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.

 

THE OMEGA FILE

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Time stamp on the doc is last modified 3-2-2008 at 10:58 AM Look for your self




posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Here's a couple of previous threads regarding this paper:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretstoshadow111

I like your interpretation of how you think you can know what i was thinking.
again not promoting anything, I did get an email with no sender with this file attached. I still have an open case with gmail however i guess it takes a couple of days to get a response. I would be willing to send anybody who asks the email that i revived. I would agree though that is easily manufactured evidence. I don't know if the doc has any time stamp on it or some kind of way to show the originator. That might help if you really want to pick at this.

Time stamp on the doc is last modified 3-2-2008 at 10:58 AM Look for your self


Secretstoshadow111.....

I see you have added me as a foe.

Nevertheless, I have made my point & I will now have to stand by that in the cold harsh light of the scrutiny of ATS.

Regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Here's a couple of previous threads regarding this paper:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Which contains this pearl of wisdom:

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
I've come to find in the UFO field, if you have to ask "is this true?' then chances are it probably isn't.


Thanks!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by secretstoshadow111
 



The purpose of this post was to find an answer not to argue minor points with people.


you want answers - ok :

its utter twaddle

satisfied ?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It's almost quote worthy isn't it?

In fact It's my new sig!



[edit on 12/6/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretstoshadow111

time stamp on the doc is last modified 3-2-2008 at 10:58 AM Look for your self ............................................ Let alone 77 or 78 pages that make up the file.


thats interesting


simply becvause my copy [ dated 06th DECEMBER 2000 ] is 112 pages

wo is re editing it and why ???



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by secretstoshadow111
 



guys, look at the top... this is written by Branton. Branton writes FICTION. Although some of the things he writes about could have some truth to them, this is fiction.


[edit on 12-6-2010 by pulsar41]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Fiction or non-fiction (I think it may be both, as truth is best protected being surrounded by a body of lies), there are many various references to things that have been collaborated before. As an interesting side note, the signing of .... .... is morse code for H H...Heil Hitler, just like the white supremicists who have "88" tatoos. This stands for the 8th letter of the alphabet, H, and two Hs also mean Heil Hitler. Who knows?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by secretstoshadow111
 




---

Pretty-good stuff. Read most of it. But gosh thanks for taking the time to share outstanding text, sir.

Decoy



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 





thats interesting simply becvause my copy [ dated 06th DECEMBER 2000 ] is 112 pages wo is re editing it and why ???


The author in Microsoft word reads Designerdemon. I think that that is put in there automatically by Microsoft Word. When you install the program i asks you for a name. I don't think that you can just add an author. There is a clue though.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Decoy
 


Ya i thought i best to put something like this on ats. I really have not read it and don't have plans to do so ether. I was really excited when i posted it, now, however the other posts have show been around for a while and someone probably spammed it somehow. Still don't really know why someone would send this to me though. My email address that it was sent to is not one of have used broadcasting that i read stuff on ATS or have anything to do with aliens or conspiracy stuff.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 





I see you have added me as a foe. Nevertheless, I have made my point & I will now have to stand by that in the cold harsh light of the scrutiny of ATS.


I have seen many people be torn to shreds here on ATS and I expect that from every body here. I don't like being attacked though like i was perpetrating something. I made no statements saying that i was trying to prove something. Just gave it to you guys, to get a little info back.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 





Here's a couple of previous threads regarding this paper: www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thanks for posting the above. I see it has being discussed, did not really see any conclusions with some kind of evidence to prove ether side though. I would really like to see this listed as a HOAX or have some type of evidence that shows why we should believe anything that's in the doc.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
One other thing, I am going to send this to my friend at a writing analysis lab. I know it is written, he says that there are many psychological things that are hidden when people write. I will post the results here on next wens when i see him. He is reputable has a name to back up his conclusions. Peace



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by secretstoshadow111
 


Secretshadow111…..



I have seen many people be torn to shreds here on ATS


People get ”torn to shreds here on ATS” (your expression, not mine) when they make unfounded claims, provide poor material, etc…

You should not mistake objective fact finding & analysis for people being ”torn to shreds here on ATS” (your expression, not mine).

For instance, my strong suspicion as stated to you previously regarding a very significant element of your story is as follows:



www.abovetopsecret.com...

The information you received in such a "strange" manner is readily & easily available on line.

I think you might have made this story up, in order to produce a sense of mystery & intrigue around your thread.

I venture to suggest you have commented enough to know that manufacturing a sense of mystery & intrigue around your thread could help to get attention, give the thread momentum & gain you more stars & flags.




I expect that from every body here.


In my opinion, this is a ”plea for help” type of approach, the objective of which is to gain sympathy & support.

You have enough experience with ATS to know you will have people respond in your thread who “agree” with you & people who respond in your thread who “disagree” with you.



I don't like being attacked


You were not ”being attacked”.

I politely raised some points with you pertaining to a very key element of your opening post.



though like i was perpetrating something.


That is still my position.

I am still strongly suspicious that you have embellished your story via the very key element of the “secret e-mail”, in order to add a sense of mystery & intrigue to your thread.



I made no statements saying that i was trying to prove something.


I agree you ”made no statements saying” that you were ”trying to prove something”.

However, you very strongly implied something mysterious & intriguing occurred & by definition, might still be occurring.



Just gave it to you guys, to get a little info back.


That does not appear to be the case.

As per my previous commentary, you appear to have strongly embellished your story via a very key point that casts a very different light on your story & therefore your thread.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
It would be nice if you posted a little what was in this document. You really arent supposed to post a link and a sentence. You are supposed to put some information about the link.
but thanks for sharing.

I looked at another link posted and I have read this. I will re-read it and get back to you.

[edit on 6/12/2010 by mblahnikluver]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Why do you have to come across so rude and as if you know everything? If you looked at the OPs profile they don't post much. Maybe they did think it was interesting. After seeing another link in the thread I realized I have read this document before and it's a lot to take in. They just wanted to share it.


OP I have read this and I don't know what to think of it. I will need to refresh my mind again with it. It's been about a year since I read it. I will download it and make it into a PDF file, which I find easier to read.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   


Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not reply to post by secretstoshadow111
 
The information you received in such a "strange" manner is readily & easily available on line. I think you might have made this story up, in order to produce a sense of mystery & intrigue around your thread. I venture to suggest you have commented enough to know that manufacturing a sense of mystery & intrigue around your thread could help to get attention, give the thread momentum & gain you more stars & flags. You have enough experience with ATS to know you will have people respond in your thread who “agree” with you & people who respond in your thread who “disagree” with you. You were not ”being attacked”. I politely raised some points with you pertaining to a very key element of your opening post.


Dude....MaybeMaybeNot.....First off....I don't think he's trying to embellish anything. If you'll step away from yer accusations for 2 minutes you might see that the OP cares more about the CONTENTS as opposed to the SOURCE of the email.....

YOU, however, are much more concerned with the SOURCE than the CONTENTS....This OBVIOUSLY leads me to believe that YOU are in fact the anonymous source and are only arguing with him here so as to promote DISINFO!

/sarcasm off

See how easy it is to make UNFOUNDED accusations?


I mean seriously....the guy isn't stating "I THINK AN ILLUMINATI AGENT SENT ME THIS"..... it's quite evident in the OP that he is focused on the CONTENTS....once the OP was told where it could be found, he chose to CONTINUE the discussion of the CONTENTS as opposed to talking about the source.....

It's people like you that scare new posters away from ATS....there is literally NO reason to attack a small aspect of the OP especially when it was quite clear the OP was about the CONTENTS....and NOT THE SOURCE....


On a side note....I find the information to be VERY informative, although I'm taking most of it with a grain of salt as I always do. Thank you for bringing this to my attention OP.

[edit on 6/12/10 by ElijahWan]

[edit on 6/12/10 by ElijahWan]

[edit on 6/12/10 by ElijahWan]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Mblahnikluver.....



Why do you have to come across so rude and as if you know everything?


I am trying my best not to "come across so rude and as if I know everything", but it is sometimes not easy to do so when trying to make points about key elements of a thread, when pushing the op into an area of discomfort.

However, in instances such as this thread, polite & objective questions are required to ascertain what is going on.

I am doing my best to be polite & objective, whilst trying to ascertain what is going on regarding the very key element of this thread.....i.e. the "secret, unidentified" e-mail aspect of this thread.



If you looked at the OPs profile they don't post much.


I was aware of that when I made my commentary because I always look into such things, in order to try to put everything in context.

It should be noted that because a member does not "post much", it doesn't necessarily mean the member doesn't read ATS "much".



Maybe they did think it was interesting.


As I've stated many times.....

My focus is not the paper linked to by the op. My focus is the claim about the "secret, unidentified" e-mail, which in my opinion was fabricated to embellish the story.

In fact.....think about it.....that really is THE crucial element of this story.



After seeing another link in the thread I realized I have read this document before and it's a lot to take in.


I too have seen this "paper" previously & I agree "it's a lot to take in".



They just wanted to share it.


You can clearly see I don't agree with you on this point.

I am very strongly suspicious the op wanted to fabricate a "back story" in order to add a sense of mystery & intrigue to the thread.

That casts a very different light on the intention & the outcomes of this thread.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join