Bob Zeidman, A Quiet Attack on American Principles Is Going Unnoticed

Bob Zeidman

An underreported result of the trial of police officer Derek Chauvin is upending American ideals of justice

[Editor’s note: Complementing Bob Zeidman’s account of attacks on expert witnesses because others don’t like their testimony was the Summary Judgment Oral Hearing in Pozner v. Fetzer, during which the Judge simply set aside the reports of two forensic document examiners that all four of the death certificates I had introduced into evidence were fake and then ruling that I had defamed the Plaintiff on the ground that I had published that one of them–which had no file number, no state certification, and no town certification–was fake. The miscarriages of justice in state and federal courts appear boundless. For how they staged the death of George Floyd, see “Deception Galore: Hate Crimes and More” (below) and also available at False Flags and Conspiracies Conference 2020 for download.]

The sanctity of American justice is predicated on the right to a fair trial. Trial by jury was one of the most important American principles at its founding, guaranteed in the body of the Constitution in Article III, Section 2, and in the Sixth Amendment. It was instituted as a protection of individuals against abuses by the government.

Earlier this year, police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of the murder of George Floyd. Chauvin’s attorneys had hired highly experienced and respected retired forensic pathologist Dr. David Fowler as an expert witness. Fowler testified that Floyd died of “a sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to his [underlying] heart disease … during his restraint and subdual by the police” and not because of lack of oxygen. Despite Fowler’s testimony, the jury convicted Chauvin of murder.

Many trials end in decisions that seem wrong, and you may or may not agree with the conviction of Chauvin. But whether we agree with any particular decision or not, the American system of justice requires us to abide by it. Otherwise, the system falls apart.

The whittling away of the American justice system in this instance is not the government’s attempt to change a jury’s verdict; the government got the conviction that it wanted. In a dangerous precedent, the government is now attempting to ensure that future cases are more likely to result in the verdict it wants by making it clear that witnesses with whom it disagrees will be punished, ostracized, and have their careers destroyed.

Jim Fetzer, “Deception Galore: Hate Crimes and More” (5 December 2020)

Fowler, Chauvin’s expert witness, was Maryland’s chief medical examiner from 2002 to 2019. According to his resume on the website of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (pdf), Fowler was trained in forensic pathology at the University of Cape Town. He was an adjunct associate professor at the University of Maryland in the departments of pediatrics and pathology, and on the faculty at the National Study Center for Trauma and Emergency Medical Systems. Fowler is a past president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. He has authored numerous book chapters, scientific journal articles, and formal presentations. He currently serves as the National Association of Medical Examiners representative to the Forensic Science Standards Board.

Shortly after the trial, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh “received a letter from D.C.’s former chief medical examiner Roger Mitchell, and signed by 431 doctors from around the country, saying Fowler’s conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question,” according to the Associated Press. Within 24 hours, Frosch, in consultation with Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s chief legal counsel, announced an investigation into Fowler’s prior in-custody death examinations (pdf). In September, Frosch announced the members of the audit design team (pdf). This development is very troubling.

I work as an expert witness in technology cases. I’ve participated in over 240 cases over 25 years. I’ve seen unethical behavior by expert witnesses, a small number of whom can be paid to say almost anything to support their client’s position. I’ve written about this unethical behavior and about the need to set stricter standards for expert testimony and more significant consequences for those who purposely misrepresent facts, use unaccepted processes, change testimony, or participate in other unscrupulous behavior. The key, though, is that I challenge expert results in court after I’ve seen all the evidence, produced my own rigorous analysis, and come to my own conclusions. Many times, another expert will examine the same evidence, produce an analysis, and come to different conclusions. There’s no crime in being wrong. The jury listens to the experts, guided by the lawyers, weighs the evidence, and comes to a decision. Our justice system is far from perfect, but for the system to work and be as fair as possible, we all must abide by the judicial outcomes.

If any of the armchair medical “experts” in the world are allowed to bring down the career of Fowler, then few people will ever have the courage to testify contrary to the government’s case or the public’s desires. There may be no stronger or more serious undermining of the American justice system than this one. For the American justice system to survive, people must be free to testify honestly and without outside pressure.

For the sake of basic American principles of justice, honest expert opinions must be given openly, without coercion, and without the belief that the government could destroy your reputation and career if you testify the “wrong” way. This is one more move by those on the left who are working against American principles and attempting to destroy the very basis of our society. We must all work to stop it, especially in its most subtle forms.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Bob Zeidman
Bob Zeidman is the creator of the field of software forensics and the founder of several successful high-tech Silicon Valley firms including Zeidman Consulting and Software Analysis and Forensic Engineering. His latest venture is Good Beat Poker, a new way to play and watch poker online. He is the author of textbooks on engineering and intellectual property as well as screenplays and novels. His latest novel is the political satire “Animal Lab,” a modern sequel to George Orwell’s classic “Animal Farm.”
Please follow and like us:

43 thoughts on “Bob Zeidman, A Quiet Attack on American Principles Is Going Unnoticed”

  1. Tucker at his absolute best. There is not a word with which to disagree. Listen to the end about where Biden’s admin is focusing (transgenderism and diversity). If you don’t know by now this is a concerted effort to bring down The US, your head is in a very dark place. There is not an iota of doubt any longer. And you know what….they are succeeding.
    ….and to be truthful, it;s your fault and mine. 19 minutes

    Just a local update on “shortages” in my area. I went to Lowes a couple of days ago to pick up some electrical boxes. There was not ONE on the shelves. Know where I found them? ….at Walmart. Now, speaking of Walmart, milk has gone from 1.99 a gallon to over 4 dollars. The meat section was totally empty…TOTALLY. I heard the workers talking about the refrigeration being down. yeah, right….the refrigeration. Give me a break!! Gas is up to 3.40/gallon and propane at about 3.79/gallon. I used to fill up a ten gallon tank of propane for about 20 bucks…now it’s close to 40…

    Thanks, Joe….you demented commie bastard. I should also mention some of his perverted sons paintings are selling for more than signed Picassos. How about putting copies of the videos of that perverted pos on the market. Let’s see what they would go for


    1. Jim, the following is being blocked. Can you post it, please?…Will

      The hypocrisy of this school board extends to another dimension. A gentleman starts to read a passage from Gender Queer….a book available to the children in the library and maybe in classrooms for all we know…..and the sheriff is called to remove him. I see only one answer to all of this, fire every damn school board member nation-wide where this crap is accepted and replace them with HUMAN BEINGS!

      Looks like what I suggested is underway to some degree (at least the NSBA is on its way out in Ohio and Missouri!))

  2. I hope all here have watched Susan Lindauer on Jim’s BitChute. She’s presently on Rev Radio live which will also be on BitChute today or tomorrow. Do not miss the following vid and then follow up with more details from Rev Radio when it’s up. The criminality and theft she’s exposing is remarkable. Terry McAuliffe should be in prison and he’s running for governor?…how is that possible. AND, she offers verification on todays show.

    1. So, here’s Lindauer on “The Event …more detail than in the video. it’s truly incredible to hear.
      Leo Wanta, a former Reagan Treasury Official was a point of contention between Jim and Lindauer. I must say, I don’t know much about him, but following the Event link is a link to a Rense report that explains Leo Wanta as the 27.5 trillion dollar man. Jim…see what you think along with anyone else here.

    2. Jim…I have to say that after listening to the entire Event (I had missed some when it was live) that your stance re Wanta is correct. This is not to negate the remainder of Lindauer’s claim re money she may be owed. BUT, her stating Wanta was not entitled to money he is owed under contract is absolutely incorrect. It’s a bit odd she thinks she’s entitled to a “finders fee” and Wanta is not entitled to money owed him under contract. Apparently he was an integral part contractually of bringing down the USSR. Also, according to the report he does know where the money is and it seems was imprisoned for a time to get that info from him.
      This is highly intriguing and I would advise all to watch those videos and read that Rense report. it’s all incredibly mind blowing and enlightening to say the least.

  3. Very disappointing…I used to respect Chomsky. David Barsamian, with whom I grew up with and played ball with on the Great Lawn in central Park, NYC, did endless interviews with the Gnome.

    CHOMSKY! Famous Leftist Calls For Unvaccinated To Be Isolated And Deprived Of Food, Civil War Talk Escalates

    Go to 6:45…..where the Gnome speaks. He actually compares following traffic laws to the vax. Screw you, Gnome…
    Zionist prick!

  4. FINALLY, some justice in regard to this obscene transgender bullshit being pushed on OUR CHILDREN! Of course, you will not find this on the Zionist run MSM in this country. I pray the parents sue the piss out of the school board. Maybe that will stop this madness!

    Loudoun County judge finds boy ‘in a skirt’ GUILTY of sexually assaulting female student in girls’ bathroom: Victim’s vindicated parents demand apology from NSBA for labeling them ‘domestic terrorists’ for trying to protect their daughter

  5. I comment only on Zeidman’s discussion of George Floyd’s murder & Derek Chavin’s trial and conviction.

    Zeidman’s observations and arguments reflect wrong law, wrong forensics, wrong medical/pathology/pharmaceutical considerations, and wrong facts and disregard the abundant evidence and pertinent correct law that indicate Chauvin (and one or two other police) murdered Floyd.

    The case is illumined thoroughly in a two-part article published by Dr. Leonard R. Jaffee, professor of law emeritus and physician.

      1. The necessary considerations are many and complex — each irreducible. Every detail matters, like your last breath. A comic book version would mislead, vitally.

        Practice attention-span-development calisthenics. And renounce text-messaging.

      2. Further, Cap….I’m a bit surprised that Jim did not jump on this, although I understand his time restraints would be a valid reason, which is why I asked you for a summary that would ease Jim’s burden. But I got what expected and am fine with that. I have no dog in this race as I have no way of determining whether or not this was real or a staged event, so I have depended upon Jim’s analysis which I find quite valid. I am not inclined to spend several hours examining those links. BUT, I did find this statement which for me reveals the ingenuousness of the writer:

        ((….. My access is little greater than that of an average non-lawyer, and far lesser than a that enjoyed by seasoned journalist employed by a newspaper, news service (like Reuters), or TV network or cable news entity.))

        So, either the writer is ridiculously naive, ignorant or just making some excuse, as anyone who believes todays MSM “journalists” actually do any investigation beyond the narrative they are handed is existing in another reality.

        I’ll leave it at that for now.

      3. This responds to your reply-comment of October 26, 2021 at 1:06 pm, which begins “Further, Cap….I’m a bit surprised that Jim did not jump on this….”

        In that reply-comment, you quote a snippet of one introductory subsection of Part One of Dr. Jaffee’s article. The quoted language is: “My access is little greater than that of an average non-lawyer, and far lesser than a that enjoyed by seasoned journalist employed by a newspaper, news service (like Reuters), or TV network or cable news entity.”

        You argue: “So, either the writer is ridiculously naive, ignorant or just making some excuse, as anyone who believes todays MSM “journalists” actually do any investigation beyond the narrative they are handed is existing in another reality.”

        Your argumentation is the worst, most condemnable form of sophistry — and, ironically, also incompetent.

        You do not account the quoted language’s context — its immediate context, and it whole context, which is the whole article. The immediate context and the article’s publication date indicate the Jaffee was not commenting on the trial’s result, but PARTLY, yet just secondarily, on what MIGHT occur during the trial — what the prosecution or defense might do and why. In subsection C of his article’s § 1. (the article’s “FORENOTE,” which precedes the article’s “PREFACE”), Jaffee wrote:

        “…I am forced to discuss what the prosecution or defense might do or have done or what a witness (expert or nonexpert) might say or have said. Given what I have been able to learn of the lawyering of the prosecution, I perceive that a necessarily frequent, oft-critical consideration is what the prosecution might, or ought to, have done.”

