Awesome project. As an entomologist, I highly approve and look forward to this. My feeling is perhaps they developed along a different evolutionary branch. A billion years ago perhaps they were small creatures not unlike the insects we have on this planet. I suspect as humanity becomes more mobile out in the cosmos, life on other planets will become the norm and not the exception. The possibilities are endless...telepathic jelly fish humanoids etc. Some no doubt resemble cats or dogs. Just like the reptilians that millions of years ago where like our snakes or lizards perhaps. Life will find a way..
Insectoids...
General FarsightPrime Discussions
· 7 replies
· 564 views
· 7 followers
Elemi
It would be also interesting to get to know more about the insects on earth. How can it be that there were such big insects in the past? The CO2 was higher and the limiting factor for growth today is the breathing apparatus. (At least this is what our ento-prof told us). Was there less gravity? Does the earth grow?
The size of this Earth should be getting bigger and bigger;
I don't think many people are noticing this though...
Elemi
Hubert
I think the temps were warmer and the added co2 allowed for greater plant growth resulting in larger animals across the board? Can you imagine being chased near the lake by a dragonfly with a 3 foot wingspan? An insect the size of a current day red-tailed hawk. It would awesome! As long as it didn't catch you.
Rahkee
Elemi
Hubert
The earth receives huge amounts of 'energy' from the sun, everyt second. This is partly converted into matter (and partly reflected out) so indeed, the earth grows steadily.
As far as temperatures: the earths crust is growing thicker by time by cooling down slowly (vulcanoes, radiation). That's an average, since the behaviour of the sun is more important for the short term. But all in all, the earth used to be warmer.
Elemi
It might be the neutrinos coming from the sun and other stars. The count of neutrinos in experiments (for example in Italy) is double over the daytime than at night, so they may be absorbed by the earth's core, forming new matter. But this is not mainstream yet. NASA measurements show it might be about 17 cm in diameter each year (which makes a huge surface area), but it is hard to measure as the earth is not perfectly round, more like a potato and it has water on top, etc.
Was also the Oxygen levels.. as oxygen as a gas poison it is it was theorized that back then the levels of O2 were enormous leading to the theory that in order for the body sustain such amount of O2 the isbe's had to be giants, That's one of the influences of high levels of oxygen, the heart had to be many times bigger than today's as so the lungs and everything else.
Interesting subject Entodude.
On a side note: our universe is not so and so many billion years old. Our 'bubble' maybe, but as the Indian seers and others say: the universe (our bubble) breathes in and out. From the big bang to the 'heat death' and back. But other bubbles have a different rhythm and when our bubble is expanding some are already well on their way and they can 'seed' our bubble. And then we didn't even start to talk about other universes. In fact 'everything' is infinite. So there is no end to anything and also no beginning. Everything always was.
However at a certain point in this everlasting 'everything', a universe appeared (our universe) where solidified light (matter) could develop and that was exactly fit for life. This life has evolved for hundreds of trillions of years (or more, whatever), otherwise there is no explanation of the incredible sophisticatedness of, for example, a human body.
Just to say that we should not think in the usual evolutionary terms. Life is waaaaaay older than mainstream science, until now, assumes.
I've thought this as well. The data collected recently per one of our space telescopes has folks scrambling to figure out things. Perhaps universe creation is cyclical. Bang....expansion....contraction....bang....expansion... Life from preexisting universes could be extremely old. And advanced obviously.Toss in the idea of infinite universes/alternate time lines and the potential to traverse between them provides any number of possibilities IMO. So much we will be able to ask these advanced civilizations once disclosure occurs. I suspect they know a great deal more about where we, they et. al. come from.
Hubert
Rahkee
Michael R
Aéius Cercle the Source-Borne
Yes, that project should provide a clearer picture.
But... don't forget the spiders!
I find it very interesting that so many people are talking about reptilians, insectoids, mammalians, etc. – but where are the ARACHNOIDS? It's as if they are sitting in the background, like a spider in the web, and nobody notices.
Then maybe Manuel, you should start a thread about the arachnoids....
Manuel
Farsight is calling every being with an exoskeleton an Insectoid. The correct term would be Arthropods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropod
I think what's really important is that every form of life we find on Earth can also exist out there in a more sophisticated way (as long as it had enough time to develop a complex brain).
There's no point in saying "the good insectoids" or "the bad reptilians". We need to look at how lifeforms think and behave in order to tell wether they are good or bad.
In the Insectoids project, the "good" ETs had one thing in common: They are not aggressive, meaning they don't enslave other beings. That's why they don't like the invasion of the brain called "deep mind probe" – because it's an aggressive behavior that is disrespecting self-ownership.
You say Manuel:" 'deep mind probe' – is an aggressive behavior that is disrespecting self-ownership."
In principle: yes. But I'm afraid we still have to use it since it is so easy for certain beings/isbe's to shape shift and put on an air of love and understanding. We are forced to do it in order not te be deceived. But it could be limited to the extend that is only neccesary to know if a person is basically okay to deal with.
Apollo
Artur Faria
Artur Faria
Just Another Isby
You say manuel: " We need to look at how lifeforms think and behave in order to tell wether they are good or bad."
I wish it were that simple. You only have to look at humanity to find saints and psychopaths. And any mixture in between. Also with other species, even the bad reptilians, there are reports from opposing factions or even idividuals. So, if possible, it should always be the being that you are dealing with, that has to be judged.
The average human being is not very well equipped for that. The clairvoyant ones among us, seem to be able to much better judge other isbe's.
Artur Faria
one aspect i found intriguing for me was the session of Aziz, that oppressive being that worships the female figure that they are part of (as far i understood it). We've seen with other projects the connections of the oppressive with A.I. specially with "the controllers of the Reptilians", could it be some connection between that female A.I. version that Yemmé interacted with, the one that bridges the information from the reps to the A.I. hive organism that we saw in the session, does this female could be the same that the being in Aziz session was referring to?!
"I wish it were that simple."
It is that simple, at least regarding the distinction between right and wrong behavior. It's getting complicated when you allow yourself to accept that every being is allowed to act in a wrong way. I'm pretty sure most people will misunderstand what I just wrote, so here's an example:
Imagine a being that is using violence to obtain a drug that will heal its child from a life-threatening disease. Most people will say that that behavior is right because it will save the child. But that's not true: it's still a wrong, because you have no right to steal anything or use violence to get what you want. The question is not: Is it right or wrong – the question is: Are you willing to accept the consequences of wrongdoings?
Most people would accept the consequences if it means the child will survive.
Seeing and accepting the consequences leads to a completely different type of awareness, because compensation will become part of the equation. For example, you would steal the drug to save your child, but you would want to make it with as less harm as possible (maybe you can negotiate and don't need violence at all), and where harm is done, you would make amends for what you've done.
The problem most people have is that they don't want to look at their capability of being harmful.
I agree Manuel. Your thinking is of a being who understands responsability. Something which most humans do not. Most people, at least 90%, have a childish way of thinking. Humanity in it's current state is not evolving naturally to become the adult he/she is supposed to be. In a natrual evolvement, meaning with parents and a society that is healthy, man naturally will understand responsabilty. As you can see I have a very different view of 'man' than most other people. Human nature is thwarted by his experiments with the unnatural (esp. food) and has become a shadow of what he is supposed to be (by his genes).
A real/natural/well developed adult human would always accept responsability for his deeds.
As I mentioned in another answer to another post of yours, I wrote a book about this. The natural and the Unnatural. if interested, ask for my email of give me yours.
"Your thinking is of a being who understands responsability."
Also called sapience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom#Sapience
Sapience ("sophia" in Greek) is "transcendent wisdom", "ultimate reality", or the ultimate truth of things. This more cosmic, "big picture" definition is often how wisdom ("true wisdom" or "Wisdom" with a capital W) is considered in a religious context. It transcends mere practical wisdom and may include deep understanding of self, interconnectedness, conditioned origination, and phenomenological insight. A person with this type of wisdom can act with appropriate judgment, a broad understanding of situations, and greater appreciation/compassion towards other living beings.
The word sapience is derived from the Latin sapientia, meaning "wisdom". The corresponding verb sapere has the original meaning of "to taste", hence "to perceive, to discern" and "to know"; its present participle sapiens was chosen by Carl Linnaeus for the Latin binomial for the human species, Homo sapiens.
Hubert
Nice to know that Linnaeus gave us 'our' name :-)
Something else to think about is the nature of wisdom. If one thinks about it, everything in the universe is just guided by impulses that guide an outcome. Electrons have the impulse to orbit a nucleus, particles have the impulse to follow the laws of physics, and physical life forms have the impulse to pursue their carnal impulses, such as the avoidance of physical harm, the pursuit of satisfying hunger, thirst, and reproduction. As life forms gain additional complexity, additional impulses begin to emerge, such as the ego impulse (desire of being loved, desired, respected, superior), or empathy impulse (unconditional love and sacrifice to others), or the intelligence impulse (desire to express creativity and curiosity for knowledge). I only have these four, can't think of more for humans, but perhaps apart from the carnal impulse, the other three are what defines a soul compared to a non-soul life form. Even more advanced beings/souls could possess impulses that I can't even imagine at this point, that define their meaning of life.
Hi Rey. Interesting. What you discribe is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's often represented as a pyramid. In fact Indian psychologists, for way longer than Maslov, already had a scheme for this which was coupled with the development of consciousness in humans. So when you are young (0-7) you develop the 'me' consciousness and focus on safety and survival. From 7-14 you focus on intimacy, play, exchange, belonging. In puberty you focus on your role among others, esteem, ego, talents. As a young adult (21-28) you focus on love (esp. for wife and children). After that comes understanding which expresses as creativity (art) and science and teaching. Then comes wisdom and after that unity with the cosmos (transcendence). As you see, most people do not reach beyond a puberty consciousness because of the unnatural world we have created for ourselves.
Interestingly the Indians consider this palet of consciousness 'everything there is to reach'. So human (souls) have the possibility to reach the ultimate consciousness and there is nothing beyond since it it is unity consciousness. Advaita.
I wrote a book about this and linked subjects. If you are interested you can ask for my email. Greetings.
Hubert