It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

All Religions have Extraterrestrial origin, including Judaism and Christianity

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:24 AM

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: 2012newstart

After they read that they should read the book of Enoch...

But only if they want the truth...

What I find laughable is how so many think everyone that reads any holy text, any mythological text that they all will interpret it the same way.

What is truth? Your interpretation of something?

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:34 AM
a reply to: InhaleExhale

The one simple fact people the religious don't take into consideration, is that only a being not of this earth with its continual cycles of birth and death would not be subject to dieing.

So that is the only type of being who can offer people life after death if they follow him. Brilliant but obvious ruse isn't it.

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:39 AM
a reply to: InhaleExhale


What I find laughable is people who have not cross referenced information like this with history and other books and scripture...
Sometimes the names of people and places are different then you dig a little deeper and find out other names were used slowly you get a real sense of truth that is not common knowledge...
But you can continue forming conclusions based on a lack of information and predisposed lack of faith or belief leaving you really with only an opinion...
Then you can laugh to yourself in ignorance and bask in bliss...

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:15 AM
I always took religions as a spiritual thing, so looking for proofs or origins of it it seems kind of irrelevant to me. Let aside that people made every religion into a form of crowd control, I thing religions are like works of art. It either speaks to you or not.
I generally look at the bigger picture, at the common message find in most religions, at the things they do in their believers. At the things they make you wonder about, like life after death, immortality, purpose in life. Honestly I couldn't care less if Jesus was really the son of God or some stoned hippie lost in the deserts of Judea; is his message to the humanity that lasted through the centuries. Same with Buddha, Krishna, Mohamed and so on.

If someone believe the message it needs no proofs. If someone needs proofs it will never find enough to satisfy him. After all I cannot prove that my grand-grand father existed; there is no trace of his existence left on this earth, except, of course his descendants. Just the same there is no trace left of any prophet or religious figure except their message. How would someone ever prove that every word in the bible is truth and was spoken exactly as written?

So looking for proofs is quite futile, especially when we ignore the message. A waste of time IMO. Those who cannot believe will still not believe, and those who want to believe will do it no matter what.

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:26 AM
a reply to: 5StarOracle

So I will take it that you do believe your interpretations as truth,

What I find laughable is people who have not cross referenced information like this with history and other books and scripture...

Yeah I know, they stick to Youtube videos and think they know truth because the internetz told them so.

Sometimes the names of people and places are different then you dig a little deeper and find out other names were used slowly you get a real sense of truth that is not common knowledge...

There is no common knowledge in religious or mythological texts, yes it might be common among st large portions of people but they just as conflicting as they are common.

One can easily interpret that Loki, Enki, Shiva, Satan are one and the same but that does not make it truth.

It might be true to some but they only argue or claim that its true to feed their ego, people cant live in the void and need to believe they know.

But you can continue forming conclusions based on a lack of information and predisposed lack of faith or belief leaving you really with only an opinion...

Lack of faith in what?

Lack of information? maybe an abundance but not a lack.

Yes its my opinion that there many similarities many ideas that have been formed by many that try to tie everything into one nice bow where everything is explained but cannot be done, you can believe it can and is done and form your own conclusions on the abundance of info out there however it leaves you only with what you say I have, an opinion.

Bravo you are catching on, yet I think you will still believe deep down that you have the truth that is not common knowledge.

Then you can laugh to yourself in ignorance and bask in bliss...

Thanks for allowing me, but is it really ignorance when one knows they are ignorant or is it ignorance when one thinks they know the truth?

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: InhaleExhale

What strikes me is those books of the creation period are written much later. When I read as a child, I imagine the paradise garden. Or in the book of Enoch (not as a child already) one can imagine those fallen angels etc.

But one has to realize those books are written thousands of years after the events. Genesis is written after Moses, because otherwise Moses would say it in his name "I, Moses, did that and that" as the prophets wrote.

The same is valid for the Gospels. They are not written by Jesus, nor by the 12. The actual texts are much later works, edited many times for the 3 centuries after Jesus.

So to say we have the absolute truth of the creation of humankind, based only on Genesis, or even plus Enoch, is quite naive. It is not strange that questions of children on the subject of the apple are practically unanswerable, with the current religious data bank of knowledge and theory. Because one can try to convince an adult that the human nature is fallen in principle. But how to convince a child in that? Innocent questions require innocent answers, and such do not exist as of today.

Anunaki story could be as much corrupt as the Genesis-Enoch story. Depending on who created it, who wrote it for the first time, and for what purpose. Sure it is neither Sitchin nor Daniken. It is as much naive to blame them for what is written thousands of years ago, only because they say it in public. "Kill the messenger when you cannot kill the message". If the story of Anunaki is another attempt to delude humanity, it is not because Sitchin didn't translate it or Daniken is whatever his opponents say of him.

Pity that is used as tool to defend Christianity. Christianity needs more clever defense, first of all it needs to know its true origins. They are not found in Genesis only, as the only source of creation and fall of human nature (plus Enoch).
Where is Atlantis then, because we know it existed from the Greek.

I would think higher of the church scholars of today, who acknowledged their middle age trespasses (at least John Paul Ii acknowledged them). We need more books to compare, why not Sumer books and others, in order to figure out what happened in the garden or even before the garden. Before we declare that every human baby is born sinful. How, if Jesus washed away the sin with baptism? The things do not match, because they are based on wrong base, symbolic and partial. Perhaps those who wrote it, and those who maintained it thru centuries, never imagined the people would question it in public, in the scale that happens today from TV. The Churches better give clever answers with today's level of knowledge, or they simply lose the battle. Even if not declared as loss due to political reasons (too many common followers of the churches, to be declared everything wrong).
edit on 26-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:57 PM

originally posted by: Shane

originally posted by: Specimen
Most religions are originally inspired by astrological as well as natural phenomena, and are personified as such in various ways. If they were constructed by extraterrestrials, wouldn't they have become a more dominant methodology and school of thought, were it were actually effective in it ways or teachings, that it would dwarf other religions?

However, that not the case though, as the three prominent, monotheism's are at each others throats about whose way is better, and with little to no interference by Heaven to give judgment about the Way of God. And like all prophets say, that are all going to burn Hell because God said so.

If the three are right, then why does God, seem madder...And madder...An madder, when it comes the grades

I'd like to think they had some extraterrestrial inspirations, as well as demotivation, but the Lore works in mysterious ways.

Your dwelling on the wrong thought processes, confusing things not important to the thrust of this Post. I will touch on that later.

You do make a valid query, as to " If they were constructed by extraterrestrials, wouldn't they have become a more dominant methodology and school of thought".

And your error is not recognizing "However, that not the case though, as the three prominent, monotheism's.......", is exactly what you are asking to begin with. You asnwered the question, with your second one. They are all Alien.

And this is just the Three Monotheistic Based Faiths being noted. This doesn't even border on the Sumerian Cuneiform Texts, and the Egyptian and Greek, and Norse Pantheons. And the more nature based American Lore of the Native Peoples there.

Each and everyone of these various deities, gods, and such, have one thing in common. They left the same message, rooted deep within what I would generally define as Dogma, Theology, and Doctrines they wished to promote, but there is a common theme. You can identify the Biblical Account quite easily. It isn't difficult to get. The Koran and Torah, have the same basic account, in respects to Abrahamic Teachings, with divergence occurring on supple levels, but these other texts, sources and lore of the ancients express a similar account.

The hidden message, beneath most of the others deities and gods stories is defiance of their father. A fight, and the arrival on Earth. The co-habitation with Man, and the indulgences of Man's Daughters, with the associated stories being twisted and distorted to suit the particular needs each have. The hint here are the Fallen lack creative thought. That's is why the underlying theme is still there, and only slight differences disguise the fact.

As for Greys, Shining Ones, and such, I think they have influenced everything from earliest periods of Modern Man.

And here is your difficulty with those three conflictive Monotheistic's faiths your spoke about. They all worship the One God. It is the God of Abraham, from where Ishmael, Israel, and ultimately Christianity arose. Sure, they have differing perspectives, but there is no difference with the God of Abraham between any of these Faiths, despite the rhetoric.



What teaching would those be...Me sacrificing my Son because an angelic, godly voice said so, where as if God didn't like me enough, he wouldn't stop me from doing, or that I would be forgiven for doing it because God said too, but forgiving myself if I were that empathetic.

Or if he did like me enough, an angry banshee from hell, would stop me and would want to use that sacrificial knife on me, and all the while, the moral of the story is that if God likes enough, and tells you to do something bad, a Demon...Or angel would threaten me like that ass in one story!?

Now that I think about...Yea, sure Aliens...It was aliens and time travelers.

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:34 AM
a reply to: Specimen

Indeed Abrahamic story presents one of the biggest challenges before religion and reason. Let also remember the Native American religions who had human sacrifice. Perhaps that all is not the will of God.

Equally puzzling is where went the so called Kingdom of God in the nearly 2000 history of Christianity, and where it shall be in the next chapter of it, in the so called prophecy. I just wrote a large section of posts in Fatima thread in Predictions forum.

What are the wider goals of Abrahamic religions who came to earth allegedly by divine revelation to establish a more just society under the law of God. Because "you shall not kill" is found not only in the 10 commandments but also in every other religion. Perhaps the answer could and should be given by the leaders of those religions, by pope and patriarchs, and rabbis, who will abandon for a while their superior position and will explain in a normal human way what it is all about.

Sure the man is not created for suffering and sacrifice, but to enjoy life given by God, to make something meaningful and beautiful in his lifespan (or said otherwise, to build up the kingdom of God here on earth) and to prolong it in future generations. The apocalyptic scenarios envision just the opposite, this earth is dumped and cursed from the very beginning and awaits the fire even before the flood.
(Anunaki story comes to tell us, fire was prepared as punishment of the first humanity, the flood was the mercy of Anunaki to allow continuation thru Noah).

All religions say, the spirit or soul of humans is immortal, although not all of them send it to either to heaven or hell immediately after death. If the souls are immortal, perhaps the mortal bodies shouldn't be part of the equation as originally designed. They became part of the equation at some stage, that the Abrahamic religions call the Original sin or fall. Other religions see it otherwise. Having immortal soul, one intuitively seeks for immortality also in the temporal world. It is not a bad thing, it is the thing one has been created for.

I will touch upon the sexuality. It is not created as a bad thing, and it is absurd how many elders of the Abrahamic religions saw it as a curse so many times. Let me ask a simple question, what did our great-grandfathers do until the marriageable age of 100+ before the Flood? My job is not to elaborate on that however. But to think we rediscover the 10 commandments for our age by prohibiting, let say condoms, is not the wisest thing done by religious leaders. Such moves will only distance an already distant flock who would be ever more suspicious after centuries failed religious policies on other important issues of life.

Resurrection is definitely something new as religious belief, different from the so called pagan religions, only to the Abrahamic religions as far as I know. But shall it happen in the way we are told of, or shall it happen in a way the Abrahamic religions prefer to be silent about?

Did Jesus come to correct the ancient beliefs, did he say something much beyond the recorded canonical gospels? And if not, what it is so much different from Judaism and the other big branch of monotheism, that despite all odds in history appears to be the Muslim religion? They recognize all of that and more. So what is the betterment in practical, visible, measurable terms, that the Christianity has to offer to the world? I am not going to answer that question, because in order to answer it, one needs a new doctrine (if not new dogmas) to redefine everything from the Garden to the Revelation. Not only to say the little green Martians need baptism, as pope Francis said in private mass, only to negate it the next day on St Peter's square by loudly declaring that "we are bigger than the angels" or something like that. I believe he follows doctrine of elders of Medieval school of thought, trying to put in it the question of Martians and others. Good, but not good enough. A much wider view of the world, of the earth in it, of the original sin in the entire story is needed. Perhaps the pope and others have that view but they are afraid of the crowds... It may turn to be the crowds to be more informed and more open to the truth than their elders. Except for fanatics that were present in every age and every religion.
Perhaps it will be done by smart people in their time, post-events.

If we are not responsible for the great fault, whatever it was in reality, we'd rather be re-compensated by galactic nations for all the negativity that fault brought to earth for millenia. Not to be punished for what we are not guilty, and to be given nukes in 20th century with the hope by some superior races that we will destroy ourselves without the need of a second flood. It is bad religion, and let it say aloud. We have enough reasons to believe the nuclear age didn't come as ONLY the result of the human genius, but humanity was helped to enter in it.

It is easy to punish for non-existent sins, and to create them in first place with unending lists of sins spread since Moses until our days. The question is, who is the one who punish in the temporal life (let set aside the afterlife). Is it a merciful and loving God Father of all, or is it his opposite pretty much of what we would call Satan, whom Jesus did not deny the rule over this world, during his temptation in the desert. Does it mean the worst case scenario, that the religions or some of them are actually controlled not by God but by the fallen angels, by satan? Unfortunately human history is filled with examples how people killed people in the name of God, and often not just killed but also tortured by unspeakable ways. Was that all the will of the good God? Perhaps the duality is just a step away from the idea of a god who would punish everything and everyone who strays away an inch from so set rules that border to insanity sometimes. Is that the case, are we created by the falen angels, as the book of Enoch says about the others besides Noah? Did they survive the Flood, some of them, as we see the human races are quite different from being all descendants of one couple after the Flood? In other words, how much truth it is the procreation is based on someone else, not of God the creator of the universe in the Eden garden? I do not know the answers. Nobody does. If not answers of those questions dating pre-flood, then we have to receive answers to more recent questions, that persistently haven't been answered by those in power. Why for example the striking inequality of life of one human race under the sun, today in the 16th year of 21st century? Is that the will of God? Is that punishment of old sins in previous lives? Or is that some Abrahamic or better say, Aztec blood sacrifice that some god wants the humanity to offer times and again for unknown cruel purpose?

A new space based religious explanation should be defined without any delay. Along with remedies of social need, hunger, and curable diseases. It is not a sin to research the stem cells, said pope Francis to Spanish-American scientific team working in Spain on the issue of growing human organs. Let start from somewhere. May be not of the best place of elaborated theory, but from somewhere. The idea we will be recompensed in the afterlife, comfortable on the dead bed, is not enough for most
edit on 27-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 05:18 AM
(continued). The afterlife or call it whatever, has its meaning in everyone's life and is the obvious end of all efforts done on planet earth. I am never against its significance, its utmost importance that transcends many times the non perfectness of this temporal life.

If it was the only purpose we would never be born but would remain spirits somewhere else. We are born to make a difference. Well I talk of myself of course, never mind the frequent use of "we". Our human destiny, as I see it, is to make a difference in the earth history, to change it to better, with the help of religions that originate outside the earth. Not to be controlled by them in medieval way or to expect armageddonic outcome for all. Unfortunately that becomes reality in the nuclear age, even without Nibiru or other space cataclysm (and we don't know if ther eis a such anytime soon).

With or without natural cataclysm, the humanity does not fulfill its destiny. The Abrahamic religions teach us, because of the original sin and the falen human nature. May be it is so. But may be a great dose have those who determine the frames of particular age. See how different were the ages of Rome based on slavery compared to the Middle age, compared to the age of technology. Today no one considers (at least in pubic) the torture as mechanism of conversion of sins determined by the church. But still many deeply religious people, whom I respect for their fidelity to their own understanding of the same religion, think in terms : humanity is so bad that deserves punishment as a whole. Who is so bad, the 2 billion kids under the age of 10 who populate mostly the poorer countries? They never had the occasion to commit the sins that the humanity is accused of as a whole. At least they should be spared and given a better option to live a better life.

But that same could be said for the middle and older generation, because they too were innocent kids at their times. They didn't choose the time to be born in, or the country or even the religious society that they inherited upon their birth. "God chose it" would say devote person, or "our spirits chose it before reincarnation" would say a follower of those religions for which the reincarnation is the main afterlife perspective. Well, there is no evidence for any of them. While it is widely accepted by Abrahamic religions that nothing happens without the permission of God, although not His explicit will, still we do not have proof that God ordered what has been done in his name. I don't intend to repeat previous posts and reasoning.

Another explanation is the action of the devil. Perhaps the day the ET will manifest (and that day comes closer), all those devote people who do not make effort to understand the world beyond the solar system, will say in one voice regardless of their churches: fallen angels, devil incarnates have come back to earth! Well, let define better who the devil is. And what his role in the world is. Because many evil things are done by humans, even in the name of God. To blame the devil all of that?

My reasoning does not amount to a religious book of 500 pages (if you have read them they always have an endless thread that circles around and proves the unprovable by using constantly quotations of the Bible and of the Church Fathers). One of the purpose of my spending time is to make other views available on internet, one of which is mine. It should be said loudly, the old ways are outdated.

Who stops us to start living better when we have not only nukes but also cures of diseases and food to feed 7 bln and more, that is trashed everyday in the wealthy nations? Business profit mentality cannot and should not determine all of the human actions, or if it does so, it leads ultimately to a dead end. One cannot have a planet with 50 most wealthy persons to have as much as the half of the poorer humanity, and that to be called democracy and free market. Inequality as big as starvation is only one of the many problems we face.

The religious leaders have a great responsibility, knowing more than we do of the secret part of their respected religions. They ought to raise their voice, and sometimes they indeed do.

I wonder, were there people except Noah on the pre-flood planet who cried out of similar problems and no one heard them. Because we use to believe based n Genesis (and here I go back to the beginning of the posts and the thread) that the people lived primitive lifestyle. Forgetting Atlantis, forgetting Vimanas in India that reportedly flied against the known laws of gravity and aerodynamics. Perhaps we had much more developed societies capable of building pyramids that we are not today. It is not a matter of belief or a TV serial the artifacts that go beyond our level of development. Yet they perished (at least on the surface). For what sins? May be not only for the original sin and the uncontrolled sexuality (no sex laws at that time that we know of). The idea of primitive, of sexual immorality and original sin transmitted by procreation act, in the preflood humanity, is good for authors who want to blame humanity on everything. Everything except the fallen angels.

And that closes the circle of reasoning. Holding the book of Enoch as the only alternative yet banned by most churches, one has the "absolute proof" that whatever cannot be explained by reason or by facts, has to be explained by the devil and the perspective to burn in hell forever if one continues to ask.

THAT leads us to here. 26 years after the Cold War, the world is much more insecure place to live in, despite all the good words of St John Paul II of civilization of love. Where is it? Why instead of acknowledging Darwin and Galileo, John Paul didn't go further the road and acknowledged the ancient knowledge that surely he was in contact with being so hi in hierarchy. May be he chose the lesser evil? Finally he himself sidelined by saying Darwin explained the biological evolution, while the Bible- the spirit of humans (or something like that).

Therefore, if we have Genesis written in naive style, some 2500 years "from creation", thousand years after the Flood, with absurd inconsistencies as the creation in 6 days, the numerous earth races/nations coming from a single family of Noah for so short time, and so on... How is it God created the first humans without having hands? How the Nephilim were around that mated with humans? Who were they if the angels do not have bodies as we are told in Church? Original sin must be redefined in that light. If we need recompense as human race that was manipulated by some off-world entities, let it be said plainly. If it is something else, let it be explained in understandable language of today. Genesis is not written by God, nor by his Son, nor by a prophet. It is written by scholars after Moses. Genesis is not a Dogma!

Neither the Sumer books are.

What then? Religious Disclosure may be? "The society is not ready". The time is long overdue since Galileo. Now we know other planets similar to earth exist. We don't need the nuclear ash first, before we learn the ways out.
edit on 27-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:39 AM
third and last in a row...

What exactly did John Paul II say about Darwin and evolution. TO ACADEMICIANS: TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH

VATICAN CITY, OCT 23, 1996 (VIS) - In a Message made public today to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, meeting this week in the Vatican in plenary session, the Holy Father recalled that Pope Pius XI, who restored this academy in 1936, called this group of scholars "the Church's 'scientific senate'" and asked them "to serve the truth."

The Pope expressed delight on the plenary's theme on the origin of life and evolution, "a basic theme which greatly interests the Church, as Revelation contains, for its part, teachings concerning the nature and origins of man." If the scientifically-reached conclusions and those contained in Revelation on the origin of life seem to counter each other, he said, "in what direction should we seek their solution? We know in effect that truth cannot contradict truth."

John Paul II, noting the academy's "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," observed that "in the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications make new questions arise. The Church can grasp their scope all the better as she knows their basic aspects."

He pointed to the Church's magisterium on the question of the origin of life and evolution, citing in particular Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical "Humani Generis" and the conciliar Constitution "Gaudium et Spes."

The Pope drew the academicians' attention to "the need for a correct interpretation of the inspired word, of a rigorous hermeneutics. It is fitting to set forth well the limits of the meaning proper to Scripture, rejecting undue interpretations which make it say what it does not have the intention of saying."

"'Humani Generis'," he stated, "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. ... Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

He continued: "The elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obeying the exigency of homogeneity with the data of observation, borrows certain ideas from the philosophy of nature. To tell the truth, more than the theory of evolution, one must speak of the theories of evolution. ... There are thus materialistic and reductionist readings and spiritual readings."

"The magisterium of the Church is directly interested in the question of evolution because this touches upon the concept of man, ... created in the image and likeness of God. ... Pius XII underlined this essential point: 'if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God.' Consequently, the theories of evolution which, as a result of the philosophies which inspire them, consider the spirit as emerging from forces of living matter or as a simple epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are moreover incapable of laying the foundation for the dignity of the person."

"Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life and place them on a timeline. The moment of passing over to the spiritual is not the object of an observation of this type, which can nevertheless reveal, on an experimental level, a series of very useful signs about the specificity of the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of the awareness of self and of its reflexive nature, that of the moral conscience, that of liberty, or still yet the aesthetic and religious experience, are within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology extracts from it the final meaning according to the Creator's designs."


John Paul II knew perfectly of Book of Enoch. Did he decide to choose the lesser evil from his point of view, instead to go towards Disclosure after the Fall of the Communism? Because to discuss the Nephilim and the Garden in detail, would mean to acknowledge other races exist, be they fallen or not.

He should acknowledge it was not "God who doesn't have hands" but it were other species to manipulate human DNA. Beyond that, sexual contacts between human race and Nephilim existed. The humans married at the age of 100+ years, in the era when sexual regulations did not exist the way we know them after Moses' time. What did they do before that age? It would be quite much even for John Paul II, who was political liberal but religious conservative.

Hope the Church outlived the era of John Paul II and that partial agreement with mainstream science. Today the science is so much inside its own problems reaching new boundaries unimaginable some decades ago, that is not about to chastise the religion. In some way, the religion may take the lead by accepting as true some ancient books that it knows quite well. Sitchin didn't discover the Sumers first. May be that knowledge is quite well researched by secret groups inside the Churches fora long time, inside the Vatican in first place. May be other texts exist to detail about Atlantis and other ancient civilizations on earth whose artifacts now we encounter. How about the alignment to Orion of more than one human civilization spread on non-related continents? It is better for the Churches to start talking. The era of half truths and doctrinal approach is gone. The more we hear from the pope and cardinals themselves, the better. Frankly we don't have the time to research all that by ourselves. While Ancient Aliens did a revolution in the scientific approach to unexplained and its popularization, it is still a part of the picture. I'd like to hear more not of ancient races but of modern ones who are in contact now. But that means Disclosure.

Well it is better to be done by those who say they serve God. Or they again will choose the lesser evil for themselves, and thei rnarrow interests before the interests of humankind? God forbid!
edit on 27-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in