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: 23
77
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 


I am currently conducting some research into a particular aspect of the JFK assassination and I found myself sidetracked (as I admittedly often am) by a nugget that reminded me of you and the Shards, a reference to St Petersburg. Though I have no way of knowing if the connection is relevant to you, it did open up another possibility in my mind, one that I had not previously considered.

Given your own families connection to the aeronautics industry, and the clear relationship of Bell Textron to the JFK assassination I would be interested in any insight you may be able to offer on the particular chain of events that led to the assassination of JFK. I have little or no interest in JFK himself, but it is clear that there were some powerful machinations at work that wished to change the course of history and to discount the influence that JFK was attempting to exert not only in the US, but in his attempts to bring detente to eastern and western Europe.

I realise that you have found my previous enquiries difficult to decypher, so for the sake of clarity, I would simply like to ask what conclusion your group reached (if any) on the reasons why JFK was assassinated and how that action may have changed the course of history.

I have no fixed conclusion myself and can assure you that my question is in no way loaded, I am simply interested in obtaining a different perspective to compare to my own. As further clarification, given the fact that Bell is essentially only concerned with profiteering, at the expense of both local populations and the environment I am not implying that the shards have any connection to the company.

Best wishes
KT




posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by Maban
I realize that you have found my previous inquiries difficult to decipher, so for the sake of clarity, I would simply like to ask what conclusion your group reached (if any) on the reasons why JFK was assassinated and how that action may have changed the course of history.


I required some time to look into this. No major investigation was launched into this event given we were "preoccupied" at the time. From what I was able to learn JKF was planning on making a public address disclosing the involvement of several prominent businessmen, congressmen, and senators, in several large scandals and black projects which all could have given purpose from many to prevent his dissemination. At this time I cannot draw any valid conclusions form the data at hand because I would need to venture into some of the information vaults at the Icelandic Shard. Such records as you could imagine aren't even available via a VPN. Although if you have more questions about specifics I may be able to help, then again as you pointed out history is not my forte. But, I will be happy to provide you with whatever information I have available. for now this is the "quick and dirty" overview for you to see if it is worth your while.

- Maban

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Maban]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maban
I required some time to look into this. No major investigation was launched into this event given we were "preoccupied" at the time.


Thank you for taking the time to help me. The above does somewhat beg the question of what you were 'preoccuped' with at the time of JFKs assassination. I'm a tad intrigued.

(Edit to add: I realise 'you' personally would not have been 'preoccupied' and were not even a twinkle in your Daddy's eye at the time)



From what I was able to learn JKF was planning on making a public address disclosing the involvement of several prominent businessmen, congressmen, and senators, in several large scandals and black projects which all could have given purpose from many to prevent his dissemination.


The problem with the Kennedy assassination is that there seems to be several reasons why he could have been wanted dead and several groups and organisations who were in a position to instigate such a plot. Much like the events of 9/11 though, no conclusive evidence exists to narrow it to one particular version of events. I do however feel that Bell were in some way involved, especially given that one of the first calls received that identified Lee Harvey Oswald as a suspect originated at Bell, and that LHO and his wife had been befriended by employees of that company. But in the end who knows...?

What interests me more is the impact that JFK's death had on Foreign Policy rather than US domestic activities. It is clear that the CIA had received threats or the implication of a threat in the months prior to JFKs murder. During the tour of Florida, which preceeded his visits to Texas, the CIA had agents assisting the Secret Service. Which leads to the assumption that they felt the extreme left was a greater threat than the Right, as this detail was dropped in the Republican stronghold of Texas. Despite quite vehement attacks in the local press against JFK as well as intelligence to the contrary. There is in fact a clear indication that the press contingent were involved on some level in the 'plotting'...but again it is all very difficult to narrow down.



At this time I cannot draw any valid conclusions form the data at hand because I would need to venture into some of the information vaults at the Icelandic Shard. Such records as you could imagine aren't even available via a VPN. Although if you have more questions about specifics I may be able to help, then again as you pointed out history is not my forte. But, I will be happy to provide you with whatever information I have available. for now this is the "quick and dirty" overview for you to see if it is worth your while.


Although, I perhaps don't have any specific questions that you could help me with, given that you mention 'Black Projects' I would be interested in what level of awareness your group had of the development of the Rascal Missile at Bell. There is some indication that the British were attempting to have Walter Dornberger 'neutralised' around the same period...and while I fail to see the connection between that and Kennedy's assassination, it is possible that I am missing something and it is intriguing none the less.

KT

[edit on 31-8-2008 by KilgoreTrout]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
The above does somewhat beg the question of what you were 'preoccupied' with at the time of JFKs assassination. I'm a tad intrigued.


Roughly a year prior we came into first contact with the NIA. This required us to restructure and reform everything even faster to avoid detection. Little efforts were exercised on stability at this time because of the need to ensure our own security.



Although, I perhaps don't have any specific questions that you could help me with, given that you mention 'Black Projects' I would be interested in what level of awareness your group had of the development of the Rascal Missile at Bell. There is some indication that the British were attempting to have Walter Dornberger 'neutralized' around the same period...and while I fail to see the connection between that and Kennedy's assassination, it is possible that I am missing something and it is intriguing none the less.


Well it was the first nuclear tipped stand-off missile. It is essentially the predecessor to the modern day "dial-a-yield" nuclear missiles employed by the USAF. Do not confuse this with an ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, different animal). It was originally designed by bell but had other "corporations" assisting in the design, development, and prototyping processes. there is nothing supremely interesting about this project. It is in effect very typical. You mention Walter Dornberger assisted. That would certainly make sense since he had helped develop the V2's in Germany.

However, because he was involved with Project Paperclip; I am unable to say more. However form my standpoint nothing nefarious occurred. In most likelihood he was not wishing to cooperate with the British Government so he was threatened. The USG cut a deal and transferred him to a defense project.

- Maban



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Maban -

In your opinion what group or nation should we be most concerned about presently that could disrupt peace or initiate war or terrorism?

We have focused a lot on Iran, but I wondered if there are any places we should be watchful of that we may not be paying attention to.

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


Namely, the USG and the NIA; but I think that goes without saying. North Korea is an obvious issue. However, the two I would also watch are the Chinese and the Russians. They have been "discreetly" providing reactor equipment to North Korea for some time. If any isotope incidents occur, they would undoubtedly have impurities which are both indicative of Russian and/or Chinese refinement. Therefore any attempt at "tracing" a war.'s origin would be; muddied. Russia's government is in a way attempting to restore its glory. similar to that of the old Soviet Union. China is also trying to surpass that of the United States in many aspects. They too would befit if anything from a weakened US.

On the Iran note, it is now merely a matter of time before the USG conducts a large scale assault. Our ouwn indipendant intelligence has confirmed this as well:

Dutch Deep-Cover Intelligence Asset Ordered RTB

- Maban

[edit on 31-8-2008 by Maban]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
As a general notice I will be away on a business trip starting Tuesday September 2nd, and will be away for roughly ten days. As previously, I will answer any questions acrewed during my absence, upon my return. I will be available to answer questions until about 12:00 hours PST Tuesday September 2nd.

- Maban


[edit on 31-8-2008 by Maban]



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

Originally posted by Maban
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Well it was the first nuclear tipped stand-off missile. It is essentially the predecessor to the modern day "dial-a-yield" nuclear missiles employed by the USAF.


Funny you should mention "dial-a-yield" because the only person I ever heard talk about them was my father who flew them around on an F-4 though they were not missiles but bombs with parachutes. The B61 had a yield of .5kT (straight fission) to 345kT (full tritium load) with a tolerance of 35kT. Besides yield, fusing and detonation could be selected.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 

Absolutely. In "dial-a-yield" or "Variable Yield War.s," you are essentially controlling the efficiency of the detonation sequence. By ensuring a 100% efficient detonation (as if it were non controllable) you can achieve maximum yield on any given target. By changing the detonation characteristics (type of compressive explosive pattern) you are able to then change the yield to a much less energetic release. The operational purpose of such a system allows for split second mission deviations. Possessing the capacity to neutralize a small facility or a city is useful in any large scale strike. This technology is often referred to as a "Tactical Nuke" or "Limited Nuclear Strike" which provides the tactical advantage of selecting target areas on the fly and essentially having a multi-role/purpose weapon system on board that can be retasked mid flight. Perhaps human ground intel has yet to locate the target in question so a air platform will loiter in the region until the target is identified, or painted. Then a desired yield is designated and the munition is release.

- Maban

[edit on 31-8-2008 by Maban]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maban
However, because he was involved with Project Paperclip; I am unable to say more. However form my standpoint nothing nefarious occurred. In most likelihood he was not wishing to cooperate with the British Government so he was threatened. The USG cut a deal and transferred him to a defense project.


Umm...I wonder why you are unable to comment on Operation Paperclip...

Dornberger was originally captured and interred by the British, he was subsequently released...later much later, when the British asked whether the US had recruited him, they requested that the US 'neutralise' him. The US seemingly refused. As he was able to live out his life in Germany once the Rascal project had been completed it would appear that whatever threat he posed was short term. But admittedly this is the stuff of rumour and your evaluation in that sense is the correct one.



Originally posted by Maban
reply to post by emsed1
 

Russia's government is in a way attempting to restore its glory. similar to that of the old Soviet Union. China is also trying to surpass that of the United States in many aspects. They too would befit if anything from a weakened US.


I feel that this is a somewhat limited view of the current situation internationally. Russia is obviously being aligned as an ally by the current US administration, allowing the struggling US economy an opportunity to revitalise itself via investment in Russia and thus boost not only Russia's strategic and industrial capability but also bring a powerful ally on side once conflict in China becomes inevitable.

Given the impending threat of a major famine in China, and the increasing demand for mineral and natural resources from that population, it seems to me, at least, that it is China that will face aggression most likely on a pre-emptive basis from not only Russia, but from India on the other side, where tensions are steadily on the increase.

Obviously, as a British subject I have a different perspective, so I would be interested in a more detailed overview if you are able to supply one.

KT



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 




This is basically an extension of COG. Although an extension we are not all too happy with. It is an over centralization/consolidation of power. We are concerned that this could be used to control a people, rather than protect them.



You are correct. All five of these are connected. The President's Council on Sustainable Development and The President's Community Empowerment Board originally run by Al Gore setup The Six Regional Commissions. These commissions are run by NGO's tied to the UN and bypass citizen elected officials. Through tax dollar grants they will set local policy usurping the powers of state governments and actually supplanting them. The six regions cover the entire US.


To citizens they will seem to represent the will of the people when in reality they are puppets of the UN and have no real input from US citizens. House Concurrent Resolution 25 is the resolution that 25% of American power will be generated from the “working land”. This is privately owned farms and forests. This was as a response to a “grassroots” lead NGO whose ties lead directly to the UN. Sustainable Development is another phrase for UN Agenda 21.


I and others have been fighting some of these NGOs. Despite a poll showing 94% of the “stakeholders” were against the proposed ideas, those masquerading as our “voice” turned a deaf ear and are still pushing for very unpopular, unconstitutional and unlawful regulations that further Agenda 21. We feel like field mice confronting a bulldozer.


The above plus the Global Poverty Tax www.abovetopsecret.com...' remove property rights and property from the hands of individuals and turn control of food production over to the UN and the World Trade Organization cartel of Corporations. Unfortunately untangling the skeins of threads showing the transfer of power is long and boring and most rather not follow it even when it is laid out for them to see.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


You certainly are correct as well. No modern country possess one single plan. For example, the Russians would like to restore their former glory, that doesn't necessarily mean war, at the same it doesn't necessarily mean peace. It means the quickest, easiest, and cheapest route to get there. Any country would inevitably follow this track.

Many at the Shards see the invasion of Georgia as a first move for a larger campaign. Bare in mind Putin is also ex KGB, and many of his staff are either ex or active FSB. It is essentially a decision making body whose entire make up is of intelligence officers.

I personally I hold great respect for the Russian People more so than probably any other country's, however their past also tells that an inevitable conflict is long overdue.

China certainly may cause problems, however they have so much invested in our economic system, that it is more likely they would threaten to pull funds than to create any physical attack. All they need do is to threaten to pull their $1.53 Trillion dollars invested in the US economy, and the politicians in DC will be on their knees begging them to reconsider, and asking what they want. A physical attack isn't necessary, not to mention it would only prove detrimental.

After the 2008 Olympics the Chinese have demonstrated their potential and eagerness to join the "New Era," because of that they would not risk losing face by attacking another country when political and economic pressures are far better for their image. As of right now they are a country in turmoil, yes. But they appear as a country eager to change and grow,solving one problem at a time; they quite frankly are going to milt that for all it is worth. They may not accept help from the outside because of pride and honor. But it is far more honorable to claim that they solved their own problems without help, do they do have a driving reason to improve.

- Maban



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Maban, what is your orginizations stance on communism? Do you suppose that is what World War Three will come down to? A campaign to destroy communism?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 12.21.12
 


Communism isn't evil, nor bad. Communism is actually a good idea, if acted upon properly. Unfortunate greedy and evil men control communism, thus that state ceases to be communist. Communism's root word is "commune" or as we more readily recognize it community. Many have seen, continue to see, and foresee Communism as a bad entirely, when in fact we have yet to see true Communism. What we are seeing is a bastardized version of it. At the same, many would say the United States is a Republic, however between corporations and the federal government is is more of an Aristocracy. Just because an orginization is labeled as one thing, does not mean it is that thing; look at our (Illuminons / Shards) orginization for example.

I honestly think that WWIII will be the fight for the American Dream,or rather what it has finally degraded to. Materialism, political righteousness, religious righteousness, wealth, and influence will create WWIII. It will not be a matter of political systems embroiled in battle against each other, like that of WWII against Hitler and his Aryan Race. Such a political struggle will be nothing more than a convenient visage for the elitists to receive backing, power, and nearly limitless financial freedom. A sort of clash of elitist wills for near total hegemonic domination; as the saying goes "the world is not enough."

Many would also comment that the Soviet Union was quite similar to that of Nazi Germany, and that they too posed a legitimate threat in regards to political idealism. To understand their reason for expansionism one must understand their history. For centuries the Russian people lived under the Czar's ruthless and heartless leaders (for the most part) that ruled with an iron fist. After a while the people led a revolution installing a new government (I'm summarizing her, so don't fret). After a time this came to be known as Communism from Marxism. Expansionism was a popular concept amongst the leaders and the people, but for two totally different reasons. All though Russian history (except for modern times), they have been under relentless, and nearly endless attack. Attack upon their resources, their land, and their livelihoods. By promoting expansionism they could effectively create a "buffer" between their lands and that of the outside world, in effect protecting them from further attack. Had this been done properly; diplomatically, this may have worked. Instead their leaders saw it as a means to gain further power and control, and before they knew it they were expanding their borders rapidly. Stalin brought about the "iron Curtain," with his legendary "Iron fist."

In relation to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, there are extreme differences. Many may relate Hitler to Stalin, yes they were both ruthless, and heartless. but on the brighter side at least Stalin killed people indiscriminately, and usually only because they opposed him. Hitler on the other hand created a visionary (it was a dark vision mind you, but it certainly was a major step [backwards] in regards to mass murder) prisoner system which was selective and in effect created mass genocide against a people all because of (fanatical) religious beliefs; but was disturbingly effective in its implementation. The Russian leaders may have been brutal, but at least they were relatively fair, rather than mass murdering fanatics. Now that that is cleared up for a few of you ATS'ers out there. (By no means am I promoting or idolizing Stalin, I am simply comparing and contrasting the two entities / personalities.)


In earnest, the Soviet Union died a quick but quiet death. The only true difference between Capitalism and Communism is their respective life spans and power, yet both have their expiration dates. Communism died young because all were not willing to compete for power, which left a small handful in power which inevitably collapsed the government. Capitalism places many in places of high power and wealth, each fighting for power and control, its end result with one or more all powerful leaders which collapse the country. Both have the same outcome because they may have been different in concept, but were identical in implementation. Both were unable to change the human condition / human nature. In order to truly make a "near" perfect government you need to change human nature itself.

I know inevitably many here will cry foul that it cannot be done, or if it were wished by "god's will" than it would already have been done. To save you the time and effort, I understand this notion, and respectfully disagree. Humanity may not be able to change in whole, but individuals can. If individuals can spread change then so too can humanity change. It will be a slow gradual and difficult change, but change will happen, it is the only true universal constant. By negating those negative elements within human nature and becoming more than we are; more than we ever imagined possible, we can make the future brighter than ever imagined. If we are willing to change ourselves to create a better future, even older ideas are more plausible of working, because even though the variables in the equation are still the same, the starting numbers are far different.

Great question!

- Maban



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 


Maban can you post links to "The Corporation" again? It looks like there are some new folks on the thread and I think it is an amazing film they would enjoy.

Thanks!



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Cadbury
 


I think there was a set of YouTube links that had the various chapters separated out.

I am afraid to look at your link for fear of brainwashing-beaver-lacking propaganda!




posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
I think there was a set of YouTube links that had the various chapters separated out.


Oh, you fussy Masonic character!

The Corporation: (Part 1/23) What is a Corporation? (Youtube)

Follow the links on that page for the other 22 segments.



I am afraid to look at your link for fear of brainwashing-beaver-lacking propaganda!


Surely I would never do anything of the sort? (Surely)



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
 


Maban can you post links to "The Corporation" again? It looks like there are some new folks on the thread and I think it is an amazing film they would enjoy.

Thanks!


Careful. I found this in at around 1:02:02 in the full-length version when a fast succession of corporate logos were being flashed.


Not a corporate logo last time I checked.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I didn't see that one but I saw a part where a bunch of logos were flashing by.

My favorite part is where they talk about Monsanto. That stuff is creepy.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join