Are all gods aliens?

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

If you insist. 

So if the information conflicts with what you're saying then what will your defense be?

Also, just to clarify: by what means did Peter Davis see the house being blown up? Was this footage being recorded live? By what network, if so? Just trying to leave no stones unturned in my search.

Approx time?

Im getting a bit tired of repeating myself to people who choose not to believe what i say.

I ve given all that information. except the time and i cant be sure of that, but i would guess around 3 in the afternoon.  It destroyed a lot of North shields about  2. 30 

quote 

Among those who lost their homes was Lorna Harding, now 91, from North Shields, a small coastal settlement north of Port Lincoln.

 

She watched as the house she was born in and had lived in all her life was destroyed, and said it was "one of those days that went in a blur".

"It was a really hot day. First thing in the morning you could feel the heat coming off the ground," she said.

"By lunchtime, it was just a red glow and by half past two my house was burnt.

"It just came so fast. Before we knew where we were, we were covered in smoke. But we had the sea to go into so we were right."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-11/recalling-black-tuesdays-hell-on-earth,-a-decade-on/6009346

 

I have nothing to prove 

You are welcome to try and disprove any of it 

 

  

At approximately 3 pm on Monday, 10 January 2005 a bushfire started in the Wangary District on the Lower Eyre Peninsula. Just before 10 am on 11 January, the first of several breakouts occurred from the fireground. These breakouts spread extremely quickly under strong north-westerly winds.

The fires became known as the Wangary Bushfire. The Wangary Bushfire resulted in the tragic deaths of 9 people, injuries to 115 people, destroyed 93 homes, 316 sheds, 45 vehicles, 139 farm machines, 47,000 livestock losses and burnt 77,964 hectares of land.

A Coronial Inquest into the deaths was conducted and the findings of the Deputy Coroner were handed down on 18 December 2007.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/towns-in-shock-as-fires-claim-nine-20050113-gdzcw6.html

The area within the red markings is about  300 square miles,  or 780 square kilometres, to give you an idea of the scale of this photo 

 

North Shields resident Russell Puckridge told ABC radio "We had about three minutes...from the time we seen it [until] the house was gone. I was sitting in the car underneath the carport there and next minute all I seen was 20-foot waves of fire coming up over the hill. I didn't even have time to grab a pair of thongs, mate." He got his wife and child to the safety of the beach, but when he returned home, everything was destroyed. Country Fire Services chief executive Euan Ferguson described the event as a classic fire storm. "There is no force known to man that can control a fire burning under those conditions," he told the Herald & Weekly Times. Much of the hamlets of North Shields and Louth Bay appear to have been wiped out, with many residents escaping to the beach, into sea caves or into the sea and at least six having to be rescued from the water by SES boats.

http://www.australianweathernews.com/news/2005/050111.SHTML

 

It is now 16 years and 1 week since we lived through this 

I still get a bit emotional thinking about it  so that's all I am going to say 

lots of luck finding anything to contradict me   

Edited January 23, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Petty sure most of us have asked the same question but in answer to your question it is because you said god saved you and your wife although I do have to wonder why your entity did not take a more active part in saving others not as fortunate as you.

jmccr8

My comment referred to why i didnt tell a govt commissioner that god saved us 

and indeed it did 

Quite a number of those who survived recounted gods presence and intervention which saved them 

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, Dejarma said:

I feel people like your good self do not really know the true logical meaning of the word sceptic or skeptic- whichever way you wish to spell it

Mate, I am Australian we spell it sceptic     But sadly my spell checker keeps changing it.

American hegemonic linguistic imperialism  

In most of their senses, there is no difference between skeptic and sceptic. Skeptic is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and sceptic is preferred in the main varieties of English from outside North America. This extends to all derivatives, including sceptical/skeptical and scepticism/skepticism.

And you are sceptical. (a tendency to  question or doubt) 

A sceptic is a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. a person who maintains a doubting attitude,

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/skeptic

Ironically, you are sceptical of very simple truths, with hundreds of witnesses.

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Im getting a bit tired of repeating myself to people who choose not to believe what i say.

I ve given all that information. except the time and i cant be sure of that, but i would guess around 3 in the afternoon.  It destroyed a lot of North shields about  2. 30 

quote 

Among those who lost their homes was Lorna Harding, now 91, from North Shields, a small coastal settlement north of Port Lincoln.

 

She watched as the house she was born in and had lived in all her life was destroyed, and said it was "one of those days that went in a blur".

"It was a really hot day. First thing in the morning you could feel the heat coming off the ground," she said.

"By lunchtime, it was just a red glow and by half past two my house was burnt.

"It just came so fast. Before we knew where we were, we were covered in smoke. But we had the sea to go into so we were right."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-11/recalling-black-tuesdays-hell-on-earth,-a-decade-on/6009346

 

I have nothing to prove 

You are welcome to try and disprove any of it 

 

  

At approximately 3 pm on Monday, 10 January 2005 a bushfire started in the Wangary District on the Lower Eyre Peninsula. Just before 10 am on 11 January, the first of several breakouts occurred from the fireground. These breakouts spread extremely quickly under strong north-westerly winds.

The fires became known as the Wangary Bushfire. The Wangary Bushfire resulted in the tragic deaths of 9 people, injuries to 115 people, destroyed 93 homes, 316 sheds, 45 vehicles, 139 farm machines, 47,000 livestock losses and burnt 77,964 hectares of land.

A Coronial Inquest into the deaths was conducted and the findings of the Deputy Coroner were handed down on 18 December 2007.

 

https://www.theage.com.au/national/towns-in-shock-as-fires-claim-nine-20050113-gdzcw6.html

North Shields resident Russell Puckridge told ABC radio "We had about three minutes...from the time we seen it [until] the house was gone. I was sitting in the car underneath the carport there and next minute all I seen was 20-foot waves of fire coming up over the hill. I didn't even have time to grab a pair of thongs, mate." He got his wife and child to the safety of the beach, but when he returned home, everything was destroyed. Country Fire Services chief executive Euan Ferguson described the event as a classic fire storm. "There is no force known to man that can control a fire burning under those conditions," he told the Herald & Weekly Times. Much of the hamlets of North Shields and Louth Bay appear to have been wiped out, with many residents escaping to the beach, into sea caves or into the sea and at least six having to be rescued from the water by SES boats.

http://www.australianweathernews.com/news/2005/050111.SHTML

 

It is now 16 years and 1 week since we lived through this 

I still get a bit emotional thinking about it  so that's all I am going to say 

lots of luck finding anything to contradict me   

You said that Peter Davis was being interviewed by ABC at the time that this happened.

My question was about the means by which he saw this happening--as in, what kind of feed was he watching to see this happening? Australian Weather News, I suspect? I've been unable to find any footage or radio transcripts from the fires to support what you're saying re the mayor and his interview.

EDIT:

Hold up. In Post #258 you stated the following:

Quote

He was in Port Lincoln looking north  when he observed our house explode and commented immediately.

You also said that your house was on Moonlight Bay Road, in White's River.

That's nearly 30km from Port Lincoln.

What you're saying is that, from almost 30km, the mayor who was on ABC Radio being interviewed via landline was able to see your house blow up, which would have been behind terrain, at almost 30km? 

BS.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

So you were fully certified by the South Australia Education Dept to be counsellor, then? That’s who certified you as being fully qualified to be a counsellor? Was there no psychological/counselling institution involved? No specific certificate/diploma issued?

Ive answered that. If you  don't like the answer, fair enough, but it verifies my original claims . 

I was an accredited school counsellor for the students, staff  and wider community.

It was my job title, and i was paid for it. I got the job in a competitive process based on my education, qualifications, training and previous experience. eg the y had the records of my university courses and     in -servicing updates in psychology.   

Such roles were gazetted and published, and people from  all over Australia could apply for them,  although usually most came from  within the state.  

 Here is another real example of a rural school counsellors role

 https://jcs.sa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/school-based-counselling-service-brochure.pdf

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

You said that Peter Davis was being interviewed by ABC at the time that this happened.

My question was about the means by which he saw this happening--as in, what kind of feed was he watching to see this happening? Australian Weather News, I suspect? I've been unable to find any footage or radio transcripts from the fires to support what you're saying re the mayor and his interview.

I explained that previously.

  He was  in port lincoln speaking by phone to the ABC radio broadcast in Adelaide.

(He was the mayor of Lincoln at he time ) The following is my best guess based on what he said ) He was describing the fire to the north when he interjected "some poor b*****s/b*******  house has just  blown up"

.From our house we could see the foreshore area of port Lincoln across the sea and we would have been able to see a house which blew up there,   if we were looking with the naked eye.

Peter may well have been watching through binoculars.

So he must have been near the foreshore (most probably up on the balcony of the council offices, watching the fire, when he saw our r house explode  

Yea i know.

I ve been looking also. It was 16 years ago but i would suspect a little investigation with the ABC might produce results  (i have no need to prove what happened.  i lived through it   )

After a number of radio and Tv interviews, including  me sifting through the rubble of our house,  the ABC kindly gave my wife and I a basket of goodies . 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I explained that previously.

  He was  in port lincoln speaking by phone to the ABC radio broadcast in Adelaide.

(He was the mayor of Lincoln at he time ) The following is my best guess based on what he said ) He was describing the fire to the north when he interjected "some poor b*****s/b*******  house has just  blown up"

.From our house we could see the foreshore area of port Lincoln across the sea and we would have been able to see a house which blew up there,   if we were looking with the naked eye.

Peter may well have been watching through binoculars.

So he must have been near the foreshore (most probably up on the balcony of the council offices, watching the fire, when he saw our r house explode  

Yea i know.

I ve been looking also. It was 16 years ago but i would suspect a little investigation with the ABC might produce results  (i have no need to prove what happened.  i lived through it   )

After a number of radio and Tv interviews, including  me sifting through the rubble of our house,  the ABC kindly gave my wife and I a basket of goodies . 

The objective facts don't support your story.

He would not have been able to see your house blow up 30km away from anywhere in Port Lincoln, especially considering the visibility was being obscured by both the fire and smoke.

Especially since there was Point Boston in the way etc. And the elevation would not have allowed for it.

Check for yourself on Google Maps, coords are: -34.71922387706195, 135.85687808450862

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[Mr Walker]

10 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

The objective facts don't support your story.

He would not have been able to see your house blow up 30km away from anywhere in Port Lincoln, especially considering the visibility was being obscured by both the fire and smoke.

Especially since there was Point Boston in the way etc. And the elevation would not have allowed for it.

