UFOs Are Here

[LoneWonderer]

For all the juicy gossip it don't get much better than Area52 and Jesse Michaels. See... I tried to make a positive, constructive contribution to this thread!

[Andrey]

6 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

With George Knapp - I think he is a good investigative journalist following the UFO movement also

You might enjoy the recent "Bigelow Podcast" youtube channel with George Knapp. It has 9 episodes now. Robert Bigelow is spilling the beans, not all of them though. He thinks that dark matter and dark energy is actually consiousness, holding the universe together.

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Leo Gura I don't know why, but I find him more credible than anyone recently in the movement. I think he did stupid young boy shit when younger, and he doesn't deny this. People do this shit. And it's never as simple as someone being 100% credible or not. We all have shady crap.

But I haven't picked up on any huge inconsistencies. He always reads as earnest. He is worth listening to and considering.

Great. We agree.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Andrey said:

Robert Bigelow

I hate that he supports Trump. Ruins him for me.

[OBEler]

4 hours ago, UpperMaster said:

Bro I just read his wikipedia page it seems like he's been lying about everything in his life. He seems to have lied about his education. He ran a prositituion ring which highlights his corruption even further. Why would you take anything he says seriously?

I followed numerous body language specialists on youtube and they all came to the same conclusion that what he said, he believed in it. He was not a liar.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, OBEler said:

he believed in it.

That don't mean much. Lol

Edited yesterday at 02:23 PM by Leo Gura

[Jehovah increases]

Yes, Bob Lazar knows too much. I have studied him for a time now. In the end, it blows all your minds out. Was he telling the truth or not

Edited yesterday at 06:43 PM by Jehovah increases

[OBEler]

What do you think about her? 

Shirley Jean Wright was a scientist and college professor, specializing in chemistry and physical science. She later taught chemistry at Miami-Dade College in Florida. She was not Einstein’s secretary. She claimed to have been a student of Albert Einstein in Princeton.

Why should she lie`?

Edited 23 hours ago by OBEler

[Salvijus]

Mods are alien because they're green.

He he he 

I'll see myself out. 

[Jehovah increases]

14 hours ago, OBEler said:

What do you think about her? 

Shirley Jean Wright was a scientist and college professor, specializing in chemistry and physical science. She later taught chemistry at Miami-Dade College in Florida. She was not Einstein’s secretary. She claimed to have been a student of Albert Einstein in Princeton.

Why should she lie`?

Going to watch this one; it rings a bell in me.

[Leo Gura]

Natasha is an alien.

[Delis]

On 14.9.2026 at 2:19 AM, Leo Gura said:

You should be careful believing him. He's giving you nice stories, but you don't know if they are true. You certainly cannot take his predictions on faith. His predictions can and likely will end up being wrong.

Nevertheless, I enjoy Bashar. Just don't take him too seriously.

His predictions are not what you should be listening to him for. The value in listening to him is not in his predictions.

In sharing his videos I am not endorsing his predictions.

I'm interested in your view on Bashar's main teaching i.e. 5 step formula (acting on your passion with best of your availability with no assumption on the outcome, staying in the positive state no matter what and examining negative belief systems). Has it affected your teachings? 

To me, it seems that you emphasize direct experience of god consciousness (via psychedelics, meditation, etc. and in time direct experience sober without practice) and your videos are largely a collection of epistemic and oncological frameworks to help one deconstruct human experience and reality. On the other hand, Bashar doesn't go into much of frameworks and has approach that is simpler, and according to Bashar/Darryl Anka, more tuned into specific issues for human psyche. Bashar also emphasizes collective (and individual) transformation of human psyche which also connects to his view that we all create our own versions of other people every moment: I'm creating my version of you that perhaps answers this question in a way that is helpful for me to grow and learn more from myself from my experience. I get the impression from your teachings, that you have more of a everyday practical view of slowly developing collective reality where each of us are ultimately gods in your own reality bubble/dream (and ultimately we all are dreaming each others dreams) but there isn't overarching collective mission/story arch and there isn't a way for one to transforming reality for another in a meaningful extent by his/her decisions and changes in belief systems. Why don't you promote the idea of this kind collective transformation and splitting/entering into new of reality each moment? Is it that you don't see any evidence of it in direct experience?

Lot's of love, I do appreciate your work a lot even if this post might suggest otherwise.

Edited 7 hours ago by Delis

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Delis said:

I'm interested in your view on Bashar's main teaching i.e. 5 step formula (acting on your passion with best of your availability with no assumption on the outcome, staying in the positive state no matter what and examining negative belief systems). Has it affected your teachings? 

To me, it seems that you emphasize direct experience of god consciousness (via psychedelics, meditation, etc. and in time direct experience sober without practice) and your videos are largely a collection of epistemic and oncological frameworks to help one deconstruct human experience and reality. On the other hand, Bashar doesn't go into much of frameworks and has approach that is simpler, and according to Bashar/Darryl Anka, more tuned into specific issues for human psyche. Bashar also emphasizes collective (and individual) transformation of human psyche which also connects to his view that we all create our own versions of other people every moment: I'm creating my version of you that perhaps answers this question in a way that is helpful for me to grow and learn more from myself from my experience. I get the impression from your teachings, that you have more of a everyday practical view of slowly developing collective reality where each of us are ultimately gods in your own reality bubble/dream (and ultimately we all are dreaming each others dreams) but there isn't overarching collective mission/story arch and there isn't a way for one to transforming reality for another in a meaningful extent by his/her decisions and changes in belief systems. Why don't you promote the idea of this kind collective transformation and splitting/entering into new of reality each moment? Is it that you don't see any evidence of it in direct experience?

Lot's of love, I do appreciate your work a lot even if this post might suggest otherwise.

Great questions!

1) I'm a fan of Bashar's practical life advice. It's simple but potent. Lots of legit wisdom there and I try to follow it myself.

2) His UFO stuff I don't care about and ignore.

3) You are assuming a bit too much about my teachings. I don't preclude collective action, development, and "awakening". That's all fine and good, if it works. My style of work just doesn't emphasize that. Which is why I tell you guys to study other spiritual teachers because my teaching is not "full-spectrum". There are gaps in my teachings because I can't cover every angle, just as Bashar doesn't cover epistemology or political philosophy. I focus on areas I am passionate about, per Bashar's advice.

4) In general, collective development is going to be very slow and back-and-forth. I don't believe in any kind of magical global awakening that will happen in a few years. That's silly to me. I don't believe that aliens will magically come and awaken mankind. If those aliens came, mankind would kill them and rape their corpses. In general, I have quite a negative view of mankind as a collective. But maybe that's just my misanthropic bias.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Jehovah increases]

 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Natasha is an alien.

[Jehovah increases]

15 minutes ago, Jehovah increases said:

 

We are all aliens from Oz. Whoops, I was not meant to post that twice.

Edited 6 hours ago by Jehovah increases

[Sincerity]

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

1) I'm a fan of Bashar's practical life advice. It's simple but potent. Lots of legit wisdom there and I try to follow it myself.

2) His UFO stuff I don't care about and ignore.

Beautiful. I have the exact same position.

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura Do you agree with bashars overall worldview?

chatgpt:"Bashar does not say that only one individual consciousness exists. Instead, he says that each conscious being experiences its own version of reality, including its own version of other people.

So if you meet another person, you are not directly experiencing that person’s private reality. You are experiencing a version of them within your own reality. At the same time, that person is experiencing their own version of you within theirs.

The important part is the idea of conscious agreement. According to Bashar, these individual realities are not created in total isolation. Different consciousnesses agree, at a deeper level, to participate in compatible experiences. This agreement allows your reality and another person’s reality to line up closely enough that you can appear to interact in a shared world.

So the model is something like this: you and the other person are both real consciousnesses, but each of you experiences a personal reality. The apparent shared world exists because your consciousnesses are connected through deeper agreements about what kind of interaction and circumstances you will experience together.

In that sense, Bashar’s view is:

many real consciousnesses, each creating their own experienced reality, coordinated through deeper conscious agreements.

So it is not “only I exist.” It is more like “I only ever experience my own version of reality, but other consciousnesses genuinely exist and our experiences are synchronized through conscious agreement.”

In Bashar’s model, you never literally become the whole underlying Consciousness in the sense that your individual perspective replaces or absorbs every other perspective.

Rather, your individual consciousness can become aware that its deeper nature is the same underlying Consciousness that also expresses itself through everyone else.

So the shift would be:

Before:

“I am this individual person, separate from everyone else.”

After:

“At the deepest level, I am the same fundamental Consciousness appearing as this person — and also as every other conscious being.”

But the individual perspectives do not therefore disappear.

You could think of it as one light shining through many windows. If one window somehow realizes, “I am actually the light,” the other windows do not vanish. They are still other expressions of that same light.

So in this model, awakening to the underlying Consciousness is not:

“Now only my perspective exists.”

It is closer to:

“The distinction between ‘my consciousness’ and the consciousness underlying everyone else was never absolute.”

And even after that realization, the many perspectives can continue to exist.

That is the key distinction between oneness and solipsism. Oneness says: many perspectives, one underlying source. Solipsism says: only one actual perspective exists.

Edited 6 hours ago by OBEler

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, OBEler said:

but other consciousnesses genuinely exist

The question is, How do you know this is true if all you have access to is Yourself?

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura Just because everything appears within your consciousness does not prove that only your consciousness exists. Your conclusion is an assumption but Bashar’s claims about other consciousnesses and conscious agreements are assumptions too.

Edited 6 hours ago by OBEler

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Your conclusion is an assumption

So you assume. But then there's God-Realization.

What Darryl Anka is doing is completely different from God-Realization. There is value in what he is doing, but it cannot compare to God-Realization in any way.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura