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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

This is the US Civil Ensign. Its a flag with no military associations, but is part of that 'Roman civil rule' genera. I think of it like this. If you are a soldier, you can get your coffin draped in 'the american flag', if you are a civilian, it can be this one.

ALso, lets just keep in mind that flags are meaningless. They started out as a way for the military commanders to recognize their units in the field. At one point an 'american flag' was made with stars and stripes. It was a military standard. The Founders were interested in civics, not nationalism. The 'american flag' is associated with america so strongly because its associated with america's army. Its not the "Flag of Congress" or something like that. We don't see the Civil Ensign because, well, what great thing that people'd want to be invovled in would ever use it? We saw the american flag raised at Iwo Jima, where'd the equivalent be for hte Civil Ensign? And because of the history of it all, the Stars and Stripes is associated with the american people, thats why it was also raised at Ground Zero, not because of some secret encoded in feudal heraldry, with vertical stripes and not having two metal colours touching in a flag, etc etc.

the vagabond
Why the unorthodox display, which according to my understanding of flag ettiquite is improper and disrespectful even

Because its asthetically pleasing to have the flag presented as flanking columns about a podium and central speaker.

Taken together, doesn't there seem to be at least a slim chance that he was conveying something to somebody in a completely secure and plausibly deniable manner?

I doubt anyone asked bush or rove or cheney about the set. Ashcroft was scarred to have boobies in the same frame as him, but beyond that I don't think these guys are concerned.

So why couldn't Bush do exactly the same thing to communicate matters that absolutely must never be overheard, recorded, documented, or in any way made public in an irrefutable way?

Its entirely possible, and utterly undemonstrable. Indeed, that'd be the point. If the theory is correct, then its also completely self-defeating.

grady philpot
The flag is not actually displayed in strange way. Regard

Ah, i wasn't aware that it was actually required to be hung that way. I thought it was just asthetic. THis reminds me of the 'controversy' over the flag being shown 'backwards' on army vehicles, which was supposed to be a 'signal' that everything was backwards now and the military is in charge.


Flags of the World has an interseting take on all this:

Nathaniel Hawthorn's The Scarlet Letter" contains a description of an American Customs flag erroneously described as having 13 stripes, when in fact it has 16. One stripe for each state at the time the flag was introduced. Remember, this was before limiting the stripes to 13. The story also states that this indicated a civil operation rather than military. This statement is somewhat true, but not totally accurate. Yes customs is a civil authority, but this does not mean that all civil authorities use this flag.Also let us not forget that the Scarlet letter is a work of fiction and not a research document by any means and therefore should not be used as a primary source. Primary sources would include legislation and executive orders, these are non-existent for the flag described at this site. The research for the U.S. flag legislation has been thoroughly researched by vexillologists and I think it would be safe to say that there is no legislation or executive order for the flag described


Anyway, I know everyone flies this flag!



Actually, TC and others might possibly fly this one


And of course there is this tongue-in-cheek parody




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
vagabond - I've got a lot of time for your posts usuallly, but I think you are way off on this one. For a start the display behind the pres is not comprised of actual flags, but a digital display which includes stars & stripes imagery. So none of the rules and laws (do you guys really have laws about what you can do with a US flag?) apply to it.

On the subject of passing secret messages: As far as I am aware it was just speculation that Bin Laden was somehow passing secret messages in his videos. I don't remember this ever been officially confirmed.

If Bush really can't communicate secretly with his "co-conspiritors" (assuming they exist) in this plot and and has to resort to back drops then how did they arrange all the "plot" in the first place? Semaphore? Surely a phone call with secret codes in it would the trick much better. Or get somebody to use secure encrypted satallite phones. Or whatever.

If there is a conspiricy and they have resorted to communicating via backdrops, then I think we can all sleep soundly.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Nygdan, please, I thought you were too smart to say something like, "ALso, lets just keep in mind that flags are meaningless".
You lack of understanding does not make them meaningless. They set jurisdiction, and therein lies the importance of the flag. It has more importance than you obviously know.

I belive I've already explained the displaying of the flag and the meaning of the display, so I am quite sure you can refrain from connecting me to unofficial flags.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
While we seem to be on a kick of providing flag inforamtion, here is a good site.
This is information that any good Army NCO knows by heart.

www.armystudyguide.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Nygdan, please, I thought you were too smart to say something like, "ALso, lets just keep in mind that flags are meaningless".
You lack of understanding does not make them meaningless. They set jurisdiction, and therein lies the importance of the flag. It has more importance than you obviously know.

I belive I've already explained the displaying of the flag and the meaning of the display, so I am quite sure you can refrain from connecting me to unofficial flags.


Wow... Moderator vs. Super Moderator! This could be the best feud of this thread! lol jk

Anyhow, some of you have made some very interesting points. I stand by my opinion that the background was a meaningless design made by someone, or some group, that had no idea of its ramifications. But only time will validate one of us.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Vagabond, sorry to take so long getting back to you; I had to get some sleep so I could finish the Dennis Mess Cleanup. That way, there'll be less to pick up after Emily!


Good luck with that stuff bro. You've got more grit than I. Personally I'd take whatever wasn't wrecked and move before another one showed up. That's why I live on the San Andreas fault line instead. My house may get knocked down some day, but there's a slim chance that it will survive, and that I'll then have ocean front property.



Here's why I seriously doubt that Bush is sending a message that the Constituional government is going to bve restored and that Shrub is sending a message: It'd be less uncertain to simply commit suicide instead of have "them" suicide you!

I think everyone is misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that Bush is announcing a return to constitutional rule. There's not a doubt in my mind that Bush belongs to a large club of politicians who hate our constitution because by its very nature it opposes usurpation of power by a wealthy elite class. If we ran our country under a strict constructionist view of the constitution and set aside all of the extra-constitutional crap (especially the right of the parties to be on the ballot) the power of these good ol' boys clubs would be in serious jeopardy.
I think the message is very much the opposite. If there is a message in those flags (and for those who keep asserting that they are not flags, I remind you that it is equally disrespectful to inappropriatesly display a representation of the flag- that's why the patterns on bunting do not closely resemble the flag) the message is that Bush feels there is a threat to the martial rule system and wants help. I've speculated that the London bombings were the help, but there are other possibilities as well. Maybe he's just trying to get the attention of some of his cronies who aren't listening to him. Have you ever been in a room full of people who couldn't agree on something, and nobody would shut up long enough to hear you out? Ever think of breaking something important or shouting something inappropriate to shut them all up? Maybe that's what he's doing to his fellow elitists on the opposite side of the aisle.


If Shrub intended to do that, it'd be best that he simply recind martial rule, get rid of thr Federal Reserve and put us back on the right track again in a very public manner. Otherwise, don't you suspect that the Powers that control us now will surely kill him to preserve their power and control?

What a glorious day that would be. Unfortunately, my guess is that it will be a good 20 or 30 years before the powers that be have to kill a politician for trying to dismantle martial rule. How do I know that? Because I figure thats how long it will take me to break into the mainstream of California or national politics if all goes well in my planned career.
Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that. One of these days if a bald guy with a very subtle speech impediment tries to change California's election laws to get the parties off the ballot, then dies unexpectedly, remember to come to ol' Vagabond's funeral.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
vagabond - I've got a lot of time for your posts usuallly, but I think you are way off on this one. For a start the display behind the pres is not comprised of actual flags, but a digital display which includes stars & stripes imagery. So none of the rules and laws (do you guys really have laws about what you can do with a US flag?) apply to it.


Forgive me Padre, but may I present you with the scope of application of flag laws as included in the US Code, Title 4, Section 3.

The words “flag, standard, colors, or ensign”, as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.




On the subject of passing secret messages: As far as I am aware it was just speculation that Bin Laden was somehow passing secret messages in his videos. I don't remember this ever been officially confirmed.


True, but the possibility does exist. I am posing hypotheticals mostly, and unlikely ones at that. The only thing which I can say with any degree of certainty is that symbols symbolize things- they have meaning- and that President Bush displayed the symbol of our nation in a non-standard and perhaps disrespectful way which seems like it may very well have meaningful implications of some kind.


If Bush really can't communicate secretly with his "co-conspiritors" (assuming they exist) in this plot and and has to resort to back drops then how did they arrange all the "plot" in the first place?


I already answered that actually. As I said, in any system of generic symbols, be it signals in baseball, hand signals in the military, or even some computer commands, there is a pre-arranged set of protocols which is learned long before the signals are ever used. The baseball team has a series of plans, plays, and skills that they all learned and practiced before they were in the view of the other team. A squad of infantrymen has a set of tactics and proceedures which they all learned long before the war. Your computer has been equiped with programs which will automatically execute a long series of prearranged commands when you give the signal to execute that program.

By it's very nature, a coded signal is an indication to carry out a prearranged plan or task, often one which was devised before privacy compromised (in these people's cases- before they were public officials), or it can be a signal to take an unspecified individually improvised action.


Semaphore? Surely a phone call with secret codes in it would the trick much better. Or get somebody to use secure encrypted satallite phones. Or whatever.

You can use an encrypted phone, but can you trust the people who provided it? When the stakes are so incredibly high as when you're talking about a potential global conspiracy, can you trust the boys at CIA not to listen in and make a power play? Afterall, the sat phone is only secure if you can trust the people who control the sat. They could use a verbal I suppose, but a code like that can be broken. Don't you think that if somebody comes out with a tape of George Bush and Tony Blair conversing in Pig Latin that it is going to become very popular, and quite possibly be the subject of homework assignments for cryptology students?
The background symbols are so generic that there is really no "cracking" them for sure. Plausible deniability is absolute because of the high emphasis on individual action rather than detailed communication of instructions.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
You lack of understanding does not make them meaningless.

The pressence of a flag does not establish anything. For example, when if a conquistador raises a Royal Flag over an aztec capital, it represents that the city is under the dominion of the Emperor, but does not actually establish it. The flag is just a nationalistic symbol (I'm not trying to put it that way to disparage it btw). The jurisdiction of any region in the US is determined by codified law. If I fly the civil ensign outside my house, it does not mean that I am under this 'Roman Civil" jurisdiction, as opposed to my stars and stripes flying neighbour, who is under the jurisdiction of any local military base, or the post office or police or some such.

Most importantly, there is no law that reads as such. I understand that the convention for a while was 'horizontal stripes for military posts, vertical for civil, gold fringe for admirality courts' etc etc, but that doesn't have any legal basis.


They set jurisdiction, and therein lies the importance of the flag. It has more importance than you obviously know.

In my office, the flag is the usual horizontally stripped flag, it even has gold fringe. This is because the guy that bought the flag thought a pretty gold fringed one would be, pretty. The office is not under the rule of a military officer. Its under the rule of the law. If the flag follows jurisdiction, the the civil ensign should be whats in the office. Flags are symbols, not actual law.


so I am quite sure you can refrain from connecting me to unofficial flags.

I certainly meant no offense.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Nygdan,

The point of this thread is not what the flag means to you, as you obviously ascribe no meaning to flags, how they are fringed, or how they are flown. Please be objective enough to realize that there are many, many people, much, much more powerful than you who care very, very much what a flag means and how it is flown.

My apologies to Mr. Crowne, lawman. I in no way mean to intimate that I know more about this than he, or that he is in any way incapable of pointing this out himself.

Your humble servant (of the law, that is), Icky.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The pressence of a flag does not establish anything.


But it symbolizes the intentions of the person who put it there.


The jurisdiction of any region in the US is determined by codified law. If I fly the civil ensign outside my house, it does not mean that I am under this 'Roman Civil" jurisdiction, as opposed to my stars and stripes flying neighbour, who is under the jurisdiction of any local military base, or the post office or police or some such.

Depending on who put it there, it can be a subtle (or in some cases an open) declaration of one's willingness to be subject to the law however. If I fly a civil ensign over my home, I'm am announcing my intent to those who understand the symbol that I will not be subjected to military law without a fight.
And if the government puts an admiralty flag in the courts, depending on the intent of who placed it there, this could very well be a symbol of their intentions not to be always be subject to codified law.



In my office, the flag is the usual horizontally stripped flag, it even has gold fringe. This is because the guy that bought the flag thought a pretty gold fringed one would be, pretty.

The intent of the person who places the flag is everything. If you place it in ignorance, it is meaningless. But if you know what it means...
So here's the question, do you really think that our government, which is so anal retentive about the flag that there's an entire title of the US code dedicated to it, doesn't understand heraldry at all? They either knew it was an admiralty flag or they didn't- forget the stripe direction even, did they not notice the gold fringer? And if they did notice, why did they still use it?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
the flag is totally irrelevent? now, THAT'S 'unamerican'. symbols only have power when people know what they mean, where they came from, why they exist, and what kind of people created them.

look into my eyes. you are getting sleepy, .....very sleeping.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
much, much more powerful than you who care very, very much what a flag means and how it is flown.

And their opinions aren't particularly meaningful, the law does not state that horizontal stripes on a peice of fabric mean that anyplace is under military law. Its simply not how the law works. If bush was running around with a copy of the flag that the Sons of Liberty used, it would, legally, mean anything. I agree that it can have symbolic meanings to people, but those are subjective-interpretative meanings anyway, and their interpretations can indeed be different from one another, such that whatever even Bush's intention in this (hypothetical) situation is, it can be completely different from that of the 'audience' who sees it.

the vagabond
But it symbolizes the intentions of the person who put it there.

I agree, but those intentions are unknowable and legally insubstantial.

If I fly a civil ensign over my home, I'm am announcing my intent to those who understand the symbol that I will not be subjected to military law without a fight

Fair enough, but before the flag was up and after the flag was up, there was no difference in the laws that applied, which indeed were civil laws, not military laws.

And if the government puts an admiralty flag in the courts, depending on the intent of who placed it there, this could very well be a symbol of their intentions not to be always be subject to codified law.

And yet the courts operate on codified law. Whats got more meaning, our interpretation of a particular action, or what's actually going on?

did they not notice the gold fringer? And if they did notice, why did they still use it?

What laws from congress establish gold fringe as establishing admirality law over civil law? And if the fringe does do that, then why do the courts operate on civil law?

billybob
the flag is totally irrelevent? now, THAT'S 'unamerican'

Its american to recognize that the flag is irrelevant. Flags are simply military standards and rallying points. They've come to be associated with teh 'spirit of a nation' over the years, because when ever something 'big and important happens', the Flag is usually raised (because its almost allways a military operation, the holding of a fort, the taking of a hill, landing on the moon, etc etc). Its a convention to recognize that flag as the 'symbol' of the american nation. But america is about a heck of a lot more than a 'nation' and a nationalist symbol like a flag. Its about its governance and its constitution and the debates surrounding how its supposed to operate. Replace those flags with copies of the constitution, drop the socialist-authored Pledge of Allegiance (to a nation? The founders wanted that?) with readings from the Federalist Papers.
If anything, its practically un-american to be far too concerned with the flag.

symbols only have power when people know what they mean,

And agree that they should have power. The Flag has authority because people give it that authority. When the flag is raised in victory there's an upwelling of emotion in the people because they agree that that flag isn't just a military signaling and identification device, they agree that its a symbol of the nation itself and they are emotively attached to the nation. Similarly they feel strong reactions when they see the flag at half mast, because they know what it means, even if they're wildly anti-war and anti-troops and its been lowered in mourning of the death of a soldier in the war. Its a thing that the public agrees on, it has no objective meaning.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The Flag has authority because people give it that authority. When the flag is raised in victory there's an upwelling of emotion in the people because they agree that that flag isn't just a military signaling and identification device, they agree that its a symbol of the nation itself and they are emotively attached to the nation. Similarly they feel strong reactions when they see the flag at half mast, because they know what it means, even if they're wildly anti-war and anti-troops and its been lowered in mourning of the death of a soldier in the war. Its a thing that the public agrees on, it has no objective meaning.


