Doubt, you silly fools. Doubt!

By fearing whom I trust I find my way
To truth; by trusting wholly I betray
The trust of wisdom; better far is doubt
Which brings the false into the light of day.
Abdallah al-Ma’arri (973-1057)

I get flack from some quarters regarding state of mind, as in “he’s a little off-center,” getting old,” “on a tangent” … and a “conspiracy theorist” as the suggestion goes. It’s a little difficult to explain, and a problem – if I were crazy, I would be the last to know it.

So first I have to self-examine: Am I paranoid? I don’t believe so. No one is out to get me. I don’t even think that NSA is watching me. I don’t matter in the large scheme. We look out over the city of Denver from our home, and it helps to see the mass of people out there and to realize that I am one small pebble of sand on the beach. So paranoia is not a problem.

Am I seeing things that do not exist? That is strictly a matter of examination of objective evidence. This part troubles me, not that I have a problem, but rather that most people do: They either are oblivious to the obvious, or in denial. I see what I see, and can show it to anyone else and yet … as with the butter-plane going through a building, which is physically impossible … they cannot see it. The eyes only show what the mind allows.

Dr. Judy Wood, in her analytic manner, suggests three reasons why people cannot see the obvious: Poor problem solving abilities, group think, and fear of the implications.

Poor problem-solving abilities: All of us can fill in blanks. If we hear a chain saw in the distance, we can assume that there are trees there. If we hear gun shots, we know that there is hunting, target shooting, a drunk at midnight, a military funeral, or in rare cases, a crime or act of self-defense. If we hear a noise at night, we quickly analyze all possible noises, and if it doesn’t fit, get up and investigate. So we are not helpless in the matter of solving problems.

However, due to the power of suggestion and hypnotic quality of television news, we chuck all of those abilities when we see problems in need of solutions on TV. We accept the pronouncements of officious-sounding TelePrompTer readers as factual. I do not understand this phenomenon well, but know I am susceptible to it too. If it is on TV news, people assume it is true.

Another aspect of problem-solving was succinctly put by Conan Doyle: the dog that did not bark. Certain things that did not happen should have happened. Why were the windows not closed in Dealey Plaza? Why was President Reagan, the most heavily guarded man on the planet, not protected from a shooter hiding in an alley? Why was the most sophisticated defense system in human history simply non-functional for one whole day? Why was a hurricane sitting off New York not reported to the residents? We need to know why things that should happen do not.

And there is also basic mathematical progression. The odds against one thing happening are incidental, that is, when a golf ball lands on a green it will hit certain blades of grass and not the others. That’s a matter of happenstance. But the odds of two related incidents happening can be paired – the odds of heads/tails is always one in two. The odds of two heads in a row is one in four, and three in a row one in eight … it is possible to flip a coin one hundred times and get heads every time, but the odds against it are astronomical – two to the one-hundredth power.

Cannot be folks. Cannot be...
Cannot be folks. Cannot be…
The odds of related phenomenon happening together are always subject to mathematical progression. One “plane” being successfully hijacked is highly unlikely given sealed cockpits, distress codes, ex-military pilots capable of defending themselves, and a military defense system response. Four “planes” on the same morning? Astronomical odds! Couple those odds with practice drills that just happen to have been running that day that just happened to place fighter jets in distant locations … even if there just happened to be four successful hijackings, the odds of normal air defense system being shut down are astronomical squared. Stranger yet: Even as airliners supposedly crashed into buildings, there were no identifiable engine parts, seats or door handles, wiring harnesses or metal parts or black boxes. The odds of not finding at least one part with a traceable serial number? Astronomical cubed. Couple those odds with what was found: a hijacker’s paper passport.

That, friend, is impossible. What are the odds? Imagine every beach in California. Imagine one grain of sand. Those are the odds.

Group think: We all need human companionship and form groups naturally with people of similar interests. Groups are an important element in personal happiness. But some of us are different in one regard: while we need companionship and warmth and comfort, we buckle when the group imposes its will on us.

As a youth I belonged to the Boy Scouts, and was known as an odd duck who did not play by the rules. When it was suggested to the group that we divide up and play games, I suggested we do “Ring Around the Rosie.” I was told by the troop leader, a certain officious Boy Scout named Tom Jacobson, that “We don’t talk like that here.” Those words have stayed with me over the years. Who is “we?” Was it Tom? Was he speaking for the whole group as an authority figure? Or, more likely, was he expressing a melding of minds that had become self enforcing? I’ve lived many years, but certain words spoken by certain people stand out. That was the group speaking, telling me to conform.

I was relegated to a “patrol” of similar boys. We were called the “Burning Arrow Patrol, and were held in low regard. I lasted one year, never making it to Eagle Scout, but more importantly, never wanting such a thing.

Some of us by nature are formed of a higher state of consciousness than the group, and so cannot be bent to its will. It isn’t that we do not need groups and companionship, but only that we do not yield to the herd mentality.

Fear of implications: Leave it to Dr. Wood to nail it succinctly. I have often said that if you can see a little, you will see it all. The trick in avoiding reality is to avoid seeing details. There appears to me to be conscious intent on the part of those who so rigorously believe in official truth: they know that if they see one detail that cannot be true (butter plane flying through building, passport surviving inferno), that their whole outlook will come undone.

Belief in things like Jesus, America, Boy Scouts, education, democracy, freedom and the official 9/11 story, JFK, RFK, MLK, OKC, Boston – these stories all require submergence of the intellect into the illogical. If we doubt but a little bit, it all collapses.

Doubt is the beginning of education. If we see one thread that cannot be and realize that the whole cloth depends on that one thread, our instinct is to believe FIRMLY in that thread. Those of us of higher consciousness are not susceptible to such fairy tales. It appears to me that we are born that way, or that something in our youth causes rebellion.

Whatever it is, only a few are able to see clearly. I am proud to be one.

17 thoughts on “Doubt, you silly fools. Doubt!

  1. Rebellion is as much a part of U.S. history as slavery and violent theft of nature’s bounty. The 21st Century has produced little positive substantive change for all with one exception: “The 1%.”


  2. Just for the record, Mark, doubt is a double (or more) edged sword, and one that swings all ways at once. Extreme doubt is no more informative than passive acceptance. The very same one who can see the thread which unravels the ‘official story’ of 9/ll can see the thread that unravels Professor Judy’s theories. That’s because doubt is every bit as much driven by belief as it is factual inquiry.

    It bothers the ever-loving crap out of me the way that Prof. Woods begins her exhortations. She wants, rather demands, people accept the possibility that 4+5×3 can equal 27 as easily as it equals 19. No, it really doesn’t. It has been an established fact for over a hundred years that multiplication must take place before addition, proven in both theory and application. You can thank Lord Whitehead and Bertrand Russell for that little factoid. So Woods cajoles people such that they not accept what must be accepted to free their minds from conventional thought. I see that as little more than a demand to view real events as if they were caused by the magical Unicorns.

    Sorry. That isn’t problem solving or even doubting. It’s demanding a shift of belief, no doubt required if one has already assumed a conclusion. What you don’t know can’t hurt you if you just see things my way, says Judy. Yet she remains a proponent of what we don’t and can never know as the ultimate destructive force. Honestly Mark, she wouldn’t sound any different to me if she blamed it all on the homosexual agenda. But she would probably make less money from speaking engagements.

    Before 9/ll, cockpit cabins were not locked enclosures. This is a simple fact you get wrong, yet it could be that thread pulled by doubt that unravels the whole thing (whatever that thing is.)

    I seriously don’t think people are as poor at problem solving as you think they are. They are likely susceptible to group think. They likely don’t fear implication as much as you wish, though the4y do seem more cognizant of consequence.


    1. For the record, her name is Dr. Judy Wood, without the ‘s’, and I have a strange feeling that the two of you would hit it off. I am happy to see you have looked into her work. Her example of 4+5×3 is meant to make exactly your point, a very good one: we need to communicate using the same language and so operate on basic assumptions that we all agree on. Hers, repeated throughout her work, is to let the evidence speak.

      Part of the effort in attempting to discredit her, not by you, but by public ‘doubters’ who are more likely part of a second level of cover-up, is to finish her thoughts for her, putting words in her mouth. Her book, 500 pages, contains nothing but evidence. She uses the terms “directed” and “free” energy, but does not identify its source because she does not know it. She only posits, based on the 500 pages of data that it was present that day. Her detractors use words like “laser” and “beam.” That’s our friend the straw man at work.

      Anyway, continue your work, and your skeptical mind is welcome here. You exhibit exactly the point of my essay – doubt, doubt, doubt. That you doubt Dr. Wood … Excellent. That you doubt me … I am a non-scientist. That’s required at the entrance.

      [Forgot … “Sealed” cockpits was poor wording, but cockpit security measures have been in force since the 1970’s. The idea that 150 pound Hani Hanjour could overpower pilot Chuck Burlingame, Naval Academy and F16 pilot is unlikely, even if the little guy might have drawn some blood, and this after forcibly gaining entrance to the cockpit. But say he overcame the odds and succeeded … That happened four times? Unlikely to the extreme. And that is the overarching point, that so many unlikely (even impossible) events came together on one day. Each one by itself is somewhat plausible, but taken as a whole of related phenomena … Highly unlikely.]


        1. Perhaps, in a broad sense, in the same manner that the thing that heats our buns in the microwave is also a “beam.” Interferometry was involved, and I think she means “directed” as opposed to the explosive force of bombs, which are very hard to control. Seven buildings were destroyed that day, but all those around were spared, and the bathtub was left intact.

          It was extremely sophisticated. Oklahoma City was perhaps an early experiment with this weaponry, as Ground zero there is very similar.


        2. Rob, The words “Beam” and “Directed” are not synonymous, in this discussion (context) or any discussion. (context) Trying to make it so is just engaging in propaganda dissemination whether consciously or unconsciously.

          If you force two opposing magnets close together (such as two ‘north ends of a dipolar magnet) you will create a magnetic field around them. The field you create will have a defined boundary and a defined shape. (even though it is invisible to the naked eye.) It can influence some matter within the field but not outside the field. It is not a beam, yet it is directed energy. Why would you precondition a discussion of directed energy with the false idea that “beam” and “directed” are synonymous?

          Boyd built a directed energy device. It’s not a weapon. It’s not a beam. But it is an example of directed energy. It reduced the effects of gravity on the rock. But not on anything else. See the link below to watch Boyd Bushman explain his experiment. Then see the experiment.

          Inserting the use of the term “Beam” into the discussion of “Where Did The Towers Go?” was done by people whose goal was to define and semantically package Dr Wood’s work as they would like it to be viewed. One of these people is Dr Steven Jones. Another is James Fetzer. There are others as well.

          This is the same technique Dr Steven Jones applied to the discovery of Drs Pons and Fleishman. when Jones coined the term “Cold Fusion” and hung it on their scientific break-through work. It was meant to, and succeeded, to help obscure the scientific issues raised by Pons and Flieschman. Now again we see this same technique in use, again by Jones and his posse to attempt to obscure the scientific issues raised by Dr Wood in her book and her presentations, and I’m not going to stand for it without calling it out when i see it.

          Here’s a great video of the retired Head Scientist for Lockeed’s Skunk Works, Boyd Bushman, talking about an experiment he did with directed energy and then a demonstration of the experiment. Notice how only the velocity/gravitational mass of one rock in each experiment is changed? That seems to me to be the definition of “directed” yet there are no beams about it.


  3. Mr. Kailey,

    Dr. Wood presents an example of:

    a) Why it is nonsensical to argue about an answer before you’ve established what the problem is.


    b) Why order matters in problem solving.

    Are you saying it is best to guess an answer before establishing a problem statement? Are you saying that order does not matter in solving math problems? If so, then why is it a convention to multiply before adding?

    Your post implies that somehow Dr. Wood’s example that order matters is incorrect. That implies you are saying that (4+5)*3 = 27 is incorrect or that 4+(5×3)=19 is incorrect. The example Dr. Wood presents nicely demonstrates that order does indeed matter. This is independent of a convention to multiply before adding. If the correct problem statement is (4+5)*3=27, you’d better have correct syntax in the problem statement, otherwise someone like Mr. Kailey might assume the wrong problem.

    The order of problem solving matters. 🙂

    (BTW, I have noticed that those who refer to Dr. Wood as “Judy” or “Woods” are actively involved with the cover-up of c-DEW technology being used to selectively dustify buildings with a WTC prefix whether they are consciously aware of their actions or not.)


  4. Well, yes, doubting is something that can help us to realise that things were not as we thought they were. However, I also think that curiosity is the next more well defined “position” that people will “move” into… then they will become more certain, once they have investigated whatever it was that they doubted and then were curious about…


      1. Dr Wood’s book may introduce doubt initially, but once read, it removes a lot of doubt – and one can be extensively educated by it… You can ask who Emmanuel G is – I know who he is, but I am not quite sure he wants me to post that. He’s one of the good guys, that I can tell you!


        1. That’s all I need! And I know that we all need to examine evidence on all fronts, but doubt about what we “know” is the first hurdle to clear.

          Oddly, I got my first push out of my youthful indoctrination from Ayn Rand, if all people. She reminded her readers that there are no contradictions, only faulty premises. I discarded almost everything else fromer but retained that.


          1. I have no idea if Emmanuel Goldstein is the same Emmanuel G who used to post at Democratic Underground. I was there 6 or 7 years until ’09 or ’10 when I got booted for my brilliant idea that we (Obama-voters and Dems) should quid pro quo trade Obama to the Repos in return for a universal single payer health insurance system. Biden would remain. Repos get what they want, voters get what we want, and Obama would have gone down in history as a national hero by sacrificing his presidency for the good of the nation and as the father of single payer in the US, thus becoming the Tommy Thompson of the US. I used to post there as John Q Citizen.

            The conspiracy panic on the DU dungeon board was/is over the top. Panic is too mild a description.

            If you can get into the old archives there are some pretty interesting discussions around 9/11. It was kind of the hands on lab for learning about the psychological principles behind Let’s Make a Deal Door #1 #2 and #3. Lots of real life examples.

            But it was also a time of great mental ferment, brainstorming, and networking for many people.

            Something has to account for the missing parts and contents of the WTC. Jet impact with fuel fire, high explosives, or nuclear devices aren’t supported by the evidence. Therefore, at this point in time, Dr Wood has the best, most complete, and most comprehensive collection of evidence which points to new technology used to demolecularize about 80% of the WTC.

            Dr Wood has also conclusively demonstrated that there are people whose job it is to help manage what we know and how we think and some of the techniques they use to accomplish that. For both of these accomplishments I am forever grateful to Dr Wood.

            I’m positive there are people who know a lot more about this dustification technology than Dr. Wood does. One day we will know what the serial numbers of the parts are that comprise this technology. And we will have a much better understanding of exactly what the technology does and how it does it.

            Why not today? Come on agent Mike, fess up! 🙂


  5. Mr. Tokarski – Have you actually read Dr. Wood’s book? Her 500 page book brings more certainty than anything! She doesn’t spoon-feed the answers because she has confidence the reader is capable of understanding what they see without being told “whatever they are supposed to see.” Dr. Wood’s book is not about doubt. It is about understanding… understanding what you yourself can see and understand. Capisce?

    (BTW – Abigail Van Buren, Ann Landers, Ayn Rand, Dr. Seuss, George Orwell, Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain, Tom Tomorrow, and Voltaire were all fake names too. And you are correct about the photo being fake as well. It was created by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. What is your point? What does this have to do with the evidence of c-DEW technology being used on 9/11 that Dr. Wood presents?)


    1. No offense intended please. I just wanted to know if you are one among us, and Andrew says you are so I need know no more about you. Your identity is your business.

      Yes I read the book. I intend to work my way through it once more but right now am tied up in Tragedy and Hope, appropriate I guess, but the real book by that name by Quigley.


    2. EG, what does the “c” in c-DEW mean? And how do we know it’s a “c” DEW instead of a HPM DEW?

      By the way, I’ve been through her book many many times. It’s awesome. I’d love to see her do a professional studio version of her complete presentation. One where all the photos and videos are of the highest video resolution and where her pointer is always visible on the video.

      BEM was one of the best presentations so far, but the conference aspect does affect the video experience negatively in that it’s not optimized for TV (or video) viewers but for the attendees. Which is why I’d love to see a studio version with enough post production to insure the viewer is always right there visually with the lecture.

      Here is an interesting thing I found while googling what the “c” means. This looks like a government contract for someone who can build a computational model of the Hutchison effect. Doesn’t it?


  6. The “c” in c-DEW stands for cold. The evidence Dr. Wood presents shows that “dustification” occurred without heat energy. The water used at the WTC site was dissipating the ongoing process and not on a heat source or the rescue workers would have been cooked by the steam. Earth was trucked in and out for the same reason. The mass was being used to dampen molecular disassociation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s