Benjamin Fulford: U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrested

Originally posted by Maxmars
Gietners detention and arrests, and the reasons behind it have been reported by the MSM... this doesn't belong in this forum... in my opinion as a member.... by closing the Breaking Alternative News thread brought and directing people to this BLOG-sourced thread - in my opinion again - we have erred.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I understand the "attack the source" strategy of engineering sentiment towards the information by exposing the sources weakness.... but in many cases - when a liar tells the truth, it does not make it any less true.

edit on 5-3-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

The thread that was closed referenced the exact same article (Which was a blog post from Fulford with absolutely no evidence backing it and the same video which was released in 2010 from Fox News [that did not say Geithner was arrested]. I'm confused, can you elaborate or did I misunderstand your post?

reply to post by boncho


the phrase "and arrests" was definitely my error. - please consider it stricken and I apologize.

Aside from that, when the Fox interview details the essence of the investigation, the hazard of the criminal event, and the points that were made between former Judge Napolitano and the Fox host, I cannot understand the refusal to accept the allegation that Tim Geitner was questioned regarding the affair... (especially in that it was not a casual conversation, but part of an ongoing investigation in banking irregularities...

We can parse it as 'unsupported' only in that you personally have not been satisfied as to the implicit allegations.

Once this went beyond simple assertions of supposition to an officially inquiry, it stopped being 'conspiracy talk' and became 'news'. This of course is - as I stated - a member of the community speaking... not some decree which people constantly think Mods do.

Now explain to me what, in this story, strikes you as deficient... that it was broken by a non-traditional source?

reply to post by Maxmars

Now explain to me what, in this story, strikes you as deficient... that it was broken by a non-traditional source?

Oh Maxmars, I am usually quite content with the information you provide on these boards. But I am curious why you haven't read the source material and paid more attention to it:

The Fox story about Geithner being investigated, was from 2010. The initial report that spurred the investigation was from 2009.*

I do not deny that Geithner would be interviewed over the incident with AIG, but that is not what Fulford was talking about:

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was detained for questioning by New York police on February 24th and was released after giving evidence about many high-level financial criminals, according to New York police sources. “In most cases we have to slap people to get them to talk but in his case we had to slap him to shut him up,” one of the interrogators joked.

Fulford's story does not even mention the 2009 audit of TARP funds.

Therefore he is not "breaking" any story.

From the looks of it, he is simply fabricating his own loosely based off of old events:

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was detained for questioning by New York police on February 24th...

As in Feb 24, (2012)

The same day he was on the news about to head to Mexico for a public meeting, to which Fulford stated:

Geithner has been released but is accompanied at all times by an armed deputy to make sure he does not leave the country.

If a nutter comes out with something truthful, at least it can be verified. Nothing about Fulford's story can be verified. And, furthermore, the Fox News story has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Ben Fulford made the claim recently that both Bill Gates and George Bush Sr. have been arrested for attempting to sabotage the "new financial system". If that isn't the boldest claim anyone has ever made, then I don't know what is. Because if he's proven wrong, that would be the end of his credibility, or so one would assume.

Speaking of... has anyone seen Bill Gates, or George Bush Sr. recently?

Read the article here:
Ben Fulford 3-5-12

Originally posted by MrUncreated
Ben Fulford made the claim recently that both Bill Gates and George Bush Sr. have been arrested for attempting to sabotage the "new financial system". If that isn't the boldest claim anyone has ever made, then I don't know what is. Because if he's proven wrong, that would be the end of his credibility, or so one would assume.

Speaking of... has anyone seen Bill Gates, or George Bush Sr. recently?

Read the article here:
Ben Fulford 3-5-12

edit on 5-3-2012 by MrUncreated because: (no reason given)

March 5th, 2012
Last week, Bill Gates gave a speech in Rome, calling on the UN to set a target for agricultural productivity growth.

Link

I suppose Ben is going to tell us Gates was arrested by the pentagon in Rome then?

Originally posted by MrUncreated
Ben Fulford made the claim recently that both Bill Gates and George Bush Sr. have been arrested for attempting to sabotage the "new financial system". If that isn't the boldest claim anyone has ever made, then I don't know what is. Because if he's proven wrong, that would be the end of his credibility, or so one would assume.

Speaking of... has anyone seen Bill Gates, or George Bush Sr. recently?

Read the article here:
Ben Fulford 3-5-12

edit on 5-3-2012 by MrUncreated because: (no reason given)

You don't understand. Let me explain.

Foolford, Wilcock et all, all frauds, have segregated their audiences into 3 categories.

1) Know they are frauds.

2) Haven't yet found out they are frauds

3) Idiots who love frauds

#3 don't care, they're braindead, they idolize these guys so forget trying to chain them with fact and responsible decision.

#1, like me and you, larf out loud.

#2 is your audience. Congrats. It's working.

Originally posted by boncho

I suppose Ben is going to tell us Gates was arrested by the pentagon in Rome then?

Do I have to explain everything to you? The arrests will not be in MSM. Or alt media. Or any media. Foolford will let us know when the arrests turn to prosecutions and all the Cabalists are castrated and hung. True.

Problem: They all have clones.

Answer: Foolford will announce that all clones are arrested....

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Easy-peasey and you are now dismissed.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I understand the "attack the source" strategy of engineering sentiment towards the information by exposing the sources weakness.... but in many cases - when a liar tells the truth, it does not make it any less true.

edit on 5-3-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

True.

But what is your opinion of this primary Fulford source?

Ms. Light-Love-Rainbows

About kauilapele
I am a Spirit of Light working with energies on this planet, primarily here in Hawai’i (for over 15 years), to assist in the ascension process and bring about the New Earth. My spiritual missions have taken me from the Big Island of Hawai’i to neighbor islands (Oahu, Kauai), as well as to the mainland US, Peru (Cusco), Bolivia (Lake Titicaca), and Egypt (Gizeh, Saqqara, the Pyramids)

Originally posted by Seconal

Originally posted by boncho

I suppose Ben is going to tell us Gates was arrested by the pentagon in Rome then?

Do I have to explain everything to you? The arrests will not be in MSM. Or alt media. Or any media. Foolford will let us know when the arrests turn to prosecutions and all the Cabalists are castrated and hung. True.

Problem: They all have clones.

Answer: Foolford will announce that all clones are arrested....

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Easy-peasey and you are now dismissed.

edit on 6-3-2012 by Seconal because: (no reason given)

Good one.

Anyone seen Bill Gates lately? Or Bush Sr ? This should be pretty easy to confirm, to much facts here to make him stumble if they turn out to be untrue. Pretty foolish to claim so much was happening that is verifiable, unless it is true.

Originally posted by Manula

I personaly think he is a story teller whose credit is unknown, maybe he will be proven right or wrong, who knows...

I do. He's a fraud.

He makes people dream a little, he and wilcock dream a lot about a better future, they wish us well, we will see about the future, never forgetting to live the present.

Then and only then will the sparkling Love of Light cascade down upon us as spirit-faeries who deserve the Omniscience of major undulations of time-spce beckoning to our Inner (S)Elves with joy and persimmon poop.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Maxmars

Now explain to me what, in this story, strikes you as deficient... that it was broken by a non-traditional source?

 

Oh Maxmars, I am usually quite content with the information you provide on these boards. But I am curious why you haven't read the source material and paid more attention to it:

Boncho, my friend you are far too clever...

What you have shed light on is not precisely what I intended to accomplish with my post. But you are nevertheless quite correct.

This story has multiple weaknesses, and it is fair and proper to note them as you have.

My intent was to not confuse the objections of those who correctly detect the lack of journalistic intent; but to strengthen the point of the simple thread title.

The rest seems to me to fall into the category of what I believe is a potential (and likely incidental) attribution of falsehood to the fundamental element of the tale, namely that our politically-appointed Treasury Secretary is more frequently steeped in apparent impropriety. By assigning a banking insider to the post, especially one with such such a pedigree....

Geithner was deemed to be the one indispensable man who could save the American economy. This was the guy we needed. Yet in hindsight, he was just another overrated fellow who coasted to power based on his pedigree.

He was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He reported straight to Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. More importantly than anything else in this world, he carried with him the mystique of Goldman Sachs.

A hush fell over the crowd as they swooned. They said it over and over again. Goldman…Sachs. Goldman Sachs is the Harvard of Wall Street. Their very name commands respect from those who cling to antiquated notions of reputation and pedigree mattering more than results.

Never mind that Geithner never worked there. He's never even worked in banking. He's a protege of Goldman divinity Robert Rubin, and the rumor has been repeated so often and so earnestly that his reputation is burnished with the Goldman Sachs aura.

Timothy Geithner is a golden boy of the East-coast academic establishment, he's a lion of the New York financial establishment, he has the Goldman Sachs seal of approval. He “has” to be the very best.

Goldman Sachs brought the world Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson. Doesn’t that matter?

No. Goldman Sachs also brought the world Jon Corzine. They eventually fired Corzine, but his reputation remained sterling as he bungled his way higher to the Governorship of New Jersey.

from: communities.washingtontimes.com...

This of course is all media public relations in play, either for or against... Ultimately, Giethner's performance might be measured by the effect his fiscal policy has on the nations economy, and the less populist point of his ability to bolster Wall Street success (the two are disconnected in my mind.)

By exposing the events (such as the references made by the ostensibly still living Lord James Of Blackheath) which demonstrate Giethner's direct complicity in questionable transnational money management practices, we begin to question and scrutinize the workings of the system which holds our prosperity in check.

So the thread title seems to me to be a significant plus .... I believe in conscientious citizens seizing any opportunity to be informed. The elements of the inquiry are factual, but the superfluous additions and characterizations made by Fulford are repugnant, and merit equal time - but not at the cost of raising the notion that "because the devil told you the truth... it must be a lie."

Just because Fulford is using this series of events and circumstances to ply his trade as ... well... whatever he is, doesn't mean we can convey the impression that Geithner is suddenly 'cleared' of the allegations, nor suddenly 'clean' simply because a known sensational populist is crafting his product around them.

Like you, I believe, I would like to promote the denial of ignorance. But I am cautious because we see here - quite often - the reinforcement of the skeptic's practice of assuming that we can be selective about who we believe; and once a source is proven to contain lies, mistakes, or even ignorance, nothing that source provides can or should be entertained.

We must hear - even the ignorant liars... because within the lie - within the ignorance can often be found either the a) seeds of truth; b) the revelation of intent behind the lie; or c) an indication of who gains from the revelation. Any three of these elements are vital to the analysis of possible ongoing misdeeds.

So, I confess, that my intent to agitate was acutely discovered by you. And I have new respect for your ability to detect incongruities.

reply to post by Maxmars


could u summarize that?

Originally posted by wilburn
reply to post by Maxmars

 

could u summarize that?

ATS is a forum of discussion and debate. There are different 'mechanical' tools to engage in "theatrical" and/or "sophistic" debate. One such tool is a consistent focus on the source of the message and it's failings to weaken the actual argument being made. Too many people here rely on the theatrical tool.

Because Geithner's accuser in this case is a serial sensationalist, this story is being resisted with flamboyance to equal his own.

We cannot make the assumption that it means the allegation is false. But it is wrong also to completely ignore the (source) messenger's penchant for hyperbole, demagoguery, and populist rhetoric.

At this point,. all media sources are suspect; and unless we agree that we are going to get there together, this adversarial approach only serves to delay our arrival at the truth.

My posts were intended to evoke the exercise of analysis without adversarial tactics.

Originally posted by Maxmars

ATS is a forum of discussion and debate. There are different 'mechanical' tools to engage in "theatrical" and/or "sophistic" debate. One such tool is a consistent focus on the source of the message and it's failings to weaken the actual argument being made. Too many people here rely on the theatrical tool.

Because Geithner's accuser in this case is a serial sensationalist, this story is being resisted with flamboyance to equal his own.

We cannot make the assumption that it means the allegation is false. But it is wrong also to completely ignore the (source) messenger's penchant for hyperbole, demagoguery, and populist rhetoric.

At this point,. all media sources are suspect; and unless we agree that we are going to get there together, this adversarial approach only serves to delay our arrival at the truth.

My posts were intended to evoke the exercise of analysis without adversarial tactics.

Got it.

Then might I suggest with extreme humility and bowing before thee that any thread which relies on a Fulford report will eternally be sophistic and theatrical? How can it not be?

Fulford plays purposefully on the edges of reality, the details of his reports are rarely provable, he is a mix of bits of truth (e.g. bond scheme) with massive amounts of highly debatable truth (almost everything else).

There is no way, repeat, no way, to debunk a Fulford "truth" which neither can be proved or disproved as Fulford's "out" is always in the unrecoverable details. This Geithner arrested thread is a perfect example.

"Fact": Geithner was arrested.
Debunk: No reports say he was
"Fact": No reports does not equal "fact" = Fulford knows, we don't
Debunk: WTF?

Wash, rinse, repeat.

It's useless to expect anything else on ATS as there is nothing else...or there is nothing at all.

It all comes down to those who know Fulford is a fraud, those who will eventually find out he is and those who never will (or don't care since he "resonates" with them). Disagreement among these three factions by definition is sophistic and theatrical.

My point? Your argument, although well worded is, in practice, entirely impractical unless you moderate according to your the precepts of your argument.

Which would be fine with me, but have you? Will you?

Originally posted by FraudSlayer
Frauds like him are very clever, they spend their days creating paths through, around and in between truth.

Until we see an arrest report, Fulford has nothing. Geithner's status has not changed.

Imagine this, clear, precise thoughts amongst the insanity within this thread.

Thanks!

Originally posted by wilburn
My point? Your argument, although well worded is, in practice, entirely impractical unless you moderate according to your the precepts of your argument.

Which would be fine with me, but have you? Will you?

I have to thank you for asking. It is a vital component of my ability to be the Moderator you want me to be.

My goal as a moderator is fairly straightforward.

Casting aside the T&C as a given; what remains is my personal approach to the idea of moderating a dialogue. Most of us Mods here are purely volunteers; I have no stake in perpetrating the continuation or suppression of any legitimate debate.

I do try my best to remain a facilitator of the exchange of ideas. As only a member, doing so might seem presumptuous; and what I felt necessary as moderator is frequently in some level of conflict with what I as a member believe.. or would like to say.

When I create thread, I do so as a member, not as a Mod. This divide makes for some interesting challenges, because it is natural to assume that Moderating conveys some particular authority or validity to what I may put forward as a member. It does not.

We can couch it in many forms of diplomacy and verbiage, but in the end you might be torn between the desire to be a member first, then a moderator. All but the most experienced and erudite members struggle with this.

What I look for is the potential for any thread to be a valuable source of perspectives and contributions to any particular topic. In this case, the culture and circumstances surrounding one Timothy Geithner, is in dire need of the kind of scrutiny that ATS provides an opportunity to share.

This thread, for example is not about Fulford... but those who are fixated on his character and the products of his work are so keen on demonstrating the failings that the actual topic was being ignored almost entirely. The people who found this newsworthy and wished to debate it were too quickly entrenched in the issue of the source of the particular allegation.... where this is but one among many.

I am by no means the best Moderator around, but I strive to amass enough experience helping people communicate with one another to become as effective as I can be.

In short, my point, yes... I moderate according to the basic structure I elaborated earlier - and my intention and efforts are, for the most part, focused there.

But do me a favor, remember that I am only 'some guy' trying to do this... I can fail at it, and I try to avoid that as much as possible.

I try not to be snarky, flippant, cynical, or simply sophistic... I am fortunate that most members here (unlike just about everywhere else in communities like ours) are eager to join a respectful exchange of ideas where being wrong, or mistaken, or showing ignorance, is not considered a personal flaw, but room for more productive discussion.

And I presume that we are all lucky that we are not the kind of place where the wittiest put down or personal jab is recognized as a 'valuable' contribution to thread.

reply to post by Maxmars


Thanks for that, very reasonable. Reminds me I never want to be a Moderator.

reply to post by wilburn


There ARE days when I kind of regret it too

But in the end, the regrets are trivial.

OP: Please forgive the off-topic drift...

Hello, I am a long time lurker and have never posted before due to not having anything to add to the community. I believe that has now changed. Please feel free to prove me wrong about what I am about to post.

It is my belief that Benjamin Fulford has been murdered and replaced with an unconvincing double actor. I will provide pictures for comparison as well as videos for voice comparison. I know he looks like a goofy guy but his record stands for itself.

If you think I'm wrong tell me so.



< br />
In the pictures above, you can get a definite idea of what the man looks like. You can note the shape of his nose, the width of his eyebrows.

You can note in the next picture that these things have radically, drastically changed. Ignore for now the length of hair and the goatee.

Focus instead on the shape of the nose and the width of his eyebrows. It's a different nose, or so it seems to me. This is the impostor, or so it seems to me.





Again, compare the above pictures to the first two images taken of Benjamin Fulford.

This is a different man, as evident in the shape of the nose and the width of the eyebrows. This man's nose is far sharper and smoother of bridge. I have more.

This is a video of Benjamin detailing Asia's response to the western Illuminati secret power cult. If you will listen to the first few seconds you will hear him say his name. He has a very distinctive accent and pace to his speech which remains consistent in most of his earlier videos.

www.youtube.com...

While watching this video, it is clear to notice that Benjamin has a very pronounced incisor tooth, which juts away from the rest towards the front of his face. It is quite clearly visible.

In this second video, the impostor is clearly seen to have no such dental issue. This is a video of the impostor Fulford. Note the accent is wildly different than Benjamin's accent. He even says his own name wildly different as well as looking very nervous.

www.youtube.com...

These are two separate people, or so it seems to me.

I welcome criticism, and I do hope that someone can convince me that Benjamin was not murdered and replaced by an inadequate body double impostor.

- Scilon

reply to post by Scilon


To get the videos up try copying the code between the two = signs.
There's a thread called 'A place to practice linking and embedding'. Very useful.