Katrina conspiracy theory

September 5, 2005 3:43 AM

Is this evidence that Katrina was steered toward New Orleans using scalar technology? This is not too far-fetched considering....

Au contraire, this (imho) has got to be one of the dumbest threads I've seen in a long time - the "conspiracy theory" of Katrina, if you can call it that, is the lack of preparation for such an event, not that weapon systems might have had a role to play in it. Deletion requested.
posted by tomcosgrave to etiquette/policy at 3:43 AM (39 comments total)

Dumb, yes, but the post is receiving the ridicule it deserves. Or are you saying it's too early for N.O. humor?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:50 AM on September 5, 2005

Deletion requested.

mathowie, jessamyn, our Lord Jesus, whomever else could do this-- I beseech thee not to delete the thread. It is the funniest post I have ever seen here, and I mean that without hyperbole. I have never laughed harder at something here. I rarely laugh aloud at anything, and I read that and laughed so hard that the cat got off my lap.

Seriously, none of the links are Best Of The Web, bu the sum of the parts is magical. If someone made that FPP in another forum and a member linked to it here, no one would be asking for deletion. As in: Best Of The Web happened right here!
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:59 AM on September 5, 2005

I'm with Mayor Curley. Hilarious.

Or are you saying it's too early for N.O. humor?

I don't think augustweed is joking. His post started life as a comment in another thread, which he defended quite seriously.
posted by jack_mo at 4:25 AM on September 5, 2005

Stranger things have been defended, and then later were found out to be true.

The scorn and mocking in that thread is positively half-assed and unimaginative at best. I would much rather see someone deconstruct it and offer proof(s) to the contrary. If not that, then better scorn and mocking.

And requesting a thread's deletion just because you find it ridiculous or unimaginable is pretty shitty, and would set a bad precedent.

tomcosgrave: How much of your motivation to request deletion is simply distaste? How about discomfort?
posted by loquacious at 5:21 AM on September 5, 2005

Stranger things have been defended, and then later were found out to be true.

Name one. This crazy shit is embarrassing. And it attracts other conspiracy freaks to the site, of which we have sufficient already.
posted by LarryC at 5:32 AM on September 5, 2005

It's driven by distaste for the way in which it was posted - believing and lending credibility to the theory.

Thousands are probably dead in Louisiana, Missisippi and Alabama, the United States is undergoing a serious national crises, and posts like this simply begger belief. Where's the sense of decorum? I just checked the posts made on MeFi post 9/11 and didn't see any posts similar to the one being discussed - I'd imagine that such things then, I'm sure there'd have been outcry.

This is not too far-fetched considering the U.S. Air Force's own doctrine, says the initial post.

My arse. It's nonsense. How is it not far fetched - show me how it's not far fetched and maybe I'll retract. If it had even said that the post was crazy, and was being posted out of interest, then I'd not have flagged the post. But as it stands, when you look at the profile of the poster, he believes in conspiracy theories.

As it stands, the post detracts from the tragedy of New Orleans, the other areas affected by Katrina, and the problems that led to the tragedy. Preposterous posts, no matter how entertaining, do not, in my humble opinion, help.
posted by tomcosgrave at 5:32 AM on September 5, 2005

posts like this simply begger belief

Belief should beggered. Better yet buggered.

Liberty. Let it be.
posted by srboisvert at 5:38 AM on September 5, 2005

We're going to add a new guideline?

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, it might warrant discussion from others, and, well, you know, it shouldn't be too weird or argue a position that people might disagree with or be loony at all.
posted by gleuschk at 5:44 AM on September 5, 2005

>I just checked the posts made on MeFi post 9/11 and didn't see any posts similar to the one being discussed

Well, you can't use scalar energy to control airplanes!
Sheesh.
posted by Wolfdog at 5:45 AM on September 5, 2005

Where's the sense of decorum?

This is MetaFilter. There's never been a sense of decorum.

I just checked the posts made on MeFi post 9/11 and didn't see any posts similar to the one being discussed - I'd imagine that such things then, I'm sure there'd have been outcry.

Look harder. We've had posts claiming that no jet hit the Pentagon (it was supposed to a missile or something), that the jets were under remote control, that the twin towers were deliberately brought down by concealed explosives, posts linking to places that claim Mossad was behind the attack, and all manner of nonsense regarding 9/11.

The weather-weapon post is amusing and wacky. Let it stand.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 5:47 AM on September 5, 2005

LarryC: How about a list? As far as I know all or most of those projects have been documented and discussed by reputable, mainstream sources. What if that's just the tip of the iceberg? And even if it isn't, all of those are pretty damn terrible. Why is it so hard to imagine that there could be worse that we don't know about?

tomcosgrave: That's something I'll agree with. That as a post it was poorly worded, badly argued and inflammatory, all things considered. But deleteable? Worse things have been posted here. And sometimes decorum requires more than silence or reverence.

Again, I'm not arguing for or against the meat of the post and what it supposes.

But how does it "detract from the tragedy"? Do you mean add to the tragedy? Lessen the tragedy? It's just some words and a few (most probably) half-baked ideas. It's not like he's posting something racist or classist like "all those [epithet] people deserved what they got!!" or something.

How does it harm? And how have the majority of the posts about Katrina "helped"? Don't get me wrong, there have been quite a few excellent, timely and informative posts regarding Katrina. But few if any have actually solved any real problems.

I'm going to have to argue that any "harm" that you've perceived is of an entirely personal nature.

Please don't let your discomfort or distaste dictate what I get to see on MetaFilter. At the very least, I got to see some cool pictures of contrails from the air - something I've never, ever seen before - and a few freaky cloud videos.

Oh, and Mayor Curley had a good laugh. That's gotta be worth like twenty points right there.
posted by loquacious at 5:52 AM on September 5, 2005

If not that, then better scorn and mocking.
That's what I am hoping for, and deleting the thread would destroy any chance for better S&M. Lord knows, the world needs better S&M.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:58 AM on September 5, 2005

Wacky wins. And so what if it attracts conspiracy theorists. Bizarro posts, like (some) Bgrade films, have their own unintended entertainment value.
posted by peacay at 5:59 AM on September 5, 2005

I can't see why it should be deleted just on the basis that it's a bunch of horsehit. It should stand or fall on the usual criteria.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:00 AM on September 5, 2005

Let it stay. We get threads about intelligent design all the time, and that's an even dumber idea.
posted by OmieWise at 6:44 AM on September 5, 2005

I am so buying Archimedes Plutonium and Gene Ray accounts.
posted by darukaru at 6:50 AM on September 5, 2005

I now know not to take anything loquacious says seriously, because he has zero sense of reality. So that's worth something too.
posted by languagehat at 7:05 AM on September 5, 2005

I have never laughed harder at something here

I disagree, the award goes to that zany "Illuminati lizards provoked the disaster" cut-and-paste comment in one of the bazillion Katrina threads.
posted by matteo at 7:10 AM on September 5, 2005

Keep it.
posted by Frasermoo at 7:38 AM on September 5, 2005

I'm in the do not delete camp. The FPP isn't Best of the Web, but the resulting thread is...
posted by mystyk at 7:41 AM on September 5, 2005

Loquacious: The items in the list you link to are examples of evil shit the U.S. government has done in the past, no doubt. But not one is an example of anything of this scale, or anything using a previously unknown technology. Not remotely close.

The best comment in the offending thread is by Mick: The only way to stop this would have been to wrap the entire Gulf Coast in tin foil.
posted by LarryC at 7:41 AM on September 5, 2005

languagehat : Not even the times I've complimented you and thanked you for your contributions? Well, shit...

Look, I walk a fine line between imagination and disbelief. I could simply just say "Well, duh, there's nothing that's impossible" and walk away, but that doesn't really play by the rules of debate and argument.

If arguing that strange things are indeed possible - rather than simplisticly arguing the hard party line of "that's impossible" - is an example having zero sense of reality, well, fuck. I don't know what to tell you, but I know I'm in good company.
posted by loquacious at 8:04 AM on September 5, 2005

I thought it was ironic comedy
posted by mathowie at 8:55 AM on September 5, 2005

"Where's the sense of decorum?"

The decorum can be found in the highly restrained (in terms of member attacks) discussions of Katrina from the past few days.

We will now return to our usual throat-slitting, back-stabbing merry ways.
posted by mischief at 9:23 AM on September 5, 2005

languagehat : Not even the times I've complimented you and thanked you for your contributions? Well, shit...

Sorry, I may have been a tad harsh with you, but I seriously hate this postmodern "hey, it's all possible!" crap that doesn't distinguish between observable reality and conceivable fantasy. There's way too much of it around, it muddies the waters and makes it hard for people to concentrate on what desperately needs concentrating on (if Katrina was caused by Illuminati Scalar Rays, then we need to go get the lizards!... FEMA? what FEMA?), and to the extent you're giving aid and comfort to know-nothings, I'm going to occasionally dump cauldrons over the battlements of Fort Reality-Based on you. Nothing personal, you seem like an intelligent and likeable guy, but really, get a grip.
posted by languagehat at 11:29 AM on September 5, 2005

It's cool, really.

But I like my grip. It may not be firmly entrenched in whatever your subjective definition of reality is for your tastes, but it's a viewpoint I share with a number of notable thinkers and dreamers, and I'm uncomfortably comfortable with it, if that translates and makes any sense. To wit, I'm extropian.

It's a viewpoint that allows for huge, arcing tangents of "what if?" and "why not?", without which the world would be a poorer and much more boring place.

To be clear, I don't place myself in the company of any true giants of creative or lateral thinking, but at the least I share footprints and shadows with them.
posted by loquacious at 11:38 AM on September 5, 2005

Well, as a science fiction reader from way back, I'm a big fan of "what if?" and "why not?"... but I like them as reflections on reality, not substitutions for reality. But hey, follow your muse. I'm not against your attempts to make the world less boring, but I'll add my boring footnotes when I feel they're called for.
posted by languagehat at 11:59 AM on September 5, 2005

Stop deleting posts, please. I thought the op-ed TJH posted was right on, yet ... delete.

I thought the Internets was a place for freedom of speech. Censors, begone.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:39 PM on September 5, 2005

For FSM's sake, aren't people entitled to their opinions, no matter how 'bizarro' they are? Don't delete just because it doesn't fit in with your worldview (or mine). We have have peculiarities and beliefs that make this place great, and, FWIW, I'm not wearing pants.
posted by moonbird at 1:46 PM on September 5, 2005

Funny? Yea. Ironic Comedy? Yea. Pretty damn good for a first FPP? Yep.

Keep it and bask in it's ironic, funny and alternative-view glory!

BTW, it's also a welcome relief from the "normal/typical" news-filter Katrina posts of late!
posted by snsranch at 4:19 PM on September 5, 2005

hey, languagehat's got some cool Fort! didja make it out of star wars sheets and moving boxes? or is it a figmentary reality fort?
posted by Hat Maui at 4:23 PM on September 5, 2005

I thought the Internets was a place for freedom of speech. Censors, begone.

Censors? I wasn't aware that taking down a one-link post to a op-ed crank removed it from the internet.
posted by mathowie at 4:48 PM on September 5, 2005

Hat Maui; you wish your mom would buy YOU star wars sheets!!!
posted by snsranch at 4:50 PM on September 5, 2005

"I now know not to take anything loquacious says seriously, because he has zero sense of reality. So that's worth something too."

Yeah, it's a disappointment. I had a lot to say about it in a comment I just posted to that thread. I'm not sure how old he is—if he's, say, nineteen then this kind of "credulity is wisdom" philosophy is a necessary stepping-stone to something more substantial. If he's older, well...

In terms of western philosophy, I'm reminded of how people will encounter Heraclitus and immediately come to a full-stop. Unknowability is discovered and rediscovered, over and over, the discoverer certain of a novel insight. Not unlike the essence of adolescent culture, it's reinvented every generation and yet is, nevertheless, as common as dirt.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:29 PM on September 5, 2005

Ethereal Bligh: You have a reply.
posted by loquacious at 6:47 PM on September 5, 2005

And a gracious one it was, too.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:22 PM on September 5, 2005

Calling for refutations of stuff like that is waste of time. Really good scientists know where to spend their time and have a nose for what is worth pursuing.

My professors used to get all sorts of wacky nonsense in the mail, sometimes with the self-righteous statement that since few others had bothered to reply to them, then they stand "un-refuted" and, in fact, may be on to something that the scientific establishment is afraid of discussing. bullshit.

I would have hated to see someone like, say, Feynman, spend his time "refuting" crackpot claims instead of the more productive endeavor of advancing science.

I'm glad I guess Ethereal Bligh is in there. Most of the scientifically-literate Mefi posters I know and respect here seemed to stay miles away. I think what gets me the most is that many of us have spent years studying physics and mathematics and slogging through the work and problem sets and theories to enable us to really understand what may or may not be viable and then are asked to somehow "engage" with someone who has obviously just picked up a quantum consciousness book from the spirituality shelf.

Even more ironic is that hard science is full of stuff much deeper and complex and interesting than this stuff. I'm still freaked out by the implications of Noether's theorems, by Deutch's ever expanding work on the shape of reality, by Wheeler's visions of Time and what it may really be, by the conundrums of even basic cosmology. The world is even wierder, funnily enough, than crackpots make it out to be.

This stuff is though hard to explain because its hard stuff -its mentally challenging, requires thought and effort. Its worth it but few people bother.

Everyone's looking for the easy path to enlightenment.
posted by vacapinta at 9:20 PM on September 5, 2005

If you want to see some brave warriors, vacapinta, take a look at sci.physics.relativity sometime (...and a few others, but I'm more familiar with s.p.r.). A lot of cranks show up there, and there's a number of physicists who take the time to debunk. But it's a never-ending fight.

"Most of the scientifically-literate Mefi posters I know and respect here seemed to stay miles away."

One thing you don't mention is that it's actually very, very difficult to engage in these conversations if you're competent. There's a couple of reasons for that, I think. One is the more mundane fact that we rarely understand things as well as we think we do and being asked to explain advanced ideas to uninitiated is a quick way to discover this. (This is why I'm interesting in pedagogy and intuitiveness.)

The other that's more interesting to me in this context, though, is what seems to me the slightly strange sense of being overwhelmed at the task. The frustration of not knowing where even to begin. One might think, well, if you know the subject matter well, you'd know where to begin, huh?

The argument with loquacious in the thread in question and here lands smack dab in the middle of what I've been thinking and learning seriously about all of my adult life, before and after formal education in it. In a sense, this is my bread-and-butter. But every time I started to write a comment in that thread, I just found that I didn't know how to say what I wanted to say because it's hard to even figure out which fallacy to correct first, or to explain general concepts, or what.

And often there's the problem that if your knowledge of a subject is sufficiently strong, there's probably something in there somewhere that sorta supports the the point you're contesting, and you're aware of it. "How do I deal with that?", you wonder. For me, loquacious in that thread is both right and terribly wrong at the same time.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:53 PM on September 5, 2005

but it's a viewpoint I share with a number of notable thinkers and dreamers, ...

Yeah, Tesla and I were thinking the other day...
posted by c13 at 10:11 PM on September 5, 2005