Alexis Brooks, The Intersection of Consciousness and UFO Journalism |416|

#61
Great - that should be easy to test!
David
I’ve been essentially obsessed with the paranormal, cryptids, UFOs, OBEs, ghosts, etc etc for over a decade now and have spent endless hours reading up on them and even more hours pondering over them. But I’ve never had a single experience. In hindsight I do very strongly believe that I had a moment of telepathy and two very distinct moments of pre-cognition. But I think this is normal to everybody and that they simply aren’t recognized or acknowledged as such.

I don’t know if believing and thinking on these things increases ones chance of an experience. Maybe it does. But we know that plenty of skeptics and “non-believers” have experiences all of the time and are transformed by them, at least in intellectual terms. I gave my account of never having an experience. Stanton Friedman never saw a UFO. Here’s an man who studied, wrote, and lectured on the topic for half a century or so. It might be possible that NON-believers are more likely to have an experience. That wouldn’t surprise me if that were shown to be true. If The converse were shown to be true it wouldn’t surprise me either, however. But it may be that skeptics get experiences BECAUSE they are skeptics.
 
#62
I'm transsexual, but I don't do much about it. I known it from at least age 3-4. It's a real thing and feels biological; i tend to go with the hormonal womb environment theory. I'm left handed and have the "female" digit ratio.
It is brave of you to discuss it like this, and I am curious - do you mean that you have not had puberty blockers, other hormones or operations. If so, I think you are very wise, because who really knows what the long term consequences of these procedures may be.

Can you explain how you think your situation differs from being gay - and is that how you cope with life?
I dislike how the right uses us as the current poster child of declinism. They tend to be flippant and not particularly knowledgeable about the subject. Still, I don't blame them their resistance; there's a ton of nonsense from the left on the topic. When I was coming up, transsexuals were a tiny and distinct, separate from crossdressers and fetishists. Now that distinction seems to have gone away, so you have a lot of weirdos covered under the umbrella "transgendered." When I see a mannish looking transwoman in some garish outfit, I feel the same way as the typical right-winger. It's uncomfortable, and no amount of brain-washing would make me think otherwise.
I sympathise with everyone who doesn't click into 'normal' heterosexuality, and I think the use that the Left has made of you for political gain is truly despicable. I think what upsets many on the right (myself included) is when efforts are made to teach children about these matters in school, or even quiz people about their perceived gender or sexuality. I don't think children really understand sex until they have been through puberty.
There are also a lot of fakes and attention whores, including I suspect a majority of the young crop you see online. I'm also skeptical of anyone who suddenly realized their gender dysphoria in their 20s and beyond. If it's real, you feel it very early. I'm not a man, but wouldn't claim to be a woman either. "Woman" should be reserved for the folks with the biology and lived experience. Transpeople should stay out of gender-specific sports. If someone invented a gender-swap booth, I'd be first in line, but I'm equally sure that in short order I'd be missing a lot of the social advantages of being male
Spot on - I mean asking natural women to compete in races with people who started out as men, is obviously unfair. The Left is sowing division in society - the only ones who gain are some stupid politicians. One of the tricks the Left has played is that the term "natural woman" is frowned upon, but how do you even discuss this problem without using some term of that sort?
But back to the topic. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Oswald acted alone; planes took down the towers, and we lifted off our spherical planet to land on the moon in 1969. I also believe the government hides what it knows about UFOs and corporatists manipulate through their control of lawmakers and the media.
As I see it, the one big question about those moon landings (which kept me spellbound when they happened) is the Van Allen radiation belts, which they had to fly though on their way. However, there is another conspiracy theory (if you like) that claims that the danger of ionising radiation has been exaggerated. That may cancel out the problem regarding landing on the moon!
You say social media shaming showcases the power of the mob, but social media is mostly a playpen for the masses to squander their creative energy on narcissistic trifles. virtue signalling and yelling past each other over religious issues. It offers no threat to the power of elites at all, and in fact plays right into their strategy of divide-and-conquer.
This forum is the closest I get to social media, I deliberately chose a dumb phone! There is no question that these idiotic devices are having an effect. If you see a young couple sitting together, usually they are each staring at their mobile phone! I now read my news from the internet, rather than on radio or television. This saves a lot of time, and exposes me to less deliberate manipulation.

David
 
Last edited:
#64
What fields don't we discuss on Skeptiko?
David
Sasquatch - I searched the skeptiko podcast web site and the word only came up once and it was part of the title of a book not directly discussed. Like with UFOs and afterlife phenomena, once you see the reports of the experiencers you realize it is not a hoax. There is also scientific evidence of the phenomenon too...

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articl...by-subject.html#articles_by_subject_sasquatch
Sasquatch Are People DNA sequence studies by Dr. Melba Ketchum show that the Sasquatch are a hybrid of human and an unknown primate species:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/09/sasquatch-are-people.html

Wood Ape Sightings: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat Zones by Daryl Colyer & Alton Higgins
http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/67-ecological-patterns

Using Biotic Taphonomy Signature Analysis and Neoichnology Profiling to determine the identity of the carnivore taxa responsible for the deposition and mechanical mastication of three independent prey bone assemblages in the Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem of the Cascade mountain range by Aaron Mills, Gerald Mills, M. N. Townsend
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=25BBCABF2DE517FF!108&ithint=file,pdf&app=WordPdf&authkey=!AOLzbmAVbvcVkIM
(The title of this article is somewhat hard to understand. What is means is that they found deer bones with teeth marks in them made by a giant primate.)
 
Last edited:
#65
Sasquatch - I searched the skeptiko podcast web site and the word only came up once and it was part of the title of a book not directly discussed. Like with UFOs and afterlife phenomena, once you see the reports of the experiencers you realize it is not a hoax. There is also scientific evidence of the phenomenon too...

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articl...by-subject.html#articles_by_subject_sasquatch
Sasquatch Are People DNA sequence studies by Dr. Melba Ketchum show that the Sasquatch are a hybrid of human and an unknown primate species:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/09/sasquatch-are-people.html

Wood Ape Sightings: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat Zones by Daryl Colyer & Alton Higgins
http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/67-ecological-patterns

Using Biotic Taphonomy Signature Analysis and Neoichnology Profiling to determine the identity of the carnivore taxa responsible for the deposition and mechanical mastication of three independent prey bone assemblages in the Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem of the Cascade mountain range by Aaron Mills, Gerald Mills, M. N. Townsend
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=25BBCABF2DE517FF!108&ithint=file,pdf&app=WordPdf&authkey=!AOLzbmAVbvcVkIM
(The title of this article is somewhat hard to understand. What is means is that they found deer bones with teeth marks in them made by a giant primate.)
I suppose my problem would be that I have zero knowledge about macro-biology. I also find it really hard to know what is what regarding evidence such as tooth marks - I mean sometimes I suspect that scientists fool themselves that they can identify this or that, because they can't easily set up a double-blind test.

David
 
#66
There's a real danger that gender non-conforming kids (who usually end up gay/lesbian if left alone) will be rushed into inappropriate treatment.
(I've also read that this is an overrated concern, and that there are clear distinctions that medical professionals can make, assuming they're competent)
Right, and somewhere I watched a video by a psychiatrist who was complaining bitterly that his speciality had been invaded by a group of people who somehow pushed through the idea that perceived gender and sexual orientation were quite distinct. From my perspective (heterosexual male) I think there are a bunch of people out there who have problems in this area, but instead of careful research being done, the whole area is just politicised. There are also some other sexual problems that are completely ignored. For example there are some men who have a sort of exaggerated shyness about women, and struggle to find a partner even though they desperately want one. Some remain like this for their entire lives.

From a 'Skeptiko perspective' there are other possibilities. For example if people do incarnate (have you read about the research of Ian Stephenson and others) it would seem they do not always keep the same sex. Possibly a memory of a previous life is involved. Psychiatrists would never go there - just as they would never attribute voices to actual spiritual entities.
(Then again, resistance is the whole point, I suppose)
It is from the point of view of Left leaning politicians - I just more of you would stand up against all that nonsense - though I imagine it is hard.
I tend to delete any accounts where I develop a reputation. I might make an exception for this place.
Yes, you are welcome here - and once you realise that consciousness and reality may not be as they appear, there are so many other things to talk about!

David
 
#67
On Alexis: Another fraud on Skepitco; seems like she's right out of the phone/pet psychic world, need to sell some books? some phone readings LOL You are super cute though!
 
#68
On Alexis: Another fraud on Skepitco; seems like she's right out of the phone/pet psychic world, need to sell some books? some phone readings LOL You are super cute though!
We tend to express opinions a bit more politely on this forum, and preferably with a bit more explanation - so please fit in.

For what it is worth, I think there are very few 'frauds' interviewed on Skeptiko (it helps to spell our forum right), but I'm afraid my impression of our latest guest, Alexis has fallen a lot after trying to read her book - at least it was cheap.

I think there is a larger reality, and some people give lots of evidence that they are genuinely able to connect with it, but inevitably if you interview enough people, not everyone will turn out so good.

If you want a much better interview, try Alex's interviews with Julie Beischel (or read her papers) - she seems to have produces remarkable evidence that some mediums do indeed contact dead people. Again, that fact does not mean that everyone who calls themselves a medium is the real deal.

David
 
Last edited:
#69
Wormwood said:
"It might be possible that NON-believers are more likely to have an experience. That wouldn’t surprise me if that were shown to be true. If The converse were shown to be true it wouldn’t surprise me either, however. But it may be that skeptics get experiences BECAUSE they are skeptics."

I think Mind at Large seeks to recover all fractions of Consciousness. I was once a doubter and denier of anything that had no "scientific" explanation. As a result I lived a perhaps somewhat less than honorable life. I was also harbouring a fear of death as I believed in only the flesh and no afterlife for my consciousness or spirit. luckily it seems, Mind at Large or God if you prefer decided to begin to shake me up with incidents for which a rational mind can find no explanation. I also happened to meet a few people with certain mysterious gifts; water witching and astral projection being just two of them. Although some of these experiences were at the time frightening, the change in me for God was fruitful. I'll never be the same. I'm age seventy now so lotsa time has passed for me to learn stuff. My advice to others who may feel left out of the loop regarding the unexplainable is to keep an open mind and give yourself time. My journey in this respect didn't start till I was over forty.
 
#70
I'll never be the same. I'm age seventy now so lotsa time has passed for me to learn stuff. My advice to others who may feel left out of the loop regarding the unexplainable is to keep an open mind and give yourself time. My journey in this respect didn't start till I was over forty.
Unlike you, Garry, I have had paranormal experiences all my life. I can to back to age 3 or 4. Of course nothing made any sense to me at all for decades. I think I was well into my 40s before genuine self-reflection kicked in. I put that down to being inherently stupid. I had a lot of information and knowledge - but none of it really clicked into place to deliver a really useful perspective until I was in my early 50s.

I think we get the experiences we need - and we are not in a position to say what that is. I was talking with a friend last night who said he wished he could see a UFO, because that would 'settle' things for him. But that was maybe precisely why he's not see one - because short cutting is not what its about.

That's the thing about an 'open mind'. We might imagine we have one, but maybe we don't. I have been accused of 'sticking my head in the sand' and not having an open mind over matters related to some conspiracy theory I think is completely preposterous. I am not prepared to move on this matter and to me, if what I have witnessed is indicative, an open mind is a dangerous thing. I am going to seem to be pedantic here for what I hope you will see as a good reason.

I know exactly what you mean by an 'open mind'. It does not mean to cease to exercise active discrimination. In fact being 'open minded' actually demands a higher level of discrimination - in the sense of 'don't reject a new idea of out hand', but apply a (hopefully) accustomed rigour to evaluating it.

A friend took an open minded approach to a popular conspiracy theory and was flattered into believing what I thought was complete bollocks. She was presented with what she assessed were perfectly rational and reasonable arguments. I thought they were idiotic, misleading and manipulative. She said I was being closed minded and 'Mr Right' who bought conventional misinformation. I figured I was dealing with something I had pretty much grown up with in various ways, and nothing I had seen or heard had convinced me that it was nothing more than a crappy BS hoax. I am not open minded on this subject. I acknowledge I could be wrong, but I assess the odds of being so as very remote.

I was sufficiently 'open minded' to watch around 10 hours of recommended videos. I think that's what you mean. But after those 10 hours I thought the whole affair was ludicrous. I was skeptical from the outset. No, that's not right. I thought the proposition was BS from the outset - and said so. I thought it was BS because right away I saw things that I thought were wrong or incongruous. Ten hours later I had not changed my mind. Yeah, I know, maybe I had a personal motive for 'denying' the 'truth'. But, I suggested, maybe my friend had a personal motive for swallowing the BS? I know that she did not match my 10 hours of watching videos she recommended I watch with the few hours I suggested she watch - because they were 'obviously' misinformation. And who was being close minded? Remind me again?

So I want to respectfully suggest that what you mean to say is to be genuinely curious. Being curious does not imply any loss of rigorous assessment of the proposition. By being curious there is no need to be 'open minded', just intellectually honest. For me being 'open minded' is so imprecise an idea that it can leave some folk open to being taken for a sucker. Being curious actually means being rigorous and honest for the idea to have any real meaning.

After a lifetime of paranormal experiences I really have only vague idea what is going on. But being curious is also being active and inquiring and evaluating and that's what I know works in terms persistent stimulating experience. For me being 'open minded' can be misinterpreted as some kind of passive state in which wisdom and knowledge are going to take up residence as a reward for openness. I know some very smart open minded folk I reckon have been taken for suckers.

No passive state of mind is good here.
 
#71
o I want to respectfully suggest that what you mean to say is to be genuinely curious.
Quite correct, Micheal. I don't think it's a sin to be curious about things such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the events of September 11, 2001. As Larry King suggested, we should, "Question more". However, if our curiousity causes us to come to different conclusions from that of those accepted it might be best to keep mum about them for the sake of maintaining, "Serenity Now" in our declining/reclining years.
 
Last edited:
#72
We tend to express opinions a bit more politely on this forum, and preferably with a bit more explanation - so please fit in.

For what it is worth, I think there are very few 'frauds' interviewed on Skeptiko (it helps to spell our forum right), but I'm afraid my impression of our latest guest, Alexis has fallen a lot after trying to read her book - at least it was cheap.

I think there is a larger reality, and some people give lots of evidence that they are genuinely able to connect with it, but inevitably if you interview enough people, not everyone will turn out so good.

If you want a much better interview, try Alex's interviews with Julie Beischel (or read her papers) - she seems to have produces remarkable evidence that some mediums do indeed contact dead people. Again, that fact does not mean that everyone who calls themselves a medium is the real deal.

David
What did you not like about the book David? I haven’t looked at it. But her Podcast has good guests and good conversation generally. Of course that says nothing about a book, which is why I ask.
 
#73
What did you not like about the book David? I haven’t looked at it. But her Podcast has good guests and good conversation generally. Of course that says nothing about a book, which is why I ask.
Well I am about 1/3 of the way through the book, and it all reads like an introduction to something more meaty. For example:
If we think of reality as a broadcast with varying frequencies, depending on the strength of our own internal antenna, we can imagine that the stronger the antenna, the more likely we will be able to experience more channels. In keeping with this metaphor, many alternative theorists believe the reality that is largely accepted is but a low fidelity emission that resonates with those who carry a weak signal. Once the antenna is upgraded, the choices for different channels are much easier to attain.
or
Trepidation provides a common stencil, carved out forus all too often. In light of what mankind is facing during these supposed apocalyptic times – that fear is in the driver’s seat, it is little wonder. But as alchemists, which I believe us all to be at our core; we have the ability to transform fear, angst and concern into love, calm and compassion from the moment we realize we have the freedom to do so!
She also blends in the supposed ending of the Mayan calendar in 2012, without saying whether she thinks it is relevant or not.

The book was a let down, it seems to contain endless clips such as the above, without ever pulling anything together. Maybe she just grabbed these little paragraphs from her guests?

David
 
#74
With regards to replies to my responses:


Oh, I would disagree with you. I 'm a believer in the super natural and all the above to an extent. I believe there's much more evidence of the miracles of Jesus Christ then some of these charlatans have you put on here. I don't mean to say they are all but some are for sure ,so I have to pull the bullshit alarm when I hear them ; much like when I see one of these rip off physic types trying to get your credit card for a reading or sell a book of course. These are the biggest bullshit artists around along the televangelist. They give people that might have real experiences a bad rap. I tell you what ;I live in Maryland and will give five grand out to anybody who can prove any physic ability from a series of test I shall give, not very complex. Just names and dates stuff like that. And love to get one of these UFO conscious types who claim to take rides on UFO's. Funny,they have very similar descriptions to things like that in the bible with reagrds to flying objects; sure they didn't rip it off lol ?? Let me tell you this. There are probably UFO's from other places and we are certainly not alone in Gods universe ....... but almost the majority are of very secret black book type are programs from the Government. To put some of these people on here that makes such outrageous claims to sell a book -it seems- without an ounce of evidence, and I mean real evidence, is a crime in its-self.

Also, love to see whoever does these interviews on here ask some hardball questions to anybody who comes on and makes some some sensational claims, like what real evidence do you have, and video, real pictures real names date and times, would you submit your so call powers to a test in a laboratory environment if the are Psychics or people who practice magic and conjure up spirits or anything like that? I also do believe in the meditative consciousness connections via quantum physics to heavenly realms and places not of our three dimensional world. A great book that could explain this : The Holographic Universe or anything related to that. These are things that can explain the paranormal in theory. Another great book is called ghost physics. Now these people are real investigators ;maybe get people of that caliber on if possible ? One last thing, I hear this interviewer on this site almost constantly slam Christianity , but how come I never hear you slam any other/question other religions like Islam or the old Jewish faith? How about any India types like Hinduism, sure that's all %100 true too LOL. You chicken!

The site is called Skepikofor gods sake! from that you are supposed to ask hard questions and always be Skeptical at first.


The scam report by the way.

https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/types-of-scams/buying-or-selling/psychic-clairvoyant
 
#75
Oh, I would disagree with you. I 'm a believer in the super natural and all the above to an extent. I believe there's much more evidence of the miracles of Jesus Christ then some of these charlatans have you put on here. I don't mean to say they are all but some are for sure ,so I have to pull the bullshit alarm when I hear them ; much like when I see one of these rip off physic types trying to get your credit card for a reading or sell a book of course.
These sort of vague acusations are exectly the sort of thing that may get you booted out of here if you carry on like that. The point is, not so much what you believe or do not believe in, but the fact that you criticise in a way that prevents any rational discussion.

I am guessing that you didn't listen to Julie Beischel's scientific evidence:

https://skeptiko.com/julie-beischel-research-after-death-communication-371/

In one way, it will be painful to ban you, because you look almost exactly the same as someone I genuinely admire - but I will if necessary.

One last thing, I hear this interviewer on this site almost constantly slam Christianity , but how come I never hear you slam any other/question other religions like Islam or the old Jewish faith? How about any India types like Hinduism, sure that's all %100 true too LOL. You chicken!
The main reason for this, is that to the best of my knowledge nobody has come on here to promote Islam.

David
 
#76
One last thing, I hear this interviewer on this site almost constantly slam Christianity , but how come I never hear you slam any other/question other religions like Islam or the old Jewish faith? How about any India types like Hinduism, sure that's all %100 true too LOL. You chicken!
Hi Jonster

I was going to ignore your post and leave up to David. As a constant critic of Christianity, however, I thought I might do you the courtesy of answering your complaint about the regularity of critical commentary of Christianity. Like many other people who participate in this forum I was raised Christian - family and community. Christianity has permeated our culture for centuries, as it does now. I have read extensively on the faith over quite a few decades now. As an individual exploring my sense of the sacred and the divine I don't think that Christianity has, as a whole, served me or my community well. That matters to me.

I think I can speak for many people in saying we criticise a faith we were born into and are immersed in. We know it intimately (to varying degrees) - and it is ours to criticise. I have read extensively in other faiths as well. Some I like, some I don't. But I don't think its my place to criticise them in the same way I criticise Christianity. Doing so often reflects a lack of insight into them in any case.

I don't think any religion is beyond criticism, but that's not the point. Its the purpose of criticism that matters. We can take a high minded approach and get stuck into beliefs and traditions, but to what good end? To demonstrate our lack of insight and knowledge and expose a self-righteous presumption of moral superiority? That's all it does.

For me the values of Christianity has flowed into our culture (at least here that's the case). I see a greater struggle with 'Christian' values among secular people because they are not constrained by dogma and tradition. In fact those values are 'human' values that are not owned by any faith. If you read in anthropology you do discover that good humans are pretty much the same the world over.

I am hard on Christianity because its the faith of my culture. I know it intimately. I had expectations of it and it failed to deliver in my eyes. So it an I have had an ongoing dialogue. On the other hand Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc have not disappointed me. They have not failed to deliver what I expected of them. Why would I get stuck into them? I looked into them so I might understand Christianity better.

Now I see myself as 'Christian' but definitely not a Christian. I think Christianity is being forced to evolve beyond the straits of its dogma and hierarchy - and is doing this because the essential themes of the Christian 'message' are being rewritten via secular and scientific thought. That's still not sufficient, because that thought is confused by materialism.

We have to remember that there was around 300 years of evolution of Christian thought before it became codified and bureaucratised, and then it evolved through centuries and millennia to become what we have now. So its not fixed and its not owned, even if some churches refuse to surrender the conceit of divine sanction and ownership of creed.

So with respect, may I counsel you to be patient, polite and generous - and not take one show to be the whole of who this community is.
 
#77
I think Christianity is being forced to evolve beyond the straits of its dogma and hierarchy
i agree, especially the Roman Catholic church, evolve or perish. It needs to go back to its foundation and Founder, Jesus Christ. Did Jesus ever condemn the normal human act of masturbation as a sin calling it an, "Abomination"? Not in any Gospel I've read. Did Jesus ever say all sins must be confessed to a celibate man called a priest? I've never read this anywhere either. Jesus did say however, "Call ye no man, "Father", ye have only one Father and he is in Heaven." True Christianity remains nonetheless wholeheartedly my faith of choice. Those who can truly self surrender to Jesus' teaching are awarded the (I've found very real) protection of a Guardian Angel during earthly life. I continually pray and trust not to be forsaken either at my time to be escorted to the Kingdom He has prepared for those of us who have learned to do our best to abide by His instructions in the Gospels.
 
#78
David, a ban huh?? LOL from a quackery of a site like this would be a badge of honor lol Oh I know, please find some Harry Potter people who been abducted by big foot type aliens and taken for a UFO ride? I do know of a lady I seen in the news a few months back in England maybe that got married to some ghost, right up your alley! Christianity, you bring the people on and interview them , so why your hatred about it ? I still say your a complete bigot with regards to that. But yea, people like you can't take free speech!

john
 
#79
David, a ban huh?? LOL from a quackery of a site like this would be a badge of honor lol Oh I know, please find some Harry Potter people who been abducted by big foot type aliens and taken for a UFO ride? I do know of a lady I seen in the news a few months back in England maybe that got married to some ghost, right up your alley! Christianity, you bring the people on and interview them , so why your hatred about it ? I still say your a complete bigot with regards to that. But yea, people like you can't take free speech!

john
Yawn... Dime a Dozen.
 
#80
David, a ban huh?? LOL from a quackery of a site like this would be a badge of honor lol Oh I know, please find some Harry Potter people who been abducted by big foot type aliens and taken for a UFO ride? I do know of a lady I seen in the news a few months back in England maybe that got married to some ghost, right up your alley! Christianity, you bring the people on and interview them , so why your hatred about it ? I still say your a complete bigot with regards to that. But yea, people like you can't take free speech!
john
You should make an argument and give examples instead of just ranting. I could be convinced that Alex is "anti-Christian" but you're just making assertions like this is a Twitter thread. I'd like to learn more about Alex's anti-Christian bias.
 
Top