killing. We're back to "of course we've got no evidence, because they've covered it up!, aren't we? There is nothing at all that you cannot believe on that sort of basis.

Right, I'm glad we agree then.

Sorry, is this a gag? How many of these people were in the area? Don't forget to supply a source please.

Click to expand...

So you haven't read Hutton. That's the source I'm referring to, numpty. Do I need to spoonfeed it to you? Go read it and come back and tell me how many people in black combats were at the scene.

That's my point, fucktard. The Hutton report contradicts itself.

Facts and logic don't seem to be a strong point with you, do they?

Go read the report and 'shut the fuck up' yourself until you have.

I'm sure you find a lot of people arrogant - it's probably your best mechanism for rationalising your feelings when they treat you like the idiot you so clearly are.

BB - don't get drawn into responding to demands of the type 'so what are you saying happened?' etc.

The onus is not on you to provide an alternative to the crock of shit we're fed.

The tactic here is to force you to speculate, so they can accuse you of speculating.

Backatcha Bandit said:

I'm sure you find a lot of people arrogant - it's probably your best mechanism for rationalising your feelings when they treat you like the idiot you so clearly are.

Click to expand...

Hee hee...

Backatcha Bandit said:

So you haven't read Hutton. That's the source I'm referring to, numpty. Do I need to spoonfeed it to you? Go read it and come back and tell me how many people in black combats were at the scene.

Click to expand...

No - you tell me. You have the figure - produce it. Support your claims with sources please.

Backatcha Bandit said:

The onus is not on you to provide an alternative to the crock of shit we're fed.

Click to expand...

This means "you don't have to come up with any evidence." It's a kook's charter.

Justin said:

This means "you don't have to come up withany evidence". It's a kook's charter.

Click to expand...

Why is it not valid to merely eliminate possibilities? Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth.

Buddy Bradley said:

Why is it not valid to merely eliminate possibilities? Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth.

Click to expand...

I did wonder if that particular Conan Doyle phrase would be wheeled out. There's some truth it it. But you do, indeed, have to eliminate other possibilities, and you then have to be left with a very narrow range of remaining possibilities, otherwise there's no "truth". And of course the conspiracists have done neither. Not even started, in fact.

Justin said:

No - you tell me. You have the figure - produce it. Support your claims with sources please.

Click to expand...

Justin, your inability to inform yourself does not make other people 'wrong'.

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/hearing_trans.htm