Thursday, December 22, 2011

Twin descriptions of the so-called "etheric body"

This will not exactly be front-page news to various mystics out there, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. The first, from "Near-Death Experiences: The Rest Of The Story," by P.M.H. Atwater, from the chapter "Visible / Invisible energy fields":

"Near-death experiencers are able to perceive energy fields that exist as 'layered sheaths or coverings that circle our visible body in much the same fashion as onion skins layer around in an onion's core. Each layer is finer and more subtle than the previous. They extend out from the body about a foot or so, perhaps a number of yards--depending on a person's mood or health.'"

The second, from Whitley Strieber's "The Key":

"A part of the electromagnetic field that fills the nervous system rests a few centimeters above the skin, outside of the body. This field is an organ just like the heart or the brain. It is in quantum superposition, the electrons effectively everywhere in the universe and nowhere specific. It may be imprinted from information from anywhere and any time. With it, you may see other worlds, you may see the past and future, you may see into the lives of those around you."

Supposedly, this is the "aura" that is perceived by various psychics and intuitives. We have to take their word for it--we do not yet have instruments to measure it.

I've kept the notion of "auras" in my mental gray basket. I've never seen an "aura" as it's strictly defined, but I have seen something... and I suspect that this is what psychics claim to be seeing.

The best way to describe what I've seen (and in one case, photographed) is an *absence* of aura. I noticed something strange about a friend who, at the time, was near death (though I didn't know it); "something" seemed missing whenever I looked at him. Physically, he was there; but there was something mechanical and blank about his face. I spent some time studying his face and trying to put my finger on what I was seeing (or not seeing), but I never could. Weeks later, he died suddenly of a heart attack.

A few months before his death, I photographed my father standing with several others. In the photo, everyone else is staring into the camera, smiling, in sharp focus. My father, on the other hand, is staring away, and his face is a blur. Now, it's quite possible that my father moved his head at the moment of the shutter click. But the photo doesn't "feel" that way. It seemed that a significant part of him was already gone.

The subject of auras is almost too New Agey for me... but this is perhaps due to the surfeit of people who claim to see them. And it almost makes me embarrassed to admit that, well, maybe, I've seen something like this myself.

After all, if we accept the possibility that there there is a non-physical component to the physical self, we have to allow for the possibility that it can be perceived--in some manner.

My hunch is that the best way to document and prove the existence of the human "electromagnetic field" is with digital photography, as the process becomes more refined and ubiquitous. The camera does a better job of seeing what actually is there, rather than what we think or expect to see.... particularly in a one-off snapshot with no foresight or premeditation. Strict materialists will dismiss such anomalous photos as examples of operator error or equipment malfunction, but I like to think that they have the potential of documenting phenomena what we cannot see, or choose to ignore.

Monday, December 19, 2011

"I Believe Despite"

In my undergrad Bible college, we had a well-known Bible scholar who penned a defense of Christianity (and the inerrancy of the Bible) entitled "I Believe Because" (still obtainable on It was his class textbook. I had this particular professor, and although I no longer belong to this church or subscribe to this belief system, this professor had a lifelong impact on me, personally, as well as thousands of others.

Anyway, it was the custom back then for the local fraternities, once a year, to do a lighthearted lampoon on the school and its teachers. One year, a fake class schedule was circulated by persons unknown, made to appear completely genuine, but filled with wicked satires of the professors and their classes. And on the fake schedule, this particular Bible professor was scheduled to conduct an entry-level Bible class called "I Believe Despite."

I thought it was hilarious then, and I still do.... because it highlights the problem--and peril--of belief, particularly with regard to systems of belief. It cuts both ways.

It is impossible to believe nothing. It is impossible to navigate the physical world without beliefs of some sort. Belief is a fundamental pillar of our consensus reality. But wise people recognize their beliefs and acknowledge the limitations of them. They constantly examine and cross-examine their beliefs. Belief should be a tool, not a weapon.

It is for this reason that many "believers" (I among them) mourn the passing of a writer that I came to acknowledge as the greatest of my generation: Christopher Hitchens. I disagreed with him on a few things; among them, his dislike of brandy, the existence of a supreme being, as well as an afterlife. But these are minor quibbles in the greater scheme of things. His admonitions critiquing unreasoned religious belief should be required reading of every believer of organized systems of belief. It is said that his only devotion was to the truth, as he perceived it. Ultimately, time will prove whether Hitchens was right about Diety and the afterlife. I am as comfortable in my belief as he was (and possibly still is) in his, although--@almightygod on Twitter had to concede that, after a 30-minute after-death discussion with Hitchens, He was personally persuaded that He did not exist. I don't know. However, if there is an afterlife--or not--what I'd really like to know is why Hitchens disliked brandy. I'd like to hope that, before Hitchens poofed Him out of existence, almightygod asked him this.

Thoughts on a couple of old podcasts

Finally got around to listening to a "Coast" interview with August Goforth. I have to confess that I was not persuaded by his story, although, if you read his reviews on, there are quite a few who are convinced that he is what what he says he is--a medium of profound ability who is able to conduct dialogs with his deceased partner. Not to say that such things can't happen--just that I haven't come across an account that I am convinced by. Primarily, the accounts by these various channels appear similar on the surface (lots of discussion about "levels" and "vibration" and whatnot), but they seem to contradict each other in fundament ways. And some accounts are flat-out absurd.

It's my contention that we should require a high burden of proof from individuals claiming to channel deceased or otherwise elevated beings.

Also of note, I listened to the Dreamland interview between Whitley Strieber and Dr. John Mack from 1999. I have a book or two from the late Dr. Mack; I thought they were okay, but I remember thinking that he was overly credulous in accepting the "experiencer" accounts at face value. But his '99 interview strikes me as remarkably prescient and advanced, even for today. He saw little distinction between the "grays" and the various earth spirits seem by indigenous people throughout history. He questioned the prevailing "abduction" narrative. Others have made these associations, but Dr. Mack somehow made it click into place for me. If, indeed, our planet is facing an existential crisis, it would make sense for these beings to become more obtrusive.

But as Strieber recounted his experiences, a light went off--and I thought of Jim Sparks. I realized that Sparks had essentially pirated Whitley Strieber's 90's-era abduction narrative for his book, "The Keepers." There were quite a few very specific similarities. (To his credit, Strieber was skeptical of Sparks's claims, although Linda Moulton Howe, not surprisingly, believed him.) His website is essentially unchanged from several years ago, after the Paracast outed him, and for a fee of $75 an hour, Mr. Sparks will be glad to talk to you about your abduction experiences. (Possibly you can get a more competitive rate from others if you shop around.)

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Methane plumes and global warming; mainstream press articles

Two mainstream press articles recently caught my eye; both appeared within a day of the other, and both detail the growing release of methane from the ocean floor in the Arctic region above Russia as well as the permafrost in Alaska.  This methane release is a major pillar in Whitley Strieber global superstorm scenario.

An accelerated release of methane is predicted in Whitley Stieber's global "superstorm" model.  Strieber obtained this model from someone he dubbed the "Master of the Key."

I'm not sure if the "Master" was an objectified physical being, and I would not automatically assume that this entity's information is completely "true." However, it corresponds with similar warnings found in other sources that I, personally, consider legitimate. And as I've written earlier, I've had a lifetime of dreams that describe a future crisis not unlike the superstorm scenario.

Although the "Master" does not specifically mention methane release as a component of the impending superstorm, Strieber, to his credit, identified this danger early, and so the appearance of reports in the mainstream press is somewhat ominous.

The "New York Times" article in particular is worth reading for a number of reasons. While the NYT is regarded as an authoritative source of news by most unthinking people (because, frequently, it is), it actually functions more effectively as a mouthpiece for the political and cultural mainstream and the elites that direct it. The Times article contains the requisite amount of "balancing" and equivocation that is associated with its reportage of non-mainstream topics. The tone of the report leaves the reader with the distinct impression that it's too early to determine if methane release is a significant danger to the planet--which contradicts the barely-concealed panicked undertones of the scientists who are quoted. The impression that I get is that scientists are clearly alarmed by the methane release and seem to be truly afraid to speculate too much on its implications.

Both reports detail roughly how much methane is being released, inviting the readers to make their own deductions from the data. The "Independent" cites one measurement of Arctic atmospheric methane of 1.9ppm, up from the pre-industrial measure of .7 parts per million, while pointing out that methane is "70 times" more effective at trapping terrestrial heat than carbon dioxide.

Of course, the pseudo-scientist in me says that it would be a mistake to project current trends onto an unknown future. I well remember Carl Sagan's warnings that a nuclear war would create a "nuclear winter" on the planet--which was enough, apparently, to cause the United States and the Soviet Union to resume arms reduction negotiations (as if the obliteration of millions of people was not a sufficient motivation).   While Sagan's warnings had a salutary effect, other scientists later argued that Sagan had overstated his concern, and that the data did not support his conclusion. Science can only measure what is, and make tentative predictions of what might happen, based on the available data. Science cannot predict the unpredictable. While the current trends argue that global warning is accelerating, allowing us to make reasonable assumptions of what will happen if the trends continue, the main engine of global warming--the sun--has entered an unpredictable phase, and it is possible that a decrease of radiation from the sun may compensate for any increase in greenhouse gasses. Indeed, radiation from other sources, presently unknown, may also drive the climate. Scientists know this, and say this. The stupid person concludes, "See? Because you can't say for sure what's happening, I can ignore everything you say, consume resources at an accelerating rate, and vote for politicians who pander to to my particular brand of ignorance." The wise person, on the other hand, considers himself forewarned.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Not a paranormalist, never was one, never will be one

...despite the fact that I spend a lot of time consuming "paranormal" media and information, and opining on the same.

I am more of, maybe, a mystic--who is neither religiously inclined, and who dislikes the New Age.

I've come to the conclusion that there is no benefit to endlessly compiling "paranormal" events in an effort to discover some overarching "meaning" to them--the anti-structural nature of the paranormal, described by George Hansen is, I believe, a consequence of the observer effect; the observer, by attempting to assimilate paranormal phenomena, is forced to deconstruct consensus reality. But having done so, he is left with only the unexplained--with no coordinates to measure them with.

The paranormalist has a deconstructionist mindset.... which is why so many in the paranormal field spend so much time fighting with each other. He believes that with each straw man he destroys, he is one step closer to the "truth"--only to discover that, no, he has been fooled again, and has most of the world mad at him for his efforts.

It's no coincidence that most paranormalists are drawn to conspiracy theories. I dropped by the Paracast forums the other day and was surprised to read that many members there are disappointed because Art Bell thinks that the 9/11 attacks were actually perpetrated by Al Qaida.

I just see the world in completely different terms. I'm glad that I do. While I may enjoy the challenge of studying paranormal phenomena, I do so from a safer vantage point--though any paranormalist who might want to argue the fact, is dis-invited from doing so.

Monday, December 5, 2011

A lengthy post that you don't have to read if you don't wanna...

Just got through listening to the Dreamland episode featuring Frank DeMarco. Whitley Strieber states that he intends to focus on communication with the "other world" in 2012, and this appears to be a first in the series.

Strieber argues that the West is rapidly developing the technical and philosophical capability of detecting--and communicating with--realities previously outside our physical awareness. I say "the West" because I suspect that Eastern cultures--particularly China--might already have a leg up on this process. A prominent NDE researcher, Raymond Moody, argues the same.

Our culture has been down this path before... the rise of Spiritualism coincided with rapidly developing electronic technology at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, which led to a belief that some breakthrough was near that would allow electronic communication with the dead. This breakthrough, of course, did not occur. But it's possible that such a breakthrough might be "allowed" to occur in the present era, for a number of reasons--the primary one being that humanity is currently faced with a number of existential threats.

Frank DeMarco's particular method for contacting the "dead" is simple, intriguing--but has a number of pitfalls. Essentially, what DeMarco does is engage in a form of meditation (not unlike Joe Fisher's in "Hungry Ghosts") in an attempt to start a dialog with specific deceased personalities. He then clears his mind, allows their thoughts to manifest in his interior mental dialog, and then writes them down.

Knowing what I know, I'd be scared to even attempt this.

Some of what DeMarco says rings true, and I've personally experienced it. For example, he says that non-physical "guides" assigned to people use various subtle methods and techniques for conveying information and advice. Synchronicities, unanticipated opportunities dropped into one's path, strong hunches, sudden and intrusive convictions that steer the personality into new and positive directions, are some of the techniques used by "guides" to assist their human charges. I've written a few times about my recent experiences with this; I can't explain certain events in my recent experience except as being some sort of external intervention.

So DeMarco's basic premise is plausible: that we have a retinue of non-physical helpers on "the other side" who are tasked with keeping us out of trouble, and that we can detect their influence and learn to rely on it. Such guides probably wouldn't care what humans called them--"God," "angels," or subconcious impulses--as long as the work gets done.

The rest of DeMarco's arguments are unproven and probably unprovable.

DeMarco believes that one can establish dialogs with famous deceased personalities that "resonate" with one's interests and inclinations. His website includes a number of these dialogs. I've read all sorts of books that detail channeled conversations with famous deceased personalities--Marilyn Monroe seems to be a popular choice. We have absolutely no way of knowing if these messages are geniune, and there's plenty of evidence that attempting to contact deceased personalities is unsafe.

Along this line, I did have one interesting experience when I was in grad school. I was writing a paper on the Pre-Raphaelites, and one night, I had a dream of Dante Rossetti... the dream was set in the 1960s; Rossetti was driving a car. I was in the passenger's seat. As he was driving, Rossetti was explaining something about his sister, Christina. The bit of information that "Rossetti" gave me about his sister was quite specific but I haven't substantiated it, one way or another. Many writers, researchers, scholars have had such dreams. Are they indications of contact with deceased personalities? Quite possibly. In my case, I did not initiate the contact, nor was I particularly expecting or "needing" it, which causes me to think that it might have had some reality.

Stephan Schwartz's "The Secret Vaults Of Time: Psychic Archaeology And The Quest For Man's Beginnings" makes a compelling argument that deceased historical personalities can aid the living with specific research projects. (And, supposedly, Hillary Clinton channeled Eleanor Roosevelt during the dark days of Whitewater.) But this is not the same thing as your average Joe chatting up Marilyn Monroe. The basic rule of thumb seems to be that when the dead want to contact the living, they will find a way to do so; it does not usually work the other way around.

I am guessing that this basic skepticism can be applied to information otherwise "channeled" or obtained via mediumship. I do believe that non-physical beings can "channel" through the living and, in rare cases, produce useful information. And I am gradually coming around to the possibility that certain people can "see" and converse with deceased personalities. This appears to be an in-born ability that can be nurtured and developed. But I still believe that the bulk of public mediums are just engaging in "cold reading." I definitely got this impression when I listened carefully to some John Holland sessions a few years back--and Holland is cited as one of the more credible mediums. Until her meltdown on "Coast To Coast," Sylvia Browne was cited as one of the "good ones." There's substantial available criticism of John Edward and Allison DuBois, two mediums highly regarded by Dr. Gary Schwartz (whose work, generally, I regard as promising). Until the current crop of public mediums can effectively rebut the substantial criticism of their work, I will continue to be highly skeptical of any person claiming mediumship ability... This is one area where I believe that extraordinary proof is needed to substantiate some rather extraordinary claims--including the interior dialogs of DeMarco.

Postscript: A paranormal podcaster who I had been following recently devoted a show trying to differentiate his experiences from those of the Ramtha lady (J. Z. Knight) and Jane Roberts. Essentially, his defense boils down to, "Well, they were faking their channeling, but my experience was real, and besides, I wasn't channeling, and they were." Which is neither a good defense of self, nor an effective rebuttal of others. I've never read the Ramtha stuff; I regarded it as prima facie absurd, so I can't speak to her defense. I thought to same about the Jane Roberts material when I first read it in '84. I thought that "Seth Speaks" was complete and utter BS at the time; the philosophy was obtuse and vague, I thought, and the material unreadable. However, something made me read it a second time... And after years of study, I have decided that it is what it purports to be. So I cannot blame the podcaster for his negative assessment based on one reading of a book that I also disliked the first time. However, while I believe that the podcaster's experiences to be genuine, I find the philosophy that he developed from it to be just as unfathomable as he finds the Seth material. And I've tried hard to fathom it--I got the book, listened to his podcasts, but I simply can't make heads or tails of it. Does that mean he's "wrong"? No. It simply means that his philosophy doesn't resonate with me; and it's not because I'm stupid or unenlightened.

So what's going on? How can one reader think an esoteric text is the bee's knees, while another person thinks it's horsecrap? Simple--there's no universal truth--only individual truths. And individual mystical insights and revelations almost never survive the translation to written text... Nor are individual truths and revelations applicable to others. Such information is essentially untranslatable. The minute you write it down, the experience is recontextualized, taken from its native environment, and dies, even if it informs your greater reality and resonates with a few people.

So, how does one evaluate the merits and veracity of unofficially obtained information? Carefully. I am still compiling the information about "channeled" information predicting the Arab Spring. The best we can do in the paranormal field is collect the data, present it, and let it pass the equivalent of peer review by allowing all who examine it come to their own conclusions about it.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Test post with the iPhone Blogger app

I have been wanting to blog about Jeff Ritzmann's experience with "Shroud Man" but I have been finding it difficult because I haven't been able to contextualize it. His encounters do not remind me of anything that I've read in contemporary paranormal literature; instead, they seem to harken to our society's pre-history, when humans frequently encountered and interacted with all sorts of spirits, gods, demons, angels. Histories of these encounters have survived as myths, legends, and religious scripture. These encounters became increasingly scarce with the development of contemporary society (roughly, around 4,000 BCE). I actually have a hypothesis of why these beings disappeared from our reality, but at the moment, it's too half-baked and tedious to recite here, and in any case I ought to listen to Paratopia 145 before I go too far out on my rhetorical limb.

But, my gut feeling about "Shroud Man" is that he is a sort of quasi-mythical entity, a non-human being that nonetheless seems almost human. He appears in myth as a stern teacher, an avenging angel, a sort of oxymoron that speaks in parables and instructs by stern example. Who, what such an entity could be, is totally a mystery to me. I think that we have lost the experiential vocabulary to describe and understand such beings. However.... it's clear from most mythic literature that our race frequently interacted with such entities in our pre-history (pre-writing, when histories were passed down through oral tradition). The fact that such beings are now reappearing, and are again seeking to instruct recalcitrant humans is, in my opinion, very significant. And it would behoove us to learn.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Stumbled upon something interesting

Most listeners of "Coast To Coast A.M." have a nodding acquaintance with the "forbidden archeology" theories of Michael Cremo. What is often overlooked is that Cremo's theories have a strong religious foundation: Wikipedia describes Cremo as an "American Hindu creationist" (something that, until now, I did not know). It was Cremo's name that popped into my mind while perusing the Creation Evidence Museum (which apparently has not registered a domain name yet). The artifacts listed on this creationist website are truly fascinating, from a Fortean viewpoint. The site attempts to persuade the general public that these artifacts prove that human beings co-inhabited the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Years ago, when I was enrolled at a well-known local Christian Bible college, I picked up a pamphlet that tried to argue the same thing. The evidence for evolution, which is almost definitively suggested by the fossil record, would have to be discredited in order for the creationist viewpoint to prevail. I just found it amusing to stumble upon such evidence at a website that espouses a viewpoint that I discarded decades ago, if, indeed, I ever seriously held it.

