Monday, August 18, 2014

Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All"

Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All"
Also: "The Burden of Proof" Principle

1]:Fake 9/11 Bird Flock Video:

First of all, here is an undeniably faked bird flock doing a glorious twin towers "fly-by" on 9/11, complete with its own pixel cloud following along, that is taken from an allegedly live 9/11 TV broadcast, as discovered/presented by 9/11 researcher Simon Shack, which can be seen at : 29min 08secs of the official TV archives: 



                     

                                                   Youtube link


2]: "False In One, False In All"

Secondly, let us remind ourselves of  the simple, basic legal evidentiary review principle usually known as "false in one , false in all"[falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus]. 

Many 9/11 researchers remain completely in the dark regarding this very important , simple principle which "should" be applied when reviewing   ALL alleged 9/11 alleged "evidence" [at least by any serious, honest researcher].  

Simply put, there is a fundamental, basic legal principle named "false in one, false in all[falsis in uno, falsis in omnibus],whereby a judge may instruct a trial jury that should they find that any part of a witness/entities testimony to be false, then they each have the individual, incontestable right to discount all "evidence" provided by that alleged witness/entity.

Therefor, applied outside of a courtroom, if a person wished to utilize that very same legal principle as a 9/11 research tool/principle, and according to that well established, very old legal principle:

 should any researcher find any one part of the government/media 911 story to be false, [for example, the "live" broadcast clip displayed above] then it is perfectly acceptable for that person to then conclude that _all_ "evidence" supplied by that particular entity [i.e. the entire "live" TV network broadcast for 9/11 provided by the network in question from which the above extract was made], is either probably false, or simply to be distrusted.


3]: Burden Of Proof: 

Thirdly, it might also be worth your while to consider another  very simple [but similarly very important]  legal principle- the burden of proof issue, during your 9/11 investigation. 

According to this principle, the burden of proof always lies with the accuser- in this case the US federal government:


Utilizing that principle, it is important to understand that any/all alleged evidence [i.e. all photographs, all "live"videos, all eyewitness testimony, all government agency reports, etc. etc.] that the US government has used to date to try to "prove" its case, outside of a courtroom, or alternatively, that it  could, or might use in future as "evidence" in an actual criminal trial to prove its case [in the extremely unlikely event that that ever actually occurred], must first of all be established to in fact be genuine, reliable evidence, and not just hastily pre-judged/pre-assumed to be genuine "right off the bat", without ever having undergone any serious tests in order to try and determine whether or not that so-called "evidence" is in fact genuine.


Idle Speculation And The 9/11 "Truth Movement":

Meaning that, outside of a court trial, any honest, independent 9/11 researcher who is interested in a genuine search for 9/11 truth, must, assuming they are aware of this principle, consistently apply that principle [burden of proof] to their very own research [as well as using the previously mentioned "false in one-false in all" principle in tandem], and, in my opinion at least, hold in high suspicion all of the research of any/all claimed 9/11 investigators who consistently avoid applying both of these basic, simple, and very important legal principles - in truth, such "researchers" findings simply cannot be trusted and are really nothing more than idle speculations.

"Chain of Fools"?

And yet to date, as with "false in one-false in all", in their own  9/11 research, practically every researcher [and yes, I'm including nearly all of the supposed "big name" 9/11 researchers here: Fetzer, Jones, Wood, Hall, Khalezov, Baker, Reynolds, Johnson etc. ] , have consistently chosen to also ignore this extremely important, very simple to understand legal principle, and have mostly assumed, without ever having thoroughly tested and cross-tested, to try to establish whether or not any of  the various photos, videos and eyewitness testimonies  and government reports they all rely on to "prove" their particular version of 9/11 "truth", are in fact genuine and therefor even reliable as evidence. 

Question For Ya: 

Why are all of these persons listed [and others] consistently ignoring both the amazingly simple, easy to understand,"false in one, false in all" principle, and at the same time  almost entirely ignoring the equally simple , and equally important, burden of proof concept, in their various 9/11 "investigations"? 

Your guess is as good as I mine, I suppose :-)

Regards, onebornfree.


More About "Onebornfree":

"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .

Onebornfree  Blogs: 
                                                                                         
 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog[ Investment philosophy blog]

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog[ A personal review of the state of 9/11 research]


The Freedom Network [ home page for the Freedom Network]

The Problem-Solver [Personal Freedom consulting]

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel [Studio mixes + live solo recordings]

Fake Eye D's soundCloud channel [ no videos, so faster download]




No comments:

Post a Comment