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.


Fulford vs Illuminati

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:32 AM
I found a video (2 parts) in which Benjamin Fulford (if you are unfamiliar with him: is sitting with a supposed 33rd degree mason/illumintai Leo Zagami.
They claim that the Illuminati is on the verge of defeat and will cede power shortly, as well as the Federal Reserve Board will be bankrupt by September. The way things seems to be going for the FED lately, maybe its true after all.

According to Fulford there are 3 factions within the Illuminati. They are confused and worried about what will happen after they lose power. Quote from blog:

"One faction wants to blackmail the world with destructive weapons. Another faction wants to negotiate with people in the “profane” world (ie us unwashed masses). A third faction thinks it is end times and that we must wait for the Messiah. "

Does he just have a wild imagination? Or is he telling the truth?

Fulford vs Illuminati Part 1

Fulford vs Illuminati part 2

Edit: Still can't figure out how to embed youtube videos properly, can anyone give me a pointer?

[edit on 12-6-2009 by kommunist]

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:46 AM
I hope this is what it appears to be. I just wish that Fulford would post english translations for ALL of his blog posts. He added a lengthy post after the Illuminati video announcement, which clearly deals with the same subject (because the name Leo Zagami appeared in the middle of the japanese characters) but there's no english translation, which for those of us who can't read Japanese is very frustrating.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:50 PM
What this video claims has been done in the past is sickening. An agent of global influence like the Illuminati would realize how serious admitting to these things would be if people took them seriously. People would be coming for their heads, doesn't matter if they've changed their ways.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:57 PM
Hey, what happened to the prison camps that people were going to be in by October of 2008?

Just sounds like he's making up excuses for none of those things coming to pass.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 05:00 PM
Fulford is always saying this and that is happening. Now he says we cannot get all killed because of swine flu when before it he said we where going to get all killed.

I doubt the geezer as much as steven quayle, he is on the same line. Waste of time listening to these people, like jones beck, fulford, so many.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:28 AM
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Hi Rapin, :wave: To be fair, he never said that it was going to happen, he just said there was going to be an attempt, see below. There are so many groups vying for power that all anyone can do is call out possibilities. Second, he predicted the US economic collapse pretty accurately because he named Sep 30th as the day things would come down, and if you look the market really began to tank around then. Bear Stearns, IMO, was just an excuse for something deeper.

Bold mine:

BF: Well, actually, I don’t know about September 8th, but, you know, the dirt I’ve been hearing is September 30th, and then some sort of event in the US in October. So my understanding from my various sources is that there will be an attempt at a coup d’etat, martial law, and rounding people up for the detention camps in early October.

These people have been trying very hard to start WWIII. As you know, the Israelis had an Air Force base in Georgia and they were planning to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities from Georgia.

I keep an eye on Fulford even though a lot of people say he's not 4real.
He's been accurate about some things and dead wrong on others, just like any other modern commentator. I think people in the west are so cynical at present that they can't believe that anything good can come about.

Last, he qualifies nearly everything he says with 'from what I've been hearing'- which to some people shows wishy-washyness, but to me shows integrity and neutrality.

Point out any of his past mistakes/incorrect predictions and I can point out a dozen from any news source.

Is he 4 real? I don't know, but like any analyst I continue to watch the story. My conclusion so far is that he is in touch with some factions and they are telling him part of the truth.

We are all in over our heads right now. I'm just going to enjoy the ride.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:25 AM
reply to post by HiAliens

he never said that it was going to happen, he just said there was going to be an attempt,

Which gave him perfect room to backtrack and start with a new load of claims. Still think he's a hoaxer, just a clever hoaxer. But not clever enough to produce any convincing evidence.

Edit to add:

Second, he predicted the US economic collapse pretty accurately

So did a lot of people. So did Peter Schiff way before he did. He could have just used common sense like many people I knew did and see that tides were turning. Shows absolutely nothing, doesn't verify a single conspiracy statement.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Most people involved in research will say "I'm being told" or "I'm hearing" to qualify their statements because that's a mark of being honest that you're uncertain.

"Where's the proof."

He may not be right, but we're at the same level most UFO debates get to, where the entire subject is dismissed because people refuse to accept anecdotal or quantitative data. You could walk into plenty of debates in ATS and say "You've got no proof." It would soon get old.

I'm saying: Keep an open mind and follow him objectively, you're trashing the whole subject because he said one thing that didn't come true, despite the fact that he said it was just attempted.

I know very little about the world...

There's at least two threads related to how limiting this approach is on ATS.

[edit on 16f20096amSat, 13 Jun 2009 05:05:43 -050043 by HiAliens]

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by HiAliens

you're trashing the whole subject because he said one thing that didn't come true,

No, I'm trashing him because hoaxers like him only hurt those who do try to get the truth out. I'm trashing him because not just one, but most of his claims are blatantly inaccurate (which YOU already pointed out) and each of them has no evidence to support them. There's a difference between open mindedness and naivety.

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

You still haven't given any evidence that he is a hoaxer. There's a massive difference between an incorrect statement and outright hoaxing. He never claimed anything about Autumn 08 Martial law, just passed on info and qualified it.

Never said most of his claims were innacurate, some of them are, same as Alex Jones, Celente, Global Research, Prison Planet, CNN, Fox, The ATS radio show. Many of the posters on here. He's accurate enough for me to continue to watch his story objectively.

You've generalised about him on the basis or a few innacurate statements, and ignored the accurate ones. You've dismissed him because he doesn't offer more evidence.

These are the two threads I was talking about, worth reading.

NOTE: I disagree with the moron/imbecile tags but the posts are well written.

I think the main difference is I speak like an analyst and you speak like an expert. Ten years ago I knew pretty much everything and could sum up whole situations in a couple of sentences, now the world's so full of mystery I don't know where to begin.

It's a common debating ploy to accuse anyone putting forward anything positive as being naive. Cynicism and negativity are can also be naive.

He's right, the world looks very different from Asia.



[edit on 16f20090amSun, 14 Jun 2009 01:45:11 -050011 by HiAliens]

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by HiAliens

and ignored the accurate ones.

What accurate claims? Please list them, just like the economic one I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for why they were accurate. The ones that show that he is either lying or spreading false information are the ones I take notice of because they are the ones that give me justification for my opinion of him. As for those links I've read them both. I never asked for irrefutable evidence from Fulford, I said it would be plain naive for me to believe in a man that makes such tall claims without any evidence, and I stick by that. He's not just a commentator, he's claiming to have in-depth knowledge about the most powerful shadow group in the world.

top topics


log in