Fairy Folk vs Aliens

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by taoistguy
 


I'm more of mind to think that "magic" was the only way that things could be explained when Fairies were prevelant. As we made advances in technology then the Fairies became Aliens as we could recognize some of the "magic" as new technology.




posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Zarkia
reply to post by taoistguy
 


The Fae had fairy mounds and if you were allowed entry time moved differently inside the mound. What seemed hours inside when you came out (if you were allowed to leave) Weeks or years had passed in the mortal world. Sounds like Alien technology to me. The mound were a portal to the Fairy world. They would also lure humans to their mounds for sex and enslave them. They used magick and glamour to appear as a beautiful woman or handsome man to get them to follow them into the mound. They would also steal human babies or the babies that were half human and half Fae. I have believed in the Fae since I was a child and over the last few years I have began to wonder if they were supernatural beings or if they were actually Aliens. If they were Aliens they were many different races of Aliens because of the variety of different appearances they had as well as abilities. Not all Fae were the tinkerbell type some were taller than human some tiny, Some human looking some monstrous, some winged some not. I am not convinced they were aliens but I am open to the possibility. The abilities they had varied also but most had magickal objects that gave them their power. Another point for it being alien tecnology.


So how big were these mounds and how did humans enter them?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   
This is a response to some earlier posts, although it was a variety of them so I haven't quoted them. It has to do with how what we "perceive" changes what aliens/faeries/etc. may seem to "be."

*

My ... theory. Although much of my experience is what has led to the theory.

A thought exercise, if you will:

Let us say that you have... a sphere of (white) light.

Now inside that sphere, let's separate that light into a prism of color-bands of the rainbow.

Imagine that some things and identities are existing or living in the green band. Some in the yellow band. Some in the blue band. And there are even identities all along the spectrum, such as in lime and teal for example.

Of course it's all just white light. But depending on how you separate it (and it is immensely, if not near-infinitely, separable), the color is going to be different. And every separable unit can also be combined with any other separable unit(ssss) for a yet-new variant as well.

Identity-X or Thing-X -- these being what we interact with, let's say "John" and "an airplane" and "a tree" -- merely exist. They are part of the assumedly-infinite nature of white light.

But from the "perspective" of someone in the yellow band, these are perceived and interacted with like this-thing, and from the perspective of someone in the teal band, they are perceived and interacted with like that-thing.

Much like wearing a certain color-filter glasses can make everything of that filter literally invisible, while making some other things barely change, and yet other things seem to change considerably.

But the energy of things at root is the same thing. It is merely that as time/space are perceptual not literal, the energy itself (be it an airplane, person or tree) simply "exists." As there is only the here-and-now, then any given "perspective" one chooses -- a century ago, three shades of color toward the blue, whatever -- those things in time or location or identity are merely perspectives-on-what-is.

So it becomes, in a way, a very literal but also metaphysical version of the blind man and the elephant fable. When you are in teal, you are only capable of perceiving and interacting with "the portion of energy which is 'Real' within the perspective-environmental of teal."

The same thing/person/event that you are experiencing, however, is equally present everywhere and everywhen; but whether it is perceived at all, and how, as what, and even when and by whom/what, depends on the perspective.

What we perceive has as much to do with who we are, and what we are, and where we are, and when we are, as the-thing-perceived. Experience is not something that happens at a single-point. All experience is the joining-point of at least two.

Objective reality is better called a consensus perspective. For all useful purposes, it IS useful and seemingly objective if you are sharing the majority of a perspective.

The moment that changes for any reason -- and there are many reasons and ways it can (changing any parameter of the who you are, the what you are, the where you are, or the when you are...) -- the whole definition of "reality" tends to change.

*

You can model-analogy this like a big kaleidoscope. There are many pieces of many shapes and colors. Each turn of the wheel is a different perspective.

All the SAME shapes-colors are at play in every single turn of the wheel. In no turn does any of that "source energy" add or subtract or change, it is always "here, now" and "there, then." There is no difference. But each turn, each perspective, sees a different pattern, a different picture; had a different experience of it.

In some of those patterns, some colors fall behind others, so you get orange instead of the separate red and yellow that may be experienced at other perspectives.

Or you get a shape that only exists through the overlap of 6 different shapes together (which then appear as that-one-thing, and all their-own-things are now 'gone'). And so on.

Nothing inherently changed. There is no difference, in the source energy. The only difference is the change of "perspective."

*

We are all a perspective. You, me, our animals, the trees, gemstones, the beings we call aliens and fairies and whatever else.

Awareness is all that is, with increasing emergent properties and degrees within those. When that 'perspective' is merely consolidated-awareness we call it a thing. When that awareness has the emergent property of sentience, a sense-of-self, we call it an identity. When it has the emergent property of autonomy, we call it an entity. All are perspectives.

Many would say trees and cats are both in the middle 'identities' group. But some people would say trees are merely things. And others would say cats are actual entities. It depends on the person's perspective, how those energies "are perceived" to them. Neither are wrong; they are correct within the framework of their perspective. Everything is different when you are different.

The "energy-that-is" inside our kaleidascope, is that same energy that is also the perspectives experiencing it. The universe is experiencing itself.

There is no difference. As space/time are perceptual, there is not really an inside/outside or thing-being/other or then/now. Those are simply perspectives.

*

What we are is humans. So that's a huge filter. Changes in our brain chemicals or elsewhere in our bodies can change that too. Our formative experiences become part of that, culturally and individually, as psychological filters and nervous system blocks are within the physical body.

Who we are has things such as chakraic and spiritual development involved.

So those two variables are unique to the individual, although the "What" has a huge amount of overlap with others around us. Where and When we can be shared.

Since at least half these variables are going to be at least a little bit if not completely unique to the individual, it means there isn't really any such thing as identical-experience ("objective reality").

There is merely shared consensus, where 'enough is similar' to give us an agreement about reality. What we share is not a reality, but an agreement about reality.

The world is different when you are different.

*

This is what 'my' perspective has taught me. Of course, it's probably worth what you're paying for it, since yours may be different.
edit on 24-10-2013 by RedCairo because: added intro sentence
edit on 24-10-2013 by RedCairo because: typo





 
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join