2017-12-26, 06:41 PM
2020-02-06, 11:41 AM
There is evidence all over the place. But let us define what we mean by "Aliens" in clear way. Loosely it means someone who is foreign - who is not recognised as belonging to our group [no matter what scale we define it].
Let us assume the question refers to extraterrestrials. What does that mean? Strictly not of this Earth. That is presumed to mean entities from elsewhere in our time/space continuum. But it can also mean inter-dimensional as well. Perhaps it can mean both?
I am not much bothered by what Nithyananda thinks because I have no basis for granting him any authority not the subject. Why should I care what he thinks?
Can we define and agree on what Alien means? Can you tell me what I should give a damn about what Nithyananda has to say?
To explain my own position, I have an enduring interest in the ET/UFO theme over a few decades [4]. I had a major UFO sighting when I was 15, and on the basis of what I have read I am pretty sure I was routinely abducted as a child. That accounts for most of my childhood trauma. It would take pages to go into details, so I won't. I am well read on the subject, and have personal stories of direct related experience.
Let us assume the question refers to extraterrestrials. What does that mean? Strictly not of this Earth. That is presumed to mean entities from elsewhere in our time/space continuum. But it can also mean inter-dimensional as well. Perhaps it can mean both?
I am not much bothered by what Nithyananda thinks because I have no basis for granting him any authority not the subject. Why should I care what he thinks?
Can we define and agree on what Alien means? Can you tell me what I should give a damn about what Nithyananda has to say?
To explain my own position, I have an enduring interest in the ET/UFO theme over a few decades [4]. I had a major UFO sighting when I was 15, and on the basis of what I have read I am pretty sure I was routinely abducted as a child. That accounts for most of my childhood trauma. It would take pages to go into details, so I won't. I am well read on the subject, and have personal stories of direct related experience.
2020-02-07, 03:34 AM
(2020-02-06, 11:41 AM)Aussie Mike Wrote: [ -> ]There is evidence all over the place. But let us define what we mean by "Aliens" in clear way. Loosely it means someone who is foreign - who is not recognised as belonging to our group [no matter what scale we define it].
Let us assume the question refers to extraterrestrials. What does that mean? Strictly not of this Earth. That is presumed to mean entities from elsewhere in our time/space continuum. But it can also mean inter-dimensional as well. Perhaps it can mean both?
I am not much bothered by what Nithyananda thinks because I have no basis for granting him any authority not the subject. Why should I care what he thinks?
Can we define and agree on what Alien means? Can you tell me what I should give a damn about what Nithyananda has to say?
To explain my own position, I have an enduring interest in the ET/UFO theme over a few decades [4]. I had a major UFO sighting when I was 15, and on the basis of what I have read I am pretty sure I was routinely abducted as a child. That accounts for most of my childhood trauma. It would take pages to go into details, so I won't. I am well read on the subject, and have personal stories of direct related experience.
Yeah Psst got banned quite awhile ago.
2020-02-16, 11:22 AM
(2020-02-06, 11:41 AM)Aussie Mike Wrote: [ -> ]There is evidence all over the place. But let us define what we mean by "Aliens" in clear way. Loosely it means someone who is foreign - who is not recognised as belonging to our group [no matter what scale we define it].Nithyananda merely asserts his belief, he does not offer any authority on it, so I think we can discount his platitudes. The only sincere moment for me was when he used the term 'Alien' and then corrected himself, as it is current to perceive that word as derogatory and he doesn't want to be seen as condemnatory. Perhaps if the term was embraced by extra-terrestrial visitors, then the evaluation would change. But first we need to re-evaluate our perception of 'others' (including those who call this planet home)
Let us assume the question refers to extraterrestrials. What does that mean? Strictly not of this Earth. That is presumed to mean entities from elsewhere in our time/space continuum. But it can also mean inter-dimensional as well. Perhaps it can mean both?
I am not much bothered by what Nithyananda thinks because I have no basis for granting him any authority not the subject. Why should I care what he thinks?
Can we define and agree on what Alien means? Can you tell me what I should give a damn about what Nithyananda has to say?
To explain my own position, I have an enduring interest in the ET/UFO theme over a few decades [4]. I had a major UFO sighting when I was 15, and on the basis of what I have read I am pretty sure I was routinely abducted as a child. That accounts for most of my childhood trauma. It would take pages to go into details, so I won't. I am well read on the subject, and have personal stories of direct related experience.
Is this pc preference an indication that we are becoming less afraid of ET's, or preparing for greater interaction, and do we have grounds for feeling threatened? How much of our perception is based on fear, of abduction, of their potential for misuse of our defencelessness and our persistent disregard of their existence. You may have to go into greater detail of your experience of abduction to answer, if you're wiling.
I'm currently reading Steven Greer's 'Unacknowledged' and the only beings in that book S Greer thinks we should be afraid of are the humans so violently against open debate on this matter.
2020-02-22, 11:01 AM
Greer adds a dimension, as does Strieber. But taken together the literature on ET does not present any clear picture. It seems to me that folk find their own slice of the mystery and inhabit that. Maybe that's all we can do.
Greer's big thing is Disclosure. The idea that governments should 'disclose' what the know about ET is powerful and attractive. Dolan observes that playing ET tech has been privatised in the US via military interests. He observes, with justification, that potential energy generating tech should not fairly become the property of private businesses. That's a moral position that merit, but is by no means proven. Its a discussion we haven't had on any informed basis - and there is a danger in proceeding from speculation to dogma.
My position is way more cautious. I think ET is in control of any imagined 'Disclosure'. Greer and Dolan support disclosure on the basis of a set of arguments they presume to be true. But there's no empirical evidence they are right. The presence of ET is being 'disclosed' in a progressive manner. But is this a managed a strategic thing or just random? Is there coordination or chaos?
We also have to deal with the nuts and bolts issues. Among ET devotees there is no shared view. Some assert only nuts and bolts UFOs and other say not so. Maybe there are both? It is evident that many abductees report experiences that seem to be a hybrid of physical and dream-like abductions.
I don't want to attempt a survey of the whole mess of contradictions, but I do want to observe that like a lot of 'fringe experiences' that occur on the very boundary between our sense of the concrete real and what is beyond it the ET theme defines efforts to nail it down.
I have a deep suspicion that what we see as ET is something way more complex than we can or will know for some time. It can be to us what we make of it - and yet be real without being contradictory or invalidating other's versions. Maybe we are asking the wrong questions, or we are confining our perceptions of answers to our our preconceptions.
Maybe the question we should be asking is more like how we live in conscious community with agencies from elsewhere. If we struggle with themes like multiculturalism, social justice and diversity are we really ready for the kind of 'Disclosure that Greer and Dolan are on about? We presume ET has superior tech, intellect, morality - so there's a certain cage cult mentality attached to Disclosure - we need to know so we can share the tech and reap the 'environmental' rewards of cleaner power generation. That's attractive, but simplistic. Its the classic 'tech/science will save us from our moral shortcomings'. It's a kind of ET as Santa fantasy.
The modern ET thing has been around about 70 years. We haven't been invaded or enslaved in any obvious way. But who knows. Saving tech has not been introduced, despite many abductees reporting experiences warning of dire environmental crises. If saving tech will rescue us and the planet what is going on?
But tech does not uplift us. It was the love of porn and sport that drove the spread of VCRs. We don't use our smart phones to enrich our minds. Instead we play Candy Crush and send dick pics. If we get free energy from ET are we going to be better people? Of course not.
I think we are missing the point of ET. Back in 1951 one of the seminal ET movies was made - The Day the Earth Stood Still. You can rent in on Youtube for around $5. That movie drove a heavy message for the day, but one I think resonates now. We are not yet nice enough to be admitted to a conscious intentional community of agencies from elsewhere.
We have a quaint conceit that we are intelligent - relative to whom? Certainly not those from elsewhere.
Greer's big thing is Disclosure. The idea that governments should 'disclose' what the know about ET is powerful and attractive. Dolan observes that playing ET tech has been privatised in the US via military interests. He observes, with justification, that potential energy generating tech should not fairly become the property of private businesses. That's a moral position that merit, but is by no means proven. Its a discussion we haven't had on any informed basis - and there is a danger in proceeding from speculation to dogma.
My position is way more cautious. I think ET is in control of any imagined 'Disclosure'. Greer and Dolan support disclosure on the basis of a set of arguments they presume to be true. But there's no empirical evidence they are right. The presence of ET is being 'disclosed' in a progressive manner. But is this a managed a strategic thing or just random? Is there coordination or chaos?
We also have to deal with the nuts and bolts issues. Among ET devotees there is no shared view. Some assert only nuts and bolts UFOs and other say not so. Maybe there are both? It is evident that many abductees report experiences that seem to be a hybrid of physical and dream-like abductions.
I don't want to attempt a survey of the whole mess of contradictions, but I do want to observe that like a lot of 'fringe experiences' that occur on the very boundary between our sense of the concrete real and what is beyond it the ET theme defines efforts to nail it down.
I have a deep suspicion that what we see as ET is something way more complex than we can or will know for some time. It can be to us what we make of it - and yet be real without being contradictory or invalidating other's versions. Maybe we are asking the wrong questions, or we are confining our perceptions of answers to our our preconceptions.
Maybe the question we should be asking is more like how we live in conscious community with agencies from elsewhere. If we struggle with themes like multiculturalism, social justice and diversity are we really ready for the kind of 'Disclosure that Greer and Dolan are on about? We presume ET has superior tech, intellect, morality - so there's a certain cage cult mentality attached to Disclosure - we need to know so we can share the tech and reap the 'environmental' rewards of cleaner power generation. That's attractive, but simplistic. Its the classic 'tech/science will save us from our moral shortcomings'. It's a kind of ET as Santa fantasy.
The modern ET thing has been around about 70 years. We haven't been invaded or enslaved in any obvious way. But who knows. Saving tech has not been introduced, despite many abductees reporting experiences warning of dire environmental crises. If saving tech will rescue us and the planet what is going on?
But tech does not uplift us. It was the love of porn and sport that drove the spread of VCRs. We don't use our smart phones to enrich our minds. Instead we play Candy Crush and send dick pics. If we get free energy from ET are we going to be better people? Of course not.
I think we are missing the point of ET. Back in 1951 one of the seminal ET movies was made - The Day the Earth Stood Still. You can rent in on Youtube for around $5. That movie drove a heavy message for the day, but one I think resonates now. We are not yet nice enough to be admitted to a conscious intentional community of agencies from elsewhere.
We have a quaint conceit that we are intelligent - relative to whom? Certainly not those from elsewhere.