|
|
Post by maat on Nov 29, 2007 23:16:36 GMT
Antonius you are confusing me...
" else if u have 4 uplifting pictures your stuck having to
give 2 of them negative ratings."
Why are we stuck with 'having' to give any of them negative ratings???
If they are all positive for us, they are all positive. Or vice versa.
"i suggest we do these formations from Russel's link next"
Does that mean first? Or after the four I posted. I don't mind which, just confused.
I will do them all over the weekend anyway.
Cheers
Maat
|
|
|
|
Post by maat on Nov 29, 2007 23:31:53 GMT
Tamrin - I liked your photo. Looks like an advert to me, but it looks like is executed very well. So if it is a fake, there must be technology out there that can execute these images in what seems sharp image. The photo is a bit grainy so it is impossible to detect whether there are manmade access points to the design, if they were carried out at ground level.
Crop circles were first recorded in 1678 and have been recorded all over the world.
Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 30, 2007 7:27:04 GMT
Bro. MaatI suggest you check the Wikipedia link I provided earlier. The instances which have not yet been shown to be human artefacts are very much in the minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Nov 30, 2007 20:40:47 GMT
lol yeah just forget i said that. as for the ones i posted, i ment to do those after your 4. Tamrin since your such a fun of wikipedia, check this out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiality#Wikiality personaly, i think a little leap of faith in this matter can make the topic discussion alot more enjoyable. would be interesting though to check this out when were ready and see how our results line up with the manmade/unexplained comparison. |
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 30, 2007 20:50:15 GMT
Despite the popular saying, the medium is not the message in this case. Is your thread about enjoyment or Truth? BTW, "unexplained" and "manmade" are not mutually exclusive terms |
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Nov 30, 2007 21:33:07 GMT
well the truth part comes at the end of the experiment.
in the meantime i dont see why i need to form an oppinion in order
for the experiment to work. might aswell have some fun.
(and btw how could it possibly be enlightenment, if it doesnt make u smile?)
thats just dismissive.
there are plenty of reasons why this is worth looking at regardless of wether or not
it has been made by aliens.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 1, 2007 4:10:46 GMT
thats just dismissive. there are plenty of reasons why this is worth looking at regardless of wether or not it has been made by aliens. I meant your dismissive response to the information on the Wikipedia entry. (and btw how could it possibly be enlightenment, if it doesnt make u smile?) Truth enlightens: It may not make you smile (well maybe a wry smile). |
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Dec 1, 2007 11:07:07 GMT
oh that lol, i wuz just teasing u a little i do that with every1 who quotes wiki alot, cuz there is some truth in it. this is an open source resource, so what u get from it is not truth, but rather consensus. sometimes the truth is held by a minority, sometimes by a minority of 1. wich is sort of relevant to the ufo issue, as there are alot of strong emotions attached to the concept. to tell u the truth im not quite sure what to think of the wiki entry for cropcircles. theres so meny opposing views on this, and no a single cropcircle within reach for me to go check out. not for me man. sometimes its like that, but then sometimes, the times i value most invoke the most undiscribable feelings that have me weak at the knees and not knowing wether to laugh or cry, and doing both at the same time. u never felt like that? |
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 1, 2007 11:34:31 GMT
this is an open source resource, so what u get from it is not truth, but rather consensus. While "consensus" does not guarantee "Truth", neither are they mutually exclusive terms. This wiki-info appears to have relevance (seemingly more so than any information conveyed by the crop circles). Well, man, Sometimes Truth is ecstatic, sometime it is sobering. Always it is whatever it is. Consider the Matrix's red pill / blue pill analogy (without taking it literally please). |
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Dec 1, 2007 19:45:24 GMT
one of my favorite movies of all time  i know what u mean, but i guess i kinda catagorise that aspect a little differently. i kinda look at that as a thing that happens just before. after u have delt with the emotions u can start applying the lesson to life and thats when the smiling eventualy starts. anyways like i said a comparison between 'real' and 'non real' formations could be an interesting follow up on this experiment. thing is it has to be in this order, or else our knowledge of the facts could possibly skew the result, and even the fact that that cannot be ruled out would deminish the validity of the results. so for now we might aswell enjoy the bliss of our ignorance wilst stocking up on the chocolate icecream were gonna need when the veil eventualy lifts. |
|
|
|
Post by maat on Dec 3, 2007 22:48:04 GMT
Look Away Now.... if you don't want to know how I rated my reaction to the first four.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
No 1 .... 0 Totally neutral. Mechanical?
No 2 .... + Beautiful, but no emotion attached. Instructions?
No 3 .... ++ Polarity - poles - gravity - movement by attract/repulse.
No 4 .... ++ Circular Movement - 4th Dimensional - - heart of atom?
Note... the last one also put me in mind of fractal geometry, where Mandelbrot demonstrated by mathematical means how everything can be different but the same and eternal. No 4 in my mind would be the units that are, before the poles in No 3 come into play.
Maat
|
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Dec 5, 2007 0:57:06 GMT
heres my impression:
1: - (masculine, agressive, powerfull)
2: + (masculine, passive)
3: - (masculine, cold)
2: ++ (feminine, powerfull)
|
|
|
|
Post by maat on Dec 10, 2007 22:45:25 GMT
Russell - where are you?
|
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 13, 2007 11:55:59 GMT
No 1 is interesting - it looks like a 3 fold spiral on top of some other object. I agree with Maat it does feel mechanical and therefore somewhat cold and powerful
No 2 looks like some Mayan calendar or calculating system and feels quite neutral
No 3 has some warmth to it and seems like a vortex or portal inviting passage through
No4 I don't actually like. It feels soul-less and mechanical - like an exercise carried out to demonstrate competence.
I am inclined to consider all genuine (made with an energy device) but the last one may be made with a consciousness that is not helpful to humans
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
|
Post by maat on Dec 13, 2007 22:12:40 GMT
Interesting exercise... some consensus in some areas.
I have looked again at no 4, keeping Russell's comments in mind, and still don't feel anything untoward.
Shall we move onto the next lot of images posted by Russell?
Maat
|
|
|
|
Post by maat on Dec 13, 2007 22:18:14 GMT
No 3 has some warmth to it and seems like a vortex or portal inviting passage through Russell, what do you make of these photos? www.fssuniverse.org/0820_Unusual_Photos_Gallery_02.htmGiven computers these days we can't believe everything we see. Just thought you might like to make comment on some of these photos. Have not had time to look at them all myself, but will do so when I have a minute. Just thought of you with the door thingy. Cheers Maat |
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 14, 2007 0:14:05 GMT
>what do you make of these photos?
In the first photo the direction of flow seems downwards and in the second it flows upwards. The light structure looks like a tube. I would suggest that the photographer happened to be sensitive to an exchange between etheric beings - one group inside the Earth and the other in the atmosphere
In the aura photo, the large blue field in the top right seems to be a helpful entity pressing into the person's aura
The device on the mound seems to be an etheric instruments rather like a rod or wand. I dare say some etheric beings still operate the mound system for their own purposes.
For those brethren who use swords in rituals, it is possible to obtain a suitable etheric device and embed it in the sword to increase its potency
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 14, 2007 9:06:00 GMT
>what do you make of these photos? In the first photo the direction of flow seems downwards and in the second it flows upwards. The light structure looks like a tube. I would suggest that the photographer happened to be sensitive to an exchange between etheric beings - one group inside the Earth and the other in the atmosphere In the aura photo, the large blue field in the top right seems to be a helpful entity pressing into the person's aura The device on the mound seems to be an etheric instruments rather like a rod or wand. I dare say some etheric beings still operate the mound system for their own purposes. For those brethren who use swords in rituals, it is possible to obtain a suitable etheric device and embed it in the sword to increase its potency Cheers Russell Greetings Russel, Regarding your comments above: "For those brethren who use swords in rituals, it is possible to obtain a suitable etheric device and embed it in the sword to increase its potency" Could you give me some advice about suitable etheric devices, and how they are imbeded into the sword? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Dec 14, 2007 9:23:34 GMT
>Could you give me some advice about suitable etheric devices, and how they are imbeded into the sword?
Sid
One source of etheric (and I am using the term a bit loosely) is in your own spine. In your case you may be able to visualise a small sword or large dagger with its hilt at the base of your spine and the blade rising along the spine. It is small because you don't use it much.
For short periods you can use intent and visualisation to place that etheric sword within a physical sword to increase its potency in ritual
But you may need to acquire a gift before you can have a permanent etheric device in a physical sword
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 14, 2007 23:32:13 GMT
>Could you give me some advice about suitable etheric devices, and how they are imbeded into the sword? Sid One source of etheric (and I am using the term a bit loosely) is in your own spine. In your case you may be able to visualise a small sword or large dagger with its hilt at the base of your spine and the blade rising along the spine. It is small because you don't use it much. For short periods you can use intent and visualisation to place that etheric sword within a physical sword to increase its potency in ritual But you may need to acquire a gift before you can have a permanent etheric device in a physical sword Cheers Russell Interesting, thanks Russel. Not sure what I will do with this, but thanks anyway. (It would take to long to explain, but basically I have withdrawn from the work, and most of the people who are involved with it.) Too much intereferance, and too many egregores and people fighting for power etc. |
|
