Smokescreens and snake oil: Shermer uses sleight of mouth to pre-emptively undermine dissent

Shermer falsely claimed to be an Adjunct Professor at Claremont Graduate University.

July 3, 2017

Professional ‘skeptic’ ditches science when it comes to 9/11, sticks to glib dismissals of ‘conspiracy theories’

By Craig McKee

Let’s call it “the Shermer Doctrine.”
If you are even considering challenging any aspect of mainstream “reality,” Michael Shermer is already working hard to discredit you. In fact, he started assaulting the public mind with his brand of pre-emptive psychological warfare long before the dissenting idea even began to form in your mind.
Operating under the guise of “rationality,” he seeks to undermine anyone who dares to step outside of official narratives. In his articles and talks, he puts great emphasis on what he claims are the perils of self-deception. But in doing so, he engages in actual deception.
The founder of Skeptic Magazine is a professional conspiracy denier. Name a potential conspiracy, and Shermer will tell you why it didn’t happen. But rather than offer actual evidence that can stand up to scrutiny, he’ll reach for a “humorous” one-liner that he knows will satisfy an uncritical audience.
For example, in his 2010 TED Talk “The pattern behind self-deception,” Shermer uses a joke to dispense with 9/11 truthers:
“They think it was an inside job by the Bush administration. You know how we know that 9/11 was not initiated by the Bush administration? It worked.”
The line gets a predictable laugh, as it is intended to do. But is the inherent argument rational? Or is it rhetorical manipulation? The audience members leave not only pleased with Shermer but with themselves. They get to feel superior to those incompetent government types who could simply never pull off a conspiracy this clever.
In his articles and presentations, Shermer offers colorful examples of “theories” that he claims have no credibility, and he deftly hints that these are typical of many or most “conspiracy theories.” Using one flimsy example or another, he guides the audience to pat dismissals of any challenges to mainstream narratives. After all, why go through the hard work of confronting real evidence when flippancy is so much more economical?
In the same TED Talk, Shermer uses as an illustration the unsubstantiated allegation that the Bush administration placed explosive devices in the levees around New Orleans so that the city would be flooded during Hurricane Katrina. He alleges that there are those who purport to have found some of these devices after the fact.
Why is this example typical? We never find out. We are just expected to accept that it is.
Rather than deal with the substance of arguments against any official story, Shermer will focus on why people believe the things that he insists are delusions, or he’ll push the idea that it would be too difficult for participants in a conspiracy to keep the secret. For him, it’s not about evidence, it’s about the psychological makeup of the people he is trying to discredit. He calls that science; others would call it misdirection.
Both in Skeptic and in his monthly column in Scientific American magazine, Shermer tackles all manner of “controversial” topics: UFOs, paranormal events, alternative medicine, evolution and creationism, religion and miracles, psychology and the brain, and product scams. And he’ll tell you he stands on the side of rationality while those he investigates deal in fantasy and “bad ideas.” In fact, in his first Ted Talk, given in 2006 and titled “Why people believe weird things,” Shermer referred to himself and other “debunkers” as “the Ralph Naders of bad ideas.” I think he meant this to sound like a good thing.
When Shermer isn’t debunking a bogus marijuana dousing rod or a grilled cheese sandwich alleged to sport the image of the Virgin Mary, he’s telling us we should accept official accounts of world-changing events like 9/11 and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Not to do so, he contends, is to engage in illogical and delusional thinking.
For Shermer, it’s about patterns and how we often see them when they are not there. He has even invented his own words to describe the phenomenon. In his June 2009 article in Scientific American, “Why people believe invisible agents control the world,” Shermer defines his coined word “agenticity” as “the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents.” While that word is failing to catch on, he adds “patternicity,” which he defines as “the human tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise.” He imbues these conclusions with authority by making repeated references to the regions of the brain responsible for this erroneous pattern-seeking. It all sounds so scientific . . .
Shermer is forced to concede that the “noise” is not all meaningless, that real conspiracies do exist (citing the Lincoln assassination), and that caution is required to avoid rejecting the patterns that really are there. But despite acknowledging this, he goes on to give it negligible weight. Too bad he hasn’t invented a word for those who ignore evidence of conspiracies to reach conclusions that official stories are almost always right.
I propose “officialicity.”
There is no doubt, of course, that we humans sometimes do go beyond what actual evidence shows and identify patterns that don’t really exist. But he uses this fact as a convenient catch-all to explain why most “conspiracy theories” are false.

Shermer on 9/11

The 9/11 Truth Movement has certainly not escaped Shermer’s attention, as we see in a January 2017 article he wrote for Scientific American with the headline, “How to convince someone when facts fail: why worldview threats undermine evidence.”
In it, Shermer starts with a statement that is true of many people, not just those who are open to conspiracies:
“Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.”
But isn’t this exactly what self-proclaimed “skeptics” like Shermer do? Not only do they reject out of hand the position that 9/11 was a false flag operation, but they won’t even look at the compelling scientific evidence that the three World Trade Center towers were brought down in controlled demolitions. Here, he gets to 9/11 specifically:
“The 9/11 truthers focus on minutiae like the melting point of steel in the World Trade Center buildings that caused their collapse because they think the government lies and conducts ‘false flag’ operations to create a New World Order.”
Focus on minutiae? Like science? The laws of physics?
Further, Shermer is saying that truthers start with the conclusion that the government lies and conducts false flag operations and that its purpose is to create a New World Order. A package deal. They then seek out evidence to confirm their belief, he asserts. While he doesn’t use the term, he is saying that the truther position is simply the result of “confirmation bias,” not science. He does not, however, feel the need to support this. Just saying it apparently makes it true.
He gives further examples like “climate deniers” and “Obama birthers” (neither of which I take a position on in this article). Again, Shermer accuses them of having a belief and looking for ways to make the facts align with that belief. And again, he does not support this contention. He writes of the first group:
“Climate deniers study tree rings, ice cores and the ppm of greenhouse gases because they are passionate about freedom, especially that of markets and industries to operate unencumbered by restrictive government regulations.”
And of the second:
“Obama birthers desperately dissected the president’s long-form birth certificate in search of fraud because they believe that the nation’s first African-American president is a socialist bent on destroying the country.”
So if you question climate change you must hate environmental regulations. And if you question whether the digital birth certificate on the White House web site really is the scan of a paper document from 1961, then you obviously have a paranoid hatred of socialists. Oh, and you’re a racist.
Shermer saves himself the bother of confronting evidence when he can just accuse those who have questions of allowing their biases to control how they approach controversial issues. Apparently, he lacks these biases . . .
Using these examples, Shermer attempts to support his statement that “proponents’ deepest held worldviews were perceived to be threatened by skeptics, making facts the enemy to be slayed.”
Get it? It’s the “skeptics” who have the facts. Those who challenge any official narrative only have deep world views and beliefs. According to him, it’s the “conspiracy theorists” who must slay the facts to prevent their beliefs from being contradicted.
Shermer’s brand of misdirection attempts to discredit those who challenge the government explanation for how the towers were brought down. And this is how he approaches any of the potential conspiracies he addresses.
But is it scientific to focus more on who is making a particular argument than on the quality of that argument? Does this approach match up with his self-professed reliance on evidence and actual research?
On the web site Skeptical about Skeptics, a profile-piece that is critical of Shermer offers these insights:
“He particularly warns his readers against people who have ideologies to pursue, whose pattern of thinking ‘consistently ignores or distorts data not for creative purposes but for ideological agendas.’ Unfortunately he himself has an ideology to pursue and makes untruthful and pseudoscientific claims.”
Serious charges have been leveled about Shermer’s honesty and his authenticity. For example, University of Lethbridge professor Anthony Hall (a contributor to this web site) and his then graduate student Joshua Blakeney challenged Shermer’s claim that he was an Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University when he spoke at University of Lethbridge (in Alberta, Canada) in 2010.
Hall and Blakeney found that Shermer was not listed on the Claremont web site as being among the school’s adjunct professors. They contacted Jean Schroedel, the Dean of Claremont’s School of Politics and Economics, and asked about Shermer’s connection to the university, which happens to be the same institution that produced the 9/11 Truth Movement’s most esteemed researcher, David Ray Griffin.
Referring to Shermer, Schrodel wrote back: “I have absolutely no idea who this man is.”
The fact that Shermer was misrepresenting himself was confirmed when Hall wrote to Dr. Joseph C. Hough, Claremont’s president. Hough responded: “He [Shermer] does not hold any term or permanent appointment in the university.”
Blakeney wrote to Shermer, questioning the authenticity of his credentials, and he responded with this intriguing statement: “If I am, as some have suspected, an agent of disinformation for the U.S. government to divert attention away from the real 9/11 conspiracy, then you would think that they would have provided me with paperwork documenting my adjunct professorship not to mention my doctorate.”
One could also ask instead why a genuine truth seeking skeptic with a successful magazine and lucrative speaking career would need to lie about being a university professor.
On the question of his credentials, Shermer concluded with: “I have nothing to send you in that regard. I trust you will take my word for it.”

A revealing debate

Shermer has dealt with 9/11 in various forums. He and Richard Gage, founder Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, debated this very topic on Oakland’s KKGN radio station back in 2008. This required Shermer to go into more detail about his positions, but his arguments showed the extent to which he pays lip service to science. Clearly, his goal is to poo-poo conspiracy theories, not to get to the truth.
For example, he couldn’t rebut Gage’s evidence for the use of thermite in the destruction of the three WTC towers, so he just offered this:
“You just get focused on thermite. I mean, who knows? I haven’t looked into it. What if you’re wrong? What if that isn’t what they saw? So what?”
What an extraordinary admission from someone who published an entire issue of his magazine on the 9/11 evidence. Of course, Gage never said that the whole case hinged on any one piece of evidence. But the evidence for the use of thermite is powerful, and Shermer could only deflect because he hadn’t bothered to do any research on the subject.
Let’s take a look at Shermer’s astonishing explanation for why the Twin Towers fell through the path of greatest resistance:
“Why would a building fall flat straight down? Why wouldn’t it topple over? We always picture in the old Japanese monster movies, you know, swiping the buildings away, and it topples over. The answer is that they are not a solid block of material. Almost 95 percent, about 90-95 percent, of an office building is empty air. They’re held together by these structural foundations and so forth, so they can’t fall right over; they have to collapse pretty much straight down.”
What? Was there some science in that explanation that I missed? If the towers “have to” collapse straight down, why haven’t other steel-framed skyscrapers done this after catching fire and burning for far longer? Why did this happen only on September 11, 2001? Shermer acts as if the only thing he has to explain about the destruction of the towers is why they didn’t fall sideways, as if swatted by Godzilla.
And this is because of all the air in the buildings?
Aside from the absurdity of this explanation, it’s an attempt to answer the wrong question. The issue for most in the 9/11 Truth Movement is not why the towers didn’t topple over, it’s why they came down at all.
In the debate, Gage gave this assessment of the WTC evidence, which was never adequately answered by his opponent:
“Most of our listeners don’t understand that Building 7 is a 47-story skyscraper a football field away from the North Tower. And it did collapse at freefall speed for the first 2 ½ seconds as is well documented by physicists, and in order for a building to collapse at freefall speed during that 2 ½ of the first seconds, the columns have to be removed. In other words, the building can’t fall at freefall speed and crush 40,000 tons of structural steel at 400 structural-steel connections per second. It has to slow down if it’s doing that work.”
How does Shermer explain the free fall? He doesn’t.
Every time Gage cited evidence that Shermer could not account for, he simply dismissed it or denied its existence. When Gage brought up the pools of molten iron found under all three WTC towers, Shermer said he hadn’t heard anything to support this claim. Before Gage could cite some of the dozens of accounts confirming the molten iron, Shermer pivoted to the subject of who Gage thinks brought the towers down and how they could have planted the explosives without being discovered. Obviously the Skeptic publisher was much more comfortable looking at these broad questions than he was the scientific ones within AE911Truth’s area of concentration.
Shermer worked hard to remain in his comfort zone as he reached for the familiar debunker argument that there was so much chaos going on that day, and that one would expect “anomalies.”
“There’s going to be so many anomalous things that happened, especially with so many people involved. So our minds search for these little anomalies, ignoring the vast majority of the evidence.”
Is that what our minds do? I wonder which part of the brain searches for anomalies and avoids evidence. Is it the pre-frontal cortex? The fusiform gyrus? The temporal lobe? And is it the left hemisphere or the right?
More to the point, I wonder which part automatically believes every official story and prefers glib one-liners to real evidence.
I bet Shermer could tell me.


  1. I’ve listened to the guy for 10 minutes; he’s a victim of religious abuse and practices the art of Riligiousity. The new neo-cons of the left with this pseudo-science moral superiority remind me of “manifest destiny”.

    1. Honestly, the European and North-American are becoming just a different flavour of neocon. Their condescension and conttempt towards even moderate truthers, their love of regime change and so-called “democratic humanitarian intervention” wars, their fanboyism for the corporatist, neoliberal European Union… none are perfect, but I now honestly find, Press TV and Telesur, plus small-time blogs in the vein of “Truth and Shadows” or “American Everyone” to be more credible in thantheir reporting and editorialsthan the likes of CounterPunch, The Guardian, Mother Jones, etc.

  2. Well, for now, I stopped reading at this line: ‘…Referring to Shermer, Schrodel wrote back: “I have absolutely no idea who this man is.” …’ That’s the end of the story about that guy for me – ahm, what’s his name again – Shamer?!? :>>> 😉
    Kind regards from Slovenia!

  3. This would-be emperor of rationality has no clothes. The naked body of an intellectual psychopath is pretty ugly. He’s not original in his psywar modus operandi. Note the Chomskian echoes in the dismissive “Who cares?”

  4. I thought Shermer had had some momentous weird and inexpiable experience that has made him relinquish or question his hard nosed skeptic stance? Obviously this doesn’t stretch to questioning official conspiracy theories?
    But I also found this article ignoring the ‘who done it’ part of the investigation which very much points to Zionist hands involved in this false flag! Why do you not mention this?

      1. But this is CRUCIAL!!
        This is the very thing we ‘conspiracy theorists’/’extremists have been warned about by ex prime minister David Cameron and his speech at the UN, and the current one, Theresa May! Being told we are AS bad as the ‘savage terrorists, ‘ISIS’ etc for saying such things.
        And isn’t Shermer Jewish…?

  5. Excellent job, Craig! I enjoyed the read.

    When Shermer isn’t debunking a bogus marijuana dousing rod or a grilled cheese sandwich alleged to sport the image of the Virgin Mary,

    Is this your brand of humor or did he really address those things?

  6. Great article Craig. Those of us who see through the fraud of 9-11-01 and other big lies must simply make people like this Michael Shermer scumbag irrelevant while we continue to share the truth with the world.

    1. Thanks, Michael. I agree. We do have to make people like him irrelevant. The trick is how to do that. Unfortunately, he and his ilk have much more visibility than anyone in the Truth Movement does. We have to point out his lies when he tells them, although the trick is to reach beyond the choir.

  7. Shermer came hatefully into view with his pretend friendship and then attack on David COLE back in the day. This connects to 911 in that both are parts of the same massive Lie-narrative needing ‘protection.’ His actions vouch for Barrie Z’s observed ‘psywar modus operandi’ and example Sunstein/Vermules ‘crippled epistemology.’ His claim to being ‘skeptic’ is tactic of control by claiming title – just as ‘adjunct professor’ is. Both are lies. Everybody knows, the real skeptics are those questioning OCT. Not defending it.
    Yep. Good read.

    1. Thanks, Fremo. Well said. And yes, I followed the Cole/Shermer story. Unfortunately, Cole is just as vitriolic in his attacks on “conspiracy theorists.” In fact, he sounds very much like Shermer. There’s some irony in there somewhere.

  8. Very sorry to hear that. Irony would be a polite word for it…I guess the Prussian Blue didn’t translate to the 6% molten iron microspeheres in the DUST…

  9. Thanks Craig, I was once a subscriber to Skeptic Magazine. When I saw Shermer deny that there was vast evidence of molten metal, in a debate with I have forgotten whom, I ended my subscription. I am an atheist and concerned about reality. I decided long ago that Shermer is a tool, I do not know for whom but a tool nonetheless. He disgusts me. Happy trails to you.

  10. Another fine article Craig! Shermer is yet another example of a debunker who is guilty of the very things he accuses truthers of.

  11. Embedded within, although in plain sight for all to see, is a cryptic message, that when fully realized, would answer a few questions for the truth movement.
    It would explain why my posts have been deleted, websites have been altered or shut down, etc., etc…You just think they’re trying to cover up the attacks. …but that is only a piece of it.
    If you people only knew…
    I could probably show you intelligent scientifically minded reasonable folks, but it wouldn’t matter. You’d ‘get it’ and show everyone else, and no one would care or believe it. You’d just be more frustrated. Everyone else are friggin’ idiots who will fiercely protect whatever their egos are attached to in complete disregard of logic.
    And if they did ‘get it’, most are too stupid and/or complacent to do anything about it, or too brainwashed to understand who the real evil bastards are.
    Think about it; for 16 years, people have been gathering, sharing and analyzing all the data to clearly demonstrate enough truths for everyone on earth to see us all getting screwed, lied to and used. The truth is out, but no one is acting on it other than trying to get the foxes to investigate who’s been eating the hens.

  12. This site moderates comments. And I cannot help but to wonder if (like so many other places) it prevents me from actually having an intelligent truthful conversation.
    Every time I start posting interesting facts that were previously over looked, they get ‘moderated’, and there is usually some inconsistent excuse for it.
    People aren’t really interested in truth.

    1. EverStem13, perhaps you should be careful about the truth. My site only moderates comments when someone has never posted here before. If you have had comments approved before then you won’t be moderated now. It’s possible you posted a comment that I deemed unacceptable for some reason. If so, it had nothing to do with disagreeing with your position. It would only be because you said something bigoted or something like that.
      When you say there is “usually some inconsistent excuse for it” what are you talking about? If you mean me, please give an example. I do not believe I have given you any excuses at all. And concluding that I am not interested in the truth makes me wonder what your motive is.

      1. “EverStem13, perhaps you should be careful about the truth.”
        “My site only moderates comments when someone has never posted here before. If you have had comments approved before then you won’t be moderated now. It’s possible you posted a comment that I deemed unacceptable for some reason. If so, it had nothing to do with disagreeing with your position. It would only be because you said something bigoted or something like that.”
        This thread, my comments here, is my first visit to this site.
        “When you say there is “usually some inconsistent excuse for it” what are you talking about? If you mean me, please give an example. I do not believe I have given you any excuses at all. And concluding that I am not interested in the truth makes me wonder what your motive is.”
        That wasn’t directed at you. I will explain.
        I have figured some things out that not too many people know about, that is kind of a big deal, and because I am a smart guy in a unique position. In my quest for a better understanding, a more defined truth, I have sought the assistance of others.
        What I have noticed is that there are people who have been stalking me and taking measures to contain or prevent me from doing so. Once I have detected them, I will deliberately test them as to confirm they are, what I like to call, “Agents”.
        I intentionally break rules, say things that are very offensive or illegal or whatever I think is going to provoke them. And no one cares. I can break all the rules a hundred times and no one cares. But as soon as I act like I am thinking of the possibility that I may consider contemplating if I should wonder about the notion of discussing certain truths, I am banned, my comments are deleted or buried under a pile of comments, or new threads, or websites are shut down, etc etc, ..anything but discussing the truth, anything but allowing me to further my understanding. The usual reasons are that I broke some rules or said something offensive. …that is usually not nearly as bad as the things they apparently don’t care about.
        In other words; they are making excuses, lies.
        If this site suddenly starts having technical issues, it’s probably for the same reason, and I apologize in advance.
        That being said, and as I am sure you folks are at least partially aware of, everything about the 9/11 attacks that are not known facts or that cannot be definitively confirmed through independent critical reasoning and the scientific method, is complete BS, and only a small part of what’s really going on.

  13. “EverStem13, perhaps you should be careful about the truth.”
    I thought about this statement a little more. …why? Why be careful with truth?
    Truth is truth is truth. It is reality. Why should it be avoided or handled carefully? Why not boldly state it?
    I didn’t do it. Nor am I going to did it. Why should I fear it?
    Because it could get me killed? So? Stalkers have already ruined my life playing stupid games. They have already destroyed any hope that I may have for a good life.
    What is the consequence?

  14. I have had countless debates with idiots like this guy Shermer, who obviously has ulterior motives, who is obviously more intelligent than his debating techniques indicate. I’ve come to the conclusion that they are simply a waste of time to give attention to. Let the idiots be suckered by fool’s ‘logic’.
    But here is what gets me;
    We the people of the world have collectively built a huge body of evidence, scientific research, absolute logic and facts, etc,.. all to conclude with a great deal of confidence that the US government and it’s allies are responsible, …not to mention the obvious blatant lies, motives and manipulations, to include a death-bed confession of a CIA agent explaining exactly how they rigged WTC7 to blow, etc, etc, … etc, etc… etc etc ….
    But the families are, understandably, so desperate to find a different culprit, so in denial of what’s right in their faces, that they will file a suite based on a set of papers of hearsay provided by the CIA to hold the Saudi government, who was probably tricked into participating, responsible.
    That’s stupid. I am sorry to put it like that, but it’s just plain ol’ stupid.
    People are proud to be Americans, so proud of their membership to the most evil violent criminal organization the world has ever known, that they will wholly reject reality in favor of protecting their egos that are so firmly attached to systemic violence and serfdom that is statism.
    What is even more interesting is how I have discovered a large body of virtually unknown evidence that would explain a few things that everyone has put a lot of time money and effort into figuring out, that would put it into perspective and essentially confirm that the official story is absolute nonsense and vindicate those falsely accused.
    …and no one is even curious enough to engage me? All I get is “be careful” and posts deleted, websites shut down, banishment, etc.
    WTH is this world coming to? Mass delusion and codependency, slavery? It kind of reminds me of the typical battered wife who keeps returning to her abusive husband, rationalizing it as deserved or necessary.

    1. “But here is what gets me.” Fair point. Welcome to the human brain and the widely misunderstood weakness of its propensity for logic. With all due respect, you’ll find activism on 9/11 much easier if you allow yourself to accept it as a law of biology.

      1. It’s not that I don’t understand or accept it. Indeed I do. Humans are a peculiar bunch with a propensity to rationalize anything into our comfort zone. It’s what we do.
        But that doesn’t change reality or the frustration with the consequences of stupidity.
        Other than the obvious participation of government entities, I don’t know who did it, but see that which is indicative of a deeper truth. I know exactly why it was done. It tells you exactly why, for those who are inclined to see.
        I will summarize;
        The people of the good ol’ USA demand a system whereby they literally spend their descendants as currency to pay for, not only committing unnecessary acts of violence and genocide upon countless millions of innocent peoples abroad, but also for a government that has consistently committed numerous acts of the most egregious violence upon innocent Americans, to include not minding it’s own damn business.
        In doing so, it has caused harm to a particularly important group of innocent American families who’s identities are encrypted within. Subsequently, the people of NYC and Washington DC were given “Hell to pay, Fire and damnation”.
        Being one of them, I cannot say that I disagree. What most consider victims, arguably, deserved it. if for nothing else, complacency.
        And what did the good ol’ USA do in response? …spent more of their progeny to commit more unnecessary acts of genocide against more innocent peoples abroad and made more legal provisions to commit more acts of violence against it’s own citizens and, to a further extent, not mind it’s own damn business.
        It’s disgusting.

    2. Ok!
      I’ll bite….
      Forgive me for saying so, but you sound obnoxious, immature, and you say a lot of things that don’t add up to much, and you make cocky claims containing not a single ounce of information, or anything new, for that matter.
      If you have been banned from various sites, tell us which ones and why. You seem to be commenting just fine here.
      If you have figured things out that no one else has, then dish it out. Or, at least give us a taste or something. There are many people here who’d like to know more, most of whom already know more.
      The lack of engagement might be due to a perceived behavior in your style… That of a cowboy that walks into a saloon just to pick a fight, which leaves one wondering if you are here just to ruffle feathers, and not really to offer a contribution to the discussion.
      I’d be very happy if you’d prove me wrong. New blood, new info, new analysis, new angles always welcome… it’s gotta be clean blood, though… Please play nice, and try to make your points without insulting people, or their intelligence. Engagement is a two way street.
      So…. i would like to start by asking you to please explain what you mean by the sentence below (because that’s where I got a bit lost):
      In doing so, it has caused harm to a particularly important group of innocent American families who’s identities are encrypted within. ~ EverStem13
      Thank you.

      1. Thank you for engaging me, sir. I truly appreciate your curiosity.
        “Forgive me for saying so, but you sound obnoxious, immature, and you say a lot of things that don’t add up to much, and you make cocky claims containing not a single ounce of information, or anything new, for that matter.”
        “Judge not lest ye be judged” comes to mind. Since we’re making critiques; You sound like an ignorant egotistical judgmental prick. And please forgive me for being such an asshole. I have been dealing with a lot of stress for the last few decades.
        “The lack of engagement might be due to a perceived behavior in your style… That of a cowboy that walks into a saloon just to pick a fight, which leaves one wondering if you are here just to ruffle feathers, and not really to offer a contribution to the discussion.”
        What I have is volatile with the potential to start another war, a BIG one. It’s a big step. 9/11 is only a piece of it. This is bigger than our egos, although hubris is relevant. The whole world is going to unite against the USA, and probably Israel too.
        It might be better if I did this with a global audience.
        “So…. i would like to start by asking you to please explain what you mean by the sentence below (because that’s where I got a bit lost): In doing so, it has caused harm to a particularly important group of innocent American families who’s identities are encrypted within. ~ EverStem13”
        To summarize;
        Government is systematic violence. The US Government is particularly violent, and has violated the wrong people. Whoever did the 9/11 attacks put at least three of our names on it.
        I’m one of the beasts. My name is “The Bible” and a lot of other things everyone confuses with Jesus. The 9/11 attacks contains a tribute to my childhood Christian friend, her mother and I.
        It is primarily a tribute to her mother. Her name is synonymous with the word “Terrorism”, and she was born to a preacher and Sunday School teacher on September 11, 1941 like a “New Pearl Harbor”.
        Once I explain it in detail, you’ll see how it is connected to other things and just how wrong everyone is. The eventual result is all hell breaking loose.

        1. I see… So, your name is “The Bible”…
          Have you considered that the backlash against US and Israel is part of what “they” are going for? That it is part of the plan to demolish the “old world order” to replace it with the new?
          Or, are you suggesting that the backlash is something the perpetrators are worried about and/or scared of?
          I will wait for you to “explain it in detail”, o wise one!

          1. “I see… So, your name is “The Bible”…”
            Yes. “The Bible” is rooted in the Egyptian word for “Stem”, which is my name. It’s also encrypted within in a way that is somewhat specific to me.
            “Have you considered that the backlash against US and Israel is part of what “they” are going for? That it is part of the plan to demolish the “old world order” to replace it with the new? Or, are you suggesting that the backlash is something the perpetrators are worried about and/or scared of?”
            Neither. I am not too concerned with or believe in the whole NWO elitist conspiracy nonsense. I don’t even think in those terms. It’s just not like that.
            Globalization is the inevitable result of human evolution. The more we advance technologically, the more we populate and become interdependent, the closer we get to a global system. It’s going to happen anyway, naturally, after you and I are long gone. It will probably take a couple more generations.
            “I will wait for you to “explain it in detail”, o wise one!”
            Perhaps my time and effort is better spent elsewhere with those who will take it seriously?

  15. @David Hazan
    Have you ever played “connect the dots”?
    You start with a set of meaningless numbered dots on an otherwise blank sheet of paper. The more dots that you connect, the more a picture is revealed. Until you have all or most of them connected, you don’t see the picture of whatever it is.
    Now, take that analogy a step further and consider an encrypted connect the dots with a code key. The dots are instead labeled with symbols. And you have to have the table or code key to identify the order in which they connect. Not only do you need the key code, but also have to actually connect them all in order to see a picture or make sense of it.
    The code works much the same way, albeit a bit more complicated. Instead of numbers dots and lines on paper, it is people places events and circumstances across time. Once you put it all together, a picture is revealed that will blow your mind.
    My identity is the code key.
    There is no evil magic sea monster or RFID chip NWO nonsense. It is simply a picture of reality not yet realized by the masses. Because that reality is in such stark contrast to what people ‘know’ is real, because that reality is a bit harsh and unpalatable, it is potentially very upsetting to a lot of people.
    And because it is a bit complex, because it requires you to perceive things in terms of time/cause/effect as being fluid, most people will have a difficulty understanding. …which only exacerbates the issue. Most people are simply not intelligent enough to fully understand until they have spent years researching and analyzing it, if ever.
    Now consider that someones have been rearranging dots and messing with the code key/table as to prevent you from ever completing the puzzle.
    Now also consider that those someones are involved in a lot of criminality, death and destruction. In other words, the picture went from something like a butterfly to a picture of a mushroom cloud.
    It has the potential to start WW3. That’s what we’re dealing with here. Thus it is very very important that we apply our best intellect and scientific analyzation as to discern truth.
    If you are going to dismiss it based on the fact that I am not a magical sea monster, then you’re going to be completely lost. ….similar to how it would be had people simply took the government’s word for it that Muslims in caves on the other side of the world did it because they hate Americans for their freedom.
    Get it? Good.

    1. Oh, I got it alright! It is now even clearer that you are full of it!
      What exactly gave you the idea that I was looking for a “magical sea monster”, an “RFID chip” or any other “nonsense”?? What gives you the idea that other people are stupid? What gives you the idea that other people are not able to see and/or connect the dots?
      Do I really need to “consider” that “those someones are involved in a lot of criminality” etc? Is this not basic common knowledge for anyone with a brain larger than a pea?
      Before going on diatribes about how “most people are simply not intelligent enough to fully understand…”, have you considered that it is not about intelligence, but that those “most people” you speak of are simply not interested and don’t give a shit to even look at the dots, let alone decipher them? For that same exact reason, those people certainly do not lurk around Truth&Shadows waiting for you to educate them.
      And, lastly… When you arrive at a new site and feel compelled to comment (let’s say with good intentions and to enlighten people), do you not feel that you should test the waters a little before you start peeing in it?
      What exactly is your revelation here? That you know, and you have seen more dots than others In spite of your condescending know-it-all attitude, you are yet to offer a single sentence to justify or substantiate your grandiose claims. You’re gonna have to do a lot better than your above bullcrap.
      Until then, happy dot spotting to you, EverStem13.

      1. “Oh, I got it alright! It is now even clearer that you are full of it!”
        Right, you ‘know’ because we have taken the time to thoroughly analyze this large body of evidence I have to present, and have reached a confirmed conclusion that it is meaningless.
        (That’s sarcasm, just in case you didn’t get it)
        You are obviously one of those who lack the intellectual capacity for a more analytical or scientific approach, as is apparent by your lack of curiosity or willingness to explore the possibilities by some reasonable standard.
        Either that or you are intentionally obfuscating the discussion, making it about ego and personal attack. That is called “ad hominem” when you attack the source rather than the evidence or position itself.
        I am trying to give you a requisite explanation as to the principle function of how the code works. But you are more interested in tearing into me before we get started. Honestly, it makes you look kind of stupid.
        And the reality is that what I have discovered is indeed rather complex. I posit that unless you have an IQ of about 120 or above, you’ll have difficulty fully understanding.
        I don’t say that to be arrogant or condescending, but rather simply keeping it real. I am “gifted”. At my very best, I operate at the lower range of genius, and it is work for me to understand some of it. It’s just complicated, that’s all. It will test your analytical abilities. When you start delving onto it, getting to the details and deeper aspects, it requires impeccable reasoning.
        Everything I have to offer is absolute fact, much of it well established and known to everyone. It is simply a matter of pointing it out and recognizing it as something with meaning. …initially anyway. After that it requires a very thorough and lengthy application of the scientific method, deductive reasoning, induction and inference, etc.

        1. Everything I have to offer is absolute fact, much of it well established and known to everyone. It is simply a matter of pointing it out and recognizing it as something with meaning. …initially anyway. After that it requires a very thorough and lengthy application of the scientific method, deductive reasoning, induction and inference, etc. ~ EverStem13
          Start the damn”offering” soon please, while I go google these deeply complicated and sophisticated concepts like “scientific method” “deductive reasoning” and “induction and inference”…. Hmmm… I wonder if there is a “For Dummies” version of these concepts… Or an animated version for single digit IQs like my own…
          This “Me so smart, you so dumb” talk is getting tiring…

  16. Does anyone remember the media presenting the question of if 9/11 was a code for something or had any special meaning?
    Has anyone come up with a good answer to that yet?

      1. That is a very reasonable conclusion. But I doubt it.
        From my perspective, it appears as part of a coded message that serves as an attached sentiment that could be anything from an insult, honorable mention, or as part of a multi-layered false flag, ..and in addition to all the many other possible motives such as the military industrial complex and global hegemony.

  17. @David Hazan (or everyone)
    How many coincidences before something can no longer be reasonably considered coincidence?
    In basic terms we may be able to define that by saying once is an event or thing, twice is a coincidence, or maybe even three times a coincidence, but after about four or five or six or more times, it’s established as a pattern or some kind of order.
    When you apply that basic reasoning to a context, it involves people places events and circumstances and requires discernment between what is indicative conclusive or definitive. It gets into things like cause/effect/time and relativity, qualifiers with virtually endless variables that require answers to things like odds and probability, motives, human nature and basic psychology, etc, etc …etc….
    It gets really complicated really quick. You find yourself completely immersed in layers and layers of what where when who how and why.
    So, what is a pattern of numbers and symbolism and metaphors connected to a pattern of events and circumstances corresponding to a context that corresponds to a pattern of people and a pattern of anomalies?

    1. Alright… Since you called me by name, I will share with you the code that I have found in the 9/11 story…
      In simple gematria, 9+1+1=11 … And when you reduce that as well, you get 2
      Then, I took everything that was said on the day of 9/11 starting with the Harley guy’s statement, then news reports, comments, analysis, police and firemen radio, air traffic control transcripts, phone calls made from the hijacked planes, and the full text of My Pet Goat… Then I took everything that was said about 9/11 since then, including the 911 report, all witness reports, all documentaries and all blogs, radio shows, seminars, interviews, speeches, articles and scientific experiments, all of the names of the people who died that day, and applied simple gematria to all of them. And the result simply blew my mind. When you reduce it all by using gematria, you get, once again a 2…. That is just incredible!!!!!!
      Case closed.

          1. In other words; you’re scared of something, therefore continuing with your ridicule and obfuscations.
            Why not actually try to address the question?
            How many layers of patterns and coincidences before it can no longer be dismissed as coincidence?

          2. That’s what I’m trying to do. I thought I would give a preliminary explanation, help assist with focus and interpretation.
            But you are obviously already aware, and my time is apparently better spent elsewhere with those who will take it seriously or who have no motives to stifle me.

  18. How many layers of patterns and coincidences before something can no longer be considered coincidence?
    What is a reasonable standard of such?

    1. Here you go again… Is this a test? Or, is it that you’d like to know as well and you are looking for an answer??
      In any case, you’ll need to word your question a little more carefully, give an example or two perhaps… At least set the standard for what exactly we are talking about…
      If there are two earthquakes one after the other within a few days from each other, and I asked you if you’d consider this to be a coincidence, would you not want to know where these two earthquakes took place geographically, whether or not they are on the same fault line, whether one was the aftershock of the other, etc. etc…???
      The so-called “reasonable standard” for coincidences is not a constant… The fact that fish can swim is not a coincidence. The fact that you and I had fish for dinner tonight probably is a coincidence… Then again, if fish could not swim, or if humans could not digest fish, neither you nor I would have been able to have fish for dinner, which makes all of it less than coincidence… And if we lived in the same house and had dinner together, then it would not be a friggin’ coincidence at all!!!!!
      Come on now… Put those IQ points to work! Make your case…

      1. I am establishing a requisite qualifier. There are more.
        So, again, I ask; At what point in a series of coincidences can it no longer be considered a coincidence?
        By what reasonable standard is this based?

          1. That is irrelevant. (at least for now) If you want to know the truth, then you’ll cease with the games. But I see your motive is completely opposite and I, frankly, have very little need or desire to further converse with you. …although I’m curious as to who you’re working for.
            Someone wants to know the truth, and I see a significant portion of it that can make a difference. It starts with understanding exactly what we’re dealing with. Hence qualifiers.
            The idea is that I can first establish a reasonable standard of measure with various qualifiers, a frame of reference, then go from there. If we do opposite, we’ll be debating endlessly while you pick at each and every little thing to obfuscate and throw the whole conversation off balance as you are attempting to do now.
            How many times before a series of coincidences can no longer reasonably be considered coincidence? , ..and by what standard is this based?
            Anyone else?

          2. You’re like a kid demanding to use the car, having no idea how the controls work, expecting to drive like you’re Jeff Gordon. It’s doesn’t work like that. Your demand for instant gratification is simply not doable.
            I am looking at anywhere from 100-3000+ years of evidence/proof of time travel in one form or another, the implications of which are staggering and guaranteed to change the world upon realization. If humanity cannot take a reasoned intelligent and civil approach, 3 billion people may/probably will die in the next few years.
            The last thing we need are idiots playing stupid games.
            Before I can do anything to show you, I must first establish qualifiers because perception and the normal constraints of time in regard to things like cause/effect are not applicable in the same way. The logic gets deeper, much more complex and expansive, and into the abstract that requires you to make sense of paradoxes and patterns of coincidence and such.
            There is a whole other level of logic in play. It is not for the layman. As I said above, it requires impeccable reasoning. Not only that, but when you start getting into the context and motives, etc, it becomes even more expansive. It is like trying to catch god committing a crime or something.
            Thus your demand of “Do it already!” is sophomoric and ignorant. Or you are intentionally trying to screw up this conversation and prevent it from an eventual conclusion, much like others I have encountered in recent years.
            Again, I ask; At what point can a set of coincidences no longer reasonably be considered coincidence, and by what measure or basis?

          3. I am looking at anywhere from 100-3000+ years of evidence/proof of time travel in one form or another, the implications of which are staggering and guaranteed to change the world upon realization. ~ EverStem13
            So, we are talking about time travel then, eh? Why didn’t you just say so from the get go, my man? Now, I am all eyes and ears… Because I do a bit of time traveling myself, but only into the future… So far, I have been unsuccessful in going backwards… So, I have a lot to learn about the subject, both in theory and practice, which I am hoping you will soon start to teach. Now that we understood what we are talking about here, I’m gonna just shut my mouth, and be a good (albeit very dumb according to you) student.
            But, a friendly advice before I let you be… Maybe you need to stop asking questions… Especially without giving it an ounce of context… Maybe you need to work on how you structure your ambiguous statements in order to pique the interest of your audience… Maybe you do have the answer… Who knows… But if you are gonna keep asking the same question over and over again with the intention of providing us with training wheels for this super complicated subject matter, you are not gonna get far.. Plus, if we can’t get past the question of “where did you put the car keys?”, how are we gonna learn to drive this thing?
            Or, maybe, I should be the one to ask you the question:
            EverStem13… At what point can a set of coincidences no longer reasonably be considered coincidence, and by what measure or basis?
            See you in the future, EverStem…

          4. There is nothing wrong with my approach. I explained it, but you insist on making it about other things like ego, which I have already addressed. If you will indulge me long enough, it will eventually pan out. It is lengthy and work and we should already be delving into it instead of being stuck on start. This is going to go nowhere as long as you insist on being (using your words) dumb.
            Perceiving it through a movie is easy. Everything is a given, it is already presented as an integral part of the story. It doesn’t quite work like that in real life. You have to thoroughly examine and analyze everything and apply qualifiers as to confirm it as evidence for further analyzation.
            This is why I start with qualifiers such as what constitutes intent as opposed to coincidences. So, again, …at what point in a series of coincidences can it no longer reasonably be considered a coincidence, and by what standard or basis?

          1. Thanks, it was the “apparent” bit I wasn’t sure about.
            I guess the answer to your question depends on your epistemology, at least if you’re a subjectivist! I am not, and I would say it depends how reasonable your explanation is. Which I am interested to hear.
            I assume you’ve fully considered:
            Some non time traveling human(s) are playing a (possibly cross-generational) trick on you.
            You’re completely mad, so much so that you can’t tell. Maybe you are seeing things that are not really there… perhaps there is acid in your drinking water, or you have an aneurysm or something.
            True miracles.
            Something like Tipler’s conclusion (get this if you haven’t):
            It’s just one of those things, someone else’s problem etc.

          2. “Thanks, it was the “apparent” bit I wasn’t sure about.”
            Thank you for engaging me with an intelligent and curious inquiry.
            “I would say it depends how reasonable your explanation is. Which I am interested to hear.”
            Honestly, I’m not sure where to start, as there is a LOT to it, and I certainly have a lot more to figure out. Part of my purpose for this is the need for assistance. But it is indeed real.
            While you have not gone through the process that I have as to conclude the legitimacy of it, I have. It’s taken me years to get to this point and has effected my life in a big way. It’s real. I am not crazy and it is not an elaborate practical long term joke or whatever. No, it is a large body of evidence of knowledge moving backwards in time, to include physical and circumstantial evidence, much of which is accessible to everyone and well established facts. It’s in plain sight. You just don’t realize that’s what you’re looking at.
            There is also a context, a story of people and their lives that is somewhat necessary to understanding this, at least the part that pertains to my people and I. That is apparently part of the encryption method; context. If you are unaware of the context, you are unable to recognize it as anything of significance.
            But whoever they are, they will make mistakes on occasion. To the trained eye it is noticeable. To others who are not even considering it as a possibility, it gets overlooked and often rationalized as something else.
            I will give you an example of what I suspect is one of their mistakes;
            Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. In the wreckage, they found a timing device for the explosive that was matched to a series/batch of twenty custom ordered timers bought by Libyan government.
            Upon further examination, there were discrepancies discovered in regard to the manufacturing standards, process and materials, to suggest that it was not one of those 20 timers, and therefore not the Libyans.
            I was listening to an interview with Dr Jim Swire where he mentioned that the manufacturing method/materials for the timer did not exist until several years later. He appears to have rationalized that it must have been custom made as part of a conspiracy or something.
            Interestingly enough, I found his ‘truth movement’ by following a trail of time travel evidence that led me to Pan Am 103. Thus, from my perspective, he was rationalizing physical and circumstantial evidence of time travel.
            (the part about the timer is around the 9-10 minute mark)

          3. In a basic sense, yes. But because I lack sufficient information to confirm or support it, I won’t consider it anything beyond a hypothesis.
            Consider the effort and knowledge necessary to confirm it. That is what I meant by getting into qualifiers and layers of who what when where how and why. The best we can do at this point is to infer.
            There is a reason or premise to account for the discrepancies noted by Dr. Swire. So what is it?
            And when you consider the possibilities of time travel (however it works), it is not beyond reason to consider that people from the future will read this and intentionally make a custom timer or otherwise take action accordingly for no other reason that to cover their tracks as to respond to us. How many ways can that work?
            As I said; it’s gets really complicated, really quick. Impeccable reasoning is a necessity.

          4. Impeccable reasoning is a necessity. ~ EverStem13
            I am assuming, with this impeccable reasoning, one would also consider all the other possibilities that might yield the said outcome in your example, even if it were just to rule them out..
            I do understand that it was just an example. So, I’d like to hear more.

          5. Alternate theory: The technology or process for the manufacturing of the timers in question already existed somewhere.
            Who had it first?
            What is the history of the development of the manufacturing technology in question and/or supporting or requisite technology?
            How did it end up in a bomb on an airplane?

          6. Before all that, who exactly ‘found’ this timer?
            Who performed the forensic examination of this timer?
            Who exactly identified this as a Libyan timer? Subsequently, who discovered that it was actually not a Libyan timer?
            Who told the press?
            Are all (or any) of these people or agencies or Investigators or,press actually telling the truth?
            Was Libya given a chance to examine the timer?
            How would Qaddafi even benefit from bringing down a passenger plane?
            In the 80s, who would benefit from lying to the entire world and implicating Libya in this incident?
            Are governments, the military and the intelligence agencies known to have planned and performed or outsourced such false flags or deceptions while basing their entire case and arguments on either flimsy, or dubiously obtained, or outright planted or manufactured evidence?
            Could this timer have been as fake as the JFK magic bullet found on a stretcher, or the ground zero blast resistant terrorist passport of this story? As in a fake and planted evidence linking the incident to the desired patsy…
            And lastly, how exactly do we know that this timer exists at all, let alone the exact technology used in its circuit boards???

          7. Those are all good questions, very relevant. I don’t know all the answers, and I am unsure of how to contact Dr. Swire.
            Here is what I do know. There is cryptography in some places pointing things out. It is often accompanied by time anomalies such as with the timer. In order to confirm it, a LOT of questions must be answered.
            PA103 is simply an example to demonstrate what to look for, how to find evidence of time travel. If you find it, it is going to buried beneath something or in plain sight but missing half the information to make sense of it. In order to see it, you have to really dig into things.
            My hypothesis is that the timer is indeed evidence. Even if it is not apparent with the physical tangible technology, somewhere in the process from conception to manufacturing is knowledge moving backwards. Even if it were custom made, the process may include knowledge from the future.
            That’s how it works. It would be the equivalent to finding an antique musket from the 1700’s with steel that used a process unknown until the 1970’s, that was a result of two other processes to understand that particular process. It means that someone with manufacturing knowledge was in the 1700’s and made muskets. You won’t know until you actually analyze the steel. It looks like any other musket, but the steel is different.
            That is to say that it is about the knowledge, not necessarily the object. Whatever the example may be, it is always in the form of knowledge moving backward.

    1. I mean it in a simple/basic definition of the word.
      Specifically, I am referring to a pattern of information corresponding to people and circumstance.
      It is similar to finding the words “captive scientist” in several places where you know you would find it, and in a way that was put there before you were born or ever adopted that screen name, …and accompanied by things like your height and eye color and your favorite song, as well as your favorite food and your ex wife’s pet name.
      Once is a coincidence. Twice maybe. But after a few times, you start to consider the odds and probability of that many specifics lining up in such perfect order. After so many of them, you eventually you come to the conclusion that it is indeed evidence, then graduate to how it got there and who did it and why, etc.

    2. Just checked and for some reason your questions went into “spam.” Usually that only happens when someone includes a bunch of links. Weird. So I will transfer the comment out of spam.

  19. I think EverStem13 is trying to tell everybody here that ‘9/11’, and what followed, was sat in motion long time ago.
    If my thinking about this is true, then I can only agree 100%.
    ‘9/11’ was in fact planned just prior to the year 1911.
    Last time I was contributing to this forum, was when the visitors count on my thread over at
    ‘Pilots4Truth’ had reached 92,000 since its beginning in April 2010. Today the visitors count
    is now approaching 365,000, and going stronger, or quicker, than ever before.
    What took place in the year 1911 is indicated in the OP of this thread. In post #11 on the first
    page is given an overview of what can be expected on the following 51 pages.
    Interested readers can check it out here:

    1. “I think EverStem13 is trying to tell everybody here that ‘9/11’, and what followed, was sat in motion long time ago. If my thinking about this is true, then I can only agree 100%.”
      No, I am talking about actual time travel, as in physically moving backward in time, either a person or objects that facilitate foreknowledge of events and circumstances and ability to act accordingly.
      There is a LOT of information to cover here. And a lot of it requires perceiving things differently than most are used to, in addition to the in-depth analyzation and impeccable reasoning. Some of it is simply unprovable, yet observable from the right perspective.
      Understand this has been a long gradual process with me that has consumed the better part of my life and has cost me a lot, perhaps more to come.
      Understand that I have had direct contact with people with access to it.
      Understand that I am sitting on circumstantial and physical evidence, as well as witness accounts. Understand that I myself am evidence/proof of time travel. Imagine finding very clear and specific, although cryptic, references to your identity and life in a time and place before you were born or before events took place.
      Understand there is a greater context to consider beyond the 9/11 attacks.
      That’s what I am dealing with.

      1. Before you get to your extensive reasoning and evidence could I ask if you agree that your comments so far are at least somewhat similar to what we might expect from Michael Shermer himself “proving his point”? If so, considering the supposed risk of “crippled epistemology” through “cognitive infiltration”, what benefit do you see for critics of 9/11 who might be tempted to read through and possibly adopt your ideas?
        Please understand I’m not saying I disagree with everything you’ve said/we should tiptoe around Shermer/the truth isn’t important etc.

        1. I am not motivated the same way as Shermer or almost anyone out there. Understand that I am coming from a completely different perspective. Most of my motivation is about truth that I need as an individual to proceed with my life. I gotta deal with this.
          There is a much larger context to this. 9/11 is only a piece of it. Humanity is being enslaved with ignorance and human nature and every or anything that can be exploited as a tool to do so. That is unacceptable for any children that I may have or leave on this planet. That is another reason.
          Not only have I had a long series of anomalous experiences, I’ve managed to discover and/or collect a large body of evidence of time travel, mostly in the form of cryptography. I myself am evidence. I am essentially looking at 3000 years of cryptography with my identity on it. I can show you all a lot of it here. It is VERY problematic, however.
          Religion is one major issue. Christians won’t like it. Either way they’re incorrect about some things. And I happen to be an exact match, above and beyond what it would take to convince many, to what they think is an evil sea monster. I am also an exact match to what they are confusing with Jesus. If even 1% of them move against me, that is still tens of millions of people. That’s a problem.
          Another problem is that I am looking at a trail of death and destruction and scandal going back 100+ years with my(and others’) identities on it, that I know I would not do. And there’s a political aspect to this that could very well start a war.
          Time travel is difficult enough to understand. Applying it to a real-life context gets even more complicated. Discerning crimes and terrorism or scandals as to who did what and when, etc, is a quagmire that stresses out geniuses.
          There is also the possibility that I am a traveler, perhaps lost/hidden or AWOL or something. There are people who think am a traveler, who have unwittingly demonstrated to me that it may be true. If this is true, then I suspect that I have a LOT of descendants on this planet, and it is absolutely crucial that I do what I am supposed to.
          Someone knows WTH is really going on. But instead of helping me, they are messing with me really hard.
          There is so much I am not saying. I could really use assistance in figuring this out. There is just a lot to it. It is not as simple as a conversation on a thread about a terrorist attack. …as complex as that, in and of itself, is.

  20. While I am thinking about it, I want to make something very clear;
    I am a somewhat average poor white American redneck piece of crap suburbanite slob and complete mess of a human being stumbling my way through life trying to figure it out like anyone else.
    I am not special, nor do I think I am better than anyone or judge them on intellect or any of that superficial nonsense in regard to class or money or race or nationality or what have you.

  21. “I am assuming, with this impeccable reasoning, one would also consider all the other possibilities that might yield the said outcome in your example, even if it were just to rule them out..”
    Yes, exactly.
    Everything possible must be considered to start, which requires a lot of fact checking and evidence gathering. Then comes the process of deduction, which requires qualifiers and all the what when where who how and why that comes with it. …and with little to no room for mistakes.
    “I do understand that it was just an example. So, I’d like to hear more.”
    And I have more, a lot more, …much of which is in the form of cryptography. Hence my questions of patterns and coincidences, etc. It is very problematic, however, because it involves everything from the John Titor posts to prophecy from the Abrahamic religions, and then some.
    Not only that, but I am trying to walk a thin line between resolution that requires a certain level of exposure and protecting innocent parties that may fall victim to religious zealots and crazies.
    There is also the possibility of political and military conflicts to consider. Mind you, the USA collectively accused and committed genocide based on what is most likely a set of false premises.
    …and a few other miscellaneous things to lengthy to mention. (It’s a bit overwhelming)
    In other words; this can easily escalate into a great big mess even larger than the mess that it already is. So, as Mr. McKee mentioned, there is a certain level of care to be taken. I am not sure I care on a personal level, but it is something worth considering.
    Ideally, I can get together with some great minds in a think tank context and make a more elaborate and lengthy presentation.

    1. Before getting too excited about “time travel”, one should know that such an action would be a complete impossibility as “Time” itself does not exist as reality, but only as a concept and a help to immature mankind.
      Only “the sequence of events” exist as total reality.
      “Time” as we know it, is supremely relative, and as such will be experienced differently by people according to f.ex. age and maturity.
      The clocks has in reality little to do with the concept of ‘time’ or the rhythm of ‘time’, but are merely instruments to record units of interval by which the length of periods are divided.

      1. Is there such a thing as layers of algorithmic patterned contextual coincidence? How many patterned layers of contextual coincidence before it can no longer reasonably be considered a coincidence?
        That is rhetorical, of course. How DO you approach that line of reasoning?
        What if it transcends time and all developmental stages of humanity? By that I mean ruling out the possibility of it being a radio signal or something of that nature. If you could create a pulse of some kind that would transmit to a different time, you could use Morse code to transmit to the right people, and do all kinds of interesting things with it. …but not before radio was invented.
        Thus if you found anything evident prior to that time period, it would have to be from something physically foreign or external from the environment. …which could be anything from a stack of papers with instructions, to a future device to boost or aid technological development a radio.
        What if it kills bio-organisms, and is only possible with specific materials like titanium or ceramics?
        What if it was in the form of a/some medium(song, movie or book) that was time dependent and exclusive to a context and yielded multiple results in the form of tangible layers of contextual coincidences across a span of a few thousand years? Does it mean that you are going to explain it to someone who will relay it to the past, …or does it mean that you are going to do it? ..or maybe ‘time travel meets false flag Turk 182 ‘?
        Is it possible to read something from a website from the ancient internet, then manipulate events accordingly without destroying the current universe?
        What exactly did Jesus mean in Revelation 22:18?
        What if multiverse theory is correct and how does that apply?

      2. “The clocks has in reality little to do with the concept of ‘time’ or the rhythm of ‘time’, but are merely instruments to record units of interval by which the length of periods are divided.”
        You’re twisting my melon man.

        1. Oh, so sorry! Hope no ‘pain’ was involved.
          It might possibly be of interest for some to know that in the Transcendental world ‘months, days, hours, minutes and seconds’ are there unknown entities.
          Other terms are used to describe ‘the sequence of events’.

          1. Spiritual beings measure time in terms of time-periods and not in terms of earthly years.
            The description “aeon” is much used, and 1 aeon corresponds to about 3 million years, but only by human reckoning.
            Highly advanced spiritual beings experience this time-period as a relatively short time in the big scheme of things.
            Other terms used for much shorter periods, has so far never been divulged to human beings.

          2. Two quick questions:
            Are these terms for time-periods essentially a different scale and/or a different measurement unit for the same sequential “time” we keep track of in earth years? Or, do “highly advanced spiritual beings” also perceive or experience what we call “time” differently?
            And, when you say “…has so far never been divulged…”, it sounds like there is information that has already ben divulged to human beings… Who (or what) is doing the divulging? With what means?

          3. “…it sounds like there is information that has already ben divulged to human beings… Who (or what) is doing the divulging? With what means? ”
            As I mentioned above; It’s right in plain sight for all to see, only by using various means of cryptography. It ain’t spiritual beings thinking in terms of aeons either.
            That’s why I ask things like how many coincidences before it can no longer reasonably considered a coincidence.

  22. I was rather hungry as I hadn’t eaten properly in a few days. I remembered that I had a coffee can of change minus laundry quarters somewhere. I decided that I would find them and cash them in at the counting machine at the grocery store, then head to the nearby KFC.
    When I got to the change counting machine, there was a little girl and a man in front of me starting their counting. I waited for them to finish and leave while I started pushing buttons and loading change.
    I made my transaction there and went directly to the KFC down the street. The same little girl and man were there in front of me in line. They ,coincidentally, had the same thing in mind that day at the same time; to cash in change and go to KFC for lunch.
    No big deal, just a coincidence. I never saw them before, and not since. They just happened to be doing the same thing on the same time and day.
    But let’s expand that example and turn it into a hypothetical. Say you are in that position…
    The next year, on a different month, you decide to go cash in your change and hit the KFC again, and the same little girl and the same man are in front of you, not only at the change counting machine, but also the KFC. That is still a coincidence, albeit a little more coincidental. But nonetheless still a coincidence.
    About a year later, again, on a different month than the other times, you, again, cash in your change and go to lunch. When you get there, the same little girl and same man are in front of you counting their change. You see this and note the peculiarity and decide to mix it up a little to instead go to In -n- Out for a burger. When you get there, the same little girl and same man are in front of you in line.
    What are the odds of that?
    The next year, on a different date, you again decide to cash in your change and get lunch. Only this time you decide to go to a completely different change counting machine and a different place for lunch. When you get there, again, the same little girl and same man are in front of you. You wait for them and then go to McDonald’s for lunch. Again, they are in front of you in line.
    The next year, on a different date, you decide to do the same thing, only at a different change machine as the previous ones. You also decide to go to lunch at a completely random location, not to be decided until you get there. You’ll just drive around until something looks tasty.
    When you get there, the same little girl and same man are in front of you. You wait for them, do your counting, then go drive around on the other side of town looking for a place to eat lunch. You decide on a small privately owned diner. You walk in and notice the same man and little girl in front of you in line.
    Again, the next year, you do the same thing. You go to a different change machine and decide randomly on a place to eat lunch. Again, the same little girl and same man are in front of you at both places.
    What are the odds of that? How could they possibly anticipate that? Why would they go through all that trouble just to be there as part of a pattern? And why are they acting normal. Surely they must notice. Surely they must be questioning it themselves.
    While you’re waiting in line, the man asks about your cousin; “How’s your cousin Sally, the blond heavy set girl with brown eyes that works at the grocery?”
    Presuming he must know about you though social circles, you tell him that she is fine, then ask him how he knows her. He then explains that he doesn’t, that he was just joking, that he was just making a guess.
    So you inquire further. You confront him about it, citing that that is too specific to be a guess, and that it is not a joke or anything natural that strangers would be chatting about while waiting in line. Then you ask him about why he is always wherever you go, and what they are really doing.
    Of course, you look crazy, even though you KNOW something is VERY VERY unusual about the whole history of interaction. Aggravated, you leave, go elsewhere for your lunch. You even decide to not do that any more, no more change and lunch.
    But, over the course of the next few years, you randomly encounter strangers who now always mention something about cashing in loose change and then going to lunch. Whether it is the coin laundry, or internet or workplace or bus stop or wherever, people keep randomly approaching you and mentioning cashing in their change then going to lunch.
    And not only that, they are also mentioning things that are unique and specific to private conversations, other detailed things about your life. If you confront them, they always make up an excuse or lie about it. But you know the difference. You know that there has to be a lot of effort to be able to do that, to know that, and you know it is none of their damn business.
    So you complain to family and friends, cops, strangers, everyone, ..whoever might or can help. But no one does because it’s not their problem, or because they cannot perceive or understand, and simply dismiss you as crazy. The whole time, for years, you are being stalked and harassed, your whole life being disrupted by someone’s stupid games.
    Okay, well, that’s basically how it all started with me many years ago, only in a different context. My response thus far has been to play along, gather information and use it to hunt the source, whoever is organizing all the stupid games. I’m pissed off about it. I have done nothing to any of them or to provoke such violations. I am simply trying to mind my own business and pursue my happiness. ..and they have been following me around aggravating the hell out of me for years.
    That has been my root motivation. I am pissed off about being stalked because it has been a major disruption to my life and ability to function or be happy. It needs to be resolved, rectified.
    Several years ago I realize they were privy to knowledge of things that hadn’t happened yet, specific things that were too too variable and random to control or to make happen, things that were ‘out of place’ in regard to time. From that point I have been digging into it a lot and have discovered things I would never have imagined. I have graduated through several levels, dug through so many layers of this stuff, and I am coming from a completely different perspective than most. I see things most don’t.
    I am telling you that it has elements of things like time travel and religion, cryptography, family and community, etc. And it looks like humanity has bigger problems that it realizes. I have been trying to reach out to others and figure this out for years, but no one cares.
    In addition to all the other reasons like hegemony, a sentiment was added. Someone is pissed off and gave “Hell to pay, Fire and damnation”. I think I see why, and I can’t say that I blame them.

    1. Sounds more and more like you’re going through the same as poor “katsung47” over at P4T’s debate forum!
      Great similarities between you two, even though your circumstances are quite different.
      You and David Hazan should really check out my thread or OP linked to in my post above from 12th. September?

      1. Ha… Good one, Djeminy.
        But, I’d be very interested in reading you and EverStem13 hash this whole thing out and reconcile your respective beliefs of time travel and life after death… For example, when combined, through the use of time travel one could easily change life after death to life before death or even death after life’. So many possibilities…

      2. I doubt it. It started with a stalker problem and has graduated to a lot more.
        This is about time travel, the 9/11 attacks, 3k years of human history, and a long list of things related. I am not BS’ing. I am looking at (at least part of) what everyone is trying to figure out. It’s very problematic and complex though. And I am still trying to figure out a lot of it myself.
        On a personal level, this has caused me a lot of problems, and I need to rectify this issue. In order to do that I have to confront the situation. The situation just happens to be a big deal. And I could use some assistance.
        My reasoning is that, since there is a truth movement of millions who care about a piece of it, they would be the people to approach.
        In order to enlist their help, they need to be aware. In order to make them aware, I have to show them. In order to show them, they have to indulge in concepts such as contextualized patterned coincidences and knowledge moving backwards in time. But many think it is a joke or about ego or crazy or something else or are unwilling to see anything beyond what they already ‘know’ or think. And if not done properly, it could completely exacerbate the already messed up situation.

  23. Does anyone remember how the FBI caught the “Unabomber”? The answer is that they didn’t.
    What happened is his brother and sister in-law recognized his writings and enlisted help of others. They investigated and then presented a set of coincidences to the FBI, ..coincidences.
    What if they had been ridiculed or dismissed, called crazy?

  24. If you wanted to leave a message for someone, to be discovered two thousand years from now, and not before, how would you do it? What are the parameters necessary as to facilitate it?
    It would need a medium of some kind, and it would have to be permanent, or at least last a few thousand years.
    It would have to be encrypted somehow so that someone wouldn’t intercept it.
    It would have to be done in a way that was clear once decrypted, as to eliminate confusion. Thus it would require specifics to make it distinguishable from other things over the course of that time.

  25. Reading through this thread, I am reminded of just how selfish, narrow minded and stupid people really are.
    I am sitting on enormously valuable information, looking at some of the greatest secrets of our species, to include discovery of evidence of time travel, the bible code, the secret to 9/11 and numerous other similar events, etc.
    I have had a very difficult time with people messing with me with some sort of COINTELPRO nonsense. All I need is a single good Samaritan to assist me, to indulge me long enough under the right conditions, and it will change the world. Of 8 billion people, there is not one of them.
    Perhaps humanity does not deserve truth?
    Maybe humans deserve slavery and violence, even extermination?
    Maybe humans are just too selfish, stupid and barbaric for something as god-like as time travel? Maybe they would simply find a way to weaponize it and do evil with it?
    Maybe they already will/did?

    1. EverSem13… My language might not have been as kind as you would have liked it to be, but I did try, multiple times, to point out that there was something fundamentally wrong in your approach to share your findings an information. Not the least of it is the venue you have chosen to try to have such a conversation.
      Personally, the big difference between my approach towards your comments back when we started and now, is that I am now mostly convinced that you are sincere and you genuinely believe in what you are talking about… Which, in this internet world of ours, is something I feel I need to determine before I even start taking such a topic or any topic seriously.
      Funnily (so to speak), Craig just published an article about how incredibly difficult and frustrating it is to try to talk to people trying to convince them of notions that they deem “simply impossible” or is against their own belief systems… Granted, what he is talking about is a much more tangible, much more demonstrable and much more obvious than what you are trying to describe here about time travel. Nonetheless, in a general sense, the nature of the refusal to listen or even entertain a new thought or info seems to be common to both.
      Especially in this last comment of yours that I am replying to, I feel your pain, and it makes me a little sad, but also makes me regret some of my comments above when I was trying to stress test you to determine your sincerity. I also feel that you have been previously mocked for your beliefs more than once, and you seem to go into long, tangential and seldom substantive arguments in an effort to “warm up” your reader to the idea slowly, and avoid ridicule (perhaps)
      Not that you are asking for it, but if I had to give you some advice:
      Whether in this forum or any other, I would strongly recommend that you write up a synopsis of what you are trying to relay to people, which has a beginning, middle and an end. Almost like a thesis paper. With a real structure. A simple search for “thesis structure” yields countless results, some of which you could use to tidy up your own thought process as well as how you present those thoughts to your readers.
      My guess is that although most people would recoil into their own belief systems and refuse to entertain your thesis, there will be those who would ask questions, challenge your comments and/or thoughts or perhaps the entire thesis. But at least you will have an anchor argument and by replying to the challenges people throw your way, you can start expanding on the subject.
      I would like to end with a question… Since you have singled yourself out against the entire population of the planet, am I to understand that you have, whether in person or online, never come across anyone who has similar experiences, thoughts, observations?

