Conspiracy Theories, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking

 “ The conception of France rising like a phoenix from that great welter of blood and horror is as mythical as the allegory from which it is taken and has existed only in the minds of posterity.” No notes, I just like that sentence. Webster wants us to believe that the revolution failed. Not that the aristocrats retook power, but that the revolution never helped anyone. This is an interesting take, so we’ll have to consider her evidence for it. If you’ve been following along, she doesn’t have any. She has the people’s suffering during the terror, the counter-revolution, and the numerous groups fighting for control in this period. This is to be expected, and I don’t think any historian really believes that everything was just oysters and baguettes for the French during this period. Webster is playing on the ignorance of English history lessons that do not get into the nitty details of what it was like to live through the revolution. Indeed, the American revolution had periods of unc...

 Like Cooper before him, Kaysing does not have the greatest understanding of what an appendix is for. He’s much closer than Cooper, I have to give him credit for that; but an appendix should build off the established writing or should correct any mistakes. Here we’re getting more “evidence” for the conspiracy, but this stuff could have easily been in the proper book. Instead, we’re give this line, “ No attempt has been made to categorize the following bits and pieces of the ‘jigsaw puzzle’…but for now, bear with me and place the pieces in your own mind where they fit best .” Ok, Cooper’s writing seemed lazy but that was largely because he didn’t know better. Kaysing has been a writer for a bit before this book, and this is some bullshit. For the remaining twenty pages we, the reader, are supposed to the editing work for him. This is some bullshit…but let’s plow through it. The first section is titled “Betty Grissom.” Betty is the wife of the late Gus Grissom who perished in the Apo...

 Today’s post is going to be about two chapters. The first is a page and a half, completely unnecessary, and concerns how the radio transmission was faked. This question of the radio waves was never an issue to anyone in both the historical explanation and the conspiracy theory. It’s an issue that no one raises because we live in the age of global instant communication. Even back in the 70s, when the book was written, you could still phone England from Iowa. It would cost a lot, but no one doubts the technology. You might get some HAM operator nerd type wondering about the direction the transmission was coming from, but there are probably ways to explain that. Kaysing does engage in technobabble in an effort to confuse and bewilder the reader. He begins talking about ultra-low frequency transmission and how it is used to transmit messages to submarines. This was the backup to the actual transmission. Which doesn’t make sense because, according to Kaysing, we’re trying to fake the t...

 I have a confession to make I don’t like 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think it’s a remarkable achievement in filmmaking, it’s certainly a science fiction milestone, but it’s boring as fuck. I’ve seen every Stanley Kubrick movie up to A.I. (his quasi-last movie) and the man knew the technical craft of filmmaking. He knew how to frame a shot (just watch the big wheel scenes with Danny in The Shining), how to do lighting (Barry Lyndon), and execute unbroken long takes (the opening scene in Full Metal Jacket). Most of his movies are very slow paced, and hard to watch. You have to sit down and ready yourself. Most of his movies are great examples of why film is a form of art; but 2001 is not one of them. I don’t say this to be shocking, and some of you right now are probably thinking what the hell is he on about 2001 is a great movie. It’s not, it’s too long. The opening scene with the apes does not need to go on as long as it did. The end hyperspace scene is much the same. We remember the...

 Our fourth explanation for how the Moon landing is faked is also our final section of this chapter. Remember that in the first three, we are all operating under a grand assumption that the author is taking as a fact, that the “Apollo Simulation Project” was real. I don’t mean, faking the Moon Landing, I mean the logistical angle for it all. He’s assumed the location, the base, the existence of the facility, and he’s even captioned one of the pictures he’s used for proof as an “ author’s conception.” The conspiracy theory is an assumption as well, but that is the entire book in action. Here we need to consider the nuts and bolts of the theory and all he’s been telling us is this is what could be the case. He’s claimed that the entire landing was faked in the Pacific, and I said he’s way overcomplicated that scenario. Now he’s got to explain how we the common folk know the Moon Landing happened. There are a few ways we know about it: photographs, radio transmissions, and television...

