Sonntag, 28. Oktober 2018

The Limits of Conception

Is the nature of existence finite or infinite?

Speaking as an ardent Wittgenstein and Heidegger fan and a serious student of metaphysical teachings for more than a decade, I am inclined to regard this very question as the most fundamental philosophical query there is.

However daunting at first, by approaching it with the principle of Occam's razor as well as the 1st law of thermodynamics, some convincing deductions - which in my opinion are of unfathomable magnitude - are closer at hand than one might think.


Let's assume both scenarios.
(I) Existence is of a linear nature, it has a beginning and shall come to an end.  
(II) All is part of an infinite source, without beginning nor end.  
Of the two possibilities, (I) poses us with a direct problem, namely the follow up question: how does nothing become something?

Theory (II) on the other hand, doesn't contain any apparent fallacies.


Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate 

"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" is the original rule of simplicity, or if you will, Occam's razor. The principle suggests that out of two competing theories, the simplest one should be favored. 

Thus, if one were to use the principle when considering scenario (I) and (II), the latter one is preferable


The 1st law of thermodynamics, which constitute the very foundation on which modern physics rests, says that energy can not be created or destroyed. 

This law falsifies scenario (I) and confirms the infinite nature of existence by proclaiming that energy has always existed.

Assuming the correctness of the law, the conclusion must be made that energy is eternal in nature. Energy therefore can not be finite. 


If one was to take mentioned results as evidence for the infinite nature of existence, one could further deduce that there can only be one infinity as many-ness is a finite concept. Nothing can truly be separated from infinity.

We ourselves are evidence that consciousness is part of this one infinity.

Consciousness is a form of energy.


ohm animated gif


If you found this interesting, you might be interested in another post I wrote called Hallmarks of Intelligence.

Samstag, 25. August 2018

Conspiracy Confirmed


[kuh n-spir-uh-see] 

nounplural conspiracies.
the act of conspiring.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secretby two or more persons; plot.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud,or other wrongful act.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result


The defintion is very straight forward, yet the term is heavily associated with baseless and often delirious theorizing. It has even reached a point today, where questioning an established explanation can be shot down with the mere proclamation "Here comes the conspiracies ...".

If one studies history, one will find that this is an unfair belittling of the term. As a matter of fact conspiracies are common throughout the ages - our modern times not the least bit excluded.

Exempli gratia

The Russo-Swedish War. In the year 1788, during a time of lacking popularity, the Swedish king Gustav III thought that a war could boost his reputation. However, he was not permitted to declare war without the support of the estates, which, at the time, didn't like the idea. He therefore ordered a tailor in Stockholm to manufacture a handful of Russian military uniforms.

They were worn by Swedish agents who sneaked over the Swedish-Russian border and opened fire at an allied outpost. The incident caused sufficient outrage for Gustav III to declare war against the Russian Empire. Ironically Gustav III self became the victim of a conspiracy when he was assassinated by his own men in 1792. 

King Gustav III and General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff (1960-62), 
both keen on staging acts of terrorism on their own citizens.

230 years ago but far from the first or last time a staged attack were put into action. For a similar scenario we do not need to look far. Just a few decades ago, in 1962 to be precise, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff* and the head of CIA put their signature on a plan called Operation Northwoods.

The content (the original document can be found here) propose a series of false flag terrorist attacks on American soil, blamed on Cuban communists in order to provoke a war against the regime. Even though it had green light from both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA, President Kennedy refused to sign it and the plan was rejected.

But alas, not all shady operations had a happy ending. Here's a couple of examples of successful ones: In 1938 a group of German agents posing as polish extremists attacked a German radio station, in what is called the Gleiwitz incident, in order to give Germany an excuse to invade Poland.

In the Gulf of Tonkin incident, 1964, a non-happening was falsely reported as an unprovoked attack on American ships. Consequence? A fierce escalation of the Vietnam war.

In 1932, Japanese military detonated a small railway explosion, close to the Chinese city Mukden, just as a Japanese freight train passed. Even though the explosion barely scratched the train, Japan was quick to answer the self-provoked attack with invading troops. Read more about this false flag operation here.

Edward Snowden, internationally wanted for blowing the whistle on NSA's 
global and opaque surveillance program on the citizens of the world.

But a conspiracy can be more than a false-flag operation. Take the Snowden leaks for example: documents that confirmed the existence of a global, autonomous surveillance apparatus.

We also know for a fact that the US and Great Britain have been involved with both overthrowing and bellicose intermingling of foreign governments, the 1953 Iranian coup d'état and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq are two good examples. The actual number is way higher than two though, as this Washington Post article suggests.

Colin Powell in 2003, manipulating a world-wide audience to get support for the illegal invasion of Iraq. 
Here's a clip from a speech addressed to the UN security council.

Before moving on, here's a few more noteworthy cases of confirmed conspiring:

  • CIA involvement in contra drug trafficking
  • Operation Paperclip: After WW2 the U.S. gave over 1600 Germans, many of which had held top positions in the Nazi party, asylum. The motive was to get an upper hand against the Russians in the coming cold war. 
  • MK-Ultra: CIA's illegal mind control program, involving torture like experiments on innocent, often unknowing citizens. 
  • Thulegate: In contravention of Denmark's nuclear-free zone-policy, the government allowed the U.S. to store nuclear weapons on Greenland for decades. 
  • The 1990 Testimony of Nayirah: A staged testimony in front of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which got world wide attention by all major news outlets, and was used by president George H W Bush (among others) to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. 
  • Opreation Mockingbird: CIA's large scale program to infiltrate and manipulate mainstream media, involving as much as 400 bought journalists.

Wait a minute

This article was originally composed in 2015 in my Swedish blog, and when I started to translate it to English a year later it was just before Trump entered the White House. Alas, I wasn't nearly finished with the translation when everything took a very interesting turn. 

Before we knew it the term fake news dominated mainstream media, a term which the media power houses launched in order to undermine both alternative news sources as well as Trumps various proclamations. The plan quickly back fired when Trump started to use it against them.

A news story backed by FBI, CIA, NSA etc. broke in all major channels, claiming that Russian hackers had helped Trump win the presidential election. Trump's response was to call it unsubstantiated propaganda, or if you will fake news. 

No evidence was presented, so what we got was a word against word situation, where at least one of them had to be conspiring. Even if the term conspiracy per se wasn't seen much, the semantics of it had to be accepted by the general public as something happening today, on the grandest of scales.


Later it has turned out that Trump got help from the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, who apparently used the data of at least 50 million facebook users to help Trump win the election.

The firm apparently have taken part in manipulating the outcome of elections in e.g. Mexico, India, Malta and Kenya. In the clip, the former CEO mentions both sex workers and fake bribes as methods to influence politicians.

It is still unclear where the Russian hackers fit in.

What remains

History confirms that foul play is far from something unique, but rather that it has been common practice from the very beginning.

You have just been given over 15 major cases.

The question remains: what are they getting away with?

Relaterad bild

Freitag, 20. Oktober 2017

Bluff Creek Blues

On the 20th of October, 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed what many still hold as the best Sasquatch footage ever. But has it stood the test of time? By celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the (in)famous and enigmatic Patterson-Gimlin film let us have a well deserved fresh look at it. 

[This analyse will strictly deal with the footage per se. Surrounding factors like time lines, the people involved etc. are deliberately kept out of this article. For such information, the english Wikipedia article is recommended.]

The Footage

The original video sequence from Bluff Creek, CA; as you can see, it's only in the last seconds of the footage the biped shows up.

At a first glance it looks convincing, but the shaky camera and lacking level of detail make it hard to be sure. Thankfully, digital manipulation is out of the question, thus leaving us with two possible explanations: we see a human in a suit or a genuine phenomenon not yet acknowledged or understood by our scientific institutions.

For a long time film analyst M.K.Davis enhances and stabilizes parts of the footage. The sequences he posts play a key role in this article, and ultimately in understanding the nature of this particular documentation. His continuing work can be found on his photo journal: The Davis Report.

Body ratios

In this first example [link] the main footage has been stabilized with added frames, giving us a much more crystalline look on the object of interest.

Even though it gives the impression of being huge, it moves smoothly, almost mechanically forward. One might notice the peculiar gait and the abnormally long arms reaching down to it's knees. We can also see it has a pair of female breasts. If it is a suit one have to wonder why the hoaxer bothered with those, considering it must have been an unnecessary detail on an already extremely complex costume.

As mentioned the size seems significant. Thanks to a few detailed renderings made by Davis (based upon comparison photos from 1968 by John Green), we can get a pretty fair estimate.

The man in the picture is said to be 195 cm tall in his boots. Supposing the comparison is accurate, the suit must have been of a considerable size, worn by someone with the stature of André the Giant. [link].  

The picture above highlights the arm length ratio compared to a human. In the footage the knuckles reaches down to the kneecaps, now for this to be possible the suit must've had arm extensions; however, the arm straightens out as the head turns to look into the camera - a feat human anatomy won't allow.

Muscles and Misc.

Moving along; in these three excerpts the movement of the back and buttocks shows remarkable detail. 

Click on the image to enlarge.
One might also notice the toes on the right foot. 

Backmuscles oscillating file with transitions

In the first and third sequence the buttocks move separate from each other. In all of them there's individual muscle movement going on, in the third we even see scapulae. Once again, if it indeed is a costume the level of sophistication is staggering. [pic1 link], [pic2 link], [pic 3 link]

Once more ...

The Gait

The gait is crucial. Many have pointed out that the way the entity walks not only is unnatural for a human being, but that it is straight down impossible for us to mimic. Thanks to the YouTube account ThinkerThunker we have a short but highly qualitative video outlining the anomalous aspects of it.

The 2 minute video analysis brings attention to the fact that the biped never fully extends its legs, and that the shin rise is way steeper than a humans. The picture is a screenshot from it.

The gait analysis. Another video of ThinkerThunker debunking a supposedly "successful" try 
to replicate the walk can be seen here

Imagine if one replicated the walk motion somewhat accurately. It would have to be in a huge monkey suit (with breasts), and be made to look completely natural, in order for it to be legit. 

Debunking attempts

There has been numeral people calling the footage into question. Some attempts have even been made to recreate the sequence with manufactured costumes. The most elaborate try was made by BBC in the late 90's.

In an episode of X-Creatures a film team hires one of the best costume makers in Hollywood to help them recreate the happening in 1967. This still picture comparison sums up the result.

Photo credit to: Undebunking Bigfoot
Even after obviously failing, they concluded that their attempt effectively debunked the PG-film (and therefore the whole Sasquatch phenomenon). This irrational way of presenting information must at best be confusing for the viewer, not to mention insulting.

For an in-depth look at this particular case I recommend this article on No attempts with a bigger budget than BBC's have been made.


Thanks to shows like BBC's X-Creature et al. there's a wide spread "fact" that the Patterson Gimlin-footage is a hoax, but just as is the case with other mysterious phenomenon there's a lot more to it, than meets the eye of the official stand point.

In this case we do not only lack a suit, but we are seemingly unable to recreate one, even 30 years later. How one would go about to move around convincingly in such a creation is a problem we can't explore; so far we only know that no one has managed to do it without one.

Seeing as the man-in-a-suit argument is such an unsubstantiated explanation, the logical mind would have to at least, for the time being, accept the alternative explanation as being a distinct possibility: Perhaps Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were telling the truth all along.

Special thanks to:
Patty & her People
Roger Patterson (R.I.P)
Bob Gimlin

Sonntag, 8. Januar 2017


Meditation is the dissolution of thoughts in Eternal awareness or Pure consciousness without objectification, knowing without thinking, merging finitude in infinity. 

* * *

I believe that meditation is the most powerful and accessible tool for us to grow as individuals and for humanity to prosper. Unfortunately people aren't doing it, perhaps because they have erroneous and confusing ideas about this practice, which in reality demands nothing more than a daily moment of time. 

As a person who's been meditating on a daily basis for the last 7 years, I can vouch for the gifts this practice has to offer. Gifts like insight, joy and love for all parts of the life experience. However, words are not enough to convey the essence, in order to realize/feel its potential one has to try it out. 

Sometimes people ask me how I meditate; positions, breathing techniques and miscellaneous eastern references are often mentioned. As a matter of fact meditation is just about as simple as it gets.

This is how I do it: I sit down on a cushion on the floor, in a comfortable lotus position and keep my spine straight. Then I close my eyes, breathe regularly and relax. Focusing on the breath keeps me in the moment. 

That's it. 

I sit like this for circa 10-15 minutes every morning before breakfast, and often one more time when I come home from work or before bed. The first years I listened to music (solfeggio frequencies), nowadays I prefer silence.  

The key to success is persistence, i.e. every day you can.  

What I just said has been said by others before me. The most accurate and striking description of the practice comes from someone calling himself Hatton. This material surfaced circa 1960. It is the foundation upon my meditation firmly rests on. 

[…] Proper meditation is of uppermost importance, and I should like to dwell for a moment on this subject, for proper meditation is most important in your growth. First of all, place yourself in a position that is proper for meditation. The best meditation can be had in a sitting position. Sit the body comfortably but erect, with both feet placed firmly before you. Keep the body and head erect and straight. Place the hands open and upward in the lap. Allow those racing thoughts to race. Do not try to force them to stop, but bring yourself into a relaxed feeling. Let your mind relax; do not try to control it, and you shall find these racing thoughts in time will slow, will become slower and slower until they eventually stop. And with practice, my friends, this time shall become shorter and shorter, and in due time you shall reach that state of stillness quickly, and in this state of stillness you become one with Creation and life begins to speak to you. In this stillness you can bring yourself in attunement with whatsoever you wish. In this still, very still quietness, all things can flow to you, for your mind is open and receptive to higher knowledge.

[…] Now to some of you it may seem that it is impossible for you to relax in this position, but I say to you, my friends, that is the only true relaxation. For when the body is in positions for which it was not intended, true relaxation does not come, you cannot be receptive. Much of the Universal Energies comes to you through the spine when you are in the physical and unless the spine is erect, they do not flow. You would be amazed when this art is mastered, at what you can do; how quickly you can attune yourself in this state to anything that you desire. […]

-Hatton, 15/6 -1959

In a later communication the necessity of daily practice gets addressed.

[...] In the first place, it is necessary to discipline one’s self, to some extent, and set aside a certain time each day for this practice and you will never become proficient at the art of meditation unless you practice consistently. It is not enough to practice this art once a week or once a month, or even every few days, but this should become a daily ritual. For unless you do this, your progress shall be slow in mastering the art. […]

-Hatton, 23/6 -1961

The first couple of months of meditation were challenging for me, but this was also at a time when I had much emotional baggage to sort through. It might be helpful to begin with shorter time periods, just remember that patience is a small price for wonder.

Freitag, 1. Juli 2016

A Sunken Ship

The European Union. In these times many are upset that Great Britain has decided to leave the union. A disappointment that seem to have it's roots in far-right propaganda which for some reason has become synonymous with EU-criticism, in particular Brexit. Confusion prevails and an in-depth look at the facts is in order.

This is (supposed to be) EU

It's hard to believe that the negative opinions are in proportion to the general understanding of what the European Union actually is, i.e. an intercontinental economic and political union between 28 European member states that have "pooled"* parts of their sovereignty to the seven institutions of the European Union. 

The basics.
The main goal of the union is to promote economic growth, through maintaining common policies in trade and ensuring free movement of people, goods and capital between the member states. It also aims to endorse human rights and peace both locally and around the world.

Coming up with and enforcing treaties is the method they use to meet these goals. Supposedly focus on transparency is of great importance to the decision making. Democratic principles are essential. 

All this according to the European Union itself.** 

More than meets the eye.

The Stark Reality

All this sounds well and good on the paper, but in reality much is left to be desired. Let me address three core issues that gravely undermines the credibility of the European Union.

Starting off with how EU works - how the treaties are being created and adapted - a constant critique has been over-complexity.

Please take a look at the following diagrams, the first one by the European Commission showing an over-simplified version of how the ordinary legislative procedure works, the ones beneath showing the procedure in greater detail. The fourth one shows common problems associated with legislative procedures.

EU's version.

A more detailed version of the diagram above. [See them in their entirety here]

"The following diagram summarises potential issues that may emerge in the Policy to Bill phase and can cause unnecessary complexity in Bills introduced to Parliament."[link] Even though this diagram relates to the bureaucratic process in the UK, the issues most certainly are the same for the institutions in Brussels.

To understand all these steps one has to know how the institutions are connected to each other, what they are made up of and how they work, which demands serious legal understanding and knowledge of technical terminology. 

The sheer complexity alone compromises their main objective of being transparent and democratic. 


Another grave problem is the widespread lobbyism. According to The Guardian, in 2014, there were 30 000 lobbyists (of which up to 80% represent industrial interests) affecting the legislation processes in Brussels. 

As the purpose of lobbyists is to mold juridical decision-making to their advantage, one has to ask how reasonable it is to allow this amount of private economic interest to influence the workings of mentioned institutions - said to work for the greater good of Europe and it's citizens. 

Moving on, the European Union likes to boast about it's contributions to world peace, human rights and democracy. It even got the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 for its alleged efforts in this regard, and it might be true that its policies to some degree have helped maintain a peaceful Europe. 

But claiming that EU is a peace promoting entity doesn't compute with the fact that many if not most of it's member states during the last decades have been producing and exporting arms worth hundreds of billions of Euro. Spreading weapons - products made to harm and kill human beings - on a global scale.

Enough for a Nobel Peace Prize? Actually, yes.

Veni, Vidi, Submergi

Seeing as the Union says one thing but acts oppositely on several key issues, one has to wonder how valuable the membership was for Great Britain in the first place.

Even if their borders will tighten up (we'll see, it might be pure propaganda talking), but they already had an op-out from the Shengen-agreement and countries like Hungary has put up massive barb-wired fences around its borders and keeps on being a EU-member, so ultimately it's Britain's own decision how open or secluded they wish to be - with or without membership.


In 2012, during the high storm of the economic crisis, the luxury cruise ship Costa Concordia capsized. It was the biggest Italian built ship of all time and its 13 decks were all named after EU nations, thus serving as an omen for the future of the EU-project.

The deck plans of Costa Concordia.
Costa Concordia/Costa UE.

With Brexit a serious dent has been made in the hull of Costa Unión Europea. 

Considering the lack of ethical and democratic judgment by this over-complex bureaucratic machine, hypocritical to its very core, this should be saluted rather than criticized. 

This word is used in the official "How the European Union works"-document put together by the European Comission in 2014. 



Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2016

Cause for Con[cern] (II)

What is the universe made of? How did it start? Physicists at CERN are seeking answers, using some of the world's most powerful particle accelerators. - CERN's website (about)

Legitimate questions. Although it's really only the first question that CERN occupies itself with, and this through a philosophically flawed methodology. What they are doing is the pinnacle of over half a decade of flimflam which we today know as high energy particle physics.

Before I begin pointing out the questionable antics of named organization, one must understand that they are operating within a paradigm which have been dominant in the world of physics since the mid 20th century, a system which is centered around a Standard Model - which has allowed itself to grow into a labyrinth with never ending invisible walls - the opposite of a sound theory explaining the eloquence of Nature's mechanics.

The Standard Model - what does your gut feeling tell you about this?

Knowing the history of it is good, and I urge everyone with an interest to study up on it. If not else it's pretty entertaining stuff, especially if absurdism is your thing. The works of Alexander Unzicker* is a good start, either The Higgs Fake (which I rely heavily on for this discourse) or Bankrupting Physics will do.

However a short presentation and a couple of examples will be enough to demonstrate it's fundamental fallacies.

As you shall see it is rather self-evident.


Everything began in the 1930's when physicists welcomed new particles to the table. First having only 2, the electron and the proton, to accepting the positron, neutron and muon as well.

At the beginning it was simple ...

Another particle was also introduced: the neutrino. It was suggested already in 1930 by the famous physicist Wolfgang Pauli who immediately after outlining it wrote: 
"Today I have done something that a theoretical physicist should never have done. I replaced something we don't understand with something we can't measure."**
Today this has become common practice within the field.

Going into the 40's we had 5 detected particles and 1 undetectable. A couple more joined the party during the decade, but this was nothing compared to what the coming age of high energy physics i.e. particle accelerators was about to add.

... a couple of decades later the amount was reaching one hundred ...

In the mid sixties the number had grown to ~80! The high number of particles was confusing to the scientists at the time as they were classified as elementary particles - the most elementary/smallest parts of all matter (today the term elementary particle has a more specified meaning).

But it turned out all these new particles had smaller building blocks: quarks.

Thus eliminating the uncomfortable high number of elementary particles.

Three types of quarks was introduced: up, down and strange. The last one getting it's name because it didn't confine to the consensus of how particles should behave [sic]. But it didn't end there, later three more flavors was discovered: top, bottom and charm.

6 quarks in total.

But this is not all they also come in different "color charges", blue, green or red. And they all have their anti-counterpart, the anti-quarks. This might be confusing, so here's a list of all quarks and anti-quarks:

First there were 6...
And here's the kicker: due to an idea called confinement, quarks can never be observed. Here's a description directly from Wikipedia that ... well, read for yourself:
Confinement, which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, when you do separate a quark from other quarks, the energy in the gluon field is enough to create another quark pair; they are thus forever bound into hadrons such as the proton and the neutron or the pion and kaon. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches, and it is easy to demonstrate in lattice QCD. [my bold] 
A sloppy ad hoc-solution to some, reasonable to others.

Quarks aren't the only type of elementary particles though, we also have leptons and bosons, they of course also come in different forms.

Very simplified presentation of the elementary particles as we know them today.
Equally evasive are the bosons, here is an example of how they went about to "confirm" the existence of the Z boson, which by the way had to be found as the theories otherwise would fail:
The huge Gargamelle bubble chamber photographed the tracks of a few electrons suddenly starting to move, seemingly of their own accord. This is interpreted as a neutrino interacting with the electron by the exchange of an unseen Z boson. The neutrino is otherwise undetectable, so the only observable effect is the momentum imparted to the electron by the interaction. (source)
Worth mentioning is that Z (and W) bosons have such short lifetimes (10-25 sec) that they can never make it into a detector, it's the "signature" of an electron emitting an undetectable neutrino that's supposed to seal the deal, so to speak. The term pseudo-science comes to mind, but maybe it's just me.


So how many particles are we counting today, in 2016? Counting all flavors, colors, forces, anti-particles, higgses and so forth, here's the number I could find***:

63 elementary particles.

There could be errors in the numbers, but in the end who cares, they're just going to keep on finding new higgses and anti-charm lambda-bambas so why even bother.

If I cannot say a priori what elementary propositions there are, then the attempt to do so must lead to obvious nonsense - Ludwig Wittgenstein

The Science of Interpretation

I have to tip my hat to the PR team at CERN because before I dug into these matters my idea of what they were doing with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was filled with mumbojumbo regarding minuscule black holes, dimensional rifts, vacuum bubbles and what not. Albeit very exciting but very far from reality.

Now I know that their main purpose is to test various theoretical models within particle- and high energy physics - to explore the reaches of the standard model.

A detailed example of what they are actually doing can be seen in this excerpt from their annual report (2015):
"The new ATLAS and CMS results do not show any significant excesses that could indicate the presence of particles predicted by alternative models such as supersymmetry. The two experiments have therefore established new limits for the masses of these hypothetical new particles. [...] This is just one of the many results that were presented on 15 December." (source)
In other words, they search for hypothetical new (?!) particles in different spectra and if they don't find them, they determine that these particles must be of a different nature than theoretically assumed.

That's it.

When the Higgs boson was confirmed late 2012 it was referred to as the "God particle" (what's that even supposed to mean?) in the press and conveniently saved many a man's reputation as well as justified the ongoing expenses of the whole project, which at the time was close to $13.25 billion [sic].

Needeles in a needlestack/colliding particles.
Here's another way to discover the Higgs boson.

Let's examine the process of how they found the Higgs boson and show the contrasts between their way of going about and the actual scientific method they claim to represent:

In short: Two independent teams (ATLAS and CMS) with the explicit purpose of finding the Higgs boson collide hundreds of billions of protons into each other and interpret the collisions.

The particle accelerator at CERN.
This is not entirely unproblematic.

The life times of many of the particles aren't long enough for them to travel the distance of a proton's radius, even lesser so into a detector. The W boson and top quark for example have no way of leaving the colliding point in which hundreds of millions of proton pairs smashes into one another every second.

Another problem is that the scatter process is not fully understood, as Unzicker puts it "a reliable theory of how accelerated charges radiate just does not exist".(source)

This could partly be because the size of the proton is still a subject of debate.****


So, out of ~one trillion proton-proton collisions, maybe one of them will create a Higgs particle which instantly decays into other particles, mostly photon pairs, which by the way most other proton-proton collision also decays into.(source)
If each of the LHC's 500 trillion collisions were represented by a grain of sand, they would fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool, yet the grains from the signals of interest — the possible Higgses — would cover only the tip of your finger. (source)
-Joe Incandela, [...] spokesman for the CMS team at LHC
Looking for a grain of sand in a swimming pool of sand ...

Found anything yet?
Assuming every single line of the immense body of computer code is correct and the detector calibration is flawless in every regard, we are still left with two groups of people with the specific goal of finding this and that by interpreting collision artifacts, whose complexity nobody fully understands.

Not to mention that that these teams are in charge of every instance of the experiment involving everything from beaming and detector calibration to data gathering, selection and analyze. Instead of having one independent group focusing on for example the detector calibration, the teams deals with everything.

All this behind locked doors, without public scrutiny.

Now consider the outcomes:

1. They find it. Fame and fortune awaits, Nobel prizes are being handed out, their employment is safe etc.

2.  They don't find it. Justifying further grants will be challenging, but it will be even harder to face the possibility that the standard model might contain fundamental errors - a situation which would have immense effects on thousands of people's careers and life work, including many of who are directly involved today.

And we're supposed to blindly take their word for it?

So far the bill for the LHC is around $18 billion (source). The annual costs for keeping it running is around $1.25 billion. By now it should be evident that even if they indeed did find Higgs the beneficial aspects of the discovery for humankind are diddly-squat, just one more addition to the particle zoo.

Cyclical reasoning

The ideal way of conducting science, as proposed by the Age of Enlightment, is since long dead. The world of science today is heavily dependent on money and glory. Two factors that we all too often underestimate. It's not hard to see how a scientific result might be affected by the possibility of loosing one's (or other people's) income or prestige.
"Nearly all scientists are employed by some large organization, such as a government department, a university, or a multinational company. Only rarely are they free to express their science as a personal view. They may think that they are free, but in reality they are, nearly all of them, employees; they have traded freedom of thought for good working conditions, a steady income and a pension." -James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of our Living Earth
And of course: an identity.

Looking back at our history, one finds that most breakthroughs have come not through a slowly evolving consensus, but rather through maverick individuals, who's ideas swiftly shook up the established ground.
“In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”― Galileo Galilei
When looking at the standard model of today one can't help but to be reminded of the epicycle model. A geocentric astronomical model prevalent from ~300 BC to the late middle ages. In order for the proponents of the theory to explain the ever growing mountain of problems associated with normal sky observations, epicycles was invented. This explained the movements of the heavenly bodies without having to adjust Earths position as the center of the solar system.

The epicycles became more and more complex as time went by. Galileo, Kepler and Kopernicus of course changed all that, but to a high personal price; after all they questioned a system which had been in commonplace for almost 2000 years.

Beautiful and positively gut wrenching at the same time.
We see a great resemblance today within physics: extreme complexity, non accurate predictions, ad hoc-solutions, parroting, the good old "so many people can't be wrong for such a long time", great resistance towards alternatives etc..

They say we know better today, but that's what they've always said. If one does some digging they will find that our very recent history is filled with mistakes not only in physics but in all scientific disciplines. Dogmatism in particular never seem to fade away ...
If the Higgs is not discovered, I think it's practically certain that there is something else in nature which is equally interesting, and maybe even more interesting, that will create the symmetry breaking required by the standard model; and why do I say that it's required? Because the standard model is so good. 
- Jerome Friedman, Nobel Prize Physics 1990 (source)
When hearing statements like the one above one has to cringe a little, because when it comes down to it this is someone who is supposed to represent science and the scientific method, saying that there's no room for alternative models in physics.

What happens when you have this mindset and don't find what you're looking for?

No matter how much the followers keep on saying that the standard model is the best model ever (which they keep on saying by the way, as if they have to keep on reminding themselves), it hasn't gotten close to resolve any of the following basic problems in physics:

  • Contradictions of Electrodynamics
  • Compute Masses
  • Compute Mass Ratios
  • Compute Lifetimes
  • Compute Fine Structure Constant
  • Relation and Nature of Gravity
  • Origin of Spin
  • Origin of Radioactivity
  • Nature of Space, Time and Inertia

"A model that says nothing about all these fundamental questions is crap." 
- Alexander Unzicker

**p. 167, Particles and Nuclei: An Introduction to the Physical Concepts
*** Source for elementary particles, source for mesons and baryons
****Here's and example: the sixth, "top" quark has a mass of 173 gigaelectron volts whereas it's colleagues ranges from 0.3 to 4.6, but no number was predicted and therefore they could just keep on going higher and higher until they found something.
Further sources:
-The Higgs Fake, Unzicker, Alexander, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (October 9, 2013)-