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.

 

Interesting Place to Find a Masonic Obelisk

page: 16
3
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
All hat and no cattle boys...
Allow me to simplfy with some relevance for those who cannot...


Once we find that information, and it will turn up I'm sure, then I think we can all have something resembling an educated opinion on the matter. Until then, it's just another thread, isn't it?

It's that simple.




posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
All hat and no cattle boys...
Allow me to simplfy with some relevance for those who cannot...


Once we find that information, and it will turn up I'm sure, then I think we can all have something resembling an educated opinion on the matter. Until then, it's just another thread, isn't it?

It's that simple.


So what you're actually saying is that you started a baiting thread without an educated opinion on central point of the matter. In the mean time, the only ones who actually have what at present qualifies as an educated opinion on the matter are the very ones you've been insisting don't know what they're talking about.

I've heard of people reasonably called idiots for less.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Yep, you used tactic number 6. What your basically saying is that even though you can provide no evidence to the contrary, you will refuse to believe its not masonic because everyone is "entitled to an opinion." Your entitled to your wrong opinion. Sometimes, there is just not a masonic conspiracy. No matter how bad you want one.

You have still refused to answer the "so what" question - even though nothing indicates it is masonic - what if by the grace of God somehow someway your correct. OK. So what? A memorial put up by masons for an important event that has changed the course of history. Whats the problem?



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
So what you guys are saying, after denying that it was an obelisk, after denying that obelisks are in any way masonic, after claiming then that while some obelisks are indeed masonic, this one isn't, now you're telling me that even if I found a Lodge responisble for erecting this obelisk, it isn't going to matter because masons are good people and anybody who says different is just spewing hate and deceit.
It really is always about hate and deceit with you guys isn't it?
Are any of you actually bothering to research the erection of this monument? What's the name of local paper there? What Lodges were active in the area at the time of it's erection?
It doesn't matter to the lot of you if this is a masonic obelisk or not, all that matters to you is that somebody mentioned Masonic in a thread on a conspiracy site. Don't bother to look into it because you can't proove a negative, right? Bologna.

Edit:

Might as well ask these guys for all the tangibility they could provide with that philiosphy.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by twitchy]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
It really is always about hate and deceit with you guys isn't it?

Oddly enough, it's that way with most of the human race. Call us odd that way.


Originally posted by twitchy
Are any of you actually bothering to research the erection of this monument? What's the name of local paper there? What Lodges were active in the area at the time of it's erection?


It's your assertion. YOU research it! I have better things to do than your work for you


Originally posted by twitchy
It doesn't matter to the lot of you if this is a masonic obelisk or not, all that matters to you is that somebody mentioned Masonic in a thread on a conspiracy site. Don't bother to look into it because you can't proove a negative, right? Bologna.


So far, you can't even prove a positive. Again, why should we do your work for you?

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Fitzgibbon]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


I apologize for assuming you are familiar with logical fallacies and basic methods of research. From responses like this, I am apparently wrong.

People who are interested in researching things that actually matter all ask a "so what" question before they delve into it further. There is no sense in spending time arguing and debating over something that - where you to be correct - doesn't actually have any innate meaning. This is one of those times.

The point simply illustrates the absurdity of your posting. Even if you were correct - and all signs say your not - it still would be pointless. You could come in and go OMG OMG OMG OMG A MASONIC MONUMENT - and we'd all go "Your point is..? It is pretty. MMhmmm. Glad someone recognized world changing events should have monuments near them."

So at the face of it your wrong - all facts say this is not masonic - and even if you were correct, it would still have no meaning. Yet again, we see how devoid this entire topic is of any substance from the anti-mason crowd.

You are the one who has offered a claim. You must demonstrate it is true, as the negative cannot be proven. You have been shown to be wrong - by non-masons. Even if by some grace of God you were right - it still wouldn't matter.

You seem to have difficulty of this concept that you cannot prove a negative. I am unsure of how to teach you this, because its a quite basic concept. So let's have an example. I want you to prove to me that you are not a NWO disinformation agent. Prove it to me Twitchy. And don't you tell me you can't prove a negative - you just said thats all bologna.

This thread. Epic Fail.

Move on.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Of course, you realise that Twitchy will, above all else, insist on having the last word. My money says a reply within the hour.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
YOU research it! I have better things to do than your work for you

But you have time to come to this thread and say all that?
Amazing. Really.

As to proving a negative, I just can't see that as anything but a collective excuse for not getting off your arses and researching something. I hope someday your defense lawyer uses the same arguement in your favor and you can see grin on the DA's face and the look on the jury's faces when the logic of that hits them.
You don't have a clue if it's masonic or not. That's the only negative you need to demonstrate to me for me to know that this topic isn't really about an obelisk to you at all.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Sigh.

Back to the blackboard, class.

The crux of the problem with your argument is that you want us to prove a negative, which cannot be done for logical reasons. Not to mention your intentionally trying to confuse the burden of proof principle.

But since its so EASY for you to do this and all of this is just a smoke screen, I ask you again twitchy - PROVE TO ME that you are NOT a NWO reptilian disinformation agent. It should be easy to do, since you can prove a negative. Prove it. I'm waiting. If you can, then I will cede that you "win" this thread.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
where you to be correct - doesn't actually have any innate meaning... even if you were correct, it would still have no meaning...Even if by some grace of God you were right - it still wouldn't matter

I hope everybody reads that post really well. I rest my case, you're right it doesn't matter, to you.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
YOU research it! I have better things to do than your work for you

But you have time to come to this thread and say all that?


Yet you have the time to post to this thread and YOU still haven't proved a positive (by far, the easier task).

Fact is, you either can't or don't want to. Either way, you proved the quality of your mettle.

Good day.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


You are definitely trolling. Your acting like you can't understand simple logic. I'll play along.

Let's take a look at the decision tree for this theory.

Theory: The monument is masonic.

There are two possible outcomes of this theory.

A) The monument is actually masonic.
B) The monument is actually not masonic.

Let us now examine the implications of either of these outcomes. In outcome A, we must now ask "OK. And?" What is so bad about it? In outcome B, you are wrong and we reach the same outcome in terms of the implication of this theory meaning nothing.

So regardless of the outcome of this theory, there is no substance here. Of course, the reality is all evidence points towards B, but the funny thing is even if you were correct, there is nothing here. Its devoid of substance.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Appak and Trinityman have both been pretty decent about the discussion, I'm intersted in knowing what you two think about the choice to place an obelisk there?


twitchy,

I think it's a monument to an important event. (Good event/bad event?) Let the individual decide. But I do not see it as a Masonic anything for several reasons. As pointed out here, the Obelisk is NOT an official Masonic emblem. Have obelisks been erected by Masons? Yes. But (as discussed earlier in this thread) cornerstones have been laid by Masons too, but the "cornerstone" is not a Masonic emblem. Have the erection of obelisks been supported by Masons? Yes. The Washington monument is a good example. I read that 22 of the 90+ commemorative stones in it are Masonic. 22 out of 90 something isn't a majority, though. NUMEROUS other groups (non-Masonic) contributed stones. So the Monument although supported by Masons is hardly Masonic. See?

Also, nowhere in the numerous Masonic degrees or lectures (and I've seen 'em all) does it say "The Obelisk is an emblem of - - - and represents to us the - - - " Our rituals are VERY explanatory. Many say we have secrets, but when you are a Mason you are actually privy to what's really going on.

So while Masons have dedicated (or perhaps even erected) obelisks, the obelisk itself is simply not a Masonic emblem.

I simply see the subject (particularly since it doesn't have a Masonic marking or word on it) as a fitting memorial to what happened at that particular site. No different than plaques mounted on walls, buildings, rocks, etc. that say "On this day in (year) "such-and-such" happened here"

Memorials, monuments, epitaphs, cenotaphs, etc. are everywhere. Some of them are Masonic in origin. Some are not. Plain and simple.

Twitchy, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Best,

Appak



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Just a thought - It is interesting to me that so many of the symbols associated with Masonary are of an Egyptian origin. Could it be that the first knights (or warrior priests?) who formed this group were part of the Disporia and still identified themselves as having Egyptian ties? Or perhaps they were of Syrian descent from the Hebrew tribe of Ephraim. The Biblical Ephraim was heir to his fathers station and wealth in Egypt (Joseph son of Israel) until things turned ugly for the Hebrews and they left Egypt (Biblical Exodus). Evidently over the ions there has been a re-collaboration amongst the persecuted with their persecutors. Hope that doesn't offend anyone.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bonijean
Just a thought - It is interesting to me that so many of the symbols associated with Masonary are of an Egyptian origin. Could it be that the first knights (or warrior priests?) who formed this group were part of the Disporia and still identified themselves as having Egyptian ties? Or perhaps they were of Syrian descent from the Hebrew tribe of Ephraim. The Biblical Ephraim was heir to his fathers station and wealth in Egypt (Joseph son of Israel) until things turned ugly for the Hebrews and they left Egypt (Biblical Exodus). Evidently over the ions there has been a re-collaboration amongst the persecuted with their persecutors. Hope that doesn't offend anyone.


I don't believe that 'so many' of the symbols associated with Freemasonry are Egyptian in origin. It seems to me that many non-Masons want there to be a connection.

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Well it is pretty clear that masons use the obelisk for several ritual uses.

Here is an example.



As the Grand Commander and seven Active Members look on, Ill. Ronald A. Seale, 33°, Lt. Gr. Cmdr. and S.G.I.G. in Louisiana, leads dedication ceremonies at the Scottish Rite Center of Charleston, South Carolina, where a granite obelisk was placed by the Supreme Council, 33°, to commemorate our Order's Bicentennial.
www.scottishrite.org...



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Do any of you guys have any evidence whatsoever that this Obelisk isn't masonic? Do any of you guys actually have something relevant to the thread at all?


Perhaps you missed it:

1. There are no Masonic symbols on said "obelisk."

2. There is no association between the site and Freemasonry.

3. There is no association between the atomic bomb and Freemasonry.

4. There is no connection between the man who erected the "obelisk" and Freemasonry.

5. There was no Masonic ceremony associated with the "obelisk's" erection.

6. The obelisk is not an inherently Masonic symbol, ergo the association to Freemasonry proposed by twitchy lacks substance.

7. Twitchy has provided zero (0) evidence of a connection between this particular monument and Freemasonry.

8. Twitchy has attempted to associate this obelisk to Freemasonry by way of an individual who a) was not a Mason, and b) was not involved in any way, shape, or form with the monument in question.

9. Twitchy constantly demands that his "opponents" prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.

10. Twitchy argues that the monument is in fact an obelisk based on the White Sands Missile Test Site website, written by someone who doesn't give a "jack hooey," I believe the term was, whether it is an obelisk or a cairn, despite the fact that technically, the monument is indeed a cairn.


And to whoever said twitchy was his "hero," I can only say that is the saddest thing I have ever heard.

[edit on 1/27/08 by The Axeman]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan
Well it is pretty clear that masons use the obelisk for several ritual uses.


It's pretty clear that a monument is being dedicated. How does this constitute a "ritual use" (the shape of this particular monument notwithstanding)?

Ritual in Freemasonry is commonly associated with the numerous initiatory (induction) ceremonies. Dedicating a monument is not an "initiation"

Based on your post, wreaths must be used by Masons for, as you put it, "several ritual uses" too, as there are two instances of wreaths being placed in memory of our dead.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by senrak
 


Brothers. Why are you feeding the trolls???

Quit repeating your selves. Blist twichy. Move on.

I hate trolls.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Brothers. Why are you feeding the trolls???

Quit repeating your selves. Blist twichy. Move on.

I hate trolls.

If you don't have any proof or evidence that this obelisk was or was not erected by freemasons, why are you still replying to this thread with your irrelevant attacks on the character of others?
Trolls Indeed.

Brothers?
2d.) Forum Gangs: You will not engaged in an organized collaboration with other members to disrupt thread topics or interrupt the flow of normal collaborative discussion. Doing so will result in immediate termination of posting privileges.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join