Why This Blog?

Why This Blog?

Why does this blog exist? Why debunk Thrive?

I am a steadfast and outspoken opponent of conspiracy theories. By “conspiracy theories” I mean, explanations for events or conditions that stress unsupported and unsupportable allegations of collusion or design by groups of persons or organizations to achieve a particular result. (See the FAQ for more on what I consider “conspiracy theories”). The advancement of conspiracy theories, in my view, results in the impairment of a person’s ability to think critically, to employ logic, and to evaluate information correctly. Conspiracy theories are corrosive to reason and intellect and they are extremely damaging to the type of reasoned and rationally-based discourse that is essential to the ability of the people to govern themselves in a democratic society.

The movie Thrive advances conspiracy theories. The makers of this film assert numerous conspiracies that simply do not exist—for example, a collusion of energy producers to suppress “free energy” technology, a supposed plot to fake the 9/11 attacks, and a “global elite” that secretly rules the world and conceals its true identity and motives. That’s not a comprehensive list, but those are just three examples of conspiracy theories advanced in the movie Thrive. None of these conspiracy theories, nor the others in the film, are supported by facts. I’m making this blog because I believe people should understand how and why the conspiracy theories advanced in Thrive are incorrect, and I believe they should be able to evaluate the arguments presented in Thrive while understanding the true facts behind the assertions made in the film.

Internet-based films with a “viral” marketing approach that advance conspiracy theories—as Thrive takes—are particularly important to analyze and expose, in my view. History has shown that belief in particular conspiracy theories has grown as a direct result of “viral” Internet-distributed films advancing them. The two paradigm examples are Loose Change (2005) and Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007). Both of these films attracted large and devoted followings of people who believed the conspiracy theories that the movies advanced. It is my hope that by presenting factual information about Thrive, fewer people will be tempted to believe its claims unquestioningly.

I believe Internet conspiracy movies are especially problematic for the following reasons:

1. They present their assertions in a compelling, visually interesting and emotionally engaging manner that simply can’t be matched by another medium.

2. The medium of film offers very little time or opportunity to present detailed explanations of extremely complex or nuanced events. Consequently, the assertions made are usually conclusory and not well-explained.

3. Being promoted primarily on the Internet, these films are specifically targeted to command attention in an arena where information is generally not vetted or subjected to any sort of rigorous gatekeeping standard. As a result, assertions made in films like these, even egregiously incorrect assertions, are unlikely to be challenged.

This blog is not intended to do any of the following.

  • Defend a particular economic system or theory (such as capitalism).
  • Assert that “the government is always right.” (It isn’t).
  • Accuse the makers of Thrive of being occultist, part of the “New World Order” or participants in other conspiracy theories. (Remember, I oppose conspiracy theories, including ones that Thrive might be accused of being a part of).

See the FAQ for more information.

97 responses to “Why This Blog?”

  1. Aimee Miles says :

    Thank you for undertaking this. So many people buy into whatever is presented to them as long as the packaging seems nice and they seem reasonable. Most of us do not have the time, energy or expertise to refute arguments of people who give so much of their lives (and livelihood) to the development of such and such arguments. What really intrigues me is why, what’s their agenda? To gain notoriety, money, or what?

    • muertos says :

      You’re welcome. I’m not sure what the motivations are of the makers of Thrive. People who push conspiracy theories do so for a wide range of reasons. Whatever their motivation, I hope that this blog can help separate fact from fiction and hopefully get some people to question their harmful beliefs about conspiracy theories.

      • KX Russell says :

        They push them b/c they are after the truth. Some people can see, some can’t. Having been around the world & lived on 4 continents AND having bore witness to the several things that you are trying to debunk my most favorable guess is just that:

        1) you are someone who really just does not know & refuses to know b/c it will mean a HUGE shift in your personal paradigms, (in that case I have hope for you that one day, maybe not even in this lifetime you will awake up);
        OR my worst guess
        2) you are a witting or unwitting “agent” for the darkside who feels his purpose in life is to try & tear down anything that would lead to any sort of freedom on any plane of existence, (which in that case i hold no hope for you & you will suffer your karma soon enough).

        I would suggest a few books for you:
        1) The Tao of Physics by Professor Fritoj Capra
        2) Wholeness & Implicate order by David Bohm
        3) The hypothesis of Formative Causation by Rupert Sheldrake
        4) Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins
        5) A New Model of the Universe by P. D. Ouspensky

        I can see that you think that perhaps you fancy yourself a truth-seeker but I am sorry to say you most certainly are not. You think that reality is only revealed to you though physical body’s eyes (actually that is my assumption feel free to correct me if I am wrong) but you shall find at the end of your life that you were incorrect. Hopefully then it still will not be too late to change.

      • Skepticalskeptic says :

        As a philosophy major, I highly believe in the mantra “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” as well as Ockham’s razor: “do not multiply entities beyond necessity.” If I can’t prove it, I don’t hold it as a firm belief.

        But to deny the existence of a global elite is just erroneously delusional, ironically enough. You don’t have to believe Thrive’s theories. Look only at media consolidation. In 1980 50+ companies controlled the “mainstream media,” now it has become 6 through various purchases and mergers. These companies that in total control 90% of what we see are: Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, Newscorp, CBS, and NBC/Comcast. That means 6 companies, and their respective executives/boards, control nearly EVERYTHING that we see and hear in the media. This is an observation based on fact, you can go check it yourself.

        This is not to include that *everything* attributed to this elite is true, simply that it exists. Furthermore, it is human nature, unless altered through ethics, to act in your own interest…in conglomerate’s case….profit. So, MORE LIKELY THAN NOT (called “inductive reasoning”) this case shows that the ideas that comprise the “mainstream media” are those which serve the profitable interest of these six companies. You can go look at those 6 companies parent companies, and it should enlighten you a bit.

        Don’t deny facts and call it reason. Denying reality in the face of reason is symptomatic of a delusion.

      • CyborgJesus says :

        So, MORE LIKELY THAN NOT (called “inductive reasoning”) this case shows that the ideas that comprise the “mainstream media” are those which serve the profitable interest of these six companies.

        That is hardly controversial, nor is there a huge conspiracy around it. Chomsky has been writing about this for decades, and he’s also refreshingly free of nutty theories.

      • Skepticalskeptic says :

        reply to cyborgjesus

        I know it isn’t controversial…hence my point. “An” elite exists, independent of wild claims of “satanism” and and 18th century secret society hubub. But read works such as “the White Man’s Burden,” Social Darwinism, and even quotes from Mr. Rockefeller and others like him…such as your run of the mill federal politician….and the doubt that “the haves” see themselves as above everyone else slowly starts to disappear.

        Is there some Bond villain plot for global domination….I’m skeptical, though its not entirely out of the question. The powerful *do* rule the world, and people who have power historically go to great lengths to maintain it. Then again…powerful people like to squabble amongst themselves.

      • WillD says :

        @muertos – there is a flaw in your reasoning, simply that you can no more disprove the Thrive suggestions than the Gambles can prove them. This means that every criticism you throw at them applies to you too. Lots of people dislike conspiracy theories for many reasons, me included, but it doesn’t mean that some aren’t real. There are so many well documented conspiracies throughout history that nobody refutes, so why this one?

    • John Q. Conspiracy says :

      Wow you people are either sleeping, and very soundly I might add, or you were paid by the people that actually run the world. You know who thy are. Lol I feel sad if you are asleep because the trash you spew is the same stuff the Jews said right before Hitler exterminated millions. Boiling Frogs is what I will call you. Have fun w that. The best part is that all the conspiracies that were supposedly not true, & have been proven to be true but it was long ago blah blah . So now nobody cares.

      • CyborgJesus says :

        Because not buying into a bullshit movie means you support everything the establishment does. Maybe put down the Illuminati quartet for a second and read up on heuristics and logical fallacies?

  2. Boris Lauxtermann says :

    black white thinking….very big picture dude… this blog is not worth the webspace its on!!!!

    • muertos says :

      Thank you for your comment. Would you please provide a specific example of this “black white thinking” to which you object? Also, please explain why “big picture” is the wrong approach. Please be specific, and back up your assertions with examples.

      • John Q. Conspiracy says :

        I will provide a response to the black white thinking . It means you are too stupid to shift your prospective , you believe what the masses do because it is safe, your Ego is fighting for survival & you are allowing it to win, you will never be able to think /evolve spiritually above a 4th dimensional level. I do not expect you to understand any of this by the way. You are incapable . I will pray for you.

      • a rational person says :

        lemme guess…you believe in lizard people and think 911 was an inside job, just like foster gamble, right hoss?

    • Brad Day says :

      Agreed, you (blogmaster) seem extremely closed-minded to the possibility that any conspiracy could possibly be real. And then you say that conspiracies basically hinder people from thinking logically. You sir, are not thinking logically by not allowing “controversial” thought processes to enter your brain.

      You clearly have not read up enough about the subject to back up your claims, im not a conspiracy theorist, but I’d say the argument FOR most of the conspiracies covered in Thrive out-do any and all analysis you have made on this website, merely because you make claims such as “such and such is simply untrue”. Yeah? Gimme some proof.

    • John Q. Conspiracy says :

      Dude thank you for saying that, right on, . I will quote you because whoever created this blog is not worth my time. So… This blog is not worth the web space !

      • a rational person says :

        “whoever created this blog is not worth my time”

        yea, so that’s why you left 8 comments on a single page of it. nice one, nutbag.

  3. jsizzle says :

    Thank you for all your work. In this day and age of media soundbites I find more and more people very close to me subscribing to these types of hype vehicles like Thrive. Thank you very much.

  4. manorborn says :

    They called you a “red” if you had a single thought not in compliance with Joe McCarthy’s version of reality in the quaint dawning days of the empire. Now, in the heyday — you’re a “conspiracy theorist.”

    It’s irrelevant to the stumblebums tripping over nomencalture to stuff political speculation and pseudo-science into the same one-size-fits-all straight jacket of conspiracy theory. Not surprising though, as Lewis Powell knew how facile it would be to wrangle rebellions once you’re the only mouthpiece in town.

    So, those who label every unconventional opinion a conspiracy theory, fail to distinguish between obstinate beliefs ragarding phenomena easily disproved via scientific method and reasoned speculation regarding politiical events shrouded in vulnerable explanations, where no truly dipsositive conclusions can be drawn.

  5. muertos says :

    @manoborn: It has been my experience that only those people who cannot defend their beliefs with evidence, logic and reason complain about having their views labeled as “conspiracy theories.”

    Think about it. If a particular viewpoint was capable of being vindicated beyond all doubt by verifiable facts, it would have nothing to fear from being labeled a “conspiracy theory,” because that label could be dispelled easily enough simply by demonstrating the validity of the premises behind it. It is only those viewpoints that suffer a deficiency of factual support or logical reasoning that can possibly be harmed by being labeled “conspiracy theories.” For this reason I am unsympathetic to those who complain about this label being applied to them. If it’s legitimately not a “conspiracy theory,” the facts will bear that out.

    The comparison between the use of the term “conspiracy theorist” and McCarthyism is so inapposite and ludicrous as to be insulting, and beneath any substantive comment.

    • manorborn says :

      Your righteous ad hominen misses the point. There is absolutely a major substantive difference between scientifically indefensible positions and politial phenomena generated clandestinely. The latter is per se unknowable and therefore perfectly suitable subject matter for speculation in a free society.

  6. muertos says :

    Nothing I said was an ad hominem. Not even close. Incidentally that’s another telltale sign of conspiracy theorists–misunderstanding logical fallacies and employing them as if it will help their case, when in fact it will not.

    If you believe there’s a factual or logical error on this page, identify it and let’s debate it. Be specific and back up your assertions with facts. You will notice I’ve asked others who’ve commented here to do so, and none, as yet, have even bothered to make an attempt.

  7. manorborn says :

    It’s becoming apples and oranges. I am referencing how the “conspiracy theorist” label is often used as a club to silence speculation on clandestine political phenomena or “official” government explanations, and you are asking me to point out errors on your page. What you are attempting to do is fine, muertos, in a general sense; but in the context of singling out this one particular film is what I find curious, considering all the mind numbing bullshit that confronts us daily. On the other hand, perhaps you’re right…I’m simply commenting on the wrong site. Adieu.

  8. muertos says :

    Not a single person who has criticized the general feeling behind this blog, or the idea of debunking Thrive, has yet offered so much as one specific criticism backed up with objective evidence to refute the factual statements or the logical reasoning presented on this blog.

    So far, the Thrive Debunked blog is batting 1000. Not a single Thrive supporter has been able to present anything against it other than vague generalities. I’m still waiting for ONE specific correction despite having asked nearly every pro-Thrive commenter to present such an argument. No takers yet, it seems.

  9. manorborn says :

    Really? Go fuck yourself, you sycophant POS.

    Why is it right wing apologists don’t appear to understand that blog sites and forums are places where people can express themselves, question assumptions and freely postulate. They are not evidentiary hearings. Those who post need only speculate – especially when the issue involves covert operations and clandestine activity. Yet, like Homer Simpson screaming “Show me the PROOF!” at the controls of a hemorrhaging nuclear plant, they disinguinely demand evidence from any who attempt to offer a reasoned opinionON THINGS THAT MAY NEVER BE KNOWN.

    For these arch conservative blog dufuses, the end game, of course, is to chill analysis and downgrade anyone who questions official explanations as a conspiracy theorist. No margin allowed for complexity or skepticism. Their tedious sophistry in defense of the conventional can turn any blog into a bitter and boring drag.

    One thing that’s certain — you’ll never see these Charringtons demostrate courage in exposing their OWN thought processes publicly. Instead, they lie in wait to drop their bricks from the overpass on anyone remotely commenting outside a box that grows ever more narrow.

    • CJ says :

      Ironically, speculating about “covert operations” when you have neither proof nor conclusive evidence is kind of what the “conspiracy theory” label is about.

      Questioning “official explanations” without having a good reason to do so doesn’t make you a skeptic, but a causeless rebel. Noone’s keeping you from making your own discoveries, but if you put pseudoscience and guesswork in a movie and advertise them as truth, you’re inviting (deserved) criticism.

      Lastly, the political branding is laughable. You don’t have to be conservative to object to pointless speculation.

    • Colin Kavnagh says :

      Have any actual evidence to back that up? Nope, didn’t think so, have to resort to the old “go fuck yourself” when asked to back up your assertions. Typical. have fun in lalaloopsy land.

  10. muertos says :

    Where do you get the idea that this is a “conservative blog” or that I’m a “right wing apologist”? Because I demand facts and evidence before believing blindly in conspiracy theories? In fact I am a liberal progressive, and I often criticize conservative positions on just about everything. But thanks for your comment, especially the first line. It will make a nice headline for an upcoming blog post summarizing the responses of Thrive supporters to this blog.

  11. manorborn says :

    You see, what we have here is a classic fallacy coming from a guy who set up a blog ostensibly to promote reasoned and logical analysis. Show me where I have stated that I am a “Thrive suporter”? I just find it curious that you would choose this particular film to create such an incredibly elaborate site. Sorry, it’s just plain bizarre. And for the fourth and last time: my sole point is that speculating about covert or supremely guarded events or activity is the marker of a healthy zeitgeist in a free society. Theories are exactly that…they are theories. Branding ones to which you are in disagreement with the thoroughly perjorative “conspiracy” label creates a chilling effect on the average Joe’s societal duty to question authority.

    So, if you are really who you say are and not a banster foil or gov’t apologist, then reveal your true identity. And btw, what kind of freak uses “death” as a screen name? Jesus, talk about weird.

    My parting advice pal: Talk a walk in the sunshine, go work in a soup kitchen, play some hoop…do something useful. I know I’ve spent 99% more time than planned on this nonsense, so bye, bye and have a nice day.

