Thread: Conspiranoia!: The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories

The Truth is Out There… Way Out There
by George Case
Skeptics Society
December 30th, 2004


The following is an article on conspiracy theories, by George Case, who has published numerous Op-Ed pieces in the Vancouver Sun daily newspaper, and is also the author of a speculative novel titled Silence Descends: The End of the Information Age 2000-2500 , published in 1997 by Arsenal Pulp Press to positive reviews in the U.S. and Canada. E-mail: georgcas@vpl.ca

The peak popularity of the television series The X-Files, and the initial Internet-boosted acceleration of the Information Revolution are behind us, but their legacies live on, in the pervasive familiarity of the conspiracy theory. Indeed, the trust-no-one phenomenon is today so much a part of our culture that it has become an object of suspicion: recent books such as Daniel Pipes’ Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Robert Anton Wilson’s Everything is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults, and Cover-Ups, and Devon Jackson’s Conspiranoia! The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories, dissect the history, nature, and function of phobic fantasies in all their sprawling interconnectedness. Yet conspiracy theories—let’s call them CTs—remain almost routine elements of our socio-political discourse, even if few of their exponents would describe them as such, and even if fewer of us recognize one when we see it. Why?

A lot of CTs’ attractiveness, logicians will say, is in their dexterity at skirting the basic rules of deduction and inference. The world is complicated; many arguable factors contribute to events; CTs simplify things enormously and with great flair. Psychologists might add that the sheer randomness of modern life is so distressing that CTs offer a weirdly reassuring “master narrative” no longer provided by religion. No matter how malevolent the alleged String-Pullers are said to be, they are perhaps less scary than the thought of no String-Pullers at all. And rhetoricians may remind us that CTs are a kind of all-purpose argument winner, inevitably shutting down further debate by invoking sinister, shadowy agents whose very elusiveness confirms their existence and influence. Through all of these—supposition, evasion, innuendo—CTs work, in journalism, education, political activism, and ordinary conversation. But they aren’t infallible: studied carefully, they form patterns, fall into categories, and hide errors of reason and common sense. A brief field guide to their habits may help detect them before they turn dangerous.

Hidden Connection CTs
George H. W. Bush and Osama bin Laden have shared interests in a Saudi oil company. Lee Harvey Oswald was seen in his future killer Jack Ruby’s Dallas nightclub. A numerical translation of Bill Gates’ full name adds up to 666. Or, the synchronicities found in any daily newspaper, e.g. “Unexpected Shutdown of Corruption Inquiry” on page one, and “Lawyer’s Death Called Foul Play” on page ten. As Hidden Connections, such links are essentially twisted chains of circumstantial evidence, whereby any tenuous overlaps of time, place, and incident become proof of deliberate collusion. But all of us are never more than a few relationships removed from everyone else (the so-called “six degrees of separation”), and putative causes and effects are always happening around each other, especially in hindsight; a really compelling Hidden Connection would accurately predict a future event, rather than employing the hindsight bias by stringing together a disparate assortment of dots after the fact. Chance, simultaneity, and accidents are never conceded by Hidden Connection spotters, and their only conclusion is the ultimate hanging question, “Coincidence? You be the judge.” In the court of Hidden Connection CTs, a verdict of “Guilty” is never in doubt.

Manipulated Media CTs
At their most sensible these might reflect the view that print and broadcast news and entertainment outlets have an interest in maintaining a stable, none-too-critical audience of pliant consumers. But towards the fringe the Manipulated Media message is less “Don’t believe everything you hear,” and more “Don’t believe anything you hear,” with the straightforward truth—that trivial material can distract people from serious matters—embellished into a scenario where all information is mere propaganda that obscures government or corporate misdeeds. Implicit here is the assumption of a single entity called “the media” that can be wholly hijacked by a single body, giving us deathless slurs like “The Jews control Hollywood” (did they steal it from the Amish?). Thus the inconvenient responsibility of informing oneself through one or many of the thousands of publicly available news and opinion sources is dismissed. Manipulated Media CTs are a favorite of anyone who hasn’t seen their own ideology spelled out in banner headlines or heard it echo back from the six o’clock news. Nowadays given a wide forum in the free-for-all of the Internet, their odd irony is that it’s only ever through the media that we’re told how spun, suppressed, and censored the media is.

