Yes the extent of the fires is indeed proof. That's what matters most and is the most obvious proof. Why are you making excuses?
So you either believe his numbers were correct, which implies that he didn't do enough.
Or his numbers were correct but he didn't really spend where necessary.
Or you believe anything on any politician's website...which applies to politicians you don't like.
So?
The extent of the fires as has been explained by experts who know a thing or two about wildfires is proof that such wildfires fueled by 100mph winds cannot be prevented or contained.
No matter how much you trim trees or rake the floors, or spray them with high pressure water from a reservoir.
It is not proof that Newsome didn't spend enough or do enough for CalFire.
He could have very well spent what was needed, and more, and still had the same disaster happen.
In any case this claim of yours has nothing to do with your original claim.
Establishing the causality between the two is tricky at best.
Your original claim is that the numbers are not believable in the first place. This is what we are discussing.
So all am asking before we digress to a million different places as you bob and weave, is to present the right numbers if you think Newsome is wrong on his website.
You haven't done the bare minimum to help your argument and you are trying to engage in mental gymnastics to move on to other topics.
Tsk Tsk.