Conspiracy Theories

[Miss Anthrope]

As annoying as religion can be, I think conpsiracy nuts bug me a lot more. Lately I've been getting a barrage of MySpace bulletins with links to
YouTube videos like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ4iIM8Eljc

This is a known hoax, even within the conspiracy theorists circles, apparently.

Also didn't realize until today that flouride is still a hot topic in such circles, I feel like responding to some of the bulletins and comments with a link to the clip from Dr. Strangelove in which General Ripper tells Mandrake about his precious bodily fluids/life essence.

Then there's all the stuff about FEMA making all these 3-person coffins, and from what I've been able to find out they're actually just coffin covers that keep out water and protect from land sinkage. I'm still not very informed on a lot of these things,never really cared, so I can't say for sure what the conspiracy theorists are right/wrong about, but my instincts tell me they're mostly wrong, and that brings me to what's troubling me: Google and YouTube seem to bring up more pro-conspiracy blogs/videos/articles/websites/forums than they do things that explain things more rationally, so the general impression I get is that there are more people who believe in all this stuff than those who don't.

What also confuses me about these people is that they don't seem to know what the goals of these conspiracies are, or rather why the percieved goals exist.
A lot of it seems to be along the lines of "Well, the governmetn wants to kill 80% of the population becasue the fat cats/illuminati/world puppeteers just want it that way." Seriously, the psychology behind these modes of thought are kind of disturbing, almost like the bizarro-version of religion: Beleiving in something for which you have no proof, but not for comfort, for the opposite of comfort, a sort of masochistic excitement.

[Will]

I should get my hands on a DTV tuner. If there's a camera in there, I'll find it.

Conspiracy theories aren't all inherently crazy or wrong. They're unproven hypothesis. Those that believe unproven hypothesis are simply incorrect in their logic, the same as a religious person believing in the supernatural despite any evidence to support their beliefs. In other words, ask questions and make hypothesis to your heart's content; that's the genesis of discovery. Just don't put your cart before your horse.

People thought the Tuskegee Syphilis Study was nothing but rubbish. We now know it's true that the US government intentionally infected 400 poor, black American citizens with syphilis over the course of 40 years. 200 innocent men died. It was a very dark chapter in our country's history.

[karadan]

There was a counter-conspiracy programme aired on channel 5 last year about 9/11. It was basically a direct response to loose change. It went over every pont made in loose change and systematically ripped every conspiracy hypothesis apart. The main difference between these two programmes was the fact that one used lots of eye witness and professional statements from the people who were there and the other simply used conjecture and heresay to put forward its points.
They even interviewed the loose change creator who, after some questioning, started throwing swear words and insults around because he was being asked questions he couldn't answer, or, that those questions showed him to be massively wrong about a lot of his ideas. That made me happy.

I'm quite happy for these people to make up what stories they want because in the most part, the general population just see them as crackpots. The thing that pisses me off is when they start to get nasty and accuse ordinary people (a lot of which lost a lot of friends/family in 9/11) of being a part of the conspiracy. Most of the 9/11 conspiracies would have to have tens of thousands of ordinary workers in on this nefarious plot to kill almost 3000 innocent people.

Bullshit. Pure and simple.

The moon hoax people piss me off too. One guy (whilst i was trying to chill out in the pub after a hard weeks work) even tried to persuade me that Armstrong 'met' aliens on the moon. After 10 more minutes of ranting he started telling me how the moon landings were faked! So, i asked him which farce he eventually wanted to settle with as both these points were completely contradictory... The fact his only source of reference was youtube was kind of lost on him. I guess that goes to show how these theories usually perpetuate. Someone sees something written on teh interwebz and without any critical analysis, take it all as verbatim and then spread it around until some other gulliable idiot listens.

If i was to hazard a guess, 98% of all conspiracy theory is hot air. If a government really wants to keep something secret, it will.

[Miss Anthrope]

Will, you're absolutely right, and I do beleive that conspiracies like the syphalis tests do happen; I certainly don't trust government [very much]. It's these people who jump on every little element of change that annoy me, the ones who think that there's some darker agenda behind everything that happens and that's it all part of some master global plan, or the NWO. Interestingly, while researching the DTV video, I found that there are even people who beleive that the boxes transmit mind control waves. Craziness!

Karadan, moon theorists piss me off, too. I actually had a friend who didn't beleive they landed on the moon and she brought up the usual {perfectly explainable] "proof" like the "prop number" on one of the rocks in one of the photos and the way the flag moved in the video. Not surprisingly, she also thought the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11 and that all of those workers were in on it. What gets me about the moon people is that they're so adamant about it, like it would hurt them to think that we made it to the moon. Again, whether or not we made it to the moon isn't something I really care about; if I did find out it was fake I wouldn't be enraged or depressed, so i can't understand why these people put so much stock in a belief that doesn't really affect their day to day lives. Maybe since they're often "counter-culture" types its just another thing for them to go against the grain about.

