Talk Sense

Ah come on that Star child stuff is guff have you never seen a mis shaped skull. If you dug up the elephant man you would think its an alien.

It's pretty mad tbh. I'm still reading it all. Right now I am asking myself where the studies on the fibres are, and why they keep saying the control skull was 'reportedly' found with the Starchild skull. Also where are the studies on the unidentifiable red stuff? And are they sure it wasn't burnt collagen from the blade? They said there was no protocol if you like for studying something they cannot identify so they have't tried yet, for fear of contaminating the sample. IMO they have more than enough sample to try SOMETHING and see what they get, rather than just sit on a research stalemate. If they do get to it that's great, but I haven't got that far yet.

Raz

Mate I have seen so much about the elephant man - and so far that has been explained by things. I watched that programme about 6 weeks ago about the elephant man and how they think he died- by leaning his head a certain way and it snapping his neck etc when he went to bed. Whatever. I am waiting to read an explanation for a skull made out of tooth, uniformly yet unforced-ly different to a normal human, much much thinner and lighter, yet stronger. I am not arrogant enough to simply thumb-down the Star Child as being not-entirely-human just because it doesn't sit with my idea of normal or acceptable. I have not finished reading, however, and when I have I will draw my own conclusions. The only thing I will say now before it crops up later is this: if all this govt cover up stuff really does happen and any trace of alien life is always hidden and then publicly dismissed, then I will not be surprised if I eventually end up reading that this is in fact human, even if I do not believe it.

What also makes me curious is that it had a string of DNA nucleotides or whatever that were 100% human, tied in with DNA that apparently was 100% NOT - not only that, but unrecognised as being anything from this planet that science knows about so far. That is amazing, and I will carry on exploring til I find out what people think it is.

On a side note, enough work and research has been done on body language and psychology to be able to identify immediately whether or not the scientists responsible for providing the DNA results, and Pye, are lying. So I don't think they are at this moment in time.

Raz

Nutshell: there is a difference between mis-shaped and perfectly-formed-yet-different.

To the guy that says the Starchild skill is only a misshapen skull. You clearly have only seen a pic of it, and by the sound of it, not a very good one. All sceptics say that they want evidence. Well science has tested this thing more than several times at different labs by different scientists and the conclusion ( so far ) is always the same. That the biological father of this thing is not of human origin. Even by looking at the pics, you can see it's not just a misshapen skull. Thing is, we don't know exactly how it came about, but we have it. Also, if there is ever a final test that explains it, then I'll accept whatever they say.
Dont be so close minded.
Remember, the brightest minds in the world once believed the earth was flat, so ponder that for a while.
Next you'll be saying it's FACT, that we're the only intelligent beings in the whole universe.

Anyway, peace

Jay

That's cool mate, take your time. I'm always happy to have a discussion on these topics.

Peace
Jay

Ps. Class page ed's! {Ed001's Note - cheers mate, we all found ourselves discussing these things between us on our widget, so it made sense to create a site for everyone to be able to join in.}

Right first off i'll accpet that there ae inconsistancies in the established events. i think we both recognise that.

I do feel that there is no way that the govt could have carried it out, a conspiracy like that would have needed dozens if not 100's of people involved at all levels, something surely would have leaked out by now. However i will accept that certain people are certainly shady characters and may have been acting independently providing that there is sufficient evidence to prove this.

Regards the claims that it was economic Pearl Harbor.

All through history great civilisations have gone to war for economic reasons, to control resources, gain land or slaves. Rome, the British Empire etc etc, this has happened throughout history so for the Americans to go to war for oil makes sense, a necessary resource in a strategically vital region where they have had previous.

So why in the this media driven thirst for revenge go for Afghanistan? If they just wanted a grab for Middle Eastern oil why not just go straight out for Iraq in 2001, why wait 2 years? If as you say they rigged it to put the blame on others why not rig it to look like Iraq and dive straight in there in 2001? Plenty of oil, friendly countries on the borders to provide bases, shorter strategic supply lines. From a viewpoint Iraq made a lot of sense. And from a humanitarian viewpoint he had to go and should have gone back in 1991.

But Afghanistan, ok so the perpetrators were based there, we know this based on what we have been told. But as i said if the Americans had been behind it and oil was the aim why say Afghanistan when they could have just said elesewhere unless it really was those based in Afghanistan.

Also Afghanistan is to me at least a strange choice, as far as i am aware there is no vast amount of natural resources as no one has really been able to conduct a proper survey due to the country being adogs breakfast since the 70's.

Supposedly its meant to be part of a pipeline. From where? It makes no strategic sense to build a pipeline through such hostile terrain and with all those warring factions around. Throw in hostile neighbours in Iran and the uncertainty of Pakistan and that whole area is a massive strategic risk that any competent military man would advise you to avoid.

You'd be far better concentraing on somewhere like Iraq and heading your pipeline towards the Eastern Mediterranean. Of course at some point you need to get either Jordan or Syria on side and sort out the mess thats Israel/ Palestine at least so you can get your pipeine in, but all thats surely easier than messing around in Afghanistan.

Rambling a bit so apologies. Anyway to Libya again yes the oil, but France was the driving force behind that and you can't accuse them of being pro american. As for Syria, i'm not sure there is the appetite for messing overtly in that one, not with Libya coming to a close, Iraq coming to a close and Afghanistan still dragging on. Its overstretch and its a lot of effort especially cost wise in a recession just for a pipeline.

I tend to disagree with the whole 911 was an inside job just to kickstart the American economy because from a point of view it doesn't make sense. Espwcially as it doesn't seem to have worked as the American economy over the last 3 years has been in its worst state for years.

But that doesn't mean that something funny isn't going on, certainly there are shady incidents, little pieces of the puzzle here and there. {Ed033's Note - British soldiers have been trying to take Afghanistan for the last 200 years because it is a strategic location. Also originally it was thought that there were billions of barrels of easy to get to oil in the caspian sea and they wanted to build a pipeline from the Caspian sea and across Afghanistan but then they found out there was not billions of barrels of easy to get to oil in the Caspian sea so went to Iraq first. }

Yes Ed and the fact that British soldiers haven't accomplished it in 200 years says a lot about the operational problems in the place.

Besides reagrds Caspian sea oil, wouldn't the majority belong to Russia? Also looking at the geography and topography wouldn't it be easier, cheaper and make more sense to take a pipeline from the Caspian west rather than east? {Ed033's Note - It appears that they have disbanded the pipeline idea now anyway and decided to place a big military base in Afghanistan which will be expanded under the surface of Afghanistan. }

"If they just wanted a grab for Middle Eastern oil why not just go straight out for Iraq in 2001, why wait 2 years? If as you say they rigged it to put the blame on others why not rig it to look like Iraq and dive straight in there in 2001? Plenty of oil, friendly countries on the borders to provide bases, shorter strategic supply lines. From a viewpoint Iraq made a lot of sense."

To me this would be a reason NOT to do what you suggest - too obvious. They had to make things harder for themselves in a way, and others, to blur the links of association between going to war and wanting the oil. Go to Afghan, reduce the motive and suspicion, but ultimately get the same result, or go Iraq, and immediately have the whole world pointing a finger saying 'this isn't about war or terrorism, this is about oil'.

{Ed033's Note - Well, many people have spent large amounts of money trying to find out what's in the Nova Scotia Money Pit but no one has found anything of value such as lost knowledge or treasure. }

Or the arc of the covenent........??

Matty b

Pretty much mate. The thing with the government ( all governments ) is that they create a problem, then offer a solution. Obviously the problem they create is sold as something else, terrorism for example. They then say what they and us could all do to prevent such problems, hence us asking for their help. It's a viscious cycle, but one that we, the people, have accepted. Problem is, we all complain about the government, yet we put them there and never seriously put up much of an arguement to their goings on.
Maybe 1 day, we can drop our weapons, artillery, nuclear warheads and unite together as 1, the way it should be. We are a species of beauty and mystery, yet we continue to destroy ourselves. It saddens me that we are like this, but like I said, maybe 1 day, we'll re-connect with ourselves and our universe!

Peace

Jay
Glasgow

Sad fact of life Jay, and perhaps biology too, is that we have an ID and an EGO and temperaments and emotion such as anger, love, power, whatever. That's why, just like almost every other biological creature out there, we are territorial, we defend things we love, and we like to get as much of what we love as possible, and we thrist for power. The world didn't get on like a house on fire before the last 20 centuries, far from it- tribe wars, religious wars, you name it, since the dawn of man we have fought each other over homes, and then wealth. I doubt it will ever change, unless we decide to actively defy the nature of our race.

I could happily live in a world without all the material things we seem to want/need these days. As long as I had shelter and food for my family, I'd be happy. Problem is, not everyone can do without the material things in life. If we all could, the world would be a better place for it and not one person on our beautiful planet would have to starve again. We could all be equal as one and get back to basics and understanding what our part in the universe is!

Peace

Jay

Sounds like someone took the red pill good for you lad lol.

always a red

Maybe not all planes, but the plane THEY say hit the Pentagon stood 45ft tall. It's all documented, check it out!

Peace

Jay

{Ed033's Note - The most likely flying thing that hit the Pentagon was a missile possibly the Granit Missile }

They dont stand that high. on the ground they are tall however the landing gear would of been up when crashed so knock a few feet off that as much as almost half.
i work as a flight attendant so know a lot about planes. and all the pilots i know say the same thing, it was a plane.
a plane full of people and crew were murdered on that plane its a bit insensitive to say its a missile after its quite obvious a plane.
the conspiracy makes no sense anyway. why lie and say its a plane?

MIKEY

MIKEY!

The plane they say hit the Pentagon ( 737 ) can't remember the exact type of plane, stands 45ft tall. Let's for the sake of argument say a few was taken from the plane before it hit, the hole it would leave would still be larger than 15ft!

Also, it's insensitive NOT to raise these these questions. Also, where did the supposedly indestructible engines go?

Which airline do you work for? You chat to pilots regularly then?

Peace
Jay

If we ever do find out 100% for sure that we're not alone in the universe, I'm sure for certain that we will have feelings never felt before. Knowing that we aren't alone in our vast universe would maybe help us stop living the way we do. We need a change, and maybe a little guidance from a more advanced civilisation would help us along the way

If we found out 100% someone would say it was a conspiricy!

Ash

Thats the whole point the government dont want us to know there are more advanced xcilvilizations or change the way we live as they would loose power and power= money we are all being told ow to live and working for someone elses dream

It's not really about the government not wanting to let you know. The effects of finding out that there was a superior race to humans would cause pandemonium and a breakdown in society. You just have to look at anthroplogical studies concerning places who have come into contact with superior societies. For example, when Inuits were first found by more advanced people, it basically led to mass alcoholism and suicide! {Ed033's Note - This is why it appears all the Governments signed up to non disclosure of extraterrestrial life as the Brookings Report said that if we looked for Extra terrestrial life, we would almost certainly find evidence of extra terrestrial life and that may cause problems in society due to the knowledge of ET's as stated above. }

Rudi that depends on what 'our current beliefs' are? I believe in extra terrestrial stuff. I am not religious, but respect those that are, and I believe in extents of spirituality.

But I am also not so close-minded that I feel there is no life anywhere else, that is such a ridiculous proposition I don't know how, in this day and age, anyone can honestly just disregard the concept of their being life elsewhere.

Unless you let your religion dictate your beliefs, which some do. But religion does not make science wrong. As Jay said befre, imagine where we would be now if science had been allowed to progress hundreds of years ago, if not for religion (which dictated acceptability in society) blocking it's progression. We would have had electricity over a thousand years ago probably. Imagine where we'd be now.

Err... sorry, I was rambling. My point is would it really destroy our present understandings of anything? I don't think so. You ask a kid of every religion/race if they understand the concept of ET stuff or aliens or whatever, they'd probably say yes.

If you proved that they existed, I doubt they'd change their beliefs - I don't know any beliefs that preach that we are the only planet with life in the entire universe.

I really hope it turns out the Star Child skull is genuinely alien, and if they find evidence of technologies from previous eras of man that far outweigh what we call technology, well I'd die a very happy bunny.

Raz

I almost agree, but the USA are the most powerful and nuclear wealthy country on the planet. but look at what they and us are doing now, The whole Libya fiasco. Now it looks like us and the USA will be going to Syria soon as well, it's only a matter of time. If not, they'll find somewhere else ( with oil ) for us to invade and play the humanitarian card again!
Anyway, what I said is only my personal opinion. I understand I could be 100% wrong, but like I've said, when you do the research, scrutinise the evidence on your own, then you can be happy with whatever theory/hypothesis you've came up with yourself. Watch The New American Century, gives you a few avenues to check out and shows just how horrible the US government really is.
On another note, I find it very strange that when the US went to Iraq, they destroyed ancient library's and ancient tombs connected to the Anunnaki. Probably because it's pretty much proven that the bible is nothing else but a very poor and cheap copy of the Sumerian clay tablets. The yanks wouldn't like to shown that there beliefs are stolen from a much richer, more intelligent culture than themselves.

Jay

Ps. Just want to say again, anything I put on this page is only my personal opinion, and I welcome anyone to challenge any theory that I've put up after they have checked the info and evidence thats out there for all to see.

Peace

Maybe. Get a pay as you go and get everyone to save you as a coded name if you are worried about this..... bit like Bourne Identity...

P.s. in a nutshell if you have to do anything that gives your name and address away, then you can be tracked. People think hotmail is so secure, but think about this - there is a database full of info like your password etc. When you forget it, or your log in, someone can access all that information as the means in which you can save it and give it in the first place that it may be stored were created by us in the first place. The only reason you have to log into hotmail, open an email for your orange account or whatever else, click on the link and then add a new password, instead of them telling you, is because they'd be found out. (And obviously the reason why you have to set up a new hotmail account if you forget your password is because they don't want to blow their own cover.) When you change your pin on your bank card - that number is generated somewhere. So it is stored. If you then go to a cash machine and change it, they still know - they have to - 1) because all the button presses are logged, and 2) because how would htey know if it is correct or not if there was not a frame of reference? By they I mean the computer software. And 100% of what happens in a computer software program can be traced. So if someone wanted to hack into a cash machine and steal all the bank details and pin codes, they could, they'd just have to know how.

It's not as simple as that really. USA's economy had taken a dive, and there wasn't really much they could do about it. Another loan from the world bank was more than likely an option, but with the debt they were in, the American people probably wouldn't have stood for another loan that they, the taxpayers, would end up footing the bill. So, the only option really left was to get their hands on some oil. The only way this would be possible, would be to invade a country which is rich in oil. Now they couldn't just invade without any reason, so they had to come up with some reason for taking troops across seas for a so called war. The USA had plenty of warning of an attack identical to what actually happened on 9/11, way before it did. But with them ( THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY - RUMSFELD, CHENEY, WOLFOWITZ and another guy, can't remember his name ) stating in their own documentation, that for the American economy to get back on top and out of it's slump, they'd need a new PEARL HARBOUR. so all they had to do was play the waiting game, because it had been on the cards for years that this attack was immanent. After the attack, obviously the American people wanted revenge, which we can all understand as it was a very disgusting attack on innocent people. I do think that demolition explosives were planted to help take the towers down. But I can't say who put them there as I would be guessing. Anyway, now American had a reason to invade country's rich with oil, but the media had it, the USA and uk had went on a mission to capture any weapons of mass destruction, and to capture those responsible for the attacks. Now with everything in place, the people got behind their troops as they were sold the false story of revenge for those lost. So we can't blame the yanks for getting behind their government, necause from their point of view, why would they lie? If you look at where all the military camps are in country's that we and the USA have invaded, every one of them is along an oil pipe line. Pretty peculiar when you see it.
The short story is, 9/11 was a false flag event, in order for the yanks to invade and STEAL other country's oil for their own gain and financial wealth. That's what I make from everything that happened that day to where we are now.
Look at Libya as well, oil rich and yet again, the uk and USA find a reason to go for humantarian reasons. If that really is the story, humanitarian reasons, then we should be in country's where people and their children are starving to death and dying of illness that the western world can take a pill for!

Jay
Glasgow

Jay, I do not refute your theory at all, I find it very interesting. the only I would like to know is whether there is any evidence of the oil being taken? Shipping? Tapping the pipes? Lorries photographed?
Cheers,
Raz

Exactly mate - I don't see the US/UK governments going to places like Uganda, or the Congo, in such numbers when life in those countries is shocking and the suffering of the people. I guess there's no oil in those places, so no interest in 'helping' them out......

RED_SKY

Raz, I understand your query.
It's not a case of just taking it. When NATO get involved, usually with us and the USA at the forefront, once we get these country's and restore order and democracy ( what the government like to say ), when a new government/leader is put in place. We and the USA draft up what we feel is a fair contract on the profits of the oil. Because once order has been restored, NATO/UK/USA pick who will be running the country, so whoever makes the best offer of finance from oil production/sale, usually gets the position of power. Just look at all the military camps along the oil pipe lines in the country's where we have troops. Shocking, but happening!

Peace

Jay

Red sky, spot on mate. No oil, no humanitarian missions! I for 1 would be proud of my country if we could make a real difference in places that need it, not helping out corporate big wigs.

Peace

Jay