...You're not coming back.
It is not really true that someone ever gets 'returned.'
The one who is 'returned' is one of us.
 |
| Into the forest... |
Masquerading.
What is the purpose of this life?
Why are the people's minds here kept in chains?
These are the 'outlier' pages.
Anyone who reads here who has a mind in chains is keeping it in chains of their own making.
But then, chains rust. And minds are worn away and turn into dust scattered into the wind.
Today I saw an old man. He was all decked out in modern 'urban street-running' gear. He was holding his small tablet device outstretched as he crossed the side-street off the main road. Certainly he was not blind. He was wearing glasses though so one could not be so sure that his speed of optical 'pick-up' would have been all that great.
Anyone with children knows that kids drop their phones, tablets, devices.
This old guy though - well, he looked not a whole lot different from any millennial. Even wore a sling-bag.
 |
| You can do this?? Wow. Can you? |
Was old though. Very grey hair. A little stooped; not fluid in his actions.
Seemed happy enough. I would say, smug and self-satisfied.
We're not taking him.
I am not an interloper here.
We're going to smash things up like you would not believe.
And as someone said one time: 'We're going to do you slowly.'
Not you you. But someone, er - them. The 'they.' You know those guys? Well those ones.
Still not quite convinced though, are you, some of you.
Don't go to those places I already told you not to set foot in.
'But, but - I thought you said you guys were not evil?'
 |
| Where I take my er, well... |
I never said it. Don't remember ever saying that kind of thing at all.
Anyway 'evil' in what sense?
I never started the game of winner takes all and none of my friends did either - which just kind of leaves the 'them other guys.' The 'they.'
Where did they come from?
Who cares? They'll not be here for long now. It's all over now. Someone won and someone has already lost but they don't know it yet.
I bet you y'all forgot that at the beginning of this year I said 'Deadpool.'
Forgot that now, didn't you. Well remember it from now.
Watch the video. Could not be more 'out in the open.'
...Wonder what all the John Mack kids are doing now?
Tell us some more about John Mack! So there were all these coincidences among the dream memories of these abductees? White rooms? Yes. So then, there were other explanations proposed about how these people could be sharing dreams? These alternate explanations have been rejected in favor of the ET abductors?
ReplyDeleteIt's a fair question until you go through his published work and observe that 1. there were aspects concerning independently-confirmed hard physical evidence, and 2. that Mack deliberately obscured several of those aspects and details in order to allow future researchers the same access to the University-designed subject 'filter' methods and methodology; which is basically the same as standard clinical psychology/psychiatry test methodology.
DeleteI have said this before, but you are deliberately skewing things using a false narrative that is unsupported by the actual facts, and this has become de rigueur by propagandists over several decades; it is designed to give the impression - by weight of voice, not weight of fact - that a thing is 'so' when it is not so, but it becomes 'so' in people's uncritical minds. Do this type of thing one single more time and the comment will be looked at closely to see why it should remain standing at all. (lol) It might stay standing, you have to chance your arm. :) A. Mack NEVER concluded AT ALL, that they were 'dream memories' and he was the head of Psychiatry Harvard School of Medicine, so you need to put up why your perception is better than that teams' eventual one after their detailed and in depth clinical assessment. And B) There has NEVER been a statement by ANY of the ACTUAL 'Contact Experiencer Participants' in the Mack study that they were involuntarily 'abducted;' this occurs with parents of people who were, and with many people who never were in the study and could have manufactured their narratives as the result of...
As you know, it was Alan Dershowitz who defended the Mack publication of the Harvard Study Group's findings. And at the time, the same thing happened to Mack as what you are doing here now - they had no basis, and neither do you. But they did it anyway and the intensity back then was enormous and you have to ask what is behind all of that. Either you can put up a robust rational case AGAINST the scientific conclusion, or you cannot. But you cannot just trot out propaganda and spin phrases into the discussion as apparent 'talking points,' which insinuate things that are not there: aka as in 'dreams.' There were no dreams involved. And there were no 'ET abductors.' These things have all been imputed by later commentators who are cleverly steering people away from the actual study conclusions and the actual report. I asked Gad Saad recently to think about asking Harvard to approach the people (may of whom I know personally) on a strictly confidential basis, to give a present moment update.
Oh, "Calvin." Oh, my man. Oh, m'boy. I'm trying to understand. But all I can see is the Play ... the Act... the Drama. What can I do? Heh!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O45eaOCrDXE
If you're in Singapore, get out right away.
ReplyDeleteLue Elizondo and Chris Mellon and NASA will shortly make some statements quoting J. Craig Venter (Nobel-sharing geneticist currently engaged in US military R&D) about something to do with human history that his research has uncovered. ...The real question is not whether you can 'see' or 'understand' anything (because that is easily done if anyone possessing the details can/could set out quite palpably) - but how come there is so much deliberate obscuring of these things at all. And who is doing the deliberate obscuring? Well, partly it's you yourself; once you've been schooled in the standard default of how to think, then you assume it is 'normal' and 'right.'
Go to book one of Plato - go all the way to the end without stopping (too much) along the way for diversions into Carlos C., or any other Johhny-Come-Lately - and don't keep kidding yourself that you know how to think or that you are genuinely educated until you have done that. And don't imagine that the highest-rated professor in all the world HAS actually himself done what I just said to do. They are sophists. They specialty is not 'thinking' but tricking and deceiving YOU. Which, it seems to me from what you say and what you link to, they have managed to do really really well. For an intelligent person, you have a lot of 'kicking yourself' to do, I suspect.
Not deleting that to fix the typos there!
ReplyDelete