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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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…)
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?