Foster Gamble Responds: Thrive and its Solutions are (Evidently) Only For Conspiracy Theorists.

Foster Gamble, the man behind the Thrive documentary, has responded to the open letter I addressed to him last week as well as other statements I’ve made on this blog. He responded in the form of a comment to the blog. I’m going to reproduce the text of Mr. Gamble’s statement in its entirety here in this article. Then, at the end, I will offer my own remarks in response.

Note: some commenters have taken Mr. Gamble to task by putting many of his thoughts in all caps, as if he is shouting. I don’t see it that way. Just how the blog comment system works on WordPress, there was really no other way for him to set off his text from words of mine that he was responding to.

Further note: Mr. Gamble’s statement contains some quotations of mine. Below the line that appears beneath this paragraph, all the words that are not set off in blockquotes are Foster Gamble’s (until we get to my remarks), and the ones in blockquotes are from me. I just want to state this to avoid confusion.


Mr. Dead Ones (Muertos)

I was told before launching THRIVE that I would know we were having significant impact when debunkers started devoting entire websites to negative-only commentary. So I guess I should thank you for fulfilling that role.

You claim there are no real conspiracies – despite vast documentation and court cases. You state there are no real zero point energy devices – despite a huge number of eyewitnesses, gag orders, court cases etc. You write off the possibility of contact with UFOs / ET – despite thousands of credible reports, hundreds of hours of footage, over 500 high level military, government, pilot and FAA accounts, and other country’s formal acknowledgement of UFO’s. You seem to think there is not any chance we could actually thrive with freedom for EVERYONE.

Clearly, we disagree. That’s fine- I just wonder what you base your opinions on?

If our predicament on this planet is the result of coincidence and incompetence, why do you hide your true identity? You claim to be afraid of repercussions from actually taking a transparent stand – Afraid of whom? What integrity is there is hiding and then deliberately trying to thwart the efforts of those who would transparently stand for our values, for deeper truths and for new paradigm solutions? I believe such cowardice and shortsightedness feed into the much more dangerous looming police state that you end up supporting through your denial.

If there is no destructive conspiracy to be concerned about and if you are sincere, why not just post your real name, picture, bio and affiliations?

I highly recommend that you take a fraction of the vast amount of time you put into creating only negative and baseless smears against THRIVE and actually do some real investigation so that we can engage in an informed dialog that will add something of value in these perilous times.

I am pausing to take some time to expose some of your most blatant misrepresentations of THRIVE. My input to your assessment is in all caps below.

“How Does Thrive Divert Attention from Real Problems?

Thrive is deeply misguided because it’s diverting its viewers’ attention away from the real solutions that we must pursue to these very real problems. My core grievance with conspiracy theories is that they are false.”


“However, it’s the effect of that falsity in the real world which is why opposing conspiracy theories matters. Conspiracy thinking reduces the world into a simplistic black-and-white, good-versus-evil, lightworkers-versus-disinformation paradigm. Against that background, nothing productive can get done.”



“Here’s how Thrive operates in this regard.

Problem: environmental degradation caused by reliance on fossil fuels.

Real solution: Work toward developing economically and socially realistic alternatives to fossil fuels, such as renewable energy resources (solar, wind, water power, etc.) as well as smarter solutions in building, land use and lifestyle.”


“Thrive solution: “Free energy” machines developed from technology given to us by aliens will save the world without us having to do anything (except to oppose the “Global Domination Elite.”).”


“Problem: income disparity and poverty.

Real solution: Work toward meaningful and fair reform of the economic system, policies that promote economic opportunity at the bottom, and make sure businesses and corporations pay their fair share and contribute to our society.”


“Thrive solution: Take out the “Global Domination Elite.” Taxation is theft; abolish it.”




1) If there were a way to have accessible and good roads, education and healthcare, help for the poor, a respected system of justice etc. – without anyone being violated against their will – as in involuntary income tax – would you want that?


2) Just exactly when, for you, is it OK for one human being to take the rightfully gained property of another under the threat of violence?



“Problem: government corruption.

Real solution: Meaningful campaign finance reform; eliminate (or at least reduce) corporate/business influence in politics; punish wrongdoers; elect honest candidates.”





“Thrive solution: All corruption is the fault of the “Global Domination Elite.” Rise up against them and destroy them, and everything will be fine.”


“Problem: disease in the developing world.

Real solution: Develop medical technology and healthy vaccines, and put social and political institutions in place to distribute medical care to as many people as possible.

Thrive solution: Vaccines are evil tools of the “Global Domination Elite” and should be banned.”


“Problem: anthropogenic global warming.

Real solution: Massive worldwide mobilization by governments and business interests to develop clean technology as rapidly as possible, reduce carbon emissions and mitigate areas impacted by global warming disasters. International cooperation on political, economic, and scientific levels.”


“Thrive solution: The problem does not exist. Global warming is a hoax, a sham and a conspiracy by the “Global Domination Elite.””








What is causing other planets in our solar system to warm at the same time as our planet?

What caused the medieval warming period?

Why can’t polluters be prosecuted directly instead of letting the corporations buy their way out of responsibility with cap and trade?

Are you aware of the plan to make carbon credits the new “one-world currency”?

Why doesn’t someone like Al Gore debate someone like Bjorn Lomborg or anyone publicly?

Why does Gore not mention that in his hockey stick graph the rise in temperature precedes the CO2 instead of vice versa? Since this was pointed out he refuses to discuss it.

Is it possible that the good intentions of environmentalists are being manipulated to create a global tax paid to the world bank that would transcend national sovereignty and fund the one-world government?


“Do you see how this works? This is why Thrive is worth speaking out against.”


“One Last Example: the HAARP Earthquake Machine.

A totally shocking detail included in Mr. Robbins’s letter is his statement of Foster Gamble’s statements about the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami which devastated Japan early last year. Mr. Robbins says, “He has said that “they” have a machine in Alaska that enables them to create earthquakes at will, anywhere on earth, and of any desired strength.”

This is a very old conspiracy theory called HAARP. You can read a debunking of HAARP conspiracy theories from noted skeptic Brian Dunning here. It’s one of the stupidest, most irrational and most paranoid conspiracy theories out there, but many people, unfortunately, believe it. I didn’t know until I saw Mr. Robbins’s letter that Foster Gamble has expressed belief in HAARP, but it doesn’t surprise me. It’s also a perfect illustration of how conspiracy theories, once they get inside a person’s head, can totally corrode their ability to think rationally about world problems.

If people who believed in HAARP had any significant positions of power, what sort of world would we have? An earthquake and tsunami in Japan, caused by tectonic stresses and geologic processes, would be interpreted through the lens of this conspiracy theory as a man-made act of war, quite naturally inviting some sort of retaliation or response. If Foster Gamble could identify a specific individual or groups of individuals that he thought caused the Fukushima disaster, I would venture a guess that he would want those individuals to be held accountable in some way. This is in the total absence of any evidence whatsoever that an earthquake and tsunami in Japan was caused by HAARP.

Can you see how dangerous this type of thinking is? Furthermore, does the fact that this sort of thinking is on the rise scare you as much as it scares me?”







My Response

Mr. Gamble, thank you for responding to my open letter. If having a debunking site devoted to your film is a mark of accomplishment for you, then, you’re welcome.

The message I take from your response is a fairly simple one: Thrive and the “solutions” you want to implement are for conspiracy theorists only. Your film and its ideology spring entirely from your conspiracist worldview; nothing that you propose as a “solution” is aimed, in any significant measure, at anything other than curing the horrible conspiracies you see all around you. You say you approve of proposed solutions that address non-conspiratorial issues, such as my suggestion of campaign finance reform, but then you turn around and say that dealing with these horrid conspiracies is so much more important. How is a rational person supposed to respond to this?

Considering that the vast majority of society regards—and rightfully so—conspiracy theories as being fundamentally at odds with objective reality, your approach leaves those who do not share this worldview with little or nothing to take from Thrive and little incentive to get behind your proposed solutions.

I don’t think you realize that you’re doing this, but you are doing it. Go back and look at your response. Every single issue you raise either relies on a conspiratorial assumption, asserts the literal truth of conspiracy theories, or asserts that real solutions to genuine world problems (government corruption, income inequality, etc.) actually involve addressing the perceived causes of conspiracies, or else dismisses those who do not share your belief in conspiracy theories as somehow not offering anything of value.

In short, you have made clear something that I began to suspect some time ago—that literal belief in conspiracy theories is the prerequisite, the litmus test, for being taken seriously by you as someone who has a “solution” to offer. The only “solutions” you truly seem interested in implementing are those that address the conspiracy theories you believe in. Any other benefit is incidental, but in any event irrelevant. For example, if you think the way to tackle income inequality is to “obsolete” the “Global Domination Elite,” I can guarantee you 100% that that solution will fail, because income inequality is not the fault of a “Global Domination Elite.” This is what people mean when they say your proposed solutions are misguided.

Let’s look, very briefly, at a few examples of the issues you raise and see how every single one of them departs from a conspiratorial mindset or asserts that real world problems are actually the result of conspiracies.

The issue of my identity: “I believe such cowardice and shortsightedness feed into the much more dangerous looming police state that you end up supporting through your denial.”

Thrive’s diverting attention from real problems: “I understand that you rely on coincidence theory and notions of government incompetence to explain the consolidation of power that has the majority of the world in shackles and America careening toward a police state.” (Deriding skeptics as “coincidence theorists” is an old conspiracist trope. Coincidence is not the opposite of conspiracy).

Imaginary “free energy” machines: “And do you really think the government does all these raids, gag orders, intimidations and even assassinations on hoaxers?”

Anthropogenic global warming: “How can we stop it from being used to convince good people to support a tax to fund their own demise.”

HAARP: “We currently have no evidence of HAARP causing Japan’s earthquake, however, there is ample evidence of HAARP involvement in both the Chile and Haiti quakes…both the Chile and Haiti quakes immediately followed maximum charging of the HAARP antenna…”

You see? Conspiracy. Over and over again. Conspiracy is the alpha and the omega of your worldview, Mr. Gamble; it is the departure point from which every single one of your proposed solutions proceeds. If a person does not accept the literal truth of the conspiracy theories that you believe in, you dismiss them as not “working toward real solutions.” That’s exactly how you reacted to John Robbins, whose opinion you used to value, at least to the extent that you asked him to appear in the movie; as soon as he repudiated it, though, suddenly you accused him of engaging in a “disinformation campaign.”

This is really the bottom line. I cannot get behind your solutions, because, fundamentally, the problems you want to solve are not the problems we really have. You say you want to address the effects of problems that exist in the real world, such as income inequality, but your analysis of the root cause of these problems is always the same: conspiracy. But the fact is that these conspiracies do not exist. The world you want to change is not the world we live in. It’s just that simple.

What You Don’t Address—Icke and Mullins.

In my open letter I challenged you to repudiate the bizarre theories of David Icke, who believes in shape-shifting reptilian aliens ruling the world. If you believe it’s unfair for critics of your film such as John Robbins to raise Mr. Icke’s bizarre beliefs as a point against you, then why wouldn’t you be willing to denounce those beliefs, if you don’t agree with them?

You did not mention David Icke once in your statement.

Furthermore, I challenged you to explain to us what you like about Eustace Mullins, a conspiracist author whom Mr. Robbins says you recommended to him. I’m particularly curious about what you find redeeming about Eustace Mullins, because you are clearly not an anti-Semite, and yet so much of Mullins’s work is scathingly anti-Semitic. A commenter on this blog posted some quotes from Eustace Mullins’s work. They were so sick, disgusting, racist and offensive that I considered deleting the quotes even though there was no question that they were presented as an example of how hateful, wrong-headed and destructive Eustace Mullins and his views actually are. Ultimately I decided to leave them up, but I feel cheapened and dirty by having them anywhere on my blog. I would really like to know what Eustace Mullins material you think is valuable to your efforts to improve the world.

You did not mention Eustace Mullins once in your statement.

So what do you have to say, Mr. Gamble, about David Icke and Eustace Mullins? The world is waiting to know.

Your Two Questions For Me (Both Trick Questions)

You specifically asked me to answer two questions you posed. Here they are.

“1) If there were a way to have accessible and good roads, education and healthcare, help for the poor, a respected system of justice etc. – without anyone being violated against their will – as in involuntary income tax – would you want that?”

I reject the premise of the question, because it’s a trick question. This question posits an assumption that has not been proven—that accessible and good roads, education, healthcare and justice only come about today by people “being violated against their will” in the form of taxes. That’s not even close to the way things really are.

“2) Just exactly when, for you, is it OK for one human being to take the rightfully gained property of another under the threat of violence?”

I reject the premise of the question, because it’s a trick question. Again, you’re equating the paying of taxes to the “threat of violence.” Maybe your local IRS office is more aggressive than mine, Mr. Gamble, but I have never been threatened with violence if I did not give up my property in the form of taxes. Equating taxes to theft is bad enough; equating them to armed robbery is simply ludicrous.

The purpose of these two questions is to trap the listener into an indictment of the concept of taxation. Since I don’t share your views on the evils of taxation, these questions are meaningless to me.

Conclusion: To Thrive or Not to Thrive?

Mr. Gamble, I received an email yesterday from a woman who had recently seen your movie. She wrote to thank me for creating this blog, for deconstructing the film and for laying out the truth about the claims made in it. She complimented me on being very brave to take on this project.

This woman, and the others like her who’ve written to me, are the true audience of this blog. I didn’t create this blog to harass or annoy you, and I don’t do it to provoke confrontation with fans of the movie (although that of course does take place, as you can see). I do this to reach people like the woman who wrote to me. She didn’t simply take my word for it. She did her own checking, her own research and her own analysis. (And she didn’t even ask me my name!) She came to the same conclusion I did. I guess she won’t be “thriving” any more than I will.

Today we passed 100,000 unique page views on this blog. If even as many as 90% of them are fans of your movie, that’s still 10,000 people who won’t be “thriving” either.

The world I live in—the world which I evidently won’t be “thriving” in—is one where belief is supported by evidence, where argument is logical, where cause and effect have a predictable relationship, and where real problems can be solved by the application of rational solutions. That is the real world, because that’s the way the real world works.

I do not know how your world works. But however it does, I’m glad I don’t live there.

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

402 responses to “Foster Gamble Responds: Thrive and its Solutions are (Evidently) Only For Conspiracy Theorists.”

  1. Mason I. Bilderberg says :

    Unbelievable. Great exchange, awesome response. “The world you want to change is not the world we live in.” – perfect encapsulation of the problem with conspiracists

  2. anticultist says :

    Exactly Muertos, when I read his reply it came across just like any other internet conspiracy crank I have debated with over the years. He posted the same comment in another one of your blogs and I felt compelled to deride its entirety.

    It amazes me that this guy thinks he is some kind of guru/scholar, when it is clear from a brief overview that he collates his information from conspiracy theorist websites such as above top secret.

    I almost cracked up when I saw him sourcing them for his evidence.

  3. Foster Gamble says :

    Muertos – I notice you avoided answering my two fundamental practical and moral questions.
    If you don’t think the income tax (only a hundred years old and brought in with the Federal Reserve) is theft based on coercion with the very real threat of violence, try not paying them. I will come visit you in jail, if you are not shot, and we will discuss further.
    You did not respond to any of my points, except to call me a conspiracy theorist.
    Our website is full of factual documentation and practical solutions, which you ignore…resorting always to your obsessive mission to convince people to go back to sleep because there couldn’t possibly be any destructive covert agendas (conspiracies.)
    I will now return my attention to the real solutions groups and real energy alternatives that are emerging all over the world.
    Good luck

    • muertos says :

      There is little utility in responding to all of your points because they all have the same underlying message: “IT’S A CONSPIRACY!” The “factual documentation” on your website is totally inadequate to support the existence of these conspiracies; mostly what you do is quote the opinions of other conspiracy theorists, or take isolated facts out of context, or quote unsubstantiated items from spurious and unreliable sources like David Icke or Above Top Secret.

      I exist outside the bubble of irrational conspiracism into which you’ve decided to seal yourself. It’s clear that you don’t want to respect any input from outside the bubble, which is why you were so hostile to John Robbins. Why, then, would you listen to me?

      I notice you still haven’t responded re David Icke and Eustace Mullins.

      This blog will continue.

      • izzymains says :

        all you have to do is look at whats going on in the world, its retarded are you blind??

      • Emmanuel Goldstein says :

        Muertos, do you even know what the word conspiracy means?

        How are the banking families NOT conspiring? Give me one shred of evidence that supports your theory- O WAIT! YOU CAN’T! Are you a shill or a fool? GET A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Frankie says :

        Emmanuel Goldstein: conspiracies can exist, no one here is denying it, but the sort that your dumbass movie Thrive is entertaining have no shred of evidence. No one here is a shill, because as far as I know, nobody here has met each other before. you don’t make sense, dude. And just because conspiracies can happen, it doesnt follow that your crackpot theories, soYou are a nutbag.

      • anticultist says :

        Goldstein thinks because conspiracies happen then it gives credence to his wishful theories.

        Dude you need to be able to prove something true for it to be a conspiracy and based in reason with facts. It has to be shown to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Conspiracy theories do no such thing, they merely present conjecture, anecdote and poor research. The only person who needs to get a clue is you Goldstein, you are clearly gullible and don’t know how to truly study information without your dim witted belief getting in the way.

      • AeolusRIder says :

        Ah. Good exchange. What a change in the landscape within a year. Especially the last few weeks. IRS, DHS, DOJ, Dept. of State….. all of them caught in the act of deception. Duh, who da thunk? I have to admit, it gives more credence to what THRIVE is talking about. Peace and Love to all. But then I can’t prove Love exists so it must be a conspiracy…..


      • anticultist says :

        Most of us are not American, so you are going to have to forgive us for not giving a fuck about your local news items that have no impact on the world.

    • anticultist says :

      It is rather telling how you, Foster Gamble, avoid any debate on your admiration for David icke and Eustace Mullins, who are both notable in their associations with anti semitism and conspiratorial beliefs.

      It is probably not only me who happens to find your complete lack of acknowledgment of the questions repeatedly asked of you disconcerting.
      In fact if I were to be blunt it indicates a certain level of evasion of a topic that you are unwilling to denounce as being a core fundamental of your beliefs.

      Only you are capable of denouncing said matters, but the more you avoid the topic when being directly asked the more you become untrustworthy.

      • Alias says :

        Did you just call David Icke an anti-semite? FUCK YOU!

      • a rational person says :

        david icke is an anti-semite. he hates jews. he’s also nuts. and foster gamble loves him. hmmm…

      • Frankie says :

        Conspiracy theorists make me want to vomit, they believe in fairies and in wonderland. a lot of them misinterpret quantum mechanics to make it fit nutbag notions.
        Some believe in annunaki raping women and the women giving birth to giants. Whats the evidence? the bible, nitwits say.
        It couldnt get more amusing.

        Alias said: “Did you just call David Icke an anti-semite? FUCK YOU!”

        Alias, go and play with your tinfoil hat somewhere else. He is an anti-semite, so fuck you too.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      Gamble, let us look at the dictionary definition of theft, shall we:
      “take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it”

      As you can see, the mere fact that taxation is legal disproves your claim. But there are two other keys to the definition of theft that do not fit taxation in its current form.

      Permission: Yes, despite what you may claim, you do have to give permission for taxation to occur. You give permission in the form of using public roads, access to 911 in an emergency, and so much more. Essentially, you give permission in the form of committing yourself to a civilized society.

      Should you refuse to pay taxes, it makes sense that you are prohibited the benefits of a civilized society, and the only way to do this is by punishment.

      • izzymains says :

        look mate i think ur a bit slowwww.. a good thief isnt going to get caught, unless u no that the very few are not trying to take ultimate controll of this world then y are you trying to make gambles look like a weirdo o,
        ur the weird one, most sane human beings are starting to come to there sensors of whats really going on here,
        and if his information was false/incorrect people will find out eventually so y are you trying so hard to cover it all up?

      • muertos says :

        You say I’m a “bit slowww,” yet strangely I’m the one using proper grammar, punctuation, sentence structure and I can actually spell out words like why, you and you’re. Are you too “slowwww” to communicate in proper English?

      • jIM says :

        Read the constitution…. Income tax is not legal

      • muertos says :

        I have read the Constitution. I’m curious how you explain where it says this:

        The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

      • Mr. Anon says :

        Nice there Muertos! I love how the anti-tax people refuse to acknowledge that there is a constitutional amendment specifically dedicated to ensuring that it is indeed legal for Congress to tax based on incomes. Note that the only reason why this amendment existed was because shortly before, a Supreme Court ruling said that income taxes were unconstitutional. Prior to that ruling, it was generally understood that income taxes were valid (Lincoln instated one during the Civil War).

    • fuljat says :

      In the UK income tax was brought in around… 1798… by WPitt Jr in order to pay for the war against the French. The alternatives were to borrow, or not to fight.

      • Mr. Anon says :

        Income tax was also brought up by President Lincoln during the Civil War, and several times after that. The 16th Amendment was only introduced because previously, the Supreme Courts had struck down attempts at instituting an income tax.

    • Federico says :

      Income Taxation was already implemented by ancient Egyptians, as seen here:
      Government is VOLUNTARY, not involuntary, you chose them with your votes.
      But furthermore, let’s say government is dismantled. So me and my neighbors will have to organize, and eventually me and others will chose the most responsible of our town to go to meetings for us as we can’t all go all the time.
      Eventually he and others from different towns of the state will chose the most responsible among them for inter-state trips to meetings with others in other parts of the country. Eventually they will chose one or two or more representatives for flying to other countries to discuss international affairs.
      There you have it in a nutshell: SOCIETY NATURALLY ORGANIZES ITSELF INTO GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES. Even if Ron Paul’s dream becomes truth, in 20 years you would have a fully operative government back in function again. In fact, the one you have now, is the result of the choices and corrections of the people, not the result of Alien governed, conspirator corporations.
      Bottom line: Grow up.

      • Lee says :


        This is the most succinct rebuttal of Libertarian “Small Government” fantasy.

        Thank you Federico.

    • 2012_CT says :

      Nice fancy wording Mr. Gamble but what are your thoughts on edible poop meat?

      Artificial Meat Made From Human Poop

    • MikeC says :

      The idea that income tax is only 100 years old and was introduced with the Fed is factually incorrect. Income tax in the USA was first levied in 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of that year.

    • G says :

      I’ve read a couple of your so called responses now Muertos and i have to say this is the last time i’ll be visiting your blog.

      I’d just like to clarify before i get going that i am pretty firmly on the fence. I have a hard time accepting some of the assertions made in thrive and many other films of this nature. However there can be no rational argument made by any sane person in defense of our current economic system. Central banks are privately owned, unconstitutional, legalised criminal syndicates. They do literally create money from nothing and charge interest on it. From this practice many, many more unwholesome economic and political practices are derived. You only have to look around at the world you are confronted with to see all the evidence you could ever need.

      Muertos, while Mr Gamble in his films and responses always comes across as open, even handed and above all calm, your general demeanour is one of semi-religious fervour. You always appear far more zealous in your convictions than Mr Gamble when you are whipping your (probably limited) following on this blog up to fever pitch. You constantly assert your assumptions as fact, almost as though you don’t feel the need to offer any proof as you “live in the real world”. I suspect your sources are CNN, Fox, BBC etc.

      Mr Gamble has repeatedly asked you to engage in open, productive dialog about the problems our society faces. Your (emminently mature) response was “those problems don’t exist.” So how would you describe corrupt politicians and corporate tycoons cosy relationship which has recently led to a global financial meltdown, which ultimately has had a huge negative impact on the lives of everyone but the very people who caused it?

      All of this leads me to consider just why you have such a serious problem with Mr Gamble, his views and the civilised way in which he is expressing them (in stark contrast to your own style). What is it that gets you so worked up about all this?

      Either way, I have wasted enough time on you and I believe you have too Mr Gamble, I can’t say I’m right there with you but you are at least trying to instigate positive change in our stricken society, which is more than can be said for some people (not mentioning any names but looking meaningfully in the direction of a certain overly cocky and under informed blog owner.)

      So in conclusion: Foster Gamble keep fighting the good fight and don’t waste another typed character on this blog!


      • anticultist says :

        “I’d just like to clarify before i get going that i am pretty firmly on the fence.”

        “So in conclusion: Foster Gamble keep fighting the good fight”

        You aren’t on the fence, you are a believer in denial. you support the irrational over the rational.

      • a rational person says :

        listen hoss, this gamble tard doesn’t care about “trying to instigate positive change in our stricken society.” he cares about people believing nutbag conspiracy theories.

        that’s what he wants and that’s why he made thrive. he has nothing constructive to offer in solving problems. all he offers is nutbag bullshit. the man believes in lizard people for christs sake…you really think somebody with those beliefs is going to be a constructive help in changing our society?


      • Wyboth says :

        Here we have close to every conspiracy theorist stereotype packed into one comment. Where should I begin?

        Let’s start with your economic view of banks. You call them criminal institutions which create money and charge interest on it. My response: have you ever actually had a bank account? If you did, you would know that they only make money from interest rates on loans. Yes, they do charge more interest for loans than they pay to depositors, but bank employees need their salaries, just like the rest of us. I’d like to know: how is that evil? Moreover, which amendment to the constitution says banks are illegal? I’d even argue that the economy depends on banks for survival. Because as far as I know, the last time a lot of banks went out of business, it caused something called the Great Depression.

        Next paragraph. Looks like we’ve got a stereotype double-feature. Firstly, you say that Muertos needs proof for his statements. My response: the opposite is true. Foster Gamble, in his movie, either provides insufficient proof for his statements, which Muertos has discredited, or no proof at all. Muertos is simply challenging Gamble’s statements, and the facts that he uses are common knowledge, or at least should be. The burden of proof is on Gamble. If he fails to prove his claims, which he has, then there is no reason to believe them.

        Secondly, you also recite the all too common don’t-trust-the-media-they’re-lying delusion. Most people hear something on a conspiracy website about how all of our information about news comes from five corporations. The paranoid seed has been planted. Then, as the person delves more into conspiracy mythos, they notice that the news being broadcast on TV conflicts with the news being posted on conspiracy sites. Since they believe the conspiracy sites’ news to be true, then they believe that the TV news is false. The person also somehow gets the idea in their head that there’s nobody out there to fact-check the news, so people are being brainwashed by it. This is most likely what happened to you. For you to realize what is really going on, you first must take an objective standpoint for the news. Don’t cling to either source as being true or false. Eliminate the false notion that news sources don’t fact-check their information or have other people to fact-check them. Read primary sources, study history, and, if possible, witness the news. Finally, compare your understanding of the news with the reports from conspiracy websites and TV news. I guarantee you that you’ll find TV news to be far more accurate than conspiracy news. The ONLY news station that won’t be completely accurate will be Fox news, and that is because they put a right-wing spin on the news. This makes a good example of what happens when news is reported incorrectly. Go out to the internet and you’ll see numerous articles debunking things Fox news says, especially Bill O’Reilly. However, this isn’t flat out lying and brainwashing in the way you’re talking about, so you are wrong about this matter entirely. In short: ignore Fox, the rest are fine.

        Fourth paragraph. I see that you twisted Muertos’s words. When Foster talks about “the problems our society faces”, he is referring to the “problems” he addresses in Thrive. You correctly quote Muertos as saying they don’t exist, again referring to Foster Gamble’s “problems” he addresses in Thrive, most notably the “New World Order”. But then you go off and talk about corrupt politicians, implying that this is a problem that he said doesn’t exist. Wrong. This is the twist: Muertos was specifically talking about Foster Gamble’s problems, but you quoted him out of context and made him look like he was saying that all problems are fake. Sneaky, but that won’t work on me.

        Fifth paragraph; I’ll answer this one directly. Muertos has a problem with Foster Gamble because he does not believe in any of the issues Gamble presses people to act on. He sees him as giving them misinformation and causing them to form self-reinforcing delusions, which are damaging to their minds. If you met someone doing these things, would you not have a problem with them also?

        Sixth paragraph: I share Muertos’s belief that Gamble is feeding people misinformation, so I must disagree with you when you say that he is working towards a positive change in society. Indeed, it is no longer a belief that Gamble is wrong, for this very blog has proven that Gamble is wrong in virtually every part of Thrive. I would characterize giving people false information in order to make them believe certain things, or brainwashing, would have a negative effect on society. I don’t know if you think that it would be bad too; that’s up to you to decide.

        In conclusion, it seems to me that although you claim to be neutral, you have been very influenced by Thrive. I would encourage you to recognize the possibility that the movie is wrong, do research on the topics discussed in it, and then confirm that it is incorrect based on your findings, as we have done. “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.”

      • ab says :

        G Wrote “I’ve read a couple of your so called responses now Muertos and i have to say this is the last time i’ll be visiting your blog.”

        After lurking here for a bit, I noticed that the vast majority of thrive supporters that drop in here will post only once, express their opinion, and then disappear. A smaller number of them will even announce their intention never to return. This is a very convenient way of not having to deal with anyone’s responses. It’s like dropping a ‘verbal turd’. Also, other people not affiliated with thrive will read this and the following responses and will see the type of people that thrive attracts. It just makes them look bad all around.

      • Wyboth says :

        AB, that’s called a “Hit and Run Troll”. They’re way too common on this and many other debunking blogs. They don’t have to be one-time posters either; many have went back and forth with Rational, Anticultist, R. Knull, and I, and then bug out when they realize they’re losing. It’s like rage quitting, but because you’re losing an argument, not a game. It’s annoying as fuck because we can’t deal the final blow to them and either completely demolish their way of thinking or possibly cure them of psychosis.

  4. Mr. Anon says :

    Just to refute some of Gamble’s claims:

    The majority of Americans were not “against the Iraq and Afghanistan war”, at least not when they were started. You may try and claim 9/11 is a conspiracy, but don’t misrepresent public opinion. Of course, now most people want to pull out of both wars. For this reason, we are out of Iraq and pulling out of Afghanistan. No conspiracy here.

    “The bailouts” is a vague term. What exactly are you referring to?

    Your claim that most people are against the patriot act is bullshit ( While I agree that it goes too far and is unconstitutional, you cannot blame the extension of it on “corrupt politicians” when their constituents want them to do it.

    The NDAA is an overhyped threat. The bill’s own language states that, contrary to popular belief, no laws are to be changed on the matter of indefinite detention. American citizens on US soil remain safe from indefinite detention.

    Your claim about Obama’s executive order is also bullshit:

    • duckiebro says :

      Yaaaay, Big Daddy Obama come to save us!!!

      Get a clue, B…

      Who are you, Mr. Anon? Spokesperson for Fox News?

      • Lee says :

        Duckie, did it ever occur to you that the people who debunk the CT regarding Obama are NOT his supporters? That even though they disagree with his political stances and policies, they still repulsed by the lies aimed at him?

      • Mr. Anon says :

        I love how you resort to personal attacks, duckiebro. My political stances are irrelevant. I am against the Patriot Act and strongly opposed Obama’s extension of it. However, I know that he did so not because he was working for the Global Domination Agenda, but because he was catering to public opinion (a matter that Gamble was outright wrong on in his claims).

        I know enough about the NDAA to have actually read the section in particular. When a bill (written by a Progressive Democrat) specifically states “nothing in this section shall be used to change existing laws regarding the indefinite detention of citizens”, you can’t get any more “not conspiracy”.

        And again, claims about Obama’s executive order are also bullshit.

    • Alias says :

      Anon, you’re a tard. Keep sucking on Baphomet’s scaly penis for moral sustenance.

  5. Mr. Anon says :


    First off, no such device exists and such a device would violate the laws of physics as we know them, so your premise is bullshit. Why? You claim solar, wind, and geo thermal “take substantial resources and infrastructure to build and operate”. The reason for this is clear: the Law of Conservation of Energy proves that all energy has to come from somewhere. Solar energy takes energy from the sun, wind energy relies on the kinetic energy of the wind (which comes from heat from the sun), and geo thermal energy takes heat from the earth’s core, which originated from the Earth’s creation (in other words energy from the sun). You’ll notice that all three take energy from the sun, for a simple reason: the sun has a massive amount of energy. Of course, it isn’t simple getting this energy; the second law of thermodynamics states that it will always be difficult to extract such energy (a simplification, but I have limited time posting this).
    Where does your beloved “free energy” come from? You say “harmoniously tapping the life force”, but this is not helpful at all. The closest you have come to giving any sort of physical explanation is “it uses energy from the earth’s magnetic field”, or magnetic potential energy. However, to gain magnetic potential energy, energy must be inputted, making the energy not “free”.

    Now, why it is more important to focus on real forms of energy rather than imaginary ones. If I were to go to my physics professor, an expert in nuclear physics, and tell him “I have a free energy machine”, I would be a joke. The reason is not “conspiracy”, but for reasons I have given above. In the end, it would be counterproductive. Of course, it would be helpful if you supplied us with information on the nature of these alleged machines – that way, we could actually try building one and seeing for ourselves whether they work.

    • duckiebro says :

      If you knew anything about back EMF and the research of Nikola Tesla, you would not defend what is not being challenged.

      The point of so-called ‘free energy’ and ‘zero point’ energy is that the earth is like a big battery (not a complicated concept, even for a five-year old), and that we can harvest her energy with far less input and distribution problems (what the hell is OUR oil doing under THEIR sand?!?) than the entirely proprietary energy (and water) systems currently in place.

      A little research shows that Tesla’s wireless and back EMF technology was suppressed due to influence from JD Rockefeller, JP Morgan and Henry Ford – men whose private empires depended on the oil, automotive, and copper industries – it’s not hard to put the pieces together when you consider that the Federal Reserve Act was put forward and passed at the behest of these same influences.

      I’m sure if you suggested unknown technology to any scientist unaware of its existence, the first reaction will always be skepticism.

      Beyond that, only cowards who fear dismissal or discredit from their peers like yourself will dismiss these ideas without real investigation or objective consideration.

      The brave and innovative will look for themselves, and learn…

      So, yeah, all these nuts talking about conspiricies! Sheesh! The nerve!

      • Lee says :

        “A little research shows that Tesla’s wireless and back EMF technology was suppressed due to influence from JD Rockefeller, JP Morgan and Henry Ford – men whose private empires depended on the oil, automotive, and copper industries – it’s not hard to put the pieces together when you consider that the Federal Reserve Act was put forward and passed at the behest of these same influences.”

        Did your research contain EVIDENCE that such suppression exists?

        You are the one making claims that those men suppressed Tesla technology, so the burden of proof is on you.

        “The brave and innovative will look for themselves, and learn…”

        We have learned. We learn that YOU NEED ENERGY TO GENERATE IT, so there’s no such thing as free energy.

      • Mr. Anon says :

        First off, Tesla was not a free energy advocate. He was primarily concerned with energy transmission, and attempts to suppress him were part of the “electricity wars” between him and Thomas Edison, in which JP Morgan was involved. Tesla was not concerned with energy sources, he was concerned with how to use the electricity already obtained from generators.

        Second of all, I addressed your claim that the “Earth is a battery”. The only intrinsic energy the Earth holds is the geothermal energy coming from the core. All other energy originates from the sun. I have already refuted claims of magnetic potential energy being the source of “free energy”, as energy must be inputted to increase magnetic potential, much like how you actually have to lift an object higher in order to increase its gravitational potential energy.

      • anticultist says :

        Don’t confuse duckie they are only a beginner at this. They hear claims of tesla being a saint for humanity, free energy and the conspiracy against him and think they know how it all went down.

