17 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I am not religious, though I did expect hostility following my blaspheme t the Science religion.

As I said, the Biblical model makes a lot of sense.

I'm sure you'll enjoy this list from gemini:

Here is a synthesized list of "10 Commandments of Science" based on scientific literature and philosophies:

1. Thou shalt not fool thyself: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, as you are the easiest person to fool.

2. Evidence is King: Only trust data derived from objective observation, and respect evidence above all beliefs or preconceived notions.

3. Thou shalt prioritize reproducibility: Experiments must be documented and repeatable; if your theory does not agree with experiment, it is wrong.

4. Thou shalt be skeptical of everything: Always question accepted ideas and subject your own work to intense scrutiny.

5. Thou shalt not falsify results: Fabrication of evidence is a mortal sin against the foundation of knowledge.

6. Thou shalt communicate openly: Share data, methods, and results with the world to facilitate scientific progress.

7. Thou shalt embrace uncertainty: Understand that scientific knowledge is tentative, not absolute, and can be updated with new evidence.

8. Thou shalt seek parsimony: Look for the simplest, most logical explanation (Occam's razor) that fits the facts.

9. Thou shalt be responsible with knowledge: Use science to improve human lives and protect the environment, not to deceive.

10. Thou shalt embrace peer review: Welcome criticism and dissenting views, as science progresses through collaborative validation.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

There is no gap between science and Nature. The entire universe is part of nature. There is no part of the universe that is not of interest to scientists.

Wake up... it's not the 1890's anymore. Your 'gold standard' of medical science turned out to be iron pyrite.

Very simplistic there Sir. Reckon you should awake from your slumber.

You are saying that a 'safe n effective' syringe, full of lab concocted toxic filth, slid into a toddlers' arm, to prevent something that cannot be found in nature; is science. I say utter rubbish. This white-coat nonsense is not only anti-science it contravenes natures laws.

Nature rules OK!

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The vast majority of these people just did their compartmentalised jobs and had no visibility beyond their immediate, limited framework.

This compartmentalisation of tasks is a process which has been used before, for example to hide the Final Solution from people involved under Nazi Germany (c.f. the "Functionalist vs. Intentionalist" debate): limiting people to specific, rigid and immediate tasks prevents a broader understanding and also has the psychological effect of removing any sense of responsibility and/or desire to understand the bigger picture among the subjects concerned.

I know what compartmentalization is. So have many people have to be in on it to write the specifications and compartmentalize the jobs of the:

Over 400,000 people that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 18,000 private companies that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 500 universities that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 100 government that agencies worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

And again, why would the US build a system that works, and not used it?

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

my blaspheme at the Science religion.

Another classic conspiracy theorist mistake – they try to equate science with religion, when it is the opposite – but if you don't understand the scientific method, you wouldn't know that.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I know what compartmentalization is. So have many people have to be in on it to write the specifications and compartmentalize the jobs of the:

Over 400,000 people that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 18,000 private companies that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 500 universities that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 100 government that agencies worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

I wasn't implying you don't know what compartmentalisation is, I was simply giving you an example of how it was used on a mass scale at a different time and in a different context, for illustrative purposes.

Think of it as a pyramid, under a classic top-down management organisation. So if you consider how many people 'would have to be on it' regarding the faking of the Moon landing, it woud only be the top tier (the red one in the below illustration). All the tiers beneath it are given specific, compartmentalised tasks, have no knowledge of the actual faking part – which represents but a tiny fraction of the 250 billion dollars allocated to the Apollo program – and they certainly have no knowledge of any truth to be concealed or secret to be maintained. They do their well-paid job, they have a lot of social prestige and validation for being associated with the Apollo program, and that is it.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

And again, why would the US build a system that works, and not used it?

I can think of no logical reason why the US would have built a system that worked and then not used it.

They did, however, have a lot of political, cultural and ideological reasons to convince the world that said system worked (whether it actually worked or not being, for all intents and purposes, a secondary matter).

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

Another classic conspiracy theorist mistake – they try to equate science with religion, when it is the opposite

The defining characteristic of a cult is hostility towards those who challenge it. Have a look at the Is Earth round or flat? thread for an example of how that works.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

but if you don't understand the scientific method, you wouldn't know that.

The scientific method dictates that a given stance evolves when evidence supports it: this applies to science as a general discipline, but does not apply to Science™, the broken system plagued by corruption and nefarious practices which I regularly criticise.

• When top infectious disease expert Makus Zervos tells Del Bigtree he can't publish a study showing unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones because it would cost him his career, he doesn't do it in the name of science, he does it because he is yielding to a powerful, multi-billion cartel;

• When Australian MP Kerryn Phelps states, regarding the Covid jab, that "regulators of the medical profession have censored public discussion about adverse events following immunisation, with threats to doctors not to make any public statements about anything that ‘might undermine the government’s vaccine rollout’ or risk suspension or loss of their registration", she is not talking about science, but about an omnipotent, all-permeating dogma which will crush anyone and anything challenging its rule;

• The geocentric model was prevalent until the 16th century when the Jesuits, who were Pagan Sun worshippers, coopted and used Copernicus to push their philosophical, Sun-centered model in a process which was not based on science, but on politics and ideology. "Science" was the pretext, the medium allowing for this transformation to be implemented. Everything else was narrative adaptation or, as Pierre Duhem aptly puts it, it boiled down to the interpretation of data to fit into pre-existing models and concepts in order to "explain and save the observable phenomena".

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

You must be getting desperate in your attempts to cover up your naivety. You've stooped to the tired taunts that are ubiquitous throughout the conspiracy spectrum. As you're not religious, I guess you should be forgiven for not having a clearer definition of what constitutes a religion.

Organised religions are based on dogma and intolerance, with an overarching sense of conceited (almost arrogant) certainty of being right.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I'm sure you'll enjoy this list from gemini:

Here is a synthesized list of "10 Commandments of Science" based on scientific literature and philosophies:

1. Thou shalt not fool thyself: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, as you are the easiest person to fool.

2. Evidence is King: Only trust data derived from objective observation, and respect evidence above all beliefs or preconceived notions.

3. Thou shalt prioritize reproducibility: Experiments must be documented and repeatable; if your theory does not agree with experiment, it is wrong.

4. Thou shalt be skeptical of everything: Always question accepted ideas and subject your own work to intense scrutiny.

5. Thou shalt not falsify results: Fabrication of evidence is a mortal sin against the foundation of knowledge.

6. Thou shalt communicate openly: Share data, methods, and results with the world to facilitate scientific progress.

7. Thou shalt embrace uncertainty: Understand that scientific knowledge is tentative, not absolute, and can be updated with new evidence.

8. Thou shalt seek parsimony: Look for the simplest, most logical explanation (Occam's razor) that fits the facts.

9. Thou shalt be responsible with knowledge: Use science to improve human lives and protect the environment, not to deceive.

10. Thou shalt embrace peer review: Welcome criticism and dissenting views, as science progresses through collaborative validation.

The irony is that I agree with that list!

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

I'm sure you'll enjoy this list from gemini:

Here is a synthesized list of "10 Commandments of Science" based on scientific literature and philosophies:

Allow me to produce a few replies, also with the help of Gemini.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Thou shalt not falsify results: Fabrication of evidence is a mortal sin against the foundation of knowledge.

The pharmaceutical industry has faced several record-breaking settlements and convictions related to data falsification, hiding safety results, or deceptive marketing practices.

Here is a list of major pharmaceutical companies involved in significant cases of manipulating or falsifying results:

Major Cases of Data Falsification

• GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): In 2012, GSK pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $3 billion (the largest settlement at the time). The criminal charges included the failure to report crucial safety data for its diabetes drug, Avandia.

• Pfizer: Fined multiple times for data falsification and bribery. In 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion to settle charges related to the illegal marketing of Bextra, which involved presenting misleading data to authorities.

• Merck & Co. (Vioxx): Merck was accused of omitting data on heart risks (heart attacks) in its scientific publications regarding Vioxx. Although they withdrew the drug in 2004, the lab paid billions in fines and civil settlements for misleading the public and the FDA.

• Purdue Pharma: The maker of OxyContin pleaded guilty to criminal charges for misleading regulators and doctors about the drug's addictive potential. Documents revealed decades of data manipulation to downplay the dangers of the opioid.

• AstraZeneca: Has been under investigation for falsifying patient test results to obtain reimbursements for its anti-cancer drug, Tagrisso.

Recent and Specific Convictions

• Evotrox Oral Solutions (2024): A UK company and its director were heavily sentenced for knowingly submitting falsified stability data to the MHRA (the UK health agency) to obtain marketing authorization.

• Kangmei Pharmaceutical (2024): A Chinese traditional medicine giant convicted of massive fraud for falsifying financial reports, inflating revenues and cash reserves through fictitious transactions.

• Athira Pharma (2025): Agreed to pay $4 million to settle allegations of false scientific research.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Thou shalt communicate openly: Share data, methods, and results with the world to facilitate scientific progress.

The legal battle over the release of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine data centered on a scheduling dispute between the FDA and a group of scientists called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT).

The "75-Year" Timeline Explained

The FDA argued that its limited resources made a fast release impossible.

• The Request: PHMPT filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all documents the FDA used to license the Pfizer vaccine—a cache totaling roughly 451,000 pages.

• The FDA's Proposal: The agency proposed releasing only 500 pages per month, citing the need to manually redact sensitive information like trade secrets and patient privacy.

• The Calculation: At that rate, it would have taken approximately 75 years (until 2096) to complete the disclosure. Critics argued this was effectively a "concealment" because the data would only be fully available after most of the vaccinated population had died.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Thou shalt seek parsimony: Look for the simplest, most logical explanation (Occam's razor) that fits the facts.

Occam’s Razor suggests that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"—or, the simplest explanation that fits the data is usually the best. From the perspective of a person standing on the ground, the geocentric model is significantly "simpler.":

1. The Argument from Direct Experience (Zero Hypotheses)

• Geocentrism: I feel no movement. My senses tell me the ground is solid and stationary. I see the Sun, Moon, and stars physically moving across the sky.

  • Hypotheses required: Zero. You are simply accepting the evidence provided by your biological senses.

• Heliocentrism: The Earth is spinning at 1,000 mph and hurtling through space at 67,000 mph.

  • Hypotheses required: You must invent Inertia (to explain why we aren't thrown off), Gravity (to explain why the oceans don't fly away), and Atmospheric Drag (to explain why we don't feel a 1,000 mph wind).

Occam’s Verdict: Geocentrism is "sharper" because it doesn't require you to invent invisible forces to explain away why you don't feel the movement.

2. The Argument from Atmospheric Calm

• Geocentrism: The air is calm because the Earth is not moving.

• Heliocentrism: The Earth is spinning, but the entire atmosphere—thousands of miles of gas—is perfectly locked to the rotation of the Earth and moves with it in total synchronization.

  • Hypothesis required: A complex system of friction and gravitational tethering that allows a fluid (air) to move as if it were a solid part of a spinning ball.

Occam’s Verdict: It is "simpler" to assume the Earth is still than to assume a massive, invisible gas synchronization mechanism.

3. The Stellar Parallax Problem (The Historical "Killer")

This was the strongest argument during the time of Copernicus:

• If the Earth moves in a massive circle around the Sun, the angle at which we see the stars should change between summer and winter (Parallax).

• Ancient observers saw zero change in the stars.

• Geocentrism: The stars don't shift because the Earth doesn't move. (Simple)

• Heliocentrism: The Earth is moving, but the stars are so unimaginably far away that the shift is too small for your eyes to see. (Complex)

Occam’s Verdict: In the 16th century, assuming the stars were trillions of miles away just to make the heliocentric theory work was seen as a "clumsy" extra hypothesis. Geocentrism explained the lack of parallax much more elegantly.

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Thou shalt embrace peer review: Welcome criticism and dissenting views, as science progresses through collaborative validation.

In December 2022, Dr. Kerryn Phelps, a former member of the Australian Parliament and past president of the Australian Medical Association (AMA), submitted a written statement to a parliamentary inquiry into "Long COVID."

Her submission was significant because she revealed that both she and her wife had suffered serious, lingering injuries following their COVID-19 vaccinations. Regarding the censorship of the medical profession, her key arguments were:

1. The "Chilling Effect" of Regulatory Threats

Dr. Phelps stated that the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) issued a position statement in 2021 that effectively "censored" doctors. She argued that this statement warned doctors that making any public comment that might "undermine" the national vaccine rollout could result in disciplinary action or the loss of their medical license.

2. Suppression of Clinical Discussion

She claimed that this regulatory environment prevented doctors from:

• Publicly discussing their clinical observations regarding vaccine injuries.

• Sharing concerns about adverse events for fear of being labeled "anti-vaccination."

• Providing informed consent, as doctors felt they could not fully discuss potential risks without risking their careers.

3. Under-reporting and "Gaslighting"

Dr. Phelps argued that because of this "censorship," many medical professionals were hesitant to link a patient's symptoms to the vaccine. She suggested this led to:

• Under-reporting of adverse events to safety databases.

• Patients being "gaslit" by doctors who were afraid to acknowledge that a vaccine could be the cause of their new health issues.

4. Her Direct Quote

In her submission, she wrote:

"Regulators of the medical profession have censored public discussion about adverse events following immunisation, with threats to doctors not to make any public statements about anything that ‘might undermine the government’s vaccine rollout’ or risk suspension or loss of their registration."

Her testimony was considered a "watershed moment" in Australia because it was the first time a high-profile medical figure—who had previously been a vocal supporter of public health measures—publicly criticized the regulatory pressure used to maintain the "safe and effective" narrative.

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I wasn't implying you don't know what compartmentalisation is, I was simply giving you an example of how it was used on a mass scale at a different time and in a different context, for illustrative purposes.

Think of it as a pyramid, under a classic top-down management organisation. So if you consider how many people 'would have to be on it' regarding the faking of the Moon landing, it woud only be the top tier (the red one in the below illustration). All the tiers beneath it are given specific, compartmentalised tasks, have no knowledge of the actual faking part – which represents but a tiny fraction of the 250 billion dollars allocated to the Apollo program – and they certainly have no knowledge of any truth to be concealed or secret to be maintained. They do their well-paid job, they have a lot of social prestige and validation for being associated with the Apollo p

How many people posed it take to give the tiers beneath it specific, compartmentalized tasks?

> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcnstjvZxg

A MUST WATCH > This 10' clip features the 1969 Press Conference by the 3 astronauts that walked on the moon.

Instead of enthusiasm about the Greatest Human Feat Ever, you see 3 men that are bored, depressed and clearly have something to hide.

The presenter of the clip stated that 'many people that watched this awkward Press Conference, lost their initial belief in the moon-walk'.

Well, do take a look - it takes only 10 minutes - but the answers and body-language of those 3 men are more convincing that it was a giant hoax than much of the facts and data provided by bona-fide scientists that culminate in the impossibility of what we were told.

4 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcnstjvZxg

A MUST WATCH > This 10' clip features the 1969 Press Conference by the 3 astronauts that walked on the moon.

Instead of enthusiasm about the Greatest Human Feat Ever, you see 3 men that are bored, depressed and clearly have something to hide.

The presenter of the clip stated that 'many people that watched this awkward Press Conference, lost their initial belief in the moon-walk'.

Well, do take a look - it takes only 10 minutes - but the answers and body-language of those 3 men are more convincing that it was a giant hoax than much of the facts and data provided by bona-fide scientists that culminate in the impossibility of what we were told.

How many people had to in on faking it?

Over 400,000 people that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 18,000 private companies that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 500 universities that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 100 government agencies that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I know what compartmentalization is. So have many people have to be in on it to write the specifications and compartmentalize the jobs of the:

Over 400,000 people that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 18,000 private companies that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 500 universities that worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

Over 100 government that agencies worked on the Apollo 11 mission?

And again, why would the US build a system that works, and not used it?

Surely you don't accept those figures as being true Sir.

400k people worked on the project? Really? The biggest cost was for security to stop investigators, and inquisitive bods, getting into the studio while the whole thing was being concocted and filmed..

You are easily fooled.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Surely you don't accept those figures as being true Sir.

Where are your numbers?

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

400k people worked on the project? Really? The biggest cost was for security to stop investigators, and inquisitive bods, getting into the studio while the whole thing was being concocted and filmed..

So how many people had to be in on the hoax to make it work?

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

You are easily fooled.

Perhaps, but why would the US build a system capable of landing on the Moon, and not land on the Moon?

At least six people I know/know personally worked on it, four of them on the same street I grew up on.

Just heard the most beautiful sentence for a long time

«Planet Earth - You are a crew!

Quite emotional press conference at Nasa yesterday! They need an Oscar if this is staged.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Just heard the most beautiful sentence for a long time

«Planet Earth - You are a crew!

Quite emotional press conference at Nasa yesterday! They need an Oscar if this is staged.

Did you watch the clip of the 1969 Press-conference by the 3 astronauts that allegedly landed and walked on the moon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcnstjvZxg

There couldn't be a starker contrast...

12 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Did you watch the clip of the 1969 Press-conference by the 3 astronauts that allegedly landed and walked on the moon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcnstjvZxg

There couldn't be a starker contrast...

Better to take the discussion here than in the god thread

Can just imagine what they had to hide of feelings after such a journey, since The Apollo crew came from a very different time. More military, more formal, more controlled, and much less open with feelings in public. That does not mean they hid a secret or lied. It means they acted like men of that era were expected to act.

What we saw now from the new crew is just more human and open, because today they are allowed to express emotion in a very different way.

Different body language is not proof of a hoax. It is more likely proof of different times, different culture, and different ways of showing emotion.

15 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Did you watch the clip of the 1969 Press-conference by the 3 astronauts that allegedly landed and walked on the moon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcnstjvZxg

There couldn't be a starker contrast...

Anyway, watched that guy for a minute, I see where you come from.

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Anyway, watched that guy for a minute, I see where you come from.

Skip the comments, and just take a look for 2-3 minutes at the footage of that 1969 Press Conference.

NASA surely did learn their lesson, by providing the current DEI crew with a script and a nice one-liner for today's Press Conference...

21 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Skip the comments, and just take a look for 2-3 minutes at the footage of that 1969 Press Conference.

NASA surely did learn their lesson, by providing the current DEI crew with a script and a nice one-liner for today's Press Conference...

You see and hear what you want to see and hear, the things that validate your own ideas and thoughts. That is all. And in the end, that is what most people are looking for in life: validation, respect, and acknowledgment.

But it would be nice to have proof as well. Real proof. Solid proof. Science, and preferably the majority on your side too. Disbelief is healthy, but when it grows into doubt about everything we as humans have learned and built, it becomes something else.

God help us all in the times when we need to recognize that we are just a small lifeboat in the vast darkness, and must and should act as one crew.

For Christ’s sake, we are living in the best times this planet has ever created for us, and still we are ruining it because of distrust.

26 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Skip the comments, and just take a look for 2-3 minutes at the footage of that 1969 Press Conference.

NASA surely did learn their lesson, by providing the current DEI crew with a script and a nice one-liner for today's Press Conference...

Social media is blowing up left right and centre with people questioning the BS. This Artemis mission has just produced a whole new generation of conspiracy theorists.

Welcome to the era of Homo Conspiratus.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Social media is blowing up left right and centre with people questioning the BS. This Artemis mission has just produced a whole new generation of conspiracy theorists.

Welcome to the era of Homo Conspiratus.

For Christ’s sake, we are living in the best times this planet has ever created for us, and still we are ruining it because of distrust.

56 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Did you watch the clip of the 1969 Press-conference by the 3 astronauts that allegedly landed and walked on the moon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcnstjvZxg

There couldn't be a starker contrast...

This guy did a good analysis of their their body language, which is the kind usually associated with deception (as well as other things such as anxiety and stress).

58 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Did you watch the clip of the 1969 Press-conference by the 3 astronauts that allegedly landed and walked on the moon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcnstjvZxg

There couldn't be a starker contrast...

Under orders of death and destruction.

What an unhappy end to worthless souls existence!

The design of the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander is public information, so any smart engineer that thinks it was a hoax could easily show that the Lunar Lander could not have landed on the Moon, yes?

Unfortunately, there are no smart engineers that think it was a hoax.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

For Christ’s sake, we are living in the best times this planet has ever created for us, and still we are ruining it because of distrust.

A lot of people would disagree with you on the statement that these are 'the best times'…

IMO what is good, though, is that there is a surge in awareness among the general public. Distrust is a good thing when you're dealing with untrustworthy people and/or organisations. Covid was a pivotal event which woke a lot of people up to a lot of lies and deception, and, to answer the OP's question "what to do about the conspiracy theorists?" : there isn't anything to be done about it, you can't unknow something once you know it, you don't go back to sleep once awake.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

A lot of people would disagree with you on the statement that these are 'the best times'…

IMO what is good, though, is that there is a surge in awareness among the general public. Distrust is a good thing when you're dealing with untrustworthy people and/or organisations. Covid was a pivotal event which woke a lot of people up to a lot of lies and deception, and, to answer the OP's question "what to do about the conspiracy theorists?" : there isn't anything to be done about it, you can't unknow something once you know it, you don't go back to sleep once awake.

For Christ’s sake, we are living in the best times this planet has ever created for us, and still we are ruining it because of distrust.

If they do not agree that these are the best times ever, then they have either missed many of the great opportunities life has offered, or they do not understand history well enough to see the bigger picture.

Of course, it also depends on where in the world you are born. That matters a lot. There are still places and times that truly test people’s sense of what is possible, and for some individuals these may feel like the worst of times. But if we look at the wider picture, far more people today have opportunities and possibilities than most human beings ever had before.

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

For Christ’s sake, we are living in the best times this planet has ever created for us, and still we are ruining it because of distrust.

I agree, we lived in the best of times

But I suspect our children probably won't be.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The design of the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander is public information, so any smart engineer that thinks it was a hoax could easily show that the Lunar Lander could not have landed on the Moon, yes?

Unfortunately, there are no smart engineers that think it was a hoax.

The problem with this reasoning is that the parameters taken into account regarding the Moon and its environment are not independently verifiable. Engineers will look at paramaters provided to them and say 'yes, this works', but they are not and never have been in a position to check those paramaters themselves. They could be entirely false.

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

OP's question "what to do about the conspiracy theorists?" : there isn't anything to be done about it, you can't unknow something once you know it, you don't go back to sleep once awake.

I have been down the conspiracy road myself, although I was more selective. I still trusted space exploration, and I never doubted that the Earth is round. Having worked offshore as an engineer, I know what human beings are capable of doing.

My mistrust has been more about politicians, the chain of information, the methods used, and big pharma. But I have calmed down over the years. I still see some red flags, but I also understand the need to pull in one direction instead of running around like chickens everywhere.

Some things are serious, and some things are necessary. Pandemics come and go, and politicians have to deal with complicated issues and difficult choices. They are not perfect either. They are just people, like you and me, trying to work together while being all over the place themselves.

That is why the irony is hard to miss. The White House today often looks like a blueprint of social media in every possible way.

Epstein makes more sense as an Mossad agent and fixer, so, I guess Im dealing with distrust as well.