The “False In One, False In All” Legal Principle

elephant in room

by One Born Free

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:


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,falsis 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.
The 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 🙂



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

T Mark Hightower - Truth Seeking Pluralist

Christian Universalism, Flat Earth Debunking, Spherical Earth Affirming

The Truth Hurts

Truther Musical

A '9/11 Truther' Musical Production


A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

The Daily Post

The Art and Craft of Blogging

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: