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: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I'm just going to add again for those that have reading comprehension problems, that the goal here is to get facts, either to prove or disprove the claims made by Annett and his "witnesses".
I really don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
I have made no assertions regarding either side of this, all I am looking for are facts.
This has implications if it were true (my position has always been that I am very sceptical about it, right from the OP ) but until it can be proven one way or another, everything is pointless speculation, and not facts, and therefore unproven.
If people are happy to speculate pointlessly, confuse opinions with facts, use strawmen and ad hominem attacks, that's their prerogative, but don't expect me to engage in these petty forum games, or answer any posts of that nature.

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




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

adjensen
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.


And you call that proof?
Without seeing the real, original documents?
Heard of photoshop?

I'm not sure why you feel the need to use petty insults, but you crack on.
I won't be responding to any more of your posts.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

budski
I'm just going to add again for those that have reading comprehension problems, that the goal here is to get facts, either to prove or disprove the claims made by Annett and his "witnesses".
I really don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
I have made no assertions regarding either side of this, all I am looking for are facts.
This has implications if it were true (my position has always been that I am very sceptical about it, right from the OP ) but until it can be proven one way or another, everything is pointless speculation.
If people are happy to speculate pointlessly, confuse opinions with facts, use strawmen and ad hominem attacks, that's their prerogative, but don't expect me to engage in these petty forum games, or answer any posts of that nature.


However, logically, in searching for the facts, when the presenter of said "facts" has a history of dishonesty and fraudulent activities, anything presented by said individual, in searching for the facts, is to be called in question.


Here is the facts we have on the above story--single, perhaps mentally unstable person who cannot even get the location of the incident straight (was it Holland or France?), makes an outlandish and uncorroborated claim against a world famous person. That's it. That's all there is. There is no more. I don't see what other facts you want. Everything else (including some police raid on a church) is connected only by pure conjecture. That is not seeking the facts.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

budski

adjensen
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.


And you call that proof?
Without seeing the real, original documents?
Heard of photoshop?

The documents were on Annett's website! You're saying that someone messed with them, then hacked his website to post them? That makes zero sense.

If you don't want to keep defending him, then, as you have been asked a number of times, produce some evidence that Pope Benedict killed a kid that does not originate from the ITCCS.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
How odd, I have searched everywhere, high and low and I can find no other mention of this...Anywhere



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

budski
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


About ten seconds of research, Googling "Ken Annett fraud" and "ITCCS fraud" bring up multiple pages form multiple sites from multiple people talking about his highjacking and defrauding other people's causes from Occupy to Native Americans and outlandish accusations by him all over the spectrum. I'd say using him as a primary source when, as you put it, you are looking for facts, gives you information that is, logically, suspect.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:01 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…)


The signatures are similar but they are not identical! It looks so at first glance but on closer examination there are a more than a few discrepancies. When you sign documents for years your signature can becomes almost sub conscious, you do it almost without thinking, that is why they are so similar. Was the person that claimed these where the same a handwriting expert?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

NavyDoc

budski
I'm just going to add again for those that have reading comprehension problems, that the goal here is to get facts, either to prove or disprove the claims made by Annett and his "witnesses".
I really don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
I have made no assertions regarding either side of this, all I am looking for are facts.
This has implications if it were true (my position has always been that I am very sceptical about it, right from the OP ) but until it can be proven one way or another, everything is pointless speculation.
If people are happy to speculate pointlessly, confuse opinions with facts, use strawmen and ad hominem attacks, that's their prerogative, but don't expect me to engage in these petty forum games, or answer any posts of that nature.


However, logically, in searching for the facts, when the presenter of said "facts" has a history of dishonesty and fraudulent activities, anything presented by said individual, in searching for the facts, is to be called in question.


Here is the facts we have on the above story--single, perhaps mentally unstable person who cannot even get the location of the incident straight (was it Holland or France?), makes an outlandish and uncorroborated claim against a world famous person. That's it. That's all there is. There is no more. I don't see what other facts you want. Everything else (including some police raid on a church) is connected only by pure conjecture. That is not seeking the facts.


This is why I am sceptical about it. However, I haven't seen any proof that Annett "has a history" of anything apart from being attacked on blogs, which to me doesn't constitute proof.
If he had been arrested or tried for fraud then that would be a different story, but he hasn't as far as I know.

The second paragraph is also wrong - there are now two alleged witnesses, which makes checking into them more important.
The police didn't raid "some church" - you say that as though they did it on a whim.
Now whether they were heavy handed or not, they obviously felt strongly enough about evidence they had seen to not only raid a church during a visit by a cardinal, when it was packed full of bishops, they also felt that confiscating hundreds of documents and mobile phones was warranted.

This is why I am working to ascertain FACTS.

I don't know why people seem to think I want to exonerate the guy, if anything I'm on the other side of the fence.
Actually I do know - it's because they can't accept their bullplop has been dismissed as not being factual.

Opinion is not fact.
My personal opinion is that it's all a crock, but that doesn't make it a fact.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


What about the woman's testimony! Who cares about Annett. Ad hominem arguments as usual. Remember another person has come forward with similar testimony!!!



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

NavyDoc
About ten seconds of research, Googling "Ken Annett fraud" and "ITCCS fraud" bring up multiple pages form multiple sites from multiple people talking about his highjacking and defrauding other people's causes from Occupy to Native Americans and outlandish accusations by him all over the spectrum. I'd say using him as a primary source when, as you put it, you are looking for facts, gives you information that is, logically, suspect.


All that I've seen are hit pieces, blogs and other bull#.

Now if someone can point to a conviction for fraud, go right ahead.

It doesn't however, for one second change the central tenet here, which is that the story put forth by his "witnesses" need either proving or disproving, and all the source attacks in the world won't change that.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

DrunkYogi
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


What about the woman's testimony! Who cares about Annett. Ad hominem arguments as usual. Remember another person has come forward with similar testimony!!!


Because, let me say it over, and over again: a single person's uncorroborated testimony is utterly worthless. If she said, "This is where the body was buried," and the police dig there and there is, in fact, a body there--THEN you have something.

Fame, celebrity, notoriety all come with people making outlandish claims and a person so reviled by so many as a pope is bound to have many people perfectly willing to claim that he did anything. Thus, logically, testimony does not mean much without evidence. I notice you said "similar." LOL. Not "the same" but "similar." What do you think more likely, the pope did a ritualistic murder 30 years ago, or a "me too" crackpot surfaces once he heard the first one.

Occam's razor...
edit on 1-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

budski

NavyDoc
About ten seconds of research, Googling "Ken Annett fraud" and "ITCCS fraud" bring up multiple pages form multiple sites from multiple people talking about his highjacking and defrauding other people's causes from Occupy to Native Americans and outlandish accusations by him all over the spectrum. I'd say using him as a primary source when, as you put it, you are looking for facts, gives you information that is, logically, suspect.


All that I've seen are hit pieces, blogs and other bull#.

Now if someone can point to a conviction for fraud, go right ahead.

It doesn't however, for one second change the central tenet here, which is that the story put forth by his "witnesses" need either proving or disproving, and all the source attacks in the world won't change that.


That is not how evidence works. He presented an outlandish claim and thus the burden of proof is on him.

Prove to me that YOU didn't decapitate and eat a baby's head in 2002.


edit on 1-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

NavyDoc

budski

NavyDoc
About ten seconds of research, Googling "Ken Annett fraud" and "ITCCS fraud" bring up multiple pages form multiple sites from multiple people talking about his highjacking and defrauding other people's causes from Occupy to Native Americans and outlandish accusations by him all over the spectrum. I'd say using him as a primary source when, as you put it, you are looking for facts, gives you information that is, logically, suspect.


All that I've seen are hit pieces, blogs and other bull#.

Now if someone can point to a conviction for fraud, go right ahead.

It doesn't however, for one second change the central tenet here, which is that the story put forth by his "witnesses" need either proving or disproving, and all the source attacks in the world won't change that.


That is not how evidence works. He presented an outlandish claim and thus the burden of proof is on him.


And what I have been saying for 3 pages, which you are willfully ignoring, is that I am trying to find the facts about his claims and those of his "witnesses".

What is it about that you find so difficult to understand?

If you read back, I expressed the hope that some of the excellent researchers on this site would help validate independently the information we get.
Unfortunately, instead, all that is seen is the usual ad hominem rubbish combined with the usual strawmen of the intellectually dishonest.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

budski

NavyDoc
About ten seconds of research, Googling "Ken Annett fraud" and "ITCCS fraud" bring up multiple pages form multiple sites from multiple people talking about his highjacking and defrauding other people's causes from Occupy to Native Americans and outlandish accusations by him all over the spectrum. I'd say using him as a primary source when, as you put it, you are looking for facts, gives you information that is, logically, suspect.


All that I've seen are hit pieces, blogs and other bull#.

Now if someone can point to a conviction for fraud, go right ahead.

It doesn't however, for one second change the central tenet here, which is that the story put forth by his "witnesses" need either proving or disproving, and all the source attacks in the world won't change that.



In addition, if ALL YOU HAVE is a SINGLE source for a claim, then the veracity and reliability of said source is essential to understanding and validating the claim of that source. It does not "change" the central tenet, it IS the central tenant. If Weekly World News puts out a claim that you fathered batboy, there is not much value to debating the facts of whether you fathered batboy or not--we all recognize the source as full of # and go on with our lives. If National Geographic put a story about you fathering batboy and so does Scientific American, then we have a story to look at. See the logic of this?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

budski

NavyDoc

budski

NavyDoc
About ten seconds of research, Googling "Ken Annett fraud" and "ITCCS fraud" bring up multiple pages form multiple sites from multiple people talking about his highjacking and defrauding other people's causes from Occupy to Native Americans and outlandish accusations by him all over the spectrum. I'd say using him as a primary source when, as you put it, you are looking for facts, gives you information that is, logically, suspect.


All that I've seen are hit pieces, blogs and other bull#.

Now if someone can point to a conviction for fraud, go right ahead.

It doesn't however, for one second change the central tenet here, which is that the story put forth by his "witnesses" need either proving or disproving, and all the source attacks in the world won't change that.


That is not how evidence works. He presented an outlandish claim and thus the burden of proof is on him.


And what I have been saying for 3 pages, which you are willfully ignoring, is that I am trying to find the facts about his claims and those of his "witnesses".

What is it about that you find so difficult to understand?

If you read back, I expressed the hope that some of the excellent researchers on this site would help validate independently the information we get.
Unfortunately, instead, all that is seen is the usual ad hominem rubbish combined with the usual strawmen of the intellectually dishonest.


LOL. One points our the lack of credibility of the source and you start calling names? If you are going to go about intellectual dishonesty, you might want to peek in the mirror.

Several threads, multiple pages, and not a single "excellent researcher" coming forward with any independently verified anything or anything that does not circle 'round to ITCCS. That is what we all in the scientific community, "a clue"--catch one today.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

budski

NavyDoc

budski

NavyDoc
About ten seconds of research, Googling "Ken Annett fraud" and "ITCCS fraud" bring up multiple pages form multiple sites from multiple people talking about his highjacking and defrauding other people's causes from Occupy to Native Americans and outlandish accusations by him all over the spectrum. I'd say using him as a primary source when, as you put it, you are looking for facts, gives you information that is, logically, suspect.


All that I've seen are hit pieces, blogs and other bull#.

Now if someone can point to a conviction for fraud, go right ahead.

It doesn't however, for one second change the central tenet here, which is that the story put forth by his "witnesses" need either proving or disproving, and all the source attacks in the world won't change that.


That is not how evidence works. He presented an outlandish claim and thus the burden of proof is on him.


And what I have been saying for 3 pages, which you are willfully ignoring, is that I am trying to find the facts about his claims and those of his "witnesses".

What is it about that you find so difficult to understand?

If you read back, I expressed the hope that some of the excellent researchers on this site would help validate independently the information we get.
Unfortunately, instead, all that is seen is the usual ad hominem rubbish combined with the usual strawmen of the intellectually dishonest.


Besides, that's not what you've been saying for three pages. I said that extreme claims require extreme evidence of the claimant, you've said this story must be "proven or disproven" (your own words.) Those are both fundamentally different processes.

I find it ironic that you casually dismiss Annett's detractors as "people with a grudge" or "one guy doing a smearjob" or "no evidence that he actually committed fraud--was he convicted by a court" but give credence to him when he does exactly the same thing you accuse his detractors of doing. Why does a detractor of Annett get dismissed casually as having a grudge, but Annett and his grudge is given credence? Is it perhaps the accusations of Annett's detractors do not serve to bolster your preconceived belief system but HIS accusations do?
edit on 1-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 



The signatures are similar but they are not identical! It looks so at first glance but on closer examination there are a more than a few discrepancies.


In the comments section of that page, someone posted a GIF overlay of the two signatures, and they are exactly the same, no discrepancies, and that makes it pretty much 100% certain that it's a forgery.

Here's the GIF:




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Double tap
edit on 1-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



If you read back, I expressed the hope that some of the excellent researchers on this site would help validate independently the information we get.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing that anyone can do to prove or disprove something when there is absolutely no evidence to examine. You have one woman, who is clearly disturbed, making all sorts of outrageous claims, and that's it. If I find you a video of someone raving about meeting Hitler last week at the grocery, do I need to find evidence that Hitler is dead before you'll dismiss that person's claims as nonsense?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by budski
 



If you read back, I expressed the hope that some of the excellent researchers on this site would help validate independently the information we get.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing that anyone can do to prove or disprove something when there is absolutely no evidence to examine. You have one woman, who is clearly disturbed, making all sorts of outrageous claims, and that's it. If I find you a video of someone raving about meeting Hitler last week at the grocery, do I need to find evidence that Hitler is dead before you'll dismiss that person's claims as nonsense?


Yes there is.
Collect enough factual evidence, and make a compelling case one way or another.

All the evidence so far points to a fake, if you take the information from his website alone, it's not very plausible.
Further research of the people involved may give an indication as to their motives.
Two alleged eyewitnesses, but no other evidence doesn't make Annett right, but nor does it make him wrong.

The amount of blogs from people who have never blogged before or after is pretty suspicious.

Everything so far is circumstantial, for both sides.

Anyway, I'm off to do some work.
If anyone DOES want to help research this and is familiar with TOR based searches, let me know, and we'll take it from there.

Love the diagnosis by the way - where did you do your psychiatric training?
edit on 1/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join