Final Conclusions Regarding UFOs

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Why do you think @stro's post had military approval?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I saw that wiki page on manes.

It is interesting and complex subject. I can give a few insights and I'll try to stay on the more positive aspects.

There is a ka who still guards the Giza Plateau. I suspect he doesn't protect knowledge as much as he stops sightseers from stumbling on some critters in the catacombs below. Black flying blankets with four razor sharp claws on each corner. They wrap around you and if you struggle the claws dig deeper. If one can't walk past the treasure (knowledge and other 'gold') one is in trouble (stupid archaeologists).

And "yeah" the lefties have worked out some awful techniques.

At least some orbs people sometimes see floating about are shells of the dead, they have some memories of being alive. I don't feel they are more than that though. Manes? Shades?

I wonder about your reference to budding off at death. That period between death and waking up is difficult to explore.

Cases of murdered girls and kids who died of neglect and disease are often still within their shells and are not far away from the physical. Especially the murdered ones.

Up until you referred to "budding" and "death" and "birth", I have been thinking and working along conventional lines like the Theosophical "shedding of shells over a period of time".

The idea of a "budding off" cleanly at death is intriguing. The contents of the budded shell may be an essence perhaps. That would be similar to what the Fae fill their empty blank shells with when they procreate. (Oh dear there is that interest in Fae sex again)

That would theoretically leave the shells free to remain as manes for a time. They would need to be fed to make them last longer. That could account for the fairly harmless practice of leaving offerings at the ancestor shrines. And also account for the sinister practice of blood sacrifices.

But that is speculative - an educated guess. The whole birth/death/birth thing needs revision methinks. Especially if the Egyptians started tinkering with the natural process of death and birth by inhibiting the budding off of a new shell containing the essence off a lifetime.

I did something odd today; I ordered those two books on Amazon. Perhaps some clues to go with your breadcrumbs.

The Fae obviously want something to be known but are not going to tell me directly. I would stay away from old Egypt if I have the choice too.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Now, now, I enjoy that question, since it goes inline with what I've read recently. So it gives me the opportunity to test those thoughts.

To speak about in between we inevitably have to speak about boundaries. At first glance, there is an apparent clear-cut difference between water in its liquid form and its solid form. But the more we'll approach the boundaries between the two closely, the more blurry it'll become.

I'll represent it in mathematical terms, because I find it easier to illustrate. If we take liquid water as 0 and solid water as 1. Again, at first glance, there's a definite separation between 0 and 1. However, there's in fact infinity in between them. Sure, you can put a separation between the two by, let's say, defining the half, in this case 0.5; yet you end up with two infinity instead of one.

Ergo, we didn't "get rid" of infinity by specifying the half, we merely "moved it away". And by applying that extensively, you end up with the conclusion that you can have an infinity of infinities in between. Which means that in each of these in between, you have the potential of a whole universe.

a reply to: MagnificatMafia

I have a bit of a difference of opinion (just a small one) with a colleague of mine who is
a subject matter expert on this matter.

It remains to be seen if he was just a young impressionable sort (I characterized him as "living in his mother's basement") and that he just 'self-Bennewtized himself' due to his physical proximity to a military base,

or whether he was influenced by an outside agent, to be 'UFO radicalized'.

It's only 50% in my mind that there was any form of external agent who used him.

Of that 50%, my own initial research at the time, by using the 'dark web', brought up a correlation with a Russian UFO cult leader.

But that could certainly be a false lead.

So a 'military sponsor' to his 'Bennewtizization' was also possible.

So that would be about a 25% chance.

It's probably more likely he "self-Bennewitzed" it's hazard that anyone in UFOlogy can easily run afoul of.

Kev

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Damn.

You are 80% right on the money and 20% coo coo for cocoa puffs, but in THIS business? That's a great ratio. I am probably at the same ratio.

I wonder about your reference to budding off at death. That period between death and waking up is difficult to explore.

