Swerdlow Controlled via Satellite?

or "reductio ad absurdum"

Note: Many people have written to ask us about the claims of Stewart Swerdlow, a fellow who claims to have participated in clandestine government projects located at the Montauk Air force/Naval facility. Among these claims are: "Any channeled information is crap. It is 100% disinformation" and "All channeling is disinformation."  While we do agree that there is a "Stargate Conspiracy" and that much, if not most, channeled material is either part of a human engineered program or the influences of negative forces, we believe that we have taken such forces into account in our own experimental work in accessing expanded states of consciousness.

Update, November 16, 2007: It seems that Swerdlow's website has undergone some dramatic changes and the pages formerly linked from this page no longer exist. However, Swerdlow's claims can be found on the webarchive. There you will read the following:

Cassiopaea & Dr. Puharich
Posted: March 12, 2001

Have you read any of the Cassiopaea material? Most of it seems to be good information, have not detected any real disinformation. They say Nibiru is really a cluster of comets, that appear to be a planet. They are a result of our companion brown star going through the Oort Cloud. And they’re due here by 2012. Along with the "realm border crossing" wave, which would take some of us into 4th density. And of course the lizzies are waiting on the other side, ready to control those of us who make it through. The rest will re-incarnate here, after the decimation. The cycle begins again.

Now they, the Cassies, don’t appear to be associated with the Council of Nine, but I’m suspicious. It seems that the Ra Material may have its genesis in the Council of Nine (as Ra himself is one of the nine principles, is he not?) and the channellings did not come through until the LL Research folks visited Dr. Puharich! So am suspicious of this source. Yet the Cassies say that particular channelled material is about 64% or 61% accurate. They place their own at about 71% as far as I recall.

After years of studying all kinds of material and being on several paths, including Bhakti Yoga, I’m almost ready to throw all of out the window and go back to a simple life. It is very frustrating.

Can you shed any light on all this? I know this is a lot to ask, but the way is dark and full of pointy protrusions.

Stewart’s Reply: Any channeled information is crap. It is 100% disinformation. Anything that was associated with Dr. Puharich is also disinformation, as he was an Illuminati programmer and controller. Anything that refers to going to different densities is New Age disinformation. You mentioned that you want to throw it all out the window and go back to a simple life – not a bad plan. Hope this answers your questions.

Ark addresses the primary claim of Swerdlow in the following remarks:

I can't take Swerdlow seriously.  Why?  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 statement like this: "Any channeled information is crap. It is 100% disinformation."
"All channeling is disinformation." and "channeling is a satellite transmission." I get very suspicious.

Why so?

I immediately see that he speaks plain nonsense - in THESE sentences.  But 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? Alright, there is a possibility that some (possibly even most?) of the channeling TODAY comes via satellites or other means of programming.  That IS possible.

The next question is : WHY? The evident answer is: to twist, to disinform, via New Age-type naive people.

Can the Cassiopaean channeling come the same way, i.e. via satellite or some other kind of transmission?

It is not so easy: we are not naïve; we are critical; we think, we analyze, we test and research.

Could some of the Cassiopaean communications have been influenced this way?

Yes, there is always such a possibility.

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

No.  Why “no”?  

Because there are too many instances in which the Cassiopaeans were answering questions to which the 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, Stewart's statement that ALL channeling is crap and disinformation, and that 95% is via  satellites shows that:

a)He is not able to think logically,
b) he is not interested in discovering the truth.

And this is the main difference between our approach and the approach of so many others, including Swerdlow. 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 – or many - easily detectable nonsense statements that they have claimed to be absolute, and this discredits everything else they say.

For example: My Mother was talking to spirits using a porcelain dish that moved around the table indicating letters. "Spirits" were talking to her and they told her things that were accurate and she was scared.  She was not a part of the “New Age”, she was a little old lady.  There was absolutely no point for satellites (and those who operate them) to waste their energy and computing power to talk to my Mother or any of the probable millions of other individuals who have done similar things for ages.

You see what I mean? With just this example, what Stewart Swerdlow has claimed to be the unequivocal truth, has been shown to be nonsense and logistically impossible. The devil, as always, is 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 a clue.  As for "satellites trying", once in a while, their dirty tricks - yes this is also possible.  And we are taking all of these things into account.  We are always trying to apply our logical thinking, our educated "judgment" to what we are doing, but we do not forget that this 3rd density reality check is NEVER SUFFICIENT when dealing with  4th density forces; but it is ALWAYS NECESSARY. This means, in practical terms:


What I want to state clearly is: 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 a 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.

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

The Cassiopaean channeling has the characteristics of a scientific experiment. Nothing that is received is taken for granted.  Everything is subjected to analysis, comparison to what is known by ordinary means, (and research to find out if necessary), and some things are outright rejected as noise if that is indicated. Some things require “interpretation” when it is noticed that it is “close” but not exactly “spot on” accurate.  Hypotheses are formulated about such occurrences to try and discover what the “filter” is and how to adjust the “reading instrument” to account for that filter. 

The many variables of each session are noted and analyzed, including who is present, what mood they are in, the weather, the subject vis a vis those present, and so on. Information that is unverifiable is set aside until it either can be verified or discarded.

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 also 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.  Swerdlow is sure that he knows it, and he would like to impose it on other people, or manipulate other people, into believing what he says.

When Stewart Swerdlow states something – he claims it comes from Oversoul and God-Mind - but when someone else dares to have a different way of finding the truth - it is necessarily "100% disinformation" and "crap." That just isn't logical.

We try to share our thoughts, our protocols, our research behind the scenes, and when  necessary, we are ready to learn and change.  And that is what is most important: this attitude of being open.

What if Swerdlow is right?  Even if I consider it as highly improbable, what if he IS right?  Can he be right?

Of course, being a scientist, and using my brain in order to judge, I had to consider also this possibility, however improbable it may it look to me, and I concluded that he cannot be right. 

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 Swerdlow and his 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 Swerdlow himself be exempt from this control?

Therefore, by logic, Swerdlow is also being influenced by programming and by satellites (if everybody is, then so is he). 

If so, then what he writes – even about channelling is skewed. 

Finally, because he is so loud, and so sure, about this subject, which is logically impossible, it is a logical conclusion that what he is saying is NOT true, which leads us to conclude that it is disinformation.

So we see that starting from the assumption that he is right  (satellites affect everybody) we come to the conclusion that what he says is wrong (because he is simply repeating the satellite disinformation).

So, here we have reductio ad absurdum.

But we can go even further. Can we see a reason why Swerdlow would propagate such evident nonsense?  Why?

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 TRUE channeling. 

So, we have solved one problem here. Since Swerdlow calls channellers disinformation agents, and if he is right, or even partly right, then we have reasons to suppose that Swerdlow himself is an agent of those forces.

There is one more exercise in logical reasoning and critical thinking that comes to mind. Swerdlow is not clear about what channeling is, so let me take as a particular example the use of the Ouija board, as described on our pages.

Why do we use a device similar to a Ouija board?

Because the use of a Ouija board type instrument is very effective at screening out external disturbances, in particular it makes it 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, no rituals, no altered state of consciousness, full critical thinking, sometimes joking, often coffee, fresh minds, loud discussion, and the board. Thinking in terms of possible quantum physics involved in mind-matter interactions it is clear to me that the methods we use are more likely to be robust and shielded against deliberate bombardment from outside by mind controlling signals. On the other hand, talking directly to "Mind-God" as Swerdlow does is 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 came to a working hypothesis. But, please, do not jump to the conclusion that we have solved all problems. Important problems are still out there and need to be addressed. The above analysis does not tell us at all WHICH channeling (if any at all) is legitimate.  It gives indications. To answer this question 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 were discussing many times C's channeling, on these pages and with other groups, and even our present "dissidents" have admitted openly that these C's have an amazing record.


Following the posting of the above remarks, we received a communication from an individual who requests that his/her name be withheld, known to us, and whose Internet presence is established and respected, stating the following:

Let me clear up some things about Swerdlow, for what it's worth. I've had personal contact with [individuals close to] Swerdlow. From [these contacts] I have learned that there is someone who "taught" Swerdlow what little he knows. See, during Swerdlow's prison term, [this individual] came into contact with him and took pity, becoming his mentor and teaching him some of what [the individual] had spent a lifetime learning. After getting out of prison, he chose the path of betrayal and capitalized upon what he had learned without giving [his teacher] any credit. He spun a tale of fiction using primary sources such as Preston Nichols' material to hide his past and become a pseudo-hero in the metaphysics-conspiracy field, all to make money over something he neither developed nor asked for permission to sell.

FYI, this [individual] is sincere and non-contradictory in what [is] said, and is fluent with the basis of everything Swerdlow "teaches/sells" on his site, and then some. [This individual] taught Stewart only PART of what [the individual] knew, because this person didn't trust him entirely. That's why Stewart's at an intellectual doldrum now...he's used up what he was taught, and must now rely upon imagination and some skill to make up the rest.

Stewart's a smart guy, but in a sociopathic sense: charming, deceiving, beguiling, and cunning. Narcissistic/sociopathic in many ways. Ever wonder about the many contradictions on his site? Why some info is good and others is outright false? It's because he's playing with half a deck of info. Sure, he's spent some years doing research into the conspiracy field so that he appears to know what he's talking about, but he makes up a lot of it as well without caring if it contradicts other statements of his.

Janet Swerdlow, on the other hand, is not a partner in his crime, or else she doesn't know it. Look at the material she writes...it's clear and consistent. Swerdlow's is erratic and contradictory. In my opinion, he has little credibility in anything he says, because the individual who taught him proved to me that there was so much more.

So as for him discounting the validity of the C's, I throw that rejection right out the window along with his credibility. In sum, You can believe him if you want, that's your free will, but I've made my statement on the matter from what I know.


Continue for most interesting revelations...

You are visitor number .