"Alien Sky" - Questioning the Myths in our Religions

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Solrey,
Where did you get the image of the Arctic ocean from? Very interesting.

[davesmith_au]

Hi Dave,
Do you know when we can expect to see some of part2? (I'm asssuming some clips will be posted as with part1)

Giday GC, I cannot give anything more definitive than we anticipate both parts 2 and 3 will be complete by the middle of this year, give or take a month or two. There will of course be short clips from each as they become available.

Cheers, Dave.

[Grey Cloud]

Cheers Dave,
Roll on Summer then, or Winter from your perspective.

[David Talbott]

Hi all,
.....
If there is anything that will prevent mainstream acceptance of EU, it is association with people like Velikovsky. My hope is that this film is not representative of EU people in general. Please tell me I am right. This must have been discussed somewhere before, yes? Is there another forum post somewhere about this sort of thing?

The easiest way for you to answer the question is to rethink your position on Velikovsky, in the light of work by those who've devoted much of their lives to researching the question. Though wrong on numerous points, Velikovsky was not wrong in his claims of planetary instability and catastrophe — or in his claim that Venus moved formerly as a comet. All one need do is follow the available research. The massive library of evidence on the comet Venus, for example, has no reasonable explanation other than the cometary one. And not to forget also, that it was Velikovsky who said that unstable planetary motions would be comprehensible to science only when science came to understand the role of electromagnetism in the history of the solar system.

Dave Smith is correct that the hypothesis cannot be assessed properly until the three episodes are in hand. That's because scattered pieces of a puzzle are far less effective in showing a coherent picture than a completed puzzle. On the other hand, I've found that those who tend to turn away due to something they think they already know (e.g., PLANETS DON'T DO THAT!), never absorb the coherence that DOES emerge from episode one and is the basis for the overwhelmingly positive response we've received from scientists and general viewers alike.

I trust that most folks here understand that Alien Sky is a challenge to the popular idea of an uneventful solar system. To simply assume stable planetary motions in the past, then use that assumption as the basis for dismissing the hypothesis doesn't offer a lot to talk about. The first reason for rejecting that assumption is that mountains of historical evidence could not exist were the assumption correct. The overriding basis of our confidence in the Alien Sky series is the conviction that the three episodes will be sufficient to convince discerning viewers of a simple and provable truth: you cannot just make up a coherent explanation for the mythic archetypes, without it looking very much like the reconstruction offered.

David Talbott

[Kapriel]

For what it's worth (and that ain't much) I agree with the poster who said human intuition plays the most pivotal role in the development of religious beliefs. Not sure if "intuition" is the best word, actually, but it will do.
People interpret what they see, the interpretation is not forced on them. They also interpret what they feel and spiritually experience. They will try to find a recognizable cultural frame to help their experiences to make sense, sure, but ultimately their interpretation is internal. If Altruism is the hallmark of modern day worship, it is because altruism is inherent in our make-up.

That said, I should add that people always behave differently under conditions of extreme fear or tension. Whatever happened in the archaic past, it was scary to many and they reacted accordingly (example: adopted blood sacrifice rituals), but left to their own devices and without that hovering, terrifying presence we've been calling the Polar Configuration, people naturally reverted back to their natural selves.
Again, just my opinion.

[Joe Ogan]

Most Interesting. In religious circles, one only has to have faith. Thanks for your information. Joe L. Ogan

[StevenJay]

For what it's worth (and that ain't much) I agree with the poster who said human intuition plays the most pivotal role in the development of religious beliefs.

Hmm - It's been my experience that intuition "knows," whereas, the ego can only "belive." I submit that ALL religious institutions and their inherent need to "worship" something are essentially ego-driven. The enlightened intuitive mind, on the other hand, inherently knows to appreciate and celebrate that which the fear-driven egoic mind feels prompted to worship (grovel) from a subservient position.

Even though they sometimes appear to overlap, spiritual awareness and religious faith/ferver are not at all the same thing.

[Plasmatic]

For what it's worth (and that ain't much) I agree with the poster who said human intuition plays the most pivotal role in the development of religious beliefs.

Hmm - It's been my experience that intuition "knows," whereas, the ego can only "belive." I submit that ALL religious institutions and their inherent need to "worship" something are essentially ego-driven. The enlightened intuitive mind, on the other hand, inherently knows to appreciate and celebrate that which the fear-driven egoic mind feels prompted to worship (grovel) from a subservient position.

Even though they sometimes appear to overlap, spiritual awareness and religious faith/ferver are not at all the same thing.

What definition of "ego" are you employing here that doesn't make this a contradiction? Egoistic is self directed as oppossed to other directedness. Exactly how does that equate with "belief" or "groveling" much less "worship" (being an other directed exaltation).

[mague]

Actually faith is an extension of knowledge and not a replacement. We can find the concept of faith everywhere.

Whenever we find a "local" truth we belief/have faith it may be an universal truth. This happens in philosophy, religion and science.

Scientists measured the speed of light and "have faith" that its speed is the same in the whole cosmos. Mathematicians calculated G and density of earth and have faith this is true through the whole universe.

The same goes for philosophy and religion. People observed social patterns and function that are either constructive or destructive. They have faith that those are universal/godly rules.

All of us observe patterns, exceptions and anomalies. Either by empiric methods or by meditation or just by watching the life passing by. All of us recognize patterns of causality and all of us do their best bet on how those patterns may extend into the universe.

Dogmatic religion, philosophy and science is a different animal. They are usually institutionalized and do not serve the truth but the goals of a person or a group of persons. They have no faith at all, but sell dogma as faith.

[Ion01]

Although I had discovered the thunderbolts webdsite early on in its development and followed it ever since "Alien Sky" was still a huge eye opener. It was amazing to see so much info presented together in one place. I found myself even recognizing symbols from ancient cultures not presented in the film as I, having an art degree, studies these archaic arts. It is so amazing that there is so much across the world and it is all so coherently connected, but, at the smae time, there is so much it cannot all be contained and presented in a single source!

I am sure this has been asked but when is the next episode scheduled to come out?

Also, I had some friends watch this with me, one in particular who has become highly interested in mythology. They are now asking to borrow the DVD to show it to others and also reading articles and viewing videos on this site!