Bring4th

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4UoPaLVE...r_embedded

dont know yet real or not.

Here is the same video with some commentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4fcqLAHi...h_response

I'm not qualified to judge the video, but I am qualified to judge cats.

That cat was definitely agitated and was looking at something/someone. Cats don't usually care much if a human is that distance away. But they will care if it's a dog or something else.

judging from the other videos he posted, he seems to be going after popularity in youtube. he put a video of his (at least 4 year old) male cat by saying 'cute little baby kitten' video. various videos in which '65 kg rock dropped on ...' (rc car etc), 'sh@t car of the week' and so on.

of course, that's not a given. but the other videos suggest this possibility.

That doesn't look good for his authenticity. Seems to me that if real, it would likely be his only video. How convenient that the aliens chose someone who has a camera always at the ready!

(12-18-2010, 03:27 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]That doesn't look good for his authenticity. Seems to me that if real, it would likely be his only video. How convenient that the aliens chose someone who has a camera always at the ready!

It's like he's never seen an infrared alien shooting lights beads.

In any case, I wish I'd find aliens in MY backyard. We'd be having a party instead of me yelling the F word a lot.

(12-18-2010, 01:34 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]That cat was definitely agitated and was looking at something/someone. Cats don't usually care much if a human is that distance away. But they will care if it's a dog or something else.

Would it look when someone he knows is back there acting agitated and doing unusual stuff? Like wielding a laser pointer? The balls of light would be where the pointer hits plants.

Also, look at the behavior of the Alien. It seems purposeful enough, what is it doing? It is pointing the pointer at the camera guy. Hiding, reappearing hiding, pointing again. Running about. I don't think he is special forces or even trying to be invisible.

My bet, it's the camera guys friend running around with a mask and a laser pointer. And the cat happens to be interested because it's unusual.

(12-18-2010, 04:42 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]It's like he's never seen an infrared alien shooting lights beads.

LOL!

---

(12-18-2010, 10:36 AM)ahktu Wrote: [ -> ]In any case, I wish I'd find aliens in MY backyard. We'd be having a party instead of me yelling the F word a lot.

Yeah, for sure!

---

(12-18-2010, 12:50 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Would it look when someone he knows is back there acting agitated and doing unusual stuff? Like wielding a laser pointer? The balls of light would be where the pointer hits plants.

No. The cat would be chasing the lights. He would have pounced on them. Guaranteed.

(12-18-2010, 12:50 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Also, look at the behavior of the Alien. It seems purposeful enough, what is it doing? It is pointing the pointer at the camera guy. Hiding, reappearing hiding, pointing again. Running about. I don't think he is special forces or even trying to be invisible.

Not a very smart alien. Why try to communicate with Morse code when the human is right there? and all he had to do was walk over and shake hands.

(12-18-2010, 12:50 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]My bet, it's the camera guys friend running around with a mask and a laser pointer. And the cat happens to be interested because it's unusual.

Well that pretty much sums it up! The Bring4th debunkers have solved yet another alien mystery!

Stay tuned for next week's Is it real or is it CGI? contest!

Next.

I'm sorry Monica.

Here's the first entry..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7uqP46zdsA

I can't figure that one out.

I would be really interesting in seeing if anyone could debunk this one. There is actually a whole series of short videos about it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7uqP46zdsA

(12-18-2010, 01:54 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry Monica.

Here's the first entry..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7uqP46zdsA

I can't figure that one out.

maybe this will help:
http://forgetomori.com/2009/aliens/the-alien-interview/

Respect zenmaster That helps.

(12-18-2010, 02:36 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Respect zenmaster That helps.

Aw man, that was too easy.

Although, wouldn't it be ironic if we got so good at debunking that we miss the real ones?

---

I find footage like this much more plausible than the videos, which are so easily faked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXIWKQOu-...re=related

NOT saying this is real. I have no idea if it is or not. It's just one I found. What I'm saying is that, interviews with whistleblowers seem more plausible, because they lack the sensationalism of actual video footage.

Hoaxers have much more fun designing fake aliens. Interviews that sound even halfway plausible and realistic take a lot more skill.

The more I think about the video of the guy with the cat, the more I think his reaction wasn't realistic. He wouldn't have gone running into the bushes, then said, "Oh that's me" about his shadow. It's obvious he said that for the benefit of the viewers. Too hokey.

Grin, I can hardly argue with that evidence.

(12-18-2010, 02:36 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Respect zenmaster That helps.

Without getting into analysis of that 'interview' video, I want to put forth the immediate impression i had back when i first saw it:

the claim is that the alien requires darkness, so we have a dark video (conveniently). i submit that with a video camera with better light-gathering capability (not a special camera, just a fast professional camera w/ video lens system), the video would look quite different. if fact, the alien could probably enjoy even more darkness (to the point of candlelight), while the recorded picture appeared like the entire scene was normally illuminated. I'm not referring to special cameras or to new technology, as professional cameras could easily do this (i.e. f < 1.0) since the 80's.
Remember, this is the government recording an alien subject in a darkened room. The resources, preparedness, technical knowledge, expertise would've been readily available.

---

(12-18-2010, 03:02 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Although, wouldn't it be ironic if we got so good at debunking that we miss the real ones?

But the purpose is not to debunk, but to learn and increase discernment when faced with the unknown. I would submit that that underlying intention (i.e. open-mindedness) will tend to point toward the truth (not at the expense of it).

OTOH, debunking "evidence" submitted merely to say 'this is proof my prejudice is correct' - will tend to miss quite a bit of the reality. But where things are missed, there would also an opportunity to 'debunk the debunkers'. As long as some authoritative determination of authenticity is not given to one person, we have opportunity to determine the truth.

OTOH, prejudice works against "truth", in the other direction as well.

Are the open minded skeptic and open minded believer ultimately the same thing? I think so, if the belief and the skepticism originate from an honest approach. However, I feel there are two specific attributes that keep either from being as effective in their claims as they could be. That is, naivate and lack of discernment.

These are two different things: naivate, is due to a worldview (weltanschauung) which has not incorporated certain experiences. While discernment, is an active skill that does draw upon such experience, but also informs one when the limits of knowledge are reached.

If there is lack of discernment (which seems to be tied to honesty), bias for what one wants to see tends to substitute for knowledge. However, with more discernment, the boundaries of one's knowledge are more visible and what is known is not as likely to be overextended or misapplied.

The "believer" and "skeptic" may actually be the same thing, ultimately, if discernment is available. However, in their dishonest forms, we have the phenomena of the "fanatic" and the "debunker". These are heavily biased devotees who tend to raise mere bias and speculation, in the form of insubstantial or incongruous claims, to the status of fact. A characteristic difference in approaches is that the fanatic tends to be rather uncritical and seemingly open-minded , but only in regards to the perceived promotion of a particular cause or agenda to which they have identified ("everything is possible, if I like the idea"). While the debunker, similarly, applies his/her skepticism only to promote a particular cause of agenda ("everything is explainable and within my worldview"). Both approaches are effectively close minded.

I've also noticed that, if it serves to synthesize a pleasing story, many fanatics tend to correlate and connect disparate things and ideas. Whereas, many debunkers tend to mis-attribute causality to perception. This suggests unbridled use of the intuition and lack of reasoning in the former and over thinking or lack of intuition and false attributions or reductionism in the latter.

---

(12-18-2010, 03:02 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I find footage like this much more plausible than the videos, which are so easily faked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXIWKQOu-...re=related

NOT saying this is real. I have no idea if it is or not. It's just one I found. What I'm saying is that, interviews with whistleblowers seem more plausible, because they lack the sensationalism of actual video footage.

You do realize that the declassified footage shown, are USAF projects that had nothing to do with the interviewee's claims? That's "stock film footage" from the show's library.

(12-18-2010, 06:20 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]You do realize that the declassified footage shown, are USAF projects that had nothing to do with the interviewee's claims? That's "stock film footage" from the show's library.

Yes. That just happened to be a video I came across. I have no opinion about its authenticity. My point was just that interviews might have more plausibility than videos. You're right that they can add whatever stock film footage they want to give the appearance of authenticity; yet there is no connection between the words spoken and the footage shown.

You've offered a very astute analysis of debunkers vs skeptics. I agree totally! A truly unbiased, open-minded person would would be neither. A narrow-minded skeptic can be just as gullible and fanatical as those he claims to debunk. Just in the other direction.

(12-18-2010, 07:38 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]You've offered a very astute analysis of debunkers vs skeptics. I agree totally! A truly unbiased, open-minded person would would be neither. A narrow-minded skeptic can be just as gullible and fanatical as those he claims to debunk. Just in the other direction.

Yes, and what I've been saying is that by simply being honest, it's always possible to keep oneself in check (with regards to claims or analysis of claims (teach/learn or learn/teach), regardless of personality bias. Further, I would submit that it is only lack of self acceptance that can circumvent this honesty.

I think I tend to analyze the people in the shots more than the technology used, I had not thought of that possibility Zenmaster.

Zenmaster Wrote:But the purpose is not to debunk, but to learn and increase discernment when faced with the unknown. I would submit that that underlying intention (i.e. open-mindedness) will tend to point toward the truth (not at the expense of it).

Amen... In the end truth must be our goal. Believing just for the sake of it can't be the intended goal..

And a good thing is that if we personally debunked hundreds of stories videos and what not... Then if we find one that we cannot debunk we know it's potentially a good one. Only potentially of course

(12-18-2010, 08:09 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]

Zenmaster Wrote:But the purpose is not to debunk, but to learn and increase discernment when faced with the unknown. I would submit that that underlying intention (i.e. open-mindedness) will tend to point toward the truth (not at the expense of it).

Amen... In the end truth must be our goal. Believing just for the sake of it can't be the intended goal..

Indeed, there also is no "polarization" whatsoever in believing for the sake of it, yet we have people that will "want to believe" or want things to be a certain way, just for the sake of it. Such undetermined attitudes are ripe for exploitation, and stifle progress of the individual and of society, yet we all have them.

(12-18-2010, 08:09 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]And a good thing is that if we personally debunked hundreds of stories videos and what not... Then if we find one that we cannot debunk we know it's potentially a good one. Only potentially of course

I think if we examine what we feel we want to happen as the result of proof (from a "good one") we will discover a lot about our prejudices. Because of the subject matter (UFOs and aliens are the transcendent-function archetype), this exercise would say a lot about how we actually feel about ourselves.

(12-18-2010, 08:50 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed, there also is no "polarization" whatsoever in believing for the sake of it, yet we have people that will "want to believe" or want things to be a certain way, just for the sake of it. Such undetermined attitudes are ripe for exploitation, and stifle progress of the individual and of society, yet we all have them.

We're a lot more open-minded here than the general population, but even we might have our biases. Biases are found everywhere: in religion/spirituality/science/politics etc. and go in either direction. But it's especially disconcerting to find strong biases among those who claim to be approaching an issue logically, rationally, and scientifically. Yet such biases in the scientific community abound.

(12-18-2010, 08:56 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]We're a lot more open-minded here than the general population, but even we might have our biases. Biases are found everywhere: in religion/spirituality/science/politics etc. and go in either direction. But it's especially disconcerting to find strong biases among those who claim to be approaching an issue logically, rationally, and scientifically. Yet such biases in the scientific community abound.

At least their publications have strict rules against injecting bias or any form of opinion. Formally, I think they are aware of the danger of bias.

I hold a view that the 3rd-density subdensities parallel that of the Spiral Dynamic (SD) valuing memes (vMemes). In SD, most scientists are still centered in the "Orange" vMeme, or just after the middle subdensity. Basically this means that their personal biases will involve satisfying the understanding necessary to "graduate" to the next higher subdensity. Certain considerations that we might attribute to "open-mindedness" are simply not available in that subdensity.

Fake. For a multitude of reasons :¬)

(12-18-2010, 09:26 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Formally, I think they are aware of the danger of bias.

They most certainly are part of the curriculum. In my opinion it's just the fanboys, not the highly educated scientists. who understand what science does not know. There is a course most universities offer, the philosophy of science. In my opinion the degree to which people understand this topic is the degree to which they are true scientists. Calculus and methodology is important but it won't tell you what you cannot know. So people who didn't get this invariably over extend the reach of scientific exploration.

(12-19-2010, 11:09 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-18-2010, 09:26 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Formally, I think they are aware of the danger of bias.

They most certainly are part of the curriculum. In my opinion it's just the fanboys, not the highly educated scientists. who understand what science does not know. There is a course most universities offer, the philosophy of science. In my opinion the degree to which people understand this topic is the degree to which they are true scientists. Calculus and methodology is important but it won't tell you what you cannot know. So people who didn't get this invariably over extend the reach of scientific exploration.

Like I was trying to say, it has been identified as a "meme" i.e. materialism/reductionism. Operating from within the meme, it is not possible to see alternative mindsets. For example, it is only from the next higher meme - "Green" that one begins to understand the validity of subjective reality. There are many such developmental models available, such as Wilber's levels or stages.

Also, take a look at his "pre/trans" fallacy. Many people in these forums, including Carla/Q'uo, have fallen for it when evaluating tribal culture (as being in a high or even the last subdensity. Evolving up the density does require, at some point, reaching transpersonal development. But the tribal stage is still operating within participation mistique or beginning stages of experience in this realm.

(12-19-2010, 12:08 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Also, take a look at his "pre/trans" fallacy. Many people in these forums, including Carla/Q'uo, have fallen for it when evaluating tribal culture (as being in a high or even the last subdensity. Evolving up the density does require, at some point, reaching transpersonal development. But the tribal stage is still operating within participation mistique or beginning stages of experience in this realm.

Huh? I totally didn't understand. Can you explain? And are you saying Q'uo has 'fallen for' it? (whatever 'it' is which is the part I don't understand.)

(12-19-2010, 02:34 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2010, 12:08 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Also, take a look at his "pre/trans" fallacy. Many people in these forums, including Carla/Q'uo, have fallen for it when evaluating tribal culture (as being in a high or even the last subdensity. Evolving up the density does require, at some point, reaching transpersonal development. But the tribal stage is still operating within participation mistique or beginning stages of experience in this realm.

Huh? I totally didn't understand. Can you explain?

Sure, taken from here:
...if one is sympathetic with higher or mystical states, but one still confuses pre and trans, then one will elevate all prerational states to some sort of transrational glory (the infantile primary narcissism, for example, is seen as an unconscious slumbering in the mystico unio). Jung and his followers, of course, often take this route, and are forced to read a deeply transpersonal and spiritual status into states that are merely indissociated and undifferentiated and actually lacking any sort of integration at all.

(12-19-2010, 02:34 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]And are you saying Q'uo has 'fallen for' it? (whatever 'it' is which is the part I don't understand.)

That is my understanding from reading the sessions. By 'it', I meant the mistake of confusing prepersonal (early development) with transpersonal (later development). Don't get me wrong, I too resonate with the material and I know it takes a high vibration to receive this info. But I am certain this mistake or fallacy was made and is still being made. (Sorry, I don't have the session date handy.)

Very simply: mystical states are achievable without development (or polarization) through what Ra calls the subdensities, yet these states have been confused as being the result of such development.

(12-19-2010, 03:54 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]I too resonate with the material and I know it takes a high vibration to receive this info.

It is interesting that you use the word "resonate" as it is a word that is often used on the forums when the poster is evaluating the veracity of someone's claims (be it DW, or any other member of the crop of futurists)

Implied in the use of that word is that if something resonates with someone then it must be true (or might be true), but really the resonance is simply reflecting one's personal biases.

As you said earlier

(12-19-2010, 03:54 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, and what I've been saying is that by simply being honest, it's always possible to keep oneself in check (with regards to claims or analysis of claims (teach/learn or learn/teach), regardless of personality bias. Further, I would submit that it is only lack of self acceptance that can circumvent this honesty.

rather than using the fact that something resonates with oneself as a gauge of reliability, it would be far more instructive using it to explore one's personality biases.

But having done that, what then? the search for meaning is a powerful impulse in human psychology even if understanding is not of this density

(12-19-2010, 05:30 PM)lvxseeker Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2010, 03:54 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]I too resonate with the material and I know it takes a high vibration to receive this info.

It is interesting that you use the word "resonate" as it is a word that is often used on the forums when the poster is evaluating the veracity of someone's claims (be it DW, or any other member of the crop of futurists)

Implied in the use of that word is that if something resonates with someone then it must be true (or might be true), but really the resonance is simply reflecting one's personal biases.

As you said earlier

(12-19-2010, 03:54 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, and what I've been saying is that by simply being honest, it's always possible to keep oneself in check (with regards to claims or analysis of claims (teach/learn or learn/teach), regardless of personality bias. Further, I would submit that it is only lack of self acceptance that can circumvent this honesty.

rather than using the fact that something resonates with oneself as a gauge of reliability, it would be far more instructive using it to explore one's personality biases.

That's true. But in the quote you presented, when I said "regardless of personality bias", I merely meant that personality bias has nothing to do with ability to be honest with the claim. I did not at all mean what would (ultimately) be reliable or even prove instructive.

(12-19-2010, 05:30 PM)lvxseeker Wrote: [ -> ]But having done that, what then? the search for meaning is a powerful impulse in human psychology even if understanding is not of this density

That it is! Considering that "The few whom you will illuminate by sharing your light are far more than enough reason for the greatest possible effort. To serve one is to serve all. Therefore, we offer the question back to you to state that indeed it is the only activity worth doing: to learn/teach or teach/learn." If we are not relating understanding when we teach/learn or learn/teach, then what is being shared?

(12-19-2010, 03:54 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2010, 02:34 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]And are you saying Q'uo has 'fallen for' it? (whatever 'it' is which is the part I don't understand.)

That is my understanding from reading the sessions. By 'it', I meant the mistake of confusing prepersonal (early development) with transpersonal (later development). Don't get me wrong, I too resonate with the material and I know it takes a high vibration to receive this info. But I am certain this mistake or fallacy was made and is still being made. (Sorry, I don't have the session date handy.)

All channeled material has some degree of distortion. If you feel a mistake was made in the transmission, it is more likely due to either misinterpretation or distortion than to Q'uo's 'mistake.'

(12-19-2010, 05:30 PM)lvxseeker Wrote: [ -> ]Implied in the use of that word is that if something resonates with someone then it must be true (or might be true), but really the resonance is simply reflecting one's personal biases.

Or... It is a reflection of the inner feeling about the next step that the subconscious individual feels it should take? A compass like sense of direction without immediately knowing where you are. Similar to recognizing peoples intentions from their body language.

There's whole tribes of people who navigate on that compass. There's a reason we evolved the ability to feel it.

Psychological research into intuition has shown that it is a separate mechanism. That is right in many cases wrong in some specific cases. But it's lightning fast. In a way it's like a mental short cut we evolved because thinking about everything all the time is going to get you eaten.