Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
UM-Bot

UFOs and deja vu

68 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

UM-Bot
Quote

When all is said and done there is ample evidence that certain aspects of the UFO phenomenon are largely repeatable – that they happen over and over again, making it a mixed cocktail of deja vu. It is a situation that is so bizarre yet prevalent that it deserves serious study. Such a study is now at hand, and it's an in-depth one that proves there are certain "coincidental" aspects of the phenomenon that cannot be overlooked.

More: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=334441

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1

Interesting. All these things will never make sense to a three-dimensional physical-only thinking person. I have come from the evidence to believe this reality is something vastly more deep and complex and involving dimensions not directly accessible by our physical senses. What all is possible is unknown still.  The article touches on just some of these manifestations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jujo-jo
3 hours ago, UM-Bot said:

I wish they had not used the term deja vu in the title lol. Deja vu is MUCH different and much more complexed than repeated claims that are floating around from time to time ; )

 

EDIT & ADDED:

interesting article tho. Thanks!

Edited by Jujo-jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

All these things will never make sense to a three-dimensional physical-only thinking person.

Why not? It fits well within the framework of my prefered model. No higher dimensions or spirituality needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
56 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Why not? It fits well within the framework of my prefered model. No higher dimensions or spirituality needed.

??? You must be in denial of a lot of claims then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

??? You must be in denial of a lot of claims then.

99% of all UFO claims are misperceptions of perfectly normal things, like drones and airplanes. The interesting part, the 1% remaining, are (imho) distractions. Put there to make us believe in aliens and whatnot. Because, if we focus on stuff like that, we are less likely to question reality. Repeating patterns/deja vu shows it's automated, which should be expected, because there's to much work in performing them all manually. But that's just my interpretation/proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey
3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I have come from the evidence to believe this reality is something vastly more deep and complex and involving dimensions not directly accessible by our physical senses..

 

Yes, we all wish we could see the Big Picture but we're limited to seeing just the small map area that our human senses can detect..

 

 

Edited by Crikey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

99% of all UFO claims are misperceptions of perfectly normal things, like drones and airplanes. The interesting part, the 1% remaining, are (imho) distractions. Put there to make us believe in aliens and whatnot. Because, if we focus on stuff like that, we are less likely to question reality. Repeating patterns/deja vu shows it's automated, which should be expected, because there's to much work in performing them all manually. But that's just my interpretation/proposal.

Did you read the article in the OP that I was commenting on. It got into many subjects your view would have to be in denial of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Did you read the article in the OP that I was commenting on. It got into many subjects your view would have to be in denial of.

You got me. It was to long a read for my patience.  I was commenting on the general subject of repeated/similar sightings, not on the article. But please describe some examples that doesn't fit my model, if you don't mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

You got me. It was to long a read for my patience.  I was commenting on the general subject of repeated/similar sightings, not on the article. But please describe some examples that doesn't fit my model, if you don't mind.

One section is on 
UFOS AND THE LIFE AFTER DEATH ASPECT

Another section is on skinwalker ranch and shapeshifters

A whole lot doesn't fit in your model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

One section is on 
UFOS AND THE LIFE AFTER DEATH ASPECT

Another section is on skinwalker ranch and shapeshifters

A whole lot doesn't fit in your model.

Well, to be fair, my model only explains the reality we live in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

The interesting part, the 1% remaining, are (imho) distractions. Put there to make us believe in aliens and whatnot.

Huh ? "Put there" by whom ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Huh ? "Put there" by whom ?

Good question!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Well, to be fair, my model only explains the reality we live in.

Actually your model is for the realm of the three-dimensional physical plane. I believe we live in etheric, astral, mental, etc. planes too that our physical senses and instruments do not directly detect. That is our difference. I see so much of the so-called paranormal as just part and parcel of my many-dimensional model where you seem to generally tend towards denial of the many paranormal subjects in the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Actually your model is for the realm of the three-dimensional physical plane. I believe we live in etheric, astral, mental, etc. planes too that our physical senses and instruments do not directly detect. That is our difference. I see so much of the so-called paranormal as just part and parcel of my many-dimensional model where you seem to generally tend towards denial of the many paranormal subjects in the article.

I want to believe, I truly do. But I can't without evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I want to believe, I truly do. But I can't without evidence.

I'm sure our conversation will end badly but I 100% start from the evidence. I believe what is most reasonable to believe when all things are considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I'm sure our conversation will end badly but I 100% start from the evidence. I believe what is most reasonable to believe when all things are considered.

You trust anecdotal evidence, because "they can't all be lies". I have a tendency to say you're right, but I need to be sure. That certainty only comes with experimental evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

You trust anecdotal evidence, because "they can't all be lies". I have a tendency to say you're right, but I need to be sure. That certainty only comes with experimental evidence.

A consideration based on quantity, quality and consistency is not 'trusting' but 'analyzing'.

And I also consider experimental and investigative evidence too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

I want to believe, I truly do. But I can't without evidence.

Why do you "want to believe" ? Surely that isn't a hard-nosed approach to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Why do you "want to believe" ? Surely that isn't a hard-nosed approach to anything.

To me the supernatural/paranormal is impossible. So if there is evidence of the impossible, it proves interference by someone above the laws of nature. And that someone can only be an administrator. In other words, it proves that we are in a virtual reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, sci-nerd said:

To me the supernatural/paranormal is impossible. So if there is evidence of the impossible, it proves interference by someone above the laws of nature. And that someone can only be an administrator. In other words, it proves that we are in a virtual reality.

I really don't see the necessity of any of that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 2/9/2020 at 12:54 AM, UM-Bot said:

That would be this Sean Casteel...?
https://www.amazon.com.au/Hostilities-Evil-Alien-Agenda-Ultra-Terrestrials-ebook/dp/B07D1N7GXP
61hVnM7U-aL.jpg

....

And the Skinwalker Ranch is a source of information to back this up?

I'll pass on this one thanks.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
On 2/8/2020 at 7:27 PM, papageorge1 said:

A consideration based on quantity, quality and consistency is not 'trusting' but 'analyzing'.

You have gone and done your own research?  When I've asked you for the absolute best evidence for anything paranormal in the past you've only provided things that require almost 100% trust on your part, they almost all rely on someone correctly interpreting their experiences (other than what you're mentioned to me before that the 'evidence' for the paranormal only shows up when performing certain statistical calculations, which I believe you just have to trust also unless you are a statistician).

On 2/8/2020 at 7:27 PM, papageorge1 said:

And I also consider experimental and investigative evidence too.

Have you done much analysis of why most scientists don't believe there is any good evidence for anything paranormal, and their objections?  "I believe there are more dimensions" doesn't address those objections and definitely isn't any kind of 'analysis', it's just a statement of why you don't believe those objections.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 When I've asked you for the absolute best evidence for anything paranormal in the past you've only provided things that require almost 100% trust on your part, they almost all rely on someone correctly interpreting their experiences (other than what you're mentioned to me before that the 'evidence' for the paranormal only shows up when performing certain statistical calculations, which I believe you just have to trust also unless you are a statistician).

98% of the paranormal happens as spontaneous and non-reproducible events from our physical-only perspective. Anecdotal data after the event can never be proved. The best tool to understanding all this is a rational analysis of the quantity, quality and consistency of the body of data with all things considered. I am by now 100% certain that things occur that dramatically do not fit into our straightforward materialist model of reality. I have learned of other multi-dimensional/realm models (Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical, etc.) that do indeed make sense of this so-called paranormal phenomena. 

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Have you done much analysis of why most scientists don't believe there is any good evidence for anything paranormal, and their objections?  "I believe there are more dimensions" doesn't address those objections and definitely isn't any kind of 'analysis', it's just a statement of why you don't believe those objections.

99% of scientists do not study the paranormal evidence and are not knowledgeable in that field. I think if they put more time into it, there would be more believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey
51 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

99% of scientists do not study the paranormal evidence and are not knowledgeable in that field. I think if they put more time into it, there would be more believers.

 

Yes, any scientists who don't acknowledge the possible existence of a "superscience" beyond our 5 senses must be a bit closed-minded, but we truthseekers are always striving to see the larger area beyond our own small village..:D

 

 

 

 

Edited by Crikey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.