It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Not a Parody on UFOS But Maybe It Is

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Back in virtually another universe (fifty/sixty years ago) when you heard the word belief it automatically had to do with religious belief. These days as religions fall away from the interests of humanity it is far more common to equate the word belief with another term: The belief in UFOs as alien visitors to Earth. So what? That is simply a common and proper use of the term that makes sense in either area.
Perhaps the ready comparison is no accident. The original usage is ancient. It comes down from an association with many if not most religions where the practitioner believes in the values and core of the religion. Additionally, in the Christian religion, at least, you must have that belief if you expect to get redemption, and be lifted up to a place called Heaven.
With the UFO phenomena being very active since the late 1940s, we now have many millions around the world that believe that UFOs are alien craft. OK, no big deal there, but factor in close encounter and abductee situations where many people have been told that eventually the Earth is going to falter from man-made or natural causes and people will be rescued by huge, alien ships. Some of those UFO myths are carbon copies of the Rapture story where a select number of humans will be lifted up while the balance of humanity dies.
If the gateway to a continued existence is marked by an accepted belief in a higher power of some sort, is it not then possible that the old religious myth is a recycled old alien promise from ages ago? A directive that you must believe in higher beings if you want to continue living in some fashion at the worst of times?
Obviously, the first impulse is to scoff at that contention. But let’s put some serious thought to it. Of course, to do that, we must allow the premise that ETs would come to our aid at a time when extermination was at hand and an evacuation was required. So we’ll work from that perspective.
But an obvious logistic problem looms: Possibly not enough room on x number of ships for a large number of living bodies. The Earth’s population is currently 9 billion. Give or take a calamity that could reduce the bulk of that number even before an alien rescue commenced, there could easily be a very large number of people remaining.
As the ETI commander of the flotilla you have too many people for too few berths. How do you decide who makes the cut? Do you simple open the doors and allow the people to stampede into the ships until they are full to capacity? Do you have time for a lottery? Or do you have another system already in place?
Given that in case after case of abductions that the ETIs have mental powers (that we usually claim do not exist), they may do nothing more then query people at the ramp if they fully believe that humans are not the supreme beings of the universe and accept the ETIs as masters (at least in this instance). That proclamation would be a genuine and long-standing belief that the aliens have been in attendance to humans since the early days of humanity. Therefore, they are connected to humanity with deep roots and an accepted human must pledge an alliance to that connection. It would be a simple accept or reject situation. Lies would be detected and rejection the order. On the spot transformations would be accepted if the subject indicated sincerity deep within their cortex.
Such a system would be fair and decidedly more efficient than allowing unchecked loading. Those that could not believe or accept any aspect of the ETIs’ existence and superior status would have no future onboard the ships or elsewhere. There would be many reasons why large segments of humanity would feel that way. By their way of thinking, impending death by whatever loomed was a better fate than the unknown conditions of the ETIs having full power over them. Their choice could be motivated by ignorance, personal ego or ideologies tempered by political, religious, or reasons of a particular mindset.
The determining process would necessitate being done in a controlled area as there would be an immense hatred in those staying behind by choice or rejection. Most of earth would quickly fall apart at that time. As with looting during a riot or earthquake, a quick chaos would overtake remaining societies and they would fall apart in short time as remaining factions took out their wrath on each other.

So, if it happens tomorrow, what would you believe?




posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Are you proposing that the human refugees, as part of this litmus test, proclaim their belief in these ETIs as deities? Or do they just have to acknowledge that the ETIs are superior beings?

-dex



posted on Dec, 10 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Yep, both religion and the accounts of ET encounters often speak of saving the chosen few. The "pliadian message" is especially all that.

My own take on the matter and vehemently denied by the "ETs" is that it is a confidence trick.

This is just my theory based on a few premises.

The idea of all our problems solved through accention to a higher existence is akin to just walking out on a mess that we created ourselves. There is no sense of responsibility in it.

If one looks at accention to a higher existence as a part of human evolution, as a movement through the "planes of existence", one should probably ask how? and why?.

So let's start with the "how". In the stories it ends in disaster.

* Nuclear war.

* Pollution. Radioactive pollution from war, fallout and Chernobyl and Fukushima for instance.

* Natural disaster such as earthquacks, volcanoes, meteors and so on.

In the event of nuclear war, the earth is bathed in the fires of uranium. Not just the bombs but also the damaged and abandoned nuclear reactors. Let alone what happens when a nuclear detonation occurs over a functioning reactor full of nuclear fuel carefully managed with carbon dampers to stop chain reactions creating the " China syndrome ".

In the event of a few more Chernobyls and Fukushimas and more nations joining the nuclear club we still get a world bathed in the fires of uranium.. It's just not as dramatic and sudden.

In the event of unprecedented geological upheaval or meteor impact, we still get a world bathed in the fires of uranium. what happens to the nuclear reactors? Broken, smashed, abandoned. Maybe Nature just gets sick and tired of us wreaking a world. Or maybe someone, "ETs" for instance, decides that the time is right to bring about accention.

In those scenarios I mention the fires of uranium.

The fires of uranium are perhaps the how.

The fires of uranium separate the subtle anatomy of living things. The aetheric becomes separated from the astral. Akasha is separated off from Being.

The Alchemical Fires of Uranium are one way to separate the awareness of living beings, and those fires loom over mankind today.

The why

The tombs of ancient kings were often located over uranium deposits. The dolmens.

Was that to separate the Kings subtle anatomy so a part of him could stay with his people? Or perhaps it was to ensure his pure accention. Only those privy to the event would know that.

The result maybe a simple esoteric harvesting of purified akasha, life force or whatever. It could also be a means of separating humanity into "good and evil". Judgement? The ancient Egyptians were big on weighing the heart to decide the fate of the newly deceased.

In the bigger picture of human evolution the virtuous man may say this is good for he goes onward to "better" things. But he leaves people behind and a world destroyed.

If it is a harvest, well no one here would benefit, not even collaborators, and a living world is still destroyed.

The myths of Lemuria, Atlantis and the Vedas speak of civilisations destroyed. Perhaps a cycle of accention that leaves this world in tatters.

This is just my own hypothesis. A worst case scenario.

I would like to be wrong.




edit on 10-12-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: typos



new topics
 
5

log in

join