Unipax to Norval and Gale

[unipax]

Hey Norv,

I thought you guys were earlier talking about producing a video and or written material.
I think you were welcoming help with those sort of things.
I had the impression that your intention was to 'publish' your findings, but maybe not, if you are insisting that your audience do their own reading of the document?

Also, could you please reiterate why you take this position, rather than sharing your findings more readily ?
So far my understanding of your reason is that I should not trust any interpretation but my own.

[unipax]

Heretic,
What sort of research are you waiting for?
What more needs to be said?

The bible, probably the most important Document in mankind's hands concerning the UFO / ET presence, and you want us to read it for you? Spoon feed it to yah?



Sure, why not?
Or at least provide a list of a few key passages in the document.
Whats wrong with doing that?

That way the reader will still interpret on their own, if that is your reason for not providing your interpretation.

[unipax]

numinous - definition of numinous by the Free Online Dictionary ...
nu·mi·nous (n m-n s, ny-) adj. 1. Of or relating to a numen; supernatural. 2. Filled with or characterized by a sense of a supernatural presence: a numinous place.

Numinous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Numinous (pronounced /nu?m?n?s, nju?m?n?s/) (from the Classical Latin numen) is an English adjective describing the power or presence of a divinity.

Free Online Dictionary says 'supernatural'

I think supernatural is a broad brush stroke as it can include so many things, but especially relevant would be ETs both good and bad.
Angels come to mind.
If that is accurate, isnt belief in GETs and BETs a type of belief in supernatural or numinous...?
For example, Gale has made reference to demons.
If so, whats the objection to 'numinous'?
Would resurrection be considered a supernatural thing?

next
Wikipedia says 'divinity'.

Divinity is also supernatural, but more specific, as in god or gods, I guess.

Is the wikipedia encyclopedia open to accountholders editing, as is wikipedia?

Does King Jesus have supernatural abilities?
What about him being the son of god?

I am asking here what is the issue with the use of the word numinous ?

[Norval]

We'll get back to yah soon on this Unipax, , , , :)

[unipax]

We'll get back to yah soon on this Unipax, , , , :)

Thnx Norval

Does "this" mean all 3 of my posts you put above?
Each post has a separate request.

[sokpuppet]

This is yet another thread that has been 'branched-off' from another thread. I'm experiencing something similar to the "monarch" torcher/sub persona principle here. Can you please stop doing it.

If this continues I'll just have to snap! my fingers and quit.

[unipax]

This is yet another thread that has been 'branched-off' from another thread. I'm experiencing something similar to the "monarch" torcher/sub persona principle

here. Can you please stop doing it.

If this continues I'll just have to snap! my fingers and quit.

Oh sok, please dont leave us. It probly aint gonna stop and there's nuthin you can do about it. It aint so bad once ya get used to it. Kinda like surfing.

[Norval]

Hey Norv,

I thought you guys were earlier talking about producing a video and or written material.
I think you were welcoming help with those sort of things. Yes, we are still discussing that.
I had the impression that your intention was to 'publish' your findings, but maybe not, Our findings were published to NASA in 2002 if you are insisting that your audience do their own reading of the document? It would be wise to read it for yourself.

Also, could you please reiterate why you take this position, rather than sharing your findings more readily ? All of our findings are now fully shared.
So far my understanding of your reason is that I should not trust any interpretation but my own. That is your decission.

That should about cover it?, , , , , , , , , ,

[Norval]

Sure, why not?
Or at least provide a list of a few key passages in the document.
Whats wrong with doing that?

That way the reader will still interpret on their own, if that is your reason for not providing your interpretation.

I never said anything about interpreting the document.

[Gale]

supernatural

OH for crying out loud, we don't believe the same as the less informed do in hocus-pocus and quackery.


hocus-pocus
n.

1. Nonsense words or phrases used as a formula by quack conjurers.
2. A trick performed by a magician or juggler; sleight-of-hand.
3. Foolishness or empty pretense used especially to disguise deception or chicanery.

Norval, it is best you respond to unipax and her questions.

[unipax]

I never said anything about interpreting the document.

OK
I dont recall your exact words, but I recall the meaning, which is typical of many people, so then we paraphrase.
You said something regarding why / whether one could trust what someone else said about what was written, and your comment was in a discussion about reading the document.
Therefore I took your comment as being related to interpreting the document for oneself.

[unipax]

Originally Posted by unipax
Hey Norv,

I thought you guys were earlier talking about producing a video and or written material.
I think you were welcoming help with those sort of things. Yes, we are still discussing that.
I had the impression that your intention was to 'publish' your findings, but maybe not, Our findings were published to NASA in 2002 if you are insisting that your audience do their own reading of the document? It would be wise to read it for yourself.

Also, could you please reiterate why you take this position, rather than sharing your findings more readily ? All of our findings are now fully shared.
So far my understanding of your reason is that I should not trust any interpretation but my own. That is your decission.


That should about cover it?, , , , , , , , , ,

umm.... No, not hardly Norv.
But that is only because it is now not clear to me what is meant by "findings" as in 'published to NASA.'

I should have been specific about my perception of the meaning of 'findings'

I see you have published your CS Crater Chain findings (great stuff thnx)

I see you saying "No scripture for you, go read", regarding requests for your document findings.
I'm asking about two findings: CC CS findings, and document findings.

Did you "publish to NASA" the scripture passages info you wont give here?
(again, my words, not yours, but you know what I mean?)

Or does "publish to NASA" refer only to the CS CC evidence?

Above you say: "All of our findings are now fully shared."
So one might assume you refer to the CC CS stuff as "fully shared", because as far as I can tell, you aint sharing a whole lot else other than "go read it yerself".
To be fair you have dropped a few bits here and there, but mostly it is go read it yourself, when people ask where to look.

All of our findings are now fully shared.
If that means that you have shared CCCS with NASA, and that you have shared that the rest of the info can be found in the document, and that is what you mean by "fully shared".....well, then Bravo...you guys rock.. you may as well skip the video project and go fishing since you've "fully shared your findings."

In other words; Why not point to a few key passages?

Who said
"That depends on what the definition of is is" ....? clinton

So what is the definition of "fully" as in "fully shared"?

[unipax]

Hey Norv
never mind all that
lets go with this instead:


All of our findings are now fully shared.

Great, got a link?
Thnx

[unipax]

OH for crying out loud, we don't believe the same as the less informed do in hocus-pocus and quackery.


Thnx Gale, I do appreciate that

You'd have to be more specific please than "hocus pocus and quackery".

BTW, I'm there with you about "hocus-pocus and quackery".

However, one person's quackery is another person's chicken soup.

Since you previously expressed belief in demons, someone might say the same (quack) about you. But I would not say that about you. I also believe there are "demons" out there.

But in this area, or arena, non-specific references to hocus pocus and quackery dont mean much because anyone outside "mainstream" can be accused of that weird stuff by people who believe that all / anything "supernatural" is bunk.
I could be called a quack by one who believes in something different. But that one and I both might be called quacks by some other belief system. So I dont know, but I'd like to know what you think describes quackery


OH for crying out loud, we don't believe the same as the less informed do in hocus-pocus and quackery.

OK,.... when you say "less informed" it implies that you consider yourself "more informed".....?
(I think that by 'informed' you must mean your document info, and I'd agree)

Please, what does 'more informed' consider is quackery?
Unless I misunderstand, you guys put yourselves in a position of infallible authority.
Please dont be offended, I probably agree with you.
This could be important as in clarifying what you believe.

So who is the less informed ? What is an example of the quackery they believe in ?

Also,...does resurrection fall under supernatural? I think it was you or Norvi that said (in my words, because I dont recall yours) that it is not understood exactly how resurrection works.

I used to think that the "primitive" indigenous "jungle people" were quacks for believing in demonic possession. Now I would not say that.
There was a time when I accepted the American Medical Association's story that said chiropractors were quacks. Now I believe that some chiropractors are not quacks, and I now believe that some of the formerly "trusted" AMA MDs are idiots.

I hope you'll see a serious and useful question in all this because I mean it sincerely as a request for clarification.

Having said that, ....are those snake handlin, battery acid guzzlin types quacks?

(had to ask, no need answer that one)

btw, this discussion stemmed from my follow up on whitecrow's mentioning numinous, and defining supernatural....he never elaborated, so how did that get you to mention quackery?
(serious question)

[Norval]

Note my signature.

Another signature I have used is a quote by Will Rodgers 1938,
"It's not what you know or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you."

The only information not published at EB has been published on our other sites. We have mentioned a few other investigations that Gale and I have done but received no questions about them, thus they are not gone into here at EB to any extent at this time.

We, the janitors, know that there are a couple "Free Posters" here and that the rest are bets (or influenced by bets) or IAC agents. We have known that would be the case since before we opened this forum. No, we do not think you are one of those Free Posters Unipax. Thanks for your input though. Do not attempt to waste any more of our time.

[unipax]

OK Norv, no sense waste anyone's time.
I was expressing some frustration. I perceived a contradiction in your talk of producing a video, while at the same time declining to point to a few key passages. On the other hand, thinking that a video would be different is merely an assumption. I actually dont know your intent.
As another frustrated member recently implied, (if I understood their sentiments correctly), I just dont get why you cannot be a bit more forthcoming? or helpful / whatever?
You say read the document, but you wont even point to a few passages.
Why is that?

[Norval]

We have pointed to many of the Documents writings in this forum, and you say we haven't?
Why is that?

[Norval]

Here is a quote from another part of the forum.

I would follow the example already given us in the Document. Throw them down.
But into the pit section where they can rant, rave, dispute, fight among themselves or eventually have a change of heart. I don't know if that is at all possible at this late a date and how could any of them fight against the "delusion" as it would be a judgment that has already been handed down to show the division of those that serve our Creator and those that don't.

So, do we allow the deceivers, liars and twisters of words to mingle among us? Obviously not.
Banning them wouldn't allow us to observe them. An analogy, keeping them at arms length. They could continue to post in the prison pit or not.


Quote:
Combined Bibles
Malachi 3:18
RSV with Apocrypha
Then once more you shall distinguish between the righteous and the
wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him.
New RSV
Then once more you shall see the difference between the
righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one
who does not serve him.
King James Version
Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked,
between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

Quote:
Romans 3
5 But what if our doing wrong serves to show up more
clearly God's doing right? Can we say that God does
wrong when he punishes us?

http://earthsbanner.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3414&postcount=49

[unipax]

We have pointed to many of the Documents writings in this forum, and you say we haven't?
Why is that?

Did I say that you 'haven't' ?
I dont think I said that, but I could be wrong.
I do recall saying 'would not' or 'wont'.
In answering your question above, the difference matters.

Anyways, I was always thinking 'would not', as in after I asked for pointers.
Surely it was your "no" when I asked that time, which kinda stuck with me as 'would not'.

When I said you would not point to passages, I did not mean past tense or 'haven't', I meant would not at the time of asking.
Surely I was either forgetful or unaware of any past times you or Gale did post key passages.
I recall at one point mentioning that I looked around here for some.
I would not have asked if I already had it.

Either way, it would not have occurred to me that you would be unwilling to repeat a pointer for someone that expressed interest in it when you emphasized the importance of identifying BETs.
My guess is (maybe) you got impatient when I did not have it, but requested what was already posted, or maybe you felt I should 'just read the book'. You did say that once or twice, as I recall.

Come to think of it, why not sticky or make prominent a few key passages or some kind of basic study guide remarks other than 'just read the book' ? Like I probably said 'read the book' is much more daunting than having some clue as to what to look for.
Would your video say just read the book, or show passages?
Maybe you already did sticky or something. I will look later.

Thanks for reposting a few key passages, I do appreciate it !

[Norval]

I just dont get why you cannot be a bit more forthcoming? or helpful / whatever?
You say read the document, but you wont even point to a few passages.
Why is that?

uh huh ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Gale]

Note my signature.

Another signature I have used is a quote by Will Rodgers 1938,
"It's not what you know or don't know, but what you know that isn't so that will hurt you."

The only information not published at EB has been published on our other sites. We have mentioned a few other investigations that Gale and I have done but received no questions about them, thus they are not gone into here at EB to any extent at this time.

We, the janitors, know that there are a couple "Free Posters" here and that the rest are bets (or influenced by bets) or IAC agents. We have known that would be the case since before we opened this forum. No, we do not think you are one of those Free Posters Unipax. Thanks for your input though. Do not attempt to waste any more of our time.

__________________
Thank You Norval

[unipax]

Quote:
Originally Posted by unipax
I just dont get why you cannot be a bit more forthcoming? or helpful / whatever?
You say read the document, but you wont even point to a few passages.
Why is that?


uh huh ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Thanks for reposting a few key passages, I do appreciate it !

This has been informative, thank you.
I am ready to move on now