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.


The "Anonymous" Scientology Protest is an NSA/FBI Fishing Expedition

page: 35
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:37 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by helatrobus

So don't become a Scientologist.....Duh.......

For cryin' out loud...expend your energy and indignation towards feeding hungry people...making sure children in developing countries have clean water, medicine....I could think of a thousand social and cultural inequities that need much more attention than some strange religion.

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:46 PM

Originally posted by helatrobus
beat up on whoever the loser is at the time.

Hurts, doesn't it?

I know, a moderator gonna' slap me down right quick.

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:54 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by helatrobus

Would it be possible to start a new thread with all of the videos removed from this thread, and to link to the new thread from here, so that those of us interested can refer to them? Call it 'Appendix thread for FBI/NSA fishing expedition' or something?

The cult videos, e.g., were relevant for examining the general question of whether Scientology could present an issue sufficient to motivate a broad population into action against it ( point five) and as an example of one of many videos actually watched by many Anonymous in considering the issue of Scientology.

While relevant to the topic, it is possible that such material could be collected into an appendix rather than being included in the main thread. Hence the 'appendix thread' notion. My main concern is that relevant references such as these not be lost to readers.

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 12:16 AM
Yes, it is possible. I suggest that it be done. We are waiting.

No sarcasm. Select a forum, start a thread and link to it from here. As well, link to it in your signature.

I look forward.

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Anonymous13
reply to post by helatrobus

According to my u2u its a recruitment drive. LOL

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 12:34 AM
Thank you, MrPenny, for providing a demonstration of how anonymity might prevent flame wars, a topic that I think is of some relevance to illustrating the character of actors in this thread, given the interest expressed by readers regarding your initial question about the role of anonymity in shaping the character of Anonymous, and given's more general equivocation of loose-knit bonds with chaotic outcomes in his initial post. The example, then:

In an anonymous forum, you would have written this, perhaps:

Originally posted by MrPenny
One all it takes for me to want to flame you. Your anonymity wouldn't prevent it....the content of your post, frankly, sucks. It's the content, stupid.

But you would not have written this:

Do you have anything else to contribute other than spamming this forum with links to videos?

And it is rather likely that the exchange would have ended with your first comment, turned to technical aspects of anonymity, or been terminated with a simple, abrupt reply. But it instead continued, in a personal vein, in further posts ...

Rather than engaging in flaming, you might perhaps instead entertain yourself with the following reading material, earlier referenced, and links contained therein (e.g., if you have already read the article itself):

Among other things, I think it might serve to illuminate to some degree your earlier question regarding whether it is possible for anonymous forums to develop culture.

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 12:49 AM

Originally posted by helatrobus
According to my u2u its a recruitment drive. LOL

While it might seem, without context, that the videos are simply for the purposes of recruitment (i.e. motivation for readers of this thread to oppose Scientology), they are rather quite relevant to's point five (i.e., motivations for Anonymous itself to contend with Scientology), especially as they have been viewed and discussed by Anonymous, and may reflect the reasoning of individual protestors.

MemoryShock seems to be okay with the idea of starting another thread. If it's to be an appendix to this thread, it should probably be started in this same topic area (General Conspiracies?), perhaps with the title 'Appendix to FBI/NSA Fishing Expedition' or so, so that videos relevant to the topic in one way or another might be collected for reader reference rather than being lost.

As an alternative, some other approach could be taken to starting a new thread. Given my lack of experience in posting here, I unfortunately do not have much in the way of suggestions.

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 01:28 AM
reply to post by Anonymous13

With all due respect, Anonymous13...

Just do it.

I am sure that you are aware of the T&C's of this site. Begin the thread, append your supporting analysis/statements with an obligatory "question mark", and keep in mind that your audience is going to be reflecting on both sides of the story. The fact that they are considering CoS's perspective is an indication that they are intelligent and considering your side as well.

Again...all due respect. But the constant patronizing of this topic by manipulation of the rules of logic is wearisome.

I think your movement could be helped immensely by the stating of the facts and allowing further rational extrapolation in an objective discussion, rather than immediately demonizing a conflicting viewpoint, which has occurred and neatly danced around.

But if that is not your point...than this thread is now here purely for your amusement...or lulz, as it were.

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 02:40 AM

I have started the following, for my earlier-referenced video:

Out of respect for the fact that helatrobus appears to be a better researcher than I am, and has collected a number of videos rather relevant to the issues raised in this thread, I would rather leave the decision of where to place his videos to him.

As for my own recent participation in this thread, I have mostly tried to address concerns raised by others. While I would be quite happy to discuss these rather random topics elsewhere, it seems that posters continue to place them here, rather than in other, more appropriate threads (e.g., perhaps ). I could, I suppose, direct them to discussion there (or to some other thread) when such questions arose, if this would be more appropriate.

I can assure you that my efforts toward making points as effectively as possible to a sometimes hostile audience without too greatly offending has been not the most entertaining of pursuits that I have ever undertaken. I suppose that I am lucky to have English as my first language, so that I am able to undertake this task without facing such difficulties as seem to have been encountered by some of my colleagues here.

If a new general thread for discussion regarding Anonymous were desired (e.g., to which posters here could be redirected), I could start this, either in the same forum as an appendix to this thread, or elsewhere (if suggested); alternatively, if either of the above-linked threads were considered broad enough (as both mention many of the issues involved), discussion could be moved to one of these threads.

I can place any or all of these threads in my signature, as you had earlier suggested, if this would be helpful.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by

Originally posted by helatrobus
Are you or have you ever had affiliations with the Scientology?

What are those experiences?

Why don't you ever address rebutals?

Can you do so now please? Particularly the ones regarding the criminal history of L R Hubbard and The Churc of Scientology including current crimes being done which it has not stopped.

Thnak you.

Since I have never been associated with the cult, despise it, and have been involved in research against them, the remainder of your questions are moot.

As for "Project Voltar," that is what I was told is the code name of the covert initiative. I had no idea that it denoted a Hubbard connection. (Code names for covert projects often have some cute or otherwise relevant meaning) If you re-read my opening post, you'll see that the initiative is two-pronged, intending to achieve collateral damage to the cult via the "Anonymous" actions.

I have no idea how you would assume I may have some involvement with a cult spawned by a hack science fiction writer.


Interesting to note that you have had the very same specious ad hom applied to you as is being applied to me over at OCMB.

I think your speculation is reasonably well founded. Because of the general TRUTH that the activities of the non group referred to by themselves as "anonymous" have done little if anything to incriminate Scientology but lots to incriminate themselves and those who associate with them, I think their motives ARE SUSPECT. I am not buying into the apologetics and spin doctoring they engage in, therefore I am being accused of working for the O.S.A.

Alternate speculations could apply as well. For one, anonymous could actually be Scientologists. In fact, if you visit OCMB, you will see that much of the activity attributed to anonymous in the various media is being spun off as being the handiwork of Scientology itself. Whereas I myself think that is a "convenient" misdirection, somebody else might believe it, and there is some basis to support that kind of belief.

In any event, please keep posting your thoughts here. Anonymous doesn't like it, and I'd like to find out why they behave as they do. I am having a hard time understanding how they could launch their initial attack because the CoS wanted YouTube to remove copyrighted material. This shows a disrespect for one's rights to manage their own creative product. I think the same kind of mindset applies to people who hijack copyrighted music, which is also illegal. People who create have a right to control their creations according to law, and according to morality.

Anyhoo, in retaliation for Scientology exercizing it's right to control a product it owns, anonymous hit them with a DDoS. Which isn't just bad news for Scientology, but also bad news for all the computer owners whose private property was used unwittingly. Interesting how they violate other people's rights to privacy and free speech whilst maintaining their own anonymity- all the while complaining about Scientology's violation of freedom of speech. Where I come from, controlling one's own property does not equal violation of anybody else's rights to free speech, but I guess in Anonyland things get redefined as convenient.

I notice various non members of the non group anonymous have had their posts moderated here for being abusive. Nobody with any brains equates cyberbullying with free speech unless they are apologizing for themselves. In fact, cyberbullying tends to quash free speech as not all people have the ability to shrug off verbal violence.

I hope everybody pays attention to what is happening on this thread, and visits OCMB regularly to find out the truth about Scientology. If you go there you will also find out the truth about how easy it is to manipulate folks by appealing to their emotions rather than their common sense.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Os Wilkes
Alternate speculations could apply as well. For one, anonymous could actually be Scientologists. In fact, if you visit OCMB, you will see that much of the activity attributed to anonymous in the various media is being spun off as being the handiwork of Scientology itself. Whereas I myself think that is a "convenient" misdirection, somebody else might believe it, and there is some basis to support that kind of belief.

Perhaps there is another thread, then, that you might find of interest:

On OCMB, I haven't spent much time there, but there is a thread over there relevant to this topic, which I came across while trying in vain to retrieve information about "Project Voltar" via Google. To quote one respondent, regarding Anonymous:

'Anonymous' has 'grown' rather than learned from past mistakes. They have grown in numbers.. So much so that the original Anonymous, who might or might not be a cyber terrorist group, is now a large group of at least the 9000 people who picketed $cientology 10 feb.

Regarding "Project Voltar":

Heh.. The first post on the Above Top Secret MB mentions an NSA OP, 'Project Voltar' (the rationale for the name is unknown).. Voltar is the name of the home planet of the sprawling galactic confederacy in Hubbards SF story Mission Earth. The story lampoons secret services like CIA and NSA. However Scientologys own GO/OSA seems to be the target of satire.. I don't know if Hubbard intended that, but that's what I saw in it.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 02:24 PM
I'm not sure how many of you have seen this, but it needs to be put out into the public:

As many of you know, the building in the background is the J. Edgar Hoover building. The individual in the center of the image is wearing a mask very similar to the ones worn by members of anonymous. He (she?) is standing next to what appears to be a government-issued vehicle. Soon after I had taken this picture the person in the mask entered the vehicle and the vehicle left at a high rate of speed. Unfortunately, this is the best picture I could get of the license plate.

Although this image is not definitive proof by any stretch of the imagination, it certainly seems to add to the growing pile of evidence suggesting that "Anonymous" is connected to the US government in some way.

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 02:33 PM
Could you please provide more information regarding the date of the picture, etc.

You have a very subjective picture and interpretation. That doesn't mean you are automatically wrong, but this is far from definitive....

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by informantno5

As many of you know, the building in the background is the J. Edgar Hoover building. The individual in the center of the image is wearing a mask very similar to the ones worn by members of anonymous. He (she?) is standing next to what appears to be a government-issued vehicle. Soon after I had taken this picture the person in the mask entered the vehicle and the vehicle left at a high rate of speed.

Dear Lord... I've seen that guy before!

He seems to really get around. This is getting deep.


Mod Edit: Picture number 4....too graphic

Number 3 deserves a decent 'heads up as well....

Second edit: To fix the link to #3

[edit on 5-4-2008 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 5-4-2008 by MemoryShock]

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:37 PM
reply to post by informantno5

So, an Anon is standing/walking near the JEH building. Where do you get the idea that this means they're a government pawn?

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 11:55 AM
Do you seriously belive this or are you just trying to get more points... contrary to popular belief anonymous are not "super hackers" or "terrorists" Anonymous are a hive mind collective who think the same things in the same situation almost like a giant machine. Anonymous do not care about money or logic Anonymous do what they do for there own personal enjoyment. In reality Anonymouse do not care about Scientology, Anonymous do not care for publication of themselves i.e no "camwhores". The FBI can not control Anarchy, which is exactly how Anonymous operates.

[edit on 20-4-2008 by krax]

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 03:52 PM
Heh, as incoherent as this one is, he has a point--like the /b/tards that started the movement, Anonymous really doesn't have any leaders or even public figures. The only people they pay special attention to are the people who really distinguish themselves in some way, either by epic performances, total wankery, or just being hot. The closest thing they have to a leader is Mark Bunker, one of the original critics of the Co$, who they refer to as Wise Beard Man and is more a consultant than anything. Also, of late, Chanology has migrated off of the 'chans, due to increasingly bored Anons and constant OSA trolling (whether the former was actually caused by the latter being a matter of some debate)--most Anons, when asked, will say that the project is the worst thing to happen to Anonymous since 4chan became cool. I'd disagree--but then again, I'm not Anonymous anymore. :p

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by
Greetings fair members and readers of Over the past few weeks, we've seen an alarming event, one that initially seemed exceptionally odd to me. After much research, I am now convinced this event is a proactive joint counter intelligence operation from the NSA and FBI. What is this event you might ask? It's the sudden public pronouncements of the "Anonymous Group" to expose the Church of Scientology.

While this subject may demand an essay of epic length, in an effort to succinctly explain my proposition (which I believe to be fact), I'll make a few statements that range from fact to well-informed supposition. My reference material ranges from what is freely available online to recent private conversations among friends within the "intelligence community".


Go to

and search for the posts of Os Wilkes (aka me). You might want to search them back in time to the advent of the anonymous movement. Look at the bizarre responses I have been getting from the critics of Scientology who post there. One would think that they are still in Scientology, the way they express cult like milieu control on that message board.

In no particular order, here is a cross section of my contribution there of late:

They don't like this post especially:

Here's a goodie:

They don't like the word "terrorist" applied to them. They keep asking us why we use that word. They also wonder why we don't think Boris Korczak should be a public spokesperson for the critics of Scientology:

They don't like me very much at all:

They don't really want to circulate petitions or write letters to Congress:

When confronted with the idiocy of avoiding petitions and letters, a poster who dislikes me (apparently because not wanting to associate with the anonymous movement makes me an @hole) forced herself to agree with me, however briefly:

Whoops! Scroll down to see her change her mind. I guess a woman has a right to change her mind doesn't she?

Look at the response I have gotten from these people.

What do you make of this situation?



new topics

top topics

<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in