It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Palasheea
the name is easynow...you keep saying easyone...lol
i did not post anything misleading.....imho
if i did would you please point it out ?
i am only human and i make mistakes just like you.....
if you cant see around that...then i dont need your input.
[edit on 3-2-2008 by easynow]
Originally posted by easynow
as far as when someone put the " ufo " in this story i am assuming it would a recent idea. the book heavenly lights came out in 2005 and it definately puts the ufo idea in this event.
Good point Danx but nevertheless, I AM seeing some evidence here that those intelligences who orchestrated this event did present it in a borderline religious context. Even Fernandes and D'Armada say this in their books.
The idea of UFOs in this story is certainly not new. Maybe this notion is new to you
Why is it that the majority of people that claim to have seen UFOs and/or have been abducted by aliens doesn't associate the event with religion?
If UFOs were associated with religion, wouldn't one expect that everyone that goes through such an experience to understand it as such?
So following your 'logic', drugs are associated with religion. I hope you realize how flawed this 'reasoning' is
You believe otherwise, although you never did any research on the field, talked to any of the witnesses or looked at any of the Church's secret documents that the authors of the book did.
You on the other hand, even though you have never seen a UFO or have been abducted - and correct me if I'm wrong - believe that UFOs are undeniably associated with religion.
And your posts, easynow, are lacking both perspective and objectivity.
Originally posted by Palasheea
I'm seeing that entire crowd looking in that direction... this is very clear to me.
But the man wearing the fedora hat with his hand on the shoulder of the woman in front of him look to me like they are sort of posing for the photographer... or at least LOOK like they are posing because the photographer is pointing his cam in their direction and they know that... it seems. Anyway, that couple looks like they are preoccupied with the photographer and getting their picture taken... they seem to not be looking in exactly the same direction as most of those in that crowd. That couple's gaze seems to be slightly off angle compared to the rest of the crowd... lol. They look more like city-folk than peasants... maybe they are acquaintances of the photographer.
As for where the arrow is pointed, I don't think anyone needs to be an expert to see that there's "something" there. As these photo's were taken on the same day of the The Miracle of the Sun, I don't think it's too far off to conjecture that maybe that section where the arrow is pointed has something to do with that phenomenon.
At any rate, it seems that this photo is closest we can get to what that phenomenon must have looked like at one point while it was "happening". At least we have something here as opposed to nothing.
[edit on 3-2-2008 by Palasheea]
Originally posted by Palasheea
Good point Danx but nevertheless, I AM seeing some evidence here that those intelligences who orchestrated this event did present it in a borderline religious context. Even Fernandes and D'Armada say this in their books.
For this reason, quite frankly, I find these apparitions rather disturbing. But it goes without saying that the Church seized the moment and possessed this one as their own by abducting the seers and so on.... Therefore, message-wise, this case is all screwed up because of that.
But I agree with you that the OP needs to evaluate this event in a more objective manner... so far she's not doing that and this is frustrating for those of us who are trying to explore all of those alternative views on what this event was really all about.
[edit on 3-2-2008 by Palasheea]
But I agree with you that the OP needs to evaluate this event in a more objective manner...
Therefore, message-wise, this case is all screwed up because of that.
Originally posted by easynow
lmao...i am sure you meant disc ?.....
And you have the audacity to say that Palasheea, or anyone who disagreed with your beliefs, is biased?
we all have a biased opinion in this matter if you ask me.
according to her it was raing then it suddenly stopped, and everything was dry around them as if i never rained, then the sun started to "dance" in the sky and she said what looked like stars started falling from the sky and there was a huge panic, she said it seemed like armagedon
Originally posted by jackcowboy
One thing for sure this was nothing to support the view of the catholic church, for a start the virgin mary is not a virgin considering she had given birth several times before
Originally posted by easynow
Originally posted by jackcowboy
One thing for sure this was nothing to support the view of the catholic church, for a start the virgin mary is not a virgin considering she had given birth several times before
thanks for your post jackcowboy,
do you mean given birth before Jesus ?
or do you mean before this event happened ?
either way...thats a tall claim you got anything to back it up ?
Originally posted by jackcowboy
Originally posted by easynow
Originally posted by jackcowboy
One thing for sure this was nothing to support the view of the catholic church, for a start the virgin mary is not a virgin considering she had given birth several times before
thanks for your post jackcowboy,
do you mean given birth before Jesus ?
or do you mean before this event happened ?
either way...thats a tall claim you got anything to back it up ?
it was before Jesus, I don't need anything to back it up because Jesus had older brothers
Originally posted by easynow
Originally posted by jackcowboy
Originally posted by easynow
Originally posted by jackcowboy
One thing for sure this was nothing to support the view of the catholic church, for a start the virgin mary is not a virgin considering she had given birth several times before
thanks for your post jackcowboy,
do you mean given birth before Jesus ?
or do you mean before this event happened ?
either way...thats a tall claim you got anything to back it up ?
it was before Jesus, I don't need anything to back it up because Jesus had older brothers
ok well then what were there names ? if i may ask?.....does this mean that you believe Jesus did really exist ?......some people dont think he really existed is the reason i ask
Mary did not have an “immaculate conception.” The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus (Luke 1:34-38)
Joseph and Mary had several children together after Jesus was born. Jesus had four half-brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55).
it was before Jesus, I don't need anything to back it up because Jesus had older brothers