It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evidence Vs Lawful evidence. What's yours if any?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:54 PM

What constitutes evidence for you?

OK, now I'm curious as to peoples input on this because it seems black and white to me...

Oxford evidence definition

Definition of evidence
[mass noun]

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

2. Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court: without evidence, they can’t bring a charge

3. signs or indications of something: there was no obvious evidence of a break-in


SO, for example the Illuminati. "I propose a secret group exists that US Presidents have publicly spoken about who's agenda is known as the New World Order". I simply wish to say I can provide evidence as to that statement, nothing more, nothing less.

I believe they exist and my "evidence" is only the first example shown. There are FACTS readily available like speeches, book extracts etc that have deeper context but also mention "The New World Order" its seen everywhere. JFK's speech, Bush Snr's speech and a plethora of other information that convinces me, but not others.

I'm not the type to force my beliefs on others but unless for example there was a US Court Case trying to establish what I consider "Evidence" as "lawful evidence" it will simply always remain "just my evidence" and pretty much just my opinion correct? Or is any form of evidence...just well...evidence. ?!

Just because I am convinced and see the "evidence" which isn't that hard, will undeniable facts and conclusive evidence always have to be lawfully agreed upon officially to be widely accepted.

Interested in what others consider "evidence".. Give an example or expand on mine

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:55 PM

Lawful Evidence examples....

26-1-102. Definitions -- kinds of evidence. (1) "Circumstantial evidence" is that which tends to establish a fact by proving another and which, though true, does not of itself conclusively establish that fact but affords an inference or presumption of its existence.
(2) (a) "Conclusive evidence" is that which the law does not permit to be contradicted.
(b) No evidence is by law made conclusive unless so declared by statute.
(3) "Corroborative evidence" is additional evidence of a different character to the same point.
(4) "Cumulative evidence" is additional evidence of the same character to the same point.
(5) "Direct evidence" is that which proves a fact without an inference or presumption and which in itself, if true, establishes that fact.
(6) "Prima facie evidence" is that which proves a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:38 PM
A good example in my eyes would be all of the discrepancies in the Sandy Hook "official" story (stories). People do make mistakes like has been said about reporters, but to the extent and inconsistencies as we have seen? That being considered, how common is it for video footage, police radio dispatch recordings and supposed state and federal information to be mistaken? All these things point to out-right lies being told if not no crime whatever being committed. Every bit so called evidence to point to a crime is purely hearsay. There is no bullet holes, bullet casings nor even corpus -delicti, period. I challenge anyone to show one bit of hard EVIDENCE to show that any crime was committed. That is how I define evidence!

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by ajay59

Yeah Sandy Hooks a strange one. Then again a lot of shooting sprees in the US always present more questions than answers going back to Columbine for me.

Sandy Hook has been the biggest wtf?! recently though hasn't it?

But cheers for bringing that up ajay I didn't consider evidence presented dishonestly or manipulated for disinformation.
I'll speak personally though and without being modest I am honest and do have integrity so if I presented evidence to someone it would be without an angle.

I guess another take is "planted evidence" to incriminate someone who's innocent or to deceive others into believing a half-truth.
I bet "lawful evidence" has actually gotten innocent people into trouble so by that token how can we trust lawful evidence?! We can't hey? HAHA

I didn't consider that damn... so I guess really what matters are your own experiences and hence "seeing is believing"... BUT with things like Sandy Hook too many things are presented as "facts" when IN FACT they're lies. I guess human instinct and common sense factor into what we choose to accept as truths.

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:08 AM

I'm in that same boat! I have plenty of "evidence" that the Illuminati exists, myself. It seems that people only want to see lawful evidence. Whatcha got?

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:23 AM
How about something less subjective? 'A New World Order' could mean different things in different contexts, but subjective evidence is easy to impeach- do you have some evidence that is less subjective?

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 04:29 AM
reply to post by onthedownlow

Yep that makes sense onthedownlow,

Without being subjective though why even look for the evidence to begin with, if only to convince others or harden my own beliefs. Maybe paint a bigger picture...

How about "Global events in the past and present show that quite possibly a very small percentage of individuals steer humanity in their desired direction, even in celebrated Democracies"

That's pretty vague but its less subjective, saying the same thing pretty much. I suppose corroborative evidence requires itself to be less subjective to compliment cumulative evidence BUT still when is it direct evidence and cannot be denied?

When everyone accepts it, regardless of merit?

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 04:58 AM
reply to post by theAnswer1111

Hey theAnswer,

Nothing new to show but direct NWO hinting from powerful people which you've probably already seen. Its bread and butter Illuminati stuff

And who doesn't love JFK's speech into the Illuminati and secret societies. He was one of them but wanted out I think, hence his murder

Seen this picture? Its a bit vague but I think some of them on the pic are definitely part of "the agenda"

Basic stuff which could mean nothing and its all a big coincidence

Can give you more stuff depending on what you're after? You got any juicy stuff ?

edit on 5-2-2013 by yoursteppingonmytoes because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in