What does God need with a Starship?

Let's find out about who and what's out there, and how they do what they do.

Moderator: daniel

Post Reply
User avatar
bruce
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:10 pm
Contact:

What does God need with a Starship?

Post by bruce » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:07 pm

Any Star Trek fan will recognized the title of this post, a question asked by Kirk from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, to a super-powerful entity thought to be God. And I have found it is a very appropriate question, indeed.

What I am going to discuss here is a different kind of world view (a Weltenschauung), specifically the religious and spiritual aspects of man--which I have come to learn are two very different concepts.

The perspective began when I realized that only mankind worships a creator god. I could not find a single instance of any other species on this planet that acted the same way, including the intelligent species documented in mythology (excluding man's anthropomorphizing of the stories).

Being a big fan of Dewey Larson, I took a similar approach to religion that Larson did to the physical universe--come up with a set of postulates (assumptions on the way things are), determine the natural consequences of those postulates, and compare to observation. This worked well during the development of Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, allowing him to determine the physical characteristics of space, time, matter and energy.

But in his book, Beyond Space and Time, Larson realized that not ALL observation could be explained by the postulates of his physical universe, including such things as biological life and ethical behavior. So what Larson did was to bundle up everything that DID match his postulates, remove that bundle from what was generally observed, and then took a look at what was left. From that, the nature of biological life became apparent, because it was no longer cluttered with misunderstandings from the inanimate realm. He then did the same with his biological postulates, creating a "level 2" bundle, subtracting that out from observation, and ended up with the latter half of his book dedicated to "level 3", the realm of ethics and metaphysics. That is as far as he got--but it is the methodology that I find to be very useful.

Religion is not all that different from physics. It, too, has a set of postulates that control religious doctrine and behavior and though it may have different names for different people, the ideology remains the same. Up on top you have a creator, usually a single god or a god with sons/angels to carry out his orders. Christianity has Yahweh, with the trinity and hosts of angels. The Sumerian epics have An up top, with his children, Enki, Enlil and Ninhursag, with the hosts of annunaki. These gods created mankind, and usually from some difference of opinion, forms a dichotomy of "good guys" and "bad guys," whether these "guys" be gods, angels, or crossbreeds with humans. And it is usually the "bad guys" that defy the primary god and teach mankind the things he was forbidden to know, which is then followed by a "war of the gods" and some kind of destruction of mankind, classically described as a Deluge or great flood. After that, the gods tend to take a back seat in the affairs of man, becoming more of a concept than an actual being. These days, the closest we get to interaction with the gods is the occasional UFO sighting, but still, it is primarily just memories of the past.

So where does that leave mankind? Religious scholar Mauro Biglino opened my eyes quite a bit with his literal translation of an old, Hebrew Bible. What he found was that it was not a spiritual text, but a history book--and the history it revealed was really nothing to do with spiritual gods, but more with an extraterrestrial colonization of Earth by advanced beings, in a very similar pattern to what Zecharia Sitchin interpreted from the Sumerian records. I can hear it now... blasphemy!!! And what is blasphemy? It is the violation of a world view that is tightly held on to. And this post is about a NEW world view, not trying to apply an old world view that will never fit. As any computer programmer knows, sometimes code becomes so patched, eventually it is better to just put it to the side and do a complete rewrite based on a more complete understanding. And that is what I am attempting to do here... define a world view that, as unlikely as it may seem, is actually a simpler perspective of god, religion and their effect on the behavior of mankind.

So, "what does God need with a starship?"

God needs a starship, if He's an astronaut.

Mankind has a strong desire "to explore strange, new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before." (Opening to Star Trek TV series.) Man is made in god's image... that's probably where we got the motivation from.

Consider the possibility that the "gods" were not spiritual entities, but just an advanced, space-faring race moving across the galaxy, much in the way the explorers of old Earth were, looking for a trade route to India from Europe and discovering America along the way. But in this case, these space traders ran into a young, fertile planet that had abundant life and resources.

What did the Spanish explorers do after discovering the abundant life and resources of America? They went and domesticated the local populations (the North and South American tribes), turned them into a slave race to do the mining and exportation of gold and precious minerals back to their home country.

If man is, indeed, a reflection of god, then what did god do after discovering the abundant life and resources of Earth? They went and domesticated the local populations (Neanderthals), turned them into a slave race to do the mining and exportation of gold nad precious minerals back to their home world.

However, there was one hitch. The American Indians were already very intelligent when they encountered the Spaniards, and therefore made good slaves. The Neanderthals encountered by the ancient gods were dumber than mud. They couldn't even carry a tray without spilling something. But just as a few boatloads of Spaniards conquered millions of natives, a few gods were able to do the same using a genetic hitch: update the Neanderthal with the "image of God" to make him sufficiently intelligent to be a good slave, but not too intelligent to think for himself. And the resulting hybridization of gods + Neanderthals resulted in Cro-magnon man, now called Homo sapiens.

The concepts described are now known as "Intervention Theory," and are gaining popularity as the evidence continues to mount in favor of this scenario.

So who and what were these "gods"? The Sumerian epics contain a significant amount of information on the gods, giants standing 10-20 feet in height, bipedal, with a fish-like tail and having a kind of iridescent skin that was often seen as gold, green or blue in color. They had what we would call a "saurian" (reptilian) appearance, though they may have been of a species never documented on Earth. (See: Oannes.) They had gender and a patriarchal society with distinct lines of rulership. The males were in charge, much as human society has been over the centuries. (During my research, the parallels between the behavior of man and the mythical gods is amazing. Man definitely follows in god's footsteps.)

In many religions, the gods were never seen directly by the general population, residing in their temples usually atop mountains, pyramids or ziggurats, attended only by their trusted priests. It was common knowledge that "one could not behold the face of God and live." (If they did, they may have been a bit shocked at what they would have seen.) And if god wasn't in his temple, then he was up in the heavens, as a Lord (the etymology of the world "lord" comes from "a bright light in the sky." Later, after some problems between god and man arose, they were referred to as "royal" or "regal", which means "tyrannical lord" an ancient Latin.)

Most religions have a heavenly abode for the gods, "Heaven", "Nibiru", "Asgard"... different names, but refer to the same concept, which today we would call some kind of orbital space station or a mothership. Many speak of the gods ascending from their temples on fiery chariots--can you say, "shuttlecraft"? It is not all that different than the space shuttles making runs to the International Space Station these days.

So this "Intervention Theory" world view has the gods as an advanced, space-faring race of giants with a saurian appearance, whom created Cro-Magnon man as a slave race to worship Him and do His bidding. This forms the based of "religious" belief.

But the gods also kept a secret from man... and it is in that secret that one finds "spirituality," rather than "religion."

User avatar
Kano
Mage
Mage
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:42 pm
Location: Denver

Re: What does God need with a Starship?

Post by Kano » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:11 pm

I find this piece to make complete sense. If Occam's Razor applies, then the Intervention Theory is way more plausible than the divine creation theory as it is way more simple and even more practical.

However, there is a Mars piece to this story. It seems as though there was a big war on Mars and in the solar system (which may explain the giant scar on the face of Mars as well as the loss of atmosphere, and perhaps the asteroid belt). With so many words and symbols that tie humanity back to Mars, it does seem that when discussing the origins of humanity, Mars must be considered.

How does Mars fit into this picture in your mind, Bruce?

Could this war have been responsible for the anomalous axis of Uranus as well as the tilt of the planets with respect to the sun? Also, with regards to vibrations and vibratory technology, did the elimination of the 7th inner planet (asteroid belt) disrupt the harmonics of the solar system to such a degree that the axes of the planets were greatly affected?

User avatar
daniel
Professor
Professor
Posts: 873
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:33 pm
Location: P3X-774
Contact:

Re: What does God need with a Starship?

Post by daniel » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:29 pm

Kano wrote:However, there is a Mars piece to this story. It seems as though there was a big war on Mars and in the solar system (which may explain the giant scar on the face of Mars as well as the loss of atmosphere, and perhaps the asteroid belt). With so many words and symbols that tie humanity back to Mars, it does seem that when discussing the origins of humanity, Mars must be considered.
I'm going to jump on this one because I've looked into the Mars question and it relates to the PM I just sent you regarding the Wanderers on Divine Cosmos.

There are more "aliens" on Earth than native inhabitants. The SMs created the cro-magnon form (humans), but you have to remember a concept called the transmigration of soul. They used that concept in Babylon 5 to explain that Minbari souls were incarnating into human bodies. (If you've not see the series--watch it!)

There are a lot of Martians here--martian souls in human bodies. We call them "bankers" and "politicians." Mars sided with the SMs during the war, and they think a lot alike.
Kano wrote:Could this war have been responsible for the anomalous axis of Uranus as well as the tilt of the planets with respect to the sun?
Probably not. I don't think there is much unusual about the layout of the solar system, once you realize what is going on in the cores of the planets. A lot of bad assumptions about everything having to be upright, over the years!
Kano wrote:Also, with regards to vibrations and vibratory technology, did the elimination of the 7th inner planet (asteroid belt) disrupt the harmonics of the solar system to such a degree that the axes of the planets were greatly affected?
There is no indication that the asteroid belt was ever a planet. Based on the behavior of the larger asteroids, it is intermediate-speed matter (2-x), which means it was a leftover from when the sun went supernova.
Power out? Let's see if many hands can make the lights work.
Facebook: daniel.phoenixiii

User avatar
Kano
Mage
Mage
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:42 pm
Location: Denver

Re: What does God need with a Starship?

Post by Kano » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:59 pm

There are a lot of Martians here--martian souls in human bodies. We call them "bankers" and "politicians." Mars sided with the SMs during the war, and they think a lot alike.
So then it's your understanding that we do choose the person we will be before incarnating on Earth? How is it that these transmigrated souls are able to come into such positions of power en masse? Do SM's have the technology to place specific souls into human bodies?
Probably not. I don't think there is much unusual about the layout of the solar system, once you realize what is going on in the cores of the planets. A lot of bad assumptions about everything having to be upright, over the years!
Are you familiar with Nassim Haramein's Helical Theory of the solar system? Does it seem sound? I think I sent you a video about it. Also, what role do the crystals deep inside the Earth actually play? Are crystals common on the other planets in our solar system?
There is no indication that the asteroid belt was ever a planet. Based on the behavior of the larger asteroids, it is intermediate-speed matter (2-x), which means it was a leftover from when the sun went supernova.
As always, very interesting.

User avatar
bruce
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: What does God need with a Starship?

Post by bruce » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:13 pm

Kano wrote:I find this piece to make complete sense. If Occam's Razor applies, then the Intervention Theory is way more plausible than the divine creation theory as it is way more simple and even more practical.
There is now a massive amount of information that support this now. But people are so fixated on this god/savior complex, it is a very difficult topic to discuss.
Kano wrote:However, there is a Mars piece to this story. It seems as though there was a big war on Mars and in the solar system (which may explain the giant scar on the face of Mars as well as the loss of atmosphere, and perhaps the asteroid belt). With so many words and symbols that tie humanity back to Mars, it does seem that when discussing the origins of humanity, Mars must be considered.

How does Mars fit into this picture in your mind, Bruce?
Those "of Mars" or as they were known in medieval Latin, the ro mars, ro-man or plural, ro-man-i, were another genetically engineered species by the SMs, that stayed with the serpent ways of war and conquest.

When the SMs decided to get rid of mankind, the LMs took exception, as we were pretty good friends back then, and though a peaceful people, went to war with the SMs, who had their big bases and support on Mars. Hence the Ramayana war or AEsir-Vanir war started between the Asura/AEsir (SMs) and the Vanara/Vanir (LMs)--a war where they were hurling asteroids at each others' planets!

Mars looked a tad different back then, with a rather nice climate and a large, polar ocean. the bombardment left huge craters on both planets. We don't see them because they are quickly grown over by vegetation or filled in with water. (Look around--lots of round lakes and seas.)

Mars lost the war after one of their doomsday weapons went off on the surface, leaving it as it is today. Without Mars and the Romani for support, the SMs surrendered to the LMs. They took their time pulling out, and left their mostly human progeny behind to keep control of the planet, pretty much knowing that humans had their genetics and would war with themselves and develop a similar technology--and eventually destroy or force the LMs off the planet. Being immortal, they tend to be a patient people.
Kano wrote:Could this war have been responsible for the anomalous axis of Uranus as well as the tilt of the planets with respect to the sun? Also, with regards to vibrations and vibratory technology, did the elimination of the 7th inner planet (asteroid belt) disrupt the harmonics of the solar system to such a degree that the axes of the planets were greatly affected?
Most of the planetary axis tilts are a response to the structure of the core of the planet--being huge gyroscopes, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to tilt over by a passing comet or planetoid.

Regarding the asteroid belt... it's just the "sun's rings"... no different than the rings on the outer planets. Our sun is a 3rd generation sun, which means the original, single star started as a red giant, grew up, and went supernova. Gravity reformed a binary star system, one half from the explosion debris, and the white dwarf from the imploded core. But due to a lot of fuel in the area, the red star reached the age limit too soon and did a premature supernova, destroying the white dwarf companion and creating the cores of the planets. The 3rd generation, where we are now, has a single sun and a lot of "little stars" -- the planets, rather than a trinary system.

See Universe of Motion for full details, including why the ring (asteroid belt) is where it is. (I did revise Larson's planetary formation theory back in 1996, because there were too many conceptual errors in his approach and he had no data on the Earth's core back then.)

User avatar
Kano
Mage
Mage
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:42 pm
Location: Denver

Re: What does God need with a Starship?

Post by Kano » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:54 pm

But people are so fixated on this god/savior complex, it is a very difficult topic to discuss.
Yes, it is a difficult one to discuss. I think this is mainly due to the fact that if people face this head on and look at it with objective eyes and heart, they will come to the conclusion that they are responsible for their own salvation. Whoa, scary idea! When you've spent your entire life believing that your salvation lies outside of yourself, it's easy to see why the Intervention Theory is met with such vitriole.
Those "of Mars" or as they were known in medieval Latin, the ro mars, ro-man or plural, ro-man-i, were another genetically engineered species by the SMs, that stayed with the serpent ways of war and conquest.

When the SMs decided to get rid of mankind, the LMs took exception, as we were pretty good friends back then, and though a peaceful people, went to war with the SMs, who had their big bases and support on Mars. Hence the Ramayana war or AEsir-Vanir war started between the Asura/AEsir (SMs) and the Vanara/Vanir (LMs)--a war where they were hurling asteroids at each others' planets!

Mars looked a tad different back then, with a rather nice climate and a large, polar ocean. the bombardment left huge craters on both planets. We don't see them because they are quickly grown over by vegetation or filled in with water. (Look around--lots of round lakes and seas.)

Mars lost the war after one of their doomsday weapons went off on the surface, leaving it as it is today. Without Mars and the Romani for support, the SMs surrendered to the LMs. They took their time pulling out, and left their mostly human progeny behind to keep control of the planet, pretty much knowing that humans had their genetics and would war with themselves and develop a similar technology--and eventually destroy or force the LMs off the planet. Being immortal, they tend to be a patient people.
Lots to chew on in this explanation so thanks for that.

I have often heard that part of the reason that the SMs are so war-like is that they are in somewhat of a timewarp in that they cannot ever "ascend" into the next density. They are forever stuck where they are in a spiritual evolutionary sense. Since they see the soul spark in humans, and our ability to create and be creative, and ascend, there was an envy that came about. That would be a version of hell to me. You can live forever but never experience soul growth. I would be a pissed off reptile too.
Most of the planetary axis tilts are a response to the structure of the core of the planet--being huge gyroscopes, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to tilt over by a passing comet or planetoid.

Yes, that's a good point. Planets do behave like huge gyroscopes but why is one of the gyroscopes rotating perpendicular to all the other gyroscopes?
Regarding the asteroid belt... it's just the "sun's rings"... no different than the rings on the outer planets. Our sun is a 3rd generation sun, which means the original, single star started as a red giant, grew up, and went supernova. Gravity reformed a binary star system, one half from the explosion debris, and the white dwarf from the imploded core. But due to a lot of fuel in the area, the red star reached the age limit too soon and did a premature supernova, destroying the white dwarf companion and creating the cores of the planets. The 3rd generation, where we are now, has a single sun and a lot of "little stars" -- the planets, rather than a trinary system.
This is very interesting. I feel like a broken record saying that because I feel like I say it all the time. But it is so different than anything I have heard. Really great stuff!

With regards to the rings on the outer planets, are you familiar with Norman Bergrun's "Ringmakers of Saturn"? What is your opinion on the purpose of the rings? Are they in fact manufactured or part of a natural process?

User avatar
bruce
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: What does God need with a Starship?

Post by bruce » Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:15 am

Kano wrote:I have often heard that part of the reason that the SMs are so war-like is that they are in somewhat of a timewarp in that they cannot ever "ascend" into the next density. They are forever stuck where they are in a spiritual evolutionary sense. Since they see the soul spark in humans, and our ability to create and be creative, and ascend, there was an envy that came about. That would be a version of hell to me. You can live forever but never experience soul growth. I would be a pissed off reptile too.
I've thought about that, but there is no naturally-imposed limit on the ability to ascend. If the cells were able to move from inanimate status, to biological life units, to ethical control units (does not infer good ethics), there is no reason why it should not keep on going. However, since ascension requires a choice--the logical conclusion is that they have made a choice not to ascend (and as Aaron is inferring with his latest blog post, trying to entice us with materialism to make that same choice).
Kano wrote:Yes, that's a good point. Planets do behave like huge gyroscopes but why is one of the gyroscopes rotating perpendicular to all the other gyroscopes?
Do this... type in "uranus magnetic field" in a search engine, and look at the resulting diagrams--then see if you can figure it out for yourself.
Kano wrote:This is very interesting. I feel like a broken record saying that because I feel like I say it all the time. But it is so different than anything I have heard. Really great stuff!
Read Universe of Motion... SPU has some of the basics, but the details in UOM really put it together.
Kano wrote:With regards to the rings on the outer planets, are you familiar with Norman Bergrun's "Ringmakers of Saturn"? What is your opinion on the purpose of the rings? Are they in fact manufactured or part of a natural process?
Not heard of Bergrun. Ring systems are natural, as are jets. It is basic geometry in the RS. Sub-light matter has all 3 dimensions in space. When something explodes in the intermediate speed range (2-x), one of those dimensions is exploding in time (imploding in space), only 2 in space, so what you see is material expanding on a flat plane, not a volume. A planar explosion from a point source is a ring. If the explosion is intense enough to reach ultra-high speeds (3-x), two of the dimensions are in time and only one in space--a linear projection or jet. All the outer planets have undergone intermediate speed explosions in the past.

User avatar
Kano
Mage
Mage
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:42 pm
Location: Denver

Re: What does God need with a Starship?

Post by Kano » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:59 pm

I've thought about that, but there is no naturally-imposed limit on the ability to ascend. If the cells were able to move from inanimate status, to biological life units, to ethical control units (does not infer good ethics), there is no reason why it should not keep on going. However, since ascension requires a choice--the logical conclusion is that they have made a choice not to ascend (and as Aaron is inferring with his latest blog post, trying to entice us with materialism to make that same choice).
Do you believe in AI? Do you believe that there is a race of beings that are not disimilar to the transformers? The reason I ask is that it seems as though the Annunaki themselves are being manipulated. And the way that they manipulate humans is so, well, robotic. Everything about the system that the Annunaki have imposed on humanity tries to mimic robots and computers. It seems so unnatural for a race of sentient beings to deny their ability to "ascend". Why would millions (billions?) of Annunaki all agree to not engage in the evolution of consciousness? Maybe there is a good reason, but I can't think of what it might be.
Do this... type in "uranus magnetic field" in a search engine, and look at the resulting diagrams--then see if you can figure it out for yourself.

It seems that the magnetic field of Uranus is also expressed in a perpendicular fashion as compared to the magnetic fields of other planets in our solar system. This is what causes it to roll like a barrel rather than spin like a top with respect to its axis of rotation. I would have to assume that this irregularity has something to do with the core of the planet and how it is spinning. But alas, I still have not answered my own question but I did learn a lot about Uranus.
Not heard of Bergrun. Ring systems are natural, as are jets. It is basic geometry in the RS. Sub-light matter has all 3 dimensions in space. When something explodes in the intermediate speed range (2-x), one of those dimensions is exploding in time (imploding in space), only 2 in space, so what you see is material expanding on a flat plane, not a volume. A planar explosion from a point source is a ring. If the explosion is intense enough to reach ultra-high speeds (3-x), two of the dimensions are in time and only one in space--a linear projection or jet. All the outer planets have undergone intermediate speed explosions in the past.
Bergrun has a different theory. He believes that there are enormous craft that have been photographed actually making these rings. It's an interesting perspective. Here's a good read on the subject.

http://www.patrickcrusade.org/pdf_files ... ergrun.pdf

User avatar
bruce
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:10 pm
Contact:

Re: What does God need with a Starship?

Post by bruce » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:12 pm

Kano wrote:Do you believe in AI?
I believe that computers can draw rational conclusions from provided data, which is what most people consider intelligence to be. If you consider intelligence to be the animus, then no, as the animus is not present in inanimate structures.
Kano wrote:Do you believe that there is a race of beings that are not disimilar to the transformers? The reason I ask is that it seems as though the Annunaki themselves are being manipulated. And the way that they manipulate humans is so, well, robotic. Everything about the system that the Annunaki have imposed on humanity tries to mimic robots and computers. It seems so unnatural for a race of sentient beings to deny their ability to "ascend". Why would millions (billions?) of Annunaki all agree to not engage in the evolution of consciousness? Maybe there is a good reason, but I can't think of what it might be.
If I were to take a spatial computer, fall asleep and build a temporal computer in 3D time, then wake up carrying the wires to connect the two together, the m-atoms and c-atoms would connect and bring the machines to life. But they would no longer be inanimate--they would fit the definition of the life unit, and be biologic.

As I understand the premise of the Transformers--they are living machines. In other words: animate, inanimate objects, which is self-contradictory.

I have not personally met the Annunaki, so I cannot infer their motives. All I see are the motives of their descendants, which may be the result of the confusion generated by the genetic combination. Man does not behave like their Great Ape relatives, so it is likely that man also does not behave like a true Saurian.
Kano wrote:It seems that the magnetic field of Uranus is also expressed in a perpendicular fashion as compared to the magnetic fields of other planets in our solar system. This is what causes it to roll like a barrel rather than spin like a top with respect to its axis of rotation. I would have to assume that this irregularity has something to do with the core of the planet and how it is spinning. But alas, I still have not answered my own question but I did learn a lot about Uranus.
You're on you way to figuring it out, though. The origin of the planetary magnetic field is from the outer core, so the magnetic axis and rotational axis (the mantle) are different. So you've got a vertical, magnetic ball spinning inside a horizontal, physical ball. Where would you have to place the inside ball, to get the outside ball to spin like that? (Think of a hollow ball on the outside, with a spinning ball touching the inside.)
Kano wrote:Bergrun has a different theory. He believes that there are enormous craft that have been photographed actually making these rings. It's an interesting perspective. Here's a good read on the subject.

http://www.patrickcrusade.org/pdf_files ... ergrun.pdf
Yes, I've seen things like this before. If you notice, the majority of his artifacts are sitting on the bottom edge of the photograph, right where you get the vertical sync starts, which creates that streaking effect that anyone who has used an old, vacuum-tube television has seen on many occasions. I did not read the entire book, but failed to find any real, supportive evidence of his claims in what I did read.

Post Reply