by Max Barker
July 25, 2019

Received via Email on

July 26, 2019

Spanish version

Italian version

PDF version








The following document contains links to over 60 different websites, all of which I have considered to contain some of the most revealing truths about the essence of nature and the root causes of the greatest problems that humanity faces.


My intention is that the information encountered will change the way the readers think so that it may be used for their own edification as well as for helping to improve the lives of all people on Earth.


However, I must emphasize that even though the total combined information from all of these websites is unimaginably vast, this does not mean that all of it is entirely truthful.


Even though I have found the websites' authors to be well meaning, I have noticed that some of the information they provide contains errors in logic even though they try their best to avoid this.


For example, there is one website in this list that offers evidence for the theory that the Earth is flat 1 yet all that is needed to disprove this is an elementary understanding of astronomy, geometry and physics.


Nevertheless, just because this website contains flawed evidence and logic, this does not automatically discredit the valuable information that it offers on a host of other topics.


This is why I urge all readers to approach these websites with honesty and inquisitiveness.


As a matter of principle, the same should apply for all research undertaken because this is how we can ensure that we get as close to the truth as possible.




This document is the culmination of many lifetimes' worth of work.


Not just my own, but also that of the researchers who have dedicated their lives toward searching for the truth. What some readers may find odd about this compilation of links is that few of these may be considered as academic or authoritative.


The word "authority" may be defined as the,

"power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior". 2

In the context of academia, this means that only the most qualified and accredited person has the privilege of being listened to first.


This is also decided upon by consensus, usually an external entity that holds some measure of power, as well as the public opinion. It must be emphasized though, that the search for truth has little to no relation with consensus or authority.


The only reason a person may be trusted as an authority, is because they are more likely to guide the subjects toward the truth due to their experience in a certain domain. To the extent that an intellectual authority enables an individual to reduce the amount of time spent researching a topic of interest, this can be said to be a positive act.


The same applies when an individual is enabled to reduce the amount of time they spend to understand a certain concept, whether it be related to philosophy or mathematics. Yet, as I am about to explain, there are exceptions to this.

Arguably one of the best known figures who has become an authority on politics, is Noam Chomsky.


The professor emeritus, hailing from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology became famous during the 20th century for the contributions he made to the field of linguistics.


Today, he has gained much acclaim due to his outspoken criticism on American foreign policy.


This isn't a recent development either, which is shown in a 1967 article which he published in the New York Review of Books, in which he claims that,

"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies". 3

What he is inferring is that important information should be shared with the public, especially when it concerns violations of human rights and international law.


One of the examples used in Professor Chomsky's article alludes to the devastation brought about on Vietnam by the U.S., at the height of the Vietnam War. Indeed, this does seem to be a reasonable statement to make.


However, what happens when someone of his supposed stature disregards evidence of a conspiracy?


In a video clip where he discusses the inconsistencies surrounding the official narrative of the 9/11 event and the causes behind it, Chomsky's utterance of the phrase "Who cares?" is certainly peculiar given his reputation. 4


It is also extraordinary for a man of his intellect to sound so apathetic toward an event that has had enormous consequences on the livelihood of millions of people in the, let alone those that do not inhabit on American soil.


After all,

is it not the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose the lies?

Should the professor not have an informed opinion on the subject matter, then this would be understandable.


Then again, one would think he would make every effort to discuss the fact that the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and 9/11 Commission reports have been heavily criticized, 5 due to their lack of analysis on the causes of the destruction of the towers.


Neither reports appear to account for the apparent disintegration of the buildings, which cannot have been caused by jet fuel.


If the reader wishes to learn more about this, then I'd suggest they examine the work of Dr. Judy Wood, who according to a number of researchers offers a much more thorough analysis of the evidence than either the NIST, the 9/11 Commission Report, and even the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.


The link to her website can be found among the list of links below, which is appropriately named after her.


Without going into the details, I do hope I have made one point clear:

that finding the truth is concerned with evidence and logic, and not consensus or authority.

It is with this framework the readers should approach this document.


With that being said, I sincerely hope that this document will reduce the amount of time taken to understand the context of the problems that humanity is plagued with, and for finding the solutions that are in existence.










  2. "Authority". 2019. Merriam-Webster.

  3. Chomsky, Noam. 1967. "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". The New York Review of Books.


  5. Some of the criticism comes from the activist groups "9/11 Truth Movement" and "Engineers and Architects for 9/11 Truth". Note that although these entities may have good intentions, their claims of a controlled demolition cannot appropriately explain the disintegration of the buildings. For readers that are new to this topic, they may wish to read the online Wikipedia article titled "Criticism of the 9/11 Commission". This will serve as a quick overview on relevant information that established news institutions tend to ignore.