Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

[nameless]

Is it me or are all the threads imploding and starting to resemble each other?

 

[nameless]

Can I just say that Karla Turner is even starting to make more sense to me after moving through material that followed. That's some inventive thinking. I hope that creator of said thread is enjoying what getting Banned from the UFO Collective has spawned in this many twisting and turning snake trail of a thread.

I find Karla Turner's work to be the most strange material that i would put at the top of my list as being possibly just the most bizarre and uncertain of Ufological literature. Still, i find that a lot easier to grasp than the dissolution of our bodies and their reconstructions during AAP procedures. I do find that Karla takes other people's dreams and stories as truth and builds a suspicious reality on top of that. From that point onwards it's a devolving spiral as far as her interpretations of reality. Her suspicions and arguments of MILAB events i find to be rather doubtful and involving far too much risk to said military personnel from being discovered. I think the scene where she describes the mythic helicopter that had the the soldier descending through the roof - he materialized through it - while carrying a child version of the man in bed receiving his younger cloned alien self - well, i don't know, maybe it was the Karla video that created this whole discussion in the first place. maybe Karla was a witch and made that mad have those dreams in her house - maybe it's what he saw.

Jeff Davis said, "I think of existence, and then I think of reality. Reality tends to be defined as the quality or state of being real. Who determines that quality or state precisely? Who, and what more precisely, is reality relevant to? Reality is subjective due to the fact that it's comprised of perceptions. Existence is not because it depends on record. Those records can be flawed due to perception, but we do not have to depend on recognition to understand and record the past."

I'm not sure how to read that in light of Karla Turner as some would say that she is in fact writing a record based on the perceptions of some who are not quite certain what in fact is real but are narrating their experiences nonetheless and creating a new record of reality as a result. Many others tend to recognize this reality upon reading Karla's work and then we're in a real quagmire at that point. How can we know what it is we are recording if we can't recognize it? Isn't that a core part of the ufological and paranormal conundrum - that we don't have the words or concepts to be able to describe the things we see, or the things we experience. But then we go on to create belief systems out of them anyway?

I though I would get it back on track .
I suggest before we bandy about stuff about implants, abductees and whatnot we should probably watch this video. If you haven't, I suggest its a must see if you want to get up to speed .
What happened to Karla?

 

[Burnt State]

July Mountain

We live in a constellation
Of patches and of pitches,
Not in a single world,
In things said well in music,
On the piano, and in speech,
As in a page of poetry --
Thinkers without final thoughts
In an always incipient cosmos,
The way, when we climb a mountain,
Vermont throws itself together.

~~Wallace Stevens
(as it happens, the last poem he published)

Do you mean that it's all just something happening in our heads, like the notion that Karla Turner didn't die of a natural cancer, but that someone nefariously wearing drey dungarees gave it to her because we have journeyed to the mountain of Greer, or of Hopkins, or of Jacobs and in that journey we had an experience, perhaps on the hypnotist's couch, or in our mind early one sunday afternoon waking from a nap in the sunroom, still part delirious, just oozing with sunbeams and a memory that is trying to break through, trying to break out into the real world, a leap from the nooks and crannies of our imagination so that what we say becomes a well said thing, and how when we've returned back to the beginning it's as if we've come to know the place for the first time . everything has suddenly changed . is that the constellation of ditches and patches for us, waiting for godot, just marking time with our stories. listen, have i got a doozy to tell you...

 

[Constance]

Do you mean that it's all just something happening in our heads . . .

No, Burnt, that's not what I mean, and it's not what WS meant either.

(But come to think of it, that has sometimes seemed to be what you've meant in some of your posts. . . ???)

 

[Jeff Davis]

OK I'm lost.
What exactly is the position that you're asserting?

I don't think you are half as lost as you want me to think you are. Everything Zeilinger states post the 8:00 mark cannot be any clearer. Especially the part where Zeilinger, at the 8:55 makes the assertion clear as a bell (no pun intended) in the statement, "so we can ask the question, "what is reality?"

I'd state that I am on that page precisely.

 

[Jeff Davis]

??? and again ?

??

 

[Burnt State]

No, Burnt, that's not what I mean, and it's not what WS meant either.

(But come to think of it, that has sometimes seemed to be what you've meant in some of your posts. . . ???)

well i would be interested in hearing your interpretation of WS' piece as i see him throwing vermont together based on the experience had as an individual, this creating an empty or abstract space in one's head out of one's experience.

but is it what i mean - not at all? i think that people see things, then tell stories and then these stories are retold recreated, anthologized and before you know myth or the canon, depending on your p.o.v., is what is ultimately constructed. so for me experience is a deeply personal event, codified out of taste, touch and the smell of things - the colour of the world. how we experience our sensory bliss no other person does, but we can pen it, and keep trying to get closer to the core of things, to that empty space we coloured with our words. it doesn't mean that what we've written down is the end of the story, the story continues as we probe it. we may even take time to qualify it for the moment in a poem or a snapshot, and then come back to write again about such things years later, or in a fury like Sylvia before death.

when the experiencer has a profound experience that is outside their familiar sensory touchstones, or even outside the words they have access to, then reality and what it once was, is recreated, redefined by the experience. that might mean what i talk about when i reference ideas around trauma and paranormal/UFO events, as in after having survived trauma, the world is suddenly new, remade, re-conceptualized by the experiencer. for those who sincerely believe that they have been in contact with another alien being in a cerebral experience, as facilitated by the advanced technology of aliens or the military, well then they've got quite the new framework for a story don't they?

but on a larger scale, when the focus pulls back even further, i just happen to think that's what we do at our core to superimpose ourselves onto the existentialist landscape: we tell stories, write poems and try to name the thing, to try to recreate something unseen, or only seen inside the head, like in that moment at the end of Raymond Carver's Cathedral where the seeing guy is closing eyes alongside the blind guy and they are both high, these middle aged men, drawing a cathedral together - it's an empty space that they get inside together and overcome a racial and ability barrier to find something that can contain two people from different worlds, a sharing through art inside their minds.

 

[Burnt State]

Is it me or are all the threads imploding and starting to resemble each other?

Yes, it's an issue. We need a recipe thread.

 

[nameless]

Or maybe it's a singularity . The paracast forums became a distinct closed system. the apocalypse is upon us.

 

[nameless]

well i would be interested in hearing your interpretation of WS' piece as i see him throwing vermont together based on the experience had as an individual, this creating an empty or abstract space in one's head out of one's experience.

but is it what i mean - not at all? i think that people see things, then tell stories and then these stories are retold recreated, anthologized and before you know myth or the canon, depending on your p.o.v., is what is ultimately constructed. so for me experience is a deeply personal event, codified out of taste, touch and the smell of things - the colour of the world. how we experience our sensory bliss no other person does, but we can pen it, and keep trying to get closer to the core of things, to that empty space we coloured with our words. it doesn't mean that what we've written down is the end of the story, the story continues as we probe it. we may even take time to qualify it for the moment in a poem or a snapshot, and then come back to write again about such things years later, or in a fury like Sylvia before death.

when the experiencer has a profound experience that is outside their familiar sensory touchstones, or even outside the words they have access to, then reality and what it once was, is recreated, redefined by the experience. that might mean what i talk about when i reference ideas around trauma and paranormal/UFO events, as in after having survived trauma, the world is suddenly new, remade, re-conceptualized by the experiencer. for those who sincerely believe that they have been in contact with another alien being in a cerebral experience, as facilitated by the advanced technology of aliens or the military, well then they've got quite the new framework for a story don't they?

but on a larger scale, when the focus pulls back even further, i just happen to think that's what we do at our core to superimpose ourselves onto the existentialist landscape: we tell stories, write poems and try to name the thing, to try to recreate something unseen, or only seen inside the head, like in that moment at the end of Raymond Carver's Cathedral where the seeing guy is closing eyes alongside the blind guy and they are both high, these middle aged men, drawing a cathedral together - it's an empty space that they get inside together and overcome a racial and ability barrier to find something that can contain two people from different worlds, a sharing through art inside their minds.

This is all artsy fartsy fairy nonsense. Paranormal experiences =data, trace findings, engine size, ray gun length, names, map co-ordinates, 4x video feeds in real time. I don't get this from "anecdotal evidence " or "witness testimony " which are the "imaginings" of the made up mind universe and are not matter. Emotions are not matter . Words and feelings and mind rape are not matter. It's pretty much why I discredit what old people say about world war 2 experiences , I mean half of them are walking dead anyway, how can I trust what they have to say as important or meaningful particularly if it can't be corroborated by Ernest Borgnine.

 

[Constance]

well i would be interested in hearing your interpretation of WS' piece as i see him throwing vermont together based on the experience had as an individual, this creating an empty or abstract space in one's head out of one's experience.

I think the last few lines support the rest of the poem as a gesture toward the sensible, tangible world we inhabit in our perspectives on it, including what we can think and learn about it and ourselves based on these ever-accumulating perspectives -- our own and those of the others we share the world with. There's also an obvious irony in Stevens's referring to what can be seen from a particular mountain as 'Vermont'.

but is it what i mean - not at all? i think that people see things, then tell stories and then these stories are retold recreated, anthologized and before you know myth or the canon, depending on your p.o.v., is what is ultimately constructed. so for me experience is a deeply personal event, codified out of taste, touch and the smell of things - the colour of the world. how we experience our sensory bliss no other person does, but we can pen it, and keep trying to get closer to the core of things, to that empty space we coloured with our words. it doesn't mean that what we've written down is the end of the story, the story continues as we probe it. we may even take time to qualify it for the moment in a poem or a snapshot, and then come back to write again about such things years later, or in a fury like Sylvia before death.

when the experiencer has a profound experience that is outside their familiar sensory touchstones, or even outside the words they have access to, then reality and what it once was, is recreated, redefined by the experience. that might mean what i talk about when i reference ideas around trauma and paranormal/UFO events, as in after having survived trauma, the world is suddenly new, remade, re-conceptualized by the experiencer. for those who sincerely believe that they have been in contact with another alien being in a cerebral experience, as facilitated by the advanced technology of aliens or the military, well then they've got quite the new framework for a story don't they?

but on a larger scale, when the focus pulls back even further, i just happen to think that's what we do at our core to superimpose ourselves onto the existentialist landscape: we tell stories, write poems and try to name the thing, to try to recreate something unseen, or only seen inside the head, like in that moment at the end of Raymond Carver's Cathedral where the seeing guy is closing eyes alongside the blind guy and they are both high, these middle aged men, drawing a cathedral together - it's an empty space that they get inside together and overcome a racial and ability barrier to find something that can contain two people from different worlds, a sharing through art inside their minds.

I like and agree with most of you've written there. I disagree that we need to "superimpose ourselves onto the existentialist landscape." The existential landscape we live in {consciously} is an existential landscape because of our own existentiality -- our temporality and the partiality of our perspectives on what-is. These we need to multiply, personally and as a human collective, in order to gain the most information available to answer our core questions.

I also see matters differently from what you describe here:

for me experience is a deeply personal event, codified out of taste, touch and the smell of things - the colour of the world. how we experience our sensory bliss no other person does, but we can pen it, and keep trying to get closer to the core of things, to that empty space we coloured with our words.

As I see it, we take our colors from the local world, like most everything else we experience and attempt to describe and share with others. We can share this world, and our unique perspectives on it, with others, and learn thereby and have our own lives enhanced in the sharing. I also think that "the core of things" is not "an empty space" that we have "coloured with our words" but the deeper structure of reality that we attempt to reach through science and philosophy and through the exploration of the full range of our experiences, including those we refer to as 'para'-normal.

 

[Burnt State]

This is all artsy fartsy fairy nonsense. Paranormal experiences =data, trace findings, engine size, ray gun length, names, map co-ordinates, 4x video feeds in real time. I don't get this from "anecdotal evidence " or "witness testimony " which are the "imaginings" of the made up mind universe and are not matter. Emotions are not matter . Words and feelings and mind rape are not matter. It's pretty much why I discredit what old people say about world war 2 experiences , I mean half of them are walking dead anyway, how can I trust what they have to say as important or meaningful particularly if it can't be corroborated by Ernest Borgnine.

artsy-fartsy? ok maybe you should read this link below instead. It could be more in keeping with your philosophy and might convince you more about how people present as witnesses. There is something to be said for credibility and interpretations of sincerity vs. spurious reports of just how long his ray gun really was: [URL="https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/cash-landrum-case.13477/page-3#post-189078"]Cash Landrum case[/URL]

 

[Randall]

$5,000 couldn't be enough in almost a 20 year period, to not have at least one witness come forward and say "Yep, we made it all up. We were kids" Just saying, seems odd to me.

It's not just the 5K from the tabloid. Like I said, it's been an ongoing story that has been built into a franchise that has included movie and book deals including reprints, re-releases, speaking engagements and so on that go on to this day. In fact Walton just did a gig on March 22, 2014 between 7:00pm to 10:30pm at the Veterans Memorial Complex in Culver City. Why would anyone want to mess that up with a confession? And given all that history, who knows what the social and legal ramifications could be? I think that those circumstances are plenty enough to keep playing the part. But to be clear, I'm not making any specific claim; just posting food for thought on the topic.

 

[trainedobserver]

i thought logic was had been suspended in your post, and it was a 'what if', anyway a transferred conciouseness leaves a shell.

I don't think I've "suspended logic" anywhere. It gets back to the "what is consciousness" debate and whether it is something that can be supported outside the physical configuration of the brain. I've tried to present a logical argument why that cannot be and a philosophical argument on why it should never be.

 

[marduk]

It's not just the 5K from the tabloid. Like I said, it's been an ongoing story that has been built into a franchise that has included movie and book deals including reprints, re-releases, speaking engagements and so on that go on to this day. In fact Walton just did a gig on March 22, 2014 between 7:00pm to 10:30pm at the Veterans Memorial Complex in Culver City. Why would anyone want to mess that up with a confession? And given all that history, who knows what the social and legal ramifications could be? I think that those circumstances are plenty enough to keep playing the part. But to be clear, I'm not making any specific claim; just posting food for thought on the topic.

I think what ufology is demonstrating is that there is sufficient incentive to keep a hoax going and insufficient incentive to stop it.

If it was a hoax the rational thing to do (from a self-interest perspective) would be to keep it going.

 

[Randall]

I think what ufology is demonstrating is that there is sufficient incentive to keep a hoax going and insufficient incentive to stop it. If it was a hoax the rational thing to do (from a self-interest perspective) would be to keep it going.

Well said.

 

[nameless]

artsy-fartsy? ok maybe you should read this link below instead. It could be more in keeping with your philosophy and might convince you more about how people present as witnesses. There is something to be said for credibility and interpretations of sincerity vs. spurious reports of just how long his ray gun really was: Cash Landrum case

sorry just trollthing.

So what do we all feel about people's eyewitness accounts with little to no evidence?

 

[nameless]

Is Travis Walton sincere, can he be believed? Does taking money or making money from this experience cast doubt on his testimony or is just tacky? Or is he just trying to make lemonade with Grey lemons?
People have always gone into the woods and been abducted had some experience with little people, missed some time and returned, its not a new thing, I guess it is if we denigrate folklore and superstitious tales as being irrelevant.

 

[marduk]

Is Travis Walton sincere, can he be believed? Does taking money or making money from this experience cast doubt on his testimony or is just tacky? Or is he just trying to make lemonade with Grey lemons?
People have always gone into the woods and been abducted had some experience with little people, missed some time and returned, its not a new thing, I guess it is if we denigrate folklore and superstitious tales as being irrelevant.

I think, like every CE3 type event I've come across, the water has been muddied.

I'm not saying he's making it up, but I am now saying I'm not sure he's telling the truth.

Maybe. He seems credible and humble when you hear him. Nobody's come forward to say they made it up.

But at the same time, he hasn't exactly been squeaky clean in his life, either.

 

[nameless]

its a tricky one.