Dubstepforum.com

SD5 wrote:

Parson wrote:did you know that light can carry genetic information

Please explain.
Unless yr talking about movie projectors
displaying DNA profiles.

well this is the kind of things i am talking about. they don't help anyone and unless you are doing hardcore researching in a serious field, people on dubstepforum.com are not going to find this as useful. maybe interesting and cool like reading a michio kaku book, but if you really have all this advanced scientific knowledge and the only place you are sharing it is on the internet.. well, that's pretty weak.

this is why i very trusted sources for information, and not random people on the internet. i actually prefer the name dropping in this case because at least i can research the individuals myself without being called a conflicted ignorant liar for being hyper-skeptical of space aliens, ufos and clairvoyants, none of which have been proven in a rigid scientific field. or maybe it has, but "they" don't want us to know! :tinfoil:

i watched the original movie and i thought it was interesting. but if this is really about taking personal responsibility, you don't need a 2 hour movie about space aliens and love to get that message out there. it's a beautiful message, and an important one, above and beyond 22-foot reptilian oppressors.

also, drunvalo melchizidek

I haven't been able to find any of the research gariaev has allegedly done with DNA, none of it appears to have been published.

The only thing Dr Rein has on PubMed is a paper on "biofields" which doesn't appear to have any experimental information in it, but i can't tell exactly because the site wants me to pay 40 dollars to read it.

Doesn't seem to be any evidence behind what he is saying.

And his dismissal of Darwinism as not being viable is a bit odd

darwinism is obsolete

the new paradigm involves panspermia, which is something even carl sagan was into. in cosmos he says it is likely that life is seeded by comets that carry blueprints for life and drop em on planets like seeds in the wind.

black lotus wrote:
i watched the original movie and i thought it was interesting. but if this is really about taking personal responsibility, you don't need a 2 hour movie about space aliens and love to get that message out there. it's a beautiful message, and an important one, above and beyond 22-foot reptilian oppressors.

in the first few minutes, collier discusses what 4th density consciousness is like. what he describes is something i have experienced and have been trying to explain to people for a long time.
i've experienced it. recently.

the reason love and forgiveness are so necessary for ascension is because with everybody telepathic, shit gets very uncomfortable otherwise. and telepathy isn't like a telephone where you can choose what to say and what not to say. it is impossible to have secrets. anything that comes to mind is shared. all you can do is be humble and forgive and love.

Parson wrote: in the first few minutes, collier discusses what 4th density consciousness is like. what he describes is something i have experienced and have been trying to explain to people for a long time.
i've experienced it. recently.

i've had experiences like this. sometimes it was alright, other times it was uncomfortable. this is why i do not do acid anymore.

Parson wrote: the reason love and forgiveness are so necessary for ascension is because with everybody telepathic, shit gets very uncomfortable otherwise. and telepathy isn't like a telephone where you can choose what to say and what not to say. it is impossible to have secrets. anything that comes to mind is shared. all you can do is be humble and forgive and love.

i've likened this to omnidirectional sonar signal that perpetually flows in waves. if the universe is entirely wavelengths, that would make us filters, processors and even generators for these wavelenghts. and intention is the source of love/fear.

man that reality sandwich link that isn't working goes into such beautiful detail about the nature of wavelengths and reality.

i wish it would freakin work

here's some parts i quoted on another board:

Slowly but surely I began to put the pieces together. From a wide array of scientific research in music cognition, neurophysiology, genetics, acoustics, quantum physics and my own calculations and experiments, I developed a set of principles and mathematical models to explain how we perceive music. Naming this system interference theory, I found a way to show how harmonics play a common role in both sound and the structure of our anatomy. The theory proposes that life grows as a balance between resonance and damping just like a vibrating string and that music perception is a built-in pattern matching between the harmonic geometry of sound and identical structures in the ear and brain. In short, I came to see the entire body as a form of crystallized music.

, I decided to find a way to measure resonance and damping in the Vitruvian model. To do this, I overlaid a lattice of right-angled standing waves on the Vitruvian figure. When I scaled the lattice such that the circle radius was exactly equal to 2Pi, I was surprised to find that the proportion between the circle and square could be expressed very simply as Pi : (Phi ^ 2), or Pi divided by the square of the golden ratio. Could this be pure coincidence?

http://www.realitysandwich.com/building_religion

everything is interconnected though.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=57xGN0bGk ... re=related

i've seen a few interesting models about it and i'm always interested in more of that kind of raw information.

cool imagine, wish it was higher res like the paul laffoley paintings.

Parson wrote: everything is interconnected though.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=57xGN0bGk ... re=related

see this was never a question for me, personally. that's like saying water is wet. i'm interested in the details of HOW.

even 11th density is searching for that

Parson wrote:even 11th density is searching for that

at least i'm current, i guess.. i find making music to be one of the most enlightening activities next to meditations. it sort of mirrors nature in a strange way.

somebody blogged about the richard merrick article here:
http://dawnofaquarius.com/

seems like all his reality sandwich material is down right now for whatever reason.

black lotus wrote:

Parson wrote:even 11th density is searching for that

at least i'm current, i guess.. i find making music to be one of the most enlightening activities next to meditations. it sort of mirrors nature in a strange way.

in collier's 2008 lecture, he says that our ability to make music the way we do out of nothing is a strictly earthling ability. something about that "royal" dna.
http://www.escapetheillusion.com/blog/2 ... tion-2008/

Parson wrote: in collier's 2008 lecture, he says that our ability to make music the way we do out of nothing is a strictly earthling ability. something about that "royal" dna.
http://www.escapetheillusion.com/blog/2 ... tion-2008/

yeah i recall the mentioning of the royal dna. 22 species or whatever.. basically all this means to me is that we'd be newer mutations of ancient forms.

that is exactly what it means

black lotus wrote:basically all this means to me is that we'd be newer mutations of ancient forms.

...literally evolution
but yr probably meaning from humanoid aliens eh.

SD5 wrote:

black lotus wrote:basically all this means to me is that we'd be newer mutations of ancient forms.

...literally evolution
but yr probably meaning from humanoid aliens eh.

well we don't really know that do we.. i think that goes along with "where did we really come from?" there's a million guesses and no real answers to this one. some people don't even think it matters, some do.

my comment was basically summing up that this is just evolution. metaphysics aside, our brain is pretty complicated and we don't really completely understand how it works. people have god delusions all of the time and there's activity in the brain that goes along with it. additionally there are phenomena like pareidolia that contribute as well. if you're interested in neuroscience, check out dr. vilayanur ramachandran. he does a studies about mind/brain anomalies like religious experiences.

here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k

William Bramley - The Gods of Eden

Some persuasive-sounding arguments have been ad-
vanced to refute the evidence that one or more extrater-
restrial societies have been visiting the Earth. Some of those
arguments are worth addressing:

1. No intelligent life other than mankind has been proven
to exist elsewhere in the universe.
At first glance, this seems to be true. However, one need
only look right here on Earth to find other intelligent life
forms. Studies of dolphins and other large marine mammals
have revealed a high intelligence in many of those creatures.
Analyses of other mammals have uncovered in some of
them a level of intelligence much higher than previously
believed. This reveals that there are a great many intelligent
and semi-intelligent creatures in the universe known to us;
we share a planet with them. The fact that they all flourish
together on this one small planet is an excellent indication
that other intelligent creatures can exist elsewhere under the
right conditions.
2. There has not been a single UFO sighting which could
not be explained as a natural or human phenomenon. There-
fore, all UFOs must be such phenomena.
This argument uses faulty logic. It is possible to "explain"
almost anything as anything. I suppose one could "explain"
the sun as billions of fireflies held in a gigantic glass bowl.
This "explanation," however, does not fit the evidence as
well as the better theory that the sun is a huge mass of
compressed hydrogen which is undergoing a process of
atomic fusion.
Many UFO sightings are given prosaic explanations only
by ignoring evidence which clearly reveals that they are not
earthly phenomena. If one is selective enough in choosing
which evidence and testimony to believe, one can invent
almost any explanation to fit almost any UFO sighting.
The trick is to find the best explanation to fit the true and
complete facts. In many instances, the true and complete
facts indicate that a UFO is indeed best explained as a
natural phenomenon. In other cases, the best explanation
is that a UFO is probably an intelligently-guided craft of
nonhuman origin. Many remarkable sightings do fit this
latter category.*
3. There has been no "hard evidence" of UFOs or
"ancient astronauts."
Physical objects constitute "hard" evidence. In UFOlogy,
a piece of hard evidence might be a "crashed saucer" or the
body of an extraterrestrial pilot. It is argued that if alien
spacecraft have been flying in Earth's skies for thousands of
years, we should have a piece of concrete physical evidence
by now. Setting aside allegations and evidence that some
governments may have a crashed saucer or two secreted
away, we cannot logically expect to find too many alien
artifacts. To explain why, I will make an analogy between
UFOs and modern commercial jetliners.
Millions of commercial airline flights take off from U.S.
airports every year. Despite this enormous volume, very
few people will ever stumble upon a crashed jetliner or
dead crew member because only a tiny percentage of all
flights end in disaster. Equally few individuals will ever
find any instruments or debris tossed from jetliners because
jetliners are self-contained and the navigators rarely gouge
instruments from the flight panels and heave them out the
cockpit window. If it were not for the fact that most of
us can see commercial jet aircraft and fly in them, the
"hard" evidence of their existence would be surprisingly
scant, especially if they were to be manufactured in, and
flown only to and from, remote areas.

4. If UFOs are extraterrestrial aircraft, there should be
an undisputed photograph of one by now.
Anything can be disputed. To begin a dispute, all one
needs to do is open one's mouth and utter a few words.
The mere existence of a dispute, therefore, does not in itself
deny the reality of a thing. The dispute simply means that
someone has chosen to quarrel, whether for good reasons
or bad.
It is true, however, that researchers do face a paucity of
decent UFO photographs. Available UFO snapshots tend
to be of two varieties: either fuzzy and inconclusive (the
picture could be of just about anything), or fraudulent.
When a sharp, clear picture of a flying saucer does surface,
it often proves to be a hoax. This happens so often that
a researcher can almost count on a "good" flying saucer
photograph eventually proving "bad." This is especially true
today when technical advances have made some forms of
trick photography nearly undetectable.
This still leaves the question: why are there so few con-
clusive photographs available?
As noted earlier, apparently genuine extraterrestrial air-
craft account for only a small percentage of the total number
of UFOs reported. Most of those aircraft are seen at night.
The majority of "close encounters" (human encounters with
the spacecraft occupants) take place in rural non-recreational
areas where there are very few people carrying cameras. The
already poor chances of getting a good snapshot under those
conditions are worsened by the fact that the vast majority
of camera owners, including dedicated photo buffs, do not
always carry their cameras with them. At any given moment,
surely fewer than one person in every ten thousand is carry-
ing a camera. UFOs do not compensate for this by making
regular scheduled appearances over crowded vacation spots
where most clicking cameras would be. Given these factors,
we can expect that good genuine photos of extraterrestrial
aircraft would be exceedingly rare commodities. Remember
also that camera ownership has been widespread for only a
short period of time: several decades.
This is not to say that clear photos of apparently genuine
alien aircraft do not exist. A few do, and they can be found
in various books written by responsible UFO researchers.*

5. Eyewitness testimony in UFO cases is inherently unre-
liable. Such testimony is therefore insufficient evidence of
extraterrestrial visitation.
Perhaps the most influential UFO critic as of this writing
is Philip Klass, who has been aptly dubbed the "Sherlock
Holmes of UFOlogy" for his exhaustive investigations. His
book, UFOs Explained, won the Aviation/Space Writers
award for the best book on space in 1974. In that award-
winning book, Mr. Klass developed several principles. The
first was:
UFOlogical Principle #1: Basically honest and intel-
ligent persons who are suddenly exposed to a brief,
unexpected event, especially one that involves an unfa-
miliar object, may be grossly inaccurate in trying to
describe precisely what they have seen.8
This principle is sometimes true. It was demonstrated by a
U.S. government-sponsored UFO study conducted between
1966 and 1968 under the direction of Edward U. Condon.
Its published findings, which are usually called the "Condon
Report," are a milestone in UFO literature.
In one chapter of the Condon Report, the committee
discusses what occurred after a Russian spacecraft, Zond
IV, went awry and began its re-entry into Earth's atmosphere
on March 3, 1968. As the craft fell through the atmosphere
and burned, it created a spectacular display for people on
the ground. Eyewitnesses perceived the flaming debris as
a majestic procession of fiery objects leaving behind a
golden orange tail. Because of the objects' great height,
it was impossible to make out from the ground what the
broken pieces actually were. It was only possible to see
them as brilliant and separate points of light. The Zond
IV debris created an effect identical to that of a brilliant
meteor display.

i do believe a small percentage of gov't covered up ufo's are projects that they themselves dont want leaked out, sorta like the coorilation between sightings spiking in the u.s. an russia during the cold war years, an all the sightings that now take place over the desert areas of the u.s. where coincidentally these gov't army bases are stationed

it goes on and on like that. i like this part:

10. Only people with mental problems believe in UFOs.
One unfortunate method some UFO critics use to attack
evidence of extraterrestrial visitation is with psychological
theory. Because such a critic is absolutely certain that there
have been no extraterrestrial aircraft in our skies, he may
resort to using defamatory psychological labels in an effort
to "explain" why many people will consider a possibility
that the critic rejects. Such labels have run the gamut from
a simple need for religious fulfillment to ambulatory schizo-
phrenia. This dubious psychiatry has become regrettably
fashionable in recent years. It hides the reality that most
serious research into UFOs is as clinical and scientific as
one could hope for. The majority of UFO researchers are as
sane and rational as the critics who are so quick to bandy
about the unflattering psychological labels. The true UFO
debate centers around genuine scientific, intellectual, and
historical issues, not emotional ones.
Another problem with using psychological "analysis" to
"explain" popular and scientific interest in UFOs is that
the tables can be turned. A scholar advocating the pos-
sibility of extraterrestrial visitation can as easily, and as
incorrectly, argue that those people who adamantly adhere
only to prosaic explanations for UFO sightings in the face
of contrary evidence are deeply afraid of something they
cannot understand. Between the distinguished sideburns of
a Ph.D., one could argue, may be a frightened child or
willful adolescent desperately trying to handle the often
confusing world around him by forcing everything to con-
form to what he can intellectually and emotionally com-
prehend.
As we can see, psychological mudslinging is very poor
form in a scientific debate of this kind. It does no one any
good, the labels are usually untrue, and it clouds the real
issues. Intelligent and rational people are easily found on
all sides of the UFO controversy.

aaand this part:


14. Expressing theories of extraterrestrial visitation and
of "ancient astronauts" is dangerous to society.
This argument is not worth dignifying in societies with
traditions of open discussion and debate. Freedom of expres-
sion is one of the bedrocks of a healthy culture. It allows that
society and its people to grow. A wide diversity of ideas
gives people more perspectives to choose from. Possessing
such a choice is preferable to having intellectual options
restricted. In an open society, many unconventional ideas
come and go, but that is a small price to pay for the
enormous benefits of leaving communication lines open
and free.