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.

 

Need info on Masons, warren Commission.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
No, I have paid attention to what has been said about LBJ. So he only went to one meeting, good. But that dosnt effect what my conclution is. THAT HE USED MASONRY FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE. Im not claiming he was a 33rd, or it was a masonic conspircy. In LBJs case I only claim he used masory and the oath of the other masons. Big difference.




posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
No, I have paid attention to what has been said about LBJ. So he only went to one meeting, good. But that dosnt effect what my conclution is. THAT HE USED MASONRY FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE. Im not claiming he was a 33rd, or it was a masonic conspircy. In LBJs case I only claim he used masory and the oath of the other masons. Big difference.


But there is no way that he would've been able to use other's oaths for his own use. The oath of an Entered Apprentice is FAR DIFFERENT and much smaller than that of a Master Mason, which is when the most important promises are made, such as those of keeping another Master Mason's secrets, helping another Master Mason to the extent of your ability, etc etc. Those promises are not made as an Entered Apprentice, they are only masonically binding among Master Masons, who are real members of the fraternity.

The only promise an Entered Apprentice makes is to not reveal the secrets of Freemasonry. The other Master Masons in your theory are obligated only to other Master Masons, not to Entered Apprentices of Fellowcraft Masons. Therefore, like I stated, the fact that he was only an EAP literally tears a hole in your theory.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by sebatwerk]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Yes, LBJ wasn’t a high level mason. But in that one meeting he learned all he needed to know about the brotherhood, and how to use it.

Who had the most to gain from Kennedy’s death? Who would become King of Camelot? LBJ knew the masons disliked Kennedy because he was a catholic. So it was a natural to use the brotherhood to take the fall for anything that might be discovered. As you said, LBJ was not a mason but he learned quickly how the oath could be used against the brotherhood and for his own rise to power. Hence, the rumors of a Masonic conspiracy.

If you owned a company that dealt with secrets, you would want the best secret keepers that money could buy to work for you. Why would the government be any different? Why do you think J Edgar Hoover was chosen to lead the FBI? If you hire masons you can be assured of their silence on certain subjects. One of which is to protect another brother. So now, if one brother does something wrong you can expect that the secret will be safe with another brother. All the time you, as the company owner will obviously say nothing because you have the greatest amount to loose, especially if the wrong doing brought you greater wealth or position. Do you care about the brothers? No, not in the least, they were only pawns to be used.

Maybe the great argument is over LBJs intelligence. Masons would be inclined to think LBJ wasn’t smart enough to pull off such a stunt. Well, look at the results………

The fact of the matter is that LBJ packed the warren commission with masons. Masons who had one weakness, and one that LBJ exploited to the max. An oath to the death, to each other, regardless! Who had the most to gain? The Federal Reserve, and LBJ. Who had the most to loose, the masons, and America. LBJ knew just enough, to be dangerous………………..



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Yes, LBJ wasn’t a high level mason. But in that one meeting he learned all he needed to know about the brotherhood, and how to use it.




So now EAs are gaining the super secrets of only the 35th degree illustrious potentate of the busted bowl?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Yes, LBJ wasn’t a high level mason. But in that one meeting he learned all he needed to know about the brotherhood, and how to use it.


Whatever you say dude. Freemasonry just isn't like that. Until you understand how Freemasonry works, please refrain from assuming things like this.



LBJ knew the masons disliked Kennedy because he was a catholic. So it was a natural to use the brotherhood to take the fall for anything that might be discovered.


WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!? Do you know how many masons are Catholics?!? Freemasons don't dislike ANYONE because of their religion, that is the whole point of Freemasonry!!! Where the hell do you get this stuff from?!?

You REALLY need to stop assuming. Just because you can imagine it does not mean it's true! The information is out there, do some research!



As you said, LBJ was not a mason but he learned quickly how the oath could be used against the brotherhood and for his own rise to power. Hence, the rumors of a Masonic conspiracy.


Oh please, a masonic oath cannot be abused in any way! There are and have always been caveats in the obligations which assure that they will not be used for personal gain or malicious intent. Nice try, but anyone who calls me on my oath to try to get special favors from me would receive a very simple reply: "That is beyond the length of my cable-tow".



The fact of the matter is that LBJ packed the warren commission with masons. Masons who had one weakness, and one that LBJ exploited to the max. An oath to the death, to each other, regardless!


This shows how much you really know, and how much you speculate. NO MASON HAS AN OATH TO THE DEATH, especially not to another mason!!! Look it up for yourself. No mason has ever been obligated to lay down his life for another mason, much less give up anything of his, or anything of the sort. Masons don't take oaths to the death, they take oaths of honor, symbolically illustrated by physical penalties.

What's more, my obligations to other masons are not "regardless". They have very important caveats in them to assure that, for example, I will not keep a brother's secret if he has done something illegal or that I will only help a brother if it will not put myself or my family in danger.

Mason's are not idiots, ASE. The masonic fraternity, and the oaths taken, do not compromise a mason in ANY WAY. Your entire theory is based on false assumptions and incorrect beliefs. I suggest you re-examine these with some real research of the masonic fraternity.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by sebatwerk]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Once again you speak for all of freemasonry. Just a few posts ago you said you couldnt do that.

"For all you folks investigating Freemasonry. Here's an update of response
to a Freemasons who challenged the notion that Masons were involved in the
Kennedy assassination cover-up

One need look no further than the Masonic publications to find the Masonic
lunatics who might want Kennedy killed. The level of hostility that
Freemasons felt toward Kennedy was documented in February 1960 issue of
New Age magazine, a Masonic publication, where Luther A. Smith, Sovereign
Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, told his
readers:

"whatever bigotry is in evidence in the United States is exhibited solely
by the Roman Catholic hierarchy; that the Canon Law of the Roman Church
and the directives of the Pope validate the fears of the people that the
dual allegiance of American Catholics is a present danger to our free
institutions, and lastly that the people in passing upon the
qualifications of a Catholic candidate for the Presidency will be guided
by their knowledge of history and their great store of plain old-fashioned
common horse sense, and their innate caution not to gamble when their
LIBERTIES AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARE AT STAKE (emphasis added). "

www.freedomdomain.com...

The author of this page seems to be at odds with your position on catholics. Do you still speak for all masons?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Once again you speak for all of freemasonry. Just a few posts ago you said you
One need look no further than the Masonic publications to find the Masonic
lunatics who might want Kennedy killed.




So much for my jumping to conclusions.



Originally posted by wiggy on 24-7-2005 at 13:40
He is looking for information to back the claim that Kennedy was assasinated by Freemasons, and the warren commision was comprimised of masons to cover up the masonic ties.

More freemasonrywatch rubbish.


[edit on 31-7-2005 by wiggy]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

One need look no further than the Masonic publications to find the Masonic
lunatics who might want Kennedy killed. The level of hostility that
Freemasons felt toward Kennedy was documented in February 1960 issue of
New Age magazine, a Masonic publication, where Luther A. Smith, Sovereign
Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, told his
readers:

"whatever bigotry is in evidence in the United States is exhibited solely
by the Roman Catholic hierarchy; that the Canon Law of the Roman Church
and the directives of the Pope validate the fears of the people that the
dual allegiance of American Catholics is a present danger to our free
institutions, and lastly that the people in passing upon the
qualifications of a Catholic candidate for the Presidency will be guided
by their knowledge of history and their great store of plain old-fashioned
common horse sense, and their innate caution not to gamble when their
LIBERTIES AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARE AT STAKE (emphasis added). "


It is certainly true that a very large number of people (only a small percentage of whom were Masons) were worried about a Catholic becoming President. On the surface this may sound like bigotry, but the honest researcher will bear in mind that, at least theoretically, the Catholic's first obligation is to the See, whom he considers the Vicar of Christ. therefore, again theoretically, the Roman Catholic President must first honor his allegiance to the Pope (a foreign potentate) before that of the Constitution of the United States. It's easy to see why this would make non-Catholic Americans somewhat nervous.

Thankfully, Kennedy showed himself to be a uniter, and was not the type to take orders from his Church's officials. After Luther Smith retired from the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite, Brother Henry Clausen became Grand Commander, and held an international Scottish Rite convention in Washington D.C.

President Kennedy invited the Scottish Rite delegates to the White House, and welcomed them all personally, mentioning that he had great respect for the Masonic Institution's charitable endeavors. Photographs taken of Kennedy with Clausen and the Supreme Council can be found in the Masonic photo book "Valley of the Crafsmen".



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Catholics don't owe any allegiance to the Papacy, its a religious instiution. It doesn't even claim to be the sole grantor of salvation anymore either. It didn't take much for kennedy to not be a serf of the vatican, he was under no obligation to do so.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Once again you speak for all of freemasonry. Just a few posts ago you said you couldnt do that.


Don't be mad, just because your claims are based on false information you received... or imagined.



The author of this page seems to be at odds with your position on catholics. Do you still speak for all masons?


Right, because that page sure isn't biased against Freemasons, right? Gimme a break. Start researching in some LEGITIMATE sources, not just anti-masonic and conspiracy websites.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

No, this is the stand that I take. How the hell can you assume that I am speaking for Freemasonry?!? You really need to understand that Freemasons vary as much as any other group of people, and nobody speaks for the entire fraternity
.

When you say things like, NO MASON.......... You are speaking for all.. Am I wrong?


"whatever bigotry is in evidence in the United States is exhibited solely
by the Roman Catholic hierarchy; that the Canon Law of the Roman Church
and the directives of the Pope validate the fears of the people that the
dual allegiance of American Catholics is a present danger to our free
institutions, and lastly that the people in passing upon the
qualifications of a Catholic candidate for the Presidency will be guided
by their knowledge of history and their great store of plain old-fashioned
common horse sense, and their innate caution not to gamble when their
LIBERTIES AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARE AT STAKE (emphasis added). "


Are you saying this wasnt written by the New Age magazine, that was authored by Luther A. Smith, Sovereign
Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction?

My point is that even masonry has loose cannons, accept it. Masonic Light, thank you, the info was very informative and added to the threads quality
Do you have a link to the photo album?

[edit on 1-8-2005 by All Seeing Eye]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
When you say things like, NO MASON.......... You are speaking for all.. Am I wrong?


When did I say "No mason"? You said Freemasons disliked catholics. MANY masons are catholics, so how can YOU make a blanket statement like that? Sure, maybe some masons do dislike catholics, but this isn't a characteristic of the entire fraternity, or even MOST Freemasons.



My point is that even masonry has loose cannons, accept it.


Why are YOU telling ME to accept this? I've been the one (as well as Senrak, Axeman, Trintyman, Mirthful, ML, and several others) who has had to try to convince you of this fact several times in the past months! YOU are the one that insisted on condeming the entire fraternity for the actions of a few.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
No, I have paid attention to what has been said about LBJ. So he only went to one meeting, good. But that dosnt effect what my conclution is. THAT HE USED MASONRY FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE. Im not claiming he was a 33rd, or it was a masonic conspircy. In LBJs case I only claim he used masory and the oath of the other masons. Big difference.


Lyndon Baines Johnson was only Initiated an Entered Apprentice, and progressed no further. Most Grand Lodges have a time limit (one or two years typically) on the progression of Initiation, Passing and Raising... After which you are no longer considered a Freemason. This coupled with the unlikely event of LBJ continuing to pay dues to an organization that he chose not to pursue.


mastermason.com
Lyndon Johnson received his first degree on October 30, 1937. After receiving the degree he found that his congressional duties (elected in 1937) took so much time he was unable to pursue the masonic degrees.


www.mastermason.com...

bioguide.congress.gov...

As can easily be revealed, LBJ's Masonic career began an ended (the precious "Death Oaths" that you so frequently allude to specifically apply to only true and current members, LBJ would have no sway, even by your convoluted logic) long before he got a sniff of the Senate, much less the Presidency of the United States. Guess that eliminates the foundation (Masonic pun intended) of your premise, and with it any Masonic connection with LBJ, his actions, or appointments.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
As I said, I believe he used the oath of the masons he appointed. Are you not oathed to help brother masons even to the point of betraying your own integrity? I believe this is what LBJ counted on. Masons will take care of masons, just like you came to the aid of good ol seb.

Im saying LBJ knew he could count on the masons on the commission keeping silent in an effort to protect thier brothers. You blackmail one mason, you blackmail them all. I know masons are taught the highest standard of moral conduct, but that dosnt stop the ocational evil seed from taking root, and because of the oath, must be protected by the others.
This is what my main complaint is with the brotherhood. There is virtually no way masonry can clean its own house!

Im not arguing whether LBJ was a EA or a 33rd. Im saying he had enough info about the oath to use it to his advantaqe.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
As I said, I believe he used the oath of the masons he appointed. Are you not oathed to help brother masons even to the point of betraying your own integrity? I believe this is what LBJ counted on. Masons will take care of masons, just like you came to the aid of good ol seb.

Im not arguing whether LBJ was a EA or a 33rd. Im saying he had enough info about the oath to use it to his advantaqe.


LBJ at the time of his presidency was not a Mason, would not be recognized, or afforded any consideration... Quite the opposite... Old school Freemasonry probably would have heaped derision upon him for failing to complete the Degrees. He would not be informed, or aware of the modes of recognition (he received the EA Degree 30 years earlier), nor the particulars of the Obligations. Much as with this forum, even if you had the ritual in front of you, you still could not pass yourself off as a Brother, and any attempt to do so would brand you forever as a Cowan.

Sorry, it just doesn't work.

