Science and Religion: Distinguishing Fact From Theory

TRANSCRIPT

Generated using A.I.; please forgive any mistakes.

Okay, recording has started. Bobby, will you please give us opening prayer? Dear Father in heaven, we thy servants come before thee at this time, seeking knowledge and learning from on high. And through our instructor tonight, please bless and place the word into his mouth and into his mind that he should share with us. Please bless us that we will receive these words with gladness and with openness. and with the desire to share them and teach them to others with similar questions or concerns that will likely be raised tonight father we pray for thy peace to be upon our hearts and souls and that thy name will be glorified in all things and moreover father we pray for thy will and not ours to be done according to our faith and love for you in the sacred and holy name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Thank you, Bobby. All right, Carmen, we're going to turn it over to you. If you would please give us the minutes from last week. All righty. Tree of Liberty Society minutes for Monday, October the 5th, 2026. The opening prayer was offered by Lori Neiswander. Am I saying that right, Lori? Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Ben encouraged all of us to do research on our own. concerning last week's training, because the topic was on the internet quite a bit. The training was Oklahoma City bombing. And Ben talked about, or showed a video, James Corbett on the city bombing, John Doe number two. Everything was... protected by the government, and the cover-up was the bigger picture. The chief medical examiner blocked every turn. Well, he was blocked at every turn. There it is. He was blocked at every turn for the death of Kenneth Trent Dodeau, who was blamed for the bombing. The video... The video that was shown, it was murder by mistake. This was the Inspector General of Ken's death. The actions of the United States Department of Justice stinks. They changed the death to suicide. Yeah, and to clarify, I don't think it mentioned it in the video. that we saw the clip that we saw, but I know Ben had pointed out beforehand that, uh, trying to do that was murdered. Um, it was a case of mistaken identity because they had thought he was another guy that had been involved and that they needed to, to shut up that, you know, to stop him from talking. Okay. I now I'm remembering something about that. I'm wondering if I wrote it down here. Um, huh. Yeah, I don't remember the name of the other person, but they had mistaken him. I think he shared a cell with the guy that they wanted dead, and they killed him on accident or by mistake. Yeah, okay.

He talked about Brigadier General Parton. He was the expert on explosives, and he said that the truck explosives... were not enough to collapse the whole building as it did happen. They needed much more to destroy it and suggested that explosives were planted inside. There were columns that were still standing that were closer to the truck, so it was illogical that it was sufficient damage from the truck alone. and there were the news reports the news reports also that said that there were other like up to three um other explosives that had been discovered if you remember that from the from the news clip yeah it says here supplemental there were supplemental demolition charges and there were attempts to keep the building standing um and i do believe wasn't there after the meeting uh after that uh after last week's training was over, that there was going to be some more on that? Is that going to be finished tonight? No, no. That'll have to be from Ben another time. Okay. All right. So, because Ben stopped, there were attempts to keep the building standing so that more investigation could be done. Oh, that was just the fact that there were people. That was actually covered last week. That was the fact that there were people who were trying to rush and have everything demolished the same way the government rushed and got rid of the debris after 9-11, right? They didn't want an actual investigation to take place. And so he had mentioned that I believe it was the lawyer who was defending. um, trying to try to do his brother, um, or, or representing him. Um, he had called or contacted whoever and, uh, said that he had all the information that he was going to reach out to the government and put out whatever legal thing he needed to do to get them to, um, put a halt to the demolition. Right. Um, but then he got contacted. And was told, hey, by the way, we're going to go ahead and contact the government ourselves.

And then he said, OK, I guess I won't file the paperwork if you're going to do it. And then they didn't do it. And then they went public saying, oh, no, we made a deal with the government. We're going to go ahead and let them destroy everything. OK, I remember that now. I guess I didn't get that down. OK, so after that, the closing prayer was offered by Jennifer Dowd. Awesome. Thank you, Carmen. I appreciate that. Okay. I'm going to do things a little bit different this week than Ben usually does, but it's what I tend to do. I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to block unmuting until I'm done with the video. Because when I do my broadcast, the way I have to do it on my screen for my PowerPoint type presentation, I can't see. this main window to know if people are raising their hands and stuff like that. So I'm going to block it until we're done, but please, if you have comments or questions, put them in the chat. And then when I'm done with my presentation, we will go over everybody's comments and questions. Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and switch over and we'll get started here. Give me just one second. I'm going to go to my other screen right here. That is an article we're going to talk about afterwards. And there you go. So this is member training for October 12th, 2026 science and religion, distinguishing fact from theory. So, uh, most of the information, a lot of anyways, uh, from the presentation tonight actually comes from chapter one of this book right here, science and religion by David M Barker. This book came out in 2013. I met him at a homeschooling conference, actually just a few years after that. And he was promoting this book because he thought that was an audience that would be interested and he was right.

And so I, that's where I met him and I got bought a copy of the book from him. and, uh, have not regretted it. In fact, just a couple of years ago, I contacted him directly in, but like 15 more copies and sent them out to everybody, all my family and, uh, my family and my wife's family for Christmas. Um, but no, this came out in 2013 and that was six years before COVID and the ever present messaging. You may recall of hashtag the science is settled, right? We all remember that nonsense and I'm sorry. So before we go too far, we want to define some terms. So if we look in the 1773 dictionary that Samuel Johnson put out, he defines science as both knowledge and certainty grounded on demonstration. And so I want to point out that although both of these terms seem to be pretty straightforward and non-controversial, they actually aren't. And we're going to be addressing why that is in the remainder of this presentation. So the current Merriam-Webster dictionary website gives the following definition of science. They say knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Well, what's the scientific method, right? Wikipedia says. The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge through careful observation, rigorous skepticism, hypothesis testing, and experimental validation. Developed from ancient and medieval practices, it acknowledges that cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation. The scientific method has characterized science since at least the 17th century. Inquiry includes creating a testable hypothesis through inductive reasoning, testing it through experiments and statistical analysis and adjusting or discarding the hypothesis based on the results. I forgot I meant to highlight that last part there, that last line. So we were all taught about the scientific method when we were kids.

I don't know if they even teach it anymore, but. You all remember, you form an idea, think of ways to test it, and then see if the tests support your hypothesis. That sounds pretty simple, right? Well, maybe not. As David Barker points out in his book, the conflicts between science and religion are not a clash of facts with truths, but discrepancies between facts, inferences, theories, and misunderstandings. Indeed, the progression from conjecture to hypothesis to theory to law is very imprecise. It is intertwined with assumption, inference, surmise, and dependence on general acceptance. And we will be touching on these more as we go along here tonight. In their 1982 book, Betrayers of Truth, Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, authors William Broad and Nicholas Wade provide the following observation. The conventional conception of science exerts a powerful fascination because it is based on a highly attractive set of ideals about how science should work. It can accurately be described as an ideology. Many people fall for this ideological view of science and somehow believe that scientists are not like other people. Says Barker, scientists are typically bright intellectually. But descriptions of their findings are often poor in terms of distinguishing what is fact and what is inference. Making accurate distinctions is time-consuming and requires extra effort. When terms such as estimated, assumed, surmised, inferred, and derived from are frequently used, though they may be essential to clarity, those words tend to weaken the scientific argument. often involves convincing others of the validity of his or her ideas, and such motives should be taken into account by readers. There is a significant element of salesmanship involved.

In other words, scientists are prone to overstate the strength of their data and the conclusions derived from that data, since, for one thing, they want to convince others that they are right. The problem, however, according to scientist John A. Widso, is that we cannot wholeheartedly accept so-called scientific conclusions unless these two things are provided. One, the facts, which are the building blocks of science, must be honestly and accurately observed. And two, there must be a distinct segregation of facts and inferences. John Pratt, who has a PhD in astronomy, said, It is extremely important to distinguish between facts and theories in science. They are not always easy to differentiate, and even scientists forget to do it. And the people who write science textbooks nearly always forget to do it. Now, you'll notice it's the textbook writers he deems worse than others. And in my opinion, this is... more egregious considering the fact that most people would look at textbooks as authoritative, right? That's where we're getting our information to learn from in school and college, whatever. I also think that the word forget in this quote is being kind because, I mean, considering all the outright propaganda that the human race was subjected to during COVID, right? If you recall, there's, this is nothing new. However, every tyrant in history is aware that As Art Thompson declared, if you control what people read, you control how they think. Barker continues, Pratt also pointed out that in scientific usage, the word fact has several meanings, which can be very confusing.

It can mean either observation, theory, or truth. Thus comes a startling message. If fact and theory are sometimes used as synonyms, how can anyone expect to adequately differentiate between them? Those who wish to learn what part of a text is fact and what part is theory must usually do additional research such as checking the author's sources. Sometimes it involves studying the origin and development of a scientific procedure. Well, studying the origin and development of scientific procedures is actually the focus of David Barker's book Science and Religion and we may do some future presentations where we dig deeper into some of the scientific procedures that we've all been told can be used to establish truth but which aren't actually as solid as people claim but for now tonight we're going to focus solely on his opening argument which is that Scientists themselves often aren't reliable either. As an example, Barker quotes from a geology textbook by Judson and Kaufman called Physical Geology, in which they state, quote, we now know that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, close quote. But, says Barker, such a statement implies that not only is there no doubt in the author's minds that the Earth is actually that old, but that it is in fact about that old. It would be more accurate to say that the Earth is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old based on the XYZ dating system.

The age of 4.6 billion is obviously not based on an actual record of observations. over that span of years, but on calculations using facts, heavily reliant on theories, inferences, and assumptions. But when the average person is watching a documentary and an archaeologist says, this settlement is around 10,000 years old, how can they be expected to filter that through all of the assumptions, inferences, and theories involved in that scientist coming to that conclusion? John Pratt, whom we quoted earlier, stated a fact that should be reckoned with. He said all of science is based on various underlying assumptions. Often these are so deeply rooted that the scientists are unaware of just what they are. If they turn out to be wrong, then the entire edifice built upon them could fall. In other words, if you're a scientist, and your own theories and conclusions are based on overstated conclusions, you have contributed to what is basically a house of cards ready to fall when the first wind blows. W. Marvin Tuttenham, who has a PhD in chemistry, told David Barker that when scientific theories or religious opinions are repeated enough times, people tend to accept them as facts. Now, we've all heard this before. This is the big lie often attributed to Joseph Goebbels, where he said, if you tell a big lie enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Again, we lived through this with COVID and we've seen it in play in more recent times as well. I'm thinking about, for instance, Iran and two weeks to... whatever, right? To a nuclear bomb or whatever, right?

That they've been telling us for the past, I don't know, 20 years or something. That's been two weeks. Canadian scientist, David Suzuki once stated that science is really in the business of disproving current models or changing them to conform to new information. In essence, we are constantly proving our latest ideas wrong. I rephrased this once to some family members as Science is today's best guesses waiting to be proven wrong. This is a historical fact if anything we've been taught in our history classes is true. For instance, we're told that Galileo proved that the Earth orbits the sun, but everyone in his day believed that everything in the sky orbited the Earth. He was forced to recant, but he was later proven correct. Barker points out that... theories have gained an almost consensus status in the scientific community. Notice how he wisely chooses to insert the word almost before the word consensus. This is because there's nothing that you can guarantee everyone believes, period. Not the official story about COVID, not even what causes gravity. There's no such thing as a scientific consensus except as a propaganda phrase designed to convince a gullible and fearful public to toe the party line. Pratt is a little more charitable when he says, when a theory proves extremely successful in predicting observations, even scientists forget that they're supposed to be ready to discard the theory objectively and without regard when it fails. This is probably because they have come to believe their theory is actually true rather than just a successful model.

I think this is true for some and was probably more true in the past before our government held such immense power over, well, pretty much everything. An editorial on newscientist.com from April 2006 opens with the following statement. It says, is that it is a hypothesis that has been confirmed by experiment so many times that it becomes universally accepted. Notice that according to this, laws are merely hypotheses that have been confirmed to someone's satisfaction. The issue, though, is that everyone has their own level of requirement for satisfaction. One man can see a thing demonstrated a single time and believe it has been proven. whereas another man might not believe even though he has seen it a hundred times. This is why I said earlier that there's nothing that you can guarantee everyone believes. Broad and Wade, authors of the previously quoted book, Betrayers of the Truth, point out that, quote, when a hypothesis has been confirmed a sufficient number of times, it may take on the character of a law such as the law of gravity. The law that chemicals combine with each other in fixed proportions doesn't explain why this is the case, but simply states the regularity. This is an important point.

We're going to go into a little bit deeper here. Pratt made a profound observation when he said, you cannot prove any theory to be true. You might think up a thousand totally different tests to try to disprove the theory, and it might pass every one. Does that mean it's true? No, because the 1001st test could prove it false. While scientific theories are never supposed to be considered to be absolute truth, some have passed on so many tests that they are called laws. A scientific law is like a theory that has been inducted into the Science Hall of Fame, but even then, it might have to be modified. Philip Johnson, author of the book Darwin on Trial, noted a problem, namely that scientists recognize mistakes made by their predecessors, but they find it hard to believe that their colleagues could be making the same mistakes today, or themselves, I would add. At best, this is naivete. At worst, this is pridefulness. Barker points out that, quote, in many realms of science, proof is not possible. Evidence can be found to support one scientific theory, while another... other evidence tends to refute it. Sometimes the same evidence is used by one party to support a theory, while others use it to oppose the theory or at least support a different view. So, with some exceptions, as in mathematics, proof is usually an individual perception rather than a scientific certainty. Of course, in our own day, we are now being told that math is also in... perception. So there you go. Nothing can be proven these days, apparently. BYU professor Hugh Nibley once observed, when indeed is a thing proven, only when an individual has accumulated in his own consciousness enough observations, impressions, reasonings, and feelings to satisfy him personally that it is so.

The same evidence which convinces one expert may leave another completely unsatisfied. Milton Friedman once said that factual evidence can never prove a hypothesis. It can only fail to disprove it. This is the same principle upon which Thomas Edison once stated that he hadn't failed in the 10,000 experiments he'd unsuccessfully tried. Rather, he'd only proven that those 10,000 ways wouldn't work. Just because those other ways didn't work didn't mean that there wasn't another way that would. And obviously, we all know that eventually he did figure out how to do it. Another issue at hand is failure of scientists to believe that which cannot be explained. Professor Hugh Nibley told the following story concerning dousing the practice of finding water using metal rods held gently in your hands. Quote, All efforts by the geologists of Trinity College to discover water for a well on campus failed. A local dowser was called in and succeeded immediately. There is no doubt of the reality of the dowsing effect, wrote Trinity's J.J. Thompson, but the dowser could not be tolerated because no physical explanation had been found. Although the reality of dowsing is conceded, there is no agreement about its cause.

And so the Dons indignantly denounced the dousing. We must necessarily view all things which we cannot explain as unreal, as vain imaginings of the untrained human mind, which, since they could not be described scientifically, were in themselves contradictory and absurd. I've personally had some people tell me that they believe water dousing to be witchcraft. and others tell me that they have found water on their own property and dug wells using that very method. In a sense, says Barker, dousing is outside the realm of science, but if it works, it works, whether or not science can explain it. Hippocrates, who's known today as the father of medicine, insisted that one should always use the scientific cure even when it does not work and avoid a traditional remedy. even when it does. All because he could not explain the method by which they work, just like the Dons at Trinity College. Another problem, however, is that there are scientists who are afraid to share their findings simply because they know how it will be received. Other scientists will vilify them because they are going against the currently accepted mainstream ideas. They may even be ridiculed and lose their ability to publish books or papers. possibly even lose their positions teaching at colleges. The famous Copernicus was one of these. He waited until he was on his deathbed before publishing his findings concerning the revolution of the earth around the sun for these very reasons. In the Ben Stein film, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, Dr. Gerald Schroeder summed it up this way.

There is academic freedom as long as you are on the correct side. Of course, it hasn't just been science that's been wrong. Some religions have been proponents of false ideas, such as the belief that anything not specifically stated to have happened in the Bible couldn't possibly have happened anywhere, or that the physical heavens didn't have any relationship whatever to God. However, this leads us to an important concept, which is that much of what we are taught as science is used as a tool to destroy faith. For instance, in the presidential address to the Utah Geological Society in 1957, the following was stated, quote, the most important responsibilities of the geologists involve freeing people from the myths of biblical creation. Many millions still live in mental bondage controlled by ignorant renters who accept the Bible as the last word in science, close quote. William D. Opperman, a scholar and a friend of David Barker, suggested that seemingly incompatible ideas should sometimes be placed on the shelf, quote unquote. I happen to agree with this and I've found this to be a solid approach in my own life. I know that truth exists and that God will reveal it to us when we're ready.

And I've seen that happen again in my own life, my own experience. Writing for Kronos Magazine. Philosophy professor Lynn E. Rose said in 1977, science is fragmented into disciplines, departments, and specialties in an arbitrary and artificial manner. Our science has fallen to these present depths under the sheer weight of its accumulated data and literature. Since no one of us can any longer hope to sift through all of the paper that has been accumulated, we face a choice. We can admit how little we know about nature as a whole, or we can restrict our areas of knowledgeability to fit our capacities and thus continue to appear knowledgeable. This reminds one of the story of the blind man and the elephant, each being an expert in separate parts of the elephant and all believing that his own expertise and his alone explain the whole animal. There's also the problem of... deliberately shifting the mindset of the populace away from God. Barker provides the following statement from a scholar's conference, quote, God has been both passively and actively pushed out of the study of the natural world. And the shift happened despite the fact that some of the world's greatest scientists were also believers.

A few movements are responsible for rendering science godless and God hostile. During the 18th century Enlightenment, Writers such as Voltaire downplayed references to God when they rewrote the treaties of past scientists and made them available to the masses. Consequently, many people aren't afraid of the way these scientists coupled scientific beliefs, I'm sorry, aren't aware of the way these scientists coupled scientific beliefs with spiritual. One evidence of the movement is the way it turns freedom of religion into freedom from religion. calling rich said that when he was a student at two different liberal arts colleges he was surprised at how all points of view were accepted so long as they weren't religious in nature so i want to pause for a second there on that one because that's just it's everywhere right now everywhere and that's why deliberately they go through and they rewrite books. It's one of the reasons that, for instance, they go through and give abridged versions of Little Women, which is full of God. That is a very, very religious book. Or for instance, when Hollywood remade Chronicles of Narnia, it's not a bad movie, but to be honest, a large portion, a large measure of the level of religiosity in those books is gone. And I can't believe, but that they did that on purpose again, because when they're the ones that go through and rewrite what people said, they can translate it, interpret it however they want to and leave whatever they want to out. That's why it's important to do as Ben has been exhorting us over the years and go back and read what the founders wrote, right?

Read the scriptures for yourself, read these things, go to the actual versions and don't settle. for these limited versions that people give you or summaries or whatever, right? I'm thinking it just came to mind as well. Glenn Beck a while back did his own version of a Thomas Paine book, right? Same thing. Read it for yourself. Come to your own conclusions. Don't put it through somebody else's filter. Art Thompson explained that this was not an accident. Quote, Voltaire. For the purpose of wiping out Christianity, associated with Frederick II, King of Prussia, Jean-Laurent d'Alembert and Denise Diderot, principal compilers of the encyclopedia, he and they formed a systematic design to destroy Christianity and inject atheism in its place. It cannot be an accident either that... all points of view are accepted in the hallowed halls of higher education, except those of a religious nature. Such a position serves only to remove God, not only from the public discourse, but also from merely being considered.

One part of the aforementioned efforts by Voltaire was the forging of books with the purpose of not only creating doubt in Christianity, but also generating contempt and derision for it. So again, not only are they reinterpreting and deliberately misinterpreting actual writings, they went through and fraudulently created documents and even attributed them to well-known and famous people just for this purpose too. cast Christianity in a negative light. And similarly, modern scientists have been caught red-handed fabricating data to support their claims. Barker provides the following quote from the book Betrayers of the Truth. Quote, the term scientific fraud is often assumed to mean the wholesale invention of data. But this is almost certainly the rarest kind of fabrication. Those who falsify scientific data probably start and succeed with the much lesser crime of improving upon existing results. Minor and seemingly trivial instances of data manipulation, such as making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are, or selecting just the best data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit the case, are probably far from unusual. Close quote. Well, this cherry picking of data as I was going through and preparing this lesson, it reminded me when they when they cherry pick the data in order to present a fraudulent conclusion.

That's exactly what was described by a former high level employee of the CDC in the film Vaxxed, if you've seen that. The public at large was being constantly hounded to, quote unquote, trust the experts. Right. While the so-called experts themselves. were colluding to force that compliance and destroy any who refused to comply based on data they knew was false. One thing I remember specifically was that they removed all of the high level of instances, occurrences of autism among specifically young black male children. They removed that. They never reported it. And removing it improved the remaining data. Notice how all of these things follow patterns. The Tree of Liberty Society is not one of these organizations that pumps out inflammatory content several times a day, according to the latest news cycle. Instead, we teach you true principles so that you can use those principles yourself to recognize when you're being lied to. I was proud to hear a member recently described to me how he was able to do just that while he was watching a news segment recently. This is also why it's important to be historically literate. The founding fathers read and studied extensively.

They knew about historical governments, the reasons for their downfall, and the tyrants and secret societies, dare I say, that caused it. And this is why we constantly tell you to do the same thing. Ignorance leaves a void that's easy. for manipulators to fill with lies that serve their own private purposes. Again, Ben is constantly saying, read what the founders read. When we go back and read those things, we understand what they understood, why they did what they did, and why they were who they were. For instance, when billionaire philanthropist, quote unquote, Bill Gates, gave a TED Talk in 2010 entitled Innovating to Zero. There were many people whose eyebrows were raised when he said the following quote, first, we've got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%. Again, I just went to the Ted website, as you can see here on the screen and copied.

That text from the transcript, you can still watch it from his own mouth on their website. But don't worry, factcheck.org assures us that what you saw, well, if you saw this going around social media, it was probably a quote-unquote deceptively edited clip accusing Bill Gates of quote -unquote a nefarious plan to depopulate the world through vaccines. Nothing to see here, folks, right? But... If you knew what eugenics is and the fact that Bill Gates is a third generation eugenicist, you would know that he meant exactly what he said. And again, if you go back and watch the video for yourself, you will see it was not taken out of context. There is no context missing from that statement there. This is why education matters and why it's important to remember that in the end, nobody is going to educate you, but you. Ben and myself and Micah and others here at Tree of Liberty Society, we can only lead you to water, but we can't make you drink. We can put these things in front of you and we don't want you to just take our words for it. Because again, I could just be misinterpreting and leaving out stuff that's uncomfortable to me out of these books or Ben when he talks, right? You got to read it for yourself. That's why I think why Ben was trying before to do. the book clubs that he was doing. Because then you are reading that yourself along with him, and you can bring your own interpretation and feeling and whatever to the table when you got together for the discussion, right? That's important. You have to do you. Think for yourself. Don't let us do the thinking for you.

We can't. We can just present it. Again, lead you to the water, but we can't make you drink. Again, if you don't know what eugenics is or how it relates to Bill Gates, I encourage you to watch the Corbett Report video entitled Who is Bill Gates, which is available on the Tree of Liberty Society website. Now, continuing the previous quote from Betrayers of the Truth, we read, According to the conventional wisdom, science is a strictly logical process. Objectivity is the essence of the scientist's attitude to his work, and scientific claims are rigorously checked by peer scrutiny and the replication of experiments. And from this self-verifying system, error of all sorts is speedily and inexorably cast out. Logic, replication, peer review, objectivity, all had been successfully defied by the scientific forgers, often for extended periods of time. Cases of fraud provide telling evidence not just about how well the checking systems of science work in practice, but also about the fundamental nature of science. about the relation of fact to theory, about the motives and attitudes of scientists. Again, just like we were all taught as children that the policeman is your friend, while crimes of the police against the public increase horrendously, scientists, as mentioned earlier, are not always trustworthy. For more on this, we also have a Corbett Report video entitled The Crisis of Science. where James Corbett explores in detail the problems inherent in the peer review process, the lack of reproducibility of most scientific findings, and more, which is also available on TradeForLibertySociety.com.

In closing, we wish to point out that while we have focused on the issues inherent in science in this presentation, it is likewise our personal duty to investigate claims made by others. especially those in authority in all walks of life, whether it be health, wealth, hobbies, or religion. We at the Tree of Liberty Society present you with information. We expect you to come to your own conclusions. If you find that our conclusions match yours, we invite you to take action so that the truth doesn't die in an echo chamber here. As we are told in the Scriptures, it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor. The conspiracy benefits from our complacency and silence, and they continue to get their agendas implemented through the ignorance and sometimes the support of our neighbors or even us. We invite you to use the share buttons on our website to share our content, purchase and share copies of Ben McClintock's book Invasion with friends and family, attend our in-person presentations, and anything else you can think of to help us in our efforts to wake people up. and point them in the right direction. Before we go, I wanted to point out this article right here that you can see on your screen. So after I was all done with the presentation, I went and I was going through some old emails and I'd emailed myself an article from 2017 that I had come across a couple of years ago.

And so I'm scrolling down through this thing. And it's funny how there were two quotes in here that went right along with what we just talked about. The first one is here where it says, CBC crews were among the first people who had the chance to explore the cathedral-like chamber, which was formed more than 15,000 years ago during the Ice Age. Again, there's that violation of that rule. You have to separate facts from assumptions and inferences, right? And then the next one that I thought was interesting that went along with it was down here. LeBlanc and Karen said they were able to pinpoint the location of the passageway using a dousing rod, similar to the wooden divination tool sometimes used to find groundwater. So anyways, it was just funny how I came across those right after I was done with the presentation to just to point out that these things are still relevant in our own day, right? Uh, that's why principles are important. They, if they apply to me while I'm putting this presentation together and if they're true, then they're going to apply across the board. And so you start looking for them to find confirmation elsewhere. Now I'm going to check the chat real quick. I can see a comment. Yeah. Sam saying, I would say most scientists are unreliable that most are biased and bought. And I believe that that is, I do believe that that's true, especially today, because the thing is. Nobody can, nobody's going to pay me to sit at home and do experiments, right? That's just not how it works. So if I want to make my living from doing, doing science, quote unquote, then I've got to find somebody who's willing to pay me. And often they are funding me to come to certain conclusions. You will, if you do some research, you will find that that happens all the time.

You always have to be wary of scientific results that come from biased sources of funding. Right. That's something that one of the pieces of research that you always want to do for yourself. You want to check and see who funded this. If it says coffee is good for you and it's funded by Maxwell House, then you got to take everything with a grain of salt. Right. Now, maybe the conclusions are true. You can dig into it yourself, but you have to believe that it's biased if that's who paid for it. And that's the point I want to get across. So I've actually unlocked the unmute button. If you have any comments or anything, if you want to raise your hand, we can have a little bit of discussion if you have any questions or comments on the presentation. I could have done more. I thought I was going to go longer because I always do. So I apologize that this was so short. Russ, I see you raised your hand. You'll have to unmute. Oh, you are unmuted. Go ahead. All that you've been sharing is just a cascade of train of thoughts. Another quote that I really enjoy is the one done by Tolstoy. He says, Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. That's amazing. Yeah, go ahead. And then also, you know, you're talking about 15,000 years. You know, there's a sacrosanct guru, John Wesley Powell, the first head of the Smithsonian. His daddy was a preacher and two fellows came into town and stole his daddy's congregation.

And as a result, anything that would lead credence to the Book of Mormon was immediately. tossed out, labeled fraud and forgery. So there's been multiple cases of people staying all the way back in time. That might have been including the UPARs. place artifacts that are found in bedrock that could be millions of years old, but since it violates, oh, there was nobody here until 15,000 years ago, that's a real problem. And it's funny how the science is supposed to be studying, right? And so if somebody finds something that contradicts it and he's got evidence that backs it up, people should be interested in that. Let's find out. Are we right? Maybe there's something else we need to consider, right? But like you said, I spent the last 43 years telling everybody this was true, preaching it in college or whatever, right? Giving TED Talks and who knows what else. I'm the expert. So for me to turn around and have to say that. I was wrong. Nobody wants to do that. There's a couple of people who do every once in a while. It's very rare, though. It's difficult to break through. That's for sure. Another thing that observation is that we're dealing with moral relativism and that extends to social relativism. And so that facts, as you're mentioning, is exactly what is a fact. But when you have information that is given. and it violates the paradigm of the social construct that they're sharing, then it becomes misinformation.

It cannot be accepted as facts because it doesn't support. And that's what you see like with climate change allegations with computer programs is the only thing that they rely upon saying this is what's going to happen in 15 years and they can't figure out what's going to happen next year. So along with that. Along with what you just said and going back to what I mentioned earlier in the presentation about people that are afraid, experts, literal experts in the field that are afraid to speak up. I can't remember her name off the top of my head right now, but within the past couple of years, I've shared quotes from a woman who was head of the major... uh organized world organization for uh climate and um and weather and all that kind of stuff and she was one who spoke out and said hey wait a minute the data that the un is sharing that supposedly proves global warming is is false it's based on fabricated nonsense and she got shunned And so you bring her, I mean, if you go look her name up on Wikipedia now, which I've done, you will find all kinds of bad male thing. And she's an anti-global warming, blah, blah, blah. Right. Except that all she did was point out, you guys are sharing false statistics to deliberately push the global warming narrative. And then she got completely shunned, but thankfully it was late enough in her career that it hasn't hurt her too bad, but.

Again, who else could have stood up and supported her there and didn't because they were afraid of what was going to happen? Laura, you got your hand up. Go ahead. I haven't read all the way through it, but there's a book that was written by a bunch of doctors that said that the medical scientists also changed the definitions of words. So you think of a placebo. as like a sugar water or something that has no effect when actually when they do blind control studies they will give you one a placebo to one group which actually is a vaccine or a drug that has the same uh are close to the same negative side effects as the drug that they are trying to get past so it's called background noise so when you for whoever does look at the insert and it says, let's say there's a 60% chance that you will have developed myocarditis, you know, just for example. Sorry, Laura, you went silent there for a minute. You still there? Okay. Maybe I'm going to, can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay. So the placebo, the definition of placebo has been changed and they're using an actual vaccine. that has the same rate of negative side effects. Yeah. And nobody questions it because, you know, I mean, how often do we go through and find out if the definitions of words have been changed when we hear them? That's a really, really, really good point. Absolutely a really good point.

And that was one that Ben and I were both trying to raise that point during COVID, which is that they were calling it a vaccine. or I'm sorry, they were equating vaccines with, what is the other term? Inoculation. Those are not the same thing. And then the mRNA stuff that they're doing is not the same thing as either a vaccine or an inoculation. Those are all three very different things. They do different things to your body, but they have officially lumped those things all together in the terminology so that they can. legally use those words interchangeably. And because the rest of us are stupid, we just don't know. We think, oh, doctors, oh, okay, I'm going to get a vaccine now. And then they, you know, their kid's on a mission and he has a heart attack and dies at 19, right? You have to pay attention. That's one issue today. It's very difficult. It's kind of like if you are in the mindset to look out for genetically modified foods, that's something that we're careful to do in my family. It's everywhere. And they're finding all kinds of ways to hide it. If you've seen, they have the new smart labels on packages, which are little tiny QR codes. Almost 100% of the time, what I have noticed is that if I will scan that QR code and go and look at the ingredient list on the website, the only thing of the entire, just in case you haven't looked at those yet, it'll send you to a webpage devoted to that product.

Sometimes there's multiple tabs or multiple pages that are interconnected with data about that product. And so they're pretending like it's for transparency. But almost 100% of the time, what I have seen is that on that page that the smart label takes you to, every single thing that's on that website is on the package, except for the fact that it contains genetically modified ingredients. That is the one thing that's on that website that's not on the package. Now, why would they do that? It's called obfuscation. It's an extra step that they are counting on most people not taking so that they won't have any idea what it is that they're ingesting. They know that people don't want to eat it. Why else would they be doing that? Going extra steps to make people eat it without knowing, right? This is the way things happen. It's like you said, it's a part of that. It's a part of that game that they play with the changing of the definitions and things like that. Again, they did it all through COVID and there's a lot of other examples too. We have in fact seen that we were just talking about the other day. What was it? There are certain ingredients that you will never see listed. in the food ingredients on your packages because they can all legally be lumped under some generalized term. And there are also some things. What's that? Flavorings. Yeah. The flavorings. Yeah. Other flavor, other natural flavors, right? There's like 47 different things that fall in that category. And if you have an allergic reaction to one of those, you'll have no idea. what it was because you have no idea it was in there in the first place, but they also have other things. They've started a thing within recent years where they equate things. And so I have this product over here that technically we can say is the same thing as this other thing. And so therefore we call it the other thing on the package, even though it technically isn't really the same thing, but we just call it the same thing.

And then you have no idea. I'm trying to think of an example off the top of my head. I know one thing for certain is like with vitamins, most of the vitamins you buy are synthetics. And they, uh, for instance, we were giving, we, we use white willow tincture for headaches and stuff here in our house. And I had a lady who was a nurse tell me, oh my gosh, don't be careful. Don't give it to kids. And they got studies and no, the studies that said that it was harmful were on the synthetic version of that. But if you, there's no studies done on the, on the actual white willow tincture that we've never had any problems with, but the problems that they found were with the synthetic ingredients. Again, redefining things. Laura, you still got your hand up. Do you have another comment or you just forget to put your hand down? I didn't know I was supposed to put my hand down. Sorry. Oh, you know what? I know I usually do it and I forgot. It's my bad. I'm sorry. Okay. Do we have any other comments or questions about the presentation tonight? Russ, go ahead. Just a real quick one also is that we're talking about information and information can become a very sought after commodity, I guess you could say. And a lot of the artificial intelligence organizations, companies are taking books. And it's a modern day version of Fahrenheit 451, if you know what I mean. They've taken hundreds of thousands of books, scanned them, and then shred them. Put them through the shredder, yeah. And you know what I have seen there that's been nefarious is that for years now, I have been reading books that I've gotten off of archive.org and places like that. And you'll find that the wonderful Google. are the ones that have funded a lot of that. And here's two things that I have seen.

Well, three things I've seen. One, missing pages in those digital documents. Two, obfuscated pages where it was partially covered so you can't read it. And three, gatekeeping, where they make it so that you can not check out a book or only check it out for an hour. and then it's unchecked out it's returned back to them and you got to go back and check it out for another hour in order to continue reading it there's all kinds this is some of what the games that they're playing with this they control the data they can change it if they want to once they've digitized it it's in their possession it's in their power okay let's see we had another comment real quick oh yeah jennifer thank you for being here i appreciate your comment She was just saying that this has been interesting. And it is. I mean, you have to pay attention. We waltz through life believing that people are generally good, right? You hear that all the time. But to be completely honest, what's the quote about people that want power are the ones that gravitate towards power? And so it's that same rule, that same pattern. You have to apply that to these other positions. want to control what you think are the ones that gravitate towards a position where they can control what you think. Here's one last example before we go. Do you guys remember who Obama's buddy was during, um, it was, it was a big deal. Oh, they made, he made him the science czar. I know education czar under Obama. It was the guy named Bill Ayers. Do you remember that? Bill Ayers was a member of a terrorist, of a communist terrorist organization in the 60s. SDS, Stoods Democratic Society. Correct. Well, he was he belonged to a group called the Weather Underground, but they were related to the SDS. And they yeah, they did kill people. They literally killed people with bombings.

And there was an FBI guy who went undercover in their organization. And he reported that they in one meeting he was personally in that. they were discussing how many millions of people they would not be able to re-educate, and so therefore they were going to have to just go ahead and kill them the way that other Soviet regimes have done in the past. This is who Bill Ayers is, and he never apologized for that. In fact, he's always stood next to his positions. over all these decades since then in the 60s. He's never backed away from it. And yet, what did he get into in later years? What do you suppose was his profession later in life? He became somebody who was writing curriculum for schools. Does that not prove the point that I'm making here? It doesn't happen by accident. That happens on purpose. The people that want to control what you think. get in positions where they can do that. They're very deliberate about it. All right. I think we're going to go ahead and let's get a closing prayer here and we'll close and then we can open it up for just open mic poetry or whatever, you know, free, free thinking and free topics and whatever we want to do tonight. Let me see. Do we have a volunteer for closing prayers or somebody that has not given a prayer lately? Jennifer, are you able to unmute yourself and do a prayer tonight? Sure. Awesome. Thank you.

Our dear Heavenly Father, we're thankful for the many blessings that we enjoy and for this group that we can come and learn things and support each other. And thankful. For the rain that we've been getting, please bless us that we'll have thy spirit to be with us to make good choices. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen. Amen. Thank you. Let me go ahead and stop the recording real quick.