+ Submit News Link

"Irrefutable and Undeniable Evidence"


Share |



jeff   posted:12/14/2012 12:26:37 AM  (Reply)
Saw this February 2003 article while combing through the archives and thought it made some good points on what constitutes 'irrefutable and undeniable evidence' in the eyes of the US Government and how their proof was no better than what people provide as evidence in the paranormal community. Gotta love how the entire world seems to act only on their own psychosis. The 'we should form a mob, too' was hopefully sarcastic enough...


Yesterday, I witnessed a video broadcast of Colin Powell trying to sway the U.N. using 'irrefutable and undeniable evidence' of Iraqi weapons inspection cover-up attempts by showing videotapes, satellite image captures, and intercepted phone communications. In response to this, Iraq officials claimed that U.S. evidence was unsubstantiated, loaded with lies and fabrications, that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, and the U.S. had no proof to back up their claims. United State's evidence, to Iraq, was not evidence at all--merely heresy used to convince people they should attack. After years of listening to UFO experts and scientists bicker back and forth about what makes up proof, I realized that Iraq was right. I also realized something about myself which confused me: even though I felt Iraq was scientifically right about U.S. "evidence" not really being evidence, I still felt Iraq was lying and I still supported the idea of attacking them based on that feeling. I also noticed how similar my own conviction that we should attack Iraq was to my conviction that UFOs are sometimes extraterrestrial in nature, to the conviction that there is life after death which sometimes get recorded by electronic devices, to the conviction that freemasons are up to no good. I then realized that Colin Powell's attempts at convincing the UN of his 'irrefutable and undeniable evidence' is no different than the struggle of those attempting to convince others of the viability of paranormal events; it is no different than the struggle conspiracy researchers have to show evidence of worldwide conspiracies starring the freemasons; and it is no different than religious leaders' attempts to showcase evidence of Satan being alive and well today and that Armageddon is just around the corner. The question is, is Colin Powell really bringing any kind of proof to the table at all, and in the end, does it really matter? I mean, we all know how effective the paranormal field is in convincing scientific hard asses of the viability of the subject--is Colin Powell's arguments any more effective? If so, why?

In reality, it is difficult to impossible to prove anything that has no mathematical foundation because it cannot be tested using the scientific method. You cannot mathematically prove Iraq is housing these so-called weapons of mass destruction using some kind of formula, and you cannot mathematically determine what will happen in the world if the Iraq activity continues. In the same way, you cannot prove mathematically that the greys are abducting people or the Nordics are trying to teach us a 4th dimensional language while we sleep at night or trying to make our babies smarter through genetic manipulation experiments. The photographic, video and audio proof can all be disproved, so why bother?

Photographic proof is not proof because it is not repeatable. It is a snapshot in time that gets everyone's minds reeling at the possibilities. It is just a snapshot of something that might have happened and people have to apply all kinds of background noise and personal interpretations to make sense out of the image, as one would have to do if they were going through psychotherapy and staring at an ink blot. People bring a history to the table that distorts reality. NASA looking at a photograph will see something quite different than say, a UFO researcher, as was seen just the other week when EUROSETI's images were debunked by those involved with the SOHO imaging project at NASA. On top of the static and misinterpretations people inherently carry with them in their minds like baggage, photos, just like any other kind of media, can be digitally edited.

In the same light, Video proof is not proof because of technology. Anything that has been captured on film is not irrefutable evidence of anything, like a DNA sample would be. Videos are digital, and digits can be edited using the simplest software. Anyone can make a ghost float across the video screen, and they can do so at little to no cost. If they want the film effect, the edited digital copy can be burned on to film, so even film itself is not proof of anything. ANYONE can add tubular structures to a satellite images and say they were nuclear missiles that were moved, and they can do so at little to no cost. Even the United States.

Similarly, audio proof is not proof because audio recording can be edited just as easily as video, and it is hard to prove the origin of an audio sample if it is not repeatable. Independent researchers cannot duplicate the same audio of a conversation that happened at some given time at a given location that only showed up on a single recording device. The time when it can be recorded has already passed--the audio recording could only exist once, which is not proof of anything at all.

All of these pieces of so-called evidence were brought to the table by Colin Powell, and the same arguments that others use to discredit the paranormal were the same types of arguments that Powell was up against at the U.N. How can you say you have brought irrefutable and undeniable evidence to the table when France cannot get on the phone, call some radio or satellite station operator, and tell them to tune to such and such a frequency to see if they can pick up the same Iraqi phone conversation?

All Colin Powell brought to the table WAS beliefs, if you use the same types of arguments to the table that scientist use to discredit UFO data. He was unconvincing, and the United States should be held to the same types of standards that the paranormal field is up against, because we're not talking about some 'yippee! I'm right!' kind of vindication--we're talking about invading a country and killing thousands of people because of what? Video, audio, photographs, and logical inductions that depend on the individual proof of hundreds of unsubstantiated axioms? The proof, however, was adequate to the United States, enough so to call a thousands and thousands of U.S. reserves out of waiting--150,000 troops so far--to fight for our country, to fight for our beliefs--not for our proof--on what Iraq 'might' be harvesting, on what 'might' happen if we do not act, if we sit back and let the activity continue. We want to take preemptive strikes as a result of a possibility, not a certainty.

Using this reasoning, people who believe they have evidence of the UFO cover-up have enough information to break down the fences, cross that line in the sand, and invade Area 51. People who believe freemasons are trying to enslave the world have enough evidence to secede from the country and start their own government, or anarchy, without paying taxes. People who believe that Jews are taking over the world have enough evidence to burn them all in concentration camps. People who believe George Bush is a lizard who drinks the blood of four year olds have enough evidence to shut down all the Kindercare centers and send him to the electric chair.

Who needs proof when you have a mob? But we won't call them a mob. We'll call them "soldiers" and "troops"-- 150,000 of which are headed to Iraq to risk their lives for their country that has sent them there because of unsubstantiated evidence and a fear of the future. We most certainly WILL attack Iraq, without proof or of certainty, or of support for that matter, setting an example for the entire world to see that proof itself is inconsequential, so scientists can shut the hell up with their arguments against people that believe in UFOs or God. That's right. This is good for the UFO community because we are seeing that you do not NEED proof to act; you only need conviction, and a mob.

Yes, it is the power of mobs that change the world, not scientific data. There is not enough time to convince everyone to use the scientific method or to consult a calculator and use equations against things which are not repeatable, equations that don't even exist, before people are allowed to make a decision, and act. So forget about it! Move on! If the United States government does not need scientific proof that Iraq is harboring biological weapons before they act, then we don't need proof for any of our convictions, either! This is very good news.

People do not act on proof, anyway. It is not proof which throws the switch and causes people to make a decision. There's mathematical formulas you can apply to nutrition which show you why eating a McDonald's cheeseburger is not good for you, but this mathematical formula does not convince people to stop eating McDonald's cheeseburgers for lunch every day. People ACT, and then look for proof that it was the right move afterwards. I think this kind of decision making even influenced the scientific method to make it more "natural."

Finally, we can breathe a sigh of ignorance and defiance, for it is not proof which causes one to act; it is merely the conviction that one must act based off of a personal judgment call. I have a personal conviction that the God of the Old Testament is an alien and that the real God is something else; I need no proof that this is so. I just need you, my mob, to join me and FORCE the world to believe this as well! Only through mob action can there be change, so forget about the scientists. This is a revolution!

That's right. If the scientific method goes against what you believe, it is nothing more than a stalling technique, where you overload the opposition with so many miniscule and pointless facts that everyone is overwhelmed into docility. But we're on to them! They don't want us to make a decision! We're on to SETI. We're on to the atheists. And most importantly, we're on to Iraq, and we must attack!


Link: Who Needs Proof When You Have a Mob?
spooky1   posted:12/14/2012 10:59:32 AM  (Reply)
Very interesting, Jeff
bobprin   posted:12/15/2012 10:04:03 AM  (Reply)
I always felt sorry for general Powell as a good soldier he was following orders from those scions of truth and morality W and lil' dick. They produced the "truth" to fit their agenda. Yes that cost a heavy price in death and ruined lives on both sides. Not to mention the credability of a worthy man. If the government lent even a small amount of acknowledgment to any paranormal event then things would be quite different indeed
LincolnGenghis   posted:12/15/2012 3:16:07 PM  (Reply)
A big role in that whole thing was the media also. They broadcasted whatever the Gov told them to say via their owners. Anybody who questioned the data was threatend with being fired and blacklisted, in addition to that anybody else who spoke up and questioned the whole thing was told they were unamerican and got threatened by the horde of mindless sheeple that were drinking all the koolaid they could get there hands on.

To actually have a free society you have to have a free media. I don't think I can remember in recent times the last time I have seen a reporter jailed over not giving up a confidential source. Used to be quite prevalent way back when and their editors and private owners would back them up. You don't really see it now days because most of them are only reporting on the safe stuff they are allowed to report.

I remember watching this interview with an old retired newspaper editor a while back and he was discussing this current type of soft journalism going on. My favorite part of the interview was when he was talking about back in the day when he was running a desk. He said if he started going more then a week or two without getting any threats over what his investigative reporters were writing, he thought they were slacking off and not doing there jobs right. It sounded like if his reporters had all their facts right he didn't care who bitched about it , he would back them all the way to hell if he had to.
That kind of attitude is really what is missing today in allot of things.



jeff   posted:12/16/2012 6:52:01 PM  (Reply)
The whole Colin Powell thing reminded me of some form of pareidolia where if you squint enough, you can see weapons of mass destruction.
Wereparadox   posted:12/16/2012 8:17:11 PM  (Reply)
jaguarsky   posted:12/18/2012 11:48:11 AM  (Reply)
I was watching "Oliver Stones Untold History of the United States" last night: JFK, Cuba, Soviet Threat. Same ole, same old. The government has lied to us at almost every historical turn and never was it more dangerous than during the Cuban missle crisis. It was the Kruschev who sent a letter to Kennedy explaining that they had both lost control of their war machines.

He paid a high political price for his willingness to negotiate and stand down. Kennedy paid the ultimate price for trying to back away from southeast Asia.

Personally I will never believe anything the government says ever again. I have seen UFOs, up close and personal, so I know they exist. I do not know if they were from outer space or were some black projects of the government. At any rate they had no business hovering over my neighborhood.

I understand that there are many machinations needed in the running of something as complex as world super powers, but it has always seemed to me that starting with the truth is a much easier path to follow.
LincolnGenghis   posted:12/18/2012 1:21:14 PM  (Reply)
"Operation Northwoods" would be a good one for
People look up. See if there's some things in there that
Sound strangely like something else more modern.

Did those plans that Kennedy rejected get pulled
Out of storage, dusted off, updated with a new target and
used by a certain other president??

I don't know what does everybody else think??
LincolnGenghis   posted:12/18/2012 1:21:16 PM  (Reply)
"Operation Northwoods" would be a good one for
People look up. See if there's some things in there that
Sound strangely like something else more modern.

Did those plans that Kennedy rejected get pulled
Out of storage, dusted off, updated with a new target and
used by a certain other president??

I don't know what does everybody else think??


Please log in or become a member to add a post.