• EN
  • FR
  • DE
  • RU
  • TR
  • ES
  • ES

The High Strangeness of Dimensions, and the Process of Alien Abduction

Part I by Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Part II by Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Part I

Almost thirty years ago, I received my first formal training in hypnosis. Over the years, I not only sought out additional training, I employed this skill on behalf of many troubled individuals. Until 1994, I had never encountered what is popularly known as an “abductee” – that is, an individual claiming to have been abducted by alleged aliens. I have to admit that when I did, it presented certain problems both in terms of having a well-established technique to deal with it, as well as my own categories of what is or is not possible.

I often tell people in a sort of joking way: of all the people who never wanted to know anything about aliens and UFOs, I deserve a place at the head of the line. Very few people really understand how deeply serious this remark is. When I opened the door to consider the possibility – quite remote as I thought – of the possibility of “other worldly” visitors, life as I knew it ended. That was eleven years ago. But then, a completely new life was born from the ashes. And so, here I am producing a book about UFOs and aliens. The road from there to here has been difficult, to understate the matter, and complicated by all the High Strangeness that seems to surround the subject.

The term “high strangeness” is attributed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek who addressed the United Nations on the subject of UFOs on November 27, 1978 in the following way:

Mr. Chairman, there exists today a world-wide phenomenon… indeed if it were not world-wide I should not be addressing you and these representatives from many parts of the world. There exists a global phenomenon the scope and extent of which is not generally recognized. It is a phenomenon so strange and foreign to our daily terrestrial mode of thought that it is frequently met by ridicule and derision by persons and organizations unacquainted with the facts. […]

I refer, of course, to the phenomenon of UFOs… Unidentified Flying Objects… which I should like to define here simply as “any aerial or surface sighting, or instrumental recording (e.g., radar, photography, etc.) which remains unexplained by conventional methods even after competent examination by qualified persons.”

You will note, Mr. Chairman, that this definition says nothing about little green men from outer space, or manifestations from spiritual realms, or various psychic manifestations. It simply states an operational definition. A cardinal mistake, and a source of great confusion, has been the almost universal substitution of an interpretation of the UFO phenomenon for the phenomenon itself.

This is akin to having ascribed the Aurora Borealis to angelic communication before we understood the physics of the solar wind.

Nonetheless, in the popular mind the UFO phenomenon is associated with the concept of extra-terrestrial intelligence and this might yet prove to be correct in some context. […]

We have on record many tens of thousands of UFO reports… they include extremely intriguing and provocative accounts of strange events experienced by highly reputable persons… events which challenge our present conception of the world about us and which may indeed signal a need for a change in some of these concepts. […]

Mr. Chairman, any phenomenon which touches the lives of so many people, and which engenders puzzlement and even fear among them, is therefore not only of potential scientific interest and significance but also of sociological and political significance, especially since it carries with it many implications of the existence of intelligences other than our own. […]

Speaking then for myself as an astronomer, and I believe for many of my colleagues as well, there is no longer any question in my mind of the importance of this subject. […]

Mr. Chairman, I have not always held the opinion that UFOs were worthy of serious scientific study. I began my work as Scientific Consultant to the U.S. Air Force as an open skeptic, in the firm belief that we were dealing with a mental aberration and a public nuisance. Only in the face of stubborn facts and data similar to those studied by the French commission… have I been forced to change my opinion.[…]

The UFO phenomenon, as studied by my colleagues and myself, bespeaks the action of some form of intelligence… but whence this intelligence springs, whether it is truly extra-terrestrial, or bespeaks a higher reality not yet recognized by science, or even if it be in some way or another a strange psychic manifestation of our own intelligence, is much the question. We seek your help, Mr. Chairman, in assisting scientists, and particularly those already associated with the many formal and informal investigative organizations around the world, by providing a clearing house procedure whereby the work already going on globally can be brought together in a serious, concentrated approach to this most outstanding challenge to current science.

I would like to draw your attention to particular remarks made by Dr. Hynek in the passage quoted above:

…a global phenomenon … so strange and foreign to our daily terrestrial mode of thought… it carries with it many implications of the existence of intelligences other than our own … [It] bespeaks the action of some form of intelligence… but whence this intelligence springs, whether it is truly extra-terrestrial, or bespeaks a higher reality not yet recognized by science, or even if it be in some way or another a strange psychic manifestation of our own intelligence, is much the question..

These remarks address the “High Strangeness” factor. “High strangeness” describes those UFO cases that are not only peculiar but that can often be utterly absurd. In some cases, there are events before, during, and after the “sighting proper” imbued with elements of time and space distortion, bizarre synchronicities, strange states of consciousness, beings that act absurd, strange ‘creatures’ associated with the sighting, but not necessarily part of the sighting, anomalous phone calls, electronic glitches, paranormal events including poltergeist type activity, and what are popularly known as MIB – Men in Black.

French scientist, Jacques Vallee writes in a paper about High Strangeness:

A primary objection to the reality of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena events among scientists is that witnesses consistently report objects whose seemingly absurd behavior “cannot possibly” be related to actual phenomena, even under extreme conditions. […] Skeptics insist that superior beings, celestial ambassadors or intelligent extraterrestrial (ETI) visitors simply would not perpetrate such antics as are reported in the literature.

In one case, a farmer in Minnesota, Mr. Simonton, claimed that a craft hovered in his barnyard and strange swarthy oriental looking men offered him a jug which he filled with water and they gave him pancakes. Dr. Hynek had the little cakes analyzed and found they lacked any salt content. French Scientist Jacques Vallee noted that saltless cakes are often a feature of fairy myths.

Another case was that of a Belgian farmer who saw a UFO land in his field. He approached the craft and a small “alien” came up to him and asked him for the time! The farmer replied with the requested information. The alien told him he was wrong and pointed a wand at him which paralyzed him until the alien had departed in his craft. When the authorities investigated the case, they found a circle of destroyed flora on the landing site, and it was reported that even the soil was damaged from something like extreme heat exposure.

When you read enough raw data from the many thousands of cases, you get the deep impression that the witnesses are telling the truth about what they have experienced. Why would a couple of farmers make up such ridiculous, nonsensical stories? Testimony was obtained to show their mental stability and competence. They never made any money from their stories, and they certainly weren’t after fame. In fact, they suffered more from telling their stories than if they had just kept quiet.

Such cases are not isolated. There are many with such bizarre elements. Something is certainly happening to these people, and it is something that has both physical and psychological components. Nevertheless, this High Strangeness factor is a problem because it’s all too easy to dismiss or ignore such “reports” because of these ridiculous claims. One has to wonder if this “High Strangeness” isn’t deliberate – and for that very reason. This brings us to consider the signal to noise factor.