They Know Everything CTs
This posits that important figures behind closed doors instigate or are aware of impending disasters, but allow or encourage them to precipitate some broader, beneficial (to them) outcome. The Iraq war (started by the U.S. to guarantee its oil supply), the September 11 attacks (sanctioned by the CIA to kick start an American pipeline project in Afghanistan) are only the latest fodder for such speculation. Oliver Stone’s film JFK may represent its supreme example. The problem with They Know Everything CTs is that these kinds of elaborately murderous schemes are hardly the most effective or predictable means of steering the tides of history. It has been pointed out, for example, that if Franklin D. Roosevelt knew the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbor but let them proceed because he wanted a pretext for U.S. entry into World War II, why wouldn’t he have prevented the attack at the last minute? Wouldn’t an intercepted “surprise” have produced the same result as a successful one? Similarly, was atomizing several thousand New Yorkers an obvious, practical step to the commercial exploitation of Central Asian gas reserves? And why would the U.S. military shoot down TWA 800 over Long Island, with so many potential witnesses? And would assassinating John F. Kennedy on a sunny afternoon safely ensure his successor’s dragging the U.S. arms industry into a profitable Vietnam War? If They—whoever They are—really Know Everything, would They gamble so big on such catastrophic rolls of the dice? And how good are They at conspiring if Their cover gets blown so easily and so widely?

The blunt truth is that conspiracy theories very seldom make a solid case. Either they play on pre-existing prejudices (how corrupt you already take the government / the media / big business to be), or contradict each other (if the Iraq war is all about Halliburton contracts, then it can’t be about Judeo-Christian millennial fanatics within the Bush administration; if the Mafia killed JFK, then the Freemasons are off the hook), or defy rational dispute (so the more the supposed conspiracy is denied, the more obviously there is one). CTs do not admit the glum, unresolved reality that public and private officials of good will may make single mistakes that spin vast webs of unintended consequences, nor do they allow that the likelihood of a few cynical individuals covertly trumping the infinite variables of human and organizational interaction, and never getting caught at it, is pretty slim. For all their curiously gratifying implications (“We didn’t lose; they cheated,” sums up Daniel Pipes), they permit us to forfeit our rights as engaged, aware citizens by insisting on a permanently skewed, nothing-is-as-it-seems order. If conspirators are running the world, then why bother to read, vote, think, discuss, act, progress? Today, more than ever, we should be demanding straight answers to our questions. Whether or not we think of them as “conspiracy theories,” glib brushoffs about Hidden Connections, about a Manipulated Media, and about how They Know Everything, are no longer good enough.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-1...l#conspiracies

I Still can't see how a jet could crash through such a narrow hole as was on the side of the Pentagon and how the two towers collapsed neatly on to their bases when usually a explosives specialist have to blast the steel supports of tall buildings in sequence to bring the structure down i a similar manner

Quote from shaazam

I Still can't see how a jet could crash through such a narrow hole as was on the side of the Pentagon and how the two towers collapsed neatly on to their bases when usually a explosives specialist have to blast the steel supports of tall buildings in sequence to bring the structure down i a similar manner

The relevant question is "why": why would Bush or Cheney or neocons or whoever choose this method to achieve their ends? Was this the only possible way to change government policy, or whatever they were trying to do? Was Bush that desperate to change his public image?

And why are conspiracy theorists usually people with no experience of science or government? Do you really think it's possible to fool the entire U.S. bureaucracy? Do you really understand the technical issues involved in destroying high-rise office towers?

Conspiracy theorists pretend to be experts on everything, when they're usually ignorant paranoid nobodies, in my humble opinion. And how about the way they provide a distraction from real issues, how is this helpful?

Quote from bachelor tom

The relevant question is "why": why would Bush or Cheney or neocons or whoever choose this method to achieve their ends? Was this the only possible way to change government policy, or whatever they were trying to do? Was Bush that desperate to change his public image?

Regardless of "why" this method was chosen, it worked. Apparently, many people actually believe the government conspiracy version of 9/11 events that, among other things, 19 hijackers took over a few planes and took out the Twin Towers and damaged the Pentagon all without generating any action from the U.S. government or military. Why? Because everyone was confused as to whether what was being reported by air traffic controllers was "real life" or "training" due to an actual training exercise occuring simultaneously and protraying similar scenarios.

And why are conspiracy theorists usually people with no experience of science or government? Do you really think it's possible to fool the entire U.S. bureaucracy? Do you really understand the technical issues involved in destroying high-rise office towers?

The documents that you provided in the previous discussion proved the contentions of the "conspircy theorist" scientists that you pooh-poohed, namely that the Twin Towers were the first steel towers in history to completely collapse due to fire. The facts be damned!!

Conspiracy theorists pretend to be experts on everything, when they're usually ignorant paranoid nobodies, in my humble opinion. And how about the way they provide a distraction from real issues, how is this helpful?

Accidental theorists, skeptics, and supporters of the government's conspiracy version "argue" by belittling and mocking conspiracy "theorists," by asking apparently "rhetorical" questions such as "Do you really believe that the U.S. government would do that to the American people?," and by repeatedly claiming that conspiracy theories "distract from the real issues."

First of all, I realize that it's necessary to resort to insults when your own data proves our points. I understand.
Second, yes, I do believe a government could commit an atrocity such as 9/11 on its own people. Read history.
Third, if we are right about 9/11 and you try to shut us up, then you are part of the coverup. What could be a realer issue than a government duping its people into going into (pre-planned) wars, allowing thousands to be killed in those wars, and curtailling liberty in the name of protecting freedom?

Quote from bachelor tom

The relevant question is "why": why would Bush or Cheney or neocons or whoever choose this method to achieve their ends? Was this the only possible way to change government policy, or whatever they were trying to do? Was Bush that desperate to change his public image?

And why are conspiracy theorists usually people with no experience of science or government? Do you really think it's possible to fool the entire U.S. bureaucracy? Do you really understand the technical issues involved in destroying high-rise office towers?

Conspiracy theorists pretend to be experts on everything, when they're usually ignorant paranoid nobodies, in my humble opinion. And how about the way they provide a distraction from real issues, how is this helpful?

What we are seeing here is a daily education on why universal suffrage is a huge mistake. We have a government elected by females and nutters.

Blessings

Bob

Quote from shaazam

I Still can't see how a jet could crash through such a narrow hole as was on the side of the Pentagon

Much of the aluminum becomes melted metal or flamible vapor upon impact at 500 mph. The crash is not like a 50 mph crash. The wings vanish. Heavy steel engines etc., smash through, and the hole in the Pentagon was as wide as those parts. But there is almost nothing left of an airplane after a 500 mph crash, no bodies. A few bits of aluminum will be blown free, and some heavy steel and titanium parts weill be left in the wreckage. That is what to look for in a 500 mph crash. We are used to seeing the wreckage of low speed crashes, but few of us have experience looking at the wreckage of high speed 500 mph airplane crases. Part of the reason is that there are few such high speed crashes, and part of the reason is that there isn't enough airplane wreckage (or bodies) left to look at when that does happen.

and how the two towers collapsed neatly on to their bases when usually a explosives specialist have to blast the steel supports of tall buildings in sequence to bring the structure down i a similar manner

I can see how you have trouble understanding it because the towers DID NOT come down on their bases. They spread out over many acres of the plaza area, and pushed through to fill up several stores of underground garage and subway area beneath. One tower fell beyond the plaza and destoyed a 50 story building across the street, building 7. Big multi-story pieces of steel were left standing.

An explosives demolition likely would have attacked near the bottom, and deliberatly tried to just tip them over like trees. That is what the 1993 Al-Queda attack tried to do. But the collapse began near the top, where the airplanes hit them. Could a government conspiracy plant explosives in secret that would survive an airplane crash and fire and then be able to begin a collapse on the same floors? Unlikely.

A building demolition expert MIGHT have been able to drop such buildings into their own footprints, but the WTC towers covered the whole plaza area and across the street to take out a large building there.

Blessings

Bob

Akuus, you realize that accusing someone of a conspiracy like this (mass murder) is the same as a woman making a false accusation of rape

Do you really want to reject traditions of scientific/legal/logical analysis developed over centuries by men of good will? Isn't this simply surrendering to emotionalism?

Conspiracy theorizing/Intelligent Design/paranormal speculation: I don't see any functional difference in the irrationality of these subjects

And people who can't laugh at themselves (like feminists) are immature imo

Quote from bachelor tom

Akuus, you realize that accusing someone of a conspiracy like this (mass murder) is the same as a woman making a false accusation of rape.

Really? Wow. Would you care to add some logical commentary to that "analogy" to flesh it out a little? What you are saying is: Some (most?) women who make rape claims are lying; therefore, all conspiracy theories are false. Hmmm....

Do you really want to reject traditions of scientific/legal/logical analysis developed over centuries by men of good will? Isn't this simply surrendering to emotionalism?

How have we conspiracy realists done that? The only credible evidence anyone on this site from the anti-conspiracy crowd has offered is this:

Here is another survey of multi-story buildings that collapsed
http://www.haifire.com/presentations...pse_Survey.pdf

The thing is, this proves the point of that the WTC was the "first building in hisotry to collapse from fire."

Look at the link and you will find the following:

Building Structure # of Floors Hours Burned Result

WTC TT's Steel 110/110 1, 1.5 Total/total
Alexis Nihon Steel 15 5 Partial 11th floor
1st NY Plaza Steel 50 ? Several beams fell
1 Meridian Steel 38 18 Damage to 9 floors
Broadgate Steel 14 4.5 ?
1st Interstate Steel 62 3.5 Damage to 4 floors

You accidental theorists are the ones who are resorting to emotionalism and demogoguery with slander, mockery, ad hominem tactics and red herring comments.

Conspiracy theorizing/Intelligent Design/paranormal speculation: I don't see any functional difference in the irrationality of these subjects

Wow.
Conspiracy theory- about conspiracies
Intelligent Design- about creation vs. evolution
Paranormal Speculation- about ghosts, et. al.

What's the connection? We CT's aren't asking you to believe in creation, evolution or Caspar the Friendly Ghost. We are asking you to acknowledge some of the basics of human nature and history.

For example, do you believe that power corrupts people who have it, has no effect on their inherent nature, or somehow purifies them?

Also, if you will recognize commonly accepted historical conspiracies (conspiracy- a plot, an agreement among people who conspire. conspire- to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act, to scheme) such as the cattle range wars of the American southwest in the 1800's to take land; the use of eminent domain or other forms of coercion to aquire land for railroads, oil, and now shopping plazas; Benedict Arnold and Quisling's acts of betrayal; insider trading; organized crime, etc., why do you doubt that presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, diplomats and international bankers would not scheme, plot or conspire to engage in activity that would harm their own people and others for power and profit? What happens when one rises to such a level in the hierarchy? Does one suddenly become immune to greed, corruption, and blackmail?

And people who can't laugh at themselves (like feminists) are immature imo

I assume this comment refers to mine about the use of mockery to "discredit" CT's. The point is that you people have to resort ot mockery because history, science, and logic are not on your side. If they were, you would stick to the facts.

Akuus, I like you, but I can't agree with your arguments on this subject

I'm not a specialist in history, science or law. I'm willing to defer to 'experts' for judgments on the technical matters (yes authority is always an issue).

Conspiracy theorists make false accusations all the time, that's why I used the example of rape. The accusations are false because they are not provable by law or science, and they smear the reputation of the person in question. This is a rejection of the principle of assuming innocence until guilt is proven.

I prefer to use the rules of logic as a starting point, and conspiracy theorists, like Creationists and ghosthunters, use virtually every logical fallacy that has ever been defined. This doesn't guarantee that they're wrong, but it points in that direction.

Quote from bachelor tom

Akuus, I like you, but I can't agree with your arguments on this subject

Ditto.

I'm not a specialist in history, science or law. I'm willing to defer to 'experts' for judgments on the technical matters (yes authority is always an issue).

Why not "question the experts"? Then you can decide which "experts" to believe and trust. You don't have to have a degree to be able to have an informed or logical opinion on something. We are not talking about rocket science or brain surgery but rather human nature, history and current events. I am not willing to hand my brain over to so-called experts, especially those who speak on behalf of the government. I have seen too many "leaders" in my life in the regilious, political and social realms betray me and others in tangible ways to blindly trust "authority" and "experts."

Conspiracy theorists make false accusations all the time, that's why I used the example of rape. The accusations are false because they are not provable by law or science, and they smear the reputation of the person in question. This is a rejection of the principle of assuming innocence until guilt is proven.

It is true to say that not all conspiracy theories are accurate. But can that not also be said for "regular" history and for science? Aren't historians and scientists constantly coming to new understandings about their fields based on new research and discoveries? Should we therefore reject all history and science just because we find out that errors have been taught in the past?

Let me clarify a couple of things regarding conspiracy theories: 1) Not all conspiracy theorists agree on all points, just as people from the "same" religion have different opinions. I don't necessarily buy into things such as numerology, which could easily be classified as religion rather than conspiracy theory. And 2) Not all information in the conspiracy theory world is true. Some of it is misinformation and some of it is disinformation. Misinformation is information that is inaccurate due to lack of good information or understanding on the part of the CT. Nothing is malicious in intent in disseminating it. Disinformation is deliberately incorrect information that is deliberately disseminated with the intent of discrediting conspiracy theorists and/or causing some kind of reaction in the masses (e.g. panic.) Hopefully, misinformation will be corrected and disinformation will be exposed. Either way, neither one logically or factually discredits the idea that national and international conspiracies actually exist. I hope you don't throw away your cash every time a group of counterfeiters is caught.

I prefer to use the rules of logic as a starting point, and conspiracy theorists, like Creationists and ghosthunters, use virtually every logical fallacy that has ever been defined. This doesn't guarantee that they're wrong, but it points in that direction.

If you were to find out today that your favorite evolutionary expert was a fraud, would you become a creationist? If you discovered that the leading skeptical expert in the area of the paranormal had intentionally or unintentionally used inaccurate data and information, would you become a believer in demonology?

Bachelor Tom states, "I prefer to use the rules of logic as a starting point, and conspiracy theorists, like Creationists"

"That which is made requires a maker" therefore "The creation required a creator"

I thank God that the Creator is my God and my Saviour !!!!!!

Even the top evolutionists admit that we can not get life from "Non life" - just common sense.



Robert.

Akuus, I appreciate that you're keeping this on a friendly level.

Question the experts Yes, always. Unfortunately, most of us don't have the time and resources to investigate every issue that interests us. I don't have knowledge or experience in ballistics eg. so I can't analyze for myself the Warren Commission's report re Oswald's gun. Life forces us to choose who to believe, I don't see any way around this.

New research and discoveries It's true that history is fluid, and science is continually making new discoveries, but the general trends don't change dramatically. We are forced to use whatever data we have at hand to judge things, we never have perfect information about anything in life. The great advantage of the scientific community is their commitment to peer review, which generally confirms "true" facts and dismisses faulty research. Scientific theories are usually "backwards compatible", capable of including existing ideas while incorporating new facts or processes.

Disinformation in CT world I don't know anything about the inner dynamics of the CT social sphere, so I can't comment on whether there is foul play afoot.

Favourite experts disproved Sure, if every expert in evolution had to recant then I would pay attention. One scientist does not a theory make however. Even Einstein was wrong about some things.

In general my default assumptions are naturalistic: events can be explained by natural processes, which of course are not perfectly known to us. You mentioned human nature, which I see as relatively unchanging, but capable of tremendous variety.

I like to think that my opinions are the result of listening to "authorities" and my own insights in some combination, with probability, logic and experience as guides. Life is short, I don't want to waste any more time than I have to chasing shadows.

Quote from RobYork

I thank God that the Creator is my God and my Saviour !!!!!!

Never met the dude. If he ever comes up and shakes my hand I'll let you know.

Even the top evolutionists admit that we can not get life from "Non life" - just common sense.
Robert.

I wouldn't be so sure about that assertion. Just last night I was watching a documentary about that topic on one of the science channels. They quoted some evolutionists who asserted that all life seems to have evolved in a "branching tree" like manner from some primorial first ancestor.

But there were a bunch of different groups of scientists who are working on ways to create a first ancestor. They already had a name for it "life 2." A theoretical "life 2" would be on a different evolutionary tree unconnected to all other known life.

None of them have been able to create life as of yet, but that hasn't stopped them from studying the problem. A lot of things that were beyond comprehension a century ago are now commonplace. A century ago men were just beginning to learn how to create crude electric lights, and could not have ever imagined creating the microcircuits in your computer in their wildest dreams.

It seems that a lot of scientists are no longer convinced that you can't get life from non-life. It may sound like common sense, but in the world of molecular biology its not so far out. In another century, or sooner, it may become part of everyday understanding. Several of the scientists shown on the documentary seemed to think it might be possible. Life=2 may happen sooner than we imagine.

Blessings

Bob