1980 Miracle on Ice Not So?

[skullfunk]

Hi all, I just joined. OK, here's a conspiracy theory. Numbered below are things I would like to see substantiated.

1. The CIA and the KGB had an annual friendly prank-off in which they would try to outdo each other.
2. Before the Russia-USA olympic hockey game in 1980, the CIA injected novocaine into the Russian goalie's stick-carrying arm.
3. Consequently, all American goals in the game are made stick-side in the goal (as the goalie was weakened there).
4. As a result, the goalie felt so suspicious that he asked to be tested for substances, to which he was refused.
5. That holiday season the CIA sent a telegram to the KGB that said "A little novocaine stick side. Do you believe in miracles?"

I'm by no means a conspiracy theorist, but I thought this was a fun one if its true. So here's the plan. We need to prove/disprove these elements to the story. Any help would be appreciated!

[shakran]

Would you care to substantiate these claims? i.e., where did you hear them from?

[skullfunk]

Good question.

My friend who is a huge conspiracy fan thought he read it a long time ago. Thing is, I can't find anything citing it online so we need to sleuth our asses off. For example, does anyone have "Miracle on Ice"? If so, can anyone please check whether all the goals are, indeed stick-side? Chances are, the movie would be accurate.

Even better, does somebody have the tape of the game itself? That would be fun to watch in its own right.



I don't know why I thought of this, but as a side note, I once read an anecdote about Mark Spitz that comes directly from him:
He was practicing for an international swim competition and some guy asked him why he had such a big moustache. So, jokingly, he told the guy that it helps him swim faster. The guy seemed confused, so Spitz gave him some phoney physics lesson about how water is pushed backward by the moustache. Sure enough, he whips his competition. So the next year, everyone from one of the competing teams had big Mark Spitz moustaches. That guy was a coach!

[paddyjoe]

Well, they would of had to inject both goalies, because Tretiak, arguably the best goalie in the world, was pulled after the first period. I doubt they would have even thought about the back-up, because Tretiak had beaten the Americans something like 10-1 just two weeks earlier.

During the 'miracle' game, each goalie had 2 goals scored against him.

[Date the Banana]

Wasn't that on an episode of X-files? I think that it was one of Smoking man's exploits.

And now for the REAL question: How did the Canadians lose the Nagano olympics? Someone must have been drugging them. I suspect it was the snowboarding team...

[shakran]

Originally posted by skullfunk
Good question.

If so, can anyone please check whether all the goals are, indeed stick-side? Chances are, the movie would be accurate.

Why? Since when are movies consistant even with themselves? Luke's glass switches hands at least 4 times in a scene in Star Wars. Timeline spends half the story setting up a premise which it then spends the second half violating. There's a little red sports car driving in the distance behind the chariots in the original cut of Ben Hur. What makes you think this movie will be that accurate? And the movie would be at very best a secondary source, i.e. unreliable for this "sleuthing our asses off" that you are suggesting. You need to dig up a tape of the original game and watch the actual goals, not the recreated ones.

This is the type of conspiracy theory that gives conspiracy investigators a bad name. In the first place, you have NO evidence to back up these claims. You heard it from a friend who thinks maybe he read it some time. I think you should have done some looking into it before you posted these suggestions.

In the second place, you're taking a remarkeable win that has gone down in history as one of the alltime greatest moments in USA sports history, and you're taking a well-respected and recently deceased coach and basically saying it's all bullshit, the coach didn't do anything, the players didn't do anything, they couldn't have lost. Again, I think you need more evidence before you even suggest that this, frankly, amazing group of amateurs who kicked the crap out of seasoned professionals did not deserve their victory.

This kind of conspiracy theory makes the public at large have a knee jerk reaction that anyone who thinks a conspiracy is happening is a crackpot. A GOOD conspiracy theory would have at least some evidence that could point to its validity before it is even brought up.

[skullfunk]

Originally posted by shakran
Why? Since when are movies consistant even with themselves? Luke's glass switches hands at least 4 times in a scene in Star Wars. Timeline spends half the story setting up a premise which it then spends the second half violating. There's a little red sports car driving in the distance behind the chariots in the original cut of Ben Hur. What makes you think this movie will be that accurate? And the movie would be at very best a secondary source, i.e. unreliable for this "sleuthing our asses off" that you are suggesting. You need to dig up a tape of the original game and watch the actual goals, not the recreated ones.

1. I figured more people would have access to the movie than the original game. Chances are better that the movie's game would be accurate than inaccurate.
2. The movie errors that you are talking about are chronological errors. These are supposed to be screened by the producers. The movie error necessitating a mistake in the reproduction of this game would be the domain of a historical consultant, and these guys are much better because mistakes are their profession.
3. I preferred that someone could obtain the real game. Read my whole statement!

This is the type of conspiracy theory that gives conspiracy investigators a bad name. In the first place, you have NO evidence to back up these claims. You heard it from a friend who thinks maybe he read it some time. I think you should have done some looking into it before you posted these suggestions.

1. NO conspiracy is proven. It wouldn't be a conspiracy if it weren't so. The story I heard was plausible, and I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist. You think that I as an American want our history to be tainted? Of course not. I just want to know the truth. I apologize for trying dispel a myth that I had no choice but to consider as potentially true.
2. I did do research. I just don't have the time to track down old reels of olympic games. I did a general search through the internet and at my library and found nothing. To me, this doesnt mean the story isn't true, it just means no evidence can yet back it up.
3. Am I proposing my statements as suggestions, theory, or fact? You vacillate between these premises in this response. (The answer is, I'm merely proposing a theory that hadn't been disproved yet to me--although I thank you all for giving me enough evidence to believe the story is FALSE.)

In the second place, you're taking a remarkeable win that has gone down in history as one of the alltime greatest moments in USA sports history, and you're taking a well-respected and recently deceased coach and basically saying it's all bullshit, the coach didn't do anything, the players didn't do anything, they couldn't have lost. Again, I think you need more evidence before you even suggest that this, frankly, amazing group of amateurs who kicked the crap out of seasoned professionals did not deserve their victory.

1. Don' give me that shit. A dead coach has nothing to do with anything! The truth is all that matters in a story. And to claim that the group of amateurs beating seasoned professionals doesn't raise skepticism about their success is delusional.

This kind of conspiracy theory makes the public at large have a knee jerk reaction that anyone who thinks a conspiracy is happening is a crackpot. A GOOD conspiracy theory would have at least some evidence that could point to its validity before it is even brought up.

1. I bet you believe in God.
2. Most conspiracies are based on circumstancial evidence. This story is as well, since we know that communists governments used drugs to bolster their athletes' abilities. We also know that the USSR and America saw the Olympics as an opportunity to prove their respective superiorities. We also know that a case of cheating or breaking rules occurs practically every Olympics, albeit not as sensational as this example.

To finish my retort, I want to repeat that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. That means I don't believe a story until sufficient evidence proves it. You claim to be a conspiracy theorist, so you are admitting that you jump to conclusions about stories without absolute proof of their existence. To want to disprove a story is much more sensible than wanting to prove a story, because most conspiracy theories are false.

I hope I responded to every ridiculous and fallacious statement in your thread, but I'm sure I missed plenty.

[skullfunk]

Thanks date the banana and paddyjoe. It turns out, it is from an episode of the X-files. Thanks for clearing this up!


Here's the script. Search for "olympics"

[shakran]

Originally posted by skullfunk
1. I figured more people would have access to the movie than the original game. Chances are better that the movie's game would be accurate than inaccurate.

Prove it.

2. The movie errors that you are talking about are chronological errors. These are supposed to be screened by the producers. The movie error necessitating a mistake in the reproduction of this game would be the domain of a historical consultant, and these guys are much better because mistakes are their profession.

Prove it.

3. I preferred that someone could obtain the real game. Read my whole statement!

I saw your whole statement. My point was that the ONLY way you can prove all the goals happened on one side was by seeing the original game. Watching the movie should not even be considered by someone genuinely interested in ascertaining the truth rather than pushing theories that are, to put it bluntly, full of crap.

1. NO conspiracy is proven. It wouldn't be a conspiracy if it weren't so.

Bullshit. Watergate was a conspiracy. Watergate was proven.

The story I heard was plausible, and I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist.

If you propose a theory about a conspiracy, you're a conspiracy theorist. Kinda like if you drive a car, you're a motorist.

1. Don' give me that shit. A dead coach has nothing to do with anything! The truth is all that matters in a story. And to claim that the group of amateurs beating seasoned professionals doesn't raise skepticism about their success is delusional.

First off, no it doesn't raise skepticism unless there was something strange about the events surrounding the game. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to shoot a drug into the arm of a large angry hockey player? Since he didn't kick up a fuss until AFTER the game was over, we can presume that such an event did not occur. After all, if some asshole ran up to you and shot an unknown chemical into your arm just before your next sporting event, wouldn't you think maybe it was something more than a B-12 shot? I would think you would go find a doctor and report it immediately.

1. I bet you believe in God.

I fail to see your point there, but since you ask, no I do not believe in the god described in the bible.

2. Most conspiracies are based on circumstancial evidence. This story is as well, since we know that communists governments used drugs to bolster their athletes' abilities. We also know that the USSR and America saw the Olympics as an opportunity to prove their respective superiorities. We also know that a case of cheating or breaking rules occurs practically every Olympics, albeit not as sensational as this example.

OK, so the next time I hear some guy say that some guy he knows said he heard it from a distant third cousin twice removed that President Bush is really the female result of a science experiment crossbreeding a chimpanzee with a jackass, it'd be OK for me to go posting it on the internet as a theory that I'm asking others to prove for me? Gimme a break.

To finish my retort, I want to repeat that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. That means I don't believe a story until sufficient evidence proves it. You claim to be a conspiracy theorist, so you are admitting that you jump to conclusions about stories without absolute proof of their existence. To want to disprove a story is much more sensible than wanting to prove a story, because most conspiracy theories are false.

No, I don't claim to be a conspiracy theorist. I said your post is the kind of thing that gives conspiracy INVESTIGATORS a bad name. I didn't claim to be a conspiracy investigator either. Your reasoning about what I admit is therefore unfounded.

I hope I responded to every ridiculous and fallacious statement in your thread, but I'm sure I missed plenty.

Well you didn't do a very good job at it because you got most of it wrong. The ridiculous and falacious statement here is your original theory.

(edited for formatting)

[skullfunk]

shakran, I offer you one challenge: Please tell me where I'm misleading people by asking them to prove whether something is true.

On the fact that movies are overseen by historical experts, here's a link: James I. Robertson. And YES I can say without a doubt that these guys know their jobs better than producers do. That's why big-budget films hire them.

On the plausibility of the conspiracy, if it COULD happen, then it's worth finding out if it DID happen. Am I worse off for finding out the truth? And yes, it COULD happen. Just like chemtrails. Sure they're a farce, but it's a scary thought and one worth looking into. I'd rather dispel a hundred crazy sounding conspiracies than write off one that turns out to be true.

On the case of Watergate, that was a conspiracy, but not a conspiracy theory. One is a crime, the other is a fear that the truth is being hidden from the public. You do know how dictionaries offer different definitions for the same word, right?

On the suspiciousness of the victory, I am trying to convince you that a group of amateurs beating a group of professionals is suspicious, but it's not working. Especially after this team lost 10-1 to them before. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's suspicious. Like Barry Bonds doubling his home run total in one year in middle age--it's not impossible, just suspicious.

Now, the statement about believing in God from the Bible was a low blow, and for that I'm sorry, but I was trying to provide an example of something that the general public regards as fact even though its existence cannot be proven (as far as I can see it).

On what you can post on the internet, the next time you hear some guy say that some guy he knows said he heard it from a distant third cousin twice removed that President Bush is really the female result of a science experiment crossbreeding a chimpanzee with a jackass, you are absolutely free to post it on the internet, especially if you want to verify its validity. However, don't expect to be taken seriously.

shakran, I don't know what your problem is, but I posted a thread on a CONSPIRACY forum to see whether or not something I heard was true. Please do not try to claim that there was anything IMPOSSIBLE about the story I heard. Since you apparently didn't follow my link, you didn't see that the writers of the X-files saw it as plausible enough to include it in their script.

And if you're not a conspiracy theorist, or a conspiracy investigator, why are you spending your time in this forum?

And for the record I'm damn glad the story's untrue!

[holymoly]

Originally posted by skullfunk
1. Don' give me that shit. A dead coach has nothing to do with anything! The truth is all that matters in a story. And to claim that the group of amateurs beating seasoned professionals doesn't raise skepticism about their success is delusional.

Ever heard the saying "That's why they play the games?"

Your statement quite honestly offends me as a hockey player. There's a million reasons why the Russians could have lost in a one-game, winner takes all, tournament. It happens all the time. Hockey is a sport that is won or lost, especially in big games, by heart. Heart and work-ethic. Maybe the Americans simply wanted it more, or the Russians took them lightly and lost their edge, or the Americans outplayed them as a team because they had the underdog's "nothing to lose" mentality, etc etc etc. There's a million things that could have caused it including sheer bad luck. Maybe it just wasn't their day.

It's not as if the US team was just a bunch of random guys they'd taken off the street that morning, they were a good hockey team. Maybe not as skilled or well-known as the Soviets, but they were still good. If I'm not mistaken, a number of them went on to be "seasoned professionals" in the NHL.

[skullfunk]

I was not asking the original question because I thought that the Americans' victory was suspicious. I asked the question because the theory had not been disproven.

You cannot be offended that I recognize the Americans' victory as unlikely. Everybody knows this to be so. The story isn't inspiring or entertaining if that is not so.

There's a million reasons why the Russians could have lost in a one-game, winner takes all, tournament.

And one of the millions of reasons they could have won is...cheating. I did not, however say this was so. I said they COULD have cheated. I am trying to be reasonable. It is not reasonable to write off a theory based on emotional bias. I feel like I have supplied plenty of reasons for me to ask a question in a forum about paranoia. The only reason I keep on responding to some of you people is because you're tossing softballs of debate at me. I'm not going to stop responding to these preposterous messages until someone shows me I had no reason or right to introduce this thread.

[holymoly]

Originally posted by skullfunk
I asked the question because the theory had not been disproven.

It also hasn't been disproven that I'm a robot that the CIA made with alien technology from Mars, and my only mission is to steal all the Earth's walnuts. I guess someone had better get on that one too.

[skullfunk]

Thank you for being facetious. But you're wrong. There are plenty of ways of proving you are what you are. Before we get into an argument about what is reality, I want to return to my theme that the team could have cheated, that I have not besmirched their good name by entertaining the idea, and that this thread has every right to be on this board.

[Menoman]

Hi... its a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy Theories are not ones that are not proven. Otherwise it wouldnt be a theory now would it? Now if it were to get proven its not a theory anymore... just as in watergate is not a conspiracy theory... it was a "conspiracy"

Wake up, theres no need to berate him because he heard some stuff thats why we are here. To be quite honest I see about 4-5 stories on the front page right now that to me look stupid and completely improbable.

If he actually offended you somehow I feel sorry you have the internet coz your probably gonna be offended quite a bit more.

[shakran]

Originally posted by Menoman
To be quite honest I see about 4-5 stories on the front page right now that to me look stupid and completely improbable.

I agree with you, and that's the whole point in our objection to what he wrote. There are genuine conspiracies/underhanded plots/what-have-you going on every single day. Haliburton is an example of one. The Patriot Act is an example of one.

But instead of looking at GENUINE conspiracies that 1) have a prayer of being real and 2) actually matter and have future implications for us, conspiracy theorists like to spend time bullshitting around with men-in-black, chemtrails, and hockey games.

Like I said originally, it's shit like that that gives conspiracy investigators a bad name.

You've all read about the boy who cried wolf. Same thing applies here. Keep bleating about every bullshit idea that enters your head and pretty soon no one pays attention to ANY theory put forward, even if that theory happens to have a chance of being correct.

[Menoman]

My guess is conpiracy investigators who tell other people they are dumb/ignorant/giving-so-and-so-a-bad-name, are the ones that give themselves bad names.

I'd much rather respect a theorist who see's that someone is making an effort to be part of the theorist community but isnt sure what to look for to disprove a possible story, and takes the time to help. Rather than cop an attitude and tell them they are giving someone a bad name.

I think you may have missed my point about which you quoted me on.

My point was this is a place to come to disprove theories or turn them into true conspiracies, and I appreciate his contribution to the boards. Whether true or not it was a good read and fun to think about.

[skullfunk]

Thanks for the support, Menoman! I thought I was alone.