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: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

budski

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)


WRAMC, NNMC, and University of Michigan...and yes, she does have the mannerisms, look, and speaking patterns of someone with mental illness. Disclaimer: I eventually went into another field of medicine, but I have had quite a bit of training in that particular field.

Interesting ad hominem, from someone who was complaining about ad hominems before. We'll get into a discussion of "projection" at a later date.

I disagree with the comment "circumstantial on both sides." Nonsense. There is nothing circumstantial about "one has not proven their allegations." There is nothing circumstantial about ignoring an outlandish accusation. One does not even have to address an outlandish accusation. 100% of the burden is on the accuser in this case.
edit on 1-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I understand, and can appreciate, that the stream of objections about Anetts' person do take the form of a straw man attack. Probably because lacking anything else to review, it is the only fact within the story that can be researched.

Anetts' efforts to publicize the base cruelty with which the natives of Canada have been treated are clearly much appreciated. And frankly, had he focused on that aspect of his efforts, I would not have been inclined to examine subsequent claims beyond this issue with a skeptical eye... perhaps I am willing to accept that members of the institutions of Church and State do house bad people. But Making the claim that some of these highly visible political-class clergy have the time and inclination to torture and kill innocents seems unfathomable.

But in this case, if we eliminate the messenger, (not you Budski) the claim appears to be based upon an allegation from a person who claims to have witnessed the murder.

And this is what we are talking about here. A murder. A murder is a serious allegation, which demands a serious investigation.

I suppose the forthcoming research will show when and where this murder took place. Further, the actual legal enforcement authorities will be brought into play for an investigation.

Lacking that, I think this doesn't meet the "news" aspect of the thread... anymore than the allegation that the Royal family of England are reptilian shape-shifters who consume the flesh of children for kicks... that wouldn't meet the criteria for "news" either... regardless of the cult of personality surrounding the author of said rumor.

An allegation, in and of itself, doesn't seem to rise to the level of sitting on a headline on the BAN forum..., but, a robustly supported one might.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


That greg guy seems like a rightwing nutjob to me, after browsing around and listening to his TV appearances and reading his articles.

He claimed on august 30 that he was bringing it to the RCMP, if he is not a liar and did so, what happened? Did the RCMP think his claim of fraud held no water?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

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


I just had to come back and check that I'd actually seen this earlier.

What a very, very silly thing to post.

Tells me all I need to know.

For those that don't know, a "Double Tap" is a military term for 2 shots fired in quick succession.
It usually refers to two head shots, fired in around half a second.

A very peculiar and silly thing to post indeed, almost like a veiled threat.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I'm depending on others for the in depth research.
My "job" if you like, is to collate and take an overview.

I don't have the resources or the expertise to conduct the research.

What we know so far from ITCCS is that there are allegedly two witnesses now, which changes things if it's true that the second witness corroborates the first witness.
The ITCCS website also says that there will be a press conference this month, if memory serves.
It all seems a bit far fetched, but strange things happen, and the fact is that people with power abuse it - not all of them by any means, but it seems that there is a disproportionate incidence of abusers amongst those who seek out power over others.

My personal opinion is that I'd be surprised if this turned out to be true, but I suppose the possibility can't be ruled out.

Right, back to work - I only came back to check if I'd really seen that "Double Tap" post. So odd I didn't trust my memory.


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



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

budski

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


I just had to come back and check that I'd actually seen this earlier.

What a very, very silly thing to post.

Tells me all I need to know.

For those that don't know, a "Double Tap" is a military term for 2 shots fired in quick succession.
It usually refers to two head shots, fired in around half a second.

A very peculiar and silly thing to post indeed, almost like a veiled threat.



Talk about paranoid--in the vernacular of posting in threads, it means one entered the same post twice by accident, usually by impatiently hitting "reply" twice, and thus a "doubletap." Instead of leaving two identical posts, one erases one and then says "oops doubletap" or just "doubletap" in explanation. Of course the phrase has military origins, but the popularity of first person shooter videogames and action movies has brought it to the masses.

You must be afraid all of the time because there are many phrases in common usage that once had military origins. Do you fear for your life if your boss gives you a "deadline?"
Do you cower under your desk if someone says that there is a "blockbuster" opening at the corner?
Do you break out bandages if a friend asks you to "cut to the quick?"

LOL. That you actually think that a threat tells quite a bit about your underlying mindset and really explains a lot...thanks for the laugh.
edit on 1-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

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


ETA one of the 20 Urban Dictionary definitions for the phrase. Many of the other 20 are very funny but not COC compliant:


15. Double Tap
verb; the act of sending two questions via text message or email in an act of anxiety in a short interval of time; typically when trying to get someone's information, especially when awkwardly trying to meet up with someone.

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



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Perhaps the conversation is better served not talking 'to' each other, but instead 'to' the topic.

No disrespect intended.

Just a friendly suggestion to get to the bottom of the weight these allegations may or may not deserve.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Maxmars
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Perhaps the conversation is better served not talking 'to' each other, but instead 'to' the topic.

No disrespect intended.

Just a friendly suggestion to get to the bottom of the weight these allegations may or may not deserve.



Well, the difficulty is, that we have had multiple threads on what is, in essence, a Weekly World News headline about batboy. The only source has obvious credibility issues and there is no other evidence...at all. Its like seeking the bottom of an "Elvis had my baby" headline and it seems to me that the only reason anyone would give credence to it at this point is because it bolsters preconceived notions in certain individuals and had the subject been anyone else it would have been dismissed without a second thought.

It really deserves to be in the Hoax bin unless something really, really credible comes up.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by adjensen
 


That greg guy seems like a rightwing nutjob to me, after browsing around and listening to his TV appearances and reading his articles.

He claimed on august 30 that he was bringing it to the RCMP, if he is not a liar and did so, what happened? Did the RCMP think his claim of fraud held no water?

How would I know that? Why don't you email him and ask?

I make no claims as to the guy's character, I don't know him from a hole in the ground, but the page that I cited clearly shows that Annett forged that dead woman's signature. Look at the GIF that I posted on the previous page of this thread -- it is the exactly same signature, and that makes forgery pretty much a open and shut case.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I wonder why Annett was saying that this incident happened in 2010 back in July, and now he's saying that it happened in 1987, and how this Toos Nijenhuis goes from being a four year old ritual rape victim in the 1960s to witnessing Pope Benedict killing a kid three years ago.

Here's Annett in July:


On May 8, 2013 in Holland, Kevin Annett interviewed Toos Nijenhuis, a psychotherapist who was the victim of ritualized torture similar to the kind Hill explained in “Twenty-Two Faces.” Ms. Nijenhuis discussed her victimization in an international trafficking network involving prominent politicians and Catholic Cardinals during the 1960′s, including her knowledge of a child sacrificial ceremony that took place in rural Holland in 2010 (Source)

And here he is in October:


The agreement came after a new eyewitness confirmed the involvement of Ratzinger in a ritual child sacrifice in Holland in August of 1987.

“I saw Joseph Ratzinger murder a little girl at a French chateau in the fall of 1987″ stated the witness, who was a regular participant in the cult ritual torture and killing of children. (Source)

So, which is it? 1987 or 2010? For that matter, which is it, Holland or France? The second, conveniently unnamed, witness says both.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


It could have just as easily been that greg altered the letter he put up to discredit. The source he sited as proof of this nell who gave him the letter leads to paganmediabytes, a website for sale unfortunately. A whois lookup doesn't help any, all information on owner seems to be omitted. So really, not much to go on there.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

SomeOneWicked
Thank you for posting this, OP!

The idea that the Papacy, and the Vatican itself is linked to Satanism and other forms of occultism is nothing new at all. Much of this cavorts under the "guise" of organized religion.

And with regards to the source, and the Wikipedia page about it, well I take this a huge dose of skepticism. Wikipedia is a publicly moderated and information funded source. It could very well be someone who has a beef against the author of the site who authored this piece.

IMHO, Wikipedia is to be lightly chewed, not digested.

And on the other hand, the author and intent of the original article is slightly suspect as well. However, I simply observe the information and retain it. Reading this article that the OP posted doesn't surprise me one bit. It is yet another log on the fire. But I'm not quite ready to throw a lit match just yet.


I'm with you here.

The Vatican has an evil, nasty history, and a history that is still going on today. This includes human/drug/gun trafficking, slavery, rape, prostitution, pedophilia...

Now when it comes to the satanism and ritual torture and murder, this is where people close all routes of thought or possibility of belief sometimes. Iv'e discussed the evil's of the Vatican to friends many times, and they also see that this institution seems to constantly harbor and protect pedo's and rapists in their elite priesthood. They also don't discount the organized drug and slave running they have been caught red handed in. But the satanism and the ritual torture and murder throws them off, and that's when they don't want to hear any more.

The satanists infiltrated and kicked the devout Catholics out at the reformation; that's when Catholicism, with it's own separate, made up rules and doctrines, became what it is today. That and all the evil they commit. This is the time when satanism accusations were being tossed from left and right by both members and outsiders of the Vatican. To say that satanism and ritual torture and murder in the Vatican is non-existent is to say that ALL of people who have been asserting this since the reformation in 1648, which amounts to ALOT of people, are either lying, delusional, or sour from the change up on catholic doctrine.

I have heard of these tribunals that have warrants for the pope arrest; the first time i saw it here, it thought "holy crap, the Italian government is really going to jail him? Nice!" But the fact is this will never happen. Ever. The fact that the pope can make a law saying that all anyone who discloses Vatican affairs or crimes to the public will be jailed, means that these evil acts are organized, and carried out for whatever reason by the higher ups. Any underling who feels froggy will be squashed.

You don't have to believe Satan, God, or demons exist. That's up to you. But the fact of the matter is there is too much evidence to support organized satanism within the Vatican, and the ruling institutions of the world. Irrespective of this single guys blog, accusations, or credibility, which probably is questionable, i'm going to say Ratzinger did partake in some ritual murder.

Sorry if i am seen as biased, but this is not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th... 200th, time of something like this popping up in the Vatican's history.
edit on 1-11-2013 by bigman88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bigman88
 


It's a hard pill to swallow, to think fellow humans can be so diabolical. People don't want to hear them kinds of things at all. You get the same reaction when talking about any kind of human trafficking in my experience. It is a real problem, with all the people that seemingly vanish without a trace, never to be heard from again, including children. And that is in our "developed" countries, imagine how many vanish that we never even hear about in "third world" countries where the pickins is really easy.....

On a side note, imagine if the whole plan behind demonizing contraception in those "third world" countries was to make even more potential victims for the diabolical higher-ups. Sickening thought.
edit on Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:42:31 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Maxmars
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Perhaps the conversation is better served not talking 'to' each other, but instead 'to' the topic.

No disrespect intended.

Just a friendly suggestion to get to the bottom of the weight these allegations may or may not deserve.



Well, the difficulty is, that we have had multiple threads on what is, in essence, a Weekly World News headline about batboy. The only source has obvious credibility issues and there is no other evidence...at all. Its like seeking the bottom of an "Elvis had my baby" headline and it seems to me that the only reason anyone would give credence to it at this point is because it bolsters preconceived notions in certain individuals and had the subject been anyone else it would have been dismissed without a second thought.

It really deserves to be in the Hoax bin unless something really, really credible comes up.



If you'd looked in the recent hoax thread you'd see that is why I am involved in investigating this story, because I stated that if it turned out to be a hoax, then that's where it belonged.

The problem is you insist on playing the poster rather than the topic, ignoring everything I have said doubting the authenticity of it.

The bottom line is you are rather intent on seeming "clever" rather than addressing the issues at hand.

The message is more important than the messenger, and it's fairly typical of posters who are over enamoured of what they think of as their superior intelligence to be unable address issues without arguing over every little semantic incongruity.
In other words, certain people are more interested in arguing for the sake of it than looking at an issue and discussing it, particularly when it has been repeatedly stated that research is ongoing and is unlikely to be complete soon.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bigman88
 


I don't mean to be glib here, but you'll probably find that with most religions one way or another.

However, I have never been a fan of the upper hierarchy of the RCC, and the hypocrisy that seems to infest it.

It's a shame, because at the lower levels there are a lot of good people, who do good work and bring comfort to millions.
At the same time, they probably have more than their fair share of, shall we say, not very nice people, and this goes back to people who seek power solely in order to abuse it.
However, that is a rather simplistic view as their are many other reasons why a minority become abusers.
My belief is that the unnatural rule regarding celibacy probably plays quite a big role.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:50 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.
of the matter.


It has more evidence attached to it than Annett's bogus attention seeking, and you have no bother with that?? Why the double standard?!



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

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.
of the matter.


It has more evidence attached to it than Annett's bogus attention seeking, and you have no bother with that?? Why the double standard?!


That's the over righteous entirely biased double standard isn't it?
'Witnesses' against Annett are totally inadmissible, but, hey, anything Annett puts on offer is worth a look?



No, there's certainly no flaw in reasoning occurring here.





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



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


Insanity can be very convincing, at times. When you believe something that strongly? Of course, you're not going to come across as insincere.

Where is the evidence? Extra ordinary claims (this would seem to qualify...) require extra ordinary proofs.

Anyone?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


A minority? Maybe. Could be. Protected? Organized? Kept in secrecy? Definitely.

We don't know the percentage of the priesthood that partakes in this evil; just look at how the Vatican heads block any of this form coming out. The few publicized on the news does not mean they are the only ones, and the fact that TOO many have come out and said that there are MANY who practice this daily means that it might be much more than a few.

But i do agree with you, it does seem to be the upper echelon who run this evil satanic cult; it's always the underlings who are the ones spilling the beans on this.

But celibacy? I may not know anything about that lifestyle, but if a member of the priesthood was driven towards breaking this vow, i would say they are more likely to head out into the city and grab a ho for a few bucks or bag a nice chick. Raping/torturing women and young boys, in an organized group ritual on behalf of satan, or spontaneously by themselves, is the actions of a disturbed, evil, depraved soul.

Now you mean to tell me most to all Catholic priests sworn to celibacy will not be able to resist the urge to rape/ torture women and little kids?

And hen when they get caught, the top Catholic institutions do everything in their power to back up and protect them? Naw...



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

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.
of the matter.


It has more evidence attached to it than Annett's bogus attention seeking, and you have no bother with that?? Why the double standard?!


I haven't stated at any time that I think Annetts "proof" is anything.
I haven't accepted it, and I have constantly questioned it.
I even put the word "witnesses" in quotation marks throughout the thread as an indication of my doubt.

But yeah, forget all that and just lie about what I've posted.

Y'know, just because I treat it all equally rather than taking a side, some automatically assume that means I'm against them, so they post lies about what I've said, which incidentally is against the T&C.

I've seen no real proof from either side.

What I AM doing, is finding proof, or at least as much as possible, rather than posting "Look, it's a blog on the internet that says the same thing as another blog, therefore it must be true."

You guys are really funny

edit on 2/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join