Interesting Place to Find a Masonic Obelisk

Have any of you guys read this book?
It's online in it's entirety and a great look into the Masonic Symbolism attached to Obelisks...



[edit on 25-1-2008 by twitchy]

Originally posted by twitchy
Appak and Trinityman have both been pretty decent about the discussion, I'm intersted in knowing what you two think about the choice to place an obelisk there?

Well now that we're back at the trinity site, I'm starting to wonder if it really is a different structure. I would hate to think this entire discussion hinges on whether or not it's an obelisk, though we have done plenty of debating to the link between masons and obelisks. I think you did a fair part in proving your suspicion of that.

If it weren't an obelisk, the question still remains, as you said, why would something be placed at the trinity site? A structure out in the middle of nowhere at the first detonation area of the first nuclear blast? That just screams symbolism... and having studied enough about the death-cults that have been heavily involved in covert weapons development etc. Nuclear weapons WERE in that covert department at one time.

Even if the structure is not an obelisk, some society or order made the decision to place an object there. Can we definitively say it was Masons? Nope. I think this thread has reached the point where we can say neither side is capable of proving Mason involvement etc. It all comes back to the symbolism of putting an object at the trinity site... that symbolism is just one facet of secret societies etc.

There has to be a record of this thing being erected, wonder what the local news paper was at the time, they would have covered the story it seems as they often cover public masonic ceremonies. Anybody know the name of the paper there that would have benn there when the memorial was erected?

To return to the original topic.

Twitchie, would you mind explaining why you think the monument in question is or might be Masonic. I seem to have never found any posts on that topic. Pure speculation is fine with me, I’m just curious why you think that particular monument is?

For an example several people there at the time were boy scouts in all likely hood too.

Originally posted by Masonic Student
would you mind explaining why you think the monument in question is or might be Masonic.

I don't know for sure that this Obelisk is Masonic, hence the thread continues. The Big Cheese at the time was a Demolay, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the Maj. Gen. who bought it was too. If it was paid for by masons, and was erected by masons, with masonic ceremony, and under the auspices of a masonic secretary of interior, then one would logically conclude the obelisk is masonic.
Don't know for sure yet, but it's being looked into to. Hopefully more Objectively, thanks to the mods.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by twitchy]

reply to post by twitchy


Thanks, I can now fully understand the reasons for the original question. As yet I’ve found no references to the obelisk as a “Masonic Symbol” in my reference material here at work. I don’t personally own a copy of the text you linked, but am trying to locate a copy.

Looks like Roswell would have been the closest town to White Sands with a decent Newspaper, god I hope I don't end up looking through scanned microfiche over this...


Edit:
My god, putting Roswell, obelisk, and Masonic in a google search engine is like turning on an electromagnet at a paperclip factory.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by twitchy]

Originally posted by twitchy
It's online in it's entirety and a great look into the Masonic Symbolism attached to Obelisks...

Would you have a link for that? (can't seem to find it; only found a limited version on google books)

Thanks

[edit on 25/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

I found it on google a while back, looks like it's gone now, odd the text from the excerpt on google books was there yesterday...
www.google.com...
It's old enough now to be public domain though I'll see if I can find another copy. I wonder why the excerpt was removed from google since yesterday?

Originally posted by twitchy
Looks like Roswell would have been the closest town to White Sands with a decent Newspaper, god I hope I don't end up looking through scanned microfiche over this...

Edit:
My god, putting Roswell, obelisk, and Masonic in a google search engine is like turning on an electromagnet at a paperclip factory.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by twitchy]

After your description I just had to try it! Wow, what a load of odddball semi related hits.

reply to post by twitchy

Originally posted by twitchy
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

CECIL D. ANDRUS was secretary of the Interior that year, he was a DeMolay...
en.wikipedia.org...
How does that proove your obelisk isn't masonic?

Edit: literally in the DeMolay Hall of Fame

Well, this one is easy, and as an added bonus it will also demonstrate your complete and utter lack of attention to detail, and thus your exceedingly poor research ability:

Source - linked directly from twitchy's source referenced in above post

Cecil Dale Andrus (born August 25, 1931 in Hood River, Oregon) is a former United States Secretary of the Interior and Democratic Governor of Idaho. He served a combined 14 years as governor (1971-1977 and 1987-1995) and as Interior secretary during the Jimmy Carter Administration. Andrus served as governor longer than anyone else in Idaho history. In public life he was noted for his environmentalist views.

In January 1977 Andrus resigned as governor to serve as Secretary of the Interior for newly-inaugurated President Jimmy Carter, becoming the first Idahoan to serve in a presidential cabinet.

Well, let's see. According to CNN, the obelisk was erected "some 20 years" after the test happened.

where the world changed on July 16, 1945, at 5:29 a.m. Mountain War Time.

In this place, at that time, the world's first nuclear device exploded and the nuclear age was born. A simple stone obelisk, erected some 20 years after the event, marks that birthplace.

So by my reckoning, that puts the erection of the obelisk circa 1965... 6 years before Andrus was even the governor of Idaho, and 12 years before he was appointed Secretary of the Interior.

So that "Masonic" connection is now debunked, and your shoddy research is again on display. Next!



Round 2, coming up!

Edit to add:

The plaque on the monument reads: "TRINITY SITE Where the world's first nuclear device was exploded on July 16, 1945. Erected 1965, White Sands Missile Range, J. Frederick Thorlin, Major General U.S. Army, Commanding"

[edit on 1/25/08 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by The Axeman
So by my reckoning, that puts the erection of the obelisk circa 1965... 6 years before Andrus was even the governor of Idaho, and 12 years before he was appointed Secretary of the Interior.

So that "Masonic" connection is now debunked, and your shoddy research is again on display. Next!

You are, of course correct.

...and, what a surprise, it is easily researched, and proof properly presented.

BTW, the plaque on the monument itself says 'erected 1965.'

Your pal,
Meat.

Originally posted by mmmeat

Again, I call your bluff. I would be surprised if ANYONE U2Ud you at any time about anything. Your 'imaginary friends' haven't all rushed forward and supported you. No one has supported you on this topic.

Excuse me please for the off topic,this one I feel I need to speak on.

Puts hand up,I was one person who u2ued twitchy and said exactly what he said,that was about 3-4 years ago and has been the only u2u I have sent him,I am glad he stuck to his guns in that thread and I commend him again in this one.

I couldn`t see much in twitchy`s opening post here but I am still open to being wrong (and now leaning toward that) and have found this thread interesting,other than the name calling etc as usual from either anti or pro and its a shame mods need to be involved at all,especially because those that like to believe they are enlightened or educated feel the need to belittle to silence or get their point across.

Originally posted by gps777
I couldn`t see much in twitchy`s opening post here but I am still open to being wrong (and now leaning toward that)...

And what causes you to lean toward the validity of his OP? Aside from the banter, has it not been reasonably shown that the monument is not, and was never intended to be, a "Masonic" memorial?

Originally posted by twitchy
I don't know for sure that this Obelisk is Masonic, hence the thread continues.

Really? You don't for sure yet you title the thread with an absolute stating it is Masonic. Your OP makes similar claims. Now you're not sure. Hmmmm.

The Big Cheese at the time was a Demolay

Wrong. See above.

and I have a sneaking suspicion that the Maj. Gen. who bought it was too.

Your 'sneaking suspicions' don't mean squat to this reader.

If it was paid for by masons

Conjecture...

and was erected by masons, with masonic ceremony

More conjecture...

and under the auspices of a masonic secretary of interior

Wrong...

then one would logically conclude the obelisk is masonic.

I wouldn't but I have concluded your case is weak. Non-existent, really.

Don't know for sure yet, but it's being looked into to.

Here's a tip: Do your research before starting a thread.

Originally posted by The Axeman

And what causes you to lean toward the validity of his OP?

Where masons have said repeatedly that the obelisk is not masonic and I had not had any reason to believe otherwise as well,then with the info that twitchy later provided leans me toward that there is more to this than I thought.

Whether or not it is a Masonic symbol, it is still an object that freemasonry is associated with for some reason and held to some importance to what degree I dont know.

I dont have much to add other than opinion.

reply to post by twitchy


I read the few pages that were available (it was not the entire book when I viewed it) and found this treatise on Egyptian symbolism in relation to Masonry to be erroneous in one of its major premesis. The authors state that Cleopatra's Needle was constructed aproximately 2500 years BC (the actual date is circa 1500BC). They also alledge that there was part of an iron-handled trowel attached to the base of the obelisk. They then extrapolated that the obelisk was therefore Masonic due to the trowel's presence.

According to accepted history, the Iron Age, at its earliest possible date, began in 1200BC. This puts the trowel much further after the obelisk's construction and this does not support their theory that this portion of the obelisk is Masonic. It may have symbols engraved upon it that have been adopted by Freemasonry but the trowel was obviously a much later addition, and possibly even a 19th century addition.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

Sorry i only read the first 4 pages and scimmed the last 10, but In reference to the first picture there does look to be thirteen levels of rocks on each side. just a thought.

reply to post by gps777


Well, amidst the garbage in the thread proffered by the OP, there was a point or two. Allow me to explain.

The obelisk is a decidedly Egyptian symbol, originally. There can be no denial of the obelisk's association with ancient Egypt.

According to Egyptian tradition, the obelisk symbolizes the primordeal Earth upon which the sun's rays first fell; the Creation, if you will. They believed the Sun was literally God, hence, the first time the Sun's (God's) rays (power) touched the Earth would be an important event to them indeed. In addition to this the obelisk was seen as a symbol of God, whose embodiment was the sun. Therefore, we can safely say that is was, in effect, a symbol of the sun as well as the "mound of earth" that first saw sunlight. Also by virtue of being a symbol of the sun, it is by association a symbol of Light as well.

It's important to note that virtually all religions reference the sun; despite the outer trappings of a given faith; somehow, some way, through its symbols, it is linked however subtly to the original Solar religion. So, it's no surprise that this symbol has found its way into virtually every culture.

Though its original symbolism is lost on many, it is certain that those who make it their business to study such things discover this fact. In Masonry, the sunrise and indeed the Creation are very potent symbols, as is Light itself. While the Obelisk may not be directly used in Masonic symbolism or ritual, it is easy to see why Masons might take a keen interest in them, due to the fact that the symbolism of the obelisk is familiar to the Masonic mind.

Masonry encourages personal study and growth in one's personal religion or faith. As one studies, one is bound to see the very many subtle similarities and connections between the various religions throughout history. They all share common themes and they all incorporate similar ideas and symbols; thus, the original symbolism of the obelisk can be superimposed upon virtually any system that shares these common themes.

Is it any wonder that a fraternity that encourages academic study of religious and other symbolisms would produce men who would perhaps develop a fondness for this particular symbol, despite it's omission in official Masonic material?

It would seem to me foolish to think otherwise.

Is the obelisk itself inherently Masonic? No. Are there instances of Masons referencing the symbolism of the obelisk? Of course.

Does this give any validity to twitchy's claim that the Trinity "obelisk" is Masonic? Absolutely not. Let us consider:

1. There are no Masonic symbols on said "obelisk."

2. There is no association between the site and Freemasonry.

3. There is no association between the atomic bomb and Freemasonry.

4. There is no connection between the man who erected the "obelisk" and Freemasonry.

5. There was no Masonic ceremony associated with the "obelisk's" erection.

6. The obelisk is not an inherently Masonic symbol, ergo the association to Freemasonry proposed by twitchy lacks substance.

7. Twitchy has provided zero (0) evidence of a connection between this particular monument and Freemasonry.

8. Twitchy has attempted to associate this obelisk to Freemasonry by way of an individual who a) was not a Mason, and b) was not involved in any way, shape, or form with the monument in question.

9. Twitchy constantly demands that his "opponents" prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.

10. Twitchy argues that the monument is in fact an obelisk based on the White Sands Missile Test Site website, written by someone who doesn't give a "jack hooey," I believe the term was, whether it is an obelisk or a cairn, despite the fact that technically, the monument is indeed a cairn.

Now, do you still lean towards twitchy's assertion that the monument is a "Masonic Obelisk?"

[edit on 1/25/08 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by The Axeman

Well, amidst the garbage in the thread proffered by the OP, there was a point or two. Allow me to explain.

Thanks for taking the time to explain,I`m glad you can also see there was a point or two amidst what you refer as garbage.

The obelisk is a decidedly Egyptian symbol, originally. There can be no denial of the obelisk's association with ancient Egypt.

I havn`t seen anyone deny this on this thread or any other nor outside of the web.I think you may have been confused there,the obelisk and its association with the sun god Ra is what lifts the eye brow in those that remove themselves from pagan worship.Then if masons associate with this symbol I then have to question those that are Christian Masons and why Governments or Christian Churchs etc have them.Why not leave it to those who worship the sun god and masonry has a hand in this.

This is one reason as a Christian I know freemasonry isn`t for me.Though this is also off topic.

While the Obelisk may not be directly used in Masonic symbolism or ritual, it is easy to see why Masons might take a keen interest in them, due to the fact that the symbolism of the obelisk is familiar to the Masonic mind.

Yeah thanks Axe this is how I was seeing it.

Masonry encourages personal study and growth in one's personal religion or faith. As one studies, one is bound to see the very many subtle similarities and connections between the various religions throughout history. They all share common themes and they all incorporate similar ideas and symbols; thus, the original symbolism of the obelisk can be superimposed upon virtually any system that shares these common themes.

I do appreciate you explaining it,study is fine and I tip my hat to those well studied I`m not one,though have faith in God and the gospel.Universalism or melding beliefs into one supreme being isn`t something I will ever share.I`m also aware and against what Constantine did in meshing beliefs.

Is it any wonder that a fraternity that encourages academic study of religious and other symbolisms would produce men who would perhaps develop a fondness for this particular symbol, despite it's omission in official Masonic material?

Again I do understand,I dont share a fondness of anything that is depicted of God that isn`t Him.I dont own crosses etc let alone have a confusion between an obelisk and God.

It would seem to me foolish to think otherwise.

Here we agree also,searching for the Truth however is found on your knee`s not in study though and is why I`m called a fundie or a blind ignorant sheep etc,and is something I can seriously see that I can share frustrations that masons feel when people say all sorts of things about you guys.

Is the obelisk itself inherently Masonic? No. Are there instances of Masons referencing the symbolism of the obelisk? Of course.

Does this give any validity to twitchy's claim that the Trinity "obelisk" is Masonic? Absolutely not. Let us consider:

I dont disagree with this,however I think it healthy that when images as the obelisk and the like are on government property people do have the right to object.I dont trust the Catholic Church either.

Now, do you still lean towards twitchy's assertion that the monument is a "Masonic Obelisk?"

No where did I say that I was leaning to it being a "Masonic obelisk" obviously obelisk`s are Egyptian I said I was open to being wrong on the questions that I first asked twitchy and was staying out of the discussion until someone called him a liar when I knew otherwise and it didn`t sit right with me to say nothing.

So if its called an obelisk its an "Egyptian Obelisk" whether masons had anything to do with its construction? I can see the possibility in that,why there is no visible masonic emblems on the monument? it doesn`t bother me if there were,at the end of the day does it matter.Where those that had a hand in making WMD are viewed in my eye`s as the stupid ignorant genius`s.

Something I have learned of masons on ATS over the years, from what I have seen, the vast majority of the time Masons are forth coming on the info that is of masonry and what is not,be it whether that sits right with my or anybodies beliefs or not,is why I think you guys are telling the truth as you believe it to be.

That doesn`t mean however that anyone self included has to believe that freemasonry is good (because I dont), does good always (because I dont)and has good intentions (well for most mason`s I think they believe they do and do charitable work),through its influence of occult especially in and of Government and worldly affairs.Though I know you guys say that you play no part in politics,yet the symbols and monuments you guys are fond of are in Government.

Maybe we will see eye to eye one day Axe though I`m no ones personal enemy even though I disagree with freemasonry.So i`ll leave it at that and allow it to stay on topic.