Yuku free message boards

I remember when I first heard the Sting song “An Englishman in New York” and particularly the line “I’m an alien, I’m an illegal alien” I thought Sting was implying he had notions he was really an extra-terrestrial as I had never heard the term “alien” used to describe a non-US citizen living in the US. I now know that at law the term “alien” refers to a person in a country who is not a citizen of that country and basically the term refers to a person whether a legal alien or an illegal alien with various subsets of those two groups, particularly the former.  I also know that the term “enemy alien” refers to a person who is a national of an enemy state. The term alien was first used in the US in 1798 when it was used in the “Alien and Sedition Act” of that year.

I think this video is a tale of two halves: at the beginning of the interview he speaks very clearly about banking, the instruments of terrestrial warfare and in particularly, given his references to Eisenhower, to the threat of communism (both outwith and within the US) and the nuclear arms race – both of which were key Eisenhower targets. Another topic that influenced the US in Eisenhower’s time was the space race in which, with the launch of Sputnik in 1957, the US was falling behind at the time of a heightened nuclear arms struggle. Perhaps when he discusses the “exporting to other areas of the galaxy” what he saw as the “barbarism” of the last 60 years he was speaking of terrestrial nuclear warfare as once planned for instance under the Star Wars programme and implemented under its far more potentially terrifying descendant HAARP, to be used in space.

Another interesting point is that, under US Law, a corporation is considered a natural human ie a person: therefore a company of an enemy state is considered an “enemy alien”: so when Hellyer speaks of “they” with reference to tracking the comings and goings  “out there” in space he could quite easily be talking about commercial satelites put up in space by Russian, North-Korean, Chinese (or any other state/peoples that are considered seditious in some respect by the US federal administration agencies) or even, given that commercial companies are registered at state rather than federal level in the US, in theory an “enemy alien” could be a US company which the agencies of the federal administration believe to have seditious intent in some respect.   

At one point the interviewer refers to a quote and Hellyer denies the attribution of the quote to himself, but then goes on to agree with more or less everything that is in the quote.In the context of the particular quote there is clearly some small nuance of semantics in the quote that Hellyer does not wish to be associated with: could this be a reference to aliens as extra-terrestrials as opposed to the legal definition of aliens? The latter he is quite happy to associate his comments with, the former less so given the context of his book: at least in the segment of the interview before he speaks of an ABC show on ETs. Having worked with lawyers and drafted legal documents for over twenty years, I know how important the slightest change in wording can be: putting a coma in the wrong place or missing one out has often had secretaries cursing me – because to me (and to the recipient) such errors can totally change the meaning of the letter – something some secretaries I’ve had have not understood: a form of writing which is commonly referred to as “legalese” which is a totally different form of writing than I might use here at SL for instance (though I do sometimes find myself slipping into it by habit even here). As I became more proficient in that style of writing, I noticed how often the political classes use a similar device as was originally taught in the study of classical rhetoric from where written “legalese” is said to have been born: so it would be no surprise to me if the difference between the legal concept of alien and what the common man would describe as an alien but in more exacting discussions would be described as extra-terrestrials was why Hellyer denied the actual quote but agreed the basic content.  This is what politicians and anyone who is involved in the fringes of politics do all the time – they use very precise language and definitions to stretch the truth such that the public are fooled, but if called out by the press or media they can muddy the waters with partial admissions of truth based on the principals of rhetoric similar to legalese – knowing full well that it is what first passes our ears that most people believe – especially when speaking to the converted ie people who already follow their particular political allegiances. Hellywer was himself a politician so the rules of rhetoric will be something with which he is familiar and I believe he has used very effectively in the video without actually committing himself.

Hellyer makes two references to ET activity when he was in government: once when he went to the town of St Pauls who have the space welcoming ETs to celebrate Canada’s centenary and he freely admits in the interview he went not on the back of a being a committed ET believer but purely on the back of an argument that his fellow government officers all went on such trips to celebrate the centenary and St Pauls just happened to be where he was sent. The second instance is more interesting and relates to something that fell to earth in Manitoba and which the US entered Canadian territory to retrieve, which entry was first resisted by local officials until Ottawa issued order for the US to be allowed to retrieve whatever had fallen. I shall come back to this….

The second half of the interview relates to a two hour ABC special Hellyer saw on ET/UFO activity and a friend who appears to be an ET/UFO believer who, by the sounds of things, pestered Hellyer into getting involved in the debate. In this section of the interview Hellyer is far more willing to discuss his personal views on UFOs.

What strikes me, is the change in emphasis between what he might have learnt in his role in the Canadian government and his personal beliefs as a result of the ABC show: I didn’t see anything in the video that made me believe the two were inter-related bar the Manitoba incident.  So let’s look at that…..

In the last few years I have become very interested in the scientific debates of “where we came from” – and learning what current day science believes in these respects. Astro-physics is a particular interest. I can’t say for certain, as I have watched so many such documentaries, but I think it was in a documentary in the BBC Horizon series called “Can we build a sun on Earth” which was about the difficulties of using nuclear fusion to provide a steady stream of electricity for use in civil power stations, that I saw something that I think is interesting to this debate. The show was introduced by the current UK astro-physics pin-up boy – a guy by the name Brian Cox – whose videos abound on You Tube. This guy speaks on science subjects in a non-jargon manner I understand (perhaps helped by the fact he is from my home town and I “get” his accent!) so I try to watch anything he is involved in. But there are a couple of other similar TV personality science guys in the UK right now, and Cox has made quite a few of these type of shows: but in my mind it was the in the nuclear fusion show that I saw something I thought was very relevant to this discussion and particularly to Hellyer’s comments that “policemen, pilots and military pilots” had witnessed UFOs: the inference being that these guys were stable men who were not likely to make such sightings up.

What was in the show was a picture of a 1950’s prototype aircraft – that exactly replicated the description of a “flying saucer” that any child of my era (late 60s child) would have drawn if you had asked them as a kid to draw a spacecraft: that of two teacup saucers rim on rim with a small dome on the top: and it was painted bright silver and all marked up with the US flag etc etc. I can’t now remember the discussion about the craft – why it was in the show – but if, as I remember, it was in the show about nuclear power, it may have been a discussion about how successful attempts have been made to create such nuclear-powered craft that could, as witnesses have described, move at speeds far in excess of that of commercial or even standard military craft of the time.

Did you know the US where building such craft: has that ever been discussed out in the open?  Did you know that the US military had built craft that sounded as if they were flying away from you but where actually coming towards you – as used on the mission that killed Bin Laden? I hadn’t in either case!

So, that policemen, pilots and military pilots have seen craft that they have not been able to identity does not necessarily mean that those ”in the know” in their own government would not easily be able to identify as prototype or even in-commission craft, does not mean that such craft are ET craft, nor that such craft are actually unidentified. Thus that local officials in Manitoba were reluctant to allow the US to enter Canadian territory to collect something “unidentified” that fell to earth there, and that Hellyer, as a defence minister in Canada, was unaware of what that something might have been, or even that his peer in the US was unaware of it, does not surprise me: but that does not, to me, imply ET activity given the prototype I saw on the documentary, nor does it not imply that the US president or some high-up military guy did not know – though I am purely guessing that the president would know – as it appears to me that some of what has gone on in the US military may even have been kept from the various presisdents at times.

So, unless Hellyer has other information that he is not divulging in the video, my guess is that what this video is really about, and indeed as Hellyer admits at the start of the video, is his opposition to the banking sector, institutions like the UN, IMF etc that support them and the means, ie arms and defence, that are used to institute their aims and the effects of those aims on mankind in general: on which I am in agreement with him!

 

Hey Cinn/Earthwalker

I started my post yesterday afternoon and then left the window not returning to it till late last night - in the meantime you both posted...

Earthwalker, I had a look at Ed Mitchell's website and really liked what I saw - unlike a lot of people who claim ET contact I have come across he seems grounded, without an external agenda, intelligent and generally someone whose words chime with me: so I am interested to hear, from the event you attended where he spoke of ET contacts, what he said in that respect: ie whether that contact was physical or through some form of ESP or something akin to, as we might say at SL, Entering the Silence. Like you, I find it difficult to dicipher fact, theory and conspiracies from one another and would add agendas, propoganda and those projecting their own fears/unresolved issues/need for a saviour into the matters that affect what is said with regard to ETs.  That Ed Mitchell seems, from what I have read on his website, free of those contaminents, and someone who is able to speak very eruditely on the subject and whose words appear to match my own thoughts: he isn't putting two and two together and making five as so many in this field seem to do: that makes me naturally suspicious.

I dont doubt we are alone in the Universe - we know of too many planets in what has be called the Goldilocks Belt of too many stars for that to be the case. I dont doubt that we would be able to make contact with lifeforms on those planets through means that convential science would snear at: I dont understand fully some of the sciencey jargon on Mitchell's website where he speaks of how contact could be made - though I do understand it at a heartfelt level using different terminology. I have real problems with the concept of a spaceship as, to me, such a vehicle would not be needed: and therefore such a concept is either a terrestial craft (as teh one shown in the nuclear documentary) or the product of man projecting their opinion on such matters.

But at a different level, I think there is more to this than meets the eye: so when you take out all the hype there is "something" deeper there - and from what I have read on his website, Mitchell seems to be talking about that "something" and not the hype: the second poem on his website, particularly. speaks to me 

Earthwalker

Thanks for your reply!  You said with regards to the contact Ed Mitchel had made:

 He implied it was on energy generation but was very vague.

Which I can comprehend. For some reason I am inclined to put more faith in him than most people I have come across. When he speaks on his website of, when on his journey back through space, suddenly feeling that everything was One I sort of understand. I am not sure it compares, given he was free of a lot of the magnetic forces we experience on earth, but I had a very similar feeling out in the desert near Dubai. Perhaps there are degrees of that feeling of mindshift Mitchell is speaking of.

In the quoted words, it sounds to me like he is speaking of some form of what we might describe as a spirit, that was able to manifest itself in the phsysical. That would be in line with my thoughts on the matter and is what I meant when I said I don't believe they would need spacecraft.  I am less inclined to believe any discussion about people being abducted, especially if that involves spacecraft: whilst I dont discount that people actually believe they have been, to me that scenario infers a degree of projection of limited ideas of how ETs might get here (if indeed they have): and if some portion of the scenario is projection, then, to me, the whole thing could be and, to me, the witness is therefore unreliable.

The following is general comment - not particularly related to your post Earthwalker - more a setting out of what has influenced me in this arena...

There is discussion in Laurence Gardner's series of Grail books about the "Manna" of the Hebrews being high-spin/monatomic gold. Gardner maintained that the Ark of the Covenant was a semi-conductor (? :would have to read the relevant sections again) capable of transmuting gold from its everyday state to this monatomic state whereby the atoms of a substance become unbound from each other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sloth_monkey/ORMEs). Some of the effects of this according to Gardner were 1) monatomic gold works on the pineal gland to induce enlightenment effects 2) it negates gravity - explaining how the ancients moved the massive stones with which they built the megalithic monuments (particularly, as he spoke of, the pyramids) and finally (and of interest to us here) 3) it could transport matter from one dimension to another: an offshoot of this was that, in the process of that transportation, a stream of unending energy is created ie as the object was "teleported" a flash of energy is created, similar I suspect to that in nuclear fushion and the gold itself becomes a white powder - ie the Manna that was ingested. Gardner maintained that whatever was so transported could be brought back to this dimension by reversing the process - but I cant remember that section ie how that was achieved. There is discussion on conspiracy theory websites that similar transportation effects were experienced during the Manhatten Project and in the nuclear-fusion bomb tests in the South Pacific of the '50s: so there may be a link between Monatomic elements and nuclear fision/fusion. There is also a stream of more radical conspiracy theorists that say that the US military has conquered time travel and if there is a grain of truth in that, then it could be by some form of monatomic travel as loosely described by Gardner.

Gardner maintained that the pyramids were a chamber for such processes - that the "sarcophagi" found in the pyramids were actually the arks into which the gold was placed. I found a video on You Tube recently that proposed that the pyramids were actually the ancient equivelent of Tesla machines using the underground aquifers in the Nile region to create electricity as described by Tesla: in that video the point was made that no grave-goods have ever been found in any pyramid - and the walls were not adorned with the images etc found in the tombs in the Valley of the Kings: because they were not funery monuments.  I cant find the link to that now, but I dont think it would be difficult to find in a You Tube search: but to me there could well be a link to what Gardner is talking about. The video speaks of how this phenomemon was what brought Egypt its power and that, for some reason, those who knew these secrets were lost to Egypt around the time of Tutenkhamen, which led to Egypt's decline in the second millenium BC. Gardner theorises that Tutenkhamen (sp?) and Moses were one and the same: a timeframe which concurs with that in the video for Egypts loss of power.

Now, how much (if any) of this is truth is hard to say: but I cant help feel that there is more likelyhood of at least some of this stuff being truth than there is of spaceships, little green men and ancient astronauts. It could all be conspiracy theory and supposition based on a knowledge that something was going on in the early 1950s that governments wished to conceal from the masses - theories that persisted despite secrets being laid bare after the Castle Bravo affair of 1954 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo).

I find Gardner interesting reading but I am not totally swayed by his arguments. If I look in Kabbalah/Chassidus I find arguments that deny those made by Gardner at face level - but at the same time I also find arguments that tell me that the bible is not just a pretty story of faith - but that, if one drilled down deeper, the ancient Hebrews did not record all the information hidden in the bible simply as ritual - there was "use" for it out in the world: and the Freemasons/Catholic Church and other inheritors/stealers of the secrets would not have risen to the power they have without that information.

So, I can conceive of what Mitchell is speaking in terms of an "energy generation" though I am not sure whether I would perceive that to mean something akin to a spiritual guide - which to me is the inference from his website - or a more physical manifestion along the lines Gardner describes: but if I were to subscribe to Gardner's theories, what today are described as ETs would more likely be inter-dimensional travellers and most probably originally from Earth rather than "ancient astronauts" travelling from different planets/galaxies: in which case Barak Obama could quite easily be Tutenkhamen brought back to Earth - at least that might explain the controversy over his birth certificate!!

My skepticism on the subject generally comes from my learning in history: there have been so many times in history when those who ruled have fed the masses with tosh or allowed the masses to believe tosh to cover up their true intent, to divide the masses, or to just generally keep them in the dark to maintain power, that I find discussions of ETs that may come from the mouths of governments or other such or related institutions particularly worthy of distrust: that notions of ETs came forward in the period of secret nuclear testing I find particularly pertinent and to anyone with a reasonable mind, an explanation of how ET theory developed from the 50s. I think as well that, its the fact that as soon as one theory is debunked, the theory changes: as if the people who believe in the theories are so hooked into them that they can't let go - that concerns me and to me brings into question the reasoning ability of the theorists in teh first place.

Despite my skepticism however, I am not totally closed to the idea of ETs - and think its a shame Mitchell did not elaborate.

Looking at this from a different direction completely, at what guidance has told me on this subject, I get a story of two seemingly opposing forces which you could describe as Angelic or at least I would describe the two forces as Angelic as in my perception that is how they appeared to me. It is hard to find the right words to explain this: as terms were not given to me, but I will use the terms Force and Perception. On one side you have Force which is kind of incontrovertible neverending but unknowable Truth and on the other side you have Perception - our interpretation of Force - what we believe to be Truth. From our human perspective, the former is Uncertainty and the latter is Certainty. We are guided by Force, but we receive that guidance as Perception and for the most part we act on that Perception. When we have strayed too far from Force and follow Perception too greatly we get a wake-up call from Force that makes us question Perception.

Perception is like a Kings New Clothes of Truth - it (and its avatars) appear real and it can assist us in our endeavours as there is always a hint of Force within it: but it is not Force, but if we follow it too closely it leads us away from Truth. Occasionally the two forces meld and we get Truth - and to me that is what Mitchell is talking about - the feeling he felt on that Journey back to Earth. It changes us forever - it takes time even to begin to comphrehend the change: although the emotion is instant, the understanding of what happened can take many years of assimilation as it starts to completely strip us of anything we previoulsy believed about ourselves and the world we inhabit and any certainty we previously felt leaves us and everything becomes potentially possible and pottentially impossible at the same time.

Therefore the certainty which most people who follow ET theory seem to exude makes me extremely skeptical and makes me believe they are following Perception: the more certain they are the less I am likely to belive their story - but the very nature of my own uncertainty means I cannot totally rule out that Force may be at work. So you could say I am sat on the fence on this, erring on the side of skepticism, but not so much so that if Beings from another planet were to land on the Whitehouse lawn I would not be surprised, as with the Gardner/Pyramids stuff I can perceive how that might happen - but there's that word perception again.....

Cinn

Take a look at teh following pictures: http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/09sep/starchildskull.jpg

The top left picture looks pretty convincing evidence of aliens yeh?  In fact it is simply a facial reconstruction drawing of a child suffering from Hydrocephalus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull

for more information on Hydrocephalus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephalus

In addition to disease as a cause of mis-shaped skulls there is also the wide-spread practice of artificial cranial deformation, which, although eradicated in the developed world now was widely practiced in Europe (till about 600 AD) and the Americas and is still practised in some parts of Africa today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

If you look at the image of the warrior in the following deformation page link the shape of the eye is mis-shaped along the lines of the video you posted - not to the same extent as teh video - but then isn't all art exagerated? It certainly was in ancient times as we see women with vastly exagerated breasts in ancient Greek/Roman and other Europpean/Middle-Eastern art.

http://www.grifterrec.com/coins/kushan/heraios.html

I remember reading, I think it was in one of the Gardner books, of a tribe in south America who worshiped terrifying beings with strange features who built strange monuments in stone:  but these strange beings did not come from the skies in a spaceship – they came from the sea.

Imagine if, ten to twenty thousand years ago, you were of caucasion origins and strange people with slitty eyes and cranially deformed skulls came from the sea with implements of war and magick you had never seen and built strange structures you did not understand?

Imagine in that same era, an era were the skull was revered, your child was born with  Hydrocephalus and the local shaman took the child aside to be trained in teh Shamanic arts believing his large skull was a symbol of spiritual adeptness or a sign from the gods, and how, along with other conditions/diseases such as elephantism and yet others perhaps now long lost to history might have given rise to the custom of artificial cranial deformation.

We know the former happened at various times – most recently when the Asiatic Indo-Europeans  first entered the Americas and when the first European tribes such as the Allans first entered the Americas long before the age of discovery of the Conquistadors and other medieval explorers.

We know from the inscriptions and from pyramids and other sacred mound structures all over the world that some o the imagery in the video depicts ancients mounds not flying saucers – Silbury Hill in Wiltshire England being the most obvious example of a sacred mound that has, at one time or another, been interpreted to be a depiction of an alien craft when in fact it is simply a sacred mound. We also now know that crop circles are man-made.

Apparently , according to the writings below the video the Mexican government dissociated itself from claims made by their tourism minister of alien interaction with the Maya and made him retract the statement and claims that a book is being written based on secret information from the Mexican government have been described as "Harry Potter"-style piece of fiction”

Another point of interest is that Nassim Haramein has not allowed independent review of these purported antiquities and one poster on the video claims he is widely known to be a charlatan. He can be seen, if you put his name in a Google search, to be a shameless self-publicist and someone who claims credentials that, whilst appealing to his followers, do not stand up to critique. One poster said on the Disinformation website: 

Unfortunately there are many people that do not have the self awareness to realize they behave religiously (like a parishioner in a church) about science, and so are unable to appropriately question and test their faith.

http://www.disinfo.com/2012/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage/

I think this poster is actually a follower condemning mainstream science for not listening to Haramein – but there is an irony in the statement that, to me, very much sums up those who religiously follow UFO theory regardless of how each time a new theory is debunked, and their views are shown to easily explaionable in rational human terms, they still continue to follow. But I guess that is the nature of religion.

Apparently , according to the writings below the video the Mexican government dissociated itself from claims made by their tourism minister of alien interaction with the Maya and made him retract the statement and claims that a book being written with the aid of secret information held by the Mexican government have been described as "Harry Potter"-style piece of fiction”.

In some respects, it is precisely this kind of propoganda from those in the UFO community that makes me dismiss the concept – but I do thank you for posting this Cinn – because I now know what was meant in the Wellyer interview regarding the Mexican government and can dismiss that as more hype based on emotion rather than reason.

Edited to correct an incorrect link