attack myth

ok so some people think that an attack by aliens is going to happen and that we would all be killed off.
i personaly dont think that an attack is due i believe it could of already happened.
you may read this and think what the hell this guy must be crazy but i think that the evidence is blatant.
i dont meen an attack with big bangs bombs and lazer beems!!! i think its a subtle attack on a level that we cannot see with the human eye. David icke has been banging on for years about reptilian beings assuming human form and being placed in high power possitions.
this i dont deny is possible but i think its more on the path of illusion!!

reply to post by stewalters1


What if the alien attack already happend a long time ago and we are the aliens....

My feeling as an armchair-UFOlogist, is that if there were "evil" aliens out there ready to conquer us, they would have already. They haven't yet, so I have to assume they aren't out there.

reply to post by knowledgedesired


You just blew my mind.

reply to post by stewalters1


I believe if the "aliens" were to attack, it would be somthing we would see coming either, as we would nuke everything to try to stop them, who wants a radioactive ball of ash?

We even see governments of the world performing the same actions you mentioned already, subterfuge if b far easier cheaper and has the same results as open war to overthrow a country, we do this all the time as a matter of fact.

I Don't think aliens would attack us. If they came into our solar system looking for resources, the other planets in our system have far more resources then whats found here on earth. Or, they could just be douch3bags and want to conquer us for sh!ts and giggles.

reply to post by DarkKnight76


Conquering us would not deem them "evil". I suspect given the technological resources we would do the same. On the other-hand their abilities may be beyond our comprehension and since they see no threat have either moved on or implemented undetectable information gathering here in case humans do discover anything useful.

The thing is, as a previous poster explained: Why not just seek out other planets if you're looking for ressources, instead of dealing with potential hostility on the Earth? Sure, 'they' could be investigating Earth, but that doesn't mean hostility, necessarily.

What worries me, is that military people with loose trigger fingers and hillbillies with loose guns actually fired at these things in previous decades, for no reason. (Or so the stories go..). In that case, 'they' could be getting the 'wrong' impression and refrain from seeking open contact and 'friendship'. Perhaps that's why we are hearing less and less about actual landings and such by small craft.

Of course, all concepts like 'friendship' etc are problematic when speculating about unknown creatures, but I imagine that the survival instinct is universal. If they're being shot at, maybe they'll just stick to themselves somewhere out of sight.

The Colares incident is slightly disconcerting, along with other South American reports. Nothing major though.

Eventually, it's impossible for anyone to say anything concrete about it except for what we know from the actual reports of contact.

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
My feeling as an armchair-UFOlogist, is that if there were "evil" aliens out there ready to conquer us, they would have already. They haven't yet, so I have to assume they aren't out there.

OR...

The supposed good Aliens told the bad Aliens to back off.

Humanity isn't ready to be harvested

YET

Originally posted by g0dhims3lf
reply to post by DarkKnight76

 

Conquering us would not deem them "evil".

Would it not? Perhaps not in biblical sense, I agree. But do you think it's ok when one nation conquers another, just because it can?

Originally posted by g0dhims3lf
I suspect given the technological resources we would do the same. ..

Not on my watch!

reply to post by ScientificUAPer


Everyone can use the same facts and information learned in different ways. Ways they can justify as good depending on the ethical theory they subscribe to while others can claim the opposite and also claim it good. Therefor every single action since there is no universal standard can be both good and bad, right and wrong simultaneously. Power can be addicting, our infatuation to control things to perform our will. We are machines of evaluation influenced by emotion. Weighing options, then justifying the one chosen. Everyone wants to be right, the problem is we may all be wrong. Or we are all right and wrong

reply to post by ScientificUAPer


Humanity already has multiple times throughout our collective histories. The Modern world has been built on conquest and plunder. If not militarily then by economic exploitation. Which strangely enough has raised the overall standard of living for the vast majority of Earth's population.

I'm sure it could have come about through other means but it happened as it did.

Originally posted by g0dhims3lf
..Therefor every single action since there is no universal standard can be both good and bad, right and wrong simultaneously.

If there is no right and wrong, nothing can be right and wrong at same time.

I understand what you mean, but you're speaking from a Bhuddist position, right? If so, remember that's also a position, a religiously oriented system of thought.

Personally, I'm not a relativist, I think grandiose relativism is important on the philosophical level, but to an extent denies the human. Thus I'm not too surprised you'd write something like this:

Originally posted by g0dhims3lf
.. We are machines of evaluation ...

No, we are not machines, let's bury that idea right now, even if it's just an expression!

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by ScientificUAPer

 

Humanity already has multiple times throughout our collective histories. ..

I'm sure it could have come about through other means but it happened as it did.

No, conquest didn't benefit the people that died, or their children who lived in serfdom. To say colonialism was 'good' for the majority of people affected by it is a gross lie.

That said, many nations in the conquering part of the world are bothered by the trauma: Yea we're rich, but we now see clearly that we killed and plundered a lot of people to become that rich, and it damaged us.
In pop-culture, we saw that trauma dealt with in all the depressive westerns and war movies of the 70ies. They didn't look like the old movies where the native Americans were portrayed as mere brutes, and the frontiersmen as doing God's work.

People became enlightened as to the dark side of European conquest, during the latter part of the 20th century. The concept of 'Human Rights' was developed, to the chagrin of some, namely those who are still stuck in the power politics of the past.

I suspect, at least I hope that we learn from it. Though some nations learn slow. Perhaps because their people in some ways feel 'special' or 'chosen'. But that is not a universal phenomenon in the Western world, seriously. Most people would vote NO to conquest, not YES.

reply to post by ScientificUAPer


No it is far from buddhist, if anything it is a skeptic point of view. Ok so replace "machines" with "beings" although machine defines as "An apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task" so I was more or less just playing on words in the sense that we are machines of nature or God(s) depending on your belief system.

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer
No, conquest didn't benefit the people that died, or their children who lived in serfdom.

Of course it didn't.

To say colonialism was 'good' for the majority of people affected is a gross lie.

I never implied nor said that. That's your interpretation of what I wrote.

I advise you to seek out a Post-Colonial Studies reader, if you want to see how deeply and badly it affects the cultures and people who are conquered.

That said..

However, the vast majority living presently have a much higher standard of living than they did in pre-colonial periods. I'm not saying it was just or right but simply stating that's how it came about.

reply to post by DarkKnight76


what if they are evil but have no desire to destroy us but rather "conquer" us essentially turning us into a slave race. there have been conspiracies involving presidential level affaris and treaties propsed by beings from another world/dimension wherein said beings coerce our goverment into basically allowing these beings to take humans for whatever purpose such a being would have for a human and in return they (the "aliens") will not obliterate us. but hey, grain of salt right?

Originally posted by g0dhims3lf
.. Ok so replace "machines" with "beings" ..

Fair enough, 'cause we are not 'like' machines.

Machines are 'like us', because we built them!

I insist on the difference

It was only with Descartes that people began to speak about life in terms of a machine. Descartes felt he needed to seperate man from the animals in his mechanistic world view, to cater to the Church, so he called animals mere 'machines'.
Later, with the advent of computers, people were misled to think that they could compare it with the human brain. Yet, just because a machine can make calculations, and a human can too, man is not a machine, or the other way around.

I think it would be good to stop making that comparison in the future. It denigrates life, and reduces it to a level that can't be justified.

We are life, we are not machines. Just my 2 cents folks..

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer
No, conquest didn't benefit the people that died, or their children who lived in serfdom.

Of course it didn't.

To say colonialism was 'good' for the majority of people affected is a gross lie.

I never implied nor said that. That's your interpretation of what I wrote.

You wrote:

Originally posted by SLAYER69
..Which strangely enough has raised the overall standard of living for the vast majority of Earth's population.

..

That sounds like an apology to me.

If Europeans had just traded with the native Americans, I'm sure the original native culture would be far better off now, and they'd have developed industrially on their own, by the ideas and methods they got from Europe. No conquest necessary.

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer
That sounds like an apology to me.

Your opinion is noted.

If Europeans had just traded with the native Americans, I'm sure the original native culture would be far better off now, and they'd have developed industrially on their own, by the ideas and methods they got from Europe. No conquest necessary.

I guess you missed that part of my original post you keep ignoring and fail to quote...

Source

I'm sure it could have come about through other means but it happened as it did.