Abduction to the Ninth Planet. Anyone?

[vesselinpeev]

"Lethal amounts of radiation vary between creatures"

Not exactly. Some creatures don't really take in the full blunt of the radiation to begin with. Although, what I meant to convey was that radiation is harmful to all organisms. Actually, roaches do indeed have an unusually different chromosome structure, which is difficult for radiation to shatter. So do butterflies, but not ants.

Ionizing radiation does not attack organic material per say, it attacks atoms by pulling electrons out of their orbit. Radiation effects organism in the form of particles. Creatures with exoskeletons(especially roaches which has a particularly dense one) absorb oxygen through their skeletal structure. Radioactive particles aren't small enough to be absorbing with oxygen. They are killed from the outside in, instead of from the inside out, as with organisms who breath via lungs. Also their exoskeleton molts and this removes radioactive particles. Considering the cellular growth of roaches I can see why they could take more.

However, according to the author, these insects developed lungs and large masses putting them in the same category with the rest of us. When you take everything into consideration, there is no reason for the roach to physically change due to radiation as it doesn't really break the skin in in the first place. It's tantamount to humans mutating to a point where we no longer have an epidermis because of solar radiation and then thriving regardless of the fact that we lost the one thing that protected us. The roach genetics have served them for 365 million years and now, from a survival perspective, they are going to de-evolve into something that is more susceptible to radiation.. AND THRIVE?!?!?! There is no way any creature the size of a large dog is going to be able to cellular regenerate fast enough to slow down the radiation process. To much mass to cover in addiction to inhaling radioactive particles directly into the blood stream.

The author is in a land of make believe. He'd have been better of just writing a theological thesis. Instead he's trying to pull a "God is own my side" move by attributing the supposed beliefs of these "top of of the spiritual hierarchy" aliens to his own.

The quote that Yothu, a good friend of mine, gave, is actually mine.

Could you please read it again?

I think that, given that the Thaori effectively say that species are interrelated because subspecies are derived from primary species, it could very well be possible that an ant's organism contains information about structures that are normally alien to them and do not manifest, much like it is possible for humans to develop the so-called atavisms under certain unknown influences. In this line of reasoning, radiation could unlock the development of such structures and allow the creatures to partially take on the structure of others.

Note especially "it could very well be possible that an ant's organism contains information about structures that are normally alien to them and do not manifest" and that "radiation could unlock the development of such structures and allow the creatures to partially take on the structure of others".

Now, could you please show me formal scientific studies that have concluded that those insects can never get as giant as described in the book, and the ants can never develop lungs? No, you absolutely cannot do that now.

Alternatively, could you point me to studies concluding that all genes of a cockroach or ant have finally been identified, and there are no any more? No, you absolutely cannot do that now.

I promise that if you ever provide me with such studies, I am going to take the time to examine and discuss them with you step-by-step in a careful logical manner.

You are also incorrectly claiming that the author wrote cockroaches developed lungs -- it is ants that are claimed to have developed them.

So when you say "The author is in a land of make believe. He'd have been better of just writing a theological thesis", you should realize that you are in the land of "make believe", too, when you give your opinion that "there is no way".

[nibor]

What if Thao glanced at a screen and gave the exact answer because it is quicker to tell it as it is instead of to round it off?

Given that they where speaking to each other, this does not sound likely at all. If they where going with several times the speed of light, they would be at least a million, if not many millions of kilometers nearer or further away from the comet before Thao would have been able to end the sentence. That is a pretty big part of the distance that where from the beginning. A better answer would have been "50 000 000 000 km:s away" or something like that I think. Because they where also able to watch the stars moving, and they are separated by trillions of km:s (12 zeros).
what do you think?

/nibor

[vesselinpeev]

Nibor, how about something like the following situation. Imagine an equilateral triangle with side 4,150,000 km (the following figure is not quite an equilateral triangle but imagine it is). The comet is positioned at vertex A, and let us for the purposes imagine that it is virtually stationary (or moving very slowly, something that is quite possible). The ship moves at several times the speed of light and is positioned at vertex B when Thao starts the sentence. Then the shortest distance from the ship to the comet at vertex A is 4,150,000 km, the length of side BA. Then, while the sentence finishes a couple of seconds later, the ship travels 4,150,000 km. along side BC, and reaches vertex C. Since the shortest distance from vertex C to vertex A is the length of side CA, the reading still shows 4,150,000 km and there is no departure from the original reading at point B.
   
......A o
......../..\
......./....\
....../......\
...../........\
..../..........\
B o---------o C

(The dots are present only to keep the forum software from removing the indent.)

An example with an isosceles triangle will also be feasible, as well as with various other figures and approximations.

[nibor]

Ok, fair enought.
But even this reasoning does not explain how they could see the stars moving, and at the same time be able to give such an exact measurement. Because that would require much higher speeds, so that you had to dimension up that triangle many times to get to the proper dimensions.

/Nibor

[vesselinpeev]

What do you mean by "you had to dimension up that triangle many times to get to the proper dimensions"?

[nibor]

What do you mean by "you had to dimension up that triangle many times to get to the proper dimensions"?

What I meant was that you had to change its size to be much bigger. Because with that size, you would not be able to see the stars move. If Thao where able to speak a sentence within that relatively short distance from b to c, it would mean that they would travel with to low speed to see the stars move, with the dimensions given.
Did that make sence?

/nibor

[vesselinpeev]

What do you mean by "you had to dimension up that triangle many times to get to the proper dimensions"?

What I meant was that you had to change its size to be much bigger. Because with that size, you would not be able to see the stars move. If Thao where able to speak a sentence within that relatively short distance from b to c, it would mean that they would travel with to low speed to see the stars move, with the dimensions given.
Did that make sence?

/nibor

Yes, you could have such an argument, but I looked at the text and nothing in the text makes it certain that there was star movement seen in the particular moments while the sentence was being uttered. Page 28 (of the chapter "Atomic Destruction"):

From where I was, I could follow, on the central panel, the movement of stars as we proceeded on our way. Sometimes they appeared enormous and blinding as we passed by a little too closely - a few million kilometers from them. At times, too, we noticed planets of strange colours. I remember one was of an emeral green, so pure I was stunned. It resembled an enormous jewel.

Note the author says "From where I was, I could follow ... the movement of stars as we proceeded on our way". He does not say something like "I could follow the incessant movement of stars". He adds "Sometimes they... At times...".

Then the text immediately continues with the following, but it is not clear exactly when Thao approached and if there was any particular movement seen at this moment of time:

Thao approached and I took advantage of the opportunity to ask her about a band of light that had appeared at the base of the screen. This light was composed of what looked like millions of tiny explosions.
'These are caused by our anti-matter guns, as you would call them on Earth... [a long paragraph follows]
'Do you see a multicoloured point with a tail, at the right of the screen?' The 'thing' was approaching at high speed. Second by second we were able to admire it.
It seemed to explode constantly and change form, its colours indescribably rich. I looked at Thao.
'It's a comet,' she said. 'It completes a revolution around its sun in approximately 55 of your Earth years.'
'How far are we from it?'
She glanced at the computer: '4 150 000 kilometers.'
[no reference to comet or space for the rest of the chapter]

[nibor]

Yeah, it could be like you said.
Not really related, but have you read "the convergence series" by David Wilcock? A very convincing work of the reality of the universe, with many references to works that proves its points. I have not read all the e-books yet, but what I have read is very interesting. I think it's interesting to compare the "Thiaoouba prophecy" against this. Give it a go, if you have the time. Here is the address to the site that contains the e-books:

http://ascension2000.com/

They are placed at the left side of the site.
I have already given this address in another thread, so you might already have seen it.

/nibor

[vesselinpeev]

Nibor, I have known of him since last year when I read an interview with him. I have just read some bits of the "Convergence" series you have told me about, and I am dubious about his ascension theory because I do not think that he gives enough compelling evidence and proof that a global ascension is real. I will look forward to any further evidence/proof, as well as search for myself.

Although this is not directly in the "Abduction to the 9th Planet" book, I know that the author, Michel Desmarquet, has stated that there is no such thing as a global planetary ascension.

I try not to be prejudiced about things I cannot prove conclusively, so we'll see.

[warn81]

I read the whole book online; it was interesting...don't know if it was true but it was a very good book. He should update the site or something.

[MiddleWay]

Vesselinpeev,

First I'd like to state that I never said that ants could not develop lungs or that they could not grow to be the size of a cow. What I said was that they could not undergo such a change and at the same time be immune to the deadly effects of radiation.

Why don't you take the initiative to study radiation yourself? Then use that same initiative in your study of roach physiology. Then you will understand why a roach is more resilient to radiation than a human. You will also come to understand why a physiological development of lungs would stripe a roach of their advantage.

No creature the size of a dog is going to be able to absorb enough oxygen through an exoskeleton to support their mass. And if they could it would take A LOT of energy to pull in the same amount of air that lungs deliver through the pores of an exoskeleton. They would have to constantly be in the process of consuming sugars, carbs, and proteins and would not be able to ever rest because once the stopped eating they'd burn all their body's energy reserves by merely breathing. Sleeping would be suicide.

You don't have to believe me. Believe whatever you want. You seem so fanatical in your need to believe in this particular author that I think this discussion is bordering on a religious debate. I don't debate people's faith because faith is emotionally motivated by nature.

Peace.

[vesselinpeev]

Dear Middleway,

I apologize for the harshness in a previous post of mine, viz. "Could you please read it again?" in the context of the post. Also, I am sorry to have misunderstood you about ants, roaches and gigantism. If my posts have produced in you the impression that I am fanatical, this could not be farther from the truth. It could be stated with certainty, though, that I am very zealous to consider, check, going beyond belief and assumptions, and if good, apply, as far as my resources permit, many things from not only this book, but also numerous other sources on a mental and spiritual subject matter. In today's world of psychological crisis, I feel very pressed to do so, but despite that necessity, I do need to ease up at times, and I am going to work on it.

I am going to take the initiative, sincerely and carefully spend time to re-examine what you wrote (when I have more time), research things, and contact you personally with my findings (it would be good end results to be posted here eventually for the benefit of others). I strive for a civilized discussion in a careful logical manner, as I have pointed out in a previous post, and in fact I am glad that you have a real, non-vague argument against something in the book.

Until next time.