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.

 

OMG is it true. nine striped flag behind bush. A return to constitutional rule?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Probably just some graphic designer with an overactive imagination


I hate to press when you already see my point, but it's not just a graphic designer's fault. That only accounts for the wall.

Nobody had to design those flags. There are two REAL american flags hanging behind Bush, and both of them have been very carefully displayed in the same unauthorized and disgraceful manner, which just happens to correspond exactly with the flags on the wall. Why did the people who hung the flags do such a meticulous job of making them look like the silly graphics on the wall, even though it is clearly an disrespectful display under the rules of flag etiquite that the even the average boyscout understands?




posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
There are two REAL american flags hanging behind Bush


No those are part of the same artsy background display, they're not real flags...at least in the picture you posted.

You can see the video from the White House here:

www.whitehouse.gov...#

It looks like it was probably created by the Army themselves.

[edit on 7/11/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I don't know what you're looking at, but I clearly see two real flags, folded in such a way as to not be entirely visible. When it zooms in you can actually see a greater portion of them, further demonstrating that they are in fact flags.

To create a semi-flag tapestry for decoration would be strictly taboo. Flags are explicitly not for decorative purposes- that's why you see banners of red white and blue stripes rather than realistic looking flags in altered shapes at political rallies.

The lame artsy creation is framed on either side by two flags hanging vertically, and folded strangely.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I looked at it again, and to me it looks like a graphic that was made and incorporated into the speech background stage by probably some corporate stage manufacturer, it does not look like a real flag to me folded to look like that. If you look at the stars, they look painted on and fuzzy.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I looked at it again, and to me it looks like a graphic that was made and incorporated into the speech background stage by probably some corporate stage manufacturer, it does not look like a real flag to me folded to look like that. If you look at the stars, they look painted on and fuzzy.


That threw me too, but it's a lighting effect. Compare the top to the bottom. Also, whenever you get the observe a flag in different kinds of lighting conditions outside you should. When you're looking at one from the right angle the stars don't even seem to be there- or at best they sometimes look like they're only printed on one side of the flag.

I suppose we wont agree on this, but I am quite confident in what I see, although I'm sure you are too.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Correct me if I'm wrong father, but wasn't that adopted by the continental congress to symbolize rebellion (while maintaining the St. George and St. Andrew's Crosses to represent that we had so far not declared independence)?

Damn, I should check my facts first. I still stand by the bit about the Queen's shock troops.

Seriously though - I think this looks more like cock-up than conspiricy. They don't appear to be real flags behind the pres, but a some computer image that involves partial flags. For all we know the graphics designer might have had to adjust the image at the last moment because the LCD screen they were using was smaller than expected and they quickly chopped off some of the flags. I'm not saying this is what happened but there could be a million different reasons that don't involve some kind of deep symbolism and conspiricy.



As always, dog bless you father



And bless you my son.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I gues that this is why rumourmillnews isn't to be paid attention to.


The strips aren't vertical. The flag is simple being hung in a strange way.

They also seem to be wrong on the history of the flag.

Flag Evolution


This is apparently a flag of the Sons of Liberty, a secret society of radicals that fomented unrest and were important in starting the revolution. It was never the flag of the US. The guys at that site decided to make a flag like this with a field of stars, and then made a 'mistake' (tho obviously dishonest) about the flags in the photo.

IOW, complete bunk

Here is another, but apparently historically inaccurate, representation of the flag of that SS


Here is a page with an explanation, but it reprsents it with horizontal stripes.

This was the flag of the early colonist who had joined together in the protest against the British impositions on American economic freedom. One such protest was resistance to the Stamp Act 7 October 1765. A delegate from each of the nine colonies formed the Stamp Act Congress . They petitioned the king and parliament to rescind the Stamp Act. The flag of nine red and white stripes that represented the Sons of Liberty became known as the "Rebellious Stripes." On 16 December 1773, the Sons of Liberty protested the parliament's Tea Act, by "hosting" Boston Tea Party. The colonists' believed the tax to be a violation of their legitimate economic liberty. Three and a half years after the Tea Party the thirteen colonies had come together in their decision to fight for independence and the nine stripes had grown to thirteen.


Its also worthy to note that this is simply one of many 'protest and revolution flags'. The Union Jack design is very common in lots of them.




Here is another history of the SS flag and the Civil Flag.

In the early days of our nation, horizontal stripes became the accepted practice for use over military posts, and vertical stripes were used over civilian establishments. The use of the Civilian Flag also spread to Merchants and Common citizens to symbolize their Constitutional rights.

The Civil Flag had red and white vertical stripes with blue stars on a white background. By the Law of the Flag, the vertical striped design denoted Roman Civil jurisdiction within Federal territories rather than Military jurisdiction under Admiralty law

So, again, a bunch of silly hysteria over the heraldry of two hundred years ago. Changing the direction of the stripes of the fringe on the borders is meaninless.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Not to defy Nygdan, but since we're into it, let me elaborate on what the flag meant 200 years ago.

The sons of liberty, among others, start out with the verticle stripes, which as Nygdan points out is a sign of civil rule. Several designs bore serpents and various mottos.

The US Navy adopted a horizontal striped flag bearing a serpent.

In 1775, because the US had not declared independence, the first official American flag was red and white striped with a union jack in the upper left field. It is the first stripes and field design adopted by Americans and is quite similiar to a British Merchant Naval Ensign, particularly that of the East India Company.

In 1776 Betsy Ross sews a flag with a circle of stars in the blue field. Congress does not adopt it.

In 1777, now that America is independent, the St. George and St. Andrew's crosses come off of the flag- or do they? The stars are clearly arranged in the pattern of the two crosses. The paranoid might say that this was a subtle indication that congress was still not quite so readical as the common man, and that America promised loyalty in independence, particularly vis a vis staying out of Franco-British conflicts.
Te St Geirge and St Abdrew's crosses don't disappear from our flag entirely until 1818.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   


You are on the money with this thread. Definitely some kind of signal sent to the private army with this backdrop. Do not think for one second that it is unintended hippy art, especially in light of recent developments. If you ever saw "Highlander", you will know exactly what I mean when I call it the 'quickening'. Rasputin13, sloppy attempt at spreading disinfo. Didn't the RNC get sued over the design of the W campaign bumpersticker? Complete American flag attached to the W on that one. Nice try, traitor. I know, you're just staying true to your avatar and screen name.


Someone should slap your mother for never teaching you manners. Have I insulted you in another life time or something? If not, then learn how to talk to people. Because you are the epitome of what is wrong with this country. People wonder why we don't have full alien contact. It's because the aliens probably landed and met a bunch of ignorant people like this guy and decided our race wasn't worth it.

I spread disinfo? I'm a traitor? Do you know what it means to call someone a traitor? Because I'm not a self-hating American like you are. So to call me a traitor is a very serious insult in my book. I was simply stating my OPINION. My opinion stands, whether you like it or not, that the background was simply an attempt at display art made by someone who doesn't understand the significance of displaying flags with 9 stripes. Do you really think that this all-powerful and evil conservative President would resort to notifying his co-conspirators of the launching of constitutional rule by using a special background in his speech? Are you kidding me? Or was this just a random act of mental retardation on your part? Because it seems to me that the President has a lot more secure and reasonable ways to contact this group of people that he's been secretly planning the beginning of constitutional rule in this country with. Unless, of course, all of his communications with this group has been accomplished through BACKGROUNDS at his speeches! HAHA! Listen to what you're saying!

As for the Bush bumper sticker lawsuit... I don't get your point. I brought up the question of it being illegal to use an American flag in political campaigning. I was right, and you proved it for me. So I'm failing to see how that's a shot at me? Do me a favor and start taking the Lithium AS PRESCRIBED!



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
That's not what the lawsuit is about, Bozo. The RNC stole the design like they're trying to steal this country, with help from losers like you.

Mothers don't get slapped in heaven, donkeybreath. You slammed me and my dad (who loved me dearly, and is also passed) via U2U, now I find your opinion of what should happen to my mom here, and you call me classless? You are really looking for a butt-whipping aren't you, traitor?

Besides, what better way to send a clandestine message than using visual cues? No official record of it, and it reaches all of your intended audience at once. I understand you are upset at getting called on your B.S. You're probably used to having your diatribe swallowed hook, line, and sinker by all your acolytes, and intimidating the rest via U2U, like you just tried to do to me. You better hope we don't ever meet in person like you suggested.


[edit on 11-7-2005 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Okay, bozos, knock off the squabbling right now, or you'll both be sent to your rooms without pudding. Besides, how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
For the record, the one who claimed the other was spreading disinformation started it, and you do need to learn manners.

Now, sit down and prepare to learn.

The flag, if it is displayed with the stripes vertical and the blue field to the left of the viewer, is a judicial, or flag of peace. Take the same flag and display it with the stripes horizontal, and it is maritime, or admiralty. Display it on a pole and you have the same, as it indicates an army on the march (guidon?). Add the gold fringe and you can't miss that it is admiralty, or executive.

I wouldn't read too much into this. I don't think it is any more than decorative. Regardless of how the flag or a facimile of a flag is displayed behind the president at a podium, he is still the commander in chief. When you see the admiralty flags removed from your courtrooms and replaced with the judicial flag, you'll know that the republic is back together and martial rule is recinded.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Thank you Mr. Crowne! If I wasn't accused of spreading disinfo or called a traitor simply for having an opinion, I never would have cared. Some people just don't know how to take part in a free exchange of ideas without throwing stones. Being of sound mind and body, I will no longer engage in name calling with mental midgets.

I apologize to everyone for responding to such slander in the manner which I did. Cooler heads shall prevail.

