July 8, 1995
Frank, Laura, Terry, Jan, SV, Tom French and Cherie Diez.
Q: Hello.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Who do we have with us?
A: Tqv.
Q: (L) What does TQV mean?
A: Was interrupted. [We were using a new table which required several adjustments. We finally gave up and got out the old table.]
Q: (L) Okay, what is your name, please.
A: Tora.
Q: (L) And, where are you from?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: (L) As you can see, we are doing the board this evening.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) We think it is a little more convivial. When Frank is zonked out, he can't participate.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Okay, we have a number of questions. Is it alright to start questioning now?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is there a Jewish conspiracy to subjugate the world?
A: Not Jewish, we have told of this extensively before, curious that you should need review so soon!
Q: (L) The only reason I ask this question is because JW was here for a long time today and [Laughter and groans] I whipped out my Dachau memorial book and laid it in his lap and we got into the thing, and he is just so convinced that there is a Jewish conspiracy to dominate and rule the world that I just thought I would throw the question out to see what further comments might be made about it other than the obvious. Thank you so much for that response. Next question: In reading about crop circles; I know that we have been told that they come from sixth density, but I would like to know the exact mode or mechanism by which they are made. Is it like electromagnetic imprinting, is it like a whirlwind. Can you tell us a little bit about how they are actually physically created?
A: Field transfer.
Q: (L) What kind of field?
A: Magnetic.
Q: (L) Are they transferred directly from sixth density to third density?
A: No.
Q: (L) Are they manifested by an object that has come into third density, such as a craft of some sort?
A: No.
Q: (L) Can you give us a clue here?
A: We can give "clue."
Q: (L) Okay, what is the clue?
A: See Hoagland.
Q: (L) What does Hoagland say? (T) He says that basically what we see in this density is a 3rd dimension reflection of 4th dimension and that it can be seen mathematically by looking at the cloud patterns on the different planets. If there was not another dimension above us, circular would be circular and the circular motion of the clouds would be maintained, but if it is a transfer from fourth density to third density, when you are looking at a fourth density object, what the third density version of it would look like would show a hexagonal figure with angles to it, and that the photographs from the Voyager Probe that show that the cloud patterns from the North and South poles of most of the planets are not circular, they are hexagonal. (L) Okay, in sixth density, what are crop circles?
A: Thoughts.
Q: (L) Who is thinking these thoughts?
A: Yours truly.
Q: (L) Okay, if they are thoughts... (J) They are messages so they could be thoughts before they are messages. (T) Well, they have described sixth density as pure energy, therefore there is nothing physical in sixth density to reflect back through the densities. So the only thing that can come from there to here is thought. Because, that is all there is there. (L) So, it is a field transfer of thought. (T) So, when sixth density thinks and they pass that down, most likely skipping fifth density to fourth density, and then stepping down from fourth to third, we end up with a three dimensional crop circle. But what does a crop circle look like in fourth density?
A: "Look" is not point.
Q: (L) What is the point?
A: You need visual stimuli in order to remember.
Q: (L) Oh! (J) What did it say, you need visual... ? (L) So, in other words, these are thoughts designed to make us remember by looking at them?
A: Yours is a physical dependent existence.
Q: (J) Yes! (L) Okay, if we made diagrams of the crop circles, and put them up on the wall and looked at them or meditated on them, would they do anything to our brains, our electromagnetic patterns, or would they bring up information from within for us?
A: Not likely.
Q: (L) Well, what are we supposed to do with them?
A: Nothing in particular.
Q: (L) Are they doing something to us? (T) I had a feeling it was going that way...
A: Wait and see.
Q: (L) Okay. We have been talking a bit about the maze on the floor of Chartres Cathedral...
A: Your media resists, why? Suggest discussion.
Q: (L) The media resists crop circles and I know this is so because when I went to the Library to research them, there was not a single, solitary book, magazine or article on the subject of crop circles in the entire county system.
(J) There wasn't anything in Barnes and Noble either.
(L) Now, the two books on the subject I do have, I had to order special. Why would the media resist crop circles?
(Susan) The same reason they resist everything else. (
F) But, they don't resist everything else as much as crop circles.
