Edward Norton medium for war and terrorist acceptance programming?

Torakx

Di0genes wrote: »

I think it's fair to assume that I'm the only person on this forum who has met Tim Burton, and he is many things, but not a Mason.




No, for starts its not a Car Park, they're walking down a street. And if you listen to the commentary Edward Norton and Brad Pitt really wanted one car to be a modern Volkswagon Beetle, because they felt it was modern marking intentionally repackaging 60s ideals.

It's fair to assume that despite your many claims about the movie your posts are riddled with factual errors about the film, the book, and the author. And perhaps you should rewatch it, read the book, and perhaps some other works by the author before coming out with yet more lurid conspiracy theories.

I dissagree with the car statements.
I rewatched it again.
They clearly skip the light blue looking ford car after Pitt says "leave that one" and they move on from a smashed BMW to smashing a brand new Volkswagon beetle.
So it looks like they smashed up just the german cars and left the american Ford.As to wether that actually represents anythign or its pure coincedence the directer chose those cars i cant say for sure.

What is it about Tim Burton that tells you he isnt a freemason?(a secret society that keeps secrets upon a death oath...)
If i can get solid reasoning i will be able to move on to others who were involved in his movies so i can find out who is placing illuminatti and satanic references in his movies.
I honestly presumed he was into masonry because of all the masonry references in his movies which he directed and produced.
If i am proven wrong i will be just as happy as proven right.Either way its a solid answer for me and i can move on to find out the real sources.

Kepti

Torakx wrote: »

If i can get solid reasoning i will be able to move on to others who were involved in his movies so i can find out who is placing illuminatti and satanic references in his movies.

I've watched Fight Club a few times and I never picked up on any satanic references. That said, I wasn't actively looking for them. Where are they?

Torakx

I didnt see any myself. I ment in general about the satanic stuff since it is prevailant in most situations where mind control is involved.
Im honestly trying to find out for myself if this is true or not.
You could say there was an antichrist like arche-type in Brad Pitts character.
But i only mention that because i read this article
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/review.cfm?rtype=8&reviewid=3&page=1

The second page of that is more interesting.

Di0genes

Torakx wrote: »

I dissagree with the car statements.
I rewatched it again.
They clearly skip the light blue looking ford car after Pitt says "leave that one" and they move on from a smashed BMW to smashing a brand new Volkswagon beetle.
So it looks like they smashed up just the german cars and left the american Ford.As to wether that actually represents anythign or its pure coincedence the directer chose those cars i cant say for sure.

So why get into a huff and paranoid about it? Listen to the audio commentary both Norton and Pitt are incredibly specific about the reasoning behind it.

As to whether the director "chose" those cars you're displaying the fact that you clearly have absolutely no understanding of the film making process. You see those other names before the credits? The editor. The art director? The DoP? Those people are hugely important to the collaborative creative process of film making. No one working in film making genuinely believes in auteur theory. You really think David Fincher actively gave thought to every car in that scene?

I'll give you an example. A number of years ago I was working on a film that featured a scene with hundreds of extras recreating an infamous 1960s protest. I happened to have a copy of some of the temp visual effects that I showed to my wife. She pointed out that technically the protest chant being used was historically incorrect, and gave me the correct version which I passed on to the 2nd unit director.

And that is how the wife of the 2nd assistant editor was able to affect a major set piece in a big hollywood film.

Once you grasp thats how movies actually work you'll see how inane these theories are.

Thats just an example, film history is littered with people making complex involved theories about say a licence plate belonging to car in a particular movie and the hidden meaning only it turns out that it just happened to be the licence plate belonging to the producer and they used it because they knew there would be no legal problem with it.

What is it about Tim Burton that tells you he isnt a freemason?(a secret society that keeps secrets upon a death oath...)

I'll throw this back at you, if freemasons keep secrets to a death oath how come the person you're citing knows he's a mason in the first place?

Furthermore if Mason's are scuh a secretive group how come they keep advertising themselves in films like fight club? Frankly if I was part of a secret society that has death oaths I probably wouldn't advertise it.

If i can get solid reasoning i will be able to move on to others who were involved in his movies so i can find out who is placing illuminatti and satanic references in his movies.

Or maybe you're looking for references so badly that you just want to see them, and therefore leap to conclusions?

I honestly presumed he was into masonry because of all the masonry references in his movies which he directed and produced.
If i am proven wrong i will be just as happy as proven right.Either way its a solid answer for me and i can move on to find out the real sources.

Yeah you understand the concept of confirmation of bias right. You think the movies have "satanic" or "illuminati" references and are just desperate to find a source, rather than accepting the fact you might be leaping to conclusions and seeking confirmation from sources that already agree with your hypothesis.

Perhaps and just a hint, you should perhaps learn a little bit about the practicality's of film making before leaping to offensive conclusions.

I'd recommend Karl Brown's "Adventures with DW Griffin" if you can find a copy, aside from being a first hand account of silent movies it will debunk some of the claims made about Birth of Nation on this thread. A easier find would be William Goldman's "Adventures in the Screentrade" an Oscar winning script writers account of how film making works.

Both are excellent works and should help persuade you of some of the more distasteful claims you are making.

If you're going to accuse a man of being part of a secret society of illuminati satanists please look into the matter further.

kryogen

i read the review in the link and i just find it ridiculous for the most part tbh

Brad Pitt did not play the anti-christ in fight club

there are plenty of other lies inaccuriacies in the article also

not one i would be placing much mass on buddy

Torakx

yes i think directors sometimes pick and choose items to be in the background of scenes.
And that there are freemasons and/or occult enthusiasts working on some of these movie sets putting there mark on the movie.
Leaves of grass and fight club are not great examples of these,but thats not my fault.i saw a very unlikely theory but an interesting one and wanted to see if others could help me find out more.
I dont care if you all think im crazy because i enjoy following an unusual line of thought,I am still very sure mind control and satanic symbology is used in movies and music quite alot and i cant not see it when its really there.
What i saw in leaves of green was a very strong speech basically saying whatever happens for the Jews it stops at Isreal they are taking no more.
So why wouldnt i wonder the significance of that speech and consider other films by the main actor.
It so happened that actor earlier directed a documentary to help improve Amercian president Barrack Obama's reputation and public appeal.
He was involved in the movie Fight Club which had secret societies,planes being destroyed,plane and flying references on notice boards and acts of terrorism and vandalism and harrassment.
The scene where Brad Pitts character explains to the police chief exactly where they come from you can see they are on a black and white tiled floor and the person named coincedently as a freemasons door guardian is the one explaining this to the victim.
I wonder in the book was the alter ego called tyler? And in this secret society the author was supposed to be in i wonder does the black and white duality come into play on their floors or are the door guardians called tylers?(i think the freemason one is spelled tiler not 100% sure)

Di0genes

Torakx wrote: »

yes i think directors sometimes pick and choose items to be in the background of scenes.

They do. That doesn't justify your fixation.

And that there are freemasons and/or occult enthusiasts working on some of these movie sets putting there mark on the movie.

Could you provide better evidence then?

Leaves of grass and fight club are not great examples of these,but thats not my fault.i saw a very unlikely theory but an interesting one and wanted to see if others could help me find out more.

So provide better examples. You're accusing people of being part of complex cult engaged in the most widespread mass conspiracy in the history of the world.

I dont care if you all think im crazy because i enjoy following an unusual line of thought,I am still very sure mind control and satanic symbology is used in movies and music quite alot and i cant not see it when its really there.

Ao your paranoia is widespread...

What i saw in leaves of green was a very strong speech basically saying whatever happens for the Jews it stops at Isreal they are taking no more.
So why wouldnt i wonder the significance of that speech and consider other films by the main actor.
It so happened that actor earlier directed a documentary to help improve Amercian president Barrack Obama's reputation and public appeal.
He was involved in the movie Fight Club which had secret societies,planes being destroyed,plane and flying references on notice boards and acts of terrorism and vandalism and harrassment.

Classy blaming the Jews.

The scene where Brad Pitts character explains to the police chief exactly where they come from you can see they are on a black and white tiled floor and the person named coincedently as a freemasons door guardian is the one explaining this to the victim.
I wonder in the book was the alter ego called tyler? And in this secret society the author was supposed to be in i wonder does the black and white duality come into play on their floors or are the door guardians called tylers?(i think the freemason one is spelled tiler not 100% sure)

You really need help, I mean like deep amounts of medical help.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Which is nice and all, the OP made a baseless claim about Burton. I can provide a link to my imdb profile to show I work in film editing, and animation, I had a interview for his next production and met him.

I don't doubt that you did, what bothers me is that anecdotal evidence is fine as long as its the debunker using it.

Torakx

Of course i need help.Why else would i post to discuss these topics if i didnt need some feedback on my theories and there viability.
You however have not been alot of help.
I already said i realize you think im crazy.
We have established i may be crazy,I have not been properly convinced that i am misguided in that general topic of mind control in the media.However i could be wrong about this threads theory.I knew that from the start.
But it doesnt discount all the other evidence in other threads about the general mind control theory in the media and music industries.
If you read all the posts i have made since starting on boards you wont find much against Jewish people.Please try to be constructive as appose to misleading with your criticism i can take a slagging no problem
But it is unfair to reprehend me for speaking about Jews as that is what the speech in the movie is about.I didnt direct it, Tim Blake Nelson did so maybe ask him about the Jewish connection.

Brown Bomber

From your post immediately prior.

Di0genes wrote: »

That people would have the curtsey not to make baseless accusations against people?

Perhaps you should apply your own standards to yourself.

Di0genes wrote: »

They do. That doesn't justify your fixation.

Ao your paranoia is widespread...

You really need help, I mean like deep amounts of medical help.

Di0genes wrote: »

Classy blaming the Jews.

Classy...Unsubstantiated nasty smear. To the best of my knowledge none of Brad Pitt, Edward Norton or Tim Burton are Jewish. So which Jews have been blamed?

If you have any integrity you should either back up your claim or withdraw and apologise to Torackx for your error.
(Bet you can't/won't though unfortunately)

Edit: And if your so sensitive about someone postulating on a conspiracy in a CT forum perhaps you'd be better off discussing Tim Burton on the Disney site.

Toracx: Maybe you might find this of some interest, it was a related video when I was getting one for another thread. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V72oBZ8pQRA&feature=related

enno99

@Di0genes

I'd recommend Karl Brown's "Adventures with DW Griffin" if you can find a copy, aside from being a first hand account of silent movies it will debunk some of the claims made about Birth of Nation on this thread.


http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/griffith_d/griffith_d.html

They seem to think he,s one of theirs

I need to figure out this quote thing

kryogen

enno99 wrote: »

@Di0genes

I'd recommend Karl Brown's "Adventures with DW Griffin" if you can find a copy, aside from being a first hand account of silent movies it will debunk some of the claims made about Birth of Nation on this thread.


http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/griffith_d/griffith_d.html

They seem to think he,s one of theirs

I need to figure out this quote thing

dude, there is a big button that says Quote right in front of you

click it!

enno99

yea but i got the whole post i just wanted part of it can you explain how that works

Mahatma coat

So, how does Tim Burton have his Tea then???;)


Put up or shut up Re IMDB

studiorat

It would seem to be that anybody looking at a tiled floor in the background of a scene in the movie and associating that with a masonic subtext is seriously missing the point of the story.

My take on it is, it's a story about a young man who is unhappy with his life, and how the consumerism of modern life has forced him to conform, to be one of the sheeple. While suffering from this crisis he meets Tyler Durden who offers him an alternative to his dull existance.

However, this raises some troubling ideas; in seeking to escape the mundanity of working life, we see how easily people can be seduced into the anarchic and seditious.

The members of fight club, later called "space-monkeys", begin to live by simple and catchy mantras as they begin to allow themselves to be brainwashed by Tylers alternative views. As Tyler sets up "project mayhem" we see the "space-monkeys" conform to a second set of rules. (we all know the first ones at this stage)

1. You don't ask questions.
2. You don't ask questions.
3. No excuses.
4. No lies.
5. You have to trust Tyler.

The irony being that in giving up the consumerist lifestyle, they still have conformed to a set of rules.

The subtext is a commentary on mass media, consumerism and even on conspiraciy theories. Durden tells us that "We are the middle children of history, raised by television to believe that someday we’ll be millionaires and movie stars and rock stars, but we won’t. And we’re just learning this fact. "

It's a story of a man grown up in time without great wars, without a Great Depression. Therefore, he desperately tries to give his life some significance and meaning since he can't give it to a greater cause. This fact in the light of 911 has given the story a new meaning, drawing comparsions between "project mayhem" and Al Queda.

And maybe I'm missing something here but what the hell has Tim Burton got to do with Fight Club? Typical conspiracy theory stuff. In the middle of a discussion about a film someone mentions Tim Burton, I don't know why and next thing not only is he being discussed in the context of a film that he didn't have anything to do with but he's now a bleeding freemason.

That's how this stuff starts folks, when you read about Burton and the Masons in a years time don't forget you were there when it started!!!

Di0genes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So, how does Tim Burton have his Tea then???;)


Put up or shut up Re IMDB

I'll pm the information to a mod, I don't like spreading personal information out on the web, and I certainly don't need to prove anything to you.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't doubt that you did, what bothers me is that anecdotal evidence is fine as long as its the debunker using it.

If you don't trust me fine, I'm not asking you to. You seem to think the odds are skewered against you and it's not fair. Anyone can take my word at face value or ignore it, I'm entirely indifferent.

Classy...Unsubstantiated nasty smear.

He used the word Jew or did that sail far above your head?

Di0genes

Torakx wrote: »

I wonder in the book was the alter ego called tyler?

YES! Would you just please read the damn book already.

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't doubt that you did, what bothers me is that anecdotal evidence is fine as long as its the debunker using it.

That's not applicable here, since we are dealing with witness testimony not anecdotal evidence. :cool:

bonkey

Di0genes wrote: »

He used the word Jew or did that sail far above your head?

There is, surely, a difference between using the word, and assigning blame.

For example, you just used the word "Jew" yourself. Does this mean you are blaming the Jews for somtehing.

I believe the point being made was that while they were mentioned, they weren't being blamed for anything.

bonkey

studiorat wrote: »

That's not applicable here, since we are dealing with witness testimony not anecdotal evidence. :cool:

Its neither, being picky.

Even if Diogenes were to mail me a link to an IMDB profile he can't establish:

1) That he is really the person in that profile
and
2) Meeting Burton in an interview situation is sufficient to establish that he's not a freemason.

Either which way, this thread seems to have lost direction.

Somehow, we've gone from musings about an actor with a penchant for movies with a political slant to musings about...well...I'm not sure.

What speaks most against any of this, for me, is "signal to noise". We're taking a tiny handful of players from Hollywood, and somehow trying to find some manipulation in works they are associated with. In effect, we're taking a tiny amount (the signal) of the body of work produced annually by Hollywood (the noise), and trying to read something significant into it.

There's too much noise.

Torakx

Ye i know what you mean Bonkey about too much noise,i tried to not get sidetracked but some people seem to be sticklers for insisting i do there research for them or prove everything i say.But i am no expert in the field of research.Partly why i made this thread because i need help researching hollywood.
There are alot of movies and i have seen nearly all the popular ones.
I have seen masonic symbols in enough movies to suspect there is something going on.
Id like to know if its some guys inside the production team doing it for there boys club for a laugh or if its something bigger like social engineering.

I guess i will just keep looking for connections to Edward Norton,Tim Blake Nelson for now.
Will post back when i find more.

Torakx

Was browsing some sites and came across a blog which seems to be written by a freemason for freemasons.Like an inspirational piece or something.
http://www.3ruffians.com/2008/05/meet-our-tylerdurden.html

Heres the about page for that blog
http://www.3ruffians.com/2008/05/meet-our-tylerdurden.html

Id appreciate others take on this site and article.

Ps. Heres a recruitment site for Shriners, a branch off of freemasons http://www.beashrinernow.com/ got that link from the ruffians website it was recomended.

Di0genes

bonkey wrote: »

Its neither, being picky.

Even if Diogenes were to mail me a link to an IMDB profile he can't establish:

1) That he is really the person in that profile

I can actually. And will to a degree that will satisfy you if you require.

Di0genes

Torakx wrote: »

Was browsing some sites and came across a blog which seems to be written by a freemason for freemasons.Like an inspirational piece or something.
http://www.3ruffians.com/2008/05/meet-our-tylerdurden.html

Heres the about page for that blog
http://www.3ruffians.com/2008/05/meet-our-tylerdurden.html

Id appreciate others take on this site and article.

Ps. Heres a recruitment site for Shriners, a branch off of freemasons http://www.beashrinernow.com/ got that link from the ruffians website it was recomended.

You're flat out contradicting yourself, you claim that freemasons work under a death oath but then claim theres a blog by one for them.

Its basic and pretty simple paradox in your own logic.

Di0genes

Torakx wrote: »

Ye i know what you mean Bonkey about too much noise,i tried to not get sidetracked but some people seem to be sticklers for insisting i do there research for them or prove everything i say.

You kind of need to prove everything you say. You make the claim the onus is on you to support it.

But i am no expert in the field of research.Partly why i made this thread because i need help researching hollywood.

Then maybe you need to stop making up nonsense on films you can barely remember.

There are alot of movies and i have seen nearly all the popular ones.
I have seen masonic symbols in enough movies to suspect there is something going on.
Id like to know if its some guys inside the production team doing it for there boys club for a laugh or if its something bigger like social engineering.

I guess i will just keep looking for connections to Edward Norton,Tim Blake Nelson for now.
Will post back when i find more.

If you're looking for connections and are paranoid you can find them. That doesn't mean they're real.

Torakx

Di0genes proving you have spoken and interviewed a person has absolutely no bearing on wether they are in a secret society unless you breached that topic and have a recorded video interview i can analyze for said persons reaction to your question to them about freemasons or however you came to be so sure.

I should point out regarding my post recently on the three ruffians i said it seemed like it was written by freemasons.
And i speculate on the death oath because i am not a freemason and have no hard evidence.
It is a widely accepted aspect of being a freemason and wether they disclose that in the three ruffians site i dont know but i highly doubt they would let you know which secrets are hidden and which are in plain sight,or which are protected by an oath.

You are right in that the onus is on me to back up claims that i make.
I made a statement about Tim Burton being a freemason when its possible he is only engaged into such a family and making films of there books as coincedence.I will retract the statement that he is a freemason if this will settle your hackles a bit and simply say i suspect he could be involved with freemasons because of some of his recent movies and relationships.

I wouldnt bother also proving you work for imdb.I personally wouldnt wish others to give out personal information or even public about themselves when it is unnecesary.
It only would show you met him or spoke to him,i cant see how it is of benefit or importance to proving he isnt or is a mason.

I would help you to prove me wrong but my theory goes against all that mainstream believes so its a much easier solution and climb for me to try prove i am right and fail thereby helping me and all to see there was no merit in this theory.
But it must be given a chance before we can discount it.
Why not help me do just that by using links to pictures,videos,articles so i can see clearly there is no way my op can be seen as being a reality.
So far from you i have recieved mild insults and baseless insinuations more than assistance in finding the truth.Do you wish to help a crazy person as you say or just insult my views for entertainment?
Either is no worries for me you may continue to throw insults and degrade my forum name if you like,but i will just carry on posting like you are not there if i cant get any constructive critic from you.
No hard feelings btw and non taken.

studiorat

Torakx wrote: »

You are right in that the onus is on me to back up claims that i make.
I made a statement about Tim Burton being a freemason when its possible he is only engaged into such a family and making films of there books as coincedence.I will retract the statement that he is a freemason if this will settle your hackles a bit and simply say i suspect he could be involved with freemasons because of some of his recent movies and relationships.

Sorry chaps, am I missing something here? How does Tim Burton fit into this at all?

Torakx

He doesnt apart from his relationship with Helena Bonham Carter who is related through marriage to some powerfull families.It is just that some people are trying to dwell on this point and possibly attempting to distract from the topic for what reason i wouldnt try to guess.

Torakx

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00013078.html
It appears Edward Norton was one of the producers for The Leaves Of Grass movie.
A small note also in the movie he backed out of called State Of Play there is a small reference to freemasons.