It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dr. Jacques Vallee ~ The Control System

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by vbstrvct

Measuring an entangled quantum state collapses the waveform and "chooses" one version of "reality".

You are correct...discussing the control system definitely is a feedback into the system.

now is this Vallee Primary Attempt At Social engineering? I don't know. I'm quite sure he knows he's having an effect.

but I think he's simply passionate about the subject like I am.

Forewarned is forearmed you know.

I can't speak for him, but I'm certainly not trying to pay op anyone. For me anyway the words I write or speak are quite secondary to the nonverbal communication going on between myself and the field.

I do want to congratulate you though on the very astute observation. It's a fine example of what I call a "little red wagon" observation.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:05 AM

reply to post by darkbake

The question I have is why do the demons bother to have craft.

They don't.

We humans now want 'scientific explanations' so the 'demons'
(monsters of the ID that we help create) obligingly make
'craft' for us to feel comfortable interacting with.. and to
be scared of.. (all those alien invasion movies you know..
we are primed to be afraid of aliens).

Ufo's are the new angels and demons is all.. for humans
of a sightly different age.


It seems that these 'demons of the ID' can use our own psychic ability behind our backs, in the service of our flawed belief systems and short-sighted expectations. So, we have a flawed ET expectation and we have "trickster" agents of the ID working in the collective unconscious to materialize our expectations using our own innate abilities such as mind-over-matter. When we discover the gap between our expectations and the reality, we see the footprints of the trickster.

This unconscious manipulation of our own psychic ability can be detected in laboratory conditions, where it has become known as the sheep-goat effect. Allow me to introduce you to Gertrude Schmeidler, the parapsychologist who coined the term. If you haven't met her already.

Pioneering Parapsychologist Gertrude Schmeidler Has Died

Dr. Charles T. Tart on May 5th, 2009

I just found out that a parapsychologist colleague of mine, Gertrude Schmeidler, died last month (1912-2009). I say colleague rather than friend, for while we were friendly there was a great age range difference so we never got to know each other well.

Gertrude made one of the most important discoveries ever in parapsychology, one with strong spiritual implications and one which I think none of the spiritual traditions knows about, for while it’s something that can happen in everyday life, it’s pretty much unobservable except under laboratory conditions. She gave many classes of students ESP tests, guessing at concealed cards, but, before giving or scoring the tests, she had students fill out questionnaires that asked, among other things, whether they believed in ESP.

When she analyzed the results separately for the believers – the “sheep” – and the non-believers – the “goats” – she found a small, but significant difference. The sheep got more right than you would expect by chance guessing, they were occasionally using ESP. The goats, on the other hand, got significantly fewer right than you would expect by chance.

Think of it this way. If you were asked to guess red or black with ordinary playing cards, no feedback until you’d done the whole deck, you would average about 50% correct by chance. If you got 100% correct, you don’t need statistics to know that would be astounding. But if you got 0%? Just as astounding!

The sheep thought they could do it, they got “good” scores, they were happy. The goats knew there was no ESP, nothing to get, they got poor scores, they were happy, that “proved” their belief. These were not people who were sophisticated enough about statistics to know that scoring below chance could be significant….

Many other experimenters replicated this effect over the years.

The only way I’ve ever been able to understand it is to think that the goats occasionally used ESP, but on an unconscious level, to know what the next card was and then their unconscious, acting in the service of their conscious belief system, influenced them to call anything but the correct one.

The goats used a “miracle” to support their belief that there were no such things as miracles….

Talk about living in samsara, in a state of illusion!

Our human knowledge is richer for Gertrude’s work. She had been retired for some years and died peacefully in her sleep on March 9th.

I think something like the sheep-goat effect is acting on a much larger scale with the UFO phenomenon.

edit on 27-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by vbstrvct

Extremely interesting. Your theory has some serious strengths, but also some possible holes that may or may not resolve. I'll be thinking on this deeply today. Thank you.

edit on 27-1-2014 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:08 AM

reply to post by AutOmatIc

Psychotronics are often associated with "mind weaponry" but in the parapsychological sense actually includes stuff like Persinger and Koren's "God Helmet"

Early "God Helmet" and Subject

He gave remote viewer/psychic Ingo Swann a whirl in it.