(T) Are we looking at this from the wrong perspective? They're not resisting or overlooking them any more than anybody else does. We were just told that crop circles themselves were not important to us.
(F) I don't think that is what they meant.
(L) I said what are we supposed to DO with them, and they said nothing in particular.
(F) And then you asked if they were going to have any effect on us and they said "Wait and see."
(T) Could this be because no one is supposed to pay any attention to them? Is this part of it. Maybe we are looking for something that is not there by saying "Oh, the media does not recognize them and do a bunch of stories about them and alert everybody to them. Maybe they are not supposed to. Maybe the circles are supposed to work on their own without major attention.
(F) I don't think so.
(L) Here is something I got of the net recently. "To some people, the circles which began appearing about a decade ago represent the handiwork of extraterrestrial invaders or crafty tradesmen bent on mischief after an evening at the pub, or even hordes of graduate students driven by mad professors. To others, the circles suggest the action of microwave generated ball lightening, numerous whirlwinds or some other peculiar atmospheric phenomena. These scenarios apparently suffered a severe blow late last summer when two elderly landscape painters, David and Doug admitted to creating many of the giant, circular wheat field patterns that cropped up over the last decade in southern England. The chuckling hoaxers proudly displayed the wooden planks, ball of string, and primitive sighting device they claimed they had used to construct the circles.
But this newspaper orchestrated, widely publicized admission didn't settle the whole mystery. Gerald Hawkins, a retired astronomer who now divides his time between an apartment in Washington and a farm in Woodville, felt compelled to write last September to Dave and Doug, asking how they managed to discover and incorporate a number of ingenious, previously unknown, geometric theorems of a type that appear in antique textbooks, into their "artwork" in the crops. He concluded his letter as follows: "The media did not give you credit for the unusual cleverness behind the designs and the patterns."
And then he says that he is finding ratios of small whole numbers that precisely match the ratios defining diatomic scale. These ratios produce the eight tones of an octave in the musical scale corresponding to the keys on the piano. That was surprise number one, he said. He began looking for geometrical relationships among the circles, rings and lines and then he found that measurements reveal that the ratio of the diameter of the large circles is drawn so that it passes through the centers of the three original circles to the diameter of one of the original circles, and is close to 4 to 3. What he discovered were geometric relationships which simply are not taught anymore in the modern math. And yet, essentially he says that these guys that came forward and claimed that they did it could not possibly have done it.
(F) Well, the thing that is so strange to me is that since 1992 there hasn't been any reporting in the American media about this phenomenon at all. (Laura to Tom) Is there any way you could check that? [Tom is a reporter with a major newspaper.]
(TF) I already have. (L) You have? What have you found?
(TF) There's not a lot.
(L) What is it and what does it say? When?
(TF) I didn't notice the dates. I didn't notice if there was any turned out after 1992...
(F) There's not...
(TF) I liked my photo so much I had someone check it out. One of the librarians. Some things you call up you get material that is that thick... {Indicates large file thickness] this is only this thick. [Indicates tiny file thickness]
(L) So, there is something?
(TF) But I don't know what years any of it is.
(F) Well, it is not after 1992, I can assure you because I have been keeping very close track.
(TF) I know it hasn't been in the news. I don't remember seeing anything in the news for several years.
(F) It hasn't been here, but it has been in Britain.
(TF) Right!
(F) It is very strange when we are hooked up to the cable news channels that there has been a television black-out on it here. The other thing is Linda Howe showed the new ones from 1994 and they are more spectacular than any that have appeared. Now, if these artists are still going around doing this...
(T) This is strange, Michael made me copies of Cornet's lecture and Linda Howe's lecture [on crop circles]. When I played the tapes, the Cornet tape was fine. Mike's equipment is good. But the Linda Howe lecture didn't record. I have two hours of black with flashes of light crisscrossing the tape. I called Mike and told him and he said, oh boy, I did it late at night and must have hit the wrong switch.
(L) Well, I hate to get paranoid, but, do you suppose this Dave and Doug were set up to make this claim so that the media would have an answer they could tout and then just drop the whole thing? If so, why?
(F) Because it's too frightening. I remember in 1991 and 1992 this thing was heating up and heating up.
(TF) That's true.
