Eric, your articles on Rancourt on Mullis are quite nice. A few points:
1. About "false positives" How can there be a false positive if there are no true positives since there is no DNA pertaining to a virus? There cant be any false positives as you can see. Did you mean to say "artifact positives", or "fake positives"? "False positives" …
Eric, your articles on Rancourt on Mullis are quite nice. A few points:
1. About "false positives" How can there be a false positive if there are no true positives since there is no DNA pertaining to a virus? There cant be any false positives as you can see. Did you mean to say "artifact positives", or "fake positives"? "False positives" suggests "if the test was just tuned better we'd get that damn virus", and is pushing the official narrative. Test is unvalidated because there is no viral object.
2. I don't blame Mullis, only that he seems to be a front man (with lots of help in the back office to pull this off)-that would be the same for making Graphene wouldn't it be? You can't say PCR is real but GO is not real when each could theoretically be a fabricated story. You need proof for or against each one.
- Almost no work history
-Few research papers-see his Wiki pg and pub med. One nutty one on cosmology in the 60s, one on hypothetical latent viruses that pushed the HIV virus/Pharma position (which there can't be because viruses must replicate-and no one has any evidence of that). One just a Sci Am review on pcr, and one an autobiog. The other one a Cetus corporate written paper (that increases the stock price doesn't it?). This is a sorry state of academic pubs for a Nobelist or any professional researcher or academic.
3. He himself goes off topic into some nutty talks, used lots of drugs, etc. Seems like Character making.
4. No photos of him and lab guys.
Pls read this before you make a quick reply, take your time, there is no rush.
5. The article from 35 yrs ago isn't research data and doesn't prove much. It also assumes DNA and it's properties are as stated in the text books, though there are big questions remaining. I'm not taking a stand, just a questioning stance. See these:
I'm not buying your "no photos" thing. It's Paul McCartney BS. There are no photos of me working at Whitaker Newsletters. There is just one of me at the Echoes Sentinel. No photos of Student Leader News Service team. These were all extended, important phases of my career. To show fraud, you need evidence of fraud.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of fraudulent intent. And like McCartney/Beatles/ Travistock, and "flat Earth," you are pursuing an angle that is merely a hobby. It is not provable and not useful. My life as a reporter is populated with documents and interviews. I can document, in documents, everything I say is so as a reporter. I question people who are involved and I get them onto the record.
You are merely taking some existing (seeming) puzzle pieces and saying "they look this way this way" when in fact that is merely an interpretation that, conveniently, cannot be refuted (for the same reason it cannot be proven). Meanwhile you are distracting people from the known fraudulent use of the PCR starting in Dec. 2019, which lets the real actors off the hook. After Dartmouth, PCR's sad career as a diagnostic tool was over. From there, it became a false-positive tool and please don't give me this rhetoric about "no false since there are no true." You know what I am talking about and I have made clear in my abundant writing on this issue that there are no true positives.
We are up against limitations of language in this realm of deception. Yet this is not a word game. The PCR is being used to deceive people to the present day on many illnesses it cannot "diagnose."
Well we generally agree about all the PCR fraud and if you mean Fake Positive=False positive ok sure. Your article to Rancourt used false and while I hear you mean fake to me personally, an official scientific letter to Rancourt should really use fake/artifact whatever word is best not false though but I hear you now, ok we dont need to harp on it.
About Mullis, it is true I'm making a Journalistic opinion of him as "actor", not a proof of fraud. Did I use fraud in the post? If I did, I will promptly remove that (cant find it), if I didnt you are putting words in my mouth which isn't right. I quoted Omar as saying, "the entire concept of the PCR test is fraudulent". I never called Kary a fraud. So with the data I have collected from MUCH MORE THAN JUST THE PHOTO ISSUE, looking and reading his papers on Wiki and on Pub Med, seeing his video interviews (on the post) and Ted Talks, and importantly the very long Omar data sheet, I have the journalistic right to opine he is a front man and actor, just like you can read same about Musk, Trump, Zuck, Gates, etc. Writers have the right to opine on public figures, I suppose defamation or slander aside. Again, if you want to debunk the Omar doc that's great-there's too much in it I'm not gonna repeat in this comment, I would be happy you make a comment on it here, and if you post it, of course you can leave a link on this comment section and I will restack it. I don't think it's valuable for us to argue how much he was frontage for a bigger org as we generally agree to the PCR issues.
Journalism is not about an opinion. It is about a set of facts presented that add up to either a balanced presentation or an irrefutable conclusion, where the other sides are presented fairly. You are on solid ground if you assert publicly that you are presenting your personal viewpoint. Yet you are also accusing a person whom you cannot call and ask for comment. Mullis cannot defend himself and that makes him an easy target. While he cannot sue you for libel, in my view it is still hitting below the belt. He has no way to defend himself or his reputation.
However, I continue to assert that this whole field of discussion is irrelevant **in contrast to who determined that the PCR would be used for the "covid" project in 2019**. We need to be going after the parties who were ON NOTICE that the system threw 100% "fake positives" meaning that there were no true positives and that false epidemics were documented to have been caused three times c. 2006. This was widely published at the time, and my work connected it to "covid" or it might have been entirely forgotten.
One last; in my view as an editor, there are no anonymous investigative reporters. The very essence of investigative reporting, and of authentic news reporting generally, is accountability, including internal accountability. While the lack of accountability does not assure lack of integrity, it becomes exceedingly easy to let standards slip (if they ever existed) when you can change your name and reincarnate tomorrow.
Therefore, you must hold yourself to the very highest standards of multiple sourcing of facts and minimal conclusions about what those facts might point to, and presenting alternative points of view. This is not a game, unless you want to play the game that in the postmodern world there is no truth. You certainly seem to imply that there is such a thing.
We're not trying to do the same thing. I'm giving opinion or data with proofs where I collected it (like FOIA or screen shots of what someone says on an email or SS), or just links from others you can see who they are.
This is just vounteer, completely unmonetized so i can write freely and without professional complications. Imagine if I worked in a law firm, a govt agency, the military, or as an MD with a licensing board. You do understand this don't you? You collect money from your work, I dont. People can take me or ditch me. This is only to share info with my fellow humans. Me and you dont need to argue about it and on that topic we are at the end of our rope. But I do like your work.
There is a reason you like my work. Despite being queer, I walk a straight and narrow path. And I answer my phone, which is a veracity standard. Also, whether I am paid or not is irrelevant. I spent far more doing the "covid" and PCR stories than I ever took in. Monetization does not appear in my Editorial Policy except as relates to conflict of interest, and I have none.
I suggest your read the book American Ground Zero and learn the accounts of those upon whom nuclear bombs were tested in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and surrounds during the 1950s. These are eyewitness accounts of both events and subsequent illness that must stand on their own.
They are separate issues, other than the fact that countries with nuclear power tend to become nuclear armed. What is your guiding principle? I use the Precautionary Principle in my work with the public. I work under the potential of the worst case scenario until that is addressed. I see you are a writer and collaborating with other writers, holding yourself out to the public as one with knowledge. Do you have an editorial policy? What is your proper name and service address? Who is your editor? In other words, to whom are you accountable for what you say, and what is the path of accountability?
Are you saying I am not allowed to make an anonymous SS? I only provide info, people can take it any way they want. So my writing is accountable to the public that reads it, anyone who is not interested can not look at it.
On nukes I have mainly collected info from others that make sense to me and I posted it in a palatable way
and in the top comment photos and articles by Japanese who lived thru it.
If you dont agree with Palmer article (Tom Cowan also pushed that one recently) or the Mathis article, that's fine. You can tell me/us why or you can ignore it. So far you don't seem to have read links I've sent you. Up to you.
Of course you can make an anonymous Substack. I am saying that my editorial policy does not count you as an investigative reporter or a reliable source. As far as nukes, there is no discounting the eyewitness testimony, and we are still in the territory of the precautionary principle. However, nukes are also a pastime or hobby since there is nothing you can personally do about them, now or if you are vaporized by one. That there are questions about August 1945 does not automatically invalidate Ivy Mike.
None of the concrete bldgs or people in them at ground 0-or anywhere in Hiroshima or Nagasaki even died much less got vaped, because exactly like the bldgs in Tokyo, Hamamatsu, Tochigi, all the dozens of firebombed Japan cities looked just like Hiroshima, firebombed-with all concrete bldgs and bridges intact, and being used in the next weeks even. Those Japanese are damn good at fanning 6,000 degree nukes down to a few hundred degrees (which would have destroyed all those concrete bldgs and bridges) and sweeping up radiation aren't they? You just think wooden structures destroyed means a nuk, tell the Tokyoites they were actually nuked. The Palmer article has scientific data of the Gamma and Neutron thermal energy left in building blocks, far lower than for a nuke, that is objective evidence, witnesses are subjective and even possibly with leading questions that persons can not distinguish fire bomb from a nuke, or even faked.
I agree there are questions about Fukushima and Nagasaki. But because in any event these involve genocide, these must be asked with consideration that there was mass murder whether the cause was a chain reaction or massive TNT bombs. However, whatever may have happened in August 1945 does not provide any proof or even evidence related to the Trinity Test, or to Ivy Mike, or to the 140 or so air-burst tests in the Nevada desert.
To those who may say that the accounts contained in American Ground Zero (Gallagher, Random House, 1993) are stories, I would remind you that everything that is published is metaphor. Every word you write is a story.
Morally and legally, it's insufficient to say that people who have given their accounts of their pain and loss are categorically lying; and whether they are or not, to accuse them of that in the first instance is inhumane. They describe in detail what happened to their lives, their families and their communities, putting their names and faces to their words — more than I can say about most of the people writing in this space.
Eric, just admit this is a subject you havn't read deeply about. You are getting silly actually. In the Wiki page for Pile of shit 1, the plaque says, "On December 2, 1942 man achieved here the first self-sustaining chain reaction and thereby initiated the controlled release of nuclear energy." You are deeply confused my good man, nuc energy is not the same as a flash nuc explosion which is impossible. Nuc energy is also made in the hills of Gabon by uranium decay-do you think your local utility wants you to have Uranium in your back yard? ITS SO DANGEROUS! Wiki also reminds us, "they trusted Fermi's safety calculations and decided they could carry out the experiment in a densely populated area" RIGHT! you dont want to have to travel into the desert just for a psyop? How do we know Pile 1 wasn't just a pile of BS with some radioactive uranium that "powered a light bulb"? Did it prove flash nuc explosion was possible, did it prove there was a nuc chain reaction? The gov't wouldn't want to make a nuc weapons psyop just to take $$$ out of the treasury? Maybe Sars-CoV-3 will mutate out of Pile 3 of bat shit?
proton please put that URL here -- either your post or Mathis. btw in the astrology scene I am the preeminent expert on the astrology of nuclear incidents, originating with the atomic pile chart I referenced above, through the Fukushima incident. That is not much of a distinction; hardly anyone cares about acquired knowledge these days, and few astrologers have the patience to keep a file of 20 different events studied over 25 years.
To suggest that something must be true because of "eyewitness" accounts (aka easily faked stories) is the height of human stupidity. I can find you all sorts of eyewitnesses who insist they've been abducted by Aliens from another planet, or saw Elvis shopping at the grocery store. By your logic, that all must be true because there is no discounting their stories and therefore they "must stand on their own."
Really, dude? You're a journalist? This is nonsensical thinking for the simple fact that people lie about all sorts of things, everyday, and are sometimes paid to do so, to sell a larger lie.
You can't honestly believe that Nuclear Weapons exist simply based on stories in a book? Are you readers this easily manipulated? There are COUNTLESS detailed analysis available of the fraudulent Nuke footage that far outweigh any silly stories you read in a book.
My only remaining question is - are you really this stupid, or is there something else going on here?
I think you can absolutely discount eyewitness testimony. There are so many limitations that can affect it's accuracy and reliability that there is always a need for caution. Memory distortion and decay, interpretations of what they are seeing based on suggestive questioning/projection of authority, cognitive biases, stress and anxiety, to name just a few.
So what I hear you doing is discounting testimony you haven’t seen or read nor have you seen the photos nor are you familiar with the work or the author. I’m curious if you’ve accounted for your own cognitive bias.
Eric, your articles on Rancourt on Mullis are quite nice. A few points:
1. About "false positives" How can there be a false positive if there are no true positives since there is no DNA pertaining to a virus? There cant be any false positives as you can see. Did you mean to say "artifact positives", or "fake positives"? "False positives" suggests "if the test was just tuned better we'd get that damn virus", and is pushing the official narrative. Test is unvalidated because there is no viral object.
2. I don't blame Mullis, only that he seems to be a front man (with lots of help in the back office to pull this off)-that would be the same for making Graphene wouldn't it be? You can't say PCR is real but GO is not real when each could theoretically be a fabricated story. You need proof for or against each one.
- Almost no work history
-Few research papers-see his Wiki pg and pub med. One nutty one on cosmology in the 60s, one on hypothetical latent viruses that pushed the HIV virus/Pharma position (which there can't be because viruses must replicate-and no one has any evidence of that). One just a Sci Am review on pcr, and one an autobiog. The other one a Cetus corporate written paper (that increases the stock price doesn't it?). This is a sorry state of academic pubs for a Nobelist or any professional researcher or academic.
3. He himself goes off topic into some nutty talks, used lots of drugs, etc. Seems like Character making.
4. No photos of him and lab guys.
Pls read this before you make a quick reply, take your time, there is no rush.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc/edit
5. The article from 35 yrs ago isn't research data and doesn't prove much. It also assumes DNA and it's properties are as stated in the text books, though there are big questions remaining. I'm not taking a stand, just a questioning stance. See these:
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/
I'm not buying your "no photos" thing. It's Paul McCartney BS. There are no photos of me working at Whitaker Newsletters. There is just one of me at the Echoes Sentinel. No photos of Student Leader News Service team. These were all extended, important phases of my career. To show fraud, you need evidence of fraud.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of fraudulent intent. And like McCartney/Beatles/ Travistock, and "flat Earth," you are pursuing an angle that is merely a hobby. It is not provable and not useful. My life as a reporter is populated with documents and interviews. I can document, in documents, everything I say is so as a reporter. I question people who are involved and I get them onto the record.
You are merely taking some existing (seeming) puzzle pieces and saying "they look this way this way" when in fact that is merely an interpretation that, conveniently, cannot be refuted (for the same reason it cannot be proven). Meanwhile you are distracting people from the known fraudulent use of the PCR starting in Dec. 2019, which lets the real actors off the hook. After Dartmouth, PCR's sad career as a diagnostic tool was over. From there, it became a false-positive tool and please don't give me this rhetoric about "no false since there are no true." You know what I am talking about and I have made clear in my abundant writing on this issue that there are no true positives.
We are up against limitations of language in this realm of deception. Yet this is not a word game. The PCR is being used to deceive people to the present day on many illnesses it cannot "diagnose."
Well we generally agree about all the PCR fraud and if you mean Fake Positive=False positive ok sure. Your article to Rancourt used false and while I hear you mean fake to me personally, an official scientific letter to Rancourt should really use fake/artifact whatever word is best not false though but I hear you now, ok we dont need to harp on it.
About Mullis, it is true I'm making a Journalistic opinion of him as "actor", not a proof of fraud. Did I use fraud in the post? If I did, I will promptly remove that (cant find it), if I didnt you are putting words in my mouth which isn't right. I quoted Omar as saying, "the entire concept of the PCR test is fraudulent". I never called Kary a fraud. So with the data I have collected from MUCH MORE THAN JUST THE PHOTO ISSUE, looking and reading his papers on Wiki and on Pub Med, seeing his video interviews (on the post) and Ted Talks, and importantly the very long Omar data sheet, I have the journalistic right to opine he is a front man and actor, just like you can read same about Musk, Trump, Zuck, Gates, etc. Writers have the right to opine on public figures, I suppose defamation or slander aside. Again, if you want to debunk the Omar doc that's great-there's too much in it I'm not gonna repeat in this comment, I would be happy you make a comment on it here, and if you post it, of course you can leave a link on this comment section and I will restack it. I don't think it's valuable for us to argue how much he was frontage for a bigger org as we generally agree to the PCR issues.
Journalism is not about an opinion. It is about a set of facts presented that add up to either a balanced presentation or an irrefutable conclusion, where the other sides are presented fairly. You are on solid ground if you assert publicly that you are presenting your personal viewpoint. Yet you are also accusing a person whom you cannot call and ask for comment. Mullis cannot defend himself and that makes him an easy target. While he cannot sue you for libel, in my view it is still hitting below the belt. He has no way to defend himself or his reputation.
However, I continue to assert that this whole field of discussion is irrelevant **in contrast to who determined that the PCR would be used for the "covid" project in 2019**. We need to be going after the parties who were ON NOTICE that the system threw 100% "fake positives" meaning that there were no true positives and that false epidemics were documented to have been caused three times c. 2006. This was widely published at the time, and my work connected it to "covid" or it might have been entirely forgotten.
Please email me the "Omar doc" at efc@planetwaves.net
One last; in my view as an editor, there are no anonymous investigative reporters. The very essence of investigative reporting, and of authentic news reporting generally, is accountability, including internal accountability. While the lack of accountability does not assure lack of integrity, it becomes exceedingly easy to let standards slip (if they ever existed) when you can change your name and reincarnate tomorrow.
Therefore, you must hold yourself to the very highest standards of multiple sourcing of facts and minimal conclusions about what those facts might point to, and presenting alternative points of view. This is not a game, unless you want to play the game that in the postmodern world there is no truth. You certainly seem to imply that there is such a thing.
I sent it to you 2 comments above
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc/edit
We're not trying to do the same thing. I'm giving opinion or data with proofs where I collected it (like FOIA or screen shots of what someone says on an email or SS), or just links from others you can see who they are.
This is just vounteer, completely unmonetized so i can write freely and without professional complications. Imagine if I worked in a law firm, a govt agency, the military, or as an MD with a licensing board. You do understand this don't you? You collect money from your work, I dont. People can take me or ditch me. This is only to share info with my fellow humans. Me and you dont need to argue about it and on that topic we are at the end of our rope. But I do like your work.
There is a reason you like my work. Despite being queer, I walk a straight and narrow path. And I answer my phone, which is a veracity standard. Also, whether I am paid or not is irrelevant. I spent far more doing the "covid" and PCR stories than I ever took in. Monetization does not appear in my Editorial Policy except as relates to conflict of interest, and I have none.
PCR has many applications other than diagnostic. Can you name one?
Can give you some and easy to look up but that's not directly part of our thread.
Nuclear power has many applications, does that mean there are nuke weapons?
I suggest your read the book American Ground Zero and learn the accounts of those upon whom nuclear bombs were tested in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and surrounds during the 1950s. These are eyewitness accounts of both events and subsequent illness that must stand on their own.
They are separate issues, other than the fact that countries with nuclear power tend to become nuclear armed. What is your guiding principle? I use the Precautionary Principle in my work with the public. I work under the potential of the worst case scenario until that is addressed. I see you are a writer and collaborating with other writers, holding yourself out to the public as one with knowledge. Do you have an editorial policy? What is your proper name and service address? Who is your editor? In other words, to whom are you accountable for what you say, and what is the path of accountability?
Are you saying I am not allowed to make an anonymous SS? I only provide info, people can take it any way they want. So my writing is accountable to the public that reads it, anyone who is not interested can not look at it.
On nukes I have mainly collected info from others that make sense to me and I posted it in a palatable way
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/spooks-with-nukes
and in the top comment photos and articles by Japanese who lived thru it.
If you dont agree with Palmer article (Tom Cowan also pushed that one recently) or the Mathis article, that's fine. You can tell me/us why or you can ignore it. So far you don't seem to have read links I've sent you. Up to you.
Of course you can make an anonymous Substack. I am saying that my editorial policy does not count you as an investigative reporter or a reliable source. As far as nukes, there is no discounting the eyewitness testimony, and we are still in the territory of the precautionary principle. However, nukes are also a pastime or hobby since there is nothing you can personally do about them, now or if you are vaporized by one. That there are questions about August 1945 does not automatically invalidate Ivy Mike.
None of the concrete bldgs or people in them at ground 0-or anywhere in Hiroshima or Nagasaki even died much less got vaped, because exactly like the bldgs in Tokyo, Hamamatsu, Tochigi, all the dozens of firebombed Japan cities looked just like Hiroshima, firebombed-with all concrete bldgs and bridges intact, and being used in the next weeks even. Those Japanese are damn good at fanning 6,000 degree nukes down to a few hundred degrees (which would have destroyed all those concrete bldgs and bridges) and sweeping up radiation aren't they? You just think wooden structures destroyed means a nuk, tell the Tokyoites they were actually nuked. The Palmer article has scientific data of the Gamma and Neutron thermal energy left in building blocks, far lower than for a nuke, that is objective evidence, witnesses are subjective and even possibly with leading questions that persons can not distinguish fire bomb from a nuke, or even faked.
I agree there are questions about Fukushima and Nagasaki. But because in any event these involve genocide, these must be asked with consideration that there was mass murder whether the cause was a chain reaction or massive TNT bombs. However, whatever may have happened in August 1945 does not provide any proof or even evidence related to the Trinity Test, or to Ivy Mike, or to the 140 or so air-burst tests in the Nevada desert.
To those who may say that the accounts contained in American Ground Zero (Gallagher, Random House, 1993) are stories, I would remind you that everything that is published is metaphor. Every word you write is a story.
Morally and legally, it's insufficient to say that people who have given their accounts of their pain and loss are categorically lying; and whether they are or not, to accuse them of that in the first instance is inhumane. They describe in detail what happened to their lives, their families and their communities, putting their names and faces to their words — more than I can say about most of the people writing in this space.
Mathis has the Trinity info. Take your time and read them. They are in my SS post, I DID READ ALL OF THEM.
What is your view on the atomic pile experiment U. Chicago Dec. 2, 1942 (3:25 pm CST, Chicago)?
Eric, just admit this is a subject you havn't read deeply about. You are getting silly actually. In the Wiki page for Pile of shit 1, the plaque says, "On December 2, 1942 man achieved here the first self-sustaining chain reaction and thereby initiated the controlled release of nuclear energy." You are deeply confused my good man, nuc energy is not the same as a flash nuc explosion which is impossible. Nuc energy is also made in the hills of Gabon by uranium decay-do you think your local utility wants you to have Uranium in your back yard? ITS SO DANGEROUS! Wiki also reminds us, "they trusted Fermi's safety calculations and decided they could carry out the experiment in a densely populated area" RIGHT! you dont want to have to travel into the desert just for a psyop? How do we know Pile 1 wasn't just a pile of BS with some radioactive uranium that "powered a light bulb"? Did it prove flash nuc explosion was possible, did it prove there was a nuc chain reaction? The gov't wouldn't want to make a nuc weapons psyop just to take $$$ out of the treasury? Maybe Sars-CoV-3 will mutate out of Pile 3 of bat shit?
proton please put that URL here -- either your post or Mathis. btw in the astrology scene I am the preeminent expert on the astrology of nuclear incidents, originating with the atomic pile chart I referenced above, through the Fukushima incident. That is not much of a distinction; hardly anyone cares about acquired knowledge these days, and few astrologers have the patience to keep a file of 20 different events studied over 25 years.
Appeal to emotion. Pathetic.
To suggest that something must be true because of "eyewitness" accounts (aka easily faked stories) is the height of human stupidity. I can find you all sorts of eyewitnesses who insist they've been abducted by Aliens from another planet, or saw Elvis shopping at the grocery store. By your logic, that all must be true because there is no discounting their stories and therefore they "must stand on their own."
Really, dude? You're a journalist? This is nonsensical thinking for the simple fact that people lie about all sorts of things, everyday, and are sometimes paid to do so, to sell a larger lie.
You can't honestly believe that Nuclear Weapons exist simply based on stories in a book? Are you readers this easily manipulated? There are COUNTLESS detailed analysis available of the fraudulent Nuke footage that far outweigh any silly stories you read in a book.
My only remaining question is - are you really this stupid, or is there something else going on here?
hahahahaha something else? Yes, I am trying to write the December horoscopes.
And since you are so obsessed with my alleged masturbation, here is an academic citation, sadly, without any photos:
Francis, Eric — From Self to Self: Masturbation as the Future of Sex: Journal of Bisexuality Vol 4(3-4) 2004, 167-176.
https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/masturbation-future-sex.pdf
alleged?
Now you're just deflecting.
No, Poo. I am reflecting. When you discuss the self-sex of another person, you are really talking about yourself.
I think you can absolutely discount eyewitness testimony. There are so many limitations that can affect it's accuracy and reliability that there is always a need for caution. Memory distortion and decay, interpretations of what they are seeing based on suggestive questioning/projection of authority, cognitive biases, stress and anxiety, to name just a few.
So what I hear you doing is discounting testimony you haven’t seen or read nor have you seen the photos nor are you familiar with the work or the author. I’m curious if you’ve accounted for your own cognitive bias.