Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk (Page 12 of 24)

Experience varies but everything taken together makes for a strong case. Take the class of experienced abductees...learn how well their story holds up, perhaps with multiple correlative accounts by family members, photographed marks, surgical removal of anomalous objects, recorded phone anomalies, etc... See how this correlates with mythological, religious, cultural, and anthropological clues concerning the alien presence, then compare this to the various UFO videos and photographs, trace samples, testimony by various police/military/government personnel, variety of channeled messages, works of abduction researchers, etc...  You gotta be blinder than a mole or lazier than a sloth to so flippantly dismiss all this.

Every abductee undergoes this scrutiny and a good portion are found to be trustworthy. Many do not even want to acknowledge what their experiences are point towards. Their bias goes against the very thing they eventually no longer can deny.

You missed the point, it is not about which side of the debate has more information, but which side has more data that stands up to scrutiny. The "good grays" material is easily exposed on its logical flaws and deceptive undertone. For instance, hypnotists who are unaware of the screen memory phenomenon take the first hypnotically recalled "experience" as the final one, and these tend to always be positive. But when probed more slowly and carefully on the inconsistencies in this screen(without leading questions) the layer is peeled back to reveal something darker and more objective. Just like hypnosis for police eye-witness recall. The majority of "good grays" information is generated without ever passing through the discernment filter, is filled with holes and deceptions, and is therefore not valid signal.

You want "objective" in the absolute sense. I say "objective" in the relative sense, as in "this idea/source/person/experience" is more objective than another... and so after numerous iterations of this comparative process you arrive at something that is much more objective that you started. It's a distillation process, or like panning for gold. You look at the river silt and say "what gold could there be, all I see is sand and mud...we can't say with certainty that there even is such a thing as gold." You want a bag of bullion handed to you to be convinced.

Courts are only interested in matters of law and are very systematic and conservative in dealing with disputes of law. Even then, courts are not the ultimate arbiters of truth. The government and military, on the other hand, are more concerned with results than conservatism, thus they use lie detectors, hypnosis, and remote viewing among other things. That courts won't take evidence of hypnosis does not disqualify hypnosis as a whole. You have a habit of rationalizing your bias through a wide assortment of logical fallacies.

Then all I can acknowledge is that what you have gathered on the subject is too superficial to engage in an actually meaningful debate. There is an assortment of evidence that it's not all in the mind, for instance multiple cases of welts and strange semen-like fluids on the inner thigh, sore internal parts, and post traumatic stress disorder following a consciously recalled reptoid-rape. This is the kind of stuff you will find if you dig and investigate.

1.  INCAPACITY TO CONTRACT.

    A.  INFANCY.  As a spiritual infant, I do not possess the necessary awareness to contract with extraterrestrials, hyperdimensional beings, or military operatives, for abduction experiences.  Therefore any such contracts that I have made, or will make, are immediately revocable, at my sole discretion, unless or until that time when I have reached spiritual maturity.

    B.  MENTAL IMPAIRMENT.  Any consent, actual or implied, to abduction experiences which was given by myself while in an altered state, including, but not limited to, (1) the use or administration of drugs or alcohol, whether voluntary or involuntary; (2) hypnotic or trance states, self-induced and otherwise; or (3) technology-based control mechanisms, such as implants or thought broadcasting technologies such as HAARP, is revocable to the degree that the recipient of such consent was aware of my state of mental impairment and was knowingly taking advantage of such state for personal or professional gain.

2.  DURESS.  Any contract for abduction which was made by myself while in a state of fear or under threat of spiritual, mental, emotional, or physical harm to myself or any other entity, is invalid and unenforceable.

3.  UNDUE INFLUENCE.  Any contract for abduction which was made by myself while in a state of awe or reverence to any entity other than the ONE INFINITE CREATOR was made on the grounds of improper persuasion and is invalid and unenforceable.

4.  MISTAKE.  I hereby assert that any contract for abduction entered unto by myself was made in error and I further assert my rights of recission to such contracts.

5.  MISREPRESENTATION.  I hereby assert that the terms and conditions to any contract for abduction entered unto by myself were not clearly stated and defined and therefore such contracts are fraudulent.

6.  UNCONSCIONABILITY.  Abduction is a direct and willful violation of the rights and liberties granted to me by the ONE INFINITE CREATOR, and therefore any act of abduction is inherently unconscionable, and all abduction activity must immediately cease and desist irrespective of the purported validity of any contract made on my behalf to undergo such experiences.

I further request that, to the extent that any harm or restriction of liberty (whether past, present, future, spiritual, mental, emotional, or physical) has come to me, or through me to any other entity, full and complete restitution be immediately made to all parties affected, and that any and all means available to the offending parties be utilized to the greatest extent permissible by the law of the ONE INFINITE CREATOR.

DATED this twenty-third day of October, in the year two thousand and five.

WITNESS my Hand and Seal:

BY:  tenetnosce, Authorized Representative

All Rights Reserved.

The point is that we don't have to be complacent with regard to the presence and activity of shadow beings in our lives.  It's not about placing blame.  To the contrary it's about taking responsibility.

So let's say I am abducted.  OK I must have drawn that experience to myself.  There was a crack in my aura, or a distortion in the balloon, that caused me to be abducted.  Now what?

They know the secret.  The big secret.  The Secret To Eternal Life.

Now they have told us that they would like to share the secret with you.

Here is the secret.

There is no they.

Haven wrote:

We all have lack of experience regarding grays, unless you take a highly subjective and interpreted experience as truth

You subjectively say these experiences are more subjective than they actually are, just to suit your bias against anyone forming any working hypotheses concerning the matter.

Experience varies but everything taken together makes for a strong case. Take the class of experienced abductees...learn how well their story holds up, perhaps with multiple correlative accounts by family members, photographed marks, surgical removal of anomalous objects, recorded phone anomalies, etc... See how this correlates with mythological, religious, cultural, and anthropological clues concerning the alien presence, then compare this to the various UFO videos and photographs, trace samples, testimony by various police/military/government personnel, variety of channeled messages, works of abduction researchers, etc...  You gotta be blinder than a mole or lazier than a sloth to so flippantly dismiss all this.

Haven wrote:

We have to wonder who is providing the "facts" and why they are providing them.  Who is more inclined to provide the facts, what are they seeking, how much money, what attention and recognition do they want, etc.

Every abductee undergoes this scrutiny and a good portion are found to be trustworthy. Many do not even want to acknowledge what their experiences are point towards. Their bias goes against the very thing they eventually no longer can deny.

Haven wrote:

Besides, there's plenty of information regarding good grays, isn't there?  Or is that not accepted on your own experiences?

You missed the point, it is not about which side of the debate has more information, but which side has more data that stands up to scrutiny. The "good grays" material is easily exposed on its logical flaws and deceptive undertone. For instance, hypnotists who are unaware of the screen memory phenomenon take the first hypnotically recalled "experience" as the final one, and these tend to always be positive. But when probed more slowly and carefully on the inconsistencies in this screen(without leading questions) the layer is peeled back to reveal something darker and more objective. Just like hypnosis for police eye-witness recall. The majority of "good grays" information is generated without ever passing through the discernment filter, is filled with holes and deceptions, and is therefore not valid signal.

Haven wrote:

Who has the data, and what objective data is there?

You want "objective" in the absolute sense. I say "objective" in the relative sense, as in "this idea/source/person/experience" is more objective than another... and so after numerous iterations of this comparative process you arrive at something that is much more objective that you started. It's a distillation process, or like panning for gold. You look at the river silt and say "what gold could there be, all I see is sand and mud...we can't say with certainty that there even is such a thing as gold." You want a bag of bullion handed to you to be convinced.

Haven wrote:

Courts won't take evidence pulled from hypnotic states, and no right-minded person takes things that happen that you don't remember until later as hard and fast evidence.

Courts are only interested in matters of law and are very systematic and conservative in dealing with disputes of law. Even then, courts are not the ultimate arbiters of truth. The government and military, on the other hand, are more concerned with results than conservatism, thus they use lie detectors, hypnosis, and remote viewing among other things. That courts won't take evidence of hypnosis does not disqualify hypnosis as a whole. You have a habit of rationalizing your bias through a wide assortment of logical fallacies.

Haven wrote:

I have to disagree with you here.  I believe that an abduction is a lot like an acid trip, from what I have gathered on the subject.  Nobody has the objective to have bugs crawling on your skin, a feeling of intense fear, or whatever the case may be.  An abduction may only involve rape because that is how you felt, so your mind provided the details.

Then all I can acknowledge is that what you have gathered on the subject is too superficial to engage in an actually meaningful debate. There is an assortment of evidence that it's not all in the mind, for instance multiple cases of welts and strange semen-like fluids on the inner thigh, sore internal parts, and post traumatic stress disorder following a consciously recalled reptoid-rape. This is the kind of stuff you will find if you dig and investigate.

Haven wrote:

I've already said I wouldn't want to be abducted, but that's because so much has been put out there to make me wary of the whole experience.  That's drawing a conclusion.  What's argued here is the validity of that conclusion.  My instincts will guard me, but they don't care for the truth.

The conclusion is as valid for you, as you have put time and effort into reaching it.

Maybe you deleted it by accident? I deleted one of Energy's snide posts, maybe I accidentally deleted yours, but it wasn't on purpose. After all, most of your post is still quoted in mine. Could have been a glitch, who knows...