Last entry, I took the thread as far as Mathew Franklin Whittier's anonymous authorship of "The Vulture," an 1852 parody of "The Raven," which I believe he had also written. I don't know whether anybody is on-board with me to this point. You can show people logical evidence, and it tends to bounce off, if the conclusion would take them beyond their boggle threshold.
I'm going to resume with that thread again in a minute, but first, I want to address this issue. I have been watching UFO abduction videos on YouTube, to try to give this thing a fair shake. What I bring to the table, is a hearsay remark (in response to a question), supposedly made by my Guru, that UFO's "don't come from other planets."(1) I also have a sense of the beauty of God's creation--or manifestation--being integral to it, which is to say, because God is infinitely beautiful, His creation--which is a fragmented reflection of Himself in space and time--also partakes of beauty. The same can be said of intelligence, humor, efficiency, and every other Attribute of God. This is the "As above, so below" viewpoint.
On the other hand, people who have bought into Darwinian evolution, believe that development is driven by survival of the fittest, and by efficiency. All the other attributes are subsumed under those forces. And those people also tend to exalt intellect above other human qualities. Therefore, if one was to create an advanced being, that being would be super-intellectual, and extremely efficient, i.e., technologically superior. In other words, if one was to create a myth of a superior being, today, in this Society, it would be an alien.
Whereas, in ancient Greece, we know that their idea of a superior being was quite different. They would have laughed at our conception of a spindly little thing that can't even eat or talk, but has a huge brain and overwhelming technological superiority.
So these things, taken together, predispose me to think that aliens, as we think of them, today, are a mythical phenomenon.
There are places I could fit this into my existing conceptual framework. I have also been studying fairy lore(2) --where there are also recorded first-hand accounts (and believe it or not, many of those accounts involve abductions, with time lost). The tentative conclusion is that this phenomenon occurs where the astral realm and the physical realm intersect. If that is also true of the alien phenomenon, then one has to take into account the nature of the lower astral realm. It is very fluid, and very much influenced by perception and predisposition. We know that when people have NDE's in the East, they see Eastern gods; but when people have them in the West, they see Western religious figures. No-doubt some being has approached them--but when you are dealing with the astral realm, your mind interprets that presence as whatever you are predisposed to see.
If that's the case, the first-hand testimonies are almost useless, as regards details.
On the other hand, when I had my one and only visitation dream of Abby, as soon as I woke up, I looked for matching portraits of young women on Google Images. I think I used keyword "woman, portrait." I chose 12 (plus a duplicate done as a drawing) which matched most closely some aspect of the girl I had talked with in my lucid dream. It was only some weeks later that, with the help of a friend, I found what I later confirmed to be Abby's historical portrait. The similarity is striking. I have this in my book. So there, she appears to have been taking pains to show herself to me as she is, or, at least, as she once was. Again, I am not expecting you to believe me--but I am expecting you to buy my book, where it is set out for you to judge for yourself.
The alien abduction accounts seem credible, on the surface of it. One would swear they are telling the truth. They even look to the left, when they try to remember a scene (which is supposedly a sign of genuine memory). But some of these details...one fellow says he tried to steal a knob off a piece of furniture while in the alien space craft. Do you mean to say that beings with technology so advanced that they can zip around at incredible speeds, and run back and forth to distant galaxies like they were making a run to the convenience store, have furniture with screw-on knobs?
Another problem I see is that these beings are fully telepathic, and have advanced x-ray technology. If they are that advanced, what the hell do they need to run biological tests on human beings, for? And if they are so kind and considerate as to watch your kids for you while they force you to undergo tests against your will, where's their ethics? This isn't a cultural thing, so that some cultures understand that one must not violate another's free will, while other cultures don't get it. The aliens are full of love for us--and yet, they poke us with needles, and leave tiny bits of things embedded in our flesh at the same time? And what about the damned cow mutiliations? It doesn't make sense.
Then there is the matter of hypnotic regression. Many reincarnation researchers discount hypnosis as a reliable research tool altogether. I take a middle approach. I believe it can be useful (and indeed, I used it myself), if certain conditions are met. You need to have a subject who has a deep, long-standing commitment to rigorous honesty, such that he or she is not suggestible. Then, you must have a hypnotist who is scrupulous about not leading the subject. Finally, it has to be clearly documented, who knew what, when. If two or more peoples' testimony is compared, it has to be documented whether or not they had the opportunity to compare notes, before, or during, the sessions. One YouTube account, for example, insisted that a couple was hypnotized separately--but they kept showing a photograph of them being hypnotized together. Of even more concern than this experimental sloppiness, is the fact that the significance of it seemed to go right past the documentarian. In general, without knowing what conditions were met, I would tend to discount any and all evidence of alien abduction revealed through hypnosis. Nevermind how qualified the hypnotist was, or how many sessions were done. And if there is evidence of independent recollection of the same facts, for God's sake, show it in these films. Don't just tell us it was there. Same goes for the polygraph tests, which perhaps are more convincing than the hypnosis. It suggests these people did experience something. But I want to see the actual results, not simply be told about them. This is not supposed to be docu-tainment.
Finally, there's the point I began with. Aliens are ugly. I joked about it in a recent entry, saying they "aren't sexy," but I was partly serious. There is beauty in all the universe, because it reflects God's beauty. Even the insects have their beauty. But these aliens are just weird. And what about the eyes? Is there any functionality to having huge, lidless eyes? What they heck did they develop in response to? And if they have huge, lidless eyes, how can they stand the bright lights they are always dazzling people with? You'd think they would be the first ones blinded--but nobody ever says the aliens wore shades.
That's just for starters. There are a whole lot of conceptual problems with this thing, and my only answer is, people are encountering beings who can manifest themselves in and out of the lower astral realm--but because it is the astral realm, people see them as they are predisposed to see them. Somebody has learned to enhance the phenomenon that the Spiritualists documented as "apports," to such a degree that they can meld astral physics with earth physics, and actually fly around. I don't know where else to take it, and that is just a working theory.
Now. All that to say, I totally get it when I present evidence, and people still aren't convinced. Because I am logically leading them, these last few entries, to the conclusion that Mathew Franklin Whittier--myself in the 19th century--was the real and original author of "The Raven," and that Edgar Allan Poe stole it from him.
When I was in 6th grade, I believe it was, I was first exposed to this poem. I couldn't bear to read it all the way through, because the feeling of grief it triggered was so profound. On some level, I had always known that I had loved and lost a very close spouse--even though I was raised an atheist, and had no conceptual framework to accommodate this inner knowing.
When I did my hypnotic regression sessions early in my research effort, I seemed to remember meeting with Poe, on the porch of his cabin. I was told, by one of the psychic mediums I used, that it would take a great deal of digging to find the evidence for it. But I had in mind that, as the subject, I should not study it myself. So, I held off for years, until I realized that nobody else was going to do it. Then, I started trying to find the evidence for a meeting, and gradually, I started seeing clues that Mathew must have actually been the author of "The Raven," and that Poe must have stolen it from him. This wouldn't be the first time. It seems that Mathew had a habit of sharing his work with other writers, and some of those writers were unscrupulous enough to publish it under their own name. I found several examples.
Keep in mind that Edgar Allan Poe was not a literary god at this time. Mathew was writing and publishing poetry, and humorous sketches, and adventure stories. Mathew even published an excellent horror story in a major literary newspaper which also reprinted Poe's work, around the same time, in 1842. So Mathew was not even the junior writer. They first began publishing in the same year, 1827, even though Poe was a few years older.
Here's a sample from that story. Poe would very likely have seen it, since his own work was being reprinted in this paper during this same period. There is no question of Mathew's authorship--it is signed "Poins," and I can definitely prove that this was his pseudonym in the Portland (Maine) "Transcript" at the time. This appears in the Dec. 2, 1842 edition:
At the gangway stood the trumpeter, a ghastly counterpart of the helmsman. In his fleshless fingers an enormous trumpet was clenched, from which peal after peal in harsh and discordant succession was poured, On, on, they come! But still the toll-gatherer is immovable--fast chained to his rocky seat. As he gazes in tongue-tied horror, the dark covered bridge is gradually lighted, with a blue, unnatural light, revealing a perfect likeness of himself! slowly turning the great key by which the ponderous timbers of the draw were steadily rising. Fearfully and long did the spell-tied man look upon the deliberate operations of his phantom self! When the sundered planks had risen to the proper altitude, the skeleton ship and her ghostly crew passed noiselessly through, and the shadowy key-turner commenced lowering the draw.--Slowly the creaking timbers were settling down towards their accustomed level, when suddenly the unearthly operator paused, the key fell from his hands, and he leaned against the railing; the head turned slowly towards the toll-gatherer, revealing to his horrified gaze a complete fac-simile of his own features, only the livid paleness of death was enstamped upon them. As he looked the mouth opened, and a torrent of blood poured from it. Gradually this horrible pantomime faded away, and as the figure finally disappeared, an unearthly wail rose from the phantom ship below--her awful form was lighted for a moment with a radiance too vivid for the gaze, during which she sank gently beneath the eddying waters--which hissed and boiled with the contact.
The difference is, this was based, with admitted embellishments, on a true account of a man who had an accurate premonition of his own death.(3) It was published roughly a year and a half after Abby's death; and by this time, he had at least partially embraced what she had taught him about the occult.
Meanwhile, literary piracy was rampant in this era. So if you take the clock back to 1845, the idea that Poe might steal "The Raven" would not be particularly shocking, at all. It is only in 2018 that it seems to be a grandiose claim. It would hardly be grandiose in 1845.
That means you have to take your "Poe is a god" glasses off, in order to understand this. And then, you have to put the "Mathew was a literary genius" glasses on. If you do both of these things, it snaps into focus.
There is a great deal more in my book, "Mathew Franklin Whittier in his own words." I've touched on some of it in this blog, recently and also some months back. Have you ever read of the "Ultima Thule" portrait, the last portait taken of Edgar Allan Poe? There is a weird piece of history, saying that Ossian Dodge had a copy of it, in Cleveland in 1860, and again 15 years later, when he was in Europe. (https://eapoe.org/papers/misc1921/deas406a.htm) Now, you may recall that Ossian Dodge is the con-artist entertainer who falsely claimed the travelogue that Mathew wrote in 1849-1852, under the pseudonym "Quails." I talked about him in the previous entry. I have established this beyond any reasonable doubt, i.e., in my book. This ruse, with Dodge and the editor colluding to first hint, and then claim his authorship of "Quails," is ludicrous when you look more deeply into it.
Now, "Quails" says, in one of his travelogue entries, that he visited the daguerrotype studio of Samuel Masury, and admired that same portrait of Poe. Masury made him a copy and sent it to him. So we know that Mathew Franklin Whittier owned a copy of the Ultima Thule portrait. This is in 1851.
He goes on at some length analyzing it, in terms of phrenology. In his younger days, Mathew had ridiculed phrenology. He may--or may not--have embraced it by the early 1850's (when he also embraced Spiritualism). He acknowledges "The Raven" as Poe's poem, and he calls Poe the "most brilliant of American poets."
But, wait. I have caught Mathew using this same technique of supreme irony in pseudo praise, before. If he is being very, very circumspect, and he wants to ridicule someone while appearing to praise him, he will pull one of these. It would be a very difficult thing to prove--because he's so sly about it--but I could swear Mathew is laughing up his sleeve, as they used to say, when he calls Poe "this most brilliant of American poets." Note that it is over the top. If Mathew had merely called him "a brilliant American poet," I wouldn't be so suspicious. But the most brilliant? He's not praising his short stories, which were his forte.(4) He's specifically targeting his poetry. Does he seriously think Poe is better than Longfellow? Better than Emerson? Better than his brother, John Greenleaf Whittier? (I'm not including Whitman, because I think Mathew had little use for Whitman's poetry.) Knowing Mathew's backhanded style of insults (you have seen examples in the previous entry), I smelled a rat.
I concluded my suspicions were probably correct (though I'm still not 100% certain), when I looked at Poe's early work, and in particular his poem, "Tamerlane." And then, I looked at Mathew's satires on popular poetry (including one he wrote not long after "Tamerlane" was published). Tamerlane is precisely the kind of poetry that Mathew has ridiculed. Pretentious. Self-consciously "poetic." Remember that Mathew would have obtained the same education at home, and at the hands of Joshua Coffin in the one-room schoolhouse, as his brother did--at least prior to the time John Greenleaf attended Haverhill Academy. So he knows the principles of writing good poetry.
And then, are we to believe that once Poe has shown his true colors like this, in his early work, he suddenly comes out with "The Raven"? But Mathew wrote poetry reminiscent of "The Raven" both before, and after. That was Mathew's native style.
Finally, there is a very deep personal back-story to "The Raven," which I have only briefly touched on in this blog, if we take it to be Mathew's poem. There is no back-story for Poe, and Poe cooked his own goose by attempting to explain how and why he wrote it, in his essay on the subject. Mathew then left a little footnote for posterity, some months after Poe published his explanatory essay. I've gone over that in recent entries.
Okay, so, let's suppose Mathew Franklin Whittier was the original author of "The Raven." On the strength of this and other work, let's acknowledge that he was a literary genius--and I've already proven that he was a child prodigy, beginning his career at age 15, with very mature work. Would it, then, be so implausible that he co-authored "A Christmas Carol"? Because we are not dealing with a literary hack, here--we are dealing with a genius-level writer. Given that level of talent, it would be surprising if he hadn't written something of that magnitude.
Then there is the other co-author, Abby Poyen, Mathew's first wife. I could show you--and have shown you, in my book--what she was capable of. She, also, was a child prodigy. In short, you had two unknown literary geniuses collaborating on that work. Not one literary British rock star dashing it off as a pot-boiler inside of six weeks, to keep himself out of debt.
But what does all that have to do with proving reincarnation? In 2006, in this very blog, I made a note that I felt Mathew had had something to do with the writing of "A Christmas Carol." I had nothing to go on, except a feeling. This, too, was something which had profoundly affected me since childhood; but here, in 2006, I made a public note that I thought I had had something to do with writing it.
If that turns out to be true, then I made an astounding prediction. And it is prediction on which science is based.
You see where I'm going with all this. In year 2003, I said publicly, in an interview, that I thought in a past life I was a writer, who ran in the same circles as some of the famous Romantic poets. Then I discover Mathew Franklin Whittier. In year 2006, I publicly stated, in this blog, that I thought Mathew had something to do with the writing of "A Christmas Carol."
These are very strong predictions, and they are documented. I had nothing to go on except an inner feeling, an inner "knowing." In short, I vaguely remembered it--and then, through painstaking research, I was able to establish it.
Incidentally, I think I may have had a UFO encounter, of sorts, when I first began my present-day relationship across the Great Divide with Abby. We were walking on the beach near my home in North Myrtle Beach, SC. Which is to say, I was walking there, and I felt and believed that Abby was by my side, invisible to me. I heard a very loud sound of crickets--but they were coming from the ocean side, to my right at the time, not the shore. I looked out to sea (this was at night), and noticed a sort of a double-star, two different colors, moving far off in the distance. It wasn't blinking. I watched it for some seconds, as I recall, and then it sort of winked out--or more precisely, quickly faded out. And at that moment, (as best I recall), the cricket sounds stopped, as well.
