Reptilians?!

[Kunzag]

Wow..Dolphin Strategy..that sounds pretty darn interesting!

 

Any link to the book?

http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Dolphin-Sco...d/dp/0449905292

Written is shark style...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strategy_of_the_Dolphin

[rain]

beautiful

 

 

 

 

....(.must not admit to fight and kick ass...

this is a TAO forum. but thanks for all the fish..)

Edited October 19, 2007 by rain

[Taoist81]

Um... several things.

 

1. A few people are likely to be shocked by this statement but I'll say it anyway. "Evolved" in the sense "superior" is a meaningless and artificial concept. Every live creature that thrives in its environment long-term (for hundreds of millions of years some of them) is every bit as evolved as it needs to be. Long-term survival, and nothing else, is proof of evolutionary competence -- and even perfection -- if you accept that perfection is whatever requires no further improvements in order to successfully exist on a reliable, durable basis.

 

Evolving is something species do when their environment changes and they find themselves no longer capable of adapting to the change unless they change themselves in order to match the new conditions and meet the new challenges. Is all it is. The glorified evolution of human imagination understood as an inevitable linear progression from "lower" to "higher," from "dumb" to "smart," from "mere beast" to "crown of creation" (meaning "geared towards creating ME, so that I can watch TV") is a modern myth with no basis in reality. Taoists don't buy it; neither do I.

 

It is worth pointing out that anyone who understands what the Theory of Evolution actually says, would agree with you also. It is often only strawman arguments from creationists that try to make it say anything else. That and those who want the theory to say more than it does. Basic evolutionary theory says that "evolution" (like the Tao) has no "purpose" and favors humans in the long run no more than any other species (hence the reason that Crocs and cockroaches have been around much longer than us and wll likely outlast us, despite their being "dumb").

 

As for Reptilians....well, at least they make for interesting antagonists on scifi. In real life though, they are more likely remnants of old psychological fears (remember our early ancestors had to fear crocs, snakes etc.), and not real shapeshifting entities bent on ruling the monkeys. More likely that is simply delusions from those who don't want to accept that humanity is responsible for their own mistakes...

[voidisyinyang]

Well Dolphins use sono-fusion blasts to kill prey! Nevertheless since paranormal powers are based on Buddha's "inner ear method" or proprioreception of the special forces --- the dolphin is very apropos. Oh yeah -- the Brain Port:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/10/tea...ngue_to_see.php

I discovered this a few weeks ago:

 

I just finished Julia Whitty's amazing book: "The Fragile Edge: Diving and other adventures in the south pacific" (2007).

 

She talks about Dr. Ken Norris' discovery of "sound-pictures" as a "sensory integration system" for complex social behavior, focusing on dolphins.

 

http://www.kulanaia.org/research2.html#acoustics

 

Ah and 90% of deep sea life is bioluminsecent. Rock on.

 

Also I just was reading "Out of Thin Air: Dinosaurs, birds, and Earth's ancient Atmosphere" by professor Peter D. Ward (2006). He states this zinger:

 

"While a lizard rapidly loses body heat in a cooler night, a 100-pound reptile does not."

 

Ectothermic animals (reptials) need 15 times LESS oxygen -- as qigong masters know:

 

TIME IS BREATH -- and some masters can even live underwater!!

 

Why limit your Self? haha

Edited October 19, 2007 by drew hempel

[joeblast]

15x less o2 because they dont have to generate their own heat

[Pietro]

what the Theory of Evolution actually says, would agree with you also. It is often only strawman arguments from creationists that try to make it say anything else. That and those who want the theory to say more than it does. Basic evolutionary theory says that "evolution" (like the Tao) has no "purpose" and favors humans in the long run no more than any other species (hence the reason that Crocs and cockroaches have been around much longer than us and wll likely outlast us, despite their being "dumb").

You are probably right.

