Ancient aliens

Pale Horse said:
"...(3) And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed (4) all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against (5) them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and (6) fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood..."

The Book of Enoch, Chapter 7: 3-6

according to this historic book, the Nephilim are aliens. Now we have the 'ancient'...connection. Anyone want to take on the decendants of Anak (a Canaanite)? Or as they are know..the Anakim.

This is how we know Ts'emekwes are not of this earth.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
This is how we know Ts'emekwes are not of this earth.

There are some intriguing things in the apocryphal texts. I read that God was referred to as Most High, as though distinct from the God of the generally accepted Bible. I might have acquired this through the wronmg sources (i.e. tainted sources), but the Most High asked for Enoch (?) and his fastest scribes to meet him in a metal object that was temperature controlled, with a window in the roof that looked out upon flying 'cherubim'. Most High then dictated numerous pieces of knowledge that were to be shared among the people of the earth.

There was also something alluding to faster than light travel, in reference to how Most High aged compared to those on earth.

Though, the tainted source could easily be putting ancient words into modern connotation.
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
Anyone want to take on the decendants of Anak (a Canaanite)? Or as they are know..the Anakim.

Anakim/Anakin? A long time ago? In a galaxy far far away....

~sigh...."Didn't you guys ever go to Sunday School?"
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
Anakim/Anakin? A long time ago? In a galaxy far far away....

~sigh...."Didn't you guys ever go to Sunday School?"

Yes, it smelt of floor varnish, body odour and coffee breath.

Then I discovered Star Wars.

Then George came up Midi-Chlorians and Virgin Births.

Midi-chlorians and the Chosen One

Midi-chlorians (also spelled "midi-clorians" or "midichlorians") are a microorganism in the fictional Star Wars galaxy, first mentioned in The Phantom Menace. They are microscopic life-forms that reside within the cells of all living things and communicate with the Force.[6] They are symbionts with all other living things and without them life could not exist. The Jedi have learned how to listen to and coordinate the midi-chlorians. While every living being thus has a connection to the Force, one must have a high enough concentration of midi-chlorians in one's cells in order to be a Jedi or a Sith.[7][8]

Creator George Lucas says that the midi-chlorians are based on the endosymbiotic theory.[9]

An ancient prophecy foretold the appearance of a chosen one imbued with a high concentration of midi-chlorians, strong with the Force, and destined to alter it forever. Anakin Skywalker was believed by many to be the chosen one. He had the highest concentration of midi-chlorians the Jedi Council had ever seen. He was possibly conceived by the midi-chlorians; Anakin was conceived without the assistance of a male.[8] Lucas has said in interviews that Luke Skywalker had the same total midi-chlorian count that Anakin did at birth, though this does not necessarily make him the chosen one because Anakin did exactly what the prophecy foretold by coming back from the Dark Side and destroying Emperor Palpatine.[citation needed]

In Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine tells Anakin that a Sith Lord, Darth Plagueis, had the ability to use the Dark Side to influence midi-chlorians to create life and to prevent people from dying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_(Star_Wars)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
You gigantic NERD! You owned the book!:p
Heh. The book was a gift from my grandparents.:p If you continue to address me with cheap-shots and insults such as 'nerd', I will completely ignore you. (Within the same day, I'll be back talking to you, then say I'm going to ignore you again before replying to you further on. This cycle will be repeated ad nauseum until you realize that I'm not a man of my word and cannot be taken seriously.:p)
Rocket Surgeon said:
I've seen all the In Search ofs...well most but Rod Serling! Great writer! Was he involved beyond narration?
I don't think he was involved in anything other than the narration.
Matt deMille said:
As for "running away", I suspect this is beyond the immature nature of my flamers to understand (as evidenced by their continued antics), so I'll only say this once: Sometimes the mature thing to do is simply walk away from a useless argument. So, consider me walking away from this one.
Once? This is probably the 5th or 6th time you've delivered such a pompous announcement regarding your FINAL departure from the thread...yet you returned a couple of hours later (as per usual).

Anyone who doubts deMille's baseless claims owes it to themselves to watch "The Outer Space Connection"! This documentary will spin your head in ways you've never imagined and make you "become a true believer" (as Mola Ram once said). Coincidentally, "The Outer Space Connection" came out the same year (1975) that a 1-year-old baby, Matt deMille, had his first alien encounter.
Matt deMille said:
Born in '74, I was the perfect age -- 10 -- to see Temple Of Doom in the theater.
---
I've had 35 years to deal with the alien encounters.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Stoo said:
Coincidentally, "The Outer Space Connection" came out the same year (1975) that a 1-year-old baby, Matt deMille, had his first alien encounter.

I'd like to see how these two statements can be squared as well, Matt. Everything I've ever heard says that we can't even remember anything from the time that we were age 1.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Attila the Professor said:
I'd like to see how these two statements can be squared as well, Matt. Everything I've ever heard says that we can't even remember anything from the time that we were age 1.

Well, actually, this is Stoo being is usual immature, fact-distorting self. I never said I had an encounter at age 1. He just made that up. My earliest encounter was age 3, and I said it was my first memory. Note how Mr. Objective, Mr. Scientific Stoo ignores that and also adds "baby" in there. Based on his type of talk I'm surprised anything he says isn't dismissed outright based on his supremely immature -- er, babyish behavior.

So, anyway, back to the story. I saw something at age 3, and at that age you can indeed remember things, especially when they are as potent as looking an alien in the eyes. Believe me.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Matt deMille said:
Oh, I don't doubt that. And I'm sure most folks here make that simple, reasonable distinction. It should go without saying.

What I meant is that the Clique (as I'll call them, consisting of Stoo, RA, etc.) seem to HATE even the slightest suggestion of anything outside conventional history. I've often wondered how they can even tolerate the Indy movies having been made, much less watch them and like them. Or, maybe they don't. They seem to do little on this board but attack me. Maybe Indy is just an excuse for them to stir things up. I don't know. I don't think like that sort of troubled mind. Anyway, given the way they've treated not only myself and anyone who even supports the possibilities of things outside the mainstream, I'm surprised they haven't stormed Skywalker Ranch and demanded the head of Lucas on a plate for the Ark's location or the misuse of Petra.

I mean, seriously, isn't it rather comical that I come to discuss paranormal possibilities and aliens on an Indy site, only to find there are posters here who just can't stop their hatred of alien possibilities despite aliens now being part of Indy canon? One would think lovers of Indy would be open to possibilities, or at the least, not mind if others discuss it. But they sure carry a hatred of religious proportions for me, and, yet, what have I done to them? Just threw out possibilities that they didn't like (oh, and called them on their bad behavior).

The problem is that you began the Ancient Aliens thread (before it was merged into another) with the statement that it was reality; then you railed on mainstream science and history, using your alternative reality as proof.

Since you've been hazy about some of the experiences that convinced you of the reality of aliens, and yet so vehement against the generally accepted alternative, it has frustrated some members to the point of anger.

In the fashion of a fair scientific/historical analysis, I've afforded you the benefit of doubt, without the firm evidence to overturn your personal experiences. However, separating fiction from probable fact, I'll argue where the evidence exists, over anecdotal evidence which does appear to be vague, and at times very evasive.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Good points, Montana. Allow me to address them;

I did come on strong initially. However, I have explained that before. I was encouraged by some posters on this site to be that way, and with a cursory look at some other threads here, that indeed seemed to be the way of folks at The Raven. I was just trying to "be Roman", as it were, to be a little over the top, strong-armed, and really outgoing. I guess I looked at the wrong posts. But I have since apologized for that, and said I'll simply state things as possibilities. Certainly I still believe them, just as others here stand firm on their own experiences, beliefs, whatever. But I nonetheless backed off and apologized, and haven't been nearly so strong-armed since.

Now, where the waters get muddy, and indeed where my answers are often misinterpreted as vague, is because rather than be able to simply discuss things, I've had to defend myself against an endless attack of noisy, negative posters. Since they have never apologized or given ground in any way, my responding to their demands or offering proof under the context of their naysaying would only feed their ego and put me at a disadvantage, and that is something I simply will not do. Now, if they could lay off and we could start fresh, I'd be happy to discuss things rationally and thoroughly. Maybe you'd be surprised at what I'd offer if I could trust that it wouldn't be used as toys for immature brats. I kind of feel like an art collector refusing to let his treasures be played with by babies who'd just try to smash them against a wall. Seriously, what's my motivation to try and discuss things again when I know in less than an hour there will be some "DuhMille" or "see a psychiatrist" comment from the usual suspects?

Now, I can understand posters being angry by all that. But, as I've said before, they didn't say "Hey, Matt, this isn't the best way to do things around here". They didn't tell the new guy how things operated here. They just outright attacked. Okay, even that would be understandable, but they were no less out of line, either. But then we did get a cease-fire from the Moderators. And since then I've offered several attempts at a truce. But the noisy ones never let up. So, while I admit to being strong-armed at first, I think I've paid my ticket for that, while the troublemakers have not even attempted to reconcile or leave the past behind. I think that shows they *like* the trouble, whereas mine was an accident. Thus, if some folks are still angry, there's nothing I can do about that. Lord knows I've tried.

Could we talk things over cordially? Unfortunately, with the obsessive troublemakers out there, neither you or I can make that decision. That's why I offered to discuss things further with anyone who wished to via PM, where troublemakers had no power and no place.
 
Last edited:

Sharkey

Guest
Montana Smith said:
The problem is that you began the Ancient Aliens thread (before it was merged into another) with the statement that it was reality; then you railed on mainstream science and history, using your alternative reality as proof.

Since you've been hazy about some of the experiences that convinced you of the reality of aliens, and yet so vehement against the generally accepted alternative, it has frustrated some members to the point of anger.

In the fashion of a fair scientific/historical analysis, I've afforded you the benefit of doubt, without the firm evidence to overturn your personal experiences. However, separating fiction from probable fact, I'll argue where the evidence exists, over anecdotal evidence which does appear to be vague, and at times very evasive.
Golly, you use your tongue better then a $2 whore.
 

Gabeed

New member
Montana Smith said:
The problem is that you began the Ancient Aliens thread (before it was merged into another) with the statement that it was reality; then you railed on mainstream science and history, using your alternative reality as proof.

Since you've been hazy about some of the experiences that convinced you of the reality of aliens, and yet so vehement against the generally accepted alternative, it has frustrated some members to the point of anger.

In the fashion of a fair scientific/historical analysis, I've afforded you the benefit of doubt, without the firm evidence to overturn your personal experiences. However, separating fiction from probable fact, I'll argue where the evidence exists, over anecdotal evidence which does appear to be vague, and at times very evasive.

Forgive me, Montana, but haven't you basically said this at least a couple dozen times already? How many times must we suffer you explaining how we broadly speaking must be fair, separate fiction from face and follow the evidence, with Matt then saying "Good points, Montana" like this is a revelation and has never been brought up before, and thereafter providing a long-winded, multi-paragraph synopsis of his intentions in the thread? I mean, is this Groundhog Day? Am I going crazy here and am the only one noticing this?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Gabeed said:
Forgive me, Montana, but haven't you basically said this at least a couple dozen times already? How many times must we suffer you explaining how we broadly speaking must be fair, separate fiction from face and follow the evidence, with Matt then saying "Good points, Montana" like this is a revelation and has never been brought up before, and thereafter providing a long-winded, multi-paragraph synopsis of his intentions in the thread? I mean, is this Groundhog Day? Am I going crazy here and am the only one noticing this?

It is Groundhog Day - if you keep at it, eventually something different may turn up.

Other than that, this thread goes nowhere anyway, and has no chance of ever doing so.

It needs a merciful bullet in the head. :gun:

Medic!

Sharkey said:
Golly, you use your tongue better then a $2 whore.

Typing with your tongue is hard. It's hard to see the screen at the same time.
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
Well, I beg to differ. This thread could easily go somewhere. It's simply never been given the chance. No thread would ever go anywhere (except in the toilet) if it had to endure the immaturity of posters the likes of which we've seen here. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Can we just have a thread about ancient alien possibilities WITHOUT the noisy negativists coming in and derailing things? We got close a few times before. When we were spared their "company", the thread got going good, others came in, came back, and the discourse was interesting and fun. But it was always short-lived.

So, a challenge: Can we just pick up this thread and discuss ancient alien possibilities? I can. But the moment the usual suspects come in and cause trouble (which I fear is inevitable), consider THAT the problem, not the subject matter. So, the challenge is to those noisy negative people -- Can you keep it civil? Can you restrain yourself from the schoolyard antics? If you don't like the subject matter, just don't post. Leave it alone.

In the hope of getting this going again, I'd like to return to something I asked about long ago and it was never commented on; The Ica Stones. I invite this subject because, in all fairness, I am 50/50 on it. There are good arguments for the stones being genuine, and just as many good arguments for them being a hoax. I'm interested to hear other opinions.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
Well, actually, this is Stoo being is usual immature, fact-distorting self. I never said I had an encounter at age 1. He just made that up. My earliest encounter was age 3, and I said it was my first memory. Note how Mr. Objective, Mr. Scientific Stoo ignores that and also adds "baby" in there. Based on his type of talk I'm surprised anything he says isn't dismissed outright based on his supremely immature -- er, babyish behavior.
A 1-year-old is a baby. The fact that the word offends you is your own fault. Nothing is being made up and no facts are being distorted. It's simple math based on your own written words.

Born in '74, I was the perfect age -- 10 -- to see Temple Of Doom in the theater.
I've had 35 years to deal with the alien encounters.

2010 - 35 = 1975.
1975 - 1974 = 1.
Matt deMille said:
So, anyway, back to the story. I saw something at age 3, and at that age you can indeed remember things, especially when they are as potent as looking an alien in the eyes. Believe me.
Don't worry, we believe you.:rolleyes: You should check out "The Outer Space Connection", you'd love it!
 

The Drifter

New member
I remember when I was around four I seen a flying creature in the sky. In my memory it looked like a man with wings and a long, pointed tail.
Looking back, I know that it was some sort of bird. The memory is a funny thing.
When we experience something that happened early in our lives, the event seems more epic than it really was.

Ever remember a movie you seen as a kid and in your memory it was so awesome? Then you watch that same movie again as an adult for the first time, and it sucks.
Just because you remember seeing something at age three, does not mean that was the way the event really unfolded.
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
For the record . . .

Parrot asked me broad questions, so I gave broad answers, with the caveat that they were trail-heads to explore, the beginnings of discussions (thus details to follow). His immediate reply was THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Rather than get angry, I simply told him that if the vote is already in before the evidence is even allowed to be seen, there was no point in further discussion with him, because his mind was clearly made up. I am only interested in pursuing serious discussion with open-minded individuals. Just looking for data to try and shoot down is not being open-minded. It's not neutral. It's no different than a religion trying to take selective evidence to fit pre-conceived notions. I have no interest in feeding any such agenda.

Matt, you are seriously misrepresenting our discussion.

I'll stand behind my words. This is what I wrote to you:

Parrot said:
You believe that even though none of these examples are convincing, that taken together they provide strong evidence. I would say that you're wrong about that. A lot of pieces of really bad evidence can't add up to 1 piece of good evidence no matter how you do your math.

You mention pillars of fire and hovering clouds - how do those bear any resemblance to any modern UFO's?

And regarding glowing from radiation, I think you're getting too much of your science from cartoons. In reality, ionizing radiation does not cause people to glow - just to get sick and die.

And what's so implausible about an ancient person having the idea of a ladder up to a hovering object? I'd be a little more impressed if they described a Star Trek style transporter.

I don't want to get bogged down refuting every single example from the Bible here, so please don't inundate me with them. Let's stick to the examples that we've already discussed and see what actual evidence there is.

I think that if you actually step back and look at this clearly you'll see that there's just no evidence here.

I think it's fairly obvious that I was asking really specific questions here. I was definitely not looking for broad answers. I want to get down to the nitty gritty and examine the specific pieces of evidence.

And I don't see why you would claim that it's close minded of me to say that there's no evidence. You already know that I don't believe there's any evidence. That's the conclusion that I've drawn from my research.

It doesn't mean that I'm not open to the possibility of there being any evidence. If I'm wrong, and you provide me actual evidence that aliens visited in ancient times, I'll readily admit it.

Complaining that I took a position in a debate is pretty silly. You know what my position is, and I know what your position is. I could just as easily complain that you've already made up your mind as well, but I won't.

If you want to reconsider and start up our discussion again rationally, I'm still perfectly willing to do so.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Indeed, Lonesome Drifter. And I would like to happily write off the experience as just that, a weird memory. But it happened again in subsequent years, and with witnesses too. While I could dismiss a 3yo experience (even my own), my encounters of age 6, 8 and 9 are not so easily attributed to strange memory, especially when there is corroborating testimony.

Parrot, perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But you did say, clearly, "there is no evidence". Did you mean, then, to say that "There is no evidence, so show me" ?? If that were the case, I could see where that could be a miscommunication. However, it is common for skeptical folk to dismiss things before seeing the evidence, and so that is how I took it. We were, after all, only in our second email, and it was just the preliminary stages of establishing where this was going. It was a tad early for hard data. As I've prefaced countless times on this thread and others, this subject matter is so vast it requires more comprehension than anything else. Hence, it needs some lengthy preface before digging into data. To that end, I do not feel I misrepresented anything, when I was told a conclusion before we even got to the first bits of info, it seemed reasonable to assume your mind was made up.

And, Stoo, I was using round numbers to illustrate a point, to make an exclamation. But if you read the accounts, I clearly spoke of age 3 being the first experience. A reasonable and objective individual would easily note the difference between my saying "This happened at age 3" and just using round numbers like 35 in conversation. But clearly you are neither reasonable nor objective, because you ignore the account and just take selective bits to further your crusade against me. You never seem to learn, but that makes *you* out to be the fool, not me.
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
Parrot, perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But you did say, clearly, "there is no evidence". Did you mean, then, to say that "There is no evidence, so show me" ?? If that were the case, I could see where that could be a miscommunication. However, it is common for skeptical folk to dismiss things before seeing the evidence, and so that is how I took it. We were, after all, only in our second email, and it was just the preliminary stages of establishing where this was going. It was a tad early for hard data. As I've prefaced countless times on this thread and others, this subject matter is so vast it requires more comprehension than anything else. Hence, it needs some lengthy preface before digging into data. To that end, I do not feel I misrepresented anything, when I was told a conclusion before we even got to the first bits of info, it seemed reasonable to assume your mind was made up.

Well, Matt, i wrote a follow up email specifically to assure you that I had every intention of listening to any and all evidence you can supply me with.

When you say things like "it is common for skeptical folk to dismiss things before seeing the evidence, and so that is how I took it.", you seem to be widely missing the mark to me.

I've written several articles on the topic of ancient aliens, and have done tons of research into the basis behind the claims that were being made. I'm all about the evidence. I haven't found a single piece of good evidence yet from all the claims I've analyzed, and from that I've concluded that there probably isn't any good evidence. If you think that I'm just dismissing ancient aliens without having looked at the evidence, you're clearly wrong.

But I certainly haven't explored every single claim, and I'm completely open to examining any new piece of evidence that comes my way.

And your claim that it was too early in the discussion for hard data doesn't make much sense to me. Hard data is the most important part of the discussion. What else is there to talk about?
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
Actually, Parrot, this is a good chance for me to clarify something I feel is trivialized, not just in this thread, but moreso in the world at large: As odd as this sounds, data is NOT the most important element of studying aliens, ancient or otherwise. Data is second-most-important. What is MOST important, I believe, is mind-set. Our society, our Western way of thinking, only sees the physical world, and thus gets tunnel-vision. Furthermore, we develop prejudices and bias ways of thinking that go against science itself, simply because we, following our human nature, get comfortable with the "reality" that science has thus far explained. We border on religious devotion to the physical world we know. We get comfortable with the way things "are". "We've explained that, we don't need to go back there". It's comparable to not liking to vacuum your house before AND after a party, necessary thought it may be. The fact that people are probably already thinking me "crazy" from this one paragraph, because I'm saying there are things beyond the physical, is a sign of just how much this materialistic world-view has come to dominate our thinking.

Now, certainly science is a far better way to look at the universe than past attempts like philosophy, superstition or religion. But science is not as absolute as we like to think. It, like religion, superstition and philosophy before it, is prone to human preference. Also, we are dealing with things beyond our scientific understanding, and very easily perhaps beyond our science's ABILITY to understand. After all, "science", as it was understood centuries ago, could not account for things we take for granted today. Progress does not come just from "more data". It comes from changing the way we look at things as a whole. We will never get anywhere in the study of aliens if we try to shoehorn such incredible phenomena into our 20th century modalities of study.

Comprehension is paramount, because to truly understand aliens, we need to undergo a paradigm shift in consciousness. Simply demanding more data will only handicap understanding because it would be data forced to fit into our current mind-set. Therein, science becomes no different than the religions that science itself struggled against for the past few centuries. It's just that instead of what can be found in a Bible, people are demanding that all revelation be found in a test tube or under a microscope. But the universe -- indeed, the multiverse -- plays by different rules, rules we cannot even imagine.

Still, it *is* reasonable to say "show me", but again, data is of secondary importance. If one does not have a mind-set ready to properly use the data he receives, data is worthless. This is why I've spent more time on this thread focusing on opening minds, and indeed encouraging others to look at things for themselves. I don't want to be a prophet. I don't want to start a new dogma by saying "I said so and thus that's the way it is". In that, science and religion are inseparable, in at least as much as they have been practiced in regards to aliens. It's much more important to break free of the tyranny of both faith AND overly-data-dependent thinking, and develop a greater mind, indeed a greater ability to interpret not just data, but also the intangibles that no microscope can see, things that our intuition, psychic abilities, sixth senses, seventh senses, and clues given by entities beyond the understanding of terrestrial science can give us.

Whew. That was a lot to say. Let me come back down to Earth now and address your concern.

I believe there was indeed a misunderstanding. Certainly your comment in email could have been taken both ways by our respective mind-sets, and so it was. I took it as a snub of me, of data I had not yet shown, and you took my stance in the context of past experiences with other inquiries. Both understandable, but we veered off from the same path. Perhaps we can find that same path again.

Hopefully, this little chat here can bring things full circle, so I return to my question from earlier today: The Ica Stones. Like I said, in the interests of fairness I want to talk about those, as I'm 50/50 on their veracity. They could be real, they could be a hoax. But at least they are a tangible thing we CAN put under the microscope. But in that same interest of fairness, let's not use the proverbial microscope as our *only* means of study. Let's consider testimony as well, circumstances, etc. To get to the bottom of any mystery you need more than data. Data alone, sometimes, isn't enough. After all, courts use witnesses, circumstances, etc.

For those that don't know the Ica Stones, here they are in brief: Tens of thousands of stones in Peru (stored in the city of Ica, hence the name), bearing carvings showing things that rewrite history, such as advanced technology and even man co-existing with dinosaurs. Now, when these stones were sold to tourists decades ago, the sellers (farmers) said they carved them. That "hoax explanation" was a convenient out for the mainstream, I daresay. But consider this: That same claim kept the sellers out of prison (violating antiquities protection laws). So, the real question is, are they genuine? Can they be dated? Could a few farmers have carved tens of thousands of stones? Many questions need to be asked. I'd like to believe in them, but at the same time, I need more proof. Indeed, I myself demand data as well as other corroborating evidence, such as legends that speak of them, similar stones found in other sites, whatever may turn up.

So, does anyone have such answers, or questions, about the Ica Stones?

Just a little something I thought to add, which is probably a better way to speak my mind than the lengthy essay above:

"A scientist never says *can't* . . . the moment he does, he is no longer a scientist, but has become a priest, defending a belief of truth rather than the pursuit of truth".

I feel this is important because in regards to aliens, science often says "can't". "They can't be . . ." or "This can't be because this is the way it is", etc. Consider WHY we have those barriers to knowledge known as "Can't". Oftentimes, it's not about absolute data, but about comfort zone. But the pursuit of truth is ALWAYS demanding one to step OUTSIDE their comfort zone. Just consider that, please. And I say that to everyone (including myself).
 
Last edited:
Top