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.

 

“I saw Joseph Ratzinger murder a little girl”: Eyewitness to a 1987 ritual sacrifice confirms ac

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by uncommitted
 


If you're going to say that both the previous and alleged corroborating witnesses are actors, then perhaps you should supply evidence of this assertion rather than talking about "logic" which is spurious at best, and intentionally inflammatory at worst.

I await your evidence showing that the "witnesses" are actors.

edit on 1/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Kevin Arnnett is a United Church Minster. He has worked with many Native Americans in Canada and they began to trust him and open up to him. He didn't 'set out' to create alarms, it is the RESULT of Native Americans confiding in him what TRULY happened to them in their forced residential schools!

It makes my blood boil that people would dismiss him as a quack without doing the slightest bit of research. The last witness to these kidnappings in Kamloops by the Queen recently died - no more eye witness testimonies to be had now. But I can tell you that I live not far from Kamloops and as a young girl I remember well when the Queen made that trip by train across British Columbia! She was, in fact, there at the time these Native Americans claim she was.

Has anyone listened to these testimonies by the Native Americans as to what happened? How many (covered up) DEATHS there were at the residential schools in Canada at the hands of the priests and nuns?!? They won't let investigators 'dig' on the grounds for obvious reasons - they'd find a lot of children's bodies!

I applaud Mr. Arnnett for doing what's right and being as vocal as possible about this. So what if he's an army of only a few?!? It's a few decrying the horrendous and prevalent abuse by those who are supposed to protect. Gee, where have I heard that before... hmmm....

Why is this so unbelievable? Bohemian Grove EXISTS! How much more repulsive can it get?!? Wake up and stop JUDGING what you are unwilling to actually dig in and investigate! The goings on in this world are INSIDIOUS beyond your imagination! What do you think happened in all those massive, grand hotels built by the CPR (Canadian Railway) across Canada that were exclusively accessed by train and used by the elite and royalty? Now they're accessible by road, for decades only special trains of special people could get to and stay in these massive hotels, like Banff Springs, which isn't too far from Kamloops and on the train route. THINK!



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

wishes
Kevin Arnnett is a United Church Minster.

No, he isn't. He was fired and defrocked from the UCC because they thought he was crazy, a terrible minister, and he wouldn't take any steps (like getting counseling) to address his issues. Here are the details of his dismissal: Formal Hearing Panel Decision - United Church of Canada.

It has been demonstrated, time and again, that Kevin Annett is a crackpot who fabricates evidence, and that the ITCCS is a joke organization whose "International Common Law Courts" have no legal basis, and when they encourage people to arrest those convicted in said sham trials, they are endangering the public.

As for the claims made in the OP, I'll repeat what I said in the other thread, of which this thread is a needless duplication; if there is any evidence of Pope Benedict having murdered children which does not come from the ITCCS, which is absolutely not a credible source of information regarding anything, please present it. The woman in the video also claims that she was taken around the world on a whirlwind "rape tour", where she was raped, not only by church officials, but by members of the British Royal Family, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and other global elites.

So, if the only evidence of Pope Benedict murdering a child is the word of a woman who is obviously an unbalanced attention seeker, this thread, as well as the other, can reasonably be dismissed as hoaxes, perpetrated by an organization that is famed for creating such.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Having read that before, and on reading it again, my conclusion remains the same in that this was a politically motivated hearing brought about because Annett did not (and refused to) follow what were considered to be established rules and protocols.

An abrasive nature is not evidence of being in need of psychiatric evaluation.
What is in evidence is that people were pissed off with him because he didn't "follow orders" and acted outside the (considered) established procedures.

It's an interesting internal report/hearing, but anyone who has worked within a highly bureaucratized organisation will know that railroading those who don't "follow the rules" is normal practice, an unfortunate fact of life but one which is widely practiced.

There are also more people involved with the ITCCS than just Annett, although he appears to be the main spokesperson.

Perhaps more interesting is that Belgian Police thought there was sufficient cause to raid St Rambouts Cathedral, and also confiscate documents (around 500 files) and mobile phones from clergy members who were present during a meeting of bishops in the presence of the Vatican's ambassador to Belgium.

Perhaps they were being over zealous, but it is interesting nonetheless.

I think one consideration has to be that this involves an extremely powerful organisation who have shown in the past that they are more than willing to cover up, intimidate abuse victims and outright lie to keep their secrets.
The other side of the coin is that this could make them an easy target for allegations of abuse.

edit on 1/11/2013 by budski because: corrected typo



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Okay, so he 'was' a United Church Minister - and got thrown out for speaking out against the indecencies committed and condoned by the church... lol. Discredit the outspoken who dares to challenge us! .. and where have I heard that before! Is easy to discredit any target -to pick apart everything they do - to make mountains out of mole hills. Is about the message, not the messenger!

is that supposed to negate the numerous first hand accounts by Native American's who witnessed these or experienced the abuse? I listened to many on the internet, not sure if they're still available. I wish it weren't true - but I take what Native American's say in earnest very seriously and with a lot of credibility. It is very seldom we are ever privy to anything from their world - they seem to have this distrust and disdain for white people... gee... I wonder why....

Is fine if you don't believe him - that's not the point. The question is if there were all these alleged abuses/murders going on and from the testimonies of those that have been there, experienced it, survived it, AND willing to speak to a white person or camera about it, I give them credit and credibility - that's my gage.

You think the churches are free from assaulting children? We know of many cases - why should these people not be believed? Like I said - we KNOW Bohemian Grove exists - who could have imagined world leaders getting together to frolic in orgies amongst themselves and do rituals?!? That took me down to a whole new level of disgust! You think they're not indulging in sacrifices and children too?

What I've heard of Keven' Annett he was articulate and trying to bring to light something that is very dark within the very church he worked... you think the church would reward him for that or discredit him.. hmm...

I seldom post here, have no plans of continuing this - I just encourage people to stop taking things at face value and dig beyond the messenger! Do your own research but do it well and be willing to follow wherever it leads1



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by wishes
 



Okay, so he 'was' a United Church Minister - and got thrown out for speaking out against the indecencies committed and condoned by the church.

No, he wasn't. Although that's what he claims today, there is no indication that he was speaking out on this matter in 1996, when he was fired. Go read that document, as you apparently did not, and read the testimony against him, because it's fairly obvious that he had some real personality and ministerial issues that he refused to address.


His former supervisor, then Executive Director of the Fred Victor Mission in Toronto, states that the minister frequently manipulated the weak and the vulnerable:

From the beginning, Kevin's relationship with other staff was problematic and conflictual. He was not a team player, did not like staff meetings and at times was impossible to find or reach. I had indicated to Kevin that a few staff were skeptical about this project and a couple were hostile but there was a readiness to accept the idea of a community ministry and a willingness on the part of other staff to find ways of working out difficulties. He claimed he was not supported but he did not seem willing to accept the support he was offered or make any efforts to work with other staff.

His relationships with street people were entirely different. Quickly, he gathered a group of the most vulnerable people around himself; they thought he could do no wrong. Not long after his departure, most of these people seemed unmoved by his resignation. We learned gradually that he was giving out cash and goods to needy individuals (by using petty cash inappropriately) and making promises to them that were impossible to keep. While he had the rhetoric of "social justice" (which was this Mission's approach) he behaved in a traditional charity hand-out way. He had an incredible way of making vulnerable people feel entirely supported and others terribly guilty and uncomfortable. I understood the above behaviour as extremely clever and manipulative.

See that underlined bit? That's what he's still doing today.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I appreciate the input, but I think it's entirely missing the point of proving or disproving the truth of what he and others are alleging.

I'm also not convinced that relying on the testimony of someone in a politicised organisation amounts to proof that he is what some claim him to be.

Regardless of that, criticising the source does nothing to get to the bottom of whether the claims made by the "witnesses" are true.
Put quite simply, it's a cop-out.

I'm looking for facts rather than opinions, and where I have used an opinion I think I've been pretty clear that's just what it is, because opinions are not facts.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


That underlined part sounds about right for say 90% of ministers, priests etc lol......
All I am seeing here is more attempted character assassinations, but no refutation of any facts or testimony. You don't like the guy, fine, no problem. That doesn't dispute any of the information he puts out though. That doesn't discredit any witnesses interviewed.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Here's a fact: at no time has Toos Nijenhuis been a member of any actors union or guild in Europe.

So that puts the paid actress theory to bed.

Doubtless someone will try and move the goalposts by saying she was an amateur actress, but the above is a fact, pure and simple.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 





I'm also not convinced that relying on the testimony of someone in a politicised organisation amounts to proof that he is what some claim him to be.


But uncorroborated testimony of a witness is proof enough for you to slander? You believe this story because you WANT to believe it and lack of proof be damned except when it comes to someone in opposition to it. You have not provided any other news, information, person, agency, organization, media, ect that is also reporting it.

Now it may be because there is nothing there and this is all a lie or there is a grand conspiracy to protect the church. Which is highly unlikely considering the amount of public thirst for juicy stories concerning Catholic church clergy and children and the hundreds of stories already been reported and CONFIRMED as true.

My vote is for HOAX bin.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by budski
 


In my opinion, you're hooking your cart to the wrong horse, and getting entirely too invested in it while at it.

Even if Kevin Annett were spot on dead accurate, there's no real evidence, plus he has absolutely ZERO legal authority, and equates to the likes of a very small, but annoyingly loud and obnoxious little dog that can't do anything regardless the noise it makes.

Beyond that, he's a known nutter, conman, and fraud that's taken advantage of too many already for his own profit, gain, and purposes.
Any "witnesses" this fellow digs up regarding any purported crime are suspect via association, and likely followers of Annett attempting to (falsely) validate his claims, if, that is, the "witnesses" aren't entirely fictional creations of Annett via online foolery.

Find some sources entirely independent of ITCCS that can make independent claim of the former Pope murdering children, eating babies, whatever, and there might be something valid to discuss.





Have you any proof that Annett is conman or fraudster? Please post.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

uncommitted

TKDRL
reply to post by budski
 


At least you are looking into actual facts here. I see a lot of "debunking" going on lately, that amounts to little more than insults and character assassination, it's pretty sad. It's too bad this person is not a member here, or it would be against T+C and people would actually have to dispute the facts instead of trying to drag a name though the mud. Just my opinion of course.


Too bad which person isn't a member - the Idiot Annet who clearly - clearly is a self publicising person (I use the term loosley) who makes outrageous claims against whoever he likes with ridiculously laughable 'evidence', or the person who is accused of carrying the alleged crime without a shred of any substantive evidence or proof to stand by it? An actor in a YT video is not worth anything.

If you mean the former, then I think you need to have a long hard think about the logic of that.


And your name is Uncommitted, don't make me laugh! Your mind was made up before you even considered the video testimony!



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   

DrunkYogi
Have you any proof that Annett is conman or fraudster? Please post.

I would consider forgery to be fraud.

Kevin Annett Doesn’t Only Steal Survivor’s Stories (He steals their signatures too…)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You Sir get a Star. I am eagerly awaiting the OP to reply to your post.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Carreau
reply to post by budski
 





I'm also not convinced that relying on the testimony of someone in a politicised organisation amounts to proof that he is what some claim him to be.


But uncorroborated testimony of a witness is proof enough for you to slander? You believe this story because you WANT to believe it and lack of proof be damned except when it comes to someone in opposition to it. You have not provided any other news, information, person, agency, organization, media, ect that is also reporting it.

Now it may be because there is nothing there and this is all a lie or there is a grand conspiracy to protect the church. Which is highly unlikely considering the amount of public thirst for juicy stories concerning Catholic church clergy and children and the hundreds of stories already been reported and CONFIRMED as true.

My vote is for HOAX bin.


Where on earth have I stated any of that?

The answer is, I haven't, and if you'd bothered to read then you would know this.
I have repeatedly stated that it needs to be proved, and again, if you'd bothered reading, you'd know I'm in the process of gathering as much information as possible, along with 3 other people.

I have also repeatedly stated that I am looking for FACTS.
You should acquaint yourself with the idea, because clearly you don't let little things like FACTS get in the way of your ad hominem attacks that are totally without foundation.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

adjensen

DrunkYogi
Have you any proof that Annett is conman or fraudster? Please post.

I would consider forgery to be fraud.

Kevin Annett Doesn’t Only Steal Survivor’s Stories (He steals their signatures too…)


I don't see any proof - I see a hit piece based on nothing in particular except one persons opinion.

It seems to me (opinion only) that there is a clear campaign to discredit this guy (Annett).

Now whether it is deserved or not, I can't say - I don't know him personally, nor do I know his personal history apart from what is posted online, but the blogs bear all the hallmarks of (bad) hatchet jobs.

It also seems to me (opinion only) that most of the attacks, both here and on blogs, are about protecting religious and/or personal opinion.

I've yet to see anything of substance, and I haven't found anything myself even though I've been looking quite hard, but the fact is I'm not a great researcher.
When I skype with the other people later I'll ask if anyone has anything concrete.

Again though, it seems people think it's very clever to attack a source rather than trying to get to the truth of the matter.
It's not, it's actually dishonest, but if people are fine with lying to themselves, that's their business.
edit on 1/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

budski

adjensen

DrunkYogi
Have you any proof that Annett is conman or fraudster? Please post.

I would consider forgery to be fraud.

Kevin Annett Doesn’t Only Steal Survivor’s Stories (He steals their signatures too…)


I don't see any proof - I see a hit piece based on nothing in particular except one persons opinion.

It seems to me (opinion only) that there is a clear campaign to discredit this guy (Annett).

Now whether it is deserved or not, I can't say - I don't know him personally, nor do I know his personal history apart from what is posted online, but the blogs bear all the hallmarks of (bad) hatchet jobs.

It also seems to me (opinion only) that most of the attacks, both here and on blogs, are about protecting religious and/or personal opinion.

I've yet to see anything of substance, and I haven't found anything myself even though I've been looking quite hard, but the fact is I'm not a great researcher.
When I skype with the other people later I'll ask if anyone has anything concrete.

Again though, it seems people think it's very clever to attack a source rather than trying to get to the truth of the matter.
It's not, it's actually dishonest, but if people are fine with lying to themselves, that's their business.
edit on 1/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)


OTOH, couldn't the same thing (an uncorroborated hit piece) be said about the topic of this thread...yet another thread on the same uncorroborated hit piece without anything new at all?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



I don't see any proof - I see a hit piece based on nothing in particular except one persons opinion.

What, are you kidding me? Look at those scans -- her signature was obviously scanned in and pasted on that letter, which she clearly wouldn't have written, since she had denounced him previously, and made no indication to anyone before she died that she'd changed her mind.

You're in full "blinders on" mode.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

budski
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Here's a fact: at no time has Toos Nijenhuis been a member of any actors union or guild in Europe.

So that puts the paid actress theory to bed.

Doubtless someone will try and move the goalposts by saying she was an amateur actress, but the above is a fact, pure and simple.



Here's another fact
; one does not have to be an actor, paid or otherwise to either make stuff up or to be so off their chum they believe in the stuff they make up.
edit on 1-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join