Well you see, I did it on purpose. There's an old Kundalini Yoga technique, where you can purposely eject your 'shell', which is what I did.

So I had a front row seat to death.

But that is part of my 20% coo coo for cocoa puffs (CCFCP).

I generally don't talk out my ass. I may be incorrect. But it's not for lack of hands on experience and rigorous examination and willingness to discard observations/theories if I'm wrong.

Kev

a reply to: IgnorantGod

Zeno's paradox in conjunction with Everett formulation and Bohmian holographic formulation!

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

The Fae obviously want something to be known but are not going to tell me directly. I would stay away from old Egypt if I have the choice too.

I stay away from Egypt too. Egypt gave me horrible nightmares as a child. I should look into that sometime.

But as to the 'Fae'.

Those two books you ordered (there's a third one too if you want it) will give you far less info than most people, who don't "live with the Fae", but I feel it's still well worth the read for you too.

Now.. Just FYI, I'm not really 'bread-crumbing" much any more. I'm much more prone to just say what's on my mind than I've ever been. Why that is, is an interesting development.

As for the Fae, I've always observed that they don't want to 'fess up', as it would be suicide for some of them to do so.

Many of them can only survive by being tethered to a human.

Since modern humans aren't willing to KNOWINGLY tether to the Fae any more, they have to be tricked into it, with 'UFOs' and some Religion (some forms of Christianity even).

If the whole thing came to light, vast legion of Fae would die.

Hardly anyone will believe what I'm writing, so there's really very little danger to 'the Fae' from this post.

Not to mention, if we do get computer-chipped and force cyborged, vast numbers of 'the Fae' will die in that case as well. It's not looking good for the 'Fae'.

I know that this all sounds CCFCP, but it's your area of expertise, I would be amiss not to communicate it to you.

Kev

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Ok, let's have you do a little experiment, if you like.

Why don't you ask your Fae companion, this question,

"Did the Fae evolve as a species from the shells of the human dead"?

Send it with one of those query-emotion feeling pictures; or the little dear
would get confused. Also, if you keep the question non-verbal you'll get
a response that can't be fully covered up.

Get back to me with the results.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I like the description of the occult as yet-to-be discovered laws of physics. I hate the term "inter-dimensional" because of the sloppy language, but that seems to be the closest to what your interpretation of UFOs is (I may be wrong, its just the way I'm currenty interpreting your posts).

Considering your BTUFO experience, do you think that the UFO/faerie/dwarf manifested in the three (four?)-dimensional spacetime that makes up our reality?

Ok, let's move the subject along; I have no idea if my volunteered tester will do the test, or what the results would be. I myself ran this test for quite a while.

When I was very young, I was absolutely frothing at the mouth (metaphor) to either fix or at least understand 'the problem of evil'. And that boils down to understanding 'the problem of beingness'.

As I've belabored the point, the one thing in spirituality that is the most toxic of all, is to get fixated on 'beings'. 'god', 'angels', 'demons', 'djinns', 'higher selves', 'souls' and all that - tremendously toxic and destructive.. as we like to insert our own ego into any of those 'thought forms'. It's like reading your favorite fantasy book; you always insert yourself into the 'hero'.

The 'buddha' was EXTRAORDINARILY WISE to say, "nope --- not doing those games". Extraordinarily.

If you 'raise kundalini fully' (that's sorta malarky but that's another post) and you've not tamed your 'being creating machine' (your ego) you will go freaking world-class insane.

So why do I talk about Faeries???? !!!! ????

I must.

It's easting my own dogfood with 'Temporarily-Distributed Buddhism.

It's not that nothing is 'true', it's that we can't know if anything is (ultimately) true. So how do you live in such a messy reality? It seems most people glom onto some consumer-ized packaged religious, spiritual, occult, ufological, political or atheist control system, and give themselves over to it.

Now you can just build your own system and live it, but then you really risk becoming a sociopath, unless you make a system where the 'super ego' rules you (you wish the best for everyone as much as possible), and in that case, you can just homebrew it, and call yourself 'enlightened' afterwards, if you feel like it.

The point is, that if you 'nail your ego in place' and it's powerful but not obnoxious; fixed in size and scope and it's a tool for doing useful work -- if it's not thrashing around hungrily and noisily like so many people keep their egos, then in a way the 'great work is done'. And you can be an atheist or an agnostic either one.. it works equally as well. You can't really be a raving zealot theist... that's the exact opposite of being sane and rooted.

So.. all that verbage was to explain that it's perfectly acceptable to research 'fairies' and the 'shades of the dead' and not be a loon or unbalanced, as there is NO NEED for any of that to be true, to be 'done' as an ego. (of course even 'done' egos change slightly over time.. it's called learning.. nothing is truly permanent except impermanence and all that.).

But anyway.. there's nothing wrong with researching something like 'fairies' and 'shades of the dead' - can you imagine, if more and better research was done? Or it could be disproven - that's great too.

So there was this episode of Star Trek Voyager, where the holographic doctor was compressed and sent through a wormhole back to Star Fleet headquarters.

So, what if this 'other' that we postulate and talk about so much,

is receiving our 'shades of the dead' like a message buoy.

If there are 'energy critters' and there really IS some sort of residue after human death, of an 'energy nature'
(I probably mean some sort of exotic quark condensate Higgs boson-less thing -- whatever -- 'energy nature'
is a metaphor).

Then the PRIMARY means of communications with 'the other' might well be those 'holographic doctors'
we keep sending them continuously when we die.

originally posted by: MagnificatMafia
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I like the description of the occult as yet-to-be discovered laws of physics. I hate the term "inter-dimensional" because of the sloppy language, but that seems to be the closest to what your interpretation of UFOs is (I may be wrong, its just the way I'm currenty interpreting your posts).

Considering your BTUFO experience, do you think that the UFO/faerie/dwarf manifested in the three (four?)-dimensional spacetime that makes up our reality?

Some people think that humans are 'copied over to a parallel world' during such an encounter, or that it's entirely psychological, but psychological leaving trace physical evidence or sometimes being shared with many others
is an 'interesting psychology'.

Of course in 99% of cases, 'UFOs' are simple misidentification, self-delusion, military-intelligence-industrial stuff, etc.

Frankly I'm not certain how many people's cases are explained by my theories.

I don't like 'interdimensional' either; it really just means "dragons be here' or some other axis of information, if you are looking at things from a geometric perspective. Nothing to be hung up about.

So in my case?

It's impossible to say if it was 'all in my head' as there was no trace evidence, but I was paralyzed for 10-15 minutes.. now I COULD have been in some self-hypnotic frenzy and deluded myself that I couldn't move.. but I was QUITE terrified and tried repeatedly to break free, but could not. That REALLY surprised me. Quite the convincing little stage show.

I'm sorry I can't give a better answer ... 'Willtell's glass ceiling you know".

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I appreciate any answer whatsoever. I guess the question I'm getting at is related to the concept of the "soul," and by 'entirely psychological,' I assume we're not talking about a mechanical defect in the brain that leads to a seizure or something, but rather an event that is imperceptible to individuals who aren't directly experiencing it.

In that case, there is still a physical interaction with our reality which perturbs the neural/electrical/chemical signaling occurring in the brain of the individual experiencing the event. So whether or not the dwarf was in the room, physically displacing some volume of air, or it was more exotic and its interaction with you would not have been visible to an outside observer, there was still some interaction between the reality we live in and an entity that rarely resides in it.

originally posted by: IgnorantGod
a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Now, now, I enjoy that question, since it goes inline with what I've read recently. So it gives me the opportunity to test those thoughts.

To speak about in between we inevitably have to speak about boundaries. At first glance, there is an apparent clear-cut difference between water in its liquid form and its solid form. But the more we'll approach the boundaries between the two closely, the more blurry it'll become.

I'll represent it in mathematical terms, because I find it easier to illustrate. If we take liquid water as 0 and solid water as 1. Again, at first glance, there's a definite separation between 0 and 1. However, there's in fact infinity in between them. Sure, you can put a separation between the two by, let's say, defining the half, in this case 0.5; yet you end up with two infinity instead of one.

Ergo, we didn't "get rid" of infinity by specifying the half, we merely "moved it away". And by applying that extensively, you end up with the conclusion that you can have an infinity of infinities in between. Which means that in each of these in between, you have the potential of a whole universe.

That is so. However, there is another way to look at it.

Between the ice cube and the water is a surface. On one side is solid water, on the other side is liquid water; the surface between. The surface only has length and width; a two dimensional object.

'ol Nostradamus scryed with a bowl of watery ink to see what he saw through the surface.

A water fairy scooting across the surface of a pond is not watching the fish below

The looking glass.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

What you say in that post is so from my angle too. Perhaps there is more regarding the Fae.

"Tethering" can be achieved by sharing the surface of a shell. Like the looking glass; one would see the Fae as our reflection in the mirror. The Fae would see us in the same way. The surface; a boundary, a window, a barrier between worlds.

To cross that boundary . . . .

Watching a water fairy scoot across a pond, nose down bum up in the manner of Tinkerbell is one thing. We should also look at the pond and keep in mind that there is a surface she is looking into. What is on the other side of that surface may be home for her.

Is the Tinkerbell we see a reflection of what is on the other side of the surface?

To borrow a shell, living or dead, would make sense.

I asked; the answer was:

"Work it out yourself."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edit: You've opened a can of worms there Kev.

Three Mysteries as I see it that have to be worked out:

* The Mystery of the shells.
* The Mystery of the Fae.
* The Mystery of the human.

To die or vanish is an important distinction.

Not a simple thing to work out.

a reply to: MagnificatMafia

So it seems!

I try very hard not to overstate and let my imagination go completely wild,
filling in blanks that they shouldn't.

More research is needed.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

You will tend to get 'reflexive answers'.

Of course you know this from experience.

If they answer with something amazing, they will disrupt their very beings.. as they
will make it 'true' by observing it. They of necessity have to be 'narcissist's' to maintain
their form.

But of course you'll notice, the answer was not 'no'.

And there was none of the common laughter and playfulness and teasing.

So, an answer of a sort.

In history, the Fae and the Dead are joined at the hip.. you can read about it in detail
in Joshua's books and in more traditional anthropological accounts.

It's no secret or recent observation.

Kev

If 'the others' at least in the 'fae' variety have been PRIMARILY learning
about us from our dead, that means that they have been talking to,
perhaps 'tethering to' 100,825,272,791 (100 billion humans, going back
to the Neolithic or before).

It's no wonder, if that is true, that the information they have on us,
would often be quite 'dated'.

Just like we don't have a unified understanding of 'them', they COULD
NOT have a unified understanding of 'us'; even if they evolved from us,
from our waste product.

(all quite hypothetical; but thought-provoking hopefully... it's thought
-provoking to me anyway, whether it's correct or incorrect)

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The answer would pre-empt a "truth"?

Now that "truth" would be subject to point of view.

A human centric "truth"?

A fae centric "truth"?

From my own perspective; To arrive at my own answer is to learn first-hand for myself as opposed to being "told" a "truth".

I can see the human centric view already, I'll need to see through the eyes of a fae to see the other perspective as well. Then step back to see them both. - The middle ground.

One observation is that humans are not the only shells. If humans were not here, probably little would change for the Fae. The thought arises; "Human shells are convenient."

However:

The Fae are here.

The humans are here.

I wonder about the use of the word "evolved". "Evolve" is a human view. "Become" is the Fae view.

Then there is the question of where do UFOs come from . . . .

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

One observation is that humans are not the only shells. If humans were not here, probably little would change for the Fae. The thought arises; "Human shells are convenient."

As I said, it APPEARS that at least the indigenous 'fae' formed from our 'soul/shell refuse'.

I know that tethering is still very important.

I don't know if all Fae must tether; and tethering to other animals doesn't seem to be nearly as efficient.

(familiars anyone?)

Given the time differential between 'fae time' and 'our time' it's hard to say what they have accomplished.

Just determining (tentatively) that the 'fae' had evolved/sprung from our 'soul refuse' took me something
like 30 years!

I'm semi-retired from anything but light and casual thinking, so maybe it's someone else's turn?
Maybe Joshua Cutchin or someone on ATS other than me ;-)

Now... "UFOs" certainly SEEM to revolve around the Fae, hell my Black Triangle UFO turned into
a wedge of cheese for a moment. That sounds pretty Fae to me.

Have the 'Fae' learned to solidify imagination into solid-ish matter via the Higgs Boson?

Maybe.

I mean we are, in a manner of speaking "light" made solid via the Higgs Boson.. oh yes, I know
about quarks and the standard model of physics and what not, but e=mc2 all day long and
twice on Sunday. I don't care what form elementary particles take.. it's all energy in a
Higgs (and QED) field.

That might be all the answer we need for UFOs... 'Fae' who mastered the Higgs Boson
and reconciled Classical Physics and QM.

It needn't even be with technology.. it might be like breathing for them... I mean.. look..
'the universe' grew us from almost nothing.. it took 13.8 billion years.. but here we are..
no technology (necessarily) required.

Maybe in 100,000 years we will be able to I Dream of Genie blink and do Fae tricks..
who knows?

OR use 'technology' and then it gets microminiaturized.. and then implanted.. and you
STILL become I Dream of Genie.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

As I said, it APPEARS that at least the indigenous 'fae' formed from our 'soul/shell refuse'. I know that tethering is still very important. I don't know if all Fae must tether; and tethering to other animals doesn't seem to be nearly as efficient. (familiars anyone?) Given the time differential between 'fae time' and 'our time' it's hard to say what they have accomplished. Just determining (tentatively) that the 'fae' had evolved/sprung from our 'soul refuse' took me something like 30 years!

Just an idea here.

I think we can both agree (some) Fae become through direct tethering with others as you say above. So too the using of convenient shells. One man's rubbish is another man's treasure.

Now... "UFOs" certainly SEEM to revolve around the Fae, hell my Black Triangle UFO turned into a wedge of cheese for a moment. That sounds pretty Fae to me. Have the 'Fae' learned to solidify imagination into solid-ish matter via the Higgs Boson? Maybe. I mean we are, in a manner of speaking "light" made solid via the Higgs Boson.. oh yes, I know about quarks and the standard model of physics and what not, but e=mc2 all day long and twice on Sunday. I don't care what form elementary particles take.. it's all energy in a Higgs (and QED) field. That might be all the answer we need for UFOs... 'Fae' who mastered the Higgs Boson and reconciled Classical Physics and QM. It needn't even be with technology.. it might be like breathing for them... I mean.. look.. 'the universe' grew us from almost nothing.. it took 13.8 billion years.. but here we are.. no technology (necessarily) required. Maybe in 100,000 years we will be able to I Dream of Genie blink and do Fae tricks.. who knows? OR use 'technology' and then it gets microminiaturized.. and then implanted.. and you STILL become I Dream of Genie.

Maybe at that Kev.

One will have to spend time with the different Fae to know for sure.

There are the one's who have human form, yet their faces cannot be seen. They love animals and plants very much. I have a hunch some of these are the "insectoids" of alien abductions and cryptoids. I find them adorable in many ways. the wood-nymphs of classical lore especially.

Then there are the ones whose countenance can be seen in very clear detail. Perhaps "greys" fall into this category.

So much to explore. But one will have to learn the doing of surfaces and shells properly.

One thing is for sure to me, and that is they are far older than us. We still need machines and tools.