Unverifiable

I’ll kick this off with a question.

Does something have to be verifiable in order to be true, accurate and correct?

A quick update on the Coypu situation. Yesterday evening three men, two with shotguns came to our place. I explained to them that I had seen both juvenile coypu at around 4pm. They went to the far side of the pond and one of them discharged his weapon into the water. I had forgotten how loud they are. They waited around for a while but could not see the second one. They left with one dead coypu in the middle of the pond legs up. The plan was to put on the waders today and fish it out. After the hunters were gone, we went back to what I shall now call coypu corner. The other little blighter was there. He turned and watched us. We left him to it.

This morning there looked to be adult coypu turds as well as juvenile turds, but no sign of the coypu.

This afternoon I fished the dead coypu out with a landing net, and he is up by the grass cuttings awaiting recycling. The mole which I put there yesterday has already been “recycled”.

I was able to verify that the coypu was dead and not simply playing dead.

Yesterday I put up some quotations by Theun Mares whom I met on a number of occasions in 2000-2002. I even stayed overnight in his house once. There is no real way to verify what he says in those quotations. It is clear that there is a fair intellect behind them. He writes that he was a three-pronged nagal being and a stalker by predilection. I knew him as being a sometime hilarious piss-taker with a mischievous glint in his eye who could drink like a fish and smoke like a chimney. He was a warm being often up for a laugh and remarkably good company, a natural raconteur.

This is unverifiable.

He suggested to me that by way of predilection that I was a Man of Action and a dreamer. As a consequence, a whole bunch of people started to treat me as if I conformed to the template of this. If you are a reader of Castaneda, then I am like Genaro. Castaneda was a three-pronger and Juan a four-pronger. At first Juan was unable to see that Castaneda was of a different configuration to him, so he set about trying to build him a unit of warriors.

As I may have mentioned I have read “the blue books” and nowhere does it mention nagal beings. Blavatsky mentions Nagas a lot as does esoteric Buddhism. There is talk about the world of the Nagas and of the nagal or nagual’s world. I have a nagging thought that they are speaking of similar things.

There is a mild inconsistency with the description of the luminous cocoon once severed then reincarnating again, ready to work. The causal vehicle, if I have understood it correctly is not the luminous cocoon. So, the causal vehicle must somehow remember the severance and then select a physical-etheric-astral-mental vehicle capable of re-enacting the severance lifetime after lifetime.

Based on a number of pointers, signs and dreams it is not beyond the realms of possibility that I am also a nagal being. But if so, I am of the elephant dreaming class and of a philosophical persuasion. The dreamer bit is fine and accurate. Based on the description I would be of the more volatile three-pronged variety if so. As a dreamer in the South, I would be really quite out there. I am a different kettle of fish.

I have had a thorough exposure, over twenty years, to chemical physics, lasers and shit like that.  I have been trained to work in teams according to the six Ps. Preparation and Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. On my father’s side the family is military; one Lieutenant acting Captain REME, one full Colonel Head of Signals London Station and one Chief Petty Officer signals Fleet Command {Admiral’s staff}. I could easily look like a Man of Action and my seventh ray personality is entrepreneurial.

The truth is this speculation cannot be verified, by any means acceptable to the scientific community.

In many ways it does not really matter what I am or may be. It is all just a model in anycase.

I come back to the original question.

In your opinion does something have to be verifiable in order to be true, accurate and correct?