Check for yourself on Google Maps, coords are: -34.71922387706195, 135.85687808450862

 

The objective facts DO support my story   An explosion shows up through smoke 

We could clearly see the foreshore area of port Lincoln  form our front deck and often watched fireworks displays held there  from our house 

If we could see them then they could see us Plus he observed it right at the time the house would have exploded  And it was the only house to burn in our vicinity  Knowing what i do it makes me wonder why you are so suspicious After all you have the actual report showing that  i was a contributor to the commission as a person involved who lost their house 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Peake+Bay/@-34.5744243,135.9742755,12.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x6aa95a80e3357325:0x7bc2310688a77d34!8m2!3d-34.5047222!4d136.0533333

our house was on the side of a hill, just where the last r is in Whites river 

The peninsula at point boston  is very low lying and we could see straight over it  

we could see the settlement at Louth bay and, in line of sight behind it, the foreshore area of Port Lincoln but not in great detail with the naked eye  stillwe would have seena n explosion there 

if you go here

Whites River

South Australia 5607

-34.494067, 135.942126

to this location on google earth satellite imagery 

You can  zoom in and see the place where our house once was, and the trees which surrounded it 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

The objective facts DO support my story   An explosion shows up through smoke 

We could clearly see the foreshore area of port Lincoln  form our front deck and often watched fireworks displays held there  from our house 

If we could see them then they could see us Plus he observed it right at the time the house would have exploded  And it was the only house to burn in our vicinity  Knowing what i do it makes me wonder why you are so suspicious After all you have the actual report showing that  i was a contributor to the commission as a person involved who lost their house 

 

Your house was behind terrain from 30km away.

[Mr Walker]

18 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Your house was behind terrain from 30km away.

No it was NOT behind terrain. It was quite high up on the side of a hill Topographic maps show the elevation to be about  40 metres above sea level and,   while it was 27.8 kms away by road, it was a bit   closer in line of sight    The only intervening land was less than 5 metres above sea level, so we could see right over it You could stand out on our deck and see the lights of louth bay and Lincoln You could see the major structures on the foreshore. The y could see our house using binoculars   and certainly see a fireball when the house exploded   

Edited January 23, 2021 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

i wasn't guilty about surviving (What did ihave to feel guilty about) ?

The remark in the parentheses? That's called rationalization.

In any case, survivors' guilt is a noun phrase that refers to an emotional state, one that arises spontaneously in many people when they find themselves in a particular objective circumstance. If your point is that there is some "mismatch" in the construction of the noun phrase, you're right. It doesn't refer to any antisocial, immoral or unethical behavior.

Nevertheless, the noun phrase does refer to something, an authentic emotional distress. I realize that in your fantasy self-image, you don't have any spontaneous emotional reactions, because everything in your noggin has been under your conscious control since you were three years old.

It is, however, an objective fact that you lived through an incident in which other people died. Based on your writing, I can see that one part of your reaction to this life-changing situation was completely normal emotional distress, that part is called survivors' guilt. I didn't come up with the name, so don't blame me that that's what it's called.

Another part of your reaction is confabulation: the "existential dimension" of survivors' guilt is the realization that you who survived are not better, or more worthy than those who perished. There are many ways to deal with that. The small present day framing story of Saving Private Ryan is especially well rendered.

Mister Ryan is not "guilty" of anything, but he feels a sense of obligation and indebtedness for gaining something he has not earned and others did not gain. His response is analogous to "making reparation," as one might in a case of wrongdoing. But it is not reparation, because Mister Ryan did no wrong.

Your response? God did it. He's always been looking out for you, he came through for you again this time. Nice of him to save the missus, too. He's a mensch. Those other people? Well, that's between God and them ... maybe they didn't look for him hard enough or "had the wrong constructs," or whatever other blather you come up with. No matter: you have "made sense" of a senseless situation, and your illusion of perfect self-control can continue, untroubled by any inconvenient self-reflection.

I vaguely recall from years ago, the first  time I encountered The Miracle of the Flames, there was an additional question even then, beyond the (as it turns out) simple puzzle of why the radio might have worked. That remaining question was why you had turned the radio on in the first place, knowing that the power was out. It was a fluent conversation with several participants, and I don't remember who said what.

I do remember, however, discussion that given that the fire (and so the prevailing local winds) had changed direction, you could and maybe should have perceived the changed situation without the radio warning. As you say now, there were spot fires ahead of the main front, there was especially dense smoke, and of course, the wind itself ... all perceptible cues that somethng had changed and that something evil this way comes.

I don't recall anybody concluding at the time that The Kitchen Radio from Heaven was an embellishment. Thus, the recent discovery of @Nuclear Wessel really is an advance in Walkerian scholarship, a concrete foundation for identifying KRH as an embellishment, above and beyond its curiously poor fit with the rest of the story as it's now told.

And here we are back at the topic: this "god," our best attested example of an "alien" god, just might have been a late addition to an actual historical event. Perhaps what really happened was "Honey, there's a fire in the backyard and I can't see the house across the street. Waddya say we grab the cat and get the hell out of dodge?" No gods in that. Later, as the emotional need arose, alien god enters the story by way of a kitchen appliance.

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by eight bits

[SHaYap]

Or the plain and simple, he got caught fibbing and tried to lie his way out making him a de facto liar... 

For someone who claims to be a qualified educator who teaches English language, but doesn't seems to know "verifiable" actually means 

~

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I wasn't negligent.

Read up on this fire It was the fastest, hottest fire ever experienced in Australia and possibly in the world 

Hi Walker

I have seen both prairie and forest fires so am aware of how fast they move How far away from your house was i to point of ignition and how long from when it started did it take to reach your house? If it was within several miles then you would have smelled it long before it reached your house and as I said you always say you are prepared for anything bout yet you just barely made it out of your yard with a few papers your wife, cat and laptop without the power cord?

When I said negligent it is not my intent to speak down but it is a word to describe that you were not prepared or made proper preparations which is out of character for you given past discussions of your experiences. 

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

had only had a major heart operation about 8 months before.  There was no power or water  and no way to defend against a fire which caused houses to explode when the fire front was still  a couple of hundred metres away  Our yard was clear There was a firebreak The stubble around us was only a few inches high   Indeed, while the house exploded and burned, most of our yard was unburned 

How long before the radio announcement had you been aware that there was a fire burning in our locality? I am curious because your wife is not in good health and you were not in top form so would think that  you would have made sure your car was packed and ready to go instead of a last minute ditch. How long had the power gone out before you were aware that it was time to leave for safety and how did you know the power was out if you turned the radio on as you must have notice the fridge light, stove and other lights and appliances were not working so why turn the radio on?

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Our plan was to evacuate, being fully insured. If we had stayed to fight, then, like others who did so, we might have died 

So why were you sitting around playing games if you knew and had a plan to evacuate, so I am going to assume the papers that you took were deeds and insurances. Still wondering why you didn't leave when you knew it could be a life threatening situation.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It was the wind change which caught me out. I'd been plotting the fires path all night and morning and it had burned into the sea a t North shields   I relaxed and, without a radio, thought the danger had passed. There was one in the car but it was about 120 F inside the car   

Which is why I asked why you did not have a back up radio and extra batteries on hand I do and I a not in any danger 99.9% of the time. and from the looks of it you had plenty of time to run into town to get some and have you vehicle packed and ready to go. You say you have a cell phone did you not get alerts on yours?

 In all you stories you have dogs and yet you did not mention them when you grabbed the cat where where the dogs and did you let any of your livestok out so they could fend for themselves?

jmccr8

 

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

My comment referred to why i didnt tell a govt commissioner that god saved us 

and indeed it did 

Quite a number of those who survived recounted gods presence and intervention which saved them 

Hi Walker

Not sure why you would be shy about it but then again Peter denied Christ 3 times before the c*** crowed as they say, many people talk about events they attribute to god you tell us all the time take all the god alien stories posted all over the internet is your buddy were you ashamed of him and has it forgiven you for not giving cred where cred was due?

jmccr8

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Quite a number of those who survived recounted gods presence and intervention which saved them 

And see, that's part of the problem why your stab at explaining the absence of the radio in your early testimony doesn't work. Hell, we've all seen and heard natural disaster survivors being interviewed in the media, and many, many of the survivors mention God. So had you, too, mentioned God, the parliamentary commission wouldn't have batted an eyelash.

Thanking God, giving him an active role in the affair is the usual thing, not anything exceptional. Your supposed reluctance to mention God makes no sense.

The stated purpose of your testimony was to advance a proposal for improved emergency notification. How you were notified in this emergency is facially relevant to your testimony. As already covered in earlier posts, you could have included the radio without bringing God into it. PLUS there is no reason whatsoever why you would have "stood out" if you had brought God into it, as so many others in your situation did.

Your story doesn't hold together. That's why you aren't being believed. Occam's Razor is not your friend. You saw the spot fires, you saw the smoke thickening, there is no way you'd think these were good signs, and so you left.

There was no radio broadcast in the actual event, was there?

 

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

And see, that's part of the problem why your stab at explaining the absence of the radio in your early testimony doesn't work. Hell, we've all seen and heard natural disaster survivors being interviewed in the media, and many, many of the survivors mention God. So had you, too, mentioned God, the parliamentary commission wouldn't have batted an eyelash.

Thanking God, giving him an active role in the affair is the usual thing, not anything exceptional. Your supposed reluctance to mention God makes no sense.

The stated purpose of your testimony was to advance a proposal for improved emergency notification. How you were notified in this emergency is facially relevant to your testimony. As already covered in earlier posts, you could have included the radio without bringing God into it. PLUS there is no reason whatsoever why you would have "stood out" if you had brought God into it, as so many others in your situation did.

Your story doesn't hold together. That's why you aren't being believed. Occam's Razor is not your friend. You saw the spot fires, you saw the smoke thickening, there is no way you'd think these were good signs, and so you left.

There was no radio broadcast in the actual event, was there?

 

 

Instead of Occam's Razor we have thus Walker's Razor

i.e. "Any explanation is correct as long as it's my explanation"

[+Nuclear Wessel]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No it was NOT behind terrain. It was quite high up on the side of a hill Topographic maps show the elevation to be about  40 metres above sea level and,   while it was 27.8 kms away by road, it was a bit   closer in line of sight    The only intervening land was less than 5 metres above sea level, so we could see right over it You could stand out on our deck and see the lights of louth bay and Lincoln You could see the major structures on the foreshore. The y could see our house using binoculars   and certainly see a fireball when the house exploded   

The mayor would have been unable to see your house from the the council building as you suggest in Post #281, under the conditions of that particular day (i.e. tons of smoke, haze, and the intensity of the flames; it would've blanketed the dramatic explosion that you allude to).

Even if he was in the left-most window (from our perspective) in the council building he still would not have had sight on your location due to massive trees being in the way. The entire water front is lined with big green trees lol. See for yourself in the maps satellite imagery at these coords: -34.71944113106072, 135.85731185992958

If the mayor of Port Lincoln was able to see Mr Walker's house explode in dramatic fashion (fireball) at a distance of 30km from the civic building with a pair of binoculars (while simultaneously being on a landline) through the smoke, fire, trees, and terrain, then I want to know what kind of technology he was using with said binoculars. Those are some powerful binos.

I am going to invoke Occam's Razor and say that the most simple explanation is that this never happened.

Entertaining embellishment tho.

Is this the part where you shift the goalposts to suggest that he wasn't actually in the civic building and that he was on the pier, on a cellphone? Or that those big trees weren't there 15 years ago? Maybe he was adventurous and decided to climb the trees for a better look?

Edited January 23, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[+Sherapy]

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

The remark in the parentheses? That's called rationalization.

In any case, survivors' guilt is a noun phrase that refers to an emotional state, one that arises spontaneously in many people when they find themselves in a particular objective circumstance. If your point is that there is some "mismatch" in the construction of the noun phrase, you're right. It doesn't refer to any antisocial, immoral or unethical behavior.

Nevertheless, the noun phrase does refer to something, an authentic emotional distress. I realize that in your fantasy self-image, you don't have any spontaneous emotional reactions, because everything in your noggin has been under your conscious control since you were three years old.

It is, however, an objective fact that you lived through an incident in which other people died. Based on your writing, I can see that one part of your reaction to this life-changing situation was completely normal emotional distress, that part is called survivors' guilt. I didn't come up with the name, so don't blame me that that's what it's called.

Another part of your reaction is confabulation: the "existential dimension" of survivors' guilt is the realization that you who survived are not better, or more worthy than those who perished. There are many ways to deal with that. The small present day framing story of Saving Private Ryan is especially well rendered.

Mister Ryan is not "guilty" of anything, but he feels a sense of obligation and indebtedness for gaining something he has not earned and others did not gain. His response is analogous to "making reparation," as one might in a case of wrongdoing. But it is not reparation, because Mister Ryan did no wrong.

Your response? God did it. He's always been looking out for you, he came through for you again this time. Nice of him to save the missus, too. He's a mensch. Those other people? Well, that's between God and them ... maybe they didn't look for him hard enough or "had the wrong constructs," or whatever other blather you come up with. No matter: you have "made sense" of a senseless situation, and your illusion of perfect self-control can continue, untroubled by any inconvenient self-reflection.

I vaguely recall from years ago, the first  time I encountered The Miracle of the Flames, there was an additional question even then, beyond the (as it turns out) simple puzzle of why the radio might have worked. That remaining question was why you had turned the radio on in the first place, knowing that the power was out. It was a fluent conversation with several participants, and I don't remember who said what.

I do remember, however, discussion that given that the fire (and so the prevailing local winds) had changed direction, you could and maybe should have perceived the changed situation without the radio warning. As you say now, there were spot fires ahead of the main front, there was especially dense smoke, and of course, the wind itself ... all perceptible cues that somethng had changed and that something evil this way comes.

I don't recall anybody concluding at the time that The Kitchen Radio from Heaven was an embellishment. Thus, the recent discovery of @Nuclear Wessel really is an advance in Walkerian scholarship, a concrete foundation for identifying KRH as an embellishment, above and beyond its curiously poor fit with the rest of the story as it's now told.

And here we are back at the topic: this "god," our best attested example of an "alien" god, just might have been a late addition to an actual historical event. Perhaps what really happened was "Honey, there's a fire in the backyard and I can't see the house across the street. Waddya say we grab the cat and get the hell out of dodge?" No gods in that. Later, as the emotional need arose, alien god enters the story by way of a kitchen appliance.

 

Great post, That MW emphasized and claimed not feeling traumatized or have any emotions over such a loss of community members that “I knew my whole life” while at the same time not wanting to lord over anyone that they had SDA box seats, hence (in essence suspending the need to proclaim we are so special to be saved by god), while others perished is survivors guilt (rationalizing). I concur this could be read as he is projecting his repressed emotions, not that he doesn’t have them. 
 

The nature of defense mechanisms ( unless you have had lots of therapy or training) is that while they are hidden from our own view, DM’s are observable to others, 

 

 

 

Just my two cents.

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Sherapy

[jmccr8]

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, eight bits said:

The remark in the parentheses? That's called rationalization.

In any case, survivors' guilt is a noun phrase that refers to an emotional state, one that arises spontaneously in many people when they find themselves in a particular objective circumstance. If your point is that there is some "mismatch" in the construction of the noun phrase, you're right. It doesn't refer to any antisocial, immoral or unethical behavior.

Nevertheless, the noun phrase does refer to something, an authentic emotional distress. I realize that in your fantasy self-image, you don't have any spontaneous emotional reactions, because everything in your noggin has been under your conscious control since you were three years old.

It is, however, an objective fact that you lived through an incident in which other people died. Based on your writing, I can see that one part of your reaction to this life-changing situation was completely normal emotional distress, that part is called survivors' guilt. I didn't come up with the name, so don't blame me that that's what it's called.

