Connect with us

Alternative News

Why Hearing Facts Still Doesn’t Change Our Perspectives

Published

on

Have you ever tried to explain a topic to someone, but they were so strong in their convictions that they refused to accept the facts? You can see this phenomenon play out in all aspects of society: religious people deny science, scientists refuse to acknowledge spirituality, politicians spin the truth on history, and the list goes on.

advertisement - learn more

Even I’ve fallen subject to this numerous times; it can be incredibly difficult to let go of your beliefs and accept the truth, even if it’s right in front of you. Our beliefs are our security blankets, confirming our convictions on what’s right and what’s wrong and affirming our every decision. What would happen if we simply let go of these ideals, took a step back, and looked at the bigger picture?

For starters, if we opened our minds we could actually advance as a society collectively. By abandoning old beliefs, you make space for new knowledge, though this is admittedly easier said than done. There have been numerous studies performed in the past which prove that even if we have all the facts, we still have difficulty accepting them and changing our minds.

Stanford Psychological Studies on People’s Beliefs

In 1975, Stanford University performed a psychological study aimed at determining whether or not people’s beliefs would change after they received the facts. If you’ve ever had an argument with someone who refuses to accept new knowledge (or, alternatively, been the individual who is too strong in their convictions), you may be able to predict the study’s findings!

The researchers recruited a group of undergraduate students who were told the study would be about suicide. Each participant was given a pair of suicide notes and was told that one was a genuine suicide note and the other had been falsified. The students were then asked to guess which ones were fake and which ones were real.

The researchers told some of the students they did very well, stating that they correctly identified the genuine note 24 out of 25 times, and then they told the other students they did very poorly, only identifying the genuine note 10 out of 25 times.

advertisement - learn more

After completing the first stage, the researchers revealed that they’d lied about the students’ scores. The entire point of the first stage was to make the students think they either did very well or very poorly, though in reality their scores didn’t reflect their actual performance. All of them had in fact performed similarly, so the students who were told they did very well actually did, on average, no better than the students who were told they’d done poorly.

During the second stage of the experiment, the researchers asked the participants to estimate how many notes they thought they got right, and how many notes they thought the average student guessed correctly. Interestingly enough, the students who had previously been told they’d done well guessed that they scored very high, despite the fact that the researchers had told them that was a complete lie. Similarly, the students who were told they did poorly guessed that they performed below average.

“Once formed,” the researchers explained, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.” It’s clear that the students allowed the fake information to impact their responses, despite knowing it was incorrect.

when-christians-wont-listen-to-reason-300x200

A few years later, a similar study was performed by Stanford researchers on a different set of undergraduate students. The students were each handed one of two information packets on two firefighters, which included the firefighters’ results on their “Risky-Conservative Choice Tests.” One packet said that one of the firefighters, Frank, was a successful firefighter who preferred to choose the safest option, and the other packet stated that he wasn’t a very good firefighter and preferred to choose the safest option.

Similar to the previous study, the students were informed afterwards that the information packets had been falsified. Afterwards, the students were asked to share their beliefs on what they thought a successful firefighter’s attitude would be toward risk-taking. The students who were given the information packet that stated Frank was a successful firefighter who chose the safest options said that they thought successful firefighters would avoid risk.

Conversely, the students who were given the packets that stated Frank was a poor firefighter and chose the safest options thought that a successful firefighter would embrace risk. Even though the students were told that the information was completely fake, their answers were influenced by the information they were previously given.

These two studies are very well known, as they suggest that even people who seem completely rational and intelligent can act irrational at times, especially when their beliefs are in question. Even if people are told the truth, they tend to still be close-minded about that information and instead continue to perpetuate their old belief systems.

Why Do We Choose to Deny the Truth? 

There are so many examples throughout society of people blatantly denying the truth, even if the facts are right in front of them. To name a few examples, consider the entire cancer industry. Both the industry as a whole and numerous doctors profit off of cancer patients who choose to undergo chemotherapy and radiation, even though it’s been proven that there are often better options than these conventional “treatments.” The U.S. government, Harvard University, and many other credible institutions have confirmed that cannabis kills cancer cells, yet most people still choose to undergo these “treatments” that often make their conditions much worse or increase their chances of getting cancer again in the future.

You can also see this same theme playing out in religious beliefs. Practitioners choose to believe books that were created thousands of years ago and altered significantly, despite the fact that the truth of our existence and God (or source, the universe, or whatever you choose to call it) is within each and every one of us. Likewise, many scientists refuse to acknowledge the interconnectedness of science and spirituality. We are literally made up of energy and frequency, and this connects us to the entire universe, yet many scientists cannot fathom oneness or collective consciousness even though it’s supported by quantum physics.

You could also apply this to politics, extraterrestrial disclosure, and even theories that are commonly mistaken as scientific fact. People choose their political stance, claiming that they’re “left” or “right,” without even looking at political platforms. Many people are uneducated about ETs and UFOs, largely due to lack of exposure and the stigma surrounding it that’s perpetuated by the media, despite the plethora of evidence supporting ET life and UFOs. To learn more, visit the exopolitics section of our website here.

Theories such as human evolution and the big bang theory are so engraved into our brains that we forget that they’re just theories. We mistake them as scientific fact, when in reality both of these concepts have been largely disproven.

The list goes on and on, and I’m sure you can think of numerous examples yourself. The real question here is: How do we become more open minded? Well, if you believe someone is wrong, take a step back and understand where their viewpoints stem from. After all, “right” and “wrong” are relative, so how confident in our convictions can we ever be?

I do believe that there are some universal truths, and if something strongly resonates with you, it’s likely “right.” However, that doesn’t mean you need to shout your opinion for all to hear, especially if it’s “falling on deaf ears.” Yes, I believe that it’s our duty to spread information and the truth, but I don’t think that everyone is ready to gain access to knowledge at the same time.

The best thing you can do is lead by example. If you think someone is wrong, don’t call them out for their ignorance and belittle them. Instead, try to understand where they’re coming from and, if they’re interested, educate them. You can speak your truth and challenge norms without being rude or too intrusive. However, if you do offend someone while communicating your beliefs, remember that that may have more to do with them and their attachments to their belief systems than it does with you.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

UAF 9/11 Study Concludes “Fires in WTC Could Not Have Caused” Building 7 To Collapse

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The final report of an extensive four-year computer modeling simulation that was followed by a robust peer review process concludes that WTC 7 could not have collapsed as a result of office fires, as the official NIST explanation claims.

  • Reflect On:

    Does it seem like full disclosure in many areas, including 9/11 truth, are being held back in order to burst into public awareness simultaneously?

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth announced on March 25th that the final report from researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on the destruction of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001 has been completed. And as expected, it debunks the official story:

The UAF team’s findings, which were the result of a four-year computer modeling study of the tower’s collapse, contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the observed collapse,” said Professor Leroy Hulsey, the study’s principal investigator. “The only way it could have fallen in the observed manner is by the near-simultaneous failure of every column.”

The final report, entitled A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 – Final Report, includes clarifications and supplemental text based on public comments submitted in response to a draft report released by UAF and AE911Truth on September 3, 2019.

The UAF team’s final report is the result of an extensive four-year computer modeling effort that was followed by a robust peer review process. The peer review included dozens of public comments as well as external review by two independent experts, Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski of Analytical Service Company, a leading expert in structural mechanics and finite element modeling, and Dr. Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering.

What’s Next?

Richard Gage, president and founder of AE911Truth, said that “It is now incumbent upon the building community, the media, and government officials to reckon with the implications of these findings and launch a new full-scale investigation.”

advertisement - learn more

Of course, asking for a new full-scale investigation has always been the mandate for AE911Truth. One would suspect that if an investigation has not been launched by now, when a majority of the public believe something is being hidden from them about 9/11, no amount of proof about the falsity of the official statement will be able to get the ball rolling.

Still, the work that continues to be done by AE911Truth and its allies among the 9/11 victims’ families keeps this issue in the spotlight, and reminds us that important facts about 9/11 have yet to be revealed, facts that question the very nature and motivations of our government and other powerful institutions. The 9/11 activists will now use the findings in the report as part of a formal “request for correction” that the group plans to submit to NIST in the coming days. Richard Gage noted,

“The indisputable errors documented in our request for correction will give NIST no way out of correcting its deeply flawed report and reversing its conclusion that fires were the cause of the collapse.”

An admission by NIST that their conclusions about the reasons for the WTC 7 collapse is tantamount to an admission that explosives had been pre-planted in this building for this event, so we shouldn’t hold our breath. It would bring down the entire house of cards that is the official 9/11 narrative.

As I mentioned in a previous article ‘The Implosion Of Building 7 Remains The Irrefutable “Smoking Gun” Of A 9/11 Inside Job,’ the presumption of a controlled demolition would dictate that WTC Building 7 must have been slated to be hit by a plane like the other 2 towers, as part of the master plan of the perpetrators. When that was part of the plan was botched, they decided to ‘pull it,’ in the recorded words of the building’s owner Larry Silverstein. The lame “offices fires” explanation, something that had never happened before in the world to a high-rise building, was the only one that was left for them to use.

The Takeaway

Truth is coming, about 9/11, about JFK, about hidden technology, ETs and about a hundred other things. It seems to me that full disclosures of all of these have been held up, or are creeping along very slowly, as if they were being loaded into a cannon for one huge explosion of truth that is set to have a profound impact on our collective consciousness. Rather than being impatient for one particular disclosure or another, I believe it’s best to try to see a pattern that relates to the readiness of the collective mind, and do our part to prepare ourselves.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Wins Key Court Case In Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A key victory came yesterday for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe as a Washington DC court ruled the Army Corps of Engineers must perform an Environmental Impact Statement to show the Dakota Access pipeline will not negatively affect the tribe's land.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we seeing further shifts in the old paradigm of money first and environment second? Are we seeing the power of relentlessly standing up for what you feel will make humanity and nature thrive?

This is a huge victory for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota. Their relentless energy towards having a full environmental impact statement (EIS) done with regards to the Dakota Access Pipeline that would run through their land and potentially impact their water supply, has finally paid off. This will bring the future of the Dakota Access pipeline into question entirely.

A Washington DC court ruled that the US army corps of engineers must conduct a full EIS given that their existing permits violated the National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa).

“After years of commitment to defending our water and earth, we welcome this news of a significant legal win,” said the tribal chairman, Mike Faith. “It’s humbling to see how actions we took to defend our ancestral homeland continue to inspire national conversations about how our choices ultimately affect this planet.”

You may recall from 2016, the Sioux Tribe rallied and inspired millions all over the world to help in getting behind the movement to raise awareness about the environmental impact of this pipeline. People travelled from all over the world to join the tribe on the ‘front lines’ as clashes sometimes became violent between water protectors and police, as well as pipeline workers.

I recall being down in North Dakota covering this story and was amazed by the sheer amount of people coming to support, as well as the efforts police were taking to silence journalists from covering the story. Cell phone jammers were used to stop those on-site from live streaming what was going on. Independent media were the only form of media in Standing Rock for months until eventually, mainstream media showed up. There appeared to be a long-standing solidarity within mainstream media to portray water protectors as violent and to avoid telling their side of the story when it came to the pipeline. This was why independent media was so important at that time.

In December 2016, the Obama administration denied permits for the pipeline to cross the Missouri River and effectively ordered a full EIS to be done in order to determine what alternative routes could be taken as well as what impact the pipeline may have on the tribe’s treaty rights. Yet, during the first week of Donald Trump’s presidency, he signed an executive order to expedite construction of the pipeline. Construction of the 1,200-mile pipeline was completed in June 2017.

advertisement - learn more

Not long after, the tribe challenged the permits and won. The Army corps of engineers were ordered to redo its environmental analysis, but they did so without taking into consideration tribal concerns or expert analysis. This was likely to allow it’s the transport of oil to continue until they were again sued.

Finally, as this Wednesday, federal judge James Boasberg determined that the environmental analysis by both the companies behind the pipeline and the corps was severely lacking, and the track record of Sunoco when it comes to oil spills is not promising, and “does not inspire confidence”, he added.

The fresh court-mandated EIS will be more in-depth than the assessment already completed by the corps – and could take years to complete. Next, the court will decide if the pipeline will be shut down while the EIS is being completed and until the EIS is approved.

“This validates everything the tribe has been saying all along about the risk of oil spills to the people of Standing Rock,” said Jan Hasselman, an EarthJustice attorney.

The Takeaway

The news of this Standing Rock victory may fall on distracted ears and minds at the moment considering the current global focus on the Coronavirus pandemic, but this is a big victory that shows the power of collective action and moving to stand up to actions of those who do not make the entirety of human ‘thrivability’ a part of their paradigm, but who instead operate from a space of disconnection and capitalization.

This news comes as I recently released my latest film Regenerate to everyone for free. The film re-examines our current mainstream approach to climate change and instead looks at our relationship to land, life, nature, money and each other as a whole. I propose that it is here where we will find the solutions we are looking for to truly allow our environment and each other, to thrive. You can check out the trailer below, and watch the full film here.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

How We Can Regenerate Our Environment & Planet (Documentary)

Published

on

20452664 - Image: 123RF

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    New documentary called Regenerate: Beyond The C02 Narrative explores how we can truly regenerate our environment. The current mainstream focus on C02 is not the answer.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we viewing the earth as a mechanical machine? Are we living in a society built on disconnection? Do we value maintaining the status quo more than creating a thriving life for all?

I have a new film I want to share with you, one that I was very passionate about creating because I believe it has the power to truly change the way we think about our environment.

I’ve been researching the topic of climate change for over 10 years, and the one thing I can honestly tell you, no matter what political side you are on or what you think the science says: the topic is very dizzying. No, it’s not as simple as the oil companies are faking science to show dangers to our climate are not as bad. No, it’s not as simple as lowering CO2 emissions, in fact, that is an incredibly misleading narrative. What we have to do is much different than that.

One thing I will say is this, many of the current propositions we see from governments, companies and mainstream media are designed to work within our economy. Economy first, environment second. They are also designed not to have humanity question their relationship with things like nature, money, life, who we are and why we are even here. They are designed to maintain the status quo. For that reason, they are often linear, mechanical ideas that disregard the true nature of the earth and the environment.

Those who have really gone deeply into the subject of climate change see this very quickly: you cannot simply solve our climate woes by planting more trees or lowering CO2 emissions, as you are just looking at one TINY aspect to the puzzle, and this direction won’t actually help the planet, it will only make us think we are helping.

Coming to these realizations over the last 10 years is what inspired me to create a film that would unite people. It’s a film that doesn’t argue about who’s to blame, what the causes of climate change are and so forth, it’s instead a film that looks at the core of the issue, and how we can actually create the changes that are needed at this time.

In short, the biggest challenge we face right now is that we live in a mindset and paradigm of disconnection and linear, mechanical thinking. This has led to the creation of a world that takes only individual parts into consideration, and not the whole. This thinking provides the experience of what it looks like to create from disconnected and destructive points of view. Sifting out of this thinking and state of being, into one of connection, is the challenge before us. When we do this, it will begin to reshape policy, choices, actions and creations that influence our world, way of living and how we relate to the earth.

advertisement - learn more

Due to the Coronavirus lockdown everyone is experiencing right now at home, I’ve decided to make the film Regenerate: Beyond The CO2 Narrative, free for everyone to watch.

Below is a trailer to check out the film. If you wish to watch this film entirely, click here.

Start Your Free 7 Day Trial To CETV!

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

You can stream conscious media 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, and documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media that you won't see anywhere else.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!