"Flat Earth", a concept that`s many years old but which ,it seems, has become today ,a mantra peculiar to the milieu of cyberspace -facilitating its growth into a sort of mental swamp that`s waiting to swallow many ignorant ( i.e. uninformed ) minds.
Flat Earth is now become a word spell . Meaningless, it is true (and perhaps best suited to a place in a Charles Dodgson fairy tale). However, today it is elevated sadly( by some ) to a quasi -spiritual level as truth, whilst being exploited as a mind-game by modern day carpetbaggers working for their globalist pay masters.The acceptance of this absurdity leads one to extrapolate that there will be a degeneration in understanding in other aspects of our reality and maybe that`s their final intention?
I don`t recall ( and I`,m 78) this was necessarily in our common thought before 1970 ; perhaps it wasnt yet part of their plan then -partly because the PC was not available? Today ,if you wish to embed a falsehood in the minds of many who are unfortunately educationally and /or socially isolated or even the deluded ,then cyberspace is fertile ground .
I looked around for some pre-Internet mentions of flat earthers. I found a little book by British astronomer Sir Patrick Moore published in 1972. The title is "Can You Speak Venusian? A guide to the Independent Thinkers". It has a chapter called "Better and Flatter Earths". The International Flat Earth Society is mentioned, although at the time it wasn't very active. The book is available on archive.com.
The introductory chapter of Moore's book has this paragraph on "Independent Thinkers":
"Note that I say 'Independent Thinker', and not 'crank'. The difference is important. The Independent Thinker is a genuine, well-meaning person, who is not hidebound by convention, and who is always ready to strike out on a line of his own--frequently, though not always, in the face of all the evidence. He is ready to face ridicule; he believes himself to be in the right, and he cannot be deterred. In some respects he is a rather special kind of person, though generally speaking he is conventional enough except in his one particular line of thought. He may or may not be scientifically qualified. In the following pages you will meet some people who have no claims to academic eminence; but you will also meet others who have. All share the wish to inquire, and--this is the vital fact--all are anxious to do something really useful."
I can't view many of today's flat earth or no-virus leaders in such favorable terms, but I'm sure there are well-meaning followers in the crowd.
There likely are. A good metaphor applies: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem arises when people believe the quest ends with their immediate thought, assumption, or 'intuition.' 'I feel like it's true' is often incorrect because it lacks a solid foundation and is usually false. This error may not become apparent until much later in the journey toward truth, if one is honest and continues to learn. True honesty means amending past errors and reconciling with fundamental truths, with biases playing a lesser role in judgments, which lead to far more accurate conclusions. When paranoia, fear, and stubbornness control thinking, conclusions will reflect this.
Well-meaning people often question many things, and I too heavily questioned everything early in my journey—a sign of an open mind and genuine interest in truth. However, open the mind too far and the mind will fall out. One's journey often arcs, eventually bringing you full circle with newfound wisdom that reveals fundamental truths—if you continue to seek and verify. Ignoring this gained knowledge requires self-deception to maintain previous beliefs.
Another issue arises when well-intentioned people (and those who are completely out of their minds) believe and proselytize ideas based solely on what others say or what they believe but cannot articulate or reason through words. At the point when someone is repeatedly confronted with the truth and unable to articulate a reason for their denial, this is the sign that an individual is not seeking truth, but merely coddling their biases and misleading others in the process.
I watched Tom Cowan’s latest (8/14/24) podcast on Rumble. He is adding nuclear weapons to his list of things that don’t exist. It’s such a contrast to see how he justifies this “new understanding”. When talking about no-virus he (and Kaufman) will go on and on about scientific rigor and adhering to the scientific method. In support of his nuclear weapons denial he read from a book, “Death Object”. He admits he knows nothing about the author and takes what he has written “at face value”. Cowan says nuclear fission and nuclear chemistry are impossible because atomic nuclei do not exist. For this belief he references fringe theoretician Dewey Larson (1898 - 1990). He apparently takes Larson’s writings at face value as well. How does Cowan explain nuclear power? He says heat from decaying radioisotopes is powering steam generation. Maybe he doesn’t realize decay of radioisotopes is a nuclear process?
What about stars? Oh wait, I forgot, those are fake too.
In reality, stars—like our sun—generate energy through nuclear fusion, a process in which atomic nuclei combine to form heavier elements, releasing a significant amount of energy in the form of light and heat. Cowan is like many other people: No original thought. He has to rely on others to do the thinking for him. If someone had an idea from a thousand years ago, even though it has been debunked long since, he would insist it's still valid. But what else can you expect from the ‘everything you believe is correct’ and ‘everything is just an opinion’ crowd? You’re entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.
I've said this before, but let me put it another way: I've been far too polite to those who attack me while they cling to such absurd nonsense. It’s almost impressive how some people manage to be so utterly self-satisfied while accusing me of the same. As I've said, this is clear and present mental illness parading as 'intellectualism.'
I noticed some Twitter discussion of Tom Cowan's appearance on The Phone Booth Podcast. He not only denied atomic nuclei; he said atoms don't exist. I've heard his "Einstein quote" before and I think it's reprehensible how Cowan uses it to claim Einstein inaugurated an era where scientists "Just make shit up". I looked up the apparent source of the quote. It is from a 1933 lecture titled "On the Method of Theoretical Physics". The full sentence is: [If, then, it is the case that]the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be an inference from experience, but must be free invention, [have we any right to hope that we shall find the correct way?]
Anyone who reads the entire lecture will understand that Einstein is talking about highly mathematical theoretical physics and his views have little or no application to general scientific methods. He is in no sense urging all scientists to "Just make shit up from now on" as Cowan claims.
I think one could make a comparison to the creative process of an improvising musician. They are practicing "free invention" but that freedom is bound by many restrictions the artist has internalized such that the creative impulse appears to flow effortlessly.
Yes, some others and I discussed this supposed quote on Twitter as well. It is a completely fabricated quote by Cowan. He made it up out of thin air, as you explained. Cowan created the quote to claim that Einstein said scientists simply "make shit up" off the top of their heads, intending to denigrate the scientific process as flawed.
Einstein's quote concerns the foundations of theoretical physics, as you explained, noting that they are not strictly bound by empirical evidence but involve a level of creativity and conceptual invention—that the basis of theoretical physics often involves creative thinking. This creativity is important for proposing principles or hypotheses that can guide further research and experimentation.
Nowhere does Einstein express that one must ignore all rules and laws and just "make shit up." The musician is a good example and one I can relate to. In that domain, there exists similar (if not the same) free invention to create. However, basic rules and musical laws must be followed. The freedom to create—free invention—comes from understanding those fundamental rules and laws in order to craft something musical and harmonious.
"I like so called fossil fuels because they put Co2 in the atmosphere ... we are low on Co2 ... plants could use a lot more ..."
Nice logic. Let's continue to pollute our atmosphere and burn our planet up further because we don't have enough Co2.
-----------------------
"There is no such thing as a nuclear weapon 💯and at this point, I’m even debating whether nuclear energy isn’t a chimera."
Mental illness. How do nuclear reactors work?
-----------------------
"They lost the plans for the atomic bomb as well? I thought that was the excuse for the space program. These parasites are really unimaginative aren’t they? We can’t even tell lies."
Ah yes, atom bombs are fake. That's why we have so much evidence of their radiation left behind from all the nuclear testing because they don't exist.
See, when you start saying the Earth is flat, you literally have to redefine all of reality.
I've heard Mike Adams say the "deep state" is intentionally lowering atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to stunt plant growth and cause a famine. By the way, Mike Adams once called me a "low-IQ disinfo troll" because I warned him isopropanol and concentrated nitric acid would react violently when mixed
The radioactive contamination from the atmospheric nuclear explosions is one of the geological markers of the Anthropocene epoch.
I find it deeply ironic that the so-called 'deep state' is actually facilitating profiteering corporations in their pollution of our atmosphere, contributing to the rise in CO₂ levels—the exact opposite of what Adam claims. His assertions lack any logical basis. People like Adams are playing into the narrative that global warming is a complete hoax. While there may be elements within climate change agendas that aim to control land, sea, and air, the observable impact of human pollution makes it clear that some form of these types of regulations is absolutely necessary. Left unchecked, people would pollute endlessly if it meant more money in their pockets. Humanity is still in the early stages of its development, driven by the desire to exploit resources like oil, minerals, and metals, often with lethal consequences.
One commenter on my page argued up and down that regulations are bad and 'government control.' Okay, let’s remove all regulations then. Guess what'll happen? Corporations will eliminate all their regulatory provisions to save money and increase profits. Why wouldn’t they? No one would stop them. They used to dump waste directly into rivers and had little to no regulations on their smokestacks in the past. So, who or what would stop these amoral corporations, run by equally amoral individuals, from reverting to such practices? Not much. Human nature often reverts to its base instincts of greed. People who say otherwise are idiots and do not know or understand basic human history. They want there to be zero government control at all, which is not how reality works, at least not here in this plane of reality. Without regulations, you would have to hope and pray that corporations would be interested in the protection of the planet and the living things that inhabit it. When have we ever been shown that to be true? Never. They are corporations interested in profit, and little else.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a key factor in photosynthesis, and while plants do benefit from certain levels of CO₂, the idea that a "deep state" could or would intentionally manipulate global CO₂ levels for such a purpose is implausible. In actuality, CO₂ levels are rising due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, not decreasing. Not only would the data show this, but it would also be replicated by every analysis conducted by every researcher. We do not see this; instead, the data consistently shows a connection between human activity and increases in CO₂ levels.
Measurements from diverse sources—such as atmospheric monitoring, ice cores, and satellite observations—uniformly show rising CO₂ levels. These sources are independent of one another and utilize different methods, yet they converge on the same conclusion. This makes Adam's claim false on its face.
By the way, I laugh at those who claim that electric vehicles are 'bad' or worse for the environment than gas-powered vehicles. They don’t consider that electric technology is still in its infancy and will mature over time, becoming the way of the future for some time. These people believe that dirty gas vehicles, which rely on all sorts of toxic chemicals to operate, are what we need for the foreseeable future, as if no better alternative could ever be developed—that humanity is that stupid and inept.
Such technologies have already been produced. Water-powered cars have been created, and if pursued, those technologies would have matured to the point of widespread usage at this stage if there was interest. This is a billion-dollar propaganda campaign orchestrated by Big Oil and Big Gas. They don’t realize this because they tune into Fox News daily and view everything as 'Marxism.' Some of their talking points are absolute cringe inducing.
Oil and gas will still play a role, as they should, but having billions of cars on the roads all over the planet putting out carbon monoxide and other toxins on a daily basis for the next 10,000 years is the definition of insanity and will destroy the planet. These people need to wise up, read the history of pollution, and understand why we have the regulations we do—and stop being parrots of far right-wing neo-capitalist corporations.
Ted, this appears to be part of a broader agenda driven by radical political factions, primarily originating from ultra far-right ideologies. At its core, it is a systematic denial of truth stemming from a deeper sickness. While it might seem like media and other platforms have played a role in facilitating this, I believe the root cause is far deeper. This is not merely a product of external influences but a complex sickness that has taken hold of the minds and hearts of people. This sickness is born from a profound distrust in other humans, leading them to embrace the belief that everything and everyone around them is a lie.
What you are witnessing is the result of humanity allowing its thoughts to run unchecked, without the necessary checks and balances, and with little regard for the truth. This issue is compounded by the decline of original thought, as many now depend on others to dictate what they should think and believe. Challenging this mindset means going against the majority, often in the face of adversity—something that many are not mentally prepared to do. This mental roadblock frequently leads individuals to reject truths that contradict the prevailing herd mentality, trapping them in a vicious cycle of circular thought.
You can see this anti-truth mentality reflected in the comment section of my work from time to time. Some individuals may initially appear to support my views, only to turn against me when the evidence challenges their preconceived beliefs and notions. If someone lacks the ability to critically assess the truth based on their own thorough unbiased research, they are incapable of truly understanding what I teach. Understanding my work requires a person who values intellect, objectivity, and a commitment to truth and reason. Those who dismiss objective evidence as mere 'opinion' are only fooling themselves into thinking they understand, when in reality, they are lost in their own delusions.
For instance, stating that the Earth is a sphere is not merely my opinion—it is an objective fact that can be proven unequivocally, without doubt. Those who claim otherwise struggle to accept that certain fundamental truths exist and can be reasoned as such. By denying this, they act against their own good and well-being, yet they cannot articulate why—other than relying on belief grounded in nothing more than faith. However, faith should always be supported by some capacity to reason in truth. Some people believe that every thought that falls out of their head is somehow factual or true, without any substantiation.
Egotism also plays a role. People often project their own ego onto others, assuming that those who confidently proclaim evidentiary facts are merely being egotistical and offering opinions. This projection stems from their own lack of conviction and personal strength and experience in their beliefs.
As such, when someone corrects an error in their thinking in light of new evidence, others may use this adjustment against the individual. Science itself is called into question over this very fact that arises during the checks and balances of the scientific method playing out, wherein others will claim science is nothing more than mere 'opinion.' Likewise, these same people will often accuse a person of believing they are always right, interpreting the correction as an attempt to assert intellectual superiority. In reality, the willingness to amend one's views based on new information is a sign of intellectual integrity and openness, not arrogance. However, such individuals may project their own insecurities and rigidity onto others, misinterpreting these corrections as evidence of a relentless need to be right rather than a genuine pursuit of truth. This projection allows them to dismiss your arguments based on evidence and reason, as they feel 'authorized' to disregard your perspective.
Also at play is that people are often naive because they underestimate the capacity for others to lie directly to their face. As a result, they tend to identify themselves with a person, coming to believe that person has integrity based on their delivery and persona, and as a result, believing that what they are being told is the truth— normally without question. Some of this is conscious, but a large portion of it is subconscious. But as I have always emphasized: always verify claims through your own research and evidence. Also, if you cannot articulate why someone or something is wrong, your views and opinions hold little to no value. For instance, if you tell me the Earth is flat but cannot provide a fully articulated reason why that is so—a reason that must account for all observable realities—then your position is invalid.
Jeff, apart from the inevitable harm these people are causing to the truth ,one consolation is that creatures such as West will maintain their limited ,bogus credibility but only for a finite period of time. I feel personally that the globalist plan is close to its denouement -and it is not going to be how they intended
The "health freedom" people are among the worst for censoring anyone even remotely critical of their views. They talk about free exchange of ideas and being open to alternative explanations but in practice what they want is an echo chamber filled with sycophants.
A couple of years ago on Telegram I asked Dr. Jane Ruby where she got her often repeated claim that Pfizer doesn't have to disclose 50% of the ingredients in their mRNA vaccine. She responded with a vague remark about a European regulatory document. I politely asked for more detail and was immediately banned from the channel.
Graphene in the shots is also fiercely defended. On Rumble I told Dr. Ruby the Pfizer Groton laboratory paper on cryo-electron microscopy of a protein using a graphene support was not proof of graphene in the vaccine. My comment was immediately deleted and I was banned.
Tom Cowan goes so far as to say anyone who doesn't agree with his nonsensical views has a cognitive problem.
It really has become much like arguing with flat-earthers.
Thanks, Marty. When you dig into their past remarks, it becomes clear that about 90%+ of No-Virus advocates are also flat-earthers. Take Mike Stone, for instance—on his old Reddit account, he claims satellites don't exist and that the Earth is flat. A commenter on Yeadon's article claimed that nukes, satellites, and dinosaurs don't exist. Alec Zeck is another flat-earther, and Cowan has been spotted with folders on his computer labeled "the firmament." Jacob Diaz, another prominent No-Virus leader, displays the Gleason flat-earth map behind him. Jamie Andrew denies the existence of DNA. Mike Stone insists that antibodies, DNA, exosomes, viruses, and nucleotides don't exist, echoing his troll friend Kordeales, who was banned from Substack. Christine Massey shares many of these sentiments, and Kaufman was initially interviewed on various flat-earther podcasts and has been seen with them.
I could go on, but the point is clear—they're completely out of their minds.
Yes, I’ve banned people from my pages too, but only for good reason—insults, personal attacks, vulgar trolling, or dismissing legitimate evidence. I have no patience for those who can't engage in a reasoned debate. I've revoked commenting privileges for those who refuse to assess evidence and instead lash out. But when I comment on No-Virus pages, I always remain professional, even if blunt, and avoid personal attacks—yet I still get banned. I simply present the evidence, and for some reason, it ties them in knots.
Alec Zeck hosted flat-earther Dave Weiss a few week ago. Zeck surprisingly said "I wouldn't call myself a flat-earther by any means." Even so, he appeared to be in almost complete agreement with Weiss and said "There are countless lines of glaring inconsistency in the heliocentric model."
Zeck also hosted the CEO of the company that makes the Analemma Coherent Water Wand. They said the quartz tube was "superconducting". I think you mentioned Analemma in connection with Tom Cowan.
If someone had principles, why would they go on Weiss's show, a known liar? This is a common flat-earther trope: "I'm not a flat-earther, but I think we're being lied to, and the globe model is not accurate." As you noted, Alec basically says that here, "There are countless lines of glaring inconsistency in the heliocentric model." That is absolute nonsense and there are no inconsistencies in the globe model—it works perfectly and explains everything. So, once again, that is another strawman they have built in order to argue against.
Also, they know that if they were to go against the flat-earth 'model,' that they'd lose half their audience or more. Likewise, Massey knows that if she ever admits viruses are real, she'd lose her income from her 5,000 subscribers.
The fact is, Massey and others have motives to maintain their narrative at all costs. They will never waver in that, no matter the evidence presented. That is why they employ troll behavior to maintain that narrative, denying evidence, and lashing out with attacks.
Analemma, yes, Cowan is a sponsor for that product, or at least he sells it through his website, as does Kaufman.
