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.

 

All Roads Lead to Rome

page: 151
607
<< 148  149  150    152  153  154 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The thread has been republished on so many sites around the world

It's still nonsense, though. The 'conspiracy' you're trying to fabricate here is nothing more nor less than Western civilization seen through a distorting lens of historical error and baseless speculation. And Western civilization didn't begin with Troy.

Popularity is no guide to truth. Rather the opposite, if anything. I have no doubt your thread will run and run, and be syndicated around the world as a comic strip for all I know--or care. The fact remains that you didn't know the difference between Athens and Argos. That's pretty much blows your credibility out of the water as far as any educated person is concerned.


Yawn, you haven't participated in this thread, and the reality is you are not adding anything of any substance to it, other than your base criticisms as supported by the dogmas the thread itself is designed to challenge.

I don't recall the Argonauts having come up in the thread, or any questions relating to them, so where you are getting this last bit of speculation from is a mystery to me.

I stated early on and for valid reason that no the Thread is not a College History exam, in fact it's a re-examination of our much more likely history based on motive and opportunity by key players as we went through time.

It's prompted many relevant facts being unearthed regarding Rome's continual involvement and domination of the world, which you would be hard pressed to refute, which leaves you with nothing but the general criticisms you are passing off as coming from an imagined superior intellectual position, even though in reality all you are doing is mimicking precisely what you have been taught to parrot.

Doesn't matter what authority you try to presume or convey in that regard, the thread continues to yield a bounty of great research and topical discussion, that will only be momentarily interupted as long as those posters who want to distrupt the thread with off topic dissertations and epitaphs find some amusement of personal benefit in that.

It's a cycle on this thread.

The regular posters are used to it.

Thanks.




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Congratulations on having reached the 3000 posts level with this thread


edit on 29-11-2010 by Investigateconspiracies because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Investigateconspiracies
 


Thanks my friend, the thread has truly exceeded expectations of supporters and critics alike. It's truly opened a lot of eyes, and leading to a lot of critical discoveries that in fact might end up in time having a profound impact on this world.

Many consider it to be the most important conspiracy theory and thread ever posted on ATS and I myself believe the best is yet to come as so many quality members continue to research key ellements and post their findings here.

Thanks for being a part of that!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I don't recall the Argonauts having come up in the thread

Argonauts? Argonauts?



Argos

Argonauts

More, please! You are absolutely priceless. Do you take speaking engagements?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


No need to justify your self here. I understand. You possess a claim to a special, secret knowledge only and no evidence to present for the foundation to your ideas.

Got it.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I don't recall the Argonauts having come up in the thread

Argonauts? Argonauts?



Argos

Argonauts

More, please! You are absolutely priceless. Do you take speaking engagements?


Oh thanks, yeah I did not think it came up in the thread, thanks for admitting that.

Yes I will take speaking engagements providing that my dietary needs are met and it's a proper smoking environment.

However where your logic fails is stating that the popularity of something does not by in and of itself prove it's worth or credibility.

So the dogmas you are relying on, which of course are popular since they have been purposefully instilled in you since birth by the elites, are simply popularly held beliefs that have been socially constructed.

So your reliance on those as a means to navigate the shoals of a rather dishonest and trechearous world might lead many to conclude you are disadvantaged to that end.

However in absence of some other theory, or precise quote you are attributing to me in full context to readress there is really nothing topically you are adding to the thread other than your own self deminishing attempts to impress others by way of trying to deminish others, good luck with that strategy.

Thanks for posting and bumping the thread.
edit on 29/11/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


No need to justify your self here. I understand. You possess a claim to a special, secret knowledge only and no evidence to present for the foundation to your ideas.

Got it.


Really, this is actually contrary to your repeated insistence for internet evidence that can only be found in the real world within a rarified atmosphere.

Tell me are our nuclear weapons locations listed online?

How about our over seas black operatives?

The full disclosure of our national debt and accounting of it?

There are many many things that are only known and provable to a very small clique of individuals that you are constantly asked to support and accept by the government and the media.

To imagine that powerful groups of people, do not keep secrets and guard them, is really just a very poor understanding of the world you live in.

Much of what our government does is 'classified' for national security reasons, what happens within the upper most echelons of it, and is known only to a small group of people.

Coincidentally some of that small group of people obviously do belong to the Skull and Bones.

This is a well known fact.

You appear to be very naive when it comes to how the world is run.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Once again this is false, your question was answered by your own admission, and in addition the middle ages control was pointed out to you as being done through the Opium Trade largely overseen by the Queen of Engalnd, the Rothschild Family, and the Russel Family that founded the Skull and Bones 322.

In the post I saw it wasn't answered in any satisfactory way, just waved away with something you made up on the spot: that the Rothschilds controlled the Bank of China. Something clearly not true, unless you have evidence to the contrary?. I'm not sure what you mean by "pointed out to you".

And how exactly was China controlled by the Opium Trade in the Middle Ages? There wasn't any trade between Europe in the Middle Ages (it started 16th C), let alone an opium trade, which didn't start until the 18th century. The opium trade was set up by the distinctly Protestant British Empire, not to control China, but to extract all it's silver.

And what do the "Queen of England" and the Rothschilds have to do with the Middle Ages? Do you know when the Middle Ages was? Your posts are littered with historical howlers.

Like most conspiracy theorists, you are obsessed with the Rothschilds, and lazily use them as a catch-all answer when there is massive hole in your supposition.

Europe was a global backwater during the Dark Ages and most of the Middle Ages, whereas China was a superpower. How was some secret cabal in some crappy little country controlling the world's greatest power? Especially as they weren't even aware of China's existence until Marco Polo, at least in any meaningful way.




The fact that your statements via questions, weren't actually a counter theory that was adopted by me, simply means you presented no relevant alternative worthy of consideration for adoption.

This is pretty garbled, so I'm not entirely sure what this means.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


Lord David De Rotshchild clearly spoke to his controlling interest in the Bank of China and the Federal Reserve in one of his rare public interviews when visiting the United Arab Emirates a couple of years ago.

Now do us favor, define the Middle Ages in the years you imagine them to be.

Then be so kind as to do two more things, explain why you are interested in China in the middle ages, and why you feel it is topical to the thread, since China is not a central focus to the thread.

Then be so kind as to state clearly what role you believe China plays backing it up with what ever evidence you feel supports that.

In all reality as both your participation in this thread and the Foundation X thread displays, you pretty much simply take exception to any thread that apprently makes note of the Vatican in ways you don't approve of.

Now here is the sad part a page back one of the members who has posted consistently to the thread and is doing quality oriented research on and for the thread, asked a question that will be entirely overlooked as a few like minded disgruntled posters invade the thread once more to pass off their snipes and gripes, misrepresent their past involvement in the thread or lack of past involvement in the thread.

While the intent is to be disprespectufl towards me, it's actually most disrespectful to those honest posting members who have remained ontopic, and civil, and focused on the research we have long been trying to conduct on the thread.

It becomes self evident to me and others who have honestly taken part in the topical discussion of the thread, when the limited questions this small group does pose, are preceded by a great volume of complaint and personal attack, to basically ask the same limited questions over and over again, that really have nothing to do with the current discussion and research being done on the thread, that have been answered time and time again in the thread.

Or in some cases to pose no question at all, and no statement of fact other than a broad generalization that specifically is designed to not address anything in part and or honestly in part.

So if you really imagine it's fair to those honest posters who have been involved in an ongoing basis to distrupt the thread in this fashion, and to have their relevant questions and research burried, by these types of generalizations and pevish and trivial complaints, then I would suggest to those engaged in that, that you are not being fair to the people actively engaged in this thread on a quality ongoing basis, and are not being fair to the nature of ATS and especially the Conspiracy Forum.

Thanks.


edit on 29/11/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: spelling



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I've lost count of the number of strawmen you set up there ready to knock down "Proto."

Let's keep to the points at hand, as conceded by you:

1. You have an unsubstantiated claim to secret knowledge imparted to you by persons unknown. No evidence in other words.

2. You concede that the foundation to your premise is completely lacking in evidence.

So that's no evidence all round.

I don't think you could be clearer.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I've lost count of the number of strawmen you set up there ready to knock down "Proto."

Let's keep to the points at hand, as conceded by you:

1. You have an unsubstantiated claim to secret knowledge imparted to you by persons unknown. No evidence in other words.

2. You concede that the foundation to your premise is completely lacking in evidence.

So that's no evidence all round.

I don't think you could be clearer.



Once again your questions have been answered, no matter how you want to misrepresent those answers to substantiated your position and world view is not going to change those answers.

I have stated clearly how I came about the information, as well as what kind of efforts you would need to undertake to "INDEPENDENTLY" verify the voracity of these claims.

You have tacitly conceded through your silence, on direct questions put to you, that yes, some secrets are guarded and you are unable to find evidence of them as a result.

Unless you can direct us to an internet site that lists the locations of all our nuclear arsenal, all of our black operatives in our intelligence agencies and a full accounting of our national debt.

Now by your own methedology your inability to do this, would be 'proof' that we have no nuclear weapons, have no intelligence agents, and owe no nation or individual a dime.

That you are unable to see how you wish to selectively apply faulty logic is really not relevant to the thread but simply your own ego.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I have tacitly agreed to nothing. You don't speak for me, so kindly do not.

I pointed out, clearly, your resort to logical fallacies in argument such as the strawman to attack positions I had never even taken. Quite disingenuous of you.

Don't worry though, it won't distract me from the fact that you have stated quite clearly you have no evidence to present here.

You're not really much good at this for a professional, are you?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Lord David De Rotshchild clearly spoke to his controlling interest in the Bank of China and the Federal Reserve in one of his rare public interviews when visiting the United Arab Emirates a couple of years ago.

You have a link for this? Any evidence at all? The controlling interest in the Bank of China is the Chinese Government, just like it is for the rest of the Chinese National banks.

en.wikipedia.org...



Now do us favor, define the Middle Ages in the years you imagine them to be.

The Middle Ages, by historical consensus, is defined as the period in European history 500-1517. Nothing to do with what I imagine. Do you have a different Middle Ages in mind?



Then be so kind as to do two more things, explain why you are interested in China in the middle ages, and why you feel it is topical to the thread, since China is not a central focus to the thread.

The focus of the thread appears to be how a secret cabal in Rome controls the world. I'm only using China as a glaring example of how this can't be so. Admittedly this isn't really required, as you cannot provide substantial evidence to back up any of your core claims.



Now here is the sad part a page back one of the members who has posted consistently to the thread and is doing quality oriented research on and for the thread, asked a question that will be entirely overlooked as a few like minded disgruntled posters invade the thread once more to pass off their snipes and gripes, misrepresent their past involvement in the thread or lack of past involvement in the thread.

...yadda yadda yadda....


The nice thing about ATS is that people are allowed, at any point in the thread, to chip in, and if they so wish, criticise claims being made in said thread. You appear to be under the impression that only posters who agree with you should be posting. This is not how this not how ATS works.

ATS has a place where flights of fancy and unsubstantiated claims can go unchallenged - it's called Skunk Works. Get your thread moved there, and you will be left well alone to complete your work of collaborative fiction.
edit on 29/11/10 by FatherLukeDuke because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I have tacitly agreed to nothing. You don't speak for me, so kindly do not.

I pointed out, clearly, your resort to logical fallacies in argument such as the strawman to attack positions I had never even taken. Quite disingenuous of you.

Don't worry though, it won't distract me from the fact that you have stated quite clearly you have no evidence to present here.

You're not really much good at this for a professional, are you?


Actually yes you have, as evidenced above I asked you to display proof of how many nuclear weapons the United States has and where are they.

To further provide proof of how many black operatives in the Intelligence community we have, who they are and where they are deployed.

To further provide proof of our national debt, how much it is, who all it is owed to, from when, and for what.

That further because you believe nothing can be true with out some readily available link on the Internet to substantiate it, that if this is your only method for determining the truth, that your inability to provide the evidence for these above three questions, would then by your methodology be proof, we have no nuclear weapons, have no intelligence agents, and have no national debt.

So yes you have tacitly admitted that you have no proof for these things, so will you tacitly admit that we have no nuclear weapons, no intelligence operatives, and no national debt, simply because you can't find a ready internet link for them.

Your mischaractherizations are simply that, and in fact you can not selectively apply one standard to one claim, and then disregard that standard in regards to other claims that you feel comfortable taking on face value, without evidence to back them up.

Doesn't matter how many times you employ the strawman argument, when in fact you are the stawman in the argument.

Your questions have not only been answered but answered so many times before, that it is simply an exercise in futility on your part to imagine that how you want to purport this as meaning something you can not prove it means is going to have any bearing or impact on anyone but yourself.

Now when you can get 300 stars on your post, you might have something worth getting excited about.

Until then you are really just a troll, playing to a small audience of trolls, which is the only way you can make that argument appear to be credible at all.

Thanks for trolling.
edit on 29/11/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: spelling



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Good thought but I think you can basically do this with anything. You can just say the right/left brain coordination or you can explain it with roman cities or you can even use The Zelda Triforce to explain it. It's all the same thing and I honestly don't think what you did was novel.

Here is the Triforce for people that don't know what the heck I'm talking about:



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 





You have a link for this? Any evidence at all? The controlling interest in the Bank of China is the Chinese Government, just like it is for the rest of the Chinese National banks.


The newspaper article in question had a couple threads on done here on ATS. I suggest using the Google search function as China is not a focal point of this thread, and you really owe it to yourself to research this on your own.




The Middle Ages, by historical consensus, is defined as the period in European history 500-1517. Nothing to do with what I imagine. Do you have a different Middle Ages in mind?


Thank you for clarifying the period you are interested in. Have you tried asking these questions in the All Roads Lead to China Thread yet?




The focus of the thread appears to be how a secret cabal in Rome controls the world. I'm only using China as a glaring example of how this can't be so. Admittedly this isn't really required, as you cannot provide substantial evidence to back up any of your core claims.


As pointed out to you by evidence of the substantial Western Corporate Investment in China I don't see how you can use China to counter the theories put forth in the thread.

In regards to your second statement, you might want to read the thread in it's entirety rather than making broad based assumptions based on your very minimal involvement and singular point of interest.




The nice thing about ATS is that people are allowed, at any point in the thread, to chip in, and if they so wish, criticise claims being made in said thread. You appear to be under the impression that only posters who agree with you should be posting. This is not how this not how ATS works.


So in other words you can not actually take the time nor do you have a counter theory you wish to put forth, or any evidence to support a counter theory you want to put forth.

That basically you would like to talk about China because you feel China and specifically your perception of China somehow negates the very real ellements of a global conspiracy put forth in this thread, and discussed in great detail, with significant research to back up the elements.

So since you are unable to talk to honestly now, as you were unable to talk to honestly before, the real relevance of China, I feel comfortable with the fact that not much attention has been given to it, as most of the quality oriented replies and focus on this thread has been aimed at nailing down Rome's financial and technological controls and systems, identifying them, and further researching the participants.

Sadly what people who invade the tail end of a 8 month long discussion based on singular points of contention don't seem to understand, is the actual context of the evolving thread.

So as I assumed you have no particular research on China you wish to share besides a user generated wikipedia.

Thanks for posting.


edit on 29/11/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: spelling



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
What is your guys' problem?

Go do your own research, Proto isn't your teacher..

Read into it and if you find something that disputes the OP's claim, bring it...

Even if this was 100% BS, it has still encouraged others to look into the Roman History and look at it from a different point of view.. For that alone, this thread is worth it...

There are a thousand other theories on this website alone that are more off track, that you guys can rip on....

Or better yet, go join Godlikeproductions



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The quality of being obtuse is nothing to write home about, if that garners you 300 stars.
You clearly have no conception of what I mean by the strawman fallacy gambit you employ with such gusto. Reinforced by the red herring, moving the goalposts, argument by repetition, etc, etc, I don't have the time and energy to list how many you use. It's quite staggering.

Let me be a stark in informing you of what the strawman is and what you are doing:

You are setting up arguments I have never made in order to knock them down, presenting the appearance that "my" argument has been beaten.

You, my dear "Proto," are intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, proudly obtuse, and incapable of following a logical stream of thought. None of the arguments you have listed have been made by myself. You do not speak for me.
You and your work are a fraud.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

The newspaper article in question had a couple threads on done here on ATS. I suggest using the Google search function as China is not a focal point of this thread, and you really owe it to yourself to research this on your own.

I have googled it, and have not found any evidence to support Rothschild made any such claims. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the Chinese government control the Bank of China.

I think it's an interesting example of how you play fast and loose with the facts, and basically make anything up to support your hypothesis.




Thanks for posting.

That's OK.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Extant Taxon
 





You are setting up arguments I have never made in order to knock them down, presenting the appearance that "my" argument has been beaten.


No what I am displaying is you are loathe to apply your own standard being applied here to other topics that ellements are regarded as closely kept secrets.

The fact that you are cowardly avoiding that admission, by avoiding those questions, simply reeks of the selective and deceptive nature of the tactics you employ to try to substantiate your poorly thought out positions and thwart topical discussion from taking place.




You, my dear "Proto," are intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, proudly obtuse, and incapable of following a logical stream of thought. None of the arguments you have listed have been made by myself. You do not speak for me.


Not only am I not attempting to speak for you, what I am doing is showing how when you speak selectively by applying dual standards and avoiding those questions that would clearly display your use of dual standards that it is intellectually dishonest, disengenous and disrespectful to those wishing to engage in topical discussion within the thread.

What I am pointing out is in fact you are not using logic but instead trying to school people on third grade debate tactics, while deflecting away from hard questions that would expose your line of reasoning as selective and purposefully deceptive, to garner false conclusions through those attempts.




You and your work are a fraud.


So what are you saying, that I am actually a computer, an alien being, that I am not from the planet earth or a human being?

What work is it you are contending is a fraud? If you are once again referring to my "CONSPIRACY THEORY" no, it's not a fraud, because I clearly published it. That would only be a fruad, if I hadn't written it, or if I claimed I had written a conspirac theory and refused to display it.

Rather what I have is one of the most sweeping and relevant conspiracy theories to ever grace ATS and the fact that you feel such a compulsion to attack it in repeditive attempts clearly only demonstrates your very real respect and fear of it.

As I have stated I anticipate three days of this and eventually there will be about 12 members involved in the attack.

Most of whom have no topical interest in the thread and never did, but simply a politically motivated dislike of me.

We have already seen that evidenced so far in this fledgling attempt.

At the end of three days they will all get bored and lose focus and then the thread will resume on track.

In the meantime, I will pay lip service to the rapid fire misrepesentations and false statements and misleading questions, so you all won't cry "Proto didn't answer me".



new topics

top topics



 
607
<< 148  149  150    152  153  154 >>

log in

join