Conspiracies: The Facts * the Theories * the Evidence (5 page)

conspiracy theories made.) Are the compelling patterns formed

by all the clues and mysteries, then, merely a crazed example of

‘apophenia’ at work (‘the spontaneous perception of connections

and meaningfulness of unrelated phenomena’, according to the

online
Skeptic’s Dictionary
), as John Green has suggested, or is there a middle-ground solution?5

Those who find themselves unable to sweep aside all the inter-

connecting references to a mysterious accident have suggested that there might have been a certain level of reality to the dropping-in of the clues, in that the whole thing was nothing more than

a publicity stunt that got out of hand. The Beatles themselves

continual y denied this, with ever-wearier and characteristic

sarcasm, but at the same time it is well-documented that their

Apple enterprise, conceived in 1967 and official y founded in

1968 as the band’s record label and promotional outlet, was often staffed by eccentrics or chemical y enhanced opportunists. Could

others have manipulated some of the artwork decisions, at least

(as their involvement wouldn’t explain the lyrical references), even if
Sgt. Pepper’s
pre-dated the full arrival of Apple? If nothing else, it is possible that the rumours may have been actively, if quietly, encouraged to proliferate: sales of Beatles albums notably soared when the Paul-is-dead hysteria peaked. It is not hard to imagine

21

Conspiracy.indd 21

23/10/2012 15:42:20

conspiracies

the likes of the ever-cynical John Lennon deciding to stir the

madness further (as his mischievous and self-referencing ‘Glass

Onion’ in 1968 proves: ‘The walrus was Paul’, etc.).

Would anyone real y go to such lengths (including, apparently,

reconstructing McCartney’s entire skull) just to shift a few more LPs, however? Beyond the perhaps secondary gain of the sales

boost, others have suggested a more serious mandate to the whole

affair. Even now there are some who consider that the whole Beatles phenomenon was in fact a state-sponsored social experiment

in seeing how far youthful minds could be engineered into

obsessively following (and copying by example) the development

of fresh-faced entertainers through days of innocent fun into mass hysteria, passing to drug-induced fantasies and world infamy

(Lennon’s Beatles-bigger-than-Christ furore) and, final y, into

recrimination and disil usionment (the Beatles’ break-up). By this, the dangerous and inherently authority-challenging new creative

energy of an entire generation may have been successful y neutered, having been taken on a ride from hope to disempowerment. To

such morose theorists, the wonderful music and exhilarating

journey through the 1960s was one big, if artistical y valid, dirty trick. Seen through the lens of the Beatles’ odyssey being a hugely ambitious ‘psy-ops’ (psychological operations) experiment, it can be better understood how promoting McCartney as a kind of

fallen-but-resurrected messianic figure in the religious tradition might be perceived as an important component of a darker and

more all-encompassing design.

Madness? Very possibly. This discussion is not included to

support any particular belief around the Paul-is-dead theory,

but employed as an important demonstration that anomalous

phenomena and seemingly unsolvable conundrums can some-

times arise when seeking validation for certain hypotheses. Often, corroborative evidence exists nowhere beyond the fanciful mind

of an individual and perhaps some easily influenced supporters.

Yet, on other occasions, surprisingly compelling pieces of data

22

Conspiracy.indd 22

23/10/2012 15:42:20

what is conspiracy theory?

present themselves, and then the journey must begin to work out

what they mean. Is it simply apophenia conjuring patterns out of

unrelated but coincidental y synchronistic events, or is a genuine phenomenon making itself known? In truth, it must always be

the continuous accumulation of non-subjective evidence, and a

solid inner logic, that tip the balance. That above all is what must be sought when trying to identify real conspiracies and cover-ups. The McCartney case thus intrigues, but doesn’t ful y pass

above the probability threshold, leaving it in a curious grey area of its own. Other examples, however, even in the absence of firm

conclusions, can certainly be seen to weight the scales in definite directions, as shall be demonstrated in later chapters.

As for McCartney himself, after a sullen silence on the issue for some months following the initial hysteria, he was final y cornered by journalists who arrived at his farmhouse in late 1969, and

the singer was eventual y happy to confirm that he wasn’t dead.

Curiously, he never said
Paul McCartney
wasn’t dead, though.

Because, of course, if the 1969 version was in fact a replacement for the real man, having successful y taken on his identity, assets and talents, then he would hardly be likely to admit it. And so

the conundrum remains. McCartney – if it was still McCartney

– should have known, regardless of one’s own experience, that

if the public wants to believe you are dead, then you are, in its eyes, dead, and anything beyond that is not your business. Why

would people choose to believe the world runs in such a nefarious fashion, though? Perhaps because it’s simply more fun that way,

but also, maybe, for deeper reasons.

The Roots of Mistrust

In Ralph L Rosnow and Gary Alan Fine’s 1976 essay ‘The Paul

McCartney Rumor’, one of the key reasons they give for so many

people being drawn to the whole Paul-is-dead phenomenon was a

23

Conspiracy.indd 23

23/10/2012 15:42:20

conspiracies

lack of trust in authority. They also point out that the assassination of John F Kennedy (
see
chapter 5) and the clearly unsatisfactory Warren Commission report on his death (which essential y

dismissed wider conspiracy speculation and settled on the lone

gunman theory), together with the subsequent eliminations of

further inspirational figures such as Robert Kennedy and Martin

Luther King, had left an entire generation with an underlying

cynicism that anyone willing to stand up and shine might be

destined for similar martyrdom. The apparent demise of such an

inspirational youth culture figure as McCartney thus appeared

to give him more societal validation. Though genuine tears

were shed by fans over his perceived passing, it also elevated the artist to an untouchable level of sainthood, a mythic figure who

would forever be unsullied by an otherwise inevitable decline

into old age and mediocrity. At the same time, this also meant,

on a psychological level, that public figures became essential y

replaceable – one might be brought down, but another would

always appear to take its place.

