Griffin,
I almost forgot. She has SISTERS TOO. <g> grinder
Chapter 67 (Sidebar): Flying Saucers in the Bible
-
- Mysterious Redhead
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am
saved by the skin of your teeth
Yeah well grinder. You just saved yourself by the skin of your teeth.
Sisters too.
Don't ever forget the ladies.
I have a couple of responses this time around.
I guess that Dr. Brown had told Griffin that he could not record .... but did he say also that you could not scribble notes? I mean, surely he knew that your conversation was bound to be far reaching. But maybe that was the reason he kept on the move when you were talking , did you consider that? Even if you had taken a notepad it would have been difficult to take notes at the time, I can see that. And he may have had other reasons too for keeping it a walking conversation. Its had to zero in on a moving target, I am sure he was aware of that, as far as any evesdroppers might have been concerned.
Mr. Twigsnapper. You haven't answered me about the black Cadillac so I will put the question away.
Perhaps its sort of mute anyway. Like us trying to figure which " Brothers" by name are greeting Griffin here by the door. I probably couldn't name them all and thats probably the situation with the driver of the Black Cadillac too. It didn't have to be Mr. Twigsnapper particularly just as the Brother at the door doesn't have to be me or Mikado or Trickfox,kevin or flo, or MarkC or Andrew or Paul ..... see what I mean? .... the list is really almost endless. ( and I didn't even get to the ladies yet)
What I am trying to say.... ( where was I? )
I understand that you were not able to take notes just then so (and given the amount of time that has gone by) you will have to be very careful that things you remember Dr. Brown saying to you were really said and that you haven't ,in the course of the years, misunderstood what he meant.
Its easy enough to do. Like someone mentioned recently. It could turn into a really twisted case of Chinese Whispers. And of course you have a big responsibility because we are all counting on you coming up with a valid first person response to the meeting. So forgive us if we are consistently tough on you. Its important for us to be.
We are tough on Paul too.
Paul just recently noted that we all have to be careful with our use of the word " Bell" here ... that other people out there have already built up a sort of mystique about that which lends different meanings to it.
Paul I am sure will be helpful to you as sort of a " double check" on the memory of the time. I would trust his insights into what may have been going on in the world of Townsend Brown, and maybe if there is a " partnership" of any kind this is how its supposed to display itself? Victoria
Sisters too.
Don't ever forget the ladies.
I have a couple of responses this time around.
I guess that Dr. Brown had told Griffin that he could not record .... but did he say also that you could not scribble notes? I mean, surely he knew that your conversation was bound to be far reaching. But maybe that was the reason he kept on the move when you were talking , did you consider that? Even if you had taken a notepad it would have been difficult to take notes at the time, I can see that. And he may have had other reasons too for keeping it a walking conversation. Its had to zero in on a moving target, I am sure he was aware of that, as far as any evesdroppers might have been concerned.
Mr. Twigsnapper. You haven't answered me about the black Cadillac so I will put the question away.
Perhaps its sort of mute anyway. Like us trying to figure which " Brothers" by name are greeting Griffin here by the door. I probably couldn't name them all and thats probably the situation with the driver of the Black Cadillac too. It didn't have to be Mr. Twigsnapper particularly just as the Brother at the door doesn't have to be me or Mikado or Trickfox,kevin or flo, or MarkC or Andrew or Paul ..... see what I mean? .... the list is really almost endless. ( and I didn't even get to the ladies yet)
What I am trying to say.... ( where was I? )
I understand that you were not able to take notes just then so (and given the amount of time that has gone by) you will have to be very careful that things you remember Dr. Brown saying to you were really said and that you haven't ,in the course of the years, misunderstood what he meant.
Its easy enough to do. Like someone mentioned recently. It could turn into a really twisted case of Chinese Whispers. And of course you have a big responsibility because we are all counting on you coming up with a valid first person response to the meeting. So forgive us if we are consistently tough on you. Its important for us to be.
We are tough on Paul too.
Paul just recently noted that we all have to be careful with our use of the word " Bell" here ... that other people out there have already built up a sort of mystique about that which lends different meanings to it.
