CONTAGION MYTH: DR. TOM COWAN EXPOSES THE FRAUD OF "ISOLATION AND GENOME SEQUENCING OF VIRUSES" Via uk9994@GAW
(www.bitchute.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (82)
sorted by:
Virology is also a great lens to look at science in general. They follow the same formula to propagate pseudosciences and get tons of earnest people believing they are actually doing research, while in reality they are just wasting their own time and simply propagating the same pseudoscience.
The formula is simple.
Create a false basic assumption
Encourage anyone who builds science on top of this faulty assumption and discourage anyone who does not do so - through grants, publications and peer pressure.
Anytime science hits a wall simply because the faulty foundation catches up to it, come up with a new unexplained phenomenon. Examples: Dark Energy/Matter, string theory etc.
You can now encourage a whole new cadre of wanna be researchers in chasing these ghosts.
Exactly.
Assumption >> Financial backing to push the assumption, while denying funding to anyone who questions >> Defend false assumption when challenged >> Change assumption explanation to make it more plausible >> Obtain "consensus" via funding those who agree and denying funding to those who do not >> Push the narrative in the fake news media and the fake education system >> Declare the "Science is decided."
Of course ... that is NOT Science at all. That is government-funded propaganda.
Science is following the Scientific Method, and NOTHING ELSE.
Similar to the CO2-induced warming theory, where the extent of the "science" is that if you had 2 containers where the only difference was CO2 levels (say a greenhouse, or even more simply a bottle of air) and leave it in the sun, the container with more CO2 will be warmer than the one with less. That's it. Everything else exists only in a model or as part of an equation (that really only works in the year of the observations).
Especially true when it comes to high-level physics as you mention, string theory and dark energy / dark matter, which are essentially only mathematical constructs used to fill the gaps with what their math "expects" to see as a correct answer. You hear these string theorists that need to create 20 extra dimensions just to get their math to provide answers that resemble observation. I don't really understand a lot of the math they use, but it seems to be a bit of mental masturbation where there's not even the technology to prove or disprove any of it.
Hell, even relativity, something we all just take for granted as fact, where it's only "proven" in 2019 to the extent that the light from stars can appear to have a distorted position as it passes through the gravity well of the sun, observed during a solar eclipse. Which is a bit of a tenuous proof that could also relate to other principles.
Of course since "it is known" there's really no way to parse out what is factually proven and valid science and what is an "approximation" that's good enough to work while obfuscating something else, whether intentionally or accidentally.
Great point, I had forgotten about that scam.
This is very interesting. I know that the first time when they claimed they proved it during the eclipse and propelled Einstein into some heroic status, the readings were very bad and there was no way scientifically to use it for anything. Would love to hear what exactly happened in 2019? What about all the times before when I am sure they did studies on eclipses?
Also, speed of light. No one has ever calculated one way speed of light (and you cannot calculate it) and yet they accepted that speed of light remains constant regardless of the motion of the bodies - leading to all kinds of fantastical results. More importantly, I believe this was how they proved aether does not exist.
One of the "3 year old" questions I had was, how does EM waves propagate in vaccuum? If its a wave, then whatever it is that its oscillating, must exist as a medium. I strongly suspect this is another foundational lie.
My bad, I should have caught that, the article I found while I was doing the quick search was actually written as "100 years ago Einstein was proven right" type, whereas I read it as relativity was proven after 100 years. I double-checked the paper written in 1920 and would have to agree that they should aim to repeat now that we have tools that are far more accurate than the process they followed. Even though we know on a smaller scale that light bends in a fluid...
I've had many of the same questions about how they get such strong certainty about how they are so certain about how light travels through the vacuum and the use of light speed as a cosmic speed limit. Especially if you've ever seen some of those people trying to explain universal concepts, like the expanding universe, things get very convoluted when they come up with ideas like how the limit of what we can see of the universe is limited because after a distance the objects are moving faster than the speed of light away from us... I'd give other examples, but it's hard to elaborate with sketches.
When you get to things like aether, or electric universe theory, things seem much more elegant, even though you can't discuss it because "those theories were debunked".
I have always had a amateur fascination with Quantum Physics, specifically trying to find a realistic model to explain constancy of speed of light in vacuum regardless of the inertial frame of the observe.
I came up with something I thought was very cool, but still has many holes. But now, I need to figure out really what was the basis for the speed of light claims. I need someone who has lived in that world to explain the facts of the science the same way Cowan explains the facts of virology, so I can judge for myself what part is evidence and what part is opinion/consensus. This is definitely the area I will be focusing on post-Awakening.