Chapter 21a : Opinions

Maybe this is adaptation or evolution.
Putting it in Place
Delusion vs. Expanded Perception
"Abduction" and Hypnosis
Magick and the Occult
Physical Evidence
The Scientific Model
Misc. Troubles with Discussing All This


Perhaps "self-influenced" would be a better term.

It would be misleading to pretend my experiences are unaffected by me. In fact, now that I've finally allowed myself to look into the "UFO/Abduction" field just a bit, I find I sometimes encounter situations I've been thinking about, and concepts I'm wondering about—in short, despite the vivid nature and sometimes even physical reality of my experience, it's obvious that to some degree, my own state of mind does affect both what I experience and how I interpret it. 

I've wondered if this is because mental focus might "tune" one's consciousness to the frequency band where the entities exist (or where this data would be perceived, biologically filtered and translated for me), or if some "larger perceptive aspect of me" is teaching me something. That is hardly an objective answer, but those are my tentative theories.

If I had read some of the work in this field, do you suppose I would have first encountered the Greys? Medical labs, probes and hybrids? I feel my experiences have been positive because I didn't expect aliens and victimization —I didn't have a set belief system, and as things developed and I began forming one, I mostly only suspected "metaphysics and evolution."

I've had interesting experiences throughout my life. But I can't help but notice that it wasn't until I'd considered the "alien" premise as possible (albeit distantly, mostly as a result of my dreams) that I woke up with implants. The injury was real. The implants were not part of my body. Those things are not in doubt to me. My emotional reaction to it was quite "real" and profound. And they came back and "fixed" my knee, while I was wide awake and in the physical--that much is real for me.

What is in doubt is why it didn't happen to me until I'd considered the idea of my night-life relating to aliens. Did I create it? How could I create the externally physical components? In fact if I tried to convince a scientist I created such things I would be "debunked." (Unless of course it was being used to explain how UFOlogy/contact is impossible, in which case they would say it is the answer!) How could I create tiny detailed elements that turned out to be in other peoples' stories, which I hadn't heard? How could I create craft, and implants, and physicals in my living room? 

I certainly haven't created the documented stories from other people. Let alone the social, religious and cultural histories relating to this subject. 

So is it merely that it was happening all along, and my psychology (rigid belief systems) wasn't allowing me to see it? 

Or was I existing in a manner that couldn't be accessed by "them" (or I simply wasn't seen or noticed by them) until I'd been exposed enough to "tune me" to it? 

Perhaps it took getting more comfortable with the subject and myself before my conscious mind was willing to address the issue. 

Perhaps it simply took getting an external knowledge about something before I could recognize it for what it was. 

Or perhaps whatever is going on is something I've never thought of—cleverly hidden by a memory composed of fragments of whatever's lurking in my mind.

Is it possible that I created it, yet it's also separate enough from me to call autonomous? Could it be that our "self creation of reality" is expanding as we evolve as a species? (What happens to our creativity when the art forms begin fighting back?)

Could Earth's barrage of frequency-type technologies have begun to "mutate" humanity, so that some specimens are beginning to show the results? Actually, I've been wondering about that for years now--since this all first began with me. 

Could one of these be the advanced ability to create a tangible reality, like some kind of solid dream? Or is it instead a regressive inability to discern reality from dream realms? Might these actually be the same thing? Or perhaps simply affecting the frequency(s) individuals tend to perceive could account for much of this.

I know I affect myself, yet I know I am also regularly meeting entities which seem autonomous from myself. I'm not alone: I find echoes in other people just like they find them in me. Even in offbeat areas it happens. Get this: a guy once told me that he'd actually read about somebody else "switching out" of an earthquake. Come on! I mean what are the odds?

I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel here. You know even Crowley thought within 50 years we'd have all this figured out—and where he was a century ago is way beyond where most people are now. It's pathetic, and a little bit demoralizing.

Why haven't we figured this out by now? As long as humanity's been around and these things have been happening? It really aggravates me, the time-wasting effort put into doing things a million times from scratch, because nobody studies, documents, and teaches them to continue the knowledge, to gradually step-up the research.

That religion, science, government and media are the reasons this subject hasn't been taken seriously until now doesn't incline me to appreciation of any of them. They all seem to act more like each other every day.

Maybe this is adaptation or evolution.

It's clear that man has been surviving and evolving, this far, not based on strength or durability, but on his mind. 

Whatever hazards the environment presented us with, we were able to create technologies that allowed us to survive. The bigger the threat, the more creative man demonstrated himself to be.

At this point, our technologies, and the effects on the planetary system and world health, are actually the biggest threats to us, both as individuals and as a species. From power lines to the chemicals in food and water, from scalar weather control and weapons to atomic power and nuclear bombs, we face a daily barrage of toxins and technology, and a future fraught with danger. 

Regardless of whether we created the threats ourselves, they are still "threats from our environment." Might our extraordinarily adaptable species be creating, in these "experiences," whatever it is that we need to survive our environment?

Perhaps we need a "common enemy" that is not on our planet and therefore not susceptible to standard technology and bombs, or at least not susceptible in such a way that we'd have to wipe ourselves out to injure them. 

Perhaps we need a more "spiritual" aspect brought out of our population. This could provide new perception abilities, so that we became more aware of our circumstance and our relationship to all things, which might "change our ways."

On the other hand, it could provide new abilities that allow at least some of the population to survive the eventual planetary reactions to our technologies.

Children in dangerous environments become more familiar with paranormal events across the board, including entities. Perhaps we are in a dangerous environment, spontaneously developing perception ability beyond what our hard-wired biology has shown us so far. It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened or that this particular "type" of development has been documented.

In the past, physical technology was what we needed. And physical technology is what we have created and stumbled upon, over and over, to save our lives, and to improve our lives.

At this point in our development, both as individuals and as a species, what we seem to be most lacking is a conscious connection to other life forms: we lack empathy in a major way. As a result, we suffer not only extremes of war and prejudice, but continue to annihilate life upon this planet—animals and the earth itself, not to mention the continuing starvation and disease of our own species—because we are unaware of, or insanely disassociated from, our place in the "cycle." 

Our technology, while it provided what we needed in the past, seems to have had the side effect of separating us, psychologically: when we want to know the nature of a living thing, we go kill it and then stick it under a microscope.

In the present and future, perhaps empathy is what we need to survive. Our adaptability may be introducing us to it -- maybe we should simply consider it a new technology to help us survive, so to speak. 

We need to be the lab animal for once. We need to connect to our surroundings, to the spectrum of life. Even if it's modern mythology, it seems quite a coincidence to me that the infamous "abduction" subject would make us the inferior lab animals, indoctrinate us about the environment, and that "Hybrids" would be, apparently, our own children—as a form of human with empathic abilities.

Putting it in Place

As for my own development, and my own experiences, it seems apparent that the whole spectrum of consciousness (and existence) is involved.

That this is merely an alien situation is incorrect: there are too many non-alien-related experiences in my life that are just as profound. (While so-called "aliens" may exist, and may be an integral part of things, my consciousness seems to be evolving (or devolving) with or without them.)

That this is merely psychological is incorrect. There have been too many fully physical experiences, not to mention implants et al. that simply deny that. (While I'm certain I could manifest wounds and scars, I'm not certain I could abruptly manifest hard objects in obscure portions of my body, nor make them vanish, nor arrange the time-space-reality shifts, nor the presence of physical beings.)

That this is merely spiritual must be incorrect, for the same reasons.

That this is merely physical is incorrect, as can be seen from the many altered states of consciousness one experiences as a result of this interaction, and by the cross-referencing validation of multiple persons with stories, unrelated, who share details. (As for physical-chemical in origin only, such as schizophrenic modalities, the psychology argument applies.)

That this is totally external to ourselves is incorrect, as can be seen from the fact that what people believe or are studying invariably is part of what happens to them. The need for validation drives many "abductees" to irrational lengths of denial about this, but if you're hanging out with MUFON and meet the greys instead of the light-beings, well, it's hardly coincidence in my opinion. (The only exception to this logic I can think of is that there may be a way it could be totally external, and simply have the memories of it somehow be dramatically influenced by one's personal psychology, and by what we believe (whether we are influencing the memory, or someone else is, I don't know)).

That this is totally internal to ourselves is incorrect, as can be seen from the fact that large numbers of people around the planet have similar experiences and/or details without reference to each other—and throughout history, no less. Overall I could pass some of it off as a sort of Jungian mass consciousness archetypal experience--though that itself if 'real' will eventually require a dramatic change in our scientific perspective--but such incredible details I cannot. 

If the archetypal world is that literal and detailed, then it may as well be considered another aspect of the physical world and 'reality'. 

Thus far, outside quantum physics, "physical reality" and a person's thoughts about it, expectations, observations, and interaction are considered separate, or at the very least, are considered to happen in a linear, time-based, predicable fashion. 

While I'm uncertain of the nature of my experiences, I am certain that physical 'reality' as I know it, and my own emotional and mental relationship to it, are interacting, and affect each other in a manner that is not necessarily linear, and that transcends simple cause-effect and even time, and either the nature of physical laws as we think we know them, or the nature of perception as we know it. How, or why this is the case, I don't know. 

I consider my ability to finally accept this a conceptual evolution on my part.

Delusion vs. Expanded Perception

Generally my mind works on a few levels simultaneously. Thus far it's been an "evolved advantage" in my life. It's provided decent intelligence and multi-tasking abilities. 

I'm able to hold a number of conflicting emotions and opinions simultaneously with no problem. It's not a matter of being confused, or fragmented, it's a matter of being able to see a number of views of things at once. Someone once told me that LSD can produce the same "many levels of thinking" result; but it seems to be natural with me. (Of course, the chemicals in most drugs, or their parallels, are natural to the brain.) 

I've long considered the inability to be more than "one track" rather slow, to be honest. People who can see only one point of view at a time seem almost... childlike to me, and easy to manipulate with the smallest effort, just based on their linear-focus type of predictability.

Maybe it's some overdose on the "parallel processing" bit when I was ordering this brain. Still, it makes me wonder. Does a lousy childhood, with a mind possibly verging on schizoid as a result, create these 'encounters' with various entities, alternate realities, etc.? It's no secret that schizophrenia and the abduction field both have a high percentage of abused kids in their ranks.

Or does encountering these entities or experiences as a child make you a bit schizoid, as it "invokes" these natural abilities not normally used, by presenting you multiple streams of data (at different frequencies) that teaches you to perceive them? (As if humans are the way we are not because that is "correct and the only way to be," but because we learn from our environment—which for some people, doesn't contain those learning experiences.) For example, scientific research has accounts of presenting animals with only certain visual data from the time they are born. To the animal, even when partial blinders are removed, that is all there ever is to reality. It is not about vision, it is about perception. Perhaps children who are presented with additional data, or additional types of data, learn to perceive and translate it, and so are always more inclined to be aware of that data when it is present than others may be.

Could the childhood experience of abuse and resultant survival skills (including the need for processing of data not normally available to the conscious mind) and/or early encounters (which most contactees I know have had) actually evolve your mind to a more flexible state, advancing perception as a result of the fight for survival?

Regarding the fact that some of these similar symptoms are considered a mental disease, when it may actually be evolution (badly handled, in the case of some)—well, that reminds me of The Country of the Blind. A great short story about how "In the Country of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King." Or so everybody assumed. As it turned out, this guy's wonderful (and unusual) ability of sight didn't impress them; they couldn't even comprehend it; they determined he was insane, decided to operate and remove his eyes which they figured were causing his delusions, and he ended up barely escaping with his life. 

I see that potential in this field. We use drugs to suppress the part of the brain considered to be acting up, rather than asking why is it acting up, and what are the chances that what one might encounter in that situation is as "valid" (if different) than here? Maybe the "intangible but valid" perception or experiences make the brain do that, just as how seeing something or speaking makes the brain do something else. The brain's response is a response—I see no reason to consider it the "initiator" of the experience, but quite the opposite.

Most people with a UFO story of any kind, magick, metaphysics, even an Angel experience, would be clinically labeled I suppose. Technically, a belief in god is a foundationless delusion—as much as a belief in aliens or entities is.

Maybe this is something akin to the borderline of schizophrenia. But maybe the real problem is that what may be a legitimately positive, even advanced state of mind is so intertwined with the emotional, mental and psychological results of having that state of mind (when the surrounding environment and culture does not teach one how to deal with it, or validate it), that it's difficult to separate one from the other. Perhaps the results of having that state of mind may be the "problem" that has caused the actual state to become muddied, confused, and detrimental in many cases. I'm just theorizing, of course.

If you give a very young child a number of large colored beads and paste to make a picture with, you'll end up with a picture where the colors and sizes of the beads are intermixed; mostly just a glob of sticky beads. The child thinks it's a picture, but it doesn't look like one. Give these materials to a slightly older child, and they will usually separate the beads and use the contrast of color and size as part of the picture. The difference is not only physical coordination, but that the older children have had more training in how to differentiate and categorize the data they perceive. In this case, color and size. Because most people in our society can see, hear, taste, touch, smell, we are able to (whether deliberately or merely by association) educate our children into sharing the same interpretation of their perception as everybody else, and categorizing what they perceive appropriately. Confusing or multiple streams of data eventually become linear, recognizable sequences, quite separate from each other.

These experiences may not (at least not all of them) be imagined: perhaps they are sometimes data that a person is untrained in how to interpret, and confused and scared by. They haven't been taught to differentiate this data from what we normally call 'reality.' Unfortunately, the psychiatrists don't perceive any such data themselves, and have been educated into a belief system (both culturally and academically) that there is nothing outside the biological as we know it. So when shown the amorpheous "blob" the subject insists is a given picture (told about their "weird experiences"), instead of the perception being considered merely a normal result of an untrained mind using words not designed to deal with those experiences, it is considered hallucinatory, imagined, insane. 

To be objective for a moment, since these experiences began with me, I now have a number of mild symptoms of what Western psychologists term schizophrenia. I'm willing to bet I could take any standardized test and qualify as at least borderline -- simply because anybody talking to entities would! In fact, given the intensity of some of my experiences and perceptions (whether they are self-created or whether they are legitimately separate), it's amazing that I'm not in a rubber room. I had few or none of these symptoms before this all "hit me" fairly spontaneously in a few years of experience, and nothing in my life that would seem to bring it on. So, since some of this is commonly known to be part of personal spiritual development in the East—even though it is clinically medicated in the West—I've decided to accept it as the former and learn to understand it, rather than be terrified about it. I feel what I personally have that most borderline schizophrenics don't is an exceptional ability to deal with almost any amount of non-linear data and situations. (And, very importantly, a refusal to develop a given belief system around it.) 

The initial "symptoms" may simply be perceptive abilities developed as survival instincts. What many seem to lack is instincts that help them survive the survival instincts, so to speak. I feel that the traits often linked to mild schizophrenia may demonstrate abilities that are not merely abnormal because they are confusing, but because they are more developed than what we are yet able to clinically understand—and are being seriously twisted and misunderstood by the receiver.

Unfortunately the individuals, often not very emotionally stable to begin with (especially if childhood inspired the ability), combined with the shattering and crazy-making effect of having such abnormalities in one's reality, may not only suffer very serious symptoms as a result, but may even greatly distort, twist—and influence—the data which they perceive. 

It is certain that what I am thinking about strongly, especially if it is attached to an emotion such as fear, or affected by a psychological dilemma (such as repression), will be part of my experiences. Not so much the more physical experiences with Blondes or Greys, but rather, the more "astral" and "mental" experiences with entities, voices, visions, independent dreams, etc.  If a person should feel out of control of their life, in danger from "things in their head," with a history of physical and/or sexual abuse, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if nearly every encounter with an entity or reality became threatening. 

I never believed in it before, but now I think states such as possession are quite real and probably far more common than we realize; our media mocks it, as if a person would be a drooling demon if they were possessed; but I think many people have plenty of energy and entities "stuck to them" that affect them. 

The other option is simply a state of insanity, twisting the perceptions in a manner influenced by a shattered, repressed and abused psychology. But the point I am trying to make here is that whether the perception being twisted is regular eyesight or "astral" communication, the problem may not be with the perception nor the validity of the thing perceived, but rather the interpretive abilities of the receiver. So, the receiver may be legitimately crazy in some cases! That could mean a lot of different things when it comes to validating data they provide.

With some types of dyslexia, a person can encounter input data (words on a page) and yet their mind interprets that data as something different. It is not about vision so much as interpretive ability. The letters may seem merely reversed, they may seem mixed up, they may not be clear, they may seem like they don't stay still. Because our researchers are able to perceive the data in question in this case, they do not assume that the data does not exist, that conflicting explanations between people prove it's stupid, and/or that the person is crazy. Rather, they verify that the person is simply interpreting data in a manner that often makes little sense to them. 

With study of the subject, researchers developed training for people with dyslexia. Rather than telling people not to read, or in any way suppressing the part of the brain or body that does the reading, we have developed ways of training their perception abilities and their ability to discern what is initially very confusing. Along with this comes a constant reassurance, from teachers, that there is nothing wrong with the student, and other validations that are very helpful on a psychological level.

It seems to me one reason 'alien abduction' and even traits of borderline schizophrenia are not treated with such a mature approach is because researchers are themselves not able to discern the data that the subjects are perceiving. They are unable to see that it is merely a perception or interpretation problem, or a coping problem. This leaves two alternatives: One, the data does not exist, and so the person is hallucinatory, which is the current assumption. Two, that not all people perceive the data, which tends to be my own conclusion. Quite a number of things diagnosed as abnormal psychology in the West are considered obvious and quite normal in parts of the East, and/or have been recorded around the world and throughout time and so are obviously verifiable as legitimate experiences. I think that's worth considering.

Perhaps what many diagnosed people have is a serious lack of ability to deal with multiple levels of thinking, multiple levels of reality, a universe of entities, the enhanced literal-ness of their own minds and imagination, etc. (Nearly all people would have this problem. It's simply that only some of us encounter it.) The solution may be not to medicate people, or otherwise attempt to suppress the brain's function, but rather, to teach them to deal with the perceptions as a normal aspect of life. Clearly I'm talking about an approach of validation and a kind of treatment that is, first and foremost, going against the common assumption that hearing voices or seeing things—specifically aliens and entities—is an illness.

It's possible that the "results of having" the perceptions could have already done so much damage to the psyche that their sanity could not be saved.  (Not to mention what the experiences leading up to the development of these perceptions may have done to the person.) 

What is sanity? A subjective term, surely; a range and type of mental ability measured by the "norm" in any given society. Anybody exceptionally intelligent would be as "abnormal," as irregular, as those who were retarded; they're both outside the range of "normal."

Now, I assumed I was completely crazy for quite awhile, but finally concluded that it didn't seem to be doing any permanent damage to my life, and while inconvenient was certainly providing novel entertainment, so what difference did it make? I've changed a bit; my validation in some areas has relaxed me. Now I think anybody with my experiences might be classified as insane, but that doesn't mean that the classification (or the persons classifying) know what the actual criteria should be. Consciousness, of all things, is most certainly a yet-imperfect "science."

I'm obviously functioning well in the world, despite having experiences and traumas I'm sure have put many people in straightjackets. I'm successful in business, logical and reasonably intelligent, creative and social, and as far as I know, outside these rather bizarre experiences, I'm fairly well adjusted. 

On the other hand, many people with similar experiences aren't. I admit, my limited experience in the "UFO" field has introduced me to more paranoid bizarre people than I've ever met in my life.

My acceptance of this hasn't been (I don't think!) because I was weak minded; it's been because my experience, taken over a period of time, combined with a few clear facts in my life, and the corroborating evidence of exactly replicated details from independent others, including notes from history, has proved the validity of many things to me. The case for "entities" has been made by people far more educated and intelligent than myself. I could call myself crazy I suppose. But given the data available outside my own subjective account, it would simply be illogical.

"Abduction" and Hypnosis

I've now read just a little in this field, and have heard a decent amount about the use of hypnosis in the abduction field, mostly because hypnosis and psychology are some of my own interests. Personally, I am more discouraged than impressed.

I think hypnotists need to get over the self-inflative egotism that makes many of them drag stories (real or not) out of subjects, and then while the subject is in psychological misery as a result, they gloat about what a good researcher they are. Yikes! That's not merely hypnosis, that's emotional abuse. Many people have been more damaged by their hypnotists than by anything the Greys may have done to them. 

Regardless of whether the whole "alien" scenario is in the head or objectively real (if there is such a thing as an 'objective reality', which I'm coming to question), the people involved in it need compassion. They're not a distant, mythical monster waiting to be hunted, discovered, flash-bulbed in the media and then rest, stuffed like an inanimate object, on a library wall like an accomplishment: they're human beings. Their accounts are intimate confessions of often terrifying or enlightening experiences; not merely impersonal data for a researcher. The personal needs of the subjects seem to get lost in the quest for stories that make good press, good books, support an opinion, or help make somebody else's name. 

The last thing people in the middle of this need is to be part of some circus where a hypnotist (and they unfortunately are not usually therapists) at best strengthens their memories of trauma without doing anything to help them with it. (At worst, may contribute to those memories.) In some cases, the subjects may become part of a published work, and then everybody who doubts the field puts the subjects' lives on a witness stand, cross examined in a way designed to destroy their credibility, malign their sanity, and insult their truth-telling morality. 

From the point of view of a "subject," this is all pretty ridiculous. I don't care about the objective world: as I said in one letter long ago, it's not my fault these guys aren't parked on the lawn of M.I.T. All that matters to me is how to deal with them, with the experiences, and learn from it. Everything else is merely questionable glory in a fringe field—at the expense of the very people making study of the field possible.

My concern isn't the use of hypnosis, which I myself have an interest in, though I've never been hypnotized on this subject. It's about the way a lot of wanna-be's induce trauma in people for their own fascination, and in many cases, how the victim groups (usually called "support groups") then continue this trauma in a never-ending cycle, designed to help perpetuate their own existence and interest in the field, and to help validate the group and each other.

I happen to believe this affects not just the subject's psychology, but the experiences themselves. (I'm referring to literal experiences and their interpretation, not just the possible creation of memories by hypnosis.) And since I've grown to believe this is something that can be an act of evolution, I feel there's no excuse for making it a ringside media show.

Lastly, and maybe most damaging, the strange popularity of authors whose entire claim to fame is based on either fiction or their hypnotizing other people has provided a misleading impression of this entire field. Most people I know have never had hypnosis used to recall their experiences: like me, what they remember, they remembered consciously. The "skeptics" have latched onto this "hypnosis" as just another way of invalidating the field; of insisting that the hypnotists are simply brainwashing their subjects into this belief. If all people with these stories got them through hypnosis, I'd be inclined to suspect that were true. But they don't. In fact, not that many of them do! But because the majority of published material takes only this angle, that's what it seems like to the rest of the world. 

As much as I begrudge people making money off other people's trauma, conveniently packaged in paperback, I resent much more the damage that the hypnotic angle has done to this field. People in this field have enough to overcome in the "validation and credibility" areas without folks in their own field giving "debunkers" ammunition.

Magick and the Occult

One of the points of Ceremonial Magick (apart from other types of magick) is to approach things in a scientific manner. Standard procedures document details and follow defined paths. The field, the practices, and many of the adherents, are surprisingly academically inclined. 

I like knowing what I'm doing—but to some degree I consider that my own limitation. Of late I've been asking myself, why do I have to know it consciously? Because these experiences and insights for me are often simply not conscious material. The conscious mind, to pull something into that realm, requires somewhat linear data, and in some cases must even be able to interpret something verbally. Otherwise the experience lies below the conscious mind, with no recognizable forms or concepts in the linear world to use for explaining itself. (That doesn't mean one doesn't perceive it, only that one likely can't give a lecture about it.)

To demand that I be conscious of anything I do may limit the material, the experience, and my interpretation of it. If I want to learn about the color spectrum, it is only restrictive for me to insist it all be recognizable when viewed through blue.

It is time consuming to insist I study one shade at a time, with some handy Enochian or Qabala reference of How To Recognize It When You See It in my hand. I might be able to experience a larger insight in a fraction of a second, conceptually, if I weren't bound to the long plodding path of manually finding it. If I were to go back to some of my experiences and insist that instead of the chaotic, hard to comprehend form they came in, that they instead come in standard mental-scientific inquiry mode, I bet it would take me 10 years or more of work to get the same results for each experience. Great. If I lived to be 216, my evolution could be where it got to in three months by accident. 

I'd have a clearer idea, all along, of the details of what I was doing, of course. Why is that so important to me? Isn't the goal evolution, not knowledge of the details of evolution? Can't we leave the history to historians, and just do it? Does it not seem like the knowledge of various aspects of evolution have sidetracked us into paths of interminable scholastics and lifelong disciplines, when the evolution probably could have been achieved in a fraction of the time? And taught to others—were there not fraternal oaths and unspoken "secrecy" issues forbidding such a thing? It seems like in the attempt to "study" the subject of consciousness evolution (whether this be in the "new age" field or in serious occult work) many people end up sidetracked into studying the study, the details, and lose track of the original goal.

If my goal is to get light, I see no reason to have to build my own filaments every time I need light, when there is a light switch on the wall. Eventually, I might want to learn that just out of curiosity, but it would sure be a waste of time to spend a lifetime in the dark learning to build filaments, when that wasn't necessary. And I would not be grateful for someone teaching me to build daily filaments, when there was a switch on the wall they could have just told me about. This idea that one has to do some great amount of study, ritual, etc., to get these tiny breadcrumbs of ability to manipulate reality—well, it seems like a nice diversion for the black sheep to me, which at best provides some guidelines and at worst takes something inherently natural to human abilities and stretches the discovery of it out into 30 lifetimes.

There are some people in the occult field who think it is all about individuality. They are about individuality, if they are individual enough to consider the framework a tool, and not a religion. Unfortunately this maturity is less common than one would suspect, even with people who are quite intelligent and even rebellious. When it comes to the occult in general, my more cynical side feels it's the safety net to catch those who would escape religion. People not satisfied with the patronizing, pre-chewed, spoon fed psychology of most mass religion would eventually find a way around it, behind the knowledge, tossing the idols to the wind. Enough lack of discipline and the fools would storm heaven, so to speak. And so there's the occult, where one can study unhampered by the belief systems of organized religion, and in fact, encouraged to throw all those limitations to the wind. Yet... what are the various sects of the occult, except organized belief systems of their own? 

You get a group of people, some too brilliant for the mainstream, and you put them in one place, controlled by a learning process which is not only educational but, like all frameworks, limiting. Then you provide them an environment where they are bound to the group and depending on the Order and the fraternal oaths, often going against the official beliefs of the group is a cause for any degree of reaction or exclusion on the group's part. Now coincidentally, instead of growing and learning because they were "too stupid to know it wasn't that easy" (my usual mode), they end up in a field designed for "rebels," with all the conveniently appropriate trappings that draws rebels. Then they are "educated" into how things work. Step by step. By step. Frankly it's about as truly rebellious as the great Rock & Roll scandals: it's a specific clique designed to catch those uninterested in the mainstream. It's just a uniform, like everything else.

I have one major hypothesis: I think the ability to do anything is dependent, first and foremost, on the ability to de-educate yourself out of disbelieving it's possible. I don't mean just consciously, I mean at a root level. That so many of us have "psychic" experiences when we're sleep deprived isn't coincidence. I don't think it's just because we're in "another state of mind," or at least it's not that general. I think it's because the critical mind weakens, and real vs. not-real, possible vs. not-possible, comes closer to the dream state, where all these boundaries don't apply, and for a moment we truly believe it's possible without question, and then we succeed. Ritual can serve as this: enough belief that a ritual will work, and proper focus, tricks your critical mind for the moment, and that can be very effective. 

But it shouldn't have to be necessary. We have the abilities. It's only our ignorance of them that limits us. We act as if being taught to use these innate abilities one molecule at a time is some great gift. I wonder if maybe it's a deliberate detour or distraction. Is the occult as much a belief system trap as organized religion?

Physical Evidence

As far as "abduction" goes, I think the chance that there will ever be much physical evidence is slim. Scars and some kinds of wounds mean little, as a control; hypnosis can invoke these things. Although the circumstantial evidence of unrelated people with identical scars does count for something, I suppose.

Implants themselves are probably the only proof. But there is not much outlet for the people who have that proof. 

When I realized that I had numerous implants, I might have been willing to go see a doctor who could check out the most obvious one. But (a) there was the quite obvious concern on my part that if they were put there, somebody's going to be a little annoyed if I take them out; and (b) I didn't want to be referred to a psychiatrist; and (c) there's no way to get it done right then.

When you can be pulled into a dream, or an astral state, from the physical, making an appointment to have minor surgery in even one day advance is simply pointless. Whoever's putting them there might know: I don't know how, whether it's something "cosmic" like telepathy or merely that it's a transceiver of some kind. The point is, I bet it would be gone by then. Many of mine have appeared and been gone within days. I've known people with quite marked implants, that you could feel clearly (some of mine you could); a perfect opportunity, if the subject is willing to undergo a little scalpel, for science to get something like evidence (assuming we're even advanced enough to decode it, and assuming they are not created deliberately to appear as some small biological object or occasional anomaly if discovered).

I imagined taking off work, looking up some doctor at a local clinic, pleading emergency for an appointment prior to the end of the century, sitting for four hours in his waiting room, and then slipping into my 5-minute time slot with him and explaining, "I believe aliens or interdimensional entities have put a two-way receiver in my head and nose and wrist and chin and ankle and... a few other places. I was thinking you could take this thing that just appeared on the cartilage of my nose out with a scalpel so I could look at it under a microscope and see if it's really alien technology as opposed to a truly unique and solid blemish." I would likely have been given a prescription to a local locked-door health club. 

And the main thing is, it wouldn't have worked. He wouldn't have done it; he wouldn't have believed me, he would have wanted to wait, or assumed it was anything else, and so on. It was pointless. So the only chance we really have at physical evidence of the "contactee" experience is--short of living with a good surgeon and having a high pain tolerance--almost impossible to come by.

In my case, I had a personal reluctance anyway. The implants were presented to me as something that (a) "tagged you" (like a duck, I felt); and (b) actually provided the ability for you to better slide along the frequency scale and visit them. Since I was having a positive time with the experience, I had no wish to offend them, and all desire to be as capable as possible. Though I didn't ask for implants, didn't expect them, and was actually very upset when I realized what they were (as this moved it into the dangerous realm of "really real"), I still had a positive association that made me unwilling to view it negatively.

The bond that grows between one experiencing "contact" and whomever they may be contacting is often emotional. There's even a sense of "loyalty" to some degree, and occasionally a sense that if one talks too much about details or whatever, that it's almost a "betrayal" of their secrets. All "telepathic" contact I've ever had, with any entity, made me feel like we were "bonded" and even that I was "one of them." I didn't want to work against them.

All the thinking I can do about it says that documentable, non-deniable physical evidence, short of implants, is difficult to come by in the "abduction" field.

Other subjects, such as UFO's, may be another story.

The Scientific Model

The tendency of psychologists to dismiss an experience as 'real,' because reading or hearing about the ideas prior (or even possibly having done so) knocks out the "controls" and objectivity of the experiencer, is logical. And as I stated earlier regarding UFO groups, it is unfortunate for study that many people exposed to them create assumptions which affect their explanations. 

I did not mean, however, that their experience then becomes invalid. I assume that many are just as 'real' as those which happened without any prior idea-generating exposure at all. Only that the later-determined "conclusions" a researcher comes to may be unfairly biased by not having a more "random and wide" sample of experience. In other words, it would be biased to do a study on what people choose to have for lunch while standing outside a steakhouse. Most all of them had the pre-conceived idea of steak, and that's why they went to a steakhouse to eat. But the fact that they were interested in steak ahead of time does not indicate that their meal didn't exist. Only that it would be biased to judge what people "really eat" by surveying only people with that sort of bias.

The tendency of scientists to dismiss 'contact' experience because there is no demonstrated physical evidence for the large number of components involved is logical. There is, technically, not much hard data. (Though there is often a ton of empirical data.) This is hardly surprising, since the data provided by, or related to, 'contact' experiences simply does not fit into the scientific models used for study. Unfortunately, little effort seems to be made to remedy this. If you're doing a study on what colors are perceived in a rainbow, it's hardly logical to tell one fellow, "Sorry, it can't be olive green," and either force him to change his answer or leave him out of the study. He may be wrong, he may be blind, but his input is as valid as anybody else's. 

Science, unfortunately, has created a rigid model for Acceptable Data, and ignores anything outside that form as simply being impossible or non-existent. This sounds like something that could generate a lot of humorous cartoons. Hard to believe it's actually true.

The data doesn't fit in the scientific model because the scientific model wasn't designed for it. That model was designed to work here. Physicists explain that our "physical reality" as we call it is merely a certain spectrum of vibrational frequency. Our "scientific model," for the most part, is merely scientific within this range of physicality -- within a certain bandwidth of perception of that vibrational energy we call reality. It has been designed for a practice, and a type of thinking, which is pretty much dead-center in this "plane" or vibration, and which is limited by assumptions we still hold which may not be correct. Get to where contact-type encounters begin, and the model of how to experiment and what to consider valid data is pretty much useless. 

Refusing to create a model to allow one to study actual data, merely because the data is different than what the normal models were made for--and therefore, one's definition of "data" is limited to: "what one already knows"--is not only unscientific, it's ridiculous.

That the evidence doesn't fit into the test tubes that makes science fun is hardly my fault. Change the model, I say. If you're only presented with sound and the only tool you're willing to use is a camera, well, it's no surprise your proofs are slim.

Granted, I'm Jane Doe. I'm just the average guy on the street. I'm no rocket scientist; I'm not even a psychologist. But I don't think one should need a doctorate to be able to discuss this issue. I'm a reasonable human being, with enough empirical and personal evidence provided me to have made a reasonable decision about what seem to be the facts as I have experienced and encountered them. 

I realize that at this time, we (as a species) simply don't have the technology or point of view necessary. We can't prove we're part of a spectrum (yet) of perception, as well as frequency. We haven't even finished figuring out our own world, let alone any other. But we're never going to invent anything along these lines if inventors and scientists can't break free of the paradigms that have trapped us here this long. Our best minds are useless to us, as they won't look into it; are used against us, since they insist it doesn't exist and we're simply insane to expect it probably does.

Absence of evidence doesn't prove there is no subject. I have no test tube evidence for love but I don't argue about it. Hasn't science been, in the last century, researching half of what is already known, providing funding and recognition to those who study what is politically interesting, all but excommunicating anybody who disagrees or contradicts popular findings (or who studies something we don't already think we know), and then finding out it was a wrong decision, the individual had a valid point, and there was more after all?

Technologists are not scientists. That should be a title based on practice, not based on education. Take a look at how few "scientists" today are studying anomalies--things we don't know or understand. Those scientists who do study such things lament the lack of their fellows interested in the unknown.

It's too late to bring Galileo back. Maybe if we quit knocking off (via reputation, funding, employment or other means) the only true scientists who are really studying what we don't know, we would learn a little faster. 

It's not merely that science hasn't caught up with our evolution.

It's that most of our "scientists" haven't caught up with science.


Who is the expert here?

Non-experiencers are likely to be the best "statistical technicians" of the researchers (people having the experience), because there is a tremendous amount of psychological and emotional involvement where people having the experiences are concerned. 

The psychological effects of these experiences themselves (which can be anything from a night of horror, to a beneficent religious experience, to just another day), combined with the effects of being extremely confused and secretly convinced one is a lunatic (the inability to tell what belongs "where" and to "which reality" and if anything "really" happened are near-brain-scrambling problems), added to physical results (such as lousy sleeping habits and other such things), combine to create huge blocks of denial, frustration, paranoia, and sometimes outright irrational behavior in many people.

Aside from wearing tinfoil on their head while watching TV or swearing they're from Sirius or explaining that they're the Prince of Darkness or something, it can manifest in less obvious ways to really screw up a study. I've known encounterees to insist an experience had to be 100% 3D, even though they knew otherwise and the indications were otherwise, because to them "a dream" is invalid, and they don't want to be invalidated, so they are not going to admit that it was a dream they take literally. If truly in denial about that, they might even create a semi-daydream component of craft and abduction, when no such thing existed, merely to fit what they believe "had to have" happened (based on their own belief system), or that they want to have happened. Or, they will insist it's a dream because 3D is actually more threatening to them (--this is my own biggest bias). Or they will refuse to acknowledge the tremendous bleed-through of current thoughts, studies, and influences upon the experiences, as that often indicates it's at least partially "self influenced" and therefore may be imagination or invalid.

The difficulty with the 'alien' subject (including the larger UFOlogy field) is that many people experiencing "contact" are introduced to it, or promptly counseled about it, through groups such as MUFON. While I am fond of any support for the subject, the fact is, meeting a large group of people who feed you the details of how it generally happens can only contribute to your (a) experiencing and interpreting it just that way, and (b) wanting to experience it that way, so that your experience will be considered valid. In terms of combining data, these groups are an excellent opportunity. But they completely obliterate most all ability of researchers to get any "objective" look at the contact experience, by creating a tremendous bias and pre-exposure, even to details of the subject, in members et al.

That these groups have the largest percentage of people who feel victimized is not coincidence. It becomes a trauma support group, and I'm appalled at the damage that does to people, and the slant it gives to the information overall. I have even seen people, repeatedly, tell others that no, their experience could not have happened in that way or mean that thing, because "this is how it is." This whole field has become a religion, with it own doctrine, acceptable data, etc.

In magick and metaphysics it tends to be more individual, and less subject to harsh criticism from others (and therefore less fear and sensitivity in the reporters). These fields have their own pitfalls, however. Ceremonial Magick is often practiced as part of a group (namely "secret societies"), and the groups, or the party line of those in authority, have their own paradigms of belief--most of which think in the context of "entities" rather than "aliens." Some magicians who do feel the two subjects (magick and "aliens") are related are quiet about it, either because they want to be comfortable in the group and taken seriously as an intellectual, or because they feel it's an "advanced" understanding that is secret.

The 'new age' or metaphysics field, e.g. "channeled" work which dabbles in the 'alien' subject, may be more supportive, but brings with it an entire predefined view--just as the others do. If you are taught that the guys with the lizardish skin and vertical pupils are the bad guys, and the guys who are birdlike or white light are good guys, then depending on your psychology, chances are which group you're thinking about, and even which group you meet, and what happens during that meeting, can be influenced. 

That people end up carrying these assumptions into their experience—and then back to the reporting documents—only further skews the pool of data. Without these assumptions, those subjective conclusions about intent, and interpretations while within the experience, might not have been reached. The experiences may still be valid. But no researcher, with clients affected by these biases, is going to have a fair look at the scope or range of data. 

I feel open validation of all data might create more relaxed subjects and less creativity. The researchers and research groups are themselves biased about "what to consider data." As a result, they get biased input--and their conclusions are simply a biased output. 

There's a connectivity that's being lost. I think all things are a circuit... they might work both ways. We may learn as much or more about aliens, consciousness and "dimensions" from biological angles—chemicals (drugs), frequency modulation—as we could from purely psychological (meditational or magical) angles. I'm a huge fan of scientific experimentation, and wish I had the money, time and education to do more of it in this area. Official Science's disbelief in these experiences, and the belief by most spiritually-inclined folks that drugs or science is not the same as doing it oneself (which may be true--but may not), limits people in both fields from experimentation from the other angle. 

Lastly, I feel that the physical correlations to "metaphysical" experience, be it spiritual or alien related, from sleep disorders to schizophrenic symptoms to evidence of electromagnetic brain activity, do not in my view invalidate the experiences. In fact, they may merely be markers, or even the secondary effects, of the less tangible experiences. 

I think if we stopped dismissing things that have possible physical symptoms (used to assume those symptoms are a cause rather than an effect), we might find interesting ways to document, and even recreate, those less tangible events under controlled conditions.

Misc. Troubles with Discussing All This

I don't agree with some of the people who are inclined to say that the body is merely a "host" like some sort of hotel. I've had more reason to conclude this than most people will ever have, and yet I see it as an incorrect paradigm—and in my opinion, just another version of the 'original sin' theory—that the body is somehow bad, so if we don't want to be bad, we're not really our bodies, we're something else. And, people are afraid of identifying with the body, since it dies, and they want to survive that death.

This whole denial of the physical plane is as silly as the denial of other aspects of existence. They're all important and they're all "us." The idea that the body is separate from the mind and psychology has been well disproved by far better experts than myself—the body and mind are intrinsically connected, at the least. (I'm more inclined to say they are the same thing from different perspectives.) The communication and feedback works both ways. I feel the body is not merely a shell, but an integral part of identity, and part of the overall "Being" which we'll call the Soul (for lack of a better word--I use that one for convenience, not religion).


When people having 'contact' experiences try to relate them, they're often lost for words when it comes to describing the "physicality" of it. It's a dream but not, it's physical but not; there can be bruises when your body didn't seem to leave the bed, and no sign at all when you could swear it had, or vice versa. One is left very confused. Sometimes the overall impression is "about 80% physical." How does one describe that to a researcher who is still holding to a belief system that says one is either "fully physical" or "only dreaming?"

Researchers are forced to conclude that if it didn't happen in the frequency we call "here," with physical evidence or photographs, it was a dream or hallucination. But the concept, "It wasn't physical, so it had to be a dream" is just another version of "They all look alike to me." Plain ignorance. We're just so unfamiliar with the idea of there being more than one level of reality, and different degrees of tangibility, that we are unable to see the differences. Black or white, we say; any shades of gray we encounter, we cannot even conceptualize; we force the definition of them into one or the other of our polarities.


The physicality misunderstanding also creates the endless arguments between real and valid. One has to be careful with the words used in discussions about this subject; the semantics become important; definitions are hard enough to come by.

If I say I had a realistic dream, people don't assume it's "real," though they might accept it's "valid—but only to you." If I say something happened fully in 3D, they assume it's "real," and therefore that it is objectively valid—even for them.

This would be fine if 90% of this field wasn't other than 3D. Since little of it is fully in this plane of perception, this view merely tosses the vast majority of the only data we have for study (already confusing) out the window as "invalid."

But how does a person like me, who experiences this, explain the in-betweens, or the boths, or the neithers? Or explain the shifts from one to another? And how can the non-experiencing researchers know what to take as data to analyze?

In quantum physics, it has been determined that observing an experiment with particles affects their behavior. By this model one could say that since you're affecting your own experiment, that the results are hardly objective, and the results of "what the particles [naturally] do" are therefore invalid as controlled experiments. True. But the fact is, the particles do X or Y. Whether or not this is because we knew of this, or had desires of one or the other beforehand, or were watching, the X or Y still exist—and the movement of the particles still happened. 

Yes, how the particle behaved or reached X or Y point, and which it reached, may be affected by the scientist's own "interference." But that does not make one assume that either the movement of the particles, or "where" they moved to, did not happen or does not exist, merely because both issues were "subjectively influenced by the researcher's mind." Of course they were. So what.

The same holds true, in my opinion, for the "contact" field. That we may self-create (or "tune into") certain types of Beings or experiences after thinking about something along those lines, or after a certain type of childhood that may affect our perception, certainly makes things 'subjective.' But confirming accounts around the world and throughout time indicate to me that this does not invalidate the experience.

Bewilderness is copyright © 1993 to present to Palyne "PJ" Gaenir ( See