Michel is telling the truth

[rishmash]

Hi all,

Many years ago, a friend of mine arranged for Michel to give a lecture in Brisbane. He stayed at a friend's place, and I had the chance to spend a lot of time with him during that stay.

After talking to him for many hours, I can honestly say that he does not have the imagination to make-up a book such as this.

He is a smart kind man, but in no way could he have made this book up from scratch.

Rishmash

[Shaeel]

I'm inclined to agree with you with one qualification.

Michel's book should be read on TWO very separate and distinct 'levels'.

Level 1: What he actually witnessed and observed with his own eyes and his interpretations of what he saw using the power of his own abilities, for what they were worth.

This level, as related by Michel, was honest, sincere, full of wonder, truthful and actually quite interesting, even a pleasure to read.

Level 2: What his hosts, Thao et al told him.

This level was full of deceit, fabrication, mendacity, ad hoc fairy tales, insultingly stupid, unimaginative fables and an almost complete absence of truth.

This was definitely not such a pleasure to read.

I despise liars (and that includes aliens, even when they're three metres tall).

Unfortunately, Michel did not have a cynical bone in his body. He could never tell when his hosts were lying (99% of the time) or telling the truth (1% of the time). He simply lacked the intelligence to tell the difference.

During his ten day visit Michel was told precisely THREE truthful things by his alien hosts:

1. That he would be returned safely to Earth;
2. The correct location of Sol in the night sky of the planet he was taken to. The star pattern described by Michel exposed the aliens' star to be the Mu Ara system 50 light years away, something Michel was totally incapable of recognising at the time.

(Note: Although earlier in his book Michel believed the aliens' untrue claim that he had been taken to the Pleiades Nebula - that nebula is 390 Light years away from Sol - Sol becomes completely invisible to the naked eye beyond 50 light years. This was just another shabby and feeble lie the aliens told Michel.

3. During a lecture Michel attended on the alien planet, accompanied by a large audience of aliens, to observe a bunch of alien 'Wise Elders' lecture him. one of them actually uttered a truth - a genuine shock, here - and made a casual and scornful reference to Earth's 'so-called democracies'.

Well, of course that's an obvious truth. What we call democracies on Earth are, in reality, elective juntas - at best - and 'the people' have no effective political power over the 'winner takes all' group of politicos who win elections in the few dozen places where they are held (preferably without cheating, otherwise that would make them straight juntas).

[Robanan]

Level 2: What his hosts, Thao et al told him.

interesting observation indeed.

Let's say Thiaooubans lied to Desmarquet, it won't change neither the idea nor the context of the book, because this way around it shows Thiaooubans were interested in having Desmarquet see and believe what he was meant to report. The purpose seems to remain the same also: "getting the message out".

[Rezo]

did they tell Michel they were near the Pleiades nebula? I always had assumed this was Michel's own interpretation [as many others claim contact from what they 'feel' to be from Pleiades].

What do you find the biggest 'lies' they told Michel, if I might ask? Why would they feel the need to trick him, for mere entertainment, is their life so dull? I of course admit the lack of physical proof to be slightly frustrating...

wrt 'Rael' well, *he* could be making his whole story up, Ive read this and feel it to be a strong possibility...and yes, he happens to be of French descent as well, but the coincidences in my mind end there. Other than the coincidence of cloning, which his associated company 'clonaid' claims to have succesfully cloned a human being, but this is probably false - I mean, the whole point of Rael cult, and a cult it is in my opinion anyway, it seems to 'revolve' around cloning and moral relativism....

[Robanan]

emm I don't think so they never explicitly mention where they are in our galaxy at least as much as I think the context of the book is concerned, and I always thought it was Tom's conclusion that they are in the pleiades.

[ptex]

Quite interesting affirmation indeed Shaeel however forgive me for pointing out the obvious but your post seems to be full of antagonism I'd say even resentment towards the Thiaooubans. I'm wondering at this moment what events, experiences you've had that prove or disprove that whatever was told to Michel is a deceitful lie? I mean for you to voice so strongly against someone or something you must have some kind of definite proof. So far from your post I didn't see a single one.

Thao and the Thaori mention some very basic truths about our spiritual nature. Many of the things imparted by these beings can ONLY be proved individually by searching within, by concentration and meditation. These are usually experiences that you don't go about telling everyone, but which contribute to a much happier way of living. I'm wondering the following too: did you only read TP once? Do you practice meditation, any sort of Yoga or spiritual discipline? If you read TP more than once (Michel mentions that you need to read TP at least 3 times to start understanding something about it) and if you are diligent in your practice then you probably already experienced some of the things that are mentioned in the Book. Even if your experience confirms some of the events in the book of course it doesn't make it automatically true. Many of the things regarding historical, religious, and other events cannot be proven unless you have access to the psychosphere (aka Akashic Records). I find remarkable the coherence of how facts and events are explained because for me they appear as the missing pieces of a puzzle that always eluded me. Since I cannot prove or disprove them and I'm not a specialist in any of those areas I can only voice how I feel regarding them knowing that if I have any expectations about them being true I'm a step closer to disappointment, the very same disappointment Thao actually mentions in the book.

Blind belief is as dangerous as overruling something just because it contradicts things we're used to take for granted.

I believe we should only talk about things we have fist hand experience of. There's a time when we need to humbly recognize the true worth of our knowledge. I don't recognize we know enough of our planet, or solar system let alone the Galaxy to make certain assumptions...

I leave the rest to be read between the lines.

[Robanan]

ptex, your post made me think that there must be something in front of our nose that we don't see (or haven't seen yet)... don't know what though.

[Shaeel]

did they tell Michel they were near the Pleiades nebula? I always had assumed this was Michel's own interpretation [as many others claim contact from what they 'feel' to be from Pleiades].

What do you find the biggest 'lies' they told Michel, if I might ask? Why would they feel the need to trick him, for mere entertainment, is their life so dull? I of course admit the lack of physical proof to be slightly frustrating...

Re the Pleiades, you’re right. I checked the book and the Pleiades Nebula isn’t mentioned. I’m not sure where I got that from.

On the issue of lies and trickery, a few examples that stood out were those that involved descriptions of giant ants and cockroaches on a post apocalyptic planet where the space ship supposedly stopped for a visit en route and relates to violations of the square-cube law.

Square-Cube Law violation 1: Structure

Wikipedia: Square-Cube Law

If an animal were scaled up by a considerable amount, its muscular strength would be severely reduced since the cross section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while their mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor.
---
Because of this, the giant insects, spiders and other animals seen in horror movies are unrealistic, as their sheer size would force them to collapse.

An insect that underwent such a process of giganticism would collapse under its own weight possibly before it reached the size of a housecat.

In addition, due to its exoskeleton support system, an insect’s internal organs lack the same kind of internal support possessed by land animals, such as reptiles and mammals, that have their organs supported by internal skeletons, tendons and muscles, so the internal organs of an insect undergoing a process of becoming unnaturally large would also undergo a dramatic internal collapse under the effects of a dramatically increased volume and weight.


Square cube law violation 2: Respiration

Insects breathe by means of spiracles in the abdomen which transports oxygen a tiny distance to internal tissues that need it by means of even smaller tubes called trachea.

If the creature doubles its dimensions, the collection area for oxygen increases four times (dimensions squared) and the volume increases eight times (dimensions cubed). After undergoing this process a half dozen times the insect would suffocate, perhaps by the time it reached the size of a housecat.

Interestingly, and quite amusingly, Michel states that his guide, Thao, who must have known full well that the square-cube law would prohibit gigantism in insects for all the reasons stated above, conjured up yet another, quite ridiculous impossibility: a spontaneously created ant lung as a more plausible way of enabling his/her make believe giant insects to breathe:

(Extract from page 19)

Another glance at the panel revealed a new scene - of the sphere pursuing the ants in their hasty retreat, not only with the camera, but also with the deadly beam. The rest of the swarm, which I estimated to comprise six or seven hundred, were being decimated. Not one was left alive.
The sphere returned to its earlier position above the beach and produced a special tool with which it combed through the carcasses. I could see one of the astronauts seated at her desk, talking into her computer. This prompted me to ask Thao if she was supervising the work being carried out.
‘At the moment, yes, for this work was not originally scheduled. We are taking samples of these creatures, pieces of lung in particular, in order to analyse them. We think that certain types of radiation have produced this mutant form of creature. In fact, ants do not have lungs but the only logical explanation for their sudden gigantism is…’
Thao stopped short. ---

In reality mutations do not and can not work in the way usually depicted by nitwit Hollywood film producers, who also love to use special effects to portray impossibly large, mutated insects, particularly in the 1950s.

The only plausible explanation of the whole scenario was that Michel was simply observing an interactive movie controlled by Thao and his/her colleagues, but done with special effects that were much more realistic than anything that could be produced on Earth.

So, what were the aliens’ motives for showing all this nonsense to Michel?

Perhaps it was to make sure that if such impossibly large and impossibly ‘mutated’ insects were described by Michel in his book then he could never be taken seriously by most people.

However, I have insufficient data to enable me to speculate on the motives of this particular race of aliens.

[Robanan]

Well I think we all agree that the results of an atomic war are indeed horrific (with or without giant insects). Again assuming that Desmarquet was indeed abducted by aliens I allow myself to look further in the book.

‘I think,’ he resumed, ‘that you already know what we mean by ‘harmful to the human race’. Many people on Earth believe atomic arms to be the major danger, but it is not so. The greatest danger concerns ‘materialism’. The people of your planet seek money - to some it’s a means of attaining power; to others it’s a means to acquire drugs, (another curse) yet to others, it’s a way of possessing more than their neighbours possess.

So I think it must be that they mean to say "materialism" is more dangerous for our civilization than being eaten alive by giant ants and cockroaches.
Is that really so?

[Rezo]

I think they meant that from a reincarnation-perspective, prioritizing in terms of the soul/astral body; therefore their message 'crystallized' is that the 'pedestalization' of materialism, or, material *obsession*, is most harmful to our spiritual growth overall, for its a concept that once internalized overshadows all that we do, think, believe, and negative events that follow, since it is actually elevated to a 'god'-like value in almost all that we do

The original reference for 'harmful to the human race' on p. 75 comes from what I see as the warning regarding materialistic roots behind our most impacting mis-applications of some pretty significant uses of material technology - and it persists due to common acceptance either passive or active [denial/promotion] obviously burdened by big-time conditioning and direct chemical assaults, yet needs to be both understood and acted on/defined, by each of us, in our own ways, to 'break free' from it. Theres good technology too; filtration - water filters, air filters, cleaner food, etc. I see materialism as a backward way of seeing the universe - materialism is defined literally as 'dialectical': 1. 'the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.' 2: 'the *doctrine* that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency' {*house builds itself argument??*} [from oxford american dictionaries]. This to me is fascist thinking [only on the surface].

I only Just read your analysis on supposed gigantism of insects vs hollywood or better movie making.....[square cube law also] - is it possible that the square cube law does not take nuclear weapon 'initiated' genetic mutations into account [if it did, how would it influence the pituitary]? Are there any documented examples of nuclear-fallout caused gigantism on earth, in which to further examine this?

[rishmash]

How fascinating Shaeel,

It is usually the so called abductees that are brought into question. Generally due to their motivation to build cults, garner fame etc, a bit like old boy Rael Billy Meier is another great example. You can, like anyone with an open mind, detect the genuine truth in what Michel was saying as he wrote that book. It came through even more so when talking to him, believe me.

But here you are, hammering these aliens for trying to deceive us all

Okay, so lets look at your logic a little more. A group of aliens abduct an Australian from Cairns, take him light years away, and tell him a bunch of lies, using technology such as video technology, albiet more sophisticated technology etc to deceive him.

So they played him and I guess they decieved me, because I firmly believed the message that was communicated when I read it for the 3rd time.

Before I really took it to be the truth, I tested some things that I read about in the book. I studied the aura, and continue to do so, for many years. I studied the chakras, and there is no question in my mind, through personal experience that they exist. I have found 7 major ones, as opposed to the 6 Thao mentioned through reading and personal exploration. I have also worked with the aura (I have verified seven different layers in my study), etc, so this to me is a verifiable truth.

So the message I took out of it is this in a nutshell. Materialism is bad, spiritual practices such as meditation and concentration are good, you are put on the earth to evolve spiritually, the failure to do so will lead to you having to repeat more lessons and more lives (eg reincarnation) and you have the freedom to evolve at your own pace, your planet is about to experience global warming due to a financial system that is opposed to environmental preservation and you can grow if you like by studing the aura.

I am very happy to be deceived, in fact, I feel deeply blessed in my life to have been so badly deceived. I am hedging my bets on the book being true, and doing my best to grow less and less attached to materialism (pretty unsuccessfully really because I am a corporate statistician raising a family in a big home with a nice car ).

As one friend sincerely and genuinely explained to me, I am going to hell because of this book.

Take care my friend, skepticism is a great healthy thing. A dear friend of mine is a great believer in genetics, and can explain much of human behaviour in a very plausible way, using concrete observable well thought out scientific principles originating in a reductionist genetic paradigm. I love listening to these arguments and points of view, because it gets me thinking outside my own paradigm and viewpoint and questioning my own point of view.

Just like your post did for me, because it is a plausible viewpoint. If you had produced a more more clear coherent and well reasoned argument, I would have been back to that book, picking it to threads form a conspiracy based perspective .

Thanks R

[Rezo]

anyone re-read this thread? 'gigantism in fish'

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=464&p=4170&hilit=gigantism#p4170
the listed link is dead, heres the actual news item: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/greymouth/new ... d=10342206

dont know how well it relates, but there it is.

[Grad Svensson]

So I think it must be that they mean to say "materialism" is more dangerous for our civilization than being eaten alive by giant ants and cockroaches.
Is that really so?

Yes, materialism is the "root" from which these things grow.

As long as the root remains, these things will continue to sprout in various forms.

To truly eliminate the problem, you have to eliminate the root.