 For any new readers, the page numbers in the title refer to the PDF file found on the Internet Archive . The numbers do not line up with the page in the book, so far they are about five pages behind. Researching conspiracy theories has changed my brain in a few important ways. The first is that I cannot read the news without filtering it into a conspiratorial interpretation. It’s not that I believe it, but that I try and interpret the news as they would. For example, president-elect Trump’s pick for secretary of Treasury is just a normal big business executive; but I also know that he’s worked for both George Soros and the WEF (World Economic Fund) which makes it interesting for those people who rabidly support him. The second way that conspiracy theories have changed my brain is that I can longer just read a rhetorical question without getting angry at the writer. The “?” just hangs in a sentence in much the same way that a brick doesn’t. The rhetorical question is the path of th...

 We shall begin with the “who.” The author of this book is Bill Kaysing. He is not, as far as I know, a conspiracy theorist in the broad sense. He doesn’t appear to be an Illuminati believer, nor does he think the lizard people control everything. He has some other conspiracy beliefs about the CIA, privacy, and the federal reserve; and I get the impression that he is merely an anti-government theorist. A little biographical information: Kaysing was a Naval Officer in WWII, and afterwards became a dime store writer. His books include “How to Eat Well on Less than a Dollar a Day (1970),” “The Robin Hood Handbook (1974),” and “Great Hot Springs of the West (1984).” He has a few books in the “How to eat…” category and according to rationalwiki he was actually a decent food writer. He died in April of 2005. Kaysing claimed that he was originally approached to write this book as a satire. It was supposed to be a joke, here’s what the kooks believe, and let’s make it seem a little plausib...

Now returning to the third view regarding Conspiracy theories, "The Public Trust Approach" (PTA). This theory takes some unpacking in that it is not specifically labelled as such by the author. It is also not laid out as a specific approach to dealing with conspiracy theories, however it is easily derived from Keeley's article "Of Conspiracy Theories. (Keeley '99)" Any person writing about conspiracy theories in an academic fashion first must lay out the definition of what the term "conspiracy theory" actually means. What this means for our purpose is to see how his definition stacks up against mine. Keeley identifies five characteristics which separate CTs from other explanations. In fact he wants to make a clear distinction between what he calls Unwarranted Conspiracy Theories (UCT) and warranted theories of conspiracy which would be, at the very least, deserving of further investigation. This last category doesn't need a specific label sin...

Let's begin with stating some answers/questions. The first is whether or not there is life in the universe aside from Earth life? We would have to honestly answer: probably. I can recall some finds on meteorites that seemed to have fossilized single cell organisms on them, but I do not remember if those finds were confirmed or validated. However, it seems unlikely given the scope of the Cosmos, with a materialistic outlook, that this planet is the only place with life in or on it. The next question should be obvious: is there intelligent life in the universe other than on this planet. Again, probably. The answer is the same for the same reasoning. Without adopting both a unique and privileged place in the universe it would be impossible to rule out the possibility that there are other intelligent life forms somewhere in the great sky of the universe. The last question: has intelligent life visited this planet? This answer is more distinct: extremely doubtful. There are a number...

Coincidentally my wife purchased a new cell phone, and while she was busy tooling around with it, I read through the several little booklets that came with it. We can't call them manuals really because they are just warranty information, a picture that tells you where all of the buttons are, tucked into that booklet was the FCC warning regarding electromagnetic radiation (EM hereafter). The warning states that the phone is compliant and safe to use, gives a caution that the phone may get warm if pressed against the face, and that it shouldn't be used constantly against the skin. Interestingly, it leaves out why. The movie, "Thank You For Smoking" (2005), the protagonist ends the film having set a meeting with some cell phone executives and reminding them of the mantra that there is no proven link between cell phones and cancer. This being his long time advice for cigarette companies, who historically have spent billions throwing the science that linked cigarette smo...