Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura

[Bob B.]

Good grief! This show sounds like a real winner.

www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/index.html

"This is my personal journey," Ventura says, "to prove that there is more to these stories than you know about."

Shouldn't his personal journey be to discover the truth rather than prove his preconceptions?

Ventura is a 9/11 truther, so this show should be full of woo. Just what we need is some nut popularizing this crap.

[LunarOrbit]

They've been airing it in Canada since September 10. I bet you can guess what the first episode was about. I've only seen bits and pieces of a couple of episodes, but Ventura seems to be the type who believes every conspiracy theory he comes across.

It is aired on the OLN channel... usually the home of fishing/camping/mountain climbing type of outdoorsy shows. So it looks like no one else wanted it.

[tedward]

Fortunately we have a different style of car crash TV in the UK. Though I should not hold my breath.


Edit. I should add I do not have satellite TV so cannot say what is on that.

[Bob B.]

Oct 17, 2010 23:33:29 GMT -4 LunarOrbit said:

Ventura seems to be the type who believes every conspiracy theory he comes across.

That's my impression as well. I wouldn't mind a show like this if it had an impartial host who was really digging for the truth and willing to call a conspiracy theory nonsense if that is where the evidence led. But from what I know of Ventura, I expect him to be extremely prejudice on the side of conspiracy. I have a feeling that if I were to watch this show it would infuriate me.

[Topher]

Last time I watched this, he was trying to prove 2012 is a real date to be afraid of.

Because "teh governments" is gonna kill us all.

[LunarOrbit]

I can't remember which episode I was watching (it might have been the one about HAARP), but one of Ventura's minions tried to suggest a more rational explanation for something and Ventura practically smacked him down like a disobedient dog. He doesn't want to hear anything that contradicts his predetermined beliefs.

I wonder if this is a revival of the Fox moon hoax show from 2001? It was called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?", and it had a similar style (the narrator even sounds like the same person).

[LunarOrbit]

Oct 18, 2010 10:59:13 GMT -4 Bob B. said:

I have a feeling that if I were to watch this show it would infuriate me.

That's why I've never managed to watch more than a few minutes of it. It's impossible to respond to the garbage in TV shows like that, so there is nothing the audience can do stop Ventura from spreading false information. It's like seeing that an accident is about to happen but having your hands tied so you can't prevent it.

[Topher]

Oct 18, 2010 22:42:33 GMT -4 LunarOrbit said:

Oct 18, 2010 10:59:13 GMT -4 Bob B. said:

I have a feeling that if I were to watch this show it would infuriate me.

That's why I've never managed to watch more than a few minutes of it. It's impossible to respond to the garbage in TV shows like that, so there is nothing the audience can do stop Ventura from spreading false information. It's like seeing that an accident is about to happen but having your hands tied so you can't prevent it.

The few episodes I've seen, pretty much they "track" the conspiracy theory, which usually ends up with Ventura discovering the "truth" about the conspiracy theory, or him yelling at a government facility about his rights as an American. (Which, by the way, he doesn't even live in America right now.)

The show is just ridiculous. And this is coming from a guy who watches ghost haunting and paranormal shows, and has a few of the Ghost hunter seasons.

[echnaton]

Oct 18, 2010 22:32:19 GMT -4 LunarOrbit said:

I can't remember which episode I was watching (it might have been the one about HAARP), but one of Ventura's minions tried to suggest a more rational explanation for something and Ventura practically smacked him down like a disobedient dog. He doesn't want to hear anything that contradicts his predetermined beliefs.

That reminds me of the 90's "documentary" of an alien autopsy. As part of the support for the reality of the autopsy footage, there was some credulous Hollywood make up guy who had provided alien costumes for several movies. He was filmed watching the autopsy footage surrounded by his employees. While the boss was going on about how he could not have created the film, one of his guys made some tenuous statements suggesting film could have been made with modern techniques. After the boss gave him some sharp looks, he shut up.

To any reasonable viewer the damage was done in undermining the credulous opinions of the boss and his inability to withstand decent. But any reasonable viewer already knew the show was just BS in the first place.

[Bob B.]

I don’t know if it is still on or not, but SyFy use to run a show called Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files. It was the same sort of thing, a group of people going out and investigated strange stories. At least in this show the people really did try to find prosaic explanations for things and weren’t slanted toward accepting paranormal explanations.

I only saw a few episodes, but like most shows of this type, they had to drag out the investigation for dramatic affect, often bypassing simple experiments that would have gotten to the answer very quickly. I recall one episode in which they were investigated a railroad crossing in Texas where, if you stop your car and put it in neutral, the car will apparently roll uphill and over the crossing. There is some silly ghost story that supposedly explains it. For about half an hour while the show is investigating all these paranormal possibilities, I’m shouting at the TV “Shoot the grade!” Finally at the end they get a surveyor’s level and find that it is really a 1% downhill grade. The fact it looks uphill is an optical illusion causes by the nature of the adjacent terrain.

I guess my point is, these types of programs can frustrate and infuriate me even when they eventually get to the correct answer because they typically treat outlandish possibilities as if they have equal merit to scientific ones.

[echnaton]

Bob,

I guess you and I are just not mindless teenagers any more.

