Occult pose - If it looks like a duck...

[petros]

I found this article so I did a bit of research of my own and did a collage.

"The World is full of hidden symbolism, put there by the secret societies. Occult practitioners have different signals, like handshakes, body movements, and body positions to signal to other occultists that he/she is one of them." http://www.illuminati-news.com/blair-occult-pose.htm

[chek]

Jesus Christ....

(and no, that's not a suggestion to add).

[telecasterisation]

[eogz]

J K Rowling a witch!

Damn and I enjoyed Harry Potter sooo much.

I'm struggling to accept this one as sensible?

Posing is just that isn't it; posing?

[petros]

BEDEVERE - "How do you know she is a witch?"
PEASANT - "She looks like one!"
Monty Python and the Holy Grail

I did a degree in visual communication, studied semiotics and photography. In my humble opinion nothing should be in the frame unless it supposed to there or you are a terrible photographer. These clearly posed portraits.

If I was the photographer, I would have said to my subject "Take your hand away from your face and then we'll take the shot" The hand is suppoed to be there.

The only question to me is - what does the hand mean!

What do you think it means? That I do not know. Rodin's Thinker is in a similar pose. Maybe it supposed to convey wisdom. All these artists are using as similar motif. Bacon is the oldest example and his famous saying is 'knowledge is power'. Maybe they are saying "I have powerful knowledge" by posing like Bacon posed? However although I think it is probably an older tradition.

Another memorial of Bacon has the same motif:



However although I think it is probably an older tradition. Hence.
Aristotle from 4th century BC


But now I note the use of the left hand rather than the right hand.
The left hand is associated with secrecy or rebellion in symbolism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handed
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/lefthandpath.html

But this is art and not science. I'm just looking at the signs and the history and giving an interpretation. Sorry if that crosses with anyone's blinkered view of the world.

[eogz]

Without being presumptious, you have obviously spent some time researching this, could it not just be a pose. Maybe a traditional pose?

I can almost accept the dubious 'texan longhorn/diablo' sign, but this seems too random and easily copied by others?

If it is easily copied (i reckon it is) how do we know which ones are genuine occult poses and which ones are people trying to look alluring/intelligent/posey?

[chek]

[John White]

ROLFCOPTER

I almost spilt my Tea!

[ukginger]

Petros ... are you trying to discredit the legitimate truth movement ?
Petros ... do you work for MI5 ?

What do the moderaters think ?

[eogz]

Maybe Petros has a legitimate question here, I don't for one moment think he /she was trying to discredit anything, to say ask if they are an agent or work for someone else is harping back to last week when Easy Rider got banned from this site.

To be fair this question is in the other controversies section so I would assume is the appropriate place for it.

Aren't we all here to debate and learn form each other, argument is healthy providing it is carried out respectfully.

Chastising finished, anyhooo, I'd have to agree with Chek, a pose is a pose is a pose.

[ukginger]

Maybe I owe Petros an apology !

[John White]

[chek]

Apologies to you all for the intemperance of my previous post on this thread.

Surely as good an example as necessary to show why posting after having made heroic inroads into a second bottle of red isn't always a sensible idea.

Eogz put it far more succinctly.

[petros]

[Dogsmilk]

I have always thought there is more to Girls Aloud than meets the eye. Though they are on the right. Perhaps this indicates the power of light in their jaunty pop tunes.



I always thought Bono was an idiot but never realised he may be evil. Though perhaps he is "in the middle".



Chris Eubank?



Cliff Richard may be struggling to get the exact hang of it



I would be intrigued to find out what makes J K Rowling a "witch" as opposed to a writer of rather execrable highly derivative children's books. I prefer Enid Blyton myself. Though you couldn't get away with writing books with titles like "Mr Pinkwhistle Interferes" any more
I am not sure it is accurate to describe Crowley as specifically a "satanist"

[Dogsmilk]

More! Freddie Mercury


And Brian May! Not looking good for the Queen fans!






Who'd have expected Paul McCartney?



By Contrast, Glen Benton (from Deicide) - a man who quite literally branded his own forehead with an inverted cross - seems to universally opt for that moody 'heavy metal' look - no hands required!



Glenn presumably lacks the occult knowledge enjoyed by the late Harry Secombe

[petros]

These are some good suggestions!?!

How about some evidence that these people are actually involved in the occult in some way. All the people original image are known have been involved in the occult, apart from the last two who are alegded to be involved.

I'm not really bothered any chump who puts their hand near their face for a photo.

Helena Blavatsky use of the pose is the most significant and was the reason I thought about asking the noble folk who frequent this page what they thought. I'm just asking what the significance could be, if any?

If you look at the portraits of Helena Blavatsky:

http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=helena+blavatsk y&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

You could well ask 'was her hand glued to her face?' Although she alternates from left to right she seems to be using as a signature. Who knows why?

This is a quote from a page about the left and right hand paths:

The term Left-Hand Path originated within Hindu Tantra (see below). It was first used in Western occultism to describe "immoral" religions by Helena Blavatsky (1831 - 1891).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Hand_Path_and_Right-Hand_Path
Blavatsky

[petros]

[eogz]

Would J K Rowling's alleged involvement in the occult have anything to do with accusations from Born again Christians? They have a habit of not enjoying anything remotely connected to the occult, wasn't there a movement to ban Halloween?

[Dogsmilk]

Zoroastrianism is a religion - the oldest structured religion on the planet AFAIk. It is not 'the occult'.

There is zero evidence J K Rowling has anything to do with the occult other than the fact she writes about wizards.

So...Posing with the hand on the left (or right if you're Blavatsky) is a possible occult symbol.
The fact it is a common pose demonstrably adopted by many people is irrelevant because...only if you're a known or suspected occultist does it have any relevance.

This is basically like saying if you saw pictures of Crowley, Blavatsky and L Ron Hubbard (occultist?) wearing a hat, this may mean wearing a hat is an occult symbol.
The fact that many people wear hats is irrelevant as only occultists wear hats as a signal.
So therefore if an occultist wears a hat, it is a signal, if a non occultist wears a hat it is not.
When the sensible answer would be...sometimes people wear hats.

[marky 54]

what about kermit?

http://www.starpulse.com/Television/Muppet_Show,_The/gallery/MUPPETSHO WTV005/

take note of the background pictures, ernie is a contender

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Cinema/3200/PhotoAlbum.htm

i knew it!

http://zippysrainbow.tripod.com/id29.htm

see!

http://zippysrainbow.tripod.com/id28.htm

no i did'nt search for these sites to show silly examples, i just stumbled across them whilst viewing my usual sites .

the left hand or right hand pose holding the head which ever it is, is a common pose, to common infact. so common how would a secret society know who is or is not in it? it would kind of be pointless posing like it to let others know your one of them when there are millions of people photographed like it, properbly even billions.

it would be like saying anyone who folds their arms is in a secret society, although it could well be the case for all i know, knowing who is and is'nt in it would be impossible to know from photo's sulptures or whatever because the pose is so so common and used by everyone.

[petros]

Occult means hidden. If the language of the occult was easily recognised then it would loose much of it's effect because it's for occultists to recognise each other without being recognised. If and I do mean if this use of the hand is a signal then you can use it to recgnise them. Get it?

[marky 54]

"Occult means hidden. If the language of the occult was easily recognised then it would loose much of it's effect because it's for occultists to recognise each other without being recognised. If and I do mean if this use of the hand is a signal then you can use it to recgnise them. Get it?"


when the posture is common then no i dont, "get it". so what happens if i had my picture took for a paper and i posed in the same way unaware of any occult meaning, i mean we are talking about someone holding their head here(very common) not posing like a tea pot(rare and no reason for it, unless you were advertising tea bags).

[petros]

[marky 54]

i don't really question the fact that secret societys or clubs or organisation may have secret handshakes postures or signs, even the boy scouts have a hand signal dib dib and all that.

what i question is the ability to pick out people who are using the postures etc because they are of the occult or belong to some form of secret society as oppose to doing it by accident whilst having no knowledge of what the posture means and are not in any group that is occult etc.

for example lets take tony blair and trevor mcdonald as examples,

trevor mcdonald and tony blair pose for a picture in the exact same way, lets use the open palm holding up the head.

now does that mean they are both of the occult and giving of signals to others.

or could one or the other have no knowledge of what the posture means and used it by accident.

or could both of used by accident and both had no idea what the posture means.

how do you tell the differance between somebody doing it by accident and on purpose? or do we all just accuse everyone of being occult if they dare to pose that way, and slander them to the general public as evil?

[petros]

Are you accusing me of slander?

What lie have I told about these people. Research all these people first and you'll see for yourself. I've explained myself fully.

You are either being awkward for the sake of it or you are behaving like the thought police because I asking a question that you do not like!

It's not slander to call Alister Crowley occultist or any of the others and I was careful to only aledge that Tony Blair and JK Rowling are initiated into a secret or occult order of some kind because of other sources which I can show you.

This is Robert Muller. He is called the father of Global Education. He is quoted to be influenced by Alice Bailey's teachings. She is a theosophist like Blavatsky and Besant.

There are articles claiming he has secret religious agenda.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/occult_character_un.htm
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Lucis_Trust.htm
http://www.radioliberty.com/nlaug00.htm

[Dogsmilk]

Yeah and here are Chris Tarrant and Ronnie Corbett





Still not as good as the ones Marky came up with, though...

Your peeps are just doing a general pose that can be seen anywhere. And there is no consistency to it. A masonic handshake may be achieved by accident, but what you are saying is analogous to saying any old handshake may be a masonic handshake. On their poses, their hands are all over the place. There is nothing consistent or predictable to be seen. There is simply no way your hypothetical 'signal' could be distinguished from someone simply resting their head on their hand. You are chasing shadows and I can't believe I've got so drawn into pointing out this stultifyingly obvious fact.

By my original analogy, your guys are wearing basically any old hat.

I listened to the sermon you posted. Like I said, there is zero evidence J K Rowling has anything to do with the occult. Mr Meyer doesn't appear to have any anyway. I did think the bit about Jessica Mitford was funny though. She...she...idolises a communist!!!!!!

The nearest he gets to 'evidence' is in his 'tract' -

[marky 54]

[Dogsmilk]

[chek]