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.
angelchemuel
That's OK then, you've read the link, made up your mind, and that's perfectly fine.
angelchemuel
I didn't provide the link to enter into a debate with anyone.
LiveForever8
reply to post by angelchemuel
angelchemuel
That's OK then, you've read the link, made up your mind, and that's perfectly fine.
Not true. I haven't made up my mind, hence why I asked you a question so that I might better understand the significance of the evidence you presented.
angelchemuel
I didn't provide the link to enter into a debate with anyone.
You're posting information on a discussion forum and so must be prepared to face the scrutiny of fellow members. Heaven forbid you might have to converse with fellow humans!
I'm just as interested in getting to the bottom of this potential debacle as you are.
NoRulesAllowed
For me,
people who claim (and/or BELIEVE) such hideous things are either
* mentally challenged (or have some actual mental illness going on)
or
* they have a deeper, more sinister agenda WHY they spread such things
Any other theory I can "logically" not follow since it would not in my head why someone could *seriously* believe in such theories and people. But this is not only in regards to Icke but also a majority of the current conspiracy theories but also religious craziness like people who claim the rapture is coming and then actually gather supporters.
The answer, I guess, is simply that mankind is irrational and basically nuts (to various extents)...leading to that such people are even taken seriously or can even sustain with their theories in public.
By the way....re "Ancient Alien Theory"...please do not forget this theory started way back in the 70s and how the SHOW presents it should not matter. (90% on TV is crap anyway). But when the AA theory started out in the 70s with EvD as it's "father", he at least made attempts to provide EVIDENCE, whether some/a lot of it was disproven later on or not, doesn't matter. At least he asked questions and had things to show WHY such a theory could be feasible.
This is significantly different to those types of people and theorists or prophets who claim things WITHOUT showing one single bit of evidence. EvD did NOT go public and said that Cheezus or DOG appeared to him in dreams and "told him" about the Ancient Aliens..at least he had things to show for WHY he developed the theories.
angelchemuel
Starting from post #2095 there is some interesting stuff about the financial set up of TPV.
My point being for posting this is to show that if DI can blatantly lie to his supporters about, in all practical and legal sense, about how and why their good donations are being spent....then how can he be trusted with all the other things he talks about? Which takes us full circle back to the OP.
Anyway, here's the link if anybody is in the remotest bit interest in weighing up truth from fiction....
sanctumzone.co.uk...
Rainbows
Jane
My point being for posting this is to show that if DI can blatantly lie to his supporters about, in all practical and legal sense, about how and why their good donations are being spent....then how can he be trusted with all the other things he talks about? Which takes us full circle back to the OP.
SilvaRizla
Icke has been putting it over as a not-for-profit organisation, which I believe he is doing to skirt round a legal loophole. Why not say non-profit like most people?
SilvaRizla
Because it is very probable that they're going to turn a real profit.
SilvaRizla
They're set up to not have to declare detailed accounts (all of this stuff is in that link) and they're also set up so that not shares are bought and sold without the directors say so. There is NO CHANCE of transparency. You can't become the majority shareholder like you can with a Plc who's tradings are all transparent public knowledge. TPV is 100% private. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
SilvaRizla
That a not for profit organisation is actually a private profitable business and not a charity that can be controlled by the very people who put the money in? ie The donators/would-be shareholders.
How many other private ltd companies do you know that have started on a publicly donated purse?
projectbane
amazing
Bassago
reply to post by projectbane
Icke is great entertainment. Whether he believes or not shouldn't effect you, what do you care what he says?
Oh and the queen is a definite reptile.
hmmm now that's a tantalizing reptilian! My favorite is the news reporter who's eyes turn white.
I think that is a bloodshot eye or a eye problem she had.
I have not seen the one with the reporter. Can you direct me to it?
Not-for-profit is a perfectly acceptable title, it means exactly the same as non-profit.
There is nothing wrong with nonprofit organisations making a profit, afterall, they cant depend on the generosity of donations and financiers forever. Any surplus revenues must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion, or to achieve it's goals. Where is the proof that this isn't happening at TPV?
Of course they have to declare accounts, they just don't have to show them to you. Although Icke has stated that he will share the full accounts at the end of the financial year so he can't have anything to hide, surely?
As for the shareholding issue...I can understand why he has avoided going down that route. The second you allow people to buy shares you become a target, you stop being an organisation and start being a commodity.
This isn't some sort of free-for-all, all you can eat buffet. I couldn't donate £5 and then expect to walk into their offices and start giving directing advice or declare a board meeting be held.
You are making this all sound a lot more sinister than it actually is, really.
However, I would like to ask Mr Icke why TPV was not set up as a private company limited by guarantee which is an alternative type of corporation used primarily for non-profit organisations that require legal personality. That, it seems, would have been the more obvious solution.
amazing
projectbane
amazing
Bassago
reply to post by projectbane
Icke is great entertainment. Whether he believes or not shouldn't effect you, what do you care what he says?
Oh and the queen is a definite reptile.
hmmm now that's a tantalizing reptilian! My favorite is the news reporter who's eyes turn white.
I think that is a bloodshot eye or a eye problem she had.
I have not seen the one with the reporter. Can you direct me to it?
My pleasure! I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation but...this is my favorite video.
www.youtube.com...
SilvaRizla
You may want to actually do some research before you assert something. The IRS makes a crucial distinction (so I assume HMRC do too) Not-for-profit is in relation to an activity, and nonprofit is in relation to an organisation.
SilvaRizla
You sound like I did some weeks ago.
Yes this is correct, but it is also possible that the organisation can indeed be run for profit and has been set up as such. In light of other underhanded activities that have come to light, what's to suggest this isn't the case? It seems very probable to me.
SilvaRizla
They key word in my sentence was "detailed". I did not suggest no accounts need to be filed. You haven't done any further reading whatsoever, have you? If you had you would be able to understand my point.
SilvaRizla
As for being a target or commodity, so what? Its about not wanting to hand over control and allow people to see your inner workings.
SilvaRizla
That is not what I've suggested. Please do go and read the information that people keep providing and stop trying to twist my words. I'm talking in broader perspectives of how the company has been set up.
SilvaRizla
Bloody hell, for a site full of truth seekers you lot don't do much truth seeking do you?
alienreality
All of these people that are against the status quo, do have some things of value, like another poster said, it is still worth listening to it all and take what's good, and toss out what is bad..
Ickes does have very accurate info on the Obama administration and the main people behind Obama, and it exposes these people in vivid detail, all can be separately verified.
I have never bothered to worry much about the reptilian junk, and even if it was actually true, what could anyone do about it? It would take more than anti venom to deal with I'm sure..