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 sinister plot behind the death of the little Christine Green, in the Arizona's shooting.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I think I see where this is going.

Mean Joe Greene.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Let me try to understand this.

Are John and Roxanne (the slain little girl's parents) the SAME parents of Steven Dale Green (who was just sentenced to life in prison)??????????????????

If so then, Steven and this little girl were brother and sister???



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Mr Mask
 

look at any of the terror attacks (7/7, 9/11), they are planned and numerically coded and this fits the pattern, which is why I was able to predict both the age of the girl and the age of the shooter before they were released by the news.


Sir...In all due respect, I read your conclusions and your predictions and noted them.

I find it odd how your conclusions are based on zero evidence and your predictions were only shared with us AFTER the age of the shooter and the little girl's age were released on television. A little convenient sir.

In short, you are part of the problem I am seeing here, not a working piece of "real research" (IMHO).

You want a conspiracy? In the last year this site has acquired more than its share of unreliable posters who endlessly do bad research. Usually I can care less, but this subject is more important than some UFO hoaxer or some channeler contacting Atlantis.

Your predictions are NOT predictions since you shared them after the info was released.

And the conclusions you have come to are all based on unfounded claims resting on the boneless back of a hollow argument. There is ZERO evidence to be posting that this guy was 100% MK ULTRA, and absolutely no SAIN reason to insist the poor girl who died was part of this due to her birthday.

It is a sad sad shame that you are unable to grasp that right now.

MM









edit on 9-1-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Born May 2, 1985, Steven Dale Green spent some of his earliest years in Midland, Tex., in the western part of the state. His parents, John Green and Roxanne Simolke, divorced while he was a child, and Mr. Green moved with his mother to Seabrook, southeast of Houston on the Gulf Coast. She married Daniel Carr when Steven was around 8.
www.nytimes.com...


It doesn't sound like they're (John and Roxanne) the same people (parents of this little girl) but.....what are the odds of having the exact same names??????.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Sorry to say this but I think this thread lacks sensitivity and respect for the parents who have just lost their beautiful daughter, and who are stunned and heartbroken. Now is just not the time to be posting this kind of unfounded speculation. For God's sake, have some respect and some compassion.



There is nothing sensitive about OP's attempt in digging in deeper.

It's not like OP wrote this and mailed it to their house. OP is just trying to uncover possible ties to the shooter and the trial of Steven Dale Green.
I think it calls for further investigation because although it's a common name (Green) Roxanne certainly isn't.

I don't understand why people come on ATS in their righteous attitude and correct other people's behavior.

You don't like it? Shouldn't have opened the thread.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Born May 2, 1985, Steven Dale Green spent some of his earliest years in Midland, Tex., in the western part of the state. His parents, John Green and Roxanne Simolke, divorced while he was a child, and Mr. Green moved with his mother to Seabrook, southeast of Houston on the Gulf Coast. She married Daniel Carr when Steven was around 8.
www.nytimes.com...


It doesn't sound like they're (John and Roxanne) the same people (parents of this little girl) but.....what are the odds of having the exact same names??????.


Again, the little girl's mother's name is Roxanna.

And I posted the statistics of people with that name, as well as the name Roxanne Green, if you look back.

I am all for digging into this, but this one single blog is not proof at all, and the OP didnt bother to cross reference anything, he just saw John and Roxanne mentioned in the blog, and went with it.
edit on 9-1-2011 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 





Sir...In all due respect, I read your conclusions and your predictions and noted them. I find it odd how your conclusions are based on zero evidence and your predictions were only shared with us AFTER the age of the shooter and the little girl's age were released on television. A little convenient sir.

And the conclusions you have come to are all based on unfounded claims resting on the boneless back of a hollow argument. There is ZERO evidence to be posting that this guy was 100% MK ULTRA, and absolutely no SAIN reason to insist the poor girl who died was part of this due to her birthday.


And I asked for the input of those studied in the occult. How much time have you spent studying numerology and rituals? My interpretations have been based on deep esoteric/occult study for the past 20 years in one form or another (and more intensely over the past 10.)

Granted, I was not able to twit or post at the time so, you are correct, to this audience it was not a true prediction. However to myself and the person that was in the car with me at the time that I said it, it was a prediction based on the above mentioned years of occult study through a variety of paths.

As far as conclusions, it was the OP that brought up the point of her birthday. I merely supported the assertion by mentioning coded aspects of other shootings as well as the numerical codings in the ages of the other victims (I actually stayed away from the topic of the little girl in my post for the most part and I never mentioned MK Ultra in my post, merely that it wasn't a random shooting of a lone nut, nor was Fort Hood, which was just as heavily numerically coded) I think you may be getting the two of us confused.

But I ask again, how much occult/esoteric/numerologic research and study have you done? With what mystery schools have you studied? In how many magick rituals have you participated? If the honest answer to any of these questions is minimal to none, then you sir are the one that knows naught of which you speak Also, spelling is important when establishing credibility in forums such as this-it is spelled "sane" not "SAIN"
edit on 10-1-2011 by coyotepoet because: add last paragraph

edit on 10-1-2011 by coyotepoet because: spelling and grammar



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Steven Green's parents, John and Roxanne, were not Christina's parents. They split up long before little Christina, or her older brother, Dallas, named after his grandfather, were born.


Born May 2, 1985, Steven Dale Green spent some of his earliest years in Midland, Tex., in the western part of the state. His parents, John Green and Roxanne Simolke, divorced while he was a child, and Mr. Green moved with his mother to Seabrook, southeast of Houston on the Gulf Coast. She married Daniel Carr when Steven was around 8.


Raised in an observant Catholic household, Christina-Taylor had just received her first communion at the St. Odilia's Catholic Church, where she was also a member of the choir.
In her free time, Christina-Taylor loved to take care of her older brother, 11-year-old Dallas who has Asperger's Syndrome, which is on the spectrum of autism disorders.

The John and Roxanne Green to whom Christina and Dallas were born were completely different people to the dysfunctional alcoholics who barely parented Steven Green. Confusing the two families like this is a terrible insult to a dead girl and her parents.


To the OP, didn't the absence of any reference to Christina or her brother Dallas, in a blog which listed the members of Steven Green's family, tell you anything?




edit on 10/1/11 by Kailassa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Wow the 1st page was full of some self righteous sons of itches (gawsh i just hate itches they are annoying when you have to stop [stoop?] and "scratch" them...) who also clearly know nothing of occultism. What`s the point in killing a little girl? Well, to these people that would be called a SACRIFICE, to their GOD, which is who they WORSHIP... Duh... That`s why you have evil people publicly praising the death of this girl...and getting away with it...
Of course I do not profess to know all, and unlike Some, I know I could always be wrong...
One thing I know for sure is noone should have to feel shame for starring or flagging something they feel deserves more attention just because you all have sensitivity issues.
Live and let live! Stop shaming eachother! And last but not least, Educate Yourself!



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by wcitizen
Sorry to say this but I think this thread lacks sensitivity and respect for the parents who have just lost their beautiful daughter, and who are stunned and heartbroken. Now is just not the time to be posting this kind of unfounded speculation. For God's sake, have some respect and some compassion.



There is nothing sensitive about OP's attempt in digging in deeper.

It's not like OP wrote this and mailed it to their house. OP is just trying to uncover possible ties to the shooter and the trial of Steven Dale Green.
I think it calls for further investigation because although it's a common name (Green) Roxanne certainly isn't.

I don't understand why people come on ATS in their righteous attitude and correct other people's behavior.

You don't like it? Shouldn't have opened the thread.


To use your own (lack of) logic, you don't like what I posted? You shouldn't have read it.
I stand by what I wrote.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet


And I asked for the input of those studied in the occult. How much time have you spent studying numerology and rituals?


Close to 25+ years. Longer than many here have been alive.

Good enough? Do I qualify to answer?



My interpretations have been based on deep esoteric/occult study for the past 20 years in one form or another (and more intensely over the past 10.)


I see...again, I reiterate that I think your research results on this subject are ill founded and based on jumping to unwarranted or incredibly illogical conclusions with no evidence to support your "leaping".

As I have said, I read your hypothesis and found it badly constructed and quick to make unconnected leaps in logic.



Granted, I was not able to twit or post at the time so, you are correct, to this audience it was not a true prediction.


I see. Again... convenient.



However to myself and the person that was in the car with me at the time that I said it, it was a prediction based on the above mentioned years of occult study through a variety of paths.


Right. So you say. Apparently we are all supposed to take this as "fact" and then attribute your prediction to some inner knowledge or great understanding instead of a lucky guess or made-up story.

I'm sorry...I deal with facts...not speculations or "random promises of honesty".



As far as conclusions, it was the OP that brought up the point of her birthday. I merely supported the assertion by mentioning coded aspects of other shootings as well as the numerical codings in the ages of the other victims (I actually stayed away from the topic of the little girl in my post for the most part and I never mentioned MK Ultra in my post, merely that it wasn't a random shooting of a lone nut, nor was Fort Hood, which was just as heavily numerically coded) I think you may be getting the two of us confused.


There is a small handful of people here doing research I find to be "badly constructed". You are one of them. No confusion there.



But I ask again, how much occult/esoteric/numerologic research and study have you done?


Plenty. I'm a huge self proclaimed conspiracy theorist, some wrongly say skeptic and have spent close to three decades delving deeper and deeper in all facets of these subjects and many more.



With what mystery schools have you studied?


Are you aware that there is no hard evidence on the reality or truth behind these things you call "mystery schools"? In fact, most things published online or in book form on the subjects are self published POD vanity press, self published online material used to make money, or shadowy rumors and false information based in the center of lies or misinformation.



In how many magick rituals have you participated?


You use of the word "magick" and how you spell it further brings me to the conclusion that your research may be littered with holes and bad research practices.

And though the word was first used in the 1500s, its use in the way you are throwing it around points to Crowley. Again, it is clear to me you make leaps in logic.

Crowley was a charlatan and allowing his "work" into your studies on "facts" is unimpressive to someone like me.

I may be wrong, I allow that possibility in all I do...but I gave up on looking for reality within Crowley over 20 years ago and frankly- I find people unable to easily see his scammery to be a bit delusional.

It is those types who would make tasteless judgment calls on the birth date of a dead 9 year old instead of logically considering the facts.

Facts being-

1) The girl was not supposed to be there. She was randomly asked to go at the last minute, making her "planned death due to her birth date" a very unlikely thing.

2) Shooting the correct 12 people in a crowd, based on birth dates and magical number codes would be impossible if not highly unlikely.

3) Saying you see codes and than failing to supply actual proof of codes is hardly "getting down to bare bones". Just like saying you had a prediction but failed to share it until "after the fact" is also bad practice.



If the honest answer to any of these questions is minimal to none, then you sir are the one that knows naught of which you speak Also, spelling is important when establishing credibility in forums such as this-it is spelled "sane" not "SAIN"


1) I have noticed many mistakes in your writings as well, but allowed them to pass. It is your mistakes in logic that bother me, not your obvious errors in grammar or misuse of spell check. I suggest you look for the same flaws in what I write and ignore my spelling errors. Or at least leave such problems with my errors at the door.

2) Pointing out spelling mistakes is against the rules of this website. Please stop doing that with me or anyone else you may find "bad at spelling".

3) Spelling is NOT important in setting credibility here. Putting forth accurate information and civil content "is".

4) You will find I have a horrible time at spelling. Call it a failed school system, a weak mind or just plain laziness. I don't care...just keep it out of your posting. Thanks.

Lastly...instead of boasting about more things you can't prove "after the fact", like your attendance to Magick rituals or your expertise in understanding blatant hoaxes such as Crowley (pedophile/con-artist) and his scams of silliness, perhaps you can do more to sway my opinions on your research by showing me some real documented "decodings" or real "evidence" of what you suggest is happening here.

Unless you wish to continue saying "I swear, I predicted something" way after the fact of it already happening.

I know if I was in the business of decoding Magick material that could wake up the world to a sinister plot that only I could see, that I'd be sure to rush and document my proof of predictions "before the fact", and if I failed in doing so (for whatever weak reason) I'd not use my failure as evidence in a public forum.

Either way...the choice is yours.

Good day.

MM
edit on 10-1-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Also, spelling is important when establishing credibility in forums such as this-it is spelled "sane" not "SAIN"


One more thing on this bit of logic.

I highly doubt you understand what does and what doesn't count as credibility around here.

A good way to have your credibility damaged around these parts is to "share hoaxed information" and/or maked failed/late predictions.

It also doesn't help to fail to elaborate on the coded messages you see and just leave it at-

"I'm a super Magick expert who knows the mystery schools!"

Without proving or showing any evidence of such.


Credibility comes from being able to trust someone's content for what it is. It also comes from continually remaining true to the quest for truth and not embarking on fantasy quests that paint you as a magickian while showing no proof of said claim.


MM



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I sort of wonder if there was time travel involved, and Christina Green in another timeline is a future politician (they say she had aspirations), and someone went back in time and killed her as a little girl to 2011 to change the time line?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 19872012
 


With that... I am out.. Did anyone hear that? Logic called.. Logic is sick of this thread, and has left the building.. Good day!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


First off, I'm not sure why you are attacking me so vociferously on this. I did not start the thread, I was not the one that brought up her 9/11 connection. I simply put my voice in support of the OP based on my esoteric studies. The fact that you find it so necessary to attack me (in as broad and general and baseless of ways as your accusations of me are) shows me that I hit onto something.

You've at least studied enough to know that at least some of my study has been Crowleyan OTO but I'm curious that you expound on the following as a way to provide "proof" for your side.



And though the word was first used in the 1500s, its use in the way you are throwing it around points to Crowley. Again, it is clear to me you make leaps in logic. Crowley was a charlatan and allowing his "work" into your studies on "facts" is unimpressive to someone like me.


Crowley had his faults and I'm not defending all of the actions of his life, but people like Mathers, especially in working with the Enochian material, was right on. David Allen Hulse is a well respected Magickal author most notable for his encyclopedic works, The Eastern Mysteries and The Western Mysteries, both excellent magickal and numerological resources for understanding deeper levels of the "mysteries." A lot of his work is rooted in Crowley's and Mather's work and is itself credible. So because Hulse incorporated Crowley's work into his work does that make him "unimpressive to someone like" you?

From Llewellyn Publishers:

There are some books about which there is so much to say it is hard to know where to begin. One such book is David Allen Hulse's The Western Mysteries (previously published as The Key of It All, Book II: The Western Mysteries). The Western Mysteries begins with a complete introduction to some of the basic concepts of the Western magick tradition, such as the elements and their associations, and how they evolved and changed over time. The book continues with spiritual investigations of English, Latin, and Greek. In the section on Runes, you will find the most complete information on the Runes ever published, including the differences in their design, meanings, and sounds as they moved from culture to culture and evolved over time. The two largest sections describe the Tarot and the Enochian system. In the section on the Tarot, you will learn how it developed into the mystical tool it is today. Then you will learn the various interpretations people have had of the cards, along with the meanings of the symbolism on them. The purpose of the section on Enochian is to give the most complete — and most correct — version of the Watchtower system ever published. The Western Mysteries is a reference book you simply must have. "


www.amazon.com...

Last time I checked, Llewellyn is not a vanity press.

In the way that I use the term, "mystery schools" are any organized groups of people that teach the deeper knowledge. Other studies I have undertaken and teachers along my path that I include in this umbrella of mystery school (either personally or read) include in no particular order: Rosicrucianism (and not just the AMORC mail order stuff) and author Max Heindel, Deer Tribe Metis Society, Dan Winters, numerology, Blavatsky, Gurdjieff and his Fourth Way, JJ Hurtak and his book the Keys of Enoch, as well as other of his teachings, Qi Gong, Gnosticism, Manley Hall, Terrence Mckenna, Drunvalo Melchizidek and his Flower of Life material, and Qaballism. There have been, of course, many other influential books and teachers along the way, but these are what have shaped my current perspective and understanding. I also have degrees in psychology and counseling, including a masters degree. In addition, I have used the information obtained in each of these paths to confirm and refine information gathered from each of the other paths.



I have noticed many mistakes in your writings as well, but allowed them to pass. It is your mistakes in logic that bother me, not your obvious errors in grammar or misuse of spell check


What spelling and grammatical errors? What logical errors based on the information contained in the above topics of study? Please be more specific. In the post to which you are responding I used naught instead of not. Could that be one of the spelling errors?


naught also nought (nôt) 1.Nonexistence; nothingness. 2. The figure 0; a cipher; a zero.
pron.
Nothing: All their work was for naught.
adj. 1. Nonexistent. 2. Insignificant.


Or are there other spelling and grammatical mistakes to which you were referring? I admit to occasional grammatical errors, but I always clean them up when I can (if I get to them before the edit window is closed.)



I see. Again... convenient.
Unless you wish to continue saying "I swear, I predicted something" way after the fact of it already happening.


Boy, you really jumped on the prediction thing trying to discredit my point of view didn't you? Again, like the mystery schools attack, this boils down to semantics. First, I didn't present it like it was this big deal or that I was "predicting" for any body out side of myself and those around me at the time. I suppose rather than prediction, I should've used the term educated guess based on pattern recognition due to years of numerological study but that gets to be a mouthful. I use "prediction" in the same sense that somebody betting on a sports spread would predict the final outcome of a game based on study of both the sport and the players' stats. Nobody demands proof of method from those people that "predicted" the spread when they are correct. Those games are just over a little bit sooner than this one (if you could call it a game.) I don't have to prove my "prediction" to any one, nor did I have that intent at the time. Merely proof to myself that I am reading the symbols correctly.



I see...again, I reiterate that I think your research results on this subject are ill founded and based on jumping to unwarranted or incredibly illogical conclusions with no evidence to support your "leaping". There is a small handful of people here doing research I find to be "badly constructed". You are one of them. No confusion there.


To what research results are you referring? What "research" of mine do you consider to be poorly founded and why? Possibly my thread on chemtrail patterns? There's not much in the way of initial assertions that I make in this forum, most of my activity here is in supporting others of like mind and fending off things like this. Please, I'm asking you to be as specific as you are asking me to be on these points of contention. It seems throughout that you are combining elements of the OP's assertions and hypotheses with my own, mistakenly so. So, please be as specific as possible regarding these "lapses of logic." Since you have studied esoteric topics for 25+ years please converse with me in that language when providing your response, especially in regards to esoteric numerological significance and its place in ritual be it black magick or white. I am always open to learning or seeing a different perspective and consider myself to be humble in the acquisition of knowledge, but first we must be speaking the same languages. So, using the esoteric languages, how specifically do you find what little original research I have posted here to be "badly constructed?"

So back to the topic at hand: I never made mention to the girls birthdate, that was the OP, I merely indicated that it was interesting and fit in with the rest of the numerological pattern. I had questions too, such as how the girl came to be there as well as the other victims (including the judge who the msm is reporting was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.) However,



2) Shooting the correct 12 people in a crowd, based on birth dates and magical number codes would be impossible if not highly unlikely.


Not hard at all if there was research done beforehand on who would be there and what their details are. After that it's just a simple matter of showing and programming photos of the victims into the shooters psyche. Not saying that is what happened, just that it is possilbe and plausibly likely.



Lastly...instead of boasting about more things you can't prove "after the fact", like your attendance to Magick rituals or your expertise in understanding blatant hoaxes such as Crowley (pedophile/con-artist) and his scams of silliness, perhaps you can do more to sway my opinions on your research by showing me some real documented "decodings" or real "evidence" of what you suggest is happening here.


Wow, more jumping on my use of the word prediction. I was not boasting though that may be your interpretation. Nor was I saying that I alone can see or solve this pattern. That is why I was asking for the input and opinions of other studied occultists (other than you-you obviously have an axe to grind) to check my assesment with other people in the position to know.

And asking for proof? This whole thing is best summed up in metaphor. This is like attacking a theoretical physicist for stating something that goes against mainstream teaching/thought without using the theoretical physics proofs yourself to decry them. Nothing special about the theoretical physicist that separates him/her from the rest of the population other than years of study and a predeliction for understanding the language-in other words, given the time in study, any body might be able to use the same information to come to the same conclusions. So then, you ask this physicist for proof and yet if the proof were to be given in the language in which it was devised it would go over most peoples heads because it is not a language in which they are conversant.



One more thing on this bit of logic. A good way to have your credibility damaged around these parts is to "share hoaxed information" and/or maked failed/late predictions.


I have never intentionallty shared "hoaxed" information and have owned it when I have seen or learned a different side of things than I initially asserted. As far as the failed/late predictions, it was not my intent to do that at all. You were the one that jumped all over my use of the word prediction and used it as an attempt to question my credibility in the first place, even though the way you took it wasn't my intent in the use of the word as explained above. I never claimed "I'm a super Magick expert who knows the mystery schools!" just that I see patterns based on my years of study on such topics. I even directly asked for the input of others who speak the same language. I've listed my areas of esoteric study in the "mystery schools" and even declined to claim things in which I have done some study but am not completely conversant such as ADF druidry, I'd be curious to know your areas of study over the past few decades.



blatant hoaxes such as Crowley (pedophile/con-artist)


First, nice use of character flaws to draw attention away from the truth he did speak. However, your argument falls flat in that despite my time with the OTO and studies of Crowley's work, he actually figures in comparatively little in regards to my esoteric research and understandings.

As for the coding I speak of, it is the repeated use of numbers like 3, 13, 30, 33 and 11 amongst others. Numbers sacred to Freemasonry as well as other esoteric schools. Numbers that are repeated again and again in other ritualistic shootings like VA Tech, Columbine, Fort Hood for example (look up the number of dead and wounded in each of those cases.) For a good summary and more understanding of the significance and ritualistic use of numbers gathered in one place, I refer you again to Hulse's over 1000 pages of work in The Eastern and Western Mysteries. Additionally, using time honored numerological methods one of the victims ages is 76 so 7+6=13. This is a method studied numerologists use all the time.

Hopefully I have clarified my position both to you and to the other readers of this thread. I invite you to use your esoteric knowledge to counter mine and ask that you speak in specifics like you are asking me to do.

Just for fun, here are a list of disinformation strategies that I have recognized in your replies and attacks on me:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the
multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


I'll let readers of this thread come to their own conclusions.



edit on 10-1-2011 by coyotepoet because: clarity

edit on 10-1-2011 by coyotepoet because: getting rid of spaces

edit on 10-1-2011 by coyotepoet because: cleaning up



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


Some grammatical changes and awkward sentences I am no longer able to edit:




Crowley had his faults and I'm not defending all of the actions of his life, but people like Mathers, especially in working with the Enochian material, was right on.


should read: ...but people like him and Mathers...were right on.




I had questions too, such as how the girl came to be there as well as the other victims (including the judge who the msm is reporting was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.)


should read: I had questions too, such as how the girl came to be there, as well as why the other victims were there and what their stories were, including the judge (who the msm...




Not saying that is what happened, just that it is possilbe and plausibly likely.


should read: just that it is possible and plausible.




I was not boasting though that may be your interpretation. Nor was I saying that I alone can see or solve this pattern.


Should read: ...interpretation, nor was I saying...

There were also a few missed apostrophes here and there and it was painful to use the colloquial "badly constructed" instead of "poorly constructed" but you get my point, despite this slightly absurd follow up post. I try to be as scrupulous with my editing as I am with my research.

Also, I think more important and under-reported facts are that Giffords had an astronaut as a husband and sat on an interesting array of committees:


* Committee on Armed Services o Subcommittee on Readiness o Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces * Committee on Foreign Affairs o Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
* Committee on Science and Technology o Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics


There are a lot of layers to this particular shooting that make it significant beyond esoteric/occult ritual and the fact that Christine was born on 9/11

Also, for the record, my use and understanding of the word magick is as such: the intentional influencing of subtle spiritual/energetic (but no less real) realms through vibrational means such as (and usually a combination of) chanting mantras, high energy emotional states like fear (or love) or sex, numeric/numerological coding, meditation, symbology, and ritual. It is an influencing that can be used positively for growth and exploration or negatively for control and power. As such, I also consider technological things like HAARP to be magick because on some level that's about manipulation of the subtle as well. I hope this clears things up. Can we get on to talking about more interesting things than these ridiculous diversions?



edit on 10-1-2011 by coyotepoet because: editing

edit on 10-1-2011 by coyotepoet because: apostrophe

edit on 10-1-2011 by coyotepoet because: name

edit on 10-1-2011 by coyotepoet because: last paragraph definition



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Also interesting that Loughner was born 9/10/88



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join