Conspiracy Theories and other Bollocks

Don't say I didn't warn you

Is there anything more entertaining and invigorating than a good conspiracy theory. Generally they are inventive and full of narrative and drama. Unfortunately, like all the best stories, they are simply not true; most of them anyway. To my mind a great conspiracy theory should come in two distinct flavours: The implausible, but possible, and the implausible and impossible. Or to put it another way, conceivable bollocks and just plain unadulterated and unmitigated, bollocks. In the first category I would place 'The faked Moon landings' and in the second, I would slot the stuff of nightmare, such as: 'The world's leaders are shape shifting aliens'. Clearly, there is a huge gap in believability between these particular examples. So, let's take a deeper look and drink deep from the imponderable and fecund well of madness. But before we begin, before continuing, suspend your sane world view and place your tinfoil hat, firmly but jauntily on your head. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrse.

                                                                                            

World Leaders are Reptiles

This is hardly news. I think most folk acknowledge that successful politicians are reptiles in speech and deed, if not actually in the flesh. Although, the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is particularly reptilian looking and I’m sure there is a video of him on You-Tube licking insects off a wall. I’ve digressed. This particular conspiracy owes much to an ex English league footballer, turned football commentator, turned bona fide certifiable loony. Sometime in the early 1990s David Icke (for it is he) started to wear turquoise and began to warn the world about alien reptilian world leaders- I blame the series ‘V’; remember? Key leaders, come reptiles, include Queen Elizabeth II and Barack Obama. Both are actually blood sucking aliens from the Alpha Dragonis system. What is strange about this ‘theory’ is its popularity. Icke, may well be mad, but he belongs to a very dangerous class of madman- he is plausible. Not only is Icke articulate but he is clearly a man of some intelligence. He also looks, superficially at least, normal and does not fit neatly into the ‘swivel eyed’, odd looking, category of nutter. Consequently, he has attracted a large following which has evolved into a cult. In the US, 4% of people polled believed in David Icke’s theory. Frankly, I find this statistic highly disturbing. However, if you would like to learn more and perhaps sign up, here is the site: http://www.davidicke.com/   

Moon Landings Faked

This nonsense is particularly persistent considering the wealth of evidence to the contrary. This conspiracy gained traction in the mid 1970s and advanced the view that the six manned landings between 1969 and 1972 were a complete fabrication by NASA in evil collaboration with the US Administration. Because this sort of scenario is perhaps possible it has gained credence amongst the 'Conspiracy Community'. When I mean possible, I mean that if a powerful US Government Agency wanted to implement such a deception it is within the bounds of their power to do so. Furthermore, it does not violate any rational precepts and thus is consistent with what we know about nature and its workings. Contrast this with the previous example, which not only requires a suspension, of reality, but also a number of known, and often irrefutable, scientific principles.

The evidence centres on flag waving in an airless atmosphere and anomalous lighting effects and shadows. Often there is an assumption that physical properties on the Moon should be directly comparable to those experienced on Earth. This clearly is not the case. Moon gravity is considerably less and there is an absolute absence of a gaseous atmosphere. Apart from this I will travel no further into specifics. But here are a few points to ponder.

It has been estimated that up to 400,000 people were employed, in some capacity, in the Apollo Moon project, although it is admitted that many employees were in subsidiary projects and may not have been involved in critical areas of research (need to know). That said, it would require a colossal undertaking to make sure that those in the 'know' remained quiet in the event of a faked Moon landing. No leaks? No negative testimony?  It should be noted that those who promulgate this conspiracy theory are never NASA or ex-NASA employees (or are they?).    

You would have expected that the old Soviet Russians would have jumped on any sniff of impropriety concerning the Moon landings. But not an iota of criticism. And this is during a time when Soviet propaganda would have relished a conspiracy such as this. But the Russians said nothing because the Russians believed the Moon landings actually occurred.  

Here is something else to consider. I suspect the Americans were very lucky to achieve what they did, considering the technology of the time. The margin for success must have been slim. It is be noted also, that no one has returned to the Moon since 1972. This reflects the enormous cost in sending a small capsule with three souls out on a complex and extended Moon mission. At today's money the total cost of the Apollo programme is in the order of 100 billion dollars. This explains why the Americans never went back and why contrary to predictions, there is no 'Moon Station'. Perhaps the money would have been better spent elsewhere? I'll leave you to judge.

For a good exposition of the arguments for and against the Moon landings, I suggest you look at the following resources. 

There are many disparate elements which drive belief in the 'unbelievable' and consequently it is difficult to identify all the motivating strands. It is interesting to note, that folk who believe in one conspiracy theory have a tendency to believe in others also. Why this is the case is best left to professional psychologists. The following provides an entirely rational and sound reason for belief in conspiracy: Governments, can and do, lie to their people and suppress information. And I'm not just talking about the usual suspects such as North Korea and the ilk, I'm talking about all governments, regardless of their level of 'enlightenment'. Therefore, citizens are critical and suspicious of government inspired initiatives and the information they release, or don't release, for that matter.

The internet is a vast repository of information instantly available at the click of a mouse. But herein lies the problem. Not all information is equal. There is a lot of  information out there of uneven quality and veracity. Knowledge on the computer screen has an authority which is often not deserved. Some folk like to be told what to think and have an inclination to accept 'computer' information without engaging their critical faculty.

The internet is great at uniting like minded souls. There are millions of folk, 'out there', who will oblige and reinforce any madcap idea you have, regardless of intrinsic merit. Remember, there are a lot of nutters out there and most of them are online. Personally, I don't believe much of the stuff I read on the net. As for the voices in my head- well, that is another matter..........