[karadan]

Karadan, moon theorists piss me off, too. I actually had a friend who didn't beleive they landed on the moon and she brought up the usual {perfectly explainable] "proof" like the "prop number" on one of the rocks in one of the photos and the way the flag moved in the video. Not surprisingly, she also thought the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11 and that all of those workers were in on it. What gets me about the moon people is that they're so adamant about it, like it would hurt them to think that we made it to the moon. Again, whether or not we made it to the moon isn't something I really care about; if I did find out it was fake I wouldn't be enraged or depressed, so i can't understand why these people put so much stock in a belief that doesn't really affect their day to day lives. Maybe since they're often "counter-culture" types its just another thing for them to go against the grain about.

Absolutely. I'm quite sure if a study was conducted investigating the average age of the moon hoax believers, the results would say that most of these people weren't even alive when Apollo 11 touched down on the lunar surface. Anyone old enough to remember the moon landings will be quite happy to believe it as real. I guess it is easier for people to subscibe to bullshit theories when they can't actually remember the event for themselves. Correct me if i am wrong, but i don't know of anyone proclaiming the moon landings to be faked during, or directly after the mission in 1969.

If i did find out it was faked, i'd be hugely upset. It would make a complete mockery of science. I'm very passionate about the science of space exploration. That's just me, though

[Will]

There has to be a balance, though. As skeptics, it's our responsibility in being true to ourselves to hear people out. Naturally, after we've heard people out, we apply deductive logic and an application of science in order to determine if the explanation they've offered fits the facts, or if the facts themselves are even questionable, but you have to make the initial attempt to listen.

I'll give you an example (please, bear with me):

This is a picture taken by an amature photographer of the initial impact at the Pentagon on 9/11 before the roof collapsed. Here is a closeup:

Upon seeing this, people essentially went completely nuts. "It was a missile!" "It was the nosecone!" "It was a directed energy weapon!"
The mistake these people made wasn't to propose unlikely hypothesis, it was to stop at the hypothesis. Sure, it's not impossible that there was a directed energy weapon or missile, but without making your case no one is going to think your guess is anywhere near likely. In other words, they didn't finish. They were lazy.

Here's how I would do it:
Based on the sizes of the windows in the picture, it's likely that the hole is 8-12 feet (2.4-3.6 meters) wide. While the cabin is about 12 feet wide, the engines, wings, and tail would have terrible trouble fitting in that hole, unless the planes have the ability to fold in the wings and tail in the case of a crash. This would suggest that the NIST's official explanation that the plane entered the building and broke up on the interior is incorrect. Further study is needed.

[G.ENIGMA]

Probably like most interested people I have viewed alot about the attack on the pentagon and the official released version ... that just does not make sense ... we have all seen the cosequences of a real plane crash and ... that just does not make sense ... The size of the hole to the size of the plane ... that just does not make sense ...  

A plane or a missile "possibly friendly fire" actually hitting the pentagon and they just do not want us to see the real pictures and are playing a double bluff  

As for conspiracies ... well of course there are real conspiracies going on all the time... I just hope the majority are meant for our benefit ... There are people who want to create their particular version of a new world order as there are people who want to oppose that version and bring in their own ...

LETS JUST HOPE THE GOOD GUYS WIN

[BadPoison]

What about two satelites crashing? It just seems incredibly unlikely...

[Ihateyoumike]

If i was to hazard a guess, 98% of all conspiracy theory is hot air. If a government really wants to keep something secret, it will.

I agree with the first statement. As for the second one, our government can't get anything right here in America. I don't think they'd be able to keep anything big a secret for too long, there has to be a certain level of competence for that.

[SSY]

Maybe thats what they want you to think!

They leak the minor stuff out ( 9/11 scam etc ) to distract us from the REAL goings on ( Aliens? Illuminati? Dolphins? ). At least one of the former has to be true, otherwise they wouldn't let all the 9/11 conspiracy theories exist.

Just becuase I'm paranoid doesn't mean their NOT out to get me.

[VanReal]

Karadan, moon theorists piss me off, too. I actually had a friend who didn't beleive they landed on the moon and she brought up the usual {perfectly explainable] "proof" like the "prop number" on one of the rocks in one of the photos and the way the flag moved in the video.

I didn't (and don't) think the original filmed moon landing occurred, but never realized there was a "conspiracy theory" surrounding it until a few years ago.  It has nothing to do with the science or examples you used above, it's just that it was too convenient for the US to land first when we were so far behind the Russian's and I am skeptical about the technology at the time.  The race was on an we were not leading the pack, I just have difficulty believing it happened at that time and then so many failed attempts occurred in missions afterward.  I don't sit around thinking about it or pointing out the things in the video that don't make sense to me, just find it hard to believe.  

[Miss Anthrope]

Well, I think the body of evidence for the moon landing video's authenticity is pretty telling, but of course I can't witness the event or the evidence first hand, so the moon landing is another one of those things which I don't think we can fully beleive or have non-belief in without taking a leap of faith in varying degrees. Personally, i certainly wouldn't put it past humans to try to fake such a thing, particularly during a cold war. But I still thing such a conspiracy would have been very difficult to pull off. I'd even say that I have some trust in the astronauts, but honestly I don't really trust people I don't know (or some that I do know )

But yeah, it's some of the arguments of "proof" in the videos that I take issue with, not really the actual non-belief itself (again, it's not something I really care about). I think the one that annoys me the most, as an illustrator, is the "inaccurate shadows" argument concerning the shadows being cast by rocks on the moon. Perpsectives of shadows can be misleading on non-flat terrain and there's nothing "wrong" with the shadows. Also, what gets me about it is that if it was filmed on a set, why would the shadows be cast in the "wrong" way?

[McQ]

Karadan, moon theorists piss me off, too. I actually had a friend who didn't beleive they landed on the moon and she brought up the usual {perfectly explainable] "proof" like the "prop number" on one of the rocks in one of the photos and the way the flag moved in the video.

I didn't (and don't) think the original filmed moon landing occurred, but never realized there was a "conspiracy theory" surrounding it until a few years ago.  It has nothing to do with the science or examples you used above, it's just that it was too convenient for the US to land first when we were so far behind the Russian's and I am skeptical about the technology at the time.  The race was on an we were not leading the pack, I just have difficulty believing it happened at that time and then so many failed attempts occurred in missions afterward.  I don't sit around thinking about it or pointing out the things in the video that don't make sense to me, just find it hard to believe.  

Read up a bit more on the history of the space program. We were behind the Russians at first, but poured more money into our space program and zoomed by them. Also, just because it seems too convenient to you, doesn't make it fake. That's not a logical assumption. Also, what were the "so many failed attempts" afterward?

Guys, if you believe the lunar landings didn't occur, I encourage you to put the same thought and effort into learning about them as you do your atheism. This is analogous to trying to debate a creationist on evolution. They have no evidence for their stance, yet they believe they are right. I have as much of a hard time understanding why people believe we didn't go to the Moon as I do understanding why people think the Earth is only 6000 years old.

[VanReal]

Read up a bit more on the history of the space program. We were behind the Russians at first, but poured more money into our space program and zoomed by them. Also, just because it seems too convenient to you, doesn't make it fake. That's not a logical assumption. Also, what were the "so many failed attempts" afterward?

Guys, if you believe the lunar landings didn't occur, I encourage you to put the same thought and effort into learning about them as you do your atheism. This is analogous to trying to debate a creationist on evolution. They have no evidence for their stance, yet they believe they are right. I have as much of a hard time understanding why people believe we didn't go to the Moon as I do understanding why people think the Earth is only 6000 years old.

I wasn't talking about the US's subsequent attempts failing but moon landing attempts failing after in general.  According to NASA's records we did not zoom right past them.  And it's just convenient that everything went so right at the time, landing, walking, all cameras operational, etc.  Doesn't have to be logical, I'm not submitting a hypothesis on why or how it was faked.  http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/facts/LSumm1.htm I think not having been born until 1974 probably causes a lot of my skepticism as well, I don't have the emotional attachment to its importance.

As far as obtaining evidence to support my stance I don't feel the need to do so just as I don't try to find evidence to support my non-belief in a God.  I don't really care either way about the moon landing and don't try to find proof that it didn't happen, just from gut I don't believe it happened much like from gut I don't believe in any God.  I don't run around describing or screaming about a conspiracy though, just not that important to me.  (It is fun to mention it to my boyfriend though because it drives him absolutely crazy.)  I just mentioned this to say that not everyone who doesn't believe it happened is a conspiracy theory nut, I don't pay any attention to what those guys use as "evidence" and don't feel like any of it is legitimate scientific support of it not happening.  I've never even googled it. (And I google everything.   )

[verybigv]

Conspiracy theories just seem counter-logical to me. Did you ever try keeping a secret between just 3 or 4 people? It's just about impossible. Now, imagine trying to keep a secret between thousands of people. This,I believe, would be totally impossible.