Dr. Jacques Vallee ~ The Control System

The GUT
So, I've been thinking about this. The first roadblock I come to is that Vallee seems to demonstrate that he actually truly believes in the Interdimensional Hypothesis.

Even if we exclude his later works, Passport to Magonia (1969) was published well before the documentation that seems to detail the beginning of his "control system" theory.

Back to one of the original questions on the thread.

If they have appeared as X, Y, and Z;

And if we wished to reframe that and instead attempt to perceive it as Q, allegedly to throw a wrench in the preplanned paths they're using for feedback/change;

How do we know they can't just usurp that too?

I mean we could decide that it is all self-referencing dark matter plasma rather than aliens or entities, but what's to keep 'them' (you know... THEM...) from simply creatively using this for yet another or newer feedback loop for control scheme?

How do we know we wouldn't just have the next generation experiencing dark matter plasma in the night?

reply to post by JayinAR


Nope. Huge thermal releases and atmosphere immediately deco here quantum states

reply to post by RedCairo


I think we can reasonably conclude based on existing evidence that they cann asume any form whatsoever or no form at all

KellyPrettyBear
reply to post by JayinAR

 

Nope. Huge thermal releases and atmosphere immediately deco here quantum states

And what's up with this "go back home, do not collect 200 dollars" crap?

Thanks for illustrating my point.

I guess now I AM frustrated with the egotistical ("but I swear I am not "shaman"")

ETA: apologies. You see, other than that silly "being mind probed" comment you made earlier, I haven't given you a second thought.

I guess the saying goes though, if the shoe fits.

KellyPrettyBear
reply to post by JayinAR

 

Nope. Huge thermal releases and atmosphere immediately deco here quantum states

Can you link that please?

reply to post by RedCairo


In your opinion, do you think we can tentatively establish some sort
of co-dependent behavior between the 'two apparently existing
parties -- humans and tricksters'. Now we have to exclude the theory
that only one being or phenomenon actually exists, but gives the
impression of two beings who are free agents. But lets shelve the
only one agent theory for later.

If the two agent model is valid, if humans become interested in 'x'
then 'x' appears.. and perhaps not only appears.. but seems to
appear in a slightly more future exciting or advanced form than
can actually exist at the present time (the old oh the military has
tech 50 years in advance idea).

Humans become excited by this display and then interact more
strongly with tricksters using that form. A loop ensues.
A feedback arms race so to speak..

The next 'thing' is always more advanced and exciting than the
last.. in some sort of temporal increment of say 10 or 20 years
or as tied to real world technical advances?

Would you characterize this as possibly being a co-pendent
feedback loop between two apparent agents?

KPB

reply to post by JayinAR


Decoherence

Stanford University Treatise on it

It's literally the very core problem with quantum *anything*.

reply to post by JayinAR


Oh mellow out!

Humor!

Levity!

That's all that was.

Truly.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


No worries though. I really haven't given RedCairo much of a thought either.

Although I think she probably actually adds value here.

Its just hard for me to keep up with her novel length scientific type posts when I am working.

Difference is that I will work back through her's.

reply to post by JayinAR


I love you too.

KPB

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


Kum ba ya, brother. Kum ba ya.

Good luck with that

reply to post by JayinAR


I'm sincere.

You'll note that I don't treat you the way you are treating me.
I found your reference, from 'stanford university at that' and
I'm happy to discuss any of your ideas.

You took my humor as a putdown, and it was not intended to be.

KPB

Okay, so here is a neat little trick.

KPB: you need to shut the hell up and get out of here.

(Interesting that they are able to talk on the internet, right? I mean I CLEARLY wasn't talking about this "Shaman" yet it took immediate offense to my words)

reply to post by JayinAR


I didn't take any offense.

I just want to restore the ability to have a conversation
with you.

I was pleased you wanted to take the data and proceed
with more logical analysis.

I do apologize that my joke was a poor one..

KPB

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


No. It was beyond poor.
Be gone

1ofthe9 mentioned the "nine meme" awhile back so I thought I'd chime in to mention that in Forbidden Science 2, Valle mentions that in a discussion with Jacques Bergier, Bergier reccomended a 1923 book called "Nine Unknown", authored by Talbot Mundy, who was apparently favored by Theosophist readers.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by lakespirit


That's interesting.. a lot of people take the 'nine' as a real world
possibility. This seems to show that the basis was in fiction.

Nice find.

KPB

KellyPrettyBear
Would you characterize this as possibly being a co-pendent feedback loop between two apparent agents?

I guess so. Sounds like it. I'm not any expert on the control/feedback loop thing, I mean it's obvious how it works in general, but I'm pretty sure that topic could be a whole complex/subtle study all its own. For me the study of these things like control systems has just never before come up.

(Actually it's worse: even the simple stuff is new to me: I just learned casting out 9's the other day (why did nobody teach me this in school?? I'm 48 for godssakes) when reading some of Buckminster's stuff. I bet everyone else knows these things...)

I've been thinking more about the original premise of the thread and I think I'm stuck. I do think I understand what he means about the control system concept, the feedback loop. I do think his example was pretty clear, you know, change a parameter somewhere in that loop and look for what happens, following on that, that tells you you're in the loop and shows you some part of it perhaps. And early on people were saying ok, so we think of something the phenomenon is NOT and treat it like that, like we're changing "our" variable of the loop at least a little. But... how would this be done?

I mean first of all literally, how would it be done.

But secondly, let's just be real vague and say we actually did it and we were actually successful. Then:

1. What is a measure of success? What would happen that would tell us it worked?

2. How would we know whether the reactionary element was from the 'local' control system vs. the whatever-else?

3. Do we know for sure that changing some parameter in how the (Overlords?) interact with us is going to be a positive thing for us instead of the opposite? There is such a thing is out of the frying pan into the fire (not that this would stop me, since I loathe helplessness which is where we are now); and there is such a thing as reaction which just causes more suppression or secrecy or both.

KellyPrettyBear
reply to post by RedCairo

 

If the two agent model is valid, if humans become interested in 'x'
then 'x' appears.. and perhaps not only appears.. but seems to
appear in a slightly more future exciting or advanced form than
can actually exist at the present time (the old oh the military has
tech 50 years in advance idea).

Humans become excited by this display and then interact more
strongly with tricksters using that form. A loop ensues.
A feedback arms race so to speak..

This matches my thinking on the main drive of the system. There has always been this "carrot on a stick" aspect where the visitors either demonstrate or detail aspects of superior technology or higher morals.

My hunch is that one of the parameters being maintained (perhaps the main parameter), is a certain pace of scientific progress. There is also a strong case to be made for spiritual progress being a primary or secondary goal (wow, I sound like a New Ager just putting those words together). Perhaps the two goals reinforce one another.

Or, humans are slightly easier to manipulate, and react with less fear when they get lucid, if you convince them you're a pretty fairy instead of a drooling zombie.

Oops, cynical attack, back to our regular programming.