But being in the academic and studying evolution I have heard scientists claim both that it has a direction and that it does not have a direction. Someone tried to claim that it has no direction for chemists, while it had a direction for biologists.

 

So I wonder: you say this is what the theory of evolution "says". Where does it say so? I am really tring to understand, because as you would suspect I am very interested in the topic.

 

After all we would agree that being smart is not necessarily such an evolutionary smart thing (at least we seem to proove it just this century). But there might be other measures.

 

Measures for which cockraoches and bacteria are above us. And thus would outlast us. For example, what about range of environment for which you are able to survive and thrive. This would make most bacteria way ahead of us. I am just thinking aloud, but if you do have definite, references, or just interesting exchange on the topic please feed them on.

 

Pietro

[Taoist81]

You are probably right.

But being in the academic and studying evolution I have heard scientists claim both that it has a direction and that it does not have a direction. Someone tried to claim that it has no direction for chemists, while it had a direction for biologists.

 

So I wonder: you say this is what the theory of evolution "says". Where does it say so? I am really tring to understand, because as you would suspect I am very interested in the topic.

 

After all we would agree that being smart is not necessarily such an evolutionary smart thing (at least we seem to proove it just this century). But there might be other measures.

 

Measures for which cockraoches and bacteria are above us. And thus would outlast us. For example, what about range of environment for which you are able to survive and thrive. This would make most bacteria way ahead of us. I am just thinking aloud, but if you do have definite, references, or just interesting exchange on the topic please feed them on.

 

Pietro

 

You have likely heard scientists claim either 1.) that evolution is "guided" because in a sense it is. It is guided by natural selection. That does not denote a "purpose" which was what was referenced in the above post. or 2.) those who have a theistic belief system of some sort who feel that since evolution happens it is guided by God (or whatever they choose to call it). The bottom line with "direction" is that as far as science goes, it has no "goal". If god used evolution to create man as his supreme acheivment, fine, but that is theology, not science. A great group of references as well as a great debunking of a frontrunner creationist video is at:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1668,n,n

 

As for the use of the phrase "the theory of evolution says" is plainly a faulty statement due to the necessity of generalization. As you know well, scientific theories are not often nailed down as a specific phrase. But there is much misconception due to most people failing to realize were the lines of science are drawn. Too often people try to blur the lines on both sides rather than saying, "this is the evidence, this is the most likely theory, if it was all done by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, fine, we just can't find any evidence for it, thus it is not science. Likewise, I can't tell you scientifically there is no god, even if I believe that there isn't."

[agharta]

It's funny that you call yourself "Taoist81". The taoists are, historically, some of the most mystical and magic/superpower-fascinated of any group anywhere, anytime. If you had gone to China 150 years ago, you'd have been thought crazy among the Taoists for thinking that ghosts, levitation, reptilians, etc. aren't all too real.

 

I'm not taking exact stands on these issues, but I think it's good to keep an open mind. I have a very science-minded, hard-nosed, skeptical white guy sifu who has an IQ of probably 180, and is literally the only person I've ever met who I think knows more than I do, generally-speaking, in the different areas of science.

 

He's quite sure all these things exist. There's no question in his mind. He can also throw people across the room without touching them. He's done it to me, without me knowing it would happen, or knowing he could do it, or was trying to do it, so no power-of-suggestion shit happening there, my friend.

 

It looks to me like you have no experience or study in these areas, Taoist81. Maybe you should call yourself "Noob07". It'd be more honest.

[Cameron]

hahahahaha...Noob07...hahahahaha.....

[Taoist81]

It's funny that you call yourself "Taoist81". The taoists are, historically, some of the most mystical and magic/superpower-fascinated of any group anywhere, anytime. If you had gone to China 150 years ago, you'd have been thought crazy among the Taoists for thinking that ghosts, levitation, reptilians, etc. aren't all too real.

 

I'm not taking exact stands on these issues, but I think it's good to keep an open mind. I have a very science-minded, hard-nosed, skeptical white guy sifu who has an IQ of probably 180, and is literally the only person I've ever met who I think knows more than I do, generally-speaking, in the different areas of science.

 

He's quite sure all these things exist. There's no question in his mind. He can also throw people across the room without touching them. He's done it to me, without me knowing it would happen, or knowing he could do it, or was trying to do it, so no power-of-suggestion shit happening there, my friend.

 

It looks to me like you have no experience or study in these areas, Taoist81. Maybe you should call yourself "Noob07". It'd be more honest.

 

"Taoists" have "historically" been a very diverse group. And among them were a great number of primative scientists. They kept extensive records on many of their researches into nature, the subconscious (to use modern parlance) and the "spiritual realm". On the other hand, a great number of "smart people" the world over believe and have believed lots of stupid things. Beyond that, jumping to conclusions about an individual's experience based on a single post (which doesn't actually out right deny the existance of any of the items you listed other than "George Bushian" reptilians) is a quite short sighted thing to do. The Taoists that formed the corpus of TCM and the varied meditative sciences did not do so by jumping to conclusions or by attacking other Taoists (though they did often have their battles with Buddhists ), they did so, by observation and by questioning what their eyes told them. Not everything you are told, read or even see is real. There are even Taoist exercises in which part of the success is differentiating between what is "real" and what is illusion. Thank you for the critique though, it is always helpful to see how others see things.

[Cameron]

Excellent points Taoist 81.

[Pietro]

You have likely heard scientists claim either 1.) that evolution is "guided" because in a sense it is. It is guided by natural selection. That does not denote a "purpose" which was what was referenced in the above post. or 2.) those who have a theistic belief system of some sort who feel that since evolution happens it is guided by God (or whatever they choose to call it). The bottom line with "direction" is that as far as science goes, it has no "goal". If god used evolution to create man as his supreme acheivment, fine, but that is theology, not science. A great group of references as well as a great debunking of a frontrunner creationist video is at:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1668,n,n

 

As for the use of the phrase "the theory of evolution says" is plainly a faulty statement due to the necessity of generalization. As you know well, scientific theories are not often nailed down as a specific phrase. But there is much misconception due to most people failing to realize were the lines of science are drawn. Too often people try to blur the lines on both sides rather than saying, "this is the evidence, this is the most likely theory, if it was all done by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, fine, we just can't find any evidence for it, thus it is not science. Likewise, I can't tell you scientifically there is no god, even if I believe that there isn't."

w.w.w.wa.wa.wa.wait:

 

Having a direction does not imply having a goal. I never heard of a scientist say that evolution had a goal. I did heard some say that it had a general direction from more simple organisms to more complex ones.

With this I am not saying that multicellular are necessarily more complex than unicellular. But for example that in general, if you take yourself (A), a unicellular being that is around now (B ), and the common ancestor between you and the unicellular being ( C). That is C being a unicellular being of a few billion years ago, then C would be simpler, than A and B. Also althoug evolution does not depend on time, it does depend on the number of generations. Unicellular being reproduce every few hours, sometimes once a day. You reproduce every 30 years. So the number of generations between you and C is much lower than the number of generations between B and C. In other words B had more generations to adapt to its environment from the common point than A (you, and your line of ancestors).

 

Both you and A need 20 aminoacids to live. You can produce 12 of them, and need to take the remianing 8 from food. Where as many unicellular being (sorry, I am not a microbiologist, the following was assured to me by one) can produce most of them from simple molecules, like sugar alone. Speak about being vegetarians, those unicellular beings are glucose-arians. You neet a temperature between 15 and 60 degrees to survive, they can easily live between 4 and 90 degrees, or even more.

 

So, in this respect a unicellular being B is more evolved to its environment than you. And you both are more evolved than C.

 

Note, by the way, that although according to this pov there seem to be a general direction, in no way is evolution monotonous in pursuing that. In other words, take vitamin C. No really, "go, take vitamin C, you need it!". Most animals are able to synthesize their own vitamin C. Most (all?) primates are not. We cannot, and this is why we need to take it from oranges, and meat (internal organs, as Eskimo take it). We were able to synthesize it, many generations ago. But then we were eating so much from the environment (while we were on the trees), that the genes to synthesize it started to mutate, and was no longer able to do it. But since we were having it from the environment it wasn't so much evolutionary disadvantageous. And then when we left the trees, we had to find other ways to get is, or we had to keep collecting it from the trees.

 

So, no goal, but does it have a general direction?

I would say that is not a black and white answer.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Pietro

[voidisyinyang]

Homeland Security Mind Control contract is based on "ultrasound" -- just as Microsoft's "MATRIX" technology in development. http://www.wired.com/politics/security/new...09/mind_reading

 

Hence the "inner ear" method of meditation -- ultrasound ionizes our chemicals so that we can surpass this Freemasonic mind control stuff.

[lockpaw]

Homeland Security Mind Control contract is based on "ultrasound" -- just as Microsoft's "MATRIX" technology in development. http://www.wired.com/politics/security/new...09/mind_reading

 

Hence the "inner ear" method of meditation -- ultrasound ionizes our chemicals so that we can surpass this Freemasonic mind control stuff.

 

That's why they where the funny fez hats: to redistribute the gravitational rotation of sound as it touches the body--- the resultant sound wave doesn't have the mind-control effects. Ditto for the tiny cars.

[gendao]

I didn't know Scientology also accessed Reptilians...man they seem to turn up everywhere!

 

3:29:

The more you looked at someone, sometimes they, they changed shape, they grew scales, became like a lizard

[Taoist81]

w.w.w.wa.wa.wa.wait:

 

Having a direction does not imply having a goal. I never heard of a scientist say that evolution had a goal. I did heard some say that it had a general direction from more simple organisms to more complex ones.

With this I am not saying that multicellular are necessarily more complex than unicellular. But for example that in general, if you take yourself (A), a unicellular being that is around now (B ), and the common ancestor between you and the unicellular being ( C). That is C being a unicellular being of a few billion years ago, then C would be simpler, than A and B. Also althoug evolution does not depend on time, it does depend on the number of generations. Unicellular being reproduce every few hours, sometimes once a day. You reproduce every 30 years. So the number of generations between you and C is much lower than the number of generations between B and C. In other words B had more generations to adapt to its environment from the common point than A (you, and your line of ancestors).

 

Both you and A need 20 aminoacids to live. You can produce 12 of them, and need to take the remianing 8 from food. Where as many unicellular being (sorry, I am not a microbiologist, the following was assured to me by one) can produce most of them from simple molecules, like sugar alone. Speak about being vegetarians, those unicellular beings are glucose-arians. You neet a temperature between 15 and 60 degrees to survive, they can easily live between 4 and 90 degrees, or even more.

 

So, in this respect a unicellular being B is more evolved to its environment than you. And you both are more evolved than C.

 

Note, by the way, that although according to this pov there seem to be a general direction, in no way is evolution monotonous in pursuing that. In other words, take vitamin C. No really, "go, take vitamin C, you need it!". Most animals are able to synthesize their own vitamin C. Most (all?) primates are not. We cannot, and this is why we need to take it from oranges, and meat (internal organs, as Eskimo take it). We were able to synthesize it, many generations ago. But then we were eating so much from the environment (while we were on the trees), that the genes to synthesize it started to mutate, and was no longer able to do it. But since we were having it from the environment it wasn't so much evolutionary disadvantageous. And then when we left the trees, we had to find other ways to get is, or we had to keep collecting it from the trees.

 

So, no goal, but does it have a general direction?

I would say that is not a black and white answer.

 

Um.. where did we disagree? The above post stated that it "does not" have a goal, which is also what you are stating...though certainly from a certain pov there is direction, species move in the direction of survival. It is a "all roads lead to rome" sort of direction though because as you say some "lower lifeforms" are much better adapted to their environment than we are. It is very nice, by the way, to "speak" with someone who has a grasp on evolution though, here in Texas there are far too many who feel that ID is the only way things could have happened, without taking the time to look at the mechanics of biology. Also, are there any black and white answers?

 

That's why they where the funny fez hats: to redistribute the gravitational rotation of sound as it touches the body--- the resultant sound wave doesn't have the mind-control effects. Ditto for the tiny cars.

The "funny hats" are worn by the Shriners. Not all masons are shriners, though all shriners are masons. (obviously this was a tongue in cheek post, but it seemed worth pointing out)

[Spectrum]

Energy of the day guys... lets all be friends now and seing kumbajahjah, jah jah comin back.

 

Simple resolution to:

 

Having a direction does not imply having a goal.

 

How to Beam Yourself Up

 

Safe Journeys! Put one foot in front of the other. Take a Step. Taking a Step. Changing Pace is taking Place. Relocating distance and space. A transfer of splace. Transmiting. Transforming. Form. Formlessnesssssss.

 

At some point when you choose to stop, spiral to a close. Sit. Breath.

 

Return seat to upright position.

 

Spectrum

Edited October 21, 2007 by Spectrum

[Pietro]

Um.. where did we disagree?

Sorry, you are right. I was so folded up in my own reasoning that I did not notice we were essentially agreeing.

 

Fact is that I saw this quote at least a decade ago that claimed that you could define being "more evolved" as being adapted to a wider range of environment. I don't remember the exact phrasing, I don't know where I read it, nor who came out with it first. I have asked around to scientists and philosophers who study evolution (the scientists) and study the study of evolution (guess who, the philosophers). But none seem to know it.

 

I think it is fascinating, but unless I find the origin of it I can't use it in my work. Somehow I hoped you might have read that, too.

 

Also, are there any black and white answers?

Yeah:

is intelligent design a scientific theory?

No. It is an undisprovable claim.

 

That's one

[Taoist81]

Sorry, you are right. I was so folded up in my own reasoning that I did not notice we were essentially agreeing.

 

Fact is that I saw this quote at least a decade ago that claimed that you could define being "more evolved" as being adapted to a wider range of environment. I don't remember the exact phrasing, I don't know where I read it, nor who came out with it first. I have asked around to scientists and philosophers who study evolution (the scientists) and study the study of evolution (guess who, the philosophers). But none seem to know it.

 

I think it is fascinating, but unless I find the origin of it I can't use it in my work. Somehow I hoped you might have read that, too.

Nothing comes to mind as far as sources go. However, going off that preposition aren't roaches the most highly evolved species on the planet? : )

 

Yeah:

is intelligent design a scientific theory?

No. It is an undisprovable claim.

 

That's one

Good point...

[Pietro]

...going off that preposition aren't roaches the most highly evolved species on the planet? : )

Even if that was it would not be a problem. In any case I suspect that under this definition some unicellular being, who can live in all temperatures, produce all its aminoacids, get energy from glucose, lactose and maybe even sunshine are way in front. Plus how do you measure unicellular beings who exchange useful pieces of dna. As Brian Goodwin says: they had internet from a long time

[Ian]

Even if that was it would not be a problem. In any case I suspect that under this definition some unicellular being, who can live in all temperatures, produce all its aminoacids, get energy from glucose, lactose and maybe even sunshine are way in front. Plus how do you measure unicellular beings who exchange useful pieces of dna. As Brian Goodwin says: they had internet from a long time

 

Tardigrades!

[Mantra68]

This is interesting:

 

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=...ideoid=20583672

[yiqili]

This is interesting:

 

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=...ideoid=20583672

 

Probably shouldn't have watched that before bed. Sheesh.

[Yoda]

Here's the future that has already happened. The writer has been getting emails from the future and it ain't pretty!

 

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do;jse...ydra?id=1799721

[gendao]

SEX WITH REPTILIANSSSS!!

PS: So, basically, the reptilian showed up. The first time, it shape-shifted from a gorgeous blond man to a reptilian being...

 

ML: When was this?

 

PS: That was about a year and a half after my gray stuff, when I really started to process it and feel comfortable. I was ready for anything.

 

ML: How is it that you wound up in bed with this gorgeous man? Was that intentional on your part, or a surprise?

 

PS: I woke up in my bed and he was making love to me. I was pretty sure that I was totally awake, that it wasn't a dream. And I said to myself, I don't know this person. I didn't bring him home last night. But I also felt like there was a mental connection. It didn't feel like a lucid dream, it didn't feel like out of the body. I didn't know what it was, but I felt pretty safe. And I was getting a telepathic communication: "You're safe with me. We have been together before."

 

ML: Then what happened?

 

PS: Basically, the entity shape-shifted into a reptilian being.

 

ML: When you say reptilian being, why do you say that? What features make this being reptilian to you?

 

PS: That's [how] I've come to identify it. It's humanoid, very sentient. I could tell there was an incredible intelligence and mental communication with this being. I felt in a lot of ways that I was looking at a part of myself once again, an aspect of myself, something very familiar to me. It did have almost like a snake's body -- if you rub it the way the scales flow -- firm but smooth. That's what it felt like to me.

 

ML: What kind of eyes did it have?

 

PS: The eyes were a bit larger than ours, and I was catching glimpses of colors: gold, speckles of red, and brown, with a vertical pupil.

 

ML: Vertical like a cat's eye?

 

PS: Yes. And very handsome, oddly enough. Maybe because, again, of the mental communication. I was shocked and frightened because of the appearance at first, and then I decided to participate.

 

ML: Are you saying that your lovemaking continued as this being became a reptile?

 

PS: That's correct.

 

ML: Did the being give you any indication why it revealed itself when it had been looking perfectly blond and normal to you?

 

PS: No. And in the other subsequent encounters I've had, there's been no shapeshifting involved. He just appears as a reptile.

 

ML: Is it clear to you that it's always the same one?

 

PS: My feeling is that it is, yes.

 

ML: Have you seen more than one?

 

PS: No, I haven't.

 

ML: Apart from your physical contact, apparently you have some sort of communication with this being. What's the nature of that communication, generally? Is he revealing secrets of the universe? Telling you he loves you? What does he say to you?

 

PS: Yes, love is expressed, but basically what I get -- and part of this is from hypnotic regression -- is an apocalyptic scenario that I would have to prepare for.

 

ML: Are you being shown an apocalyptic future?

 

PS: Possibly. That's the way I'm interpreting it. There may be something that I will see in my lifetime that I will have to deal with, and I'm being reminded of the amount of spiritual and emotional centeredness I must have to make whatever transition is necessary. Everything I say should be prefaced with, "It seems to me," because I have no answers to any of this stuff yet, and I may not, ever. I know I may have to make a friend of the unknown forever. But I want to make peace with this, because I don't want to live a life of desperation.

 

ML: Do you see a relationship between the various entities you've met -- grays and reptilians, for example -- or are these different types of entities operating separately?

 

PS: For me, they are somewhat separate. I think we're talking about many different factions within many different species, coming from the past, present and future as we know time. I think that there could be intelligent, benevolent, spiritually evolved reptilians. I think there could be warrior classes that are still raping and pillaging, like any invading force might do in a foreign land. One thing I want to stress is that it's really dangerous to generalize about any of these entities. I've come to realize [that] the more peace I make with these experiences, the more peaceful they are.

Now WATCH HERE as a TV reporter slowly shapeshifts on camera...suddenly ducking out of view when he realizes this...and then coming back when he re-composes himself.

 

Is David Icke right? Is our population full of shape-shifted closet reptilians?

Edited November 14, 2007 by vortex