End Times & Apokatastasis

 

I have been doing a hasty review of the Christian take on this subject.  Needless to say, it is diverse. 

I continue to rethink my Millennialist position.  The traditional Christian Millennium had become the capstone of the BPW.  It does seem logical to have a Golden Age be the final chapter of history. But is it coherent?  Perhaps not.  This is what we must investigate. 

In the big picture, the Earth is a means to an end.  Creation was never meant to be an end unto itself.  Even the right to lifers would agree that life is not an end unto itself.  Creation is good, not by itself, but in the eyes of the Creator.  As co-creators we share in that vision. 

The goodness of Creation lies in its realization.  Its realization is in eternity.  All is well that ends well, stands, obviously, sub specie aeternitas.  History is the completion of the ouroboric circuit.  The Matricial Ouroboros is the realization of our Selves. 

The upshot can only be, I am now understanding, that we are meant to go out with a bang, not a whimper.  We'll have to admit that the Millennium is more than a bit wimpy.  It is certainly anti-climactic.  We were meant to go out with our boots on, not wearing ballet slippers, with no offense to George Balanchine. 

If this is correct, then we just might have to rethink our Millennium Initiative.  Are we now the Apokatastatists (5,100 hits) or maybe Apokatastasians, which are like the ecstatics, but a bit more rational?  Apocastasis is the restitution (salvation?) of all things in God.  This is clearly Universalist and BPW-ish.  Is this the position of Greek Orthodoxy, or only of its founders?  It was widely taught in that Church until it was condemned in 543.  

It is not surprising that the doctrine of restitution or restoration should be associated with eternal return, in which case it becomes a natural, rather than supernatural, process.  This argues against divine grace.  I have no desire to do that.  This is not easy stuff: Origen of Alexandria and apokatastasis ... -- Edward Moore.  

 

[7/10] 

In the doctrine of eternal return there is usually a repeated decline from an original state of perfection, somewhat as in the case of biological reproduction.  The repetition can continue indefinitely or until it is brought to a final conclusion or cosmic restitution.  It is the doctrine of Creation that this cycle need occur only once.  Redundancy may be natural, but also pointless.  God does not sanction meaninglessness. 

Is the doctrine of eternal damnation necessary to prevent repetition?  Is it the logically necessary complement to eternal grace?  It is curious that the idea of cyclic time is tantamount to the sanctioning of a background of linear time.  There is in this a disregard for the mystery of time.  This from the mystics! 

Linear time is a Godsend.  It has value, however, only in its finitude.  God is the timekeeper.  There is a pervasive feeling that we have been using up our allotted time.  The time draws nigh for a wrapping up.  The reconciling of our accounts is what some have taken as judgment, but it is only a reconciliation, a balancing and a closing of the books.  The finality of it is just the seal of its blessedness. 

How much 'time' will the wrapping up require?  Would it not have to fall within the lifetimes of most of those participating?  This would mean that the linearity of its time could not span more than a couple of decades of normal time.  The end cycle might be viewed as a Millennium, but this would be a stretch. 

More pertinent are the questions of apocalypse, Armageddon, tribulation and cleansing or purification.  I would suggest that all of these are mainly the psychological concomitants of the metanoia of reconciliation.  They will be onerous for those who have much to reconcile.  Apocalypse does mean only to uncover, not to destroy.  The only destruction is of our ignorance, our agnosis.  

Is it to be surmised that biological reproduction will cease in the end?  'Woe be unto them that are with child in those days.'  Is celibacy to be enforced in these days?  I would suggest that it will become self-evidently discouraged.  Might there be an increase in abortion?  Certainly of the spontaneous variety.  

What then are to be the signs of the times?  Can 9/11 not be one?  Can flying saucers and crop circles not be another?  An epidemic of mental aberration and discontinuity?  Anomalous phenomena?  Culture clashes of the mainly non-violent sort, etc., etc.?  I.e. more of the same?  Yes, a lot more! 

And, yes, my precious Millennium is being subsumed and overtaken by more dramatic events.  It will be there for those in dire need of a respite.  It will be the convalescent ward. 

Please note that from the purview of eternity, the Fall is nothing too unnatural.  It is rather its non-repetition that is unnatural.  The fall is the act of Creation, of quasi-spontaneous, but ultimately optimizable symmetry breaking.  It is reconciled and finalized in this End.  There is only one salvation.  Creation was no accident, but it does subsume all accidents that may be reconciled and rationalized.  Anything not so meliorated need not exist -- it is only apparitional in the end. 

Without a Millennium there can be no Earthly kingdom and no messiah.  There can only be a Reconciler.  I had been using messianics and the second coming synonymously, but that may no longer be technically accurate.  The Satan being loosed at the end is materialism and the many versions nihilism, disbelief and agnosis.  It is not too big a stretch to see that transhumanism, Marx and Hitler take the roles of antichrist.  Have we not already had sufficient tribulation of the physical sort?  From here on there will be the more psychic forms.  A constant threat of terror falls into this category. 

A major mundane concern will be the global economy.  How will it respond to a more definite perception of the Apokatastasis?  Will the Reconciler also have to keep the trains running up to the End?  There are so many things that can go wrong, what is it that can go right?  Relative moderation in all things will be the word for the latter days.  Let us not be breaking rank.  Let there not be a stampede.  

Will there be too much temptation to finally settle scores?  Justice is not finally a mundane matter.  Justice is one thing, reconciliation is another. 

What I am saying here is that the Millennium is to be overtaken by the Apokatastasis.  The big M becomes only a niche in the larger picture.  It will not be in the flow of the cosmic mainstream.  It is a matter of historical interest to see how the Millennium gained it notoriety in these latter days.  If there was a deliberate obfuscation, to what end?  Does this all go back to Cyrus Scofield?  The conspiracy buffs are quick to pass judgment: The Greatest Hoax!.  Is it all about the NWO, WTO and WTC?  I suspect we may have to parse through a bit of this stuff, speaking of the global economy.  Speculation abounds: see the Historicist website.  

 

[7/11] 

What was the Millennium all about?  Every other cosmology had put the pristine golden age at the beginning of the cycle, following the biological cycle of birth leading to death.  

This organic, animistic, polytheistic, pagan view of the world was decisively interrupted, rather late in human history, by monotheism.  The Jews, by about 1,000 BC are credited with this crucial invention, followed by Zoroaster, Jesus and Mohammed.  The monotheist impulse inserted a moral and creative element into the cosmos.  There was still the pristine primal state, the original golden age, followed by a degeneration, but no longer could there be a cosmic life-cycle.  Creation had to be deliberate, and redemption had to be final.   

Clearly there was a decisive abrogation, arrogation of nature.  The natural order was seemingly disbanded by fiat.  This arrogation has always been a tough sell, then and now.  It seems so obviously contrived.  The contrivance looms even larger as science delves further into the natural order, up to the point, at least, that anthropics rears its head.  Creationists, however, continue having to fight what seems like a rear-guard battle relative to the scientific Juggernaught.  

Nonetheless, given monotheism, what are we to do with nature?  Where does nature fit into the salvational scheme?  This depends somewhat on Armageddon.  Is there a battle to be fought?  As a universalist/apokatastasist I would think not.  The apocalypse is simply the final revelation of Creation.  The battle is over before it can be joined.  With the finish line in sight, who is going to throw themselves down in front of the glory train?  Who is going to play Ahriman?  

Is there a last minute battle for the control of Creation?  If we are the co-creators, there can only be a breakaway sprint to the finish.  Will this disrupt the peloton?  There may, at best be a tussle for Reconciler.  If so, where is it?  Has the breakaway succeeded?  Where is the yellow jersey? 

Creation has a plan.  We are already the BPW.  No Ahriman is going to take that away.  Not now, not ever.  Don't fight the system, don't fight city hall, not when we're doing cosmology.  There is no deus ex this machina.  There is no larger pond. 

There can be no stasis with apokatastasis.  Creation is wrapped up, tighter than a gravity-string.  The best and the brightest were well distracted by the many trees in this forest, but then the forest is pulled out from under us.  The curtain is lifted, the veil is parted.  The Millennium was supposed to be the final act, but the set is about to be disassembled.  The Millennium becomes redundant.  

To the victor go the spoils.  Bring on the wine and the seventy-two virgins.  Bring on the Elysian fields.  Where is the Millennium for us to celebrate our Conquest over Ahriman?  Don't miss Paradise 2, the sequel.  What is God good for if we don't get our just deserts?  

One day with God or a thousand years for humankind?  It seems that we are being given a choice here, but is it really?  We have to choose between paradise and heaven.  Paradise has three dimensions, and heaven has rather more.  God has had a hard time squeezing into these three dimensions.  Isn't it about time we gave her a break?  And I dare say, the same goes for nature.  We are about to experience a deep ecology.  The Matrix awaits us.  Are we not her prodigal sons?  Do we not have much to offer? 

Whose conspiracy was the Millennium?  Is it not a hold-over from paganism?  Is it not our security blanket, the last buffer between ourselves and the Matrix?  Paradise was to have been our training training ground  for heaven.  But then what have we been doing for the last ten thousand years?  Will sitting on our butts for another thousand years get us in better shape? 

Can't we at least get a respite?  Sure.  Limbo is not to be sneezed upon.  Any time things get too hectic, any time you want to stop the world and get off, this is the place for you.  Ramstein holds nothing over Limbo, when it comes to R&R.  Be sure to check out the spas, water courtesy of Lethe.  

Can we not just go home?  Well, I think you came to the right place. 

------------------------------

All of this does make the present situation a bit more fraught.  We are at a real jumping off point.  False signals are frowned upon.  Our take-off roll must be as smooth as possible.  Let's hope it can be a roll-off and not a blast-off.  Our check-list has to be thorough.  

Now we will have to contend with the survivalists.  For how long will the electricity and water keep flowing?  What do we do when the lights go out?  Does FEMA have an eschaton contingency?  This is the reason I have to worry about Ron & Co.  Why Ron has to worry about Ocelot & Ferret.  Where are the EBEs when we need them?  Who's got a plan?  

In the end, we're just going to have to go with the flow.  The Millennium was to be a staging area for the eschaton.  The elect would be able to get their ducks in a row.  Guess what?  We are the elect.  This is our stage.  As with the peloton, try to stay in the draft.  The Fundies will be screaming about false messiahs.  There will be disturbances in the ranks. 

We need a breakaway team on the Internet.  That will require external input of the phenomenological kind. We are back to the witness problem.  The breakaway team will not have much time to worry about the infrastructure.  We chart the metaphysical course, the physics has to take care of itself.  

At one or more points there will be panics, economic and otherwise.  They will have to play themselves out.  If the infrastructure begins to unravel, the process may have to accelerate.  It could get messy.  There may be blood in the streets.  What is the least mayhem we might reasonably hope for, without a deus ex machina?  Won't we have to assume there will be such at an early juncture?  But it cannot come too early without becoming an agent provocateur.  There will have to be a metaphysical docking maneuver at the appropriate time.  I doubt that we can or should try to predict the time and place.  There will have to be some practice dockings along the way, however.  Are we talking UFOs and portals, etc.?  Perhaps.  We shouldn't expect anything either too clichéd or too exotic. 

 

[7/12] [a,]

Another strategy is just to keep the eschaton card in our back pocket until a rainy day.  There are also objections.  There will come a point at which conditions on Earth will begin to deteriorate if we fail to adhere to the cosmic plan.  By waiting for a rainy day, we are likely to be extending our sojourn here beyond its allotted time.  On the other hand, we also do not want to cut our time short.  The timing question will be handled in a nearly spontaneous fashion, and that may be another reason why we can expect minimal input.  It is too bad that we cannot use the eschaton as a threat to hold over the high and mighty.  

However, if I am correct about the Jack Anderson column, there must be some political awareness.  At the time this was the most widely circulated column, subscribed to by upwards of 400 newspapers.  I circulated this item to a few people on the Sarfatti list last month. 

Washington Post
February 3, 1992
Edition: FINAL
Section: STYLE
Page: c12

Topics:
Index Terms:
GEORGE BUSH
CHARLES LEIGHTON
DENNIS YAMAMOTO
International trade
U.S. president
Column: JACK ANDERSON
CUFF LINKS AND TRADE DEAL COME UNDONE
Author: JACK ANDERSON
MICHAEL BINSTEIN
Article Text:

The balance of trade between Japan and the United States occasionally rests on something as inconsequential as a pair of cheap cuff links.

These particular cuff links were a gift from President Bush to his good friend Charles Leighton of Acton, Mass. Leighton treasured them just long enough to use them as a bargaining chip in a
multimillion-dollar deal with Toyota -- dangling them as evidence that he had entree to the White House. It was a good try, but the cuff links broke while in the possession of the president of Toyota. He was embarrassed. The contract later fell through, and Leighton learned that name-dropping is not enough to seal a deal.

Leighton is chairman of CML Group, which used to own SyberVision, the maker of pricey motivational tapes marketed to business people. Toyota was considering buying some of Leighton's tapes, 1 million copies of a Bobby Jones golf video to be used as part of a promotion for the sale of Lexus cars. The deal was worth $20 million to Leighton, so he pulled out the big artillery -- his friendship with George and Barbara Bush.

Sources close to Leighton say he occasionally boasted about the friendship. Then he put those boasts in writing in a letter to Dennis Yamamoto, executive vice president of International Consulting and Marketing Group Inc., Toyota's agent in the United States. The letter implied that Leighton could use his connections in the White House to make some points for Toyota.

In the letter, Leighton asked Yamamoto to pass on some items Leighton had received from Bush, to the "appropriate people at Toyota." According to the letter, Leighton said the items were a "way of letting {Toyota} know I will communicate to the Bush administration Toyota's purchase of SyberVision tapes and its importance to the balance of trade between Japan and the United States."

The items included pictures of the Leightons and the Bushes together, and the pair of presidential cuff links. The letter assured Toyota that these were not your run-of-the-mill White House souvenirs. Bush personally handed them over, Leighton said.

The cuff links were passed to the president of Toyota, in whose possession they broke, as did the deal.

The White House acknowledged that the Bushes and the Leightons are "good friends." Leighton and his wife, Debra, also contributed to Bush's 1988 presidential campaign, and our sources believe the friendship is really between Barbara and Debra.

We'll never know how Leighton planned to slip the good news to Bush that Toyota was buying American. Leighton refused to talk to us when he learned that our reporter Allison Hawes had obtained a copy of his letter. His spokeswoman said the cuff links were "inexpensive tokens" given out by Bush when he was campaigning, and Leighton merely thought someone at Toyota would find them interesting.

Leighton's spokeswoman said her boss wasn't serious about letting the president know personally that Toyota was buying American. She said the cuff links were a three-dimensional reminder to Toyota of the SyberVision deal, and more of a personal joke between Leighton and Yamamoto.
That's a joke Yamamoto may have missed. He wasn't laughing when we contacted him about the letter, and he refused to talk to us on advice from his lawyers.

Sources close to the deal say the letter was no joke, and that Leighton was eager to see that the lucrative deal went through, even if it took a little name-dropping.

Since the cuff link caper, CML has sold SyberVision, and is no longer trading in presidential memorabilia either.

Copyright 1992 The Washington Post
Record Number: 414766

One might wonder what the naive reader might have made of this story?  It would seem that this is much to do about nothing.  One might scratch one's head and pass on.  If these events actually transpired, would they be newsworthy?  Of all the items concerning international trade and the President, one might imagine that this would be about the least significant.  It appears that someone is intent upon embarrassing Mr. Leighton.  Perhaps someone is attempting to manipulate the price of CML stock.   Would a reporter of Mr. Anderson's reputation likely be willing to participate in such a petty scheme, much less dragging the President into it?  Questions were posed to the White House, but would not the folks there be curious as to the reason that Jack saw fit to have this item placed on the breakfast tables of millions of his readers?  Are we to imagine that the politically savvy folks at the White House might not smell something fishy?  What would be Jack's explanation?  

Jack turns a broken cuff-link into an international incident.  I turn it into a cosmic incident. 

'Debra' happens to be my older sister.  Does that make this any of my concern?  Perhaps.  

Here is my theory, along with some further information.  I would never have known about this column if Deborah had not told me about it, and then sent me a copy of it.  She was more angry with me about it she than she has ever been about anything else.  She said that the President was 'furious' and that she suspected that I had leaked the story to Anderson.   I was frankly baffled.  Even though I was already communicating with Ron, I had no specific reason to suspect a connection.  It was not until maybe a couple of years ago that I recalled this incident and began to suspect that it may well have been part of a bigger picture.  It was only a few weeks ago that I got this copy off the Internet.  

Let me cut to the chase.  Suppose there was a secret operation that had international implications.  You then wished to inform select segments of the international intelligence community as to the seriousness of this operation, but do so in a manner that other parties could not readily exploit or subvert.  We have here a very informal, 'analog' version of 'public key encryption'.  

But wait, why take this roundabout route?  Why not just send a cable to the relevant agencies?  There is the problem of 'false flagging'.  How is the information to be validated?  Someone with the relevant authority would need to personally vouch for the information.  There would have to be a direct communication between the intended recipient and the person with the authority.  The cable could be sent with the electronic signature of the author.  But then an individual recipient would have no way to verify directly that the information was not being targeted or tailored.  A more public venue is required, but this subverts the need for secrecy.  Thus the 'public key encryption'. 

There then has to be a second key, which together with the first one will open the particular box.  As I was struggling though this scenario just a few weeks ago, it occurred to me that I was the one who had sent out the second key.  I had sent it about four months prior to the Anderson column.  

It was in about my second telephone conversation with Ron in Sept. '91, that contact having been initiated by me, that he reported his intention to visit Los Alamos to 'hunt for Aliens'.  Quite naturally, I found this statement provocative.  I reciprocated with my own provocation.  I was, at that time, participating in the UFO Forum on CompuServe.  I put out my own little 'press release' to the effect that 'Ron at the CIA' was planning to talk to the Aliens.  I averred that this might not be necessary since I was the Holy Ghost and I could tell him what he needed to know about the end of the world.  Furthermore, 'If Ron lets the air out of my tires, I will have my big sister tell Nancy Ellis on him.'  

I had thought that this might put a crimp in Ron's MO, but it did not seem to.  When I ventured to call him back in two weeks, he said that his phone had been quite busy.  Even Whitley Strieber had wanted to know what was going on.  I did not think I needed to ask him if he knew who Nancy was.  She is the now former President's sister.  He did ask me, in the future, to not refer to him as in the previous paragraph.  Well, there has been much water under that bridge.  In effect, I had blown his cover.  None of his previous correspondents had done so, not to that considerable extent.  You understand that George W. faces a possible jail term for possibly having committed a similar offense.  Well, he is an officer of the government.  I am not. 

At the time of this incident, Ron was the head of the official interagency Phenomenology Group.  As such he would need to be in contact with many of his co-'phenomenologists' around the world.  There would have to be one or more global phenomenology networks among the mutually concerned parties.  In fact it was my interest in the Crop Circle phenomenon in Britain that provided my entrée to Ron.  It turns out that he was in close contact with a US citizen over there, in that 'field', who appears to be now, at least, a colleague.  Ron might not have been willing to be completely reliant on his colleagues in British Intel, not for something that sensitive. 

These are the bare circumstances of the transmission of my quasi-public 'key'.  What did Ron tell his correspondents?  My understanding is that the message was simple, 'Dan is crazy.'  But if Whitley had heard about my outburst, what about Ron's global network?  What were they told?  Move forward four months and substitute Barbara for Nancy.  Don't we then get a contrasting picture?  There are now two dots that could be connected.  

The next question is who might connect these dots.  Frankly, I am the only person I know to have done so.  Jack Anderson, based on some previous columns, would have been known to be in the 'phenomenology loop'.  His column would have been followed by others in that loop.  If something 'strange' like the above showed up, it would likely have been flagged for possible future analysis.  My previous transmission that caught the attention of Whitley and several others, would have also been noted by those in the loop, if for nothing else than instancing a then unprecedented level of exposure for Ron.  Two items flagged, one possible connection: Nancy Ellis. 

If you enter that name in Google, the fiftieth entry provides the correct middle name.  That is a stretch.  Only a major intelligence organization would have been able back then to connect these dots spontaneously.  However, anyone given a heads up, could do so, easily.  And that would be all that would be necessary for the above stated purpose of verification.  The President or someone near to the President would very likely be aware of the Ron&Dan 'show'.  It would have been a very small loop then, but very easily expandable to include others outside that loop, as you now may be witnessing.  Does that not mean the information could have been transmitted to people who might be motivated to act in contravention to the R&D 'operation'.  I am now contradicting my previous assertion that this 'encryption' would be relatively secure.  It would only take one bad apple to compromise it.  

Two points: the show goes on, and it was bound to be compromised sooner rather than later.  I was making a lot of noise about things, then as now.  The aviary/aquarium protocol is well dispersed.  My eschatological proclivities would not be assigned to mere lunacy by anyone who would take a few moments to consider the possible protocols along with Ron's ostensible continuing associations.  If there were any doubt then that this was a serious contingency, can there be any now, now that the Anderson column has been nailed to this door?  My sister will vehemently deny any connection.  She does not remember having spoken to me about it.  How then did I find out?  I had previously asked her to have someone at the White House check out Ron's bone fides.  She says that she never did so.  Is she also forgetful about that?  (I eventually had to go to Chris Straub, ranking staff member for the SSCI.) Why else might she have connected me with the column?  I understand now that the article was delivered personally to her in Boston by a Presidential assistant.  With her lawyer she wrote a response to the President.  Did no one ask, 'What is this tempest in a teapot?' 

I continue to twist in these winds.  Reality is a precious commodity in these precincts.  Do I grasp at straws?  This is one instance where anyone, now, may judge for themselves.  Should I now start to watch my backside?  Ron made a big point of introducing me to his 'bodyguard' last month.  Hmmm.  And so it goes. 

There may well exist an eschaton contingency, sufficiently serious to be deemed appropriate for briefings to heads of state.  How does my reputation fare as a designated source, when a major component of my scenario, touted for the last five years, is unceremoniously dumped after an argument with my sister?  This is hardly conducive to engendering confidence in the source.  Surely there must be a better source.  Could this visible component have been carried this far if there did not exist a reliable, covert reference source?  What purpose then could possibly be served by the R&D amateur hour?  Is this someone's idea of comic relief?  Where is the E Team?  Where is the Big Kahuna? 

If this is not a joke, then this is eschatology of the people, by the people and for the people.  Minimalism and spontaneity are for now and forever, if I have anything to say about it.  If I am to be a stand in, then the real actor is beginning to look a bit bashful.  Perhaps she has stage fright.  It can happen to the best of us.  If there ever were to be a paradigm case of WYSIWYG, would this not be a contender? 

 

[7/13] 

If George H. W. was briefed, has he behaved appropriately, with or without the Millennium factor?  That would depend upon with whom the President would be advised that he could discuss the matter.  This number would be limited, much smaller than the circle of policy makers.  In that case, the ramifications would likely be minimal.  There would be a lack of opportunity to integrate the information into the daily political grind, which would continue to progress with its own logic.  A single point of reference would not constitute actionable intelligence for the President.  There would be no encouragement for premature deviation or intervention on his part.  Just keep on holding things together.  The biggest departure from this line has been the invasion of Iraq.  Perhaps W. does have a better source, and I'm not necessarily referring to Wolfowitz or Condi.  There is the larger consideration of engagement, which is being played out in that arena.  I personally do not feel motivated to second guess all of those considerations.  I would not look forward to ever possibly having to do so.  Well, given that 9/11 was part of the run up to the larger drama, something like the Afghan/Iraq engagements must have been factored in to this picture.  That would have been a no-brainer.  Should any of this factor into the next election.  That would be pretty academic at this point.  The eschaton will most assuredly not be a political event.  The whole point of the clandestine preparation would have been to keep the politics out of the larger scenario.  Any high level briefings would be directed mainly to that end.  The political considerations are to be minimized.  The bigger the stick, the softer the walk.  Any political briefing would be mainly for the benefit of this effort, not for the enlightenment of the politician. 

Perhaps we can now better appreciate the nuances of the Anderson column.  Among other things, it acts as a tripwire relative to my general level of awareness, and also as a 'timed' release tablet.  I daresay this would have been pushing the envelope of human ratiocination.  One might wonder what Dennis or Charlie ever made of this incident.  I'm not likely to find out.  Curiosity can kill the cat. 

Next up, and on this topic, I need to discuss the meetings with Chris Straub.  This may shed more light on who knows what and why. 

Why am I now, for the first time here, delving into the details of past events?  It may have to with the recent change in my perception of these events relative to the Millennium or lack thereof..   Under the aegis of my former premillennial paradigm I did not fully appreciate the sensitivity of these events.  I would let bygones be bygone.  I had been turned loose.  We were going to let nature take its course.  No big deal.  But the recent interactions with Ron seemed to geared to jogging my memory.  In that process I began to realize that there was unfinished business, and the nature of this business did not fit well with my more recent turn toward laisser faire millennialism.  I don't recall when I got onto the Millennium track, it may have been more recently than five years ago, as stated above.  It was something I slid into.  This may have been my subconscious reaction to the apparent deactivation of the Aquarium.  That has been for about about five years. 

The abortive reactivation of the Aquarium around 9/11 seemed like a fluke, suspicious though it was.  It was a single data point.  Last month constitutes another data point.  When I draw a line through these latter two points, it seems to connect mainly back to the frenetic, more eschatological, early days of the R&D business, rather than forward to a Millennium scenario. 

I adjust my thinking accordingly.  This puts me back in something of a holding pattern, waiting for a third data point.  If that point fails to materialize, I will again slide forward into a millenarian posture, probably over a period of some months.  In the meantime there is an opportunity for recapitulation. 

 

[7/14] 

While I'm at it, and for the record, permit me to put down a cursory time line.  

I was a Sputnik baby.  Well, I was a very impressionable freshman in high school when Sputnik was launched.  But that was not quite my introduction to things scientific.  Perhaps I was more accurately a Menzel baby.   But then this takes us back to 1943 and the rocket baby or moonchild.  My father and I share a birthday, Nov. 20.  JPL and I share a birth date, 11/20/43, according to their website.  And we share the patronage of Amos Throop, as in Throop Polytechnic Institute, now Caltech.  JPL co-founder, Jack Parsons, had more than rockets on his mind.  He and L. Ron Hubbard were intent upon producing the Moonchild under the personal tutelage of Aleister Crowley.  

My father taught at the Harvard Business School, which during the War became the Air Force's Statistical School, which in turn gave rise to the Whiz Kids.  Dan, Sr. became involved in the planning for D-day, and served on the Academic Steering Committee opposite the Astronomer, Donald Menzel.  In 1943, Dr. Menzel raised the prospect of preparing the University for its return to peacetime.  My father knowing that VE day was still at least two years off, felt that this would be premature, but, of course, he could not apprise Donald of his proprietary logistical knowledge.  Nor, as it turned out later, could Donald apprise the committee of his knowledge of the Manhattan project which was scheduled to cut short the war in the Pacific.  My father was duly impressed by the ascendancy of astrophysics.  

My bedtime stories c. 1950 became the Harvard Astronomy Book Series, edited by Donald.  One of the first of which was Donald's slim leather-bound volume on Flying Saucers.  I remember being impressed by the juxtaposition of two photos: lights in the sky, and stick appearing bent in a glass of water due to refraction.  Clearly the great scientist had outsmarted the LGMs.  Is it an accident that Donald is the one scientist listed in the MJ-12 documents, brought forward probably through Rick Doty?  It is known that he participated in the tracking of UFOs for Navy Intelligence in the Pacific.  His laughably crude debunking of flying saucers would send two very different messages, depending on the state of one's knowledge of phenomenology.  The subtext is that phenomenology is taboo for science.  Phenomenology was to be pursued on another track.  That may be the track that has now devolved into the R&D business.  Another long-time associate of my Dad's was Laurance Rockefeller, who was briefed at the White House in 1993 by Ron concerning his long standing interest in these matters.  Laurance died this past Sunday.  

Back to Sputnik.  My interest in science accelerates.  In the summer of 1960 I participate in the NSF's regional institute for budding talent.  I charge through Stanford physics and on to Princeton, but there I run into what felt like a wall.  Burnout?  Yes, but possibly something more: a 'dark night of the soul'?  For most of three days I lay on my bed, virtually paralyzed.  Eleven years latter came tears of relief, also for about three days, right after the encounter with 'Sophia'.  

I migrate into metaphysics via the Anthropic Principle and the Quantum.  For several years I am a quantum dualist.  But then, by dint of coherence, and curiously under the spell of the magical drawings of Kit Williams' Masquerade (1983), I drop the dualism.  I quickly slide into immaterialism and then eschatology.  That is where I am by about 1984.  With this now more radical outlook, I give up on my previous attempts to network the metaphysics back into the academic and religious communities.  I do not attempt to resume the networking until under the aegis of Ron, which then comes to include the offices of Senators. 

It occurs to me, perhaps late in '93, that I could follow up on my failed attempt, though my sister, to check out my interlocutor's credentials.  Eventually I end up talking to Chris Straub, ranking staffer for the SSCI, and we have three meetings.  As we sit down at out first meeting I mention my concerns with eschatology and he states his familiarity with the topic.  He cannot go into specifics about Ron, but he states that I can be assured that I am dealing with some very competent people. 

Ron tells me later that Chris had to get a special briefing prior to that meeting.  It was a briefing that allegedly had already been given to some of Chris's colleagues on the Republican side of the committee, a briefing that he had not learned about until he attempted to check who Ron was.  Another, rather murky data point?  

But, now, fast forward to: 

NATIONAL DESK | December 7, 1998, Monday

Old Concerns Over Data Transfer to China Get New Attention

By JEFF GERTH (NYT) words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 20 , Column 1

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF WORDS - When a Central Intelligence Agency scientist visited the Hughes Electronics Corporation in Los Angeles in 1995 to learn more about China's missile capabilities, he became concerned that the satellite manufacturer might have helped improve Chinese military ... The worries of the scientist, Ronald Pandolfi, were not warmly received back at... [the CIA.....]  [I have to pay for the rest] 

Hmmm..............  Ron had warned on the weekend that he would be in the papers.  It does seem that there are some politics going down with Ron.  But what are they?  Is this just hawks vs. doves, Republicans vs. Democrats?  Through an 'acquaintance' of Ron's I learn that he is to attend a meeting later that week, a meeting that would seem to contradict the hawkish posture given above.  I query Ron about this meeting on my analog cell phone, heading back to Baltimore.  Ron is apoplectic.  The meeting is cancelled.  I get a digital phone, at his insistence. 

How might one connect these additional dots?  And let us not forget the 9/11 dot.  We have two news articles.  One involving trade with Japan, another involving a transfer to China.  Oh, yes, a Senator had called the above acquaintance to say that she should not be concerned about Ron's being outed, there was more to the story than could be published, the abortive meeting being a part of that, we might suspect.  Was it just by accident that I am being told these things.  Ron did remonstrate about this second 'leak' within a leak, as if to underscore its importance for me. 

Was Ron being deliberately outed to the Times by hostile colleagues?  I don't think that holds water.  Since when does the CIA spontaneously air its dirty linen in public.  There is here a major breach of protocol.  Is that an accident or is it possibly semiotic?  Does this not connect back to my outing of him on CompuServe?  The international signal is that another level of activation has been achieved.  The loop now is much bigger than the phenomenology network.  Every intelligence organization in the world could simply run his name against the Internet and immediately come up with the Aviary and Aquarium.  Might they not easily conclude that this otherwise inexplicable breach in protocol would likely be a signal relative to these other strange links?  Every intelligence agency in the world has now been put on notice.  

And then comes 9/11.  Ouch!  This is a tough one.  Or is it?  By now, should it not be a no-brainer?  On 9/1/01 Ron calls for an urgent meeting of the Aquarium to be held at the zoo on 9/16.  And it comes off, right on schedule.  And then there is Deborah on the tarmac at Logan at 8am on the day in question.  It does seem that someone is dabbling in more than just politics.  At what point does mere conspiracy morph into choreography?  How may they overlap?  And who is the Choreographer? 

Last month we are back again at the zoo, this time with a bodyguard, and I'm being told that my remarks on the previous occasion had been recorded via the security cameras and underground mikes.  It does give one pause. 

Does this feel like a run-up to the Millennium?  These bits of choreography do not seem to jibe with mere millenarianism.  It would seem that something more dramatic is afoot.  Was 9/11 just the whiff of grapeshot meant to sober us up?  Should we not be getting cold feet?  Where is Chicken Little when we need her?  Where is Sophia, for that matter?  Where are Ocelot and Ferret, and 'Charlene'?  Where is the next data point? 

How many Deborahs are out there, and how can they manage to maintain a state of total denial, even at the eye of the gathering storm?  What will become of them?  Where are the Unitarians when we need them? 

Is there any point in my trying to speed things up, or slow them down?  Is there any call for me to do more than what I'm doing right now?  Is my networking not deliberately dependent on the participation my interlocutor?  Or has it been left up to me to break the glass ceiling?  If so, could I not just create a disturbance as suggested elsewhere?  I am not presently motivated in that direction.  Will 'nature' not take its own sweet time?  

But what about all those other folks out there, who, as I speculate, have been put on notice?  Would not some of them be tempted to manipulate or disrupt these proceedings?  The apparent lack of such activity may constitute the strongest evidence against my speculation.  But what could they do?  Any disturbance would most likely just call attention to these speculations.  It is Ron's job to be keeping the pulse of the insiders, while I watch the outside.  

But it would also be easy for an insider to masquerade as an outsider, and act to prime the networking pump.  Does anything prevent this?  There could be thousands of people with just a smattering of inside information who could independently connect these same dots.  Who is to run herd on them? 

And what about the religious activists?  I know that Ron has connections in those circles, certainly on the Catholic side.  Would not some of them smell a rat, to put it mildly?  Would there not be more than a few raised eyebrows?  What about our Muslim brothers?  Do they not have vested interests in these matters?  What are they to make of these carryings on?  How anxious am I to find out? 

If you had asked me how to run the R&D show, I would not have come up with this strategy, not in a million years.  If it is working, I could not say how.  On the other hand, I see no other way to extend the run-up for this many years, i.e. thirteen and counting.  I can only see the tip of what must be an iceberg, if it is anything at all.  This is why I remain comfortable in this mainly spectator role, still the ingénue. 

 

[7/15] 

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, or so say the skeptics.  Let us consider this statement.  

This seemingly simple aphorism glosses over many deep issues of epistemology, issues which I have never seen addressed by those who are won't to employ it.  In defense of the skeptics, it should be noted that the targeted claimants very seldom challenge the premise of the statement.  And generally speaking, the claimants are in no position to do so.  

Almost by default, science has been accepted as the arbiter of reality.  Those people wishing to proclaim the reality of anomalous phenomena seldom question the arbiter status of science, and so they lay their claims at its doorstep.  They come as supplicants to the alter.  The fact that their entreaties are invariably rejected, never seems to deter the next supplicant in this endless parade.  One might suppose that after centuries of repeating the ritual beating of the head against the wall, the head beaters would, just for once, step back to examine the wall that confronts them. 

It has been a simple but profoundly effective game that science has played against nature and against its rivals: divide and conquer.  That is the game of reductionism, of deconstruction.  Once that strategy is fully engaged, there will be no stopping it, not until it has played itself out.  There is little to be gained by throwing your body in front of that Juggernaught.  The non-reductionists can only bide their time. 

Well, we can do a bit more than that.  We can begin to lay the groundwork for our eventual, inevitable return engagement.  That is what you see me doing here. 

What I believe that I can see more clearly than anyone else on the Google radar screen, is that when this table finally turns, it will be a 180 degree turn.  Yes, there are ample signs that science is slowly loosing its grip on reality, but this game is not science's to loose.  If we have to wait for science to completely loose its grip, we could be waiting for another century or two.  Long before that eventuality, there will be an end game.  The new arbiter of reality will arise in direct contention with science.  The end game will be decided, not on the preponderance of the evidence but on the nature of the evidence.  At some point, the reality rug will be pulled out from under science.  Science will continue to toil in its own garden, but then it will become evident that the garden was just a floating garden all along.  It is not atoms that are the bedrock of reality.  The ground of being is being, itself.  As the strategy of reductionism begins to falter, it can only be replaced by coherence.  

Just as there was an inexorable logic to reduction and analysis, there is also an inexorability with regard to coherence.  Once the table has been turned, coherence will quickly be pressed to its cosmic limit.  Yes, that limit may turn out to be illusory, but it will be tested with full determination.  

All that I have been asking on these pages is, if there is a cosmic coherence, what will be its nature.  Leibniz answered this question centuries ago.  This logical limit of cosmic coherence is simply defined by the concept of the Best Possible World.  There can be no other limit for coherence.  This will automatically be the prime contender for all possible schemes of coherence.  I have here a uniquely modern, postmodern grip on this simple truth.  

This is my one thesis that I nail to the door of science.  It presents us with a whole new ballgame concerning ontology, epistemology and the relation between them.  It will be the turn of science to twist in the wind. 

In the scheme of the BPW, eschatology is nothing extraordinary.  It is simply what comes 'naturally' as a logical component of the bigger picture.  It is only in this metaphysical context that the issue of choreography arises.  Any direct overlap between the generation of these metaphysical insights and the governmental monitoring of phenomenology could easily hold extraordinary implications for the future.  If there is any eschatological fire, it is certainly being entertained here in an unprecedented fashion.  Should we then be surprised by the strong indications given above, that a diverse collection of such folk has been made aware of this activity?  Would not these individuals simply be doing what we should expect of them: keeping an eye on the contingencies, without being unduly influenced by contemporary metaphysical fashions?  As for el Presidentes?  Well, you never know what they might think they have a need to know. 

 

[7/16] 

The points we need to keep in mind were addressed on 7/5 and 7/6, as we consider the shift from a premillennial to an amillennial footing.  With the greater overall time pressure, there will be more emphasis on the team work and coordination between the parallel tracks: inside and outside, organized and spontaneous.  There is some proprietary information on the inside.  There is the more spontaneous effort on the outside.  At some crucial point in the run-up the tracks may need to intersect so that we can be playing off the same sheet of music.  Then the orchestration begins in earnest.  The crucial question for me is, if this is going to happen, will it be in my lifetime, and will I be there?  However, for the purposes here, I have to continue assuming so. 

For an amillennial scenario, a real-time cosmic input must come early and strong.  How much more priming must there be for that to occur?  Where do I need to be for that to happen?  There is some suggestion to continue working on the Sarfatti list.  I was thinking that I had about done what I could there, with minimal results.  Those physicists can be tough nuts.  In order to move ahead I would at least need to resume the conversation with the other interlocutor. 

 Speaking of Jack, we may need to reconsider the deus ex machina problem.  It doesn't hurt to keep our eyes on the skies, but there are other places to look as well.  Thinking of Donald Menzel, astronomer in the Navy, we might consider Davy Jones' locker.  Thinking of the Pied Piper and the wee folk, we might also want to look underground.  In other words, Jack's propulsion problem may turn out to be a portal problem.  Our docking maneuver may already have begun, as per Rick and the EBE's.  If there is a sustained dock, it may be ensconced.  If I recall the whereabouts of Hal's 'UFO', was it not under Frog Mountain?  A strange place for a hangar.  

This is pure speculation, but it might provide a useful thought experiment.  We face a major logistical headache, given our tentative amillennial scenario.  We have an exodus problem.  In one sense, there is no exodus problem if we just continue to rely on natural attrition, all we have is a population problem.  But that is no insignificant problem.  We need to prime the exodus pump in a non-traumatic fashion.  We send people packing to Frog Mountain.  The rumors of disappearing folk begin to get around.  There are more volunteers.  My understanding of the EBE story is that this has already occurred in a very limited and usually temporary fashion.  We would just need to step up the pace and rumor mill.  Then what?  What happens when '60 Minutes' or Larry King picks up the scent?  That's when the rubber meets the road.  That is when the two tracks intersect. 

Would there not be a concurrent breakdown of the social order?  Would there not be a significant panic?  There would have to have been a very considerable and rapid run-up in our networking effort prior to this Disclosure Day.  It would take a virtually miraculous networking effort to mitigate the effects of D-day.  I would be skeptical about the success.  If we could possibly get over that hump, then the birthrate might begin to fall, and, by duplicating portals, we could begin to make a dent in the logistics.  

Of course there would have to be considerable two-way traffic at first.  There would need to be considerable tourism and day-tripping.  What might we expect to see in the brochures?  Will the eventual migration operate more by benefit of carrot or stick?  Right now, your guesses are as good as mine. 

 

[7/17] 

For the most part, and once we overcome our initial trepidations, we will want to move on to complete our extended journey through time, and reintegrate ourselves into the cosmic infrastructure.  I doubt that many of us could presently imagine how this reintegration will come about.  We will just be going with the flow. 

There will be stragglers.  They will not be able to return to the JPc/Eden.  A timeless Eden is one of the many mansions.  It is not meant for stragglers.  They will likely end up in a refugee camp of some kind, not something to look forward to.  Just the scene that is becoming so familiar.  Will those who are now in in the camps be staying there?  I would hope that the bulk of them can make the transition on their own.   The camps will be expanded, however, to include those who balk at the end. 

At some point the present infrastructure will be breaking down.  This will provide a major impetus to move on.  This infrastructure will be supplanted, but only for those who do not try to hang on to the fading present.  The infrastructure of the camps will just be temporary and makeshift. 

None of this will be particularly easy.  Heaven is not going to be wine and virgins. 

The next issue will be the manner of our bodily existence.  At best, what we now consider our bodies will become optional.  They will become decreasingly significant.  Bodily concerns are for those in the camps.  Moving beyond the physical is a major part of the transition.  

This is a very rough outline.  We will come know these things as the need arises.  Our main task is to be focused on the Presence, i.e. that which is beyond the mere present.  

 

[7/18] 

We have all heard of Doomsday and Judgment Day.  Do we wonder where these ideas came from?  Logically they derive from our attempt to model cosmology with biology.  The world is born and then it dies, presumably to be reborn.  

In nature, we see few signs of an aging world.  However, in social systems a biological model is more relevant.  Personal regimes tend to follow the biology of the leader.  Dynasties would follow the life cycle of the ruling clan, usually starting in a state of vigor, but then declining as the power of the clan gradually becomes corrupted and dissipated, until there would be a violent regime change.  The old regime may be held accountable for its failings.  Election cycles follow a similar pattern. 

Virtually all mythic world systems are cyclic.  None are static or evolving.  With a static system there is no story.  With an evolving system there is the problem of an ending. 

We might wonder at the concept of eternity.  The cyclic systems have endless time, but that is not eternity.  With the Hindu system one can escape the wheel of time to nirvana and Brahman.  In Einstein's general relativity, time is local to a given universe.  There is the implication of a timeless background manifold, an implication which is partially realized in the inflation scheme. 

Then comes the notion of a Creator.  The Creator must break the cycle, or she becomes absorbed into it.  The Creator is the author of history.  She must exist outside of history.  An unnatural element supervenes nature. 

Once again I have the opportunity to correct myself.  Norse mythology is not cyclic.  Time begins spontaneously, as with Einstein, but then ends in a paradisiacal eternity, as in the theistic systems, but only after most of the gods succumb in Ragnarok, a free-for-all or Doomsday version of Armageddon.  Odin is neither the first nor the last of the genealogical pantheon.  With Einstein, the Big Crunch is optional. 

If the world is to have meaning, it must be the locus of a project, a project that is realizable.  In the theistic systems, there is no project.  There is a fall and then a further decline, with a final battle against the forces of evil producing a small saved remnant.  There is in Judaism and Christianity an earthly messianic kingdom and Millennium, respectively.  These act as mere appendages to history.  They do not ascribe any meaning to it. 

There is finally the notion of progress, an idea that emerges surprisingly late in history, and only in a secular context.  This idea goes back only to the European Renaissance, contradicting the cyclic name of its origin.  Only when science was brought on board, did the idea of progress become robust.  We still struggle to find a logical connection between evolution and progress.  It is the postmodern view that there is no such connection.  Only the transhumanists and ufologists look to a universal progress.  Very few people are able to see a connection between technological and moral progress.  

It is a central thesis of the BPWH that progress, to be part of a meaningful world, must be a realizable project.  It is a project that must end in an apokatastatic eschatology .  This means, however, a decisive and final transformation from a material to a spiritual understanding of the overall project.  There is a final change in the gestalt of progress, from the technical conquest of nature, to the mental or spiritual conquest over matter.  This eschatology outstrips the the mythic and traditional worldviews.  Such an outcome would have been incomprehensible, and is prefigured only in the pantheistic system of Hegel.  

History is witness to our sojourn into the heart of the matter.  Only at the end of that journey, as presaged in the discovery of the quantum and anthropics, do we begin to realize that it is just our own footprints, along with the thumbprint of God, that we see in those metaphysical innards.  Thus do technology and science become our springboard to apokatastasis.  

Our errand into the wilderness has been accomplished.  We return with the pearl of great price.  We come to know ourselves, and God through us, in the mirror of Creation.  This is an eternal knowledge.  It need not be repeated.  There is no judgment, only gnosis. More accurately, judgment is subsumed in gnosis. 

Can we ask for anything more?  Should we expect anything less?  Is God's kingdom not in heaven?  When our mission has been accomplished, what need have we to tarry down here?  If there is a further mission, it would be for a clean-up crew: rather anti-climactic.  For you and me, it is onward through the looking-glass. 

The idea of a portal may seem intimidating.  There will be the opportunity for day trips, but I suspect there will be remarkably few of those.  The lines will quickly become too long for that logistic.  The way back will seem increasingly onerous.  We waiting upon our designated Pied Piper.  A few single men go first, soon to be followed by single women, then first come first serve.  Meanwhile the portals proliferate and expand.  Finally, the mothers with young children and the most elderly would bring up the rear, except for the closeout crew.  If you want to leave in a flying saucer, that would require a special arrangement, like an ambulance service. 

Gosh, I nearly forgot about our furry and feathered friends.  Somehow, I just don't see any real problem there.  Won't they be able to look out for themselves?  Will we need a latter-day Noah?  That will be more just a matter of quality.  Only with us humans, and our pets, of course, do the quantities really matter.  There will be 'ecosystems' on the other side, but not the metabolism.  Our bodies, such as they may be, will be morphing into those of avatars.  The 'economy' will not be based on production.  Time will quickly become passé.  

We might want to consider how our entrance into the other world will differ from our initial entrance here.  

First though is a minor technical difficulty.  How are our Stargaters going to breathe on the other side?  

The answer is fairly simple.  If angels can pretend to have bodies, then we can pretend to breathe.  It is the same idea, but working backwards.  It is the same way that anthropics works.  On the other side of the portal, reality is more fluid, the way things used to be here, back in the mythic dream-time, in the JPc/Eden. 

Our reality is a collective state of mind, or a very stable and compelling lucid dream.  The emphasis is on the collectivity of it.  On the other side of the portal is a collectivity of hyper-dimensional intelligences or angels concentrating hard on making their reality compatible with ours.  The portal may have existed since the beginning of time, and remained in more or less continuous use.  There is a resultant cross-socialization of the reality on each side, so that there is as little discontinuity as possible.  Everytime we go to sleep we get to practice with alternate realities.  Dream connections could become as important as the portals. They allow for more practice, and could serve as an emergency escape hatch if necessary.  We will have to socialize our dream state into a more effective conduit of communication.  The portals may just act as primers to that larger reality pump.  BYOB, bringing your own body, is optional at this party.  And we can hookup with our dear departed, at least temporarily, in an Earthly form. 

As we increasingly frequent other realities and states of mind, this reality will gradually revert to its original, more fluid state.  As our dreams become more lucid, our waking becomes less so. Perhaps that is why the EBEs made solitary visits, so that they would not de-socialize our reality prematurely.  The interrogators would have to be frequently rotated, so as not to be entrained to the other side.  Next up is the Pied Piper. 

 Don't get me wrong.  This is not going to be an easy or casual transition.  There will be foul-ups, and some people will get seriously discombobulated in the process.  We will have to act with deliberate speed, once the situation begins to get fluid.  

 

[7/19] 

What should be surprising to us is that there are not more holes in our world.  There would have been a deliberate effort to keep these to a minimum so as not to destabilize our world.  Instead there are angels, ghosts, flying saucers, etc., which act as mobile portals.  Since the dimensions on the other side are more fluid, one may use these portals as devices for, in effect, warping space and time.  You can walk into one portal and then walk out in another time or place.  Portals may also be accessed by various forms of psychic projection.  They may tend to be located in the vicinity of 'energy vortex' sites.  Associated with every type of portal are mutual, collective psycho-social protocols that are established over long periods of time.  These archetypes are tapped into when the portal is in use.  In as much as our psyches all tap into the cosmic psyche, every being is a virtual portal.  In some sense, all anomalous phenomena manifest a thinning or permeability of our normal reality boundaries.  Physics operates undisturbed away from the soft spots.  Keep in mind, however, that the starry sky serves as both a portal and a filter of cosmic phenomena.  It is the semi-permeable membrane of our reality. 

Portal phenomena are minimized through systems of taboos.  It was the responsibility of shamans and religions to maintain these taboos.  The scientific establishment takes upon itself the maintenance of a worldview that is antithetical to these phenomena.  In modern times, there is an effective double cover relative to the other worlds.  We have to exercise caution in the deconstruction of that worldview.  We don't want to let the air out too quickly, lest we all have trouble breathing.  The general bourgeois conservatism has become a significant part of the taboo structure.  The sometimes not so benign neglect of phenomena can be striking in academic and professional venues.  The social fabric and the fabric of reality are ultimately synonymous.  The omnipresence of technology reinforces this fabric; however, technology may also provide the leverage for its eventual deconstruction and unraveling. 

 

[7/20] 

Here is a follow-up concerning the article posted above: 

Steve, 

Thank you very much for this information. 

This has become a big issue for me. It may even have a bearing on my worldview. It certainly has a bearing on my seriously deteriorated relationship with my sister, Deborah, aka 'Debra'. 

Conceivably this is an issue pertaining to national security. This may seem like a very major stretch, but consider the circumstances. 

I beg your patience while I attempt to explain the context. 

First of all, I would like to know how you came across my concerns about the Anderson article. I certainly did not expect to get a response from such a knowledgeable source as yourself. 

I have posted this article to my website: [see above] 

I am assuming, however, that an enterprising person on the Sarfatti email list looked you up and sent you a copy of my correspondence, in an attempt to verify it. You needn't be ad hominem, but do, please, give me the generality of the contact, if you can. 

If you peruse the material on may website on the above page, and some of the material on the previous page, you should get a fair idea of the context I am talking about. 

Ron Pandolfi is my CIA contact person. He is well aware of the significance that I attach to this article, and he has not yet seen fit to disabuse my interpretation. Is this merely an oversight on his part? 

I see no gaps in the chain of events that you present. Do you have any reason to suppose that Deborah might or might not be aware of this sequence? I have to wonder why she failed to apprise me of it. Soon after the article was published she accused me of having been Jack Anderson's source. 

Unless I can come up with an alternative interpretation of the events you present, I will need to add a retraction on the website, and then apologize to Deborah. I will need to ask Ron why he did not offer a denial of my original interpretation. 

FYI: Deborah had already divorced Charlie by this time. He was also then being sued by one of his daughters on the allegation of abuse. The suit was settled out of court. A very sad story.

I can still wonder why Jack failed to mention the primary significance of this sequence of events: that both the Prime Minister of Japan and the high-level trade negotiations were involved. The article only implies such. 

And I remain impressed by the fact that someone took the time to track you down. 

Might you 'allow' me to entertain the notion that there could have been just a bit of 'cosmic' intervention in this rather impressive display of swift 'cosmic' justice? 

In any event, may I please post your comments to the website? Would you want to edit them for that purpose? 

I gather that you have managed to survive you unfortunate encounter with my former brother-in-law. So has my niece. 

Thank you and best wishes, 


Dan



-----Original Message-----
From: Steve DeVore [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Jack Anderson/SyberVision/ President Bush

Dan:

I read with interest your thoughts about the Jack Anderson column about Charlie Leighton, Mr. Toyota, and President Bush.

There was no conspiracy. Here are the facts: 

Back in 1989 CML was under a hostile takeover bid by Irwin Jacobs. He wanted Boston Whaler and was going to sell off the other CML companies, including SyberVision, to pay for the stock purchase.

Charlie panicked after Reader’s Digest backed out as a “white knight” to provide funds to fend off Jacobs.

As the founder of SyberVision, I was in negotiations with Toyota to sell them 1 million Bobby Jones tapes. This would have meant a $20 million profit to CML. As you may know, the Japanese work very slowly in business deals. Charlie asked me how we could expedite the order since he needed the money, he claimed, quickly. Jokingly, I told him nothing short of a presidential order could speed up the transaction. This was on a Friday afternoon when we had the discussion. On Monday, Charlie had sent off a packet to Mr. Toyota with the letters promising presidential intervention in the current difficult trade sanction talks going on at the White House concerning Japanese auto imports (Toyota in particular). He also sent along pictures of the Bushes with Charlie and Deborah as proof of his association, as well as the cuff links. 

Apparently, Mr. Toyota was greatly impressed. So much so that on the following Friday he gathered with his peers (including the Prime Minister of Japan) for a saki get- together at his country club. Sitting around the table, he showed the presidential cuff links he was wearing to his friends. He took one off and passed it around the table. Each of his guests rubbed the presidential logo on the link until one man rubbed and a decal of the logo came off in his hands. The cuff links were plastic. Mr. Toyota was greatly embarrassed and lost “face” among his peers. Needless to say, the deal was dead. 

After our contract with Charlie was over, he didn’t pay what he owed us ($20 million) so we had to resort to a lawsuit. The Wall Street Journal learned of the suit and ran a front page article with Charlie’s caricature. The article detailed how CML had ripped off many of its business partners (entrepreneurs who sold their companies to Charlie and Bob Tod)—SyberVision being the most recent one. 

This led to an interest by CBS “60 Minutes” who contacted me to do an expose about CML featuring what happened to us and the other entrepreneurs. I directed the producer, at the direction of my attorney, to the court documents that were public record. From those documents, the producer found a copy of Charlie’s letter to Toyota. They contacted Charlie and he denied even writing the letter. He didn’t know they already had a copy of it. This infuriated the producer and doubled her resolve to expose CML. 

Throughout this process, my attorneys told me not to communicate directly with 60 Minutes but to direct all questions from 60 Minutes to them. For some reason, 60 Minutes opted out of the show but the producer sent the letters over to Jack Anderson. 

I was contacted by Anderson’s office, refused to talk to them. They spoke to my attorneys who verified the veracity of the letter.

That’s how it happened. As to Anderson’s motive in writing the article I can only think it was for the sake of trivial humor—without thinking about the consequences of how it might hurt innocent people. Unfortunately, Deborah was hurt. I can imagine her embarrassment. I remember her as a nice and honorable person. I really liked her. She had no idea what Charlie did, I am sure of that. Charlie was desperate, didn’t think about potential consequences (who could have known) and tried to use Deborah’s friendship with Barbara Bush to save his hide. At one point Charlie told me he would do “anything” to defend, protect, and save CML. 

Hopefully, this has enlightened you. 

What has become of Charlie and Deborah. Last time I saw Charlie (1992) he appeared to have early on-set of Parkinsons. [The first I have heard about this] I hope they are well and happy. 

Give them my regards.

Steve DeVore 

SyberVision

 

On further thought, I am not convinced that the conspiracy issue has been resolved.  I don't know who is Steve's source concerning the crucial meeting.  It is curious that I do recall hearing that the Minister of Trade was involved, but no such official was referenced in the column, and I don't think Deborah went into any such detail, with me.   

Now I'm beginning to feel badly for Charlie, in this one instance.  For once in his life he would have been the victim!  He was clearly in a tight spot.  How many of us in his position might not have seriously considered doing what he did?  Think of all the employees and stockholders he had to protect.  That his previous business practices were not above reproach is not relevant to this incident.  When the President allows his picture to be taken with you, he wants you to hang it on your wall and brag about it to other people.  That is the whole point.  This is politics, my friends!  Ditto for any other memorabilia.  If you get into a jam, should the President be offended if you use his gift to help solve the problem?  What are gifts for? 

Who are the three people here who should actually be embarrassed?  The President, the Prime Minister and Mr. Toyota.  Why?  The President for giving shoddy gifts to deserving supporters.  The Prime Minister and Mr. Toyota should be embarrassed for having embarrassed the President of the United States, a person with whom they were in the midst of a very delicate trade negotiation.  Deborah, indeed, reported to me that the President was [alleged to be?] 'furious' about this incident.  Would he have been mad at Charlie?  I don't thinks so.  He would have been mad at the Japanese for turning a trivial incident into an international incident.  

The Japanese are reputed to be astute negotiators.  Would they be so stupid as to go out of their way to antagonize their negotiating partner?  

I'm sorry, there is still something fishy here.  If I were the President, the first thing I would do is fire the person responsible for the shoddy cufflinks.  Might this person not have gotten a big kick-back?  Who wears cuff-links?  Wealthy businessmen, people likely to contribute big bucks to the campaign.  Do you want to embarrass your biggest supporters?  Think of your supporters reading the Jack Anderson column and then throwing their personal mementos into the waste basket!  

But wait a minute.  Would the Toyota CEO and Prime Minister actually interrupt their party to ogle campaign trinkets?  Could they possibly be so naive?  Would they then go around advertising their naiveté?  

Have I said enough?  Too much?  Can the fate of the world hang in this balance?  I intend to find out.

Cufflinks there, eschatology here.

Might Steve not be in a situation similar to Deborah?  It is hard to believe that a major event in your life was simply not at all what it seemed.  It might cause one to start questioning the rest of 'reality'.  This is not easy to do, but we all have to start somewhere. 

Wait another minute.  Who at Toyota would send Charlie's letter to Steve, and why?  [OK, that might have just been Charlie, before the fact with a cc.]  And then who at Toyota would want to tell the world about their boss's subsequent embarrassment, and why?  And how did these details (' Each of his guests rubbed the presidential logo on the link until one man rubbed and a decal of the logo came off in his hands.') get back to Steve?  Is the devil in the details? 

I'm sorry to belabor this, but ultimately it is the 'reality' of the world that is up for grabs.  

 

[7/22] 

There has, at my behest, been some preliminary discussion about networking the eschaton.  In the next few days I will be meeting with two of the principals in this proposed effort. 

In my last meeting with Chris Straub several years ago, which Ron also attended, the conversation was mainly about saving the tigers.  As we were about to leave, I said that I had been wanting to also discuss eschatology.  Christ turned to me and said, 'Well, Dan, I guess you'll just have to surprise us.'  I now hope that we can do better than this.  I would like for there to be a serious, non-sectarian, open discussion of eschatology.  This is what I will be attempting to arrange for with the help of these other two individuals.  One of these is Ron, and the other shall remain nameless, per his request. 

The first effort will be directed toward the Sarfatti list.  I have attempted to introduce this topic there on several previous occasions in the last few years.  The general level of skepticism has prevented that from happening.  We'll be making this attempt once again, now in a more concerted fashion.  There will a team effort, at least to a limited degree.  

The frame for this discussion will be to construct a possible scenario based on a 'what if' proposition.  What if the world is a supernatural construct.  It was created, say, to serve in the self-discovery of God through the participation of us creatures.  Furthermore, this purpose, in the context of this world, is intended to be achievable.  That is to say that our task as creatures in this three-dimensional setting is intended to be completed at some point.  This is the meaning of our 'physical' existence.  

The question that is to be posed is simply, what would be the best way for us then, or now, to move on to whatever is to be the next phase of our existence, beyond the present space-time context, our purpose here having been carried out to its fullest possible extent, or at least to the point where additional costs can be expected to exceed the possible future benefits.  In other words, we need an exit strategy, and I need a focus group to hash this over, at least in a preliminary fashion.  The intention is to persuade Jack and his discussion group to temporarily take up this challenge.  In that process, there may emerge a subset of folks who would be open to a continuing and more in depth study of this issue. 

It may be that this is not actually just a hypothetical contingency.  This may not just be a test.  It could be leading up to an actual eschatological event.  We cannot know that now, but, until such time, we want this discussion to remain contained and containable.  We don't want or expect it to get out of hand.  If, in the future, new information emerges, then we would have to proceed on another track. 

What I think we can assume for now is that there is an actual 'phenomenology' problem.  There are known to exist phenomena that are sufficiently anomalous so that if they were to be publicly disclosed, our modern worldview might well be subverted or deconstructed.  

But the problem goes beyond just the question of epistemology.  Ultimately there is an ontological issue.  Reality may not be as solid or impermeable as we have come to expect.  The universe may be more like a great idea than a great machine.  It may be more of mental than a physical or mathematical construct.  The world is not a machine, it is rather a dream machine. 

Jack, of course, objects to any such characterization.  He is a physicalist.  Everything can be explained by physics, even anomalous phenomena.  You just have to be willing bend your formulas to whatever is the necessary extent.  But does he have a model for psychokinesis?  Is there any conceivable physical model for PK?  Consider spoon bending as an example.  Would there not have to be visualization and targeting?  Materialization would be another unphysical anomaly, and so would be remote viewing. 

I am saying that the ultimate issue is the relative ontic priority of mind vs. matter.  Anomalous phenomena are always directly associated with intelligence.  They are manifestations of the power that mind ultimately holds over matter.  Further, I'm claiming that these phenomena portend the primordial and final ascendancy of mind over matter.  There is simply no formula for Creation as there is none for the Omega.  Physics may be the means to an end, but it cannot be an end unto itself.  We have had materialization, now we need to arrange for our dematerialization.  How do we minimize the trauma? 

I speak of our participating in the self-realization of God.  This has been accomplished using the mirror of Nature.  Our related sub-task has been our sojourn into the heart of matter.  We have gone as far as we can in that direction.  With the quantum and anthropics, we begin to see ourselves reflected in Nature.  We now undergo the reversal of that sojourn.  The return journey is likely to be very much shorter in duration.  We come back home, bearing the pearl of great price: our wisdom and self-knowledge. 

Perhaps more accurately I should speak of the de-physicalization of matter.  The way to do this is to weaken the contextual relations that ordinarily keep the physical processes on track.  Transiting through a portal would be an example of this.  PK gets stronger on the other side.  It is not clear how it would be possible to reverse this process.  It is analogous to the notion of unraveling, with the quantum and mathematics acting as warp and woof.  We might wonder if there would be any distinction in this context between natural and artificial systems.  Imagine making the transit with a pacemaker and then returning.  

 

[7/23] 

Of course, I continue to have trouble explaining matter.  Something that might be related is the psychology of eating and drinking, etc.  What I need to ascertain are the psychic precursors of metabolism.  Is the primal circulation of the zodiacal energies not related to metabolism?  What is the metabolism of the mind? 

Does food not have psychic properties?  There must be a psychic ecology, or an ecology of the psyche.  This would have to do with relationalism and functionalism.  The same questions apply to numbers and words.  Where does the dynamics arise for these abstractions?   We're looking for the mainsprings.  

But wasn't Freud attempting to grapple with the metabolism of the psyche?  Are the appetites of the mind any less than those of the stomach?  The dynamics of reproduction come to mind.  Where is there a greater overlap of mind and matter?  Mate selection must reenact the primal dialectic.  I don't yet sufficiently appreciate the dialectic.  We have the imperative of symmetry breaking relative to the Matrix.  We are looking at the dialectic between heaven and earth, or mind and matter.  What aspect of the mind is dual to the atom?  What it the dialectic when projected onto matter?  Surely the quantum figures in here.  

I also wonder about the accounts of ghosts and ETs walking through walls.  At what point do they go bump?  Saucers are seen going into the water, but not into the ground.  The bumping into walls has to do with super-symmetry, which is an aspect of space.  Ghosts may bring their own space with them.  There is also the repulsion of energy levels and of the Riemannian zeros.  There is also the problem of particle identities and their coupling to the various force fields.  Identity is a very abstract concept, but it is crucial to physicality of physics. 

There may be two logical kinds of solidity: static and dynamic, or volumetric and ballistic.  How much do both of these depend on atomic stability?  To what extent that stability a brute fact, or is it a manifestation of an eco-logic?  As a relationalist, there can be no brute facts.  What then is the stability of the ecologic, and how does it relate to physical stability?  It must be something about the quantum that brings these together.  Is it simply the projection postulate, or something more complex?   How does a wall switch from being permeable to impermeable?  How do two particles switch from being identical to non-identical?  Where do the logics of heaven and earth come into contact, other than at a portal?   Should we go back to the pokatok court?  Is there a quasi-physics for heaven?  What is happening when we see a ghost?  How much is internal, and how would the internal overlap with the external?  As an idealist, though, I have to be careful about any such distinction.  One person may see the ghost, while another does not.  

 

[7/24] 

He is another way to approach the portal problem.  In transit, one enters into a lucid dreamlike state.  This does not present a problem until one attempts to return back to this world.  Only then would the state of one's body come into question.  If, for instance, a camera or other recording device were taken along, its state upon return would also be questionable.  There are various possible answers to these questions, few of which could be excluded a priori.  Such questions could only be answered experimentally.  The answers need not be the same in every case. 

A physicist would want to know whether mass would or could be conserved in this process.  The portal could not be treated as a black hole.  The mass would disappear from this world.  So it would not necessarily or obviously be conserved.  The portal would be seen as violating the laws of physics.  A gravimeter placed near the entrance would logically record a decrease in the gravitational mass of a transiting object.  Too bad.  Anomalous phenomena, almost by definition, violate the accepted laws of physics, if they are not simply hallucinatory.  The portal process would simply cover a wide class of anomalous phenomena, or many such phenomena could be explained in terms of portal processes.  

Psychic survival of death is the most widely acclaimed of all anomalous phenomena.  Death then is a one-way, immaterial portal.  There is a violation of physics in the posit of the psyche as a non-physical phenomenon.  There is thereby suggested a metaphysical dualism between mind an matter.  A portal that permits the transit of material bodies would, however, point very strongly toward an immaterialist, idealist metaphysic.  

Although theism, is generally conceived in dualistic terms, the concept of Creation, in as much as it deviates from physical cosmogony, implicitly entails idealism.  The Alpha and Omega, Eden and resurrection may both be seen as 'physical' portals between the temporal and atemporal realms.  Our pokatok scenario, is just an attempt to set up a portal to transit from the outside, to make the transition from the non-physical into a 'physical' realm.  Ultimately, both realms must be viewed as dreamlike, but a portal between them allows for a minimally discontinuous connection or transition between them.  The BPWH strongly suggests that mini-portals would play a crucial role in minimizing the trauma that might otherwise be associated with an amillennial eschatology, i.e. our imminent confrontation with the Omega portal.   A portal may be understood as a review of Creation and a preview of Omega.  

 

[7/26] 

There has been some barely perceptible progress.  My prime interlocutor will tell select individuals that I may not be crazy after all.  This pertains to the prospective Eschaton Focus Group.  He will privately tell select participants that he is favorably disposed to the existence of such a body.  To everyone else, the previous, long-standing protocol will continue to apply.  

I requested that he explain this new protocol as being motivated by the phenomenology problem.  He countered that any such admission would leave him open to too many follow-on questions.  Instead, he will be telling Jack that this part of a counter-intelligence operation.  He tried to explain this rationale to me, but I was unable to see any connections to eschatology.  I don't know that Jack will swallow this either.  Mr. P. may be best advised to revert to 'no comment' when questioned as to motivation. 

I'm not sure how Jack will countenance this new initiative.  He is certainly welcome to try his hand at portal physics, but beyond the green door, the physics gives way to metaphysics.  It is where heaven begins, it is hyperspace with a vengeance.  It is the lucid dream-world.  Jack is no fan of heaven, but what about the Matrix and virtual reality.  How can we agree to disagree on these matters? 

Jack may only countenance a portal as leading to a parallel physical universe, but this does not then count as being eschatological.  It could be billed as an evacuation to escape from a vacuum phase shift in this universe.  That may be about as close as he would be willing to approach to a full-bore eschaton.  There is also the God problem.  Is the putative phase shift simply a natural phenomenon, or could it be tied to a cosmic plan?  This would need to be sorted out before we try to get more people involved.  The others need not be exposed to a pissing match.  

We could just say that this other universe will be less physical.  It will be more susceptible to anomalous and psychic phenomena.  The dear departed may already have transited, by other means.  Maybe what is next door is an artificial universe.  The best that money and unlimited energy can produce.  

There is a meeting tomorrow with the secondary interlocutor.  There will need to be a discussion of the present state of the aviary.  Who can be reactivated and how, and for what purpose?  There may also be a discussion of the Illuminati, per his request. 

 

[7/27] 

Where I can be helpful to Ron and, hopefully, to others is in my temerity in grappling with the biggest issues.  The biggest of all is the God question.  I am not aware that this question has ever been addressed in its fullest generality at any time in recorded history.  On previous attempts there has always been an array of presuppositions which has sharply limited the scope of the assertions or discussion.  

Theology would be the logical venue for entertaining the God question.  That profession, however, has come to be polarized into either sectarian or secular denominated institutions.  The ball has been dropped.  If you asked me to name an author who has come closest to matching the above ideal, I would have to reference Augustine or Aquinas, but only with considerable reservation.  Here I attempt to pick up the ball for, perhaps, the very first time. 

There is now just one presupposition.  God is a semi-rational actor, and we are semi-rational beings, both to the extent that entails an overlap of rationality sufficient for a substantive discussion.  Without this assumption, we can go back to staring at the walls of our cave.  That is the starting point for these web pages.  

Rather early in any such deliberation, one encounters the issue of eschatology.  Here has been no exception.  This issue, if it cannot be properly set aside, will naturally acquire a high priority.  That is where this discussion presently resides. 

According to my theological reasoning, the best possible God will be self-limiting in favor of the creatures.  This is particularly the case in regard to any eschatological issues.  Creation is participatory to the optimal extent, and this includes the Eschaton.  What does this imply? 

The clear implication is that we creatures should be expecting to step up to the plate in a major way, come eschaton time.  How could this be arranged?  And what about the timing?  We examine the possibilities. 

I have not proven that there will be an eschaton.  I have not proven there is a God, nor that this is the best possible world.  Science, however, has demonstrated that the world is comprehensible, but that same science has no explanation for this paramount fact, and neither does pantheism.  Thus does science, very expeditiously, lead us right back to the God question.  Given an unnaturally coherent world, it is my reasoned contention that an (unnatural) eschaton is very probably entailed.  The timing then becomes the main issue. 

The simplest answer is that the Eschaton could come at any time.  It is our responsibility to be reasonably prepared for that eventuality.  There has never been any discussion outside of strictly sectarian confines on the issue of preparation.  What might such preparation reasonably entail?  That bring us to the proposed eschaton focus group.  That is our logical starting point.  The first step is to set an agenda for this group. 

 

[7/28] 

The networking with the former avians seems to be moving ahead.  There are now three of us in this new initiative.  There are three more critical players to get connected with.  There is much old business to rehash and attempt to resolve.  I will soon be away from the computer on a two week vacation.  By the time I return there should be a good indication as to the future of this initiative.  If the results are negative with regard to the phenomenological problem, there will still be significant information to be placed in the public domain, as a guide to any future investigation.  

If the results are positive, then there would be justification for briefing someone like Jim Woolsey, and others as well, including a legislator or two.  And then, of course, there would have to be a journalist or two.  

--------------------------

Now there is the matter of counterintelligence.  Sophia didn't tell me this was part of my job description.  I'm an idealist in every sense of the word.  I have no doubt that this is the best possible world, not just for today, not just for tomorrow, but forever.  We live here on the margin of forever, but there is nothing marginal about the meaning of every life.  

There is talk of Armageddon.  There is talk of division and dominion.  But whose plan is this?  Is this God's plan?  We hear a lot about scripture, but who has the script?  Certainly I do not.  I have just what everyone has, a mustard seed of faith.  And I have the sure knowledge that this faith is the cornerstone of our reality.  

 

[7/29] 

In other words, there are people who lack faith in God's infinite love.  I have been there and lacked that, too.  Only by God's grace does the mustard seed flower.  And so there are folks who take these matter into their own hands.  We all do, from time to time.  This is part of our participation in Creation, but it is supposed to be a partnership.  Sharing in faith, hope and charity is as far as the partnership is supposed to go.  Crusading and jihad have always been viewed as questionable forms of participation, at the best. 

The eschaton focus group might serve as a way to smoke out other groups who have more nefarious designs concerning the eschaton.  The introduction of Aliens or ultra-terrestrials contributes additional uncertainty to the mix, and might well give pause to some potential bad actors.  At the least, we could serve as a stalking horse.  

In order to create smoke, one does have to play with fire.  If the intent were to use the EFG as a kind of backfire, the plan could backfire.  The preventive measure could trigger the disease rather than inoculate against it.  This particular EFG initiative might be considered to be the least virulent form of the virus that could be constructed.  Better then to do a calibrated release than to wait for some more random event.  This is the minimal preemption of the eschatological force. 

How might Jack & Co. view this operation?  It will help to emphasize the physical aspects of it.  Jack already has a physical model for a portal.  The recent publicity given to the skepticism regarding the wormhole version of the portal might provide Jack's alternative with some extra visibility.  What is less obvious is the political angle.  Using Alien technology to put the kybosh on the Mossad's and the neo-cons' NWO would be a starter.  The EFG, if properly presented, could become a distraction to the Christian right-wingers, further undermining the neo-con designs.  We go back to the idea that the seeds of modern Millennialism might have been planted, in part, by the early Zionists, as a way of diverting attention from our ultra-terrestrial imperative.  Our job is to break the chains that bind us to the mundane.  Jack & I ought to be able to collaborate on this basis. 

The conspiracy theorists see the Global Cabal as collaborating with the bad ET's to keep us chained to the Earth.  This is similar to the Gnostic view that the Church was in cahoots with the demiurge, i.e. Satan, to that same end.  Their quest was to find the magic formula that would break the bonds of the planetary logoi.  Alchemy was just one spin-off of this effort.  Their quest was to overcome the symmetry breaking to return to the Monad or Godhead.  

The EFG appeals to the Visitors as our potential liberators.  Their portal technology is just the ticket we need to ride.  The Hieros Gamos need only be a step away. 

 

[7/30] 

I need to redirect attention from the sky to the ground.  This is more of a hollow earth notion.  Physicists will object.  If the portals are already in place, it becomes more a matter of politics than physics.  As Bill has pointed out, Jack has unfinished business and stuff to prove relative to his colleagues in physics.  It will be hard to redirect his territorial instincts. 

A counterintelligence angle comes with all those attempting to manipulate the eschaton and any associated messianics.  The EFG is an attempt to false flag any such 'competing' groups.  I'm not sure how Jack would view his own participation.  I would need to work with Hal in the same fashion, but Jack may not allow that.  Perhaps I need to go to Hal first, but neither Ron or BJ seem to be amenable.  That leaves me with Gordon. 

Will Jack buy into the eschaton as a way to evangelize his physics?  That is possible.  He has come close before.  He won't want to miss the action.  I need a road trip to Austin & SF.  Ron will have to help me with BJ.  Maybe Bill can help.  

If Ron is doing this stuff, then there must be other intels doing the same, whether or not they subscribe to the premise.  It's just another intel watering hole where every agenda gets its thumb in the pie.  It's a game that no one can afford to ignore.  With Ron, we can help to set a few of the agendas. 

Jack and I have to agree how to divide the work and divvy the 'spoils'.  If he won't give up anything, I'll be forced to take up with Hal and Gordon.  He works the physics while I work the politics and theology.  He seems to recognize the franchise I have with Ron, although he is wont to challenge even that.  Jack will have to make some choices and commitments. 

As for the eschaton itself, J & I can agree that there will be a general desire to leave the earth when it is possible to do so.  Then we will get into the problem of our destination, i.e. will the desire be prompted by material or non-material remuneration?  Does our destiny lie beyond space & time or not?  

JS would agree that our ultimate destiny is at least in a virtual reality, but could that be distinguished from a metaphysical domain?  And why not place that domain on the other side of the portal?  Would another sojourn in space-time, a repetition of our need to leave here be any positive inducement?  Is mere multiplication sufficient inducement?  John Leslie would argue against our being at the start of an exponential process. 

Jack's scenario just doesn't make sense.  If we're not the first ones, then where are we in the process?  What is our special story?  Have we not been left behind already?  But how can I bring these physics types around to the metaphysics?  How does their physics fit into the picture?  Is Hal part of the problem or part of the solution?  I'm going to have to cut them out of the physics herd, but that is the locus of too much of their identity.  They have no other means of self-expression.  We cannot just ignore the scientific enterprise.  It must have a deeper meaning.  There are some critical points that remain unconnected. 

 

[7/31] 

We may need to work parallel tracks through Jack and Gordon to other members of the aviary.  There must be someone besides Ron who suspects an eschatological angle.  At least they would suspect a social or religious angle that remains to be covered.  It is not all just a conspiracy to keep us away from free energy.  It is not just a technical issue.  This makes it imperative to get back to Rick.  

But how do we work the social side of this issue?  If there is no deadline for 'transmigration', how can we expect to expedite it?  There is no urgency.  It is not clear where BJ fits into this picture.  In this case I might just as well join a disclosure initiative.  That would be the only positive alternative. 

If Jack is given to believe that the EFG is only for counterintel proposes, he will not be able to treat it effectively.  

 

[8/25] 

Long time no blog.  

We were on vacation, and then were getting our son off to college.  Besides that I have been fairly busy in the Sarfatti email group.  If anyone perusing these pages wishes to join that discussion, you may contact Jack directly, or just drop me a line. 

A continuing issue for the EFG is to obtain the cooperation of the avians.  I regret that resistance on that front continues, but I have not given up yet.  

Without their cooperation, it will not be easy to maintain an effective eschatological discussion with Jack's folks who are mainly physics types.  They have been patient so far.  I would generally prefer to operate in dialog mode, and that will be my first priority, probably to the temporary detriment of this site.  Jack has archived some of those exchanges in the past.  There is a person who does that.  I may not get around to doing that here; it can be tedious. 

 

[8/29] 

Dear Diary, 

Bill says it's OK to blab here, because no one will read this, no one, that is, who would or could do anything public about what is written here. 

You may refer back to the 5/1 entry, when the current initiative began.  Yesterday there may have been the first break.  One of the principals claimed to have received a classified briefing relative to ufos.  I know of only one other person who has ever made that claim.  This has made a big impression on me.  I'm writing here to collect my thoughts.  Also doing it here because Jack expresses disinterest, and because Bill advises not to dribble this out in public. 

Is this going to be sufficient to set the world on fire?  I consulted with Gus Russo, the local author/investigator.  He says there would be very little he could do short of getting his own briefing.  The person who told me is certainly not willing to go public in the foreseeable future.  The next test will be to see what Mr. P. says about this development.  He has always maintained a posture of ignorance.  This will now be more difficult, which is not to say that he won't keep trying.  But will he admit that this is a possibly serious development, requiring follow up.  

I was beginning to get tired of once again being caught up in the usual aviary runaround.  P had gotten me back on the core story, which is mainly the Doty story which has been recounted on these pages, and in many places on the internet.  What I was trying to do was get Rick to recount to me the reason he was given for the withholding of the info.  I recall his saying something about potential damage to our cherished beliefs, but after centuries of the scientific deconstruction of our former beliefs, it's hard to imagine what beliefs might still be vulnerable.  

For what other reason might the non-hostile visitors and their human interlocutors be holding back on the rest of us.  About the only explanation that would make sense to me would be something of an eschatological nature.  This was the only angle on the Doty story that was of potentially great interest to me.  I got Rick on the line along with two other avians and started asking about this and he kept putting me off.  In exasperation I asked him to confirm what he had told me of his story on the phone several years back.  Still evasion.  Then I started after one of the others, just to confirm the barest outline of the story.  He in turn became very evasive, and this evasion began to register as peculiar and unnecessary.  So I kept pressing, and that was when the above claim was made, by way of excusing the reticence about information that ostensibly is in the public domain. 

Now what?  I need to get a feel from P as to whether this claim was intended to be a deliberate part of this new EFG initiative.  Or was it a fluke that everyone will now deny?  

If we move forward, I will have to begin shifting from dealing with these matters as something hypothetical, into another mindset, another m.o.  I'm not quite sure how easy that shift may or may not be.  Death is an abstraction up to the point of a terminal diagnosis.  It takes on a whole new meaning.  That's where I am.  It is not just my death that is at issue.  Sobering.  Perhaps I will not wish to venture further.  After all the years of impatience, I now may drag a foot.  Or not. 

How many folks have reached this juncture, knowing the eschaton was likely in the balance?  Who besides P and me?  Even all the members of the 'putative' MJ12 might not have had a need to know this.  They would know it by now, however.  P claims not to have known until after my arrival. 

 

[8/30] 

When did P know about the book?  My informant would have been briefed in the time frame of the Hennessey/Weaver meeting, i.e. c. 1990 [6/26/06 -- actually in 1988].  P would have been informed about then.  They had both managed to penetrate.  This would still have been fresh when I made the scene.  It would have given some urgency to the crop circle phenomenon.  This would have been when P disbanded the Phenomenology Group. 

P's early comment about going to visit the visitors, could have been relatively serious.  What about the other avians?  What about the Red Book and Dale.  That may have been what tipped off P.  He learned that Dale had been visited after the Ft. Huachuca incident.  But then why would Dale have been loose lipped, if Anthony was an MJ12 member?  The gossip would have been contained?  Dale and Rick probably would have seen the yellow book at about the same time, by c. 1985.  There was an upswing in activity about when Carter was finally briefed c. 1978.  There might have been thought of going public then, c. Rick's 1987 TV show.  Then again after the wall came down.  Then eschatology became a factor, at least by 1991, and that quieted things down for awhile.  Has John not been briefed?  Yes, but not on the eschaton.  Then we waited for the millennium and 9/11?!   This does make my 9/11 speculation more likely.  

How much have the avians compared notes?  Surely Bill and George W have been briefed.  About the eschaton?  Would they not find it on the internet?   Would they not have found out about Ron's special role?  Not about 9/11.  What about Straub?  He must have been briefed also, before we met.  He would have sussed the eschaton.  The republicans on the ssci would have been briefed possibly because of W.  Does this put Iraq in a new light?  Would Straub not have been briefed relative to Bill?  Maybe only his boss.  What about Dick D'Amato?  Ron would have been the youngest in the circle.  Ron could have briefed the Chinese in the time-frame of the Hughes 'incident'.  How do all these folks go on with their lives?  They don't need to take it personally.  Would Schnable not have suspected this? 

If visitors could not have come up with a better excuse for reticence, the eschaton would have come up in the early days.  When did it become more than a hypothesis?   P was reported to have said he knew stuff that the pres was not allowed to know.  This was by '98.  Something besides the time-line and 9/11?  Not the eschaton, however?  Recall that Billy Graham was in this loop, so was Nixon.  Surely Billy had a handle on the big e.  That could not have been withheld from any President since Ike.  There could hardly be a briefing that did not reference the big e, unless there were a major effort to spoof a bad alien presence.  But you could not maintain those compartments.  Leakage would be major.  The bad alien story was mainly for external consumption, for those who knew something but were not briefed.  

Still, a president would have to personally request a briefing.  Maybe W forgot to ask.  What about the VP?  What about Gorbachev?  Could the yellow book be transported overseas?  How would foreign officials have their information validated?  They would need a piece of the rock.  Former presidents would play a role.  Rick plays a crucial role in spoofing the story.  How about the Hollywood types? 

About now I will be attempting to track down Ron.  I may try to meet with Dale, in this area, before going out to see Rick.  If Ron is still on the boat, it will be difficult.  I'll call BJ, but he does seem a bit on edge. 

 

[8/31] 

XXX, et al.,

There is more to be said about our situation: 

In almost any persistent pattern of social interaction, there will arise issues of authority. Usually these issues are fairly well defined, and can be easily resolved. If not, then disputes will arise and there will exist various mechanisms that may be employed determine the legal or extra-legal authority.

We are here dealing with a very special problem of authority. Part of it is summed up in the clichéd cartoon of the space alien saying, 'Take me to your leader.'

In our case with the visitors, we may presume, that in some appropriate fashion, that request has been granted. If there have occurred any such interactions on US territory, then there would legally have to be some minimum of Presidential oversight. The protocols for those interactions would understandably have, at least, the tacit approval of whomever is the current President.

When someone tells me that they have not been authorized to divulge information related to the visitors, we may both assume that the authorization ultimately rests with the President. It should all be very straightforward.

Where do I fit into this picture? Well, consider the case of Susan Lindauer, as reported in this week's New York Times Magazine. Susan felt that our communications with Iraq had broken down. She took it upon herself to be a back channel of communication between Baghdad and DC. She did this over a period of several years with the partial knowledge of Andy Card at the White House, and also in partial consultation with a former CIA agent.

Sound familiar? Needless to say, Susan has been charged by the FBI with operating as an unregistered foreign agent. She is free on bail, facing a sentence of up to 10 years in jail.

Is there not here an object lesson? Perhaps.

I too feel that there has been a breakdown in communications, cosmic in this case, and I too am taking it upon myself to make amends, apparently in contravention of a duly constituted authority. That is the way that xxx presently views my efforts.

There is a major caveat here: the putative cosmic message may address matters that would generally, and even legally, be viewed as religious in nature. This would be the case if the message were eschatological.

If this caveat actually did apply, the President would be in a legal bind: constitutional separation of church and state. What's a Pres to do? Hand the matter over to the duly constituted religious authority? Unfortunately there is no such thing. I am willing to speculate, however, that, at the very least, Billy Graham and the Pope would have been apprised of, and consulted on this matter. I am aware that John and Victoria have made several trips to the Vatican, for instance. If the visitors had wanted one of these gentlemen to handle this matter, I don't doubt that they could have arranged for a copy of the Yellow Book to be delivered directly to the Vatican. And quite possibly, that has already been arranged.

Am I now not digging myself deeper into the authority hole? Am I not only questioning the implied authority of the President, but now also that of the Pope?  

My only direct knowledge concerning authority in this matter stems from my brief encounter with 'Sophia' c. 1977. After that encounter I was left with the distinct impression that I was being invited to operate under the authority of the 'Spirit of Truth', concerning whatever information was going to have to be revealed. BTW, I was not then an eschatologist. In 1991 this was the proposition that I put to Ron. It was several years later that Ron came back to me, in reference to the 'Aquarium', saying that 'everyone knew' that he was Catfish and that I was Sunfish. Do I need to review here the manner in which I have chosen to publicly interpret that remark?

These are the parameters under which I have chosen to operate. My only effective access to any duly constituted authority is Ron. Is this not also the case for each of us? It is only Ron who is clearly lodged in the secular chain of command.

I have argued and presented evidence to the effect that my interactions with Ron and my eschatological/spiritual proclivities have very likely come to the attention of the highest levels of not only our government, but of other governments as well. It may well behoove us to review the evidence and inference.

What I am suggesting is the likelihood that I am, through, Ron, operating as a contingent authority, i.e. we'll give the poor chap some rope and see if he can hang himself. I am just a part of a larger eschaton contingency plan and process.

Is it presumptive to suppose that if either the President or the Pope took serious offense to any of my actions, that the Ron & Dan show could not be very easily recalled and recanted? I think not.

Until such time as some better authority intervenes in this little soap opera, I contend that there is a strongly implied obligation for those already involved in this process to stay this course. Just by being where we are and when we are, we are the designated guinea pigs in this cosmic 'experiment'.

If you choose not to participate, my only recourse is a moral one. If you think I will not exercise that recourse to my utmost ability, and if you think my ability in that regard is lacking, well, shall we give it a try??

Dan

-----------------------------------

Bill and I are having trouble believing that the avians would never have gossiped about who did and did not get a briefing.  Ron has had to give his own (skeptical?) briefings.  How could he do that in good faith if he had not pressed this question upon his colleagues.  How could they suppose he did not have a need to know?  Should he not have been the first among them, after Rick to be briefed. 

I would be very reluctant to enter into a contract to no longer discuss these matters with most other folks.  I would have to be given a very good reason not to do that.  

I now recall a point in time that the person in question told me that he had to submit a list of people he would normally talk to (about these matters?), and that he had to cross off many of the names.  Ron and I were two of the remaining names, allegedly.  But then I heard very little after that.  I'm guessing this would have been around 1993.  Perhaps Ron and I were not actually on the list.  He was quite specific saying that he had not talked to Ron about it for the last 13 years.  But would that mean that Ron has still not been briefed?   Or, say, not until this past April?  Perhaps Ron held out on purpose, as I probably would.  Someone would have to brief the unbriefable, like me. 

The security ground rules would have to be spelled out before being required to sign anything.  That might give away a lot.  How many turn it down?  Ron would quickly surmise he had been left out.  He must have had a back channel source that would pertain to me and the eschaton.  He would actually have been in deeper.  

This person said that 'we don't say we believe stuff on one level that we would deny on the classified level'.  Thus they are not allowed to give out disinformation.  It might have been convenient for Ron and the other to have gotten their different briefings at about the same time.  But that would not quite square with his Los Alamos comment to me in '91.  It might explain why in our final meeting with Chris, that we could only talk about tiger protection.  Dick d'Amato would have been briefed relative to D, so why was I supposed to pester him? 

Now it seems that Linda Howe may have been Rick's primary outlet for the core story.  That would have been a decade before my time.  Rick has always claimed that he was authorized to release this info. 

But Rick is now claiming that he was not the source for some of what Linda allegedly attributed to him.  Are we back to the Doty clones?? 

Rick has said that Ron was hanging around with a couple of MJ12 types.  I doubt that BJ was. 

 

[9/1] 

OK, here is a synopsis of the briefing schedule or structure. 

Witness briefing -- You are a government employee and an inadvertent witness or perhaps a celebrity, and your talking too much could cause problems.  You are told that the situation is being handled, and that if you cause more problems you will have to be given the Bennewitz briefing.  You will be told more than you want to know, and your mental stability will be put in jeopardy.  10,000. 

AA briefing -- Alien Artifacts/Alien Autopsy.  You have a need to know something.  This is the lowest level.  The emphasis is on physical evidence.  You may be shown artifacts and/or films -- such as the Alien Autopsy film, which may have been a staged training film, with some degree of accuracy.  

Techie briefing -- You will be told about programs to reverse engineer artifacts.  You may be pointed to the work of Hal Puthoff.  This briefing may just be an extension of the previous one.  In both cases we learn that the aliens are non-cooperative.  They are withholding technology until we are prepared for it.  5,000. 

Yellow Book briefing -- You are given a synopsis of the history of visitor/human interactions.  There is more emphasis on the 'religious' content.  You are told that there is a message that we don't want to hear.  About one thousand people have reached this level. 

PE/Chicken Little briefing -- This is the Presidential Eschaton briefing, only for cabinet/senatorial level and up, but only very few of those, like the DCI and heads of intel committees.  Billy Graham often presided.  They may be warned about the R & D show, which they could also easily discover on their own.  100 at this level, not counting whomever has transited the portal.  This level likely connected with the Red Book.  BJ was not told  about this book.  Some foreign heads of state and DCIs have access.  Straub got this just before our meeting.  

TX11 briefing -- Too sensitive for the Pres.  Ron got this briefing c. 1998 when he told Susan that he knew stuff that the Pres could not hear.  TX11 was the 'eschaton code' I fed to Ron c. 1996.  Ostensibly it referred to the 1999 eclipse, but in retrospect it also referred to IX11, get it??  This level has to do with specifics of the time-line.  10 at this level, mainly coordinated by the visitors.  This may even be above MJ12. 

There you have it.  This is subject to emendation, of course. 

To go beyond the witness briefing you need a religious base or support group, or your own spiritual resources.  Otherwise, paranoia is the result. 

My guess is that BJ may have, for those 13 years, thought that he was above Ron's level.  Only now is he guessing otherwise.  From what Bill said at the time, I can now deduce that Hal may have figured out this structure when I met him at the SSE meeting in Charlotte, c. 1993.  

Security is maintained by graduated releases, such as with Rick and the AA film, not to mention the R & D show, and the rest of Hollywood.  Now the end game comes into play. 

The above is a grossly oversimplified schematic.  Every level of briefing is tailored to the situation.  There may always be gossip and speculation that blurs the levels. 

Is the Pres told there is another level?  Does the Iraq business fit into this other level?  How much input from this level goes into the White House, and in what manner? 

 

[9/13] 

In preparation for the first EFG meeting on Wednesday, I posed a counterintelligence problem: consider the possibility that the Aviary might be a pro-active, preemptive move against attempts at the hostile exploitation of phenomenology.   It could function as a backfire to contain and control the larger conflagration. 

Would this make sense even if there were no phenomena, or no visitors?  There are two problems.  Such an entity could quickly come to know the truth of the matter: if there were any core to the phenomena or to the exploitation of them.  Would it not then be able to stand down?  Has it done so?  

This leads us to the second problem: my own participation relative to the Aviary.  Up until last May, I could have said that 'we' had stood down.  Since then there has been an upswing in our activity.  Was there simply another outbreak that needed re-containment?  With my involvement, is there anticipated another outbreak of eschatological fever?  How then would the backfire strategy work?  Would it not backfire? 

The EFG simply does not fit into this counterintelligence rationale.  Is it preemptive messianism?  Preempted by whom and for whom?  We'll just have to find out.  Little doubt remains, however, as to the fact of oversight at the highest levels.  For instance, the message that the President was 'furious' had only one intended recipient.  Was the Anderson article a spoof?  I'd say it was too subtle to be that, yet, too obvious to be other than a signal.  The eschaton is not a toy.  I cannot imagine who might toy with it.  The Ron & Dan show is much too unlikely to be a mere plot.  It is more like a surprise that is still unfolding. 

Then there is the problem of the wire service.  There will have to be an artifact or a signed statement by someone in the chain of command.  We could arrange for an editor to have a visitation, and then print a background article that would include hints of eschatology.  This sounds about right.  It might already be in the works.  The editor would talk to GHW and then have an interview with Charlene.  Only the background story would be published.  There would be a stringer's name who would handle the follow-up questions.  This would get the internet heated up.  There is not much more that I have a need to know at this point.  Is there anything else to happen first?  After thirteen years, it wasn't going to take much to get me back up to speed.  Who else must be brought up to speed?  Who if not a journalist?  Possibly someone like Steve Bassett, but he is stuck with the ET scenario.  He could not extricate himself from that, politically.  Nor is there too much more that Jack could do at this point without sounding flaky, relatively speaking.  I could ask to bring a journalist to the next BJ&R meeting.  There may just be a built-in hold as in the Shuttle launches.  If so, they ought to be able to tell me.  The article would allude to phenomenology and the eschaton.  That would be sufficient to provide me with leverage on the internet.  It would contain some of my phraseology.  I would tell folks that it was coming.  That would be a big deal.  I could do a draft of it here.  I'll have to think about that. 

The article would have to include an interview with a former government official, possibly Woolsey.  There is a serious problem with phenomenology, which could impact our scientific worldview.  This would be sufficient for my purposes, especially if I were given advance notice.  This would also justify my consultation with philosophers and scientists.  That could be done as part of the EFG initiative. 

Would or could this article avoid any mention of ufos?  It would have to refer to a specific phenomenon.  Would the mere granting of the interview be a sufficient news hook?  

 

[9/14] 

I don't see how any mention of phenomenology can avoid the topic of ufos.  This would apply to any interview of Woolsey on the putative phenomenology problem.  Could that be limited to crop circles, for example?  What about dredging up remote viewing again, and say the case is not closed?  Just consider the Phenomenology Network.  Would it have to mention Ron?  Could Jim deal with it?  All we have to say is that the door cannot be closed on phenomenology.  And this would be apropos of what?  Some recent example?  Perhaps it could be given a postmodern slant.  

 

[9/21] 

It looks like the EFG is back on hold until the next meeting, which would not be before the middle of next month.  Presumably, with each visible step that I take, other less visible steps are required.  I shake the tree, and then others wait to see what falls out.  It can get tedious. 

In the interim I would like to get back to my perennial problem with atoms.  The problem is whether and how to ascribe upward causation to atoms.  Phenomenal cycles can carry much or most of the causal burden of atoms, but perhaps not all of it, at least not with the present understanding of such cycles.  I'll need to consider special cases individually.  One such is to explain the functionality of medicines.  To explain penicillin, one would first need to explain bacteria, which in its turn entails the explanation of cells in general.  This brings us back to the basic metabolic cycles.  If cells did not exist, we would have to invent, which we have.  

Given the hydro-cycle, atoms and cells fall into place.  One could say the same of germination..  That brings up the issue of evolutionary coherence.  This may also be a basic need which brings us back to Jurassic Parc and even Pokatok.  This brings us back to Aristotle & Plato.  By the way, there is a good article by Max Tegmark on parallel universes that contains a brief but significant discussion of A & P and the nature of reality, toward the end of the essay.  The question posed is whether reality is patterned more on words or formulas.  

Jurassic Parc could be greatly facilitated by implementing a goodly measure of Lamarckism, but it would be difficult to control or limit.  There is also genetic engineering, begging the question of materialism.  One would need an exit strategy for any experimental process.  How difficult is it too turn teleology on, and then turn it off?  Then consider the teleology of medicine, getting back to the original problem.  

 

[9/22] 

We have a division of labor between internal and external teleology.  To what extent may the Telos avail itself of human cognition, after the fact?  This would just leave us with a bootstrap problem to solve, but we already have that with the ouroboros.   This would also entail upward causation at the human level.  Could that process not be translated to the atomic level?  From whence would the atoms derive their substantiality, and would it not require consciousness?  This might tell us something about the aviary/MJ12 phenomenon that does seem to be critical in the in the interface between cosmic and terrestrial intelligence and counterintelligence.  It could be that mathematics is playing the role of Cs (actually more like instinct) on the atomic level.  In that case the Av/MJ might be the MGrp, the fearful symmetry. 

What then can be said of medicine?  Think of the shaman and his potions, a special dietician, using interspecies communication.  Certainly there are formulas.  Is the bomb just another potion coming out of the anthropic MG?  The physicists were the midwives, using formulas instead of forceps, to bring down the solar bambino, which is also CL and the Islam flag. 

If logic did not exist, could we have invented it?  Ditto for the electron.  It is how the chain of being becomes the ouroboros.  That brings us back to pi.  A tiger named Pi?  In many of these cases there is a potential chain reaction which can be eschatological.  We get to pick our potion? 

It is not clear how to apply teleology or the observer principle to math.  How do we bring Aristotle to bear on this subject?  Is not the BPW akin to the fixed Platonic Good?  What is the basic difference between instinct and logic?  If math didn't exist, either we or the electrons would have invented it.  Could there be any virtual sporadic groups, like Regge resonances?  The sporadic groups involve finite projective geometries and lattice packings.  There is an organic quality of math, for which Plato cannot account.  This quality may be perceived only by an organic being.  Relationalism abounds. 

 

[9/23] 

Today I meet with CF and a sometimes reliable source to see about connecting some aviary dots.  What did they know and when did they know it?  How many sources?  Why do some talk, and some don't?  Is anyone in charge?  Is Charlie?  Or is this a Matrix operation?  Just some basic issues.  I have to be careful about 9/11 with this chap.  Not sure how that might wash.  I don't think he sees a plan.  He sees us as being subjects of ET.  What about the Yellow Book?  How does he account for that?  He says they are here mainly to create more ETs out of us.  That 'hybridization' stuff can fit into an 'evacuation' preparation scenario.  Is there any other rationale?  Apokatastasis is not big on his list.  It's not clear whether GN wants to fight the ETs by stealing their technology, as with Jack.   

 

 

 

<-- Prev      Next -->

Topical Index

7/9/04