Archive for the ‘Conspiracy Theories’ Category

Remember chemtrails? Well, look at what I recently spotted coming out of the CN Tower:

This is clearly a government conspiracy to take over our minds. We’re doomed!

Conspiracy theorists are perhaps best known for their infuriating tactic of trying to punch holes into well-established theories, without ever presenting any logically consistent alternative theory of their own. Hiding behind the veil of “just asking questions”, they can (and do) get away with proposing ridiculous alternatives to historical events, based on anomalies (often non-existent) in trivial pieces of information.

That is why I found this post over at counterknowledge.com to be particularly brilliant. It turns the table on 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and asks them to defend their alternate theory of events by asking them to answer 15 factual questions.

Undoubtedly, any true conspiracy theorist would answer all 15 by telling you how everybody involved (the Saudi government, Al Qaeda, the CIA, Afghanistan, etc.) were all under the control of the Bush administration or the military industrial complex. However, what these questions make evident, is how ridiculously large any conspiratorial body would have to be in order for the conspiracy theory to remain logically consistent. By the time they are done answering these questions, any conspiracy theorist who still maintains their beliefs would have to believe that (more or less) every world government and all of the major middle-eastern terrorist organizations are under the control of the United States government.

Whereas I don’t expect these questions to change the mind of most conspiracy theorists, they’re still fun to read through — and useful ammunition for the next time somebody poses some “questions” about 9/11.

In what is certifiably a rare occurrence, I’ve found myself reasonably impressed by the skepticism found in a special news article.  Specifically, by the piece 9/11 Conspiracy Files, which aired on CBC Newsworld this week.

The hour-long program focuses on perhaps the largest foundation of the 9/11 “Truthers’” conspiracy theory, the collapse of WTC7.  In it, while true douchebags like Dylan Avery of Loose Change are given time to have their say, it’s the engineers, firefighters and the families of the victims who have the final word.  What’s more, the program makes no hesitation to refute conspiracy theory claims surrounding the collapse of the third tower with real science, reason, and at times just plain common sense.

For those unfamiliar with the Truthers’ nonsense, the meat of the 9/11 conspiracy theory surrounds the collapse of WTC7, which they say is a “smoking gun” for the government’s supposed involvement in the attacks, as it had not appeared to have sustained significant damage and must therefore have been destroyed in a controlled demolition through the use of explosives.  The program’s response to this argument, based on official research into the collapse of the tower, leaves no stone unturned, as it picks apart every conspiracy theory claim neatly thoroughly.

First and foremost, the argument that WTC7 suffered no damage prior to its collapse is debunked by foorage from all angles of broken windows as well as fire and smoke pluming from all sides.  On the claim that the fire left raging in the building could not be hot enough to melt the steel foundations of the structure, a team of engineers explain that the melting of the steel isn’t necessary to produce a collapse.  Instead, the steel needs merely to be weakened by the intense temperatures of the fire to the point where it can no longer support the weight of the structure (This is accomplished long before the steel is at its melting point).  Conspiracy theorists even argue that the sight and sound of the building’s collapse indicate that explosives were present in the building to initiated its destruction.  The program offers two explanations for this.

One is practical:  Those “hearing” and “seeing” explosions have little to no experience on what real-life explosions sound and look like, and thus cannot be relied on to provide a realistic assessment.  The other explanation is more technical.  The “explosion” seen by observers is itself a result of the collapse.  As the structure’s foundations fails and it begins to collapse, air within the building is trapped, much like in a balloon.  The pressure builds until the air is finally able to escape, which it does very violently.  Indeed, this may be called an explosion, but not as a result of explosives.  It is, rather, a result of the physics of the building’s collapse, and nothing more.

We here at Lintbox have yet to write an extensive piece on 9/11 conspiracy theories, which we should sometime in the future (at the risk of facing the often very harsh responses from Truthers.)  Nevertheless, CBC/BBC managed to produce one very satisfying, scientific approach to the conspiracy theory, and for that I’m left impressed.  Maybe there’s hope for the media, after all!

If you thought conspiracy theories couldn’t get any crazier, dumber, or both…

It could be real, it could be fake, but it’s nevertheless great stuff.

I recently read an article on the BBC’s website about “flat-earthers”, i.e. people who believe that the Earth is flat. The article investigates why people with access to so much knowledge to the contrary can actively believe that the Earth is flat. Among other things, they believe that the moon landings were faked, as were any photos of the Earth ever taken from space. They also believe that the governments (yes, all of them) are engaged in a massive cover-up to prevent us from learning the Earth’s true shape. Why would our government (or much less anybody) want to do this? Your guess is as good as mine.

Of course, ‘flat Earth theory’ (and I’m being incredibly generous by calling it a theory) has some rather large theoretical gaps that extend far beyond visual horizon lines and photographic evidence of the Earth’s shape. For example, it cannot account for the concepts of sunrise, sunset and different time zones. Even if we were to assume that the Earth orbited the Sun (or vice versa) in such a way that the Sun wasn’t always positioned directly above the Earth, sunrise would occur everywhere at the same time. Furthermore, every part of the Earth would experience the same amount of daylight, regardless of time of year or geographic location. That means that if you’re living by the equator, you’re going to experience the same amount of daylight as people in the Arctic Circle. However, unless everybody else in the world is also in on the conspiracy, this would appear not to be the case. Sunset also wouldn’t look nearly as pretty without our curved atmosphere absorbing only certain wavelengths of light.

Of course, gravity would also be a huge theoretical hurdle to any flat earth theory. Anybody with a telescope, or even a pair of binoculars, can observe other spherical astronomical bodies in our solar system. We know that gravity would not be conducive to the formation of a planar (or ovoid) bundle of rocks and gasses. How a flat planet would be able to retain an atmosphere is equally mysterious. Gravitational physics also wouldn’t work the same way on a body that isn’t round, as certain parts of the planet would be much further away from the Earth’s center of gravity than others’, and so we would observe a rather large change in Earth’s gravitational field, depending on where on the planet we were. But even with all of these theoretical problems, flat-earthers differ from other conspiracy theorists in one other important way.

Read the rest of this entry »

Now on the BBC

I can’t help but think that whoever wrote this article had their tongue firmly planted in their cheek. It’s the picture captions that really do it for me. “A flying saucer” succinctly describes a very obviously computer-rendered scene (including the obligatory Photoshop lens flare), and “UFO over house” underscores a picture of something that looks impressively similar to the Goodyear blimp.

Regardless, it is clear that interviewee Mr. Timothy Good believes in aliens visiting Earth, and even claims that they have their own terrestrial bases and are in contact with governments around the world. Also, western militaries have classified “advanced technology” to deal with some unspecified alien “threat”. I’m not so naive to think that the military doesn’t conduct top secret research into futuristic weapons systems, but it seems a bit far-fetched to imagine that the enemy is not of this world (cynical note: we seem to have plenty of use for weapons right here against other members of our own species; why drag aliens into it too). I must also say that if there are aliens who for some reason are hostile towards humans, there is nothing we could do that would prevent a civilization with technology for interstellar travel from destroying us completely. It would be like cavemen with sticks and rocks trying to fend off a modern army.

My response is still the same to all believers: where is the proof? Extraordinary claims and all that.

SETI@Home status: still running…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact–covered-60-years.html

And not only have they made contact, this has been going on for at least the past 60 years! They have been consorting with various governments who have conspired to keep it a secret for this long. But now, the word is out. Unbelievable, you say? Well, I have proof. Hard evidence. I have… wait, no, I just heard this third-hand from some old guy. But hey, it must be true, because he was an astronaut on Apollo 14! He walked on the Moon! Which of course automatically makes him a reliable source; after all, there has never been any cases of astronauts being at least slightly crazy. Okay, so maybe that’s a low blow. But is there any evidence anywhere to suggest that aliens have been here?

No. Besides some blurry faked photos and CGI videos, there is not a scrap of proof of alien visitation. Crop circles are hoaxes. Abductions are psychological tricks. Supposed “wreckage” from crashed UFOs has remarkably similar properties to man-made amorphous metal. Not to mention that to cover up something as monumental as contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence for 6 decades would require a degree of competence in “the government” that frankly strains credulity. Although on the flip side, they don’t seem to have done that great a job, since a frighteningly large number of people believe aliens have visited Earth, and apparently our artistic depictions of aliens as small humanoids with big heads is completely accurate. I won’t even get in to the discussion of how incredibly unlikely it is for a species to evolve on a different planet and end up looking pretty much the same as us.

But, of course, I can’t prove a negative. So I can’t state with certainty that we are not being visited by beings from another world. But I *can* say that for me to believe in something as extraordinary as this, it is going to take more than some grainy photos of flying hubcaps and the word of a former NASA astronaut to convince me. In honesty, I would love to see evidence of the existence of alien life. It would be just about the most exciting scientific discovery of all time. But for now, I’m just not seeing the proof.

Side note: I still run SETI@Home on my computer though…

There seems to be a rather large problem with Bill C-51 that has been overlooked by our policy makers and health officials alike: nobody seems to understand the bill. The premise is simple enough: treat all medications the same way. If you want to sell something that claims to cure cancer, then prove that it cures cancer. That’s it. Simple.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a rather large opposition to this bill, and the basis of this opposition seems to stem from a gross misunderstanding of it. The C-51 Opposition Party is a big tent, ranging from FDA paranoia to the belief that this bill aims to ban all herbal remedies.

To clarify, this bill will not ban herbal remedies. It will require that all drugs marketed as cures or treatments will be subjected to the same standards. This would not prevent people from selling, purchasing or consuming non-harmful (and legal) substances. This is about health claims and fraud… that’s all.

I can’t help but think how much smaller the opposition to this bill would be if people only understood what it was about. The conspiracy theorists would probably still rant about how this is another scheme by Big Pharma to steal our money, make us sick, and extract our surplus value… but those people are already a lost cause. Hell, if you really wanted to, you could still sell Orgone crystals!

Here’s my challenge to you: If you are not in favour of Bill C-51, go and read it. Make sure you understand the terminology, and what each section means. Afterwards, if you still think it’s a bad idea, come back and chat.

As it turns out, cell towers actually are dangerous… just not in the way we had previously discussed. A post on the ‘Apple 2.0′ blog on cnn.com outlines one of the hidden dangers of the increased number of cell towers.

On May 16, Jonathan Guilford, 25, of Fort Payne, Alabama, was working on an AT&T UMTS (3G) project in Haubstadt, Ind., when he fell to his death from a 200-foot tower

While not common, it is not unheard of for maintenance workers to fall to their deaths while working on cell towers, and other tall structures. This latest cluster of fall-deaths seem to be related to phone companies (mainly AT&T) rapidly trying to upgrade their networks for broader 3G coverage.

Whether or not companies like AT&T are responsible for these accidents by rushing this potentially dangerous work remains to be seen; this may very well be a coincidental random grouping of accidents. It’s tragic that these types of fall-deaths still occur, as all it takes to prevent them is a bit of training and a safety harness.

It has come to my attention that corporate paymasters sponsor a vast majority of the scientific community (including science and skeptical bloggers… in order to further their evil corporate agendas, no doubt).  Sadly, we here at Lintbox are still lacking a corporate paycheck!  If you are interested (or know of anybody who is interested) in becoming our corporate paymasters, please send an email to skeptics@lintbox.com.