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.

 

Jury convicts 2 of conspiracy in Oregon standoff at Malheur refuge

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx


so...you wouldn't mind all the black lives matter protesters to be armed?....


Love it when member replies don't appear in my in box. Had to come back and stumble across this droll.

Not falling for race baiting either.




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Everyone of them should have been charged with terrorism and sent to Gitmo for "enhanced interrogation". It's funny how these right wingers cry for the law to be followed until some nut from their party starts acting up.



These guys are a different breed really. Not really "right wingers". Even a lot of so called "right wingers wingers" that voted for Trump are more like constitutional libertarians than "right wingers".


Buster is like that guy that smashes fruit and stuff with a giant sledge hammer.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: greydaze
a reply to: Snarl
When have Armed BLMtrs,or muslims taken over a government sanc for months?..And if they did they would be smoked out,and executed within days..And guaranteed You wouldn't have a prob with it..
He-Haw




What the hell are you talking about?

You know they would still be there and probably have the deed to the land.




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   


These guys are a different breed really. Not really "right wingers"


They may not be exactly traditional Republicans, but they are definitely right wingers.

We have a lot of them in Eastern Washington and I had to work with some of them. They want to live in the 1800's but with hundreds of thousands of dollars of gas powered toys. Very weird and irrational in my opinion and definitely reactionary.

The thing that really annoys me, besides the fact that they love to talk about liberty but don't want other groups of people to have any, is that a lot of them get money from the government, but they're always wanting to stop the government from being able to spend money on anyone else.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock



These guys are a different breed really.

No they aren't they staged an armed take over of a federal building to promote their political agenda. That is terrorism you don't have to kill people to be a terrorist.



Buster is like that guy that smashes fruit and stuff with a giant sledge hammer.

I love the sledge o matic tyvm.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010


I mean they are not really right wing sorts.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Finally some justice. I'm glad at least some of these degenerate criminals are getting some punishment for their armed takeover of a Wildlife Refuge. Two were convicted of conspiracy and two more for destruction of government property. They tried to claim that they were just protesting, but an armed takeover is not a protest, it's an act of revolution. I'm still disappointed that their leaders weren't convicted as well, but at least this is progress.

www.seattletimes.com...

Let's keep things in context here. They were pretty peaceful for 'revolutionaries'. No shots fired, no officials assaulted during that takeover. They were protesting the re-sentencing of Dwight and Steve Hammond, a father and son who shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place.

Of course, avoiding a miscarriage of justice wouldn't have fit into the Bureau Of Land Management's evil agenda of running ranchers off of land that was in the Bureau's sights. Protecting nature, right? No, actually there are a lot of resources under those hills, namely considerable uranium deposits. The Hammonds are one of the last few holdouts along that range. The Bureau Of Land Management has used dirty tactics to push out most of the other ranchers in that area over the last couple of decades.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Um, didn't the feds try and steal their land in a giant land grab?


The re-sentencing of the Hammonds that precipitated the occupation was intended to cause the Hammond family to lose their ranch. The BLM has been forcing ranchers off of that range through dirty tactics for years. It seems a uranium mine is planned for the area, once all of the land owners have been relieved of their property.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie




The re-sentencing of the Hammonds that precipitated the occupation was intended to cause the Hammond family to lose their ranch.
The Hammonds were re-sentenced because the law which they were convicted of violating requires a minimum sentence, which the initial judge ignored. The Bundites usurped the local protests for their own agenda.



It seems a uranium mine is planned for the area, once all of the land owners have been relieved of their property.
Source?
edit on 3/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Could you provide a source for what that minimum sentence is and how it is applied in the specific case? I don't know what it is and want to know for education's sake.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Source?

Interesting you should ask that Phage. I find it highly intriguing how difficult it is to source this accurate claim. I always thought it seemed kind of odd how you and other posters kept shooting this claim down last year in the ensuing discussions on mineral content in the area, but didn't have time to look into it at the time. I decided to do a little more reading on the topic to see if I could provide that source when you requested it.

I can see why you and other posters so easily disputed this claim. It mostly appears in fairly crappy articles making the claim which usually reference "Mineral Resources of the Pueblo Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Harney County, Oregon, and Humboldt County, Nevada U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1740-B", which is available as a pdf on the web.
pubs.usgs.gov...
As far as I can tell, this report is mostly a red herring as it pertains to uranium on the Hammonds' land. It certainly figures in to the larger discussion about the Clinton Foundation's back room dealings with Uranium One, a Russian owned mining company. For the minerals detailed in Bulletin 1740-B to be extracted, it looks as though the Hammonds would need to be removed in order for the BLM's acquisition of the region to the public lands domain to be complete. The area detailed in 1740-B is in the south of Harney County though, many miles from the Hammonds' land holdings. The appendix of the report details a number of sampled areas, so the Hammonds' holdings may have been included in that appendix, but this is a difficult connection to make, and I'm doubtful that it is in that report anyhow.

The idea that the Hammonds need to lose their land for mineral development to occur in another part of the county miles away from the Hammonds' holdings is a heady argument that most people might not grasp anyway. Most of the articles I read on the subject did not make this connection, or did so poorly when they did.

This article, however, references an Oregon State Dept. Of Geology report from 1956, which does show significant uranium deposits on or very near the Hammonds' land:


And now the event at the Hammonds Ranch / BLM land just happens to be right next to “DIAMOND” Craters Volcanic field in Oregon.

All three above mentioned locations are known for minerals like GOLD + DIAMONDS + URANIUM.

Check out this government report from 1956 detailing Uranium and other natural resources in the Oregon locations.

freedomfromgovernment.org...
The geological report referred to in the article:
freedomfromgovernment.org...
Take a look at the map on page 5 of that report, and compare it to a map showing the range land in question. If it's not actually on the Hammonds' land, it's very close to it. This would naturally lead one to conclude that similar deposits are present on the Hammonds' land, even if these mineral prospects weren't performed there.

It looks like there's been some obfuscation going on about the resources in the area, even within the alternative media sources most closely covering the story. Not too surprising I suppose to learn that that is the case. There's a lot of money to be made in mineral development, especially uranium.

Links to articles that reference the easily dismissed 1740-B report:
www.newmediajournal.us...
www.infowars.com...
freedomoutpost.com...

Link to an article debunking the articles that reference 1740-B:
crooksandliars.com...

Links to reporting on the circumstantial, hard to follow connections between mineral development and the Hammonds' unjust re-sentencing:
www.nytimes.com...
farmwars.info...
themarshallreport.wordpress.com... ond-ranch-part-of-the-deal/



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   
For those readers interested, here's a video report my Stephan Molyneux giving some of the sordid details surrounding the Hammonds' unjust re-sentencing. It goes deeper than this, but Stephan does a pretty good job of hitting the major points in this video.

Here's a video introduced by Ammon Bundy that was posted around the time of the standoff documenting some abuses of power by the Bureau Of Land Management.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why these people were so pissed off.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie




which does show significant uranium deposits on or very near the Hammonds' land:

75 miles is "very near?"
Do you know where the Hammond Ranch is?



This would naturally lead one to conclude that similar deposits are present on the Hammonds' land,
Why? Is the geology the same? Because, you know, mineral deposits are all about the geology. I've been in Eastern Oregon (on hang gliding safaris). The geology is quite varied.
edit on 3/14/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Woah, slow down there Tex! Take a moment and re-read my post, and consider the information I've presented to you; unless you would prefer to just make wildly inaccurate statements. The uranium deposits referenced in 1740-B are 75 miles from the Hammonds' land, the deposits referenced in the Oregon Dept. Of Geology's report are on or extremely close to the Hammonds' land.

You would know this if you had actually looked at the material I presented, or fully read and comprehended the post that I wrote. I wouldn't think you were one to exhibit such poor reading comprehension skills.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie


the deposits referenced in the Oregon Dept. Of Geology's report are on or extremely close to the Hammonds' land.
Their name is Hammond. The apostrophe goes before the s.

No, the deposits are not near the Hammond's land. Do you know where the Hammond Ranch is? But take a look a the report, and the map. The northern most deposits are not really that impressive but what is interesting is that all of them are in, or south of the Steens Mountains. The Steens mountains are a very large geological feature. What makes you think the geology north of the Steens is the same as that south of the Steens?

Now, if you can find a report talking about uranium deposits in the Harney Basin (where the Ranch is, on the "backside" of the Steens), you might have something more than arm waving.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Actually the apostrophe would go on the end when referring to them in the plural. The Hammonds live at the Hammonds' ranch. If I borrowed Mr. Hammond's drill, and wrote about it, then I would put the apostrophe before the s. If I were invited to a barbeque by the Hammonds and then wrote about it, I would say that the Hammonds' barbeque was awesome. Saying that the Hammonds's barbeque was awesome would be grammatically incorrect, if I were referring to the Hammonds in the plural. We are discussing more than one Hammond.

Even if you are correct that none of the map tags are referring to the Harney Basin(and I'm not convinced that you are), wouldn't you still agree that those tags are a good deal closer than '75 miles from the Hammonds' range?' It looks to me like they are very close to the Hammonds' range. I have not extensively toured Oregon, but I'm pretty good at reading a map, judging mapped distances, and navigation.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie


The Hammonds live at the Hammonds' ranch.
Only one Hammond living there at the moment.



Even if you are correct that none of the map tags are referring to the Harney Basin(and I'm not convinced that you are), wouldn't you still agree that those tags are a good deal closer than '75 miles from the Hammonds' range?'
I am somewhat familiar with the topography of the region (studied topo maps looking for hang gliding sites). The back of the Steens is very different from the Steens and lands south. Geology is what matters in mineralogy, not proximity.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Also this debate we've launched into is off topic here. I created a thread on this topic because this new information intrigues me. Why don't we move this discussion over there?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

All the same, wouldn't you agree that those mapped sites are a good deal closer than 75 miles from the Hammonds' range, even if they may not be in the Harney basin?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join