Messages

you can't just dismiss something because it only happens in your mind.  if, as you say, that reality is possibly composed of consciousness, then we are all basically in our minds.  i get what you're saying and doing, but just telling someone who's having an overwhelming experience that something isn't real because you said so probably won't help them get around it.  at the same time, indulging in the fantasy could exacerbate the problem.  but, maybe that "phantom" is a representation of a mental block, a psychological program in the mind that needs to be confronted.  the point is that humans are very very symbolic and metaphorical creatures.  we personify things so that we can grasp and interact with them.  maybe it is necessary in the healing of a shattered ego to accept these experiences and work through them instead of denying them.

this is what my blog post about the shadow self was about.  denying these representations buries them deeper.  confronting them and acknowledging them heals and re-integrates them.

lol.

borg with poor programming?

appreciated.

i've gotta be honest, the thing i saw here in va didn't look like balloons.

but the nyc objects look odd.  i know it's not appropriate to apply my perspective of reality if there is suspicion of something that may be beyond my understanding.  but what could you imagine that would "fly" like that?  a ship? a camera? a probe?  can't really think of much that would move like that that would be "otherworldly" in any sense.

how can a culture reconcile immigration without the sacrifice of cultural identity?

someone has to give.

unless we just do away with national borders and create a new homogeneous humanity.

I'll second the premise.

I'm not saying that what I saw was an alien craft.  It was just an odd object in the sky.  I wasn't close enough to determine what it might have been.  It just looked really similar to those nyc things.

I know you're skeptical, but I swear I saw something really similar in Richmond VA on saturday.

When I saw the object it looked longer, but after seeing how the multiple dots would go together and separate, that could explain why what i saw looked longer than one of the dots.  I only watched it for a minute or two.  It was far away and my camera on my phone couldn't even see it because of how far it was.  But I saw it.  I really didn't think anything of it.  But I hadn't heard of this stuff in NYC.  It just smacked me in the face when I watched these videos, it looks just like what I saw.  Creepy.

i saw a time machine on tv once.  (seriously)

it was like a tube or something with mirrors in it and they shot a laser inside that created a vortex or something
i'll have to try to find the video.

due I think to my recent Buhlman seminar at TMI.

do you live near TMI?  I do.

It's been discussed here before that there are "force fields" preventing access to many federal buildings and such.  I mean on one hand it wouldn't surprise me with all of the remote viewing and psychic espionage the US government has worked at over the years.  It would make sense for them to protect their secrets in that regard.  On the other hand, the reality of a "RTZ" is questionable.  It's much more likely (imo) that it's an astral environment that looks similar to the "real world".  Nevertheless, there could very well be an astral force field in an astral replica of the white house.  maybe it's full of aliens or something who do their work in the astral and put up force fields there.

physically there is no harm.

i imagine that if one were spontaneously projected, and depending on what they see, they could potentially have a nervous breakdown of sorts.  like if a very devout christian were thrown out of the body and witnessed what they believed to be hell (like Dante maybe), it could be a traumatic enough experience to break their psyche.  but i don't think that's very probably, just possible.

a woman at my work taught a psychic development class recently where she taught people to bend spoons.  i didn't ask her how though.

the eye bit is tough.  it doesn't matter where your eyes are facing, just as long as you can stop them from moving.

your eyes are constantly making micromovements, movements that are mostly imperceptible unless you're really looking for them.

your body won't let go until your eyes stop moving.  you just have to practice holding your eyes still.  i found that practicing with pictures that cause you to focus intently on one spot are really helpful.  for example, the 3-D magic eye puzzles, optical illusions (especially spiral ones), a dot on a white wall.  things like that.  helps you learn how to control your eyes.

but in the end, it doesn't matter where they're pointed, you just want to forget about them and let them go to sleep.

Welcome to the Pulse

perhaps the mysteriousness of area 51 only exists in the astral.  like maybe the area 51 we all know as a secret base really exists as an astral realm populated by multidimensional-scientists (perhaps pure astral entities or even physical entities who can easily switch to astral awareness).

i would say that at this rate we're more likely to be borg.

backwards i guess.  it's been years that i've been reading about it. 

i posted some links to conversations that interest me now, sure (though i would hardly say new age, which must be the root of your bias, which i understand entirely).  there are legitimate researchers in fields you might call conspiratorial or possibly metaphysical, though i think many of them see themselves as real scientists with extreme theories at worst.  but whatever.  some of it may be speculation and conjecture.

my point still stands that some of the best astronomical minds have said that the moon and earth relationship is beyond unusual.

my apologies if i spoke from memory as fact, i didn't mean to mislead people (and i hope you all wouldn't believe anything anyone ever says as fact).

I moved this discussion to it's own thread

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/the_moon_what_of_it-t32212.0.html

We can keep talking about it if you want.  Whatever. 

I don't want to kill this thread anymore than we already have.

The Moon, it's there, but.......IS IT REAL?!     Kidding.  The conversation thus far, if anyone wants to discuss it further. 

Artificial Moon?

not true.  the moon is nothing like earth.

Yes, it is actually, unless youre with the whole "its a giant space ship" crowd. Obviously the moon did not form before the Earth, unless it is really is a giant space craft which I dont personally believe. The moon has been dated at about 4.5 billion years old and did indeed originate from the same interstellar material as the earth, it may possibly have been part of the earth as well. Where is your basis for your statement?

Well, from a lot of places really, over the years.

Spaceships and whatnot aside (though I'm not convinced that it's not artificial), the moon, by all accounts, shouldn't exist.  But, specifically in reference to what you said (that the moon is the same age as the earth), based on the currently most accepted lunar creation theory, the moon should be relatively similar in composition to the earth, but it's not.  It could have formed within this solar system, certainly, but you can't assert that it is the same age as the earth or that it came from the earth.  Interestingly enough some of the oldest rocks found from the moon are a billion years older than anything found on earth (which doesn't prove that the moon is necessarily older than the earth). But there is also other evidence that the age of the earth-moon system can't be as old as the solar system (4.6 billion years).  A lot of it has to do with the shape of the earth and the distance between earth and moon.  Again, in line with currently accepted theory, if the moon was formed by the "Double Big Whack" (an invading body hit the earth, incinerated part, which coalesced and swung around and collided with the earth again, throwing off a chunk that became our moon), then why does the earth have all the iron and the moon relatively little?  And about the lunar creation theories, the mathematics don't really work out as well as one would expect.  They've had to tweak the theory numerous times, finally landing on one impact and then more recently landing on the double impact theory.  Nevertheless, astro-physicists are still having trouble reconciling all of the math to make this theory work.

There are some really good books on the moon out there. 

Like "Who Built the Moon" by Knight & Butler.
Here's a Coast to Coast AM episode with these authors http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2005/12/07

Here's a good episode of Red Ice Radio about the moon http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/01jan/moon.html

Isaac Asimov even commented on the moon.  It's just too perfect.  you know life wouldn't exist on earth as we know it (or maybe not at all) without our moon being where it is and as big as it is (which the size thing is crazy too, no other body the size of earth has a satellite that big, our gravity shouldn't be strong enough to keep it, which it isn't apparently). 

But yea, I'm not really definitively saying anything about artificiality or spaceships or whatever.  Just that the moon and the earth aren't proven to be the same age, nor are they proven to have formed together or even from the same material (the solar accretion disk).
and there's plenty more out there

You are right that the composition is slightly different, but you are incorrect in that moon rocks are older than the earth, the oldest rocks from the moon are about 4.55 billion years old, unless you are referring to foreign meteorite material. The theories you presented appear to only appear in new age literature (which I usually treat as any other religious literature) but I will keep researching before I make any deffinitive statements. I require real sources on these mathematical inconsistencies but so far they dont appear to be actual problems outside of the new age community. But to stay on topic, the moon is only one of many ways I listed on how we know the earth's age, so going off on this tangent seems a little irrelevant, but interesting nonetheless.

UPDATE: The moon's mantel is more iron rich than earth's, either you got the theory backwards or your talking bull.

WOOT! for NEW EVOLUTIONS!

I agree.  I feel that the use of music in spiritual practice has taken on too much of the new age flavor.  In truth, any music that captivates you and "awakens your soul" is what you should use.  If that's metal, techno, bluegrass, folk, etc., then so be it.

ugh.

can you sound anymore new agey ryan?!        

Well, from a lot of places really, over the years.

Spaceships and whatnot aside (though I'm not convinced that it's not artificial), the moon, by all accounts, shouldn't exist.  But, specifically in reference to what you said (that the moon is the same age as the earth), based on the currently most accepted lunar creation theory, the moon should be relatively similar in composition to the earth, but it's not.  It could have formed within this solar system, certainly, but you can't assert that it is the same age as the earth or that it came from the earth.  Interestingly enough some of the oldest rocks found from the moon are a billion years older than anything found on earth (which doesn't prove that the moon is necessarily older than the earth). But there is also other evidence that the age of the earth-moon system can't be as old as the solar system (4.6 billion years).  A lot of it has to do with the shape of the earth and the distance between earth and moon.  Again, in line with currently accepted theory, if the moon was formed by the "Double Big Whack" (an invading body hit the earth, incinerated part, which coalesced and swung around and collided with the earth again, throwing off a chunk that became our moon), then why does the earth have all the iron and the moon relatively little?  And about the lunar creation theories, the mathematics don't really work out as well as one would expect.  They've had to tweak the theory numerous times, finally landing on one impact and then more recently landing on the double impact theory.  Nevertheless, astro-physicists are still having trouble reconciling all of the math to make this theory work.

There are some really good books on the moon out there. 

Like "Who Built the Moon" by Knight & Butler.
Here's a Coast to Coast AM episode with these authors http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2005/12/07

Here's a good episode of Red Ice Radio about the moon http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/01jan/moon.html

Isaac Asimov even commented on the moon.  It's just too perfect.  you know life wouldn't exist on earth as we know it (or maybe not at all) without our moon being where it is and as big as it is (which the size thing is crazy too, no other body the size of earth has a satellite that big, our gravity shouldn't be strong enough to keep it, which it isn't apparently). 

But yea, I'm not really definitively saying anything about artificiality or spaceships or whatever.  Just that the moon and the earth aren't proven to be the same age, nor are they proven to have formed together or even from the same material (the solar accretion disk).
and there's plenty more out there

from what i've read, iso-tones are supposedly the "new evolution" of brainwave entrainment technology.