There's No Space for Conspiracy Here ... or is There?

There's No Space for Conspiracy Here ... or is There?

Not many people send me requests for commentary topics. I've received two. Both came within the last month. Both were about conspiracies. In fact, both were about space conspiracies--one about the earth being flat and the other about the moon landing.

How odd. I'm not sure if this says something about me or says something about my readership. I'm guessing either I'm too conspiracy oriented (so people send me conspiracy stuff to help me with my hobby) or I'm not conspiracy oriented enough (so people send me conspiracy stuff to broaden my horizons). I'm hoping the latter, because I don't consider myself a follower of conspiracies. I find them a bit interesting, but nothing I'd really follow.

Until now. Let's take a look-see at the two presented to me.

I received a request to check out the Flat Earth Society web site recently. This web site explores the idea that the Earth is flat. Certainly, naysayers will say nay--as the Earth has been proven to be round (by Bugs Bunny, no less). Be that is it may, the Flat Earth Society has been "deprogramming the masses since 1547." That's right! 1547! And I thought the "Serving Rochester since 1954" signs on some businesses were impressive. For goodness sakes, the Flat Earth Society predates, barely, Dick Clark! How do you argue with that?

In a summary of the summary of the Flat Earth's Society's summary summary, I summarily give you their arguments:

1. Shown by an ether test, the Earth does not move
2. Nothing is crushed or expelled by centrifugal force or friction
3. People on both hemispheres of the planet stay on instead of one falling off
4. People can travel to the other hemisphere and not fall off
5. Water (like from lakes or oceans) doesn't run down the side of the planet.

Clearly, the theory of the Flat Earth Society is proven: "Obviously, the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it (although not necessarily in circular paths), in a plane level with the flat Earth."

My major concern is this: I hope they have better barriers at the edge of Earth than they do on the sides of major highways. I would hate to have the only thing between me and an endless drift through space on my roller blades be a three-foot fence thing. (There should at least be a rubber band thing so I would slingshot back to earth.)

So we may or may not have a flat and stationary planet. Either way, as long as there are pizza joints, I'm okay.

The second conspiracy I'm supposed to look into is a conspiracy fan who's upset because the moon landing shouldn't have a conspiracy theory but does have a conspiracy theory.

Oh, he believes there were coverups regarding the moon landing, but believes the moon landing itself to be real. He claims NASA is covering up a discovery of an ancient glass-like ruins on the moon.

While the other web site has been around a long time, this web site has the appearance of conspiracy. It's got a black background with blue letters. Spooky! And difficult to read! If Johnny Ashcroft tried to use his newfound detective authority on this, he'd probably get eyestrain and give up. "Um, nothing here. Let's check out that Flat Earth Society page." It's just THAT good!

Really, the lunar anomalies web site is not about the moon landing conspiracy. (Or is it? Daa daa dummmmm!) You know how some books or movies or songs will be called "A love letter to " so-and-so? The Lunar Anomalies web page isn't one of them. In fact, it is a hate letter. The guy behind the web page is sick and tired of conspiracy theorists that don't know diddly about the subjects on which they theorize. They provide such easily dismantled arguments that it gives real conspiracy theory a bad name. Conspiracy theorists who lack knowledge, memory, or common sense about the topic are making his life a bit rougher.

I'm guessing I won't be receiving a Christmas card from this chap.

But I'm not a conspiracy theorist. The closest I've come is mentioning what could be used as conspiracy arguments regarding what Bush Inc. knew before the terrorist attacks. When I mentioned them, my wife (I'll call her "Scully"--or will I?), Stephanie, yelled at me. And she might dislike him more than I do! I don't even believe in the conspiracy and I got yelled at. I can't AFFORD to actually believe a conspiracy theory.

However, in my countless minutes of research using two web pages, I've found a few keys to a good conspiracy theory.

1. Dark web pages. Dark is shadowy and mysterious. Perfect for hiding and sneaking and writing about the hidden and the sneaky. Note: be consistent. When Jerry Falwell was selling "Ring of Power," a video about the Clinton conspiracies (the first 20 years), he interviewed "witnesses" in the dark with backlighting so as not to reveal their identities. (You see, part of the conspiracy within the conspiracy was that key witnesses were killed by the Clintons.) However, clips from the videotape showed people well lit and in very bright (and fancy) living rooms--their identities were blatantly revealed. I wonder why Falwell wasn't so concerned about THEIR safety.

2. Tradition. Make sure your conspiracy is from 1546 or earlier. We don't want any Johnny-Come-Lately tainting the conspiracy pool. If the "conspiracy" is recent, it isn't conspiracy--it's paranoia. We saw this with, again, the Clinton conspiracies. When the Republicans went after the Clintons, the scandal went back to 1978. That's before people born in 1979 were even alive. When Hilary Clinton claimed that she and her family were victims of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy," it was a current predicament. Therefore, it was paranoia and we all laughed at her. Age has its rewards, people!

3. Mysterious subjects. It's no mystery that mysterious subjects that are already mysterious make for better mysteries. No one knows what is in outer space; it's a mystery. Use that. No one knows who waits around in grassy knolls. Use that. No one knows what's in bologna. Use that. (Bologna also seems to fit the pre-1547 criteria.) Everyone knows what words are being bleeped out of The Osbournes. Don't *&*@*# use that, you *$&!@#.

4. Pick a subject in which you're versed. You don't have to be well versed or an expert. Just versed enough that a significant portion of the population thinks you know what you're talking about. If you tell me that hockey is hokey because of the way the ball bounces off the plate, I'll know you're feeding me a line because hockey has neither a ball nor a plate (unless you include players' dentures). On the other hand, if you tell me that a figure skater was robbed of the gold medal because her suproblase had a better fortum dislodge than did the skater whom the judges claimed won; I'm likely to believe you. I'm not going to care (it is figure skating, after all), but I'll believe you. The goal is for people to believe you when you say people shouldn't be believed. Believe you me!

So those are a few keys to help you develop you're conspiracy theory. I hope you had fun and found the whole thing entertaining.

Or do I?

return to Commentary index

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer and do not neccessarily reflect those of the rest of the family.

mark@wentzmania.com.