i do believe science should be based on fact. now human understanding, that must of necessity be based upon probabilities since no man can know everything.

heres how i see this.

when i lived in alaska a good friend of mine acquired a sourdough starter. she was told that the original from which this particular strain had been handed down was a batch that came over the famous chilkoot pass during the gold rush.

















this source of the starter was a rare multi-geration alaskan and this was the early 80s. was this an actual 100year old starter? well, we certainly told the story as if it were true. we had every reason to believe it was and absolutely no reason NOT to believe it. could we prove it? no. there was no way to vet that. there was simply the location we were in and the character of the people we got the starter from. if we had been in ft meyers florida it would have been a little hard to swallow. but in the interior of alaska in the golden heart city of fairbanks where felix pedro discovered gold it was very credible indeed.

so this pollard guy gives us testimony of something a monster like bibi has said in a private and arrogant and unguarded moment which is totally consistent with his character and actions? well, the probability is that every word is true. and like the protocols, if its not true it might as well be (paraphrasing henry ford), because thats exactly whats happening.

have i eaten 100 year old sourdough from the gold rush days in alaska? probably. did bibi make that statement. with at least as much probability.

if the glove fits, you must convict.









white phoshorus in gaza: