linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/plot.txt

Text File | 1996-02-19 | 5KB | 102 lines

It's All a Plot
by Rick Moen

One of the more diverting places on CompuServe (the international data
service) is the Paranormal Issues section. Just type <169>GO
ISSUES<170>, pick section #10 (Paranormal Issues), and you're there,
looking at hundreds of public messages on a motley collection of topics.
(Cue Rod Serling voice, here.) You have now entered a dimension of weird
claims and bizarre responses. You have entered. . . The Conspiracy Zone.

Now, one would think that, in a fringe-science forum, conspiracy
theorising would mostly revolve around the Roswell/Secorro/Corona 1947
crashed-saucer claims. Indeed, much of it does, but, possibly because of
an emphasis on political issues elsewhere in this forum, a curious
obsession with JFK assassination theories not only regularly takes over
the message section, but also<197>to my utter fascination<197>spills
over into Roswell discussions. What we're talking about here are
theories even wilder than gonzo UFOlogist Bill Cooper's assertion that
JFK's driver had turned around and shot him: We're talking <MI>weird<D>.

Now, I was present, off and on, as Mr. Token Skeptic (<169>Toke<170>,
for short), and tended to annoy many of the regulars<197>who have us
skeptics all figured out<197>by being reasonable and pleasant. (They
hate it when you do that.) As the theories got progressively wilder, a
sudden thought occurred to me, and I mentioned it: All sufficiently
large-scale conspiracy theories are interchangeable: If you think big,
you can overcome absolutely any problem of evidence, by simply inventing
a larger conspiracy: Absence of evidence proves how effective They are
at concealing it. Contrary evidence shows that They are spreading
disinformation. Anyone contradicting you is obviously one of Them.

The response? I might as well have tried to make a splash in day-old
concrete. Nobody noticed a word of the foregoing. So, I decided to make
my point in a way that <MI>would<D> get attention:

The JFK conspiracy messages I'd seen on Paranormal Issues, I said, were
interesting, but there was an element curiously missing<197>the NSA. The
National Security Agency, a Federal institution many times larger than
the CIA, is charged with all U.S. government communications security and
signals intelligence, and is heavily interconnected with the business of
other intelligence agencies. Yet, none of the theorists on
<169>Issues<170> had mentioned it at all. Isn't that odd, I asked.

I remarked that I could think of only three alternative explanations for
this strange omission:

1. NSA was so very good at covering up its involvement in the JFK affair
that, even though our resident theorists had sniffed out nefarious
skullduggery in the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, etc., NSA had eluded
them<197>in spite of NSA's mammoth size and importance. This I said
sounded unlikely.

2. NSA had its hands so clean, and had so little connection with or
knowledge of the conspiracy efforts of other Feds<197>again, in spite of
its size and involvement with other agencies<197>that there was nothing
for our intrepid conspiracy-finders to uncover. Once more, I said this
wasn't too plausible.

3. The only reason our theorists omitted NSA is that they actually knew
next to nothing about intelligence affairs, and so, like most Americans,
didn't even think of the NSA because they knew little about it. This
would of course call into question what business they had commenting on
intelligence matters in the first place.

At this point, I sat back to watch. Wouldn't the forum regulars smell a
skeptical rat? I rather expected they would. Toke was having some
pretty obvious fun with them, having, after all, teased them a little
in the past.

Well, no, that's not quite what happened. Instead, several of the
regulars took the concept and ran with it<197>popping up newer, grander
conspiracy theories that now included a role for the NSA. Now, I got my
chance to underline dramatically the point I'd tried to make earlier:
The conspiracy buffs had just dealt with an evidential obstacle <MI>by
expanding their theories<D>. This, I explained, was the trait that made
large-scale conspiracy theories worthless<197>and interchangeable: If
there were evidence that proved them wrong, the theorists would never
see that as long as they continued to finesse away all problems via
newer and bigger plots.

I didn't expect to be thanked for this insight, but wasn't quite
prepared for the howls and imprecations that ensued: Mean Toke. Bad
Toke. You fooled us! Oh, the horror, and so on. It went downhill from
there: Within the week, word was out that this Moen fellow told
<MI>deliberate lies<D> in order to sow <MI>disinformation<D> among
honest, solid-citizen conspiracy buffs. He's one of those rotten shifty-
eyed skeptic types, probably on the government payroll and definitely
one of Them. Never mind whether what I said <MI>made sense<D>. What was
important was whether I could be personally trusted, after committing
the crime of tricking people<197>and, worse, admitting it. (That said
people had been come out looking foolish in public was, of course, mere
coincidence.)

Anyhow, I wanted to welcome you, the reader, to The Conspiracy. The pay
isn't great, and we have troubles keeping our story straight, but it's
good to be on the side of the heavy guns, isn't it?

Be sure not to tell anyone, though.