Author Topic: Jimmy Church  (Read 410 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

4ZZ3R43

  • FOLLOW YOUR OWN STAR
Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2019, 07:59:30 pm »
[Jimmy Church] states he locked eyes with the 4' man for about 15 minutes ... It was ... as if [Whitley] was peeved at being made to hear some tale not of his own.

Jeepers creepers, that's a mighty long time to "lock eyes", but I won't trash the man's experience. Lord knows I've had folks give me side eye when opening up about my own shit before. And it makes you want to shut up about it.

I'd recommend listening to [Whitley's Unknown Country] podcast on a new film made on "The Seeding" of humans by aliens. This guest [Jon Sumple] got a far more embracing reception than Jimmy. That said Whitley was quick to go off on Comedy Central TV (John Stewart?) for trying to book him frequently or a chat on anal probing - or RAPE as he angrily and correctly termed it. He was pissed!

Alright, I'll check that out, on your recommendation. K. Dubb's pro'ly gonna dead me for this, but I have to say it, regardless.

It's highly possible, in my view, that Whitley, with his volatile reactions to the smallest challenge here or there, is a red flag in a certain sense. Coupled with the "synchronities" he encounters - seemingly everywhere - as well as the "visitations" by what he insists are creatures from another place, its a classic case of delusional thinking, extreme mood swings, textbook hallucinations and fixed beliefs of a conspiratorial nature.

In short, what I'm saying is he's NUTS. Or SICK. And, if he got out of his own way, may be able to get help. But, its too late for that.

4ZZ3R43

  • FOLLOW YOUR OWN STAR
Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2019, 08:07:51 pm »
[Whitley repeatedly] pining for his dead life partner, on and on, does also bore and frustrate me. However, the generation he hails from was indeed a closer sort, very co-dependent in my view, to a fault almost. As deep as some of my relationships in life have been, I've never related to the morbid longing the elderly seem to express when their loved one departs this plain. I find it icky, but I'm riddled with fears of intimacy of my own, that I suspect are abnormal to say the least.

I have the reason for that...you're not elderly yet!

Life is a bitch about revealing its insights before the brain sand develops.

So your read is that when I'm wrinkly and wheelchair bound one day I'll also pine for decades gone by, and infect every individual I encounter with stale stories of the longing in my heart for love I lost?


Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2019, 09:40:03 pm »
Jeepers creepers, that's a mighty long time to "lock eyes", but I won't trash the man's experience. Lord knows I've had folks give me side eye when opening up about my own shit before. And it makes you want to shut up about it.

Alright, I'll check that out, on your recommendation. K. Dubb's pro'ly gonna dead me for this, but I have to say it, regardless.

It's highly possible, in my view, that Whitley, with his volatile reactions to the smallest challenge here or there, is a red flag in a certain sense. Coupled with the "synchronities" he encounters - seemingly everywhere - as well as the "visitations" by what he insists are creatures from another place, its a classic case of delusional thinking, extreme mood swings, textbook hallucinations and fixed beliefs of a conspiratorial nature.

In short, what I'm saying is he's NUTS. Or SICK. And, if he got out of his own way, may be able to get help. But, its too late for that.

To the contrary, I think you're right on.  Half the message of a paranormal experience, or (more accurately) the story of a paranormal experience, is the point that it happened to you; i. e. you are special, a possessor of sacred (in times past) or hidden knowledge, and thus worthy of attention.  Everyone with a ghost story is a little would-be prophet offering a glimpse of the afterlife.  In Whitley's case, as an author, the connection between attention and remuneration is just a little more explicit.

Metron

  • Guest
Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2019, 11:12:15 pm »
Jeepers creepers, that's a mighty long time to "lock eyes", but I won't trash the man's experience. Lord knows I've had folks give me side eye when opening up about my own shit before. And it makes you want to shut up about it.

He says the skin color he will not reveal yet, so the mystery is still there, by intent?

Maybe.

Quote
Alright, I'll check that out, on your recommendation. K. Dubb's pro'ly gonna dead me for this, but I have to say it, regardless.

It's highly possible, in my view, that Whitley, with his volatile reactions to the smallest challenge here or there, is a red flag in a certain sense. Coupled with the "synchronities" he encounters - seemingly everywhere - as well as the "visitations" by what he insists are creatures from another place, its a classic case of delusional thinking, extreme mood swings, textbook hallucinations and fixed beliefs of a conspiratorial nature.

In short, what I'm saying is he's NUTS. Or SICK. And, if he got out of his own way, may be able to get help. But, its too late for that.

If he is nuts he is a very eloquent, erudite, and consistent kind of nuts.

No, I think he's being interdimensionally fucked with. And I say that because he has witness testimony from houseguests he had at his upstate NY cabin as to the actiities of the visitors.

Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2019, 04:47:58 pm »
Locked eyes? Lost opportunity. The greys know how to party, just ask Whitley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFWZf8MnGpk

4ZZ3R43

  • FOLLOW YOUR OWN STAR
Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2019, 08:59:21 pm »
If [Whitley] is nuts he is a very eloquent, erudite, and consistent kind of nuts.

True.

...I think he's being interdimensionally fucked with. And I say that because he has witness testimony from houseguests he had at his upstate NY cabin as to the actiities of the visitors.

Understood. But, have you heard of the shared delusion, or “folie à deux”? This is a syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief and sometimes hallucinations are transmitted from one individual to another. The same syndrome shared by more than 2 people may be called “folie à trois,” “folie à quatre,” “folie en famille” (family madness), or even “folie à plusieurs” (madness of several).

If interdimensional visitors are a possibility, perhaps a “folie imposée” is also possible. This is where a dominant person (known as the 'primary', 'inducer' or 'principal') initially forms a delusional belief during a psychotic episode and imposes it on another person or persons (known as the 'secondary', 'acceptor' or 'associate') with the assumption that the secondary person might not have become deluded if left to his or her own devices. If the parties are admitted to hospital separately, then the delusions in the person with the induced beliefs usually resolve without the need of medication.

Additionally, there is the “folie simultanée,” which describes either the situation where 2 people considered to suffer independently from psychosis influence the content of each other's delusions so they become identical or strikingly similar, or one in which 2 people "morbidly predisposed" to delusional psychosis mutually trigger symptoms in each other.

The “folie à deux” and its more populous cousins are in many ways a curiosity. A person cannot be considered delusional if the belief in question is one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture. When a large number of people may come to believe obviously false and potentially distressing things based purely on hearsay, these beliefs are not considered to be delusions and are labelled instead as mass hysteria.

As with most psychological disorders, the extent and type of delusion varies, however it usually mimics the delusion of the inducer and is almost very similar to it. The inducer does not realize that they are making the other person sick but instead think they are helping by alerting the second person of what they deem to be “truth.”

Delusions are fixed beliefs that do not change, even when a person is presented with conflicting evidence. There are a few different types of delusions that are passed on from an inducer to a secondary person:

Bizarre delusions. Clearly implausible and not understood by peers within the same culture, even those with psychological disorders - for example, if one thought that all of their organs had been taken out and replaced by someone else's while they were asleep without leaving any scar and without their waking up. Not only is it impossible for someone to survive having all their organs taken out and replaced, but if they did survive, they would be covered in scars, need bottles of anti-rejection and pain medication, would be in a crippling amount of pain, and would not be able to move.

Non-bizarre delusions. Common among those with personality disorders and understood by people within the same culture. For example, if one thinks that the FBI is following them in unmarked cars and watching them via security cameras, they are having a non-bizarre delusion. While this is highly unlikely for the average person, it is possible and therefore understood by those around them.

Mood-congruent delusions correspond to a person's emotions at the time, usually during an episode of mania or depression. For example, someone with this type of delusion may believe that they are going to win $2 million at the casino tonight, despite the fact that the majority of people who go to a casino walk away having lost money or in some cases leave with some money, but rarely over $100 and almost never $2 million. Similarly, someone in a depressive state may believe that their mother will get hit by lightning the next day, despite the fact that only about 240,000 people are injured by lightning strikes per year (out of a global population of approximately 7.57 billion as of 2019).

Mood-neutral delusions. As opposed to mood-congruent delusions, these are unaffected by ones current mood, and can be bizarre or non-bizarre. The formal definition is a false belief that isn't directly related to the person's emotional state. An example would be if one were steadily convinced that somebody had switched bodies with their neighbour, as the belief remains independent of whether they may be in a manic or depressive state.

Now, I don’t mean to take the wind out of your sails, or leave the premise of Whitley’s experience lacking in the magic he describes experiencing, but to look at the other side of the coin where I identify personal bias I’ve determined to be more helpful than not.

Metron

  • Guest
Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2019, 09:58:59 pm »
Some sort of shared hallucination is of course possible, perhaps even a collective one as he had several guests who reported incidents.

The odd thing is that Ann never experienced any of it despite laying right next to him.

This is a good read on it all:

https://realitysandwich.com/142495/strange_case_whitley_strieber_1/

Quote
Whether the Imaginal “beings” resent being limited and
literalized in this fashion, and become faintly malevolent as a response, or
whether (as seems more reasonable) they lack qualities of benevolence or
malevolence to begin with and merely reflect back at us our own psychological
tendencies, the fact remains that alien and Ufo phenomena
has always had a sinister edge to it. I believe that this dark edge comes less
from the phenomenon itself than from a distortion
that results from being filtered through the minds of individual
researchers and experiencers. Faery lore was also dark, but dark in a primal,
sorcerous fashion. Ufo lore, on
the other hand, tends to be heavy, oppressive, and laced with despair. There is
a soulless — I might even say sickly — quality to it that results when writers and
researchers suck all the magical essence out of the Imaginal by imposing their own rigid (and
neurotic) personalities onto it. This usually happens without their even being
aware of doing so: it is an unconscious distortion, and it is unconsciousness
that distorts.

The best Ufo commentators — Jung, John Keel, Jacques Vallee,
Robert Anton Wilson, Terence McKenna, Kenneth Grant — have been aware of this
pitfall, and have managed mostly to avoid it. Freely acknowledging the unfixed,
mythical nature of the Ufo beast,
they have treated it accordingly, allowing it to remain an essentially unknown,
possibly even an unknowable, quality. Yet as a general rule (McKenna and Grant
being partial exceptions), these writers have not been recounting their own
personal experiences but simply interpreting data provided by others; hence
they have had the luxury of distance.

Strieber has had no such luxury. He has
not only had direct experience of alien abduction, he has been transformed and
to a large extent “created” by it; as such, his position as a “researcher” is
severely compromised. He is closer to St.
Paul, struck blind by a divine presence and instantly converted to its
frequency. Strieber talks a lot about objectivity, but for all his insight and
intelligence, he is clearly a man on a mission (a fact he freely admits). His
mission as ambassador to otherworldly beings is to help humanity prepare for
contact. As such, he is obliged to present these beings as actual, concrete,
literal fact, with nothing airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky, subjective or Imaginal about them. That such a view is at
odds with the nature of the contact experience is testified by the glaring
inconsistencies of his descriptions, and his own almost constant see-sawing as
to whether the beings are benevolent or not.

At times, Strieber seems like a man
caught in a mental conundrum, trying to talk his way out of it and rarely, if ever,
willing to admit that he doesn’t know what
is going on. Strieber presents so many different points of view, at varying
times on his website and in his books, that it is almost as if there is more
than one of him. Perhaps, in a peculiar way, this is indeed the case?

Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2019, 10:32:52 pm »
This is a perfect example for my favorite hobbyhorse.  Calling them delusions or folies a deux is semantics operating as science -- it does nothing to explain them but simply substitutes another name that removes all reference to the supernatural or paranormal, using highly prejudicial language just to make sure we all know they're not real.

Metron

  • Guest
Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #23 on: October 08, 2019, 10:35:05 pm »
This is a perfect example for my favorite hobbyhorse.  Calling them delusions or folies a deux is semantics operating as science -- it does nothing to explain them but simply substitutes another name that removes all reference to the supernatural or paranormal, using highly prejudicial language just to make sure we all know they're not real.

And then we parse what constitutes "real" - only the physical and no non-localized?


Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2019, 10:41:15 pm »
And then we parse what constitutes "real" - only the physical and no non-localized?

I'm ok with that for starters.  But, big-picture, there's no reason drug-induced visions or even dreams should not contain things worth paying attention to.  Ideas are real; millions have died for them.

Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2019, 10:57:12 pm »
I don't believe a word he says, I've had the displeasure of meeting Church. After having a lengthy conversation with him over a beer, I didn't leave that conversation thinking he was the most genuine individual. I'll leave it at that.

Metron

  • Guest
Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2019, 11:04:21 pm »
I'm ok with that for starters.

I'm not, UV spectrum and sub-audible come to mind...

Quote
But, big-picture, there's no reason drug-induced visions or even dreams should not contain things worth paying attention to.

Ayahuuasca!

 ;)

Quote
Ideas are real; millions have died for them.

The analogous properties with "beliefs" being matchingly culpable, yes.

Metron

  • Guest
Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2019, 11:06:07 pm »
I don't believe a word he says, I've had the displeasure of meeting Church. After having a lengthy conversation with him over a beer, I didn't leave that conversation thinking he was the most genuine individual. I'll leave it at that.

Is it that whole LaLa Land schmooze, rock star, Hollwierdo vibe he gives off?

Because I find his pseudo-sincerity and 25 sweet goodbyes to each guest nauseatingly in-authentic too. :-\

Metron

  • Guest
Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2019, 11:07:39 pm »
So your read is that when I'm wrinkly and wheelchair bound one day I'll also pine for decades gone by, and infect every individual I encounter with stale stories of the longing in my heart for love I lost?



I am only moderately embarrassed to confirm this likelihood of this behavior as age grinds on you, sorry ... :-X

Re: Jimmy Church
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2019, 11:08:31 pm »
Is it that whole LaLa Land schmooze, rock star, Hollwierdo vibe he gives off?

Because I find his pseudo-sincerity and 25 sweet goodbyes to each guest nauseatingly in-authentic too. :-\


Nothing about a vibe, just that he's a liar and really weird and pretentious in person.