Dr. Hynek wrote in a paper presented at the AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting Pasadena, Calif., January 20-22, 1975, entitled “The Emerging Picture of the UFO Problem“:

But one element that is common to all scientific endeavor is the problem of signal-to-noise ratio; in the UFO phenomenon this problem is a major one. The UFO problem is, initially, a signal-to-noise problem. The noise is, and has been, so great that the existence of a signal has been seriously questioned. Isaac Asimov, whom no one could accuse of lacking in imagination, writes:

“Eyewitness reports of actual space ships and actual extraterrestrials are, in themselves, totally unreliable. There have been numerous eyewitness reports of almost everything that most rational people do not care to accept – of ghosts, angels, levitation, zombies, werewolves, and so on… The trouble is, that whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it comes and goes unexpectedly. There is no way of examining it systematically. It appears suddenly and accidentally, is partially seen, and then is more or less inaccurately reported. We remain dependent on occasional anecdotal accounts”. (From the December 14, 1974 issue of TV Guide, a media magazine with a very great circulation and hence powerful in forming public opinion.)

Here we see a very important part of the UFO problem, that of the presentation of data to men of science, and to men, like Asimov and others who excel in writing about science.

Scientific efforts can be seriously hampered if the popular image of a subject is grossly misleading. Funds can be curtailed and good men of science who wish to give time to the subject are apt to face misrepresentation whenever their work receives any public attention. Ball lightning is just as much an unknown as the UFO phenomenon, yet scientists can openly discuss these “balls of light” but are likely to be censured if they talk about similar unidentified lights which last much longer, are brighter, and move over greater distances, but are labeled UFOs. Proper presentation of the UFO phenomenon to the media may not seem an integral part of the UFO problem, per se, but its effects loom large.

The signal-to-noise aspect of the UFO problem is aggravated to a high degree because the signal is a totally unexpected signal, and represents an entirely new set of empirical observations which do not fit into any existing framework in any of the accepted scientific disciplines. One may even contemplate that the signal itself signals the birth of a new scientific discipline.

I return to the out-of-hand dismissal of the UFO phenomenon by persons like Isaac Asimov, in part, because of the poor presentation of the data to such persons. This is an important facet of the UFO problem itself and must be taken into account if we are to make any progress with the study of the signal.

An analogy may be useful here: In the isolation of radium, Mme. Curie was obliged to work through tons of pitchblende to obtain a minuscule amount of radium. Yet there was no question of the signal in the “pitchblende noise”. The radioactivity of the pitchblende was unquestioned. Let us suppose that instead there had been a rumor – an old wive’s tale, or an alchemist’s story – that there existed a miraculous unknown element which could be used in the transmutation of elements, and which had miraculous healing powers and other exotic properties. Would any scientist, on the basis of such an alchemist’s tale, have done what Mme. Curie did to lift the signal out of the noise of tons of pitchblende? Hardly. Mme. Curie knew that there was a signal – it wasn’t a rumor. And although the labor was immense, there was a definite, scientifically accepted methodology for separating the signal from the noise.

Now, in the UFO problem we did not know at the start that there was a signal – there were merely tales, unacceptable to scientists as a body. Only those of us, through a long exposure to the subject, or motivated by a haunting curiosity to work in the field and to get our hands dirty with the raw data, came to know there was a signal.

We know that we cannot find a trivial solution to the problem, i.e., a common sense solution that the phenomenon is either entirely a matter of misidentification, hallucinations, and hoaxes, or a known phenomenon of nature, e.g., of a meteorological nature. We know that there exists a subset of UFO reports of high strangeness and high witness credibility for which no one – and I emphasize – no one, has been able to ascribe a viable explanation. But the Isaac Asimovs and the trained scientists, as well as large segments of the public, do not know this. And we cannot expect them to know this unless we present data to them properly and thus provide motivation to study the subject. We who have worked in the UFO field are somewhat in the position of Einstein who wrote to Arnold Sommerfeld in response to Sommerfeld’s skepticism of the General Theory of Relativity:

“You will accept the General Theory of Relativity when you have studied it. Therefore I will not utter a word in its defense.”

Emotional defense of the UFO phenomenon is pointless; the facts, properly presented, must speak for themselves.

With the noise level so high, and with the popular interpretation of UFOs as visitors from outer space rather than simply what their initials stand for, Unidentified Flying Objects – an unidentified phenomenon whose origin we do not know – it is very difficult for one to be motivated to study the subject.

The noise in the UFO problem is two-fold. There is the obvious noise, and also the more “sophisticated” noise, which might even be part of the signal. The obvious noise is akin to that well known to any scientist. An astronomer recognizes the noise of errors of observation, of instrumental errors, or that introduced by atmospheric distortion, by photon statistics, etc.

In our problem the noise is likewise comprised of errors of observation (though to a much greater degree), but also to wishful thinking, deliberate substitution of interpretation of an event for the event itself, as, “I saw a space ship last night” for “I saw a light in the sky last night”, and the totally extraneous noise of the unbalanced imaginations of the pseudo-religious fanatics who propagate unfounded stories and who uncritically accept anything and everything that appeals to their warped imaginations. […]

The question of whether the UFO phenomenon is a manifestation of some type of intelligence, whether extraterrestrial, “meta-terrestrial”, or indeed some aspect of our own, is a critical one.

Certainly, in those close encounter cases in which creatures or occupants, ostensibly the pilots of the craft, are reported, intelligent behavior of some sort seems obvious. Even if the occupants are robots, a more distant intelligence is implied. The almost universally reported response to detection by these occupants is an important part of the picture; upon detection the creatures are reported to disappear quickly and take off. Except in certain cases, there appears to be no desire for any involvement with the human race. […]

Given the elements of the present picture of the UFO phenomenon, it is clear that any viable hypothesis that meets these picture elements satisfactorily will be, according to present views, “far out”.

There have been other times in the history of science when striking departures from classical concepts were necessary. Since new hypotheses must in some way use present knowledge as a springboard, it is a sobering thought to contemplate that the gap between the springboard of the known and a viable UFO hypothesis might even be so great as to prevent the formulation of an acceptable hypothesis at present.

Thus, for example, only a century ago, an inconsequential period of time in total history, the best scientific minds could not have envisioned the nuclear processes which we now feel certain take place in the deep interiors of stars. The question of energy production on the sun capable of maintaining the sun’s prodigious outflow of energy for hundreds of millions of years – a time period demanded by the fossil history millions of years – was simply not answerable by any hypothesis conceivable to the scientists of a century ago.

It is indeed sobering, yet challenging, to consider that the entire UFO phenomenon may be only the tip of the proverbial iceberg in a signaling an entirely new domain of the knowledge of nature as yet totally unexplored, as unexplored and as unimagined as nuclear processes would have been a century ago.

Dr. Hynek is often referred to as the father of rigorous scientific UFO investigation. He was a scientific consultant for the Air Force’s UFO investigation, Project Bluebook which later research shows to have been intended to debunk the subject. But after studying so many credible cases, Dr. Hynek was to go on to found the Center For UFO Studies (CUFOS). He also invented the classification for UFO sightings, terming the phrase ‘Close Encounter.’ He is the author of the landmark UFO book, The UFO Experience: A Scientific Study. Dr. Hynek served as director of CUFOS until his passing in 1986.

Regarding Hynek’s idea that we may be dealing with “an entirely new domain of the knowledge of nature”, his friend and associate, Jacques Vallee has interesting comments to make:

[…] current hypotheses are not strange enough to explain the facts of the phenomenon, and the debate suffers from a lack of scientific information. Indeed, from the viewpoint of modern physics, our Cosmic Neighborhood could encompass other (parallel) universes, extra spatial dimensions and other time-like dimensions beyond the common 4-dimensional spacetime we recognize, and such aspects could lead to rational explanations for apparently “incomprehensible” behaviors on the part of entities emerging into our perceived continuum.

As it attempts to reconcile theory with observed properties of elementary particles and with discoveries at the frontiers of cosmology, modern physics suggests that mankind has not yet discovered all of the universe’s facets, and we must propose new theories and experiments in order to explore these undiscovered facets. This is why continuing study of reported anomalous events is important: It may provide us with an existence theorem for new models of physical reality.

Much of the recent progress in cosmological concepts is directly applicable to the problem: Traversable wormholes (3-dimensional hypersurface tunnels) have now been derived from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (Morris and Thorne, 1988; Visser, 1995). In particular, it has been shown that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity does not in any way constrain spacetime topology, which allows for wormholes to provide traversable connections between regions within two separate universes or between remote regions and/or times within the same universe.

Mathematically it can also be shown that higher-dimensional wormholes can provide hypersurface connections between multidimensional spaces (Rucker, 1984; Kaku, 1995).

Recent quantum gravity programs have explored this property in superstring theory, along with proposals to theoretically and experimentally examine macroscopic-scale extra-dimensional spaces (Schwarzschild, 2000).

Thus it is now widely acknowledged that the nature of our universe is far more complex than observations based on anthropocentric self-selection portend. […]

No experiment can distinguish between phenomena manifested by visiting interstellar (arbitrarily advanced) ETI and intelligent entities that may exist near Earth within a parallel universe or in different dimensions, or who are (terrestrial) time travelers. […]

If we must formulate a view of the problem in a single statement at this point, that statement will be:

Everything works as if UAPs were the products of a technology that integrates physical and psychic phenomena and primarily affects cultural variables in our society through manipulation of physiological and psychological parameters in the witnesses. [1]

As I have written in my books and publications on our website,, and elsewhere, I have never seen an alien that I know of. I have no conscious awareness or memory of any such thing as a “typical abduction” or an encounter with an alien in any semblance of a conscious state of mind. Indeed, I am going to talk about certain “encounters” that are “highly suggestive”, but there is a certain ambiguity about them that relates directly to this issue of “state of mind”, and this ambiguity leaves the event always in question as far as I am concerned. I certainly have as good an imagination as the average person if I need it to solve a problem, but after raising five children, there is little “imaginative flying” going on in my head and a lot of being practical and finding out what is really going on.

In my book, Amazing Grace, I chronicled a number of my own experiences of surpassing strangeness, though I never thought of these events in terms of “aliens”. Until I was 41 years old, I never saw anything that I might have thought – by any stretch of the imagination – could be a UFO, and when, at that late date, I finally did see something of such extraordinary configuration and behavior, I immediately tried to find a “plausible excuse” for it so I could “go back to sleep”. But, as Hynek said, there are certainly things for which we cannot find a common sense solution. It is at such a point, when all avenues of identification and explanation have been exhausted, that the individual who is “motivated by a haunting curiosity” goes to work in the field, gets their hands dirty in the raw data, and realizes that there is, most certainly, a signal even if it is a signal that suggests an intelligence so strange and foreign to our daily terrestrial mode of thought that we are stunned by the implication. That implication can be shattering to our sense of safety: that the UFO phenomenon may be signaling “an entirely new domain of the knowledge of nature as yet totally unexplored, as unexplored and as unimagined as nuclear processes would have been a century ago”. It was partly as a consequence of this event that I began the experiment that resulted in the Cassiopaean Transmissions. After a certain amount of research, after facing the High Strangeness factor repeatedly, I understood clearly something that Jacques Vallee proposes in his paper cited above:

The cognitive mismatch or Incommensurability Problem between human and ET cultures will guarantee that the latter will develop communication techniques other than radio. ET cultures may be sending radio and optical signals to Earth now but they may also be sending signals in a variety of other forms such as holographic images, psychic or other consciousness-related signals, modulated neutrinos, gamma ray bursters, wormhole-modulated starlight caustics, signals generated by gravitational lensing techniques, modulated X-rays, quantum teleported signals, or some quantum field theoretic effect, etc.[2]

Vallee has touched upon the very issues that my husband, Arkadiusz Jadczyk, has discussed in his comments below. Most of this material was published by him long before Vallee wrote the above paper, though it seems likely that Vallee was moving in this direction for quite some time as evidenced in his book Forbidden Science. In the Epilogue Vallee talks a little bit about physics, parallel realities, hyperspace etc.:

Cosmology now recognizes the possibility, indeed the inevitability, of multiple universes with more than four dimensions. Communication and travel within our universe are no longer thought to be absolutely constrained by the speed of light and a constant arrow of time. Even travel into the past may be considered without necessarily creating insurmountable paradoxes. This is a tremendously exciting development. It opens up vast new realms for theoretical and experimental endeavor.

Then he continues:

If we look at the world from an informational point of view, and if we consider the many complex ways in which time and space may be structured, the old idea of space travel and interplanetary craft to which most technologists are still clinging appears not only obsolete, but ludicrous. Indeed, modern physics has already bypassed it, offering a very different interpretation of what “extraterrestrial” system might look like.”

