• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Beckjord: I Was Mothman!

You people are not only boring, you are also behind the (Big

We in America have the answers to questions you brits
have just begun to think of...

For 90% of you fools, in 1490, you would have voted for the Flat Earth.
You go for what is simple. popular and banal.

But, ---- young or old, I still invite thinking anomalists to contact me with
any data or info you have. I don;t care if you are in school, secondaray school,
or no school, as long as you can :

'think outside the box'....

oh so few, so few...

EB:blah:
 
Take some photos of the batter mix, and circle the gnomes with crude red pen - you can auction them on E-bay for half a million dollars, provided you want to look like a complete lunatic and want to be laughed at by the entire population of the planet.
 
Ahhhh....petty jingoism...the last weapon of the cornered yank.

Livers.
We in America have the answers to questions you brits
have just begun to think of...
Click to expand...

Erm - you'll note that he was quoting an AMERICAN site there - obviously there are some in America that maybe don't have all the answers.....

Perhaps those who belong to the International Flat Earth Society, based again, in America.
 
One little dip of the oar:

Beckjord: "If paranormal experiences could be quantified, they
would no longer be paranormal."


So why try to research them?


Alternatively, you may consider the circularity of the initial statement. It's trivially true; in other words, only true inasmuch as any yet-to-be quantified event could be labelled 'paranormal'. That tells you <i>nothing</i> about whether it <b>can</b> be quantified.

Assuming <i>a priori</i> that an occurrence is unquantifiable is similar to, and as unhelpful as, the paranoid argument: 'there can be no proof of my theory that [X] controls everything because [X] rigorously suppresses that proof'.

In passing, this is of course also logically similar to familiar Christian arguments about the inscrutability of God's will (apologies if that offends anyone).

IMHO if a term (in this case 'paranormal') is being used in a way that, by its definition, prevents examination of the subject of that term, you're better off getting rid of the term.
 
Originally posted by Guru_saj

Despite all your trumpeting about a high IQ we've yet to see you argue yourself out of a paper bag without resorting to childish insults and self-aggrandising sophistry.
Click to expand...

That’s just it, normally childish insults come from children. I wager ten whole English pounds (£10.00) he’s actually only 14
 
lips of a moose said:
That’s just it, normally childish insults come from children. I wager ten whole English pounds (£10.00) he’s actually only 14
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not. He's an overweight, middle aged man who looks a bit like Christopher Biggins in his 'Me at Loch Ness' photo.

Scary isn't it?
 
For 90% of you fools, in 1490, you would have voted for the Flat Earth.
Click to expand...

At least our wonderful nation actually existed in 1490; indeed my own fair city was a Roman settlement and existed in some form or another pre-Roman!! And we have a REAL museum with GENUINE artefacts in it to prove it.
 
Face it, jerks, my life is more interesting than yours.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of people wandering the streets holding gibbering conversations with invisibles and collecting bits of string of whom that could be said, but somehow I never feel jealous of them.
 
Steady, chaps!

Ahhhh....petty jingoism...the last weapon of the cornered yank
Click to expand...

At least our wonderful nation actually existed in 1490
Click to expand...

Can we try to control our chauvinism please, if only to show our moral superiority.:rolleyes:
 
I just have to make do with flying lessons, the TA, being a special constable,
Click to expand...

But surely, you're precisely the sort of person who would benefit from close study at the feet of the master of anti-terrorism strategies? :D
 
Yes, keep to the high ground, it's more easily defended!
My university was founded in 1495, y'know. Yes, MY university. I own it. I staged a coup, or possibly a coo. Which one isn't beef?
 
wintermute said:
But surely, you're precisely the sort of person who would benefit from close study at the feet of the master of anti-terrorism strategies? :D
Click to expand...
Sure, if you can find me one.
 
Those that shout the most and the loudest have the least to say......

Wm.
 
Elvis works in our chip shop.

Now that may sound pretty cool to some people but I keep getting sequins in my curry.
 
don't feed the trolls; don't feed the trolls; don't... oh, b

Okay, shoot me down in flames if you must, but getting slightly back to topic... I thought you all might enjoy this quote from The Anomalist:

"Mothman! It stood broader and taller than a man, walked in sort of a halting off-balance shuffle on muscular and humanlike legs, and emitted a high-pitched squeaking.

"But those eyes! The red glowing eyes, set into the "shoulders," (the head was not an outstanding characteristic) [...]."

http://www.anomalist.com/features/motheyes.html

Still want to stick to your claim, Erik? :)

Jane.

PS. Erik, who were you trying to insult with you "IQ of 86" post? Niles, me, someone else, people in general? And why did you start two virtually identical threads (albeit a few weeks apart)?
 
Aberdeen University, 1495, Invararie, god bless it!!!

But don't forget, University College Oxford 1249, cos' the rats fled from London during one of the many plagues.

Then, there was Peterhouse in Cambridge in 1284 cos' the buggers couldn't get on with them at Oxenford!!!!!!
 
Elitism is wrong and undemocratic. I think all work should be valued. I also think the Brits are funny except for Anne Robinson. I also loved the John Lennon idea of imagine no countries. As Rodney King once said, "Why can't we all just get along?"
 
Really?

beckjord said:
Face it, jerks, my life is more interesting than yours.

Now go report for work at the fish and chips shop.
Click to expand...

So, based entirely on your definition of how interesting your life is to you, you can calculate how interesting my life is to me and compare the two?

You don't know me. You don't know any of us. I find my life absolutely facinating. I have yet to find anything interesting in your reports of your life.

Actually, that's not true. I find your cavilier attitude to the English language deeply interesting. You write just like a friend of mine talks. Of course he's schizophrenic and is on a lot of medication. Not that I would suggest theres any resemlance between you.

Cujo
 
I know why Beckjord is back!

I've been following all the links, and reading everything that Beckjord's been posting to the boards of late and all the time I was wandering why he was back, why he was being so rude and why he was wasting his 'precious' time on hacks and layabouts like us. Then I came across this:

Right on, bro! Now send air ticket to Unconvention...
I will speak on a dozen topics -- and wow you all.
Click to expand...

Suddenly it hit me. He is so desperate to come to the Unconvention that he's trying to stir up controversy so that the FT editors will invite him. Perhaps he's desperate for the money, or the validation. Or maybe he just wants to score a free air ticket to Britain in time for the crop circle season.

Cujo
(I blame my insomnia)
 
(the head was not an outstanding characteristic)
Click to expand...

Actually, there's an argument that this is evidence in favour of the B person's claims. Its been quite seriously proposed that the reason that headless ghosts are so common is that what we're seeing is the body image of the dead person, and that in most people, the head is either absent or vestigial in their 'mental picture' of themselves. This is for the obvious reason that we never see our heads except in reflection, whereas we are able to see (at least the front of) the rest of our bodies.

Presumably our images of ourselves in dreams are similarly constructed, and I've never seen my head in a dream. So, if Mothman was some sort of projection of the B person's dreaming self, it might well be expected to have no head, or a very vague one.

This is in no way to suggest that I think the B person's claims have any validity, or that I believe in 'ghosts' being anything to do with dead people. Nevertheless, I think its only fair to make this point.
 
Judging by his name I had presumed that English was not Beckjord's first language. But he does actually seem to have been born, raised, and, of course, educated in the USA.

To say that his message board posts and website contents are hardly evidence of his claimed, nay boasted, high intelligence and academic achievements would be the understatement of the century, I'm sure.

-J
 
Cujo- "Suddenly it hit me. He is so desperate to come to the Unconvention that he's trying to stir up controversy so that the FT editors will invite him. Perhaps he's desperate for the money, or the validation. Or maybe he just wants to score a free air ticket to Britain in time for the crop circle season."
Click to expand...
Why not? He would be fantastically entertaining, worth every penny.

-Justin
 
Wintermute does make an interesting point, but doesn't the whole of this theme smack of trying to project a mechanistic understanding of ourselves onto a spiritual one?

I can now think of at least three different models for what we may 'look like' when dreaming (or in trance state, trauma, whatever circumstances are seen fit):

1) Headless ghosts -- but why only headless? Why not backless? Do ghosts/dream projections have bums? I rarely see mine...

2) Astral projections (in a more traditional sense) -- in other words something that apparently has an 'objectively modelled' shape rather than a subjectively understood one.

3) Mothmen (or yeti, ABCs, werewolves, UFOs, whatever you think of yourself as)

A couple of points about this last: Beckjord is of course not the first to suggest that each individual has a deeply understood 'shape' which is adopted in their dream state. This is, is it not, the basis for the idea of witches' familiars? Without checking (sorry, but someone else will be able to check their histories of witchcraft), my recollection is that witches commonly believed that they transformed into an animal to fly to sabbats.

My own feeling, for what it's worth, is that the idea of manifest dream states (i.e. projections of your self-image in the real world) has many hurdles to overcome:

1) Lack of recorded evidence: if these things are objectively there, surely there'd be a little more evidence

2) Linked to the above, sheer numbers: there are quite a few people dreaming every night. Where are all their projections? Are they all bats?

3) Occam's razor: sorry to be boring, but it doesn't explain much, and asks me to believe a whole bunch of consequences

4) It's a horrible, inelegant mixture of the subjective and the objective. I know it sounds funny to object to an idea on aesthetic grounds, but I think it's a sign that it's a half-baked idea :D
 
LOL, he is just a David Icke Wannabe!

Next he'll have bigfoot (or should that be bigfeet?) as the "secret masters" of the world :)
 
The Yeti is (as *everybody* knows) the genetically engineered ape servant of the Lemurians. Bigfoot has been sent by this secret civilisation to watch the developing US civilisation. FACT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top