I’m writing this as a follow-up to the posting “Charlie Sheen Says 9/11 is a Fraud so it Must Be.” I thought that post would get 3 or 4 comments and that would be it. I’d go back to writing about things like Melissa Theuriau and making fun of France. However the post got over 200 comments (most not agreeing with my assessment) so it piqued my interest in the subject.

You can tell by title of this posting where I stand on the issue of conspiracy theories, a term is often used pejoratively with regard to such things. To be clear, I generally don’t believe them and find them to be generally silly. I believe that OJ was guilty of murder and not the victim of a multi-person police frame-up while the real killers (Colombian drug lords I hear) run free. I believe that Scott Peterson was similarly guilty and not the victim small town cops too lazy to go after the Satanic biker gangs roaming the Central Valley. [Okay, the Scott Petersen case wasn't a conspiracy theory as the term is commonly applied and it's a cheap shot to include it here, however if you read the comments that Petersen supporters left on our blog you'll see a lot of similarities in the arguments taken.] I also believe that crop circles are fake and Area 51 is for testing aircraft and not for hiding downed alien airships. I also believe that 9/11 was the result of Islamic terrorists intent on attacking the West for a variety of reasons–some real (they are really mad at us) and some imagined (getting access to 40+ virgins in their version of heaven) and that we really did go to the moon in the 60’s.

I believe that good questions can be raised about most anything and also believe in the right of smart people to put forth those questions, whether as intellectual exercises or otherwise. To me, one unanswered question does not outweigh thousands of answered questions but I understand intelligent people will think otherwise and seek answers and truth beyond what they feel the common wisdom is holding.

In fact, a common thread of most conspiracy theories is that a few smart and rational people are behind them (though I would argue any one person who believes them all of them is neither smart nor rational). An exceptionally intelligent executive who I worked for a brief time and I argued one night on extraterrestrial visits to earth. He kept asking me how I could be so sure about my position and what proof did I have that we hadn’t had alien visits. My attitude is that since this would be the biggest story of all time, I’d think we’d know if they were amongst us and that when it comes to interstellar travel the burden was on him. But across from me sat a very smart man who obviously felt otherwise. Similarly, a neighbor of OJ Simpson said that it was “common knowledge” that the LAPD framed OJ and check out the comments by the Scott-Petersen-Is-Innocent-Crowd on our Scott Petersen posting. She too was a highly-paid executive at a PR firm and evidence be damned, in her little world OJ was innocent. (She’s the one who told me about the drug cartels too.)

Of course I understand that there are indeed untruths in the world. Likewise innocent people are sometimes charged with crimes they did not commit and that people in power (e.g., Presidents of the United States) can do bad things that they later deny. So just because a person is arrested or a President denies it doesn’t mean that there isn’t more to the story. However, when overwhelming evidence suggests something happened (as in a famed football player knifing two people or a successfully completed mission to the moon) and the only way for it to be otherwise is a massive conspiracy/cover-up and a compliant media, that’s where I draw the line.

But if it is so easy to rationally draw a line why do these theories exist and why do otherwise-rational people continue to believe in and further stories such as:

Black helicopters and the one-world conspiracy
The Illuminati or New World Order
Roswell UFO Incident
Area 51
and of course the 9/11 attacks?

It’s easy for non-believers to laugh at the things on the list above that they do not subscribe to just as it’s easy for believers to laugh back back at us as naive. The Idaho congresswomen to went public with the “black helicopter” claim would probably cringe at being included with the New World Order folks and visa-versa. However they are really very similar. Namely, otherwise smart, rational people promoting unsupported views, well outside the mainstream. Why does this happen? [Note: I'm going to continue to borrow extensively from Wikipedia as well as sources that it points me to so in order to save myself from excessive linking, I'll do it here but unless I say otherwise it's probably from there.]

A writer in Wikipedia noted that “Humans naturally respond to events or situations which have had an emotional impact upon them by trying to make sense of those events, typically in spiritual, moral, political, or scientific terms. Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction.” This makes sense. Something as significant has 9/11 or a presidential assassination happens and people will dig deep to find an answer that satisfies them emotionally. That can get the idea going but how does a conspiracy theory gain strength?

One way is from confirmation bias (searching for or interpreting information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions) and avoidance of cognitive dissonance (a conflict between observations) may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part. I believe such reinforcement is a big motivator for people like Steve Jones and Charlie Sheen coming forth with their views on 9/11. When Sheen is in the news it is usually about his many personal troubles. Not that many people are going to call Mr. Sheen “brave” for admitting that he cheated on Denise Richards (again) but the accolades flew for speaking up so “bravely.” (No doubt making his dad Martin proud too.) Similarly Mr. Jones is an otherwise insignificant and unknown member of the BYU staff, he raises a few questions (considered by many to be outside his field of expertise) and all of a sudden he’s an “expert” and gaining national recognition. I don’t think this makes either of them liars but it does help fan the flames on a line of thought that might otherwise be existing soley on the fringe.

Other things pointed out in Wikipedia that are consistent with conspiracy theories:

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence. Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact. Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions. Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators. Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the ‘impossibility’ that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators. May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning. Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
7. Appeals to ‘common sense’. Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies. Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
9. Is produced and circulated by ‘outsiders’, often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review. Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science. At least some of the story’s believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities. Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative. When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.’

Another concept at play in conspiracy theories is called cui bono? (who stands to gain?) which can produce a falsely conspiratorial account. The supposed Apollo hoax pointed at the U.S. government’s need to match the Soviets at a time when it was impossible to go to the moon. Similarly people have pointed at the gains and actions by Bush, neo-cons, oil companies, etc., subsequent to 9/11 as evidence pointing toward involvement with the attacks. No one would say that roofers are responsible for tornadoes even though they benefit from their occurance but the very existence of the Patriot Act is seen by some as evidence that 9/11 was planned by those who’ve politically or financially gained from it.

People will read whatever they want into things. For proof go no farther than this video that I found by following a link from one of the pro-conspiracy commenters on the Sheen post. Visual art is open to many interpretations and I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that people who believe in the Illuminati and the New World Order are able to look at murals at the Denver Airport and see what they see. But I was surprised nonetheless and I think they are serious. I’m no fan of the Denver Airport but these guys have taken it to a new level.

Another post that I somewhat question their seriousness was the following taken from a comment on the Sheen post.

This Orwellian Police State is the result of government sponsored terrorism and the Illuminati’s work to build their New World Order. Due to editorial and political censorship our voices are often stifled, but there is an enormous underground movement against the New World Order.

If they are serious, I question whether there is really anything ‘enormous’ that believes in the “New World Order,” but maybe I am wrong on this as well. A large number of Arabs to this day believe that it was the U.S. and not Israel that beat them in the Six Day War; so much for the “wisdom of crowds.”

While on the subject of the Sheen posting, this excerpt was also part of a comment:

John Conner is the author of The Resistance Manifesto which is available exclusively at www.TheResistanceManifesto.com, is a shocking analysis of the Satanic influences and practices in every facet of society from the main stream media, to the private practices of the American Illuminati elite. It is a blueprint of the institutions, people, and powers at work within the New World Order.

Unless I’m mistaken John Conner is the same name (different spelling) as the freedom fighter in the Terminator movies. “John” was nice enough to contribute a comment to the blog so I do not want to be dismissive of his work but I’m having a hard time not doing so. Check out the site if you are interested, it appears to contain every urban legend in this area including several I hadn’t been familiar with including U.S. government concentration camps in America and mock human sacrifices by our ruling elite. (I bet Barbara Boxer is the leader of that coven!).

We invite all who want to participate in a discussion via comments to this post and as those who’ve contributed before know we have very few rules. We only ask that you be civil and attack the position not the person. (I actually don’t mind if you attack me, Insider, or Senior Administration Official but do request that you be civil with other commenters). We also request you avoid using 4-letter words (hurts us with Google). Finally, I hope that we can get some discussion on things other than 9/11. If you do talk about 9/11, please be clear not only with what you think happened but who was the mastermind. I will leave the first comment so that you get the idea. (Also note that for some reason certain comments were flagged by our spam filter, I’m keeping an eye on it and will pull them out when I find them–unless you are a spammer of course.)

As said in Wikipedia “…the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory’s truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents.” In other words, we should not expect to settle 9/11 or any other conspiracy theory in this forum. So let’s have a dialogue and perhaps even a little fun.

And so we don’t end on too serious of a note, here is a most excellent photo of a bikini carwash.

We at Independent Sources may be in denial, but at least we are in a happy state of denial.

tags: charlie sheen conspiracy theory area 51 roswell UFO Aliens ????? ????

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 28th, 2006 at 7:56 pm by Insider and is filed under Not the conventional wisdom. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.