Tag Archives: skeptics

The Ultimate Conspiracy Debunker

Via YouTube

Most Conspiracy Theories are stupid. By the power of the internet they spread like wildfire and often poison discussions. But there is hope – we developed a way to debunk conspiracies in just a few seconds…

Critical Thinking

Fun stuff.

Critical Thinking – YouTube.

The burden of proof

Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.


Via The burden of proof – YouTube.

Psychic Paula: let us test your pregnancy prediction powers

By via The Guardian

After declaring that an audience member was almost certainly pregnant (much to the lady’s surprise), Paula O’Brien explained that she has an uncanny accuracy when it comes to such matters. Photograph: Paula O’Brien

After declaring that an audience member was almost certainly pregnant (much to the lady’s surprise), Paula O’Brien explained that she has an uncanny accuracy when it comes to such matters. Photograph: Paula O’Brien

I firmly believe in the importance of skeptics attending psychic shows, to see firsthand how the biggest touring psychics in the country claim to put audience members in touch with the spirits of their dearly departed – for entertainment purposes only, naturally. In seeing such shows up close and witnessing their effect on devoted audiences we get to see how seriously people take the word of a psychic, and therefore how serious an issue it is if the person making the claims doesn’t have the supernatural powers they profess.

One such show I recently attended was that of psychic Paula O’Brien, whose Liverpool show saw a modest audience of around 150 gather in a hotel function room, eager for Paula to make contact with the other side. Among the usual fare of scattergun names (“Is there a Stephen or a Stewart or a Scott?”) and random numbers and dates (“What does the number three or the month of March or the 3rd of any month mean?”) there were a few points that particularly stood out to a skeptical viewer.

psychic newspaper-1_200pxMost disturbing was the lady who told Paula she had attempted suicide on two occasions since the death of her husband. Clearly this was a sensitive subject, and one which needed to be handled with care – or, ideally, left to qualified experts. All of which made Paula’s response shocking: “I promise you, if you try again – and this is your husband’s words – you’ll be in a wheelchair sucking through a straw.”

We then learned that the audience member in question had taken to smearing her deceased husband’s ashes on her skin before leaving the house, after being advised by another psychic that she should abandon her plans to scatter his ashes, and instead should keep them close at all times. It is hard to witness such cases and still wonder whether there is any harm in seeing a psychic.

MORE – – –

psychic-john-edward-2012-events_02

Freemasons & Satan

Originally posted June 12, 2012.

Enjoy :)

In 1871, a man named Albert Pike published a book called Morals and Dogma.

Conspiracists call this book a manifesto, a primary doctrine for Masons and, contained within its pages is absolute proof Albert Pike was a Satanist who wrote secret Satan worship into the degrees of the Scottish Rite.

Who is Albert Pike? What is his book about? What was the extent of his influence? Do Freemasons worship Satan?

Ancient Aliens Debunked

Vacation Post: By far THE most popular and hotly researched topic here at Illuminutti is the Ancient Aliens section that was originally posted May 2, 2012.

Enjoy :)

Ancient Aliens Debunked

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8

The information contained in this 8 part series is based on the work at “ART and UFOs? No Thanks, Only Art” by Diego Cuoghi.

If you wish to conduct more investigating into this subject matter i highly recommend visiting ART and UFOs? No Thanks, Only Art. The website is written in Italian, but some pages have been translated into English. The Italian pages are translated using MicroSoft Translator:

Para.Science – Orbs ARE a Load of Balls

quick note_150pxFor some believers in the paranormal, the site of orbs in a photo is confirmation of a spirit energy. To people like me, orbs are nothing more than something like dust.

For the last word on orbs, head on over to the ParaScience web site. You will never believe in orbs again.

Enjoy :)

MIB


Identical pictures. Taken at the same instance. Why does an orb appear in the photo on the left but not in the photo on the right?. Read the answer at Para.Science.

Identical pictures. Taken at the same instant.
Why does an orb appear in the photo on the left
but not in the photo on the right?
Read the answer at Para.Science.

Can You Solve This?

I found this to be a great lesson in critical thinking. Check it out :)

MIB


Via Can You Solve This? – YouTube

How do you investigate hypotheses? Do you seek to confirm your theory – looking for white swans? Or do you try to find black swans? I was startled at how hard it was for people to investigate number sets that didn’t follow their hypotheses, even when their method wasn’t getting them anywhere.

This video was inspired by The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb and filmed by my mum. Thanks mum!

True Fact: The Lack of Pirates Is Causing Global Warming

By Erika Andersen via Forbes

It’s true.  This extremely scientific graph proves it:

pirates

You can see that as the number of pirates in the world has decreased over the past 130 years, global warming has gotten steadily worse. In fact, this makes it entirely clear that if you truly want to stop global warming, the most impactful thing to do is — become a pirate.

Hope you’re laughing.  My husband told me this wonderful premise a few months ago, and I couldn’t resist sharing it with you, for a very specific reason. I’m fascinated by why it’s so funny. I believe it’s because it’s an only slightly more extreme version of the fake logic we hear every day — the conclusions that pass for critical thinking in these days of completely unleashed 24-7 communication. For example:

  • Someone who has cancer drinks gallons of lemon water and their cancer goes into remission: they create a website to talk about how lemon water cures cancer.
  • A business is doing badly and they move to a new building and things start to pick up: the CEO writes a book about how changing your environment is the key to success.
  • Statistics show that people who leave their jobs after less than a year are more likely to smoke: someone starts a campaign to reduce smoking by encouraging people to stay at their jobs longer.

My older sister, a very wise and smart woman who is a political scientist at Syracuse University, teaches a statistics class to freshmen, where she endeavors to teach them critical thinking.  She talks about this as being the most common error in logic: confusing simultaneity with causality.  In other words, assuming that because two things are happening at the same time, they exist in a cause and effect relationship with each other.

Because anyone can say anything anywhere these days (pretty much), there’s a lot of fuzzy thinking floating around that seems more legitimate than it would have in former times because it’s in print. Now, don’t get me wrong: I’m a huge proponent of free speech.  I just feel we all have to be more discriminating than ever before about what we believe.  Not cynical or negative: discriminating.

So, when someone proposes a cause and effect relationship between two things – reduction in pirates causing global warming; Obama creating the global economic crisis; young people ruining American business – ask for the data that shows they’re related, rather than simply that they’re happening at the same time.

But if you’re dead set on becoming a pirate, I’m not going to stop you.


[END]

This is Not a Conspiracy Theory (Part 1) – YouTube

I’m curious to know what everybody thinks of this new series being released on the web. I’ve watched this first part and i’m not sure i’m clear on where it’s going.

If it looks worthwhile i will pay for future installments just to post them here on iLLumiNuTTi.com for all of us to watch.

Your thoughts? Leave a comment :)

Mason (MIB)


This is Not a Conspiracy Theory (Part 1) – YouTube.

On The Web: This is Not a Conspiracy Theory

10 Tips for Telling Fact From Fiction

by via HowStuffWorks

[ . . . ]

10: Beware of Cognitive Bias

Confirmation bias: Selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs.

Confirmation bias: Selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs.

Our brains are designed to make sense of the onslaught of sensory stimulation and information that they get from the world by filtering and organizing. We have a tendency to focus on certain details and ignore others, to avoid being overwhelmed. And we habitually organize information into patterns, based on things we’ve seen or learned about before. That leads us to process what we hear, read or see in a way that reinforces what we think we already know. That phenomenon is called cognitive bias (source: Science Daily).

To make matters worse, some theorize that we also engage in selective exposure — that is, we pick sources of information that tell us what we want to hear. Ohio State researchers, for example, found that when college students spent a few minutes reading news articles online, they selected ones that supported their already-held views 58 percent of the time (source: Hsu).

 The famous 1934 photograph of the Loch Ness monster. Just before his death in 1994, Chris Spurling confessed that he and some other men had staged the picture. Keystone/Getty Images

The Loch Ness monster
Keystone/Getty Images

So, we’re vulnerable to information that fits what we want to believe — even if it’s of dubious authenticity. That’s probably why the infamous photograph of the Loch Ness monster, taken in 1934 (source: Nickell), was so convincing for many people. The silhouette resembled a long-necked dinosaur, which was something they had seen pictures of in natural history textbooks. And the idea that ancient creatures might have survived extinction already had surfaced in fiction such as Arthur Conan Doyle’s 1912 novel “The Lost World,” so it wasn’t too much of a leap conceptually. It wasn’t until 1994 that researchers got an elderly man who had been part of the hoax to reveal that the monster in the photo actually was a foot-high model, fashioned from a toy submarine (source: Associated Press).

9: Pay Attention to the Unspoken Message

Used-Car-Salesman_250pxIf you’ve ever sold used cars or peddled vacuum sweepers door-to-door, you probably know this from experience: Researchers have found that an attractive physical appearance and positive nonverbal cues, like eye contact, smiling and a pleasant tone of voice, may have as much or more of an influence upon us than the actual words that the person is saying. In fact, someone who is skilled at nonverbal messaging can actually foster what communication experts call a halo effect. That is, if we think that a person looks good, we assume that he or she is intelligent or capable as well. That’s a big help in fostering credibility (source: Eadie). But just as a salesperson can learn to project a convincing demeanor, a swindler or a dishonest politician can practice the same tricks.

However, other nonverbal cues provide useful information for evaluating whether someone is telling the truth or a lie. Researchers who’ve studied the questioning of criminal suspects, for example, note that even highly motivated, skillful liars have a tendency to “leak” nonverbal clues to their deception in the course of a long interview, because of the difficulty of managing facial expressions, physical carriage, and tone of voice over time. The trick is to watch for those tiny flaws in the subject’s demeanor to emerge.

When making an untrue statement, for example, a person may flash a “microexpression”– a frown, perhaps, or a grimace — that reflects his or her true emotions, but clashes with what the person is saying. Since some of this microexpressions may happen as quickly as the blink of an eye, the easiest way to detect them is by replaying a video. But it is possible to do it in a real-time conversation as well. U.S. Coast Guard investigators trained in spotting such leakage, for example, have been able to spot such clues about 80 percent of the time (source: Matsumoto, et al.).

8: Watch for the Big Lie

 Master of the Big Lie, Adolf Hitler is welcomed by supporters at Nuremberg. Hulton Archive/Getty Images


Master of the Big Lie, Adolf Hitler is welcomed by supporters at Nuremberg.
Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Throughout history, purveyors of falsehoods seldom have bothered with piddling minor fibs. Instead, they generally have opted for what propaganda experts call the “Big Lie” — that is, a blatant, outrageous falsehood about some important issue, and one that’s usually designed to inflame listeners’ emotions and provoke them to whatever action the liar has in mind. The Big Lie is most often associated with Adolf Hitler, who advised in his book “Mein Kampf” that the “primitive simplicity” of ordinary people makes them vulnerable to massive deceptions. “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and would not believe that others would have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously,” the Nazi dictator wrote.

Ironically, even as he explained the method of the Big Lie, he used it to promote an especially brazen untruth — that Jews and Communists somehow had deceived the German people into thinking that their nation’s loss in World War I was caused by reckless, incompetent military leaders. The Nazi dictator was onto something, though perhaps even his own twisted mind didn’t grasp it: Some of the most effective Big Lies are accusations of someone else being a liar (source: Hitler).

Hitler, of course, didn’t invent the Big Lie, and a liar doesn’t necessarily have to be a bloodthirsty dictator to pull it off. But the best way to protect yourself against the Big Lie is to be an educated, well-informed person who’s got a broad base of knowledge and context. Sadly, we live in a culture where fewer and fewer people seem to have that background. In a 2011, Newsweek gave 1,000 Americans the U.S. citizenship test; more than a third scored a failing grade — 60 percent or lower — to questions such as “How many justices are on the Supreme Court?” and “Who did the U.S. fight in World War II?” That’s kind of scary (source: Quigley).

MORE – – –

A Magical Journey through the Land of Reasoning Errors

Four common types of analytical errors in reasoning that we all need to beware of.

Brian DunningBy Brian Dunning via skeptoid
Read transcript below or Listen here.

Today we’re going to cover a bit of new ground in the basics of critical thinking and critical reasoning. There are several defined types of common analytical errors to which we’re all prone; some, perhaps, more so than others. Reasoning errors can be made accidentally, and some can even be made deliberately as a way to influence the acceptance of ideas. We’re going to take a close look at the Type I false positive error, the Type II false negative error, the Type III error of answering the wrong question, and finally the dreaded Type IV error of asking the wrong question.

By way of example we’ll apply these errors to three hypothetical situations, all of which should be familiar to fans of scientific skepticism:
critical-thinking1_250px

  1. From the realm of the paranormal, a house is reported to be haunted. The null hypothesis is that there is no ghost, until we find evidence that there is.
  2. The conspiracy theory that the government is building prison camps in which to orderly dispose of millions of law-abiding citizens. The null hypothesis is that there are no such camps, until we find evidence of them.
  3. And from alternative medicine, the claim that vitamins can cure cancer. The null hypothesis is that they don’t, unless it can be proven through controlled testing.

So let’s begin with:

Type I Error: False Positive

type I errorA false positive is failing to believe the truth, or more formally, the rejection of a true null hypothesis — it turns out there’s nothing there, but you conclude that there is. In cases where the null hypothesis does turn out to be true, a Type I error incorrectly rejects it in favor of a conclusion that the new claim is true. A Type I error occurs only when the conclusion that’s made is faulty, based on either bad evidence, misinterpreted evidence, an error in analysis, or any number of factors.

In the haunted house, Type I errors are those that occur when the house is not, in fact, haunted; but the investigators erroneously find that it is. They may record an unexplained sound and wrongly consider that to be proof of a ghost, or they may collect eyewitness anecdotes and wrongly consider them to be evidence, or they may have a strange feeling and wrongly reject all other possible causes for it.

The conspiracy theorist commits a Type I error when the government is not, in fact, building prison camps to exterminate citizens, but he comes across something that makes him reject that null hypothesis and conclude that it’s happening after all. Perhaps he sees unmarked cars parked outside a fenced lot that has no other apparent purpose, and wrongly considers that to be unambiguous proof, or perhaps he watches enough YouTube videos and decides that so many other conspiracy theorists can’t be all wrong. Perhaps he simply hates the government, so he automatically accepts any suggestion of their evildoing.

Finally, the alternative medicine hopeful commits a Type I error when he concludes that vitamins successfully treat a cancer that they actually don’t. Perhaps he hears enough anecdotes or testimonials, perhaps he is mistrustful of medical science and erroneously concludes that alternative medicine must therefore work, or whatever his thought process is; but an honest conclusion that the null hypothesis has been proven false is a classic Type I error.

Type II Error: False Negative

type II errorCynics are those who are most often guilty of the Type II error, the acceptance of the null hypothesis when it turns out to actually be false — it turns out that something is there, but you conclude that there isn’t. If you actually do have psychic powers but I am satisfied that you do not, I commit a Type II error. The villagers of the boy who cried “Wolf!” commit a Type II error when they ignore his warning, thinking it false, and lose their sheep to the wolf. The protohuman who hears a rustling in the grass and assumes it’s just the wind commits a Type II error when the panther springs out and eats him.

Perhaps somewhere there is a house that actually is haunted, and maybe the TV ghost hunters find it. If I laugh at their silly program and dismiss the ghost, I commit a Type II error. If it were to transpire that the government actually is implementing plans to exterminate millions of citizens in prison camps, then everyone who has not been particularly concerned about this (myself included) has made a Type II error. The invalid dismissal of vitamin megadosing would also be a Type II error if it turned out to indeed cure cancer, or whatever the hypothesis was.

Type I and II errors are not limited to whether we believe in some pseudoscience; they’re even more applicable in daily life, in business decisions and research. If I have a bunch of Skeptoid T-shirts printed to sell at a conference, I make a Type I error by assuming that people are going to buy, and it turns out that nobody does. The salesman makes a Type II error when he decides that no customers are likely to buy today, so he goes home early, when in fact it turns out that one guy had his checkbook in hand.

Both Type I and II errors can be subtle and complex, but in practice, the Type I error can be thought of as excess idealism, accepting too many new ideas; and the Type II error as excess cynicism, rejecting too many new ideas.

Before talking about Type III and IV errors, it should be noted that these are not universally accepted. Types I and II have been standard for nearly a century, but various people have extended the series in various directions since then; so there is no real convention for what Types III and IV are. However the definitions I’m going to give are probably the most common, and they work very well for the purpose of skeptical analysis.

MORE – – –

Global Warming: I Have Questions

By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)

"A conspiratard? Fascinating."

“A conspiratard? Fascinating.”

Question: What happens when a skeptic like myself questions the global warming theory in a facebook group that considers themselves skeptics?

Answer: I get labeled a conspiracist, conspiratard, sheeptard, right-winger, troll, denialist and all kinds of other interesting things. It was also suggested that i do certain things to myself and go away.

As Mr. Spock would say, “Fascinating, Jim.”

I have always had  issues with the question, “Do you believe in global warming?“, because it’s really two questions:

  1. Has the earth warmed (over some time frame)?
  2. Are humans responsible?

Because simply answering “yes” to the above question can be misunderstood to mean you agree warming has occurred AND that humans are primarily responsible, i always split the issue:

  1. I do agree there has been some warming over the last 100 years, BUT
  2. I’m not convinced humans are the main cause. I’m inclined to think our climate is primarily driven by the same natural forces that have driven our climate since the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago – and humans are a small part of that natural cycle.

It’s this position that gets people all worked up. But why do feel this way? Because i have questions.

What period of time are global warming believers referring to when they use phrases like, “the warmest ‘on record'”,  “since records have been kept” orsince measurements began”?

Al Gore is notorious for using these kinds of references to a mystery time frame. When he says “this is the hottest year ‘since measurements began'”, am i the only one wondering when “the measurements began”? After all, if the measurements began at 5 o’clock this morning, then by noon it really would be the warmest since measurements began, wouldn’t it?

Here is Al Gore from 1997 using these types of vague references to a mysterious period of time:

The IPCC[1] (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) used similar language in their 1990 Scientific Assessment report when they wrote, “the five warmest years on record have been in the 1980s.[2]

Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? It almost sounds like they’re saying, “the five warmest years since the beginning of time have been in the 1980s,” or “the five warmest years EVER have been in the 1980s,” doesn’t it?

The truth is, when the IPCC, Al Gore and the other global warming theorists compare temperatures to “the record” (i.e. “The warmest on record“) they are actually referring to the last 150 years of temperature data. Allow me to explain. Here are the temperatures from the last 1,000 years:

1000 Years_0600px

With current temperatures located on the far right of the graph and the dotted line representing temperature conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century[3], you should notice something right off the bat.

Beginning about 950 AD and continuing for about 400 years until almost 1350 AD there is a period of time when the temperatures were warmer than they are today. According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – 1990), this warmer period is referred to as the “Medieval Warm Period.”

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than any temperatures seen today, so global warming theorists must use a period of time after the Medieval Warm Period to make claims of record breaking temperatures.

Here is that period of time referred to as “the record”[4] by global warming theorists when they say “… on ‘the record'”:

The Record_600px

The above graph is “the record” as depicted in the 1990 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Scientific Assessment Report. It only goes back approximately 150 years to the year 1860.

From the same IPCC report: “The instrumental record of surface temperature is fragmentary until the mid-nineteenth century, after which it slowly improves[5] . . . ” and it “shows current estimates of … surface temperature over land and ocean since 1860.[6] [7]” [all emphasis mine]

So when the IPCC[8] and other global warming theorists say, “the warmest temperatures on record,” what they’re really saying is, “the warmest temperatures since 1860!”

Now look again at the 1,000 year temperature graph, this time with “the record” put in perspective:

Click image for larger view

Click image for larger view

It becomes clear why global warming theorists say “the warmest temperatures on record” -­ because if they were honest and said “the warmest temperatures since 1860,”­ the deception would become as painfully obvious as it is here.

What else do you notice?  Notice where “the record” begins on the 1,000 year timeline. It begins at the end of a period in history called the “Little Ice Age.”  The Little Ice Age (LIA) is a 500 year period of cooling that occurred from about 1350 to approximately 1850[9].

I’m sure it’s just pure happenstance that the purveyors of global warming use the end of an ice age as their temperature comparison starting point. Sort of like wanting to convince your friends you’re a gambling guru by bragging about how you won $3,000 on your last day in Las Vegas while conveniently forgetting to mention how you lost $5,000 on your first day in Vegas. You’re the man (until your friends learn the inconvenient truth)!

For more perspective let’s go back some more. Here is 8,000 years of temperatures:

KEEP READING – – –


Resources:

[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/
[2] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxix.
[3] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, Page 202.
[4] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxix.
[5] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxviii.
[6] 1990 IPCC Scientific Assessment, page xxviii.
[7] Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
[8] http://www.ipcc.ch/
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Penn & Teller: Bulls**t: Hypnosis

By Penn&TellerBullshit via YouTube

Penn & Teller examines the various promises made by professional hypnosis, and seeks to refute the idea of “mind over body”.

What’s the deal with homeopathy?

Via Stuff They Don’t Want You to Know – YouTube

Skeptics dismiss homeopathic medicine as pseudoscience and claim the industry bilks the gullible and desperate. However, advocates of homeopathic medicine believe the conspiracy lies within the pharmaceutical companies and western medicine.

Fukushima “Death Cloud” Kills hundreds on US Warship

H/T: (Skeptic Wars)

Video via Thunderf00t – YouTube.

Recently it has been widely covered in the media that ~70 members of the US 7th fleet are suing TEPCO (the company responsible for the Fukushima for THREE BILLION DOLLARS.

On paper they claim all sorts of cancer, however I can find no interview of anyone with cancer. Further the lawsuit doesn’t say what the claims are for. What I do find is interview after interview of people describing non-quantifiable symptoms that are wholly inconsistent with radiation poisoning.

The thing that bugs me the most here is radiation is being sold as the ‘invisible boogey man’ that causes all the ills that you cannot otherwise explain.

Sure radiation can cause some serious problems, but then again so can asbestos. But this does not mean you can blame any unaccounted for maladies on asbestos or radiation!

In Africa when anything goes wrong (crop failures etc), there are those only too happy to blame witches. The only thing different here is the boogey man is radiation.

Delysid’s Guide to Thinking and Debating Like a (bad) Conspiracy Theorist

matrix_has_u_600px
by Delysid via dailypaul.com

conspiracist 1200Step 1: Start with the premise that any tragic incident is a massive, intricate government conspiracy.

Step 2: Denounce any information presented by a mainstream, non-conspiracy source that directly counters the predetermined conspiracy narrative as corrupt and part of the conspiracy.

Step 3: Monitor these same mainstream sources for information that supports the predetermined conspiracy narrative, even if only remotely. Mainstream media reporting mistakes that support your conspiracy (or any conspiracy really) must be treated as rare moments of truth, glimpses inside the Matrix. Any mainstream media reports in favor of the conspiracy should be treated like the word of God. Spam that information everywhere.

Step 4: Imagination is the same thing as undeniable fact. There is nothing wrong with manipulating Youtube videos and using Photoshop to edit information to make it more obvious for the stupid sheeple to understand.

Step 5: Reject the skeptics to the conspiracy theories aggressively. Call them out for being sheep, shills, Cointelpro, paid agents, et cetera. Do not ever doubt yourself, because if you think they are any of these nouns, then it is undeniably true. After all, the conspiracy theory you are trying to wake the world up to is a fact. Only a sheep would think otherwise.

conspiracist clicktivism_300pxStep 6: Bring up the founding of the Federal Reserve, the Bay of Pigs, The Gulf of Tonkin, and other well known deceptive schemes by the government often (every conversation if need be.) These actions were confessed by government, therefore every other conspiracy theory is true!

Step 7: Cite declassified documents often, as they are invaluable. If the government reports that a secret program was started and ended 60 years ago- DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. The secret programs for sure are still occurring and are now more massive, sinister, and successful than before.

Step 8: Remember that most of witnesses and victims involved in conspiracy event are actors. Medical examiners, emergency responders, the police, reporters, they are almost all in on it. The innocent people caught up in the conspiracy were either killed or have been threatened by the conspirators and are too afraid to come forward (or they possibly never existed to begin with.)

Step 9: Blitz the world with the truth until everyone deletes you on Facebook or you are banned from your favorite web sites. Lay low for a period, regroup at your favorite alternative web sites, get encouragement and reinforcement from the other awakened truth seekers, and start the process all over again with a new conspiracy.


[END]
matrix-sucker_600px

Your personal pseudoscience detector

Via Skeptical Raptor

sasquatch-pseudoscience_300pxIf you read something that makes some medical claim, here’s a quick and easy checklist to determine if it’s pseudoscience. Or real science-based medicine.

  1. The discoverer pitches his claim directly to the media. Going to media directly bypasses the all-important peer-review process, where real scientists can evaluate whether the claim is real science. There are some journalists that are thorough scientific skeptics, but it is rare. That’s why press releases rank near the bottom of acceptable scientific evidence.
  2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his/her work. Special pleading for a conspiracy is just a logical fallacy. If someone discovers a cure for all cancers (probably not possible, since there are so many different cancers), the powers that be will be bringing truckloads of dollars to buy it, because they could market it for even more truckloads of money. But if you have no evidence that it cures all cancers, you’re not going  get anything.
  3. The scientific effect is always at the very limit of detection. This is the very definition of “it doesn’t work.” Moreover, if the thing being promoted has a tiny effect, then more of it will have more of an effect, the typical dose-response relationship expected from all compounds.
  4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. Anecdotes are not data. More anecdotes are not data. Anecdotes are not controlled, but they are subject to all sorts of bias. Like confirmation bias, where the observer only picks anecdotes that support their belief. The problem with that is we have no idea if the anecdote is, in fact, accurate; and we ignore all the data that does not support the anecdote. Randomized clinical trials remove bias, remove observer partiality, and blind the patients and the researchers to the experiment itself.

READ MORE – – –

Why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed

OR . . . Static Versus Dynamic Loading

By Dave Burton via Burton Systems Software – (burtonsys.com)

WTC_Tower_2_collapse_200pxSome conspiracy theorists are puzzled about why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed on Sept. 11, 2001. They suppose that the speed of collapse is evidence that something or someone must have destroyed the structural integrity of the undamaged lower part of each tower.

After all, they reason, “only the upper floors of the building were damaged, so why did the lower floors collapse, and why did they fall so fast?”

This web page answers those questions, simply enough for even a conspiracy theorist to comprehend (I hope). I do use some simple math and some very basic physics, but even if you don’t understand that part you should still be able to comprehend the basic reasons that the towers fell so fast.


What the conspiracy theorists apparently don’t understand is the difference between static and dynamic loading. (“Static” means “while at rest,” “dynamic” means “while moving.”)

If you don’t think it can make a difference, consider the effect of a stationary bullet resting on your chest, compared to the effect of a moving bullet striking your chest. The stationary bullet exerts a static load on your chest. A moving bullet exerts a dynamic load.

bullet apple 03_flat

As a more pertinent example, consider a 110 story building with a roof 1,368 feet high (like the WTC Twin Towers). Each floor is 1368/110 = 12.44 feet high, or aproximately 3.8 meters.

Now, suppose that the structural steel on the 80th floor collapses. (Note: I’m using as an example 2 WTC, which was the building that collapsed first.)

The collapse of the 80th floor drops all the floors above (which, together, are equivalent to a 30 story building!) onto the 79th floor, from a height of aproximately 12 feet.

Of course, the structure of the lower 79 floors has been holding up the weight of the top 31 floors for many years. (That’s the static load.) So should you expect it to be able to hold that same weight, dropped on it from a height of 12 feet (the dynamic load)?

The answer is, absolutely not!

Here’s why.

MORE . . .



Download HD version of this video for reposting: http://tinyurl.com/7rjrsjr

Chopra Shoots at Skepticism and Misses

By via NeuroLogica Blog

CHOPRADeepak Chopra apparently has no love for organized skepticism. This is not surprising and his particular brand of spiritual pseudoscience has been a favorite target of skeptical analysis. He is also not the only one who has decided to fight back against the skeptics – if you cannot defend yourself against legitimate criticism, then shoot the messenger.

In a recent article Chopra renews his attack against what he calls “militant skepticism.” This is a blatant attempt, of course, to portray skeptics as extremist and on the fringe, a strategy that has been used against “militant atheists.” Chopra also uses his article to conflate skepticism with atheism, almost as if he is completely unaware of the internal discourse that has been taking place for decades within the skeptical movement.

Chopra writes:

The rise of militant skepticism clouded the picture, however, beginning with its popular attack on religion. The aim of Richard Dawkins, as stated in his best seller, The God Delusion, was to subject “the God hypothesis” to scientific scrutiny, the way one would subject anti-matter or black holes to scrutiny. In fact he did no such thing with God, for the scientific method requires experiments that can be replicated and facts that can be verified. Dawkins offered no experiments to prove or disprove the existence of God. What he actually did was to subject religion to a barrage of scorn and ridicule, attacking it on the rational improbability – as he sees it – that a deity could possibly exist.

This is an interesting bit of historical revisionism, although I think it probably just reflects Chopra’s complete unfamiliarity with his subject matter. The modern skeptical movement predates Dawkins by decades. We have had a clear philosophy and scope long before Dawkins appeared on the scene.

Dawkins is a highly respected figure among skeptics because of his powerful writing, his popularizing of science, and his unflinching criticism of pseudoscience. Most skeptics are atheists, and we also respect his defending science from the intrusion of religion and spirituality.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins

Where many skeptics, myself included, disagree with Dawkins is precisely in treating “the God hypothesis” as if it were only a scientific question. I say “only” because certainly it is possible to treat any supernatural hypothesis as if it were in the realm of methodological naturalism, and there is general agreement among skeptics when approached in this way the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no credible evidence to support the conclusion that any god exists, or that the laws of the material universe need to be extended to account for any alleged supernatural phenomena. If you frame God as a scientific hypothesis, it can be scientifically refuted. Looked at another way, the psychocultural hypothesis is a far better and more parsimonious explanation for belief in God than the actual existence of such a being.

The big “but” is that not everyone believes in God as a scientific fact. Some people choose to have faith in an unfalsifiable god, one that resides outside the realm of science. Once someone’s faith has retreated outside the realm of science, then science is no longer the tool by which one should address such faith. Logic and philosophy are now more appropriate, but you cannot say, by definition, that an unfalsifiable God can be scientifically proven to not exist.

MORE – – –

▶ Building 7 Explained

EdwardCurrent via YouTube

A serious video: The “unexplainable” collapse of 7 World Trade Center is the most compelling case put forth by 9/11 Truthers. But there is more than enough evidence that WTC7 collapsed due to fire — no secret demolition ninjas necessary.

The text below is for people interested in actual inquiry, and are legitimately examining both sides’ arguments for inconsistencies, intellectual dishonesty, and logical flaws.

1. Things conspiracy believers do not want you to know:

  • WTC7 underwent a slow, internal progressive collapse, plainly observable in the full-length CBS video, which is rarely shown on conspiracy sites.
  • WTC7 actually did NOT collapse straight down or “into its own footprint.” 30 West Broadway, across the 4-lane Barclay St., was heavily damaged. See photo: http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7pile.jpg
  • The 1,500 “experts” at ae911truth.org are mostly electrical and chemical engineers, residential architects, students, etc. with little or no experience in steel skyscraper construction.
  • The NIST study was done in cooperation with the SEI/ASCE, SFPE, AISC, and SEAoNY — actual engineering experts in the field, all of whom would have to be in on this conspiracy, even to this day.
  • The “explosive traces” or “thermite” claim comes from non-chemist Steven E. Jones, who analyzed samples sent to him privately with no chain of custody. His paper appeared in a journal that charges $800 to publish; Google “CRAP Paper Accepted by Journal” to read about its “peer review” process. Jones, a devout Mormon, also published “evidence” that Jesus visited American Indians; Google “Behold My Hands.”
  • No “molten metal” was ever collected from WTC7 and analyzed.
  • Rigging a large building for demolition cannot be done “over the weekend,” nor would such preparation escape the notice of office workers. Demolition professionals laugh at this claim.
  • Thermite cannot be used to demolish a building.
  • There exist NO peer-reviewed papers supporting controlled demolition, anywhere.

MORE . . .

True or False: Only explosives could have caused the buildings to collapse on 9/11.

Download HD version for reposting: http://tinyurl.com/7rjrsjr

inFact: Conspiracy Theories

Via inFact: Conspiracy Theories.

Personality and Conspiracy Theories: What Your Beliefs Say About You

by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Ph.D. via Psychology Today

Personality and Conspiracy Theories: What Your Beliefs Say About You | Psychology TodayImagine that everything we think we understand about how the world works is, in fact, an elaborate hoax. Democracy is a sham designed to fool us into believing we are in control. That a small group of unknown, unaccountable elites is actually pulling the strings and pretty much deciding the course of history; everything from the world economy and the conduct of nations to the media and pop culture is under their complete control. Anyone who says otherwise has either been fooled by the conspiracy or is an agent of disinformation.

Does this seem plausible to you? Our latest test is designed to assess your belief in conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are now a firm feature of popular culture – the recent furore around Wiki-leaks provided compelling evidence for this. But the popularity of conspiracy theorising dates back to the shocking assassination of American President J.F.K. in broad daylight and in front of dozens of onlookers on November 22nd, 1963. Immediately, many people claimed that there was more than one gunman, and conspiracy theories arose implicating everyone from the CIA to the communists. More recently, films like Oliver Stone’s JFK and T.V. shows like The X-Files brought conspiratorial themes further into the mainstream. The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 have become perhaps the most widely debated events of the current generation. Many people doubt the ‘official’ story, believing instead that the events were the result of a conspiracy.

So, what has psychological research told us about belief in conspiracy theories? Not much. Indeed, so far only a handful of studies have looked at the personality of conspiracy theory believers. This research has found that believers tend to be lacking in trust and higher in levels of anomie – the feeling that things are generally getting worse – when compared to people with low levels of conspiracy beliefs. However, these findings show correlation, not causation. On the one hand, it may indicate that people’s conspiratorial beliefs are a result of their underlying lack of trust; people who see conspiracies behind everything are simply be projecting their own jaded view of the world onto events. Alternatively, lack of trust may follow from the perception of a conspiracy, reflecting a rational response to the reality of living in a world of conspiracy.

Read More: Personality and Conspiracy Theories: What Your Beliefs Say About You | Psychology Today.

Thank you!

I’d like to take this moment to thank everybody for their continued support of iLLumiNuTTi.com. Since we first opened our doors in April we have had a fantastic growth in the number of visitors. Thank you! Keep telling your friends about us and don’t forget to “Like” us on FaceBook and we’ll continue to bring you the weird, wacky and fun stuff!

Have fun and feel free to comment your ideas and suggestions. :)

Mason I. Bilderberg

‘Chasing UFOs,’ New National Geographic Show, Reexamines Famous Flying Saucer Sightings

This show is a real doozy – and i don’t mean that in a positive way. Here, i’ll let the Huffington Post give you their review, then i’ll post a YouTube review below from one of my favorite skeptics, V00D00SIXXX.

«For most people, looking for UFOs is more of a hobby than an actual occupation. Not so for Erin Ryder, James Fox and Ben McGee, members of a dynamic team starring in the new television series, “Chasing UFOs,” that premieres Friday on the National Geographic Channel.

One can imagine the theme music of the old “X-Files” series playing in the heads of Ryder, Fox and McGee as they travel the country looking for the truth behind reported unexplained UFO encounters, alien abduction and military cover-ups.

The three investigators bring different points of view as they chase UFOs.»

Keep Reading: ‘Chasing UFOs,’ New National Geographic Show, Reexamines Famous Flying Saucer Sightings (VIDEO).


YouTube Review: Chasing UFOs (or not finding flying saucers)
This video is 32 minutes long, i enjoyed it, i hope you do too.

8 Ways to tell a Conspiracy Theorist is really a Fraud

As I have been observing conspiracy theories, and by extension, conspiracy theorists themselves. From my observations I’ve noticed that some of them may not be entirely truthful in what they believe, and that some of them may be out right frauds.

Here are eight ways to tell if a conspiracy theorist is a fraud:
1. Constant self promoter
It’s one thing for a conspiracy theorist to promote the conspiracy theories they believe in, it’s quite another for a conspiracy theorist to constantly promote their own materials and media concerning conspiracy theories they allegedly believe in.
The fact is, is that some people do make money off of promoting conspiracy theories, and some fraud conspiracy theorists do realize they can make lots of money creating and pedaling books and videos about conspiracy theories.
2. Tells people to ignore facts
While most legit conspiracy theorists will usually ask a person to examine all of the facts before asking you to conclude that they are right, a fraud conspiracy theorist will tell you to ignore any facts other then the “facts” that they present. Some even go so far as to call real facts disinformation. This is done as a way to discourage people from actually examining real facts, and by doing this a person might stop believing a certain conspiracy theory, and thus stop believe the fraud conspiracy theorist.
3. Constantly making up stuff
A fraud conspiracy theorist constantly makes up stuff, and then discards certain “information” when no one believes it any more, or no one really cares about it any more.
One of the main reasons this is done is because it keeps people coming back, wanting “new” information.
4. Claims to be withholding information until a later date
Many fraud conspiracy theorists claim they have “secret information” that they claim they are withholding until a later date. Most of the times this “information” isn’t even revealed at all, or the “information” that is revealed is actually false and made up, and sometimes not even new at all, just reworded.

Continue Reading: The Soap Box: 8 Ways to tell a Conspiracy Theorist is really a Fraud.

2012 Doomsday Myths Debunked by NASA

According to a recent poll, 10 percent of people around the globe worry that the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012, as some spurious interpretations of the Mayans’ long-count calendar predict.

The doomsayers cite several different potential agents of apocalypse, including a collision with the supposed rogue planet Nibiru, a catastrophic solar storm or an unfortunate planetary alignment.

But it’s all nonsense, NASA assures us. Here’s a look at some of the most prevalent 2012 doomsday myths, and some NASA-provided reasons why we shouldn’t retreat into our bunkers.

Keep Reading: 2012 Doomsday Myths Debunked by NASA | Space.com.
Related: Ancient Text Confirms Mayan Calendar End Date

Confessions of a Disinformation Agent: Introduction and Chapter I.

Hi everybody,

I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce to you a new series of articles being written by a fellow blogger. His name is Muertos and he’s one of the most rational thinkers i have come across.

When you get a chance, click the link (below) to his blog and feed your brain some great information!

Mason I. Bilderberg


Posted on July 3, 2012 by muertos:

This story is going to be a history of my experiences with conspiracy theories, including the time when I used to believe them myself. I’ll explain what got me into them, why they fascinated me, and eventually why I became a debunker. I have a very strange and complicated relationship with debunking. Sometimes I love it and look forward to it; at other times it’s something I hate and want to be finished with forever. Therefore, this piece is a very personal journey.

Keep Reading: Confessions of a Disinformation Agent: Introduction and Chapter I. | Muertos’s Blog.

Astral Projection

The Skeptic’s Dictionary definition of the day …

Astral projection is a type of out-of-body experience (OBE) in which the astral body leaves its other six bodies and journeys far and wide to anywhere in the universe.

There is scant evidence to support the claim that anyone can project their mind, soul, psyche, spirit, astral body, etheric body, or any other entity to somewhere else on this or any other planet. The main evidence is in the form of testimonials.

via astral projection – The Skeptic’s Dictionary – Skepdic.com.

Reiki – Based on a nonexistent spiritual “energy”

Reiki (sometimes mispronounced as /rejˌiki/, it is properly pronounced /reːki/) is a pseudoscientific therapy based on the following beliefs:

  • there is a universal and inexhaustible spiritual “energy”[1] which can be used for healing purposes
  • through an attunement process carried out by a Reiki Master, any person can gain access to this “energy”
  • this “energy” will flow through the Reiki Master’s hands when he/she places his/her hands near the patient
  • this “energy” has human-like intelligence
  • as this “energy” is intelligent, there is no need for diagnosis. This “energy” will automatically judge the disease and will heal the patient.

It can be dangerous, or even life-threatening, if someone avoids evidence-based medicine and relies upon Reiki for treatment.

Keep Reading: Reiki – RationalWiki.

Self-deception

The Skeptic’s Dictionary definition of the day …

Self-deception is the process or fact of misleading ourselves to accept claims about ourselves as true or valid when they are false or invalid. Self-deception, in short, is a way we justify false beliefs about ourselves to ourselves.

Read more: self-deception – The Skeptic’s Dictionary – Skepdic.com.

Watch this EXCELLENT video –  Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception (19 minutes):

The Full Text of John Robbins’s Repudiation of Thrive and its Conspiracy Theories.

The good people at Thrive Debunked continue their excellent work with this great article. Enjoy!

Thrive Debunked

Probably the single most important event in Thrive‘s short history was the announcement, on April 10, 2012, that nine of the people interviewed in the film had signed a letter repudiating it and claiming that Foster Gamble misrepresented the film to them. (A tenth signatory, Adam Trombly, later joined the letter). Those events as well as the Gambles’ response were covered on this blog as they happened. The architect of the repudiation letter was John Robbins, who was nice enough to write me a note a few months ago specifically expressing his displeasure with the conspiracy theories advanced in Thrive. I found Mr. Robbins’s reasons for opposing the movie closely congruent with my own.

Mr. Robbins recently contacted me with a revised and complete version of his letter regarding Thrive, which he titles “Humanity and Sanity.” Although many of the words and especially the sentiment…

View original post 4,165 more words

Psychics’ prediction about murder case proves predictably wrong

Jane Furlong is a murder victim …

Claims about the Jane Furlong case made by psychics on the television show Sensing Murder have been called into question by the New Zealand Skeptics.

The two psychics featured on the 2007 broadcast – Deb Webber and Kelvin Cruickshank – had already made differing claims about Ms Furlong’s alleged killer.

Mr Cruickshank described a balding man with tattoos, motorbikes and a pay-back motive, however Ms Webber believed the killer was a BMW-driving, 50-year old finance company associate.

Mr Cruickshank also stated that Ms Furlong’s body would likely be found under concrete at a demolition site inside Auckland, and both psychics indicated that this was likely to be in the Auckland Doman. However police this month confirmed that Ms Furlong’s remains had been found 86km away at Port Waikato’s Sunset Beach.

NZ Skeptics spokeswoman Vicki Hide says there was no resemblance between the information provided by the psychics and the discoveries later made by police.

FAIL.

AGAIN.

Read More: TV psychics ‘exploited’ Furlong – NZ Skeptics – Story – NZ News – 3 News.

Michael Shermer: The Believing Brain (Lecture)

The Center for Inquiry-New York City and NYC Skeptics hosted noted skeptic and bestselling author Michael Shermer for a talk about his new book, The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies – How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.

Read more: Michael Shermer: The Believing Brain (Lecture) | Watch Free Documentary Online.

This video is 80 minutes long but, for me, i enjoyed it. Grab a snack and watch it here:

Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator – Wisdom of Chopra

The Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator generates a randomly-selected collection of words that eerily mimic the syntactically-sound, but often content-free, thoughts of new-age author Deepak Chopra.

Here are a few examples of random, computer generated gems:

“The world opens karmic chaos”
“Infinity inspires subtle timelessness”
“Evolution differentiates into positive opportunities”
“Freedom experiences a symphony of creativity”

Check it out here: Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator – Wisdom of Chopra.

The Five most Dangerous types of Medical Quackery

The LockeBy

There are a lot of different types of medical quackery out there, and while some might be harmless, many tend to do more harm than good.

Here is a list of what is in my opinion to be the five most dangerous:

5 • Alternative Mental Health Treatments

alternative-medicine-for-dummiesWhile certain types of alternative mental health treatments might be useful, other types are not useful at all, and even harmful.

The particular ones that I’m most concerned with are exorcisms, conversion therapy, and vitamin therapy.

The reason why these therapies are so harmful is because it can keep a person from seeking real, legit mental health treatments. With exorcisms and vitamin therapy, it can cause a person’s mental health problems to become worse due to the lack real mental health therapy, and it can leave a person reluctant to use actual legit therapies, or, like with conversion therapy, which is mainly used to attempt to “rid” a person of homosexuality, can actually cause mental illness, like depression.

Because these therapies simply don’t work, and can even cause mental illness to get worse, it might cause a person commit suicide, or even cause a person to become violent.

4 • Spiritual Healing

Spiritual HealingThis basically comes in two forms: Faith healing and energy healing.

Faith healing is basically the belief that God uses certain people to help heal the sick, and energy healing is the belief that a person can “channel” their energy to heal people.

Besides the fact that none of this has ever been proven to work, it’s dangerous because it causes people to believe that they’re being healed, or will be healed, by some outside energy force, and this belief causes people to forgo proven medical treatments, and instead, basically really do nothing and hope they will get better.

The reason why this is more dangerous then alternative mental health treatments is because you can usually get better if you start getting real mental health treatments, unlike with spiritual healing, where if you wait to long, whatever you have could kill you.

MORE – – –

UFO’s in Ancient Art Debunked – YouTube

Links in the comment section of the above video.

Links in the comment section of the above video.

Ancient Aliens Debunked – Part 8 – Now Posted

Ancient Aliens Debunked – Part 8 – Now Posted

This 4,500 year old painting was found in an Egyptian tomb. Is this a painting of an alien grey? Does this prove the building and placement of the Pyramids were aided by alien intelligence? Does this explain how the Egyptians were able to build the Pyramids with such precision?

Click Here and learn the truth!

Ancient Aliens Debunked

Embarrassing Conspiracy Theories: Chemtrails

via The Soap Box

There is a big time conspiracy theory about something called “chemtrails”. This conspiracy theory is based on the belief that contrails coming out of a jet’s exhaust are laced with chemicals that’s propose is for population control.

There are several problems with this theory. First, there is no proof what so ever that what a person sees coming out of a jet exhaust is nothing more then a contrail, rather then the “chemtrail” that so many conspiracy theorist insists that they are. In fact, not one pilot, or any other person who would be involved in this alleged conspiracy, has ever even come forward and said that the government was spraying chemicals on the population.

Besides the fact there is no proof, spraying chemicals from two to three miles above the ground isn’t a very effective way to disperse chemical or biological agents. The wind from that high up would disperse the chemicals and biological agents throughout the upper atmosphere, and it would become so disperse that when or if it ever did come down, there wouldn’t be enough of the stuff to be effective. Take a look at crop dusting for instance. Crop dusting planes have to be very low to the ground to spray fertilizers and pesticides in order for them to get on the crops. It can’t be done from thousands of feet in air, because the wind would just blow it away.

MORE . . .

Morals and Dogma

In 1871, Albert Pike published a book called Morals and Dogma.

Conspiracists call this book a manifesto, a primary doctrine for Masons and, contained within its pages is absolute proof Albert Pike was a Satanist who wrote secret Satan worship into the degrees of the Scottish Rite.

Who is Albert Pike? What is his book about? What was the extent of his influence? Do Freemasons worship Satan?

Randi $1,000,000 paranormal challenge

James Randi, a.k.a. The Amazing Randi, magician and author of numerous works skeptical of paranormal, supernatural, and pseudoscientific claims has for about ten years offered “a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power.” His rules were little more than what any reasonable scientist would require. If you are a mental spoon bender, you couldn’t use your own spoons. If you claimed to see auras, you’d have to do so under controlled conditions. If you claimed to be able to do remote viewing, you wouldn’t be given credit for coming close in some vague way. If you were going to demonstrate dowsing powers, you would have to be prepared to be tested under controlled conditions. If you were going to do psychic surgery or experience the stigmata, you would have to do so with cameras watching your every move.

Continue: Randi $1,000,000 paranormal challenge – The Skeptic’s Dictionary – Skepdic.com.

Here is a video clip of Randi exposing Geller and Popoff from NOVA’s “Secrets of the Psychics”:

Passing thoughts on the issue of ChemTrails

Just a couple of passing thoughts on the issue of ChemTrails – some of these people are nuts.

Over at Chemtrail Geoengineering Lawsuit II ~Social Network~ on Facebook, i came across this wall post. This nut job spells out how he would handle a congress person not agreeing with his ideas on the issue of geoengineering:


The screen shot was taken 5/16/12 at 8:08 PM ET

Stroll on over to What in the World Are They Spraying? and you find this post:


This screen shot was taken 5/16/12 at 8:19 PM ET

Then i took a look at the web page for “Why in the World are They Spraying?”, where this “documentary” about “the many agendas associated with chemtrail/geoengineering programs” is seeking investors. I looked through their information and found this gem:

Let me get this straight, they’re seeking “a hundred-or-so” donors to give an amount equal to what one would pay for 60 days of cable service. I pay about $100/month for cable, so 2 months (60 days) of cable service would be $200. If they can find a hundred people to give them $200 each, they would rake in $20,000. Then they promise to keep what ever amount they don’t use out of the $20,000 because they “cannot offer an investment for profit.”

If somebody were to give you $20,000, how much would YOU have to spend to sit in front of your laptop editing on your favorite movie program? All i would need is some cash for pizza, so I’ll bet i can do it for less than $1,000.

If you believe in ChemTrails i suggest you send them A LOT of your hard earned cash … NOW … and let me know how it goes.

That is all for now,

Mason I. Bilderberg

Ancient Aliens Debunked – Part 7 – Now Posted

Ancient Aliens Debunked – Part 7 – Now Posted

“There are many strange UFO’s and Alien beings in ancient art but none as clear as this one.”

“You see in the sky an undoubtedly space craft shining down on Christ” … “a disk shaped object … (shining) beams of light down on John the Baptist and Jesus.”

Go to the menu at the top of the page and learn the truth!

Ancient Aliens Debunked

Do you believe in psychics?

Do you believe in psychics?

Michael Shermer at TAM 9

Author Michael Shermer on “The Believing Brain: From Ghost and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies — How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths.”

Skip to 4:50 to go directly to the discussion.

Michael Shermer at TAM 9 – YouTube.

ChemTrail Believers Unite!

If you believe in ChemTrails and you want to do something about it, there is now a lawsuit you can join!!!

I strongly suggest all ChemTrail believers get involved now and sign up! There is also a facebook page where believers gather to feel important.

As a total non-believer in ChemTrails, i can’t think of any better way for the ChemTrail believers to destroy their cause than to put it before a court of law. I will pay to be in that courtroom.

How much do you want to bet this lawsuit never makes it to court? It can’t. There are way too many people making way too much money selling the ChemTrail hoax – they can’t afford to have this issue heard and decided in a court of law. It’s no different than psychics refusing to be tested in a laboratory environment, they can’t afford to be put to a real test of evidence.

So please, if you believe in ChemTrails, this is your time to put your evidence to the test. Please join the lawsuit.

Ancient Aliens Debunked

Ancient Aliens Debunked

Announcing a new feature here at Illuminutti!

Ancient Aliens Debunked!

Click the link in the menu bar or the image above to view the latest updates!

full moon – Why do people believe the full moon makes all kinds of things happen?

In a nutshell: The full moon and other phases of the moon have been linked to all kinds of things, but so far the science hasn’t supported folk beliefs about the full moon.

The full moon has been linked to crime, mental illness, disasters, accidents, werewolves, and many other things. Does the scientific evidence support any of these links? Not really. Well, the science does favor one link: when the moon is waning (when the part we can see gets smaller), you would be well advised to stay out of the reach of hungry lions in the jungle. In the dark they can see us better than we can see them.

Why do people believe the full moon makes all kinds of things happen? There are several reasons.

Let’s begin with a common belief about the full moon: more people are admitted to hospitals during a full moon than at any other time of month. Is this true? No. Yet, many nurses say it is true because they have seen it happen. But the facts show that there are no more admissions to hospitals during a full moon than at any other time of the month. So why do some nurses believe in the full moon effect? The main reason is that believers rely on memory instead of keeping records.

Memory is tricky. If you believe that more people are admitted to the hospital during a full moon, then you may pay more attention to admissions when the moon is full. You may not pay much attention to the number of admissions on nights when the moon is not full. A scientist doesn’t rely just on memory.

Read More:  full moon – Skeptic’s Dictionary for Kids.

Aspartame – Truth vs Fiction

by

If you believe everything you read on the internet, then is seems that a chemical found in thousands of products is causing an epidemic of severe neurological and systemic diseases, like multiple sclerosis and lupus. The FDA, the companies that make the product, and the “medical industrial complex” all know about the dangers of this chemical but are hiding the truth from the public in order to protect corporate profits and avoid the pesky paper work that would accompany the truth being revealed. The only glimmer of hope is a dedicated band of bloggers and anonymous e-mail chain letter authors who aren’t afraid to speak the truth. Armed with the latest anecdotal evidence, unverified speculation, and scientifically implausible claims, they have been tirelessly ranting about the evils of this chemical for years. Undeterred by the countless published studies manufactured by the food cartel that show this chemical is safe, they continue to protect the public by spreading baseless fear and hysteria.

Hopefully, you don’t believe everything you read on the internet, and you don’t get your science news from e-mail SPAM, where the above scenario is a common theme. While there are many manifestations of this type of urban legend, I am speaking specifically about aspartame – an artificial sweetener used since the early 1980s. The notion that aspartame is unsafe has been circulating almost since it first appeared, and like rumors and misinformation have a tendency to do, fears surrounding aspartame have taken on a life of their own.

Keep Reading: Science-Based Medicine » Aspartame – Truth vs Fiction.

The burden of proof

Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.


The burden of proof – YouTube.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 801 other followers