1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

SEEK REALITY is Now Five Years Old!

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by RobertaGrimes, Jul 17, 2018.

  1. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear friends, my radio show and podcast celebrated five years on-air in June, and that event seemed to call for a post on my blog at robertagrimes.com. Our wonderful friend Mac commented there, and he asked me to cross-post it here if I could. So for him, I am trying to do that now! Hmmm... not perfect. And there are lots of links to resources in this one, but I don't have the time to add those now. But if you are interested, you can always go to the post where the links are live and click through there!

    (OMG, hold the phone... the links below do work! Have fun, everyone ;-).)
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2018
  2. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    ... There is also a length limitation, so I will have to post this in two parts. Here is the first....

    Five years ago I began an experiment in radio and podcasting that is central to my life in ways more important than the considerable time that it takes.
    I am only now becoming aware of the extent to which Seek Reality has shaped my life.
    • I have met so many great experts! Some of the authors and researchers I first met when I invited them to be interview guests have become my dear friends and beloved fellow laborers in the field of establishing what is true.
    • I have many friends, too, that I may never meet. Since I encourage communications from listeners, I hear from people every day. Some have questions, some want to add to what a guest has said or to make points based upon their own research, and some simply want to give me a hug and receive a hug in return.
    • My work has broadened to encompass my broadcast name. When Cameron Steele, the head of ctrnetwork.com, asked me what I wanted to call my program, the right name came to mind at once: “Seek Reality.” “What??” He had thought of me as an afterlife researcher! My answer to him felt automatic: “Studying the afterlife is just one part of what we all should be doing, which is trying to understand what is going on.” I heard myself say it. Then I realized that of course it was true, but frankly until that moment it never had occurred to me that seeking to understand reality was my actual mission.
    going on. Our ongoing ignorance of the nature of reality and the purpose of human life has begun to put the future of life on earth at risk! And until mainstream scientists stop following what is just one more belief-system and begin again to care about understanding a reality that refuses to conform to their materialist beliefs, we are unfortunately stuck as we seek reality with relying on lay researchers like yours truly. Of course, knowing what happens at death is just the beginning of understanding reality, and in the past five years I have made the title of my radio program and podcast my life’s work.

    Fortunately, once you clear away all the religious and materialist cobwebs that have kept us from understanding the truth, consistent evidence of what is going on is abundant. And we are seeing a certain softening of the cultural boundaries now. Where once any thought of life after death was consigned to religious beliefs exclusively, now what open-minded researchers are learning is become part of the cultural mainstream. Near-death experiences have led the way, but now even the prevalence of death-bed visitors is becoming unremarkable.

    Of course, a mainstream science obsessed with the false god of materialism in a reality that is consciousness-based continues to lead good researchers astray. The “standard model” has become a tyrant now that inhibits further scientific progress. And since for scientists “reality is fundamentally constituted by physical stuff outside and independent of mind… (M)ental states, in turn, should be explainable in terms of the parameters of physical processes in the brain.” What this nonsense means to someone is that Multiple Personality Disorder might be able to explain “Life, the Universe, and Everything.”

    Consciousness is the base creative force. Nothing else but consciousness exists! When people like Albert Einstein and Max Planck discovered this to be true close to a hundred years ago, why is science still stuck in 19th-century materialism?

    ... Continued below...
  3. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    ... Second part....

    The biggest problem for scientists is that when your core belief is wrong, all the research you might build on it has to be wrong. So more and more, scientific research is giving us less and less. Scientific researchers are too often phoning it in. On the other hand, when lay researchers with no core beliefs or boundaries will objectively study all the evidence with the courage to follow wherever it leads, we can arrive at a perfectly consistent view of reality that answers mankind’s greatest questions. Here are a few:
    • Is there intelligent life in the universe? And if there is, why haven’t we ound it? Even lay publications are asking these questions now, in puzzlement and despair, when the answers have long since been known. YES, a universe based in consciousness energy teems with intelligent life. But this planet has become so dangerous for aliens that reportedly their motherships nowadays remain cloaked in other dimensions, and most of their modern explorations are done by organic robots that we call “grays.” Modern aliens are careful to be invisible to us, but that level of caution was not always necessary; as a result, mummified grays and parts of grays will occasionally turn up.

    • Why are we here? It is impossible for scientists whose work is based in materialism to answer this question, and when they even try to ask it they look ridiculous. In the greater reality (which is the only reality) we have abundant evidence that we live many material lives on earth and on other planets as well in what is essentially a spiritual school. Simply put, we come here to grow spiritually, to raise our personal vibrations away from fear and toward more perfect love. This is basic stuff!

    • Where did life come from? What is the actual origin of species? This may be the most basic question of all, and because Darwinian evolution via natural selection is a corollary of the scientific dogma of materialism, the answers that scientists are beginning to get are confounding them. Neither religious theories of miraculous creation nor scientific theories that life arose as a fortunate accident and evolved by natural selection are real, nor are they even possible. All happens within consciousness, so scientists are discovering now that complex life must have had a beginning that was guided by intelligence, and that ninety percent of modern species arose simultaneously less than 200,000 years ago. All of this is so contrary to everything that scientists believe that for awhile these wonderful discoveries will go nowhere.

    • Where does consciousness come from? Here is another question that matter-based scientists never will answer. For them, consciousness must arise from matter, which is like insisting that the evening news must arise from your television set. The sad result of the scientific dogma of materialism is that it even distorts the work of wonderful people like those at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS). Someone there is actually speculating that the brain itself doesn’t generate human consciousness at all, but rather since even one-celled organisms exhibit some level of consciousness, it is more likely that “our human consciousness may be an emergent property that is passed upward as a result of fundamental consciousness characteristics of our body’s individual cells themselves.” It is impossible to be more wrong about anything than that! In fact, what we experience as human consciousness is apparently of the same nature as the consciousness that continuously manifests this universe.
    The evidence for the primacy of consciousness is so overwhelming now that the scientific obsession with matter and with their old physics models is finally weakening. It does feel peculiar for lay researchers to be able to answer basic question about which materialists will always be clueless! In fact, more scientists are beginning to accept the limitations of their own hobbled discipline. They sadly recognize that there are some areas that materialist science cannot address, namely the origins of consciousness, the element of free will, and the fundamental nature of God. Of course, my fellow researchers not bound by dogmas have long since worked out preliminary answers to these three questions which will make it easy for scientists who eventually break free of materialism to make progress on them by leaps and bounds. As the great physicist and polymath Nikola Tesla said, “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
  4. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    I followed the 'mummified gray' link but couldn't spot any scientific conclusion that it was an extra-terrestrial ('alien') life form. It's certainly bizarre-looking but that doesn't mean it originated out of this world.
  5. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member

    Mac, I suspect you will be hard-pressed to find a scientific conclusion. The link takes you to Ancient Origins, which is considered a fringe website. Many of their purported "research", "facts" and the like are anything but. It's one of those cases where you'd better take what you read there with a grain or two of salt! It's more of a pseudoarcheology and pseudohistory site. Take it for what it's worth ;)
    bluebird likes this.
  6. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    I was trying to avoid cynicism and remain open-minded.... ;) And as I don't have blood-pressure issues taking a generous pinch of salt (as we Brits say) is something I do routinely! :D
  7. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member

    Ooops, sorry if I came across cynical. I suppose I should have qualified my statement, clarifying it's been my experience that most Ancient Origins"articles" simply do not cut the mustard... for me.
  8. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member

    Congratulations on your fifth anniversary!! :)
  9. Monika

    Monika Active Member

    Congrats, Roberta! Lots of love for your work♡
    RobertaGrimes likes this.
  10. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    Not at all - I was speaking only about myself.
  11. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Good grief, Ravensgate, by whom is Ancient Origins "considered a fringe website?" Probably the likes of The New York Times and Scientific American, right? And we know just how entirely truthful, open-minded, and objective they both are ;-).

    Dear friends, I have spent a half-century doing original research in the area of communications from people that we used to think were dead. I am a very skeptical researcher - you have to be, or you will be distracted into pursuing nonsense - but I have long since learned that the evidence the dead are giving to us is incontrovertibly true. Across two continents, nearly 200 years, and hundreds of communications, THEY ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME GREATER REALITY. EVEN TO THE SMALLEST DETAILS. The odds against chance for this are astronomical. The fact that you are reading this now suggests that you are open-minded enough to at least consider the possibility that the dead survive, so I won't belabor this point; but for all of us here, it is where we begin.