I hope this isn't too off topic Sir Gut (and please go easy on me KPB!
), but I find myself wondering if there isn't a deeper layer to our brains than the subconscious.
Maybe, for whatever reason, we are unable to access it at will. Sometimes, momentary access is gained, and we see the 'rest' of the world that is normally out of our ability to comprehend with the knowledge we currently have.

And I wonder if it's connected to the reptilian part of our brain.

Does the 'god helmet' prove our minds can hallucinate all of these religious and near death experiences, and conjure up alien beings, or allow us to 'see' our entire plane of existence?

All of this information is fascinating, yet light years above my comprehension level, so I'm just throwing out my lay-persons' ideas - not trying to drag anyone back to kindergarten.

ETA Maybe our 'life' on earth is nothing more than a holographic projection we have created in our 'true ' plane of

edit on 1u1111America/Chicago311 by nugget1 because: eta

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by JayinAR

I'll be quite straight with you here.... I do to some extent command the symbiote with my intention and they do obey...The simple you are correct...There is something to what you say.

But the big ones the size of a small moon always turn nasty...power corrupts you know.

Frankly I cant see a preferred future here.

I'd rather be symbiote free myself...but is that what's best for humanity?

Don't know. It's not my call. It's each individuals call....

but education so people can have informed consent should be the minimum goal.

my 2 cents.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by BlueMule

You are correct.

I noticed this effect when I went to reno and did a rainman. I also read about in the Princeton pear studies.

very valid and good to bring to the discussion. Thanks.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by nugget1

Humans. .. All of them have an innate ability to access pure awareness and 'soul ride' any living being and many other types of existence.

This is the art of the shaman.

but most humans clog up the pipes with pain and confusion so they forget what they knew as an infant.

The whole point of the world is to keep us in a state of existential terror...This is ALL that separates us from who we really are. .

Yes the rabbit hole goes deep.

Easy on you? I'm fond of you.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:22 PM
It's like a Kung-Woo tournament in here!

I'll clue you on to something K-Bear. Red Cairo is showing a tremendous and admirable amount of modesty. Maybe she'll share some of her work (not found on these boards) with you if you ask nicely. She's rather accomplished and presents her understanding of some of these topics in a very down to earth way. She wins this tournament hands down. I don't even consider her "woo" but someone that probably could have helped Jung clarify his own murkiness.

I've been around enough of it to know that it's not my personal path, but I've also been around enough of it to know those that seem to have a heavy grasp of what's real and what's not. Ms. Cairo seems to understand that delineation and--equally as important--its limitations.

It's too bad my hands are tied by confidentiality, because i'd really like to take you to task for some spectacular failures. Love ya' man, you know I do, but I don't think you are quite the adept that you present publicly. I think you have enough knowledge to be dangerous to your own and other folks psyches, but not enough knowledge to understand exactly what you are playing (or being played by) with.

Just my opinion. Some of that opinion, as you know, developed in our private communications as instigated by you.

edit on 27-1-2014 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by The GUT

Hey TG,

Just wanted to chime in concerning Persinger's "God Helmet". I don't know if you remember that stuff I was posting on 1ofthe9's thread about temporal lobe seizure and the kindling model.

The "God Helmet" refers to an experimental apparatus originally called the "Koren helmet" after its inventor Stanley Koren. It was developed by Koren and neuroscientist Michael Persinger to study creativity and the effects of subtle stimulation of the temporal lobes.

I know that I am repeating myself, but as a guy that has experienced just about every variety of sleep funkiness under the sun you have to understand how un-impressed I am by his helmet. Also, his helmet is a knock-off of technology that used to take up a whole small treatment room at McGill university in Quebec where it was first developed in the 80s.

So, just as a reminder (you know how morbidly focused I get) P's helmet is stimulating an experience shared by those that suffer from, epilepsy, sleep paralysis and night terrors, UFO abductions, and religious apparitions, which is a temporal lobe seizure.

So, what does that mean? I don't know exactly. But having experienced all that I have related to what I know is temporal lobe seizure, my perception is colored by that when I read of experiences that others have had, some very meaningful to them and profound, that they have had under the influence of what I know to be a temporal lobe seizure. I mean, why do you suppose that epileptics were assumed to have some sort of "spiritual gift" in many cultures.

Also, think of this: how different would my life be if every time I had a "visual migraine" (which is actually part of the aura, but the aura is the seizure. 1ofthe9 knows what I mean, because he read it
) I ran around and told everyone that I was in contact with the "Rainbow Angel"?

