I need some clarification....

[bbow73]

Is there a difference between a Reptilian and a Draco?

What is the difference between a Starseed and a Starchild? Are one of them a genetic hybrid?

Is a 'Nordic' a Pleiadian? Are Pleiadians from Aldebaran or Zeta Reticulum?
Who is from where?

What race was sending messages to Maria Orsic & are the same ones that sent messages to William Tompkins & the 'Think Tank'?

I have a stack of books I'm slowly getting through. I watch Sirius Disclosure interviews, Project Camelot interviews, and UFOTV. I listen about 5 different alternative podcasts at work (Project Camelot, Open Minds, THC, etc). As I absorb I feel like I get more questions than answers.

[justntime2learn]

Is there a difference between a Reptilian and a Draco?

What is the difference between a Starseed and a Starchild? Are one of them a genetic hybrid?

Is a 'Nordic' a Pleiadian? Are Pleiadians from Aldebaran or Zeta Reticulum?
Who is from where?

What race was sending messages to Maria Orsic & are the same ones that sent messages to William Tompkins & the 'Think Tank'?

I have a stack of books I'm slowly getting through. I watch Sirius Disclosure interviews, Project Camelot interviews, and UFOTV. I listen about 5 different alternative podcasts at work (Project Camelot, Open Minds, THC, etc). As I absorb I feel like I get more questions than answers.

Wekcome bbow73,

"Messier 45 aka Collinder 42 aka Melotte 42 aka The Maia Nebula aka Subaru aka The Seven Sisters , Is about 115 million years old, Has a radius of around 43 lightyears & Has 1000 statistically confirmed stars!
So if everyone there is of Nordic appearance then I am the illegitimate son of a reptilian overlord!!!" ~ Star Tsar

btw, That was hilarious Star Tsar

Source: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90620-Lyn-Buchanan-Confirmed-Multiple-ET-Bases-on-Earth-Stargate-Program-Declassified-May-12-2016&highlight=tall+blondes Post #20

[Atlas]

Are Pleiadians from Aldebaran [...] What race was sending messages to Maria Orsic
A "Letter of Departure" to the Young Vrilerinnen (jungen Vrilerinnen), dated March 11 1945. It mentions the "Odin Departure" (Odin-Ausflug), referring to an evacuation location:
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/vril08_21.jpg

Aldeberan trip. No one is staying here. / Aldeberan Ausflug. Niemand bleibt hier. (source (http://home.earthlink.net/~earthmath17/ausflug.htm))
Nazi Vril UFO's Attacking US Navy (Rare Color Footage) (qahszI3fdZY)

[Bill Ryan]

Nazi Vril UFO's Attacking US Navy (Rare Color Footage)


Half the still images are artist's depictions, and some of the video clips shown are from other events, or are fake. Not a helpful video to use as a reference!

[Atlas]

Thanks. As bbow73 said: "I get more questions than answers".

Most of the stories are probably fake, Captain Kaye spent 17 years battling ALIENS on Mars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rV5-XMCcwE), how many people did actually go there?

[Bill Ryan]

Thanks. As bbow73 said: "I get more questions than answers".

Most of the stories are probably fake, Captain Kaye spent 17 years battling ALIENS on Mars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rV5-XMCcwE), how many people did actually go there?

I do think some did (maybe even many!)... but almost nobody's talking.

My advice for anyone relatively new to the field:

Differentiate between


What can be regarded to be known within all reasonable doubt;
What's interesting but really just unproved speculation; and
What might VERY well be just a bunch of wild stories (and there are many of those).

Essential reading for the first category, which is absolutely the place to start — or else one has no foundation:


Timothy Goode's Above Top Secret
Richard Dolan's two volumes of UFOs and the National Security State.

[Bubu]

As I absorb I feel like I get more questions than answers.

No problem as long as you dont take it to seriously. go with the flow and have fun. you need fun more than answers.

[Atlas]

Posted by Bill Ryan @1:05 (https://youtu.be/1Nt1x1Rvi2g?t=1m5s) in the video below:


"there's been a coup on planet Earth [...] a top secret government space program, one that's been sending people to Mars"

Shadow operations: The Mars Project
1Nt1x1Rvi2g

[Dylansdad]

Is there a difference between a Reptilian and a Draco?

