Three Rules for an Airtight Conspiracy Theory, or: How To Tell A Bullshit Conspiracy Theory

[icarus]

The boyfriend has a coworker who is absolutely certain that the Bush adminstration destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq. I keep explaining to wildernessguru why this is idiotic. The trouble with specific conspiracy theories is that people (who hate and distrust Bush, for example) want to believe them so badly, logic starts to fray in the face of their fervor.

I'm not against all conspiracy theories. I believe that JFK was assassinated by more than one shooter. But the JFK assassination theory passes my Three Rules.

Wait. You haven't heard of my Three Rules?

Three Rules for an Airtight Conspiracy Theory, or: How To Tell A Bullshit Conspiracy Theory From One That Makes Sense

Rule One: No cherry-picking the facts.

The conspiracy theory has to take into account all the facts available, even if the theory argues with them. If any inconvenient facts are dismissed out of hand ("oh, of course the government says that"), you have a crackpot theory – do not pass go, do not collect $200. The strength of a good conspiracy theory is in the additional information not covered by the mainstream media not in ignoring well-established facts.

Rule Two: No one is a super-genius (except in James Bond).

The conspiracy theory can't presume the culprit becomes suddenly brilliant and competent when they've proved to be a bumbling idiot in the past and since. The bad guy (or guys) has to be capable of pulling it off. A good conspiracy theory doesn't expect the culprit(s) to act out of character or be any smarter than they are on an average day.

An off-shoot of this is the cast of thousands all acting like super-geniuses rule. The more people that are involved in a conspiracy, the more likely the secret will get out, and the more likely the conspiracy will make mistakes. Ask any general. The bigger the operation, the more problems multiply.

Rule Three: No one has a crystal ball.

The conspiracy theory can't assume that the bad guys can read the future. If the bad guy's motive depends upon a complicated chain of events – "See, first they did X, then Y happened, and then Z, and then N, then after that there was W and then, voila! They got what they wanted" – the theory is a house of cards. Vast numbers of conspiracy theories fail because they project what we know in the present ("this is what happened") onto the past ("so they must have known this would happen"). A good conspiracy theory assumes a measurable and predictable result which could have been known at the time.

This is not to say that all conspiracy theories are wrong. Sometimes, they are out to get you. ;) But let's shoot down the stupid conspiracy theories, shall we?

Comments

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Rule One. Additional evidence: Recent forensic evidence examining a reporter's tape of the assassination with equipment we didn't have back then has found there were 13 shots fired. Several of those shots came too close together to be from the same gun. Also, the auditory footprint was not that of the gun Lee Harvey used, but that of a rifle revolver of a different type. The only way Lee Harvey could have made those gunshot sounds is if he were firing using two rifles at the same time. You can't sight accurately down two different rifles.

There is the additional problem of the bouncing bullet explanation. JFK had wounds coming from different trajectories. The official explanation for the wounds JFK had was that one bullet, fired into his body, bounced and ricocheted five times.

That's one, very unlikely, explanation. To have a bullet ricochet multiple times would be a singular event in medical history.

Applying Occam's Razor, the other more likely explanation is that he was hit with bullets from more than one trajectory.

Add that to the 13 shots, and the shots fired too close together to be from the same gun, and the gun shots being a different weapon that Lee Harvey's: there was more than one shooter.

Why not admit that? I don't know. But the physical evidence is clear.

I'm not cherry-picking. I do not say that Lee Harvey wasn't a shooter. I'm not disregarding the government. There is just more evidence now, and there is a simpler explanation for the evidence we have.

Rule Two. No Super-Geniuses: There were many trained sharpshooters in the US at the time, and, JFK had a lot of enemies. He was standing up in his car, waving, not even running away like a military target would. For more than one shooter this did not require remarkable skill. What would be remarkable is if Lee Harvey was able to use two rifles at the same time.

Rule Three. No Crystal Balls: The predictable result of killing JFK is that you get a different president--specifically, vice president Lyndon Johnson. It's right there in the constitution. If you hate all of JFK's decisions and Johnson is radically different (which he was) on JFK's least popular choices, this is a simple solution.

What was the biggest difference between Johnson, Eisenhower, and JFK? JFK was abandoning Ike's cold war policies--even in small scale wars we don't know much about, like Tibet. Ike had supplied the Tibetan rebels to fight "Red China" and JFK cut them off, resulting in the deaths of 30,000 Tibetan fighters. Was the cold war and "fighting communism" and the "domino theory" important to many people, civilian and military, in the early 60s? Oh, hell yeah.

[jya-bd-cp-ttgb.livejournal.com]

You can't sight accurately down two different rifles.

Oh sure you can...if you've got four arms and four eyes to work with. Two brains might be helpful too.

I gotta stay out of the Kennedy debate, but everything I ever read on the subject was magazines/newspapers that my aunt kept, and that was fifteen years or more ago. I do know that the 911 video I was talking about earlier makes an interesting mention of Kennedy's administration. One of his Joint Cheifs, Leiminzer? I can't spell for ducks today - was going to stage a terror campaign in Miami and DC and say it was the Cubans doing. Blow up a ship, pretend to hold funerals, blow up a drone aircraft. It would give the US a reason to invade Castro's Cuba. McNamara told him forget it, and Kennedy fired Lemonhead a little while later. If someone was going to do something like that against a country, killing one troublesome President probably ain't no thing at all.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Oh sure you can...if you've got four arms and four eyes to work with. Two brains might be helpful too.

LOL!

One of his Joint Cheifs, Leiminzer? I can't spell for ducks today - was going to stage a terror campaign in Miami and DC and say it was the Cubans doing. Blow up a ship, pretend to hold funerals, blow up a drone aircraft. It would give the US a reason to invade Castro's Cuba. McNamara told him forget it, and Kennedy fired Lemonhead a little while later. If someone was going to do something like that against a country, killing one troublesome President probably ain't no thing at all.

There was an American Indian novelist I met back in 2003. He believed that this sort of thinking is the result of a generation who grew up during a war. He's got a point.

[jya-bd-cp-ttgb.livejournal.com]

Except, most of the online conspiracy theories about 911 that are popping up on the internet -- like Loose Change -- have mostly been done by people who were born after Vietnam, were too young for most of the Iran Contra type stuff, and were teenagers during Desert Storm. That's....eh...okay, sort of growing up in a war, but nothing like my nieces and nephews are doing now. They knew from age two what the yellow ribbons around trees mean. They know other kids who have parents in the sandbox. They know about the plans to take their eldest siblings -- boys -- to Canada if the man on tv ever says "reinstating the draft."

While most people I've spoken to since this conversation started believe utterly that Kennedy was killed by the government, but they're split down the middle about 911. It seems that those who don't believe in the conspiracy are the ones who chant about Bush and how good for the country he is, even while they bitch about gas prices and whatnot.

As a parting statement, I applied your rules to Loose Change, and...I'm sorry, it's made me believe even more that Bushie and his buddies did something naughty and got all those firemen, policemen and civilians killed.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

It seems that those who don't believe in the conspiracy are the ones who chant about Bush and how good for the country he is, even while they bitch about gas prices and whatnot.

I don't believe the theory and I think Bush should be shot.

I note the illogical connection you've made here: if you don't believe this theory, you must be a Bush supporter. That's one of the thirty-seven methods of deception listed by the CIA: "if you're not with us, you're with them." I think that your logic is flawed and I resent the suggestion.

While most people I've spoken to since this conversation started believe utterly that Kennedy was killed by the government, but they're split down the middle about 911.

Who?

Except, most of the online conspiracy theories about 911 that are popping up on the internet -- like Loose Change -- have mostly been done by people who were born after Vietnam, were too young for most of the Iran Contra type stuff, and were teenagers during Desert Storm. That's....eh...okay, sort of growing up in a war, but nothing like my nieces and nephews are doing now. They knew from age two what the yellow ribbons around trees mean. They know other kids who have parents in the sandbox. They know about the plans to take their eldest siblings -- boys -- to Canada if the man on tv ever says "reinstating the draft."

I was referring to the military decision-making that led to the domino theory (the philosophy for fighting in Vietnam), not conspiracy theories.

[jya-bd-cp-ttgb.livejournal.com]

Who?

Customers at the gas station where I work mostly, my Coven and fringepeoples who wander in and out of my family's sphere of conversation. *shrug* There's no point posting to my journal because the discussion is already right here if they want to put their two cents in.

It's a small number of people because I work graveyard, but I'd say three out of ten think Bushie is the bees knees and can't do anything wrong. If he were up for reelection, he'd win their vote.

One thinks he had secret reasons for going into Iraq that date to his father's time in office and we should just shut up and let the man do whatever he pleases. I'd love to ask Mr. Bill more about those secret reasons, but he's gone fishing in Ocean City till June.

Two or three think like you do, he had nothing to do with it, but want to give him an M16 enema anyway. One of those believes Bush should step down and let Cheney run things. That's why I'm not sure whether I should say three want him castrated florentine or not, and one I only found out last night -- he's a regular, that I misunderstood something he said. His comment was that he would've voted again for Bush in 2004 -- not that he'd do it now. It was Katrina and her aftermath that did his faith in Bush in, not the war.

Of the other three, one's withholding judgement because she's 'too damn old to wait thirty years for the truth' -- that's Ms. Martha, and the other two pointed me to conspiracy books on the mainstream market to go with my copy of Loose Change.

It's not an us against them thing, it's literally talking about people I've spoken to.

I can't talk about Vietnam, because I never studied it. I can only go on what my mother's told me, and that information amounts to finding her classmates' names on the Wall down in D.C. and keeping her gas tank full in case of rationing. Not exactly helpful info during a debate.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I'm an Asian studies major, so at least some study of Vietnam comes with the territory.

As for the "who?" well, a random group of people... that's anecdotal evidence, not quantitative evidence.