We've moved to a better place...

You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If that does not occur, visit
http://www.relativelytinteresting.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label conspiracy theories. Show all posts

Monday, November 7, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Breaking News: White House Formally Acknowledges: "Searching for ET, but no aliens yet".

Ok, it's not really breaking news.  It's kinda mundane.  But, it's interesting nonetheless.  


The White House has formally acknowledged that the human race is not engaging extraterrestrials and is not withholding any information from said aliens.  This was in response to two petitions on the White House's "We The People" site, which requires a response from the government if 25,000 signatures are signed.  The first petition stated the following:


We petition the obama administration to "formally acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race - Disclosure."


"We, the undersigned, strongly urge the President of the United States to formally acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race and immediately release into the public domain all files from all agencies and military services relevant to this phenomenon."
___


Hundreds of military and government agency witnesses have come forward with testimony confirming this extraterrestrial presence. Opinion polls now indicate more than 50% of the American people believe there is an extraterrestrial presence and more than 80% believe the government is not telling the truth about this phenomenon. The people have a right to know. The people can handle the truth.


The second petition reads:


We petition the obama administration to "Immediately disclose the government's knowledge of and communications with extraterrestrial beings"


This Petition calls for the President to disclose to the American people the long withheld knowledge of government interactions with extraterrestrial beings and call for open Congressional hearings to allow the people to become aware of this subject through those whose voices have been silenced by unconstitutional secrecy oaths.


The Response...


Phil Larson, who works on space policy and communications at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, replied with this official statement:


Searching for ET, But No Evidence Yet


By Phil Larson


"Thank you for signing the petition asking the Obama Administration to acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence here on Earth.


The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race. In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public's eye.


However, that doesn't mean the subject of life outside our planet isn't being discussed or explored. In fact, there are a number of projects working toward the goal of understanding if life can or does exist off Earth. Here are a few examples:


SETI—the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence—was originally stood up with help from NASA, but has since been moved to other sources of private funding. SETI's main purpose is to act as a giant ear on behalf of the human race, pointing an array of ground-based telescopes towards space to listen for any signal from another world.


Kepler is a NASA spacecraft in orbit that's main goal is to search for Earth-like planets. Such a planet would be located in the "Goldilocks" zone of a distant solar system—not too hot and not too cold—and could potentially be habitable by life as we know it. The Kepler mission is specifically designed to survey our region of the Milky Way galaxy to discover Earth-sized, rocky planets in or near the habitable zone of the star (sun) they orbit.


The Mars Science Laboratory, Curiosity, is an automobile-sized rover that NASA is launching soon. The rover's onboard laboratory will study rocks, soils, and other geology in an effort to detect the chemical building blocks of life (e.g., forms of carbon) on Mars and will assess what the Martian environment was like in the past to see if it could have harbored life.


A last point: Many scientists and mathematicians have looked with a statistical mindset at the question of whether life likely exists beyond Earth and have come to the conclusion that the odds are pretty high that somewhere among the trillions and trillions of stars in the universe there is a planet other than ours that is home to life.


Many have also noted, however, that the odds of us making contact with any of them—especially any intelligent ones—are extremely small, given the distances involved.


But that's all statistics and speculation. The fact is we have no credible evidence of extraterrestrial presence here on Earth."


The official petitions can be found here and here:


Do you think this case is settled?  Or is the government lying to us again....???

Monday, August 15, 2011 ~ Have your say...

The Moon Landing Hoax Debunked (again)










To The Moon!

American President Barack Obama’s presented to the National Academy of Sciences on April 27th, 2009.  Here is a excerpt from his speech:

“When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik a little more than a half century ago, Americans were stunned: the Russians had beaten us to space. We had a choice to make: we could accept defeat – or we could accept the challenge. And as always, we chose to accept the challenge.

President Eisenhower signed legislation to create NASA and to invest in science and math education, from grade school to graduate school. And just a few years later, a month after his address to the 1961 Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, President 

Kennedy boldly declared before a joint session of Congress that the United States would send a man to the moon and return him safely to the earth.

The scientific community rallied behind this goal and set about achieving it. And it would lead not just to those first steps on the moon, but also to giant leaps in our understanding here at home.”

One Small Step

It was on July 20th, 1969, that Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped out of the lunar module and took the first small step on the lunar surface, but a giant leap for mankind.  NASA beamed back audio, video, and images from the historic mission.  Ask most people from that era, “Where were you when we first walked on the moon?”, and they can remember the day as if it was yesterday.  It was completely memorable, and not only a historic moment for the United States of America, but for science and all of humanity.

NASA launched six missions that would go on to land on the moon;  Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16.  They studied things like soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic measurements, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields and the solar wind.  It was the ultimate laboratory, and we learned much from those trips.  

The Conspiracy

But what if the United States didn’t land on the moon?  What if there was a conspiracy to give the illusion that they did?  What if the public was fooled into thinking that ‘1969 America’ could win the space race?  And if the government lied, what else were they lying about?  What else do they not want us to know?  What if… the moon landing was a hoax?

In February of 2001, Fox TV aired a program called “Conspiracy Theory:  Did We Land on the Moon?”.  It featured interviews with a group of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.  The biggest proponent of this idea was Bill Kaysing, who claimed to have evidence for the hoax:  images, engineering details, anomalies in the physics, and astronaut testimonies.  According to Kaysing, NASA did not have the technical capability of landing on the moon, but since there was so much pressure during the Cold War and space race with the Soviet Union, the USA was forced to fake the whole thing to prove that they had technological superiority.  To Kaysing and others believer in the conspiracy, it was easier to fool the public with an elaborate hoax (assumed to be filmed in Area 51, of course) rather than let their Cold War rival strike a huge moral victory by having a non-American step foot on the moon first.

Scan the Internet for “Moon Landing Hoax”, and (other than this site), you’ll find other reasons for the conspiracy, including the following, from MoonMovie.com:

"Why would Apollo fake the first manned moon mission (Apollo 8) and then continue to go back 8 more times? To answer this question, one must understand both history and the future. 

Technology is far beyond what the public is allowed to know - in some cases 35 years ahead of public knowledge.

The elite handlers of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) needed a long term distraction from the real space program, for the purposes of covertly building the vast control mechanisms and placing them in Earth orbit.

Bart Sibrel touches on this in his first film, when he includes the real reason for space presence - military domination of the Earth from space. This is the history. Another resource for this documented movement towards worldwide tyranny is Arsenal of Hypocrisy. NASA is a multifaceted tool of the MIC, and the Global Elite who plan to implement world government. 

Apollo was in fact, a great distraction."

And so, putting the reason for the hoax aside, let us investigate why some people believe man has yet to step foot on the moon.  At the same time, we’ll put on our skeptical hats and let science debunk each of the claims.

Claims for the Conspiracy… and the Facts That Debunk Them

According to moon hoax believers, the list below provides “evidence” for the fact that the moon landing was staged in a studio.  (Editors note:  For the sake of brevity, I have chosen eleven.  If you wish to find more “evidence” and counter evidence (science), please read through the reference material at the bottom of the article.  The most comprehensive guide I have yet to find is on Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy site).

1  When the astronauts plant the flag, you can see it flapping as though it’s in a breeze.  But there is no air or atmosphere on the moon… so how could this be?

The flag is moving because the astronauts just placed it there, and by twisting and turning the flag pole, they caused it to move.  The inertia from when they let go kept it moving,  Over time, the flag would come to rest, but the video was taken during and shortly after it was placed into the lunar surface.

2  Buzz Aldrin is seen in the shadow of the lander, but at the same time, he is clearly visible. Many shadows look strange in the Apollo pictures. Some shadows don't appear to be parallel with each other, and some objects in shadow appear well lit, hinting that light was coming from multiple sources… just like studio cameras.

There were multiple light sources:  the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface.

It's also important to note that the lunar surface is not flat.  If an object is in a dip (say, a small crater), you will get a different shadow compared to an object next to it that is on a level surface.  Still not convinced?  This is easily testable at with a few small props, uneven ground, and a light source.

In addition, the shadows are not parallel in the images due to perspective.  You are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph, which causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. Here’s a great example demonstrating this effect – non parallel shadows distorted by perspective. Again, this is easily testable, as the previous link demonstrates.

3  You’re on the moon and there’s no atmosphere.  So you should be able to clearly see all the stars in the sky.  But where are they?  They don’t show up in any of the photographs – it’s just a dark sky.

The moon's surface reflects sunlight, and its glare would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light. According to Bad Astronomy, they were taking pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second.  With such a short exposure, the stars simply won’t show up on film.  You can try this for yourself.  Take a picture of Jupiter or Venus (since they are highly visible from Earth) on a clear night away from light pollution.  You’ll have a hard time seeing them, if at all, and you certainly won’t see even the brightest stars.  You need a long and steady exposure for that to work.

4  The lander was huge and should have produced a giant crater when it touched the surface.  But the module is shown sitting on relatively flat, undisturbed soil.

"Science fiction movies depict this big jet of fire coming out as [spacecraft] land, but that's not how they did it on the moon.".  In reality, the lander's engines were throttled back prior to landing, and it did not hover long enough to form a crater or disturb much dust.
5  The radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes.

Kaysing's exact words, when quoted on this claim, were, ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected human would get a lethal dose of radiation, but only if he stayed there long enough. But according to Phil Plait, the spaceship traveled through the belts very quickly, getting through them in about an hour. There wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose.  Additionally, the metal hull of the spaceship blocked most of the radiation.

6  The pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set.  Just about every picture the public sees is near perfect, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time!

Nobody claims they did. Thousands of pictures were taken on the Moon, and the ones we all see will tend to be the best ones. If Buzz Aldrin accidentally took a picture with Neil Armstrong partly out of the frame, you probably won't see that image in a magazine.

Further to that, Phil Plait notes that everything done on the Moon was practiced endlessly by the astronauts. Those working on the mission knew that these pictures would be some of the most important images ever taken, so they would have taken particular care in making sure the astronauts could do it with their eyes shut. When fabled astronaut Story Musgrave replaced a camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope in 1993, someone commented that he made it look easy. "Sure," he replied, "I had practiced it thousands of times!"

7  The astronauts' footprints are too clear for being made on a dry surface. Those footprints could only have been made in wet sand.

Plait, an astronomer and skeptic, deals with this claim nicely:  Moon dust, or regolith, is "like a finely ground powder. When you look at it under a microscope, it almost looks like volcanic ash. So when you step on it, it can compress very easily into the shape of a boot." And those shapes could stay pristine for a long while thanks to the airless vacuum on the moon.

8  We are led to believe that only two astronauts walked on the moon at a time, yet in photographs such as the one below, where both are visible, there is no sign of a camera. So who took the picture?

According to Phil Plait, the cameras were mounted to the astronauts' chests.  In the picture above, Plait notes, "you can see [Neil's] arms are sort of at his chest. That's where the camera is. He wasn't holding it up to his visor."

9  There are many strange reflections in the photos.  They could only have come from studio lights on a production set.

If NASA spent millions of dollars on a hoax, do you think they would make such an obvious mistake?  The reflections are lens flares.  The pentagonal flare seen in some photos is of the aperture of the camera. 


10  After the “landing”, artifacts from the trip were supposedly left behind:  part of the Eagle, the U.S. flag, and several other instruments and mementos.  With instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope capable of peering into the distant of the universe, surely scientists should be able to see the various objects still on the moon. But no such pictures of these objects exist.

There isn’t a single telescope on Earth or in space that has a resolution powerful enough to see these objects. In fact, astronomers can calculate this:  given the biggest telescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of moon is something bigger than a house.

11 There’s secret outtake footage from the old Moontruth website that shows a bumble when they were staging the landing.  You can clearly see it was a production set.

That’s because it was a production set.  You can watch it yourself:



Moontruth.com eventually came out as a parody, publishing a disclaimer stating that the clip was a fake. This doesn't stop people from believing that it still supports the hoax, however. In fact, in true conspiracy theorist fashion, the admission that it was a fake video is seen as “part of the conspiracy”, or “what they want you to think”.

From NASA, With Love

After the show on Fox aired, NASA felt compelled to respond.  On their web page, they present the most compelling piece of evidence as proof of the moon landings.  Actually, they present 841 pounds of evidence in the form of moon rock.  Moon rocks are absolutely unique, and there’s no process on Earth that could simulate their creation.  That is, they can only be created on the moon itself.  To learn how they differ from Earth rocks, and how their creation is different, visit NASA’s rebuttal on their site.

Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) is quoted:  "I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks.  Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees that humans have indeed landed on the moon. He was quoted by NASA in saying, "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."

Conclusion 

Conspiracy theories like the Moon Landing Hoax can be debunked, torn apart, shredded, and thoroughly disproved with hard science every day, but that usually won’t make a difference to true believers.  The Mythbusters, a television show on the Discovery network, dedicated an episode to the Moon Landing Hoax and tackled several parts of the myth.  Like me, the cast members held no illusions that they would be able to sway the diehard moon hoax believer to the “other side”.

"The thing that I've found over the years is that there is always a certain segment of people out there who will refuse to believe despite overwhelming evidence. Those diehards will never be convinced, while everyone else will have fun watching us take on the hoax," said cast member Imahara.

Savage and Hyneman said they found similarities between the hoax and the other myths they have tested.  "There seems to be a common tendency among conspiracy theorists, as well as among a lot of people with entrenched belief systems, to get stuck on an idea and never give up. 

Conspiracy theories are not really a special category -- maybe you can call them myths, but I look at them as an obsession that people want to maintain, like being abducted by aliens, Bigfoot and so on. You can't really expect that reasonable evidence will change anyone's mind if they are determined," observed Hyneman.

And so, we fight the good fight with science, reason, and rationality – chipping away at conspiracy theories like the Moon Landing Hoax with the hope that at least some hoax believers, when presented with the evidence, will let go of their belief and choose to accept the facts.




References:

Interview with Bill Kaysing:  (Editors note:  I left out Kaysing's claim that NASA murdered three astronauts via the Apollo 1 fire because they were afraid the hoax would be exposed.  You can read more about this accusation in the interview, and on Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy article).
NASA’s response:
The ultimate debunk of the Moon Landing Hoax:
Images:
Other:




Thursday, August 4, 2011 ~ Have your say...

A UFO found on the ocean floor?

UFOlogists are all a-flutter with the buzz that an ocean exploration team led by Swedish researcher Peter Lindberg has found what might be a crashed flying saucer.  


Lindberg's team was using sonar to look for ship wreck hat went down carrying several cases of a super-rare champagne. Instead, the team discovered a mysterious round object that might (or might not) be extraterrestrial.  Round object?  Yes.  Extraterrestrial?  Hmmm...


Lindberg explained to local media that his crew discovered, on the 300-foot-deep ocean floor between Finland and Sweden, "a large circle, about 60 feet in diameter. You see a lot of weird stuff in this job, but during my 18 years as a professional I have never seen anything like this. The shape is completely round."  Lindberg also said he saw evidence of scars or marks disturbing the environment nearby, suggesting the object somehow moved across the ocean floor to where his team found it.


As one might expect Swedish tabloids and Internet UFO buffs are basking in the glory of this report. Some suggest the object is a flying saucer of extraterrestrial origin and that the seafloor scars were dug up during the crash.


Let's quickly invoke Occam's Razor before going further.  It might be a crashed UFO, OR It might simply be a natural feature formation, or possibly a sunken, round man-made object.  Which is more likely?


Lindberg's claim that the object "is perfectly round" might not even be accurate;  the resolution of the sonar image was not high enough to verify that it is indeed round (and we've seen these type of low-resolution error many times on Mars). And while the lines that appear to be leading to or from the feature may suggest some sort of movement, it's also possible they have nothing to do with the circular object.


Lindberg himself did not offer an extraterrestrial origin, though he did speculate it might be a "new Stonehenge."  Again, a bit of a stretch, but at least a man-made structure is more plausible.


This story is reminiscent of "Bimini Road," a rock formation in the Caribbean near the Bahamas that resembles a road or wall. Many New Agers and conspiracy theorists claimed the rocks are too perfectly shaped to be natural, and either were made by an unknown civilization or are possibly a relic from the lost city of Atlantis.Geologists have identified the blocks as perfectly natural, weathered beach rock.


It's also worth noting that UFOs may not be saucer-shaped. The famous "flying saucer" description of the very first described UFO has since been revealed as a reporting error.  For more on that, read James Randii's "Flim Flam", where he thoroughly explains and debunks the "shape" claim.


Finally, Lindberg said his team has neither the interest nor the resources to further investigate the "UFO".   Deep ocean research is time-consuming and expensive. If the object were indeed a flying saucer, recovering it could potentially be worth millions or billions of dollars. If it's a natural formation, on the other hand, it would probably be a waste of time and money.  


My vote is for the latter.




Read more here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/03/swedish-booze-hunters-may-have-found-ufo-on-ocean-floor/#ixzz1U4GQ3vyK

Friday, April 22, 2011 ~ Have your say...

The Russian Dead Alien Video

On April 20th, 2011, The Daily Mail reported, "Body of 'dead alien' is found in frozen wastes of Siberia after claims of UFO hurtling to Earth... but is it an elaborate hoax?"

Igor Molovic, one of the two teens who discovered the alien, was quoted as saying, 'We couldn't believe it when we saw it. And what was spooky is that there was no sign of the spaceship. Perhaps that was taken away and the body overlooked."  They took a video of their discovery, and promptly uploaded it to YouTube, where it went viral in a few days, gathering nearly a million plays in only a few days.

Believers in UFOs suggest the body could have been left behind by extraterrestrial visitors after an accident, or missed by Russian military alien experts clearing up after a crash. The area is a known UFO hotspot with dozens of sightings reported every year.  In fact, the discovery follows reports of a UFO in a nearby region about a month ago.

And without further adieu, here is the video:


UFOlogists were quick to comment, suggesting this video was more evidence for proof-positive that Earth is being visited by aliens:

"There is a constant drip drip of info at the moment... It feels a matter of time before an anouncement. First the US army's senior figures talking about UFO's shutting the missle silo's down on numerous occaision... the released FBI files regarding crashed saucers... The Welsh Roswell incident being revisited... Frankly, I have an open mind (as you can tell!), for me though, the multi angle footage of the UFO in Isreal is all I need. You cannot fake that surely. If the Aliens can swing by Manchester and pick me up, that would be great..."
And another...
"It's so lame how people always get thrilled by having another excuse to shout "Fake! fake!" every time something weird shows up. Unless proven otherwise, this is in fact plausible."
So... was it a hoax?

Yup.  The Siberian alien was created by two Russian teens, Timur Hilall and Kirill Vlasov, who confessed to the hoax after police in Irkutsk, Siberia, investigated. The police also found the “alien” figure hidden in one of the teen’s bedrooms.  To quote one of the officers, 'It was lying under his bed and an examination of it revealed it had been made of bread crumbs which were covered in chicken skin.'

As expected, conspiracy theorists have already started accusing the government of a cover up.   And there were more comments after the hoax was revealed:
  
"We know what we saw. Powerful people in the military just don't want us to see this."
"Is anybody looking at the picture of the alien model on this web page? It is not the same as the alien filmed in the snow. For one, the model is blue. The alien has skin and is orange. Is anybody paying attention? This model was made after the fact, to try and discredit the actual alien body. The model does not resemble the actual alien body. Is anyone out there not an idiot?"
Really?  Even when presented with proof that the two teens hoaxed the whole thing, people still cling to the beliefs, invoking the fallacious "conspiracy theory" argument.  Why not invoke Occam's Razor once more:  is it more likely that this was a hoax, or that an alien being was discovered by a couple of teenage boys?

Sigh.  



References:




Thursday, February 24, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Conspiracy Theories: An Interview with Karl Mamer, The Conspiracy Skeptic

Conspiracy theories can sometimes be so compelling and well presented that it can be easy to be swept up in them.  Thankfully, there are people out there who are experts in dealing with the misinformation and disinformation found within them.

Allow me to introduce Karl Mamer, host of The Conspiracy Skeptic podcast, who will take us through a discussion about conspiracy theories.
  Be sure to visit Karl’s site over at http://www.yrad.com/cs/ and subscribe to his podcast on iTunes.