one minute you're disagreeing, the next you're preachin' to the choir.

nationalistic flag waving is not meaningless. it IS a sad thing that the things the flag used to symbolise have become blind obedience to a superiority complex for many flag wavers, instead of pride in personal freedom, which WAS the underpinning of the nation before the rot crept in.

bush is the (p)resident of the united states. when he is giving a speech in front of happy faces and desecrated flags, it is a sad day for the nation. imho.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
In regards to my statement about the admiralty flag in our courts possibly signifying the fact that the courts may not always stick to civil law.


Originally posted by Nygdan
And yet the courts operate on codified law. Whats got more meaning, our interpretation of a particular action, or what's actually going on?


I see where you are coming from, and for the present it's perfectly valid, but let's try symbols in other settings to see if they can perhaps be considered relevant inspite of not having yielded results.
What if it were discovered that an American politician, who so far as never shown any indication of being anything but a believer in democracy, had a portrait of Adolph Hitler or Nero Caesar hanging in his office?
What if a Catholic politician was discovered to have once said that he'd be forced to adopt the Vatican's position on any issue when ordered, and refused to address or renounce that statement?

In these cases, would it not be reasonable to question what symbolic gestures could lead to if a relevant situation ever came up? And in these cases we are talking about symbols without action.

In the case of our courts, we're talking about the presence of a symbol of authoritarianism in an institution which has in several cases expanded the government's power well beyond constitutional limits, most glaringly by repeated blatant misinterpretations of the commerce clause (referring to the ruling which upheld the new deal and the subsequent recent ruling supporting eminent domain for the benefit of private interests.

I'm not arguing that the symbol is the cause. You are absolutely right that the symbol in and of itself is not hurting anything or changing the operation of our courts. I'm arguing that the symbol is merely a symptom both of a problem that has manifested in their decisions and of further potential problems ahead, if there should be further rulings on other matters made in the spirit of the emininet domain ruling for example.



What laws from congress establish gold fringe as establishing admirality law over civil law? And if the fringe does do that, then why do the courts operate on civil law?


I provide you with a few quotes below to demonstrate what the admiralty flag symbolizes.


Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3;Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The president of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.



"Ancient custom sanctions the use of the fringe on regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags." The Adjutant General of the Army, March 28, 1924, (1925); 34 ()Ops. Atty. Gen. 483, 485.



According to Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.) "the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2 inches wide," and that, "such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms." And that the Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations."


Unfortunately all of these are from dated laws and army regulations which have since been ammended, so I can only find them so far on websites which share my position- I grant you that this is not quite the pinnacle of credibility until I can actually find the old text from a nuteral source.

But the question really is not why our court operate on civil law, because as you have pointed out, a little piece of gold cloth couldn't possibly cause them not to. The question is why they display that little piece of gold cloth which is only meant to be displayed in military court rooms.
If I wore a Nazi armband the question wouldn't be why I'm not a Nazi. The question would be why I wore that armband. Afterall, whatever my actions so far have been, why would I possibly own that symbol if I wasn't trying to convey some sort of message to somebody about my true loyalty?

I'd also like to point out an example of the government very intentionally using symbols to convey a message about the nature (civil or military) of its actions.

www.civil-liberties.com...

The customs flag flown by the coast guard, and previously by the Revenue Cutter Service.
Oliver Wolcott submitted the idea of flying a verticle striped flag by the Revenue Cutter Service in 1799 as a means of differentiating customs enforcement activity from acts of war on civilian vessels.
I don't have the legal background to say if it really made any difference, but we adopted it for that reason.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Okay, here's a link to another thread I started

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The reason is because I suggested a possible code ostensibly used by the NWO to create another terror attack. But I couldn't figure out what the universal signal (or key) was to get the "al qaeda" pawns into action, showing them what code to use.

I think this nine stripe flag does a good job.

Sorry, I know this is a little off topic, just a theory.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join