FAQ
FAQ
What is Thrive?
Thrive is a movie, purporting to be a documentary, created by Clear Compass Media and Foster Gamble which maintains that so-called “free” energy, deriving evidently from extraterrestrial technology, exists and is being suppressed by conspiratorial forces. Thrive argues that by adopting this “free energy” there can and will be a momentous transformation in human society. The movie was released on the Internet via a website that seems to indicate there will be a “Thrive Movement,” presumably of activists who want to agitate for the release of this “free energy” technology and the end of the conspiracies that are suppressing it. The movie came out on November 11, 2011 and was originally available for a $5 payment for a limited time, but in the course of a few days the movie has already appeared on YouTube and various torrent sites.
Why don’t you like the Thrive movie?
Thrive is a deceptive film. It makes numerous assertions that are clearly intended to be taken by its audience as matters of fact, but these assertions do not stand up to scrutiny. I believe the makers of the film should have investigated their subjects more fully and more carefully before allowing particular assertions to be made in the finished film. Thrive is intended to foster belief in conspiracy theories, which I feel is harmful to society.
By focusing much of its argument on the supposed promise of so-called “free energy,” Thrive diverts attention away from urgent issues that can and should be solved with regard to energy production. I feel strongly that the human race must change over to renewable and more eco-friendly sources of energy production on a wide scale, and soon. The best prospect of these sources lie in the development of solar, wind, tidal power etc. But if movies like Thrive tell us—incorrectly—that there is “free” energy out there, this obscures the importance of clean energy that really can improve the lives of people around the world.
What do you mean by “conspiracy theories”? What, to you, is a “conspiracy theory”?
Conspiracy theories are explanations for events or conditions that stress unsupported and unsupportable allegations of collusion or design by groups of persons or organizations to achieve a particular result. It’s somewhat difficult to come up with a one-size-fits-all definition of conspiracy theory, but the key concepts, aside from collusion, include unsupported and unsupportable allegations–meaning that conspiracy theories are, at least by my definition, contrary to both objective fact and rules of logic. Conspiracy theories usually exist as “alternative explanations” for well-known events, particularly events of historical importance or significance.
A conspiracy theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal definition of “conspiracy,” which means an agreement between at least two people to do something illegal. This is a legal concept; my use of the term “conspiracy theory” is completely separate from that.
Here are examples of conspiracy theories:
- The theory that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald, or by Oswald acting in collusion with others. (Factually unsupported; to at least some extent, logically unsupportable).
- The theory that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by someone other than Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorists, or by Al Qaeda acting in collusion with governments or other interests. (Factually unsupported; logically unsupportable). This is a conspiracy theory promoted by Thrive.
- The theory that “free energy” exists and is being suppressed by business and governmental interests. (Factually unsupported; logically unsupportable). This is a conspiracy theory promoted by Thrive.
- The theory that the world is secretly ruled by a unified cabal of conspirators who control governments and all significant financial power, and who are deliberately driving the world to the brink of collapse. (Factually unsupported; logically unsupportable).
- A secret plan to bug Democratic political party headquarters in 1972, and then cover up crimes committed in the course of that plan–Watergate. (Factually supported; logically consistent)
- A secret plan to sell arms to Iran and divert proceeds to the Contras–Iran-Contra. (Factually supported; logically inconsistent)
- The Reichstag fire in Germany in 1933. (Not a conspiracy; a crime committed by one person which was used to political benefit by other unrelated persons; in any event, factually supported, logically consistent).
Are you paid to write this blog?
No. I am not receiving a single penny of remuneration from any person, entity, agency, group, cartel, or any combination thereof. I am not a “paid disinformation agent.” I do not work for the government. I do not work for oil companies or the energy lobby. I am not putting material on this blog at the request or command of anyone, anywhere, in any organization, for any reason.
So you think the world can just continue on as it is and everything will be fine?
No, I do not and never have made that assertion. The current paradigms of energy and resource consumption across much of the world is unsustainable in the long term; I don’t think very many people would dispute that. Global warming is also a serious threat to our planet. However, when the question is usually asked, “So, you think the world can just continue on as it is?” lurking behind it is the assumption that it’s a binary choice–either we continue on as we are, without change, or else we adopt some radical solution (such as those proposed in Thrive, to the extent they are intelligible). This assumption is erroneous.
The world cannot continue on as it and everything will be fine, but then again, no one expects it to. To ask the question “do you think the world can continue on as it is?” presumes that change will not occur for any reason and that current practices will always continue on exactly as they are today, leading to some sort of catastrophic collapse. Catastrophic economic or societal collapse–a common belief among conspiracy theorists–is rare in history and unlikely at the present time because factors continually change to prevent it. The economy changes daily. As fossil fuels become scarcer, gradually other forms of energy production will become cost-effective and feasible to an extent they are not today; that will happen slowly over a period of time.