Regarding the subject at hand, I still feel it was simply a background designed with no ill-will intended. I would think that a speach, viewed by millions and recorded by many, would be considered evidence enough should constitutional rule come about. It's certainly more visable than a fax or a simple telephone conversation on a secure line. But then again, where would the conspiracy world be with common sense?



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   


As for the Bush bumper sticker lawsuit... I don't get your point. I brought up the question of it being illegal to use an American flag in political campaigning. I was right, and you proved it for me.


The fellow was suing them for copyright infringement......not because it is against the law to use the flag in 'advertising'. He was claiming that he had sent them an idea for a 'logo' for the campaign and they changed it a bit and used it without giving him credit. Used to be, if a design were changed 10%, it squeaked by the copyright law....so he was probably out of luck.

Seems odd to me, what with all the hoopla over the 'flag burning amendment', that the top people would have signed off on a background that displayed the flag like that!! There are supposed to be strict rules for even showing it in print 'flying backwards'.........( And yes, someone with say-so would have had to approve any 'art work' for the back ground....artist, hippie or otherwise are not allowed those decisions!!!)

That particular background might not be actual flags.....maybe a photo-real sort of vinyl similar to billboard graphics..... If you look closely at the wrinkles in the 'flags' they are verrrrry close, if not exactly the same......ask some of these photoshop folks to check them out. It would be really hard to fold two separate hanging flags exactly the same...and get them to stay that way on a stage.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   


The fellow was suing them for copyright infringement......not because it is against the law to use the flag in 'advertising'. He was claiming that he had sent them an idea for a 'logo' for the campaign and they changed it a bit and used it without giving him credit. Used to be, if a design were changed 10%, it squeaked by the copyright law....so he was probably out of luck.


Exactly. So I don't understand why this lawsuit was even brought up. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. We're talking about Bush (most of you know him as Hitler #2) using the backdrop at his speech to send a secret message to his co-conspirators that Constitutional Rule is to begin! Which in it of itself is a joke. lol



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Hey Mr. Crowne, lawman. Why don't you take a look at Raspy1/3's U2Us to me this evening before you go pointing fingers and pronouncing judgement?

You don't know me, and I don't know you. I have plenty of manners, and I know when to use them.

The real Rasputin was a traitor, and he got what he deserved. This guy's claim about the legality of flag use in political ads was disinfo. Where am I out of line? (maybe with my crack about 13 centimeters or millimeters, but that was via U2U, and after he had called me out and talked about my mom and dad.)

Are you doing your job, or just backing up a friend?

edit for content

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Hey Mr. Crowne, lawman. Why don't you take a look at Raspy1/3's U2Us to me this evening, in the most recent of which he describes having anal sex with my dear departed mother, before you go pointing fingers and pronouncing judgement?


Don't mind me, but excuse me, does your complaint/gripe/suggestion tab work? Its there for a reason, yet you have choosen not to use it?

If a member is sending you such offending mentions via the ATS u2u system, then you need to address this the proper way and not in a public setting, objectively speaking here, unless of course, you are simply fabricating what you are alleging above. The problem, if it is a problem, can be better verified and addressed by staff if you care to file a complaint/gripe/suggestion for staff review.

Come on, Icarus Rising, handle it the proper way.





seekerof



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Are you doing your job, or just backing up a friend?


I don't see that he was taking sides at all in the "bozos" (plural) comment. Just everyone cool it down. Nobody got warned. Everyone move on. Discuss the subject, not each other please.

And what Seekerof said.


[edit on 11-7-2005 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
You are right, of course.

I'm not lying, and I have nothing to hide. Everyone should know what a joke this guy is.

But again, you are right, the forum has a system set up to handle this kind of thing, and I needed to take a look at the toolbar above and click the appropriate button, as I have. Never had to before.

Thank you, and my apologies to you for circumventing the proper channels.

edit for content

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I'm going to make this very clear.

I did my job to tell you both to cool it. Agreeing with someone doesn't make me unable to do my job. What it seems to me is that you are grasping at straws by attacking my ability to do that. You started the crap to begin with, and at this time, tell me, when you called "that guy" a pig, were you referring to the poster, or the historical Rasputin?



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Hey Mr. Crowne, lawman. Why don't you take a look at Raspy1/3's U2Us to me this evening, in the most recent of which he describes having anal sex with my dear departed mother, before you go pointing fingers and pronouncing judgement?

You don't know me, and I don't know you. I have plenty of manners, and I know when to use them.

The real Rasputin was a traitor, and he got what he deserved. This guy's claim about the legality of flag use in political ads was disinfo. Where am I out of line? (maybe with my crack about 13 centimeters or millimeters, and not being able to get it hard anyway, but that was via U2U, and after he had called me out and talked about my mom and dad.)

Are you doing your job, or just backing up a friend?


I'm not even going to acknowledge any of this with a response. I actually have class.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join