Skeptic Project

(Note: this is Muertos, a guest blogger on ConspiracyScience.com, email muertos@gmail.com).

The Zeitgeist Movement really doesn't like ConspiracyScience.com.  We have now been afforded official recognition by Zeitgeist Movement leader Peter J. Merola (who calls himself "Peter Joseph"), who, in a post on his forum entitled "ConspiracyScience.com: A Case Study in Intellectual Inhibition," effectively called us mentally ill.  This blog is a response to his statement.

The original post is here and was evidently written while Merola was stuck in Europe during the Iceland volcanic ash cloud incident.  This will be a long post, as Merola's initial criticism was, but it's worth examining his attitudes toward this website and the people who post frequently on its forums (such as me).

"Since I have been stuck in the UK, with only so much I can do, I have been occasionally reviewing the content and social activity on a website called ConspiracyScience.com. The issue I want to address here has nothing to do with the supposed "Debunking" of my films on the website, but rather the tactics, mentality and what I can only classify as a biased based mental illness of its author, Edward L Winston, along the near pathological nature of the rather Anti-TZM community it has fostered. I feel there is a great deal to learn from it in regard to the larger social problem of culturally influenced mental illness by way of memes and the circular reinforcement (feedback loops) that results within self-isolated groups."

I like how the "debunking" of Merola's Zeitgeist films is referred to in quotes, and just in case you didn't get the message he precedes it with the word "supposed," thus indicating that he feels Edward hasn't really refuted anything despite the fact that Merola has not, at least to my knowledge, addressed any of the issues Edward raised in his very comprehensive analysis of the Zeitgeist films.  A defense of Edward's analysis is not the point of this blog, but you can see from the length and detail of Edward's article that there's a great deal of factual material that Merola has gotten very wrong, and to date he has not retracted any of it; nor, at least to my knowledge, will he debate Edward on the factual points of his movies or even address any of these criticisms beyond hinting that nothing has really been debunked.

The real meat of this statement of course is the charge of "culturally influenced mental illness" and "biased based mental illness."  I'd assume that Merola would probably say that I suffer from the same "mental illness" as Edward does, since I disagree with Merola's claims in his films and I strongly oppose the unacknowledged goal of the Zeitgeist Movement to push conspiracy theories and conspiracy ideology.  According to Merola, we suffer from this illness because we are in a "self-isolated group" of crusty, disagreeable trolls whose minds are closed to anything new.  In fact he goes on to use ConspiracyScience.com, its creator and its forum regulars to illustrate just how sick he believes society really is:

"1)The first we will call "Ideological Bigotry"- thus loosely defined as the dismissal/denouncing of a person, based on the mere presentation of conclusions which are outside of the other person's preferred reality. In regard to Edward L Winston and many of the people participating in his community, a very common use of the derogatory term "Conspiracy Theorist" serves as a mantra of 'presupposed rejection' regarding certain forms of information. In other words, anyone who brings up a certain 'type' of information which might be susceptible to this "taboo" category, is often reduced to a "Conspiracy Theorist". What this really is, again, is Ideological Bigotry - a form of "opinion racism" if you will. Suddenly anyone who has questions about an historical act, which is contrary to the prevailing view, and beyond some biased, subjective threshold deemed "rational"- is likely just an nutty "Conspiracy Theorist". This is a powerful tool, which has been used by political propagandists since the dawn of time."

As you can see from these statements, Merola's style of debate and argument is to re-define commonly accepted concepts into terms favorable to his point of view, and then to associate opponents with emotionally-charged negative terms such as "Bigotry" and "taboo."  Here he says that we use the term "conspiracy theorist" as a derogatory shorthand for any information we don't like.  The association of this concept with an ugly-sounding--but ultimately meaningless--term like "Ideological Bigotry" completes the picture of ConspiracyScience.com regulars as closed-minded troglodytes flinging baseless epithets at anyone who says anything we dislike.  This is a picture commonly painted of debunkers by believers in conspiracy theories who blanch at the term "conspiracy theorist" and who are frustrated that we just don't take their theories seriously.  Merola is more articulate than most conspiracy theorists but presents no more substance than they do.

Missing here, for example, is the slightest shred of appreciation of why debunkers like me do what we do.  Personally, I hate conspiracy theories because they do violence to logical thought and critical thinking and because they are corrosive to democratic ideals and reasoned political discourse.  But what I call a "conspiracy theory" is far less arbitrary than Merola suggests.  A "conspiracy theory" is a fantastic and irrational allegation, unsupported by empirical evidence, of wrongdoing by a cabal of powerful and evil forces.  The key words in this definition are unsupported by empirical evidence.  The "9/11 was an inside job" theories are unsupported by empirical evidence.  (For a specific example of a claim Merola pushes that is unsupported by empirical evidence, take for instance the assertion in Zeitgeist I that six of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive--a ludicrous claim that crumbles when one conducts even a cursory investigation into the facts.  This is by no means the only example, but again, I don't want to rehash Edward's complete debunking in this blog).  I don't reject conspiracy theories because I dislike the message or because it goes against the "official story."  I reject them because they didn't happen, and because believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories--or other conspiracy theories like "the moon landings were faked," "the world is secretly run by the Illuminati" or "global warming is a hoax dreamed up by Al Gore"--is inherently irrational.

Conspiracy theorists love to denounce skeptics on the same terms Merola uses, that is, that we reject out of hand anything that does not comport with our predetermined conclusions.  Most conspiracy theorists make reference to this concept by referring to non-believers in conspiracy theories as "brainwashed," "asleep" or, my personal favorite, "sheeple," meaning that we're so pacified by an officially-dominated information structure that we are incapable of seeing anything beyond it.  (A similar view promoted by less experienced conspiracy theorists is that skeptics refuse to believe anything that's not on CNN or Fox News).  The irony of this view is that it's an illustration in practice of exactly what Merola complains of himself!  If you don't believe conspiracy theories, you are sheeple.  Period.  Sounds familiar, yes, Mr. Merola?

"The easiest way to stop people from investigating certain subject matters is to create fear. In a world driven by public image, many people today will not even consider alternative theories to certain events, such as 911 and like, because they simply don't want to be debased as a "Conspiracy Theorist." This is a perfect tactic of social influence. As far as Edward L Winston, I don't feel he even understands what he is doing. It is a conditioned response. I think he is genuine in his disposition. It is, again, a form of mental illness, just like a racist feels when encountering what they might consider an "inferior" race."

Here again is Merola's frame of the words "conspiracy theorist" and "conspiracy theory" as equivalent to racism and bigotry, while completely missing the substance of the debate between conspiracy theories and objective reality.  Edward is evidently "conditioned" to reject conspiracy theories in the same way that racists are "conditioned" to reject people of other races.  Merola is once more hammering home the message that people who disbelieve conspiracy theories conduct absolutely no substantive evaluation of the theories they are rejecting, which is above all what he wants his followers to take away from his essay.  This superficial treatment is intended by Merola to communicate to his followers that anyone who disagrees with him, or disagrees with conspiracy theories, is as mindlessly reflexive in their reactions as hard-core racists are.  The message to the Zeitgeisters, therefore, is: "Never mind why people reject 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Their concerns are always baseless.  They're just closed-minded fools."

This view--that skeptics of conspiracy theorists and critics of the Zeitgeist Movement never conduct any substantive evaluation of what they're criticizing--serves to obliquely reinforce the conspiracy theorists' beliefs.  By suggesting that we who disagree with Zeitgeist do so superficially and reflexively establishes the paradigm that if we did bother to look deeper into the merits of these things, unquestionably we would be won over.  This attitude is prevalent on the Zeitgeist forums where I've often seen members state with apparent confidence that no one can really have any substantive disagreement with the Venus Project or the Zeitgeist Movement, that its goals and virtue are self-evident.  (Also self-evident is the supposed "greatness" and "brilliance" of Jacque Fresco.  Zeitgeisters universally react with hostility whenever anyone questions what Fresco has actually done in the real world or why he is worthy of praise as some sort of visionary).  Since the thesis of Merola's essay is unquestionably "those who disagree with me must have a screw loose," this conceit plays directly into the preconceived notions of the movement's superiority that Merola, above all, desires to preserve in the minds of his followers.

The problem with this view is two-fold. Obviously it's false; the creator and regulars of ConspiracyScience.com are, to the contrary, extremely experienced in evaluating conspiracy theories from the standpoint of rational and critical thinking.  Edward's debunking of Zeitgeist is the most comprehensive you can find on the net.  One of our regulars--who ironically was recently banned from the ZM forums--is a walking encyclopedia of 9/11 facts, and the totality and accuracy with which he can deflate 9/11 "controlled demolition" claims (which Merola seems to believe) is impressive.  Personally, I'm pretty knowledgeable about the JFK assassination and have studied it for a long time.  (I am also a former believer in a JFK assassination conspiracy, and it was precisely my interest in the supposed "facts" behind that view that led me to the realization that there is no evidence for a conspiracy).  So to suggest that we immediately reject things out of hand without any critical understanding is simply laughable.  Furthermore, I'm convinced Merola knows this; he's just trying to explain to his followers why comprehensive-sounding debunkings of his ridiculous films are not to be trusted.

The second problem with this view plays to a myopia virtually universal among conspiracy theorists: inability to tell credible sources from bad ones.  A conspiracy theorist will stumble across a video on YouTube containing some absurd claim they've never heard before and will assume that it must be true, or that it is at least as capable of being true as something heard from a more credible source.  The most powerful conspiracy theories--such as those proferred by Alex Jones and to some extent by Merola himself--will contain within them an explanation why no "mainstream" sources back them up (naturally, because those sources are tainted by "official" bias).  If you can't tell the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and something you saw on Prison Planet, naturally you wonder why people tend to believe the peer-reviewed journal and scoff at the Prison Planet video.  Conspiracy theorists also tend not to realize that something they saw on YouTube this week, although it may be a new video, is probably not a new theory.  Almost all of the spurious claims Merola makes in Zeitgeist I regarding 9/11 have been around since 2002.  The "bankers rule the world" conspiracy has been around for 100 years and the "Christ conspiracy" has been around longer than that.  Just because it surfaces in a new form doesn't mean it's new.  But to conspiracy theorists, it usually does.  So a skeptic who hears the "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" argument in 2010 will naturally roll their eyes and say, "Not that shit again," because he's been debunking that same claim since 2002 or 2003.  Consequently, the conspiracy theorist who just heard it for the first time last week will be shocked and say, "You're just dismissing it out of hand?  How do you know it's not true?"  This reinforces the view that Merola is taking of the skeptical community, that they never substantively review anything.

I will give Merola one thing: he knows very well the power and importance of words.  Take for example one of the bases of "support" he uses in Zeitgeist I for asserting similarities between Joseph and Jesus, in which the statement is made "Joseph was of 12 brothers and Jesus had 12 disciples."  Makes it sound like there's a huge parallel between Joseph and Jesus, doesn't it?  The way the sentence should read is, "Joseph had 11 brothers and Jesus had 12 disciples"--which is obviously a meaningless comparison.  But because Merola uses "of" instead of "had," he can use the "12" figure in each side of the sentence, and thus make it look significant, as well as fit into the neat "12" meme he likes to use.  He's carefully used the words to be able to fudge the whole idea and force an apparent similarity where none exists.  This is one small example of how careful he is with words, so it's no accident that in his denunciation of ConspiracyScience.com he frequently uses negatively-charged words like "racist," "inferior," "Bigotry" and the like.

Merola's next statement is interesting:

"So, if a prominent physicist stands up and claims contrary evidence to the current accepted reality of a certain phenomenon in this context, they are no longer a physicist- they are just a "Conspiracy Theorist"."

He doesn't name who he's talking about here, but I'm sure he's referring to Steven E. Jones, former BYU professor who wrote a paper trumpeting that evidence of explosives was found in "spheroids" he examined supposedly from WTC debris.  First, Steven E. Jones is not a prominent physicist; he was cashiered from the BYU faculty; and his findings have not been peer-reviewed, which means they aren't supported by other scientists.  In fact, Jones's theory is that explosive paint--yes, that's right, explosive paint--was applied to structural elements of the World Trade Center by persons unknown.  You can read all about this "prominent physicist" and his claims here.  But I guess casting aspersions on Jones's "research" is just my "ideological bigotry" acting up again.

What is significant about Merola's invocation of Jones is that it shows that he (Merola) is still a dyed-in-the-wool 9/11 Truther.  No one outside of conspiracy theorist circles treats Jones's work as worthy of serious consideration.  Why is it significant that Merola is telegraphing his continued support for 9/11 conspiracy theories?  Because it indicates that he has not at all "backed away" from the conspiracy positions taken in Zeitgeist I, as some posters on his forum seem to think.  If Merola is still worshiping at the altar of Steven Jones today, in 2010, it's a strong indication that he believes the conspiracy theories associated with Jones's unsupportable position are still totally valid.  This too may be a subtle cue to his supporters: "Don't worry, Zeitgeisters.  I still believe in 9/11 Truth as much as you all do!"  He can't say that openly so long as he's pining for some sort of mainstream support for the Zeitgeist Movement, because he knows that most people (quite rightly) shut down as soon as someone starts spewing conspiracy theories at them.  But because a large amount of Merola's constituency in the Zeitgeist Movement consists of conspiracy theorists--most of whom, by Merola's own admission, were initially attracted to the movement because of the conspiracy aspects of Zeitgeist I--he has to placate them and make sure that they stay on board.

"If people are mere "Conspiracy Theorists" since they have different conclusions than the prevailing order in regard to some events, then it is only logical that all those who denounce such ideas be labeled "Coincidence Theorists"! Obviously, that is a joke, but I hope the point is clear."

I don't know who coined the term "Coincidence Theorist," but it's been tossed around quite a lot on the ConspiracyScience.com forum, and always by conspiracy theorists.  It's a joke because debunkers refer to conspiracy theorists as "CTs" and "Coincidence Theorist" results in the same acronym, but it's also largely a knee-jerk response by conspiracy theorists who usually, to one degree or another, view certain events as falling into a pattern and then cite the supposed pattern as "evidence" that certain events were staged or predetermined.  Simple example: some conspiracy theorists believe that the death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone in October 2002 in a plane crash, just days before the Congressional elections in which authorization for the Iraq war was a major issue, was some sort of sneaky assassination.  This despite the absence of a single shred of evidence of foul play, but in conspiracy-land, the statistical unlikelihood of a vociferously anti-war senator dying in a plane crash days before an election in which the war is a major issue itself becomes evidence of foul play, simply because "it's too wild to be a coincidence."  This trope is used by conspiracy theorists, desperate for any epithet to use against debunkers, to paint non-believers in conspiracy theories as gullible dupes who will believe any story, however outrageous or illogical, so long as it's transmitted to them by an "official source."  Ironically, it is conspiracy theorists, not debunkers, who exhibit this tendency in practice.  As we see very often on ConspiracyScience.com, if a claim comes out of Alex Jones's mouth, there are a large number of people out there who assume it must be true, however outlandish.

"2) Point two worthy of noting, has to do with a very common phenomenon of "Attacking the Messenger", which is really just a variation of the aforementioned issue. Only this time it is more personal and based on finding some type of association which would serve to discredit a particular person directly. For example, I often hear: "Peter Joseph is just a a "college dropout" with "no credentials" - therefore there is no need to even regard his research in a serious way"."

In this passage Merola exhibits another extremely common trait of conspiracy theorists, that of labeling any questioning of his credibility as an "ad hominem attack" ("ad hominem" are conspiracy theorists' favorite Latin words).  As a rule, conspiracy theorists are usually incapable, whether willfully or innocently, of distinguishing between a credibility issue and a personal attack.  It is entirely legitimate to question the credibility of a person presenting a particular fact, so long as the credibility question is relevant to what they're talking about.  Let me illustrate:

QUESTIONING CREDIBILITY:

Alex Jones: "We're going to have martial law and one world government by 2011!"

Muertos: "Alex, you predicted martial law in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and on down the line. Why should we believe that this prediction will be any more accurate than any of your others?"

AD HOMINEM:

Dylan Avery: "Larry Silverstein blew up WTC7."

Muertos: "Dylan, your new hairstyle is retarded."

See the difference?

Merola continually harps on the criticism he has received for being a "college dropout" or not having any credentials in sociology, economics or any of the fields he opines on.  (He whines about this at length in the "Who Is Peter Joseph" video put out in February 2010).  On the face of it he seems to be advancing a reasonable argument: isn't a premise valid no matter where it originates?  To some extent this is true.  I call this the "Hitler's Volkswagen" argument: just because the Volkswagen was originally Hitler's idea doesn't mean all Volkswagens are evil.  But taken to extremes this idea would mean that the guy who's hawking a cure for cancer on the Internet should be just as worthy of your consideration for treatment as your oncologist who says you need chemo and radiation therapy.  In the real world, credentials do matter; if they didn't, our society would not value experts in any field and we would all be trying to cure cancer with roots, leaves and old-wives-tale remedies.  You want the person treating your cancer to know something about cancer, don't you?  Similarly, shouldn't a guy who's pushing a blueprint for the future of mankind have at least some demonstrable understanding of the past of mankind, as well as social dynamics and economics?  In seeking to demonize anyone who criticizes him Merola glosses over this point and categorically rejects the legitimacy of anyone questioning his credibility on anything.  It's another easy way to paint his critics as deranged, closed-minded bigots.

"Other symptoms of what appear to be a pathological mental illness in this regard, is by creating a means which avoids having to research anything thoroughly. A statement such as 'Acharya S has been discredited by the academic community, therefore we don't have to followup on her sources.' is another variation."

This is another conspiracist attempt to deflect credibility criticism.  It's closely related to the inability of conspiracy theorists to distinguish credible sources from spurious ones.  Acharya S. (true name D.M. Murdock) is a pseudo-historian whose works have been discredited by the academic community.  One of her major sources is the mysterious "Madame Blavatsky," a psychic medium and well-known crystal-ball psychic of the late 19th century who was totally discredited even in her own time.  Using the "Hitler's Volkswagen" argument in Acharya S.'s favor, Merola pleads for us not to reject her on that basis, while completely ignoring the question of whether Acharya S. and her source Madame Blavatsky deserve to be taken seriously by the academic community.  Indeed, in Merola's view, Acharya S.'s scholarship (much like his own) should be judged on an "innocent until proven guilty" (or, "credible until proven otherwise") standard.  Academic research works on precisely the opposite principle, however.  In the peer-review process, your assertions are assumed to be a pack of lies until and unless you prove that what you say has factual support.  This is why graduate students have to defend their dissertations in front of a panel of their peers.

So, what would Merola have us do about Acharya S.?  In his view we are not allowed to make reference to the numerous debunkings, dating from the 19th century, of Madame Blavatsky's parlor tricks involving clairvoyance, levitation, out-of-body projection and the like.  No; despite the fact that Blavatsky was exposed as a fraud 120 years ago, we're supposed to accept her as a credible source, and judge Acharya S. to be a credible, reasonable and professional scholar whose theories must be accorded the status of proven fact.  If we do not do that, we're projecting "Intellectual Bigotry."

In his impassioned defense of Acharya S., Merola, in his inability (or disinclination) to tell credible sources from bad ones, glosses over the fact that the reason Acharya S. never got out of the starting gate as a respected scholar is because her theories are bullshit.  Let's take an opposite example: David McCullough is a respected historian.  That doesn't mean he can spew any old garbage he wants and pass it off as legitimate history simply because the name "David McCullough" has academic cachet.  I guarantee you that if Acharya S. submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed journal under David McCullough's name espousing the same theories she is known for, that paper would be rejected and somebody would call up poor David McCullough and ask him if he's feeling all right.

Merola, however, does not understand this, possibly because he hasn't been through the academic process and thus has no idea how it works.  What he winds up doing, therefore, is fostering a sort of populist anti-intellectualism.  In his world experts have no value.  (Why, then, are we supposed to be impressed with Jacque Fresco?)  Anyone can do brain surgery.  Academics are an insular "old boys club," and academic respectability is an arbitrary thing that can be granted or withheld by the whim of an elite mob, sort of the way popularity in high school is bestowed artificially by being voted Prom Queen.  Anyone with any serious understanding of academics, history or science would recognize this as the complete rubbish that it is.  Why does Merola, therefore, wallow in this gutter?  Because he has to convince his followers to categorically reject the views of people who tell them that he has no idea what he's talking about.

After flapping around for several paragraphs about how unfair Edward is to Acharya S., Merola finally reminds himself to get to a new point:

"3)Now, Edward L Winston aside, the final point to be made, which has been brought to my attention too many times at this stage, is the "Red Herring Angle" used by many of the members of his forum, which transfers their biases in regard to the sections on "Conspiracy" in my early film, to The Zeitgeist Movement itself, often saying something like "they are all just a bunch of conspiracy theorists at the TZM". There is no critical examination of any of my lectures, no critical examination of our 90 page Orientation Guide, etc. Nothing. It is dismissal by association in a profoundly biased way... which is yet another form of psychological denial."

This is a criticism that Zeitgeisters often use: with big wet puppy-dog eyes they plead, "Don't judge us on conspiracy theories...we really want to change the world with the Venus Project!"  Again, the intent is to paint critics as unfair fanatics.  By focusing on the conspiracy aspects of the movement, we are "missing the point," which is how wonderful the world could be if we remade it in Peter Merola and Jacque Fresco's image, and how we should all come together to implement this laudable goal.

This argument is totally disingenuous.  In truth, conspiracy theories are the very heart and soul of the Zeitgeist Movement.  I've blogged before about the primacy of conspiracy theories to the Zeitgeist Movement.  You cannot separate the goals of a movement from the major motivation that causes people to join it.  Merola claims he's all about the Venus Project now, and "the sections on 'conspiracy'" [note the quotes again!] "in my early film" are no longer relevant.  Yet he has admitted in his own words that Zeitgeist I and the conspiracy aspects are "the core generator of interest--still--to this day for the movement." By asking critics of the ZM to overlook the conspiracy aspects and focus on the Venus Project, Merola is asking us to accept that he has performed a bait-and-switch on his own members, and that they have willingly and enthusiastically accepted this deception.  I have a difficult time accepting that he would do that, and judging from the comments on the ZM forums--which are rife with 9/11 Truthers and conspiracy theorists of almost every stripe--it doesn't seem that he has.

Think about it.  What Merola wants you to believe is that this essential dialogue occurs between him and his members:

Merola (through Zeitgeist I): "WOW!  Look at these horrible conspiracies!  Jesus is a lie!  9/11 was an inside job!  Evil bankers rule the world!"

Conspiracy theorist: "AMAZING!  You're totally right!  You opened my eyes!  What do we do about these horrible things?"

Merola: "Join the Zeitgeist Movement and implement a resource-based economy!"

Conspiracy theorist: "OK!  I'm in!  Wow, we're going to change the world!"

Merola: "Yes, but remember that changing the world has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.  We're all about achieving a resource-based economy, and that ooky conspiracy stuff was just to get you to sign up for the movement, which has the same name as the conspiracy movie I showed you, and which I, the producer of that movie, am the leader of."

Conspiracy theorist: "OK!  Great!  I don't care about conspiracy theories anymore!  Let's go build a resource-based economy!"

So we, the critics, are asked to believe that Merola has totally turned the tables on his own members, and that none of them care any more about conspiracies, which is the reason they joined in the first place?

Let's see how much sense this makes by transferring the same dynamic to another issue.  Many people are passionate about animal rights.  Let's say I make an Internet movie called Wunderkind which is all about how puppies and kittens are being tortured in animal research facilities.  If Merola is right, here's how the dialogue between me and my followers would go:

Me (through the movie Wunderkind): "WOW!  Look at all this animal cruelty!  They're torturing puppies!  They're clubbing seals!  They're grinding up kitty cats!"

Animal rights activist: "AMAZING!  You're totally right!  You opened my eyes!  What do we do about these horrible things?"

Me: "Join the Wunderkind Movement and institute Communism!"

Animal rights activist: "OK!  I'm in!  Wow, we're going to change the world!"

Me: "Yes, but remember that changing the world has nothing to do with animal cruelty.  We're all about achieving Communism, and that ooky animal cruelty stuff was just to get you to sign up for the movement, which has the same name as the animal rights movie I showed you, and which I, the producer of that movie, am the leader of."

Animal rights activist: "OK!  Great!  I don't care about animal cruelty anymore!  Let's go achieve Communism!"

This is what Merola wants you to believe goes on in the Zeitgeist Movement.  Doesn't make any sense, does it?

What is truly unfortunate is that the Venus Project, an idea that originally had absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories, has now been hijacked by them.  Honestly, I really couldn't care less about the Venus Project.  I can't speak for Edward, but I certainly have no plans to conduct a "critical examination" of the 90-page "Orientation Guide."  Even if it's 100% true, I just don't care about it.  Merola pleading with me that he be judged on the content of his lectures or his "Orientation Guide" cannot excuse the fact that he is still pushing totally baseless conspiracy theories.  That is unacceptable.  If the Dalai Lama came to me preaching an unimpeachable message of peace and love, but also added that he thought 9/11 was an inside job, I would still denounce him as a conspiracy theorist and debunk his theory.  That's what we do here at ConspiracyScience.com.  We're not out there building bubble cities or programming computers to rule the world.  We debunk conspiracy theories.  If you want to avoid criticism for pushing conspiracy theories, what you have to do is very simple.  Denounce them unequivocally.  Disown the Zeitgeist films and change the name of the movement, and get Merola to call a press conference in which he oozes contrition about how sorry he is that he misled millions of people with his conspiracy movies.  Think that's going to happen?  Not on your life.  Why?  Because half (or more) of his movement would desert him instantly, and the conspiracy theorists would accuse him of selling out or (God forbid!) being "brainwashed."

Merola's argument--that we're focusing on the wrong thing--combined with his unwillingness to distance himself from the conspiracy aspects of his movement indicates a disturbing point of view on his part.  He seems to think that pushing conspiracy theories is perfectly OK and acceptable if you're doing it as part of a "good cause."  This seems to be an "ends justifies the means" approach, which frankly bothers me, and which is evident in a lot of Merola's public statements (and non-statements).  Despite his films being repeatedly debunked, he refuses to retract any of the factual errors in them more consequential than a typo.  That must be because he either believes his own factually faulty propaganda--which is, frankly, not a hopeful sign in the leader of a social movement--or that he thinks pushing factually spurious information is perfectly acceptable if it's done in the service of a positive goal.  Whichever one it is, his trustworthiness as the messenger of a bold new day for humanity is seriously compromised.

Moving toward the end of Merola's statement:

"Once again, please note that this isnt as much about the published content of the site itself and its direct attacks towards me and TZM... My concern here is really the cultural phenomenon of "mind lock" and the large scale mental illness which continues to stifle new information and hence intellectual growth. It is really quiet scary when you think about it, and it goes to show what an uphill battle something like The Zeitgeist Movement has to contend with."

So, there you have it.  If you disagree with the Zeitgeist Movement, you are suffering from "large-scale mental illness."  If you disagree with Peter Merola, you ought to have your head examined.  And precisely what credentials does Merola have to diagnose anyone with mental illness anyway?  Oh, yeah.  Sorry, I forgot the "Hitler's Volkswagen" argument.

"In the end, the merit of any idea should be based on the evidence available, scientifically analyzed in an objective way... not dismissed/clouded because the idea is contrary to the traditional, prevailing world views and values. If no one ever challenged anything the established orders decreed as the sole truth, people would still believe the world was flat."

This is merely a rehash of conspiracy theorists' "sheeple" argument spiced up with a lot of pseudo-sociological words.  This offhanded comment also demonstrates Merola's ignorance of epistemology: even in the Middle Ages not very many people really believed the world was flat.  But even assuming they did, it's another argument conspiracy theorists love to make: that anyone who rejects their baseless claims is being as willfully obstinate and closed-minded as the apocryphal Renaissance geographers who sneered at Columbus's idea that the world was round, despite demonstrable scientific and geographic evidence that it is.  Merola here again ignores the issue of factual support.  By casting skeptics of conspiracy theories as flat-Earthers he wants you to assume that all the facts are on their side and it's just "Intellectual Bigotry" that prevents us from considering them.  In fact it is conspiracy theories that suffer from a total lack of evidentiary support.  But that doesn't seem to matter to Peter Merola.

"The "Intellectual Inhibition" occurring in society is likely the number one barrier we have in presenting our case for RBE. Human beings are not rational, sadly, so I hope everyone understands what we mean when we say that education is the number one priority."

In this closing statement Merola draws a picture of the world that is carefully designed both to frighten his followers and to play into the chief conceit of conspiracy theorists: that they are privy to "secret truths" that no one else can or will see, and that they alone hold the key to the salvation of mankind.  See, look how badly the deck is stacked against you brave Zeitgeisters!  By connecting ConspiracyScience.com to what Merola characterizes as the larger problem of society, he also conveniently establishes an "us vs. them" mentality.  Society is wrong; the Zeitgeist Movement is right.  Those who disagree are mentally ill; those who agree are healthy and well-adjusted.  Edward Winston is evil; Peter Joseph is good.  This bunker mentality never bodes well for social movements, and it won't for this one.

Ultimately, that's what this is about: bunker mentality.  ConspiracyScience.com gets a tiny fraction of the page views that Zeitgeist-related websites get every day.  Being "sheeple," we debunkers aren't likely to convince many of the conspiracy theorists in the Zeitgeist Movement that what they believe in is without any factual support; many think we're disinformation, COINTELPRO or Illuminati shills, or at the very least a bunch of deranged crazies who dance around bonfires at midnight and gleefully plunge pins into voodoo dolls of Peter Merola and Jacque Fresco.  To the extent it is comforting to Zeitgeisters reading this article, we probably won't have much effect on the Zeitgeist Movement as a whole, though we do feel it is important to at least cast a critical eye on what that movement stands for and the factual inaccuracies of the movies that spawned it, so people who may not have heard of the movement will at least bring up a couple of hits on Google that present the facts as opposed to Merola's glossy spin.  And, contrary to what people may think, I have no fear that if Edward's site didn't exist or if I wasn't a debunker, the Zeitgeist Movement would take the world by storm and gain some sort of critical mass.  It won't.  I'm not that important, and neither is Edward.  The Zeitgeist Movement will collapse of its own accord without any help from its critics.  Merola could have just ignored Edward's site (the way Alex Jones does) and carried on as normal; it's doubtful he would have lost many followers.  We criticize Alex Jones all the time.  He doesn't pay any attention.  One time a caller to his show mentioned this site, and Jones shut him down immediately; it just wasn't worth his time.  Why, then, does Merola care?

I think the reason that Merola has focused on ConspiracyScience.com as a threat is because it benefits his movement to have an external enemy on which to focus their criticism and galvanize action.  It's easy to have an external enemy, and it fosters internal cohesion because it reinforces what the members of the movement want to believe.  Don't question Merola or the Venus Project or a resource-based economy.  It's their fault, those Intellectual Bigots over at ConspiracyScience!  They want us to believe that Jesus existed, that Osama did 9/11 and that the evil bankers are your friends!  Now let's go build a resource based economy!

Good luck with that, Peter and Jacque.

(Note: this is Muertos, a guest blogger on ConspiracyScience.com, email address muertos@gmail.com.  This blog was originally posted here).

This article, originally posted May 6, 2010, was updated on December 3, 2010.  Scroll to the bottom for the update.

This blog is a follow-up to my earlier column about the infamous "Zeitgeist Movement."  Just to recap briefly, the Zeitgeist Movement is a pro-conspiracy group based on the Zeitgeist films, created by former New York City musician "Peter Joseph" (true name Peter J. Merola), which make the claims that (1) Jesus never existed, (2) 9/11 was an inside job, and (3) a secret cabal of bankers controls the world.  The second Zeitgeist film attempted to introduce a "cure" for these ills, which is the Venus Project, a neo-utopian idea created by designer Jacque Fresco in the 1970s which evidently involves computers ruling the world.

My blog was critical of the Zeitgeist Movement's insistence on using conspiracy theories, specifically 9/11 Truth, as a marketing tool to get people involved with the movement.  The Zeitgeist Movement and its leader Peter Merola have gone to some length to address the issue of conspiracy ideology.  In a post on their "knowledge base" (translation: propaganda toolkit) (link here) regarding this issue, the author, presumably Merola himself, states:

"The term "Conspiracy Theory" is, at the present time, used mostly as a derogatory term to condemn an idea (or set of ideas) that is contrary to the often presupposed claims of an established order, specifically in regard to an act of criminal conduct.  The technical definition of "Conspiracy" has a few variations, the most common being : 1)"an agreement to perform together an illegal, treacherous, or evil act" 2) a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act."

This is a common dodge by conspiracy theorists, which is to try to redefine the culturally-accepted usage of the term "conspiracy theory"--which we all know means wacky tinfoil-hat stuff like 9/11 Truth, "the moon landing was faked" and "global warming is a hoax" allegations--to be more in line with the legal definition of "conspiracy," which Merola sets out more or less accurately.  This is a dodge because the legal definition of "conspiracy" is totally different than the cultural definition of "conspiracy theory."  Why do conspiracy theorists do this?  Because it lowers the bar on what can be considered a true "conspiracy."

In law, conspiracies are relatively easy to prove.  Example: you and I decide to shoplift a six pack of beer from 7-11.  We go into the store and you start an argument with the clerk to distract him while I grab the beer and run out with it.  Even if I don't succeed--say I trip on the door jamb and fall flat on my face, and the beer never leaves the store--you and I could be convicted of conspiracy to commit theft, assuming that a prosecutor could prove we went to 7-11 with the intent to steal the beer.

A "conspiracy theory," however--such as the allegation that 9/11 was an "inside job," which Merola and most Zeitgeisters believe--is much harder to prove, and requires totally different proof.  The attempt to substitute the broad legal definition of "conspiracy" for the cultural understanding of what a "conspiracy theory" entails is totally disingenuous.

But Merola's just getting started.  He goes on to state:

"The qualifier of "Theory", as opposed to "Fact", is an ambiguity which means it has attributes that are unknown/unresolved.  During the Richard Nixon Administration, in America, there was a criminal conspiracy which led to what we know today as "Watergate". While this conspiratorial event is widely understood and accept as "fact", there are still ambiguities, such as erased audio tapes/evidence, which reflect a less than total picture of the actions, unfolding, considerations, background, benefits, and the like. Thus, the widely accepted account of this event is, in fact, formally a "Conspiracy Theory."

Um, not exactly.  Watergate is a historical fact.  It happened.  We have Nixon on tape obstructing justice, recommending to Bob Haldeman that he tell the FBI not to investigate the June 17, 1972 burglary at the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building.  And yes, it was a conspiracy, though a very small one that fell apart relatively quickly, as almost all real-life conspiracies do.  The fact that there are "ambiguities" about some of the details, such as the 18-minute gap on one of the tapes, does not transform it from historical fact to "conspiracy theory."  In citing Watergate, Merola intends for his audience to conflate historical fact with conspiracy theories--possibly assuming, for instance, that there is just as much historical evidence to support "9/11 is an inside job" allegations as there is to support the facts of what happened in the Watergate affair.  To Merola, not knowing all the facts is what makes it a "theory," and therefore in his mind Watergate, the existence of which is proven by historical evidence, is equivalent to the "9/11 conspiracy," the existence of which has not been proven.

Merola is by no means the only 9/11 Truther to play games with the word "conspiracy."  Many Truthers who resent being called conspiracy theorists point out that the "official story" of 9/11 (no one except Truthers uses the words "official story") involves 19 Al Qaida hijackers (20 if you count Moussaoui) who banded together to hijack planes on the orders of Osama bin Laden.  Obviously this is a conspiracy in the legal sense of the word, so Truthers will often refer to it as the "official conspiracy theory" or "OCT," again as a way to confuse people into thinking that there is little difference between a real event supported by historical fact and a set of fanciful allegations totally unsupported by any fact.  This is how they get to the finish line of arguing that the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" is totally pejorative in nature, and is a weapon wielded unfairly by "debunkers" to ridicule non-mainstream explanations for historical events.

Merola tries to do this exact same thing, but fails miserably in his next statement:

"Likewise, the Government's account of the assassination of JFK by L.H. Oswald is, indeed, a government sanctioned "Conspiracy Theory". Oswald never confessed - therefore it isn't definitive as fact. It is one word against another and since Oswald was killed before any trial, the lack of legal conviction also lends to the ambiguity."

This is totally, egregiously wrong, intellectually dishonest, and a prime example of the sort of pseudohistorical propaganda that is Merola's forte in the Zeitgeist films.  It's a failure because the conclusion of the Warren Commission--that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone to assassinate John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963--does not even meet the legal definition of "conspiracy" that Merola wants you to use.  Once again, in law, a conspiracy is a secret agreement between at least two people to commit an illegal act.  Oswald acted alone, and there is no credible evidence to indicate anything to the contrary.  So it's not even a legal conspiracy, much less a "conspiracy theory."  The conclusion of the Warren Commission is not "one word against another," either.  We know the bullets that killed JFK were fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.  We know that Oswald fired that rifle on November 22.  We know the rifle belonged to him.  All of these conclusions are supported by evidence--mountains of it.  There was no "grassy knoll" shooter; we know that too.  This is not "one word against another."  It's fact.  Not a "conspiracy theory," or even a conspiracy in the eyes of the law.  Fact.  History.  Merola fails in his basic grasp of this.

"So, again, the use of this term, coupled with the even more derogatory distinction of the "Conspiracy Theorist", is to take anything that is not inline with the current, accepted explanations of the establishment and dismiss them as mere " Conspiracy Theories", when in fact they are really "alternative conspiracy theories" to the existing "official conspiracy theories". It is one sided, in other words."

So, after trying desperately to redefine the term "conspiracy theory," Merola wants you to believe that there are "official conspiracy theories" and "alternative conspiracy theories," and the only difference between them is that one group has "official" sanction and the other does not.  This is classic conspiracy theorist ideology, and also a classic conspiracy theorist argument tactic, which is to do everything possible to either elevate conspiracy theories to the level of accepted and supported fact, or (more commonly) undermine supported and accepted fact to the level of being a "theory" about which there can be more than one reasonable explanation.  Conspiracy theorists often try to do this by emphasizing things that are unknown or not fully understood within the context of the "official theory."  Merola himself does this in his very next sentences:

"As another example, The 9/11 Commission openly admits that there are many details they don't know about in regard to the events of September 11th. Hence, they have their "Official Conspiracy Theory", while others might have "Alternative Conspiracy Theories". It is simply a double standard. Very simply, the establishment chooses to present their "theory" as "fact", when it cannot technically be defined as such, based on the reality of missing information, which is constant in almost every case of known criminal conspiracies, historically."

This is, in a word, bullshit.

Not all facts are created equal, which is a reality that conspiracy theorists have a hard time understanding.  Some facts are more important than others.  Yes, there are things we don't know about 9/11.  But how consequential are the things we don't know in light of what we do know?  For example: the "put options" placed on various airline stocks in the days before 9/11 certainly do seem suspicious at first glance, and it's true we don't know much about them.  Truthers insist it's proof that somebody in the US had foreknowledge of the attacks.  But think about what we do know about 9/11.  We do know that 19 hijackers took over four planes, crashed two into the WTC towers, one into the Pentagon and one into Shanksville, PA.  We do know that the attacks were planned by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed working in conjunction with Osama bin Laden, that both men confessed and that the hijackers left behind suicide videos.  We do know that there was no indication whatsoever of any "conspiracy" within the US government (or any other government, such as Israel's) to either cause the attacks or knowingly allow them to take place.  In light of these facts, whatever the answer is to the "put options" mystery, it must fall in line with what we already know--which means that whatever the answer is, it's not very consequential to the basic understanding of what happened on 9/11.

Let's take a hypothetical example.  Let's say Jake walks into the First National Bank on Main Street at 2:00 PM, pulls a gun on a teller, hands over a canvas bag and demands the teller fill the bag with money.  Jake is not wearing a disguise and is clearly visible on the security camera.  The teller hands over the money, but puts a dye bomb in the bag.  On the way out, Jake shoots a security guard.  Police do not arrive in time to apprehend Jake and he gets away.  At 4:00 PM, Jake is noticed at the bus station paying for a ticket out of town with cash smeared with purple dye which is also on his hands.  He is arrested while getting on the bus.  In his possession are found stacks of cash smeared with purple dye.  The gun is found in a trash can a block from the bus station.  The bullets that killed the security guard are traced via ballistics to Jake's gun, and we know it's Jake's gun because he bought it two weeks ago.  Both the bus station clerk and the bank teller identify Jake in a police line-up, and the security camera image supports the identification.  The canvas bag is never found, and we have no idea where Jake was between 2 and 4 PM.  Jake pleads not guilty to bank robbery and murder, but before he can come to trial, Jake hangs himself in his jail cell.

Here is what we know:

1. Jake bought the gun and the bullets.

2. Jake came into the bank and robbed it.

3. Jake shot the security guard.

4. The dye bomb must have exploded sometime between 2 and 4PM, staining the money and Jake's hands.

5. Jake threw away the gun near the bus station.

6. Jake paid for the bus ticket with stolen money.

Here is what we do not know:

7. Where did Jake go between 2:00 and 4:00 PM?

8. What did Jake do with the canvas bag?

Because items 1 through 6 are established fact, this means that items 7 and 8, whatever the explanation for them, cannot alter the conclusion we draw from items 1 through 6, namely, that Jake robbed the bank and shot the guard.  Therefore, items 7 and 8, although unknown, aren't very consequential.

By Merola's twisted analysis, however, Jake's guilt is only a "conspiracy theory" because (A) we don't know the answers to items 7 and 8, and (B) Jake never confessed.  This is absurd, however; we know Jake robbed the bank and killed the guard, and the unanswered questions cannot impeach the conclusion.

Let's say Jake's girlfriend comes up with a crackpot theory that the man arrested at the train station at 4:00 PM wasn't really Jake, and that Jake is still alive somewhere.  There is no evidence to support this claim, and it is in fact refuted by all the available evidence.   However, in Merola's world, this "conspiracy theory" should be accorded equal consideration with the "official" judgment that Jake is a bank robber and murderer, and to prefer the "official" judgment to the "alternative" explanation is a "double standard."

After happily mangling the definition of "conspiracy," Merola pronounces his movement not guilty of spreading conspiracist ideology in this breathtaking display of chutzpah:

"So, no - we [the Zeitgeist movement] don't "support conspiracy theories", for it is a truncated, contrived, false notion. To ask if "we support conspiracy theories" is really asking "do criminal conspiracies exist". It is too narrow of a distinction, not to mention the question is intrinsically invalid, for it is, again, a falsely derived, derogatory contrivance."

Um, how about, no?

This entire argument is predicated on the ridiculous notion of Merola's definition of "conspiracy theory," which he wants you to conflate with the legal definition of "conspiracy"--something he doesn't even really understand anyway, as evidenced by his laughable fumble with the JFK/Oswald example.  After elevating conspiracy theories to the level of factual history, he claims his movement doesn't support conspiracy theories!  Say what? This is a person who came to prominence claiming that Christianity is a fraud and 9/11 was rigged.  But no, he doesn't believe in "conspiracy theories," because the question is "intrinsically invalid."  The mental gymnastics required to reach this conclusion is beyond my capability to assimilate, I'll admit.

After this statement, Merola goes on to apologize for the conspiracist ideology that is spewed with a fire hose out of his virtually fact-free films by stating:

"Now, with that out of the way, a part of TZM's educational imperative is to bring to light the consequences of our social system and how it creates aberrant human behavior ("crime"). When there is a criminal "conspiracy" by Goldman Sachs to defraud it customers, we view the event as a systemic consequence of the monetary structure. In other words, we view any such "criminal" or offensive acts as products of culture and attempt to consider the cause/motivation of these acts, and adjust society according, ideally removing the motivation for such offensive acts."

So, there you have it.  Why did those evil conspirators blow up the World Trade Center on 9/11?  It's a "systemic consequence of the monetary structure," whatever that means.  What should we do about it?  We should "consider the cause/motivation of these acts" and "remov[e] the motivation for such offensive acts."  Okay.  Not sure what that means except that, as I'm sure the Zeitgeist defenders who will post angry comments on this blog will tell me, it means I have to join the Zeitgeist Movement and support a "resource-based economy" or else I'm as evil as those awful people who blew up the World Trade Center and lied about Jesus existing.

Conspiracy theories are a corrosive cancer that destroys rational thought and political discourse.  It should be very clear from even a cursory examination of the Zeitgeist Movement and the materials produced by Peter Merola that a major--but unacknowledged--goal of the Zeitgeist Movement is to promote conspiracy theories and conspiracy thinking.  I really could not care less about a "resource-based economy" or the pretty models Jacque Fresco makes in his garage.  [NOTE: Edward Winston, the creator of ConspiracyScience.com, would disagree, as he supports the goal of a resource-based economy].  I do, however, care when people who should know better are fire-hosing the public with false theories unsupported by fact, and who then make intellectually dishonest arguments to justify having done so--and who then claim, equally dishonestly, that "the movies aren't the movement" or that somehow all that ooky conspiracy stuff in the Zeitgeist films is secondary to some wonderful utopian goal that we all must strive for.  You don't need to lie to people to make the world a better place.  Try telling them the truth once in a while.  You might find it easier to get them behind your program.  Gee, you think?

UPDATE (December 3, 2010)
<div id="_mcePaste">It's been a while since I wrote this blog.  In the seven months since I originally published it, the Zeitgeist Movement has removed the section from their "knowledge base" specifically addressing conspiracy theories and which I addressed here.  It's now replaced with a pretty generic statement denying any association between the Zeitgeist Movement and the Zeitgeist films.</div>
<div id="_mcePaste">It remains open to question whether this subtle change--which appears to have been made without any overt announcement--indicates a shift in the Zeitgeist Movement's official ideology toward an acknowledgement of their previously unacknowledged goal to spread conspiracy theories and conspiracy thinking.</div>
<div></div>
<div>What is intriguing is that on November 1, about the same (roughly) time that the deletion of the "Do We Support Conspiracy Theories?" topic from the dogma occurred, Peter J. Merola posted on another forum (link here) a rather bellicose statement aimed at those who suggest that the Zeitgeist Movement change its name to avoid association with the conspiracy films:</div>

<div id="_mcePaste">"Anyone semi-intelligent person who has eyes and cerebral cortex can see through the propaganda coming from the anti-z1 community as they try to apply it to the movement. anyone who cant think through it isn't fit to understand the materials at that stage anyway. it is a progression...I'm sorry to say, but as long as i am here - you have to deal with the bad press [of the association]. live with it...in time, Zeitgeist I propaganda will fade- our message is just that strong."</div>

<div>To put this statement in context, in July of this year Merola re-released the Zeitgeist film and promoted it heavily with a lengthy "companion guide" purporting to source all the statements in the movie and refute the "debunkers" who, he says, have falsely attacked the conspiracy theory claims made in Zeitgeist I.  So, in essence he is saying, "Zeitgeist I is true, I'm standing behind it, and I utterly refuse to change the name of my movement away from the name of the film I continue to promote, but anyone who explicitly draws that association is merely spreading false propaganda and is unworthy of understanding us anyway."</div>
<div></div>
<div>In my view these actions and statements underscore the Zeitgeist Movement's continued, deliberate and enthusiastic association with conspiracy theories.  In short, Merola's actions appear to have proven the main point of this blog to have been right.</div>

There's nothing like watching people who know nothing about engineering, psychology, sociology, and barely anything else for that matter, try to figure out why/how something happened and also try to reconcile it with their paranoid fantasies.

Let's watch...

A little violence:




Some legal advice:


Infowars has only the best engineers (what kind of moron thinks a more or less glass building is of the same strength as a hardened concrete building built to withstand an in-direct nuclear attack):




Predictions, next they'll add 8) Was flying a plane


Inline with the Alex Jones belief system that, "bad things never happen except when the NWO does something, otherwise the world would be a utopia":


(So far I haven't seen anyone say it was a drone or missile, but that's likely coming)

Prison Planet publishes article saying: Homeland Security Department Sees No Terror Tie in Plane Crash

But that hasn't stopped Infowarriors from believing that it was a false-flag terrorist attack, or claiming it was a terrorist attack to be used against the government, etc. So hard to reconcile faith and reason...

The great thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that anything anyone says you disagree with is disinformation and those who say it are simply disinformation agents working for some immortal cabal spending centuries working to do what people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and so forth did in only a few years -- I guess they're just really bad at it.

Another great thing that comes to mind is how you can use anything, regardless of evidence, as proof of your conspiracy. This incident is a great example. No matter how the perpetrator acted, no matter what he believed, no matter what he said, even if he had suicide notes being dropped from the sky by his air plane, or if he personally spoke to every conspiracy theorist as to why he was going to do what he did... if you're a conspiracy theorist, all you have to say is "false-flag!" and you don't need to do any more work. No research, no foot work, no searching, no reading, no learning, no thinking, just say those two little words and it automatically becomes a part of the conspiracy.

I'd love to have an infallible belief system like that.

Couldn't exist without some anti-semitism:


Same guy, different article:


Not only engineers, but mathematicians as well:


If Alex Jones and friends can't come up with decent "evidence" that it was a false-flag attack, then they'll just blame SSIs/anti-depressants.

God, I'd love to have this kind of infallibility... did I mention that already?

---
Comments on this blog post are closed, instead post to this forum thread: How soon until this becomes a conspiracy?

One thing Alex Jones has made quite clear over the last few years is that he believes terrorism simply does not happen, only false flag attacks happen. It seems as though some of those in the conspiracy world live in a dream land where, without the NWO trying to haphazzardly introduce their one world government, nothing bad would ever happen.

Earthquakes? Inside job!
Disease? Inside job!
Famine? Inside job!
Terrorism? Inside job!
Out of toilet paper? Inside job!

No exceptions, period, ever! It's all a part of an evil plan:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/potential-false-flag-attack-to-be-blamed-on-muslims-foiled.html

And if we make predictions and are wrong, which happens all the time:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7sa6_wBgxtw&amp;hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7sa6_wBgxtw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

We can't be held accountable, but why? It's because, as Alex Jones has told us before, the fact that we point out the conspiracies happening makes them change their plans, so no wonder we're always wrong about what's going to happen!

Remember, if something bad happens anywhere in the world, it's a result of an inside job, because of Alex Jones had his way, nothing bad would ever happen to anyone (who didn't deserve it according to his draconian concepts of right and wrong).

DO NOT EDIT, BEING TURNED INTO ARTICLE!

Contributers: Dave Sorensen

A brief history of fluoridation:

For thousands of years humans died from tooth decay. Tooth decay occurs when bacteria eats up our left over sugary foods (fruits, etc) and leave behind acids. Over time these acids will destroy tooth enamel, which is the hard outer layer of a tooth. This opens holes for more bacteria to crawl inside and disperse more acid. This is how teeth decay. (1) For a long time dentistry was more of an art than a science. Pulling out teeth and prescribing herbs for pain relief was about as complex a dentist's job would get up until the 18th century. Horace Wells, a Connecticut dentist, discovered that nitrous oxide could be used to render patients unconscious. (2)  (Finally those teeth could be yanked out without feeling it) Other methods and practices developed such as filling cavities with gold, large productions of toothbrushes and toothpaste. Toothpaste started off as simple mixtures of chalk and soap, but in 1896, Colgate Dental Cream was introduced which included Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and Sodium Ricinoleate as ingredients. (3)

In the 1930's a Colorado dentist named Frederick S. McKay became convinced that the origins of brown stains on his patients' teeth were connected to their local water supply. McKay's research verified that drinking water with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride was associated  with mottled enamel.(Brown spots on teeth)  By the early 1940s, H. Trendley Dean determined that taking out the right amount of fluoride would both eliminate the mottling problem and prevent tooth decay. In 1945, Newburgh, New York, and Grand Rapids, Michigan would all regulate sodium fluoride in their water systems. A lot of citizens, unaware that fluoride naturally exists in rivers and springs, feared that this was a health risk and an obstruction of personal choice. Reflecting on the past 50 years dozens of epidemological studies from around the world indicate that water fluoridation is both effective in preventing tooth decay and very safe. (4) Water fluoridation has been considered by the Center of Disease control to be one of the top ten public health achievements for the 20th century. (5) Why do people still doubt the safety of fluoride?

Humans should not consume Fluoride. It is a toxin and its unnatural

The saying goes, it's the dose that makes the poison. Yes Fluoride is toxic if you consume too much of it, but so is water, vitamin D, calcium or virtually any kind of vitamin. To say its unnatural is flat out false. It exists naturally in water and in much higher traces! As explained in the brief history section, one of the reasons for the many cases of brown spots and fluorosis (changes in teeth formation) was because there was too much natural fluoride in the water supply. The amount of fluoride in the water supply has been reduced since the 1950's to an optimal amount of 0.1-1.2 ppm depending on where you live. How much fluoridated water would you have to drink before you die from toxicity? It is actually impossible to consume the amount required. You would need to in get 5-10 grams at one time. This is 10,000 times the amount of fluoride is an 8 oz cup of fluoridated water. (1) But what about the amount in toothpaste? This is something I had worries about until I did the math. While I am not mathematician, I have estimated that the lethal dosage for toothpaste to be around an entire tube! This obviously does not mean that you should eat toothpaste. Consuming too much toothpaste can result in fluorosis.

Fluoridated water causes cancer

50 epidemiological studies done in different populations at different times have failed to demonstrate an association. These studies were done by the United States, Japan, the UK, Canada and Australia. (5) This assertion arises from a flawed study from the 1970's comparing cancer rates in 10 large fluoridated cities versus ten large nonfluoridated cities. The National Cancer Institute concluded that the study was flawed for numerous methodological reasons. A review by other researchers concluded that the level of industrialization was much higher in the fluoridated cities than the nonfluoridated. (6) There are known cancer threats with factories and pollution and this seems to fit the data much better than fluoridation. Although the flouridated cities had a higher rate of cancer, both had the same rate of increase over the years. (15%)

Studies done on the toxicity of fluoride itself have been done as well. Two animal studies were conducted by the National Tooxicology Program of the National Institue of Environmental Health Sciences and The Proctor and Gamble Company. (7)(8) There was eight groups of animals each with its own sex and species. The animals were given 25, 75 and 175 ppm of fluoride respectively. The studies concluded that "Taken together the two animal studies fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer."

Studies from the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males

In April 2006, a preliminary study was published that observed an association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma in young males. The author initially acknowledged that this study had limitations and further research is required to confirm or refute this observation. After reviewing the study:

"The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings."(8)
"A number of studies regarding water fluoridation and osteosarcoma have been published in the past. At this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer."  -Center for Disease Control

Other conclusions regarding cancer risks have been the same:
"Many studies, in both humans and animals, have shown no association between fluoridated water and risk for cancer."   -National Cancer Institute

"there has been nodetectable cancer risk to humans as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date" -Public Health Service

"In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer." (1b)


Fluoridated water causes osteoscheloris and other bone altering illnesses

This claim is true but misleading. In a survey of 170,000 people's xrays from Texas and Oklahoma, who had lived in communities whose water supply contained 4ppm-8ppm of fluoride, only 23 cases of osteoschelorsis had been found. Not one case of the more severe skeletal fluorosis. (2) Other studies have determined that toxicity may occur 10 years after exposure to HIGH levels. (over 5ppm) (3) N0te that this is much higher than the optimal safety guidelines. The reason that there are still communities today with more than 5ppm in their water supply is due mainly to the fact that they use natural water supplies (rivers, lakes). Another study done where community water supplies contained even higher amounts of fluorides (20 ppm) concluded that there was no evidence of advanced skeletal fluorosis. In the past 35 years, there has only been 5 documented cases of advanced bone disorders that may be linked to fluoridated water. (4)

Several European countries have banned water fluoridation
This is entirely false. Not one European country has banned water fluoridation. The United Kingdom uses water fluoridation extensively. One of the reasons this claim is so common is the fact that a lot of European countries have adopted alternatives to water fluoridation such as salt fluoridation. Salt fluoridation regulates fluoride intake in food, whereas we regulate it in our drinks. For example, in 2003, Basel, Switzerland voted to switch from water fluoridation to salt fluoridation because of technical and practical reasons. (10)  Even in countries that don't require salt or water fluoridation like Sweden and the Netherlands, they still approve of the World Health Organization's recommendations regarding fluoridation as a preventative health measure. They also support fluoride toothpastes, mouthwash, and other fluoride supplements. (11) Other reasons for a country's choice not to adopt water fluoridation come down to complex water system issues, (pipes and maintenance), practicality and politics. Water fluoridation is used in 60 different counties worldwide, and it's safety has been unanimously agreed upon everywhere.





Water Fluoridation is ineffective

The evidence is overwhelming that fluoridated water helps prevent tooth decay. Gran Rapids, Michigan, which was the first city to fluoridate was observed in a study showed children who consumed fluoridated water had 50-63% less dental decay than children examined during the original baseline survey completed in non fluoridated Michigan. Other studies which in some cases analyzed 113 studies from 23 countries came to the same conclusions. (12)(13)(14)(15)

Nazis put fluoride in the water supply at the concentration camps

This claim may just be an internet fabrication as most sites promoting either lack a source or tell you to read " The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben". But let's just accept it for now. It is claimed that the Nazi's used fluoridated water to "dumb down" everyone at the concentration camps. If this is true, how much fluoride did they use? Given that they did not abide to a then nonexistent EPA regulation of 0.7-1.2 ppm, and that they have indeed added extra fluoride to the water supply, this amount would have to be much higher than what was naturally occuring in the German and Austrian river and creeks. As explained before where natural water contains 20ppm. So how much fluoride does it take to make people docile or better yet affect their behavior in any way? Since we have no Nazi fluoride records, we can only speculate. A 1995 study done on rats who consumed up to 125 times the EPA limit showed behavioral changes and cognitive deficits but even this study was critisized for lacking proper identification of the control groups. For the sake of argument let's assume that the study was done correctly. The study showed that 125 ppm of fluoride was neurotoxic for rats, not humans. Humans would require much more because of the obvious size difference. The Nazi's would have had to add at least 200 ppm of fluoride to the water supply at the concentration camps which is 200X the amount in our water. Even if the nazi story were true it is a non sequitur.

Another problem with the Nazi water fluoridation claim is that the Nazi's themselves would have to get their water from somewhere else. Why would the contaminate the entire water supply with large amounts of fluoride when they could control the people there with guns and putting up barbed wire fences?( which we know they did. )

Scientific American agrees that fluoride is bad

I'm sure there are many other sites that took advantage of this article, but i will focus on how infowars misrepresented  a Scientific American article about fluoride entitled "Second thoughts about fluoride". Infowars had the following headline on their website: "Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual Industrial by-product consumed by millions of Americans lowers IQ, causes cancer" (17)

Let's see what the actual article concludes.
"About 200,000 Americans--and several million people in China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia--drink concentrations higher than the limit, but their excess fluoride comes from naturally occurring runoff from fluoride-...The report is, however, prompting some researchers to wonder whether even 1 mg/L is too much in drinking water, in light of the growing recognition that food, beverages and dental products are also major sources of fluoride, especially for young children." (18)

The US wide average is .79 ppm, but the EPA limit is set at around 4 ppm. One of the questions that is still open is if they should reduce the EPA  limit, but as the quoted passage stated, it was questionable if that even 1ppm may be too high considering the growing recognition that a lot of food and beverages now contain fluoride.

"Consuming foods and beverages with large amounts of fluoride can put a diet above this range. Below are typical trace levels of fluoride, measured in parts per million (ppm), found in foods and drinks tested at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry."

A couple examples include: raisins (2.34ppm), brewed black tea (3.73ppm) and white wine (2.02ppm).Since there is a lot more fluoride used in products today, future studies could show that there too fluoride, and necessary measures would instate safer regulations. But this is speculative. Yes it is possible but this article in no way claims that the fluoride does lower IQ, or that it causes cancer. The ADA, FDA, WHO and numerous other agencies still maintain that fluoridated water is very safe. The article also mentions studies done in China which have not been repeated anywhere else in the world, and the studies themselves did not display a high correlation. (see china studies section) Even if a new study finds 1ppm to be too high, this does not mean that we had been poisoned or dumbed down by the the whole time resulted from a big government conspiracy. One reason would be that there has been hardly any cases of fluorosis since the fluoridated water systems started. This would have been a warning that people were consuming too much fluoride.
"Historically, dental fluorosis was quite widespread in the USA. Originally the problem was termed "mottled enamel" or, local to Colorado Springs, as "Colorado brown strain". In 1930, the link was made between mottled enamel
and high levels of fluoride in drinking-water supplies (2.0-13.7 mg l-1) and the term fluorosis was adopted...."

Driscoll et al. (1983) noted that more than 700 communities in the USA were thought to have water supplies that contained at least twice the recommended optimum level of fluoride (i.e. 2.4 mg l-1 and above). They found mean fluoride concentrations in Illinois between 1.06 and 4.07 mg l-1. In a study in Texas (Segreto et al., 1984), fluoride concentrations varied between 0.3 and 4.3 mg l-1. At the highest fluoride concentration only 5.2 per cent of children were considered to have normal teeth or questionable mottling." (19)


Chinese studies indicate that high levels of fluoride can lower IQ

This claim is partially true, but misleading. There have been about a dozen studies done in China that may show a potential link. But China's water supply was not very safe to begin with, as its contains high levels of fluoride.

"Drinking water with high levels of fluoride is widespread in China and has been seen in all provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions with the exception of Shanghai, and it has been estimated (Guifan, pers. com.) that there are over 1,200 counties and almost 150,000 villages affected by fluorosis (including coal pollution derived fluorosis)."
Dental fluorosis in China has been recognized for some time (Anderson, 1932)." (20)

China has also had high rates of fluorosis, a clear sign that their citzens are consuming too much fluoride.

"It has been estimated that over 26 million people in China suffer from dental fluorosis due to elevated fluoride in their drinking-water, with a further 16.5 million cases of dental fluorosis resulting from coal smoke pollution (Liang
et al., 1997)." (20)

China does not fluoridate its water (except "the people's republic of china", so they get their water from natural sources. It's also worth mentioning that the lower IQ link may be from fluoride gases coming from coal/clay pollution, or from arsenic which is also in the water supply. (21)(22)

"we saw arsenic levels in the water that represent more than fifty times the EPA-recommended limit for consumption of fish and shellfish."  (Dartmouth biologists)

The best way to understand these studies' findings, is to track the journals down and read the conclusions they've reached. This is from a study done in 2007.

"Additionally, we recognize that children in our study groups attend school and therefore are exposed to different levels of As (arsenic)  while not at home. All the complications and limitations of our study design, however, would not lead to systematic errors that would challenge the main findings: that 10-year-old Chinese children's IQ scores were lowered by 5-10 points when they were exposed to drinking water containing 150-200 μg/L As. However, we emphasize the need for more careful evaluation of the effects of fluoride on intelligence." (23)

"Children's intelligence and growth can be affected by high concentrations of As (arsenic) or fluoride. The IQ scores of the children in the high-As group were the lowest among the four groups we investigated. It is more significant that high concentrations of As affect children's intelligence. It indicates that arsenic exposure can affect children's intelligence and growth."

In conclusion, the claim that high levels of fluoride cause a decline in IQ is inconclusive. The Chinese water supply is very different then the US water supply and contains other toxic elements that correlate with the cognitive decline. This is likely considering the studies done on rats indicated that cognitive decline required up to 75 times the epa limit. When you look at the totality of the evidence on water fluoridation safety, a link between lowered IQ and fluoridated water becomes unlikely.

The US IQ average has dropped in the past 50 years

According to most IQ researchers, the national IQ has actually been rising since the 1930's. This increase has been observed all around the world, and not just with IQ tests but with episodic and semantic memory tests. (25) This observation has been called the "Flynn effect". Some explanations for the "Flynn effect" are improved nutrition and better education.

"Average scores on intelligence tests are rising substantially and consistently, all over the world. These gains have been going on for the better part of a century--essentially ever since tests were invented." (25)

In fact, according to the data, the average IQ in the 1930's was 80! Right now the national average is 98. So the claim that the IQ has dropped since the introduction of fluoridated water is complete bunk. But intelligence really can't be measured by IQ tests alone. There are many other factors influencing one's ability to communicate, perform physical tasks and remember information, which are all part of intelligence too.


Fluorosis rates have increased in the United States in the past 30 years
True. According to the Center for Disease Control:


"Prevalence of enamel fluorosis has increased in cohorts born since 1980. This increase should be evaluated in the context of total fluoride exposure." (26)

About 10% of the cases of fluorosis can be attributed to fluoridated water. (27) The other 90% most likely comes from children who swallow toothpaste either by accident or because they think it tastes like candy. (28) Also note that the fluorosis that occurs now are extremely mild, to a point where they are more of a cosmetic problem than a health problem. Only 1% of the population suffers from fluorosis that has been listed as severe or moderate. Most of these cases are children. Overall, fluorosis is not a big problem, and the best way to prevent it is to make sure your kids don't eat any toothpaste.


* For any other questions or concerns, I highly recommend the American Dentistry Association's fact sheet on fluoride released in 2005. (16)

Sources for history section
1.http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/tc/tooth-decay-topic-overview
2. http://www.ada.org/public/resources/history/timeline_19cent.asp
3.http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventions/a/dentistry_2.htm
4. See sources
5. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm

1. Hodge HC, Smith FA. Biological properties of iorganic fluorides. In: Fluorine chemistry. Simons HH. ed. New York: Academic Press
1b.National Research Council. Carcinogenicity of flouride. In: Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, editor. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1993.
2. Stevenson CA, Watson AR. Fluoride osteoschelrosis. American Journal of Roetgenology, Radium Therapy and Nuclear medicine 1957; 78 (1) 13-18
3. Institute of medicine, Food and nutrition board. Dietery reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride. Report of the standing committee on the scientific evaluation of dietery reference intakes. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 1997
4. Hodge HC. The safety of fluoride tablets or drops. In: continuing evaluation of the use of fluorides. Johansen E, Tavaes DR, Olsen TO, eds. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; 1979: 253-75
5. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride. Washington, D.C; February 1991
6. Clemmensen J. The alleged association between artificial fluoridation of water supplies and cancerL a review Bulletin of the World Helath Organization 1983: 61 (5): 871-83
7. Bucher JR, Hejtmancik MR, Toft JD 11, Persing RL, Eustis SL, haseman JK. Results and conclusions of the National Toxicology Program's rodent carcinogenicity studies with sodium fluoride. INT J Cancer 1991;48: 733-7
8. Maurer JK, Cheng MC, Boysen BG, Anderson RL. Two-year carcinogenicty study of sodium fluoride in rats. J Natle cancer Insti 1990; 82: 1118-26
9.http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/osteosarcoma.htm
10.Bergmann KE, Bergmann RL. Salt fluoridation and general health. Adv Dent Res 1995; 9 (2): 138-43
11.Meyer J, Marthaler TM Burgi H. The change from water to salt as the main vehicle for community wide exposure in Basle, Switzerland. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003; 31(6):401-2
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for using Fluoride to Prevent and control Dental crisis in the United States MMWR 2001;50 (NORR1v)
13.Murray JJ. Efficacy of preventative agents for dental caries. Caries Res 1993; 27 (supp 17:28 (A review of studies conducted from 1976-1987.
14.Newburn E. Effectiveness of water fluoridation. J Public Health dent 1989; 49 (5):27989 (The analysis of the results of 113 studies in 23 countires)
15. Ripa LW. A half century of community water fluoridation in the United States. review and commentary. J Pubic Health Dent 1993, 53(1); 17014(The analysis of 50 years of studies)
16.http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf
17. http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/fluoride_study_finds_horror_stories_factual.htm
18. Second Thoughts about Fluoride; January 2008; Scientific American Magazine; by Dan Fagin; 8 Page(s)
20.http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf
21. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/fluoride-poisoning-in-china-due-to-clay-not-coal.html
22.http://www.physorg.com/news119117913.html
23.http://fluoridealert.org/scher/wang.s-2008.pdf
24.Rönnlund M, Nilsson LG. (2009). Flynn effects on sub-factors of episodic and semantic memory: parallel gains over time and the same set of determining factors. Neuropsychologia. 47(11):2174-80
25.http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/rising-scores-on-intelligence-tests/1
26. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm
27. http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf
28. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091645</p>