Dec 24, 16 22:45 UTC

Does this Ministry's scope cover interplanetary interactions?  

It seems like maybe a Ministry of Cosmic Affairs might be in order. I say cosmic instead of galactic in light of denizens of the Andromeda galaxy being documented on Earth. However, a department within this Ministry could become practiced with the CE5 technique, for example, to begin communication with these civilizations long before Asgardia is ever constructed. Undoubtably it will need to be adressed, and I feel the better prepared we are, the easier it will be on all of us.

Dec 27, 16 18:39 UTC

Erm, Are you aware of some civilisation currently occupying another planet that I am not? Otherwise it's likely this nation will be firmly established before contact is made.

Foreign is foreign. It doesn't matter if that's Earthlings or some undiscovered sillicon based race from a distant corner of the universe.

Until such contact is made, I doubt there's much practical gain to consider such things. For a start you'd need some common communicational technique before any thing else.

Jan 1, 17 16:10 UTC

Several, apparently. Try CE5 and make contact yourself. We'll have open contact before long, Disclosure is already started.

My point was with thousands of other star nations overwhelming Foreign Affairs it'll quickly warrant its own ministry if we've got a whole ministry just to deal with Earth.

  Last edited by:  KingMasterlord (Asgardian)  on Jan 1, 17 16:15 UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Jan 6, 17 03:12 UTC

The ministry is just to deal with Earth, I suspect, purely becuase of the lack of evidence for anyone else to be dealing with. In the event we find someone, or groups of, why would this be inadequete to simply encompass?

That "CE5" have much peer reviewed papers published?

Jan 8, 17 17:29 UTC

peer-reviewed journals dont deal with the science of consciouness - as you well know given your mention of them as a backhanded way of calling me an idiot and a liar. the buzzword phrase 'lack of evidence' (which is all it amounts to in the context youve used it) tells me three things-

A) that you have already decided to believe what youre told B) that you have not personally searched for evidence beyond possible biased efforts to confirm your manufactured beliefs C) no amount of proof i present will effect the opening of your mind, your ego wants to have been right more than it wants to BE right.

theyre not only out there, theyre here right now, and CE5 is a way to talk to them. try it or you cannot speak with authority on the matter: im your peer, reveiw my claims (published above)

  Last edited by:  KingMasterlord (Asgardian)  on Jan 8, 17 17:32 UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Jan 8, 17 17:29 UTC

regardless i see a new ministry in the making

  Last edited by:  KingMasterlord (Asgardian)  on Jan 8, 17 17:31 UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Jan 10, 17 09:46 UTC

Peer reviewed journals do indeed deal with the science of consiousness. For example: http://deanradin.com/evidence/vanLommel2001.pdf http://deanradin.com/evidence/vanLommel2006.pdf But I suspect you'd mean documents more like: http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Astin2000.pdf http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2004Johrei.pdf http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2008LoveStudy.pdf http://deanradin.com/evidence/Duane1965.pdf http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/StandishfMRI2003.pdf http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Wiseman2006.pdf http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Tressoldi2011Bayesian.pdf http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Honorton1989precogMA.pdf

And thousands of others that basically I can't be bothered to look for - and apparently you can't either. If I wanted to call you an "idiot" or a "liar" then I would simply do so. I have no particular inclination to attempt to spare your feelings, but I have no particular inclination to expend effort needlessly, either, and you seem to be doing a good enough job of that for me. I wouldn't call you a "liar" anyway, possibly delusional but that's another kettle of fish entirely.

A) No, what I decide is based on available evidence. I believe that which can be independantly replicated. Consistantly. Hence peer reviewed study. That's kind of what happens with professionals, they release details on what they've done, how they did it, and what results occurred for other people to both validate the sanity of their methods/results and to be able to independantly replicate.

B) I've no reason to search, knowing full well that emperical evidence is decidely lacking, or this wouldn't even be a topic. Instead favouring to utlise the same time in more productive means. My beliefs are not manufactured, having managed to form them entirely on my own without third party prompting, founded entirely on reason and factual evidence. Not knowing my educational history, philisophical standpoints, what I may, or may not, of seen, what I do or do not, where I do them or do them not, or any details whatsoever basically, it's decidedly unwise to attempt to even suggest you have a ½ a clue about what I believe.

C) You actually mean you can't provide anything to remotely back up what you're talking about. Therefore you are unable to present any "proof" in an attempt to "open my mind" - knowing anything you'd traditionally supply as evidence at this point isn't going to stand up to the slighest bit of scrutiny. I got rid of disabilities like ego a long time ago, this isn't about me, it's about fact. And the lack therof being advertised as.

I'm your peer? I didn't honestly think my level of education was quite that low, but if you insist I can review your claims.

After a cursory review - back when I asked for peer reviewed paper/studies - I'd come to the conclusion you've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This was reached initially when you mentioned "the CE5 technique" as if it's something more than a wild theory put forwards by a group of idiots who despite playing with this in number, in distributed locations and mulitple times for over two decades and have yet to produce anything more than hearsay or anecdotes in order to sell you cheap merchandise, and further reinforced by your lack of ability to provide any applicable details whilst being absolutely confident in the accuracy and validity of your statements. Once I actually looked to see what "the CE5 technique" was, I laughed as it was precisely what I thought it was. A huddle of psudoscience of comparison to homeopathic medicine - no demonstratable understanding of the operating principles, yet fully convinced of it's applicability and marketed at idiots - the main goal being to prey on the hard of thinking and give them new excuses to part with their finances. The "technique" amounts to sitting in the dark and thinking, potentially blinking a light and playing "tones of ET origin" which conviently they will sell you - because no-one has a PC and it's too difficult to generate a tone with a computer if they did. By far, the most amusing was the 118 page .pdf "manual" with overly large font for the hard of thinking that contained about one page of instruction and was otherwise composed entirely of opinion, postulation, and anecdotes. Oh, my bad, the most amusing part is after claiming that one simply uses their mind to communicate with extra terrestrials - potentially over the vast distances of space - you then need to blink a light to get their attention for the last few miles. And I bet you still don't see anything wrong with that, which is where the amusment lies. So to recap, when questioned directly about knowledge of "some civilisation currently occupying another planet" you become vague and imply you have occurred hearsay, whilst attempting to present your claims as fact, providing no evidence. When politely asked to provide validation of your claims, you devolve to poorly judged attacks on my personality and still fail to provide any evidence to substanciate your claims and simply again reference the same drastically flawed material that for some reason consumes masses of space across multiple documents and even websites when it can be rendered in as little as three paragraphs - as if somehow it'll magically validate the other statements you make with again no evidence to lend them any credible worth.

I've far more faith in SETI, and I honestly think if there's "advanced civilisations" out there to be finding they're unlikely to be using anything as primitive as photons, light being basically just far too slow.

I also noticed how you specifically avoided answering how this ministry would be inadequate to simply encompass "newly discovered" civilisations, and instead decided to demonstrate that your powers of prophecy are equivical to those of being able to make sane, rational descisions. This tells me three things:

  1. Unable to distinguish between letters and numbers you simply use the three letters of the alphabet you're most comfortable with due to the intense repetition that is still regularly required for you to actually recall them.
  2. You have no ability to provide plausibility to the claims you intentionally attempt to pass as fact, quite possibly due to your lack of ability to pay attention to critical details, and should someone request for tangible details you'll become hostile in the defence of your cult like any other religous zelot.
  3. One day, when you actually experience reality the shock of it not conforming to your unrealistic expectations is likely to result in violent outbursts as you are unable to cope with the fact that your misconceptions have lead to this outcome and instead favour the delusional premise that the problem is external and then attempt to attack.

Now lets bring up some more things you can't evidence...

 in light of denizens of the Andromeda galaxy being documented on Earth.

Documented, where? by who?

 Several, apparently. Try CE5 and make contact yourself. We'll have open contact before long, Disclosure is already started.

Several eh? which? how long before open contact? Disclosure has started, where?

  with thousands of other star nations

Which? Originating from where, precisely? Where did you get this information from?

Regardless, I see some discrepencies between your statements and actuality.