Detecting psychic scams & debunking mediums is easier when you know how psychic methods like hot reading work. Don’t be fooled by psychic misdirection. Expert mentalists, skeptics, and magicians Penn and Teller, Derren Brown, Paul Zenon, James Randi, and Mark Edward will reveal the secrets of psychics by exposing disgraceful psychic tricks used by psychic Sally Morgan, The Long Island Medium (Theresa Caputo), Rosemary Altea, Peter Popoff, Joe Power, James Van Praagh, and more. Stay skeptical, dare to be curious, but don’t fall for this bullshit, and don’t drink the koolaid.
By Dean Traylor via Owlcation
Sometimes, the best way to debunk a story is to read it. Case in point: The story about the discovery of ancient pyramids in Antarctica. Recently, this tale of intrepid explorers discovering a series of man-made structures on a continent that has been too harsh to support sustainable human life for millions of years went viral over the Internet.
The story was picked up by many news outlets and blogs throughout the world, and has made its way as a meme on Facebook and other social media sites. By all accounts, this story would sound like the greatest archeological discovery of a lifetime.
However, nearly everything about this article, including the pictures and descriptions of the “explorers” hint that this was merely a hoax. Even the news outlets that ran with the story are suspect. Whatever the case may be, the story is its own undoing.
An expanded/updated version of my 2011 video “Building 7 Explained,” focusing on 7 World Trade Center’s construction. The tube-frame steel design explains why its collapse looks similar to a controlled demolition — thus creating a generation of modern conspiracy believers.
The animation at 5:00 is scale-accurate: The east face of the frame really did tip that much to the north (the smaller building shown is Fiterman Hall). Meanwhile, the west face appears to have tipped to the south. There is no evidence whatsover that the frame collapsed “into its own footprint.”
Addressing other top talking points:
“Thousands of architects and engineers disagree…” And many, many thousands more agree. I made comedy out of the generally poor professional qualifications of those who have signed the petition put forward by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: https://youtu.be/lpEnvGBfgnI
“You haven’t looked into the evidence…” Actually I have, because I used to be a Truther: https://youtu.be/UULUQfEQFuU
“A collapse like that due to fire would violate the laws of physics.” That’s interesting since NIST created a simulation that was quite accurate up to the last (and hardest to model) part of the collapse, using the program LS-DYNA, which — believe it or not — relies on the laws of physics to operate. If you don’t like the job NIST did, you can make your own simulation and see what happens — the construction and materials of the building are a matter of public record. In the meantime, feel free to point to one paper in a legitimate peer-reviewed engineering journal that supports this “violation of physics” claim.
“Professor Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska just released the results of a two-year study…” With funding by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Hulsey and two graduate students computer-modeled two floors where NIST found that collapse initiation *might* have taken place, and found scenarios where the collapse did not initiate. The team did not attempt to model any other cases where the collapse might have initiated. Not exactly an exhaustive scientific investigation, but hey, they’re still seeking donations to keep this hope alive.
“You believe everything the government tells you.” The government in reality is fairly incompetent. And, you’re asking people to believe that this same government pulled off a perfectly executed secret operation AND has maintained this secret conspiracy for 16 years and counting, after the operation was carried out and with hundereds of thousands of people worldwide working to expose a cover-up. The skeptical person finds this to be a highly unlikely scenario. See: “How to Apply Occam’s Razor”: https://youtu.be/AQNxNeQ9cxw
“Witnesses heard explosions in WTC7 before it collapsed.” Lots of things explode in fires. Transformers, gas lines, fire extinguishers, fuel tanks, even pneumatic office chairs have been shown to explode in a fire. That’s very different from high-velocity detonations necessary to cut even one major steel column of a skyscraper, which would exceed 150 decibels a half mile away.
“You are obviously paid by the government to make these videos.” Thank you for demonstrating your standards for evidence that confirms your pre-existing beliefs.
“But military-grade super-nanothermite that no one knows anything about . . . .” Okay, we’re done.
Finally! A solution to ChemTrails and ChemClouds!!!! Ordinary vinegar!!! Vinegar dissolves ChemClouds and ChemTrails!!! Seeing is believing!!
Click the link in the menu bar or the image above to view the latest updates!
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.
Are chemtrails and chem-clouds real? The evidence is examined.
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?
A friend of mine shared an eyebrow-raising article on Facebook. The linked story was along the lines of “private planes stolen by terrorists in the Middle East, and an attack is imminent”. The sensible people among his friends good-naturedly mocked him. They ribbed him about how ridiculous the prediction was. And all you had to do was consider the source.
My friend had shared the story from a notoriously crackpot Facebook page. The post lacked any merit, save a few tenuous and unrelated pieces of actual news. This behavior was typical of this particular page. Often, these types of pages hook you with a kernel of truth, and then wrap it in layers of idiocy.
When confronted, this friend said, “well, we’ll see who’s right in time.” The prediction by Natural News has failed to become reality almost a year later.
The Facebook fan pages below have a habit of spitting scientific inquiry and reason in the eye. They also have an unreasonably high number of fans who share their inanity. Shares from the following pages deserve a serious eye roll and shaking of one’s head.
#10 Alex Jones
Facebook fans: 856K
What He Says About Himself
“Documentary Filmmaker, Nationally Syndicated Radio Talkshow & Prisonplanet.tv Host – Free video/audio stream”
What He Really Does
Mr. Jones uses a ton of hyperbole, conspiracy theories, and a loose connection to reality, to whip up fear and loathing in his audience.
Whatever your feelings are on using legislation to increase vaccination rates, you won’t find any legitimate support for implications that vaccines contain toxic doses of chemical. Nor that there are aborted fetal cells in any of the shots we get.
Sample Fan Comment
#9 Food Babe
Facebook fans: 938K
What She Says About Herself
“Vani Hari started FoodBabe.com in April 2011 to spread information about what is really in the American food supply. She teaches people how to make the right purchasing decisions at the grocery store, how to live an organic lifestyle, and how to travel healthfully around the world. The success in her writing and investigative work can be seen in the way food companies react to her uncanny ability to find and expose the truth.”
What She Really Does
Ms. Hari, the “Food Babe”, parrots Dr. Mercola and cobbles together cherry-picked blurbs from questionable studies and Wikipedia. She uses the term “investigation” to excuse the fact that she often gives medical advice without having any education in the life sciences. She picks the weirdest ingredients to go after.
Sample Fan Comment
On Facebook, it’s only a matter of time before someone pulls out the EO sales kit.
Have you seen this video of the “mystery force” that levitates vehicles in China? Well, as you might expect, there’s no mystery at all.
First, the “mystery force” video:
Here is the real story:
From the YouTube video description:
We take a look at the bizarre accident in China that caused three cars to apparently levitate….
Links to explanation:
Check out my Facebook discussion page:
“Voices Of Reason To Explain X – VORTEX”
Dazzathecameraman on Facebook:
“Thanks for calling out the troll. I’ll make sure to get him”
–Vani Hari, when asked why she’s selling products containing the dyes Yellow 5 and Blue 1
I, Mark Alsip, am the troll referred to in Vani Hari’s quote (above). We had an interesting encounter yesterday on Periscope. After being encouraged to ask questions, I very politely and respectfully queried Hari on three products she’s selling. I wanted to know why certain of her wares contain nearly a dozen different chemicals she’s specifically called out as “toxic”.
If you’re already aware of Vani’s tactics, you probably won’t be surprised I was banned instantly. However, for those in the Food Babe Army (or the media) who don’t believe that Hari censors all dissenting comment and immediately bans those who point out her gaffes, presented below are video, screen captures, links to Food Babe’s product labels (with ingredient lists), and more…
View original post 481 more words
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…
Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof.
Suggested by a reader, this is a very good video debunking chemtrails 🙂
Description from the video on YouTube:
My entry into AtheistAussie’s Debunkathon (Chemtrails – 5 minute maximum)
I am not a scholar – which means anyone has access to this knowledge. I learned much during the research for this video and I hope any “chemtrailers” will follow some of the links below to research this for themselves, and not take my word for it.
I recognize that this does not debunk ALL the theories behind chemtrails – to do that you would need MUCH more than five minutes – and so I focused on a single common claim that since the 1990’s contrails have changed in their frequency and persistence.
I just love when this kind of woo quackery gets totally exposed as a fraud. In this case it’s a bogus product called Sosatec Wellbalancer. This video features Richard Saunders of the Australian Skeptics.
Sosatec Bionics Ltd sell pendants and products (“Wellbalancers”) to protect against what they claim is harmful radiation emitted by mobile phones and WiFi – claims which are highly questionable. The scaremongering around mobile phone radiation provokes unfounded health fears in the general public. We witnessed David Bendall (CEO and founder of Sosatec) supposedly demonstrating the effects of his product, using physical demonstrations which we felt were, at best, misleading.