Thus, beyond the general y acknowledged entertainment value

that the seemingly preposterous McCartney case undoubtedly

brought with it (finding the clues became a compulsive hobby

for some, while others simply enjoyed the very idea that such

an ambitiously elaborate plot might be hatched at all), this new

cynicism meant that the belief that someone so famous might

die and then
actually
be replaced by a lookalike – with all the necessary deceptions to support it – was not as ridiculous a notion as might have seemed a decade before. After al , if the grassy knoll witnesses could be ignored and sidelined, and blind eyes turned

from all the many anomalies surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald

and his own mysterious killer, Jack Ruby, then, in the minds of

many (the McCartney rumour was believed by millions across the

USA in particular), anything was now possible, however bleakly

underhand. This seam of mistrust, felt especial y by youthful

minds, had been further fed by the shockingly violent put-down

24

Conspiracy.indd 24

23/10/2012 15:42:20

what is conspiracy theory?

of the 1968 student peace protests at Columbia University, and

would intensify further with the acceleration of the Vietnam

conflict, followed by the proven conspiracy behind the Richard

Nixon/Watergate affair (
see
chapter 4). This in particular would quickly infect all generations with doubt about political leaders and stir a new awareness of the lies they might be being fed in

other areas.

Herein lies the underlying stimulus that fuels most conspiracy

theories: the seemingly unending combination of demonstrable

falsehoods and unsolved mysteries that have been given ever more

public exposure since the 1960s have resulted in a loss of faith that has gradual y stripped away the quaintly innocent presumption

that authority figures have our best interests at heart. The media façade that attempts to convince us that those cases which blast

apart with grand revelations are the extreme exceptions to

establishment honesty (in the UK, the 2009 MPs expenses scandal,

for instance, or, in the USA, Watergate) results in a society that may idly appear to go along with it, but, deep inside, the general mistrust is palpable and entrenched. This most probably explains

why pol s show that a remarkable number of people now doubt the

evidence about even something as historical y significant as the

Moon landings (
see
chapter 4) – and why around half the world’s population is now prepared to believe that the US government lied about an event as huge as 9/11. Consequently, the development of

widespread beliefs that a covert ruling elite may wish to curtail the freedom of its citizens, and even want to wipe them all out (
see
chapter 8), becomes more understandable.

It might therefore be tempting to psychoanalyse all conspiracy

theories away, as the academic world has attempted to do, but

the crunch comes with the more honest recognition that actual

evidence
does
exist to support some of the areas in question.

Pushing this aside, in the light of the increasingly prominent role conspiracy theory is establishing in the average person’s thought processes (although they may not recognize it as such), is unwise 25

Conspiracy.indd 25

23/10/2012 15:42:20

conspiracies

and unhelpful. If authority is unhappy with being so mistrusted,

then it only has itself to blame. Only by exposing and properly

examining all the evidence around contentious events in a spirit

of reconciliation will this unhealthy social time-bomb be defused, revealing the real truth, however uncomfortable it may be.

As a last word on the McCartney phenomenon, it should be

observed that his case is a novel exception to the rule. McCartney himself (or whoever he now is) might wryly take umbrage at the

fact that conspiracy theories around famous figures usual y have

it that they
didn’t
real y die, for example, Elvis Presley, Doors singer Jim Morrison, even Adolf Hitler. The emotional denial

that often sets in when cherished or, conversely, hated figures

pass on (especial y if there is the slightest doubt surrounding

the circumstances of their deaths) frequently results in rumours

of their survival with stories that they have been seen setting off for secret lives free from the public’s gaze. When attachments

are made to figures that become part of society’s framework, the

thought that they are no longer there can unsettle the geography

of some people’s lives, even when that figure may have been

abusive. The conspiracy theories offer a safety net, a hope for a kind of afterlife that leaves them feeling more secure. But poor

McCartney instead has to endure the infuriating knowledge that

some people feel happier believing that he
did
actual y die; that way, he remains an ethereal figure of lost genius, instead of the miscreant who went on to perpetrate ‘The Frog Chorus’.

John Lennon’s own general y undenied martyrdom at the

hands of a psychotic gunman in 1980 has given rise to a number

of conspiracy theories of another kind, however, with many

believing that killer Mark Chapman was under the influence of

another Manchurian candidate-style mind-control programme

sponsored by authorities keen to see a curtailment of the

singer’s comeback onto the world stage, with all his somewhat

inconvenient politics of peace. This il ustrates, once again, that virtual y every conspiracy notion one can imagine is subscribed

26

Conspiracy.indd 26

23/10/2012 15:42:20

what is conspiracy theory?

to by someone, somewhere. The question is, where does it stop?

And
should
the process be stopped if there is evidence of any kind to consider?

Avoiding Hard Reality?

One of the secondary gains from subscribing to certain conspir-

acy theories is that they enable believers to put themselves at a more comfortable remove from harder everyday concerns. Some

are drawn to belief in oppressive deception, either because (as

previously noted) this situation is familiar to them from their

own childhood, or because it fires them with a motivation to

kick against something and thus develop their personality in new

directions when this stimulus is otherwise lacking in their daily lives. However, the attraction to a good-against-evil psychological battle, while not without usefulness, can also result in an avoidance of attending to practical matters closer at hand.