    • theomniscience says :

      Hm, it seems woo peddlers invariably cry out foul and throw their arms out in utter, delicious despair when they realize they can’t convert a blog-writer to spread their crap. Thrive, like the woo movies before it, will fade (rapidly) from memory when the internet stops caring. The real world hasn’t even noticed it.

      • Joe says :

        If you are not a Thrive supporter then why do you even give a shit what is on this web site? Muertos is just providing a valuable public service in the fight against stupidity.

    • Robert Dobbs says :

      I’ve know Mr. Muertos for awhile now, and I can safely say his political and social philosophy is plant squarely on the left. He donates to charity and spends his spare time volunteering for charitable causes.

      I on the other hand am a selfish ass. I don’t donate to charity. I don’t donate my time volunteering for charitable causes. Why? Because I don’t give a shit. Muertos on the other hand is the complete opposite of me.

      You’re a sanctimonious twerp.

      • John Q. Conspiracy says :

        You are so fuckin full of shit lol oh I just cannot even deal. He is a fucking government plant you idiot ! That ‘s right I said Fuck ooh . At least we know what may be coming & will do something about it & by the way in case you haven’t guessed , I SUPPORT THE THRIVE MOVEMENT ! It is called being mindful. If you do not believe what Thrive has to say, then look at history democracies do not last. These people have been planning this for a long time. Dumbass ! Wake up !

    • Joe says :

      If you are not a Thrive suporter then why do you even give a shit what is on this web site? Muertos is just valuable public services in the fight against stupidity.

  12. anticultist says :

    I love it when people arrive at blogs and complain violently as manorborn has, then when approached as to why they are complaining they turn coat and claim they are defending the rights of the movie makers rather than they agree with the movie makers. It is as if they dare not admit they love the movie and its content, and would rather keep that ambiguity and let you guess their position. The hilarity is that manorborn has made his position clear, he hates right wingers, which makes him a left, he appears to like the movie which makes him a potential believer in woo topics, he also defends conspiracy theories with vigour making him yet another conspiritard who tries to convince the world he isn’t.

    The way he uses verbiage is also quite interesting as he attempts to disguise his position with pseudo intellect that falters on many occasions. This use of false premise and moral positions, whilst using accusatory and offensive dialogue in the mix just makes him look more like an emotional basket case with an agenda rather than an unbiased person interested in free speech.

    I call conspiracy theorist and point the finger at a person who clearly has not managed to protect his ideology with facts here in any way.

  13. Paul Rubino says :

    This website is awesome! Please keep up the great work!!!

  14. Alex says :

    Thank you so much for this site, especially your series of posts working through the film, debunking it systematically. “Thrive” is the type of brainless twaddle that people in my hometown (Boulder, CO) eat for breakfast, so thank you for giving me a simple website I can send them to. I know it must be torturous, watching this film over and over to fact-check it, and I couldn’t imagine doing it myself, but I’m so happy someone is!

  15. Roman says :

    Thrive supporter, Thrive sceptic?
    The maker’s motivations/motives may be uncertain and the movie may lack of valid background information, but it’s final implications and solutions are worth talking about. That’s what this is all about. Talk, discuss, inspire, elaborate, act.. no division anymore. Free speech for sure, but keep in mind the synergy.

    This movie maybe one of the few examples where I’d like to seperate the author of his work and discuss the content separately. That’s the point when Foster’s crew doesn’t matter anymore and our real actions form our future.

    Good blog, nice work! I’d like to provide both to my friends, a link to the video as one to your blog, for that they can make up their own opinion and discuss their thoughts afterwards with me/us.

    And after all, imho it’s really that simple (still difficult in RL): non-violation. Makes intuitively sense. No matter what’s your deal.

    Love from Germany.

    • KX Russell says :

      I would agree with you on that point that it ends being solution driven & if one wanted they could throw out the previous part of that movie & just work on that.

      You cannot argue with Austrian economics, De-politicizing action & making the culture we live in more efficient & free.

      The progressive model has already shown that it does not work. The FED does not work (Fiat debt based currency). Our current energy systems are toxic as is our medical system. Take for someone who has been battling cancer for 5 years!

      I am working with a MD whose vaccine got rid of 6 of my 7 tumors in a week. Then he had 2 attempts on his life. I have also seen how the drug market works in SE Asia & the US spy networks are involved. Sometimes in life you learn that Conspiracies really do exist.

      • Anastasio says :

        @KX Russell

        Do you have details of the attempts on Sam’s life that happened within the last year? Also, how is he holding up after the acid attack? I imagine his face would be quite scarred after such a vicious assault.

        Forgive me for being so forward but I ask because all accounts are rather sparse of information at best, and perhaps this is why the public is left in the dark on such matters.

  16. Teraph says :

    The next New Age conspiracist pseudoscience movie to debunk has got to be David Wilcox’s ‘Convergence’…


    It’s based on the same genre format for ‘What the Bleep Do We Know?!’ which was propaganda for JZ Knight’s Ramtha cult. It will be a lot more lavish than ‘Thrive’ and have much wider distribution. It will be propaganda for the cult of David Wilcox, a scam artist who established himself with claims that he is a reincarnation of the ‘sleeping prophet’ Edgar Cayce.

  17. Xenia Anara says :

    All this pushing against…endless conflict…stirring the hornet’s nests. Are you right? Are they right? Careful, now. “History” is enlightening in this way. (“…the world is flat…”, “…Quantum mechanics can’t be correct…”, “…humans must be the only intelligent life in “the universe…”, “…there’s only one universe…’) You get the point.

    Mustn’t forget: Only time will tell. What if some or all of those “conspiracy theories” turn out to be factual? What will you think of your “mighty-right” words, then, my fellow traveler?

    Still, I applaud you role in the “contrast”. It doesn’t matter if I agree with you or not. Just pouring water on a thirsty flower I see along this road. Random kindness. Random softness to a fellow human. Everyone feels passionate about something.

    So I wish you good journeys during your “Earth excursion”. In the blink of an eye, it’s ‘over”. Great good journeys to you, then.

    • CyborgJesus says :

      Mustn’t forget: Only time will tell. What if some or all of those “conspiracy theories” turn out to be factual?</blockquote

      If that happened, and it's more likely that a llama will learn to play all of Mozart's works, the question would still be whether they got it right by finding
      proper evidence, or just by guessing.

      In the former case, the evidence (i.e., what led them to the conclusion) is what's actually important, and it's what's so obviously lacking in Thrive and the fuzzy-happy thinking popular among it's audience.

      In the latter case, you just made a lucky guess. You're right by accident. You're the guy who aces the test by randomly checking the boxes. There's nothing noble or praiseworthy in that.

      • NonFiction says :

        Turns out that Thrive’s “evidence” that was supposed to be “fact-checked” is actually neither. Read the threads about the generators which were completely misrepresented in the movie…good grief.

  18. Concerned Citizen says :

    Okay, you’ve debunked everything in the video. That was easy! Now for a challenge, I want you to try to prove the information in the video right. Now before you say you can’t, let me assure you that you’d be closing your mind the the possibility that any of this could be true.

    You say there’s no evidence of a NWO agenda yet its right in your face every time you go to a conspiracy site to pick apart peoples theories.

    For instance: Mr. Bill Gates, an obviously ultra rich man proposes we need to dramatically reduce earth’s population to get our carbon footprint down. How does he propose we do this? Through health care…

    You may also find that Mr. Bill Gates has safely stored seeds from plants (probably edibles) from all over the world in a super high tech, super secure bunker in the arctic. Furthermore, you may also find that Mr. Bill Gates is heavily invested in the controversial company known as Monsanto who’s committed numerous unethical practices (arguably) to insure their GMO seed is the only seed that exists and if that seed shall fail, well they have all the original god produced seeds in a vault somewhere…

    Please look this stuff up and debunk it.

  19. ANIK says :

    I’m going to spend the next week cross checking all facts from THRIVE and this blog. if I find any incorrect info. on this site I will let you know.

    • muertos says :

      Great! I welcome you to check the facts here, and I’ll do what I can to help you. Be careful of the credibility of sources you use–often that’s quite tricky to figure out. If you have any questions about my own sources, email me at muertos@gmail.com.

      • Jeffrey says :

        Umm.. I personally do not believe what this guy said but I Wanted to tell you this
        “You say there’s no evidence of a NWO agenda yet its right in your face every time you go to a conspiracy site to pick apart peoples theories.

        For instance: Mr. Bill Gates, an obviously ultra rich man proposes we need to dramatically reduce earth’s population to get our carbon footprint down. How does he propose we do this? Through health care…

        You may also find that Mr. Bill Gates has safely stored seeds from plants (probably edibles) from all over the world in a super high tech, super secure bunker in the arctic. Furthermore, you may also find that Mr. Bill Gates is heavily invested in the controversial company known as Monsanto who’s committed numerous unethical practices (arguably) to insure their GMO seed is the only seed that exists and if that seed shall fail, well they have all the original god produced seeds in a vault somewhere… ”
        – concerned citizen.

      • Joel T. says :

        Jeffrey, you seem to be mistaking “inane ramblings” for “evidence.” Even assuming that Bill Gates wants to limit healthcare in order to eliminate the excess population, even assuming that he has a bunker in the arctic where he stores seeds (to note, there are over one thousand seedbanks in the world), even assuming that he’s associated with Monsanto, even assuming all that (which is in itself taking us into crazypants land), absolutely none of it is evidence for a “NWO agenda.” Unless you presume the existence of such an order, a priori, there’s nothing in that information that would reasonably lead to the supposition that it was caused by a new world order.

  20. susanluvs says :

    Who are you really? Muertos?

    This world now is a mess. I do think it is interesting that there is a $25.00 and up charge on the site. It was about a 3 hour movie and all those people probably needed to get paid–(remember–we live in a time where it’s “About the money”.)

    I heard Dr. Greer speak about 14 years ago about clean energy, UFO’s, technology and the use of no oil. Let’s face it. Look at the direction of the world now and the people running it, the big box mentality, foods that make us fat (coke!!!), our polluted environment, global warming and people losing their houses, jobs, and life to cancer and other diseases. Drug companies rule!

    If this movie is what it takes to change the system and the world, so be it. it wouldn’t surprise me if you worked for the government.

  21. chinaski666 says :

    Great website. I watched Thrive yesterday and when i saw Haramein there I knew all of the documentary was a great hoax. Reading your blog I got the actual facts.

  22. Alex says :

    I appreciate what you are trying to do with this blog.

    I caution you that you can never dissuade anyone who believes in the sort of global secret conspiracies of an alleged ultra powerful minority (be it the Illuminati, the Reptilians, the USA government so-called chemtrails project, or whomever) that Thrive propagates, with any amount of logic, data, or information.
    (The best you can do is caution a few of those you might get sucked in but are not yet true believers that they are starting to deal with persons of questionable credibility.)

    Here is why:
    If you point out that certain types of evidence that should exist to prove the conspiracy exists does not exist, they can and will reply `well, what do you expect…. it is SECRET, they have destroyed and hidden all the evidence.`
    Bring forth any expert to testify to the contrary and they can be dismissed as either part of the conspiracy, complicit, or scared to tell the real truth.
    (For example, when one of the Use’s top demolition experts came out publicly to say in his professional opinion the WTC collapse could not possibly have been done with insider demolitions, he was accused of being a pawn of the conspiracy)
    Point out any evidence that seems to contradict their theory (for example, in the case of the 911 conspiracy, bring forth a tape of Osama Bin Ladin claiming credit for the attack) and it can and will be dismissed as faked evidence. After all, the alleged conspirators are always postulated to have vast resources and technical abilities.
    Finally, ultimately, you personally are likely at minimum be attempted to be discredited by the conspiracy theorists at least saying you are too morally weak to be willing to face the truth, or not as clever as they and unable to see through the conspiracy. And in all probability if you make a powerful and influential case or get some attention you may well be accused of being a part of or a tool of the conspirators` disinformation campaign.
    Ah `disinformation`—- what is that? Why it is any information that contradicts what they believe.

    As to why and how usually sincere and occasionally intelligent people can believe such nonsense:
    I leave that to psychologists to explain. Someone once recommended the book

    The sad thing is that there are very real threats, and yes, occasionally real conspiracies to do harm — So people wasting their time scanning old videos for evidence of alien reptiles, looking up at the contrails in the sky with fear, under the bed for Zionist conspiracies, etc, distracts from the chance of them helping make the world a better place.

  23. Oz says :

    I would like to discuss somethings with you, just of curiosity I would like to know how you come forth with your conclusion. So if intrested reply and I’ll give you my mail.

    Best regards

  24. satanfornoreason says :

    Thank you for taking the time to do this. You know, it’s a good thing that people like myself don’t have any desire to mislead or take advantage of people, because it would be so easy to come up with a mythology, or cherry-pick some facts and make a presentation about something completely absurd and get thousands of people around the world to believe it.

    I mean, not being constrained by the rules of logic and reason, it wouldn’t be too hard.

    Good thing I’m not like that.

    Thanks again.

  25. Who Cares says :


    You’re an idiot. Free energy has existed since the beginning of our cosmos. In fact, it’s called ‘dark energy’ although it’s poorly understood by theoretical astrophysicists…

    There is only one energy in the cosmos, and all others are manifestations thereof (including, for example, the energies provided by the sun, etc), and it’s a perpetuum mobile. Free energy will always exist, even after this present cosmos is dismantled and a new one is built.

    It’s one of the most basic facts of life.

    You of course, do not know this, which is why I sit here, on my throne of wisdom, and kindly ask you to catch a whiff of my scrotum.

    It may yet prove to be the source of your enlightenment.

    Sitting there crowing on your dungheap, is not impressing anybody.

    I have plenty of scrotum stench to go around for you — believe me. Just inhale my scrotum. Inhale it in deeply. Be at peace. Be one with our cosmos. Absorb my essence. Yes — sniff it in.


    I love it when dickflops like you and muertos come out of your little holes every now and again, to steer humanity clear of the latest ‘superstition’ and ‘farce’ that somebody has supposedly produced, with the aim to protect those poor, deceived souls, who may end up falling for the evil traps lurking about — how disastrous for us petty fools!

    I truly love it.

    You have done this throughout history. Our entire human cultural history consists of peasants like you, lifting up your wooden hoods covering the holes in the ground you dwell in, to scream at the top of your lungs “ALL YE FOOLS, BEWARE OF THE LATEST DEVILRY LURKING ABOUT! HAST WE NOT SUFFERED YE AND THY ILK’S PROGENITORS IN ABUNDANCE? CLEAR THESE PLAINS ALREADY, SO THAT WE MAY SUFFER OUR PRESENCE IN SPADES O’ LESS. VANISH FROM THESE HOLES ALREADY! ‘TIS OURS!”

    Proceeding with crawling back into your holes and shutting those wooden hoods once you’re satisfied the area’s cleared — only to crawl back out again, once another imagined Devil lurks about.

    But you’ve achieved nothing throughout history. Not a single idea has been put forward by you, not a single invention, not a single act that’s developed mankind’s consciousness or improved our conditions for the future.

    You’re nothing but a petulant and assinine group of armchair critics. You’re parasites, preying on people’s souls, with no contribution in return.

    You’re good at picking. Picking faults and failings. Picking your noses. Picking your assholes. Picking on people and their ideas.

    You’re also good at picking your timing. When the world collapses, you’re nowhere to be found. You’re inside your holes. But WOE to anybody who dares make a contribution of some kind to the world — then you crawl back out and start your favorite hobby: Picking.

    How about you stay behind in your lightless caves, pick your (and each other’s) assholes, and never show yourselves again? If the world does collapse, don’t worry — it would have done so already: BECAUSE YOU LOT ARE COMPLETELY USELESS, SO IT’S NOT AS IF IT WOULD HAVE MADE AN OUNCE OF A DIFFERENCE ANYWAY!

    As I said: Smell my scrotum nice and deep, seal my scrotum scent in a tube, and take it down to your family in that hole you’re dwelling in underground. Perhaps it will enlighten you no-goods yet.

    • John Q. Conspiracy says :

      Hahaha lmfao Thanks so much ! I could not have said I better ! I needed a laugh . They really are morons , aren’t they ?

      • Anastasio says :

        Should we be surprised that you have finally found simpatico with an asswipe who can’t string a sentence together without asking you to “inhale his scrotum”?

  26. CJ says :

    Glad you finally got it.

  27. Hank says :

    I enjoy you commitment to go deeper in to this. You are not any of the “darkside”. Just natural resistence which is good. As we want them to embrace us with Love, we should embrace you with Love to. It is the only way to create a better world.

    With that said I would like to tell you that I experience you as an unwise that want to gain popularity/status to satisfy you ego.

    I was reading about a discussion about what tha agenda or reason was for the makers to create the thrive movie. In real Love and truth you do things without reason. Without any egoistic “gain”. Just to create more of what is Love. In Buddhist this is the ionly way to true happiness.


  28. Attavanti M. says :

    This website is an exhaustive effort to debunk the Thrive movie, Eustace Mullins and others. I must ask who really cares? Why in the world would anyone put so much effort into some silly movie unless it is especially worrisome to you? Fine if you felt like sticking up your own blog but you put far too much energy into trying to ensure people don’t believe in anything Thrive stands for.

    Let’s dissect Eustace Mullins who you find troublesome and “antisemitic.” I think you ought to focus your attention on Mr. Mullins life works and debunk all of his facts. Please debunk the Curse of Canaan and Secrets of the Federal Reserve. That is enough to keep you busy for a lifetime. Please also debunk the mortgage fraud crisis the banksters have perpetrated against us. Please explain why we are not in perpetual debt and slavery to the those who create money out of thin air? I know we are in perpetual debt and slavery and it looks like you don’t want the poor ignorant public to catch on. Where does money come from? What gives the US Dollar value? How do you create a depression, a recession and a global depression? Please explain the banking system in North Dakota versus the other states and why they have this banking system. Let’s just discuss conspiracy facts rather than conspiracy theories.

    • anticultist says :

      Conspiracy facts ?
      Defending a known anti semite ?

      You might as well just trot along and never come back after saying that stupid shit.

    • cyborgesus says :

      – mortgage fraud crisis the banksters have perpetrated
      – create money out of thin air
      – Where does money come from
      – What gives the US Dollar value
      – banking system in North Dakota

      You rush through four completely different topics in one paragraph, suggesting you don’t understand any of ’em and are just throwing shit around in the hope something will stick. Either make a point or fuck off, we’re not gonna do your arguing for you.

    • a rational person says :


      defending eustace mullins…thats fucking disgusting. hate jews, do you? not surprised, a lot of these thrive fucks are anti semites.

      • John Q. Conspiracy says :

        Your screen name says it all ,a rational person , these truths are beyond you because you are unconscious and not able to think beyond what you see in the everyday world & the bullshit mainstream media throws at you. Don’t worry, you’ll wake up in maybe another 20 lifetimes from now on this nasty place we call The World.

    • Anastasio says :

      @Attavanti M
      “Please explain why we are not in perpetual debt and slavery to the those who create money out of thin air?”

      We aren’t, but if one accepts credit then one must honour the debt that accompanies it. To suggest that people are ‘enslaved’ by the bankers is suggestive (apart from an naive inclination to hyperbole) of a culture that defiantly shirks that responsibility.

      Perhaps the only real downside to borrowing money, is having to pay it back.

      It is not a God-given right to own a car, house, widescreen TV etc nor is it a God-given right for banks to force money into your hands. There exists a duty of care to live within one’s means and to exercise free will responsibly.

      Of course you never hear anyone complain when money is ‘created out of thin air’ and put into their own pocket i.e. anyone who has enjoyed the benefit of instant capital as credit from the bank.

      From your righteous tone Attavanti M, I confidently contend that you are not one of these people.

  29. AeolusRIder says :

    Here you go mate. There are some new technologies out there for “free power” that have just come up on the horizon.


    Now to see if this gets squashed or they disappear…. LOL

    What a difference a year makes. We have all kinds of mean and nasty things that are being uncovered about the current administration that are just now being discussed in the media. Have fun.

    • anticultist says :

      On Sale For a Limited Time for $197, the best guide to making your own electro magnets.

      Do you own one AoelusRider ? Have you bought one and built it to verify it actually works ?

      Bet you haven’t have you !
      You don’t really believe it that much do you son.

  30. Interim says :

    I have seen Thrive, and extracted what I need from it to continue piecing the together the “bigger picture” of global events. As with all research, I “eat the chicken and spit out the bones”. There is a definite pattern that can be seen in the evaluation of multiple sources of information, even with that “lapdog” media we see on the nightly news. The best evidence for psychopathic agendas against the little people should logically begin with the Georgia Guidestones. It’s amazing that this monument to madness would even be PERMITTED to be set up anywhere by any government declaring to care about their constituents. The monument is tantamount to being a declaration of necessary global culling. We have only to connect the dots by finding out who’s talking to who in the elitist circles, and, knowing what their personal philosophies are ( which are recorded IN CONTEXT in many places, like the Library of Congress, in news reports, or audio taped and videotaped sources on file). I could give you many examples of things that were said by muckedy-mucks that will always be indictments against them; things that most of them have never renounced publically as being wrong, but that is something you should be doing with an unbiased mind on your own. The point is, there is nothing new under the sun. People in places of great power over others are always tempted to compromise their moral compass. If Hitler could rise to such heights in his psychopathic concept, why would we be so careless as to apathetically think no-one in our neck of the woods could ever succumb to the lust for power that abandons the dictates of their God given conscience? “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. We have too great an opinion of ourselves. Whether you want to accept it or not, “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). Wait, you “ain’t seen nothing yet”. Big money will be invested by bigwigs to continue developing big projects that will continue to separate the wealthy minority from the lower class majority, and serfdom will continue to be the goal by those with the resourses. It is true that “the love of money is the root of ALL evil”. The Greek word translated “money” comes from the root word “avarice”. I am not surprised by anything powermongers are capable of. But, God WILL have the last word.

    • boswell says :

      ” The best evidence for psychopathic agendas against the little people should logically begin with the Georgia Guidestones. It’s amazing that this monument to madness would even be PERMITTED to be set up anywhere by any government declaring to care about their constituents. ”

      Oh you have evidence that they were funded and created by the US government do you, other than some shitty conspiracy theorists claims ?


      Sorry interim you are basically asking everyone here to accept your apophenia as fact, and then adding on top of it your own paranoid view of the world as the icing on the cake. You just come across as a whack job bro.

      • Interim says :

        I did not say that the government itself set it up, but that they, wheather local or federal, should not have permitted whoever it was that came and set up the thing to do so. It would be interesting to find out who WAS the creator of the monument, and why they think the multi- language declarations inscribed on it are a “humane” concept. Perhaps I did not explain it properly. It would sort of be like a stranger asking you to allow you to put a bear trap on your front lawn because they felt it would be a good thing.

      • a rational person says :

        oh jeezus, another stupid nutbag. “GEORGIA GUIDE STONES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

        what’s next, fema camps? lizard people? chemtrails?

        blow it out your ass.

    • Anastasio says :


      ”The monument is tantamount to being a declaration of necessary global culling.”

      Or, it could simply pertain to the question of birth control, a la jìhuà shēngyù zhèngcè. Not an entirely illogical premise given the harsh reality that mankind does indeed reside on a planet of finite resources.
      Even without intentional government influence, a country’s fertility rate can be affected by other factors i.e. its economic status (see Portugal).

      Suggesting a pragmatic solution on a chunk of rock can’t harm you, Interim, but the issue of population control is a question that will most likely require an answer someday. I guess it’s easier to assume that the Illuminati want to begin the cull of mankind with the death of every first born – or perhaps some other antiquated nonsense quoted from the bible.

  31. James says :

    I’m curious, when does a supposed conspiracy theory stop being conspitorial and become a plausible theory that has at least some evidence to support the assertions made in the theory? Furthermore, why does it seem to me, and now a majority of Americans, that our leaders could very simply debunk any number of these so called conspiracy theories, yet they never seem to do it?
    The examples of ideas or events in our brief history that have been completely re-written as time passes and new evidence is uncovered are numerous. I would use the Gulf of Tonkin incident as one example. According to recently released documents obtained through several FOIA requests, this incident, which our President at the time used as the primary reason for intense escalation of hostilities in Vietnam, was almost certainly a false flag.
    One would think that a revelation of this nature would be a HUGE news story, yet beyond the Web and alternative news sources, we heard almost nothing.
    The Government’s version of the 911 attack on the Pentagon which has drawn so much attention from those crazy “conspiracy theorists”, could easily be supported with the release of two or three of the hundreds of videos that were surely made of the most secure building in th US, yet all that has been released by our government who kicked and screamed about having to do it, was one grainy video that certainly doesn’t clearly show a 747 hitting the building.
    I am not a conspiracy theorist. The term is pajorative in nature and usually used condescendingly by people who themselves seem to have some weird, hidden agenda. I’m just a regular, working American. I don’t necessarily believe everything I saw in the movie, but there is PLENTY that through my own reading that IS true.
    I would posit than instead of trying to uncover any factual error is such a film, your obvious intellect would better serve humanity if you investigated the things in the film that ARE true and ARE being ignored by the media and our government. For you see when regular folks like me find your site and read your explanation that you are some kind of “truth” seeker, yet you ignore the many salient ideas made in such a film, it doesn’t make you MORE credible. It just made me realize I’ve found another debunker site with some haughty intellectual whose opinion of himself is only outdone by the lengths that he will go to discredit anyone or anything who promotes ideas that are not lockstep with his own. In a word, boring. See ya.

    • boswell says :

      Funny you should talk about boring.

      You claim not to be a conspiracy theorist and in the same breath talk about the gulf of tonkin, 911 being a government conspiracy [false flag]. You are a conspiracy theorist if you believe that, whether you consider it as a pejorative is unimportant, that is what you are.
      You are not a fence sitter just asking questions, you are someone unwilling to accept the evidence that is given about a topic, or are ignorant to the evidence that exists explaining the topics you brought up.

      Muertos has discussed gulf of tonkin on this blog and elsewhere, and explained why the belief it was a false flag is a matter of false claims by people who don’t bother to study history correctly. Likewise the pentagon is explained in numerous 911 documentaries and articles, but you seem either oblivious or unwilling to look into the information correctly. You then make the false assumption that you have encountered all the information and that your perception of events can be the only true one, that being there is evidence of a cover up or lies of some kind.

      That is the very definition of how a conspiracy theorist behaves.

      The reason the government doesn’t debunk idiots who make ridiculous claims, is because they already divulge information explaining exactly what happened, and give out as much evidence as is humanly possibly. However conspiracy theorists refuse to accept that and fill in gaps with made up beliefs and innuendo in order to cast doubt.

      • James says :

        Mr. Boswell,
        The type of narrative that I have seen on this site and particularly in the comments section, disturb me. They speak to the pitiful state of affairs that our country finds itself facing right now. Our nation is incredibly divided right now. This is not some “startling revelation”; I think we would all agree on the declaration’s veracity.

        My comment early this morning was driven by emotion rather than reason. For that, I apologize to you, Mr. Muertos, and any other person I offended. I often forget that a person reading what I wrote is a real person, with real emotions, opinions, and beliefs. The assumption that my research, breadth of knowledge, intellect, or critical reasoning ability is superior to another’s is just plain wrong. I know these things, yet I still occasionally slip up and allow my emotions direct my typing fingers.

        The reason that I feel compelled to respond to your comment is twofold. First, I wanted to make the aforementioned apology. Secondly, I wanted to see if perhaps there wasn’t some area of agreement in our beliefs. One might ask, ‘Why? Why the hell does this guy care whether or not we can find common ground?” The answer in my mind is incredibly uncomplicated. Until we, that is, you and I, “James and Boswell”, two people who have seemingly diverse opinion, are able to find common ground and talk to each other civilly without personal attack and in a calm, respectful manner, I don’t hold out much hope for our country’s future.

        Before I comment specifically on the issues at hand, I wanted to point out some general ideas that I have about places like the comment section of this website. These are my opinions only and I don’t represent them as facts. There are simply observations reported and written with my own brain’s prejudices and opinions.
        • Such debates rarely serve any purpose other than to feed the emotional needs of the person commenting. No better example could be given than my own comment made early this morning.
        • No one wins the debate. Sure, one may get a sense of smug satisfaction by the thought that their argument was superior, but if the aim is to sway a person’s opinion, my guess is that less than 1% of the people reading comments suddenly change their beliefs, particularly about subjects as outrageous and divisive as “911 was a false flag”. Just write those words, 911 was a false flag, and you can almost hear hackles being raised and claws being extended in preparation for the coming battle.
        • These comment sections do serve a purpose. Their purpose is to allow people to be heard, something that is incredibly important to our frail human ego. We ALL want to be heard; that other humans know our opinion, that we are smart, that we count, that we are somebody.
        • Many (not all) of the arguments made, regardless of the debater’s position, are written in a condescending manner and use ad hominem, personal attack, misdirection, false assumptions, misquotes, etc. In other words, someone looking to glean some measure of truth from reading the comments is likely to be disappointed. That is assuming the reader has any ability at all to read critically. I minored in philosophy in college and had several classes on critical thinking and logic and was made to study the work of some of history’s most noted thinkers and debaters. Even so, I have found myself agreeing with a position that is artfully presented, even though the facts do not support it. I do not offer my limited experience in college as an appeal to authority; a mode of attack that is often used to bolster arguments that might otherwise be seen as unsound. I only offer it to say that I do have a basic, if somewhat crude understanding of the rules of debate, logic and logical terms, and both sound and fallacious reasoning.
        • Arguments presented in such forums are usually presented using broad generalizations and sweeping declarations. In addition, assumptive reasoning is often used and even though the author may not offer any support to their statement, many readers will agree with them especially if the reader is inclined to agree with the poster’s ideas.

        Granted; there is good debate being offered online. As an example that is relevant to this discussion, I would offer that there are various websites and books available concerning 911 that offer reasonable, sound, argument representing both sides of the issue that is, those that accept the Bush/Cheney version and those that think that perhaps there is “more” to the story. But I digress.

        If the aim of this discussion is to for either of us to “prove the other wrong”, then we are spinning our wheels. If, however, you and Mr. Muertos, have a sincere and honest desire to find the truth about such issues further discussion might be useful. That also assumes that you have no personal biases (other than those shaped by your life experience), entanglements, or other issues which would preclude you from analyzing data and evidence in a logical, reasoned manner.

        It has been claimed (without support that I can see) that Muertos is some kind of government agent or saboteur. Of course declarations of this sort are ridiculous and should be summarily dismissed by the critical reader; however, dismissal of an unsupported statement does not brand the statement as fallacious. It just means that until evidence that supports the statement is presented, the reader must not give it any validity. Said evidence must be of such overwhelming nature as to leave no room for doubt as to the veracity of the declaration. This particular type of attack is very personal and ethics should be our guide when passing judgment on our fellows.

        I would be happy to support the claims that I have made in regards to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, if and only if, you can assure me that you are indeed one who is open minded, uses logic and critical reasoning, will refrain from ad hominem attack. My major in college was history, specifically American history. I have read an enormous amount of material on American war, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and the conflict in Vietnam specifically. Again, I’m no expert and I will not offer my opinions to lend credence to any material I present, but my familiarity with this particular period in American history may allow me to find materials that you might have otherwise missed.

        However, all one needs to do is a Google search for Gulf of Tonkin and it is readily apparent, according to the NSA’s and several other recently (in last decade) released government documents, that President Johnson was not given the factual data of the supposed “attack”, therefore his decision to escalate hostilities was made using false assumptions. Now, we can split hairs about the term, false flag and I think once we step back and logically look at what is known now that we didn’t know say, twenty years ago, we can safely say that at the very least, the American people were misled by the President. To me, false flag indicates an intentional deception. It could certainly be argued that the Gulf of Tonkin deception was not intentional. Therefore, using the aforementioned definition this incident was not a false flag.

        Regardless of whether or not the incident can be called a false flag, however, misses the point. The intelligence used by the Department of Defense and that was given to our Commander in Chief, was incomplete. According to historian Robert J. Hanyok who wrote an article (classified Top Secret and only recently released) on behalf of the NSA and other intelligence agencies, the President was only in possession of ten percent of the intelligence regarding the attack on the Maddox. He further suggests that the information the president was given supported the now known to be false assertion that on August 4th, the Maddox was the victim of an unprovoked attacked by the NVA navy. Furthermore, it was this faulty intelligence that was used to convince Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave the president broad and sweeping authority to escalate hostilities against the NVA and their allies. I have included three links that might help you in deciding whether or not the government story concerning the incident (as presented by LBJ in 1964) was indeed factual or if you now believe that it was fallacious, unsound, or untruthful.

        Many who claimed that the Maddox was NOT attacked on August 4th; that the president was mistaken and that we were fighting a war that was started, at least partially, using bad intelligence and incorrect assumptions, have been called “conspiracy theorists”. A more appropriate term would be historical revisionist or one who realizes, as my favorite history professor used to say, history is never static. Do you support the idea that historical events should remain as written, even when new evidence surfaces that disputes prior, historical claims? I doubt that you do as you strike me as a reasonably intelligent person.

        Then if one accepts the notion that history does change as new evidence is uncovered, it follows that any currently accepted notion of historical events might be subject to revision. Of course this assumes that the new evidence is uncovered by reputable individuals and evidence is subjected to scholarly scrutiny and vetted in every possible manner. I personally accept this idea as any student of history and current events does. Of course most of us have many ideas and philosophies that make up the foundation of our core beliefs. We are much less willing to agree to revision of these stalwarts of our very being, regardless of the volume and nature of evidence to the contrary.

        I think the notion that we all carry certain immutable belief systems explains much of the acrimony we see on sites like this one. I am no exception; however, I will tell you that over the course of the last 20 years, my belief system has undergone serious revisions. Partly due to that, I really do try and have an open mind. I will apply that same commitment to being unbiased to both the content here and your reply, if any. Regards.



        Click to access rel2_steakley.pdf

      • Joel T. says :

        James, perhaps you aren’t aware of this, but you are proposing a classic dilemma for the debunkers. A conspiracy theorists comes along, offers arguments for their position, the debunker responds, and one of two things may happen. Either the conspiracy theorist offers yet more argumentation, or they recede into the background only to be replaced by a new conspiracy theorist who offers the same argumentation, and the cycle repeats. Because there is a limitation on possible argumentation for a given topic, conspiracy theorists quickly exhaust “new” arguments and rehash old ones that have already been debunked. Debunkers, then, are required to debunk again and again the same arguments or be labeled “close minded.” There is certainly a strong air of hostility from debunkers towards conspiracy theorists because of this: debunkers have heard your argument and evidence before. They’ve debunked it before. And now they’re being asked to do so again.

        It is important to not mistake “having seen and addressed that information” with “closed minded and unreasonable.” Certainly, if you have new — and I mean, truly new, novel, something that hasn’t been debunked dozens of times before — then please feel free to post it. Unfortunately, debunkers have a better chance of winning the lottery than of seeing new conspiracy theory arguments, so personally I highly doubt that you have such information (your suggestion of googling Gulf of Tonkin strongly supports that doubt).

        Muertos’ arguments regarding False Flag’s, and the Gulf of Tonkin in particular, can be summed up in the assertion that confusion and even incorrect information is not the same as lying. Your assertion that President Johnson used incorrect information to convince the American public is irrelevant: even if true, it doesn’t make the Gulf of Tonkin a false flag. For it to qualify, the misleading had to be intentional rather than accidental. Or, to put it another way, for it to be a conspiracy, people must have conspired, and conspiring requires intent. The lack of intent means a lack of conspiring, which means the lack of a conspiracy, which means the lack of a false flag. Furthermore, your complaint that the President didn’t have all the information is likewise irrelevant. Bureaucracies are designed to filter important information from unimportant information, and to only escalate matters when the individual handling it at the time “is at too low of a pay-grade.” To be evidence of a false flag event, the filtering process would have to be manipulated with the specific intent of misleading the President so that he would in turn mislead the public.

        Regarding your discussion about the attack on the Maddox, it should be noted that the August 2nd attack has been verified by the Vietnam government. That one happened, no questions possible. It was “provoked” in the sense that Vietnam claimed 12 miles of coastal waters, while that sea territory was not recognized by other countries. As such, the Maddox was patrolling what was, from its perspective, neutral waters, and the Vietnamese attacked it for entering what was, from their perspective, Vietnamese waters. The August 4th attack never happened, although it was reported based on the perception of the crew of the Maddox. That is, while there was no attack, it was under good faith and intentions that the ship reported that it was under attack. Again, the lack of intent to deceive is key.

        Furthermore, the Gulf of Tonkin is itself irrelevant: the U.S. was already deeply involved in Vietnam prior to that, and it was already on a collision course (indeed, the first American soldiers died in Vietnam in 1959, 5 years before the Gulf of Tonkin). Not only has no maleficence been proven in this event, even if there was, the event itself was irrelevant.

        And finally, as you noted, the August 4th attack didn’t happen. False flag events are the government staging something: nothing was staged, so no false flag. And furthermore the individuals who originated the false claim themselves sincerely believed they were under attack at the time (it is only subsequently, when they have access to information that was absent at the time, have they been able to see that they were wrong).

        As a side note, the official historical record is that the August 4th attack did not happen, and that President Johnson was not informed of that fact prior to seeking permission for an airstrike. Your “revelation” is already part of the standard narrative. The crux is that none of this information indicates a false flag event happened. The only people who are labeled as conspiracy theorists are the people who, entirely lacking any evidence of malicious intent, view sinister motives behind every minute of the Gulf of Tonkin event.

        Which brings us back around to my original point and the classic dilemma: all your assertions were addressed by Muertos in his original post on False Flags. You’ve made yourself look like just another conspiracy theorist spouting just the same arguments that have been addressed countless times before.

      • a rational person says :

        you cant reason with conspiratards. they’re nuts. they refuse to accept facts. thats why they keep farting out the same stupid arguments over and over again like this “false flag” bullshit.

        this james guy talks a good game but he sounds like just another nutbag to me. he believes in “911 inside job” and wont ever look at the facts that show its complete bullshit. he just won’t. don’t even know why its worth trying to debate him.

      • boswell says :

        James , see joels reply that sums up perfectly how you should be responded to after the comment you gave. While I appreciate your willingness to enter into formal and polite debate, it is clear that you don’t hold all the cards on the topics. If you had you would not be in two minds about what happened with the Gulf Of Tonkin or 911.

        I am not a historian, nor am I as informed about American history as some, so i can’t claim any expertise on the subject. However, that said I have read Muertos’ discussions over a period of years [he is a historian and a lecturer in it] and not just on this blog. His arguments are extremely sound from a logic and critical thinking standpoint, he entertains both sides and presents valid counter points that eliminate any doubt about there being no conspiracy.

        Regarding 911 I am under no illusion that there were some unusual occurrences on the day. However these were down to the attacks being unexpected, belief they wouldn’t happen in the first place, unpreparedness for such attacks, and a collective confusion throughout the communications network of all first responders [military, public and government]. The 911 inside job claims not only go against common sense and the evidence, they expect one to withhold critical thought and to place belief in incredible unproven claims that border on fantasy. Yes there are claims by conspiracy theorists on the topic, but none of them are realistic enough to take seriously, or to throw away what we know about the event.

        It is for reasons explained, i won’t enter into a formal debate, unless there is a specific and amazing new piece of evidence you have that would overturn everything about 911 I already know.

  32. James says :

    Mr. Rational,
    As I noted above, insults and personal attack do not bolster your position, with me, and certainly not with an outsider coming here for the first time. If you are trying to bait me into making a similar response in kind, you’ve failed.

    As much as I fear it a complete waste of time, I will engage you momentarily. Perhaps a beginners lesson in logic and reasoning will help you in future “debates”. There are many online courses one can take that might help you understand the basic principles of sound reasoning and argument. The University of California at Davis has an excellent logic primer which can be found here:

    In case you were unsure of the implications of the statement above, let me be clear. I am implying that you do not understand the basic principles of debate, logic, and sound reasoning.. I will prove it below by examining your statement. No disrespect is intended. My intention is only to reflect back to you that when you make unsupported claims and use personal attack as your verbal weapon of choice, people will not take you seriously. I would prefer to engage in an intelligent discussion with those people, like Joel, who, while I don’t agree with everything he says, at least he presents his arguments in a somewhat coherent fashion.

    You start with this: “you cant reason with conspiratards. they’re nuts.

    The fallacies contained in this statement are too numerous to list, but for starters it uses the tired but trusty “ad hominem” which is simply put, a personal attack that used by those who usually have little command of the facts or are to lazy ( Argument By Laziness-Argument By Uninformed Opinion) to list them. It also uses the fallacies of “Argument of emotive language” and the ever popular, “Argument of dismissal”. You go on to say:

    “….they refuse to accept facts.” a classic example of the “Argument of selective observation” and of the “Argument of generalization” Let’s assume I believe that “911 was an inside job” to use your words. Even so, saying that because I have a certain belief I “refuse to accept facts” is an unsupported fact in itself! In other words, you are guilty of exactly the type of irrational, unsupported, and illogical thinking that you try so unsuccessfully to paint those who might have an opinion that differs from your own.

    You say about me, “he believes in “911 inside job” and wont ever look at the facts that show its complete bullshit.”

    This is a simpleton’s ruse that in formal debate and study of logic is called;
    “Fallacy of quoting out of context”

    No where in my statements I have proclaimed that “911 was an inside job”
    Really, Mr. Rational, this is a pathetic attempt to discredit another’s argument using tactics normally associated with a playground bully.

    Again, you bandy about the word, “fact” as if by the mere act of you typing it, the word will be considered to be true and without question. These types of emotional, irrational appeals unfortunately are commonplace on the internet, a place where “facts” are anything one wants them to be. Any why not? You’re an anonymous person. You don’t have to debate me in public (although I would relish the opportunity) and defend your vitriolic, juvenile, assertions that quite honestly would be the laughingstock of any formal “debate”. You sir, are a simpleton. This, in case you didn’t know, is an ad hominem, personal attack. However, the claim is not without merit as the conclusions drawn from my dissection of your spurious, emotional appeal clearly demonstrates.

    “The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson’s time.”
    — Richard Nixon

    • a rational person says :

      jimbo, you seem to think i’m here to have polite debates with conspiratards. i’m not. you can’t have a debate with a conspiracy nutbag. it’s like trying to play chess with a horse. they won’t get it and they never will. u’re fucked if you even try.

      i come to this board for entertainment. i like to make fun of conspiracy nutbags. nobody can change their minds and the real world writes em off as hopeless nutcases with nothing to contribute to the world. i agree with that, they are hopeless nutcases and they have nothing to contribute.

      so the only value conspiracy nutbags bring to anything is entertainment. they’re fun to get riled up, you pull the little crank and let em spin around like little wind up toys and you always know what they’re going to say. “false flag!” “911 was an inside job!” “lizard people!” “paid disinfo agent!” “ad hominem!” “you never debunked anything!” its like pulling the string on one of those talking dolls. same thing over and over. if you doubt me look at a nut named “stratoblaster” and see how crazy this little fucker is. you think you can have a real debate with a guy who thinks dick cheney blew up the wtc with darth vader laser beam guns from space?

      this is fun for me. i like it. sorry if you dont but that ain’t my problem. if you want to be here i suggest u put a number on your back and join the nutbag races like all the other conspiratards. if not, gtfo. thanks hoss

    • Joel T. says :

      First, James, please don’t associate yourself with UC Davis. That is a fine institution and it can only be hurt by any association with conspiracy theorists.

      Second, A Rational Person’s statement, “you can’t reason with conspiratards. they’re nuts,” contains fewer logical fallacies than you presume. There is the poisoning the well remark (that was given so off the cuff as to seem more of a poisoning the well rather than a full ad hominem) about “conspiratards,” but the assertion that one cannot reason with them is born out through experience and studies (see Muerto’s reference to the article on conspirituality, or here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537903.2011.539846#preview). Likewise, while ineloquently put, “they’re nuts” likewise holds up to scrutiny, as evidence by the paranoia that runs rampant in conspiracy theory circles (the assertion that Muertos was a government-paid individual is such an example). We might give Rational Person negative marks for composition, and for not citing his sources, but then, it wasn’t an academic paper, either. All your suggestions after the notation about an ad hominem are themselves irrelevant (and border on the guilt by association fallacy).

      Given the extensive and exhaustive debunking of 9/11 conspiracies, it is colloquially acceptable to say that people who still believe in those theories are refusing to accept facts. It is rather on par with creationist refusing to accept Evolution: the “theory,” or official story or whatever term you wish to use, is so strongly supported as to be, for all intents and purposes, fact. Your original post clearly supports the supposition that 9/11 was a government conspiracy: at best you can claim that you didn’t mean to say what you said, but the post in itself is rather clear (yes, you didn’t say the exact words that “9/11 was an inside job”, but that’s a formality), so it is justifiable for others to respond to your own assertion. Or, in short, you were not being quoted out of context.

      It is perhaps prudent to here remind you of the argumentum ad logicam fallacy: even if you are right and Rational Person’s post was riddled with logical fallacies, that does not necessitate that his conclusions are themselves false.

      • a rational person says :

        hahahahahahaha joel you rule man. you got a lot more patience dealing with these fuckin conspiratards than i do.

        let me cite my sources: i would say that jose cuervo is my main source for everything. i cant even come to this board without a couple shots of tequila. abusing and making fun of conspiracy nutbags is a lot more fun if u’ve had a couple drinks before you start.

        yea, it is true i play a buffoon on this board. some of the nutbags here might be surprised if they knew me in real life. lemme just quote star trek, its much easier for a civilized man to pretend to be a barbarian than it is for a barbarian to pretend to be civilized. food for thought there hoss.

  33. Barton Routt says :

    Yea its crazy how someone wants to question something everyone else just accepts. Your sheep. Adam cant show his machine because it was TAKEN from him by the government gag order issued the second he had his machine go public. Your a fool if you think this is all smoke and mirrors. I hope you don’t reproduce.

    • conspiracykiller says :

      You’re and your, learn the fucking difference you spaz.

    • cyborgjesus says :

      Sorry, but anybody remotely familiar with Bayes Theorem is going to call BS on this. There are going to be hundreds of hucksters and delusional folk claiming that the government is suppressing their work for every actual inventor who happens to fall victim to such a scheme.

      If you’re sure the guy’s in the latter category, he could emigrate, throw the plan on TPB, mail it to a few hundred news agencies, or have it manufactured remotely. I hope you do reproduce, since having kids is nice and you usually grow out of conspiracy junk in your 20s, 30s if you’re taking it slow.

%d bloggers like this: