The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality by John Hamer

know that 'proof' is an illusion and use this to their advantage at every given opportunity.   The problem with this constant demand for proof is that as any first year student of philosophy will tell us, absolute proof of anything is a completely unattainable goal.  

    By way of an example, if someone is shot in the chest and dies how do we know that it was the actual bullet entering the body that killed them?   Stupid question you may say perhaps, but in reality the best we can hope for is to say that on the greater balance of probability it was the bullet that killed them.   Other possibilities, no matter how negligible are that they were killed by the utter shock of being shot before the bullet could inflict any physical damage or that they were killed by a blood clot to the heart at exactly the same time as the bullet hit and which was subsequently destroyed by the bullet, creating an impression that it was the bullet impact that caused death.   Highly unlikely obviously, but not impossible and that is the key issue.   All this may be a little tenuous perhaps, but the point I am attempting to make is that 100% absolute, cast-iron proof of anything is an illusion.   What we all believe to be true is based purely on our own personal experience and belief system and also what we believe to be the balance of probability – sometimes an exceptionally high 99:1 and sometimes 51:49, but I do not believe that 100:0 is ever possible, in-line with the basic tenets of philosophy.   However most people’s lifetime of programming does not allow them to consider or even be aware of this fact.

    This pre-programmed mind-set is exceptionally prevalent in academia also.   Supposedly ‘intelligent’, well-educated members of the scientific, political, commercial, media and educational communities possess opinions that have been moulded by decades of propaganda from primary school through University, backed up by the self-over-estimation of their own intelligence, influenced in no small measure by society’s misleading norm that presents ‘knowledge’ as synonymous with ‘intelligence’.   To try to break that programming by offering up strong circumstantial evidence and alternative, considered hypotheses about anything that contradicts their mind-set, is often an impossible task.

    For example, in recent ‘research’, performed by Chris French BA PhD CPsychol FBPsS FRSA of Goldsmith’s College, University of London (impressive credentials eh?) he determined that; “Those who trust authority are less likely to believe in conspiracies and those who distrust authority are more likely to believe in conspiracies.”   Money and time well spent there, then Chris.

    Obvious really is it not?   If anyone distrusts authority then it is common-sense to assume that they are less likely to believe what they are told by them, but is not this all really missing the point?   Surely the real question should be not under what circumstances are people more or less likely to believe in ‘conspiracies’, but whether or not those ‘conspiracies’ are supported by credible evidence.   However in the fantasy-world according to the likes of Dr. French, ‘conspiracies’ are obviously not real, they exist only as a result of a fault in their believers’ psyches.

    According to French also, believers in conspiracies were “more likely to be delusional” than those who did not believe in them.   French defined ‘delusional’ as for example those people who answered ‘yes’ when asked questions such as ‘do you believe you are being tracked by your mobile phone’?   Again, is that not a circular ‘proof’ of what is after all only his opinion, or is it just me who is marching out of step?  

    There is no attempt made to even consider the question of whether it is possible to be tracked by mobile phones or even whether it is actually happening, which are the real issues to my mind, but then I do not have an impressively