Why Anonymous?:
So Evidence Will be Seen

Last Update: 25 March, 2023

Perhaps the most unusual thing about this website is the insistence of the publishers to remain anonymous. This is done in protest and remedy to a popular but theoretically illogical and proven destructive social method of evaluating truth based primarily on analysis of the apparent credentials of the presenter.

The way the presenter-based truth-evaluation system works is that if the presenter has high credentials (compared to the evaluator), anything they say is interpreted as true (even if it should be obviously false because no other truth evaluation system is used). If the presenter seems to have low credentials, then even if they offer the highest quality evidence it is refused to even be looked at under this method of evaluation (eg. with "I won't listen to you") on the presumption that such a low-value person cannot have high-value information: that it must be flawed and not worth the time to consider. As for evidence, the presenter-based truth evaluation method kills any requirement for evildence. If a presenter shows high credentials, then their claims are trusted and no evidence is required (asking a higher-credentialed person for evidence is considered insulting). If the presenter has low credentials then no evidence is considered enough, the decision already being made based on the presenter.

Presenter-based truth evaluation has many logical flaws, including:

• The presenter's credentials might have nothing to do with their understanding and ability in the subject. It's easy to award a fool a university degree, or appoint them a prominent position, or they may actually have little knowledge with a topic their expertise assumes, while on the other hand someone not even working in the profession (including God) might understand it well enough to present at least the sub-topic in question.

• The presenter's credentials might not be known or even knowable by the evaluator. Although proud people like to proclaim their credentials, humble people do not. This greatly impairs understanding of the mind behind any presentation.

• There may be reasons for a person having or not having required credentials which has nothing to do with their abiltiy. For example, it may seem to make sense to take investing advice from someone wealthy, but their wealth might have arisen an entirely different way, while a poor person may be an expert investor but simply have given his or her money away to charity.

• Whatever their abilty or understanding, it is impossible to know the presenter's intent. Their intent is even more important to the value of what they're presenting that their understanding.

• To deny that someone without credentials can understand a subject is to deny human equality. Anyone can understand something if they put their mind to learning it.

• The quality of evidence has no logical or reliable relationship to the quality of the presenter.

• Basing an evaluation on the presenter, rather than the evidence, is a trust-based truth-seeking approach which the scientific method was designed to get humanity away from. Trust-based approaches should be the realm of religion, and even in religion, we're only supposed to trust God.

The presenter-based truth evaluation method seems extremely common and perhaps even a feature of pride-based societies, such as those where the right to choose is considered far more important than making the right choice. It's use is as common as speaking to a friend of family member, where they first consider whether or not they want to be seen following your advice before they consider what you have to say. In the war against 'misinformation' governments encourage the Public to only look to 'official' sources for information.

Presenter-based truth evaluation is also a very common tactic to assassinate evidence by shifting focus away from it to the presenter in an attempt to prevent the evidence from being considered. Even in court, which is supposed to have the most perfect fact-finding procedures our society can devise, a tactic to undermine truth is to prevent evidence from being admitted on literally any possible grounds however unrelated to the truth, such as whether or not the evidence was obtained lawfully.

Ultimately presenter-based evaluation is a fault-finding process which knows no limits: any fault will do to discredit someone, and all of their evidence with it, and if opponenets don't find fault on one level then can dig deeper until they find something. They might start with their position, then their education, or they might accuse them of trying to make money or simply serve their own pride by linking their products or even just their name to the presentations. Even how much money someone makes has been used to discredit people in official hearings (such as Joe Biden dismissing the report of Scott Ritter based on how much money he was paid). Since everyone has sinned (Bible: Romans 3:23), it's just a question of digging deep enough to find a fault to discredit anyone and thereby disqualify any evidence if using a presenter-based evaluation approach. In this strategy the advantage is on the side of evil, since good people don't like to dig into other people's faults, being conscious and responsible for their own.

Presenter-based truth evaluation is a repeated failure for finding truth in pratice. For specific and familiar examples we need look no further than the COVID-19 crisis:

• COVID-19 crisis surgical mask mandates: during this crisis, simply on the basis of the opinion of government-appointed medical experts, surgical masks were mandated to be worn by everyone indoors in most countries, for months or years (and some still doing it in limited sectors), even though surgical masks don't work like that: they cannot possibly protect against the admittedly be airborne virus (which lingers in the air for hours), they have no airtight seal around the sides, they have pores far larger than a virus, and they were never designed to filter out viruses. It's nonsense but because it came from experts it was not only trusted by the majority above all criticism, but made law.

• COVID-19 crisis social distancing mandates: during this crisis, experts promoted and government mandated the notion that, in dealing with this airborne virus, keeping a distance of 6 feet from other people was absolute safety but 5 feet was extreme danger. As if air particles work like that.

• COVID-19 crisis plexiglass shielding: at first experts advised these to separate employees from customers in stores, and then experts attacked them saying they don't allow for enough air flow.

• COVID-19 crisis lockdowns: during this crisis, experts recommended (and governments mandated based on that recommendation) for people to stay home to control the virus, and avoid going out to some places while allowing others. Specifically, going out to the beach, park, or even back country alone was prohibited for fear of spreading the virus, as was going to places of Worship, but going to any bank or grocery store or underground public transit network was unrestricted. In some places, overnight curfews were put in place to restrict people going out at certain times. Thanks to experts, it got so bad that, seeing they were allowed to walk their dog but not themselves, many people actually got a dog just to be allowed outside.

• COVID-19 crisis vaccine mandates: during this crisis, experts promoted and Governments, employers, and many institutions mandated vaccination to keep your job, travel, or attend school, without even an exemption for provable natural immunity, on the promise that these vaccines would end the pandemic. The vaccines didn't end the pandemic, but it only got worse with the emergences of variants which the experts were forgiven for not predicting, and countries with high vaccination rates did no better than those with low vaccination rates. Experts said the vaccines were 'safe and effective' while their same governments published deaths and adverse events following vaccination, not enough time to know long-term harms, and manufacturer information sheets listing many important risks, such as to pregnant women, as completely unknown. Moreover, experts generally enforced border controls only after the viruse had a significant presence in the country, were more interested in who was vaccinated than infected, and actually portrayed the pandemic as being caused by unvaccinated people (rather than, for example, a virus or virus engineers).

More than a failure, presenter-based truth evaluation has been a major source of misinformation, leading humanity into danger in many cases, including:

• Expert advice for cities to add fluoride medication to public drinking water without the opportunity for anyone to opt out.

• Expert recommendations for vaccines for adults and children which carry serious risks and no guaranteed benefits.

• Expert recommendations for not only hoplessly ineffective surgical masks during the COVID-19 crisis, and not only without advice on their replacement or cleaning, but advice explicitly against the use of higher quality masks (which actually might stop the virus; it's actually when we saw this on the local Government website at the time that we were cured of trusting expert advice).

• Expert recommendation for pandemic lockdown of those living in multi-unit shared-air buildings while preventing them from going outside to the beach, park, or back country, or otherwise get fresh air or sunshine.

• Expert intervention for preventative pandemic lockdown so hard, in China, it that people weren't even able to buy food.

• Expert warnings that foreign leaders have weapons of mass destruction which are an immediate threat to us which we later find out there is no evidence they ever had: such as the reaons given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

• Expert recommendation explicit for pregnant women to receive the COVID-19 vaccines, even though all major manufacturers of those vaccines listed risk to pregnant women as unknown in the technical papers provided by the manufacturer to health providers with the product.

• Expert use of a COVID-19 test which was never even calibrated to that virus.

• Expert redefinition of the dictionary word 'vaccine', during the COVID-19 crisis, to allow gene therapy injections to be called 'vaccines'.

• Expert recommendation that everyone take COVID-19 gene therapy injections for a temporary pandemic, the immediate and hereditary consequences of which our science cannot undo or even fully predict.

• Expert claims that COVID-19 injections are 'safe' and adverse effects are not proven to be caused by the vaccine, without admitting that our science is not advanced enough to have any test to directly prove vaccine harm.

• Expert attack on ivermectin as unsafe for use in humans even though it's on the WHO list of essential medicines.

• Official justification for military support of the Ukraine government as being due to Russia's incursion, even though the support was since 2014 and the incursion was since 2022.

• Expert recommendation to manufacture, threaten, and use nuclear weapons.

• Expert recommendation to take intrinsic value out of money.

• Expert recommendation to keep interfering with the economy as though it is a toy whose best use is to keep playing with it.

• Expert recommendation to bail out banks (but not families) in economic crises, or to allow banks to seize customer deposits to cover debts.

• Expert recommendation for human rights trampling (such as the right to decide your own medical treatments) as a necessity to avert dangers the experts tell us are far worse.

When experts are wrong in what they advise, because this is their area of expertise, unfortunately it's more likely deliberate than accidental. If they didn't know what they were doing, when giving paid advice withinin their area of expertise, that should be considered malpractice.

As for this assumption that experts always use their knowledge for the good of humanity, why do they engineer viruses? (article: GERM WARFARE: Boston University claims to have developed new covid strain that kills eight out of 10 victims).

As for official information, As much as the Public is encouraged to trust only official sources, official misinformation is the most dangerous kind of misinformation when it is dissemminated much further and trusted much more than other sources. We need to hear all voices to find the truth.

We need experts but to educate us not dictate to us and the difference is evidence. Trusting in experts has become a trap which threatens to and is destroying humanity. Humanity urgently needs a completely different way of evaluating truth.

We propose that the best remedy is to simply present evidence anonymously. That avoids problem of accepting expert recommendations without evidence, and the problem of quality evidence being assassinated based on presenter-based attacks, while still requiring evidence to be of a high quality (since that is the only evaluation basis which remains available in this model).

At this time, key evidence exists on many extremely important, urgent, and woefully misunderstood issues, so urgent and so publicly misunderstood that sharing truth cannot reasonably afford deflection of focus by presenter-based analysis any more.

For all these reasons, our mission is to identify and present evidence while using anonymity to minimize opportunity for enemies of truth to deflect attention away from the evidence. It is our strategy, to best promote truth, and to encourage an exclusively evidence-based method of seeking truth, that we choose to present evidence anonymously.