I love conspiracy theories. And I'm not alone. Be it the Lindbergh baby, the Apollo 11 moon landing, or the theory that Breyers engineered Birthday Cake Ice Cream just to make me fat, certain events throughout history have conspiracy theorists convinced that the general public isn't being told the full story.
The concept of conspiracy theories has evolved throughout history. It wasn't always the modern notion of wild-eyed nutters holed up in basements with heads wrapped in tinfoil. Historically, False Flags, such as the Trojan Horse, a deceptive peace offering used during the Trojan War which allowed the Greeks to enter the city of Troy, were viewed as legitimate tales of caution against taking events at face value.
But experience has taught us that not every horse is filled with an army of Greek soldiers. So what exactly causes conspiracy theories to develop in the first place?
As a self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist, I've found that particular incidents, due to their extremity, their shocking nature, or their sprinkle-filled deliciousness, trigger our spidey-sense. Once stimulated, people are anxious for a resolution be it Ancient Aliens, a hidden Illuminati agenda, or a government cover-up.
I've compiled three of my favorite ominous occasions and researched the most compelling evidence for, and the strongest rebuttals against, these respective conspiracies.
1) Apollo 11 Moon Landing
The smoking gun: From the "C" rock, to the lack of space stars, to moon dust, a faked moon landing is like conspiracy theory Viagra. But it is interesting how the backgrounds in certain photos are so similar they're nearly identical; as though NASA used, or forgot to change, the same backdrops while shooting different photographs.
Time for your meds: NASA has an overall solid case against the faux moon landing conspiracy. It's almost like there's a bunch of scientists over there. But it's film expert S.G. Collins whose knowledge about the technical capacities of filming in the late sixties, who makes the conspiracy-dispelling statement that it would have been easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it on video.
2) 9/11
The smoking gun: Your 9/11 conspiracy needs can be satisfied by the film Loose Change.
Conspiracy theorist strongest, but least cited, argument are the overwhelming number of put options placed on United and American Airlines stocks just days prior to September 11. The mathematical odds that this event would occur randomly and independently of the 9/11 attack are so low they statistically don't exist.
Time for your meds: Debunking the 9/11 conspiracies has become as popular as creating them. For me, the collapse of the Twin Towers, free from explosives or a controlled demolition proves that this horrible event wasn't internally manufactured.
3) Paul is Dead
The smoking gun: It would be easy to dismiss the theory that Paul McCartney secretly died in 1966 and was replaced by a look alike as the creative but insane result of the vast amounts of psychotropic drugs consumed in the sixties, if not for Gabriella Carlesi. In 2008, the Italian forensic pathologist specializing in the identification of people through craniometry, or the comparison of skull features, analysed images of Paul McCartney before and after 1966 and found they did not match.
Time for your meds: Debunking Paul is dead for Dummies breaks this theory down piece by silly piece. In my opinion, the most compelling evidence against this conspiracy is that there's simply no reason for it. It's a conspiracy as unnecessary as Ringo.
The concept of conspiracy theories has evolved throughout history. It wasn't always the modern notion of wild-eyed nutters holed up in basements with heads wrapped in tinfoil. Historically, False Flags, such as the Trojan Horse, a deceptive peace offering used during the Trojan War which allowed the Greeks to enter the city of Troy, were viewed as legitimate tales of caution against taking events at face value.
But experience has taught us that not every horse is filled with an army of Greek soldiers. So what exactly causes conspiracy theories to develop in the first place?
As a self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist, I've found that particular incidents, due to their extremity, their shocking nature, or their sprinkle-filled deliciousness, trigger our spidey-sense. Once stimulated, people are anxious for a resolution be it Ancient Aliens, a hidden Illuminati agenda, or a government cover-up.
I've compiled three of my favorite ominous occasions and researched the most compelling evidence for, and the strongest rebuttals against, these respective conspiracies.
1) Apollo 11 Moon Landing
The smoking gun: From the "C" rock, to the lack of space stars, to moon dust, a faked moon landing is like conspiracy theory Viagra. But it is interesting how the backgrounds in certain photos are so similar they're nearly identical; as though NASA used, or forgot to change, the same backdrops while shooting different photographs.
Time for your meds: NASA has an overall solid case against the faux moon landing conspiracy. It's almost like there's a bunch of scientists over there. But it's film expert S.G. Collins whose knowledge about the technical capacities of filming in the late sixties, who makes the conspiracy-dispelling statement that it would have been easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it on video.
2) 9/11
The smoking gun: Your 9/11 conspiracy needs can be satisfied by the film Loose Change.
Conspiracy theorist strongest, but least cited, argument are the overwhelming number of put options placed on United and American Airlines stocks just days prior to September 11. The mathematical odds that this event would occur randomly and independently of the 9/11 attack are so low they statistically don't exist.
Time for your meds: Debunking the 9/11 conspiracies has become as popular as creating them. For me, the collapse of the Twin Towers, free from explosives or a controlled demolition proves that this horrible event wasn't internally manufactured.
The smoking gun: It would be easy to dismiss the theory that Paul McCartney secretly died in 1966 and was replaced by a look alike as the creative but insane result of the vast amounts of psychotropic drugs consumed in the sixties, if not for Gabriella Carlesi. In 2008, the Italian forensic pathologist specializing in the identification of people through craniometry, or the comparison of skull features, analysed images of Paul McCartney before and after 1966 and found they did not match.
Time for your meds: Debunking Paul is dead for Dummies breaks this theory down piece by silly piece. In my opinion, the most compelling evidence against this conspiracy is that there's simply no reason for it. It's a conspiracy as unnecessary as Ringo.
No comments:
Post a Comment