Intelligence? The state of being.

[St_Arey]

I remember me first “Intelâ€

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Thank you very much St. Arey for giving us that wonderful insight into military intelligence.

We have been talking about what it must have been like for Dr. Brown to have an armed escort and to know that that might ultimately mean. Its very interesting to hear that same sort of scenario still exists in pretty much the same shape and form. I don't blame you for changing your MOS!

I know that you had said earlier that you had had the opportunity to spend some time with Dr. Brown while he was living on Catalina Island. Was he ever able to speak to you about your thoughts about future military plans, or did the subject just never come up?

Its interesting that you would be called in like that. Did you get the impression that you had been sort of "picked out" and that fate intervened somehow to set you on another track? Maybe all of that was for the best , as you said!

Thank you for sharing your experience with us! Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

In 1977, I had built my first crude binary computer using thin copper wire coiled around old sewing thimbles using them as gates (NAN, OR, etc.,) ¸

Gee,... apple computer inc was in business in Cupertino in 1977 and a complete 48K bytes RAM computer system was available for $2638.00. Did you just reinvent the gates in copper wire to detect sidereal signals somehow, or are you talking about 1967 rather than 1977?

I went through the books and found a school opening soon – attack aircraft electronic technician. I ended up working on attack helicopter electronic weapon systems (Cobra, Apache, Huey, and Black Hawks. Etc.,).

Very cool. I use to work on a new design for the mil spec AN-URT-33CM downed aircraft personal beacon See http://www.lifesupportintl.com/radioBeaconsetURT-33.htm You must have seen a few of those while you were doing your duty for America? were they really any good anyway?

My S1 security clearance changed to S2, Secret. At least I didn’t have to answer some MP with a pistol to my head asking, “Why me?â€

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Hi Mr. Trickfox,

Just a couple of comments on your interesting post.

Drones loose to report back the whereabouts of "wanted individuals"? ...

I just get the creepy feeling Raymond thats already happening! Can't be too specific but other writers have noted "Intelligence drones" .... (some as small as dragonflys) ....

check out Dan Browns "Deception Point" which is actually one of the first novels based on the activities of an outfit called the NRO. (National Reconnaisance Office) .... according to THAT book (page12) " The agency encompassed six other US installations, employed over ten thousand agents and had operating costs of over 10 billion per year. In total secrecy the NRO built and maintained an astonishing arsenal of cutting edge spy technologies worldwide electronic intercepts; spy satellites; silent, global naval recon network known as Classic Wizard, a secret web of 1,456 hydrophones mounted on seafloors around the world, capable of monitoring ship movements anywhere on the globe."

Now, since that particular Agency is not prone to advertise what it does or doesn't do (or have) its really pretty hard to even figure that they actually exist until they decided to announce themselves ..... which is what the NRO did several years ago. So now people know they exist but of course .... what they are capable of accomplishing is still very , very black.

(Dan Brown introduces the idea in this particular book that life here on Earth actually originated in space .... and came here ... hitchiking sort of on meteor strikes .... Panspermia I believe the concept is called.) something to think about another time ........)
.
And since we are talking about interesting concepts ..... books and movies .... I am sure that you have seen the old classic science fiction movie " The Day The Earth Stood Still" In that a robot (GORT) is programmed to counter agression with anhililation .... leaving its civilized society the freedom to continue other pursuits. That was a thought during the fifties when people were talking of Flying Saucers and the brothers from space. Ah .... things seem so much more complicated today.

But wouldn't it be good if we could figure out how to put the aggression and fear away?

Someone once said to me " I don't want to talk about our problems .... I want to talk about our solutions ....." and that made real sense to me. I am a great believer in the concept that you can actually encourage things to manifest themselves in your direction by simply claiming them. I know that you think the same Trickfox, just look next to you. You will find that you are not alone. Elizabeth

[Trickfox]

Elizabeth
I suspect that even the black projects have limitations in math and physics, and unless I am sadly mistaken these dragonflie devices are one way sensors reporting back what they see and sense to soldiers. What if they also turned out to be two way communication devices like flying walky talkies? Could we begin with communication and awareness rather than fear. If the system was working the way I envision it, then anyone could see and communicate with the other end of the dragon fly device, or maybe a structure of Media representatives who are looking for the latest news buletin would distribute the media rather than have some soldier at the end joystick.
No, Elizabeth it's not happening quite the way it could be to increase conflict resolution. We have to harness this thing called energy first, then conflict resolution will become easier.

Trickfox

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Mr. Trickfox,

Quite obviously the first message that I sent to you was not adequate because I pushed the wrong darned button and erased myself. Another case, I am sure , of self editing. So I will just try to be more clear this time around.

Trickfox ... You say that we have to "harness this thing called energy first" before we can move into better conflict "resolutions".

But don't you see that the FIRST thing that must happen is that we need to understand the NATURE of our own reality before we can even get to resolve anything truthfully.

I hope that Paul will be able to give us the exact link to Einsteins answer to a question he was asked.( Actually he wasn't asked this question .He was asked " What one question would you ask....... and his question in return was "Is this universe a friendly place?") He then proceeded with the phrase "IF WE DECIDE ....." So you see, he was aware tht it was a matter of choosing which our universe was to be .... friendly or not .

Thats the answer that we need to ask and answer for ourselves and its one of those questions that no one else can answer for us.

The Angel stopped Haggar and asked ..... "who are you and where WILL you go? " and thts the question that all of humanity is still being asked.

I have this sense that it is still and always be up to us.

So you see, thats why its so important here to understand that we ALREADY HAVE A NATURE that can MANIFEST what we want in our future. If we just RECOGNIZE it.

Otherwise , if all we can see is fear and aggression then what we will create for ourselves is more of what we have had before. What good then are the advances in technology?

And no amount of technical change and improvement is going to release us from the world of hate and aggression that we will drag right along with us. We will just use those improvements to build bigger and "better bombs", create for ourselves more and more conflicts.

Perhaps if the Caroline Group was ever "chartered" for anything, perhaps it might have been ...... to work on increasing the awareness level so that people would understand that certain things have to come first. And knowing just who and what we actually are ..... well, thats first. Elizabeth

[Paul S.]

I hope that Paul will be able to give us the exact link to Einsteins answer to a question he was asked.( Actually he wasn't asked this question .He was asked " What one question would you ask....... and his question in return was "Is this universe a friendly place?") He then proceeded with the phrase "IF WE DECIDE ....." So you see, he was aware tht it was a matter of choosing which our universe was to be .... friendly or not .

Yeah, this one I've had rattling around in the background for a long time. Probably a good think I swiped the whole thing in its entirety, because the source on the web is now gone. Anyway, here's the story on the 'ultimate question' that was posed to Albert Einstein:

- - - - - -

Albert Einstein was approached by a reporter during an interview and asked something to the effect of, "Dr. Einstein, you are recognized around the world as one of the most bone fide geniuses of our century, maybe of human history. Your scope of thinking has covered the workings of the universe from the tiny atom to the cosmos. You have seen your discoveries both evolve and enrich, and also mutilate and destroy the human life you so highly value. What, in your opinion is the most important question facing humanity today?"
Characteristically, Einstein stared off into space for a moment, and then looked down at the ground in front of him. Finally he looked back at the reporter and replied, "I think the most important question facing humanity is, 'Is the universe a friendly place?' This is the first and most basic question all people must answer for themselves.

"For if we decide that the universe is an unfriendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to achieve safety and power by creating bigger walls to keep out the unfriendliness and bigger weapons to destroy all that which is unfriendly-and I believe that we are getting to a place where technology is powerful enough that we may either completely isolate or destroy ourselves as well in this process.

"If we decide that the universe is neither friendly nor unfriendly and that God is essentially 'playing dice with the universe', then we are simply victims to the random toss of the dice and our lives have no real purpose or meaning.

"But if we decide that the universe is a friendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to create tools and models for understanding that universe. Because power and safety will come through understanding its workings and its motives."

- - - - -

Now I'm going to back up and read the rest of this thread...

--PS

[Mark Culpepper]

You guys are into some powerful stuff here.

POWER AND SAFETY WILL COME THROUGH UNDERSTANDING ITS WORKINGS AND MOTIVES.

Einstein here is talking about the Universe. So he has already told us that such a place HAS MOTIVES. That to me means that he has said .... we are dealing with an intelligence here! And if we just learn about it then all kinds of doors will open for us. And isn't that what this whole forum has been about . I know it took us all a certain while to stand up alongside Paul when he did and declare what he thought . That there is an intelligence out there which has be interacting with all of us. Of course, thats hardly a novel idea. Every person has a religion they can point to which basically says the same thing. But Einstein is saying it too and I don't remember reading anywhere that he was particularly religious. (I may be wrong, but most scientists believe basically in their science and they don't want to talk about something that they can not prove. So again, isn't this an odd statement coming from such an illustrious scientist? And this is what this forum has been about, at the seat of it. We have talked about different dimensions and even gravity doors ..............

But Elizabeth is wise as always, when she points out that we have to learn about ourselves before we go charging off dragging the same old mind set with us. This is too important a door I sense to walk through it with all of our old garbage attached.

Maybe Einstein knew this all along. I mean. Really read what he is saying here. Our world is what we will make of it ourselves. Thats exactly what Elizabeth has been saying and Trickfox too. Paul? MarK C

[St_Arey]

We are a mixed society made up of Leavers and Takers. Today our society is dominated by the Takers.

It all began when the human race was a hunting and gathering society. We lived in small groups, hunted for food to survive and gathered for stock during nomadic moves.

The human race took a turn when it became an agricultural society. In this new society we learned to cultivate the land and herd animals; we were no longer nomadic. Our families’ grew to maintain the crops.

Finally, the main conflict for mankind: the excess food supplies. Who decides who gets what share of the supplies? Who is going to be responsible enough to protect it? To manage it?

The people in charge of the supplies now became the Takers. This is when the human race split into two main groups: the Leavers and the Takers. The Takers needed more land to herd their animals and crops so they "took" the land belonging to the Leavers. Soon, the Takers had more births than the Leavers; more people to manage the larger food supplies-thus more mouths to feed and much more demand on their survival.

I believe Einstein was referring to Space as the “new agricultural landsâ€

[LongboardLOVELY]

... But Einstein is saying it too and I don't remember reading anywhere that he was particularly religious. (I may be wrong, but most scientists believe basically in their science and they don't want to talk about something that they can not prove. So again, isn't this an odd statement coming from such an illustrious scientist? And this is what this forum has been about, at the seat of it. We have talked about different dimensions and even gravity doors ..............
MarK C

Mark, I found a website that talked about what Einstein did and did not believe. As many scientists of his age, he became a Deist, which is the next level up from Agnostic. A lot of the 56 people who signed the Decl. of Ind. in 1776 were also deists. Here's the URL:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

I have a copy of treatise that was never published that was written by Dr. Einstein. It explains some his feelings about the origination of Universe using his theory of relativity and how he tried to explain away what he was discovering. There are a lot of good website available that talk about the science of the universe.

I hope this helps.

Linda

[Madison]

Now this is where English fails most of us and usually paints us into corners from which there is never an obvious escape.


Point to be made here Linda is your comment that an "agnostic" was one step up from an "atheist". Is that on a scale from believing in no personal God? or is the scale encompassing that creative influence? Whats at the top of the scale then? And is that "better" to be there ...... or is the phrase just making it seem so?

Einstein is quoted as saying that he did not believe in a personal God.


Not to say that his belief in a concious creator did not exist or that he did not see that conciousness at work daily. Because of that does that make his observations less worthy? In other words , since he could not say MY GOD REVEALED ALL OF THIS TO ME .....does that make his revealations less true, less valuable?

Here is the problem we seem to fall in then. If I have a personal God does that mean that I have to prove to all others that my God is the ONLY true God? of course! Thats human competitive nature, and being human we try to do that all the time. just look around now.

So is having a personal God actually better for us? ..... than Einsteins "devine conciousness". Is "fighting for that God" what we are all supposed to be doing, you think?

Paul. Have you gotten an idea of where dr. Brown stood on the matter of a personal God? I would guess from what I have seen .... that he did not. He may have, however, believed that the Universe was filled with an intelligent force that was good in nature. And that whenever a contrary force arose it was because just was not enough light being produced where it was needed ..... and maybe he just felt that we had a long, long road to understanding. Madison

[Chris Knight]

Madison,

I believe Linda means that the belief in nothing (atheism) would be one side of the scale moving up to agnostic (maybe a god) to deism (some god), theism (one God/Creator), and so on with all of the iterations thereof.

Her point being that many of our founding fathers (and mothers), great minds, etc. believed to some degree in a creator (as did Brown, if I remember correctly).

Andrew

[LongboardLOVELY]

Now this is where English fails most of us and usually paints us into corners from which there is never an obvious escape.

This is true. Mandarin has a much more thorough lexicon than English or any of the other Romance Language bases.

Point to be made here Linda is your comment that an "agnostic" was one step up from an "atheist". Is that on a scale from believing in no personal God? or is the scale encompassing that creative influence? Whats at the top of the scale then? And is that "better" to be there ...... or is the phrase just making it seem so?

I did not mean to imply that one is better than another. I work in the medical field, and I was thinking along the lines of an analog scale, kind of like blood pressure or pain scale, but without the negative connotations therein. Andrew probably painted a better pic.

Not to say that his belief in a concious creator did not exist or that he did not see that conciousness at work daily. Because of that does that make his observations less worthy?

No, but he confounded himself many times when he would deny the existence of, but then find out that this was impossible mathematically. So he compromised, as much of our founding fathers did.

In other words , since he could not say MY GOD REVEALED ALL OF THIS TO ME .....does that make his revealations less true, less valuable?

Do you think it makes his revelations less true or valuable? I do not think that his import is in any way tarnished by what he did or did not believe. BUT it sounds as if he struggled between what he believed, and what he was witnessing in his research.

Those are good questions that you raised Madison. We should explore those issues, maybe in another vein?

Linda

[twigsnapper]

I have noticed that many times in trying to explain what we all mean we have made the comment that the "English language " gets in the way and this post is a sort of question. Which modern language has the largest range of possibilities for communication. Which language captures all the thousands of possibilities of thought that might be needed in communications with another entity.

Obviously English is not high on the list, as has been demonstrated here. We spend most of our time trying to figure that we actually understood what a person was trying to say. Someone just asked a friend of mind, in no small consternation "What is a PERSONAL God anyway?" What precisely does that mean. Like asking for the definitive meaning of LOVE. Try to explain that in English.

So what other language would be closer on the scale of 1 to 100? I think that Linda B has mentioned that already. Mandarin Chinese.

Linda. I know that you are familiar with the language. Do you still study and speak it? Do you know very much about the history of the language? I am directing this question for you because I think that with your sharp researching skills you could offer the forum a very interesting and enlightening look.

Know too ..... that I recognize there are other things of more importance happening now and my absolute best wishes are with you and Andy.

But getting back to it . In some circles a supreme commander was referred to as the Mandari. Rare to be referred to as such but the word carries much historical significance and Paul, it has a connection with your story. It won't take much to see it.

And you are right Linda, perhaps another section would be a better place for this discussion but I will let someone else decide what they want to call it. Twigsnapper

[Victoria Steele]

I love seeing these little hints from Twigsnapper. How does this gentleman know so much. I looked up "Mandari" and it is sanskrit for "Commander"

Sanskrit, sanskrit ..... trying to remember where I have seen that mentioned before in this forum and then it hit me like a ton of bricks. Beau Kitselman was supposed to be fluent. is that what his daughter said? In the ancient language of sanskrit.

And Paul has said that Townsend Brown and Beau Kitselman were very good friends and in fact working partners? Did I get that right? Its been a long time since I read that and I am sorry I don't remember the exact post. Perhaps Paul, can you tell me quick if I am off base because I don't want to mislead anybody here.

And now we have Twigsnapper saying that Mandarin Chinese would be better suited for its descriptive powers when dealing with a "quantum intelligence". I think I am paraphrasing here but hopefully all will understand where I am trying to go with this. If Mandarin Chinese is more appropriate now ..... and it was derived from Sanskrit in ancient times ..... then...... was Sanscrit the language used to describe these ancient technologies. Ok now really stepping out on the limb now to ask Paul if he has ever read much about the Vedic Flying machines?

And Himmler was sending expeditions to seek out "ancient secrets". Hang on Indiana Jones, what could be far behind? Victoria