On the nature and scope of the Truth Movement

[R.Mackey]

Abstract

An informal, ad-hoc analysis of threads on the JREF Forum suggests that the self-described "Truth Movement," consisting of those who promote alternative explanations of the September 11th attacks, is neither growing nor demographically significant. The analysis further suggests that the composition of the "Truth Movement" is indistinguishable from that of other widely discredited conspiracy theories, implying that the "Truth Movement" itself is a psychological phenomenon without basis in fact. The author concludes that the "Truth Movement" may be viewed as a homogeneous component of the greater Conspiracy Theory phenomenon, and thus may be expected to remain approximately constant over long periods of time, modeled as a noise component in sociological data.

Introduction

Readers who view the "Conspiracy Theories" wing of the JREF Forum will note the overwhelming preponderance of September 11th threads. Indeed, this discussion area was created specifically in response to those theories. While other conspiracy theories are also suitable topics for discussion here, they make up a tiny minority.

This raises an interesting question: Just how big is the "Truth Movement?" How many people are involved? And who are these people? Those within the Movement have a keen interest in this question, as the size and demography have a direct impact on their financial livelihood as purveyors of goods and services to the Movement. Those outside are often puzzled by this surprisingly vocal segment of the population, and unsure how to react to their spurious and often deeply insulting charges.

Summary of Previous Investigations

Those in the Movement have made several claims about the movement's size, frequently as an argumentum ad populum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2194391#post2194391), and less frequently as a kind of veiled threat. Indeed, this contention is not entirely unsupported by evidence. The typical claim is that "84%" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm) of Americans are either part of or are sympathetic to the Truth Movement, reflecting an oft-quoted survey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2138827#post2138827) conducted by Zogby. This survey does indeed suggest that the general opinion of American citizens regarding Sept. 11th is one of distrust and a keen interest in thorough investigation. However, the polling agency (http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231) is quick to indicate that the sponsors, an organization within the "Truth Movement," are applying their own interpretation (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041111195501242) to those data.

For those not in the "Truth Movement," the poll is widely held to be an outlier, either misinterpreted by the Movement or inconsistent with other observations. The author notes that the specific results, cited above, may be interpreted in numerous ways, and Question 25 of the Zogby poll may be deliberately misleading in that WTC 7's collapse was investigated -- not by the 9/11 Commission, but by NIST -- prior to the date of the survey, and remains under investigation to this day. More significantly, this poll is the only one commonly cited by the Movement, and their conclusions on its basis are significantly different from that of other, (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544) similar polls (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a4a797bf-067d-47e5-bc13-91cf59b1c79d) with different questions or conducted in other countries.

Another similar poll (http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll) discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61095) suggests that perhaps a third of Americans are sympathetic to the Movement, and only 16% have similar beliefs -- a far cry from the 84% number claimed above. And while these numbers may seen significant, they are considerably lower than poll results on belief in UFOs (http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/), and therefore may not be particularly surprising.

If the Movement's interpretation of the Zogby poll is correct, to be consistent with these other polls one would have to make the following inferences:


American citizens are dramatically more likely than non-Americans to believe their own government was responsible
A significant proportion of American citizens that blame the United States government also blame Saddam Hussein for conspiring with Al-Qaeda to conduct the attacks

The author views both inferences as suspect. The "Truth Movement" posits (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_lies_under.html) that, in the United States, government suppression is preventing American citizens from learning information that damages the 9/11 Commission hypothesis. If this were true, one would expect the Zogby poll results to be comparable to or lower than similar results taken abroad, but this is not the case.

Similarly, other polls show an evolution of opinion over time, notably the Harris poll results (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-29-2005/0004240417&EDATE) demonstrating belief of Iraq's complicity in the attacks declining sharply. A more recent Zogby poll (http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1169) is consistent with these results, but shows 37% of Americans still believe Saddam was involved. If the second inference is correct, all of those changing their minds would now have to support the "Truth Movement," and a significant core of supporters (a minimum of 25%) within the Movement would still also blame Saddam Hussein. There is no evidence to support either of these positions.

Besides the poll information, there is a plethora of evidence suggesting the "Truth Movement" is dramatically smaller than it claims. The largest public demonstration to date (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1919613#post1919613) was in New York City on the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11th, and attracted an estimated 1,000 people, or less than 0.01% of the average daily population of New York City. More typical demonstrations include the Boston Tea Party (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2153787#post2153787) and recent Calls To Action (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2320651#post2320651), mustering numbers of supporters in the single to low double digits. Attendance at meetings and conferences, such as the upcoming "Accountability" Conference (http://911accountability.org/accountability/), is comparable to that of UFO conventions (http://www.ufoconference.com/) (and, I note with amusement, speaker Jim Marrs (http://www.jimmarrs.com/) will appear at both conferences). "Truth Movement" website traffic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2287364#post2287364) is easily measurable, bounded, and approximately static.

On this basis, we are prepared to reject (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2287002) the "84%" hypothesis out of hand. However, the question remains -- how large is the Movement? And who are these people?

Method

While it may not be possible to separate the Truth Movement from the large body of people who are distrustful of or angry at the United States Government, we may attempt to characterize the "Truth Movement" on the basis of its activity. Comparison of the "Truth Movement" demography to other off-beat theories, such as beliefs in UFOs, naturally suggests a correlation between the "Truth Movement" and other conspiracies. This theory, namely that the Movement is simply another facet, produced by the same people as all other popular conspiracies, should be tested if at all possible.

In the interest of time, the author has chosen participants in the JREF Forum as a representative sample of the "Truth Movement" activities and population. Posts and posters in the Forum were analyzed as follows:

Thread Density


All threads in the first ten pages of the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, frozen at 08:00 AM PST on 16 February 2007, were collected and sorted according to content.
Only the initial post of the thread was considered.
Threads were binned regardless of the thread starter's affiliation to the Movement.
Threads with multiple, overlapping conspiracy categories were binned only once, according to the poster's key argument and conclusions.


Poster Affiliation

All posters who initiated threads in the entire 60-page record of the Conspiracy Theories subforum, frozen at 08:00 AM PST on 16 February 2007, were collected.
Posters were pre-sorted to include only those showing signs of sympathy to the "Truth Movement" from the thread title.
Posters were sorted according to two criteria: Whether or not the poster is in fact sympathetic to the "Truth Movement," and whether or not the poster professes a belief in another conspiracy theory.
Posters are considered sympathetic to the "Truth Movement" if an individual post on the JREF Forum could be found where the poster claimed a firm disbelief in the official story of Sept. 11th, without trace of sarcasm or later retraction.
Posters are considered believers in additional conspiracy theories if an individual post or reliable link can be found demonstrating belief in an additional, distinct conspiracy.
Aliases on other message boards are considered acceptable linkages only where well proven by admission of the poster in question.
No posters were rejected on the basis of low post count, familiarity to the author, or other factors, as a means of controlling selection bias.


The author acknowledges that this method is not without the potential for errors, and some subjectivity applies to classifying what constitutes a truly distinct conspiracy belief.

The author retains a list of links specific to each poster considered as documentation for each and every decision. This list will not be published, out of respect for individuals and to avoid the perception of slander or well-poisoning, but this list is available for independent review by neutral parties upon request and mutual non-disclosure agreement.

Results

A total of 300 thread titles were examined as described above. The thread totals by category are as follows:


Holocaust Denial: 2
D. Cooper Hijacking: 1
7/7 Attacks: 2
Anthrax Attacks: 2
JFK Assassination: 2
Anna Nicole Smith: 1
Port Arthur Massacre: 1
Santa Claus: 1
Aqua Teen Hunger Force: 1
Moon Landings: 1
Zionist Conspiracy: 1
NWO / General Paranoia: 4
Sept. 11th: 253


Additionally, a total of 40 posters were classified according to the method described above. These 40 posters were sorted as shown below, employing the shorthand "Truther" to refer to a poster sympathetic to the "Truth Movement."


Truthers with Other Conspiracy Beliefs: 27
Truthers Without: 8
Total Truthers: 35


Non-Truthers: 4
Hoaxers (indeterminate): 1
Total Non-Truthers: 5


As seen above, there were four posters initially thought to be members of the "Truth Movement" that, upon closer inspection, merely expressed doubt or rational questions without stating a belief. A fifth member posed as a whistleblower, but later admitted his posts were a fabrication and claimed complete opposition to the "Truth Movement." These five individuals have been excluded from further study.

Among the 35 posters confirmed as supporters of the "Truth Movement," 27 demonstrated conclusive beliefs in separate conspiracies or enveloping paranoia well beyond the confines of the Movement itself. The other conspiracies are widely varied but nearly all "typical," including those surrounding assassination of popular figures and politicians, the alleged illegality of personal income tax, the "Illuminati" and New World Order, and anti-semitism.

For the remaining eight posters, we are unable to find any definitive evidence of belief in other conspiracy theories. While some of these may also have additional conspiracy leanings, undetected due to low volume of posts, recent arrival, or focus on a particular issue, we must consider these posters a distinct population within our sample.

Discussion

The thread density at the JREF Forum is slanted overwhelmingly towards the Sept. 11th conspiracy theories, totalling over 80% of all threads and outnumbering all other conspiracies combined by over ten to one. While there is likely to be a strong selection bias owing to the combative nature of the "Truth Movement" in general, and adversarial relationship (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2333753#post2333753) with several Movement sites in particular, it is reasonable to conclude that, at this point in time, the Sept. 11th conspiracies are the most popular of all conspiracy theories.

Of greater interest is the "background noise" of other conspiracy theories. A surprisingly wide range of topics were found, but each with an approximately equal and almost negligible signal. Combined with the observation above, this leads us to make the following hypothesis:


The many possible conspiracy beliefs are not uncorrelated or separable.
If the conspiracy beliefs were truly separable, one predicts that belief in any given conspiracy would be a strong function of its plausibility and familiarity.
Poll evidence does not suggest that Sept. 11th conspiracy theories are any more popular or more plausible than other conspiracy theories.
Therefore, we reject that Sept. 11th conspiracies are separable from others, and instead hypothesize that the "Truth Movement" is made up of the same people.
The apparent surge in popularity comes at the expense of other conspiracy activities, viz. the total population of conspiracy believers is approximately fixed.


Further evidence for this hypothesis comes from the observation that, of the posters observed, 27 out of 35 or nearly 79% were found to have strong connections to different conspiracies. When taken in conjunction with the poll results mentioned previously, we conclude that belief in any conspiracy theory is a strong determiner of belief in Sept. 11th conspiracies. This conclusion is consistent with all of the available evidence, and further consistent with the fact that, for those outside the Movement, there appears to be no evidentiary basis whatsoever for such beliefs.

While we admit the limitations of the small sample size and its potential for bias, we are struck by the overwhelmingly clear result of even this entirely ad-hoc investigation. We cannot escape the conclusion that the hard core of the "Truth Movement" are little more than traditional conspiracy theorists, colloquially known as "CTs," for whom opinion is shaped not by fact or study so much as fashion and mental disability. Further and more careful analysis is required to more accurately determine the extent of this effect.

The data do, however, indicate a small but visible minority within the Movement that show no clear patterns indicating conspiracy-minded thinking. This study lacks sufficient data and controls to properly estimate its magnitude, or speculate as to its origins. We suggest that this group may indeed base their opinions on logical and factual arguments, and should be addressed in a manner wholly different from common-or-garden "CTs."

Conclusions

A brief survey regarding the popularity of the so-called "Truth Movement," referring to people who believe in fundamentally different explanations of the September 11th attacks, lends no credibility to claims of popularity coming from the Movement itself. Instead, we find that a lower estimate, that perhaps 30% of American citizens harbor such suspicions, and that a smaller fraction of roughly 15% actually share these beliefs, gives good agreement between the various opinion polls and expectations when compared to other fringe beliefs, including those predating September 2001.

The "Truth Movement" itself, consisting of believers who also engage in activism, are seen to comprise a vastly smaller fraction in the United States. While a rigorous estimate of its numbers are beyond the scope of this survey, it gives every indication of being comparable in scale to other, well-seasoned fringe groups. Furthermore, an analysis of individuals confirms a strong correlation between the Truth Movement and enthusiasts of these other conspiracy theories.

These observations are consistent with claims that the "Truth Movement" is not based on fact, but is merely an artifact of human social psychology. While there is evidence for a minority inside the Movement that is new and likely to respond to reason, the majority bears all the hallmarks of an ordinary fringe group, and is thus likely to persist indefinitely regardless of any attempt to educate or understand its members.

As no other fringe group has achieved anything of value or undue concern, we speculate that the "Truth Movement" is no different, but is destined to remain a mere cultural curiosity.

Disclaimer

All opinions stated above are mine alone. I do not represent the JREF or any agency, private, public, or otherwise.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express his appreciation for all scientists and investigators addressing the real threats of terrorism, and to those seeking, against all odds, to educate those propagating rumours, lies, and myths about the September 11th attacks. In particular, the author wishes to acknowledge www.911myths.com, http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/, http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html, all of those in Team JREF Ninja Wave, and posters MarkyX and Gravy, mere mention of whom is anathema to the "Truth Movement."

[Architect]

Interesting post.

[jhunter1163]

Nominated!

Simply brilliant.

[Brainache]

I am awestruck by that post Mr Mackey.

I wonder what would be the reaction to a post like that over at Loose Change?

Or if someone were to do a similar breakdown of the threads there...

[PerryLogan]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1223345ae8908e1bf1.gif
And another one bites the dust...

[Nick Terry]

Nominated!

The discussion of opinion polls was great. If Truthers were right in their inflated claims of how many Americans agree with them, then there'd be two polarised factions - one believing still that Saddam caused 9/11, the other believing that the US government caused it, with the actual cause squeezed out (OBL/Al Qaida) completely. The point about flipflopping beliefs - that previous adherents to the Hussein theory would then have to become MIHOPPers and blame Bush - was especially interesting. The numbers don't add up to support the Truther contention at all.

I've done similar exercises on an even more informal basis of analysing posters at Holocaust denial, racist and White Nationalist forums, and found similar general correlations. However, the overlap between active WN forum posters and 9/11 Truthers is much less than the overlap demonstrated here between Truthers and CTists. There are a great many WNs and neo-Nazis who do not also espouse 9/11 Truther conspiracies. That is arguably as embarrassing for the Truthers as the fact that there is also a significant faction who share both sets of views. It means they're dumber than the neo-Nazis.

[HighRiser]

That was very interesting, Mack. Thanks for taking the time and effort.

I agree with ache that a similar study of posters in a CT-sypathetic forum would be a really useful comparison. But LC is rather ruthlessly edited, isn't it?

[R.Mackey]

One of the admitted limitations is using the JREF Forum as a population sample... but I couldn't come up with anything better. Selection bias is bad enough without adding asymmetric and vengeful moderation on top of it.

We actually have a better archive of Loose Change Forums over here than they do.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey old boy, good to see my tax dollars hard at work.

What is your definition of "Conspiracy Theory"?

Does this definition exclude such conspiracies as the CIA-backed coup in Iran? Iran-contra? The OCT of 9/11? etc.

[Nick Terry]

One of the admitted limitations is using the JREF Forum as a population sample... but I couldn't come up with anything better. Selection bias is bad enough without adding asymmetric and vengeful moderation on top of it.

But that just means an analysis of LCF means that one gets pure, undiluted, 100% proof woo. To be sure, there will be a few Loosers who get culled by their own side, but these would be fewer and farther between than the bird-flu firebreak slaughter of interlopers that is practiced at LCF.

On the other hand, I think it likely that the true colours of a Truther will come out under the stress of trying to justify their belief systems outside of a playpen. They have this remarkable habit of assuming that if they raise an 'outside' point on Zionism, Bush, etc, that everyone will fall over to agree with them. Boy, they must be repeatedly disappointed to find that not only does the sane world not share their views on Controlled Demolition, it also tends to regard theories about world domination by the hidden puppetmasters to be totally Dagenham Heathway*, as we used to say in East London.

*Dagenham Heathway = three stops past Barking on the District Line.

[Nick Terry]

Mackey old boy, good to see my tax dollars hard at work.

What is your definition of "Conspiracy Theory"?

Does this definition exclude such conspiracies as the CIA-backed coup in Iran? Iran-contra? The OCT of 9/11? etc.

They would be proven conspiracies, not conspiracy theories.

[Firestone]

Mackey old boy, good to see my tax dollars hard at work. Are you on Al Qaeda's payroll?

Just asking, of course ...

[R.Mackey]

Mackey old boy, good to see my tax dollars hard at work.

What is your definition of "Conspiracy Theory"?

Does this definition exclude such conspiracies as the CIA-backed coup in Iran? Iran-contra? The OCT of 9/11? etc.

No tax dollars were spent in this effort. All effort was done using my own materials and on my own time.

As indicated in the paper, what constitutes a conspiracy theory is open to some interpretation. However, I will confirm that not a single subject was flagged as believing in other conspiracies on the basis of Iran-Contra or any Iranian Revolution. I am confident that, without exception, the linkages found would be deemed "incredible" or "thoroughly debunked" by an average neutral observer. With only a single exception, every linkage conforms to a common conspiracy myth. That lone exception, while unique, is so vast and incredible in scale that it may safely be counted as a conspiracy theory.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Since when has Iran-contra been admitted? I suppose they finally admitted the CIA overthrow of Iran, but clearly spent many decades denying that one, and dismissing it as a "conspiracy theory". Same with the existence of "Stealth Bombers". Same with the FDR foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor. These days, FDR foreknowledge is presented as fact on the History Channel. Eventually so will the 9/11 inside job, after the perps are all dead and gone.

I launched into a similar line of reseach a while back here on JREF. My method was to seperate people into the categories of net tax-payers vs. net tax consumers. I was curious as to whether net tax-consumers were more likely to support government propaganda than net tax-payers. I strongly suspect they are, as people know "where their bread is buttered".

This thread touched so many raw nerves that it eventually led to one attorney member advising me to break laws and not pay taxes. Knowing that attorneys are sworn to a code of conduct, and that this was clearly a violation of that, it touched a raw nerve in me. I said I'd have nothing to do with this forum and went away for a while. Eventually the tremendous value of the various research assistants here overcame the annoyance factor, so I came back.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I am confident that, without exception, the linkages found would be deemed "incredible" or "thoroughly debunked" by an average neutral observer.

What is an average neutral observer? Does this mean that in the general population, the majority of them support the opinion? Is that not argument ad populum?

[R.Mackey]

What is an average neutral observer? Does this mean that in the general population, the majority of them support the opinion? Is that not argument ad populum?

No more than a general election is argumentum ad populum.

There is no rigorous scientific test for what constitutes a conspiracy theory. Therefore, using popular opinion as a discriminator is not a logical fallacy.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well done, Mackey. A kudo for your analytical judo.

[Regnad Kcin]

Since when has Iran-contra been admitted? I suppose they finally admitted the CIA overthrow of Iran, but clearly spent many decades denying that one, and dismissing it as a "conspiracy theory". Same with the existence of "Stealth Bombers". Same with the FDR foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor. These days, FDR foreknowledge is presented as fact on the History Channel.Sure it is.

Eventually so will the 9/11 inside job, after the perps are all dead and gone.Sure it will.

I launched into a similar line of reseach a while back here on JREF. My method was to seperate people into the categories of net tax-payers vs. net tax consumers. I was curious as to whether net tax-consumers were more likely to support government propaganda than net tax-payers. I strongly suspect they are, as people know "where their bread is buttered".

This thread touched so many raw nerves that it eventually led to one attorney member advising me to break laws and not pay taxes. Knowing that attorneys are sworn to a code of conduct, and that this was clearly a violation of that, it touched a raw nerve in me. I said I'd have nothing to do with this forum and went away for a while. Eventually the tremendous value of the various research assistants here overcame the annoyance factor, so I came back.Bully for you.

Oh, still no proof of your claims, I'll wager? You might one of these years want to attempt to understand why that is.

[Horatius]

Are you on Al Qaeda's payroll?

Just asking, of course ...

Of course he is. No one would post this much about 9/11 for free, would they? At least, that's the conclusion we must arrive at if the twoofer's are correct.

Should we start calling him Al Shillda?

[Horatius]

I said I'd have nothing to do with this forum and went away for a while. Eventually the tremendous value of the various research assistants here overcame the annoyance factor, so I came back.

So that's your excuse for being a dishonourable liar? R.Mackey is just too valuable?

Thanks a lot, Mackey! Now look what you've gone and done!




:)

[Stellafane]

Thank you for articulating, with crystal clarity, a number of impressions and thoughts I've had about the CT movement. At its innermost core, it exists not because of the events associated with 9/11, but because it fulfills a deep psychological need within a small group of people. Absent 9/11, another conspiracy would inevitably arise to take its place. Indeed, as you point out, for many "bleevers" 9/11 is just one of a pantheon of conspiracies to which they adhere. No amount of facts will convince them that 9/11 happened in accordance with the official story, because this isn't about facts. It's about the personal needs of the CT'ers themselves.

This appears to raise a question, one that I've been struggling with for a while: Why bother to engage CT'ers in debate? On the face of it, I can see only three important reasons one might do so: (1) To convice CT'ers of the errors of their ways, (2) To provide counter-arguments for fence-sitters to consider, and (3) To honor the 9/11 victims and their families. Based on your discussion, it appears reason #1 is invalid, because as has been pointed out, CT'ers don't care about facts and so are impervious to being persuaded by them. Reason #2 is certainly worthwhile, but I wonder if it's necessary any more, since as you note the true percentage of the public sympathetic to CT'ers appears at or below the "retard" line defined by South Park. Whatever reachable fence sitters may still be out there don't seem to be buying the CT argument anymore, if indeed they ever did.

That leaves reason #3, which is unquestionably laudable and may well be sufficient all by itself to justify responding to CT'ers forever. At yet, there are times when I wonder whether a viable alternative to CT'ers is to simply ignore them. Just about the only connection to legitimacy these people have is the fact that people like us argue with them. Cut that off, and I suspect they'd quickly devolve into an isolated island of insanity, which is probably their eventual fate anyway. There are times when I think the only thing CT'ers really have going for them is that they draw a response from skeptics. Without us as the common enemy to unite them, they'd probably quickly evaporate in a puff of self-destruction.

[R.Mackey]

Well, keep in mind that my investigation doesn't prove causality. I think I have a definitive linkage between Sept. 11th and conspiracy nuts in general, but I don't have any explanation of "why." I'm not a psychologist, I'm just good with data. :)

Having said that, it does help me to decide how to address the "Truthers" in the future. My data suggests that there are two distinct populations, one that buys into every crackpot theory within hearing, and one that doesn't. The latter group may be worth conversing with in a logical fashion. The former group, on the other hand... I am going to ignore them outright.

Every once in a while the arguments present an educational opportunity, when perhaps a question is asked that is more subtle or significant than the debaters realize. That's worth following up on. But the vast majority of conversation with the "Truth Movement" is mere bickering, and evidence suggests it will carry on like this forever -- and I wash my hands of that.

[Miragememories]

Abstract

An informal, ad-hoc analysis of threads on the JREF Forum suggests that the self-described "Truth Movement," consisting of those who promote alternative explanations of the September 11th attacks, is neither growing nor demographically significant. The analysis further suggests that the composition of the "Truth Movement" is indistinguishable from that of other widely discredited conspiracy theories, implying that the "Truth Movement" itself is a psychological phenomenon without basis in fact. The author concludes that the "Truth Movement" may be viewed as a homogeneous component of the greater Conspiracy Theory phenomenon, and thus may be expected to remain approximately constant over long periods of time, modeled as a noise component in sociological data.

Introduction

Readers who view the "Conspiracy Theories" wing of the JREF Forum will note the overwhelming preponderance of September 11th threads. Indeed, this discussion area was created specifically in response to those theories. While other conspiracy theories are also suitable topics for discussion here, they make up a tiny minority.

This raises an interesting question: Just how big is the "Truth Movement?" How many people are involved? And who are these people? Those within the Movement have a keen interest in this question, as the size and demography have a direct impact on their financial livelihood as purveyors of goods and services to the Movement. Those outside are often puzzled by this surprisingly vocal segment of the population, and unsure how to react to their spurious and often deeply insulting charges.

Summary of Previous Investigations

Those in the Movement have made several claims about the movement's size, frequently as an argumentum ad populum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2194391#post2194391), and less frequently as a kind of veiled threat. Indeed, this contention is not entirely unsupported by evidence. The typical claim is that "84%" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm) of Americans are either part of or are sympathetic to the Truth Movement, reflecting an oft-quoted survey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2138827#post2138827) conducted by Zogby. This survey does indeed suggest that the general opinion of American citizens regarding Sept. 11th is one of distrust and a keen interest in thorough investigation. However, the polling agency (http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231) is quick to indicate that the sponsors, an organization within the "Truth Movement," are applying their own interpretation (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041111195501242) to those data.

For those not in the "Truth Movement," the poll is widely held to be an outlier, either misinterpreted by the Movement or inconsistent with other observations. The author notes that the specific results, cited above, may be interpreted in numerous ways, and Question 25 of the Zogby poll may be deliberately misleading in that WTC 7's collapse was investigated -- not by the 9/11 Commission, but by NIST -- prior to the date of the survey, and remains under investigation to this day. More significantly, this poll is the only one commonly cited by the Movement, and their conclusions on its basis are significantly different from that of other, (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544) similar polls (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a4a797bf-067d-47e5-bc13-91cf59b1c79d) with different questions or conducted in other countries.

Another similar poll (http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll) discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61095) suggests that perhaps a third of Americans are sympathetic to the Movement, and only 16% have similar beliefs -- a far cry from the 84% number claimed above. And while these numbers may seen significant, they are considerably lower than poll results on belief in UFOs (http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/), and therefore may not be particularly surprising.

If the Movement's interpretation of the Zogby poll is correct, to be consistent with these other polls one would have to make the following inferences:


American citizens are dramatically more likely than non-Americans to believe their own government was responsible
A significant proportion of American citizens that blame the United States government also blame Saddam Hussein for conspiring with Al-Qaeda to conduct the attacks

The author views both inferences as suspect. The "Truth Movement" posits (http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_lies_under.html) that, in the United States, government suppression is preventing American citizens from learning information that damages the 9/11 Commission hypothesis. If this were true, one would expect the Zogby poll results to be comparable to or lower than similar results taken abroad, but this is not the case.

Similarly, other polls show an evolution of opinion over time, notably the Harris poll results (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-29-2005/0004240417&EDATE) demonstrating belief of Iraq's complicity in the attacks declining sharply. A more recent Zogby poll (http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1169) is consistent with these results, but shows 37% of Americans still believe Saddam was involved. If the second inference is correct, all of those changing their minds would now have to support the "Truth Movement," and a significant core of supporters (a minimum of 25%) within the Movement would still also blame Saddam Hussein. There is no evidence to support either of these positions.

Besides the poll information, there is a plethora of evidence suggesting the "Truth Movement" is dramatically smaller than it claims. The largest public demonstration to date (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1919613#post1919613) was in New York City on the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11th, and attracted an estimated 1,000 people, or less than 0.01% of the average daily population of New York City. More typical demonstrations include the Boston Tea Party (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2153787#post2153787) and recent Calls To Action (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2320651#post2320651), mustering numbers of supporters in the single to low double digits. Attendance at meetings and conferences, such as the upcoming "Accountability" Conference (http://911accountability.org/accountability/), is comparable to that of UFO conventions (http://www.ufoconference.com/) (and, I note with amusement, speaker Jim Marrs (http://www.jimmarrs.com/) will appear at both conferences). "Truth Movement" website traffic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2287364#post2287364) is easily measurable, bounded, and approximately static.

On this basis, we are prepared to reject (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2287002) the "84%" hypothesis out of hand. However, the question remains -- how large is the Movement? And who are these people?

Method

While it may not be possible to separate the Truth Movement from the large body of people who are distrustful of or angry at the United States Government, we may attempt to characterize the "Truth Movement" on the basis of its activity. Comparison of the "Truth Movement" demography to other off-beat theories, such as beliefs in UFOs, naturally suggests a correlation between the "Truth Movement" and other conspiracies. This theory, namely that the Movement is simply another facet, produced by the same people as all other popular conspiracies, should be tested if at all possible.

In the interest of time, the author has chosen participants in the JREF Forum as a representative sample of the "Truth Movement" activities and population. Posts and posters in the Forum were analyzed as follows:

Thread Density


All threads in the first ten pages of the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, frozen at 08:00 AM PST on 16 February 2007, were collected and sorted according to content.
Only the initial post of the thread was considered.
Threads were binned regardless of the thread starter's affiliation to the Movement.
Threads with multiple, overlapping conspiracy categories were binned only once, according to the poster's key argument and conclusions.


Poster Affiliation

All posters who initiated threads in the entire 60-page record of the Conspiracy Theories subforum, frozen at 08:00 AM PST on 16 February 2007, were collected.
Posters were pre-sorted to include only those showing signs of sympathy to the "Truth Movement" from the thread title.
Posters were sorted according to two criteria: Whether or not the poster is in fact sympathetic to the "Truth Movement," and whether or not the poster professes a belief in another conspiracy theory.
Posters are considered sympathetic to the "Truth Movement" if an individual post on the JREF Forum could be found where the poster claimed a firm disbelief in the official story of Sept. 11th, without trace of sarcasm or later retraction.
Posters are considered believers in additional conspiracy theories if an individual post or reliable link can be found demonstrating belief in an additional, distinct conspiracy.
Aliases on other message boards are considered acceptable linkages only where well proven by admission of the poster in question.
No posters were rejected on the basis of low post count, familiarity to the author, or other factors, as a means of controlling selection bias.


The author acknowledges that this method is not without the potential for errors, and some subjectivity applies to classifying what constitutes a truly distinct conspiracy belief.

The author retains a list of links specific to each poster considered as documentation for each and every decision. This list will not be published, out of respect for individuals and to avoid the perception of slander or well-poisoning, but this list is available for independent review by neutral parties upon request and mutual non-disclosure agreement.

Results

A total of 300 thread titles were examined as described above. The thread totals by category are as follows:


Holocaust Denial: 2
D. Cooper Hijacking: 1
7/7 Attacks: 2
Anthrax Attacks: 2
JFK Assassination: 2
Anna Nicole Smith: 1
Port Arthur Massacre: 1
Santa Claus: 1
Aqua Teen Hunger Force: 1
Moon Landings: 1
Zionist Conspiracy: 1
NWO / General Paranoia: 4
Sept. 11th: 253


Additionally, a total of 40 posters were classified according to the method described above. These 40 posters were sorted as shown below, employing the shorthand "Truther" to refer to a poster sympathetic to the "Truth Movement."


Truthers with Other Conspiracy Beliefs: 27
Truthers Without: 8
Total Truthers: 35


Non-Truthers: 4
Hoaxers (indeterminate): 1
Total Non-Truthers: 5


As seen above, there were four posters initially thought to be members of the "Truth Movement" that, upon closer inspection, merely expressed doubt or rational questions without stating a belief. A fifth member posed as a whistleblower, but later admitted his posts were a fabrication and claimed complete opposition to the "Truth Movement." These five individuals have been excluded from further study.

Among the 35 posters confirmed as supporters of the "Truth Movement," 27 demonstrated conclusive beliefs in separate conspiracies or enveloping paranoia well beyond the confines of the Movement itself. The other conspiracies are widely varied but nearly all "typical," including those surrounding assassination of popular figures and politicians, the alleged illegality of personal income tax, the "Illuminati" and New World Order, and anti-semitism.

For the remaining eight posters, we are unable to find any definitive evidence of belief in other conspiracy theories. While some of these may also have additional conspiracy leanings, undetected due to low volume of posts, recent arrival, or focus on a particular issue, we must consider these posters a distinct population within our sample.

Discussion

The thread density at the JREF Forum is slanted overwhelmingly towards the Sept. 11th conspiracy theories, totalling over 80% of all threads and outnumbering all other conspiracies combined by over ten to one. While there is likely to be a strong selection bias owing to the combative nature of the "Truth Movement" in general, and adversarial relationship (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2333753#post2333753) with several Movement sites in particular, it is reasonable to conclude that, at this point in time, the Sept. 11th conspiracies are the most popular of all conspiracy theories.

Of greater interest is the "background noise" of other conspiracy theories. A surprisingly wide range of topics were found, but each with an approximately equal and almost negligible signal. Combined with the observation above, this leads us to make the following hypothesis:


The many possible conspiracy beliefs are not uncorrelated or separable.
If the conspiracy beliefs were truly separable, one predicts that belief in any given conspiracy would be a strong function of its plausibility and familiarity.
Poll evidence does not suggest that Sept. 11th conspiracy theories are any more popular or more plausible than other conspiracy theories.
Therefore, we reject that Sept. 11th conspiracies are separable from others, and instead hypothesize that the "Truth Movement" is made up of the same people.
The apparent surge in popularity comes at the expense of other conspiracy activities, viz. the total population of conspiracy believers is approximately fixed.


Further evidence for this hypothesis comes from the observation that, of the posters observed, 27 out of 35 or nearly 79% were found to have strong connections to different conspiracies. When taken in conjunction with the poll results mentioned previously, we conclude that belief in any conspiracy theory is a strong determiner of belief in Sept. 11th conspiracies. This conclusion is consistent with all of the available evidence, and further consistent with the fact that, for those outside the Movement, there appears to be no evidentiary basis whatsoever for such beliefs.

While we admit the limitations of the small sample size and its potential for bias, we are struck by the overwhelmingly clear result of even this entirely ad-hoc investigation. We cannot escape the conclusion that the hard core of the "Truth Movement" are little more than traditional conspiracy theorists, colloquially known as "CTs," for whom opinion is shaped not by fact or study so much as fashion and mental disability. Further and more careful analysis is required to more accurately determine the extent of this effect.

The data do, however, indicate a small but visible minority within the Movement that show no clear patterns indicating conspiracy-minded thinking. This study lacks sufficient data and controls to properly estimate its magnitude, or speculate as to its origins. We suggest that this group may indeed base their opinions on logical and factual arguments, and should be addressed in a manner wholly different from common-or-garden "CTs."

Conclusions

A brief survey regarding the popularity of the so-called "Truth Movement," referring to people who believe in fundamentally different explanations of the September 11th attacks, lends no credibility to claims of popularity coming from the Movement itself. Instead, we find that a lower estimate, that perhaps 30% of American citizens harbor such suspicions, and that a smaller fraction of roughly 15% actually share these beliefs, gives good agreement between the various opinion polls and expectations when compared to other fringe beliefs, including those predating September 2001.

The "Truth Movement" itself, consisting of believers who also engage in activism, are seen to comprise a vastly smaller fraction in the United States. While a rigorous estimate of its numbers are beyond the scope of this survey, it gives every indication of being comparable in scale to other, well-seasoned fringe groups. Furthermore, an analysis of individuals confirms a strong correlation between the Truth Movement and enthusiasts of these other conspiracy theories.

These observations are consistent with claims that the "Truth Movement" is not based on fact, but is merely an artifact of human social psychology. While there is evidence for a minority inside the Movement that is new and likely to respond to reason, the majority bears all the hallmarks of an ordinary fringe group, and is thus likely to persist indefinitely regardless of any attempt to educate or understand its members.

As no other fringe group has achieved anything of value or undue concern, we speculate that the "Truth Movement" is no different, but is destined to remain a mere cultural curiosity.

Disclaimer

All opinions stated above are mine alone. I do not represent the JREF or any agency, private, public, or otherwise.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express his appreciation for all scientists and investigators addressing the real threats of terrorism, and to those seeking, against all odds, to educate those propagating rumours, lies, and myths about the September 11th attacks. In particular, the author wishes to acknowledge www.911myths.com, http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/, http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html, all of those in Team JREF Ninja Wave, and posters MarkyX and Gravy, mere mention of whom is anathema to the "Truth Movement."

What a crock!

MM

[JimBenArm]

What a crock!

MM
Nice debunking! At least for you, it is.

You highlighted the entire post so you could snipe at it with three words?

You are a complete waste of good protoplasm.

[Horatius]

What a crock!

MM

What a perfect example!

H

[Coritani]

What a crock!

MM

I should congratulate you. That is by far and away the greatest 'debunking' of one of R.Mackey's arguments by a troofer.

Bravo to you good sir!

[The Demon's Head]

What a crock!

That is a typical, weak response.

[boloboffin]

What a crock!

MM

Ladies and gentlemen, the defense rests --

GUILTY!

[T.A.M.]

TS:

I am no research assistant of yours, nor is anyone else here. I know your meaning by the comment, and it is deplorable. You are so blinded by the lies you feel are the "truth" that you see the people here at JREF are usable as filtering mechanisms. I guess it takes two to tango, so perhaps we here should start USING members of the truth movement. Trouble is, noone in your movement provides anything or any service worth USING. I suppose we could use them for entertainment, but to do so at the expense of the memories of the victims of 9/11 to be honest, is beneath me, and i will not lower myself.

Tell me, TS, in what way do you contribute to society. What do you provide to the people? You are a musician. How many people benefit from your "entertainment"? Enough for you to make a good living? If so, do you then pay your share of taxes, like the rest of us? If so, do you agree contributing a part of your earned wages to help manage the costs of governmental services is the right thing to do?

There was a time when I could tolerate you, because on the surface you at least appeared civil. Now I cannot, as I see you, through your posts, for who you are, what you stand for.

For instance, you could have remained silent after R. Mackey's post, but did you? NO. The first comment you made was a libelous insult to the author of the OP, insinuating through sarcasm, that what he was doing was a waste of your hard earned tax dollar. Whether it was or was not, is immaterial, but what it says about you is, as it has colored all my future responses to you.

I am sure you sleep well at night, feeling you are part of some little rebellion fighting the evil empire, but let me assure you, you are a weak, pale immitation of a Luke Skywalker/Han Solo, or what ever other hero you invision yourself as.

You can take my comments for what they are worth...I really dont care any more what you think.

TAM

[LashL]

Stellar work, as usual, R. Mackey.

Kudos to you.

[Mr.D]

Good paper, R.Mackey

Quick thoughts:

I've noticed an apparent correlation between UFO'ers and Psychic-Phenomenon'ers. There seems to be currently a correlation between Holocaust-deniers/anti-"Zionists" and 9/11 troothers. It might be an interesting study to look at other specific CTs (say Moon-Hoax or JFK) and see if and where the correlations are.

Using a web forum is going to naturally bias towards younger citizens. Can anyone think of a way to correct for that bias?

Thinking about age and time; Is anyone familiar with any studies of the demographics of "believers" of a particular CT over time? Ie, I'm fairly sure Moon-Hoaxers are generally older and that CT is on its death bed, while Holocaust-deniers seem to have an endless supply of 16-25 year olds over time.

Just before your conclusion you suggest that CTers are "[those] for whom opinion is shaped not by fact or study so much as fashion and mental disability." I'd drop the 'fashion' in favor of 'peer influence' and perhaps add something about psychological problems and social issues.

ETA: Perhaps add a short section on some of the known selection bias problems?
ETA2: I hope I'm not coming off as too critical; A good paper sometimes brings up more ancillary questions than it answers.

[R.Mackey]

I've noticed an apparent correlation between UFO'ers and Psychic-Phenomenon'ers. There seems to be currently a correlation between Holocaust-deniers/anti-"Zionists" and 9/11 troothers. It might be an interesting study to look at other specific CTs (say Moon-Hoax or JFK) and see if and where the correlations are.
Yes, it would be. I don't have nearly enough data to do that. If I were to speculate, I would guess that the Troothers are generally a subset of conspiracists who are anti-Government, anti-US Government in particular, while the New Agers and UFOlogists are an overlapping but different cult fixated on "magic," for lack of a better word.

Sadly, both classes of delusions have a root in a complete lack of scientific understanding.


Using a web forum is going to naturally bias towards younger citizens. Can anyone think of a way to correct for that bias?

My previous strategy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2034175#post2034175) was to trace backwards to the leaders of the Idiot Movement, and try to sort them rather than the rabble that are, as you note, primarily younger and Internet driven.

However, this bias appears to be somewhat accurate rather than artifactual. All of the polls I cited, and the Zogby poll they cite as well, indicate the Troothers are overwhelmingly young adults.


Just before your conclusion you suggest that CTers are "[those] for whom opinion is shaped not by fact or study so much as fashion and mental disability." I'd drop the 'fashion' in favor of 'peer influence' and perhaps add something about psychological problems and social issues.
I didn't want to get into that too deeply, since it is speculation. My data only demonstrate the linkage, they don't explain why.

For the "Why" question, I refer readers to the seminal treatise by Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things (http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893). So far I haven't seen any reason to suspect the Idiot Movement is any different from the usual classes of pseudoscience.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback, and your criticism is well taken. It's much more useful than the "Your paper sucks, and so do you!" coming from those it studies.

[twinstead]

Anyway, thanks for your feedback, and your criticism is well taken. It's much more useful than the "Your paper sucks, and so do you!" coming from those it studies.

Oh, I don't know. "What a crock" was a particularly deft and withering critique of your paper. ;)

[Horatius]

Thinking about age and time; Is anyone familiar with any studies of the demographics of "believers" of a particular CT over time? Ie, I'm fairly sure Moon-Hoaxers are generally older and that CT is on its death bed, while Holocaust-deniers seem to have an endless supply of 16-25 year olds over time.


This is perhaps a function of there being someone (individual or group) who benefits from promoting the CT, even if they might not be "true-bleevers" themselves.

Aside from the ones who wrote all the books, no one really benefits from Moon Hoax beliefs. In contrast, Holocaust Denial is used to recruit new members into racist organizations, and so is constantly promoted to young people by these groups, even if some of the promoters know it's a crock. They use it, because it's a good tool for promoting their other goals.

So, if I'm correct, the "lifetime" of a CT would be based in large part on the utility of the CT to other, interested, but not neccessarily believer, entities.

[Brainache]

What a crock!

MM

What? A croc? CRIKEY!


In loving memory of the late Steve Irwin

[jhunter1163]

This is perhaps a function of there being someone (individual or group) who benefits from promoting the CT, even if they might not be "true-bleevers" themselves.

Aside from the ones who wrote all the books, no one really benefits from Moon Hoax beliefs. In contrast, Holocaust Denial is used to recruit new members into racist organizations, and so is constantly promoted to young people by these groups, even if some of the promoters know it's a crock. They use it, because it's a good tool for promoting their other goals.

So, if I'm correct, the "lifetime" of a CT would be based in large part on the utility of the CT to other, interested, but not neccessarily believer, entities.

To expand on this point a little, it's plausible that the lifetime of a CT might be tied to its ability to draw adherents from other, related CTs. That is, if someone is predisposed to anti-Semitism, they might buy into 9/11 Twoof a little more readily because of its underlying theme of "Zionists did it". From there, it's only a short step to Alex Jones's nonsense, AFP, JFK conspiracies, and so on.

Of course, it's also possible that there is an infinite pool of gullible people (new ones replacing those who wise up) and the CT's just pass the list of names around like a box of Cracker Jacks.

[Mr.D]

Yes, it would be. I don't have nearly enough data to do that. If I were to speculate, I would guess that the Troothers are generally a subset of conspiracists who are anti-Government, anti-US Government in particular, while the New Agers and UFOlogists are an overlapping but different cult fixated on "magic," for lack of a better word.

Sadly, both classes of delusions have a root in a complete lack of scientific understanding.


I'd suggest that the Troothers come more from an anti-authoritarian bent rather than the "alternative science" subset. From that point of view it does not suprise me that the "anti-Zionists" and "anti-NWO" folk are becoming a larger vocal part of the Trooth movement. What's curious to me is what appears to me a lack of a strong overlap with the (also anti-government) JFKers and militant-Environmentalists.


However, this bias appears to be somewhat accurate rather than artifactual. All of the polls I cited, and the Zogby poll they cite as well, indicate the Troothers are overwhelmingly young adults.


While reading the OP I began to wonder if the strong technophile bent of the Troothers (their dependance on You Tube videos and Googling for quotes for example) is what is pushing the Troothers away from the (older) 1960's anti-government types and (technophobe) environmental extremists, and towards the (technologically progressive, cult of personality) "white power" crowd.

Anyway, that's why I was thinking aloud about the overlap with the other fringe movements and their demographics.


I didn't want to get into [CTer mindset etc.] too deeply, since it is speculation. My data only demonstrate the linkage, they don't explain why.


I agree that this paper is not the place to speculate on why. I'm suggesting that "fashion and mental disability" isn't particularly neutral on the why issue. "Social and psychological influences" is a bit broader, more neutral and doesn't imply that CT-thinking can be dismissed as either a passing fad or a medical condition.

[Mr.D]

Aside from the ones who wrote all the books, no one really benefits from Moon Hoax beliefs. In contrast, Holocaust Denial is used to recruit new members into racist organizations, and so is constantly promoted to young people by these groups, even if some of the promoters know it's a crock. They use it, because it's a good tool for promoting their other goals.

So, if I'm correct, the "lifetime" of a CT would be based in large part on the utility of the CT to other, interested, but not neccessarily believer, entities.

Before reading your post, I hadn't really thought to "follow the money" in regards to the neo-Nazi "infiltration."

My thinking on the Moon-hoaxers was simply that for the Gen-Y crowd, the technology they see and use everyday (Internet, iPods, GPS etc) is so far ahead of the Apollo mission days that they simply can't connect with the impossibility argument.

Avery took a (quarter-assed) moral stand with regards to that recent conference. As LCFC becomes less and less a reality and his remaining followers are increasingly diverted towards more charismatic and better funded fringes it'll be interesting to see if the ever shrinking lure of money is overcome by whatever's left of his moral conscience.

[Horatius]

Before reading your post, I hadn't really thought to "follow the money" in regards to the neo-Nazi "infiltration."

My thinking on the Moon-hoaxers was simply that for the Gen-Y crowd, the technology they see and use everyday (Internet, iPods, GPS etc) is so far ahead of the Apollo mission days that they simply can't connect with the impossibility argument.


That may be, but I've also heard the argument turned on it's head. "How could they go to the Moon with computers that have less brains than a calculator?" Some people seem to get it in their head that something that is diffcult to do is impossible to do.

It's like a comment that was in a recent TV show on Roman Engineering I watched. They made some comment about the Romans digging out half a hillside with manual labour, and remarked that "We couldn't do that today". Nonsense. We could do it, we just wouldn't do it. Same thing here. No one today would try to go to the Moon with the tech they had in the 60s, but that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't do it.


It would require quite a bit of research to determine the effects of these arguments, I think.




Avery took a (quarter-assed) moral stand with regards to that recent conference. As LCFC becomes less and less a reality and his remaining followers are increasingly diverted towards more charismatic and better funded fringes it'll be interesting to see if the ever shrinking lure of money is overcome by whatever's left of his moral conscience.

Or if he decides to caves entirely, and embraces the Nazi mindset, in hopes of retaining marketshare, when it's obvious the Nazi lure is winning.

[gumboot]

It's like a comment that was in a recent TV show on Roman Engineering I watched. They made some comment about the Romans digging out half a hillside with manual labour, and remarked that "We couldn't do that today". Nonsense. We could do it, we just wouldn't do it. Same thing here. No one today would try to go to the Moon with the tech they had in the 60s, but that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't do it.


Not that I'm trying to refute your specific examples, but this logic sometimes has validity. There are certain historic skill sets that simply don't exist any more. Once you have lost the knowledge of HOW to do something, you can't do it any more. Unless someone comes along and re discovers said knowledge.

In this sense there ARE things that man could do in the past, that we are simply incapable of doing now.

This is a poor example, because it's a sub-group rather than a judgement of the race as a whole, but once upon a time man could easily start a fire with flint.

On the last episode of the last Survivor series two people had to start a fire using only flint. After an hour and a half one of them finally succeeded, but only after they were each given a box of matches. (And one of them used up ALL of their matches and STILL failed to light a fire!).

Although not ENTIRELY lost from the human race as a collective group, in many smaller subsets of the human race, the knowledge of creating fire without the use of technology has been totally lost.

I would wager that the majority of urban-dwelling family groups in the western world do not contain a single member who can start a fire without the aid of matches, a lighter, or similar.

-Gumboot

[Horatius]

I would wager that the majority of urban-dwelling family groups in the western world do not contain a single member who can start a fire without the aid of matches, a lighter, or similar.

-Gumboot

We may be agruing at cross purposes here. Using your example, these guys would say, because the Survivour guys couldn't start a fire with a flint, the cavemen couldn't do it either; Therefore the discovery of fire was a hoax. It really was Prometheus who gave it to us!

However, I'm a big fan of, what man has done, man can aspire to do. Given sufficient motivation, I'm sure we could re-learn such skills, even if they might not be exactly the same as what went before.

But that may just be my Homo Sapiens Uber Alles bias coming out :)

[gumboot]

We may be agruing at cross purposes here. Using your example, these guys would say, because the Survivour guys couldn't start a fire with a flint, the cavemen couldn't do it either; Therefore the discovery of fire was a hoax. It really was Prometheus who gave it to us!


Yes, I see what you mean. That reasoning is, of course, incorrect.




However, I'm a big fan of, what man has done, man can aspire to do. Given sufficient motivation, I'm sure we could re-learn such skills, even if they might not be exactly the same as what went before.

But that may just be my Homo Sapiens Uber Alles bias coming out :)


I totally agree. :) Although the secret of Greek Fire may continue to ellude us.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

Before reading your post, I hadn't really thought to "follow the money" in regards to the neo-Nazi "infiltration."

Here is one example where the truth movement actually has something to say. I have oft seen repeated "Qui Bono" (I'm sure I butchered the spelling, as I will the translation - something like "Who benefits?") by truthers as an explanation for why GWB (among others) is implicated in the attacks - perhaps it's time we applied their mantra to those who propagate the various branches of the "truther tree".

[SkepticGuy]

R.Mackey, I admire the essay you've presented, and generally agree with a vast majority of what you've written as it applies to the so-called "Truth Movement".

Abstract
While it may not be possible to separate the Truth Movement from the large body of people who are distrustful of or angry at the United States Government, we may attempt to characterize the "Truth Movement" on the basis of its activity. Comparison of the "Truth Movement" demography to other off-beat theories, such as beliefs in UFOs, naturally suggests a correlation between the "Truth Movement" and other conspiracies. This theory, namely that the Movement is simply another facet, produced by the same people as all other popular conspiracies, should be tested if at all possible.

Here is your fundamental flaw that taints much of what is otherwise an excellent piece. As I've tried to explain here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), there is a marked difference between "Truthers" and "Conspiracy Theorists". Unfortunately, it seems that you've had an overwhelmingly negative experience with people from the truth movement, and from someone who has been involved with "conspiracy theory" for a long time, I would classify my experience as nearly identical to yours.

The site I help run focuses on a broad range of topics (most of which I'm sure raises your hackles) from conspiracy theory (of all types) to UFOlogy, paranormal, religious issues, secret societies, and so on. We call the genre "alternative topics". You would think that this broad, yet conspiracy-minded base of users (more than 1.3 million a month) would lean heavily toward an interest in 9/11 conspiracies. But no... I was surprised when we ran a survey...
Results of the 2006 ATS Visitor Survey (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread218325/pg1)

Since the initial poll a few months ago, over 40,000 members and visitors have completed the questions, and the ratios remain identical to the 2,350 initial sample provided in the analysis at the link.

In this group where the majority have identified themselves as having always been interested in "alternative topics", only 8% identified themselves as coming for 9/11 conspiracy theories. And when offered a chance to identify their second-favorite topic, 9/11 conspiracies came in 6th overall, behind general conspiracies, aliens, government secrets, and science.

So, when we look at arguably the most popular and largest conspiracy theory discussion board, only 2% of all posts are related to 9/11 conspiracies and only 8% of visitors come for the topic.

Clearly, in the spectrum of people who have an affinity for conspiracy speculation and topics, 9/11 conspiracies are not important... and getting less important as time goes on. In fact, most of our members want nothing to do with "the truth movement".

So in closing, "truthers" are a minority. A very loud and irritating minority. But they do not represent the mind-space of people who consider "conspiracy theories." They are activists, not theorists.

[Mr.D]

Results of the 2006 ATS Visitor Survey (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread218325/pg1)


Interesting. Some thoughts.

R.Mackey's analysis (which does have its flaws) does suggest that a correlation does exist between our "9/11 Deniers" and your "Conspiracy Theorists." The numbers are really too small (and the study not designed) to conclude anything about the nature of the correlation in the other direction. (Ie, are your "Conspiracy Theorists" more likely than the general population to be "Truthers?). I think it is strongly suggestive that if one represented the the two groups on a Venn Diagram that there'd be significant overlap though.

Your survey isn't really designed in a way to be able to distinguish "Truthers" from "Conspiracy Theorists" the way you claim (note I'm attempting to stick to something close to your definition of "Conspiracy Theorist" and "Truther" (as opposed to "9/11 Denier") as best as I can for this post)

0) Depending on how the survey participants were selected, there's selection bias in addition to the self-selection bias of being an internet survey. (Theres a perception that the "Truther" movement is largely confined to the internet. UFOlogy and other "Conspiracy Theories" predate the 'net)

1) The results post is dated shortly before the 5th anniversary of 9/11. You can't rule out some biases - so many of your respondents were first timers - in what direction I have no idea.

2) Slightly more than a third of the respondents were first time or rare (once a month) visitors. You can't claim a representative selection of "Conspiracy Theorists" (or even online "Conspiracy Theorists")

3) The "About ATS" page has links to threads going back to 2003. That, combined with the age (something around half the respondants are in that 18 to 35 range) and interest (again, half say "always" with the most respondants picking UFOs as thier primary interest) answers is suggestive that your site already had a strong "Conspiracy Theorist" community before the "Truther" movement came along.

4) You could make a stronger statement if you revealed how many people picked 9/11 AND various other combinations in the "other interests" survey and sorted that by primary interest. Example; How many people selected UFOs as primary AND "911" and "Terror" as "other" vs. how many people selected UFOs as primary and neither "911" nor "Terror"

5) The 'woo' discussed on JREF also includes (I'm assuming for this thread as well) such topics as varied as Bigfoot, Psychic frauds, Divining rods and Homeopathy. It would help to know if your "Conspiracy Theorists" definition is superset, subset, inclusive or exclusive overlap off all this.

ETA: I hope I'm not coming off as too critical. I do understand the separation that you are trying to convey - I just dont' think your survey demonstrates it. I'll simply posit that the the "JREF-CT subforum + 9/11 Deniers" and your "Conspiracy Theorist community" are sampling different parts of a much larger pool.

[SkepticGuy]

ETA: I hope I'm not coming off as too critical. I do understand the separation that you are trying to convey - I just dont' think your survey demonstrates it. I'll simply posit that the the "JREF-CT subforum + 9/11 Deniers" and your "Conspiracy Theorist community" are sampling different parts of a much larger pool.
More thoughts tomorrow... too much single malt being metabolized for a proper response right now. ;)

But a couple items...

The survey was open to all (still is), and about 40% of all visitors during the promotional period took the survey. Our stats show about 85% of all traffic is non-member visitors, and nearly all of that comes from search engines... so these are likely people searching on topics that have "conspiracy affinity".

[Dog Town]

As no other fringe group has achieved anything of value or undue concern, we speculate that the "Truth Movement" is no different, but is destined to remain a mere cultural curiosity.

Nominated!

My .02:

The twoofers are 6%, on their best day. Conspiracy nuts ingeneral are around 12%, almost 20% are mentally deficient.
I think the later, encompasses most of the previous. Does it take a village? They all have idiots!I think twoofers, are a collection, from assorted villages!

DT

[R.Mackey]

R.Mackey, I admire the essay you've presented, and generally agree with a vast majority of what you've written as it applies to the so-called "Truth Movement".

Here is your fundamental flaw that taints much of what is otherwise an excellent piece. As I've tried to explain here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74596), there is a marked difference between "Truthers" and "Conspiracy Theorists".

Excellent feedback! And you even come with your own data. I am in your debt.

I cannot disagree with your statement above, so instead let me simply clarify. My impetus was to take on the "84% Myth" being endlessly repeated by the likes of Alex Jones and his sycophants. I found that claim to be unsupported.

What you propose above goes farther than I initially intended, namely that the "Truth Movement" should be further segregated into two classes -- those who are "Truthers," or what I would call "activists;" and those who are "Conspiracy Theorists," still associated with the Truthers but less virulent, or what I would call "supporters." I don't disagree with this notion. I would, however, like to sharpen up the definitions of these groups if possible.


The site I help run focuses on a broad range of topics (most of which I'm sure raises your hackles) from conspiracy theory (of all types) to UFOlogy, paranormal, religious issues, secret societies, and so on. We call the genre "alternative topics". You would think that this broad, yet conspiracy-minded base of users (more than 1.3 million a month) would lean heavily toward an interest in 9/11 conspiracies. But no... I was surprised when we ran a survey...
Results of the 2006 ATS Visitor Survey (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread218325/pg1)

Since the initial poll a few months ago, over 40,000 members and visitors have completed the questions, and the ratios remain identical to the 2,350 initial sample provided in the analysis at the link.
I'd just like to point out that you have a nice large sample, and while not strictly controlled, the stability of your sample lends it additional credibility. I find the results quite plausible.


In this group where the majority have identified themselves as having always been interested in "alternative topics", only 8% identified themselves as coming for 9/11 conspiracy theories. And when offered a chance to identify their second-favorite topic, 9/11 conspiracies came in 6th overall, behind general conspiracies, aliens, government secrets, and science.

So, when we look at arguably the most popular and largest conspiracy theory discussion board, only 2% of all posts are related to 9/11 conspiracies and only 8% of visitors come for the topic.

Those data are consistent with what I found when I attempted to contrast Sept. 11th poll results against UFO poll results. The UFO folks are larger and more diverse in every category. They are, however, much less vocal outside their own community.


Clearly, in the spectrum of people who have an affinity for conspiracy speculation and topics, 9/11 conspiracies are not important... and getting less important as time goes on. In fact, most of our members want nothing to do with "the truth movement".

So in closing, "truthers" are a minority. A very loud and irritating minority. But they do not represent the mind-space of people who consider "conspiracy theories." They are activists, not theorists.

Like I mentioned above, we may be arguing about terminology. Nonetheless, you have an excellent source of new data here. To fuse your results with my own, completely off-the-cuff study, I might propose the following:


The vocal members of the "Truth Movement," those I will call "activists," are mostly a small subset of the larger "conspiracy theory" community.
In other words, being an "activist for truth" generally implies that one is also part of the larger "conspiracy theory" community, but not vice versa.
The "Truth Movement," including not just those activists but the larger, more restrained cloud of listeners and doubters, is a small but substantial part of the larger "CT" community.
The "TM" activists, on the other hand, are a very small and difficult to measure part of the larger "CT" community.


However, I believe my core conclusions still stand:


The "84% Myth" is exactly that, a myth. Actual interest, support, and belief in alternate Sept. 11th theories fall far below this number.
The average Truther's belief in "Truth Movement" theories is comparable to the average UFO believer's belief in UFOs, or pick your favorite example. That is to say, there is absolutely no definitive evidence in support of that belief, nor is any such evidence required.
Just as no amount of scientific understanding will ever squelch UFO theories, no amount of debunking or investigation will ever satisfy the "Truth Movement."


But I will concede that the "Truth Movement" is the most popular only the sense of its adherents' willingness to vocalize their beliefs -- they advertise the most and scream the loudest, far louder than the average segment of the Conspiracy-minded community. I did not make that distinction clear in my paper.

I'm also not sure why that is. I might speculate that it is because Sept. 11th is the first truly new Conspiracy Idea of the Internet age. We suddenly have a new wave of youngsters, with fresh tools at their disposal, but lacking the experience and seasoning that other alternative movements have undergone. I don't know how to test that, so I'll leave it as mere speculation.

Again, thank you for the comments, and I do appreciate the survey you conducted. You have a much more thorough poll than the one I slapped together, and more relevant to boot. Well done.

[SkepticGuy]

Thanks for remaining open-minded to the proposition that "truthers" are not "conspiracy theorists". I have some additional data for you... some of it raw numbers, and some of it seat-of-the-pants empirical.

Those data are consistent with what I found when I attempted to contrast Sept. 11th poll results against UFO poll results. The UFO folks are larger and more diverse in every category.
While UFO and extraterrestrials topics dominate the general "alternative topics" category, it's only the largest single category, not the majority. (Forgive me for continuing to revert back to our site, but with nearly 3 million posts in this genre, it's a good barometer.)

There are 207,339 Aliens & UFO posts... 7.2% of the total
There are 235,806 Posts in Conspiracy topics other than 9/11... 8.2% of the total
There are 59,410 9/11 Conspiracies posts... 2.0% of the total


And this page provides a historical look at all our most popular topics (in terms of replies):
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/today.php?popular=on
Our most popular 9/11-related topic is, 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1), where a large number of "conspiracy" theorists spend considerable effort debunking the "no plane" theory (with an equal number of participants who support the theory). But if you scan further down the list, there are only 11 9/11-related threads in the top-100... and...
This one (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread149925/pg1) and this one (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread235140/pg1) are against the controlled demolition theories. So, of the most popular 9/11 topics appearing on a broad-topic conspiracy board, 25% seek to debunk popularized conspiracy mythology.

So while it's safe to assume that a percentage of people with affinity for conspiracy-related discussion will be interested in 9/11 conspiracies, it's not an automatic assumption that there will be agreement with all 9/11 theories.



The vocal members of the "Truth Movement," those I will call "activists," are mostly a small subset of the larger "conspiracy theory" community.
I strongly disagree... and this is where the empirical data comes into play. I've been a "student of conspiracy theory" since the Nixon era. With history as our backdrop (I like history), we can observe that:

In the midst of the Watergate conspiracy theorizing, there were no protesters proclaiming "Watergate was an inside job!"
When data began to surface of Iran-Contra, there were no protesters looking for "Iran-Contra Truth!"
When it became clear that FBI counterintelligence operations created the LA Gang Wars in the '60's, there were no protests of "Gang Wars Are An Inside Job!"
When the CIA-sponsored drug trade into the US started to become documented, there were no protesters on the street corners of effected cities.

While I understand some skeptics may disagree with some of these conspiracies, the point remains that they are historical conspiracies on a scale similar to what is proposed about 9/11 (except for Watergate), but lacked activist protesters.

The "Truth Movement" is not a child of conspiracy theory, it's a child of anti-establishment activism. While it may seem that the mindset of conspiracy theorists have a similar anti-establishment posture, it's not the case. For the most part, conspiracy theorists seek to improve the system by weeding out "evil doers"... while the activists want to overthrow the entire system.


The "84% Myth" is exactly that, a myth. Actual interest, support, and belief in alternate Sept. 11th theories fall far below this number.
We discussed this on ATS and discovered the "truthers" twisted the survey wording which is more like "84% are aware of conspiracy theories about 9/11"... but I can't find the thread now.


The average Truther's belief in "Truth Movement" theories is comparable to the average UFO believer's belief in UFOs, or pick your favorite example. That is to say, there is absolutely no definitive evidence in support of that belief, nor is any such evidence required.
Don't get me started... :p ...while there are interesting parallels one could track and project, UFO study has elements of religious faith (but then again, the truth movement is getting cultish).

We have an interesting thread about the O'Hare sighting (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread236709/pg1) and we are also the only source with a tantalizing photo that is being corroborated by every eyewitness who sees it. This event has softened by "UFO skeptic" stance. Also... more empirical stuff... more often than not, we see "UFO people" calling "9/11 people" crazy, and visa versa... go figure.



But I will concede that the "Truth Movement" is the most popular only the sense of its adherents' willingness to vocalize their beliefs -- they advertise the most and scream the loudest, far louder than the average segment of the Conspiracy-minded community. I did not make that distinction clear in my paper.
It's not the most popular, it's the most fervent and noisy by a long measure.


I might speculate that it is because Sept. 11th is the first truly new Conspiracy Idea of the Internet age.
Before 9/11, there was an active online conspiracy community. Most of the topics focused on Bilderbergs, FreeMasons, Illuminati, and some very startling deaths associated with the Clinton administration. Of the conspiracy purists I knew from that pre-9/11 time, very few (if any) consider that a passenger airline did not strike the Pentagon, or that the towers were felled by controlled demolition (though some consider there may have been a limited number of charges to assist the fall).


Since I have access to a broad sample of people with affinity to conspiracy flavored topics, I propose a joint-venture. My survey was a general "temperature check", let's work together to assemble 10-12 questions that will give us a better sense as to how this group really feels about 9/11 conspiracies. If we can agree on the questions... I'll make and run the survey. Deal?

[JAStewart]

I'd love to go to a truther rally dressed as the Agent from the Matrix.

That would be hilarious. With the little ear piece thing.

[Kiwiwriter]

That may be, but I've also heard the argument turned on it's head. "How could they go to the Moon with computers that have less brains than a calculator?" Some people seem to get it in their head that something that is diffcult to do is impossible to do.

It's like a comment that was in a recent TV show on Roman Engineering I watched. They made some comment about the Romans digging out half a hillside with manual labour, and remarked that "We couldn't do that today". Nonsense. We could do it, we just wouldn't do it. Same thing here. No one today would try to go to the Moon with the tech they had in the 60s, but that doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't do it.


It would require quite a bit of research to determine the effects of these arguments, I think.





Or if he decides to caves entirely, and embraces the Nazi mindset, in hopes of retaining marketshare, when it's obvious the Nazi lure is winning.

The Holocaust deniers have fallen into that self-made trap, too. The Institute for Historical Review for years denied that it was a neo-Nazi or anti-Semitic outfit, trying to sound scholarly. But as their funding and backing has gradually dried up, they had to lean on their core base, and the result was that their last few magazine issues were full of paid ads from neo-Nazi organizations.

Money and core constituencies will win out.

[CurtC]

Clearly, what R.Mackey needs is to meet a nice girl. (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_124b.html)

[Loss Leader]

This thread touched so many raw nerves that it eventually led to one attorney member advising me to break laws and not pay taxes. Knowing that attorneys are sworn to a code of conduct, and that this was clearly a violation of that, it touched a raw nerve in me. I said I'd have nothing to do with this forum and went away for a while. Eventually the tremendous value of the various research assistants here overcame the annoyance factor, so I came back.

Translation: I, Truthseeker1234, lied. I lied then and am lying now. I cannot be trusted or taken at my word. If I say that I will do something, I am as likely not to do it as to do it. I lack the ability to discern fantasy from reality and thus am not a reliable reporter of actions, motives or intent.

[Loss Leader]

On the face of it, I can see only three important reasons one might do so: (1) To convice CT'ers of the errors of their ways, (2) To provide counter-arguments for fence-sitters to consider, and (3) To honor the 9/11 victims and their families. Based on your discussion, it appears reason #1 is invalid, because as has been pointed out, CT'ers don't care about facts and so are impervious to being persuaded by them. Reason #2 is certainly worthwhile, but I wonder if it's necessary any more, since as you note the true percentage of the public sympathetic to CT'ers appears at or below the "retard" line defined by South Park. Whatever reachable fence sitters may still be out there don't seem to be buying the CT argument anymore, if indeed they ever did.

Good post but I wanted to disagree slightly. It appears to me that time and distance work in favor of conspiracy theorists. I don't know what the percentage was in 1964 or 1969 but when I was a teenager in the '80s, just about everyone in my class believed in a JFK conspiracy. It really was almost taken as fact that there was some sort of assassination plot and that we probably would never know it.

I don't know if this was youthful fantasy and my classmates grew out of it (as I did) or if it was a product of being so many years away from the event.

I worry that as 9/11 fades into history and becomes less real, the CT numbers will grow. People just won't have the clear memories, all of the research pro and con will be lumped all together, and such speculation will be a fun pastime with no effect on the present.

This is the reason we must constantly remember the Holocaust and, I think, it's a good reason to keep fighting the Tr00th movement. In fifty years, people have to be able to look back and find good sources leading to real evidence. Otherwise, the desire to make history "interesting" in the future may overcome what now appears to us to be common sense.

[R.Mackey]

Clearly, what R.Mackey needs is to meet a nice girl. (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_124b.html)

Sheesh, don't let my wife hear you say that... :D

[R.Mackey]

Thanks for remaining open-minded to the proposition that "truthers" are not "conspiracy theorists". I have some additional data for you... some of it raw numbers, and some of it seat-of-the-pants empirical.

I strongly disagree... and this is where the empirical data comes into play. I've been a "student of conspiracy theory" since the Nixon era. With history as our backdrop (I like history), we can observe that:

In the midst of the Watergate conspiracy theorizing, there were no protesters proclaiming "Watergate was an inside job!"
When data began to surface of Iran-Contra, there were no protesters looking for "Iran-Contra Truth!"
When it became clear that FBI counterintelligence operations created the LA Gang Wars in the '60's, there were no protests of "Gang Wars Are An Inside Job!"
When the CIA-sponsored drug trade into the US started to become documented, there were no protesters on the street corners of effected cities.

Well, my empirical (anecdotal, actually) data on these points is different. Where I grew up and went to college, there were indeed protests -- of similar scale and composition to the 5th Anniversary Blackshirt Bullhorn Bash -- during Iran Contra, and again during the 1988 elections. That one even came up again briefly in 1992. I knew many people who honestly expected George HW Bush to declare martial law in order to cling to power.

I would argue that the protests we've seen from the "Truth Movement" are nothing special, even among conspiracy-theory motivated protests. I've seen more over Iran-Contra, other Central American policies both real and imagined ("El Salvadorean Death Squads," "White Rain"), the nonexistent USG-AIDS conspiracy, USG-Saddam conspiracies, etc. than anything yet out of the Troothers. Heck, we even used to have a guy protesting about the Face On Mars. But I have yet to see a real-life Troother on the streets, anywhere.


The "Truth Movement" is not a child of conspiracy theory, it's a child of anti-establishment activism. While it may seem that the mindset of conspiracy theorists have a similar anti-establishment posture, it's not the case. For the most part, conspiracy theorists seek to improve the system by weeding out "evil doers"... while the activists want to overthrow the entire system.

This is an interesting distinction, one that may be worth teasing out.

From my personal experience, you have members of both in many camps, often leading to some interesting schisms. Like the split between Greenpeace and Earth First! for instance. I support the former without reservation, but the latter is far too fringey for me to associate with. And then you have the Sea Shepherds waaaay off in right field...


Since I have access to a broad sample of people with affinity to conspiracy flavored topics, I propose a joint-venture. My survey was a general "temperature check", let's work together to assemble 10-12 questions that will give us a better sense as to how this group really feels about 9/11 conspiracies. If we can agree on the questions... I'll make and run the survey. Deal?
That is an excellent proposal, and I'd be quite happy to take you up on it. In return, I'd like to invite you to advise or even co-author an update to my first paper, which I will now consider a "draft."

Let's try to nail down exactly what hypothesis we want to test, then agree to some definite terminology, and write the questions afterward. I'm going to be traveling often this week, but by next week we should be able to nail them down.

A few ideas for starters:


Is there a distinction between 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists and other conspiracy theorists?
Are "Truthers" more likely to try to spread their beliefs than others? (I think you would say "yes" to this one.)
Are "Truthers" more likely to protest than others? Which others?
Did "Truthers" gain their beliefs in a different way than other groups?
Do "Truthers" have different ultimate goals than other groups?


Thanks again for your feedback. This could turn out to be a much more interesting project than I first anticipated.

[Stankeye]

While the truth movement is new and by virtue of the information age different than the conspiracy theories that came before it, it is not in my opinion some kind of outside the box CT.

Ultimately all CT’s are based in distrust of authority and the powerful elite. I don’t know how one would say the truth movement is not in this camp or that other CT’s are not in the same group.

UFOlogists think the government has knowledge and evidence of extraterrestrials and the more extreme version is that they control the government.

JFK Assassination is again the government.

Illuminati and NWO is the powerful elite and whatever government people are in on it.

911 Truth is again the government creating an incident to promote its agenda.

I don’t really understand how/why anyone would think these groups aren’t the same people.

I would venture to guess from SkepticGuys group that even if they may not believe the more outrageous claims of the truth movement that they do believe in LIHOP, which fits perfectly into their world view.

Right now in the truth movement it may just be kids fighting the system or the “Man”, but ultimately it’s going to boil down to the government having too much perceived power and having secret knowledge, that only them and their select group have access to.

[ktesibios]

Data on the proportion of the sample population who advocate more than one popular conspiracy theory, e.g., 9/11, JFK, Moon Hoax, chemtrails, FEMA concentration camps, etc., and on the theories most commonly found together would be interesting.

It's easy to get the subjective impression that conspiracy buffs are prone to syndromism, or the "betcha can't eat just one" effect, but quantitative information to support or refute that hypothesis would be really cool and perhaps shed some light on whether particular beliefs tend to be more set apart than others.

It's only a hunch, but I have a feeling that some grad student in the social sciences might find a thesis topic in what can be observed in such fora as Godlike Productions. ;)

[SkepticGuy]

Ah crap... you guys always post something interesting after my nightly double single malt (hrm... double single malt?).

Ultimately all CT’s are based in distrust of authority and the powerful elite.
Not all. Those that stray to the dark side and play with Ouija board maybe, but not all.


I don’t know how one would say the truth movement is not in this camp or that other CT’s are not in the same group.
Only in that the "truthers" gather the inspiration for their anger from conspiracy-inspired topics.


UFOlogists think the government has knowledge and evidence of extraterrestrials
Many do, some don't. There's more madness in the UFO arena than there is in "truthers"... it's just that we've all grown used to ti.
and the more extreme version is that they control the government.
That's David Icke, all bets are off. (Though he is a hell-of-a nice guy... one of the few extreme conspiracy theorist with which I know I'd enjoy having drinks with.)


I would venture to guess from SkepticGuys group that even if they may not believe the more outrageous claims of the truth movement that they do believe in LIHOP, which fits perfectly into their world view.
Pancakes?

Some theories rely on aspects of a government that anticipates, allows, or enables terrible events. Others rely on bad people doing bad things.

[SkepticGuy]

FEMA concentration camps,
Ah-ha! Rex-84 and continuance. Nasty stuff that.

This is how conspiracy theories are born. There is indeed a basis for these concerns as Regan appointed his counter-activist guy from California to head up FEMA and create the project that anticipates civil unrest and the need for detainment camps.

The program came out in the Iran-Contra hearings, and was immediately silenced. Interesting historical stuff buried deep in this topic. Another thread, another time.

The point is... we have had a history of administrations that do a broad range of things that span a spectrum from horrible to stupid that continues to give conspiracy theorists a basis for theories. I tend to think most of it falls into the "stupid" category, but the other stuff... well... that's what keeps the conspiracy theorists talking.

[ktesibios]

Ah-ha! Rex-84 and continuance. Nasty stuff that.

This is how conspiracy theories are born. There is indeed a basis for these concerns as Regan appointed his counter-activist guy from California to head up FEMA and create the project that anticipates civil unrest and the need for detainment camps.

The program came out in the Iran-Contra hearings, and was immediately silenced. Interesting historical stuff buried deep in this topic. Another thread, another time.

The point is... we have had a history of administrations that do a broad range of things that span a spectrum from horrible to stupid that continues to give conspiracy theorists a basis for theories. I tend to think most of it falls into the "stupid" category, but the other stuff... well... that's what keeps the conspiracy theorists talking.

What I find most interesting about that particular PCT is the way that it's become encrusted with layers of elaboration. It reminds me of growing crystals as a kid- given a support structure that provides some nucleation sites, a supersaturated solution of a salt will produce crystal clusters of considerable complexity, grotesqueness and sometimes beauty.

Are you familiar with the Tale of the White Boxcars with Built-In Shackles? The earliest traces of that one which I found when it first came to my attention a few years ago were in archived alt.* Usenet posts dating from 1995. At that time it was already being debunked on the "patriot" newsgroups, so it must already have been around for a while.

Try this Google search for "white boxcars" and "shackles" (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=shackles&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=white+boxcars&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images).

Note that it returns over 1,100 hits. Also note, in the blurbs on the results pages, how many sites contain exactly the same text. That illustrates a phenomenon common to paranoid conspiracism on the 'net- the uncritical cut-n-paste multiplication of dubious claims, which I like to call "cybermetastasis".

Also note that some of the hits returned are from sites dedicated to UFOs, chemtrails and other PCTs. Observations like that, which give the impression that there is a significant component of syndromism in paranoid conspiracism, are why I am curious about what an analysis of posts in conspiracist fora would reveal about that hypothesis.

Some of the Web pages that search turns up, like this prime example (http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/ftct.htm), include pictures. The first time I encountered that photo on a (different) CT Web site, it took about 15 minutes of Googling to find the original image (http://www.trainweb.org/funnelfan/automax.htm) on the railfan site it was smouched from. Since I'll cheerfully admit to being a mere dilettante with a knack for working a search engine, one can infer a bit about the willingness and ability of the average Internet conspiracist to do the most rudimentary checking up of emotionally simpatico claims.

This theme- and that very picture- have been discussed on the abovetopsecret forum here (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread148875/pg3), so you might already be familiar with it.

Want some more fun? Here's another Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=camp+fema+%22beech+grove%22&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=10&sa=N) to try. Did you know that the Amtrak repair facility in Beech Grove, Indiana, is actually a FEMA death camp?

Despite their age and the readily demonstrable incompetence/dishonesty of the NetLoons circulating these claims, they haven't gone away. If you keep an eye on, for example, a CT-friendly Indymedia site like the Portland IMC (http://portland.indymedia.org) for a while, your patience is likely eventually to be rewarded with a reappearance of the very same claims. That's another fascinating aspect of paranoid conspiracism- the way that old claims, no matter how shaky, have a sort of Hammer-Films-Dracula perpetual life, periodically rising from their graves to feed on new victims.

There's something about the way that many PCT themes achieve an archetype status that is very reminiscent of folklore; in fact, I suspect that anyone aiming at a serious study of Internet paranoid conspiracism might do well to recruit a professional folklorist as a team member.

Returning to my crystal-growing analogy, the supersaturated solution is a public experiencing increasing anxiety about the course of their society, feeling increasingly powerless to affect their own fates and poorly-equipped to investigate claims and evaluate the credibility of sources. The documented presence of paranoid authoritarians like Giuffrida and North in government and our history of periodic spasms of serious repression, e.g. the Palmer Raids and the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, provide all the support structure and nucleation sites needed to precipitate elaborate clusters of detailed fantasies like the ones that have grown around FEMA.

What I think I discern about your viewpoint is that it is rather similar to Mark Fenster's, which takes seriously the popularity of paranoid conspiracy theories as an expression of popular anxieties and an indicator of the degree of alienation between the people of a society and that society's power structures, even though the theories themselves are often divorced from reality.

[Loss Leader]

Does anyone have any idea what happens as conspiracists age? Is the conspiracy mindset something that people in general grow out of?

I would think it might be. Conspiracy theories are fun and they give one the illusion of power over an otherwise frightening world. That seems like it would appeal to adolescents and young adults and be less appealing as people are able to establish themselves as real members of society.

Of course, this excludes those who are honestly mentally ill. Their condition will get worse over time, I think.

[SkepticGuy]

Are you familiar with the Tale of the White Boxcars with Built-In Shackles? [/groan]
Yes. In fact, I recall some of the first usenet postings in the mid 1980's related to this issue. The railcar stories were bogus.

However, there were some stories (of better credibility) of massive numbers of school busses being ordered and painted primer-gray. I believe it was covered in the Village Voice as part of the "shadowy" things Oli North was doing. It's very likely that eager conspiracy fans took the school bus material, and extended it to giant railcars.


[quote]There's something about the way that many PCT themes achieve an archetype status that is very reminiscent of folklore; in fact, I suspect that anyone aiming at a serious study of Internet paranoid conspiracism might do well to recruit a professional folklorist as a team member.
Actually, we've gone a couple steps better and have two cultural anthropologists with bona fides who are very active.

Generally, as we apply a "conspiracy friendly" critical analysis to even the most wild stories, we find core elements from which the theories spring forth.

For example (and this will likely get your shorts in a knot), within two weeks of 9/11, there were at least four apparently unconnected sources telling an identical story.

(The following is my best reconstruction from memory)

The stories claimed the 9/11 attacks were a culmination of a war between factions of ultra-elite covert groups within the U.S. government. This "faction" war was long discussed in the months leading up to 9/11, complete with tantalizing tidbits from former spies and "beltway informants." Before the attack, there was some discussion of the Pentagon reconstruction, and the hardening working being done on the section that ended up being attacked. Apparently, some exceptionally sensitive data systems were installed in August of 2001.

The stories described that the Pentagon attack was either a reprisal on one faction, or an evidence sanitizing event (the data systems were destroyed) The stories further described the NYC attacks as ancillary events to support the terrorist attack back story, as the covert group initiating the attacks would benefit from a war on terrorism. However, no one intended such catastrophic results.

Now, this is very different from much of the 9/11 conspiracy tripe we see this days, but it's still very far-fetched. But you can see how such a core story can evolve to a missile attack and controlled demolition... just as Oli North's school buses evolved into massive trains to round up the subversives.


Returning to my crystal-growing analogy, the supersaturated solution is a public experiencing increasing anxiety about the course of their society,
>snip<
What I think I discern about your viewpoint is that it is rather similar to Mark Fenster's, which takes seriously the popularity of paranoid conspiracy theories as an expression of popular anxieties and an indicator of the degree of alienation between the people of a society and that society's power structures, even though the theories themselves are often divorced from reality.

Hrm... conspiracy theory osmosis... thanks for that thought... there's something to it.

But yes, I generally agree with your last, except that I'm firmly in the camp that some theories are not divorced from reality at all. History has taught us that bad people do bad things, and large groups of people in power will have a percentage of bad people who will do bad things to maintain a power base.

My general feeling is that most "conspiracy theories" are not nearly as terrible as we (conspiracy theorists) think, but a few are worse than we can possible imagine.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[SkepticGuy]

Does anyone have any idea what happens as conspiracists age? Is the conspiracy mindset something that people in general grow out of?
If old conspiracy theorists remain conspiracy theorists...

They either get wiser and learn to apply critical thinking to the study of conspiracies...

...or...

Their walls are padded.

[LashL]

This thread touched so many raw nerves that it eventually led to one attorney member advising me to break laws and not pay taxes. Knowing that attorneys are sworn to a code of conduct, and that this was clearly a violation of that, it touched a raw nerve in me. I said I'd have nothing to do with this forum and went away for a while. Eventually the tremendous value of the various research assistants here overcame the annoyance factor, so I came back.

Several years ago, during the trial of an accused person on very serious charges, the details of which are not important for purposes of this post, a Crown attorney (the Canadian equivalent to the U.S. "District attorney") stood up for his cross examination of the accused who had just completed his testimony in-chief, and said, very slowly and deliberately,

"Liar...



Liar...



Pants on fire"


And then he sat down. That was the entirety of his cross examination.

He knew that the accused was lying through his teeth, and he figured that he didn't even have to question the accused on the specifics of his testimony as the accused's lies were sufficiently exposed by the testimony of the other witnesses.

He was right, and the accused was ultimately convicted on all charges.

I am reminded of that here, knowing the history of the posts Troofseeker alludes to and knowing the veracity of LossLeader's posts and the lack of veracity of Troofseeker's posts.

So, I will simply post this in response to Troofseeker's posts:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110345dd2faece01b.jpg

Enough said.