Last entry I discussed my latest "find," where I am building evidence that Mathew Franklin Whittier was, indeed, working as a writer (and perhaps in some mercantile capacity, as well) in New York City in the months leading up to the publication of "The Raven," there. If I can't absolutely prove it, I've got a clear preponderance of the evidence. As I mull it over, probably the reason that he signed one article--about climbing the spire of the newly-constructed Trinity Church--with a small capital letter "H.," is because he knew his companion would brag about it to friends, and it was a rare enough thing to do, at that time, that he could be identified if he wrote about it. So best not to use any portion of his real initials; nor would he want to use the pseudonym he was using for his review series, a single asterisk. I scoured the month of December, 1844, in which it appeared, and couldn't find any other articles signed "H.," so it appears to have been a one-off. But it was written precisely in Mathew's prose style, as is also seen in the star-signed reviews. Those reviews are attributed by historians to Margaret Fuller, because she was the official literary editor of the "Tribune." But I venture to say that Fuller did not climb a "dozen ladders" to get to the top of the unfinished spire of Trinity Church.
I can go on accumulating supporting evidence like this ad infinitum, because it is a genuine case. Whatever I poke into, I find more evidence. I've used this analogy before, but suppose someone is looking for my apartment. Each apartment they enter, they find things which plausibly could be mine--a clock, a nightstand, kitchen utensils. But when they get into my apartment, they find my bills, and my antiquarian books, and my replica of the bust of Pallas, and a copy of Abby's portrait. No matter where they look, they find these identity-specific items--and there is no end to it. That's what it's like, looking into Mathew Franklin Whittier's legacy.
Now, as entertainment and education, during meals I watch videos on Youtube. Either I watch the psychic mediums work; or else, I watch what is broadly called "conspiracy theories," or alternative science videos. These last are somewhat similar to my own study, except they primarily deal with the topics of UFO's and aliens, ancient advanced civilizations, and alternative physics or mathematics. I claim no expertise in these areas, except from the University of Youtube. I figure it would be handy to understand the basic theories and concepts, in case I ever find myself hobnobbing with these folks, on the "circuit." I don't want to be in the green room or at the restaurant with these colleagues, and not understand a word they're saying.
But, of course, I also compare their methods with my own. What I find is that they hit on a few strong anomalies, a few strong pieces of evidence, and then there is a large web of theories woven around them. And that as the information gets passed along, not only the solid discoveries, but also elements of the theories are gradually accepted as foundational facts. That's a mistake, because one is now building further theories on sand.
Some of these presentations are 10% observable fact, and 90% speculation. The next person who cites that work, presents it as 90% fact and 10% speculation. And it isn't made clear which is which.
I cannot claim that my study is pure science, but it is far more scientific than most of these presentations. When I am speculating, I make that clear at the outset. If I am personally convinced it is correct, and I have given the supporting evidence, I sometimes assume it, for convenience, when I refer to it, again. Otherwise, you have to use language like they do in law enforcement, referring every single time to the "alleged" assailant. But if you have read my entire study, you know what was speculation, and what wasn't, and what kind of evidence I had to back it up.
What I see, in these Youtube presentations, is speculations being asserted as fact. For example, who has produced a grey alien? The first-hand accounts say that the occupants of crashed UFO's looked like "children," not like bug-eyed monsters. It's a serious disconnect. And as for reptilian aliens, I have seen only speculation in this department. Yet, we have people accepting the existence of these different races of aliens as fact. I have seen obvious models made to look like real aliens; I have seen alien dolls; and I have seen elongated skulls, some of them seemingly without the normal suture mark. One that was DNA tested revealed some from Europe and some unidentified, as I recall, although the skull was found in South America. And I know there are many seemingly credible abduction accounts. But I have seen no aliens, and I have seen no convincing photographs or corpses of aliens. I am also wary about the veracity of some of these sources, so that such-and-such would be convincing evidence if I believed them--but I'm not sure I do.
Perhaps if I attend these dinners, I will just keep quiet and listen, lest I get pounced on.
Similarly, in the other topics, I have seen some strong evidence and scientific presentations. Clearly, the ancient monuments evince very advanced technology. It's indisputable. The evidence that there was a massive nuclear explosion on ancient Mars, is also very strong. That sound vibration at different frequencies creates a variety of complex patterns, is demonstrable with sand on a vibrating metal plate. It seems, from experiments which (I believe) have been repeated, that water has memory and responds to positive or negative thoughts. I also saw one yesterday which indicates that there is a hexagonally-shaped, persistent, huge storm over one of the poles of Saturn. The theory, proposed by ubiquitous spokesman David Wilcock, is that it is similar to the shapes created by sound vibration at certain frequencies, and indicates some form of energy passing through the planet at the poles. It's a good theory, so far as I can judge--the only problem being, he states these speculations as though he has already accepted them as fact. (The inference is that David is so smart, if he is convinced, we should be, too.)
On the other hand, you have to be careful with some of these presentations. I saw another one yesterday, in which, with a straight face, it was asserted that there is a 100,000 year old alien satellite circling the earth, collecting data and occasionally beaming it to certain worthy or prominent persons on earth. One astronaut supposedly commented on having observed it. But this is illogical, because if there were an alien satellite orbiting the earth, one governmental body or other would have snatched it and brought it down for study. If it was too big, they would have dismantled it and brought it down piecemeal, for reverse-engineering. There would have been a competitive feeding frenzy, and whoever won, it wouldn't be there, now. One would think that the presenters would have thought this through. I conclude that the entire presentation must have been a hoax, from beginning to end.
Still, there is enough good evidence that it appears philosophical Materialism has not only crippled the fields of psychology and paranormal phenomena, it has crippled the fields of history and physics, as well.
The prized theory among all of these alternative thinkers, is that an advanced race seeded or genetically created humankind. This, obviously, doesn't negate God creating man. It just means that God, who by definition is always prior, worked through these agents. (For the matter of that, who created the agents? Or, who created the first agents? All this does is back up the question.) My spiritual master, Meher Baba--as I have mentioned before--seems to have come down on opposite sides of this question. In a quote that I have not been able to find, but which I distinctly remember reading, he said (to paraphrase) that the idea of a "missing link" was a big mistake, and that mankind arose through an act of "special creation" (I remember the exact phrase). On the other hand, in the 1930's, he was negotiating with Western filmmakers to create a film portraying his teachings on creation, as set forth in his book, "God Speaks." In the course of that negotiation, he not only described the "missing link," but added some bizarre animal "link" creations of pre-history. They are so bizarre that, frankly, I think he was pulling their collective leg. He would do things like this, i.e., humor people, if they persisted in their own views. If anyone would argue with Baba, not taking his advice or believing him, he would humor them. And he had quite a sense of humor. Personally, I think that's what was going on, here, though I have seen a Ph.D. professor among the Baba-world, and a room full of listeners, take this stuff with great seriousness.
I kept thinking, "This is going to really have people ridiculing Baba, in the future." But whatever game Baba was playing, he was always one step ahead of everybody else. It must have had a purpose. The film project was never completed; but this, also, was typical of Baba's modus operandi, inasmuch as he seems to have been accomplishing his own spiritual work through such unfinished projects, including the contacts made.
Right off the bat, I would say that when you have been laughing at someone, and it turns out they were pulling your leg and actually knew what they were talking about, you get more humility than you would have had, otherwise. So it is actually a good thing, in the long run, for people to be underestimating you and laughing at you. Later, they will be better able to understand you, in the state of being chagrined.
As unlikely as it looks, at present, I think that I will, actually, someday find myself in this position of speaking on the "circuit." There is no harm in believing it, because disbelieving it may be getting in the way of it manifesting. I don't want to get in my own way with constant negative thoughts. I don't see any reason why it couldn't happen--it just takes awhile for cream to rise to the top, and come to peoples' notice. I do see that the hits on this website are increasing somewhat. A significant portion of that has to do with increased interest in my old article on Meher Baba. If the current trend continues, it will get 800 hits by the end of the month. But I refuse to back-link that particular article to my reincarnation study, as I have many of the other popular pages. If people make it all the way to Meher Baba, there is no reason to send them back to things like my study, even if doing so might sell a few books. One should never induce anyone to go from the higher, to the lower.
Yesterday was the day that the radio show which recently interviewed me, posts their new interview of the week. Still, it's someone they had talked to previously. This means I have no idea how large a backlog they have, or when my show may be posted. I could write and ask them for an ETA, but I think it's better to just wait. I'll certainly announce it on this website when it shows up. It's worth waiting for--I think it went exceptionally well.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
I don't want to make a new entry for this, but briefly, yesterday evening I watched a talk given by one Whitley Strieber, which had to do with his continuing contacts with his late wife, Ann. He seems deeply sincere, and some of the spirit contacts he describes are not particularly unusual. But then, he speaks of encounters with aliens, and in particular, frequent contacts with "little blue men." One of the commenters below the video voiced my own thoughts: "He lost me when he got to the little blue men." Another commenter pointed out that he had been a science fiction writer before he began his career as an author and lecturer on these topics. My tentative conclusion is that he is wildly embellishing; which means you can't trust any of it. Now, I can't even trust the psychic artist's rendering of his late wife, which looks startlingly like his favorite photograph of her. It's more likely, under the circumstancs, to have been drawn from the photograph, i.e., after-the-fact. Because once his credibility falls apart, the entire thing falls apart. His evidence consists of a surveillance video, in his living room, of an insect flitting before the camera on two occasions. He calls it a "white moth," and ties it in to his wife's favorite poem, and all of that--but I see a large, indistinct insect which is rendered white due to overexposure, flying in front of the camera. (Disclaimer--I only made it through the first half of the lecture.)
I suppose that people watch my video, and come to the same conclusion. How do I get across to people that however many other presenters out there embellish, I am strictly honest? The more I protest about it, the guiltier I look. The only answer is for other people to have the necessary discernment. I can't give people discernment. I can only be honest, while some percentage of the other presenters are embellishing. The problem is, people who are embellishing know they have an unfair advantage. Their material is sexier, and hence more competitive in the book/lecture market. Mine is still pretty "sexy," but all of mine is actual, with by far the greatest portion being backed up with real evidence. In short, mine is "good coin." But a superficial audience wants superficial appeal above substance--therefore, it's going to take time for this to sort out. I noticed that Strieber opened his talk by bragging that he had recently attended Art Bell's private funeral, and going on a bit about what close friends they were. In other words, he was bragging that he was an "insider." Whereas, I can hardly get any radio show to have me on as a guest, no less sell books or be invited to conferences. As for unbelievable claims, my claim to have written two literary classics in a past life is backed up with hard evidence. Strieber's claim to have seen "little blue men" has no evidence behind it, whatsoever, other than his deep display of sincerity at the mike. Yet, he is an insider making a good living off his claims (probably, better than he made being a science fiction writer), while I languish in obscurity. Something is wrong with this picture...
Music opening this page, "The Great Beyond," by REM,
from the film, "Man in the Moon"