Apocalypto

[AdrianGilbert]

Last night I had the pleasure (if you can call it that) of attending the first pre-view of Mel Gibson's new movie Apocalypto. I thought, therefore, I would share some first thoughts and impressions with the group.:popcorn:

So what's this movie about? That's a good question. If you are hoping to find out more about the esoteric practices of the Maya (their astronomy, symbolic serpent cult, jaguar cults, possible extra-terrestrial connections) then you will be disappointed. Yes, the movie contains Mayan elements as a sort of back-drop but there is little in the way of interpretations. If you want to know about that sort of thing then you would be better off buying a text-book of Mayan archaeology or, better still, my own new book: '2012: Mayan Year of Destiny' (ARE Press $18.95) :)

Other than these reservations, what did I think of Apocalypto as a movie? Well let's deal with the positives first. I saw it at the Empire in Leicester Square which boasts one of the largest screen in England. With full technicolour and all round sound, the visual impact was extraordinary. The use of native languages (with sub-titles) was not the distraction I thought it would be. It made the action much more believable than if the main characters had been speaking a dialect of Hollywood English.

The choice of actors was also inspired. All of them 'Native Americans' of one description or another and none of them known faces, they were brilliant. Without exception they rose to the occassion wonderfully. It makes you wonder what RADA and other schools of acting are for when there is so much, untapped native talent around. If the movie doesn't go down the tubes on account of being black-balled by the Hollywood Jewish lobby (cf. because of Gibson's intemperate, drunken remarks about Jews a few months ago, he has made some influential enemies) then I could see Oscar nominations among the cast. There could be Oscars too for the photography (superb throughout) and for the design of the sets (awe-inspiring). On all these counts, Gibson and his team are to be congratulated.

What then are the negatives? Well let's start first with a few technical niggles. First of all someone should have told Mel that jaguars have spots and look a lot like leopards. Casting a black panther as a jaguar may have been a necessity (how many tame jaguars are there in captivity?) but they could at least have disguised it by the use of a little judicious hair-dye. Then there was the eclipse of the sun. That was fine, but again someone should have mentioned that solar eclipses take place at the time of the New Moon. Following this scene with shots of a Full Moon the following evening was a mistake. That just does not happen in nature and therefore detracts from the veracity of the movie.

It was also not clear who the 'bad' guys really are. We are led to believe they are city-dwelling Mayans from a different tribe from the 'good' guys (peace loving jungle-dwellers, who love their children, tease each other and are generally nice to everyone except wild pigs). It is only at the end of the movie, when we realise the action has been taking place during the few days immediately prior to the Spanish invasion of 1521, that all becomes clear. Mayans they may be but to all intents and purposes the baddies are 'Aztecs'.

It would have made more sense in my opinion if this had been made clear from the beginning. For while it is true that the Mayans of Chichen Itza were not too dissimilar in appearance from the priests and warriors of Gibson's re-created city, the Chichen Izans had gone the way of history centuries before the arrival of the Spanish. By 1521, outside of the Guatemalan Highlands, there were no 'civilized' Maya living in cities. Their culture had all but disappeared and the remaining, low-land Maya were living precariously in the jungle. Unless the wicked city was meant to represent Tenochtitlan or some other metropolis controlled by the Aztecs, then it has no justification in fact. Mayan of the period before the Spanish invasion it certainly wasn't.

These, however, are just niggles and probably can be justified in the name of art. What was less acceptable was the brutality of the movie. With little respite other than a few scenes at the beginning, this was unrelenting throughout. The sheer cruelty of the 'Aztecs' was hard to bear still less comprehend. They treated other human beings worse than animals and their city was a living hell. There was not an ounce of compassion to be found in any one of them: not even towards sick children. These guys were brutes, pure and simple.

So realistic was this casual brutality, depicted in all its frenzied detail, that my wife kept her eyes shut throughout most of the movie. Afterwards she complained about how the sound-track was also too loud. This, then, is not a movie for women and certainly not for those who are squeamish about seeing blood. For besides the rituals of heart-removal and decapitation, people are hunted, raped, pierced with arrows and mauled by wild animals. Nobody under 18 should be allowed to see it and those who do may need therapy afterwards.

What then is the point of the movie? What is the Apocalypse or 'Apocalypto' of the title? Well it's not what I thought it was going to be. There are no references to Armageddon, to global warming, deforestation or any other natural disaster other than that the 'Aztecs' are in the grip of some sort of leprosy epidemic. Their constant human sacrifices to their sun-god are evidently being carried out in the hope that he will heal them of their woes. This contrasts strangely with the life of the forest-dwellers who, until their world is invaded, seem to be healthy and living in a Garden of Eden. Since the movie is dedicated to Abel (son of Adam and brother of his murderer Cain) we can perhaps read this as an allegory. One interpretation would be that the evil 'Aztecs' represent the capitalist west that rampages through the world exploiting native populations and robbing them of their lives and resources. The forest-dwellers could then be compared to native-peoples who, if left alone by the west, would live in harmony with the planet and cause no-one any harm.

That interpretation, attractive as it may seem to liberal thinkers, I think it too simplistic and not what Mel Gibson (an outspoken conservative) had in mind. A clue to the real meaning of the film is given right at the end when we see the Spanish galleons of Cortes arriving off the Mexican coast. Normally portrayed as 'bad' guys, I felt myself cheering at the sight of the Spaniards' sails, bearing as they did the red cross of Christ. Here at last were potential saviours: a civilized people capable of taking on the Aztecs and defeating them. True, history tells us that the Spanish were at best fllawed heroes and not always exactly kindness personified—certainly not to the Maya. However, they did put an end to human sacrifice and free the people from the devils of Aztechism. That has to be to their credit.

This, I think, is Gibson's real message. We in the Christian west are not to be compared with the 'Aztecs'. Rather we are like the Spanish of 1521. We have a duty to enter the 'heart of darkness', in particular Africa. There scenes not that dissimilar to those depicted in Apocalypto are happening in countries like Uganda, the Sudan and the Congo right now, everyday. Because we know better, it is down to us to stop decadent, superstitious and savage peoples from murdering their peaceful neighbours. Thus strange as it may seem, Apocalypto can be read as a justification for America's crusade against Islamic terrorism. It is a stark warning of what will happen in the Third World if if the First turns its back: not a sustainable paradise but hell on earth.

Does this message (if it is intended) justify all the blood and gore? Well maybe if that's what it takes to dispel the myth of the 'noble savage'. One thing I would say though is that the Jews of America should be hailing Gibson as a friend and not treating him as an enemy. For if America ever turns its back on Israel, then have pity for its people. They could expect as little sympathy from their enemies as the forest Mayans received from the 'Aztecs'. Gibson seems to be saying that the Spanish galleons of Cortes and the American fleet parked in the Eastern Med are not so different after all. Maybe it's time to give Uncle Sam a pat on the back for trying to spread Democracy even if his attempts have not been very successful in Iraq. Is that Gibson's message? I don't know. Perhaps someone should ask him.

Copyright © Adrian Gilbert, 6th December 2006.

[Suzanne Olsson]

Adrian,
Wow..what a review you gave us! I for one intend to rush out and see this film based on your analogies...which I think were stunning!
At first I thought you were going to reference the earlier film with Marlon Brando, "Apocolypse Now." In this, during the Vietnam War he enters a forest world deep in the heart of South-East Asia and quickly sets himslef up as supreme honcho in a place where people have become numb and unresponsive to the daily site of dismemberment, suffering, and death...To the point where they dont even bother burying the dead anymore. A world littered with body parts and rotting corpses and horror...In fact that was the famous line in that film: "Oh the horror of it all."

So the first part of your review I thought for certain was going to hark back to Francis Ford Coppolla's film...

Then your surprise analogy! ...this story, the arrival of the Spanish fleet, was meant to signify the arrival of the 'good' American fleet in the Mediterranean...helping Islam enter the 21 Century..whew. Heavy stuff...I suppose it cuts deepest for me because I lived there many years, and I have very emotionally deep impressions about the 'clash of civilizations.' I don't know if the day will ever come when I will write freely about my impressions...but your analogy certainly did perk me up...
Yupper. I will definately see this film just because of your excellent in-depth review and analogy. Thanks for that!
Sue
P.S. I will probably have to keep my eyes closed through most of the film just like Mrs. Adrian did...I am too impressionable. Heck, I still haven't regained my fear of taking showers without the lights on and the door wide open after Alfred Hitchock's shower scene at the Bates Motel. And then there was my fear of deep water ocean swimming after seeing 'Jaws." What will the effects of this film have on me? Keep me out of dark temples on full moon nights? Hmmm Thanks for the warning! I may have to send you the bill for my psychiatric care after this.

[AdrianGilbert]

Glad you found the review interesting. Just remember that it is a very violent movie and that I take no responsibility if you find yourself passing out half-way through. Just keep telling yourself: This isn't real, they are only acting. This isn't real, they are only acting. This isn't real, they are only acting... That should get you through.

I have seen 'Apocalypse Now' which, oddly, is one of afore-mentioned wife's all-time favourite movies. She likes it, not for the violence, but the photography. Photography is one of her hobbies.

I too enjoyed that movie. I particularly liked the bit with the helicopters flying in to the sounds of Wagner's 'Flight of the Valkyries'. It all reminded me of how lucky I was to be an Englishman. Had I been an American I could easily have been called up and found myself having to take part in the real thing. I don't think I would have made a very good soldier and I sure as hell wasn't ready to become a corpse. Oddly enough I knew several American draft-dodgers living in Sweden. They were all very home-sick. I wonder what's become of them now.

As for Mel Gibson, I have some great movie ideas I'd like to share with him. Do you think he would be interested? Does anyone know how I can get into contact?:headscratch:

[Space Tycoon]

I am very much looking forward to Apocalypto. I am not a great fan of extreme violence in movies, but if it is authentic to it's time and germane to the plot, I can accept it.

As far as Gibson's message, he was quoted as saying he wanted a paralell between the Aztec rulers' use of fear and intimidation to keep their population in line even while their civilization was crumbling; with the hysteria and fear-mongering which is commonplace in the media and the neo-cons in the Bush Administration as their war efforts fail.

Also, I read on IMDB someone's opinion that Gibson is trying to target Latino viewers with this film. I can see this in three ways: by depicting the majesty and sophistication of the Aztec civilization (for all of it's brutality); and the introduction of Spanish Roman Catholic saviours(?), for all of their later brutality.

Which also leaves open the possibility of a new civilization based upon some fusion of the two, which is how, I think, many Latinos (particularly Mexicans), would like to see themselves today.

Whether I will still feel the same way when I have seen the film is a different story.

[rch]

Wow, Adrian, thanks for posting this sneak preview for us down here in 23.5... although, having read it, I think I'll probably give this film a miss and read your book instead!

Violence isn't my thing at all, even in the name of Art... I continue to be horrified at the ability of human beings to be cruel to other human beings, even on a social level. I hope you at least got to recover at a cool Hollywood-style preview party afterwards!

I'd be interested to hear what other people think of this movie when they see it.

[DVB]

This, I think, is Gibson's real message. We in the Christian west are not to be compared with the 'Aztecs'. Rather we are like the Spanish of 1521. We have a duty to enter the 'heart of darkness', in particular Africa. There scenes not that dissimilar to those depicted in Apocalypto are happening in countries like Uganda, the Sudan and the Congo right now, everyday. Because we know better, it is down to us to stop decadent, superstitious and savage peoples from murdering their peaceful neighbours. Thus strange as it may seem, Apocalypto can be read as a justification for America's crusade against Islamic terrorism. It is a stark warning of what will happen in the Third World if if the First turns its back: not a sustainable paradise but hell on earth.
I'm very conflicted about this. On the one hand my gut feeling is that the UN (not the USA or Britain or any other individual country) should go into the Congo and stop stop stop the killing there.

But on the other hand I am very distrustful of the "Because we know better" way of thinking. I look back at several hundred years of history where We (the British or other empires) knew better, and marched in by force or by stealth, and all-but destroyed a culture. Oddly enough, the ones I find most difficult to forgive are those on our own doorstep, such as England imposing the English-language Bible and Book of Common Prayer on the Scots, and punishing their children if they were heard to speak a word of Gaelic even in the playground, let alone the classroom.

Where do we draw the line between such cultural imperialism and stepping in to stop genocide? Put that way, it sounds simple. In reality, it's anything but.

David

[AdrianGilbert]

I'm very conflicted about this. On the one hand my gut feeling is that the UN (not the USA or Britain or any other individual country) should go into the Congo and stop stop stop the killing there.

But on the other hand I am very distrustful of the "Because we know better" way of thinking. I look back at several hundred years of history where We (the British or other empires) knew better, and marched in by force or by stealth, and all-but destroyed a culture. Oddly enough, the ones I find most difficult to forgive are those on our own doorstep, such as England imposing the English-language Bible and Book of Common Prayer on the Scots, and punishing their children if they were heard to speak a word of Gaelic even in the playground, let alone the classroom.

Where do we draw the line between such cultural imperialism and stepping in to stop genocide? Put that way, it sounds simple. In reality, it's anything but.

David

I agree with you that the effort should ideally be international. However, as we all know, the UN has no teeth of its own. It relies on member countries to supply the forces to wear its blue berets. Unfortunately such forces are usually unfit for purpose. The UN was useless in Cyprus. They have had little if any real impact in Lebanon. In Bosnia they stood by watching as men were massacred at Sebranicha. In Africa they even rape the local women and where were they when the Hutus massacred the Tutsis?

Contrast this with Sierra Leone where a few years ago a single battalion of British paratroops put an end to a bloody civil war and stopped the gangs of armed thugs from chopping off the hands and other parts of civilians. Rumour has it that the President of that country was so impressed that he asked if Sierra Leone could be allowed to join the British Empire. Evidently he was most upset on being told that it no longer exists. He saw British rule (and respect for the law) as the best way forwards to ensure his country would not relapse into anarchy.

Now I am not advocating Imperial adventurism. However, where do you draw the line? Do you accept human sacrifice as a cultural statement that must not be interferred with? Surely one good thing that the British did in India was to outlaw Thuggee and Suttee. It was a cultural intervention but clearly in defence of inalienable human rights that take precedence over local traditions.

As regards the Scots and Gaelic: well they should be eternally grateful that we taught them English. No one in the world outside of the Hebrides speaks Gaelic and nobody else wants to. I doubt that Edinburgh and Glasgow would be the prosperous cities they are today if every time you wanted to buy a pint you had to do it in Gaelic. To have English as your first language instead of Gaelic is surely a gift beyond measure and something to be very thankful for. That applies even if the English you speak is as unintelligible as that of Rab C. Nesbitt!

Mind you I don't think the Scots were ever into tearing the hearts out of living victims or boiling babies to put in their haggis bags. So I can understand their lack of gratitude towards the English for imposing our superior culture on them. There again, what turns around comes around. We in England are now in the invidious position of being governed by a mainly Scottish Government . That is an unintended consequence of the Act of Union of 1707. Not only that but our torment seems never ending as we face the prospect of Gordon Brown imposing more and more Scottish Socialism on us. Surely it is we, the English, who are the victims and not the Scots. Per capita they pay less in tax yet receive more benefits (eg free University education) than we do in England. I say it's time they were given their independence and we regained ours!

Now just where are the Spanish when you need them?:romy:

[DVB]

As I say, there are some things which we can simply say are Wrong; I dion't think a great deal of human sacrifice goes on as a regular practice today, but I don't see any cultural imperialism in, for example, condemning female genital mutilation. I think there was a much stronger case for intervention in the Congo than in Iraq. (Saddam was a murdering dictator, but probably no worse than a dozen others.)

On Scotland, Adrian, I can't tell how much your tongue is in your cheek. I hope it is. If it isn't, I don't want to lose a friend so I think we should just agree to differ.

[hawklord]

...solar eclipses take place at the time of the New Moon. Following this scene with shots of a Full Moon the following evening was a mistake.
Well spotted.

There's a website somewhere that covers such "astro-bloopers" (as one might call them) but I don't know where it is. But Apocalypto clearly belongs there.

[AdrianGilbert]

I saw on Channel 4 news last night that Mel Gibson's 'Apocalypto' has confounded his critics and hit the number 1 spot with box-office takings for last weekend. CNN also reports the same thing: http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/10/news/companies/apocolyptoopens.reut/index.htm.

Not bad for a foreign language movie with a cast of unknowns and an 'R' rating. I wonder how it will do when it is released over here.:)

[Suzanne Olsson]

I found this link...about the post traumatic stress syndrome from watching bad movies..


http://gprime.net/flash.php/operationterrortubbies

[AdrianGilbert]

I found this link...about the post traumatic stress syndrome from watching bad movies..


http://gprime.net/flash.php/operationterrortubbies

I might need to find myself a shrink. I still have bad memories from seeing 'A Clockwork Orange' and that must have been over thirty years ago. Also 'Straw Dogs' gave me night-mares for a long time. Actually, although Apocalypto is very violent, because it's all violent action without much premeditation it isn't as worrisome as many psychological thrillers. In that sense Dr Zhivago was much more disturbing as it featured the slow torture and finally murder of true love. There's none of that in 'Apocalypto' and no torture either. It is just matter of fact brutality in the cause of rounding people up for the sacrificial altar. Also it has a happy ending. (There I've said it. Please forgive me for spoiling the plot!)

[rappites]

As a courtesy to us that are not normal posters in this area. But, see your topics. When you are doing a movie review that have spoilers. Please put some kind of warning.

Thank you.

We do have a movie forum where you can review movies. I am sure you are aware of that. We do not bite in the Asylum. We have our Hannibal masks on. :)

[AdrianGilbert]

As a courtesy to us that are not normal posters in this area. But, see your topics. When you are doing a movie review that have spoilers. Please put some kind of warning.

Thank you.

We do have a movie forum where you can review movies. I am sure you are aware of that. We do not bite in the Asylum. We have our Hannibal masks on. :)

You want to be careful coming in here, Rappites. Most of us come from another place and time. We understand that ordinary consciousness is tilted from true north and angle our discussions accordingly. Our interests rarely align with the mainstream and when they do they are inclined by 51.5 degrees from the equator.

Thus what might seem to us a happy ending may not be so for you. What seems sad to us may be hilarious when seem from the perspective of LA LA land. So do not be fooled into thinking you have even read a comprehensible review of this movie. Apocalypto may all have been intended as a metaphor for an astral experience linked with sun-spot cycles and cosmic flares.

There, you have been warned! Indeed there was another warning sign posted at the head of this thread (exclamation mark in a yellow triangle) which maybe you didn't see. :)

[DVB]

Apocalypto may all have been intended as a metaphor for an astral experience linked with sun-spot cycles and cosmic flares.
No, no, surely it's a post-modernist, post-structuralist minimalist metaphor for the hidden relationship between Jesus and Lazarus (as revealed by Leonardo va Dinky), and also poses a possible hypothetical explanation for the cursing of the fig tree.

:headscratch:

[AdrianGilbert]

No, no, surely it's a post-modernist, post-structuralist minimalist metaphor for the hidden relationship between Jesus and Lazarus (as revealed by Leonardo va Dinky), and also poses a possible hypothetical explanation for the cursing of the fig tree.

I think maybe you're confusing threads here Dave. This one's about politically incorrect portrayals of peace-loving 'Native Americans' who didn't rip each other's hearts out, not even for reasons of solar economy. It is a gross misreresentation of a very high civilization that wasn't in decline at all when the evil Cortes planted his jack-boots on American soil. In fact the Aztecs and Mayans had already visited the moons of Jupiter and were well on their way to constructing an interstellar craft when the wretched Spanish elbowed their way in.

The books destroyed by Bishop Landa of the Yucatan were, in fact, nothing less than the plans for this space ship. No wonder the Maya kicked up such a fuss. Wouldn't you? Chichen Itza was, as you will quickly realise if you ever visit it, the Mayan equivalent of Cape Canaveral. What we see now is, of course, only the ruins of the extraordianry space-port it once was. All traces of actual craft have long since been removed and recyled for the making of tourist souvenirs.

I don't think Lazarus and Jesus ever visited Central America (Although on second thoughts Jesus may have done as he was able to walk on water).

I don't think figs are indigenous to the Americas. They may have some now but that is another question. It's a bit like growing coffee in Kenya: a direct result of inhuman exploitation of nature by the conquistadors.

So there you have it! Mel Gibson entirely missed the point of Mayan archaeology which is as nothing if space travel is left out of the equation. If it weren't for the cursed Spanish we would have colonised the planetary-systems of the Pleiades long ago. That's why the ending is so sad!:confused:

[rappites]

You want to be careful coming in here, Rappites. Most of us come from another place and time. We understand that ordinary consciousness is tilted from true north and angle our discussions accordingly. Our interests rarely align with the mainstream and when they do they are inclined by 51.5 degrees from the equator.

Thus what might seem to us a happy ending may not be so for you. What seems sad to us may be hilarious when seem from the perspective of LA LA land. So do not be fooled into thinking you have even read a comprehensible review of this movie. Apocalypto may all have been intended as a metaphor for an astral experience linked with sun-spot cycles and cosmic flares.

There, you have been warned! Indeed there was another warning sign posted at the head of this thread (exclamation mark in a yellow triangle) which maybe you didn't see. :)


I did see the "warning sign" but, that can mean anything with you all.

The common folk here ususally put it in words in their thread title. ie: Warning may contain spoilers:

[DVB]

The books destroyed by Bishop Landa of the Yucatan were, in fact, nothing less than the plans for this space ship. No wonder the Maya kicked up such a fuss. Wouldn't you? Chichen Itza was, as you will quickly realise if you ever visit it, the Mayan equivalent of Cape Canaveral. What we see now is, of course, only the ruins of the extraordianry space-port it once was. All traces of actual craft have long since been removed and recyled for the making of tourist souvenirs.
Adrian, do you remember which "speculative history" (or Astronomy & Archaeology) book it was that "proved" that the Great Pyramid was actually a battery for powering the spaceships that regularly used to land in the Valley of the Kings? I can't remember.

David

[AdrianGilbert]

Adrian, do you remember which "speculative history" (or Astronomy & Archaeology) book it was that "proved" that the Great Pyramid was actually a battery for powering the spaceships that regularly used to land in the Valley of the Kings? I can't remember.

David

Difficult to say Dave, there have been so many! You could try Alan Alford's 'Gods of the New Millennium: scientific proof of flesh and blood gods'. He writes that the pyramid was used as a giant sponge. Water was sucked up from the ground and then split into its constituent parts to make oxygen and hydrogen. These basic fuels could then be burnt together to make heat. Something to do with the niche in the Queen's Chamber being home of a Water Fuel Cell. Bonkers all of it! I think Alan has given up writing and publishing now though he has written several other books of equally outstanding scholarship to this one. :eek:

On second thoughts, I think he may have borrowed this idea from a Canadian guy called Christopher Dunn. He wrote a book, based on his experience as an engineer, saying the the pyramid was a gigantic fuel cell. Coincidentally I met him at the A.R.E. Conference this year. He seems like a nice guy but I haven't read his book. :Dunno:

[DVB]

Ah yes, of course -- thank you! Chapter 9: The Great Pyramid Revisited, complete with detailed diagrams of how the fuel cell works, showing the routes of the Hydrogen and Oxygen etc. All completely barking mad.

I met Alford once, at an early Fortean Times UnConvention. Gods of the New Millennium, as well as describing the "space facilities" at Giza and elsewhere, describes how the Elohim of Genesis were aliens who visited Earth and seeded the human race. The Raelian Movement believe exactly the same, I said to him; what do they think of your work? Who? he asked. Someone who writes a book with the sub-title "scientific proof of flesh & blood gods" had researched the subject so thoroughly he'd never heard of a fairly well-known new religious movement with exactly that belief. Duhhh.

I'll give him two things, though. First, his books have stunning photos. Also, very unusually, when he changes his mind about something he is honest enough to say so. On his website he says "Readers of my first book ‘Gods of the New Millennium’ are hereby advised that I have retracted a large part of the ‘evidence’ for ancient astronaut intervention which I cited in that book." Not many writers in his sort of field would do that. (I don't know whether the retraction also applies to the Giza fuel cell.)

He reckons on his website that the original self-published edition of the book is worth "upwards of £80" second-hand. Any offers for my copy? :D

[Willow]

I met Alford once, at an early Fortean Times UnConvention. Gods of the New Millennium, as well as describing the "space facilities" at Giza and elsewhere, describes how the Elohim of Genesis were aliens who visited Earth and seeded the human race. The Raelian Movement believe exactly the same, I said to him; what do they think of your work? Who? he asked. Someone who writes a book with the sub-title "scientific proof of flesh & blood gods" had researched the subject so thoroughly he'd never heard of a fairly well-known new religious movement with exactly that belief. Duhhh.

NO! Gasp. This can't be! You mean the aleins didn't land and give the human race designer genes? Now my heart is broken. :confused:
Next you'll try to convince us there's no Santa Clause.

[DVB]

NO! Gasp. This can't be! You mean the aleins didn't land and give the human race designer genes? Now my heart is broken. :confused:
Next you'll try to convince us there's no Santa Clause.

Willow, if you really, really want it to be so, then just believe with all your heart, and wish upon a star, and clap your hands or click your heels together, and you shall go to the ball. (But don't tell everyone.)

And if you're a Raelian, you can be created by the Elohim and have a cosmic orgasm as well!

[AdrianGilbert]

And if you're a Raelian, you can be created by the Elohim and have a cosmic orgasm as well!

Is that what the Raelians are all about? Where are they? How can I join?:)

[AdrianGilbert]

I met Alford once, at an early Fortean Times UnConvention...
I'll give him two things, though. First, his books have stunning photos. Also, very unusually, when he changes his mind about something he is honest enough to say so. On his website he says "Readers of my first book ‘Gods of the New Millennium’ are hereby advised that I have retracted a large part of the ‘evidence’ for ancient astronaut intervention which I cited in that book." Not many writers in his sort of field would do that. (I don't know whether the retraction also applies to the Giza fuel cell.)

He reckons on his website that the original self-published edition of the book is worth "upwards of £80" second-hand. Any offers for my copy? :D


I've met Alford too and found him to be quite a nice guy but somewhat wrapped up in himself. He seemed rather depressed and out of it, which I guess he would be if he has spent the last ten years trying to get his message across and no-one wants to know about it. Come to think of it, I feel the same way.:(

[DVB]

Originally Posted by DVB
And if you're a Raelian, you can be created by the Elohim and have a cosmic orgasm as well!
Is that what the Raelians are all about? Where are they? How can I join?:)
Ah, I thought that would wake someone up!

I was at a one-day seminar at LSE a few years ago, on "New Religious Movements and Sex". (Yes, it was quite well-attended...) A Raelian speaker mentioned Cosmic Orgasms, and in the Q&A someone (it may have been me, but I honestly can't remember) asked, "What's the difference between a Cosmic Orgasm and perfectly normal bloody good sex?" There was a l-o-n-g pause, and the speaker looked worried. Eventually he said, "I don't know, I've never had one." The wave of sympathy we all had for the poor sod was almost tangible.

D

[DVB]

Btw, I love the new label above my avatar!
Before my third coffee of the morning, may I insert the word "extreme"?

[AdrianGilbert]

Ah, I thought that would wake someone up!

I was at a one-day seminar at LSE a few years ago, on "New Religious Movements and Sex". (Yes, it was quite well-attended...) A Raelian speaker mentioned Cosmic Orgasms, and in the Q&A someone (it may have been me, but I honestly can't remember) asked, "What's the difference between a Cosmic Orgasm and perfectly normal bloody good sex?" There was a l-o-n-g pause, and the speaker looked worried. Eventually he said, "I don't know, I've never had one." The wave of sympathy we all had for the poor sod was almost tangible.

D

Presumably the Mr Rael who started the sect has had one...or maybe even more than one.:Laugh:

[Willow]

Oohhh lookie! A link to that Raelien fellow's website...quite nice I might add..


http://www.rael.org/rael_content/intro.php?elan=English

Now my next question is this: If "they" came here and gave us designer genes..then no matter how much we try, we'll never find a 'missing link' on earth because our DNA would always seem normal for our species.

The next one who gets beamed up should bring a clean test tube, a cork, and a pair of tweezers (assuming they have some hair) ...now that DNA sample would rouse some interest! Better yet, bring the entire specimen back with you..:)

[Willow]

I have a confession. I didn't know what Raelians were . I thought it was a special old boys club of aliens ...but Raelian actally means 'messenger" in Hebrew..

After I posted the link to his website here, I read the introduction and first few pages of his book "Intelligent Design" (free ebook download) but as soon as I read his explanation about creation of the earth and all life 25,000 years ago...I shook my head in disbelief...a quick recap of what his alien friends told him:

"The world was covered by water 25,000 years ago. Great atomic bombs blasted the waters and created one vast pile of dirt we call earth...this is breaking up as continental drift because it was never properly glued togther in the first place..This huge continent of newly created dirt was then seeded with all life.."""And it goes on.

No mention of 65 million year old dinosaurs? 100 million year old fossil records of life?? And there is no record of world floods for past several million years. If we had been underwater, there would not be fossils of land-air breathing mammals for several million years, not to mention the alternative life form we share the planet with, the plant kingdom. Ya know, photosynthesis making oxygen and all that unimportant stuff?

Maybe if I read all 400 pages, there might be further explanations within, but quite frankly he has lost my interest already..

I wish these aliens could at least get their stories straight...or explain to Claude Raelien (and me) where the dinosaurs came from? Someone is confused.
If 'A' is true, then perhaps Raelien had some other kind of experience and was never actually in a space ship with real aliens..because they would not have given him so much 'misinformation.' But if 'B' is true, and he really did have this encounter and dialogue with aliens, then 'A' aliens aren't too bright themselves, or 'B' aliens told him fibs....which would just go to prove "C" : that fruit really doesn't fall far from the tree after all, which explains our problems as a human race...look what we had for parents. :confused:

[AdrianGilbert]

I have a confession. I didn't know what Raelians were ....
I wish these aliens could at least get their stories straight...or explain to Claude Raelien (and me) where the dinosaurs came from? Someone is confused.
:confused:


I too had a look at his website but didn't get past his picture on the first page. He looks to me like the sort of sleazy Frenchman last seen in 1950s 'Arthouse' movies. You know the kind I mean: older, Parisian man who seduces foolish virgin from the country with his urbanity and apparent sophistication: bit like the serpent in the Adam and Eve story. After seeing his picture, I couldn't be bothered with reading on. Fortunately I had the sound switched off so I couldn't hear what he was saying, but I don't think I would have been hypnotised by his charms anyway.:Tongue:

[AdrianGilbert]

I too had a look at his website but didn't get past his picture on the first page. He looks to me like the sort of sleazy Frenchman last seen in 1950s 'Arthouse' movies. You know the kind I mean: older, Parisian man who seduces foolish virgin from the country with his urbanity and apparent sophistication: bit like the serpent in the Adam and Eve story.


Actually, when I think about it, the sleazy, French, seducer archetype is still around. He was certainly alive and well in the Kate Hudson film: 'Le Divorce'. Here he was shown in all his arrogance: this time as an older, aristocratic politician with a taste for young, blonde women.
http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/blledivorcepicsh.htm
Mind you, Kate herself plays that other familiar archetype from Hollywood: the slutty American girl who is easily seduced with a few dinners and a nice hand-bag. Great film, though I liked her better in 'Almost Famous'. That one brought back many happy memories of being in America in the early seventies.:D