Because Epps was a paid informer for the FBI, he gets a pass. FBI=democrat party. I hear that Epps is residing at the Temple of the Living Elvis (Las Vegas, NV).


Bullet Points:

* Wind turbines are only lasting for half as long as previously predicted as a study demonstrates, they show signs of wearing out after just 12 years.

* Release the Kraken (h/t Claudio) …Kraken operations are kept secret because surprise is one of the essential items in the Kraken toolbox. Kraken has become a major problem for Russian forces, who tell stories (many exaggerated) of Kraken operations. The Russians have Spetsnaz units similar to Kraken and have personnel trained to find and eliminate Kraken operatives. Early in the war, Russia found that their Spetsnaz forces operating inside Ukraine were much less effective than those operating in any other area outside Russia. This partly happened because many Kraken members have been fighting Russians in Ukraine since 2014. Experience matters, and in Ukraine the Russian Spetsnaz are at a disadvantage and have taken heavy losses because of that. This has not removed Spetsnaz operations from Ukraine but has made these operations rare and conducted very carefully. The Spetsnaz are believed to be operating in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine where there are problems with Ukrainian partisans. These partisans have grown in number as more Ukrainian territory is cleared of Russian forces. Ukrainian special operations forces are used to help support and expand partisan operations. If Kraken is involved, they keep it quiet.

* Arizona Republican Kari Lake on Friday filed a lawsuit to nullify the 2022 midterm election results for the governor’s race in the state of Arizona. Last Thursday, Attorney Christina Bobb previewed this historic filing.

The lawsuit begins, “the eyes of the Country are on Arizona. On November 3o, 2022, Rasmussen Reports published a poll of likely U.S. voters asking about the Election Day problems with vote tabulation in Maricopa County. This poll asked whether responding voters agreed or disagreed with Contestant Kari Lake’s statement calling the election ‘botched’ and stating, ‘This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats. This is about our sacred right to vote, a right that many voters were, sadly, deprived of on [Election Day], November 8th.’ The results of that poll are stunning, Severnty-two percent (72%) of Likely Voters said they agree with Lake’s statement, including 45% who Strongly Agree.”

Never in US history has there been so much evidence compiled of a fraudulent election taking place.

The Kari Lake campaign claims HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of illegal votes were counted in the election, 59% of Maricopa County precincts had broken tabulators or printers on election day disenfranchising voters, and tens of thousands of illegal mail-in ballots were counted that did not pass signature verification requirements.


Evidence Requires Context

Suppose someone approached you and said, “There is a volcano close by.” And when you ask them how they know that, they show you a piece of volcanic rock. Is that evidence that a volcano is nearby? It depends.

Where was the rock found? Was it close by? Are there other volcanic rocks in the area? Or did someone bring it into the area?

By itself, a piece of volcanic rock is not evidence of a volcano. The rock has to be placed in context for it to be evidence of a volcano nearby.

This idea is easy to understand, but sometimes very hard to apply. Here I will give a few real examples of observations that when taken out of context can be considered evidence for a particular conclusion, but when put back into context do not support the conclusion.

In an article entitled Paleoindian ochre mines in the submerged caves of the Yucatán Peninsula, Quintana Roo, Mexico published in Science Advances, the authors were describing their work in a system of caves in Mexico. They found evidence of humans using the caves to mine ochre for pigment and paint. One of the things they had to determine was how long ago humans were using the caves.

They found charcoal in the caves near where the mining had taken place. If the charcoal was left there by the people who were mining the ochre then all they would have to do is use carbon dating to determine the age of the charcoal. The age of the charcoal should tell us when the mining took place. It would be easy to assume that the charcoal came from the people who were mining the ochre, but the full context must be taken into account before we can accept that conclusion. The age of the charcoal may not be evidence of the time when there was mining.

As the authors noted,
“Charcoal is a difficult medium for dating in the submerged caves of Quintana Roo because it may be produced by forest fires, then deposited by wind and rain, and remobilized repeatedly by floods during major storm events or, ultimately, by rising sea level. Archaeologists have often interpreted instances where charcoal concentrates in small catchment basins and litters cave floors as prima facie evidence of human activity. However, the mere presence of charcoal concentrations is insufficient to make this inference. Before submerged-cave charcoal can be interpreted as anthropogenic, it is necessary to establish that the sample materials are artifacts, that is, that they are representative of human activity and distinct from the products of natural processes.”In other words, the presence of charcoal is not automatically evidence of human activity. The charcoal must be considered in context.

In this case, the authors could argue that the charcoal most likely came from human activity, and human activity at the time the ochre was being mined. To make this case they considered the broader context to see if there were other ways that the charcoal could get there, or if the cave formations showed that the charcoal had been there for a long time. Some of the charcoal was covered over by flowstone, which allowed the authors to get a rough date for when it was left there. This dating agreed with carbon dating.

Only after all this could they use the carbon dating as evidence of when the mining took place. Before it was evidence for their conclusion they had to consider the evidence in context.

Now a second example. At a recent lunch with a friend we were discussing ways of detecting starburst-driven galactic outflows using X-ray observations of galaxies. These outflows should produce strong X-rays which are easy to detect. The problem is that the things scientists were looking for in the context of the lunch discussion are not the only things that produce X-rays in galaxies. Just detecting a strong X-ray source is not evidence of a galactic outflow.

Before they could consider it to be evidence of what they were looking for they had to look at the context and see if other things could produce the X-rays and rule those out first. Only then they could use the X-ray detections as evidence for their conclusions. Just like the archaeologists with the charcoal in the caves, they had to consider the context.

Now a final example. In a discussion I had about the age of the Earth, the person I was talking to brought up polonium halos as evidence of a young Earth.

Polonium is a radioactive element and if polonium is mixed with melted rock it will collect inside micro-zircon crystals inside the rock. As the polonium decays the released radiation will “burn” the rock around it. This leaves a “halo” of scorched rock around the zircon crystal that held the polonium. These halos are very small and can only be seen under a microscope.

Young earth creationists argue that these scorched halos around zircon crystals are evidence of the rapid formation of the rock instead of the rock slowly cooling to its present state over thousands or millions of years. Their reasoning is that polonium has a very short half-life (138 days) so the only way it can be in the zircon crystals is if the rock formed and cooled into its solid state in a matter of days. This fast formation would allow for the polonium to last long enough to freeze in the rock, and then burn the halo as it decayed.

There are a few problems with this, and all involve the context of these halos. First, assuming the source of these scorched halos is polonium, that would only show that the rock formed quickly, but it would not tell you how old the rock was. In order for the halos to be used as evidence of a young Earth they have to show that the rocks are young, not just that they formed quickly.

Second, while polonium is highly radioactive, it isn’t the only radioactive element. There are other elements with much longer half-lives that can still do just as much damage to the surrounding rock. Most notably, uranium. Uranium is also found in zircon crystals. There is no proof that the scorched halos around zircon crystals were caused exclusively by polonium.

Third, even if the halos were caused exclusively by polonium there is more than one way to get polonium in the crystals without rapid formation. It turns out that polonium is a daughter product of uranium. In fact, the only source of naturally occurring polonium is in rocks and ores with uranium content. So if the damage was done by polonium it could still have been done over millions and billions of years as uranium slowly decayed into polonium, and polonium quickly decayed into lead.

Young Earth creationists argue that these halos around zircon crystals are evidence of a young Earth. But when considered in context they cannot be used as evidence of rapid formation or especially young rock ages. In this, it fails to be evidence for a young Earth.

In these three real examples, before something can be considered evidence for a certain conclusion, it must be considered in context and scientists must ask the questions,

How did it get here? Is there another possible source for it? Does its presence make sense in its environment? Does it actually support my conclusion?

If we do not ask these basic questions then we cannot claim that something is evidence for our conclusions.


Land Reclamation has nothing to do with Global Warming or Cooling



A Japanese man rides his bike carrying Soba noodles on his shoulder in Tokyo.



  1. Your comment on polonium reminded me of a group I had forgotten about. They started off as skeptics asking questions – so far, so good. Then they created a hypothesis they fell in love with and appeared to end up creating their own version of a 19th Century mystery religion much like the evolution crowd did. I know pulling a Pygmalion is a very human thing to do, but it would be nice if we could avoid it just a little more often.

  2. What was the reason for filling in much of the Boston waterfront? I would think that would be an expensive project instead of expanding through out the area. Reclaimed land is not as stable and prone to liquefaction. Imagine the man hours and labor it took.

    • Lots of pre-mid-20th Century land-reclamation was due to… garbage. Gotta put it somewhere, dump it off the wharfs. Wharfs and their warehoused burn down, put the new warehouse where the old landfilled wharf was, put new wharf in. Continue.

      Seriously, only really in the last 100 years have city blocks been stable. It was not uncommon pre-WWI for a whole city block or two to burn down, and all the debris shoveled up and dumped off a convenient wharf. Do that over and over and you claim a lot of land.

      And that’s just doing incidental land reclamation.

      Purposeful reclamation was often done to create building slips and other infrastructure components of a shipyard. Especially as ships got larger and larger, the accompanying infrastructure gets larger and larger. Lot of times it’s easier to just build a new slip/drydock/railslip/whatever on or surrounded by ‘new land’ than to retro existing insufficient facilities. Add to that in the days of wooden ships that were tarred, it wasn’t uncommon for ‘industrial accidents’ (fire) to destroy facilities. “Oh, carp, lost another, let’s rebuild bigger and better.”

      Then look at the loss of shipyards and ship handling facilities after WWII. All that empty land, now we can build on it!

      This cycle has been going on since Man first built towns on the water’s edge.

      Whether in a place subject to earthquakes or not. Eh, an earthquake, need some place to push all the garbage, look, there’s that flat spot that used to be something…

      Seriously, it’s what should have happened to the 9th Ward in New Orleans after Katrina. Dump all of the waste from the whole city cleanup in the 9th. Squash it good and flat, then pump all that dredged material they had to find a place for when they rebuilt the infrastructure. Maybe move the decent houses out then move them back. That’s how we should have reclaimed the 9th Ward, build it up above the top of the current levees and then build new levees to really protect that poophole.

      • Beans is right. There is also coastal shifting because of silt buildup in harbors. If you look at the English Coast and Cinque Ports, there have been significant changes to the coastline that have nothing to do with man-caused events. Between 1600 and now, it’s significant, well documented, and well mapped. It’s not due to the rise and fall in ocean levels. A visit to the area confirms that some former “coastal towns and ports” are now miles inland.

        • Every (okay, most) waterfront is just like Boston’s. All fill.

          One reason is that transportation only made the suburbs really seriously feasible after WW2. Before that, land near the port was incredibly valuable. The land is now even more incredibly valuable in total, just not as much so vis-a-vis land farther away. Compare value of a square foot in Boston in 1850-1875 to value of a square foot in Boston today, then compare value per square foot in Burlington, same dates. Land in Burlington (then the boonies) used to be so worthless that they used it to farm, at the garbage yield rates of New England “soil”. Now it’s in the metro area, and good luck buying a shack to live if for less than a half mil.

          Basically, the answer is people always fill in the shoreline because the real estate value outstrips all other considerations. You might as well ask why they built all those skyscrapers in Manhattan; that was WAY harder and more expensive than shoving crap into a tidal swamp.


  3. Only appliance manufacturers can prescribe end-of-life into their gear, which means 2 years and ONE day when the warranty is exactly 2 years after purchase. Wind turbines failing “prematurely” is no news to anyone keeping tabs on this idiocy, these things fail all the time, some soon after installation. Maintenance is a pain, which is ONE or TWO of the “created jobs” touted when counties are sold these things…like a bad timeshare. The developer knows this going in, which is why once they show a production year they sell off the asset…meaning thereafter the county gets screwed, between perceived revenues (as sold…again, timeshare tactics), maintenance, and disposal. The original contract is tossed.

    This is the biggest Climate Crap grift using your tax dollars, foisted by The Dems who believe this is saving the planet when in fact industrial wind turbines are a net negative to the environment (just check with those kids in China doing the slave-level mining). Ask me how I know this.

    LL has the correct solution…but that’s not what the Dems want, solutions are anathema to their destructive throwback program.

    Epps sold his soul for protection, scumbag of the worst order. Time to send Wednesday into the Capitol, see what happens. Be worth a PPV and large buttered popcorn.

  4. Context.
    Jesus claimed He was the Messiah.
    So did many others.
    He however, predicted His own death, and resurrection.
    And then did it, as witnessed by men willing to go to their own horrible death without denying their testimony.
    That’s context.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here