It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Interesting Place to Find a Masonic Obelisk

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:11 AM
I have studied history (especially Egyptian history and mythology) all of my life. I am also a longtime practitioner of Egyptian magick.
I can tell you most definitely that is not an obelisk; it IS a cairn.
And even if it were an obelisk, what is the problem with that? Obelisks have nothing evil about them. And if it's Masonic, so what?

Twitchy, I do think you created this thread to bash Masons, pure and simple. You claim knowledge of symbols, obelisks and the like, but your statements sure don't bear that out. It seems you think that all those things are evil; which, right there, is proof that you don't really know what you're talking about. What did the Masons ever do to you to make you so hateful of them?

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by twitchy
I almost hate posting in this section because of the Squares, but here's an interesting place to find a Masonic Emblem...

Typical Masonic Obelisk, you probably have one in your town, so what's the big deal?
Ah but this is no town, it is the location of the explosion of the first Nuclear Device, the Trinity Test Site.

Does this mark yet another philanthropic Masonic contribution to the world like Finance and Hobnobbery?

?!?!? what masonic symbolism? I think you're trying too hard to find one.

I'm not a "masonic" debunker, far from it, I think there is something odd somewhere but you are letting your imagination run away with itself.

Visit the Rosslyn Chapel in Roslin if you want to overdose on symbolism! Don't forget the photographs of royalty in the cafe, hmmmm a curious mix......especially considering the location of Roslin. It's "on the way" to nowhere. It's close to "nothing else". Why on earth would royalty (all the male members) visit there?

Now that is conspiracy stuff

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:17 AM

ob·e·lisk (b-lsk)
1. A tall, four-sided shaft of stone, usually tapered and monolithic, that rises to a pointed pyramidal top.
2. Printing The dagger sign (), used especially as a reference mark. Also called dagger, obelus.

Note: emphasis on underlined word is mine.


cairn (kârn)
A mound of stones erected as a memorial or marker.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by forestlady

I had thought about it being a Cairn,

Except that generally Cairns tend to be hollow, they also rarely if ever are used to place a plaque on.. then again they are not used in the modern sense of the word.. so that is not to odd. The other thing is for the most part, cairns are never made with mortar, but simply drystone type construction.

But, if it is a cairn, and its shape does resemble a cairn far better then an obelisk, a Cairn is used for nearly infinite uses to the ancient Celts..

Be it a marker on the road, a marker for a significant event, a marker to set boundaries, tombs, passages to the other world, sites of significant battles, and often when they cleared fields they took all the loose rocks and built a cairn out of them.

And as a side note.. Cairns are not Masonic, they date back well past Masonry by thousands of years.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:24 AM
Hi Rockpuck,

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The biggest issue I have with this is simply to say that an obelisk was raised in honor of Ra, you must first define as a fact that those who constructed it worship Egyptology. If they did not, that particularargument is by default impossible.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that a cult of Ra worshippers were responsible for the erection of the obelisk or for that matter the positioning of the site itself.

It, to my mind, would simply be a case of those that commissioned it's design may well have been making a little inside joke, or were knowledgeable of historic esoterica. There may have been nothing more sinister to it than that.

But, occultic leanings of many in the military is widely known. Some of these people have even gone on to start their own religions.

As for Trinity being on the 33rd paralel, It is in the middle of a desert, which is why it was used.. Masons are not so much into numerology as you may assume. It is an odd coincidence, but the ones behind the project where not Masons, the President was not a Mason and the lead scientist where not Masons. So it would seem weird to honor Masons when no one there was a Mason?

I have not stated anywhere in my post that Mason's were responsible for the test. Onomastics and toponomastics are not just studied by Freemasons and are known to many initiates of the Mysteries.

This is something much more complex than numerology.

What came first, I wonder, Oppie's naming of it or the positioning of the site?

Secondly, Johnson was a Mason, and he technically ordered Japan to be nuked.. however he is not revered by Masons at all for that fact. We respect him being a Mason, and being a President as that is no small feat... however, never do we honor him because he nuked Japan..

I think you've got Johnson mixed up with "Give 'em Hell" Harry.

Lastly, the world "I am become death, shatterer of worlds" is not a unique quote to him.. he was a philosophical fellow, and he read a lot of ancient writings..

It's from the Bhagavad Gita. There is a link supplied in my earlier post.

Yes Oppie was very knowledgeable on many subjects, esoterica included.

[edit on 25/1/2008 by Beelzebubba]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by Beelzebubba

i meant Trumen.


To say that it was an inside joke, or perhaps that they knew of ancient mysteries, it could also be said that who ever commisioned the project was ignorant in history and said "give me a simple design" and they just figured this shape would work best.
Why do they pick any kind of shape for a monument? I would say because it seems to be a "typical" shape for a monument, that they picked it.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by Rockpuck

Roosevelt WAS a Mason and Truman, not Johnson is the president who succeded Roosevelt and who ordered the nuking of Japan.

Truman was also a Mason and Johnson only got to EA IIRC.

That being said I agree with the rest of your post.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by RWPBR]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by RWPBR

I need to re-study my American presidents!
I corrected my self in the post above, though I for some reason was under the impression that the first rosevelt, teddy, was a Mason, not Franklin. Ah well, you learn something new everyday.

Back to the post

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Beelzebubba

To say that it was an inside joke, or perhaps that they knew of ancient mysteries, it could also be said that who ever commisioned the project was ignorant in history and said "give me a simple design" and they just figured this shape would work best.
Why do they pick any kind of shape for a monument? I would say because it seems to be a "typical" shape for a monument, that they picked it.

This is true, it could very well have been as you said. But it is funny that the US Military (the people involved in the commissioning and construction) refer to it as an "obelisk", it has been known officially as such since it was built.

Wouldn't a person who is ignorant of ancient mysteries be more inclined to refer to it as a "monument?"

I also think that the reason it strays so far from being true to what a "real" obelisk looks like and how it is fashioned is because they were not craftsmen, they were military and this was as close as they could come to realise the original blue-print (if there was one).

Actually that would be a great find. If someone could dig up a blue-print for the monument/obelisk to see what it's original dimensions were and if it was named an obelisk from it's planning stage.

[edit on 25/1/2008 by Beelzebubba]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by Beelzebubba

What other monument type construction would have been picked though? A giant square? A big circle? A flat stone on the ground? Some fancy statue? A huge building? I don't think they expected many people to visit it, and not many do, so it was a very simplistic design that still held a sort of dignity about it.

At least this is the way I see it.. it could have been chosen for a variety of reasons, maybe someone WAS a egyptologist (the lead scientist did like ancient writings) but I can be sure it is not Masonic in any way.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by twitchy

You should really learn a bit about logic. When your logic is fallacious there is no need to even address the substance of what you post, because the precepts you offer do not lead to any valid conclusion. This post is also a common tactic by those who use fallacies, when its pointed out.

Of course, the reality is that the point of using fallacious reasoning is that its deceptive enough that its difficult to address the substance. The substance of your claims is so shallow that I it's beyond obvious: you have none.

It is very obvious that your trolling. Sad.

The parthenon was used for ritual magic. The parthenon is a square. Your house is a square. Therefore, your house is used for ritual magic. Prove me wrong. Being subject to your own logic - quite a punishment, no?

It's always hilarious when the anti-masons work themselves up like this. Here we have masons, non-masons, heck, even people who normally think masons are "up to something" - ALL saying there is no connection here. And yet the few zealous anti-masons who think everything is a masonic conspiracy...can't stop...

There is only about ONE person in this thread on the "this might be masonic" side who is actually posting with temperance, calm, and actual reason and thoughtful philosophical discussion (Beelzebubba). The other people are acting like typical anti-masons.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
It is very obvious that your trolling. Sad.

You keep going on about my logic, so why exactly are you here on this terribly illogical thread? Do you have something to proove that this obelisk isn't masonic or are you doing a little trolling yourself? Are we still denying that it is indeed an obelisk.
You guys say the Obelisk isn't used in freemasonry, I've shown that it is. You guys say it isn't an obelisk, I've shown you that is indeed called an obelisk by any and all official reckoning. I've shown at least one of the men involved to be a DeMolay, and I've yet to see comment one about the General being a mason.
Call me a troll, call me illogical, lie about the masonic signifigance of the obelisk, but it doesn't change the fact that you guys just simply don't have a damned clue if this Obelisk is masonic or not. I'm not sure it's masonic, but at least I'm willing to look into rather than relying on a pack of good ole boys to come and back me up on my pure speculatation.
Aside from attacking my logic or accusing me of being a troll, do you guys have anything worthy of contribution here or is it just going to be more of the same old same old with you guys?
Forestlady, it isn't a Cairn. if it were a Cairn, don't you think they would call it a Cairn? They don't, they call it an obelisk. And yeah, those poor freemasons, always getting picked on and gang banged here. I'd feel sorry for them too, but I just can't muster the emotional attachment to men who usurp local political structure, ignore the crimes of their fellow masons excepting murder and treason, grant favors and accords to one another, outright lie about the Kabbalist origins of their symbolism, then turn around and try to claim inherent morality.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:23 AM
been moved to a new thread

[edit on 25-1-2008 by masonica_esoterica]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
there is no need to even address the substance of what you post

If there's no need to address what I'm saying, and yet you keep posting, that's the every definition of trolling in my book. You can't seem to even be bothered to make an effort to proove the Obelisk isn't masonic, and then you've the nerve to say there's no need to address my posts, well then be off with you, or is there some reason you linger? How pathetic... 'show us proof' they exclaim, I hand them evidence, and then they simply say there is no need to address it. What heros of logic and reason we have gathered here to debate this subject!

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:36 AM
Coast to coast masons spend 3 million dollars a day on charity combined. No matter how much we spend, we still have fools who believe we are trying to commemorate a nuke site. If you are so convinced that we actually do stuff like that, sign up and take your 3 degrees. When you find out that we don't do stuff like that and you are let down by the truth, that we are just a bunch of charitable guys. You can always wimp out and take a demit, which means you are no longer one of us. Until then please spend your time doing something more worthwhile, like picking a charitable cause instead of accusing us. Like building an obelisk on a nuke site.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by andre18
And so…..I will ask the question again…. was America founded by Freemasons…?

And if so….is there a possibility since the discovery America, that anything to do with masons like the obelisk is Masonic…..?

You ....... write like ........ Captain ........ Kirk from the ........ Starship ........ Enter ........ prise.

Why not read some American history?

America was founded by many like-minded men. Some of them were Masons. So, no, America was not founded by the Freemasons.

Since that's 'not so' the rest of your question is moot.

However, Captain, the discovery of America far outdates the founding of America.

Your pal,

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by twitchy

Because your substance has already been shown to be devoid of reason, I also joined in and showed that you also lacking any logic for what you say as well. But I know, its much easier to ramble on and troll over addressing your fallacious logic.

You have shown nothing, and all I've seen proven is that the word obelisk appears in the masonic literature. So does the word house. Does this mean your house is masonic? Your logic is so bad it astounds me. Did it not occur to you that masons do not make everything they do masonic. Did you notice that the people involved in the construction of this monument were men? Does this mean that it's really a giant phallus? Prove me wrong.

Its so hilarious how the anti-masons claim they are being piled on upon. Did you notice that everyone - mason, non-mason, even those who believe just about every other conspiracy theory against masonry - all say your wrong? How could this be? Could it be because you are? Surely not.

More lies and assertations without proof - but that is very characteristic about your posts. No matter how much you want the world to be black and white to simplify this complex world that you have trouble understanding, that does not change reality.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:48 AM

Originally posted by MassMason32
Coast to coast masons spend 3 million dollars a day on charity combined.

So what? Adolf Hitler and Jim Baker established several Charities as well. So you don't have any evidence of this Obelisk not being masonic either, just praise for your fraternity? How is that relevant?
Wow 3 million a day, I wonder where the money comes from?

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by twitchy

Classical sign of a troll. Using fallacious logic and then ignoring it, and freaking out over everyone who shows you that your wrong. That you do so does not change reality. The Anti-Mason syndicate has arrived!

We're still waiting for your evidence that this is masonic. You have none. Gee, what a surprise, the age old tactic of confusing burden of proof. Again.

If you refuse to show evidence, then why not explain how your statements are not fallacious as has been shown? Oh...but....they are. I see. How surprising.

What is most amusing about this is that you happened to pick something bad for you to troll on. You see, I'd have no problem as a mason if this was masonic. Recognizing such a historical event is important. I'd be happy to claim it was. But..facts say otherwise.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by mmmeat

Sorry dude, but do you think that kind of answer was called for?

ML had already given him a response (in a far less condescending manner).

The guy meant no offence to anyone.

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in