New Majestic Document Reveals US Diplomatic Relations with Extraterrestrials

[roamer_1]

Wasn't that covered in the video you posted last night?

I don't know. It has been a while since I watched that... but yeah, that sort of thing.

[Quix]

@roamer_1,

One CAN build all sorts of fancy theory and innuendo on top of it, but it isn't necessary,

.
imho,
.
when Scripture is lacking in crystal clarity and specificity . . .
.
That's mostly all that's left to build on . . . conjecture, biases, assumptions, implications, inferences . . .
.
It appears to me that God deliberately left a host of things fuzzy . . . either because He wants us to major in majors and minor in minors . . . or for whatever other reason.
.
Thankfully, FWIW, "we'll understand it better by and by."
.

[RoosGirl]

I don't know. It has been a while since I watched that... but yeah, that sort of thing.

It was talking about how the fallen angels (that had the shapes of serpents or dragons if I am remembering correctly) copulated with human women and that is where the giants possibly came from.

[Smokin Joe]

You're good at coming up with hypotheses (I honestly mean that).  Good multiple working hypotheses.

But that's all they are, hypotheses.

And I think as we bolt on more assumptions of what "might be" to explain holes, Occam recedes over the horizon.

Yes, these things are possible.  But likely?  I don't think so.

LOL! You're a geologist. Multiple working hypotheses are our stock in trade. Reality pares them down fast enough. Don't cut yourself on the razor! Geosynclinal theory was so much simpler than all those plates bumping and grinding...

[Smokin Joe]

It's been demonstrated through luminescence, palynology, etc., that the Carolina Bays predate the Younger Dryas by a considerable amount.

That still does not preclude such an event causing the Carolina Bays, or the Younger Dryas. All you have to do for the latter is change the impact angle.

[roamer_1]

It was talking about how the fallen angels (that had the shapes of serpents or dragons if I am remembering correctly) copulated with human women and that is where the giants possibly came from.

Well, right, that is the general gist of genesis 6... at least as it was historically viewed. Christianity largely adopted the 'Sethite view' around 400 AD - Augustine, IIRC, when analogy began to be all the rage. These are the two views:

Sons of God were angels who laid with women and spawned evil giants resulting in men, and all creation being corrupted and the eventual flood.

or

'Sons of God' are sons of Seth, who laid with 'daughters of men' who are daughters of Cain, and their spawn are a bunch of evil meanies.

The literal sense IS the former.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1,
.
imho,
.
when Scripture is lacking in crystal clarity and specificity . . .
.
That's mostly all that's left to build on . . . conjecture, biases, assumptions, implications, inferences . . .
.
It appears to me that God deliberately left a host of things fuzzy . . . either because He wants us to major in majors and minor in minors . . . or for whatever other reason.

I find the Word to be remarkably precise. Largely the 'fuzzy' comes in the interpretation, oft confused by traditions of men and normalcy bias. Note that I am not accusing you of that specifically... I fight it all the time myself. The hardest thing is to take the Word at it's word.
Go figger. 

Thankfully, FWIW, "we'll understand it better by and by."
.

Sooner than later, fer sher. 

[RoosGirl]

Well, right, that is the general gist of genesis 6... at least as it was historically viewed. Christianity largely adopted the 'Sethite view' around 400 AD - Augustine, IIRC, when analogy began to be all the rage. These are the two views:

Sons of God were angels who laid with women and spawned evil giants resulting in men, and all creation being corrupted and the eventual flood.

or

'Sons of God' are sons of Seth, who laid with 'daughters of men' who are daughters of Cain, and their spawn are a bunch of evil meanies.

The literal sense IS the former.

I only bring it up because you mentioned that the first emperor of Japan was claimed to be half dragon and I took it from your comment that you did not believe that could be true.  Maybe I misunderstood.

[Suppressed]

That still does not preclude such an event causing the Carolina Bays, or the Younger Dryas. All you have to do for the latter is change the impact angle.

That wouldn't explain the lack of shock PDFs.

[roamer_1]

I only bring it up because you mentioned that the first emperor of Japan was claimed to be half dragon and I took it from your comment that you did not believe that could be true.  Maybe I misunderstood.

No, I will take that claim on it's face. What that says to me is that his father was probably a fallen seraphim... Now that may not be altogether true, as pompous men will magnify themselves... But, it is straight through the profane line that the ordained right to rule is promoted... the 'divine' right of kings... So if he was not a direct son (a titan, for a form of distinction) I would largely accept his claim to lineage, in the least.

[Smokin Joe]

That wouldn't explain the lack of shock PDFs.

You might not see those with ice chunks, just as you wouldn't find the impacting body (in the Bays). Impact causes fragmentation, melting and vaporization of the ice chunk, which melts and leaves the crater, elongated and parallel due to low angle impact, and with lower force because they aren't of exo-orbital origin, but rather followed suborbital trajectories from the ice sheet. The real 'villain' would be a more solid impacting body which hit the ice sheet and ejected the ice chunks form the sheet.

[roamer_1]

For one, the Chinese have early Chinese texts from 7,000 years ago. Their historical documents have been fairly meticulously kept for millennia.

And btw, @Quix , As a point of order: I will cede to your superior knowledge wrt the far east, but it is my understanding that serious Chinese history begins with the Shang Dynasty c.1500 BC - Don't beat me with that date, it is mere recollection on my part. I understand that Xia was before that, though largely mythologized, and not a precise history. I would like a reference to sustain a 'meticulous' record prior to Shang, if that is what you claim.

[Quix]

And btw, @Quix , As a point of order: I will cede to your superior knowledge wrt the far east, but it is my understanding that serious Chinese history begins with the Shang Dynasty c.1500 BC - Don't beat me with that date, it is mere recollection on my part. I understand that Xia was before that, though largely mythologized, and not a precise history. I would like a reference to sustain a 'meticulous' record prior to Shang, if that is what you claim.

OK. LOL.

Personal communications . . . Esteemed scholars & friends in Fuzhou, China abt 1987-1989
.
RE turtle shell Chinese characters are the ones fairly clearly from 7,000 years ago--at least . . . earlier even than the Analects and historical volumes of their dynastic records . . . IIRC . . . their emperors liked to insure good record keeping--at least of their rule, conquests, achievements, culture.
.
And, there's ceramics for each era, dynasty, ruler etc. that provide a rather seamless record back through the eons.
.
However, beyond that, it's not a high enough priority for me to dig up more peer reviewed journal refs.
.
You are quite welcome  to believe what you wish on such scores.
.
My belief is that the 6,000 year claims from purportedly the Biblical geneology verses . . . are made to sound more precise than the root words support. If I'm wrong about that . . . ok . . . willing to be wrong. There would still be some very mysterious contradictions in the evidence.
.
I believe God will clear up all the seeming contradictions in due course. Not His priority currently.
.
Now to  go swim my laps.

[roamer_1]

RE turtle shell Chinese characters are the ones fairly clearly from 7,000 years ago--at least . . . earlier even than the Analects and historical volumes of their dynastic records . . . IIRC . . . their emperors liked to insure good record keeping--at least of their rule, conquests, achievements, culture.

I have a passing familiarity with the oracle bones... Again, it is my understanding that these are late Shang Dynasty and forward...   

And, there's ceramics for each era, dynasty, ruler etc. that provide a rather seamless record back through the eons.

I accept that, I do. But to my knowledge, that goes back to Shang. I accept that the Xia Dynasty exists prior to Shang, but evidences, not to mention historical accounts and records are sketchy.

However, beyond that, it's not a high enough priority for me to dig up more peer reviewed journal refs.
.
You are quite welcome  to believe what you wish on such scores.

Oh, it ain't like that. I am not trying to tear you down... Just honest inquiry. Ancient history is my bag, and to my knowledge, everything is rather sparse before 1000 bc, and exponentially so the further back you go. that which legitimately accounts time prior to 2000bc is exceedingly rare - rare enough to be considered nil.

That is why your statement spared my interest.

[Quix]

.
@roamer_1

I agree Scripture has tons of precise specificity in it.

But it is not 100% so.

I do love Chuck Missler's HIDDEN TREASURES OF THE BIBLE (youbue), which, sadly, he evidently largely lifted from someone else's work with questionable attribution, if any.

[Quix]

THANKS BIG for your kind words & reply. I'd taken your stuff in that spirit on these points. I know you a bit and certainly love you as you are, anyway.

There were oracle bones on turtle shells of another era. However, IIRC, in the last 10-20 years, others were found that were far older. I forget all the dating techniques. I don't think it was all left to carbon  dating.

Have you ever researched the Temple of Heaven in Beijing . . .  and the ceremonies that went on annually there? Originally, they took place at the border near Fuzhou, IIRC. There's a lot in the Emperor's offering a sacrifice that sounds straight out of the Pentateuch. There were no idols allowed in the Temple of Heaven, BTW.

Sparse does not, however, necessarily mean lacking in a convincing train of significant records.

I have one of the better substantive histories on China. Will plan to check the first chapters again. As I recall, most of what I've read the last 30 years goes with 6,000 year history of China. However, after I read of the more recently found turtle shell oracle bone Chinese writing, I realized that all such volumes were out of date in terms of the earliest Chinese writing and civilization.

BTW, did you know that some UFO's are reported to have Chinese like characters in them; on them?


Then there's the whole issue of PRE-ADAMITE humans . . . Most of us have 2%  or so Neanterthal and a lot of us have some Denosovan bits in our DNA. Curious.

I have a passing familiarity with the oracle bones... Again, it is my understanding that these are late Shang Dynasty and forward...   
 

I accept that, I do. But to my knowledge, that goes back to Shang. I accept that the Xia Dynasty exists prior to Shang, but evidences, not to mention historical accounts and records are sketchy.

Oh, it ain't like that. I am not trying to tear you down... Just honest inquiry. Ancient history is my bag, and to my knowledge, everything is rather sparse before 1000 bc, and exponentially so the further back you go. that which legitimately accounts time prior to 2000bc is exceedingly rare - rare enough to be considered nil.

That is why your statement spared my interest.

[bigheadfred]

Have you heard of Lloyd Pye? He has something he calls Intervention Theory. He also is the one who promoted the Starchild shull.

http://www.lloydpye.com/eykiw.htm

The 8 minute video at the bottom of the page is interesting. I've watched some of his longer videos.

[bigheadfred]

The Terra Papers

by Robert Morning Sky

is something you should have a look at.

He has a story for you.

[bigheadfred]

Vlad9vt youtube. I watch it for the megalithic stuff. He has videos of museum collections from forgotten cultures, too.

https://www.youtube.com/user/vlad9vt

[Suppressed]

You might not see those with ice chunks, just as you wouldn't find the impacting body (in the Bays). Impact causes fragmentation, melting and vaporization of the ice chunk, which melts and leaves the crater, elongated and parallel due to low angle impact, and with lower force because they aren't of exo-orbital origin, but rather followed suborbital trajectories from the ice sheet. The real 'villain' would be a more solid impacting body which hit the ice sheet and ejected the ice chunks form the sheet.

Wouldn't the elongation be perpendicular to that, if a low-angle impact?  Otherwise, are you proposing an impact to the northeast?  If so, then why the distribution...wouldn't you expect ejecta to be more in a ring, rather than linear radial path (I understand that you might be saying that only coastal areas have the proper conditions to have preserved these "eroded impact sites", but still, I would think you could differentiate ejecta impacts by radius from the  primary impact point -- and I don't know that such a pattern is present).

[Smokin Joe]

Wouldn't the elongation be perpendicular to that, if a low-angle impact?  Otherwise, are you proposing an impact to the northeast?  If so, then why the distribution...wouldn't you expect ejecta to be more in a ring, rather than linear radial path (I understand that you might be saying that only coastal areas have the proper conditions to have preserved these "eroded impact sites", but still, I would think you could differentiate ejecta impacts by radius from the  primary impact point -- and I don't know that such a pattern is present).

Elongation would be parallel to the path of travel. Now, this is just from many days spent skipping rocks into mud flats at low tide, but the lowest angle ones will skip off, as the angle gets higher they push up a bow wave of mud in front and make a teardrop shaped mark, usually with the pointy end toward their origin (in that case, me). Some will burrow into that bow wave and push up a ridge at the end they stop in.

Now, the killer part, is that any material not vaporized or melted by the impact would melt, anyway. If embedded, it would leave something similar to a kettle lake, only more ovoid.
Check this out.
http://cintos.org/SaginawManifold/Distal_Ejecta/CarolinaBays/

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Now the only question is... are extra terrestrials influencing our elections surreptitiously? Inquiring minds want to know... 

[bigheadfred]

Now the only question is... are extra terrestrials influencing our elections surreptitiously? Inquiring minds want to know... 

if they were you think people would be russian to get that story out

[RoosGirl]

Now the only question is... are extra terrestrials influencing our elections surreptitiously? Inquiring minds want to know... 

If you believe You Tube, Putin is a reptilian and Hillary is a clone, so...  yes?

[Smokin Joe]

If you believe You Tube, Putin is a reptilian and Hillary is a clone, so...  yes?

Valerie Jarrett always reminded me of a lizard--or at least a toad...