A well founded view on the alien issue

[samvado]

I would consider then entire content of this website worth reading, but the part about aliens is a must read IMO.

I had email-contact with the author, he seems somewhat shy but does occasionally reply, always in a sensible and intelligent way.

this is a link - click here (http://montalk.net/alien)

[Shairia]

I don't see a link?

[samvado]

I don't see a link?

just click on "check it out here:"

[Shairia]

Thanks my eyes must be going.

[sargeist]

montalk is a smart guy. all his work is pretty spot on.

[steve_a]

Hi Everybody,

I'm really suprised by everyone posting on this thread, not because of the subject of the thread, but by the fact that this "monktalk" person is writing as if everything they say is true, or factual, without providing one shred of evidence to prove the point. If they can't show the evidence, what they write is an oppinion, or an idea and nothing more.

What really troubles me is that there are people who believe that the person "is a smart guy" and that, "all his work is pretty spot on". This assumption is based on what? For this person to believe that monktalk's work is "pretty spot on", they too must know, factually and able to prove, what monktalk is saying, otherwise their assumption is baseless.

I'm a logic sort of chap and find that a lot of what is floating about on the internet is either based on myth or is just an invention of someones intellect and ability to write prose.

Something to reflect.

Best regards,

Steve

montalk is a smart guy. all his work is pretty spot on.

[samvado]

but by the fact that this "monktalk" person is writing as if everything they say is true, or factual, without providing one shred of evidence to prove the point.

you are right, steve, and you can keep your way of thinking if you like.
however, most often than not truth is not black or white, so in my 57 years I often had to sail the rough seas of evaluating mind against intuition.
In the strictest sense what he says could only be evaluated by a thorough background check (he DOES give you ample details of his life if you go thru the entire site, his books included, which I did, and such a check, if positive, would be proof) BUT I am not with the "agencies" and have no reasonable means to do such a check.

I had quite a few email exchanges with him, about physics, Burkhard Heim, the lot. His understanding is well above average and definitely above most here on the forum.
He could be a smart impostor. But considering he has closed down his forum because he just couldnt stand the mindless garbage any more people where throwing at him, ashtar command et al, (he did put it more polite, but in essence that was what he said).
I do consider him 90% reliable. I do NOT share all of his conjectures, but when its such, he always makes sure you KNOW it is. he doesnt sell you conjecture as fact like many here do.

best
-sam

[blue777]

Hi Everybody,

I'm really suprised by everyone posting on this thread, not because of the subject of the thread, but by the fact that this "monktalk" person is writing as if everything they say is true, or factual, without providing one shred of evidence to prove the point. If they can't show the evidence, what they write is an oppinion, or an idea and nothing more.

What really troubles me is that there are people who believe that the person "is a smart guy" and that, "all his work is pretty spot on". This assumption is based on what? For this person to believe that monktalk's work is "pretty spot on", they too must know, factually and able to prove, what monktalk is saying, otherwise their assumption is baseless.

I'm a logic sort of chap and find that a lot of what is floating about on the internet is either based on myth or is just an invention of someones intellect and ability to write prose.

Something to reflect.

Best regards,

Steve

I agree with you Steve, there is far too much falsehood on the net, the only way to prove anyone right is to see E.T'S IN THE FLESH SO TO SPEAK.....
BLUE

[steve_a]

Hi blue777,

I don't think it necessary to see an ET "in the flesh" to know that they exist. I would, however, want to know how the information giver arrived at their conclusions.

For example, there are people who say that they worked for top secret organizations and projects and of course they could prove it without a doubt! Probably the most recent example, and my hero, would be Henry Deacon, a really charismatic, special sort of guy - my eyes well up with tears with emotion every time I hear his name, who wished to be anonymous, but his identity was leaked and someone posted his video on YouTube. In the video he shows a US 'special' brown passport, which obvously is very important only given to people with only the highest top secret clearance, perhaps he was CIA, FBI, Special Forces or something equally as dangerous! I'm sure it was really special. It turns out he can only be the real deal, so real in fact it hurts. I'm really proud os him!!

On the other hand we have ex-astronauts and the like who say they know people who have seen, but don't give names and insist it isn't them. That in a court of law would never stand up. It's hearsay.

Then there are those who have really worked on secret projects (like the guy from Lockheed Martin - can't remember his name) who tells us like it is, plain and simple, from first hand experience.

So yes, we are faced with two thirds of fluff or hearsay, and only one third real tangible information, if all three sources offer equal volumes of output. That to me doesn't look good.

I will not go into abductees, as that enters into another subject all together, which I still haven't explored with much detail yet. It doesn't seem to be my 'cup of tea'.

So let's just keep on sifting through to find the real evidence, from the real people, who really know!

Best regards,

Steve




the only way to prove anyone right is to see E.T'S IN THE FLESH SO TO SPEAK.....
BLUE

[steve_a]

Hi samvado,

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you in your colocation about truth. Truth is a clear cut 'black or white' thing. Something is true, or it isn't. There is truth and then there is the rest.
Truth is 100%.

I would suggest that 'truth' called by some people is "most often than not", not the truth. And the problem starts to get complicated when people begin to believe this 'truth'.

As I said in another post, we have to keep on sifting through the fluff to eventually encounter the truth, but it's not easy.

Best regards,

Steve


most often than not truth is not black or white,

[samvado]

OK, now lets see, when is truth 100% truth, and when not.
It really is an interesting philosophical question.

the short version goes like this: if its objective it can be 100%, if its subjective it never is 100%.

Does "evolution" exist? depends (not yes or no)
does god exist? depends
do aliens exist? depends
do we die? (what is "we") - so, it depends

you see, to make your approach workable you must not leave mathematics (and even there are areas where "truth" is not 100%)
in all other areas of life truth is never 100% true ...

[mike1414]

If you can not find the truth where you are, where else do you expect to find it - Dogen

peace always
mike

[samvado]

If you can not find the truth where you are, where else do you expect to find it - Dogen

peace always
mike

that would be yet another "thruth"

nice quote, thanx mike.

[Oliver]

Hi Samvado,

I have read the material before. It is worth reading. Even if it is not based of true facts, the author presents a broad specter of logically based opinions, analyzes, well based knowledge about the world we are living in etc, not only about ETs. The effort that is included in writing such a material deserves respect, even if we do not agree with it.

Greetings

[samvado]

Hi Samvado,

I have read the material before. It is worth reading. Even if it is not based of true facts, the author presents a broad specter of logically based opinions, analyzes, well based knowledge about the world we are living in etc, not only about ETs. The effort that is included in writing such a material deserves respect, even if we do not agree with it.

Greetings

that about says it.

I want to make it clear that I do NOT agree 100% with his conjectures and do not share his world view entirely. E.g. he quotes the "wave" material which I consider 100% nonsense, and he briefly even mentions the "voyager" material - same there.

But overall IMO it is a very elaborate and convincing piece of work very worth reading and considering.

[sargeist]

Hi Everybody,

I'm really suprised by everyone posting on this thread, not because of the subject of the thread, but by the fact that this "monktalk" person is writing as if everything they say is true, or factual, without providing one shred of evidence to prove the point. If they can't show the evidence, what they write is an oppinion, or an idea and nothing more.

What really troubles me is that there are people who believe that the person "is a smart guy" and that, "all his work is pretty spot on". This assumption is based on what? For this person to believe that monktalk's work is "pretty spot on", they too must know, factually and able to prove, what monktalk is saying, otherwise their assumption is baseless.

I'm a logic sort of chap and find that a lot of what is floating about on the internet is either based on myth or is just an invention of someones intellect and ability to write prose.

Something to reflect.

Best regards,

Steve


Yeah I've talked with him many times over the last few years, so I have a fair idea of what he's seen and done, and it lines up with a lot of things in my life. He's one of the most logical dudes you'll find in this field, who both reasearces the crap out of everything, and has a lot of his own experience.

I'm not the sort of person who comments on something if I don't know what I'm talking about. No baseless assumptions here :)

That being said, I can only speak for myself. Everyone should look into things for themselves, and never just take someones word for it.

[ExHaLaTiON]

we can only go with whatever lead we can get to find that truth , if everything was based on 100% truth then we would have nothing as everybody only has little bits of it. We all know how "black" they keep everything. Remember that truth is always mixed in with the lies.......so please share your intel.

[samvado]

The guy has published a few books which he offers for free (as pdf) and they are woth reading. I definitely suggest to go thru his entire site. Its worth it.
I do not agree with him on all points, as I mentioned before, but whenever I asked and if I got one it was a reasonable and intelligent answer.

[Grizzom]

Damn Steve you ain't no fun!

"Some of us love to be baffled in BS" He! He!

I love a good story, but I always try to remember it's just that, a story.

Until proven as fact, it's all just someone's spin on the same old stuff?

@ Sam

I like your post and I agree the guy does seem sincere to me.

I believe he believes in what he writes and that carries a lot of weight in my book :yes:

[Perplex]

Hey guys , since I've made some research on montalk materials quite a while before this thread was started, I thought I could drop by with my point of view.
Concerning the small disagreement between Sam and Steve : In my opinion , you are both right. Montalk writes about a lot of things in, let's say, our common area of interest . And since I've have read most of them , I must say he has quite a harsh and radical way of looking at things. Now Sam, intuition is a good word to sum up all this. Based on that , I tend to agree with the writer in many aspects, and it "feels" to me that he knows what he is writing and it's not just about the " ability to write prose " . On the other hand , Steve was almost right when he mentioned that the guy is writing " without providing one shred of evidence to prove the point ". Actually , he does have some evidence and quite some materials to sustain all he says. It's just that he doesn't focus on bringing that into the readers eyes. I, myself have read some of the "evidence" a while ago, but stumbling into it almost accidentally, jumping from one article to another. So as I said, it's not brought forward where it should be , I agree on that. Still , intuition can always help when to decide what to believe, and what not to.

P.S. About the philosophical "truth" , I'd say nothing is actually true . It's all just a matter of perspective, so as your beliefs and your point of view can always be your truth ; and thus, it's quite hard to speak about truth in a global acceptance, since you would probably end up writing a whole book about it :)

Love and peace,
Rares

[Perplex]

Something I would like to add : As I wrote before, montalk's focus is not directed towards showing you how the research is made , entirely, but mostly on offering a pertinent point of view ; a conclusion of the whole research.
For example, in the article entitled : Synopsis of the Alien Master Plan, it is clearly stated :

<< This article addresses some important questions regarding the alien agenda. It merely skims the surface and should therefore supplement your own research, not replace it. If you want a thorough grasp of what’s going on, I recommend analyzing with discernment the following books:

Gods of Eden – William Bramley
The Threat – Dr David Jacobs
Taken – Dr Karla Turner
The Love Bite – Eve Lorgen
Into the Fringe – Dr Karla Turner
God’s Gladiators – Stuart Wilde
Tales from the Timeloop – David Icke
UFOs and the National Security State – Richard Dolan
The Allies of Humanity – Marshall Summers
Bringers of the Dawn – Barbara Marciniak
The Ra Material, Books I,II,III – Don Elkins, Carla Rueckert
Cassiopaean Transcripts – Cassiopaeans, LKJ

Each of these contain valuable pieces to the puzzle. Use your heart to tell you what is right, and use intellect to tell you what is false. The same goes for what you read in this article. Keep what makes sense, and throw out what is blatantly false. >>


And of course , thank you Sam for opening the thread ! True of false, no matter, any info is worth adding to the box.. :)

[Snowbird]

Hi samvado,

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you in your colocation about truth. Truth is a clear cut 'black or white' thing. Something is true, or it isn't. There is truth and then there is the rest.
Truth is 100%.

I would suggest that 'truth' called by some people is "most often than not", not the truth. And the problem starts to get complicated when people begin to believe this 'truth'.

As I said in another post, we have to keep on sifting through the fluff to eventually encounter the truth, but it's not easy.

Best regards,

Steve

But Steve, are you allowing each individual to find and grasp their own truth for their own path?

A 100% truth is fine for you and will most likely serve you well. However, someone else's 100% truth may be traveling in a totally different direction from your own.

Hence, not truth to you yourself.

[Chrononaut]

I found a link that maybe can bring more light in the ufology research, http://www.galactic.to/linkmap.html

I hope this is helpful for all..

[Perplex]

Thank you for your link Chrononaut !
It has quite some valuable info.

Love and peace,
Rares

[Chrononaut]

Thank u to my friend.
I just love my home works.

Namaste.

[Hiram]

For some people, the very fabric of reality in which they choose to exist must, let me repeat that MUST include an absolute verifiable truth. It is the foundation-stone by which they discern. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those chaps are requisite for a healthy discussion.

With that being said however, once someone embraces the idea of no fixed Truth, no objective Truth, no black and white, whole universes open themselves up to your reality. Can something be both Black and White at the same time?? Hmmmm.

If you give a homeless man a quarter, did you do it for him....or for yourself? Perhaps both? Perhaps neither? Where did the original motivation come from? These questions bring me great joy...yet I know there is absolutely no fixed truth to discover within them. There are many truths....as many as there are people on this planet.

I have realized in my experience that truth is not static, it is not a fixed point. It moves and changes. Its as amorphous as the clouds.

Then again, with out the objectivism of certain people, things would never get interesting.

[topspot37]

Thanks for the link, i found it interesting and a different angle on the whole alien issue

[Referee]

I skimmed the article many of this info fits with a thread here at avalon here is the link...

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?40941-Horus-Ra-as-the-Archontic-Alien-Parasite-A-follow-up-interview-with-Maarit