This general phenomenon of discovering artifacts where they cannot, scientifically, exist is known in Forteana as "out of place artifacts," and science has no explanation for their existence. The preponderance of evidence--in both the fossil record and in contemporary genetics research--overwhelmingly supports the theories of natural selection and evolution... although what we think of as "evolution" may merely be a small part of a much larger, more complex process that is not yet completely documented. The theory of evolution also reinforces the universal perception of time as being linear and progressive. To me, out of place artifacts do not prove or disprove anything, except to suggest that, perhaps, time is not as absolute or as linear as we perceive it to be.... which, to me, is a far more radical and fascinating concept than evolution or creationism.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Possible premonition of the Arab Spring

Back in '07, I purchased "Suicide: What Really Happens in the Afterlife?" by Jon Klimo and Pamela Heath. I bought this on a whim in '07 (along with the heavily discredited "The Keepers: An Alien Message for the Human Race" by Jim Sparks). I expected little from the Klimo book--I'm skeptical of channeled material--but I perused it. And I made a mental note of something unusual that I found near the end of the book: A channel / medium indicated that "soon" (within the decade), a shift would occur in the Middle East that would change the consciousness of many in the Arab world, and there would be a turning away from terrorism. This has actually happened, quite dramatically. This change was inconceivable in '06 and '07. I would like to transcribe those sections and present them here. My main criterion for a "real" psychic / prophet / seer is that said seer actually predict the future, and in a dramatic way--none of the usual "there will be an earthquake somewhere in the world" kind of stuff. (By the way--John Hogue was wrong about the hurricane hitting Texas.)

Granted, my promiscuous plundering of various metaphysical texts is in no way scientific, critical, or even representative... But there is presently no formal methodology for studying stuff that doesn't fit into accepted categories of thought.

Unfortunately, there's no digital copy of this book (pirate or otherwise), so looks like I will have to physically transcribe any parts that I want to highlight... which, if they correspond to what I remember reading, will be worth the trouble.

Journey thought the South, part 1.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Mainstream science article describing historical "mass extinction" event

Without even looking for it, I found this article on my Google news home page from a relatively mainstream (though pop) news source. The article drew a "causal link" between an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and a mass extinction event 250 million years ago. Though this is relatively distant history, and it may or may not be relevant to today's controversy over a runaway greenhouse effect, I still think it's interesting to stumble upon an article like this without even looking for it.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Intrusive gods: A re-accessment of Whitley Strieber's "The Key"

I have been hop-skipping through "The Key" and have started to reassess the book's message.  I am finding it as dark and perplexing as I did ten years ago, but I am also seeing new details in it that were invisible to me back then.  I was particularly intrigued by the section, mid-book, on Freemasonry, which meant nothing to me back then, but is, to me now, the focus of my understanding of this book. This short section articulates an obscure truth, which was enough to inspire a second look at the rest of the book.

I still think that the book is dark and catastrophic (although if, in fact, the "Northern" civilization is soon destroyed in a massive climate disruption, any survivors would likely say that it was remarkably prescient).  It is a melange of several conflicting strains of belief and philosophy.  There is a strong theme of conventional religiosity (particularly in the numerous references to the conventional "God," "sin," and "surrendering" to the "will" of God) that would be quite welcome in a Catholic diocese (most of 'em, anyway) side-by-side a strong Darwinian theme that warns humanity to evolve or die, with the adviso that "God" (or the aliens) will not lift a finger to save us if we don't. There's a liberal dose of scientific humanism that counsels humanity to extend its native intelligence in the construction of "intelligent machines" to solve the existential challenges that we face, along with significant strains of old-skool gnosticism with preaches "ascenscion" and cultivation of a "radiant body" that will free the soul from the evolutionary wheel, with dire warnings that if the planet is destroyed, those souls that are not "radiant" will be forever chained to a dead world, eternally prevented from ascending.

It is all provocative and intriguing stuff, but as skeptics have noticed, it doesn't quite fit together and is inherently contradictory. But I now think that this is because "The Key" is a brittle, brutal, but faithful Cliff Notes summary of the world and philosophies of Whitley Strieber, exteriorized, with all its inherent contradictions, occasional absurdities, and overall brilliance.  It is Truth as he sees it.  And I think that, distilled to its essence, a lot of it is true.

Before the time of our separation from Nature, the mythical era when the gods walked among us, various angels, demigods, and nature spirits visited humans and dispensed assorted teachings and truths. Per Seth, our species chose separate itself from Nature in a grand experiment--to construct the objectified material world that we think we possess, but no longer are part of. God was exiled to the sky, with his truths codified in texts and dispensed by priests.

There was an acknowledgment, however, that when the experiment concluded--when it had run its course--the human race would rejoin Nature, bringing with it the lessons it had learned. Seth is quite specific in describing the transition as a time of danger--that if it was not navigated successfully, the human race would "retreat" as the dominant species on the planet and be extinguished. The "Master" is more specific--he mentions that we have several "decades" from his visit (1998) to prepare, and if we failed to prepare, our race would be extinguished--as it indeed almost has been in previous cataclysms. The Master identifies two mechanisms that will force the transition--one specific (sudden climate change) and one implicit (the exhaustion of our natural resources).

In 1998--indeed, in the early '70s, when "Seth Speaks" was written--these mechanisms were dimly glimpsed possibilities; but with each approaching year, the growing breakage in our world economy, caused by our excess consumption of scarce resources, and our increasingly disruptive weather, cause the approaching headlights to grow brighter. The future that the Master warned about is now a probability.

Seth foresaw several potential outcomes of this challenge. While he acknowledged that our world might be destroyed, his hope--his belief--was that our race would rise to its challenges and "ascend"--transcend our current limitations, creating a new world and transforming the species in the process.  Like the Master, Seth foresaw the development of intelligent machines to aid the process. The walls that currently separate us from the knowledge of past lives would fall, along with the barriers that keep us from perceiving the "energetic" world and communicating with the dead. These developments were set in our future as probabilities that would serve as both signposts and as aids of the transition.

As of this writing, 2011, the mechanisms described by both the "Master" and implied by Seth are becoming more clearly focused. We can measure the dwindling amount of oil left in the ground--estimate the increasing demand for it by the developing world--and, by doing a few calculations, see that petroleum--the foundation of our world economy, is running out. We can measure the increase of carbon in the oceans--observe the growing dead zones, the extermination of sea life, the bleaching of the coastal coral--and make a rough guesstimate of when our oceans will be dead. We can measure not only the increase of summer arctic temperatures but, more importantly, the acceleration of the annual increases--and plot a rough graph of when the tipping point, or trigger, of sudden climate change will happen.

Counter-balancing this has been an exponential growth in the development of computer technology that will likely reach a point of singularity, also in the near future. Tools and implements of a developing mass consciousness--the most visible example of which is the Internet (for now, I'd like to exclude Facebook)--are also accelerating. Breakthroughs are occurring in consciousness studies, and credentialed scientists are now arguing that consciousness does survive physical death and that it is possible to communicate with the "energetic" world that they inhabit.

If you accept the framework proposed by the "Master"--one of a dying world with finite resources and an existential deadline--the parameters are clear.  We will have to succeed--ascend--transcend--before the bottom drops out. Not a month, or a minute, later.

I've spent a lot of thought imagining a civilization that metaphorically rejoins Nature.  Such a civilization would inhabit an experiential reality that, for now, might be unrecognizable to us. But we would find relics of such a future in our "past." We now think of our gods as alien beings, apart from us; but perhaps the "gods" are a part of the Nature, walking among us, even barging into our hotel rooms (or exiting craft) to dispense knowledge, information, and other nifty stuff.  We can accept or reject the information, but we must accustom ourselves to such intrusions.  The emergence of intrusive gods might be signposts that our present experiment in physical consciousness is wrapping up, and that we'd best prepare for the transition.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Confirmation of Whitley Strieber's sudden climate change--from a surprising source

I was listening to "Earth And Sky" this morning on my way to work and was startled to hear a description of a sudden climate change scenario that was practically identical to the one that has been given by Whitley Strieber for the past few years.  Actually, I had just finished listening to the discussion on climate recently posted in the Unknowncountry subscribers section.  Per geologist Richard Alley: about 11,000 years ago, Greenland's temperature rose by about 15 degrees Fahrenheit over a ten-year period.  The cause: "melting polar ice, which altered ocean circulation and weather patterns."  And: "As today’s climate warms, ice is again melting near Earth’s poles."

This is probably a fairly conservative analysis; Whitley's climate change scenario happens in the course of a year or two, which actually sounds more probable than a ten-year shift--if you factor in evaporating pools of methane.  However, this is a radical statement by a mainstream scientist, even if he is "just" a geologist, and not a climatologist.

I would like to find the exact quotation in The Key that specifies that a shift in ocean currents would bring about sudden climate change.  If it is there, it would be significant.  I'm not sure to what extent Whitley's views on climate change has been informed by scientific research. While it is likely that climatologists have been too compromised by the political mongering over climate change, a geologist would theoretically have no such axe to grind.

While for a long time I have considered the "superstorm" scenario possible--but by no means likely--I'm willing to give it a greater than 50/50 chance of happening--with the question now being "when," not "if."

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Whitley Strieber's past lifetime hypnosis regression

The major reason that I sprung for an subscription was to download Whitley Strieber's hypnosis session, where he is regressed to an apparent past lifetime circa 200 AD, in Rome. I am fascinated with that era--not really for religious reasons, but for historical ones--but historical records, especially relating to the nascent Christian religion, are few and far between.

Seth once said that if you could hop into a time machine and go back to the first century AD, you probably would not find much of what you would expect to find, if your source of history was the New Testament. I suspect that this is correct--but I would still like to try. Barring a discovery of a second Dead Sea Scrolls, we have few resources that could inform us about this period, except unconventional ones--the most unconventional being that old bugaboo, hypnosis, to plumb what purports to be past lives.

I won't wade into the hypnosis debate, except to notice that there appears to be some interesting parallels between hypnotically-retrieved material, and dreams. Some of the information retrieved from these sources is strikingly valid and prescient, and some of it seems pure fantasy--no correspondence at all to physical reality. Most serious students of the paranormal don't have the patience or desire to sort out what from what.

Still, I think that it's intriguing, even if, in the end, it's not "true."

So, was the Strieber hypnosis session worth the subscription? I would say that it was--despite all the caveats. My primary quibble with the session is that hypnosis was apparently induced over the phone; second, it was induced by a practitioner who is not, to my knowledge, medically certified to conduct what should be a medical procedure.

Despite all this, what resulted was very interesting. But I want to compare it to two other interesting sources: "Seth Speaks," and the remote view by Joe McMoneagle, and come back with a more informed opinion of it.

The questions I am forming is this: What if there really was an advanced being known as Jesus, born when and where history tells us he was--but that much of the true record of that period has been lost, distorted, or deliberately altered? What events, then, could explain how an obscure Jewish sect could, within a couple of centuries, subsume the Roman empire and become a persistent world religion lasting two thousand years?

What we've been officially given as history of this period--the "New Testament"--really does not explain this phenomenon... which is why many Biblical scholars identify themselves as agnostic.

The Whitley Strieber hypnosis session--for all its methodological flaws--gives hints of what might have really happened, and what it means.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Loading up my iPod

I had a dream a while back that I should get a subscription to I thought it was a strange dream. I was once a subscriber, one of the first, back in ‘03, but I let my subscription lapse after a few months.

In the the intervening years, I have gone from being a believer in the paranormal to what can best be described as a general skeptic--skeptical in the sense that I no longer accept these accounts at face value, unless there is some independent confirmation of the experience, or if the experiencer or the reporter has been previously vetted, or is a credentialed academic in a field associated with the paranormal. There simply is too much out there masquerading as paranormal knowledge that is either fraudulent, or, while being a valid paranormal experience, is a "cover" experience--not what it purports or is perceived to be. There does seem to be something about the paranormal in general that attracts fraud, disinformation, and deception, and while this aspect itself might be a clue to the experience's essential nature, it is simply too bothersome to waste time to comprehend.

I am still drawn to the subject, however, mostly from a need to validate and explain my own experiences, and, possibly, to gain some insight into the nature of a reality where these experiences seem to originate.

So, with the return of autumn walking weather, I’ve sprung for a year’s subscription to and am loading up my iPod with programs that might, possibly, provide that missing link in my efforts to synthesize these disparate experiences into a cogent whole.

With my newly-minted mantel of skepticism, I confess to cherry-picking the shows. Over the years, I have become disenchanted with most of Unknowncountry's guest hosts (and guests), and I'm no longer really interested in many of the phenomena discussed. But there is simply so much material available on the subscriber site, and some of it is quite intriguing. My particular interest is in experiences involving contact and interaction with non-physical consciousness, and in this arena, Whitley Strieber is the master. I'm also intrigued with Strieber's high-strangeness experiences with what Starfire Tor calls "time slips"--as well as his past-life hypnotic regression, which I located. So I am looking forward to seeing what I can see.

I also think that I might have an experience or two worth submitting to Project Core.  At first, I thought, "Nahh."  My experiences, at their strangest, have generally been lame.  I have no conscious knowledge of seeing a Grey or of being abducted.  I've seen UFOs, but they never landed.  I've seen a few ghosts, but nothing spectacular.  Still, as the premise behind the project percolated in my brain, and the more I listened to Jeff and Jer talk about it, I realized that I have had a couple of high-strangeness experiences in my past that have been *so* strange that I have not been able to categorize them as anything.  Think about it--if you see a UFO, or a ghost, and are reasonably acquainted with the paranormal, you will automatically categorize the experience; you will say, "Oh, I just saw a UFO," or, "Oh, that's a ghost."  But many of us have had experiences that are so strange as to be essentially impossible to categorize.  Is this what Jeff and Jer are looking for?  They won't divulge.  But I have had at least one such experience, and I plan to submit this.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Richard Heinberg on "Coast To Coast"

I first became acquainted with the Peak Oil hypothesis in 2003. Although I had become immune to doom and gloom forecasts by that time (the future that I had been taught to fear seemed bucolic in comparison to that awful year), the Peak Oil "conspiracy" terrified me in a way that earlier, vague predictions of axis shifts and alien invasions had ceased to: by virtue of its elegant simplicity and irrefutable logic.  I immediately paid off my mortgage and began planning my backyard garden. For once, I actually believed that the end was near.

Since that year, the more alarmist predictions of the Peakers have not come to pass; our civilization has not collapsed into another dark ages, and worldwide conflict has not (yet) broken out over a struggle to gain control over increasingly scarce resources.

Nonetheless, the economic model articulated by another Peaker, Matthew Simmons, has, arguably, transpired. Simmons predicted that the problem of Peak Oil would largely be ignored by the mainstream, but its effects would unfold cumulatively through our financial system; as the cost (price) of oil rose due to a gradual increase in scarcity, disruptions and breakdowns would occur in the worldwide financial systems. While these breakdowns would be the consequence of increasing oil scarcity, pundits and "analysts" would blame them on unrelated factors--either out of ignorance, or a refusal to face an awful truth.

I made careful note of this prediction, hoping that the Peakers would be wrong. But eight years down the road, I'm ready to concede that the Peak Oil model is the most likely cause for our present economic disruption.  Our present Great Recession is a direct result of the spike in oil prices that occurred in 2008.  Still, I hope that the worst predictions of the Peakers will not transpire... and here's why I hope.

First, and foremost, the "future" is not necessarily a logical consequence of current trends. While there *are* trends, movements, and probabilities based on current projections, most significant historic events have been disruptive.  Pivotal historic transitions are often caused by disruptive discoveries, inventions, and ideas largely unforeseeable at the moment. Any model of the future that fails to account for the possibility of a new disruptive paradigm (technology) will ultimately fall short of the mark.

Second, it's my personal belief that challenges and limitations are introduced into certain historical periods for specific purposes. I prefer to find meaning in historical events. (I was likely influenced by my early reading of Victor Frankl.) Instead of seeing Peak Oil as a death sentence on our industrial culture, I see it as a challenge, which our culture can choose to meet and overcome, or not. 

Monday, October 17, 2011

Epiphany while reading "The Key"

I believe that when the history of our decade is written (assuming that there's anyone left to write it), October, 2011 will be cited as a watershed, for reasons that are slowly becoming apparent in the tech world.  Although the iPhone 4S's Siri interface was initially derided as another "voice command" program, it is proving to be quite something else: it is a form of artificial intelligence which is capturing the public imagination in much the same way as the Furby did, a decade ago.  Although Siri isn't true AI, it mimics it, and websites are beginning to pop up with transcripts of clever interactions with the machine.

What I predict will happen is that as Siri continues to engage the popular imagination, there will be popular demand for true artificial intelligence.  Siri might well prove to be the most significant thing that Steve Jobs ever introduced.

In one of those serendipitous coincidences, I'm re-reading "The Key," and I am struck with how the "Master's" oblique and enigmatic tautology is reminiscent of Siri's smart-alecky banter.  The "Master" never directly answers a question, but instead keeps his questioner off-balance by offering a seemingly intelligent reposte from left field.  The "Master's" explanations appear profound, insightful, and intelligent, mostly by being unexpected and clever.  This may well be how machine intelligence manifests, and we can see the seeds of this in Siri.

But although I'm seeing new things in "The Key" in my re-reading, my basic opinion of the "Master's" pontifications hasn't changed.  I think that the "Master" offers a very dark portrait of our near future, disguised as a warning.  Much of what "he" says seems grounded in fact and is very intriguing, but taken collectively, it fails to illuminate.  For example, the "Master" goes to some length to explain how some of us are "radiant beings" and some are not; presumably, those of us who are "radiant" make our own Light and can ascend to become co-creators with the Great Creator.  Those who aren't "radiant" are SOL and risk being re-absorbed into "God."  This is the sort of dark philosophy that I find in channeled material (and in some religions), and I personally chose not to believe in it.  It reminds me of how the channel in "Hungry Ghosts" classes the human soul population into two great divisions: "souls" and "entities."  Does this have some basis in fact?  Probably.  Our world is a world of dualities, contrasts, and, occasionally, unities, so it would make sense to assume that there would be some mechanism for divying up souls.  But I don't think that we can know, or pretend to know, what that process is, mostly because we are immersed in the physical world and must filter all our understanding through human consciousness.  Any transcendent insight that we might be fortunate to grasp will be distorted by our physical consciousness and will result in confusion rather than illumination.

That having been said, I think that the "Master's" revelations are ultimately valuable, because they seem to come from a place outside of our physical world.  I think that they are genuine snapshots from the greater non-physical world.  For example, the "Master" seems to imply that we are pulled to our current physical bodies and life circumstances by a sort of spiritual magnetism.  The bulk of souls that are incarnated spend the majority of their conscious existence being involuntarily pulled from one physical incarnation to another, with only brief periods in a sort of Bardo that co-exists with our physical world.  I think that this information is probably "true"... many mystics and seers have presented roughly the same picture of the afterlife.  But again, I am not sure that we can understand or absolutely know if this is ideed the case, and if true, what it "means."

Perhaps "The Key" is what results when human consciousness encounters an intelligent machine that originates outside of our physical reality; the information imparted is intriguing, occasionally insightful, and largely useful, mostly because is offers a different perspective into universal conditions; but it ultimately fails to edify or illuminate--because our own consciousnesses and souls are a lot smarter in comparison, if only we could realize it.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

"Thou shalt not violate."

I had originally planned to skim through the intro to "The Key," but I think that Whitley's exegesis is not all that bad. He highlights a statement purportedly made by the "Master," that sin is the "denial of the right to thrive." This reminded me of a statement by Seth, that a prime human directive is, "Thou shalt not violate." The principles implied by these statements are more nuanced than the absolutist prohibitions of mainstream belief systems.  But it also suggests that behind the distortions of religious beliefs, there were, at one time, fundament guidelines, clearly defined. Their original meaning, unfortunately, has been lost.

Friday, October 7, 2011

A dream of the world, 200 years from now

October 13, 1994
This morning I dreamed that I was living, or visiting, a time 200 years in the future. The dream seemed to be a long one; I'm not sure when it began or ended. I seemed to be part of a group. We might have had some academic function. It seemed like there was a part of me that was present in the future century and "knew" all about it, while being aware of myself in this "past" century. I was looking at an atlas of the U.S. I don't think the U.S.A. existed as a nation anymore. There were regions, some of which corresponded to the old states, but mostly corresponding to geographical or historical aspects. I saw a little sliver of a state that was Tennessee; it was much smaller than it used to be, but I think it was in the same geographical area. I studied the Southeast below Tennessee for some time, trying to understand the map, and I finally realized that it was covered by a shallow sea. The remainder of the geography of the nation had also changed slightly. I was talking to someone from the past, I think, and I mentioned three dominant religions of the time; I can't remember them but none were religions that currently exist. Christianity had ceased. Toward the end I was reading a text that talked about this future time period. It was saying that there was a lot of work occurring that was aimed at restoring the environment and quality of life. Things had improved so much that those incarnated during this time refer to it as their favorite incarnation. It mentioned that animals were being directly incarnated, which resulted in an unusual spectacle.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Hungry Ghosts

I believe that all profound human fears, phobias, and taboos have a specific genetic or cultural origin. You can be as Freudian as you wanna be, but I believe that humans fear snakes because natural selection dealt with those who didn't. Same goes with flying. I'm terrified of flying, and it's not because I fear a "loss of control." It's because my ancestors who didn't fear it were otherwise prevented from contributing to my gene pool.

But what about fears that have no apparent rational basis?  Most cultures have a profound (but largely unconscious) fear of "ghosts," and most cultures, past and present, have strong taboos against contacting the deceased. Since science largely insists that ghosts don't exist, and that it's impossible to communicate with the spirit world, what is the origin of these aversions?

These are the working hypotheses that I began to tossing around as I have begun reading Joe Fisher's "Hungry Ghosts." In fact, I did not have to finish the first chapter without having a small epiphany: That if you attempt to initiate open-ended communication with the spirit world, with no preconditions or safeguards, you're liable to bring down some serious trouble.

I believe that our ancestors learned directly not to do this. And although these specific unpleasant experiences have disappeared from our collective memory, the terrors spawned by these early spirit explorations persist in most living cultures.

So, societies created specific rituals and safeguards that regulated human-spirit communication. The ancients learned that before one intrudes into the spirit (or near astral) realm, consciousness must be modulated and focussed through prayer, ritual, and meditation; intent should be specific and positive; and there should be an interceder (physical or otherwise) to serve as an added buffer.

Our ancestors understood that in the spirit realm, unconscious terror becomes objectified monsters... Our slightest thoughts are instantly materialized... And most importantly, we will attract only those spirits that are "like us"--morally, ethically, and otherwise.

On a side note, I'm re-reading "The Key." I think that I last read it pre-9/11, or shortly thereafter. I'm one of the few people that ponied up the $20 or whatnot to get the first edition.  I well remember how it unsettled and disturbed me then.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Whitley Strieber, Coast To Coast

Just listened to the Whitley Strieber 'Coast' interview with one of my fave mainstream journalists, George Knapp. Discussed was 'The Key,' which I got when it first came out. It bothered my quite a bit at the time, and I haven't read it since.

Knapp had what is the best theory of who 'The Master Of The Key' really was (beyond simply being a Canadian who doesn't pay taxes): a future iteration of Strieber himself, visiting from the future.

This makes some sense; critics of 'The Key' have noticed how internally inconsistent it is, logically and philosophically. This mirrors Strieber's unique dialectic, which attempts to arrive at truths by allowing diametrically opposed arguments (many of which are demonstrably "wrong") to achieve some sort of synthesis.

I should probably re-read "The Key," particularly because I bought the mangled first edition, which may have been altered and censored. But while it may be better than other esoteric books out there, I'm not convinced that it's the profound revelation that Whitley thinks it is (though I'm open to being convinced).

One thing he said, however, makes me want to go back and re-read 'The Key':  the 'Master' says that our 'souls' have a physical composition, and there are spiritual predators that 'harvest' the physical product of these souls, and use this physical product to construct intelligent machines.

This is, of course, the same conclusion that Nick Redfern's 'Collin's Elite' came to after studying the UFO phenomenon. And, despite the Christian fundamentalist bent of the Collins Elite, I actually think that they are observing something real--but what it 'is,' and what it means, I don't know.

Whitley goes on to suggest that souls that are 'evil' are more likely to be 'harvested.' I'm reminded of  Michael Newton, who makes a number of pointed references in his books to souls that are refurbished, or rebuilt, when their 'energy' has become too contaminated with destructive tendencies.

I think that there is something there. But what these different observers are seeing, and what the thing that they are seeing means, is not yet clear.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Some final thoughts on Dr. Gary Schwartz's 'The Sacred Promise'

I noticed that Dr. Schwartz will be appearing on Whitley Strieber's Dreamland, so I thought I'd offer up some thoughts on 'The Sacred Promise'--which, I think, I promised to do once I finished the book.

Short answer: It works. Following the basic premises of Dr. Schwartz's method, which I tested on many occasions in recent weeks, I received enough proof to convince me that "Spirit" seems quite real, and will tangibly intervene when asked. I won't go into detail (lack of time), but if you are receptive to this type of inquiry, I would encourage you to get the book and try it out for yourself.

The big questions, for me, are... Why?  How?  Why now?  Is it really that simple--asking Spirit for assistance, and tangibly receiving it?  If so, why now, and not in the countless millennia of human struggle and wretchedness?  Where has Spirit been through all that?

Big questions, but I have a small, tentative hypothesis, one I've developed in recent years. I believe that the human race is entering a historic period--now--that, if successful, promises a convergence of what we now regard as "Spirit" with what we call "science." Science is beginning to develop the sophistication and accuracy sufficient to detect worlds that appear invisible, while the Spirit world--indeed, the larger "unknown" reality--is intervening in the physical world in increasingly bold ways. Books such as "The Sacred Promise" are really the first fruits of this synthesis of the two contrasting world views.

The promise of such a synthesis is so potentially rewarding--while a failure would be so cataclysmic--that, in my opinion, our customary rules of consensus reality are being bent slightly, to allow this opportunity for engagement.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Busy busy busy

I've been busy busy busy lately--too busy even to compose a 160-character tweet. Too busy to listen to my paranormal podcasts on my trusty vintage iPod shuffle (the 1-gig model, silver, for the Apple fanatics).  Busy with what, you ask?  Well, all will be revealed after September 26.

In the mean time, I noticed a very good skeptical review by a "Dr. Wigglesworth" to the book "A Room Nearby" by Kathy Baker, which I was on the verge of Kindling on Because of his review, I saved $5.99.

Kathy Baker's book is a personal account of an NDE that she says she experienced in 1985. Now, I won't--and can't--say that Ms. Bakers account is true or false, truthful or confabulated, or (possibly) spun from whole cloth.  But what's significant about "Dr. Wiggleworth's" review is that it's a rigorous skeptical examination of Ms. Baker's account from someone who is genuinely interested in the phenomenon, but is also aware that there are many frauds out there, and he was able to highlight a number of problems with Ms. Baker's account, enough to convince me to give her book a pass.

This is the great challenge in studying the paranormal.  Just like all of us can't be the surviving daughter of Tsar Nicholas, we can't all be telling the truth. And it's difficult to distinguish the truth-tellers from the embellishers, the psychologically imbalanced, and the clever liars. In the field of the paranormal, they all look the same.  But it's possible--and essential that we do.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Continue to get hits to this blog on 'Phil Imbrogno' searches

Apparently my deleted posts are still appearing in search engines. If indeed Imbrogno fabricated his academic background--and all evidence points to this--he has done some damage to the paranormal "field." As it is confined to the field, the damage is limited, but I do regret the harm caused to his publisher, Llewellyn. I consider Llewellyn to be good guys in an area that has some dodgy operators. Llewellyn approaches the subject with the right mix of fun, curiosity, non-didacticism and open-mindedness. They were at one time publishers of 'Fate' magazine, which I've read for forty years and which influenced my present attitude toward the subject: curiosity, open-minded skepticism, and a willingness to consider anomalous personal experiences as credible, without enshrining them as mystical truths or otherwise trying to shoehorn them into a New Age belief.

In other words, anomalous experiences are simply that--anomalous. I find them fascinating, informative concerning realities presently invisible, and suggestive of other species of consciousness, but I've learned to be cautious of imposing any meaning on them (though it's fun to try). My personal opinion is that paranormal, mystical, or anomalous events fall into two broad categories: projections of our own consciousness; and genuine intrusions into our reality from "elsewhere." If they originate from "elsewhere," it is impossible to know what they "mean." We can try to impose a human meaning upon them, and some of the meanings might fit, for a while. But ultimately, any imposed meaning will fail, and we will be left with what we started with--an enigma.

I think that it's for this reason that two of the more enduring paranormalists are Charles Fort and John Keel. Both writers presented the phenomenon "as-is" without subjecting their readers lengthy sermons about the phenomena's true meaning. Ironically, Imbrogno's work fits nicely into the Fortean school of paranormal observation. He simply presented his observations; and if he had just kept his mouth shut about his academic background, no one would be questioning his work today. Neither Fort nor Keel had advanced degrees, and they didn't need them--it doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe that something strange is out there; and there is no PhD that can prepare the observer of something truly anomalous to understand what it means.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Notes on a some recent paranormal shows

Since I've gotten selective in what I listen to--weeding out the vast majority of what's out there--I don't have to waste too much virtual ink pointing out to the world what's already obvious to everyone except the true believers: much paranormal speculation is disingenuous at best, ill-informed at most, and patently deceptive at worst... and really not very interesting to me anymore.

For instance, I skipped a Bright Side talk with Suzanne Ward that I had downloaded. I liked her initial show on The Bright Side, got her book, "Messages From Matthew"-- then checked out her website. She now describes herself as a "channel" for Matthew, who she learned to communicate with telepathically by meditating on him for months.  Not surprisingly, she eventually got an answer. The messages posted on the Lightworkers site--from "Michael" and other ascended masters--bear no correspondence to any reality that I know of, and they seem to encapsulate every New Age conspiracy and delusion of the past century.

Instead, I listened to the Brightside interview with Bill Birnes. Birnes is probably the most entertaining UFOlogist around--by default, since UFOlogy, as a whole, has some serious intellectual deficiencies. Birnes is a perpetual dynamo of ideas: speculations about the historical underpinnings of the Garden Of Eden myth, the intrigue surrounding the cancellation of "UFO Hunters," the Serpo hoax, bases on the moon's dark side... endless.  However, while Birnes is a good disseminator of ideas, many are probably not true, and I always have the niggling suspicion the he doesn't believe them, either. He is a master story-teller. He likes to weave compelling narratives around his interests, and I think that he selects stories that tell well, even if, ultimately, they are soundly debunked--as in the Philip Corso story.  Another example is the Jackie Gleason "alien bodies" story. While this event might have actually happened, Birnes asserted that it was revealed by Gleason himself in his autobiography. I'm no Gleason expert, so I did some digging.  As far as I can tell, Gleason did not write an autobiography, and the source for this story is Gleason's widow; it was never published (to my knowledge) by either Gleason or his widow.

I also listened to the medium Marla Frees' Dreamland interview. While I believe mediumship exists, I am skeptical of public mediums; I haven't found a single one who is credible. Still, like Houdini, I keep searching for one. Frees has avoided the traps set for other mediums by following some simple rules--she doesn't use her messages to grandstand, preach, or predict the future.

Frees' interview focussed not on mediumship, however, but on her visit to the Monroe Institute and her participation on their Gateway program. What she brought back from that experience was quite nuanced and highly intriguing. While her claims about seeing John Mack at Level 27 are unverifiable--as well as his assertion that "UFO" stands for "Unknown Family Of Origin"--her encounter with the light entity that morphed into various archetypal figures is intriguing, as well as what this entity purportedly said: "We want you to understand your belief systems, and not to be stuck in them." The message that I take away from this is identical to an argument that runs throughout the Seth material--just as our physical reality reflects our beliefs, so does the reality that we encounter in the the astral realm. The non-physical realm is manufactured according to beliefs just as is the physical one, but when we are out of the body, those conscious projections, and the illusions that they create, are more powerful. As physical consciousness, we are taught to believe that the physical reality that seems apart from us is both "real" and objective."  When we are physically alive, this belief is both necessary and useful; but it's a barrier to progression outside of the physical. So I am hopeful that Frees continue her Gateway research and talks more about her experiences in the future.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Some enigmatic readings today from Mr. Ghost Radar...

(Punctuation mine)

Crop circles?  "Crop didn't entirely shape there; vast middle part."

And this seems to refer to a friend who is very sick and is visiting the doctor a lot: "Sick; needs one trip herself fewer," with the last word of "fireplace" (which was in front of me in my living room).

The words are generated by the Ghost Radar at random; by what process, I have no idea.

However, I plan to leave it on when I go to bed, to see if anything interesting manifests.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

The Ghost Radar app

I just downloaded the Ghost Radar app for that iPhone; it's on multiple platforms. While it claims to measure "anomalous changes in the Quantum Flux," I think that it may just look for patterns from a random number generator... which is still intriguing, since there is some evidence that consciousness can affect random number generators. So while the app probably won't pick up any ghosts, it may show effects from the user's consciousness, which, if it does (and the reviews on the app's page as well as YouTube seem to suggest this), it would be a pretty nifty app. Which leads me to a more general speculation (and prediction) that as our electronic detectors become more sensitive and ubiquitous, we will finally be able to do what classic science insists that we do: measure, and show repeatability. In any case, it's a fun app.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Update on update on something strange happening

Last night, at about 3 a.m., my indoor-staying shepherd jumped onto the bed, plopped down on me, and jarred me from complete sleep, reminding me that, yet again, I was being "protected." There's something about having an 80-pound dog jump on you when you're asleep that concentrates the mind. As I've written earlier, this has happened quite a few times in recent weeks. So, I have a silly shepherd that is "protecting" me--from what, I don't know. I don't remember much of anything from these experiences, and I've usually been afraid to look for anything.

But this morning, as I was carrying the dog outside, it dawned on me that the shepherd might be seeing or sensing something that I can't (or won't), because his behavior is otherwise inexplicable. I didn't sense any presences; there were no sounds or anything else odd in the house, as far as I was concerned; but the dog saw it. Who, or what, is visiting me at 3 a.m.? Whatever it is, it's probably not harmful, since it's been happening for years, and I haven't had any ill effects from it. But it is definitely spooking the dog.

I've actually experienced far more evil in the physical world than in the metaphysical, but then, I have a firm practice of not dabbling with the unseen. To the extent that "living right" can guarantee a certain amount of protection, I've tried to do the best I can. So, I've tried to avoid the obvious sorts of things that would bring on an unseen, malevolent visitation, including (and not limited to) not robbing banks, not dealing in meth, not murdering people serially, and not cheating on my taxes. To the extent that there is some sort of controlling universal Nanny who bothers to worry about what we do or don't do, I've tried to cover all the bases.

I've thought a lot about Rachel Baker's experience (on Paratopia) where she "called" or "invited" these strange, unseen forces to manifest in front of her... and then spent the entire subsequent night, afraid that they might do just that. I know exactly what she's talking about. I went through a phase of experimentation in the '80s, when I was young, naive, foolish, and had not yet completed my Fleetwood Mac vinyl collection. The unknown was still unknown then. But I never really pursued it. But it might still be coming around. And I would be none the wiser, were it not for a silly dog that thinks that pounding me halfway through the mattress in the middle of a dead sleep is somehow going to make me safe from the unknown.

Whatever it is, it seems benign. And maybe I'll get a glimpse of it soon.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Ponderings on Biblical innerancy...

I've been trying to memorize the last remaining piece of the Masonic ritual, the Third Degree slide lecture, which details the construction of the Temple of Solomon in the first millennium BCE, so I decided to do a little research to see if it would help my memory work. Was there a King Solomon? What is the historical evidence for the existence of the temple?

I found something surprising (to me, anyway):  The sole records of this era, devoutly believed by Christians (and regarded with a more nuanced appreciation in Judaism), are limited to the Hebrew Bible. There is scant evidence, outside of a few archaeological digs, that the great personalities in the Bible ever existed, let alone acted in the manner recorded.

Consequently, Biblical scholarship is divided between two schools: those that assume, from what little evidence there is, that Jerusalem was nothing more of mud puddle in 1000 BCE; and those who implicitly accept the Biblical record as valid history.

Highly educated scholars on both sides of the issue write very convincingly of their points of view; both seem equally valid perspectives, and both coexist in the public imagination by virtue of the simple fact that there are really no other written records of this era, and only scant archaeological data.

Some of the arguments are amusing. Some scholars argue that the Hebrews couldn't have wandered for forty years in Sinai, since no artifacts of such a mass exodus have been found in the desert. Others respond that Bedouins have wandered the desert for centuries and have left nary a trace.

These are not trivial issues; the last time I checked, there was a group of people calling themselves contemporary Israelites who are laying claim to large tracts of land in Palestine  because of these writings.

What is strange, however, is that I, who attended a Christian Bible college, who once practiced as a Christian minister, never bothered to check into this subject until today. (In my defense, there was no Wikipedia in 1979.)

As a fundamentalist Christian, I believed; to the fundamentalist, there exists only belief and unbelief. There is no room to question, or to even think of questioning. Quite literally, the question of "Did King Solomon really exist?" never entered my mind; and when I dropped away from my church, I had no need to think about it, until now--while attempting to memorize a story that is a foundation of both Christianity and Freemasonry.

Strange as that may be, what is even stranger is the fact that there are many millions who will gladly die, and kill, in support of the Biblical writings and never ask the simple question that I asked today.

So what answers would I give now, with decades of metaphysical (and lately, Masonic) study under my belt?

I would say, that, yes, these people did exist, and there was a Temple of Solomon--somewhere.

Somewhere. A myth this powerful has a foundation in a reality somewhere. To paraphrase Seth, if we could go back to 1000 BCE in a time machine, we might--or might not--find a Temple, or a Solomon, materially objectified for our satisfaction. But this would not prove a whole lot, since there are multiple pasts, futures, and presents, some materially objectified, and others that exist not quite in the physical.  Not an easy concept to grasp, admittedly--but one that might explain how two diametrically opposed belief systems, and believers, both contradictory, both mutually exclusive, can summon up substantial evidence proving that each group is "right."

Saturday, August 6, 2011


I noticed that John Hogue indicates on his website that "readers of 'Predictions for 2011,' published in December of last year, are already aware that my oracle predicted  a second great Recession could come in the first half of 2011." I did not purchase this book, so I can't vouch Hogue's claim--but I do know that he indicated on Dreamland last winter that a "cold depression" would be avoided. Often, prominent media predictors go back over earlier published predictions, and whitewash them after the fact. This may be what's happening here; can't say for sure.

As to what *I* think about the current economic turmoil, I think it's an opportunity. Sometimes it's best to catch a headcold now to avoid pneumonia later.

Economists and psychologists know that the intangible thing that we call money is essentially a self-created illusion. Market behavior is founded on a vested belief in the reality of "money." There is no greater illustration of the principle of reality-creation through shared beliefs, than the certitude that "money" is a tangible, objective reality. It is the most powerful and fundamental illusion that supports our consensus reality.  So when belief in "money" begins to waver, market turmoil results. The assumptions that underlie the belief of "money" among competing groups of people fall out of synch; the process of renegotiating these shared assumptions causes turmoil.  If you view our financial system from this perspective, much of the media blathering about the economic crisis comes off as very silly. We're solemnly lectured that "money" controls us, and we must obey it. In truth, however, we have a choice in what we believe and whom we obey.

Our present money-driven system has created massive distortions in our world that most Westerners ignore; while we complain about a few percentage drops in monetary value, over half the world lives hand-to-mouth, and even a slight rise in the price of commodities instantly causes the death of thousands. This imbalance between the super-rich and the destitute, and the competition between the two, is the engine that drives all of our wars, most of our diseases, and has condemned the West to a perpetual spiritual darkness. Until we acknowledge this, and fairly re-negotiate the assumptions that underlie this thing we call "money," we can look forward to increasing "market" disruptions in the years to come. And we don't need a prophet to foresee that.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Not really a paranomalist

The recent imbroglio re: Phil Imbrogno has caused me to wonder about the whole "field" of the paranormal, in general. Lance Moody deserves credit for breaking the story and wrote a very succinct exposé of it. He did a good job.

I actually had an earlier blog (since deleted) where I deconstructed a number of paranormal investigators and their various claims. It got lots of hits... far more hits than this blog does. I thought that the popularity of my critical blog was interesting; it showed that paranormal consumers are more savvy than they are given credit for being. When they are introduced to a new voice in the "field," they do what I do--go online and try to find info, pro and con, before they decide whether to bother believing the person. Other hits were probably from convinced disbelievers in the paranormal, looking for support of their disbelief.

It's actually easy to deflate many paranormal claims, and "debunk" many of the guests on the paranormal circuit. Many of my early entries practically wrote themselves.  But I deleted my earlier blog because, over time, I began to notice a strange paradox: paranormal experiences, undeniably, are real. I've experienced them; most people have. Yet, a significant percentage of the public paranormal researchers have clay feet. Many of the most vocal proponents of the paranormal have some serious psychological and credibility issues.

This tells me that there is a larger dynamic at work that gives hints about the nature of our experiential reality. It reminds me of the UFO men-in-black phenomenon; we see or experience something anomalous, and just as soon as we do, something else steps in and warns us, "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain."

While I follow the paranormal and listen to the podcasts (and yes) Coast To Coast, and often find some good stuff there, I'm not really a paranormalist; I'm really more interested in what constitutes the building-blocks of our reality.  I view human conscious life as a grand cosmic experiment. And I seek to know more about the experimenter.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

The future isn't what it used to be

Let's pretend that we are back in the halcyon of Bill Clinton's second term; it's March 1998, right before the Lewinsky scandal... I log into my Geocities page and I write:

Predictions for the future

The 2000 Presidential election will be co-opted by a right-wing faction of the government, which, following a devastating terrorist attack on Washington, will launch two invasions of Middle Eastern counties; the wars will last over a decade and end inconclusively;

The cost of these wars will lead to financial ruin for the United States and will cause the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression, and ultimate cause the US to default on its federal loans;

China will become the preeminent economic power following the default and will begin to challenge the US militarily in the Pacific;

Earthquakes around the world will kill thousands and lay waste to many cities around the world, along with dramatic shifts in the climate that will destroy food crops everywhere.

The 1998 stumbler-upon of these Geocities predictions would probably find my predictions highly improbable at best, alarmist at least, and accuse me of sensationalism. There was little if any visible foreshadowing of these events; the press was preoccupied with Lewinsky's dry cleaning bill.

A reader in 2000 would view the same predictions with a distinct unease; he might think, "Well, he must be predicting someone other than Bush; Bush is a moderate."

A reader in 2003 might view these same predictions with a distinct air of panic, as it seemed that about half of them had already come true, and the other half were more terrifying that the ones that had been fulfilled.

Readers from 2011, however, would have very different opinions about these predictions. One might say that I was dead-on, one hundred percent accurate; while another would say that while some of my facts were somewhat accurate, I had distorted them to fit a left-wing political agenda; while another might say, "It's true that some of these things happened, but they weren't the *only* things to happen in these years; you focused primarily on the catastrophic events, but left out the positive things that happened during this time."

And this argument has merit. It's true that, in a manner, the events in my fictitious "predictions" did come true, to an extent. But for most of us who lived through these years, we got on with our lives. Some of us married; some of us divorced. Some gained income; others lost income. We moved; we changed religions; we lost friends and we gained friends. We lived our lives against the backdrop of these official tragedies, which, to lesser or greater extent, informed our personal realities.

These differing perspectives of what are seemingly solid, established, and fixed official events illustrate what Seth describes as the principle of probabilities with affect both our present and our future. Seth argues throughout all the Jane Roberts books that we collectively participate in, and contribute to, an "official" reality with agreed-upon events, agreed-upon interpretations, and established and fixed historical narratives. This reality seems to be, and in fact is, quite "real." However, beneath this official mass reality lie billions of personal realities, personal histories, and personal futures; and to the extent that we contribute to the official present, as we travel away from these events in time (or as we approach future events), our personal narrative and history begins to digress, bit-by-bit, from the official narrative, often, to such an extent that many of us will argue vehemently on what was, in fact, "real" in the past, and what wasn't.

According to Seth, however, because we have indoctrinated ourselves so thoroughly that there is only one official reality (albeit with differing perspectives), we completely lose sight of the existence of what Starfire Tor calls "co-existing time lines," or what I have learned to call "probabilities." Admittedly, this is a very difficult concept to wrap one's mind around; and even though I have studied this phenomenon for years and looked at it inside and out, I can only intellectually conceptualize it. But everyone can see echoes and traces of this principle in the different perspectives to my hypothetical 1998 "prediction."

This is why there are very few predictions of the future in the Seth material; and this can explain why even people with genuine intuitive insight into the future have such a difficult time predicting future events. Just as our present is in flux, so is our past, and so is our future. We can only view the future in terms of probabilities viewed from the perspective of "now," and at best, we can give only probabilities.

Aside from the rise of the Internet, which allows any yahoo (myself not excepted) to post anything resembling writing on any topic at any time, I believe that one of the possible causes for the explosion of "conspiracy theories" is this principle of probabilities, past, present, and future. Just as we can barely agree on what our present, official reality is right now (just look at the U.S. government), we can no longer agree on what our official historical narratives are anymore. Perspectives are all over the map.

Assuming that probabilities are "real," that there are multiple versions of our reality which overlap, intersect, and, occasionally, contradict each other, a growing intuitive awareness of these probabilities by the evolving human consciousness might explain this apparent breakdown in how we, as a species, view this reality. While on the surface, we appear to be going crazy, Seth would argue that we are finally becoming sane by waking up to the true nature of reality.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Currently reading...

