The Geminga Scenario

[Stryder50]

OK, a couple more quick references/links;

DewaGame88 - The Best Deposit Tanpa Potongan Thailand

Dewagame88 link the best yang bisa deposit tanpa potongan plus server thailand terbaik resmi, Dapatkan segera di dewagame88 deposit tanpa potongan

www.enterprisemissions.com

Richard C. Hoagland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Richard C. Hoagland/Enterprise Mission at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Moon with a View
Or, What Did Arthur Know … and When Did He Know it?

Patin69 : Live Online Casino Baccarat Judi Player & Banker

Patin69 Situs Pembayaran Terlengkap Live casino Online baccarat. Situs Judi casino Online Player Dan Banker Pembayaran Tanpa Potongan

www.enterprisemissions.com

​

The ever changing internet, this is now the website URL for Richard Hoagland's "Enterprise Mission".
Most recent entry is years old.

The Enterprise Mission

Richard C. Hoagland's breakthrough space coverage of NASA, Cydonia, the Face on Mars, and space anomalies since 1996.

www.enterprisemission.org

Update/correction;
The tab at the top of the page for link above does lead to most recent posts/activities;

The Other Side of Midnight – Can you handle the TRUTH?

www.theothersideofmidnight.com

 

[Stryder50]

Current source for one of the more interesting series of articles by RCH;

Iapetus - Moon with a View: Or, What Did Arthur Know … and When Did He Know it?

 

[Stryder50]

Can anything which exists have come to exist without having been created?

What thing which we recognize as existing came to exist without first having been created?

I have heard that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed but they can be converted from matter into energy or energy into matter (respectively).

Does it concern anyone that these don’t add up, together?

Note quite grasping what you are trying to say, so I'll start with this repeat from the OP;

Might the Cosmos be some form of eternal cycle of Big Bangs and Big Collapses, neither a Beginning nor an End, and along the way Others show up and had some role in the appearance of the current version of we Humans, hence becoming our Gawds/Gawdesses ???

In the middle ground between Creationism and Evolutionism, this might be a perpendicular path to consider.

Also, there's this which I've mentioned before, other posts, other threads;

One can't get Something from Nothing.
Would seem therefore that all Creation would come from the substance of the Creator. And if the Creator is Eternal, than all It Creates would also be Eternal, in one form or another.
We as individual beings/souls would also be from/of the substance of the Creator. Like cells in a larger body. Hence we~souls would also be Eternal.

 

[BackAgain]

Note quite grasping what you are trying to say, so I'll start with this repeat from the OP;

Might the Cosmos be some form of eternal cycle of Big Bangs and Big Collapses, neither a Beginning nor an End, and along the way Others show up and had some role in the appearance of the current version of we Humans, hence becoming our Gawds/Gawdesses ???

In the middle ground between Creationism and Evolutionism, this might be a perpendicular path to consider.

Also, there's this which I've mentioned before, other posts, other threads;

One can't get Something from Nothing.
Would seem therefore that all Creation would come from the substance of the Creator. And if the Creator is Eternal, than all It Creates would also be Eternal, in one form or another.
We as individual beings/souls would also be from/of the substance of the Creator. Like cells in a larger body. Hence we~souls would also be Eternal.

An “eternal cycle” is another way of claiming that things can come into existence without having been created.

All that exists, matter/energy/space/time, according to your proposition, all exists without having been created. Where did it come from?

 

[Stryder50]

An “eternal cycle” is another way of claiming that things can come into existence without having been created.

All that exists, matter/energy/space/time, according to your proposition, all exists without having been created. Where did it come from?

Actually it's a way of claiming "things" have always existed(been created), but could have been in other forms, and might again be in other forms.

Not intending to play semantics, but it's my variation on the concept/theme of the OP.

A perspective/position that everything has to have "been created" even "God" does beg the question,"What was before that?"

I was born and raised in the Christian religion and the concept of eternal consequences for one lifetime's actions didn't resonate well with me, on two counts.
1) How can "things" have a finite beginning/start point and then go on forever, never an end point ? It seems to me the definition of eternity is "no beginning, no end" so there must have been something before "creation", before the Big Bang. With the Big Bang essentially starting a process of matter converting to energy, it would seem logical that once nearly everything is energy, some other process might be set off, hence the Big (Complete ?) Collapse, perhaps back into The Singularity.

"Creation" then becomes another term, expression for change in structure~substance~nature~whatever. Creation is now one of many various events that occur in the cycle of existence.

2) If killing another person, murder, is a "Mortal Sin" that results in "Eternal Damnation in Hell", how is it that the same consequence(reward) is handed out for more than one murder ??? Shouldn't someone like Adolph Hitler, responsible for millions of deaths/murders have a consequence proportionate to the deed ????

