Complex Numbers

People Eating Tasty Animals

Don't we have enough crazy conspiracy "theories" in the world already?

PROMPT November 20^th

In your blog tonight/today, write about a story you've been told, or use a newscast story and CREATE a conspiracy theory. Tell us why you chose this subject, and of course, provide 'evidence' that your theory could be rooted in truth.

Earth is flat, the moon landing never happened, JFK was assassinated so Johnson could take office, 9/11 was an inside job, the Holocaust never happened, aliens built the pyramids, and Santa Claus isn't real.

While planning for the 2017 solar eclipse trip, I noticed that the path of totality crossed Yellowstone, so I got an idea. Other people start crazy just-barely-plausible rumors that get repeated as fact (such as the one where you can only balance an egg on its small end on the equinoxes -- sorry if you bought that one, but it's utter tripe), why not start one of my own?

So I started putting out there that during the eclipse, the combined gravity of the sun and moon would be just enough to trigger the Yellowstone Supervolcano. I felt dirty doing it, though. It's complete nonsense couched in semi-plausible astronomical language. True, an eclipse can only happen during a conjunction, and during conjunctions (eclipse or not) ocean tides are measurably higher. But there's no way it could be strong enough to trigger a supervolcano, at least not particularly during an eclipse. The gravitational effect isn't significantly different than during any new moon (or full moon for that matter).

Unfortunately (actually, fortunately), I don't have nearly enough influence online for that to catch on, and it didn't "go viral."

But... that's not really a conspiracy theory; that's just more spreading bullshit, and I've since sworn off that particular method of trolling.

So. This is one I've been knocking around in my head for a while:

Consider PETA.

Buncha loonies, trying to move the center by being so extreme that "middle ground" gives more rights to animals. But what if, at the top, they're not actually animal rights activists, but instead have a more honest motive?

Like money.

See, everything about PETA starts to make perfect sense if you accept that it's being directed by business interests -- specifically, companies such as soybean growers and fake fur manufacturers. If they can push veganism more into the mainstream, we'll need more soybeans, right? For tofu and other disgusting concoctions. And the fake fur thing is obvious; I mean, hardly anyone wears fur anymore anyway, but they still need to grow their business, right?

I'm sure you can think of other business interests that would be aided by such a shift.

Why do I choose this subject? Well, I like animals -- some of them are delicious. And PETA is, shamefully, based here in Virginia. Also it was simply the first thing that came to mind after my failed attempt at eclipse fearmongering.

As for more evidence, well, consider that PETA operates an animal shelter with an abnormally high kill rate.   Does that sound like an organization that truly believes animals have the same rights as humans? So there must be another agenda at work. We don't eat dogs or cats (usually), so they're not competing with the tofu industry; therefore, it doesn't matter to the organization if they're alive or not.

Still, I have to admit I miss their naked protests. Those always made me hungry, and I'd have to go out and get a big thick juicy steak whenever I saw one.

Anyway, I should note that I have not one single shred of evidence that business interests are behind their craziness. But it wouldn't surprise me in the least if I turned out to be right.