People who argue in favor of conspiracy theories usually try to paint their opponents as people heedless of problems, heading blindly for the brink of collapse. Conspiracy theorists often like to cite opinions of people (usually other conspiracy theorists) who foretell dire consequences if X or Y factor continues. This is sometimes known as “collapse porn,” and the term, though pejorative, is somewhat apposite, because, shocking as it seems, many conspiracy theorists secretly (or not-so-secretly) desire to see catastrophic economic or societal collapse, because it would prove their favorite predictions right. “Collapse porn” is a constant theme lurking behind Thrive and one of the aspects I hope this blog will explore.
What’s your solution to the problems of the world?
My solution is to approach the problems of the world from a truthful and rational perspective. The problems of the world, whatever anyone believes them to be, will not be addressed by belief in conspiracy theories or by believing in utopian panaceas like “free energy,” as promised by the Thrive movie. I don’t have a ready-made solution for the problems of the world, but the makers of Thrive don’t either—and in fact their recommendations, to promote “free energy” and stand up against nonexistent conspirators whom they claim control the world, will make things worse, not better.
So you believe everything the government and corporate-run media tell you, then?
No, but this question proceeds from an incorrect premise: that what we know about the world and about particular events comes primarily from the government, “big” media or other (allegedly) officially-dominated sources of information. This assumption is incorrect. Take, for example, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Virtually all conspiracy theorists assume that what they call the “official story” initially came from the U.S. government. In truth, what we know about 9/11 came from a vast variety of sources—starting first and foremost with the actual personal eyewitnesses who saw and experienced the events of 9/11 (instead of witnessing them on television). Government sources did not tell us what happened on 9/11. They did not need to because the evidence of what happened was abundant without resort to government sources. Therefore, believing that Osama bin Laden’s hijackers carried out the 9/11 attacks is not a question of “trusting the government.”
It is also a mistake to assume that media acts with unified motives and/or in a collective fashion. What about, for instance, the media outlets from China, Russia and the Arab world, who reported on the events of 9/11 from the moment it happened, and in much the same way as U.S. media did? Surely the conspiracy to “control” media can’t be so tight that Al Jazeera and Xinhua, over which the owners of most U.S. media outlets have no economic or political control, can be trusted to disseminate the same “false” stories as the U.S. media that conspiracy theorists distrust. If such tight control over media outlets did exist, how did Thrive get produced in the first place? How come Alex Jones has a weekly radio audience twice the size of Rush Limbaugh’s, daily, and how come he’s still broadcasting after more than 10 years?
When you think about it logically, claims of government or media information control simply don’t make sense. Yes, stories are spun by politicians, corporations and business interests all the time, but there’s a limit to the amount of “spin” that you can engage in before the attempt starts breaking down. (Do you, for instance, believe that O.J. Simpson is still out there “looking for the real killers”? That’s an example of spin that just doesn’t work). Therefore, asking someone who does not believe in conspiracy theories, “So, you just believe everything the government and media says?” is asking the wrong question.
What do you hope to accomplish with this blog?
I hope to place into the public eye–and into the place where most potential Thrive fans get most of their information, the Internet–a set of facts and analyses that counterbalance the deceptive and false statements made in the Thrive movie. This approach has been used successfully in dealing with previous Internet-based conspiracy theorist films; Google “Zeitgeist Movie,” for instance, and you will bring up numerous examples of debunkings and other factual analyses refuting the spurious claims of the movie, side-by-side with sites the makers of the film want you to see. Over the long term, informing the public about the content of conspiracy films reaps benefits. Very few people today take Loose Change, a movie positing various 9/11 conspiracy theories, seriously, but in 2005/06 Loose Change was extremely popular. Sites such as ScrewLooseChange have a lot to do with informing people about factual and logical errors and distortions in that film. It is too early to tell if Thrive will become as popular as these other notorious Internet conspiracy films, but if it does, we hope to offer a counter perspective and invite people to view the facts as they are–not as the makers of the Thrive film would like you to believe they are.
Do you work for the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds?
No.
45 Responses to “FAQ”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- - April 15, 2012
For many conspiracy theories just using simple logic is enough to debunk them. For example, when I was a teenager, I use to actually believe that the government knew in advance that the Japanese were going to attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and did nothing about it because Roosevelt wanted in the war. After just using simple logic (ex. why didn’t they get most of the ships out of there if they knew the Japanese were going to attack) I determined that that was complete BS and changed my way of thinking about conspiracy theories in general. Now when it comes to conspiracy theories I tell people, “I want real, physical proof, or I’m going to assume what you’re telling me isn’t true”. Of course I have to make sure the person isn’t crazy first.
So let me get this straight, because Roosevelt didn’t move the fleet, that’s your “logical” basis for believing whatever the government says? You answered your own question.
Q: ” (ex. why didn’t they get most of the ships out of there if they knew the Japanese were going to attack)”
A: “the government knew in advance that the Japanese were going to attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and did nothing about it because Roosevelt wanted in the war.”
It certainly wasn’t solely Roosevelt that wanted in. At least add whoever was running the congress, and the white house at the time. Very little searching will give you the key money makers in that war. If you wanna talk logic, follow the money. There hasn’t been a war fought by Americans based on ideals since the civil war at the latest, it’s ALWAYS about money.
Look at Iran today, the US government is doing everything it can to piss off their government. I’m sure the media will spin it so when they finally crack, and attack Israel, we can say ooooooh, those bastards. And then the corporations that profit from war(and the banks that own them) can make money off both sides of the war…..like they always do. And when people try and speak out about that stuff, others will shut them up by calling em anti American, conspiracy nuts, etc.
With a government soooo frequently lying to the people, believing ANYTHING they say, would be crazy. Frankly, if Obama told me water is wet, I’d have to go check for myself, twice.
Locke… you do know there are newspaper articles wirtten of the impending Japanese attack dont you? What more proof do you need?
ahhahahahahhahahaha
you are a prick. enough said.no more time to spend on the matter.
Sean is Marine, so of course he’s a prick. But perhaps that helps you to understand that he’s been subjected to an entirely different level of “conditioning” than the rest of us. I’ve met some seriously brainwashed Marines in my day, but I’ve never met any that thought the US military has any ideological business in Iraq or Afghanistan, much less believed that some cave dwellers are being sought out. For the most part, they know what the game is, and who the players are.
Sorry, but you have me confused with someone else. I am not in the Marines. I have never been in the military. I’ve never had military training of any kind. I opposed the war in Iraq and I think we ought to get out of Afghanistan.
Ouch, I read this and thought wth did I miss? I saw the connections you made with a quick Google search, but yeah, um, that isn’t this guy. Pretty sure the if muertos was a Marine, he’d be getting into shit with his “conditioned” buddies pretty regularly. Must suck to be that guy, lol. As much as I hate to agree with him, muertos has made his position on “the war” pretty clear in other posts.
Hey! I came to this website looking for arguments. For me, one of the main arguments one must answer is the one about who do you believe. How can you know who’s right? Is it true just cause it’s mainstream? That’s why I think this question is the most important “So you believe everything the government and corporate-run media tell you, then?”. I think a strong response is needed and I found the one given here was insufficient. I’d like to give you my problems with it, as I’d like to hear your response. Your main claim, as I understood it, is that the “official version” of an event comes from more than the government, and as an example you portray de 9/11. Nevertheless, I find this argument quite flat, as no conspiracy theory claims that there were no planes crashing, or that the buildings didn’t collapse or that people didn’t die and this is what eyewitnesses reported as well as the media, just when it happened. But the important question is ‘why’ it happened. And in this respect, eyewitnesses didn’t know (no one “saw” that Bin Laden wanted to crash the airplanes). It was the USA government who gave that explanation in the end, and that was what the media there reported and then the media all over the world. In fact, ppl pro-conspiracy will use the argument that most eyewitnesses heard explosions and so on inside the building, before the plane crashed upstairs. Hope you see why this argument presented fails. To sum up: in this case the conspiracy defies the “why” explanation of the attack, not the facts that the buildings collapsed, and the ‘why’ was given by the government through the media, not by eyewitnesses, thus the question in the FAQ still remains unsolved. Cheers!
Thanks for the comment. I think you’re wrong, and here’s why.
There is plenty of “why” evidence regarding 9/11 that does not come from government sources. For example, most 9/11 conspiracy theorists do not know, or choose not to acknowledge, that the operational architects of the attacks–Khaled Shiekh Mohammed and Ramzi al Binalshibh–confessed to planning and executing the attacks before they were captured by US forces. Conspiracy theorists love to throw out various Al-Qaeda confessions because they were supposedly induced by torture, but that’s just not true. KSM and Binalshibh were interviewed extensively by Arab journalists from Al-Jazeera in 2002 and in fact clearly stated, in a documentary film, that they did 9/11, and they elucidated the reasons why they did it. This was a year before either one of them went to Iraq, which was where they were captured. Oh, and that “tortured” confession by KSM? Strangely enough, it lines up in most respects with what he told Al-Jazeera in 2002 before his capture.
Furthermore, what about the Bin Laden tapes? Those did not come from the U.S. government at all. Bin Laden clearly confessed to 9/11. More than once, in fact. Those tapes were released by Al-Qaeda to media outlets in the Arab world, and clearly the U.S. government could have had nothing to do with them. I make the point in this FAQ answer that there’s no way the U.S. government can control these sources. And this is precisely the sort of “why” evidence that you claim is missing.
How do you explain this?
Furthermore, you state that “no conspiracy theory claims that there were no planes crashing, or that the buildings didn’t collapse or that people didn’t die.” That is incorrect. Many conspiracy theories do. Before the 9/11 Truth “Movement” died, many of its adherents insisted that there were no planes at all (remember the “no plane hit the Pentagon” garbage?). Judy Wood and her crew of loonies insist to this day that the planes were holographic projections and that super magical beam weapons from space destroyed the towers. They also claim the buildings did not collapse–they were “dustified” by this magical weapon. Lest you say that this belief was not mainstream in 9/11 Twoof circles, let me remind you that it’s not so different than the theory of Steven Jones and his adherents, which was that explosive paint–yes, you read that right, explosive paint–was applied to the WTC towers by persons unknown and that caused the demolition. Also, many conspiracy theorists believe that at least some of the victims of 9/11 didn’t die at all. The creators of Loose Change maintained this for years regarding the passengers of Flight 93 when they stated (or implied) that Flight 93 was secretly diverted to some other location and the passengers offloaded. In fact some variations of the conspiracy theory hold that the passengers themselves were in on it and that some of them (Barbara Olson is the usual example) are living on a Pacific Island somewhere.
If you’re interested in the proof of what happened on 9/11–without resort to government sources–I strongly suggest you look at this article, which I wrote about 18 months ago:
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/what-do-we-know/
This article is specifically written to refute the idea that what we know about 9/11 comes from the government, and it does not cite the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST Report or other government investigation round-ups. You will want to look specifically at Part 3, which presents exactly the sort of “why” evidence that you claim comes only from government sources. After you read the article I’m confident you will conclude that this is not the case–that we know “why” from multiple independent non-governmental sources.
That made me laugh. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard someone claim to believe Kennedy’s assassination was as the official record tells. If you need someone to hold your hand and connect the dots, watch JFK2, then come back and tell us all that Popular Mechanics, or Home & Garden, or Modern Drunkard “proved” otherwise. In your world defiant of all know logic in the universe, it must be easy to simply claim that something is “logically unsupportable”. I was half tempted to write more, but damn, it’s taking every last bit of care out of me just to do this. You very well might be hopeless. I’ve always said, a joke isn’t nearly as funny, if at least one person doesn’t get it, and you’re it. My guilty pleasure, laughing at retarded people.
Reading your opinions i get the impression that you are not an independant thinker, like 99% of mankind. This naive conformism has been heavily abused by the people who were in power, and that is still very much the case. Thrive is a wake-up-call, opposing it is harmful.
I do not agree with the opinions you have expressed in this blog. I feel that you are the one that has failed to do your research and I also think that what you have written here is a very dangerous article.
Donna, please elaborate specifically on what you believe is so dangerous about this article. First of all, what are the dangers? And secondly, to whom is it dangerous? To muertos himself? Or to some other people?
Donna, if you can identify something I’ve gotten incorrect, I invite you to raise it. Please, however, be specific about exactly which facts I’ve gotten wrong, and please provide reliable factual evidence to back up your assertions.
I would also be very interested to know what you think is so “dangerous” about what I’ve written. Again, please be extremely specific. Thanks.
Ah, muertos! Once again you ask your usual question of the THRIVE defenders, asking them to present specific facts to argue their case. And once again there is no answer from them. Now if you talk to trial lawyers, both prosecution and defense, you will hear them repeat this truism: “never ask a witness a question that you don’t already know the answer to.” That’s also true of good scientists: “never pursue research outside the paradigm in which you are operating.”
Now in the light of your most recent posting about the shifting attitudes, strategies and tactics of conspiracy theorists, I must say that you, too, are acting like a good attorney or scientist. In other words, you are asking a question which you already know the answer to. That is, you already know that when you ask a question of say, Donna above, or of any other THRIVE defender, that they are NOT going to answer your question in any way, shape or form. Zip. Nada. Nichts. Their silence is deafening. You know that for a fact, and yet, you still persist in asking the same question over and over and over again.
So WHY do you keep on asking this same question, muertos? What’s in it for you? What is the payoff for you to keep demanding that THRIVE defenders come forth and show specifically how you are wrong and how Foster Gamble & Co. are right in their factual scientific claims?
(Of course *I* already know the answer to this question; otherwise I would never have asked it! I just want to see how you will answer it first. ;=)
Tomfortas, you’re absolutely correct that when I ask for specifics from Thrive defenders, I already know that none will be forthcoming. You’ve obviously read my full post on the Muertos blog, so you understand correctly that I believe these people, especially the ones with strong New Age backgrounds, value intuition and “gut feeling” more than they do fact or reason.
Why do I continue to ask the question? Two reasons. First, whether they’re able to present specifics or not, whether they arrived at their conclusions by rational means or not, most Thrive believers do accept on some level that the assertions made by the film are literally factual. Witness, for example, the resistance to the idea that 9/11 was not an “inside job”; clearly many Thrive believers think, as a matter of verifiable fact, that it was a government conspiracy. It’s doubtful I can reach them, but for others who might be reading this blog, fence-sitters if you will who either don’t know what to make of the movie’s assertions or at least come at them from an agnostic perspective, I want to demonstrate that the things the movie claims are factual are actually false, and that, in a world where rationality still does matter, you can’t go on believing crap like “9/11 was an inside job” without having verifiable facts to base it on.
Second reason. I do accept the possibility of being wrong. If someone shows me actual, reliable, credible evidence that a specific factual assertion I make on this blog is incorrect, I’ll correct it. Since this blog is about facts and what is actually provable out there in the real world, I have no choice but to play by those rules. I must, therefore, offer critics the opportunity to prove me wrong. If they can, more power to them.
I have personally met people that insist that those stereogram pictures back in the day, were just a gullibility test, because they couldn’t see anything. Let me ask you, if you were to look at a Rorschach ink blot, and see a flower, surely you wouldn’t insist that the picture is absolutely a flower, and if anyone sees a butterfly, they’re crazy? This is what you’re asking people to do. Prove to you, that it’s not a flower, and despite a shitload of effort to trace the design with their finger, you still can’t see it. I have personally met people that insist that those stereogram pictures back in the day, were just a gullibility test, because they couldn’t see anything.
Surely you don’t think that nothing exists beyond your physical senses? Sound beyond the limitations of hearing, light outside the visible spectrum? Everything you think you “know”, is subject to a system of belief. Do atoms exist? If they do, how do you know? Because someone told you, and you believed them. Even if you had access to an electron microscope, did you build that microscope? Nope, but you believed the person that did, and consider that “logically supportable”. Well guess what, that doesn’t prove shit to me, so by your own absurd logic, you’re wrong. If I were to ask you to “prove” where you were born, I’m sure you could provide all kinds of documentation to indicate an almost certain probability of your birthplace, almost. The linchpin in your logic is that it requires the corroboration of the majority, which is why this blog exists to begin with, begging the question “Come on, am I right?” The very words that you are reading, only have meaning because someone told you what THEY “think” the words mean. Truth, comes from within, and like everything else in your reality, it’s subjective. Objectivity is an illusion, and I think you’ll get it, just keep staring at the image. Take comfort in knowing, most of the people you ridicule, have been where you are, and moved beyond that very limited way of thinking.
Sorry, John-Patrick, but you’re trying to have it both ways. That’s not going to work.
This blog is not about things that “exist beyond your physical senses.” Neither are the key assertions in Thrive. Foster Gamble is claiming that zero-point energy machines exist and are being suppressed. He claims this is fact–not beyond the physical senses, but actual fact. That claim is false. Foster Gamble is claiming that aliens are landing in England and making crop circles. He claims this is fact–not beyond the physical senses, but fact. That claim is false. Foster Gamble is claiming that the U.S. government used a “false flag” attack as a pretext to enter the Vietnam War. He claims this is fact–not beyond the physical senses, but fact. That claim is false. Foster Gamble is claiming that there is a “Global Domination Agenda” to control the world. He claims this is fact–not beyond the physical senses, but fact. That claim is also false.
Now here you are asking, “How do we know what we know?” As if the answer to that philosophical rumination somehow makes it OK for Thrive to make false assertions, claiming that they are actual facts, because, oh well, we can’t “prove” anything, so it’s perfectly OK to assert that zero-point energy machines exist, aliens are landing in England, the Gulf of Tonkin was a “false flag” and the Global Domination Agenda exists.
It is not OK to assert those things as facts, because they aren’t facts. Foster Gamble elected to play by the rules of facts, evidence and reason when he decided to make a movie that purports to tell the world what the facts really are. He didn’t have to do that, but he made that choice. His facts don’t measure up to the standards necessary to enable rational belief in the things he asserts (falsely) are true. What exists “beyond our physical senses” is a totally different subject, and one on which my views might actually surprise you; nonetheless, that’s not what’s at issue here.
It is perfectly OK to assert anything as “fact”, as you’ve so vividly shown.
I once met a blind man that was arrogantly certain, sight was merely a fantasy, and those claiming those the ability to see, were simply delusional. The irony is, he wasn’t blind. He simply refused to open his eyes.
Your views of what exists beyond physical reality would not surprise me. Because with that understanding comes truth, and as you so aptly put it “You’re trying to have it both ways. That’s not going to work”
I suppose I would assert that all debates end in semantics, but even that, although absolutely true, is far from fact.
The author to this site is hiding for a reason. After reading a few of the posts I can only surmise his identity will never be revealed nor will they allow it to be revealed. What I did find interesting are the following statements which kind of gives a vague picture of who they might be:
“I’ve never had military training of any kind” (notice the specificity of using the word “never” and “kind” which will quickly lead the reader (you) to dispel any afterthoughts of any other branches or agencies ending your sequential line of thinking of government involvement)
“Those tapes were released by Al-Queda to media outlets in the Arab world, and clearly the U.S. government could have had nothing to do with them. I make the point in this FAQ answer that there’s no way the U.S. government can control these sources” (the word “clearly” is used to convey complete certainty and absoluteness before the statement is made. The same for “there’s no way” but what is really interesting in this comment is how the author used the word “control” when the point had already been established and made)
“remember the no plane hit the Pentagon garbage” (using the word “garbage” is pretty extreme in this context and demonstrates a level of anger and even possibly resentment that the oficial story was not completely accepted by the masses)
“I would also be very interested to know what you think is so dangerous about what I’ve written. Again, be extremely specific. Thanks”. (the author is practically begging Donna to post something “extremely specific”. This indicates sincere curiosity of who Donna is and what exactly she represents. I don’t believe the author would like to become penpals with Donna I’ll leave it at that)
Identifying the site author is highly unlikely but by researching the comments a vague picture can be painted. Who they are and the intentions behind the site.
The author was smart enough to use Word Press in order to not be traced through site ownership……at least for now.
Hi tenacious! You really need some good background music for your comment. So here’s an appropriate song from 1967 by the Buffalo Springfield: FWIW. (See Stills & Young together before Crosby & Nash.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
Stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down . . . .
Tenacious, maybe the reason I don’t advertise my name on this blog is because I’d rather not have a bunch of conspiracy theorists who think I must be a “paid disinformation agent” hounding me for the rest of my life for the horrific crimes against humanity they think I’m guilty of. Did that ever occur to you, hm?
In a few years, we’ll be sending a robot back in time to take out your grand mother, subsequently preventing 9/11, the JFK assassination, and the moon landing.
I have not seen the movie that this whole site is based nor do I intend to view it. What I have noticed is how naive the site’s author(s) can be especially when scientific proof is presented and overwhelming. Yet the question still remains. Show me proof. No problem.
I’ve researched, studied, and seen enough to know the following fact (yes, fact):
WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all brought down by controlled demolition
Scientific evidence can be found at: http://www.ae911truth.org
In this website you will find that over 1,600 architects and engineers educated at some of the world’s finest engineering and architectural schools scientifically refute the official WTC findings.
There is also a movie in the works that will premiere on primetime TV on 9/11/12 which will point out how flawed the NIST, 9/11 Commission, and FEMA investigation was: http://actorsandartistsfor911truth.com/confess.htm
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
~~Joseph Goebbels
Truer words were never spoken.
I agree that Thrive is mostly deceptive B.S. and appreciate the reviews by Rob Hopkins, Georgia Kelly and John Michael Greer.
However, it’s also BS to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. There’s good claim and nonsense claims about conspiracies. Even the US House Select Committee on Assassinations (1979?) admitted that there was probably a second gunman but then declined to investigate further. Not all claims of conspiracy are true but the fact that there was a conspiracy here is well supported by the historical record. Robert Kennedy privately vowed to reopen the case if and when he was elected President (during the 1968 campaign) but of course he was assassinated, too.
There’s also a huge difference between the popular nonsense claims of 9/11 “truth” and the very good evidence that US allies provided specific warnings that the attacks were about to happen (who, what, where, when) and that FBI agents who tried to stop the attacks were blocked by senior management (read Colleen Rowley’s whistleblowing letter). Also, the military and intelligence agencies were running exercises similar to actual events during the attacks.
As for the Reichstag Fire, William Shirer’s book The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany is the standard historical reference. The Dutch Communist was found at the scene but the Gestapo was also in the basement of the building with gasoline. Shirer was a US journalist in Germany (until the war), spoke German, hated the Nazis and did excellent reporting.
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your thoughts.
I used to be a firm believer that there was a conspiracy in the JFK case. However, once I began investigating what the facts really are, it became clear that not only did Oswald do it, but he acted alone. I strongly recommend reading Vincent Bugliosi’s book “Reclaiming History” which is far and away the most comprehensive book ever written on the JFK assassination. It takes apart every conspiracy claim out there in exhaustive detail. I can’t paraphrase a 1700 page book in one blog comment, but let me just say, the book is absolutely conclusive.
Here’s what happened with the HSCA in 1979. Did you know that, right up until almost the last moment they issued their report, their conclusion was that there was no evidence of a conspiracy? The reason they changed that conclusion at the last minute was because of a recording of an audiotape from a police radio in Dealy Plaza that one expert claimed contained signatures that were consistent with gunshots. The signatures weren’t even audible to the human ear, but some analysis was done on them, and this expert sold the committee on the very dubious idea that the signatures were gunshots–and there were four of them. Because the HCSA was running out of money they had no time to continue their investigation, so they tacked on the stuff about the audiotape, hastily changed the overall conclusion, and folded.
Less than a year later, numerous independent experts concluded–absolutely conclusively–that the audiotape taken in Dealey Plaza was taken a few minutes after the assassination took place. That meant that the audio signatures, whatever they were, could not have been the gunshots that killed Kennedy. The expert who had argued that in the first place conceded that he was wrong.
Therefore, the only piece of evidence upon which the HCSA relied for its very shaky conclusion was almost immediately ruled out as credible.
This is all set out exhaustively in Bugliosi’s book. It’s a fascinating read, and I highly suggest you take a look at it. It’s quite possibly the best book ever written on conspiracy theories.
Lee Harvey Oswald was exactly what he claimed to be. A patsy. It has been attested by his military buddies who served with him, practiced and served with him, that Lee could not be considered more than a mediocre shot at best.
However, the Warren Commission would lead the American public to believe that Lee used an old banged up Italian made Carcano rifle to get off three extremely difficult yet highly accurate shots at JFK within a matter of 6 seconds? Some say 8.4 seconds which would open a new argument. If the 8.4 second theory is accepted then Oswald being the crack shot that he was completely missed the Preisden’t Limo with the first shot which would have been the closest one in range from the book depository.
The conspirators never counted that on that fateful morning Abraham Zapruder’s film would become the centerpiece of the JFK assassination.
Wrong on all counts. I again strongly recommend Vincent Bugliosi’s book “Reclaiming History,” which takes apart all of the conspiracy theories in exhaustive detail.
“Reclaiming History” is total nonsense.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/v5n1fetzer.pdf
So you’re disputing the Warren Commission findings? It’s a matter of public record.
You want me to read a book that was written by a man that has recently written a book on why former president Bush Jr. should be put in jail for misleading the American public into invading Iraq under false pretense?
That one?
It’s America. Your website. Your opinion. You win.
muertos
I would say from reading your blog, nothing you have written has deterred me from further promoting this film to all of my friends & family.
As a matter of fact it has only strengthened my position that “professional debunkers” like yourself actually DOUBT their own perceptions so much that all they can do is spend all their time getting everyone else to doubt themselves as much as you doubt yourself.
I am sorry that you don’t have anything better to do with your time then try & tear down a bunch good hearted well intended folks.
My experience with any debunker has shown consistently this self-doubt statement. I have also found the following:
1) They are in a majority of times “atheists”;
2) They do not believe in spirituality, reincarnation or life beyond physical death & spend a lot time debunking those things as well;
3) Pretty much believe that they are only a body, that medical drugs & pharmaceutical psychotropics are the way to handle the body & mind (brain) respectively;
4) Selectively ignore evidence when given to them & go all out @ any cost to disprove anything that does not fit within their view of the world.
I will say that you seem to have avoided the personal attacks & stuck to the FACTS which is the ONLY reason I even gave this blog a whirl.
I feel sorry for you bro.
Every single one of the assumptions you’ve made about me here is wrong. Yes–every single one. Gold star for effort, though!
Actually was not targeting you specifically. If you read the post what I exactly said was “My experience with any debunker”.
However in fairness if none of those things apply to you i apologize for lumping you into a generality of sorts.
I would like to see what YOU actually believe. One thing I find about debunkers also is that they never present what they believe so it can never be taken apart or down.
