About Me

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).

Critical thinking is critical to thinking
Conspiracists’ logic: “The government is doing everything you can’t prove the government ISN’T doing.” 

- Mason I. Bilderberg, iLLumiNuTTi.com

Conspiracists: “projecting unprovable, unsolvable, end-of-the-world, apocalyptic meaning and hopelessness on to benign facts, patterns and random acts of chance while boasting of their own brilliant ability to decipher and unravel the conspiratorial mess they just created from nothing.” 

- Mason I. Bilderberg, iLLumiNuTTi.com

That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” 

- Christopher Hitchens

I can give you an argument, but I cannot give you an understanding.” 

- Samuel Johnson

“Conspiracists need to make their theories and observations as complex as possible so they can demonstrate to the rest of the world how incredibly brilliant they are for figuring out the maze of crazy they themselves created from nothing. It’s no different than creating a Rube Goldberg machine to demonstrate how a simple and benign task is accomplished.” 

- Mason I. Bilderberg, iLLumiNuTTi.com

88 comments on “About Me

  1. 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. :)

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Pingback: Unidentified Floating Objects. Seeing is believing? « Illuminutti

  5. Pingback: Photographing Levitations « Illuminutti

  6. Pingback: Alex Jones: What Does He Believe? « Illuminutti

  7. Pingback: Leslie Kean: UFO Caught On Tape Over Santiago Air Base (Plus My Analysis) « Illuminutti

  8. 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.

      • Hi…………you state that you believe what can be shown to exist therefore you are obviously an athiest.
        Being an athiest you are fully aware that mankind can be brainwashed en-mass into believing in a deity, in fact, being an athiest now makes you a conspiracy theorist in the eyes of a large percentage of the world population.
        Now we’ve established your credentials as a bona-fide conspirasist, why do you flock with the masses and agree to be brainwashed by the American government and their media about what happened on 9\11 without even questioning the story as any rational clear thinking human would do? This makes you somewhat of a hypocrite!
        Stop looking at all the kooky conspiracy theorist websites out there and look at some serious hard hitting factual websites that question the ridiculous story spun by your government. A story that if you accept it blindly, is tantamount to letting yourself be bent over and f#*ked up the ass by them?

        So ask yourself………..”do i enjoy bending over and taking it………….or should i at least look at the evidence?”

        If it’s yes to the first then send your address, i’ll join the back of the line.

      • So basically you are attempting to reach the same goal as everyone else (The Truth) But you attempt it from sitting the other side of the fence to a so called conspiracy theorist while you make a mockery out of them?. By your own words ( The human brain is very prone to connecting dots that should’t be connected; It’s in our DNA) So this also applies to yourself (unless you are in fact a space alien) My point being, what makes you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong when you are just as prone to the same human flaws as everyone else. Delusions of Grandeur in the Skeptic is no less of a delusion than they claim exists in the people who believe in the impossible. The only real difference is that the believer attempts to bring evidence to the table and the skeptic will find every single way to debunk it. Most skeptics I have known just love to amuse themselves at other peoples discomfort. Others are simply doing their job. Which one are you? I can only hope that one day you will get your mind changed by a specific event that cannot be explained. Then maybe you will find yourself sitting the other side of the fence. Enjoy amusing yourself for as long as you can. Nothing lasts forever. Words I now live by.

        • I never claimed to know the truth. But i will claim to make every effort humanly possible to identify and weed out those things that cannot be shown to be true via empirical evidence. This process of identifying and removing nonsensical chaff from my belief system does bring me closer to the truth.

  9. Pingback: Conspiracy: The color of Mars is a government coverup!!!! « Illuminutti

  10. Pingback: I am Psychic! « thegreatantagonizer

  11. 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. :)

      • There have been many false flags by governments. The Gulf of Tonkin incident by the US government for example. A US ship was never hit with enemy fire. That has been admitted finally. Over 50,000 Americans died in the Vietnam war that followed.

        That’s not connecting dots, thats a fact.

        • For starters, you have your history wrong.

          On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, cruising in the Gulf of Tonkin on a mission to collect intelligence about North Vietnamese military activity, fell under attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats. The U.S. returned fire and sank one of the boats. In 1998, the Vietnamese acknowledged this attack in a recorded meeting with Robert McNamara.

          Two days later on August 4, 1964, the USS Maddox and another ship, the USS Turner Joy, claimed that they were under attack again. Technicians aboard these ships saw radar blips and there were also visual sightings of what people interpreted as patrol boats headed toward the U.S. ships. In fact, they misinterpreted what they saw.

          The August 2, 1964 incident was real. The August 4, 1964 incident was an honest misinterpretation of radar and visual data by an edgy crew.

          Regardless, how does one real false flag prove any other incident is a false flag? It’s a non sequitur.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

    • 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”?

      • You are either naive and illogical or spreading information by denying what the scientific community has established. Climate change due to CO2 emissions is a fact. You are the conspiracist.

      • Actually, “global warming” has not been removed from usage. Global warming is an aspect of climate change (ask any appropriate scientist). To claim that “global warming” was replaced by “climate change” is to perpetuate an ideological falsehood. As far as the science not being settled . . . that’s a false argument. Over 99% of the global scientific community agrees that man-made climate change is fact.

        As far as “on record” goes, climatologists have (and have presented) records going back tens of thousands of years through the geologic record and some astrophysics.

  14. 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

  15. 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. :)

  16. 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.

    • No one has ever seen “the wind,” but plenty of evidence is left behind when it hits objects in its path. There exixt plenty of evidence that all wars for hundreds of years were planned by and fianced by “The Secret Empire,” written by Cushman Cunnimham and further illustrated by “one-evil.org” by O!Conners, but under a different name, “The Roman Cult.” While.”MIB’s” logic sould be the standard, for I agree with his take on Pike, he really cannot be so naive as to believe that “conspiracy ” never, ever exist or existed, so what is his purpose?
      A Jones could be a plant, put there to make all “conpiracy theorist” look silly, but here I go with wild unsubstantiated premises. But, without a premise, logic has no entrance or am I the nut?

      • « . . . he really cannot be so naive as to believe that “conspiracy ” never, ever exist or existed . . . »

        This is pure straw man argument. Nobody says conspiracies have never occurred. Even cave men “conspired” with each other to hunt their prey.

      • How did I miss the quote below, It is a crying shame, our loss, that your intuitive mind is wasted on trivia. You may as well be a straw man. However, I wish you well.

        “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 theThis 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”

  17. Pingback: Debunked: Chemtrails Are Patently True. | Illuminutti

  18. Are you not going to direct your readers to you latest analysis which you posted on the RI forum, thereby offering them a view of the kind of mindset that plagues you?

    You know I was stupidly thinking, ” I shouldnt be giving my details to someone like yourself”.

    Hows that for a laugh?

  19. Hey there, just want to say thanks for the constant laughs I get from your posts ! Keeping it real and we don’t and can’t agree on everything but we do agree on one thing illumi-nutti this is now a saying of mine. Ian Scott

  20. I’d like to ask you about something. You’ve probably heard about the denver airport conspiracy theory. Well what is your opinion of it? Why could it have been build the way it was and what could be the purpose of those weird paintings in there and the “doom’s day horse”?

  21. Mr Mason I. Bilderberg,

    You don’t believe in spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens. Intelligent designers etc. That is good. But what do you believe? Do you believe in anything that really exists and that can exist forever?
    You also need evidence for any existence. So please also give evidence for what you believe as a real existence.
    Do you believe in your existence? Do you believe that you exist? If so what is the evidence for your existence?
    I don’t say god exists. But the funny thing is without knowing what we are we talk about god. It is you who believe in something and do not believe in some other things. So do you know what you are?
    You put some sugar in your mouth and tell me what you feel.
    Please answer all my questions. I will come back to you again. I don’t say to believe in all such things. But there are many questions to which I need answers to understand our existence not god.

    A.Sriskandarajah

    • A.Sriskandarajah,

      Evidence can be reliably replicated in a laboratory environment under proper and strict scientific controls. If results can’t be reliably replicated, the original results may simply be due to normal and expected statistical variations and/or errors.

      Faith is not evidence.

      The available evidence doesn’t support the eternal existence of invisible agents with power and intention.

      All available evidence indicates i do indeed exist physically. The available evidence does not suggest i exist in any non-physical form.

      MIB

  22. Mr Mason I. Bilderberg,
    Thank you very much for your reply. You didn’t answer all my questions. Please do not come with anything out of my subject. I didn’t mention anything about faith. So please not to respond from religious background. All my questions are related to “what is”.

    I asked you “Do you believe in anything that really exists and that can exist forever?” It means what you believe as real existence. There may be no god, no soul. That is not the problem. Really there is some kind of existence that exists. We can’t say there is nothing. So according to you what is the real existence that exists? Will that existence last forever? I don’t mean anything eternal existence of invisible agents. You are misunderstood. We are seeing many forms with different colors and different shapes around us and also feeling many sensations like sound, smell, pain, cold, heat etc. So there is an existence. I ask you what it is. I don’t ask you anything unknown. I ask you what really exists. That’s all.

    One question you have answered that all available evidence indicates you do indeed exist physically. So you are aware that you exist. Good. But you say that you exist physically. Please let me know what you mean by physical? You also said that the available evidence does not suggest you exist in any non physical form. Here what you mean by non physical?

    You say that evidence can be reliably replicated in a laboratory environment under proper and strict scientific control. That is true. But you can’t put everything in a lab. If you expect to do in such a way then your scientific search would be always limited and narrow. You can’t verify the evolution theory and big bang theory in a lab. Scientists are searching whether life exist anywhere in other planets. They can’t see it in the lab. We need lab but not always. So I thing you went to a lab, did all the control tests and at last found that you exist physically. I know that I exist. But I don’t think that I exist physically or non- physically. Because when I think physical or non physical I form mental images from memory which are really illusions. So physical or non physical is a mental image or projection of mind from the past and not real.

    Atheists say that there is no god. But they don’t know whether life exist in a planet closer to us. Atheists also in the same line of darkness but in the opposite direction.

    Further I asked what you feel when you eat some sugar. This question seems to be silly. But there is a deep meaning. Definitely you will answer “I feel sweet sensation”. Please explain how a sweet sensation would be. What is the evidence to accept that you really feel a sweet sensation? I can put some sugar in my mouth and see what I feel. But that is not a proof to understand really what you feel. Really I cannot feel what you feel. It is only for you and you cannot explain it with evidence.
    So you can’t test it out everything in a lab and you can’t prove everything with evidences. That can be a limited and narrow area in scientific search. What do you do in a lab? You see something. Seeing is a sensation. Feeling sweetness is also a sensation. After all we have only sense of experiences. Whatever evidence it is really a sense of experience.

    Please answer my questions.

    A.Sriskandarajah

    • A.Sriskandarajah,

      I will frame my answers as i see fit as you are free to frame your questions as you see fit.

      I gave a definition of evidence (reliably replicated in a laboratory environment). I gave an example of non-evidence (faith). Use of the word “faith” was to define one example of non-evidence, not necessarily having to do with religion.

      «We can’t say there is nothing.»

      What would you call the space between electrons?

      «I ask you what really exists.»

      Atoms – as depicted in a periodic table (http://www.webelements.com/). Everything else is derived from these atoms.

      Atoms don’t have sound, smell, pain, cold, heat etc. These are our sensory interpretations of atoms and molecules in their various forms and states. These perceptions are perceived as real to us, but only while we are alive.

      «Please let me know what you mean by physical?»

      Atoms and molecules combined to give me (or an object) physical space.

      «Here what you mean by non physical?»

      Any form of ourselves aside from our physical being. For example, our consciousness, memories and our perceptions.

      «What is the evidence to accept that you really feel a sweet sensation?»

      Tasting “sweet”, like claims of having a dream or seeing an image, are a personal experience. That is all. It’s an interpretation of a stimulus. Sugar may be sweet to me, but may be bitter to my dog or even poisonous to some other species.

      Theses kinds of anecdotal experiences should be used only when more reliable evidence cannot be developed or ascertained.

      Science is constantly advancing, it’s not perfect or complete, but it is the best we have at this juncture and it is certainly better and more reliable than anecdotal evidence.

      MIB

  23. Mr Mason I. Bilderberg,

    I am very glad that you have very nicely answered my questions. I wish to ask more questions not altogether but step by step. This time my questions are little long. Sorry. If you feel anything difficult please leave it and answer to the questions which you understand.

    What I mean nothing is absolutely nothing.We can’t say there is absolutely nothing. I mean that. But you have accepted the existence of atoms.

    (1)Now I want to find out what it is? What will happen to the atoms if all people are dead? Do you say that all atoms which existed when people were alive will continue to exist? Because you say that these perceptions are perceived as real to us only while we are alive.

    (2)You don’t believe in the existence of god. But you say that atoms exist. I don’t accept the existence of atoms because I can’t see any atoms. I only see many forms with different colors and shapes. Can you prove the existence of atoms with evidence? You cannot imagine what is god. So you don’t believe in god. Likewise I cannot imagine what are atoms. So I say no atoms exist. We cannot imagine anything unless we see them.

    (3)Atoms {if exist) are not aware of their own existence. But you are only aware of the existence of atoms. So what is the difference between atoms and you?

    (4)Is there any external force that create everything out of atoms or atoms itself make all the forms without any other existence? It is said that god has the power to create everything. But here atoms have the power to create everything. So what difference you see between god and atoms? Every creation has a meaning. . It is a very intelligent action. We have heart to plumb the blood. We have a kidney to excrete the wastage. If atoms can do the creation what a wonder? Whether god does or atoms do creation is a mystery. I don’t say god created everything. Really I don’t know. Whether god created or atoms itself created or whatever it is, creation is marvelous, wonderful. Creation is a mystery. That is why scientists are unable to understand really what happened and the reality of all existence and struggling with their theories and concepts.

    (5)If there are only atoms, when a pain sensation arises, why do you say “I feel pain “and why do you go to a doctor or take some pills to relieve pain? Why do you feel the pain? You can leave it to the atoms. The pain sensation is directed to you to feel it and you say I feel pain. So what are you?
    (6) Sensations are very serious things. When we have a pain we immediately rush to the doctor. All our actions are the response of sensations. In our brain there are only atoms. You say atoms don’t have sound, smell, pain, heat, cold etc. How these sensations do arise from the atoms? You say that sensations are our sensory interpretations of atoms and molecules. What is this explanation? You see that now many Neurologists are using the term interpretation. I think you got it from the Neurologists. They don’t know how sensations arise from molecules. So they tactfully escape by using this term interpretation. You say everything else is derived from the atoms. Water is derived from hydrogen and oxygen. That is very clear. How pain is derived from atoms or how atoms release the pain sensation? You don’t accept anything other than atoms. So brain contains only atoms. How one group of atoms sees the other group of atoms? I know that we need light, eyes , nerves and brain to see. The object we see, our eyes, our brain all contain only atoms. We should explain very frankly and directly. When Neurologists are unable to explain anything, t they say interpretation of brain, self or mind is a byproduct of brain or self is an emergent property of the brain etc. These terms give no meaning. By using such meaningless terms they tactfully escape.

    (7)You only accept the existence of atoms. So you are also a combination of atoms. You say that atoms and molecules combined to give you physical space. Here what do you mean by that “you”? Is that “you” a separate existence? But you don’t accept anything other than atoms. So what are you?
    .
    (8)Why do these atoms assemble together and make all forms and make all pleasures and terrible sufferings and also struggle to keep the physical bodies? Why it is necessary for the atoms?

    (9)What is energy? You say atoms exist. You didn’t mention about energy. It is said that energy is the real existence and the cause for all form of existence. How energy came into existence?

    (10)According to you, brain is physical and consciousness is non physical. Neurologists say that brain creates consciousness really a wrong statement. So non physical is in physical. You take a table. How do you know it exists? We can see the table. We can touch the table and feel it’s existence. Seeing and touching which confirm the existence of table are sensations which are in our consciousness. So other way around physical is in non physical. So in the absence of consciousness there cannot be any physical things. Can all physical things exist independent of consciousness? If so, what is the evidence?

    (11)You say that science is constantly advancing. That is true. But mostly the technology is only advancing. But while technological science is advancing simultaneously problems and sufferings are also advancing. There is constant fear of death by accidents, earth quakes, cyclones, floods, war, bomb blasts, gun firings, development of incurable diseases etc. Are we able to live happily and peacefully with confident? Is there any way in science to free from all sufferings and to live with real peace? The life becomes more and more unsecured. There is deep sorrow of death. There is no answer in science to the problem of death. How many people are living with deep sorrow by the death of their loved ones? How many people are suffering from cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson disease, brain injury, blindness, stroke, mental disorders, autism? We need science. Otherwise life is difficult. But it is not the best we have at this juncture. Scientists are still unable to answer many fundamental questions.

    When we get in an aircraft we may have doubt in a corner of our mind whether we can land safely. No scientist will give assurance that we will land safely. So some people pray god when they travel. Why? Here they lose their confidence in science although it helps them to travel quickly and comfortably. Suppose when anything goes wrong in the aircraft people start to pray god whether they believe in god or not. Why? See the limits of science. When a child is sick the parents take the child to the hospital. The medical science tries to cure the child. If medical science fails and if child dies, the father and mother will suffer from deep sorrow. There is no cure for this suffering. So science is limited. Our entire life do not depends on science.

    A.Sriskandarajah

    • A.Sriskandarajah,

      For the record, i have never spent this much time responding to anybody. Congratulations! :)

      «What I mean nothing is absolutely nothing.We can’t say there is absolutely nothing. I mean that. But you have accepted the existence of atoms.»

      I do believe there is such a thing as absolutely nothing. As i said, the space between electrons is nothing.

      «(1)Now I want to find out what it is? What will happen to the atoms if all people are dead? Do you say that all atoms which existed when people were alive will continue to exist? Because you say that these perceptions are perceived as real to us only while we are alive.»

      We perceive atoms and molecules in their various forms and states while we exist. When we no longer exist, atoms still exist, but we are incapable of perceiving them when our body dies.

      «(2)You don’t believe in the existence of god. But you say that atoms exist. I don’t accept the existence of atoms because I can’t see any atoms. I only see many forms with different colors and shapes. Can you prove the existence of atoms with evidence? You cannot imagine what is god. So you don’t believe in god. Likewise I cannot imagine what are atoms. So I say no atoms exist. We cannot imagine anything unless we see them.»

      There is evidence of atoms existing. We know, for example, mixing hydrogen atoms with oxygen atoms will produce water molecules. These kinds of observable and predictable cause-and-effects can be reliably reproduced without fail, providing evidence of existence.

      I can imagine a god, i don’t see evidence of a god that cannot be explained using more earthly explanations.

      «(3)Atoms {if exist) are not aware of their own existence. But you are only aware of the existence of atoms. So what is the difference between atoms and you?»

      Through evolution, my atoms and molecules have come together in ways to form memory and thought – the foundation for consciousness and awareness.

      «(4)Is there any external force that create everything out of atoms or atoms itself make all the forms without any other existence? It is said that god has the power to create everything. But here atoms have the power to create everything. So what difference you see between god and atoms? Every creation has a meaning. . It is a very intelligent action. We have heart to plumb the blood. We have a kidney to excrete the wastage. If atoms can do the creation what a wonder? Whether god does or atoms do creation is a mystery. I don’t say god created everything. Really I don’t know. Whether god created or atoms itself created or whatever it is, creation is marvelous, wonderful. Creation is a mystery. That is why scientists are unable to understand really what happened and the reality of all existence and struggling with their theories and concepts.»

      This sounds like the esoteric question, “Who/what created the original ‘something’ out of the original ‘nothing’?”

      For those predisposed to believing in a god, this question IS the answer. “If i can’t fathom something, it must be an omniscient, omnipotent, catch-all entity.” This is a very human response to a question for which we have yet to answer.

      It’s a very interesting conundrum if you think about it: Our brains are capable of posing questions we cannot yet answer. Our pattern seeking brain abhors voids and so it responds by filling the void with a belief in something greater than ourselves. It’s funny how we want answers to these questions to be bigger than the source of the question (our own brains) simply because we have stumped ourselves.

      My human limitations, my inability to answer all questions, cannot be a foundation for a belief in a god. It simply means i don’t have the answers to my own questions. That is all.

      «(5)If there are only atoms, when a pain sensation arises, why do you say “I feel pain “and why do you go to a doctor or take some pills to relieve pain? Why do you feel the pain? You can leave it to the atoms. The pain sensation is directed to you to feel it and you say I feel pain. So what are you?»

      I don’t know what you’re asking. Depending on their state, atoms and molecules can be perceived as hot and/or cold by our senses. The wrong combination of atoms and molecules can be posionous or cause us pain or pleasure.

      «(6) Sensations are very serious things. When we have a pain we immediately rush to the doctor. All our actions are the response of sensations. In our brain there are only atoms. You say atoms don’t have sound, smell, pain, heat, cold etc. How these sensations do arise from the atoms? You say that sensations are our sensory interpretations of atoms and molecules. What is this explanation? You see that now many Neurologists are using the term interpretation. I think you got it from the Neurologists. They don’t know how sensations arise from molecules. So they tactfully escape by using this term interpretation. You say everything else is derived from the atoms. Water is derived from hydrogen and oxygen. That is very clear. How pain is derived from atoms or how atoms release the pain sensation? You don’t accept anything other than atoms. So brain contains only atoms. How one group of atoms sees the other group of atoms? I know that we need light, eyes , nerves and brain to see. The object we see, our eyes, our brain all contain only atoms. We should explain very frankly and directly. When Neurologists are unable to explain anything, t they say interpretation of brain, self or mind is a byproduct of brain or self is an emergent property of the brain etc. These terms give no meaning. By using such meaningless terms they tactfully escape.»

      Actually, “interpretation” is a good way of putting it because it IS an interpretation. It is an interpretation of many stimuli arising from the atoms and molecules interacting with the atoms and molecules of our body. Like a vinyl record, by itself it doesn’t produce any sound, but a phonograph needle can interpret the grooves as sound.

      How atoms and molecules work and interact with each other is a complex science. The science is there, you may need to do more research.

      «(7)You only accept the existence of atoms. So you are also a combination of atoms. You say that atoms and molecules combined to give you physical space. Here what do you mean by that “you”? Is that “you” a separate existence? But you don’t accept anything other than atoms. So what are you?»

      No separate existence from my physical, tangible being. Everything that makes up me is contained within my body. No part of me is external to my physical self.

      «(8)Why do these atoms assemble together and make all forms and make all pleasures and terrible sufferings and also struggle to keep the physical bodies? Why it is necessary for the atoms?»

      It is not necessary for atoms and molecules to join together. Certain conditions will bring them together or facilitate their coming together. Over billions and billions of years of trial and error they have come together to what we currently have around us.

      «(9)What is energy? You say atoms exist. You didn’t mention about energy. It is said that energy is the real existence and the cause for all form of existence. How energy came into existence?»

      I would have to defer to my answer to your 4th question. This question is in the same esoteric arena of thinking that says, “I don’t know, therefore god.”

      «(10)According to you, brain is physical and consciousness is non physical. Neurologists say that brain creates consciousness. But I say that is really a wrong statement. Brain not creates but involves in the manifestation of consciousness.

      So non physical is in physical. You take a table. How do you know it exists? We can see the table. We can touch the table and feel it’s existence. Seeing and touching which confirm the existence of table are sensations which are in our consciousness. So other way around physical is in non physical. So in the absence of consciousness there cannot be any physical things. Can all physical things exist independent of consciousness? If so, what is the evidence?»

      I’m not sure how you come to

      «… in the absence of consciousness there cannot be any physical things.»

      . Consciousness is an awareness. Consciousness does not create anything physical. Without a stimulus (like seeing or touching a table) we wouldn’t be aware of the table, but not being aware of the table doesn’t mean the table doesn’t exist or ceases to exist.

      Physical existence of an object is not contingent on awareness of the object.

      «(11)You say that science is constantly advancing. That is true. But mostly the technology is only advancing. But while technological science is advancing simultaneously problems and sufferings are also advancing. There is constant fear of death by accidents, earth quakes, cyclones, floods, war, bomb blasts, gun firings, development of incurable diseases etc. Are we able to live happily and peacefully with confident? Is there any way in science to free from all sufferings and to live with real peace? The life becomes more and more unsecured. There is deep sorrow of death. There is no answer in science to the problem of death. How many people are living with deep sorrow by the death of their loved ones? How many people are suffering from cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson disease, brain injury, blindness, stroke, mental disorders, autism? We need science. Otherwise life is difficult. But it is not the best we have at this juncture. Scientists are still unable to answer many fundamental questions.»

      At this juncture, science is the best we have for understanding and explaining.

      One byproduct of science and technology is our ability to communicate sights and sounds globally. For the first time in humankind we have instantaneous access to information from around the globe. The world is not having more accidents, earthquakes, cyclones and floods, we’re just more aware of these occurences.

      Just a few decades ago, before there were cell phones and the internet, most American homes had black and white televisions with 3 television stations that weren’t even on air all 24 hours of the day. The local news was broadcast for 30 minutes each night. Today we have the entire world being dumped in our laps every day via thousands of television stations, email, cell phones and millions upon millions of internet sites.

      What you wind up with is a perception of a more chaotic and out of control world. The truth is, the world has always been chaotic, we’re just now able to view it in all its inglorious colors.

      I do sometimes believe the technology we have created is bringing about a precipitous point of information overload for us humans. We are being exposed to more information than we can currently handle. Humans may not be ready for humans.

      «When we get in an aircraft we may have doubt in a corner of our mind whether we can land safely. No scientist will give assurance that we will land safely. So some people pray god when they travel. Why? Here they lose their confidence in science although it helps them to travel quickly and comfortably. Suppose when anything goes wrong in the aircraft people start to pray god whether they believe in god or not. Why? See the limits of science. When a child is sick the parents take the child to the hospital. The medical science tries to cure the child. If medical science fails and if child dies, the father and mother will suffer from deep sorrow. There is no cure for this suffering. So science is limited. Our entire life do not depends on science.»

      I don’t see these examples as a failure of science as much as i see it as a quirk in human thinking. Here in the U.S., Over 40,000 people die every year in car accidents while less than 500 die every year in aircraft accidents. Yet we have anxiety attacks when we get on the safer mode of transportation (the airplane).

      Science can explain the concept of odds, the rest is up to our brains.

      MIB

  24. Mr Mason I. Bilderberg,

    There is a correction in no 10 comments. Please read as follows.

    Neurologists say that brain creates consciousness. But I say that is really a wrong statement.

    Brain not creates but involves in the manifestation of consciousness.

    A.Sriskandarajah

  25. Hi MIB,

    Fellow skeptic here; longtime member of JREF, etc. I am enjoying your site.

    Might I suggest adding Elizabeth Loftus to your “psychology” section?

    A great many woo-woo claims point to anecdotal statements made by alleged eyewitnesses.
    Loftus is one of the preeminent researchers in human memory and the dubious value of eyewitness testimony as a source of objective information.

    • Thank you for the suggestion, i have added her as a link as you suggested. Do you know her official website? I used http://socialecology.uci.edu/faculty/eloftus/

      If you have any links to her work that you would like to recommend please send them to me (mason.bilderberg@illuminuti.com) and i will post them.

      Thank you very for the suggestion. Her work looks fascinating and i will be doing some searching for examples of her work for posting.
      :)

      MIB

  26. Mr Mason I. Bilderberg,

    Thank you for taking much of your time to answer my question patiently.
    I do not have any conclusions. Because really I do not know the truth of all existence. But I want to understand the truth of my own existence first. It is only a search. I need to understand my own existence because I want to solve the problem of sorrow of death and fear of death. Please understand that from the beginning to the end I never say god exists
    (1)You say that we perceive atoms and molecules in their various forms and states while we exist. It is wrong. Do we perceive the atoms and molecules? No! We only perceive various forms such as trees, plants, mountains, oceans, people, animals, birds, insects, cars, buildings, stones, water and so many various things.
    You again say that atoms exist while we are alive. So you are not sure whether atoms exist in your absence. So why do you say that when we no longer exist atoms still exist. You are a scientific man who strictly accepts any existence only with evidence. So I also need evidence for what you say. In my previous question I asked you to give evidence for the existence of atoms when we are not alive. So, please give evidence. Seeing is the best evidence. In the absence of all people after death who is going to see the existence of atoms? What is the evidence for its existence when we no longer exist?
    You say that we are incapable of perceiving them when our body dies. It is wrong. We cannot perceive the atoms even while we are alive. Atoms are not visible to the naked eyes if exist.
    (2)You cannot imagine god unless you see the god. Our imaginations arise from our memory which contains the records of what we have seen in the past. Do you think that god exist in a temple or somewhere in the sky? Do you think that god exist somewhere in a form and do all creations? God is a big problem to the atheists who do not understand the nature of their own existence which means what they are.
    You say that mixing hydrogen atoms with oxygen atoms will produce water molecules which are an evidence for the existence of atoms. So I should do a test to see the evidence. It means that I should study chemistry to understand the existence of atoms and molecules. So it is understood that we have to do something to find the evidence of any existence except our own existence. It is not always easy. Unless I study chemistry I cannot say that there are no atoms. If I said that is absurd. Similar case is applicable to god. It is said that there is a way to understand the existence of god. Please see that I do not say god exists. So without testing to find out whether god exists or not how can we say that there is no god? For an example Astronauts landed a planet and confirmed the existence life there. I need evidence to accept their finding of life in the planet. What can I do to find the evidence? Really I should also land the planet to see the existence of life. But it is not an easy thing and everybody cannot do that. But unless we do that we cannot say there are no such things. That is not good. To see whether god exists or not we should do the test. But that may be more difficult than landing a planet. I don’t say to believe god. I don’t say god exists. But unless we do the test we cannot say that there is no god. That is absurd. Scientists want to put the god in their small test tubes to study the god. To see the evidence for the existence of atoms we should study chemistry and do the necessary tests. Then only we will understand whether atoms exist or not. Similarly to find whether god exists or not we should do the relevant tests. Atheists argue that there is no god which is really absurd.
    (3)Sorry, you have not answered my question. Atoms are not aware that it exists. You only aware of the existence of atoms. You say that atoms exist. But you also exist. So I am asking “What is the difference between “you” and atoms. Really my question is what are you?
    (4)Is there any external force that creates everything out of atoms or atoms itself make all the forms? This is my question. In my question I have said that” I don’t say god creates everything. Really I don’t know”. But you are talking something not relevant to my question. When I asked about the external force why do you bring the god in your answer? Wind is the external force in cyclone which is the cause for all damages. Don’t you know such external forces? How all the different forms appeared from atoms?
    You are a scientific man who doesn’t know the importance of questions. Only questions reveal the truth of any existence or function. Scientists are searching answers to innumerable questions. Questions should be real. Questions are immediate. But answers may not be immediate and easy. Unless you ask a question you can’t find any truth. Newton asked the question himself why things are falling. So he discovered gravity. Even scientists before inventing anything they assume or believe or doubt or guess something which helps them to proceed. My questions do not come from any religious background. It seems that some of your answers are not scientific but come from anti religious background which you gathered by listening to the talks by atheists. You may not know the answers to my questions. That doesn’t mean questions are wrong or brain wants to fill the void with beliefs.
    Your human limitations, your inability to answer all questions cannot be a foundation for a belief in god. That is good. Similarly your human limitations, your inability to answer all questions cannot be a foundation for a no belief in god also. Believing god and non believing god is not the problem. The problem we face in our life is the real problem. My existence is the problem not the existence of god. Many people carrying false labels and waste their time in such matters. They do not know what they are

    (5)Sorry. You have not answered my question. You say that there are only atoms. Then what are you? This is the question. If there are only atoms why you feel the pain? Atoms should feel the pain. If you feel the pain, I ask what are you? That is the question.
    (6) You say that atoms don’t have sound, smell, pain, heat, cold etc. So how these sensations arise from these atoms? Interpretation is not the answer to my question. Really it is an escape. Arising of sensations through brain cells (atoms) are not happening by interpretations. When thought gives a meaning to certain things that is interpretation.
    (7)I didn’t say that there is any separate existence from your physical, tangible being. Why do you make assumptions? You say that everything that makes up you is contained within your body. I have asked what you are. I didn’t say that you are physical or non physical or separate or not separate. You said only atoms exist. Now you say a new word “my physical self.” You don’t accept anything except atoms. So you can call physical body. Why do you call physical self? What do you mean by physical self? What is it? Is it a special existence in your physical body? If so, what is its chemical formula? What are the atoms there? Where is it in your physical body? Is it you? Please answer all these questions.
    (8) You say that over billions and billions of years of trial and error they have come together to what we currently have around us. Did somebody who lived billions and billions of years tell this beautiful story to you? What a fine evidence? So there was a repeated effort of trial and error over the atoms to come together. Why it has happened? Please answer what I asked. Certain conditions may bring them together. My question is why they make the pain and pleasures? You say that it is not necessary for atoms and molecules to join together. So what necessitated them to make pain and pleasures? According to you due to certain conditions without any necessities they joined together. Thereafter why these atoms struggle to maintain the combination? This is what scientists call struggle to exist. What is it that struggle to exist? Why it struggle to exist?
    (9) Again why do you bring the god here? Why do atheists always think of god? What is your answer to my question how energy came into existence? Why Scientists are searching how earth came into existence, how universe came into existence and how life came into existence? When I asked how energy came into existence you bring the god in your explanation. Your answer is irrelevant.
    (10)I have very clearly explained how a table exists in our consciousness. We can see that directly. But we cannot see the existence of table outside our consciousness. It cannot be outside our consciousness. I didn’t say that consciousness creates anything physical. Seeing and touching produce stimuli. When stimuli reach the brain we see the perception of colors and shapes and feel sensations of hardness, smoothness or roughness. Don’t you know colors and shapes and hardness are really sensations? Can you identify the existence of table without these sensations? Don’t you see that sensations of perception, hardness, smoothness and roughness are in your consciousness? So what you identify as table is in your consciousness. It is a fact. No doubt.
    (11)You are misunderstood. You talk the developments of information technology. I have already said that technology is advancing. It is true that the science of technology is advancing tremendously. I didn’t say anything about failure of science. What I said is although science is advancing we are not in a position to have a peaceful life without the fear of death and sorrow of death. I said that there is constant fear of death by accidents and other things. I didn’t compare the aircraft accidents and car accidents with statistics. For an example I pointed out the fear of death when we travel in an aircraft.

    A.Sriskandarajah

  27. Hi mr MIB (wearing black a lot, do you?),

    I just want to say I (barely) survived reading Hidden Truth, Forbidden Knowledge by Steven Greer. I read it because my sister-in-law is a true believer, and she is harrassing my brother constantly about the ‘fact’ (ha!) that we will step up to another energy level and live happily for the next half a billion years in the Great Brotherhood of Space, or something like that.
    Good grief, the man is bonkers! I mean: BONKERS!

    I’m glad I found your site. It feels like an antidote to the mountain of hogwash I had to plow through.

    Thx, and greetings from the Netherlands.

  28. Your perspective on matters of conspiracy are.. Intriguing to say the least. Now as you say, you can believe as true what can be proven as true (through reasonable logical or empirical means), which I agree is an extremely valid way of thinking. One discrepancy I noticed however is in your citation of the very young science of Psychology. It is true that humans tend to find patterns in randomness, it is also true that humans generally tend to believe what they want, which can influence the perception of observations made. That said, it seems that you generally neglect motivations and incentives in your considerations. Such aspects are heavily influential on human behavior, yet as a consequence of relatively backward technology for the purposes and the flaws of introspection, we have no definite means of measuring. As such, huge amounts of information are disregarded in your considerations being labeled as inconclusive. Now the points you raise are valid, but it seems like you want to believe that governments and other influential and powerful groups are incapable of the massive untruths (as normal people typically have moral objections), labeling these ideas as irrational. However the fact that even one person has admitted to committing such acts proves the possibility that humans are capable and willing to exploit others for any end. This brings me to my next point that currency is typically at the foremost of considerations for westerners, as it can facilitate acquiring literally any luxury or necessity. Consequently, it has a nearly infinite aptitude as a corrupting influence (in politics, medicine, etc.). At that your citations of history are very official, which is humorous because the history books are written by the winners… or the highest bidders, therefore your opinion extend no further than that of the official story. It is true that all conspiracies may not be, and the same can be said for official documentation. So to believe with certainty, one must begin with doubt, and to be certain is to doubt not only the opposition (conspiracy theorists), but the support (the official story) and even yourself as well. I must say, you offer an uncommon perspective on these topics, and quite a comforting one at that, but always remember, stay doubtful.

    By the way I love the irony of your username
    -A Friendly Anon

  29. Hi,

    I was wondering about your image use policy? Can the following image be used, with attribution, as part of a post on science-based medicine?

    Please feel free to contact me via e-mail.

  30. Pingback: Alex Jones: What Does He Believe? | Illuminutti

  31. k your name is buliberg your clearly a rich man and i dont belive a word on this web site go alex jones infowars.com bitchez and pressfortruth.ca good willalways conquer evil havent you read the bible satan gets locked up for 1000 years if you dont belive in anything then you fell for satans first most famous lie convincing the world he doesnt exsist. jesus christ is lord and this rich man a goof i laugh at this site me and all my friendslol lol lol lol your buying this shit. as for flouride im smart enough not to drink it. so drink up ya rich coons dont forget the gmo;s

  32. Pingback: 4 day weekend (11/6/14 thru 10/10/14)!!!! | Illuminutti

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s