And finally he adds:

For some time various knowledgeable friends have urged me to take my research behind the scenes again. I intend to follow their advice. I cannot justify remaining associated with the field of ufology as it presents itself to the public today. Furthermore, I suspect that the phenomenon displays a very different structure once you leave behind the parochial disputes that disfigure the debate, confusing the researchable issues that interest me. The truly important scientific questions are elsewhere.[3]

While it is true that Dr. Hynek, Dr. Vallee, and my husband, Dr. Jadczyk, were working for years in the direction of these ideas, what is amazing is that the Cassiopaean Communications – myself in the future – also discussed the same things in considerable detail with me, an amateur whose driving interest was in finding out why the world was the way it was and what is the role of humanity within it. Certainly, this is often the same driver that operates in scientists – those scientists who actually do “good science” with an open mind – but it necessarily has different results from the efforts of the layperson in most cases. In my own case, however, the results have been quite similar: scientific theories and mind-expanding concepts regarding an “entirely new domain of the knowledge of nature”. This was the gift of the Cassiopaeans.

At the same time, there is much in the Cassiopaean Material that is strikingly similar to philosophical concepts native to certain esoteric teachings, most particularly Sufi, and ideas brought forward by Georges Gurdjieff and Boris Mouravieff. Both of the latter claim to be presenting something called “Esoteric Christianity”. What I have discovered in my own research is that this “Esoteric Christianity” is quite similar to Archaic Siberian Shamanism, the degraded remnant of what must have been the “religion” of the Northern Peoples – the Megalith builders – in prehistoric times. I have traced these developments and laid out all the clues in my book The Secret History of the World.

How we view our world and our place in it is entirely dependent on what we know about what went before. What became overwhelmingly apparent as I continued in my research was that the true history of man has been so distorted by “official culture” as to make it almost impossible for the average person to really understand why the world is as it is, and what possible role humanity may play in the grander scheme of things.

Tracking the processes of history certainly gave me an uneasy feeling that there was some sort of “pattern” to it which certainly could not be a conspiracy in human terms. Until I opened my mind to the possibility of “alien interactions with humanity”, and began to consider the many implications of such ideas – most particularly time loops and alternate universes – nothing about the history of mankind made any sense at all.

Most assuredly, historians of ancient times face two constant problems: the scarcity of evidence, and how to fit the evidence that is known into the larger context of other evidence, not to mention the context of the time to which it belongs. Very often historians have to use what could be described as a more or less “legal method” for deciding which bit of evidence has more or less weight than another. For example, most of what we know about ancient times comes to us in polemics written by adversaries of a particular group or idea. These polemics survived because they were “favored” by the elite rulers or conquerors, and the “inside knowledge” of the group in question is lost because they may have been destroyed along with their material. In this respect, it is much easier to “refute than confirm”. A difference of emphasis can be as telling as a new discovery.

Fortunately, ancient history is not “static” in the sense that we can say we know all there is to know now simply because the subject is about the “past”. For example, the understanding of ancient history of our own fathers and grandfathers was, of necessity, more limited than our own due to the fact that much material has been discovered and come to light in the past two or three generations through archaeology and other historical sciences.

But more important to this process is the consideration of manipulation of facts. If you are judging history by a kind of legal method, it becomes crucial to know who is or is not likely to be telling the truth. Often, the only way to determine that is to evaluate what Georges Dumezil referred to as the “line of force”. When we have taken a particular text apart and have ascertained, as much as possible, the approximate legitimacy of each element, there still remains another question that actually constitutes the essence of the matter: What are the main trends of the whole? What are the lines of force running through the ideological field in which the details are placed? This is often where religion enters the picture, acting as the lens through which we view our past and the scale by which we judge the merits of testimony.

Regarding religion, and most particularly the religions that hold sway over our world such as Christianity born of Judaism, we simply cannot overstress the importance of deep and serious study. We cannot ignore the question of whether or not Christianity and Judaism and Islam are “true”, and if they are not, then why have they spread and persisted? And if they are not true, we need to evaluate a proper response to them.

As many regular readers of our website know, almost from day one of the publication of the Cassiopaean material, we have been accused of being a “cult”. I’ve had a lot of trouble dealing with that accusation because every “claim” that we are a “cult” has been a lie, and all of the accusations have been made by individuals who clearly are members of real cults– scary ones, too.

The Oxford English dictionary entry for ‘cult’ states: 1. a system of religious worship, esp. as expressed in ritual. 2. A devotion or homage to a person or thing. 2b. A popular fashion esp. followed by a specific section of society 3. denoting a person or thing popularized in this way.

It is clear that the above description could easily apply to any of the organized religions prevalent today. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism (and others) are replete and indeed founded on ritual and “devotion to a person or thing”. However, they are not generally referred to as “cults”.

The term cult, in its modern and widely understood form, is reserved for any group formed under a hierarchical structure, where some form of coercion or manipulation of the group members exists. Generally there is also some focus of worship, be it the group leader(s) or some other outside personage or thing such as Jesus, Jehovah/Yahweh, Allah or the Tooth Fairy.

The issue of justification for worship or allegiance – that is, the coercion and manipulation – is usually tied to the perceived or stated benefits or potential benefits to be derived from belief, worship or allegiance. In other words, promises are made of heavenly rewards that can never be demonstrated or proven (no one has ever come back to tell us that heaven exists, nor is there any proof), promises of survival of the end of the world – to be the “Chosen People” who rule – or wine bearing houris who minister to the martyr in paradise – are all included in the promises of the main cults that dominate our world: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

We, on the other hand, take the approach of a sort of scientific mysticism – where mystical claims are submitted to rational analysis and testing, and the required scientific proofs are modified to allow for the nature of evidence from theorized realms outside our own where ordinary scientific proofs might not apply.

And yet, again and again, we have had to address this issue of being labeled a “cult” because the accusations and mud keep flying.

In the beginning, it was very hard for me to understand why – after all, I was just a mother of five kids with a hobby publishing the results of my studies on the Internet, and one would think that doing that was allowed in a democratic society – but it became obvious that there are some fairly powerful groups on the planet who must be scared to death of this ordinary housewife as is evident from the extraordinary amount of effort put into trying to shut me up!

So far, when we have tracked the origins and connections of our accusers, we generally end up at powerful Christian or Jewish organizations with covert government or military ties that have a vested interest in maintaining their cultic controls over peoples’ minds. At this point, the Islamic groups haven’t gone after us, but that’s only because we have been pointing out that the Moslems are on the short end of the stick in this go-round.

The fact is, as far as I am concerned, Islam – as a monotheistic religion that promotes an “object of worship” – is no better than Christianity or Judaism – all three of them are, historically speaking, vile, bloody, violent cults. What is going on in the Middle East today – this conflict that threatens to blow up the whole planet (and if you don’t know that this is the case, you have not been paying attention!), is just more of the same old cult nonsense that has been playing out for the past two millennia.

Faith that can “move mountains” is promoted by cults AKA the standard Monotheistic religions as the necessary thing that the “faithful” must cultivate in order to receive the benefits that are promised by the hierarchy.

The example of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, has been trotted out for ages as the supreme example of how one is to approach the “god”. One must be willing to give the god anything and everything! This “Faith” is an essential part of the “covenant” with the god – a sort of “act of trade”, so to say.

The story about the almost sacrifice of Abraham in the Bible is actually nearly identical to a Vedic story of Manu. These acts of sacrifice were based on what was called sraddha which is related to the words fides, credo, faith, believe and so on.

The word sraddha was, according to religious historians Dumezil and Levi, too hastily understood as “faith” in the Christian sense. Correctly understood, it means something like the trust a workman has in his tools to “shape or create” reality and techniques of sacrifice were, in the way of tools, similar to acts of magic!

Such “faith” is, therefore, part of a “covenant” wherein the sacrificer knows how to perform a prescribed sacrifice correctly, and who also knows that if he performs the sacrifice correctly, it must produce its effect.

In short, it is an act that is designed to gain control over the forces of life that reside in the god with whom one has made the covenant.

Such gods as make covenants are not “literary ornaments” or abstractions. They are active partners with intelligence, strength, passion, and a tendency to get out of control if the sacrifices are not performed correctly. In this sense, the sacrifice – the “faith” – is simply black magic.

In another sense, the ascetic or “self-sacrificer”, is a person who is striving for release from the bondage and order of nature by the act of attempting to mortify the self, the flesh; testing and increasing the will for the purpose of winning tyrannical powers while still in the world. But again, we see that through this self-sacrifice, he or she seeks mastery of the gods. It is, in short, manipulation and coercion at its most subtle to promote “faith” as the bringer of salvation.

What seems to be so is that it is generally individuals who have been “disenfranchised” or who feel helpless and at the mercy of the forces of life – whether they manifest through other people or random events – who are those most likely to seek such faith, such a covenant with a god. They feel acutely their own inability to have an effect in the world, and they turn their creativity inward to create and maintain their subjective “faith” in opposition to objective reality.

What is crucial to understand is that Fundamentalists of all kinds are basically “giving their will” away in exchange for promised benefits. This free will is their own power of creativity – their own possibility for growth and development that can only commutate and expand in the process of uncertainty, taking risks, and making free and willing exchanges with others that do not include dominance and manipulation.

The “absolute certainty” of the Fundamentalist locks them into Entropy, and their creative energy goes to feed a vast system of illusion. These systems are the creation and maintenance of the Idols they worship. Like the paranoid schizophrenic, they devise baroque and ingenious systems of perception and define them as “given by god”. They then spend an enormous amount of energy editing out all impressions that are contrary to their system of illusion.

Another aspect of the Man who must be Right that manifests in religious beliefs is that Fundamentalists look down on others who do not share their faith. It is, at root, an “us vs. them” system that focuses its ironclad preconceptions so rigidly on “future benefits”, that its adherents simply lose sight of the here and now.

Fundamentalists are more interested in dogma than in actual deeds in the moment. It is extremely important to get others to believe in their illusion in order to confirm its “rightness”, even if they claim, on the surface, that “everyone has the right to their own opinion”. The fact is, they cannot tolerate anyone else’s opinion if it is different from their own because it threatens their “rightness”.

This rightness must be maintained at all costs because, deep inside, the Right Man (or woman) is usually struggling with horror at their own helplessness. Their rightness is a dam that holds back their worst fears: that they are lost and alone and that there really is no god, because how could there be a god who loves them if they have to suffer so much? Their inability to feel truly loved and accepted deep within is, in effect, like being stranded in a nightmare from which they cannot wake up.

Faith. This is the thing that a “charismatic leader” utilizes to induce his followers to engage in violence against other human beings.

This “faith” can be induced by manipulations and promises of heavenly or other rewards, this “rightness” of one’s views, of one’s god, and what the god is supposedly “revealing” to the leader, and this can then be used to manipulate other people to do one’s bidding.

And so it seems that the requirement of “faith” and “worship” of an object of cultic value such as Jehovah, Yahweh, Jesus or Allah is the means by which human beings can be induced to commit atrocities upon other human beings.

We see that the image of Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his own son, is not so compelling a picture after all. It merely symbolizes a sort of mindless belief in the orders of someone or something “out there” that certainly may not have the best interests of humanity at heart.

We can perceive, in the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, the Right Man terror of Cain who killed his brother because his sacrifice was not accepted. A god who picks and chooses what sacrifice is “good enough” – setting brother against brother – is certainly a “jealous god”, and such a god is a psychopath.

The main template of Christianity – received directly from Judaism – is that of sin.

The history of sin from that point to now, is a story of its triumph.

Awareness of the nature of sin led to a growth industry in agencies and techniques for dealing with it. These agencies became centers of economic and military power, as they are today.

Christianity – promoting the ideals of Judaism under a thin veneer of the “New Covenant” – changed the ways in which men and women interacted with one another. It changed the attitude to life’s one certainty: death. It changed the degree of freedom with which people could acceptably choose what to think and believe.

Pagans had been intolerant of the Jews and Christians whose religions tolerated no gods but their own. The rising domination of Christianity created a much sharper conflict between religions, and religious intolerance became the norm, not the exception.

Christianity also brought the open coercion of religious belief. You could even say that, by the modern definition of a cult as a group that uses manipulation and mind control to induce worship, Christianity is the Mother of all Cults – in service to the misogynistic, fascist ideals of Judaism!

The rising Christian hierarchy of the Dark Ages was quick to mobilize military forces against believers in other gods and most especially, against other Christians who promoted less Fascist systems of belief. This probably included the original Christians and the original teachings.

The change of the Western world from Pagan to Christian effectively changed how people viewed themselves and their interactions with their reality. And we live today with the fruits of those changes: War Without End.

Which brings us back to the Control System of our reality:

…a global phenomenon … so strange and foreign to our daily terrestrial mode of thought… it carries with it many implications of the existence of intelligences other than our own … [It] bespeaks the action of some form of intelligence… but whence this intelligence springs, whether it is truly extra-terrestrial, or bespeaks a higher reality not yet recognized by science, or even if it be in some way or another a strange psychic manifestation of our own intelligence, is much the question… […]

It is indeed sobering, yet challenging, to consider that the entire UFO phenomenon may be only the tip of the proverbial iceberg in a signaling an entirely new domain of the knowledge of nature as yet totally unexplored, as unexplored and as unimagined as nuclear processes would have been a century ago.

It is this “entirely new domain of the knowledge of nature” that has been the concern of the Cassiopaean Transmissions from the very beginning. It is the nature of this domain that is the subject of their communications regarding aliens, alien abductions, hyperdimensional realities, and related subject matter.

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

High Strangeness

Part II

The name Cassiopaea was given by a source identifying itself by saying “we are you in the future” which LKJ contacted via an experiment in superluminal communication in 1994.

“We are you in the future”

This is what “they” declare : that “they” – The Cassiopaeans – 6th density Unified Thought Form Beings – are Us in the future. What a bizarre concept. Or is it?

Is that possible? Can such a statement find a place in accepted theories? Or it is in an evident contradiction with everything that we – that is, physicists – know about Nature and its laws?

Putting aside for the moment the issue of whether existence in a pure state of consciousness is possible, is traveling in time possible, even if only in theory? Is sending and receiving information from the future or sending information into the past allowed by our present theories of relativity and quantum mechanics? If information can be sent, does this also imply that physical matter can be “sent”, via some sort of TransDimensional Remolecularization? And if so what are the laws, what are the restrictions? What are the means?

Well, frankly speaking, we do not know, but we may have a clue. Kurt Goedel, after he became famous for his work on foundations of mathematics, went on to study the Einstein general theory of relativity and made an important contribution to physics: he discovered a class of otherwise reasonable cosmological solutions of Einstein equations – except for one point: they contained causal loops!

At first these Causal Loops were dismissed by relativists as being “too crazy”. The arguments against these model universes even became rather personal, commenting upon the state of mind of the inventor! (A not terribly unusual phenomenon in the heated debates within so-called “ivory towers” of academia.)

A “Causal Loop” means the same thing as “Time Loop”. It can be described as going into the future and ending up where you started at the original time and place. It is called “Causal” because, in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Time is a relative concept and different observers can experience Time differently, so the term “causal” is used to avoid using the term “time.”

But, little by little, it was realized that causal – or Time – loops can appear in other solutions of Einstein equations as well – usually they correspond to some kind of “rotation” of the universe.

Causal loops make time travel not only possible, but probable. But then, causal loops lead to unacceptable logical paradoxes, and physics does not like such paradoxes at all – they are a serious problem!

But, the subject of communicating with the past or receiving information from the future IS being discussed in physics even in terms of the flat, not-curved-at-all space-time of Lorentz and Minkowski. Hypothetical faster-than-light particles – tachyons – can serve as the communication means. They make an “anti-telephone” – a telephone into the past – possible.

But do tachyons exist? Or can they exist?

Well, that is still a question that has not been answered definitively for some.

And, the truth is that paradoxes must never be ignored. They always indicate that some important lesson is to be learned; that some essential improvement or change is necessary. The same holds true for the paradoxes involved in the idea of receiving information from the future. We cannot simply go back into Saturday and tell ourselves the winning lottery numbers of Sunday. If this were possible, then it should also be possible for some future, future self to tell a future self not to tell! Thus we have a paradox: we, in the future, have intervened into the past making our communication from the future impossible!

A paradox: if we communicated, we have not communicated, and if we do not communicate, then we have communicated! Impossible in a linear, non-branching universe!

Is there a possible escape from the paradox, an escape that leaves a door open, even if only a little – for our anti-telephone?

Indeed, there is, and not just one, but several ways out.

First of all – the evident paradox disappears if we admit the possibility that the communication channels are inherently noisy; that is a normal situation when we deal with quantum phenomena. So, if the communication into the past is a quantum effect – we are saved from evident paradoxes. Quantum Theory can be useful!

Sending a signal into the past, we are never 100% sure if the message will be delivered without distortion. And conversely, receiving info from the future we are never 100% sure if this comes from an authentic broadcast or is a spontaneous and random creation of the receiving end. If this is the case, and if certain quantitative, information – that is, theoretic relations between receiving and transmitting ends are secured to hold – then there are no more paradoxes even with reasonably efficient information channels.

In other words: there can be broadcasts from the future to the past, but there will be few “receivers”, and of those few, even fewer that are properly tuned. And even those that are properly tuned may be subject to “static”. Even if there is no static, those receivers that can receive pure information will experience the static of “non-belief” and distortion after the fact from society.

There is also another aspect of such an information transfer which is that the probabilities involved are connected with a choice event; with the choosing of one among many possible futures.

It may happen that branching of the universe corresponds to each such event. Branching of the universe into an infinite tree of decisions has been discussed within quantum measurement theory – it even has the name of “Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory”.

Two of the well-known physicists who consider the many worlds interpretation more than just an exercise in theorizing are John Archibald Wheeler and David Deutsch.

The Many Worlds Interpretation has one serious weakness: it has no built in algorithm for providing the timing of the branchings. Thus it is a certain framework rather than a complete theory.

There is, however, a theory that fills in this gap in the Many Worlds Interpretation – and this theory I know quite well, and in fact I know it better than most others for the simple reason that I developed it in collaboration with Philippe Blanchard (University of Bielefeld ) in 1988 as an integral part of the Quantum Future Project. It is called Event Enhanced Quantum Theory (EEQT for short notation). (A complete list of references and much more info on this subject can be found on my “Quantum Future ” project page[4] on the World Wide Web).

The fact that our generally accepted theories of the present do not prevent us from thinking that time travel is, perhaps, possible, does not necessarily imply that we know how to build the time machine!

On the other hand, it is perhaps possible that the time machine already exists and is in use, even if we do not understand the principle of its work, because it goes much too far beyond our present theoretical and conceptual framework. It is also possible that some of the machines we think are serving a totally different purpose do, in fact, act as time machines. Many things are possible…

Now, back to superluminal communication, or “channeling” in general and the Cassiopaeans in particular: the fact that sending information into the past is possible does not necessarily imply that any information that pretends to be sent from the future is such indeed! But, if we generally accept that extraterrestrial life is possible, and we use all of our knowledge and resources to search for life beyond our Earth, then we also need to include the understanding that receiving information from the future is equally possible. With this perspective, science should search for any traces of such information.

What kind of information channels are to be monitored in search of such broadcasts? What kind of antenna arrays do we need? How must we direct them into a particular “future time”? Say, into the year 3000? Or 30,000? Or 300,001?

My answer is: nothing like that is necessary. All that we need we already have, namely our minds.

And indeed, assuming that the knowledge and technology of the future is (or can be) much more advanced than ours, then it is only natural that any broadcast from the future will be addressed directly into the mind.

Even today there are techniques of acting directly on our minds. They are not always used for our benefit; nevertheless they do exist. But if communications from the future are possible, why don’t we receive these broadcasts on a daily basis? If our minds can serve as receivers, then why aren’t we all aware of the transmissions?

