Which aliens belong to which group?

The so-called Nordics and Semitics are human-looking aliens discussed by government whistleblower Dr. Michael Wolf and others (see Richard Boylan’s website). Wolf said that Nordics (tall, often blonde aliens who look like humans) and Semitics (long-nosed aliens who look semitic-human) come from the fourth and fifth planets of a star called Altair, which is easily visible from our northern hemisphere. However, Wolf said both groups were bred by another human-looking group from the Pleiades star cluster. In other words, they would all be related. *Swiss contactee Billy Meier’s much-disputed contacts feature “Pleiadians,” although he now calls them Plejarans.

The problem with “Pleidians” is two-fold. One, contactees say the Pleiadians are enemies of the grays, yet that appears to be contradicted by reports that Pleiadians say they’re part of a “galactic federation,” which sounds exactly like the gray alignment (reportedly based in another galaxy group, not ours). Secondly, the Pleiades star group (purported home of “the Pleiadians”) is only 100 million years old, so life couldn’t have evolved there yet (Earth is 4.5 billion years old). Instead, the name of those human-looking aliens should reflect their origin, which certainly isn't the Pleiades. *If US soldiers were to ride into Africa and say “we're from Africa because we have a base here,” no one would call them Africans.

Some abductees interviewed by David Jacobs say Nordics were involved in their abductions. As Jacobs writes,” the evidence clearly suggests that the Nordics are most probably adult hybrids of human/alien mating.” (The Threat p. 93) Abductees told Jacobs that Nordics have been seen wearing tight-fitting, one piece uniforms sometimes of a silvery color. Brenda, who was interviewed by Budd Hopkins, said she was abducted and taken to a base where grays and Nordics worked side by side. At an MIT conference on abductions, researcher Jenny Randles said her research showed that in Britain 35% of abductions are by Nordics, 6% of abductions in the United States are by Nordics, and in Europe 25% are by Nordics. (C.D.B. Bryan) In other words, evidence suggests that “Pleiadians” and Nordics are gray alignment aliens.

There are further inconsistencies in “the Pleiadian” story. Given that aliens have diverse kinds of skin, eyes, and other features that derive from various evolutionary conditions, it’s unlikely that aliens who arrive here would just happen to look just like we do. So, when aliens who arrive look exactly like humans and say they just happen to be based in our vicinity, something is wrong with their story. Biological diversity suggests that humans were taken from our planet in order to create the Nordic, Semitic and “Pleiadian” contingents. They appear to be mere props for the gray alignment's intervention here, fallbacks to be used in a multi-pronged gray alignment approach to humankind. Given that they look like we do, the gray alignment would assume that we might trust them.

So-called “tall white” aliens look so much like humans that if they wear sunglasses, they can mix in a human crowd. After Charles Hall wrote that “tall whites” were allowed a base in Nevada in 1954, the year Eisenhower reportedly met with tall gray aliens (Emenneger, Sandler 1974), Michael Salla suggested that tall whites and tall grays may be related. If that’s true, the fact that sharp-chinned, tall grays reportedly accompany and give orders to shorter grays would further suggest a tall white-gray alignment status. There’s evidence to suggest that tall whites and other hybrid enclaves are fed selective versions of gray alignmment propaganda. As airman Charles Hall wrote in his first book, a “tall white” alien doctor was astounded to learn that humans actually feel love. Apparently, the tall white doctor was told otherwise. In other words, the gray alignment may have provided tall whites with anti-human dogma that makes it easier for tall whites to kill troublesome humans, as Hall and other witnesses say they have. In a 2007 interview, Hall said a tall white female asked him, “Do you understand that we love our children more than humans love their children?” (Hall quote from Sweeps Fox show 11-07)

At various junctures, aliens beyond the gray alignment have described the tall whites as a gray alignment dependency. This is alarming news because it would mean that back in 1954 tall whites were allowed a base next to a small Air Force base in Indian Springs, NV under false pretenses (they pretended to be anti-gray). Hall reports that US servicemen were ordered to supply the tall whites with foodstuffs, technological components, and more. Soon, US presidents were eliminated from direct control of such interactions. Worse yet, someone in the US command gave tall whites permission to kill US airmen on foot patrol who frightened them, even though the airmen were never briefed about aliens on base grounds. As Michael Salla writes in his book Exopolitics, Eisenhower felt betrayed by the Rockefeller faction that removed such interactions from basic, consitutional controls in order to keep them secret.

Other former airmen have corroborated Charles Hall’s story about the tall whites, and reported MJ-12 member Dr. Michael Wolf told Chris Stoner that parts of a gray alien craft that crashed in the ocean west of San Diego in 1941 were shipped to the Air Force base at Indian Springs, NV (the tall whites location). Wolf said he worked on the base for a time. Wolf was an alien specialist who said he advised President Bill Clinton about alien matters.

(adapted from my book Alien Mind, free to read at www.alienmindbook.org

Thank you for the interesting post. It seems to support my argument that the UFO-Alien Abduction Phenomenon seems to have an evil and sinister quality to it, which I posted about in a different section of this website called "Leftovers" near the bottom of the homepage.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts and opinions on the possibility that the aliens could be related to the biblical references of "fallen angels" , followers of satan, who are working towards an ultimate goal of "deception" , or causing the human race to be confused and deceived thus causing many to fall away from their religious beliefs.

The hybrid breeding program would work to support that theory in my opinion.

What are your thoughts on the religious issue and especially the christianity issue where it is taught that satan and the other fallen angels are working against mankind, I'd love to hear your opinion on the subject if you don't mind.


thank you,
NJ

I don't use the word "evil" when discussing aliens. I don't think it's all so black and white. The data and reports we have to date suggest that aliens aren't religious in the human notion of the term. Which isn't to say that they aren't spiritual. The distinction can be seen in the fact that aliens engage in group telepathic and psychotronically boosted telepathic interaction with each other, and in order to interact with their advanced technology. So, alien identity is more group/social than individual, as is their notion of spirituality. So, an alien's idea of soul isn't so much our individual notion, nor our idea that one religion is above another.

Since they aren't religious (although some may speak of religion in order to influence humans and gain sway here), they assume that soul is of a collective validity. That which is more universal is literally that. To aliens, all souls, all mind exists. Some aliens may have encouraged our early notion of religion in order to get us to evolve a more advanced, collective idea of mind in the universe. But they don't worship at a given time, as far as we know. Instead, they seek more universal understandings that apply at all times. Their notion is integrated into their societies and is necessary to interact with other alien societies, apparently.

Again, this isn't a matter of my beliefs but is about how aliens think.

George LoBuono wrote:

Given that aliens have diverse kinds of skin, eyes, and other features that derive from various evolutionary conditions, it’s unlikely that aliens who arrive here would just happen to look just like we do. So, when aliens who arrive look exactly like humans and say they just happen to be based in our vicinity, something is wrong with their story. Biological diversity suggests that humans were taken from our planet in order to create the Nordic, Semitic and “Pleiadian” contingents.

Hello George,

Okay, there are two facts offered here: 1). that some aliens look like us 2). that means that those aliens must have been re-created from pre-existing humans on our planet.

There appears to be a leap in logic here.

Maybe some aliens look like us because they are OUR predecessors? Many earthly traditions and mythologies say that "we were created in the image" of the "gods" or whoever the legends refer to. So, there is anecdotal evidence for humans being a creation, and indeed "in the image of" beings from elsewhere. I know of no "evidence" for things being the other way around. The only place I have ever seen this singular suggestion is in your unsupported assertion here.

Clearly, if as you say, there are "aliens" who look like us, there are three ways this could have happened: A). they spawned us from themselves; B). they were spawned from us, through the agency of others (since we clearly lack the knowledge to do this ourselves); C). it is just a coincidence, a fluke of nature, that some beings physically resemble others.

So, why have you only considered possibility B). when possibilities A). and C). are equally as likely? If we apply Occam's Razor, then your choice (option B) seems the most UNLIKELY of the three options, having more elemental hurdles to overcome for it to work. In fact, with the available anecdotal evidence, only possibility A). can be corroborated: to my mind, that makes it the most likely explanation of all. Well, in a series of explanations about things (aliens) which, by there very nature (being unavailable for us to directly investigate), must remain theoretical at this point.

But I guess that runs counter to the aliens as master manipulators theory that you seem to be espousing here. Is that why you picked the more convoluted and unsupported option?

Sgt Cliff Stone (USA retired) stated that there were 57 types of aliens that have visited us. (I wonder if he got the number from Heinz?) For those of you who do not know, Sgt Stone was instrumental in finding the Project Moon Dust documents that proved there was a classified USAF agency whose job it was to retrieve satellites and unknown space objects. The name was changed to another classified (and still unknown) name when the document came to light. He has claimed to have recovered a crashed saucer in Vietnam, and has also claimed to be in contact with an alien being.

While he has yet to verify any of his claims, the number 57 does pop up frequently on sites and other types of testimonies.

I have always thought the theory that all the visitors are little gray men does not sound right. I have the theory that most of the explorers who come to Terra have an interplanetary crew, like Star Trek. I know, it sounds weird, but why would they not bring in others to study us?

One reason why I think Travis Walton is telling the truth is the fact he had encounters with two different aliens, and not the pop culture gray type aliens. He saw humanoids with large heads who had five fingers on each hand. He also encountered the Nordic type of alien, before they became popular.

I do not necessarily believe anything that the whistleblowers claim, but I will still read what they have to say. Thank you for this rather fascinating topic.

Mike, the fossil record shows that we evolved here. We evolved from small mammals that survived the extinction of dinosaurs. We aren't a creation of aliens, although we may have been tinkered with. Did you ever take an anthropology class? Even a simple biology class will have covered human evolution. If I'm not mistaken, you live in the Caltech-San Luis Obispo area, where the sciences are strong. I'm surprised you don't agree with human evolution. We weren't just placed here---there's proof we originated here, not on an alien planet.

There is no fossil or other hard evidence for human-looking aliens to have pre-dated us. So to say that I'm turning the argument on its head isn't true. Evolution is widely accepted, even at UFO magazine. We see a long. slow but steady progression from apes to Homo Sapiens. I think the error may occur when people assume that those human-looking aliens must have evolved on their own, and, since their technology is at least thousands of years beyond us (not much more), they must be much older than we are.

But the Pleiadians and Nordics have all been seen doing joint abductions with grays, according to abductee reports. In the original post above, In note various abduction researchers' findings on the subject.

George LoBuono wrote:

We weren't just placed here---there's proof we originated here, not on an alien planet.

There is no fossil or other hard evidence for human-looking aliens to have pre-dated us. So to say that I'm turning the argument on its head isn't true. Evolution is widely accepted, even at UFO magazine. We see a long. slow but steady progression from apes to Homo Sapiens. I think the error may occur when people assume that those human-looking aliens must have evolved on their own, and, since their technology is at least thousands of years beyond us (not much more), they must be much older than we are.

The "proof" for human evolution is not conclusive. In fact, it is full of holes as is proof of the evolution of practically every creature out there. A lot of what we today accept as “science”, in practice, is little better than the religious dogma that so dominated western thinking in earlier times. There is no better example of this than the blind acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is taught in our schools as if it is a thoroughly tested and rational theory. Is it?

There are many scholars today who claim that the theory does not stand up to rigorous evaluation. Their ideas provide some eye opening observations. Many of these revolve around the fact that the “intermediate species” that one would naturally expect to find (that is, the ‘stepping stones’ between one species and its next ‘evolutionary’ phase) simply are not reflected in the evidence. In the words of famed anthropologist Louis Leakey, “There is no one missing link-there are hundreds of links missing.” Perhaps the most damning indictment of Darwin’s theory appears in the text of his own book, “The Origin of Species”: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?.....[This] is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

The real question here is why has science not risen to the challenge of Darwin’s own objections to evolutionary theory? Is it because it is easier to blindly believe, than to question? Is it because Darwin conveniently provided an alternative to the Christian "god did it" theory of homo-genesis, that at least appeared to stem from the rational rather than religious faith in dogma? Doesn't Darwin's theory itself provide yet another blind belief, lacking solid empirical proof, that simply replaces an older irrational dogma with a new one?

If there is no fossil evidence that conclusively shows where we came from or how we evolved here, your assumptions are just that, assumptions. Just because your evolutionary assumptions are the accepted cultural paradigm, does not mean that they are true. Your "long. slow but steady progression from apes to Homo Sapiens" is more of a disjointed group of seemingly related types with large gaps between them and no coherent linear path that shows the steady progression you are advocating here. Even anthropologists admit this.

The cultural myths and oral traditions I mentioned earlier do not say that man "evolved on another planet". They all say that we were "created" on earth, in situ, from an amalgam of available earthly biological material combined with that of "the gods", whoever they may be: "created in their image" as the ancient traditions tell us. So, there is anecdotal evidence of things happening in that way. There is no material of this sort to suggest that things happened the way you state, except coming directly from you.

You said, "There is no fossil or other hard evidence for human-looking aliens to have pre-dated us." Of course not. There is no "fossil or hard evidence" for aliens to exist at all!

I do not pretend to know the truth of something that is so completely enshrouded in the fog of time. But as I pointed out before, your theory is both singular and unique. Given that a lot of what you say here is dependent on your tenuous (and seemingly confabulated) theory then, at least what you say here, seems hopelessly dependent on the correctness of your unsupported assumptions.

My point being, to play along with your story here, we must make the same quantum leaps in logic that you do. I am not willing to do that without even a hint of corroborating evidence.

By the way, several years ago UFO magazine published an article questioning Darwin's theory of evolution. I would have to dig to get the issue number, but I can do that if you wish.

Mike, I don't know where you're going with the creationist drift. Yes, millions believe it, but not many scientists. Darwin's comments date from a hundred years ago or more, when technology to dig out fossil link specimens was lacking. Since then, much has been unearthed. To me, the evidence for evolution is even stronger than the evidence for global warming, yet both are generally accepted by the scientific community.

I don't see anything in my argument that is singular. My remarks are simply a cursory discussion of general arguments. Of course we don't have ALL the smooth flow of fossils from one time period to another. There are earth crust upheavals, immersions due to sedimentation, even continental drift dating from the time Pangea split up. That buries some of the evidence but any gaps aren't the kind of data that would upset the entire theory.

If you have doubts about evolution, test your argument in discussion with an evolutionary biologist. They can explain the theory more adequately. Or read any current work on the subject--a new coverage of findings. Finally, aliens themselves are keenly interested in genetics. Genetics is merely a tinkering with pre-existing, naturally evolved sequences. Aliens are merely last minute editors of any genetics they tinker with. From what we observe, they appear to show some of their original forms even millions of years after having evolved genetic manipulation technology.

Darwin, Freud and Einstein may have been the most important scientists of the last 150 years. On a visit to Westminster chapel, the place where eminent British personages are buried, I was walking with my wife from one oversized king's burial statue (often on stallions of marble) to another, when, stepping between folding chairs out on the floor, I nearly stepped on Darwin's gravestone. It was a modest flat nameplate on the floor, nothing more. I was disappointed that a monarchical state had given so much marble and glory to archaic, classist offenders, while Darwin was almost hidden.

My guess is that if you were to ask an alien, the alien would say, certainly---evolution occurred.

Why debate evolution when there's a bigger problem: You're citing Wolf, Boylan, and Jacobs as sources.

Wolf - a fraud.

Boylan - stripped of the title "Dr." for sexually wrongful acts with clients, kinda crazy, and a fraud.

Jacobs - has formed a very specific narrative for what alien abductions represent and will only accept clients who conform to that narrative. To my mind this is a form of fraud, although one without conscious intent to harm the public/subject.

I don't understand why anyone with access to a Google Search would quote Wolf or Boylan. (Jacobs is a different deal altogether so I do understand that.)

Boylan did interesting work some years ago and had some deep sources, for a time. Now, he's different, as you note. And Wolf? The jury is out, not as black and white as you suggest. I agree, parts of Wolf's story appear to be standard disinfo of intel employees, but those were minor parts. His academic and other details may have been snuffed per his black budget work. And Jacobs isn't a fraud. He has an analysis that is critical of abductors.

Do you think abductors are less dangerous than Jacobs' abductees portrayal of them? I'd like to hear more details of your reasoning about Jacobs, a very important researcher.

How do you have "minor parts" of disinfo? Baby?--meet bathwater. Y'all getting chucked together.

As for Jacobs: He will not see an abductee if the abductee doesn't already believe that evil aliens are here to take over. That might be a simplification of his position but it's true. He is so certain that he's right anything else will not get a fair hearing. That's as good as disinformation to me.

I don't know if abductors are more or less harmful than Jacobs portrays them but I know it's a long conversation involving the following talking points:

-- We have no clue if hypnotically-retrieved memory is real. If it is, how much is fabricated by the leading questions of the hypnotist? And I think there needs to be a new concern here, which is, Do abductees go to the hypnotist they've heard of who best reflects their disposition? (So that if you are fearful of abductions you might seek out a Jacobs or a Hopkins. If you think it's all space brotherly love, perhaps you gravitate toward Leo Sprinkle or Barbara Lamb.)

-- We don't know what these beings we lazily call "aliens" are. (Assuming there are beings to being with. I would argue there are but I can see that it's still an open question.)

-- We don't know what humans are.

-- Much like Disney does to animals and objects, we're anthropomorphizing "aliens." Whether they are good or bad, they stick to those good/bad rules and carry out an agenda in the way we understand agendas to be carried out. They've got secrets because they are manipulative bastards. or they've got secrets because we just wouldn't understand, but it's for the greater good.

I think we need to be honest with ourselves about what we want here. Clearly what we tend to do is create an answer for the unknown and argue within those self-proclaimed confines. Jacobs is no different and, in fact, worse because he will do anything to preserve those confines even if it means shutting out key aspects of the testimony of his clients.

Here's the thing, George: I have yet to meet an abductee/experiencer who has had only the little gray or reptilian doctor scenario happen to them. All experiencers I know have had high strangeness "paranormal" phenomena happen to them as well. All of them grow from these experiences in ways Jacobs/Hopkins hate to admit. They call it Stockholm Syndrome or even alien-controlled positive reaction to the negative experience. I think this is because there is little follow-up years down the line with clients. They have their narratives and they cattle herd in new abductees to tell it to them over and over again. But that's the perspective of some abductees "new" and scared. Check back with 'em in a few years, see if they're still at that stage. Probably not. But for Jacobs & Hopkins, who perpetually see only this stage, their growth must look like a gross mutation.

You're right about abductees having a variety of high strangeness. And they typically come away from alien interactions with a new, expanded kind of remote sensing or other psi ability. But do we know "what" aliens are?

It seems you resonate Mack's opinion that we don't know if they're extra-dimensional, or what their actual composition is. But if you've been physically present before aliens, or have had years of ongoing communications (as I have) you know what they say they are. Aliens in my own, direct experience have many times stated that they're phyiscal, biological. Through advanced genetics, they may be able to move via their electrogravitic/magnetogravitic technology through walls and in faster-than-light translocations without the genetic damage that high energy would inflict on us, but they're still very physical. And the extra dimension of a typical alien's science is simply an expanded space that, at the same time, cycles more deeply inward. They actually explain parts of their science for you--if you interact with them.

Or you may be hinting at those unusually advanced categories of aliens that seem so far off the typical human's scale that the notion of physicality is called into question. But that's OUR notion of physicality, not necessarily theirs. True, in the larger universe, awareness, and even a relic memory of our total thinking existence may linger with those Kaluza Klein-like deeper dimensional fluctuations that accompany every light wave, but that's the awareness. The alien notion of mind (subject of my free-to-read on the web book Alien Mind) tends toward a community value/identity. The more universal aspects of that are more ~universal, hence seemingly more faintly dimensioned further out and enduring.

But the energy of that is different from an actual, genetic organism. Our discussion of aliens usuallly implies such a physical existence, rather than the more ephemeral, entire universal notion of alien community of mind (which is nonetheless important--especially among aliens).

It seems that at this early stage in human-alien relations, we should listen to the most logical aspects that researchers of good character have to offer, and then test them for internal consistency, corroboration, allowing for peculiarities, the individuals' intellectual blind spots, their biases and their limitations. If we threw out all that anyone who made mistakes had to say, we'd have no sources. However, I agree that when you get a case like Boylan, who now talks of joint psychic exercises in which he vanquishes the cabal's system of weapons using the combined energy of aficionados psychic energy, he's reached a threshold that speaks for itself. But people like Michael Salla (who sometimes credits what I consider questionable alien reports--via a notion of probability) refer to Boylan's earlier work because it is sometimes the only source of what appears to be key information. Such info is offered as the source said it, not necessarily the secondary author.

If inconsistencies were damning, Lazar would be a fraud because he wasn't killed and had an interest in a brothel (which the old regime probably thought fitting), Stanton Friedman might be ignored because of reports of a CIA tie, all alien science would be invalid because Nobel Prize winners say it's all impossible, and all abductions would simply be a kind of sleep disorder. I'm not trying to place inordinate emphasis on either Wolf or Jacobs, although I do think Jacobs graduated from Mack's more benign, accepting open-endedness to a more trenchant analysis of the same kinds of horrors that Mack's abductees also talked about. But Jacobs doesn't deride all aliens as evil. The irony in both his and Hopkins case is that their early role in establishing methods and protocols in abduction research make them both a little bit conservative in discussing aliens in general. But Jacobs is onto something: there is a breeding program. Women abductees evidence bizarre scarrring of their uteruses that gynecologists liken to having been pregnant dozens of times, and some such accounts aren't merely gathered from hypnosis.

A good percentage of such accounts are fully waking recollections gained through interviews. It's the consistency across the spectrum both here and abroad among people who, at the time, could not have known salient details of other abductees' stories that invite a serious consideration. The same devices onboard, the same kinds of extractions, statements by aliens, viewing experiences, floating through walls, etc. Even a die hard skeptic--like Mack, came away with a certainty that he was seeing direct, explicit emotional recollections, some of them without hypnosis. The data bore out, over time, as did the information leaked by official whistleblowers.

More to the point, at this early time we need to open to the broader outlines, even, as you suggest, the fact that there are no "evil" aliens and that abductors, themselves, appear to be convinced that what they're doing is for the better. But that latter assumption is a typical mistake made by any regime, anywhere. Aliens are no exception to the groupthink of errant governments. And when such governments administer hundreds or thousands of planets, involving nearly a full-galactic scale of scientific implications and energy usage, as Kardichev suggested a Type III civilization does, then there are times when the large-scale needs and decisions of such societies do not highly regard the seemingly lesser concerns and rights of aliens such as ourselves. Whether we think one account flawless, or not, we absolutely must expand our analysis, both in scale (far beyond a single galaxy) and in terms of data. Disclosure would help, even that of foreign governments.

