Sunday, December 30, 2018


A cornerstone of most free democracies is freedom of belief.  It ties in heavily with freedom of religion.   You are not required to follow a government mandated religious system so that system can't be used to coerce you into supporting actions or participating because of religious requirements.   We've all seen how religious power has been abused to gain power over masses of people.  This, however is not the point of this piece.  This piece is about the limits on belief vs. action.

It can seem complicated because there is no limit on belief.  Literally ZERO LIMITS on what you are allowed to believe.  Your neighbor's son is a hell born satanically conceived demon.  Go ahead, there is nothing limiting your belief, but your actions based on that belief are limited. You can surround your home with demon repelling idols,  if you believe it protects you.  You can't surround your neighbor's house without getting their permission.  You can believe it, but if telling people about it effects the boy getting a job, you could be held accountable for your actions.  Not for the belief, but for the actions you took, based on the belief.

The belief/action line is what is so often crossed these days.  Basing life, work and policy decisions on the alternative reality of belief is steering us down perilous paths with real, observable and documentable consequences. 

Especially in elected officials,  the belief/action must not be crossed.  A belief that school buses can fly can not be allowed form a public policy of driving them off ramps to take flight.  No matter how sincere the believer is.

Too many true and opportunistic believers are trying to run public policy based on the alternative reality of belief, and it must be reigned in.

Saturday, December 29, 2018


An impressive amount of disinformation is coming off of sites that are openly fake.  These are often listed as satire sites that are posting and sharing wildly false stories claimed as jokes or entertainment reading, but are getting huge traffic from people or organizations who believe the story telling is real.  For some it is convenient to repost because it plays to their narrative and they can claim no responsibility to the content.

This is causing real damage to western democracy.  No one wants to curb free speech, but if we know something is causing damage, don't we need to find a solution?  Something other than hiding behind free speech and a one or two line disclaimer floating around tens of thousands of lines of damaging falsehoods, intended or not.


With ZERO credible science pointing to Autism linked to vaccines a growing number of unvaccinated people are now contracting measles.   A disease that credible science had on the ropes.

Measles outbreaks now a global problem thanks to antiMeasles outbreaks now a global problem thanks to anti-vaxxers

What has to happen for FACTS TO MATTER?


President, if you can call him that, Trump tries to control the messaging by telling the most innate lies.  He knows he can count on the media, both mainstream and social, to repeat them and give them far more exposure.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the growing realizations of Trump's, at best impotence if not compliance with Russia killing Americans through paid proxies he is becoming palpably desperate. That though does not explain how or why the media continues to play into Trump's hands.

We have to admit, I guess, that the Trump name gets clicks and views and that is money in the digital media world.  Whether bashing him or stroking him clicks mean cash.

The media needs to come to grips with the Trump addiction and the role, the very active role, people, even resisters have played in creating the Trump era,  as it has become. If we, in media clusters big and small don't take more care we will usher in 4 more years of Trump and watch over the last 4 years of America. Is THAT really worth a few bucks?

Thursday, December 20, 2018


It's hard to get a feeling for the pulse of Twitter on any given day, but not today.  The reverberations of the Mattis resignation have dropped the collective spirits of the platform to a level of near panic in some circles.  And for sure as one of the few, if not the only one who could or would stand up and tell Trump he is wrong.

To say the American capitol is stressed, there is no way to overstate it.

Thursday, December 13, 2018


As we have said before, it is, in FactMissile's opinion, pointless to try to point out the easily disprovable utterances that Donald J. Trump puts out to try to cover his tracks or persuade his followers that he is some how effective in the White House.


Sunday, December 2, 2018


Vital to the systems that keep democracies free, a free and trusted press is essential to keeping us informed and our governments honest. So why would it be that some, feel that the media has lost respectability?

It is something in common between FOXNEWS, CNN, MSNBC and other news outlets.  The heavy imbalance of commentary content, compared to the hard news reporting.  What is the difference?  How did we get here?

News at one point used to be about providing information on the things that are happening in your local community, your country and around the world.   There was analysis.  Enough analysis, to give readers, viewers and listeners background information to help them understand the issues.  In general, you had the chance to make up your own mind once you had a clear picture of what was happening and the facts.

News has always been a business.  From the days of hand pressed news papers, people made a living gathering and giving, information out to local audiences.  These people needed to make a living, or who would do such a time consuming and often thankless job. Once radio and then television became the medium and the listeners and then viewers became national, even international markets the news became a big dollar business.  Three or four times a day depending on where you live, the entertainment programs were paused and you got caught up on the local, national and international news of the day.

The programs, for the most part, were about a half hour long, not going into deep detail. The late night news was more likely to be an hour. Still, if you wanted more it would be in the newspapers, which were not constrained by programming schedules and could expand the number of pages to fit any story.  The majority of effort, until more recently went toward informing the public. There was some manipulation of course, the medium was extremely powerful.  Mainly it was about informing the public and there was fierce competition to get "the scoop" and be the first out with a story.

What changed?

At 5:00 pm, June 1st, 1980 CNN aired its first newscast and ushered in the 24 hour news cycle.  News programming now had to do something it didn't have to before,....hold on to you.  Previously the news was a "thank you,  now move along" kind of affair.  You got the bad news of the day, then moved on to M*A*S*H, or what ever your favorite distraction was.  If you were committed to knowing more, there were a few "news magazine" programs you could tune into.  It was different though.  Now the 5 o'clock
news had to keep you, through 6 and 7.....

We were accustomed to special reports that broke into scheduled programming.  The moon landing, JFK and RFK assassination and events of this magnitude were brought to our living rooms. This was sometimes how a "scoop" was put out, if the story was big enough and the network wanted to claim the "First To Report It" title.  It had to be big, though.  Big enough to warrant knocking off regular programming that was bought and paid for by advertisers. As the number of news channels expanded the constraint of the advertising on scripted programming was gone.  The "scoop" was the reason viewers were there in the first place, so it could be brought to the screen at any second.  Speed was the dominant requirement now.  If I don't get it NOW, the viewers move to the next channel, in case THEY have it.  No one can claim that accuracy didn't take a hit. Death tolls in incidents read like an auction caller, we had 10 while THEY were still at 9.  All of this escalating as it was, it was still for the most part the news, and there was a sense of fair play through out it.  When did that change?

On January 17, 1991 U.S. President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. and coalition forces to begin the first gulf war, changing Operation Desert Shield to Operation Desert Storm,to remove Iraqi forces from their occupation of Kuwait.  It was the first televised war.  Live coverage of missile strikes, reporters embedded with forces giving reports daily.  Briefings from "Stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf were a fixture.  The thirst for the reports from "The Gulf" could not be quenched.  And then it was over.

In the void left after Desert Storm viewers were going through a near withdrawal. The number of channels dedicated to news had increased and was increasing, so was the number cameras and reporters.  Now we were being inundated with coverage of incidents.   LIVE! CAR CHASE.  LIVE! ARMED ROBBERY GUN FIGHT.  LIVE! BUILDING ON FIRE, LIVE! PLANE MAKING EMERGENCY LANDING. Of course no one was hoping the plane was going to crash and burn, but if it did, it was hours of programming with an audience firmly locked on the channel. I am sorry to say it, there was a palpable let down from the broadcasters when the plane landed safely.

Who can blame people for feeling like the world is spiralling down the drain, despite the statistical evidence that for the most part things are calmer than the 70s and 80s, when every bad thing that possibly can be, is fed to us live.  Once it is done, its played on a reel, over and over with as many extreme adjectives as possible to keep me watching. Who could forget 1994 when O.J. Simpson drove the White Bronco into our living rooms.  How can we get the news back to being about information and not macabre entertainment?

Media has always had a point of view.  In part 2, we'll talk about the transition from analysis, through commentary to advocacy nearing propaganda.

Thursday, November 22, 2018


It's no secret, was never treated as a secret, Trudeau came in understanding climate science and what stands before us, if we don't deal with the human causes of climate change.  He openly campaigned on it.  Is he on the record saying we need to "manage" the wind down of that industry? Yes.  He is also on the record saying that no country would sit on a resource and not sell it when there a market for it.

His is also not the only agenda at work.  That is true of Canada on our own, as well as agendas that are being pushed around the world.   Many by people with more clout over oil than the Canadian government.

OPEC has been seeing their interests pressured on two fronts.

1. Climate change and the work going on to reduce the dependency on carbon based fuels.

2. Massive new reservoirs located around North America  particularly in the United States.

They increased production to secured their market share, while at the same time targeting new production including North American suppliers whose operations are far more expensive to build and maintain.

There is fracking which cracks the shale and pumping water or steam to break the oil out of the shale.

In the case of Alberta's oil sands, massive mining operations feed massive plants to separate the oil from the sand and upgrade it so it can be piped out and refined.

Compare the processes in North America to the OPEC countries.  We saw at the end of Desert Storm, G.H.W Bush's Gulf War, to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, the wells in Kuwait spewing oil and fire under pressure.  These areas have to hold their oil in.  A production increase basically requires simply opening the valves a little wider.  This is clearly an oversimplification,  but the cost difference is impressive.

Photo credit Per Anders-Peterson (Getty Images)

The Americans have a massive oil industry again, mostly in shale formations.  It does require fracking, but is, for the most part refiner ready.  It doesn't require a plant in front of the refinery, to upgrade it, before it can be refined.

It is not false, to recognize that Trudeau is interested in bringing down Canada's CO2 emissions.   It is false to say he wants to shut down these industries before there is alternatives in place to operate our economy.  There are outside pressures over which there is little control.  That being said, the pipeline issue would put us back in a competitive position and for sure the lack of even mentioning these issues in the fiscal update is very unhelpful.  However, if the middle eastern OPEC members, decide the oil market is dying and want to rule the market, cashing in, until the end, there is little we can do to compete.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018


The Liberal's do have the portfolio now, and it's not moving very well.  There is no surprise that the Royal Canadian Air Force primary fighting capacity is the CF18 Hornets.  It is no surprise that these aircraft are well into/past their effective life.  And we are still holding them together and planning a lifespan increase which is looking forward  into the ridiculous.

Even if the purpose of these aircraft was to ferry people around the north, this would be an almost silly extension.  That is not their purpose.  They are to stand up to hostile aircraft, defending Canada, our interests and allies.  These aircraft,  if called on to go operational, will be up against aircraft that are decades newer, and better equipped.  Even if upgrades are done to keep them bare minimum serviceable they may be little more than target practice for an enemy force.

This did not become an issue, just now.  It was let to go to shambles by government after government, but for sure Trudeau's Liberal government has it now.  Since it would seem as though the Liberals are planning to apply to keep the job they now have, solving the problem,  concretely,  doesn't seem like a strange expectation.

Explaining the costs involved, while committing to them is not going to be the easiest,  but in the age of Trump, the people just may understand,  counting on the US  without a self determined option, for our own defence, is no longer an option for us

Saturday, November 17, 2018


The conservative scam, and it is a scam, of "TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS" has to be crushed.

What is "trickle down economics"?

Again, a scam. It goes like this.

One percent of people in a country have most of the money, maybe as much money,  as all the rest of the people in the country.  The big idea that won't go away, is to give the one percent people an extra $X million each, through tax breaks that the others in the country don't get.  The plan is, that the one percent people, will then take that money and through a combination of creating jobs, and purchasing products and services, distribute that money to the people who already had less money to start with.  The one percent people will "trickle" money down to the rest of the population, stimulating the economy.   It makes sense, right.  Let's look at a few things.

  1. How much of the $X million dollars a one percent person received, are they going to spend?  Not all of it.  You have to spend money to make money, but if you spend it all, you DON'T GET RICH. So it is for sure, they are not going to trickle down the whole $X million dollars.  Of the money they do spend, how much will be local and trickle down to the country we live in?
  2. Depending on how many, one percent people, get a tax cut, there could be a significant loss of income to our little country.  This, the trickle down salesman say, is going to be off set by the increase in tax revenue from the other people, now flush with cash from the ample money trickling down, from the one percent people.  Let's do some math, letting X=1.
Lost government revenue               $1,000,000.00
25% shifted elsewhere                       $250,000.00
Available for economic boost:           $750,000.00
Material/Goods purchased                 $250,000.00 **
Available for economic boost:           $500,000.00
Amount spend on new wages:           $500,000.00
Tax break exhausted:                                    $0.00

I don't have an accounting degree, and this is a very simplistic example, but ask some questions.  Who is going to take a sizeable tax cut and just roll it all over into wages for staff?  Who wouldn't squirrel at least some of it away, maybe even in a shelter that is a deduction for the next year's taxes?  **Add to that, any purchase of equipment and material for the business comes off of taxes next year as a qualified business expense.  Yes, there will be genuine economic activity around the goods and material purchase.**  I just can't see a scenario where the government can give away $X million in tax revenue and magically get it back. Who else can't find that scenario?  Reality and history. Right this minute the US deficit and debt is exploding, and there is no path to get that money back, except billing it to the future.

History Lesson, Do Big Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves?

The answer some say, is cutting spending and making government smaller. This is the "smaller government" fantasy that conservatives often push.  We'll cut programs that "lazy, unproductive people" use to live well, off the government, as cost saving measure.  It never happens, because in the end it can't. Government is a complicated undertaking.  There are those who try to speak of it as a business and it should run like a for profit company.  This is the capitalist mantra, make government as small as possible, people should not be getting services from government, if they can't manage it, then they suffer the consequences of their inability. They want to take the civility out of civil society.  Survival of the fittest, what's mine is mine, no one needs help, only to get off their asses.... Taking away the programs that help people, means some people will end up having to do desperate acts to survive.  No faster way we can think of to increase crime, than to make it a plausible last ditch option for some one who is out of other options.  The other issue, in the end, these people also are potential voters, and in the next election year, it all rolls out to get the people back on side.

Government is far more like parenting than it is a business undertaking.  Your family will not get all of the things that it needs if you don't manage your money properly.  You don't, however, buy your kid a new set of shoes at the beginning of the school year based on the amount of money your are likely to make from the shoes over the school year. You buy new shoes because the kid needs shoes.  Governments build roads because we need roads, build water plants because we need clean water, hire police because we need security, hire teachers because education is vital to the future....  These things all cost money and without them we don't have a civil society.

 Military programs, the capitalists never want to cut.  Why?

In today's world an obviously capable military is vital to the sovereignty of an independent nation.  It's also MEGA HUGE BUSINESS.  Fair enough. Development of the weapons in today's military arsenals is extremely expensive, but the programs often protected with such vigour are massively expensive payouts to the big corporations.  A significant amount of military spending in the United States, we argue, is little more than corporate welfare.  Much equipment is built and delivered to storage compounds to sit unused and unneeded. This is not an argument against military spending. It is after all not 1918 anymore, and it not only takes much longer to produce new weapons systems, your enemy can be on top of you in days, or less.  You can't start getting weapons when the fight has already begun. Corporations love these government programs, because they PAY HUGE MONEY.  Even the most strict conservatives like them too, because they mean jobs, often pretty good paying jobs in districts they represent.

New Air Force Planes Go Directly To Bone Yard.

Pentagon Tells Congress To Stop Buying Equipment It Does Not Need.

Congress Funds Problematic Weapons Pentagon Does Not Want.
Government has a responsibility to all people in their country.  Capitalist and entrepreneurs need to be respected for their ingenuity, hard work and risk they are taking, often helping to bring other people along with them while trying to secure their own future and reap well deserved benefit from their work. What is often lost is the role, helping people in all circumstances plays in ensuring the environment is there that allows the capitalist to prosper. No sector of society lives in a bubble, no matter how high the walls around a condo complex may be.  The fewer people in desperate situations, the fewer people committing desperate acts.  Now you can worry less about how high to make your wall.

Friday, November 9, 2018


Isaac Newton observed an apple falling from a tree and it got him thinking about the attraction of earth to the objects that cling to it's surface.  Over centuries humans have observed birds flying through the air, seeming to defy gravity, and sought to join them.  We have observed the reaction the human body has to different plants and chemicals, or combinations of them, seeking to relieve pain, suffering and even delay death.

In all of these cases we have first developed and then followed a way of planning and executing a process so we don't lose valuable information, and can evaluate our findings to make sure we are not just seeing what we want to see.  It goes basically like this:

  1. Have a question.  They call it a hypothesis.  What will happen to A if we add C?
  2. Observe what happens.  Sometimes it happens naturally and all you have to do is go out to where it happens and watch it. If your question is "what happens to a zebra when a hungry lion sees it?", you go out to the plains of Africa and watch a pack of zebras and wait for a lion to show up.  Sometimes you have to add C to A yourself to see what happens.  This is an experiment. In these cases you have to have a control.  A control is observing A without C added so you know what A does by itself.  This way anything you observe when adding C to A you know C is causing it and what is just A being A.  You do it more than once.  It is always possible there was a variable you did not account for, if you don't get the same result, you determine what was different.
  3. Document. Document EVERY SINGLE TINY DETAIL. Any little thing could be of huge importance.  If you get a different result, a little detail may tell you what you have to change, or could be a HUGE discovery. These details are also extremely importance to the next step.
  4. Publish your findings. A relevant publication prints your findings for other qualified people to look over, question and replicate.  This is vital.  If you do a big study and group of experiments on colour mixing and publish a paper on mixing blue and yellow to get orange other QUALIFIED scientists in the field will try to recreate your experiments. When they are only able to get green from mixing blue and yellow, they can go over your data and point out where the difference is and together you may find an error, or a whole new way to mix colours to get orange.  In either case, something has been learned.
There is a mountain of detail in the process that is not showing in the 4 points on here, but the process is largely the same across the spectrum of legitimate scientific investigations.

The same basic process has been followed over and over again on the many fronts of a very complex investigation into the symptoms of climate change, the process causing it, what the future likely holds and what can be done to minimise and eventually reverse what is going on. It is so big, many people just can't grasp it.  Everything you need to try and grasp climate change, is out in the open.  But you can't use a microscope, you have to look at the whole thing.

We have to get past arguing about it.  We have to trust the science that has been done for now and start changing our focus.  We need the innovators to focus on new fuels, the new process for getting things moved around keeping people on board.  It's not the earth we need to save by addressing climate change, it's us.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018


It's non of my business what goes on in the White House, right?

I live in Canada and what happens in the United States is none of my business, maybe even has no effect on me, right?

Part of me wants to scream a huge NO WAY, to both of these questions, but clearly the answer is not that easy. Some of the domestic policies that are being put in place, or attempted to be put in place do fall under that category of: "If you don't like it, don't come here".  I guess that is really the point in some of them.  It's to  make it less likely for some to come to the United States.  There are those as well, that are trade based, and if I don't like them, than go sell somewhere else, go buy somewhere else.  You may, and in cases are, seeing that happening.

So what business is it of ours, outside the United States to care, and be vocal about what is going on?

It appears to be contagious. Or maybe well organised disruption.  It is, not just creeping, but running full steam into the discourse in Canada. Doug Ford in Ontario is a good example of this style of politics getting deeply rooted.  The tactic of just out and out lying to the public was not created by Donald J. Trump, but he is for sure the best at it, and the most enthusiastic with it. For George W. Bush and even more so Dick Cheney, fear was a major tool used, and lying and misinformation were obvious, but not to the extent that we see now, not even remotely close.

So speaking up, even to a degree participating in the process in the United States these days is not just a matter of interest, or being a political junkie, it is about NOT ON MY SHORE.  It's about stopping something out there before it is here more than we already see it.  It's about making sure it does not become fashionable here, to lie and scare your way into power, then to try to centralise and hold it indefinitely.

November 6th's Midterm Election was not the tsunami of democratic blue that some were hoping for.  It was a major landscape change though, that can't be ignored or discounted.  Some of us will remain, openly trying to help the causes of returning the United States back to its role as a democratic beacon of hope for the world.  Doing it transparently, out in the open, not hiding or trying to subvert.  Just working with allies in the United States, to free the United States from a would be occupier.



  • Controlling access to firearms does not eliminate the crime of murder.
  • There are a number of ways to injure or kill a person other than guns.
  • Guns have a usefulness in the right place and the right time.
  • Assault style rifles are used in a very small number of gun related deaths, but, they are often, extremely high profile events.
  • No country in the world has a sense of entitlement around guns like the United States, and no other country in the world has a higher rate of civilian gun related deaths and injury than the United States.
  • The vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, want common sense controls on firearms in private citizen's hands.  Assault style weapons are the most demonstrated against, but pose a lower risk to the general population than smaller hand guns that are the main killer on the streets. 


Is the United States stuck with the interpretation of the Second Amendment as it is currently being interpreted?

Without Google,  can you name the man credited with developing the second amendment?

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

IT'S MIDTERM GAME DAY! In the specticle that US politics has become. :-(

Yes it is game day in the US Midterm Elections.  More at stake than any other midterm election, maybe even election in general.  It does not need saying that this election is about more than Republican vs. Democrat, or even a referendum on Donald J. Trump.  It is a fight for the life of the American Political Dream.  Independence from a monarchical ruler, now truly working to pull themselves out from under an authoritarian, want to be, dictator.

It's the game of your lives, average american, play hard, play to win.

Monday, November 5, 2018


Donald Trump lies about almost every facit of his administration.  He lies about almost everything that happens in and outside his policy.  At the start of this thing, top of mind was trying to dispute the lies Trump constantly tells.  It was not to dispute everything he says, but it turned out, for real, almost everything he says, is a lie.

It is clearly either an innate part of the fabric of his soul, or a calculated strategy, designed to appeal to the base of supporters who give him his power.  The difference between the two is a question of morals.  The practical,  or effective difference between them, is zero.  It has been effective in reaching and motivating his audience as well as polarizing the political discourse.  The people apposite of his views are often goaded into engaging the lies at the expense of ensuring their message is reaching those they need to motivate.

All of this has left openings for foreign powers to exploit the growing devides and isolation of people, who despite having access to more information than ever in human history,  focus on information and views that simply support their biases.  The "information " is often easy to prove wrong, but it doesn't matter, it feels good to hear it, and for some, the rage seems righteous and feels powerful.

Take aways:

1. As long as he is there, the people who support and follow him can not be converted.
2. The people he has reached, are not the majority and therefore should not be the focus of efforts.  Overwhelming them at the polls must be the focus, while that is still possible.  Make no mistake, Trump's goal is to no only hold, but to be, power.

On November 5th, this last day before the most important election day in RECENT WORLD HISTORY, don't be goaded into going off task.  Organize and ensure reasonable, rational people who know the gravity of the situation, GET OUT AND VOTE.

You are literally tasked with making history and saving your country.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018


This is the biggest problem the conspiracy theorists, big and small, have and their big elaborate conspiracies.  There is no way out.  They can't tell you, for example, what evidence has to be presented to exonerate George Soros from the accusation that he is funding the migrant caravan.  This also stems from the lack of evidence that he is funding it.

It goes well beyond these political conspiracies of the moment.  What evidence will be good enough to end the conspiracy theories on the moon landing?  What is the golden proof that will possibly make the stacks of facts enough?  The pictures, video, the live coverage at the time, the high profile, not covered up failures, all point to a real event.  What will it take to flip the switch?  What's it going to take to make it real to the theorists?

Give us a clue.  What's it going to take?  Give us a chance and we may surprise you with what we know.

Sunday, October 28, 2018


This vast left wing conspiracy, coordinated across oceans and continents, with not a couple, or a dozen, or a hundred, but THOUSANDS of qualified scientists all apparently standing to make vast sums of money by completely trashing their education, careers and reputations to invent Climate Change.  I have to put it to the coordinators of this plot, they have orchestrated something amazing.  But what is the evidence of this vast conspiracy?  What have these people, spread over vast distances and circumstances to gain from trying to move mankind away from carbon based energy?

The answers to both of those questions is the same; not very much.

How long has the consent of CO2 based climate change been discussed?  For as much as a century, at least.  The tangible and solid evidence is clearly documented.  Does this mean a guarantee that everything is going to turn out exactly as forecast? No.  In terms we have become familiar with,  the evidence points to a CREDIBLE THREAT of catastrophic consequences from human caused climate change.

We can't ignore the "chatter" based on the intelligence that has been gathered from all around the planet.  The system has been upset and we are being targeted.  Time is running out to deal with this credible threat.

It's also vital to keep it in perspective, we aren't trying to save the planet. WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE OURSELVES.  The planet is going to continue revolving around the sun for billions of years.  We have a roll in how long it will support us.

There is a credible threat to your children and or grand children's future.  Don't you think we should do something to protect their safety?

Wednesday, October 24, 2018


It happens  not just every day  but many times a day.  Trump and or his minions and enablers spew out "easily provable" lies.  The response to these lies is predictable and therefore very easy to manipulate.

1. We lose our shit.
2. We call out the lie. In doing this we repeat the lie OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
3.  We spend time, putting out the facts, that could be spent making sure you in the USA are ready and will win the midterm elections.

It's time to ignore the bully and his hoard of manipulators.  YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CONVERT MAGAs.  You have to not spread the lies for them and must, with laser make the best showing possible of the next 2 years with control of the house.  I know some of you want to tear down the old guard in the Democratic party right away.  Nancy Pelosi has done an excellent job getting the midterm win.  Work with her, she knows what she is doing.  Arranging a graceful hand over of the baton will be a win for all of you.

Put in your ear plugs and STAY ON TARGET.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018


It seems that people will believe anything as long as what they already believe is backed up by the lie.  If you believe that a school bus can fly, when you are shown a meme or other doctored piece showing you a school bus flying, you don't question it, you bathe in warm fuzzy feeling of being right.

Getting it right and being right are two different things. Getting it right doesn't always feel as good.  If you have done all the research and it tells you someone you love is going to die soon, getting it right doesn't fill you with endorphins to celebrate your success.  Having someone agree with you that your loved one will live, even in the face of all the evidence against it, feels great, even if they are only saying it to make you feel better.

When it comes to the discourse we are having right now, Trump fans need to be willing to swallow some hard, fact based, real truths.

Friday, October 12, 2018


How do you get people to understand, imperfection in the scientific process, does not negate it?

People put together experiments and study existing literature.  Still others follow populations and make observations on the reactions of the population to different conditions all in an effort to understand how things have become the way they are.  Even more important, figuring out how things will be in the future.  It is how we are going to save a place on the planet for ourselves, or not, if people continue to ignore good science because they've heard some science is poorly done, or the result is not in their best, short term, interest.

Good science can have a lot of pitfalls and bad leads. The bad leads can't be ignored, have to be explained and looked at with appropriate weight.  It does not make something a bad lead if the only issue is that it does not support the hypothesis (What the designer of the experiment expected the result to be, or prove).  All the same, if you have one experiment that gives a contrary result, it does not obliterate the hypothesis - unless it does.  Yes, it's complicated sometimes.

If you find an issue with a study, on any topic, it does not mean you have killed the validity of the result.  It has to be weighed and looked at with the whole of the study.  If it does kill it then so be it, we have learned.  If the result holds up, so be it, we have learned. Learning is after all the goal of real science.

Hopefully the thrill of getting it right is better than the rush of being right.

Monday, September 24, 2018


No mansplaining here, just trying to get us to a place where we can solve some problems.

It seems that we have a real problem with expectations.

First understanding we must put into the debate is the reality that human beings are not divine creations of a divine being.  Sorry, but unless we come to grips with the fact that we are highly evolved animals, with animal workings, animal needs and animal instincts we are going to continue to set expectations for ourselves that we can not live up to.

With that reality in mind, please repeat the following until it is memorized and understood:


It does though force us to set a standard on what is criminal and what is normal communication between human beings on a cognitive and physical level. Simply put, what is an error in communication and what is an aggressive and intentional assault against a person who has a right to feel and be safe in any surrounding?

There are some surprising reasons for trying to embrace this reality:

  1. If we are realistic about how we work our interactions we are much more likely to be able to plan for safer and more enjoyable interactions.
  2. When we have a bad experience we should be able to more quickly decide on whether it's a crime, or just a dumb ass miscommunication, for which we need not spend the rest of our lives feeling shameful and victimized.
We have ALL HAD EXPERIENCES OF BEING TOUCHED OR PROPOSITIONED, no matter what our gender, age or position in life.  Some of these experiences are more extreme than others and some, in fact, are criminal.  Some of these are humans, acting like humans, as we have been for thousands of  years. Welcome to planet earth, it's not very perfect down here, but it's still pretty nice.

Friday, September 21, 2018


Rape Culture

There was a lot of room to believe, we believed, that Rape Culture was a primarily over blown catch phrase that some people used to gain points in this time of higher awareness. Then we see this tweet, with the link to a facebook post.  If proven to be accurate quotes from this group, it would seem to confirm the existence of this so called Rape Culture.

Check out @colinmochrie’s Tweet:

Wouldn't it be horribly sad if we are able to prove these?

Thursday, September 13, 2018






With no supporting information, US President Donald Trump has earned the first launch of the BS targeting Fact Missile.  Point after point in his claim has no backing from qualified people in the field and no supporting information or documentation.  Below find links to 2 credible news outlets and the link to the George Washington University study the ASCERTAINMENT OF THE ESTIMATED EXCESS MORTALITY FROM HURRICANE MAR√ćA IN PUERTO RICO. If you can find a valid dispute to their method and results, feel free to let us know, we'll ask the questions.

Below that we have a listing of the credible information we are aware of currently, to dispute the WSU study.
(spoiler alert.....  it's ZERO)

CNN Story



Credible information disputing GWU study:


Friday, September 7, 2018


InfoWars and Alex Jones have been permanently banned from Twitter for repeatedly violating their abusive behavior policy.

Good job Twitter.  

There will be those who will decry this as a blocking free speech.   It is not, in our view.  Free speech does not remove you from responsibility for your speech, and it in no way stops Mr. Jones from expressing his views.  Twitter has a right and a responsibility to ensure that they are not used as a tool to spread misinformation and hate filled rhetoric from all sides of the spectrum.

No one is saying he can't speak, just that he can't use their megaphone.


We can add Apple to the list of companies that don't want Alex Jones using their platform to spread his conspiracy nonsense.

Again BRAVO!!


Have you accepted that you don't have to agree with, or like something, in order for it to be true.

If you were to sit down with a piece of paper and write down things you've heard you believe are true, and write down a list of things you've heard, you believe are untrue, take a second look.  Is it a list of true and untrue, or a list of like and dislike?

This gets to the root of the problem in trying to convince someone of something that needs to change.  It is far less a matter of trying to get them to understand the issue than it is trying to get them to like the solution.


Beyond a reasonable doubt.

What is reasonable doubt?  What is doubt? Who has to prove what in court?

First let's do an easy one.  Before they can lock you or anyone away, the government, represented by the prosecutor,  must prove you did what they say you did. Neither you nor anyone who is charged has to prove anything.  You only have to show a valid reason to not believe you committed the acts you are charged with.

Doubt is a reason to believe that something didn't happened the way you are told it happened. A reasonable doubt, is a valid reason to not believe that something happened the way you were told it happened.

 What's the difference?

It is not valid, to doubt what you have been told happened, because the person charged has green eyes, and you believe people with green eyes can't do bad things.  It is valid to doubt what you have been told happened if the accused person has green eyes and the witness gave a detailed description including that the person they saw had blue eyes.  That, for this writer at least, would raise a reasonable doubt.

We often, as public, sit in judgment,  of a court judgment without the burden of having to follow the rules, or the responsibly of the decision.  We make up our minds based on outrage, tribalistic instincts, sympathy or any number of personal experiences that sometimes can be helpful to understand the situation,  or cloud our thinking.

We need to relax and let the process work while understanding why it works the way it does.  Hopefully before we are sitting in court, charged with a very publicised crime, based on a vague description we happen to fit.  Public outrage is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Saturday, September 1, 2018

Terms Of Service Are Updated

Terms of service are updated.


It's important to understand that facts are things we can have an opinion on, BUT CAN NOT CHANGE.

Too much of what drives our discussion when tackling important issues is not accepting reality and working with it.  Interjecting how we feel about an issue clouds how we deal with what is happening.  What we want to work and what will work are often different, especially if we have not accepted the reality in front of us.

What about you, can NOT CHANGE, no matter how you or others feel about it?

You can like or not like your birth date, but your birthday is still your birthday.   You can choose to celebrate it on a different day,  but you can't change the fact of the year, month and day of your birth. You can vote when you turn 18, not when you feel like your 18, or when someone who doesn't know you says it's different.

Put your anger and admiration away when faced with a decision.  Deal with the facts, like them or not.

Tuesday, August 28, 2018



How can you tell?

We mentioned, earlier,  in "Are You Being Informed Or Inflamed" the use of leading language that taps into your feelings.  Propaganda is designed to tap into your fears and biases.

Does the piece make a claim and offer only vague assumptions as "proof ".  It may provide no evidence at all or imply vague excuses for why there is no proof.  The author may also rely on the reader's lack of knowledge about a topic or region to make completely false statements.

We need to set a personal standard of proof in what we read and watch online. It should be more than what we want to believe.  If the author wants us to believe that someone has committed a crime we should expect them to prove it.  Ask yourself, is this enough evidence that I may believe it was true, even if it was a family member or friend being accused.

No one should be expected to treat it like they are on a jury.  If we are going to insist on getting our rage on every time we go online,  we should be doing a better job of making sure what were angry about is real and true.

Monday, August 27, 2018


Facts can be a little awkward and when put in the wrong hands can be used to make misinformation.  Facts work best as a team. Very few if any of life's realities can be accurately described using a single fact or a couple of facts.  Multiple facts are needed to give proper context.

A single accurate fact can be misleading.  If a probe landed on earth and took a single photograph of the sky during heavy thunderstorms an alien officer may look at it and conclude that earth's atmosphere is black and violent.  Accurate at that moment, but alone, a fact not showing the true story of our sky.

So when someone wants you to follow along with their story line, don't agree based on a single fact.  It may be true, but needs other facts to be accurate. 


Humans are causing climate change through carbon caused global warming.

Part one of a few.

Does CO2 hold on to more heat than most gasses in earth's atmosphere?


You can see this for yourself.

Here is what the ever popular MYTHBUSTERS did to show the heat trappied by both carbon dioxide and methane.

Watch "Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?" on YouTube

These guys have always done good work and they show their methods.

Were going to work on a simplified version that should be easier to replicate at home.  More on that later.  In the meantime the experiment shown on MYTHBUSTERS will help you understand, the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. Those of you who don't think the MYTHBUSTERS are part of "the deep state" at least.

Friday, August 24, 2018


If you live in North America and you have looked out your window to the east there is something you have noticed... you can't see London England,  no matter how strong your telescope.  This is an observable reality.  The higher you go on  a hill, building, in a balloon or airplane,  the farther you can see.  But not London England.

The days in the far north and south get longer and shorter with the change in seasons.  Why?

The moon looks like a ball

The sun looks like a ball.

Get a telescope, and look at the planets, they look like a ball, each and every one.

So now we get to the planet earth, and flat, right.  What else could it be but flat?  Despite all the evidence it has to be flat. 

What is the need for it to be flat?  What advantage is there to a flat earth?  What power is granted to mankind if the earth is flat vs. the reality of a round ball like planet that spins on its axis and revolves around the sun?

There is no need to believe or not believe in a round earth.  It is observable on your own.  You don't have to agree with anyone,  only observe what is around you and apply your reasoning to what you see.


Thousands of years of human history are marked by the spread of and suffering and death caused by disease.   Then came a remarkable understanding; once infected, if we survive,  we are protected from getting the same disease.   The development of vaccine saved millions of lives and prevented an immense amount of suffering.

Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to the huge value of vaccines to human health we see this:

Antivaxxers can consider this as a FactMissile shot across the bow.  The claims made do not stand up against the evidence of the incredible good vaccines have done for human health.

How Did We Get Here?

What stops a person, of otherwise high intelligence, from seeing what the majority would agree are clear facts or easily observable evidence?  Why do people, who routinely deal with complex issues fail to apply the same level of thought and reasoning to their beliefs?  I am entirely unqualified to even try to answer, but we have to find those who are qualified and get them on it.  There is nothing less than EVERYTHING riding on it.

Is it fear of change?  Fear of losing a comfortable life style?  Genetics?  I don't even know how to ask the questions, never mind guess at answers, but answer we must.   We can't just sit and watch our society, with access to more knowledge, than has been available for the entirety of human kind, increasingly ignore it.  For some, a return to the dark ages seems to be in the works. Is the realm of sorcerers and dragons a more comfortable place for some?

At the library, (a large room or building filled with books etc.) material is organized into categories.  Facts and fiction are separated and labeled.   You can indulge in conspiracy theories if you like, but they are labeled for what they are.  No such road signs exist on our "information superhighway" so it seems a number of people just don't understand what section they are reading from.

As we see an increased level of radicalization on a number of fronts and work to maintain freedom of expression we must find our way back to trusting facts, evidence, reality and truth.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

A Great Resource does great work and they show their sources.  A very worthwhile resource if you are trying to wade through the cesspool swamp of misinformation that is today's online world. is a great place to get to the facts.


Too much of what is presented as news and information is not information,  its mind control.  Some authors are not letting us know what is happening; they are telling us how to feel about things and we need to be aware of this. 

How can you tell if you are being informed or inflamed?

If you are being fed descriptive words that make you angry, you are being duped.  This is particularly true if you are angry, but find yourself unsure of what is said to have happened.   Being given information can make you angry, but it is your informed opinion that makes you feel that way. When reading information you can decide you don't like what is accurately described.

Someone may inform you that Sally's house is blue.  This does not depict the author's point of view.  It simply states a fact about Sally's house, leaving you to decide whether you like it or not.  On the flip side,  you may be informed that Sally's house is "an ugly blue".  This author is injecting his/her bias in to the description.  The author may simply be passing on a personal bias, or may be intentionally trying to give you a negative impression on Sally's house. Either way, you are being asked to feel a certain way, about something, you know nothing about.

It may be a simplified description,  but I hope it helps you to make an informed assessment on whether you are being informed or inflamed.  Too many of us are becoming extremely angry, and anxious, about being swept up in things we have never experienced or even been a witness to.

Make informed decisions, starting with deciding whether you are being informed or inflamed.

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Where to get started?

Where to get our feet wet? 


Trump is such an easy target, but will require silos of fact missiles to cover the massive volume of lies and bizarre ramblings history will best know him for.

Sadly, Trump is far from the only government official that needs to be targeted by FactMissile.

Flat earthers?

Throwing away hundreds of years worth of basic scientific knowledge to believe in a conspiracy dating back to well before Christopher Columbus.

Climate change deniers?

A toss up between those who have nothing to lose in accepting the facts but don't understand them and those who have something to lose but manipulate those who don't understand.

Here is where FactMissile plans to be different.  FactMissile doesn't care where the facts point.  FactMissile will support and point out facts, no matter where they point.

We aren't ready to launch yet, but we're fueling up.

Stay tuned

Saturday, July 28, 2018


Our goal is to inject facts into debates that are too often dominated by opinion and feelings. These natural human traits get in the way of solving problems and developing policy.

We solemnly swear, to deal in facts, and only facts, to the best of our ability.  Where we are proven wrong, to make what ever changes required, to be accurate and truthful.