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: 5
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

seagull
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?


We're looking.

All I know right now is that nothing has been found in the media regarding the first witnesses mental state, but of course that means nothing.


As a consideration, people have said that the woman is "clearly disturbed" after watching the video, but surely, if someone was recounting that kind of horror they'd appear disturbed anyway.
I would be a lot more sceptical about someone who remained calm whilst allegedly re-living a horrible experience.

A quick disclaimer for the terminally obtuse - This does not mean I think she's telling the truth, it's just something to consider.

ETA: There's supposed to be a press conference this month. I don't expect any earth shattering revelations.

If this is all a hoax, then it's a very clever one - there is just enough doubt involved, even though it's not very plausible. The second witness is the key here, if they exist.
edit on 2/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

budski

.....

If this is all a hoax, then it's a very clever one - there is just enough doubt involved, even though it's not very plausible. The second witness is the key here, if they exist.


If I may take the liberty of adding a comment to that.

Should this turn out to be a deliberate deception, or misrepresentation of fact (out of politeness and clinical curiosity, I am prepared to delay that personal judgement,) then it also marks a potential deliberate blow to future credibility and strength of the case he brought to the world's attention regarding the situation which so many native families have suffered in the recent past in Canada.

Imagine what will be said in the time of our grandchildren about the grave unjust treatment of the Native Americans there; when juxtaposed to the allegation he brought against the Catholic Church which later turned out egregiously wrong.

Naturally, I am inclined to disbelieve the witness. But times have been more and more interesting recently; so I am expecting that even the effort to propagate such a story expresses someone's intention..., and I am interested in the intention.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I see no reason to think this is true, claims are not evidence of an event.
It is the people that make the claim that have the burden of proof and it is reasonable for skeptics to be skeptical till that burden is met.

By the way OP, witness testimony is the worst form of evidence statisically. so unless these people have physical evidence to back up their claims I'd call this a hoax and slander of an old man.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 




The Papacy retaliates with global “black ops” attacks against ITCCS


LOL.. the ITCCS is a one-man blog. The "common law court" is .. well .. it's just one person.

rationalwiki.org...

I thought the bit about Canadian First Nations hilarious.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


Harriett Nahanee's signature looks to me to be identical on both these pages, not just similar. I would bet that one was a photocopy of another, I have seen this before. There are slight differences that could be from the paper and/or printer, but each little nuance and space looks to match. So one - or both - are not original signatures, what does this mean? I don't know - or really care. Even if Mr. Annett is all these things that are said about him, it does not mean what he speaks (repeats) about abuse is a lie. The point is about the message, not the messenger.

I have seen other people who latch on and take up with anyone with a cause yet they themselves are hollow, dysfunctional people - this does not mean what they spout is all bogus. The abuse is real. The testimonies are out there. As for witnesses to this recent claim, who would expect there to be numerous witnesses to such a thing?!? Just because there aren't a bunch of witnesses does NOT make the claim untrue.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I don't find anything hilarious about the Canadian First Nations abuse or misrepresentations. Anyone privileged enough to have been invited into their world for even a peek would instantly understand what has been taken from them by 'the white people'.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

wishes
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I don't find anything hilarious about the Canadian First Nations abuse or misrepresentations. Anyone privileged enough to have been invited into their world for even a peek would instantly understand what has been taken from them by 'the white people'.



I agree wishes! And even if the current claims are found to be fraudulent it would in no way affect the situation regarding the CFS abuse. People must remember that Annette is putting forward the claims of two people. They are not his claims!



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



I've seen no real proof from either side.

What part of "can't prove a negative" are you missing? One can't refute evidence that doesn't exist.

Annett is making outlandish claims, and by your own admission, there is no evidence for those claims, so why are you still demanding that people bring you proof that it didn't happen?

One person says that Benedict killed a kid in Holland in 2010, the other one says that he did it in Holland or France in 1987. What are we supposed to do, present an hour by hour accounting of where Benedict was for two years in order to show that he didn't sneak off to the woods in Holland (or France) to murder some kid?

I can't think of any other way to give you this evidence that you demand, and that's obviously not going to be forthcoming.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
The First people have disowned Annett - one of the reasons at that link is:


That members of The Circle of Justice have left the Collective and given as their reason, problems with what they considered to be opportunism, self-promotion, duplicity and disruptions on your part;


The first nation's child abuse problem is not the issue here - Annett is

The idea that the Fist Nations issue somehow shows Annett in a good light is nonsense - it shows exactly the opposite - - even when he latched onto a real problem he was still dishonest, disruptive and selfish, out for no-one but himself and misrepresenting even real issues in order to get whatever he can from them.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul
The First people have disowned Annett - one of the reasons at that link is:


That members of The Circle of Justice have left the Collective and given as their reason, problems with what they considered to be opportunism, self-promotion, duplicity and disruptions on your part;


The first nation's child abuse problem is not the issue here - Annett is

The idea that the Fist Nations issue somehow shows Annett in a good light is nonsense - it shows exactly the opposite - - even when he latched onto a real problem he was still dishonest, disruptive and selfish, out for no-one but himself and misrepresenting even real issues in order to get whatever he can from them.


Annett is only the messenger! Shoot him if you will. But let's look into the message.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

budski
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)


Give me your evidence that they are not. You will find you can't I think. Your alleged research is a little pathetic is it not? Please, prove me wrong. But you can't. It's another ITCCS case with no facts, a lot of smoke and several deluded people believing what they want to believe on the net.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


There is no such thing as the international common law court. Its a lie. Common law systems are derived from English law and only exists in countries that had such influences, ie British colonies. Italian law like most of Europe is based on the codified structure of Roman law.

As the very first sentence of the article is based on a lie or by a person who has no understanding of how different legal systems actually operate, I doubt the rest of the article is accurate.
edit on 4-11-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)


(post by Carreau removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
(post by damwel removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

budski

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.


When you have an unsubstantiated claim by a person who already has a questionable reputation and a "witness" who changes the story repeatedly, what more is there to research? You really have come to the end absent any brand new revelations and thus it honestly seems like you are trying to find something to fit a preconceived paradigm rather than simply "looking for the truth" in spite of multiple protestations. There is nothing to research and discuss. It is a fraud.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 



There is a witness who claims to have seen Drunkyogi rape a poodle in 2001. The ICOCR has investigated this and found it to be true. ICOCR is the International Court Of Canine Raping and is to be taken very seriously.

Don't forget that the ICOCR issued an arrest warrant for the culprit and demanded that he appear in the International Common Law Court to defend himself of these charges. Since he did not appear, he is clearly admitting guilt in this matter. All citizens should be aware of this conviction and are authorized by the ICOCR to arrest him on sight, and to confiscate any and all assets of the criminal.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Maxmars

budski

.....

If this is all a hoax, then it's a very clever one - there is just enough doubt involved, even though it's not very plausible. The second witness is the key here, if they exist.


If I may take the liberty of adding a comment to that.

Should this turn out to be a deliberate deception, or misrepresentation of fact (out of politeness and clinical curiosity, I am prepared to delay that personal judgement,) then it also marks a potential deliberate blow to future credibility and strength of the case he brought to the world's attention regarding the situation which so many native families have suffered in the recent past in Canada.

Imagine what will be said in the time of our grandchildren about the grave unjust treatment of the Native Americans there; when juxtaposed to the allegation he brought against the Catholic Church which later turned out egregiously wrong.

Naturally, I am inclined to disbelieve the witness. But times have been more and more interesting recently; so I am expecting that even the effort to propagate such a story expresses someone's intention..., and I am interested in the intention.



Nothing found so far points to a deliberate attempt to deceive, but again that means very little.
If the research was mine I'd post it, but it's not and I don't have permission to.
Another consideration is the Quo Bono aspect of all this, and it's very difficult to see how somebody could benefit themselves by lying about something which (as you said) would damage their credibility and cast doubt on work they have done in the past.

There's little doubt that, at best, Annett is a bit of an awkward character, prone to doing his own thing and treating what he see's as "the rules" with something approaching contempt.

However, that doesn't undermine the veracity of his claims in and of itself. and this constant barrage (not you) of "shooting the messenger" doesn't undermine it either.

The bottom line is that we'll know more when he releases his next "installment" of this saga.




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join