Anti Trust University Lawsuits

 https://blackstudentfund.org/anti-trust-and-financial-aid/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230106104555/https://blackstudentfund.org/anti-trust-and-financial-aid/

Atrocities in Davey and Goliath

Atrocities in Davey and Goliath

Davey poisons a well water supply by pouring red paint in it

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3IP02c0lmK8&t=660s

Davey And Goliath | Episode 45 | The Caretakers | Hal Smith | Dick Beals | Norma MacMillan

http://web.archive.org/web/20220206130104/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3IP02c0lmK8

Low Gun Ownership United States Revolution

Most people did not initially own effective firearms nor were they skilled in firearms during the United States revolution

They took the British or English military's own gun supply located in the United States, to fight the British or English military

The revolutionaries would have had less casaulties on their own side if they had more guns, more ammo, better guns and better training

Communities can regulate to ensure that competant and ethical people have better firearm aiming training and firearm safety training and firearm manufacturing training and better access to firearms and ammo if they wish to prevent tyranny by unethical and or incompetant and or recklessly careless firearm owners

The alternative is for communities to regulate that no bad guys with guns enter the border of their community but regulating that people do not smuggle guns into your community requires guards with guns to use guns to stop gun smugglers.  In such a case those guards must be regulated to ensure they are both ethical and competant and sufficiently armed and in sufficient numbers to prevent the smugglers getting guns to bad guys

The low percent of firearms in the revolution gives hope for beneficial cultural change in spite of the higher percent of military and police grade weapons by the military and police than the civilians if  the civilians on the right side of a cultural disagreement either persuade the military or police to the right side, seize the military and police weapon stockpiles, persuade the military and police weapon manufacturers to the right side, seize the weapon manufacturing facilities or build their own weapon manufacturing facilities

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 October 4

Most Americans Did Not Own Guns at the Start of the American Revolution

March 31, 2020

Armies, British, Colonial, Strictly Military, Weaponry & Munitions

Harry Schenawolf

https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/contrary-to-myth-most-americans-did-not-own-guns-at-the-start-of-the-american-revolution/

http://web.archive.org/web/20210113172706/https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/contrary-to-myth-most-americans-did-not-own-guns-at-the-start-of-the-american-revolution/

You can not see satellites without equipment

There are pictures online of a star that can be viewed in such a manner that it must be in front of the moon and not behind the moon if the moon is an opaque sphere like object that does not change shape during different stages such as new moon, crescent, half moon, gibbous and full moon.

People have claimed those are not pictures of a star but a satellite.  However, others might have claimed such pictures existed in artwork, religious symbols, photographs and or astronomers' notes prior to the launching of satellites.

If such a star can be seen without a telescope  then this is problematic for the mainstream narrative because satellite are too small to see without a telescope according to mainstream narrative data.  Without a telescope or equivelent magnification such as a zoom feature common in modern electronics that is

This could mean one of several possibilities that all contradict the mainstream narrative

That the sections of the moon you do not see really are not there during certain stages of the moon.

That those sections are there but switch from opaque to transparent during certain stages.  

That stars or non man made luminaries can exist in front of the moon

That satellites existed were made before we were told they were made, possibly from alien or earlier human societies

That the moon is not a solid opaque or reflective object but instead generates it's own light

Satellites are lower or bigger than we are told or the human eye can see smaller angles than we are told

I will show that satellites would be too small an angle to be seen without telescopes for their longest dimension and distance.  I will do this using the largest dimension listed instead of using the pythagorean theoreom and tsking the square root of the longest dimension squared plus the second longest dimension squared.  At most this will result in that the length I list should actually be multiplied by the square root of 2 which is between 1.4 and 1.5 but even doing so these objects should not be seen

I will assume the longest straight length of any satellite can be treated as a arclength with rounding to get a close enough result for these purposes

Arc Length / Radius = Angle in radians

2 Pi radians = 360 degrees

I will assume any satellite less than 0.0003 radians can not be seen by the naked human eye without equipment

The resolving power of the human eye is 0.0003 of a radian

http://web.archive.org/web/20150113004721/https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-visible-object/

http://web.archive.org/web/20220613132429/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 September 20

Myths about rockets in outer space

Myths about rockets in outer space

Two myths will be debunked.  The first myth is that rockets can not work in the vacuum of outer space.  The second myth is that NASA provides camera footage to the public of rockets that reach outer space and do not fall back down to "planet" earth in less than 1 hour

First myth : Rockets can not work in the vacuum of outer space

It has been claimed by some people that rockets can not work in a vacuum and therefore rockets can not work in outer space because outer space is a vacuum

The claim is that in a perfect vacuum there is no medium or material for the rocket gas to push against to move the rocket

It has been claimed by others that rockets would work in a perfect vacuum because of conservation of momentum even if there is no medium for the rocket gas to push against

In reality the gas could push against the solid rocket itself even in a perfect vacuum

Some  of the gas could rebound against the solid rocket and then travel in the opposite direction of the rocket in an elastic collision, contributing to rocket speed

Some of the gas could hit the solid rocket and continue moving in the same direction and speed as the rocket in an inelastic collission, contributing to rocket speed

Some of the gas might move in the same direction as the rocket but in a slower speed than the rocket and never hit the rocket, that gas would not directly contribute to rocket speed

Some of the gas might stay still and not directly contribute to rocket speed

Some of the gas could move away from the rocket.  This gas would be argued by some to contribute to the momentum of the rocket an equal amount of impulse to the impulse it experiences leaving the rocket but in the opposite direction.  Others might say but that is impossible without a medium or object to push against or off of or to collide or come in contact with.  But some of this gas might have collided against other portions of gas in a chain of collissions leading to collissions of gas against the rocket.  Those other portions of gas might have pushed this gas away from the rocket while being pushed by this gas towards the rocket.  These other portions of gas would have come from the rocket fuel just like this portion of gas even before considering the medium of the "vacuum" of outer space not being a perfect vacuum

Gas that does not directly contribute to rocket speed might still indirectly contribute to rocket speed through interaction with or elastic collission with some of the gas that does contribute to rocket speed.  Gas "molecues" can interact with other gas "molecues" through other means then elastic and inelastic collissions according to some theories.  These interactions theoretically occur when one "molecue" attracts or repels another "molecue" at a distance without being close enough to touch the other molecue.  The gas that does not seem to contribute to rocket speed provides a medium for the gas that does contribute to rocket speed to push against through elastic collissions and or interaction

In reality a perfect vacuum has never been observed in outer space or anywhere else according to educated mainstream scientific sources.  So, there would always be a medium, other than the rocket, for the gas ejected from a rocket to push against, as long as the rocket is not in a perfect vacuum

According to sources outside the mainstream scientific community outer space does not exist at all.  If those sources are correct there still would be no perfect vacuum in outer space for a rocket to travel in because outer space would not exist

Liquid, gas, and plasma states of matter are fluids

A rocket can also work through using a liquid and or plasma instead of or in addition to a gas and not a gas alone through similar principles

Another claim is that rockets can not work in a vacuum because rocket fuel uses oxygen and there is no oxygen or not enough oxygen in outer space, but oxygen in the O2 form, can be mixed into rocket fuel, along with "molecues" made of carbon and or hydrogen and or other elements that would combust or chemically interact with the Oxygen.  There are also other types of fuel that do not rely on chemical reactions with oxygen that can be used.  For example, any sufficiently hot exothermic chemical reaction that produces a fluid as a product without oxygen.  For another example, heating a fluid hot enough should work to contribute to rocket speed without a chemical reaction at all.  But that begs the question, how do you heat the fluid without a chemical reaction

Can a Rocket Fly in a Vacuum Chamber?

The Action Lab

 youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug&t=294s

http://web.archive.org/web/20200614150440/youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug

Second myth : NASA provides camera footage to the public of rockets that reach outer space and do not fall back down to "planet" earth in less than 1 hour

Even though rockets should be able to work in imperfect vacuums, the footage of NASA launching rockets I have seen show the rockets going on arc shaped trajectory that would lead back down to "planet" earth instead of traveling at escape velocity toward outer space.

Assumption : I will assume NASA videos of rockets were taken from less than 230 miles away because you can not see a object the size of a Saturn V rocket or smaller from more than 230 miles without zoom or magnification.  If the rocket smoke or exhaust is wider than the rocket is long and you are viewing the smoke but not the rocket this assumption might not be reasonable.  If intense light from burning the fuel somehow results in a way to see things at a farther distance than you should be able to based on this type of calculation then this assumption might also not be reasonable.  Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume footage of NASA rocket launches is from less than 230 miles away because 230 miles is the width of the entire State of Georgia. That would mean less than 230 miles away horizontally because it is 230 miles at a diagonal formed by a horizontal and vertical distance component.  

When you consider that the longest dimension is viewable from about 230 miles but the second longest dimension is not the viewable distance should actually be much shorter than 230 miles if at least 2 dimensions of the rocket must form a large enough angle for the human eye to see without zoom or magnification.  

I am aware the cameras might have a different minimum angle an object must be to be recorded as a pixel but if people have seen the downward arc of rocket paths live in person without electronic devices, telescopes, or other means of magnification than my argument I will be making that NASA rockets never reach an altitude as high as 230 miles before going back down to the "planet" earth in less than an hour still holds

The sagital plane is composed of the directions up, down, forward and bavkwards.  The coronal plane is composed of the directions, left, right, forward and backward.  I believe that some sources have claimed the smallest angle the human eye can see is different in the sagital plane than the transverse plane, but I do not have access to those sources at the time of writing this article.  Similar math could be done getting different results using a different smallest viewable angle.  But ultimately the main points of the argument that the rockets in certain NASA videos are coming back down to "planet" earth in less than an hour will still hold with different quantities.  

Width 230 miles

http://web.archive.org/web/20120525092633/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)

Height 363.0 feet (110.6 m)

http://web.archive.org/web/20130602200458/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

NASA launched 13 Saturn Vs from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida with no loss of crew or payload. It remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful rocket ever brought to operational status and still holds the record for the heaviest launch vehicle payload.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130602200458/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

The resolving power of the human eye is 0.0003 of a radian

http://web.archive.org/web/20150113004721/https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/smallest-visible-object/

Arc Length / Radius = Angle in radians

2 Pi radians = 360 degrees

Assume the straight length of the rocket can be treated as a arclength with rounding to get a close enough result for these purposes

363 feet / X = 0.0003 radians

X = 363 feet / 0.0003 radians = 1210000 feet

1210000 feet / 5280 feet per mile = about 229 miles

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%3D+(+363+%2F+0.0003+)+%2F+5280&ia=calculator

Assumption : The earth has a claimed radius of approximately 4000 miles and a claimed approximate shape of a sphere

Assumption : The difference in angle the velocity vector of a rocket in polar coordinates appears to be going in radians by two different viewers is adjusted by the arc distance between the viewers divided by the radius of the earth in cases similar to the example

Imagine two people are viewing a rocket.  One person is directly below the rocket amd the other is a camera person far away from the rocket.  Both are standing at sea level.

If each individual used a polar coordinate system in which positive 90 degrees is up and negative 90 degrees is down and 0 and 180 degrees are horizontal.  Where down is the direction toward the center of the earth from where they are standing.  Each person would have a different down direction.  The difference in angles between there down directions in radians would be the arclength between them and the other observer divided by the radius of the earth.  That would be the difference in angles between their two coordinate systems for measuring the velocity of objects in polar coordinates. 

The origin of these two different polar coordinate systems when used for measuring position could be at the feet of each observer being different for each one or alternatively they could both use the center of the earth for an origin or perhaps something else, the chosen origin would matter for measuring position of objects but not for measuring velocity of objects in such a case.

Assume the arc length between the two viewers or observers can be treated the approximately the same as the straight horizintal distance between them after rounding so you do not have to worry about which of those two distances are being used when measuring the distance between observers based on a map or computerized map

Arc Length / Radius = Angle in radians

2 Pi radians = 360 degrees

The camera person is standing at a different angle than the person standing under the rocket. 

If perpendicular to the ground is 90 degrees and vertical for the camera person than for the person under the rocket that same direction will be 90 degress plus or minus the Arc Length / Radius in their polar coordinate system

Example

The direction down for two viewers standing 230 miles apart is different by less than 4 degrees.

There is less than a 4 degree difference in polar coordinate systems when measuring velocity of objects they observe for two viewers 230 miles apart.  

230 miles arc / 4000 miles radius = 0.0575 radians

0.0575 radians = about 3.29 degrees < 4 degrees

For a camera person standing at sea level 230 miles horizontally away from the rocket

And a second person standing at sea level 0 miles horizontally away from the rocket

If a camera person views the velocity vector of the rocket at 90 degrees then the second person below the rocket would view it somewhere between 86 and 94 degrees

If a camera person views the velocity vector of the rocket at 0 degrees then the second person below the rocket would view it somewhere between negative 4 and positive 4 degrees

If a camera person views the velocity vector of the rocket at 45 degrees then the second person below the rocket would view it somewhere between 41 and 49 degrees

Conclusion from assumptions

NASA rockets downard arc can not be explained as an illusiom caused by the "curvature" of the earth 

This is because that would change the velocity vector of the rockets as expressed in polar coordinates by less than 4 degrees which is too little.  If the rockets look like they are going a direction that would be down then they probably really are going down unless an adjustment of less than 4 degrees is enough to not make them look like they are not going down.

A counter argument to this is that objects at the same height viewed from farther away look like a lower angle which can create the illusion of a lower height from the perspective of an observer.

NASA rockets downward arc can not be explained by the spin of the earth.

Whether or not the earth is spinning or what speed and direction it is spinning is not relevant to whether or not the rockets are getting closer or farther away from the center of the "planet" earth

If the rockets have a downward component to their velocity from the point of view of the observer directly below the rockets then the rockets are going closer to the center of the earth no matter what direction or speed the earth is spinning or not spinning

If the rockets have a upward component to their velocity from the point of view of the observer directly below the rockets then the rockets are going farther away from the center of the earth no matter what direction or speed the earth is spinning or not spinning

Rocket Downward Arcs showing the fakeness of NASA

A saturn V rocket can not be seen from more than 230 miles therefore the angle of the velocity in polar coordinates is below 0 degrees after compensating for the less than 4 degrees difference in measured angle between two viewers as described earlier.  This indicates the rocket is traveling down closer to the earth from the point of view of someone standing below the rocket.  This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this rocket did not go into orbit nor achieve escape velocity and will return to the "planet" earth within less than 1 hour after launch.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150905102757/http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1509/launchMUOS4_deep.jpg

Atlas V Rising

Image Credit & Copyright: Mike Deep

Explanation: Early morning risers along Florida's Space Coast, planet Earth, were treated to a launch spectacle on September 2nd. Before dawn an Atlas V rocket rose into still dark skies carrying a US Navy communications satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station into Earth orbit. This minutes long exposure follows the rocket's arc climbing eastward over the Atlantic. As the rocket rises above Earth's shadow, its fiery trail becomes an eerie, noctilucent exhaust plume glinting in sunlight. Of course, the short, bright startrail just above the cloud bank is Venus rising, now appearing in planet Earth's skies as the brilliant morning star.

http://web.archive.org/web/20150905120625/https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150905.html

Counter Argument

There is a counterargument the mainstream narrative supporters might make.  If the rockets are traveling "horizontally" away from the viewer at a constant height such as if they were in orbit then as they got "horizontally" farther away from the viewer as an illusion they might appear lower down due to a change in angle even though they are at the same height or altitude.  

Response to counter argument :  Objects seen up to the point of illusionarily or really down  have low credibility of having reached low earth orbit altitudes in order to go into low earth orbit or launch another object into low earth orbit

I will make an assumption that a satellite would be smaller than a rocket that launches a satellite and if a satellite or rocket is seen that means it is at or below the height at which it is too high to be seen.  If the object is seen throughout it's entire movement arc until it starts going down then the maximum height or altitude it achieved is less than it's maximum viewable distance.  This can create a limit on the credibility of how high NASA claimed to launch certain objects that can be seen going down.

longest object dimension / maximum viewable distance =  0.0003 radians

for the person standing below the object the maximum viewable distance is the maximum vuewable height or altitude

but for the cameraman the maximum viewable distance is lower based on the pythagorean theoeom

This is problematic because satelites in low earth orbit have a longest dimension much smaller than the Saturn V rocket's world record longest dimension and are so small they can not be seen by the naked eye at low earth orbit.  Yet objects are clearly seen in pictures going downward, and if those objects whether rockets are satellites are small enough their visibility indicates they never achieved a sufficient height for low earth orbit

The Saturn V rocket loses pieces becomong shorter in stages so even a rocket that started out large enough to be seen by the naked eye at low earth orbit altitude, might not be visible at low orbital height after part loss is considered

Maybe they will say the rockets do indeed come back down but launch a satelite off them into orbit before coming back down and the launched satellite is not seen because it is too small and goes higher than the rocket but the rocket is seen because it is larger and does not go at as high an altitude as the satellite it launches

But, this explanation can not solve the problem if rockets that allegedly escape orbit, allegedly exceeding escape velocity, also have paths that make them look like they will come right back down to earth.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220613132429/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Bonus Question : Do NASA rockets based on video footage appear to travel slower than the fastest military aircraft in air show videos?  I am not talking about the "official" published speed which you can not confirm by observation.  I am talking about what you could estimate with your eyes looking at the position of objects relative to landmarks at different time stamps on video recordings.  Do the fastest military rockets travel faster than the fastest NASA rocket launches?  Is it plausible that military rockets and or military aircraft designed for combat travel faster than NASA rockets that travel to the moon, but the military rockets and vehicles are not accidentally ejected from the earth never to come back?

Bonus estimate of the rockets location : At that time the rocket is at it's highest height it will have traveled approximately half the distance it will travel horizontally ignoring air friction.  This assumption is unimportant to the main point and might not be true due to the variability in the direction and amount of force provided by rocket fuel as a function of time and due to force being provided by rocket fuel after the rocket is launched and not just to produce initial starting velocity.  If you assume the rocket fuel produces less force at any moment in time after it's highest height than before reaching it's highest height and produces no force sometime before it lands then the rocket fuel might produce enough force to exceed terminal velocity from air resitance in the earlier parts of the trajectory, but not at the later parts of the teajectory.  So, the rocket will travel faster and therefore farther horizontally before reaching it's highest height than after reaching it's highest height.  The rocket might travel farther than I mentioned with the use of a deployed parachute but that is unlikely because the parachute would slow down it's horizontal velocity not just it's downward vertical velocity.

  

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 September 20

Statistics is not Evidence based medicine

 

"Evidence based medicine" refers to medicine that uses certain statistical methodology.  However, this statistical methodology is in conflict with good scientific methods and is not a proper use of evidence.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 September 2

Limitations and criticism

There are a number of limitations and criticisms of evidence-based medicine.[71][72][73] Two widely cited categorization schemes for the various published critiques of EBM include the three-fold division of Straus and McAlister ("limitations universal to the practice of medicine, limitations unique to evidence-based medicine and misperceptions of evidence-based-medicine")[74] and the five-point categorization of Cohen, Stavri and Hersh (EBM is a poor philosophic basis for medicine, defines evidence too narrowly, is not evidence-based, is limited in usefulness when applied to individual patients, or reduces the autonomy of the doctor/patient relationship).[75]

http://web.archive.org/web/20220823161227/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

What Makes You You? By Tim Urban

You are not your brain or your body by Tim Urban 

https://qz.com/500566/what-makes-you-you/

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://qz.com/500566/what-makes-you-you/

bitchute.com/video/Z2i9VQNktYs/

http://web.archive.org/web/20220828042142/https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z2i9VQNktYs/

What Makes You You?

By Tim Urban

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

Statistics is Neither Math Nor Science when probability is invoked or evoked

Dark Mathematical Magicians, Statistical Sorcery and Superstition

If there is one most important lesson to get from this article it is that you can know fake science is being used if you see the phrases "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant."  

When you look at what percentage of articles have these phrases in peer reviewed scientific journals, however unscientific you thought the majority viewpoint scientific establishment was you will realise it is much faker then that.  

Take the wildest mainstream science denial theories of fake globe earth, fake moon landings, fake pictures of space, fake spinning earth, fake gravity, fake dating of fossils, rocks, manuscripts and artifacts, fake dinosaurs,, fake billions and millions of years, fake big bang, fake nukes, fake discovery of the atom, fake theory of special relativity, fake DNA, fake vaccine theories and fake global warming theories add them all together and they do not add up to even 1% of the amount of fakery there would be in the mainstream scientific establishment if this one claim is true.  Although I am not saying whether or not those mainstream science denial theories are true by putting them in this list, simply comparing the triviality of even the combination of all of them when compared with the hoax of the legitimacy of using statistical significance as part of science.

Not all statistics is unscientific.  There is a field of statistics called descriptive statistics in which quantities are directly measured.  This field can be scientific or used as part of a legitimate scientific method when probability is not involved.

Descriptive Statistics may give you a frequency without a probability meaning that it can be potentially legitimate

A frequency can be directly measured but a probability can not

For example if Cathy the Cat Lady has 7 black cats and 3 white cats and no cats with both black and white fur in her house's cat room right now and she has no other cats anywhere else in the world.  Someone can personally count how many cats are in that room of each type and get a number of each type without assigning a probability.

From the numbers they personally observed they can calculate frequencies that 70% of her cats are black and 30% of her cats are white.  

Inferrential Statistics is where the line between fantasy and reality is magically conjured into existence through the use of probability and guessing.  Inferrential statistics are where you try to guess what quantities are that you never measured based on information you have actually measured in your descriptive statistics.  

One extremely common problem with inferrential statistics is infering that data you never measured would be a normal distribution curve if you actually measured it based on the descriptive data you did measure and can objectively know is not a normal distribution curve.

The most common and most serious problem, however, is believing you can know the probability of a meaurement at all.  The entire foundation of any and every statistical test that can get a result of either, "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" is that probabilitiy exists and can be a quantity other than 0% or 100% which it can not and therefore might as well not exist as will be explained much later in this article.

 In the infiltrated academic fields of so called biology, sociology, psychology, pharmacy, exercise physiology, healthcare and industrial engineering "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" is used as the standard for knowing "the truth" about the results of an experiment.  But this standard has not been used  to arrive at any hard science by competant people who know what they are doing. 

Although Isaac Newton's work on gravity and astronomy has never beem confirmed by the common person, the rest of his laws are very useful, and he never arrived at them using tests to see if they were, "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant."

The force of Local Gravity can be measured by dropping an object in front of a ruler and filming it without testing for if it is  "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" because the object will be exactly where it is supposed to be based on the model if you adjust for air friction

 But the force of gravity in outer space has never been proven to the non space ship affording commoner and the Universal Gravitational constant is a fraud.  The mass of large objects like buildings and walls right next to the testing equipment is always ignored making the whole thing a big joke. 

 If Isaac Newton really existed he has been the most important scientist and mathematician in all of history because of what Newtonisn Physics teaches about, Torque, Work, Force, Mass, Acceleration and Momentum which is a prerequisite for all work in all other fields of science that use those measurements.  Not even one theory Isaac Newton arrived at was achieved by testing for being "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant," every correct theory he ever had are confirmed because they make correct predictions which is how real science works and not because of something labeled as being "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant," occured which is not how real scientists do research only how people who are paid lots of money to pretend to be doing science do research.

In inferrential statistics someone might say there is a 70% chance a cat will be black and a 30% chance a cat will be white because the probability is assumed to be the same as the frequency.  But, this is magical thinking

In reality zero of her cats have a 30% chance of being white and zero of her cats have a 70% chance of being black.  7 of her cats have a 100% chance of being black with a 0% chance of being white and 3 of her cats have a 100% chance of being white and a 0% chance of being black.

That is where I am wrong.  Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is much less likely to get you bitten than pulling a cat out of a hat [ citation not needed . ]  If a magician pulled a cat out of a hat and they personally did not know what color the cat was until they pulled it out of the hat there would be a 70% chance it was black and a 30% chance it was white.

But I am not wrong at all.  Just because the magician does not see the cat before he pulls it out does not mean it is not a black or white cat.  If the cat is black there is a 100% probability the cat he pulls out will be black and a 0% chance it will be white.  If the cat is white there will be a 100% chance it will be white and a 0% chance it will be black.

If he pulls out each cat exactly one time then the frequency he pulls them out will be 70% black and 30% white but there will be no probability of a 70% chance of being black nor a probability of a 30% chance of being white each time he pulls a cat out as I already explained.

The scientific method involves proposing a possible mechanism by which things work and making a measurable mathematical model to make future predictions based on what would happen under experimental circumstances if that mechanism genuinely existed and followed that mathematical model.   The model is then tested based on experiment.

There are three types of mechanisms

1 A physical mechanism

2 A chemical mechanism

3 A mechanism of choice - Something that explains why someone will choose something based on their goals and the information they have access to

None of these types of mechanism can be based on probability 

1 Physical and Chemical mechanisms

 There is either a 0% or 100% chance any claim about a specific object at a specific location, at a specific time is true and those are the only two probability values that can exist in reality.  There is never a probability that is less than 100% and greater than 0% such as 50% of something being true.  Just like not knowing the cats color did not mean there was a probability a cat has a certain fur color other than 0% or 100% in reality

2 Choice mechanisms

Although what goals and knowledge someone else  has is unknown there can likewise be only a 100% chance or 0% chance any claim about their goals or knowledge is true at any specific time and not any value other than those two values such as 50% for similar reasons

No legitinate mechanism of explanation therefore can be based on probability theory

A legitimate scientific model has a mechanism of explanation

There is then no scientific basis for any model to represent reality that uses the type of inferential statistics based on probability theory, since no legitimate mechanisms are probabilistic

In Short : Inferential Statistics that are based on probability theory are not legitimate science

Statistics is Neither Math Nor Science when probability is invoked or evoked

Statistics is magic.

Statisticians can be of the spell school of geometry in which geometric bell curves and tables are drawn on paper to work mind deceiving magic on the reader 

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075624/https://www.docdroid.net/e2GQmdw/players-option-skills-powers-rtf

Statisticians cast wild magic spells where their methods are based on occasionally arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reason

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075323/https://www.docdroid.net/4adfMyZ/the-complete-wizards-handbook-rtf

Statistics is evocation magic because it calls to mind people to imagine things that are not true 

transitive verb To call to mind, as by suggestion, association, or reference.

transitive verb To create anew, especially by means of the imagination.

transitive verb To summon by magical or supernatural power; conjure.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220707094055/wordnik.com/words/evoke

Statistics is of invocation magic because it is a religious act of imploring aid from a belief in the higher power of probability theory

late 14c., "petition (to God or a god) for aid or comfort; invocation, prayer;" also "a summoning of evil spirits,"

http://web.archive.org/web/20211023090227/etymonline.com/word/invocation

Of the spell school of song magic in which word are used like magic spells to trick people into believing in something that is not true

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075624/https://www.docdroid.net/e2GQmdw/players-option-skills-powers-rtf

Statisticians  use mind effecting magic from the school of enchantment charm when people are forced or charmed into obeying stupid ideas because they are labeled as statistically significant

http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075323/https://www.docdroid.net/4adfMyZ/the-complete-wizards-handbook-rtf

Syatistics is illusionary magic in which people hallucinate reality being other than what it is caused through the suggestion of things being "statistically significant" even if they are not practically significant

Statistics is a form of necromancy.  Not necromancy in the sense of creating undead beings but in the sense of trying to foretell the future or past from the dead through ways that do not logically make sense except to someone doing magical thinking.

With statistics people imagine to get information from the dead they simply do not have access to when statistics is used instead of understanding physical and chemical mechanisms of biological causes of death and the fossilization process in forensics, paleontology, osteo-archeologists and actuarial "science."  A paleontologist with no soft tissue might use "rigorous scientific methods" to know what a dinosaurs body was like from statistical analysis of bone measurements, while ignoring the fact that no such physical mechanism of how the dinosaurs body worked could be observed without the never found muscle and connective tissue.  But, that is ok because no physical mechanism is needed when it comes to statistical science, so why should a physical mechanism like a body be needed for any biological science experiment.

A necromancer is a person who practices necromancy, a discipline of black magic used to communicate with the dead to foretell the future.

http://web.archive.org/web/20200323070613/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancer_(disambiguation)

Statistics is faith healing magic.  I do not know how the chemical mechanism for this medicine works but it showed "statistically significant differences" compared with a placebo, so if I just trust the science I will be healed by my faith in the scientific study, if I shut up and do as I am told.

Granted I could think that it did not work for some of the patients to heal them and some got worse after taking the medicine, and without knowing the chemical medicine I could not know which category I am in.  But if I actually knew the chemical and physical mechanism of both the medicine and my body I could know if there is a 100% chance the medicine will heal me or a 100% chance it would do nothing or a 100% chance it would make me worse. 

 But that type of thought would just be the devil trying to get me to doubt the, "statistically significant difference" and I should just take the medicine without knowing what category I am in, because I can not be healed without enough faith in statistical science

Statistics is like ancient divination in which people imagined to be able to detect things they can not know by normal means with the use of magic.  What kind of magic was this?  In ancient days people would intentionally do things that people today would consider to produce random results.  People in ancient times thought these random results could produce supernatural guidance through auspicious signs and omens. 

Using random results to get supernatural guidance would be called laughable in modern times.  But, today scientists with real credentials devote their entire career to studying randomness but instead of calling the study of randomness divination, they call the study of randomness statistics. 

 They still look for auspicious signs and omens, but today call these signs and omens, "statistically significant results" and "not statistically significant results."  

A result is said to randomly change from the omen of "statistical significance" to the omen of "no statistical significance" randomly every once in a while no matter how an experiment is set up, unless G-d forbid, they actually observe the causal mechanism and measure the data directly instead of statistically inferring it. 

 They laugh at ancient people for seeking omens from randomness, but their very admission to random false positives and false negatives shows they are still seeking omens from randomness today every time they test to find out if a result is, "statistically significant," instead of testing a mathematical model for a hypothetical mechanism.

In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the mistaken rejection of an actually true null hypothesis (also known as a "false positive" finding or conclusion; example: "an innocent person is convicted"), while a type II error is the failure to reject a null hypothesis that is actually false (also known as a "false negative" finding or conclusion; example: "a guilty person is not convicted").[1] Much of statistical theory revolves around the minimization of one or both of these errors, though the complete elimination of either is a statistical impossibility if the outcome is not determined by a known, observable causal process. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20220602144427/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

When probability theory, which is the basis for much of inferential statistics is first taught, to defenseless children held captive to the dark magicians ways in public schools, six sided dice are often mentioned a lot in calculations.  These dice trace back to the ancient divination magic of casting lots called cleromancy.  

Cleromancy is a form of sortition (casting of lots) in which an outcome is determined by means that normally would be considered random, such as the rolling of dice, but that are sometimes believed to reveal the will of God according to Proverbs 16:33.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220602113150/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy

Statistics is like the occult school of numerology in that measured numbers are imagined to work according to patterns of statistical magic, without any need to examine mechanism of how something works.  Where as in numerology measured numbers can also magically tell you information without understanding the mechanism of the source of data you are measuring the numbers from.

Numerology and astrology are not considered to be math nor science but numerology uses math to make predictions, and astrology uses both math and astronomy to make predictions.

Statistics is neither math nor science but statistics uses math

Numerology and astrology actually are more useful than statistics.  

Numerology and astrology can have a linguistic purpose to communicate messages symbolically.  

Numerology should be viewed as a form of linguistics that uses math and numbers to communicate coded messages to other people who know numerology and not as a field of mathematics or physical science.

For example if a shoe is One foot and One inch long that does not mean bad luck but if you say a shoe is thirteen inches long someone who knows the code might know you are sending a coded signal which means bad luck.  The Number Thirteen is not an unlucky number because a shoe that is thirteen inches long is no more likely to cause you to trip than a shoe that is one and one twelth of a foot long even though they are both the same length.  Thirteen pairs of an object is the same as Twenty Six objects.  But if you want to communicate a message of bad luck you might call it Thirteen pairs of objects instead of Twenty Six objects.  If you want to make sure you do not give people less than the dozen donuts you asked for you give them a bakers dozen.  A bakers dozen is one dozen donuts plus one extra donut.  They will be happy to have an extra donut if you tell them it is a bakers dozen but do not tell them you are giving them thirteen donuts or they will freak out if they are superstitious.  There is no lucky or unlucky quantity therefore because the same quantity can be changed from considered lucky to unlucky by a change of word labeling magic.  There is no physical mechanism for numerology because when you measure real things you can assign any number you want to them by changing the units.  The purpose of changing around the number in front of the unit is therefore clearly to  change each number to a different to code word when numerology is used.   Therefore numerology clearly is not a physical science but clearly is a real linguistic tool.

Overt is the opposite of covert

If someone wishes to use the news to signal out coded messages they may chose things like fabricating numbers in news stories which are actually fiction being portrayed as non fiction.  They could for example use the code number three hundred and twenty two in order to covertly communicate the message "skull and bones" to everyone who hears the message while only people who know the number means "skull and bones" understand they are receiving the message "skull and bones" and everyone else thinks a quantity is being measured when no such quantity of whatever unit they claim to measure occured.  The number was not used as a measurement but a code word.

The most popular numbers overtly used as code words when trying to make sure the general public does know to put the public in a state of fear are triple sixes or six hundred and sixty six, and thirteen.  Culturally people are taught to fear those numbers so they are displayed on purpose not to measure a quantity but as a overtly displayed code word. 

Some people believe astrology predicts the future so choose to change their behavior based on astrological predictions.  The news cycle contains fictional events prewritten to fit astrological time tables.  Corporate and government managers of society on the top level create a timetable for what policies to set in place at what time based on astrology.  In this way astrology is a communication tool to modify people's behavior which uses math but is not a science.  Even though astrology is not a science, knowledge of astrology can be used to predict the behavior of people who are being influenced by the tool of astrology.

Probability based statistics is neither math nor science but it is used as a magical communication tool to control people's behavior.

You can look at astrology horoscopes and guess how their believers will behave even though they are not fields based on the scientific method.

The phrases, "statistically significant," and "not statistically significant," have no scientific merit.  However, like astrology and numerology which also have no scientific merit, if a scientific journal article claims something, "is statistically significant," or "is not statistically significant" you can guess how it will change the behavior of the superstitious believers.

The scale matters.  If we play make believe and pretend probability theory is true a certain percentage of articles will have the opposite result in terms of statistical significance changing from significant to not significant or not significant to significant for each alpha value.  Then the people in charge only put the one's that fit the scientific consensus on a large scale for distribution.  It is like rolling a die over and over until you get the number you like.  But in reality, data is often simply fake, and people who try to do honest studies simply do not have their work published unless it fits the agenda.  And even if they followed the proper statistics methods and did not get their work censored it is still a victory for the dark magicians because they are perpetuating the lie that inferential statistics based on probability theory is legimate science and inferential statistics is real math, when neither of those claims are true.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022

This generally means that descriptive statistics, unlike inferential statistics, is not developed on the basis of probability theory, and are frequently nonparametric statistics

http://web.archive.org/web/20220529222853/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_statistics

The thing about social science is that it hasn’t produced much. We social scientists don’t have an inferiority complex; we really are inferior.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220519231153/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/the-social-sciences-are-useless-so-why-do-we-study-them-heres-a-good-reason/

The past two hundred years of social science have given us nothing as useful and important as what gets produced every day in biology, chemistry, and physics.

http://web.archive.org/web/20220519231153/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/the-social-sciences-are-useless-so-why-do-we-study-them-heres-a-good-reason/

Keep Psychology Out of the Science Club

http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160649/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/07/keep-psychology-out-of-science-club.html

Why Psychology and Statistics Are Not Science

http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160650/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/why_psychology_and_statistics_are_not_science.html

psychology is not a science, and statistics in and of itself is not science either. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160654/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/the_trouble_with_social_science_statistics.html

no statistic has any application to an individual

http://web.archive.org/web/20220608134204/https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/evistats.html

psychology is not a science, and statistics in and of itself is not science either. 

What would be missing, in a world without statistics?

Science would be pretty much ok. Newton didn’t need statistics for his theories of gravity, motion, and light,

http://web.archive.org/web/20200517144840/https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/23/world-without-statistics/

Modern biomedicine uses lots and lots of statistics, but would medicine be so much worse without it? I don’t think so, at least not yet. You don’t need statistics to see that penicillin works, nor to see that mosquitos transmit disease and that nets keep the mosquitos out. Without statistics, I assume that various mistakes would get into the system, various ineffective treatments that people think are effective, etc. But on balance I doubt these would be huge mistakes, and the big ones would eventually get caught, with careful record-keeping even without statistical inference and adjustments. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20200517144840/https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/23/world-without-statistics/

Although we use many laws and formulae in statistics but still the results achieved are not final and conclusive. As they are unable to give complete solution to a problem

http://web.archive.org/web/20211214014433/economicsdiscussion.net/statistics/8-main-limitations-of-statistics-explained/2321

Law of statistical regularity, are not as good as their science laws.

They are based on probability. So these results will not always be as good as of scientific laws. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20211214014433/economicsdiscussion.net/statistics/8-main-limitations-of-statistics-explained/2321

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+science&ia=web

Statistics is a dark art. It’s not a true math in the sense that math is discovered and inherently right or wrong. 

quora.com/Is-statistics-a-science

Statistics is not math

http://web.archive.org/web/20220812110649/https://simplystatistics.org/posts/2012-04-11-statistics-is-not-math/

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+math&ia=web

Statistics Is Not Math

http://web.archive.org/web/20150221225715/https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/3169/

Statistics uses math, but it is not math

http://web.archive.org/web/20210502115501/https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/78579/stats-is-not-maths

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+logic&ia=web

Howard Zinn

 https://www.howardzinn.org/collection/

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.howardzinn.org/collection/

Effective hoaxes use prior implanted worldviews

Whereas the promoters of frauds, fakes, and scams devise them so that they will withstand the highest degree of scrutiny customary in the affair, hoaxers are confident, justifiably or not, that their representations will receive no scrutiny at all. They have such confidence because their representations belong to a world of notions fundamental to the victims' views of reality, but whose truth and importance they accept without argument or evidence, and so never question

http://web.archive.org/web/20220530222104/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax

Speaking Statutes and Preterism

And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Revelation 13:15 KJV

http://web.archive.org/web/20111122173744/biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 13&version=KJV

 consulting statues through which a priest apparently spoke

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion

Practices

Oracles

http://web.archive.org/web/20220617082230/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion

The ancient festival has been survived by the present-day feast of Sheikh Yūsuf al-Haggāg, an Islamic holy man whose boat is carried around Luxor in celebration of his life

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opet_Festival

http://web.archive.org/web/20220524113604/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opet_Festival