        People like duckie have no idea about science or history but hope idiots like them are reading their posts, so you often encounter this kind of arrogant stupidity from them on the internet.

      • Anastasio says :


        Unfortunately duckiebro, the internet recounts only a diminutive portion of Tesla’s life, and almost not always in a factual sense. One must be brave and innovative and engage in the arduous task of reading a book or two to see the whole picture; a task that I can solemnly guarantee neither you nor Gamble have bothered to take to hand.

        The irony is, that with just a little research the Tesla suppression theory is one that can be easily proven completely fictitious and in Gamble’s portrayal of the affair, proven to be just downright perverse (there is a wealth of information in book form in circulation that often cites from Tesla’s own hand).
        There is no need to connect the dots or put together the pieces when several keen biographers and Tesla himself will tell you the full story.

        Let’s have a look at what Tesla himself had to say about his Wardenclyffe Project (what the Teslatards commonly refer to as the “free energy device”) and Morgan’s involvement in it (emphasis mine):

        “I would add further, in view of various rumours which have reached me, that Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan did not interest himself with me in a business way, but in the same large spirit in which he has assisted many other pioneers. HE CARRIED OUT HIS GENEROUS PROMISE TO THE LETTER and it would have been most unreasonable to expect from him anything more. He had the highest regard for my attainments and gave me every evidence of his complete faith in my ability to ultimately achieve what I had set out to do. I am unwilling to accord to some small-minded and jealous individuals the satisfaction of having thwarted my efforts (I presume Tesla to be speaking about Edison and Marconi here). These men are to me nothing more than microbes of a nasty disease. MY PROJECT WAS RETARDED BY LAWS OF NATURE. The world was not prepared for it. It was too far ahead of time, but the same laws will prevail in the end and make it a triumphal success.”

        Nikola Tesla – My Inventions

        Now when you read the actual correspondence between Morgan and Tesla at that time (Mark Siefer’s Wizard: Life and Times of Nikola Tesla cites many of those letters) it is clear that Morgan furnished Tesla with $150,000 (this was actually 150% of what Tesla had asked for) so he could build Morgan a transatlantic communication system. Morgan made it quite clear before entering the contract that he was not interested in wireless energy and the Wardenclyffe Tower was to be used for simple tasks such as “signalling steamers in fog” and “receiving stocks while in England”. Tesla didn’t have to agree to this; he could have walked away and found another investor but he was hell bent on getting Morgan behind him and agreed quite happily to Morgan’s terms (it’s postulated that Tesla perhaps saw a father figure in Morgan). It was also agreed by both men as part of the contract that Tesla was to ask for no more money; it is evident that Morgan was not completely won over by Tesla’s boastful personality and the $150,000 was ALL he was willing to invest (Tesla himself attests to this).

        Morgan did not pull funding, he had provided Tesla with all he had promised and all that he was legally bound to do so (which included the extra $50,000 Morgan thought more than suitable for Tesla to succeed).

        So tell me duckiebro, just how do you suppress an idea by throwing more money than obliged to at it? Why did Morgan tell Tesla he was not interested in wireless energy and why did Tesla happily enter into a contract with Morgan knowing this?

        When Tesla and Morgan met again, Tesla had not only changed the design and purpose (demonstration of wireless energy) of the Wardenclyffe Tower during construction (effectively breaking the contract he had with Morgan), but he had also spent all of Morgan’s investment and was asking (again, against their contract) for another $150,000 to finish constructing a tower that Morgan had specifically not asked for and did not want. Morgan was also furious that Tesla had not built the tower at Niagara, where he would have had access to all the ‘free’ hydroelectric power he needed to power his project. That’s right; the Wardenclyffe Tower was powered by expensive coal fired generators – not ‘free energy’ by any definition.

        If Tesla intended to give away free, wireless electricity then who was to foot the bill for the coal? Who was to foot the bill for the chef that came to Wardenclyffe from the Waldorf to cook for Tesla each day? How was Tesla to fund his own lavish lifestyle by working for free? In one letter Tesla guarantees Morgan that his Wardenclyffe Tower would generate $10,000 a day in revenue and “$10,000,000 as sure as one cent” for Morgan’s coffers.
        I wonder if you or Gamble could explain to us how somebody might generate those amounts of money off a commodity that is given away for free of charge?
        Tesla did say that he wanted to reduce man’s reliance on coal and wood (oil would not surpass either in prominence until 1960 meaning your implication that Tesla threatened the oil cartels is somewhat anachronistic) but I have yet to read anything that suggests Tesla wanted to use Wardenclyffe to give away free electricity. Can you could share this quote that has you and Gamble so convinced?

        The hard part to swallow is that Tesla broke the contract with Morgan because he clearly couldn’t control his ego and his rivalry with Marconi. And after Marconi had already achieved the first transatlantic wireless transmission, and without an expensive Wardenclyffe Tower, who would want to throw money at Tesla’s project that used technology that still hadn’t been proven to work?
        If Tesla took $150,000 of your money and in return gave you nothing to show for it, would you then recommend that your friends involve themselves with Tesla in a business venture?

        No? Then why should Morgan?

        “So, yeah, all these nuts talking about conspiricies! Sheesh! The nerve!”

        Don’t worry; the irony isn’t lost on us.
        If you wish to remain ignorant of the facts then save yourself some embarrassment and try not to act as an authority on subjects you are ill-equipped to speak to.

      • duckiebro says :

        You’re right. I’m sold. The way we’ve been getting energy is the right way. No more dangerous living for me!!

      • anticultist says :

        “You’re right. I’m sold. The way we’ve been getting energy is the right way. No more dangerous living for me!!”

        No one is saying the way things are now are suitable, but at least we aren’t making up lies to change things. There are people here who understand how history and science functions and are hoping for a realistic improvement in our energy issues.

        Your whimsical conspiratorial claims and ill informed pseudo scientific belief is of zero value in the real world.

    • Dan Burgens says :

      A real scientist is open minded to possibilites outside current theories and doesn’t attack ideas in the manor at which you do.

      • Lee says :

        What Thrive movie shows isn’t possibility outside current theories.The movie shows IMPOSSIBILITY outside simple logic. Any free energy engine would be impossible to exist, because YOU NEED ENERGY TO GENERATE IT. Thus generating energy would always have some kind of cost, even clean ones.

      • Mason I. Bilderberg says :

        “Open minded” is always thrown out as a virtuous red herring, as if not agreeing with an opposing opinion makes you closed minded. It’s not a choice between being open minded or closed minded – it’s a choice between having an open mind and an educated mind.

        Why don’t people drive their cars into telephone poles? Because they have a closed mind? Or because they have knowledge which precludes being “open” to the idea of driving into a telephone pole? To be open minded to driving into telephone poles, drivers would have to forget or ignore their life experiences and knowledge.

        Rather than trying to excoriate people for not opening their minds (and dumping all their knowledge out onto the floor), the discussion should focus on the knowledge (evidence). But maybe this is why most conspiracists demand an open mind (empty head) from their skeptics – because they don’t have persuasive evidence.

      • Brian says :

        It’s been said that you shouldn’t have too open of a mind, or your brain just might fall out. Just food for thought.

  6. Mason I. Bilderberg says :

    Reblogged this on Illuminutti and commented:
    Thrive was supposed to be the latest and greatest conspiracy movies. At least this is what the creators had hoped. Fortunately for the sane, sites like Thrive Debunked has thoroughly asked all the right questions and provided all the correct answers. Definitely worth the read.

  7. Andrew Kinch says :

    For your consideration,

    I’m going to keep it relatively short and sweet. I’ve seen the arguments back and forth and it seems that the root of it is that if you attach the label of conspiracy theory to something… it is taken immediately as a false premise. That idea itself is guilty of the “personal incredulity” fallacy which states that because one finds something difficult to understand that it is not true”. And yes… that applies to the writer of this blog as i will explain. The blog writer is also guilty of “the fallacy fallacy” which states that “because a claim is poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that it is necessarily wrong.” To be fair… when exploring the possibility of a conspiracy, there is a fallacy sometimes called the “Texas sharpshooter” that has someone finding patterns to fit presumptions. I believe that to be the fault that debunkers point to when trying to disprove a conspiracy theory. I believe there are definitely profit and power driven conspiracies out there just as there are very improbable claims for conspiracies. It’s a shame that some poorly researched theories have earned the “conspiracy theory” title in the negative because that then puts a smokescreen in front of anything valid. You simply can’t debunk every conspiracy theory just because it is anti-establishment. So getting to my point, the truth is “whatever is really the case” so the only way to discover it is to follow a line of reasoning right to the end so that you can be sure that you don’t form opinions based on the wrong assumptions (to the same extent as those who claimed the sun to rotate around the earth… we are not infallible to wrong assumptions in the present day). To follow the line of reasoning in the positive allows for eureka moments and discoveries that were not obvious before. Or…. the realization that something is not true. That is HOW we progress. However, taking the negative as you have in this particular blog can limit the possibility of discoveries, and can hold people back from making these discoveries. If the argument is supposed to be helping mankind progress then the best course of action is to try to help and if you come to the conclusion that it is going nowhere, so be it! So the problem is essentially that people don’t have the time to explore the truth to the extent needed. If Foster has indeed put 10 years into this venture then your opinion is 10 years behind in research (at least for the total argument). It’s also important to remember that if he got something wrong along the way then that doesn’t debunk the whole premise. See: “The fallacy fallacy”

    Essentially your opinion could be correct but maybe you’ll never know because much like the majority of the planet i am willing to bet that you can’t drop everything to experience everything Foster did. Foster isn’t the only one to try connecting these dots. Many others believe that there is deception among the elite and nobody can argue that all humanity could be looked after if the people with power chose to do it. This is a moral issue that most absolve themselves of because of the perception that they have no power to change it.

    The motivation behind people like Foster Gamble should be considered. It appears that he is trying to help the planet. Admittedly it is important to examine that motivation as well. If someone was to claim they were altruistic but accumulated millions in personal wealth and not reinvesting this wealth, I would start to wonder. So what motivations are behind all this effort if there wasn’t millions of dollars in sales to work for? The movie is free! So maybe the core of your argument boils down to: “Foster is crazy and I’m not” because the only motivation to make this movie with the intention of expanding consciousness is for the sake of his own ego and to attract attention! This is nearly a case of the fallacy of “ad hominem” which attacks the character of your opponent instead of addressing the argument. It’s a roundabout way of engaging in that fallacy but i hope you see my point.

    In conclusion( so much for short and sweet) until you follow the trail of clues the same way Foster did, you are ill equipped to judge his material in its totality (as am I!)because to do so you presume that you can come to a correct conclusion by taking monumental shortcuts.

    To Foster, I see the challenges you face in making a difference for the benefit of humanity. Epictetus said If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid. It takes courage to put yourself out there. It would have been the nail in the coffin if you had the torus based free energy machine sample in practice rather than in theory when releasing the movie, but you didn’t. Maybe that wasn’t your job but some people are looking to you now! If the right people collaborate and use their hard earned money to produce this machine then maybe, just maybe there are real changes ahead.

    Dear blogger, the point is that time will tell, but it will tell faster with help than it will with the use of “instant debunking”. True debunking takes a long time.

    Thanks for taking the time

    • Mr. Anon says :

      If you’ve read the rest of this blog, you would have seen that Muertos has debunked much of Gamble’s “evidence” for his theories.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      If you just read the rest of my comments here, you’ll see in fact that many of the claims Gamble made in his letter alone are false.

      • Andrew Kinch says :

        Every single claim?

      • Andrew Kinch says :

        i think you might have missed the point of what i said. Completely.

      • Andrew Kinch says :

        My point is that by being critical in the positive and putting yourself in Foster’s shoes your critical ability could be guiding him where he has made mistakes if any instead of attacking character and ignoring the research done by calling it conspiracy theory. His movie isn’t the best in its genre by any means but if you are willing to improve some of his arguments rather than dismiss them then it ceases to be a pissing contest. I wasn’t too impressed with the tone of Foster’s reply in some cases but if i thought that was grounds to dismiss everything he has said then i would be guilty of the ad hominem fallacy i mentioned earlier, rendering my dismissal fallacious.

      • Mr. Anon says :

        Andrew, Thrive addresses the following problems:

        World Poverty

        Government Corruption

        Wealth disparity


        His solution to each of these?

        World Poverty is caused by a deliberate stiffling of “free energy” by a Global Domination Agenda.

        Government Corruption is mainly caused by the said Global Domination Agenda, which is run by a handful of families that lost their power 100 years ago (never does Gamble mention the Koch Brothers, who conveniently share his libertarian ideology).

        Wealth disparity is caused by the Global Domination Agenda. Somehow, eliminating taxation and public schools will fix this.

        Wars too are caused by the Global Domination Agenda. This is why the United States should simply stop having any foreign policy and have power concentrated at a local level.

        All of these problems are caused by this mysterious GDA, and all of them are solved through counter-intuitive solutions. Free energy does not exist, and as I’ve pointed out, pursuing it is a waste of time. Removing the income tax will not give corporations less power, it will give them more power. Making the United States have no foreign policy will just make it harder to tackle worldwide issues, like Climate Change.

        Muertos elaborates on this elsewhere, but this is just a handful of Thrive’s main problems.

        The solutions Thrive offers are based on a libertarian ideology, supported by presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul’s agenda would be horrific on the country, and would likely put us in an inescapable recession.

        There are individual issues that Thrive is right on, like GMOs. However, he links many of these problems to things like free energy and fractional banking, and in fact argues that the problems are caused by a single, nonexistent, Global Domination Agenda.

    • JG says :

      A core of your argument above is that Foster Gamble’s work is good natured; therefore any criticism leveled his way is negative and counterproductive. Below you say that debunkers will have a hard time proving the negative, because we weren’t in the room when Mr. Gamble saw the machine in question. These two items demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of argument. And your explanation of fallacies is, quite frankly, cringe inducing.

      So let’s set the record straight. If I don’t believe in a free energy machine, it isn’t because it’s being promulgated by conspiracy theorists; it’s because the entire notion of a free energy machine violates thermodynamics. I don’t really know – and I’ll probably know – what Mr. Gamble saw behind closed doors. (And honestly I don’t really care.) But here’s what I can say for sure: despite the supposed existence of such a machine – and despite Mr. Gamble’s interest in this machine – he has yet to produce the machine to the public. You would think that someone who has all sorts of green technology in their home would be able to demonstrate the capability of a free energy machine on their house – or on anything, for that matter! I know this, too: Mr. Gamble hasn’t produced one gag order document, one schematic, one uncontestable picture that shows or references that this device has ever existed or that it’s even theoretically possible.

      Do you see where I’m going? You can blah-blah all day long about fallacies, but pretty soon you’re going to have to face the fact that Mr. Gamble has yet to positively establish the existence of this device. Put another way: the opposition doesn’t have to prove a negative if the affirmative has not presented adequate evidence. The burden of proof is on Mr. Gamble he has so far failed to produce. It doesn’t really matter that he appears genial and well-intentioned; indeed, we should extra be cautious that we don’t merely accept arguments because we like the person making them.

      • Andrew Kinch says :

        Settle down champ. Why so angry? No need for that and there’s no misunderstanding of any arguments either. True i did say that Foster was well intentioned and that does warrant a look at his work because of the nature of his desire to serve others. I thought i was pretty clear that i didn’t say that meant all his arguments were defacto correct. And as far as your telling me that it is an impossibility to make a free energy machine because it defies thermodynamics, read up on quantum mechanics. There’s kots to discover out there. Thermodynamics is based on newtonian physics… a clever but incomplete work it seems. In fact, they are trying to combine the two with quantum thermodynamics… interesting… it’s still theoretical.

        I suppose one big issue between our points of view is that i believe learning is life-long and there is much humanity hasn’t figured out yet which means one should carry an open mind.

        I don’t necessarliy rely on all the things i learned in school anymore. The truth is whatever is really the case independent of all humanity’s theories of what it is. We’re doing pretty well but to say that we’ve peaked or to say that we haven’t made mistakes with current mainstream theories is a critical assumption. For example if Telsa was onto something big and if he indeed was prevented from going any further… IF… then that’s a branch of science missing. You’re free to make that assumption if you like. I chose not to.

        Cheers bud

      • DiscoPro_Joe says :

        Andrew Kinch says…
        “…I did say that Foster was well intentioned and that does warrant a look at his work because of the nature of his desire to serve others.”

        I disagree that being “well-intentioned,” and having a “desire to serve others” automatically makes a person “good.” Ever heard of the Puritans? Or the Nazis? Or the Communists?

        Actual results are infinitely more important than good intentions.

        I’ve also met plenty of people who don’t necessarily have a big “desire to serve others,” but instead, who prefer to *trade* with others in mutually-beneficial exchanges. Most of these folks seem like pretty decent people, and are quite trustworthy.

    • JG says :

      You might want to read over my response one more time. At no point did I suggest that you thought Foster’s good nature makes him response instantly correct. Then you might want to read over your various responses because you do in fact maintain that there is something negative and counterproductive about criticizing his work, e.g. ” taking the negative as you have in this particular blog can limit the possibility of discoveries, and can hold people back from making these discoveries.” Your words.

      I’m not really sure what to say about the rest of your response. I never said that we’ve reached the peak of our learning, nor do I think learning ends when school’s out. I think learning is a continuous process. So here’s the thing, at this point I would usually continue with a very snarky response, but I want to give you a chance to understand where I’m coming from. Because the field of Thermodynamics fits into Newtonian physics but isn’t exclusively based on it; and quantum mechanics, awesome as it is, does not yet account for or even come close to explaining how a free energy device works. (In fact, both sciences suggest that such a device should not exist.) These statements by you, then, show a fundamental misunderstanding of both fields. So, when you tell me that I have cut myself off from learning, I can’t help but take that as a bit of arrogance on your part since you clearly haven’t learned too much about your own argument.

      Don’t get me wrong. The unification of Netwonian physics and quantum mechanics will likely be one of the most significant scientific accomplishments in Human history. I mean, in our lifetimes the Higgs boson might become a reality. I bring up the Higgs boson because the particle at this point exists only in theory. But what makes it so interesting to scientists is that its existence not only neatly fills gaps within our understanding, but explains the existence of physical properties like mass. Where am I going with all of this? Like the free energy machine, we don’t have proof that the Higgs particle exists. But everything we know to be true suggests that the particle should exist (or, at least, another theory should arise to better explain what’s going on). On the other hand, everything we know about a free energy machine suggests that it shouldn’t exist, that it’s pseudoscience.

      • Andrew says :

        Welcome to the world of the calm. We get much more done here 🙂

        I’m definitely not a quantum physicist, and you probably know much more about science than I do. I’m actually better with understanding people and I’ve taken philosophy as my path to the truth. What I’m interested in is connecting the dots with science whenever possible and that’s a learning process for me. This argument you are having with me is largely a “straw man” issue. I think that you think I’m trying to defend Foster and his claims. What I am defending is the principle that experience trumps knowledge.

        Knowing something from reading it will never beat experiencing it. It’s a shame we all don’t have the time to explore everything to the nth degree as individuals. I have classes to teach, people to treat gotta exercise, sleep, etc like everyone else. This is why we have to take people on faith… faith that the experiments that were done weren’t fudged or misrepresented to make more profit but hiding some other fact. Or perhaps it’s just the faith that someone got it right and it seems to work, like with Newton, except at the atomic level it doesn’t work. We didn’t find that out for a long time and now you can’t take Newtonian physics as an absolute law for everything.. you have to have an open mind. QP is an attempt, String theory another… but these people are open minded. That’s good stuff. Heisenberg admitting that there is uncertainty is a big step to being open minded. Being addicted to having the right answer to explain everything will make it more difficult to see the truth if the truth is different from what you thought it was.

        Maybe the free energy machine is real maybe it isn’t. It sure doesn’t look like it is based on the textbooks you’ve read and lectures you’ve been to… (Have you actually done experiments too? That would even further validate your argument. But if someone free energy machines exist then their motivation is either a) to make this machine, in which case they found a line of reasoning (correct or incorrect) to get there….. which should make you curious not defensive….. OR b) They are just trying to pull a fast one, which in that case… they are $@#@wits. but you can’t foresee a) or b). You have to check to know for sure. er

        Just for the sake of argument, because again I am not defending the free energy machine……….
        ->What if the stakes were higher. What if you were 100% certain, based on your previous knowledge and infinite textbook wisdom that this machine was impossible. However, every other form of energy failed and was unsustainable, and we ran out of oil, and we were at the end of days. We couldn’t power our homes or our cars. Complete doomsday scenario. Are you telling me that you wouldn’t even look at the blueprints? Not even with the off chance that you may have been wrong? The only reason to not look at the blueprints in that scenario would be pride. I guess my point is that it’s worth having a look before you decide they are trying to deceive you. You might miss something cool. Without the doomsday scenario, the reasons to not look might be “I don’t want to waste my valuable time looking at this” or “I don’t want someone to then say.. Ha, it’s a hoax… and be deceived. That still comes down to pride I guess.

        Back to my original argument about taking the negative so aggressively rather than trying to help refine things, This was an argument of principle. Life isn’t a competition. Business is. In life we should all be trying to work to a solution
        If you follow the exact method that someone developing something like a free energy machine followed and then saw something COMPLETELY unexpected that led to a new line of reasoning, then you’d leave the old line of reasoning on the back burner for a while and explore a new idea. You wouldn’t get that chance without at least peeking.

        Much like when we discovered that the world was not flat. That change in worldview would have undergone resistance.

        Hopefully that’s better articulated than my first response that might have got you thinking: “What an idiot. He can’t argue and he doesn’t know any science, how dare he post this rubbish”. Well sometimes it takes me a couple of goes to be clear. I’m only human.

        What I find interesting is that nobody is arguing about sacred geometry, crop circles and aliens. Free energy devices were the target. HA! And no, that’s not me starting a new argument.

      • anticultist says :

        “What I find interesting is that nobody is arguing about sacred geometry, crop circles and aliens.”

        actually crop circles has been debunked on this blog, sacred geometry has been debunked on this blog, and aliens is not even something worth talking seriously about outside speculative wishing.

      • Greg says :

        I’m not going to comment on all the rest of these arguments, but I will comment on the physics, seeing as I am a physics professor and have my physics degree from a famous Ivy-League school.

        JG said: “On the other hand, everything we know about a free energy machine suggests that it shouldn’t exist, that it’s pseudoscience.”

        This is incorrect. A “free energy” device is entirely plausible, and is based on real, experimentally-based physics. As far as I know, no such device has been constructed, notwithstanding Mr. Gander’s assertions. (I would love to see one! If they really do exist, he should be able to produce a prototype, don’t you think?)

        However, the physics behind such an idea is real. I will reference real scientific phenomena (not pseudo-science.) You can read about these things if you care.

        First of all, because of the Uncertainty Principle, there are these things called “virtual particles” in the vacuum of space. Collectively, this has come to be known as the energy density of the vacuum. Briefly, the Uncertainty Principle says that massive particles can appear out of nothingness (vacuum) as long as they only last a brief period of time. Yes, massive particles appear out of nothingness. This is weird, but true– and entirely against This is far from pseudo-science. These “appear out of nothing” virtual particles have real, measurable effects that can be measured in the lab. One of the most famous is the Casimir Effect. Others are the Coulomb Force, Hawking Radiation, EM induction, the Lamb shift, the van der Waals force, and vacuum polarization. The strong and weak forces are both transmitted by virtual bosons. In fact, Feynman’s formulation of Quantum Electrodynamics (and for which he won the Nobel Prize) depends entirely on virtual particles and the energy of the vacuum. Wikipedia does a surprisingly good explanation of this:

        Anyway, the situation gets stranger. If you sum up all possible free states available to the vacuum using Quantum Field Theory, you get an energy density of empty space that is absolutely massive, like 10EXP96 kg per cubic meter. However, if there was really this much energy in the vacuum of empty space, then the universe would have collapsed upon itself in less than a second (due to gravity.) It hasn’t. However, the energy of empty space is clearly not zero, which you can determine by cosmological curvature measurements– best guess is 10EXP-26 kg per cubic meter. The fact that these two values are soooo far off is one of the most important unsolved questions left in physics— often called the Cosmological Constant Problem.

        Here’s a reasonable review:

        The famous physicist Steven Weinberg has researched this issue:

        Anyway, the point of all this is that empty space DOES have a non-zero energy density. This is physical FACT and its effects can be measured almost everywhere in physics.

        The basic idea is that somehow there must be a way to tap in to this energy and use it to do useful work. This is idea behind a “free energy” machine.

        So, it’s incorrect to say that such a device “shouldn’t exist” or is “pseudoscience.” Actually, such a device probably SHOULD exist. (In fact, it kind of already does, in a weak, useless way. See Lamoreaux’s experiment on the Casimir Effect. Link below.) However, if the energy density of the vacuum turns out to be close to 10EXP-26 kg per cubic meter, then such a device would be seriously impractical, since the amount of energy in the vacuum would be vanishingly small as to be of no practical use. If it is closer to 10EXP96 kg per cubic meter, then there is so much energy there that we could power our entire civilization for 10,000 years with the energy inside your bedroom. (As mentioned, this discrepancy is one of the great unresolved issues in today’s physics world. No one really knows the correct answer yet of the true energy
        density of the vacuum. We know it is nonzero, but that is about all.)

        I really hope this puts to rest the question. In fact, the truth is exactly opposite to JG’s statement: Everything we know about a free energy device indicates that it SHOULD exist.

        Whether it actually DOES is another matter altogether. I want to see a prototype.

      • NonFiction says :

        This “free energy” thing was addressed extensively by the real inventor of the device that was shown in the movie, which was falsely credited to Trombly.

        Catch up here, guys, it is all on other pages in this blog. Such as:

        And Foster admits to the mistake here:

        Compare to the Corrections at the bottom of the Thrive page, where this correction is conspicuously missing, bringing up questions about what other errors and omissions in their “fact checking” have been left unresolved:

        The device was not what they claimed, not invented by the man they credited, and did not do what they said it did. Hyper-efficient (not free!) technology does exist and is being suppressed (all because of the potential for lost tax revenue – no secret conspiracy, they do it right out in the open), but that is not what the movie was showing photos of…so their lack of credibility in offering falsified “facts” hurts anyone and everyone who is working in the field of advanced energy research, and all of us who would benefit therefrom…gee, thanks, Foster.

        The real generator photos were taken down off of GES’s site when Foster took them off of his Thrive site, but copies of the photos were re-posted all over the web. Here are 2 places, and I have seen many more:

        I don’t even disagree with much of what the movie says, I just shudder at the facts which are not facts. The movie does not lose credibility because of politics or opinions, it loses credibility because of incorrect information. I can agree or disagree with someone, but that does not make their facts any more or less accurate, so stop throwing personal insults and get down to reality, guys.

      • JG says :

        Greg, I’ll readily admit that my formal education on physics stopped at the last required class for my undergrad. Without a doubt, your physics education and experience trump mine. But I do enjoy me some Lawrence Krauss lectures on YouTube, for what its worth. And, my background is in operations research and computer science, so while I claim no mastery of physics, I do some have some knowledge of systems. Also, I watch a ridiculous amount of NOVA.

        I bring all of this up if only to demonstrate that (1) I respect and acknowledge that you know more about this stuff than I do; and (2) to demonstrate that I have at least a cursory understanding of physics, including the items you mention. However, I still respectfully disagree with the notion that a free energy device “should” exist.

        First, I did not mean to give the impression that I thought such a device could never exist. When I qualified the statement with “what we know,” I should have said “what we know right now.” That’s an important distinction – and when I consider your response – I don’t think we disagree on that point. As you point out, what we observe in the lab seemingly contradicts what we know about quantum energy. And, if I remember correctly, most of the universe (70%?) is made up of this energy, but we still don’t know why it’s there or how to take advantage of it. All of that is real science, and I don’t dispute any of it. In fact, it’s knowing these limitations that make it so hard for me to believe that a free energy device could exist right now. I’d have to believe that Trombly and friends successfully took advantage of energy that the folks at CERN are still trying to prove exists. That’s why I call it pseudoscience.

        But that’s not the only reason. Admittedly, I’m not an inventor nor an expert on generators. And I don’t really know a whole lot about the torus (assuming there’s anything to know). But what Mr. Trombly describes in Thrive appears, to me, to be how a regular generator works. How he goes from that description to the assertion that his generator can provide enough energy to “transform the earth” is never outlined by him in detail. Instead, Trombly builds off the torus stuff, describing it as “breathing” energy. To me, the lack of explanation coupled with his anthropomorphized torus seems like a headnod to some new agey bs. And that’s why I call it pseudoscience.

        Ok, one last reason. The name, “FREE energy machine,” appears as deliberate as it is misleading. Neither Gamble, Trombly, nor Thrive’s supporters appear to agree on the meaning of “free.” Does it mean that it can freely generate energy in abundance? that the device is not constrained by (that is, “free of”) certain laws of physics? that the energy created is free to the people? and free of corporate control? and inexpensive to make? is it a nod to libertarian philosophies of liberty and freedom? The answer to every question is “yes” and “I don’t know.” Thrive offers a discount lunch buffet of conspiracy theories to pick from. Calling this thing “free” without any further explanation fits right in: “free” means whatever you want it to mean. Another reason why I think it’s pseudoscience.

        Greg, like I said, I’m no expert. Feel free to pick my argument apart.

      • Greg says :

        JG: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I’ll try to respond to several points in kind. Before I do that, though, I want to state the main problem I had with the Thrive movie— and it’s different than the conspiracy arguments (and maybe even simpler) that some folks here have.

        I find it plausible that there are (possibly) secret decisions made by people in positions of power. Call this conspiracy if you want to. I’m not sure I (or you) can know either way. What I find more frustrating, though, is the science tease on “free energy” devices that the movie makes. My recollection (which may not be entirely accurate since I saw the movie a while ago) was that the claim is that there are several currently living researchers who have created these devices— but that none of them are currently operational, or in the public domain, because of fear of black ops or government threats to said people. Again, I can’t argue with that— I suppose it’s possible. However, if you were truly afraid for your safety, why then would you agree to be part of such a very public movie? Wouldn’t you just quietly go on your way and try to live your life? That just doesn’t make sense to me. That seems to be one way to protect your safety. However, it seems that an alternative way to secure your safety would be to disseminate your knowledge to as many people and as far and wide as possible. Photocopy your schematics. Mail hard copies to every person you could think of in science, business, technology, media. So, either close your lab and destroy your findings, or go as public as possible. Those would seem the best ways to secure your safety if you really feared reprisals. This middle way, you know “I have made this device, but I can’t really show it to you” just makes no sense to me.

        When push comes to shove, I want to see the device, test the device, or see the schematics. Like Carl Sagan said: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

        I’ll say this, too. I spent a couple years of my life in grad school studying the vacuum energy density. This was my focus, so I know more about it than many people. To put it simply: this is very difficult physics! I have not won the Nobel Prize (yet!) However, I have spent a lot of time and energy studying this stuff with a lot of very smart people. I find it unlikely (though not impossible) that independent researchers in their garage could have found a way to harness the vacuum energy when the Cosmological Constant problem is not anywhere near being solved. We don’t even fully understand the theoretical problems here. The Casimir Effect, while theoretically predicted about 90 years ago, wasn’t able to be measured in the lab until 1997 because the force is so small— on the order of micronewtons, if I recall (don’t quote me on that one… but it’s small!)

        Again, it is entirely possible that these devices have been created. Einstein was a patent clerk working at his kitchen table when he came up with Relativity– so this kind of thing DOES happen. It’s very rare, but it does happen. But I say: If it HAS happened, let the world see it! Mr. Gamble, with his considerable resources, could make that happen.

        In all seriousness, if Mr. Gamble is reading this blog, I would love to speak physics with people who have created these devices, read their schematics, and see and test their devices. If you can make that happen, let me know! I’m serious!

        I guess you could call me a hopeful skeptic. I know enough about this stuff to know that a device that sucks energy from the vacuum is theoretically possible. I also know enough to know that I have no idea how to do this. (I could explain the problems with this endeavor… in fact, I’ll try to in another post.) However, if someone else DOES know how to do this, I’d love to have coffee with them and see their lab.

        Now on to your comments:

        Your critique of the vagueness of Mr Trombly’s explanation of his device and how it works is on the money. It’s so vague that it can’t even be proved wrong. If we are giving him the benefit of the doubt, then you might say since he is speaking to a non-science audience, he has to be vague. However, I don’t really buy that. I could explain Quantum Mechanics to a 15 year old in a scientifically correct, albeit incomplete, way— in a way that is still substantially true. I could even summarize it in one sentence in a way that will still give insight and be scientifically true: “small things move differently than big things.” I didn’t feel like I got any sort of science out of the Thrive explanations. It was frustrating. Maybe I should see the movie again, or look closely at the website, which I have not, at this point, done. I got hope (hype?) but not many FACTS or explanations. I will reserve more comment until I look at the Thrive website more closely or hear from Mr. Gamble or see the movie again (which I plan on doing.)

        You also said: “And, if I remember correctly, most of the universe (70%?) is made up of this energy, but we still don’t know why it’s there or how to take advantage of it.”

        This is true. It’s called Dark Energy. The reason scientists theorize this is because the universe is currently accelerating in its expansion rate. If there was only matter in the universe, the gravity in the matter would cause the universe expansion to be SLOWING DOWN. Gravity would cause this. The universe is expanding ever faster– so that means there is something out there that is having a sort of anti-gravity effect on the fabric of space. One idea is that the energy of empty space is causing this– the vacuum itself. However, even this is not understood, because Quantum Field Theory tells us that we should have a POSITIVE energy density of the vacuum (ie. gravity causing a slowing down of expansion) not a NEGATIVE energy density (ie an anti-gravity effect causing an increase in rate of expansion.) This is a huge mystery.

        There is also this thing called Dark Matter— which is matter we can’t see (like interstellar dust.) This is predicted to exist because of the rotation rate of galaxies. If you look at how fast a star on the edge of a galaxy is rotating about its galactic center (astronomers can measure this), it depends on how much mass there is inside the disk it is rotating. The more mass, the faster the rotation rate. This is fairly simple physics— if the sun was more massive that it is now, the earth would be whipping around the sun faster than it does now. By measuring the speed with which these stars rotate around their galactic centers, you can calculate how much matter is in the galaxy. The weird thing is, the amount of matter has to be massive— much much much more than if you added up all the mass in all the stars in the galaxy along with a generous estimate of planets and all the interstellar dust we CAN see. The stars at the edge of galaxies are really whipping around their galactic centers, implying a huge amount of mass in the galaxy. So where is all this matter? What is it made of? We can’t see it, but we can infer it is there. It’s a big mystery, too!

        Finally, I don’t really recall his discussion of “free energy.” I remember not being confused at the time. My interpretation of this was energy from the vacuum– it being “free” because we don’t need to take it from anywhere– it exists everywhere for the taking. However, I’ll look at the movie again.

        Glad to have this discussion with you.

