Freemasons killed Stanley Kubrick!
Peter
Why would they do that? Because he exposed their secrets.
Kubrick's swan song, Eyes Wide Shut, reveals kinky sex-magick and suspicious
slayings that, in retrospect, hardly seem like Tom Cruise blockbuster
material. Conspiracy rumors argue the film earned Kubrick his death
certificate: Considering his career of anti-authoritarian auteurship, it may
be a lifetime achievement award.
If anyone deserved to be whacked by The Man, it was Kubrick. Oliver Stone
gets the "conspiracy" smear for his flick about the death of John-John's
daddy, but it's Kubrick who was the true cinematic expositor of the secret
and suppressed. It's incredible he was allowed to keep a camera.
--
Some also allege Kubrick filmed NASA's faked "moon landings" and wrote the
"script" for the Apollo 13 disaster/hoax. This is unlikely -- not because
the theory is far-fetched, but because the camera work on the moon landing
lacked Kubrick's unique style.
Eyes Wide Shut, a sexual thriller about the decadent underbelly of the rich
and powerful, has a creepiness that chills almost as much as his 1980 work
The Shining. The film's highlight (besides showing Nicole Kidman naked) is a
masked-ball orgy into which Cruise's character sneaks, barely evading
punishment when his uninvited entry is discovered. What follows is an
Antonioni-esque Blow-Up mystery: Are the death and the disappearance that
follow cabalistic revenge killings? Or are they merely two unrelated events
that randomly follow his attempted deception? Is it coincidence or
conspiracy? The film presents no definite proof, but implies the events are
indeed linked.
In light of Kubrick's death, watching a film in which two likely murders are
explained away without investigation is disturbing. Kubrick warns that
anyone who reveals upper-crust secrets can be snuffed without punishment.
Was he predicting (and warning of) his own farewell?
Hey, they wouldn't write it if it wasn't true.
Hammond of Texas
> Freemasons killed Stanley Kubrick!
>
> Why would they do that? Because he exposed their secrets.
> Kubrick's swan song, Eyes Wide Shut, reveals kinky sex-magick and suspicious
Ah, the old "Hollywood fiction is proof of my k00k conspiracy theory"
argument. I must say that this is a refreshing break from the recent
tedium. You have, of course, some solid proof of this startling
assertion. Yes?
JB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"Hammond of Texas" <spammer...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1be58c17c...@pdx.news.speakeasy.net...
Of course, it wouldn't have been his "swan song" if we hadn't killed
him right afterwards. In fact, people would probably have ignored it
completely. Gosh, I wonder if that was a bit of an own goal in
hindsight!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQXv7Rfpxh1uHmCDzEQJF7gCg1NnLiSqgb/9hpBqu2LvGknfqhXAAoPey
+f8qcGJNZflMk2Ley4HM8fSX
=8lSk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FilmNoir
"Peter" <ao...@innernet.net> wrote in message
news:clgfq...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Very fascinating. I have thought about this in this way for some time now. I
think you are on to something here.
Thanks for the info
Daryl
>
>
>
FilmNoir
"Hammond of Texas" <spammer...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1be58c17c...@pdx.news.speakeasy.net...
Oh come on Hammond. You spread this 'k00k' stuff just way too much now. it
seems that anything you disagree with is a k00k conspiracy theory. If you
didn't say it, it must not be true.
Take Care
Daryl
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > Ah, the old "Hollywood fiction is proof of my k00k conspiracy theory"
> > argument. I must say that this is a refreshing break from the recent
> > tedium. You have, of course, some solid proof of this startling
> > assertion. Yes?
>
>
>
> Oh come on Hammond. You spread this 'k00k' stuff just way too much now. it
> seems that anything you disagree with is a k00k conspiracy theory. If you
> didn't say it, it must not be true.
Rubbish. I disagree with many people. The only ones who EVER get the
k00k label from me appear in usenet, and only then upon their having
demonstrated their inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, sound
logic from wild speculation, fact from innuendo, etc.
FilmNoir
So then any web site that sheads a negative light upon Freemasonry gets the
kOOk label? are there any web sites you like?
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > Oh come on Hammond. You spread this 'k00k' stuff just way too much now.
> it
> > > seems that anything you disagree with is a k00k conspiracy theory. If
> you
> > > didn't say it, it must not be true.
> >
> > Rubbish. I disagree with many people. The only ones who EVER get the
> > k00k label from me appear in usenet, and only then upon their having
> > demonstrated their inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, sound
> > logic from wild speculation, fact from innuendo, etc.
>
> So then any web site that sheads a negative light upon Freemasonry gets the
> kOOk label?
DO try to pay attention...
Again,
> > ..and only then upon their having
> > demonstrated their inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, sound
> > logic from wild speculation, fact from innuendo, etc.
> are there any web sites you like?
Sure. Those that make articulate and well-reasoned arguments are always
welcome. That's difficult for the anti-Mason's to achieve be cause their
arguments are, in my experience, invariably based on incomplete or
inaccurate information, or on badly flawed logic. Usually, there's a bit
of both.
Here's an example of a web site that I like:
FilmNoir
> In article <1Anfd.10097$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> film...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> > > > Oh come on Hammond. You spread this 'k00k' stuff just way too much
now.
> > it
> > > > seems that anything you disagree with is a k00k conspiracy theory.
If
> > you
> > > > didn't say it, it must not be true.
> > >
> > > Rubbish. I disagree with many people. The only ones who EVER get the
> > > k00k label from me appear in usenet, and only then upon their having
> > > demonstrated their inability to distinguish fantasy from reality,
sound
> > > logic from wild speculation, fact from innuendo, etc.
> >
> > So then any web site that sheads a negative light upon Freemasonry gets
the
> > kOOk label?
>
> DO try to pay attention...
Just asking so I can know what you believe, that is all. I'm paying
attention.
>
> Again,
> > > ..and only then upon their having
> > > demonstrated their inability to distinguish fantasy from reality,
sound
> > > logic from wild speculation, fact from innuendo, etc.
>
>
> > are there any web sites you like?
>
> Sure. Those that make articulate and well-reasoned arguments are always
> welcome. That's difficult for the anti-Mason's to achieve be cause their
> arguments are, in my experience, invariably based on incomplete or
> inaccurate information, or on badly flawed logic. Usually, there's a bit
> of both.
That is reasonable enough - Are there then any web sites that take an
opposing view to freemasonry that you consider at least fari and reasonable
in their anti-Mason views? thanks
>
> Here's an example of a web site that I like:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Masonry/
This looks like a good one. I will be reading over it thanks.
FilmNoir
"Peter" wrote:
> Freemasons killed Stanley Kubrick!
I wouldn't say it was the Freemasons. It would be more like the high
Illuminati elite. The Freemasons are just at one of the levels of the
pyramid.
>
> Why would they do that? Because he exposed their secrets.
> Kubrick's swan song, Eyes Wide Shut, reveals kinky sex-magick and
suspicious
> slayings that, in retrospect, hardly seem like Tom Cruise blockbuster
> material. Conspiracy rumors argue the film earned Kubrick his death
> certificate: Considering his career of anti-authoritarian auteurship, it
may
> be a lifetime achievement award.
Yes this is very true. Kubrick was the greatest filmmaker of them all. His
films always went farther and deeper then the other fluff out there. He was
always very far ahead of his generation, and he never made a film that
didn't have far reaching significance. That is why I agree you on this on.
"Eyes Wide Shut" is not only a masterpiece of filmmaking, it did revel
something far beyond in scope then what is on the surface.
>
> If anyone deserved to be whacked by The Man, it was Kubrick. Oliver Stone
> gets the "conspiracy" smear for his flick about the death of John-John's
> daddy, but it's Kubrick who was the true cinematic expositor of the secret
> and suppressed. It's incredible he was allowed to keep a camera.
It's incredible that this film "Eyes Wide Shut" even got released! I think
it only got realesed because of Kubricks genius, and the fact that the film
is so deep that one can see the film very easly in different ways.
Interesting title too isn't it... "Eyes Wide Shut" ... The All-Seeing Eye...
> --
> Some also allege Kubrick filmed NASA's faked "moon landings" and wrote the
> "script" for the Apollo 13 disaster/hoax. This is unlikely -- not because
> the theory is far-fetched, but because the camera work on the moon landing
> lacked Kubrick's unique style.
Hahaha - Yes you are right! Kubrick would never have filmed anything so bad
looking as the NASA Moon footage.
>
> Eyes Wide Shut, a sexual thriller about the decadent underbelly of the
rich
> and powerful, has a creepiness that chills almost as much as his 1980 work
> The Shining. The film's highlight (besides showing Nicole Kidman naked) is
a
> masked-ball orgy into which Cruise's character sneaks, barely evading
> punishment when his uninvited entry is discovered. What follows is an
> Antonioni-esque Blow-Up mystery: Are the death and the disappearance that
> follow cabalistic revenge killings? Or are they merely two unrelated
events
> that randomly follow his attempted deception? Is it coincidence or
> conspiracy? The film presents no definite proof, but implies the events
are
> indeed linked.
Also in "Eyes Wide Shut" the films last two words are very significant as
to everything the viewer has just been brought thru. Those two last words
pretty much represent just about show how one should approach the whole
Illuminati conspiracy. Because if you don't follow the advice of those two
last words then you will die. Nicole saved Tom's life at the end of the film
with those two last words, but Kubrick knew that is was all over for
himself. Kubrick, one of the great men.
>
> In light of Kubrick's death, watching a film in which two likely murders
are
> explained away without investigation is disturbing. Kubrick warns that
> anyone who reveals upper-crust secrets can be snuffed without punishment.
> Was he predicting (and warning of) his own farewell?
> Hey, they wouldn't write it if it wasn't true.
Yes he must have known what he was doing for sure when he made "Eyes Wide
Shut" he knew he was going to be killed for it no doubt.
Daryl
FilmNoir
film. Look at the all-seeing eye coming from Nicole Kidman. It's right there
in the center of the DVD cover. just that one eye. looking at you. And now
look at the pyramid shaped nose of Tom Cruse. (or rather Triangular) There
you have the Masonic Eye and the Masonic triangle, right on the cover of the
DVD of "Eyes Wide Shut".
FilmNoir
Another aspect of the all-seeing eye in regards to this great Kubrick film
"Eyes Wide Shut" are the lips, as they are coming together in a kiss. They
are bringing together the Illuminati All-Seeing Eye and the Masonic Triangle
all in one graphic image and in one film. Representing the fact that the
Illuminati All- Seeing Eye and the Masonic Triangle are all one and the
same, They have come together in one big Freemasonic/Illuminati symbol. And
Stanley Kubrick knew this, and died for this truth.
FilmNoir
...
In reference to the Cover of the DVD "Eyes Wide Shut" It's of great interest
to notice also, that there is a Triangular shape right under Nicole's chin.
With nothing but a black void as a background, representing that the
All-Seeing Eye is shut. as the Title of the film suggests. And under the
mouth too. meaning the mouth will not talk about it. And as you can see and
notice the so-called arm of Tom Cruse is something very strange looking. It
does not look like any thing that is even remotely attached to him or even
apart of his body. There is something very alien about the image. It almost
looks like an Alien when you turn the cover on it's side and look at it. The
color displacment also is also very much in effect. with that very
otherworldly image of the Alien face on it's side. Or there is the
possibility that could be a Skull, it looks like that to. Maybe a reference
to the skull and bones society? I don't know, but it is all there, if you
look.
Larry
> That is reasonable enough - Are there then any web sites that take an
> opposing view to freemasonry that you consider at least fari and reasonable
> in their anti-Mason views? thanks
I have not found any that oppose Masonry with fairness or reason. It
is, I think, because of prejudiced and extreme language from those who
hate Masonry without knowing what it truly is. Others who may have been
affected by a group that the extremists have linked to Masonry then
begin to believe that the Craft is involved, and no amount of
irrefutable fact can alter the judgments they already made. I see
similarity in the claims against Masonry that were made against
witchcraft in Salem and other places, as well as claims made against
Jews, Blacks, and any other group that was labeled because of prejudice.
I believe that those that despise Masonry do so with prejudice and
without understanding. And if one is to be fair and reasonable, one
should not be biased by misunderstanding and should be open to logical,
well-founded, and factual arguments that dispute their claims.
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > Sure. Those that make articulate and well-reasoned arguments are always
> > welcome. That's difficult for the anti-Mason's to achieve be cause their
> > arguments are, in my experience, invariably based on incomplete or
> > inaccurate information, or on badly flawed logic. Usually, there's a bit
> > of both.
>
> That is reasonable enough - Are there then any web sites that take an
> opposing view to freemasonry that you consider at least fari and reasonable
> in their anti-Mason views? thanks
Yet AGAIN...
> > That's difficult for the anti-Mason's to achieve be cause their
> > arguments are, in my experience, invariably based on incomplete or
> > inaccurate information, or on badly flawed logic. Usually, there's a bit
> > of both.
So if you have an example of an anti-Mason web site that DOES
demonstrate sound logic built on facts that are readily verifiable with
credible academic sources, we'd ALL love to see it.
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> "Peter" wrote:
>
> > Freemasons killed Stanley Kubrick!
>
> I wouldn't say it was the Freemasons. It would be more like the high
> Illuminati elite. The Freemasons are just at one of the levels of the
> pyramid.
And you base this remarkable assertion on what facts, exactly?
> Yes this is very true. Kubrick was the greatest filmmaker of them all. His
> films always went farther and deeper then the other fluff out there.
He was very good, but such hyperbole is rather out of place in a
subjective field like cinematic art.
> "Eyes Wide Shut" is not only a masterpiece of filmmaking, it did revel
> something far beyond in scope then what is on the surface.
Oh? Like what? Why?
> It's incredible that this film "Eyes Wide Shut" even got released!
Really? Why?
> I think
> it only got realesed because of Kubricks genius, and the fact that the film
> is so deep that one can see the film very easly in different ways.
It got released for the same simple reason that most major motion
pictures are released; the backers want to make money.
> Interesting title too isn't it... "Eyes Wide Shut" ... The All-Seeing Eye...
Not really. More than a bit of a stretch, that.
> Also in "Eyes Wide Shut" the films last two words are very significant as
> to everything the viewer has just been brought thru. Those two last words
> pretty much represent just about show how one should approach the whole
> Illuminati conspiracy. Because if you don't follow the advice of those two
> last words then you will die. Nicole saved Tom's life at the end of the film
No, she didn't. Nicole and Tom were actors, playing the part of
characters in a fictional motion picture. Nobody really died.
> with those two last words, but Kubrick knew that is was all over for
> himself. Kubrick, one of the great men.
And you know this... how?
> Yes he must have known what he was doing for sure when he made "Eyes Wide
> Shut" he knew he was going to be killed for it no doubt.
Uh-huh, and your reasoning brought you to this conclusion based on what
facts, exactly?
Jim Bennie
<spammer...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> It got released for the same simple reason that most major motion
> pictures are released; the backers want to make money.
So can you explain 'Gigli'?
Jim
critic at large
FilmNoir
I was asking you!
FilmNoir
"Larry" <mcml...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2u9ujtF...@uni-berlin.de...
> FilmNoir wrote:
>
> > That is reasonable enough - Are there then any web sites that take an
> > opposing view to freemasonry that you consider at least fari and
reasonable
> > in their anti-Mason views? thanks
>
> I have not found any that oppose Masonry with fairness or reason. It
> is, I think, because of prejudiced and extreme language from those who
> hate Masonry without knowing what it truly is. Others who may have been
> affected by a group that the extremists have linked to Masonry then
> begin to believe that the Craft is involved, and no amount of
> irrefutable fact can alter the judgments they already made.
Ok. At least you're honest about it. Thanks... I too see some of the
mistakes that they make. But aside from a few mistakes, Masons have net
presented any amount of irrefutable fact, except in just those few
instances. but what you are doing, is throwing the baby out with the bate
water. Why not kick out the few flaws and then be reasonable about the other
information.
> I see
> similarity in the claims against Masonry that were made against
> witchcraft in Salem and other places, as well as claims made against
> Jews, Blacks, and any other group that was labeled because of prejudice.
Well, not you have gone way over the top in my view. To compare anti-Masonry
with what the Nazis did to the Jews, or to Blacks and racism... You are
being silly now.
FilmNoir
> In article <FzFfd.11401$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> >
> > "Peter" wrote:
> >
> > > Freemasons killed Stanley Kubrick!
> >
> > I wouldn't say it was the Freemasons. It would be more like the high
> > Illuminati elite. The Freemasons are just at one of the levels of the
> > pyramid.
>
> And you base this remarkable assertion on what facts, exactly?
The Illuminati elite are the rich and powerful men of the earth. The Bible
refers to them as 'The Rich Men of the Earth' They are the ones that run and
control this system we all live in. The Masons are low on that scale of the
Pyramid (using the pyramid as a scale from top to bottom)
>
> > Yes this is very true. Kubrick was the greatest filmmaker of them all.
His
> > films always went farther and deeper then the other fluff out there.
>
> He was very good, but such hyperbole is rather out of place in a
> subjective field like cinematic art.
It is my opinion, and in regards to Kubrick, there aren't many that would
disagree.
>
>
> > "Eyes Wide Shut" is not only a masterpiece of filmmaking, it did reveal
> > something far beyond in scope then what is on the surface.
>
> Oh? Like what? Why?
It revealed a secret society that was very powerful, and men of the highest
places in government were apart of this evil and perverse secret society,
call that secret society what you want, 'Illuminati' is good a name enough
name to call it I think.
>
> > It's incredible that this film "Eyes Wide Shut" even got released!
>
> Really? Why?
Because it revealed this evil and perverse secret society, and showed people
what they do and what kind of corrupt power they really do have. that is
why.
>
> > I think
> > it only got realesed because of Kubricks genius, and the fact that the
film
> > is so deep that one can see the film very easly in different ways.
>
> It got released for the same simple reason that most major motion
> pictures are released; the backers want to make money.
For most movies yes, but not for a Kubrick movie. It hadn't been that way
for a Kubrick movie since "2001". His films got released because of his
name, money was not the pure objective for the release of one of his films.
>
> > Interesting title too isn't it... "Eyes Wide Shut" ... The All-Seeing
Eye...
>
> Not really. More than a bit of a stretch, that.
Not really when one considers the subject mater of the film. Not a stretch
at all. And then of course just look at the DVD cover and tell me what you
see looking at you.
>
> > Also in "Eyes Wide Shut" the films last two words are very significant
as
> > to everything the viewer has just been brought thru. Those two last
words
> > pretty much represent just about show how one should approach the whole
> > Illuminati conspiracy. Because if you don't follow the advice of those
two
> > last words then you will die. Nicole saved Tom's life at the end of the
film
>
> No, she didn't. Nicole and Tom were actors, playing the part of
> characters in a fictional motion picture. Nobody really died.
I'm referring to them as actors and the characters they were playing. Not
the real Tom and Nicole...
>
> > with those two last words, but Kubrick knew that is was all over for
> > himself. Kubrick, one of the great men.
>
> And you know this... how?
It happened! Or don't you know that Kubrick is dead.
>
> > Yes he must have known what he was doing for sure when he made "Eyes
Wide
> > Shut" he knew he was going to be killed for it no doubt.
>
> Uh-huh, and your reasoning brought you to this conclusion based on what
> facts, exactly?
Kubrick was dead two weeks after the film was finished.
FilmNoir
"Jim Bennie" <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:clqba3$6v6$1...@vcn.bc.ca...
What movie is that? never heard of it.
>
> Jim
> critic at large
Hammond of Texas
Thank you for waiting for me to swallow my coffee before delivering that
one!
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > Yet AGAIN...
> >
> > > > That's difficult for the anti-Mason's to achieve be cause their
> > > > arguments are, in my experience, invariably based on incomplete or
> > > > inaccurate information, or on badly flawed logic. Usually, there's a
> bit
> > > > of both.
> >
> > So if you have an example of an anti-Mason web site that DOES
> > demonstrate sound logic built on facts that are readily verifiable with
> > credible academic sources, we'd ALL love to see it.
>
> I was asking you!
I have yet to see one, and for reasons twice explained, I don't believe
that such a paradox exists.
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > I wouldn't say it was the Freemasons. It would be more like the high
> > > Illuminati elite. The Freemasons are just at one of the levels of the
> > > pyramid.
> >
> > And you base this remarkable assertion on what facts, exactly?
>
>
> The Illuminati elite are the rich and powerful men of the earth.
Unsubstantiated assertion, e.g. NOT a fact.
> The Bible
> refers to them as 'The Rich Men of the Earth'
False. The Bible does not refer to the Illuminati.
> They are the ones that run and
> control this system we all live in.
So you say, as you continue to avoid citing any credible source.
> The Masons are low on that scale of the
> Pyramid (using the pyramid as a scale from top to bottom)
and yet again.
> > > "Eyes Wide Shut" is not only a masterpiece of filmmaking, it did reveal
> > > something far beyond in scope then what is on the surface.
> >
> > Oh? Like what? Why?
>
> It revealed a secret society that was very powerful,
It did nothing of the sort. It was a story, a FICTIONAL story. Do you
REALLY want to join the camp who can't separate reality from Hollywood
fiction? Big "Nurse Betty" fan, are we?
> > > It's incredible that this film "Eyes Wide Shut" even got released!
> >
> > Really? Why?
>
> Because it revealed this evil and perverse secret society, and showed people
> what they do and what kind of corrupt power they really do have. that is
> why.
If you could substantiate that wild assertion, then I would agree that
the release of the film would have been surprising. Fortunately, you
have offered nothing of the sort, so it's just Hollywood business as
usual.
> > It got released for the same simple reason that most major motion
> > pictures are released; the backers want to make money.
>
> For most movies yes, but not for a Kubrick movie. It hadn't been that way
> for a Kubrick movie since "2001". His films got released because of his
> name, money was not the pure objective for the release of one of his films.
Rubbish. His name made the pitch easier to sell, but if there was no
anticipation of profit, there would have been no movies such as "2001"
and "Eyes Wide Shut". Not from those who actually produced them.
> > > with those two last words, but Kubrick knew that is was all over for
> > > himself. Kubrick, one of the great men.
> >
> > And you know this... how?
>
> It happened! Or don't you know that Kubrick is dead.
Nice try. How do you know what Kubrick was thinking? Do try to focus...
> > > Yes he must have known what he was doing for sure when he made "Eyes
> Wide
> > > Shut" he knew he was going to be killed for it no doubt.
> >
> > Uh-huh, and your reasoning brought you to this conclusion based on what
> > facts, exactly?
>
> Kubrick was dead two weeks after the film was finished.
Anyone with a grade above "F" in Logic 101 can see the fallacy of your
argument. Good grief...
Larry
> I too see some of the
> mistakes that they make. But aside from a few mistakes, Masons have net
> presented any amount of irrefutable fact, except in just those few
> instances.
I think this statement might need some qualification. For example, if
someone posts some false information about Masonry - that it is a
Satanic worshiping organization, for example - you may or may not see an
immediate rebuttal in this newsgroup. I don't expect one, but I do
begin my own research to determine the validity of the statement. In
this case, I decided that because a Holy Bible is opened upon our altar
and that many symbols and rituals refer to the Holy Bible, God and
Jesus, I must assume that Masons do not worship Satan.
> but what you are doing, is throwing the baby out with the bate
> water. Why not kick out the few flaws and then be reasonable about the other
> information.
I sometimes do this, but I find all too often that any other information
provided is either biased unfairly, based upon the initial false claims,
or not really worth acknowledgment - whether it is valid is, to me,
irrelevant at that point.
Many times there is no baby to throw out.
> Well, not you have gone way over the top in my view. To compare anti-Masonry
> with what the Nazis did to the Jews, or to Blacks and racism... You are
> being silly now.
I think you read too much in my example. It is not my point to compare
the terrible injustices done to other races to the minor name-calling
Masons have endured, but that the hatred is as baseless and prejudicial.
FilmNoir
> FilmNoir wrote:
>
> > I too see some of the
> > mistakes that they make. But aside from a few mistakes, Masons have net
> > presented any amount of irrefutable fact, except in just those few
> > instances.
>
> I think this statement might need some qualification. For example, if
> someone posts some false information about Masonry - that it is a
> Satanic worshiping organization, for example - you may or may not see an
> immediate rebuttal in this newsgroup. I don't expect one, but I do
> begin my own research to determine the validity of the statement. In
> this case, I decided that because a Holy Bible is opened upon our altar
> and that many symbols and rituals refer to the Holy Bible, God and
> Jesus, I must assume that Masons do not worship Satan.
I would agree with you. Freemasonry is not a Satanic worshiping
organization. But it does now and has allowed Satanic worshiping people to
be it's members. To name a few: Albert Pike, Manly P. Hall, Aleister
Crowley, Alice Bailey, A.E. Waite. To name just a few of them. They were all
Masons. And they all were Satanic worshiping people, Call it 'Lucifer', call
it the 'Light bearer' call it the 'Morning Star' etc... A Bible laying on an
alter that everyone looks upon it as if it's just a symbol, does not mean
that many that are Masons are not Satan worshipers.
>
> > but what you are doing, is throwing the baby out with the bate
> > water. Why not kick out the few flaws and then be reasonable about the
other
> > information.
>
> I sometimes do this, but I find all too often that any other information
> provided is either biased unfairly, based upon the initial false claims,
> or not really worth acknowledgment - whether it is valid is, to me,
> irrelevant at that point.
>
> Many times there is no baby to throw out.
>
> > Well, not you have gone way over the top in my view. To compare
anti-Masonry
> > with what the Nazis did to the Jews, or to Blacks and racism... You are
> > being silly now.
>
> I think you read too much in my example. It is not my point to compare
> the terrible injustices done to other races to the minor name-calling
> Masons have endured, but that the hatred is as baseless and prejudicial.
I know of some anti-Masons that do not hate Masons. Jack Harris and Bill
Schnoebelen don't hate Masons.
FilmNoir
Then there are no anti-Mason web sites that you consider as anything then?
FilmNoir
> In article <yJ3gd.14421$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > > I wouldn't say it was the Freemasons. It would be more like the high
> > > > Illuminati elite. The Freemasons are just at one of the levels of
the
> > > > pyramid.
> > >
> > > And you base this remarkable assertion on what facts, exactly?
> >
> >
> > The Illuminati elite are the rich and powerful men of the earth.
>
> Unsubstantiated assertion, e.g. NOT a fact.
Illuminati is the name I give them. The Bible calls them 'The Rich man of
the Earth'
>
> > The Bible
> > refers to them as 'The Rich Men of the Earth'
>
> False. The Bible does not refer to the Illuminati.
I never siad it did. I said it calls them 'The Rich man of the Earth'
>
> > They are the ones that run and
> > control this system we all live in.
>
> So you say, as you continue to avoid citing any credible source.
The Bible is the credible source.
>
> > The Masons are low on that scale of the
> > Pyramid (using the pyramid as a scale from top to bottom)
>
> and yet again.
And yet again what?
>
> > > > "Eyes Wide Shut" is not only a masterpiece of filmmaking, it did
reveal
> > > > something far beyond in scope then what is on the surface.
> > >
> > > Oh? Like what? Why?
> >
> > It revealed a secret society that was very powerful,
>
> It did nothing of the sort. It was a story, a FICTIONAL story. Do you
> REALLY want to join the camp who can't separate reality from Hollywood
> fiction? Big "Nurse Betty" fan, are we?
A fictional story that revealed a real truth. Many films do this. They put
truth in a fictional setting. And especially in regards to Stanley Kubrick,
he did it all the time. He did it with 'Paths of Glory' and '2001' and he
did it with "Eyes Wide Shut"
>
> > > > It's incredible that this film "Eyes Wide Shut" even got released!
> > >
> > > Really? Why?
> >
> > Because it revealed this evil and perverse secret society, and showed
people
> > what they do and what kind of corrupt power they really do have. that is
> > why.
>
> If you could substantiate that wild assertion, then I would agree that
> the release of the film would have been surprising. Fortunately, you
> have offered nothing of the sort, so it's just Hollywood business as
> usual.
Hollywood business as usual, yes in many ways. They Have the Kubrick name,
it's a well made movie (what the hell it's all about who knows) release it.
But it's the content of the film that is so significant. "Eyes Wide Shut" is
not just your everyday normal movie. If you can't see that, it's ok, but
don't try to tell me it's just business as usual. That move is not business
as usual.
> > > It got released for the same simple reason that most major motion
> > > pictures are released; the backers want to make money.
> >
> > For most movies yes, but not for a Kubrick movie. It hadn't been that
way
> > for a Kubrick movie since "2001". His films got released because of his
> > name, money was not the pure objective for the release of one of his
films.
>
> Rubbish. His name made the pitch easier to sell, but if there was no
> anticipation of profit, there would have been no movies such as "2001"
> and "Eyes Wide Shut". Not from those who actually produced them.
His name was the pitch! That's all it took. The film was not a blockbuster,
and in regards to '2001' that film was a financial flop. No, anything that
Kubrick would have wanted to make would get financial backing and would be
released. Everyone waited in anticipation for the next Kubrick film. It's
just a shame this one killed him.
Mrs. James Q. Stallion
.....And they all were Satanic worshiping people, Call it 'Lucifer',
call it the 'Light bearer' call it the 'Morning Star' etc...
Call the filthy thing what you will, Sir, but the title "Morning Star"
is taken:
The King James Bible
Revelation, chapter 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and
morning star.
Larry
> I would agree with you. Freemasonry is not a Satanic worshiping
> organization. But it does now and has allowed Satanic worshiping people to
> be it's members.
I would believe that because Masonry asks the candidate in whom he puts
his trust, Masonry can only accept the answer the candidate utters. If
he lies and states a belief in God, we have no way to detect that lie.
But since many humans use little lies for their benefit, it doesn't seem
to be strictly a Masonic problem. Embellished resumes is one example.
> A Bible laying on an
> alter that everyone looks upon it as if it's just a symbol, does not mean
> that many that are Masons are not Satan worshipers.
Well, it's not *just* a symbol, it's one of the more important symbols,
representing the word and law of The Creator, the Great Architect of the
Universe, God, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - however He is
referred to by each man. Masonry has a lot of Christianity in it -
prayers and references to God and Jesus Christ, scriptures within or
referenced by ritual - and so a worshiper of Satan may feel very
uncomfortable in Lodge surrounded by all this Christianity.
> I know of some anti-Masons that do not hate Masons. Jack Harris and Bill
> Schnoebelen don't hate Masons.
I don't know of those two individuals, but they do appear to be in the
minority. And I should clarify my statement: Anti-Masons don't
necessarily hate Masons as individuals, but they do appear to hate the
Craft for what they believe it represents.
FilmNoir
"Mrs. James Q. Stallion" <SuzanPe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:708-4181...@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
Absolutely! Amen to that. But there are some in the Masonic crowd that take
the Morning Star as Lucifer and that is who they worship. I believe in the
KJV myself. I hold it as the best of all the English translations. And that
is why those that want to make Lucifer 'the bright and morning star' in the
book of Isaiah are either mis-guided or deliberately worshipers of Lucifer.
The translators of the NIV had this agenda in mind when they made Lucifer
and Jesus the same in those verses we are referring to. Take care and God
bless.
Thanks
Daryl
Mrs. James Q. Stallion
Absolutely! Amen to that. But there are some in the Masonic crowd that
take the Morning Star as Lucifer and that is who they worship.
{{{So, do you consider yourself a Christian anti-Mason then? }}}
I believe in the KJV myself. I hold it as the best of all the English
translations.
{{{I grew up with it and I just love the language and phrasing.}}}
And that is why those that want to make Lucifer 'the bright and morning
star' in the book of Isaiah are either mis-guided or deliberately
worshipers of Lucifer.
{{{The term "morning star" isn't found in Isaiah. You mean to say that
the prophesies in Isaiah concerning Jesus have been twisted to imply
that they refer to satan?}}}
The translators of the NIV had this agenda in mind when they made
Lucifer and Jesus the same in those verses we are referring to.
{{{Could you give some specific examples? I'd like to look them up.
Suzan}}}
FilmNoir
> FilmNoir said:
> Absolutely! Amen to that. But there are some in the Masonic crowd that
> take the Morning Star as Lucifer and that is who they worship.
>
> {{{So, do you consider yourself a Christian anti-Mason then? }}}
I am a Christian. I am not an Anti-Mason. I am a Non-Mason. There is a
difference. There are too many Masons here that put those two groups
together and make it law. Just because one has some differenceces about
Masonry, that does not by nesesity make one an Anti-Mason. I have
differenceses with many Christians too, but I am not an Anti_Christian. But
I am not a Mason.
>
> I believe in the KJV myself. I hold it as the best of all the English
> translations.
>
> {{{I grew up with it and I just love the language and phrasing.}}}
Yes. It is the best Version one can read.
>
> And that is why those that want to make Lucifer 'the bright and morning
> star' in the book of Isaiah are either mis-guided or deliberately
> worshipers of Lucifer.
>
> {{{The term "morning star" isn't found in Isaiah. You mean to say that
> the prophesies in Isaiah concerning Jesus have been twisted to imply
> that they refer to satan?}}}
The text in questian is:
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations! (KJV)
As you can see "Son of the Morning" is there in the KJV text. Now lets take
a look at the NIV text of the same passage.:
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the
dawn! (NIV)
and then in the book of revelation we read:
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the
bright and morning star. (KJV)
You can see that they had the agenda to make Jesus and Satan the same.
Mrs. James Q. Stallion
I am a Christian. I am not an Anti-Mason. I am a Non-Mason. There is a
difference. There are too many Masons here that put those two groups
together and make it law. Just because one has some differenceces about
Masonry, that does not by nesesity make one an Anti-Mason. I have
differenceses with many Christians too, but I am not an Anti_Christian.
But I am not a Mason.
{{{Well, when you say that Masonry is based on satanism.....assuming
that I've understood you correctly.....that would be an anti-Masonic
remark of the first order, would it not?}}}
The text in questian is:
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations! (KJV)
As you can see "Son of the Morning" is there in the KJV text. Now lets
take a look at the NIV text of the same passage.:
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the
dawn! (NIV)
and then in the book of revelation we read:
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and
the bright and morning star. (KJV)
You can see that they had the agenda to make Jesus and Satan the same.
{{{Yes, that's pretty extreme to be a simple error. Anyone familiar with
the Bible would spot that easily so it couldn't have been just a
mistake. Suzan}}}
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > I have yet to see one, and for reasons twice explained, I don't believe
> > that such a paradox exists.
>
> Then there are no anti-Mason web sites that you consider as anything then?
That's not quite what I said...
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> "Hammond of Texas" <spammer...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1beac2b31...@pdx.news.speakeasy.net...
> > In article <yJ3gd.14421$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> > film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > > > I wouldn't say it was the Freemasons. It would be more like the high
> > > > > Illuminati elite. The Freemasons are just at one of the levels of
> the
> > > > > pyramid.
> > > >
> > > > And you base this remarkable assertion on what facts, exactly?
> > >
> > >
> > > The Illuminati elite are the rich and powerful men of the earth.
> >
> > Unsubstantiated assertion, e.g. NOT a fact.
>
>
> Illuminati is the name I give them. The Bible calls them 'The Rich man of
> the Earth'
So you won't provide any facts to support your claims about Freemasons
and the Illuminati then?
Okay.
> > > The Bible
> > > refers to them as 'The Rich Men of the Earth'
> >
> > False. The Bible does not refer to the Illuminati.
>
> I never siad it did. I said it calls them 'The Rich man of the Earth'
Yes, you did. The Bible makes vague references. YOU have decided that it
was talking about the group that you believe is the Illuminati.
Again, no facts, just further statements of your beliefs.
> > So you say, as you continue to avoid citing any credible source.
>
> The Bible is the credible source.
We've been down this road. You refuse to grasp the concept that there is
a difference between belief and fact.
> > > The Masons are low on that scale of the
> > > Pyramid (using the pyramid as a scale from top to bottom)
> >
> > and yet again.
>
> And yet again what?
No proof.
> > It did nothing of the sort. It was a story, a FICTIONAL story. Do you
> > REALLY want to join the camp who can't separate reality from Hollywood
> > fiction? Big "Nurse Betty" fan, are we?
>
> A fictional story that revealed a real truth. Many films do this. They put
> truth in a fictional setting. And especially in regards to Stanley Kubrick,
> he did it all the time. He did it with 'Paths of Glory' and '2001' and he
> did it with "Eyes Wide Shut"
Fiction is fiction, as in "we just made up all this stuff." I can see
that you do have trouble making that differentiation.
<shrug>
> > If you could substantiate that wild assertion, then I would agree that
> > the release of the film would have been surprising. Fortunately, you
> > have offered nothing of the sort, so it's just Hollywood business as
> > usual.
>
> Hollywood business as usual, yes in many ways. They Have the Kubrick name,
> it's a well made movie (what the hell it's all about who knows) release it.
> But it's the content of the film that is so significant. "Eyes Wide Shut" is
> not just your everyday normal movie. If you can't see that, it's ok, but
> don't try to tell me it's just business as usual. That move is not business
> as usual.
Whatever you want to believe there, Daryl.
> His name was the pitch! That's all it took. The film was not a blockbuster,
> and in regards to '2001' that film was a financial flop.
No, it wasn't. It was initially trashed by the critics, who didn't "get
it", but it did ultimately make money.
Alex fisher
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:41, Mrs. James Q. Stallion wrote:
>
> The text in questian is:
> Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
> morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
> nations! (KJV)
> As you can see "Son of the Morning" is there in the KJV text. Now lets
> take a look at the NIV text of the same passage.:
> Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the
> dawn! (NIV)
> and then in the book of revelation we read:
> Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
> things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and
> the bright and morning star. (KJV)
> You can see that they had the agenda to make Jesus and Satan the same.
Actually *both* translations are incorrect. A more accurate translation of the
passage in Isaiah would be "... O shining one, son of the morning! (or ...son
of the dawn)"...
>
> {{{Yes, that's pretty extreme to be a simple error. Anyone familiar with
> the Bible would spot that easily so it couldn't have been just a
> mistake. Suzan}}}
Both sets of translators had a "hidden agenda" IMO. But it had nothing to do
with the strange "conspiracy theory" that FN is promoting...
- --
Alex Fisher MM
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBgqm2g9r2P0pNOk8RAi50AJ0bb42BLuwJ9XKUH+KkyX+IoVpwvwCgqHWG
qK8sR1sI0NqSCe8aq2TPWpk=
=FS3I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FilmNoir
"Alex fisher" <settantt...@hypermax.net.oz> wrote in message
news:4182...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 00:41, Mrs. James Q. Stallion wrote:
>
> >
> > The text in questian is:
> > Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
> > morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
> > nations! (KJV)
> > As you can see "Son of the Morning" is there in the KJV text. Now lets
> > take a look at the NIV text of the same passage.:
> > Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the
> > dawn! (NIV)
> > and then in the book of revelation we read:
> > Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
> > things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and
> > the bright and morning star. (KJV)
> > You can see that they had the agenda to make Jesus and Satan the same.
>
> Actually *both* translations are incorrect. A more accurate translation of
the
> passage in Isaiah would be "... O shining one, son of the morning! (or
...son
> of the dawn)"...
Not really. The Hebrew word is 'heylel' to boast, to rave, (in the sense of
brightness); the morning-star:--Lucifer. Lucifer being the Latin. A title
not a name. The Devil has no name, he just has titles. and Lucifer is a very
clear and meaningful title for that fallen one. All of the Old English
versions in regards to this text are far superior to any of the new
translations that take that title and blend it with the title given to
Jesus.
> >
> > {{{Yes, that's pretty extreme to be a simple error. Anyone familiar with
> > the Bible would spot that easily so it couldn't have been just a
> > mistake. Suzan}}}
>
> Both sets of translators had a "hidden agenda" IMO. But it had nothing to
do
> with the strange "conspiracy theory" that FN is promoting...
This is not some strange "conspiracy theory". it is exactly what the NIV
translators did! It is a fact! It is right there in print. You can read it.
The NIV translators did it. Read it. Don't try to turn this into some kind
of crazy "conspiracy theory". Just read the verses. It's right there in
front of your face.
Thanks Take care
Daryl
FilmNoir
> FilmNoir said:
> I am a Christian. I am not an Anti-Mason. I am a Non-Mason. There is a
> difference. There are too many Masons here that put those two groups
> together and make it law. Just because one has some differenceces about
> Masonry, that does not by nesesity make one an Anti-Mason. I have
> differenceses with many Christians too, but I am not an Anti_Christian.
> But I am not a Mason.
>
> {{{Well, when you say that Masonry is based on satanism.....assuming
> that I've understood you correctly.....that would be an anti-Masonic
> remark of the first order, would it not?}}}
I don't believe that masonry is based on Satanisim. I believe that Masonry
does not present a way to real salvation in Jesus. And from reading some of
the experiences that ex-Masons have said it accually provides a hinderance
to true salvation in Jesus.
>
> The text in questian is:
> Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
> morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
> nations! (KJV)
> As you can see "Son of the Morning" is there in the KJV text. Now lets
> take a look at the NIV text of the same passage.:
> Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the
> dawn! (NIV)
> and then in the book of revelation we read:
> Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
> things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and
> the bright and morning star. (KJV)
> You can see that they had the agenda to make Jesus and Satan the same.
>
> {{{Yes, that's pretty extreme to be a simple error. Anyone familiar with
> the Bible would spot that easily so it couldn't have been just a
> mistake. Suzan}}}
For ten years I walked, and held the NIV bible next to me. It was the Bible
that I read, the Bible that I believed in. I was devastated when I learned
of the many perverse differences that I found in the NIV and the KJV. There
was a moment when I wanted to throw the NIV bible against the wall, but I
did not and I would never. But I did change over night. I went back to the
KJV and to all the other good and God honored English translations of the
Bible.
Take care
Daryl
FilmNoir
If you hate them all, then just say so! It's ok. I myself take everything
(including) sites I hate in to some kind of consideration, because I have
learned that there is always something there that is worth sifting thru. The
only sites that have not provided even that little bit of sifting are the
Neo-Nazi (Christian Identity) sites. They present the purest form of total
ignorance. Believe me, I have talked to these freaks. They are sick evil
idiots. These so-called 'anti-Mason' sites are not that at all like that. I
have read them and I know the difference.
FilmNoir
> In article <Ockgd.36405$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> >
> > "Hammond of Texas" <spammer...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1beac2b31...@pdx.news.speakeasy.net...
> > > In article <yJ3gd.14421$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > > > > I wouldn't say it was the Freemasons. It would be more like the
high
> > > > > > Illuminati elite. The Freemasons are just at one of the levels
of
> > the
> > > > > > pyramid.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you base this remarkable assertion on what facts, exactly?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Illuminati elite are the rich and powerful men of the earth.
> > >
> > > Unsubstantiated assertion, e.g. NOT a fact.
> >
> >
> > Illuminati is the name I give them. The Bible calls them 'The Rich man
of
> > the Earth'
>
> So you won't provide any facts to support your claims about Freemasons
> and the Illuminati then?
>
> Okay.
Well hisorically we all know of the Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and so on...
As to the connection to the Illuminati and Freemasory, well that has already
been established historically too. I take the Illuminati to be that ultimate
secret society control power group of very rich and powerful people (back to
the Bible 'The Rich Men of the Earth'). Other groups like Masons and
Rosicrusains and so forth are just low level pawns in the mix.
>
>
> > > > The Bible
> > > > refers to them as 'The Rich Men of the Earth'
> > >
> > > False. The Bible does not refer to the Illuminati.
> >
> > I never siad it did. I said it calls them 'The Rich man of the Earth'
>
> Yes, you did. The Bible makes vague references. YOU have decided that it
> was talking about the group that you believe is the Illuminati.
>
> Again, no facts, just further statements of your beliefs.
I believe that the Bible presents truth and fact. past present and future.
>
> > > So you say, as you continue to avoid citing any credible source.
> >
> > The Bible is the credible source.
>
> We've been down this road. You refuse to grasp the concept that there is
> a difference between belief and fact.
There is the historical fact of the real existence of the Illuminati 1776.
and there is a Rich elite mentioned in the book of Revelation. There are the
same. A powerful and Rich secret society.
>
> > > > The Masons are low on that scale of the
> > > > Pyramid (using the pyramid as a scale from top to bottom)
> > >
> > > and yet again.
> >
> > And yet again what?
>
> No proof.
Yes I must say that it is hard to prove something that is meant to be a
secret. The evidence comes from the results and the performance of the acts
of these Illuminati madmen. Yes it is hard to understand and see. But if you
open your eyes you will see it.
>
> > > It did nothing of the sort. It was a story, a FICTIONAL story. Do you
> > > REALLY want to join the camp who can't separate reality from Hollywood
> > > fiction? Big "Nurse Betty" fan, are we?
> >
> > A fictional story that revealed a real truth. Many films do this. They
put
> > truth in a fictional setting. And especially in regards to Stanley
Kubrick,
> > he did it all the time. He did it with 'Paths of Glory' and '2001' and
he
> > did it with "Eyes Wide Shut"
>
> Fiction is fiction, as in "we just made up all this stuff." I can see
> that you do have trouble making that differentiation.
I'm not one to take all movies (like some here in this newsgroup,) and turn
them all into some kind of wild Masonic Illuminati conspiracy. I keep it
real. I know the ones that are, and I know the ones that are not. "Eyes Wide
Shut" is one of the few real ones. "Blade Runner" is not. The old 50's film
"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is one of the real ones also. Don't throw
everything out.
>
> <shrug>
>
> > > If you could substantiate that wild assertion, then I would agree that
> > > the release of the film would have been surprising. Fortunately, you
> > > have offered nothing of the sort, so it's just Hollywood business as
> > > usual.
> >
> > Hollywood business as usual, yes in many ways. They Have the Kubrick
name,
> > it's a well made movie (what the hell it's all about who knows) release
it.
> > But it's the content of the film that is so significant. "Eyes Wide
Shut" is
> > not just your everyday normal movie. If you can't see that, it's ok, but
> > don't try to tell me it's just business as usual. That move is not
business
> > as usual.
>
> Whatever you want to believe there, Daryl.
Ok, but can you tell me of another movie that ever presented the type of
content that "Eyes Wide Shut" presented? And that had that kind of major
release?
>
> > His name was the pitch! That's all it took. The film was not a
blockbuster,
> > and in regards to '2001' that film was a financial flop.
>
> No, it wasn't. It was initially trashed by the critics, who didn't "get
> it", but it did ultimately make money.
Yes true, '2001' did make ultimately make money. But that is not what the
big studios want. they want the film to make money on it's first release.
'2001' was a flop on it's first release.
I was working under United Artist back in 1982 when 'Heavens Gate' was
released. it destroyed the company and I lost a job. but is 'Heavens Gate' a
great film? Yes, the uncut version. has it made it's money back? No doubt by
now. is United Artists still in biz? No they are dead... it's just a name
now, that is all.
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> "Hammond of Texas" <spammer...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bec1001e...@pdx.news.speakeasy.net...
> > In article <MNjgd.36390$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> > film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > > I have yet to see one, and for reasons twice explained, I don't
> believe
> > > > that such a paradox exists.
> > >
> > > Then there are no anti-Mason web sites that you consider as anything
> then?
> >
> > That's not quite what I said...
>
>
> If you hate them all, then just say so! It's ok.
It might be, if that was even close to what I said. It wasn't, and your
attempt to paint it thus is as transparent as it is disingenuous. Don't
you have anything better to do?
> I myself take everything
> (including) sites I hate in to some kind of consideration, because I have
> learned that there is always something there that is worth sifting thru.
Well, there is the entertainment value that comes from all those
"Freemasons are aliens..." theories, but as for truth or anything of
similar worth, I've yet to see it.
For the third time, have you?
> only sites that have not provided even that little bit of sifting are the
> Neo-Nazi (Christian Identity) sites. They present the purest form of total
> ignorance. Believe me, I have talked to these freaks. They are sick evil
> idiots. These so-called 'anti-Mason' sites are not that at all like that. I
> have read them and I know the difference.
For example?
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> Well hisorically we all know of the Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and so on...
> As to the connection to the Illuminati and Freemasory, well that has already
> been established historically too. I take the Illuminati to be that ultimate
> secret society control power group of very rich and powerful people
You could, but you'd be without any substantive evidence to back up such
a claim, as the facts indicate that the group has been extinct for quite
some time.
> the Bible 'The Rich Men of the Earth'). Other groups like Masons and
> Rosicrusains and so forth are just low level pawns in the mix.
Again, assertions that are totally without basis in fact. Repeating
yourself doesn't make your nonsense any more credible.
> > Again, no facts, just further statements of your beliefs.
>
> I believe that the Bible presents truth and fact. past present and future.
I don't. I call that superstition. We must agree to disagree.
> > We've been down this road. You refuse to grasp the concept that there is
> > a difference between belief and fact.
>
>
> There is the historical fact of the real existence of the Illuminati 1776.
> and there is a Rich elite mentioned in the book of Revelation.
Yes, but the connection is one that YOU are making. That doesn't count.
> > > > > The Masons are low on that scale of the
> > > > > Pyramid (using the pyramid as a scale from top to bottom)
> > > >
> > > > and yet again.
> > >
> > > And yet again what?
> >
> > No proof.
>
> Yes I must say that it is hard to prove something that is meant to be a
> secret. The evidence comes from the results and the performance of the acts
> of these Illuminati madmen.
What evidence? We're still waiting...
> Yes it is hard to understand and see. But if you
> open your eyes you will see it.
You mean if we reject prudence and reason, as you apparently have done,
we will see things the way you do. You're probably right.
> > Whatever you want to believe there, Daryl.
>
> Ok, but can you tell me of another movie that ever presented the type of
> content that "Eyes Wide Shut" presented? And that had that kind of major
> release?
What's that saying about there being only seven truly original stories?
Let's see... evil secret society, messing with the life of the
protagonist... "Rosemary's Baby" springs to mind. There's been more than
one "corrupt politicians and generals plot to overthrow the U.S.
government" - themed movies, though I must grant you that most of these
were solidly in the "B" category. It is a faily common theme. While few
directors are able to approach Kubrick's level, his gift hardly
qualifies as proof of anything.
FilmNoir
> In article <CGEgd.2375$zx1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> >
> > "Hammond of Texas" <spammer...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1bec1001e...@pdx.news.speakeasy.net...
> > > In article <MNjgd.36390$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > > > I have yet to see one, and for reasons twice explained, I don't
> > believe
> > > > > that such a paradox exists.
> > > >
> > > > Then there are no anti-Mason web sites that you consider as anything
> > then?
> > >
> > > That's not quite what I said...
> >
> >
> > If you hate them all, then just say so! It's ok.
>
> It might be, if that was even close to what I said. It wasn't, and your
> attempt to paint it thus is as transparent as it is disingenuous. Don't
> you have anything better to do?
What are you talking about? you are the one that does not like any of the
so-called anti-Mason sites.
>
> > I myself take everything
> > (including) sites I hate in to some kind of consideration, because I
have
> > learned that there is always something there that is worth sifting thru.
>
> Well, there is the entertainment value that comes from all those
> "Freemasons are aliens..." theories, but as for truth or anything of
> similar worth, I've yet to see it.
>
> For the third time, have you?
As to some kind of 'Freemasons are aliens' theroy web site you show me that
web site. I would gladly agree with you that they are nuts. I don't believe
that myself at all. So lets put them aside.
>
> > only sites that have not provided even that little bit of sifting are
the
> > Neo-Nazi (Christian Identity) sites. They present the purest form of
total
> > ignorance. Believe me, I have talked to these freaks. They are sick evil
> > idiots. These so-called 'anti-Mason' sites are not that at all like
that. I
> > have read them and I know the difference.
>
> For example?
They are there. and they are not at all the kinds of web sites that you are
making them out to be. You present the web site, I will present the comment.
But really I would love to get back to what this thread is about. Stanley
Kubrick. and his great films and the fact that "Eyes Wide Shut" is a
revelation of the secret Illuminati agenda.
Thanks take care - Luv ya.
Daryl
FilmNoir
> In article <_kFgd.2390$zx1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > Well hisorically we all know of the Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and so
on...
> > As to the connection to the Illuminati and Freemasory, well that has
already
> > been established historically too. I take the Illuminati to be that
ultimate
> > secret society control power group of very rich and powerful people
>
> You could, but you'd be without any substantive evidence to back up such
> a claim, as the facts indicate that the group has been extinct for quite
> some time.
If you want to give it another name then you let me know. Call it what you
want. Illuminati works for me and it works in simplifying it. It's a good
word and everyone knows what is meant when it is used. If you have another
word that you like better to describe these ultra Rich elite people then let
me know.
>
> > the Bible 'The Rich Men of the Earth'). Other groups like Masons and
> > Rosicrusains and so forth are just low level pawns in the mix.
>
> Again, assertions that are totally without basis in fact. Repeating
> yourself doesn't make your nonsense any more credible.
If you don't accept the Bible as a source of truth, and you don't think that
there are an elite Rich group of people that have mega corrupt power then I
don't know what to tell you. You are naive in my view, but that is ok.
>
> > > Again, no facts, just further statements of your beliefs.
> >
> > I believe that the Bible presents truth and fact. past present and
future.
>
> I don't. I call that superstition. We must agree to disagree.
Ok. But I don't find the Bible a book of superstitions. I find it to be a
book that reveals the truth, past, present and future. And it reveals a
truth about mega power, and a group a ultra rich evil people. You name them.
>
> > > We've been down this road. You refuse to grasp the concept that there
is
> > > a difference between belief and fact.
> >
> >
> > There is the historical fact of the real existence of the Illuminati
1776.
> > and there is a Rich elite mentioned in the book of Revelation.
>
> Yes, but the connection is one that YOU are making. That doesn't count.
I'm not the only one that has made this connection. many have made this
connection. And the word 'Illuminati' fits.
>
> > > > > > The Masons are low on that scale of the
> > > > > > Pyramid (using the pyramid as a scale from top to bottom)
> > > > >
> > > > > and yet again.
> > > >
> > > > And yet again what?
> > >
> > > No proof.
> >
> > Yes I must say that it is hard to prove something that is meant to be a
> > secret. The evidence comes from the results and the performance of the
acts
> > of these Illuminati madmen.
>
> What evidence? We're still waiting...
You are asking me to repeat myself. It is almost impossible to prove
something that is meant to be a secret. But the fact that many of these
people have been found out in some ways is a small but mounting pile of
evidence.
>
> > Yes it is hard to understand and see. But if you
> > open your eyes you will see it.
>
> You mean if we reject prudence and reason, as you apparently have done,
> we will see things the way you do. You're probably right.
No not at all. This is all based on reason. Reject nothing but falsehood.
>
> > > Whatever you want to believe there, Daryl.
> >
> > Ok, but can you tell me of another movie that ever presented the type of
> > content that "Eyes Wide Shut" presented? And that had that kind of major
> > release?
>
> What's that saying about there being only seven truly original stories?
Yes very true, but does make the stories that come from the original seven
false? No.
> Let's see... evil secret society, messing with the life of the
> protagonist... "Rosemary's Baby" springs to mind.
Interesting that you bring up "Rosemary's Baby" that is absolutely a
revealing film, and people died for it. They were satanically sacrificed.
> There's been more than
> one "corrupt politicians and generals plot to overthrow the U.S.
> government" - themed movies, though I must grant you that most of these
> were solidly in the "B" category.
I wouldn't call "Seven Days in May" a 'B' movie.
> It is a faily common theme.
Not really that commen. I can't name that many. Can you?
> While few
> directors are able to approach Kubrick's level, his gift hardly
> qualifies as proof of anything.
True, few directors are as good as Kubrick, but the fact that it is Kubrick
gives weight to the argument.
Take Care
Daryl
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> "Hammond of Texas" <spammer...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1beccfcdf...@pdx.news.speakeasy.net...
> > In article <_kFgd.2390$zx1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> > film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > Well hisorically we all know of the Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and so
> on...
> > > As to the connection to the Illuminati and Freemasory, well that has
> already
> > > been established historically too. I take the Illuminati to be that
> ultimate
> > > secret society control power group of very rich and powerful people
> >
> > You could, but you'd be without any substantive evidence to back up such
> > a claim, as the facts indicate that the group has been extinct for quite
> > some time.
>
> If you want to give it another name then you let me know. Call it what you
> want. Illuminati works for me and it works in simplifying it. It's a good
> word and everyone knows what is meant when it is used. If you have another
> word that you like better to describe these ultra Rich elite people then let
> me know.
How about "ultra Rich elite people"? That's more accurate than calling
them by the name of a long extinct group that was distinguished by
markedly different characteristics than their wealth.
> > Again, assertions that are totally without basis in fact. Repeating
> > yourself doesn't make your nonsense any more credible.
>
> If you don't accept the Bible as a source of truth, and you don't think that
> there are an elite Rich group of people that have mega corrupt power then I
> don't know what to tell you.
Convince me otherwise, or admit that your assertions are simply your
unfounded beliefs. Yet again, repeating the same empty assertions does
absolutely nothing to make you more credible.
> > > I believe that the Bible presents truth and fact. past present and
> future.
> >
> > I don't. I call that superstition. We must agree to disagree.
>
> Ok. But I don't find the Bible a book of superstitions. I find it to be a
> book that reveals the truth, past, present and future. And it reveals a
> truth about mega power, and a group a ultra rich evil people.
Uh-huh. Whatever...
> > > There is the historical fact of the real existence of the Illuminati
> 1776.
> > > and there is a Rich elite mentioned in the book of Revelation.
> >
> > Yes, but the connection is one that YOU are making. That doesn't count.
>
> I'm not the only one that has made this connection. many have made this
> connection. And the word 'Illuminati' fits.
So let me get this straight, x number of people believing the same
baseless nonsense makes that nonsense more true, merely by virtue of the
fact that more people believe it. Right.
<shakes head>
> > What evidence? We're still waiting...
>
> You are asking me to repeat myself. It is almost impossible to prove
> something that is meant to be a secret.
You're getting close. It IS impossible to prove something for which
there IS no proof.
> But the fact that many of these
> people have been found out in some ways is a small but mounting pile of
> evidence.
It would be, if it were a fact that they had actually been "found out".
Some crackpot saying that a fictional motion picture is "proof" of their
existence isn't exactly a compelling body of evidence.
> > You mean if we reject prudence and reason, as you apparently have done,
> > we will see things the way you do. You're probably right.
>
> No not at all. This is all based on reason. Reject nothing but falsehood.
False. Reason demands the rejection of the implausible, in favor of the
more plausible, when there is no evidence that the former is true. When
you hear hoof-beats, don't think zebras.
> > Let's see... evil secret society, messing with the life of the
> > protagonist... "Rosemary's Baby" springs to mind.
>
> Interesting that you bring up "Rosemary's Baby" that is absolutely a
> revealing film, and people died for it. They were satanically sacrificed.
Uh-huh. And you're going to fail to prove this crackpot story as well,
aren't you?
> > There's been more than
> > one "corrupt politicians and generals plot to overthrow the U.S.
> > government" - themed movies, though I must grant you that most of these
> > were solidly in the "B" category.
>
> I wouldn't call "Seven Days in May" a 'B' movie.
I would. But that's just me.
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > For example?
>
> They are there. and they are not at all the kinds of web sites that you are
> making them out to be. You present the web site, I will present the comment.
No. You make the assertion that there are well reasoned anti-Mason
sites. Prove it.
Gene Goldman
> .....And they all were Satanic worshiping people, Call it 'Lucifer',
> call it the 'Light bearer' call it the 'Morning Star' etc...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Call the filthy thing what you will, Sir, but the title "Morning Star"
> is taken:
Yes, well, Daryl seems quite obsessed with that Satan of his.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart. - Goldman 3:16
Brother Gene .*.
past Master of two (2) Black Lodges
Blackmer #442 and Black Mountain #845
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
Regular 1,765 degree Mason
Named member of the Bennie-Goldman Jive-Talk Team
First Official Recipient of the Order of the Fish Taco
Most Wonderful Grand High Exhaulted Imperial Omnipotent Mystic Regal
Stomper, and Wearer of the Official Purple Underwear
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
http://mastermason.com/BrotherGene
http://www.mastermason.com/BrotherGene/frequently_asked_questions.htm
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
************************************
"Are you guys ready? Let's Roll!!"
Todd Beamer, Flight 93
************************************
"In theory, Communism works! - Russian saying.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E! W++ N+++ o-- K-
w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP-- t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e*
h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: Your Masonry may be different from someone else's.
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2004. All rights reserved.
Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission
may be granted to others upon request.
Objects in this post are funnier than they appear
Be seeing you
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
bryan
>> I wouldn't call "Seven Days in May" a 'B' movie.
>
> I would. But that's just me.
along with "eyes wide shut", filmnoir would call it a documentary...
spooky.
FilmNoir
"bryan" <br...@rimmer.red-dwarf.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.10.31....@rimmer.red-dwarf.net...
Are you calling those two movies documentaries? I won't call them that, they
are both Narrative films.
FilmNoir
Here's a good one
http://www.freedomdomain.com/welcome.htm
David Simpson
James Q. Stallion) typed furiously:
One story is that Jerome was having a snit with a certain Bishop
Lucifer and placed the name in the translation in an effort to
discredit him posthumously.
--
Regards
David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply)
(Unattached MM)
Bad manners should not be a capital crime ...
for a first offence.
Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein,
David Simpson
typed furiously:
I thought you were a big fan of David Icke. That is his favourite
thesis.
David Simpson
typed furiously:
>
Please cite a reference for this calumny.
>I take the Illuminati to be that ultimate
>secret society control power group of very rich and powerful people (back to
>the Bible 'The Rich Men of the Earth'). Other groups like Masons and
>Rosicrusains and so forth are just low level pawns in the mix.
>
Please cite a reference for this calumny.
>
>>
>>
>> > > > The Bible
>> > > > refers to them as 'The Rich Men of the Earth'
>> > >
>> > > False. The Bible does not refer to the Illuminati.
>> >
>> > I never siad it did. I said it calls them 'The Rich man of the Earth'
>>
>> Yes, you did. The Bible makes vague references. YOU have decided that it
>> was talking about the group that you believe is the Illuminati.
>>
>> Again, no facts, just further statements of your beliefs.
>
>I believe that the Bible presents truth and fact. past present and future.
>
Please cite a reference for this calumny.
>>
>> > > So you say, as you continue to avoid citing any credible source.
>> >
>> > The Bible is the credible source.
>>
>> We've been down this road. You refuse to grasp the concept that there is
>> a difference between belief and fact.
>
>
>There is the historical fact of the real existence of the Illuminati 1776.
>and there is a Rich elite mentioned in the book of Revelation. There are the
>same. A powerful and Rich secret society.
>
I don't think that Weishaupt was one of the Rich Elite. He may have
wanted to be and that was why he started the Illuminati who were
supposed to rule because of their intelligence, not their money.
>>
>> > > > The Masons are low on that scale of the
>> > > > Pyramid (using the pyramid as a scale from top to bottom)
>> > >
>> > > and yet again.
>> >
>> > And yet again what?
>>
>> No proof.
>
>Yes I must say that it is hard to prove something that is meant to be a
>secret. The evidence comes from the results and the performance of the acts
>of these Illuminati madmen. Yes it is hard to understand and see. But if you
>open your eyes you will see it.
>
Please cite a reference for this calumny. If you can't prove it then
maybe it doesn't exist. Freemasons can tell you that such information
is bogus but you, who is not a member, tries to tell us, who are
members, that we don't know what we are talking about. Sounds suspect
to me.
David Simpson
typed furiously:
>
>"Mrs. James Q. Stallion" <SuzanPe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:16823-41...@storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net...
>> FilmNoir said:
>> I am a Christian. I am not an Anti-Mason. I am a Non-Mason. There is a
>> difference. There are too many Masons here that put those two groups
>> together and make it law. Just because one has some differenceces about
>> Masonry, that does not by nesesity make one an Anti-Mason. I have
>> differenceses with many Christians too, but I am not an Anti_Christian.
>> But I am not a Mason.
>>
>> {{{Well, when you say that Masonry is based on satanism.....assuming
>> that I've understood you correctly.....that would be an anti-Masonic
>> remark of the first order, would it not?}}}
>
>I don't believe that masonry is based on Satanisim. I believe that Masonry
>does not present a way to real salvation in Jesus.
>
Freemasonry has never tried to present any way to salvation, whether
through Jesus or any other being. That is a religious concept and
would not be discussed in lodge.
Freemasonry is not a religion, it does not teach religious concepts,
it does not attempt to describe God, it has no plan for salvation and
it tells its members that if they have any religious/spiritual
questions they should consult their religious advisor.
Freemasonry is a system of morality. It deals with man's relationship
with his fellow man and with himself.
>And from reading some of
>the experiences that ex-Masons have said it accually provides a hinderance
>to true salvation in Jesus.
That would be their own opinions. They are entitled to their opinions
but should be very careful not to lie or break solemn promises made
before God.
If we were a religion then we would be trying to prevent these people
from leaving as leaving would put their immortal soul in danger. In
fact the reverse is true. Every member is told that his duty to God,
his family, his country and his work comes well ahead of any duty to
Freemasonry.
In fact the objection comes from various churches who seem to be under
the impression that we steal the time,and/or money, of our members
from them. To me, it seems to be a simple matter of jealousy by those
churches and, perhaps, a fear that we will teach our members to think
for themselves and that will lead to them asking awkward questions
about the attitude of the church. Perhaps the church members should be
asking those awkward questions anyway as those churches are obviously
trying to control their congregations' every moment.
FilmNoir
FilmNoir
I'm no fan of David Icke, he's an Atheistic Anti-Christ. I have read his
books and I have found some very interesting stuff in them.
FilmNoir
Ok, that's what the Bible calls them, sounds good to me.
>
> > > Again, assertions that are totally without basis in fact. Repeating
> > > yourself doesn't make your nonsense any more credible.
> >
> > If you don't accept the Bible as a source of truth, and you don't think
that
> > there are an elite Rich group of people that have mega corrupt power
then I
> > don't know what to tell you.
>
> Convince me otherwise, or admit that your assertions are simply your
> unfounded beliefs. Yet again, repeating the same empty assertions does
> absolutely nothing to make you more credible.
If you do not believe that this world is in the control of the wicked one
and is being lead down an evil path then I can do nothing to make you
believe that.
Unless you are in Africa.
>
> > > Let's see... evil secret society, messing with the life of the
> > > protagonist... "Rosemary's Baby" springs to mind.
> >
> > Interesting that you bring up "Rosemary's Baby" that is absolutely a
> > revealing film, and people died for it. They were satanically
sacrificed.
>
> Uh-huh. And you're going to fail to prove this crackpot story as well,
> aren't you?
Just look at what happened to some of the people involved in it. And what
happened to John Lennon out in front of the hotel where the films was shot.
>
> > > There's been more than
> > > one "corrupt politicians and generals plot to overthrow the U.S.
> > > government" - themed movies, though I must grant you that most of
these
> > > were solidly in the "B" category.
> >
> > I wouldn't call "Seven Days in May" a 'B' movie.
>
> I would. But that's just me.
Ok, if a film with 'A' actors and an 'A' director and an 'A' script by an
'A' writer is a 'B' movie, ok...
FilmNoir
I have read even on Pro-Masonic sites that they even know that the
Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry because of their secrecy.
>
> >I take the Illuminati to be that ultimate
> >secret society control power group of very rich and powerful people (back
to
> >the Bible 'The Rich Men of the Earth'). Other groups like Masons and
> >Rosicrusains and so forth are just low level pawns in the mix.
> >
> Please cite a reference for this calumny.
You can be simple and say that to everything that anyones says.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > > > The Bible
> >> > > > refers to them as 'The Rich Men of the Earth'
> >> > >
> >> > > False. The Bible does not refer to the Illuminati.
> >> >
> >> > I never siad it did. I said it calls them 'The Rich man of the Earth'
> >>
> >> Yes, you did. The Bible makes vague references. YOU have decided that
it
> >> was talking about the group that you believe is the Illuminati.
> >>
> >> Again, no facts, just further statements of your beliefs.
> >
> >I believe that the Bible presents truth and fact. past present and
future.
> >
> Please cite a reference for this calumny.
God.
JB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KU6hd.15838$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>> Please cite a reference for this calumny.
>
> I have read even on Pro-Masonic sites that they even know that the
> Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry because of their secrecy.
>
>>
Oh? Please cite a reference to the web site.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQYUYwvpxh1uHmCDzEQK9MQCfZn61wUEgywzZ33WiciwzRXSc8qAAnRjU
a4BVVYYLDb2amj9F7QqbrmU2
=Oq3X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > No. You make the assertion that there are well reasoned anti-Mason
> > sites. Prove it.
>
> Here's a good one
>
> http://www.freedomdomain.com/welcome.htm
Oh yes, VERY compelling "proof", such as...
"She told me that she, herself had escaped from a "drug-house" run by
members of the Golden Dawn and Masons out of Pasadena or somewhere. She
talked about how she now rescues these youngsters from these places. She
described in detail to me, how these young kids were kidnapped or lured
there with drugs, and they were kept at these places against their will.
They are kept, she said, in a drugged-out state, usually on heroin or
speed and deprived of food and nourishment until they agree to do things
for more drugs."
Man, your stuff is just as lame as every other anti-Mason troll who
comes in here with their agenda of hate.
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
Fiction. As in "We just made up this stuff and filmed it."
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > False. Reason demands the rejection of the implausible, in favor of the
> > more plausible, when there is no evidence that the former is true. When
> > you hear hoof-beats, don't think zebras.
>
> Unless you are in Africa.
We don't, you'll notice.
> > > Interesting that you bring up "Rosemary's Baby" that is absolutely a
> > > revealing film, and people died for it. They were satanically
> sacrificed.
> >
> > Uh-huh. And you're going to fail to prove this crackpot story as well,
> > aren't you?
>
> Just look at what happened to some of the people involved in it. And what
> happened to John Lennon out in front of the hotel where the films was shot.
You can't make the causal connection between any of these events, so all
you are left with is coincidence. You've proved nothing.
Jim Bennie
<faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:08:10 GMT, "FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net>
> typed furiously:
> >As to the connection to the Illuminati and Freemasory, well that has
> >already been established historically too.
> Please cite a reference for this calumny.
Well, I know Masons who belong to Costco. Therefore, there's an
historical connection between the two.
> >I believe that the Bible presents truth and fact. past present and future.
> >
> Please cite a reference for this calumny.
Only Daryl's not using a Bible. He's decided to invent his own
interpretations so they fit in with some k00kery about a long-dead
group somehow being tied into Freemasons and "the world power
structure", as if such existed. All that's missing is some kind of
Revelation "The End is Near!" cry.
It's tiresome, but it makes a nice fiction.
Jim Bennie
PM/DC, No. 44, Vancouver
David Simpson
typed furiously:
>
It is also a brand name given to those pesky little things called
matches along with the title given to people who carry a taper around
in a church to light candles and those who used to light the gas lamps
which were used to illuminate streets before this newfangled stuff
called electricity. The rest of your statement is therefore incorrect.
I knew that Lucifer means light-bearer. I have pointed that out many
times in my posts to this group and elsewhere. Fallen is not the
definition I would place on the paragraph but it was certainly
referring to a vain and pompous man. In my opinion there is nothing
Satanic about the statement at all ... but then I don't believe in
Satan.
I did say it was _one_ story. There was a Bishop Lucifer in the early
history of the Christian Church and he, apparently, had several public
spats with Jerome.
David Simpson
typed furiously:
>
>"David Simpson" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
>news:7097o01ihpk52nl1d...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:08:10 GMT, "FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net>
>> typed furiously:
>> >Well hisorically we all know of the Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and so
>on...
>> >As to the connection to the Illuminati and Freemasory, well that has
>already
>> >been established historically too.
>>
>> Please cite a reference for this calumny.
>
>I have read even on Pro-Masonic sites that they even know that the
>Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry because of their secrecy.
>
Where? Cite your reference please. Which site?
I find it very hard to believe since the Illuminati were disbanded a
couple of centuries ago.
David Simpson
typed furiously:
>
Yes! That's a good one all right.
Do you agree with Dogna? The author of that site seems to. Perhaps
that is from where Dogna got his ideas.
Anyone, who wants others to supply all of their needs/wants/desires
without having to reward those others for the hard work put into
providing those needs/wants/desires, is deluded. The author of the
site also blames his lack of money on Masons while ignoring the fact
that money has been around for much longer than the Masons.
If that page is a sample of the reasoning power of the author then
Masons need fear nothing from him.
Now, when are you going to supply a well reasoned site for us to
peruse?
FilmNoir
Sort of like 'Speculative Masonry'
FilmNoir
> film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > > Interesting that you bring up "Rosemary's Baby" that is absolutely a
> > > > revealing film, and people died for it. They were satanically
> > sacrificed.
> > >
> > > Uh-huh. And you're going to fail to prove this crackpot story as well,
> > > aren't you?
> >
> > Just look at what happened to some of the people involved in it. And
what
> > happened to John Lennon out in front of the hotel where the films was
shot.
>
> You can't make the causal connection between any of these events, so all
> you are left with is coincidence. You've proved nothing.
Fact one: The Bible does say that a man will be born that will be the Son of
the Devil. The Anti-Christ 666.
Fact two: The Film "Rosemary's Baby" presents this Satanically born baby to
us.
Fact three: Sharon Tate (wife Roman Polaski) has her baby torn out of her
belly by Satanists.
Fact four: The words from the song "Helter Shelter" are found written on the
wall in Sharon Tate's own blood.
Fact five: Roman Polaski turns out to be a Child molesting Pedophile, (who
gets to live free in Europe to this day).
Fact five: John Lennon is shot dead out in front of the same Hotel where
"Rosemary's Baby" was filmed.
Fact six: John Lennon wrote "Helter Shelter" the words found written on the
wall in Sharon Tate's own blood.
But as you say, all this is just a causal coincidence.... Take care
Daryl
>
FilmNoir
This is not 'my stuff' it was a web site. not ny web site. you asked, I
presented it. I don't agree with everthing on it. I did find some good
things on it. Just as I find good things on many web sites, but I never take
anyone of them to have all the truth.
FilmNoir
Why don't you just stick with Ed's site and be happy?
FilmNoir
You don't believe in Satan... That says it all.
FilmNoir
"JB" <masoni...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:109924167...@iris.uk.clara.net...
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:KU6hd.15838$6q2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
>
> >>
> >> Please cite a reference for this calumny.
> >
> > I have read even on Pro-Masonic sites that they even know that the
> > Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry because of their secrecy.
> >
> >>
>
> Oh? Please cite a reference to the web site.
Here is one. But it is a known historical fact. JB, you need to read some
more history.
"The progress of the order (Illuminati) from 1780 on was so rapid as to
raise greatly the spirits of its leaders. The new method of spreading
Illuminism by means of its affiliation with Masonic lodges promptly
demonstrated its worth. Largely because of the fine strategy of seeking its
recruits among the officers and other influential personages in the lodges
of Freemasonry"
From a Pro-Masonic web site:
FilmNoir
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:46:02 GMT, "FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net>
> typed furiously:
>
> >
> >"David Simpson" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:7097o01ihpk52nl1d...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:08:10 GMT, "FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> typed furiously:
> >> >Well hisorically we all know of the Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and so
> >on...
> >> >As to the connection to the Illuminati and Freemasory, well that has
> >already
> >> >been established historically too.
> >>
> >> Please cite a reference for this calumny.
> >
> >I have read even on Pro-Masonic sites that they even know that the
> >Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry because of their secrecy.
> >
> Where? Cite your reference please. Which site?
Here is one. But it is a known historical fact. David, you need to read some
FilmNoir
"Jim Bennie" <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:cm3gvh$m5j$1...@vcn.bc.ca...
> In <7097o01ihpk52nl1d...@4ax.com>, David Simpson
> <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:08:10 GMT, "FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net>
> > typed furiously:
> > >Well hisorically we all know of the Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt and so
on...
> > >As to the connection to the Illuminati and Freemasory, well that has
> > >already been established historically too.
>
> > Please cite a reference for this calumny.
>
> Well, I know Masons who belong to Costco. Therefore, there's an
> historical connection between the two.
Are you really that simple minded?
>
> > >I believe that the Bible presents truth and fact. past present and
future.
> > >
> > Please cite a reference for this calumny.
>
> Only Daryl's not using a Bible. He's decided to invent his own
> interpretations so they fit in with some k00kery about a long-dead
> group somehow being tied into Freemasons and "the world power
> structure", as if such existed. All that's missing is some kind of
> Revelation "The End is Near!" cry.
But the Bible does present this grand conpiracy of the "the world power
structure" you can read about them in:
Psalms 2:2-6 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take
counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us
break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that
sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore
displeasure.
That is a grand conspiracy if there ever was one. And it is ultimately
against Jesus Christ.
David Simpson
typed furiously:
We were looking for a "well reasoned anti-masonry" site. I have yet to
find one so when you claimed you'd found one I wanted to have a look.
It was, of course, just as loony as all the rest.
David Simpson
typed furiously:
>
Then why do you claim secrecy? I was interested to read the title of
the page referred to above.
THE EUROPEAN ORDER OF THE ILLUMINATI
1. THE RISE AND THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE ORDER.
The spread of Illuminati may have been rapid but so was its
dissolution as in 1787 the Duke of Bavaria made the third and final
edict which spelt the death knell of the organisation. While there
were sporadic attempts to revive the organisation they all came to
naught.
David Simpson
typed furiously:
Why should I believe in a mythical being dreamed up to keep
unintelligent people under control? If you need such a creation so
that you become scared of the consequences of disobeying good common
sense rules then that is your loss. I prefer to think for myself
rather than letting some long dead authors dictate the way I live my
life.
David Simpson
typed furiously:
I thought you did not believe in the words of the God of the Jews.
FilmNoir
Then just stick with the Ed's Looney pro-Mason site. I have not yet found a
web site pro or con that I could say 'yes there it is folks'. If you found
it in Looney Ed's web site then be happy.
Take care
Daryl
FilmNoir
This was in answer to a question in regards to the Illuminati infiltrating
Freemasonry. All of you were shocked by such a notion. I have shown proof
that it did happen. You read it. as to secrecy, it was the fact that the
Freemasons had a program of secrecy, that appealed to the Illuminati.
Take care
Daryl
FilmNoir
What are you insane! Or more like it, a mocker.
Take care
Daryl
FilmNoir
> >You don't believe in Satan... That says it all.
> >
> Why should I believe in a mythical being dreamed up to keep
> unintelligent people under control? If you need such a creation so
> that you become scared of the consequences of disobeying good common
> sense rules then that is your loss. I prefer to think for myself
> rather than letting some long dead authors dictate the way I live my
> life.
Ok... Go for it. Let the long dead Speculative Masons dictate your life.
Take care
Daryl
FilmNoir
"David Simpson" wrote >
> I thought you did not believe in the words of the God of the Jews.
From Genesis to Malachi. I believe every word of it. And I consider every
word from the Old testament to be the absolute true pure word of God. Do you
believe in the words of the God of the Jews? Maybe you are the anti-Semitic
that you in your foolish ignorance are trying to make me out to be? Let me
know.
Take care
Daryl
JB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z1mhd.3213$zx1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> >
>> > I have read even on Pro-Masonic sites that they even know that
>> > the Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry because of their secrecy.
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> Oh? Please cite a reference to the web site.
>
> Here is one. But it is a known historical fact. JB, you need to
> read some more history.
>
> "The progress of the order (Illuminati) from 1780 on was so rapid
> as to raise greatly the spirits of its leaders. The new method of
> spreading Illuminism by means of its affiliation with Masonic
> lodges promptly demonstrated its worth. Largely because of the fine
> strategy of seeking its recruits among the officers and other
> influential personages in the lodges of Freemasonry"
>
> From a Pro-Masonic web site:
>
> http://freemasonry.bcy.ca
>
> http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/stauffer.html
>
>
>
I do beg your pardon. I thought you were one of these silly people
trying to imply that the Illuminati still existed, or their
infiltration was anything but historical. At least we can quote the
same source for their demise:
"As a final blow against the devastated order, on August 16, 1787,
the duke of Bavaria launched his third and last edict against the
system.135. The presentments of the former interdicts were
reëmphasized, and in addition, to give maximum force to the
sovereign's will, criminal process, without distinction of person,
dignity, state, or quality, was ordered against any Illuminatus who
should be discovered continuing the work of recruiting. Any so
charged and found guilty were to be deprived of their lives by the
sword; while those thus recruited were to have their goods
confiscated and themselves to be condemned to perpetual banishment
from the territories of the duke. Under the same penalties of
confiscation and banishment, the members of the order, no matter
under what name or circumstances, regular or irregular, they should
gather, were forbidden to assemble as lodges.. The end of the order
was at hand."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQYZZoPpxh1uHmCDzEQJ5JQCgqb19hk0kjLrSpBnhzMgoJeC4+9gAoLam
WeJZ6cEH4upxPg+i4XsJ/xom
=DXIb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
FilmNoir
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Z1mhd.3213$zx1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
>
>
> >> >
> >> > I have read even on Pro-Masonic sites that they even know that
> >> > the Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry because of their secrecy.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> >> Oh? Please cite a reference to the web site.
> >
> > Here is one. But it is a known historical fact. JB, you need to
> > read some more history.
> >
> > "The progress of the order (Illuminati) from 1780 on was so rapid
> > as to raise greatly the spirits of its leaders. The new method of
> > spreading Illuminism by means of its affiliation with Masonic
> > lodges promptly demonstrated its worth. Largely because of the fine
> > strategy of seeking its recruits among the officers and other
> > influential personages in the lodges of Freemasonry"
> >
> > From a Pro-Masonic web site:
> >
> > http://freemasonry.bcy.ca
> >
> > http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/stauffer.html
> >
> >
> >
>
> I do beg your pardon. I thought you were one of these silly people
> trying to imply that the Illuminati still existed, or their
> infiltration was anything but historical. At least we can quote the
> same source for their demise:
Yes.
>
> "As a final blow against the devastated order, on August 16, 1787,
> the duke of Bavaria launched his third and last edict against the
> system.135. The presentments of the former interdicts were
> reëmphasized, and in addition, to give maximum force to the
> sovereign's will, criminal process, without distinction of person,
> dignity, state, or quality, was ordered against any Illuminatus who
> should be discovered continuing the work of recruiting. Any so
> charged and found guilty were to be deprived of their lives by the
> sword; while those thus recruited were to have their goods
> confiscated and themselves to be condemned to perpetual banishment
> from the territories of the duke. Under the same penalties of
> confiscation and banishment, the members of the order, no matter
> under what name or circumstances, regular or irregular, they should
> gather, were forbidden to assemble as lodges.. The end of the order
> was at hand."
Dead as a door nail.
Take care
Daryl
FilmNoir
"Larry" <mcml...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2ue4cqF...@uni-berlin.de...
> FilmNoir wrote:
>
> > I would agree with you. Freemasonry is not a Satanic worshiping
> > organization. But it does now and has allowed Satanic worshiping people
to
> > be it's members.
>
> I would believe that because Masonry asks the candidate in whom he puts
> his trust, Masonry can only accept the answer the candidate utters. If
> he lies and states a belief in God, we have no way to detect that lie.
But Satanic Worshiping Wiccan's profess a belief in God. The question is
what God. and who is this God?
>
> But since many humans use little lies for their benefit, it doesn't seem
> to be strictly a Masonic problem. Embellished resumes is one example.
So then the Freemasonic order accepts Satanic worshiping Wiccan's?
>
> > A Bible laying on an
> > alter that everyone looks upon it as if it's just a symbol, does not
mean
> > that many that are Masons are not Satan worshipers.
>
> Well, it's not *just* a symbol, it's one of the more important symbols,
> representing the word and law of The Creator, the Great Architect of the
> Universe, God, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - however He is
> referred to by each man.
So a person that believes in the Talmud, could refer to Jesus Christ as a
Bastard boiling in piss in hell? And that is ok with the Masons? You would
make that man a member of the lodge?
> Masonry has a lot of Christianity in it -
> prayers and references to God and Jesus Christ, scriptures within or
> referenced by ritual - and so a worshiper of Satan may feel very
> uncomfortable in Lodge surrounded by all this Christianity.
Satanists love all this ritual stuff from want I have read. That is why you
have them in the Roman Catholic church and on TBN posing as Christians. It
seems as if Freemasonry is no different. It's all just the same old twisted
perversion of Scripture.
>
> > I know of some anti-Masons that do not hate Masons. Jack Harris and Bill
> > Schnoebelen don't hate Masons.
>
> I don't know of those two individuals, but they do appear to be in the
> minority. And I should clarify my statement: Anti-Masons don't
> necessarily hate Masons as individuals, but they do appear to hate the
> Craft for what they believe it represents.
You seem to have represented it good enough to me. I think I know what it's
all about.
Take care
Daryl
FilmNoir
Network. A 24 hour broadcast. Think about it. Think of the members, Think of
the revenue!
Daryl
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > Fiction. As in "We just made up this stuff and filmed it."
>
> Sort of like 'Speculative Masonry'
Could be. We don't really know, whereas the film makers are quite up-
front about the fictional nature of their work.
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> > film...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> > > > > Interesting that you bring up "Rosemary's Baby" that is absolutely a
> > > > > revealing film, and people died for it. They were satanically
> > > sacrificed.
> > > >
> > > > Uh-huh. And you're going to fail to prove this crackpot story as well,
> > > > aren't you?
> > >
> > > Just look at what happened to some of the people involved in it. And
> what
> > > happened to John Lennon out in front of the hotel where the films was
> shot.
> >
> > You can't make the causal connection between any of these events, so all
> > you are left with is coincidence. You've proved nothing.
>
>
> Fact one: The Bible does say that a man will be born that will be the Son of
> the Devil. The Anti-Christ 666.
Actually, it does not. You may interpret it so, but such is far from
universal, or even predominant. Moreover, the Bible isn't "proof" of
anything. Still MOREover, you haven't made any logical connection.
> Fact two: The Film "Rosemary's Baby" presents this Satanically born baby to
> us.
False. It presents a fictional story. Jeezuz, just LISTEN to yourself...
>
> Fact three: Sharon Tate (wife Roman Polaski) has her baby torn out of her
> belly by Satanists.
False. That didn't happen to anyone. It was a fictional depiction in a
film. You're having a hard time keeping separate actors and characters,
fact and fiction, aren't you?
> Fact four: The words from the song "Helter Shelter" are found written on the
> wall in Sharon Tate's own blood.
Hey! A fact! Alas, it proves nothing, other than, perhaps, the guilt and
lunacy of Sharon's murderers.
> Fact five: Roman Polaski turns out to be a Child molesting Pedophile, (who
> gets to live free in Europe to this day).
Yep. Still proving, what?
> Fact five: John Lennon is shot dead out in front of the same Hotel where
> "Rosemary's Baby" was filmed.
Three in a row. You're on a roll with the facts. Alas, they have
absolutely nothing to do with your argument.
> Fact six: John Lennon wrote "Helter Shelter" the words found written on the
> wall in Sharon Tate's own blood.
Yes, and I once discussed where to go clubbing in Sun Valley, Idaho with
Robert Redford. It doesn't mean I was part of some con to cheat some guy
out of lots of money in the 1920's.
> But as you say, all this is just a causal coincidence.... Take care
I think we've pretty well proved that. Good work.
FilmNoir
It's too bad the 'Speculative Masons' couldn't be as up-front about it all.
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > Now, when are you going to supply a well reasoned site for us to
> > peruse?
>
> Why don't you just stick with Ed's site and be happy?
So the answer then, would be something like "I can't."
FilmNoir
True. I can not provide you with a Web site that is completely pure and true
like you people can in Ed's web site. So I say to you like I have said to
others, love Ed's site. Consider it to be the ultimate truth. I have not
found one Web site that presents 100% truth like you Masons seem to have
found in Ed's site. Be happy! You found it man! I have not. Good luck.
Take care
Daryl
FilmNoir
> In article <AYkhd.3201$zx1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
> film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> >
> > > film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> >
> > > > > > Interesting that you bring up "Rosemary's Baby" that is
absolutely a
> > > > > > revealing film, and people died for it. They were satanically
> > > > sacrificed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Uh-huh. And you're going to fail to prove this crackpot story as
well,
> > > > > aren't you?
> > > >
> > > > Just look at what happened to some of the people involved in it. And
> > what
> > > > happened to John Lennon out in front of the hotel where the films
was
> > shot.
> > >
> > > You can't make the causal connection between any of these events, so
all
> > > you are left with is coincidence. You've proved nothing.
> >
> >
> > Fact one: The Bible does say that a man will be born that will be the
Son of
> > the Devil. The Anti-Christ 666.
>
> Actually, it does not. You may interpret it so, but such is far from
> universal, or even predominant. Moreover, the Bible isn't "proof" of
> anything. Still MOREover, you haven't made any logical connection.
The Bible does state it very clearly. But if you do not accept the Bible as
a proof then what can I say.
>
>
> > Fact two: The Film "Rosemary's Baby" presents this Satanically born baby
to
> > us.
>
> False. It presents a fictional story. Jeezuz, just LISTEN to yourself...
In the film it does present this. Are you trying to tell me that it does not
present this in the film? It is the film I am referring to, or can you
follow.
>
> >
> > Fact three: Sharon Tate (wife of Roman Polaski) has her baby torn out of
her
> > belly by Satanists.
>
> False. That didn't happen to anyone. It was a fictional depiction in a
> film. You're having a hard time keeping separate actors and characters,
> fact and fiction, aren't you?
Sharon Tate did have her baby torn out of her belly by Satanists. You are
having a hard time following this aren't you.
> > Fact four: The words from the song "Helter Shelter" are found written on
the
> > wall in Sharon Tate's own blood.
>
> Hey! A fact! Alas, it proves nothing, other than, perhaps, the guilt and
> lunacy of Sharon's murderers.
So now you do acknowledge the fact that Sharon Tate did have her baby torn
out of her belly by Satanists
> > Fact five: Roman Polaski turns out to be a Child molesting Pedophile,
(who
> > gets to live free in Europe to this day).
>
> Yep. Still proving, what?
That he got off Scott free. Most child molesters do not.
> > Fact five: John Lennon is shot dead out in front of the same Hotel where
> > "Rosemary's Baby" was filmed.
>
> Three in a row. You're on a roll with the facts. Alas, they have
> absolutely nothing to do with your argument.
They have everything to do with the film in questian "Rosemary's Baby" If
you don't see all the connections, then Be well... Be at peace.
> > Fact six: John Lennon wrote "Helter Shelter" the words found written on
the
> > wall in Sharon Tate's own blood.
>
> Yes, and I once discussed where to go clubbing in Sun Valley, Idaho with
> Robert Redford. It doesn't mean I was part of some con to cheat some guy
> out of lots of money in the 1920's.
Not even close...... Take care
Daryl
Hammond of Texas
film...@sbcglobal.net says...
> Hey! Have you Freemasons ever thought of a Tv show? How about the Masonic Tv
> Network. A 24 hour broadcast. Think about it. Think of the members, Think of
> the revenue!
OMG, No!
While the mind fairly boggles at the potential for "troll baiting" that
the medium has, the whole thing would be derailed by the budget
bickering alone. :)
Mrs. James Q. Stallion
...Fact one: The Bible does say that a man will be born that will be
the Son of the Devil. The Anti-Christ 666.
Could you give me the location for that please? Free basing Revelation
can make your head explode. :) Suzan
FilmNoir
Hehe... To bad. It would be a lot better then watching TBN. At least you
Masonic guys don't pull any punches. We know who you are. You can't say that
with the TBN crowd. Unless you have some Masonic Masters come up like Rodney
Howard-Browne and maybe present the degree of the holy order of laughter.
FilmNoir
"Mrs. James Q. Stallion" <SuzanPe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13237-418...@storefull-3131.bay.webtv.net...
Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six
hundred threescore and six 666.
Notice that it says 'it is the number of a *Man*' A man must be born of a
woman in order to be a man. Now this man is the Anti-Christ. And so he is
the son of the Devil. Flesh born, as Jesus was flesh born. Very simple
really.
Daryl
>
Mrs. James Q. Stallion
Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count
the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number
is Six hundred threescore and six 666.
Notice that it says 'it is the number of a *Man*' A man must be born of
a woman in order to be a man. Now this man is the Anti-Christ. And so he
is the son of the Devil. Flesh born, as Jesus was flesh born. Very
simple really.
Daryl
I wouldn't call anything in Revelation "simple". The question is whether
the anti-Christ is the son of satan....or satan himself. The punishment
listed is for satan himself and his angels...no mention of his son.
satan is a son of God, as is Jesus. The battle is between the
two....light and dark....good and evil.
Still....it's Revelation so it's hard to say. Thank you for the chapter
and verse. :) Suzan
JB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"FilmNoir" <film...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:R3thd.3324$zx1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "JB" <masoni...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:109932381...@iris.uk.clara.net...
>>
>> I do beg your pardon. I thought you were one of these silly
>> people trying to imply that the Illuminati still existed, or their
>> infiltration was anything but historical. At least we can quote
>> the same source for their demise:
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>
> Dead as a door nail.
>
> Take care
>
> Daryl
>
>
Cool. Now here is an example of a web site I'm minded to believe,
especially as I know next to nothing about ancient Bavarian clubs
:-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQYaci/pxh1uHmCDzEQLTMQCgoAxyLDklnucydHXuX8VdyuX/tkEAn1f5
97NCSnaowfjVGLuzXPgh3ivu
=Br6E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----