Joseph makes a couple of announcements including the publication date for The Grid of the Gods and then asks for listener comment about "something":

Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Jon on April 24, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Whether oil is abiotic or not (and I lean towards that being the case), cartels can still maintain control due to the rate of creation of the basic resource. How fast can the Earth replenish the pools of oil? That will still be a limiting factor – and any limiting factor creates a scarcity based system.

    I think that both biotic and abiotic hypotheses will be turned to the elites’ interest, just at different times in different ways, if for nothing else than to divert attention, cause confusion and FUD.

    Also, are you going to post the video from the 22nd Member chat? I missed it (working).

  2. marcos anthony toledo on April 22, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    Thank you Lysander for bring up Thomas Gold I haven’t read his book but again I read about him in The Atlantic in a article was featured on the front cover of the magazine and we mustn’t forget Howard Hughes and the Global Explorer and Methane nodules at the bottom of the oceans. I was listening to that interview on the computer just the other night so what is this energy crisis all about. I think that this a excuse to make war around the world and terrorize and kill to the elites hearts delight I just read the other day that wolfs are to taken off the endangered list and wrote that after they are finish with them they could go after the so call mud people next.

  3. Nancy on April 22, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Several years ago I read an analysis of the tower of Babel and the materials used were akin to what we know as asphalt. I’d always wondered about those ferns and bones making oil…our overgrown animal graveyards don’t make oil now I reasoned as a child so I didn’t believe it. Now put the story of the materials of the tower being an ‘oil’ base – where did it come from in relation to the years of the ferns and dinosaurs went missing. I put the myth of oil being fossil fuel right up there with Mr. Masonic Newton getting hit on the head with an apple and figuring out there was gravity that made it drop. I don’t believe “they” are telling us the truth about gravity either. And just for good measure I am certain one-day we will return to transportation on ‘flying carpets’…I don’t think the Arabic folk should keep that science a secret…I think that was an old science that is hidden out there somewhere – and that doesn’t need oil. Only consciousness – hum sounds like something from those giza books i’ve been reading.

  4. James on April 22, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    Abiotic oil hypothesis is more than likely correct, and is logical. The concept of anhydrous oil results from biomass decay is absurd and given the vast amount that is taken from the earth per day and refined. It would be impossible if the resultant process to produce the said volume came from living material that is 90% or better water in its composition. A salient argument to explain the decay process and calculation of what amount of biomass that is required to produce a single gallon of crude would lend much to see how preposterous the dead dinosaur/biomass theory is regarding petroleum deposits.

    A more interesting question would be and perhaps more vital one is WHERE DID ALL H20 on our planet come from?
    What process can be conceived to create the VOLUME of both Salt water and Fresh water?

    The theory of abiotic oil is more commonly discussed in Russia and is conspicuously absent from Western dialogue.

    The Abiotic oil theory is another example of truth seeping into the mainstream consciousness, perhaps to obtund the reaction of the mass of lies that the populous has been digesting for so long……

    In essence, it is the characteristic desensitization modus to ensure the masses do not perhaps “react poorly” or Freak when the realization of lies is known by many.

    The truth will be necessary on all counts, at some point. It is just a matter of how much is released and when. The release is only as per what is useful to perpetuate a desire to change focus from existent energy means and is at this juncture, obvious as a means to ensure a disharmony and malcontent with the producers of oil. Perhaps the same is manifest with the horror of the Japan Nuclear disaster. Before solutions can be offered, problems must occur to ensure the need for solutions…….

  5. NoGreyAliens on April 22, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    I assume the “elites” always lie when it comes down to such things. So anytime I hear their explanations of “events” or “processes”. I immediately assume that we are not getting the whole story. And it is not that I am just a cynic. But they kinda have a track record (and a long one at that) of LYING to suite their own interests.
    The abiotic oil hypothesis would fly in the face of “ale gore style scarcity hypothesis” so favored by the elite. This alone would spark my interest.
    I believe the elites try to use any event or scheme in place to terrify humanity into their new schemes. So they would stick to the “textbook oil from dinosaur bones bit” until they are ready to roll out a new scheme. We are ripe for one of their new schemes right this minute. And their schemes are really all the same. We all know they do not worship Ceres.

  6. Lysander on April 22, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Thomas Gold an Astrophysicist wrote a book back in 1999 called “The Deep Hot Biosphere” where he postulates that the earth manufactures oil deep within its mantle and is a natural byproduct of the earth…somewhat of a primordial hydrocarbon soup with the primary component being methane. He says that if one drilled deep enough anywhere in the world that they would eventually hit this “soup” or petroleum based oil. He also explains the so called “bio-markers” found in the oil by saying that as the oil seeps and creeps through pressure and internal forces of the mantle into the crust it “picks up” the bio-material that is seen in the oil which was used to categorize oil as a “fossil based” material. He was challenged by the Swedes to prove his hypothesis who funded him to drill through solid granite in Sweden where conventional thought would say that no oil existed. He took the challenge and guess what…he found oil. It was very deep but it was there. There is also an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico off the Texas coast that has been proven to be continually refilling from a deeper source and the new oil has different “bio-markers” than the older oil.

  7. Vinnie on April 22, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    Like everything else, this lie is another in a long line of them and part of the overall fear mongering to make us believe what’s abundant is scarce. Just like the diamond trade, the oil cartel has failed to keep the myth of peak oil going and now, having been caught are falling back on the usual tactics of war and threatened shortages to keep the prices high. Throw in the fact that it’s refining capacity that’s the limiting factor in producing “fossil” fuels and you begin to see how those insiders can through their speculations make it coming and going in the rigged futures markets that they’ve managed to so finely tip in their direction.
    We need to understand that these elites consider themselves to be the house, and as such, have skewed things so the odds are always in their favor and against us. What they really fear is a truly free market where the consumer alone is responsible for setting prices and determining what alternative sources might spontaneously arise to replace petroleum as what fuels the world.

  8. jameske on April 22, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    On the issue of a shadowy elite somehow manipulating things. I don’t believe it, as Victor Meldrew might say. Whilst there is elitism, and whilst I am certain that those with enough knowledge about how markets and how governments work can profit from it, the idea that there is some shadowy group collectively manipulating everything does not really work. If the theory of elemental conversion holds true then how could any of them know about it. Sand to oil would end it all as much as cold fusion. These things just are not accepted readily for reasons of minor elites. Elites in fields of endeavour lead to a failure of the scientific process, undermining the original exploratory nature of science. But a political/power elite, no, they may have great wealth and privilege but it does not make them intelligent or creative enough to know how the worlds of the universe function.

    • Christopher on April 22, 2011 at 3:22 pm

      While I don’t disagree with you, I would quote the occultist Franz Bardon:

      “Even in the remotest times the MAGUS has been regarded as one of the highest adepts and it might be of interest to learn that, as a matter of fact, the word “magic” is derived from this word. The so called “sorcerers” are by no means initiates but only imitators of the mysteries, who counting partly on the ignorance and partly on the credulity of the individuality or a whole nation in order to reach their selfish aims by, lies and fraud. The true magician will always despise such practices.”

      In other words, one doesn’t need to know exactly how something works in detail to know that certain methods simply WORK. In a sense not knowing fully how things work and potential ramifications of their actions makes one even MORE dangerous. I think that’s Josephs whole stance on the dangerousness of this type of physics.

      • jameske on April 22, 2011 at 3:51 pm

        Well, the only way that even partially works against any elite is revolution. Which leads to a new or a reformed elite. But human societies are stratified in the way of top/middle/bottom. The likes of Noam Chomsky has to cite rare phenomena like Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalism to get around this. It doesn’t add up. Although, in favour of such structures, some of the best examples lie in small groups forming together in such a fashion within mixed economies to produce products which consumers want to buy. Governments however are only overthrown when the system itself is overthrown in revolution, which is invariably replaced by another system which involves a new elite.

        As a rule of thumb, the smaller countries have more precarious elites though often richer ones relatively speaking. Larger countries and federations – USA, USSR, EU etc have stronger elites. USSR when it transformed contained many of the same people as were there prior to transformation. It probably has something to do with the degree of distance from the person. I can campaign, if I want, against a local politician, but when it gets to EU politicians I am so estranged from where they are that it is difficult to do anything about it. Rules and regulations about demonstrations limit what is possible, and newspapers plays their part in regulating the possibility of change. It is clear that smaller countries have a much more precarious situation regarding elites by comparison to the large federations. Grass root movements are too close to the seat of power in those cases. Latin Americam countries, though they contain incredibly rich individuals, are much more unstable. They have less of a tradition of law, and laws are often ignored on a grand scale despite their existence.

        • jameske on April 22, 2011 at 4:21 pm

          addendum: consider the leftovers of empires. The British Empire left behind traditions which survive in many countries to this day. The USA, Australia, India being major descendants of British tradition, among many others nations. The Roman Empire left behind its mark in the Roman Catholic Church which spread out across the world. The Greeks left behind a mark on perhaps all of the East of Europe, although from Julius Caesar’s histories it is clear that there was even some connection with western Europe prior to Roman invasion, as the French certainly used an alphabet similar to Greek for adminstrative purposes, although the Greeks may possibly have been the descendent culture – indicating an even earlier empire, and an elite that may have involved druidic tradtions. The Spanish and Portuguese also left behind traditions. Even smaller Empires have left behind traditions. French, Dutch, and German. The current American Empire, if one can call it that, has left behind its mark on the world. These are the marks of elites, for sure. Perhaps the Roman Empire has left the greatest mark overall. But it is hard to see how one escapes this. The Americans on the one hand tried to escape it, only to replace Monarchy with rich individuals. Small countries, even with imperial pasts, tend to have a much more precarious relationship between elites and citizens or subjects. Ancient Britain is probably a good example of that, the ancient law there being a good example of relatively favourable conditions for the individual.

  9. MattB on April 22, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Alchemy to create oil anyone?

    Or more likely that the elites have the technologies for a replacement and are working on how to publicise it and keep it as a monopoly. maybe a ‘watered down’ tesla influenced technology that rquires some kind of economic or mineral caveate to keep the monopoly going.

    • jameske on April 22, 2011 at 5:13 pm

      Monopolies only survive if they keep prices relatively low. Keeping prices high brings about competition. In terms of oil there are examples of this historically. There is quite a large literature on the subject of monopolies in Libertarian research. There is actually little sense in keeping prices high even with cartels. Most obviously this occurs with human labour. Whilst unions in rich countries can defer the flow of capital, ultimately the capital goes in the direction of cheap labour.

      • Jon on April 24, 2011 at 2:07 pm

        Monopoly, by definition, excludes competition. Monopolies, especially over necessary commodities, can do whatever they like, hence the reason sane people dislike them.

  10. LSM on April 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Hi Dr. Farrell,

    many thanks for your newest commentaries- always appreciated!-

    you, yourself, have sourced L. Fletcher Prouty (I assume you feel he is credible- otherwise you wouldn’t have sourced him) who has stated oil is abiotic-

    I understand completely your dilemma in this concept- if I recall correctly as stated in “Bybylon’s Banksters,” the oil-ruled world is running on a “closed system”; however, if oil truly is abiotic that would throw a major monkey-wrench into this concept-

    as I have a tremendous amount of faith in you I assume at some point you will be able to figure this out and inform us all how the international banksters will otherwise meet their demise-

    many warmest regards,


    P:S:- one must not forget it was Rockefeller who induced this idea “oil is a fossil fuel!- it’s RARE!- that’s why it’s so expensive!” for (could we have guessed?) purposes of profit…

    • Joseph P. Farrell on April 22, 2011 at 2:27 pm

      Thanks Larry…but put no faith in me or anyone else…we’re all about thinking for ourselves here!

      • LSM on April 22, 2011 at 2:48 pm

        Hi Dr. Farrell,

        I put a tremendous amount of faith in you- I think you are a die-hard truth seeker!- am currently half-way through your LBJ/Kennedy book (wow!)- I can only assume you’ve sourced Judyth Vary Baker’s “Me and Lee”- I have not yet read it (I listened to Baker’s interview on YouTube) but am waiting for Amazon to offer the book at a decent price-

        Dr. Farrell, I just think you are the greatest- I plan on reading every book you have written (even though I’m not going through them in the desired order)-

        yes, Dr. Farrell, we’re all about thinking for ourselves- too bad about about the herd of “sheeple”-

        many warmest regards,


  11. jameske on April 22, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    If I were to hazard a guess I would say the amount of abiogenic oil is negligible, relatively speaking. However, I also believe that the amount of oil that is the result of dead plant and animal matter is also negligible.

    I reckon abiogenic or fossil oil distinctions are both true in a sense and both false in a sense – true in the sense that chemistry must allow for both to have formed, and both false because the conditions on which they are created are extremely unusual. The earth’s crust is primarily made up of oxygen and silicon, around 74%. The puzzle of planet Earth is its oxygen atmosphere. I would suggest that SiO2 has been broken up by micro-organisms deep in the earth, and under conditions oxygen poor conditions these micro-organisms do what they must to survive. Silicon is converted into Carbon and Hydrogen and/or Helium, depending on the circumstances, and Oxygen is used for respiration, and is also liberated, thus forming the oxygen of the atmosphere. This, of course, implies that micro-organisms under these circumstances can change one element into another.

    SiO2 —> Si + O2

    Si —> C + H2 or Si—> C + He

    The oxygen from cracking SiO2 provides for respiration. Thus water and oxygen are produced deep in the earth by micro-organisms.

    The silicon is converted into carbon and hydrogen for the building blocks of micro-organisms require for sustenance and reproduction. Helium may be another product of this reaction.

    The result is that in a sense oil is both abiogenic and biogenic. Abiogenic in the sense that the raw material is not biological, but biogenic in the sense that only through micro-organisms does the oil come into existence.

    • jameske on April 22, 2011 at 3:16 pm

      Addendum: in Thomas Gold’s book he dedicates a portion of Chapter 4 to Helium’s association with hydrocarbons. He suggests that Helium is carried along in the upwelling of hydrocarbons, but the Helium itself is from radioactive decay. Well, perhaps Helium’s association with hydrocarbons is nothing to do with radioactivity, but is a direct byproduct of the process I illustrate above. See page 72 of Thomas Gold’s The Deep Hot Biosphere.

    • jameske on April 22, 2011 at 4:02 pm

      Addendum: the Nitrogen in Earth’s atmosphere one might regard as anomalous also. This too can be accounted for by micro-organism action.

      Si —> N2

      Micro-organisms are not complex conscious beings. They cannot control what they do but they as a primitive life form will need, as all life forms need. They merely evolved to be able under certain circumstances to survive in deep earth conditions. But they would need to produce protein also. Nitrogen would be a natural byproduct of the reactions that keep them alive and reproducing. The abundance of Nitrogen relative to Oxygen in the atmosphere is also indicative of the micro-organism action deep in the earth.

    • jameske on April 22, 2011 at 5:50 pm

      By the way, it should be…

      Si —> 2C + H2 etc…

  12. Christopher on April 22, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Honestly, this seems like the perpetuation of yet another dialectic.

    While I believe there is some credence to the abiotic oil idea, I think you need to consider the people pushing it. Corsi has some very suspicious ties to these anti-NWO hardline Christian Right type of organizations. Seemingly most of THOSE organizations have their ties back to big oil and old ‘family money’. See people such as Howard Phillips, the Hunt oil family, The John Birch Society etc.

    So, hypothetically, oil miraculously becomes more abundant, the prices drop, the US relies less and less on foreign supply, and everything is happy for the time being. But in reality the same groups are running everything, and we’re on the same hamster wheel we’ve always been, just a perceived measure of “progress” for the masses.

    Forgive me if I sound a bit pessimistic on the topic. 🙂

  13. Christine on April 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    abiotic oil makes more sense, but there are two issues here. purpose and rate of production.
    if the purpose of oil deep in the earth, is to give some kind of stability yet moveability to the
    mantle and crust, then what is the effect of pumping it out? look into the problems of fracking
    for example, whether relating to oil or gas.

    rate of production is the real problem. discusses
    promoters and deniers of abiotic oil, and at least one person who came to the same conclusion
    I have already come to, a couple of years ago when I first heard of it. That the rate of abiotic
    oil production is very slow, too slow to compensate for the pumping out, so we will face a
    peak oil situation anyway.

  14. photios on April 22, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    I think the idea is entirely possible. Showing a geological case will, however, be difficult, which has been the standard rub against the abiogenic view. However, one wonders how you can ever have had enough organic material at a given geological time period to keep up with the rate of current consumption.

    As far as agenda’s are concerend, if abiogenic fuels be the case, then it would really change pricing, because prices are based on current reserve reports, i.e. *supply* and demand. If current reserve estimates need to be severely modified and expanded based on a real engineerable theory of abiogenic oil, that will effect consumers greatly at the pump, for the good. Prices would drop dramatically if the abiogenic theory proven to be true.

    But there could also be another agenda against it too. If the abiogenic theory were true, then there is possibly less of an urgency to get us off the current energy paradigm. As long as they keep reserve reports based on fossil fuel, this will keep prices quite high unless it gets too high that it brings things to an economic hault like we saw in 2008 when oil went from $147 dollars a barrell to $36 in about 6 months. This would afford more of a reason to pump dollars into hidden and disguised energy programs to inaugurate the paradigm change, or to fund those programs if necessary.

    My gut tells me that they want prices up and keep them up to keep the machine going.

  15. Charles Frith on April 22, 2011 at 10:16 am

    The first time I heard the abiotic oil story I thought it was nuts. Since then I’ve tried to keep an open mind about things till proven otherwise. It still doesn’t ring right with me but I do think the abiotic story (not the fact, the story) goes against an elite agenda of resource-driven billable-energy conflict. I hope that helps.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events