Tell our readers a bit about yourself… what got you interested in conspiracy theories and how did it lead to the website and podcast?

I studied some informal logic in university (basically you study all the classic logical fallacies like Straw Man, False Dichotomy, etc.). It was a lot of fun going through letters to the editors and op eds and finding logical fallacies. It was like getting a university credit for doing crossword puzzles (and given my BA was in Psychology, I spent a lot of time in classes doing crossword puzzles). This was pre-Internet days (I'm 44). By the time I got onto the Internet I started noticing all these conspiracies on the old Usenet newsgroup system. I was like "oh, they're using all the logical fallacies we used to have so much fun finding in my informal logic classes."

As well, I did my honors thesis on urban legends. It struck me that many urban legends seemed to have the function to pass on safety tips (be careful of insane killers with sharp spikes for hands). At the same time, they seemed unnecessarily cruel and horrific. Did increased horror make the legend seem more believable and hence helped propagate the core message? I didn't actually find this in my research. But when I started to encounter conspiracy theories on the net, I began to notice more parallels with urban legends.

At some point I started a site called The Conspiracy Arc-Hive that archived and categorized all the various conspiracy theories. The site died when the company that hosted the site for free died. Fast forward about 10 years and I was doing a podcast called Seoul Survivors. As the name implies, I was in Seoul and doing a podcast about thriving and surviving in Seoul. I tried to sneak in as much skeptical content as I could and my co-host Jennifer Young seemed a natural skeptic as well. After Korea I wanted to keep doing a podcast and do something that was all skeptical content. So I resurrected by interest in conspiracies.

What exactly is a conspiracy theory, and what sets them apart of normal theories?

A conspiracy theory is basically a seemingly tidy narrative that tries to explain some given set of conditions, typically conditions the conspiracy theorist doesn't particularly like: Why is there still cancer? Why do I not have the power and prestige I think I deserve? How come we've not gone back to the moon? Why is George W. Bush so darn evil?

Any good explanation, of course, starts with a narrative. "I think Rome fell because of x, y, z." As humans we can't help but try to tie together random facts into a sanity preserving narrative. But real theorists (from scientists to historians) take that extra step to marshal positive evidence for their theory. They consider evidence against their theory.

Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, start and stop with their convenient narrative. They rarely have positive evidence. They seem content to rely on a belief that if it could have happened that way then that's good enough. It's a classic god-of-the-gaps fallacy but for conspiracies. I can't explain why this 22 year old would shoot up a school, therefore I know why: CIA mind control.

Top 3 conspiracies?  How come?

I like conspiracy theories that help me learn something. I always tell people you're not going to convince the true believers but the true believers do help question our basic assumptions. They force you to ask yourself "yeah, how do we know what we know?" How do we know we really landed on the moon? How do we know HIV causes AIDS? Is the banking system really just a big scam?

To that end, I'd say the conspiracies that I've learned the most from, hence my favorites, are:

The International Banking Conspiracy: You really got to delve a lot into finance to figure this one out.
HIV is a Myth: An interesting education in virology and what a disease actually is.
The Bilderbergs: You learn a lot about Western European post-war politics.

What’s the deal with the “New World Order”?  I hear this come up time and time again as an overarching conspiracy theory…

There's a problem with the term itself. It was used a lot in the early part of the 20th century in a manner very different than it is used conventionally today. It's a bit like how Darwin would talk about "favored races" but that would sound racist to us today. To a historian of International Relations, when politicians talked about a new world order, they were talking about a remarkable new idea where nations (mostly nations that had fought for a long time over colonies) cooperated, not competed. It had nothing to do with giving up national sovereignty.

Today, it's used by conspiracy types to mostly mean just that: nations giving up sovereign rights to some one world government. It's a catch all label that really explains nothing. Even granting someone has a plan to create a one world government, just as someone had a plan to tie together 13 colonies into a "united states", you have to ask your friendly neighborhood conspiracist what is the difference between a nation state giving up some portion of sovereignty to a super state as compared to Delaware giving up some rights to form a new super state?
To my mind, there is no difference. As long as it's the will of the voter.

Many conspiracy theories are harmless - stuff like crop circles, or the government hiding information about UFOs and aliens – but what about conspiracies like 9/11 (the Loose Change video) or the generally angry sentiment towards Big Pharma…  do you think there’s any harm in these?

I remember arguing with an HIV denialist and he claimed if HIV were real, they should be able to photograph it. I pointed out to him a photo of the virus on the wiki page. He noted the photo credit indicated the photo was from the CDC. Since the CDC was owned by the government and the government lied to us about 9/11 then they weren't above faking HIV photos. *face palm*

The problem with many conspiracy types is they're always prepared to disbelieve the official story. But sometimes the official story is true. Sometimes not believing the official story can harm you or the ones you love. Yes, sometimes Big Pharma tries to sell us (or doctors) on drugs we don't need. But probably most of the drugs they sell are safe and effective. Yes, sometimes governments lie to us. But when they tell you your milk is safe to drink or your baby car seat is safe for your child, they're likely telling the truth. Conspiracies can lead us so far down a hole of distrust, it's a wonder how some of these people leave their house in the morning.

I’ve debated with conspiracy theorists on a number of occasions, and found it to be very difficult to “win” the argument.  For example, someone will make a claim that “crop circles are made by aliens”, and I’ll point out that this has, time and time again, been proven to be a hoax.  In fact, the people often admit that they did it!  But the conspiracy theorist will argue “they’ve been told to say that – it’s all part of the conspiracy.”….   So how do you debate a conspiracy with a “true believer”?

As noted above, don't debate to win. Debate to learn. And debate to convince the fence sitters. Most of us, especially when we were younger, grew up believers in UFOs, ancient aliens, and psychic powers. As we got older most of us probably became more fence sitters. But when we saw there was another explanation, one based in verifiable fact, we got off the fence. Don't underestimate the number of people who can, online, look into your debate and see when the facts are on your side.

Do you think you’ve ever been able to change a conspiracy theorists’ mind?  Or is that pretty much impossible?

Probably not. They know they have the truth. Even if you show them the facts don't support their position, they will always be able to take shelter in the belief the facts are simply made up or new facts will eventually emerge to prove they were right. Still, have you ever argued with a friend and passionately defended your position but then mulled over the arguments later and shifted your position? Ah, maybe you can get some people to shift their beliefs over time. And don't forget, sometimes people have a growing sense they're actually wrong but argue passionately for their belief to convince themselves they're right and don't want to abandon a comfy world view. Again, time can be an ally.

Any final words for our readers?  Any shoutouts?
For your Canadian readers, Vision TV has a new conspiracy TV show. I'll be the skeptical guest on the March 18 and March 25 episodes. I might only have 2 minutes of screen time. If they use my best stuff, I like to think I got some of the conspiracy claims dead to actual facts.

As of this writing, I've only seen the first two episodes. It's better balanced than Jesse Ventura's awful awful conspiracy series. Ventura's show leaves you actually stupider. The Canadian conspiracy show is hosted by Richard Syrett. One of Syrett's producers is a skeptic, Ron Craig. His hand in the show gives me some confidence.

Like I say, I've only seen the first two episodes so far. As a skeptic, I would have naturally liked if they gave the skeptics more screen time. Or there was more of a point-counter-point aspect. Some of the believer claims really begged to be challenged. For example on the UFO show, the believer guest trotted out the claim that George Bush as head of the CIA denied a specific request by President Carter for UFO information. As any skeptic who listens to the SGU podcast knows, Jimmy Carter himself was quite clear that incident never happened. It's a fabrication of the UFO community that gets told and retold.

Beyond that quibble, Syrett and his crew seemed to do their best to get the best skeptics they could for each episode. Each skeptic went in with eyes wide open. This wasn't an Expelled type stitch up. Syrett himself hosts a Coast to Coast type radio show that delves into conspiracies and paranormal topics. Syrett has his beliefs and the Coast to Coast type are his constituency.

A new TV show that can bring in a core audience has a better chance of getting made. However, Syrett struck me as a reasonable and genuine man and just a really, really nice guy.

Anyway, it's not Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, but Syrett's Conspiracy Show certainly gives skeptics more screen time than any woo-show infesting History channel these days. If there's a Season 2, I sure hope I can weasel my way into the show on the writing, research end!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...