  26. Thank you for continuing to engage me. And I apologize for my brazenness. My only excuse is that I have been through a lot and am enormously frustrated.
    One of the reasons for me commenting on this thread is because I feel that I can relate. Not only because the 9/11 truthers are a smart bunch that thinks outside the box, but because you are also dealing with the same kinds of resistance for the same thing; truth.
    Admittedly, I have toyed with you a little as to ‘feel you out’ so to speak. It hasn’t gone as well as I hoped, but also not so far from what is expected. I very much understand the difficulty in trying to show you this. It is weird, obscure, complex and difficult, to say the least.
    And it is not really a sincere belief at this point. It is basically confirmed. It means something. I am not sure of a lot of it, but it is something. I am just holding back a lot, and for good reason. While I may be able to show you, it may cost me my life, maybe many lives. It is all dependent upon humans inclination and ability to be reasonable. And if the way humans handle everything else is any indication, I am a walking dead man that will be ripped to pieces, either by stupid religious people, or angry people who think I am a terrorist from hell. And it could very easily start a war.
    Revelation 13:18 is a cryptic description of a number set that corresponds to my first, last, and full name, and exact time and date of birth, in multiple interwoven layers, quite literally forward, backward, inside out, this or that language or form, ..and in context, as well as the symbol for my name. Not only that, but my unique physical features and other aspects of my identity are included in The Bible, which happens to be my name and is filled with similar patterns.
    It is the key code to 3000-6000 years of history, and is shared by Isaiah and Yeshua/Yeshai/Yeshu.
    There are 2 billion Christians in the world. And they have all been taught to believe that the epitome of evil is going to take over the world and chip everyone or some such nonsense. If you care to research it, there are a lot of people trying to figure out what Rev. 13:18 means. They will pick someone and list a few/several points to support their theory that it is the “Antichrist”. If they are convinced by those things, they will have no question of me, as mine goes far above and beyond their qualifiers. The problem is that they are interpreting cryptography and allegory as literal, and insistent on it.
    And if you care to take the time as I have to feel them out and typical responses to being told that their beliefs mean something else, you will notice that they are not very warm to that idea. If 1% of that 2 billion react badly, it is still 20 million people. 10% is 200 million. That’s a realistic(even low-ball) figure and a problem.
    Another problem is that someone has encrypted mine and other’s identities onto a string of terrorist acts, assassinations, faked deaths, scandals and anomalous events, etc. …to include 9/11/01. As frustrated and disgusted as I get with humanity, I know I wouldn’t do that. Although I might helped people fake their deaths for their safety.
    Another problem, the one that pisses me off, is that I have a stalker problem, that I suspect is a combination of different groups/individuals with different motives, some of which have basically violated me with sick twisted games for years. I cannot tell the difference with most of them because no one will simply be honest and explain themselves, their position, or what the hell they want with me.
    Another problem is that presenting it also presents personal issues and problems of others involved, and could cause them serious issues beyond what they have already incurred.
    That is in addition to all the aforementioned complexities of introducing time travel to the world.
    When I talk about patterned coincidences and connect the dots, I don’t mean a few of them, I mean a LOT of them. Once you put it all together, it is kind of obvious, but still requires a bit of contemplation and analyzation.
    As to your suggestion to write a thesis/synopsis; It’s too big. What I need is to get with some scientifically minded people and simply present it. All I need is a white board and a couple flash drives of data, and time. Even better would be if those who already know or are involved to stop messing around and join in.
    There is also a context to all of this, a story to be told, a necessary piece of what it all means. That takes time, and isn’t something that can be put into a thesis paper. The part concerning your 9/11 truth starts over a century ago in the heartland of America with several births.
    My awareness of all of this started about the same time the Titor posts were being made, although I had no idea of any of Titor and wasn’t even on the net then. I was minding my own business, working a lot, reassessing my life trying to figure out how to not be a piece of crap and maybe be a good dad some day. I encountered stalkers who knew things they shouldn’t. I realized it went further back, and it has continued to recently.
    In mid to late 2011 I flipped out, did something very powerful and metaphysical that I have difficulty understanding. It was like a combination of clairvoyance, hypnotic programming, spiritual enlightenment, ?side effects of time travel?, or something. My mind felt like it was stretched across 3000 years. I was seeing things that hadn’t happened yet, false memories, often felt possessed and had difficulty controlling my own thoughts, etc.. It was just really profound and turbulent, …like the worst psychosis you can imagine, a personal hell of sorts.
    Not long after that, I realized that I am a very close match to a bunch of religious prophecy, then I realized it had something to do with time travel. Then I started finding all kinds of things, connecting the dots, doing a lot of investigative research.
    I am now looking at a lot of missing pieces that everyone is trying to figure out. With help, I can find the rest of them.

  27. Liked that approach to Michael ‘Squirmer’ Shermer. This guy is popular in our Dutch speaking countries The Netherlands and Belgium too where he joins up with Skepsis.
    Michael Shermer is perfectly comparable to Belgian pseudosceptics Johan Braeckman. This guy is professor philosophy at UGent and develops out of his student classes always a new author to help spread his 9/11 pseudoscepticism to readers far and wide. One of his akolytes is very active trying to pursuade his students they got it all wrong believing anything against 9/11 officialdom.

  28. In response to this recent posting from Craig of Pinker and Shermer’s visit to Montreal:
    Pinker is another Jewish intellectual who shuns 9-11 truth like the plague. We all know how Jews play a very powerful role in American(and western) politics,business media. I am now convinced that American Jews and Israelis played a key role in 9-11,and this is also why the mainstream is very vicious towards any serious discussion over this. For sources on this google articles by former CIA Philip Giraldi,former US military college prof. Alan Sobrosky, Ron Unz’s recent article (Unz is a Jew who runs the news site UNZ,which Giraldi writes for,Christopher Bollyn’s work,and former CIA Robert D. Steele.Here’s a piece of Pinker on 9-11:”Nor is the topic intellectually trifling. The 9/11 cardinality debate is not about the facts, that is, the physical events and human actions that took place that day. Admittedly, those have been contested as well: according to various conspiracy theories, the buildings were targeted by American missiles, or demolished by a controlled implosion, in a plot conceived by American neoconservatives, Israeli spies, or a cabal of psychiatrists. But aside from the kooks, most people agree on the facts. Where they differ is in the construal of those facts: how the intricate swirl of matter in space ought to be conceptualized by human minds. As we shall see, the categories in this dispute permeate the meanings of words in our language because they permeate the way we represent reality in our heads.”
    I find it interesting how people like Michael Shermer from Skeptic Magazine and biologist Richard Dawkins both dismiss 9-11 being an inside job cause they also dismiss the possibility of consciousness existing beyond the physical body. Interesting how Dawkins (who has bashed religion and a God creator in his book) has recd so much access to mainstream media. While Dr. Rupert Sheldrake who has written a book countering Dawkins (Sheldrake is also big on NDEs,telepathy,ESP,psychic phenomena,etc..) has been ignored. Sheldrake said the skeptics receive tons of money to bash people like him,while people interested in conducting research like Sheldrake on telepathy and similar stuff have no money,nor financial support. Why?? Why the coincidence? People like Richard Dawkins,Michael Shermer and much of the mainstream publications,institutions
    view our existence as very mechanical. In other words,we are biological robots. The same with much of the natural world.
    But people like Dr. Griffin,Sheldrake see our existence beyond this.
    A common theme among NDEs is that when they see the other side for a short while they learn that co-operation
    is more important than competition. Every act here has an impact on everything: birds,animals,trees.
    They realize we are one with all. I am part of Craig McKee and Craig McKee is part of me. We are part of the tree outside and birds on the tree
    tree,etc… When we cause hurt we are hurting ourselves and everything else in this life cause we are
    SPlitting the Sky had an out of body experience during the assault on the Attica prison. He personally told me,” You better believe it there is another life after this one”. He continued by saying that the reason why people like Bush,Cheney,etc..are doing what they are doing is because they this life is all there is. I think he was right. Our leaders and major institutions don’t see the larger picture.
    They can not preach the message of people like Dr. Sheldrake, Dr. Jeffrey Long,Dr. Kenneth Ring, Dr. Eben Alexander
    cause they will not be able to continue steeling ,pillaging,destroying. They prefer things the way
    they are for the short term as they satisfy their insatiable appetite for more material wealth and power

    1. “A common theme among NDEs is that when they see the other side for a short while they learn that co-operation
      is more important than competition. Every act here has an impact on everything: birds,animals,trees.
      They realize we are one with all. I am part of Craig McKee and Craig McKee is part of me. We are part of the tree outside and birds on the tree
      tree,etc… When we cause hurt we are hurting ourselves and everything else in this life cause we are
      Yes, and for me THE biggest connecting factor between oppressive civilizations and belief systems not just now, but through the millennia, is the ongoing forbidding of the Fruit of Inspiration, the psychedelics.
      From the age of religion, to the age of reason and science one thing we can be sure of is how psychedelics are being kept away from the slaves, us.
      In the religious oppression the toxic myth was that they were tools of the Devil, and the busy body sadistic Christians even invaded the ‘new world’ and savagely suppressed natives having access to their chosen psychedelics.
      For Europeans not only did they do the same earlier, but also managed to suppress the very memory of their existence, and this was why it was a big thing when magic mushrooms were discovered in the late 1950s being used by Mazatec Indians who had had to go underground for 500 years because of the Spanish conquest.
      So where’s it at now….? We are criminalized, especially in the UK if you even dare PLUCK a magic mushroom from mother Earth! So we must ask ourselves why and the quick answer is obvious, because they ARE blatantly obvious. They want to impose a narrative of ‘reality’ and to do this they want us conformed dumb robots. In this way they can wallow in their sick image of themselves as being ‘gods’!
      Their absurd ‘war on terror’ is as stupid as their ‘war on drugs’–wars never meant to be won.
      But when you become aware of their occultist obsession and how their occult code is all over ‘9/11’, ‘7/7’ etc etc etc then we can see a reason they want to suppress not only psychedelics, but any research which challenges the materialistic myth we are indoctrinated with, and then they can all the better manipulate our dissociated Dreaming Mind with their own evil black magick along with their general propaganda.
      They NEED us to feel deeply disconnected from ourselves and nature, because then they can push their virtual reality flashy Screen in betwixt having who dependent and addicted to it. To do this they need to have us think nature is dull, and fearful, and again this is why they want to discourage FREE experimentation with psychedelics, because psychedelics dispels their technomatrix and we see and feel a primal connection with nature.
      I am not anti technology, but rather anti their toxic myths!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *