It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
....anyone have any other information on it? Who took him? Who was he? Heard from again? Why was he taken?
Vatican Bankster
Marcinkus was the president of the Istituto per le Opere di Religione, also known as the Vatican Bank, from 1971 to 1989. As early as April 24, 1973, Marcinkus was questioned in his Vatican office by federal prosecutor William Aronwald and Bill Lynch, head of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the United States Department of Justice, about his involvement in the delivery of $14.5 million US worth of counterfeit bonds to the Vatican in July 1971, part of a total request of $950 million US worth stated in a letter on Vatican notepaper.
His name and the official letter had arisen during the investigation of an international gang, who eventually served twelve years in prison. Marcinkus "said he considered the charges against him serious but not based enough on fact that he would violate the Vatican Bank's confidentiality to defend himself. ...back in the States it was agreed on the highest levels that the case against Marcinkus could not be pursued any further."
In July 1982, Marcinkus was implicated in financial scandals being reported on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout Europe, particularly the collapse of the Banco Ambrosiano, in which Propaganda Due (aka "P2"), a masonic lodge, was involved (Marcinkus had been a director of Ambrosiano Overseas, based in Nassau, Bahamas, and had been involved with Ambrosiano's chairman, financier Roberto Calvi, for a number of years). He was also involved with Michele Sindona, who had links with the Mafia.
Originally posted by Isaacland
[...]
Who control the information control the present, Who controls the past controls the future Who controls the present, controls the past...
[...]
To the future or to the past, to a time when men are different from one another and do not live alone--to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother
Originally posted by xuenchen
The Vatican – Mafia – CIA
Originally posted by AuranVector
Originally posted by xuenchen
The Vatican – Mafia – CIA
Another thing about Fox News struck me again today: there is a strong Catholic presence on Fox News. And of course, Fox is VERY Pro-Zionist.
AV
Originally posted by Isaacland
reply to post by xuenchen
Very interesting my friend, the Vatican seems to have played an very important role during WW2. Now that we know the Vatican is a Legion of the secret Roman Empire it all makes sens. No doubts The Vatican – Mafia – CIA are interlinked and Legions of Rome.
WW2 brought the United Nation and the creation of the Zionist Israel two major Chess pieces on the NWO's Grand Chessboard.
www.livius.org...
It was not easy to become a senator. One needed a lot of money from respectable sources (agriculture, not commerce), had to be popular among the voters if one wanted to be elected, and needed connections. People from families that had already produced senators of consular rank had large advantages. Still, the Senate was officially never a closed body, and there were always new men who rose to the senatorial elite.
In the second century, the Roman elite slowly started to change. People of senatorial families preferred to marry their sons and daughters to the boys and girls of the best families in Rome, which were -of course- also senatorial families. As a result, an elite developed within the elite: the new elite of senatorial families, and the other, wealthy families, which still called themselves equites, "knights", an old name. For them, the taboo on commercial incomes was less rigid than it was for senators, and they often invested money in tax farming companies. As a result, tensions arose between an elite of magistrates and an elite of bankers.
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by mick1423
Well that's fascinating, reminds me of mother-ship earth
papercastlepress.com...
The Romans did not have a common era like we have. Instead, they called their years after the two supreme magistrates, the consuls. The year that corresponds to our 59 BCE was known to them as 'the year in which Gaius Julius Caesar and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus were consuls'. As long as one had a list of magistrates, one could date all past events. Using a similar list, we are able to convert Roman year names to our year numbers.
Originally, the pontifex maximus was responsible for the maintenance of the official version of this list, which was published at the end of the second century BCE. However, there are two problems, which are usually ignored by modern historians.
The Roman year did not start on 1 January, but on 1 September (in the fifth century) or 1 July (in the fourth century). A Roman year name should after conversion have two elements (e.g., '300/299'), not one ('300'). If it has only one element, it is almost certainly inaccurate.
The list seems to be incomplete. Probably, four couples of consuls are missing. This is the main problem.
A third chronological problem may be mentioned in passing. Because of the irregular intercalation of months, exact dates mentioned in our sources do not correspond with our calendar dates. For example, the poet Ennius writes that 'the moon blocked out the sun in darkness on June's fifth day', which is a description of the solar eclipse on 21 June 400 BCE.
First, it should be observed that AD/BC did not come into vogue until well into the fifteenth century, though by the ninth century AD was fairly popular (without an accompanying BC). As early as the sixteenth century, “AD,” “Christian era,” “common era,” and “Dionysian era” were all used interchangeably. Thus, it is hardly new to use “common era” for “AD.” In AD 525 (or 525 CE), Dionysius Exiguus invented the anno Domini nomenclature. Two hundred years later, in 731, the Venerable Bede was the first to utilize both AD and BC.
Dionysius Exiguus, a monk from Russia who died about 544, was asked by Pope John I to set out the dates for Easter from the years 527 to 626. It seems that the Pope was keen to produce some order in the celebration of Easter. Dionysius decided to begin with what he considered to be the year of Jesus' birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later. .....
When, in 527, he formalized the date of Jesus' birth, Dionysius put Christmas on the map. Jesus was born, he declared, on December 25 in the Roman year 753. Dionysius then suspended time for a few days, declaring January 1, 754—New Year's day in Rome—as the first year in a new era of world history. .....
His contemporaries claimed that God created the earth on March 25.
It was inconceivable that the son of God could have been in any way imperfect.
Therefore Jesus must have been conceived on March 25.
This meant that he must have been born nine months later—December 25.
Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Isaacland
An example of a "Roman Abandonment" in recent times is the decline of communism by way of the fall of the Soviet Union.