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

The Wave Chapter 37: Critical Channeling

Working with a board-type instrument is both a very positive thing as well as problematical. In the early sessions, as I have noted, we were not taping, so reconstructing them was done based on scribbled notes and memory. Sometimes, those notes were being written in my lap with one hand, while the other hand was on the planchette! On better occasions, there was a sufficient number of people present that one of them could devote their attention to taking notes. But this produced its own problems as the reader will see.

With a board and a moving planchette that has not yet been fully tuned, it is often difficult to determine if a stop indicates a cessation of flow in the transmission or if it is designating a letter or sign on the board. I tried to faithfully call out all apparent letters, numbers, or stops, whatever they might appear to be, and often had to cancel the call because it became apparent that it was only a pause and not an indication of a letter or number. To add to this problem, if a third party was taking the notes, they would often misunderstand what was being called out, or transpose letters, numbers, or misplace decimals if they were given, and otherwise unintentionally contribute to the loss of fidelity of the material. It was only quite a bit later in the process, after many hundreds of pages had been received, that we began to work with ways to increase our accuracy in recording both via tape and handwritten notes. As with anything, practice improved performance.

There was another curious problem that the many people who have sat in on sessions have experienced first hand. I would warn them, but they really didn’t have any idea of what I meant until they experienced it for themselves. Everybody has a tendency to want to anticipate a word or phrase – to complete it according to what they think it will be once they have heard the first couple of letters. Sometimes this is helpful and speeds up the taking of notes, but more often than not, the anticipated word ended up being incorrect, the person taking the notes would have to switch mental gears in mid-word, after having already written the wrong word, and would then entirely lose their place and fall behind, rushing madly to catch back up with the letters being called out. This would only compound the problem. Our notebooks are full of crossed out anticipated words and loss of context because the person taking the notes tried to think ahead of the Cs, made an incorrect assumption, and fell behind or rushed to catch up, leaving out entire words or letters. In some cases, a word was written in anticipation, and even though a different word was spelled out on the tape, the incorrect word was left because that is what the individual heard.

At the same time, we were very anxious to get the transcripts typed up just for the simple reason that we wanted to read them as soon as possible, and thus, many of these errors were included in the original typescript, along with standard typos, all of which require enormous work to weed out.

At the present moment, the Cassiopaean transcripts consist of 634 pages, set up in 3 columns in 10 point Ariel font. This equals 699,056 words, 122,719 lines, and 3,742,197 characters. And I can guarantee you that I typed nearly every word of it, with later help from Jan when she and Terry were finished with their project of sorting material by subject matter.

There are some people who look upon our attempts to go back and discern where these errors occurred, or even to try to discern the true intent of the earlier sessions, or obviously skewed sessions, based on later information that was clearer, more precise, and being transmitted at a point in time when the static and other difficulties were more fully understood and dealt with, as some sort of maneuver to misrepresent what the Cs have said. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aside from the fact that such critics certainly have made no years-long efforts to produce anything similar of their own, upon which foundation they might have the right to consider themselves some sort of expert.

As we have repeatedly said, it is our project, and we have the right to determine how we analyze the data, evaluate the results, retest that which does not stand up, and make those corrections and addenda that are deemed necessary based upon our long experience in translating. This is, in fact, the deeper issue concerned with channeling and doing the work necessary to penetrate to the deeper levels of understanding. I understood from the outset that what I was trying to do had seldom, if ever been done. And it must be clear from the very outset that the idea was mine, the theory behind how it worked was mine, the drive to do it was mine, and the driving force stimulating any participation from anyone else, was mine. And most of the time, I worked against enormous resistance, obstructions, and through hardships that would have stopped about anyone on the planet; and that is not an exaggeration.

Recently I came across the work of Professor Douglas Robinson at Ole Miss, a professor of English, and an expert in translation. I was surprised to discover that translation was a science, with experts and theory. But I was gratified to learn that some of the ideas I had about channeling related directly to translating, and that someone was considering these problems far more thoroughly and competently than I was. What was even more surprising was that Prof. Robinson had suggested outright that an analogy can be drawn between the function of a translator and the channel or medium. It is the work of the channel-as-translator to use every means available to convey the fullest intention of the original author to a new audience that might never hear it because they do not know the language. Prof. Robinson points out that, in the ordinary sense, translation is done merely across linguistic or cultural barriers, but when channeling is involved, it is done across temporal, consciousness, or even hyperspatial barriers.

In the present day of techno-marvels and instant gratification, the idea that anyone can just sit down and begin to channel Jesus, aliens or even the Host of Heaven seems to me to be very similar to the idea that translation can be done by machines with no human interface. This is a very subtle point and I know that it might seem that it is the reverse, but bear with me. In terms of a computer program that translates from one language to another, we see that the program attempts to execute an algorithm, or series of algorithms that consist of gathering intelligence, charting a course of action, giving a series of commands, and carrying them out. The results are only as good as the algorithms. And we see, from the literature, that the channeling phenomenon as it is widely practiced, omits reason from the algorithm. There is no feedback mechanism, and thus no possibility of accurate tuning. This means that it does not allow for an algorithm that can handle the fact that there may be competing forces inside the channel’s head – or, in the case of a group, the competing forces of different individuals and intentions. Excluding reason and the possibility of competing forces is not very professional translating. It’s like a person who attempts to translate a book on physics when his competence in the language only suffices to ensure that he can order a meal in a restaurant, get directions to the airport, and distinguish between the ladies’ room and the men’s room.

In the case of board channeling with a group, these factors become all important. The work of gathering material together that is related to a given subject, analyzing it, understanding that part of it was being translated at a stage when language competence was minimal, is the greatest part of the work we have had to do with the Cs material. And it is very likely for that precise reason, because we know the conditions under which we are working, and understand the task before us, that we are the ones receiving the material, and are charged with its conservation. If someone else were actually more capable of the task, it is a certainty that they would be receiving the material. We find, again and again, that the critics who have received no material, who have no context in which to evaluate it, and who most certainly have no experience and have not spent years studying the language, seem to be the most vocal in their criticisms. Their comprehension of the material and their understanding of the task at hand is equivalent to the mental capacity of a person who would accept a computer translation of French poetry into English and believe that it was entirely adequate.

The fact is, machine translation researchers haven’t had a whole lot of success with programming a machine to produce a good translation without human assistance. In the same way, it is likely impossible to produce channeled material of any usable quality without full consideration for the competing forces as well as the application of reason in dealing with them. Without application of knowledge and direct, rapid feedback, the material that will be produced will be about equivalent to a machine translation of a technical text. And if the reader has read any of these kinds of things, they will surely know how funny some of them can be.

As Prof. Robinson points out, in the end, those machine translation systems that do work are, effectively, cyborg translation systems: they all require a human-machine interface.

The point I am trying to make is that by the use of prosthetics, we are in a position to employ an algorithm that includes reason and feedback! According to Prof. Robinson, translators must be trained; they must not only know the other language, they must know “how to regulate the degree of fidelity with the source text, how to tell what degree and type of fidelity is appropriate in specific use contexts, how to receive and deliver translations, how to find help with terminology, and so on.” All of this suggests a long period of training and preparation, study, analysis, and correcting those translations done when competence was insufficient.

Adapting Prof. Robinson’s ideas to the subject at hand, it seems that a translator-channel is someone who has studied these things, who knows these things, and who, most importantly, governs their channeling-translating behavior in terms of this knowledge. This knowledge is ideological. It is controlled by cosmic ideological norms. To know, via reason, what those cosmic norms prescribe and act upon them is to submit the work to the intent of the original author.

If you want to become a translator-channel, you must submit to the translator’s role of learning the language in an expert way; you must submit to being directed by what the cosmic ideological norms inform you is the true spirit of the source author, and to channel that spirit into the target language, constantly utilizing research and reason in the rapid feedback loop.

For the period of training, of learning the cosmic language in an expert way, the use of a board-type instrument combined with long study and analysis of the material is essential. It is a prosthetic device that allows constant feedback between the algorithm of machine translation of the subconscious/unconscious, and the human interface of the conscious mind which must constantly employ reason for tuning. This is possible only with a board due to the fact that the channel is using both the conscious bypass for reception, while at the same time is able to maintain constant conscious integrity. By being, at all times, in full possession of their own mind and having the ability to observe, control and direct acceptance or rejection of any material or sensation at any time, reason is brought in as part of the algorithm.

Of course, as we have seen, the problem is compounded by the consideration of the effect of conflicting forces at higher levels and how they can and do utilize their human tools in our reality. This brings us back to the human dynamics themselves, the expressions of the battle between the forces of Darkness and Light.

At this point, we need to briefly visit one of the side issues between Frank and the previously mentioned individual, V** which demonstrates part of the problem. As I already mentioned, I had the idea that positive experiences in his interactions with people would reframe his view of the world, strengthen his will and potential toward serving others, and get him off the suicide rants that were draining me almost daily. With my struggles to recover from the accident consisting of therapy three days a week, five very active children, a house to run, all the transcribing and research on the subjects the Cs had covered, I was running out of energy and the demands made on me by Frank were becoming insupportable even if I refused to admit it.

For the most part, he seemed to be entirely oblivious to the effect he was having on me, but I continued to excuse it because he said all the right things about his aspirations for “doing good” or “helping others” or whatever. Besides, he had said he was a higher spiritual being so often, and had certainly demonstrated time and again that he was so different from most people, that I had come to think that it may very possibly be true. And that meant, of course, that it was doubly important for me to help such a being adjust to life in this reality where everything was so extremely difficult for Frank.

On New Year’s Eve of 1994/95, we had our standard New Year gathering in spite of the fact that I was trying to recover from the accident. I couldn’t disappoint all the people who had been planning on attending no matter how bad I felt, and the children all agreed to help with getting the house ready and managing the affair. There were about 20 people in attendance, and we decided to have a session so that the Cassiopaeans could “attend the celebration” as well. It was a festive occasion, and Frank, as the center of attention, was having a great time. I was very pleased to see it, since the past few months had been a truly dreadful series of his episodes.

Everybody took turns at the board, and at one point, it was Frank and two other men, and the planchette kept flying around faster than anyone could keep up with. Nothing that was especially “Cassiopaean” was said, and Frank became more and more expansive as the guests oohed and aaahed over his abilities as a channel. Everybody except V**. At one point she noted rather sarcastically that a comment the Cs made was strangely similar to a remark that Frank had made to her not too many days before. I jumped immediately to his defense because I most definitely did not want anything to take away from his experience of being positively received by others.

January 1, 1995

Q: (V) That kind of smacks of Frank’s “When did you ever see this in Half-Moon Bay, V**?” (L) Where do you think Frank is getting it from? (V) Aren’t we all being enlightened? (T) Is this …

A: Frank is channel. Others are grooving rapidly.

Q: (T) Others of us?

A: Yes. Forming conduit.

Terry had been carefully examining the material in the previous weeks since he and Jan had become regular members of the group. He was certain, based on the passages I have already quoted, as well as on-the-scene observation, that Frank was not the channel in the sense that Frank claimed. In the above excerpt, the reader will also note that Terry started to ask a question about this, and was interrupted by the clear statement that “Frank is channel. Others are grooving rapidly.”

The fact that this contradicted previous remarks that had been made under more controlled or balanced circumstances than a New Year’s Eve party where half the people were well on the road to inebriation was not lost on me, but I was so desperate for Frank to have some feeling of self-esteem about something – anything – that I allowed it to pass without comment. For all I knew, it was true. It was most certainly true that the speed and ease of transmission was very good with Frank present.

We also notice in the above excerpt that V** had to be ridiculed for her lack of belief in Frank as the channel. Nevertheless, she had seen something, and it wouldn’t go away.

The day following the New Year’s Party, you would think that, after his triumphant display and reception, Frank would have been exultant. But not so. Obviously, V**’s remark had embarrassed him and he launched yet again into a painful diatribe about his sufferings and how unfair the world was, and how he was simply too good to continue to exist within it. I persuaded him that we ought to talk to the Cs about it. I simply couldn’t understand, if Frank was the channel, as had been unequivocally declared the previous night, and if he was constantly channeling the Cassiopaeans, as he was now claiming, why he could not access the information that would assist him in dealing with all the issues that he dumped on me with such agonizing regularity.

January 2, 1995

Q: (L) Have you been listening to Frank talk about his woes and miseries?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) What do you have in response to his woes and miseries, since he is the primary channel, it seems to me that it ought to behoove you to give him some kind of a word on this matter …

A: Open.

Q: (L) What do you mean it is open? Is he going to …

A: Is under attack, as previously described.

Q: (L) Well, would it not behoove him to not respond negatively in thought, word or deed and to take care of business as best he can and trust that it will all work out? Because, by becoming all discombobulated, he is giving off negative energy …

A: His methods accomplish the task.

Q: (L) So, in other words, it is alright for him to get all emotionally wrought up and to spout off all these violently …

A: That repels attacking forces because they thrive upon blasé passivity.

Q: (L) Well, we are not talking about passivity here. Are you sure you are a Cassiopaean? It sounds to me like you are saying he ought to be giving off … I think we are pulling in Lizzies because of your negativity …

A: Incorrect, you have your “way” of repelling attack, and Frank has his.

Q: (L) Well I just don’t see how a whole bunch of negative energy in thought and word can repel beings who thrive on negative energy. I mean, they should be just rolling in joy that they are making him so miserable that he has to carry on that way which then makes me miserable.

A: Not miserable when repelling.

Q: (L) Well, then, the problem here is that when he does this, everybody else he does it around, it makes them miserable, so, what’s the deal here?

A: Subjective, your methods can cause perception of upset too.

Q: (L) Yes, I know this, but I am working on being totally unmoved by attack, isn’t that the whole point here?

A: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Q: (L) So, I should continue, when I get upset or attacked, to just rave and rant and yell and scream and carry on?

A: You don’t, you attack back, externally. Frank attacks back internally. The external manifestation is merely overflow and harmless if recognized correctly.

Q: (L) My understanding is that service-to-others involves complete lack of concern for self. Therefore, the objective is to have complete lack of concern for self, therefore one would be in such a state of lack of concern for self that when one feels oneself to be under attack, so to speak, or being baited or jabbed, one would simply utterly and entirely disregard this and continue on in a peaceful way. Now, am I misapprehending this in some way?

A: Not misapprehending, misinterpreting.

Q: (L) So, I misinterpret Frank’s lack of regard for my feelings because he spouts off and upsets me … that’s really a service-to-others activity and it is only my subjectivity that makes me get upset, therefore, I should eliminate my subjectivity as a service to him so that he can continue to spew off and therefore not upset me, is that what we are getting at here?

A: Off base.

Q: (L) Well, that is what you are saying.

A: That’s what you want to believe we are saying, but we are not we are saying all should strive to be objective.

Q: (L) Well, I don’t think it is being objective for every little sling and arrow of misfortune to throw somebody into a tailspin. I think part of the whole process is to learn how to go smoothly through all this stuff. And, what you are saying here is don’t worry about going through stuff, just dump …

A: You are all learning, including Frank.

Q: (L) Well, let’s drop it … I want to ask: the other night Frank read my palm and gave me several bits of information. When he reads palms does he direct channel this information?

A: Some.

Q: (L) Where does the other information come from when he is reading palms?

A: Varied.

I had a powerful sensation of unease about this session, though I couldn’t put my finger on it. The reader will note that even though the Cs remarks seem to be merely a defense of Frank’s extreme, virulent negativity, they were delivering a deep message about him! Nobody with any grasp of the principles of STS and STO could possibly construe the answers about Frank to be describing an STO individual. From the point of view of describing the STS reality, the answers were exactly correct! It was, indeed, a description of the STS mode of handling things, and the Cs were, indeed, communicating the message that this was Frank’s path, though I was too dense to see it at the time.

I then shifted the line of questioning to Frank’s palm-reading talents, since I was beginning to formulate the idea that he was merely downloading, and that his palm reading had nothing to do with reading palms, but with the fact that he could connect to the individual and more or less act as a speaker to their radio receiver, and that this was the correct interpretation of his function. In other words, his activity at the board was exactly similar to his activity when reading palms which was, in fact, his most amazing talent.

After the session above, and my sense of unease about it, I sat down with Frank and went over many of these clues about the channeling with him, pointing out the discrepancies in his own view, and what the Cassiopaeans had said, and how I thought the phenomenon actually operated. I also made it pretty clear that I was becoming exhausted carrying the load of my own life, and his inability to adjust to this reality as well. I urged him to make more positive efforts, to think about the many positive experiences he had had, and to try to help me by helping himself. I pointed out how much work I was doing, and how little he was doing, and that if we continued on this way, I would soon run out of gas and then nothing would get done. Terry and Jan added their input to the situation, and it seemed that, with their presence, Frank stabilized somewhat.

We knew that he had a problem with “dark forces” battling for control of his mind, and I pointed out that this was obvious evidence that he was a higher spiritual being otherwise they wouldn’t be fighting so hard to take over his mind. With this encouragement, he appeared to renew his commitment to fighting them in a more productive way.

The sessions themselves reflected this temporary defeat of the dark forces, producing material of much greater clarity and validity.

January 11, 1995

Q: (S) Why are you choosing Laura and Frank to transmit this information?

A: Because balancing fields are correct. […]

Q: (B) Is this channeling going to go beyond the primitive method of one letter at a time, or is it going to go into the method of writing or typing or direct channeling consciously or unconsciously?

A: Can now, less danger of corruption through this method.

In retrospect, the remark about balancing fields being correct is rather curious if balance means half STS and half STO. There is also the possibility that this remark reflected the presence of Terry as a member of the group, as well as the fact that I had taken steps against Frank’s continued manipulations. I was also becoming far more vigilant about potential corruption, taking greater care with framing my questions, and just generally employing reason and perspicacity in the feed-back loop.

At this point, things took an interesting turn. Tom French entered the picture. As I have written elsewhere, the story goes like this:

Back in 1995 I gave a little talk to the Clearwater, FL, MUFON group (was invited, did not solicit them) and, in the audience, was a St. Pete Times journalist, Thomas French, who was, apparently, quite taken with both myself and what I had to say. He was looking for something “new and different” to write about, and I just sort of “fit the bill.” As he described it to me, he was “falling asleep” through all the speakers before me, and when I started to talk, he “woke up, for sure!” He approached me after the meeting and pretty much pleaded with me to give him an appointment to talk to me.

I was extremely reluctant, as you might guess, knowing what kind of treatment folks who have the courage to ask questions generally get from the mass media. He promised fervently that I would have some considerable degree of input into what was published – that he would certainly go over everything with me prior to publication, and work with me on any objections and concerns. He further urged me to read some of his previous work to get a feel for how he approaches his subjects. I did, and he seemed to have a deft and sensitive touch.

After some lengthy negotiations, I agreed to let him follow me around with the intent of my story being a single thread of a 7 part series that he thought might even ultimately be a book as well. There were 7 subjects: a homicide detective, a doctor/director of an AIDS clinic, a preschool for children from Cambodia and Laos who had been rescued out of the horrors of revolution and violence, a single mother raising children in a drug- and crime-infested slum, a fundamentalist preacher, myself, and Tom French, himself, who is the grandson of a Freudian psychoanalyst.

Presented in this manner, as a single thread among many, I thought it would be a unique approach as a part of a whole work whose subject was more or less good and evil in different contexts.

Now, what I did not write about in the above passage was the effect that this event had on Frank and why there was the need for “lengthy negotiations” and why I was so reluctant, and just a whole host of interesting little things behind the scenes.

Terry and Jan, being the editors and publishers of a regional MUFON journal, had been instrumental in arranging for the little talk at MUFON. Terry was pretty excited about the Cs’ take on the alien abduction issues because it had been an area in which he had invested a goodly amount of time in hard research and where he had access to materials through MUFON that were not ordinarily available to the average person. He knew that something was going on because the Cs seemed to know things that were not in the public domain. And so, even though it was a channeled source of information, he thought that the material itself stood on its own.

But, since MUFON is mostly a nuts and bolts organization, we discussed it and agreed that we would try to limit what was said to mostly nuts and bolts events, such as the sighting of the “Black Boomerangs,” the work with abductees, and with just an aside mention of the Cassiopaean contact. We had discussed privately who ought to be the one to give the little talk and I was elected because we all were aware that Frank, even though he had a nice speaking voice, tended to be long-winded and to get sidetracked on irrelevant issues. There was also some concern that he would turn people off with their perception that his manner was “superior.” We knew that he couldn’t help acting this way, but we also knew that a lot of people weren’t as willing as we were to accept Frank as he was.

Terry and Jan both gave a short talk each, and then introduced me. I only spoke briefly; pretty much giving a report of the UFO sighting I had experienced myself, and listing some of the things that had been revealed to me by abductees under hypnosis. It really wasn’t much of a talk, for sure, and the only time I had ever spoken in public before was a speech contest in high school (which I won, though I don’t, to this day, remember what I said), and I just took Jan’s advice and found a person to the front of the audience to “speak to,” and pretended I was talking to that person alone. Aside from some difficulty breathing, I survived.

When Jan introduced me to Tom French after the meeting, and he indicated he would like to interview me, I thought that it was the group he was interested in, and I was excited for the Cs. I said something about the fact that we were all together on Saturday nights, and that would be the best time, but he insisted that he would call me and make an appointment later in the week.

Frank was, as might be expected, utterly ecstatic that Tom was interested in writing about us. He just knew that this was the door to fame for the Cs, and him by virtue of association! He told me to be sure and call him the instant the interview was scheduled. He would take time off from work, if necessary to be there.

When Tom French finally called, he made it clear that it was me he wanted to talk to – alone. I was confused and felt just a little trapped because without Frank and Terry and Jan there, what was I going to say? I certainly couldn’t make any kind of commitments for them without them being there. I even outright suggested that they ought to be present, but Tom was firm. He wanted to talk to me, and not the group. Reluctantly, I agreed.

When I told Frank that the journalist didn’t want to talk to him – at least not yet – he became very sour and critical. He spent hours and hours giving me instructions on what I was supposed to say, how I was supposed to act, and the image I must convey to Mr. French in order to make him understand just how important the Cs (and Frank, by default) were to the world. Most of his comments were aimed at undermining my confidence. He described in great detail all of the people in my position who had been interviewed by journalists and that, without exception, they had been ridiculed and made to look like fools. He outlined exhaustively the detrimental effects this would have on me, my children, and life in general and specific. And of course, the problem was that I was just simply too naive to know how to talk to a journalist and not get taken in by conniving and trickery. All journalists were the scum of the earth, and I was going to get slimed.

By the time he was done, I was ready to call Tom French and cancel the whole thing. But, before I did, I wanted to discuss it with the Cs. In their responses, it is clear that Frank’s attempts to undermine my confidence were skewing the flow. He was emoting to the max!

March 7, 1995

Q: (L) OK, there is a journalist coming here on Friday who wants to talk to me …

A: Be open in your mind regarding the flow of the situation. You have a tendency to forget that all do not share your ability to expand consciousness so easily.

Q: (L) So, you mean he is going to be a real skeptic and I am going to have to deal with validation issues?

A: That is not the point. The audience will be looking for flaws in the materialistic reference point, so you must be cautious, lest you be made to look irrational.

Q: (L) Well, then I guess I better not talk about exorcisms or anything like that.

A: Balance.

Q: (L) OK. I will try to stay balanced. I don’t want to have to leave the country.

The fact is, no one but Frank has ever suggested that I discuss metaphysics and the paranormal in any kind of irrational way. No one but Frank has ever suggested that I forget the limitations of my audience. In fact, in retrospect, it is singularly curious that as long as he thought that he was going to be interviewed, he was extraordinarily enthusiastic about the idea. The instant he realized that it was me who was going to be interviewed, it became the Titanic of ideas: doomed to hit obstructions and sink unless I listened to Frank and managed to convince Tom of how the story ought to be told, which was, of course, as Frank wanted it to be told. After his hours and hours of indoctrination, Frank was finally assured that I would do as he wanted – that I would convince Tom of the importance of writing about the Cs group, and then, being reassured, he again became enthusiastic about the idea. I would be the public relations agent, and fame was only a hop, skip and a jump into the future!

At that first interview, Tom made it pretty clear that he was not particularly interested in the Cs material – or channeling in general, or Frank in specific – he was only interested in the fact that I was interested in investigating unusual things while still being a more or less ordinary wife and mother. I admit that I tried every way I could to turn his interest to the Cs, and by default, Frank. I failed. He had an idea, a plan, and I was part of it; but most definitely he was in charge of the execution and he was confident that he knew what he was doing, how to do it, and what his audience liked and expected. In the end, he turned out to be right. But that didn’t stop me from trying regularly and repeatedly to shift the attention to the Cs, and the group, and Frank.

Aside from the shocking effect of this revelation – that anyone would be interested in my very mundane life of struggle and worrying about how to make ends meet – my very first thought was, “Oh, no! How am I going to tell Frank?!” How was I going to tell Frank that Tom French was not really interested in the channeling except insofar as it was one of the tools I was using to pursue my interests while raising a family? Frank was so sure that this was going to be the opening of the door to fame and glory! Frank was so excited that now, people would finally see that he was a force to contend with – a channel – and one that had attracted the attention of a real journalist at that! After all his excitement, after all of his hours of instruction to me about how to conduct myself in the interview so as to place him and the work in the proper light, how was I going to tell him that Tom French was more interested in an overweight, stressed-out, middle-aged housewife, than in a brilliant, highly developed spiritual being who was channeling sixth density light beings such as himself? Frank had placed so much confidence in me to be able to turn Tom French’s attention toward him, and I had failed. It was going to be a negative experience, and I just couldn’t figure out how to tell him without triggering another series of suicidal rants.

Fortunately, I didn’t have to deal with the issue the next Saturday night, because that was the day we took the Cs out of the closet for a public test drive at another MUFON meeting. It wasn’t until the following session, on March 18, that I broke the news.

The reader who is astute will notice that, up to this point in time, we had sessions very frequently – usually more than once a week, but certainly every week. However, we now encounter an anomaly: there is a break here – the next session in the file listing is April 15, almost an entire month later. And therein hangs a most interesting tale.

Because Terry and Jan had brought a guest with them to the March 18 session, they left early. Frank wanted to do what he usually did after a session which was to hold court and discourse for several hours about whatever came to mind. The rest of us had endured this a sufficient number of times that, after awhile, we had a sort of unspoken agreement to not ask a question, because asking Frank a question meant that he would talk for at least another hour. These sessions drained everyone, and no matter how many times anyone hinted that they were exhausted, Frank would brush their need for sleep or getting home before the sun rose aside with an insouciance that was completely incomprehensible. I wrote it off to his arrested emotional development, that children don’t think about the needs of others, and since I had sort of “taken Frank to raise,” I tolerated it as best I could.

The only person who seemed to be able to stand up to Frank in these late night marathons was Terry. Jan and I would sit there like zombies throughout these dialogues, voicing our quiet requests for sleep at periodic intervals, ignored by Frank, and with Terry refusing to leave until Frank had, so it was often a standoff. And for the reader who thinks that it should have been a simple matter of just asking Frank to go home, believe me – I did that over and over again. His answer to that was, “Just five more minutes! You can give me that! After all, I have listened to your problems before!” And the five minutes would turn into an hour. If I reminded him of the instant when the five minutes was up, he would suggest that I was not being a very giving person if I was not willing to listen to him when he needed someone to talk to. Never mind that it occurred over and over and over again. After a certain number of these experiences, a discussion about it came up with Terry and Jan and they agreed to not leave without helping me to launch Frank out of whatever chair he had taken possession of, and maneuver him to the door.

But, on the night of the incident we are approaching, Terry and Jan had to leave right away to take their guest home. That left Frank, S** and myself, and I knew I was in for a long night. After my explanation about Tom French’s lack of interest in the Cs (which is still his position, as he stated just the other day), Frank’s mood was brittle and artificially bright. He was behaving in a way I had never seen before, and it seemed almost bellicose. I was tired and in no mood to sit up until 4 a.m. discussing just anything and I suggested repeatedly that I was exhausted and would like to close up the house and go to bed. S** was exchanging light banter with him, also suggesting that the two of them should leave so I could go to bed, and to this day I can’t remember exactly what was said, either by the two of them, or myself, other than that it was in the light banter mode of trying to convince Frank that it was time to say goodnight – a difficult task under any circumstances. I may have teasingly threatened to turn him into a pumpkin or something equally silly. The only thing I do remember is that what he said next was so completely out of context and out of proportion to anything that I had said, that I will never, ever forget it. He said: “Well how about this: I’m going to tell [your daughter] that [her father] isn’t her real father!”

Doesn’t sound like much, does it? But the point was that, of all the private things I had ever confided to Frank, this was the one thing that he knew would hurt and upset me the most. As a mother, I am a tigress, and it is a very dangerous thing for anyone to threaten to hurt one of my children, physically, mentally, emotionally, or any way.

As those who have read Amazing Grace know, my first child was adopted as a baby by my first husband after we married. She never knew any other father, and as far as the two of them were concerned, he was her father. Of course I realized that, at some time in her life, we would have to tell her the facts, but at that particular moment, it was not the time to do it and I had made the big mistake of confiding my concerns about it to Frank.

My daughter was, at that point, in the midst of a teen-age crisis. It wasn’t unusual or overly serious in any sense, but she is a very sensitive child, and was particularly vulnerable.

Yes, I am familiar with all of the pro and con arguments about how to handle such issues with children, and in the end, I believe that it is up to the judgment of the parent who, after all, knows the child best. And in this case, I had already clearly expressed the opinion that it was not the time to tell her; that it would be a disaster because her own emotional development was at a delicate stage, and Frank knew all of this. He had gone to great lengths to inquire about what was bothering me, to pretend sympathy and interest in order to extract the details from me. And here, now, for the first time, I clearly saw why Frank spent so much time pretending interest in certain people. Indeed, with his rant about being so spiritually superior, his interest was projected like a benediction of approval, but the now obvious true motivation was revealed: he pretended interest, not because he was really interested in the person, but because it was his agenda to extract information that he could later use to control the person. He was nothing more or less than a common con-man, and I use the term in its original meaning as one who gains the confidence of another in order to get something from them.

With stunning clarity, I saw that the embezzlement episode wasn’t just a glitch in his life, an act of desperation in a difficult situation. I saw that he had not, indeed, been taken advantage of by “Dane” or anyone. I saw him clearly and without blinders or wishful thinking. He was not a pitiful, damaged soul who needed to be helped; he was a predator. Nothing more, nothing less.

And he chose to try to control and hurt me for no reason other than the fact that he believed that I had turned Tom French off to the idea of writing about the group (mainly him), and focusing on me. And it was totally untrue. He was jealous, and felt that he was entitled to what he had not worked for, and if he couldn’t have it, he would hurt me through my child.

I was almost speechless. I calmly told him that I could not believe that he was such a low-life as to do something so despicable as to hurt my daughter. He stuttered out a protest that he had only been joking, that it just jumped out of his mouth and he didn’t mean it. And I replied that it was “out of the fullness of the heart that the mouth speaks.” Obviously he would never have said such a thing if he had not already thought about it in those terms. And then I told him (rather calmly, which surprised me), that he had better go home and do it now, and spend some time thinking about what he had just said.

He left.

S** and I sat there, speechless, and just looked at each other. Neither of us could believe this revelation of Frank’s viciousness and meanness. Finally, S** tried to smooth things over by saying that Frank obviously wasn’t himself. He was under stress. He was overtired. It was late. All kinds of excuses.

But nothing could excuse the fact that, in his anger at me, justified or not, Frank had expressed the idea that he would willingly harm an innocent person I loved because he knew that this was the most direct and vicious way of hurting me. And nothing is more despicable than that. The only kinds of people I have ever heard of who consider such actions to be acceptable, are the lowest criminal types who are even despised by other criminals. Felons who hurt children are often placed in solitary confinement in prisons because the other prisoners will try to kill them. Hurting a child to hurt the parent is an unspeakable act of cowardice and depravity.

In the days following this event, I was rather startled at the view of Frank that was opened to my mind. All of the aspects of Frank that I had been ascribing to the possibility that he was, truly, a higher spiritual being who was just having a battle with dark forces – and the battle was explainable because he was a higher spiritual being – were now perceived as simply expressions of a very narrow, selfish, conniving, manipulative, and fundamentally mean character. I could see nothing positive in him at all and I marveled that this was so.

I was not as aware of the chemistry of the brain then as I am now, and I was very curious about this effect. How could it be that the mind can shift so instantaneously from one perspective to another? How completely the light had changed on my perception of him, and all of the things I had formerly excused, shoved under the rug, giving a positive spin, or taken his word for, now appeared to me in an altogether different context. Had I really been wearing the proverbial rose-colored glasses all that time? Or was what I was thinking now the distorted view?

In retrospect, I realize that I was, in fact, having a serious lesson in how our thinking is controlled or clarified by our chemistry. As I now know, when a shock is received, or a threat of danger, the mind becomes acutely clear and lucid and what is becomes evident to the extent that every nuance of reality is exposed to view with a clarity that is stunning. I suppose that this is a condition of evolutionary advantage; the creature that cannot see clearly when in danger does not survive. And I suspect that the same is true whatever the soul orientation. Any individual, when shocked, will suddenly see who is and is not “like them,” and thus a danger to their existence.

Because I was so furious, I didn’t trust myself to speak to Frank. But I certainly had plenty I wanted to say. I decided to write a letter to him, since I was still too distraught to speak to him. I still have the notes of the quotes I used in this rather lengthy missive wherein I itemized his every flaw in excruciating detail, even pointing out that I could see his disdain for normal human relations as supreme selfishness. I realize now that I was hoping that Frank would respond by saying, “Indeed, I agree with all you wrote, and I am truly all those things, it was just a momentary lapse, please accept my apology,” and so forth. Among the quotes I included in my letter:

Master K’ung said: There are three sorts of friend that are profitable, and three sorts that are harmful. Friendship with the upright, with the true-to-death and with those who have knowledge is profitable. Friendship with the obsequious, friendship with those who are good at accommodating their principles, friendship with those who are clever at talk is harmful.

Confucius: People of superior refinement and of active disposition identify happiness with honour …

Aristotle: But to die to escape from poverty or love or anything painful is not the mark of a brave man, but rather of a coward; for it is softness to fly from what is troublesome, and such a man endures death not because it is noble, but because he is afraid.

Sir Thomas Malory: Ever will a coward show no mercy.

Confucius: To see what is right and not do it is cowardice.

Montaigne: Cowardice is the mother of cruelty.

From Emerson: Persons with character are as easy to spot as if they were a different color. Self-trust and the perception that virtue is enough is the essence of character. It is the natural tendency to defy falseness and wrong. It speaks the truth, and it is just, generous, hospitable, temperate, despises pettiness, and is scornful of being scorned. Character persists when the mood has passed in which the decision to act was made. Character displays undaunted boldness and a fortitude that does not wear down or out.

When the soul is not master of one’s reactions to the world, then that soul is everyone’s dupe. The person of character is not for sale. He does not ask to dine nicely and to sleep warm. He does not need plenty; he can lose with grace. Character is persistent. The person of character makes a choice based on honorable considerations and sticks with it and, no matter what, does not weakly try to reconcile itself with the world.

Most outstanding of all is the good humor and hilarity of the person of character. The great will not condescend to take anything seriously. The heroic soul is not common nor can the common be heroic. The person of character always does what he is afraid to do. Greatness ignores the opinions of others.

The person of character knows that he is born into a state of war and his own well-being requires that he should not go dancing for peace. Knowing this, he collects himself and neither defying nor dreading the thunder, he takes both his reputation and his own life in his hand, and, with perfect calm and politeness, dares the hangman and the mob by the absolute truth of his speech, and the correctness of his behavior. Toward all external evil, the person of character affirms his ability to cope single-handedly with an infinite army of enemies. To this military attitude of the soul we give the name of heroism.

Heroism is self-confidence which ignores the restraints of prudence, because of the natural energy and power of the belief that it can repair any harms it may suffer. The hero possesses a mind of such balance that nothing can shake his will. Pleasantly and merrily, he marches to the beat of his own drum no matter what disasters or dissolutions take place around him. He is in the world, but not of it. He does what he does because it is the thing to be done at the moment and he is present and capable of doing it. There is a quality in him that is negligent of expense, of health, of life, of danger, of hatred, of reproach, and knows that his will is higher and more excellent than all actual and all possible antagonists.

His victories are by demonstration of superiority. The most violent or conniving person learns that in this person there is resistance on which both impudence and terror are wasted. This resistance is faith in fact and right. The natural power of the heroic character is like light and heat, and all nature cooperates with it. The reason why we feel one man’s presence, and not another’s is as simple as gravity. Heroic characters are the conscience of the society to which they belong.

No change of circumstances can repair a defect of character. The heroic character does not accept the conventional opinions and practices. He is a nonconformist. Acquiescence to the establishment indicates lack of character which must see the house built before they can comprehend the plan.

There is a class of individuals which are endowed with character, heroism, insight and virtue. They are usually received with ill-will by the masses. No one can use common beliefs to understand these characters. They cannot be judged from glimpses. They need perspective, as a landscape. You cannot understand them by popular ethics nor by simple observation of their actions. It is said that He who confronts the gods knows heaven. This is the nature of the person of character.

In past times of violence, every person had many opportunities to prove his worth; therefore, every name that has emerged from the masses can teach us something of heroism, character, and manners. Personal force never goes out of fashion. Persons of valor become known and rise to their natural place. In any milieu, heroes and pirates are worth more than talkers and clerks.

The heroic character perpetuates good breeding. Good manners are a spontaneous fruit of the heroic character. The heroic character is a person of truth, master of his own actions, and expresses that mastery in his behavior, not in any manner dependent and servile either on persons, or opinions, or possessions.

People of character are an energetic class, full of courage and of attempts which intimidate their paler brethren. Being up to the demands of their very nature, they can out pray saints, out general veterans and outshine all courtesy. They are comfortable with pirates and scholars. Persons of character sit carelessly in their chairs and are too excellent to value any conditions.

Money is not essential to the aristocrat, which is the true class of those of heroic character. Society among aristocrats is mutually agreeable and stimulating. By swift consent, everything superfluous is dropped, everything graceful is renewed. Good manners are a formidable defense against the common people.

The manners of the aristocrat are aped by the commoners, but never understood.

Aristocrats never do as the common people do when following fashion. They understand that “fashion” is virtue gone to seed. Aristocrats are sowers, people of fashion are reapers.

Each person’s position in life depends on some symmetry in his inner makeup. A natural aristocrat will find his way to those of his own kind. Those of good breeding and personal superiority readily find each other. A person should not go where he cannot carry his whole sphere with him. A defect in manners or character is usually a defect in perceptions. In addition to personal force and perception, an aristocrat is also good natured, generous and obliging.

Times of heroism are generally times of terror, but the day never dawns in which this element is without value. Latent inner power is what we call Character, a reserved force which acts directly by presence, and without means. It is conceived of as a certain indemonstrable force, a Familiar of Genius, by whose impulses the hero is guided, but whose counsels he cannot impart. Character is of a stellar and indiminishable greatness.

I lambasted him up one side and down the other. I told him in no uncertain terms that, if what I had seen on the night of March 18 was the real Frank, then he was not any of those things that we had discussed so many times. I wanted the real Frank to please stand up. Tell me one way or another. And if you say one thing with your words, and behave another way in your actions, how can I believe what you say?

What happens after such a “seeing” is that the chemistry of the “shock” begins to dissipate, and the normal chemistry resumes, and the ability to see and think with such clarity recedes. I began to doubt what I had seen. I began to doubt my perceptions. The rose-colored glasses of giving the benefit of the doubt went back on, and my mind began to work on the problem of how to reconcile. Because, after all, if I wasn’t there to help Frank, to make a place in the world for him, who would do it?

As I said, at the time, I didn’t know how subtly our thinking can be controlled by our chemistry. I only knew that I wanted to find out if I was making a big mistake; was I misjudging Frank because of emotion? Was I being unfair? Shouldn’t I discuss it with others and discover if my thinking was askew? It was so shocking a thing to be going along one day thinking that a person was a higher spiritual being having trouble adjusting to the real world, and in a single instant, suddenly seeing everything completely differently.

Naturally, Terry and Jan and S** were anxious for Frank and me to reconcile. While they were very shocked by the turn of events, like all of us, they encouraged forgiveness and forgetting. And truthfully, I was beginning to believe that this was the proper course of action myself. After all, it is what we are raised to believe in. The “normal” chemicals began to take over, and being reminded by my friends of all the good times we had experienced, it was easy to begin to forget that moment of clarity.

But, meanwhile, just in case, we decided to continue the sessions without Frank even though we knew we would have to go through the tuning process again to some extent. These sessions were not included in the transcripts because they were, for the most part, about Frank (naturally). And even though they were not as smooth as we would have liked, having become very accustomed to fast paced dialogues with the Cs, it was clearly evident that the ability to make the same connection was present. And again, we were confirmed in our opinion that the Cs and Frank were not one and the same.

During the course of this experimental work, we received what I perceived to be a frightening message from the Cs telling us that there was grave danger around Frank and that agents of some kind were involved. It was difficult to determine from the responses if the danger came from Frank, or if the danger was to Frank. Because of the return of my rose-colored glasses, I decided that it was most likely that Frank was in danger, that he was being stalked and/or used by agents unknown, and that his very life was in peril.

Well, that was all it took to galvanize me! Even if I was mad at him, I had spent so much time and effort keeping him alive that I wasn’t going to let anything happen to him now! I asked S** to deliver a message to him to call me since he no longer had a telephone where I could leave a message. I heard nothing for several days, and my concern mounted by the hour. I was practically frantic to make sure Frank was okay. Finally, I asked S** if she had actually even talked to Frank and after some very confusing exchanges, Frank arrived at my door and was welcomed like the Prodigal Son.

We all sat around and discussed the matter at some length, the end result being that Frank noted that S** had been the only one present at the time he acted strange. He then claimed that he had, indeed, sent a conciliatory message to me through S**. This was troubling, because I had never received it. Frank’s conclusion was that there was some controlling influence there, and the implication was, of course, that S** was to blame for the problem!

I didn’t see how it could be possible, but I wasn’t in the mood to doubt Frank now! S** was such a simple soul, always helping out and with a truly generous and giving nature. But there it was. I had sent a message, she had not delivered it as I sent it (or so Frank claimed), and he had sent one back (he claimed), that had not been delivered to me, of that I was certain. I was really becoming confused and uncertain. Just what was going on here? And naturally, we decided to ask the Cs.

April 15, 1995 – Frank, Laura, Terry and Jan

Q: (T) Good evening. Who do we have with us tonight?

A: Good evening!

Q: (L) Who do we have with us tonight?

A: Shoura.

Q: (L) And where are you from?

A: Not from, but you know as Cassiopaea.

Q: (L) Alright. Long time, no see!

A: Oh yes!

Q: (L) Did we communicate with you when it was just S**, Terry and Jan and I?

A: Fragmented.

Q: (L) But it was you, fragmented?

A: Some.

Q: (T) Not all of it was you?

A: Like conflicting signals on radio.

Q: (T) Should we continue working with changing people on the board so that we can all work on the channel so that the channel will open for all of us?

A: Vague.

Q: (J) Do you recommend switching people on the board?

A: We recommend that which you feel is best.

Q: (L) Now, the pressing question: What has been happening to us?

A: We have warned repeatedly of attack!!

Q: (L) Was this ordeal we have just gone through an attack?

A: Of course.

Q: (L) What made us vulnerable?

A: Your work.

Q: (L) Was there anything having to do with any one of us contributing to this vulnerability?

A: Open.

Q: (J) Was anything that happened conscious with anyone?

A: Is this your inquiry?

Q: (J) Yes.

A: Then answer from within.

Q: (L) That doesn’t help. A** said that, even as a kid, she could have straightened it out between us without even trying. (J) Well, maybe S** just wasn’t cut out to be a mediator.

A: Okay.

Q: (J) What were the intentions of this attack?

A: S** is insecure. Have you not noticed?

Q: (J) Yeah. (T) But insecurity is not a problem as far as that goes.

A: Problems are according to circumstances.

Q: (L) Well, that still leaves us in a bit of a quandary …

A: Do you employ a maid to fly a passenger jet?

Q: (T) So, the wrong person was doing the wrong thing. It wasn’t her fault.

A: But relaying of messages is sensitive issue.

Q: (J) There is a clue there. Who indicated that she should relay messages between you and Frank? (L) Nobody, I guess.

A: Was spur of moment “flow.” Plot course carefully, so as not to run aground.

Q: (T) We are doing Chinese fortune cookies tonight. (L) Well, I still feel a little bit hurt that everything I said was simply not understood and that the things Frank said, had they been conveyed exactly as he said them, would have brought the problem to an immediate halt. What should have been repeated was not and what should not have been repeated was.

A: True. Attack is most purposeful! Watch all portholes.

Q: (L) So, in other words, S** may have been an instrument of attack unwittingly?

A: Close. […]

Q: (L) The other night when we were working without Frank, we got some information that indicated that Frank was in danger via the government. Is that true or was that true?

A: Partly.

Q: (L) What is the source of this danger?

A: Source?

Q: (L) I mean like, the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, or what?

A: Not initialed as such.

Q: (L) Is this physical danger or just harassment danger?

A: Mind attack for purpose of self-destruction.

Q: (L) Is there anything that can be done to shield against this kind of attack?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) What can be done for shielding?

A: Knowledge input on a continuous basis.

Q: (L) And what form should this knowledge take? Does this mean channeled information, books, videos, what?

A: All and other.

Q: (L) A specific other?

A: Networking of information now, warning!!! All others will very soon experience great increase of same type of attack, two of you have had episodes in past from same source for similar reasons, but now your association puts you in different category!! Remember all channels and those of similar make-up are identified, tracked, and “dealt with.”

Q: (T) Which two have experienced similar types of attack?

A: Up to you to identify for learning.

Q: (J) I’m pretty sure I’m one of them because I have been way down mentally and emotionally. (T) Is Jan one of the two? (J) I know I’m one.

A: Suicidal thoughts?

Q: (L) Have you had suicidal thoughts? (J) No. (T) Not me. (F) I have had them constantly. (T) Laura, did you? (L) I was pretty damn low. I wasn’t contemplating suicide, I was just thinking how nice it would be if we could just turn out the lights and end the illusion. (T) OK, so we have identified the two, you and Frank. (L) So, in other words Jan, it is going to get worse. (F) Didn’t they say two others? (L) I guess they are saying that a similar thing can happen. (T) If we don’t work together on this, we are going to lose the whole thing. (J) OK, ask about the card reading Terry did tonight? (T) Was it accurate?

A: Close.

Q: (T) Was the reading referring to the same thing you are now referring to?

A: Close.

Q: (T) So, we have the knowledge and all we have to do to prevent the attacks from being nasty?

A: You do not have all the awareness you need! Not by any means!

Q: (J) Is one of the reasons why this whole thing between Frank and Laura happened to show us that we could establish, albeit a very weak and very jumbled, connection with the channel without Frank’s presence? A sort of verification of the channel’s integrity. Was that one of the byproducts of this, or one of the purposes of it?

A: Byproduct is good way of putting it. Remember, all there is is lessons.

Q: (L) The attack was more internal in terms of doubt, not only of the channel and the information, but of the very foundations of existence. I mean, the realization that we may not be at the top of the food chain was shattering. (T) That snowballed on its own once the initial conflict was established. (J) Maybe the way to look at it is: yes, we went through all this crap, and you and Frank went through all this anguish, but maybe one good thing that came out of it, and maybe wasn’t intended, was the fact that yes, we were able to see that there is a channel separate and distinct from all of us. It is not dependent on any one of us to be present. Yes, we do need to have all of us together for optimum contact …

A: All are able to channel, but practice is required to establish the same extent of grooving but be aware of ramifications!

Q: (L) What ramifications?

A: Observe Frank.

Q: (T) We are observing you. (J) Yeah. And? (F) I think what they mean is, when you can channel as I can, because I channel almost continuously, this has a good side and a bad side. Now, the good side you know. The bad side you don’t know. The bad side is very hard to live with. I cannot even describe the state of my mind. (L) I would like to have practical advice and guidance on what we can do to fend off or prevent psychic attack. We know that knowledge and awareness is important, but any words of wisdom or advance things that can be given would be appreciated.

A: Daily prayer helps. […]

Q: (L) Is there anything you wish to tell us before we shut down for the night?

A: Reread information given about attack warning and discuss amongst yourselves for strengthening of learning and knowledge base for purposes of protection and ultimately, survival!!

The fact that the responses relating to S** did not conform to Frank’s opinion of the situation, suggests that the session was uncorrupted by his emotional input. Even if we were discussing human relations which was a subject so often skewed by his emotional prejudices, he was contrite and subdued. What went right over our heads, however, was the fact that the Cs gave us the answer right there and then! They said: “Attack is most purposeful! Watch all portholes. All others will very soon experience great increase of same type of attack, two of you have had episodes in past from same source for similar reasons, but now your association puts you in different category!! Remember all channels and those of similar make-up are identified, tracked, and “dealt with.” All are able to channel, but practice is required to establish the same extent of grooving but be aware of ramifications! Observe Frank.”

Frank had, of course, quickly identified himself as having had suicidal thoughts. But in retrospect, the context of episodes in the past, as it applied to myself, was a very long time in the past – many years previous. And in fact, as we later discussed this, it turned out that very much the same type of attack in the past had occurred to Terry. In point of fact, Frank’s claims to be suicidal were, for the most part, if not entirely, a means of controlling others.

“Attack is most purposeful. Watch all portholes. Practice is required to establish the same extent of grooving. Be aware of ramifications. Observe Frank.”

And we didn’t even see it.