Paul I am sure will be helpful to you as sort of a " double check" on the memory of the time. I would trust his insights into what may have been going on in the world of Townsend Brown, and maybe if there is a " partnership" of any kind this is how its supposed to display itself? Victoria
Last edited by Victoria Steele on Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Senior Officer
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:16 pm
- Location: SW United States
Hello All :
I always find it to be very interesting whenever we get into these discussions of what in this series of studies is "real" and what is not. My general thematic basis in what I have written and talked about for about twenty five years now (ever since that NDE Mikado) is the post-modern conundrum for us all. Just how do we determine what is "real" and what is "artificial" ? And I am also quite sure now that this set of dilemmas have been imposed upon us all by "visitant entities" to borrow your term Griffin.
In the middle of August I posted some materials in the Science of Townsend Brown section on the Quantum Physics thread that touched upon Jaques Vallee's take upon all of this UFO stuff. I am still of the opinion that it is still the best and most appropriate summary of what the entire phenomenon has meant in the history of humankind. Here it is:
"Vallée proposes that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, partly associated with a form of non-human consciousness that manipulates space and time. The phenomenon has been active throughout human history, and seems to masquerade in various forms to different cultures. In his opinion, the intelligence behind the phenomenon attempts social manipulation by using deception on the humans with whom they interact.
Vallée also proposes that a secondary aspect of the UFO phenomenon involves human manipulation by humans. Witnesses of UFO phenomena undergo a manipulative and staged spectacle, meant to alter their belief system, and eventually, influence human society by suggesting alien intervention from outer space. The ultimate motivation for this deception is probably a projected major change of human society, the breaking down of old belief systems and the implementation of new ones. Vallée cannot say who or what is behind this scheme, only that the evidence, if carefully analysed, suggests an underlying plan for the deception of mankind by means of psychotronic technology. It is highly unlikely that governments actually conceal alien evidence, as the popular myth suggests. Rather, it is much more likely that that is exactly what the manipulators want us to believe. Vallée feels the entire subject of UFO's is mystified by charlatans and science fiction. He advocates a stronger and more serious involvement of science in the UFO research and debate. Only this can reveal the true nature of the UFO phenomenon."
Now, I'm quite sure that many of us have experienced these sorts of "psychotronic interventions" in our lives to differing degrees. I believe that Winston Churchill described it as mysterys, hidden in riddles, wrapped in enigmas ( which of course was the name of the Nazi code machine decrypted by the good folks at Bletchley Park). I would be very surprised if the majority of the participants here were not included in this category. I believe that's why we're all here...to determine what is really going on these days.
In my particular case it has caused me to write stuff I probably would have otherwise never been motivated to write. In the vernacular it is sometimes called "automatic writing". But in these experiences I have also been profoundly spiritually moved to believe that I was doing the "right thing". And these episodes have also been validated for me later on through sustained periods of abuse by the environments that I persisted in in ways to inform me that "the powers that be "didn't like my" informed meddlings in their control systems. Of course these experiences have only made me more ravenous for valid answers.
I'm here to support Paul's efforts, and to share and obtain information pertinent to all of this. And, I am also quite sure that Vallee' still has the most valid take on it all since he has been rewarded by our society for his efforts by being elevated to the position of a large player in the high tech venture capital evaluation marketplace. He's also involved here in Mr. Bigelow's space ventures company to some extent.
I'm of the opinion that we must restrain judgement on the motives of anybody's involvement in these forums unless and until, like our friend Justice, they make manifest their intent to obviously wreck what has been constructed here over time. One for all and all for one would be an appropriate slogan for the desired attitude to get us over the bumpy spots, and of course this motto has been personified through Elizabeth's superb efforts here.
So let's not pull the alarm chains unless there are too many coincidences to ignore, or too many of us come up with the same stuff at the same time, or we are tempted to scapegoat another because it seems that his/her/it's information just doesn't fit, because it is then that it is most likely that we are unconsciously conforming with someone's or something's informatics-driven control criteria systems , and not dilligently pursuing appropriate creative solutions and answers to problems.
Remember that the "devils" are always lurking in the details, and often it is more appropriate to just "pass by" things that do not pass certain smell tests and too obviuosly call out to us to delve into their mysteries. BTW this is a principle that comes from saying "42" in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas , which says simply..,"Jesus said, become passers by."
Non-obviousness is where reality lurks, hidden... just out of sight, just waiting to be revealed.
