One cannot necessarily prove something DID NOT HAPPEN. Its called proving a negative and is a fallacy.
If somebody alleges that there are three inch monkeys made of blue flame that play a version of basketball beneath the surface of Uranus - I cannot disprove that. But I do not have to as it is the total and complete responsibility of the person making the claim of fact to prove their claims.
If you claim something happened, it is totally incumbent upon you to prove it if challenged to do so.
I claimed that it is possible. In fact, my very first word in my first reply to you, which ended with a period said, "Possibly".
But again, you're still not addressing your own OP. You asked, "Does anyone have verifiable evidence that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was ever ratified by enough states to become an official part of the US Constitution?"
My reply to YOUR question is that the Preambles, in and of themselves, didn't need to be ratified. To simplify this, as stated in the following quote, Preambles do not convey any rights, by which the government must abide (in the Articles), or the citizens (in the Bill of Rights), but there's more. You're welcome to read on.
The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, the famous first fifty-two words, which:
1) Introduces everything that is to follow in the Constitution’s seven articles and twenty-seven amendments.
2) It proclaims who is adopting this Constitution: “We the People of the United States.”
3) It describes why it is being adopted—the purposes behind the enactment of America’s charter of government.
4) And it describes what is being adopted: “this Constitution”—a single authoritative written text to serve as fundamental law of the land. Written constitutionalism was an American innovation, and one that the framing generation considered the new nation’s greatest contribution to the science of government.
The word “preamble,” while accurate, does not quite capture the full importance of this provision. “Preamble” might be taken—we think wrongly—to imply that these words are merely an opening rhetorical flourish or frill without meaningful effect. To be sure, “preamble” usefully conveys the idea that this provision does not itself confer or delineate powers of government or rights of citizens. Those are set forth in the substantive articles and amendments that follow in the main body of the Constitution’s text.
https://constitutioncenter.org/inte...merinsky-and-michael-stokes-paulsen/interp/37
The same applies to the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. It too describes, in a different manner, the same as stated above.
So basically, I'm claiming that your question in your OP is immaterial and/or inconsequential.
If people choose not examine these Preambles...okay, it's their choice. But, the essences of what the Preambles are saying might give people a wee bit different perspective on the Constitution, both its articles and amendments. The essence of these Preambles might, no guarantees, but might remind our elected officials the whys, whats, and hows that they need to remember as they govern. Bottom line: They help We the People understand why our elected officials should be accountable...and to whom. How we (as individuals) react to the information contained in these Preambles...is obviously each individual's choice.
Look, in my opinion, we have a government that's learned how to protect itself from being accountable using the very instrument that was written to prevent that. For 240 years people who wind up in the Kingdom of Washington spend more time looking for loopholes to protect them from the same laws the citizens must abide by. To make themselves more privileged.
None of these endeavors by members of our government have come from either Preamble. It might come from a form of neglect from both government and citizens to refer to both Preambles in order to rethink their roles in our form of government. Just sayin...
