Sermons from 1992: Are the recent discoveries on the Planet Mars really monuments built by some other culture? Is the mile-wide "Face" a carefully crafted monument, or simply a natural aberration? Is there a link between the "pyramids" on Mars, and the Great Pyramid of Egypt? Has all this been described in the Bible?
Part One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkrfj16SwCw
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRXW8PrkKwo&t=2s
My opinion: While part 1 is interesting, the first 40-minutes of part 2 is a review of part 1. If you are short on time, you can skip part 1.
The reason why I posted this is because of what he said in the last 15-minutes of part 2, which I think accurately predicted what is happening now with all the alien information coming out.
He said that in the end times, there will be a new world-wide religion. Missler thought that the new world religion will revolve around "aliens" in order to deceive us away from Christ, but I think that thanks to all the info that has come out about Project Blue Beam, we won't be dumb enough to fall for the alien invasion scam.
Back in 1992, no one ever saw transhumanism coming. I think transhumanism does qualify as a religion, and the recent world-wide push by the UN and companies such as Blackrock to force countries/corporations to adopt and push transhumanism qualifies it as the prophesied new world religion.
I didn't bother to verify whether Missler's facts were correct. I am not interested in those kinds of details on ancient civilizations, s I just gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was correct. One of the reasons I love this forum so much is because people put a lot of time and effort into verifying what is true and what is not.
The trans humanist part was my own interpretation of what the prophecied new one world religion is versus Missler's belief that the one world religion would revolve around aliens.
I love studying and so I immediately try to learn more and that's when I found out a lot of his incredible too good to be true facts were either dated or bogus.
This kind of ruins things for me bc what else is being fudged or made up? Also it makes the material less shareable bc if you give it to a skeptic Normie you KNOW they're gonna tear it apart and never believe you again
That's how I approach stuff but I'm kind of a nut. I've written some books myself and I'm super anal about my sources.
I don't care if you don't like my opinions or conclusions but you won't be able to quibble with the sources I used to get to them, is kind of my mantra
Agreed on not sharing information without credible source info as it does more damage than good. :)