"I'm Not Dead, I'm Different," by Hollister Rand.  I enjoyed her on Coast To Coast. Though she is part of an association of mediums (a pay site with assorted New Age types) I really couldn't find any criticism of her.

My personal opinion is that most (possibly all) *public* mediums are not what they purport to be. Starting with the most notorious, Sylvia Browne (who labels herself as a "psychic" rather than a medium) and going up the scale of credibility, it's not hard to find substantial (and valid) criticism of most of them. The criticism is generally rooted in the a materialistic belief that mediumship is impossible; but I think that the skeptics have done a good service in outing the most egregious frauds.

My opinion is that mediumship is possible, but the true ones are not famous, and not very common. But I am open to being persuaded otherwise. Ms. Rand writes quite a bit about participating in mediumship circles and in learning the craft. She says that she was born with an innate ability to perceive spirits as a child, and unlike most, never lost this ability as she grew older. That's possible.  In fact, it's all possible--I've just never investigated it, nor have I been to a mediumship circle.

For a time, I listened to some shows by medium John Holland, who gave readings over the air. It quickly became obvious to me that he was engaging in a form of cold reading. His initial "impressions" that he verbalized about his callers were invariably wrong, but he quickly adjusted them following feedback. This sort of mentalist technique has been used by other public mediums, according to critics, particularly the famous ones like James Van Praagh and John Edward.  I don't doubt it. The technique of cold reading is fairly easy to spot, and if it appears that this is what the medium is engaging in, I have no problem accusing such mediums of fraud.

But it takes only one white crow. I am still open to being persuaded. I know that it is possible for the "dead" to communicate with the living. Ample, and convincing evidence of this can be found in the personal testimonies on Dr. Jeff Long's adcrf site, for example.  It is the convincing personal testimonies, by everyday people who are not seeking fame or money, that--in my opinion--can create a model or environment where the afterworld, should it exist, can be understood by the living.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Finally located a key Seth quote...

"You are now poised, in your turms, upon a threshold from which your race can go many ways. There are species of consciousness. Your species is in a time of change. There are potentials within the body's mechanisms, in your terms, not as yet used. Developed, they can immeasurably enrich the race, and bring it to levels of spiritual and psychic and physical fulfillment. If some changes are not made, the race as such will not endure."

As I've previously mentioned, I've read about ninety percent of the Seth material, much of it, more than once, and practically all of it (that which I can understand) useful. However, some bits and pieces have haunted me for longer periods, and the above quotation is one of them (from The "Unknown" Reality, Vol. 1). "Seth" is not the most linear speaker; the material is extremely right-brained. So it's hard to draw direct correspondences between the material, with our everyday world. But he makes a number of pointed allusions to our current era in The "Unknown" Reality, and I've tucked those quotes in my mind, waiting, as it were, for them to either manifest, or not. And this is the paragraph that I immediately thought of when the "Arab Spring" emerged, quite to the surprise of everyone:

When, at this point now, of mankind's development, his emerging unconscious knowledge is denied by his institutions, then it will rise up despite those institutions, and annihilate them. Cult after cult will emerge, each unrestrained by the use of reason, because reason will have denied the existence of rampant unconscious knowledge, disorganized and feeling its own ancient force.

Also alluded to is the increase of religious extremism in both the Arab world and the west and (though barely reported in the West) in India. We have, within the span of a couple of decades, moved from waging wars of political ideology, to what are essentially religious wars; and while the invasion of Iraq in '03 was probably motivated by a number of underutilized oil fields there, I think that George Bush truly believed that he was engaged in some sort of crusade, as misguided and dangerous as his discussions with "God" on the matter turned out to be. And presently, we are seeing the emergence of political forces there that seek to annihilate the current status quo; and while the West is applauding, I predict that when the end result finally arrives, these forces will not be particularly nice to the West.

Ego consciousness must now be familiarized with its roots, or it will turn into something else. You are in a position where your private experience of yourself does not correlate with what you are told by your societies, churches, sciences, archaeologies, or other disciplines. Man's "unconscious" knowledge is becoming more and more consciously apparent. This will be done under and with the direction of an enlightened and expanding egotistical awareness, that you can organize hereto neglected knowledge--or it will be done at the expense of the reasoning intellect, leading to a rebirth of superstition, chaos, and the unnecessary war between reason and intuitive knowledge.

When it comes to the paranormal, I tend to place more weight with the skeptics, since the skeptics have tended to be more "correct" about the phenomena in the long run. Indeed, with any paranormal experience, I think that we should trust only our own personal experience, and even then, just barely--because we do not yet have the experiential vocabulary to describe and objectify it. However, these phenomena may just be effects, not causes; indications of something else, signals, warning us that a general change of consciousness is needed. Seth's model predicts an era in which the conscious resistance to previously unconsciousness awareness will result in both distortions of our perceptions of unconscious reality, concurrent with clashes between religious extremism and institutional rigidity. This may explain why paranormal events seem to represent something other than what they purport to.

So while the world currently looks like a big mess, Seth would argue that it all stems from a single source--the failure of our species, as a while, to "evolve" and incorporate previously "unconscious" awareness. When we resist this process, distortions result, and instead of seeing this new knowledge for what it truly is, we see alien abductors, angels, demons, various Ramthas and other assorted "elevated" spiritual saviors.

So what, then, is this new unconscious awareness that we should be incorporating? I don't pretend to know. I'm not in communication with anyone or anything, and I tend to be skeptical of those who claim they are. (Not necessarily because I think that they aren't, but because I don't trust the sources that claim to speak through them.) But I have a few ideas that I've been tossing around lately.

One, it's apparent that humanity is connected intuitively and psychically in a way that we cannot yet scientifically explain. Because of this, we experience premonitions; we pick up indications of what someone else might be thinking. Two, it's apparent that time and space are merely formalities that our consciousness uses to organize data. Because of this, the remote viewer can describe physical objects and events outside of time and with only a longitude and latitude number to identify place. Three, when people pray to a higher being, sometimes Jesus shows up; other times it's Allah; angels appear, and, often, entities resembling ancient spirits pop in. In a single universe ruled, theoretically, by one anthropomorphic supreme being, this should not happen. But it does. These anomalous experiences all seem to point to new models of awareness that it would be beneficial for us to follow.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Further refections on Joe Fisher and his hungry ghosts

I am planning to get Joe Fisher's book (right now I have about a half-dozen books piled up, at various stages of readedness), but in the mean time I found an article online that I found quite interesting.. It's an excerpt from New Dawn magazine entitled "Hunted By Hungry Ghosts: The Joe Fisher Story."

I have a couple of other Joe Fisher books in my paranormal library, bought many years ago. Fisher is a rarity in the paranormal field--a professional who did real field work and original research. It would have been easier (and perhaps safer, in the long run) for him to merely have played armchair researcher and written a mediocre volume examining "channeling" (which is simply old school mediumship, dressed up for the New Age crowd). But instead, he chose to become personally involved, with himself as the research subject, with tragic results.

I don't think that we know (or can know) the whole Joe Fisher story; but it should disturb anyone who dabbles with the paranormal--be it by "ghost-hunting," channeling, the Occult, or obsessive UFO-chasing... Some of these forces, spirits, or beings seem quite capable of driving their human inquisitors to madness, and even death.  They managed to drive an objective, professional investigator and writer, to madness and suicide.

Our ancestors believed in the reality of the non-physical; though they were cloaked in folklore and superstition, they had procedures for dealing with non-physical intrusions; they had a basic sense of "bad" interactions and positive ones, and they knew how to handle both.

We've lost much of the ancient knowledge of what once was called "discernment"--mostly, because we've spent the last hundred years pretending that the non-physical is not real.

As Fisher demonstrates, however, it certainly seems very real, and non-physical entities can have measurable physical effects. Filipa would signal "her" presence to Fisher by causing a loud "buzzing" noise in his ears--an effect that's identical to the initial stage of an OOBE.  In my opinion, Fisher was dealing with a real non-physical being that was both sentient and aware of the physical.

To those whose knowledge of the paranormal extends no further than having read a couple of Shirley MacLaine books, "Filipa's" stalking of Fisher might not seem so malevolent, but it reminds me of the accounts detailed in Brad Steiger's "Haunted Lovers"--and if even half of those stories are real (I'm being generous), I'd consider any reader to be forewarned.

The most interesting aspect of Fisher's research, however, is how similar the channeled material is to much of what is produced by other dabblers in the paranormal.

While the stories spun through the "channel" Aviva Nuemann seemed very detailed, historically credible, and quite plausible, they proved to be completely "false"--none of them corresponded in any way with recorded physical history or fact. This reminds me of much of the information retrieved by hypnosis, either for the purpose of past-life regression, or for uncovering hidden memories, particularly of UFO "abductions."  Hypnotically retrieved information, in other words, has the same character of Nuemann's channeled material--surface plausibility, a certain internal consistency (it is self-referential and seems to build a complete, coherent story), with detailed historical narratives--all which, on investigation, proves completely unverifiable.  It would make more sense if: a) some of the information was wrong, and some right, or b) if the information was incoherent and internally inconsistent. To me, this suggests that what "channelers" and regressionists are accessing is some sort of psychological gestalt that is both real, intelligent, but completely disassociated from our consensus reality. This gestalt, or intelligence, may be quite skilled in mimicking human behavior and incorporating our information, but because it is not really a part of our world, it cannot--either by design or by inherent incapacity--completely conform to our official historical narrative. Interacting with it would prove quite corrosive, and potentially tragic.