To adequately flesh out a larger body data of what is occurring on this planet at this time, it may help to look for the most reliable, consistent cases and try as best you can to toss the details that make no sense. For example, reading Michael Salla's latest book, Exposing US Government Policies on Extraterrestrial Life, I find his exopolitical discussion and his outlining of US policies very important, a necessary addition to the discourse--even though I disregard his mention about some story about a winged reptiliain alien (an implausible story, in my opionion). I also wonder why Salla mentions the early "Space Brothers" aliens and Cooper's account about an early Eisenhower contact with concerned, human-looking aliens as a missed opportunity---the reason I wonder about that is because both Nordic and Pleiadian types have been seen doing joint abductions with grays. And if that's true, those human-looking aliens are part of the same scheme but are merely trying to play the good cop in it. Without discussing such subjects, we would never know, nor be prepared for such an eventuality. Sure, some of it is rather droll, often repititive.

No one has THE definitive data on aliens, and problems arise when any of us is too certain that he or she does. So, it's best to listen to critiques, actually seek them out. Disagree with anyone you choose to, but be sure to expand your reasoning, noting the plausible aspects along with the ridiculous ones of any person's story. That way we'll all be talking about the same evidence.

The worst part of this whole subject area is the disinformation. Serpo, for example, apparently coming from disinfo artists over in Doty's AFOSI corner. And if you read Salla's new book you'll see how the CIA went from a conventional OSS to resembling an organized crime sub-regime after 1949, certainly after the Rockefeller brothers conned Eisenhower out of executive management of e.t. programs. Not all CIA employees are gangsters, I know. Two of my brothers worked in military intel, in different services, for about 4-6 years each. And I took graduate classes studying intelligence organizations and their history, along with US history, so I know the realities of global information gathering.

But when money-grubbing old regime hacks try to foul public awareness of major new subjects--like aliens, watch out. The contradictions of the old regime must not foul the lives of our children.

In my book, I mention a lot to be learned from aliens, and some of it is a painful lesson.

But keep an open mind. Don't let your critique of anyone or any entity flag. There is good data in a healthy number of direct witness accounts. I began this thread in order to open the discussion up to scrutiny of aliens and their associations, not to confine it.

Uh. Michael Salla, eh? I guess this is where my prejudice to the old saying about the company you keep comes in. Salla, Boylan, Wolf--wanna toss in Greer, too? Or Meier?

I mean these are all warning signs that I probably shouldn't read what comes next if these are the people informing the dialogue. Still, you claim experiences of your own and that interests me. Specifically, this:

"And the extra dimension of a typical alien's science is simply an expanded space that, at the same time, cycles more deeply inward."

What do you mean by "cycles more deeply inward?"

(And just as an aside, I would say that of course it looks like Jacobs' story has internal consistency. He vets his clients for such. But I guarantee you if you talk to them they will have had far more to their experience than the "logical" story he tells--but they won't tell him about it because he doesn't want to hear it. This is a huge problem, IMO. Even at the personal therapeutic level. Imagine seeing a psychologist and not being able to be open to them. What's the point?)

With regard to aliens/extraterrestrials, there is no one archetype. You can’t group them all together and say, “Here, this is what they are – this is what they are up to”. There are many species represented with many agendas present, all interwoven.

Each of us has only one piece to the puzzle, or sees only our small part of the elephant.

Categorizing aliens/extraterrestrials as good or evil is a ridiculous concept, altogether, in my opinion, and is tantamount to making these phenomena all fit into our limited worldview or philosophical framework – it doesn’t fit, because it can’t.

They all are simply doing what is needful for them. Their actions may appear as good or evil based solely on the observer’s perspective, religious belief system and/or worldview. Without knowing their intent, firsthand, who can say? And why would they configure their actions to our societal norms – that would be ridiculous, as well. Good and evil, right and wrong, black and white is simply our concept alone – why would we expect the universe to align itself to our concept of it? The universe is what it is.

All biological creatures have an intellectual ceiling, including humans. The question becomes how can we best grasp what is going on, within the framework of our own ‘intellectual ceiling’ ?

The first step in solving any problem is to correctly identify it. It's us that need to change, before we can more deeply grasp what is going on here - our thought process limits our understanding of the world, and everything in it.

Cheers
Jocariah

.

Jeremy: an extra dimension cycles inwardly via deeper, tighter yet faster sub-quantum fluctuations, i.e. what the Jan 2000 issue of Scientific American calls "negative energy." ("Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp Drive" by Ford and Roman) Negative energy occurs when light waves are converged to cancel out in a vacuum, and they create fluctuations of "negative energy," or places where energy is "less than zero," as the article explains. But how can energy be less than zero? It would have to involve a deeper non-local aspect of the structuring and characterization of space-time.

Like the Calabi Yau manifolds that string theorists work with, negative energy would involve a sub-quantum ability to nearly instantaneously connect such fluctuations with other, sometimes distant places. So, an extra dimension is like a shared sub-space that exists within a smaller space (cycling inwardly) while it also expands in a fine, relatively airy way, much further outward into space. It's like a quantum that can be in more than one place at a given time. In other words, it occupies an extra dimension, in the most literal sense of the word.

You may wonder, where would we see a kind of negative cycling--going inwarldy? You see that in the following: all atoms that fuse in stars are being cycled into a tighter, denser kind of form (inwardly. All black holes and gravity cycles inwardly, so they have a kind of negative energy. But remember, the key to the extra dimensional version of such inward cycling is that it cycles both inwardly and makes nearly instantaneous leaps, it resonates with similar phenomena much further out in space.

Examples of extra dimensions that you know in everyday life: the past, the future, and the universe. How do they connect? That's every individual's challenge to find out.

Greer has some worthy info---admit it, Jeremy. Throw that baby out with all the bath water and you would have no idea about what is going on in deep political structures, or was from the '90's to about 2004. I'm not a student of Meier. Please, mention some names that, in your opinion hold water. It isn't the company you keep, but the information that you allow yourself to consider.

Thanks for the explanation.

To Greer: Define "good info." If you mean that at one point he was trusted by decent people who didn't know where else to turn, such as Bob Salas? Then sure. If you mean that for $800 you can shine a flashlight in a field with him to vector in airplanes then...not so much.

But as far as Wolf, Lazar, Cliff Stone, or any of the alleged whistle-blowers go, their claims are at best unverifiable and at worst lies, so there's nothing to hang our hats on there.

Isn't there enough solid evidence, enough credible people around that we don't have to listen to the Greers and the Dotys of the world anymore?

Who do I think is trustworthy? -- Stanton Friedman. I don't agree with his conclusions necessarily, but I trust that he's not a charlatan. Ditto that, Rich Dolan.

Jacques Vallee, John Keel, Phil Imbrogno, Ted Philips, Greg Bishop, Ray Fowler--these are all top-notch researchers/thinkers IMO.

But really, nowadays I think the "important" work is coming out of other fields. Graham Hancock's "Supernatural," for instance, is a must-read. Rick Strassman. Terrence & Dennis McKenna's hallucinogen work and philosophizing are important.

I'm not done with the book but so far I'd recommend Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness, by B. Alan Wallace.

I think the future of research isn't out there but more to do with quantum biology and consciousness. We're asking what they are before we know what we are. That's the mistake upon which ufology was built.

Jocariah wrote:

With regard to aliens/extraterrestrials, there is no one archetype. You can’t group them all together and say, “Here, this is what they are – this is what they are up to”. There are many species represented with many agendas present, all interwoven.

Each of us has only one piece to the puzzle, or sees only our small part of the elephant.

Categorizing aliens/extraterrestrials as good or evil is a ridiculous concept, altogether, in my opinion, and is tantamount to making these phenomena all fit into our limited worldview or philosophical framework – it doesn’t fit, because it can’t.

They all are simply doing what is needful for them. Their actions may appear as good or evil based solely on the observer’s perspective, religious belief system and/or worldview. Without knowing their intent, firsthand, who can say? And why would they configure their actions to our societal norms – that would be ridiculous, as well. Good and evil, right and wrong, black and white is simply our concept alone – why would we expect the universe to align itself to our concept of it? The universe is what it is.

All biological creatures have an intellectual ceiling, including humans. The question becomes how can we best grasp what is going on, within the framework of our own ‘intellectual ceiling’ ?

The first step in solving any problem is to correctly identify it. It's us that need to change, before we can more deeply grasp what is going on here - our thought process limits our understanding of the world, and everything in it.

Cheers
Jocariah

.

But that's all your belief about what they are and are doing and why. It may be right, wrong, or somewhere in between.

And for us, I don't think the intellectual ceiling is the problem. Or maybe what I should say is, I don't think we have to confine ourselves to that box. We are not fully developed in ways that transcend intellect. This is what I mean when I say that we cannot ask what they are before we figure out what we are first. We're jumping the gun prematurely, especially with exopolitics. Expolitics presumes aliens just like us in different bodies waiting for disclosure to happen so we can join some mythical galactic federation. And then what? NAFTA and GATT in space? Star Trek Trader Joe's?

A real Starbucks?

