User Banned for Posting Video on Paranormal.Net

A new user at the the French website Paranormal.Net was banned because he posted a video on the Reptiloid reality.



I haven't watched all of it yet, and I don't know much about the interviewee, and I'm not a big fan of David Icke, but I know the Reptiloids are real, and that most paranormal forums are swarmed by deranged orthodoxers who do propaganda, and the admins, mods, and other members allow them.

I saw the rest of it and what he says about the Reptiloids providing long lives to people who think at a certain level, which he didn't specify, doesn't sound at all credible. But what he says about denial being support is something I have said myself before and have maintained for a long time.

Hi Troy,

It is interesting the various information out there about the reptilians. I don't have any info or experience that can prove or disprove their existence in my own estimation. So I listen with interest.

I'm a firm believer that everyone should be free to share what they think, feel, believe, or know in respect to communication and information sharing. Proof would be nice but that is not always available. The human experience always begins a new track in history with the telling of a story. The ultimate truth or fiction of which sometimes we learn in time, and sometimes we can only grant it a place in the record for comparison should someone else encounter something similar.

It has never seemed right to me that some forums pass judgment on narratives arbitrarily because it does not fit their take on a paradigm. I've learned thru my own experiences and interactions with people that one mans truth is not always another man's truth. If we are a civil society then respectful allowance for competing or even initially incongruent truths is sometimes necessary. I don't think it seriously costs any of us to live and let live when it comes to the communicating or sharing of stories.

Cyrellys

''I'm a firm believer that everyone should be free to share what they think, feel, believe, or know in respect to communication and information sharing.'' And orthodox extremists are firm believers in allowing only orthodoxy.

If it's not proof beyond reasonable doubt it's overwhelming evidence and comes from 3 different sources: history, abductees, and whistleblowers, each source corroborating the others. But it's not so much a question of them in particular existing and secretly running the planet because the difference between ufonauts isn't great.

''competing or even initially incongruent truths.'' Truths don't compete and are always congruent. What you mean is ''competing or even initially incongruent points of view.'' Language is almost universally misused so is confused, but I'm a firm believer in using it properly. Truth cannot logically mean truth or fallacy. It can mean only truth. ''Wisdom'' cannot logically mean wisdom or foolishness. It can only mean wisdom. ''Fact'' can only mean fact. ''Liberal'' is not synonymous with ''leftist'', and the 2 are often opposites, and ''conservative'' is not synonymous with ''rightist'', and the 2 are often opposites. Etc., etc.

Btw, I got the name of the website wrong. It might be Paranormal.Fr.Network, but I'm not sure.

That is one way of looking at it. However, I've learned through both my personal experience and interaction with others that truth in this paradigm can and DOES vary depending upon position in the paradigm, experiential exposure, and your assembled knowledge base. IT's how you can get a POTUS who doesn't know squat about contact, and a housewife who does. Lol. Strange sometimes doesn't even begin to describe the types of reality you will encounter in this life.

Everyone has a 'point of view' and everyone carries a multi-faceted structure that contributes to defining their various understanding of reality upon which their beliefs, doubts, and suspicions are set. For some people this multi-faceted construct is fluid, changing in relation to new input and for others it is static most often for purposes of self-protection and security.

I've learned that one point of view can be true for the individual in that position...and the truths in their sphere may never be challenged by the truths experienced by others or vice versa. It doesn't necessarily make any of their truths wrong, just that the truths different perspectives espouse may not be inclusive enough. Unfortunately most of humanity is in the habit of taking any perceived incongruities in their own comparison and using it as a weapon to beat others over the head with, without ever having walked a mile in the victims shoes. IT foments a conflict paradigm and untold numbers of vicious circles, irreconcilable bad feelings between individuals and groups too.

Rarely are truths or perspectives (depending on how you think about them) given the room to just be the story at one level or another. We're all tending to be too divisive, imo. Everyone has an innate need to be more right than someone with a different narrative, and most babies end up tossed out the door with the bathwater...injuring the witness or experiencer usually in the process.

This vicious circle has gone on for a very long time and everyone wonders why nothing ever changes! It is my personal opinion that what is needed is we improve on the inter-relational process we're employing. If we stop treating narratives like an opportunity for a dispute or fight or ego-boost thru finding the simple act of comparing notes, then much of the issues will sort themselves out, and what works for the benefit of human consciousness will have a fairer opportunity to establish itself.

Sometimes the important thing in life is less about truth or who is right and who is wrong, but rather about how we interact, and what we leave in our wake of interaction.

I'm not saying we should molly-coddle every narrative out there, but that respectful treatment under the sun is a two-way street and more honey is available to everyone with an interest in it IF more flowers are allowed to bloom without fear of being mowed.

Cyrellys