May 2018 - News On the ET Front

A group of genetically related interdimensional beings that "pop" into and out of physical reality with purpose, interest and, occasionally, accidentally. That's the physical of it.

The holographic, holistic POV is that we have archetypal information that is part of our human experience. LNM represents not only our 'past' times in Creation but the reptilian influences we carry to this day. In short, Nessie says "Look at me. I am You."

Is this the part that you worried about? 

Is this the part that you worried about?

Not worried, just curious how you believe you know this. If I was going to engage with you seriously, I would of course ask you to provide some evidence to show on what basis you make such extraordinary and totally unfalsifiable claims, but you won't have any (I think I can safely say that ?)

However, there's a place for 'off the wall' characters such as yourself. For what it's worth, I think Nessie is probably the canny invention of the Highland "Scotsman," an indigenous, rather frightening looking creature (in itself), with hairy legs and a skirt, genetically programed to forage a few extra pennies into it's sporran, from tourism.

I can't see Pssst's posts but if the bit I read is referring to Boltzmann Brains, then he is taking a thought experiment far too literally.  It would be like saying Schrödinger had a cat that was both dead and alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Is this the part that you worried about?

Not worried, just curious how you believe you know this. If I was going to engage with you seriously, I would of course ask you to provide some evidence to show on what basis you make such extraordinary and totally unfalsifiable claims, but you won't have any (I think I can safely say that ?)

If you had friends, or relatives or simple acquaintances for that matter, and you received information from them that is consistently true. Over time, Decades. Would you continue to trust those sources of information?

I can't see Pssst's posts but if the bit I read is referring to Boltzmann Brains, then he is taking a thought experiment far too literally.  It would be like saying Schrödinger had a cat that was both dead and alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

It wasn't. Grow up.

If you had friends, or relatives or simple acquaintances for that matter, and you received information from them that is consistently true. Over time, Decades. Would you continue to trust those sources of information?

Irrelevant. Even if it's true, until you provide evidence that is formatted in a way that allows other people to independently verify your claims without needing to trust you on it you have nothing. It's great that you may or may not have these people that may or may not be consistently right, but you can't present their information to others as fact and be surprised that people don't accept it unquestioningly.

I have crazy ideas too, but I don't arrogantly tell people their ideas are wrong, present my own and then scoff at the idea that I should have to provide evidence for my claims when asked. I just state that it's what I've heard or it's what I remember, etc and that I don't expect anyone to believe me. It's a lot more neutral and a lot more accurate and rational.

Irrelevant. Even if it's true, until you provide evidence that is formatted in a way that allows other people to independently verify your claims without needing to trust you on it you have nothing. It's great that you may or may not have these people that may or may not be consistently right, but you can't present their information to others as fact and be surprised that people don't accept it unquestioningly.

I have crazy ideas too, but I don't arrogantly tell people their ideas are wrong, present my own and then scoff at the idea that I should have to provide evidence for my claims when asked. I just state that it's what I've heard or it's what I remember, etc and that I don't expect anyone to believe me. It's a lot more neutral and a lot more accurate and rational.

+1000

Thanks P for putting that together. Personally I have too many doubts about the historicity of Moses, the exodus, etc., etc., so it leaves me on the skeptical side of everything you're relating, but what do I know? I was curious to hear what the info was, and I thank you for communicating it!

Sure.

Create any reality you desire. The underlying themes of the OT have always wrung true for me but never in any literal manner. It's the allure of the story told. We like our stories, don't we?

[Laird]

I've moved various contentious posts to the Contentious posts involving Pssst thread, renamed from "Brian and Pssst battle it out". Please continue those battles there rather than here.

If you had friends, or relatives or simple acquaintances for that matter, and you received information from them that is consistently true. Over time, Decades. Would you continue to trust those sources of information?

I think the kind of "information" you're referring to here is not just ordinary, checkable and self evidential, is it. I think what you may be referring to is that you have "sources" that have consistently given you evidence that ET is interacting with us, right now.

ET may well be doing that; I certainly think that ET's are bound to exist somewhere in the universe(s). But if you want members to accept that you are not only in contact with "ET" but you also have a personal relationship with them, then you're going to have to provide some pretty convincing/extraordinary evidence and even then, most people will still say that there's another simpler, more rational explanation.

I do have some sympathy for you in that the subject I'm most interested in (NDE's) is a bit of a stretch for many people (to say the least) when the full implications of it (out of body experiences etc) are contemplated. But there is a lot of very reliable, replicable evidence for that now and I don't see a comparable scenario with regard to "ET"...yet.

I think you'd be better off 'doing your thing' with a tongue in cheek approach, personally but that's just my opinion, others will disagree.

But if you want members to accept that you are not only in contact with "ET" but you also have a personal relationship with them, then you're going to have to provide some pretty convincing/extraordinary evidence and even then, most people will still say that there's another simpler, more rational explanation.

tim, those who resonate with what I have to say will do so. Those that do not, will not. I cannot influence those who do and I cannot influence those do not, as I have said repeatedly, those choices are their's and their's alone.

All  people can believe as they want. Their beliefs have nothing to do with me.