Here is a link once more to the WikiPedia link for aura, I hope that everyone will take a look at the list of symptoms and effects.

That's the common denominator, and why when a thread is posted asking for people's stories concerning sleep-paralysis it fills up in no-time flat. I've run two threads like that in the past with the same results.

We all seem to be able to come together around Jacques Vallee and I have noticed the same concerning sleep paralysis. Interesting, huh?

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by The GUT

Naw I respect miss p. I know her background.
I know who trained her. I know some people who she has trained.

now as for you...yup I'm a spectacular failure when it comes to you.

I know that I rankle religious people.
I know that you like to give people rope to
hang themselves and that is one of your primary strategies. Only sometimes people don't actually hang themselves you just think that they do.

This particular response simmers inside you at least 3 out of 4 times that I post. It's OK my friend...I love you unconditionally. I will never win any popularity contests..

The truth is that I hate the metaphysics forum and much prefer to respond to intelligent and interesting posts like you do.

But as was obvious yesterday I should exercise my will power and refrain from interesting conversations if they cause excessive discord.

well I've learned a lot from you gutsey. Im grateful.

bye bye

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 12:59 PM

Vallée's ideas are the actual attack on the control system.

If one assumes there's a control system in place, what is seen as the "standard hypothesis" of the phenomenon (extra-terrestrial visitors) must be what the control system wants us to accept and expects. If you want to disrupt the control system you input contradictory information, or act in unexpected ways, to force the system to make corrections.

You really got me thinking with that observation. Vallee has a theory that cannot be tested on any apparatus other than the shared consciousness. He needs us to think and act in a way that rejects the proferred explanations, such as the ET hypothesis or breakaway civilisation ideas, and then he will measure the outcome.

To the extent that, when somebody witnesses a UFO, nobody takes any notice because everybody assumes that the UFO is just a glitch in the shared conscious experience. Nobody tries to photograph them, any more than we photograph funny-shaped clouds, nobody talks about them, nobody chases them, nobody cares anymore. UFOs are of 'no defense significance.'

Having created that situation, how will the tricksters react? Will they just go away and leave us in peace. Will they accelerate their program and establish general contact. Will they carry on exactly the same, regardless of what we believe, just like the funny-shaped clouds.

I think Vallee might be on to something here. If the tricksters disappear, or accelerate their program, then we can assume they have some intelligence. However if nothing changes then we may be witnessing a bizarre, but entirely normal and natural, physical process.

I'm not saying that I agree with the underlying theory to this, but if Vallee is right then it may not actually be a control system but rather it's a form of conversation.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by wemadetheworld

I'm starring vbstrvact and yourself for some rather brilliant points to ponder. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for, so I could expand my own thought process on the possibles of exactly what Jacques was getting at. Or maybe "up to" is a better way to put it.

I'm not ready to comment yet, because I'm gonna have to let it simmer while I chew on it and try it on for size against Vallee's works. Very promising, however, and even if not the total explanation, it seems like it might at the very least elucidate on some aspects of this "mystery."

edit on 27-1-2014 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 01:42 PM


The point of a DDoS network is to attack. So how is this network attacking, and what is it attacking? Based on Vallée's writings, there seem to be hints that just the fact that these ideas and concepts are whirling around in our minds might be enough to make the control system take notice.

What happens when a lot of people have the ideas of control systems and alternative hypotheses whirling around in their minds? Will the control system have to make corrections? What kind of corrections? And will we get a glimpse of the system when it's making the corrections?

edit on 27-1-2014 by vbstrvct because: (no reason given)

"What kind of corrections" is the main question in my mind, because we still only have hypotheses as to what state the control system is designed to maintain through feedback. The optimistic viewpoint is that we are being maintained in a state of constant advancement towards utopia. The pessimistic viewpoint is that we are being maintained in a state of constant advancement towards dystopia. I tend toward the first idea.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 01:55 PM

"What kind of corrections" is the main question in my mind, because we still only have hypotheses as to what state the control system is designed to maintain through feedback. The optimistic viewpoint is that we are being maintained in a state of constant advancement towards utopia. The pessimistic viewpoint is that we are being maintained in a state of constant advancement towards dystopia. I tend toward the first idea.

Maybe it's in the direction of utopia. There doesn't seem to be much evidence for that yet. I've also heard it said that a pessimist is just an optimist with experience ha.

When looking at the state of the union so to speak, maybe "realist" is more accurate than "pessimist."

I'm willing to be wrong, but the only hope for utopia would seem to be only AFTER a lot of suffering and the total breakdown of the status quo. It would certainly be a historical 'first.'

Obversely, admittedly, it could be that the reason the phenomenon seems so mysterious--and even malevolent at times--is because the bad needs to be expedited before the good can take root.

Then again, maybe the phenomenon itself is indifferent. Maybe it's the human "manipulators of belief systems" we have to watch out for.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by The GUT

I hesitate to get dragged into a discussion of human authorities in this context since it is often completely irrelevant to the topic and provokes flamewars, but it occurs to me that if certain human authorities have been used as more or less conscious 'regulators' in the control system (equivalent to the cooling system in my refrigerator analogy earlier), that a change in behavior of those authorities may act as a manipulation in certain cases.

For example, religion is widely accepted (at least around here) to be part of this overall feedback loop for humanity. Is a reformist Pope potentially able to take actions which effect a manipulation of JV's control system, through sweeping changes like acceptance of birth control for populations which were denied it?

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
Everyone has seen the movie The Departed, right?
For the sake of discussion in regards to Vallee, I think it is wise, and even beneficial to take a page from Scorsesi. In order to flush a rat, you feed it disinformation. In this context it means (in my opinion) that you assume Vallee is right and you stop playing by their rules. That means they are not aliens, not demons, not faeries.
You must identify them as something they have not shown themselves to be and insist that is what they are.

At that point, a correction must be made.

If I am misinterpreting all this someone please let me know.

And the reason I am repeating myself is because we should be putting this into action.
We have a moderately sized platform to do so right here at ATS.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:23 PM
Aw Gut that probably won't end well for me... moving on...

Psychotronics are often associated with "mind weaponry" but in the parapsychological sense actually includes stuff like Persinger and Koren's "God Helmet"

I think this is a topic that actually might help us see that control system (one of them, anyway).

We have what humans experience (naturally, spontaneously, whatever). We are instantly limited thanks to our native languages, none of which really support the 'shared experience' of these things at all, and some of which (like English) are stupendously bad for trying to convey them. This is a critical point, because we can't have intelligent debates or exploration about "a thing" unless people actually understand that "thing." If they have 50 different versions of the thing, we just have a mess. If they have some poorly translated version of the thing that makes it actually seem like something else, we just have a mess.

So before we get anywhere exploring human experience (let alone the control systems that may impact it), we actually have to be able to communicate with one another decently. Or at least know what we are truly communicating about.

This pretty much crashes and burns most esoteric experience. It's like having a two hour deeply emotional, passionate lovemaking session with humor and intimacy and feelings of divine in places, a little kundalini rising and more, and then when it gets translated into what everyone else thinks happened, it's six minutes of pxrn.

People who have not already had that experience in order to have a baseline for sharing cannot interpret any communication we provide properly. Even if we have words (which English at least generally doesn't), if someone hasn't had a given experience to associate with a word, it means nothing to them. (Blind people learn that grass is green but what does it mean to them?) We are limited to what we already know. So when a person has an experience and shares it in words, the only people who are actually going to be able to know what they mean are those who have the capacity for that kind of thing and at least minor degrees of experience with it.

Which is to say that our first problem is that we actually expect such experiences to be translatable into terms that everyone will totally understand. This is why some guy and his wife can literally be pulled over by a UFO so close to the car and pacing it and their engine kicks out, only to be assured by others that they were confused by the planet Venus. This is why someone can have fairly extensive interactive experience with other identities (whatever they may be), only to be assured by others that they were just hallucinating during sleep paralysis. The problem here is that language can only convey within the limits of what the persons being communicated WITH are capable of understanding (though of course there are other psychological and sociological issues that interfere as well).

So to some degree we wreck our data right out of the gate, because picking up that data and trying to make it something everyone understands and communicates about immediately reduces the data to "the interpretation of the common denominator" you might say. Or in short, no matter what depth experience it began as like above, now it's pxrn. Maybe some people have a greater understanding of what is meant and likely occurred, but for the sake of people saying, "So what else is a similar experience, what can be confused with this experience," it's still going to be pxrn.

