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.

 

Warnings From The Benevolents!

page: 197
334
<< 194  195  196    198  199  200 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   


Insiders that have signed official binding agreements can kiss their careers, reputation, welfare and liberties goodbye if they dare go mainstream in violation.


why would these insiders really care about these things they might be in violation of, if the world is coming to an end, or if millions upon millions of people will die from some event they know of.

what's a reputation or career worth to them, if they could be of some help to others by warnings, or some very important information they might share in stance with saving lives. what's it all going to matter anyhow.




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by redgy
 


Insiders are well aware classified materials WILL NEVER be published/disclosed by mainstream media organisations (unless authorised by TPTB). It's also breaking the law to do so and enforced with imprisonment. Mainstream media outlets are also owned, controlled, staffed at the higher decision making levels and monitored by the very same agency/secret society individuals-- those representing those at the top of the pyramid of power group structure whom suppress 'official' secrets under the guise of 'national security'. Insiders are aware of the systems in place. All bases of checks and balances are covered in the mainstream press/news apparatus. The Illuminati are not stupid people. They have their safeguards in place to monitor leaks as all is compartmentalised.

The internet is the main bastion for the passing/sharing of materials often to independant third parties, however that can also usually be easily tracked/monitored by NSA cryptographers and other specialist surveillance intelligence agencies leading back to sources either electronically or via other monitoring means. Agencies watch their own very very closely-especially those that work in sensitive fields. Most insiders pass info off via word of mouth, and usually only to people they trust who will not scoff at them or report their disclosures to authorities i.e close family and friends. Believe it or not these insiders don't actually like the thought of imprisonment, loss of income/protection and notions of being murdered--for it does happen. It's a lot lot easier to keep your mouth shut, play ball, preserve your liberty/way of life and not endanger yourself nor loved ones needlessly, as hard evidence will never see the light of day in the mainstream regardless of noble intentions. Insiders know this, so why would they choose to expose themselves needlessly?

Also it is important to note that there are many on the inside who have made agreements with their governments for them and their families to be sheltered/protected/relocated prior to disasters on the condition of their co-operation with disinfo agendas and silence. There ARE known 'safe zones'. The letter from Norwegian politician also referenced this, and it's often how the elite work- 'you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours'. Go against us and we'll destroy everything you hold dear. Fear is a very powerful deterrent.

There is a saying, do not listen to what governments say, but watch what they do. And I will clearly state, THEY HAVE AND ARE MAKING PREPARATIONS for 'Wormwood' among other things. Seek the truth in that statement if you so choose. Peace.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by benedict9]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by benedict9
 


Where is the evidence for support of your pole theory? Not posted in this thread, or I have shown it to be false many posts back.

The earthquakes were typical for the areas involved. The human impact is due to people living in areas where these are typical quakes. Again you are wrong.

Again earthquake activity is normal. Your unwillingness to support your own claims is typical. Claiming someone else should research your unsubstantiated claims shows you to be lazy.

Your claims that this information does not conform to the peer-review process is misleading. It's a hoax. That sort of falsehood is eliminated in the peer review process. TPWs are in the mainstream journals. Your claims though are false and demonstrably false.

Again, please name the video with a link and tell us what time in the video you are referencing. Is it really that hard to do?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by redgy
 


Redgy, this is the sort of false and unsubstantiated claim made by someone that has no evidence and needs this paltry excuse to avoid supporting their failed claim.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   

And I will clearly state, THEY HAVE AND ARE MAKING PREPARATIONS for 'Wormwood' among other things. Seek the truth in that statement if you so choose.


Since you claim no one is talking this is just a fake claim. You have no evidence. According to you there can be no evidence. It's a cover up. You can't possible know by your own admission of the lack of evidence.

No new planet can enter the orbits of the known planets. That's a provable issue.

Where Are You Hiding Planet X, Dr. Brown?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You are still under some form of impression that I am here to supply solid 'proof' for your benefit and convenience. You are mistaken. And if you want to throw stones at my claims and at me as an individual, go right ahead. I will allow people to use their own discernment.

I didn't ask for my insider information and visions, however they found me for a purpose and I am now fulfilling that purpose. Simple as that. At times I feel this role is a burden, especially when dealing with negative attitudes- Other members of the public 'in the know' who come across the harsh and judgemental will only be encouraged into silence, which is a shame because I knew from the very beginning that staying quiet would be the easier option. Feel free to post whatever articles you like. Your mind is made up and so is mine, so what's the use in going back and forth for I accept your position.

I trust my visions and inner knowing that corresponded EXACTLY with my later presented insider information. The materials I provide for others in SUPPORT of my disclosures (not to 'prove') also simply correspond with the revelations provided to me. Wormwood is real. It is arriving from the South and the actual shift itself will last an hour according to what I have received.

There will be signs beforehand, so let the second sun and growing extreme environmental events be your final indicating 'proof'. It will be the Creator's way of opening the eyes of those whom have chosen to ignore His earlier signs and His many messengers. I knew from a child I would be taking on an important role regarding these times. Your science will never be able to find proofs to accurately explain that. You my friend still appear to have a lot of waking to do, so tune in that stereo
As always, good luck. And if you are an agent, blessings all the same. After all the Law of Confusion must always be in operation, whether intentionally placed or not. It has a role and purpose, I understand. Peace.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ET_MAN
 


My thoughts here, you took a vile of lsd and went to the midnight showing of Superman in 3d thus projecting yourself into the movie thus coming out thinking you are Superman
In all honesty, tell us info if you have it. Otherwise, go back to Krypton



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Time to deny ignorance.

For those that think scientists are overlooking pole shifts or that scientists are all in some lock step conspiracy, here is an an article in a dispute over the evidence for a TPW.

Late Cretaceous True Polar Wander: Not So Fast

Using recalculated paleopoles from seamount anomaly modeling (SAM), Sager and Koppers (1) proposed an episode of rapid Late Cretaceous true polar wander (TPW).



In light of this finding and the preceding discussion, we conclude that the TPW event of Sager and Koppers (1) is an artifact of spurious SAM data.


On the one hand we have Sager and Koppers suggesting a recent, 82 million years ago, pole shift and Cottrell and Tarduno disputing it.

No channelling. No look up the evidence yourself suggestions here. No conspiracy claims. No elite and government cover up claims either. It's just evidence, evidence, evidence based discussions.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


"You have no evidence. According to you there can be no evidence. It's a cover up. You can't possible know by your own admission of the lack of evidence."


What is evidence in your language? Define it for me. We clearly don't agree on what constitutes evidence. Can you prove to me that there is no possibility of a future pole shift or impending Brown Dwarf passage? We can play these silly games all night. I'd rather watch the soccer to be honest.

P.S- For what it's worth, I'm under the distinct impression you're a disinfo too as you very often distort my words to assert your own false claims, so good luck with the whole discrediting the messenger thing



[edit on 16-6-2010 by benedict9]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Attempting to deny knowing what is evidence to support your case continues to suggest that this thread is nothing more than an effort to perpetuate a hoax.

Let's follow up on that previous post with commentary from another source.
TPWs
Here the author refers to pole shifts which are called TPWs in the scientific literature.

While still a contentious issue, it is more or less widely accepted that it does occur, usually fairly slowly and has been convincely demonstrated in the recent geological past.



Most recorded incidences of TPW have been of a fairly small magnitude, and taken a modestly large amount of time. One instance, however, stands out. At ~84 Ma, many paloemagnetic poles on the Pacific plate show an extremely large shift over what is an instant in geological time (that is, a few million years).


From Craig O'Neill research associate at the University of Syndney



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Stereologist,

The fact of the matter is that most of the others involved/following this thread have entirely different beliefs/opinions/theories in this area, and they have different views that don't rely primarily on what science/scientists tell them. And I know that you are a smart guy, so I would challenge you to take a moment and think about the possibility that there could in fact be a ''conspiracy'' involving the world elites controlling a large amount of what scientific discoveries are found, and what is released for the public to know.

Call me paranoid, call me crazy, but I like to go with my ''gut instincts'', especially when ''red flags'' are raised when I am doing my own ''research'', if you will.

Funny that you didn't at all answer or even remotely address the questions I asked you about what your scientific standpoint/opinion is on the area of the paranormal/supernatural. Due to your lack of response, I will have to assume that you have zero experience/belief/interest in this area, as modern science would give you a big smack in the face if you did.

When I say that this site is devoted to most things that science does not support, that is exactly what I meant. Yes, pole shifts are a scientific area, hence why I said MOST things. However, pole shifts are still a matter of debate in terms of how often they have happened in the past. You seem convinced that your scienctific data evidence clearly gives this information. Others, including myself, are not so convinced. That's just the way it is.

Does science support near death experiences/the afterlife? Does science support UFO's? Does science support ghosts, haunted locations and unexplained entities? Maybe you can help me out and give me a list of the paranormal topics that science does support and does extensive research on?

Scientists, in general, make light of these subjects and cast a high level of ignorance over them. To them, it's not ''scientifically correct'' to even bother doing serious, extensive research on things that they automatically believe to be not scientifically possible, therefore why even research or even consider the possibility of such things. That's the general attitude of modern science, and is the reason why I am very skeptical when it comes to the accuracy and legitimacy of any given scientific data released to the public.

Am I saying that all science is all wrong? No, I'm saying that science is limited in what they are publicly releasing as scientific data/discoveries/information.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because this is the last post that I am addressing to you. I promise.

Cheers.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by truthbringsfreedom777]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
More evidence showing that this thread is based on perpetuating a hoax.

Yet more commentary on the same event.
True Polar Wander

TPW was first suggested in the 1920s as a mechanism for aparent polar wander observed over geological time before continental drift was discovered. The idea was held in high regard until the mid ocean ridges were mapped and magnetic polarity reversals could be used to infer movement of continents. More recently TPW has been suggested to account for some unexplained changes in pole location and is fiercely defended by Sager and Koppers



Their modelling and fitting of the data to the theory is fairly good considering the limitations of the data, but this does not mean a conclusive answer nonetheless.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777
 



You seem convinced that your scienctific data evidence clearly gives this information. Others, including myself, are not so convinced. That's just the way it is.

Do you have any evidence to support your position?


Scientists, in general, make light of these subjects and cast a high level of ignorance over them. To them, it's not ''scientifically correct'' to even bother doing serious, extensive research on things that they automatically believe to be not scientifically possible, therefore why even research or even consider the possibility of such things.

That's a misrepresentation of the position of scientists. You are constructing a straw man argument. Why?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


''1. That's for you to wonder
2. That's for you to wonder
3. That's for you to wonder
4. Not a question
5. You are mistaken''

Have to go back on my promise to not address anymore posts to you, Stereologist. I missed your reply to my questions that somebody else brought up for you to address.

And oh my, you answered my questions in such great detail that I would like to thank you for clearing everything up.

Your answer to number 5 is especially insightful. I'm mistaken? Care to explain how I am mistaken to logically assume that?

As much as I'd like to take you more seriously, when you give answers like this, it shows that you would rather be the one asking the questions rather than answering simple ones such as the ones I asked.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Care to explain how I am mistaken to logically assume that?

Your assumption is not logical.

You asked if you were mistaken and I agreed.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


"That's a misrepresentation of the position of scientists. You are constructing a straw man argument. Why?"

Because you asked, I'll answer:

Every person I have ever come in contact with that relies solely on science as their foundation of reliabile information has shown me nothing but ignorance and disrespect when it comes to topics of the paranormal/supernatural.

I would have to then logically assume that actual Scientists with degrees on their walls who make a living doing what they do would also treat me with the same ignorance and disrespect when discussing topics of the paranormal/supernatural.

You say that this is a ''misrepresentation of the position of scientists'', but you have not at all explained how this is a supposed misrepresenatation.

Please, by all means, enlighten us.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


''Your assumption is not logical.

You asked if you were mistaken and I agreed.''

You seem to enjoy going in circles and not directly answering clear, easy to understand questions. I do not. You know the question I asked and why I asked it. If you don't want to answer a simple question about what your scientific standpoint is on paranormal/supernatural topics, then just say so.

And yes, my assumption is perfectly logical, given the nature of your posts.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777
 


You are relying on what amounts to an opinion. It is based on improper sampling. It's a common mistake people make. My experience says your experience is nothing more than your experience, because I have met scientists that would disagree with your claim.

Furthermore, your claim that it is ignorance to have an opposing point of view indicates the close minded nature of your statement.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777
 


Your attempts to derail the thread by asking off topic questions such as who I am, and drawing illogical inferences based on your opinions does little to support the outrageous claims made in this thread.

Do you have anything to state about the claims of new planets entering the orbits of the inner solar system, polar shifts, or whatever else has been claimed here.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by benedict9
 



Can you prove to me that there is no possibility of a future pole shift or impending Brown Dwarf passage?


I can show evidence of a companion star to our Sun, and the reports of it being visible 400 years ago. I did post an article about that, a few pages back.

Legend and historical accounts going back also report that 400 years after two suns being visible there comes a meteor shower, for which we are now due to see. If a big one strikes, the Earth will be in turmoil for a few years, according to ice core records.

This meteor shower can be proven as a cyclical 3,600 year event. Going back to the Exodus, 3,600 years ago and even back to the story of Noah roughly 14,000 years ago in 12,000 BC. The ice core records show the event to vary in severity. I am assuming that is due to whether or not we take a big hit like Jupiter just experienced.

The second sun is passed and the shower is due next.

Strange things could happen with a strike the size of the Gulf of Mexaco and a pole shift could easily happen, as well as the Earth going dark, or etc. pick many other sites with evidence of impact craters at various times in History and they all seem to point to a 3,600 year cycle of meteor activity and strikes.



new topics

top topics



 
334
<< 194  195  196    198  199  200 >>

log in

join