So for every attempt on debunking THRIVE I think it would be only fair that you sate what you believe to be in place of that so then we “anti-debunkers” can get a fair shot to debunk you & your beliefs.
KX: I believe in facts and evidence. That’s what I believe. This blog is about facts, and about how it came to be that Thrive contains so few of them.
I find your insistence that my spiritual and religious beliefs are relevant to this debate to be interesting, because it’s a very cogent illustration of a phenomenon I wrote about in another post (http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/a-post-at-the-sister-blog-thrive-demonstrates-how-the-conspiracy-world-is-changing/). In that entry, and the article on my other blog that it references, I make this point:
This supports my view that Thrive is intended to be mainly a religious and ideological document. Seen in that sense, I can understand why debunking its facts are very confusing to you, but as Thrive does purport to be a documentary that supposedly presents what the facts really are, it’s fair game to attack it on the basis that its “facts” are not, in fact, true and that the conclusions it demands the viewers reach are illogical and unsupportable.
Thank you for your comments.
I have not the time to go so deeply into your facts. I have read a lot of what you have on here. I have not taken the time to dig through every single nuance. I did read that other post.
I find that there is generally a direct correlation between typical debunkers & atheists. And there is an entire aspect of THRIVE that addresses a spiritual/beyond physical nature of life.
However once again i notice that you do NOT state your own beliefs yet only attempt to dismantle other people’s viewpoints. And THAT is the thing I have the biggest problem with.
Have you ever read the work of Fritoj Capra or David Bohm or Rupert Sheldrake? Robert Bloch? Graham Hancock?
Btw, Debunking THRIVE is far far from confusing to me. I understand all too well why guys like you put your time into it. You say it is all about the facts which often can be argued & disputed all day long, but in reality it is not about the facts. It is attacking a world view that you think is false. When you couldn’t be more incorrect.
The bottom line is that b/c of that world view there are people trying to make the planet & culture a better place even for you. Instead being busy trying to divide the world in crazy/”conspiracy theorists” and those are “sane” I would think you would be interested in trying to bring people together & solve problems.
You obviously have a creative sense when you cook & have an aesthetic sense when comes to wine (Btw since you seem to like Sonoma & Napa Valley so much I recommend the Chataeu St Jean Cing Cepage 2004 & 05) I am not sure why you put so much effort into STOPPING people as opposed to helping them.
As they say ACTIONS speak louder then words & from my experience people who concentrate on the STOP are really trying to introvert people & make them smaller in order to make themselves feel bigger better & less threatened. I say this b/c many of the cats you follow on Twitter are completely of that ilk.
Being a person myself, who has directly run into oppression of advanced technologies & who has lived through what you might call a “non-existent CT world” that does indeed exist, I would politely say that there are things that you write about that you do not know about.
I have a FAQ for you.
What are your credentials. For example, AE911Truth.org disagrees with you on 9/11. They are all experienced in their respective field.
How can you hold credibility compared to theirs?
Bravo.
What a load of bull!!! I came to this site for looking solid arguments. Instead you offered no fodder. But before i close, I’d like to point out a few things…when you say “starting first and foremost with the actual personal eyewitnesses who saw and experienced the events of 9/11″…do you actually mean to say that these “eye wtinesses” saw that it WAS the Al Qaeda indeed??? Haha, so were the terrorists holding out a banner saying “We’re Al Qaeda” before crashing into the plane??? WTF??? And about the chinese and russian media reporting the same events…well, your telling me they did their own investigation???? WTF??? I live in India and most news channels here report international news according to whats been broadcasted on the mainstream news channels like BBC and CNN!!!
And one more thing, its about the JFK assassination…are you kiddin me??? Have you heard the speech JFK had delivered to a bunch of ppl exposing of the secret society which has plans to enslave everyone?? That speech was given a week before his assassination!!! Your blog fucking annoys me!!! Either you’ve been paid to write this shitty blog or you just another projecting dumbass who thought it would be cool to debunk the movie?? You yourself fail to give any solid arguments yourself…whats your next move?? Make an hour long movie debunking thrive??
It is clear you have done no factual investigation into either 9/11 or the JFK assassination, because if you did it would be very evident that there is no credible evidence that either one was an “inside job.”
What’s my next move? Allow troglodyte conspiracy nutters who are incapable of critical thinking or reasoned analysis to spew all the vitriol they want about this blog, so the rational people of the world can observe firsthand what happens when people’s capacity for critical thinking is impaired to the degree necessary to believe in bizarre fantasies like “9/11 was an inside job” or crap about “chemtrails” or magical HAARP earthquake machines. Thank you for illustrating precisely what it is I hoped to demonstrate with this blog.