Rememberings

Both my son, who is now 28, and I are Contactees. He began remembering his abduction experiences, starting when he was 13 or so, and following that started a journal basically covering information, such as genetics and the like, with which he was programmed.

I started to remember my abductions experiences when I was in my early forties. Although I have been writing about various topics such as the subconscious mind and astrophysics (topics with which I have little interest, and no formal training) pretty much all of my life.

What is interesting to me is that both my son and I started to recall our experiences within a few years of each other. So I’m interested in finding out if others have had similar experiences within their family (i.e., a situational timetable w/in the family), and/or if we are remembering our experiences based on some sort of ‘master timetable’.

Apparently, we don’t remember our experiences, until or unless we are supposed to.

Cheers
Jocariah

As far as my family goes, I'm it. My kids have had dreams here and there, but this can be day residue too. The bottom line is that neither I, or my kids, ever learned anything from these dream-state events. I have learned everything I know from following the hints that pointed to history.

My experiences have never been what other people write about, in fact it shocks me to read these accounts.

Onlychild, Jocariah made this stuff up and was not really someone who was a contactee (go figure). He comes clean in one of these threads, and made many (including me) upset as he seemed to be making fun of those who may be experiencing this type of phenomena.

kidflash2008 wrote:

Onlychild, Jocariah made this stuff up and was not really someone who was a contactee (go figure). He comes clean in one of these threads, and made many (including me) upset as he seemed to be making fun of those who may be experiencing this type of phenomena.

LOL ...

I know I'm new here but I am dead serious about this stuff. My experiences have been completely different and only involve what you could call "pointing to" aspects of history. I have been working on this for 36 years and the time has come to straighten this mess out.

One last thing - I WANT to be challenged. There may be things I haven't seen that will broaden the picture. You aren't going to offend me and I hope no offense is taken when I say things; it's just the way I am. I'm just a tell it like it is kind of person. Data comes first

I just wanted you to know that before you invest a lot of time in his threads. He has not been here for quite some time, although he is not banned.

I am not challenging what you are saying as I am still digesting it as you reveal your story. It might be best to start your own thread, so Jocariah's name is not associated with it.

Goddess Bless,

Lloyd

kidflash2008 wrote:

I just wanted you to know that before you invest a lot of time in his threads. He has not been here for quite some time, although he is not banned.

I am not challenging what you are saying as I am still digesting it as you reveal your story. It might be best to start your own thread, so Jocariah's name is not associated with it.

Goddess Bless,

Lloyd

OK One step at a time. Regarding challenge - maybe the wrong word ... I want counter arguments. I am one person and I don't know everything

Hello again,

To my way of thinking, Abductees are like deer - we, for the most part, are not seekers of the limelight, or publicity, and the like - there are millions of us, so why don't you hear of us more?. And of course, we run off easily - not so much out of fear, but out of self-preservation, perhaps. Prejudice towards us, being what it is.

I am a real Abductee, as is my son - I left beacuse I was being hounded to distraction by another poster here who had it in her mind (as some Christian savior of sorts, odd really) to try and distrupt everything I said or response I made. She said I was of the devil - very funny.

So why on earth would I stay, being treated that way - I have better things to do.

I think the forum administrators dropped the ball by letting her be so disruptive - but, as they are/were in charge, that is/was their call to make. It's their sandbox - I am only a visitor.

I closed the door (slammed it really) by saying it was all a lie on my part - I ended it in a way that made it easier for people to digest, as opposed to having to integrate (into their worldview) that people like me really do exist. And I gave the nay-sayers what they wanted ... (see, I knew he was a fake!). It was good for me to see these recations, as well.

So there you have it.

Frankly, one thing that really surpised me by all of this is the extent (or depth) of prejudice that exists toward Abductees. Better, it seems, to label them as liars, crazies or publicity whores that to entertain the possibility of their existence. I can understand this actually.

It's no wonder Abductees don't show up.

I think I might post here (only in 'Rememberings'), few a short time, if the forum administrators allow me, and if anyone cares to interact with me.

If a sincere sort showed up, they might 'see' something as well - those disruptive types, need not apply, I've already had my fill of you.

But then, we are like deer.

Cheers:D
Jocariah


...

Cheers:D

Hello Jocariah,

It is interesting to see you back. I am not one to hold any lasting grudges. But certainly you must understand the skepticism of [others and myself] after such a dramatic exit. It, of course, raises questions as to which lies are genuine and which ones false, as clearly some are one and some the other, no?

Hi Mike,

Good for you.

If you are ‘skeptical’, to my way of thinking, that is a good thing.

Trust is a misappropriated concept – a Christian, or more correctly, a religious principle for the most part. Why is it that we need trust anything or anybody – after all, we, as humans, are easily deceived at every turn.

Why trust or mistrust – why not remain neutral (or ‘skeptical’ for that matter) of everything. Neither believing or doubting, but rather invoking a third option – the option of picking neither side, but rather remaining neutral, without having to decide one or the other, but waiting and collecting more information – if one so chose - without ‘prejudice’, but rather an open mind devoid of all ‘preconceived notions’ … not wanting to pigeonhole anything out of hand.

The third option then sees something not in terms of belief or disbelief, but simple whether or not something or some matter at hand is interesting or not…that’s it!

Difficult? But of course … it demands discipline of the mind – which wants, as soon as possible, to file, categorize, pigeonhole or decide upon a category, place or opinion of what is being considered, so it may simply move on, to something else and start the whole process over, again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.

That’s what the mind likes to do…isn’t it?

Perhaps, we (more often than not) don’t have nearly enough information to render a decision on such things…and ultimately, may NEVER have enough information to that end.

For instance, you say you write on consciousness while having no great interest in the subject. How does this conflate with earlier claims to being a psychology student? I certainly believe that psychology and consciousness are not exactly parallel studies, but they do cross over, inevitably

Okay.

“”I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt”” …why I never asked this of you.

However, you should not mistake my honest skepticism with prejudice. I bear no grudges and make no judgments. But, when a person claims something I have no way of confirming, I must question the source. To do otherwise would be gullible and irrational. I try not to be those things even if, inevitably, we all fall victim to our own preconceived notions at times.

Question away.

Thankfully, our brainwashed proselytizer has been banished from these realms. And as you know, I did show an honest interest in what you had to say, even if you were a bit combative and obtuse at times.

But, as an olive branch, I will declare here my own experiences around this subject.

I have no conscious memories of being abducted or having contact experiences. What I do have are vivid memories of an almost obsessive interest in the subject of UFOs from the very first time I became aware of them as a young boy. This interest far predated my one and only UFO sighting I had when I was around 18 years old.

I also have no memories of being "programmed", as you call it. But I have to say with all frankness that my interest in UFOs lead me on a very circuitous path through lifetime studies of both UFOs and consciousness. I have little formal education, but an avid curiosity and a seemingly perfidious turn of events (many revolving around my interest in UFOs) has lead me to lifetime of casual, if serious, study.

As for my family, I have no children. But my sister has some conscious experiences of both UFO sightings and contact. One contact she told me about took place in my own home in San Diego during the '80s when she was staying with me. My house. That certainly sent chills up my spine.

Also, her oldest daughter has conscious experiences as well, which she refuses to talk about. She also refuses to stay at her grandmother's house (the one I grew up in) because of these things and has told me in so many words that she "hates aliens".

We (individually) all arrive at dealing with such matters in our own time ... a time that is right for us, and us alone. Her hating aliens is a good thing - she recognizes her emotions and can verbalize it, as well.

You cannot force these matters.

But Mike, there are a lot (perhaps thousands) of things that one might find of interest – why this subject, for you? That, to my way of thinking, speaks volumes that there is something going on w/ you.

Anyway, that is the Reader's Digest condensed version of my interests in the subject. Take it as you will.....

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts – I appreciate that.

Cheers,
J.

PS...I appreciate your use of logic, w/ regard to all of this...very refreshing.

.

I said in an earlier post:

""I think the forum administrators dropped the ball by letting her be so disruptive - but, as they are/were in charge, that is/was their call to make. It's their sandbox - I am only a visitor.
""

As I think on this more closely, I think I should have informed the forum administrators about this situation, so that the extent of this could have been brought to their attention, in a clear manner.

Why should I think, that they (without any input from me) should have known - an oversight on my part, perhaps?

J.

Jocariah wrote:

Trust is a misappropriated concept – a Christian, or more correctly, a religious principle for the most part. Why is it that we need trust anything or anybody – after all, we, as humans, are easily deceived at every turn.

Hello J,

How very cynical of you. An utter lack of trust is to ignore, indeed reject, the basic goodness of most people. Trust is not some spiritual defect which we attempt to trample in some misguided attempt at a delusional and unobtainable purity: It is a gift which we should give freely to all until they have proven themselves to be unworthy of it.

This artificial neutrality that you profess here is in fact a defensive shield you use to hold the entire world at arm's length. It is a failed attempt to avoid getting wet in the vast sea of life. Whether you admit it or not, you are already knee deep in the wading pool and you are only in denial about the wetness at your feet.

Love life and the world or reject it: It is your choice. I find that taking a good engaging swim is far more rewarding in the end. But hey, maybe that is just me....

Jocariah wrote:

Why trust or mistrust – why not remain neutral (or ‘skeptical’ for that matter) of everything. Neither believing or doubting, but rather invoking a third option – the option of picking neither side, but rather remaining neutral, without having to decide one or the other, but waiting and collecting more information – if one so chose - without ‘prejudice’, but rather an open mind devoid of all ‘preconceived notions’ … not wanting to pigeonhole anything out of hand.

The third option then sees something not in terms of belief or disbelief, but simple whether or not something or some matter at hand is interesting or not…that’s it!

Difficult? But of course … it demands discipline of the mind – which wants, as soon as possible, to file, categorize, pigeonhole or decide upon a category, place or opinion of what is being considered, so it may simply move on, to something else and start the whole process over, again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.

That’s what the mind likes to do…isn’t it?

Perhaps, we (more often than not) don’t have nearly enough information to render a decision on such things…and ultimately, may NEVER have enough information to that end.

Yes, I remember this argument. What you are talking about is what the Buddhists and Hindus call enlightenment: The purported essential mental neutrality of the great master mystics. As you say, it is not a destination that you arrive at, but a discipline which takes constant attention and maintenance.

This also conflates with your past claim of not having any belief system. This concept is completely oxymoronic as asserting that you have no belief system is a belief. And, I might add, it is a false one. The only person who has no belief is the person who has no past or nor presence as these experiences invariably color our minds. The mind with any thoughts at all is a mind which is being programmed with experiences and predispositions that eventually coalesce into a belief system, one way or another.

You and I believe that we are communicating across this message board. That is a belief whether you acknowledge it or not - and one that you, no doubt, feel compelled to respond to.

Are you getting wet yet?

If you actually look at or study the great mystic masters of the east, you find that they happily swim in the sea of life. To do less is to spurn the gifts that your very existence has abundantly provided for you. A truly enlightened mystic is not a humorless ascetic, but a happy fellow who revels in splashing in the sea of life.

Jocariah wrote:

“”I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt”” …why I never asked this of you.

Why not? Consider it my gift. Remember the admonition about not looking gift horses in the mouth? Have a little respect, or better yet, maybe even a little gratitude?

Jocariah wrote:

But Mike, there are a lot (perhaps thousands) of things that one might find of interest – why this subject, for you? That, to my way of thinking, speaks volumes that there is something going on w/ you.

Well, yeah. That is why I was relating it to you.

You said: "Although I have been writing about various topics such as the subconscious mind and astrophysics (topics with which I have little interest, and no formal training) pretty much all of my life."

I do not write or have a lot of interest in astrophysics, but I have made a study of metaphysics and, to a lesser extent, quantum physics. They are essentially the same thing couched in different language. And both of those things, when distilled down to their essence are about consciousness.

So, even though I am a columnist for UFO magazine, I mostly write about consciousness. Here is a quote from my introductory column which pretty well expresses how I came to this place in my life:

"I am an artist who woke up one day a few months ago and suddenly realized that I had to write. Naturally, UFOs would be intimately involved with this writing. It was not a conscious decision. I just knew that this is what I had to do. Just as Angelucci’s space brothers told him: “…we hope to give men deeper knowledge and understanding of their own true nature and a greater awareness of the evolutionary crisis facing them.”

The name of the movement which Daniel Fry began in the ‘50s was, “Understanding”. Our present world has a dangerous shortage of understanding. That describes how I see my mission as a writer. I want to open minds. I want people to understand our responsibilities to our consciousness, our fellow man, our world and ultimately, the universe. Crazy, no?

So, that is the present life course that began for me one day when, as a child, I saw some colorful UFO photos. I wasn’t just looking at some flat photos on the page of some long forgotten magazine. I was looking through a window into another reality. And, from the other side of that window, the cosmos reached out and touched me that day."

Jocariah wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts – I appreciate that.

Cheers,
J.

PS...I appreciate your use of logic, w/ regard to all of this...very refreshing.

Thanks! I appreciate your candor as well.

Cheers!!

Mike

Mike Good...""How very cynical of you. An utter lack of trust is to ignore, indeed reject, the basic goodness of most people.""

Hi Mike,

People need loved – not trusted. Nobody ‘needs’ to be trusted … however we all, for the most part, share a basic human need to be loved.

Trust is at its very core selfish (not selfless) - it is focused inward. It is all about the giver of the trust – NOT the receiver. That is to say, it is all about the one giving the trust. The trust giver tries to elevate himself (in his own mind), but actually is just too mentally lazy to logically reason out a given situation, and instead decides to trust. And more often than not, their trust becomes misplaced and they b*tch and moan about how they trusted so-and-so and were then mistreated and let down, in that so-called trust.

What a surprise...trust carries with it an inherent closed-loop that feeds upon itself - a pattern that begs to be repeated, again and again.

I love and respect people (even those bad eggs among us, whom I choose to avoid). Why… Because it is a difficult task, this ‘being human’ business that we are all involved in… and all of us need to understand that.

Every human being has my respect for being human.

One man's cynical, is another''s realism, perhaps.

Cheers
J.

.

Jocariah wrote:

One man's cynical, is another''s realism, perhaps.

Cheers
J.

Cheers!!

Mike

Greetings, Mike.

Not when it separates you from those you would claim to love.

People don’t respond to trust – but rather love. You can love people absent of trust, if you so choose.

I think trust is a gift you should give freely.

Think as you see fit. Your thought process is uniquely yours alone. Shaped by you, and others.

To my way of thinking, trust is a perversion of one’s own well being – love freely…trust nothing or no one.

It costs you nothing.

It costs you everything.

If I ran around expecting the worst from everybody, then my life would be a miserable, lonely fear factory.

Then don’t do it …expect the best from people – give them a reason to show you their best. Respect them as human beings in a difficult situation. Love those that can accept it - as the saying goes...'no need to cast your pearls to the swine'

The vast majority of people have shown my trust to have been well placed.

That is certainly your prerogative. But why rely on someone else for you 'well being'

Those few who have taken advantage of my trust (and they are few indeed) simply no longer get it. And I get over that small lapse in judgment soon enough.

Small lapse in judgement? – go ahead and punish yourself as you see fit.

To always expect the worst from people is a pre-judgment that serves nobody as far as I am concerned.

Then don’t do it – don’t prejudge anyone.

That does not mean that I suspend my powers of observation or my gut instincts about others.

Your powers of observation? Your feelings are yours to contend with – who can say how you should or shouldn’t deal with your feelings…your feelings are yours, and your alone. You need not justify or quantify them.

Recognize your feelings and emotions, certainly - but why on earth would you base your decisions on them? Emotions come and go like the wind. One minute here another minute there; up and down with our mood.

I generally know who to trust, and who not to. If there are no apparent red flags, I trust - that simple.

Geneally?

You are free to play Russian Roulette too, I imagine – hoping that the chamber you are about to squeeze off is empty … for your own sake.

But, I guess that is just me, eh?

No…that is how most people might choose to see it – I image. You are a product of your environment, a product, not only of your genetic influences, but also a product of the social system or societal norm imposed, or pushed upon you by those in authority over you, as they had their social system pushed upon them by those in authority over them…so on and so forth.

We have all been taught how to think, by those in authority over us - me as well.

So, was my very small act of trust wasted on you? Your answer to that will tell volumes.
Trust, as you describe it is not in my vocabulary. Whatever you did was for your benefit alone – don’t bring me into your script. As this trust thing of yours, is only an internal program for you (serving its purpose in you)… relevant to you, and you alone.

But let me ask, Mike...did my lie teach you anything?

.

Thanks!

Mike

Hi Mike,

I am all for empowering people – TRUST, dis-empowers people.

Why on earth would anyone give over his or her well-being to another?

To whom does that prove something?

Would another person have your best interest at heart at all times?

Aren’t we all human – capable of doing things not in our own best interest, let alone the best interest of others?

Trust is simply a good excuse to be mentally lazy – and in so doing, make it seem honorable for the trust-giver at the same time.

Actually, all of this has little to do with trust, and everything to do with our thought process – that process by which we think. Societal norms and those in authority over us have substantially shaped our thought process. How do we go about to acknowledge and integrate that?

Clearly, I am not talking to Mike Good here – but rather those societal norms and all of those in authority over you who have done their part to shape ‘your thought process’….unless of course that is, you were raised in a vacuum or selected on your own, at every step of the way, throughout your developmental years, all of the ‘foundational precepts’ incorporated in your thought process.

Perhaps, to engage me intellectually is to face your humanness (an untenable existence for all) - a fearful experience at best, best kept pushed down as far as one can, until that time when it can no longer be kept under wraps.

But I too must do the same – facing my fears as I do and acknowledging my programming at the hands of my keepers, those creatures in authority over me who have done their part in instructing me throughout my early development. Forming my intellectual foundational precepts, as they did, and in so doing, serving their best interest and no my own.

You see, you have a vested interest to disassociate me, or any of this, from your reality.

Easier perhaps to put this all off as pure rubbish, than attempt to change, or even integrate any of this into your ‘world view’ – after all, there are more on your side of the fence than mine. And one can surely take comfort in that, after all.

Cheers,
J.

.

People who say that they want to explore the UFO phenomena or meet aliens remind me of children on a playground who say they want to grow up and be big, so they can do this or that.

An exciting prospect at that very moment, no doubt, until they realize that they must give up their childish ways and ideals to do so.

Of course time can solve this.

Gradually, children grow up and can look back and smile at their foolishness.

Likewise, we, as a species, need to expand our ‘world-view’ …. tantamount to our growing up, and giving up our childish ways.

Cheers,
J.

.

We can deceive ourselves it seems by ‘goring sacred cows’ from the safety of our own worldview or psychological framework…allowing ourselves to go only so far we are comfortable, and no further. Self-deception is an integral part of the human experience. It allows us to delude ourselves into thinking that we are doing those things, which we, in reality, cannot or would not.

It's the difference between reality and fantasy.

Amending our own worldview or psychological framework can be a painful, unsettling process at its very best - impossible for some, at its worst.

One needs to decide whose ‘sacred cows’ they are ‘goring’ – their own, or those of others?

Why would anyone gore the sacred cows of others, leaving your own to pasture in comfort and safety?

Cheers,
J.

.

Okay

Mike Good wrote:

Okay J,

I am hearing you. I do not have time to respond to this right now. But I will when I have more time to mull it over....

Does my response make me a liar too?

Mike

I thought perhaps you were angered by the direction of the discussion.

To my way of thinking, this surely must be one of the more difficult principals to wrap the mind around. While at the same time calling into question, the very mind that is doing the wrapping.

Cheers,
J.

PS... I see they fixed the 'quote' function here

.

Frankly, i cannot imagine someone pursuing such things, as are being discussed herein, of their own accord.

To what end?

As for me, i had no choice – regardless of my interests, then or now, i was programmed with such matters (i.e., our thought process).

Yet, as i continue to think on this presently, as i type, i can imagine our thought process being at the very core of all that we are, or all that we think we are.

It (our thought process) sets the stage for how we see our world, and ourselves in that world. It places us in the proper context – proper for us, at least. It organizes (or properly files) our ‘now thoughts’ – those thoughts in the present tense – for foundational purposes or for later retrieval – two entirely different tasks or functions. And it does it all ‘automatically’, without any outside direction or conscious involvement on our part.

How can this be? How can the mind do all of this, and do it automatically?

Cheers,
J.

.

So i have to ask myself, based on the above, how do i see myself?

I see myself as a human being influenced, in large part, by my keepers, those creatures of a higher order.

Did my parents influence me? I would imagine, but for me it was as if there was a continual narration or voice-over commentary taking place as i lived my life. To be frank, it was as if i had little or less in common with them (my family), and more in common with my keepers; although i looked nothing like them, and they looked nothing like me. There seemed to me to be a bond there, stronger in fact than with my family – the family with whom i was raised. Perhaps they set it up this way, that is to say; perhaps they established a sense of bond stronger than that of my family.

They were my keepers, my guides, and my way of seeing the world, of which I was a part.

So how does this, or how would this, effect my 'worldview'?

Cheers,
J.

EDIT:

As i reread this post several times, i am starting to see myself as existing in some netherworld. Neither being a part of my family, nor being of my keepers. As if I were a duck raised by chickens whose keepers were geese – very funny, an odd duck at that!

.

Cheers!!

Yes, to answer a prior question - that makes you a liar as well!

Cheers,
Jocariah

.

Mike Good....""Last edited by Mike Good on Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:27 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Pointlessness)""

Pointlessness?

It wasn't pointless - you got the opportunity to voice your frustrations and vent.

Cheers,
J.

.