2008 Woodie Awards
Conspiracies Are Like Backsides...
When choosing theories, be a smart shopper.
Brian Dean
Issue date: 10/12/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Some people who refuse to accept the explanation of events disseminated by the government are thought of as kooks and wackos, even when key pieces of evidence remain unexplained unrefuted or contradictory to facts.
Other people make unsettling claims with no tangible proof to back them up.
These are two very different types who too often get lumped into the same category, resulting in even greater difficulty in persuading people to listen.
Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, belongs in the second category with his recent statement that a section of the levee in New Orleans may have been intentionally demolished.
He claimed a "very reliable source" saw a 25-foot-deep crater underneath the levee breach, and that it was done to deliberately harm the low-lying, poor black neighborhoods. Though he couched this statement in uncertain terms, the seed was planted.
To date, no reliable evidence of this claim has been offered. The only scrap of what might be considered proof comes on from ABC News clip in which a New Orleans resident told a reporter that he believed the levee was blown up because he heard a loud "boom" when it broke. It would be surprising if, when a giant concrete block crumbled beneath tons of water, it didn't make a sound.
In addition, Farrakhan points to the far right-wing radio talk show host Hal Turner for an unsubstantiated claim that a diver with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers seized a suspicious looking piece of levee debris, and the secret examination of it found traces of high explosives.
Of course the diver and his superior have no names; the "trusted military friends" at the U.S. Army Forensic Laboratory where the analysis took place have no names.
This type of feeble "information" comes from "well-placed sources" speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Claims like these only hurt more credible ones that go against official explanations. It takes too much speculation and too much blind faith to believe in theories with no empirical evidence behind them. They tend to be based on emotions and rely on some type of keen insight into the perpetrator's hidden agenda.
Other people make unsettling claims with no tangible proof to back them up.
These are two very different types who too often get lumped into the same category, resulting in even greater difficulty in persuading people to listen.
Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, belongs in the second category with his recent statement that a section of the levee in New Orleans may have been intentionally demolished.
He claimed a "very reliable source" saw a 25-foot-deep crater underneath the levee breach, and that it was done to deliberately harm the low-lying, poor black neighborhoods. Though he couched this statement in uncertain terms, the seed was planted.
To date, no reliable evidence of this claim has been offered. The only scrap of what might be considered proof comes on from ABC News clip in which a New Orleans resident told a reporter that he believed the levee was blown up because he heard a loud "boom" when it broke. It would be surprising if, when a giant concrete block crumbled beneath tons of water, it didn't make a sound.
In addition, Farrakhan points to the far right-wing radio talk show host Hal Turner for an unsubstantiated claim that a diver with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers seized a suspicious looking piece of levee debris, and the secret examination of it found traces of high explosives.
Of course the diver and his superior have no names; the "trusted military friends" at the U.S. Army Forensic Laboratory where the analysis took place have no names.
This type of feeble "information" comes from "well-placed sources" speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Claims like these only hurt more credible ones that go against official explanations. It takes too much speculation and too much blind faith to believe in theories with no empirical evidence behind them. They tend to be based on emotions and rely on some type of keen insight into the perpetrator's hidden agenda.
