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.

 

Tatics of some secret societies:

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
DiJu demonstrates tinfoilhat theory at its absolute finest, with very meaningful insights on what we must be watchful for.

I especially like the sage advice about not using ATS on your own people, and the qualified adherence to the sixth commandment in circumstances where the victim has spoken, leaving it open to murder someone before they speak. Sounds like very useful secret society practice.

My fuller understading would benefit from a clearer definition of these secret society terms:

dicretable

to blabble

discretable

councious


I am very pleased to have such a pedagogue at ATS, considering the expertise over time that s/he has built up in secret socialization.






[edit on 31-7-2005 by MaskedAvatar]




posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sebatwerk
I NEVER asked for the specific identities of the people he was speaking of (ie: first and last names, location, etc.), I just wanted more information than "some friends"...


I was speaking in general as I've seen people ask for names numerous times on this forum. I wasn't addressing your post specifically(hadn't even read it actually). However,after reading your post:"And which of the many secret societies would this happen to be? Who have you spoken to, what did they tell you?" does sound like you're asking for some rather impractical specifics to me. He already told you he was in one himself and worked with people who specialized in it and then proceeded to give you the fields. To inquire further implies you want something so specific it's not likely to be given.



THAT sounds shady and not verifiable. If he could at least have told me who the people were, why they were relevant to the conversation, how he knew them, etc, then his story would have been more believable. Simply saying "somebody told me" does not lend much credibility to someone's claim...


Depends on what you mean "who were the people". When I read the post you were resonding to,it sounded like the questions had been adequately answered to me unless you were looking for something not likely to be revealed. Perhaps you were,perhaps you weren't. As I said,I wasn't referring to your post specifically.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
They weren't mentioned in messages, but certain people knew of them.
They weren't mentioned, but there was evidence of them.

Only shadows.

------------------

oh man, i wish this was from a movie poster! the story posted by this member has it all;
mystery, suspence, family, and the army. i wonder if national lampoon would like to produce it?

[edit on 31-7-2005 by duskboy]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist


To ask for verification in the form of a specific identity sounds a bit nefarious,yes. Because giving such out could and likely would be dangerous. And one would have to assume that the person asking for the speficic ID knows this as well. I know if one were blowing the whistle on a powerful society,odds are unless they were either moronic or willing to die for the cause,they wouldn't give their name out. Or at least not their real one. So it's not very genuine-sounding to even ask for such a thing.


But certainly you can see the circular logic used in this sort of thing. And frankly, it's exactly why I distrust all conspiracy theories, even the ones that could actually be true.

Anybody with a computer and Internet connection can log onto ATS or a million other sites, and type whatever they want. I could just as easily come on here and say that I'm being chased by a hitman from the Jesuits or the Oddfellows or the Loyal Order of Moose. But such a statement is absurd without evidence. Indeed, if it were true, I probably wouldn't be wasting my time chatting about it on an Internet forum in the first place, as I would obviously have more important issues to deal with.

In general, from my experience, I have found that a large number of people, many of whom are teenagers, develop a fascination with the unknown, come to websites like this, and make stuff up just because it sounds exciting and dangerous. Now, if someone offers some sort of evidence to back up their claims, I know I can trust what they have to say. Otherwise, it's just someone sitting around on their computer, bored to the point that they're willing to post some far-out fiction for the purpose of self-entertainment.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
But certainly you can see the circular logic used in this sort of thing. And frankly, it's exactly why I distrust all conspiracy theories, even the ones that could actually be true.


It can be somewhat circular,sure. But when dealing with certain matters it's not sensible to expect people to expose themselves or their family by giving information too specific. And since few people would give such info no matter how true their testimony was personal info is not a logical guage. You just have to judge the testimonial itself on it's own merit. Can anyone say anything anonimously? Sure. But all you can do is take what they say and weigh it against what you know and believe and reach your own conclusion. You can't base it on lack of info that can't be expected to be given in the first place.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Loungerist]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist
It can be somewhat circular,sure. But when dealing with certain matters it's not sensible to expect people to expose themselves or their family by giving information too specific.


But I don't see how he would've endangered himself or anyone else, just by being a little more specific. Think about this: investigators often know a suspect is lying by the depth of their stories. Being too vague and unspecific hints at the possibility that you haven't had the time to develop a back-story, or are afraid you may trip yourself up by not remembering details.

I know you werent speaking about my post specifically, but this individual COULDVE been more specific without revealing anything personal!



You just have to judge the testimonial itself on it's own merit. Can anyone say anything anonimously? Sure. But all you can do is take what they say and weigh it against what you know and believe and reach your own conclusion. You can't base it on lack of info that can't be expected to be given in the first place.


But that's precisely the problem! This individual is making claims that are VERY unlikely and not very believable (in the real world, not in conspiracy theory land). Like ML said, that is precisely WHY we need more information than what he gave.

Like the saying goes: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sebatwerk
But that's precisely the problem! This individual is making claims that are VERY unlikely and not very believable (in the real world, not in conspiracy theory land). Like ML said, that is precisely WHY we need more information than what he gave.



As I said,it depends on what exactly you're asking for. Asking for information so specific that the testifier has cause not to reveal it is not an effective means of verification.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loungerist

Originally posted by sebatwerk
But that's precisely the problem! This individual is making claims that are VERY unlikely and not very believable (in the real world, not in conspiracy theory land). Like ML said, that is precisely WHY we need more information than what he gave.



As I said,it depends on what exactly you're asking for. Asking for information so specific that the testifier has cause not to reveal it is not an effective means of verification.


Any means of verification would be better than, "I have these friends..." That kind of verification went out with "My mother is a Nurse and therefore I know all about Medical Science..." that we used to hear from our friends as children.

Giving a clue as to what was spoken of and which "Secret Societies" use those particular rules would be a beginning. We could verify with our own knowledge of those particular "Secret Societies" about whether to believe him or not. If he attributed this particular set of rules to certain "Secret Societies" that we all know to be altruistic then we could simply reject his assertions based in facts.

As it is now we have unverified, and unattributed information from a stranger, not one of the most credible sources of information available. There is nothing to justify simple belief of this without some verification by other sources that we find to be at least partially credible. Simply giving him credibility without regard to source or knowledge of the person is without a doubt gullible beyond any reasonable standard. Credibility is earned through reliable reporting of events verified by outside sources, not just saying, "I know these people and they think I am special even though many think I am too young..."

All anybody has asked for is any information at all that would back up what he stated, including just giving the names of the "Secret Societies" that use the particular set of "rules" that he posted so we can judge his veracity ourselves. Nobody, as yet, has simply called him a liar or anything, they only want some more sources or information so that they can judge what he has stated. Vague and unattributed "information" can be either made up, accurate, or a mix of both but there is no way at all to judge until more information is available.

(edited for spelling)

[edit on 2-8-2005 by No1tovote4]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DiJu
sorry, forgot one:

14) Remember that you are expendable and your death means nothing. The death of the cause is greater than yourself. Protect it with your life for your life belongs to it.


The First Rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club!
The Second Rule of Fight Club is: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB!



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Do secret societys also welcome an enemy in so he can be taken out with ease? Lets just say a family escapes somehow by the grace of God, a kidnapping ring in a foreign country. They didn't take the wrong cab they took the right one depending on which side of it your on. And somehow the cab driver maybe takes a liking to the DAD because he can speak a little spanish or who knows what but somehow the cab driver gets the operation waved off, and the car slowly passes by the guys who were supposed to pick them up on a little backroad in the woods. And the Dad sighs a relief but theres still one hour back to the Ship so hes not certain his family is safe yet.



Come to find out later the Dad has some interest in the occult, would they invite or encourage such a man to join so that he can be slowly killed at dinner or by some other means? Its just a thought.







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join