• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Do you wish that we show up?


mjw

Skilled Investigator
I came across this a few years ago and I thought maybe a few paracast listeners would like to read it. Maybe some have already. In any case I'm not saying that I believe it was written by actual aliens - but I can't discount it either. It's just an interesting read. Since it exceeds 20,000 characters I couldn't post it on the forums so here is a link - http://raenergy.igc.org/ETtoEarth.html
 
That message came from a Frenchman named Eric Julien, who for a while worked with Michael Salla. Julien made some predictions this year where a meteorite would hit the Atlantic ocean and many lives would be lost. Nothing happend of course and Julien got plenty of flak as a result. Salla distanced himself from Julien when he made that prediction and the two are no longer working together.
 
I read this article. I agree with the idealism for the most part. It does have a positive message and many insights that are comparitive amongst other movements.

The quote "Like most of you, we are in the quest of the Supreme Being" certainly sounds like a religious ideology. One would only hope that this is a truly benevolent quest. Unlike our religions, which have caused a great deal of war and opression throughout history under the guise of peace.

Here is another quote that seems contradictory, "Like in any other organized structure, hierarchy exists in our internal relationships." From my understanding hierarchies have also proven to opress individuals, as it is no more than an organized means to control. I may have misinterpretted of course.:)
 
Despite what might seem like objectionable material in this article there are quite a few prophetic statements being made that may not be so far fetched.

The idea that our technology is growing at such a fast rate that it may have some very negative consequences for mankind, as has been predicted by many contemporary philosophers. One of the key premises of the AI debate. I think the Matrix movie is a good example of this.

The idea of industrialization having negative effects on ecosystems. The article mentions our ecosystems have reached irreversible proportions. I think any environmentalist would agree we are certainly heading in that direction, if we haven't already. We are reaching a point of expiring natural resources; Oil certainly seems to be the next new concern. Clearly we are facing more environmental problems than we have ever had before.

The idea that much of the control of the planet is under the thumb of elitist corporations. There is certainly more evidence today that corporations are dictating to our supposed elected officials how to run our societies to ensure mass profits, and further control over natural resources. People are constantly being manipulated through mass media and consumerism to further this objective only so these elites continue on in their quest for economic control.

There are certainly truths to be found within this article. Whether this is written by an ET I cannot prove that, but I have no doubt as to the authenticity of the UFO phenomenon and what little we know about it. There are some genuine issues raised in this article, which will have to be addressed at some point. The question is whether or not we are ready to face them.
 
Very true, Chiron.

If someone (i.e. a human being) is using the 'ET angle' to get this sort of message across, then that's fine by me.
 
The first thing the webmaster should do is trash that obnoxious background graphic. Nothing says "amateur" like a page where the text is at the mercy of a junk image. And the MS Sans Serif font bites. Fortunately, the Opera browser gets rid of that crap with a mouseclick.

Preliminary impression: it's typical "new age" channeled stuff ala Ashtar, full of pompous verbosity that actually says nothing concrete. In 4639 words (MS word count) there is nothing that one can grab hold of and say, "Yeah, that would be proof." It's loaded with vague generalizations, metaphysical meanderings, and sheer piffle. Let's pluck a few passages from the tome.

Who are we ?

Neither your scientists nor your religious representatives speak unanimously about the unexplained celestial events that mankind has witnessed for thousands of years. To know the truth, one must face it without the filter of one's beliefs, however respectable they may be.
Freely translated, open your mind, inject your brain with an anesthetic, and don't judge what follows by any objective standards.

A growing number of anonymous researchers of yours are exploring new knowledge paths and are getting very close to reality.
And if they are anonymous, how do these ETs know who they are, let alone what they are doing.

Today, your civilisation is flooded with an ocean of information of which only a tiny part, the less upsetting one, is notably diffused. What in your history seemed ridiculous or improbable has often become possible, then realised, in particular in the last fifty years. Be aware that the future will be even more surprising. You will discover the worst as well as the best.
The "hidden knowledge" shtick. How drearily common.

Like billions others in this galaxy, we are conscious creatures that some name "extra-terrestrials", even though reality is subtler. There is no fundamental difference between you and us, save for the experience of certain stages of evolution. Like in any other organized structure, hierarchy exists in our internal relationships. Ours is based upon the wisdom of several races. It is with the approval of this hierarchy that we turn to you. Like most of you, we are in the quest of the Supreme Being. Therefore we are not gods or lesser gods but virtually your equals in the Cosmic Brotherhood. Physically, we are somewhat different from you but for most of us humanoid-shaped.
Nordics, no doubt. Blonde, blue-eyed space gods are in vogue.

Our existence is a reality but the majority of you does not perceive it yet. We are not mere observations, we are consciences just like you. You fail to apprehend us because we remain invisible to your senses and measure instruments most of the time.
A convenient way to explain why no one ever sees them. All that's missing is the stuff about vibrations.

We wish to fill this void at this moment in your history. We made this collective decision but this is not enough. We need yours. Through this message, you become the decision-makers ! You personally.
You guys came who-knows-how-many light years to this backward little rock in a nondescript solar system in the arm of an average galaxy, tell us that we're 0.7734 nanoseconds away from immolating ourselves, and then you tell us that OUR decisions will save us? OUR decisions got us into this mess, dude (or dudette -- can't be sexist here).

We have no human representative on Earth who could guide your decision.
Why not? We could use your great wisdom.

Why aren't we visible?
No doubt for the same reason that Santa Claus and honest lawyers aren't visible: they don't exist.

"DO YOU WISH THAT WE SHOW UP?"

How to can you answer this question? The truth of soul can be read by telepathy. You only need to clearly ask yourself this question and give your answer as clearly, on your own or in a group, as you wish. Being in the heart of a city or in the middle of a desert does not impact the efficiency of your answer, YES or NO, IMMEDIATELY AFTER ASKING THE QUESTION! Just do it as if you were speaking to yourself but thinking about the message. This is a universal question and these mere few words, put in their context, have a powerful meaning. You should not let hesitation in the way. This is why you should calmly think about it, in all conscience. In order to perfectly associate your answer with the question, it is recommended that you answer right after another reading of this message. Do not rush to answer. Breathe and let all the power of your own free will penetrate you. Be proud of what you are! The problems that you may have weaken you. Forget about them for a few minutes to be yourselves. Feel the force that springs up in you. You are in control of yourselves!

A single thought, a single answer can drastically change your near future, in one way as in another. Your individual decision of asking in your inner self that we show up on your material plan and in broad daylight is precious and essential to us. Even though you can choose the way that best suits you, rituals are essentially useless. A sincere request made with your heart and your own will will always be perceived by those of us whom it is sent to. In your own private polling booth of your secret will, you will determine the future.
Does anyone have a clue what that actually means? Does it in fact say anything? Obviously, those who dearly want the "Cosmic Brotherhood" to save us from ourselves will read that rambling rhetoric and nod in agreement, totally mystified but suitably impressed by how deep and other-worldly it seems to be.

What would be the consequences of a positive decision ?

For us, the immediate consequence of a collective favourable decision would be the materialisation of many ships, in your sky and on Earth.
You might want to come armed. We're a nasty bunch, we have lots of SAMs not doing much at the moment, and our guys could use a little target practice.

For you, the direct effect would be the rapid abandoning of many certitudes and beliefs. ... meaningless blahblahblah excised... The main difference between your daily prayers to entities of a strictly spiritual nature and your current decision is extremely simple : we are technically equipped to materialise!
I'll trust God over channeled invisible aliens any day of the week.

It is all about your future. It is all about your evolution.

It is possible that this invitation does not receive your collective assent and that, because of a lack of information, it will be disregarded. Nevertheless no individual desire goes unheeded in the universe. Imagine our arrival tomorrow. Thousands of ships. A unique cultural shock in today's mankind's history. It will then be too late to regret about not making a choice and spreading the message because this discovery will be irreversible. We do insist that you do not rush into it, but do think about it ! And decide ! The big medias will not be necessarily interested in spreading this message. It is therefore your task, as an anonymous yet an extraordinary thinking and loving being, to transmit it.
Leave your number, guys, and we'll get back to you on it, 'k?


This thing is straight out of the lebenty-seven websites that peddle the latest psychobabble from the umpteen gazillion aliens (the drawings of whom look like SanFran street people) that surround Earth in invisible, undetectable "light ships". Sorry, folks, but it's SSDD.
 
The document may be fake but it does raise a good question as far as the mindset of humanity and also puts things squarely into the "be careful what you wish for" catagory. Two points of contention. First:

KorMan said:
You guys came who-knows-how-many light years to this backward little rock in a nondescript solar system in the arm of an average galaxy

Why is this viewpoint so prevelant in our socitey? Astronomers can now do the math that finds other planets. So far we can't pin it down to anything smaller than Jupiter but given time, we will. What have we learned so far? That other solar systems are NOTHING like our own. Far from non-descript, if anything our solar system seems to be the anomaly. If there are other civilizations out there with technology in advance of our own, odds are they'd be VERY interested in such a "freak" system as ours.

And second:

KorMan said:
I'll trust God over channeled invisible aliens any day of the week.

What's the difference?
 
The document may be fake but it does raise a good question as far as the mindset of humanity and also puts things squarely into the "be careful what you wish for" catagory.
Man's mindset has not changed in millenia. The only change has been in our technology for putting our mindset into practice. We are at heart warriors and conquerors. Peace is not our nature. The only "peace" that we enjoy is the temporary cessation of hostilities. And the vague, disjointed ramblings of alleged aliens will do nothing to change that.

Why is this viewpoint so prevelant in our socitey? Astronomers can now do the math that finds other planets.
That has exactly what to do with Earth being a "backward little rock in a nondescript solar system in the arm of an average galaxy"? There could be a billion planets within a thousand parsecs and it would not alter our status one iota.

If one walks in the woods outside of a major city and finds a log cabin, is the nature of the cabin affected by its proximity to the city?

So far we can't pin it down to anything smaller than Jupiter but given time, we will.
No doubt. And what will that prove? A: there are other planetary systems out there. That will affect Earth's status in what way?

What have we learned so far? That other solar systems are NOTHING like our own.
Direct observations of planets around other stars is impossible with our present technology. We must therefore use indirect methods such as photometry that detect occultations of a star by a planet, resulting in a very slight decrease in the light level. This is limited by the sensitivity of the equipment. At the moment, only Jupiter-sized planets create a change that is easily measurable.

Also, a dip in light level can be caused by other phenomena, ergo the change in light level must be repeatable and with a cycle that allows several observations of the occultation. This mandates that the planet be close to the star so that its "year" is short enough to permit repeated observations within a reasonable time frame. Envision the task of an alien scientists detecting Jupiter or Saturn by occultations, where one happens every 12 years and the other every 29.5 years.

A further limitation is that the occultation detection method mandates that the Laplacian plane of the planet's system allows occultations to occur. Any solar system where the extension of the Laplacian plane does not almost directly pass through the observor's location will result in the planets moving either above or below the disk of the star, hence without occultation.

In the same way, no beings from a planet away from our system's Laplacian plane could detect our planets by occultation, e.g., intelligent beings on a planet around Arcturus or Polaris.

These factors combine to place enormous limitations on our ability to find other planetary systems with present technology. They could exist around many stars without our being able to detect them.

Far from non-descript, if anything our solar system seems to be the anomaly.
Not when the above factors are considered.

If there are other civilizations out there with technology in advance of our own, odds are they'd be VERY interested in such a "freak" system as ours.
If those civilizations exist, the chances are good that they are from a system very much like ours—a single, quiet, long-lived, non-variable star; reasonably small worlds within the star's habitable zone; liquid water; an atmosphere with oxygen; etcetera.

I for one believe that they are fairly common. That does not mean that they bear intelligent life, or any life. And if they DID have intelligent life with the technology to find Earth, that does not mean that they would find this little blue marble interesting enough to invest the huge resources required to develop interstellar travel in order to come here.

If there are space-travelling races out there that have discovered us, I suspect that it was either by accident or by a methodical search that was not focused on finding us.

What's the difference?
God is credible.

Again, the cited "message" is so typical of the piffle that fills numerous web pages of "channeled" bafflegab that it bears no serious consideration.
 
You misunderstand me on the mindset issue. I meant "ready to accept the existince of actual aliens as fact and not theory", not some pie-in-the-sky, hippie peace-nik nonsense. Violence is our business.

KorMan said:
If one walks in the woods outside of a major city and finds a log cabin, is the nature of the cabin affected by its proximity to the city?

That's inverse logic. For the analogy to work, you'd have to assume there's a "city" nearby our little "log cabin". We don't know either way. I'm saying as far as we know, we're a log cabin buried deep within a massive tract of virgin forest, surrounded by wind swept tundra. I'd say that ups the significance of the cabin considerably. I consider earth to be not so much a "backward little rock in a nondescript solar system in the arm of an average galaxy" that description better suits any random asteroid. The earth I see more as a rare jewel, lost in vast field. It's a matter of opinion, I suppose.

KorMan said:
And what will that prove? A: there are other planetary systems out there. That will affect Earth's status in what way?

Other systems aren't the issue. Other systems with earth like planets are. Finding out how many DIRECTLY affects earth's status.

(Alot of stuff about Laplacian planes and occultations)

KorMan said:
These factors combine to place enormous limitations on our ability to find other planetary systems with present technology. They could exist around many stars without our being able to detect them.

Hence the greater likelyhood of other more advanced civilizations finding and taking interest in us rather than us to them.

KorMan said:
I for one believe that they are fairly common.

Research so far indicates otherwise. Investigations of sun-type stars have thus far yeilded no indications of sol-type systems. It stands to reason that if the type of star is not the deciding factor, then the circumstances required to produce earth-type planets must be considerable indeed (cf. Drake equation, rare-earth theory).

KorMan said:
God is credible.

Why? Because a book written over the course of centuries by dozens of people and codified by rich men in funny hats says so? Sorry, not good enough.
 
That's inverse logic. For the analogy to work, you'd have to assume there's a "city" nearby our little "log cabin". We don't know either way.
You're deliberately evading the point. The nature of the cabin and its surroundings is unaffected by the presence or absence of a city several miles away.

I'm saying as far as we know, we're a log cabin buried deep within a massive tract of virgin forest, surrounded by wind swept tundra. I'd say that ups the significance of the cabin considerably.
Significance to whom? To the cabin dweller? To a dweller in another cabin a hundred miles away?

I consider earth to be not so much a "backward little rock in a nondescript solar system in the arm of an average galaxy" that description better suits any random asteroid. The earth I see more as a rare jewel, lost in vast field. It's a matter of opinion, I suppose.
To Earthians, it is obviously that. It's home. However, to the rest of the universe, it's zip.

Other systems aren't the issue. Other systems with earth like planets are. Finding out how many DIRECTLY affects earth's status.
How, and from what perspective? What status does Earth have that relies on other "Earths" out there? Such a discovery might affect our perspective of ourselves, but outside of our little world, there is no status to be changed.

(Alot of stuff about Laplacian planes and occultations)
... that explains why we have found so few planetary systems.

Hence the greater likelyhood of other more advanced civilizations finding and taking interest in us rather than us to them.
Civilizations sufficiently advanced for practical interstellar travel would find us interesting in the same way that we are interested in primitive tribes on Earth. They're bloody well not going to come here in invisible mother ships to "channel" mindless schei?dreck to people who have all the international impact of a fly on the wall in the UN General Assembly hall.

Research so far indicates otherwise. Investigations of sun-type stars have thus far yeilded no indications of sol-type systems.
And the information that you blew off with a parenthetical comment explains WHY we thusfar have had only limited success.

It stands to reason that if the type of star is not the deciding factor, then the circumstances required to produce earth-type planets must be considerable indeed (cf. Drake equation, rare-earth theory).
Drake's equation relies on assumptions. IF and IF and IF and IF THEN ...

DrakeEq.png


Everything after <i>R*</i> is pure speculation. Therefore the equation is meaningless for serious scientific inquiry.

Why? Because a book written over the course of centuries by dozens of people and codified by rich men in funny hats says so? Sorry, not good enough.
This isn't the place for theological discourses, but suffice it to say that there is more evidence for God than for aliens.
 
KorMan said:
Drake's equation relies on assumptions. IF and IF and IF and IF THEN ...

Everything after <i>R*</i> is pure speculation. Therefore the equation is meaningless for serious scientific inquiry.

I'm with you there 100% - at best, Drake's equation is just a list of factors that *may* influence the likelyhood of ETs existence. Filling in the 'likely' values and declaring the result as an indication of anything, other than humanities own arrogance and ignorance, is ludicrous.
 
I'm not going over this point for point, it's too tedious. Suffice it to say, I don't think you understand my viewpoint, KorMan. It should however be noted that at no point did I ever claim the "channeled messages" were even remotely credible or believable, my issue was with the perception of earth you put forward. It's obvious to me now it is a matter of opinion and since opinions can't be argued, further discussion is made moot. You see the earth's position in the cosmos as insignificant because you believe it's merely one of millions of similar planets. I see it as vitally significant because we have no proof beyond speculation that any other such planets exist. Best I think to leave it at that.

As for theology, you're wrong. What better place coud there be for such a discussion as this? Here where all beliefs are challeneged, all assumptions scrutinized, all claims examined? The mathematical likelyhood of non-terrestrial life existing somewhere in the universe is not zero. Even if it's just a colony of microbes on an asteroid half a universe away, it's still more than just us. There is NO statistical probablity for the existence of God.
 
I tend to avoid debate on issues of little relevance. You see Earth as vitally important. I see it as an inhabited dust mote in the arm of an average galaxy. It's purely a matter of perspective.

Personally, I am convinced that the universe teems with life, including species in our little corner of space that are far beyond us scientifically, technologically and culturally, and that it is quite likely that we have been and are being visited.

What I do not swallow is the "New Age" psychobabble such as is found in the page that you linked to in the OP. If people that advanced were here in millions of spaceships (Ashtar's claim), it would signify a powerful interest in and concern for Earth. That would suggest that they would say something more concrete and rational than the vague, meandering piffle that fills the "channeled" messages that are all over the Net.

"Do you wish that we show up?" If that's the best that those "highly advanced beings" can offer, then no, I'd rather they didn't. Give me a race with practical, nuts & bolts information any day.

Lastly, where is it written that UFOlogy mandates atheism? It's not intellectual or scientific to reject God. But that's another issue for another forum. This is the Contactee forum, and keeping threads focused on that subject while minimizing thread drift is sound BB practice.

Va i luce.
 
KorMan said:
Personally, I am convinced that the universe teems with life, including species in our little corner of space that are far beyond us scientifically, technologically and culturally, and that it is quite likely that we have been and are being visited.

This is the crux of our difference in viewpoint. I cannot allow myself the "luxury" of belief. While I would certainly like to think that the universe is populated by a myriad of lifeforms on all sorts of varying levels but without one iota of proof I cannot.

KorMan said:
"Do you wish that we show up?" If that's the best that those "highly advanced beings" can offer, then no, I'd rather they didn't. Give me a race with practical, nuts & bolts information any day.

I agree completely. You'd think all this crystal-meditation hippie crap would have gone away by now.

KorMan said:
Lastly, where is it written that UFOlogy mandates atheism? It's not intellectual or scientific to reject God. But that's another issue for another forum. This is the Contactee forum, and keeping threads focused on that subject while minimizing thread drift is sound BB practice.

Very well, in the interest of thread and board continuity I'll shelve my questions. I'll just add that science MUST be atheistic or it's not science. Also, I'm not an atheist myself, I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic-deist.
 
This is the crux of our difference in viewpoint. I cannot allow myself the "luxury" of belief. While I would certainly like to think that the universe is populated by a myriad of lifeforms on all sorts of varying levels but without one iota of proof I cannot.
Sometimes belief is all we have. Is not the search for extrasolar planets based on the belief that they exist? Is not SETI founded on a belief that alien civilizations comparable to or superior to our own exist and are sending detectable radio signals into space, deliberately or not?

The first radio broadcast took place 100 years ago last Christmas Eve. That means that we have announced our presence to anyone within a radius of a hundred light years. The quantity, quality and variety of our signals have increased almost beyond reckoning in the last 60 years or so. Ergo any civilization within 50 light years has a veritable smorgasbord of Earth's transmission through which to sort.

Whether they detect them is another matter entirely, but the signals are out there for the hearing. If other civilizations are as curious and as motivated as we are, it is almost inevitable that we've been discovered.

Then the question is, are they capable of coming here to look us over?

... but without one iota of proof I cannot.
There's a world of difference between evidence and proof. Proof is an absolute. Evidence is not. Short of having a flying saucer or an alien body in our possession, proof is not forthcoming. We must content ourselves with evidence and continue to look for more of it.

I'll just add that science MUST be atheistic or it's not science.
That's imposing a limit on science that should not exist. Pure science must be neutral, seeking knowledge no matter what that information might evince or intimate. It should not be premised on either proving or disproving the existence and nature of God. Forcing science to comply with ideological or philosophical viewpoints destroys its value.
 
KorMan said:
Ergo any civilization within 50 light years has a veritable smorgasbord of Earth's transmission through which to sort.

Only provided that A) they have means of recieving (there's a bad tendancy amongst people nowadays to assume alien civilizations MUST be in advance of our own) and B) the signal actually gets there. We know gravity bends light, so who knows what other anomolous space phenomena might exist that would otherwise block, distort or destroy those transmissions?

KorMan said:
Short of having a flying saucer or an alien body in our possession, proof is not forthcoming.

That's a bit extreme, I'd settle for confirmation of ONE earth-like planet in our galactic neighborhood (say 100 light years). Given that, the likelyhood of finding others skyrockets. "Absolute" proof is not required but "a proof" would be nice.

KorMan said:
It should not be premised on either proving or disproving the existence and nature of God.

I don't recall saying it should. Indeed, trying to prove the existence of things which cannot be disproven is, by default, a waste of time. I fail to see how demanding that science function on a level of absolute provability is "imposing a limit" however. The foundation of science is impirical data, there's no room for faith. Scientists don't perform experiments because they believe they are correct, they perform them so they will KNOW whether or not they are correct.
 
CapnG said:
The foundation of science is impirical data, there's no room for faith. Scientists don't perform experiments because they believe they are correct, they perform them so they will KNOW whether or not they are correct.

What a load of tosh - *all* science is "best guess" based on observation. Scientists don't "know" anything. They have theories, models and equations that *seem* to offer an acceptable explanation of observable phenomena.

The problem with scientists is that if they can't boil something down to a set of equations or re-create it in a lab they don't want to deal with it - they assume that everything can be explained by scientific method alone. I think that offers a very narrow view of the world.

There's religion at one end and science at the other - I suspect the 'answer to everything' is somewhere in between. Until the *zealots* in both camps realize that, we're never gonna get the full picture.

What next in this 'discussion' - Occam's Razor?
 
Back
Top