That would be an actual statement if you were able to provide a definition for ‘experiencing’ without mentioning the experiencer.
When I was stilll conditioned to regard established philosophers with awe, I took this incoherence to be a statement, or a demonstration of ‘how exactly being does not exist’. I thought Heidegger delved into secret mechanics of the nonexistence of being. But eventually I figured out that he was just falling into the trap he aimed to dismantle - he keeps trying to establish the ‘fact’, which is a thing that ‘is’, that being does not exist.
He must have been able to justify this to himself in some way, I hope. Otherwise it’s just plain idiocy.
I think that Heidegger makes one all-explaing mistake, which is to think that complexity is profundity. He seems to set off on a trajectory of reasonings, constanty discovering that the one reasoning leads to another which leads again to the first but from a slightly different angle. Therein he sees the facets of a great mystery which he desperately tries to uncover, not realizing that the more he writes, the greater the mystery becomes, and the further he is removed from it’s solution.
The only chance I give Heidegger is to read his work as a hypnosis-inducing mantra, which brings the reader into a state where all reason falls away and the ideas of becoming being, being becoming, becoming becoming being and being becoming of becoming take over the mind and propel it into a very German state of Zen.