>and since I do not claim things I cannot reasonably prove, I lean to the side that says these ideas are false
I find this line so strange in the context of this series, particularly the next installment in which you examine the origins of sars-coV-2. You did not "reasonably prove" lab origin by any stretch, but then you didn't deem to lean towards its falsity.
Why not apply the same rubric to the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 as you did to the origin of sars-coV-2? Ie. point out the improbabilities in the official narrative and quote independent experts? Or you "will continue to insist that the detonation hypothesis has been debunked, and that anyone still talking about it is a conspiracy theorist"?
I have enjoyed your writing here on the whole, but there seems to be this discordant thread running through the entirety of it.
>and since I do not claim things I cannot reasonably prove, I lean to the side that says these ideas are false
I find this line so strange in the context of this series, particularly the next installment in which you examine the origins of sars-coV-2. You did not "reasonably prove" lab origin by any stretch, but then you didn't deem to lean towards its falsity.
Why not apply the same rubric to the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 as you did to the origin of sars-coV-2? Ie. point out the improbabilities in the official narrative and quote independent experts? Or you "will continue to insist that the detonation hypothesis has been debunked, and that anyone still talking about it is a conspiracy theorist"?
I have enjoyed your writing here on the whole, but there seems to be this discordant thread running through the entirety of it.