From the 1970s to today’s digital chaos, I’ve seen how conspiracy thinking twists facts and erodes trust. This article explores how critical thinking, truth-seeking literacy, and tools like open-source intelligence can help us cut through disinformation while holding fast to democratic values.
In 2011, I wrote my first blog on conspiracy theory (Information vs Intelligence). I first ran into this around the end of high school after I graduated in 1973. I read a book by the General who was running the Vietnam war. thinking he was a pre-emanate source, I was surprised to find his book seemed to descend into conspiracy and government abuse, undercutting his expertise and command.
I found it so surprising that I started to look into it and immediately discovered "conspiracy theory." Rather than then, as my brother did, seven years my senior, who descended into conspiracy from that period on, likely even before as he was active in 1960s issues (not protesting however, other than writing on a plank in our basement, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many did you kill in 'Nam today?", likely due to not wanting to go to Vietnam himself), I found it fascinating. Thus, we both did.
However, where my brother bought into conspiracy, I studied conspiracy theory, itself. He got into "Ancient Astronauts" and turned me onto the books in the 1970s. I read about what nonsense they were and the back up evidence against the concept.
My brother also turned me onto the "Urantia Book" in about 1973. When he went to order one from a book store, I ordered one also. To be fair, I turned my son onto it years ago and he is reading it now. He recently finished reading the Christian Bible, tried to get through the Quran but needed a break from it for various reasons and is reading other such books. We often discuss the nature of reality, physics and other things. What happens when you're raised by someone with a university degree in psychology and phenomenology.
The Urantia Book is a fascinating book and while I don't buy into its content and substance, it's a book worth reading as it can enhance the mind. But in phenomenological ways, not knowledgebase ways. I've also written about this before. I see it in a similar way to a physical workout for the body, like lifting weights for the mind. It offers very interesting explanations for a theist reality but I wouldn't buy into it lock, stock and barrel unless you wish to be contained within that "barrel".
I've written several blogs now related to the Urantia book:
- Urantia Book mentioned... A Christian vs. an "unbeliever" Argue the point - Special Ed. 2011
- The Urantia Book: Unveiling A Mystery and the Health Myths of Dr. Kellogg’s Era and His Road to Wellville - April 28, 2025
- Exploring a Personal Path: From Slovakian Catholicism to Modern, Scientific Buddhism and Humanism - May 9, 2025
But I digress, moving on from that...
My brother has been deep into the MAGA nonsense ever since convicted felon, failed TV actor, twice-impeached POTUS45, and malignant narcissist, adjudicated sexual abuser, and Fascistic wannabe dictator Donald Trump first ran for office. We’ve had many arguments over the years—until I finally realized I had lost my brother to yet another conspiracy theory. This time, it was the Trump conspiracy theory machine.
And yes, every title I’ve given Trump here is entirely relevant. Relevant to understanding anything he says or contends is truth because most of what he says and does is for personal gain, protection, or advancement of his (not our) agenda. He is not restrained by decency, humanity, or democracy or our US Constitution.
Donald Trump has weaponized conspiracy theories against the American public from the moment he entered politics. He understood that conspiracy thinking had already become embedded in our culture—and he exploited it. Ironically, much like Russian disinformation campaigns that have targeted us for decades (ask the UK, who first warned us—and yes, I’ve blogged about this before), the GOP began laying the groundwork back in the early 1990s.
Fareed Zakaria today on his show (7/27/2025) discussed it.
When I was in the USAF in the late 1970s, we had mandated quarterly days of training and awareness on "Rumors and Propaganda". I complained to our boss, our shop chief in the Survival Equipment shop about why we had to have these briefings, again and again. He said the military is like a microcosm of America and some did call it the "Perfect Society". It was authoritarian and so in many of our minds, not so perfect.
He told us that the military had long recognized how damaging rumors and propaganda, conspiracies are, or could become and so we are made aware of that constantly to protect ourselves, our military mission and our country. We had a few rumors crop up while I was in the service and for the most part, they were effectively squashed.
Sadly, our government at large did not seem to recognize or neutralize this effectively in our citizenry at large until today, here we are.
I blame, in part, the rise of the 24-hour news cycle—a system that demands constant content, whether or not there’s anything meaningful to report. When airtime must be filled every hour of every day, speculation, outrage, and repetition often replace substance. Add to that the transformation of news from a public service into a for-profit enterprise, and you have a toxic mix. We lost the concept of "News" as a loss leader—a civic duty broadcast at a financial loss because an informed public was once considered essential to democracy.
