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.

 

Shards of the Illuminati

page: 20
77
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Illahee
 


I must admit I am surprised that you have returned. I find it... puzzling that you have had a sudden... "change of heart?"

Nevertheless, If you are whom you say you are. Then you understand that by letter of the 4th Directive Bylaw that I cannot tell you where I am, nor what I am doing specifically.

I am unsure of your intentions far more than KillgoreTrout, by chance have we "uncovered" certain details which have changed your mind. Or is this an attempt at subterfuge, in efforts for a self incrimination?

So you like Seattle? Which parts do you find most beautiful? Which parts do you find most despicable?

As always a pleasure with a hint of disbelief.

- Maban




posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Double Post


[edit on 30-7-2008 by KilgoreTrout]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maban

Illuminon ****** ** ****** [Maban]:
In addition we wish to voice our growing displeasure and concern with your most recent duties. Namely, your question and answer blog regarding the “Shards of The Illuminati.” Public reciprocation has been less than desirable in accordance with that which we were promised. Furthermore you are hereby warned for violating Directive Bylaw 5.a and 5.b:


A very wise young man recently told me that rules are meant to be broken. Though I do not suggest that you break those of the Shards, I do suggest that you consider how important those 'rules' are to you. This in no way means that you should abandon those obligations, a secret worth keeping is not confined to rules but to personal integrity and conscience, but if, in some way those rules conflict with who you are then you have a higher obligation to yourself and your own destiny.

I realise my 'motives' confuse you, there is a simple reason for that I have none, no matter how hard you look or try to understand my 'agenda', you will find nothing, because none exists.

I will however share this, in the hope that you will gain a glimpse of the connection that I feel exists between us.


I may not be a saint, a genius, or a hero. But i am a good person, or so i try to live. I may not be perfect but in trying, i am that much closer to the truth. Our world is what we make of it. We are what we make our world to be, it is truly symbiotic. No matter how much we try to fool ourselves we are still a part of mother nature, if anything we still need this universe.


I know that you recognise those words, you wrote them. But, though not verbatim, I wrote them once too. Through those words and sentiments you and I are connected. You may not see it, but I do and for me that is enough.

I realise that you may not respond to my previous posts, I understand your potential inability to do so, but I hope that given our commonality you will consider all that I have said and understand that I have no interest in the Shards, I have my path and it is mine alone to follow, but I do care about you, and I am interested in you, as I am interested in us all.

That is all that any of this is about, that is my only 'motive'. I believe in change and our capability to effect it, but that change has to be complete.

I wish you well Maban I truly do.


[edit on 30-7-2008 by KilgoreTrout]

[edit on 30-7-2008 by KilgoreTrout]



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The Western world has become decadent and atomised. Our leaders are engaging in warfare to gain more power and to force other cultures to follow their example. I don't see the progress in that. In fact, I only see negative aspects in post-Englightenment Western society.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 


Thank you, yes i see what you mean, i have pondered it many times only to be frustrated and cursing my Aristotelian logic, one answer i found to be enlightening is the "if you immediately know" i.e if you make assumptions "the meal was cooked a long time ago" your precondition has already decided on your answer regardless how hard you think about it, rather like what you said about me over thinking it, my assumptions about it having a deep philosophical meaning blinded me to the simple message! Perhaps that is part of this riddles beauty, once you realize the meal and the candle light are subjective terms and you are searching for objective meanings the meaning is staring you in the face! It relates a lot to how people perceive the world, for example on this site you find people with certain philosophical beliefs tend to gravitate towards certain conspiracy's depending on their various proponents and detractors or just simply their own personal experience, never allowing them to look at something from a truly objective viewpoint. Perhaps such a thing does not exist, for who can honestly say they are objective! But i think this riddle teaches us to look at the world from a more detached point of view only then can we decide what is truly right or wrong based on logic. I hope i communicated what i was trying to say such topics begin to move beyond the realms of what my writing can portray lol.




posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OutoftheBoxthinker
 


I would wholly agree with you. You mention that this is seeming commonplace in "post-Illuminism" society and that nothing has changed because of it.

Your assessment of "post-Illumisum" society is accurate. Rather not "Post-Illumisum" in the sense of after its occurrence. But, "Post-Illumisum" in the sense of after its existence. One must see that very few have kept to the ideals of "Pure Illuminism" whilst many have justified extremely tenuous actions under the name of Illuminism.

Few changes have occurred, because those few who wish beneficial change must combat those who only wish change for the betterment of themselves, and their compatriots. Therefore your assessment is quite accurate, however incomplete in its entire form although, quite astute.

- Maban



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Gandi
 


I am glad to have been of assistance. Your response perhaps better addresses the concept of this saying far better than my own, however complicated it may appear to some.

- Maban



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 


Will you be in trouble if you continue to answer questions?

Any news about upcoming events?

The Corporation was very interesting, btw.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by Maban
 

Will you be in trouble if you continue to answer questions?


Lets just say I am on thin ice, but I'll know when to vacate the lake.


Any news about upcoming events?

Nothing substantial. I'm sure It has already been mentioned that Bush and Cheney were contemplating running a false flag operation with Commandos in seized Iranian ships attacking American ships as a pretext for open war. But as I said, I'm sure many of you already knew that. I will say at this rate a conflict with Iran is inevitable. Too many are fixated on it for too many alternate agendas.


The Corporation was very interesting, btw.

Glad you enjoyed it.

- Maban



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Hello Maban! I must admit this thread is very interesting and my deduced picture of reality not too out of sync with what you have posted. I'm not sure what that implies but the message is sound.

I've been watching this thread for awhile but I wasn't sure what to ask since I don't think you'd be able to answer many of them satisfactorily because of your oaths and duties. So before you skate off the proverbial pond into the ether I have a few questions about the most recent events.

In your letter of reprimand (if it could be called that) it states:


Public reciprocation has been less than desirable in accordance with that which we were promised.


What exactly would be/would have been desireable reciprocation? Certainly they should be aware that not everyone is reciprocating at all. Surely some would challenge claims but I see no major hostility in this thread-- just frustration and burning curiosity.

Has something been uncovered of Shard's doctrine wouldn't want be known to Illuminons? I feel a resistance to divulgence of something in any case-- ahh but what do I know?


Do you think any effort to keep man down is ultimately futile and doomed? I do for if we don't grow we die; statis is death. Pressure only increases the resistance against it and delays an inevitable explosion of growth. Nurturing allows the growth to be gentle and minimizes the pain. Unless we're brought to extinction (even this is a stretch of my imagination) man will become more sublime and all roads lead there.

I hope that made sense; expressing my thoughts in writing can be difficult at times.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Originally posted by EnlightenUp
What exactly would be/would have been desirable reciprocation? Certainly they should be aware that not everyone is reciprocating at all. Surely some would challenge claims but I see no major hostility in this thread-- just frustration and burning curiosity.


I believe that both the number of posts, and the lack of "apparent" interest has lead them to this conclusion. Yet again, I have asked to have more access, and more freedom with information to enhance this thread but alas, It has been denied as well.


Has something been uncovered of Shard's doctrine wouldn't want be known to Illuminons? I feel a resistance to divulgence of something in any case-- ahh but what do I know?


I'm afraid I cannot comment on this subject.


Do you think any effort to keep man down is ultimately futile and doomed? I do for if we don't grow we die; stasis is death. Pressure only increases the resistance against it and delays an inevitable explosion of growth. Nurturing allows the growth to be gentle and minimizes the pain. Unless we're brought to extinction (even this is a stretch of my imagination) man will become more sublime and all roads lead there.


I think you completely correct. Any attempt to usurp humanity will inevitably fail. Our job is not to "ensure" that this inevitable success of humanity happens, but to "smooth out the bumps" and/or nurture this growth and protect it from those whom wish to hinder it. I think you have brought about a new way for us to explain ourselves without the need for extraneous details; thank you.

- Maban



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
If we reached the brink of a global war, with the threat of widespread use of nuclear weapons, would the Illuminon intervene?

What about a limited-theater war with tactical nukes?



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


Originally posted by emsed1:
If we reached the brink of a global war, with the threat of widespread use of nuclear weapons, would the Illuminon intervene?


We would indeed. Thermonuclear weaponry poses one of the single greatest threats to global stability. We do possess emergency action plans to ensure that it does not come to this. In addition plans to ensure certain cities survive for reconstruction. I cannot discuss the specifics for obvious reasons, but yes, we would intervene.


Originally posted by emsed1:
What about a limited-theater war with tactical nukes?


This is much more difficult to control. "Tactical Nukes" are much more difficult to track and prevent. The best option is political pressuring; assuming that we are talking about a legitimate government attempting state sanctioned actions. If we are considering a rogue fundamentalist group of any origin, the success of intercepting and interceding such an event diminishes rapidly. Simply, when there are fewer, or more static variables we can generally predict what is going to occur, and when. Other events dubbed "Black Swan" events are sadly to say, totally beyond our control. We do everything in our power to prevent destabilizing events however, there are times when its is as if one man is trying to stop an avalanche.

We are on the lookout, but we are by no means all powerful. Hopefully this satisfies your question.

- Maban



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 


Yes it did, thanks.

Are you able to monitor activities (particular military/political) through cooperation with governments, or do you have your own methods?

I understand if you can't share details. I am just curious how much faith you put into intelligence data generated from an obviously biased source such as world governments.

Also, on the aerospace front, there have been increasing reports of crashes of what are believed to be advanced propulsion test vehicles. They seem to be interfacing with the atmosphere at high speed, many are reported to be glowing blue or indigo and the 'landings' are often accompanied by a rapid and efficient military recovery with trucks and helicopters very quickly after they occur.

Do you know about these tests and can you provide any technical information? Some explanations are leaning toward ionic propulsion.

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 

Are you able to monitor activities (particular military/political) through cooperation with governments, or do you have your own methods?


We do possess "insider" information from various agencies and governments. These individuals are referred to as "Denizens." There are handfuls of them within most every agency and corporation across the world. Any entity capable of changing significant numbers of peoples lives is typically placed under "Watchdog" status, with "Denizens" within them.

We do also possess out own internal intelligence network. This is where I spend a great deal of time with my duties. My overall purview is localized around the NIA. My specific specialty is recognize technological threats and to acquire, duplicate, or revere engineer them for total comprehension, and prevention of dangerous technologies. Technological based support is what my Shard primarily focuses on. Illuminon intelligence gathering spans a large spectrum however; just as any intelligence orginization would.


I am just curious how much faith you put into intelligence data generated from an obviously biased source such as world governments.


Depending on the source of the information, and the subject we evaluate it in percentages of accuracy. Anything below a 55% is placed into a "Probable" category, rather than a "High Probability," "Credible," "Validated, or even "Threat" category.


Also, on the aerospace front, there have been increasing reports of crashes of what are believed to be advanced propulsion test vehicles. They seem to be interfacing with the atmosphere at high speed, many are reported to be glowing blue or indigo and the 'landings' are often accompanied by a rapid and efficient military recovery with trucks and helicopters very quickly after they occur.


Ironically anime productions have gotten far closer to answering difficult questions such as these, than that of science fiction genres.

There have been more crashes in recent years of military aircraft. This is due to a myriad of reasons. Namely, the reason of establishing orbital superiority is a big concern. The United States government has been working with new technologies. Technologies that until just a decade ago where science fiction.

Have you ever heard of the term "Air Superiority," well the current series of projects is based in "Orbital Superiority." Various prototypes of aircraft have been designed to be transatmospheric. Notions such of these have been around for quite some time. Two excellent examples are the XB-70 Valkyrie, and the YF-12. Of course there are mere bombers/interceptors that were designed for supersonic speeds, not extra orbital flight.

Many have wondered what have gone on in the deserts of California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. Various corporations/defense contractors and military organizations are fine tuning transatmospheric / exoatmospheric aircraft. One of these is the notoriously overt, Project Aurora.

Aurora was a promising program however it had its limitations. given its need for special fuels, security, secrecy, and need for a long runway; she proved too difficult to use for straight up reconnaissance missions. The project was mostly scrapped. Several still operate but are used infrequently. Those few that are used are variants. The two seaters are almost all but gone, replaced by automated systems with a single pilot. A majority of those remaining are overly glorified UCAV's. The few that are used frequently are indeed testing transatmospheric and exoatmospheric equipment, as well as propulsion technologies.

Multiple designs are based around "skimming" the upper edges of our atmosphere. As many of you know whenever a shuttle reenters the atmosphere plasma begins to radiate off the hull as ti collides with the atmosphere. Many lights are exactly this. Depending upon what angle of attack, and what type of maneuver is being executed, flashes of plasma are induced off the hull. A final reentry will cause a burst of plasma for a few seconds before an aircraft regains lift on its wings and descends like any standard aircraft.

Some lights are new types of propulsion systems based on charged particle acceleration, but are far more potent and exotic than a mere ion drive. There is one last technology which will account for most sightings, but I will address those details in a U2U. It is a technology if one researched would find its potential, but given that we are currently experimenting with it we wish to keep details, undisclosed.

Technical information... Two retrofitted Auroras were used to launch satellites. Not in a guided manner but ballistic. The pilots aligned the vehicle with the given trajectory of the satellite's path, then releasing the restraining clamps. Another detail is most technology that is already int eh public eye. An example (and I will need to find the source for you all): A former SR071 pilot wrote in his memoirs that he had flown it a mach 7+, and 80,000 feet +. Technology that is already public is far more capable than is fully expressed by any orginization that has access to it.

Current designs are looking at inverted variable sweep ratio aeroelastic wings, with a extremely thin chines and extremely exotic fuselage and airframe alloys. Leading edges are mostly comprised of metal ceramic composites, they are lightweight, strong, and bleed off heat rapidly. Some very basic fuels are looking at being used, but require additional equipment to store easily. They are also looking at experimenting with hybridized engines capable of transatmospheric air-breathing propulsion, then transferring to exoatmospheric particle acceleration engines. For a long time fuselages were very non-aerodynamic and heavy because two propulsion systems were needed. This then reduced the effective range, maneuverability, and speed of any prototype. Designs are being looked at to be able to effectively launch from an earth based station, and travel to a future moon base, refuel, and return like any commercial flight. I will comment that firsthand experience with certain projects for some corporations show remarkable advances in these areas of technological advance.

As for Damage Control & Recovery teams. A project crashes, they want to know what went wrong and why, while keeping it quiet. One is always on standby.

- Maban

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Maban]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 


Thank you for the information.

Several years back there were rumors that hypersonic test craft were using supercooled methane gas for propulsion and that they were flying from secret bases in the US to an RAF base (in Scotland I believe) for refueling for the return flight. Does this sound plausible?

The 'orbital superiority' statement makes a lot of sense. In recent conflicts US aircraft has been easily able to obtain and maintain air superiority very quickly, and transition to 'air dominance'.

I think recent activity (especially with China experimenting with satellite shootdown) must have some planners nervous.

While it's not simple by any means to to destroy an object going 18,000 miles an hour it is very plausible (to me anyway). Since all you really need is some mathematics and a ballistic projectile to intercept a satellite at high speed.

It doesn't seem like it takes a very sophisticated 'bullet' to do massive damage to sophisticated orbital equipment.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 



Several years back there were rumors that hypersonic test craft were using supercooled methane gas for propulsion and that they were flying from secret bases in the US to an RAF base (in Scotland I believe) for refueling for the return flight. Does this sound plausible?


That is actually what two projects i know of used to use. The concept was to run the supercooled methane around the intake baffles to cool the hypersonic air which would allow for greater compression, and thus greater thrust. Do a search on supercooled scram jets. It is relatively easy to then move that fuel through the leading edges of the craft to help with heat transfer, then simply route the hottest fuel to the engines like the SR-71 design and you have a very efficient burn, and efficient energy transfer throughout the entire system. Many techniques still used today were pioneered by Kelly Johnson himself.

Next generation fuels are being used, but they pose containment problems. Containment problems which we recently overcame.

Ironically the movie "Stealth" was relatively accurate, and got pretty close to the types of technology we are discussing. The only difference is they did not elude to space flight atal.

- Maban



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maban
I believe that both the number of posts, and the lack of "apparent" interest has lead them to this conclusion. Yet again, I have asked to have more access, and more freedom with information to enhance this thread but alas, It has been denied as well.


First I want to thank you for the taking the time to provide answers to what you were able.

Personally I feel a slow thread providing quality insight about whatever you're allowed to comment on is better than one full of noise, bickering, flaming, et al.


Originally posted by Maban
I think you completely correct. Any attempt to usurp humanity will inevitably fail. Our job is not to "ensure" that this inevitable success of humanity happens, but to "smooth out the bumps" and/or nurture this growth and protect it from those whom wish to hinder it. I think you have brought about a new way for us to explain ourselves without the need for extraneous details; thank you.

- Maban


There is something I left out in this. Two basic groups were established to exist in this thread (Shards and Remnants respectively):

1) Those trying to smooth out the bumps in humanity's progress. This approach is maternalistic.

2) Those trying to hinder humanity's progress for their own personal gain. The opposite pole of 1).

But, a third one I've discussed with my own "cohorts":

3) Those that believe humany won't ascend without pressure. If they don't feel pains to improve themselves, they will stagnate. When pressure is applied, the humanity in essence wills itself to a higher being. The ones that do this may appear callous or evil or whatever but really have the same ultimate goal in mind-- to assist. They'll take the backswing of the pendulum gladly and selflessly. This approach is paternalistic.

Now, in my view, 3) could easily be viewed as being 2) from an outside vantage point. If 3) exists, are they Shards, Remnants or neither? I've only seen your reference to 1) and 2) in this thread. Perhaps this is a delusion, lie, etc. but I heard someone important say one sentence in this regard though probably not intending to be heard (or maybe they did). What say you?



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 



Personally I feel a slow thread providing quality insight about whatever you're allowed to comment on is better than one full of noise, bickering, flaming, et al.


This is an excellent point and I think this has been an amazing thread.

Well said, EU!



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
In regard to the post made earlier on in the chat, on page 10, by the boy with the secret society in operation in his school, i dont know if you maybe want to look at this, it might clear things up... i found it just now on wikipedia and googled it. This is all that came up:

en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join