Masons and conspiracy theories

Originally posted by sebatwerk
I'm not trying to be hard on you, but that's NOT a motive. PLEASE someone back me up on this. Freudling think that's just because the guy MIGHT have thought he could get away with murder, that means that he had a motive! That's absurd.

Sebatwerk,

I stand behind you, but you're beating a dead horse. We all (even the trolls and other naves on-board) that the shooting was an accident. Had it happened at an Elks Club meeting everyone would be saying, "Oh what a terrible accident. Those poor guys!" But since Masons were involved....MURDER, CONSPIRACY, ***MOTIVE*** and other nonsense.

I give up on them. Ignorance truly is bliss.

Senrak:

Well, you are being rather pretentious. However, since I can see where this has ended up, I will call it at this: after my research regarding the Masonic shooting case, the jury is still out for me. If anybody has any information that would further this query please U2U me.

Best wishes.

Originally posted by freudling
Senrak:

Well, you are being rather pretentious. However, since I can see where this has ended up, I will call it at this: after my research regarding the Masonic shooting case, the jury is still out for me. If anybody has any information that would further this query please U2U me.

Best wishes.

Nope. Not pretentious at all. You just refuse to believe an accident can happen if a Mason is involved. The jury is IN, in your book. If it were a non-Mason you'd believe it COULD have been an accident. ...and that's what it was. A VERY STUPID accident that NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. Don't believe for a minute I'm "standing behind a Brother Mason" and trying to protect or cover-up what was done. It was unspeakably horrible and my heart goes out to the family of the Brother who was killed AND to the poor Brother who screwed up. How horrible he must feel.

Is THAT pretentious?

Originally posted by freudling
I clearly stated his motive: HE DID IT FOR THE SOCIETY. Thinking you can get away with something can be necessarily associated with your motive. This point comes up over-and-over in Court cases. Funny though, I am not concerned with figuring out his motive, but rather, clearing up what Mayo said. So, back on track: Evidence to refute Mayo's comments is needed. If not, end of discussion.

A MOTIVE is a reason to have compelled someone to do something. For example, a motive in this case would be if the victim knew that the guy had been cheating on his wife and threatened to tell her. THAT'S a motive. Thinking you might get away with it is not a REASON for doing something, merely a circumstance.

And we cannot get back on track until you clear this hurdle. ADMIT that you cannot pin a motive on the shooter.

Originally posted by senrak
I stand behind you, but you're beating a dead horse. We all (even the trolls and other naves on-board) that the shooting was an accident. Had it happened at an Elks Club meeting everyone would be saying, "Oh what a terrible accident. Those poor guys!" But since Masons were involved....MURDER, CONSPIRACY, ***MOTIVE*** and other nonsense.

Freudling isn't a waste of time because, even though he is an anti, at least he seems to use his brain (though maybe not for the correct purposes) before spewing out his posts. If he really is searching for truth, he will take what I say into consideration.

Regardless, I agree that he wouldn't even bother if masons weren't involved.

How old was the guy that did the shooting?.

Originally posted by ThePunisher
How old was the guy that did the shooting?.

In his 70's.

Someone has a billion $ in the bank. They come across an opportunity to steal 1 million. They don't need the money but know that they can get away with it scott free. They steal the money.

I spoke with a very good lawyer and he agrees with me. I can provide the name of the law firm if you would like to clear up the motive bit.

Originally posted by freudling
Someone has a billion $ in the bank. They come across an opportunity to steal 1 million. They don't need the money but know that they can get away with it scott free. They steal the money.

I spoke with a very good lawyer and he agrees with me. I can provide the name of the law firm if you would like to clear up the motive bit.

I don't think this is a good idea. Take this off site, we don't want that here.

Originally posted by freudling
Someone has a billion $ in the bank. They come across an opportunity to steal 1 million. They don't need the money but know that they can get away with it scott free. They steal the money.

That is NOT EVEN CLOSE to enough to convict someone! It's not even enough to prompt an investigation. That is NOT a motive. If you want me to consult my dad, sister, grandfather or uncle, who are all lawyers (well, my sis is still in law school), I have no problem doing so. Nothing you say will change the fact that what you claim, alone, is simply not enough to convict someone. You need to take back what you said about being able to "pin a motive" on him, because you simply can't.


[edit on 19-3-2005 by sebatwerk]

I agree with Freudling. It has been demonstrated that some people commit crimes for the shear thrill of the act. Psychologists label it, others just call it excitement. Moreover, separating what freudling pointed out (getting away with it) is a mistake when formulating a person's motive. While it may not factor in to a large degree in some cases, in others it is more than a necessary constituent of the "cause" of the act.

Furthermore, from my law book:


motive
n. in criminal investigation the probable reason a person committed a crime, such as anger, greed, vengence or part of a theft. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime.

With some criminals years pass before a workable motive can be elicited from the perps. Trying to conclude on a motive with this guy on an internet site is foolish. What's clear is he did the crime and his excuse is rather pedestrian.

[edit on 20-3-2005 by Guy Kawasaki]

Originally posted by Guy Kawasaki
I agree with Freudling. It has been demonstrated that some people commit crimes for the shear thrill of the act. Psychologists label it, others just call it excitement. Moreover, separating what freudling pointed out (getting away with it) is a mistake when formulating a person's motive. While it may not factor in to a large degree in some cases, in others it is more than a necessary constituent of the "cause" of the act.

While I agree with what you said above, you can NEVER prove that the guy thought he could get away with it. You cannot read his mind and therefore do not know what he was thinking. That's why you cannot pin a motive on him, Freudling's arguments are based on ASSUMPTION.

From what I have read, his argument is not based on the motive as a whole, but on a discrepency within the media. That is what nobody has given a pertinent reply to.

Originally posted by Guy Kawasaki
From what I have read, his argument is not based on the motive as a whole, but on a discrepency within the media. That is what nobody has given a pertinent reply to.

I realize that, but the other stuff has already been argued several times. And besides, his claims about being able to pin a motive on the suspect are incorrect. That's why I am arguing them. The rest of his posting was pretty solid, although slightly skewed by the fact that if masons had not been involved, but rather Knights of Columbus or Order of Moose, he wouldn't even bother.

Novusordo

In another thread, you said the investigator on the scene of the crime at a Masonic shooting was a Mason of the very lodge in which the shooting took place himself. Can you give me more information about that? Where did you read that? If that is the case, then the shooting last year? gets a bit more mysterious. Go back and read a few pages of this thread to see the mess that case is as Freudling dug up some detritus most choose to ignore.

Originally posted by Guy Kawasaki
Novusordo

In another thread, you said the investigator on the scene of the crime at a Masonic shooting was a Mason of the very lodge in which the shooting took place himself. Can you give me more information about that? Where did you read that? If that is the case, then the shooting last year? gets a bit more mysterious. Go back and read a few pages of this thread to see the mess that case is as Freudling dug up some detritus most choose to ignore.

Nnovusordo lied. That is not true and he himself can tell you that he has no evidence of it. He refused, on several occasions, to give me evidence of other outrageous claims that he made, I think this case is no different. He makes MANY outrageous claims, most of them he is just repeating somethinng he read on David icke's website, he has said so himself. I would take everything he says with a grain of salt.

And Freudling did not find much about the shooting except an error in one of the articles written about it. It was a very obvious accident, there is nothing to indicate that it could be something more. If there is, I would like to see that evidence. The only reason ANYONE is making a big deal about this is because masons were involved. if it was a Moose, or a Rotary Club, you guys wouldn't think twice about it.

And Freudling did not find much about the shooting except an error in one of the articles written about it. It was a very obvious accident, there is nothing to indicate that it could be something more. If there is, I would like to see that evidence. The only reason ANYONE is making a big deal about this is because masons were involved. if it was a Moose, or a Rotary Club, you guys wouldn't think twice about it.

Evidence? The article stands and you have provided no evidence to show that in fact it was a mistake. And being that it is a Masonic shooting, and thus a fish net of activity for anti-masons, it is still up to you to provide a pertinent reply: you will have to do a little better than a handful of Masons making public statements.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by Guy Kawasaki]

Originally posted by Guy Kawasaki
Evidence? The article stands and you have provided no evidence to show that in fact it was a mistake. And being that it is a Masonic shooting, and thus a fish net of activity for anti-masons, it is still up to you to provide a pertinent reply: you will have to do a little better than a handful of Masons making public statements.

What evidence do I need to provide to show it was a mistake? Look in any of the articles. There are testimonies from the shooter, and witnesses. There is my proof, I don't need anything else.

In this country people are innocent until proven guilty. It is UP TO YOU to prove this WAS NOT a mistake.


[edit on 31-3-2005 by sebatwerk]

Ok...One last time....

www.grandlodgescotland.com...

Altho this article is on the Grand Lodge of Scotland's website it is written by an Associated Press journalist....read *very* carefully what the POLICE said and that the reporter clears up the misconception of the SOCIAL Fellow Craft CLUB and the Fellow Craft Degree.... pay close attention to paragraphs 7, 13, and 17. (And before certain someone screetches about the paragraph's numbers....remember this was written by an AP reporter...not by someone transmitting a secret reptillian code about blowing up toilets or world domination)

Sorry to all of you who hope to find a red herring in this....it's not going to happen.......

Originally posted by Golfie
Ok...One last time....

www.grandlodgescotland.com...

Altho this article is on the Grand Lodge of Scotland's website it is written by an Associated Press journalist....read *very* carefully what the POLICE said and that the reporter clears up the misconception of the SOCIAL Fellow Craft CLUB and the Fellow Craft Degree.... pay close attention to paragraphs 7, 13, and 17. (And before certain someone screetches about the paragraph's numbers....remember this was written by an AP reporter...not by someone transmitting a secret reptillian code about blowing up toilets or world domination)

Sorry to all of you who hope to find a red herring in this....it's not going to happen.......

Your repsonses are insufficient.

Para 7"Police called the shooting "completely accidental," but Eid was charged with second-degree manslaughter. He pleaded innocent and bail was set at $2,500."

This adds nothing to shed light on Mayo's comments in the AP article from March 10, 2004, saying it was an initiation into the Fellow Craft within Masonary.

Para 13 "I have never heard of anything like that," agreed Len Henderson, a 30-year member of a lodge in Portsmouth, N.H. "I was extremely upset to think people would think this had anything to do with a legitimate Masonic initiation."

This adds nothing still. Because some 30 year old guy named Len who is a Freemason says he has never heard of this before, so it must necessarily never have happened? Poor logic. This proves nothing and does not address Mayo's comments.

Para 17 "There are three levels of entry into the organization: apprentice, fellow craft and master Mason. Although the Patchogue group used the name "Fellow Craft" for its social group, it is unrelated to the second-degree moniker officially sanctioned by the Masons, said Robert Leonard, a spokesman for the New York State Freemasons."

Spokeman's for Freemasons are not going to cut it on this one. Moreover, this, again, says nothing to shed light on Mayo's comments.

Your reply has failed to further this case any. Once again, nobody has shown, with any evidence whatever, that the AP article on March 10 in the Washington Post is incorrect in regards to Mayo's comments. Further, nobody has addressed witness statements talking of gun rituals going back 70 years. Nobody has shown how old the supposed "Fellow Craft Club" is. Therefore, this case is not closed.