The legality of video “proof”

Be the 1st to vote.

has the clearest vision of and evidence that I’ve heard/read anywhere so far: (via

  1. Regarding my Motion to Exclude Video Evidence:


    Cognitive illusions are assumed to be an interaction based on assumptions about the world, which lead to unconscious inferences an idea first suggested in the 19th century by Hermann Helmholtz.

    There are 4 categories of Cognitive illusions, briefly, they are:

    1. Distorting illusions are characterized by distortions of size, length, or curvature.
    2. Ambiguous illusions are pictures or objects that elicit a perceptual ‘switch’ between the alternative interpretations.
    3. Paradox illusions are generated by objects that are paradoxical or impossible, such as the Penrose triangle or impossible staircases seen, for example, in M. C. Escher’s Ascending and Descending and Waterfall.
    4. Fictional illusions are defined as the perception of objects that are genuinely not there.

    In the Digital World, Fictional Illusions are very easy to create.


    We are putting our case before the Court of Public Opinion.

    In Law Courts there are Trial Procedures that have developed over centuries. Unfortunately, there are no Trial Rules in the Court of Public Opinion. This fact makes it very easy for gatekeepers and agents to spread lies and confuse issues.

    Long story short, we have Courts to find fact and settle disputes. That is what they are for. Trial procedure generally follows a certain procedural pattern. Normally, before the actual presentation of testimony and evidence before a jury begins Evidence Issues are settled.

    The defense and prosecution request the court, in advance of trial, to admit or exclude certain evidence. These requests are called motions 0;in limine.”

    Pronounced: “in-lim-in-e”.

    In limine means that the request is made before trial.

    Maybe there is some evidence that has some sort of problem. Maybe it was not preserved properly. Maybe it was hearsay which means that it was a statement made outside of court and nobody had a chance to question that witness to determine their credibility.

    In these cases, a Judge makes a determination as to whether or not that evidence should come into court. Because if it does come in, it may favor one side.

  2. In Federal Court, the 1000-series rules govern video evidence. For example, Rule 1001 contains Definitions.…
    In this article:
    (a) A “writing” consists of letters, words, , or their equivalent set down in any form.
    (b) A “recording” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent recorded in any manner.
    (c) A “photograph” means a photographic image or its equivalent stored in any form.
    (d) An “original” of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. For electronically stored information, “original” means any printout — or other output readable by sight — if it accurately reflects the information. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it.

    The key here is “If it accurately reflects the information”

    That is the issue. Based on other corroborating evidence, we do not believe that the video on 911 accurately reflected reality. We think that the video on 911 constitutes an intentional type of “Cognitive Illusion” called a “Fictional Illusion”.

    In fact, we believe that there was broad use of CGI imagery. We also believe that video compositing overlaid fake video inserted over a CGI background.

    Courts generally allow video evidence. In order to challenge the admission of video evidence under current rules, it would be necessary to examine the video for “evidence of tampering”. In that case, you could have that video excluded.

    This is an area where the Rules of Evidence have not kept pace with advancing technology. It is possible to create a digital scene that does not show “evidence of tampering”.

    Why would the perps choose to present background CGI imagery with composited fake planes? “To fool the mind – combine at least two tricks”. Because the technique of “combining at least 2 tricks” is commonly used by professional illusionists to further confound an audience – methods used by professional illusionists, information warriors.

    Some commenters asked “without the video evidence – what else is there”? Well, the “video evidence” on 911 constitutes “Testimony” by sources unknown who cannot be cross-examined – and that we are all supposed to take as “credible” and unimpeachable. This was the intention of the perps.

    Once you exclude the fake video from consideration, you remove the Cognitive Illusion influence that it was designed to induce. Then, you focus on other available evidence – such as information, testimony (only of witnesses you can cross-examine), physical evidence, and other types of direct and circumstantial evidence.

    There are well-established procedures for getting to the truth in matters such as these. We mentioned a few, such as, Structured Methods of Intelligence Analysis.

    Will this provide “all the answers”? No. But it will ensure you aren’t being tricked. If you want more answers, start arresting people and questioning them.



No tags for this post.

2 thoughts on “The legality of video “proof”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.