Another part of your reaction is confabulation: the "existential dimension" of survivors' guilt is the realization that you who survived are not better, or more worthy than those who perished. There are many ways to deal with that. The small present day framing story of Saving Private Ryan is especially well rendered.

Mister Ryan is not "guilty" of anything, but he feels a sense of obligation and indebtedness for gaining something he has not earned and others did not gain. His response is analogous to "making reparation," as one might in a case of wrongdoing. But it is not reparation, because Mister Ryan did no wrong.

Your response? God did it. He's always been looking out for you, he came through for you again this time. Nice of him to save the missus, too. He's a mensch. Those other people? Well, that's between God and them ... maybe they didn't look for him hard enough or "had the wrong constructs," or whatever other blather you come up with. No matter: you have "made sense" of a senseless situation, and your illusion of perfect self-control can continue, untroubled by any inconvenient self-reflection.

I vaguely recall from years ago, the first  time I encountered The Miracle of the Flames, there was an additional question even then, beyond the (as it turns out) simple puzzle of why the radio might have worked. That remaining question was why you had turned the radio on in the first place, knowing that the power was out. It was a fluent conversation with several participants, and I don't remember who said what.

I do remember, however, discussion that given that the fire (and so the prevailing local winds) had changed direction, you could and maybe should have perceived the changed situation without the radio warning. As you say now, there were spot fires ahead of the main front, there was especially dense smoke, and of course, the wind itself ... all perceptible cues that somethng had changed and that something evil this way comes.

I don't recall anybody concluding at the time that The Kitchen Radio from Heaven was an embellishment. Thus, the recent discovery of @Nuclear Wessel really is an advance in Walkerian scholarship, a concrete foundation for identifying KRH as an embellishment, above and beyond its curiously poor fit with the rest of the story as it's now told.

And here we are back at the topic: this "god," our best attested example of an "alien" god, just might have been a late addition to an actual historical event. Perhaps what really happened was "Honey, there's a fire in the backyard and I can't see the house across the street. Waddya say we grab the cat and get the hell out of dodge?" No gods in that. Later, as the emotional need arose, alien god enters the story by way of a kitchen appliance.

 

Maybe its called that,  (and I am very familiar with  the concept) but that is not what I  felt or have ever felt a shred of 

Survivors guilt only occurs with some people (Perhaps those who have been conditioned by others to feel guilt even when they have nothing to be guilty about) 

While you dont believe it, my posts for 15 years here would tell you i am not the sort of person to have this feeling.

 If i do something to be guilty about, i will feel guilt. If I did nothing wrong then  I have nothing to be guilty of.  Iti s one of the things i was explicitly raised to believe. 

and no, you are using your own understandings to explain my own .

You can take my word for it, or leave it 

During and after, for many years, the only thing which brought me to tears was the love kindness and compassion of all those around me and an enhanced awareness of how others felt about us, as friends neighbours and in my case a colleague  or teacher 

I was also sad about the loss of those who died or were hurt These included extended  family members friends and a colleague  I felt no anger, resentment,  fear,  and only a minimal sense  of loss  (mostly for irreplaceable family mementos and family history material going back 150 years 

On the national TV programme the day after the fire, I said (to paraphrase)   "We lost everything, yet we lost nothing.  Many others lost everything and I feel for them   We were lucky /blessed " 

You might construe that as survivors guilt but it was not  

 

 

To be blunt its not rational to feel guilt over anything you had no control over or which was not a deliberate act by yourself.

Take responsibility for your own actions, definitely, but you have no responsibility for things beyond your control; 

And confabulation doesn't fit either 

I was raised to know that in every way as a human being i am no greater/worthy nor no less so than any other human being.

We may make more or less of our lives, by fortune, circumstance, or effort, but inherently we are all of equal value /worth

Ps it helps to KNOW all this as you go through such an experience so you are slef aware and analytical during the process 

We knew this could happen (in about 1979 a similar fire had burned the fencing around the house but not the house and so we had actually thought through  this scenario and talked about it )

Indeed Our lives were objectively  better /easier  as a result of the fire and I saw it personally as a blessing rather than a curse,  and again no guilt about this because we had no responsibility for it 

I watched private ryan again over the Christmas period.

Yes i was struck by the ending  It was a very powerful and intentional scene but I am not sure it meant the same to me as it did to you  (it seemed a little clumsy and constructed after such a great film but i understood the writers/dirctors intent and the power of such an ending  After all, the whole story line might have been seen as unrealistic and contrived  but it was so well done that it worked 

well yes my response was " god did it. He's always been looking out for us "

Thats an objective fact, no matter how you see it   Again, you use your own beliefs and understandings  to incorrectly explain my own.

  You dont believe god exists or acts like that and so TO YOU this must be some form of psychological construct in response to our experience.

It is much simpler

A compassionate powerful being DID intervene and save our lives .

And honestly

No there is nothing special about that Such interventions occur every minute of every day, all over the world 

And while YOU have tried to rationalise why god saved us and some others, he allowed others to  die I never have I havent got a clue  

When pressed i can come up with some logical answers but that's all the y are just logicla guesses and have nothng todo withour comartive worth 

Eg Ihave always ben connected to this being since i was about 12.

I know its voice I listen to it and respond to it quickly 

That might not be the case with others  

So maybe i am schizophrenic and that  saved my life    (No I am not, but its a nice rational answer which doesn't require belief in a god )  I heard a voice in my head  telling me to turn on an inoperative radio. I acted on it and, purely serendipitously, that saved our lives

Yup I missed the clues.

It was very hot and windy (i mean conditions  like never seen before in Australiaa and possibly the world  according to later scientific analysis )

Iwas inside playing a computer game (and if i was to feel guilty that's about all i would feel guilty about) but it made no difference in the end.

Even if i had gone outside a little  earlier we would still have evacuated and lost the house ( although we MIGHT have had a few minutes longer to grab treasured possessions)  We had all the blinds down and curtains drawn.  The fire took about 20-30 minutes to reach our house after the wind change so there WAS a small window when, if i had gone outside i might have become aware  There had been thick smoke all day as the westerly wind pushed it over our house (see the photos in a previous post)  It never really got any thicker  until just before the fire arrived  and yepwhile there werspot fires beyond our house as we drove out there  was no visible sign of any fire  from  outside our house 

what  "discovery" of Wessel's are you speaking of. 

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

The mayor would have been unable to see your house from the the council building as you suggest in Post #281, under the conditions of that particular day (i.e. tons of smoke, haze, and the intensity of the flames; it would've blanketed the dramatic explosion that you allude to).

Even if he was in the left-most window (from our perspective) in the council building he still would not have had sight on your location due to massive trees being in the way. The entire water front is lined with big green trees lol. See for yourself in the maps satellite imagery at these coords: -34.71944113106072, 135.85731185992958

If the mayor of Port Lincoln was able to see Mr Walker's house explode in dramatic fashion (fireball) at a distance of 30km from the civic building with a pair of binoculars (while simultaneously being on a landline) through the smoke, fire, trees, and terrain, then I want to know what kind of technology he was using with said binoculars. Those are some powerful binos.

I am going to invoke Occam's Razor and say that the most simple explanation is that this never happened.

Entertaining embellishment tho.

Is this the part where you shift the goalposts to suggest that he wasn't actually in the civic building and that he was on the pier, on a cellphone? Or that those big trees weren't there 15 years ago? Maybe he was adventurous and decided to climb the trees for a better look?

ROFLMAO and yet it happened 

Hundreds of people could testify to hearing it, possibly thousands 

So your geographical analysis is wrong and i know its wrong 

I could see the mayors office so he could see our house  And i had pointed out our house to relatives in Lincoln using binoculars 

I did say tha t i didn't know where he was speaking from   but a good guess would be from  his office 

Cell phone coverage collapsed during the day,  and so I assume it was not a cell phone but that's possible because as i understand it,  it was the traffic volume which crashed the system at least at first ( Cell towers have battery backup which lasts a few hours)  but landlines continued to operate for the most part  Just before the fire hit our place We were on our landline to people but our cell phone wasn't operating 

When we arrived In Tumby bay after we escaped the fire  around  4-5 pm I went to the school as a place which was safe and had conveniences,  and rang the the ABC. I did this as the only way to let people know we were alive,  and  it is one reason i got so many interviews with them after the fire.  Again my cell phone wasn't working 

He didnt need binoculars to see a fireball  With binoculars i could see cars in Lincoln, without them i could see big buildings  including the civic centre  from  our house windows and deck.

 Again the purpose of this futile argument eludes  me.

Please ring the ABC and see if the y have any records transcripts etc  Or ring a few people who were in SA at he time and listened to the broadcast  Heck get on Peter Davis face book page and ask him   Ive got nothing to prove.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Nuclear Wessel]

23 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

ROFLMAO and yet it happened 

Hundreds of people could testify to hearing it, possibly thousands 

So your geographical analysis is wrong and i know its wrong 

I could see the mayors office so he could see our house  And i had pointed out our house to relatives in Lincoln using binoculars 

I did say tha t i didn't know where he was speaking from   but a good guess would be from  his office 

Cell phone coverage collapsed during the day,  and so I assume it was not a cell phone but thats possible because as i understand it,  it was the traffic volume which crashed the system at least at first ( Cell towers have battery backup which lasts a few hours  but landlines continued to operate for the most part  Just before the fire hit our place We were on our landline to people but our cell phone wasn't operating 

When we arrived In Tumby bay after we escaped the fire  around  4-5 pm I went to the school as a place which was safe and had conveniences,  and rang the the ABC. I did this as the only way to let people know we were alive,  and  it is one reason i got so many interviews with them after the fire.  Again my cell phone wasn't working 

He didnt need binoculars to see a fireball  With binoculars i could see cars in Lincoln, without them i could see big buildings  including the civic centre  from  our house windows and deck.

 Again the purpose of this futile argument eludes  me.

Please ring the ABC and see if the y have any records transcripts etc  Or ring a few people who were in SA at he time and listened to the broadcast  Heck get on Peter Davis face book page and ask him   Ive got nothing to prove.

 

 

It didn't happen. Besides, even if I did reach out and his account contradicted your own you would just claim that you didn't believe me.

You just continue believing in your own pathetic delusions.

Quote

Ive got nothing to prove.

Then there's no need for your long-winded responses to me claiming that the the alleged event never happened. If it happened, it happened. Nothing I say is going to impact the reality.

I can only think of one reason why you're so defensive, though...

Edited January 23, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[+Sherapy]

32 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Maybe its called that,  (and I am very familiar with  the concept) but that is not what I  felt or have ever felt a shred of 

Survivors guilt only occurs with some people (Perhaps those who have been conditioned by others to feel guilt even when they have nothing to be guilty about) 

While you dont believe it, my posts for 15 years here would tell you i am not the sort of person to have this feeling.

 If i do something to be guilty about, i will feel guilt. If I did nothing wrong then  I have nothing to be guilty of.  Iti s one of the things i was explicitly raised to believe. 

and no, you are using your own understandings to explain my own .

You can take my word for it, or leave it 

During and after, for many years, the only thing which brought me to tears was the love kindness and compassion of all those around me and an enhanced awareness of how others felt about us, as friends neighbours and in my case a colleague  or teacher 

I was also sad about the loss of those who died or were hurt These included extended  family members friends and a colleague  I felt no anger, resentment,  fear,  and only a minimal sense  of loss  (mostly for irreplaceable family mementos and family history material going back 150 years 

On the national TV programme the day after the fire, I said (to paraphrase)   "We lost everything, yet we lost nothing.  Many others lost everything and I feel for them   We were lucky /blessed " 

You might construe that as survivors guilt but it was not  

 

 

To be blunt its not rational to feel guilt over anything you had no control over or which was not a deliberate act by yourself.

Take responsibility for your own actions, definitely, but you have no responsibility for things beyond your control; 

And confabulation doesn't fit either 

I was raised to know that in every way as a human being i am no greater/worthy nor no less so than any other human being.

We may make more or less of our lives, by fortune, circumstance, or effort, but inherently we are all of equal value /worth

Ps it helps to KNOW all this as you go through such an experience so you are slef aware and analytical during the process 

We knew this could happen (in about 1979 a similar fire had burned the fencing around the house but not the house and so we had actually thought through  this scenario and talked about it )

Indeed Our lives were objectively  better /easier  as a result of the fire and I saw it personally as a blessing rather than a curse,  and again no guilt about this because we had no responsibility for it 

I watched private ryan again over the Christmas period.

Yes i was struck by the ending  It was a very powerful and intentional scene but I am not sure it meant the same to me as it did to you  (it seemed a little clumsy and constructed after such a great film but i understood the writers/dirctors intent and the power of such an ending  After all, the whole story line might have been seen as unrealistic and contrived  but it was so well done that it worked 

well yes my response was " god did it. He's always been looking out for us "

Thats an objective fact, no matter how you see it   Again, you use your own beliefs and understandings  to incorrectly explain my own.

  You dont believe god exists or acts like that and so TO YOU this must be some form of psychological construct in response to our experience.

It is much simpler

A compassionate powerful being DID intervene and save our lives .

And honestly

No there is nothing special about that Such interventions occur every minute of every day, all over the world 

And while YOU have tried to rationalise why god saved us and some others, he allowed others to  die I never have I havent got a clue  

When pressed i can come up with some logical answers but that's all the y are just logicla guesses and have nothng todo withour comartive worth 

Eg Ihave always ben connected to this being since i was about 12.

I know its voice I listen to it and respond to it quickly 

That might not be the case with others  

So maybe i am schizophrenic and that  saved my life    (No I am not, but its a nice rational answer which doesn't require belief in a god )  I heard a voice in my head  telling me to turn on an inoperative radio. I acted on it and, purely serendipitously, that saved our lives

Yup I missed the clues.

It was very hot and windy (i mean conditions  like never seen before in Australiaa and possibly the world  according to later scientific analysis )

Iwas inside playing a computer game (and if i was to feel guilty that's about all i would feel guilty about) but it made no difference in the end.

Even if i had gone outside a little  earlier we would still have evacuated and lost the house ( although we MIGHT have had a few minutes longer to grab treasured possessions)  We had all the blinds down and curtains drawn.  The fire took about 20-30 minutes to reach our house after the wind change so there WAS a small window when, if i had gone outside i might have become aware  There had been thick smoke all day as the westerly wind pushed it over our house (see the photos in a previous post)  It never really got any thicker  until just before the fire arrived  and yepwhile there werspot fires beyond our house as we drove out there  was no visible sign of any fire  from  outside our house 

what  "discovery" of Wessel's are you speaking of. 

 

Wowza what a defense projection.

Sounds like a lot a should a, could a, would a, common to survivor guilt (called bargaining part of grieving). My guess is you are still traumatized over this. IMHO
 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2021 by Sherapy

[jmccr8]

34 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Even if i had gone outside a little  earlier we would still have evacuated and lost the house ( although we MIGHT have had a few minutes longer to grab treasured possessions)  We had all the blinds down and curtains drawn.  The fire took about 20-30 minutes to reach our house after the wind change so there WAS a small window when, if i had gone outside i might have become aware  There had been thick smoke all day as the westerly wind pushed it over our house (see the photos in a previous post)  It never really got any thicker  until just before the fire arrived  and yepwhile there werspot fires beyond our house as we drove out there  was no visible sign of any fire  from  outside our house 

what  "discovery" of Wessel's are you speaking of.

Hi Walker

Not sure how it was not registered in your mind that if the wind was blowing the smoke over the house that the fire was likely coming with the wind as well as fire usually does not burn in the opposite direction from the wind.

jmccr8

[+Sherapy]

19 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

It didn't happen.

I remember back when MW argued like this that his dog was the eye witness to the light beam who took away his nicotine addiction. This then morphed to he had eye witnesses, but they are no longer alive.