The Road Ahead

When I started this blog, I had several objectives in mind. The first was to discuss a number of topics I had studied for quite some time--a data dump, if you will. The second was to form a community off of which to bounce ideas, no matter how far-fetched. The most important, however, was to clarify issues of conspiracy.

As presented in mainstream media, the term ‘conspiracy’ almost always precedes the term ‘theory.’ As I have stated before, the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a misnomer. Very few conspiracy researchers work from a theoretical approach (and those that do tend to be academics). Instead they operate out of a speculative one, attempting to fill in gaps of knowledge that in many cases are deliberately withheld, mostly because of classification and confidentiality reasons. In its strictest sense, theory is not synonymous with hypothesis, but rather its antithesis. Hypotheses attempt to predict or describe a situation not yet in evidence. Theory, on the other hand, connects the dots between known and stipulated phenomena. Sometimes the connections are meaningless; nevertheless, they exist. And this is what a true theorist does.

In the process of misstating the nature of conspiracy theory, dominant discourse on controversial subjects tends to confuse a lot of issues. One of the main sources of the confusion is the straw-man argument: a trumped-up (and often scurrilous) debate about a peripheral issue that fails to address the main concerns of conspiracy researchers. You can find a good example of this on our friend Judyth Vary Baker’s blog, Oswald Framed. In a post dated 6 November 2009, Judy discusses a study in which Professor Hany Farid (Computer Science, Dartmouth) disputes the claim that the shadows of the famous Backyard Photo do not match, thus implying that Oswald was the actual subject, and more importantly linking him to the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle cited by the Warren Commission as the murder weapon.

Figure 1. The infamous Backyard Photo

Farid argued that the distinctive shape of Oswald’s nose made it appear that the shadows didn’t match, when in fact they did. Through most of the blog post, Baker thoroughly engages Farid’s claim to reestablish that they do. She rightfully points out that lost in his discussion are the obvious crop marks that are visible without a magnifying glass (and glaringly obvious with one). Moreover, the arm holding the rifle features characteristics that Oswald’s never had, most notably the slight bump near the right wrist.

While we can see Professor Farid’s assertion as the construction of a straw-man argument, on the one hand, we have to also take issue with some arguments undertaken by conspiracy researchers themselves. As The X-Spot has given me an opportunity to correspond with a number of fellow researchers--from the unknowns like myself to the more prominent--I’ve come to realize that more often than not you’ll find that these are people who are doing the best they can to put together a coherent narrative out of disparate and often conflicting facts. At the same time, you can often find an undisciplined approach to gathering data and weighing evidence which further muddles the issues, and leads to inaccuracy. As voiced by the character Janet in the sequel to The Golden Ganesh:

’The problem with conspiracy theory,’ she began, ‘is that it oversimplifies very complex social interactions. It lures people into a false belief that they know how the world works, and gives them an excuse as to why they find their lives in disarray….

Moreover, conspiracy theories tend to lack agency. Nothing’s attributable to specific individuals, but rather a faceless, nameless, ‘they’. And that ‘they’ could be anybody the conspiracy theorist doesn’t like: Jews, whites, blacks, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Russians, Muslims, Freemasons, Illuminati and so forth.

'And then, there’s the obvious. A lot of conspiracy theory comes from people who sound as though they’re suffering from profound paranoia.’

While it doesn’t always help, the academic theorist is trained to take his or her own personality, feelings, beliefs, experiences and biases into account when examining a subject. Each of these things can act as a filter, through which certain data never register, while some factors weigh more heavily on a conclusion than they should. If you don’t put yourself into the equation, you run the risk of letting prejudice be your guide.

If, on the off chance you can keep your biases in check, then you still have to bear in mind your own emotions. As everyone knows, emotional reasoning (at least in and of itself) often leads to error. That’s the main reason I have written very little about 9/11. I have a lot of memories tied up in the Twin Towers. I used to work there. And I still have very strong emotions about what happened on that day and during the following weeks. My feelings aren’t as virulent or as disruptive as they were on 12 September 2001, of course. So I figure that one day I’ll be in a position to research and write about that particular chapter in history some day--just not right now.

On the other hand, there are two topics on which I have strong emotions that will probably never change. Yet I feel that I must write about them, because they are essential components of conspiracy culture, and I’ve put them off long enough. The first is the inherent racism (in particular the anti-Semitism) in some strains of conspiracy research. But I think I’ll table that for the time being, and instead forge ahead of with the second subject.

A word of warning: this next series of posts will actually exist as a series of series, each exploring a very dark, and very ugly matter. It will certainly inflame your emotions. For many of you, it will be a major turnoff, especially since I will probably spend a good deal of time talking about it. Nevertheless, I welcome your insights, for I know that some of you have explored some facets of this topic on your own and thus have probably developed some rather firm opinions about it. As always, my first goal will be to clarify the conspiracy issues. If things get cloudy, I have every faith that you’ll let me know.