HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Faulking Around - Oct 4, 2005 - Printable Version
- Crop Circles and Magic Beer Cans
by Mark Faulk
For a person who long ago gave up fairy tales and Santa Claus (well, not THAT long ago), conspiracy theories are one of the few real thrills I have left in my mundane life. Granted, I employ what I like to call a "hit and run" approach to conspiracies, meaning that I like to come up with a good one, back it up with whatever "evidence" I have, throw in a healthy dose of speculation, ask a few cryptic questions, and then stand back and watch the fur fly. It's a stimulating pastime, and every now and then my conspiracies actually pan out, like in the Stockgate scandal. Other times, the questions I ask lead to other questions, which then lead to actual research that either proves or disproves my theory. A couple, like the Oklahoma presidential "voting scandal", turned to merely entertaining instead of true. And in fact, a few of them are still being debated over a pint of ale in the dark corner of some faraway pub, like "The Magic Bomb Theory" and "The Case of the Melted Coins". Oh wait, that last one was a Hardy Boys book. Sorry. Anyway, as one of our Guestbook poster pointed out, all in all, it's great fun, and as I said before, if even one of them turns out to be right on the money, then I've contributed something to history. I honestly couldn't pinpoint exactly what it is I've contributed, but then, that's both the beauty and the bane of the blogger, we put it out there, hope that a tsunami-sized internet wave will pick it up and carry across the universe, and let the microchips fall where they may. But now, we have two articles written by our best and brightest, rebutting not just a couple of the more far-fetched conspiracy theories that have been put forth on that giant cyber-tabloid known as the internet, but actually bringing into question the validity of the entire genre of conspiracy itself.
In Robin Buckallew's article "The Rational Middle", she laments the fact that the recent questions concerning the possible deliberate bombing of the levees in New Orleans might take away from the more important issues, such as the defective levees and the money diverted from flood control measures over the past several years. Valid points, all. However, truth is truth, and I don't think we can choose which information to release. I would like to point out that I only posted the information I had, which in fact claimed that the initial flooding was caused by a levee collapse, and that the subsequent dynamiting of the additional levees was an ill-fated attempt at controlling the flooding in the more affluent neighborhoods. I didn't report it until a week after I first received reports claiming that the levees were dynamited, sitting on the information until several other eyewitnesses corroborated the story. Is it true? It's hard to say for certain, but there's enough evidence to make further investigation a legitimate request, and any responsible investigator would follow the clues to their conclusion, one way or another. If five people claim to have witnessed something suspicious in a murder investigation, ignoring those claims would be considered negligent. Again, the clues and the claims have to be followed to their conclusion, one way or another. Robin herself makes that very point, while urging those who report these rumors to exercise a bit of restraint. On that point, she's absolutely right. We do have to separate the ludicrous from the merely far-fetched, although that can be a fine line.
Now Ken Shade, on the other hand, dismisses some of the most popular conspiracy theories in modern culture, including the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, the Murrah Building bombing, and the Waco Branch Davidian fiasco. Talk about a buzz kill. I don't want to debate Ken on all of the conspiracies that he dismisses as merely folklore, because he'll rip me to shreds with his prodigious mastery of the English language, and also because, unlike when we were kids, he's no longer small enough to sway to my point of view utilizing brute physical force. Damn the luck. Instead, I'll present my evidence using his own anecdote from his article, "Sometimes, Mommies Cry," where he discusses an errant beer can thrown while he was standing near where Kennedy was assassinated in Dealy Square. Let's begin with Ken's story:
It was foolish to be doing this because it was the night before the Oklahoma-Texas game, and downtown was teeming with intoxicated college students. As I was pontificating on trajectories, a white Pontiac full of them raced past. A 16 oz. beer can came flying out the window of the car window and hit Steve square in the chest with a sickening thud.
The can was full and unopened.
I'm pretty sure that can was meant for me. When you're morbidly obese, you get used to insults, beer cans, wet diapers, empty make-up containers and other things flying out of car windows at you.
Anyway, the can opened on impact with Steve's sternum, and our only satisfaction came from the fact that the car had Texas plates, and Oklahoma won 44-9.
Now, let's examine the evidence. Ken clearly states that the flying beer can "hit Steve square in the chest," and that the can "opened on impact with Steve's sternum." Now that makes perfect sense to me, and I'm certain that any semi-sane American would buy Ken's story. But's what's interesting is what the beer can didn't do. If instead of simply hitting Steve squarely in the chest, it had hit him in the chest, ricocheted off at a 90% angle and struck him in the neck, then, changed direction (in mid-air, mind you) and took a hard right, struck Ken in the back of his right arm pit, bounced off and hit him in the right nipple, and then exploded on impact with his right wrist, shattering Ken's wrist in several places, then he would have clearly disproved the multiple gunmen theory in the Kennedy assassination. As it is.....well, I rest my case.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go cut some crop circles into a wheat field.....I mean, I have a hot date with a twenty-two year old Paris Hilton lookalike.....okay, would you believe I'm going to go watch reruns of the real Paris Hilton in "The Simple Life" on WB? (By the way, I heard that "The Simple Life" was really scripted, and that Ms. Hilton isn't nearly as dumb as she appears to be in the series. In fact, my informants tell me that all of the reality shows are really scripted. How's that for a conspiracy? I guess there are some things I'd just rather not know about.)
Hell, maybe I'll break down and read a book instead. Where's my copy of "Mind Stalkers: UFO's, Implants & the Psychotronic Agenda of the New World Order'? There's got to be some great info for an in depth Faulking Truth expose' somewhere in there. All you have to do is read the Amazon.com description of that literary classic:
"ALIEN ABDUCTIONS, ELF WAVES, MENTAL MANIPULATION...ALL EQUALS BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION! There is a secret plot by New World Order to control the Earth's population for a sinister agenda. Many UFO abductees maintain they have become part of a brainwashing program by aliens; but is another "secret society" really behind all that is happening?"
Yeah, I know that all might sound a little far-fetched, but it's written by a former military intelligent operative with insider connections in CIA and other splinter groups. And who told me that? Well, they did. You know...."they". What more proof do you want?
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).