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.
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.
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.
Many tips o’ the hat to The Anomalist