-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Thoughts on NASA in touch with Aliens for years?
- Thread starter ryans
- Start date
Ski_Banker
Suspended
cmon ski......scientific theory states that for any given experiment different testers need to come to the exact same result using seperate but equal methods.So given your previous statement where are you going.....seems like you are building a case for God and God alone as the answer to all unexplained phenomina.......since iyo we are intrinsicly unable to see the "truth"
You get my point, but it doesn't include me building a case that God explains everything we don't know. That case could be made, potentially, once we've observed everything in the universe. It just means that currently either God/divinity OR science [or potentially some other form(s) of reason of which we don't yet know] explains everything in the universe. More importantly, some of those things we currently firmly believe to be science could, in fact, be attributed to something else.
300 years ago, Alchemists were trying to create the element gold. Science has since proved that to be impossible. We haven't yet discovered if that scientific belief is, in fact, correct.
Last edited:
Ski_Banker
Suspended
I would also argue that 10% of the population can create gold from lead, 90% of the population will "never" believe it, and less than 1% of the population knows what the heck I'm talking about. :wink:
This is self-evident; as we are all human. I think...
Assigning perfection to science is an erroneous presumption. Science is not Truth; science is merely approximations of Truth.
Newton had a theory of gravity, but is it true? It's good enough to send astronauts to the Moon, but yet does not adequately explain the motions of Mercury, nor does it work accurately for more than two bodies. When pressed to answer how planets managed to stay in stable orbits anyway, Newton copped out and said "God does it". This is termed the God of the Gaps -- anything unexplainable in human terms is attributed to a deity. The ancients thought that lightning was Zeus throwing thunderbolts; lightning today is still not entirely understood but no one suggests that "The Zeus Theory" is particularly credible.
So Newton invoked God to keep planets in their orbits, despite having a pretty nifty theory. Einstein's theory of gravity, however, is better -- and it explains the orbit of Mercury and keeps the planets in their orbits without the need for a deity. Does this mean that Newton was "wrong"? Well, maybe a little -- it's all how you look at it. If I tell you to measure a line, and you measure it at 2.5", and then I tell you that you're wrong, it's actually 2.50002", does that mean you were truly wrong? Of course not. Maybe your measuring tools were simply inadequate to measure to the hundred thousandth of an inch. Maybe I didn't phrase the question with sufficient precision. Maybe it's irrelevant what the hundred thousandth place is.
So, what is Truth? I have no idea. If you want to call it "God", more power to you. I am much more comfortable simply saying "I don't know" than inventing a complex mythology to explain it all.
Put me in the less than 1% then. Unless you want to explain to me how nearly 700 million people in the world can create gold from lead without the metals market noticing.
Ski_Banker
Suspended
"without the metals market noticing" LOL
You are suddenly questioning your beliefs, and that is a good thing. Assuming this has value, would you say I just created something from nothing? :wink:
Again, "beliefs" is your word, not mine. And I'm always questioning: just because you don't like the answers I derive does not mean that my questioning has ended.
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Fair enough.
Ski_Banker
Suspended
I know it's late but I just wanted to say:
G'night Flaminio. Sweet dreams! And God bless!
:smile::smile:
G'night Flaminio. Sweet dreams! And God bless!
:smile::smile:
- Joined
- 1 September 2001
- Messages
- 4,123
On the contrary; science has shown how to do it.
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Very interesting, thank you. I was not aware of this.
So, then, I guess it would be fair to say that Alchemists attempted it, science proved it to be impossible (it's an element!), and then science disproved itself (elemental matter can be synthesized by way of massive inputs of energy).
I wonder what else is possible when "limitless" amounts of energy are available? Hmmmm :wink:
- Joined
- 27 June 2003
- Messages
- 4,618
So say Annunaki's really exist, how are they traveling these vast distances? Warp drive? Time travel? Worm Holes? or are they bending space by massive gravity generators? This is the only thing that doesn't seem possible (but its probably due to my [our] limited understanding of their ultra advanced technology) :biggrin:
Ski_Banker
Suspended
I am not aware of Annunakis? Is that what some people are calling an alien specie or something?
Major is on the right track, BTW. "Alien" may not be exclusive to, if at all, little green men in flying saucers. Perhaps it is more subtle, like our language, in which "Alien" also refers to that which we do not Know.
I personally believe that approaching these mysteries from the little green men perspective will lead to highly misleading conclusions. Even if the fellows' bodies are unearthed somewhere. It ain't about little green men, my friends.
Be good.
- Joined
- 27 June 2003
- Messages
- 4,618
The Annunaki are the supposed beings that live on Nibiru (Planet X) and are supposedly the ones that genetically engineered the human race to be slaves to mine for gold.... more on this theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbgHyrmgRZM&NR=1
(please note im not stating this as fact as some ppl here are far too stickler)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BToUxSi-QwA (haven't watched this one yet just sharing)
Last edited:
Aliens from Planet X genetically engineered humans to be slaves to mine for gold sounds reasonable to you?
If I'm ever on trial for a crime, I totally want you on my jury. You'll believe anything.
What do you guys think about the theory that one of the original Pharaohs of Egypt had, at least in part, some alien/reptilian "cold blooded" DNA? And, that his decendents are the "blue-blooded" Royals that rule Europe, and now the USA?
I find your opinions/facts fascinating!! You have me hooked on this thread now. Please feel free to post more!
- Joined
- 27 June 2003
- Messages
- 4,618
haha burn! :tongue:
its a pretty wild theory but there's evidence of aliens visiting earth in the Bible... of course they perceived it as gods but today, it would be aliens right?
All the engravings of helicopters, tanks and UFO's engraved on the pyramids.... how is it possible they knew about this?
There are reasonable explanations for these carvings, but I doubt it would convince a true believer:
http://www.catchpenny.org/abydos.html
- Joined
- 27 June 2003
- Messages
- 4,618
I'm not saying they had tanks, helicopters etc .....but they knew the existence (be it in the future) of such items....
Since I’m sitting around in an airport waiting for a flight, I had a little time to put together a few thoughts related to this topic.
In this conversation the worth “truth” has been tossed around quite a bit. However, we need to first examine what really is “truth” really is. Take colors for example. Say one person sees a color and sees it as red. Another person sees the same color and sees it as blue. Now who it telling the “truth” as to what that color really is? Now here is where it get’s interesting. There actually exists two truths and they may not be the same. There is an absolute universal “truth” and there is a perceived practical truth. The absolute truth, in theory, would be the truth in the truest sense of the word, while the perceived truth would be what we the population perceives as the truth at that given moment in time. In the example above, the perceived truth is different for each person, yet there is only one universal truth, and it could be that the color isn’t red or blue at all, but green.
Most arguments I see between faith based people and those with a scientific approach breaks down to a discrepancy between truths. Faith based people argue “absolute” truth since it is the foundation of their faith. God represents absolute truth, and so thus they can make absolute statements based on that truth. Those with more of a scientific mind argue from a “practical” truth approach. They basically say that truth is only as far as we know it at that moment in time. They also argue that there is no way, as humans, to really ever know absolute universal truth , so we must rely on our perceive practical truth to live by. Let’s re-examine the color example, but this time let’s say 5 billion people see the color as red and only 1 person sees the same color as blue. The faith based person will argue that the 1 person could actually be correct and that the 5 billion other people are wrong. Or they may even argue that the color is neither red nor blue, but green. Whatever their doctrine tells them the color is, that is what their faith believes, because they believe in a universal truth. And if there was a document that stated absolute truths, and they had faith in that document (like a bible), then despite what anything else may say to the contrary, their belief stands firm, regardless if it is in the majority or minority. However, the scientific mind completely dismisses the universal truth. That is not to say that they don’t think that it doesn’t exist, but that, as humans, there is no way to know the absolute truth for sure without having to put blind faith in something. Their argument is that we must, to a large degree, live by these perceived and practical truths. Again, in the color example, the scientific mind would argue, that because 5 billion people see a color as red, then for all intents and purposes that color is essentially red. If you try to say the color is blue or green, then in the eyes of the population, you are not telling the truth. This becomes evident if it were, say, a court case and it came down the discussion if the traffic light was red when you zoomed through. Even though it may not coincide with the absolute universal truth, in order to communicate, function and interact with others, you have to accept that the color is red. Back when the world was considered flat, a scientific mind would have accepted it as truth because at that time it was the accepted truth and in order to plan travel or discuss the land with fellow countrymen, speaking in terms of a round earth wouldn’t have made any sense to anyone else.
Now a religious mind would argue that this is myopic and very narrow minded. And from their perspective it is. However, the scientific mind understands that truth is constantly evolving and that the truth is only as “true” as it is perceived by the people. The scientific mind also recognizes that the religious mind for the most part lives life accepting these perceived truths all the time and it is only in the one instance of religion, that they deviate from their practical truth beliefs and accept an absolute truth stance. After all regardless of religion, most people can agree on what the color red is. They can also believe in other current perceived truths, like, how we are made up of atoms, or the laws of physics like gravity. We don’t have to rely on faith or direction from a book of truths (aka bible) for these, because in a practical sense, they are functional practical truths. We don’t have to accept that they are absolute universal truths, but we do need them as practical truths, or at least try to come to some consensus on them. I say that because even among practical truths, there is a very grey area as to what is true and what isn’t, even in discussions that have no/little religious bias at all. Example: Do plants/animals have feeling, emotions, pain? If so which do, and which do not? Dogs? Snails? Mushrooms? Or how about the color of the dinosaurs? Much of the population would be divided on that, and so in that case, the practical truth is that there is none. In a practical sense we can’t make a truthful statement because we really don’t know or agree on a truth. And most religions, to my knowledge, really don’t address it, so there really isn’t even a religions truth or position to it as well. This differs to the discrepancy of other religious based arguments, like abortion or angels, where the religious and scientific minds have a clear position or doctrine which are in direct opposition from one another.
In summary, the point I was trying to make is that when these sort of discussions break out into a disagreement, it really boils down to a discussion of truths. If both parties understood how the other party is viewing the definition of “truth” then you’ll be surprised how there really isn’t that much difference in perspective from either. For example, if the scientific mind were to speak in terms of absolute truths, then I’m sure they could agree that some absolute truth and/or force created the universe and that could easily be considered “god” and in many ways they would be in agreement. Yet if the religious mind were to think only in terms of perceived truth (using our 5 senses and scientific knowledge) then they could easily agree that there is nothing to support the existence of any “god”. Unfortunately what typically happens is that in conversation, the religious mind will only speak in absolute truth, while the scientific mind will speak in perceived truth and thus will result in and endless argument because they are diametrically opposed from the start.
If the scientific mind were to accept universal truths and that humans could actually know it and that some document or religion decreed it, then they could easily see the religious perspective. If the religious person were to accept only perceived truths, then they could easily see how using only perceived truths, one could reason that there are no “gods” and the like.
Just a few thoughts before I catch my flight...
In this conversation the worth “truth” has been tossed around quite a bit. However, we need to first examine what really is “truth” really is. Take colors for example. Say one person sees a color and sees it as red. Another person sees the same color and sees it as blue. Now who it telling the “truth” as to what that color really is? Now here is where it get’s interesting. There actually exists two truths and they may not be the same. There is an absolute universal “truth” and there is a perceived practical truth. The absolute truth, in theory, would be the truth in the truest sense of the word, while the perceived truth would be what we the population perceives as the truth at that given moment in time. In the example above, the perceived truth is different for each person, yet there is only one universal truth, and it could be that the color isn’t red or blue at all, but green.
Most arguments I see between faith based people and those with a scientific approach breaks down to a discrepancy between truths. Faith based people argue “absolute” truth since it is the foundation of their faith. God represents absolute truth, and so thus they can make absolute statements based on that truth. Those with more of a scientific mind argue from a “practical” truth approach. They basically say that truth is only as far as we know it at that moment in time. They also argue that there is no way, as humans, to really ever know absolute universal truth , so we must rely on our perceive practical truth to live by. Let’s re-examine the color example, but this time let’s say 5 billion people see the color as red and only 1 person sees the same color as blue. The faith based person will argue that the 1 person could actually be correct and that the 5 billion other people are wrong. Or they may even argue that the color is neither red nor blue, but green. Whatever their doctrine tells them the color is, that is what their faith believes, because they believe in a universal truth. And if there was a document that stated absolute truths, and they had faith in that document (like a bible), then despite what anything else may say to the contrary, their belief stands firm, regardless if it is in the majority or minority. However, the scientific mind completely dismisses the universal truth. That is not to say that they don’t think that it doesn’t exist, but that, as humans, there is no way to know the absolute truth for sure without having to put blind faith in something. Their argument is that we must, to a large degree, live by these perceived and practical truths. Again, in the color example, the scientific mind would argue, that because 5 billion people see a color as red, then for all intents and purposes that color is essentially red. If you try to say the color is blue or green, then in the eyes of the population, you are not telling the truth. This becomes evident if it were, say, a court case and it came down the discussion if the traffic light was red when you zoomed through. Even though it may not coincide with the absolute universal truth, in order to communicate, function and interact with others, you have to accept that the color is red. Back when the world was considered flat, a scientific mind would have accepted it as truth because at that time it was the accepted truth and in order to plan travel or discuss the land with fellow countrymen, speaking in terms of a round earth wouldn’t have made any sense to anyone else.
Now a religious mind would argue that this is myopic and very narrow minded. And from their perspective it is. However, the scientific mind understands that truth is constantly evolving and that the truth is only as “true” as it is perceived by the people. The scientific mind also recognizes that the religious mind for the most part lives life accepting these perceived truths all the time and it is only in the one instance of religion, that they deviate from their practical truth beliefs and accept an absolute truth stance. After all regardless of religion, most people can agree on what the color red is. They can also believe in other current perceived truths, like, how we are made up of atoms, or the laws of physics like gravity. We don’t have to rely on faith or direction from a book of truths (aka bible) for these, because in a practical sense, they are functional practical truths. We don’t have to accept that they are absolute universal truths, but we do need them as practical truths, or at least try to come to some consensus on them. I say that because even among practical truths, there is a very grey area as to what is true and what isn’t, even in discussions that have no/little religious bias at all. Example: Do plants/animals have feeling, emotions, pain? If so which do, and which do not? Dogs? Snails? Mushrooms? Or how about the color of the dinosaurs? Much of the population would be divided on that, and so in that case, the practical truth is that there is none. In a practical sense we can’t make a truthful statement because we really don’t know or agree on a truth. And most religions, to my knowledge, really don’t address it, so there really isn’t even a religions truth or position to it as well. This differs to the discrepancy of other religious based arguments, like abortion or angels, where the religious and scientific minds have a clear position or doctrine which are in direct opposition from one another.
In summary, the point I was trying to make is that when these sort of discussions break out into a disagreement, it really boils down to a discussion of truths. If both parties understood how the other party is viewing the definition of “truth” then you’ll be surprised how there really isn’t that much difference in perspective from either. For example, if the scientific mind were to speak in terms of absolute truths, then I’m sure they could agree that some absolute truth and/or force created the universe and that could easily be considered “god” and in many ways they would be in agreement. Yet if the religious mind were to think only in terms of perceived truth (using our 5 senses and scientific knowledge) then they could easily agree that there is nothing to support the existence of any “god”. Unfortunately what typically happens is that in conversation, the religious mind will only speak in absolute truth, while the scientific mind will speak in perceived truth and thus will result in and endless argument because they are diametrically opposed from the start.
If the scientific mind were to accept universal truths and that humans could actually know it and that some document or religion decreed it, then they could easily see the religious perspective. If the religious person were to accept only perceived truths, then they could easily see how using only perceived truths, one could reason that there are no “gods” and the like.
Just a few thoughts before I catch my flight...
- Joined
- 1 September 2001
- Messages
- 4,123
LITTLE GREEN MEN
little=small thinker
green=wet behind the ears
Did you know that all the world’s most ancient monuments line up with the star systems: Orion, Leo and Draco?
"Giza"
The Egyptian pyramids are in the exact shape of the Orion constellation. (luminance reflected in the size of each pyramid) The central (once hidden and secret) shafts of the great pyramid all point to Orion, Sirius, Draco, Leo. You might think that the Sphinx is only 6000 some odd years old, but it’s not.
Scientists now know that it’s about 12,500 years old according to the physical wear of the rocks themselves from thousands of years of heavy rain fall weathering. (Studies by John Anthony West and Prof. Robert Shock, Boston University) For the last few thousands of years, Egypt has been DRY, so how did the rocks become SO heavily weathered by RAIN WATER? (Not wind erosion) If you go back to 10,500 BC, you have your answers.
If you follow the precession of the Earth (the slow wobble of the Earth over thousands of years around the North Star) you will notice that the Sphinx points right to the constellation Leo on the SPRING EQUINOX of every year back around 12,500 years ago (10,500 BC)
These ancient sites have been rebuilt MANY times, following the ancient blueprint of the original creators of these monuments, so they are VERY ancient indeed. Today the Sphinx currently points to Taurus, the Bull, every spring equinox. So why is the Sphinx not a bull? Because it was most likely built in 10,500 BC, not 4-6000 years ago.
"Angkor"
The ancient temples in Cambodia, have this exact same phenomena. They are built around an exact representation of the Draco constellation itself. Star for star - an exact representation of the heavens done with a precision that no Human on Earth today with all the technology we have can duplicate. And the temples all point to this same constellation, Draco the dragon, on the equinoxes of about 12,500 years ago, WHEN THEY WERE FIRST BUILT.
How many times have these ancient temples been rebuilt in order to maintain the "message for Humanity" which we are still uncovering?
There is an underwater ancient monument in Japan which also links to this chain of 10,500 BC. And as we shall soon see, so will the recent discovery of the ancient pyramids off the coast of Cuba.
Orion, Sirius, Leo and Draco (the Dragon) - The cornerstones (corner-stars) of the ancient world on Earth in 10,500 BC. No matter where you might look in the ancient world, you will come across this same strange "coincidence"...
If you are still of the thinking that it was Roswell where the first contact was made - that’s what I call media-think. It’s easier to believe that project-bluebook and other military science projects have only had ET contact recently and are just covering that up in the last 50 or so years, which is clearly not the case. ET contact goes WAY back into the ancient world.
That’s a mightily long time...
little=small thinker
green=wet behind the ears
Did you know that all the world’s most ancient monuments line up with the star systems: Orion, Leo and Draco?
"Giza"
The Egyptian pyramids are in the exact shape of the Orion constellation. (luminance reflected in the size of each pyramid) The central (once hidden and secret) shafts of the great pyramid all point to Orion, Sirius, Draco, Leo. You might think that the Sphinx is only 6000 some odd years old, but it’s not.
Scientists now know that it’s about 12,500 years old according to the physical wear of the rocks themselves from thousands of years of heavy rain fall weathering. (Studies by John Anthony West and Prof. Robert Shock, Boston University) For the last few thousands of years, Egypt has been DRY, so how did the rocks become SO heavily weathered by RAIN WATER? (Not wind erosion) If you go back to 10,500 BC, you have your answers.
If you follow the precession of the Earth (the slow wobble of the Earth over thousands of years around the North Star) you will notice that the Sphinx points right to the constellation Leo on the SPRING EQUINOX of every year back around 12,500 years ago (10,500 BC)
These ancient sites have been rebuilt MANY times, following the ancient blueprint of the original creators of these monuments, so they are VERY ancient indeed. Today the Sphinx currently points to Taurus, the Bull, every spring equinox. So why is the Sphinx not a bull? Because it was most likely built in 10,500 BC, not 4-6000 years ago.
"Angkor"
The ancient temples in Cambodia, have this exact same phenomena. They are built around an exact representation of the Draco constellation itself. Star for star - an exact representation of the heavens done with a precision that no Human on Earth today with all the technology we have can duplicate. And the temples all point to this same constellation, Draco the dragon, on the equinoxes of about 12,500 years ago, WHEN THEY WERE FIRST BUILT.
How many times have these ancient temples been rebuilt in order to maintain the "message for Humanity" which we are still uncovering?
There is an underwater ancient monument in Japan which also links to this chain of 10,500 BC. And as we shall soon see, so will the recent discovery of the ancient pyramids off the coast of Cuba.
Orion, Sirius, Leo and Draco (the Dragon) - The cornerstones (corner-stars) of the ancient world on Earth in 10,500 BC. No matter where you might look in the ancient world, you will come across this same strange "coincidence"...
If you are still of the thinking that it was Roswell where the first contact was made - that’s what I call media-think. It’s easier to believe that project-bluebook and other military science projects have only had ET contact recently and are just covering that up in the last 50 or so years, which is clearly not the case. ET contact goes WAY back into the ancient world.
That’s a mightily long time...
Attachments
Last edited:
Ski_Banker
Suspended
This is an epic post, and one that will go down in the NSX Prime lore for the ages. Nicely done!
I have never met you in person, but I am confident that this important message was either:
A. Something you have been pondering for a very long time (perhaps in bits and pieces)
B. An epiphany, where "everything" suddenly flashed in your mind and you knew it to be true
Don't stop now!! :smile:
Ski_Banker
Suspended
Your skepticism, based on some wildly bizarre posts in recent days, is quite understandable. And no, there aren't any drugs involved here (for me at least).
You should change your avatar to something less vile and, dare I say it, evil in appearance. (BTW, I used to have a Gordon Gekko avatar which, in the current popular culture, would be considered reprehensible. That mindset will change and new understandings of man will take shape, however.)
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