    For the past few years I have been getting daily emails from both Scientific American and Ancient Origins. I don't know why I started to receive the latter, but I read both sets of emails with equal interest and I can tell you after these several years of reading both daily that in my estimation they are equally either fringy or not-fringy. In every way they are equal in quality. The difference is that AO is open-minded: it reports on discoveries in a calm, unbiased way. SA, on the other hand, is becoming ever more silly as it has to report on ever more things that scientists don't know and cannot possibly figure out because they are still stuck with their materialist fundamental dogma. So do as you like, but if you are open-minded and sensible enough to be here at all then you need not fear that Ancient Origins is anything other than one more source of information about recent discoveries.

    As to the grays, everyone knows about them! I have come across references to them in my travels repeatedly, even though I had no interest in them until recently. They are the skinny ETs with gray skin, big almond eyes in a head like a lightbulb, nearly no nose and mouth, and three fingers or toes on each hand and foot. They look exactly like the mummy shown in that picture. Now, AO tells us where it was found, describes it, and it tells us that reportedly the thing has internal organs. It doesn't say, "Hey look! We found a dead gray!!" Nothing sensational about the article at all (which is typical of all AO articles), and it talks about what more investigation will be needed. It is only when you consider the fact that this thing does indeed look like a gray that your interest is piqued. Given how often sightings of grays have been reported in recent decades, if indeed that mummy - or carving, or whatever it is - is nearly 2000 years old, then... what might that tell us? At least one other three-fingered hand very similar to this mummy's hands has also lately been found and independently reported. What can we skeptically but rationally begin to make of all of this??

    Publications like Scientific American and The New York Times can't touch anything related to what I have spent my whole life studying, and nor can they report on this kind of story. But their closed-mindedness is their problem. We need not make it our own!
  12. ravensgate

    ravensgate Active Member


    Wow, I simply expressed my opinion of Ancient Origins (AO), based on my own research! You have every right to disagree with me and vice versa.

    Yes, I believe AO is not a quality website. Imo, it is geared to those who are easily baited to click on the article because of preconceived notions.

    You claim that Ancient Origins “reports on discoveries in a calm, unbiased way”. I disagree; what it does is plagiarize someone else’s work and change the title. One example (of many) is fairly recent and it involves the research published in the Science Daily (SD). The article published in Science Daily is titled “ Research illuminates inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating”.
    Ancient Origins copied it word for word and gave it its own title, “Inaccuracies found in radiocarbon dating could change historical timelines”.

    No big deal, right? I don’t know about you, but for me, it is a big deal. Not only is it not fair to the researchers who published their work on SD, but it also tells me how AO make their money by providing material to mystery-mongers just as, for instance, InfoWars provides “news” to those who believe in conspiracy theories.

    For anyone interested in the original article published in Science Daily, here are a couple of links that might be of interest:


    Manning, S., et al. (2018). Fluctuating radiocarbon offsts observed in the southern Levant and implications for archeological chronology debates. PNAS, May 2018. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnsa.1719420115

    The points and statements made in your post are subjective, imho, and I respectfully disagree with most of it.

    What is your definition of a “skeptical researcher”? You claim “how often sightings of the greys have been reported”…. By whom? Who are these people who have encountered/seen the greys? What evidence, besides hearsay and “photographs” do we have to claim the Greys exist(ed)?

    There are books written on the greys, the Annunaki, the Serpent in the sky, chemtrails, etc. I’ve read a few of them, and found them from grossly lacking to pure dribble. Devouring pulp fiction disguised as “science” does not make one well read! Science, the way I see, does not claim to knows the “real truth”, the "mysteries of life". Science starts with a hypothesis, research is done to “prove” or disprove the hypothesis; research may start again if some piece or pieces no longer fit. I see science as ever-evolving, and that is good, imo.

    You say that “everybody knows about them!” (referring to the greys). Well, I don’t know if everybody knows about them, but just because many may have heard of them does not mean they exist; come on! You then describe how they look and tell us about the mummy’s three-fingered hand that was allegedly found and independently reported. I’d love to read about it, so if you have a link to such a report, I hope you will share it with us.

    And, again, what does it mean, “Everybody knows”? I’m all for being open-minded but not so open that all logic falls out. For all it’s worth, I do think it’s a real possibility that ETs exist, but I do not believe much of the fiction published, fed and nurtured by the relatively few. Give me something I can sink my teeth in, I say – but alas, nothing thus far.

    You often remind us that you’ve spent your whole life studying the afterlife and, perhaps more recently, extraterrestrial topics. It has become clear to me (and I may be mistaken, of course!) that you have a dislike - even contempt, perhaps - for what some people call “mainstream” media, and that is certainly your prerogative, though I do find your statement that, “Publications like Scientific American and The New York Times cannot touch anything related to what I have spent my whole life studying, and nor can they report on this kind of story” rather arrogant.
    Perhaps it’s not worth reporting?

    I hope we’ll agree to disagree. Certainly no hard feelings on my part, Roberta, but I will withdraw from this debate. Carrying on about extraterrestrials and the like would bring “painful” memories of a former ALF member :eek:.

    I will leave it at this, and if anyone else cares to debate with Roberta, the floor is yours!;)
    bluebird likes this.
  13. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear Ravensgate, why is it so necessary for you to do this every time?

    Your modus is always the same, whether we are talking about politics or talking about grays. You make big, sweeping, unsupported claims like "Ancient Origins is considered a fringe website." I ask by whom and explain that my opinion differs, and you then must give us a long diatribe that cites one example and amounts to the fact that it is you who don't like Ancient Origins and by the way if I don't trust The New York Times then I must be the one who is in the wrong. Good grief. All you needed to do to respond to my question would have been to say, "Well, that has been my experience." You then might politely have asked me why I believe that "most people" know about grays, and I might then have said that since I have been hearing about them for my whole life I have assumed they are a part of the culture. But, no: for you everything must be a personal battle. From that, Ravensgate, I withdraw as well. No interest.

    Dear friends, our core challenge as we Seek Reality is that both the mainstream media and mainstream science still willfully refuse to assist us in our seeking. Where our core interest at ALF is concerned - the big question of life after death - both of these highly trusted institutions consider the whole issue to be one that we can approach from one of only two directions: either our approach can be scientific (which means that since science is based in materialism, life after death is impossible) or it can be religious (which means it must be based on nothing but unsupported beliefs). That's it! For Scientific American and The New York Times (to cite as examples the two publications here under discussion) there is no possible truth outside what they are willing to consider areas of acceptable inquiry. For my entire life I have faced this absurdity, never dreaming that even in my old age this willful ignorance on the part of our most trusted institutions would persist. Both the mainstream media and the mainstream scientific community continue to stonewall the broader search for objective, evidence-based truths that lie outside their own beliefs; and sadly by this point both have thereby severely damaged their once-inviolate credibility. And I don't say that with anything but sadness. It didn't have to go this way! But nevertheless it has.

    So if you and I want to know anything that these respected institutions still refuse to consider, we must open-mindedly seek the truth for ourselves. For most of my life this has been much harder - I have a large library of old books, since once upon a time that was the only way to get old information - but thanks to the internet it is much easier to do the research. And you can do it for yourself! Repeatedly I tell people what my research-based conclusions have been, and why, but I urge them not to take my word for it. Each of my books on these topics has a large annotated bibliography, so anyone who really wants to know the truth as I have discovered it and summarized it can do in only about a year the original research that took me decades. Have at it! You have nothing to lose but the beliefs-based chains that mainstream science and the mainstream media want to keep on your mind ;-).
  14. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    I'm unqualified to enter any such debate and I don't have any such wish anyway. My point is that I would like a scientific report that tests have shown these apparently-mummified 'grays' are indeed what is claimed about them.
    SashaS likes this.
  15. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Indeed! And so would I!
  16. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    And until that point I will see their status as 'not proven'. ;)
  17. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    As will we all. In fact, for serious researchers nothing ever is really proven, but rather as consistent evidence builds in a direction we begin to consider some hypothesis more and more likely to be true; but anyone who calls anything at all - even gravity! - "settled science" is not a serious seeker of the truth. I hope that at least we all can agree on that!
  18. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    no disagreement from me over any of those points :)
  19. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    For us few Brits here on ALF, one of dear old Frank Carson's catch phrases was "It's the way I tell 'em." And how people tell their stories can be the biggest stumbling block to others' acceptance of them.
  20. Monika

    Monika Active Member

    Sorry guys I don't understand what you speak here about and I won't pretend to. I saw fireworks and open party and I entered it. 5 years! Wooohoooo! Firewoooorks! Bring the champagne on the table! Though I prefer rum, please :D

    (Sorry, I couldn't resist for this) :)

Share This Page