We have reported Sosatec’s claims to the Advertising Standards Authority.
Read Sosatec’s full response and find out more at http://goodthinkingsociety.org/good-t…
Originally posted June 12, 2012.
|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?
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:
- Part 1 (English)
- Part 2 (English via MicroSoft Translator)
- Part 3 (English via MicroSoft Translator)
- Part 4 (English via MicroSoft Translator)
- Part 5 (English via MicroSoft Translator)
- Part 6 (English via MicroSoft Translator)
- Part 7 (English via MicroSoft Translator)
- Part 8 (English via MicroSoft Translator)
Later this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture may approve the Arctic Granny and Arctic Golden, the first genetically modified apples to hit the market. Although it will probably be another two years before the non-browning fruits appears in stores, at least one producer is already scrambling to label its apples GMO-free.
The looming apple campaign is just the latest salvo in the ongoing war over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—one that’s grown increasingly contentious.
[ . . . ]
But the truth is, GMOs have been studied intensively, and they look a lot more prosaic than the hype contends.
[ . . . ]
So what, exactly, do consumers have to fear? To find out, Popular Science chose 10 of the most common claims about GMOs and interviewed nearly a dozen scientists. Their collective answer: not much at all.
Continue reading: the 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked
Recently the British tabloid Daily Mirror published an article online about this claim made by a alleged former US Marine (a claim that sounds more like a half decent science fiction novel rather than a true account) about how he allegedly spent 17 years on Mars…
The original story was published on a website called ExoNews TV (a UFO conspiracy theorist website) on April 3 of this year. Why the Daily Mail took so long to write up their own crazy story nearly three months after the original crazy story was published, who knows?
Maybe they just found out about it, maybe they were having a slow “news” day (ofcourse the Daily Mirror is not really known for publishing actual news or news that’s truthful) maybe they thought that now was the time to publish it.
The original story from ExoNews TV is an account told by a person whom calls himself “Captain Kaye” or “Captain K” (you can listen to him recalling his story here) and whom claims to be a former Marine that spent 17 years of a 20 year military career on Mars.
Now such claims have been made before. Infact several people have claimed to have gone to Mars and back over the years, or claimed to have “knowledge” of bases on Mars. The problem with all of those claims are that the people who made them are either liars, seriously deluded, or both.
I believe this “Captain Kaye” is the first type, and for several reasons.
First he claims that our government has technology that is probably centuries ahead of our current technological level, and yet he gives an audio interview (he never shows his face) to a conspiracy theorist website.
Why the heck would he give an audio only interview and give a fake name and not have a video interview and a give out his real name . . .
In 2003, Barbra Streisand frantically tried to censor pictures of her home in Malibu after someone posted them online. In 2003, millions of people saw pictures of Barbra Streisand’s home in Malibu. In what became known as the Streisand effect, attempts to suppress information about something usually backfires and leads to even more publicity for the supposedly secret thing.
There is a strong argument in the weather community that we should ignore the growing number of people who sincerely believe that there is a worldwide governmental conspiracy to control the weather through, among other means, “chemtrails.” Bringing attention to their cause, one may argue, only helps to attract more attention and thereby more adherents to this particular brand of anti-science.
While that is probably true for a small number of people, ignoring the conspiracy theorists only makes them scream louder for attention through the Streisand Effect. The best way to remedy a situation isn’t to bottle it up and pretend that it isn’t happening, but rather to shine light on it and expose the silliness for what it really is.
If you’re not familiar with the chemtrail conspiracy theory, let me fill you in real quick. The thin, wispy clouds left behind by high-flying aircraft are known as contrails, short for condensation trails. These clouds are left behind as a result of the warm, moist exhaust of the plane’s engines meeting the extremely cold temperatures of the upper atmosphere. It’s a similar principle behind why you can see your breath on cold mornings.
Contrails appear and disappear based on the moisture content of the air through which the plane is passing. If the upper atmospheric air is moist, the plane will leave a contrail that could last hours and spread out into a deck of cirrus. If the air is extremely dry, it might not leave a contrail at all.
Since about the mid-1990s, there’s a subset of people who believe that these contrails are really chemtrails, or trails of vaporized chemicals being sprayed into the atmosphere by aircraft that are really flying around with with tanks full of chemicals rather than passengers. These alleged chemtrails are the work of any number of groups: governments, companies, Jews, you name it. The ultimate goal differs depending on whom you ask, but the two biggest strains of thought are that the chemtrails exist to control the weather or make the populace sick.
For most people with a basic level of science education, the idea is absurd, but the conspiracy theorists truly believe that these chemicals are being sprayed to control the weather, make the population sick, or partake in other “geoengineering” activities.
Back to the theorists themselves. Take last week’s post on chemtrails, for example. It attracted a good bit of attention in the conspiracy circles, and quite a bit of ire directed towards me. Most of it is innocuous, with the typical name calling and impassioned cries of “you’re a shill and you’re wrong, we have the real truth!”
Underneath the vitriol, you can sense that there’s something…wrong, for lack of a better way to put it. For the most part these are not the rantings of people who have mental health issues or who are angry or have an agenda, but rather they are scared. They truly, deeply believe that there are people spraying us from above, and they are scared.
When you’re scared, you only accept what you want to hear from people. When the nurse tells you that the needle won’t hurt, you smile because that’s what you want to hear even though you know it’s going to hurt anyway. The conspiracy theorists don’t want to hear that their fears are irrational. They want a noble soothsayer to tell them that they’re not buying into a bunch of manure and that somehow, someway, it’s going to be all right because they have the truth.
Too bad most scientists agree this conspiracy theory is completely bogus.
Every so often at WJTV NEWS CHANNEL 12 the newsroom gets a frantic emails from someone asking us this: “Why in the world are we not exposing the government for spraying chemicals into the air?”
That is a serious accusation.
Too bad most scientists agree this conspiracy theory is completely bogus. Jacob Kittilstad looks to the sky this MYSTERY MONDAY.
The ‘Chemtrails’ videos litter the internet. The ones where conspiracy theorists claim the government – or another shady group controlling the world – is seeding the sky with dangerous chemicals.
Reason WHY range from weather control to poisoning the public.
“The notion of it is silly on so many levels,” Dr. Andrew Mercer, Assistant Professor in the Department of Geo-Science at Mississippi State University, said.
Dr. Mercer’s area’s of expertise include expertise in statistical climatology, statistical meteorology, synoptic scale/large scale meteorology, and severe weather meteorology.
“It’s not mentioned anywhere in the peer-review literature. It’s not ever taught in a weather or climate course. It never even existed prior to the 90’s. Nobody had even ever mentioned the term prior to the 90’s,” Dr. Mercer said.
“And the process that forms the contrails is very well understood,” Dr. Mercer said.
Yep – you read it.
Google ‘cancer’ and you’ll be faced with millions of web pages. And the number of YouTube videos you find if you look up ‘cancer cure’ is similarly vast.
The problem is that much of the information out there is at best inaccurate, or at worst dangerously misleading. There are plenty of evidence-based, easy to understand pages about cancer, but there are just as many, if not more, pages spreading myths.
And it can be hard to distinguish fact from fiction, as much of the inaccurate information looks and sounds perfectly plausible. But if you scratch the surface and look at the evidence, many continually perpetuated ‘truths’ become unstuck.
In this post, we want to set the record straight on 10 cancer myths we regularly encounter. Driven by the evidence, not by rhetoric or anecdote, we describe what the reality of research actually shows to be true.
[ … ]
Myth 1: Cancer is a man-made, modern disease
It might be more prominent in the public consciousness now than in times gone by, but cancer isn’t just a ‘modern’, man-made disease of Western society. Cancer has existed as long as humans have. It was described thousands of years ago by Egyptian and Greek physicians, and researchers have discovered tell-tale signs of cancer in a 3,000-year-old skeleton.
The simple fact is that more people are living long enough to develop cancer because of our success in tackling infectious diseases and other historical causes of death such as malnutrition. It’s perfectly normal for DNA damage in our cells to build up as we age, and such damage can lead to cancer developing.
We’re also now able to diagnose cancers more accurately, thanks to advances in screening, imaging and pathology.
Yes, lifestyle, diet and other things like air pollution collectively have a huge impact on our risk of cancer – smoking for instance is behind a quarter of all cancer deaths in the UK – but that’s not the same as saying it’s a modern, man-made disease. There are plenty of natural causes of cancer – for example, one in six worldwide cancers is caused by viruses and bacteria.
Myth 2: Superfoods prevent cancer
Blueberries, beetroot, broccoli, garlic, green tea… the list goes on. Despite thousands of websites claiming otherwise, there’s no such thing as a ‘superfood’. It’s a marketing term used to sell products and has no scientific basis.
That’s not to say you shouldn’t think about what you eat. Some foods are clearly healthier than others. The odd blueberry or mug of green tea certainly could be part of a healthy, balanced diet. Stocking up on fruits and veg is a great idea, and eating a range of different veg is helpful too, but the specific vegetables you choose doesn’t really matter.
Our bodies are complex and cancer is too, so it’s gross oversimplification to say that any one food, on its own, could have a major influence over your chance of developing cancer.
The steady accumulation of evidence over several decades points to a simple, but not very newsworthy fact that the best way to reduce your risk of cancer is by a series of long-term healthy behaviours such as not smoking, keeping active, keeping a healthy body weight and cutting back on alcohol.
Myth 3: ‘Acidic’ diets cause cancer
Some myths about cancer are surprisingly persistent, despite flying in the face of basic biology. One such idea is that overly ‘acidic’ diets cause your blood to become ‘too acidic’, which can increase your risk of cancer. The proposed answer: increase your intake of healthier ‘alkaline’ foods like green vegetables and fruits (including, paradoxically, lemons).
This is biological nonsense. True, cancer cells can’t live in an overly alkaline environment, but neither can any of the other cells in your body.
Blood is usually slightly alkaline. This is tightly regulated by the kidneys within a very narrow and perfectly healthy range. It can’t be changed for any meaningful amount of time by what you eat. And while eating green veg is certainly healthy, that’s not because of any effect on how acid or alkaline your body is.
There is something called acidosis. This is a physiological condition that happens when your kidneys and lungs can’t keep your body’s pH (a measure of acidity) in balance. It is often the result of serious illness or poisoning. It can be life-threatening and needs urgent medical attention, but it’s not down to overly acidic diets.
We know that the immediate environment around cancer cells (the microenvironment) can become acidic. This is due to differences in the way that tumours create energy and use oxygen compared with healthy tissue. Researchers are working hard to understand how this happens, in order to develop more effective cancer treatments.
But there’s no good evidence to prove that diet can manipulate whole body pH, or that it has an impact on cancer.
MORE – – –
One of the enduring zombified tropes of the junk science world is that the rate of cancer in people is higher today than it was in the past. Depending on the one screaming this myth, this rate of cancer increase is a result of A) vaccines, B) GMO crops, C) pasteurized milk, D) non-organic foods, or E) everything.
To be certain, there are a few things that do cause cancer, like smoking, asbestos, and obesity (and there are a lot of causes of obesity, it might be impossible to link the cause of obesity directly with cancer). Here and there, you might run across a study that mentions one thing or another may or may not increase or reduce the risk of cancer. But most of those studies are one-off primary research, usually using small groups, providing little clinical evidence that you may or may not be able to increase or decrease the risk of cancer. Wait until we can find these studies in large systematic reviews, before deciding that this or that may or may not increase or decrease the risk of cancer.
Let’s go find out what the evidence tells us about the cancer rate. Let’s see if there are any real peer-reviewed articles that do a careful analysis of cancer rates over 100 years in the USA. Without much effort, I found one with the obscure and complex title of, “The decline in US cancer mortality in people born since 1925.” The paper by Kort et al., and published in Cancer Research in late 2009, reviewed data reported by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, was obtained from WHO Statistical Information System (WHOSIS). They examined the incidence (rate) and mortality from various cancers from individuals born in 1925 and after.
What the authors found was that rate of Cancer in each age group is holding roughly constant. However, since society as a whole is aging, overall cancer incidence is increasing slightly.
Well, the results are pretty clear. The rates of cancer for each age cohort appears to be flat, slightly increasing, or slightly decreasing. Overall, across all age groups, the cancer incidence is nearly flat (although the numbers are higher because the US population is larger and older than it was 60 years ago).
The idea that “mysterious deaths” circle around major events or people is central to the mythology of conspiracy theories. From the Clintons and Barack Obama to the JFK assassination and 9/11 to whistleblowing journalists and UFO researchers, those with their eyes opened believe the Globalist Controllers have the power to kill anyone, anywhere and make it look like an accident or suicide.
So when a cluster of bankers and major players in the financial industry died within a few weeks 2014, it raised eyebrows. Even more bizarre is that many of them worked for JP Morgan, are of similar ages and died by either unknown or self-inflicted causes.
Nine “banksters” all dying mysteriously and all within the same short span of time. What’s going on here? Are loose ends being tied up? Were they about to go public about something terrible? Is another economic crash around the corner or something even worse, like a financial reset, foreign currency scandal or total economic collapse? Did these poor souls know things they weren’t supposed to?
When examining these so called “death lists” it’s important not to mistake coincidence for conspiracy. It’s also important to get past the click-bait headlines and “just asking questions” ethos of websites in need of ad revenue.
Sure, “nine bankers mysteriously dying in a month” sounds weird and creepy. But every death that occurs for reasons other than natural causes is inherently “mysterious” until the reasons for why it happened are determined. So is there something else that explain this string of deaths, other than “they were taken out by the Powers That Be?”
Let’s take a look at the lists, and then we can go from there. In the last month, three JP Morgan employees died, all with different positions and in different cities. They are:
- Gabriel Magee, 39, vice president, corporate and investment bank technology, London, January 28, jumped off a building
- Ryan Henry Crane, 37, executive director, New York, February 3, unknown causes
- Li Junjie, 33, finance, Hong Kong, February 18, jumped off a building
Other sources then add a number of names to the list, anywhere between six and nine bankers who dies under “mysterious circumstances.” This is the list that’s most commonly being used on sites trying to make a connection between the deaths:
- David Bird, 55, Wall Street Journal writer covering OPEC, New Jersey, January 11, went missing on walk
- Tim Dickenson, age unknown, Communications director at Swiss Re AG, London, January 21, unknown causes
- William Broeksmit, 58, former senior risk manager at Deutsche Bank, London, January 26, suicide by hanging
- Karl Slym, 51, managing director of Tata Motors, Bangkok, January 27, death by jumping out window
- Mike Dueker, 50, chief economist at Russell Investments, Washington State, January 31, death by falling
- Richard Talley, 57, founder of American Title Services, Denver, February 4, shot himself with nail gun
- James Stuart, Jr., 70, Former National Bank of Commerce CEO, Scottsdale, February 19, unknown causes
Even just a cursory glance at the list turns the “nine dead banksters” narrative into a shambles. Two of the names, Bird and Slym, had nothing to do with banks or banking, working in journalism and the automotive industry. Two of the others, Broeksmit and Stuart, were . . .
It’s surprisingly easy to trick someone into believing they’ve seen something paranormal.
The first time Marthe Béraud was caught faking paranormal activity during a séance, she was 23 years old. She claimed she developed the ability to commune with the dead shortly after her fiancé died, five years earlier, and she began holding séances for the public. During these sessions, a “spirit” named Bien Boa, whom Béraud claimed was a 300-year-old Brahmin Hindu, materialized, sometimes moving about the room and touching people. Photographs of the séances would make Boa look an awful lot like a cardboard cutout, in some cases, and in others, like a living man draped in fabric and wearing a fake beard.
In 1906, a newspaper printed an account of an Arab man known as Areski, then working as a coachman at the villa where Béraud lived and held séances, who copped to having been hired to play the part of Bien Boa. Her hand forced, Béraud admitted to concocting the hoax. Then she changed her name to Eva Carrière (or Eva C) so nobody would know she’d been caught, traveled to Munich, and started holding hoaxed séances again, immediately. She is, without question, my favorite early-20th-century con artist, “fake psychic medium” category.
Like many other so-called spiritualists of the day, Carrière’s credibility relied heavily on her supposed production of “ectoplasm,” or a spiritual energy that oozes from orifices on the medium’s body and takes shape, allowing the medium to interact with said spirit. Peruse the image results for this one (and I cannot recommend doing so enough) and you will see a series of black and white photos of people with a white substance pouring out of their mouths, or their noses, or their ears.
Soon Carrière met a widow named Juliette Bisson, 25 years her senior, and they started both sleeping together and faking séances together. Or, as Wikipedia puts it: “Juliette Bisson and Carrière were in a sexual relationship together, and they both worked in collaboration with each other to fake the ectoplasm and eroticize their male audience.” These are two things I would not have thought simultaneously achievable! I am so impressed by this information.
Anyway, one of Carrière’s tricks was to give her ectoplasm a face, which she did by cutting faces out of newspapers, drawing on them in an attempt to mask their identities, and attaching them to the typical muslin or a similar white material. But photographs taken during her sessions caught up with Carrière, as some of the faces she used were recognized, and her fraud was again exposed, in a 1913 article in the Viennese newspaper Neue Wiener Tagblatt. Among the famous faces she’d used: actress Mona Delza, King Ferdinand of Bulgaria, and Woodrow Wilson.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT should take more, in this modern day and age, to trick someone into thinking she’s seen something paranormal. In a study published in the British Journal of Psychology in 2003, a group of three semi-mischievous researchers aimed to determine what it takes. Participants (who, prior to the experiment, identified themselves as either “believers” or “disbelievers” in the paranormal) were split into groups and made to sit through faked séances in a pitch-black room. In the middle of the room was a table, upon which sat a few objects treated with luminous paint. These were made to move a few inches by researchers, who hid in the dark and prodded the objects with sticks. How they got anyone to believe they’d seen something paranormal this way is beyond me, but somehow, 16 percent of them did. Most of that group identified as believers, but not all.
More interesting still is the fact that roughly 20 percent of the participants (30 percent of believers and a surprisingly high eight percent of disbelievers) reported experiencing additional unusual phenomena during the faked séances, beyond anything that could be attributed to actions taken by the researchers. They reported feeling as though they had entered an “unusual psychological state,” feeling cold shivers running down their bodies, sensing an energetic presence, and noticing weird smells. They were thoroughly spooked, and fairly easily, at the hands of researchers who faked the entire thing.
Now it’s official: The Bermuda Triangle is a bunch of bunk.
Most of us already suspected that was a myth. Yet, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just posted a story declaring the Devil’s Triangle, as it’s also known, is no different than any other open ocean region — and that foul weather and poor navigation are likely to blame for any mishaps.
“There is no evidence that mysterious disappearances occur with any greater frequency in the Bermuda Triangle than in any other large, well-traveled area of the ocean,” the agency stated this month on noaa.gov.
Ben Sherman, spokesman for NOAA’s National Ocean Service, said the agency wrote the story as part of an educational program where it responds to readers’ questions.
The story was based on information from the U.S. Navy and U.S. Guard, which make no bones about saying the mythological area is so much balderdash.
“The Coast Guard does not recognize the existence of the so-called Bermuda Triangle as a geographic area of specific hazard to ships or planes,” the military branch said. “In a review of many aircraft and vessel losses in the area over the years, there has been nothing discovered that would indicate that casualties were the result of anything other than physical causes.”
Not everyone is in full agreement, including Minerva Bloom.
She’s a volunteer docent at the Naval Air Station Fort Lauderdale Museum, which pays homage to Flight 19, perhaps the highest-profile incident involving the Bermuda Triangle. The five U.S. Navy torpedo bombers took off from Fort Lauderdale on a routine training exercise in December 1945, never to return.
“I don’t think there are aliens or anything like that, but I do think there’s something going on there,” Bloom said.
This is a seven (7) part series by Myles Power debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
This is part 1 – Free fall and how the towers collapsed – in the YouTube playlist.
If you have the time, Myles is worth watching.
Myles Power confronts 9/11 truthers to see if their claims can stand up. In this video he discusses the World Trade Center’s Design to withstand airplane impacts, fuel or oxygen-starved fires, how the World Trade Center’s Collapse, the twin towers falling at free fall speed and the damage to the lobbies.
Basic maths fail
I said if you triple the speed, you get eight times the energy. That should be nine times!
Reblogged from Is that a FEMA Camp?
Recently the old FEMA camp myth has once again reared it’s ugly head around internet, this time making it appear that President Obama has ordered $1,000,000,000 worth of “disposable coffins”, as you can clearly see from this screen shot below:
And from this article here.
When I was reading the article one of the first things that clued me in that this was just a bunch of BS and anti-government fear mongering were the pictures.
All of these pictures have been spreading around the internet for years now in various conspiracy theorist websites and forums.
Despite what the website wants you to believe, these pictures are actually pretty old. Infact they’ve been around since the George W. Bush administration, as have these claims.
The pictures were also taken at a storage facility for Vantage, a company that manufactures plastic coffin liners, not some government storage facility.
OR . . . Static Versus Dynamic Loading
By Dave Burton via Burton Systems Software – (burtonsys.com)
Some 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.
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!
Download HD version of this video for reposting: http://tinyurl.com/7rjrsjr
- “You Know You Are a Conspiracy Theorist If…” (illuminutti.com)