This is where I settled on the concept of karma, where consequences of actions are proportional to deeds done. Kill one person you then have a next lifetime where you are receiving a similar experience in that lifetime, being murdered by someone else. Kill a million people and you will have to experience a million similar deaths in a million future lifetimes.

This to me seems the more reasonable, balanced "reaction to an action"; consequence of deed(s) done.

This chain of thought/reasoning/logic then leads to a third aspect, that since one can't get something from nothing, everything in existence is made of, from the substance of the "Creator". Hence what is meant when one says that;
3) "God is everything; everything is God".

Which implies the Creator is neither Good nor Evil, but both. Or "created" both Good and Evil, which are expressions of a Universe that is made of polarities. Which could be one way of explaining why there are so many religions and "types" of "God".

Also, thinking on this/these concepts can give one a headache.
"Where did it come from?" ~ Itself

 

[BackAgain]

Actually it's a way of claiming "things" have always existed(been created), but could have been in other forms, and might again be in other forms.

Not intending to play semantics, but it's my variation on the concept/theme of the OP.

A perspective/position that everything has to have "been created" even "God" does beg the question,"What was before that?"

I was born and raised in the Christian religion and the concept of eternal consequences for one lifetime's actions didn't resonate well with me, on two counts.
1) How can "things" have a finite beginning/start point and then go on forever, never an end point ? It seems to me the definition of eternity is "no beginning, no end" so there must have been something before "creation", before the Big Bang. With the Big Bang essentially starting a process of matter converting to energy, it would seem logical that once nearly everything is energy, some other process might be set off, hence the Big (Complete ?) Collapse, perhaps back into The Singularity.

"Creation" then becomes another term, expression for change in structure~substance~nature~whatever. Creation is now one of many various events that occur in the cycle of existence.

2) If killing another person, murder, is a "Mortal Sin" that results in "Eternal Damnation in Hell", how is it that the same consequence(reward) is handed out for more than one murder ??? Shouldn't someone like Adolph Hitler, responsible for millions of deaths/murders have a consequence proportionate to the deed ????

This is where I settled on the concept of karma, where consequences of actions are proportional to deeds done. Kill one person you then have a next lifetime where you are receiving a similar experience in that lifetime, being murdered by someone else. Kill a million people and you will have to experience a million similar deaths in a million future lifetimes.

This to me seems the more reasonable, balanced "reaction to an action"; consequence of deed(s) done.

This chain of thought/reasoning/logic then leads to a third aspect, that since one can't get something from nothing, everything in existence is made of, from the substance of the "Creator". Hence what is meant when one says that;
3) "God is everything; everything is God".

Which implies the Creator is neither Good nor Evil, but both. Or "created" both Good and Evil, which are expressions of a Universe that is made of polarities. Which could be one way of explaining why there are so many religions and "types" of "God".

Also, thinking on this/these concepts can give one a headache.
"Where did it come from?" ~ Itself

We are all entitled to our opinions, speculations, guesses and surmises.

But since none of actually know, being emphatic about your beliefs would be kinda silly.

I’m content in rejecting such answers as “eternal loop without beginning and without end,” though, precisely because it begs the question (which, by definition, it cannot answer). Where did all that stuff come from?

 

[Stryder50]

We are all entitled to our opinions, speculations, guesses and surmises.

But since none of actually know, being emphatic about your beliefs would be kinda silly.

I’m content in rejecting such answers as “eternal loop without beginning and without end,” though precisely because it begs the question (which, by definition, it cannot answer). Where did all that stuff come from?

By definition, if one isn't emphatic, than it's not a belief.
I'll agree, none of us can know for sure, when in this physical lifetime(time-line). Likely that only happens once you've passed over, so to speak.

Would seem you fail to grasp what I expressed.
The "stuff" was already "here" since there was no other place it could "come from".
Even if one wants to propose other dimensions, realities, or "universes"; my explanation covers all that since it covers everything.

 

[BackAgain]

By definition, if one isn't emphatic, than it's not a belief.
I'll agree, none of us can know for sure, when in this physical lifetime(time-line). Likely that only happens once you've passed over, so to speak.

Would seem you fail to grasp what I expressed.
The "stuff" was already "here" since there was no other place it could "come from".
Even if one wants to propose other dimensions, realities, or "universes"; my explanation covers all that since it covers everything.

The stuff that was already here, then, according to your theory, existed without ever having been created?

How’d that happen?

 

[Stryder50]

The stuff that was already here, then, according to your theory, existed without ever having been created?

How’d that happen?

If it already existed, why would it need to be created (re-created)?

Since you think you know how things didn't happen, how about you share your wisdom on how it did happen.

 

[BackAgain]

If it already existed, why would it need to be created (re-created)?

Since you think you know how things didn't happen, how about you share your wisdom on how it did happen.

You’re wrong about what I think. What I said and continue to maintain is that we don’t know.

Are you following along?

As to your theory, the reason I can’t buy it is that it posits the existence of things without their ever having been created. It leaves me always wondering “well, where did THAT come from?”

I’m glad you find comfort in your theory. But, all I’m saying is that it makes absolutely no sense to me.

(Also, the fact that your theory — and its presuppositions — make no sense to me is not the same as a claim from me that “therefore, your theory is wrong.” Don’t be so sensitive. You could be right. I don’t see how. But that’s different than me saying rhat you’re wrong.)

 

[Stryder50]

You’re wrong about what I think. What I said and continue to maintain is that we don’t know.

Are you following along?

As to your theory, the reason I can’t buy it is that it posits the existence of things without their ever having been created. It leaves me always wondering “well, where did THAT come from?”

I’m glad you find comfort in your theory. But, all I’m saying is that it makes absolutely no sense to me.

(Also, the fact that your theory — and its presuppositions — make no sense to me is not the same as a claim from me that “therefore, your theory is wrong.” Don’t be so sensitive. You could be right. I don’t see how. But that’s different than me saying rhat you’re wrong.)

That is one of the problems of message boards, internet~on-line communications; one is given impression of what people think by what they type and how they "speak".

My point was that we all will speculate on some topics and this one on "creation" is definetly one of those.

My other point is that it is easy and common to ask questions and if one rejects answers offered than next course is to inquire what they think the answer to their question is.

If you have no alternate answer, then there isn't much left for us to discuss on this subject.

 

[BackAgain]

That is one of the problems of message boards, internet~on-line communications; one is given impression of what people think by what they type and how they "speak".

My point was that we all will speculate on some topics and this one on "creation" is definetly one of those.

My other point is that it is easy and common to ask questions and if one rejects answers offered than next course is to inquire what they think the answer to their question is.

If you have no alternate answer, then there isn't much left for us to discuss on this subject.

If you wanna chew the fat and ask any fellow posting member to provide “the answer” to your question, then go ahead and just ask.

But, realistically, my “answer” does NOT demand that I have “the” answer. I don’t have nearly enough information to provide “the” answer. Plus, I don’t have to speculate, anyway, to note that whatever the answer might be, I doubt it’s the one being offered.

Capiche?

 

[Stryder50]

If you wanna chew the fat and ask any fellow posting member to provide “the answer” to your question, then go ahead and just ask.

But, realistically, my “answer” does NOT demand that I have “the” answer. I don’t have nearly enough information to provide “the” answer. Plus, I don’t have to speculate, anyway, to note that whatever the answer might be, I doubt it’s the one being offered.

Capiche?

That you are dodging and engage in CYA than yes, "capiche".

As for the garbled content of your post, nope.
I had no question other than wanting your answer/alternate explanation.
If you don't have enough information to provide an answer, how can you be certain other's explanation isn't the answer ?

Anyway, appears nothing to be gained in this discussion with you, so ado ...

 

[BackAgain]

That you are dodging and engage in CYA than yes, "capiche".

You’re being petty and silly.

Wtf would I be covering my ass over? Pure speculation.

As for the garbled content of your post, nope.

So garbled that even you could figure by out? lol. You’re being even pettier.

I had no question other than wanting your answer/alternate explanation.

You asked for “the” answer. My answer remains, “I don’t know.” I still don’t know. I doubt humanity itself will ever truly know.

If you don't have enough information to provide an answer, how can you be certain other's explanation isn't the answer ?

Did I say I was certain of my doubt? I don’t think so. I only conceded (again) that I didn’t know. It’s true. I still don’t know. But I’m free to find some proposed answers as unpersuasive.

Apparently you’re not able to capiche.

Anyway, appears nothing to be gained in this discussion with you, so ado ...

I agree that there is nothing to be gained from trying to talk with someone as petty as you. Also, I believe the word is actually, “adieu.”

 

[Stryder50]

Returning to the main focus/theme of this thread;

Trump Orders Release of Government Files on Aliens, UFOs​

...
President Donald Trump has ordered government agencies to release information about extraterrestrial life and related phenomena in a late night Feb. 19 Truth Social post.

“Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters. GOD BLESS AMERICA!” said Trump in the post.

The post followed former President Barack Obama’s comments on alien life in a podcast interview earlier this week.
...
During Trump’s first term, the U.S. government established the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Task Force (UAPTF).
According to an Aug. 4, 2020, statement from the then-Department of Defense (DOD), the UAPTF was established to improve the department’s understanding of the nature and origins of UAPs, while the mission was to detect, analyze, and catalog UAPs that could threaten national security.

“The Department of Defense and the military departments take any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace very seriously and examine each report. This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as UAP when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing,” said the statement.


In 2021, a report was submitted to Congress that assessed the threat posed by UAPs, and the progress made by the task force in understanding the issue.
However, due to a lack of “high-quality” information, the report could not conclusively state whether UAPs were of extraterrestrial origin or their nature and intentions.

Although some UAP exhibited “unusual flight characteristics,” these could be due to “sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception,” said the report.
...
According to a Nov. 24, 2024, DOD press release, a UAP report from the department’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) noted that the office received 757 UAP reports from May 1, 2023, to June 1, 2024, with 485 of these incidents happening within the reporting period.

“Only a very small percentage of reports to AARO are potentially anomalous, but these are the cases that require significant time, resources, and a focused scientific inquiry by AARO and its partners,” AARO Director Jon Kosloski said.

“It is also important to underscore that to date, AARO has discovered no verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity or technology. None of the cases resolved by AARO [has] pointed to advanced capabilities or breakthrough technologies.”

The Pentagon has no explanations for some of the unsolved UAP cases, Kosloski testified to the U.S. Senate on Nov. 19, 2024.
...

Trump Orders Release of Government Files on Aliens, UFOs

Trump accused former President Obama of disclosing classified information regarding extraterrestrial life.

www.theepochtimes.com

"unsolved" & "unresolved" cases have been the core of the "mystery" since 1947. Not to mention than many "resolved" are erroneous in their solution.

One focus/purpose of this thread is to suggest why many will not be truthfully solved/resolved until the Anunnaki wish it so.

 

[Hafar1014]

When it comes to questions of the Creation of the Cosmos and Humans, most people tend to align with one or the other of polar views.
1) On one hand are those with Religion inclinations whom endorse some form of a Deity or Deities having decided to "Create" the Cosmos and we Humans within such. Such "Creation Stories/"Myths" " then become foundation for Religions = Ideologies with Deity/Deities attached and a proscription for how to live within the edicts of such a Creator(s).
2) On the other hand are those whom engage some form of Natural Existence/Development where "The Cosmos" is seen to have always been there, a result of it's 'Own Being" and then just happened to follow a path of mutations and developments that often have some gaps in the processes, but since such exists, it "Must have happened naturally."

Could there be some other more middle ground between these two polar extremes?

Might the Cosmos be some form of eternal cycle of Big Bangs and Big Collapses, neither a Beginning nor an End, and along the way Others show up and had some role in the appearance of the current version of we Humans, hence becoming our Gawds/Gawdesses ???

In the middle ground between Creationism and Evolutionism, this might be a perpendicular path to consider.

In the human mind there has to be a beginning a prime mover be it entity or natural process. The problem is who is the creator of the creator? We just dont know.

 

[Stryder50]

In the human mind there has to be a beginning a prime mover be it entity or natural process. The problem is who is the creator of the creator? We just dont know.

Which then generates the question;

Who* is the Creator of the Creator of the Creator ..... (etc.)

We have a logic (dis-logic) loop here, and another expression of Eternity = No beginning and No ending.

The human mind is the "problem" because it is limited in perceptions and grasps.

Note that I'm using the literal definition of "eternity"; and some religions/sects also apply this definition.

But the bigger flaw here might be in the expression of the "question".
Using the term "who" rather than "what".
"Who" anthropomorphizes the question, by you and others at least.
I've been trying it present it as "What", which would be "something" beyond (and above?) human consciousness and intellect.

We don't know, at this level of existence, but some have speculated that when the body dies and the soul remains*, the souls will then go beyond the 3D limits of this physical universe and might then "know".

Meanwhile this likely should be in a Religion or Philosophy focused thread.
I'm here with this concept because I'm presenting an alternative interpretation of history, one that could be considered as perpendicular to the line between the conventional poles of Creation(religious) Theory versus Evolution(sort of scientific) Theory.

As I stated, or implied, in the Opening Posts (first few pages of) part of the basis for the Geminga Scenario is taking the earliest human writings at literal, face value rather than caste such aside as just myth ~ fable ~ fiction.

For one thing, IF we are dealing with the first/oldest written language, and records, of humankind, it is probable they are presenting what they know and understand in the words and concepts they are familiar with. Also, with literacy being a major profession and one that only a small percentage of the population has, then there isn't much market for creating "pulp fiction" so to speak.

* Opens door to another theological concept of a "life force" or form of non-physical energy which is prime animator of biological life. Another topic more likely suited to a Religion or Philosophy focus thread, regards if such exists or not.