Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Anders Lindman]

In his latest article, David Wilcock mentions Israel Moses Seifs of Rome as one of the super wealthy families who control the Federal Reserve.

I did some web searchers and couldn't find basically anything about Israel Moses Seifs except endless repetitions of the same minimal description. I was hoping to find some connection to the Vatican.

 

[Tomtomkent]

In his latest article, David Wilcock mentions Israel Moses Seifs of Rome as one of the super wealthy families who control the Federal Reserve.

I did some web searchers and couldn't find basically anything about Israel Moses Seifs except endless repetitions of the same minimal description. I was hoping to find some connection to the Vatican.

Hoping to find? So that would be a confirmation bias.

 

[abaddon]

I have no idea. This document mentions a group call the Chinese Red Dragon Family: http://benjaminfulford.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c647c53ef0167603cf250970b-pi

From: http://benjaminfulford.typepad.com/benjaminfulford/2012/01/my-recent-find.html

Are the Red and White families members of what's called the Dragon Family in the lawsuit?

At the second Fulford link with the alleged document from the world bank, the percentages allocated add up to 110%. Bit of an odd mistake, were it genuine, don't you think?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Hoping to find? So that would be a confirmation bias.

Very biased. But I have to start with SOME hypothesis I though.

 

[Anders Lindman]

At the second Fulford link with the alleged document from the world bank, the percentages allocated add up to 110%. Bit of an odd mistake, were it genuine, don't you think?

I haven't checked that. Couldn't it be interest added to the numbers?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Very biased. But I have to start with SOME hypothesis I though.

That does not excuse basing your conclusions on what you want or expect to find. All it does is taint anything ou claim with a prejudice.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That does not excuse basing your conclusions on what you want or expect to find. All it does is taint anything ou claim with a prejudice.

I think Vatican is a possible candidate for world control. So it's just a matter of testing that hypothesis. Ordinary scientific method.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Not if you are only looking for evidence to confirm it. The scientific method would be to have a hypothosis, define a study, in this case you would need a meta study of all policy decisions in all member nations of the UN, then base on the available data, if there is any controling entity, before establishing who what that entity is.

What you are doing is very different. You are posting here any and all speculation you assume to have, or that somebody has asserted, a connection to Vatican and acting as though it is evidence. You are actively seeking only the evidence that supports or suggests your hypothosis, and disreagrding all conflicting data. Put simply, you continue to expect to see your hypothosis ratified and ignore anything that contradicts it directly. (Like stating an ambassador TO the Vatican works FOR the Vatican, then attempting to justify the clear discrepency by claiming the Vatican invented diplomacy as though that has any relevance).

 

[BStrong]

It's a lawsuit filed by an attorney from a law firm, so there should be some substance to the claims I assume. Why else accept the case? If the case is baseless, then accepting it just because of getting a lot money would be a kind of conspiracy in itself.

In my circle, the phrase is:

"They'll sue you for going to church on Sunday."

Even me, the happy agnostic.

This case isn't even smoke and mirrors.

 

[Anders Lindman]

... conflicting data. ... Like stating an ambassador TO the Vatican works FOR the Vatican, then attempting to justify the clear discrepency by claiming the Vatican invented diplomacy as though that has any relevance.

It is most relevant. If the Vatican is controlling the world then they also control the diplomacy in other countries. B.t.w., the Vatican created Islam (AND Protestantism).

 

[Tomtomkent]

It is most relevant. If the Vatican is controlling the world then they also control the diplomacy in other countries. B.t.w., the Vatican created Islam (AND Protestantism).

Relevant how?

No, please do explain: How does a guy being a dimplomat TO the vaitcan, become evidence of him being an agent FOR them by saying the words "The Vatican created Diplomacy"? Does that make ALL ambasadors accountable to the Vatican? Really? All of them in the entire world? Because of something centuries ago that has no direct correlation to their current methodolgy, activity or accountability?

No. It doesn't and isn't.

You must realise that as you even add the disclaimer "IF the Vatican is..." Well, where is your evidence for THAT? You might as well say that the England Football squad and all their supporters are part of the conspiracy... Because the Templars invented the George Cross! Ye Gods!

So what is your "scientific" methodology for proving any kind of connection between the Vatican and their "control"?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Relevant how?

No, please do explain: How does a guy being a dimplomat TO the vaitcan, become evidence of him being an agent FOR them by saying the words "The Vatican created Diplomacy"? Does that make ALL ambasadors accountable to the Vatican? Really? All of them in the entire world? Because of something centuries ago that has no direct correlation to their current methodolgy, activity or accountability?

No. It doesn't and isn't.

You must realise that as you even add the disclaimer "IF the Vatican is..." Well, where is your evidence for THAT? You might as well say that the England Football squad and all their supporters are part of the conspiracy... Because the Templars invented the George Cross! Ye Gods!

So what is your "scientific" methodology for proving any kind of connection between the Vatican and their "control"?

My theory is that Asia is perhaps not controlled by the Vatican. So we have the Dragon Family vs the Vatican. Let's get ready to rumble!

Another possibility is that there is even a layer of control above both east and west that truly is a world power.

My methodology for testing this hypothesis is to do some web searches and watch a few videos.

 

[R.A.F.]

My theory is...

Apparently you don't understand what a theory is. Theories certainly are not "wild speculations".

My methodology for testing this hypothesis is to do some web searches and watch a few videos.

Theory by youtube??? It's no wonder people here don't take what you post, seriously.

 

[Tomtomkent]

That is in no way an "ordinary scientific method" it is an "ordinary confirmation biased unscientific conspiracy rubbish".

It is not exactly in the spirit of critical thinking.

 

[Mojo]

I think Vatican is a possible candidate for world control. So it's just a matter of testing that hypothesis. Ordinary scientific method.

What evidence would falsify your hypothesis?

 

[Anders Lindman]

What evidence would falsify your hypothesis?

Evidence that shows that another group is the (western) world rulers. Ha! Pretty good logic, eh?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Evidence that shows that another group is the (western) world rulers. Ha! Pretty good logic, eh?

And what if there is no cabal ruling the world, and each nation is autonomous in their self rule?

 

[Anders Lindman]

And what if there is no cabal ruling the world, and each nation is autonomous in their self rule?

Then my hypothesis is false. But then the question is: Who the heck was Woodrow Wilson talking about in the below quote?

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." -- Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States

 

[Tomtomkent]

The opinion of one man is not evidence. The opinion of any number of people is not evidence.

So you admit the evidence that you described as being enough to falsify your hypothosis does not cover all possibilities for your being wrong?

 

[Anders Lindman]

The opinion of one man is not evidence. The opinion of any number of people is not evidence.

So you admit the evidence that you described as being enough to falsify your hypothosis does not cover all possibilities for your being wrong?

It doesn't cover all possibilities, but it's enough to falsify my hypothesis. That means my hypothesis is falsifiable.