      • Mr. Anon says :

        Greg, the uncertainty principle energy density thing you brought up is interesting, and I do vaguely understand what you are referring to. However, that is not the source Adam Trombly claims to be tapping into (to my knowledge). If I am correct, he has claimed that he is somehow utilizing the magnetic potential energy of the earth to an infinite degree, that is impossible. Other free energy advocates do appear to be claiming perpetual motion machines that “give out more energy than they are taking in”, which is also a direct violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

      • Greg says :

        Mr Anon:

        Breaking the Law of the Conservation of Energy (ie. getting more energy out than you put in) is actually not a problem when you are dealing with the universe as a whole system since the Law of Conservation of Energy doesn’t apply on a universal scale. You can see this easily is true when you talk about the Big Bang— where did the mass of the universe COME from? In terms of the Big Bang, you literally did get something for nothing.

        You can also see this is true because the universe is expanding. That is, the actual AMOUNT of space is increasing every single moment. Since the vacuum contains energy (in the very fabric of space, as I mentioned– the energy density of the vacuum) and since more “space” is being created every moment as the universe expands– there is more total energy in the universe this second than there was a second ago. So, the Law of Conservation of Energy actually doesn’t apply when we are talking about the universe as a whole system. (The Law of the Conservation of Energy applies to a CLOSED SYSTEM only, and the universe is NOT a closed system.)

        This was mind-blowing when I learned about from my advisor when I was in grad school, but it is absolutely true.

        That is, there is nothing wrong with a vacuum energy device getting more energy out than it puts in, as long as it’s getting that energy from the fabric of space.

        As far as Trombly: I really don’t understand or remember well enough what he was saying to comment on it. I need to take a look at the movie again.

      • JG says :

        Mr. Anon, that’s exactly how I interpreted Trombly’s description, and I just rewatched it.

        Thrive definitely puts me in a weird place. I think many of us, including Muertos, struggle to explain to Thrive supporters that we readily acknowledge that corporations can (and do) terrible things (often with help from the government). It’s just that this free energy device seems so unlikely. Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that the device doesn’t exist or doesn’t work as explained – and I feel like that’s a rebuttable presumption. (hopefully, I used the term correctly!)

        But like you said, Greg, Trombly’s actions don’t make a lot of sense if true. For example, if I lost ALL of my work, I would be devastated, but my life would go on and all would not be lost. As best as possible, I’d pickup where I left off – especially if knew someone in the Gamble family who has access to corporate labs and equipment.

        What’s funny is that all of us, skeptics and Thrivers, agree that the physics of our universe are weird, interesting, complicated, awesome, and mysterious. What sets us apart, it seems, is that skeptics are more interested in our limitations (like, it’s crazy interesting to consider that our universe has to be made up of more mass than we can actually see), while new agey folks seem interested in supposed ways we have (or will) transcend physical laws. In many ways, they’ve developed a religion with a technological eschatology.Technology will set us free….

  8. duckiebro says :

    I’ll say this about this website:

    Haters gonna hate…

  9. DiscoPro_Joe says :

    They built this movie
    They built this movie on lies and bull
    Built this movie
    They built this movie on lies and bull

    They say that ancient aliens came from outer space
    That free energy machines are made and then disgraced
    Crop-circle-magic hoopla, New-World-Order might
    Too many tabloid plays, this just can’t be right

    Ol’ Fozzie and his Trombone can’t get past the bunk they blow
    Don’t you remember, they built this movie
    They built this movie on lies and bull

    They built this movie
    They built this movie on lies and bull
    Built this movie
    They built this movie on lies and bull

    With our minds they’re always playing conspiracy games
    Who cares, they’re always changing conspiracy claims
    Nine of the people from the film disowned it with rage
    They call them irresponsible, write ’em off the page

    Ol’ Fozzie and his Trombone can’t get past the bunk they blow
    Don’t you remember, they built this movie
    They built this movie on lies and bull

    They built this movie
    They built this movie on lies and bull
    Built this movie
    They built this movie on lies and bull

    • duckiebro says :

      I’ll tell you the truth

      Touchy Feely Santa Cruzers, wake from your dream

      John Robbins, it’s not our fault – we are those who choose to participate fairly in the human existence – ‘they’ are those who choose not to – of their own accord

      Oprah may tell me to just dig deeper after multiple lay-offs, evictions for foreclosure, and widespread violations of morality and human dignity by a relative few, but it was not my heart or actions which precipitated this…

      Many suffer unjustly, and for us to stand idly by while others are wronged puts us on the side of the aggressor

      The truth is so painful sometimes, and we avoid it for the shame and the forward-looking responsiblility for us to respond that it not only implies, but demands

      Don’t be afraid to fast from your luxuries for a moment, to go without in order to understand better what many live with every day – then you’ll know where the anger is rightly directed, and not at your good friends who just told the truth to you and others.

      I will say this: John Robbins has been man enough to defend and discuss his position – I would like to hear from John Perkins what he found so offensive, and Deepak Chopra as well. Without a clear and personal statement (or God forbid, dialogue), it is hard to see their disassociation as more than a popularity game.

      I’m not ashamed to be called a conspiracy theorist anymore – I am in good company.

      And in the immortal words of Dr. Johnny Fever:

      “When everyone’s out to get you, paranoia’s just good thinkin’…”

      • Andrew Kinch says :

        Be careful when you say free energy is a hoax. Unless you were in the room with Foster or unless you are in touch with those who are working on this technology then your opinion is just that
        …. opinion
        Keep an open mind. Whats the worst that could happen? Do you worry that you’ll be deceived? If that upsets you thats pretty weak.

        I see a lot of nitpicking on parts of the argument Foster puts forth. But like i said before, unless you are willing to put research into the negative then don’t assume you are in the know. Either way time will tell.

      • Lee says :

        “Many suffer unjustly, and for us to stand idly by while others are wronged puts us on the side of the aggressor.”

        I agree with you but believing conspiracy theory about the aggressors is not the answer. There are powerful people responsible for the bad things that happened to good people,but they didn’t cause them because it was part of GDA or NWO. They caused them inadvertently through their own short sighted greed and arrogance.

        That is the REAL painful truth. No big bad monster to slay that could magically make things better, just your fellow human beings making bad decisions through greed, arrogance and/or ignorance.

      • anticultist says :

        “duckiebro says : May 7, 2012 at 12:32 am
        I’ll tell you the truth”

        No you won’t.

      • anticultist says :

        “Be careful when you say free energy is a hoax.”

        free energy is a hoax

        “Keep an open mind.”

        my mind is open waiting for the evidence to prove it not a hoax.

  10. Jesse Wynhausen says :

    Greetings from Australia, a small but strategically important outpost of the Empire.

    All I can say is thank you, thank you, thank you for your laser beam of sanity cutting through the intellectual miasma. I knew Thrive was woo as soon as that guy said that garbage about “changing the atomic structure”. Well, I knew well before that, but then I knew I could easily prove it!

    I thought I would pass on an email I wrote to my very good friend who pressed upon me this toxic meme. I was forwarding it to another acquaintance who’s become caught in the sporific spell and it occurred to me that maybe you could have some kind of template for others to send to their Thrivers if you don’t already have such a thing? Basically just a “greatest hits” summary of Thrive Debunked. I’m sure there’s lots I’ve missed (would like to include something about that anti-semite fuckhead) and there’s some personal stuff that wouldn’t be relevant, but I thought I’d show you what I had done so far and I’d be happy to edit it with your suggestions if you like the idea?

    It’s got hyperlinks in it, so I can’t paste it in. And I assume you don’t give your email out because of the all the crazy fucks who threaten to hurt you. So here is a link to it – you have to download it for the links to work:

    Oh, and if you are an agent of darkness, I guess you can feel good about bagging another sucker. But in the same way I am thankful that God made me an atheist, I am glad I base my decisions on reason and evidence, even if I’m wrong.

    Thanks again,

    Jesse Dubya

  11. 2012_CT says :







    • muertos says :

      I am not a troll, academic or otherwise. The point of this blog is not and never has been to harass, annoy or provoke conflict with Thrive fans or the filmmakers and supporters. The purpose is to offer fact- and reason-based analysis as to why the claims of the film are wrong.

      • 2012_CT says :

        Muertos that’s what a academic troll does. Academic trolls use fact and reason against non-rational thinking (fringe thinking) groups and or individuals.

      • muertos says :

        I totally disagree with that term and I think it seriously mischaracterizes what’s going on here. A “troll” is someone who stirs up conflict for the sake of conflict, whether they use fact and reason or something else. The purpose of this blog is to inform people who are just discovering Thrive for the first time and who may not be aware that the movie’s facts and reasoning are incorrect and unsupportable. That’s definitely not “trolling” in any sense of the word.

      • 2012_CT says :

        It is what it is. I made up the term btw 😀

  12. Dan Burgens says :

    Your site has good information yet I really think Foster Gamble made some great points in his letter to you which you just turned around and instead of debating accused him of being a conspiracy theorist over and over again even in cases where he gives ample evidence. Your misunderstandings and reaction of his comments of being in a state based on violence and force really makes me question your own personal studies and motives. I recommend becoming familiar with Derrick Jensens work (He is without a doubt not a conspiracy theorist. )

    • Lee says :

      Mr Burgens, what evidence has Mr.Gamble shown in the movie Thrive?

      Conjectures, speculations, misrepresentations and outright lies are not evidence. You may question Mr. Muertos motive all you want, but the fact still remains that Mr. Gamble has not shown real evidence in the movie Thrive.

      I don’t deny that Thrive may have some good idea, but what good are those ideas when the presenters have no credibility because he/she believes in ridiculous, if not downright putridly anti semitic, conspiracy theories?

      If Mr.Gamble doesn’t want to be portrayed as conspiracy theorist then the burden is on him to disassociate himself and his movie from the like of David Icke or Eustace Mullins. If Mr.Gamble insists on associating his movie with people like them then he only has himself to blame for being portrayed as conspiracy theorist IMO.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      Read my posts above. I debunk many factual inaccuracies in Gamble’s post.

  13. duckiebro says :

    This blog is too full of douchebags who do not want to learn anything new, but only convert the world into their own image. I’m off to find a productive conversation!!

  14. Mason I. Bilderberg says :

    “Zero point energy (ZPE) represents the lowest possible energy state of the vacuum. Since the only way to extract energy from a system is to send it to a lower energy state, it suggests there is a problem with this idea.”

    If “something from nothing” (no-energy-in, only-energy-out) can occur naturally (In a vacuum, zero point energy), doesn’t that pose the problem of energy being created spontaneously (out of nothing) and continuously growing (outputting) at an uncontrollable (exponential) rate until it spirals out of control? Culminating in, what? Big bang-type of explosions? Happening all the time? Eveywhere? What?

    Why would “massive particles … appearing out of nothingness (vacuum)”, “last (only) a brief period of time” instead of continuing to produce something from nothing, growing exponentially, until the energy output situation “pops” like some kind of massive, big bang balloon?

    I think there is something about the original theory (something from nothing) not fully understood because we are not seeing what would naturally and necessarily follow such a circumstance.

  15. Nameless says :

    Apologies if these links may have been published before at this blog but I’d just like to point out that despite aiming his message at conspiracy theorists, Foster Gamble’s Thrive movement has been treated with some considerable suspicion within the conspiracy theory cultural milieu. For example:

    The goal of Agenda 21

    (Quote: “another hijacking of the activist movement by the ruling crime families”)

    Thrive Exposed

    Member of Family Closely Linked to Eugenics Movement Makes Film Promoting, Among Other Things, Free Energy
    Technology from Aliens
    (Comment : “Its just more propaganda and conditioning for the coming FAKE staged alien contact”)

    Thrive the Movie – Is NOT about Thriving at all! In my opinion, It sucks energy out of you and does not give any real solutions! It is an Elite controlled and made Movie – This is contrary to “popular” belief!

    So where Gamble reckons he’s taking Thrive I don’t know. Every day that passes it looks like more and more of a lost cause.

    • muertos says :

      Yes, you are correct–there is considerable distrust of Thrive in some conspiracy circles. The nutters who think Thrive is “Illuminati propaganda” are even nuttier than the people who think the movie’s conspiracies are true. Thanks for posting these links, they demonstrate just how far down the rabbit hole some of the more extreme members of the conspiracy community have gone.

      I get a big belly laugh every time I see a tinfoil hatter denounce Thrive because of the promotional poster. It’s the same stripe of nuttery as people claiming Lady Gaga is a tool of the Illuminati because she points at her eye sometimes in her videos. I just can’t even wrap my head around how people can take this kind of thing seriously. Bizarre.

      • Nameless says :

        Cheers, Muertos. Thanks to you for a highly informative and entertaining blog.

        My view is that, disregarding the batshit crazy theories of Thrive and its suspect political angle, the film itself as a piece of documentary film-making is somewhat dull and boring. The fact that Gamble tried to make it all seem reasonable is probably a drawback. It is hard to imagine how anyone can be convinced by Thrive, but even so it is still very much at the more conservative end of the spectrum when it comes to the whole New Age conspiracist culture.

        Sites like Camelot Productions site for instance and Project Avalon David Wilcock’s Divine Cosmos Ashtar Command Crew
        Lightworkers are all pushing the same sort of content, combining conspiracy theories with New Age / UFO superstitions, except they take things a lot further than Foster Gamble.

        The New Age conspiracist audience wants way out and wacky, the more so the better. That’s why they like David Icke because not only is he, unlike Gamble, an effective public speaker but he is not afraid to just come right out with it and say stuff that is totally insane. Icke has over the years contributed in no small way to the assimilation of conspiracy theories into the general New Age paradigm and it is all very dubious but at present there is relatively little debunking of it going on and as far as I can see it is only going to get more popular.

  16. Evil Elvis says :

    good job muertos, guy should’ve kept quiet – that way it would be possible to give him the benefit of a doubt, right now i am convinced he is just another merola wannabe in search of fame and profit (i wonder how long it will be before thrive starts selling coffee mugs like venus project).

  17. poopdollar says :

    This website is completely full of shit, Owned by Automatic……and who owns stock in automatic lets see……..
    Bank of America Corporation owns 10.48M shares worth $565.87M

    GOLDMAN SACHS owns 1.80M shares worth $99.09M

    Vanguard owns 23.91M shares worth $1.32B

    and many others its not hard to see that this thrive debunk garbage is another piece of disinformation against true good natured people trying to advance peace and prosperity. haha i laugh in your face 🙂

    • muertos says :

      So let me get this straight…because WordPress is owned by somebody I’ve never heard of, who you claim (without any evidence) is owned by somebody else, that makes this blog “disinformation”?

      What are we doing, playing “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon”?

      Where is your actual evidence that I’m being paid to spread “disinformation”? Please be specific.

    • Mason I. Bilderberg says :

      I have a checking account with Bank of America. Just sayin’.

  18. Zach says :

    I’m interested in the technologies. Setting the conspiracies aside, the technologies need to be focused upon. William Reiche’s orgone energy – what is the nature of this kind of energy? Science says that there is invisible matter, or dark energy. Is orgone related to this? What of invisible energy? What about Hadronic Mechanics? Some very interesting work being done with hadrons currently. I’m not interested in conspiracies. I’m interested in what works and what does not work. What is the next step for science? There are many different sciences and solutions to look into. I don’t think about it as ‘secret’ or ‘inside information.’ I just look at what’s out there. Here is a site on orgone energy. Forgetting about chemtrails and such that is mentioned, what about the actual orgonite? The research preceded the conspiracy theorists. Focus on the actual research, and leave the conspiracy garbage out would be my suggestion.

    • muertos says :

      I have no problem with legitimate research. However, Thrive is not advocating legitimate research. It claims quite clearly (and quite falsely) that “free energy” machines already exist, already work and the only thing left standing in the way of energy abundance is the evil conspiracy of the “Global Domination Agenda.” I don’t see that message as having anything to do with the kind of research you’re talking about. So, in that sense, I agree with you completely.

      • Zach says :

        Yes Muertos, this is the weakness of the movie. They need to specifically go into the technologies. If someone does not specifically lay out the science, they should not claim conspiracy theories. Anyone making such theories needs to be able to factually back these theories up with vast amounts of scientific proof.

    • Zach says :

      I separate all the conspiracies out. What are the facts? How much money do the Rothchilds and others like them have? Do people with massive amounts of money use their money to make laws to force upon others? Has this factually happened in the past? I’m not saying there is a conspiracy. I’m just looking at what goes on with people who have massive amounts of money. To say that only conspiracy theorists can watch Thrive is very inaccurate. Anyone can watch Thrive, whether or not they are conspiracy theorists. There is no black and white. It’s not cut and dry at all.

      And once again, the heart of the issue: Anyone can make a conspiracy theory based upon a technology being developed, whether in the present day or in the past. What about the actual technology itself though? Once again, separate followers from the actual development. Ruggero Maria Santilli said, “Separate Einstein from Einstein followers.”

      • Zach says :

        Some very interesting technologies are being developed now, and they are not being stopped. If a really powerful technology is developed, this technology cannot be suppressed.

      • juliano says :

        I have tried to find the source for that interesting quote “Ruggero Maria Santilli said, “Separate Einstein from Einstein followers.””. I cannot find it via Google. How did you come about it please?

  19. driver49 says :

    Since I have some experience in the are (have written two books that touch on alternative energy themes) I was asked to participate in a panel discussion of “Thrive” this evening.

    I don’t think it went all that well for me. I don’t think the audience of community activists took too kindly to my blunt efforts to describe the two hours they’d just spend as “eye candy” at best and an outright hoax at worst.

    At one point I estimated that the budget for this film most have approached $10-million (there is as LOT of CGI and that stuff does not come cheap).

    I suggested that if Forrest Gamble etal really wanted to make their point, than rather than make a costly propaganda film, he could have taken that amount of money and built one of the “free energy” machines he says he has seen so many of. With a little more money he could afford to protect himself and his family from the violent forces of suppression he alludes to throughout the movie.

    But you know that’s not going to happen, because that’s not what this movie is about. It’s not really about finding a clean and health way to in habit the Earth.

    This movie is about confronting the “Global Domination Agenda” with what might be called the “Norquist Agenda” – making government so small that it could fit in a bathtub, where the likes of Forrest Gamble could drown it.

    It’s propaganda, pure and simple. Ayn Rand would be pleased.

    • muertos says :

      I have not been to a Thrive screening or discussion and I have no plans to do so, but from what I’ve heard the people who attend them absolutely don’t want to hear any perspective that conflicts with the movie’s conspiracist mindset or its libertarian propaganda.

      Conspiracy theorists are notoriously intolerant of any alternative viewpoint. They become hostile at even the slightest suggestion of dissent. If the Thrive fans were really interested in a constructive dialogue of any kind, they would squelch this tendency, but they don’t. I tend to think your appreciation of their mindset is pretty accurate.

      • driver49 says :

        Yes, I’ve had more than my share of exposure to the whole “conspiracist mindset” ( So that’s what I find most disturbing about the movie: that it so effectively exploits the good intentions of its well-meaning audience, starting with 30 mesmerizing minutes of CGI animated whirling cosmic donuts. It’s hard to tell people who truly want to believe there is a clear path to a better world that they’ve been hypnotized — and duped.

      • Zach says :

        I guess I’m an exception. I go back and forth between conspiracies and debunking. I look to see what both sides say. What do you think of Santilli’s developments? He may be legit; don’t know. His mathematics are quite interesting.

  20. maja says :

    Why is it so difficult to imagine that infinite amounts of energy could be extracted from space? Everything is constantly moving in our universe, and supposedly energy is required to cause all these rotations, motions, etc? A whole lot of energy everywhere, no? The universe as we observe it is a perpetuum mobile, no? I realize this is an extremely simplistic explanation/view but isn’t that the bottom line? I am not a scientists obviously, but to me, finding ways to access the energy in space is much more logical than digging up dead matter from the earth and burning it, or extracting it from rivers by clotting them… Space seems like such an obvious place to harvest energy from that it is completely dumbfounding why this area of study has not been pursued much more aggressively and intensively by every single physicist/scientist/engineer all over the world, but is instead some kind of “fringe science”?

    Oh but wait, someone did access energy from space (or rather the ionosphere, I think) – Nikola Tesla – over 100 years ago. And when he put his plan in motion to set up towers to provide free energy for the entire planet, someone stopped him. Oh right. It was JP Morgan. Hmm. And interestingly all of his papers and work on such issues are simply absent, missing from the public domain? The work of one of the most brilliant scientists of our time is simply made unavailable for others to study, pursue and expand upon.

    • muertos says :

      Where is the actual evidence that these things are true? Thrive presents none, and you have presented none. You can lay around all day imagining magical machines that divine energy from outer space. But those machines are meaningless unless you can build them in the real world.

      Why is it unreasonable to ask for proof of these things?

      • driver49 says :

        It’s not “difficult to imagine” anything. Actually demonstrating a concept, that’s a might harder.

        One of the points I made after the screening here in Nashville last week was that if the Gambles really want to prove the viability of “free energy,” then rather than spend $10-million on hypnotic CG-eye candy, they could have spent a fraction of that building one of the machines they show in the movie, and still had plenty left over to mount the necessary promotional campaign AND protect themselves from any nefarious forces that might try to thwart them.

        That they chose instead to make what amounts to a propaganda movie demonstrates that their agenda is not to reveal the source of “free energy,” but to use the mythology to promote their ideology.

        And speaking of mythology.. poor Tesla. There is just no end to the myths and fables that are layered on top of what he really did achieve. Chief among these is the notion that he was going to “access energy from space.”

        What Tesla wanted to demonstrate at Wardenclyffe was that he could TRANSMIT electricity without wires. The source of the actual electricity he was going to transmit was a series of dynamos right there at Wardenclyffe.

        As for the business about Morgan shutting Wardenclyffe down because the result would be “too cheap to meter” or would eliminate the need for copper wires… more mythology.

        It’s sad how people can compel themselves to believe what they want to believe. And then along comes a movie that validates those beliefs.

        Except they are not valid to begin with.

      • Zach says :

        Here is some proof, either for or against. This website has extensive and specific information for building such devices, and also shows that these devices do not violate physical laws. I will quote a bit of the introduction, and then paste the website below this quote:

        “This is a very interesting field and the topic is quite absorbing once you get past the “it has to be impossible” attitude. We were once told that it would be impossible to cycle at more than 15 mph as the wind pressure would prevent the cyclist from breathing. Do you want to stay with that type of ‘scientific’ expert? Have some fun – discover the facts.

        There are many, many interesting devices and ideas already on the web. This site does not mention them all by any means. What it does, is take some of what are in my opinion, the most promising and interesting items, group them by category, and attempt to describe them clearly and without too many technical terms. If you are not familiar with electronics, then some items may be difficult to understand. In that case, I suggest that you start with Chapter 12 and go through it in order, moving at whatever speed suits you, before examining the other sections. I hope you enjoy what you read.”

      • JG says :

        “We were once told that it would be impossible to cycle at more than 15 mph as the wind pressure would prevent the cyclist from breathing.” Lol what? I’ve never heard that one before. I’m wondering to whom, when, and where this claim was ever made. So weird.

        I did go to his site, however. I clicked on Chapter 15 about why a free energy device isn’t sold locally. I was going to copy/paste the opener but he’s secured the article so I can’t do that. Whatever, I’m used to crazy people being afraid of having their work criticized. Take a read for yourself and consider whether you are a child, stolen from birth, whose birth certificate is proof of this.

      • Zach says :

        There are several hundreds of pages of very detailed information. I was able to print off the pages just fine. I’m sure if you contact the author yourself and ask to use his information he would be glad to help you. Many authors make their documents unchangeable because they don’t want others changing their information etc. I don’t know what birth certificates have to do with this. As for him being ‘crazy,’ I can’t make any judgements one way or the other, as I don’t know his mental history. Your ad hominem attack on the author, however, indicates that you are more interested in creating drama and distraction instead of actual scientific inquiry.

      • JG says :

        Oh c’mon – ad hominem? Wah-wah. Look, I realize my online persona can be abrasive to some people, but I brought up to items – (1) I’ve never heard of “experts” arguing that cycling faster than 15mph could prevent breathing; and (2), the author’s assertion in Chapter 15 that I was born a slave to the state – that neither you nor the author can really address. If you are offended by my calling him crazy, then I apologize. But I don’t think people who make outrageous claims should think playing the victim absolves them of criticism.

        But you’re right. I don’t know that he’s actually crazy by any medical standard. All I can say is that he has similar features to people who, in my experience, are crazy. For example, the opener to Chapter 15 in which he says that I am a piece of chattel, a slave to the government. Sounds pretty paranoid to me. What’s his proof? My birth certificate. Huh? Another example? The fact that he’s protected his pdf from any copying. It sounds innocuous at first, but consider why he would want to protect his work. He’s afraid people are going to steal it. I write too. You can click on my name if you want to read a blog about Excel and operations research (I won’t be offended if you don’t click 😉 ). I would be upset if someone took my work and passed it off as their own, but of what interest is it to me to prevent people from simply copying my work to cite it? Muertos has no such restrictions on his blog. Even Gamble doesn’t prevent people from reproducing parts of his work. Now think about the people on YouTube who file false copyright claims against legitimate reproductions. If you don’t want to call those people “crazy,” that’s your right. But I can’t help but think people who go out of their way to prevent you from reproducing their work are kinda off.

        If you read more of Chapter 15, you’ll see that he mentions how Operations Research (OR) is used nefariously to keep the new world order in power by creating mathematical models to predict and control shocks to the economy. We’re in luck though, because as it turns out I am an Operations Research Analyst. I’ve done work OR for the military and the private sector. And I can tell you rather definitely that I am unaware of the existence of OR ever being used in this way for any such models. For one, the author seems to have way more faith in the effectiveness of our work than we have. A common saying in our field (first quipped by Jay Forrester) is “all models are wrong, some are useful.” This is because we cannot control for everything, models necessarily simplify reality. Economic shocks, by the way, present a real challenge, because they are catalyzing, nonlinear events. By their nature they are unpredictable, so being able to predict a shock seems paradoxical. Crazy, right? You might also be interested in the Random Walk Hypothesis ( which says that stock markets are inherently unpredictable. Seriously, I kinda think the weather is easier to predict than the economy.

        Ok, one last point, I promise. If you consider what the opener of Chapter 15 is suggesting about me (and you) is that I (we) aren’t smart enough to know what’s really going on. He’s suggesting that I have no real agency. I’m a mindless sheeple incapable of knowing when someone is taking advantage of me. If only I was intelligent enough to connect the dots! Doesn’t that sound a bit ad hominem-y? The author thinks I’m an idiot!

        One of these days, I’ll get around to writing my dream manuscript on thinking critically when evaluating data analytics. I’ll definitely have a chapter on detecting BS claims. Until then, here are some pointers. One thing to look for is someone who pretends that his (or her) mountain of work/research means he must have some expertise. Foster Gamble tried this one when he said “this movie is the product of 10 years of research.” David Wilcok of Divine Cosmos often talks about how much time he’s spent on his research, how many stacks of pages of he’s printed out for his book, yada yada. I’m not sure why we’re supposed to think that’s impressive. Another BS indicator is when people prevent you from citing their work. In the academic world, citations drive research. Everything we do is almost always based on someone else’s work. For anyone truly interested in advancing science, there’s no reason not to make your work public. One last bs indicator is when people try to make definitive claims outside their realm of expertise. Why would someone who writes about electronics and free energy spend time making definitive claims about people being chattel? That all land ownership is fake? (oh yeah, he makes that claim too) What does this have to with my not being able to buy a free energy machine at my local store? In other words, there are very few people who are experts on everything. These bs indicators by themselves won’t prove inaccurate information or lies. Instead, they’re tests to see the degree to which the author insulates their work against criticism. Which should lead you to the ultimate question: why so afraid of criticism?

      • Zach says :

        I’m not sure what ‘experts’ say about bicycles and if you are going to use this as an argument that the author is basically full of it, that’s pretty cheap. If you are going to skim chapter 15 and find some information to take out of context to try to make the guy sound like a nut-job, this is also cheap and unfair. I’m sure that there is a logical fallacy for using information out of context as well to futher a biased point of view against the author. Ah yes, this logical fallacy is as follows: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy” or “quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Very good! You have committed yet another logical fallacy! Very scientific of you!

        And as for OR and so forth, I really don’t care. Just because you work in a sector and so forth doesn’t make you the ultimate authority. And once again, I really don’t care about this conspiracy stuff anymore. I care about the science. So what if the author has political views (the NWO view is a political view) that are considered by some to be politically incorrect and so forth? Big deal. You using chapter 15 to negate all the other chapters is totally ridiculous.

      • JG says :

        I’m not sure what you want from me. The bicycle argument is presented as reason to give this guy’s work consideration…because, hey, science has been wrong before, right? (doesn’t that sound like a logical fallacy?) But I can’t even find one source to establish experts have ever made claims that going over 15 mph will obstruct breathing. And if the author’s reason for why I should give him consideration is based on something that he submits was consensus — though I can’t find any consensus let alone factual basis that anyone, anywhere, who has ever made this claim — why should I believe anything he says? Right out the door he can’t even establish his opening argument. I mean, c’mon.

        Now as for quote mining, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I never quoted anything he said. Remember why? BECAUSE I CAN’T. I would absolutely love, LOVE to quote some of the juicier experts of Chapter 15. But here’s an idea, Zach: go read Chapter 15. Everyone reading this right now, go to the website Zach listed and read Chapter 15. Let me know what you think. Actually, wait, here’s a random quote (page 15-35): (I typed it myself)

        Briefly, it was discovered that an economy obeyed the same laws as electricity and that all of the mathematical theory and practical and computer know-how developed for the electronic field could be directly applied in the study of economics. This discovery was not openly declared, and its more subtle implicates were, and are, kept as a closely guarded secret, for example, in an economic model, human life is measured in dollars, and that the electric spark generated when opening a switch connected to an active inductor is mathematically the same as starting a war.

        If you or anyone can explain this to me, I’m listening. Specifically, I’m interested in what “mathematically the same as starting a war” means.

      • Zach says :

        I would suggest to anyone who goes to the link to first read the intro, and then maybe chapter 12 to learn about how to assemble electronics, and then read chapters 1 and onward. Seriously, I myself haven’t even looked at chapter 15 and nothing that you are writing has stood out to me at all. As for the bicycle argument, I haven’t read that myself but it looks like he was trying to show examples of how in the past science has made certain assumptions that were at a later time proven to be untrue. If there is no such example in history, ok maybe he made an error; big deal. It’s true though that there have historically been all kinds of crazy claims that have been said to be scientifically true that were false, and vice-versa.

        As for the economy, again I’m not interested in that. If you want to use his views on the economy and politics and slanted mathematics (in either direction) to discredit all the inventions he has cited, then you do so out of context, and this is your own mistake. You took parts of chapter 15 out of context by basically insinuating that any inventions and schematics must also be wrong. This is a classic example of using parts of his writings out of context to say that nothing else he writes can be true. We live in a world that isn’t so black-and-white. If you want to live in a black-and-white world, that’s your business, but don’t expect others to go along with you when you say that anyone who has alternative political views is a quack in every other possible way.

        I don’t want anything from you and I find this most unproductive as you haven’t even looked at the schematics at all and instead want to focus on a bicycle and politics. Quite unproductive indeed.

      • anticultist says :

        “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence” – Christopher Hitchens

        Hence why zach’s claims get dismissed.

    • JG says :

      I don’t expect everyone to go along with me either. Listen everyone and listen good:


      I’m pretty confident that the objective observer will find Chapter 15 is dripping with paranoia. But I’m not sure why you’re “back peddling” (oh no! enough what the damn cycling analogy!) on your own source. Are you really saying that I (and everyone else) should ignore Chapter 15? Seriously, I just clicked on a random chapter of the source you said I should read. Now you say I’m using it out of context? C’mon – it’s your source! Look, you said your link is proof one way or the other; I say ‘the other’: it’s proof that people who believe in this stuff are sometimes cranks. Chapter 15 is my support. GO READ IT.

      Also, as someone who has taken a circuits and physics class or two, I would not recommend reading Chapter 12 for a proper understanding of circuits. The author suggests that “nobody knows what voltage is.” I hope nobody believes this. Voltage is a mathematical description of an observable physical property, namely work. Voltage is the potential energy required to move an electrical charge from one end of circuit to the other. The author says we don’t where voltage comes from. But voltage is just a way for us Humans to describe electricity mathematically (see Ohms Law), it isn’t like dark energy whose existence is yet unexplained.

      • Greg says :

        I haven’t read the entire website yet that Zach posted, but there is a mistake already in paragraph #2. It says on the front page: “The electrons in the molecules of rock formations have been spinning steadily for millions of years without stopping – at what point will you agree that they are in perpetual motion?” This is a simplistic understanding of electron “spin.” “Spin” used in QM is not a physical spin. Electrons aren’t spinning in a physical sense. The term spin is used, but what they mean is “intrinsic angular momentum.” Like “mass” and “charge,” spin is just another intrinsic property of the electron. There is no spinning involved at all, and thus no need for perpetual energy. This kind of simplistic understanding of Quantum Mechanics is concerning. There is no way to know –unless I read it— what the rest of the site says. I still plan on doing that. I just thought I’d make this observation.

      • Zach says :

        You are using chapter 15 to say that he’s a crackpot. Because he has certain political views may not be considered the norm, the rest of his material must also be complete bunk and garbage. This is what you are using chapter 15 for to say.

        There have been scientists, both presently and previously, who are religious and/or have various other belief systems about reality that are not scientific, although they themselves are excellent scientists. Just because chapter 15 has a conspiracy mind-set view, you say that the author must also be incorrect with his technology. This is using material out of context to try to make the author look like a quack with the rest of his material – his technologies.

        I don’t care what the person believes about politics and God and so forth. If the person has technologies being developed, or diagrams for technologies to be developed, then even if the author believes that yellow pigeons created the world 500 years ago, I will still take a look at the diagrams and the scientific work, because such scientific work has nothing to do with pigeons who created the world 500 years ago. You, however, only look at his political views to discredit the rest of his material. The rest of the author’s material has nothing to do with political views at all, yet you only use chapter 15 to say he’s completely full of it.

        You also took his description about voltage out of context. I have not read all of chapter 12, but I have not yet found any reference to any mysticism or dark energy being attributed to voltage whatsoever. The behavior of a force can be measured mathematically. This does not mean that the force itself is fully known. It just means that the behavior and mathematical behaviors and results of the force can be measured and analyzed.

      • Zach says :

        Greg, Hadronic Mechanics is actually showing that much of QM is fuzzy math that is unproven, and that general relativity is not applicable under all conditions. This is out of my league of course, but I’m sure that the author would be happy to answer any questions.

      • JG says :

        Zach, you may want to read this critique of Kelly’s eBook, A Practical Guide to ‘Free Energy’ Devices (aka “D9”), from a moderator at the All About Circuits forum:

        I particularly liked this part of the critique, so I’ve excerpted it below for all to read:

        5. Failure conditions

        The slickest part of the D9 document are all the gotchas that invalidate you efforts and expenditures. Right at the beginning, it is made clear that the author “is not recommending that you build any of these devices, and he disclaims any responsibility whatsoever should you decide to do so against his advice”. The man has just told you not to do it, and then goes on to explain how to do it. Seems to be a little conflict there.

        If you breezed past the advice not to do it, then a close read of the first paragraph on page 11 following the “Bob Boyce’s Pulsed Electrolyser System” header should slow you down. We see that “in order to get Bob’s performance of 600% to 1,000% of the Faraday (supposed) maximum gas output, each step needs to be carried out carefully exactly as described”. Ther are lots of steps, and anything less than perfect duplication means you wasted you time.

        (Funny, the efficiency figure becomes 1,200% later on in the document)

        The paragraph following the above with the header “Your Responsibility” is there to tell you that no matter what, if the electrolyzer doesn’t work, it is your problem. You were told no to make one, after all.

        If this isn’t enough, there is a further disclaimer on page 20., the third paragraph. It tells you that no matter how careful you are in the construction, all such devices are somehow different. It is left to you to discover just why it doesn’t work.

        Page 30 is mostly a set of conditions leading to disaster. The whole purpose is to put the miserable failure of this device on your shoulders. If you proceed, then the paragraph following “Positioning the Electronics” sets up yet another level of failure. Note the lack of labelling at the termials on the bridge rectifier. Hook it up backwards (easy to do) and all your work is for naught. I don’t trust the filter capacitor polarities as a definitive guide to go by. I see this vagueness as a way to set the builder up for a ruinous mistake (we told you not to build it!).

        It should be clear by now that this is a scam. No matter what you do, the device will not work. It violates the laws of nature. The reason why it is so finicky to put together and so minutely detailled is that it is designed to leave you blaming yourself for the failure. You have absolutely no chance to make one of these things work. The D9 document tells you so.

      • Zach says :

        You are dead set on trying to make this look like a scam. I found nothing wrong with the reading. I found the way he said that you do this at your own risk to be comical and nothing else. As far as the efficiency goes, he said that if you make further alterations you can get greater output. Despite all of your posts trying to make this look like a scam by slanting everything to your biases, you still have failed to even try making such devices.

        With your latest reply, you try to use the author’s sense of humor against him to make him look bad. This is getting quite ridiculous. You don’t even make the devices. You are just waste time trying to make him look bad. You need to build the devices, and see if they work or not. If you are unwilling to do this, then what business do you have making conclusions about it? You haven’t even built anything in the diagrams and tried it out. Instead you look for petty little excuses to try to bash the author. Pathetic.

      • anticultist says :

        zach refusing to accept rebuttals of his pseudoscience here as normal.

        He has done this all over the page and has not once provided any credible evidence for one of his claims.

        This is zachs modu operandi, post unsubstantiated claims from non scholarly sources, will not provide any other evidence from experts in the field that back it up, and ignore any counters to his claims claiming people to be using some kind of agenda/bias or ignorance.

        He does not understand this:

  21. maja says :

    So weird, because I don’t remember saying in my post that such machines exist. I personally have no idea whether they do or not. Or are you asking me to provide evidence that everything in the universe is in motion? I’m merely saying that it seems logical to me that science should be pursuing this line of research, and I’m simply posing a rhetorical question as to why isn’t this the most urgent type of research going on in global mainstream science today?

    As for Tesla and the mythology surrounding him, perhaps there wouldn’t be so much “mythology” (although I disagree with the use of the term in this case), if all of his papers, research, models, drawings, equations etc. that were left behind were openly available in the public domain. But they are not. Where are they? Again, just a question. Are we to believe that this guy that devoted his entire life to his work just somehow lost everything? Where is it?

    I am not even postulating a conspiracy here, I am merely asking a couple of very basic questions. My point being that perhaps if we had Tesla’s full documentation open to the public, we would know exactly how far along he got in his research and experiments, there would be no mystery around it, and if all scientists today had the funding and backing they needed and collaborated globally to work to develop these theories into realities and build upon the foundations that Tesla laid out, then we might have a very different world. And so I ask a question yet again – why is this not happening?

    • Face says :


      Why haven’t we seen any real solutions to the energy problem (or other major world problems)? What would happen if the governments, corporations and wealthy elite of the world say: “We are going to allocate 5 trillion dollars solely to discover endlessly renewable clean energy?”

      Never mind, that wouldn’t happen, there are lots more totally rational and necessary wars to fight and people to kill.

  22. Zach says :

    I have referenced two very detailed sources of information regarding alternative technologies. If you are truly scientific, you will thoroughly investigate this matter. However, all I’m getting is no response, or immature reactions. If you are truly scientific, you will look into these developments, and leave out the name-calling and other immature reactions. What’s worse than a conspiracy theorist is an immature scientist who bashes the characters and works of others, yet has no detailed proof to support the attacks. If you cannot give any intelligent responses to the specific information I have referenced, then indeed, you are even worse than wack-job conspiracy theorists. Once again, I am re-posting them:

    • muertos says :

      I’ve received over 1,700 comments to this blog, many of them with links that their authors demand that I pay attention to. What makes yours any more worth my time than theirs?

      If you claim you have the science to prove that free energy exists, why don’t you build one of these magical machines and demonstrate it in front of the world by letting experts examine it and verify that it does what you say it does? Wouldn’t that be a much better way to prove your point correct than putting up a few lectures on some obscure web site?

      More importantly, why didn’t Foster Gamble or any of the people in his movie who run around shrieking about “free energy” devices do this?

      All talk. No action. Put a working free energy device physically in front of me and let me (and the world of peer-reviewed science) see how and why it does what you say it can do. When you do that, I’ll take down everything on this blog I’ve ever said about free energy. Until then you’re some guy cut and pasting links into blog comments, which is no different than the conspiracy nutters do with their InfoWars, Prison Planet and Above Top Secret links.

      • Zach says :

        Out of all the comments on this your latest post on your blog, there are only maybe 1 or 2 comments being posted every day. You have no excuse to not take a look at the links. You have taken a look at the links of others who comment (which are low-quality ones for the most part), yet you cop-out of the links I post.

        I myself have absolutely no experience working with mechanics and no motivation to work with mechanics whatsoever. However, I have found real people in the real world who I have shown this information to, and they are interested in building such devices. Today I printed off the material for someone who is very good at mechanics. He is very interested and I look forward to seeing what will happen next.

        So, to say that I am all-talk an no action is inaccurate. I take the action of directing others to take the action who are skilled and motivated to build such devices so that something may actually happen.

        You tell that I am all talk and no action, yet all you do is try to downplay others while placing yourself on a pedestal. I really don’t care if Thrive is just another agenda and has misleading or biased information on certain subjects. At least they mention such devices and can get people motivated who are good with mechanics and so forth to actually give it a shot. You, however, are not even interested in giving it a shot at all. You appear to only be interested in trying to give such explorations a bad reputation in the name of ‘science.’

        Perhaps one day such devices will be put in front of your face and you will change your mind. In the meantime, maybe you could work on being more open minded to alternatives and give them a shot yourself (if you are scientifically inclined, motivated, and able).

    • driver49 says :

      I’m with Muertos on this one. If you want to change the world, you do it with the actual machines, not movies with fancy animations. The website links are no more conclusive than the CG-eye candy in “Thrive.” I know all about “the absence of proof is no proof of absence…” But it’s still not proof.

      • Zach says :

        The links I posted provide the actual schematics for building such devices, and I have referred others who are skilled and motivated to experiment with making these devices. I guess that you would have to actually read the material and not just skim over a couple paragraphs to see that it has actual applications to real machinery and therefore to the real world.

    • maja says :

      zach, I looked at your links they are very interesting! tons of info and i haven[‘t had a chance yet to go through it all. It made me wish I was an electro technical geek…. I am not, but i will be passing this info to people who are 🙂

  23. driver49 says :

    No, Zach. Schematics are like CGI. It’s drawings, animations, and can be maniuplated to “represent” _anything_. There are hundreds of drawings — maybe thousands — of such (theoretical) devices THAT SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST in the actual world.

    “I myself have absolutely no experience working with mechanics and no motivation to work with mechanics whatsoever. However, I have found real people in the real world who I have shown this information to, and they are interested in building such devices. ”

    If you have “absolutely no experience” with mechanics, etc, then you have NO basis on which to arrive at your conclusions. If you are leaving it to individuals more skilled (and knowledgeable, I presume) than yourself to build one of these things, then great, let us know when it’s done and we’ll come over and see it (along with an army of peer reviewers).

    Until there is such a device, it’s all just talk, drawings, models, CGI, and pipe dreams.

    Build something, and we will all come.

    • Zach says :

      Hahaha! Did I once say that I arrived at any conclusion. No, I did not. You are putting words in my mouth. So many logical fallacies! lol!

      Schematics can be applied to the real world, and my friend who is excellent with mechanics is going to apply this and see what happens. As for others who have or have not made such devices in the past, I remain neutral and arrive at no conclusion. You, however, seem to have already arrived at your conclusion. Ah, but you haven’t even tried making what is detailed in the schematics, have you? Interesting. At least I let someone know about it who is skilled in the area of mechanics.

      Perhaps you should pay Santilli a visit, and perhaps I should make a blog called “Thrive Debunked – Debunked.”

      • muertos says :

        Please do make a blog called “Thrive Debunked Debunked.” We could use the publicity. I can think of several people off the top of my head who would love to write for it. You could even contact Foster Gamble. Maybe you could get his official blessing. Good luck keeping out the nutters though–the ones who would use it to accuse me of being a “paid disinformation agent” and churn more conspiracy nonsense that will make you look like a kook, no matter how rational or well-intentioned you think you are going into the project.

        I look forward to that blog. I think I’ll find it very entertaining.

      • Zach says :

        I could have quite a bit of fun with it, but I’m not entirely pro-Thrive either. I’ll just leave it be. My debunking though would basically consist of showing that you haven’t specifically debunked certain technologies and claims to factual information in Thrive (conspiracies set aside) and that you resorted to labeling anyone who agrees with the documentary on any level as being a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

  24. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    Greetings driver49!

    During the years 1998 through middle 2003, I lived in Franklin and taught undergrad physics labs at Vanderbilt. So your report of the screening of THRIVE at the Belcourt near Vandy made me nostalgic for the Tennessee chapter of my life. I then rattled my old Nashville-Brentwood-Franklin network and had you quickly and easily identified.

    I call your attention to this article here on Muertos’ blog

    You will read the testimony of one David Farnsworth about how his energy device was hijacked for THRIVE by one Adam Trombly. Does this scenario sound familiar to you? A hard-working inventor whose device gets taken for a ride and co-opted by others? Like Rodney Dangerfield, he just can’t get no respect.

    I know that you will be especially interested to learn that David Farnsworth was cheated in THRIVE in a way strikingly parallel to the way another inventor was cheated by General Sarnoff of RCA & NBC.

    Indeed we could make the case for something in the genes. For you see, David Farnsworth is a great-nephew of one Philo T. Farnsworth whom David as a child used to call Grandpa.

    Please email me at and I will give you David Farnsworth’s phone number. I know you two will have a lot to talk about.

    • driver49 says :

      Mr. HT,

      Thanks for looking me up… and for all the connections and links. I’m not hard to find, I don’t really hide behind pseudonyms and avatars.

      What did you hear about the Nashville screening, anything? Was a bit of a fiasco from my perspective.

      I don’t know if the analogy btw Sarnoff/Farnsworth applies to Twombly/Farnsworth. In the former case, the technology that was appropriated was viable, vital, seminal, and indispensable. I really know know if the same could said for the latter.

      I have had some contact with David Farnsworth over the years. Granted it’s been a while, but suffice it to say I really have no interest in renewing the relationship.

      I’ll nevertheless contact you at the e-mail address you’ve offered.


      –PS (aka “driver49”)

  25. Face says :


    You are doing an admirable job of making the same logical fallacies that you accuse Gamble of making. I can understand your desire to see rock solid proof of the claims Gamble is making and to withhold belief until such surfaces. Yet the fact that you attack every comment/proposal/question as being based in the fictitious bubble world of conspiracy without recognizing your own lack of perspective is astonishing.

    You are basically saying that any information that doesn’t fit within your world view as shaped by sources you consider to be legitimate is not valid information and that people should not waste their time looking into it.

    Yet, how do you define what is valid? Have you given any definition of what is legitimate and illegitimate information? Or is it like obscenity, you just know it when you see it? Is it because “respected” people say something it is valid (but only if those respected people do not believe in any “conspiracy theories”)? Because the scientific “proof” says its valid (but only if the science does not support a “conspiracy theory”)? How many scientific truisms have been invalidated as we learn more about our universe and how it works?

    Really, to assume that we even have a remotely solid grasp of how the universe works is to presuppose that we know what the universe really is, what it is made of, why things are the way they are. How do you know for sure that the instruments we are using to formulate our “laws” of the universe give us any kind of accurate picture into that universe? How do you know for sure that these instruments will give the same measurements a couple hundred years from now? You don’t, and couldn’t know. And yet you rely on what you believe to be credible scientific proof to establish unwavering “laws” of the universe that can’t be broken even when hundreds of people have claimed to do so, as Gamble’s evidence amply illustrates. We have physicists saying that there are 11 dimensions of reality (which I’m sure you find credible since they are not “conspiracy” physicists), but you can’t even allow for the possibility of some energy source that we don’t yet understand? You call this pragmatic, rational, skeptical thinking. I call it having no imagination and a closed mind.

    You want real world solutions, but you think it is a waste of time to strive for solutions that would actually solve the world’s problems on a much more vast and complete scale? You don’t think human imagination, intuition, energy, intelligence can achieve results that we would consider miraculous? Sounds like something someone 100 years ago would say about the personal computer, nuclear power, the cell phone, or any other breakthrough that would literally be considered the work of a higher power in 1912.

    So basically you want people to unite so that they can administer bandaids to festering wounds, rather than actually try to cure the infection, because you think curing the infection is delusional. I donate to charities, my favorite is Save the Children. On a personal level, this can be incredibly satisfying and an individual can die fulfilled and at peace knowing that they improved one life on this earth. But it borders on the lunatic to think that just donating to charity or volunteering at a soup kitchen will actually solve the problems of the world. We know it will take concerted effort and we know that it will cost a lot of time and wealth. Yet in a relative sense, it wouldn’t take that much. It is entirely reasonable that, for less than the GDP of the United States, we could end world hunger and provide solutions for safe drinking water and distributed electricity for everyone on earth.

    Do you have any meaningful reason for why this hasn’t yet happened? I don’t claim to know the truth, but certainly it seems frightening that people with wealth and influence haven’t at least attempted to truly solve some of the most pressing issues. I guess you would just attribute this to greed, but that seems quite simplistic when we are talking institutions, governments, and people who collectively literally have trillions of dollars of wealth to solve the earths problems. There are many possible explanations of course, but when you look at the magnitude of the worlds problems, global elite conspiracy isn’t that far down on the list.

    I mean seriously, if you think campaign finance reform is going to rid the government of corruption, if you think that ending corporate personhood is going to stop corporate destruction of the environment, then you are naive. If you completely refuse to examine the possibility of conspiracies which actively produce the very problems which you seek to resolve, then you are ignorant. This thinking reminds me of the bible people in high school who argued that we don’t need to figure out how to solve the world’s environmental problems because god gave us the earth to use and god will always provide. You are taking human agency out of the equation and relying on institutional/systemic theories to explain why the world is in such a sorry state. That may be true for the grunt at the bottom “just doing his job,” but it does not take into account that every institution on earth ultimately has a relatively few people making the important decisions, even in corrupt “democracies” like the US.

    There is no doubt that criminal conspiracies exist. Criminal law recognizes the concept and the real world existence of conspiracies and has put many people in jail as a result. Given that you agree that government and corporate corruption exists: to completely and unequivocally dismiss the possibility that some of those with the ability to influence presidents, queens and parliaments would not get together to enhance their wealth and influence without a care for the human and environmental consequences of their actions, is, for lack of a better word, insane.

    • muertos says :

      The charge of “closed-mindedness,” which is often made against me, doesn’t impress me. For one thing, it’s mostly a chimera. To the extent it’s a valid concept in this context, however, it’s inaccurate.

      Example: “free energy.” I’ve stated numerous times on this blog that free energy violates the laws of physics as we understand them. Nevertheless, despite this, I’ve also stated numerous times on this blog that if Adam Trombly, John Bedini or others who claim to have invented “free energy” machines will build those machines and demonstrate them in a public forum, in front of scientists, in such a way that the capabilities of their machines can be proven, explained, verified and replicated, not only will I delete this entire blog, but I’ll join the effort to make such machines widely affordable and available.

      This is exactly the opposite of being closed-minded. I don’t believe these machines are capable of doing what their supposed inventors claim they do. But, despite this belief, I’m absolutely willing to accept their existence unconditionally, so long as their existence can be proven.

      Strangely, not a single Thrive fan has ever credited me with being “open-minded” for taking this stance. Instead, I’m supposedly “closed-minded” for not accepting on faith, and the say-so of spurious and unreliable sources like Foster Gamble, that these machines exist–as if asking for evidence is somehow unreasonable.

      Conversely, I could make the charge of “closed-mindedness” against Foster Gamble in every bit the same way as defenders of Thrive make the charge against me.

      Why does Foster Gamble dismiss out of hand, without the slightest hint of scholarly investigation, the possibility that ancient Egyptians could have build the pyramids or that societies around the world independently discovered the “Flower of Life” design? He’s being closed-minded!

      Why does Foster Gamble reject the possibility and deny the evidence that clever and creative human beings, most of whom live in England, create beautiful and mathematically complex crop circle designs with a few simple tools and a knowledge of basic geometry? He’s being closed-minded!

      Why does Foster Gamble scoff at the idea that the September 11 attacks were done by a group of highly intelligent and highly motivated Islamist extremists who managed to catch the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies of the mightiest nation on earth napping? He’s being closed-minded!

      You see? I can make exactly the same argument. It’s meaningless.

      When employed by believers in unsupported conjecture like Thrive, the “closed-mindedness” argument is almost always a shortcut to complain why the critic doesn’t simply accept the literal truth of whatever the woo believer is trying to assert. You can always tell someone who thinks this way because they become indignant when asked for proof to support their claims–as if asking for proof is, in and of itself, some sort of insult or imposing some sort of unreasonable burden. In reality, scientists, historians and other researchers relish the opportunity to present evidence to support their claims, because it strengthens them. Only those who have no evidence shy away from the opportunity to present it. The “closed-mindedness” argument is a fig leaf to cover that very glaring and telltale propensity.

      Show me real evidence–real, irrefutable, verifiable evidence. If it’s real, irrefutable and verifiable, it will overcome any and all previous objection I might previously have had. I don’t know how to be more “open-minded” than that.

      • Zach says :

        Why don’t you figure it out yourself? Have you tried making the devices in the diagram? Why debate about it when you can take action to solve it once and for all yourself? Are you well versed in mechanics? Are you able to make the devices in the diagrams? If you have time to make this blog, then surely you have the time to make the devices in the diagrams. You could completely show free energy to be untrue if you make the devices and they don’t work. What are you waiting for?

      • Face says :

        Thank you for the response Muerto, not sure if it was directly to me or if I just spurred it by my closed-minded comment, but thank you either way.

        I would not characterize myself as a Thrive “believer” and when it comes to specific claims by inventors to have created a free energy device, I would not believe it either until I see it, most especially if they are asking for money. When I level a charge of close mindedness, it is not for your refusing to accept what someone says on faith, it is rather that you seem to willfully ignore compelling evidence in order to arrive at your conclusions.

        The primary point I was trying to make (although I did get a bit distracted) is that it is important not to dismiss outright the possibility of conspiracy by powerful people to control human progress in order to maintain a centralized control system. The reason being that it would logically explain why advanced energy and transportation technologies are not openly available to the public, without dismissing literally hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses around the world who claim to have (primarily) seen UFOs or some other unexplained phenomenon.

        But to address specifically the charge of close-mindedness…

        Do you really think everyone who ever reported seeing a UFO type object was delusional, hallucinating or seeing a weather balloon? Every single one? You are saying that pilots, military personnel, astronauts, radar analysts and many other credible witnesses did not see anything out of the ordinary and are simply putting their reputations on the line because based on some fantasy belief? We put people in jail based on eye witness testimony, but we can’t accept such testimony in the case of UFOs even knowing that we live in a mind-bogglingly vast universe which could easily have produced conscious beings capable of marvelous feats of technology? Come on, even mainstream institutions of science are coming out with credible theories that thousands upon thousands and many times more habitable planets likely exists in the milky way alone.

        Obviously you would totally accept the existence free energy or UFOs if someone put a machine in front of you that worked, this argument is also a chimera because it does not take “open-mindedness” to accept something that is irrefutable and in your face. You would be delusional to not accept it in these situations. If that is your definition of open-minded, then really only someone completely insane isn’t open-minded.

        It is where there is compelling evidence that you absolutely refuse to credit that the charge of “closed-mindedness” is properly leveled. For example, it is incredibly insulting to call people who don’t think the world is dramatically warming due to human action as “deniers” as if they could be equated with someone who denies the holocaust. This is personally insulting to me because I have been following this for the last six years and I am not an idiot and I have no reason personally or financially to “deny” man-made warming.

        I don’t believe man has had a dramatic influence on long term global warming and cooling cycles. I think there is enough scandal and obvious political interference in the pro man made warming side that it is irrational not to at least have some minor doubt these theories. It is also irrational to completely ignore thousands of scientists who don’t agree with this theory and who make rational, scientific arguments against it. How many hyped up examples of global warming (melting Greenland glaciers! polar bears forever stranded on a chunk of ice! for example) were later proved complete bunkum? I understand if you are still convinced by the man-made theory, but I don’t understand how informed people who are against it can be so blithely insulted because of their completely rational conclusions.

        Crop circles is another example. It certainly does not prove the existence of alien life in an of itself, but do you really believe that people with good geometry skills and a few hours spare time could produce these designs in the dead of night? (If so I would really appreciate a link proving how its done as I can’t seem to find anything worthwhile). Not only that, but it is not a disputed fact that the way the wheat is bent cannot be produced by any publicly disclosed technology, much less a few boards, coat hangers and string. What do you say to this? And even if it could somehow be done with “simple tools,” how do you explain the speed with which it is done. (You will probably dismiss these points as the usual tripe that crop circle conspiracy alien freaks use.)

        I would be willing to accept that humans can pull this off with a few simple tools, if I was shown exactly how it was done with irrefutable proof. Otherwise, it makes sense to accept the most logical explanation BASED UPON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, which is that it is done with the use of some pretty amazing tech. The charge of closed-mindedness is appropriate here because you are not looking at the crop circle phenomenon independently, you are instead obviously presupposing that certain explanations are prima facie impossible without concrete proof otherwise, even if some of these explanation are clearly compelling, and therefore the only other explanation left is that people do it with simple tools in a few hours. Is the only way you would believe that exotic tech is responsible is if someone showed you the machine at work or if aliens came down and held a press conference admitting they are making the designs? Yet you are willing to take a leap of faith that people are capable of this because you saw a History Channel special where a couple dudes made a crappy design using simple tools?

        This is what I mean by closed-minded. You require absolute proof of anything that doesn’t fall within your worldview, even when the balance of the evidence may support an opposing view, and even when your explanations do not adequately take into account everything that is being discovered in relation to various phenomenon.

        Gamble may be doing the exact same thing (I don’t really care about Gamble or Thrive, which I actually found to be a cloying and cheesy film, even though I do tend to agree with some of the ultimate conclusions in the film), but important question is who has the stronger argument. In the case of free energy you make excellent points because if so many people claimed to have done it, then it logically would have produced something the public could use. (Although I will not belabor the conspiracy point again, it is a not totally irrational or unsupported response to this argument).

        Anyway, you appear to be an intelligent and rational person, and willing to actually engage in debate which I really appreciate. I also appreciate that you are provoking debate on such controversial topics. I just don’t understand why that does not translate into a more balanced viewpoint, the exact fatal flaw you accuse Thrive of. Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence, and by the same token the existence of evidence supporting a given proposition does not depend upon absolute proof of such a proposition before the evidence can be used to infer the relative likelihood of such a proposition. In short, I don’t need aliens to tell me they made crop circles to rationally conclude it isn’t a few people with simple tools who did it, when there is compelling and pretty darn near irrefutable evidence that we simply do not have the technology openly available to produce this phenomenon.


  26. Face says :

    Just a quick follow up. I know you get tons of links here so you might not take a look at this, but it is worth checking out as it at least facially seems to debunk the crop circle hoaxer theory as an explanation for every crop circle ever discovered. I haven’t read any of the references so I can’t vouch for the veracity of the statements, but it appears to be a very well researched look at the two possible theories. comparison.htm#anchor31307

      • Face says :

        A. A 915 by 508-foot logarithmic spiral first seen by a pilot at 5:45 PM on July 7, 1996 appeared fully formed in a span of no more than 30 minutes. According to signed statements made by three witnesses, including the pilot who reported the formation, the circle was definitely not in the field at 5:30 PM when it was first overflown. According to Eltjo Haselhoff, a Dutch Ph.D studying crop circles, ex-RAF pilot David Kingston has three independent witness reports showing that the 1996 Stonehenge formation appeared within the span of approximately 30 minutes in broad daylight. Crop circle formation by hoax is highly unlikely in this case, given the short time span and the high traffic tourist area around Stonehenge. (See sources 1 and 10.) According to one account, a 2001 crop circle had a circle added to its design while researchers were present at the site.

        An example of one of the footnotes.

      • JG says :

        I’ll try not to be snarky in this reply because I actually really like this kinda stuff. Evaluating research is challenging especially when information is outside your own box. For example, I am not expert on plant biology or plasma energy—the link you provide features research from both of those fields. But everyone has the skill set to think critically about what’s being presented. One place to start is the source section. Some of the links in that section go nowhere (that’s a bad sign). I was able to find the journal articles for Phsiologia Plantarum. However, but these sources do not, to me, validate a “plasma event” as the authors suggest. Some of the author, like Fortean Times, Fund for UFO Research, etc are not really good independent sources. This doesn’t mean they have bad information but rather they are especially susceptible to bias and unscientific findings. A good rule of thumb to evaluate a source is test if it satisfies Wikipedia’s guidelines for reliability and independence.

        The other thing look for is the classical inverse error masquerading as logical inference. For example, Humans have come forward admitting to having created some crop circles. We can therefore say that for at least some crop circles, humans were the cause. (I don’t think anyone disputes this point.) the inverse error suggests that where Humans have not come forward claiming authorship the plasma event remains a better explanation. Obviously, the authors don’t come right out and say this explicitly, but each bullet in the Cons box for the Mechanical Hoaxing Theory implies this to be the case. Finding an inverse error in someone’s work won’t disprove anything outright, but it should be cause for concern. This should prompt you to investigate if there exists a better explanation the inverse error presented. The authors for example assert that they cannot find a group of humans with the skills to create the more elaborate crop designs. One thing to remember though is that if a group of hoaxers is responsible for creating many circles then the nature of their “hoax” is to be deliberately clandestine; it makes sense that they would only admit to making few circles while leaving many to speculation. While I cannot prove that hoaxers are doing this, that explanation is far more convincing than the plasma event. Remember the con to the plasma event is that it requires “a novel cause which is unidentified in nature.” In other words, there exists not one shred of observation, physical evidence, or research to suggest that the event is even real. Conversely, while the authors might not like the idea of a group of hoaxers creating many (if not all) crop circles, it’s still a much better explanation, however remote the possibility. The absence of people coming forward to explain every crop circle does not suggest that it’s impossible.

      • Face says :

        All great points JG. I agree with you that just because people did not come forward to claim every crop circle that does not mean they did not do it, and it provides, at best, inferential evidence that a novel phenomenon is occurring.

        I wish I had actually clicked on a few links before posting the this as well (I already wasted way too much time at work today!), and this is indeed a very good way of assessing the overall credibility of the forum presenting the information.

        I just don’t think it is the most likely scenario that humans created all of them. There really are anomalous and unexplainable aspects to the crop circle phenomenon that leads me to believe that there is something novel going on. Also, the footnote I posted, if representing true eye witness testimony, is pretty powerful stuff. Whether or not the site referenced is itself biased or using faulty logic, just one source like the footnote above is compelling. However, even assuming it is a subjectively honest account, we could still explain away this testimony using absolute conjecture (i.e. they must have just flown over a different area before and made a mistake because the alternative is simply so unlikely as to be impossible). But that is not convincing without another witness who comes forward and confirms that the circle had appeared long before the stated 30 minutes.

        That is the main point I’m trying to make in these recent rants of mine. If you approach something like this from the perspective that the explanation must fit within the existing knowledge base of conventional science, or whatever source of knowledge you consider legitimate, then you will exclude any other possibility out of hand. For me, the mere existence of these magnificent crop formations is reason enough to consider exotic explanations because either way it isn’t really explained adequately. I mean if humans really are pulling this off with “simple tools”, that in itself is practically a miracle (not to mention pulling it off in broad daylight in a half hour). It just does not seem more likely than the exotic explanations. Now this coupled with the incredible volume of eye witness testimony regarding UFOs and paranormal events in general, it becomes less difficult to seriously consider non conventional possibilities and the existence of novel processes at work in our world.

        And it isn’t even that controversial if we look at cutting edge physical and cosmological theories. These well respected scientists can describe multiple dimensions, propose that time is simply a matter of perspective and that theoretically travel through time is possible, and be taken seriously.

        A lot of the ideas that this blog attacks are not so far fetched when the evidence is considered honestly and without bias. Obviously the paranormal stuff is really easy to explain away as a hoax or delusion or what have you. Not so much for those who don’t believe the 9/11 story or that man is causing catastrophic global warming because they are relying on already established science (mostly) to build their case.

        In the end, I don’t think anyone can be 100% sure that something is true without the absolute proof that Muertos demands, but I certainly don’t think we should accept an explanation, no matter how unlikely or ill supported, simply because it is the one that best fits with what we already think we know.

      • muertos says :

        I looked carefully at this website and I do not believe it’s a credible source.

        Look at some of the other “controversial science” that this site promotes. The “face on Mars” and the work of Richard C. Hoagland is prominently featured. There is no reputable space scientist anywhere who maintains that Hoagland is anything other than a total crank. The “face on Mars” has been disproven many times and by undeniable evidence–namely, a close-up photo of the formation taken by an orbiting probe. There’s nothing there. Yet, Hoagland’s supporters are still out there claiming that NASA is covering something up. They claim this totally without any evidence. It’s a classic New Age conspiracy theory.

        Some more “controversial science” promoted by this site: a “cold fusion” patent. The (very old, 2002) article cites Eugene Mallove as its chief source. Mallove is mentioned in Thrive as a “free energy” scientist who was supposedly murdered as a result of his energy work–a claim that is 100% false (SlayerX3 debunked it in one of the comprehensive debunking articles). Cold fusion is generally regarded as crank science, and once again the subject of various New Age conspiracy theories.

        Do these associations disprove the supposed “crop circle” anomalies that you cite? No, they don’t, but they certainly do call into question whether this Controversial Science site is reputable, or just a bunch of cranks. Some of the sources cited by that article are reputable, such as the book by Eltjo Haselhoff; that book is highly controversial, but he is clearly not a crank. However some of the other sources are extremely spurious, like interviews on the Art Bell show and such.

        My problem with the paranormal explanation for crop circles is that it is illogical. The argument is based entirely on a “we can’t do it” assumption. That assumption is incapable of being proven correct. It’s simply an article of faith. It’s not conclusive in the slightest, because it’s non-falsifiable. Because we can prove that human beings can and do make crop circles all the time, in the absence of evidence that something else is creating them, there is simply no escape from the conclusion that human beings are creating all of them. That conclusion could be impeached with evidence of creation by some other means, but throwing anomalies at the problem in order to buttress the “we can’t do it” assumption–which, I again point out, is non-falsifiable–is illogical and unwarranted. I don’t see how a website that churns crap about cold fusion and faces on Mars is really going to make any difference in that debate.

  27. Zach says :

    Seriously, why do you keep debating when you can actually build the devices and prove them to be a scam? Why don’t you do this? I will say this again: If you have time to make this blog, then you have time to actually make some of the devices. There are hundreds of such diagrams for such devices to be built, yet you completely refuse to make even one of them, and then you make ridiculous excuses trying to make it all look like quackery. If you are going to make accusations that it is a scam, then you have to back up what you say with actual proof.

    The way to show actual proof is to build some of the devices and physically and scientifically demonstrate that the devices do not work. You are NOT being scientific about this at all, because you waste time trying to bash the author instead of building some of the devices and proving that they indeed do not work. You would rather waste time attacking the political views of the author and finding other cheap excuses to say that it’s a scam instead of actually building some of the devices and proving that they do not work. This behavior shows a deep lack of scientific integrity.

    You would rather waste time debating UFO’s and other stupid crap as well. The debate about UFO’s and other jargon could go on endlessly, and it has taken place in the past – countless times with countless people. But here I am, providing something that can be proven beyond a doubt – physically! Here I have provided a link with 100s of pages of diagrams and schematics for building free energy devices, and you choose to not even build even one of the devices. You instead choose to come up with all kinds of excuses.

    The bottom line is: make the devices! Prove that they do not work! Then, after you have done this, you will actually have something tangible to back up your conclusions (or even prove your conclusions to be false, who knows). Until you do this, you have NOTHING. You will just end up debating stupid arguments that go NOWHERE.

    I have you in a corner if you won’t make the devices. This isn’t something you can get out of. You got yourselves into it by saying that it’s a scam. Now, if you value real science, you have to physically back up your claims. You HAVE TO if you are going to be truly scientific. So, build some of the devices and try them out, and then we can talk. I myself am not a scientist. I am an artist. But I didn’t make the claims that it all bogus garbage. YOU DID! So, since you make these claims, BUILD THE DEVICES! PROVE IT!

    • muertos says :

      “I have you in a corner if you won’t make the devices.”

      Nope. Not even close.

      You don’t seem to understand how burdens of proof work. It is up to those who claim they’ve built these devices–Trombly, Bedini etc.–to demonstrate that they work. It’s not up to those who claim they don’t work to demonstrate otherwise.

      Guess what, I built a Star Trek transporter! In addition to beaming you halfway across the galaxy, it can slice, dice and make thousands of Julienne fries! You can build one of your own with two sheets of tinfoil, a two by four and 500 car batteries. Go to it. BUILD THE DEVICE! PROVE IT!

      If you don’t actually go to your garage and build my Star Trek transporter, am I entitled to claim that what I say I built absolutely works and should be taken seriously as gospel truth, until and unless you build it and prove it doesn’t work?

      Suppose you do build it and it doesn’t work. I can just say, “Oh, but you used the wrong kind of tinfoil! It would work perfectly if only you built it correctly!”

      This is asinine. The real world doesn’t work that way. Someone who makes an extraordinary claim–such as, that they’ve constructed a “free energy” machine that has magical properties that violate the laws of physics–is only entitled to be taken seriously until and unless they can demonstrate irrefutably that what they claim is true. None of the supposed free energy makers have done that. When you ask them to show you their devices, you get excuses like “Oh, the evil gubbermint took it in a raid” or “I can’t show it to you without endangering my life!”

      This is the problem with conspiracy thinking too. Believers in the Global Domination Agenda shriek and screech that skeptics should prove it doesn’t exist. Well, I don’t have to prove it doesn’t exist; YOU have to prove that it DOES exist. Until and unless you can do that, the Global Domination Agenda does not exist, and neither do “free energy” devices.

      See how this works?

      • Zach says :

        I’m simply pointing out that if you are going to go out of your way to say that it’s a scam, and you don’t supply the proof that it is a scam, you have nothing to make your claim on and you will not be taken seriously. You have yet again given another cop-out excuse for not supplying proof. You can’t have it both ways. If you are going to demand proof that something does exist from others, then it is perfectly fair to demand proof from the ones saying it doesn’t exist to prove that it doesn’t exist. Your argument is one-sided and invalid.

        Also, this isn’t some crazy, out-there Star Trek thing. This has been a long-standing, ongoing issue spanning several decades. This isn’t some arbitrary, one-time mentioned off the wall shenanigan. This is something that has been a very hot issue for quite a while. So you have no excuse to cop-out and compare it to some arbitrary Star Trek ‘transporter.’

        If you build the device exactly according to the diagram, then there would be no “you used the wrong tinfoil” way to sneek out of it either.

        And it has been repeatedly said that the devices DO NOT VIOLATE ANY PHYSICAL LAWS. The analogy is in the intro section with pictures clearly illustrating and showing that NO physical laws are broken.

        Ruggero Santilli is not making any such excuses of “someone raided me” and he is proceeding with his technologies. These claims of being stopped by “men in black suits” and so forth is not used in all cases, and it is ignorant of you to make such an assumption. I doubt that you even ask the makers of such devices to prove it to you. I doubt that you ever really do anything at all except bash others without having anything real to support your bashing.

        I’m merely saying to you, quite simply, if you are going to say that something is a scam, but you refuse to prove that something is a scam, then you yourself are the one who is scamming.

      • muertos says :

        “…then it is perfectly fair to demand proof from the ones saying it doesn’t exist to prove that it doesn’t exist.”

        Wrong. This is a total inversion of logic. Someone makes claim X, which goes against what we know is typically true. Claim X is presumed to be false until and unless it’s proven to be true. The burden of proof never shifts to critics of claim X to disprove it. How is it that you can’t understand this?

        “Also, this isn’t some crazy, out-there Star Trek thing.”

        Yes it is. Trombly, Bedini etc. are out there claiming to have invented magical machines that generate power from nothing. These claims are presumptively false because they violate the laws of physics. In fact, the Star Trek transporter is actually more plausible than Trombly and Bedini’s “free energy” machines, because, while the Star Trek transporter is impossible to build in the real world, at least the concept behind it is somewhat consistent with what we know to be true, whereas “free energy” machines require a wholesale revision of the laws of physics in order to exist at all.

        If this is such a slam-dunk, why haven’t these inventors presented their machines to the world, and demonstrated in a public forum how they work and that they do what you say they can do? Why is it up to me to build machines to prove them wrong, instead of them building machines to prove themselves right?

        You’re grasping at anything to try to discredit the criticism this blog presents, because you’ve decided that you want free energy machines to exist. Do you really think anyone is taking your argument seriously? You want ME to build a magical free energy machine to validate my blog? Really? That’s what you think needs to happen to settle this issue? Because I wrote the blog, I have to go build the machine? I can’t even begin to get my head around the absurdity of this line of reasoning.

      • Zach says :

        Who, might I ask, is “we?” “We know to be true?”

        Your error is that you have made premature claims that free energy devices of any kind do not work. You are the one who is completely inverting logic. The scientific method states that claims are not true until they are proven to be true. If you say that free energy devices are unproven, then this would be a different matter.

        However, you say that free energy devices of any kind do not work and never will work. You have made a premature claim without evidence to support your claim. You have made a claim saying that you know something that you do not truly know and cannot back up. So, because you have made such an unsubstantiated claim, I can tell you to prove your unsubstantiated claim. You claim is that free energy does not exist. I am telling you to PROVE your claim.

        You can use anything under the sun to make the technology look bad, and make all kinds of excuses of you own about free energy devices (such as your asking why it’s not on the market everywhere and so forth), but this is also just you trying to sneak out of being accountable for your claim. You continue to make these excuses while not actually proving anything at all.

        You then make the assumption that I am attacking you because I want free energy devices to exist. YOU are the one who is attacking free energy and free energy devices. YOU are the one making claims that are unsubstantiated, including claims now about what “I want.” (Btw, I only want what’s true, either way, either for or against. If free energy devices don’t work, then fine. At least the matter has been settled)

        I would definitely say that anyone reading our discourse who has a decent reasoning mind would find great error in your logic, and many distortions coming from you.

      • muertos says :

        The intellectual acrobatics you’re engaging in simply boggle the mind.

        Let’s assume you get an email from a “banker” in Nigeria saying he’s got $30 million in a trunk box that he needs your help to get out of the country, and he’ll cut you in for a third. All you have to do is send him $2000 by Western Union right now, provide your bank details, and wait for the money to show up.

        This is obviously a scam.

        By your rationale, however, anyone who claims that this is a scam should be required to send the scammer $2000 by Western Union and your bank details, and observe the $30 million is not forthcoming, in order to prove that it’s a scam before they’re permitted to denounce it as a scam. This is absurd.

        We (and by that I mean, rational people who aren’t conned by free energy, conspiracy theories or New Age woo) live in the real world. In the real world, extraordinary claims require proof. You aren’t entitled to believe in them just because you want to and then charge anyone who criticizes the idea is required to prove a negative before it’s justifiable to conclude that the spurious claims aren’t true. I’ve stated on this blog many times that, despite my certainty that free energy devices are impossible and violate the laws of physics, if someone actually builds one that lives up to the hype and whose operation can be verified by reputable scientists and replicated, I’ll delete this blog immediately.

        I understand you have a real problem with the whole burden of proof concept. But, however alien it may seem to you, it’s how things actually work in the world of reason.

      • Zach says :

        I’m the one who has a problem with the burden of proof? I am the one asking YOU to prove your claims. You are the one making these claims. You are the one who is attacking free energy without having a SHRED of evidence to back up your attack. You don’t even look at the schematics or anything. Every single accusation you are throwing at me is exactly what you are doing. You are the one who is being totally illogical and then projecting this onto me. It’s disgusting that you refuse to see this because of your massive arrogance.
        I didn’t even mention conspiracy theories or anything new age. I don’t even care about that crap. All I asked was for you to prove what you claim. That’s it! But then you throw the whole ‘burden of proof’ garbage onto me when YOU are the one who outright refuses to prove your claim. You refuse to prove what you say, and then you tell me that I am the one who has the problem with the burden of proof. Wow…
        You then make up some ridiculous analogy with a $2000 bank scam that is completely out of context and therefore has no validity whatsoever. The author of the free energy devices does not require a payment of any kind, and his information is free for anyone who wants to download his extensive and detailed documents. I will give you an analogy though that actually does apply and actually is in context to the situation:

        Suppose someone says that there is a way to see someone else from the other side of the world without having to actually travel there. Then, someone attacks the person saying this and says that it’s impossible. Then, the one who says that it can be done provides diagrams for creating computers and monitors and the internet. Then, the one who is attacking says “No, I’m not going to look at the diagrams at all, because it’s ridiculous. I’m not even going to bother with it because it’s all just a scam. I am also going to expose you and your garbage as a scam to everyone I possibly can.” Then, a third person comes in and says to the one doing the attacking, “You can’t really say that it’s a scam if you haven’t even looked at the diagrams. Why don’t you look at the diagrams and at least build a computer to see if it is possible for a computer to exist. You don’t have to make the internet and whole sha-bang. Just try making a computer from the diagrams.” Then, the attacker accuses the third person of being illogical and making illogical demands, and says, “You aren’t rational like the rest of us. You boggle my mind by even asking me to make such a device.” Now, this analogy isn’t quite exact, because in the case with many of these free energy devices, they are massively simpler to build than a computer. Oh yeah, and guess what? You don’t have to pay someone in Nigeria $2000 either! The diagrams are free to download for all! lol

      • Zach says :

        See, your problem is that you want to tell everyone how this is a scam, but you haven’t first proven this to be a scam. You haven’t looked into it nearly enough, but you say it’s a scam and you are trying to convince people that it’s a scam when you don’t actually know it’s a scam. It’s the burden of proof that you are having trouble with, which is what you interestingly have accused me of when it’s actually your problem and not mine, because I haven’t claimed either way… but you have. You say it’s absolutely impossible. If you are going to make such claims without proving such claims, I see no reason why not to say “Hey! Prove it!” But you can’t.

        If you are so deadset on exposing this as a scam, one would think that you would have absolute proof. But you don’t. You don’t have a shred of proof. Instead, you rely on personal opinions. You throw in some facts here and there and then take them out of context, and you twist logic to suit your opinions. And that’s fine. You can do that all you like of course. But, you are certainly not being scientific and rational, and you have certainly not proven anything. You have only discredited yourself.

      • muertos says :

        If you’re so offended at my position on free energy, why don’t you do this: build one of your free energy machines from plans on the Internet. Demonstrate it before at least two reputable scientists who can sign a certificate stating that the machine does what its creators purported it to do–i.e., create “free energy” in a way that violates the laws of physics as we currently know them. These scientists must be prepared to go public with their findings and they must be available to take questions and show the machine and how it works to others.

        If you do this, not only will I take down this blog, but I’ll make a new blog publicly recanting and apologizing for my stance.

        There you go. If it’s as easy as you say it is to demonstrate how wrong I am, go to it. You have a golden opportunity to wipe this Satanic blog off the web once and for all. The power is in your hands. Go to it!

      • MIke Bern says :

        So are you saying that anything mainstream science says is impossible is impossible and can never be changed? People like Michu Kaku should stop talking about dtring theory and alternate dimensions and universes becasue it violates standard thinking? If you had asked someone 20 yrs ago to prove black holes exisited or 100 yrs ago to split and atom you would have been asking the impossible. You are a person who only believes what he is told to believe. You will not think out of the box because of what you might find or you might get in trouble. You would make a great pet or mouth piece for someone.

      • JG says :

        Hey Zach, this weekend I built every device listed on that page and not one of them works. You can go print out the instructions I followed and the required schematics at the authors website, if you want to take a look at what I did. Case closed.

      • Zach says :

        Satanic blog? lol! Ooooo yes you are the anti-christ! lol You know I’m not religious at all, but you act like a religious fundamentalist yourself when it comes to your lack of scientific integrity.

        I’m not offended at all. I’m simply amused that you pretend to know something is impossible without even investigating it, that’s all.

        I already told you, I’m not the one making the claim that it’s impossible, and I’m an artist, not a scientist, so I will not be making the devices, but instead I will let people know about it who would like to build the devices, and I will laugh at those who say it’s pseudo-science who don’t even investigate the diagrams at all (that would be you).

      • Zach says :

        And JG, there is no possible way that you could have built all the devices in the several hundreds of pages of diagrams and material over a weekend. You have to prove that you made the devices, which I highly doubt that you did. Lying isn’t going to get you anywhere.

    • JG says :

      Perhaps the author can clear up how he feels we should treat the information on his website. This is from “A Practical Guide to ‘Free-Energy’ Devices” (


      This document contains most of what I have learned about this subject after researching it for a number of years. I am not trying to sell you anything, nor am I trying to convince you of anything. When I started looking into this subject, there was very little useful information and any that was around was buried deep in incomprehensible patents and documents. My purpose here is to make it easier for you to locate and understand some of the relevant material now available. What you believe is up to yourself and none of my business. Let me stress that almost all of the devices discussed in the following pages, are devices which I have not personally built and tested. It would take several lifetimes to do that and it would not be in any way a practical option. Consequently, although I believe everything said is fully accurate and correct, you should treat everything as being “hearsay” or opinion.


      Ha! Zach…it might help to actually read some of your own source material. Even the author wouldn’t agree with your assessment that his website constitutes proof of free energy devices.

      • Zach says :

        I never said it was proof. Putting more words in my mouth again eh? All I said was for someone to make the devices. Jeez. Putting words in my mouth once again. And on top of that, you lied about making the devices. One weekend… lol yeah right!

      • JG says :

        “And JG, there is no possible way that you could have built all the devices in the several hundreds of pages of diagrams and material over a weekend. You have to prove that you made the devices, which I highly doubt that you did.”

        What kind of “proof” would you require..Pictures? A demonstration that the device doesn’t work as intended? An independent peer review process? I’m just wondering why you require proof from me that the devices don’t work as intended. If you don’t believe me, then go make any one of those devices for yourself and prove to the world I’m wrong. Otherwise, if you don’t want to do that, you are being unscientific.

      • SlayerX3 says :

        That link of yours made a few gross interpretations.

        First non apparent energy source like electromagnetic induction and solar energy aren’t free energy and they aren’t a fully open system either, as their system is still composed by an energy source i.e. the sun or an electromagnetic inductor both which operate at energy loss. The sun still burns hydrogen and the generator still needs fuel. This isn’t “free energy” as it is limited and operates at loss.

        The second one is about Dark Matter the reason why it is called dark matter isn’t because we can’t see it, as it cites like radio waves and X-rays, it is because we can’t measure it, we can’t see radio waves but we can measure them inside an area. The same can’t be said about dark energy, which is still a theoretical explanation for the amount of mass and energy on the universe that has yet to be explained.

        Third when the other devices are shown, they are all build similarly to perpetual motion machines, which by the very proven LAWS of thermodynamics shouldn’t work, but this paper makes it different by saying “no no it isn’t the energy just from this closed system, it has energy being withdrawn from the environment”. Well guess what, it has external input of energy whether it comes from wind or sun making it a rather inefficient solar or wind generator.

        Fourth for a paper that keeps banging science and its math is wrong, this paper hasn’t shown any mathematical theorem asserting its statements.
        It keeps repeating science is wrong because it doesn’t factor external influences in the generators. In matter of fact it does, every engine, generator and motor include external factors in their calculations.
        In fact we call these engines which factor the external environment energy hydroelectric, wind and solar power.

        Fifth it completely ignores friction, drag and the motherfucking inverse square law by showing several perpetual motion machines and completely forgetting to mention these on their workings.
        If you use a pump to blow water on a water mill there will be loss since the cogs and gears generate friction (physical energy turned into heat) and the water will disperse generating drag and pushing the mill (the energy isn’t distributed evenly and still causes friction) , the mill powers the pump at loss the initial input won’t be superior than the input at any given time, it will be much inferior.

        These machines can work out for a while but give a few minutes and they will stop working by themselves. Unless someone goes there and spin the wheel a little bit more adding “external energy to the system”. Doing this defeats completely the purpose of free energy.

        And that isn’t the only case where well understood physical principles are obvious to the author. Here is a good example.

        “They found that if his tube was subjected to a few seconds of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, then it became radioactive for about one hour. During that time, a kilowatt of electrical power could be drawn from this tiny tube. Near the end of the hour, another burst of electromagnetic waves keeps the tube radioactive and maintains the output current. Lead shielding is used to make this a safe device. They have a patent on this device. The expected working life of one of these tubes is estimated as being seventy years.”

        Even if this battery works, it isn’t taking free energy, that high-frequency radiation has surely more energy than the battery is capable to harness.

        Another alarming mistake is the misconception of the energy generation units. There is a difference between a device that can works on a Kilowatt and one that generates a Kilowatt/hour. This is fundamental because when you say a generator can produce 500 Kw you have to specify the output given a time. A battery capable to store 500 Kw can have an output much lower that its capacity like 50 Kw/h. This means your power source has the potential of 500Kw but a much more limited output.

        TL;DR: If your free energy machine needs external power to run, it isn’t a free energy machine but a simple generator.

        PS: Solar, wind and electromagnetic induction don’t count as free energy as these can be measured and we know where they come from.

      • Zach says :

        JG, I have stated many times that I am not a scientist. You are the one saying that such devices do not work, and now you have also lied about making the devices. A peer scientific review would be fantastic.

        You are totally lying about making the devices. One weekend isn’t nearly enough time to make them. Now everyone reading the comments can see your true colors, because now you have exposed just how low you will go. Sad.

      • Zach says :

        SlayerX3, these would be excellent points to tell the author. I’m sure he will respond, and then you can post his response here. I would definitely like to get to the bottom of this. What is your take on electrogravity? Also, what is your take on there being energy interwoven within the fabric of space-time itself? Do closed systems not allow for this possible energy to get through?

        Indeed stars do one day burn out, yet new stars are born. The only aspect that is possibly perpetual in the universe is that stars continually burn out, while new stars are born. The author would like agree that the motion isn’t perpetual either, unless of course there is an infinite amount of space, and thus an infinite amount of energy.

        I do find it strange that, with all vast, possibly never-ending amount of energy that exists in the universe, we have an energy crisis and a lack of energy on earth. Why hasn’t there been a way to tap into the energy? I’m not saying there is a conspiracy. With me it’s more a matter of, “Well get with it!”

      • JG says :

        Zach, you sure are a smart one! I want you to take a moment and consider why you don’t believe me. Is it because making so many devices in a weekend seems impossible? Is it because I have expressed a bias in favor of making these machines looks bad? Is it because I haven’t produced any evidence that the devices don’t work let alone that I even built them? Well, you might be on to something.

        Now take those critical questions about my work and focus them back on the link you posted. Because, to me (and to science), those free energy devices seem impossible. And the author clearly exhibits some bias in favor of the machines existing. Finally, the author has not presented one shred of proof, one lick of evidence that his writings or his devices work as he suggests. But here’s the thing, your point above was that we shouldn’t write off such claims until there is proof. I just want to point out however, that when I claimed that I had made the devices and they did not work your response was not “well, I will withhold judgment until I see proof that they do not work – but JG could be right -I should build the device myself to see….” Instead, you just called me a liar, which is exactly what you accused us of doing to that free energy author (you said I was intent on calling the author a scammer, remember?).

        But like I said, I think you’re on to something. Put those critical questions to the author’s work.

      • Zach says :

        I already have put those questions to work by asking those who say free energy devices are a scam to prove their claims by making the devices.

        It is impossible to make those devices in one weekend. This is painfully obvious to anyone. I wasn’t biased at all. It’s literally impossible for one person to make them over two days. If after a few months of waiting you came and said that you had made the devices, my response would have been much different. You are just trying to lead me into pulling the double standard that you have been pulling, but it’s just not working is it? The fact that you actually lied like this just to try to get me ‘in a spot’ shows that you are obsessed with trying to get me ‘in a spot’ to the point of being sick.

        The only thing I have said is to prove what your claim. You claim they won’t work and never will work. You don’t have any proof of this, but you still say they can never work. I then said to prove your claim, and then you lied about making the devices because absolutely no person on earth could ever make all the devices in two days. Then I call you on this and you say that I’m being biased, when there is absolutely no bias whatsoever because it’s impossible to make all the devices in two days. The only ground you have ‘gained’ is to show yourself to be extremely deceptive and untrustworthy to everyone here, not to mention wasting everyone’s time.

      • Mr. Anon says :

        Hey Zach, what prove do you have that Muertos is wrong?

  28. MIke Bern says :

    Yes, it has been proven time and time again, big business and the Government have only our best interest at heart. No gevernment would ever decieve its people and for big business they want to make a profit but would never do it if it harms people. I agree free energy machines are impossible, mostly becasue everything that can be invented has been invented and things can never change. Funny though how the periodic table keeps growing, wonder how that happens….maybe they make new discoveries?
    Like Foster said and its the one line in the whole show which sticks with me,
    I may be wrong..but what if I’m not. The people in charge have so much power, money and influence they can hire people 24/7 365 days a yr to debunk the stuff they want debunked. People have to be blind to see that the gap between the haves and have nots is growing, the middle class is dissapearing. It has been proven and shown over and over, someone or some group is building underground facilities and camps all over the world, to what end? Germans stuck their heads in the sand during WW2, but it did happen. Why cant it happen again? One final questin, why are the ‘Elite’ going to so many secret meetings with armed guards, making it a crime to say what goes on in those meetings? There is something going on and waiting till its to late and saying OOOOOPS or SORRY will not cut it when its 1984 brought to life

    • JG says :

      What’s the going rate to be a blogger for the elite media? Talk about cushy work.

    • Mr. Anon says :

      Quit your strawmen.

      “Yes, it has been proven time and time again, big business and the Government have only our best interest at heart. No gevernment would ever decieve its people and for big business they want to make a profit but would never do it if it harms people.”
      Muertos has never claimed this, nor have any of us. Unfortunately, Thrive dismisses actual corruption in business and government, such as the Koch Brothers, and instead focuses on made-up sources, such as the Rothschilds (who lost power decades ago) and Rockefellers (whose political views run contrary to what would be expected by a conspiracy).

      “I agree free energy machines are impossible, mostly becasue everything that can be invented has been invented and things can never change. Funny though how the periodic table keeps growing, wonder how that happens….maybe they make new discoveries?”
      The difference between the periodic table and free energy is that there is no law of physics that makes new elements impossible. In fact, I’m pretty sure there is a scientific theory (note that this word means something completely different in science than in everyday conversation) that there are theoretically infinite elements.

      “I may be wrong..but what if I’m not.”
      Poor reasoning. If you are wrong, as Muertos has noted, corruption in coporations will be unchecked, and people such as Ron Paul (who disagrees with the public on most issues) will be elected for the sole reason that they promote a conspiracy theory.

      “The people in charge have so much power, money and influence they can hire people 24/7 365 days a yr to debunk the stuff they want debunked. ”
      Foster Gamble has so much money that he can hire people to promote his woo across the internet. Sarcasm aside, this claim is absurd an an ad hominem attack.

      “People have to be blind to see that the gap between the haves and have nots is growing, the middle class is dissapearing.”
      Libertarian philosophy will not fix this, and in any case it is not the fault of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

      “It has been proven and shown over and over, someone or some group is building underground facilities and camps all over the world, to what end?”
      Bill Gates has an underground house. Not sure what you are trying to say here.

      “Germans stuck their heads in the sand during WW2, but it did happen.”
      I don’t even know what you’re talking about here either.

      “Why cant it happen again?”
      Poor reasoning, as has been pointed out.

      “One final questin, why are the ‘Elite’ going to so many secret meetings with armed guards, making it a crime to say what goes on in those meetings?”
      Rich people like to socialize with other rich people. That may not be the kind of answer you like, or want to hear, but minutes of these “secret meetings” have been leaked, and there’s been no evidence of any suspicious conspiring here.

      • MIke Bern says :

        First off, It is peoples responsiblity to question and hold Government accountable as to what they are doing, where our money goes and what they are doing to improve quality of life. Many governments and the US for the most part have so many secrets that one has to wonder are they for our protection because they are all military, or is ot becasue like in the movie 2012 they know stuff, only a few can be saved and dont want to start a riot.
        wonder what it would take for you to question the government, or does the government have to tell you there is a problem and then you agree and move on? Look at the way politicians and special intrest groups look out for themselves first, are you seriouse in your thinking that the general public, except for the monetary income they provide are very high up on the priority list of politicians.

        As you stated, the rich like sticking with the rich. Well they have made it so that you have to be rich to get very far into politics. And nce in office, guess who they will look out for first. A person who makes several millions or even several hundred thousand a year will have a tough time understanding a family on welfare or one who lives pay cheque to pay cheque.
        In war the elite have alwasy remaind behind the lines, out of danger.
        They put common folk out to do the grunt work and die if necessary.
        They fund the wars, reap the profit and and leave us to clean up the mess.

        I am ex Military and am first my mother moved here from gemany. Many germans refused to beleive what was happening with the jews and political prisoners. The governments of many countries have and will deceive their
        their people for their own selfish reasons.

        I agree, some secrets need to be kept like military but why keep everything secret like what exactly HAARP is. why 911 was not handled like a crime scene and iron and debris checked out before shipping them away for destruction. Why are we losing more and more freedoms under the guise of 911?

        I will not sit by and accept without proof everything the government feeds me. If I am wronf no harm no foul, if you are wrong we are screwed

  29. Josh says :

    You really should called this blog “Thrive Examined” – there seems to be very little ‘debunking’ going on.

    The detailed response by Foster Gamble has made me all the more confident that he has hit the nail on the head!

    Perhaps you might consider joining him in waking the sleeping mass rather than attempting to hinder the progress of him and others?

    PS Conspiracy theories – plural – do not exist. There is only one conspiracy theory when you connect the dots. When you dig for information and do the research, you realise that it’s conspiracy FACT.

    • anticultist says :

      Josh : You are living proof that being dumb is not something to aspire towards.

  30. Zach says :

    The assembly line changed quite a bit in the world. There was a need for mass production of technology, and the assembly line was created by Henry Ford right? Then there was a need for a way to share information all around the world. Computers and the internet were created. Now, currently there is a need for an alternative source of energy. What will be the solution to the energy crisis? What will be the next huge breakthrough? The world needs another breakthrough. If not free energy, then something else sustainable on a large scale. Free energy has not been successfully proven to be impossible, because scientists are unwilling to be scientific with this matter. Either way, there is a huge demand for another breakthrough in technology.

    • SlayerX3 says :

      Free energy hasn’t been successfully proven to be possible either.

      • Zach says :

        Very true. But many so-called ‘scientists’ say that free energy is impossible when it has not been proven to be impossible.

      • Zach says :

        And contrary to what some ‘scientists’ also say, the energy is not free, nor does the energy violate any of the laws of physics. Electrogravity needs to be further investigated. Electrogravity has been all-too-ignored. Can the same energy that causes planets to spin around the sun and galaxies to spiral be tapped into? I’m not a scientist myself, but the prospect sounds interesting.

      • SlayerX3 says :

        Zach, the energy responsible for planets to spin is called momentum. And yes we can tap it to generate energy albeit in a much lesser scale.

        The problem with tossing terms like electrogravity,is how fancy they sound and there were legitimate scientists that at least tried to mathematically prove it’s existence. But so far even the field of electrogravity is at best a hypothesis, not even reaching the level of a theory.

        There is research going on electrogravity but due to the complete lack of conclusive results and clear observable phenomena, it’s currently not possible to either prove or disprove electrogravity.

        Take a note that in science only the things you can prove matter.

        Click to access PVJA9095.pdf

      • Zach says :

        Thanks for the articles. Gravity causes the initial angular momentum? Do you think one day soon scientists will either conclusively prove or disprove electrogravity? Are you able to understand the mathematics here? I tried to understand this but it’s over my head:

        Click to access HMMC-1-02-26-08.pdf

        You are correct, without proof, it’s just hearsay. I hope that all of this is either proven or dis-proven in the near future.

  31. Zach says :

    Lots of info both in the video and in the links in the info section:

    • Bob Dole says :

      Zach, ur arguing with closed minded idiots, very akin to the people that claimed the earth was flat and that anyone who argued with them was a heretic. Very interesting video and debate.

      • JG says :


        The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.[1] The idea seems to have been widespread during the first half of the 20th century, so that the Members of the Historical Association in 1945 stated that:

        “The idea that educated men at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat, and that this belief was one of the obstacles to be overcome by Columbus before he could get his project sanctioned, remains one of the hardiest errors in teaching.” [2]

        During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was dead. However, the exterior of the famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch is a Renaissance example in which a disc-shaped earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[3]

        According to Stephen Jay Gould, “there never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference”.[5]
        Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution.[6] Russell claims “with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat,” and credits histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving for popularizing the flat-earth myth.[7]

  32. maja says :

    hey guys, what do you make of this guy?

    he claims to have all sorts of free energy technology already, units in production that can be ordered, and is inviting representatives of all nations to a demonstration of his technology in september….

    he has not released any technology yet (except allegedly to Iran) but plans to soon…

    was he mentioned in thrive, i can’t remember?

  33. Bob says :

    The author of the website is doing a massive disservice to humanity.

    Healthy sceptism is always beneficial but the author is a dogmatic skeptic. In his worldview, none of this stuff can be true because it’s all “conspiracy theories”.

    You’ve created a site dedicated to debunking Thrive…… clearly you have your own agenda. Any evidence presented that contradicts what you say or supports Thrive is useless because you’ve closed your mind to anything which contradicts what you believe. If you really were committed to discovering whether Thrive has any truth to it, you would be “discussing” and not “debunking”.

    Therefore I’m taking everything you write with a massive pinch of salt. Keep living in your bubble, but as the rest of the World wakes up, you’ll eventually have to join us.

    When everything in Thrive is proven to be true (very soon) what will you do? Perhaps your just another disinfo. agent attempting to hide the truth..

    • anticultist says :

      Bull shit, Muertos always says if evidence comes that proves something true he will believe it to be so. With no evidence he has no choice but to doubt the claims of already well known cranks like Icke, Harramein, Jones, Cooper, and all the others who conspiracy theorists quote and flock around.

      The fact is the ones doing the disservice to humanity are those professing and swallowing lies and bullshit under the false premise of doing humanity good. The fact is conspiracy theorists are no use to society, they are the uneducated and misinformed public who for lack of a better analogy, are the bottom feeders of the intellectual establishment.

      Conspiracy theorists gravitate toward one another due to belief not evidence, they always use the same herd mentality tactics, then claim everyone else is in the wrong herd. In their world if you don’t believe their nonsense you are intellectually and spiritually below them, which is ironic when you consider they have no fucking evidence for any claims they make.

      The only people doing good in this world are scientists who study tings to fine detail in order to solve life’s problems. Zealots and conspiracy fanatics do nothing but disturb the minds of everyone around them, causing social angst for themselves and their friends with out considering that everything they say is lacking evidence and completely flawed.

      Conspiratards are muck rakers, and anyone who professes belief in them is simply hurting their local society more than they could possibly know. The ones who bandstand and soap box are the ones who really cause social unrest, they are like religious leaders mouth piecing tropes and claims without ever having evidence.

      If all these claims were real there ought to be thousands of international tribunals and human rights cases covering them all, but there are fucking none.

      Because there is zero evidence.

      Society would be all over this shit if it was real, because unlike conspiratards like to claim, ordinary people and skeptics are very concerned for peoples well being and safety from tyranny and wrong doing. More so than nut bags talking about make believe crap, they solve the real things going on in the world.

    • Anastasio says :


      As a constituent member of this global family you call humanity, I am moved to express my concern over your rather ignoble attempt to speak on my behalf on what best serves me – and Thrive it certainly is not.

      Your thin, cliché ridden evaluation of this blog is fine example of why you are barely able represent yourself without falling prey to the demon of self-caricaturisation; and that’s to say nothing of the 6 billion+ people who you have taken upon yourself to speak for.

      “When everything in Thrive is proven to be true (very soon) what will you do?”

      To be honest Bob, what will you do when everything in Thrive isn’t proven to be true, very soon? I think that even you can see the glaring inanity of your bold, hypothetical question, and it doesn’t require a time-scale to work it out. Either Thrive or history itself would require to be amended before a suitable answer can be provided, and that isn’t going to happen any time soon.

      The only imminent consequence of posing such a question once ‘very soon’ has come to pass, is the ensuing affirmation that you do indeed suffer delusions of superior intelligence, and of course, the proof that you were completely wrong.

      Go back to sleep Bob; this being awake business is just making you say the silliest things.

      • Neo says :


      • Zach says :

        I think that both extremists on both sides are wrong. The world isn’t so black and white. Maybe there are aspects in Thrive that are true, and also aspects scientists point out that are true which Thrive erroneously claims. Whatever happened to the middle ground here? It’s always so extremist. It’s liberal vs. democrat, nut-job vs. the rest of the world, etc. Why not try to find a middle ground here instead of labeling each other with cheap catch phrases and name calling? I’m disappointed in both conspiracy theorists and scientists alike.

      • anticultist says :

        Fence sitting is for the weak and unknowledgeable, either you know what is correct or you don’t. I am sure as shit that conspiracy theorists are batshit crazy and wrong, I have spent enough years testing that out and it always proves right.

  34. Zach says :

    I actually am just fed up with both sides. You have resorted to name-calling once again, using ‘weak’ and ‘unknowledgeable’ against those who can clearly see that both sides don’t have the entire picture. How sad it truly is that the debate on this forum has stooped to the level of labeling, name calling, and cheap shot cliche catch phrases.

    • Wyboth says :

      Most of what our side is is just asking for evidence or providing evidence against certain conspiracy theories. I would not say that we lack anything. However, conspiracy theorists are just making unsolicited claims. If I had to bet, I’d say the conspiracy theorists are missing the entire picture.

      • anticultist says :

        If I had to bet, I would would say Zach sways more to one side, it is very typical for fence sitters in conspiracy theory fields to actually believe various conspiracies. For instance he may want to doubt there is a new world order, but has not researched it enough to debunk it and know it not to be true, therefore he allows the possibility of it to exists. Or he might believe things like alien colonic irrigation exams, without considering the current wealth of physics that we have which counteracts the possibility they are here.

        You will find he probably holds one or more conspiracy beliefs, and his claims of being unbiased are due to lack of research and a belief that conspiracy theorists are correct about some things.

      • a rational person says :

        i think zach believes in lizard people. what do u think?

      • anticultist says :

        Dunno, but I bet if he sticks around eventually he is going to confess into believing one or another conspiracy theories. That is usually the way.

  35. Zach says :

    Lol, this is most entertaining. You all are so very much against conspiracy theorists, but what have you just done? You have absolutely no idea who I am, yet you have, just now, made all of these conspiracy theories about me! The more you try to throw me into a box and discredit me, the more you discredit yourselves.

    I’m actually a neutral on the whole thing, which is probably the wiser of choices. I have asked both the scientific community and conspiracy theorists to prove their points, and they both always are too arrogant and full of themselves. They overestimate their abilities to know the nature of reality.

    Us ‘fence sitters’ are far less arrogant than either side. You know, Socrates was one of the wiser ones, because he knew that, in all the self-glorification others indulge in ad nausium of how much they think they knew, they really didn’t know anything. This goes for both sides of you. Now I suppose you ‘brilliant scientists’ and/or ‘conspiracy theorists’ are going to make some conspiracy theories to bash Socrates to try and make yourselves feel superior once again.

    Well, I actually am going to make a conspiracy theory of my own this time, and it’s about you guys. My conspiracy theory about you is that you are very, very insecure about yourselves, and you try to make up for this deep insecurity by bullying others.

    • a rational person says :

      @ zach : lizard people. do they exist or do they not exist?

      911. inside job or not inside job?

      if you refuse to answer these questions, why do u refuse?

      is it “bullying” to ask these things about you?

    • anticultist says :

      On the contrary zach, no conspiracy theories have been asserted, I have merely made the assertion that most fence sitters tend to lean or believe in a conspiracy theory, and I am saying that t is likely you do. If you do not please say so, but I am willing to bet that you do in fact believe that there is some plausibility to at least one or more conspiracy theory out there, which is why you are here defending them.

      I will ask you some questions and if you don’t answer them or are too cague about it then we can know a lot about your fence sitting.

      Do you believe aliens are visiting Earth ?
      Do you believe there are ufo’s flying around our planet that are from other planets ?
      Do you believe there sian agenda by a shadow government to hurt the population ?
      Do you believe that the government is spraying chemtrails on us ?
      Do you believe that global warming is man made ?

      You can say all you want about us zach it matters not a shred, what is important here is what you believe to be true and if you can prove it, now answer those above questions and we can chat about what we actually know to be true or not.

      Socrates was not stupid enough to give credence to disproven theories by the way, try and a grip of your use of historical characters to back up your position. Socrates would likely be on our side if he were alive today being that he was also one who demanded evidence.It is called the socratic method and it is the historical starting point of the scientific method, but you should know all about it shouldn’t you ?

      • Zach says :

        Yes, I studied Socrates in school, and I am very familiar with his Socratic method. This is an excellent method for critical thinking.

        You are basically trying to get out of the fact that you have made erroneous assumptions about me with insufficient evidence, such as one of you saying that I believe in Lizard people, etc. You prove yourselves to be the real conspiracy theorists here.

        And now you want to put me on trial by hounding me with all of these ridiculous questions? For being educated scientists, you really have a very juvenile understanding of vocabulary. I said that I was neutral. Being neutral means that I am undecided on these issues, and so I say neither yes nor no, because there is insufficient evidence pointing one way or the other. That is the problem with the scientific community and with conspiracy theorists. Both make erroneous claims based on insufficient evidence. And you can say “oh that’s because you just don’t read into it enough” etc, but this is just a cop out because no matter how much research exists, most scientific endeavors are really in their infancy. This can be proven by the fact that an I pad is touted as being a nearly god-like modern day scientific invention. How pathetic this truly is.

        But hey, you wanted me to make a decision so that you can define me with your black-and-white, either-or mentality of “he’s either a rational person or a complete nut-job, and no, there is no grey area at all because we are the new religious fundamentalists of the modern day, and our religion is science.” The conspiracy theorists don’t seem to be picking on me on this forum yet, so I will address you who call yourselves ‘scientists.’ I will now answer your questions to further educate you on what being neutral really means. Here are my answers to your questions:

        “Do you believe aliens are visiting Earth?”

        Answer: Insufficient evidence proving one way or the other.

        “Do you believe there are ufo’s flying around our planet that are from other planets?”

        Answer: Insufficient evidence proving one way or the other.

        “you believe there sian agenda by a shadow government to hurt the population?”

        Answer: Insufficient evidence proving one way or the other.

        “Do you believe that the government is spraying chemtrails on us?”

        Answer: Insufficient evidence proving one way or the other.

        “Do you believe that global warming is man made?”

        Answer: Insufficient evidence proving one way or the other.

        “911. inside job or not inside job?”

        Answer: Insufficient evidence proving one way or the other.

        “is it “bullying” to ask these things about you?”

        Answer: No, it’s not bullying to ask me these questions. However, it is bullying to try to force me to be on either one side of the fence or the other. It is also bullying to use name calling, ad hominem attacks, and labeling against others who have different perspectives than you, which you have done many times. This only shows you to be the ones with the real problem.

        And, so there you have it.

      • anticultist says :

        And there you have it, as expected, answer insufficient showing his lack of research into topics and giving credence to crank theory and philosophy, as I said his allegiance lies with the cranks more than rational thinking.

      • a rational person says :

        zak sez “911. inside job or not inside job?” Answer: Insufficient evidence proving one way or the other.

        i hate this stupid shit because you’re deciding to remain ignorant. theres plenty of evidence about 911, but u think it’s more “fair” to not reach a conclusion one way or another, so u’re not gonna go look for any evidence that shows what really happened…that’s fucking retarded and shows how stupid u are. u think it’s better to “remain neutral” but what u forget is that this is stuff that no person can be neutral about when they actually look at the facts.

        911 was not an inside job…its not even close…anyone who thinks otherwise either looks at the facts and rejects em because they’re a nutbag, or (like u) they choose not to look at the facts because they’re afraid if they do they can’t be “neutral” anymore.

        fuck that shit. it’s even stupider than believing in conspiracy bullshit. you want to remain ignorant. why do you want to remain ignorant and stupid? where does that get u in life? srsly, this is even more fucking retarded than shouting “911 INSIDE JOB!!!!!!”

      • anticultist says :

        Exactly, it’s fucking sad isn’t it. He is like one of those political correct cunts who thinks being nice to rapists and paedophiles is better than calling them out for being the sick fucks that they are.

    • Kristoffer says :

      Lets all keep and open mind. It is never black and white. The leader of this side has chosen a truth and is cloudet by ego. He is a good man i can tell. But cloudet. Take care of your bodys. eat living food and be kind to inner and outer space. STAY OPEN!

      Kristoffer Lysgaard /Denmark

      • Joel T. says :

        The statement “it’s never black and white” itself presents a stark, unforgiving dichotomy: either things are black and white, or they are not black and white. By claiming absolutely the latter, the statement invalidates itself by proven the former.

        Or, to put it another way, what you are essentially saying is “it is never black and white unless I say so for no good reason.” This, of course, relates to your following comment “he is a good man i can tell.” The first half is a black and white statement, and the latter half refuses to give evidence, revealing the intentionally capricious nature of your statement.

  36. Anastasio says :

    Let’s forget Zach’s use of the word ‘insufficient’ for a minute, as it smacks more of opinion than a conclusion borne through critical thinking.

    The 911 question is one where we’re not obliged to multiply entities to answer it i.e. UFOs, aliens, chemicals in the air etc. It can only have a true or false answer.

    Therefore, Zach’s reply, in essence, reads that the 911 attacks were and were not a inside job, simultaneously.

    A superposition of states; a paradox. Impossible.

    Of course, were we to believe Schrodinger, we’d have to lift the lid to look inside the box to know for certain whether his cat was dead or not.

    And to draw an analogy with Schrodinger’s rules: to know whether 911 was an inside job, someone would have tell us who was responsible – lift the lid so to speak.

    And Bin Laden already did that, enough years ago for everyone to have sufficiently caught up by now.

  37. Zach says :

    Yes indeed, you have shown your true colors. You are nothing more than bullies. The more you bully me for refusing to take sides, the more you make yourselves look bad, and anyone who reads your horrific attacks against me, even now comparing me to “politically correct cunts who think being nice to rapists and paedophiles is better than calling them out for being the sick fucks that they are” has made all of you completely lose any credibility whatsoever. And, I didn’t have to do anything at all. All I did was give you the shovel, and you did the rest and dug your own graves. You have shown yourselves to be bullies and a laughing stalk, not to mention a total waste of time.

    And you even say that I choose to remain ignorant, when actually, it’s ignorant to draw conclusions when there is not enough evidence to make a sure conclusion. I suggest that the 9/11 attacks be investigated more to get to the real deal. I simply state that matters like 9/11 and so forth have not been investigated enough to draw a conclusion. You however, in your tyrannical mindsets, attack anyone who doesn’t think like you do. The sad thing is that you even accuse me of being on the side of conspiracy theorists, when this is not the case. You are so desperate to ‘get me’ me that you will do anything and everything to make me look bad. Yet of course this has backfired on you. Brilliant! You have screwed yourselves in front of anyone who reads this forum! Any aggression you throw at me just feeds the fire that surrounds you.

    I suggest that both sides of this fence try to find some common ground and work together to find a solution. Conspiracy theorists and scientists are apparently at war. As long as this war continues, there can be no way of actually finding out anything. Maybe if you made peace with each other and only focused on finding the answers instead of attacking one another you might get somewhere. In the meantime, your juvenile attacks against each other, and against me now, are only going to make you look like fools, and you have thus far done an excellent job of doing just that.

    • anticultist says :

      horriffic attacks ? This dude is starting to sound like a right pissy pants

      You are the one who has dug your grave here zach, for you said and I quote:

      “Answer: Insufficient evidence proving one way or the other.”

      For many things that have definitive answers due to information we have about the subjects, you however prefer to pretend it’s not possible to know.

      You just look like an idiot who is not prepared to research properly and then claim they have somehow better insight into a topic by ignoring the facts.

      • Zach says :

        This is incorrect, once again. I never once said that it’s impossible to know. On the contrary, it is indeed possible to know. However, more research needs to be done so that the answers can be found. Until more research is objectively carried out, there is, as I say once more, insufficient evidence proving one way or the other.

        I would say that both many conspiracy theorists and scientists are making erroneous claims by both ignoring facts, and assuming facts without enough empirical data. Both sides simply make themselves look like wackos.

        And you can call me pissy pants and so forth to try to make yourself look superior to me, but your continuing ad hominem cheap shots dig your own grave, and not mine. It all falls back on you because you once again have shown yourself to be nothing more than a troll.

      • anticultist says :

        No research needs doing for 911, the evidence already shows that osama bin laden and 19 hijackers carried it out. The towers were not blown up by thermite or bombs and they fell from structural and fire damage due to damage from the aircraft.

        You would like to use semantics to make out that you somehow have a case when in fact you don’t. you are just plain wrong and you wont admit it, or are oblivious to the fact.

        Same goes for travelling here through space for aliens.
        Same goes for chemtrails
        same goes for crop circles
        Same goes for free energy

        Basically you are just pushing for more research and refusing to do your own, you are fucking lazy.

  38. Zach says :

    Now, having set aside the people who’s only objective is to attack the commenter instead of actual true scientific inquiry, I will give an example of a conspiracy theory that currently has insufficient evidence proving one way or the other. I am providing this comment for other readers who are not the trolls I have previously exposed in the comments above.

    I will give the example of chemtrails.

    There has been a news report of a person showing that he was collecting samples of heavy metals from chemtrails. He had this in a glass bottle, and the news report was inferring that the jets overhead may have been somehow responsible. This was Fox news I believe. There are also some governments who actually admit to using such metals in jet fuel. However, this is insufficient evidence for proof of chemtrails. Much more evidence is needed to either debunk or prove chemtrails.

    The three metals attributed to being used in chemtrails are barium, strontium, and aluminum, correct? I therefore propose a mass analysis of jet fuels all around the world. All around the world, there needs to be testing of the exact composition of jet fuels. The testing will be to find the exact amount, if any, of these three metals in jet fuels. The testing will also be a full analysis to determine if anything else is being put in the jet fuels. If found, it also needs to be known if these added metals would cause problems with the functioning of the jets in the long term. What size are the metals, if present, that are being placed in the jet fuels? If there are no such metals being added then of course there is nothing to worry about.

    Now, to really make sure that there is no remaining doubt, these experiments need to be a surprise, because if nothing is found then of course there will be a conspiracy theorist who comes along and says, “Well, they intentionally gave everyone testing around the world samples of the jet fuels that didn’t have any of these metals so they wouldn’t get caught!” So, if the testing is a surprise and there is no warning, no conspiracy can be made that the jet fuel samples were deliberately made to not have these metals added as another conspiracy.

    And so, this is one such proposal that will help to clear up some of the muck of disinformation from conspiracy theorists and biased assumptions based on incomplete information from scientists. Until this experimentation is carried out mass scale, then of course there is insufficient evidence proving one way or the other regarding chemtrails.

    • anticultist says :

      Oh for fucks sake, chemtrails are not some fucking conspiracy theory you idiot. They are contrails, there is no science to back them up and all this you have just claimed is refuted online alreday.

      There are no definitive chemical analysis of anything to show metals in the air in dangerous doses, you know why ?


      A: All 3 of them exist in the natural environment.
      B: No chemtriailer has conducted a valid experiment that has been corroborated by any independent labs to show that these natural metals are at some kind of lethal level in the atmosphere.

      Quite simply put you just sound like an uneducated fool.

      • Zach says :

        I never said that they are a conspiracy. It’s hilarious that I keep saying that I remain neutral and you keep trying to call me a conspiracy theorist. Such troll tactics get you nowhere. I repeat, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I have to actually take their side to be one. You can keep asserting the conspiracy that I am a conspiracy theorist or whatever. I may just have to ignore you from here on out because this is getting ridiculous.

    • anticultist says :

      “There has been a news report of a person showing that he was collecting samples of heavy metals from chemtrails. He had this in a glass bottle, and the news report was inferring that the jets overhead may have been somehow responsible. This was Fox news I believe.”

      LOL did he just go outside and wave his jar about then put the lid on it ?

      hahahaha oh man this is hilarious zach, you will fall for anything. You do realise that the chemtrailers claim contrails are deadly right. Newsflash contrails are high up in the sky, you cant sample a contrail from ground level with a fucking jar. LOL

      You would need to do tests up in the lower and upper atmosphere with electronic equipment and aircraft, flying into the contrail zones.

      Are you really this stupid to not see through the claims of the chemtards ?

      • Zach says :

        He was collecting samples in the ground.

        Fall for anything? I actually mentioned this news report and then said that this is not nearly enough evidence to prove chemtrails. You might want to read my entire comment before going off the deep end.

      • anticultist says :

        And chemtrails fall on the ground from 25,000 feet in the air ?

        How exactly does the person know that his samples are actual samplings of chemtrails as opposed to normal ground residue and material ?

        LOL this just gets sillier

      • Zach says :

        If you think that substituting this in place of the analysis I suggested is going to get you anywhere, I am laughing at you.

      • Zach says :

        And hey, just to really make you squirm, I will post this. You are just too easy lol!

        Oh no!

      • Zach says :

        I figured that since you so enjoy calling me a conspiracy theorist, I mine as well be a self-fulfilling prophecy lol! Enjoy.

      • anticultist says :

        Oh dear zach, you are desperate to find some truth in the conspiracy theories aren’t you.

        Keep at it , I am sure you might find some anecdotal evidence that might vindicate a modicum of belief.

        Do let us al know when you find the twoof won’t ya mate ?


  39. Zach says :

    So would anyone aside from the troll like to say anything regarding my proposal for the analysis proposed? Also, soil samples are an excellent idea. I remain undecided until these experiments are carried out on a mass scale. Of course the troll will say otherwise, but he likes to make conspiracy theories. In fact I think he might actually be more paranoid than most conspiracy theorists. lol

    • anticultist says :

      keep spinning those yarns zach, the rabbit hole is just over there if you wanna join the rest of the retards.

      • Zach says :

        The only retard thus far is you. I hate to use name calling as you do, but in this case such tactics are appropriate because ‘retard’ very well fits your description. You are indeed a retard, and your logical fallacy attacks prove this. Yes, this time I am using name calling. However, contrary to the majority of cases, my name calling has actual proof for validation. Your comments of slanted and unsubstantiated conspiracy claims against me are proof that name calling delivered directly to you is indeed called for. I would give you another shovel to dig your own grave, but from the looks of it you don’t need anyone else’s help.

      • Zach says :

        Yes, you have thus far earned the status of trolling retard. Anyone who reads your ‘comments’ can clearly see how you have earned this status.

      • Arch Stanton says :

        Zach is so determined to try and get everybody to label you all as trolls, probably because it is the only way he and butthurt conspiritards can try and get one over you. He probably came in from RT Facebook. They the readers have a habit of calling people who lay down the facts as “trolls” because they believe everything the anti-west state media tells them. I have posted a link for this blog on the RT facebook comments recently. You should go there, it’s fun.

      • anticultist says :

        Seen any chemtrails on the ground yet

      • Zach says :

        Actually, I don’t have a facebook account. And seriously, all you guys do is use name calling and bullying tactics. And you think I’m desperate to call you trolls? No, I don’t even need to. This is just an observation. Anyone who sees your comments can clearly see that you are trolling.

      • anticultist says :

        You found any chemical composition of those 3 natural metals in the soil that fell from 25,000 feet into your garden yet zach ?
        You know the ones you are claiming are in chemtrails and are important for us to scientifically verify. LOL

        Or better yet how about whether the metal is secretly embedded into jet fuel ?


    • Anastasio says :

      “So would anyone aside from the troll like to say anything regarding my proposal for the analysis proposed?”

      As we are all in accordance (ostensibly) that there is no evidence to support chemtrails, then one would expect that only a conspiracy theorist or a troll could propose such a resource-hungry, and wholly impractical international ‘spot-check’ to satisfy their curiosity. Your proposal to detect an illogical, presumed practise that, by your own admission, has no evidence to prove its existence, can only be considered with the same level of facetiousness with which it was presumably offered for our ‘consideration’.

      Amusing, but deeply flawed and utterly pointless all the same.

      “Also, soil samples are an excellent idea.”

      I’m not sure why this is an excellent idea given it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that you’re going to find what you’re looking for where you have chosen to look for it. The Earth’s crust is one of the first places you would find the alleged elements in varying abundance, particularly in soil. Anticultist has already pointed this out to you.
      Why not swab car bonnets, roofs of houses, plant life, take hair samples from the general populace? Presumably the chemtrails do not discriminate as to which surface material they land on?

      Besides, surely the chemtrail conspiracy theorists have been prudent enough to have conducted their own scientific enquiry into the matter before unnecessarily incriminating innocent people? What specifically do you find unconvincing about their findings and allegations? What do you find so unreasonable about the idea that humans aren’t being surreptitiously doused from 35,000 feet with hazardous chemicals?

      ” Until this experimentation is carried out mass scale, then of course there is insufficient evidence proving one way or the other regarding chemtrails.”

      It’s slightly arrogant to propose your solution as being the only feasible working solution is it not? Unless of course you have an extensive, proven experience in exposing conspiracies, in which case I’d love to hear a few of your case histories.You seem to be under the common impression that you speak for everyone with your beliefs, and your use of the adjective ‘insufficient’ appears to be absolute.
      ‘Insufficient’ in this case would either be open to personal interpretation or implies you have involved yourself in every available piece of evidence with regards to the topic and speak as an authority on chemtrails.
      Perhaps you should ask yourself and then relay which usage of the word we are to accept, before you continue discussing evidence.

      Of course, the implications of the scale and logistics of the mass experimentation you suggest as your ‘solution’ to the debate, is more illogical than the phenomenon it aims to detect, and more so when considering the diminutive strata of society it aims to satisfy.

      To assemble an international inspection team to sample every jet fuel in the world simultaneously, have it sent back to a lab for inspection, with lawful consent from every country and without government intervention, seems not likely at best and impossible at worst.

      One could therefore conclude, given that you have arguably already applied ‘critical thinking’ to this scenario, that you, personally for yourself, have ruled out the possibility of a conclusion being reached on the chemtrail conspiracy, which doesn’t exactly ring of open-mindedness.

      Besides, after detailing your ‘surprise’ inspections and publishing your scope of work on the internet, specifically on a blog accused of being the work of government agents of all places, I guess you can safely kiss the element of surprise goodbye. Back to the drawing board I guess.

      • Zach says :

        “As we are all in accordance (ostensibly) that there is no evidence to support chemtrails, then one would expect that only a conspiracy theorist or a troll could propose such a resource-hungry, and wholly impractical international ‘spot-check’ to satisfy their curiosity. Your proposal to detect an illogical, presumed practise that, by your own admission, has no evidence to prove its existence, can only be considered with the same level of facetiousness with which it was presumably offered for our ‘consideration’.”

        It needs to be proven on a mass scale that there is no evidence proving chemtrails, or otherwise the number of conspiracy theorists will continue to grow at large. Conspiracy theories are becoming an epidemic, so there needs to at least be proof of no proof for chemtrails if this is the case.

        “I’m not sure why this is an excellent idea given it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that you’re going to find what you’re looking for where you have chosen to look for it. The Earth’s crust is one of the first places you would find the alleged elements in varying abundance, particularly in soil. Anticultist has already pointed this out to you.”

        No. It is obvious that such metals are in the earth, however it is the concentration of these metals that is the issue. Prove that there is not an abnormal concentration of these metals in croplands and so forth. If this is done then chemtrail conspiracy theorists have much less to go on. Why has this not been done? Where has the voice of reason run off to? From your perspective, wouldn’t civilization need proof that conspiracy theories are incorrect because again, the number of people believing in them is increasing every day?

        “Why not swab car bonnets, roofs of houses, plant life, take hair samples from the general populace? Presumably the chemtrails do not discriminate as to which surface material they land on? Besides, surely the chemtrail conspiracy theorists have been prudent enough to have conducted their own scientific enquiry into the matter before unnecessarily incriminating innocent people? What specifically do you find unconvincing about their findings and allegations? What do you find so unreasonable about the idea that humans aren’t being surreptitiously doused from 35,000 feet with hazardous chemicals?”

        I find nothing unreasonable about this at all. But proof of this is needed. If there were not so many people who believe the chemtrail propaganda, then proof of their nonexistence would not be necessary. However, because of the sheer numbers of conspiracy theorists, official proof is needed so that civilization doesn’t destabilize. And as far a swabbing cars and so forth, sure why not? I’m just sick of all these different people touting all these different beliefs. How the hell is civilization supposed to function if this keeps getting worse and worse?

        “It’s slightly arrogant to propose your solution as being the only feasible working solution is it not? Unless of course you have an extensive, proven experience in exposing conspiracies, in which case I’d love to hear a few of your case histories.You seem to be under the common impression that you speak for everyone with your beliefs, and your use of the adjective ‘insufficient’ appears to be absolute.
        ‘Insufficient’ in this case would either be open to personal interpretation or implies you have involved yourself in every available piece of evidence with regards to the topic and speak as an authority on chemtrails. Perhaps you should ask yourself and then relay which usage of the word we are to accept, before you continue discussing evidence.”

        I never proposed my solution to be the only feasible solution. I am certainly no expert in these matters, and I don’t even need to be. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that there is a real problem going on. If there are so many people who believe in chemtrails, and there no science to keep this in check, then I have to use the word ‘insufficient’ because I am operating within the parameters of public opinion. According to public opinion, there is not a consensus, and therefore there is insufficient evidence proving one way or the other, because the scientific experimentation is just not there. And yes it may seem ridiculous to do such experiments in the views of scientists. However, once again, the public needs this done so that this sort of thing can be gotten out of the way. So much time is being wasted with labeling and name calling. If you really wanted to kick the asses of conspiracy theorists, there is no more thorough ass kicking than irrefutable proof on a mass scale.

        “Of course, the implications of the scale and logistics of the mass experimentation you suggest as your ‘solution’ to the debate, is more illogical than the phenomenon it aims to detect, and more so when considering the diminutive strata of society it aims to satisfy. To assemble an international inspection team to sample every jet fuel in the world simultaneously, have it sent back to a lab for inspection, with lawful consent from every country and without government intervention, seems not likely at best and impossible at worst.”

        My ‘solution’ is not more illogical than the ‘phenomena.’ Instead, my ‘solution’ is necessary to keep the epidemic number of conspiracy theorists and internet scammers in check. And, I never said that the governments could not get involved. I don’t find this to be ‘not likely’ at all. I am seeing this as actually increasingly necessary.

        “One could therefore conclude, given that you have arguably already applied ‘critical thinking’ to this scenario, that you, personally for yourself, have ruled out the possibility of a conclusion being reached on the chemtrail conspiracy, which doesn’t exactly ring of open-mindedness. Besides, after detailing your ‘surprise’ inspections and publishing your scope of work on the internet, specifically on a blog accused of being the work of government agents of all places, I guess you can safely kiss the element of surprise goodbye. Back to the drawing board I guess.”

        Wrong again. I actually previously mentioned that an answer would be found, but only if the sampling was carried out mass scale. And I’m not sure what this blog is being accused of lol! And I doubt that everyone on earth is taking a look at this blog. I find this blog mostly inconsequential. However, I do like the challenge of a good debate. Maybe something useful will come of this. Thank you for not using as much name calling and trolling. Your response has actually provided me with a challenge.

      • anticultist says :

        Levels of Aluminum, etc – Michael Murphy’s tests are normal levels

        Levels of Aluminum, Barium, Strontium in Hawaii are normal levels

        Francis Mangels and the soil pH Tests:

      • Zach says :

        Excellent! Yes I’ve seen bits of the documentary, but not this debunking part yet. Why didn’t you send the link earlier in place of all the name calling? Seriously, this may be all that is needed to kick ass. I didn’t know there was a debunking of this documentary yet. Very sound debunking!

      • anticultist says :

        I assumed you were capable of finding it for yourself, I was telling you that it was online from the beginning.

  40. Zach says :

    Not to leave too many comments here, but I feel the need to elaborate even further on the problem of the black-and-white, either/or mentality that is infesting so many areas of our modern world. I will this time use the example of health foods. This may seem completely off topic, but if you keep reading you will see that this is very relevant.

    I have been using the sweeter Stevia for quite some time now. I have been using this sweetener in yogurt and smoothies every day. I have also been progressively having problems with a lack of energy, and I have a measured tendency to be hypoglycemic. Each day I use Stevia, my hypoglycemia has been getting worse and worse. I never thought that Stevia was actually causing these problems to become so severe until I recently stopped using this sweetener. Over the course of 36 hours after no longer using Stevia, I felt like myself again. I absolutely swear on my life that this natural sweetener has been wreaking havoc on my health and well being.

    Now, this flies in the face of alternative medicine. So many alternative health advocates would accuse me of spreading propaganda to cause harm to alternative medicine and so forth. I have seen online articles showing the possible dangers of Stevia, and the comment sections on these articles have health food advocates making accusations that the authors are just up to no good and so forth. Yet, I would swear on my life that my intake of Stevia has been causing me to have extremely low blood sugar.

    What I’m really getting at here is that nothing is black-and-white. The FDA was pressured by the alternative health movement to make Stevia available to the public, and so now it is. Yet, in this case, it would have been much wiser for further experimentation on this herb that is just too good to be true. This relates to the either/or mentality being pushed regarding the government. There appears to be a stark divide. This divide is: Those who trust the government vs. those who do not trust the government. I maintain that there are those in government who are doing a just job, and those in government who are not doing a just job… it’s not black-and-white! And regarding Stevia, conspiracy theorists would burn me at the stake for saying that Stevia can actually be harmful to health. Can you see now how the alternative crowd is really just another unreasonable extreme? The alternative crowd absolutely believes that they are infallible and superior to the rest of the ‘sheep.’ The alternative crowd, however, is really just a different kind of sheep being herded in a different direction.

    My problems with Stevia, and the attacks against others who also warn about Stevia… this illustrates a larger problem. There are so many different cliques in the world that think they know better than everyone else. The world has become some kind of ‘everybody is an elitist’ circus show. And, such elitists never bother to actually think for themselves. These elitists even tout themselves as being independent thinkers when they are really just followers of a different kind of authority. I have finally, after being swung around in so many directions… I have finally had independent thinking of my own. I didn’t listen to anyone else, and instead listened to my own body, and from this listening I have had to go against the all too common propaganda of “if it’s natural, it’s good for you.” Wouldn’t it be grand if independent thought was applied to all other areas of life? The Thrive movement is not independent thought, and neither is the scientific community. I maintain that until people start listening to their own selves before listening to anyone else… until then, civilization can never truly develop into its full potential.

    • NonFiction says :

      To be a voice of sanity here, you are correct Zach. Your example is a good one: stevia is therapeutic in lowering hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. If you are already hypoglycemic, using it would be a bad idea. “Natural” does not mean that it is what your body needs.

      Likewise, “conspiracy theorist” is not an appropriate catch-all for anyone who doesn’t believe every damn fool official story (or alternative story) that gets peddled out there. Personally, I believe very few of them, and am less inclined to believe any story from a source that has lied to me once before.

      The government lies a lot. So did Foster Gamble, to my face, when I began to discuss with him the lies told by Adam Trombly, and the pirating of photos of inventions that were not as claimed in the movie.

      All of which makes the trolls who are attacking you look like exactly that – trolls. Next they will try to accuse me of being afraid to take a stand, which would be laughable. No, I just don’t buy the BS on either one of what they are trying to identify as “sides” here. Their world view is very, very small. Name-calling? Really boys? How sad…certainly you can debate better than that; come on, give it a good ole college try.

    • a rational person says :

      You know Zach, you’re a nutbag, but at least u’re trying not to be a nutbag which is more than most of the conspiracy retards who come to this site can say.

      Where you’re wrong is ur certainty that there are 2 equal sides to any argument, and that between pole A and pole B, the most “true” thing must be equal distance between A and B.

      you’re wrong, but i don’t blame u for thinking that. what u fail to understand is that conspiracy nutbags are TOTALLY wrong. i mean TOTALLY wrong about everything. u think it’s biased to come to that conclusion, that theres no way that could possibly be true…but, lemme tell ya hoss, it is true.

      people like u think “neutrality” is the best thing…that ppl who fall on 2 sides of a question must generally be reasonable and the “real truth” probably lies in the middle of those 2 sides.

      let me tell u hoss, i used to think that way too. i know u cant see it now but this kind of thought really isnt the way things are…i know, it seems like u’re committing some kind of moral suicide by realizing one side is right and the other is wrong…but sometimes thats the way it is.

      lemme give ya an example…take this stupid “birther” shit from republicans. birthers are conspiracy nutbags. u might think that with as loud as they shout about obama not bein born in hawaii they must have something. maybe there is a legitimate question about where obama was born.

      but then u look into the real facts…and u see that all the proof is that obama was born in hawaii. he got a birth ceritifcate…his family was from there…there aint nothing that shows he was born anywhere else…so u gotta say, well, u know what, obama was born in hawaii…and the ppl who say he was born in kenya, well, guess what, theyre nutbags.

      and let me tell u this…i HATE barack obama…i HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE him…i didnt vote for him, i think hes a fucking joke and i think america’s committin suicide by votin for him…but as much as I hate barak obama, HE WAS NOT FUCKING BORN IN KENYA, and if u say he was, u ar a fucking nutbag.

      so go ahead, call me a troll…look hoss ill be the 1st to admit i’m a fucking asshole…i dont even come to this site til ive had a couple a drinks…but there are not 2 equal and opposite sides to every question…its not what u think, that there are “scientists” on 1 side and about 50% of what they say is right, and there are “conspiracy theorists” on another side and about 50% of what they say is right, so all u gotta do is split between conspiracy theorists and scientists and u’ll get to the truth…

      it dont’ work like that hoss…i know u think im wrong, but it’s really true…conspiracy nutbags got NOTHING…no facts, no evidence, NOTHING. when u come to the table with nothing, u’re right in telling them to fuck the hell off.

      hope u see where we’re coming from…and hope u see how wrong u are…these nutbags are counting on ppl like u to decide that about half of what they say is reasonable…when its more like 0% of what they say is reasonable…thats why my handle is “a rational person” even though nutbags go crazy thinking im a fucking troll…well, i dont give a shit whether u think im a troll…i raised 3 kids in this world and taught em to have respect for themselves and question everything…and i do mean everything…and not a single one of my kids, not my son or one of my 2 daughters, not one of em ever take the word for some stupid bullshit artist before they investigate what the facts are…so let me tell u, zach, don’t u fuckin lecture us about what we believe…what we believe is rational and we can stand by everything we say with facts, where all u got is some bullshit about “well we don’t have enough information to decide”…

      zach, u are a coward and u know it. YES I SAID U KNOW IT. so either be a man and face up to facts, or be some ignorant fuck who believes the bullshit that thrive is crammin down ur throat with a shovel. and thats the gods honest truth if i ever said it. enuf said

      • Zach says :

        I certainly don’t swallow what Thrive says and I don’t know where you got the idea that I do. And you can’t say that I’m a coward and that I know it, for you don’t even know who I am.

        All that I ask is that a clear and concise scientific study on chemtrails be provided, and that all who talk about chemtrails… and I mean all… all of this needs to be exposed for what it really is. This has not happened, because if it had then the debate would be closed. However, there are an increasing number of people who are going the conspiracy route. It looks like the number of people who believe this stuff is steadily increasing. So, it’s a scientific obligation to be the voice of reason. However, on the comments on this forum, I have received for the most part nothing more than cheap name calling, and this reflects poorly on the scientific community at large.

        If the research and experimentation is not carried out, then the number of conspiracy theorists will become so great that this menace will continue to plague civilization.

      • anticultist says :

        As long as there are stupid uneducated people there will be conspiracy theories. It is not your place or mine to change the world, people either want to be stupid or they don’t.

        you won’t change peoples opinions, beliefs or stupid by conducting an in depth scientific study into the belief in invisible killer clouds.

        If you understood anything like you claim to, then you would already know that stupid people are gonna believe in chemtrails no matter what evidence you throw in front of them.The difference between you and us is we already know this, you however appear completely naive to this fact.

      • anticultist says :

        Plus the evidence is already out there should you bother to fucking check.

        It’s called contrail science and if you had even done the slightest amount of research into the topic this website would have already been in your favourites.

      • Zach says :

        I’ve seen countless websites both debunking chemtrails and ‘proving’ chemtrails. It’s nothing new.

        What you fail to understand, anticultist, is that if the number of wackos increases to a certain extent, kiss civilization as you know it good-bye. If your belief is actually true, then I guess we are all finished because uneducated people who believe in conspiracies is growing larger every day. Civilization is therefore breaking down. But maybe I’m wrong and conspiracy theorists are on the decline. Judging from the looks of the cess pool hell that is the internet though, I’m not so sure. Everything appears to have gone insane. Surely it’s not just me lol!

      • anticultist says :

        You don’t think you are being a little over drmatic ?

        The lunatic fringe is precisely that a fringe element of society, the belief in chemtrails is tantamount to a blip on the radar. Chemtrail proponents are the lowest of the conspiracy world, they are the kind of people who have sunk so far to the bottom of the conspiracy barrel that light doesn’t even reach them.

        They are a small community of freaks who wouldn’t know their ass from their elbow, and they are about as much a threat to society as a spot on the ass.

        The only thing worrying about conspiracy theories is how popular they are online, in the real world they have next to no impact, aside from folks talking about obamas birth certificate, which was mere political nonsense.

        You seem to misunderstand that the internet is not real life.

      • Zach says :

        The internet is not real life, but I see it as a reflection of how civilization is doing.

        Perhaps you underestimate this problem, but perhaps I overestimate this problem. Will see how it goes no doubt.

      • anticultist says :

        Definitely the latter.

  41. NonFiction says :

    Conspiracy: any agreement (whether covert, silently understood, or plotted in depth) between two or more persons to accomplish some action or goal which is less than legal, moral, ethical, or socially acceptable (in other words, some people agree to something which is not “above board” and which they agree not to advertise to the public). This applies to many situations but is particularly noteworthy in politics and business, where it is subject to lawsuit or prosecution as a crime, but most conspiracies do not rise to the level of criminal.

    Every single moment of every single day in the course of human interactions throughout the known history of man, there are conspiracies being planned, discussed, carried out, or accomplished. At least as much human interaction occurs in secrecy and/or privacy as does in the open publicly.

    While paranoid or unrealistic people may harbor fantasies about certain conspiracies, the most ridiculous “conspiracy theory” of all would be to assume that for just one single instant in time, events large and small were NOT being heavily influenced by some variety of conspiracy, because that has never yet happened.

    So you kids need to grow up and stop arguing over such nonsense. Of course there are conspiracies. Try to spend your precious brainpower finding out which ones are real. Then you might actually be making yourself useful.

    Like I said before, consider the source, and never believe a proven liar. That will leave you with a very small pool of resources through which to sort for credible facts, so it should be easy, right? 😀

  42. Zach says :

    It’s been fun guys.

    The psychology of the conspiracy theorist, or rather, the psychology of the conspiritualst. This would be an interesting topic for discussion. This could be a good start: A mixture of the hollywood programming of “I am a hero, I am a savior” and “I know special knowledge that hardly anyone else knows. This makes me special! Yes, I’m a special badboy rebel! Look at me! I will be a ‘bad boy’ and fight the good fight against the powers that be!” The conspiritualist gets to play out his/her childhood fantasies. Reality must be completely replaced with childhood fantasies for this to keep itself going. The endless amount of conspiracy theories provide the perfect arena for this.

    Also, there is the victim mentality. “I get made fun of by everyone! They all think I’m crazy and/or retarded! Oh, but they’ll see when I’m right! They’ll be sorry! And even all my conspiracies are all false, I’ll invent evidence out of nowhere that appears to be irrefutable to the untrained eye, just to get these bullies to go fuck themselves!”

    All of these ingredients are perfect for the creation of the conspiritualist.

    There is always room for critical thinking in the scientific arena though. So, I’m going to ask some questions. This question is simple curiosity: Are there any conspiracy theories which you think to be true, or possible true, or have you found that absolutely all conspiracy theories false?

    My second question is more critical: Repeatedly throughout history, civilizations have touted many (so-called scientific back in the day) developments and practices, which by today’s standards are completely ridiculous. Do you think that the modern world is exempt from such fallacy? In the distant future, would you say that it’s possible that civilization will find many of the touted (so-called scientific in this day) developments and practices to be completely ridiculous as well, or do you think that modern civilization is uniquely exempt?

    • anticultist says :

      —————————————————————————————————Are there any conspiracy theories which you think to be true, or possible true, or have you found that absolutely all conspiracy theories false?

      There are elements of some conspiracies that may be proven to be true at some point in the future, such as aliens in our universe/galaxy. Also there may be a few minor details about conspiracy theories that are in fact true.

      These minor details however do not indicate an overarching theme of truth to the whole conspiracy theory though, so even if there are some minor details that might be true, this does not mean anything but that alone. No further conclusion or claims can be drawn from them, unless they are somehow important enough to vindicate a claim.

      As of yet there are no conspiracy theories I know of that have been proven to be correct, or have enough component parts to warrant any further investigations.

      Repeatedly throughout history, civilizations have touted many (so-called scientific back in the day) developments and practices, which by today’s standards are completely ridiculous. Do you think that the modern world is exempt from such fallacy? In the distant future, would you say that it’s possible that civilization will find many of the touted (so-called scientific in this day) developments and practices to be completely ridiculous as well, or do you think that modern civilization is uniquely exempt?

      Of course we are not exempt, this is the scientific process in action, we update our worldview and knowledge based on evidence. We hold to theory which has so far shown to be valid beyond reasonable doubt, but if there is an absolute case where the reasonable doubt is overturned then we update whatever is affected by this.

      To say we are above being refuted or wrong is not a scientific stance it i in fact a religious stance, and no scientific person would ever take this stance. That is unless the evidence they have can no be presently refuted.

      Therefore a scientific person would be within their rights to laugh at someone who said oh you may be wrong at x years in the future, when presently there is nothing to even indicate they are currently wrong about a thing.

      Should they be proven wrong at x years in the future that same scientific person would concede being wrong and update their woldview. That is exactly how it operates.

      But until they can be shown to be wrong there is absolutely no reason for them to concede an inch of room to a conspiracist or a religious person.

      • Wyboth says :

        Couldn’t have said better myself. Bravo.

      • Zach says :

        Yeah, sounds good.

      • anticultist says :

        Meanwhile in moron ville this is where zach gets his credible information from:
        “UFOTV delivers a steady stream of High Quality Feature Length Programs on a wide variety of Suppressed and Exotic topics such as UFOs and Exopolitics, The Paranormal, Political and Science Controversies, Mind and Spirit. The human side of true and miraculous stories of the wildly strange and unexplained are featured on UFOTV.”

  43. Zach says :

    This one looks fun. Not from a religious perspective either.

    • anticultist says :

      “He makes it clear that he does not ‘think the earth is only a few thousand years old’. But he says there is no way of knowing how old it is, scientifically, which is only reasonable considering that he has undermined the credibility of the favourite dating methods of evolutionists.”

      Technically and scientifically this is false, we have plenty of biological material all over the world that indicates a world that has been around x amount of years. We can conclude from this that it is at least a certain age. This does mean that it can in fact be dated scientifically. If we are going to use the argument you were never there so how could you know, then you might as well reverse that argument and say the same for the bible, jesus and god. The claims that the measurement techniques have been undermined is already refuted if he is discussing carbon dating techniques. This can easily be found online if one wants to actually research this.

      “He does say that he thinks that there is good circumstantial evidence for some form of evolution, but does not go into the specifics of how much or how little. ”

      Circumstantial ? his bar for evidence must be impossible to attain. Appendix, tail bones, genetics and DNA, fossils, whales having unused leg bones, mammals that breath air living in water, the list of ‘circumstantial’ evidence is mind boggling long enough to make the case that he is only refusing to accept it exists.

      “Another impression that comes through strongly is that Milton’s real ‘beef’ is with authoritarianism of any kind, and that what really gets under his skin is the arrogant cultural imperialism of the Darwinists.(Having read another book of his on ‘alternative science’, it is clear that he is of a mindset which is attracted by anti-establishmentism, whatever its flavour. Almost anything which would irritate mainstream science gets some sort of hearing, even Uri Geller.)”

      In other words the author is a relativist, and has a penchant for the post modernist view of the world, which is an utterly childish and mindless view of the world even from the perspective of an intellectual liberal.

      “He highlights some of the evidence for catastrophism in geology”

      Durrrrr…yeah that is because floods, volcanoes, earth quakes and meteorites actually exist in the real world without the need for a god to make them happen.

      By the way that website is ran by these cretins:

      “Creation Ministries International (CMI) is a non-profit young Earth creationist organisation of autonomous Christian apologetics ministries that promote a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.”

      • Zach says :

        Arg, yeah of course the religious nuts are going to be promoting this book. I should have found a better book review. Well, here is a video interview that is interesting. He goes into the scientific arena here which may address the issues you had. UFO tv did an interview. Not a bad interview though.

      • anticultist says :

        I don’t want to sit and rebuke a 30 minute video for you, tell me in your own words what exactly is so convincing about a you tube video that can debunk the last 100 years of scientific progress ?

      • Zach says :

        Seriously,. this video explains quite a bit and makes some really powerful points. Any serious scientist should definitely at least watch the first 15 minutes. I myself am not super scientific, but this guy is using very specific scientific examples of what he deems to be flaws in Darwinian theory. He is very reasonable and is not a conspiracy theorist.

      • a rational person says :

        zach, u’re still a coward…refusing to accept evidence that proves the things you desperately want to leave as “open questions” aren’t open at all.

        why do u do this? do u think it makes you look reasonable? all it does it make you look fucking stupid. we present you evidence to show that something is what it is, and u think it’s some kind of moral surrender to admit that a spade is a spade…you are so desperate to say “there’s insufficient evidence to determine” but the reality is that there IS evidence to determine…like, we KNOW FOR A FACT what happened on 9/11…we KNOW FOR A FACT it was done by osama bin laden and al qaeda ALONE…and yet u still sit up here and quack stupid shit like “there’s not enough evidence for us to be sure”.

        bull fucking shit. i don’t buy it. i think u are a nutbag. but what’s sad about it is you’re ALMOST rational but you can’t quite cross the line and stop being a nutbag. and u have no idea how fucking sad this is, because it’s exactly why thrive sucks, and why ppl like foster gamble are hurting so many people out there.

        wake up hoss…there is hope for you but you refuse to recognize it. it’s almost sadder than if u were out there shouting about lizard people and “911 was an inside job.” i feel sorry for you.

      • NonFiction says :

        OK, you guys have gone off the deep end here. Enough of this bickering drivel, you look like damn fools and trolls. This thread has devolved into something I would expect to read in the comments section of a celebrity blog.

        @ a rational person: “…like, we KNOW FOR A FACT what happened on 9/11…we KNOW FOR A FACT it was done by osama bin laden and al qaeda ALONE…”

        My dear fellow, Congressmen have come forward to complain that they do not even know what happened (and that is after the 9/11 Commission’s report, not before), but apparently you have the inside track to information that no one else has? Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I bet you know where Amelia Earhart went down, too? After a comment like that, you talking about science, evidence, and facts just makes you look amazingly gullible. You believe bullshit even more easily than the Thrive quacks, so you are not helping to debunk anything here.

        Zach may appear to be a fence-rider (and possibly he is), but he is following a few principles of science to which you apparently have never been exposed: basic healthy cynicism, and an open mind. Question everything, and when you get hard facts (not hearsay and rumors spread by press releases, thank you) you should see what picture they actually do paint, rather than try desperately to squeeze them into some preconceived idea that you wish was the truth. Because his mind is not already made up, Zach has more potential to arrive at the truth than do you. In the absence of an emergency, there is no virtue in arriving at a conclusion and taking a stand more quickly, if that conclusion is inflexible…and dead wrong.

        Congratulations guys, you have lowered yourselves to Gamble’s level. Foster can now feel like he is a success. I’m going to go throw up now.

      • a rational person says :

        and another thing zach, why are you even still here? muertos fucking owned your ass when you first started posting in this topic…remember all that stupid shit you were farting out your mouth about “ohh why don’t u go build these free energy machines and prove theyre a scam?” admit it, muertos fucking humiliated you, because he was right and u were wrong. it’s a wonder u even decided to come back here after getting ur ass fucking handed to you like that.

        then slayerx3 owned your ass again…
        then anticultirst owned your ass a third time…

        you’ve been making a fool of yourself here for 6 months…i just scrolled up and read all your stupid bullshit comments from june…u really think anybody takes you seriously? and now you’re pushing retarded youtube videos from creationsists? and not even “sane” creationists but nutbags who think the world was made 6000 yrs ago?

        u really think anybody would mistake you for someone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together? if so i’d like to know what drugs u’re on and if u would please share some with me. k thx bye

      • anticultist says :

        yup zach has spent the last 6 months scouring the internet for evidence that mainstream science is wrong from bat shit crazy sources. You would think that by now he would have realised that all he is doing is running around chasing his own tail. Eventually he will figure out that all he is doing is being gullible and easily duped by foolish claims, but until then we have to put up with the shit he posts here that is already long debunked on the internet on pages he can’t be bothered to find himself.

      • Frankie says :

        Zach: Once you see the bible is full of contradiction and a lot of illogical bullcrap you will abandon it.

        If god is so benevolent, why did he allow for the existence of hell, a place of eternal punishment?

        You would eventually forgive people who are being punished right? If not, you are a fucking tyrant, and as mr. rational says, a nutbag.

      • Zach says :

        And to you ‘a rational person,’ no, muertos did not own my ass at all. I actually made this blog look really bad, because all I did was make the simple request to actually try building the machines from the designs. Not only was this never even tried, but I was even LIED to about it. I was told that “I made the devices and none of them worked,” and it was later admitted that this was a fucking lie! I totally owned the asses of everyone who went against me on that one, and I exposed them to be nothing more than lying cheats.

      • anticultist says :

        You were not lied to you were taken the piss out of, the person posting who said that was laughing at you. They made the claim they made them all over a weekend, only a world class clown would believe that as possible, and I suspect the person posting it was seeing how stupid you were.

        Muertos asked you to build them, and said he would retract this entire blog and make a new one saying wrong he was and how right you were if you could provide an example that was verified by two separate scientists and showing the science behind the machine.

        You however have neither responded to that or provided the evidence necessary to debunk his claims.

        This just shows how much of a liar you actually are now, you just made yourself into a full on liar, because anyone can look above and read this series of posts dated: June 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm and he was talking to you directly.

      • anticultist says :

        A complete debunk by skeptics of everything Richard Milton [the dude who thinks he can debunk evolution and darwinism in that piss poor video above posted by that zach clown] .

      • Zach says :

        No, I was lied to. Please go back and look at the comments. I was deliberately lied to. Laughing was just an excuse for this lying. Is this how scientists conduct themselves? Gross.

        I was the one who asked you dumfucks to build the devices, since you like to call yourselves scientists, and then you tried to turn this on me so you could get out of it. I am not the fucking scientist. You claim to be, so it is YOUR responsibility to disprove these designs for these devices. I have also responded to this with so many comments, but I continute to be ignored. You are the fucking liar because you lied about making the devices and then tried to turn this into a joke. And I encourage anyone and everyone to read the posts. They will prove that you guys are nothing more than fucking liars and losers who are so very despeate to project this onto me.

    • anticultist says :

      You silly bastard, no one is going to waste their time in building a device that clearly breaks the second law of thermodynamics who is a real scientist. Only a kook is going to try and claim they can do such a thing, which is why those same kooks should fucking prove it, and that includes you.

      No one here is going to try and build something that violates the laws of known physics, without a valid theoretical basis.

      You believe it ? Then prove it !

      That is what is known as the burden of proof, it is a fundamental concept that school kids are taught.

      • Zach says :

        Go fuck yourself once again. Even the author of the free energy devices link I posted says that his devices DO NOT VIOLATE THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS, but instead taps into a different energy source that exists everywhere in existence. But you would have to actually investigate this yourself to see this. Unfortunately you haven’t been doing your research. I am reminded of a two year old when I see your hideous comments against me. You are more retarded than I previously thought.

      • anticultist says :

        This about all anyone needs to know about you boy.

  44. Zach says :

    You fucking losers. This time you’ve pissed me off. I don’t read the bible. I’m not a fucking Christian. Watch the fucking video and stop bashing me you fucking bullies. I posted this video here because this is a popular site and I wanted to get some actual honest scientific inquiry on Darwinism. This is a video that actually debunks Darwinism as not actually being provable from a nonreligious perspective. If you loser assholes actually think that the only alternative to Darwinism is being a bible thumper, then you are morons. And listen, ‘hoss,’ you think you know it all when you don’t. You are an arrogant piece of shit. I actually find a video that actually has validity for once, and now you losers refuse to even watch 15 minutes of it and instead you waste your time bashing ME. Fuck you! I’ll post the video again just to shove it in your pathetic fucking faces! “For the last 6 months… bla bla bla…” yeah, well, I enjoy being a skeptic on supposedly infallible science. It’s fun. If you have a problem with that, then maybe you should examine your own goddamn life.


    • anticultist says :

      Not watching a fucking video if you can’t even explain it in your own words. I don’t resort to 30 minute you tube videos to explain myself because I have an education and a fucking brain.

      Something you seem to be lacking.

      Double posting the video just shows how dumb you are, we didn’t miss it first time, you were asked to explain in your own fucking words why you think evolution can be debunked. It is obvious that you can’t therefore you are just another dumb person not worth anyone’s attention, we ignored it first time and it’s getting ignored a second since you are too stupid to put your own argument forward. You have been here 6 months and have just tried with topic after topic to discredit conventional wisdom, every time you have been shown incorrect and lacking the ability to differentiate good information from ridiculous.

      Before calling anyone a loser you need to take a long look at yourself mate, None of us are posting stupid shit and asking other people to explain it to us. You aren’t a fucking skeptic you are just a gullible moron.trying to find any stupid shit on the internet and hoping something you find might have some level of credibility to it. Fact of the matter is, you have found nothing in the 6 months you have been here pissing about and multiple attempts with different topics makes you look really fucking gullible ..

      • Zach says :

        The guy in the video describes this waaaay better than I can. I would be doing a great disservice to science itself to try to explain it in my own words when this guy does such an excellent job.

        I also haven’t been here 6 months. I actually live in a house and go places, you dumass.

        Also, I have only mentioned two topics for discussion: chemtrails, which I was simply playing the devil’s advocate of neutrality for the hell of it, and now this book about the flaws of Darwinism from a nonreligious standpoint. This isn’t enough for you to so ridiculously take everything I say to be worthless, not by a long shot.

        I never asked you to explain anything actually. I was just posting this because I thought it was an awesome read. And this is the first time I’ve actually done any real name calling against you. You have been name calling me countless times, and so my name calling against you is well called for, you condescending arrogant prick.

        I actually have found something valid here, and now you won’t take a look at it. Well it’s your loss. How convenient it is for you to just refuse to take a look at it. You are not a scientist at all. Again, I don’t care if you explain or try to debunk this or not. That’s your call. I don’t give a fuck. I was just putting it out there. Other people may take a look at the video, which is good enough for me. I’ll be re-posting it again for a third time as well in the near future, so that people will actually be able to find it in the maze of yours and others’ excessive personal attacks against me.

      • anticultist says :

        Posting it a third time would just be spam, do you think people can’t see the big fucking video screen in the comments ?

        You wouldn’t know good information from bad information if it told you with a big stupid neon sign, you have used some of the worst places to source your information from possible., creation ministries, you tube channels ran by twits. Honestly if you even knew what credible source of information was you might get taken seriously, but as it stands you are just an ‘agnostic’ who wants badly for the magic of woo to be real.
        I am past wasting my time on you, you are incapable of rational thinking or critical evaluation of information.

        I have on more than one occasion shown you why your thinking is wrong, and even had to provide you with information debunking your stupid posts, which you could have found yourself had you bothered to fucking research.

        It is clear to me now you are not looking for the actual truth, you are merely looking for a version of the truth that fits into how you wish the world ran. You want for science to be wrong, therefore you look to find anything you can even if that means going to creationist and ufo websites.
        Then you are shocked when the rest of us scoff at your posts and inability to discern why your posts are laughed at.

        Honestly you need to get a better grasp of what a credible source of information is before posting it, that would be a good a start. and creation ministries !!!! for fucks sake zach.

      • Zach says :

        And seriously, you have probably spent an excess of 30 minutes typing out your drivel against me after I posted this interview, but you won’t spend 15 minutes to watch this scientist, who tells it better than I ever could? You won’t watch any of the video I posted, yet you waste all this time, probably an excess of 30 minutes, trying make yourself look superior to me? What’s up with that?

      • Frankie says :

        Zach: Why do you want to question darwinism when a lot of experiments and a lot of findings have found a lot of evidence?

        Anticultist is right, there is a difference between creationist books and actual credible sources, like a real peer reviewed journal or a scientific magazine. When you show us one of those finding a lack of evidence for evolution then we will read it. But a youtube bullshit video wont convince anyone.

        “Oh! i also saw a video on fairies and elves, and it said they were real!! Might they be real guys? Just saying…”
        Thats exactly how u look(except the object of questioning is another thing). You are a wooist. Period.

      • anticultist says :

        Here is the credibility of your so called scientist:

        He is in fact not a scientist, but is an engineer. He has no qualifications or expertise or scientific knowledge in the fields of biology, his opinion, and that is all it is, is discredited by some of the worlds foremost scientific/academic experts in the fields he is arguing.

        He is quoted as being a contrarian for the sake of it , sound familiar zach ?

      • anticultist says :

        Here is a review of the evry claims he makes in the video by Richard Dawkins:

        Of course you could have found this yourself and saved us all the waste of time doing it for you, or demanding we watch some stupid fucking journalists opinions on evolution that are totally debunked already.

        In future do some fucking work zach you lazy bastard.

      • Zach says :

        anticultist, this biased review of the author you have posted is clearly just a cheap bashing and nothing more. The author never claimed that the earth started in 8000 B.C. And also, if you watch the video, the author specifically addresses accusations against him of being religious. The author states that it cannot be yet known how old the earth is with current evidence He states that the earth may be hundreds of thousands of years old (which obviously discredits your site against him comparing him to creationists and their ‘few thousand years old’ age) in its formation, but that the materials composing the earth may be around for quite a bit longer, possibly billions of years. He also goes into situations where radioactive dating may be inaccurate, as with coal.

        And it looks like many fields of science could use some perspectives from outsiders who have not been so indoctrinated with dogmas. At least these people can think for themselves.

        Now, please if you really want to know who the author is beyond your biased and outright misleading links you have posted about him, watch the fucking video.

        And Frankie, fairys and elves? Really? You are using this kind of comparison fo the video I posted? No, this guy actually uses real factual evidence in the real world. Have fun in fairy land Frankie. And why do I want to discredit Darwinism? I don’t. I just always thought that there was something off with the theory (not from a religious standpoint but from a secular standpoint), and that conclusions were made without enough evidence.

      • anticultist says :

        That reply shows exactly why you are not a skeptic and why people don’t take you seriously here. Richard Dawkins is an expert in evolutionary biology with decades of research in the field and in academia. You on the other hand choose to value the opinion of a journalist who has no study of the subject or expertise.

        This proves exactly what I was saying about your lack of ability to discern credible information from fallacious, it is for this exact reason why you are a gullible moron and a waste of everyone’s time here.

        Also if you were intellectually honest you would have, like I did look at alternative perspectives and critiques of richard milton and his work by respected scientists and researchers. Apparently you are too fucking lazy and stupid to do that though.

        I don’t need to watch your retarded video because I have already heard the argument s this journalist clown makes and the refutations of them, you somehow think it is new information I have never encountered. You are late to the fucking party as normal.

        You are absolutely 100% proven to be incapable now, three times I have provided counter arguments and rationale why you are wrong, yet here you are still pushing your stupid out as if you have some kind of argument against the experts with your debunked posts.

        You have failed on every level possible, and for you to claim yourself a skeptic is an outrage.

      • Zach says :

        “Also if you were intellectually honest you would have, like I did look at alternative perspectives and critiques of richard milton and his work by respected scientists and researchers. Apparently you are too fucking lazy and stupid to do that though.”

        You are too fucking stupid and lazy to read my comment that stated that I had indeed read the critiques on the guy. I just fucking told you in my previous comment that the critique is putting out false information about him. Read my fucking comment you dipshit. I read the critiques you posted. I looked at the Wikipedia site before I even posted the video on this forum. Man you are fucking dense!

        I have failed on every possible level eh? Not really. Actually, I have proven that you are just a clown troll who refuses to look at any alternative evidence. But hey, let’s investigate this further:

        The chemtrail debate there was no defeat, because I wasn’t saying one way or the other, and then I began to see that there is enough evidence that there is nothing to chemtrail propaganda. However, because I didn’t take sides on the issue, I cannot be defeated. And what about the other two defeats eh? Do you mean when I was actually lied to about the free energy devices, when I was told that all the devices were made and dis-proven by you, and this was an outright fucking lie, and was even admitted to later? Is this what you call defeating me? And now this time. You won’t even look at the evidence I have presented to you because apparently an engineer has no ability to use his reasoning skills in multiple fields. So because he doesn’t have that piece of paper on the wall in every possible field, this means that he has no ability to scientifically reason in other fields at all? lol! Is this you defeating me? Wow, you are fucking clown who puts clowns like me to shame. You are in fact the most clownish of all clowns.

      • anticultist says :

        meh,it has already been established that you are incapable of ascertaining credible information from ridiculous, I can’t imagine anyone here taking a thing you say from this point on with any seriousness. You can post walls of text and I personally wont even read them anymore, you are just a gullible moron.

      • Zach says :

        If I was a gullible moron, then I would believe any piece of information is real, such as a giant spaghetti monster creating the universe. Clearly I have the ability to make discernment. I am simply more open to other ideas, evidence, and information than you are. This however does not qualify me as a moron.

        You can be lazy and not read my comments, but my comments stand all on their own and make you look like a moron yourself. And all the time you spent bashing me was far greater than 15 minutes of time to just look to see what the engineer had to say. This is yet another of your many blunders. You are willing to take the time to troll me, yet you won’t spend 15 minutes on an interview. You invent attacks against me out of thin air when I clearly have explained myself in my comments which you are too lazy to even read. I remain undefeated. However, you don’t look like you are doing so well.

      • anticultist says :

        didn’t read. but when you can understand basic science and credible evidence I might take you serious, meanwhile I get the last word here you gullible moron.

      • Frankie says :

        Zach: Look, you gullible dumbfuck, the analogy of fairies and elves works, you know why? because wanting to look for evidence of something almost established as evolution shows you can believe anything your fancy allows.

        Thats why everyone here has called you a nutbag.. because you are. You are the one who should have fun on the Faery Land of Woo. Good luck there buddy, and be careful also with UFOs, they might cut your penis for genetic testing.

      • Zach says :

        You can have the last word if it makes you feel better, but I have totally revealed you to be the one who is the moron in my comments. So go ahead and whimper all you like, but it’s not going to get you anywhere.

      • Zach says :

        And oh boy it’s Frankie the fairy fucker again! He has decided to also ignore my recent comments as well which clearly show that I won’t go out and just believe anything. Oh boy! Yet another lazy fuckhead clown who is too lazy to read my comments.

      • anticultist says :

        Only cranks and morons are going to take anything you post with any interest zach. Learn what credible evidence is, that does not include or creationist websites you dummy

      • Frankie says :

        Zach: You are the fairy boy, for believing in people who arent serious. Do you also believe in Avatar the Air bender? Or in Uri Geller? there are some cranks who are “serious scientists” who claim he is for real.
        I read your comments. Why do you assume I didn’t? The reason no one comments on them it’s because they are beyond mockery. No mockery can properly mock what you posted because even the smartest mockers haven’t found a way to make fun of your ridiculous bullcrap.
        I am not watching the video either, because there is no doubt evolution is real. Just because some ideas are being refined doesn’t mean it’s not true.
        Just go and read some actual biology book, instead of fucking ridiculous videos. Believe me, they will teach you a lot, they will resolve a lot of your doubts.

      • Zach says :

        LOL! Avatar! Uri Geller? Huh? All I did was post a completely secular interview that has nothing to do with this bullshit. and Biology? I have had basic courses in Biology so blow it out your ass.

        As for my creationist website, in this case I have been lazy. I didn’t look into the source of the book review. However, I have corrected my laziness by posting an interview with the author himself speaking about Darwinism. Now, since you have have taken the time to hound me once again, it only makes sense that you would at least take a look at the interview. But you won’t, and you won’t even read my comments. So, unlike you, I actually have corrected my laziness. I will also continue to correct my laziness and obtain factual information that is both inside and outside the scientific community’s comfort zone. You however, are incapable of self-correction. You are not malliable or changable. You are just fucking deadweights stuck on a dead end. This means that you are incapable of growth, and instead default on what makes you comfortable. How very sad.

      • anticultist says :

        No you haven’t corrected your laziness, you merely provided another shit example as you posted a ufotv YouTube video of a debunked journalist.

        Your so called credible site states: “UFOTV delivers a steady stream of High Quality Feature Length Programs on a wide variety of Suppressed and Exotic topics such as UFOs and Exopolitics, The Paranormal, Political and Science Controversies, Mind and Spirit. The human side of true and miraculous stories of the wildly strange and unexplained are featured on UFOTV.”

        You are an embarrassment to critical thinking.

    • Frankie says :

      No, Zach. You eat shit, because it doesnt seem you have applied anything youv have learned on those courses.

      Use what you learned there! Thats if you actually learned something about evolution.

      And you havent got my point about the whole fairy analogy, maybe because you are a retard. The reason i told u to believe in fairies is because if you want to doubt something like evolution, you might as well doubt reality altogether.

      And you cant fool anyone, because you showed creationist bullshit. So, secular my ass… Show me something really secular.

  45. Zach says :

    I am starting this here without showing up as a reply, so that it is easier to reply to the comments without all the scrolling.

    No, I have provided an interview of someone who has something to say. You are an embarrasment to science itself, anticultist.

    And no, I don’t eat shit Frankie the fairy fucker. Interestingly, the author claims that Darwinism is actually centered around time, and this is what is disputed. And the fairy analogy has been explained by me in a previous comment. I will once more explain this. I don’t believe anything and everything that is placed in front of me. I have a discriminating eye. For example yet again, I would not believe that a spaghetti monster created the universe. This is because I operate on logic, unlike yourself and your fairies and elves. And you actually equate evolution to reality. Sounds like a cult to me. And my creationist website… lol, please view my previous comment about this. I do not endorse christianity infested creationism in any way. I make one mistake and you pounce on it in such desperation lmao! You are so desperate! Is this all you have against me? Aside from all your other cheap tactics that don’t even count at all, evidently this is the case. You really have nothing, and you still won’t watch the interview. I will repeat this for the millionth time: you waste all this time attacking me, yet you won’t waste a mere 15 minutes to watch half the interview. Fuck off.

    • anticultist says :

      Dude you posted a video of an idiot debunked by academics who specialise in biology and evolution, you seem to think a journalists opinion somehow trumps theirs ?

      You are a total joke son and the sooner you realise it the less embarrassing it will be for you in the long run.

      In the mean time here is exactly what you are exhibiting this very moment:

      • Frankie says :

        Anticultist: besides the things i mentioned, can a magazine like scientific american be considered a credible source? That magazine has a good reputation and they dont talk about psychics being real or shit like that.
        I know its not a science journal, but can they be credible?

      • Zach says :

        You still haven’t even watched the interview, and you haven’t debunked the guy. Of course you don’t have to do any of these things, but since you are so eager to bash him and myself, you better back yourself up, but you haven’t. You just blow shit out of your mouth instead.

        Amazingly the effect that you project onto me is in fact yours. Wow… to the letter, this is indeed your syndrome. Wow, yes indeed you exhibit every single trait described. Wow… you just revealed your own dysfunction.

      • Zach says :

        There is credibility in this magazine of course. There is also credibility within other sources as well, Frankie.

      • anticultist says :

        Buddy if I exhibited the dunning kruger effect I would be making claims like you, however I am just denying your claims are real, and ignoring everything you claim, because you have been given enough chances to show some credible evidence and have failed/refused.

        Here is an example of the shite you spout:

        “Even the author of the free energy devices link I posted says that his devices DO NOT VIOLATE THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS, but instead taps into a different energy source that exists everywhere in existence. But you would have to actually investigate this yourself to see this. ”

        That is pure LOL stuff, and an example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

        Seriously kid, if i were you I would probably shut my fucking mouth and move on, the more you post here the dumber you get.

      • anticultist says :

        Scientific american is a reasonable source sure, although as you said already, the author would need a credibility check,and then then information stated would need cross checking against current scientific consensus, and then independent validation would need to be shown for any possibility of taking it seriously for further investigation.

        That would be the first step for open discussion on the matter, it would certainly not warrant the claim of evidence though.

      • Zach says :

        No, seriously, if you had even read any of the link you posted, you would realize that you have all the symptoms. I’m just a guy who posted a link to an interview who is getting unfairly bashed for it. You still won’t even watch the interview, which shows that you clearly have this syndrome. You think that you are too good to watch the interview. You are fucking disgusting! And you even quote me showing your ignorance regarding the thermodynamics law and the link I posted, and then you say that I think I’m superior to you because of this. You are clearly a sick dude. It is an obvious fact that the link I posted about free energy devices clearly states that he does not violate any laws of thermodynamics. You making this accusation against my justified aggravation towards your unfounded claims proves that you are fucking delusional! Indeed, the more you post anticultist, the more retarded and symptomatic of this disorder you show within yourself, not me.

        And hell, even if I am wrong about this guy, I don’t care. At least I can learn from this. But you won’t even fucking look at it. Some scientist you are. Fuck you.

      • anticultist says :

        ok buddy yeah you are the expert on the effect I just posted that explains you.

        LOL how ironic. Honestly you are a joke son.

      • Zach says :

        Expert on it? No. I simply read the link you posted about it. You were the one who first said that I had the syndrome. So I just read your link and saw that your elitist and condescending attitude fit the description.

      • anticultist says :

        wah wah wah, It has already been established that you couldn’t interpret a real fact from a false one, so your interpretation of the link means nothing.

    • Frankie says :

      I already watched your video, and the whole thing shows that the source isnt credible. Show me a science journal, or an article by a renowned scientist, maybe even a magazine article from a respected magazine…
      If you had critical thinking skills, you would have trashed that video because of the ufo thing, and also by researching about that dude like anticultist said.. I always look up the authors of the books im going to buy, almost in an obssessive manner. But you know what? it has benefited me, because i dont go and buy into anything.
      I have an openind like you, Zach. I used to helieve in ufos, and a lot of ridiculous nonsense, but i looked a bit deeper into those things and found no evidence.
      Now, i am very open to ideas, as long as the one making the claim shows me an actual credible source.
      Evolution has been pretty much established, and it is being refined and refined. And more evidence is accumulating.
      Without being an asshole, dont buy into this shit, Zach. Its toxic, just as the Thrive movie is toxic.

      • Zach says :

        Since you have watched the whole interview, do you care to address the factual evidence the author has presented? Please, by all means, go into deep detail on every single point the author has presented, since you have made so many excuses as to why he’s so full of it.

      • Frankie says :

        Well, I am not going to talk about everything that guy said, but, reading the articles anticultist posted i cant take that guy seriously, I am sorry.
        You shouldnt either.

      • anticultist says :

        Nor should you Frankie, unlike zach you understand the importance of credibility.

      • Zach says :

        And what the hell is this? Frankie, you seriously don’t need to be a suck-up to anticultist. Please think for yourself!

      • Frankie says :

        I am not a sucker.. Its just that what he posted happens to make more sense. It hasnt anything to do with him. You could have posted it either, which is not the case.
        And also, I think for myself a lot. I dont follow fashion, i dont care about it. I love dark clothes and things that look geekish. In many other ways i am way out of the norm, and even though its out of the norm, i have friends who support me. But thats off topic. When thinking for yourself, its also important to use logic. If you dont, you will be doing or believing what everyone tells you. I used to believe i was mentally ill, just because an uncle of mine said so. When i got to learn about critical thinking i questioned that and i realized i am just different. What i do, if taken to an extreme, can be a problem, but thats not the case for me.
        In fact, i realized that uncle is the one who is mentally ill, he is emotionally unstable and has anger issues.
        The point is that you cant just go and believe what X dude said and say you are open minded. Perhaps you are, bur being open minded doesnt equal letting your brain fall out.
        I hope you understand this, because I see that you just want to deny yourself this, and unlike many thrive and other conspiratards here, you seem to be capable of learning how to credibility check. You just gotta research about the author and see if it makes sense with what is known, just as anticultist said.
        I have found it really annoying that now i have to check author credibilities all the time, but i have to do it. I cant just trust any guy handing me information that might be false…

      • Zach says :

        Very true. I don’t blindly believe this guy either. I just found it interesting, as I like to explore different perspectives from the status quo. As for credentials, there have been people who have been extremely successful entrepreneurs successful without college:

        This is why I will at least entertain some alternative perspectives.

      • Frankie says :

        Its always good to question, but one has to be careful when finding sources.
        As skeptics, we question everything, and we demand evidence so the answers we get are more certain.
        We dont like to just believe blindly in things, because they might turn out to be wrong and we would have wasted time.
        A lot of these things mask themselves as just alternative perspectives, but they arent. They are pseudoscientific trash that isnt worthy of being an alternative, no offense to you. There can be alternative theories that are scientific, specially in fields like astronomy, where we cant go and measure directly many things.
        For example, in the whole debate of life in the universe you have many perspectives and theories. Some propose to go and look for Dyson spheres, others for Newman probes.
        Others have proposed that along the radio SETI, they should also look for signals on pulsars, which aliens may be using to signal us.
        All this is hypothetical, but they are alternatives to radio SETI, and they dont violate any physical laws we know of.
        This is one example of alternative perspective that is done scientifically. 🙂

      • anticultist says :

        “As for credentials, there have been people who have been extremely successful entrepreneurs successful without college:”

        This is not a valid argument for belief in ridiculous claims without evidence. Particularly claims that are the only ones to counter thousands of established facts through multiple disciplines. Credentials show a person has expertise and years of research into a subject and it is essential when weighing up ludicrous claims that counter current scientific consensus. You would be foolish to go and ask a politician about your health problem, and like wise you would be foolish to ask a journalist about evolutionary biology. I suspect one you would never do, but for some reason you opt to do the other.

        Either the claim can be proven true or it can’t , if it can it will upturn current knowledge, until then it will be considered nonsense for ignoring all the science that shows it wrong.

      • Frankie says :

        Exactly, thats another point i didnt mentioned. If an alternative approach of hypothesis is feasible (it doesnt upturn all of the sciences) then you can consider it until something gets proven.
        But questioning whether evolution is true is akin to questioning whether the sun in reality orbits the earth. No offense here, but this is very similar. It would be also akin questioning whether an apple might not be a fruit but a nut.
        This is all examples of things taken to an extreme, but they arent meant to mock you, Zach, but to mock the ideas presented on that video.
        Like Muertos wrote about Foster Gamble: Dont let thrive identify you.
        I tell you this to you also, Zach… Dont let this bullshit identify you.
        I know you certainly can do better than this..

      • Zach says :

        Anticultist, you can’t really say much because you haven’t even read this guy’s book or watched his video. I find it hilarious that you can say that he’s so full of shit when you won’t even investigate what he says at all and instead relentlessly go after me. Also, you ignore the fact that I never once said that I believe this guy. I just put it out there because he goes into great detail about the possible flaws of Darwinism. But ok. I’ll give you this to read instead. I hope that you’re not too lazy to read this too. I don’t know. You wouldn’t watch 15 minutes of the other video, yet need I mention once more that you have wasted vast amounts of time hounding me? lol!

        Better look at this guy’s credential’s too lol! In fact if he doesn’t have 100 different PhDs better not listen to him either. lmao

        And Frankie, yes I understand all of what you say. I once more have to tell you that I don’t just blindly believe things. I simply like to venture because I get bored.

      • anticultist says :

        I can say what I want about him because his claims I have already encountered, his claims have been discussed and debunked by skeptics and atheists for years. Like I already said this guys work is infamous and I have encountered his claims before, I explained this to you already. I have seen Richard Dawkins annihilate this guys claims in lectures about evolution and biology already.

        It is not me who has to validate why I discount your belief in this man, it is you who has to validate his claims as they contravene current scientific knowledge. You can’t do it and you won’t because everyone here knows this guy is a crank, a crank who knows so little about evolutionary biology that he makes mistake after mistake in his books.

        You are the only one here who can’t see it, the reason being is you are clueless on how to assess good and bad information based on scientific principles and critical thinking.

      • Frankie says :

        Zach: who is the person who wrote the blog you posted? It doesnt show any credentials on his profile, and certainly “F” might be just a guy that has nothing to do. It can be anything but a scientist with credentials.

      • anticultist says :

        I guess you didn’t notice that the blog owner stopped posting his opinions and beliefs around 6 years ago ?

        But even funnier, it looks to me like you don’t even understand what is being said as the claims are even shown fallacious in the commenters posts on there LOL.

      • anticultist says :

        Basically Frankie, zach has gone on google and typed ‘evolution debunked’ found that blog and noticed that it is something that confirms his current bias and argument, and chosen to ignore the counteracting information online. He has even taken to ignoring the comment section on that very blog that shows every post made near enough to be fallacious.

        He has basically shown us another example of his inability to find scientifically verifiable evidence for his claims and beliefs.

        He believes evolution is wrong, and can’t prove it, so resorts to poor quality internet garbage to validate his belief.

      • anticultist says :

        Here is a direct quote from this blog poster he is using as his source for evidence against evolution:

        “I believe that life on earth is more than a process of discovery. It is the expression ideas created in a spiritual realm. The exact process of creating and expressing these ideas has not been studied in detail, at least by the scientific community, because reasoning runs counter their ideological beliefs.”

        LOL, your sources are so bad zach, that you should be embarrassed about how poorly your filter for crap works. The person posting this obviously is a religious person with an agenda against evolution because it undermines the value of a god in the world. He believes evolution is merely about atheism, and nothing to do with the observable world we live in.

        It should be clear to even the less prudent person here that this persons analysis of how the universe functions I quote: “I believe that life on earth is more than a process of discovery. It is the expression ideas created in a spiritual realm.” Is not only the voice of a crank, but is the vice of an extremely delusional crank.

      • Frankie says :

        Yes… i checked the blog, and the comments were showing how fallacious all this is. But there was this comment in favor saying how evolution is wrong because we havent seen mutations occurring to us right now that will benefit us.
        I just chuckled and closed the page. Its clearly another example of people who are either ignorant, or willing to believe whatever their fancy allows.
        Having fancies and dreams is awesome, but one shouldnt let them get in the way of science.
        Thats how it is.
        Just because we dont know how life started doesnt mean we have to insert god in there. It amuses me how everytime there is a mystery, crackpotic christians say its god, or that god must be moving the strings.
        Some people even say dark matter is god, just because we dont know what is it made of. Its really hillarious.

      • Frankie says :

        Anticultist: lol really? They even mentioned the spiritual realm? That should be enough to come to the conclusion that source just sucks.
        Clearly, those people are really lost on woo. They cant even tell the difference between imagination and reality.

      • anticultist says :

        I think he could probably do with taking every word of this article to heart and reading it every time he goes to post a source for his claims here:

      • Frankie says :

        Thats a great article, anticultist! n_n
        Its awesome that there is such a thing as google scholar.
        I actually need to use it to look up some information on galaxy formation.
        Kudos to you.

      • anticultist says :

        Not a problem Frankie, happy to have helped you out.

  46. Zach says :

    (My reply to your recent cesspool hell comments as of late)

    You don’t go into any specific detail whatsoever, unlike the video and the blog. Annihilate his claims? By all means show me this, for I would like to see it. If you are going to say he’s a crank, then the burden of proof is on you. You haven’t dis-proven anything. And the ones commenting… do you mean Fritz the Cat? lmao! You have pulled yet another double standard! You expect the blogger to have credentials, but you don’t require credentials from the ones commenting. You basically accept what the comments say as valid without requiring credentials from them, but you repeatedly insist on credentials from the blogger and the author in the video interview. wtf

    Really, seriously, please post Dawkins specifically debunking my two posts on every level.

    The blog stopping at 6 years ago isn’t enough for a discrediting. You are indeed correct, however, about my google search. It’s pretty easy to find plenty of blogs and people who debunk Darwinism. I am not ignoring the opposing side to the links I posted though. I’m just putting it out there because I can. I have seen many documentaries promoting evolution and so forth. The debunkers of evolution are less heard of, so I find it interesting to find this material and share it. I also find it hilarious that there are religious people who are evolutionists. So, the spiritual beliefs of the blogger have little relevance since there are many religious people who also call themselves scientists who believe in evolution. There are also many spiritual people who are pro-Darwin.

    You, anticultist, are a failure of a scientist. Even myself, with little scientific background, am way better off than you are. “He believes evolution is wrong, and can’t prove it, so resorts to poor quality internet garbage to validate his belief.” This is one of countless idiotic assumptions that you have made against me which have no basis in reality whatsoever. How in the fuck do you know what I do and do not believe? Do you think that you are a psychic or something? You seem to know everything about me, so evidently you must be insinuating that you have some kind of metaphysical ability (which of course, you are totally off Mr. psychic, as I am still undecided about the whole affair of evolution being wrong. I just enjoy playing the devil’s advocate).

    Here are some deeply religious people who are also pro-evolution at the same time:


    • Zach says :

      And here is some eye candy for you from the blog.

      “4 Reasons Evolution is False

      1. It does not match up the fossil record. The fossil record shows species appearing suddenly, not with small changes. An example is the Cambrian explosion. Life goes from being microscopic to complex multi cellular organisms suddenly. Evolutionists counter that evolution occurs with small isolated populations, under conditions that take too long to observe in a normal human lifespan (yes I’m talking about macro-evolution, the generation of new genes, and not speciation containing only a subset of the original genes) but too short to show up in the fossil record. Paradoxically they also proclaim that evolution requires “diversity” which is not likely to occur within small isolated populations.

      2. Evolution predicts common ancestors for the species. Phylogenetic trees will be different depending on each gene, which in turn will be different from those based on morphological characteristics. Even the wikipedia article explains this. Evolutionists try to explain the differences using terms like “horizontal gene transfer”, but these are not part of the original evolution theory, as it is normally explained. Large amounts of horizontal gene transfer taking place violates the principles of genetics.

      3. Philosophically speaking, all that evolution claims to do is provide a kind of search algorithm. To say that life is caused by evolution, is like saying that the internet was created by google. So even if the proposed evolutionary processes took place, it can’t really explain away the mysteries of life or deny intelligent design.

      4. The algorithm that evolution claims to work by, is flawed because the only source of information for it is the environment. Random mutations come from the environment. So does natural selection. In the end the only input to the proposed evolution function is random. Extracting information from a truly random stream is not possible.”

      • anticultist says :

        Not worth the time son you are an absolute idiot, I want you to believe this stupid shit now, I really do, I don’t even want to prevent you from looking like a stupid fool anymore,

        Please, I beg you go out into the world and tell everyone you meet about your belief that evolution is wrong and show them this erm ‘evidence’ you just found on someones internet blog LOL, yOu are going to end up looking like a right daft cunt, and don’t say we didn’t warn you son.

      • Frankie says :

        Just because we dont understand something doesnt mean we should take shit like intelligent design seriously.
        Intelligent design is to science what a piece of shit is to the Orion Spacecraft.

      • anticultist says :

        Keep posting your ridiculous shit, I am past caring or trying to help you.

        You are just a clueless fool.

      • anticultist says :

        That was directed at zach.

      • Zach says :

        Your bullshit reeks with every fucked up comment you post, anticultist. You are a walking, talking double standard. You haven’t even specifically debunked anything I’ve posted. You wouldn’t even watch the video. You blindly believed the comments against the blog without even demanding credentials from them, while instead demanding credentials from the blogger. You accuse me of having a psychological syndrome, when your elitist and condescending bullshit against me only shows yourself to have a psychological problem.

        So many hypocrisies coming from you. Amazing that you are so delusional you even think you’ve won this. All you have left is to use name-calling and make assumptions about me with your ‘psychic ability.’ Seriously, you must think yourself to be psychic to make all these assumptions about me without even knowing who I am. My god man! You have lost! You are a fool, and everyone is laughing at you! Even the scientists laugh at you because you have been unable to defeat me of all people. You make scientists look really fucking horrible, anticultist. You lose.

      • anticultist says :

        didn’t read. troll

    • anticultist says :

      Dude you are a joke, I don’t know why you bother trying anymore. Posting pseudoscientific,Christian and ufo sources is the type of crap amateurs do on a daily basis on the internet, you are no exception.

      You have completely lost your chance to be considered serious.

      • Zach says :

        Ahahahaha! You are too damn stupid to see the reason why I posted the religious website promoting evolution. You don’t see something wrong with this? I was making a point that you are too dense to see. You accuse me of posting a blog that has also mentioned spirituality, yet there are plenty of websites that are religious organizations that promote evolution. This makes me not take evolutionists seriously. I certainly don’t take you seriously.

      • anticultist says :

        Dude you have no point you are just a fucking idiot.

      • Zach says :

        My point was (do I really have to spell it out for you?) that there are members of the scientific community who are also religious and have contradictory beliefs. This has been blindly accepted as being ok evidently.

      • anticultist says :

        didn’t read idiot

      • Frankie says :

        Zach. I wish you luck with all this. It really pains me that you dont get anything we have been trying to tell you.
        Its frustrating, and dont get me wrong, I dont think you are stupid at all. You are just trying to hold on something because u dont want to admit you are wrong.
        If you are bored, then spend some time reading actual credible sources, instead of ufo and woo research.
        In the end, the outcome of your choices will return later on to haunt you.

      • Zach says :

        “Didn’t read idiot?” Doesn’t… that make you the idiot because you… didn’t read what was so painfully obvious?

        Frankie, really I’m not holding onto anything. There is nothing to admit myself guilty of if I have made no absolutist claims, unlike anticultist. And credible sources? Then should we also be saying that the works of Thomas Edison are invalid, since he didn’t have a college education? And we should also say that Benjamin Franklin is no good either since he also had no college education? Henry Ford? George Eastman? lol

        Judging from the unscientific and ridiculous ways anticultist has conducted himself, by the looks of it, even a conspiracy nutbag looks like a rational person by comparison. He tries to be an anticultist, but he just can’t help himself.

      • anticultist says :

        didn’t read, all your posts are ridiculous.

      • Frankie says :

        The people you mentioned may not have had any college education, but the difference is that they PROVED their claims.
        You cant compare them to a creationist wootard source.

      • Zach says :

        Ok anticultist, go ahead and cop out all you like. The more you do, the dumber you make yourself out to be. I think I’m ready to move on though. I have other things to do. This has been an interesting learning experience. I may make a few more comments here if you actually have anything of any value to say beyond “Duh, didn’t read it idiot. Duh, nope, didn’t read that one either, huh huh,” but I’m basically going to move on due to time constraints. From the looks of it, you will probably say that you haven’t read this comment either. By doing this, you are basically saying that you have been put in a corner. You should go sit in the corner for a while anyway. Two-year-olds do tend to throw temper tantrums.

      • anticultist says :

        didn’t read too long, your posts are too stupid as well.

      • Zach says :

        And Frankie, the real tragedy here is that so many evolutionists actually simultaneously and hypocritically flock to those same creationist woo woo sources, as has been evidenced by the link I posted of the religious organization endorsing evolution.

      • anticultist says :

        didn’t read, retards are not worth my time

      • Frankie says :

        Idk why, but i feel a bit sad you are going, Zach.
        From the comments I read above, you like art as I do. If it wasnt for these quarrels, we might have been online friends. I still think you can understand what anticultist and everyone else here has been trying yo tell you.
        I just wish you good, and hopefully you will stop believing in anti-evolutionist sources which are full of pseudoscience.

      • anticultist says :

        Frankie. As soon as you realise that someone is stupid and not capable of understanding what they are asking you to believe or research is stupid, you are best off just mocking and ignoring them.

        Your sentiments are kind but completely misplaced, because zach has no intention of changing his opinions, he just posts stupid shit for the sake of it. Whether he believes it or not is unimportant, what is important is his inability to discern how stupid his posts are, and how stupid his sources are. Hence why I am resorting to treating his posts like they deserve, with no respect or effort to read them.

        The less time you spend worrying about idiots like this the better off you will be. He will not be changing his mind about things any time soon, not until he realises how dumb he is himself, which could take a long time.

        His posts deserve a few word answers, because he has nothing of value to offer here.

      • Zach says :

        Frankie, I don’t really know what to believe. I don’t believe in anti-evolution really. I have just been playing the devil’s advocate as an experiment. And yes, I do like art. I am an artist myself in fact. There is no reason we can’t be friends. i can’t be friends with anticultist though. It’s not the information I have a problem with. It’s the way he presents the information and his condescending attitude. I however have humbled myself many times and have listened to both sides and have jumped around on both sides to see where it would go. I can take sides on some issues, and not on others. It just depends. I do understand the perspective of the evolutionists, but I do not confine myself to this perspective alone. Anyway, here is some of my artwork. I composed this a while back. I hope no one minds if I post this here:

      • anticultist says :

        didn’t read or watch, all your posts are retarded.

      • Zach says :

        Muertos, if you are reading this, could you please block anticultist from posting because he keeps spamming the same robotic line over and over again.

        Frankie, I hope you enjoy the music : )

      • anticultist says :

        “I have just been playing the devil’s advocate as an experiment.”

        LOL how convenient !

        He makes post after post denying his stupidity and gullibility, using the worst sources he can, and ignores all the sound advice on how he should provide credible sources. He argues, name calls and makes an utter spastic of himself through out this blog over the last few months.

        Oh but wait for it folks…..his ridiculous posts were all an experiment !!

        An experiment he says, ha ha. Honestly this guy just will not accept that he posts stupid shit even when he is proven to do so. .

        he follows this up with the following statement:

        ” I can take sides on some issues, and not on others. It just depends. I do understand the perspective of the evolutionists, but I do not confine myself to this perspective alone.”

        Oh so it wasn’t an experiment, it was just you showing us that you don’t fully believe in evolution and are trying to argue against it with shitty evidence.

        You contradict yourself in the space of a single paragraph, how decrepit your argument style is.

        What a pitiful excuse of a human being you are zach, this is even more evidence on why people should not bother reading your posts. You will just make up some stupid shit after being made look an idiot.

      • anticultist says :

        Trust me bro, you are too fucking stupid to conduct an experiment.

      • Zach says :

        Hey, it doesn’t matter what I say because you are going to either twist and distort everything I say, like in the comment above you just posted, or if you can’t think of anything, you will just continue with your spam of, “Didn’t read it, retard.” You are just harassing at this point, because you don’t like the fact that I have made peace. You are the worst troll I have ever seen, and now you are just mad because I returned some of your trolling back to you. Muertos would be well within his rights to ban you from posting, and I hope that he does, because at this point you are just trying to harass and dig up more pointless conflict.

      • anticultist says :

        No mate, just pointing out how flawed your arguments and points are.

        Don’t get mad bro, calling for a ban is not going to happen. Muertos believes in free speech, plus Slayerx is running this place now.

        It is unlikely he would to take the side of someone who has shown such willful ignorance of critical thinking, and someone who posts stupid shit about ufos, free energy, anti evolution and all manner of crank woo.

        Go cry on the internet somewhere else.

      • Zach says :

        I guess if you want to put words in my mouth and make illusionary definitions and conspiracies about what I believe and so forth, that is your business. You have already made yourself look like a much bigger fool than I have, not to mention a bully. The obvious reason that you should be banned is that you have repeated over and over and over again the same cop out bullshit of: “Didn’t read your comment, retard.” When I posted the video twice, the second one was blocked, so I stopped trying to post it. You however are allowed to keep posting your repetitive robotic cop outs. I believe in free speech too, but you were spamming like crazy, and any reasonable person would see that enough is enough.

        And I’m not mad, bro. Please don’t project emotions onto me, and please stop putting words in my mouth and please stop making assumptions about me that just plain are not true. I haven’t even posted anything about ufos. You yourself were the one who started asking me about ufos in your military-like interrogation of me. The posts on free energy was very clear cut. I provided a whole book of diagrams for such devices and simply asked that you so-called scientists put your science to work and make some of the devices to either prove them to work, or prove them not to work. I was then lied to and of course made fun of for this, and all the blame was placed on me, not to mention once again, unfounded allegations as to my belief systems. The anti-evolution posts were just some fun devil’s advocate websites that I found. I wanted to see what you all thought about this, but instead you didn’t even watch the video, and then proceeded to try to pin psychological problems onto me. In the end, the conclusion I arrived at was that many evolutionists and darwinists are also religious and believe in god, which is a contradiction.

        You basically are making total and complete lies about me, because I’m not a crack-pot conspiracy theorist like you say, nor am I a creationist religious fundamentalist like you say, nor am the various other names you have labeled me with. This proves that you use cheap tactics of trolling and bullying, and that you pay very little attention on having an objective discussion. It’s hilarious that after I posted the video you went all-out on me with your attacks, when I did not attack you in any way whatsoever with the video post. Since you attacked me like this, I gave you a taste of your own poison, and you apparently cannot handle this. You then started repeating yourself over and over again that you were not reading my posts anymore. I then made a short post that predicted that you would post the same cop out comment, and like a robot you followed my prediction to the letter. You even made this ignorant cop-out comment about some of my artwork I posted as a video.

        And now you say that I’m ‘crying’ about the situation. Yet another bullshit allegation. Believe me I’m not crying at all. I’m actually happy because I will be using my energy towards more productive ends now. I will not be posting messages on this blog much anymore. I may stop by in a week or so, not sure, and you will likely make all kinds of horrible posts pinning me as someone who is a fictional character in the mean time, who of course is not me at all. Well, I won’t be there to defend myself because I am for the most part moving on. So call me what you will, and of course post another cop-out spam message that you have also ignored this comment as well. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself; I don’t care.

        And to Frankie, farewell. You are alright.

      • Frankie says :

        I really think this all sucks. I know how anticultist is very right… Without evidence, an idea its not worth following.
        I think that evidence and factuality are the hallmarks of what one should believe. i really enjoy questioning and finding certain answers.

        Zach: I really think you arent dumb, but what you are doing is. One cant play the devil’s advocate when the other arguments are futile. Its pointless.
        Anticultist: I understand what you mean when spending time with people who cant understand what you are trying to tell them. And to a great extent, you are right. I will call it quits in trying to convince Zach, because he has to understand by himself, I cant force it onto him. No one can. In the end, he determines what gets into his head and what doesnt.
        I really think you both guys are great, and if it wasnt for this, we could have a great debate, even if the anti darwinian ideas are futile.
        I know i was such an asshole to you before, Zach, I apologize. But the ideas you posted here are still illogical and unscientific, doesnt matter if I apologize for mocking you before.
        here is my facebook if someone wants to add me, hope its not bothersome to anyone: Suko Francisco Nakamura.
        If someone adds me, i hope i can have a good dialogue ^_^

      • Frankie says :

        to anyone reading: this is off topic, but, it has been bothering me for a bit… Why does having more mass means having more gravity? And why is density a factor determining the strenght of the gravitational field?
        I tried asking a friend, but he just gave me linka that talked about hawking radiation and how blackhole singularities are infinitely dense and with infinitely small volume. in other words. didnt answer my question and disguised his ignoramce with all that.
        Does anyone know here? none of the books ive read tell why… its annoying

      • anticultist says :

        The higher the mass the more curvature of space occurs, the curvature of space being what we percieve as gravity. The more dense an object the more mass it has per unit of size, therefore the more curvature of space, and the more gravitation we percieve for an object more dense that is an equal size of a less dense object.

        This is not really that complicated:

      • Frankie says :

        Thanks anticultist :3 I actually bought a book called “Gravity”, and hopefully it will also clear some points for me. Thanks for the video, I really enjoyed Michio Kaku’s books, specially “parallel worlds”.
        Are you interested in these topics? What other topics that are scientific interest you?

      • anticultist says :

        Pretty much everything physics and technology based interests me in one way or another. 😀

      • Wyboth says :

        I’m sorry to say that I won’t be spending as much time on here anymore. I’ve lost most of my interest in refuting conspiracy theorists, just because they don’t listen to a damn thing you say. I might come back every once in a while, but don’t expect me to stay. It’s been fun debunking with you guys. Have a nice day.

      • anticultist says :

        I understand, the shit gets stale after a while. I always take time off and come back, but once you are a skeptic you are likely to be one forever. You may not be here arguing against stupid, but I can guarantee at some point you are just going to put it in its place in the near future.

        It’s what we do lol.

      • Frankie says :

        Wyboth: Thats understandable. It is frustrating how some arent even aware of what you say (just lookat the latter comments on the last post on this blog..)
        I want to join another debunking page, maybe the skeptic project one, but i will see :p

  47. Alias says :

    “anticultist says : May 8, 2012 at 9:05 am
    “What I find interesting is that nobody is arguing about sacred geometry, crop circles and aliens.”

    actually crop circles has been debunked on this blog, sacred geometry has been debunked on this blog, and aliens is not even something worth talking seriously about outside speculative wishing.”

    I want whatever drugs this guy is on, and then I want to rid them of the earth. Anticultist, you are hilarious. Keep up the LOLZ!

  48. AeolusRIder says :

    Wow. Now that was a war of words. Fun thing all these things going on now eh? IRS targeting specific groups, DHS buying up ammunition, DOJ targeting AP and specific Fox News reporters…. Just a short while ago, they would be considered conspiracies. I guess this government isn’t really that benevolent eh?

    • anticultist says :

      Spamming the same comment about some insignificant USA only news item is hardly going to affect anyone but a few random US conpiritards.

  49. Ben Mulhall says :

    Though I agree with most of your points, i have to disagree with you that involuntary taxation is not violence. Any act of unwilling force against an individual is violence by definition. if you define violence as someone shooting you or punching you and nothing more then you are ignoring the far more subtle and pernicious aspects of what violence is.

    As a society, we all abhor violence between individuals and groups, yet we give a monopoly of force to a group of people to coerce by force large sections of society into behavior they don’t agree with. How is this moral or correct?

    You likely have not experienced the violence because you pay your taxes, but what happens if you don’t?

    Likely first you will receive a letter, a very nice letter too. Then some not so nice letters, then you will be summoned before a court, if you don’t go, armed men will come to your property and remove you forcibly. If you resist, you may be injured or even killed. How is that not violence?

    This is the very core of non-violent Anarchism vs Statism. Statism is two or more parties all fighting over a “gun” which is the power of the state. Anarchists point out that it is immoral to use guns to solve our problems.

    Anyone interested in having this more rounded and complete idea of what violence REALLY is and have it eloquently and thoroughly described than I could ever manage should listen to the free audiobook by Stefan Molnyeux of free domain radio called “Practical Anarchy”

    • conspiracykiller says :

      Not paying taxes is illegal, you volunteer to be a part of a society that collects taxes for the better of the whole [Yes statism]. If you don’t like it, then gtfo of wherever you live and join a state that doesn’t tax you. The solution is all rather simple, conform or leave. Being the anti social member of society trying to change it is at best honorable if the cause is just, at worst is completely pointless. Taxes however are not unjust, they are a useful tool at improving the state/nations overall wealth and productivity. Not wanting to participate out of greed or refusal to participate is dishonorable.

  50. Some Anonymous Dude says :

    I was deeply moved by the things I’ve been hearing about free energy, 9/11 proof, and other things. Mainly free energy.

    I realize I’m not a scientist and I don’t know how the alleged free energy devices work or whether the claims made can be put down, but then again, you don’t really debunk anything that I can see. You seem to assert that “you’re obviously right” and everything else is otherwise not structured logic but stupid quibbles that dance around the issues.

    Where the Thrive guy says “hey, we document proof, so try to go refute it” you basically do not, and instead dance around the issues as mentioned.

    If this conspiracy theory could be put to rest then I would breathe a sigh of relief. If not, then I’ll live much of my life in anxiety, wanting to do something to battle the alleged conspiracies.

    All I know is, thermite was clearly used to bring down the world trade center, there are numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the basement of the building both of the sound and even people that were injured in the basement, and that what has been proven to be thermite under the microscope has been found, and that molten steel remained hot for months after the towers fell underneath the rubble, that the buildings did in fact not “pancake” and in fact the point of separation is in fact ground zero of the building meaning that that is where the structure failed, I mean do I need to go on? The last thing that comes to mind is how there was an alleged training exercise that was clearly meant to confuse NORAD, as the coincidence is too impossible.

    From there, I’m not too closed to the idea of artificially created earthquakes that are staged for whatever political reason, especially if soldiers are stationed just before the fact.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you were affiliated with the government in any way. I’m not a nut for saying as much, as it’s clear that the government has tried to make conspiracy theorists look bad in any way they can including but not limited to creating their own “nuts” to say incredibly strange things such as the idea that the planes never even existed or whatever.

    • conspiracykiller says :

      “If this conspiracy theory could be put to rest then I would breathe a sigh of relief. If not, then I’ll live much of my life in anxiety, wanting to do something to battle the alleged conspiracies.”

      And this is exactly why conspiracy theories are harmful, the fact you are unable to see how hearsay of this magnitude can affect your own mental health is astonishing. You are prepared to believe the ridiculous assertions of non experts on topics that border on insanity, as opposed to listen to rational discourse from experts refuting the claims. It’s not the experts or this website that has the problem, it’s actually inside your own mind. you are unable to look at the evidence and the anecdotes and discern which is of higher value.

      I feel sad for you, you are going to live a miserable life until you realise that you are the problem. The way you see and think about the World is the root of your issue. You should not believe these ridiculous claims by conspiracy theorists so easily, they lack any evidence and are not based in any realistic.

      As far as your 9/11 beliefs, everything can be refuted completely here:

      And here:

      Also your claims of made up earthquakes are simply sad and lack any real scientific knowledge or basis in reality. Then you go on to make the biggest of all faux pas by stating you believe the debunking of your nonsense puts the person into the pay roll of the governments.

      You fit the exact mold of a paranoid person, everything you have said is a cliche and a carbon copy of some very unwell and irrational human beings. You should probably look to changing the way you see the World, all this paranoia is not going to do you any good. The problem is in your own mind not outside.

      • Some Anonymous Dude says :

        Would a paranoid person say “I could be wrong?” I think you are mentally unsound to hold your ears and say “la la la” and not at least entertain the idea that you could be wrong. I said that I went to this site to perhaps put to rest some of the things I’ve heard. You seem to have come to this site to bully people with your idiotic bias.

        There’s nothing inherently unscientific about the idea of a government staging disasters with a seismic weapon, such a weapon that could very well exist in many forms whether it be something as extravagant as a beam weapon or something simple like demoing a fault line.

        You’ve demonstrated exactly what I’m talking about, ignoring logic and asserting that I’m inherently and obviously wrong based on nothing but your own bias.

        I will look at what you cited, and reply back to you if I don’t feel doing so is fruitless.

      • conspiracykiller says :

        “There’s nothing inherently unscientific about the idea of a government staging disasters with a seismic weapon, such a weapon that could very well exist in many forms whether it be something as extravagant as a beam weapon or something simple like demoing a fault line.”

        There’s something called evidence you seem to be overlooking. That’s the very definition of unscientific. You are going to have to tray harder to be considered scientific in the real world. You might impress your dopy mates with fabricated claims, not me.

      • Juliano says :

        …..LOL. I always feel, and I am sorry to be frank but many of you debunkers deserve it the wae way you talk to people who have ideas different from your own. I have heard some of your lot even say “twoofers” like silly 9 year olds. Anyway, I am saying that you don’t seem to be able to think out of the box. You seem to be blinkered regarding how things connect in this world we’re in. For now I mean the fucked up INSANE world that many of us–rightly so–feel oppressed under. You talk about EVIDENCE…? You have no idea of how deep corporate corrution goes in our society and how even presidents and the courts and judges are under the corporates –as in DEBT, or pay back time–top do what is expected. You seem to imagine you live in some idealistic world where ‘SCIENCE’ will tell zeeee ‘truth’. But there is corrution and science is part OF it. I am not even saying I support Thrive, but I DO know that the official narrative of September 11th 2001 is utter toxic bull shite!! And if you don’t reali-ize this by now, you are either shills or completely without any sense.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Some Anonymous Dude
      “there are numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the basement of the building both of the sound and even people that were injured in the basement”

      Let me stop you there…explosions in the basement yet the buildings fell from the top down? How the fuck did you work that one out? Especially when considering that thermite does not explode?

      • Some Anonymous Dude says :

        They did not fall from the top down. The point of separation was clearly from the basement, and only an idiot would say otherwise. Go watch footage.

        Bombs explode, and you can put thermite in bombs dumbass.

      • Some Anonymous Dude says :

        Okay fuck me, the “point of separation” wasn’t from the basements of the buildings but just underneath where the planes hit.

        That doesn’t refute everything else, including the idea that explosions were heard, and even felt so as to lift people up in the air, beneath the lobbies of the buildings.

      • conspiracykiller says :

        They did not fall from the top down. The point of separation was clearly from the basement, and only an idiot would say otherwise. Go watch footage.

        Wrong, the buildings fell from the top, not sure what disaster you have been watching but it sure as shit wasn’t the 9/11 footage.

  51. Some Anonymous Dude says :

    In this website and throughout this comment section, there are no dismissive and baseless claims made to refute “conspiracy theories.” These alleged “conspiracy theories” are not debunked so much as viciously mauled unfairly.

    Just because the idea of free energy refutes an existing scientific law such as thermodynamics does not mean it should be immediately and unquestionably be labeled as “debunked.” Science will likely never have full knowledge of the universe. We are basically making up the rules as we go along and using whatever works best, correcting ourselves when necessary. Stubbornly stating the existing scientific rules that you have learned about is antithetical to science itself, which is basically meant to say “question everything.”

    As Thrive said, “is it really so hard to believe that the oil companies in the world have the power to and have suppressed free energy alternatives?” No it’s not. Let me give you a story, which you can happily google yourself if you would like to verify.

    Interceptor body armor is the bulky steel plates that our troops currently wear for body armor. They do the job, they’ve saved lives, but enter Dragonskin. Famously touted on discovery channel on future weapons and multiple tests show the body armor’s amazing defense applications. So then the army goes and tests it. Some time before even conducting the trials that would decide whether the army would adopt this new contract from the people that made the armor, the army implements a ban on this body armor stating that this body armor might sustain injury by wearing it. So, you have one of the original designers of Interceptor stating that dragonskin is simply better, not to mention a hundred other videos and demonstrations. So nevermind that it’s strange that the armor was banned even before it’s trial, but turns out somebody buys one of these tested pieces of armor off of ebay. The armor had been shot some 30 something times and not one bullet pierced the actual composite armor, though there were plenty of marks on the outer threading.
    The guy smartly goes to the news after hearing that the FBI wanted their armor back and would not refund him for the money he paid for it. The fact is, the FBI was bothered enough to call him about it, and the steel composite wasn’t damaged.
    This points to perhaps a certain body armor contract holder being a bit displeased that their contract would be overshadowed by another.

    So, apply this to what is probable regarding conspiracies in general. It’s clearly possible for another company to cozy up to government and military officials apparently and to corrupt them, as seen.

    • conspiracykiller says :

      Logic states that we can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt about something when we have the facts and the evidence. Of course this doesn’t factor out that we don’t know everything and there is a possibility that something can crop up that overturns current thinking. However, to do this would require something astounding and incontrovertible, and would require an amazing amount of evidence. to overturn the current laws of physics would require more than a sealed box on a youtube video, or some guy selling blueprints of his free energy machine. It would require a ton of research and multiple accreditations by experts in various fields agreeing.

      This has never happened in centuries, and until someone can do it then the belief in free energy machines is just snake oil for sale to gullible people.

      Apply this to every conspiracy theory you claim MIGHT exist, and you will see that every one of them is nothing but hearsay and not worthy of taking seriously.

      • Some Anonymous Dude says :

        Again, nonarguments.

        “It’s never happened before” or “this is the way it’s usually done” do not consider the fact that the consensus of the scientific community can often be biased and damning. Look at every scientific discovery ever made and you’ll see that from discovery of the world being round to Einstein’s theory of relativity, there are always a thousand dumbasses such as yourselves who are not skeptical based on reasoning, but just inherently, based on nothing.

        Scientists are not infallible people, and so too the scientific laws that exist are likely not either. You seem to think otherwise.

      • Juliano says :

        But in what you say I see it is itself thinking in the box. For example, have you personally gone to any of these people who claim to have ‘free’ energy devices which you can find youtube videos about? Are you open to the possibility that there are UFOs that are far advanced than current known-about psychics, or our current known-about scientific knowledge, and thirdly–are you aware the ruthless cooperative pressure against what they would consider a threat to their profits. BIG example of this can be found in actual natural vegetation—you can be criminalized and jailed IF you grow cannabis plants in your back garden!! Picking fungi on fields. I think you underestimate the truly insane culture we are all oppressed under!

      • conspiracykiller says :

        So in short you fellas have no evidence but expect other to just accept your anecdotes and hypothetical sentences. That’s not how the real world works boys. Vould do and might do are not strong enough arguments to lay claim to the facts, either you have evidence or take a hike.

    • Dr C says :

      The views of “some anonymous dude” can only be described as deeply delusional. I really urge you to look at the real facts and understand what hateful and shallow thinking Thrive and its fans have encouraged. This is another example of the harmful and dangerous false hoods being spread by people who spread conspiracy theories.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Some Anonymous Dude

      They did not fall from the top down. The point of separation was clearly from the basement, and only an idiot would say otherwise. Go watch footage.”

      -hours later, after watching the 13-year old footage…

      “Okay fuck me, the “point of separation” wasn’t from the basements of the buildings but just underneath where the planes hit.”

      Yes we already knew that. You truther halfwits are fucking hilarious at times.

      “That doesn’t refute everything else,”

      Who said it did?

      “Bombs explode, and you can put thermite in bombs dumbass.”

      If you knew anything about thermite you would know it is used as an incendiary device for destruction of steel structres i.e. a thermite grenade, which does not explode nor make a noise anything like an explosion.

      The point is that it’s exothermic energy is directed to a specific point on a structure long enough for it to melt right through it thusly destroying said structure. How does one accomplish the same feat if it’s energy is directed everywhere by means of an explosion?

      Here, why not educate yourself:

      Click to access 3072.pdf

  52. Anastasio says :


    “BIG example of this can be found in actual natural vegetation—you can be criminalized and jailed IF you grow cannabis plants in your back garden!!”

%d bloggers like this: