Fatima UFO coverup... proof that aliens are associated with religion

page: 7
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I'm seeing that entire crowd looking in that direction... this is very clear to me.

But the man wearing the fedora hat with his hand on the shoulder of the woman in front of him look to me like they are sort of posing for the photographer... or at least LOOK like they are posing because the photographer is pointing his cam in their direction and they know that... it seems. Anyway, that couple looks like they are preoccupied with the photographer and getting their picture taken... they seem to not be looking in exactly the same direction as most of those in that crowd. That couple's gaze seems to be slightly off angle compared to the rest of the crowd... lol. They look more like city-folk than peasants... maybe they are acquaintances of the photographer.

As for where the arrow is pointed, I don't think anyone needs to be an expert to see that there's "something" there. As these photo's were taken on the same day of the The Miracle of the Sun, I don't think it's too far off to conjecture that maybe that section where the arrow is pointed has something to do with that phenomenon.

At any rate, it seems that this photo is closest we can get to what that phenomenon must have looked like at one point while it was "happening". At least we have something here as opposed to nothing.





[edit on 3-2-2008 by Palasheea]




posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Palasheea
 


the name is easynow...you keep saying easyone...lol

i did not post anything misleading.....imho

if i did would you please point it out ?

i am only human and i make mistakes just like you.....

if you cant see around that...then i dont need your input.





[edit on 3-2-2008 by easynow]


Let's drop it... you know what you did

And Lol... will try to keep that name straight!



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 


I think it is only on the photograph, maybe the photograph suffered some accident, there are some markings over the trees with the same curve as that whiter area.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
That one dark splotch is what it is... All of the photo's in that collection have those dark splotches here and there.. you already know that right? Some of them have finger prints on them too ... perhaps touching the photograph before it was dry.

It must have been hard those days photographing outside in bad weather like that. There was a big rainstorm before those photo's were taken.

But I'm seeing what looks like what could have been the miracle of the sun phenomenon ... or beginnings of it. Something is there. Once again, I'm not talking about those photographic chemical dark dots or whatever they are... that are seen on the edges of some of these photo's -- and this one too. It's very clear what those are.. we see them in most photographs taken during that era... or least the ones taken outside as opposed to the ones taken inside a photographers studio.


[edit on 3-2-2008 by Palasheea]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
as far as when someone put the " ufo " in this story i am assuming it would a recent idea. the book heavenly lights came out in 2005 and it definately puts the ufo idea in this event.


From what I understand the book was published in the early 1980s in Portuguese. It has only recently been re-edited and translated to English.

The idea of UFOs in this story is certainly not new. Maybe this notion is new to you, but people have suggested different explanations for it for many years.

The reason why this book is so mentioned (and important) is because the authors besides being Portuguese and having a deeper understanding of how the Portuguese people and society worked, were able to talk to witnesses, get access to documents no one had before and most importantly in my view, they looked at the event and all the evidence objectively without letting any personal beliefs get in the way. And their conclusions are clear.


Regarding the association of UFOs and religion:

Why is it that the majority of people that claim to have seen UFOs and/or have been abducted by aliens doesn't associate the event with religion? Yes, I am aware that some people do, but they are marginal minority. And how many people, from that marginal minority, claim that the beings presented themselves has being religious figures or relayed religious messages? A minority of the marginal minority.

If UFOs were associated with religion, wouldn't one expect that everyone that goes through such an experience to understand it as such? Wouldn't the beings make it clear to the people that they appear to or abduct, like you believe it happened to Lucia in Fatima? Wouldn't it be undeniable?

Instead, what we see is that only a small minority associates these events with religion. Could it be that it's the only way some people have of understanding these events? Could it be that those people misunderstood the events and gave them these religious meanings?

There are people who experiment with drugs and claim to have had religious experiments or to have seen god and/or other religious figures. So following your 'logic', drugs are associated with religion. I hope you realize how flawed this 'reasoning' is.


The book was written by Portuguese researchers who talked to the witnesses, looked at the Church's documents and reached the conclusion that people misunderstood what they saw and the Church - or most particularly the Jesuits - covered it up and fabricated a story to promote it's religion.

You believe otherwise, although you never did any research on the field, talked to any of the witnesses or looked at any of the Church's secret documents that the authors of the book did.

The majority of people who see UFOs or claim to be abducted don't associate the event with religion.

You on the other hand, even though you have never seen a UFO or have been abducted - and correct me if I'm wrong - believe that UFOs are undeniably associated with religion.

And you have the audacity to say that Palasheea, or anyone who disagreed with your beliefs, is biased?

I understand that you probably have an habit of asserting your beliefs based on nothing but 'faith', but you should note that this is not a forum, and ufology is not a field, where blind faith is an accepted argument.

I hope that you understand that this is not a battle between believers and non-believers. Myself and others who contest your views are simply looking at this objectively.

And your posts, easynow, are lacking both perspective and objectivity.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Good point Danx but nevertheless, I AM seeing some evidence here that those intelligences who orchestrated this event did present it in a borderline religious context. Even Fernandes and D'Armada say this in their books.

For this reason, quite frankly, I find these apparitions rather disturbing. But it goes without saying that the Church seized the moment and possessed this one as their own by abducting the seers and so on.... Therefore, message-wise, this case is all screwed up because of that.

But I agree with you that the OP needs to evaluate this event in a more objective manner... so far she's not doing that and this is frustrating for those of us who are trying to explore all of those alternative views on what this event was really all about.


[edit on 3-2-2008 by Palasheea]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by danx
 


hello Danx,

thanks for your post.


Good point Danx but nevertheless, I AM seeing some evidence here that those intelligences who orchestrated this event did present it in a borderline religious context. Even Fernandes and D'Armada say this in their books.



Danx... imho, your biased observation of this event has clouded your vision and your capabilities to see the connection.

this was a ufo event (according to the book in reference) with an undeniable religious message.

if you believe the jesuits fabricated the entire religious story then you are fooling yourself...imho




The idea of UFOs in this story is certainly not new. Maybe this notion is new to you


no , its not new to me fyi




Why is it that the majority of people that claim to have seen UFOs and/or have been abducted by aliens doesn't associate the event with religion?


you obviously havent researched this..

watch this video...it says thousands have sensed something evil and demonic in their abductions
www.youtube.com...
YouTube - UFO's The Hidden Truth : # 4 Biblical Insights About E.T.s






If UFOs were associated with religion, wouldn't one expect that everyone that goes through such an experience to understand it as such?


umm.. me thinks this could be part of the end times deception.

www.tldm.org...
UFOs: Part of the great end-times deception…







So following your 'logic', drugs are associated with religion. I hope you realize how flawed this 'reasoning' is


that my friend is comparing apples to oranges ...nice try





You believe otherwise, although you never did any research on the field, talked to any of the witnesses or looked at any of the Church's secret documents that the authors of the book did.


you have not done so either, ..so your counter argument is at the same level








You on the other hand, even though you have never seen a UFO or have been abducted - and correct me if I'm wrong - believe that UFOs are undeniably associated with religion.


lmao....how do you know what i have experienced ? to make a comment like this is totally nuts imho...


fyi....i have seen a ufo and other things







And your posts, easynow, are lacking both perspective and objectivity.



thanks for your opinion.......



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
I'm seeing that entire crowd looking in that direction... this is very clear to me.

But the man wearing the fedora hat with his hand on the shoulder of the woman in front of him look to me like they are sort of posing for the photographer... or at least LOOK like they are posing because the photographer is pointing his cam in their direction and they know that... it seems. Anyway, that couple looks like they are preoccupied with the photographer and getting their picture taken... they seem to not be looking in exactly the same direction as most of those in that crowd. That couple's gaze seems to be slightly off angle compared to the rest of the crowd... lol. They look more like city-folk than peasants... maybe they are acquaintances of the photographer.

As for where the arrow is pointed, I don't think anyone needs to be an expert to see that there's "something" there. As these photo's were taken on the same day of the The Miracle of the Sun, I don't think it's too far off to conjecture that maybe that section where the arrow is pointed has something to do with that phenomenon.

At any rate, it seems that this photo is closest we can get to what that phenomenon must have looked like at one point while it was "happening". At least we have something here as opposed to nothing.





[edit on 3-2-2008 by Palasheea]


If the man and the woman were posing, they would be looking directly at the camera, all these pics look to me like all these people turned up expecting to see something and everyone was looking in different directions because nothing had happened, in other words that is why they were looking in different directions, if something had happened they all would be looking in the same direction, they're not



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Good point Danx but nevertheless, I AM seeing some evidence here that those intelligences who orchestrated this event did present it in a borderline religious context. Even Fernandes and D'Armada say this in their books.

For this reason, quite frankly, I find these apparitions rather disturbing. But it goes without saying that the Church seized the moment and possessed this one as their own by abducting the seers and so on.... Therefore, message-wise, this case is all screwed up because of that.

But I agree with you that the OP needs to evaluate this event in a more objective manner... so far she's not doing that and this is frustrating for those of us who are trying to explore all of those alternative views on what this event was really all about.


[edit on 3-2-2008 by Palasheea]





But I agree with you that the OP needs to evaluate this event in a more objective manner...



Therefore, message-wise, this case is all screwed up because of that.



how can i evaluate this for you ? if even you admit the evidence is all screwed up.

i have presented three theorys concerning this event and two of them imho have religious connections.

if i had the absolute conclusion to this i wouldnt be talking to you about it...i would be writing a book.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
lmao...i am sure you meant disc ?.....


Yes! Disc! DISC. I meant disc! That was a major Freudian slip. My apologies. Let's rephrase. Did his family member who witnessed the event describe it as the sun or a silver disc like object? lol



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
One thing for sure this was nothing to support the view of the catholic church, for a start the virgin mary is not a virgin considering she had given birth several times before



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by danx
 




And you have the audacity to say that Palasheea, or anyone who disagreed with your beliefs, is biased?




we all have a biased opinion in this matter if you ask me.



yes i have the audacity to say this because you are biased also just like the rest of us.

as you can see from my reply to her i think we all have a biased opinion on this...but i guess you didnt read that ...did you ?... or you left it out on purpose to continue your attempted execution of my integrity






[edit on 3-2-2008 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


thanks for your post AshleyD,

its ok we all make mistakes as i stated earlier...but it was funny...lol

i believe he said his grandmother said the sun started to dance and it looked like the stars started falling from the sky...



according to her it was raing then it suddenly stopped, and everything was dry around them as if i never rained, then the sun started to "dance" in the sky and she said what looked like stars started falling from the sky and there was a huge panic, she said it seemed like armagedon



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackcowboy
One thing for sure this was nothing to support the view of the catholic church, for a start the virgin mary is not a virgin considering she had given birth several times before


thanks for your post jackcowboy,

do you mean given birth before Jesus ?

or do you mean before this event happened ?

either way...thats a tall claim you got anything to back it up ?



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by jackcowboy
One thing for sure this was nothing to support the view of the catholic church, for a start the virgin mary is not a virgin considering she had given birth several times before


thanks for your post jackcowboy,

do you mean given birth before Jesus ?

or do you mean before this event happened ?

either way...thats a tall claim you got anything to back it up ?


it was before Jesus, I don't need anything to back it up because Jesus had older brothers



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackcowboy

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by jackcowboy
One thing for sure this was nothing to support the view of the catholic church, for a start the virgin mary is not a virgin considering she had given birth several times before


thanks for your post jackcowboy,

do you mean given birth before Jesus ?

or do you mean before this event happened ?

either way...thats a tall claim you got anything to back it up ?


it was before Jesus, I don't need anything to back it up because Jesus had older brothers




ok well then what were there names ? if i may ask?.....does this mean that you believe Jesus did really exist ?......some people dont think he really existed is the reason i ask



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Question: "Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)?"

Answer: Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings.

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for cousin, and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, before he married Mary. An entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no Biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: "But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus" (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by jackcowboy

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by jackcowboy
One thing for sure this was nothing to support the view of the catholic church, for a start the virgin mary is not a virgin considering she had given birth several times before


thanks for your post jackcowboy,

do you mean given birth before Jesus ?

or do you mean before this event happened ?

either way...thats a tall claim you got anything to back it up ?


it was before Jesus, I don't need anything to back it up because Jesus had older brothers




ok well then what were there names ? if i may ask?.....does this mean that you believe Jesus did really exist ?......some people dont think he really existed is the reason i ask


Mark 15:40

"There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;"

Mark 16:1

"And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him."

It is true that he existed but whether he was the son of god is a whole other thing, I just brought up the virgin inconsistency to weigh against the theory that this fatima thing was anything that backed up the whole catholic belief system



[edit on 3-2-2008 by jackcowboy]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jackcowboy
 


thanks for your reply,

it also says in the Bible that Mary was a regular human but she was a virgin



Mary did not have an “immaculate conception.” The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus (Luke 1:34-38)


www.gotquestions.org...
What does the Bible say about the virgin Mary?





Joseph and Mary had several children together after Jesus was born. Jesus had four half-brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55).




this kinda contradicts what you said....not saying your wrong


it was before Jesus, I don't need anything to back it up because Jesus had older brothers




[edit on 3-2-2008 by easynow]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
this is for those who asked if my grandmother saw a sliver disc, well she never mentioned it, she said the sun also that there was a wide panic because some people thought the sky was falling or witchcraft was involved so there could have been confusion(so its possible she mistook it for the sun), but that is what she said, ive been to fatima like 4 times and i never "felt" anything there, nothing out of the ordinary, except for the big ass church





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join