My ability to communicate with Abby was very rudimentary at this early stage, but I seemed to get the thought from her, "They are not accustomed to seeing a physical person and an astral person walking together, so they were curious." And then, if I recall, a reassurance, "They won't bother you, I am too powerful for them," or something to that effect.
Have you seen the film, "Avatar"? I sometimes get the sense that Abby is like Neytiri, compared with Jake in his earth-body, i.e., much larger and stronger. Not that Abby is large, per se, but that she has the power if she needs to use it.
Does that totally blow your boggle threshold? I wouldn't know where to put that information, if I was in your shoes. Perhaps it was just an airplane. Though I can't explain the extremely loud cricket sounds coming from the ocean. Oh, I forgot one detail--the sound was very focused. As I was watching the light, if I turned my head a little to the left or to the right, it would diminish in volume. That's weird, since I first noticed it while I was walking straight ahead. But that's what I remember. This, incidentally, tells us that the light was visible long enough for me to experiment with it a little.
I still don't know what to make of it--I can only tell you that what I've reported, here, is precisely what I experienced. I don't have nearly enough evidence to come to any firm conclusions, as I do with my own study.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
1) Since Baba was silent and "spoke" through gestures--and since he may not have had one of his experienced translators with him at the time--it's possible he meant that they didn't travel here from the stars across physical distances. Elsewhere he has indicated that objects at seemingly enormous distances are not really so far away on the higher planes of consciousness.
2)"The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries: the classic study of leprechauns, pixies and other fairy spirits," by W.Y. Evans-Wentz, 1911.
3)There is a record of this premonition, and the toll-keeper's death, in a pamphlet. A Rocks Village historian wrote me she has a copy of the pamphlet. I found a reference to it in another historian's work. The toll house, itself, was purchased by Henry Ford in 1928. We know that Ford believed in reincarnation. Whether he purchased the toll house because it was associated with this account, is not stated by the historians.
4) Actually he makes a disparaging comment about one of Poe's stories. The full quote is:
Of his forehead we hardly know what to write; we have seen higher ones, but so expressive a one, never; and until we had seen this picture, we were always under the impression that Poe either must have been drunk or crazy, when he wrote that flesh-crawling magnetism story, but a sigh at the shape of his head sets us all right; the organs of ideality are as prominent as two large robin's eggs would be, placed one on each side of an ordinary head. Poe's head is in fact the best illustration of the truth of phrenology of any we have ever seen, and could the correct cast have been obtained, it would have been worth a fortune to Fowler. Mr. Masury has the original daguerreotype in his gallery at Providence, and the public can see the "counterfeit presentment" of this most brilliant of American poets by giving friend Masury a call.
It would seem that Mathew is disparaging about Poe's prose, but admires his poetry. However, in addition to "The Raven," I also suspect Poe stole "Annabel Lee" from Mathew (originally a private poem for "Abigail P.," where personal references in that poem fit Mathew and Abby's life as well or better than they do Poe's)--and for all I know he might have stolen other ideas from him. In the quote above, "a sigh at the shape of his head" sounds tongue-in-cheek, to me. Honestly, I think Mathew, himself, was never quite sure about Poe's own talents, whatever his personal ethics. There is no hint of a previous meeting in this commentary; but Mathew would have avoided mentioning it, writing as though it never occurred, so no conclusions can be drawn from the omission. In other words, he would have been so interested in Poe's portrait precisely because he had had previous dealings with him; not because he had never met him. We saw something similar, in a recent entry, as regards "Quails'" exaggerated interest in seeing Mrs. Partington's portrait in the Boston "Pathfinder"--not because he was a fan and wanted to see her picture, as it appeared, but because he, himself, had written the faux biography and he wanted to see how it had turned out. In this case, knowing that Poe became famous as a poet based on "The Raven," and knowing he was the original author, he is making the private joke that he is American's most brilliant poet--his brother's reputation in this line, notwithstanding.
Music opening this page: "Spaceship Earth," by Sugarloaf,
from the album, "Spaceship Earth"