The Lonely Battle Against “Disinformation Agents”: A Conspiracy Theorist Analyzes Me.

I received an interesting email recently from a reader of Thrive Debunked who often forwards me leads and information. The subject was a conversation about me and this blog that recently went on between someone who has frequently commented on this blog (sometimes in support, but often in opposition) and another person who is evidently a filmmaker of some stature. The filmmaker, whose name I do not know, claimed to have done an analysis of me by reading Thrive Debunked. Just for fun I thought I’d present it here, as I find it both very amusing and very sad, and unfortunately typical of the conspiracy mindset behind Thrive. I’ll also offer some comments on the analysis by SlayerX3, the other frequent contributor to this blog.

I should state before we begin that who this person is doesn’t matter to me. I could not be less interested in their identity. It’s the content of the analysis that is interesting here.

The “Disinformation” Trope—Again.

“Muertos is a very interesting character. I’ve gone through a good bit of that site. I just want you to know that, in my considered opinion, this is all what it looks like: purposeful and intentional disinformation. This is NOT the efforts of a few intelligent skeptics who are determined that the public know the “truth”. This is a strategically mounted, carefully conceived and administered campaign to shift public opinion away from having a sincere interest in these topics.

Who would want to do such a thing is not a conversation for email, as far as I am concerned. Too complex, murky, and too detailed to write about. I just wanted you to know that disinformation has been a topic of interest of mine for a long, long time. There are reasons my films generally withstand certain kinds of scrutiny, in that I’ve always had a bit of a natural style and methodology that results in well-knit story structure and coherence.

But what’s going on now with Robbert (and with Foster and Thrive), is a step or two beyond the usual “civil vigilantism for the truth”. There’s something happening with guys like “Muertos” (who I suspect is probably more of a team than an individual) that calls for being very, very careful. One thing to notice about this “guy” is that he is very, very well informed about what it is he goes after- and I mean down to the history, the players, the real detailed nuances — and yet all he has to offer is dissention, ridicule and disbelief.”

This person evidently believes, as many readers of this blog do, that I’m a “paid disinformation agent.” This is a classic fallacy of conspiracy theorist thinking. Conspiracy theorists live in a shuttered universe, intentionally separated from any sources of information that would challenge their belief system. In this closed universe, no one could or would disagree with their conspiracy conclusions honestly, rationally or on their own. The only way they would ever disagree with conspiracy theories is if they’re being paid and/or criticizing conspiracy theories as part of some ideological, political or economic campaign. That’s what the term “disinformation” means in this context.

Repeating once again that I’m a totally ordinary private citizen, that I am one person working alone, and that I’m not being paid or directed by any government, agency, cartel, business interest, activist group, or any person at all to write Thrive Debunked is as pointless now as it ever was. Fans of Thrive who choose to accept this film’s misguided premises as their primary belief system will never accept that I’m not “working for someone.” I find it amusing that the accusation continues to be made, and repeated among my critics as if it is settled truth. It’s simply ridiculous.

Thrive fans aren’t the first conspiracy believers to accuse me of being a “paid disinformation agent,” nor the first to accuse me of being more than one person or having some sort of staff. In August 2011, a few months before Thrive came out, Peter Joseph Merola, the leader of the Zeitgeist Movement and creator of the conspiracy film series Zeitgeist (itself a major progenitor of Thrive), made the same accusations against me on his forum. I wrote an article about that incident on my other blog. Most amusing to me is the idea that I have a “staff.” I take it as a backhanded compliment. If people look at my blog and think it’s impossible that one guy can do all of this in his spare time, I suppose I must be pretty good at blogging!

I also take as a compliment the analyzer’s warning that I’m “very, very well informed about what it is he goes after- and I mean down to the history, the players, the real detailed nuances.” Yes, I am. A lot of research goes into the articles here. For various articles on Thrive Debunked, I have read numerous books, reviewed Congressional hearing testimony, conducted my own independent interviews, consulted newspaper archives, and emailed scientific experts to make sure my facts are right. This is, in fact, the difference between what I do and what Thrive does. I’d like to think this is a mark of quality. Thrive Debunked is listed on Rationalwiki.org’s page about the Thrive movie. It is also now a go-to source on the Debunkatron, a clearinghouse of conspiracy theory and woo belief debunkings. You don’t get listed on these sites by offering shoddy, poorly-researched material and just shouting opinions, which is what many angry Thrive fans accuse me of doing.

As for offering only “dissention, ridicule and disbelief,” this is, of course, false. I offer facts, evidence, and logical reasoning. Just to name a few at random, I offered the fact, backed by eyewitness testimony and historical data, that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not a “false flag” operation. That fact had the effect of directly refuting Foster Gamble’s claim in Thrive about the Gulf of Tonkin affair. I offered the fact, backed by scientific evidence, that St. Sofia in Istanbul was constructed in the 530s (A.D.) using a process of earthquake-proof cement that was unknown to modern engineers until 2002—thus demonstrating that questions of ancient engineering do not indicate, as Thrive would have you believe, that certain structures must have been created by aliens. Most controversially on this blog, I offered the fact that crop circles of flawless geometric precision can be and are made by human beings in a short period of time with a few simple tools—a fact you can verify with your own eyes by watching it being done in the YouTube video embedded on that page.

Thrive fans do not like facts such as these, because they impugn the film’s conclusions. I have no control over what the facts are. As I’m fond of saying to conspiracy theorists, don’t blame the facts if they lead to a conclusion you don’t like.

So, What’s My Motivation?

The analysis goes on:

“Plus, (from what I can tell) he’s also not someone like Peter Sorenson, or Colin himself, having been a former true believer who for some reason became disillusioned. No, this guy “Muertos” appears to be a total independent, and a newbie at that. So, what’s his motivation? Why put so much effort into researching and debunking people and topics that you fundamentally don’t have any true regard for? There’s a disconnect here that deserves some attention, I think.

And the way he operates is 100% political — you can see that in the construction of the language he utilizes. There is certainly no real room in his approach for any sort of “open discussion” on the “possibilities” of what is real. So my question is: “what’s really going on here?”

“Colin” is Colin Andrews, a crop circle researcher who recently exposed the fraudulent video being supported by Nancy Talbott of BLTResearch.com, which is Thrive’s main source for the false claims made about crop circles at the beginning of the film. I’m not sure I understand the distinction the analyzer is making between “true believers” and “independents.” It is true, however, that the vast majority of high-commitment conspiracy theorist debunkers are former conspiracy theorists themselves. In fact, I am one of them. I used to believe very fervently that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a government/CIA/Mafia conspiracy, and I also used to believe that TWA Flight 800, which exploded overLong Island in July 1996, was secretly shot down by the U.S. Navy. It was my recovery from this sort of conspiracy thinking that motivated me to try to prevent others from falling into it.

I am also not a “newbie.” I’ve been debunking conspiracy theories for over seven years. Although Thrive only came out a few months ago, I have a great deal of experience in researching and refuting conspiracy theories, from “9/11 Truth” to JFK, to cults, MLM scams  and other forms of what I call organized deception.

I strongly dislike conspiracy theories. They are harmful to society, corrosive to democracy, and inimical to rational and critical thinking. This is my motivation for speaking out against them. Nothing more, nothing less. (If you need a fuller explanation for this, see this article). Anyone who knows me knows that I do nothing by halves. If I committed myself to refuting the movie Thrive, it makes no sense that I would not try to do it as competently, completely, and persuasively as I possibly can. Otherwise I just wouldn’t do it. I find it bizarre that critics use the amount of effort I put into this blog to try to “prove” that I must be a “paid disinformation agent,” because no “real” person would put so much effort into refuting something they don’t like. That argument is ridiculous and ignores the powerful motivations that ordinary people find to speak out against things that they think are harmful.

My model in matters of debunking is a fellow named Mark Roberts. In 2005, Mr. Roberts committed to refuting and debunking the asinine conspiracy theorist film Loose Change, which claimed that “9/11 was an inside job.” Mark Roberts, who was known as Gravy on the JREF Forum, put together a website that is absolutely magnificent in its accuracy, its breadth of coverage, and its total refutation of the lies and errors contained in Loose Change. Who is Mark Roberts? He’s not a “paid disinformation agent.” He runs a tour service in New York City. He’s a totally normal guy. He achieved with Loose Change far more than I have with Thrive. But if you need proof that ordinary people really do get motivated enough to push back against conspiracy movies that are hurting people, all you need do is look at Mark Roberts’s website.

As for whether I am “open” to “possibilities,” I am open to anything—so long as the evidence demonstrates it is true. With regard to free energy, for example, I’ve stated many times that, although I believe free energy is impossible and a sham, if someone were to produce a free energy machine and demonstrate that it does what is claimed of it—in a public forum, and in a way where reputable scientists can verify and duplicate the machine’s operation—I will take down everything I’ve ever said about free energy. But Thrive fans can’t present that evidence. Nor can they present evidence for any of the other weird claims they make. Until and unless that evidence appears, it is entirely rational and justifiable for me to denounce these claims as false.

I would like to ask the person who wrote this analysis—what’s so unreasonable about asking for evidence?

“Disinfo” Again. There’s Something Going On!

“Something is definitely going on in my opinion, and there are few of us who are even aware of it, let alone oriented towards finding a way to deal with it. It’s a very dicey situation, and long-term, I feel. Someone is trying to “manage history” here, and we are in the crosshairs, so to speak. Your manner of reply, which is very similar to what Foster has attempted, has a lot of limitations in terms of really countering these initial disinformation salvos. Too much detail (for one thing), and not enough “sizzle”, and NO clout.

Disinfo is a very interesting game (and one I am not adept in — I just have an long-standing interest in it). It plays, of course, upon the lowest common denominator, upon common fears, and upon reinforcing existing and limited worldviews. Easy to do if you know the techniques, I would think.  Effectively countering it is a separate and unique process, I believe — and one I have tremendous interest in.”

Ooh, look at that! I’m trying to “manage history!” That term is silly. All I’m trying to do is present the facts, and educate people about the factual and logical deficiencies of the claims in Thrive. Is this “managing history?” What does that even mean?

As for this person’s interest in “disinformation,” I’d be glad to enlighten him/her. Whoever wrote this analysis is welcome to ask me any question they want about how much I’m being paid to write this blog ($0.00), who’s paying me (no one), what agenda I’m serving (none), how I do my research, or how I come up with subjects to cover. Seriously. I’ll totally honor this person’s anonymity if they like. My email is muertos@gmail.com. If they are so interested in “disinformation,” I offer myself as a resource to explore that interest.

The upshot of these last two paragraphs is another backhanded compliment. The person who wrote this is throwing up his or her hands and conceding that they know of no way to counter the hideous “disinformation” I’m spewing with my evil blog. That is not surprising; the facts speak for themselves. Conspiracy theorists, when confronted with facts they can’t deny, usually run away from them. That’s what’s happening in this case, except it’s not “disinformation” at all—it’s fact.

So yes, there is “something going on”: someone out there is viewing this blog through a very paranoid mindset, and seeing a number of things that simply aren’t there. Even to make the allegation that I’m some sort of “disinformation agent” betrays a level of paranoia that I frankly find very difficult to fathom. Another thing I have often told conspiracy theorists is that I don’t quite understand how their paranoid fantasy world works, but however it does, I’m glad I don’t live there.

SlayerX3’s Response to the Analysis

[SlayerX3 is a contributor and author of several articles on this blog including the three full-length debunkings, and the fine “Follow The Money” Debunked article. I do not pay him, I don’t direct what he writes, and he’s not working for anyone. Like me, he does this in his spare time and out of his own motivations.]

It is indeed a clear headed analysis but it also stumbles on the same problem when skeptics debunk or criticize events or theories: we eventually end up being either called “naysayers,” or worse, “disinformation agents.”

Topics like these are complicated to deal not with their subjects—since these are relatively easy to prove and show why they are wrong—but with the people who believe in them. Challenging an idea is easy. People can change or even shape ideas to correct fallacies and mistakes, but beliefs aren’t that easy [to change]. Since they have become rooted in people’s minds, challenging them will be always met with degrees of hostility or denial, along with other justifications by the believers to reinforce their beliefs but without addressing the questions that challenge those beliefs (such as the classic reasoning of, “If they are attacking me that means I’m right,” or “You are being paid to disagree with me”).

It is true some of those areas are far from being something we’d care about if there weren’t people trying to pass it as if those “happenings” were 100% true. I do not care if people believe in UFOs or Jewish shape-shifting reptilians, but I do care if people start spreading their version of a “truth” that doesn’t have any connection with reality, or a twisted interpretation of real-life facts to convey their own beliefs and convince other people to share them in a quasi cult-like manner. (It is worth it to cite groups like Desteni as an example of what can go extremely wrong with those beliefs).

Personally, I think the greatest motivation debunkers have is to force engagement with facts, in my case correcting the erroneous interpretation of physics and the pseudo-science in Thrive. Debunkers in general don’t have an agenda behind them besides showing where the mistakes and misinterpretations are.

[The analysis] mentions that we try to “manage history,” but this argument could be thrown back at them the same way they are throwing it at us. Movies like Loose Change and Zeitgeist attempted doing so for their own agenda, like the cuts in the 9/11 footage to insinuate the attacks were done by cruise missiles instead of planes (the Pentagon case in Loose Change) or to re-write history with false facts and misinterpretation of religions (the “Christ conspiracy” falsehood in Zeitgeist). The “disinformation” accusations are not something we take so lightly. When we debunk we’re not just saying “no, it didn’t happen like this PERIOD”—we focus on a more objective approach by doing research about the subject, showing from where and how we took the data werre using and taking a look at both sides before we reach any conclusions. And, more importantly, we never cease asking questions.

The difference is when we [debunkers] ask questions and look for answers, once we find one that is consistent with facts and reality we drawn our conclusions. Something I’ve noticed about conspiracy theorists is that no matter how much we prove their beliefs wrong and answer their questions, they keep asking questions until someone gives the answers they want to hear. (It doesn’t matter if this someone is telling the truth or not).

Perhaps the questioning is what really scares people in conspiracy theory circles, not the followers but the people responsible for spreading and making the [conspiracy] content. [The analysis] said we have a political agenda, which may or may not be true, I don’t in my case. But so do the creators of those movies, whether be it for money (Like Zeitgeist’s Peter Joseph Merola), to push a political agenda (Thrive’s Gamble) or simply for fame (I think David Icke fits). Debunkers, both professional and amateur, are seen as a threat by those people, a stone wall  between their beliefs and the people they feel they need to reach to accomplish these goals.

The phrase “Disinfo is a very interesting game (and one I am not adept in — I just have an long-standing interest in it). It plays, of course, upon the lowest common denominator, upon common fears, and upon reinforcing existing and limited worldviews” left me in awe a bit, since this is exactly what conspiracy theorists prey on. 9/11 conspiracy theories preyed on the broken sense of security among Americans; Zeitgeist and Thrive prey on the inequality and poverty problems around the world, blaming them on conspiracy groups and elites. The Protocol of the Elders of Zion (which David Icke refuses to say is fake) preys on hatred against the Jewish population. And it is clear these thoughts can be dangerous. They can either shift the attention to the wrong place or instigate hatred against a particular group of people.

There is an observation that should be reinforced about debunkers, the same one I stated in the beginning of this text: debunkers are called “disinformation agents” because we ask questions that will bring inconsistencies, fallacies and mistakes to the surface, and not only ask these questions but find views and facts to verify if the statements made by conspiracy theorists are factual or not. Since conspiracy theories tend not to be factual we’ve yet to find facts and evidence supporting conspiracy theories.

Remember the founding base of debunkers is skepticism. We won’t believe something outright without definitive proof.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

37 responses to “The Lonely Battle Against “Disinformation Agents”: A Conspiracy Theorist Analyzes Me.”

  1. JG says :

    Is “effectively countering” really a “separate and unique process?” Research really isn’t that hard once you get the hang of it.

  2. The Locke says :

    The most likely reason that many conspiracy theorists tend to believe that debunkers are disinformation agents: They can’t believe, or they don’t want to believe the fact that many people just don’t believe in what they believe, and that a few of them decide to, on their own, to try to stop the spreading of irrational thinking and pseudo science, by spreading real information and real science.

  3. fuljat says :

    You’re not worried, and rightly so, because someone with this sort of crippled syntax and orthography cannot be a bona fide intellectual and has nothing much to say to you or anyone.

  4. Lee says :

    Muertos, do you mind if this blog topic expands beyond just Thrive movie?

    • muertos says :

      It depends on how closely linked the particular topic is to Thrive. I’d like to keep at least the majority of this blog relevant to the movie, or at least to sources connected to the movie.

  5. Antidom says :

    Hey Muertos can you forward me a link debunking TZM’s Christ claims? I am very interested in seeing the inconsistencies in this regard. Especially taking into account comparitive religions and the similar roles and attributes of deities. Thanks.

  6. Tommyboy55 says :

    I have listened to both sides. At first, I thought Thrive had a pretty sound argument and worthwhile agenda. Then I listened to the other side of the argument and I feel foolish that I even thought that Thrive was in any way a viable movement.

    While I agree in principle that there are wealthy powers that control their own self interests to line their pockets, it’s less of a global domination agenda than it is their way to just get richer.

    I also believe that there are more efficient energy technologies available, but like the IPad, it will be introduced in marketable time schedules to maximize profit…which by the way, keeps us all employed to some degree.

    But mostly, Thrive kind of self destructs itself with all of that inane talk of Aliens and Eugenics. It’s almost as if they planned to take all of the talk of corporate greed, sound like they were denouncing the PTB and global domination and then, made it all seem irrelevant by including the alien crap.

    In essence, by including the crop circle/alien segments they denounced the very thing they were denouncing…thereby actually forwarding the agenda’s of the very people they are supposed to be fighting…Foster is a P&G heir…Coincidence?

    Thomas Paine once said…”To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead”

    Thanks for what you do..

  7. Douglas Barnes says :

    “There’s something happening with guys like “Muertos” (who I suspect is probably more of a team than an individual) that calls for being very, very careful.”

    I had no idea you were so dangerous, dude.

    “One thing to notice about this “guy” is that he is very, very well informed about what it is he goes after- and I mean down to the history, the players, the real detailed nuances…”

    This thought could only occur to the laziest of people. For instance, I was not “very, very well informed” about the Iraq war when I was fighting against it, I was very, very, very, very well-informed, having read well over 10,000 pages in documents surrounding the conflagration. And funny, the defenders of that unjustifiable war were just as immune to fact as conspiracy theorists. Kind of like the nutter I unfriended on Facebook the other day who, after proving he was unquestionably wrong*, told me maybe my concept of the entire universe was wrong, a la The Matrix. He then told me I was being “violent” with him (cue Inigo Montoya) before telling me with no sense of irony to “fuck off.” In his defence, he does battle schizophrenia.

    *The incident in question was a claim that Richard Muller proved that global warming didn’t exist. I simply linked to Mullers Berkly Earth Surface Temperature group website and showed that he proved the opposite.

  8. Simple Minded Spirit says :

    What I find very interesting is that you, Meurtos, hider of your true identity, are guilty of the very same thing you accuse these ‘conspiracy theorists’ of. You look for ‘facts’ to support your own ideas and opinions and theories, even though you also have not one shred of ‘proof’ to back up your claims.
    Anyone who uses divisive language to label groups based on their opinions is a product of the system Thrive speaks of. “Liberals” “Consirpacy Theorists” etc.etc. Labels, labels. Divisive, divisive.
    Oddly, I find lots of links to sites by various parties that back up ALL of Thrive’s claims. Do you not find it odd that every person who rises up against the status quo in this world is snuffed out? Do you not wonder why all of our information is controlled so tightly? Why they are trying to gain total control over the internet as well?
    And you claim to have lots of ‘evidence’ to back up your claims, right?
    So in the end, its all up to us as individuals, isn’t it? On an individual basis we must make up our own minds about what we believe is true. I’m so curious why you and any other person who feels the need to ‘debunk’ this movie? Why if it’s so worthless – why would you bother ‘debunking’ it? If it’s such a ‘sham’ shouldn’t that be readily obvious to anyone who watches it? Or are you just trying to make them believe your side of the story, so that you feel more comforted and safe? Why not just let people see for themselves how bogus it is, instead of trying to ‘convince’ them? I know why – because most of you claim you believed it at first, which tells me you indeed have a strong intuition and that it serves you well. You knew intuitively that Thrive speaks the truth. But then, your well-trained psyche stepped in and ‘took control’ and figured out a way to keep your precious little world-view intact. Guess what? The information in that movie is mind shattering, and it is true. It doesn’t bother me in the least if you or anyone else does not believe the information in that movie. I can tell you that in my own personal life experience, I have collected dozens of the facts presented in that movie and they were already ‘intuitively’ apparent (ie. true and self-evident) to me long before this movie was even thought of. My ‘proof’ for all of these little facts that appeared throughout my life was the validation and verification I receive consistently in daily life – seeing the world work exactly the way described in the film. The Thrive film validated thoughts I had from decades ago, all the way up to very recent confirmations of experiences. That is intuitive and solid verification – when two or more people come to the exact same conclusions based on different experiences.
    Does it not seem ‘weird’ to you that the entire world ‘puzzle’ fits together ‘perfectly’ in the context of the ideas presented in “Thrive”? Strange isn’t it? Why is that? Also strange that the movie validated everything I have ever thought about the world. And it also predicted your reaction.
    You might have a few other websites that refute those claims, but those are just as likely to be as bogus and ill-conceived as yours, again you have no proof either way.
    Admit it – for both sides it is a ‘war’ of opinions, and at the end of the day – NONE OF US REALLY HAVE ANY CLUE WHAT THE TRUTH IS. Period. You all keep talking about ‘PROOF’ like it is a real and tangible thing. It is not. There is no such thing as ‘proof’. The word ‘proof’ simple means that there is enough ‘credibility’ in the ‘evidence’, in your own eyes, that you are satisfied. Quite frankly, as humans, we should never be satisfied. Even when we think we have it figured out, we should keep looking. That’s why even though I believe almost everything presented in “Thrive”, I keep looking to see what the other sides are saying. There will always be another side – its human nature – there are always some people that are determined to prove that everything is ok in the world, there is nothing that requires our immediate effort or attention, that we should all just keep barreling along in our daily lives. Please realize however, that you are requiring a higher standard from the supporters of Thrive than you require of yourself. You have no proof. And your arguments are not even clear let alone compelling.
    As a side note I find it amusing and odd that you and every other non-believer of Thrive fail to realize that you are a prime product of the system that has been directly or indirectly created. I don’t necessarily believe there is a power out there concerned with world-domination, however, financial domination is almost the same kind of thing. And even you can’t argue that there is not financial domination and complete manipulation of our economic systems in this world. You need to lift the blinds in your apartment if you do, because you are the real shut in. You are the one locked in the Matrix, only you’re not even looking for a way out because you already believe you are free. Your loss.
    I do not think you are a ‘paid disinformation agent’. No one has to pay you for this. The system raised and bred and you to react the way you are. You are a perfect creation of the machine! So perfect are you, that you don’t even realize it. So perfect that you convince yourself you are not. You believe their illusions so thoroughly that you will gladly take up their axe, voluntarily and on your own volition. You are clearly not misinforming anyone on purpose, you actually believe these things. We could talk about why that is for hours on end, but because you lack the insight to touch base with your spiritual side (and in no way do I speak of religiosity here) you will never believe the things you understand intuitively. And even in the times that you do, you eventually convince yourself otherwise. I kind of feel sorry for you. You have so much potential. If only you could see that life on the believing side of Thrive is incredibly content. I can tell you that after writing all this I realize you started down the same path I did, but when it got cold and dark and lonely when the gravity of the reality sat on you, you ran from that right back to your safe and sound, cozy, anonymous place in the world. If you had embraced the first path, the intuitive path, and worked through the darkness, you would have found the light on the other side. You see, my life is not at all paranoid and dark and suspicious. I believe in the world Thrive presented and yet my life remains beautiful, and glorious, and happy and satisfying. I am the happiest person I know. Truly content. And I remain that happy even with the knowledge of what is going on with our Earth right now. I choose to find pleasures in the smallest things every day. I am grateful for everything that I experience in life. I am purely content and happy with my place in this vast universe. It is that contentment that allows me to navigate through the world, speaking to people, reaching out and acting as it seems appropriate. And this is just another day. With kind thanks to all who read this far, I wish peace and love to all.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Simple Minded Spirit

      Simple Minded Spirit, I fear this is one of those legendary, oft spoken about moments where someone has taken a long time to say absolutely nothing! (And your ending gratitude does little to amend for wasting your own time!)

      Thrive tells one side of the story, Muertos tells another. Learning to accept a difference of opinion it would seem is a more difficult task than changing the world.

      Just ask the wide-mouthed Suzanne Taylor, she’ll vouch for that statement!

      ———————————————————————————————-
      “You look for ‘facts’ to support your own ideas and opinions and theories, even though you also have not one shred of ‘proof’ to back up your
      claims.”
      ———————————————————————————————-

      Well hold it right there; you know what you have to say about proof don’t you:

      ———————————————————————————————-
      “There is no such thing as ‘proof’.” (there is no spoon!?)
      ———————————————————————————————-

      So it ultimately begs the question: is proof important to you Simple Minded Spirit, or did you post that colossal mass of contradiction for kicks? Without proof I guess you could argue we are merely putting our opinions out for contention…with the proviso of course, that yours is undoubtedly correct (although you can’t prove it of course).

      And why is your opinion correct we might ask? Well it reads that your own earthly experience tells us that the 1999 film ‘The Matrix’ plays a large part in your philosophy and outlook on life and you, like billions of others, are not completely incapable of a little armchair research in order to confirm what you already knew.

      Ground-breaking stuff; a round of applause this person’s insight, gentlemen please!

      I’m sure your moment of epiphany was Neo’s text book definition of “unplugging from the system”.

      So, if we were to employ your brand of logic, can we also contend that Nick Griffin and other Holocaust deniers only have to Google the “lots of links to sites by various parties” to see that their claims are also correct? Perhaps these claimants also all arrived at the same conclusion via different paths which can only strengthen their resolve? How does that logic extend to those who continue to believe that the earth is flat? Well there are lots of links to websites that support the theory!

      In all seriousness, I think we can agree there is an unpalatable aftertaste of naivety to your understanding of why people don’t buy conspiracy theories and what is reasonably offered and accepted as proof.

      Lots of links to websites will not confirm you are correct in your beliefs Simple Minded Spirit, but it’s certainly not odd at all that you should fall victim to the ad populum fallacy, especially when the stories are sold so eloquently. It just takes a little time and effort to learn where to recognise it.
      Just as millions were impressed by the slick, allegorical theme and rhetoric in ‘The Matrix’, millions can also be seduced into accepting the perverse molestation of facts presented by organisations such as Thrive.
      And you are a fantastic specimen of the Thrivetard generation; full of kind regards and pompous, obtuse derision in one sitting, but of course it would take more than a simple mind to highlight that you are no less of an asshole than anyone else. Why don’t you save your time and your act for someone that doesn’t see right through you?

      Forgive me if I decline your offerings of ‘love and peace’ given that you have presented only the insinuation that you have read some neat stuff on the internet and your personal life experience (on which you have remained thus far reticent though you think nothing of arousing suspicion to the subject of anonymity) as a justification to imply that those that disagree with you (and Thrive) have a clear lack of intuition, insight and an inability to think for themselves.

      Well Simple Minded Spirit, that’s the kind of love and peace you can most definitely “stick up your arse and fuck off whilst you’re at it!”…to quote another classic film.

      Whatever happened to looking at the other side of the story? Oh, of course, that’s another practise you claim you are acquainted with! Perhaps getting to look at the other side is a luxury reserved for those are resolute and correct in their understanding of the world, as you have painted yourself to be.

      ———————————————————————————————-
      a) “Do you not find it odd that every person who rises up against the status quo in this world is snuffed out?”

      b) “Anyone who uses divisive language to label groups based on their opinions is a product of the system Thrive speaks of.”

      c) “But then, your well-trained psyche stepped in and ‘took control’ and figured out a way to keep your precious little world-view intact.”

      d) As a side note I find it amusing and odd that you and every other non-believer of Thrive fail to realize that you are a prime product of the system that has been directly or indirectly created.

      e) “The system raised and bred and you to react the way you are. You are a perfect creation of the machine!”

      f) “my life is not at all paranoid and dark and suspicious”
      ———————————————————————————————-

      Now, given that you have abandoned the concept of proof and are therefore unable to demonstrate to anyone other than yourself that points a to e are correct, then we must assume that point f is false which leads me to conclude that you, within the context, are a model, paranoid slacktivist truther who, with a brilliant twist of irony, is completely incapable of discerning ‘The Matrix’ from real life! Who would have guessed?

      If ignorance is bliss then you truly have my envy for finding happiness. Enjoy.

      • Jack says :

        Anastasio, I am convinced you are looking for anyway to make yourself look more superior and intelligent than everyone else. You act as if the more vocabulary you use, the more valid your words are. I don’t see how you’re any different from the very same people you ridicule.

        ———————————————————————————————-
        “You look for ‘facts’ to support your own ideas and opinions and theories, even though you also have not one shred of ‘proof’ to back up your
        claims.”
        ———————————————————————————————-

        Well hold it right there; you know what you have to say about proof don’t you:

        ———————————————————————————————-
        “There is no such thing as ‘proof’.” (there is no spoon!?)
        ———————————————————————————————-

        Yes there is a spoon because you used your common sense. It’s the same common sense used to understand that these conspiracies are indeed very real.

        It’s funny how you’re trying to make Simple Minded Spirit look as if they are contradicting them self, yet you fail to understand what they meant.

        It seem you need to learn proper English Anastasio. The reason why Simple Minded Spirit is not contradicting himself (assuming its a guy) is because he is stating that although proof doesn’t exist, lets imagine that proof does in fact exist, well the author failed to provide any proof.

        Not to mention, basically what Simple Minded Spirit is trying to say is that proof is not absolute but instead is nothing more than providing something with more credibility.

        Now that doesn’t mean just because Simple Minded Spirit said proof doesn’t exist means he can’t talk about proof not existing in the blog. All it means is, if he were to go and perceive the blog from the same typical conditioned point of view the author blindly believes in, then what the author has to say would be incorrect as he has not provided any proof.

        I also think you forget the author is not stating what he has said as simple opinion, but instead the author has indicated that what he has said is absolute fact, and if you dare question it then you are a “conspiracy nut”.

        _______________________________________________

        “I’m sure your moment of epiphany was Neo’s text book definition of “unplugging from the system”. ”

        ____________________________________________

        Epiphany? Wow you really are full of yourself aren’t you? You act if you speak in words most people are unfamiliar with you are going to appear more intelligent, when in reality your only going to look like your trying to hard.

        Not to mention your use of ad hominem by trying to insult the post by bringing up the Matrix movies shows us you don’t have much substance to your words and can only make an argument by putting someone down with your narcissistic views.

      • Anastasio says :

        @ Jack

        ——————————————————————————————
        “Anastasio, I am convinced you are looking for anyway to make yourself look more superior and intelligent than everyone else. You act as if the more vocabulary you use, the more valid your words are.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Tell me Jack, do you have an inferiority complex? Do you feel guilty because a simple word such as ‘epiphany’ has you reaching for your dictionary and rueing the day you stopped paying attention at school? Every person who attended a Christian school, and possibly many more, could tell you the definition of epiphany, and if not, link you to its meaning. (I’m sure I heard it used in an episode of Dexter too. Perhaps you could write to the producers and reproach them for their efforts in discombobulating the general public)

        Trust me Jack, there is no word I could type into this blog that you, Simple Minded Spirit or any other so-called awakened one could not define in a matter of seconds…allegedly. So why would my use of such a relatively common-place word, especially when used in the congruous, dramatic context of The Matrix, present me as someone ‘more superior and intelligent’ than you?

        It could viewed that your parapraxis above says more about your your own interpretation of superiority and intelligence, and where these concepts are actually recognised in an argument.

        So, if you are truly convinced that words makes one’s argument sound more impressive than it really is, then perhaps you should give it a try sometime, as I find very little else in your words that stimulates or appeals to me on a cerebral level.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “I don’t see how you’re any different from the very same people you ridicule.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Unsurprisingly, neither do I! I was not born into a world of having my arse wiped for me by the housemaid into my twenties, nor does my daddy drive a Porsche! I funded my own education, worked some real shitty jobs (much like the rest of the working class) and I have been on the bones of my arse many a time! I do not speak to you from a position of privilege, nor a false sense of grandeur, Jack. How I select and choose to arrange my words says nothing of the man away from this blog, and even less of the people I deliver them to. As I have said before here; my arguments are offered in the same flippant manner in which they are formed. Once choose you get over it, then we can converse about something else as equally important, I suppose.

        Maybe you could help me here; what I don’t understand, is that we often hear accounts on this blog about the “hours of research” you people put into unraveling these esoteric conspiracies, and how you learned in one night’s viewing of Zeitgeist, economics and how the banking system fucks the little guy over. You people can decipher the math in crop circles, understand sacred geometry and its application to the world and interpret the laws of thermodynamics so fluently that you can contradict them with a Youtube video or a film you watched on TV.

        Yet, when Anastasio throws an enigmatic noun such as ‘epiphany’ into the argument, you complain because it’s apparently a word that “most people are unfamiliar with”. So tell me, Jack, where does your quest for enlightenment truly end, or begin even?

        Certainly not Dictionary.com, I’m sure.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “It’s funny how you’re trying to make Simple Minded Spirit look as if they are contradicting them self, yet you fail to understand what they meant.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        ‘Trying’ would be the wrong verb and ‘funny’ the wrong adjective, and it’s obvious you’ve neither properly read nor understood either argument.

        You see Jack, by the very definition of the word, one cannot speak about truth without implying proof. And Simple Minded mentions truth several times during his above rant.

        See below for my summary, as it appears you missed the crux of my argument the first time:

        ——————————————————————————————
        “Guess what? The information in that movie is mind shattering, and it is true.”

        “Oddly, I find lots of links to sites by various parties that back up ALL of Thrive’s claims.”

        “You knew intuitively that Thrive speaks the truth.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Logically it follows that Simple Minded Spirit has accumulated the necessary proof to make himself believe what is true. Is this not the ‘common sense’ you yourself used to believe that “these conspiracies are indeed very real”?

        Well of course not, because according to Simple Minded’s statement (to which you have given your full endorsement):

        “there is no such thing as proof”

        So, if you do not use proof to back up all of Thrive’s claims then what do either of you actually bring to the table (apart from the irrelevant nit picking at my vocabulary)?

        Just faith and beliefs it would appear.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “It seem you need to learn proper English Anastasio.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        And by whose authority do we define “proper English” Jack?

        I would be the first to admit my English is not as proficient as I would like, but the regret is not of a magnitude to keep me awake at night.

        Therefore, why I would be inclined to be schooled by a man who fails the third-person present tense form of a verb and shows utter disdain for the humble apostrophe in contractions in the very same word-salad of a criticism he bestows on my use of our mother tongue, is a question I’ll leave to you to answer.

        Nevertheless, I’m sure anyone who understands ‘proper English’ can witness the priceless consequences of bold statements like yours above.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “The reason why Simple Minded Spirit is not contradicting himself
        ——————————————————————————————

        Ah but he did contradict himself Jack! How can one assert a contrary view as true to someone other than himself without proof?

        ——————————————————————————————
        “is because he is stating that although proof doesn’t exist, lets imagine that proof does in fact exist, well the author failed to provide any proof.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Is this a joke? Because the first thing that comes to mind is LOL!

        Is it just me or can anyone else actually figure out what the hell Jack’s trying to say here? I’m not convinced even Jack knows.

        ——————————————————————————————
        “Now that doesn’t mean just because Simple Minded Spirit said proof doesn’t exist means he can’t talk about proof not existing in the blog. ”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Seriously, what the fuck Jack…

        ——————————————————————————————
        “Not to mention your use of ad hominem by trying to insult the post by bringing up the Matrix movies”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Wrong again Jack, and further evidence that you have not even read Simple Minded’s argument before trying educate us all in what it actually means. Either that or you fail the standards of your own ‘proper English’.

        Simple Minded offers several analogies to the Matrix of his own volition. I merely opined on the absurdity of Simple Minded’s penchant to compare Hollywood science fiction movies with the tangible world – so please do go right ahead and explain to us how this fits the definition of an ad hominen attack?

        ——————————————————————————————
        “shows us you don’t have much substance to your words and can only make an argument by putting someone down with your narcissistic views.”
        ——————————————————————————————

        Jack I fear for the sake of your own dignity that you are not qualified to diagnose narcissism through a post you have read on the internet, but thanks for the laugh all the same. I also fear you are perhaps not able to recognise substance in anyone’s words, not excluding your own.

        Your argument reads as “there is no such thing as proof, but if there was, Muertos wouldn’t have any”.

        Completely superfluous, inane and not completely unexpected from someone who would title himself enlightened.

        Sadly, the internet cannot teach you logic Jack.

    • Anastasio says :

      Hmm, perhaps I responded before actually thinking. You are right Simple Minded Spirit, I thought I knew it all and I have now discovered this is not the case. Please ignore my sheer ignorance in my last post as it is incorrect and should be deleted. You are welcome to delete my ignorant post as it was made to respond to a subject I know not of. I didn’t realize the foolishness of this blog.

  9. Simple Minded Spirit says :

    Hmmm perhaps I commented prematurely. This being the first post on the page, I leaped to comment before reading everything. Now that I have, you are welcome to delete my comment, as I feel it is now out-of-context given what I have read. I didn’t realize the distinctions you were making in your critiques of the movie. It is nice to know you do not reject everything in the movie.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      Muertos has a strict “no censorship” policy on this blog. He’s even allowed spam messages to pass through. Posts don’t get deleted here.

    • Simple Minded Spirit says :

      Nice try, those are not even my words and why would I want to have my own comment deleted? Oh yeah, because someone wants to pretend to be me and make me look like I don’t know what I’m talking about and that I somehow realized “the distinctions you were making in your critiques of the movie” and now want to retract my post. Not likely. I still feel this blog to be nothing more than a blind mans opinion still stuck in the matrix.

  10. Simple Minded Spirit says :

    Oh, and then I realized Kimberly and Foster have a public reply and truly open dialogue about all these matters, including Robbin’s compelling letter: http://www.thrivemovement.com/foster-and-kimberly-gamble-response-to-john-robbins-critique-of-thrive-movie And I’m right back to standing by my first comment. See how easily our trained psyches try to lead us away from our intuition. Happens all the time.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      The author of this blog has responded to the Gambles’ response. Please make sure you read through the entire blog before you make more premature comments. While Muertos is skeptical at the film’s claims, he has very generously allowed open dialogue and has posted responses by both the film’s supporters and critics. Thank you.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      I’d also note that Muertos has welcomed responses by supporters of Thrive, although he expects them to address the facts expressed in the blog, rather than vague critiques of the purpose behind the blog.

      I will leave this, however. I would say that it is open-minded to read both sides of issues before making your own conclusion. Thrive presents one set of viewpoints. All this blog is doing is presenting the counterarguments to the claims presented in the movie. I would actually say that it is a very open-minded thing to be skeptical. While conspiracy theorists often play the Galileo Gambit on their side, in reality all Galileo did was express skepticism at the claims presented at him that appeared to defy intuition.

  11. Lee says :

    Muertos, where is the part II for your “Confession Of A Disinformation Agent” article?

  12. Ken says :

    Kudos to you, Muertos, for having the compassion and energy to separate science from pseudoscience. Part of the pseudoscience world is relatively harmless (although it saps energy and funds that might otherwise be put to productive ends): there will always be people who will believe virtually anything, because they have no training in science. Let them drink their “structured” water.

    But part of the pseudoscience world is ruled by genuine frauds who have bilked investors out of millions of dollars. Nowhere is this more true than in the “free energy” world. The world needs more people, like you, Muertos, with the energy for critical thinking, and the compassion to do the right thing.

  13. reefray says :

    “As for whether I am “open” to “possibilities,” I am open to anything—so long as the evidence demonstrates it is true. … although I believe free energy is impossible and a sham, if someone were to produce a free energy machine and demonstrate that it does what is claimed of it—in a public forum, and in a way where reputable scientists can verify and duplicate the machine’s operation—I will take down everything I’ve ever said about free energy. … Until and unless that evidence appears, it is entirely rational and justifiable for me to denounce these claims as false.”

    “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”.
    Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

    So would this be in the same arena as the reputable science with verifiable evidence that you seek? Did Lord Kelvin not have the evidence to demonstrate his statement, especially considering that he was the president of the oldest learned society of science?
    Was it entirely rational and justifiable for Lord Kelvin to denounce flight just as you have on free energy capabilities? Science seems to be the basis for many of your demonstrations of ‘truth’, so would I be right in my thinking that the above statement would have been your ‘truth’ at that time, coming from such a peer reviewed and reputable scientist? Two non-scientists (Wright Brothers) achieving what science of the day deemed impossible … makes you think doesn’t it?!

    • Anastasio says :

      @reefray

      You almost nailed it reefray, almost.

      Allow me, if I may be so bold, to offer an explanation as to why your analogy took a nosedive shortly after takeoff.

      You see, the problem of copying and pasting stand-alone quotes from the internet, is that the important, straddling and often qualifying dialogue (or monologue) we call ‘context’ is invariably left in place.

      When we read Lord Kelvin’s quote “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible” as it stands. I can almost certainly assure you that Lord Kelvin did not think at all that ‘heavier than-air flying machines’ were in fact impossible – unless he experienced a period of isolation from the outside world that lasted several decades, or it was some kind of a joke…which you could very well be the butt of some 117 years later!

      The context could have indeed related to using a coal-fired steam engine to power a heavier-than-air flying machine, or perhaps the full statement might have read “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible [to fly when using a dead elephant as a pilot]“.

      Who knows for sure? Until we see the context in which the quote was allegedly uttered, we might never will.

    • Ken says :

      @ refray

      You make (among others) two mistakes that are very commonly made by supporters of pseudoscience: your history is wrong and your understanding of science is incorrect.

      1. The Wright brothers were, functionally, scientists and did numerous wind tunnel experiments just as scientists did and still do. There was no “science vs the Wright Brothers” going on at the time, and the Wright Brothers relied on aerodynamic texts developed by other scientists, such as Chanute. They did not, by any stretch, invent heavier than air flight.

      2. It was well known, and had been demonstrated prior to Lord Kelvin’s misquote*, that heavier than air flight was possible. Control was an issue (and remained an issue with the Wright Flyer) but many efforts were underway to demonstrate long, powered, heavier than air flights.
      * There is no record that he actually said that “Heavier-than-air flight is impossible.” Per the record, he said only that he did not want to join the Aeronautical Society.

      You wrote: “Two non-scientists (Wright Brothers) achieving what science of the day deemed impossible … makes you think doesn’t it?!”

      It makes me think only that you are woefully ill-informed in history and the nature of science. There were many scientists prior to the Wright Brothers who understood that heavier-than-air flight was possible. Even at that time, it was known that bird were not lighter than air. I was not widely believed that birds had special magic that enabled them to fly even though they were heavier-than-air. Heavier-than air gliders had been demonstrated many times prior to Kelvin’s decision not to join the Aeronautical Society. (The addition of power was a practical, not scientific hurdle: the amount of power and power-to-weight ratios required were well-understood prior to the Wright Brothers.)

      In the Wright Brothers time, there was every reason to believe (among educated people) that heavier-than-air flight was possible (because it had already been demonstrated, but also because the physics and math could be demonstrated.) (The thought experiment works.) Free energy (over-unity, etc) devices have never been demonstrated to work and the math and physics do not support the notion that they will ever be demonstrated to work. (The thought experiment does not work.)

      For a machine to work, more is required than mere belief.

      • Anastasio says :

        @Ken

        Good job Ken.

        You know, I never even considered the possibility that Lord Kelvin had even uttered the alleged quote at all.

        Indeed, looking to what appears to be the only hard copy of the quote, it does in fact seem that reefray is citing from ‘The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation’!

        And if nothing else, I’m sure we all can appreciate the double irony of reefray’s go-to source.

        Here’s the book as sold by Amazon, listed under ‘humour’ no less:

        And an extract here (an approximate date of the quote is the best cite Cerf and Navazky can come up with it seems):

        http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Experts+Speak%3A+The+Definitive+Compendium+of+Authoritative…-a053988697

        Looking even further (a Google search that took the whole of 0.16 seconds reefray), I found what seems to be the original letter from Kelvin to Powell from where the ‘quote’ has been been lifted and subsequently bastardised:

        The text reads as follows:

        Dec 8/96

        [Letterhead: “THE UNIVERSITY, GLASGOW.”]

        Dear Baden Powell

        I am afraid I am not in the flight for “aerial navigation”. I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the aëronautical Society.

        Yours truly Kelvin

        Source: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1233.htm

  14. reefray says :

    Interesting comments and enjoyable reading in parts. Thanks for the lessons in definitive science.

  15. vividaether says :

    I would say the main thing that I’ve learned perusing this blog is that the people who accuse you of being a ‘disinformation agent’ (a new term to me, made for a sad googling adventure let me tell you!) would never EVER do extensive research or even read a textbook without being paid. Apparently in order to attempt to introduce some rational thinking and collect evidence you must first be given some sort of blessing from some sort of shadow government, along with a reasonable salary. I wish that were true.

  16. Sidionian says :

    Wow. What an amusing gathering of pseudo-intellectuals and empty-headed regurgitating know-it-alls this empty and meaningless ‘debunking’ blog has managed to accrue. It’s unfortunate that it only confirms that mankind is still at the peasant stage of development.

    Let’s wait another 1 million years or so. Hopefully by then even the dumbest human being will be a little more evolved than the majority of nincompoops and ditto heads in here.

    See you idiots in the next eon.

    • conspiracykiller says :

      By then conspiracy theorists will have been bred out of society since intelligence will have risen to the point where stupidity is non existent. Conspiracy theorism equates to lack of intellect, intellect in his instance meaning ability to discern fact from fiction. Also being that you won’t survive death it’s fairly inevitable you are never going to fulfil your claim.

  17. yottaflop says :

    You guys think way too much. I can’t imagine having your minds. Endless chaos. Fortunately this blog will fade away, you will die, and absolutely none of this will matter eventually. Calm down, take a deep breath and enjoy what’s happening right now.

    Being kind and respectful to other humans and other forms of consciousness is much more important than arguing, angrily about conspiracy theories. As long as you practice kindness and respect, it doesn’t matter if you believe or hate them with all your guts.

    I personally prefer to relax and to work on myself rather than spending loads of precious energy changing peoples minds for no real reason.

    That’s all.

    I’m ready for the flames.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. One Year Later: Thriving No More. « Thrive Debunked - November 11, 2012
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 137 other followers

%d bloggers like this: