Some specious-osity

This post, as I envision it, will be a ramble about a number of topics not even related, but hopefully that generate interest and comments over the weekend. But first, I want to highlight a comment from yesterday, as I recall, on the Carl Sagan post:

Yeah, agreed on Sagan, and his successor in scientific fraud, Neal DeGrasse Tyson. I did not want this post to be a forum on Sagan, as he did say some useful things, as in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

As long as I am leading with my chin, I will lead with that, but the reason I want to highlight the comment is that in the history of this little blog, it is number 50,000. I did at one time eliminate a large number of posts as part of a general cleanup, and when a post is discarded all comments underneath it go too, but officially, that it #50K.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

I thought that quote by Carl Sagan was pithy and correct. But it has created a back and forth that I want to highlight. Here is a comment by Tim Groves that addresses the topic. I will only quote the first part of it, as the second part is an abstract from a 2016 paper on the subject, worth reading. Just click on the link above to see it.

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

David Deming of the University of Oklahoma discussed this question in 2016. he examined the confusion regarding what is meant by an “extraordinary claim”. And he concluded that “Ideas, theories, or observations that are merely novel are not “extraordinary,” nor do they require an “extraordinary” amount of evidence for corroboration. Science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the progress of science in establishing comprehensive and systematic bodies of reliable knowledge.”

Well said. Gaia in the comment below that of Mr. Groves goes on to examine an extraordinary claim, that humans landed on the moon, and finds that not only is it NOT supported by extraordinary evidence, but is indeed debunked by very simple evidence. It is one of the 2 +2 = 5 parts of public propaganda, that we must believe it to be so or be subjected to ridicule. Public officials, and people with a high public profile like Sagan had are forced to get their minds right on a topic like this. To re-phrase Sagan, “Extraordinary claims which are put forth by powerful forces must be believed, evidence or not.”

I cannot prove a negative

I have used this recently, and was accused of merely using it as an out to avoid researching a topic I did not want to research. While that may be so, still, I cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that viruses do not exist or that colds and flu are not contagious. I cannot prove that Covid 19 is not a real disease or that the PCR test is not a real test offering up useful results. I cannot prove that vaccines are not effective, that HIV does not exist, or that Climate Change is not real. I cannot prove that school shootings and serial killers are fake or that Obama is not a juris doctor and Trump not a billionaire.

With all of this stuff, one can only take the debunking so far before one hits a wall, the inability to prove the non-existence of something. What we have with all of these matters is what we had with extraordinary claims made with out evidence – the power of propaganda.

It is an amazing world we live in. Everything around us on some level is fake. In the movie The Truman Show, as I recall, Truman Burbank is first alerted that he is living in a TV reality show when a light fixture falls from the sky, him slowly coming to realize that the sky is not real. What would it take for any of us or anyone we know to have a similar revelation … a light fixture fall in our driveway? Someone who faked his death, say John Lennon, making a public appearance?

Still, the point stands – we can and do offer counter intelligence and evidence that all of the above are fake, but we cannot offer proof.

The Precautionary Principle

Here’s Michael Crichton from his book State of Fear:

The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.

I am not sure I understand it as he states it, but as I see it, we humans have our hands full already with things that really do threaten us. We, my wife and I, must be concerned about wildfires, living as we do in the forest interface. People living in the Mississippi and Ohio River basins must continually worry about flooding.  Something far down the road that may or may not happen is too much to worry about. Somehow, we will fix it.

Here’s an example, something I foolishly bought into years ago, “Peak Oil.” A man, M. King Hubbert, had done some research in 1956 that predicted that between 1965 and 1971 we would reach a peak on oil production, and that thereafter it would fall, so that we had better be thinking about alternatives. He was warning us that we be aware that the end of oil was on the horizon.

The problem was that we had not peaked. We were not even close. The US led a fracking revolution, and our country was thereafter a net exporter of oil. I do not know where we stand now, as environmentalists and liberals** have led a movement to ban fracking. But the point is that Peak Oil was, while not a hoax, a huge mistake.

Prudence dictates precautions in certain activities, such as buying homeowners’ insurance and keeping it up to date. Earlier this year the towns of Superior, Louisville and Broomfield, Colorado (all in Boulder County) were devastated by the worst wildfire in Colorado history, the Marshall Fire.*** Later we would learn that 70% of those homes were underinsured. This might be true in other places too – building costs have shot up during Covid. Homeowners’ insurance is not based on market value, but rather on replacement cost. This is the trap that the victims of the Marshall Fire were caught in.

For us, I was fortunate to have received a phone call from a State Farm agent, merely wanting to bid on our insurance package. I told him to go ahead and bid, and he called back a few days later saying that he could indeed underbid our then-carrier, Safeco, but that we were severely underinsured. This was based on cost to rebuild from an official index that the insurance industry uses everywhere, based on local market conditions. Denver has seen severely escalating costs. I told him to bid on adequate coverage, and he did, and still came in under Safeco! We were getting reamed.

The precautionary principle as applied to things like Climate Change and oil production is not wise or useful. But do check your homeowners’ insurance.

The Null Hypothesis

Unfortunately, while enrolled in statistics classes in college, I was simultaneously in a state of mild insanity called “infatuation.” I could not focus, and so passed through that time absorbing very little of the subject matter at hand. I would get better, she would move along and live her own life, and I would be a statistical dunce forever due to her.

Basically, as I interpret it, the null hypothesis merely says that chance rules, and that there is nothing happening in a statistical population that need be explained by anything unusual. The null hypothesis stands unless overcome by superior evidence. It needs no extraordinary effort of proof.

Of course, I say that regarding our climate, everything going on around us can be explained as a natural occurrence, even events like the Montana and Yellowstone National Park floods last May. Climate Change idiots want everything to be something extraordinary so that they can shut down fossil fuels and make our lives miserable. I think they hate us.

Natural occurrence explains almost everything in life, other than those things brought about by outside interference as listed above under “I cannot prove a negative.” When an unnatural occurrence takes place, such as the rise to stardom of an ordinary and not-terribly-talented person like Madonna Louise Ciccone, I know there is outside interference. I am going to revisit this subject maybe later this week, as current readers may not know that we determined several years back that Madonna starred in the movie Evita even as more talented singers/actors were available because Evita, or Eva Peron, who faked her death at age 33 in 1952, was her mother.


** I paraphrase John Stuart Mill: “Liberals are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are liberals.”

*** As to the cause of that fire, one possibility is that there is coal in that area that is actively burning underground. (Such fires, called “in situ”, are common throughout the world.) I was told by the man who installed our satellite Internet and who lives in Thornton that this is known to be true, but that Boulder County will not, under any circumstances, admit it to be the case. That’s my source. I tried to call my barber about it, but I went straight to voice mail, which was full. In desperation, I consulted Wikipedia, and that source acknowledges the possibility. There ya go. The liability claims would bankrupt the county.  (Foreknowledge, as I see it, would be key.) Precaution dictates that they remain deafeningly silent on the matter.

18 thoughts on “Some specious-osity

    1. I listened to her first Bitchute presentation. I have to say, she does a very good job of rehashing everything that has been done in no-virus community. This blog has covered all of that stuff. She mentions Kaufman, Cowan, the Baileys, Lanka, the usual suspects. It all seems rinse and repeat.

      And, it does seem suspicious that “her lab” got a $1.5 million NIH grant to isolate Sars-COV-2 from various people infected who tested positive. NIH is in on the game, and no money would go to a truth-seeking operation. And then, finally, the “lab” was raided by the FBI and everything confiscated. Either that or there never was a lab, never was an NIH grant, and she is either phony or CO.

      Kip down below links to a source that says her degrees are not real.


      1. And that is why I posted it here. This group will call BS if something is fishy and this one appears to be just that. I did not listen to the entire interviews or would have picked up on the the usual suspects. Sorry I wasted your time and thank you all!


          1. Oh I just read about Judy Wood, is she a fake too, damn they can hard to spot. I read about her in Elana Freeland’s book on Geoengineering.


  1. For those who don’t want to read the article, she is a Virologist in a lab whose team analyzed all of the vaccines to see what was in them. They found no mRNA in any of them – only liquid nanoparticle wrapped toxins with no medical use whatsoever. In other words, chemical weapons. I do recommend reading the whole thing though.


    1. Oh, it will be top of page here tomorrow or Monday. And I printed [and have now tossed] the document, the best way to save something these days. I listened to part of the interviews just to get a sense of her, and will listen to them all as I am doing my daily stuff. Important to note, she speaks very good English, so there will not be the stress in listening when we hear people talk for whom English is a second language.

      PS: Also, the writing in the attached 15-page pdf is clear, crisp and understandable. It goes fast.


    2. Mike Stone has just posted about it all. Intriguing twist, hadn’t heard of her yet. But I did watch the vid he posted, until the point I could no longer give her the benefit of the doubt. She said they did not have a right to question her credentials or call her alma mater to verify. Case closed.


    1. But, then again (“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”) –

      I did wonder if Wagh is an Indian name, one letter away from Waugh as in Evelyn, and is it her married name? In which case, she may have achieved her credentials before she wed. ‘Additionally, Planet Waves FM could find no record of any peer-reviewed publications by “Dr. Poornima Wagh,” or any other scientific paper anywhere that cited her work.’ An Aug 29 spook marker as well – the world of illusion is at my door.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Even if we could prove that everything we are being told is nonsense, most won’t listen.

      Since the beginning of this monstrous Covid nightmare, I’ve mostly managed to avoid wearing face diapers, even though I work in a field where it was expected. However, I recently got involved in a play (I have stayed away from theatre for a long time, but my instincts tell me I need to participate), and after several cast members called in sick and one “tested” positive, the producers and directors of the play declared we would have to wear face masks or shields during rehearsals. They also said we might have to perform the play in front of audiences in masks/shields.

      This play is a farce that’s set in the 1980s, with lots of physical comedy, and a lot of gags revolve around the characters drinking alcohol. The idea of performing it with face coverings is a real-life farce on top of a fictional one. However, I like the cast, the play, and my role in it so much that I repressed my first impulse to tell the director to fuck off and walk away. Instead, I called an old friend of mine who is a very successful communications consultant. She doesn’t agree with my views on Covid, but unlike most people I know now, she does not want or expect everyone she associates with to reside in an echo chamber with her. Even as a Covid believer, though, she could see the absurdity of performing a play like this in face masks, and she counseled me in how to stand up for myself without making it political or confrontational and burning bridges. Following my friend’s advice, I told the group that, as an actor and artist, I could not perform this play in a mask or shield, and unless this possibility was taken off the table, they would have to replace me. They took it off the table, but when I tried to argue against masks in rehearsal, they begged to differ when I quoted my Covid-believer friend who said Covid isn’t so scary anymore now that nearly everyone has already had it and/or has been “vaccinated.” I sensed most people agreed with me, but then the director said, “And yet, my brother-in-law died of Covid just last February,” and, well, there can be no hope of even a semi-intelligent discussion when someone plays THAT card. I count it as a victory that I got that stupid director and the producers to agree we will have at least one week of unmasked rehearsals before our unmasked performances. In the meantime, though, I have to strap on a fucking face diaper and degrade myself during rehearsals.

      There is no way to win this battle through logic or “proof.” There’s also no way to win it by alienating ourselves from the majority of the human race. I believe the only reason these idiots caved to me is because I have demonstrated that I have a valuable talent that they can use. They have plenty of time to replace me, but my role is the funniest one in the show, I’m the most experienced and best-trained actor in the show, and I have established strong, positive personal connections with the cast. If I hadn’t proven my worth, and hadn’t been willing to compromise on participating in SOME masked rehearsals, they would have happily ejected me.

      This, by the way, is why I resist rejecting the majority of human beings as being brain-dead zombies or NPCs. It’s not because I’m sentimental. I’m not even particularly hopeful. I just view separating ourselves from the herd to be as much of a losing strategy as arguing with or fighting or attempting to reason with the herd is.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I’ve noticed when they play that “my relative or good friend died of Covid” card they feel like they have won the debate. Like the holocaust, “are you calling my grandma a liar she was there”. Where is your grandma now, can she prove it, can I talk to her..oh she died of old age….mmmhmm!!!!

        But with the Covid claim I then always ask can you prove it with evidence. I assume they could show a copy of the coroners report, but it would not say died of Covid, it would say respiratory or some other reason. They always say “no I can’t show you anything”. Soooo…….I still have coworkers wearing masks and not correctly, danglin off their chins. I have asked them why bother, but then a surpervisor pulled me asided and told me not to question it.

        I’m thinking they are union/democrat/ liberal types, so are they getting paid an incentive from the local union hall(as they do make huge donations to the Democrat party) and going along with what they think is a hidden agenda that nobody else knows about…or are they really scared that there is a fake China virus out there. The way they wear their masks improperly shows they arent scared of a virus.

        Masks and vaccines were all the rave in 2021. So it is just one year out of that mess even though it seems longer. It’s really an odd feeling that they are trying to keep it going.


    3. Thank you for this. It will be interesting to see if she ever responds, but you may have saved us all from another Charlatan. What a tangled web we weave…


  2. You said:

    I have used this recently, and was accused of merely using it as an out to avoid researching a topic I did not want to research. While that may be so, still, I cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that viruses do not exist or that colds and flu are not contagious. I cannot prove that Covid 19 is not a real disease or that the PCR test is not a real test offering up useful results. I cannot prove that vaccines are not effective, that HIV does not exist, or that Climate Change is not real. I cannot prove that school shootings and serial killers are fake or that Obama is not a juris doctor and Trump not a billionaire.

    You are half right, I think.

    You say: ‘I cannot prove that viruses do not exist’.

    The opposite of this is: ‘I can prove viruses do exist’. Is that true? I don’t think so. I don’t think you can say anything either way. There is a thing “viruses” which is just a concept to you, you CANNOT say anything meaningful one way or another about the concept. It is moot.

    The same applies to all your other statements. It is not possible to say anything meaningful about any of them, all are theoretical, none relate to anything you know and have verified.

    I’m not actually being critical or mean here. It’s just a question of what we can know. And we can only know very little! We can believe we know a lot, but we are wrong to call that ‘knowledge’, even if we do it all the time. In casual conversation we mis-use language continuously, if the point of language is to accurately convey what one thinks. We will often overstate our case eg we might say: ‘I know viruses exist’ when we really mean: ‘I saw images on tv that purport to be an accurate re-presentation of virus – a thing that can be personally verified with a microscope’. This misuse of language is very common, and hangs on the poor use of the verb ‘to be’.

    The positive side to all this is that everyone is making the same errors. All are testifying that they know this or that (or even that they don’t know it) where the reality is that we only ‘know’ very little, if we use the term properly. To show how little knowledge we have, we can’t even say we know our own memories – at least if you believe the idea that they can be altered, that you can mis-remenber, or that new ones can even be implanted.

    Anyway, once we accept that we all know very little, we can actually say some useful things about the things we are told. If we are told that viruses are not alive and yet they mutate and have a life cycle, these are incompatible claims. Non-living things cannot have a life cycle, by definition. Similarly, if we are shown images of viruses and are also told that they have never been isolated (nevermind being photographed), again these are incompatible claims. Both cannot be true.

    When presented with a story that contains incompatible claims, you can assuredly say that the story is illogical and unreasonable. It does not represent the truth or reality. The failure to faithfully represent reality may be on account of a mis-take but it can also be intentional (a lie). Either way though, you have disproven the hypothesis that was presented.

    What is left is for you to take a position on the source of the story. When you explain the incompatible claims to the source of the claims, what is the response? Do they concede the error, do they explain how you have misunderstood something? If so, these are honest, good faith actions. Or do they bluster and ignore, and perhaps even get belligerent? If its the latter, I think you would be right to consider that the information is NOT being presented in good faith. Until good faith is restored by conceding the claim or by providing of more info (not to forget an apology and explanation!) that source cannot be said to be useful. The information it provides is flawed (possibly intentionally).

    Plainly this applies to all media – I think it is clear that they are providing information in bad faith – they can be ignored. I also think it applies to science too – despite paying lip service to the scientific method, it is actually almost impossible to personally verify the claims we are presented with.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Deep breaths. Slowly, slowly. I am putting myself under a caution flag, not racing to the competition to “prove” anything. I have been wrong so many times it seems foolish at this point, for me at least, to play this game again. I cannot forget the so-called “Bombshell” post of April 6, 2020, and will keep an open mind for as long as possible. Judgment, and quick judgment in particular (usually highly subjective in nature), is not mine, nor is it a wise goal to embrace generally — it bites back all too often.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s