Page 2 of 218 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 2178

Thread: What we think we know so far

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by A99 View Post
    Hmmmm, no Pont, that would be a separate analysis that would also include Fore's contactee experiences and communications as well as a number of other experiencers and contactee communications. It would be a Fair and Balanced analysis and not one that is biased in any way to support those contentions made by one contactee and their astral "ET" sources who are communicating through them.
    So, a neutral analysis as you say, devoid of support of any one individuals analysis of the situation. Well, as the thread has been re-titled that will no-longer be a problem, will it?

    Quote Originally Posted by A99 View Post
    Inconsistencies were deliberately inserted into the... what?... working model, you say? Is this what Fore's guys are saying Pont? So because of that it's true and any contactee or experiencer whose communications do not say that are wrong Pont? Because only Fore's guys are the one who give out the correct info on things. No Pont... once again, you and Fore need to rename this thread from "What we think we know" to "What Fore and Pontificator Think They Know".
    Actually that was a point made by Fore about what he had been taught. If you were familiar with the source material, and subsequent analysis in the past, then you would be aware of that piece of information. The general methodology employed by ET's in their research and contact program is that there should be a lock and key system for different experiencers. Some will find their stories match to a point, others will not. Essentially everyone has a piece of the puzzle, and it is a case of sorting the wheat from the chaff. This is also why experiencers divide into different groups, as the resulting friction from the, effectively, "he said she said" factor creating large-scale friction.

    Quote Originally Posted by A99 View Post
    Once again,you're talking about what Fore and his astral ET guys are saying only yet you are being disingenuous by trying to come across like ALL Experiencers and Contactee Sources are saying the above and that is completely ludicrous because once again, that's only what Fore and his ETs are saying, not everybody else's.

    will continue later....
    Well, as the thread has been retitled to reflect your opinion before I even really gotten started this will no-longer be a problem. As I have stated, this is an evolving thread, and just because other experiencers have not made their comments yet, and had their material inserted into the model, does not mean that they will not do so.

    *sheesh* I barely start writing something and everyone leaps down my throat...

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by newyorklily View Post
    I don't understand. Here you are saying that this is based on scientific principles and that you want to teach it in a "nust-and-bolts" manner and forego any mystical traditions.
    Mystical tradition and mystical teachings are two different things. Much the same as a countries culture vs it's scientific achievements. In this case I am speaking of mysticism as a dressing around a scientific principle that obscures the hidden truth beneath [I'm actually surprised that I'm actually having to explain this, but then again "there you go" as it were {that quote is a saying btw, not an inference about you, just in case you take it that way}]

    Quote Originally Posted by newyorklily View Post
    But here you are saying that it is controlled and ruled by religous beliefs and faith. Religious beliefs vary from person to person whereas the scientific method is constant. It can't be both so, which is it?
    Did I say that? No. I am concentrating on the scientific method of analysis of the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by newyorklily View Post
    I do not view God and angels the way you do therefore, I cannot agree with your method.
    You are free to express your opinion, and I will not hold it against you. [for a moment I thought a particular sentence had been edited out, but I just miss-read one of the paragraphs I'd written last night. Was tired at the time.]
    Last edited by pontificator; 01-13-2012 at 06:33 PM.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfire View Post
    Good points A99,
    Here's some questions Pontificator,

    1 - Who's working model?
    Mine, Fore's and anyone who contributes to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfire View Post
    2 - Who set it up?
    Lets see, originally we had the material put together by Fore, which I was studying. By merely analyzing the material I, quite suddenly, came face to face with the supposedly impossible and non-existent. Given that there definitely appeared to be more to it after that quite unusual, but not unique, event I started running experiments with individuals on and offline. This thread will, over time as it is written, be a summary of what was found by myself, Fore, and those individuals [whom I doubt would wish to be identified in a public forum.]
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfire View Post
    3 - Where did the original data come from to get it started?
    Crikey, how long is a piece of string? This goes well beyond just Fore's material and my experiences, in fact now I think about it I've been compiling material on the subject since roughly 1992, looking for a commonality in the material. Fore's experiences ticked all the right boxes at the time, and was one of the best described cases I had come across. The fact that it led to a visitation made it all the more compelling to research further using what I'd found so far. So the material will effectively be a summary of pretty much everything I've read and studied, as well as other peoples experiences, since just before the last century [quite literally].
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfire View Post
    4 - Who is working with the model?
    At this time, myself because the forum is currently small and no-one has yet had anything to really contribute to as of yet. I am expecting as I put up more material people will be able to analyse and present what they experienced of a given area, and how this may effect the model. The model, yet to be written I might add, will be like any theory, evolving over time to best describe the presented material.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfire View Post
    There are other questions, but for now these will do.
    Fine enough, but is it normal procedure for everyone to have to describe everything it is they intend to do, or are working on? I really need some peace and quiet to simply get things done in terms of typing material up here so that people have something to work with. I barely have the index up...

  4. #14
    Hey Pontificator, Thanks for the answers. It clears up some thoughts I had. I never really read any of fores blog or what you and others were doing there so excuse my ignorance.

    I thought that maybe this was from some kind of scientific study being done someplace. Not fore's, yours, and others being done here or at the old place.

    I think I'll follow along and see where it goes. I have not had the experiance so maybe I can be a little more objective.
    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
    Sherlock Holmes

  5. #15
    Super Moderator newyorklily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    5,041
    Blog Entries
    3
    Originally Posted by newyorklilyBut here you are saying that it is controlled and ruled by religous beliefs and faith. Religious beliefs vary from person to person whereas the scientific method is constant. It can't be both so, which is it?
    Quote Originally Posted by pontificator View Post

    Did I say that? No. I am concentrating on the scientific method of analysis of the subject.
    Yes, you did say that here.

    Quote Originally Posted by pontificator View Post
    @NewYorkLily, you are correct in that they give protection from evil if you are deserving of such protection [they only operate with Gods permission, and he does say no or limits the scope of what they can do.] One of the interesting things is that each person has a purpose and path to follow, one which might not necessarily result in you making it out the other end. It is up to the individual to apply their discretionary faculties as to what is required of them, and remember that Judas had a set fate that was absolutely necessary as it effectively set the final stage [someone had to do it after all.]
    You are saying that one species of beings aides another species only if that species is deserving of protection and God approves it. That is a religious statement of faith. It is not science. Science is equal for everyone. Predestination (as you state above) is also a statement of faith. Do you have scientific proof of it? Or, for that matter, do you have scientific proof of God?
    www.disclosurebeginsathome.wordpress.com
    Disclosure begins at home so start a conversation about UFOs.
    "Debunkers are like school yard bullies." - Kevin Smith to Leslie Kean, August 31, 2010

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by newyorklily View Post
    Yes, you did say that here.
    *nods* I answered a question you brought up, and I will not answer any more such questions so that it might not offend you further than you already have been.
    Quote Originally Posted by newyorklily View Post
    You are saying that one species of beings aides another species only if that species is deserving of protection and God approves it. That is a religious statement of faith. It is not science. Science is equal for everyone. Predestination (as you state above) is also a statement of faith. Do you have scientific proof of it? Or, for that matter, do you have scientific proof of God?
    *nods knowingly* I could fire back with "can you prove gravity?", but that would be incredibly unfair to you. I made a statement based on observation and questioning, in completely neutral manner, which is but one aspect of the scientific discipline. Ask one and it is not scientific, ask two and get the same answer then you can form an hypotheses. Ask many, and receive the same answer, then it is a theory. Theories can be disproved when a different answer arises to the same question, leading to another hypotheses and so on. It is also possible to receive the same answer, but find that the consistent answer is a lie when put to the test [An observation made by some experiencers before me. However, this does not mean that everything lies, and so on.]

    *hypothetically* If I observe a 50000 ton weight falling through the atmosphere, and absolutely state that it will hit the ground, and then it hits the ground, was it's fate predetermined or scientifically inevitable? A philosopher could come up with a "Deus Ex Machina" inspired answer to this that would defy reality, and which was much derided by Aristotle, Friedrich Nietzsche et al. The reality is that both interpretations would be two sides of the same coin, and neither inherently incorrect.

    Anyway, I digress, I do intend to cover this more fully in the main material, and at that point you can expect a more coherent answer. Most material will be based on observation, correlation, and frequency of effect [Apparent repetition.]All aspects of the scientific method. However, I will not be conducting experiments based on any presented theory, that's for someone braver than I to do [part of the peer-preview process.]

    I found what I was looking for, and it is a coherent writeup of the limitations of scientific theorem: http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/2...-just-a-theory
    Last edited by pontificator; 01-14-2012 at 09:55 AM. Reason: Add Link

  7. #17
    Fundamentals to keep in mind:

    “The Influence”: a descriptive and objective term that defines a certain set of expected behaviours for a given situation in which “The Influence” is utilized or manipulated. Substitute “The Influence” for “gravity” and you should understand more clearly the way in which I will use the term.

    However, “The Influence” is not gravity, but gravity could be affected by “The influence” under the right circumstances. “The Influence” can also be referred to as “Influence” when directed by an entity to perform an action. As no suitable English word really exists to cover this we will need to cope with this for now.

    Most people accept that the universe is multi-dimensional, and that some dimensions cannot be seen, but can be inferred through observation. The Double Slit experiment is one such observable effect, as is the flow of time around oneself [length, width, depth and time being aspects of reality that are readily accepted.]

    Influence space, as it were, exists as a layer over these dimensions and more. There are dimensional aspects beyond Influence space and so on, until the edge of the universe is reached, and breached by the osmotic membranes between different physical universes [we will call this osmotic effect a translation gate, as it effectively converts from one universal set of reality to another; this will be discussed in section 3]. Not everyone supports the idea of multiple universes, but I note it has become quite popular amongst physicists over time.

    Matter is expected to exhibit certain behaviours, and follow certain rules. It is at the influence layer that these rules are defined and regulated, where one might consider an “Influence Model” twin of the matter concerned to exist. Non-physically represented behaviours of the universe are also modelled and regulated at this layer, and can actually exist independently of the material layer. That is, until those non-physical properties interact with “Influence Models” that have a physically apparent twin.

    Moving ahead to take a non-physical entity from section 5 we could place it in this Influence space. Its apparent existence would be non-observable, or even inferable, until it manipulated an “Influence Model” with a physical presence in 3 dimensional space. Because it could observe a scientist [which would have lot more going on than just an influence model at this layer] attempting to recreate the effect would only be possible if the entity intentionally repeated the effect.

    Think upon that for a moment, and then think about how many times you have seen a wild rat run past you, and then how many times it repeated the action when you wanted it to. Hopefully you will now realize that if you could not recreate the effect of a wild animal running past you, then there is a very low probability of the scientist being able to replicate his experiment with an independent entity in influence space [which may even be the equivalent of a rat.]

    Looking to section 4 in influence space we see complex structures that exist around certain types of physical manifestation, be it artificial or natural [in both the physical and influence sense for both instances]. A small animal will have its influence model of its physical matter, and then another structure that builds atop of this to give it the properties of an organic body. Further highly programmed structures act as interconnect points, referred to as “interconnect centres”, which have an actual set of interconnecting conduits, referred to simply as the “interconnect”, as it were, between control of the body and the consciousness guiding it.

    In sections 6 and 8 I will cover prior experiments and observations of what happens when influence space is manipulated, and the effects of manipulating interconnect centres and the interconnect itself.
    For clarification, the manipulation of matter by matter itself is “natural”, the manipulation of the fundamental natural laws by directed “Influence” is “supernatural”. A scientific device so advanced it appears magical but still works within the laws of the universe is “natural” and not magical [Dictionary definition supernatural]. A scientific device that is constructed by manipulating the influence layer, inferring new physical rule sets for the materials and behaviours of said materials, is both scientific and supernatural, or magical. Please remember this distinction if a non-corporeal entity “converses” with you; also not all objects with such properties will have a scientifically valid purpose or logical construction method.

    This is an evolving document, and things will be clarified, corrected, and changed over time.

  8. #18
    Pontificator said:
    Lets see, originally we had the material put together by Fore, which I was studying. By merely analyzing the material I, quite suddenly, came face to face with the supposedly impossible and non-existent.
    Why the secrets? Why can't you tell us what you came face-to-face with after "studying" over some of Fore's written material?

    Could it be that you won't do that because some may interpret ‘it’ as from Satan or from the dark side because any description of 'it' quintessentially matches up in some way that many will identify it as something recognizable and/or comparable as something from that category?

    Knowing that someone like Fore would relish anyone reporting on this board about what they came face-to-face with that they believe is connected to him, that the majority are very secretive and quiet about their own "face-to-face" experiences that are related to Fore should speak volumes on why that is.

    I will not name names here but I'm one of them only in my own case, I had been talking about my own experiences publicly on OMF prior to the shut down but not here yet....

    Hint: Reptilians
    But one time I saw the backside of a tall white too show up.
    Both connected to Fore.
    Last edited by A99; 01-14-2012 at 02:17 PM.
    HTML Code:
    For it is in giving that we receive.
    ~ St. Francis of Assisi

  9. #19
    I need to clarify what I meant by saying:
    Hint: Reptilians
    But one time I saw the backside of a tall white too show up.
    Fore had flooded my place with "Raw Influence" and and by doing so he said that any entity (there at my place) can pick up the influence that is there and cause trouble.

    Well, they did not cause trouble.. but the raw influence Fore sent caused them to manifest in 3D form for me to see clearly. But they were already there. I had been capturing photographic material of those beings before I ever registered at OMF and met Fore.

    I have shown my material in forums I belonged to before i joined OMF.

    But the "raw influence" that Fore sent my way, was used by those ETs that were hanging around my place and gave them enough energy to convert loosh... which is anything thing that "raw influence" is or works with.. so that they could manifest to me so that I could see them clearly in 3D physical form. In actuality though, they not in full physical form though to the eye, they looked that way.

    I could add more information but for now, this is all I"m going to say... he did also send me some of his spirituals, as he called them.. I soon found out they were some trickster entities but when I described to him one of them, he said "Oh, that's one of the nicer ones".

    But back to when Fore sent me that "raw influence" and I'm posting this so others here will have better understanding on it 'in his own words'.

    Raw influence can also do something like this if there is either already unseen entities at the location he sends the influence too or through those 'spirituals' as he calls them that he sends out to people.... he said
    "the entity can utter words in your head, the only requirement is that you have enough influence production."
    So in that usage for "raw influence", psychics how have enough "influence production" can hear entities that are around them talking to them if
    those entities are doing that.
    So "influence" has a few definitions to it.... another word for it is Loosh. Fore as usual is giving his own name to a familiar term that was first defined by Robert Monroe.
    But "Influence" also has other meanings too. and I have attempted to describe them in this message... these are in Fore's own words. They are quotes from Fore.


    "if it does not,(meaning the entities who were already at my place, the Reptilians and others do not have enough influence) I told it (the spiritual/trickster being he sent out to me) I would flood your area with raw influence for it's use and activity.


    ... then Fore said " though as a result, your environment is likely to destablize in it's normal influence properties." He also said : "the other problem is that flooding an area like that is also the precepts of a haunting."
    Also he said that after sending out raw influence, in this case through his "spirituals" that he sent out to me, "it means any entity (that is already there at my place) can pick up the influence that is there and cause trouble."
    Last edited by A99; 01-14-2012 at 03:18 PM.
    HTML Code:
    For it is in giving that we receive.
    ~ St. Francis of Assisi

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by pontificator View Post
    Right, there is a lot of material to cover, would this section structure look about right to you Fore?

    1) Fundamental aspects of "The Influence" and it's effects in the physical universe.
    2) The physical universe as one dimensional aspect of "The Influence"
    3) Systems used by Multi-Dimensional's to enter Physical space from "outside" the universe [Translation Gates]
    4) The "Self->Spiritual Body- >Higher Mind->[Inter-connect] Filter->->Body/Lower Mind" System
    5) Non-Physical entities in the above systems.
    6) Physical entities in the above systems.
    ^) Trans-Dimenstional entities in the above systems.
    7) Artificial Entities. (Artificially created "Encounter" Bodies)
    8) Psychic Powers and Higher Order Entities on classifying such abilities as "Magic" [defined here as the manipulation of reality through supernatural means, which the usage of the influence would be.]
    9) Reclassification of some ET's as Technologically advanced Magicians?
    Corrected a few points but otherwise should work. Are you going to put it in a chapter format?

    Should be fun. LOL, I wonder if TOP will be as resilient as OM was? Lets test it and see...

    P.S. Now that no one is watching what I say or divulge, I can say as much as I please. I don't know if you will come out unscathed though. Should be very interesting to talk without an editor actively working behind the scenes.

    I liked the name you made for this thread as well.
    Last edited by Fore; 01-14-2012 at 03:25 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •