Interview with the aliens and others

forgetomori posts this:

Brazilian contactee Antonio Alves Ferreira interviewed his alien abductors, Riaus and Telione , when their flying saucer landed. That’s not news. The news is, the aliens graciously allowed Ferreira to record the interview. And we have that recording right here…

The quality is unfortunately worse than terrible, as it was all recorded on cassette tape more than two decades ago. I tried to filter some noise out, but it also filtered some of the voices and sound effects, so I decided to upload the original, without filtering.

Even the parts where clear Portuguese is spoken cannot be quite understood. It’s not that important, since the parts where “Protu” is spoken are not translated by Ferreira, so we would miss at least half of the conversation anyway.

This recording was made available thanks to Eustáquio Patounas, from SOCEX, the “Society for the Study of Aliens“, who kindly authorized this reproduction.

Of the endless things that a debunker could say about the recording, I’ll first mention that it’s really adorable. Ferreira introduces the aliens in the beginning, and in the end thank them for the interview, just like a gentleman should. He has a slight country accent, and the background noises do remind me of cars and trucks. But they could be from inside the flying saucer, obviously.

This is the first time I’ve heard of an alien interview being ‘adorable’.

Like this guy was abducted by grey alien teddy-bears or some sh*t.

Interview with the aliens: The audio recording


The Heavy Stuff further tackles the ‘Reality is a Simulation’ idea:

Of course, that `subject matter’ is the 1970’s college dorm late night favorite subject  of `what is reality’? Yes, younger readers,  before the Matrix – the very structure of realitywas something the `college heads’ thought discussion worthy. Perhaps is was those higher times that allowed a clearer seeing of the thin vail of reality – the illusionrefered to by the mystics and shaman of yester ages and days gone by.

And, in part one – THS – covered the `normal’ Matrixlike idea that `we’ (yes, you and I) and everything else — was simply the result of a running software program made by at least one civilization. In essence, an artifical being within an artificial reality.

In the first post, it was perhaps the logic of the `low threshold’ that was the most worrisome aspect of IF we are a simulation. Afterall, if only ONE civilization EVER ——— EVER — produced and ran (these are most important words)  a `reality simulation software – in which ‘the spaces within the program could have self-awareness‘ ————– THEN — the `real odds’ of us (you and me) being real – in the manner WE think of real —– may be quite small. And, that the odds we ARE a simulation — quite large. Indeed, in part one – THS threw out some numbers to just form an opinion as to what the odds might actually be – or – to set you thinking about the hard numbers of the situation.

BUT, a closer look might dramatically INCREASE those odds  – that is – increase the odds that  we are real. (Isn’t that nice?) …

Circular logic here, but the author is essentially playing the devil’s advocate in this instance. He takes on Nick Bostrums’ Reality Theory head-on with aplomb and intelligence.

This is Part 2 in a series.

Part Two – Is our existence Simulated Reality, or (Is IT) Reality Simulated?

Part One of the series


Lastly, anthonynorth of Beyond The Blog expouses his own take on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and our observations of the Cosmos:

As more and more powerful telescopes look into the cosmos, the more our astronomers and cosmologists claim to know about the universe. But is our growing knowledge as simple as that?
One thing that worries me is the fact that any new discovery seems to offer a great deal of excitement, but only mild surprise. It is as if whatever is found fits quite neatly into our view of things.

One answer to this is that our theories are right.

We have a good grasp of the universal construct. We are on the right track, and soon everything will be disclosed. But there is another answer.
This concerns the nature of what we can know. For instance, many ‘realities’ could be out there, but we are only capable of imagining a certain set of principles. Even if the result of them was there to be seen, we would miss them.

anthonynorth isn’t exactly endorsing the Anthropic Principle per se, but he in fact is wondering why this seems to be so. Very intelligent essay.

A Universal Artist

Many tips o’ the hat to The Anomalist

5 responses

  1. 2 comments on the Anthony North quote:
    1. As I understand it, (not being an astrophysicist) our senses pick up a very narrow band portion of the available energy bandwidth through sight, sound and touch (warmth). There is so much more out there that we are unaware of, but co-existing in the same space as we are.
    2. Another reason why things that are discovered “fit neatly into our view of things” could be because we are co-creators of reality, mini-parts of the Universal Consciousness.
    Interesting blog!

  2. Our senses as measures of energy bandwidth?

    Hmmm, interesting. I think quantum physics is slowly catching up with that idea, but we’ll have to wait for the present hierarchy to die off first.

    As a corollary to your second thought, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that a quantum condition either falls into a wave function, or splits into multiple universes through the act of measurement or observation, thus creating ‘reality’.

    This can bring about many hours of beer drinking speculation! 😎

  3. Hi dad2059 et. al. …

    Per Farusha’s comments indeed our visual and sensory extensions into what we perceive to be our world and the universe are limited; but, when it comes to solid matter we are not coexisting with other solids in our domain that we cannot sense because they are simply of an extremely small mass such as maybe dust, dander, pollen, bacteria, virions etc. without the aid of of instrumentation or secondary reactions such as allergies etc. Regardless they are still part of our shared dimension.

    There may be other co-existant domains on the other side of a black hole/s where matter from our universe is popping into existence in an alternate universe and vice versa through an infinite number shared holes similar to a Swiss cheese block sometimes referenced as wormholes, but our present reality is “it” for us; ie., mere mortals. We each perceive the world around us differently and so to each of us we create our own world and universe which can range from dysfunctional insanity to that of stellar genius.

    I thought I’d supply one of the best links available to explain the quantum world as juxtaposed against the greater macro world with which we are most familiar; ie., Newtonian world in which we exist and on to the relativistic world of the greater cosmos. The quantum world is one of theory; ie., a work in progress and even the relativistic universe is not available to us through ordinary sensory perception except through the result of corroborative experiments and it too a theory that is being ever-refined.

    When a vast number of discreet quantum packets are manifested into that of a single large mass; ie., a cannonball as an example, then the bias as to whether the sampling of the total product will always be wavelike or particle like is biased towards the Newtonian model; ie., a solid mass of particles and not demonstrating any appreciable wavelike characteristics. This was postulated by Louis de Broglie in 1924 that all matter has wave characteristics and the work of Erwin Shrodinger’s “wave function” in 1925.

    ref: the supplied link

    There is no clear mathematical resolution to this point in time between the world of quantum mechanics and that of General Theory of Relativity which to me is how these largely massive objects operate and intereact with each other throughout the vastness of the space/time continuum, but are Newtonian in nature on a localized basis. So we go from the infinitesimally small world of sub-atomic/atomic particles using quantum operators to the vastness of the of the cosmos seemingly explained via relativistic explanations with the most familiar to us in everyday life that of a Newtonian explanation concerning how things operate in our physical, everyday world and would hold true if we were operating on the surface of a distant planet in another system.

    I thought I’d supply a link to Everything2 Quantum Mechanics. It’s a superb link with thoughtful, accurate followup commentary to the original post. It also supplies a one-stop shopping list for further inquiry. If one takes time to read the material they will become subject matter experts at the layman’s level in short order.

    Enjoy… : )

    Carl Nemo **==

  4. Hi dad2059…

    I posted one that should have been #3, but it did not post. It was possibly intercepted by Aski the SPAM eatin’ dog… : ))

    Nemo **==

  5. I tore your comment from Aski Carl, you’re back into the #3 spot.

    I’ll check the link out when I have time to read it. Your links are always interesting! 😎

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: