Man made and alien UFO's

[Nabil Naser]

I found this article interesting. I do not know whether it is reliable information or not, but I think that it is worth sharing.
http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/08/ufo-a...skunk.html

It is from the website "http://www.theobjectreport.com/"

[Brittany]

If anything, it's certainly matches many of the other stories going around. At this point, I think anyone who doesn't realize something bigger than what is visible from the surface is going on, just doesn't want to realize it. It's getting pretty impossible to ignore.

[zenmaster]

If anything, it's certainly matches many of the other stories going around. At this point, I think anyone who doesn't realize something bigger than what is visible from the surface is going on, just doesn't want to realize it. It's getting pretty impossible to ignore.

Perhaps impossible to ignore. But, even if no longer ignored, there will be many possible options on how to frame and to process the 'new' information.

Consider that this type of info is only becoming noticeable due to enough consciousness now able to 'touch' that area, either from the individual or collective mind (much like an amoeba's pseudopod reaching out for a morsel of food). And it's compelling info 'spiritually', because allegorically, the new info possesses a 'transcendent' quality. That is, when people talk about 'UFOs' or 'free energy', for example, they often (unconsciously) use these ideas as vehicles which represent or epitomize internal processes, at a symbolic level, that promise greater consciousness (if 'obtained').

New information, such as this, tends to not yet be comprehended and integrated - one only has an impossibly vague, eyebrow-raising, intuitive notion of its actual place. Ultimately, a 'bridge' from prior understanding to this new info must be created in order to properly acknowledge and to evaluate it. After evaluation, it becomes workable knowledge, then common knowledge (remarkably lacking the initial emotional charge).

However, much of info is still at the apprehension stage - as a vague notion or 'shadow on the wall'. Unfortunately, vague and intuitive notions are ripe for exploitation. The selfish advertising often works as follows: people on 'the fringe', who have worked with the new information, share their personal or subcultural contextualization. Merely because it may be the only interpretive framework available, if the presented ideas address enough curiosity, hungry newcomers will (wholeheartedly) accept the explanation as de-facto reality.

However, if the fringe-pioneers are not balanced themselves, their interpretive frameworks inevitably echo their unconscious 'issues' - often to a large extent. Thus the explanation, while seemingly offering a workable way, becomes an allegorical mire. Look at all of the dead-end, but highly regarded, UFO, NWO, unseen-hand, freedom-suppression, free-energy conspiracy information. Even if the purveyors 'mean well' - perhaps they seem confident, informed, humble or honest - much of the ideas are motivated by some paranoia, escapism, or other pathological condition. And of course, given the 'law of attraction', others resonating with the same neurosis will lap it up.

Consider (as J. Krishnamurti related) that the individual and society are the same thing. Are each of us willing to take a look at what the new subtle layers mean to us holistically, or will we continue seeking spoon-fed, children's-story answers that only serve to further stifle evolution? Will we wake up, see the man behind the curtain, and appreciate the many available interpretive frameworks which promote us-vs-them separation, victimization, disempowerment, spoon-fed religion, surrogate parenting, and other self-protective, consciousness insulating 'support systems'?

[zenmaster]

Here's an example of an interpretive framework: Dr. Greer (a leader and prominent individual behind the "Disclosure" movement) is mentioned in that article. Greer, and other consequentialists, unfortunately can not or will not consider the broader implications of their own subject matter. I have seen how they will promote ideas they think will increase popular support or governmental pressure, often without regard to the means employed to motivate it. For example, first officially rejecting certain 'government insider' information as disinfo - then promoting it themselves. Not because the info was true, but because it was (like a lot of ET/UFO rumors) ultimately not disprovable, became popular with influential figures, and served to promote their agenda.

Literally and on record, to Greer, there are no 'negative' ETs visiting earth. This is due to the rationale (and popular 1950's notion) if they were indeed 'hostile' the earth population would be destroyed or enslaved by now. Consider maintaining such at mindset, and still be a contactee (to a supposedly greater reality). For better or worse, there are certain ideas that people promote that lead me to reject, ad hominem, much of their agenda as a whole.

[Nabil Naser]

As I see it, you are rejecting the idea that ET's do not wish humanity harm. I sense that you believe that STS entities have made strong roots within the planet.

I happen to disagree, as I believe that most ET out there have nothing but good will for humanity. I agree that if ET's wanted to kill us they can do that at any time.

If we go back to what we learned from Ra, we find that we have been protected from harm by the quarantine that was imposed on the planet.

Universal free will laws allow the federation to protect the planet, without infringing on individual free will.
I strongly disagree with the paranoid reactions of many people to what is taking place at the present. I remind everyone that it is our thoughts and desires that make the difference on what tomorrow will be like.

Here's an example of an interpretive framework: Dr. Greer (a leader and prominent individual behind the "Disclosure" movement) is mentioned in that article. Greer, and other consequentialists, unfortunately can not or will not consider the broader implications of their own subject matter. I have seen how they will promote ideas they think will increase popular support or governmental pressure, often without regard to the means employed to motivate it. For example, first officially rejecting certain 'government insider' information as disinfo - then promoting it themselves. Not because the info was true, but because it was (like a lot of ET/UFO rumors) ultimately not disprovable, became popular with influential figures, and served to promote their agenda.

Literally and on record, to Greer, there are no 'negative' ETs visiting earth. This is due to the rationale (and popular 1950's notion) if they were indeed 'hostile' the earth population would be destroyed or enslaved by now. Consider maintaining such at mindset, and still be a contactee (to a supposedly greater reality). For better or worse, there are certain ideas that people promote that lead me to reject, ad hominem, much of their agenda as a whole.

[zenmaster]

As I see it, you are rejecting the idea that ET's do not wish humanity harm.

Not as such, no. Was more of a comment on the degree of reductionism involved contrasted with what I thought was the typical informed nature of contactees.

I sense that you believe that STS entities have made strong roots within the planet.

Not sure what that means. As Ra stated, many of the craft we see are STS. They are 'here' and attempt to incorporate people into their agenda. That agenda, if played out strictly in the bounds of 'quarantine', may not be 'harmful' in the conventional sense, but may be philosophically detrimental. Even with the 'law of freewill', they can make mistakes in which both parties lose. Often people shirk the exposure off, attributing attacks to pre-incarnative choice. I am not so sure.

[Nabil Naser]

Let us not forget our human essence, and what we have learned from all those great teachers that have given us guidance.
Overall, humans believe in service to others. This is obvious everywhere. It would be a mistake to assume that this is not true. And once we understand and believe in this truth, then the planet will do better.

There is no need for fear and paranoia. Since we know better, we must stand against such negative attitudes.

As I see it, you are rejecting the idea that ET's do not wish humanity harm.

Not as such, no. Was more of a comment on the degree of reductionism involved contrasted with what I thought was the typical informed nature of contactees.

I sense that you believe that STS entities have made strong roots within the planet.

Not sure what that means. As Ra stated, many of the craft we see are STS. They are 'here' and attempt to incorporate people into their agenda. That agenda, if played out strictly in the bounds of 'quarantine', may not be 'harmful' in the conventional sense, but may be philosophically detrimental. Even with the 'law of freewill', they can make mistakes in which both parties lose. Often people shirk the exposure off, attributing attacks to pre-incarnative choice. I am not so sure.