Once news had to generate profit like any other entertainment product, priorities shifted. Sensationalism, partisan spin, and fear-based narratives became the currency of ratings. Truth and context took a back seat to emotional engagement and viewer retention. And in that vacuum, conspiracy theories found fertile ground.
In 2011, when my youngest was 19, I was asked if we can trust what governments tell us—about war, about the news, about the world—I couldn’t just brush it off. Something was being tapping into there, something real: the discomfort we all feel in an age of spin, misinformation, and deepening distrust. That question wasn’t naive. It was smart. It was necessary.
Bill Gates has more recently talked about using something he called “Deep Research,” and while it sounds like it could be an AI reference, it’s actually not a specific AI tool—at least not officially named that way by him.
Essentially, what I used to call "research," or "digging into" something. Now, I hear too many people refer to that, but it means "I saw it on the internet" or some other shallow or single-level down unreliable "information" site.
Gates uses the term “deep research” to describe his own process of rigorous reading and investigation into a topic before he consults others. He’s known for being methodical and detail-oriented, famously taking “Think Weeks” to consume piles of books, white papers, and research. What we used to refer to as triangulation of information but even that has been replaced.
So when he says:
"I do deep research and send the result to my physicist friends, and they say, 'You didn’t need us for this,'"
He’s saying he independently does the deep dive (reading papers, consulting reputable sources, maybe using assistants or digital tools), and by the time he consults experts, he’s already come to solid conclusions.
Is it AI-related?
Not directly, but:
Today, someone like Gates might use AI tools (like ChatGPT or Copilot) as part of that research process.
But when Gates said this (in previous interviews, including on his blog and podcast), he was talking about his own effort—not relying on AI to give him answers.
So:
“Deep research” = Gates’ term for doing homework like a boss.
Not a brand or specific AI tool.
But yes, in today's world, AI can be part of a deep research process. And Gates has acknowledged using or being impressed by tools like GPT and Copilot.
My comment was and always is, trust but verify. Otherwise, you can fall into a rabbit hole of nonsense. I still believe for mow the easiest, safest and most accurate method is long tried and true "journalistic triangulation."
HOWEVER...
While that's not wrong—it needs context to be accurate and relevant today. Still, for many it's better than how they are doing things now, shallowly, with little context or fact, only to fall into conspiracy theories, many of which are designed or weaponized against the masses for reasons of power, political or financial gain.
Here’s a breakdown:
✅ Why It's Not Wrong
-
Triangulation—confirming facts from three independent sources—is still a valid and valuable tool in journalism.
-
It remains especially useful for qualitative stories, investigations involving human testimony, or non-digital subjects.
-
It’s time-tested and helps prevent reliance on a single, possibly biased or flawed, source.
⚠️ Why It’s Incomplete or Outdated (Alone)
-
In a digitally saturated world, triangulation often fails to account for:
-
Deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation.
-
The collapse of truly independent media voices due to consolidation.
-
The faster pace and complexity of today’s information warfare (e.g., Russia/Ukraine conflict, disinfo campaigns).
-
-
Many modern verifications now require technical methods—like metadata analysis or satellite imagery—that triangulation alone doesn’t cover.
🧠 Better Framing:
You could say:
"While modern verification has evolved with tools like OSINT and digital forensics, I still believe that traditional journalistic triangulation remains one of the easiest, safest, and most dependable foundations for accuracy—especially when combined with newer techniques."
OSINT has somewhat replaced olde styles of intel gathering we used to call HUMINT, ELINT and SIGINT. I have been utilizing Janes.com for decades now and they have a very good podcast (The World of Intelligence). I used to get more info out of them in the 1990s and beyond until it became more locked down (monetized).
This version acknowledges your preference without sounding outdated or unaware of modern challenges.
The truth is, skepticism is healthy. Blind faith in any institution—government, media, or otherwise—is dangerous. But skepticism isn’t the same as conspiracy thinking.
And that distinction matters.
🕳️ The Limits of Grand Conspiracies
Let’s clear the air: large-scale conspiracies that require total secrecy and perfect coordination over time almost never work. Why? Because governments are too big, too leaky, and often too inefficient to pull off such complex coverups.
Real secrets? Yes. Covert actions? Definitely. But massively orchestrated deceptions involving hundreds or thousands of people keeping quiet for decades? Highly unlikely. The truth tends to leak out. Whistleblowers appear. Paper trails resurface. The very dysfunction of large bureaucracies works against long-term secrecy.
That’s not to say manipulation doesn’t happen. It absolutely does. But it's often more about spin, omission, or framing than total fabrication. Which brings us back to the core problem my daughter identified: How do we tell what’s true?
🔍 The Death of Triangulation
Traditional journalism relied on triangulation—confirming a fact with three independent sources. In the pre-digital world, it worked. But in today’s chaotic information ecosystem, it’s insufficient.
-
Media consolidation has reduced the pool of truly independent voices.
-
Disinformation can flood the field with noise, confusing triangulation itself.
-
The speed of digital media requires faster, more precise methods.
🧠 Enter: Networked Verification & OSINT
Modern truth-finding is now rooted in open-source intelligence (OSINT) and networked verification—a system that’s faster, more transparent, and, when done well, more accurate than triangulation.
✅ How It Works:
-
Crowdsourced Verification
Groups like Bellingcat analyze social media, satellite imagery, and metadata to confirm events. Journalists now tap into global networks of specialists and citizen investigators. -
Geolocation & Metadata Forensics
Images and videos can be confirmed through shadow analysis, terrain matching, and embedded metadata—tools that don’t rely on human memory or testimony. -
Cross-Platform Timestamping
Digital breadcrumbs—when properly compared—can recreate accurate timelines of events. -
AI and Deepfake Detection
Machine learning tools help flag manipulated audio, video, or bot-generated narratives. -
Transparent Methodology
Leading investigative teams now publish their process, not just their findings. This invites public scrutiny and builds trust through reproducibility.
🎯 Is It More Accurate?
Yes—with caveats. When properly applied, this new method can exceed traditional triangulation in precision and reliability. Here's why:
-
It’s empirical rather than anecdotal.
-
It’s multi-modal—combining imagery, data, and human analysis.
-
It’s open to challenge, which allows for course correction and refinement.
But it isn’t foolproof:
-
AI tools can fail.
-
Digital data can be spoofed.
-
Overreliance on tech can create false confidence.
Accuracy depends on how rigorously the method is applied—and on the integrity of those applying it.
🕵️♂️ The Intelligence Approach
This is where journalism begins to resemble intelligence work. Agencies like the CIA or MI6 don’t just take a single source as truth—they triangulate, contextually analyze, and reverse-engineer narratives to see what fits and what doesn’t.
Sometimes the best way to spot a black hole is by noticing the light it bends around it—not by seeing the hole itself. Same goes for truth in a propaganda-saturated world. What isn’t said, or what’s left out, often matters more than what’s shouted.
🧭 So, Where Does That Leave Us?
We must become literate in truth-seeking. That means:
-
Asking how something was verified.
-
Checking if sources are independent or echoing the same narrative.
-
Recognizing patterns of manipulation, not just isolated lies.
It also means acknowledging that not everything is a lie, but some things are constructed to mislead. The key is being able to tell the difference.
🧩 Final Thought: It’s Not About Trust. It’s About Process.
Don’t trust blindly—but don’t retreat into nihilism, either. We’re not powerless. We have tools, we have methods, and most importantly, we have our own capacity for critical thinking.
So no, I don’t think the government is hiding thousands of secrets in some perfect conspiracy machine. But I also don’t think we should take anything at face value.
The point isn’t to believe or disbelieve. The point is to investigate.
And maybe that’s the best answer I could have given my kid. I will say today, approaching their mid-30s, they are smart, question authority and the "news", and are very aware of what's going on. Every time I try to alert them to something important, they are already on it. My oldest is more grand in his endeavors, however. While he is aware of current affairs, he's far more into the greater questions of the human experience (there's my phenomenology orientation again) the universe, physics and reality.
In the end, our struggle isn’t just against disinformation or conspiracy theories—it’s against the erosion of trust, context, and critical thought. We’ve lost our old anchors: objective news, shared facts, and public trust in institutions. But that doesn’t mean truth is gone—it just means we have to work harder to find it. We need to embrace modern tools like open-source verification and digital forensics, while also reviving the foundational values of skepticism, transparency, and civic responsibility.
The real danger isn’t that people believe wild conspiracies—it’s that too many have forgotten how to think clearly, ask the right questions, or demand honest answers. Reclaiming that isn’t just possible—it’s necessary. Because the moment we give up on the truth, the conspiracy wins.
No comments:
Post a Comment