I don't think the evidence fits this at all. My experience certainly doesn't. So I cannot buy into there being some federation just waiting for us to mature in the ways that we want that to mean. I think if they are waiting for us to mature at all, it means a total revolution in what it means to be human. I don't think we would recognize ourselves anymore and that scares us into remaining with the hell we know. It's not just that the prison cell is cozy, but that to "get there" means a type of inward death that is essentially suicide. The death of self while alive is suicide and what comes next is unknown. These are antithetical to how we function.

Here's your Zen Koan for the day: What is is what ain't.

I do agree with you, Jeremy on the truthfulness of the "whistle-blowers". I have a problem with the claims that are made without any type of verification. While Sgt Cliff Stone has been instrumental with exposure of the Project Moon Dust documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), his claims that he still has contact with the aliens seem to take away his credibility. It may be possible he does have telepathic contact with alien entities, there is no way to prove it one way or another without the entity showing up for an interview.

Retired Command Sergeant Major Robert Dean is another "whistle-blower" who claimed to have read a report about aliens entitled "The Assessment". Researcher Timothy Good could not find any of his very high ranking contacts to verify that such a document existed. CSM Dean then showed a picture of the document, and it turned out to be fake. He claims he made the fake to help with the story, and that the document known as "The Assessment" is quite real. To complicate matters in his story, he now believes in the story that Nibiru will arrive on 2012. His wife being a psychic in contact with aliens does not help his cause either.

There are authors who claim we have been visited by Reptilian like beings in the past, and they do show some interesting sculptures to make their case. Again, it is speculation as to what the real intent of the artists are in any of the works being passed off as alien entities.

The best way to try and figure out how many alien species there are is to count the type of aliens seen in the few good cases there are.

I can give a few cases of a variety of aliens here:

1. Flatwoods (Reptilian creatures seen by a couple at the time of the incident in Braxton County)

2. Betty and Barney Hill (gray type aliens in uniform)

3. Canary Islands (tall aliens in uniform)

4. Travis Walton (gray type aliens in uniform, plus Nordic type aliens in uniform)

5. Pascagoula Mississippi incident (robot type entities)

There are many more good cases that describe different types of aliens. The best way to document the types is to keep track of the ones described by witnesses, not the whistle-blower or other type of lists available on line.

Jeremy, I agree that "federation" talk is disappoining. The universe is vast and diverse. In this galaxy there must be various interactions. And that "gray" alignment's reported idea of a federation isn't even from this galaxy, according to some reports.

I read a column you wrote. I didn't know you had abduction experience in the past. I won't even begin to talk about that---you know it better than I do, but if you don't have easy conscious recollection, there could be parts "they" didn't want you to know about.

As a direct contactee, you now know the feel of alien interactions: that slightly slowed, almost gummy way the whole experience seems (due to a kind of delta t marginal slowing of time in certain nerve areas), but more importantly you probably developed a kind of extra sense that you didn't have previously. That much changes one's life---my thinking changed profoundly after first contact in '95. As a contactee, you're probably capable of almost immediately doing a kind of remote sensing that unexposed people have a harder time doing.

Although it would be tricky (from the human-meets alien perspective), you can always revisit any aliens and/or their craft in remote sensing. I include two chapters about how to do so in my book, at www.alienmindbook.org Some of that book you may not agree with, but like you, I know exactly what is said during my interactions and take much time to carefully characterize it all, for posterity's sake. You seem relatively certain about some of what you've experienced, and it's good not to be too certain of the overall analysis. What do we know, after all?

More to the point, IF you ever remotely revisit the visitors (try starting with toh shi, then telepathy, perhaps, months before you ever check on aliens), you'd want to scale down your energies several categories more subtly to avoid too much detection. And you'd want to flash probe the entirety of the experience sublty, from afar, so as not to linger within THEIR space, again to avoid their complications. (not a visual kind of flash, but a partly reverse-streaming kind of condensed flash within the darkness of the mind---you get basic overall ideas about the past experience you may have had, and that comes in the universal "language" of ideas, geometry, and faded imagery--all condensed into a very fast burst. Anything that lasts too much longer can be detected. Even a flash probing may be detected.

If I'd had a longer history of abduction (given my profile and contacts, some past abduction is more likely, but my contacts are waking, explicit--to be noted, as such), I wouldn't want to revisit such on myself. I shouldn't blather on---you know what you've experienced, and I don't. I do hope your write about it. I read UFO mag. Mike Good did three pages about my book, last year (thinks I scare people for some reason). Actually, I appreciate any good, honest discussion of that book. I'm writing another one, now, and doing Powerpoint presentations about alien mind. It's a very large, very open subject. Anyone who has experienced interactions has much to contribute. I like to get people talking, and then they begin to come up with details they may not have considered, otherwise.

Which alien group do WE belong to? Just kidding...