 |
|
| Religion Forum Index » Gnostic Forum » Information about the space brothers & the great UFO... |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tom... |
 Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 30, 1:06 pm, knowbuddee <knowbud... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: You are hereby encouraged to learn about the space brothers. The more
of us who know about them, the better.
The great cover-up concerning their existence (and benevolent nature)
will be swept out of our way sooner than you think, and for the first
time ever, our civilization will flourish like never before.
Then there's really no need to go learn about them from obscure
sources, is there? This will all be cleared up shortly. All we have
to do is wait.
Quote: It is very important that this information be spread far and wide.
Please share this (in whole or any part) with others.
Why bother? The cover-up will be swept away sooner than we think
anyway. You *do* trust the space brothers, don't you?.
Hell, they have to capacity to span many light-years of space and have
both superior technology and superior minds. Are you worried that
they cannot outwit a few paranoid backwater rustics (galactically
speaking) unless *you* help them? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ato_Zee... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 30-Sep-2009, Tom <dantomel at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Hell, they have to capacity to span many light-years of space and have
both superior technology and superior minds.
And all they seem to be interested in is making crop circles.
Hardly worth the effort of travelling for several light years. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 1, 4:01 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On 30-Sep-2009, Tom <danto... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Hell, they have to capacity to span many light-years of space and have
both superior technology and superior minds.
And all they seem to be interested in is making crop circles.
Hardly worth the effort of travelling for several light years.
Back when the "crop circle" idea was brand new among UFO believers,
they were thought simply to be the imprints of extraterrestrial craft
which had landed. Later, as their overworked imaginations had time to
exercise their misplaced creativity, UFOists imbued them with cryptic
meaning and decided to interpret them as "messages" from the supposed
super-beings that nobody actually could understand.
Why, if these super-beings are intent on revealing themselves to us
and instructing us all on the the proper construction of Utopia, would
they sneak into remote fields at night and stamp down crops in
ambiguous patterns instead of doing like Klaatu and landing a big,
shiny flying saucer right in the middle of New York's Central Park
where everyone can see it?
But, hey, they're aliens. They don't think like us. Apparently, they
think like conspiracy-mongering kooks and occult hucksters eager to
peddle their latest books about how they're being picked on by the
"Establishment" and have secrets that only they know but will sell to
you for as much money as they think they can get away with charging. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| knowbuddee... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The ruling elite's cover-up has been very successful but it is ending
now. They have successfully fooled most of the people most of the
time, but sightings are become very common and people are learning
that the governments who serve the insanely greedy and selfish ruling
elite can not be trusted. Those who say that Adamski was a fraud are
saying exactly what the ruling elite want them to say. They know that
if a lie is repeated often enough, a steadily growing number of people
will believe it.
"...
The UFOs are known by the major governments in the world to be real,
to exist, to be very advanced spacecraft... Most of the UFOs visiting
this planet come from Mars and Venus. Most of them, even the Venusian
ones, are made on Mars, which is a kind of great industrial planet.
All of them are of subtle, etheric, not dense physical, matter. They
can lower the vibrational rate of that matter until it comes within
the range of our sight, so for a limited period they are visible.
Normally, unless you have etheric vision, they would be invisible, but
to the Martians, the Venusians and so on, they are visible because
they are in that same kind of energy. If you went to Mars, you would
see nothing, yet there are more people on Mars than on this planet.
Their technology is thousands of years ahead of ours at the present
time...All the planets, without exception, are inhabited. In my
experience, UFOs are absolutely real. They cannot usually be seen by
us because their normal state is on the higher etheric, not solid,
physical levels. When we do see them, this is because they lower the
vibrational rate of the vehicles to come within our vision, as a
temporary manifestation...They help us in many ways and without them
this earth would be a very painful place indeed. They mop up a great
deal of the nuclear radiation which we release into the atmosphere
through nuclear experimentation. Even if a test is underground,
contaminated, poisoned dust flies up into the atmosphere. The space
beings have ‘implosion’ devices which neutralize this nuclear
radiation. Without their assistance our rivers and streams would be
undrinkable; we would, literally, be dying... Without their help we
would be in a very sad state...Their intention is totally
beneficial ...All Hierarchies of all the planets in this system are in
touch with each other, and everything that takes place in an extra-
terrestrial sense takes place under Law."
Source:
Benjamin Creme
http://tinyurl.com/spacebros
http://share-international.org/archives/UFOs/faq_UFOs.htm
The truth as they say, really is often stranger than fiction.
KB
=============
See the 'star like luminaries' that are heralding the slowly breaking
biggest news story of all time.
Actually they are four UFOs visible from all four corners of the earth
from time to time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuuMOvy1KNE
================
"We've been ordered to work up a national debunking campaign,planting
articles in magazines and arranging broadcasts to make UFO reports
sound like Poppycock." (CIA report January 1953)
"Our study would be conducted exclusively by "NON Believer's." The
trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that to the public
it would appear totally objective study. Conclusion…. There is no
secrecy and no evidence that such objects even exist." Memorandum from
Robert Low (Project Administrator CONDON report Oct 1966-Jan 1969) to
Colorado University V.P. Thurston Marshall.
"...all the Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a
distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of
extraterrestrial origin - flying saucers or UFOs (Unidentified flying
objects) if you want to call them by that name. Every time it
occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered
absolute silence." (Maurice Chatlein - NASA scientist, inventor and
designer of the Apollo communications)
=======================================
"I had to remind myself that, after all, they too were human beings
and, no matter how far advanced beyond us, must still be subject to
error and vicissitude..." (from Inside The Space Ships by George
Adamski excerpt & link to free book download below)
On Sep 30, 5:26 pm, Tom <danto... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: On Sep 30, 1:06 pm, knowbuddee <knowbud... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You are hereby encouraged to learn about the space brothers. The more
of us who know about them, the better.
The great cover-up concerning their existence (and benevolent nature)
will be swept out of our way sooner than you think, and for the first
time ever, our civilization will flourish like never before.
Then there's really no need to go learn about them from obscure
sources, is there? This will all be cleared up shortly. All we have
to do is wait.
It is very important that this information be spread far and wide.
Please share this (in whole or any part) with others.
Why bother? The cover-up will be swept away sooner than we think
anyway. You *do* trust the space brothers, don't you?.
Hell, they have to capacity to span many light-years of space and have
both superior technology and superior minds. Are you worried that
they cannot outwit a few paranoid backwater rustics (galactically
speaking) unless *you* help them? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 1, 10:06 am, Alrah <alrah-pub... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
Get back to basics TOM!
Even that doesn't help you. You can't understand something as simple
as "Shut up and go away". It doesn't get any more basic than that,
and yet, you still can't understand it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alrah... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Oct, 17:09, Tom <danto... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 1, 10:06 am, Alrah <alrah-pub... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Get back to basics TOM!
Even that doesn't help you. You can't understand something as simple
as "Shut up and go away". It doesn't get any more basic than that,
and yet, you still can't understand it.
Yes Tom - I am in desperately in need of guidence! Could you tell me
how to switch off this 'internal narration' that is not simply verbal
but encompases the entire range of sensory organisation feedback?
lol. If you could eludicade with some notes on how one should learn
about new situations (ie - like living in a different country)while
this basic learning function has been 'turned off' (as you claim is
possible) - then it would not only be helpful but would shine a whole
new light on ego psychology and the modern understanding of learning
mechanisms.
You can't do this of course because you're peddling an extreme ascetic
philosophy and practise to the ignorent alt.magick faithful - that the
Buddha manifestly rejected. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mika... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 6, 11:02 am, Alrah wrote:
Quote: On 6 Oct, 17:09, Tom wrote:
On Oct 1, 10:06 am, Alrah wrote:
Get back to basics TOM!
Even that doesn't help you. You can't understand something as simple
as "Shut up and go away". It doesn't get any more basic than that,
and yet, you still can't understand it.
Yes Tom - I am in desperately in need of guidence! Could you tell me
how to switch off this 'internal narration' that is not simply verbal
but encompases the entire range of sensory organisation feedback?
Sure. Practice nearly any form of basic meditation, such as the
beginner's exercise of sitting or laying down comfortably, focusing on
a candle or point in space or mandala, and quieting the mind by
treating every thought as a "passing cloud" or as "white noise". That
is, recognizing any thoughts, feelings and mental sensory
interpretations as the internal narration that they are, then letting
them pass without further interpretation and narration. Try this for
one minute a day, then extend to 5 minutes, then extend to 15, etc.
Eventually through this practice you can learn how to recognize your
internal narration throughout your daily life, even while not
specifically meditating.
Quote: you're peddling an extreme ascetic
philosophy and practise to the ignorent alt.magick faithful - that the
Buddha manifestly rejected.
It's extremely unlikely that the Buddha would have "manifestly
rejected" a practice that originated from his own teachings and
meditation practices. This is Buddhist meditation 101.
Now, are you going to try it, even just for 1 minute a day, or will
you reject it outright because you imagine it's impossible? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alrah... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Oct, 21:12, HG <h... at (no spam) iki.fi> wrote:
Quote: Alrah <alrah-pub... at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
HG says " Look! Look! I can see a negative operand! I can
postulate a positive operand! Aren't I a good boy! "
OK, now let's hear you enlighten us what a "negative operand" and
a "positive operand" means. In your own words.
(This should be fun.)
Lorenzo: Sweet friends, your patience for my long abode;
Not I, but my affairs, have made you wait:
When you shall please to play the thieves for wives,
I'll watch as long for you then. Approach;
Here dwells my father Jew. Ho! who's within?
Enter JESSICA, above, in boy's clothes |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| HG... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mika <mikabot at (no spam) gmail.com> writes:
Quote: On Oct 6, 11:02Â am, Alrah wrote:
On 6 Oct, 17:09, Tom wrote:
On Oct 1, 10:06Â am, Alrah wrote:
Get back to basics TOM!
Even that doesn't help you. Â You can't understand something as simple
as "Shut up and go away". Â It doesn't get any more basic than that,
and yet, you still can't understand it.
Yes Tom - I am in desperately in need of guidence! Â Could you tell me
how to switch off this 'internal narration' that is not simply verbal
but encompases the entire range of sensory organisation feedback?
Sure. Practice nearly any form of basic meditation, such as the
beginner's exercise of sitting or laying down comfortably, focusing on
a candle or point in space or mandala, and quieting the mind by
treating every thought as a "passing cloud" or as "white noise". That
is, recognizing any thoughts, feelings and mental sensory
interpretations as the internal narration that they are, then letting
them pass without further interpretation and narration. Try this for
one minute a day, then extend to 5 minutes, then extend to 15, etc.
Eventually through this practice you can learn how to recognize your
internal narration throughout your daily life, even while not
specifically meditating.
you're peddling an extreme ascetic
philosophy and practise to the ignorent alt.magick faithful - that the
Buddha manifestly rejected.
It's extremely unlikely that the Buddha would have "manifestly
rejected" a practice that originated from his own teachings and
meditation practices. This is Buddhist meditation 101.
Now, are you going to try it, even just for 1 minute a day, or will
you reject it outright because you imagine it's impossible?
Of course she won't.
According to her, the Buddhist tradition is a list of excuses to avoid doing,
or even attempting, Buddhist practise.
HG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alrah... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Oct, 23:35, mika <mika... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Oct 6, 1:54 pm, Alrah wrote:
Everything is not internal narration and storytelling.
The mind can not encompass everything - it is divided by it's own
nature.
but..
2 = 0
*sigh* I suppose bring up the two truths would just be washing a bath
of ethenol past you. Never mind.
*goes back to paint and forget another failure* |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 6, 11:02 am, Alrah <alrah-pub... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
Yes Tom - I am in desperately in need of guidence!
You don't need a guide if all you wish to do is wander aimlessly.
Quote: Could you tell me
how to switch off this 'internal narration' that is not simply verbal
but encompases the entire range of sensory organisation feedback?
Sit still. Pay attention to what's happening. When you notice that
you're telling yourself what's happening, pay attention to that, too.
Don't judge. Don't fight. Just accept. Slowly, over time, the
compulsion to tell yourself what's happening will subside and you will
simply pay attention to what is without having to narrate it. The
more you do this, the easier it'll get. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mika... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 7, 10:17Â am, "bassos" wrote:
Quote: "mika" wrote
Everything is not internal narration and storytelling.
On a basic-ish level it is chemicals narrating to other chemicals.
Some parts using voltage to narrate.
Chemicals and electrical currents do not narrate.
Quote: Everything actually really is narration.
Only if you completely redefine the word "narration" to encompass any
and all communication. If I meant "any and all communication",
that's what I would have written.
In case you're still confused, this is what the word "narrate" means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narrate
narâ‹…rate
–verb (used with object)
1. to give an account or tell the story of (events, experiences,
etc.).
2. to add a spoken commentary to (a film, television program, etc.):
to narrate a slide show.
–verb (used without object)
3. to relate or recount events, experiences, etc., in speech or
writing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bassos... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"mika" <mikabot at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ba646ff-af99-4755-abf9-c26f410622f0 at (no spam) 2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Everything is not internal narration and storytelling.
On a basic-ish level it is chemicals narrating to other chemicals.
Some parts using voltage to narrate.
Everything actually really is narration.
There are however most likely more languages than you are now thinking of.
Selfquotes rock ;
"With that only doing you find you get to know your thoughts on a much
subtler 'level'.
It is a lot more like concepts that interact. (no words used)
Those need to shut up too.
Before you learn easy you might never actually learn will. "
So if internal narration shuts up, it initially shuts up the talkative and
visual and auditory parts.
Those are not actually very basic.
Conclusion upon conclusions upon narration from friggin chemicals.
Those concepts that interact; still conclusion.
Them really tiny fractions of beginnings of presentations; all not very
basic.
Shutting up is only one part.
Now go away. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bassos... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"mika" <mikabot at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67aa9aea-2e32-48ff-8b2f-f871eadec78b at (no spam) s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 10:17 am, "bassos" wrote:
Quote: "mika" wrote
Everything is not internal narration and storytelling.
On a basic-ish level it is chemicals narrating to other chemicals.
Some parts using voltage to narrate.
**
Chemicals and electrical currents do not narrate.
**
That is cos you restrict your meaning.
They interact.
Conclusions get made in neurons, they fire.
It is not chance.
Quote: Everything actually really is narration.
**
Only if you completely redefine the word "narration" to encompass any
and all communication. If I meant "any and all communication",
that's what I would have written.
**
Ah, i see you go all humpty-dumpty on me.
It is about talking.
What is talking, it is communicating.
What is communicating, if not any and all communication ?
Or are you also bound to the dictionary on everything else ?
Leap them planes.
It is good analogy practise.
**
narâ‹…rate
–verb (used with object)
1. to give an account or tell the story of (events, experiences,
etc.).
2. to add a spoken commentary to (a film, television program, etc.):
to narrate a slide show.
–verb (used without object)
3. to relate or recount events, experiences, etc., in speech or
writing.
**
See, i kinda figured you might complain about it, so i made a little funny.
Nar in dutch means fool. (jester is more of the kings fool; thus hofnar.
dictionary prolly knows hofnar)
Nar-ration well, ration the fools, rationalisation of fools ?
Nope.
The turning of people into fools.
Narration.
And the funny part is not the reference to the fool always wins, but to the
shutting down narration. Only the fool remains and is free to :
Go away.
(now the last part is way faster than the explanation above it) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mika... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 7, 11:08 am, "bassos" wrote:
Quote: "mika" wrote i
Chemicals and electrical currents do not narrate.
**
That is cos you restrict your meaning.
Yes, I restrict the meaning of the words I use to how those words are
actually defined. That is how a word becomes a meaningful tool for
the communication of ideas.
Quote: It is about talking.
What is talking, it is communicating.
What is communicating, if not any and all communication ?
What a stupid logical fallacy. Set A includes C, Set B includes C,
therefore A = B? This is your argument? Pathetic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:03 pm
|
|