
Operation Northwoods - jbverschoor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
======
Knufen
A bit off topic but also related to CIA and other gov shenanigans:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-
Spray](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Top_Hat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Top_Hat)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_ARTICHOKE)

Much more here
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentat...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States)

~~~
faissaloo
Don't forget operation mockingbird
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)

------
jamestimmins
It's worth noting that when this was presented to Kennedy, he removed the
general in charge of the plan from his job.

~~~
pietroglyph
More specifically, the person who presented this was the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and he was only removed from his position as chairman. About
a year later he was appointed as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

------
hanniabu
One of the many reasons "they" assassinated Kennedy. Stuff like this is
public, yet many still adamantly refuse to believe false flags occur (in
general, not even any particular suspected false flag event).

~~~
diminoten
No, sorry. No secret organization assassinated Kennedy. These operations are
documents, that are easy to write up in fantasy land. The fact that they're
proposed doesn't mean false flags occur, it just means the concept is
understood by people who work in the government.

Stop pretending like there's this secret organization or set of organizations
that's pulling the strings or setting global agenda on any relevant level.
There isn't. Everything is chaos, no one knows what the fuck is going on at
any given time, and _nobody_ is in control. Period.

~~~
MegaButts
> No secret organization assassinated Kennedy.

I really enjoyed this book, and found it very convincing. I don't want to
start a thread where we argue over conspiracy theories but just thought I'd
add the link if you're interested.

[https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-
Gov...](https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government-
ebook/dp/B00SFZB93Y)

~~~
diminoten
I'm generally not interested, considering I know that logic and reason are not
generally great models for the world without falsifiability and
predictability, and neither are abundant in conspiracy "theories".

~~~
hanniabu
Sounds like the only thing that would convince you is the government speaking
out and saying they've been doing this, but I think it's obvious that would
never happen.

We should all only believe what the government fesses up to, they'd obviously
tell us if they were doing any wrongdoing. /s

~~~
diminoten
No, that's simply you trying to re-create the classic lines of this argument.

You _need_ there to be someone in control, it's the only way you stay sane,
and it bothers you to no end that there simply isn't.

It's the same argument religion gives, but I doubt you fall for that one, do
you? Kind of funny, how inconsistent you are.

~~~
jddj
Your assumption here is that the other commenter is projecting some kind of
perfect planning, coordination, foresight and execution onto these agencies.

But they can be doing evil things which are in their interest without it being
some situation of perfect control. It's simply that: evil shit they hope they
can get away with, which if successful will probably be in their interests.

Throughout history, this has been the norm for any group with power but
without sufficient oversight.

~~~
diminoten
Groups of people doing evil things a conspiracy theory does not make.
Conspiracy theories are about alternative and under-substantiated explanations
of already-explained events.

"Evil shit" happens. Coordinated disinformation campaigns to misdirect the
public over a long period of time by large unknown groups does not.

My "assumption" is not any kind of strawman absurdist extreme (I never said
anything about perfection but nice try), it's simply the reality that
conspiracy theories are hallmarked by three distinct attributes that make them
categorically nonsense: lack of relevant and credible evidence, lack of
falsifiability, and lack of predictiveness.

They literally meet _none_ of the criteria of the definition of a theory,
which is why they're a joke and have no place in rational conversation.

~~~
hanniabu
> Conspiracy theories are about alternative and under-substantiated
> explanations of already-explained events.

I don't believe Kennedy's assassination with Oswald acting alone has been
explained, so it sounds like that's a conspiracy.

~~~
diminoten
The Warren Commission would like a word, not to mention the literal JFK
Records Act...

------
Liquix
It's great how you can read about this type of stuff on Wikipedia.

It's said that there's a wealth of classified / shouldn't-be-public
information (particularly on US military projects/technology) on Wikipedia.
The government can't just take these pages down because there's a public
record - they'd essentially be confirming the info is important.

------
mikece
The most amazing thing about this is that almost nobody knows about it!

------
DoctorOetker
approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rejected by president Kennedy

in 1962, the same year the film "To Kill a Mockingbird" appeared... contrast

------
thunderbong
Why is this flagged?

~~~
tomhoward
Probably for breaching this guideline:

 _...please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don
't editorialize_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
jbverschoor
Hmm ok. I thought it was remarkably similar to 9/11\. And was declassified
only 5 months before

~~~
tomhoward
My comment isn't agreeing or disagreeing with anything about that.

It's just the HN guidelines are clear that you're meant to use the original
title unless it's clickbait or misleading. It's been part of the guidelines
for at least as long as the guidelines have existed in their current form
(over 5 years):

[https://web.archive.org/web/20140702092610/https://news.ycom...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140702092610/https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

There's a very good reason for this: when people construct their own title to
highlight some aspect or angle they think is important, they often get it
wrong and imply something about the article that isn't actually reflected in
the content - much like clickbait headlines themselves often do.

I'm not commenting on whether or not you did that, but there's a simple way to
ensure you don't make that mistake: just use the original title!

