From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:54:26 +0200 Archived: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:46:17 -0400 Subject: Re: Contacts Abductions & Convictions >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:01:22 +0100 >Subject: Re: Contacts Abductions & Convictions >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 06:37:14 +0100 >>Subject: Contacts Abductions & Convictions ><snip> >>Jacobs's accounts indicate that the 'invaders' contact and >>instruct people mostly at night/mainly telepathically/and are >>deceptive and sometimes destructive BUT seem to follow a logic >>and a set of rules of their own. ><snip> >>zhat is strangely like the histories of other-worldly encounters >>we find stretching back for millenia. Therefore, by following >>the ancient rules as laid down, modern experiencers could maybe >>protect themselves. >>History's rules: historical accounts say that religious >>'believers' can escape any danger by calling on their God. But >>the accounts also say that non-religious folk can also be immune >>IF they address the entity(s) logically, first asking for a >>name/identity, and then for a reason or motive for the >>visitation, and then proceeding rationally and dispassionately. ><snip> >Hello List, >Received some off-list comment on that post, mostly approving. >Even so, am realizing that the subject deserved more >examination. >In particular, if we take those conclusions about the past - by >Vallee, Hynek, Keel, and now Jacobs - at face value, they raise >questions about probable lack of integrity (to say the least) in >our existing power structures - for instance in policing, >politics, judiciary and finance. >As we saw, it seems that individuals most prone to attack and >subversion by `entities' are those without strong ethics, and/or >without a good grounding in science, natural philosophy or maybe >even sound `husbandry' of one kind or another. And, again >looking back at the folk-record, we see that persons seeking >gain or self-advantage in dealings with the `tricksters' almost >always end up in thrall to them, by various kinds of >enslavement. >That amounts to a double-whammy against the big-wheels in >policing, politics, the judiciary and finance (and media?), who >are notoriously deficient in knowledge _and_ ethics (because >their careers are built around the need for power, _not_ for >knowledge or even thought/meditation) and whose every action is >ruled by greed. >So, if Vallee, Hynek, Keel, and Jacobs are right about the >history of `abductions' and `interventions', what does that say >about the methods (probably non-humane), and the motives >(possibly non-human) of our leaders? >I.e. whose interests are they likely to be serving? Ray and List, I have not followd this thread, but I just read this message and I strongly disagree with it. Firstly, how can you put together people as different as Vallee and Jacobs? Their views on ufos, and even more on abductions, are practically opposite. In addition to that, I don't agree at all with your opinion that individuals most prone to attack and subversion by 'entities' are those without strong ethics, etc. What about Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton and so many others, to begin with? Or maybe you are not considering abductions? Gildas Bourdais Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp