My name is Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB). I don’t believe in spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, or any manner of invisible agents with power and intention. This blog exists for the sole purpose of entertaining the world with the weird and wacky way people think and believe.
I try to stick to what is known or what is more likely possible than not, given the available information. I try to avoid speculation beyond the bounds of those possibilities supported by known facts. I prefer evidence that can be tested, validated and replicated by neutral, third parties under proper and strict scientific controls.
If you want more insight into my way of thinking i suggest reading Michael Shermer’s concepts of “Patternicity” (The tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise) and “Agenticity” (Why people believe invisible agents control the world).
- Mason I. Bilderberg, iLLumiNuTTi.com
- Mason I. Bilderberg, iLLumiNuTTi.com
- Christopher Hitchens
- Samuel Johnson
- Mason I. Bilderberg, iLLumiNuTTi.com
Regarding the 2012 Prophecy: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/120679?a=380693
“Answers” will be a film that is designed to fulfill the prophecy by beginning world peace. I at least want your feedback. Although telling people about it would be better.
I’d be happy to watch the final product and provide feedback. Where can i view the final product?
I need a budget to make the movie into a final product. The screenplay is in the gallery. Be advised you don’t necessarily have to donate, but do please tell people about it.
Do you have a link to the screenplay? I’ll download, read and give you feedback. Be advised though, my feedback will be honest – i may, or may not, like what i read – and my feedback will accurately reflect my thoughts.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/120679?a=380693
That’s the link, the screenplay is in the gallery. I will give you my email if nec and just send the pdf.
You can send me the PDF at my email: mason.bilderberg@illuminuti.com
did you read the script yet?
James. I forgot all abot your screenplay. My email address here at illuminuti was out of service for the longest time (at least 3 months) and i just got it fixed.
Hi Mason. I’m the host of a tv show that airs across Canada and in parts of Europe and Africa. We examine various theories as well as paranormal phenomena. Are you, by chance in the LA area? We’re going to be there filming interviews for season 3 of our series. Would love to interview you when I’m there Aug 20 to 25th. Please get in touch! Thanks.
Richard, unfortunately i’m not on the west coast, i’m on the east coast. I’d love to see your show, where can i view episodes?
It airs across Canada on VISION TV and episodes on Vision TV website are blocked outside of Canada at request of our distributor who is trying to sell in the U.S. I could send you a private youtube link to a couple of episodes. Send me your email and I’ll get those to you. Do you skype? Do you have a good webcam?
Richard, my email: mason.bilderberg@illuminuti.com
Can I tell you how humorous I find your screenname, Mr. Bilderberg.
It’s part of my tongue-in-cheek attitude regarding conspiracies.
Pingback: Unidentified Floating Objects. Seeing is believing? « Illuminutti
Have you ever considered making a Twitter account for this blog?
Pingback: Photographing Levitations « Illuminutti
Pingback: Alex Jones: What Does He Believe? « Illuminutti
Pingback: Leslie Kean: UFO Caught On Tape Over Santiago Air Base (Plus My Analysis) « Illuminutti
Hello! So what are your beliefs? I think looking at everything with a skeptical eye is smart, but there are some things we can’t explain. I’m not a religious follower, don’t believe in all of the conspiracy bs, definitely think the end of the world is NOT coming this year; however, there are some things that happen that are very difficult to explain. I’m trying to piece that information together and figure out what it is. It would be interesting to hear about another person’s thoughts and ideas that are not all mixed up into the conspiracy theories, religions, and aliens that want you for food…. I’ll definitely check out the book you recommended.
What are my beliefs? Basically, i believe what can be shown to exist. The human brain is very prone to connecting dots that shouldn’t be connected; It’s in our DNA, it’s how we have survived for a couple of million years. I simply don’t accept opinions and beliefs at face value.
Pingback: Conspiracy: The color of Mars is a government coverup!!!! « Illuminutti
just keep watching fox news
??? … now playing left field …
Pingback: I am Psychic! « thegreatantagonizer
Thanks for linking back to my political-culture.com blog. Your site must keep you busy, but I hope it isn’t too frustrating for you to think about these theories and “theorists”.
Good quotes, too. Love the one from Hitchens, and your definition of conspiracists reminds me of John Nash in A Beautiful Mind, when he was looking for meaning and pattern where there was none–at least in the movie version of things.
The site can keep me very busy, but i’m fascinated by conspiracies and conspiracists. There’s a lot going on in the heads of people who continually connect the wrong dots to maintain their worldview, even in the face of very obvious, contradictory evidence. Psychologically it’s fascinating to me, so i’m motivated to read a lot.
Explain the take over of Masonry in 1782: The 1782 Congress of Wilhelmsbad: The Illuminati Takeover
by Eric A. Samuelson, J.D., (November, 2006) chrome://scrapbook/content/result.xul?q=Mason
I had read some of the same info about Pike and found no conspiracy there.
Hello Mason! I’m glad you stopped by my blog and I’ve read over your article. I want to ask you a question: Scientifically, humans are made up of matter and energy, in your scientific opinion, what happens to all of that stuff after death?
Excellent question!
I’m not a scientist, but this is the question that used to keep me hanging on to my belief in life after death. After all, the law of conservation of energy (link) states, “energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system remains the same.” Einstein put it more succinctly, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”
I used to think this meant the human “energy” – the soul – couldn’t be destroyed, but instead it would have to be transferred to another form (an afterlife).
But after many years on this earth, i’ve come to believe we (humans) are not made up of energy, we are made up of atoms and molecules (matter) having chemical reactions, converting one form of energy (food) into the energy our bodies need to live. When we die our bodies simply stop converting one form of energy (food) into another form of energy (the energy our bodies need to live). When we die, no energy is lost, it just remains in the form of the foods we would have eaten had we remained alive.
In the big scheme of things (the entire universe) this adheres to the “energy cannot be created or destroyed” axiom. When we die, the universe (the isolated system) has neither created nor destroyed energy, it just remains in the food.
I think of it like a car engine. If your engine dies, is there residual engine energy that needs transferring to a new form? No. The energy the engine WOULD HAVE produced remains in the gas tank.
I want to believe in life after death, i just don’t see the evidence. I hope i’m pleasantly surprised.
Interesting answer and opinion although I’d like to give us humans a more credible analogy other than cars but I do hope you’ll be pleasantly surprised – a very long time for now, of course.
Thanks for replying Mason and I look forward to reading your future blogs.
Believe me, i REALLY want to be surprised. Here is an interesting program i really liked. It really challenges my bleak “life after death” prognosis: http://tinyurl.com/avkvxc3 (Through The Wormhole: Life After Death)
Actually, skip the link above – it’s not the whole episode – use this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jIeHsefCPk
You are an alien, bro.
is climate change real? can you expose the stupidity of harp conspiraist(sp)?
If you ask me if i believe in “climate change,” i have to say yes, because the climate is always changing – has been since the earth was first created.
If you ask me if the earth has warmed i would say yes – at least since the mid 1800s. But this shouldn’t be a surprise since the earth had just spent the previous 500 years in a very, very cold period referred to as the “little ice age” (http://tinyurl.com/d58eb).
Ever notice how global warmists use the phrase “warmest period on record”? Do you know what they mean by the phrase “on record”? “On record” refers to the period of time that started with the first direct measurements and recordings of earth temperatures using instruments like thermometers.
So, this period of “on record” started about 1850, when (coincidentally) the earth was beginning its climb out of the little ice age. That’s right, when global warmists say “warmest period on record” they are actually saying “warmest period since 1850″ – or – more appropriately, they are saying “warmest period since the little ice age.”
What about the period before the little ice age? Before 1850, scientists don’t have direct readings and recordings (thermometers) of the earths temperature history (no written “record” exists) so they must rely on a variety of proxies to make their estimates. The proxy methods used and the data contained therein is cause for much debate. But from what i have read, and it is my belief, in the 2,000 years before the little ice age, the earth has been warmer than it is now during at least three separate periods.
Do i believe the earth has warmed? Yes, at least since about 1850 when the earth was exiting the little ice age and warming would be the natural, expected temperature cycle.
Are the current earth temperatures somehow unique or cause for alarm? Absolutely not. Looking at all the available data going back thousands and thousands of years, there is nothing unusual or inexplicable about today’s temperatures. We’ve had at least 3 warmer cycles in the past 2,000 years alone.
What is man’s role in earth’s temperature change? The global warmists used to say humans were causing global warming. But they have re-engineered their wording. Now they say humans “contribute” to “climate change.” Do you see the difference? They have removed the phrase “global warming” from their slogan because there hasn’t been any warming in over ten years and more and more people were becoming aware of the arguments i made above concerning “on the record” and previous warming periods in earth’s history. So now the slogan is simply “climate change.” They also removed the word “causes” and replaced it with “contributes to.” These changes in wording makes for a very big change in meaning.
Proving global warming and proving humans were causing it was an impossibility. Ever notice how the theory of global warming and the causal role of humans never found its way into a U.S. courtroom? A UK court found Al Gore’s pseudoscience video “An Inconvenient Truth” was so riddled with scientific falsehoods that the judge ruled the film could only be shown in UK schools “if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.”
So the global warmists watered down their slogan and changed their language to now say “humans contribute to climate change.” Well, this meaningless statement gets the “no s**t award” of the millennium. Climate change IS happening, the climate is always changing, every second of every day it changes, it has been changing ever since the earth was created. What about humans contributing to the ever changing climate? What on earth does NOT contribute to the ever changing climate? Literally, EVERYTHING on earth contributes to climate change in some way or another. Do humans “contribute” to “climate change”? Yes. So do rocks, trees, logs, sand, dead animals, etc.
It’s also important to note, the terminology change from “global warming” to “climate change” now means ANY change to the climate – whether it’s too cold or too hot – can now be blamed on humans. This is pure evil genius. “Global warming” was too restrictive because only warming trends could be used to scare monger. Now with the term “climate change”, ANY change in the climate can be used to blame humans and predict doomsday is near. Is it too hot? Doomsday! Is it too cold? Doomsday! Is it not too hot or not too cold? Doomsday!
So the global warmists’ new slogan, “humans contribute to climate change” is a neat little slogan that can’t NOT be true.
MIB
P.S. Keep an eye out for yet another modification to the “climate change” slogan making it’s way through the alarmists’ lexicon: “climate change” is slowly becoming “recent climate change.” Which now makes me wonder, what is the definition of “recent”?
Mason – I loved reading your about me section until this last comment. I thought I’d found a kindred spirit, until you used the term “global warmists.” On this subject you actually become one of the people you make fun of with this blog. I’m soooo disappointed. You say that you like to stick to what is known, but clearly that’s not true in the case of global warming. I’m not sure how much more evidence you’d need to change your mind that humans are the current cause of the earth’s rising temperature, but I hope you’ll see reality in the very near future. In the meantime, I’ll check out your non AGW posts. Should be fun.
BTW, saying the earth has warmed before has absolutely nothing to do with what is causing the earth to warm today.
I spent years researching this issue but it’s been half a decade since i’ve debated this issue. This is one of two issues i don’t want dominating this blog. There are plenty of global warming sites already out there. Just a few quick points …
« … saying the earth has warmed before has absolutely nothing to do with what is causing the earth to warm today.»
Of course it does. If we don’t know what caused past periods of warming, how do we know the same factors aren’t influencing today’s warming? Especially when some past periods were warmer than today, which could suggest we’re doing something right today.
If we really are headed for some global apocalyptic meltdown because of CO2 levels, as some would have us think, why are known solutions like carbon scrubbers not being utilized? Instead, the solution is to tax carbon producers and transfer the money to non-carbon producers, making middlemen like Al Gore lots of cash. Your car gets a flat, the most obvious solution is to change the tire. Al Gore wants you to pay him to rebuild your entire car in his factory.
If we’re really headed for an apocalypse, why are we primarily focused on the weakest greenhouse gas (CO2)? CO2 is the weakest greenhouse gas. There are other greenhouse gas thousands of times more powerful than CO2. If the level of one of these other greenhouse gases is 10,000 times more powerful than CO2 and its levels were to rise by just 1 PPB it would be the equivalent of CO2 growing by 10,000 PPB – leading to the end of the world!! Right? So why are we not focused on any of these other, more potent, greenhouse gases? It’s like a bomb squad diffusing a firecracker while the fuse to a nearby keg of dynamite is burning.
There are a myriad of other issues i remember looking into, like the fraudulent “hockey stick” graph and other corruption within the global warming, activist community. The two points above (avoiding the most obvious solution to a “crisis” and focusing on the weakest possible cause of the alleged crisis) should set off alarms.
My thinking on this issue is consistent with my blog. There are too many inconsistencies surrounding this issue for me to think there isn’t plenty of bunk involved.
MIB
I guess we’ll agree to disagree on this issue. I won’t bring up AGW again after this post, but I’d like to respond to a few things you wrote. First, climate scientists do know what caused periods of warming and cooling in the past. If you’ve researched this, you’d know that (see Milankovitch cycles, solar & volcanic activity, etc.). They also know that none of those factors are in play today. If lightning causes a forest fire last year, does that mean this year a fire in the same forest is automatically from lightning?
Second, carbon scrubbers aren’t used because they’d beway too expensive in an open air atmosphere and are ineffective in that they require more energy to use compared to the carbon they’d actually scrub. And… if my tire gets a flat, perhaps I should quit driving over nails… gets pretty expensive to keep replacing them.
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas… are you saying we should do something about water? But water is only the problem after C02 works it’s magic by causing the temperature to rise. For every degree CO2 raises the temp, water vapor doubles it. Isn’t that great? CO2 has been shown to be the most influential greenhouse gas without any question mainly because we’re putting so much in the atmosphere and then it stays there so long.
The “Hockey Stick” slant has just been shown to be even steeper in a paper just put out, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
and it isn’t pretty.
Here’s my last and most important point. For you to disagree with AGW, you’d have to believe that a huge worldwide conspiracy is in place to steal your tax money. I believe you stated that above, when you mentioned Al Gore and taxes in the same paragraph. No reputable scientific organizations in the US or the entire world disagree on AGW. And here I thought this was an ANTI-conspiracy site.
Hope you change your mind someday. We’ll know what’s going on in the near future either way.
Cheers!
PS What’s the other topic you don’t want to talk about?
I stay clear of religion (belief or disbelief in a God). The debate would never end. I like to keep the topics moving along on this blog, so i avoid AGW and religion. Other sites are dedicated to those topics, no need to add them here.
Interesting site/blog. I wholeheartedly agree with your scientific method. Unless facts support something, disregard it as meaningless conjecture. That being said, do you not believe that aliens exist or that they’ve never visited our planet? While no evidence exists to prove their existence somewhere in the universe, to deny the possibility of their existence would indicate that our world and our civilization is unique and special, a concept that would lend itself to the intelligent design crowd. While the right conditions for life may be extremely rare, the enormity of the universe and the laws of probability would suggest that these conditions do exist elsewhere and that other intelligent civilizations would likely exist as well. I like to think that while the likelihood of other civilizations may be great, the rarity and vast distances between them is so great that any contact or evidence of each other will never occur. So, while I agree that we should only believe what factual evidence can support, the absence of evidence does not necessarily guarantee the absence of fact or reality. Oddly enough, to deny the possibility of intelligent alien life requires a certain belief that our world and our society is special and unique in all the universe.
Pingback: Debunked: Chemtrails Are Patently True. | Illuminutti