What is the difference between a Starseed and a Starchild? Are one of them a genetic hybrid?

Is a 'Nordic' a Pleiadian? Are Pleiadians from Aldebaran or Zeta Reticulum?
Who is from where?

What race was sending messages to Maria Orsic & are the same ones that sent messages to William Tompkins & the 'Think Tank'?

I have a stack of books I'm slowly getting through. I watch Sirius Disclosure interviews, Project Camelot interviews, and UFOTV. I listen about 5 different alternative podcasts at work (Project Camelot, Open Minds, THC, etc). As I absorb I feel like I get more questions than answers.

Your post caused me to grimace in concern for you. Please don't take any such categorizations of "aliens" seriously. There is no sacred Bible of ufology. People make up this type of Star Trek style stuff all the time. I sincerely hope you do not get led down a dead end trail into a crazy land of fantasy and conspiracy and (even worse) paranoia.

The fact is that no one can prove that any of these aliens exist. So don't trouble yourself if certain story lines do not always connect easily.

Sometimes I think that the intelligence behind this phenomena manifests any way it pleases. So we could have hundreds of different alien forms to contend with. Of course, there are some classic designs, like greys, reptilians and Nordic types. And don't forget the ever popular Preying Mantis (although I do not see how an entity with no fingers could ever create a space ship and fly it). All these manifestations may merely be a cosmic costume party. Just go with the flow and don't invest yourself into these things too much.

This is NOT meant to become your belief system!

I would urge you to read any books by JACQUES VALLEE. He takes a much higher perspective on this entire phenomena that trying to categorize all of its manifestations. I would suggest his trilogy: DIMENSIONS, CONFRONTATIONS, REVELATIONS.

Pleiadian Beauties Visit Earth to Buy Lipstick and other Cosmetics

[bbow73]

Maybe it's my religious background but I've never really measured belief by proof or evidence, I can't prove that my kids love me or that the world is real. I watch some interviews read some books and take a brief look at credentials and references and internal/external corroboration & deviation, but more I try to assess the person's character as trustworthy or not. A story being a little exotic or extremely exotic has no bearing on whether something is plausible or not. I grew up believing that a dude could walk on water and heal lepers... for that chapter of my life it was a positive experience that helped me be more compassionate. But my reference point these days is:
-the universe is too big & old for us to be alone
-God isn't human
-human understanding is not the measure of what is or is not scientifically possible
-the scientific method is limited in it's appropriate use, in social cases judicial protocols are more appropriate for scrutinizing a reliable testimony
-human technology has grown exponentially since the industrial revolution (first flight 1903-moon landing 1969), we should have passed the technological singularity by now, but the outward appearance is that progress had suddenly stopped (it is more likely that progress has not stopped but has gone unseen)
-the wealthiest families run everything have no vision and don't give a damn about people (so suppression and secrecy are easy pills for me to swallow)
-the bits and pieces I've been exposed to are coming together to form a linear narrative

having said that I'm not afraid of being wrong, I was wrong as a fundamentalist Christian, I was wrong as a hard right conservative and then I was wrong as hard left liberal. I've learned amazing things from being wrong and I'm not embarrassed in the slightest bit

[triquetra]

You bring up a wealth of interesting subjects, and it is also pretty important to see right and wrong on a grayscale, there is a shade of truth in all things that anyone not totally off their rocker can be convinced to believe in. The dilution of traces of truth in a toxic soup of disinformation is one of the oldest tricks in the book after all. You add just enough to give it the flavor of truth.

I'm one of the ones who got definitive proof we aren't alone, but that fact doesn't make it any easier to prove it to anyone else. It always tends to be that way. We don't have the same luxury of selectively showing we exist, the nuclear era has removed any doubt how much of a beacon this planet can be when it wants to.

Have you wondered what allowed people thousands of years ago to already be able to stratify higher powers in terms of not even just one vs many gods, but demiurges, gods that appeared godlike in relative terms but themselves had higher powers over them as well (ie Gnosticism)? It seems unlikely that the same kinds of people that hopped onto the massive bandwagons of major organized religion could come up with something like this without evidence.

Other evidence points strongly to ideas like human isn't human, there is nothing necessarily "natural" in how we came to be, at best it is a mixture of natural and artificial forces, so perhaps this same kind of a pattern applies itself quite far back in time then? When a demiurge creates (or modifies) life, is that when we call it artificial?

Have you ever considered spirituality and science not as totally discrete concepts, but instead on a kind of spectrum, or continuum? We reach out beyond the range of what is standard knowledge constantly, and looking back at the history of humanity, we tend to first quantify concepts we do not understand very well in spiritual terms. To cavemen who did not know how to make fire, when they did interact with fire, it was perceived as being created by a higher force. We see this pattern over and over, where in time, what was previously considered as being part of the spiritual domain becomes better and better understood, at which point it may for a time be an art form (some can make fire but not others, it is a special skill), and finally it becomes a science (anyone can make it).

Technological progress is hesitating, because many know inside they have been through something like this before, and some time before you reach the singularity you reach the event horizon - you are going into that singularity with a certain trajectory, and you will have developed so much momentum that you cannot change course easily, so you had better get it right.

Picture the chains of command in the hierarchy very much like a pyramid or triangle with a very small apex point, with the line of communication going up from that point to the "stars". "vision" is subjective and when a certain story is told to those delegates for whom this communication occurs beyond the human population, in the end you have the choice to either believe the story or not. So that gets back to what is probably the most important point of all, and I'm curious if it has anything to do with the narrative you are arriving at (I had wanted to start a thread to see if any kind of consensus opinion on what has happened has developed over all these years, this is a good preview perhaps):

When you say that it ultimately comes down to assessing a person's character, how can you be sure? It is true that when someone is willing to communicate enough that they are really trying to make a case about something they believe, that they may have done research into and so forth, in most cases if there is some hole in their presentation, something "off" or inconsistent in their information, it can raise a flag for sure. So we like to think we are good at discerning the real stuff from the fake, and maybe we start to think we have a pretty good idea about why the people who are totally bogus, or who are somewhere in the middle, presenting a mixture of good and bad info, do what they do: maybe they have something of a life now and need to keep churning out the info to stay afloat, selling books or whatnot. Maybe the ones who are totally bogus just like to have some attention focused on them.

But these are not the dangerous ones.

How can we be sure when we have or have not come across the real chameleonics, the ones who do an expert job of putting on a certain hat and pleasing a crowd in just a certain way, reeling them in? How do we separate them and their highly perfected disinformation campaigns from the ones we should really be paying attention to?

The short answer to all of your questions in the OP is that the questions would not even be needed if it were not a complete cacophony of intermingled information and disinformation out there, all the way down to sentence fragments that may have some element of truth to them but are brought way out of their original context or used to prove a totally false point of some kind, etc.

The long answer is probably not sharable at least in this same post as I tend to write long posts and people tend to not appreciate them if they are too long. But it has to do with taking a very different approach to making these kinds of distinctions, involving a kind of training towards seeing more and more deeply into people and entities, more than some might be comfortable with. It is easier to do in person but the same approach can be adapted to looking at a chunk of information online, and doing the same thing for the author of that information. It has less to do with the apparent character a person is trying to put on at that time, and more with the collection of all character's a person has ever put on in their lifetime or beyond. It has more to do with how that person has navigated through their own confusion.

I would say that whether an individual/entity is totally bogus, generating some mixture of info and disinfo, or serving out highly rehearsed and finely tuned spiels of disinfo that really, really seems like solid info, what they all have in common is that they are in some way confused, lost in their navigation of this reality. This is what tends to stick out like a sore thumb. The totally bogus person might not even try to hide it, it is apparent in the inconsistency of the info they generate, and the ones in the middle may know to try and appear confident. But again for the dangerous ones there is a need to look deeper, beyond the text or the video, beyond the alleged backing research. And if you are not located with that individual in person you are essentially remote viewing them and looking inside of them as though they were right next to you.

This is the only way to be absolutely sure. If you encounter barriers when you get good at doing this, you will then know you have come across someone/an entity who really has something to hide. The aligned welcome all other aligned in to this inner region at all times, since they feel familiar to one another.

It takes a completely different kind of barrier to ward off hostile entities, those are two different things. But these barriers I am speaking of are kind of like the inverse of those barriers.

When you pass into the inner region of another aligned, you establish this kind of connection, as though it could have been you in their shoes in another life, presenting the information you had gathered from that perspective just as they are doing now. When you feel them communicating to you, it feels just about the same as an alternative you communicating to an alternative them might feel like, and then you truly know you can trust.

They may even be a bit lost or confused as well, but at least their intentions are good. They are really presenting the information they have gathered as best as they can.

The other factor in this whole topic is how some people choose to prematurely rule out certain sources of information completely. For example, it is true that some sources carry a higher risk of disinformation, like channeling, but at the same time it is arguably true that these same sources can yield types and quantities of information that are difficult to obtain any other way. If there is a 1 in 10 chance of gaining a good signal via this method, then yes we must remain wary of the other 9 times out of 10 people are generating bogus info, but that other 1 in 10 source may yield information that is even more valuable than what is gained via research.

[bbow73]

triquetra, I'd love to respond to all this but it'll take some time. about long posts, Noam Chomsky said that you can't change the status quo in a 2 minute sound bite. so don't worry about your length, if people are really open to another perspective they will pay for it with their time. it obviously took time on your part to voice your ideas and I appreciate it

[bbow73]

so speaking of long posts...

A few years back I worked with a trauma survivor that believed things that didn't happen. This person had no shortage of real traumas but would have a flashback and then experience a new trauma with a new context in the absence of a present threat. I had to be be careful about what this person proclaimed to be true BUT I also had to be careful about what went against what I thought was possible. In 1900 Freud was on the verge of discovering PTSD but could not accept that aristocracy could be capable of sexually exploiting a young girl or boy.... so he decided that all these 'hysterical' people had repressed desires to be sexually dominated and their symptoms were a result of the guilt and shame of fantasizing about sexual desire. What he was hearing didn't match the popular perception of the aristocracy (he also had sex with some of his clients), if people were rich and powerful it was because they were good and God blessed them with titles and riches. I guess Freud never heard that power corrupts.

Most people are afraid of being wrong, they equate conformity with their security within the heard. Trust can be a high risk investment. We are like broken china dolls, we have sharp edges where our seams have been glued together and these are delicate areas. We can choose to be close and endure the complications of being cut and yelled at or we can choose the safety of distance and isolation. Safety is a comfort with diminishing returns and requires increasing maintenance. I've been duped and it hurts but I've never ridiculed anyone for being duped, it just means they had a good heart and were trusting. Trust has magnitudes and at it's lowest level it isn't earned, it's given as a peace offering. Fear is the mindkiller.

But, trust IS a thing I've always been concerned about when it comes to communicating with otherworldly beings (spirits or aliens or whatever). I've heard that the tall whites were "notorious liars and they think its funny as hell". I've heard that demons will lie. I'm sure that souls that have past on can be as genuinely wrong in the next realm as they were in the physical realm. I'm sure there are aliens that have the wrong understanding of certain things.

I'm on the fence with regression & emergence. SSP stories are by far the most outlandish but none of the people speaking strike me as... being particularly imaginative. They all look like my old social work clients, frazzled and somewhat maintained. I'd be more suspicious if they looked more slick. Most of them are telling the most amazing story with the most mundane tone, cadence, and vocabulary. Cramer has a bit of drama (intentional hyperbole and probably unconscious exaggeration) but no more than a coworker over a water cooler. I didn't believe Randy Cramer when I first heard him but then I thought about the hyper-vigilance that can accompany PTSD. I think my initial cynicism was because I just didn't like him. I don't like career military culture, he has a lot of bravado posturing (it could be typical of a combat adrenaline junky). He presents just like veteran having withdrawals from his band of brotherhood. When i step back his story has internal and external corroboration, that is hard to maintain for a compulsive liar (especially one that talks and skips around in continuity as fast as he does). Cramer has a bit of deviation that you'd expect from perspective bias. And, he many have the wrong understanding of what he witnessed, a jarhead typically does not get the whys & hows of military operations. Tony Rodriguez seems legitimate to me. He looks like he's constantly pushing through dissociative pressure. Same thing with him, fair corroboration & deviation. Rodriguez will correct the interview even when it makes a less exciting story, a narcissist would do the opposite.

I doubt an average joe could pantomime all this but it's possible. But that would be a lot of work for what? So a few people on a forum they'll never meet can think that they are cool? Maybe they spend time and money to write a book that returns less than they could have made working a register at Walmart? A real con can make a lot more money doing... anything else. It's more likely that a person has had a genuine experience and either succumb to their ego and embellished or are traumatized and not distinguishing between disassociation and reality.

[conk]

Maybe it's my religious background but I've never really measured belief by proof or evidence, I can't prove that my kids love me or that the world is real. I watch some interviews read some books and take a brief look at credentials and references and internal/external corroboration & deviation, but more I try to assess the person's character as trustworthy or not. A story being a little exotic or extremely exotic has no bearing on whether something is plausible or not. I grew up believing that a dude could walk on water and heal lepers... for that chapter of my life it was a positive experience that helped me be more compassionate. But my reference point these days is:
-the universe is too big & old for us to be alone
-God isn't human
-human understanding is not the measure of what is or is not scientifically possible
-the scientific method is limited in it's appropriate use, in social cases judicial protocols are more appropriate for scrutinizing a reliable testimony
-human technology has grown exponentially since the industrial revolution (first flight 1903-moon landing 1969), we should have passed the technological singularity by now, but the outward appearance is that progress had suddenly stopped (it is more likely that progress has not stopped but has gone unseen)
-the wealthiest families run everything have no vision and don't give a damn about people (so suppression and secrecy are easy pills for me to swallow)
-the bits and pieces I've been exposed to are coming together to form a linear narrative

having said that I'm not afraid of being wrong, I was wrong as a fundamentalist Christian, I was wrong as a hard right conservative and then I was wrong as hard left liberal. I've learned amazing things from being wrong and I'm not embarrassed in the slightest bit

The list above is exactly my way of thinking. There are so many influences with agendas contrary to truth, that as feeble humans we are often confused and misguided. The answer is to always seek and analyze and as you've done, be prepared to admit when you're wrong. Many steps on broken glass will teach a person to tread on a better path. It comes in increments. Build on each piece and the story begins to unfold. Solace must be found in the idea that we'll never know it all or have all the answers. Maybe that comes in a different iteration of ourselves or maybe our true Self is connected to the cosmic library. ;)

Once you refrain from anthropomorphizing God and realize God is everything and temper that with a little science and physics there comes a good basis of growth and wisdom.

[drneglector]

The answers to these questions seems to differ, some times widely, depending on the source.

One have to wonder about these ancient oral tales of human origin coming from people like Credo Mutwa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vusamazulu_Credo_Mutwa) and Robert Morning Sky (https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_morningsky.htm). The reptilians seem to have played a major role in the structure of our world. From star wars of ancient past to the more recent “upgrade” of the human genome, which some refer to as “the fall of Man”, the reptilians have always been there mingling in human affairs, according to a variety of sources.

Theres possibly some allegorical and/or symbolical references in these stories concerning our human origin, which makes this a interesting subject, or at least a good story. (David Icke & Credo Mutwa - The Reptilian Agenda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apWOUNOx64))

Supposedly the Dracos are those reptilians who come from the constellation Draco. More precisely the star Alpha Draconis (Thuban), which was the pole star when the pyramids were built. There are some other reptilians as well, these come from the Orion Empire and the Sirius Federation. This seems to be the common baseline between different sources... I think.

It is sooo many wild claims out there. Here are but a few (I'm rephrasing here):


The Orion Empire and those from the Sirius Confederation, who were creating royal lines, created the Draconis line which formed a separate hybrid group on earth called the Anunnaki, which are a mixture of human and reptilian. The Anunnaki where fashioned to connect with the Draconis and was to rule the city states, when humanity began to expand and grow. They were human enough to converse and pas laws and alien enough to not forget who they answered to so they passed for humans but weren't. The Original Anunnaki had very little reptilian inn them. - Simon Parkes


This world was part of the Orion Empire for a very long time. At some point it became part of an experiment, by Enki/Lucifer's mother the Queen (the Queen of Orion which is a Draco) and his half-brother (Enlil/Michael). They were bringing DNA and life forms from all over the Orion Empire and putting them on this planet to see how that played out, which is why there is a huge diversity of life here. The idea was, if things could manage to cohabitate, symbiotically, then they could use that as a blueprint throughout the rest of the Orion Empire. We loosely call this period Lemuria or Mu. The experiment was originally benevolent and then it was hijacked, Lucifer took over by force, and it became a very malevolent situation, which we are still suffering from today. - Wes Penre (http://wespenre.com/), Robert Stanley (http://www.unicusmagazine.com/TECHNOCIDE.htm)


The root of the word sophistry is Sophia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)) and in the Gnostic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism) texts Sophia is blamed for birthing the Archons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon_(Gnosticism)). The reason she is somewhat responsible is because she is the one who birthed Lucifer. Back then he was a normal divine being. But Lucifer and his crew, who was builders of worlds at the time, ventured into the “forbidden zone” where they were so traumatized that they went insane and accidentally or inadvertently created these mental parasites (Archons). They went from being coherent singular souls to a fragmented multiple personality disorder, dissociative entities that are self-infected by these mental parasites. Evil is an infection, an anomaly. So Lucifer is the father of the Archons/Djins/demons. He and his crew went from being builders of worlds to destroyers. At that point, his family wouldn't let him become king of anything, so he sat out to create his own empire, which he did, and that was the beginning of the war in the heavens, (that continues today).

- According to benevolent human extra-terrestrials, back in the 50s, that visited a guy named Norman Paulsen (http://oaks.nvg.org/sunburst.html) who claims they told him about this.

I like to think that reality is what God creates, unreality is what man creates (in his mind). The goal is to separate reality from unreality. E.g.: Information in a newspaper or a YouTube video needs to be interpreted, you can take it at face value, or not. However, if I see a sunrise, there is no interpretation needed, its just a feature of reality. What God creates, is what is. To anything that comes from man, to anything thats artificial (art comes from being made by the arm of man), you have to add discernment. Nature is not art, but man is artful/artistic.

[Dylansdad]

My problem is with people who think something is true because of their "gut" reaction. But just because something resonates with your particular individual psychological make-up does not make it Truth. Look at all the people who had a gut feeling that Trump was going to make America great again and provide medical coverage for all citizens (which he promised). Instead, the GOP health care bill will take away insurance from 24 million people and raise the rates as much as 5 times. This is NOT a man of the people. But he resonated with a lot of peoples' psychological (I almost wrote "psychopathical") construct or profile. This was not a political rant, but a well known example happening in the USA today - a huge disconnect between reality and expectation.

So how do you determine actual TRUTH? If you cannot trust your own subjective "gut" reactions, what is left? Blind Faith?

This is why after decades of exposure to the various characters of ufology, I am a total Ufology agnostic. I will give everyone a listen, but I do not align myself with much of anyone EXCEPT for journalists like DARK JOURNALIST, Bill Ryan and others who prove to me that they have a skeptical but honest point-of-view. Of course, THIS just happens to resonate with ME. LOL So I am obviously just like everyone else.

I guess this is why objective proof does matter. If you are going to believe something with no proof whatsoever, just because it "feels right" or "resonates with my soul" and other such subjective reasons, then nothing has changed in thousands of years. In a sense, ufology is a microcosm of the macrocosm of our world. In our world, we constantly see competing unsubstantiated belief systems, such as formal religions, political parties, etc. Within ufology we see the same thing in terms of the different factions involved. One night when I could not sleep, I put together the following summary of some of the major theories within ufology AND some of the celebrities that align with each theory. I offer it to you NOT so you can pick one to devote your heart and soul, but so that perhaps you will hold them all in relative equity. This is how I define a ufo agnostic. We know something is going on, but we are not about to just jump on a particular bandwagon.

https://www.docdroid.net/CfSpusz/my-classification-of-ufology.pdf.html

And I would like to comment on your post where you seemed to imply that if you could not find reasonable or logical motives for a "whistleblower" to lie, then it seems more likely their story is true. Perhaps I am just a jaded old crank, but I just turned 65 and one lesson of all those years is that people do crazy things for reasons I could never understand. Obviously, you know this too but it bears repeating. I cannot empathize or understand a person who digs up corpses and makes lamp shades from their skin and uses human bones to make chairs or used human skulls to make soup bowls. I grew up in the area where the notorious Ed Gein lived.

So my point is that just because we cannot understand someone's motives does not mean much of anything in a practical sense. The range of human reactions and actions is probably beyond all of us, since humans can be complex beings. So never make the mistake of giving someone credit for their unsubstantiated story simply because you can't figure out their real motive for lying from your limited perspective.

[bbow73]

its interesting that you mention 'gut'. I just learned that we have a second brain in our gut. It's a distributed network of neurons that adds up to about the size of a dog's brain.

Anyway, don't' know if you read my posts, but there are pretty useful tools for separating what is trustworthy and untrustworthy.

Physical evidence: surgically removed implants containing non-terrestrial elements and/or non-terrestrial processed materials, analyzed video and photo evidence from reputable sources

Sirius Disclosure interviews: testimonies from military intelligence, aerospace military contractors, astro-physicists & military personnel from nuclear missile sites.

Civilian testimonies that have internal and external corroboration with deviation of perspective bias as well as self-reporting error (the absence of these would be suspicious as a artificially prepared story) and the psychological markers of having experienced a traumatic event.

That said, the object of skepticism is relative. I'm skeptical that we are alone in the universe. I'm skeptical that we haven't been visited. I'm skeptical that world authorities wouldn't hide really important things from the unwashed masses.

[Tintin]

Definitely heed Bill's advice with his suggested reading material.

Timothy Good is a most excellent researcher indeed, probably one of the very best in this field.

[Red Skywalker]

Bill gave good advise on the books to read, however some disclosures are hidden in Hollywood and other movie and TV productions.

Many internet stories are plane fake and big parts are often copied from movies and TV series. So, to distinguish, watch such movies and series! You know they are fantasies, but they can contain real hidden elements. One good example is the Stargate series. There is a short thread here on Avalon:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97213-Soft-disclosure-in-Stargate-SG-1 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97213-Soft-disclosure-in-Stargate-SG-1)

I just finished watching the whole series, including the Stargate Atlantis series.
Lots of things to recognize if you like science fiction.

I think the real Earth/alien/history and science IS even better than science fiction. But, we cannot prove anything, yet!

O, read also the big science fiction writers Arthur C. Clarke and Asimov.
Who knows how close they came to the truth, or did they know more of the truth and told us it in story form?

You entered something very big and you'll find lots of help on this forum.

[Spellbound]

If I'm not mistaken, Timothy Good does not give much credence to Reptilians (which I found a bit strange).

Dave - Toronto

[triquetra]

bbow73 I don't visit the forum too often due to research keeping things very busy but aim to share the results of that work in the future so I do like to check in. This may have to do with why when I do post I generally am disentangling many connected aspects at once and it's hard to cut any of them out. It's nice to be given some clearance.

You are getting very close to a valuable point about how motivation plays a large factor in determining credibility, but another reply also mentioned how it's amazing what lengths some people go to carry on with something once they've started and begin to feel obligated to carry on, perhaps when they are running out of material.

Another factor is how true experiences can be distorted by trauma and other aftermath, it is rare to find the individual who can have experiences in this category and remember a photographic account of their experiences. There is so much uncertainty and doubt of what of one's experiences really happened and whether the details are accurate, especially those experienced in states that were anything but lucid, i.e. partially conscious, coming in and out of a conscious state, etc.

If the forum were ever to have a thread that tried to pool together all the major bits of information about everything to try and determine what the alternative research community came together to form the greatest consensus on believing has actually happened, I think the results would be quite interesting. Not just for what those bits were, but for why the community believed in them, more than some of the perhaps more outlandish or fringe bits that tend to also get mixed in.

It is of course quite impossible to believe every bit that gets told, all together they would form a very contradicting story about everything.

A gut feeling can span that entire range I was discussing in the long post, in the end there is a kind of real science to it but most people don't take it to that level. But again, the best executed tricks are the ones to watch for (unless of course pretending to fall for a trick is itself a way of accomplishing something else in the future). It always feels a bit sad when you see someone saying they are believing something by gut feeling or "resonating" with it and you have some pretty major evidence for it not being true at all. It's not always appropriate to take up the topic when they are so sure anyway, and hey, perhaps your own evidence is wrong, it's hard to be 100% sure about anything.

[bbow73]

a lot to think about. I makes sense that the unconscious mind or gut brain could be as mistaken or misguided as the conscious mind or cerebral brain. One of the things that I really appreciated about Sirius Disclosure's Witness Testimony archives is the vast amount of expertise on specific and relevant fields of study.

It's nice to have a gut but in some instances I don't need it to weigh in. I have decades of study in religion and psychology and I have a hard time accepting Archons as a cause for evil or the Luciferian theory on the formation and purpose of religion institutions. Maybe experts on the subject are better writers than speakers, so far all I've heard are big claims without providing a basis, a lot of assumptions based on an incorrect understanding or false significance (thinking specifically of non-canonical Judeo-Christian texts) and a lot of speculation vocalized as fact.

[Foxie Loxie]

Hi bbow73! May I suggest you check out the videos of Robert Stanley; he has had personal experience with the "archons"....beings from the Dark Side. Be sure to catch his experiences in Calif. that started him on his Journey! It is all most interesting! One can learn so much from what others have lived through! :Angel:

[conk]

its interesting that you mention 'gut'. I just learned that we have a second brain in our gut. It's a distributed network of neurons that adds up to about the size of a dog's brain.
It seems it may be called the odendum, but I'm not sure. We also have another brain, a third one. It's the heart, often called the brains of the soul. Interestingly, brain neurons form on the heart before the brain tissue even begins to develop in the fetus.

But to your point, the odendum is a very critical component of our anatomy. The connection between the three 'brains' is what forms our mind. The mind is always listening, providing feedback and receiving data which determines who we will be tomorrow. Intention, consciously and subconsciously, is our living prayer that creates the physical manifestations in our environment.

[bbow73]

Hi bbow73! May I suggest you check out the videos of Robert Stanley; he has had personal experience with the "archons"....beings from the Dark Side. Be sure to catch his experiences in Calif. that started him on his Journey! It is all most interesting! One can learn so much from what others have lived through! :Angel:

I really really don't mean this response to come off as antagonistic, please try to read it with a moderate tone :/

I'm very sorry but Robert Stanley was the person I was talking about, he was the featured speaker I heard on End of Days Radio & a couple of long youtube videos I listened to
I was surprised that he didn't question the trustworthiness of a strange creature he'd just met. But I let it go, figure everyone's different. But.
He said the the TV show Lucifer was written by the Luciferian illuminati to condition the masses to think that Lucifer is 'an okay guy'. This is not true. The Lucifer TV show was written by British indy comic writer Neil Gaiman in the 90s and then adapted for television to capitalize off the superhero craze. Gaiman is an anti-establishment activist and a conscientious humanitarian. This told me that Stanely is carefree with his speculation and I wondered if he was making similarly carefree remarks about other things & I really wanted to hear his data.

Stanley said he did research but didn't talk about any research. I would love to hear him talk about his research. He used anecdotes and assumptions to make points with out providing a sound basis for his points. This is why I asked if some people are better writers than speakers. Just from the podcast I'd say he does not have a scholarly understanding of Judeo-Christian hermeneutics, ecclesiology, eschatology, epistemology or ontology. His assessment of the Book of Enoch and the Gnostics is way way off.

I don't understand his alarm about Archons, it doesn't matter if they are not seen in a visible light spectrum, we don't detect parasites (internal) by visual identification. I don't see how evil is an infection. It's a nice analogy but there is a very simple explanation of evil based on existential deficiency. Without love people turn to power, praise, pleasure and safety; and like a drug with diminishing returns they need more and more until they are willing to lie, cling, play the victim and use verbal or physical force. Then victims retaliate by using similar methods to negatively reinforce their own protection (sometimes against someone other than the one that hurt them). Love is what breaks the cycle. Maybe there are invisible critters and a boogeyman that make things worse, be we are responsible for our reactions whether internally or externally provoked.

I'm mostly concerned about Stanley's statements about mental health. I know there is appeal in viewing mental disorders as alien/spiritual attacks but this issue is not to be determined interesting anecdotes and theories. I respect eastern medicine, I don't trust big pharma or big insurance but most health care professionals are well intended people that just want to help. I have a history of mental disorders in my family and the quality of life and functionality for each generation has improved with early identification and treatment. As someone with challenges I am the first to say that it is the unwell person's responsibility to get help before it is too late.

If there are any other sources other than Stanley discussing Archons and the Luciferian empire I'd love to learn about it.
If I have some misunderstandings about Stanley I am happy to be corrected and happy to expand my worldview.