Is a Satanic cult of global leaders and Vatican heads murdering children?

funkee

Very quiet in here all of a sudden.

Absolam

funkee wrote: »

Yeah, nothing to debate here lads.
Move along now.

Did you actually offer anything for debate? Just, so far all you seem to have said is you have a phd, you're writing a book on a related subject, and robots are trying to shut down discussion?

funkee wrote: »

Did anybody else notice how this thread has evolved to become about whether we have the right to have this debate or not? Not, like, an actual debate..."By their fruits you shall know them".

I don't think anyone has suggested there is no right to discuss the CT (feel free to quote them if I'm wrong), I think we've been discussing what, if anything so far, has been posted that is relevant to the CT?

funkee wrote: »

Preface <....>America."

Posts like this for instance, which apart from containing the word 'Satanism' don't actually seem to relate to the CT at all?

funkee wrote: »

The connection to the Queen, not that you are actually interested, is that witnesses (multiple) saw her at these rituals. (Should I explain what a witness is?) And witnesses have been reporting this since at least Arizona Wilder in the mid 1980's.

Finally! So, what witnesses saw the Queen at a Satanic ritual murdering children? Who took note of their accounts? Who verified them?

funkee wrote: »

"Witnesses named Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult members as Dutch Catholic Cardinal Alfrink and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands; British, Dutch and Belgian royal family members including Queen Elizabeth, Prince Phillip, Dutch Queen Wilhemina, her family and consort King Hendrick; Pope Francis, former Pope Ratzinger, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, two British High Court Judges including Judge Fulford, a Canadian Catholic bishop and senior government ministers in Belgium and England.

Again, what witnesses? And what evidence did they present to demonstrate their knowledge?

funkee wrote: »

Last week the court adjourned for a few days after receiving word that the Ninth Circle Child Sacrifice Cult scheduled a child sacrifice for Aug 15 2014 in the subterranean vault beneath Marie-Reine-du-Monde Roman Catholic Cathedral in Montreal, Canada. Witnesses also testified that as children they were forced to watch child sacrifices in the crypt of the Caernarfon Castle in Wales, the sub basement catacomb under the west wing of the Canadian Branton Ontario Mohawk Indian residential school and at groves in France, Holland and the US."

What court? Was the sacrifice averted or are the Canadian authorities preparing to raid it? Has Denis Coderre released a statement? And again, not to labour a point, but, what witnesses? Were these different witnesses at these locations, or the same ones?

funkee wrote: »

Waiting for the your next sarcastic response.... waiting....

No sarcasm required, genuinely interested that you're trying to put points forward to support the CT. Awaiting your replies on the above.

Absolam

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you explain the pattern of a) incompetent beyond belief detectives and/or b) Honest investigators getting removed from the case involved in high profile paedophilia cases.
Just last week it was revealed that there were 7 policemen under investigation for their handling of that Welsh rock star who enjoyed having satanic sex with babies.

This is interesting. Whilst of course there are always unbelievably incompetent police officers (in hindsight!), and sometimes officers are moved on from cases, even pedophilia ones, I'd be interested in any verifiable pattern to those, especially one that relates the two types of incident.

Beano

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Personally, if at all, I would expect it to be for Queen and rather than by Queen and country - for purposes of blackmail.

I am more interested though in how you would explain away the pattern of cover-ups, as it is my starting point. It beggars belief that in a vacuum anyone of a sound mind would protect a child molester.e
So why is it happening?

I think either it is serving a greater purpose, the molesters know too much or paedophilia is endemic, though hidden within the ranks of the political/financial elite.

The title of the thread is

Is a Satanic cult of global leaders and Vatican heads murdering children?

So do you believe that the Queen is personally involved in satanic rituals where children where raped and murdered?

Beano

funkee wrote: »

The connection to the Queen, not that you are actually interested, is that witnesses (multiple)
saw her at these rituals. (Should I explain what a witness is?)

And witnesses have been reporting this since at least Arizona Wilder in the mid 1980's.

"Witnesses named Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult members as Dutch Catholic Cardinal Alfrink and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands; British, Dutch and Belgian royal family members including Queen Elizabeth, Prince Phillip, Dutch Queen Wilhemina, her family and consort King Hendrick; Pope Francis, former Pope Ratzinger, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, two British High Court Judges including Judge Fulford, a Canadian Catholic bishop and senior government ministers in Belgium and England.

Last week the court adjourned for a few days after receiving word that the Ninth Circle Child Sacrifice Cult scheduled a child sacrifice for Aug 15 2014 in the subterranean vault beneath Marie-Reine-du-Monde Roman Catholic Cathedral in Montreal, Canada. Witnesses also testified that as children they were forced to watch child sacrifices in the crypt of the Caernarfon Castle in Wales, the sub basement catacomb under the west wing of the Canadian Branton Ontario Mohawk Indian residential school and at groves in France, Holland and the US."

You're just parroting back what was in the OP. The source of which is a known crank.

Beano

enno99 wrote: »

No you dont need to research anything for me I have done all the research I need

I have no intention of spoon-feeding anyone on this forum

Well if you dont put any of this evidence forward what is there to discuss?

Beano

funkee wrote: »

Very quiet in here all of a sudden.

some of us have a life outside of CT.

rozeboosje

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's a valid thing to say even if the claim consists of an accusation of some kind of global conspiracy.

Either you take the investigation of conspiracy theories seriously, or you don't. If you DO, I would expect you to embrace the same sort of intellectual rigour that you would apply to investigating any other claim.

Imagine a "science" topic where it was Verboten to laugh Creationists or Flat Earthers out of school.

Brown Bomber

Beano wrote: »

The title of the thread is

So do you believe that the Queen is personally involved in satanic rituals where children where raped and murdered?

Seriously? I answered your question in the post you quoted:

Personally, if at all, I would expect it to be for Queen and rather than by Queen and country - for purposes of blackmail.

There is no evidence at all as far as I am aware of any involvement by the Queen. Though there is a long and proud history paedophilia and inbreeding amongst European royalty. Take Margaret Beaufort, for example. Second marriage by 12 and pregnant by 13, and that is before even considering the young servants and stable boys and so on that were there for the taking.

Both of the Queen's sons have both been very close with paedophiles. Charles with Saville and Edward with Epstein who have gotten away with it or all but got away with it. Saville was never punished for his decades of abuse while Epstein received a token sentence under extraordinary conditions and is now a free man.

Her husband is the virtual King of the Freemasons who have been implicated at times in this sorry mess and she is at the top of the Police services food chain when comes to these cover-up that you have "no doubt as to their existence".

Which takes me again back to my previous point:

I am more interested though in how you would explain away the pattern of cover-ups, as it is my starting point. It beggars belief that in a vacuum anyone of a sound mind would protect a child molester.e
So why is it happening?

I think either it is serving a greater purpose, the molesters know too much or paedophilia is endemic, though hidden within the ranks of the political/financial elite.

Brown Bomber

rozeboosje wrote: »

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's a valid thing to say even if the claim consists of an accusation of some kind of global conspiracy.

Either you take the investigation of conspiracy theories seriously, or you don't. If you DO, I would expect you to embrace the same sort of intellectual rigour that you would apply to investigating any other claim.

Imagine a "science" topic where it was Verboten to laugh Creationists or Flat Earthers out of school.

A criminal investigation is entirely different to a scientific investigation.

If I have some water, a means of heating it and cooling it and the tools to measure temperature then I can test and discover water's freezing and boiling points. There is nothing or nobody trying to conceal or distort anything. The reverse is obviously true when it comes to a criminal investigation.

Beano

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no evidence at all as far as I am aware of any involvement by the Queen.

I am glad we have finally established that. only took 9 pages.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Though there is a long and proud history paedophilia and inbreeding amongst European royalty. Take Margaret Beaufort, for example. Second marriage by 12 and pregnant by 13, and that is before even considering the young servants and stable boys and so on that were there for the taking.

I dont think they morals of the 16th century have any relevance today

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Both of the Queen's sons have both been very close with paedophiles. Charles with Saville and Edward with Epstein who have gotten away with it or all but got away with it. Saville was never punished for his decades of abuse while Epstein received a token sentence under extraordinary conditions and is now a free man.

Guilty by association?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Her husband is the virtual King of the Freemasons who have been implicated at times in this sorry mess and she is at the top of the Police services food chain when comes to these cover-up that you have "no doubt as to their existence".

Which takes me again back to my previous point:

King of the freemasons? I wasnt sure they had kings. What degree would that be? Why mention the masons at all? Implicated by who? The only person who has implicated them is you.

The queen is the nominal head of a lot of organisations. I'm not sure she is head of the police. I'm pretty sure they report to the home office. Though of course they report to the prime minister and parliament who i suppose you could say report to the queen except they dont really as she legally has little or no political power.

I very much doubt the people committing these cover-ups are doing it in her name and certainly not at her request. they do it for a number of reasons i'm sure. Incompetence plays a part as it does in most situations that involve people. The offender having a power base of their might also play a part. Certainly the case with Cyril Smith. People thinking that the offender has power. The case with Savile. He certainly wasnt afraid to threaten people. And certainly in the 70's and 80's the police had no stomach for paedophilia cases. They can be incredibly difficult to prove in court so the police dont feel it a good use of their time.

There seems to be the idea in this thread that paedophilia is somehow more common amongst the elite of society. I can assure you it isnt. It exists amongsts all levels of society and always has. Yet convictions for paeodophilia have always been very low. Paedophilia is a classless crime.

rozeboosje

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A criminal investigation is entirely different to a scientific investigation.

Strawman. While you're correct in asserting that in a criminal investigation you're dealing with human beings who may be trying to hide or distort things, this does NOT absolve you from having to exercise your investigation with full intellectual rigour, AND to discard all that is clearly nonsensical.

As you were.

Beano

funkee wrote: »

Very quiet in here all of a sudden.

Yes it is. you seem to have disappeared.

Absolam

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no evidence at all as far as I am aware of any involvement by the Queen. Though there is a long and proud history paedophilia and inbreeding amongst European royalty. Take Margaret Beaufort, for example. Second marriage by 12 and pregnant by 13, and that is before even considering the young servants and stable boys and so on that were there for the taking.

Hmm.. inbreeding fair enough, but a history of pedophilia? Leaving aside the 'proud' which I think is extravagant hyperbole, I'd like to see what amounts to a history of pedophilia? The fact that in previous centuries people married and had children at younger ages than today (both amongst the 'commoners' and royalty) doesn't rise to a history of expressed preference for children as sexual partners over adults.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Both of the Queen's sons have both been very close with paedophiles. Charles with Saville and Edward with Epstein who have gotten away with it or all but got away with it. Saville was never punished for his decades of abuse while Epstein received a token sentence under extraordinary conditions and is now a free man.

You're not a little ashamed at 'very close'? It's more than a bit of an overstatement. Saville (who was never convicted of any sex crime) and Charles were probably reasonably close after their involvement in so much charity work, and Saville (like hundreds of others) entertained Charles occasionally at his home and vice versa, but I doubt they were 'very close'. Whereas Edward and Epstein (who by the way was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution, not pedophilia) might rise to the level of acquaintances... again like hundreds, if not thousands, of others.
Regardless, knowing a(n alleged, it has to be pointed out) pedophile is rather different from being a pedophile you must admit. And being the mother of a person who has associated with a person who has been accused of pedophilia is, again, a long way from being a pedophile. Never mind murderer.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Her husband is the virtual King of the Freemasons who have been implicated at times in this sorry mess and she is at the top of the Police services food chain when comes to these cover-up that you have "no doubt as to their existence".

So, the Queen is married to a man who is a Freemason (there are no 'virtual kings' in Freemasonry, though you might have mentioned that his cousin the Duke of Kent is the Grand Master of English Freemasonry. Maybe the fact that both are Dukes confused you?) so she is implicated in whatever any Freemason might do? That's more than a bit of a stretch. And then, of course, the fact that whilst strenuous efforts have been made to implicate Freemasons (and therefore Freemasonry) in 'this sorry mess' (presuming you mean some specific pedophilia event) no one has ever proven any link at all. To save time here, as per the thread on Freemasonry, there are individuals who were Freemasons who have broken the law, and given the number of Freemasons in the world it is unlikely that no Freemason has ever been convicted of some sort of child abuse. The conviction of a pedophile in Florida, however, does not implicate the Duke of Kent, and therefore the Queen of England, in a satanic cult of global leaders and vatican heads murdering children.
The thing is, I'm married to a scientist. She works in genetics. Some forerunners of geneticists did experiments for the Nazis. Yet I don't feel at all responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany. It just wasn't my fault.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which takes me again back to my previous point:

I was wondering if you were going to come back to this point at all. Are you going to show us this pattern?

enno99

Beano wrote: »

They can be incredibly difficult to prove in court so the police dont feel it a good use of their time.

WTF

Protect and Serve

Going after the people who rape,molest,torture some of the most innocent and vulnerable in society is considered not a good use of police time

Who are they really protecting.Who are they really serving

What an appaling statement to make

Brown Bomber

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm.. inbreeding fair enough, but a history of pedophilia? Leaving aside the 'proud' which I think is extravagant hyperbole, I'd like to see what amounts to a history of pedophilia? The fact that in previous centuries people married and had children at younger ages than today (both amongst the 'commoners' and royalty) doesn't rise to a history of expressed preference for children as sexual partners over adults.

And how do you think these children havng children conceived?

Absolam wrote: »

You're not a little ashamed at 'very close'? It's more than a bit of an overstatement. Saville (who was never convicted of any sex crime) and Charles were probably reasonably close after their involvement in so much charity work, and Saville (like hundreds of others) entertained Charles occasionally at his home and vice versa, but I doubt they were 'very close'. Whereas Edward and Epstein (who by the way was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution, not pedophilia) might rise to the level of acquaintances... again like hundreds, if not thousands, of others.

Why are you defending and downplaying the crimes of child abusers???

Absolam wrote: »

Regardless, knowing a(n alleged, it has to be pointed out) pedophile is rather different from being a pedophile you must admit. And being the mother of a person who has associated with a person who has been accused of pedophilia is, again, a long way from being a pedophile. Never mind murderer.

How many child abusers do you have as family friends? I have none. The Queen has 2. How many intelligence services do you have at your disposal to investigate your acquaintances? I have none.

Absolam wrote: »

So, the Queen is married to a man who is a Freemason (there are no 'virtual kings' in Freemasonry, though you might have mentioned that his cousin the Duke of Kent is the Grand Master of English Freemasonry. Maybe the fact that both are Dukes confused you?) so she is implicated in whatever any Freemason might do? That's more than a bit of a stretch. And then, of course, the fact that whilst strenuous efforts have been made to implicate Freemasons (and therefore Freemasonry) in 'this sorry mess' (presuming you mean some specific pedophilia event) no one has ever proven any link at all. To save time here, as per the thread on Freemasonry, there are individuals who were Freemasons who have broken the law, and given the number of Freemasons in the world it is unlikely that no Freemason has ever been convicted of some sort of child abuse. The conviction of a pedophile in Florida, however, does not implicate the Duke of Kent, and therefore the Queen of England, in a satanic cult of global leaders and vatican heads murdering children.
The thing is, I'm married to a scientist. She works in genetics. Some forerunners of geneticists did experiments for the Nazis. Yet I don't feel at all responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany. It just wasn't my fault.

I am not suggesting your involvement in anything. If at all it would be irregular freemasonry. As I understand it there is a ritualstic aspect to some cases of child abuse. Masonry draws on the pagan beliefs of bygone civilisations for it's own rituals - mock sacrifice, re-birth snd so on. A common thread running through these ancient traditions is human sacrifice.

Here is the account of the daughter of a mason who claims to have suffered from masonic ritual abuse.
http://ogma.newcastle.edu.au:8080/vital/access/services/Download/uon:749/ATTACHMENT02?view=true

Absolam wrote: »

I was wondering if you were going to come back to this point at all. Are you going to show us this pattern?

Off the top of my head - I've already mentioned Saville and the the Lost Prophets guy then you also have Kincora (orangeman abuser), Jersey, Dunblaine (masonic connections), Dutroux affair. Here is one that people probably have never heard of:
Paedo MP cover-up claim: Top cop removed from sex abuse probe after naming politicians as suspects

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-mp-cover-up-claim-detective-1785273#ixzz33Cb8xrVk
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Beano

enno99 wrote: »

WTF

Protect and Serve

Going after the people who rape,molest,torture some of the most innocent and vulnerable in society is considered not a good use of police time

Who are they really protecting.Who are they really serving

What an appaling statement to make

How is it an appalling statement? Is it not the truth? The fact it goes on is appalling. Stating that it goes on is not. You need to learn to differentiate between the two.

Beano

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why are you defending and downplaying the crimes of child abusers???

I dont see any defence or downplaying or downplaying of anything. Stating facts is downplaying and defending now is it?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How many child abusers do you have as family friends? I have none. The Queen has 2.

So they are friends of the queen now are they? You seem to be really big on guilt by association.

Absolam

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And how do you think these children havng children conceived?

Probably through sex rather than history?
And what you're calling children would have been called young adults at the time.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why are you defending and downplaying the crimes of child abusers???

I'm not. But I'm not exaggerating the actions of others to bolster my argument either. It may be your opinion, but the fact is that neither was convicted of child abuse. If you're building a theory, as you are, you ought to ensure the foundations are secure. The foundations of this theory look pretty shaky at the moment?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How many child abusers do you have as family friends? I have none.

How do you know? Do you think they're likely to confess it to you during a momentary lapse in discretion? Or is it more likely that you'll learn about after the fact through some other agency? Should we pillory you for you friendships in advance, just in case?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The Queen has 2.

In your opinion. Just so we're clear.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How many intelligence services do you have at your disposal to investigate your acquaintances? I have none.

Somehow, I can't imagine the Queen is at liberty to ring up MI5 every time she wants to know what her pals did without her last weekend?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not suggesting your involvement in anything. If at all it would be irregular freemasonry. As I understand it there is a ritualstic aspect to some cases of child abuse.

There are ritualistic aspects to many activities; it's rather common for people to ritualise even the most mundane of activities (like making tea). Those rituals are not connected to Freemasonry, nor are they connected to child abuse. Ritualism is a ridiculously tenuous connection, and using it to connect child abuse to Freemasonry rather than making tea suggests you've decided there must be a connection, and are leaping on whatever slight connection you can find.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Masonry draws on the pagan beliefs of bygone civilisations for it's own rituals - mock sacrifice, re-birth snd so on. A common thread running through these ancient traditions is human sacrifice.

Masonry draws on symbolism, not beliefs, from many cultures. Human sacrifice was a feature of pretty much every culture at some point; that doesn't support any connection between Freemasonry and child abuse though.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is the account of the daughter of a mason who claims to have suffered from masonic ritual abuse.

Claims being the operative word? And it should be noted that she makes her living 'interpreting' the works of others in the light of how she perceives their probable relationships with their Masonic fathers. Now if you could point us to a number of individuals who had successfully prosecuted Freemasons for child abuse, and those Freemasons could be shown to know each other well, and they were demonstrably involved with global heads and vatican leaders, then all we'd need to is find out if any of them killed any children....

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Off the top of my head - I've already mentioned Saville and the the Lost Prophets guy then you also have Kincora (orangeman abuser), Jersey, Dunblaine (masonic connections), Dutroux affair. Here is one that people probably have never heard of:
Paedo MP cover-up claim: Top cop removed from sex abuse probe after naming politicians as suspects

So the pattern is that there are people and places that you have mentioned; this is the connection that ties them together (if you recall, the pattern was of a) incompetent beyond belief detectives and/or b) Honest investigators getting removed from the case involved in high profile paedophilia cases.). You don't think that's a somewhat circular logic?

enno99

Beano wrote: »

How is it an appalling statement? Is it not the truth? The fact it goes on is appalling. Stating that it goes on is not. You need to learn to differentiate between the two.

You will provide an official source for the statement then ?
Otherwise I will have to presume its your twisted view

Beano

enno99 wrote: »

You will provide an official source for the statement then ?
Otherwise I will have to presume its your twisted view

You are disputing that pedophilia cases are difficult to prosecute? That evidence mostly consists of one persons word against another? That physical evidence is rare?

And official sources is the standard of evidence now is it? its funny how that changes whenever it suits you.

funkee

YouTube (vowel):

"The Occult - Mass Grave of 800 Babies in Galway, Ireland. RTE 6pm News".

(An RTE story from the 6pm news Friday 30th 2014.)

Absolam

funkee wrote: »

YouTube (vowel):"The Occult - Mass Grave of 800 Babies in Galway, Ireland. RTE 6pm News".(An RTE story from the 6pm news Friday 30th 2014.)

Is your next post going to be showing how the 800 babies were murdered by a satanic cult of global leaders and vatican heads? Or are you just clueing us into the existence of youtube? or RTE? Or Galway?
Since you're back, and are presumably still anxious to engage in the debate, perhaps you might have a go at answering the questions I asked you just before you disappeared?

rozeboosje

I think some people simply don't understand the art of making inferences ... or why it's good to be competent in same.

Beano

funkee wrote: »

YouTube (vowel):

"The Occult - Mass Grave of 800 Babies in Galway, Ireland. RTE 6pm News".

(An RTE story from the 6pm news Friday 30th 2014.)

the actual news story makes no mention of the occult. the occult involvement is inferred by Kevin Annett of the ITCCS Tribunal. a credible source indeed. this thread has come full circle.

enno99

Beano wrote: »

How is it an appalling statement? Is it not the truth? The fact it goes on is appalling. Stating that it goes on is not. You need to learn to differentiate between the two.

And official sources is the standard of evidence now is it? its funny how that changes whenever it suits you.

Ah but the thing is Im a CTer prone to flights of fancy and casting aspersions all over the place
To me pedophile rings exist would I be shocked or surprised if it turned that heads of government /churches etc wre involved with them or covering them up NO

Thats my twisted view on it




You on the other hand are steeped in logic /diligence and the defense of the maligned would not be inclined to be so irrational


As you have not shown where the police stated that apprehending investigating convicting pedophiles is a waste of police time and not worth the bother

(Maybe they think going after people for broken tail lights/expired tax /and the like is far better use of their time and taxpayers money)

I will take it that the appalling statement was yours

And your twisted view on it




If you want to know more about the establishment and their ties to pedophiles there is a thread on david Icke forum (before you start on the icke bit ) a lot of the posters there are not your usual CTer,s) about 4000 pages 1000,s of links should keep you going for awhile

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=222773

funkee

Toos Nijenhuis.

Beano

enno99 wrote: »

Ah but the thing is Im a CTer prone to flights of fancy and casting aspersions all over the place
To me pedophile rings exist would I be shocked or surprised if it turned that heads of government /churches etc wre involved with them or covering them up NO

Thats my twisted view on it




You on the other hand are steeped in logic /diligence and the defense of the maligned would not be inclined to be so irrational


As you have not shown where the police stated that apprehending investigating convicting pedophiles is a waste of police time and not worth the bother

(Maybe they think going after people for broken tail lights/expired tax /and the like is far better use of their time and taxpayers money)

I will take it that the appalling statement was yours

And your twisted view on it




If you want to know more about the establishment and their ties to pedophiles there is a thread on david Icke forum (before you start on the icke bit ) a lot of the posters there are not your usual CTer,s) about 4000 pages 1000,s of links should keep you going for awhile

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=222773

The david icke forum? yeah cos he attracts a rational crowd.

enno99

Beano wrote: »

The david icke forum? yeah cos he attracts a rational crowd.

Rational

That from someone who thinks catching pedophiles is a waste of police time

funkee

Arizona Wilder.