Full Description & Details
Yes I have seen and still see from time to time ET´s or prefferably "universal" beings that some disbelievers think is only a joke and redicule. Before I go on I would just like to say that the love they express are totally unequalled here on earth at the present and I don´t know much about all the negative things people are telling about them, they must have run into "phreakin" daemons??! I think I was about 17 when I first saw an ET, the being was standing near the door threshold it had those typically large almond shaped eyes that so many are speaking of and I remember that I first reacted with fear but since then I have come to know better though I´m still struggling with my own fear. They are not hostile and I know that they mean no harm honestly. Anyway if they hadn´t felt any love or respect for mankind then they would have "invaded" earth since long time. Regarding public contact on a larger scale at this time would be like to jump into a lions cave for them, simply ask yourself would you do that?...When mankind stops killing "himself", his "brothers", "sisters" then things will change.....if we can´t respect each other here on earth then how are we going to respect them and yes I have also much to learn in this area...
Other Comments
WELL, SCEPTICS AND DUMBSURE DISBELIEVERS (NOT PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY DON´T KNOW) NEED TO OPEN THEIR MINDS. IT WOULD BE "PRETTY" STUPID AND HIGHLY LIMITING TO SIMPLY LIMIT ONESELF ONLY TO THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL. I would like to share the following interjection_________The aspect of Faith is not limited to religion and mysticism.
In fact a great deal of faith is placed upon the scientific model in which we live; two months ago women had faith that by doing regular self breast exams they could avoid advanced breast cancer, now we know this is not true. We have faiththat the sun will rise tomorrow based on past experience and a scientific model which secures our belief, yet we have no knowledge a priori that such an event will in fact take place.
Faith in scientific explanation, when one does not himself understand the details of the science is no different than the faith of the medieval religious. We are told about the Big Bang and Evolution, yet have no means of determining if these are in fact "real", they are models which have explanatory power. They are not a priori true.
Few things have the nature of being true, simple arimetic progression is one of the; we do not need to examine every two pair of objects and count them to know with certainty that 2+2=4.
Nevertheless, we have faith that our sense perceptions provide a true picture of the "external" world when they do not - it is easy for multitudes to believe the sun and moon revolve around the earth when in fact we understand this differently - but our understanding comes from the sacerdotal order of science and we trust or have faith that the heliocentric model is in fact true when most people have no inclination to invest the time and resources to rediscover what Copernicus proposed.
We have faith in an "external" world, but as Kant and Berkeley proposed, we have no actual , unmediated congress with the object in itself - we surmise the existence of an external world based upon sense data.
I could go on, but the point is that "objectivity" and "materiality" are just as faith based as the abstractions of Plato or Valentinus, when examined closely the epistemology and ontology of rationalism begin to fray at the edges.
So in the end we put a great deal of faith in the experimental work of others rather than constantly proving to ourselves that the square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle.
|