-19 votes

Does Edward Snowden even exist?

Does Edward Snowden even exist?

I've seen reports here that it's possible he is controlled opposition to prevent another whistleblower's evidence from coming to light.

He's been in many countries, and is giving the US government "a run for their money" (it's not their money, it's ours).

Political commentators have said that the Obama administration is losing credibility for every day that he's on the run.

Is it possible that he's not on the run? That he is a fictional character, made up in the same manner that the CIA makes up their agents to have fictional lives in other countries?

And if so, who is doing this, and why? Potentially the global elites to keep our eye on some other ball while they swish the one they're holding, as some here have suggested? Or some group with positive ends?

By managing the Edward Snowden experience in this manner, there is no actual human who is at risk, gallivanting around the globe. Instead, there are only reports that he was somewhere. No pictures.

How much would an "Edward Snowden mask" cost?

Perhaps we could all show up in pictures looking like him. Which would make sense, because the government considers the people the enemy.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm not sure it matters. The

I'm not sure it matters. The question is, is the public better knowing the truth about spying or not? I would think most of us here would think so. We hope more people will wake up as a result. If he is a plant it seems to me that the government is confident we will just role over and accept it. In that case, we are pretty must lost anyway. But our hope is that the seed of freedom will blossom faster and stronger than the chains of apathy.

If he is fake, it could be that there is an effort to make the government so bad that that when they present a candidate for pres. That sounds like he will root out all the corruption and we will beg for them to take on new power to do it. Just like hitler did.

Okay everyone.

There seems to be some activity on this thread and there is a reason for that. There is a purpose.

I figure when the purpose is exposed, certain people might be more reluctant to post here. We can all see who posts and what the content of their posts are. There is a trail for all to see. Some posts are short, some long, some trivial, some seemingly inquisitive, some seeming to mock, but there is a reason for the activity. A purpose.

This is my last post on this thread, but be certain I will be keeping an eye.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?


9-11 Actors:

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

You are simply unwilling to simply face the simple truth...

Snowden is a multiphase clone of his sexual bloodfather twins, Cody Wilson and that other guy Adam something...

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

Snowden/Catch-22 name logic.

The character named Snowden in Catch-22 literally spills his guts.

Say someone was brainstorming to come up with the name of a character who "spills his guts" in a planned international media firestorm.

They start with that concept, then see what it brings to mind. If they'd read Catch-22 at some point, maybe recently, the image of Snowden's guts spilling out might make the connection in their mind.

From Wikipedia's write-up on the Catch-22 character: Eventually Yossarian notices bleeding from Snowden's armpit and realises he has another wound below his flak suit. As Yossarian rips open the flak suit, a fatal wound beneath exposes Snowden's internal organs which fall out onto the floor

Did someone already come up with this?

very good decoding

interesting! is this why they need to 'catch snowden' in an alleged manhunt to catch the gut-spiller?

story also deals with the question of patriotism, who the real enemy is, bureaucracy, and what is right in a moral dilemma where a person can cooperate with others to their collective greater payoff; or can sell them out by not cooperating, and reap even greater benefits as an individual. any of this sound familiar?

the bureacratic governmnent was unable to extradite snowden from hong kong because of bumbled paperwork. the question of betrayal to the collective. the question of patriotism and who to trust. from a whistleblower's perspective, the catch22 of doing the right thing and becoming a traitor criminal to the government or doing your job as you are told and being a traitor criminal to the people.

author of the book says one of the meme's of the book is that they can do anything to you that you are unble to stop on your own. Snowden famously said that his greatest fear is that nothing would be done to stop what they are doing to us.

A 'cutout' gone rogue? LOL

That would make for great TV!


This could be

a scare tactic, but Snowden can very well be real. They are just trying to scare people into not whistle blowing.

My question

How do people who believe everything is so well controlled not believe in communism? If this level of planning and control works, socialism must also work.

Yeah, numbskull.

Communism does work well for the controllers. Everyone else is screwed.


You think they plan everything so well that they've essentially become every opposing force in this world for the sole purpose of appearing to have opposing forces. If they're that good, why aren't they good enough to pull of true Marxism? Solidarity of the People!


The goal would never be to have true Marxism. The goal would be to run a propaganda campaign to get people to accept laws under the Marxist banner....Taking that as the agenda, it's worked fantastically.

So why wouldn't Marxism work

So why wouldn't Marxism work fantastically? You're arguing that central planning does work. The point isn't, who does it work for. You're claiming that it works.

apples oranges

Because central planning to fairly and sanely distribute resources for millions, or billions, of individuals requires a depth of calculation that is humanly impossible.

Marxism, or any system of mass control or manipulation, only requires direct management and maintenance of a relatively small number of people. There is no need to try to be fair or sane with 99.99 percent of the population. They are to be bullied, killed, fooled, etc., through the actions of the small number of people who are directly controlled.

When you hear the term, "Central planning doesn't work," you need to add, "If we are striving for ethical, humanitarian outcomes." That's generally the issue when people have the central planning debate: managing resources to produce the most benefit for the greatest number.

If the goal is to maintain a political elite who can kill, rob, oppress, etc., at will, central planning is pretty simple.


Is he an actor/speaker well versed in marketing as was suggested by Naomi Wolf? I don't know. I am just not seeing how the U.S. Gov is benefiting here, except if he a scarecrow who they plan to later character-assassinate. If it WAS a setup from the beginning then they certainly picked the wrong journalist, that's for sure. Glen Greenwald has been killing it every time he gets on TV.

Are we witnessing a full blown three-letter agency battle between CIA and NSA as was suggested by John Young and John Rappaport?

I tend to accept any suggestion at face value, and look to see who has benefited the most.

For example I read, in another thread, that the net affect of this in China is that the people have been scared into shell-shock and are now fearful of being persecuted by the government for anything that they say online.

So it gave China gov what they wanted to have. China benefits.

I also read that Russia has thumbed their noses at US about an airport incident for 'failing' to bring Snowden in. So Russia gov got what they wanted by not cooperating with the U.S. Russia benefits.

Also what I found to be strange is the narrative. If the media knows he is about to go to Russia from Hong Kong and then layover in Cuba, to Venezuala and then Ecuador - then why the hell can't our three-letter agency get to him? Doesn't make sense. And the story about them submitting the wrong middle name and missing passport # is even more fishy. Reminds me of the Julian Assange affair. The narrative that he somehow evaded capture after doing speaking events and media interviews is totally ridiculous. And for every reason Wolf says she is suspicious of Snowden, there are 800 more to be suspicious of Assange. The media narrative was exactly the same. "blah, blah, blah, a slow-speed manhunt, US authorities are appearing in the roles of bumbling bureaucrats, armed with little more than indignation that their legal commands aren’t being obeyed overseas." right. that's the reason snowden evaded arrest. bumbling bureacrats and some quick last second manuevers that every media outlet in the world foresaw coming.

Many presume NSA is smart and competent. Why? Proof?

Compartmentalization only gives a part of the puzzle to each operator. Synthesis and integration are subverted.

Agencies are dumb organization that hire smart people.

These guys dragnet all data a analyze it at leisure. That's how an effective blackmail operation is run.

Tracking real time activities doesn't bring in the blackmail bucks.

Most assume that the NSA operatives left behind are antagonistic to 'Snowden's cause.'

Greenwald is either convinced or duped. To protect his reputation must have reason to believe he isn't being duped.

Turf wars are also possible.

Free includes debt-free!

SteveMT's picture

The same question has been asked about these people.

Adam Lanza
The Sandy Hook children
Osama bin Ladin
John Titor
Robin Hood
Sun Tzu
and many more:

However until proven otherwise, Snowden is as real as every other whistleblower. He is running for his life.

No. None of us do.

All the atoms in the universe are 99.9999...% empty space so we, and everything in the universe, is 99.9999...% not even there.

Next question.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

umm, I thought 96% was Plasma, 4% was matter.....

and the rest was well, you know.
just like the space in my ex-wifes head!

plasma is matter

and I think he's talking about the atom being mostly empty space.

Yes that is what I said :)

but even that part of the atom that is "matter" is still, at its core, non-physical energy. Plasma is the closest form of matter (known so far I believe) that is a "physical" representation of this "field".

Really, if you allow yourself to go that deep, nothing is really physical at all.


"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

lets do this.


Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.


Plasma is just a state of matter where the electrons are no longer bound and I'm pretty sure all matter has non-physical energy associated with it.

Is there really any such thing as 'is'?

If everything is constantly in the process of becoming something else, then there really is no 'is', is there?

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

Well, from this "human" perspective it "IS"

Something we cannot help with our 5 "physical" senses. But from the broader perspective, yet still from my limited physical form, everything is in a state of evolving—a state of constant expansion of this Consciousness.

The only thing we can be certain of, is that whatever it "is" it's ALL right NOW.

FYI I posted another audiobook you may like Chris. Or did I? hahaha!

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Depends on your definition

of "is". hahahaha

You might like Heraclitus. He had similar sentiments about reality. A bit cryptic, but personally, he's my favorite of the presocratic thinkers.

I plead guilty to a drunken typo.

I should have said "mass" not "matter". my bad....

you have piqued my interest.... who is your favorite post-Socratic thinker?

Marcus Aurelius

and some of the other stoics, but really my fav is Socrates. However, I'm only getting to some of the early Christian thinkers now. I have some Thomas Aquinas that I'm intending to read. Dr. Paul talked about Christian just war theory too, which I think came from Thomas Aquinas. So I'd like to find out what's behind that.

right....so we agree then?


"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin


Yes, agreed.


not sure I even exist at this point--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--