Subj: Fwd: [M-I] ...what do you suggest?
Date: 1/6/00 2:29:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Milamo
To: Phikent

In a message dated 01/06/2000 2:22:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, Milamo writes:

<< Subj: Re: [M-I] ...what do you suggest?
Date: 01/06/2000 2:22:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Milamo
To: mission-ignition@egroups.com

In a message dated 01/06/2000 10:12:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, migcah@hotmail.com writes:

<< now, may be we could consider human society (and its possible stagnation,
regression or evolution) as a collective bio-experiment.In an experience you
wont say that beacuse some particle desintegrated another particle, that
particular particle is bad, or despotic, or criminal...
If human society .with all its turmoils, emotional earthquakes, is an
experiment and not (and probably will never be) an "end product" then you
have the paradigm shift you need : you no longer become obsessed for a
perfect world - since you're seeing it not from the human point of view, but
from the illusionist point of view...from the experimenter point of view

this experimenter is also the experience - not a dualist experimenter,
he's the experimenter, the experience and the experimented...

other thing: perhaps we can participate consciously in our
personal/collective evolution. May be we have the choice (discreet, however)
of evolving towards the unknwon ...not towards a "model"

I've read several Utopias. I found them, though written with the best
intentions, totalitarian and boring. because they posited one ideal sort of
being and society and procedeed "a posteriori" to re-arrange
everybody in order to attain that model.They were "final"

I would suggest heterotopias, instead. And a good jump in the unknwon as
therapy for outdating "models" >>

Intriguing and noble thoughts, Miguel !!
I've been thinking recently about the "grand experiment" scenario ...
and it is seeming to make more sense to me than it did a few years ago.
As to 'why' it's making more sense to me now ... I don't know ... well ...
I'm not sure.

It might have something to do with being recently exposed to the book,
"Ringmakers of Saturn", by Norman R.Bergrun. Seeing what certainly appear
to be genuine NASA photos (in this book) showing objects ("electromagnetic
vehicles", according to Bergrun) longer (in length) than Earth's diameter ...
literally 'manufacturing' the actual rings of Saturn, has made a strong impression
on me.

In working with numbers involving planetary sizes ... I've also been thinking about
the idea that maybe some celestial bodies (Earth, The Moon, Mars, etc. ?) in
our solar system, have been deliberately and specifically 'sized and shaped'.
Reading Bergrun's book, and seeing the actual photos in the book (with his
detailed descriptions of said photos), I'm much more inclined to give very serious
consideration to this possibility.

Just one example ... would be the ratio of Earth size to The Moon size ...
3.666666667 .... diameters (average) in statute miles of (7920 / 2160).
And; that this "3.666666667" ratio would be equal to (5280 / 1440) ... with
5280 then being (logically; harmoniously?) used as a metrology unit on Earth,
if not on The Moon and Mars also ... as "number of FEET in a statute MILE".
And 1440 ... is 4 times 360 ... with "360" being "number of arc-degrees on one
circumference".
If a 'round number' for diameter of The Sun is used ... 864000 statute miles ...
then we have a nice round ratio of "400" for Sun size to Moon size ...
864000 / 2160 = 400.

If the average circumference of Mars is "13200" statute miles ... we have there
a nice 'binary decimal harmonic multiple' of the infamous number "33" ...
13200 / 33 = 400.
And ... suppose we subtract "5280" from "13200" ? ...
13200 - 5280 = 7920 ... average diameter of Earth in statute miles !!

So ... there's (I think) some good, self-evident "celestial harmony" here ... eh ?!

Can you argue with pure self-evident celestial geometry ? What are the odds,
literally, that all this is simply "random chance" ?

If the machines in the NASA photos, in Bergrun's book, are real ... then I'd say
"someone" has been able to literally 'size and shape' planets, moons, and who
knows what else ... for a LONG time. The rings of Saturn have been observed
for thousands of years, right ? Now it's "possible" that the 'machines' are only
a "relatively recent" phenonenon (to replace the rings that 'were previously there
only as a 'freak of nature' ?!) ... but I'd bet that Cremo and Thompson's work ...
indicating "anatomically-modern" human bones, and artifacts to boot !! ... *in-situ*
in rock/lava strata billions of years old !!! ... is good evidence of 'HUMANS' being
around our solar system billions of years ago !!! So if 'humans' have been around
here for that long ... why couldn't the machines manufacturing the rings of Saturn
have been around for billions of years ?

I happened to order the book through someone on The Internet ... at ...
EMVrings@aol.com .....
I have no "ties" or "interests" .. at least none that I'm aware of consciously ...
'financial' or otherwise ... to/with that person or entity. But that's how I got the book.
So maybe that's as good a source as any ... or maybe it's the 'only' source at this
time ... I have no idea.

-- Michael L. Morton >>


-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Re: [M-I] ...what do you suggest?
Date: 1/6/00 2:22:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: Milamo
To: mission-ignition@egroups.com

In a message dated 01/06/2000 10:12:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, migcah@hotmail.com writes:

<< now, may be we could consider human society (and its possible stagnation,
regression or evolution) as a collective bio-experiment.In an experience you
wont say that beacuse some particle desintegrated another particle, that
particular particle is bad, or despotic, or criminal...
If human society .with all its turmoils, emotional earthquakes, is an
experiment and not (and probably will never be) an "end product" then you
have the paradigm shift you need : you no longer become obsessed for a
perfect world - since you're seeing it not from the human point of view, but
from the illusionist point of view...from the experimenter point of view

this experimenter is also the experience - not a dualist experimenter,
he's the experimenter, the experience and the experimented...

other thing: perhaps we can participate consciously in our
personal/collective evolution. May be we have the choice (discreet, however)
of evolving towards the unknwon ...not towards a "model"

I've read several Utopias. I found them, though written with the best
intentions, totalitarian and boring. because they posited one ideal sort of
being and society and procedeed "a posteriori" to re-arrange
everybody in order to attain that model.They were "final"

I would suggest heterotopias, instead. And a good jump in the unknwon as
therapy for outdating "models" >>

Intriguing and noble thoughts, Miguel !!
I've been thinking recently about the "grand experiment" scenario ...
and it is seeming to make more sense to me than it did a few years ago.
As to 'why' it's making more sense to me now ... I don't know ... well ...
I'm not sure.

It might have something to do with being recently exposed to the book,
"Ringmakers of Saturn", by Norman R.Bergrun. Seeing what certainly appear
to be genuine NASA photos (in this book) showing objects ("electromagnetic
vehicles", according to Bergrun) longer (in length) than Earth's diameter ...
literally 'manufacturing' the actual rings of Saturn, has made a strong impression
on me.

In working with numbers involving planetary sizes ... I've also been thinking about
the idea that maybe some celestial bodies (Earth, The Moon, Mars, etc. ?) in
our solar system, have been deliberately and specifically 'sized and shaped'.
Reading Bergrun's book, and seeing the actual photos in the book (with his
detailed descriptions of said photos), I'm much more inclined to give very serious
consideration to this possibility.

Just one example ... would be the ratio of Earth size to The Moon size ...
3.666666667 .... diameters (average) in statute miles of (7920 / 2160).
And; that this "3.666666667" ratio would be equal to (5280 / 1440) ... with
5280 then being (logically; harmoniously?) used as a metrology unit on Earth,
if not on The Moon and Mars also ... as "number of FEET in a statute MILE".
And 1440 ... is 4 times 360 ... with "360" being "number of arc-degrees on one
circumference".
If a 'round number' for diameter of The Sun is used ... 864000 statute miles ...
then we have a nice round ratio of "400" for Sun size to Moon size ...
864000 / 2160 = 400.

If the average circumference of Mars is "13200" statute miles ... we have there
a nice 'binary decimal harmonic multiple' of the infamous number "33" ...
13200 / 33 = 400.
And ... suppose we subtract "5280" from "13200" ? ...
13200 - 5280 = 7920 ... average diameter of Earth in statute miles !!

So ... there's (I think) some good, self-evident "celestial harmony" here ... eh ?!

Can you argue with pure self-evident celestial geometry ? What are the odds,
literally, that all this is simply "random chance" ?

If the machines in the NASA photos, in Bergrun's book, are real ... then I'd say
"someone" has been able to literally 'size and shape' planets, moons, and who
knows what else ... for a LONG time. The rings of Saturn have been observed
for thousands of years, right ? Now it's "possible" that the 'machines' are only
a "relatively recent" phenonenon (to replace the rings that 'were previously there
only as a 'freak of nature' ?!) ... but I'd bet that Cremo and Thompson's work ...
indicating "anatomically-modern" human bones, and artifacts to boot !! ... *in-situ*
in rock/lava strata billions of years old !!! ... is good evidence of 'HUMANS' being
around our solar system billions of years ago !!! So if 'humans' have been around
here for that long ... why couldn't the machines manufacturing the rings of Saturn
have been around for billions of years ?

I happened to order the book through someone on The Internet ... at ...
EMVrings@aol.com .....
I have no "ties" or "interests" .. at least none that I'm aware of consciously ...
'financial' or otherwise ... to/with that person or entity. But that's how I got the book.
So maybe that's as good a source as any ... or maybe it's the 'only' source at this
time ... I have no idea.

-- Michael L. Morton