See Part One

The most common example used to demonstrate the principles of critical analysis of evidence is the coin toss. It is easy to follow. Statistics is a branch of mathematics, and deals with probability. Nothing is impossible in statistical analyses, and probability only measures likelihood that some event will or will not happen.

A single coin toss yields the following possibilities: Heads (50%), tails (50%). That never changes. However, it is a little more complicated when we measure the probability of more than one coin toss. What are the chances that if we flip a coin twice, that it will come up heads BOTH times?

The answer is 25%, or one chance in four. We get this answer by multiplying the chance of heads (50%) for each coin toss. 50% X 50% = 25%. The odds of three heads in a row? 50% x 50% x 50% = 12.5%, or one chance in eight.

When phenomena are RELATED, we can MULTIPLY probabilities of their occurrence together. Two coin tosses are RELATED phenomena.

So, what are the odds of tossing a coin and getting heads ten times in a row? The answer is 50% raised to the tenth power, or 50% x 50% … ten times, or the decimal .0009765625. That works out to one chance in 1,024. It is not impossible. It is merely highly unlikely.

So what if you have already rolled heads ten times in a row? What are the odds of rolling heads an eleventh time? (50%. Any single coin toss is always a 50-50 chance.)

We are often told that conspiracy theorists discount the possibility of coincidence. We do not. We are simply critical thinkers with a grasp of statistical probability. The odds, for instance, of one hijacking being pulled off by a small group of men armed only with box cutters is slim, say one in 25. So many things could have gone wrong. The odds of that happening four times in one day is one in 25 to the fourth power, 1/390,625. Of course, 25 is just a number I grabbed, but the point is that the chances of success were not 100%, and the chances of four successes that day were simply astronomical.

Couple that unlikelihood with other events of the day, such as the complete failure of the United States air defense system, and you might begin to understand why high skepticism about the official story is in order.

End, part 2
See part 3
_________________
PS: Suppose that the probability of success of an airline hijacking using only box cutters was higher – suppose that each of the four supposed hijackings on 9/11/2001 had a 50% chance of success. Even then, the chances of four successes would be only one in sixteen (50% raised to the fourth power).

Note to reader: This post originally appeared on Monday, 3/16, and the first reactions I got were that it was too long. I therefore decided to re-post it in three parts, the second and their to appear tomorrow and the day after. Comments that appear before 8:42 were in response to the entire post.
_____________________________
The post below was meant to establish that religion is an important part of human existence. Most people are religious, and it is a positive force in their lives. I note, however, that in matters of religious belief, by definition, there is no use for critical thinking. It is based on FAITH, which by definition requires no proof.

As noted in the post, religion exists and is a powerful force because people

• need authority figures;
• are suggestible;
• and want simple answers

That is the human condition. I too am human. I have these same impulses.

It is my contention that most Americans who believe the official stories about the great crimes of our times do so based in a kind of religious faith. Critical thinking about say 9/11 or Boston or other crimes does not support the official stories. I called this faith “Americanism.”

Dr. Judy Wood, who examined the evidence around the events in the World Trade Center and destruction of the seven buildings there, came away with a completely different take on the matter, suggesting that the evidence points to use of directed energy in some form. Normal physical laws of matter and motion were not evident in the events that occurred that day. For example, buildings did not “collapse” but rather turned to dust before our eyes, and plasma (usually called “fire”) occurred without heat. It can be explained, but not in our normal frame of reference.

But beyond the physical evidence, she too speculated on why Americans are so quick to believe the official story, and postulated three reasons:

• 1: Poor problem solving skills;
• 2: Groupthink; and
• 3: Fear of the implications if the official story is a lie.

This post is intended to offer some basic mathematical principles, not to school anyone, but rather to use as a backdrop when examining evidence in future posts. My writing for the near future will be about evidence, and I will rely on a skill set known as “critical thinking,” often easily forgotten in our busy lives. So this is merely review.

TO BE CONTINUED
Part 2
Part 3

The Rosetta landing was an inspirational feat, and may tell us if we are alone in this universe (so very highly unlikely!) But more than that, on seeing what they pulled off there I realized that the impetus for space exploration has exited the United States (if it was ever here to begin with).

The most important missions in American space history were done under the names Voyager and Galileo. Those missions, wholly publicly funded, were stunning successes. The moon landings, if they happened at all, were an impressive feat. But why, pray tell, did we never go back, advance the technology, expand our horizons beyond the moon? Why did we retreat from 248,000 miles to 200? Huh? Huh?

Far more likely, Apollo was a stalking horse for development of ICBM technology and placement of weapons in space.

But we did it American way – with lies, fakery, deceit, all mixed up with excessive patriotism.

