Comment: What is proof? There have

(See in situ)


What is proof? There have

What is proof?
There have been some heated exchanges about what exactly is proper proof. These arguments are a distraction; e.g. – “If you can’t blind them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.” Perhaps I can help. This is a criminal legal matter, therefore those rules of proof apply.
Burden of Proof
“He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim” (emphasis added). The government carries the burden of proof. They have the responsibility to prove the elements of this matter. We are the de facto defense, since there will never be a real trial (of the accused bomber anyway). We the defense, have to prove nothing, only “poke holes” in the governments case. We have already poked a fatal amount of holes in their claims. We should keep “poking”.
Standard of Proof
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof of such a convincing nature that no reasonable person can doubt it.”
The official version of these events has already failed that standard. Now lets identify each person on both scenes, by name, address, employment, background, family and business contacts etc. and see who cracks first. Thank you.
The fact that these forums exist at all shows that reasonable people are not convinced by the official story. So what then…the shills try to change the game and portray us as unreasonable, unstable, paranoid, etc. Keep your eve on the ball. Don’t get discouraged. Don’t get misled.

Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country. John Adams