The Overkill Conspiracy Hypothesis
The term conspiracy theory is wielded as a pejorative, alluding to on-its-face absurdity. But the vocabulary we use has a serious ambiguity problem because conspiracies are not figments of the imagination. There is a tangible and qualitative distinction between plain-vanilla conspiracies (COINTELPRO, Operation Snow White, or the Gunpowder Plot) and their more theatrical cousins (flat earth theory, the moon landing hoax, or the farcical notion that coffee tastes good), yet a clear delineation has been elusive and it’s unsatisfying to just assert “this one is crazy, and this one isn’t.” Both camps involve subterfuge, malevolent intent, covert operations, misinformation, orchestrated deceit, hidden agendas, clandestine networks, and yes, conspiracy, and yet the attempts to differentiate between the two have veered into unsatisfactory or plainly misleading territories.
What I’ll argue is the solution boils down to a simple reconfiguration of the definition that captures the essence of the absurdity: conspiracy theories are theories that assume circumstances that render the titular “conspiracy” unnecessary. This is what I’ll refer to as the Overkill Conspiracy Hypothesis (OCH). Before we dive into this refinement, it’s helpful to explore why traditional distinctions have fallen short.
The section on differences in The People’s Pedia showcases some of these misguided attempts. For example, conspiracy theories tend to be in opposition to mainstream consensus but that’s a naked appeal to authority — logic that would have tarred the early challengers to the supposed health benignity of smoking as loons. Or that theories portray conspirators acting with extreme malice, but humans can indeed harbor evil intentions (see generally, human history). Another relies on the implausibility of maintaining near-perfect operational security. This is getting better, but while maintaining secrecy is hard, it’s definitely not impossible. We have actual, real-life examples of covert military operations, or drug cartels that manage to operate clandestine billion-dollar logistical enterprises.
There’s still some useful guidance to draw from the pile of chaff, and that’s conspiracy theories’ lack of, and resistance to, falsifiability. Despite its unfortunate name, falsifiability is one of my nearest and dearest concepts for navigating the world. Put simply, falsifiability is the ability for a theory to be proven wrong at least hypothetically. The classic example is “I believe all swans are white, but I would change my mind if I saw a black swan”. The classic counterexample could be General John DeWitt citing the absence of sabotage by Japanese-Americans during WWII as evidence of future sabotage plans. There is indeed a trend of conspiracy theorists digging into their belief in belief, and dismissing contrary evidence as either fabricated, or (worse) evidence of the conspiracy itself.
I won’t talk shit about the falsifiability test; it’s really good stuff. But it has limitations. For one, the lack of falsifiability is only a good indication a theory is deficient, not a conclusive determination. There are also practical considerations, like how historical events can be difficult to apply falsifiability because the evidence is incomplete or hopelessly lost, or how insufficient technology in an emerging scientific field can place some falsifiable claims (temporarily, hopefully) beyond scrutiny. So the inability to falsify a theory does not necessarily mean that the theory is bunk.
Beyond those practical limitations, there’s also the unfortunate bad actor factor. Theorists with sufficient dishonesty or self-awareness can respond to the existential threat of falsifiability by resorting to vague innuendo to avoid tripping over shoelaces of their own making. Since you can’t falsify what isn’t firmly posited, they dance around direct assertions, keeping their claims shrouded in a mist of maybe. The only recourse then is going one level higher, and deducing vagueness as a telltale sign of a falsifiability fugitive wherever concrete answers to the who / how / why remain elusive. Applying the vagueness test to the flat earth theory showcases the evasion. It’s near-impossible to get any clear answers from proponents: who exactly is behind Big Globe, how did they manage to hoodwink everyone, and why why why why why would anyone devote any effort to this scheme? In contrast, True Conspiracies™ like the atomic spies lack the nebulousness: Soviet Union / covert transmission of nuclear secrets / geopolitical advantage.
Yet the vagueness accusation doesn’t apply to all conspiracy theories. The moon landing hoax is surprisingly lucid on this point: NASA / soundstage / geopolitical advantage. And this unveils another defense mechanism against falsification, which is the setting of ridiculously high standards of evidence. Speaking of veils, there’s a precedent for this in Islamic law of all places, where convictions for fornication require four eyewitnesses to the same act of intercourse, and only adult male Muslims are deemed competent witnesses. The impossibly stringent standards appear to be in response to the fact that the offense carries the death penalty, and shows it’s possible to raise the bar so high that falsifiability is intentionally rendered out of reach.
The moon landing hoax might be subjected to these impossible standards, given that the Apollo 11 landing was meticulously documented over 143 minutes of uninterrupted video footage — a duration too lengthy to fit on a film reel with the technology available at the time. Although only slightly higher than the Lizardman Constant, a surprising 6% of Americans still hold the view that the moon landing was staged. At some point you have to ask how much evidence is enough, but ultimately there’s no universally accepted threshold for answering this question.
So falsifiability remains a fantastic tool, but it has legitimate practical limitations, and isn’t a conclusive inquiry anyways. Someone’s refusal to engage in falsifiability remains excellent evidence they’re aware and concerned of subjecting their theory to scrutiny, but their efforts (vagueness or impossible standards) will nevertheless still frustrate a straightforward application of falsifiability. So what’s left?
We’re finally back again to the Overkill Conspiracy Hypothesis, where the circumstances conspiracy theories must assume also, ironically, render the conspiracy moot. The best way to explain this is by example. Deconstructing a conspiracy theory replicates the thrill of planning a bank heist, so put yourself in the shoes of the unfortunate anonymous bureaucrat tasked with overseeing the moon landing hoax. Remember that the why of the moon landing hoax was to establish geopolitical prestige by having the United States beat the Soviet Union to the lunar chase. So whatever scheme you concoct has to withstand scrutiny from what was, at the time, the most advanced space program employing the greatest space engineers from that half of the world.
The most straightforward countermeasure would be to task already existing NASA engineers to draft up totally fake but absolutely plausible equipment designs. Every single aspect of the entire launch — each rocket, lunar module, ladder, panel, bolt, glove, wrench — would need to be painstakingly fabricated to deceive not just the global audience, but the eagle-eyed experts watching with bated breath from the other side of the Cold War divide. Extend that to all communications, video transmissions, photographs, astronaut testimonies, and ’returned’ moon rocks. Each and all of it has to be exhaustively and meticulously examined by dedicated and highly specialized consultants.
But it doesn’t stop there, because you also need absolute and perpetual secrecy, as any singular leak would threaten the entire endeavor. The U.S. was well aware Soviet Union spies had successfully snagged closely-guarded nuclear secrets, so whatever countermeasures needed here had to surpass fucking nukes. Like I said before, secrecy is not impossible, just very difficult. I suppose NASA could take a page from the cartels and just institute brutally violent reprisals against any snitches (plus their whole families), but this genre of deterrence can only work if…people know about it. More likely, though, NASA would use the traditional intelligence agency methods of extensive vetting, selective recruitment, and lavish compensation, but now all measures would need to be further amplified to surpass the protective measures around nuclear secrets.
We’re talking screening hundreds or thousands of individuals more rigorously than for nuclear secrets, alongside an expanding surveillance apparatus to keep everyone in line. How much do you need to increase NASA’s budget (10x? 100x?) to devote toward a risky gambit that, if exposed, would be history’s forever laughingstock? If such vast treasuries are already at disposal, it starts to seem easier to just…go to the moon for real.
OCH® has several benefits. It starts by not challenging any conspiracy theorist’s premises. It accepts it as given that there is indeed a sufficiently motivated shadowy cabal, and just runs with it. This sidesteps any of the aforementioned concerns about falsifiability fugitives, and still provides a useful rubric for distinguishing plain-vanilla conspiracies from their black sheep brethren.
If we apply OCH to the atomic spies, we can see the theory behind that conspiracy requires no overkill assumptions. The Soviet Union did not have nukes, they wanted nukes, and stealing someone else’s blueprints is definitely much easier than developing your own in-house. The necessary assumption (the Soviet Union has an effective espionage program) does not negate the need for the conspiracy.
Contrast that with something like the Sandy Hook hoax, which posits the school shooting as a false flag operation orchestrated by the government to pass restrictive gun laws (or something; see the vagueness section above). Setting aside the fact that no significant firearm legislation actually resulted, the hoax and the hundreds of crisis actors it would have required would have necessitated thousands of auditions, along with all the secrecy hurdles previously discussed. And again, if the government already has access to this mountain of resources, it seems like there are far more efficient methods of spending it (like maybe giving every congressman some gold bars) rather than orchestrating an attack and then hoping the right laws get passed afterward.
It’s also beguiling to wonder exactly why the shadowy cabal would even need to orchestrate a fake mass shooting, given the fact that they already regularly happen! Even if the cabal wanted to instigate a slaughter (for whatever reason), the far, far, far simpler method is to just identify the loner incel kid and prod them into committing an actual mass shooting. We’ve already stipulated the cabal does not care about dead kids. Similarly, if the U.S. wanted to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks as a prelude to global war, it seems far easier to load up an actual plane full of actual explosives and just actually launch it at the actual buildings, rather than to spend the weeks or months to surreptitiously sneak in however many tons of thermite into the World Trade Center (while also coordinating the schedule with the plane impact, for some reason).
Examining other examples of Verified Conspiracies demonstrate how none of them harbor overkill assumptions that render the conspiratorial endeavors moot. In the Watergate scandal, the motive was to gain political advantage by spying on adversaries, and the conspirators did so through simple breaking and entering. No assumptions are required about the capabilities of President Nixon’s security entourage that would have rendered the trespass unnecessary. Even something with the scope of Operation Snow White — which remains one of the largest infiltrations of the U.S. government, involving up to 5,000 agents — fits. The fact that they had access to thousands of covert agents isn’t overkill, because the agents still needed to infiltrate government agencies to gain access to the documents they wanted destroyed. The assumptions do not belie the need for the conspiracy.
I hold no delusions that I can convince people wedded to their conspiracy theory of their missteps. I don’t claim to have any idea how people fall prey to this kind of unfalsifiable absurdist thinking. But at least for the rest of us, it will remain useful to be able to draw a stark distinction between the real and the kooky. Maybe after that we can unearth some answers.
—sent from my lunar module
While some singular leaks threaten conspiracies, most singular leaks are just ignored.
If you look at the question of whether or not the United States has alien spacecrafts there are a bunch of leaks that point in that direction but the public at large does not believe that the conspiracy exists.
There are some theories that lack nebulousness but if you would have spoken in the 50′s about how Robert Moses organized the power that he has I would assume most of those descriptions would have a lot of nebulousness in them.
If you have a complex conspiracy and only know some of the subparts it’s likely going to seem nebulous.
I mostly agree with your points.
Singular leaks can only be effective if coupled with evidence that you would rationally expect. Snowden’s singular leak was extremely effective, because he had the receipts to back up what he claimed. The UFO leaks have not been, for the opposite reason.
Nebulousness can be an indicator of a falsifiability fugitive, but it can also have innocent explanations as you point out.
Snowden could leak the way he did because he was a sysadmin which unlogged access to a lot of information which few people who were in on their conspiracy had. I don’t think anyone could again leak like that given that the NSA likely is no running software from Palantir that prevents a single person from access documents like that.
The lack of action when the first whistleblower wrote the FDA in the Ranbaxy saga would be a good example of what often comes out of a single whistleblower.
The SEC ignored the first complaints against Berny Madoff as well.
When it comes to nebulousness it reminds me on a line from Die Wahrheit und was wirklich passierte that asserts that most areas where we likely have conspiracies are very complex.
If you can make your conspiracy so complex that no prosecutor can explain it to a jury or journalist to their readers, the conspiracy is relatively immune from attacks.
Do you remember how banks conspired to change LIBOR rates to steal billions of dollars from people’s pensions and other places?
How much do you remember about the Ranbaxy conspiracy?
Interesting — although it’s not an entirely new argument. Does it work with theories like that of chemtrails, though? Assuming I want to poison the atmosphere or something, say, with the end goal of cooling down the climate, I would need an absurd amount of power to be able to have very many secret planes, that don’t ever get flagged as “not actually a legit passenger plane” by any air force… which is why it’s likely not true. But we can’t really say that assuming I had such power the conspiracy would be unnecessary? The best way to do all that geoengineering would still be the chemtrail planes?
My understanding of the chemtrail conspiracy is the purpose is to for the government to spread mind-control chemicals (or something) via commercial planes. For that to be true, we’d have to assume the “chemicals” we’re talking about must be extremely potent given the altitude. If the government has access to this level of mind-control chemical technology, it does seem odd to waste so much of it by scattering it over absolutely remote areas at an altitude of 6 miles up. If the government already has an established web of secrecy and logistics implicating every airport, it would seem to me much cheaper to surreptitiously dump the mind-control chemicals into either the water or food supply. Or maybe the chemtrail argument is that they need the mind-control chemicals floating in the atmosphere? Again, it would seem cheaper to deploy the chemicals by fake factory smokestacks.
This conspiracy is hard to pin down obviously, but it seems to fit the overkill framework.
Can you succinctly explain what OCH is? Is it, roughly, applying Occam’s razor to conspiracy theories?
I gave two succinct definitions: “the circumstances conspiracy theories must assume also, ironically, render the conspiracy moot.” and “theories that assume circumstances that render the titular “conspiracy” unnecessary.”
There is an element of Occam’s razor for sure, but relying on it exclusively is another instance of a potentially misleading heuristic. There’s going to be contention over what exactly counts as “simpler explanation” and also in reality sometimes the real explanations require more nuance or complexity. OCH approaches it from another direction by not challenging any of the conspiracy theory’s premises and instead shows that by the conspiracy theory’s own premises, the entire reason to have a conspiracy in the first place becomes unnecessary. IMO it’s a more straightforward method of establishing a logical contradiction within the conspiracy theory, rather than just asserting the simpler explanation is the more correct one.
Thanks. I’m probably missing the point, but I don’t see how these definitions apply to moon landing conspiracies, which much of your post seems to center on. The thrust of their argument, as I understand it, is that the US committed to landing on the moon by the end of the 60s, but that turned out to be much harder than anticipated so the landing was fabricated to maintain some geopolitical prestige/advantage. As you pointed out, pulling this off would require the secrecy of countless scientists and astronauts to their grave, or at least compartmentalizing tasks such that countless people think they’re solving real scientific problems that are achieving moon landing with a smaller group conspiring to fake the results. This seems improbable. Like you said, it could be “easier to just… go to the moon for real”.
But moon conspiracists seem to explicitly dismiss—rather than assume—these circumstances. They argue that landing on the moon was physically too difficult (or impossible) for the time such that faking the landing was the easier route. Applying OCH here seems to assume the conclusion, and I don’t understand how it provides a better/faster route to dismissing moon conspiracies than just applying existing evidence or Occam’s razor. Perhaps, though, I’m missing the “circumstances [moon landing] conspiracy theories must assume” in this example.