Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post

Myplanet2 · 08-08-2009, 11:42 PM

How about the issues under contention?

Greer claimed that B&K's approach was too Anthropocentric.

Def:3. viewing and interpreting everything in terms of human experience and values.

B&K claimed that it was irresponsible and dangerous to presume that ET's are not hostile, since nobody knows for sure.

Greer claims there is no evidence of hostile ET intentions, yet didn't precisely define ET. Understandable since he was having to forge ahead while being "hunted" by Kerry. But I inferred from his comments that Greer considers physically oriented beings who travel in physical ships to be ET's, and that the jury has not returned on whether extra dimensional visitors could be considered ET's. He said he had no quibble about some entities being hostile, but that there was no evidence of an ET origin for them. Fair enough. I can see the logic of his not wanting to include the unprovable in his sphere of endeavour, because he means to be able to back up and prove to the establishment, as needed, what the evidence shows. I got the idea he knows much more of the score than he discusses, but keeps on topic because he is much watched and quoted.

One of the most useful comments of the hour was Greer's, that "you can't prove a negative". Another was that "we can keep going around in circles forever".

I think you go in circles when you don't get to the point.

What is the point?

There is disagreement between Greer and B&K. It seems to revolve around the philosophical difference that on the one hand, since there is no evidence of hostile intent from ET's, and since there is belief in the existence of the stipulation that belligerent, hostile humans need to get over that before they'll be able to go out and join the Galaxy at large, it makes most sense to curb our violent, polarized ways, and approach the subject of getting to know ET from a positive outlook, as far as whether to greet them with pointed gun, or open arms. On the other hand, it's proposed that since we don't know the ET's intentions, and since there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the existence of some dark agenda's often attributed to ET's of corporeal and non-corporeal types alike, that it makes more sense to have a loaded gun handy until we're sure one way or another.

Greer then proposes that much of what B&K think of as dark ET agenda's can just as easily be ascribed to Dark humans masquarading as ET's, or to Dark entities which are of unknown origin, making it unjust to present them as ET's. They could be of earthly origin just as easily as of ET origin.

What is the truth at the centre of what they've been circling around?

And is it an injustice to the ET's to paint them with a anthropocentric brush? Have ET's merged their polarity issues? Have some? Have most? If so, Greer's right. We do them an injustice. Those non-corporeal ET's I have personal experience with, certainly seem to have no issues of polarity. They seem to hold no judgement, and hold true unconditional love for us. At least that's how I'd characterize the ones I know. I've never met any corporeal ones, but the stories my ET friends have told me about them leads me to once again support Greers notion that they are not hostile towards us, even when their actions appear to us to be destructive. And that in most cases, permission for physical interaction is in place at higher levels of consciousness, even when it's forgotten and scary in the fraction of our consciousness invested in these little 3D lives underway here on earth. It was explained to me that some large number of abductions involve "distant relatives". Too long a story to lay out here in this post, but it makes self consistent sense and certainly takes the fear factor out of it.

the MILAB stuff is another issue all together.

What do you think?

08-08-2009, 11:42 PM	#83
Myplanet2 In The Mists Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,133	Re: Steven Greer Interview Discussion How about the issues under contention? Greer claimed that B&K's approach was too Anthropocentric. Def:3. viewing and interpreting everything in terms of human experience and values. B&K claimed that it was irresponsible and dangerous to presume that ET's are not hostile, since nobody knows for sure. Greer claims there is no evidence of hostile ET intentions, yet didn't precisely define ET. Understandable since he was having to forge ahead while being "hunted" by Kerry. But I inferred from his comments that Greer considers physically oriented beings who travel in physical ships to be ET's, and that the jury has not returned on whether extra dimensional visitors could be considered ET's. He said he had no quibble about some entities being hostile, but that there was no evidence of an ET origin for them. Fair enough. I can see the logic of his not wanting to include the unprovable in his sphere of endeavour, because he means to be able to back up and prove to the establishment, as needed, what the evidence shows. I got the idea he knows much more of the score than he discusses, but keeps on topic because he is much watched and quoted. One of the most useful comments of the hour was Greer's, that "you can't prove a negative". Another was that "we can keep going around in circles forever". I think you go in circles when you don't get to the point. What is the point? There is disagreement between Greer and B&K. It seems to revolve around the philosophical difference that on the one hand, since there is no evidence of hostile intent from ET's, and since there is belief in the existence of the stipulation that belligerent, hostile humans need to get over that before they'll be able to go out and join the Galaxy at large, it makes most sense to curb our violent, polarized ways, and approach the subject of getting to know ET from a positive outlook, as far as whether to greet them with pointed gun, or open arms. On the other hand, it's proposed that since we don't know the ET's intentions, and since there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the existence of some dark agenda's often attributed to ET's of corporeal and non-corporeal types alike, that it makes more sense to have a loaded gun handy until we're sure one way or another. Greer then proposes that much of what B&K think of as dark ET agenda's can just as easily be ascribed to Dark humans masquarading as ET's, or to Dark entities which are of unknown origin, making it unjust to present them as ET's. They could be of earthly origin just as easily as of ET origin. What is the truth at the centre of what they've been circling around? And is it an injustice to the ET's to paint them with a anthropocentric brush? Have ET's merged their polarity issues? Have some? Have most? If so, Greer's right. We do them an injustice. Those non-corporeal ET's I have personal experience with, certainly seem to have no issues of polarity. They seem to hold no judgement, and hold true unconditional love for us. At least that's how I'd characterize the ones I know. I've never met any corporeal ones, but the stories my ET friends have told me about them leads me to once again support Greers notion that they are not hostile towards us, even when their actions appear to us to be destructive. And that in most cases, permission for physical interaction is in place at higher levels of consciousness, even when it's forgotten and scary in the fraction of our consciousness invested in these little 3D lives underway here on earth. It was explained to me that some large number of abductions involve "distant relatives". Too long a story to lay out here in this post, but it makes self consistent sense and certainly takes the fear factor out of it. the MILAB stuff is another issue all together. What do you think?