[Topher]

Oct 19, 2010 11:10:29 GMT -4 Bob B. said:

I don’t know if it is still on or not, but SyFy use to run a show called Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files. It was the same sort of thing, a group of people going out and investigated strange stories. At least in this show the people really did try to find prosaic explanations for things and weren’t slanted toward accepting paranormal explanations.

I only saw a few episodes, but like most shows of this type, they had to drag out the investigation for dramatic affect, often bypassing simple experiments that would have gotten to the answer very quickly. I recall one episode in which they were investigated a railroad crossing in Texas where, if you stop your car and put it in neutral, the car will apparently roll uphill and over the crossing. There is some silly ghost story that supposedly explains it. For about half an hour while the show is investigating all these paranormal possibilities, I’m shouting at the TV “Shoot the grade!” Finally at the end they get a surveyor’s level and find that it is really a 1% downhill grade. The fact it looks uphill is an optical illusion causes by the nature of the adjacent terrain.

I guess my point is, these types of programs can frustrate and infuriate me even when they eventually get to the correct answer because they typically treat outlandish possibilities as if they have equal merit to scientific ones.

A lot of paranormal shows will drag on for paranormal effect when there's almost nothing about the supposed paranormal site/event.


Let's take Bigfoot, for example. There's literally loads of lore and history and "evidence" of bigfoot, so you can probably devote a whole day to bigfoot and still wouldn't have enough time to cram everything out.

But something like the Jersey Devil, it only has a few myths and stories surrounding it. It's hard to flesh that out.


As far as investigation goes, it really all depends on the show. Some shows are just terrible at applying the scientific method to...well...anything.

And the whole "skeptic" approach to paranormal investigating that many people do now is kind of a double edged sword. While it's good that they're not just believing everything they see, many people outside of the paranormal crowd expect them to abide strictly to the scientific method, even if the said investigators have mentioned they aren't scientists or out to really prove anything.

But the way I see it is, it's fun entertainment, and a cool hobby. The main reason I can stand the paranormal over conspiracy theories is because the paranormal isn't always about fear mongering and trying to get people to believe in some evil corrupt secret government, or that NASA has a plot to fake the moon landings and will kill everyone to do that.

That's not to say the paranormal doesn't have bad apples. It has them in droves, and I don't take kindly to paranormal investigators taking advantage of people who have experienced a recent death in the family.

[Bob B.]

Oct 19, 2010 14:15:23 GMT -4 Topher said:

But the way I see it is, it's fun entertainment, and a cool hobby. The main reason I can stand the paranormal over conspiracy theories is because the paranormal isn't always about fear mongering and trying to get people to believe in some evil corrupt secret government, or that NASA has a plot to fake the moon landings and will kill everyone to do that.

I agree with you there. I see paranormal investigations as largely harmless entertainment as long as people don't take it too seriously. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are largely about defaming people, which is why they anger me so much. As I said, I watched a few episodes of Fact or Faked (and other shows like it) and was somewhat amused, even if occasionally frustrated by the pace and direction of the investigation. This Jesse Ventura show, however, I won't watch because I'll likely end up shouting profanities and throwing things at the TV.

Another show I watched a few times was UFO Hunters on History Channel (a few times was enough). What annoyed me about that show was the inevitable conclusion. After spending days investigating some alleged UFO story and finding absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it, the lead investigator would conclude that since they didn't find any evidence proving it wasn't a UFO that is still could have been a UFO.

[lukepemberton]

Oct 19, 2010 14:52:49 GMT -4 Bob B. said:

What annoyed me about that show was the inevitable conclusion. After spending days investigating some alleged UFO story and finding absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it, the lead investigator would conclude that since they didn't find any evidence proving it wasn't a UFO that is still could have been a UFO.

When I was in late teens and sitting my A-levels, the JFK conspiracy was all the rage. We had similar shows in the UK that really didn't present evidence for a conspiracy, but would still conclude that even if there was no evidence for a conspiracy, there still might have been one.

I think the problem of conspiracy is going to get worse given the access to the Internet and TV junk. Kids get wrapped up in it, some grow up and leave it behind as a phase, some don't. I'm afraid given the information available nowadays, and many social factors, more and more will never move on and the numbers that believe will grow.

[Topher]

Oct 19, 2010 22:15:50 GMT -4 lukepemberton said:

Oct 19, 2010 14:52:49 GMT -4 Bob B. said:

What annoyed me about that show was the inevitable conclusion. After spending days investigating some alleged UFO story and finding absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it, the lead investigator would conclude that since they didn't find any evidence proving it wasn't a UFO that is still could have been a UFO.

When I was in late teens and sitting my A-levels, the JFK conspiracy was all the rage. We had similar shows in the UK that really didn't present evidence for a conspiracy, but would still conclude that even if there was no evidence for a conspiracy, there still might have been one.

I think the problem of conspiracy is going to get worse given the access to the Internet and TV junk. Kids get wrapped up in it, some grow up and leave it behind as a phase, some don't. I'm afraid given the information available nowadays, and many social factors, more and more will never move on and the numbers that believe will grow.

Another problem with the internet regarding conspiracies is it catches younger and more impressionable kids and teens into the idea of conspiracies, and since theirs very, very little on the opposing views on the internet (Go to youtube and type in 9/11 conspiracy, then type in 9/11 conspiracy debunked.), most of these kids could end up siding with the conspiracy than taking a more rational route.