It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Are Our Leaders Criminals and Satanists?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 02:40 PM
Some kid poked dubya's daddy's pee pee and NOTHING CAME OF IT???

I haven't heard that one before.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 03:53 PM
Your description of yourself as a guy off the street explains a lot about your approach.

It sounds to me as if we know different facts due to having access to very different sources.

I presumed you know the text of Skull and Bones vows, what they do, what they stand for.

I presumed you substantially understand the split between ideological Calvinism [by Paul] and behavioristic legalism of Jesus [described by Matthew].

Maybe I took too much for granted. Sorry.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 08:18 PM
more on the 'fake video' which has William Colby in it, how strange these fakes look pretty real to me.

Maybe you can back up your claim that Decamp was not a Senator? I can't seem to verify that one.

P.S. you can watch the video here


About the Video

In mid-1993, after The Franklin Cover-Up had been circulating for almost a year, the British-based TV station, Yorkshire Television, sent a top-notch team to Nebraska to launch its own investigation of the Franklin case. Yorkshire had a contract with the Discovery Channel to produce a documentary on the case for American television.

They spent many months in Nebraska, and also travelled this country from one end to the other, interviewing, filming, and documenting piece-by-piece the Franklin story as I had told it in the book. They spent somewhere between a quarter-million and one-half million dollars investigating the story, deploying probably a thousand times the resources and abilities that I personally had.

Over the year that I worked with them, I was amazed at the team’s ability to gather new documents and witnesses which kept opening up new and frightening facts about Franklin. They were a crack team. In the final weeks that they were in Nebraska, they expressed their certainty that they would win awards for this documented horror story of government-sanctioned abuse of children; and government protection of some of this country’s most powerful businessmen and politicians, who had been the chief acts in the Franklin story.

Finally, the big day came. Their documentary was to air nation-wide on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994. It was advertised in the TV Guide and in newspapers for that day. But no one ever saw that program. At the last minute, and without explanation, it was pulled from the air. It was not shown then, and has never been broadcast anywhere since.

I have a copy of that program, which arrived anonymously in my mail in late 1995. When I watched this pirated copy, I could see clearly why the program had been suppressed. Conspiracy of Silence proved, beyond doubt, that the essential points I had stressed in the book (and more) were all true.

For instance, the team had interviewed Troy Boner. Sometime after that grand jury was over, Troy, guilt-stricken because of his lying over Gary Caradori’s death, contacted me and told the truth about what had happened. This is recorded in a remarkable affidavit (see Chapter 20). The Yorkshire TV team spent a small fortune to confirm Troy’s charges. They flew Troy to Chicago and paid for a lengthy polygraph (lie detector) test at the Keeler Polygraph Institute. With the results of that test, the Yorkshire team was so convinced that Troy was telling the truth, that they featured him in their documentary.

It was only in mid-1996, that I finally pieced together, through sources I am not at liberty to disclose, what happened to stop the broadcast of this documentary.

1. At the time the Yorkshire TV team and the Discovery Channel were doing the documentary, they had no idea how high up the case would go into Government, and what major institutions and personalities in this country, would be found to be linked to the Franklin story. Ultimately, the documentary focused on several limited aspects documented in this book, and developed them much more extensively than I ever had the resources or abilities to accomplish.

2. These areas which the documentary focused on, were:

(a) the use and involvement of Boys Town children and personalities in the Franklin Scandal, particularly Peter Citron and Larry King’s relationships to Boys Town;

(b) the linkage of Franklin to some of this country’s top politicians in Washington, and in the US Congress, with particular attention on those who attended parties held by Larry King at his Washington mansion on Embassy Row;

(c) the impropriety of these politicians and businessmen and compromising of these people by Larry King, through drugs and using children for pedophilia.

3. When the broadcast tape was sent to the United States, Customs officials seized the documentary and held it up as being ‘pornographic material’. Attorneys for Discovery Channel and Yorkshire TV were able to get the documentary released. Then, the lawyers went through the film for months, making this or that change or deletion, so that the documentary ultimately advertised to be shown on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994, would survive any claims of libel or slander that any of the individuals identified in the documentary might attempt to bring. The lawyers had cleared the documentary for broadcast.

4. During the several months that the documentary was being prepared and advertised for showing, major legislation impacting the entire future of the Cable TV industry was being debated on Capitol Hill. Legislation, which the industry opposed, was under debate for placing controls on the industry and the contents of what could be shown. Messages were delivered in no uncertain terms from key politicians involved in the Cable TV battle, that if the Conspiracy of Silence were shown on the Discovery Channel as planned, then the industry would probably lose the debate. An agreement was reached: Conspiracy of Silence was pulled, and with no rights for sale or broadcast by any other program; Yorkshire TV would be reimbursed for the costs of production, the Discovery Channel itself would never be linked to the documentary; and copies of Conspiracy of Silence would be destroyed.

Not all copies were destroyed, however, as I and some others received anonymously in the mail a copy of the nearly-finished product.

When the Discovery Channel program, Conspiracy of Silence, was being prepared, the British investigative team insisted that they would not go forward on the program unless they had the on-camera personal interview, and verification of Bill Colby himself, that John DeCamp was reporting the truth with respect to Franklin, and with respect to this book, The Franklin Cover-Up. Colby went on camera, and thoroughly shocked the Yorkshire TV team in how strongly he came out, risking himself, to support me and my work on Franklin.

Bill also wrote a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, in which he strongly recommended that the Justice Department investigate this case from the standpoint I outlined in my book, a copy of which he enclosed with his letter. He got a formal response back from a Justice Department official, promising that the Department would indeed look into the case.

But then, Bill had always backed me up, right from the earliest days, beginning in Vietnam.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 08:28 PM
I assume this video named names.

Why not upload the video to some scattered servers, worldwide, so we can all see what our officials in Washington like to get involved in.

I think we the taxpayers have a right to know.

Don't you?

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 08:39 PM
The vid's now on and propaganda matrix

allot more hit's on those sites than scattered servers

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 08:49 PM

& here's a quick read, no 'proofs' but lotof ineuendo about the Prez
and the cohorts in power and covetous of regaining power...
(The New Administration of the 'First-Born' son) et al

~*~ Meta Tauta

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:23 PM
HOW--in the name of all that's Holy, Sacred, Real, Active, Necessary and Appropriate CAN WE "inaugurate" somebody like this?

What are we--crazy? The election was rigged; the Press is rigged; the War is rigged against our military.

When is it enough, for God's SAKE???

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:28 PM
Well, I looked at the obviously amateur “Part 2” video first. If that’s even a draft of a Discovery Channel show, I’ll eat my TV set.

And this is the stuff you describe as the “a copy of the nearly-finished product”?

But more important is what that video doesn’t say. None of the people on the screen were identified by a tag-line on the screen -- even the people who WEREN’T victims. Why is that -- especially it the film is “a copy of the nearly-finished product”?

It seems like you’re trying to show that this Lawrence King guy was involved in some sort of sex scandal at Boy’s Town, and yet all of the evidence supposedly turned over to the FBI was ignored and a “hostile media” tried to squash it. According to the cops, including the FBI, the whole set of allegations was a hoax!

Now that makes a lot of sense. Here you have a chance to pop heavy duty republicans and Janet Reno, Clinton’s chief political cop, doesn’t jump on it like white on rice? That makes a whole lot of sense.

So what you have is a bunch of un-named people coming up with something which the cops say has no truth to it!

Now I wouldn’t doubt if this Lawrence King is nothing but a JAMF. But even if all this stuff is true -- and so far you haven’t shown me any evidence except for a video that looks like it was made in someone’s basement with a $500 Sony camcorder -- How does that possibly tie into “criminal and Satanist” stuff?

No one was indicted; no serious news source did any big time digging -- and you say they were “pressured”? Come on, slave; get a grip! This is the same media that went after two sitting presidents -- Nixon and Clinton -- and brought one of them down and ruined the reputation of the other. Why is it that they were “pressured” this time and not for the Watergate and Monicagate adventures?

Sorry, slave. I am sure that there are some people out there who want so desperately for something like this to be true that they will actually look at your home videos and innuendos as “evidence” of Beelzebub in the Bathtub and Satan in the Snack bar..

But not many, thank God.

St Udio has it right, when he says:

“… here's a quick read, no 'proofs' but lot of ineuendo …”

That’s what you and defrag99 and Prison Planet and all the rest of the boys have, slave.


posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:33 PM
dgtempe says:

"can you eat a watermelon thru a picket fence? she can."

You know, dgtempe, I always figured beneath your so-called liberal exterior there was a racist waiting to get out.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:36 PM
slave says:

"Maybe you can back up your claim that Decamp was not a Senator? I can't seem to verify that one."

Maybe that's because you didn't google "John DeCamp". It's pretty easy, you know. It's just a search engine.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:37 PM
I was waiting for someone to pick up on that comment--which I found embarrassing.

Thanks for showing me what to say, next time it comes up.

I'm basically shy and don't like to have to call somebody down for being rude.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:39 PM
Condi could still eat a watermelon through a picket fence no matter what color she was. It's a buckteeth thing, not a race thing.

We won't even talk about how her sour look could scare the hood offa Klansman.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:40 PM

Easy, folks.

This is going places it shouldn't. Let's just drop the whole appearance thing, cuz it ain't getting any further from a T&C violation.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:43 PM
But wasn't John Decamp a Nebraska senator??

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
dgtempe says:

"can you eat a watermelon thru a picket fence? she can."

You know, dgtempe, I always figured beneath your so-called liberal exterior there was a racist waiting to get out.
And you know what? You're wrong, dead wrong. The woman is evil and i hate evil, nothing wrong with that. By the way, you dont know me from a hole in the ground so try to control your comments, please. Thank you.

By the way, i've met many white folks who can eat a watermelon thru a picket fence

[edit on 1-1-2005 by dgtempe]

[edit on 1-1-2005 by dgtempe]

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 10:05 PM
Wrong about Decamp

I guess that's what to expect from a guy off the street.

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 09:01 AM
It doesn't work to insult a street-wise, self-taught authority-figure.

You're wasting your time.

They absorb all your anger and use it to throw back at you; or get someone else (like a mod) to throw at you.

I had an uncle like that: fascinating person like a snake is fascinating. He was kicked off the SF police force for being too violent, in the 1950s.

The love of guns is the operative cue. And they can be brilliant, wise and entertaining. But--

Generally, it is wise to just let them do all the talking.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt" is a good rule-of-thumb in these cases. I never did figure out how to get past my uncle's authoritarianism.

Just tip-toe out of the room, hoping they don't see you leave.

[edit on 2-1-2005 by defrag99]

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link have a point there, but i've never been one to back up against a wall and take the beating.

Buck teeth can be for white folks too

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:02 PM
Amlie says:

"But wasn't John Decamp a Nebraska senator??"

True. If you'd read my post again, you'll find that was exactly what I said -- that he wasn't a U.S. Senator but a Nebraska one.


posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:07 PM
defrag says:

"It doesn't work to insult a street-wise, self-taught authority-figure....The love of guns is the operative cue....Just tip-toe out of the room, hoping they don't see you leave."

What does that ad hominem post have to do with validating your assertion that Bush et. al. is a "Criminal and Satanist"? Is that supposed to pass for evidence for this "criminality" and "satanism"?

Let's try to keep on the subject here, okay?

[edit on 2-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in