theconspiracyconstruct - Tumblr blog

theconspiracyconstruct · 6 years ago

Audio

Episode 9: All Good Things Must Come to an End

Click “Keep Reading” for the transcript!

Hey, welcome back. I’m Madi, and on this episode, the final episode, we’re going to be taking a look at everything we’ve learned so far. Let’s get into it.

When I started this podcast there were several key questions I wanted to answer. The first is what do people in my everyday life think of conspiracy theories? To answer this, I interviewed three people that represented three different circles within my life: my parents, my teachers, and my friends. In the interview with my parents, I found out my mom believes in the theory of aliens landing in New Mexico, which I never knew before. However, I did know that my dad was involved in JFK assassination theories. In that episode, you can hear me laugh in the background when he starts talking about the JFK assassination because I knew he was going to talk about that. In fact, I wrote that interview question with him and his fascination with that theory in mind (Prentice and Prentice).

My friend Abe’s views were similar but different in that he did believe in conspiracies but not in any “big-name” conspiracy theories, because the conspiracies that actually occur “are usually a lot less interesting than the ones that people talk about” (Weinstein). Like Abe, Dr. Coven asserted that there certainly have been conspiracies, but not to the extent that people reported them. He differed in that he showed a much greater distaste for conspiracy theories than the other interviewees. Dr. Coven stated that “belief in conspiracy theories takes away the understanding of true underlying causes. And that can’t be helpful because you’re not attacking the problem you’re attacking this fairytale version of the problem”. If people were simply “entertained”, there was no issue. It becomes an issue “the minute it becomes a substitution for actual knowledge” (Coven).

This leads to my second question: do conspiracy theories have consequences? In terms of affecting higher decision making such as bureaucracies, what I saw was that, no, not really. Most of the time, they’re just up against big groups that just dismiss them as fringe theories. For example, NASA merely dismisses the moon landing hoax theory. There have been some impacts. For example, the conspiracy theories around the JFK assassination did prompt Lyndon B. Johnson to call for the creation of the Warren Commission. (Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy and Schechter). Then, the critique of the Warren Commission led to the House Select Committee on Assassinations publishing another report (Gillon). But, in my research, I didn’t see any of the theories create long-lasting, permanent changes in a bureaucracy or government.

However, I agree with Dr. Coven that the real consequences arise when conspiracy theories become “a substitution for actual knowledge” (Coven). The documentary Behind the Curve also touches a bit on what Dr. Coven is talking about. In the documentary, it speaks about how a lot of believers in fringe theories cherry-pick their evidence in the way that they only choose to look at things that prove their theories. This can be seen in one of the experiments that flat earthers conducted in the documentary. They used a gyroscope, a device that can pick up the motion of the Earth, to try and disprove the fact that the Earth rotates. However, the gyroscope does, in fact, pick up the Earth’s rotation. But, they’re not willing to accept that. So, they dismiss it as it just picking up the motion of the sky. So, they put it in a chamber to prevent it from detecting the sky’s motion, but even then it picks up motion. Even though this is directly proving the rotation of the Earth, they dismiss it because it doesn’t lend evidence to their belief (Behind the Curve). Thus, as Dr. Coven said, the theory morphs into a substitution for knowledge (Coven).

Also in the documentary, Dr. Joe Pierre, professor of psychiatry at UCLA, talks about the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Dunning-Kruger effect is when people who don’t really have any expertise about something have this false confidence and believe that they are incredibly knowledgeable about something. (Behind the Curve). This brings me into my next question, which is why do people believe in conspiracy theories? Well, different people believe in them for different reasons.

A 2011 study conducted at the University of Kent asserts that “individuals use the social-cognitive tool of projection when making judgments”, and thus found that “individuals were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they thought they would be willing, personally, to participate in the alleged conspiracies”. They also found “a relationship between Machiavellianism and conspiracy beliefs” (Douglas and Sutton, 2). Machiavellianism is a term in psychology that refers to someone who will manipulate and deceive others if it serves their own interest. They’re focused on their own ambition and prioritize their own goals over relationships. These tendencies stem from a lack of morals (“What Is Machiavellianism in Psychology?”). But what does all of this mean? Well, looking at this information, we can summarize that people who have a looser grasp on their morals—such as those who exhibit Machiavellian traits do—are more willing to subscribe to conspiracy theories. This is because they use the tool of “projection”, projecting their own lack of morals onto others (Douglas and Sutton, 2). Those with loose morals may be more likely to think that other people would also have loose morals. Thus, they can more easily envision people conspiring and falling prey to corruption. This also translates into how we’re likely to believe a conspiracy theory that highlights our own morals. For example, when people dislike a political figure, they’re more likely to subscribe to a conspiracy theory that paints said figure in a poor light. Those who dislike Trump are more likely to believe that Trump conspired or conspires with Russia.

People can also use conspiracy theories to protect themselves. For example, in the JFK assassination conspiracy, it’s scary to think that just some guy—someone like us, someone who lives among us—could commit an atrocious act like that. Instead, it’s easier to adopt a conspiracy theory that the government orchestrated it because we view the government as an other. We view it as this large, powerful group, so it’s easier for us to comprehend that a group like that could orchestrate the assassination rather than just someone like us. As Mr. Coven said, this can be dangerous because it’s not addressing the real problem, it’s “attacking this fairytale version of the problem” (Coven).

Another reason has to do with schizotypy. Schizotypy is a collection of traits including “relatively untrusting, ideologically eccentric and prone to having unusual perceptual experiences (i.g. sensing stimuli that are not actually present)”. Schizotypy is considered one of the strongest predictors of conspiracy belief. Why is this? Well, people with higher schizotypy levels have a stronger urge to feel unique. Thus, they take to believing in unconventional and “non-mainstream” ideas because it allows them to stand out. Joining these conspiracy theories also introduces them to a community of people that think like they do (Hart).

This also ties back into Behind the Curve. Near the end of the documentary, there’s the assertion that it’s an identity struggle. And it is. All conspiracy theories are. In fact, all beliefs in general are. It’s human nature to want to try to find your identity. In terms of flat Earth, it’s something that flat earthers can define themselves through because it makes them feel special. It gives them a higher purpose in life. It makes them a protagonist of something (Behind the Curve). Moreover, it means they’re not alone anymore. As I spoke of before with individuals who exhibit schizotypal behavior, it gives them a community of people who think like they do and who have been through similar things they have.

And I was speaking in the context of flat Earth there, but that’s the case with any cause. One of the things that stuck with me most from the documentary is the question “Where are you a flat earther? Where are you and your people the protagonists in some sort of fight?” (Behind the Curve). Because everyone has something that they fight for and something that they view themselves as the protagonist of. Just as it’s human nature to want to identify, to want to be around a community of like-minded people, it’s human nature to want to ascribe greater meaning to life.

Another piece of Behind the Curve that really stuck with me is its call for empathy. Argument isn’t progressive. When you attack someone’s belief system, all that’s going to do is make them defensive. They’ll shut down. There’s no way they’re going to listen to anything you have to say after that. If there was anything that I wanted to accomplish with this podcast series, it was to encourage empathy. There may be some things that you heard over the course of this podcast that you thought was incredibly unfounded. But you need to understand that just as strongly as you believe in the causes you fight for, other people believe in fringe theories and conspiracies.

In conclusion, some curiosity is healthy. Whether or not you like conspiracy theories, you can’t deny that we are not always told the complete truth. And that’s all for this episode, and for this podcast. Thank you so much for listening! If you’d like to contact me or ask any questions, you can do so on my blog, theconspiracyconstruct.tumblr.com. Bye!

Works Cited

Clark, Daniel J, director. Behind the Curve. Netflix, 2018.Fleming, Chris. “Flat Wrong: the Misunderstood History of Flat Earth Theories.” The Conversation, 26 Nov. 2018, theconversation.com/flat-wrong-the-misunderstood-history-of-flat-earth-theories-53808.

Coven, Robert. Interview about conspiracy theories. 18 Mar. 2019.

Douglas, Karen M., and Robbie M. Sutton. Does It Take One to Know One? Endorsement of Conspiracy Theories Is Influenced by Personal Willingness to Conspire. 2011, https://kar.kent.ac.uk/26187/1/Douglas%20&%20Sutton%202011%20BJSP.pdf.

Gillon, Steven M. “Why the Public Stopped Believing the Government about JFK's Murder.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 30 Oct. 2017, www.history.com/news/why-the-public-stopped-believing-the-government-about-jfks-murder.

Hart, Joshua. “Profiling a Conspiracy Theorist: Why Some People Believe.” LiveScience, Purch, 26 Sept. 2018, www.livescience.com/63658-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories.html.

Knopple, Barbara and Danny Schechter, directors. Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy. 1992.

Prentice, Kim, and Michael Prentice. Interview about conspiracy theories. 17 Mar. 2019.

“What Is Machiavellianism in Psychology?” Harley Therapy™ Blog, 30 Dec. 2017, www.harleytherapy.co.uk/counselling/machiavellianism-psychology.htm.

Weinstein, Abe. Interview about conspiracy theories. 18 Mar. 2019.

0 notes

theconspiracyconstruct · 6 years ago

Audio

Episode 8: Mark Sargent Explains

Note: Because this is a longer episode, it exceeds Tumblr's file size limit. Thus, this episode will be hosted on SoundCloud.

Click “Keep Reading” for the transcript!

[Intro]

Madi: Hey, welcome back. I’m Madi and on this episode, flat Earth’s very own Mark Sargent, creator of the “Flat Earth Clues”, joins us to answer some questions about flat Earth. You ready? Let’s get into it.

[Interview]

Madi: First of all, I'd like to thank you for, you know, taking the time out your day to talk to me and answer a few questions.

Mark Sargent: Happy to do it.

What is your opinion on the “Behind the Curve” documentary you were featured in?

Mark Sargent: Okay. My opinion, and it's pretty much what predicted. ‘Cause you got to remember I’ve seen it. I saw it a long time before you did. I got to see it when it first was premiered in April of last year. So about almost a year ago up in Canada. And what I was trying to tell people after I got back because I was the only one to see it. Well, myself and Patricia Steer. When I got back to the community, I said the community is going to hate it. But the general population is going to be intrigued. They are going to ask a lot of questions and that's exactly what we saw. Film festival after film festival that we went to, which, you know, the people in the audience had to have been at least 90% globalists. They had questions, a lot of them. In fact, I stayed for Q and A’s where I would go up on stage and people would ask me questions and they just would never end.

Mark Sargent: As you can imagine, because what I noticed was if you went into this documentary not knowing anything about it, the first 30 minutes you were looking at it like it wasn't real. Meaning even the topic wasn't real. Like it's all a mockumentary or it's a piece of Docu-fiction or something like that. And then by the time you were done, you had a lot of questions. So did I think, sorry, long story short—do I think they painted us fairly? It was a fair look at what we were doing in 2017 because most of the footage was shot in 2017. However, you've got to remember that the director, by the time he got to the end of this thing, hated Flat Earth.

Mark Sargent: He didn't hate the people. He doesn't hate me or Patricia or Bob or anybody else. But he hates the topic because he thinks it's dangerous to science. And he said this as much during the director's commentary on the iTunes version where he said when he saw that 12-year-old kid walk up to the microphone and started asking me questions, that's when they knew they had to take a stand against us. And that's why they took a shot. They did, which was, you know, fine. I get it. It’s their movie. The power of editing. They were cheap shots, but it was their right. It was their movie. So there you go.

You mentioned in the documentary that before Flat Earth, you were interested in other conspiracy theories. Which ones, in particular, were you involved in?

Mark Sargent: Oh, I looked at all of them. I mean, I'm older, so I have looked—I'll give you an example of how old, I mean I could say I'm 50, but it's not going to make any sense to you. You’ll be like, so what does that mean? It's like, okay, I saw the original JFK movie by Oliver Stone in the theater opening weekend and that was in the early nineties, and it was one of the first, if not the first true conspiracy movie that came out. Before that, I didn't even think the conspiracies existed. I didn't think that any, I thought everything that you saw in the news, everything you read in the history books was absolutely at face value. Why would they lie to us? And then I realized the world was a lot more complicated. Most of it has to do with money and power and resources and men that would do anything for that power.

Mark Sargent: And so when it comes to other conspiracies, I mean, you could just rattle off some. I mean, my favorites are the big ones. The really big ones. The world-changing ones like, um, Pearl Harbor or 9/11 or, I mean, JFK to a lesser extent because that was an assassination of a very, very popular president. Just about every American war that was ever fought. I mean I've got my opinions on the others, but to me, they don't mean as much anymore because flat earth is so huge that everything else is second-tier at least. Flat Earth knocks everything down at least one peg.

Do you believe in outer space or another equivalent? What is beyond the dome? Where are we?

Mark Sargent: Well, that's just it. I mean, when you're talking about outer space, you got to remember who told you there was outer space to begin with because up until about 500 years ago, we just thought they were lights in the sky. We didn't know what they were. And every culture thought this. They believe what they saw, which was lights in the sky. And then NASA came along and said, oh yeah, by the way, here's how the solar system looks and we've got, physical evidence and all this other stuff. So when I come back and I say, no, they're just lights in the sky and you're in a building with walls and a floor and a ceiling, then what's beyond it? You got me. I'd like to think at the very least there was more of these out there. I don't think it's a one-off. I think there are, you know, there are versions of this in different stages. I mean, could we be just another snow globe on a laboratory desk? Possibly. Do I think if there's a, you know, this vast, huge universe55 mostly made up of mostly empty space? No, no, I don't.

Mark Sargent: This world is 99% conflict, and I know you're not [old] enough to see it yet, but it is. It's almost inescapable. It doesn't matter how rich, how powerful, how beautiful, how talented you are. You’ll always find stuff to complain about, which I think is very interesting for a world. Bliss is almost impossible to find here. I would like to think that outside of this world is an unlimited universe, which is 99% conflict-free. And that's, you know, I'm a glass half full type of guy. But that's what I would like to think it is. I don't think it's sinister. Do I think it's the matrix on the other side of this? Where we're grown in fields and harvested? No, no I don't. I think it's a good movie, but I don't think that's what the universe is about.

How do NASA and all the organizations in collusion benefit from lying to the world about the Earth being round? What are some possible motivations behind that?

Mark Sargent: The space agencies really don't benefit that much other than they’re employed. You got to remember that—I've got to be clear here. 99% of NASA and the space agencies, the employees that work there don't know anything about anything. They just turn wrenches. They build fuel systems and polish capsules and sew suits and stuff like that, they don't have to know anything. It's compartmentalization. Now, at the same time, they are employed, we are employing billions of people in different countries. That much is true. So, they gain something from it. I mean, come on. If you had an organization that was fake and the government would give you 52 million dollars a day, and that's just NASA. $52 million a day. You’re benefiting in some way because you don't have to spend all that money on what you're supposed to be spending it on. You can channel it to another program.

Mark Sargent: Other than that, they don't really benefit that much. The people that benefit are the people at the top, the people that pay for these things, the people that orchestrate it. The people that are most responsible for keeping it a secret because information is power. We all know that. It's probably the most, well, second most valuable currency in the universe is information because if you have it and other people don't, you can use it to exploit certain things. And in this case, keep the status quo going, which is which I said in my clue. By the way, I didn't even ask you. I know you saw the documentary, but did you contact me before watching the clues or ever have you been watching them?

Madi: I have. I have. I haven't watched all of them. There’s— is there 22? Or?

Mark Sargent: Eh, not really 22. But as long as you've watched the core of them that that kind of helps.

Madi: Yeah, I've watched, I've watched a few of them.

Mark Sargent: Good.

Madi: Yeah!

What is at stake in the struggle between Flat earthers and any perpetrators of the Round Earth? In other words, why does it matter to you and other Flat earthers? If NASA, the government, or the people that have been lying were to come out and admit that the Earth is flat and they’ve been lying, what changes about life? Why is it important to you?

Mark Sargent: Well, and it's not like we're actively going out there and trying to recruit. Well, I mean, there is some street activism and our part, but we also know that for everybody that's out there that doesn't know about this there's an absorption process. W plant the seed and then we kind of let people figure it out from themselves, which is why I say at the end of most of my videos, look, don't take what I'm, what I'm selling to as, you know, the Gospel. Do your own research and ask questions because I'm just a guy. Uh, but it matters because science has told us for the last 500 years that were nothing. That the world is just this little tiny rock that's flying through space and could be snuffed out at any time. It's just this tiny little speck and we're just a speck on this speck. We’re meaningless. We have no purpose in the universe. We're just this accident. Whereas we come back and we'd say, no, no, no. If Flat Earth is correct and it's an enclosed world then it was built. And whether or not you believe in God at the very least you’re going to believe in a higher technology or a higher civilization than ourselves, which meant that we were built for a reason and we’re inside here for a reason and it becomes much more intimate. And you have a purpose.

Mark Sargent: Now, do we know what that purpose is? Nope. No, we do not. But we know the purpose is there. And that has really, really opened up a lot of people in a spiritual sense. And I don't care, again, what religious house you belong to. One of the main five: Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. All of them have a piece of the same puzzle. But once you get into it, once you get into flat Earth, all of a sudden that's reinforced. And so it matters a great deal. One of the clues I did was called “They are hiding God”. And no, I'm not going to quote chapter and verse to you because I mean, I wouldn’t think that'd be fair to the other religions. But some of it has to do with that, which is, look, you're significant. You're not just an empty shell. And people need to know that. It's important. I mean, look, it's the question we all ask when we're growing up throughout our lives—which is why am I here? And most of the people out there in the world don't get any sort of solid answer they can sink their teeth into. We give them that.

Madi: Okay. And, you know, you spoke a bit about religion, and it doesn't matter which religion you follow. Do you think Flat Earth has the same appeal because of that to people who may not follow religion, such as atheists or people who are agnostic?

Mark Sargent: Agnostics have an easier time because then when you get to that final stage like, okay, if it was built again, the default shape of this, of, of the flat world, it's screamed that it was built. It can't be organic. Then you can only go one of two ways. Either it's an advanced civilization and or it’s the divine. And really at that point, you're kind of splitting hairs because one man’s advanced technology is another man’s deity. And so, sorry, what was the original question on that?

Madi: I guess, do you think Flat Earth has the same appeal or can have the same appeal or greater meaning to people who may not follow religion due to the lack of belief in a higher power?

Mark Sargent: Yeah. Agnostic? Yes. Atheists? It’s possible. Will Flat Earth kill atheism? It will reduce their numbers to a very, very small amount. Because you can't be a true atheist and still be in Flat Earth. You can't just by the default shape. You can't be an atheist and admit the shape of the Earth being enclosed, that we’re in a building, and then say that somebody else didn't build it. Unless you want to say that, well, okay, it's someone like us and then it's like, okay, we're on equal terms with whoever built this place. Which is kind of a stretch. So yeah. Agnostic? Yes. Atheists? Tough sell.

Madi: What would be the next step… I guess what is the end goal of Flat Earth? What is the next step of NASA—sorry, I keep saying NASA. If the people in power were to come out and say we've been lying to you this whole time. We are in, you know, an enclosed globe—or, not a globe, oh my gosh, an enclosed dome. Sorry.

Mark Sargent: That’s alright, that’s alright. Again, it shows you why it is so tough to get this out there to people. But, go ahead. Go ahead.

Madi: Yeah. So what would happen if we were in this enclosed Flat Earth and people came out and admitted it? What would be the next step? Like is there some sort of end goal or is it just wanting to impart general knowledge and awareness of this to the people?

Mark Sargent: You mean is there a next step for us?

Madi: Yeah.

Mark Sargent: Well, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I can sort of consider it like this giant chess game where we are one side and the powers that be are on the other side. And up until now, the power that be didn't really have able to play against. And so Flat Earth has become this weird organic Juggernaut that just doesn't seem to want to go away. I mean, we've been doing this now for four years and just keeps getting bigger and bigger. So the goal for us would be to, yes, have some sort of admission on the other side where somebody came in and the question is, if they did admit it, they wouldn't admit it unless they had a follow up to it. They're not just going to come out and say, alright, well you caught me, because you're talking about something that's bigger than even the financial crisis at 10 years ago.

Mark Sargent: And I know you're young and so you didn't probably remember what happened, but I mean, maybe you just read what you read, but there was a giant corporation called AIG which is considered too big to fail. A corporation so big that you could not allow a class-action lawsuit against it. And NASA would be sort of the same thing, or all the other space agencies. I mean, NASA is a monstrous arm of the United States government, despite what people think. Is it the army, navy, Air Force, marines? No, it's not. But it's big. It's very, very big. In fact, it would be too big to fail in a term in terms of morale, meaning you can't allow a class action lawsuit against NASA. It would be very, very tough because you would also have these corporations that are tied to it, these massive industrial complex corporations like General Dynamics or Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

Mark Sargent: I mean these are big, big corporations. Military hardware corporations. So if they were to come out and release it, they would have to have a follow-up. Meaning—and we've been kind of waiting for it anyways—saying, okay, it's flat and we were told to do so. And you would probably, if I was going to do it, I wouldn't do it without releasing some stuff. Another species, another version of us that's out there, a hidden civilization that we never even thought about until now. That sounds surreal. It sounds like a science fiction movie but come on. Flat Earth on its own reads like a science fiction movie. In fact, it's been touched on in many different science fiction books and television shows over the years. So that's what we'd want. But at the same time, you know, yes, we want disclosure, that's the short version. But where that disclosure leads? I don’t know. That's one of the reasons I think about this every day, which is okay, if I was playing chess, what would I do? I wouldn't just, again, you're not just going to confess, there's something else you would tie to it.

Madi: Is there any sense of, or any notion of trying to, I guess, break out of Flat Earth if we are, you know, in this enclosed structure. Is that a goal of any kind?

Mark Sargent: So if we’re in a building would people try to break out? Yeah, absolutely. Okay, first off, that's one of the reasons that you keep it a secret. I talked about that in the clues, which was human beings are the only species on this world that react badly to confinement of any kind. The argument I put in there with the wildlife preserve. Whereas you could put some buffalo in a wildlife preserve. Thousand acres with a big fence around it. And you know, if they have water and food and grass, this wonderful place to play, they'd be perfectly happy and they never complain. You put a human being, even 10 human beings, in that same enclosure, they're just going to hang out next to the wall all day long. That's all they're gonna do. They're gonna obsess over that wall. And they're going to, if they had the technology, they're going to try to break out. Which is what I think the United States and the Soviet Union did from 1958 until 1961 or the end of 1961 with their high-altitude atomic weapon program.

Mark Sargent: Most people don't know that. For four years the United States and the Soviets were the only people with atomic weapons. That's all they did was fire straight up for four years. And the first shots were mega tones, which was very expensive back in the 1950s and not as expensive now, but in the 1950s super, super expensive. And then they just use kiloton weapons. And honestly, if you can't get out with megaton weapons you’re going to have to change tactics. And I don't think they've ever stopped trying, you know, cause atomic weapons that’s just brute force. That's the obvious thing. It's like, you know, just fire a candidate and you just keep working your way up with explosives. Right? Well, that's not working. What else can you try? Look into the HARP program, H-A-R-P. The frequency modulation program that we've had going on for a long time, which is only semisecret.

Mark Sargent: And then, last but not least, CERN. Which is, you know, if you can't break out through brute force and maybe you can open up a doorway and get out that method. And I think CERN has been their best bet as of late. But again, it's super-secret project and we don't know. But yes, you're never going to stop trying. I mean, think of it, men in jail will always think about breaking out and that's just jail. If it was their own world? Absolutely, they’d try. Look at, and again, you're, you're not old enough to remember the Truman show movie.

Madi: Mhm.

Mark Sargent: What was the first thing he did? I mean, once he knew there was even a chance of getting out he tried to get out and he did, he made it out. But he did not stop. Nothing would stop him. Y’know, the destruction of his marriage, the destruction of his career, the destruction of his entire world. Just to see what was out there. Human beings love a mystery. And we're curious by nature, by design.

Madi: And do you think that that human tendency to reject enclosure makes us a superior species to animals or do you think that's a human flaw?

Mark Sargent: Oh, that's a great question. No one's ever asked me that.

Madi: *laughing*

Mark Sargent: No seriously, I don’t know where you got that question. But I've been interviewed a whole lot and no one's ever asked me that. Boy, that's a good one. Is it a positive or a negative in human beings that we would reject enclosure, reject being fenced in?

Mark Sargent: I suppose depends what type of person you are. I would like to see it as a positive because it is our tendency to explore. Remember, before there was a new world—and like over the Middle East, they still call America the new world in a lot of circles, which is interesting. Before we knew what all the continents were, we just kept exploring, just kept going. I mean risking death and finances and we'll just go out there and do that. So, to see if we could find the end of the world, we can find the limits of our world. And then once we found the limits, would we try to get out? Of course we would. Is that a flaw, though?

Mark Sargent: No, no, I don't think so because it's just, without it, we wouldn't explore as well. We wouldn't have that drive to seek out, you know, to seek out things as much as we are. I mean, human beings have a lot of flaws and of course we're different from any other species on this world. But I don't think it's a flaw. I think we are, again, we love a mystery. We love finding the solutions to things. And an enclosed world is a puzzle in some aspects, which is we want to know what our place is in the universe. And that is, you know, once you get to one barrier, you want to look out past it and see what's beyond. Which of course is why we were always—you know, let me take it a different way. Why we wrote so many science fiction novels in regards to space. Once science and some of the people in authority told us that space was this vast, endless universe.

Mark Sargent: We started creating stories around that. You know, we used to create the Zodiac, you know, the constellations back in the day. We personified all that. And then once we said, oh yeah, there's planets where you could live on them, our imaginations just went to the utmost limits. And we created all this fantastic science fiction universe outside of us. But yeah, once we’re enclosed, that'd be the first thing we do is try to find a��no, I'm sorry. Short answer. I think it's a plus. I think it is one of those things, you know, for us to boldly go into the unknown and seek out. I mean, you got to give credit to the man who just got on ships and just sailed in one direction and, you know, it's like, all right, we may not be coming back, but you know, we're driven to do this. Yeah, I think it's a positive.

Madi: Okay. And this is sort of a tangential question just because you mentioned getting on boats and just going. And you may have mentioned this in the clues and I apologize, I didn't watch all of them. But, has there ever been any thought of just trying to find the edge? Like trying to find the wall?

Mark Sargent: Oh, of course. Of course. We’ve been trying, we've been thinking about that too since minute one. In fact, when I was turning the flat Earth into a thought experiment, the first thing I thought of is like, okay, what is, you know the outer edge, the outer marker? And that's when I ran into—metaphorically speaking—the Antarctic Treaty.

Madi: Yeah.

Mark Sargent: Which was—the Antarctic Treaty was with laid out in so many different layers and every one of them is more difficult than the last that you realize what they're willing to do to keep you from—the average person from accidentally finding it and running back and telling people. Of course. We'd love to do and some sort of expedition out there love to. But, the means to do it are very, very difficult.

Madi: Mhm.

Mark Sargent: So again, the Antarctic Treaty, which was put into place in 1959 and it's the only unbroken treaty in the history of anything. Not up for debate until 2041. No country owns Antarctica and no country can set up businesses there. Only government, the military, and military scientists can go there with the military's provision. But even if you wanted to, let's say for example—cause it's been suggested many times—let’s say you got a pilot that would be willing to fly and, you know, just go against the treaty, just go for broke, right, with a fully fueled 757 or something with a big fuel tank on it. Cause you need a lot of gas to pull this thing off. He'd also be able to, he'd have to be willing to fly without most instrumentation. Meaning you’d have to ignore GPS because GPS works for the government. You know, it's a government—it’s a military system. you'd have to ignore most of the compasses because the compasses aren't going to tell you what you want to see. You'd have to basically line of sight it with almost no landmarks to do that.

Mark Sargent: And even when you got there, would it be a one-way trip? How long would you be willing to fly in one direction without instrumentation? With every hour getting more and more precarious. Without turning back. It'd be very, very tough to do it. Yes, we'd love to do it. Sure. You bet. We’d love to do it. But that's tough. So we're kind of resigned to proving it on the inner side with the resources we have here. You know, proving long-distance photography, proving laser experiments, proving eclipse experiments, and questioning NASA. Questioning the Van Allen radiation belt, questioning the power of a vacuum versus gravity, and so on and so on. Usually, that's done well for us so far. But yeah, we'd love to do an expedition if we could.

Madi: Alright, cool.

If there was one thing that you would want everyone to know about flat earthers and the Flat Earth

Society what would it be and why?

Mark Sargent: Okay. First off, you got to remember that we don't have anything to do officially with the old school Flat Earth Society. If Flat Earth Society is version 1.0, Flat Earth 1.0, we're version 2.0. Meaning when social media got involved with high-speed Internet and all the smartphones, we sort of took over that side of things. So everything regarding YouTube and websites and stuff that Flat Earth Society just didn't seem to care about for whatever reason. So that’s the first thing. We have nothing to do with the officially flat earth societies that are out there. Everything we do just lives on social media and 90% of that is on YouTube. One thing. If I had to tell them one thing... I would—yeah, I got it. And that is don't believe in flat Earth. Don't, don't take my word for it. Don't take anybody's word for it. I don't care what channel it is, how big they are, how many subscribers they have, what sort of podcast they do, or what experiments they've done. Don't take their word for it because, as you know, there's a lot of deception out there in the world. There's deception everywhere. Do your own research. Ask your own questions. Figure it out for yourself. Don't ever take anything at face value. There's a wonderful saying which is “trust everyone but count your change”. Yeah, fine, you like my channel and you like what I do. You like the clues and like the documentary. Fantastic. Great. That should not convince you alone what the world is where you live. Definitely go out there. What it’s going to take for you to believe. You know, go out there and start poking around.

Mark Sargent: Ask a few questions, see if you can prove it for yourself. Treat it like—this’ll be the last part—treat it like a court case, which is what I did, what everybody did. Nobody goes into flat earth loving it the first time. Everybody hates it, which should be a testament of the power of this topic. Try to prove the globe in a court of law. Try to do it and see if you can do it. Also, if you want to make it challenging for yourself, don't take the easy route and say, well I've seen all these wonderful images from NASA. No, no, no. See if you can do it without NASA because NASA didn't invent the globe. It's not like we woke up in 1972 and said, oh, well it's a globe because NASA told us so we’ve known for the last 500 years. So how did you know that it was a globe for 500 years? In fact, I'll end with this quote, which is from George Orwell. He was the guy who wrote 1984.

Madi: Yeah, Animal Farm.

Mark Sargent: He was not a flat earther, but he was talking about how people believe science no matter what. I mean, if you wear a white lab coat and you put your rubber stamp of science on it, people just believe it because, well, he's smarter than me, therefore I should believe it. Which is why you should ask your own questions. He said if you went up to the average person on the street and asked them how they knew the world was a globe. They would all respond the same way, which is we just know. Duh. It’s a glob. And then if you try to press them on it—and this happens even today—if you try to press them on it and say, well, yeah, but how do you know? They get angry. It's interesting because he wrote this in 1946. NASA wasn’t even founded until 1958. So how did everybody in the world know in 1946 it was globe? It wasn’t that they knew, it was that they were told, they were told for a long, long time. And if you're told something for a long time, you're going to believe it. So don't believe everything you're told. Do your own research. Ask questions. There you go. That's my ending.

Madi: Awesome. That's awesome. All right. That's all I have. Thank you so much again. That was really, really eye-opening. Really interesting.

Mark Sargent: Oh yeah.

[Outro]

Madi: That’s all for this episode! Big thank you again to Mark Sargent for agreeing to the interview and for taking the time to talk to me. He was super nice and super receptive, and if you’d like to learn more you should check out his YouTube channel, which is markksargent. Stay tuned for next time, where we’ll be wrapping up the series by looking back on everything we’ve learned thus far. You’ll be able to find that episode, along with all the others, on theconspiracyconstruct.tumblr.com. Bye!

0 notes

theconspiracyconstruct · 6 years ago

Audio

Episode 7: ‘The Earth is Round,’ and Other Lies You Learned in School

Click “Keep Reading” for the transcript!

Hey, welcome back. I’m Madi, and on this episode we’re going to be exploring my personal favorite theory of all time: Flat Earth. And you’re going to want to stick around until the end, ‘cuz I’ve got a surprise for you. Let’s get into it.

Flat Earth has been described as “the ultimate conspiracy theory”, and for good reason (Wolchover). Unlike the other theories we’ve discussed, this one started much, much earlier. In fact, up until around the 6th century BCE, the flat earth theory was just the commonly accepted truth (Fleming). Afterward, that theory began to fall apart as civilization progressed and Aristotle began arguing for a round Earth (Simanek). Then came Galileo. Then came, well, NASA with the first photos of Earth from space in 1947 (Weber).

Despite all of that, the flat earth theory was revived in 1956 by Samuel Shenton when he established the Flat Earth Society (Fleming). By the 1990s, the Flat Earth Society was “bankrupt and all but dead” (Weber). But, with the invention of the internet came a new way for people to communicate, connect, and to spread information. In 2004, the Flat Earth Society reappeared in the shape of an online discussion forum. Also in 2004, Facebook was created. Then YouTube in 2005. Then Twitter in 2006. In 2009, the Flat Earth Society had evolved from an online discussion forum to a website of its own (Weber).

Since then, its following has grown. The Flat Earth Society webpage claims that their cause has increased by 200 people per year since the inception of their webpage in 2009 (“The Flat Earth Society”). GoogleTrends also lends evidence to the claim that the popularity of the flat earth theory has grown. The GoogleTrends graph for the search term “flat earth” shows that the number of searches has spiked in the last few years (Weber).

So, what’s all the hype about? Well, there are several sub-theories around flat earth, and different conspiracy theorists have different ideas on the topic. However, the main theory is that instead of a globe, Earth is a flat disc with an artic circle in the middle. Instead of another continent, Antarctica is a 150-foot wall of ice around the rim of the disc (Wolchover). Ever been to a planetarium? Yeah, our Earth is just like that. Instead of a sphere, the Earth is a big snow globe slash planetarium hybrid. The sun and moon are spheres that move in circles about the plane of the Earth, and so are stars. These spheres are basically spotlights that light up different portions of the Earth in a 24-hour cycle. Essentially, the sun, moon, and stars are all part of a display system. Also, gravity is an illusion. Instead of objects accelerating downwards, conspiracy theorists claim that “the disc of Earth accelerates upward at 32 feet per second squared” (Wolchover).

But, what about all the photos of the Earth taken from space that clearly depict a globe? Simple—they’re photoshopped. But why would NASA take those measures? Well, a definitive motive for NASA and the government (in collusion with governments around the world) has not been determined. However, it is hypothesized that it’s for financial gain. The Flat Earth wiki’s frequency asked questions page claims that “the conspiracy is most likely motivated by greed rather than political gains, and using only some of their funding to continue to fake space travel saves a lot of money to embezzle for themselves (“Flat Earth - Frequently Asked Questions”).

While the Flat Earth Society was started in 1956 by Samuel Shenton, it’s carried on today by several modern figures. Behind the Curve, a 2018 documentary, highlights many of these individuals. One if Matt Boylan, a contract artist for NASA and a large proponent of the flat earth theory. Patricia Steere is also a prominent figure. She hosts the YouTube Show “Flat Earth & Other Hot Potatoes”. Another is Nathan Thompson, a slightly eccentric Flat Earther with an admirable sense of enthusiasm. Perhaps the main focus of the documentary is Mark Sargent, who got his start with a YouTube series called “Flat Earth Clues” (Behind the Curve).

In the documentary, Mark Sargent refers to the movie The Truman Show to explain Flat Earth. If you haven’t heard of it, the premise of the movie is basically that one man’s life is actually a TV show—unbeknownst to him. His world is just one big television set. Sargent asserts that this is essentially how Flat Earth is structured (Behind the Curve).

Now, at the beginning of the episode, I said I had a surprise for you. After watching Behind the Curve, I wanted to know more. So, I watched a few of the “Flat Earth Clues”, and I still wanted to know more. Thus, I called Mark Sargent’s posted contact number and left a voicemail asking if he’d be available to interview, not really expecting an answer. However, to my surprise, he got back to me promptly and was kind enough to take the time out of his day to let me interview him.

So, that’s all for this episode. But stay tuned for next time, where we’ll be interviewing Flat Earther Mark Sargent. It’ll be a longer one, but I promise it’s worth it. As always, you’ll be able to find that episode, along with all the others, on theconspiracyconstruct.tumblr.com. Bye!

Works Cited

“Flat Earth - Frequently Asked Questions.” The Flat Earth Wiki, wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions.

Simanek, Donald E. The Flat Earth. www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm.

“The Flat Earth Society.” The Flat Earth Society, www.theflatearthsociety.org/.

Weber, Matt J. “How the Internet Made Us Believe in a Flat Earth.” Medium, Medium, 10 Mar. 2019, medium.com/s/world-wide-wtf/how-the-internet-made-us-believe-in-a-flat-earth-2e42c3206223.

Weinstein, Abraham. Interview about title ideas. 17 Mar 2019.

Wolchover, Natalie. “Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?” LiveScience, Purch, 30 May 2017, www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html.

0 notes

theconspiracyconstruct · 6 years ago

Audio

Episode 6: The Moon Landing Hoax

Click “Keep Reading” for the transcript!

On July 20th, 1969, Neil Armstrong announced that “The Eagle has landed”, signaling the Apollo 11 mission’s successful lunar landing. The famous words “one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind” was broadcasted to “an estimated 530 million people” as the United States celebrated a victory for their space exploration program (Loff). However, some people think that the moon landing never happened. Instead, they believe these quotes were uttered on television sets, where moon landing footage was faked in order to gain an upper hand over our Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, during the Space Race. Hey, welcome back. I’m Madi, and on this episode, we’re going to be talking about the moon landing. Let’s get into it.

As World War II ended, the Cold War began to pick up speed. The Cold War was a battle between the two world powers at the time: The United States and the Soviet Union. Each of the two sides sought to establish their superiority through technological advancements. Outer space was considered the next frontier, thus prompting The Space Race: a battle for dominance within the Cold War that focused on space exploration. It was thought that whoever won The Space Race would win the Cold War (“The Space Race”).

On October 4th, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik—the first artificial satellite as well as the first man-made object to be put out into Earth’s orbit. Sputnik, put simply, freaked the United States out. It sparked such a frenzy that the New York Times published an article explaining that, no, Sputnik did not carry nuclear bombs and, no, they were not going to use it to drop said nuclear bombs on the United States (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?).

Meanwhile, the United States’ program was struggling to even get off the ground (“The Space Race”). Just months before the moon landing, a prototype Lunar Excursion Module (or LEM) was flight tested by Neil Armstrong at the Ellington Air Force Base. During his flight, Armstrong struggled to control the LEM and was forced to eject before it crashed and exploded (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?).

Nevertheless, on May 25th, 1961, President John F. Kennedy—whom we spoke about in the last episode—made it a national goal to “perform a crewed lunar landing and return to Earth”. On July 20th, 1969, this goal was realized (Loff).

Afterward, the first person to really give voice to the theory that the moon landing was faked was Bill Kaysing (Hardwick). Kaysing worked for a company called Rocketdyne until 1963 before publishing a novel titled We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle in 1976 (Hardwick; Kaysing). Kaysing is also featured in the 2001 film Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, which highlights several different pieces of supporting evidence for the moon landing hoax theory (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?).

The theory is that the United States faked the moon landing to win the Space Race and, therefore, establish their dominance over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Instead of actually going to the moon, which critics establish we didn’t have the technology to actually pull off, they staged and filmed all the footage (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?). This theory is based off several so-called inconsistencies found in the film footage as well as photos supposedly taken on the moon.

First, let’s talk about the film footage. If it was faked, where was it filmed? Bill Kaysing believes the moon landing footage was filmed in a top-secret military base known as Area 51. Area 51 is one of the most heavily guarded facilities in the United States; however, Russian spy satellites were able to capture bird’s eye view photos of the base. What do these photos show? A series of hangers resembling movie sound stages, as well as barren moon-like areas covered in craters (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?). Yup, kind of suspicious.

One of the inconsistencies that aid this theory is the American flag that the astronauts plant on the moon. It appears to be waving in the wind, yet there’s not any air nor wind on the moon. As Apollo 11 lands on the moon, there’s a lack of engine noise in the film. Critics argue that the engine is far too powerful to not hear it at all in the film. Once it lands, the film shows that there’s no blast crater under the Lunar Excursion Model, which critics claim there should be. Even NASA’s scientific illustrations depict a blast crater, meaning they were expecting there to be one. While the astronauts wander around the moon, they look as if they’re experiencing the moon’s gravity. However, when the footage is sped up, it looks like they’re just running normally on the Earth’s gravity. When the LEM departs, there’s also no exhaust plume, and conspirators claim that the ascent stage pops up as if it “were jerked up by a cable” on a film set (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?).

Now, the photos. The photos were captured by cameras mounted onto the astronauts’ chests. Obviously, there’s only one light source on the moon—the sun—and there was also no flash on their chest-mounted cameras. However, multiple photos reveal shadows pointing in multiple directions, which lends evidence to there being multiple light sources. Another inconsistency in the photos is that many photos show figures standing in shadows. If there were to be only one light source, critics claim that if they’re standing in dark shadows that means they should be shrouded by the darkness of the shadow. But they’re completely visible and appear to be lit up. Jan Lundberg himself, the man who designed the astronaut’s chest-mounted cameras, admits that figures appear to be “standing in a spotlight” in photos where they shouldn’t even be visible at all due to backlighting. Additionally, there were crosshairs etched into the camera lenses. But, in many photos, the crosshairs appear behind objects in the foreground—such as the flag, the lunar rover, equipment, or an astronaut. Conspirators claim this is proof of technical manipulation because this wouldn’t occur otherwise (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?).

Now, I know what you’re thinking: NASA is a huge department, how could all those people possibly keep that big of a secret? Or, maybe you weren’t thinking that. But I’m going to tell you the answer anyway. Investigative journalist Bart Sibrel asserts that not everyone knew. The individual employees themselves didn’t know the full picture. Only a few people at the top of the hierarchy were in on the secret. Nevertheless, conspirators claim that even out of this handful of people, some were unable to keep the secret and dealt with accordingly (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?).

Virgil Gus Grissom was one of the first seven astronauts and, at the time, it seemed like he may likely be the first man on the moon. However, he was also openly a critic of the space program, having been quoted as saying “Someone’s going to get killed”. On January 27th, 1967, Grissom and his crew boarded the Apollo 1 capsule for what was supposed to be a routine simulation. They quickly began to encounter issues. First, the communications systems failed. Then, the capsule burst into flames with the crew still inside of it. Unfortunately, none of them survived. Grissom’s family believes that the fire was no accident. To this day, the cause of the fire is unknown, and the Apollo 1 capsule remains locked away at a military base (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?).

After the fire, Thomas Ronald Baron—the safety inspector during Apollo 1 construction—testified before Congress. He asserted the Apollo program was such a mess that the United States would never make it to the moon. Baron had a 500-page report on his findings. However, one week after his testimony, his car was struck by a train. Baron, his wife, and his stepdaughter were killed, and Baron’s incriminating report mysteriously disappeared—never to be seen again (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?).

Now, I’m a big conspiracy theory enthusiast. Obviously, or I wouldn’t have made a podcast dedicated to them. However, the moon landing theory is one that’s hard for me to get behind. A lot of the so-called evidence is refutable. And it seems like I’m not alone. It was difficult for me to find any sources that full-heartedly backed the theory. In fact, most of the sources I could find criticized those who did. Author C Stuart Hardwick writes in his article for Forbes that Bill Kaysing “was obviously unqualified to express the opinions he was expressing” and that “pretending expertise to a bunch of ignorant sycophants [fueled] his ego” (Hardwick). Ouch.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say that, but I certainly have my reservations on this one. However, as I prefaced in the first episode, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with at least exploring this theory and considering the fact that we are not always told the whole story.

That’s all for this episode! Stay tuned for next time, where we’ll be delving into possibly one of the biggest conspiracy theories of all times: Flat Earth. You’ll be able to find that episode, along with all the others, on theconspiracyconstruct.tumblr.com. Bye!

Works Cited

Hardwick, C Stuart. “Where Did The Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory Originally Come From?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 28 June 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/06/28/where-did-the-moon-landing-conspiracy-theory-originally-come-from/.

John, Moffet, director. Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? Netflix.

Kaysing, Bill. We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 1976.

Loff, Sarah. “Apollo 11 Mission Overview.” NASA, NASA, 17 Apr. 2015, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html.

“The Space Race.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 22 Feb. 2010, www.history.com/topics/cold-war/space-race.

0 notes

theconspiracyconstruct · 6 years ago

Audio

Episode 5: The JFK Assassination

Click “Keep Reading” for the transcript!

November 22, 1963—crowds flock to Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, in hopes of getting a glimpse at the president. 12:30pm—shots ring out through the plaza. 1:00pm—President John F. Kennedy is pronounced dead at Parkland Memorial Hospital (Wallenfeldt). Hey, welcome back. I’m Madi, and on this episode, we’re going to be exploring the JFK assassination. Let’s get into it.

John F. Kennedy’s 1963 visit to Dallas, Texas was part of a larger fund-raising trip as well as an attempt to unite the Democratic party as they were critical to his reelection in 1964 (Wallenfeldt). He rode in the presidential motorcade through Dallas along with his wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Texas Governor John Connally. As the presidential motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza, a man named Lee Harvey Oswald—the assassin—fired three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository where he was employed, which overlooked the plaza (Gillon). The first shot missed (Gillon). The second went through Kennedy and hit Connally. The third shot hit Kennedy in the head, killing him (“Findings”). Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and so did local nightclub owner Jack Ruby when he shot and killed Oswald before the trial was able to finish (Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy and Schechter). Or, at least that’s what the Warren Commission says.

After Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn in, he launches an investigation headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren (Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy and Schechter). The Warren Commission’s findings reported those previously stated conclusions. However, there were multiple problems with their findings, which we’ll get into in a second.

The first problem is a disagreement between the commission’s report and the eye-witness testimonies on the location of the gunman. This introduces the grassy knoll theory. The grassy knoll is a now-famous location that I’m sure many of you have already heard of. It refers to the “elevated area to the front, right” of the presidential motorcade (Gillon). The Warren Commission states that the shots came from the Book Depository, yet many eyewitnesses who were there that day say they saw a gunman at the grassy knoll (Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy and Schechter).

The second issue is with the bullets themselves. The Warren Commission states that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three, two of which hit JFK. The second bullet introduces the single bullet or “magic bullet” theory, the name given to the bullet that hit both JFK and Connally (Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy and Schechter). The report states that the second shot that Oswald fired entered through Kennedy’s back, exited through his throat, then hit Connally—breaking his rib, shattering his wrist, and then puncturing his right thigh (Gillon). Critics claim that it’s unlikely a single bullet—which remained mostly intact—could do that much damage; thus, the second gunman theory came up, as well (Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy and Schechter). This theory was also brought about by the idea that Oswald couldn’t have fired that many shots in so little time. In fact, the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations support this theory.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations is a follow-up investigation completed in December 1978. It maintained the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald was the assassin but divulged that there was a conspiracy involving a second gunman. They relied on a dictabelt recording, which is basically an audio recording from which you can get an analysis of acoustical evidence such as echoes (Gillon; “Acoustics Evidence”). The recording was from a police motorcycle stationed in Dealey Plaza, and the acoustic analysis led the Committee to conclude that there was a second shooter who fired at the President from the grassy knoll and missed (Gillon).

The third—and probably biggest issue—was the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. The commission never presents a convincing explanation for why Oswald might’ve done what he’d done. This brings us to examining Lee Harvey Oswald himself.

Oswald dropped out of high school to join the marines, where he was praised for his sharpshooting skills but began expressing “pro-Soviet and politically radical views”. Oswald then defected to the Soviet Union, where he denounced his American citizenship and attempted to apply for citizenship there, but his application was refused. He eventually returned to the U.S. after marrying Marina Prusakova and having a child with her (“Lee Harvey Oswald”). However, due to his history of violence and his anti-American sentiments, he was placed under surveillance by the FBI. Oswald was under the FBI’s surveillance at the time of the assassination (Hall).

Which raises the question: if the FBI was watching Oswald at the time, why would they not raise any objections to the presidential motorcade route going past the Texas School Book Depository—which Oswald was known to be employed at? Why would they allow the motorcade route to pass through an area that would give an individual who has violent tendencies and anti-American sentiments direct trajectory to the president?

There’s also a theory that the CIA may somehow be involved, as the CIA was angry with Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA denies any involvement, obviously (Hallemann).

But, how did all these theories and uncertainties arise? Well, the suspicion surrounding the event can greatly be attributed to the critics that spoke up after the Warren Commission. In 1966, Mark Lane published his bestseller titled Rush to Judgement, which challenged the Warren Commission. Later that year, the New Orleans district attorney, Jim Garrison, began “a highly publicized, but deeply flawed, investigation” which reported “a vast conspiracy”. Life Magazine also published color reproductions of the Zapruder film, which was footage of the assassination that was captured by a local dressmaker. The media and the critics “turned public opinion against the report”, and by 1970 a large portion of the population was skeptical of the Warren Commission (Gillon).

Additionally, the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ report in December 1978 rebutted parts of the Warren Commission, such as when it admitted that there was a conspiracy involving a second gunman as I stated previously. This report came out in a time of increased distrust and cynicism towards the government, as the American public had just learned that their government had lied to them about Vietnam—publicized by the Pentagon Papers—and Watergate. Thus, it was not hard for the American people to imagine that their government lied to them about the JFK assassination, too. Before 1970, most conspiracy theories were focused around the Russians or the Cubans, which can be attributed to the American fear of communism. By the 1980s—because of the government’s actions in Vietnam, Watergate, and now the JFK assassination—polls began to report that many Americans believed that their own government assassinated JFK (Gillon).

There’s a lot to explore with the JFK assassination, which is partly why it’s one of my favorite conspiracy theories. There are so many webs of theories and inconsistencies that I couldn’t possibly cover all them in one episode. But, ultimately, most Americans believe that Oswald did not act alone. Not to mention that it’s pretty suspicious that Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner, just killed Oswald before the trial could even go through. However, who Oswald conspired with is not largely agreed upon. Due to his time spent in the Soviet Union, there are theories that the USSR possibly backed the assassination. He also had ties to Cuba, as he was known to advocate for Castro and his communist regime as well as having reportedly attempted to apply for passage to Cuba at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City (Lewis). Or, perhaps the most terrifying theory of them all, is that our own government assassinated the president and has been lying to us about it all along.

That’s all for this episode! Stay tuned for next time, where we’ll be delving into the moon landing. Did it really happen? Or was it all a hoax? You’ll be able to find that episode, along with all the others, on theconspiracyconstruct.tumblr.com. Bye!

Works Cited

“Acoustics Evidence.” Mary Ferrell Foundation, www.maryferrell.org/pages/Acoustics_Evidence.html. “Findings.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html.

Hall, Kevin G. “'Oswald's KGB Handler': New JFK Docs Fill in Some Blanks on Events around Assassination.” Mcclatchydc, McClatchy Washington Bureau, 27 Apr. 2018, www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article209906954.html.

Knopple, Barbara and Danny Schechter, directors. Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy. 1992.

Lewis, Danny. “A Brief History of Lee Harvey Oswald's Connection to Cuba.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 4 May 2016, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-brief-history-of-lee-harvey-oswalds-connection-to-cuba-180958987/.

“Lee Harvey Oswald.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 20 Nov. 2018, www.britannica.com/biography/Lee-Harvey-Oswald.

Wallenfeldt, Jeff. “Assassination of John F. Kennedy.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 10 Dec. 2018, www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy.

Hallemann, Caroline. “The 5 Biggest Kennedy Conspiracy Theories.” Town & Country, Town & Country, 11 Apr. 2018, www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a13093037/jfk-assassination-conspiracy-theories/.

0 notes