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.

 

Bohemian Grove, The Owl: Not Satanic!

page: 13
1
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


I "LOL'd" at that picture, apologies to what ever dyslexic dysgraphic person drew that.
(no offense to either, im disgraphic and went to a school that focued on dyslexia)

lol impossible? you must have been mistaken, count again, the feathers.
edit on 5-4-2011 by santjime because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by santjime
I "LOL'd" at that picture, apologies to what ever dyslexic dysgraphic person drew that.
(no offense to either, im disgraphic and went to a school that focued on dyslexia)


No, it's not dyslexic. If you spell "Mason" correctly, that's the drawing you get, not a hexagram.


lol impossible? that is an outright lie.


What is an outright lie?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


Im sorry i edited it, i put mistake* my apologies.

Count the feathers again, i can assure there are 32 and 33.

And yes that is ONE way to spell out mason, but by putting two trangles over the pyramid also does the trick.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by santjime

Im sorry i edited it, i put mistake* my apologies.

Count the feathers again, i can assure there are 32 and 33.


I'm still getting 17 on both sides.


And yes that is ONE way to spell out mason, but by putting two trangles over the pyramid also does the trick.


If you put the two triangles over it, it spells "Asmon", not "Mason".



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


I see where your getting 17 from. . . your only counting the outter layer of feather. you see behind the 17 that u count. are MORE feathers, here is a picture, so you can see more clear what im referring too



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by santjime
 


Ok, but I re-counted and got 34 on both sides (which is double 17).
edit on 5-4-2011 by Masonic Light because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by santjime
 


I get 33 on both sides. Are you counting all of them?
edit on 5-4-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by santjime
Please Just Try To Entertain The Thought, Just For A Minute
-the thought of freemasonrys presence on the dollar bill


I did. Then Iooked at the evidence.


Ok and with this I rest my case, because we are going nowhere. But my evidence clearly points to one thing. Freemasonry's presence in the dollar bill.


This is the problem. You're only looking at "your" evidence, as opposed to the evidence. Anything that points in the other direction is some complicated Masonic psyop I don't quite understand.


But if you infact get a a magnifying glass and do it yourself, like i had asked yall too, it is clearly an owl.


I did look at a dollar bill under a magnifying glass. To be honest, I didn't see the spider until I did that. From far off, I'm with you on "owl", and I give it about as much credence as cloud likeness.


Yes the spiderweb and the spier make sense, it is simply not a spider.


Why?


What i meant to say was that. Im 18, if i Apply for my apprenticeship and get it. It is very realistic that I would be honored enough to be requested to become a 33rd in years to come.


That's still pretty high praise for yourself.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


Thats because you counted the giant overlay of feathers. Count just the small individual feathers.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by santjime
reply to post by Masonic Light
 

And yes that is ONE way to spell out mason, but by putting two trangles over the pyramid also does the trick.


If you're willing to ignore the actual shape of the pyramid and rearrange the letters.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by santjime
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


Thats because you counted the giant overlay of feathers. Count just the small individual feathers.


Seems like, as with everything else in this theory, you have to "look deeper" with one element and not look at all at another.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

Thank you Augustus, So you can see that i was not making it up. . . .
I may have miscounted on the dollar bill. But I am most certain on the dollar bill the right wing has 32 and the left 33.
And yes on the photo above they are both 33, But it is still 33 feathers, and that design came after 1782.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by santjime

Thats because you counted the giant overlay of feathers. Count just the small individual feathers.


In that case I get 33 on each side. However, I also should point out this:

The number of feathers in the tail and wings are not specified in the official 1782 description of the Great Seal. Neither are the number of olives or leaves. These details are determined by artists and engravers. They have no intended symbolic significance.

Link

That being the case, one will be able to find all sorts of different numbers, depending on who drew it.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by santjime
And yes on the photo above they are both 33, But it is still 33 feathers, and that design came after 1782.


An 1885 committee designed that one. None of that committee were Masons.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread140710/pg13#pid11001353]post by OnTheLevel213[/url
 


BUT WAIT? I Thought it was designed in 1782?!!
thats almost a hundred years after it was designed? Your not being consistent.

First it dosnt matter if it was 33 feathers because it was designed before Scottish rite, now you say it was designed 100 years after the original design.
Do you not see your inconsistency of what you say? And your lack of knowledge about what you claim you know.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by santjime
 


Im going to my cities Masonic Lodge for this one. Because of yalls inconsistency of information is Astounding
You say things just to make it appear that im wrong. And i come back to show you im right, then you say something that contradicts wht you claim earlier, to try to debunk me. We could play these games for months.
Im going to the Lodge with this information. Ill come back and tell yall what they say. How do yall feel about that?
edit on 5-4-2011 by santjime because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2011 by santjime because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2011 by santjime because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by santjime
BUT WAIT? I Thought it was designed in 1782?!!
thats almost a hundred years after it was designed? Your not being consistent.


This particular design, with this specific number of feathers, is a tweak made in 1885. The number of feathers is one of the very few changes made. The design of the seal itself dates to 1782.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OnTheLevel213
 


I Know lol i was being sarcastic, if you had read all my post on this thread, thats what i pointed out to Josh Norton.
When he sent me the link to the Seal. That he had helped prove my point.

And to prove your inconcistency this is a quote from YOU onthelevel



I'm not willing to count the feathers on the eagle, so for this one I'll assume you're correct, and here I will claim coincidence. Especially given that the Great Seal was designed in 1782 and the Scottish Rite wasn't formed until 1801.

You were replying to my quote from the feathers on the dollar bill . . . . .but obviously the seal from 1782 is not the one on the dollar bill.
In my opinion you lost most of my credibility.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by santjime
reply to post by santjime
 



Im going to my cities Masonic Lodge for this one.


That's great, but do you expect them to know more than us about a decidedly un-Masonic topic?


You say things just to make it appear that im wrong. And i come back to show you im right, then you say something that contradicts wht you claim earlier, to try to debunk me.


Actually, you shoehorn what facts you can into your theory, we show you the rest of the picture, then you try to hang us on technicalities.


Im going to the Lodge with this information. Ill come back and tell yall what they say. How do yall feel about that?


Um, go right ahead. I don't know why you expect one group of Masons to know more than another, but knock yourself out.

In the meantime, here's what Ed King, one of the mosted trusted authorities on anti-Masonry, thinks about it.
edit on 5-4-2011 by OnTheLevel213 because: format



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

You were replying to my quote from the feathers on the dollar bill . . . . .but obviously the seal from 1782 is not the one on the dollar bill.
In my opinion you lost most of my credibility.


I was mistaken about that point, and I'll retract it. Considering yourself the victor because I was incorrect on a minor point, however, is not particularly mature.

That said, what does it prove to point out that the 33 feathers were a later addition? If anything, it seems to point out that Scottish Rite Masons had nothing to do with the original design.
edit on 5-4-2011 by OnTheLevel213 because: added a point



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join