Letters I

Researchers from many angles provided me a range of questions that helped me "center myself" in whatever it was I believed. Which, of course, promptly demonstrated that I wasn't even sure what I believed. How can one be absolutely certain about anything, when one has almost no tangible proof, nothing measurable, and no conclusions whatsoever to provide certainty?

<<Do the aliens remember from one experience to another?>>

If you mean, do they recognize me from the last time, well, depends on who I'm talking to and why I'm there. I'm often fully aware when around certain of them that I'm there with them a good deal of the time, and yet only clearly remember about one night every 40 or so. In many cases, to be honest, I'm simply not lucid enough, or autonomous enough from their wishes, to be aware of that sort of thing. It really depends on the entity.

<<Do they show intelligent, purposeful behavior? All of them?>>

Intelligent? Yes, it seems to be willfully directed by somebody. Some of them even discuss philosophy, math, multi-dimensional understanding, and of course give constant lectures and lessons on subjects that don't even have words but would definitely be considered advanced. As for "all of them..." well, maybe not. Too many of them I meet in such a different context that they're difficult to assess. The "sweet" ones that I meet, which may be what some call Greys, seem fairly simple mentally, but being telepathic to varying degrees, I'd say they're at least one up on us in some categories. Other entities seem beyond brilliant, like IQ's of 800 or something like that.

But if you mean, do for instance the Greys play chess with me, well no, they don't. Again, different looking entities appear to be as different from each other as they are from us, at least in my experience. And much of what we assign to concepts like "intelligent" are based on our own culture and may not apply to them in the way we think. (Any entity with a couple brain cells might suspect that us killing off our own planet is a sign we are not intelligent.)

We appear, in contrast, to be inordinately obtuse; our lack of ability (at least until somewhat trained) to process information and communication with them, combined with our tendency to be scared by what we don't understand and try to bash it, makes us (in my own opinion) act like cattle in a bad mood. So if we get treated as such — with technology (or something) that tends to keep us, in some experiences, sort of a cross between hypnotized and anesthetized, I can hardly blame them.

In any case, I would have to say that we are not the same at all, but we are at least equal when it comes to 'intelligence,' or if anything, they're some steps up.

<<Are they influenced by the 'Zeitgeist', by our beliefs and expectations?>>

I think, due to the type of communicating, that they are aware of such to some degree. I think, due to the type of psychology we have, that we tend to perceive them as affected by the above. But they may be aware and not care; they may use what we believe as tools for communication with us, like how you might use analogies to football or business with different people.

However, whether or not they for instance will, or will not, insert implants or show us visuals of doom or whatever, may not be affected by our beliefs. I am more likely to think that (a) how we interpret any given thing (or whether we even remember it) is affected by our beliefs; and (b) what/who we encounter in the first place may be affected by our beliefs (i.e., in some metaphysical manner of "tuning into" a certain frequency or vibration to meet them).

<<Are they bent on fooling us?>>

Gods, who knows?! That's one of the big questions. I don't have any fear that certain of them are trying to fool me, or anybody in particular. I do have concerns that much of my experience, thoughts, et al didn't necessarily originate in my own brain, but other abductees of similar background feel just the opposite, so this may be my own paranoia of sorts. (I'm not upset about it, I just consider it now and then.)

But as always, it goes back to "who" we are talking about. The lizards gave me some stupid story about being underground in Egypt. The others never did. Some talk about my personal psyche; some give lectures on what I suppose is a type of physics; and some, frankly, are simply "there" — I'm not important enough even to talk with, they're busy. One entity talks about one thing, in one manner, and others something different. Honestly, there is a whole universe of conceptual exploration, and I don't think any of this can be pulled into one category or explanation. Please understand that anything I ever say on this subject is "general," and should never be considered as applying to every entity in every place from every frame of reference.

<<Do they try to comply with our desires or our fears?>>

Can you be more specific? They do tend to know our fears, and in some cases help us around them, usually by going through them the hard way (which sucks at the time, but seems to help in the long run). Sometimes they use fear to "break" us, psychologically. I think the sleep deprivation symptoms are related to that. It's like being in a cult, very similar; you're sleep deprived until you're not sure of anything, and then you're confronted with your biggest terrors, and pushed until your perception of reality finally breaks and you allow them in. In some cases they seem to know my desires, and may present themselves or some communication in a manner that ties into that.

<<Apart from the prevalent mythology, in the experience of abductees, what do the aliens really seem to want? Invade our world in the small measure they can?>>

You talk as if they just kicked in the door, came over 'here' and grabbed us and are having their way with us. Oh. Wait, I guess that's mostly true, ha! Hmmmn. What I'm having a hard time saying is, I have no sense they are "invasive," despite that. I find them to appear as natural to wherever we are as I am (if not more), and in some cases, they really do appear to have been around longer than we have.

I know I am changing. The changes in me personally, in the last three years, are mind boggling. The entities are definitely involved in this, heavily. Now, I don't ever assume that any entity or species does anything for any reason than because they want to. And I don't ever assume that anybody wants to do anything purely for altruistic reasons. So it's a given with me that they have "their own reasons" for interacting with us, with me. It could be any number of things, and I could speculate but it would be just that -- speculation, based on what seems logical to me, which may have little or no application to the facts.

<<Try to influence us for ill-defined purposes?>>

Ill defined how, and by whose standards? Do you mean "Not clearly defined from a human perspective?" They are, and they do, influence us. The extent of it, and my own participation in it, and how/where/end result, is still in question, but they DO, that's not in question. As to their purposes, I've never talked with whatever their version of the Board of Directors or Generals are (I don't think), and while my contacts with various entities have given me some ideas here and there, most of them are pretty generalized, e.g. along the lines of "evolving you, because we can and we need you to evolve." But you know, the guys leading me around are probably proletarians -- I seriously doubt that whoever makes the decisions for their species is meeting with me, or would tell me the story if they were.

I don't believe anybody has the "whole story," nor do I assume that all entities are working with me for the same goals.

<<Do they act like angels? Or demons?>>

Well, my line that separates angels and demons is pretty thin, and can change colors and direction at any given moment, so this question doesn't have much relevance to me. In recorded history, Angels tend to be pretty scary, tend to show up in visions that are pretty scary, and on the whole are not usually recorded as some sweet guy in a white suit. What many people would initially consider "demons" and terrifying would well match what history has recorded as angels. The word "daemon" last I heard was from the Greek, and it meant "messenger" or some such thing -- no good or bad attached at all. I don't think any of the religious stuff is as cut & dried as any given church would have one think. It's entirely possible they are entities which at some point have been described as one or both; but there are many entities we're talking about, so it's not easy to categorize them. If they have technology we don't and they were "inherently" evil, they could just wipe us out, right? They haven't done that. I think that's worth considering, and wondering why.

<<Do they enjoy sexual intercourse with us?>>

Um. Sensual and intimate are the key words here. There is a tremendous amount of intimacy and sensuality involved in much of this. I don't credit this to any dark desire on their part. Understand that the very difference in communication and "being" (as a verb) makes this different with them. There is an... empathic merging that is difficult to avoid, which is as I said "intimate and sensual," but this doesn't necessarily mean it's fully physical (though it can be, but I think usually only with humans). And mind you, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with gender. It may be sexual for us, because on this plane, sex is how we merge. That doesn't mean that sex as we know it -- most especially the "morals" we assign to the subject -- are the same for them.

Gender and details are irrelevant at that level. I have had "sensually merging experiences" which here on the physical level we would interpret as sexual, with concepts. Things that were not even regular identities, let alone any recognizable form. Talk about a touchy subject -- here we are still arguing about homosexuality on earth, because it seems "different." I assure you it seems so normal I don't even think about it, since I learned to merge with things that weren't even human. I enjoy merging, I'll be honest about that.

Archetype work actually introduced me to that, so by the time this subject cropped up in my life, none of it really phased me. Possibly as a result of this sort of study, practice and experience, my sexuality has pretty much shifted from heterosexual to what is best described as "omnisexual," hahaha! But I think humanity's whole take on sexuality is so messed up that I try to avoid this topic.

<<Are they kind of soulmates of another dimension?>>

Unknown. Not sure I believe in soulmates. I think I do believe in "groupsouls" to a degree though, not because I want to, but because it keeps demonstrating itself.

<<Have they ever talked about their spiritual ideas?>>

Sorry -- I don't know if what we work on together is their spiritual ideas, or what they want to be mine, or what I need to learn so that someday I can learn theirs, or completely unrelated. I strongly suspect that what we call spiritual, they'd call physics.

<<Spirits are usually talkative... Swedenborg was always talking with them. Mr. Monroe received what he called ROTE's, huge gulps of information.>>

Well if you go knock on somebody's door and are standing there expecting conversation, they'll probably say something to you.

<<How are their worlds, their planes of being? Their housing? Do they live in a purely imaginal, astral world? In a quasi-physical habitat?>>

Every entity is different. Every entity is as defined (by us) by our perception as anything. Every place is different. Most places seem physical when there, because we're in an equal state, but may not be really; such a thing may be totally irrelevant. Would a ghost need a house? If you can't feel anything and objects aren't solid, why would you? But maybe some are only not-solid compared to us, and seem so to each other -- so, in fact, they are physical, there, they're just not physical compared to here. But of course, some of these entities are absolutely physical, and so have much in common with us.

Half of your questions cannot be answered well because they are simply "not applicable" to the subject at hand. I don't mean that in an unfriendly manner -- I mean, it's not even just apples and oranges, it's like "Walnuts" vs. "Justice." Not applicable. Some seem to have buildings, or it may be the internals of ships for all I know, of sorts. I've never been in housing, but I've been in rooms, in places physical seeming enough, and similar enough to our own framework, that I'm led to assume such a thing might exist.

<<Are their ships for real or only appearances?>>

At least one ship I encountered fully physically is definitely for real, no doubt. A few other times I've seen them and yet "known" them -- meaning I was wide awake, and yet, since I had a sense of knowing I'm not certain that my perception was not in some altered stated. Another ship I encountered in astral I fully believed to be real when there, and remembered having been there many times (though usually not lucid). I am not 100% certain this is both not-real and not-fake though, that in other words it's "real" and yet may have been "deliberately constructed" for the very purpose of putting us in a certain setting, like a Hollywood set; things may be easier to fabricate in other planes for all I know.

It appears that in some cases with some entities, ships are involved. I encounter them in dreams more often. One ship (different species) I encountered in astral didn't even look much like a ship from the outside, though it was big on the inside, and I don't really know one way or the other if it was purely imaginative, solely in astral, or physically existent yet found via astral (which is what I assumed at the time). Many other entities I've met have never been associated with any craft of any kind.

<<Can our minds be read by them?>>

Communication is in a measure of what we would call mental, so yes, to some degree. If you mean, do they read surface thoughts, maybe, but that requires similar conceptual frameworks. In my opinion, the fragile ones react more strongly to emotions, an empathic sort of state. The big bugs just know, regardless of what state you're in -- they're pretty advanced, and so far are the best at communicating that I've encountered, I mean in terms of using actual words + concepts, and understanding my conceptual realm.

The light guys seem to react to the overall "tone" of thought, as if your thoughts created a chord they could hear and decipher, as if the multi-tone relationships are the same in a way as that geometric language is in mathematical precision. Certain other beings are geometrically precise, or speak in numbers. The blondes, I haven't noted them doing such a thing; a few times I've heard them thinking communication, but not at me, I picked it up via the tall bug things that seem to be around the blondes and fragiles; other times one of the "aspects of me" thinks at me... but he's a different "level" of blonde, different group, he may be slightly different, slightly more psi.

The blondes speak, and some of them perfect English, at that -- giving me the impression they have actually grown up with, or regularly communicate with, humans as we know them. The cat-eyes I never remember a damn thing about except that they're telepathic, I've never heard them speak. Some of the "mythical" type critters don't speak at all, and I don't know that we communicate at all. Usually they just unnerve me. Again, it varies.

In most cases, the entities "link" with my mind, and their communication is translated through me. The effect can be something like words, sometimes very specific words. But the majority of the time it's simply a fast communication that later gets interpreted in words. It's usually a conceptual thought ball, a lot of related thoughts at once, that we translate linearly if we can. (Usually if I translate it in the same manner as they gave it to me, I can't consciously pull it up, because it isn't translatable linearly into language).

It reaches your brain all at once for awhile, and sometimes it can literally take days (or longer) for it all to unroll enough that then you can look back over the course of it and say "this is what happened" or "this is what was communicated."

Please note though, that's communication. There is a state of "knowing" that is absolute and immediate, but that's a personal perception thing -- not the communication of the entities, though it's possible the entities can invoke that state of perception in us.

It's possible that some entities are better at this sort of communication than others, or that some humans are better at interpreting it.

<<Can abductions be resisted or called for?>>

Yes, and yes. With a lot of "depends" and caveats. Resisted requires measures I'm not sure I'm willing to take (there are people who work from this angle, and they seem like raving lunatics... they don't sleep during night hours, surround their rooms with electrical cables and all sorts of other weird stuff). Called for: well, you can tune yourself to communicate with them, which can likely invoke it. However, if you call for it, you can hardly call it an abduction. And I don't know that I could predict it, like call them to come pick me up in 30 minutes. And I don't know that I could call for a physical (vs. "astral") meeting.

<<How strong can bonding be?>>

What kind of bonding? Human-other? You mean, on the paranoid angle, strong enough for a person to sell out humanity in exchange for their love and teaching? Maybe. Strong enough to miss them when they're gone? Definitely. Strong enough to fall in love with them? Some of them that are more human than others, yeah. One of the big issues with entities and many aliens is that they (and you, in that state) are highly telepathic, and it creates a "feeling of family," a deep intimacy unlike anything we know of in this realm. That tends to influence many people to identify more with other creatures with this ability than with their own species without it.

<<Do they induce paranormal, spiritual or mystical experiences?>>

I'd say they are those experiences. The continuum of consciousness appears to develop across the board, at least in me. I doubt the entities are causing the other things in me; I doubt the other things are causing the entities; I'm more inclined to think they are a simultaneous development. As a result, I've come to the place where I don't separate them much, at least in importance: Egyptian gods, mythical beasts, aliens in craft, various abduction type experiences, not to mention the variety of astral realities, alternate realities, and such -- to me, it's all one tree. (I'm just trying to figure out which one's the forbidden fruit, haha!)

<<A dialogue with the aliens, an interchange of experiences with them can purposely be undertaken or achieved?>>

Well, yes and no... I've shared thoughts and emotions with them, and they with me. But if you mean, have I gotten the lotto numbers, or for that matter even a logical answer, not even close. (Well they try, but it seldom works. Certain entities give me, as answers, numbers, and I don't know how to interpret them.)

They are so conceptually different that most of this doesn't apply. Understand that to put something across to them clearly is itself enough of a project that I'm not wasting my time on anything but very serious concerns to me; even then, the info has to be translated into a form that will work for both me and them.

Most people forget that language isn't about words, it's about concepts, and that requires a tremendous amount of cultural norms. It's noticeable even in languages as we know them, so imagine how much more difficult it is with entities whose entire 'reality' may be dramatically different. The "language" of emotion, thought forms, and intense focus by them tends to induce a certain framework of experience, type of communication, and state of mind, of which normal conversation has little if any part (and seldom from my end).

<<Can the appearance of the entities be changed? It is reported that in the afterlife (?) one can choose at will the physical looks and even the clothing? Can aliens do the same?>>

Some people think these entities are all the same thing, who change based on what's in our head. Except at a very deep metaphysical level (in which the same would apply to all things, including humans and rocks), I don't really hold that view. I don't disagree, I just don't have reason to agree. I think, again, it depends on the entity and depends on "where" you are in your perception. (His realm? Your living room? In between? Are you physical? Astral? Dreaming? All these things may matter.)

Some of the more commonly known entities are, in my opinion, quite physical, merely living "somewhere else." Somewhere close; I've seriously wondered if the greys/bugs/blondes group are responsible for the anomalies on the Moon and such. In those cases, I don't think they can do much changing. I think they can affect our mind, whether it's some kind of technology or mental technique I'm not sure, but I don't think they physically change, though we may think they do. I try to keep in mind that just because they have technology beyond ours doesn't mean they're gods. I don't assume they can do everything.

<<Do the aliens have the capability of meeting our dead? Are they perhaps our dead?>>

Interesting idea. I don't have any reason to believe they would be "our dead." I do have reason to believe that our consciousness would be linked, and that if we encounter "our dead" it may be in a framework similar to that of the entities, which may make us assume they're related. This may also indicate an ability of the two groups to communicate with each other. I think we have the ability to communicate too, we just don't know it, or use it.

<<Can human beings be possessed by aliens?>>

Ask a walk in. Ha. No really -- can they? It's something I've pondered myself. I'm more likely to think we may be the same thing. I don't mean we're imagining them, I mean it's not impossible that they are "other aspects of our consciousness" or something. One thing -- viewed from different places -- can seem to be totally different things. That's why I think "where" the meeting takes place is important, because I feel that both manifestation and perception may be as affected by that as anything else. I do think, absolutely, that they are able to affect me mentally. Whether or not they can or will do so while I'm "wide awake in the normal world" is another story. Whether or not I would know or remember, I'm unsure.

<<Do they induce in us states of MPD?>>

Multiple personality disorder? I don't know. The majority of literature I've read on that subject has, as all personalities, humans. I've always been more inclined to say that serious abuse of children at a young age can simply either affect their ability to focus in reality (as they escape, dissociation), or cause them (as an adaptation development) to "open up" their perception or consciousness, in particular to anything which might be protective, such as psi or future data, or personalities which may be floating around, so to speak -- as a survival instinct. In other words, I've never been sure if it's an extreme state of getting in touch with one's "components," or outright possession, if that exists.

I've read numerous accounts of people who've changed eye color, vision ability, moved in and out of blood diseases, knew or didn't know certain languages, and other details that make the MPD field one of the most incredible anomalies of current times that we can physically study. But few MPD cases (if any) that I've read about involve "aliens." Usually those types are in the schizophrenic field, a whole 'nuther banana.

<<Ancient authors on spiritual disciplines were well aware of the fact that demons and devils could impersonate anybody. Same with aliens.>>

Most 'ancient authors' I've encountered managed to drag every aspect of experience into one pool and label it "angel" or "demon," in which case, of course they were said to "impersonate anybody." It's a great way to invalidate anything, most especially anything that contradicts the beliefs of the author and/or establishment. (Besides, everybody's a demon in history except Those Who Lived To Write The Books.)