Anyway, just as the beacon of democracy has left the United States, now residing in Russia and China, so has the impulse to move forward in space exploration. Rosetta is an impressive technological achievement, and may yield the answer to the question long sought in so many other ways: Are we alone?

You all probably know about this, since I am usually several years behind on TV viewing.

Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan’s widow, and Seth McFarlane, who gave us Ted, have produced a new Cosmos series with Neil deGrasse Tyson in the place of Sagan. It is a wonderful production, with graphics so intense that our recent houseguests, who are our age, were enthralled, could not look away. I imagine that it would have the same effect on kids. There will never be another Sagan, but Tyson is very warm and has that ability to make complex matters understandable to us, a sign of true intelligence.

The first thirteen episodes are available on Netflix without ads, and current episodes are to be aired on Fox and National Geographic Channel.

Recently I came across a TED talk* by Elaine Morgan, an old gal and a counter-cultural writer who has challenged the academic world with her advocacy of the water-born theory of human evolution. It’s been around for a while. She did not originate the theory, as her degree is in English, which should rule her out without argument. Yet the idea has explanatory power that others lack. We have little body hair, we are amazing swimmers, and we know that other species have evolved from water, gone back to water – it’s not unusual. None of that is definitive, of course.

Today I learned of a new theory to challenge the Big Bang – the Big Chill. Advocates, based in Australia, claim that this theory has more explanatory power than the BB, perhaps even approaching a “unified theory” that relativity theorists have so long sought in futility.

I have no clue, of course. But I like this sort of debate where an entire framework is challenged. Of course the old guard dismisses these ideas! That’s how science works. It takes new people to bring in new ideas. (Unfortunately, Elaine Morgan is an octogenarian.)

Are there unknown unknowns? Most assuredly. Every age has prided itself on advancements over the preceding ages. Mark Twain, in his book Connecticut Yankee, wowed (and murdered) knights and kings with electricity. He was on the cutting edge, as we are now.

But scientific hubris is unwarranted. We are self-engrossed and wholly attentive to further exploring those things we know. There is little money available for unknowns – DARPA exists for that reason. (Like most of our R&D, it is a disguised subsidy to industry parading as a national defense program.) We are unable to fathom discoveries and ideas that upset the broad existing structure of science. Galileo and Copernicus did this, as did Newton and later, Einstein.

To imagine that it won’t happen again? Please.
______________
*Not available on line

I have been struggling to come up with a way to incorporate the suffix “itute” onto the word “dietitian” as a means of conveying the essential bankruptcy of that profession. Another profession equally bankrupt, economics, lends itself quite easily – “econitutes.” They are, as Keynes reminded us, usually slaves of some dead and “defunct economist.”

It would be interesting to study the intellectual depth of every profession, including my own. Most of us are just going through the motions, repeating received wisdom. True depth and understanding is rare, and those who have it rise to the top. But in the dietary fields, along with economics, quite the opposite is true. With economics the driving force is easily understood. Powerful people who benefit from low taxes and little regulation want it kept that way, and so finance the schools that teach the horse shit that dominates the field.

Dietitians are different – I don’t know of any who are wealthy. Like chiropractors, they have to sell a low-value product and so dress it up as science. A few of them are lucky enough to latch on to some moneyed interest – Bronson Arroyo, a pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds, hired one during the offseason last year. And she, of course, preached to him the standard wisdom of the profession – eat carbs in large quantities, minimize fat. Watch out for them trans-fats! (As if such a thing even existed.)
Continue reading “Why not ice cream for breakfast?” →

I am on what used to be called the “Atkins diet,” since fallen into disfavor. I have lost 19 pounds, feel great, have tremendous energy and eat when I am hungry. I am not following anyone’s guidelines, not being a fan of gurus. I just avoid carbohydrates in general, and sugar and refined starches in particular. And it works. It’s that simple. It works.

For a long time these type of diets, sometimes called “caveman” eating, were popular. I did it once before, in the late 1990’s, and it worked then too. But I remember hearing on the news one day that the “fad” was over, and people were going back to “normal” eating habits. After that announcement, people did indeed go back to “normal” eating habits. We are fat as ever, of course. I suspect that the fading of the “fad” was mere advertising-based news manipulation. That happens far more than people know.

I’m just speculating, but I think the problem is twofold: One, carbs are cheap. Back during the Nixon Administration, as I recently learned, food price inflation was a concern, and Nixon turned to Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture and a brilliant agricultural economist, who recommended that we turn towards raising more carb-intensive food and get away from meat-centered diets. Grazing animals are raised on carbohydrates, so that bypassing them and feeding the carbs directly to us is a real money-saver. Continue reading “It’s the french fries and soda, and not the burgers, that make us fat” →

The above surveillance tape was recorded in the Omaha, Nebraska compound, and offers up an excellent exhibit of the effect of introduction of feral males into the workplace environment. The disruptive male’s chemical makeup had not been sufficiently altered to allow him to submit to cage harmony. Researchers should note the following:

1. In a normal cage environment, all of the specimens in this compound are subdued by mere psychological intimidation. Subjects are seemingly indifferent towards one another even as living in a confined space, and so do not exhibit openly aggressive or promiscuous behaviors.

2. Alpha male domination is not apparent in this film, as those males do not display within the cage environment. But all cage inhabitants are aware of the presence of the alpha, referred to as “mybos” or “”myboses”.

3. Subordinated males of the species wear uniforms to indicate submission to the alpha. The long piece of cloth hanging observed hanging from the necks of these males serves as a leash, but others have noted that it also resembles an arrow pointing at the male genitalia, indicating angst within the confines of an emasculated environment. Some have suggested clipping off the arrow-like end of this leash, or tying it in a bow around the neck to avoid the sexual signalling implications.

4. Females of the species or often seen in the wild wearing varied and suggestive clothing that highlights their curved buttocks and enlarged breasts. However, within the compound, they are uniformed in cloaking apparel that hints at but conceals the buttocks and breasts. Females seek to tantalize but at the same time repel overt sexual advances. (The species is promiscuous, but mates in private.)

5. The cage environment is gender-neutral. The behaviors performed within the compound are of a kind that require no particular male or female attributes. There is no need for male strength or female nurturing. Cage behaviors are limited to staring into and entering symbols into computer interface devices, communicating via telecommunication devices to other compounds.

6. The artificial barriers installed by the alphas are easily overcome by the mere act of standing erect. However, standing is only allowed on the periphery of the cages where various devices serve as distractions to allow limited interpersonal communication. Those specimens that spend inordinate time at the periphery are often taken to private cubicles by alpha-agents and counseled about the need to stay within their sitting compound. (Not shown in this tape.)

7. Various females, though present in this emasculated and gender-neutral environment, nonetheless revert to their nurturing role when the feral male attacks the other males.

8. The normal, untamed male infiltrated the compound and was not spotted prior to his disruptive activity. His resistance to a cage environment and refusal to submit to domination both fascinates and scares the other specimens. However, it is a testimony to our skill at subordination training that the other males in the compound do not try to physically challenge the enraged male. Instead they wait for trainers to come into the compound to subdue the aggressive behaviors.

9. The trainer who enters the cage to calm the environment is faced with the dual task of restraining the feral male while not letting on to other specimens that he possesses the ability to inflict overt violence. He therefore tries to coax the male into submission, and when that fails, uses force, but not in such a way that other specimens are unduly intimidated.

The feral male was eventually sedated. He will be kept in a tight cage without stimuli to repress his normal aggressive instincts for a period of time. If that is not successful, he might be permanently caged, or possibly euthanized.

Recommendations: The aggressive traits exhibited in this film can be effectively contained by administrative of tricyclics or SSRIs into the food supply. Experimentation has revealed that normal male behavior in a natural habitat can be controlled, but is not totally effective in complete suppression of normal instincts without the administration of such mood-alternating substances.

The species is normally gregarious and active, but the caged environment will occasionally release the aggressive behavior seen in this feral male, classified as “gongpostil outrage.” However, surveillance tapes from the same compound the following day revealed that the captive members had returned to normal subordinate behaviors, staring incessantly into distraction devices, subtly emitting sexual signals, and communicating in normal tone again.

Better patrolling of compound fences is needed along with psychological profiling of any new admissions to compound to test for signs of feral instincts that have not been adequately drugged or suppressed.

Let me say at the outset that there are no UFO’s, and interstellar visitors cannot exist. The distances are too great, and even if such travel were possible, there would be no reason to visit here. At the outset of such a journey, no intelligent life would have existed here, and so there would be no reason for this destination.

I do suspect that intelligent life abounds in the galaxy and universe. But it’s a frustration, as I will never know for sure, as there will be no “Contact.”

I am curious about ‘seeding’ – the idea that life on one planet can seed life on another. So a scientist finding a rock in Antarctica showing evidence of microscopic life on Mars is intriguing, to say the least. But there is not enough evidence to test the hypothesis at this time, so it is idle speculation for sci-fi buffs. And fun.

All that said, there is an “Area 51” in Nevada, and top secret programs were run from there. They did reverse engineering of foreign technology (other countries – not planets), and developed high-speed aircraft that looked like flying saucers at certain angles. They had tunnels through which they transported rockets. Aircraft crashed, and civilians coming upon the crashed aircraft had to be bought off to keep them quiet. The U.S. government never officially acknowledged the existence of the facility, and its airspace was off-limits, all the way to outer space.

We know this now because parts of what went on there have been declassified and some of the men who participated are now allowed to talk. And they have.