Came to the aid of Seb? He was never in distress.


GHSOD Monkeys, not just for life and death situations anymore…



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Are you not oathed to help brother masons even to the point of betraying your own integrity?


ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

There is a VER important caveat in the obligations in which the candidate states that he understands that the oath he is about to take will not interfere with the duty he owes to God, his country, neighbor, OR HIMSELF. Personal integrity falls under the "duty to yourself" part.

Where do you get this junk?!?!



Im not arguing whether LBJ was a EA or a 33rd. Im saying he had enough info about the oath to use it to his advantaqe.


And we're showing you that, as a one-time Entered Apprentice mason who never finished the degrees and never became a member of the fraternity, he did not! It's just not possible, the EA's oath is FAAAAAR different to the Master Mason's. THAT is when the most important obligations are made.

An Entered Apprentice, especially from 30 years earlier, would NEVER have the kind of "masonic influence" to make a Master Mason do something. Master Masons don't even have that kind of control over other masons, why would an Entered Apprentice.

No, I'm guessing that the fact that he was PRESIDENT had a lot more to do with it.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by sebatwerk]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Im not saying he was expecting to be accepted as a mason, he didnt have to , he was the president. Those masons didnt come to LBJ, they were ORDERED to preform. As I said earlier, Earl Warren was a decent man until LBJ blackmailed him onto the commission. LBJ was a snake in the grass.

In WWII he fabricated a story about his involvment in a raid on a enemy base. He never saw combat but that didnt stop him from taking the silver star. All he did was sit in a plane, and the plane never even made it to the combat zone, it had to turn around due to engine trouble. I wouldnt put it past him to use anything or any one for what he wanted. Even masons!
www.cnn.com...

Famous quotes of LBJ

"I never trust a man unless I've got his pecker in my pocket."
"I want real loyalty. I want someone who will kiss my a$$ in Macy's window, and say it smells like roses."
"He is so dumb he can't fart and chew gum at the same time." About Gerald Ford.
He's a nice guy, but he played too much football with his helmet off. Also about Gerald Ford.
"I may not know much, but I know chicken $hit from chicken salad." About a Nixon speech.
"C'mon Cheavens-- won't those fat little legs carry you any faster than that?" Shouted across a tarmac.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Im not saying he was expecting to be accepted as a mason, he didnt have to , he was the president. Those masons didnt come to LBJ, they were ORDERED to preform.


This is EXACTLY what I've tried telling you. So if you agree with this, why do you insist that he may have used masonic oaths as leverage to get what he wanted?!? This is just silly, if you were familiar with the masonic fraternity you would understand that NO mason could do that, especially not a former candidate!

Part of the oath states that a mason will only ask for and give aid to a WORTHY brother who is in REAL DISTRESS, and ONLY if it does not put one, or his family, in danger. Additionally, he states that this obligation should never come before a man's duty to God, Country, neighbor or self. Does this sound like something that you could hold against someone to make them do what you want?!? I don't think so.



I wouldnt put it past him to use anything or any one for what he wanted. Even masons!


I've always thought he was a sleaze-ball, and I completely agree with you. But that doesn't mean that he used FREEMASONRY in order to control masons!


[edit on 1-8-2005 by sebatwerk]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
The next member of the commission I afix my glaring eyes on

Is John J. McCloy


President Lyndon Johnson asked John J. McCloy to serve on the Warren Commission. No less than nine presidents had called on the Wall Street lawyer for special assignments, yet he was little known to the public. McCloy said he entered the investigation "thinking there was a conspiracy," but left it convinced that Oswald acted alone. "I never saw a case that was more completely proven," he asserted.
McCloy had long been involved in the murky world of espionage, intrigue and nazis. He spent the decade of the 1930s working out of Paris. Much of his time was spent on a law case stemming from German sabotage in World War I. His investigation took him to Berlin, where he shared a box with Hitler at the 1936 Olympics. He was in contact with Rudolph Hess before the Nazi leader made a mysterious flight to England in 1941.

www.maebrussell.com...
Is this someone we really wanted on the commission? Someone who sat with Hitler? Who in reality was a Nazi sympathizer? No ifs and or buts, this guy was a nazi!



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Is this someone we really wanted on the commission? Someone who sat with Hitler? Who in reality was a Nazi sympathizer? No ifs and or buts, this guy was a nazi!


Doesn't take much to convince you, does it? A Nazi? Where is your evidence for this? Because he shared a box with Hitler at the Olympics, or knew Rudolph Hess? One word: WEAK. If that's all it takes to convince you... well... man, I hope you never become a judge.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by sebatwerk]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join