I fail to see why aliens are an assumption tied to this. I don't buy anything I've heard or read on this level, for the sole fact that humanity has been under the controlling influence of "experts" and "religious leaders" et al for so long that I think all interpretations should be thrown out the window and we should start again, from a perspective of relying on experience to find what's what, instead of superstition (including modern science on this particular subject, which I consider a limiting belief system verging on severe superstition) and others "telling us so."

I'll not class something as good or bad for any reason beyond my own experience (and even that I question). I refuse to be further hindered by the assumptions and limits of my society, let alone the Church, let alone "history" which in many respects is merely a written testimony of the slavish control those two have imposed upon men's minds and lives.

Lastly, I think assuming that Aliens are Demons and/or are just the same is, in fact, a big assumption. That they seem to have much in common with what some people have called demons -- or gods for that matter! -- goes without saying of course. However, I feel that entire mindset is limiting, invokes a paradigm which has already done way too much damage to people in ANY realm, and I simply refuse to be part of it.

I often say openly that I suspect they're "astral entities" just like those who've been playing with people for eons. I did not mean to infer that they all are. Only that I experience a wide range of contact, and often feel this is so. But not all. And that does not invalidate them, or make them less real, and it doesn't invalidate any other species by inference.

I am forced by experience to take them literally. Living in another 'plane' or 'frequency' is to me not much different than someone living in another country. I don't have any inherent prejudices or assumptions about them. What few I held were obliterated early on in this process, and revealed to be more a matter of my cultural superstitions and personal psychological weaknesses, and not necessarily anything to do with their inherent "Is-ness," whatever that may be. Eventually when I got rid of most of the garbage and assumptions I began to feel I was getting a clearer sense of things. Until then I was nothing but confused and scared. I'm still not fully clear on things, and still a bit confused and scared, but I feel better than I did early on.

I guess you can tell that invoking the D-word ticked me off? As you can guess, it's not the first time I've had this subject tossed in my lap. It's a real dilemma, because on one hand I'm trying to tell people look, it's often astral, don't take it SO seriously and be sure to recognize your own creative aspects in this... and on the other I'm saying no, they're separate and autonomous and physical and... don't turn your back. I contradict myself regularly. Our words and our culture make it an either/or thing, and what I'm trying to express is right in the middle, on the borderline of being both and neither, so pardon me if I sound contradictory; it's not ambivalence (though a little is) so much as a lack of ability to express it properly.

<<As long as we keep control, the phenomenon is just amusing or interesting. But if we lose control, that is, if things start happening with a kind of volition of their own, they can be very unsettling and fearsome. In that case, better get prepared for battle.>>

I don't think we're consciously in control. I think things do happen with a volition of their own -- they are autonomous identities. Unsettling and fearsome doesn't make them bad -- that describes our reaction, not their inherent selves. As for battle, I just keep in mind that things bear out their true nature eventually. As we get closer to the perception of these so-called 'aliens,' we may understand them more, which of course may make us feel better -- or much worse!

I tend to believe that we'll all use this doorway of creativity, as you so insightfully pointed out it is. Some choose of them masters; others choose demons; others choose elementals; to others, as a friend says, "they's just folks." I don't think they will change, but our perception of them -- which in some ways amounts to the same thing for us -- will.

<<Aliens may be impersonating anything and anybody, for dark, convoluted purposes or just for fun. They may be impersonating other abductees, MIBs, the military, researchers, everyone.>>

Well... nothing's impossible. They could be.

There are two areas to address here: astral and physical.

In the physical we're so used to being obtuse outside of what we see and hear that we think disguising oneself is an easy game we play all the time. I mean the people we vote into political office ought to be a good example of how limited our perception tends to be, and how we take everything at face value, and frankly, ignore the obvious to the point where one is forced to wonder about the average intelligence of our species.

But on other levels of communication, the distinctive recognition of any given thing (let alone entity) is unmistakable. Once I've met an entity, I have always recognized it, even when I couldn't see it, even when it looked different. In the "astral," the energy of a given identity is pretty much an Absolute, regardless of its shape.

Now if they're in the physical, then it simply doesn't make any difference whether they're changing shape or whether they're really the thing they'd pretend to be -- the result is the same, and they'd have to be taken as seriously as if it were the same. I mean, MIBS telling someone to shut up or else vs. Aliens pretending to be MIBS telling someone to shut up or else doesn't seem like much difference to me! Either way, if they're at the front door in a cheap suit with a gun in a shoulder harness and a bad attitude, I'm not going to sit around philosophizing about how they're really aliens who can fool me. If they're standing at my door, they've fooled me already, and I'd be willing to bet their tactics of shutting a person up would fool me too. The end result is all that matters, in that case.

But as for impersonation: I have encountered entities who are absolutely human looking (some merely look human; others are human), and I doubt the other entities could physically fool us while in our physical. In their "place," where perception is a bit different, maybe; I doubt they could morph right here. But that's my own paradigm: objectively I believe it possible. I think I don't like the idea of them being able to do so. I may be biased. Anyway, so that pretty much limits the possible suspects for such a thing to humans, similar humanoids with alterations, and hybrids with a high percentage of human.

<<In this imaginal or archetypal or psychic world the truth and the lies are not so far apart. It is like in the Internet or in any network. I can assume any personality I want.>>

Two subjects here. First, I'm not sure what you mean by imaginal, I'm not familiar with that word, and I don't consider it merely an archetypal world, except at a deep level where everything is; it's important to me that in discussion, the literal physical-ness of these critters not be forgotten in abstract theory. I began in archetype work, so obviously I link the subjects, but I would say our interpretation of 'archetype' is surely limited. It may be heavily interactive with our imagination, and may be part of humanity's archetypes, and may even be composed, to a great degree, of humanity itself. But this doesn't make me consider it non-autonomous (or non-physical at times).

As for personal appearance or presentation, I don't know. I've given this a lot of thought. I've come to the tentative conclusions that a) there do appear to be certain "species" that are recognized by many people, unrelated, even certain specific identities that are; b) they do appear to share a personality profile, and sometimes communications, that makes the similar accounts of them believable; c) it is not impossible that when in "realms other than what we know as 3D physical," the entities are malleable and for whatever reason have "taken that form;" and d) It is not impossible that the form they take is based on what we want or expect.

However, given A and B, I would be forced to assume that when one encounters Joe Doon in a given form, one can logically make an assumption about the behavior/personality of that form, and of the conditions of the environment that form is found in. Regardless of why he's in that form, or how he got there, if a certain form indicates a certain behavior, it doesn't make any difference whether they change forms or not. If they're as predictable (or more so) than we are when recognized in a certain form, then the form can be taken at face value. In other words, a grey is a grey. Who cares what he was 10 minutes before: if he's a grey when you see him, you can bet he'll act like one.

I can support the idea that some of them in certain conditions have the ability to change form (or to make one believe they have, same result); but I cannot support the idea that everything we see is merely one creative group of entities shape changing. Nope. Not in the physical as well as the astral, I just don't buy that. My experience just flat out doesn't tell me that. I did consider it and ponder it at length early on, but I was brought back to believing my initial conclusion, which is that they really are separate, although that word loses some definition as you travel inward.

<<they are not as good at distinguishing between thoughts and reality as we are.>>

I don't think there's a big difference -- I'd be inclined to say that we're just not as good at interpreting how merged they are. The separation of thought vs. reality is, in my opinion, our blindness condition. Besides, "reality" changes -- what you consider reality means little when viewing things from their perspective.

<<Apart from the psychological harm they may inflict on individuals (especially on people who have not had previous psychic experiences), aliens do not seem to be dangerous.>>

Thus far, I'd have to agree. Except I'd take exception with the psychic part; they may usually be on "psychic" realms, but not always. Showing up in one's living room makes them seem a bit more dangerous than "floating about in the ether," trust me.

<<They may not invade Papua-New Guinea or the USA, they are in no position to promote NWO, they won't make deals with the military.>>

I have nothing to indicate to me those things are impossible. I'm not paranoid, but I wouldn't put it past them if they had the inclination.

<<In my opinion they are beings of a nearby plane, who can briefly visit ours, as we can briefly visit theirs. These visits require the assumption of some denser substance on their part; we, on the contrary, can only visit them if we assume a lighter substance, like the 'astral' bodies detached in OBEs. All this seems inoffensive enough, because neither they nor we can stay long in each other's place.>>

Well first off, by that theory hybrids might have long term abilities in both. But some of these folks are human, or close enough to it, and could indeed live here. And technology may enable the visits either direction to be long term. I think there may be more to it though. I feel the difference between being in one "plane" or another is less about mere 'substance' and more about perception -- which may determine substance, but is the first requirement.

But perception can be trained to be open to a density-level (or as I say, a frequency band) other than the one that a person is physically standing in. Otherwise we wouldn't see ghosts unless people became ghosts, or unless ghosts became physical. While both may be possible, I'm tempted to say that a person's perception altered enough to allow them to see something not in this "plane," or not fully, anyway; that's why only some people see them. Were the ghost physical, everyone would see them; were the person ghostly, the people they were with wouldn't see them. I know entities/ghosts are relegated to the "far out" category by most people, but that's just superstition and nonsense. They're familiar enough to a large enough group of people, throughout history, that it shouldn't be such a big question anymore.

Anyway, one of the problems is that getting this perception tuned to the frequency aligned with where they're vibrating invariably makes us vibrate there (another way of getting what we focus on), which means it's pretty difficult to have a conversation with an astral entity while you're driving down the road. Not impossible mind you, but when it's done that way (when our 'attention' is fully in the physical for the most part) it's a different level of contact.

The direct contact changes me. The first response is usually feeling like throwing up. It has serious effects on the body, not to mention the mind. I'm not sure if this is the vibration that accompanies it, or the entities themselves. I don't know if the vibration is them, or technology. But as for learning to focus into them, it is possible. I really believe that one could be trained to deal with it. I sometimes think that's what they're doing with us.

<<Are there other dimensions in which they can be a nuisance or dangerous?>>

I think they can be here. The potential effects of anything from their encounters to hybrids, though, should there be such a thing, is worth keeping in mind, as is their apparent ability to, shall we say, provide us ideas and thoughts we may think are our own. I don't fear them or even suspect them of negatives, but I would hesitate, out of common sense, to simply assume they were harmless. And even if they were, if I kill myself because thanks to them I thought I was crazy, that's still indirect harm, yes? And we can't forget our history, either; some groups of entities, and I remain uncertain which ones, appear to exist, and have demonstrated a merciless lack of goodwill. Every time I get going on the Higher Evolution aspect of this subject, I try to keep that little detail in mind.


I think you have a good point about this new field of 'abduction' actually opening up a tremendous creative spout in humanity overall and allowing us to see and experience a number of things through it. We've definitely been repressed in many areas, and regardless of the paradigm that the creativity is flowing through, at least it has an outlet.

<<Of course, there have always been people with the capacity to see, but they had to negate their visions or classify them into the dual categories of angel or demons. And, up to the eighteenth century, it was very 'dangerous'.

I'm not 100% certain that it's not today. I mean, nobody I know has ever died (except once in a dream), or even been "grievously" injured. When I saw that movie "Fire in the Sky" I was upset for a month just by the idea of a corpse... because thus far, while there'd been some weird stuff, scary stuff and even painful stuff, there has never been physical death. (There have, however, been "mushy bodies" -- my own -- a form of transport in that soft thin blue gel, like not fully physical. Like how water is mass but you can put your hand through it... but thicker. Perhaps that was misinterpreted in the movie, who knows.)

There have been many times I've felt I barely escaped with my life, and/or sanity, however. I don't know how much of that is merely my fear or perception, but I don't want to test it out to be sure. I'm wary.

I get the impression from some of your writing that you've categorized these folks neatly into the astral realm. While I myself have said that more than once, and so obviously agree at least in some cases, still I think it's important that people do not get misled by this classification: They have the ability to become 100% physical, and they do!

They appear to be autonomous, don't let that get forgotten. I have a very positive outlook toward all this, but I feel it would be unfair of me to carry my emotional interpretation into any kind of logical assumption. I have experienced that they are astral and they are physical; they are benevolent and they are ruthless; they are autonomous and they are influenced by us. I'm optimistic enough to work with them openly, to allow myself to be influenced by them, for the sake of learning. But I'm pessimistic enough that I wouldn't give over my kids to them, and I don't trust them, because I don't fully understand them. I feel we may merely be pawns. That I may learn from this experience makes it ok for me. That doesn't mean I want to give over my own people to that status.

While our conceptual framework may be very different, we'd be fools to ignore our own experience with things. What happens to property, land, personal rights, and even life, when one sentient species "here" considers another inferior? Well, they consider us inferior, so think about it. (Only the blondes are arrogant about it. The bugs and lizards do too, but they respond differently. They're not insecure, they don't need to be jerks.) This alone, this attitude, makes me nervous and distrustful.

The sweet fragile ones don't act like that. They seem much more equal to humans, even if more wonderfully empathic than we are. I trust the intentions of the fragile ones; I've never had the feeling they wanted to hurt me, and in fact they seem distressed if the subject comes up. The tall bug things seem so intelligent they're actually a little bit above that sort of thing. They'd do what was necessary, but they wouldn't hurt anybody for fun. The blondes might, just out of that infamous human arrogance and disregard for other life that we see in our own species. They're human, if of a somewhat different makeup, so that may be why we have much in common.

I don't know where the line is that divides these things, or explains these things. But the data I have right now, from all angles, tells me that I should avoid making decisions until I have more data. I'm the first to dislike the polarity of the good/evil scenario, and am pretty Thelemic about that all in all. But that does not rule out the option of many different species all with their own intents and purposes, some of which may not be liked by us.

I think we're still in the midst of the good-evil war we've been using since Day 1, what with Greys supposedly being drones doing nasty genetic stuff, yet then people are talking about spiritual awakening and bonding with them, and on one hand the 'aliens' are so superior, on another, just the bad guys; on one, just normal folks from another dimension, just different, and on another the Fallen Angels from this one....

Each individual has the right to make up their own mind, of course, and emotionally I have only positive associations with my learning, but I'm also easiest to influence on the emotional level from their end. I've seen it happen enough with me to not fully trust that aspect of me, or at least, to not ignore my intellectual component which isn't as influenceable, and which basically says that I don't have enough data to reach any conclusion about their intent.

As for the general opening of personal abilities and experience and creativity, though, you're right: they're all linked with me, and I think our culture with its dead gods is in need of an outlet. This one will work just as well as any other I suppose.

<<What is the strongest case that can be made for the hallucination hypothesis?>>

Individual beliefs, perceptions, expectations, and fears strongly influence many abduction and/or "other" experiences. As the most extreme example, I was once convinced I met a certain group of entities -- immediately after having heard about them. I think the effect of one's psychology can't be overlooked if we ever want to figure this out. I may be schizo, ok, or maybe the mind is involved, but more along the lines of "tuning us" to a specific frequency?

Few people seem to be either brave enough or logical enough to put all evidence they have forth, because everybody's afraid of being invalidated or crazy. I, however, decided early into all this that I am crazy, and am ok with it as long as it doesn't screw up my ability to make a living. I've seen people's encounter stories change rapidly, like within minutes, based on their own expectations and/or those of their "abduction group." I don't think they're lying; I think like an abstract dream, any personal bias at all warps recall. I think it's extremely difficult for objective psychological researchers to get much of a 'true story' out of things, at least in the interpretive aspect of it. So I've gone out of my way to provide myself a framework where I have no need to prove anything, to experience one thing over another. It's all equally interesting.

On the other hand, I've met entities, and seen environment detail, that years later I then heard about the same critters and the details elsewhere -- tremendously validating to me, as I hadn't heard about them before I experienced it. (And, having been in deliberate denial of this subject my whole life, I've missed stories "everybody knows" and so regularly come up with things that I think are novel that are boring to everybody else. But I didn't know about it before it happened to me.)

Any halfway rational 'contactee' (I hate all the terms for this stuff) admits that their own psychology plays a part in all this. Problem is, it's so common for people not going through it to write the experiences off as "merely dreams" or imagination, that there's a near-paranoia about that opinion with folks going through it. So the sensitivity to people indicating it's being created by one's own psychology is overwrought. (Understandably.)

And of course, there's that little matter that most people are somewhat oblivious to their real psychology, and so even if it were entirely self-created they might not recognize they had anything to do with it. Getting people to take responsibility for themselves even on the physical realm is difficult, and there the cause-effect is so much more obvious!

<<What evidence argues against such a hypothesis?

(a) Similar 'encounters' all over the world, throughout time, even down to tiny details, with people who have not been influenced by each other.

(b) An occasional lack of anything interesting in the experiences and/or 'aliens.' "Just folks," in some cases; not like it's a big "experience where they took my Eggs" or something, but like you just happened to be hanging around a place that just happens to be different from this one. More like a place, an alternate reality of sorts, then a you-specific-focus. This combined with the constant repetition eventually leads me to conclude that it hardly matters; if they're as regular as my boss is, they're part of my reality.

Even "teaching," although it's often one on one (in my case it's often like a projector screen with a narrator, though it varies), often has a "classroom" tone, where it's not, again, that I'm the center of attention, or even that I'm noticed -- I just happen to be there.

(c) A personality profile of certain 'aliens' that doesn't seem to match what we would expect from planetary or even cultural archetypes. For example, the angelic blonde guys are, usually, a pain in the ass. They're a bit more developed it seems, but in other ways not; they're easily violent and tend to pound you if you get out of line. At least that's my experience with them, and I didn't expect that. While this could be stretched and said to relate to something like the 'Aryanism' of the Nazi party, generally I think most people, at least in the mostly-white countries, have a positive emotional association with something beautiful and blue eyed. The fact that note (a) applies here is worth considering as well.

(d) Physical results. Implants, in particular. I was even seriously injured by a misplaced implant (in my knee); then it was pretty difficult to pretend it wasn't "real" and all my "What a groovy metaphysical experience" reassurance went out the window. Moreover, since they eventually came back and fixed me, and were fully physical and yet completely invisible, my body is absolutely convinced they're real. My eyes couldn't see them, but there are a lot of perceptions besides visual that are just as relevant to reality. I don't necessarily see wind or temperature either, but that doesn't make them my imagination.

(e) Results seem to override beliefs. For example, since I was convinced for a long time they were 'entities' and I had no UFO type stigma attached to the experience, I liked them. I figured they were some kind of evolved master or whatever on some other plane and were coming to educate me. Gosh, how considerate. (Belief in Evolved Masters was a new belief too, but was easier for me than aliens.)

And yet, a few times when I forced myself to stay awake long enough (I would just fall into a stupor; I had to train myself to fight it) that them coming could be heard by my body and not just sensed in my mind, my entire body reacted with stark terror, with life-or-death survival instincts, with immobilizing fear. And yet, even during this, my conscious mind was thinking, "What's wrong? This is a good thing! Why should I be scared?!" I knew that my body (or my subconscious) was scared -- not the rest of me. My emotions and mind weren't scared, my body was, although that doesn't seem to make sense objectively.

I did not have this the first few times I met them, which led me to believe that there is something in those experiences that developed the emotion. (As time went on, specifically after I was thoroughly implanted, any need to show up physically pretty much went away. Now they just drag me out of my body astrally -- usually... or I "bi-locate"... I'm still confused, to be honest.)

<<All electromagnetic spectrum phenomena (energy) has a wave-like character which is discernable given the right kind of experiment is carried out. ... They do not interact with matter such as your body to any appreciable extent...>>

Well, you are quoting science as it is known and previously published. So you're correct, by definition. But I feel that we're talking about something not fully understood yet, and anyway, I feel that science saying "this doesn't really affect your body..." is laughable, since in my own opinion, science is completely oblivious to anything but the overtly biological, and in my experience there is much more. Besides, even in the 'overtly biological' category, science can't figure out what does, or does not, cause cancer et al, and the studies demonstrating that things do, or do not, conveniently tend to match the interests of the research funding party. I don't think science even has this reality down very well yet, so I'm not inclined to trust the field's "opinion" over my own personal experience when it comes to things they have not studied, and don't even have the tools for doing so.

<<all of these aspects indicate that individuals experienced a significant change in consciousness.>>

That's one way of putting it. I suspect many of the difficulties and confusions and amnesias are more a matter of attempting to translate something non-translatable than anything else. (Some of the amnesias, though, seem to be deliberately induced by the folks one 'encounters' which is another topic.)

<<The observation that the incidence of reported abuse among a sample of abductees is twice the suggested incidence in the normal population also suggests susceptibility to disassociation. Similarities with lucid dreaming, the near-death-experience and temporal lobe epileptic aura experiences are also apparent. >>

Sounds right to me. Perhaps abuse in childhood simply provokes certain developments, including a need to be able to communicate on levels other than purely physical, if for nothing else than self defense. Sort of a necessary measure of human adaptability, if you will. If I can "sense" a mood in somebody, or something about to happen, I'm that much more safe. I believe extensive lucid dreaming and other such things are also more common, perhaps for the same reasons. By this perspective it would actually be logical to assume that people with abuse in their history would be more inclined to these experiences. That doesn't make the experiences less valid, it merely makes some people more inclined to encounter them, by their very nature.

It's also possible that instead of psychology explaining the 'alien abduction' symptom, perhaps the symptom explains the psychology. In other words, encountering 'aliens' as a child may have made certain aspects of my consciousness more easily accessed.

The fact is that we are grounded in a certain 'reality' and view of it. Sanity is a relative term based on society. 1000 Years ago a disbelief in God and Witches would have been insanely dissasociative; today a belief in them is questioned. Used to be you could discuss ghosts with a straight face; nowadays you're a 'loon. I keep in mind Zenon paradoxes, I think someone once called them, where the experts in math can "prove" that it's impossible to catch a ball, for an arrow to reach its target, and other such things. Those ought to be a clue that our expert opinions and valid mathematical theories often mean little to the operational parameters of reality.

Sanity is based on perception. If I perceive that the sky is blue and the room is empty, and you think it's green and there are flowers falling from the ceiling, I think you're insane. But if everyone agrees with you, it's me who's nuts. Some doctor would test to find the part of my brain that blocks out flowers I suppose. However, given the levels of consciousness that for instance hallucinogenic drugs can example (I don't consider that an invalid experience; and many chemicals can be found in our own brain, so it's not really artificial), I see no reason to conclude that there is only one possible "perception" available that deserves the "real" label.

Letters II

I had a brief foray into a computer forum related to UFO's in August of '94, and then a great deal of correspondence in November of that year. I told some of my stories, talked about my feelings and my impressions. For the most part, at least initially, the people I met were welcoming and non-judgmental about it. It's obvious that all these things come off as crazy; I don't really need reminding, and most of the folks didn't feel obliged to do so.

Some of them had been studying this subject for years, and were remarkably well read, rational, and excellent to talk with.

I thought I'd copy you some of the letters. Most of these are from late '94 to '95. They discuss various aspects of communication about the subject, and the subject itself. I thought some of the questions were very good ones.


One of the most fascinating aspects of "abduction," next to the psychology of those getting abducted, is the psychology of those seriously studying the subject. As I hung around the forum, eventually I was exposed to the turnover of people who came into the forum (it's kind of like a social club), and went through their own development on the subject.

The one notable feature of any person who was willing to study the subject -- by this I mean read every book available, from every perspective, that they could lay their hands on, talk at length with people on both sides of the debate, et al, and really use their brain to crash belief systems -- is that they became believers. I think this says something about the subject itself, that even brilliant, educated, scientific, skeptical types were finally forced to conclude that something was going on, and while the details may not be clear, and the meaning muddier still, the outline is quite apparent.

It was fascinating to watch. There was a profile of behavior that accompanied these people, as they studied more and more of the subject. They would go through these cycles of anger and sarcasm, and then they'd get more rational and objective again, and then they'd get interested and more open minded in their interest, and following on the heels of the open minded stage would come another bout of frustrated anger and sarcasm... and so on.

When the reality of all this finally broke through to people -- when their belief systems made the final move to change -- they "hit the wall" as I call it, psychologically, with an intense fear that every person going through "contact" recognizes well. It's that "Oh my god, it's REAL!" terror that finally sinks in. The other option is that they would just drop out of the subject altogether, as if none of it -- their interest or study -- ever happened. Some go straight into denial, and the others go straight into fear. The fear passes, if the person is strong enough psychologically to be able to deal with it.

The result in a group, however, is that at any given time there are at least a dozen people in varying degrees of that anger phase who have nothing better to do with their time and energy than hassle people talking about contact. It's this almost evangelistic trait, disguised as "skepticism," which some obtuse folks think is the equivalent of "objective" (it's obviously not). When it comes to this UFO business, it plays on so much religion and science, and is so challenging to many people's whole picture of reality that they're irrationally attacking. In the more extreme cases, you'd think their entire reason for living were to convince other people they are wrong, stupid, evil, lying, crazy, or whatever the case may be.

In many cases they obviously have contact with this field as well, that they're not consciously aware of; I've seen it enough to begin to recognize it. Like some wanna-be Atheist, they say they don't believe in the subject -- but they spend all their time talking about it. It got frustrating for me.

[Letter to D.M.] You know, I am so damn tired of having to "prove" anything over and over again I could throw up. Can't even have a conversation without 500 caveats addressing every issue, from theology to metaphysics to science, just to insure the people I'm talking to don't think I'm a moron. It's annoying, this having to be so concerned that what seems "valid" to me will be invalidated by others, because one time somebody else saw Venus and was clueless. I have personal experiences at a considerably closer range; I'm not in doubt.

I respect the search for "truth." But I think that gets a bit skewed when you drag consciousness into things, since "truth" as we know it tends to rely on logic, which tends to be linear, which much of this experience is assuredly not. I suppose the only way to support recognition of literal experience is to be willing to point out fakes when they roll around. But who's to say? How can I know?

And it annoys me that the "flaps" of momentary popularity, no matter how ridiculous they are, are taken as a measure of what all people going through this stuff are claiming. Sometimes it's outright embarrassing.

[Letter to S.D2] It isn't being objective or even skeptical that I mind. Thing is, there is no point in arguing with tales of the experience. You can ask about it, about things that relate to it, and bring up all the contradictions, inconsistencies, and alternatives you want. That's great.

But there is no point to debating it, or "debunking" it, because it's not right or wrong. It's not an objective noun, a literal black/white, a yes/no subject. This isn't the same for everyone, and even if it were there's still no standard of what IS real. It isn't one of those things that a weather balloon can clear up in an afternoon. The fact that anybody has been diagnosed with some long medical label because they saw a non-human entity does not prove that my seeing a non-human entity means I am merely delusional. As for proof, absence of evidence is not proof that something doesn't exist, of course.

...I'm not an evangelist. I don't want or need to convince anybody. I just want to be able to discuss it with reasonable people and those who are curious without being attacked by those who obviously have some personal issues with this subject. I learn about myself in the process of communicating. But having to explain myself personally first, like some kind of job resume of "do I have enough college degrees to indicate I have a brain," is like having to apologize for being a certain race before beginning every conversation -- it isn't logical, and determining someone's internal qualifications based solely on whether they majored in science is ridiculous.'s infuriating to me personally that many people have such assumptions about the inherent intelligence of anybody who claims contact. When people post, or talk, to contactees as if they're slightly irrational children, who really ought to be educated out of believing their invisible friend is real, it does bring out some personal reaction in me -- mainly an urge to kick them in the shins for being not only ignorant, but rude.

It is rare enough to get people who have brains to talk about the subject of abduction or communication at all. But then they have to be thicker skinned than an armadillo to boot, to keep from losing their temper over the attitudes people take toward them and their data, for no reason whatsoever except their own issues. ...

It's a never ending saga of a terminally touchy subject. It's intertwined with psychology, sanity, and personal credibility, and many folks, especially those who are intelligent and accomplished in many areas of life, don't have the patience to bother trying to "re-prove" themselves to people they don't know anyway. Over and over. And over. Discussion is one thing. Self-Defense is another. M. shouldn't have to drag out her impressive string of business, scientific, artistic, literary and computer credentials to demonstrate her intelligence and rational thinking. Talking to her ought to make it obvious. It's the subject that brings it into question for you -- and that's your assumption, and limitation, not hers.

...If you wish this proof, it's up to you to do the research -- it's not up to me to convince you. I'm happy to answer questions with an almost painful honesty, even when it makes me look ridiculous or it's personal, sexual, or concerning insanity -- solely because I want to further the research in this field. I am not, however, willing to talk with anybody who treats me like I'm an idiot. Were we to meet in any circumstance but around this subject, my rational intelligence would be obvious. I'm not willing to beg anybody to treat me like an equal. Either learn some diplomacy, or consider studying a field that uses lab rats instead of people as subjects.

As for quoting old textbooks at me, the lab rules of the current Science Gods have no bearing on personal consciousness. The paradigm of what fits, what works, what is or isn't possible, what is ridiculous or irrational -- this is based on a mode of thinking that is not, at this point in our development, applicable to the abduction field. Besides, science has already run over half the scientists in the world who will still argue repeatable, provable quantum physics experiments as if they never happened.

...The experiences alone are enough to try one's patience, to understate it by light years, and one's sanity, to be more accurate. I guess it just doesn't take much, on top of that, to strike a nerve.

[Letter to E.J.]

<<I'm just wondering what kind of proof it will take to make the general public believe that abductions are real? And should we really try? Or maybe just let them come to their own conclusions?>>

There are a lot of people I know, some scientists and some who've merely studied physics, who will rant, rave, and stomp about "facts" in a textbook making things impossible that in fact, quantum physics has brought up, and years ago and with much publication no less. I'm beginning to think even facts don't have a lot to do with getting a person unready for certain information to absorb it.

It seems to me the only thing that has ever really swayed mankind as a group has been falsified religious garbage. Maybe that's why "aliens" come as "secrets of the night" instead of governmental or scientific ambassadors.

One of my favorite skeptics was a guy named J.R., who was so witty and obviously intelligent you couldn't help but like him. When I began sharing my stories, I addressed most of them directly to him, just for the heck of it, since he was the big skeptic at that time. His profile of growth came to be recognizable in others as time went on, and it helped me be much more relaxed around people that followed this profile later on, as I recognized it for what it was. I developed a little more patience with the emotional swings and pointed anger (usually taken out on people claiming contact) that even the most rational and logical researchers went through on the subject.

[Letter to P.P.] I remain (as ever) convinced that the psychological profile of people delving into this subject is as interesting as the subject itself. The strength and bruising of people's response measures the strength of the emotional impact of their denial, and often fear.

That's one thing that having been online for quite awhile has given me that people just can't see from a brief time reading the boards. The personal evolution of folks. It's unfortunate that this subject tends to take creative, insightful, logical people and invoke the worst possible traits in them, which doesn't diminish the former but sure does dim one's awareness of it.

Lately H. has been getting reamed for his behavior over the past months (now see, if y'all had reamed him properly earlier it wouldn't have come to this!), and that's ok.

But it's so familiar, isn't it? Eventually it passes, and the person either falls out of the field and has zip to do with it, or the denial breaks and they freak out for awhile, but eventually settle down and integrate it. It takes some people longer than others. The only real question is whether or not the folks around them can stand them until they get to that point. It's really a psychological version of "the terrible two's," where someone has to undergo a major adjustment in psychology that leaves them kicking and screaming (the ever-unasked for "mine!" changes to "my opinion!"), except in adults it's even more annoying.

I guess I don't see H. as much different than many people here have been in the past. As far as attitude goes, the only difference I see is that now most people around here who began as sarcastically skeptical have already waded through their own issues and gotten to a point of some acceptance. H. went into that phase late, and so seems to be coming out of it late.

When J.R. "hit the wall" as I call it, where it fully sunk into his psychology that all of this was literal, was real and physical, he was furious. He has a family, and children -- he doesn't want to look at the future, or even history, as a nightmare. I really didn't want him to be so miserable about it, which he obviously was. On the other hand, he was correct: he wasn't upset about anything that hadn't been decently documented, or that wasn't logical to extrapolate based on the data. Still, no matter how serious a thing may be, there's no point in ruining your health over it. Having been in that fear-anger stage myself, I tried to talk him out of it.

[Letter to J.R.] J., I took a few days to think about your post, because it struck me as a fairly important point in "discussion" and the results of discussion on all of us.

<<I'm getting kind of confused here because after a lot of study and changing my world view to take this stuff seriously, all of the sudden it's like you and D.P. are saying, "J., why are you taking this stuff seriously?" It's like you are disappointed that I don't think aliens abducting people is some sort of wonderful spiritually expanding experience. That reading about the Nefilim, and the manipulation of human religions isn't something I consider a happy picture of history.>>

1) I think it's just a matter of defining the word "seriously." I take cancer seriously but I don't worry much about it, despite that it has nabbed members of my family. I'm aware of its danger and of statistical probability, but it isn't something I live in terror of. It's kind of the same with "aliens" and this whole subject.

2) I consider my 'encounters' to be expansive in consciousness. I don't know whether I always infer spirituality/god/religion from this or not. I asked myself what I really felt here, so I could be honest with you... and concluded that I don't necessarily want you to agree with me, I just want you to take any perspective that seems less damaging to your peace of mind.

3) Regarding the Nefilim and their Dastardly Deeds, there is no race of humans who, when their history and treatment of other humans (not to mention animals) is considered, would not be considered maliciously evil; therefore, coming to this conclusion about "other entities" without the same necessary context and perspective we give ourselves seems illogical.

It's distressing that someone I like so well is so distressed, and I'm not saying that it's not perfectly logical. I'm only saying that I felt this way myself for awhile and I HATED it. It's a sucking tunnel vision, like a vortex that drags a person down into terror and helpless rage and frustration and paranoia, and it skews one's whole life and perspective.

After I went through this stage, I went into a "what for?" stage. Why should I give a damn about anything? My job, my education, why plan? Things'll change anyway. The world will explode or aliens will land or what have you. Having a family, a relationship -- why bother? Why bring kids into a world destined for doom? Suddenly everything seemed to pale in significance to this overwhelming emotional reaction to beings capable of physically invading my space and my life. Now I grant I've been having fairly major personal interaction with them, which skews me into the "extreme" zone. But I don't see any of this emotional reaction we get -- even though I perfectly understand it -- as a positive benefit to US.

The point is to live this life. Anything that gets in the way of enjoying, expanding, "living" life is in my own opinion detrimental. Studies of UFO phenomenon and aliens are fascinating and valid, but I have finally learned, the moment it starts having a seriously negative effect on my life, I tell it quite bluntly to **** off and refuse to deal with it until I'm feeling more emotionally stable. Then I open back up to studying the experiences again. This obsession with what "might be, could be, may be, may have been," to me is like a focus on religion -- what went before, and what comes after, is a field of academic interest, but we must live in the NOW, and refocusing our attention to the "then or when" is simply not beneficial to our Now.

I am not disagreeing with your acceptance of the facts you've found, nor with your understandable reaction to it. I'm just saying that you might want to consider what is most beneficial for YOU, regardless of facts. You can live in fear, or accept that this seems to be the way it is, and has always been, and get on with life.... so that these studies become an understanding, not an obsession; a fascination and insight, not a source of terror.

The opportunity to communicate on this subject helped me get to know myself. There's a vast amount of thinking and integrating I would never have done without my writing as an outlet. From time to time, people would write me and say they'd been studying the subject for years, but felt they had learned more about contact in a few weeks of my online discussions than they had from all the books they'd read. I think this is because online, some of the best discussions are a result of people who are, if anything, not in agreement; unlike a book that just tells a one-sided story, you get dozens of angles at once, cross-debates, etc.

As for those who debate or question, some are annoying, some are merely questioning, and some are brilliant. All of them tend to inspire in me a desire to answer their questions as honestly as possible, and explain. Occasionally my temper and defensiveness got roused, but for the most part, the discussions were remarkably constructive, and addressed a lot of things I'd never even thought about before. They confirmed the obvious: despite personal experience, I really know almost nothing about this field.

[Letter to S.C.] Yeah, everybody wants proof: "Ask the visitors for a prediction, so we can prove they're not just your imagination." The thing non-abductees fail to grasp is that the visitors aren't the slightest bit interested in our reality except as it pertains to them. It's a miracle enough just to be lucid during the experience; I assure you, they are not available for brief journalistic sessions where one requests answers to the world of men. You are there for a purpose and they don't give a rip about anything outside that.

Besides, understand they have a completely different conceptual reality. They may or may not understand the stock market (I bet the blondes and bugs and lizards would, but the fragile ones and the various mythical types probably don't). Most things here may be a foreign concept to them. And the point is, they just don't care. (Besides, the few stories I've heard that people say they get out of them related to prophecy are wrong!)

<<Are "they" supposed to have vocal cords capable English speech? Even if their pitch range is on the same order as human speech, it must still be virtually impossible for them to master such a foreign (alien) accent as Earth English.>>

Why assume that communication is merely verbal? Even our own culture refers to "pictures worth 1000 words," "the power of music," and "body language" to name a small sampling. (Even sign language is a recognized language.) Think of it this way: some forms of communication -- visual art, or music, for example -- are communicative not solely through their more tangible effects (the details of the picture, words to a song) but by the emotional impression they create in the person experiencing them. Well, the entities can create pictures, and emotions, directly, and those also have indirect effects.

The communication is plenty clear when they want it to be, and when it's not, it's usually a translation or memory problem, not a communication problem. They use words only once in a great while with me, but it seems to vary with the entity and the person. The only time I've encountered difficulty is when I'm trying to get them to understand some concept that is obviously outside their conceptual experience, or vice-versa. In those cases, I find if I "intuitively search myself" for a geometric shape that "feels right" and include that with the concepts, visuals and emotions, I get the point across. I suspect that in those cases, they have the same result from my communication as I often do from theirs: they get the concepts alright, but they probably can't translate it into words.

One of the biggest difficulties in communication regarding this subject is that language is based on common experience. Without that commonality, the words mean little -- or something different -- to the person I'm talking with. Worse, many words that are necessary for discussion, for instance words like "reality" or "physical," are themselves the carrier of confusion. These words are defined in our language by our existing understanding of the universe and ourselves. The experience I'm talking about doesn't seem to apply to what we have established as knowledge in these areas, and yet, I don't have any new words to use.

We need a vocabulary developed for this subject. It simply doesn't compute. Most people say, either it was physical, or it wasn't, meaning, it was all in your head. They have no conceptual understanding of anything that is a shade of gray. It's easier with people who have studied some metaphysics, or Eastern religions, since that "framework" allows one to communicate a little better.

But I meet these skeptics who want me to explain it, and yet insist that there is only one reality, and it's all the physical, measurable world, the same for everybody. When I try to explain at length, instead of talking with me about the concepts, making the slightest attempt to understand, they go look up "reality" in the dictionary and quote it to me. Well how can I explain it, when I have no words, and they have no concepts? For real communication or explanation, I have the wrong language, wrong type of communication, and wrong type of concepts for the entities I'm communicating with, in this case humans. (In most cases, their own complete lack of ability to grasp abstracts doesn't help. I am gradually concluding that these in some cases very educated people are childishly simplistic and rigid in their existing belief systems.) Somewhere down the line, we need to come up with some words that allow, at the very least, people experiencing these things to talk with each other, let alone people from opposite polarities of thought.


That doesn't even start on the psychological and social problems of talking about this.

In groups where the people are not familiar with this, obviously the subject is taboo. Of late I've begun talking about it with everyone, in every setting -- something J.R. experimented with, and as it has turned out for both of us, this tends to bring people with stories and often physical proof right out of the woodwork, so it's fascinating.

My favorite thing is to talk with someone for an hour or so, about anything, until they understand I'm a rational person and they really relate to me -- and then bring up the alien/UFO subject with the casual ease of talking about the weather. It's hilarious, you can see the psychological dilemma playing out on people's faces as they try to somehow align the two perceptions: one, of me being rational and sane, and two, of the subject being irrational and insane. It's probably wicked of me. But you wouldn't believe the people who, if you bring it up calmly like it's a given, end up hanging around you, trying to bring up the subject, and eventually end up telling you their story. People who would never even discuss the subject, would laugh about it, via any other approach to them.

Here Joe Normal, or Mr. Businessman, is suddenly telling the story of how they were almost rejected from the Army (as a pilot) long ago, because the doctor and then a specialist called for the occasion both swore he had scar tissue and evidence of an extremely advanced eye surgery -- when he'd never had any such thing. (And coincidentally, in a family where everybody wears glasses, he and his sister have vision considerably better than 20/20.) Or someone will show an impressive scar and say, "I have no idea where this came from. One day it was just there." Or they'll talk about the time when they and their two kids were on the way to grandma's house, drove straight through yet got there eight hours late and never did figure it out.

It just comes pouring out of this surprisingly large percentage of people, considering how offbeat the subject is. I'm beginning to think that the "abduction" subject is a bit like other things our culture is in denial about, incest or child abuse, for example. It's so common it's almost the exception for it not to occur, but nobody talks about it, and due to the personal experiences, even the people involved often forget it, or don't pay attention to it, or just flat out won't mention it, and will deny it if it comes up.


That's just addressing people who are not consciously or actively involved in the subject. Discussion with people who are has its own hazards.

Everybody's got a story. To them, it's not merely a tale of their own experience, it's either a cosmic event, or a victimized event, and god forbid you should do anything but demonstrate unquestioning awe. That would be ok, except that it tends to generate a secondary reaction: you have to agree. I don't just mean you have to agree that you believe them. I mean you have to agree that the way they believe something is absolutely the way it is. If you have stories or ideas that don't validate theirs, they're upset.

If they believe they were medically raped by the Greys, and it was horrible, and therefore aliens are horrible, and then I refer to "the sweet fragile ones," they freak out. I'm brainwashed, they say. Or lying. Or a disinformation agent. If they believe aliens are fallen angels, or demons, and are here to steal as much my soul as my body, and somehow lurk around the astral trying to have sex (as if life on the astral could be half as screwed-up obsessive about the subject as we are) and I say, "Oh, yeah, well I merged with this one critter and..." they nearly have a heart attack. Honest to god I've been concerned some of these people would hunt me down and burn me at the stake or something. They usually accuse me of fraternizing with the "dark side." If they find out I'm part of an occult order, that does it -- now I'm really "bad!" If they find out that my joining this Order seems to be part and parcel of the rest of my experiences, they figure well, I've sold my soul, I'm lost. It's hilarious, frankly.

If they talk of the feeling of telepathy/empathy and family, and I just as a note point out that the type of communication tends to inspire that emotion, and I don't take it personally, now I've insulted their family and their identity, what a jerk I am, there goes their reason to be special. If they believe the aliens (of whatever sort) are ascended masters, higher beings, et al, and I refer to them flippantly, not to mention comment on someone being lousy to me here or there, I haven't just disagreed with them, I've insulted God or something, or "my fear" is making me imagine it. If they've bought into the idea that somehow there's only one (or two, or three) types of aliens and for example, "the lizard types with vertical pupils don't exist, anyone who says they do are liars," well obviously that tosses my credibility out, since I've mentioned them. Folks use me as an E-mail therapist of sorts, and then I bring up something they don't believe in -- and now I've not only disagreed with them, but I've shed doubt on everything else we've talked about as well, which infers they are in doubt, and then they're angry at me.

I can't tell you how often people comment on "how casual and believable you are" to me -- and how many people, to one degree or another, have written me saying things like, If you turn out to be a hoaxer or a psycho I'm going to want to kill you. I mean often people have been living in terror for years, thinking they were crazy, and meeting me was like their one thread of hope they might not be, since I seemed so sane, and was talking about the same sorts of things.

And those are the reasonably normal ones, mind you! Then you have the next category of people: those who Know Everything Because The Aliens Told Them So. I love these folks. They know, for instance, that the West Coast is going to be under water -- last week. It isn't so? Well like the religious who keep moving their rapture or end-time date back every time their predictions fail, they have no problem with that sort of thing. I try, in an effort to redirect them to doing something constructive with their life, rather than waiting for The Landing Any Minute, to point out that aliens, even if they are somehow limited to telling the "truth," have such a different frame of reality (not to mention space and time and culture) that what we interpret may be far from what they meant. Now I'm in for it -- thanks to their channeling Joe Alien or being given Important Messages in abductions, they think they're cosmic, and I'd better not lead their followers astray by suggesting they think for themselves.

I'm not denying it might be true soon, I've been told something similar myself. I just don't see the point in freaking out about it. Either accept the risk or move. Why all the trauma? Sheesh, get a life already.

Then there's the folks who range from contactees to walk-ins (I have yet to meet a walk in who does not say they are also a contactee), who explain to me that my sometimes flippant humor about these subjects, my attempts to be at least occasionally objective about the subjects, or to question my own experiences, is a sign that I obviously don't like my inner self, and that's why I'm "rejecting" this integral part of myself. Others tell me I "betray my own kind." (Sheesh! What is this, a race war?) Still others (in particular men) want to meet me (of course) and save me from myself. Sigh.

The official "contactee" crowd I've encountered, for the most part, clings together fervently in a need for validation, and tends to feel my anti-victimization approach is nothing short of an attack on their principles. They react in a way similar to how a rape victim might if you suggested we let her rapist out of jail and talk to him because hey, he's an interesting guy. From this view, I can see their point.

But I refuse to take these things, even the negative things, personally. Frankly I just don't think I'm that important in the overall cosmic grid, and I seriously doubt some alien traveled through dimensions or space or what have you solely to borrow my personal genetic material. At best, I'm simply one in a herd of life forms rounded up. I don't expect ducks to take it personally that we tag them, so I don't take it personally that someone tagged me. (Anymore. I did at first.) My general discussions of everything from shamanic-type entities to fairly hard core metaphysical experiences leaves them ambivalent; it's outside their tried & true Greys Abducted Me And Stole My Eggs stories. Why is everyone so negative?! I end up being an outsider.

As a result, I end up communicating with the very small number of people who tend to think a lot like I do, and a large number of people who have no experience in this field, and are merely curious. While this has forced me to write out many things, it also brings me back into the first category of communication problems: they don't have the experience to provide them the concepts, and I don't have the vocabulary to provide them the explanations.

[Letter to E.J.] If anything, the "alien" components are merely one of many components in an overall psycho-spiritual development. The rest of the time I'm working in dreams, astral, OBEs, and other things that better fit the fields of metaphysics, shamanism, et al. Not that I want them to fit there, understand; I don't care. That's just my categorization of what occurs. What all these things and aliens have to do with each other I'm not sure.

One of the difficulties I have in talking about this is that most people have their own paradigm of what's what. Most abduction supporters don't want to hear that I talked to a mythical creature. They're busy trying to prove Greys exist, and my stories about shamanistic type entities only detract, they feel, from a 'serious' subject. Catholic dreams and experiences freak everybody out, including me in particular, since I wasn't raised Catholic. Egyptian or Magical elements disturb non-occultists; scare some people; and most alien elements make occultists roll their eyes (not all, but some) or at the least, put it into their own paradigm.

There are repeating elements, every element possible, through different types of dreams and experiences in my history. I can see some of them, but don't know what they mean. I can't and won't put this in any one category, though, as a result.

My open discussion of things like apparent serious sleep disorders and schizophrenic symptoms disturbed a lot of people. Non-Abductees acted like "see, I knew they were just crazy all along." Abductees acted like I had betrayed and invalidated them.

I don't see the point in pretending any of this is something it's not. I have nothing invested in "proving" other intelligences besides our own exist. In my opinion, they do -- the proof is up to others who need it. I may be wrong, and that's fine, we'll see. I don't see the point in pretending that many of the physiological and psychological symptoms that accompany this don't exist either. I have too much study in mental subjects to ignore them. Really, I'd be an idiot to pretend they weren't there, and there would be no reason to do so except my own insecurity.

I concluded early that I was schizoid, and then I concluded it was beside the point. Now my theory is that this is a real phenomenon, whatever it may be, and it's as interesting from a psychological case study vantage as it is from a sci-fi screenwriter, or military, point of view.

I am more than happy to have somebody explain that temporal lobe studies, or certain drugs, bring about similar stories in people. (The former don't, however, come close to the scope of the experience, so far, and so are hardly an invalidation; if anything, they are so desparately far away from comparing that believing they're "the answer" to abduction memories is even more ridiculous than believing aliens are.) And neither of those address physical results or craft.

I don't feel that in any way negates the validity of the experiences; if anything, I feel it's an interesting confirmation. It's not my fault that "science" doesn't think perception has anything to do with reality, when in fact that seems to be the whole key to things. It's not my fault they're a little slow on figuring that out. I'm as interested in those studies as any others, they don't threaten me. What I suspect is that there are a lot of "places" which exist "simultaneously and jointly" with what we call reality; or to describe it more accurately, "reality" is a very large kaleidoscope and we are only aware of a tiny fraction of it.

How we get to a place, or perception of a place, to meet certain entities -- drugs, magick, or physiological effects -- is not particularly relevant; anything able to affect perception can bring about the experience to one degree or another. That just makes me excited. If a drug can bring it on command, hey, I'd like to do some clinical studies with that drug and figure the place out.

This idea that there's nothing outside what we can see and touch is so childish and I wish science would grow out of it already. The most advanced physicists already speculate about things that make this subject seem tame by comparison. While nothing is proven yet, you'd think researchers would at least consider that these things could be possible. They act like they've disproved it -- before they even have the tools able to see it, if it existed.

My view is, we have a group of perception tools, biologically, plus the brain of course, which filters out most everything but a very small band of frequencies. That perception, when expanded, allows the perceiving of a number of elements not normally perceived by humans. This has nothing to do with reality vs. not reality; obviously, what a person perceives and experiences is reality for them. If the whole world perceived that, it would be considered reality. Since when is real science merely a majority decision?

There's a point where our education seems to have crossed the line into indoctrination, and rather than being taught to learn we are simply being given "facts," which we memorize like they matter. History alone ought to prove facts as they're labeled change constantly, and conveniently at that. The biggest danger with learning about a subject is that people start thinking they know it after awhile.

While I still have no opinion of who anybody is, or where they come from, or why they're here, I think I've pretty much accepted that they are here when they want to be, and that they have the ability to bring me there when they want. Sometimes physically, sometimes not, sometimes I'm physical in both places simultaneously, and sometimes their level doesn't have the same sort of physical as we do and it doesn't apply.

One thing I tried to get across, both to "abductees" and to people merely talking about this issue, is that there is simply no point in wallowing in the emotional fragmentation that the experience creates. People in the midst of this often lose their jobs, their families, their friends, they develop drug and alcohol problems, they even commit suicide. The effects of some of these experiences, especially when they're not taken in context, are simply shattering. (The tendency of modern therapists to tell people they've simply imagined it all doesn't help!) One has to keep a certain focus that allows life as we know it to go on. Taking time out for victimization not only doesn't help us psychologically, but it doesn't help us in the "real world" either.

[Letter to E.J.] <<I'm curious, from what I can see this experience has not affected you that much. This kind of phenomena often affect the persons in a big way in many ways such as fear etc. In your case you don't seem to associate your experiences to any kind of negative emotions.>>

Understand I was only specifically referring to the cat eyed guys in that post. Many different "types" of encounters; all have their own events, moods, and resultant reactions. They in particular leave me with so little memory of anything that I'm unable to feel much about them either way. Others leave different reactions, depending on the Being and my memories; some good, some bad. It has profoundly affected my life in some ways.

I ignore the emotional associations as much as I can. Partly because I'm trying to maintain a decent level of intelligence and professionalism and keep my job. I've been forced into a mode of not allowing myself to emotionally wallow in any of it.

<<Do you "feel" it or "know" when a experience is going to happen or does this just happen out of the blue?>>

Depends on both me and the experience and the particular 'doons invoking the experience. Sometimes I do, gradually, it builds up prior to a more physical than usual event; but I tend to think this is more about my own state of consciousness or perception. The closer I get to where "they" are (whether they're bringing me there, or what), the more aware of them I am, the more I think about it, the more I encounter it. I don't know if I bring the experiences on by my own changes, or if my changes are merely being made in me as they're necessary for the later event.

Different ones seem to use different approaches, and even then it's possible that my own receptivity, memory, and relationship with that particular folk affect how it works.

<<From what I can see you are adapting very well considering the context!>>

Thanks. Not having any choice is most of that.

<<But do you know or feel there could be a meaning or a goal to what you are experiencing? Or is there no way to make sense of a thing like this?>>

I looked for a meaning and a goal for a while. I concluded that:

(a) looking for a meaning or a goal is a need of my psychology, and doesn't by its existence infer that there IS one.

(b) meanings and goals are subjective, meaning that I can assign them to whatever I want, even after the fact, even custom designed to fit the material.

(c) my psychology, my technology, and my culture are different enough from theirs (whomever the various "theys" are) that my guessing their meanings and goals is a waste of time. (Not that I haven't tried of course.)

(d) even if they told me, I have no evidence besides that they told me, which they might do for their own reasons, or due to my wish to know, and which may or may not reflect the Whole Truth (if there should be such a thing).

(e) if meanings and goals make me feel better, I should design some for myself. They probably don't have any real effect on the actual meanings or goals which anybody else might have, but having a positive outlook and balanced psychology may help me better integrate and understand things overall, which is a positive. I've tried to use this approach.

At this point, when it comes to those some call "aliens," I can't much change their behavior, at least not yet. What I can change is how I feel about it, react to it, and interpret it. Having a right to be paranoid, for instance, is beside the point; letting other people's behavior influence your life is the issue, and one might as well -- if you can't stop the external source -- either learn to ignore the subject, or in the case of regular experiences, learn to learn from them. It's not about "having a right" to hold a grudge or something -- it's about my life, my happiness, first and foremost. I keep that goal in mind.

There is sense in this, but all the sense is context specific. What makes perfect sense in one experience with one group or lesson doesn't in another; not even that it doesn't make sense as that the entire conceptual framework used to determine "sense" becomes "not applicable" to the issue.

Reminds me, the other day we were telling those terrible "How many {X} does it take to screw in a light bulb?" jokes at work, and as we were really getting going this guy says, "Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: Fish." I just cracked up -- that pretty well sums up the "comparative realities" of this whole field!

Continue to Chapter 21: Theories

"Bewilderness" title and text are Copyright 1993-1998 by Palyne "PJ" Gaenir. All rights reserved. Feel welcome to send me email -- I always appreciate feedback.