Following that analogy, you'd then get people insisting that the 2 hours of divinely intimate bliss could (a) be easily had for thirty bucks with a girl from the corner of west hollywood boulevard, (b) was probably just a dream 'cause it happens like that sometimes, (c) was really just sex and only irrational emotional sorts attribute more to it than the physical.

Getting any intelligent discussion about other sources of the experience, about replication, about what it means, is pretty much going to be a big waste of time at this point. Because what nearly everyone is talking about, has almost nothing in common besides the most trivially crude elements with the experience the person was trying to describe.

Should I invent a technology which gives a man or woman a nice O, some would say that I caused that experience. As if they could even be compared. As if that isn't ridiculous. But that's what many people would say. "Look, there is nothing to all that, I caused it with this thing marked Panasonic."


Now separately we have people like the McKenna brothers who tried to find a doorway into the interworlds via drugs, because it was clear that some drugs sparked the same kinds of experiences talking to the same described entities about the same topics even. Clearly, affecting the brain or nervous system with that drug was some kind of key.

(Of course, then you have the debate about whether they were actually talking to entities about thing X vs. mysteriously hallucinated the same experience as Joe over there down to some details, but it really meant nothing and was just a physiological blip, obviously, as we all know that those entities can't exist.)

Then you have people like Persinger who are using a different tech approach to messing with the brain to see what happens and to see what can be replicated. This is really fascinating stuff. But now, we have the Panasonic element to further add to the common mistranslation of the original experience as pxrn.

Does the experience someone have with the toy truly match the kind of experience the people were describing originally? I saw a TV clip years ago where some young guy, in college as a subject, was wearing the helmet, and assured the camera with a smirky snarky grin that he was being abducted by aliens. Hope that wasn't research.

Psi research such as remote viewing is -- when done by legit people -- the tightest science there is, it has to be, and even some psychological sciences are now pretty tight for similar reasons, but there seems to be no double-blind or more in place related to the Persinger research (would appreciate correction if this isn't so), at least for what little I've seen and read so far. So to begin with I consider the research utterly fascinating but only partially credible because of that. But even just taking it at face value:

Is the experience really the same? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it "overlaps" here and there and all over even by accident because it's still experimental of course. If it isn't the same experience though, and yet I keep seeing references to people claiming that Persinger helmets "give people alien abduction experiences," then what are we doing aside from creating a biogizmo that we can 'reduce' all experience to, as if it is Venus, or a weather balloon?

I notice a curiosity where people are more likely to question one thing than another. If you tell people, "Well people are confused by Venus and weather balloons and secret technologies," most (but the dense) would say, "Yes. That doesn't mean those things cover all unexplained visual sky-object experiences." But if you tell people, "This guy invented a technology that messes with the human brain and artificially makes people have spiritual or alien abduction experiences," a lot of people assume that IF that is true (I do not dispute it, as I don't know), then it stands to reason that those experiences are merely a matter of some brain chemicals and frequencies pushing on a neuron here and there. In other words, they promptly pull the experience out of the category as being as literal and individual as making love, and drop it into the category of pxrn.

Suddenly there is the assumption that the original experience, reduced to the low common denominator of what people assumed it was, translated from the miserably unequipped language people had to convey it with, "is" the same experience as the toy is bringing on. In this analogy, we'd have people who had a vested interest in distracting us from true intimacy et al., at which point this would be an excellent "explaining it away" tool much like say, Venus.

That doesn't detract from the value and fascination of the research itself, which I actually believe may genuinely get us somewhere someday with the 'opening doors' of the sort the McKennas were trying to do. I'm all for it.

It simply points out that we are taking the word of sources we don't know, based on other people (subjects) we don't know, and their subjectively reported experience with electronics, as then summarized and reported by someone else in the lab, and then we are assuming that these experiences are the same as the people whose experiences have been reduced and slotted into the same general category.

(Which is really something since the real experiences vary so widely.)

Persinger's work, which he has happily agreed to have used as the standard "debunking" for so-called contact experience in all forms of media for decades now, is one element that can affect a feedback/control system.

Now, for those experiences which were annoyingly unexplainable by Venus or measurable insanity, we have a better explanation: it's a neurochemical anomaly, no big deal, we can bring that on in the lab on purpose any time we want.

So if one had associated spirituality or communication with it (much like intimacy and kundalini in the analogy), then you could be "shook loose" from those "superstitions" about your experience, since now this other thing allegedly has the answer.

Despite that it is its own legit area of inquiry, it is used, both by accident and by design and by the obvious need of human psychology as I see it, to 'explain away' a great deal of things I see no evidence it is truly qualified to explain 'away.'

Persinger's work is being used -- and has been being used, with his obvious participation -- as a certain kind of paradigm and distortion and misattribution for so-called alien and/or interworlds expeirence, much like Venus and weather balloons have been used to explain away everything in the sky.

That doesn't mean that Venus, weather balloons, and thinking you see a grey alien when you wear his helmet don't exist of course. It merely means that they aren't necessarily the same experience that we were allegedly trying to figure out in the first place. It is merely assumed they are. For some reason it seems like people accept that.

But in that assumption, we have essentially wiped out our only source of real data. Now our discussions can be about the complexities of panasonic... rather than the expanded experiential states that genuine intimacy and kundalini can both bring about, for example.

Our world is filled with this in many ways actually so culturally we are very easily led to it. We say 'hamburger,' people think McDonalds... like that tastes anything remotely like any hamburger you ever had off your grill. They could be completely different foods, and if our visual/logical senses weren't busy focusing on the similarity of form and outer-description, rather than taste and nutrient experience, they'd be considered so. But we learned as a culture to describe 'food' (I use the term very loosely) by that. So a frozen burrito nuked has close to no taste relationship to a real burrito and in fact has its own distinctive taste. We learn to like the taste as its own taste, but we still call it a burrito, cause it's got 'stuff' wrapped in one version of a tortilla. Eventually we have a food climate that contains almost no food whatsoever, and is killing us en masse (slowly and lucratively), but we're still calling it by all the labels of the actual food that once upon a time our people ate. (How cute!) Sure, this was mercenary corporatism and consumerism and biochemical research, not gov't intell or whatever, but is there really a difference in the end result in our culture?

Are we gradually going to be calling "sightings" and "alleged-alien contacts" experiences which, for the sake of the analogy here, we can say 'share the same form and outer description, but taste [and inherent nutrient/value experience] completely different?'


A primary way of controlling the public is to tell them what they are experiencing. Really, it sounds crazy that this would work, but you see it all the time. "The economy is fine, it's looking up, unemployment is not so bad!" Yeah, on Mars... just keep telling people that. I'd think it was pointless to contradict reality, but I hear people parroting the news and media, there are just not enough facepalms to cover it.

(I remember after the '94 Northridge earthquake, this psychologist came on the radio and told us that it was a natural psychological reaction to the experience to feel like everything was almost constantly shaking, from barely to a lot. Actually we were having gazillions of aftershocks. Everything WAS nearly constantly shaking! A perfect example of someone who just shows up and tells you *what you are experiencing and why* -- and people believe it!)

There isn't a brain machine that exists that can explain the overall context of Walton's experience for example, or others.

This stuff is utterly fascinating for human consciousness, and more than worth the research exploration.

But when it is used to any degree to "redirect" the "assumption" of people's spontaneous experience into being "the same as that," it deserves very hard skepticism.

Venus can't explain plenty of sightings, and panasonic can't explain deep intimacy and kundalini, and Persinger's brain machine cannot explain the spectrum -- and there is a HUGE spectrum, including much ignored in various social genres -- of human experience with perceived-as-foreign intelligence/environment.

As "useful elements in a control system" go, at least a cultural control system, Persinger's work rates way up there.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:26 PM

Everyone has seen the movie The Departed, right?

No. Will go find it.

In this context it means (in my opinion) that you assume Vallee is right and you stop playing by their rules. That means they are not aliens, not demons, not faeries. You must identify them as something they have not shown themselves to be and insist that is what they are. At that point, a correction must be made.

Huh. I guess I hadn't really thought about it this way. This seems like a great point to me.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:28 PM
Sorry I cannot fix the bleeping underline but the char count is not working on my browser which makes editing possible as it would wipe out half the message.

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by RedCairo

The Departed is a pretty good flick. Not about paranormal stuff at all. Its an FBI vs The Mob cat and mouse movie. Good stuff, but in the movie there is an undercover in the MOB ranks. They feed him disinfo to flush him
It was brilliant.

As far as the other thing goes, yeah, I think you want to create a meme and see if it adjusts to incorporate the new info. Sorta like slender man

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in