In recent days, I happened upon an online post from a user named “dh1” that I felt was refreshing and merited comment here. Because his comments mirror my own longstanding stance on a variety of topics, namely how to investigate the Question and come to defensible conclusions thereof, I felt it was important to get the word out about his insight, ya know?
I have provided some of his more salient points below with my comments. Perhaps you can consider this a small glimpse or preview into COATT II. Enjoy
“…believe everything you read but only act on very little”
DH1 opens his post with this gem and I have to say that it is a great doorway through which understanding might be found.
Fundamentally, at its core, this strategy essentially forces one to ask, “what if?” “What if what I am reading about (X) is true? What would that mean?”
While my interests and curiosity spans a wide spectrum of topics, I rarely delve very deeply into any one subject to know it intimately. By doing this, I am able to maintain knowledgeability on a wide variety of topics but ties to very few.
As a result, sometimes I find connections where previously they would have gone unseen.
You can expect to see many of these connections in the upcoming update to Conviction of a Time Traveler. LOTS to go over…
As counterpoint to this strategy however, is that many others either fixate on one particular topic and/or dismiss any other topic out of hand as impossible. This does a great disservice to the search for Truth.
Related to dh1’s statement is another problem plaguing many online, and that is the very real lack of any meaningful knowledge of what Truth looks like. A good example of this is the notion that John Titor must be a hoax because his IP address was identified to originate (once) from a middle school in central Florida. My point here is, so what? What does this mean?
In short, it means nothing. Why? Because there is no metric to identify what his IP address should be. Stated another way, what other options could his IP have been? A home? A restaurant? A FedEx center? A coffeehouse? An obscure and mythical town in New Jersey?
In the end, the idea that you can confirm a hoax (or anything for that matter) without knowing what correct looks like is a fool’s errand and only provides a false sense of certainty leading exactly nowhere.
An even better example of this is the idea that DNA testing a hair follicle believed to be from Bigfoot. Because there is nothing to compare any DNA sample to, no comparison can be made and the only answer that can be given is “inconclusive.” Of course, when the results come back as “inconclusive” the fools online will scream hoax because the geneticist didn’t say the DNA was “definitely Bigfoot DNA.” This, on its face, is laughable (incidentally, this also ties into dh1’s statements about the verisimilitude of ‘statistical findings.’ More on that later).
While I am averse to quoting myself, I will do so here simply to illustrate the point:
“…One of the keys to cracking the Titor question is to first just allow for the possibility that time travel very well could be true. Many never even get off the ground in their research due to this very limiting world view: they simply don’t believe that the human race will ever conquer time. Ever is a very long time…”
-Temporal Recon, April 26, 2013
After I discovered just enough evidence that there was truth within the 2000/2001 TimeTravel_0 narrative, I let myself accept that ‘time travel’ very well could be happening. This shift in perspective was a fundamental sea change in my thinking and allowed me unparalleled objectivity and insight into The Question. This has led me to new and unforeseen theories and conclusions about the world(s) we live in. All this simply because I treated the topic seriously and not as some easily forgotten campfire story.
So, given the idea that the typical person interested in ‘time travel’ has very little “real” information by which to judge what a time travel claimant says as true or false, how can one possibly make any judgment? At the end, what are those online left with then? The very strategy that dh1 and I espouse: “believe everything, act on little.”
Happily I can say that this lack of metrics will be largely resolved with the upcoming COATT update that I am working on now. Of course, every move spawns a countermove so I anticipate these metrics to largely be rendered ineffective ‘sooner or later,’ but for now…
Here’s another gem from dh1’s post:
“It’s a safe position socially to be a skeptic. Not a safe position socially to believe everything.”
I couldn’t agree more. There are any number of comments I could make here.
In order to arrive at any semblance of the Actual Truth, there must be a willingness to be wrong. On a personal note, I have come to the conclusion that no matter what theory I hold, I maintain that it is likely wrong and possibly only a shadow of the truth that is out there. It may be partially wrong, mildly wrong, wildly wrong or simply contain a small detail that is wrong. It doesn’t matter. I accept that any conclusion that I hold is subject to refinement: “I reserve the right to be wrong” and refuse any permanent attachment to any particular conclusion I may make.
Unfortunately, the state of the online conversation is diametrically opposite this outlook. In point of fact, there are any number of individuals online who will declare some theory or outright lie as truth when discussing the TimeTravel_0 mythos. It would seem the wisdom to acknowledge one’s own ignorance is in short supply online. When was the last time you saw anyone say, “I don’t know” in an online discussion forum?
One major obstacle to arriving at the Truth (or some resemblance of the Truth) is one’s own ego; the innate need to be correct (and I am admittedly not immune to this). This need of the conscious mind invariably leads to wild departures into fantasy attempting to connect legitimate data points into some cohesive whole or narrative (Analytical Overlay, in the parlance of Remote Viewers). This invented narrative can only be a verisimilitude of truth; it looks correct, but it simply isn’t.
It can’t be correct because there is no such thing as perfect knowledge, knowing all possible data points for a given question.
This next statement by dh1 is also quite illuminating. It speaks to the need to only observe:
“…this field requires suspension of all judgement for 20yrs…no human can do that so why not just believe it? Later with enough work ya get the proof. Seems to be the key to success.”
Notice, dh1 does not claim that ‘all this’ requires a suspension of belief for 20 years to await some sort of smoking gun evidence; he says that it requires suspension of all judgment for 20 years. This also is a key technique that I have used throughout my own inquiry into The Question.
The ability to observe without judgment is a difficult task but one that can only yield incredible results. Observation without judgment; that is the key. This statement is also in line with dh1’s larger theme of believing everything but acting on very little.
Next in dh1’s post, he enumerates some points that “fake skeptics” typically make. Below are his points and my comments:
“They don’t listen to all sources of info for emotional reasons that they possibly might being scammed.”
Here, dh1 identifies the very real fear that one’s ego might be damaged by venturing into the unknown. “What if you’re wrong?” is the haunting little voice whispering in the background. Thus, the debunk-at-all-cost, disbelieve everything attitude that I see but masked as thoughtful skepticism is really only the ego’s emotional attempt at self-preservation.
I have echoed this sentiment many times in how individuals are fearful of leaving the safe confines of the shallow end of a swimming pool all the while holding onto the firm and safe edge of the pool’s side. Without the acceptance of possibly being wrong, without submitting one’s ego to the slings and arrows of potential error and ridicule, one makes no advance. Recognizing this, I have left those behind who are too fearful of embracing the vague, the grey, the unknown. They remain clinging to the side of pool, safe in the knowledge that their toes can still touch the bottom.
“They don’t make the proper judgement of ‘inconclusive’ due to a lack of proof for or against it…”
This also is a key point that I have made to several people over the years and also supports dh1’s previous comment of ‘suspension of judgment.’
Sometimes the proper answer to a given question is simply, “I don’t know.” The Question (‘time travel’ being only but one aspect) is inscrutable in the extreme and one cannot expect to be able to categorize any given piece of data in a kind of binary fashion every single time; there must be some allowance for Black, White and Gray data.
Many times, when an individual is confronted with seemingly contradictory information, it is discounted out of hand because it appears to contradict the black or white information that the individual had previously collected.
I say ‘appears’ because, in the grand totality of things, contradictions are impossible. Given a large enough scope however, all things are connected and mutually supporting. By the simple fact that a piece of information appears contradictory merely elucidates the fact that you are still missing key data. Either that, or the initial assumptions were incorrect, which is also quite likely. I welcome assistance in separating the wheat from the chaff in a small new jersey village, but until such time, those ties must remain in my gray pile (for now).
“They don’t try to falsify results they already get….”
This is simply good practice, and could be viewed as a corollary to point two, above. If confronted with contradictory or falsifying information, one must be ready to sluff off the old and erroneous previous conclusions that are now rendered obsolete with new information; given strong enough evidence.
Still think gravity propagates in waves? Why? And how long do you think it will be until we discover we could be wrong?
In my own research, I have been faced multiple times with the unavoidable conclusion that some of my theories have been mildly or wildly incorrect. And frankly, in the opposite vein, I am constantly surprised at how many times I find confirmatory evidence of my previous theories.
I am encouraged by my surprise. Why? Because it proves to me that I am not married to my conclusions, that I am independent and objective enough in my reasoning to allow for the fact that I don’t know everything. Perhaps there’s a larger lesson there for all of us?
“Claim that statistical proof is the same as hard proof, it’s not…”
Dh1’s statement here is strangely apropos considering the latest rerun installment from ‘Razimus’ claiming he has smoking gun proof that ‘John Titor’ was some brother of some lawyer based on feeble evidence. Unfortunately for the quality of the general online discussion, ‘Razimus’s’ ignorant conclusion spread like wildfire among those others who also believe that statistical proof (weak as it was) is the same as ‘hard’ proof.
The result? A once vibrant, albeit tail-chasing, conversation is now muted. Sad, really.
An interesting corollary to this is, had those same participants adhered to some of dh1’s previous points above, they would have been impervious to ‘Razimus’ feeble and ignorant rants. This leads to the outlook that I have held for quite some time and has been the source of much consternation by the online community, and that is my reticence in divulging my findings to the ‘layman’ (to borrow a term from dh1 for the moment).
My belief, now proven correct, has always been that it is important for those investigating ‘time travel’ or, more largely, The Question, must come to their conclusions with a minimum of interference from me. Why?
To avoid exactly the result that occurred with the latest fake hype from Razimus. Had the online community done their own investigations and come to their own conclusions (and, not for nothing, had the self-worth to value their own work), these foolish, overwrought and libelous statements by Razimus would have been nothing more than two-dollar firecrackers; all pop, no substance.
The online community could have been firm and knowledgeable enough to deflect his shallow and factually hollow accusations. But, as we have seen, that didn’t happen. While there were some who were sharp enough to laugh at the laughable, many fell prey.
When one relies on the work of others or others’ opinions for their certainty, one becomes subject to the latest whims and whistles of fools.
“…Therefore most people never really learn actual results…if they do it’s either by random trial and error or if they meet an insider that shares proof. One example is ufo researchers, they have some proof but nothing spectacular. None of them try to replicate building a ufo. They’re always with their hand out to the gov ‘please pweeze, give us proof dear gov’…”
This (again) echoes closely my own thoughts on these topics.
First, stated explicitly in the COATT update currently being written, is the idea that UFO researchers unceasingly plead with the US government for some sort of ‘official Disclosure of the existence of UFO’s or extraterrestrials. Why? Why do they request (as dh1 states) Disclosure when Disclosure happens literally every day. You cannot turn on the television, go online or speak to almost anyone who hasn’t seen strange lights in the sky (at the very least). Do you not think ETs could remain unseen if they so desired? This surrender of your power to authority is very discouraging.
My recommendation to anyone interested in the topic of UFO’s or ET or ‘time travel’ itself is to simply move around that authority and proceed. As you might notice, this is the same actions I took for my own inquiries into ‘time travel’ and it has yielded spectacular results. Once I learned that the “authorities” within the Titor-verse were not authorities at all and that their single over-arching goal was to actually suppress cogent discussion, I simply ignored them and cut my own path. I highly recommend this attitude, it’s liberating.
“…You’re either a no-knownothing irrational skeptic or a ‘mother may I’ type begging the gov or other inventors. This is why most people are outsiders…”
I agree with this statement completely and I see examples of it every time I go online.
“…Once ya start believing everything, you find all the proof staring ya in the face. Steven Greer is correct, we’ve already had full ufo tech disclosure…”
I agree with this statement as well. I have spoken of Dr. Greer before and I highly recommend anyone truly interested in the topics he discusses to give him a listen. He is among the very few researchers who are actually researching the topic and drawing conclusions.
As counterpoint, a great deal of authors or talking heads out there today merely document ‘strange lights in the sky’ from 50 years ago and marvel at the ‘news’ they have brought you in their book. I have no patience for those authors who call themselves researchers; they are nothing of the sort. They are chroniclers at best. Dr. Greer however is a completely different animal; Well worth your time.
“Study alternative science information heavily. Then contact inventors and authors, impress them with your knowledgable (sic) questions and they will share insider information with ya in the form of experiments and other stuff.”
“Then proof is easy to obtain. These guys DON’T want to talk to laymen who haven’t studied. End of story.”
I tend to agree with dh1 here, on a variety of levels.
Many times, there have been those who have approached me asking questions, but it was blaringly obvious that these poor souls had no real interest in the Actual Truth. Instead, they merely wished to engage in yet more campfire stories and hoped for some secret knowledge or a cheap prediction or two.
Again, more entreaties to an authority asking for ‘disclosure.’ I want to be your colleague, not your guru; do your homework, then come.
“…if you are serious about results this works….”
All in all, I am extremely encouraged by dh1’s comments online. Perhaps there’s hope after all?