It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The FInal Captsone- Revelation of The Devil Her Name is Alice Part 3

page: 21
15
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




I would strongly recommend everyone to research themselves


probably the only thing we will ever agree on.
But disagree with the rest.




posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TerryDon79




I would strongly recommend everyone to research themselves


probably the only thing we will ever agree on.
But disagree with the rest.


Disagree as much as you like. You're just some random guy on an Internet forum pushing hoaxes as facts.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
one last thing I will say to you freemasons.


I am not a freemason...


You may stop the truth here in this single thread.


You are the one trying to stop the truth by following satan and pushing a known hoax....


As we speak, millions are reading the same topic and agree with me.


Actually, if millions were reading what you wrote (but we both know they are not!) they would all be wondering why you are following satan and pushing a known hoax!



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TerryDon79




I would strongly recommend everyone to research themselves


probably the only thing we will ever agree on.
But disagree with the rest.


Disagree as much as you like. You're just some random guy on an Internet forum pushing hoaxes as facts.


I think you should look in the mirror.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TerryDon79




I would strongly recommend everyone to research themselves


probably the only thing we will ever agree on.
But disagree with the rest.


Disagree as much as you like. You're just some random guy on an Internet forum pushing hoaxes as facts.


I think you should look in the mirror.


The difference between me and you?

I know when somethings been proven a hoax and can admit to it.
edit on 1262016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Anywho, continuing to topic meant to be for Christians (or those who want to know truth (I address them because they have genuine interests.)

You can see the signs on our time being short. So i wont waste it on those who have zero clues on what the bible says. If you match everything stated in the OP with the scriptures. You can now begin seeing the invincible world:




edit on th2016000000Sundayth000000Sun, 12 Jun 2016 04:04:06 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoSun, 12 Jun 2016 04:04:06 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

If this is only meant for Christians, why didn't you find a Christian only site? You do realise this site isn't an echo chamber?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

There are hundreds of Christians on ATS. And people interested in Christianity. Why should I NOT address them?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TerryDon79

There are hundreds of Christians on ATS. And people interested in Christianity. Why should I NOT address them?

I never said you can't, but if you want ONLY Christians, then this isn't the site for you.

People like me will always be here, we will always call people out on lies and hoaxes, we will always provide evidence to prove our points.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

can you prove the man which you claim was a hoax was not threatened into saying it was a hoax?

Do you not think, that the retraction of the words from the supposed hoax could possibly have fowl play behind it?

Here is an example of a "hoax" to give you an idea.

Many are familiar with this:



He later calls back, somewhat a year later to say it was a hoax.




Now I studied psychology, and I find this change of pattern and twist to be extremely odd and I have seen it before within people threatened by the mob or criminals. You can see it within the change of tone. The first video you can hear the despair. (You can always tell the difference between someone having genuine despair, and faking it.)

The second video ; the tone sounds more fake and less genuine. Just like when you can tell when someone has real tears vs crocodile tears.

The taxil hoax, is questionable and should not dismiss, because the fact is, when powerful people dont want something known. They will threaten you to stay silent. It is a common practice within criminals.

So i ask you, can you provide proof that he was not threatened to retract his words by saying it was a hoax after he said it was real?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TerryDon79

can you prove the man which you claim was a hoax was not threatened into saying it was a hoax?
It's not upto me to prove a negative. It's up to you to prove the positive.


Do you not think, that the retraction of the words from the supposed hoax could possibly have fowl play behind it?
Again with the same lies. There was no retraction. The guy who hoaxed it, admitted he hoaxed it. That's not a retraction, it's an admission.


Here is an example of a "hoax" to give you an idea.

Many are familiar with this:



He later calls back, somewhat a year later to say it was a hoax.

So?


Now I studied psychology, and I find this change of pattern and twist to be extremely odd and I have seen it before within people threatened by the mob or criminals.
I find you studying anything hard to believe after the way you haven't studied most of what you posted in here.

Being "odd" doesn't mean a thing.



You can see it within the change of tone. The first video you can hear the despair. (You can always tell the difference between someone having genuine despair, and faking it.)

The second video ; the tone sounds more fake and less genuine. Just like when you can tell when someone has real tears vs crocodile tears.
Which doesn't prove a thing. It's just your "feeling".


The taxil hoax, is questionable and should not dismiss, because the fact is, when powerful people dont want something known. They will threaten you to stay silent. It is a common practice within criminals.
Yet the person who hoaxed it wasn't the person he was pretending to be.


So i ask you, can you provide proof that he was not threatened to retract his words by saying it was a hoax after he said it was real?
Stop lying. No words were retracted. How many times do you need to be told this? The guy was NOT Albert Pike. It's not upto me to prove it, as I already have. You're the one disputing it, so it's up to you to prove it wasn't a hoax.
edit on 1262016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Wrong, you cannot prove that he wasnt threatened. And yes it was a retraction. And I see that your aim is mostly a personal attack against me because you keep calling me a liar.

You cannot prove I am lying because you cannot prove that he was not threatened. As i said I have reasons to believe he was threatened to retract his words.

Why? because it has happened before. And its a common practice within criminals. This alone makes your character assasination attempt moot.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TerryDon79

Wrong, you cannot prove that he wasnt threatened.
What do you mean wrong? I said I couldn't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove he was.



And yes it was a retraction.
Albert Pike would have had to retract it for it to be a retraction. He didn't. The hoaxer admitted it was a hoax. Therefore, it's an admission.



And I see that your aim is mostly a personal attack against me because you keep calling me a liar.
That's because you keep pushing a hoax as truth. That makes you a liar.


You cannot prove I am lying because you cannot prove that he was not threatened.
I can't prove a negative. And you can't prove he was.



As i said I have reasons to believe he was threatened to retract his words.
How can he retract words that someone else admitted to hoaxing? Quit with saying its a retraction, it makes you look more dishonest.


Why? because it has happened before. And its a common practice within criminals.
So because it's happened before it must have happened again to this particular person? You know what else has happened before? HOAXES.



This alone makes your character assasination attempt moot.
Not a character assassination. Calling a person who is pushing hoaxes as truths a liar.
edit on 1262016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Im talking about the person who originally wrote the quote. to which you said, "admitted" was a hoax. Which is a retraction of his words that Albert pike said it.

can you prove that the person that wrote the quote was not threatened to retract it? because according to his original writings, he was quoting Albert Pike.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TerryDon79

Im talking about the person who originally wrote the quote. to which you said, "admitted" was a hoax. Which is a retraction of his words that Albert pike said it.
It's not a retraction of Albert Pikes words as Albert Pike never said or wrote them. The hoaxer did and the hoaxer admitted to it. That makes it an admission.


can you prove that the person that wrote the quote was not threatened to retract it? because according to his original writings, he was quoting Albert Pike.
You mean the writing from Léo Taxil? That was a guy called Marie Joseph Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pagès. He was the one who admitted to the hoax.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79



Can you prove Antoine Jogand-Pagès was not threatened by the freemasons to "admit" this hoax? MY argument is, that he was threatened into saying it was a hoax. because Freemasons tend to do that to people.

I stated clearly, that criminals will go at any lengths to cover something up. It is a common practice within criminals to threaten a whistle-blower.

Antoine Jogand-Pagès was a whistle blower by quoting Albert pike.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
I stated clearly, that criminals will go at any lengths to cover something up.


Is that why you are pushing a well known hoax?



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: TerryDon79



Can you prove Antoine Jogand-Pagès was not threatened by the freemasons to "admit" this hoax?
No, I cannot prove the negative. It would be your job to prove he was as its your argument, not mine.



MY argument is, that he was threatened into saying it was a hoax. because Freemasons tend to do that to people.
Prove it. Until you do, it will be a hoax.


I stated clearly, that criminals will go at any lengths to cover something up. It is a common practice within criminals to threaten a whistle-blower.
So? It's also a common practice for liars to carry on lying.


Antoine Jogand-Pagès was a whistle blower by quoting Albert pike.
Prove it.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


Prove it.


He wrote the words did he not? Prove to me he wasn't.

The fact is, you have no right to call me a liar when you don't know whether he was or wasnt a whistleblower threatened by the freemasons. There is DOUBT in the argument because many things could have befallen the person to all of a sudden have a change of heart and say it was a hoax.

If he wrote the words and said albert pike said it. Then that simple act alone makes him a whistleblower.

whis·tle-blow·er
noun
noun: whistleblower

a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
engaged in an illicit activity.


Exactly what "illicit" behaviour are you on about?




top topics



 
15
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join