My two cents...again.
flow....![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
I always find it to be very interesting whenever we get into these discussions of what in this series of studies is "real" and what is not. My general thematic basis in what I have written and talked about for about twenty five years now (ever since that NDE Mikado) is the post-modern conundrum for us all. Just how do we determine what is "real" and what is "artificial" ? And I am also quite sure now that this set of dilemmas have been imposed upon us all by "visitant entities" to borrow your term Griffin.
In the middle of August I posted some materials in the Science of Townsend Brown section on the Quantum Physics thread that touched upon Jaques Vallee's take upon all of this UFO stuff. I am still of the opinion that it is still the best and most appropriate summary of what the entire phenomenon has meant in the history of humankind. Here it is:
"Vallée proposes that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, partly associated with a form of non-human consciousness that manipulates space and time. The phenomenon has been active throughout human history, and seems to masquerade in various forms to different cultures. In his opinion, the intelligence behind the phenomenon attempts social manipulation by using deception on the humans with whom they interact.
Vallée also proposes that a secondary aspect of the UFO phenomenon involves human manipulation by humans. Witnesses of UFO phenomena undergo a manipulative and staged spectacle, meant to alter their belief system, and eventually, influence human society by suggesting alien intervention from outer space. The ultimate motivation for this deception is probably a projected major change of human society, the breaking down of old belief systems and the implementation of new ones. Vallée cannot say who or what is behind this scheme, only that the evidence, if carefully analysed, suggests an underlying plan for the deception of mankind by means of psychotronic technology. It is highly unlikely that governments actually conceal alien evidence, as the popular myth suggests. Rather, it is much more likely that that is exactly what the manipulators want us to believe. Vallée feels the entire subject of UFO's is mystified by charlatans and science fiction. He advocates a stronger and more serious involvement of science in the UFO research and debate. Only this can reveal the true nature of the UFO phenomenon."
Now, I'm quite sure that many of us have experienced these sorts of "psychotronic interventions" in our lives to differing degrees. I believe that Winston Churchill described it as mysterys, hidden in riddles, wrapped in enigmas ( which of course was the name of the Nazi code machine decrypted by the good folks at Bletchley Park). I would be very surprised if the majority of the participants here were not included in this category. I believe that's why we're all here...to determine what is really going on these days.
In my particular case it has caused me to write stuff I probably would have otherwise never been motivated to write. In the vernacular it is sometimes called "automatic writing". But in these experiences I have also been profoundly spiritually moved to believe that I was doing the "right thing". And these episodes have also been validated for me later on through sustained periods of abuse by the environments that I persisted in in ways to inform me that "the powers that be "didn't like my" informed meddlings in their control systems. Of course these experiences have only made me more ravenous for valid answers.
I'm here to support Paul's efforts, and to share and obtain information pertinent to all of this. And, I am also quite sure that Vallee' still has the most valid take on it all since he has been rewarded by our society for his efforts by being elevated to the position of a large player in the high tech venture capital evaluation marketplace. He's also involved here in Mr. Bigelow's space ventures company to some extent.
I'm of the opinion that we must restrain judgement on the motives of anybody's involvement in these forums unless and until, like our friend Justice, they make manifest their intent to obviously wreck what has been constructed here over time. One for all and all for one would be an appropriate slogan for the desired attitude to get us over the bumpy spots, and of course this motto has been personified through Elizabeth's superb efforts here.
So let's not pull the alarm chains unless there are too many coincidences to ignore, or too many of us come up with the same stuff at the same time, or we are tempted to scapegoat another because it seems that his/her/it's information just doesn't fit, because it is then that it is most likely that we are unconsciously conforming with someone's or something's informatics-driven control criteria systems , and not dilligently pursuing appropriate creative solutions and answers to problems.
Remember that the "devils" are always lurking in the details, and often it is more appropriate to just "pass by" things that do not pass certain smell tests and too obviuosly call out to us to delve into their mysteries. BTW this is a principle that comes from saying "42" in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas , which says simply..,"Jesus said, become passers by."
Non-obviousness is where reality lurks, hidden... just out of sight, just waiting to be revealed.
My two cents...again.
flow....
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
Dancing is better than marching
-
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
another Brother heard from
Thank you for that Flow. Your messages always go right to the core of things and I appreciate them so much.
Thats what I think too .... " hidden, just beneath the surface of our conciousness ... waiting for our witts to get sharper "....... I think I have heard something close to that sentiment before. <g>
Note that Paul had that saying reach out and positively touch him ... he will tell you about it someday ( if we ask? Its a good story Paul, would you mind telling us how Philpotts saying reached you?)
Its a quiet, never ending search and you personify the explorer Flow. Thank you again, Elizabeth
Thats what I think too .... " hidden, just beneath the surface of our conciousness ... waiting for our witts to get sharper "....... I think I have heard something close to that sentiment before. <g>
Note that Paul had that saying reach out and positively touch him ... he will tell you about it someday ( if we ask? Its a good story Paul, would you mind telling us how Philpotts saying reached you?)
Its a quiet, never ending search and you personify the explorer Flow. Thank you again, Elizabeth
Yes -- nice save, Grinder. Close, but still counts. By the skin of your teeth and your few remaining, scorched-but-intact tailfeathers.
A long post, but seemingly necessary.
First of all, folks, don't worry about being too tough on me. "Tough" is relative. Ask Twigsnapper what tough means to him.
The only problem I have is that I can't take the time to keep explaining and defending myself and my agenda. I need to finish my write-ups and my book, which will go so much further in explanation than what I could possibly give here. Or not. Although some of the explanations will be standard left-brain stuff, so to speak, others will of necessity be metaphysical and esoteric. This will be a problem for some, but it's not my problem. My "problem" is to tell my side of the story as best I understand it.
I will simply say this in relation to setting Jacques Vallee up as the paragon of UFO research and the only one, or among the only ones of a scientific elite group, who can "solve" the UFO enigma -- this is a bit like saying that it demands a scientist or scientists to "solve" Buddhism (substitute another spiritual-experiential practice if you prefer). Ancillary effects from Buddhist practice can be scientifically studied and measured. There are definite physiological health benefits from the practice. A few helpful aids to meditation have been developed -- technological, if you will. But the aim of Buddhist practice -- a pure, compassionate heart and clarified, enlightened consciousness -- is not susceptible to "capture" through science and technology. Humor is helpful at any stage of the game, so it's probably good to see ego-bound humans thinking they'll outthink, outwit, or even "trick" the Visitants. Remember, I'm differentiating here. I don't apply the term Visitants to all the possible entities which may be involved in what are considered UFO related manifestations. As to Jacques' thesis of manipulation and deception by the Visitants, I think it is better seen as an artifact of a certain era when paranoia was particularly in play. But don't think I'm saying it is a paranoid theory per se. It's just that it leaves a lot out that can put things in another light. There are clearly colorations, misunderstandings, human foibles, outright mistakes, disinformation, and even outright fraud evident in accounts of ET encounters. Still human, after all these years. These problems even exist in the sometimes sanctimonious halls of science, as scientist Beau Kitselman well noted. There is also the concept of timing. We see this in schooling, where what is communicated at one time and grade level is subsumed or even somewhat superceded at another time and another grade level. Sometimes there even seem to be contradictions, as between certain concepts of Newtonian physics and quantum physics -- which may simply illustrate my point of timing, level, and application. It's interesting that the later theories of Jacques and to a lesser extent those of Allen Hynek build upon and even essentially recapitulate the prior work of Europeans such as C.G. Jung and John Michell, and others. John Mitchell’s works are relatively little known on this side of the water, but are quite important in my opinion. In my experience, Townsend Brown was of quite a different character and caliber from most scientists. I detected no ego agenda, and I’m quite sensitive to that from the martial arts and other experiences in my background. He had -- again in my experience and opinion of him -- what we might call a mystical or "attuned" side, besides the hard science side. This was one of the things which made all the difference. Remember, in the words of Beau Kiselman, there are many "stupid" scientists. He looked back to Indian and other “esotericâ€
A long post, but seemingly necessary.
First of all, folks, don't worry about being too tough on me. "Tough" is relative. Ask Twigsnapper what tough means to him.
The only problem I have is that I can't take the time to keep explaining and defending myself and my agenda. I need to finish my write-ups and my book, which will go so much further in explanation than what I could possibly give here. Or not. Although some of the explanations will be standard left-brain stuff, so to speak, others will of necessity be metaphysical and esoteric. This will be a problem for some, but it's not my problem. My "problem" is to tell my side of the story as best I understand it.
I will simply say this in relation to setting Jacques Vallee up as the paragon of UFO research and the only one, or among the only ones of a scientific elite group, who can "solve" the UFO enigma -- this is a bit like saying that it demands a scientist or scientists to "solve" Buddhism (substitute another spiritual-experiential practice if you prefer). Ancillary effects from Buddhist practice can be scientifically studied and measured. There are definite physiological health benefits from the practice. A few helpful aids to meditation have been developed -- technological, if you will. But the aim of Buddhist practice -- a pure, compassionate heart and clarified, enlightened consciousness -- is not susceptible to "capture" through science and technology. Humor is helpful at any stage of the game, so it's probably good to see ego-bound humans thinking they'll outthink, outwit, or even "trick" the Visitants. Remember, I'm differentiating here. I don't apply the term Visitants to all the possible entities which may be involved in what are considered UFO related manifestations. As to Jacques' thesis of manipulation and deception by the Visitants, I think it is better seen as an artifact of a certain era when paranoia was particularly in play. But don't think I'm saying it is a paranoid theory per se. It's just that it leaves a lot out that can put things in another light. There are clearly colorations, misunderstandings, human foibles, outright mistakes, disinformation, and even outright fraud evident in accounts of ET encounters. Still human, after all these years. These problems even exist in the sometimes sanctimonious halls of science, as scientist Beau Kitselman well noted. There is also the concept of timing. We see this in schooling, where what is communicated at one time and grade level is subsumed or even somewhat superceded at another time and another grade level. Sometimes there even seem to be contradictions, as between certain concepts of Newtonian physics and quantum physics -- which may simply illustrate my point of timing, level, and application. It's interesting that the later theories of Jacques and to a lesser extent those of Allen Hynek build upon and even essentially recapitulate the prior work of Europeans such as C.G. Jung and John Michell, and others. John Mitchell’s works are relatively little known on this side of the water, but are quite important in my opinion. In my experience, Townsend Brown was of quite a different character and caliber from most scientists. I detected no ego agenda, and I’m quite sensitive to that from the martial arts and other experiences in my background. He had -- again in my experience and opinion of him -- what we might call a mystical or "attuned" side, besides the hard science side. This was one of the things which made all the difference. Remember, in the words of Beau Kiselman, there are many "stupid" scientists. He looked back to Indian and other “esotericâ€
Last edited by Griffin on Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Senior Officer
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:16 pm
- Location: SW United States
Hi Griffin...No, my comment came regarding a late 60's or early 70's recording by a Brit Rocker, I want to say Leon Russell but I think that's wrong (know who it was Paul?), who made a recording that contained that lyric," Don't play no Boogie Wuji for the King of Rock 'n Roll".
It's always stuck in my head for some reason and seemed appropriate to your post. And as far as "the King" reference in relation to Avalon, it may indeed apply to Leroy the harbor's cool cat, but then there were lots of Leroys who were also blues musicians on Chicago's South Side.
But really the "King" moniker may best apply to Bennie Goodman (also from Chicago's near south side) who was known as "The King of Swing" and who's big band frequented the Avalon Ballroom in the swing era. Also, he supposedly put together the first mainstream interracial jazz group there when he formed the Benny Goodman Quartet with Gene Krupa on drums, Lionel Hampton on vibes, and Teddy Wilson on piano. That doesn't seem like such a big deal today, but in the world of music and society in general, it really was back then.
Best regards....flow....![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
It's always stuck in my head for some reason and seemed appropriate to your post. And as far as "the King" reference in relation to Avalon, it may indeed apply to Leroy the harbor's cool cat, but then there were lots of Leroys who were also blues musicians on Chicago's South Side.
But really the "King" moniker may best apply to Bennie Goodman (also from Chicago's near south side) who was known as "The King of Swing" and who's big band frequented the Avalon Ballroom in the swing era. Also, he supposedly put together the first mainstream interracial jazz group there when he formed the Benny Goodman Quartet with Gene Krupa on drums, Lionel Hampton on vibes, and Teddy Wilson on piano. That doesn't seem like such a big deal today, but in the world of music and society in general, it really was back then.
Best regards....flow....
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Dancing is better than marching
-
- Senior Officer
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:16 pm
- Location: SW United States
-
- The Magician
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
- Location: Quebec or Montreal
- Contact:
You see Mikado... Griffin IS really cool too.
OK.... Mr Griffin You have my attention now. Thank you for being clear and precise. Your answers are like a breath of fresh air to me.
I now understand what you perspective is and I am poised to read youre stuff as soon as you are ready to let us buy it or obtain it in any fashion.
As far as the Visitants are concerned, These are your definitions which have been coined here. So I'm saying that is a "personal perspective" and from what I understand it remain a subjective experience even when it is witnessed objectively.
People describe completely different sensations when referring to this phenomena.
I just hope youre not talking about me when you mention the words "Trick the visitants"..... If so. How can I possibly TRICK anything like this.....
No sir... rest assured a wise fox is not trying to trick anyone or any visitors, Visitants, extraterrestrials, ghost or anything most people would consider to be spiritual, paranormal, or outright weird. Religions, cults, you name it, I am completely powerless to control it, promote it or be influenced by it (I hope).
I just submit to being completely powerless. Sometimes I just blurt out things without thinking. I'm often worried about it enough to try and appologize, or send PMs to other forum members asking them to warn me when I'm getting out of control (again).
I think It's called DOWNLOADING and I suspect we are all doing it, -including you my dear Griffin.
I have tried explaining to everyone that I am no scientific genius at all. I have no formal education what so ever, and I suspect my science has a lot of mistakes in it, and I'm just concerned that others who say the same thing on this forum are not the humble bystander they claim to be by not correcting me on many of these mistakes.
I will probanly end up as a clown over it some day. That's ok...I'm being ignored by so many people in this world that I'm lost way out there in another galaxy altogether.
I guess I must be creating my own white noise universe to live in.
Perhaps like our Navigator, I'm just a DISCORDIAN and I should just join the church of the sub-genius.
No mater. My job is to provoke others in a healthy way. I hope you don't have any bad feeling, and I suspect Mikado will also ease of on you from now on.
Welcome, and by all means with great respect Please forgive my nudging and proding for more details of your past experience.
Raymond
I now understand what you perspective is and I am poised to read youre stuff as soon as you are ready to let us buy it or obtain it in any fashion.
As far as the Visitants are concerned, These are your definitions which have been coined here. So I'm saying that is a "personal perspective" and from what I understand it remain a subjective experience even when it is witnessed objectively.
People describe completely different sensations when referring to this phenomena.
I just hope youre not talking about me when you mention the words "Trick the visitants"..... If so. How can I possibly TRICK anything like this.....
No sir... rest assured a wise fox is not trying to trick anyone or any visitors, Visitants, extraterrestrials, ghost or anything most people would consider to be spiritual, paranormal, or outright weird. Religions, cults, you name it, I am completely powerless to control it, promote it or be influenced by it (I hope).
I just submit to being completely powerless. Sometimes I just blurt out things without thinking. I'm often worried about it enough to try and appologize, or send PMs to other forum members asking them to warn me when I'm getting out of control (again).
I think It's called DOWNLOADING and I suspect we are all doing it, -including you my dear Griffin.
I have tried explaining to everyone that I am no scientific genius at all. I have no formal education what so ever, and I suspect my science has a lot of mistakes in it, and I'm just concerned that others who say the same thing on this forum are not the humble bystander they claim to be by not correcting me on many of these mistakes.
I will probanly end up as a clown over it some day. That's ok...I'm being ignored by so many people in this world that I'm lost way out there in another galaxy altogether.
I guess I must be creating my own white noise universe to live in.
Perhaps like our Navigator, I'm just a DISCORDIAN and I should just join the church of the sub-genius.
No mater. My job is to provoke others in a healthy way. I hope you don't have any bad feeling, and I suspect Mikado will also ease of on you from now on.
Welcome, and by all means with great respect Please forgive my nudging and proding for more details of your past experience.
Raymond
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
Trickfox-
I've enjoyed your postings, and everyone else's for that matter. Part of my point had to do with the fact that I was sharing subjective as well as objective views, and both can be helpful if they fit and can be applied. That seems clearly to have been the case at least once with something I furnished to Langley, and I'm gratified that it apparently cleared up something he had wrestled with for thirty some years. He was able to translate my more metaphysical perspective into a physics perspective which worked for him and which I think is valid and an accurate assessment of my point of view. So, often we don't know what may work till it works. I'm quite willing to share and consider viewpoints, but not to argue and have to defend mine to what I consider an unreasonable and unproductive degree. But I see that I may well have put too fine (or too blunt) a point on it.
It never occurred to me that you would try to "trick" the Visitants I'm talking about. That concerned some of the views and statements of a scientist who's best unnamed, as it's unimportant at this point anyway.
I'm going to edit out a few lines of my previous post.
If all goes well, I hope to have a website up by the end of the month or in early November with my "Meeting Townsend Brown" account available for free download as well as a presentation of what I know of the agenda of the 1967 meeting at the Odlum ranch. I met with a colleague today whose own story will be a part of that. I've been reflecting a lot on my meeting with Townsend. Some things are quite clear in memory and others are less so. I've derived many insights from that interaction, and most are subjective. I will certainly share some of them, clearly labeled, and see if they connect to anything for anyone. Townsend was, as I see it, preparing me for how to think about and deal with certain concepts and experiences that had come my way and for some which later developed, helped along by insights he stimulated. I had been previously aided in engaging the Visitants' scenario by other mentors beforehand, so at least I was prepped for what Townsend presented and it was therefore easier to assimilate. He didn't want me being distracted by trying to tape record and take notes, although he may have had other reasons for this as well. The whole experience just flowed. He did confirm some quite important things, from my perspective. Some of these I have to subjectively state while others have an objective side as well. Again, they can be judged on their merits and utility. Research was begun in the fifties, in addition to Townsend's, which could prove important to us today if further developed. In my subjective view based on my research, I believe that the early work was indeed a preamble. It will have to be retrieved, assessed, and somehow assembled and applied. We shall see.
It's a privilege to relate and work with all of you and I particularly admire the spunk, spirit, candor, and insight of the hard-working ladies. I understand your ardor. I totally agree with Twigsnapper's assessment.
Sally forth!
As ever,
Griffin
I've enjoyed your postings, and everyone else's for that matter. Part of my point had to do with the fact that I was sharing subjective as well as objective views, and both can be helpful if they fit and can be applied. That seems clearly to have been the case at least once with something I furnished to Langley, and I'm gratified that it apparently cleared up something he had wrestled with for thirty some years. He was able to translate my more metaphysical perspective into a physics perspective which worked for him and which I think is valid and an accurate assessment of my point of view. So, often we don't know what may work till it works. I'm quite willing to share and consider viewpoints, but not to argue and have to defend mine to what I consider an unreasonable and unproductive degree. But I see that I may well have put too fine (or too blunt) a point on it.
It never occurred to me that you would try to "trick" the Visitants I'm talking about. That concerned some of the views and statements of a scientist who's best unnamed, as it's unimportant at this point anyway.
I'm going to edit out a few lines of my previous post.
If all goes well, I hope to have a website up by the end of the month or in early November with my "Meeting Townsend Brown" account available for free download as well as a presentation of what I know of the agenda of the 1967 meeting at the Odlum ranch. I met with a colleague today whose own story will be a part of that. I've been reflecting a lot on my meeting with Townsend. Some things are quite clear in memory and others are less so. I've derived many insights from that interaction, and most are subjective. I will certainly share some of them, clearly labeled, and see if they connect to anything for anyone. Townsend was, as I see it, preparing me for how to think about and deal with certain concepts and experiences that had come my way and for some which later developed, helped along by insights he stimulated. I had been previously aided in engaging the Visitants' scenario by other mentors beforehand, so at least I was prepped for what Townsend presented and it was therefore easier to assimilate. He didn't want me being distracted by trying to tape record and take notes, although he may have had other reasons for this as well. The whole experience just flowed. He did confirm some quite important things, from my perspective. Some of these I have to subjectively state while others have an objective side as well. Again, they can be judged on their merits and utility. Research was begun in the fifties, in addition to Townsend's, which could prove important to us today if further developed. In my subjective view based on my research, I believe that the early work was indeed a preamble. It will have to be retrieved, assessed, and somehow assembled and applied. We shall see.
It's a privilege to relate and work with all of you and I particularly admire the spunk, spirit, candor, and insight of the hard-working ladies. I understand your ardor. I totally agree with Twigsnapper's assessment.
Sally forth!
As ever,
Griffin
Last edited by Griffin on Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hello again-
I mentioned a colleague, but didn't introduce him. Well, that will occur in my online "Odlum Ranch Meeting" piece and is best accomplished there. Suffice it to say that he is exceptionally knowledgeable and trustworthy. I could trust him with my life -- and do! So could you.
As ever,
Griffin
I mentioned a colleague, but didn't introduce him. Well, that will occur in my online "Odlum Ranch Meeting" piece and is best accomplished there. Suffice it to say that he is exceptionally knowledgeable and trustworthy. I could trust him with my life -- and do! So could you.
As ever,
Griffin
I am a cynic or a very carefull person. You want me to trust someone I don't know from someone I don't know? That would be one anonymous person trusting another anonymous person recommended by an anonymous person. Okaaaaaay. In reality, there is only one person in this forum I could use that statement with, and they know who they are.Griffin wrote: I could trust him with my life -- and do! So could you.
As ever,
Griffin
You are moving way too fast for me, please don't assume.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
-
- Sr. Research Asst.
- Posts: 1742
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am
heard this before?
Hello Everybody,
Trust with your life ..... right.
This discussion reminds me ot the phase that Paul went through with some of his sources. One trusted source had information for him from someone they knew but Paul did not. Information coming to Paul then would be through that chain of shadows and Paul was understandably concerned and expressed it. In the end it caused a few ruffled feathers.
https://www.ttbrown.com/defying_gravity ... urces.html
His source was quoting from someone they " trusted with their life" but you can see that is a hard trust to "pass on". It doesn't travel all that well and no one should expect it to.
Paul was right to say " Hold on here a moment" even though I think his initial source took his reluctance to accept that information as somewhat a slur on their validity in his eyes. And in this world if that link breaks you are truly lost. So it became an interesting point in Pauls journey.
Point here that I am trying to make is that those " trust him with your life" situations are not easily accepted as Mikado said. And they shouldn't be. You have to reach that decison on your own. For Paul this information was that important and he had to find his way on his own. Elizabeth
Trust with your life ..... right.
This discussion reminds me ot the phase that Paul went through with some of his sources. One trusted source had information for him from someone they knew but Paul did not. Information coming to Paul then would be through that chain of shadows and Paul was understandably concerned and expressed it. In the end it caused a few ruffled feathers.
https://www.ttbrown.com/defying_gravity ... urces.html
His source was quoting from someone they " trusted with their life" but you can see that is a hard trust to "pass on". It doesn't travel all that well and no one should expect it to.
Paul was right to say " Hold on here a moment" even though I think his initial source took his reluctance to accept that information as somewhat a slur on their validity in his eyes. And in this world if that link breaks you are truly lost. So it became an interesting point in Pauls journey.
Point here that I am trying to make is that those " trust him with your life" situations are not easily accepted as Mikado said. And they shouldn't be. You have to reach that decison on your own. For Paul this information was that important and he had to find his way on his own. Elizabeth
Mikado-
My good and sincere man, I'm not assuming anything (except that you are a good and sincere man). I simply started an introduction from my perspective and what I know to be true. I know it so well that I FEEL it might apply to you, too. But how true -- you don't know him. You may get more of an inkling if you finally read my piece. Or not. It can be helpful, certainly in a survivalist sense, to be healthily skeptical. But I wouldn't recommend cynicism. But it would be only my personal perspective and recommendation anyway. Part of martial arts training -- again, a personal perspective -- is to recognize and learn to trust your truest instincts. Then experience comes into play.
As ever,
Griffin
My good and sincere man, I'm not assuming anything (except that you are a good and sincere man). I simply started an introduction from my perspective and what I know to be true. I know it so well that I FEEL it might apply to you, too. But how true -- you don't know him. You may get more of an inkling if you finally read my piece. Or not. It can be helpful, certainly in a survivalist sense, to be healthily skeptical. But I wouldn't recommend cynicism. But it would be only my personal perspective and recommendation anyway. Part of martial arts training -- again, a personal perspective -- is to recognize and learn to trust your truest instincts. Then experience comes into play.
As ever,
Griffin
Last edited by Griffin on Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.