Recently, the New Scientist published an article online entitled "The lure of the conspiracy theory". (You'll need a subscription to read the whole thing but you can also read it here). It talks about a study done to examine the psychological angle of 'theorizing'. Here's the opening paragraph...

Was Princess Diana the victim of drunk driving or a plot by the British royal family? Did Neil Armstrong really walk on the moon or just across a film set in Nevada? And who killed President John F. Kennedy - the Russians, the Cubans, the CIA, the mafia... aliens? Almost every big event has a conspiracy theory attached to it. The truth, they say, is out there - but where exactly? Perhaps psychology can help us find at least some of the answers.

The major failing of the article is found in it's basic premise, and the methodology of the study it refers to. It equates the phrase 'conspiracy theory' to that of religious codex, and assigns all conspiracy theories with the same 'unprovable' value as any religion, in any objective sense.

Ten years ago, maybe the 'conspiracy theory' of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident would have made that opening list as well. Though it's not as fantastical as aliens in Fidel Castro masks probing JFK, many doubted the official story of the Tonkin incident, which went something like this:

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a pair of attacks by naval forces of North Vietnam against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The attacks occurred on 2 August and 4 August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.

This was the 'conventional wisdom' that allowed the LBJ administration to launch, in earnest, the Vietnam War. However, if one reads the wikipedia entry, that opening paragraph reads a little less authoratively.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was an alleged pair of attacks by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (commonly referred to as North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The attacks were alleged to have occurred on 2 August and 4 August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.

In fact, it was shown that the second attack didn't occur at all (which was once just another wacky 'theory'). Conventional wisdom changes, and theories can become facts, given two parts of an equation this study ignores: Time and Information. Add more Time to the equation, and it becomes less relevant. Take away information, and it's less plausible. Conspiracists have neither the resources nor recourse to try their theories out in a forum (be it legal or journalistic) that's accepted by those who defer to 'conventional wisdom'.

Now back to the article at hand...

The study, which again involved giving volunteers fictional accounts of an assassination attempt, showed that conspiracy believers found new information to be more plausible if it was consistent with their beliefs. Moreover, believers considered that ambiguous or neutral information fitted better with the conspiracy explanation, while non-believers felt it fitted better with the non-conspiracy account. The same piece of evidence can be used by different people to support very different accounts of events.

Wow. That sounds really logical and scientific, but crafting a fictitious assassination, and providing similarly fictitious 'evidence' to the subjects is hardly the realm of science, and sounds more like a story teller leading his audience down the path he wants. I'd suggest that the crafters of the story may have their own confirmation bias to work out.

But the observation is the real jaw dropper...

This fits with the observation that conspiracy theories often mutate over time in light of new or contradicting evidence. So, for instance, if some new information appears to undermine a conspiracy theory, either the plot is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new information.

This observation is completely meaningless in the context of psychologically assessing those who delve into conspiracy theorizing (especially when the study does not qualify the prima facie value any particular theory). The observation also applies to legal prosecutors in the investigation of a crime. By replacing the word 'conspiracy' with 'scientific' in the above quote, you'll also have a perfectly legitimate reason why science turns out to be such a valuable tool to describe the universe(s?) in which we live.

Where the heck were the editors of the New Scientist before publishing this? Merely printing a headline that reads "Conspiracy theorizing is stupid" with "lorem ipsum" nonsense in the body would have been almost as informative, but I'm guessing they need all those nonsensical words to feed the members of the Orthodox Reductionist Cult who clench their Occam Razors in their conventional fists.

The reader shouldn't make assumptions about what conspiracy theories I believe or not, nor to what extent. This is merely an observation on just one of many articles on conspiracy theories to have come out over the past few years.

Personally, it makes me wonder what other outlandish, so called "psychologically generated" conspiracy theories would suddenly become 'conventional wisdom', if information were truly free, and it came out in a timely manner?

PS: I had forgotten about this post for a little while, but after reading THIS fine example of 'conventional wisdom', I decided to revisit.

Labels: conspiracy, politics

Not by the evidence presented on the WWW.

From time to time, I hear the stories about how the moon landing was faked. Now, I'm willing to listen to a good conspiracy theory, especially if it's well backed up.

I'm a not-inflexible kind of guy.

So I decided to take it upon myself to see what evidence was being offered up, and how it comes out. I've seen an number of sites that talk about the "photographic evidence", and after looking at a couple of them, realize that they are either pulling a fast one on gullible readers, or they really have no clue. I've taken the following images from....

http://batesmotel.8m.com/

And offer the author's commentary, prefaced by the word CLAIM:
Following that, you'll see MY analysis, prefaced by DOUG SAYS: I'll try to keep my tone light, just as the original author has. For those into conspiracy stuff, I hope this offers a breath of fresh air.

CLAIM: Lets face it, there isn't really a heapload of evidence that we didn't go to the moon. Why would there be? NASA doesn't WANT evidence that we went to the moon. NASA wants people not to ask questions, and keep living their happy little lives. But here is some evidence that you cannot argue with. My theory is that the moon landing were set on a sound stage, not in space. (Perhaps an Air Force base near San Bernardino, called Norton Air Force Base, where they have the world's largest sound stages under tremendously efficient security).

DOUG SAYS: An easier explanation could be that it's difficult to prove a negative, especially when the evidence suggests that we DID go to the moon. natch.

CLAIM: On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's

DOUG SAYS: First, if the two figures were lit by two light sources, we'd see two shadows of each. That's just the way it is. It's abundantly clear that the figure to the right is standing on a slope, as BOTH figures' shadows are more foreshortened near the left side of the image, near the A which is where the slope is leveling off.

CLAIM: This is a famous picture labeled "Man on the Moon" I have a poster of this picture hanging on my wall in my room, and it always gives me a chuckle.

DOUG SAYS: That it is. I think it's a pretty cool icon of one of mankind's better achievements, as opposed to laughing.

CLAIM: If you will look at area B you will notice a shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. Once again, if the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker.
Looking at area C you will notice that the surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.

DOUG SAYS: B:The shadow is what those of us who know a bit about light call "reflective light". The lunar lander is covered in reflective gold foil. C: Well, the moon is MUCH smaller than the earth, so the horizon line would appear closer, and it's clear in the photograph that as we look off in the distance, things are getting more blurry. It's called focus, and the camera obviously didn't have the background in focus.

CLAIM: Looking at area D you can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there.

DOUG SAYS: This actually refers to B in the same picture, because guess what that structure is... the lunar lander, which would be reflecting gold light onto the front of the space suit. You can see it all in the reflection. It's not rocket science... or is it.... cue spooky music.

UPDATE: On seeing another version of this pic, I realize it's object that is circled in red that is the structure in question. When looking at it again, I find it interesting that we can see to the left of it, another piece of NASA equipment that looks almost identica, though there's not really enough detail to be certain. I'd say I'm 99.9% certain though. :)

CLAIM: In this picture, taken from the LEM, you can see at least two abnormalities. In section E you see an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims that this shadow is the shadow cast by the Lunar Module, but on earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow.

DOUG SAYS: I'd hate to rain on anyone's parade, but that actually looks more like some apparatus in the forground than a shadow on the moon.

CLAIM: OK, here's the kicker... if you will look at section 3 you will notice there are no stars in the sky. In fact, you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs, or hear an astronaut mention anything about the glorious stars that are visible when out of the earths atmosphere.

DOUG SAYS: Oh no! No stars! The jig is up guys run for the hills....wait a second. Here on earth, it's pretty freakin' hard to get a picture of stars, when the sun and terrestial light sources are washing them out. It's called contrast ratio. Whew...the cover-up is still safe.

CLAIM: if you look in areas 6 and J , you will again see no stars. In area K you will notice that one side of the LEM in covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated. This very well could have been a touch up job.

DOUG SAYS: 6 and J, covered already... let's not belabour the point. As for K, well, you see, unlike a space suit, the material for a flag is very translucent. That means it allows light to come though from behind. Look at a flag on a sunny day, or look at the closing of Saving Private Ryan. It happens every day.

CLAIM: This is a picture of Alan Bean holding up a Special Environmental Examiner Container. This picture was taken off a camera that was strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture.

DOUG SAYS: Unless, of course, Conrad tilted forward a little, or they are standing at different elevations, or Bean is kneeling will gathering a sample... but heck, that's too easy.

CLAIM: All of the shadows reflected in Bean's visor M are going off in separate directions, not in parallel lines like they should be.

DOUG SAYS: I don't know what to make of this one. The helmet is a curved reflection, so ALL reflections are distorted, and based on the curvature, they look right to me.

CLAIM: If you will look at the Environmental sampler that Al Bean is holding, N , The reflection is coming from a light source other than the sun, but it is possible that light is being reflected off the space suit.

DOUG SAYS: Yes, it's being reflected of the space suit. You are correct. Why not try using that logic on the "Man in the Moon" picture above. heheh, I'm a smartass at times.

CLAIM: There is a strange anomaly in the sky 7. It is yet to be determined what that might be.

DOUG SAYS: Of course, it could be one of many objects used by the astronauts in the sojourns on the surface of the moon. If I stood outside your bedroom window at night, and dangled a broom horizontally, so that you only saw the back end without support, would you assume that there was a witch on her flying broom, or would I need to provide spooky sound effects to complete the illusion?

CLAIM: In our last picture, I would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. I don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.

DOUG SAYS: Here's a little test.

Part One: Take a bag of cocaine, or if you don't have a couple of kilos of fine Columbian blow lying around, use a bag of flour. Dump it your kitchen counter and run a Tonka truck through it. The tracks will be VERY defined until A: wind blows them away, or gravity runs it's course.

Part Two Now, pour a bunch of water on the flour and mix it up. Run the Tonka truck though it again. Are the tracks...

A) more defined
B) less defined
C) the beginnings of a tasty chocolate chip cookie recipe (or a pissed of drug dealer if you tried this with cocaine)?

In light of this experiment, reread your above comment and understand why I ruined a perfectly good keyboard when I read that statement with a mouthful of coke (a cola - not cocaine).

CLAIM: If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?

DOUG SAYS: Or it could be a natural phenomenon. I'd say if it WAS a gag by the props department, they're not very funny, and probably aren't working any more. As an update, it's come to my attention, via the power of the sometimes good Penn & Teller that the "C" is actually a hair in the print. The original negative doesn't have the same markings....

CLAIM: Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.

DOUG SAYS: Actually, when a really bright object, like that part of the rover is behind something dark, the light tends to wash it out. Like it does in this picture. Plain and simple. I've seen others talk about the same "phenomenon" in a couple of other pics, and in every other case, it was always in front of a bright object.

CLAIM: On with the Facts!!!

DOUG SAYS: Oh goody! NOW we get the facts!!! Not some piss poor analysis!!!

Seriously, if anyone REALLY wants to look up the rest, the link is above, so knock yourself out. Also try googling "moon landing faked" for more crapstacular analysis. I'm up to seeing some GOOD evidence, but so far I'm betting that those 30 chimps I have chained up in my basement have a better chance of typing up a copy of the KJV Bible (but replacing the word "thou" with "Charles") well before I see some real good evidence.

Labels: conspiracy, fun stuff, stuff