Clearly, the first prediction about the food was completely wrong. It's now 2012 and I've been overeating with abandon right through the deadline Kerry stated.
As for the world running out of air, I'm going to bet that prediction will prove as accurate as the food prediction.
My question is -- why repeat such obviously asinine testimony such as this? All it does is hurt your credibility, makes you look like wingnuts, and actually sabotages everything else you have to say because the casual, uninformed viewer sits back and thinks, "Well, everything else they're talking about is probably just as loopy as the food and air predictions."
For people who present themselves as "researchers" who are digging for the truth, where's the research? Actually, where's the educated skepticism?
Art Bell torpedoed himself in much the same way. He explored many interesting topics on his show, had many interesting guests, but the fact that he believed and gave credence to some of the most laughable and easily disproven theories hurt him -- not the least of which was his ridiculously serious introduction to the "screams from hell" as recorded from a deep hole in Siberia. Really? Hell is in the center of the earth? The Russians dug a 9 km hole and then went and found a microphone with a 9 km cord, lowered it into the center of the earth without it melting, and were able to record these sounds, which everyone instantly deduces are the screams of hell? Really? That's school-yard apocryphal-tale-telling, not anything approaching responsible research.
In a time when secret operations need exposure. In a time when so many conspiracies are active, and are damaging our democracy and our planet. In a time when we could be using the Internet to disseminate actual true information about these conspiracies, why in the world would you torpedo your interview with Dr. Greer by sharing such an outlandishly foolish prediction as the world running out of food in 10 months and running out of air in 4 years?
Why would you negate everything else you've done with statement such as this?
Responsible researchers should eshew such statements and people who put forth such ideas without voluminous evidence. The emphasis should be on the evidence not the theories. The Internet is chockful of whacky theories. I can get my fill on there all day. I want evidence.
Before I'm viewed as merely a crank raining on your parade, I wanted to share a quick anecdote about how misinformation sinks the whole ship.
When I was a kid, I was home sick one day in November 1983 and was watching Donahue or one of those talk shows. They were discussing the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. At that time in my life, all I knew was that Lee Harvey Oswald killed him, and that was that. Obviously, I know better now.
So, with that scant knowledge, I watched a panel of researchers, which I believe included Mark Lane and Robert Groden, both of whose work I have come to respect.
Among the panel was one man who said, "If you watch the Zapruder film closely, you'll see the Secret Service driver of the limousine turn around and fire the fatal shot at JFK."
Even as a child, I thought this was ridiculous and I've always remembered that statement and the effect it had on the studio audience: After that man put forth his ridiculous theory, the rest of the panel was painted with the same brush by the audience. Everyone on the panel was taken down with the ship, as it were. Suddenly, everyone's theories seemed silly. No doubt, the man who put forth the limo-driver-as-assassin idea was a misinformation agent whose job was to do precisely that -- torpedo the entire panel. Mission accomplished, at least on that day.
And so, I find similarly silly, ridiculous, easily disproven theories have the same effect on conversations. Pardon the indelicate image, but such theories are like a turd in the swimming pool -- they contaminate everything within their reach.
So, ideas that we're going to run out of food in 10 months and run out of air in 4 years are turds in the swimming pool.