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.

 

It's official, GOD was a space alien, and NOT our real creator

page: 38
160
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
Here are some additional thoughts on your topic
cre·ate

1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.
adj. Archaic
Created.

1.) To cause to exist; bring into being…depending on your beliefs this has many meanings

2.) To give rise to; produce… here again depending on your beliefs this has many meanings
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4.) To produce through artistic or imaginative effort…depending on your beliefs this has many meanings

Example to cause to exist bring into being .. Here are my views on this .. While the Superior Spiritual Being may be someone I whole heartedly thank for giving us the air to breath the earth to plow an reap.
I still don’t know how he put forth all these things and I was told never to question it . It doesn’t matter how it happened it matters that we can use it all in the right way. To show and give appreciation .

you say ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that God is a space Alien
and not our real creator

Ok i'm not here to dispute your words but to add my thoughts only ..


Is God a space Alien well ok lets look how you have worded this …..IMO …the biblical word GOD
who is part of a trinity
The father the son and the holy ghost
So we have the father who is GOD
The Son who is Jesus
And the holy ghost …who is the holy spirit of GOD

Here is the thing : I have given this some thought ..

Aliens have never been seen as holy not that I know of .. They have never been seen as spiritual.
Aliens are the beings that are non human non life forms they are entity’s ..
An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence.
In ways these entity’s are very intelligent and in other ways lack human ways so they seem dumb or serve no real purpose in our world .. Yet they visit us

I believe it is true that holy spiritual beings exist ..Also have you ever gave this a thought that the Superior Being gave certain lower spiritual beings the right to a moral visions or privileges as how to control earthlings? as with each an every other religion or group beliefs they seem to have very different views .. Bringing back ancient beliefs
Indeed there is much to this all and it involves the sky and many issues , very interesting to see how others views are ..


Thank you for the comments. I believe I have found some pretty amazing things out, considering the resistance we all have in belief, understanding, and terminology.




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by StratosFear
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I think ive read Chariot of the Gods at least 10 times i love that book. I will look into the other references you mentioned. This info needs to get out and spread far, despite the religous fanatics out there. The truth is hard for some to accept, then again we not believe the truth even if it hit us in the face. I think its time we excavated the Egytian pyramids and the ruins of advanced ancient cultures to find out. Yes we might break a few old pots and tear down some archaic walls but if these were meant to preserve something even more important behind them why keep them up? We will all find out the truth very very soon.


I always believed that those ideas of mummy's and tombs were from misunderstandings as well Today, we know if someone dies, you have several minutes (I watched 28 minutes on one specific death on tv) before the person is no longer revivabl. Is it possible the Egyptians took something they witnessed out of context? Like someone got resuscitated and the Egyptians possibly thought it could be a process good anytime, by gods?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
Here are some additional thoughts on your topic
cre·ate

1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.
adj. Archaic
Created.

1.) To cause to exist; bring into being…depending on your beliefs this has many meanings

2.) To give rise to; produce… here again depending on your beliefs this has many meanings
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4.) To produce through artistic or imaginative effort…depending on your beliefs this has many meanings

Example to cause to exist bring into being .. Here are my views on this .. While the Superior Spiritual Being may be someone I whole heartedly thank for giving us the air to breath the earth to plow an reap.
I still don’t know how he put forth all these things and I was told never to question it . It doesn’t matter how it happened it matters that we can use it all in the right way. To show and give appreciation .

you say ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that God is a space Alien
and not our real creator

Ok i'm not here to dispute your words but to add my thoughts only ..


Is God a space Alien well ok lets look how you have worded this …..IMO …the biblical word GOD
who is part of a trinity
The father the son and the holy ghost
So we have the father who is GOD
The Son who is Jesus
And the holy ghost …who is the holy spirit of GOD

Here is the thing : I have given this some thought ..

Aliens have never been seen as holy not that I know of .. They have never been seen as spiritual.
Aliens are the beings that are non human non life forms they are entity’s ..
An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence.
In ways these entity’s are very intelligent and in other ways lack human ways so they seem dumb or serve no real purpose in our world .. Yet they visit us

I believe it is true that holy spiritual beings exist ..Also have you ever gave this a thought that the Superior Being gave certain lower spiritual beings the right to a moral visions or privileges as how to control earthlings? as with each an every other religion or group beliefs they seem to have very different views .. Bringing back ancient beliefs
Indeed there is much to this all and it involves the sky and many issues , very interesting to see how others views are ..


I have actually given some thought to the word holy as well.
It is odd, and I do agree how it seems to be not fitting in definition. However, maybe it does. You see, if we have disabled sections of DNA, and it does appear to be that way, is it possible that those that are full functioning, could be considered whole? Holy - Whole - Wholy. For all we know it was just a title god made up in part of his plan.

I'm very glad you brought up the different names.
We know little about telepathy but it might not be possible to identify one from another, other than if they identify themselves or based on the conversation.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


Of course you will. They have you well spun, indeed. And good one.. way to shift the focus, eh?

Spun? Please. For all you know I'm one of "them". But keep believing in your fairy tales for which you have no evidence. All you've done is built yourself a new religion. Normally, this wouldn't concern me in the slightest; I'd hardly begrudge a person their particular articles of faith. But when you start making claims regarding science, you either have evidence or you do not. You do not.


It is hardly half baked to call you on your lack of awareness of the meta-level of things.

You're right, it isn't even half-baked. More like a quarter. Maybe an eighth. Unless, of course, you have some kind of demonstrable evidence for the "meta-level of things".


You can't prove that you are in fact getting all the 'true' facts, since you simply can not prove that every researcher who gets funding and wants to be published isn't vulnerable to being manipulated/bribed.

It's functionally impossible to prove a negative position. You're the one seeming to claim that they're being bribed or coerced or whatever, so the burden of proof is on you to show that they are.


Nor can you prove that all the research being done is in fact what is being made available for you to know about.

Absolutely true, I can't prove that every research result is published. Then again, you can't prove the existence of the conspiracy that would be required to cover up the amount of research that you're talking about.


If the NWO bunch wants to hide info, then you can believe they will, and do. So nope, sorry, but you are taking both those things on 'faith' which makes you every bit the true believer that any other religion has.

This still wouldn't invalidate findings that have been made public. Read journal articles, they're pretty descriptive in their methodology, data, and conclusions. Why? Because other scientists have to be able to replicate the work and verify the findings.

You can claim that research is being suppressed, but you have yet to show proof that it is. You can claim that the published research is invalid, but you have yet to show that it is.



How do you know that research isn't being suppressed? How do you actually know any but the simplest research you yourself can replicate is actually 'true'??

How much of the published 'research' today is replicatable only by the high end, well funded facilities and as such, not testable by anyone else?

How much of what you actually 'believe' is based on 'faith' that the scientific community is morally upright and honest, just like the lay people believe that their clergy is morally impeccable?

How much of what you accept as 'truth' is because some 'scientist' says it is, even as most lay people believe the bible is the 'true' word of god because some clergy says it does???

How is what you do, at that level, any different than what any religious believer does?? The only difference I see is that you think 'scientists' are somehow more 'believable' and worthy of your faith than any religious authority figure.

It is JUST like:
Can you prove there is or isn't a god?
Can you prove there is or isn't accurate non-manipulated research being done?

Can you prove the bible is the true and only word of god?
Can you prove that the published research is in fact the 'true' and only information available?

No, and that is what the meta level information is about. It isn't about 'proof'; it's about observation of patterns in various systems which can be seen to repeat in other systems.

It is ALL about what YOU believe about 'science' or 'religion', not at all about the bible/koran/budda's teachings or the 'proof' of experiments.

The true believer in religion may have had a significant life changing event that they consider 'proof' of a benevolent god and so they choose to believe in one because it fits with one or another of the various religious text.

A true believer in 'science' has seen 'proof' via experiments and published 'research' and so chooses to believe in the whole 'science' dogma although, in reality, they usually haven't personally seen or done any of that research themselves, nor are they aware of all that is or isn't being funded for research. It is 'faith' on their part that 'science' is right and true. And also faith on their part that any important research will be 1) done and 2) shared with the followers of 'science'.

And as a 'educated' fellow, I'm shocked you haven't heard of the meta-level of information. It is part of the systems theory. Just so you can understand, let me define it for you. It is the higher level of information about the patterns of the regular level of information. It's information about the information gathering process versus simply about the information gathered. It's observations about the system itself from above the level of the system.

It is like being the director, watching the play and noticing how each actor interacts, from which you base your decisions on how to make the play more effective or whatever goals you have. As an actor, you don't have that kind of perspective, which is why there is a director.

And yah, you could be one of the NWO's spin control/'science-based' denouncers, since it appears that you consider 'science' and only science' as the be-all, end all of answers. You're not too far off the beaten path that the other flunkies I've encountered on these sites try to push me down.
edit on 1-6-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


How do you know that research isn't being suppressed?

I'm not the one making the claim that it is. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is.


How do you actually know any but the simplest research you yourself can replicate is actually 'true'??

I'd argue that I can replicate just about anything from the field of chemistry where I currently work. In fact, we replicate published research claims regularly in order to incorporate new technologies into our research. If you want to call those things simple, that's fine.


How much of the published 'research' today is replicatable only by the high end, well funded facilities and as such, not testable by anyone else?

In other words, could a person do it at home in their kitchen? No, not likely. But if people are interested in confirming published research, they're more than welcome to hit the books, get a degree, and participate in science.


How much of what you actually 'believe' is based on 'faith' that the scientific community is morally upright and honest, just like the lay people believe that their clergy is morally impeccable?

Science, ultimately, is self-correcting. The conclusions from one experiment are used to develop an entirely new set of hypotheses, which are then tested experimentally. If the conclusion is from falsified data, the conclusion will be incorrect, the hypotheses developed from that conclusion will be invalid, and this will be shown when experiments are performed to test those hypotheses. And that's assuming that it's not revealed earlier when another researcher tries to perform the same original experiment but gets different results.


How much of what you accept as 'truth' is because some 'scientist' says it is, even as most lay people believe the bible is the 'true' word of god because some clergy says it does???

I don't believe scientists, I believe in published research. If you can't understand how those two things are different, then I'm not sure how much further we can really take this conversation.


How is what you do, at that level, any different than what any religious believer does?? The only difference I see is that you think 'scientists' are somehow more 'believable' and worthy of your faith than any religious authority figure.

Because when scientists make scientific claims, they are typically backed with some kind of evidence showing that they are observably and demonstrably factual.

Interesting questions, I'm going to ignore the negatives because, as I've already mentioned, it's impossible to prove a negative case.

Can you prove there is or isn't a god?

Can I prove that there is a God? Nope. At least, I have yet to see objective proof of one. That being said, I'm not entirely sure that God, as defined by most people, is a provable concept.


Can you prove there is or isn't accurate non-manipulated research being done?

Can I prove that there is? Yes. I actually hope to be granted a patent for some of my research very shortly. My work has been reproduced globally by people who don't care one whit about if I succeed or fail as a researcher, they only care about how valid my results are. Can I prove it to your personal satisfaction? No. I highly doubt that any level of proof I provide will satisfy you. You've already made up your mind on the matter. It's ironic that your burden of proof is so high for something that provides objective evidence, but so low for something for which there is no objective evidence. I'm at least applying the same level of skepticism to everything.


Can you prove the bible is the true and only word of god?

No, because that would require objective evidence of God, which I don't think exists.


Can you prove that the published research is in fact the 'true' and only information available?

Published research is factually consistent with what is currently known. I don't think any scientist would make the claim that it is the only information available. If we assumed that were true, science would come to a screeching halt because it's equivalent to claiming that everything there is to be discovered has been discovered.


No, and that is what the meta level information is about. It isn't about 'proof'; it's about observation of patterns in various systems which can be seen to repeat in other systems.

You're making an inherently scientific claim - according to you, these patterns are observable and reproducible. So it shouldn't be any problem for you to provide some kind of objective evidence for them.


It is ALL about what YOU believe about 'science' or 'religion', not at all about the bible/koran/budda's teachings or the 'proof' of experiments.

I apologize, I don't think I understand what you're getting at with this statement.


The true believer in religion may have had a significant life changing event that they consider 'proof' of a benevolent god and so they choose to believe in one because it fits with one or another of the various religious text.

A true believer in 'science' has seen 'proof' via experiments and published 'research' and so chooses to believe in the whole 'science' dogma although, in reality, they usually haven't personally seen or done any of that research themselves, nor are they aware of all that is or isn't being funded for research. It is 'faith' on their part that 'science' is right and true. And also faith on their part that any important research will be 1) done and 2) shared with the followers of 'science'.

One is objective and reproducible, one is subjective. The difference is exceedingly clear, no matter how many air quotes you want to throw around words.


And as a 'educated' fellow, I'm shocked you haven't heard of the meta-level of information. It is part of the systems theory. Just so you can understand, let me define it for you. It is the higher level of information about the patterns of the regular level of information. It's information about the information gathering process versus simply about the information gathered. It's observations about the system itself from above the level of the system.

I'm familiar with systems theory, but you're citing the concepts from it in a vague manner. Keep in mind that systems theory was developed to bridge disparate areas of scientific research.


And yah, you could be one of the NWO's spin control/'science-based' denouncers, since it appears that you consider 'science' and only science' as the be-all, end all of answers. You're not too far off the beaten path that the other flunkies I've encountered on these sites try to push me down.

And we close with a personal attack. Lovely. You'd fit right in with most academic research scientists.

You seem to have this notion that there's a vast, tightly-knit network of scientists being steered by some nebulous global agency. Getting a group of researchers to move in the same direction on something, whether it's suppressing research or falsifying results, so that the message being transmitted to the outside world is consistent is like trying to herd cats. I'd actually liken it to these forums, only you actually waited a few posts before trying to sling a personal attack at me by calling me a flunkie. In a heated debate over their favorite hypothesis, typical research scientists would have led off with one. They are driven by two things - being right, and being first. And I sincerely doubt that any amount of money would buy silence when being the next Richard Heck is at stake.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


How do you know that research isn't being suppressed?

I'm not the one making the claim that it is. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is.


How do you actually know any but the simplest research you yourself can replicate is actually 'true'??

I'd argue that I can replicate just about anything from the field of chemistry where I currently work. In fact, we replicate published research claims regularly in order to incorporate new technologies into our research. If you want to call those things simple, that's fine.


How much of the published 'research' today is replicatable only by the high end, well funded facilities and as such, not testable by anyone else?

In other words, could a person do it at home in their kitchen? No, not likely. But if people are interested in confirming published research, they're more than welcome to hit the books, get a degree, and participate in science.


How much of what you actually 'believe' is based on 'faith' that the scientific community is morally upright and honest, just like the lay people believe that their clergy is morally impeccable?

Science, ultimately, is self-correcting. The conclusions from one experiment are used to develop an entirely new set of hypotheses, which are then tested experimentally. If the conclusion is from falsified data, the conclusion will be incorrect, the hypotheses developed from that conclusion will be invalid, and this will be shown when experiments are performed to test those hypotheses. And that's assuming that it's not revealed earlier when another researcher tries to perform the same original experiment but gets different results.


How much of what you accept as 'truth' is because some 'scientist' says it is, even as most lay people believe the bible is the 'true' word of god because some clergy says it does???

I don't believe scientists, I believe in published research. If you can't understand how those two things are different, then I'm not sure how much further we can really take this conversation.


How is what you do, at that level, any different than what any religious believer does?? The only difference I see is that you think 'scientists' are somehow more 'believable' and worthy of your faith than any religious authority figure.

Because when scientists make scientific claims, they are typically backed with some kind of evidence showing that they are observably and demonstrably factual.

Interesting questions, I'm going to ignore the negatives because, as I've already mentioned, it's impossible to prove a negative case.

Can you prove there is or isn't a god?

Can I prove that there is a God? Nope. At least, I have yet to see objective proof of one. That being said, I'm not entirely sure that God, as defined by most people, is a provable concept.


Can you prove there is or isn't accurate non-manipulated research being done?

Can I prove that there is? Yes. I actually hope to be granted a patent for some of my research very shortly. My work has been reproduced globally by people who don't care one whit about if I succeed or fail as a researcher, they only care about how valid my results are. Can I prove it to your personal satisfaction? No. I highly doubt that any level of proof I provide will satisfy you. You've already made up your mind on the matter. It's ironic that your burden of proof is so high for something that provides objective evidence, but so low for something for which there is no objective evidence. I'm at least applying the same level of skepticism to everything.


Can you prove the bible is the true and only word of god?

No, because that would require objective evidence of God, which I don't think exists.


Can you prove that the published research is in fact the 'true' and only information available?

Published research is factually consistent with what is currently known. I don't think any scientist would make the claim that it is the only information available. If we assumed that were true, science would come to a screeching halt because it's equivalent to claiming that everything there is to be discovered has been discovered.


No, and that is what the meta level information is about. It isn't about 'proof'; it's about observation of patterns in various systems which can be seen to repeat in other systems.

You're making an inherently scientific claim - according to you, these patterns are observable and reproducible. So it shouldn't be any problem for you to provide some kind of objective evidence for them.


It is ALL about what YOU believe about 'science' or 'religion', not at all about the bible/koran/budda's teachings or the 'proof' of experiments.

I apologize, I don't think I understand what you're getting at with this statement.


The true believer in religion may have had a significant life changing event that they consider 'proof' of a benevolent god and so they choose to believe in one because it fits with one or another of the various religious text.

A true believer in 'science' has seen 'proof' via experiments and published 'research' and so chooses to believe in the whole 'science' dogma although, in reality, they usually haven't personally seen or done any of that research themselves, nor are they aware of all that is or isn't being funded for research. It is 'faith' on their part that 'science' is right and true. And also faith on their part that any important research will be 1) done and 2) shared with the followers of 'science'.

One is objective and reproducible, one is subjective. The difference is exceedingly clear, no matter how many air quotes you want to throw around words.


And as a 'educated' fellow, I'm shocked you haven't heard of the meta-level of information. It is part of the systems theory. Just so you can understand, let me define it for you. It is the higher level of information about the patterns of the regular level of information. It's information about the information gathering process versus simply about the information gathered. It's observations about the system itself from above the level of the system.

I'm familiar with systems theory, but you're citing the concepts from it in a vague manner. Keep in mind that systems theory was developed to bridge disparate areas of scientific research.


And yah, you could be one of the NWO's spin control/'science-based' denouncers, since it appears that you consider 'science' and only science' as the be-all, end all of answers. You're not too far off the beaten path that the other flunkies I've encountered on these sites try to push me down.

And we close with a personal attack. Lovely. You'd fit right in with most academic research scientists.

You seem to have this notion that there's a vast, tightly-knit network of scientists being steered by some nebulous global agency. Getting a group of researchers to move in the same direction on something, whether it's suppressing research or falsifying results, so that the message being transmitted to the outside world is consistent is like trying to herd cats. I'd actually liken it to these forums, only you actually waited a few posts before trying to sling a personal attack at me by calling me a flunkie. In a heated debate over their favorite hypothesis, typical research scientists would have led off with one. They are driven by two things - being right, and being first. And I sincerely doubt that any amount of money would buy silence when being the next Richard Heck is at stake.


IMO ( I just had to throw my 2 cents in on this, as you 2 were hashing over this ) I think there are all types out there. There are probably scientists with agendas, and scientists that just want to get to the truth. Of course when a scientists skews their findings to work toward an agenda, it can sometimes be obvious, and easily exposed.

When you have many with the same direction, and indisputable findings, that's when it's probably the right direction. A good example I can think of is the alterations in human DNA. Lloyd Pye explains that the only way these changes are possible is in a LAB.

I agree, because all other life has solid only blue laminate. Some argue with me and say its an unknown or could be evolution. Like we are the only thing here on earth that has evolved in that idea. He explains the findings to clear the air as though some other scientists may differ on this. Scientists are still studying DNA but as far as making changes, they have done that for a long time now and are pretty familiar with it. It's just hard to accept the idea that there is proof of changes in our DNA but with trace elements of laminate changing colors the same way we would do it today.

So some scientists might disagree with Pye's explanation of this, and that could just be difference in understanding. There could however be something much deeper going on. Some scientists could be scared with what this means and simply refuse to accept it. Another possibility is that it obviously means there was highly intelligent life back in biblical times, or possibly alien life. Some people don't like the idea of these things.

There is still yet another side to this as well, it's scary, real scary, with what it means. I totally understand why some people would not want to accept it. It's reasons like this, why we have scientists with different views.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


IMO ( I just had to throw my 2 cents in on this, as you 2 were hashing over this ) I think there are all types out there. There are probably scientists with agendas, and scientists that just want to get to the truth. Of course when a scientists skews their findings to work toward an agenda, it can sometimes be obvious, and easily exposed.

I agree, but I'd even take it a step further - it's not only easily exposed, but it will always be exposed. And, in today's world of near instant access to information, cases of scientific fraud get exposed by other scientists faster than ever before.


When you have many with the same direction, and indisputable findings, that's when it's probably the right direction. A good example I can think of is the alterations in human DNA. Lloyd Pye explains that the only way these changes are possible is in a LAB.

It's just that Pye's explanation is wrong. I've provided several example of how precisely the same mechanisms have been observed to occur in nature. Keep in mind that we were able to sequence DNA and observe these mechanisms occurring naturally long before we determined how to do them in a laboratory setting.


I agree, because all other life has solid only blue laminate. Some argue with me and say its an unknown or could be evolution. Like we are the only thing here on earth that has evolved in that idea. He explains the findings to clear the air as though some other scientists may differ on this. Scientists are still studying DNA but as far as making changes, they have done that for a long time now and are pretty familiar with it. It's just hard to accept the idea that there is proof of changes in our DNA but with trace elements of laminate changing colors the same way we would do it today.

You keep bringing up this colored laminate. I've watched three of Pye's videos, browsed his website a couple of times, and even tried googling it... I can find no mention of the "solid only blue laminate" you keep referring to. The only thing he refers to consistently is finding inversions which, as mentioned above, have been observed to occur in nature. So if you have a secondary reference on this or can direct me to Pye's claims about a "laminate", I'd be interested in reading about it.


So some scientists might disagree with Pye's explanation of this, and that could just be difference in understanding. There could however be something much deeper going on. Some scientists could be scared with what this means and simply refuse to accept it. Another possibility is that it obviously means there was highly intelligent life back in biblical times, or possibly alien life. Some people don't like the idea of these things.

Just my opinion, but I think Pye has convinced himself of alien involvement and will see it wherever he looks, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.


There is still yet another side to this as well, it's scary, real scary, with what it means. I totally understand why some people would not want to accept it. It's reasons like this, why we have scientists with different views.

There's no doubt that experimental results can be challenging when they go against current thinking, but scientists have to show the discipline to go where the evidence leads, regardless of the consequences. The evidence just doesn't lead to where Pye thinks it does.
edit on 1/6/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
I'm not the one making the claim that it is. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is.


See, that is the problem. There isn't proof for EITHER belief. It takes 'faith' on your part to believe that there isn't anything being suppressed.


I'd argue that I can replicate just about anything from the field of chemistry where I currently work. In fact, we replicate published research claims regularly in order to incorporate new technologies into our research. If you want to call those things simple, that's fine.


But what you 'replicate' is very much determined by what is available to replicate, eh? So the NWO bunch aren't so stupid that they'd put out information to be 'validated' that they don't want known about. At the very top levels of 'research' planning and grant request writing, there is ALWAYS the awareness of the need for funding and how to make sure they get it. If they know, from past experience or the rumor mill or where ever, that any kind of research done into the field of 'psychic phenomonon' for example, won't ever get funded for whatever reason given, do you think they're going to commit their time and facilities to trying to get money to do that kind of research?? Not likely.

Or if they knew that even if they did press on and research some of the 'undesirable' research, they'd never be published, I'm think not many are going to waste their time with any of the 'no-no' topics that I see very clearly in the racial unconscious as things the NWO bunch doesn't want us knowing about. The primary areas are 1) the validity and reality of the 'spirit realm' level of awareness, 2) the fact that we all do, indeed, reincarnate, and 3) there are a vast amount of aliens that have been on this world or on this world now. Oh, and of course, you'll never see any sanctioned research that validates the reality of the NWO bunch and their desire to enslave humanity, at least not on any of their owned lapdog mainstream media although it is all over these types of sites, that aren't 'approved' by the mainstream media, and are made out to be just a bunch of crackpot conspiracy nuts.


In other words, could a person do it at home in their kitchen? No, not likely. But if people are interested in confirming published research, they're more than welcome to hit the books, get a degree, and participate in science.


So you all take it on 'faith' that what you are reading is the 'truth'. And lower level employees aren't going to be in the loop for deciding what research is being done. Oh sure, there are mundane everyday things that are 'true', proven over and over, which facilitates people getting into the habit of thinking that if 'blah blah' is true then so must be 'doo-doo', even though 'doo-doo' isn't anywhere nearly as well 'researched'. But a 'scientist' says it is so, then the average person will believe it probably is, even as the lay people think what the clergy say is probably true, for much the same reason.


Science, ultimately, is self-correcting. The conclusions from one experiment are used to develop an entirely new set of hypotheses, which are then tested experimentally. If the conclusion is from falsified data, the conclusion will be incorrect, the hypotheses developed from that conclusion will be invalid, and this will be shown when experiments are performed to test those hypotheses. And that's assuming that it's not revealed earlier when another researcher tries to perform the same original experiment but gets different results.



Well that's true if the research is allowed to be done, or not manipulated to show false results that others won't bother to replicate, eh? Stuff about the psychic realm, for example. With the unrelenting propaganda that makes us think the only way to improve our circumstances must be done with hard science, nobody can even see the value of validating and improving on our knowledge of the psychic realm, especially if the NWO bunch makes sure a bunch of bogus 'studies' are done about it that 'prove' it is all fraudulent and meant only to bilk the naive out of their money.



I don't believe scientists, I believe in published research. If you can't understand how those two things are different, then I'm not sure how much further we can really take this conversation.


Scientists write published research. It is always tainted by their subjectivity. If you believe in what is written, then you also much believe in those who wrote it. They are impossible to separate.


Because when scientists make scientific claims, they are typically backed with some kind of evidence showing that they are observably and demonstrably factual.


But not anything you can actually prove for yourself, though, usually. So you are still taking their word for it, observable and 'factual' though it may sound. It is still you, choosing to 'believe' in 'science' because the scientists state they can prove something.



Can I prove that there is a God? Nope. At least, I have yet to see objective proof of one. That being said, I'm not entirely sure that God, as defined by most people, is a provable concept.


Just proves that the NWO bunch have gotten smarter in their ability to manipulate us.



Can I prove that there is? Yes. I actually hope to be granted a patent for some of my research very shortly. My work has been reproduced globally by people who don't care one whit about if I succeed or fail as a researcher, they only care about how valid my results are. Can I prove it to your personal satisfaction? No. I highly doubt that any level of proof I provide will satisfy you. You've already made up your mind on the matter. It's ironic that your burden of proof is so high for something that provides objective evidence, but so low for something for which there is no objective evidence. I'm at least applying the same level of skepticism to everything.


It is impossible to prove that all research is 'pure' so you have to take it on 'faith' that it is, for the most part. And harder still to prove that all the research that should be done is being done, because if it is something beyond your area of expertise, that you wouldn't even notice the lack.

There's definitely the mundane level of 'science' that is more likely true than not, but at the highest levels, there isn't any reason any major research facility wouldn't very seriously take into consideration the wishes of their 'benefactors' as to what is researched and what the 'findings' of that research should be. Just ask any pharmaceutical company. They hide research all the time, and it doesn't see the light of day until the lawsuits years later, if it ever does. Of course Big Pharma is one of the NWO's best and most faithful lapdogs. Kill the people, but do it slowly so you get all their money before they die. They do the NWO bunch's heart proud.



Published research is factually consistent with what is currently known. I don't think any scientist would make the claim that it is the only information available. If we assumed that were true, science would come to a screeching halt because it's equivalent to claiming that everything there is to be discovered has been discovered.


But you have no way to 'know' if what is currently known is actually what could be known (and is known), on the higher levels of those who wish us enslaved. You just have 'faith' that what is published is all that is knowable at this time. Break out those hymnals, boys!


You're making an inherently scientific claim - according to you, these patterns are observable and reproducible. So it shouldn't be any problem for you to provide some kind of objective evidence for them.

The patterns are the 'proof'. Look at the meta-level of things and they're there staring you right in the face. Common sense is all it takes. No fancy lab equipment. And anybody can do it.


I apologize, I don't think I understand what you're getting at with this statement.

The stuff in the bible isn't as important as what the people reading the bible believe about the bible and consequently about 'god'. The stuff in the experiments isn't as important as what the people reading about the experiment believe about the experiment and consequently what they believe about 'science'. It is the 'belief' that is the meta-level common denominator.


One is objective and reproducible, one is subjective. The difference is exceedingly clear, no matter how many air quotes you want to throw around words.


It is all subjective. 'Scientists' are always going to bring their own prejudices into any experiment. It's impossible to be objective. Even if you had a computer 'design' the experiment, you would still have the subjectivity of the computer programmer influencing the computer's design. It still takes 'faith' on the part of the 'science' disciple to believe that they are being told the truth on all matters, just because they are being told the truth on small matters.


I'm familiar with systems theory, but you're citing the concepts from it in a vague manner. Keep in mind that systems theory was developed to bridge disparate areas of scientific research.


Primarily the computer sciences, but a system is a system, be it machines or humans, as has been discovered by those looking into this phenomonon. And humans, just like computers, will be responding in a predictable systems oriented manner if you step back from their system far enough.



And we close with a personal attack. Lovely. You'd fit right in with most academic research scientists.


Huh. So me saying you could be a flunkie is an attack? I was simply pointing out that you were behaving in a manner consistant with those who I've encountered previously where were pretty obviously NWO 'spin/debunker' flunkies. But hey, nice try to make me look like a big ole' meanie, picking on poor little old you, eh?? *rolls eyes*


You seem to have this notion that there's a vast, tightly-knit network of scientists being steered by some nebulous global agency. Getting a group of researchers to move in the same direction on something, whether it's suppressing research or falsifying results, so that the message being transmitted to the outside world is consistent is like trying to herd cats. I'd actually liken it to these forums, only you actually waited a few posts before trying to sling a personal attack at me by calling me a flunkie. In a heated debate over their favorite hypothesis, typical research scientists would have led off with one. They are driven by two things - being right, and being first. And I sincerely doubt that any amount of money would buy silence when being the next Richard Heck is at stake.


But the things they aren't researching is key. As I noted before, there are levels of awareness that I see in the racial unconscious are being entirely ignored, but shouldn't be. But it very much serves the NWO bunch that those topics stay 'unprovable' and only for the 'superstitious', crazy and weak of mind.

And the NWO bunch does have a vast network of flunkies who do their bidding, scientists among them. We're talking about the Illuminati and all the uber rich of the world, like the Rockafellers, the Morgans... the Bildenberg Group's membership just to start with. They most certainly can afford to manipulate and control whatever they want. They simply buy it, take it over and use it to keep their distorted and human hating view of 'reality' the primary one in play. One of their greatest successes has been to get the rest of the world to think they don't exist. But just like a good surprise party. they aren't going to leave hints and information laying around. Nope, it was supposed to be, one day you'd wake up and "SURPRISE!!!" Happy take over america day!!! Happy take over the world day!!!"
edit on 2-6-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
IMO ( I just had to throw my 2 cents in on this, as you 2 were hashing over this ) I think there are all types out there. There are probably scientists with agendas, and scientists that just want to get to the truth. Of course when a scientists skews their findings to work toward an agenda, it can sometimes be obvious, and easily exposed.

When you have many with the same direction, and indisputable findings, that's when it's probably the right direction. A good example I can think of is the alterations in human DNA. Lloyd Pye explains that the only way these changes are possible is in a LAB.

I agree, because all other life has solid only blue laminate. Some argue with me and say its an unknown or could be evolution. Like we are the only thing here on earth that has evolved in that idea. He explains the findings to clear the air as though some other scientists may differ on this. Scientists are still studying DNA but as far as making changes, they have done that for a long time now and are pretty familiar with it. It's just hard to accept the idea that there is proof of changes in our DNA but with trace elements of laminate changing colors the same way we would do it today.

So some scientists might disagree with Pye's explanation of this, and that could just be difference in understanding. There could however be something much deeper going on. Some scientists could be scared with what this means and simply refuse to accept it. Another possibility is that it obviously means there was highly intelligent life back in biblical times, or possibly alien life. Some people don't like the idea of these things.

There is still yet another side to this as well, it's scary, real scary, with what it means. I totally understand why some people would not want to accept it. It's reasons like this, why we have scientists with different views.



Well if a bunch of owned scientists are given an agenda to 'prove' or 'disprove' something questionable by their bosses and told to make it convincing and 'realistic', and they knew their funding and credibility was on the line, they'd find a way to do it, I am sure. It's a gift we humans have.. the ability to be amazingly creative.

And I'm not saying all scientists are corrupt; they don't need to be.. only those at the top need to be, and the rest will follow right along or lose their jobs. If your boss says in not so many words, "find some way to agree with this research or find another job", I'm guessing they'd work their butts off finding a way to 'replicate' a subtlety done funky research project.

And sure, they can whine about it all they want. The media won't cover it, and if it does, it will only be to make these whiners out to be losers, suffering from mental illness, or some such.

And I am telling you, the DNA changes WERE done in a lab... the grey's labs. They did all the monkeying around with our DNA, adding alien DNA, mixing it or disconnecting or disabling it to stop our ability to work with raw energy or be telepathic or live excessively long lives. They did it, with NO other reason than they needed worker bodies to put their grey spirits in.. nothing sinister at all! And as I've noted, their intention was to be done with their problem solving and away in a couple thousand years. They were not even thinking of us as a species. We were just a semi-sentient group of beings whose bodies fit the bill for what they, in the moment, needed.

And as long as the E-l*th are watching out for us, NONE of the other aliens are going to try anything. And the E-l*th are where we get most of the 'american' values of justice, fairness, freedom and the right to live a self determined life. They are the species who protect developing species from other less scrupulous aliens. They do it because one, they are THE most powerful aliens in the area and it's always fun to prove you're the top dog, and two, because they very much enjoy seeing how each species turns out. Of course, they aren't perfect as you can see by how those who got stuck here (after Atlantis went down) started getting all ego driven and vengeful as portrayed by the 'myths' of the European 'gods'. But they don't do being stuck somewhere very well, even as we wouldn't.

So, from what I can see in the racial unconscious, there really isn't anything to be afraid of. If 'the evil blood sucking monster aliens' were going to take us 'over' unconstrained by the protection of the E-l*th, they'd have done so a hundred times over by now. There have been aliens coming and going on this world from LONG before humanity was even sentient, and no one (other than the Jue-sah aka current face NWO bunch who have a contract with our racial unconscious which prevents the E-l*th from interfering) is going to even dare such a stupid attempt.


edit on 2-6-2011 by DragonriderGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


See, that is the problem. There isn't proof for EITHER belief. It takes 'faith' on your part to believe that there isn't anything being suppressed.

It takes faith to not believe something for which there is no evidence?

I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to just do a summarized reply to the remainder of your post, because it’s essentially the same argument repeated in several different ways: the NWO has subverted scientific research to either prevent research from occurring or to prevent positive results for the phenomena you’re discussing from being presented.

If you feel that important research into psychic phenomena isn’t being done by academic research institutions, then feel free to hire a contract research lab to carry out your experiments. By way of example, the Stanford Research Institute has done a significant amount of research in psychic phenomena, particularly remote viewing, some of which was even published in Nature, one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the world

If you feel that the results of the published research aren’t what you want them to be or what you think they should be, it doesn’t necessarily mean the research has been subverted in some way. It may just mean that there’s no scientific evidence for the phenomena you’re claiming.

I find it interesting that you’re willing to use systems theory as a large part of your argument to downplay the value of scientific research given that it’s founded on the same research you’re trying to downplay. And if the patterns you’re claiming are the proof, then explicitly show the pattern. Simply stating that they’re common sense or that they’re obvious doesn’t cut it. Again, I’m boggled that you’re willing to take psychic phenomena without a shred of objective evidence (or at least without objective evidence that you’re willing to provide), but play epistemological games with scientific research where the methodology and data are freely published for people to validate, even if the conclusions drawn on that data are subjective to some degree. You could at least choose to apply the same level of skepticism to everything.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
inertesting theory.
I all ways thought that the original star gate move was much more believable then the bible



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by DragonriderGal
 


See, that is the problem. There isn't proof for EITHER belief. It takes 'faith' on your part to believe that there isn't anything being suppressed.

It takes faith to not believe something for which there is no evidence?

I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to just do a summarized reply to the remainder of your post, because it’s essentially the same argument repeated in several different ways: the NWO has subverted scientific research to either prevent research from occurring or to prevent positive results for the phenomena you’re discussing from being presented.

If you feel that important research into psychic phenomena isn’t being done by academic research institutions, then feel free to hire a contract research lab to carry out your experiments. By way of example, the Stanford Research Institute has done a significant amount of research in psychic phenomena, particularly remote viewing, some of which was even published in Nature, one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the world

If you feel that the results of the published research aren’t what you want them to be or what you think they should be, it doesn’t necessarily mean the research has been subverted in some way. It may just mean that there’s no scientific evidence for the phenomena you’re claiming.

I find it interesting that you’re willing to use systems theory as a large part of your argument to downplay the value of scientific research given that it’s founded on the same research you’re trying to downplay. And if the patterns you’re claiming are the proof, then explicitly show the pattern. Simply stating that they’re common sense or that they’re obvious doesn’t cut it. Again, I’m boggled that you’re willing to take psychic phenomena without a shred of objective evidence (or at least without objective evidence that you’re willing to provide), but play epistemological games with scientific research where the methodology and data are freely published for people to validate, even if the conclusions drawn on that data are subjective to some degree. You could at least choose to apply the same level of skepticism to everything.



Only problem is that since 6 sections of our DNA is inverted, our experiments wont work. We have to fix our DNA first. God knew exactly what he wanted to do to us.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaffer44
inertesting theory.
I all ways thought that the original star gate move was much more believable then the bible


Is my OP along the lines of the original Star Gate movie?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I believe that there was an intersection about 6000 years ago

This would be the white man, or rh negative blood type

Of course, there are white people with positive blood, but they just mixed races in previous generations



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
One thing that I think was overlooked in that: We may have been altered and exiled by extraterrestrials but who made them? Even if the aliens were our creators, don't they need a creator themselves?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
looking for someone?
someone who never left,
someone besides you ,
can u hear its call?
good because it is more than time we get to see it's light again,
and trust it's ways,
im happy to see the collective opening there second sets of eyes and ears
and soon there mouths will follow,
and we will speak words of creation again,



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
There is a battle between Earth and E.T. souls, they want this planet, but they are incompatible with it - thier intrusion is why man-kind has so many wars.
edit on 5-6-2011 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockintitz
One thing that I think was overlooked in that: We may have been altered and exiled by extraterrestrials but who made them? Even if the aliens were our creators, don't they need a creator themselves?
there is only one true source of creation , from whitch all decendants came forth , and even he woudn't be to proud to admit there could be something that created himself, u can find him by innervoice



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Isn't one of the names of God "El Shaddai". "El" just means "God" in fact "El" was the name of a pagan Canaanite god.

Shaddai bears similarity to part of the name Bêl Šadê (S pronounced as sh), which means "lord of the mountain" and was the name for the Amorite people 's god Amurru. The other name for Amurru was Martu, a name that bears striking resemblance to Marduk (who's name is AMAR-UTU)

I think the God of the Bible is based on Martu. Martu was a shepherd, mountain, storm god. This all lines up with the God of Genesis and Exodus.

Martu was a god of pastoralism, his followers believed nomadic rural life was better than living in cities.

all this evidence points to this god as a main inspiration for the Biblical God

edit on 5-6-2011 by Mercurio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I can honestly say, my experience would make me an authority in the paranormal field, so maybe I am qualified to use official. WOW. Is three decades long enough?


Lol, took me about 3 minutes to realize God is a physical alien from a physical planet instead of an all-knowing heavenly entity.

God came to Earth in a silver cloud, surrounded with fire and thunder? Seems like a metallical spaceship entering the atmosphere to me.

Maria gave birth without ever having sex? seems like impregnating someone with medical technology and science to me, something we do for years now...

Jesus rised up IN a cloud? you vannot be IN a cloud, you would fall trough... seems like a spaceship again to me.

That city that was destroyed, cant remember the name, but common people, think! It was an atomic bomb. Does an almighty God need nucleair weapons to destroy something? No, he uses his will and mind, not a weapon.

I can go on and on and on but people just dont want to realize this. They dont want to because their world would be teared apart!

The gods and angels and stuff from the bible all are aliens from another planet people, wake the f*ck up!!!



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join