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.

 

Your "Ufology" Is Lacking. Can You Handle the Truth (Evidence)?

page: 10
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


There is another interesting puzzle piece that I don't recall being mentioned on this thread, yet.

INHERENT in Lucifer's makeup were a couple of things . . . this info can be tracked down related to the root word meanings of his names and the root words of the key Scriptures in the Old Testament about him . . .

1. Music. Evidently parts of his body even were musical instruments somehow.

2. Drugs. Somehow from the earliest days of his rebellion, at least, he was directly associated with seductions involving drugs and their use in occult goings on.

Is it possible that some drugs trigger a short-cut that intensifies, opens or facilitates a more conscious connection with evil spiritual entities from an evil spiritual dimension e.g. scientist Dr Jacques Vallee refers to? And that such a connection could well occur--in or out of a laboratory--by use of such drugs or by stimulations of the brain simulating the effects of such drugs?

We barely know very well the mechanics of the brain.

We haven't really begun to understand the "mind" very well--much less the linkages available between the "mind" and spiritual dimensions.

Is it possible that the implants that the critters place in some victims' brains . . . greatly enhance or facilitate that kind of 'more direct' connection between the brain, the mind, and the evil spiritual dimension--for !CONTROL! purposes?

.

edit on 5/7/2013 by BO XIAN because: addition




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIANThat's a much bigger pile of solid evidence than I've read from your perspective. That's a lot of lives and a lot of misery and trauma that was !STOPPED! cold.

Again, reach into that renowned reservoir of Christian charity and 'let not your heart be troubled.' I do not wish to attack you personally - and am only staying focused on the merits of the issue.
We have not started into an evidence measuring contest. We are comparing rhetorical and methodological approaches, which say 'Just because someone has cast out a demon and now wants some money, does not mean that they have an entire other ephemeral subject figured out.' (And they probably cannot be trusted either).

I do not want to go into personal research and experience here, sorry - not trying to be evasive or insulting. My background is first hand, and more than sufficient on this topic, not going into any of the reasons why. I am not impressed by the experience base of these men in the least.

Nor do I claim to hold the right answer. Religion and Academia both claim to hold the correct answer. And that is a key warning flag.

Demonology on the other hand, is a well scripted play which has not changed since the first case. Everything is fully understood. Same Supra-Agents, same victims, same nastiness, same devil, same demon, same hierarchy, same allegiances, same names, same script, same book, same participants, same declarations, same implements, same passages, same people, same preparations, same manifestations, and same outcome (once final). Brutus, Cassius, and Mark Anthony. "Et tu Brute!" "I come to praise Caesar and not to bury him!" Such mimicry begins to cry loudly of weakness and dogma. Surely in 2,600 years since Purim, the 'demons' would have come up with at least one single new idea? Yet they remain a One Trick Pony. Why?

They are like the guys wearing the red shirts in Star Trek, we all know exactly what is going to happen.

It is not so with true discovery. True discovery never meets you wearing the clothing expected.


My co-religionists believe quite strongly in accountability--behavioral and mental.

I thought this to be the case, when I was in there as well. Cracks in the data began to wake me up.

And like Captain Picard of Star Trek TNG, it draws me as Locutus of the Borg. So I do know this and bear its affinity; just as I bear an affinity for the objective nihilism adopted by my grad school profs.

Gawd I am a hybrid!!

(and apologies for using two Star Trek analogies in one post, uggghhhh) ... hehe....


edit on 5-7-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
We have not started into an evidence measuring contest. We are comparing rhetorical and methodological approaches, which say 'Just because someone has cast out a demon and now wants some money, does not mean that they have an entire other ephemeral subject figured out.' (And they probably cannot be trusted either).

I do not want to go into personal research and experience here, sorry - not trying to be evasive or insulting. My background is first hand, and more than sufficient on this topic, not going into any of the reasons why. I am not impressed by the experience base of these men in the least.


Agreed. To a degree. it's a silly generalization, however. Sounds like you hung out with some pretty shady characters and may lack the ability to identify charlatans in advance. Some of them there TV ' Evangelists" or a--snicker--Bob Larson or something. Or those guys out in Florida that had all that laughing and stuff going on.

If so, that would explain why you want to make the claim of "experience" but don't want to share it. Fair enough, though. However, being an ethical skeptic you do realize you shouldn't have mentioned it at all, if you weren't prepared to defend the statement, right?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT Sounds like you hung out with some pretty shady characters and may lack the ability to identify charlatans in advance.


I am the subject here??? That appears to be a habit in this thread. Eventually begin to focus on attacking the other person. If this is the case, please let me know and we can change the name of this thread. "ATTACKING NON CHRISTIAN UFO PONDERERS - Come in here to be abused."

Please let me assure you that I personally, am not a more fascinating topic than UFO's - so can we leave the subject of you guys keep wanting to shift the discussion to attack me personally?

But if the subject simply absolutely HAS to be me personally, well then:
No, I hung out with the mainstream.
Yes, I am a keen student of human behavior.
The church lured me in when very young. A trick they learned to survive by long ago.
Yes, when I was a young boy I lacked 'the ability to identify charlatans in advance.'

That is just the way the whole realm is.

The key is 'Did I choose to perpetuate this manipulative and illicit activity when it was my turn?'

No, I grew up - I chose character.



If so, that would explain why you want to make the claim of "experience" but don't want to share it. Fair enough, though. However, being an ethical skeptic you do realize you shouldn't have mentioned it at all, if you weren't prepared to defend the statement, right?

Oh, absence of full disclosure is lying. C'mon you are making me laugh at how ridiculous this is. Should I wear an "A" on my chest too in here?


That is not a tenet of skepticism, that is something you picked up off fad internet science.

C'mon guys, grow a pair of character testicles. Step up your rationality and start being courteous to those who are sincerely in here having a discussion.




edit on 5-7-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 

First time I've addressed you and I stayed on point in regards your assertions. You should probably go back and read your smart-alecky aspersions...or drop the "ethical" part of your moniker.

I do apologize for suggesting whom you might have been hanging out with, but no, my point about you claiming experience but offering no substance is certainly valid. For an ethical skeptic that is.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


Thanks for your kind, civil and meaty reply.

No sweat on the StarTrek refs.

I would hazard the reply that the demonic fallen angel critters et al

have not changed their basic strategies and methodologies for millennia

[color=6699FF]well, because THEY WORK SO WELL so persistently.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.


Besides, they have a rather LARGE skillset. They cover the water front from direct D-9 Cat sized frontal approach all the way to super subtle super 'sophisticated' super slow seductions. What do they NEED to change to be even more effective? . . . when they are already massively successful and effective?

Yeah, you do seem to be an interesting atypical hybrid bloke in your perspectives.
.

edit on 5/7/2013 by BO XIAN because: trying to fix tags



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 

First time I've addressed you and I stayed on point in regards your assertions. You should probably go back and read your smart-alecky aspersions...or drop the "ethical" part of your moniker.


To thought control groups yes - I am a critic.
I am not a critic of you personally, unless you start attacking me...

You are wrong and again you attack me personally with this post too. Belying your entire premise.


I do apologize for suggesting whom you might have been hanging out with, but no, my point about you claiming experience but offering no substance is certainly valid. For an ethical skeptic that is.


Another and final personal attack.

Good luck with your thread OP.

Have a good day.




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


Thanks for your kind, civil and meaty reply.

No sweat on the StarTrek refs.

I would hazard the reply that the demonic fallen angel critters et al

have not changed their basic strategies and methodologies for millennia

[color=6699FF]well, because THEY WORK SO WELL so persistently.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.


Besides, they have a rather LARGE skillset. They cover the water front from direct D-9 Cat sized frontal approach all the way to super subtle super 'sophisticated' super slow seductions. What do they NEED to change to be even more effective? . . . when they are already massively successful and effective?

Yeah, you do seem to be an interesting atypical hybrid bloke in your perspectives.
.

edit on 5/7/2013 by BO XIAN because: trying to fix tags


Good response...thanks BO.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic
Again, reach into that renowned reservoir of Christian charity and 'let not your heart be troubled.' I do not wish to attack you personally...


Hmmm...you don't find that reply to BO XIAN backhanded? Or maybe it's just hard for you to admit. It's a statement certainly inclusive of a whole body of individuals. I find it narrow-minded in focus.


I do not want to go into personal research and experience here, sorry - not trying to be evasive or insulting. My background is first hand, and more than sufficient on this topic, not going into any of the reasons why. I am not impressed by the experience base of these men in the least.

Your statement that your background is not only "first hand" but "more than sufficient on this topic" is some sort of allusion to an appeal to authority....with no meat on the bones. What model of the search for truth does that fall under? Please answer this question in a plain manner.


Nor do I claim to hold the right answer. Religion and Academia both claim to hold the correct answer. And that is a key warning flag.

Demonology on the other hand, is a well scripted play which has not changed since the first case. Everything is fully understood. Same Supra-Agents, same victims, same nastiness, same devil, same demon, same hierarchy, same allegiances, same names, same script, same book, same participants, same declarations, same implements, same passages, same people, same preparations, same manifestations, and same outcome (once final). Brutus, Cassius, and Mark Anthony. "Et tu Brute!" "I come to praise Caesar and not to bury him!" Such mimicry begins to cry loudly of weakness and dogma. Surely in 2,600 years since Purim, the 'demons' would have come up with at least one single new idea? Yet they remain a One Trick Pony. Why?

In the spirit of ethical modalities of discovery, can you qualify the above? "...same victims, same nastiness, same devil, same demon..." Huh?

Especially in light of the hypothesis addressed in this thread, that doesn't seem to make sense. Disguising as ET would be a new game, eh?

Can anyone prove it? Of course not. Not beyond one's own satisfaction anyway.

It's easy to be skeptical and have no personal conclusions. Safe, even, for those who might be timid. And yet, you do, have some conclusions, but then refuse to reveal the modalities and/or experiences used to come to those conclusions.

And, I'm sorry to say this because I know you ain't gonna like it, but you seem a little thin-skinned for a rambunctious forum like ATS. Especially in light of your rather imperious attitude and affinity for convoluted speech.

All of the above are my opinions. I don't believe I've called you any names. Questioning the "ethical" part of your name isn't a slam, it's an observation of what seems to me to be some hypocrisy in what you consider invalid for some, but totally okay for you use.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 
It is still amazing to me how so many supposed "open minded" people will deny even toying with the possibility that the simplest explanation is just as valid a theory as the most complicated one. They refuse to entertain that the longest held ideas may be even more complex than the most outlandish "scientific" hypothesis. When one doesn't consider that anything is possible one may miss what is right in front of one's face- misses the forest for the trees, so to speak.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 
Yeah, and what if the arms of science "are too short to box with God" to paraphrase an oldie? We could be waiting around until human life is wiped off the face of the earth by irresponsible use of technologies and resources and never get an "empirical" answer.

Evidence comes in many forms. Just because science isn't smart enough to design testable hypotheses for some of the more suggestive phenomena doesn't negate something that might be considered preternatural.

A lot of very intelligent folk, including some extremely impressive scientists, Francis Crick of double-helix fame for one, have found that discoveries in science increasingly suggest some form of intelligent design.

There was a line by Peter O'Toole in the 80's movie Creator that went something like, "I have the distinct feeling that one day we will find ourselves looking into the microscope and staring directly into the unblinking eye of God."



edit on 5-7-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 
My friend, I have the distinct feeling that even among the self proclaimed "open minded" if an otherworldly being or even God himself stood before them and slapped them across the face they would still deny what was right in front of them, just as their opposites would deny any scientific evidence even if hit upside the head with uncorrupted photographs and specimen slides with DNA samples. When faced with the choice of the two sides of a pancake very few are willing to delve into the ingredients of the batter and would rather argue which side of the pancake is tastier. While I may prefer one side of the pancake over the other, my true passion lies in discovering the recipe!



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 
It has been postulated that, contrary to rampant allegations, some scientists would be the most psychologically affected by the discovery of a superior intelligence.

After years of feeling smug and secure in their academia, should they suddenly be faced with a mind greater than their own--one they can't figure out--it would shake their worldview so tremendously that they would suffer meltdown.

Might be something to that.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I think this has been alluded to on this thread but to repeat it as I understand it (and at risk of oversimplfying): it could be that neither the "demon" nor "alien" paradigms are literallly true but rather are perceptions and interpretations based on some sort of underlying phenomenon.

I've been enjoying this thread and would hate to see it fall off the rails.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by UncleVinnys
I just cannot buy the demon theory.
With the evidence we see of technological advances from these creatures, we would be toast by now if there were a truly evil intent.
Rather, check out the works of Dr. John Mack. His in-depth interviews with abductees suggests there is mind-expanding, even spiritual evolution taking place with these contacts.



We are already toast and the most evil part about it is we are being kept alive and in a perpetual never ending loop.
Where do you think they get their food? From our energies.

The kind thing would be to do away with us in one sweep....but then they wouldn't have anything to feed on.


My firewall alerts seem to agree



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel
I think this has been alluded to on this thread but to repeat it as I understand it (and at risk of oversimplfying): it could be that neither the "demon" nor "alien" paradigms are literallly true but rather are perceptions and interpretations based on some sort of underlying phenomenon.

I've been enjoying this thread and would hate to see it fall off the rails.

Yep, that's the level at which I hoped it would mostly be discussed: That no matter how we might personally interpret it, is there something to the assertion that we--humanity--have experienced this phenomenon from at least recorded time and that the questions raised are valid questions as regards the possibility that we are not dealing with a straight-up ETH explanation.

Thanks for the mature and much needed time-out, I know that I can personally get carried away. And thank-you for your valued participation here.


I guess one of the aspects of ufology that originally started me to question the ETH in a deeper way were the high-strangeness reports. Not that they were readily apparent in popular literature. And shame on the "ufologists" that failed to report them.

I can personally find points of criticism in the following article, but that's not to say it isn't excellent and potentially informative:

Curiouser and Curiouser: ‘High Strangeness’ UFO Encounters.
Gareth J. Medway


And a couple more Vallee quotes:


"Human beings are under the control of a strange force that bends them in absurd ways, forcing them to play a role in a bizarre game of deception." 
- Dr. Jacques Vallee, Messengers of Deception, p. 20



"The symbolic display seen by the abductees is identical to the type of initiation ritual or astral voyage that is imbedded in the [occult] traditions of every culture...the structure of abduction stories is identical to that of occult initiation rituals...the UFO beings of today belong to the same class of manifestation as the [occult] entities that were described in centuries past."

-Dr. Jacques Vallee citing the extensive research of Bertrand Meheust [Science-Fiction et Soucoupes Volantes (Paris, 1978); Soucoupes Volantes et Folklore (Paris, 1985)], in Confrontations, p. 146, 159-161




edit on 5-7-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
It's been years since I was immersed in the subject but it seems to me that:

1) Despite whatever physical evidence there may be, the overwhelming majority of the reported experiences of both UFO and "alien" experiencers cannot be demonstrated to be part of physical, consensual reality.

2) The totality of what has been reported certainly lends itself to being analyzed in terms of comparative mythology.

So that brings us back to Jung's take on the subject as the most logical starting point.

I realize that suits my personal prejudices and is an oversimplification but that's where I've settled in.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 
Something of a Jungianesque nature certainly stays on the table. It is interesting, however, to dig a little deeper into that fascinating man. Here's an article from Fortean Times you might find intriguing:

The Occult World of CG Jung



edit on 5-7-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT

Curiouser and Curiouser: ‘High Strangeness’ UFO Encounters.
Gareth J. Medway



Very interesting article. I've read about a number of those cases but certainly not all.

It reminds me of personal perceptions of "high strangeness" from years ago that I believe I've repressed. Whatever the explanation, it's not a level of experience that can be sustained without sacrificing quality of life in many other areas; just my opinion.

EDIT: By the way, GUT, I'm assuming you've read the Rogcewicz dissertation on the MIBs? I found a free download and am re-reading it now. It fits right in with this discussion.


edit on 5-7-2013 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
GREAT POINTS. Love it. Thanks.


Originally posted by The GUT


In the spirit of ethical modalities of discovery, can you qualify the above? "...same victims, same nastiness, same devil, same demon..." Huh?

Especially in light of the hypothesis addressed in this thread, that doesn't seem to make sense. Disguising as ET would be a new game, eh?


Welllllllllllll . . . in most respects . . . as Dr Jacques Vallee and others have noted . . . the 'new' ET 'clothing," meme, charade . . . is NOT all THAT new.

Basically the same activities as in the Middle Ages and earlier. Different labels. Different clothing. Different transportation modes.

Still involved in cross breeding; taking children; inserting themselves into families and culture.




Can anyone prove it? Of course not. Not beyond one's own satisfaction anyway.

It's easy to be skeptical and have no personal conclusions. Safe, even, for those who might be timid. And yet, you do, have some conclusions, but then refuse to reveal the modalities and/or experiences used to come to those conclusions.


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join