"Flat Earth", a concept that`s many years old but which ,it seems, has become today ,a mantra peculiar to the milieu of cyberspace -facilitating its growth into a sort of mental swamp that`s waiting to swallow many ignorant ( i.e. uninformed ) minds.
Flat Earth is now become a word spell . Meaningless, it is true (and perhaps best suited to a place in a Charles Dodgson fairy tale). However, today it is elevated sadly( by some ) to a quasi -spiritual level as truth, whilst being exploited as a mind-game by modern day carpetbaggers working for their globalist pay masters.The acceptance of this absurdity leads one to extrapolate that there will be a degeneration in understanding in other aspects of our reality and maybe that`s their final intention?
I don`t recall ( and I`,m 78) this was necessarily in our common thought before 1970 ; perhaps it wasnt yet part of their plan then -partly because the PC was not available? Today ,if you wish to embed a falsehood in the minds of many who are unfortunately educationally and /or socially isolated or even the deluded ,then cyberspace is fertile ground .
I looked around for some pre-Internet mentions of flat earthers. I found a little book by British astronomer Sir Patrick Moore published in 1972. The title is "Can You Speak Venusian? A guide to the Independent Thinkers". It has a chapter called "Better and Flatter Earths". The International Flat Earth Society is mentioned, although at the time it wasn't very active. The book is available on archive.com.
The introductory chapter of Moore's book has this paragraph on "Independent Thinkers":
"Note that I say 'Independent Thinker', and not 'crank'. The difference is important. The Independent Thinker is a genuine, well-meaning person, who is not hidebound by convention, and who is always ready to strike out on a line of his own--frequently, though not always, in the face of all the evidence. He is ready to face ridicule; he believes himself to be in the right, and he cannot be deterred. In some respects he is a rather special kind of person, though generally speaking he is conventional enough except in his one particular line of thought. He may or may not be scientifically qualified. In the following pages you will meet some people who have no claims to academic eminence; but you will also meet others who have. All share the wish to inquire, and--this is the vital fact--all are anxious to do something really useful."
I can't view many of today's flat earth or no-virus leaders in such favorable terms, but I'm sure there are well-meaning followers in the crowd.
There likely are. A good metaphor applies: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The problem arises when people believe the quest ends with their immediate thought, assumption, or 'intuition.' 'I feel like it's true' is often incorrect because it lacks a solid foundation and is usually false. This error may not become apparent until much later in the journey toward truth, if one is honest and continues to learn. True honesty means amending past errors and reconciling with fundamental truths, with biases playing a lesser role in judgments, which lead to far more accurate conclusions. When paranoia, fear, and stubbornness control thinking, conclusions will reflect this.
Well-meaning people often question many things, and I too heavily questioned everything early in my journey—a sign of an open mind and genuine interest in truth. However, open the mind too far and the mind will fall out. One's journey often arcs, eventually bringing you full circle with newfound wisdom that reveals fundamental truths—if you continue to seek and verify. Ignoring this gained knowledge requires self-deception to maintain previous beliefs.
Another issue arises when well-intentioned people (and those who are completely out of their minds) believe and proselytize ideas based solely on what others say or what they believe but cannot articulate or reason through words. At the point when someone is repeatedly confronted with the truth and unable to articulate a reason for their denial, this is the sign that an individual is not seeking truth, but merely coddling their biases and misleading others in the process.
I watched Tom Cowan’s latest (8/14/24) podcast on Rumble. He is adding nuclear weapons to his list of things that don’t exist. It’s such a contrast to see how he justifies this “new understanding”. When talking about no-virus he (and Kaufman) will go on and on about scientific rigor and adhering to the scientific method. In support of his nuclear weapons denial he read from a book, “Death Object”. He admits he knows nothing about the author and takes what he has written “at face value”. Cowan says nuclear fission and nuclear chemistry are impossible because atomic nuclei do not exist. For this belief he references fringe theoretician Dewey Larson (1898 - 1990). He apparently takes Larson’s writings at face value as well. How does Cowan explain nuclear power? He says heat from decaying radioisotopes is powering steam generation. Maybe he doesn’t realize decay of radioisotopes is a nuclear process?
What about stars? Oh wait, I forgot, those are fake too.
In reality, stars—like our sun—generate energy through nuclear fusion, a process in which atomic nuclei combine to form heavier elements, releasing a significant amount of energy in the form of light and heat. Cowan is like many other people: No original thought. He has to rely on others to do the thinking for him. If someone had an idea from a thousand years ago, even though it has been debunked long since, he would insist it's still valid. But what else can you expect from the ‘everything you believe is correct’ and ‘everything is just an opinion’ crowd? You’re entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.
I've said this before, but let me put it another way: I've been far too polite to those who attack me while they cling to such absurd nonsense. It’s almost impressive how some people manage to be so utterly self-satisfied while accusing me of the same. As I've said, this is clear and present mental illness parading as 'intellectualism.'
I noticed some Twitter discussion of Tom Cowan's appearance on The Phone Booth Podcast. He not only denied atomic nuclei; he said atoms don't exist. I've heard his "Einstein quote" before and I think it's reprehensible how Cowan uses it to claim Einstein inaugurated an era where scientists "Just make shit up". I looked up the apparent source of the quote. It is from a 1933 lecture titled "On the Method of Theoretical Physics". The full sentence is: [If, then, it is the case that]the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be an inference from experience, but must be free invention, [have we any right to hope that we shall find the correct way?]
Anyone who reads the entire lecture will understand that Einstein is talking about highly mathematical theoretical physics and his views have little or no application to general scientific methods. He is in no sense urging all scientists to "Just make shit up from now on" as Cowan claims.
I think one could make a comparison to the creative process of an improvising musician. They are practicing "free invention" but that freedom is bound by many restrictions the artist has internalized such that the creative impulse appears to flow effortlessly.
Yes, some others and I discussed this supposed quote on Twitter as well. It is a completely fabricated quote by Cowan. He made it up out of thin air, as you explained. Cowan created the quote to claim that Einstein said scientists simply "make shit up" off the top of their heads, intending to denigrate the scientific process as flawed.
Einstein's quote concerns the foundations of theoretical physics, as you explained, noting that they are not strictly bound by empirical evidence but involve a level of creativity and conceptual invention—that the basis of theoretical physics often involves creative thinking. This creativity is important for proposing principles or hypotheses that can guide further research and experimentation.
Nowhere does Einstein express that one must ignore all rules and laws and just "make shit up." The musician is a good example and one I can relate to. In that domain, there exists similar (if not the same) free invention to create. However, basic rules and musical laws must be followed. The freedom to create—free invention—comes from understanding those fundamental rules and laws in order to craft something musical and harmonious.
Here's some of the comments on his video:
"I like so called fossil fuels because they put Co2 in the atmosphere ... we are low on Co2 ... plants could use a lot more ..."
Nice logic. Let's continue to pollute our atmosphere and burn our planet up further because we don't have enough Co2.
-----------------------
"There is no such thing as a nuclear weapon 💯and at this point, I’m even debating whether nuclear energy isn’t a chimera."
Mental illness. How do nuclear reactors work?
-----------------------
"They lost the plans for the atomic bomb as well? I thought that was the excuse for the space program. These parasites are really unimaginative aren’t they? We can’t even tell lies."
Ah yes, atom bombs are fake. That's why we have so much evidence of their radiation left behind from all the nuclear testing because they don't exist.
See, when you start saying the Earth is flat, you literally have to redefine all of reality.
I've heard Mike Adams say the "deep state" is intentionally lowering atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to stunt plant growth and cause a famine. By the way, Mike Adams once called me a "low-IQ disinfo troll" because I warned him isopropanol and concentrated nitric acid would react violently when mixed
The radioactive contamination from the atmospheric nuclear explosions is one of the geological markers of the Anthropocene epoch.
I find it deeply ironic that the so-called 'deep state' is actually facilitating profiteering corporations in their pollution of our atmosphere, contributing to the rise in CO₂ levels—the exact opposite of what Adam claims. His assertions lack any logical basis. People like Adams are playing into the narrative that global warming is a complete hoax. While there may be elements within climate change agendas that aim to control land, sea, and air, the observable impact of human pollution makes it clear that some form of these types of regulations is absolutely necessary. Left unchecked, people would pollute endlessly if it meant more money in their pockets. Humanity is still in the early stages of its development, driven by the desire to exploit resources like oil, minerals, and metals, often with lethal consequences.
One commenter on my page argued up and down that regulations are bad and 'government control.' Okay, let’s remove all regulations then. Guess what'll happen? Corporations will eliminate all their regulatory provisions to save money and increase profits. Why wouldn’t they? No one would stop them. They used to dump waste directly into rivers and had little to no regulations on their smokestacks in the past. So, who or what would stop these amoral corporations, run by equally amoral individuals, from reverting to such practices? Not much. Human nature often reverts to its base instincts of greed. People who say otherwise are idiots and do not know or understand basic human history. They want there to be zero government control at all, which is not how reality works, at least not here in this plane of reality. Without regulations, you would have to hope and pray that corporations would be interested in the protection of the planet and the living things that inhabit it. When have we ever been shown that to be true? Never. They are corporations interested in profit, and little else.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a key factor in photosynthesis, and while plants do benefit from certain levels of CO₂, the idea that a "deep state" could or would intentionally manipulate global CO₂ levels for such a purpose is implausible. In actuality, CO₂ levels are rising due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, not decreasing. Not only would the data show this, but it would also be replicated by every analysis conducted by every researcher. We do not see this; instead, the data consistently shows a connection between human activity and increases in CO₂ levels.
Measurements from diverse sources—such as atmospheric monitoring, ice cores, and satellite observations—uniformly show rising CO₂ levels. These sources are independent of one another and utilize different methods, yet they converge on the same conclusion. This makes Adam's claim false on its face.
By the way, I laugh at those who claim that electric vehicles are 'bad' or worse for the environment than gas-powered vehicles. They don’t consider that electric technology is still in its infancy and will mature over time, becoming the way of the future for some time. These people believe that dirty gas vehicles, which rely on all sorts of toxic chemicals to operate, are what we need for the foreseeable future, as if no better alternative could ever be developed—that humanity is that stupid and inept.
Such technologies have already been produced. Water-powered cars have been created, and if pursued, those technologies would have matured to the point of widespread usage at this stage if there was interest. This is a billion-dollar propaganda campaign orchestrated by Big Oil and Big Gas. They don’t realize this because they tune into Fox News daily and view everything as 'Marxism.' Some of their talking points are absolute cringe inducing.
Oil and gas will still play a role, as they should, but having billions of cars on the roads all over the planet putting out carbon monoxide and other toxins on a daily basis for the next 10,000 years is the definition of insanity and will destroy the planet. These people need to wise up, read the history of pollution, and understand why we have the regulations we do—and stop being parrots of far right-wing neo-capitalist corporations.
Ted, this appears to be part of a broader agenda driven by radical political factions, primarily originating from ultra far-right ideologies. At its core, it is a systematic denial of truth stemming from a deeper sickness. While it might seem like media and other platforms have played a role in facilitating this, I believe the root cause is far deeper. This is not merely a product of external influences but a complex sickness that has taken hold of the minds and hearts of people. This sickness is born from a profound distrust in other humans, leading them to embrace the belief that everything and everyone around them is a lie.
What you are witnessing is the result of humanity allowing its thoughts to run unchecked, without the necessary checks and balances, and with little regard for the truth. This issue is compounded by the decline of original thought, as many now depend on others to dictate what they should think and believe. Challenging this mindset means going against the majority, often in the face of adversity—something that many are not mentally prepared to do. This mental roadblock frequently leads individuals to reject truths that contradict the prevailing herd mentality, trapping them in a vicious cycle of circular thought.
You can see this anti-truth mentality reflected in the comment section of my work from time to time. Some individuals may initially appear to support my views, only to turn against me when the evidence challenges their preconceived beliefs and notions. If someone lacks the ability to critically assess the truth based on their own thorough unbiased research, they are incapable of truly understanding what I teach. Understanding my work requires a person who values intellect, objectivity, and a commitment to truth and reason. Those who dismiss objective evidence as mere 'opinion' are only fooling themselves into thinking they understand, when in reality, they are lost in their own delusions.
For instance, stating that the Earth is a sphere is not merely my opinion—it is an objective fact that can be proven unequivocally, without doubt. Those who claim otherwise struggle to accept that certain fundamental truths exist and can be reasoned as such. By denying this, they act against their own good and well-being, yet they cannot articulate why—other than relying on belief grounded in nothing more than faith. However, faith should always be supported by some capacity to reason in truth. Some people believe that every thought that falls out of their head is somehow factual or true, without any substantiation.
Egotism also plays a role. People often project their own ego onto others, assuming that those who confidently proclaim evidentiary facts are merely being egotistical and offering opinions. This projection stems from their own lack of conviction and personal strength and experience in their beliefs.
As such, when someone corrects an error in their thinking in light of new evidence, others may use this adjustment against the individual. Science itself is called into question over this very fact that arises during the checks and balances of the scientific method playing out, wherein others will claim science is nothing more than mere 'opinion.' Likewise, these same people will often accuse a person of believing they are always right, interpreting the correction as an attempt to assert intellectual superiority. In reality, the willingness to amend one's views based on new information is a sign of intellectual integrity and openness, not arrogance. However, such individuals may project their own insecurities and rigidity onto others, misinterpreting these corrections as evidence of a relentless need to be right rather than a genuine pursuit of truth. This projection allows them to dismiss your arguments based on evidence and reason, as they feel 'authorized' to disregard your perspective.
Also at play is that people are often naive because they underestimate the capacity for others to lie directly to their face. As a result, they tend to identify themselves with a person, coming to believe that person has integrity based on their delivery and persona, and as a result, believing that what they are being told is the truth— normally without question. Some of this is conscious, but a large portion of it is subconscious. But as I have always emphasized: always verify claims through your own research and evidence. Also, if you cannot articulate why someone or something is wrong, your views and opinions hold little to no value. For instance, if you tell me the Earth is flat but cannot provide a fully articulated reason why that is so—a reason that must account for all observable realities—then your position is invalid.
Jeff, apart from the inevitable harm these people are causing to the truth ,one consolation is that creatures such as West will maintain their limited ,bogus credibility but only for a finite period of time. I feel personally that the globalist plan is close to its denouement -and it is not going to be how they intended
The "health freedom" people are among the worst for censoring anyone even remotely critical of their views. They talk about free exchange of ideas and being open to alternative explanations but in practice what they want is an echo chamber filled with sycophants.
A couple of years ago on Telegram I asked Dr. Jane Ruby where she got her often repeated claim that Pfizer doesn't have to disclose 50% of the ingredients in their mRNA vaccine. She responded with a vague remark about a European regulatory document. I politely asked for more detail and was immediately banned from the channel.
Graphene in the shots is also fiercely defended. On Rumble I told Dr. Ruby the Pfizer Groton laboratory paper on cryo-electron microscopy of a protein using a graphene support was not proof of graphene in the vaccine. My comment was immediately deleted and I was banned.
Tom Cowan goes so far as to say anyone who doesn't agree with his nonsensical views has a cognitive problem.
It really has become much like arguing with flat-earthers.
Thanks, Marty. When you dig into their past remarks, it becomes clear that about 90%+ of No-Virus advocates are also flat-earthers. Take Mike Stone, for instance—on his old Reddit account, he claims satellites don't exist and that the Earth is flat. A commenter on Yeadon's article claimed that nukes, satellites, and dinosaurs don't exist. Alec Zeck is another flat-earther, and Cowan has been spotted with folders on his computer labeled "the firmament." Jacob Diaz, another prominent No-Virus leader, displays the Gleason flat-earth map behind him. Jamie Andrew denies the existence of DNA. Mike Stone insists that antibodies, DNA, exosomes, viruses, and nucleotides don't exist, echoing his troll friend Kordeales, who was banned from Substack. Christine Massey shares many of these sentiments, and Kaufman was initially interviewed on various flat-earther podcasts and has been seen with them.
I could go on, but the point is clear—they're completely out of their minds.
Yes, I’ve banned people from my pages too, but only for good reason—insults, personal attacks, vulgar trolling, or dismissing legitimate evidence. I have no patience for those who can't engage in a reasoned debate. I've revoked commenting privileges for those who refuse to assess evidence and instead lash out. But when I comment on No-Virus pages, I always remain professional, even if blunt, and avoid personal attacks—yet I still get banned. I simply present the evidence, and for some reason, it ties them in knots.
Alec Zeck hosted flat-earther Dave Weiss a few week ago. Zeck surprisingly said "I wouldn't call myself a flat-earther by any means." Even so, he appeared to be in almost complete agreement with Weiss and said "There are countless lines of glaring inconsistency in the heliocentric model."
Zeck also hosted the CEO of the company that makes the Analemma Coherent Water Wand. They said the quartz tube was "superconducting". I think you mentioned Analemma in connection with Tom Cowan.
If someone had principles, why would they go on Weiss's show, a known liar? This is a common flat-earther trope: "I'm not a flat-earther, but I think we're being lied to, and the globe model is not accurate." As you noted, Alec basically says that here, "There are countless lines of glaring inconsistency in the heliocentric model." That is absolute nonsense and there are no inconsistencies in the globe model—it works perfectly and explains everything. So, once again, that is another strawman they have built in order to argue against.
Also, they know that if they were to go against the flat-earth 'model,' that they'd lose half their audience or more. Likewise, Massey knows that if she ever admits viruses are real, she'd lose her income from her 5,000 subscribers.
The fact is, Massey and others have motives to maintain their narrative at all costs. They will never waver in that, no matter the evidence presented. That is why they employ troll behavior to maintain that narrative, denying evidence, and lashing out with attacks.
Analemma, yes, Cowan is a sponsor for that product, or at least he sells it through his website, as does Kaufman.
Glad to see you acknowledged Jeremy Hammond!