Normally I start the new year with a post about how I meant to spend the last year blogging (but failed to) and how this year will be different. Well, no more; this year is going to be weird. I am finishing off my book (which I thought I’d blog more about but didn’t) and I’m enrolled in a teaching degree; I’m really not quite sure how sleeping, eating and the other thing will fit into my already busy schedule.
As for radio-related hijinks; my new timetable precludes me from doing the segment in studio or over the phone, so at the moment everything is in limbo. The fine people at bFM still want me and I still want to be part of the fine people on the radio at bFM, so the plan, thus far, is to do some form of pre-record, either with Zac or without. Last week’s segment, on whether there is a conspiracy by the Media to get Colin Craig into Parliament (not the band; the seat of Government) was an experiment by me to see just how well (or badly) by recording equipment at home really is.
My, but I’m fond of brackets and semi-colons today.
How this will proceed in the weeks to come is a mystery. I have a few ideas which might suit pre-records, such as an occasional interview series with conspiracy theory theorists about what they think about conspiracy theories, as well as a few reappearances by the Pork Board.
In other news about conspiracy theory theorists, Kirby Ferguson, of “Everything is a Remix” fame, has a new web-based documentary series coming out called “This Is Not A Conspiracy”.
More information about the series can be found here. I liked the first episode but I should warn you that subsequent episodes will only be available via subscription.
Now, if you don’t mind, I have to write a lesson plan about a quick image I’ve been given. Then it’s back to the book.
Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac about conspiracy theories on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show”.
So, 2013, the Year…
Well, not the year everything changed. Not the year of the Gannet. Possibly the year of Alex Jones. Whatever the case, it was a year and whilst it’s not quite over, it is the end of “Conspiracy Corner” for 2013. Any conspiracies that happen between now and the middle of January you will have to investigate yourself.
I’ll be back at it next year, although the segment’s time slot might change. At this stage, pending other news, I’ll be engaged in a Graduate Diploma of Teaching (Primary), which is a full year course starting the 20th of January. As such, I’m going to have a rather full timetable, but the good people at bFM (and the evil people) have said something can be worked out.
Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac about conspiracy theories on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show”.
Michael Hastings, the journalist who wrote “The Runaway General” and died in a freak accident on the 18th of June this year, is someone I’ve talked about before and I revisited today, due to new information (the toxicology report).
At the time of his death, there was an open question in certain communities as to whether the freak accident which resulted in Michael Hasting’s death was really just happenstance or whether it was the next step in America’s war on whistleblowers? Back in June I wondered what the toxicology report was going to say about Hasting’s state of health at the time of the accident, given that I was leaning towards the freak accident hypothesis rather than the conspiracy theory; if Hastings was under the influence, then his accident, tragic as it was, would be the most likely explanation, given that freak accidents happen all the time.
Now, I meant to cover this material a fortnight ago, when it was recent news, but then the Colin Craig thing came up and last week I had a severe bout of tonsillitis. ((If you are thinking of getting tonsillitis for Christmas, think again. It’s really much more horrible than you imagine it to be.)) Anyway, long story long, the toxicology report came back and it showed he had traces of alcohol and amphetamines in his system. Meanwhile, this report in the New York Times goes on to suggest that Hastings’s not only had a troubled relationship with drinking but that he had been using other substances in recent months as well (which might well have fuelled his well-documented paranoia).
Now, any advocate of a “They killed him!” theory worth their salt will go “Well, of course that’s the narrative “they” (the conspirators) want you to believe!” Indeed, even if Michael Hastings’s was under the influence when he died, that doesn’t mean we can completely wash away the hypothesis that he was assassinated; whilst the fact he had trace elements of pot and speed in his system certainly gives weight to the theory he died because he was driving under the influence, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that
He was murdered and
Either the story about his substance use is manufactured or his actual substance use is a convenient distraction from the real cause of his accident.
The conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Michael Hastings centre on two distinct (but often conflated) hypotheses.
He was a problem that needed dealing with.
His death was mysterious.
Now, whilst the former plays into the latter, they are still distinct theories in their own right. The former, the theory that Hastings was a problem–in that he had embarrassed the Establishment–is meant to give us a reason as to why someone or some group might desire his death. After all, Michael Hastings exposed a rogue general running a counterinsurgency programme according to his own dictates, rather than that of Congress. ((Given that Chrystal’s successor, General David Petreaus, really didn’t do anything particularly different, if it was a rogue operation, changing Generals didn’t seem to result in a change of policy.)) Hastings was also reported to be working on a report about the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, who is a pretty powerful target who might not like having exposes written about him. As such, there’s a story you can tell which goes “Look, he pissed off people in power and it looks like he was going to do it all over again; let’s get rid of the guy!”
However, “getting rid of the guy” doesn’t entail “Let’s kill him!” There are lots of ways to get rid of someone whilst leaving them conveniently alive. You could tarnish their reputation, for example (as people claim has happened to Julian Assange); murder by death is not the only card that can be played here.
The mysterious death of Michael Hastings certainly fits with the theory he needed to be dealt with (if you think that’s a plausible theory to begin with) but it isn’t entailed by it. This is why we have to ask “Just how mysterious was his death?” If it turns out his death most closely resembles a tragic accident, then that weighs against the theory he was murdered because tragic accidents happen all the time, whilst state-sanctioned murders are, relatively, rare.
Indeed, what I think is doing a lot of the work here is is that Hasting’s death was remarkable-qua-a famous person died. ((Conspiracy theories are abounding about the tragic car accident which killed the movie star, Paul Walker. “Dying whilst famous” basically gets you a free conspiracy theory these days.)) If dying whilst famous is the only thing which distinguishes this tragic accident from some other, similar accident, then that’s a problem, I think, for the conspiracy theory.
As I said at the time, Michael Hasting’s death looked like it was a tragic accident and whilst it’s understandable to say “I wonder if his work meant certain people were pleased he was dead” it’s a mistake to think that means it’s likely he was killed. The toxicology report, I think, lends even more support to the tragic accident thesis. That being said, given the mysterious nature of his death, and the fact that the trace elements of pot and speed are at a level people are going to go “Well, he could have been more under the influence!”, I imagine the conspiracy theories about this case will continue to persist. America, with its seeming hatred of transparency and its vendetta against those who would hold it to account, is not helping here at all.
Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac about conspiracy theories on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show”.
Yesterday I interviewed for a position in one of the country’s many Graduate Diplomas of Teaching (Primary) and then went and got drunk with someone suffering from sciatica. I mention this because it explains why I was on a bus at about six o’clock, reading tweets about Colin Craig, the leader of the Conservative Party, being outed as a conspiracy theorist on 3News. (Actually, it doesn’t really explain it at all; I hardly ever watch the 6pm bulletin.)
Being the kind of person who likes to be up-to-date about who is and isn’t a conspiracy theorist in Aotearoa, I immediately asked my Twitter followers what conspiracy theory Craig was alleged to have endorsed.
“Chemtrails” I was told.
“Huh…” I thought (I always end my thoughts with ellipses; it’s just easier that way). “He must have finally decided to come down on the side of conspiracy after all…”
My reasoning was this: several months ago someone asked Craig, on his “Ask Colin” page over at the Conservative Party webpage, the following question:
What is your position on chemtrails?
Craig’s response:
Our Party has no formal position on chemtrails.
I am aware of the theory that chemicals are being released at high altitude for some nefarious purpose but don’t know whether there is any truth in this or not.
That seemed like a pretty politic response; sure, as a leader of a minor political party, it would be good if Craig had a developed view on a variety of issues, but I suspect given the choice of boning up on whether chemtrails exist or looking into ways the housing crisis in Auckland might be solved, one’s priorities might be on the kind of issue which decide an election, rather than a minority view that suggests contrails and some forms of cloud cover are, in fact, evidence of a sinister conspiracy.
That was then: it seemed from Twitter and the way TV3 were advertising Craig’s views that he had come to a firmer decision about the chemtrail menace. Patrick Gower tweeted:
John Banks fails to escape out a side-door, Colin Craig believes in a conspiracy theory. @brooksabin and I are with both of John Key’s men— Patrick Gower (@patrickgowernz) November 27, 2013
and the 3News website claimed:
And while [Colin Craig] doesn’t believe in man-made global warning, today he wouldn’t rule out a conspiracy known as chemtrails. That’s the theory the white vapour seen coming out of planes is actually a chemical sprayed over the public for a top-secret reason.
That certainly made it seem like Craig had said something interesting about chemtrails. So, when I got home (and poured me’self a dram of whisky), I loaded up the relevant footage. [Sorry, I don’t seem to be able to embed it.]
Note that what Craig says here is perfectly consistent with his earlier position: he has no opinion on the matter because he hasn’t investigated it. Sure, he knows about the existence of chemtrail theories, and he thinks it’s possible such theories might be true, but that’s hardly an endorsement. If anything, it just shows that in the intervening months he’s gone “Should I investigate this chemtrail issue? No; doesn’t seem that important, really…” (Colin Craig, I imagine, also ends his thoughts elliptically.)) Claiming that because he has no informed opinion about chemtrail theories means he somehow endorses a conspiracy theory about them seems, well, disingenuous. I mean, there are lots of reasons to suspect Craig might be a conspiracy theorist, given his views on fluroride (a toxic poison added to our water supply), climate change (the human input is just about inconsequential) and opening up the franchise for marriage (it’s just not natural and he’s speaking as someone who could turn gay if he wanted to!), but chemtrails? Really?
What we’re seeing here is an attempt to make Colin Craig look kooky by calling him a conspiracy theorist, but we don’t have to do that. His views are kooky whether or not he is a conspiracy theorist. From binding citizens initiated referenda to wanting to bring in the Castle Doctrine, Craig has views which would make Sarah Palin smile and the average voter here frown. The fact he may, or may not, believe some conspiracy theory doesn’t change that; once you pass the kooky threshold you are in Kookstown, Kooksylvania; population, Colin Craig.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that some (possibly many) conspiracy theories are bad explanations, but that doesn’t tell us belief in conspiracy theories is prima facie irrational and that being a conspiracy theorist necessarily makes you a kook. Sure, many conspiracy theorists are kooky, but often that is because they have a general preponderance to believe weird things in general, some of which turn out to be weird conspiracy theories.
Hmm, with all this talk of “kook”, I think it might be apt to end on the theme tune to “The Addams Family”.
Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac about conspiracy theories on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show”.
There is nothing as informative and useless than statistics. Informative, because everyone loves numbers ((This is not true.)) and useless, because numbers can be meaningless if they are measuring things which have not been sufficiently quantified. So, when the Public Policy Polling released their 2013 survey of conspiracy theories (readable here) believed by Americans, I really wasn’t sure what to make of the numbers.
Take, for example, their claim 51% of Americans believe a conspiracy theory about the death of JFK. If you look at the actual question, which was:
Do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy, or was there some larger conspiracy at work?
You’ll note that the question doesn’t allow us to differentiate between people who believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the actual assassin but he didn’t act alone or he was a patsy and the real assassins were on, say, the Grassy Knoll. As such, all the question tells us is that people are uncertain about the official theory of JFK’s assassination but not whether they disagree with it entirely.
Contrast this to the second most popular conspiracy theory, the claim the invasion of Iraq was not about looking for those pesky Weapons of Mass Destruction. This one I find interesting because many people (but not me) wouldn’t classify that as a conspiracy theory because it’s pretty much the accepted theory by now (ex-Presidents and Prime Ministers withstanding). It’s also interesting that it’s not overwhelmingly believed by Americans, which might be both a case of being opposed to things called “conspiracy theories” (“I don’t believe the invasion was about WMDs but I’m not the kind of person who believes conspiracy theories, so…”) and that weird patriotism our American cousins sometimes suffer from.
The bottom of the list is also interesting: about the same number of people appear to believe that fluoridation is a problem as people who believe that chemtrails exist. It would be interesting to see just how close the overlap between some two groups are. Are there chemtrailers who support fluoride fortification of the water supply? Do both groups believe that fluoride is a mind-control agent or are a significant section of huge anti-fluoride group just opposed to fluoride because it’s a toxic byproduct?
Of course, these numbers aren’t exactly useful for anything other than ranking the relative popularity of certain theories about conspiracies. The fact some theory is or isn’t believed by a significant number of people doesn’t tell us how warranted or unwarranted that theory is. The evidence decides those questions. Numbers, as I said, can be both informative and useless.
Every Thursday, about 8:15am, Matthew talks with Zac about conspiracy theories on 95bFM’s “Breakfast Show”.
Typhoon Haiyan (or Yolanda) struck the Philippines last week, and the devastation this superstorm wrought is like nothing we’ve seen before. Freak weather incidents like Haiyan appear to be becoming all the more common, and people, predictably and understandably, are trying to work out what is going on and where the blame lies. For some, the problem is not a weather system spinning out of control, say due to the forces of anthropogenic climate change, but, rather human beings tinkering with nature such that these storms are the accidental by-product of scientific investigation of our ionosphere or, more sinisterly, are being deliberately caused by members of the Military Establishment.
Dutch Sinse has made an informative video on the weather manipulation conspiracy theory angle, which you can watch below.
It is a fairly good overview of the general gist of such conspiracy theories, and what I find fascinating about it is how Sinse plays with both a weak and a strong thesis about what might have caused the superstorm. He settles quickly on the claim that storms like these are being caused by humans. This is a weak claim, in the sense that its perfectly consistent with this claim to say that such storms might be the accidental byproducts of human activity. If there is a conspiracy, with respect to this kind of claim, the conspiracy would the attempt to cover up the relationship between, say, microwave pulses and storm formations or control.
However, Sinse wants to argue for a stronger thesis, which is the claim these storms are being deliberately created and then directed to their final destinations. As such, these storms are not accidents but examples of deliberately targetted weather manipulation or control.
The weaker claim is a more plausible hypothesis than the stronger one: covering up an accident is a far more common activity than evil sciencing. ((I’m assuming: if it turns out many more conspiracy theories than I think are warranted are actually warranted, then possibly evil sciencing is just as or more common than cover-ups, which would change the analysis)) As such, the stronger claim needs to be supported by some extraordinary evidence before we should give it serious attention.
So, what’s Sinse’s evidence? Well, it’s the correlation of microwave pules to the formation of bad weather fronts.
Sinse remarks that he has shown, in four previous cases, a correlation between a microwave pulse and, within a 48 hour window, the formation or movement of a storm front. That’s a big window: in weather formation terms that is a huge time margin. So, for example, on the 3rd of November, when the storm started to form, there was a solar eclipse and the trial of the ousted Egyptian president, Morsi was meant to start. So why attribute causal power to the pulse rather than one of those other events which also occurred within the window? My guess is that it’s because microwave pulses are science-y, so it’s appropriatively causal in a way a trial isn’t (and we’re already blaming the sun and sunspots as the real cause behind apparent anthropogenic climate change.
That being said, Sinse does link the pulses with known installations. This isn’t quite a criticism of his thesis, but a rather interesting issue: he assumes weather manipulation stations will be publicly known about and identifiable. In some respects, it would be much more interesting (and much more conspiratorial) if these pulses occurred in locations where no such station was said to be known to exist. Still, as I said, this isn’t a complaint against Sinse’s thesis, since if I, for example, were to insist that weather manipulation facilities are the kind of thing which shouldn’t be findable on a publicly available map, then I would be shifting the goalposts such that the conspiracy theory would be increasingly hard to support with evidence.
The issue, of course, for this line of evidence is that correlation is not causation. Sinse wants us to believe that the chance his identified microwave pulses having no effect on the formation of storms is phenomenal, but that just assumes causation where the question is “Is there a causal link?”
Sinse’s second line of supporting evidence is a document titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025”, a research paper presented to the USAF in 1996. You can read it here
It’s not that startling a report; a series of “What if we…” and “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if…” It’s a prospectus for future work and many conspiracy theorists use it as proof not just that the US military wants to control the weather but that this research is ongoing and producing results. They’ll point towards cloud seeding and the like to show just how far the experiments have gone.
What Sinse is doing here is pointing towards intent, by way of the 1996 report, and evidence that said intent was acted upon, by way of evidence of weather manipulation. He then uses this to argue this is evidence of a conspiracy to hide said manipulation. However, note that for the claim of conspiracy to be warranted we have to assume that advanced weather manipulation is occurring; all of Sinse’s evidence is consistent with the claim that research is ongoing but that the weather fronts, like Haiyan, are still the result of natural causes (or caused by humans, but only accidentally). Sinse’s claim assumes a cover-up to allege a conspiracy, which is begging the question of whether a conspiracy is in effect.
I don’t think it’s ridiculous to look for causes for bad events; I can even understand why people are concerned about what seems to be an increase in severe weather conditions globally. Certainly, as someone who accepts the thesis of anthropogenic climate change, I do think humans have the capability to change the environment in a destructive way. However, this particular theory, a conspiracy by the military establishment to hide their testing of weather manipulation technologies, does not seem like it’s amongst the best explanations for the kind of events Sinse wants to explain the occurrence of. At best, it’s an explanation in the pool of potential explanations of the event, but it’s not altogether plausible, in part because it handwaves away other, seemingly more plausible explanations and also because it assumes a conspiracy when trying to prove the existence of a conspiracy.