Epstein Files have been redacted. Too much to see that would result in imprisonment if anyone were to have the rest of these on their computer.

 There is much consternation and skepticism regarding the Epstein Files. The Jewish connection is strong. CPAC has the ear of everyone, except Thomas Massie, whom Trump claims is a grandstander. 

Dots have been connected, but nothing overtly incriminating has been found yet. People are trying to find something, though. No stone will be left unturned. But can we say all video and pictorial evidence will be turned over for the public to see? Personally, I don't think so.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DNA: The Fable Brought to the Table – How the Double Helix Became Kayfabe . The double helix was not observed but modeled. DNA’s discovery rests on single samples, assumptions, and damaged evidence — kayfabe science at work.

The discovery of DNA’s structure has been told and retold as a triumph of science, a neat tale of genius deduction capped with a double helix. The textbooks make it sound like truth was laid bare, clear as day, in a single crystallographic photograph. Yet what was brought to the public table was less a feast of evidence than a carefully plated fable. Single Source Problem All of the early conclusions about DNA’s structure were drawn from a single preparation of sodium DNA (NaDNA) in dry form. Rosalind Franklin’s diffraction studies were confined to this one source. She did not compare across multiple DNA samples from different organisms. The entire story of heredity — the claim that the same structure encoded all living things — was extrapolated from a narrow slice of evidence. The possibility remains that other DNA might not have looked the same at all. Helix by Assumption The iconic two-chain helix of B-DNA was not directly observed. It was suggested based on missing spots in ...
Read more

The Political and Medical Kayfabe: Dave Collum, Tucker Carlson, and the Illusion of Truth. Dave Collum tells Tucker Carlson politics is kayfabe. Medicine runs the same script: staged science, buried dissent, and pharma’s monopoly on truth.

When Cornell chemistry professor Dave Collum sat down with Tucker Carlson, the conversation became a whirlwind tour through America’s most taboo questions. Did COVID come from a lab? What’s the truth about January 6th? Why did the Vegas shooting disappear from headlines? Why are financial markets so distorted? For nearly two hours, Tucker ticked off the controversies, and Collum — sharp, irreverent, and unfiltered — answered with a theme that ran through them all: political kayfabe. Borrowed from professional wrestling, kayfabe means staged drama presented as real. For Collum, American politics has become kayfabe: a scripted theater of outrage and distraction, keeping citizens fixated on the spectacle while real power operates behind the curtain. But kayfabe is not confined to politics. There is also a medical kayfabe — an equally elaborate theater, where the rituals of science mask the absence of proof, and dissenters are silenced to preserve the illusion. Just as Collum expose...
Read more

The Dream of DNA: Crick’s Vision, Franklin’s Erasure, and the Scientific Kayfabe. DNA’s discovery was not pure science but kayfabe: Crick’s dream, Franklin’s erasure, and a myth built to protect authority. The helix is real, the story is not.

In 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson announced the structure of DNA — the double helix — in a short paper in Nature . Their discovery has been enshrined as one of the great triumphs of modern science: the key that unlocked genetics, inheritance, and the very code of life. Textbooks repeat the story like gospel: brilliant deduction, confirmed by crystal-clear evidence, delivering a eureka moment of certainty. But beneath this polished myth lies a far messier truth. Crick himself admitted that the idea of DNA’s twisting strands came not solely from data, but from a dream — sometimes described as his, sometimes his wife’s. At the same time, Rosalind Franklin’s meticulous X-ray diffraction work provided a key empirical clue, yet her contribution was marginalized, her photograph shared without consent, and her name sidelined from the Nobel glory. This is not simply academic bickering about credit. It reveals a deeper pattern: science, like politics and medicine, is subject to what Dave C...
Read more