Everything You've Been Told About the "Grays" is Bunk (Page 11 of 24)

We actually don't know what is going on here, because our perceptions color the experiences when we're in such a state or realm as the grays exist.  We call them abductions, but, like what's been brought up, how much are we participating?  Because we can't consciously address this, we can't really know.  Common sense would say that we should keep our minds open about these types of things.  We can say anyone that has an OBE is "abducted", or anybody that has been taken to another realm is "abducted", too, but what experience you have is largely based on the amount of fear one has.  Like an acid trip, it depends on your state of mind.

EDIT: I thought I'd elaborate on the acid trip mentality.  People under the influence will feel bugs on their skin, when in fact there are none.  Schizophrenics will believe people are after them.  So on and so forth.  When taken, it may feel like an abduction against your will.  That may be a misinterpretation.  You may be going to them, or maybe never leaving your room.  Maybe it's an OBE and you just provide the details after the fact.  I'm assuming it's while in an extremely suggestible state of mind that these things happen, when your mind is most open to other realms.  A schizo might think that a shot from a doctor contains some sinister ingredient, while an abductee, in whom a very high fight or flight response has been triggered (everything is sinister, especially in the childlike state of mind hypnosis) might believe that the grays are putting probes in their rectum, etc.  The information gets colored.  Not to mention that it is only after the fact that we recall all these things.  What have we changed?  What have we misintrepreted?  The mind must provide a narrative, and if it was a scary experience, then the mind will fill in the appropriate details, so that we know to avoid a similar experience.  We only want to color this experience as bad because we felt threatened in some manner.

I don't know what a gray exactly is, but I know what a pedophile is.  I know what HIV is, too.  The parellels are faulty.  When all activity has stopped in the brain because we have made up our minds, then we are not using our brains anymore.  While it may be easy to say it is programming when anybody disagrees with me (ala the devil, new term for old superstitions), the more reasonable approach would be to assume that having such a knee-jerk reaction is more programming than choosing to observe before making an assumption when dealing with subjective and limited information about grays, be they inner or outer space, for ill or good.

Time to go hang out with my gray buddies to get programmed.

Lyra, I imagine you experience such bad stuff because you are overwhelmingly negative.  Of course you attract those things that you are most like, and you choose to see your reality that way.

Before this diverts into more negativity, I'm going to post something I came across yesterday.  After Haven popped up in this thread, with me still nursing old grudges towards him for the ridiculous crap that occurred in other threads, I grabbed the Stuie Wilde book I had with me and absent mindedly opened to a random part of the book.  I figured I should get back to reading instead of being on the computer so much, and I didn't even look at where I had opened it at first, due to being distracted by my thoughts.  Finally I looked down at the book, began reading, and I swear to God this is what I opened up to, it was so fitting:

From "Infinite Self", page 91:

"As a part of your overall serenity, it's important to try to disengage from arguments and all the antagonistic positions you may find yourself in.  It's hard to go beyond tick-tock and embrace a more angelic way if you're constantly at war with people.  In the act of scrapping with others, you metaphysically hold yourself back.....It doesn't matter if your cause is just or unjust;  it's the emotion and thought-forms of an argument that lock you in.....You don't have to fall in love with everybody, but at least try to reconcile the situation as best as possible so the emotion of it doesn't control you.....Freedom is more important that winning turf wars for the ego."

Picking up a meaningful book and opening it up at random usually lands one on very fitting passages.  A topic for another thread I suppose.   But, this is where I leave off with the Haven Fight.   That's it for me.

I'm curious what you're basing this theory on.

I don't know about montalk, but I was at a metaphysical bookstore just last night and was reading the beginning pages of that book.   The fact that the next day (now) I come on NR and see it mentioned like this is another UFO-related synchronicity for me.   

I did not get to read very far into the book but from the introduction I was able to determine that the basic premise of the book is that UFOs, greys etc seem to be outside of our scope of reality and therefore defy any logical analysis.    This is a mistake. 

Just because the phenomenon (, -a) may be difficult and seemingly enigmatic in nature does not mean we should just write it all off as being purely subjective or just a matter of opinion.   There is a wealth of data out there showing the effects of UFO activity to be quite real, tangible and present in this little 3D realm of ours.   As montalk just pointed out, just because you haven't read all the evidence and data yourself does not mean it's not there.

That may or may not be the case; we don't know that.  If it is true, it's a purely metaphysical concept and doesn't explain why your telephone is being tapped, your mail opened and tones going off in your ear every time you read an article about UFO abductions.  To try to apply that way of thinking to the here-and-now physical realm is dangerous.

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.

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.

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

Some people argue to try to prove a working hypothesis which they have come up with based on all available data.

Others argue to validate their pre-accepted religious beliefs, in spite of all available data.

The former is attempting to reach truth, while the latter tries vainly to defend their fragile ego.   We see here examples of two fundamentally incompatible ways of thinking which can never be reconciled.