3 Very Large Objects In Space Flying To Earth (and 'the truth')

[zenmaster]

The lesson I have learnt, thanks to unity and zenmaster, is that there is a fundemental difference between 'thinking' and awareness.

Acquiring knowledge requires thinking or feeling faculties (a personal commitment to evaluate what is offered to awareness). The archetypal principle at work is exemplified by the emperor tarot card. Obviously, to explain something known, in a causal manner, requires thinking.

Many intuitives will unconsciously keep the object of their apprehensions (vague notions) out of reach, often on a pedestal if it's related to spiritual matters, to prevent its bright light from becoming integrated. Yet the energy is still there, as a beacon of transcendence, waiting to be known.

I can imagine that keeping something undigested, at the level of apprehension rather than having it reach comprehension, serves an important purpose. One purpose could be for protection, because they have not yet provided an environment for its safe integration.

[Monica]

So I stand corrected and give thanks for the help.

Of course I would be delighted to explain what I think may happen during Harvest but this would be just an opinion from a fellow forum member. This I think is the way things should be.
Ali, there shall be no thunder just peace and love.

Thanks for the explanation, Ashim! Looks like everyone got excited over a casual comment.

So, now that we know you don't have conclusive, tangible 'facts' about the 3 objects in space, we are interested in your opinion about what they might be, if you care to share! Knowing, of course, that this is your own understanding of what the 'truth' might be regarding them.

By your statement, They come in Peace, I'm assuming you think they might be ships.

Let's get this discussion back to the original topic. Ashim is free to tell us his opinion, or not, as he wishes.

They are obviously quite large. This isn't the first time we've been visited by such large objects:

'Comet' Twice the Size of Jupiter Pushed Away from Earth - NASA Video Proof

Moderator Note: I'm going to merge this thread back with the original thread about the 3 objects, since the conversation is now veering back to the original topic, and away from any one person's personal opinion about it.

[Ashim]

Law of One 3:65.
Monica you have stated it time and time again.

What does it require?

Love & light

[zenmaster]

Forgive this comment if this comes off as being arrogant or dismissive, but honestly what is the point here? Why don't we just have a daydreaming thread where we can discuss what our imagination suggests to us when we look up at cloud shapes? What is the difference between that and what we want to know here? Is this a "stream of unconsciousness" thread?

I mean, if a camera artifact "means" to someone that UFOs, if/when they come, are peaceful, for example.. then as important as that may be, what information is actually being conveyed? Am I really exaggerating the situation?

[Monica]

Law of One 3:65.
Monica you have stated it time and time again.

What does it require?

Ashim, I don't understand your question. Can you please clarify? What have I stated and what does what require?

Also, in the Law of One database I don't see that session. Can you link to it?

[unity100]

Law of One 3:65.
Monica you have stated it time and time again.

What does it require?

Ashim, I don't understand your question. Can you please clarify? What have I stated and what does what require?

Also, in the Law of One database I don't see that session. Can you link to it?

its your signature.

[Monica]

its your signature.

Oh! {feeling sheepish}

[Ali Quadir]

Forgive this comment if this comes off as being arrogant or dismissive, but honestly what is the point here? Why don't we just have a daydreaming thread where we can discuss what our imagination suggests to us when we look up at cloud shapes? What is the difference between that and what we want to know here? Is this a "stream of unconsciousness" thread?

Clearly there is a different set of expectations going on here about what is required for good communication. And that's all that is... Not everyone has the same expectations.

My reason for being involved in the spiritual, is highly subjective aswell. It would be a similar "stream of unconsciousness" thread. So for me personally. While I admit at first sight Ashim's initial comment that caused the commotion also caused commotion for me until I figured out he was speaking from that same "truth" that is reason for me to be here. So I am also interested in hearing other peoples subjective truths. Even if they are merely feelings and associations. You know, if people have a certain feeling this has meaning to me. Meaning that guides me to my version of "truth"... It does not even have to be the same "truth", but it's valuable since it helps me see different perspectives.

Maybe it's better to mark this as opinions rather than truths since truth implies objectivity to so many. I tripped in the same way. But us listeners also have a responsibility in the communication process.

[zenmaster]

Forgive this comment if this comes off as being arrogant or dismissive, but honestly what is the point here? Why don't we just have a daydreaming thread where we can discuss what our imagination suggests to us when we look up at cloud shapes? What is the difference between that and what we want to know here? Is this a "stream of unconsciousness" thread?

Clearly there is a different set of expectations going on here about what is required for good communication. And that's all that is... Not everyone has the same expectations.

My reason for being involved in the spiritual, is highly subjective as well. It would be a similar "stream of unconsciousness" thread. So for me personally. While I admit at first sight Ashim's initial comment that caused the commotion also caused commotion for me until I figured out he was speaking from that same "truth" that is reason for me to be here. So I am also interested in hearing other peoples subjective truths. Even if they are merely feelings and associations. You know, if people have a certain feeling this has meaning to me. Meaning that guides me to my version of "truth"... It does not even have to be the same "truth", but it's valuable since it helps me see different perspectives.

Maybe it's better to mark this as opinions rather than truths since truth implies objectivity to so many. I tripped in the same way. But us listeners also have a responsibility in the communication process.

This is approaching absurdity. It's easy to mark something as opinion - you say (in a variety of ways) "this is my opinion". I don't think there necessarily must be problem discerning what would be opinion from what would be (submitted as) fact. Why does something submitted as fact, have to be re-interpreted as opinion? Is there some shortcoming of language that prohibits a qualification of this type? Of course not.

I've also "resonated" with what others have held "true" without any supporting knowledge. But then, if I subsequently wanted to learn something and asked why it was considered "true", I would not condemn their point of view as "wrong"!

I might, however, ask why? (OMG, questioning is happening. That is a human rights violation! That means you think they are wrong...)

And If I ask "why is this so", is that also wrong to ask? Is such a request actually so intrusive and rude?

Heaven forbid, there might actually be some form of rationality withheld, behind their opinion, that they might be able to also share?

[Ali Quadir]

This is approaching absurdity. It's easy to mark something as opinion - you say (in a variety of ways) "this is my opinion". I don't think there necessarily must be problem discerning what would be opinion from what would be (submitted as) fact. Why does something submitted as fact, have to be re-interpreted as opinion? Is there some shortcoming of language that prohibits a qualification of this type? Of course not.

The other day. A friend told me she was upset because some guy she knows said something. I tried to explain how what he meant wasn't intended to hurt her feelings. She told me (And I quote loosely) "Shut up you typical man... unit. Female shows problem, female is asking for emotional support. Male tries to explain things and solve problems... Female bored...." So I retried with "Those situations suck don't they?" And she responded "Getting there.. Better but needs work..."

This isn't much different. That you and Ashim are both males does not mean you both speak the same language. You heard "There is a truth that I know that indicates a lot more than 3 objects are approaching" while Ashim said something much more along the lines of "I think that's a gross understatement" while failing to note from which perspective he was speaking.

But then again this happens all the time, our own expectations of what the other is saying fill out the details to the point where we call their positions absurd rather than concluding we must have misunderstood.

[zenmaster]

My guess is that the example incident with the female probably involved personal elements (and thus representing a different situation entirely) which were conveniently left out for the sole purpose of making a stronger point.

This isn't much different. That you and Ashim are both males does not mean you both speak the same language. You heard "There is a truth that I know that indicates a lot more than 3 objects are approaching" while Ashim said something much more along the lines of "I think that's a gross understatement" while failing to note from which perspective he was speaking.

But do you not see how the particular paraphrasing, as harmless as it seems, actually rejects or covers up what may or may not be the actual case? That's not what I heard.

But then again this happens all the time, our own expectations of what the other is saying fill out the details to the point where we call their positions absurd rather than concluding we must have misunderstood.

Yes, it actually happened in the sentence to which I'm replying. What was being called absurd was certainly not in reference to a particular opinion, position, belief or understanding. It was rather with regards to the legitimacy of defending the general tendency to state something, as if it were true, without qualification or means of support.

[Aaron]

It was rather with regards to the legitimacy of defending the general tendency to state something, as if it were true, without qualification or means of support.

I've never read anything else here that implies that forum goers on Bring4th must be absolutely concise in their communications, never confusing fact for opinion. We're imperfect human beings, not computers. No-one should be held to a standard of infallible communication, cuz no-one can uphold it.

Ali's made a lot of good points here, especially those that state that this forum is different things for different people. What do you expect from the forum members? Is it realistic?

[zenmaster]

I've never read anything else here that implies that forum goers on Bring4th must be absolutely concise in their communications, never confusing fact for opinion. We're imperfect human beings, not computers. No-one should be held to a standard of infallible communication, cuz no-one can uphold it.

Has nothing to do at all with confusing fact for opinion. Also has nothing to do with being concise or with being either right or wrong.

[Aaron]

Has nothing to do at all with confusing fact for opinion. Also has nothing to do with being concise or with being either right or wrong.

Didn't this whole thing come about with Ashim's post expressing an opinion, which was not denoted as an opinion?

In the other thread where you and Ali are talking about the same subject, you said "But there can be an intention behind the communication, irrespective of gender bias. If a reader misinterprets or does not sufficiently understand some text, it is certainly appropriate to ask for clarification. We all understand that language is imperfect and information can always be related again in a different way. Such requests may have nothing to do with tunnel vision.


If we do not allow for clarification, then we presume that everyone knows the perspective of the writer or that the opinion of the writer does not matter or that the understanding of the reader does not matter."

I completely agree with that. And I believe your original intention with this thread was to ask for clarification on Ashim's vague communication. So the question is, how did that turn into what we see here, which is more mountainous than molehillish?

[zenmaster]

Has nothing to do at all with confusing fact for opinion. Also has nothing to do with being concise or with being either right or wrong.

Didn't this whole thing come about with Ashim's post expressing an opinion, which was not denoted as an opinion?

No. Although it can be helpful to do so.

In the other thread where you and Ali are talking about the same subject, you said "But there can be an intention behind the communication, irrespective of gender bias. If a reader misinterprets or does not sufficiently understand some text, it is certainly appropriate to ask for clarification. We all understand that language is imperfect and information can always be related again in a different way. Such requests may have nothing to do with tunnel vision.


If we do not allow for clarification, then we presume that everyone knows the perspective of the writer or that the opinion of the writer does not matter or that the understanding of the reader does not matter."

[quote='Aaron' pid='24501' dateline='1292172637']I completely agree with that. And I believe your original intention with this thread was to ask for clarification on Ashim's vague communication. So the question is, how did that turn into what we see here, which is more mountainous than molehillish?

It appears there was a misunderstanding regarding what can be reasonably expected to be shared when asked vs honesty in claims. I was a bit incredulous about the latter and that somehow got misinterpreted as the former.

[Ali Quadir]

My guess is that the example incident with the female probably involved personal elements (and thus representing a different situation entirely) which were conveniently left out for the sole purpose of making a stronger point.

No, it's an analogy of a similar situation I supplied with the hope that you might have experienced it too.

Here you're making assumptions based on your own frame of reality and projecting them towards me as if *I* was doing something. In this case embellishing the truth. You are projecting this interpretation towards me. It is not me that is doing something. you are doing this. If you have an issue with your projections you should take it up with your ego. Instead you ascribe to me what is essentially your own contribution to the conversation.

This is the exact behavior I'm trying to draw your attention towards..

This isn't much different. That you and Ashim are both males does not mean you both speak the same language. You heard "There is a truth that I know that indicates a lot more than 3 objects are approaching" while Ashim said something much more along the lines of "I think that's a gross understatement" while failing to note from which perspective he was speaking.

But do you not see how the particular paraphrasing, as harmless as it seems, actually rejects or covers up what may or may not be the actual case? That's not what I heard.

Just because you didn't hear it, doesn't mean what you did hear was truth. Neither is what I heard truth. We both heard something that wasn't there.

But then again this happens all the time, our own expectations of what the other is saying fills out the details to the point where we call their positions absurd rather than concluding we must have misunderstood.

Yes, it actually happened in the sentence to which I'm replying. What was being called absurd was certainly not in reference to a particular opinion, position, belief or understanding. It was rather with regards to the legitimacy of defending the general tendency to state something, as if it were true, without qualification or means of support.

Yet "defending the general tendency to state something, as if it were true, without qualification or means of support" is to a point what I am doing. So you are indeed calling my position absurd.

To explain: Remember I did say it would be better to qualify the information. But I also said it was the readers responsibility to think about what the other person has said. When we encounter an apparent absurdity it may be more appropriate to conclude we're not looking from the right context. Instead of assuming the speaker to be wrong, we should question the context we ourselves supplied subconsciously.

I have explained this context thing before when I said that the Law of One on this forum is something I accept as a given. While on an atheist forum doing so would result in me getting my bum handed to me.

I've never read anything else here that implies that forum goers on Bring4th must be absolutely concise in their communications, never confusing fact for opinion. We're imperfect human beings, not computers. No-one should be held to a standard of infallible communication, cuz no-one can uphold it.

Especially because concise communication requires all the contextual information, that we normally assume, to be repeated over and over again. Without context, communication is impossible... Even the meaning of words is context.

If I speak to you about dogs or cats but in my context I call a cat a dog and a dog a cat things get mighty confusing. Imagine I came from a world where this was the normal communication. I would blame you for not seeing the difference between a cat and dog. While in truth *I* supply that invalid context myself. Yet analogous problems are exactly what happens frequently in natural communication.

[zenmaster]

My guess is that the example incident with the female probably involved personal elements (and thus representing a different situation entirely) which were conveniently left out for the sole purpose of making a stronger point.

No, it's an analogy of a similar situation I supplied with the hope that you might have experienced it too.

You do understand that by "personal elements" I didn't mean you personally. I meant the woman was upset due to the involvement of something she identified with personally. This is why I was saying the analogy didn't hold.

Here you're making assumptions based on your own frame of reality and projecting them towards me as if *I* was doing something. In this case embellishing the truth. You are projecting this interpretation towards me. It is not me that is doing something. you are doing this. If you have an issue with your projections you should take it up with your ego. Instead you ascribe to me what is essentially your own contribution to the conversation.

But it's not projection that is in operation. I can make an assumption or express an opinion without the contention of actually knowing a motive (which would be projection).

Yet "defending the general tendency to state something, as if it were true, without qualification or means of support" is to a point what I am doing. So you are indeed calling my position absurd.

It would be absurd to me if my understanding at this point is correct.

To explain: Remember I did say it would be better to qualify the information. But I also said it was the readers responsibility to think about what the other person has said. When we encounter an apparent absurdity it may be more appropriate to conclude we're not looking from the right context. Instead of assuming the speaker to be wrong, we should question the context we ourselves supplied subconsciously.

Obviously, we can not conclude anything unless we reach a level of satisfaction with our understanding.

[Ali Quadir]

My guess is that the example incident with the female probably involved personal elements (and thus representing a different situation entirely) which were conveniently left out for the sole purpose of making a stronger point.

No, it's an analogy of a similar situation I supplied with the hope that you might have experienced it too.

You do understand that by "personal elements" I didn't mean you personally. I meant the woman was upset due to the involvement of something she identified with personally. This is why I was saying the analogy didn't hold.

Don't you think Ashim has the same type of identifications?

Here you're making assumptions based on your own frame of reality and projecting them towards me as if *I* was doing something. In this case embellishing the truth. You are projecting this interpretation towards me. It is not me that is doing something. you are doing this. If you have an issue with your projections you should take it up with your ego. Instead you ascribe to me what is essentially your own contribution to the conversation.

But it's not projection that is in operation. I can make an assumption or express an opinion without the contention of actually knowing a motive (which would be projection).

I would consider any assumption a projection. Because it is adding your own context to what another person said. We're not even speaking about right or wrong here.

But for example, when I ask you "Do you love to drink wine? Or beer?" I'm apparently not making any assumptions about you. But there is one. That you love to drink one or the other. I may not even be consciously aware of my assumption. In regular communication this isn't relevant.

But in students learning to make polls you often see mistakes like this.

Yet "defending the general tendency to state something, as if it were true, without qualification or means of support" is to a point what I am doing. So you are indeed calling my position absurd.

It would be absurd to me if my understanding at this point is correct.

If your reasoning is sound and your understanding correct your conclusion must be accurate. So I cannot argue with that.

To explain: Remember I did say it would be better to qualify the information. But I also said it was the readers responsibility to think about what the other person has said. When we encounter an apparent absurdity it may be more appropriate to conclude we're not looking from the right context. Instead of assuming the speaker to be wrong, we should question the context we ourselves supplied subconsciously.

Obviously, we can not conclude anything unless we reach a level of satisfaction with our understanding.

And that level of satisfaction depends on the cut off points we pick for our knowledge... Bringing us full circle

But important to note that satisfaction is therefore part of our context... The demands we put on formal scientific communication is much higher than the demands we put on regular person to person discussion. And sometimes we mismatch our levels of satisfaction.

When I say: "They say that firemen are the right sort of people"
Some people accept this no questions asked. Others may have a whole lot of arguments about the sentence.. Who is they, what is right? And what exactly is a fireman?

[Monica]

Clearly there is a different set of expectations going on here about what is required for good communication. And that's all that is... Not everyone has the same expectations.

That is so true!

But us listeners also have a responsibility in the communication process.

YES!!!

Especially when we all have different styles of expressing ourselves, come from different cultures, etc. And to top that off, we don't have the benefit of facial expressions, tone of voice, etc.

I absolutely agree, that the listeners have responsibility as to how they perceive the words of another, rather than having expectations...best to just utilize that which is useful, and discard that which isn't.

---

This is approaching absurdity.

I agree, though for different reasons. It's also seriously derailing this thread. Maybe we need a thread dedicated to exploring communication skills and techniques used in internet discussion forums.

It's easy to mark something as opinion - you say (in a variety of ways) "this is my opinion". I don't think there necessarily must be problem discerning what would be opinion from what would be (submitted as) fact. Why does something submitted as fact, have to be re-interpreted as opinion?

Because we are discussing primarily ideas and concepts, not tangibles. Therefore everything any of us says, is automatically opinion. That is the default and what distinguishes us from adherents to a religion.

Is there some shortcoming of language that prohibits a qualification of this type? Of course not.

I disagree. Communication is a 5th ray issue and here in 3D is woefully inadequate. I've seen it time and time again, wherein 2 well-intentioned people have a communication breakdown; each one thinking they are communicating adequately, yet their thoughts cross like ships in the night.

This happens under the best of conditions, when they have the benefit of facial expressions, physical contact, tone of voice, full context, etc. It happens even more when the only means of communication is words conveyed electronically.

Words alone are woefully inadequate. People often try to ascribe tone when all they have is words, and often totally misunderstand the other person, by reading into it that which isn't there. Or, conversely, missing that which is there.

I've also "resonated" with what others have held "true" without any supporting knowledge. But then, if I subsequently wanted to learn something and asked why it was considered "true", I would not condemn their point of view as "wrong"!

Nothing wrong with asking. I'm a little confused, though, why this turned into such a big deal. A casual comment was made, questions were asked, an explanation was offered. Am I missing something?

---

I've never read anything else here that implies that forum goers on Bring4th must be absolutely concise in their communications, never confusing fact for opinion. We're imperfect human beings, not computers. No-one should be held to a standard of infallible communication, cuz no-one can uphold it.

Thank you Aaron!

We do, however, have guidelines regarding respect and harmony.

---

Clearly there is a different set of expectations going on here about what is required for good communication. And that's all that is... Not everyone has the same expectations.

That is so true!

But us listeners also have a responsibility in the communication process.

YES!!!

Especially when we all have different styles of expressing ourselves, come from different cultures, etc. And to top that off, we don't have the benefit of facial expressions, tone of voice, etc.

I absolutely agree, that the listeners have responsibility as to how they perceive the words of another, rather than having expectations...best to just utilize that which is useful, and discard that which isn't.

---

This is approaching absurdity.

I agree, though for different reasons. It's also seriously derailing this thread. Maybe we need a thread dedicated to exploring communication skills and techniques used in internet discussion forums.

It's easy to mark something as opinion - you say (in a variety of ways) "this is my opinion". I don't think there necessarily must be problem discerning what would be opinion from what would be (submitted as) fact. Why does something submitted as fact, have to be re-interpreted as opinion?

Because we are discussing primarily ideas and concepts, not tangibles. Therefore everything any of us says, is automatically opinion. That is the default and what distinguishes us from adherents to a religion.

Is there some shortcoming of language that prohibits a qualification of this type? Of course not.

I disagree. Communication is a 5th ray issue and here in 3D is woefully inadequate. I've seen it time and time again, wherein 2 well-intentioned people have a communication breakdown; each one thinking they are communicating adequately, yet their thoughts cross like ships in the night.

This happens under the best of conditions, when they have the benefit of facial expressions, physical contact, tone of voice, full context, etc. It happens even more when the only means of communication is words conveyed electronically.

Words alone are woefully inadequate. People often try to ascribe tone when all they have is words, and often totally misunderstand the other person, by reading into it that which isn't there. Or, conversely, missing that which is there.

I've also "resonated" with what others have held "true" without any supporting knowledge. But then, if I subsequently wanted to learn something and asked why it was considered "true", I would not condemn their point of view as "wrong"!

Nothing wrong with asking. I'm a little confused, though, why this turned into such a big deal. A casual comment was made, questions were asked, an explanation was offered. Am I missing something?

---

I've never read anything else here that implies that forum goers on Bring4th must be absolutely concise in their communications, never confusing fact for opinion. We're imperfect human beings, not computers. No-one should be held to a standard of infallible communication, cuz no-one can uphold it.

Thank you Aaron!

We do, however, have guidelines regarding respect and harmony.

A moderator pm was sent to the participants of this thread.

[unity100]

Forums are a place for sharing. when one shares, s/he should be open to questions and ready to give responses. its a form of helping each other with stuff you can provide.

[fairyfarmgirl]

So, the objects hurdling toward us from the Heavens above. Anyone know what Planet they hail from? Level of Technocracy? Level of Consciousness? Why is it they are in ships? What about simply traveling through the Central Sun... So many questions.

Humanity has a self-esteem delusion. We ditch our power so others can "empower" us through acting out the obedience to the master program. This is hierachical thinking. We are equal to All. A different Dimension is simply different... it is not less than to be here on Earth or more than to be on Sirius or Pleaides or Andrommedea.... or the countless infinite other star systems... We are just as valid and sacred as those beings in those ships in the Heavens.

The story of Abraham and his son comes to mind. Remember how the so called Angel told him to sacrfice his only son to show his obedience to God? Do you remember in the story the other Angel that comes in and convinces Abraham that this is a very bad idea.... The first Angel played on the Mass delusion that we humans are just simply not good enough. We are faulty goods and only through throughing virgins in the pits of volcanoes, sacrificing our sons and flaggelating ourselves shall we be redeemed.

We are the redeemed and the redeemers. This is our game and we choose to shift. It is a process that consciously here on Earth we are only privy to a fraction of that process... it is a process not a grade. A journey not a destination. And when we get there we will know.

What I express here is my opinion based upon my perception of the greater reality in which we live in. Its my salt for what its worth.

We are Earth Humans. Many have extolled us on our Merit of being at the forefront of evolution. How is it that we need asssistance when we are capable of shifting our consciousness ourselves. Many of us are doing this process quite well. And as more of us shift so we infect others with the new consciousness. Consciousness is contagious. Any mystic will attest to that as well as Charismatic Leaders and/or social engineers. Mass Love is just as possible as Mass Fear. Mass Fear shuts the whole system down making shifting into a Lighter Reality extremely challenging... but not impossible for all is probable in the universe of choice.

I am a sovereign being. I claim my sovereigntry.

fairyfarmgirl

[Lavazza]

This conversation reminds me of some thought experiments that I've always found highly interesting.

Number 1: Would someone please tell me what color this flower is? I'm just dying to know..


Number 2: What direction is this thing facing?


Number 3: What is the airspeed velocity of an Unladen Swallow?


Ok, so the last one is a joke. But my point here is that although we're all one, we are in our conscious waking state separate in our illusory reality. We're going to see the same thing differently. I'm not saying we can't objectively determine an objective, agreed upon truth of what's going on (consensus reality) but simply that we really need to remember to keep our multifaceted (different) perspectives in mind when interacting with each other. Ali's example with the argument involving his lady friend is a perfect example! (I know that one well by the way).

Furthermore, Aaron makes a great point, we're not computers and we are error prone. Instead of passing criticism lets share the love and laugh at our differences. I know I'm making further assumptions that your responses were criticizing, Zenmaster, but that's just how it came across to me. Of course, whose to say? I still can tell what color the rose is.

Much love,
Eric

[Ali Quadir]

Number 3: What is the airspeed velocity of an Unladen Swallow?

I can unfortunately only assist in this one...
http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/

[Eddie]

I can help with the other two.

1. Carmine Red

2. Forward.

[Eddie]

A number of people have looked into this story, and it appears now to be a hoax. No one can find an astronomer by the name of Craig Kasnov at SETI, and a thread I saw over at Godlike Productions claims that the "objects" are artifacts of defects on the film of photos taken of that sector of space 20 years ago.

Furthermore, a fellow claiming the name of Craig Kasnoff (not Kasnov) has chimed in, saying that he:
1) is associated with the Seti@home site;
2) is not an astronomer or astrophysicist;
3) did not make any claim concerning approaching objects.

I'm beginning to think that the "Examiner" site may be a disinformation project. This isn't the first dodgy thing they've printed.

Sorry for getting everybody all worked up.

Thread at Godlike Productions is here:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1...283626/pg1

[Infinite Unity]

Truth is only relevant when you have a system of interpretting and conveying ideas, be it through logic or emotion, verbally or physically - and these are all imperfect, distorted means of communication. With that being said: I think truth is hierarchical, you have a core absolute truth that is true no matter who, what, why, where, when, how you are in existence such as "all is one". Then you have truths that only hold relevance to a certain portion of existence, and in a more distorted way, such as "democracy is a good thing".

Truth is a central concept (like space, time, consciousness, etc.) which can't really be defined, only described. If I was holding and apple and someone said "you're holding an apple" then their statement is true, if someone said that I'm not holding an apple when I was then that statement is less true than the first statement but still has some kind of relative truth for that person in that situation (maybe they have bad vision, maybe they're angry at me and that changed their visual perception of me). The truth that is more true to more beings is usually the one that is best to use.

Its possible that's not what they call Apple. "Hey your holding a hispoolch" to him that's truth, your holding a goddamn hispoolch. To everyone else that knows it as an apple, it's less true. However there both true. I basically agree with you.