        Jaffee was observing that he lacked power needed to squeeze from prosecutors, defense attorneys, medical examiners, trial witnesses, etc., concealed (not published or otherwise publically exposed) information that a single retired law-professor/physician could not extract.

        In THAT respect — an object just very secondary to his article’s main object — Jaffee wrote “My access is…far lesser than a that enjoyed by seasoned journalist employed by a newspaper, news service (like Reuters), or TV network or cable news entity.” That statement reflected NOT what some CNN or CBS or Reuters journalist might actually do, but the investigative POWER that CBS, NY Times (or Breitbart), and Reuters have.

        Jaffee was not part of either the prosecution team or the defense team. So, though an eminent lawyer, Jaffee could not know what the defense and the prosecution kept secret — perhaps secret even from the most powerful and rigorously intrusive journalists of news services (like Reuters), newspapers, and major broadcast news sources. No legitimate criticism obtains from the fact that Jaffee confessed his suffering such investigation-power limitation.

        But, as Jaffee’s article makes clear, that object (considering what the prosecution or the defense or a witness might or ought to have said or done) was just VERY secondary. Clearly, Jaffee’s article’s main object was a thorough, incontrovertible showing that Floyd would not have died when he did if the cops had not applied their unlawful (felony assault) compression restraints to Floyd’s neck and dorsal thorax and that, therefore, according to law, two or three cops murdered Floyd. For that object, Jaffee’s information was far better than sufficient.

        As his cited references and discussions make clear, Jaffee DID have access to the trial proceedings and all trial testimony, the Medical Examiner’s Report, the Medical Examiner’s Press Release, the Toxicology Report, the Assistant County Attorneys notes of their interview of the Medical Examiner, the pertinent professional medical, pathology, forensic, pharmaceutical, pharmacology literature, all the legal literature, and many press reports of the positions of the defense and the prosecution. And that information-trove sufficed for the purpose of Jaffee’s article.

        Much more important: Jaffee’s whole article is an impeccable legal-and-scientific-evidence-based demonstration that the cops murdered Floyd. And your silly sophistic quip does not address, surely does not begin to criticize, even a subatomic particle of Jaffee’s masterful demonstration.

        I grant you this: Your sophistry baited me successfully to spend precious work-time on re-reading Jaffee’s article so that I could expose your sophistry’s fallacies. I shall not, however, respond again. Clearly, you are not capable of rendering valid criticism; and, being impeccable, Jaffee’s article is not susceptible to legitimate rebuttal.

      4. ((I grant you this: Your sophistry baited me successfully to spend precious work-time on re-reading Jaffee’s article so that I could expose your sophistry’s fallacies. I shall not, however, respond again. Clearly, you are not capable of rendering valid criticism; and, being impeccable, Jaffee’s article is not susceptible to legitimate rebuttal.))

        Hey, Cap…Got your attention, did I not? Name calling has always been a good sign of with whom I am dealing. As far as “Jaffee’s article is not susceptible to legitimate rebuttal.” Absolute nonsense. Any discussion, as valid as it may seem, is ALWAYS susceptible to rebuttal.

        Incidentally, “sophistry’s fallacies” is quite redundant, would you not admit? “Fallacious fallacies”….?…c’mon, man…you can do better.

      5. I had expected never to respond to you again. But your new errors beg illumination — irresistibly.

        You wrote: “Name calling has always been a good sign of with whom I am dealing.” I did not “call you a name.”

        You wrote: “Any discussion, as valid as it may seem, is ALWAYS susceptible to rebuttal.”

        But I wrote “LEGITIMATE rebuttal.” [Emphasis added here.] So, your riposte is irrelevant. Also, it is wrong.

        The ordinary math/logic proposition 1=1 is not susceptible to legitimate rebuttal. But an imbecile or lunatic might “rebut” that proposition. A ring theory or quaternion “rebuttal” would be irrelevant — and, being misplaced or misapplied, incorrect (logically/math-philosophically false).

        You wrote: “…sophistry’s fallacies” is quite redundant….” Your assertion is both redundant and false.

        (a) A particular phrase is redundant or it is not, just as language is clear or it is not or a proposition is relevant or it is not. Such terms (relevant, clear, redundant) address dichotomies, like pregnant/not-pregnant.

        Perhaps a complex/compound proposition can bear two or more redundancies. But of such proposition’s several redundancies, none can be “more redundant”: each is simply AND utterly redundant (if it is redundant), just by being redundant— so that “quite” is a superfluous, hence redundant, adjective. Therefore, your phrase “quite redundant” is redundant.

        See the matter an alternative way: My two-word phrase “sophistry’s fallacies” is either redundant or it is not. If it were redundant, it would not be more than redundant or less than redundant — hence, could not be “quite redundant,” as if somehow it might have been less than fully redundant despite it is a two-word phrase of just a single one-word noun modified by a single one-word adjective.

        (b) Sophistry” is not “fallacy,” and — as, in ordinary logic, (A= B) = (B = A) — “fallacy” is not “sophistry. So, “sophistry’s fallacies” is not redundant. (Nor does the phrase “sophistry’s fallacies” mis-order the relation of “sophistry” and “fallacy.”)

        Sophistry is argumentation that seems true and sound but is both false and INTENTIONALLY deceptive.

        A fallacy is a logically false proposition (or, according to some somewhat sloppy sources, can be, alternatively, a logically true proposition that bears a factually false premise).

        Sophistic arguments may, near-always do, bear at least one fallacy, often several fallacies. The fallacies, themselves are merely false, not deceptions or frauds. The sophistry, however, IS (must be) either deceptive or a fraud.

        Fallacy: see, e.g., this
        and this

        Sophistry: See this
        and this
        and this

        I am aware that some sloppy “drift-diction/drift-grammar adopting “dictionaries” conflate part of the meaning of “sophistry” with part of the meaning of “fallacy.” But “sophistry” and “fallacy” are terms of logic and the philosophy of logic. Their correct meanings are those of their proper usage, the usage of logic and the philosophy of logic.

        Now, can you imagine what “name” I would “call” you if I wished to “call you” a “name”?

      6. Not to enter this fray, but this claim misses the mark: “Sophistic arguments may, near-always do, bear at least one fallacy, often several fallacies. The fallacies, themselves are merely false, not deceptions or frauds. The sophistry, however, IS (must be) either deceptive or a fraud.” Fallacies are not false: they are invalid or improper modes of argument that cite as premises claims that are not evidence for the conclusions in support of which they are advanced. Not being assertions per se, they cannot be qualified as true or as false. They are mistakes in reasoning, if the objective is to advance proof for a conclusion, where frequently they are intended to deceive and mislead. So that claim is incorrect.

      7. Jim…Thanks for that clarification. BUT, I initially expected you to enter the “fray”., since Jaffee’s two part paper claims Derek was guilty and Floyd died as a result of his and the other officers carelessness which, of course, goes against your premise that the man put on the stretcher was actually a torso/dummy and it was all staged. But, that’s your decision. I contend this poster is a shill and I cannot waste any more time with it…, I do not blame you at all.

      8. Will, thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I have my hands full and approve comments without contemplating responding to them. Thanks for the heads up! You are welcome to invite my attention to issues you think I might want to consider addressing in detail. His posts are notably long-winded and pedantic. Interesting. Of course, I think those videos were highly contrived and that “George Floyd” did not die from asphyxiation (where a training torso was used) but from a massive drug overdose. And he does not appear to be on the stretcher, as you observe. It’s a peculiar case where, when they approach him in the car, he’s on the verge of tears in a very childlike display. So I think there was a “bait and switch” (assuming there was a body, which is also open for debate, although Michael Baden, M.D., reported on the autopsy he conducted on behalf of the family. I have my analysis from False Flags and Conspiracies 2020 archived here:

      9. This replies to James Fetzer’s reply-comment of October 26, 2021 at 11:34 pm

        Dr. Fetzer, you began your comment with this assertion: “Not to enter this fray, but this claim misses the mark.” Alas, your introductory sentence begins with a dangling infinitive phrase: “Not to enter this fray.” So, your entry does not lend credit to your argument.

        Your argument asserts that my last-previous comment (October 26, 2021 at 8:27 pm) mis-described the term (concept) “fallacy.” Your assertion is false.

        In my comment of October 26, 2021 at 8:27 pm, I described “fallacy” and “sophistry” — and distinguished the two — thus:

        “Sophistry is argumentation that seems true and sound but is both false and INTENTIONALLY deceptive.

        A fallacy is a logically false proposition (or, according to some somewhat sloppy sources, can be, alternatively, a logically true proposition that bears a factually false premise).

        Sophistic arguments may, near-always do, bear at least one fallacy, often several fallacies. The fallacies, themselves are merely false, not deceptions or frauds. The sophistry, however, IS (must be) either deceptive or a fraud.

        You argued that my descriptions/distinctions are wrong; and you described “fallacy” thus: “Fallacies are not false: they are invalid or improper modes of argument that cite as premises claims that are not evidence for the conclusions in support of which they are advanced. Not being assertions per se, they cannot be qualified as true or as false. They are mistakes in reasoning, if the objective is to advance proof for a conclusion, where frequently they are intended to deceive and mislead.”

        Your “fallacy” description is false.

        In my last-previous comment. I cited two respected sources of “fallacy” description and three sources of “sophistry” description. Those sources accord with my descriptions of “fallacy” and “sophistry” and disagree critically with your “fallacy” description. You did not refute those sources’ descriptions.
        FALLACY: see, e.g., this
        and this
        SOPHISTRY: See this
        and this
        and this
        [See also other sources I cite below in this reply-comment — other respected sources that accord with my descriptions and show your argument false.]

        Before I comment on the substantive error of your argument, I must observe that, like your introductory assertion, your argument discredits itself with significant grammar-and-syntax error. Also, your argument suffers significant diction-error.

        Grammar-and-syntax errors occur in this language: “ Not being assertions per se, they cannot be qualified as true or as false. They are mistakes in reasoning, if the objective is to advance proof for a conclusion, where frequently they are intended to deceive and mislead.”

        In the first sentence’s independent clause “ they cannot be qualified as true or as false,” the term “as” is a superfluous adverb. In term “qualified” asks “how,” or “what,” and the answer is “true or false.” The term “as” is ungrammatical also for another, separate reason. The verb “qualified” is transitive in your sentence. Your term “as” treats the verb as if it were intransitive.

        In the second sentence, the conditional clause “if the objective is to advance proof for a conclusion” lacks ascertainable referent. One cannot discern whether that clause’s referent is the initial independent clause “They are mistakes in reasoning” or the closing dependent clause “where frequently they are intended to deceive and mislead.” So, the sentence resists criticism or refutation — virtually as if it were word-salad.

        Also, “mistakes in reasoning” is ungrammatical, because an adverb (“in reasoning”) cannot modify a noun (“mistakes”). The correct language would be “mistakes OF reasoning.” And “proof for a conclusion” is ungrammatical for the same reason. The correct language would be “proof OF a conclusion.”

        The diction errors are the usage “cite as,” the usage “qualified,” and the usage “per se.”

        In the usage “cite as,” the term “cite” is wrong. A correct term ought would be, e.g., “assert,” “put,” advance,” “adduce,” or “use.” A logic does not cite premises; it asserts, puts, advances, adduces, or uses premises.

        The term “qualified” implies that “fallacies” would be limited or modified either by being “true or false” or by being deemed “true or false.” But the matter is not whether or how fallacies may be limited or modified. The matter is what fallacies ARE.

        The usage “per se” is multiply troublous. (1) “Per se” means “by itself [or, in English (not Latin), “by themselves”) or “intrinsically” or “in and of itself” [or, in English (not Latin), “in and of themselves”]. Your “Not being assertions per se” references the term “fallacies” (the “things” that are “Not being”).

        So, your sentence asserts that “fallacies” are not “by themselves,” “in and of themselves,” or “intrinsically” “true or false.” But if they are not “by themselves, ”“in and of themselves,” or “intrinsically” “true or false,” may they be “true or false” because of some agent (even a premise) that acts upon them? Your language allows so — does not exclude such possibility; and that ambiguity is indicts your argument — its LOGIC.

        Also, your assertion is false: (a) All fallacies are assertions — illogical assertions. (b) Not only assertions can be true or false; a question may assume a false premise and, thus, be partly-false; and a part-false utterance cannot be a true utterance. (c) All “fallacies” are logical falsehoods [see above-linked sources and below-linked sources] — falsehoods either “in and of” themselves or because of the effect of an agent(s) that act(s) upon some aspect of them.

        But this much is clear: Your assertion insists (1) that “fallacies” are not false, but invalid or improper modes of argument, (2) that “fallacies” (apparently, per your argument, all fallacies) “cite as premises claims that are not evidence for the conclusions in support of which they (claims?) are advanced,” and (3) that “fallacies” are “mistakes in [sic] reasoning.” Also [here your argument is ambiguous (see above)], your argument MAY assert also that either (a) all fallacies or (b) some fallacies “are intended to deceive or mislead.”

        In this language “[fallacies] are mistakes in reasoning, if the objective is to advance proof for a conclusion, where frequently they are intended to deceive and mislead,” your assertion suffers internal inconsistency — an instance of illogic. If fallacies are “MISTAKES in [sic] reasoning,” then the cannot be “INTENDED to deceive or mislead,” because a “mistake” cannot be an intentional act.

        And such is so even if the “mistaken” reasoning occurs as — or in — a fallacy uttered “to advance proof for [sic] a conclusion.” If a “mistake” is uttered “to advance proof for [sic] a conclusion,” the mistake is doubled by its being advanced as “proof for [sic] a conclusion,” because a mistake cannot prove anything except its occurrence or the negligence of the mistake’s maker.

        Fallacies are not “invalid or improper modes of argument.” But an invalid or improper argument-mode will produce a fallacy: a fallacy is a RESULT of invalid or improper argument-mode.

        If a “logic” bears fallacious form, involves a false premise, or produces a false conclusion AND that logic is intended to deceive or mislead, is it not a “fallacy,” but a sophistry. Such logic might be a fallacy if it merely occurred and was not used to deceive or mislead; but if it is used to deceive or mislead, it is a sophistry that bears or consists of a fallacy (or fallacies). See again the sources I linked above.

        Your assertion (or fallacy-description) is correct only in one aspect: a fallacy’s may be such (may be an invalid reasoning) because its premises include “evidence” that cannot support the conclusion(s) for which the evidence “is advanced.” But that correct idea is correct because it equals this proposition: a “fallacy” can be reasoning set on false premise(s).

        Logic can be FALSE — as can extralogical “reasoning.” A fallacy is a falsehood: false logic, false reasoning process, false premise(s), or false conclusion.

        Logic involves logical truth (as in truth-logic), hence accounts, even operates with or on, logical falsehood or propositions treated as false (or true).
        Simple Examples:
        Logic-type (a): If P is false and Q is true, P can imply Q. But if P is true and Q is false, then P cannot imply Q.
        Logic-type (b): If not-Dog, Cat can be true, since anything but Dog can be true. But if Dog, then not-Cat is false, since a Dog’s existence does not preclude existence of a Cat.

        Fallacies ARE assertions — assertions that certain premises imply conclusions despite the premises are false or the conclusions not implied by the premises. Implications or inferences are true or false. Implications or inferences are fallacies if they are false. A false implication or inference is a falsehood —a logical falsehood.
        See, e.g.,
        and this
        and this
        Those sources address (a) Boolean algebra [Boolean logic] Truth Tables, (b) logic and Truth Tables, and (c) logical truth (and logical falsehood). But those logic-fields are not the only fields in which “truths” or “falsehoods” are functions, operators, or subjects/objects of functions or operations.

        In the logician’s world, truths are of two kinds and falsehoods are of two kinds: empirical or logical. [In this context, “empirical” “evidence” or “empirical” “fact” means “real-world” “evidence” or “real world” “fact,” whether the “evidence” or “fact” is case-specific or particular or non-case-specific or general.]

        Simple Example (two syllogisms, one true, the other false):


        All Martians have green hair.
        I am a Martian.
        Therefore, I have green hair.


        All Martians have green hair.
        I have green hair.
        Therefore, I am a Martian.

        No available “real world” evidence can suggest that “Martians” exist (or even that “Martians” existed ever), and all available “real-world” evidence indicates that Martians do not exist (now). So, per all available evidence, the major premise “All Martians have green hair” is an empirical falsehood. But the major premise is not a logical falsehood; it is an assertion treated as true or an assertion the truth or falsehood of which is logically irrelevant. In both syllogisms, the minor premise, too, is treated as true, or its truth or falsehood is irrelevant.

        In both syllogisms, the only matter is whether the minor premise and major premise relate so that the relation supports the conclusion — renders the conclusion “true.” In the “false” syllogism, the conclusion is false, because the major/minor premise relation cannot support the conclusion.

        [In non-Aristotelean logic (in which the “middle” is not excluded), the second (“false”) syllogism would be transmuted to truth if the conclusion were alter to: “Therefore, I may be a Martian.”]

      10. I am not going to belabor this. Statements (sentences, assertions) are either true or false. Arguments consist of statement premises and statement conclusions, where the premises are (normally) intended to provide grounds, reasons or evidence for the conclusion. Arguments are either deductive (where their conclusions cannot be false if their premises are true) or inductive (where their conclusions can be false even when their premises are true, but where the premises provide good reasons for the conclusion).

        Fallacies are arguments that are not well-founded either deductively or inductively. Since they are not statements (sentences, assertions), they are not either true or false (although, of course, to declare an argument “fallacious” will be either true or false). Fallacies can be formal or informal, where informal fallacies include begging the question, special pleading, ad hominems and fallacies of ambiguity. Insofar as you do not understand the difference between statements and arguments, you length disquisition has no point or purpose.

        Formally, arguments that are supposed to be conclusive (deductive) are invalid when they are not and unsound when, even though they are conclusive (such that, if their premises were true, their conclusions could not be false) but have false premises, unsound. Inductive arguments are formally fallacious or improper when their premises to not make their conclusions probable (likely or otherwise credible) and, when they are proper but with false premises, incorrect.

        You would benefit from a course in logic or critical thinking. Syllogisms, by the way, are only one highly restricted class of argument forms. Modern sentential and (more advanced) predicate logic are its contemporary successors, where more advanced calculi embrace subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals, on which I have done a fair amount of publication. Please don’t extend this discussion further, because I don’t have time for tutorials. But keep on truckin’!

      11. This comment replies to James Fetzer’s comment of October 27, 2021 at 5:40 pm.

        Dr. Fetzer:

        This will not include another demonstration. But because of your ad hominem attack, I shall reply briefly. I hope you have honor enough to publish this comment.

        Your new comment’s assertions are mostly false. Some, however, accord with my propositions respecting the nature of “fallacy.” To an unfortunate extent, your new comment is gibberish.

        Your new comment does not impeach my comments — both because it bears zero demonstration that any of my assertions or demonstrations are flawed and because your comment does not bear a scholarly demonstration of ANYTHING.

        So, being much busied in my professional work, I shall not spend more time on DEMONSTRATING the errors (many errors) of your new comment. My previous pertinent comments suffice.

        Addressing me personally, you wrote: “You would benefit from a course in logic or critical thinking. *** Please don’t extend this discussion further, because I don’t have time for tutorials. But keep on truckin’!”

        I have two PhD degrees, both earned in fields that involve necessity of mastery of math, formal logic (including mathematical logic), and statistics. I am published in all those fields. I taught in those fields for more than two decades. I was awarded a tenured professorship 4 years after I joined the faculty, and awarded a full professorship 2 years later.

        For some years, I was a member of two departments of a top 20 University — Washington University at St. Louis. Of the two Washington University (St. Louis) departments, one is ranked 16th of all such schools, and the other is ranked 11th of all such schools.

        I note that you were denied tenure at the University of Kentucky and did not obtain tenure until 10 or 11 years later, at University of Minnesota Duluth. I have not learned the identity of the U. Minn. Duluth department in which he held tenure. But I do know that U. Minn. Duluth/s ranking is #291 (“Best Schools Ranking”) and #41 of Regional Midwest Universities (US News) and #125 of 691 (Niche ranking of “Top Public Universities in America”).

        Still, you have not impeached my comments to which you have replied or refuted the sources I have linked.

      12. This is silly. My CV is available at I have 40 published books, 24+ on the theoretical foundations of computer science, AI, cognitive science and the evolution of mentality. Another 12+ in conspiracy research, 4 on JFK, 2 on 9/11 and many others on Wellstone, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing and more. Nothing I said there was false and I have no idea why you are hanging around. Tedious, pedantic, and boring. Get a life! Others here have observed you have nothing to contribute, which you now confirm by your own posts. You are infatuated with yourself. We get it! Thanks for stopping by but no need to hang around. We deal with real events.

  6. Get a gander at this: Jim Stone

    Happy to say I heat with wood…..and could cook on my wood stove if necessary.



  7. Is it not amazing that we need the leader of Russia to express what most of us feel and are afraid to say.
    Putin knows who’s behind it. And you can bet all the members of our CONgress AND every politician also knows. Why have not one of them expressed it the way Putin does in the following video off Jim’s channel.
    I’ll tell you why….every damn effing one of them (and that includes our supposed heroes, Trump and Rand Paul…and likely, DeSantis) are all cowards and beholden to the Zionists. A mother is a mother and a woman. A father is a father and a man. A boy is a male and a girl is a female. Any other label is a perversion of nature. Period and the end of anything otherwise that is meant to divide us like cattle and swine to the slaughter. The only true racism in America is in the minds of those behind this circus of insanity. It’s all small hat bullshit meant to destroy family and cultural values and bring this country to its knees.
    And it’s succeeding.
    6 minutes…..

  8. Watch this and read it, making sure you have a barf bag near-by. Please tell me this is a bad joke.

    First, Democrats pushed HR1/S1 to nationalize elections.

    The bill would ensure Democrats win all elections in perpetuity. HR1 goes under the guise of protecting our elections, for the people.

    The communistic bill includes:

    Internet-only registration with electronic signature submission. In other words, no voter ID.
    Nationwide ‘Motor Voter’ registration. If you get a driver’s license, you are automatically registered to vote.
    16-year-olds required to be registered to vote. Children voting is a big plus for Democrats.
    Nationwide same-day registration.
    Grants ($25M) for using minors in election activities. [brainwashing]
    Prohibiting attempts to clean voter rolls of non-residents.
    Murderers and rapists can vote.
    Mandatory early voting.
    Banning voter ID
    Roadwork for DC statehood and territory statehood.
    It gives federal workers [union people, mostly Democrats] SIX DAYS of paid vacation to work the polls.
    The bill provides stiff penalties for anyone who ‘harasses’ poll workers and government administrators. Questioning election results can be prosecuted under a broad definition of what constitutes harassment.

  9. Ventura County Nurses Blow the Whistle on Crisis in Local Health Care
    by Joel Kilpatrick
    The Conejo Guardian


    Ventura County nurses from differ­ent sectors and specialties are coming forward to blow the whistle on what they deem serious lapses in local health care practices, mostly related to COVID-re­lated protocols, “vaccine” mandates and politically and financially motivated bul­lying of medical staff, which these health care workers say is seriously compromis­ing the general quality of local care.

    The Guardian spoke with multiple nurses of various ages and at different stages in their careers, all of whom work in medical care settings or hospitals in Ven­tura County. Each preferred to speak un­der a pseudonym for now. Each described seriously declining standards of care, atmospheres of intimidation and fear in hospitals, and distrust and disillusionment among medical professionals.

    “Before COVID, nurses, staff and the community were confident in treatment modalities and in doctors’ competencies,” says one nurse. But now, “People are con­fused.”

    “They’re very confused,” agrees a veter­an Ventura County nurse. “I think doctors are confused. … I don’t think the commu­nity’s confident. I’m not. … Because where’s the truth?”

    Most shocking, perhaps, is how doctors and administrators refuse to report the rising number of unexplained medical problems in otherwise healthy people as potential adverse reactions to COVID-19 experimental vaccine shots.

    To suggest that these shots are the cause of any medical problem — or that they are contributing to the alarming rise in non-COVID-related hospital populations — invites professional ridicule.

    “Nobody is considering that [these medical problems] could be vaccine-re­lated,” says an ICU nurse in a county hospital.

    “It’s not even in question. You might as well say you want to start treating people with crystals and burning sage. If you say it’s the vaccine, they look at you and say, ‘It’s the safest thing ever produced. Why would you say that?’”

    Yet, doctors are at a loss to explain the increase in non-COVID-related ailments, including a reported increase in heart at­tacks in young people, mainly men, who received the COVID-19 vaccines.

    Doctors “just chalk it up to genes,” one nurse says.

    ‘Bury the Bodies in the Parking Lot’
    When nurse Daniel first heard of the novel coronavirus spreading in China in December 2019, he immediately bought N95 masks for his family. His superiors told him to prepare for a “worst-case sce­nario.”

    “I made a video to each of my kids and my wife, just in case,” he says.

    “[Our hospital was] saying, ‘Every floor will have ventilators. There’s not enough PPE. Nurses and doctors are dying in Italy. Somebody’s go­ing to have to bury the bodies in the parking lot because that’s how many people are going to die.’

    That’s the picture they painted, all these people you respect and have gone to school a lot longer than I have and have accolades by their names.”

    Daniel sent his wife and kids to live elsewhere for a month and a half while he prepared to handle the rush of dead and dying. What happened next, he says, was that “nobody came.”

    “I was getting called off a shift almost every other week because there was such a low patient population in the hospital,” he says.

    “Not only did ventilators not happen, but we had only six COVID patients in our ICU. The hospital had canceled all these elective surgeries, and we were not getting even a tenth of the ventilated patients they said it would be. Not even close.”

    Initial predictions were so off that “it was like they carried the zero several times. That’s the magnitude.”

    But by spring 2021, “an interesting thing” happened, he says. In the wake of widespread vaccinations, the number of non-COVID patients “really started pick­ing up.”

    “Pneumonia cases, stroke cases,” he says. “We’ve had more strokes than normal. Women in particular with venous sinus embolisms.

    We’re seeing a lot of autoimmune issues: rashes on the body, the body attacking the nervous system, producing symptoms like a weakening of the muscles.”

    One patient came in with severe respi­ratory distress and went into respiratory failure, with symptoms first showing three weeks after he took the Pfizer shot.

    “His lungs were completely destroyed, totally wrecked,” says Daniel. “He had ground-glass opacity on the CAT scan, which is a hallmark of COVID.”

    The patient’s doctors insisted it was an exceedingly rare condition, though the man had never suffered respiratory distress before. When the man’s wife brought up the possibility of vaccine-related damage, the doctor simply said, “No.”

    “It was a non-starter to the discussion,” Daniel says. “He did not want to talk to her about it. It was just crazy talk [to him].”

    One fit, healthy nurse in her twenties whom Daniel knows went into cardiac arrest three weeks after she received the Pfizer shot. An aortic dissection ruptured a portion of her aorta like a balloon.

    She was resuscitated, underwent open-heart surgery and made a full recovery. But she could not abide the suggestion that the COVID vaccine shots had caused it.

    “She said, ‘It’s not possible. It’s not the vaccine,’” Daniel says of the woman.

    “She’s petite and doesn’t have any condition that would lead to this. … Sometimes you can’t accept information because it’s affecting you on a deeply emotional level. People don’t want to admit they were wrong — they were fooled. Some have staked their lives on this decision, and nothing’s going to change that.”

    Adverse reactions among those who took one of the vaccines continue, he says, but go virtually unreported.

    “If you look at our hospital’s reporting on adverse reactions, this vaccine would have no adverse reactions,” he says.

    No VAERS Reporting
    Angela, a nurse for more than 25 years, confirms that in her hospital’s emergency room, they say they are seeing more heart problems in young adults, which are never reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Re­porting System (VAERS) as potential ad­verse reactions to COVID “vaccinations.”

    Another nurse, Jennifer, says ER nurs­es privately say they are seeing:

    “all the clot­ting, bleeding and things you would expect from the vaccine six months later — brain bleeds, heart attacks in younger 50-year-olds. No doctor will admit this is from the vaccine. They won’t make the VAERS re­port.”

    When Daniel asked fellow nurses and practitioners if they report to VAERS, they looked at him like, “What’s that?”

    “I’ve seen people in their thirties [with these problems], and the doctor’s just like, ‘Oh, you have s—y genes,’” he says. “I’m like, are you kidding me?”

    All nurses interviewed say they are seeing “ground-glass opacity” results in the CT scans of people’s lungs who recently took the experimental vaccines — and that this is never reported to VAERS.

    “Doctors and intensivists [treat it like] a ludicrous thought,” says one ICU nurse. “Nobody is putting it on their differential diagnosis.”

    ‘Voodoo Statistics’
    For that and other reasons, COVID-re­lated data amounts to what one nurse calls “voodoo statistics.” In her particular unit and others, they are no longer testing ev­erybody for COVID. Rather, they began testing only those who are symptomatic — with shortness of breath, for example — and those who say they are unvaccinated.


    “They don’t want their numbers to skyrocket when all the vaccinated people come in,” says Jennifer.

    “Or they don’t want to report that they’re seeing 80 percent of the people in the ER are vaccinated, but only 40 percent of the county is vaccinated,” adds another nurse.

    “That’s an odd statistic. … Is there an adverse effect occurring from these shots that’s not being reported? If they’re not screening people ubiquitously, there’s a slant to whatever numbers are coming in. That stuff is not going to be elucidated in the data.”

    But with “vaccinated” people increasingly hospitalized with actual COVID or adverse reactions, the way forward becomes murkier.

    “These vaccines are non-sterilizing. They allow you to carry and transmit the virus,” points out one nurse. “It does not solve the contagion issue. The virus is still spreading among the vaccinated.”

    For example, in a recent group of COVID patients at one hospital, the sickest ones were double-vaccinated.

    “The first to die had both Pfizer shots,” says Daniel, who took care of the patient. “Another guy who had both shots died as well. His lungs were destroyed.”

    “But they’re not talking about that,” confirms another nurse.

  10. Most of this crew likely knows of Del Bigtree’s work. There is good news my friends and Del brings it from a 29 year Southwest Airlines Pilot who is ready to walk away from 350k job at the pinnacle of his earnings potential. Southwest is not going along with El-Presidente Sleepy Creepy. Neither is Delta and United might be standing all by itself. Please watch and comment. Thank you.

  11. I examined The George Floyd “murder by Cop” story from top to bottom. This was after being suckered by the first viewing of the “bystander” video. I was as outraged as anybody. Then you start deconstructing the story and realize this event was engineered for maximum outrage. And the various photos presented of Chavin appear to be of different people. Then you see the video from across the street which is opposite the close up camera. Where’s the bystander? He conveniently disappears from view. There’s only one conclusion you can draw. It’s not an organic spontaneous event. The video was shot just like the movies… the opposite view camera man is always moved out of the shot. He only moved because a movie is being produced.

    After I knew George Floyd’s murder by cop was a made for television movie, I started watching his GO FUND ME memorial account take off like a rocket. Several million BAM! Then it was 10 Million BAM! I think it got all the way to 17 million before it was closed. I started looking up the top donors. A demonic hoodie company shelled out $50,000 I think it was twice. Demonic Baphomets and inverted pentagrams are their bread and butter. This is the new way to bribe people without much of a trace. I think GO FUND ME should be investigated for their role in facilitating this “in your face” bribery to George Floyd’s brother. They have 17 million reasons to go along with the scam.

    1. Right there with ya Dave. This was a false flag from the beginning and a distraction to the failing scamdemic narrative of 2020. What made it more ridiculous was the neighbor of Chauvin saying that he assumed he worked as a insurance agent. Lol.. I never knew a beat cop not to bring home his squad car.
      There was a good amount of black folks in Minnesota that was calling out this rubbish.
      Here is a video I posted of a fella I follow and his analysis.

  12. After a two day break, the following is what I found worth posting that is not repetitious or unoriginal.

    I do not know who this gentleman is, but he makes his point poetically and clearly in less than 3 minutes:

    The following is from Susan Lindauer. Fetz regularly puts up her videos in which he, Susan and others exchange recent information. This is quite different and frankly, scary as hell. From the best I can figure, CIA agents (of which Susan was/is one) receive a finders fee for uncovering funds that have been mis-appropriated. In this video, she speaks of massive amounts (particularly, those funds missing from the Pentagon pre 9/11) that she and her co-agents recovered and for which they failed to receive those fees. Some of those fees were somehow repeatedly stolen by the Dem candidate for governor of Va….MR. Terry McAuliffe. How he did that seems unknown OR unspeakable. Lindauer is now facing foreclosure. It does seem, the corruption that permeates the United States government has no limits.

    These are Fetz’s words beneath the video:

    Virginia Gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe has a past that reeks with corruption. Susan Lindauer, one of the very few CIA assets to publicly oppose the Iraq War, heads a team investigating the $2.3 trillion that Donald Rumsfeld announced was missing from the Pentagon budget the day before 9/11. She describes her team’s recovery of $80 BILLION and $1 TRILLION in stolen funds, with shocking revelations that Terry McAuliffe has repeatedly stolen newly recovered funds, laundering stolen moneys to finance his campaign PACS for Virginia Democrats. If McAuliffe had political problems in the past, Susan’s testimony — which she supports with documents and records — should complicate those problems, both legally and politically. As Susan observes, he should be packing his bags for prison, not the Governor’s Mansion.

  13. More liberal insanity straight from the governor’s last email to me. It sounds all pretty until you know this was designed by the Bidenistas

    Colorado is committed to helping Afghan evacuees make Colorado home. We recognize their work and sacrifice as partners to the federal government and to our U.S. military and veteran communities.

    That’s why in partnership with Rose Community Foundation and the Governor’s Office,

  14. I spotted a free jaxxine-bus targeting Mexicans in Colorado. Right near Vail. Notice the heroic posing of the jabbed. God help us


  15. So Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd (George Foreman Floyd Patterson?) by stepping on his neck for like ten minutes while being filmed by a black guy after sharing security duties at a strip club with George for like ten years. Was this before or after Santa Claus killed the Easter Bunny? I recommend “truth tellers” don’t give credence to ridiculous psyop narratives if they wish to develop any credibility with intelligent patriots; all else smacks of controlled opposition.

  16. Pingback: Globeinfolive

Leave a Reply