I think that the answer has to do with multiple realities and branching universes, and perhaps any civilization which would receive messages from the future on a daily basis has ceased to exist because communication through time is a very dangerous game. You produce paradoxes, and these paradoxes remove the paradoxical universes from the repository of possible universes; if you create a universe with paradoxes, it destroys itself either completely or partially. Perhaps just intelligence is removed from this universe because it is intelligence that creates paradox. Perhaps we are very fortunate that even if we can receive some of these messages from the future, we still continue to exist.

Suppose our civilization were to advance to the point where everyone can communicate with themselves in the past; they have a computer with a special program and peripheral device that does this. It becomes the latest fad: everyone is communicating with themselves in the past to warn of dangers or upcoming calamities or bad choices, or to give lottery numbers or winning horses. But, what is seen as a “good event” or “benefit” for one, could be seen to be a “bad choice” or “calamity” to someone else!

So, the next step would be that “hackers” would begin to break into the systems and send false communications into the past to deliberately create bad choices and calamities for some in order to produce benefits for themselves or others.

Then, the first individual would see that false information has been sent and would go into their system and go back even earlier to warn themselves that false information was going to be sent back by an “imposter” and how to tell that it was false.

Then the hacker would see this, and go back in time to an even earlier moment and give false information that someone was going to send false information (that was really true) that false information (that was really false) was going to be sent, thereby confusing the issue.

This process could go on endlessly with constant and repeated communications into the past, one contradicting the other, one signal canceling out the other, with the result that it would be exactly the same as if there were no communication into the past!

There is also, the very interesting possibility that the above scenario is exactly what is taking place in our world today.

It is also possible that, whenever a civilization comes to the point that it can manipulate the past and thereby change the present, it would most probably destroy itself, and probably its “branch” of the universe, unless there comes a cataclysmic event before this happens which would act as a kind of “control system” or way of reducing the technological possibilities to zero again, thus obviating the potentials of universal chaos. In this way, cataclysmic events could be a sort of preventive or pre-emptive strike against such manipulations, and may, in fact, be the result of engineered actions of benevolent selves in the future who see the dangers of communicating with ourselves in the past!

So, the probability is this: if there is communication from the future, it may, in fact, be constantly received by each and every one of us as an ongoing barrage of lies mixed with truth. Thus, the problem becomes more than just “tuning” to a narrow band signal, because clearly the hackers can imitate the signal and have become very clever in delivering their lies disguised as “warm and fuzzy” truths; the problem becomes an altogether different proposition of believing nothing and acting as though everything is misleading, gathering data from all quarters, and then making the most informed choice possible with full realization that it may be in error!

Using our computer analogy: we can’t prevent hackers from hacking, but, what we can do is make every effort to prevent them from hacking into our systems by erecting barriers of knowledge and awareness. Hackers are always looking for an “easy hack”, (except for those few who really like a challenge), and will back away as you make your system more and more secure.

How do you make your computer (or yourself) immune to hackers?

It is never 100% secure, but if all preventative measures are taken, and we constantly observe for the signs of hackers – system disruption, loss of “memory”, or energy, damaged files, things that don’t “fit”, that are “out of context”, – we can reduce the possibility of hacking. But, we can only do this if we are aware of hackers; if we know that they will attempt to break into our system in the guise of a “normal” file, or even an operating system or program that promises to “organize” our data for greater efficiency and ease of function or “user friendliness”, while at the same time, acting as a massive drain on our energy and resources – RAM and hard drive.

As a humorous side note: we could think of Windows Operating system as the “ultimate hacker from the future” who, disguised as a sheep, is a wolf devouring our hard disk and RAM, and sending our files to God only knows where every time we connect via the internet!

And of course, there are viruses. Whenever we insert a floppy disk or CD into our computer, we risk infection by virii which can slowly or rapidly, distort or destroy all the information on our computer, prevent any peripheral functions, and even “wipe” the hard disk of all files to replace them with endless replications of the viral nonsense. The human analogy to this is the many religions and “belief” systems that have been “programmed” into our cultures, and our very lives, via endless “Prophet/God” programs, replacing, bit by bit, our own thinking with the “dogma and doctrines of the faith”.

Enough of the computer analogies. I think that the reader can imagine any number of variations on the theme and come to an understanding of how vulnerable we are to “disinformation” in the guise of truth from either the future, the past, or the present.

Among the many critics of “channeling”, in general, and my wife’s work, which is quite different both in theoretical approach and content, there are those who say “Channeled Information is crap. It is 100% disinformation.”

I can’t take such claims seriously.


I am a scientist. I look at things in a somewhat different way than other people. I am more critical. I am even more critical than most of my colleagues. So, when I see a statements like these, or even “channeling is a satellite transmission” I get very suspicious.

Why so?

I immediately see that anyone who says things like this is speaking nonsense – in these sentences. And when I see someone speaking nonsense in couple of sentences, and when this somebody is so affirmative – then I can’t take this person seriously in all the rest.

What are the facts? What are the possibilities?

Certainly there is a possibility that some (most?) of the channeling today comes via satellites or other means of programming. That is not only possible but probable.

The next question we should ask is : Why?

The evident answer is: to twist, to disinform, via New Age-type naive people. Based on an assessment of the facts of technology and the morality (or lack of) amongst the Elite rulers of our world, it is highly probable that if there was information that would tend to free humanity from their controls, they would co-opt it immediately exactly as I have described above in my computer analogies.

Can the Cassiopaean channeling be disinformation or come as a result of such technology and/or programming?

This would not be so easy. We are not naive, we are critical of our work. We think, we analyze, we test and do research.

Could some of our “communications” have been influenced this way?

Yes. There is such a possibility.

Can all, or even 95% be received this way?

No. Because there are too many instances in which the Cassiopaeans were answering questions to which normal “satellite type” of intelligence, without being able to instantly read the minds of everyone on this planet, could not have had access.

Therefore, I think the statement that all channeling is crap and disinformation, and that 95% is via satellites shows that the individuals who make such claims are:

a) Unable to think logically,

b) Not interested in discovering the truth.

This is the main difference between their approach and ours. While we are ready to question everything, and always look for new facts, other individuals declare “We know the Truth“. Here it is! And then we find one or another easily detectable nonsense statement that is claimed to be absolute, and this discredits everything else they say.

The Devil is always in the details.

Whenever someone claims: “All white is black” – I get suspicious. And I am turned off to everything else they say. Not because “white being black” is impossible, we know there are paradoxes, but because the person uses this three letter word: “all”.

As for parallel realities, yes, probably this is part of the clue. As for satellites trying, once in a while, their dirty tricks – yes, this is possible. And we are taking it into account. But always we are trying to apply our logical thinking, our “judgment”. But we know that this 3rd density reality check is never sufficient when dealing with possible hyperdimensional realities. But it is always necessary. Which means, in practical terms:

1) Always use it to the max.

2) Never think you can rely completely on it alone!

What I want to state clearly is this: this channeling, the Cassiopaean channeling is different than other channeling. It was different from the very beginning, it continues to be so, and it will continue to be different. We may give it a name: Critical Channeling. It is such by intent, not by chance. It is channeling in which, by intent, the messenger is as important as the message itself. They are inseparably entangled in a quantum way; an interfering quantum amplitude. They form a oneness, a whole. To separate the message from the messenger would be, in this Cassiopaean quantum experiment, like closing one hole in a double slit experiment. You close one hole, and the whole pattern is different, not just a part of it. As I have written above:

There can be broadcasts from the future to the past, but there will be few “receivers”, and of those few, even fewer that are properly tuned. And even those that are properly tuned may be subject to “static”. Even if there is no static, those receivers that can receive pure information will experience the static of “non-belief” and distortion after the fact from society.

It is in this context – that my wife is one of those few receivers who has worked very hard to properly “tune” to transmissions from the future – that I call the Cassiopaean Communication “Critical Channeling.”

What is this “Critical Channeling?” In what way is it different than other channeling?

It would take a lot of space and time to describe it in details. One day we will do it. But for now, let me just make this observation: the Cassiopaean channeling has characteristics of a scientific experiment. Think of scientists in their lab, working on the great laws of the universe. They perform an important series of experiments. They are trained professionals, they know their stuff, they know their laboratory equipment and its quirks. But they are human beings. Once in a while someone will make some dirty joke, once in a while they will have to discard a series of data because mice have messed up their equipment during the night. Now, think, what advantage it would be if they would write in their paper the dirty joke, include the mice data, the ink blobs etc. etc.

That is not the way of science. And the Cassiopaean experiment will proceed as a scientific one. With scientific standards in mind. The Cassiopaean channeling is Critical Channeling. It is in this respect that it is different from other channeling. And it will stay so.

The difference is in the approach. We are searching for the truth. Others who make unilateral statements that all channeling is crap are sure that they know it and would like to impose it on other people, or manipulate other people into believing what they say. And naturally, when such individuals state such things, they claim that it comes from God or some equally authoritarian source, but when someone else dares to have a different way of finding the truth, it is necessarily “100% disinformation” and “crap.”

We try to share our thoughts, and when necessary, we are ready to learn and change. And that is what is most important. This attitude of being open.

What if such claims are right, that all channeling is crap and disinformation? Even if I consider it as highly improbable, can it be true?

Of course, being a scientist, and using my brain in order to judge, I had to consider also this possibility, however improbable it may look to me. And I concluded that such a claim cannot be true. Here is my reasoning: it goes via “reductio ad absurdum” – which is often used in logic and in mathematical proofs. You assume something to be true, and then by a chain of logical deductions you come to the conclusion that your assumption cannot be true. Somewhat tricky – but useful.

Applying this method to the claim that “all channeling is 100% disinformation because it is coming via satellite”, let us suppose it is true. In order to be true it must include the capability of reading and controlling everybody’s mind at all times.

But if that is the case, then why would the persons making such claims be exempt from this control?

Therefore, by logic, anyone who makes such a statement is also being influenced by programming and by satellites (if everybody is, then so is he). If so, then what such a person writes is skewed. And, because such debunkers are often so loud, and so sure, about this subject for no valid reason, it is a logical conclusion that what they are saying is not true, that the claim that all channeling is crap is, itself, disinformation.

So we see that starting from the assumption that such a claim is right (satellites affect everybody), we come to the conclusion that the claim is wrong (because it is simply repeating the satellite disinformation). So, here we have reductio ad absurdum.

But we can go even further. Can we find a reason why debunkers would state such evident nonsense with such certainty?

Well, here we can have a hypothesis too. If, as we know by the above analysis, not all channeling is from satellites, that some channeling can provide us with real information from “benevolent higher beings”, from “us in the future”, or from “Mind-God and Oversoul”, call it as you will, then it is only natural that there will be forces trying to discredit this channeling. So, we have solved one problem here. If a critic calls all channellers disinformation agents, and if he is right, or even partly right, then we have reasons to suppose that such an individual is an agent of those forces.

There is one more exercise in logical reasoning and critical thinking that comes to mind. Most critics are not clear about what channeling is, so let me take the particular example of using the Ouija board, as my wife, Laura, does. Why does she use the Ouija board?

Laura went to great lengths to research the subject of channeling before she ever began her experiments. Based on facts and data, it was clear that using a “peripheral device” in a full state of consciousness was the optimum method to screen out noise. In particular, such a method makes it far more difficult for satellites, or other programming signals coming from human and hybrid technology, when and if they come, to affect the message. At least two persons are needed, full consciousness, critical thinking, often coffee, fresh minds, loud discussion of the data as it comes, and the board. Thinking in terms of possible quantum physics involved in mind-matter interactions, it is clear to me that the methods she uses are more likely to be robust and shielded against deliberate bombarding from outside by mind controlling signals, whether technological or “psychic”. On the other hand, talking directly to “Mind-God” as so many other channels do is far more susceptible to interference. For example, a weak outside EM signal can be talking directly to a tiny implant in our teeth, and we will take it for our Oversoul….

So, by logical thinking and by critical analysis we come to a working hypothesis. But, please, do not jump to the conclusion that we have solved all the problems. Important problems are still out there and need to be addressed. The above analysis does not confirm anything 100%. It gives indications. To answer the question as to whether or not the Cassiopaean Communications is exactly what it says it is: transmissions from Us in the Future, a full analysis, that takes into account not one but many aspects, is necessary. Completely different methods must be used. If A is an opponent of B, and if we find that A is wrong, that does not mean that B is right! To see whether B is right or not – is a different problem.

Let me just note that we have discussed these issues on many occasions on our website[5], with other groups or individuals and quite often, those who started as skeptics have later admitted openly that these Cassiopaeans have an amazing record.

Arkadiusz Jadczyk

[1] Incommensurability, Orthodoxy and the Physics of High Strangeness: A 6-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena:Jacques F. Vallee and Eric W. Davis , National Institute for Discovery Science , Las Vegas, Nevada

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jacques Vallee, Forbidden Science, ISBN: 1556431252, Publisher: North Atlantic Books (August, 1992)



From the Introduction and Foreword of The High Strangeness of Dimensions, Densities and the Process of Alien Abduction by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Related Articles: