Argumentum Ficta

When conspiracy theories get large enough they begin to get desperate. Your standard event conspiracy, such as the Titanic didn't sink theory, can rely on some errant data and then work the conclusion with winks and nods. It's not a good method of argumentation but it at least the evidence is grounded in reality. The more and more a theory grows it gets substantially more difficult to sustain some plausibility in the evidence itself. The vast super conspiracies concerning the Illuminati are going to inevitably begin claiming outlandish things, i.e. that Katy Perry's Dark Horse video is a black magic ritual. This is because a proper theory needs to make predictions and conspiracy theories have to grasp at straws to even attempt to do this. 

In making the predictions or even trying for a cogent conclusion some conspiracy theories resort to an interesting tactic: using fictional narratives to bolster their claims. To be entirely honest, I'll make reference to a fictional narrative when I'm teaching (other than in the conspiracy course in which most of the things I talk about are fictional. I'll do so in order to make a difficult concept more relatable. For example when talking about Machiavelli's notion of an effective leader I've referenced Tywin Lannister as an example. Or when I taught Hobbes' state of nature I used the Walking Dead (before I began to hate that show) to highlight the kill or be killed aspect to his view. The difference in my use is that Machiavelli/Hobbes makes the argument through their writing (Machiavelli uses historical examples from his own and Roman times, while Hobbes is using a thought experiment) and the fiction is used to drive their point home. It is not, however, a piece of evidence. 

Conspiracy theories on a large enough scale will use fictional narratives, not as examples of what they are talking about, but as evidence for what they are trying to prove. In some cases, the fiction is clearly what inspired the conspiracy theory and now they are trying to find ways to prove the fiction is non-fiction while in others the fiction is a brick in their theory. 

Let's take the wide spanning conspiracy offered in the X-Files. Here, we have an elaborate form of question begging. The X-Files clearly borrowed it's wider mythology from existing conspiracy theories. However, conspiracy theories began taking from the show and using the mythological arc as part of their conclusions. An alien crash landed at Roswell? The writers of the show take that, slap into their plot, relate it to some airline crash in the 90s and then churn out story. Conspiracy theorist watches the show, take that plot and feed it into their theory as a new find. What's troubling about this is that the newer theory is better and more convincing. 

The reason for this is that the X-Files had a team of writers that could shave down the conspiracy theories into something workable for a narrative. The theory would come out considerably more polished, the "evidence" found by the two FBI agents would make sense, and importantly, the theory would be eliminated of any contradictions or extraneous diversions. The X-Files writer's essentially proofread the conspiracy theory and fixed the problems. When the conspiracy theorist uses the fictional show as proof it is because the theory presented their is better than what they would have come up with. Once adopted by a single theorist, a second theorist no longer has to reference the fictional work--they merely reference the first theorist. 

This isn't limited to ufology. David Icke's galactic omni-conspiracy is sourced in a considerable amount of fiction. The lizard people theory has been traced to Robert E. Howard's creation Kull the Conqueror from Atlantis (itself a fictional invention), the 1983 television series "V", and the writings of a different conspiracy theorist named Zechariah Sitchin who was one of those Nibiru believers (the inspiration is according to the editors at rationalwiki.org). However, it doesn't stop there, as Icke expanded his theory from reptoids to the Prison Planet wherein reality is an illusion which obviously comes from the 1999 Matrix (and the two sequels we do not speak of). Even perpetual headache and rage watch favorite of mine "Ancient Aliens" has a similar pedigree. 

Jason Colavito from skeptic magazine traces the origin of the theory that Tsoulakous and Daniken made (in)famous all the way back to the stories of H.P. Lovecraft who wrote the internet meme "Call of Cthulhu" in 1926. Colavito compares this passage from Lovecraft: 

"There had been aeons when other Things ruled on the earth, and They had had great cities. Remains of Them . . . were still be found as Cyclopean stones on islands in the Pacific. They all died vast epochs of time before men came, but there were arts which could revive Them when the stars had come round again to the right positions in the cycle of eternity. They had, indeed, come themselves from the stars, and brought Their images with Them [1]."

With this one from Daniken:

"These first men had tremendous respect for the space travelers. Because they came from somewhere absolutely unknown and then returned there again, they were the "gods" to them....

 

In advanced cultures of the past we find buildings that we cannot copy today with the most modern technical means. These stone masses are there; they cannot be argued away....

 

Another quite fantastic discovery was the Great Idol [of Tiwanaku]. . . Again we have the contradiction between the superb quality and precision of the hundreds of symbols all over the idol and the primitive technique used for the building housing it"

The passages are similar enough to be nearly plagiarism. However the connection is then developed as American Sci-fi traveled to Europe during WWII, caught on in France where a magazine adopted it as a non-serious speculative work titled "Morning of the Magicians."  

No matter the interesting tale of the origin of the theory the problem is that Daniken is clearly using American pulp fiction as evidence for a novel theory that would completely overturn several academic disciplines and can't support itself beyond the reference to something that is written better (mainly because it doesn't have a thousand rhetorical questions). 

The general problem is that fiction doesn't require evidence or argument, because an admitted fiction isn't trying to make a point about objective reality. Now, of course, fiction can make a point thematically by illustrating the plight of fictional people for instance, but the events described aren't supposed to be taken as real.