(F) It was unusual because this type of subject matter is usually not attended by the mainstream media to any great extent. When there is a big UFO wave there might be a little blurb about strange lights reported by various people. This subject was actually focused upon by all of the major networks, it was on all of the major wire services, it was everywhere. All of a sudden, these two drunken artists appeared and they all said: "Oh! That's it! Okay, forget about it." That was so strange because my impression of journalists has always been, at least it used to be, that they want to dig up the truth, and here, mere placebo, surface type explanations that don't explain anything and which are not adequate, suddenly caused them to lose interest. It would be like Watergate: "Oh, the 18 minute gap... well, Mary what's-her-name stepped on the pedal. Oh, okay, no problem!" Obviously that didn't happen! This just didn't make logical sense for those of us who had looked at the crop circles, and even people who don't follow this type of subject matter closely, who I have talked to, people who brush off the subject of UFOs, have told me that this explanation just doesn't add up! These two guys did all of this under the noses of thousands of researchers who were trying like the dickens to see anything that happened in the middle of the night - in the middle of this, a simple, ridiculous if you get right down to it, explanation is offered and the whole subject is brushed off?!
(J) And, the explanation would only work if the crop circles were within their physical reach logistically speaking.
(F) Well, not only that, if you have ever calculated what is involved, they started in 1973 with just a handful throughout the summer and by 1992 it was hundreds all over the planet. These guys would have to be working non-stop, 24 hours a day, flying all around the globe... [laughter] ...and I thought, how can they accept this brush-off explanation? The other thing is, you would expect, obviously if that were the true explanation, as crazy as it seems, if they could actually, physically do this all by themselves, which is physically and mathematically impossible, but never mind that; it has happened since then. If these two guys are pulling a hoax and nobody is going to pay any more attention, why would they bother to continue to do it each and every summer since that time. Wouldn't somebody catch them by now? There are just a hundred arguments against this explanation that come to mind. Yet, in this country it is completely ignored. My own theory is that it is too sensitive an issue. Here is something that can be photographed.
(L) It proves that there is somebody else out there.
(F) It doesn't prove it...
(J) there's something else going on...
(F) I don't think it proves it, but it makes it very hard to ignore. As I have stated before, my father was a physicist and he was also a skeptic. A very brilliant man... when we would see on television... I remember one night in particular, we saw a very comprehensive segment on crop circles, and he actually got angry when I pointed out to him that this phenomenon seemed awfully bizarre, awfully intense, widespread and so on. He tried to brush it off: "Oh, I think it is a fad," were the words he used. This is a scientist!
(L) He dove headfirst into the deepest river in the world! Denial.
(F) Like a whirlwind is going to form a pattern like an intricate geometric figure? Come on! Sure! He grasped that whirlwind theory and when I pointed out to him that this was not logical, he got angry which I perceived as fear. Being very defensive because it stabbed into the heart of his whole life's work.
(L) That right there is the answer, culturally speaking.
(F) Exactly!
(L) It stabs into the heart of materialism.
(F) In this country somebody does not want this to be reported on because you can't brush it off. You can brush off UFOs... well, not if you really study the issue, but if you don't pay too much attention to it you can brush it off...
(J) Because there is no physical evidence. You have evidence with crop circles. They are there. You can see them.
(L) And, they are astonishing! Just to look at them is astonishing!
(F) Any of them, really, except for the very simplest ones, I mean, just using pure, simple logic, who would have the time, the energy, the expertise to do these things...
(J) And to do it in the dark, without any light...
(F) And in just short periods of time! It just doesn't make sense. Just imagine, Mr. French, it is your assignment to go out into the wheat fields of England, in the dark and to make this intricate figure...
(TF) I would ask them to do it for me and show me how they did it!
(F) Right!
(Susan) I don't know if it was Sightings or Encounters, but one time they had a segment on crop circles in Mexico, and they even appear on rock cliffs...
(F) Yes, and it's happening in Puerto Rico. And, the alleged report on this one was that Army type vehicles came in and destroyed it so people couldn't see it. Which leads me to believe, with my suspicious mind, that somebody doesn't want this stuff going on, for whatever reason.
(L) Yes, what are you going to do with a population that suddenly asks you: "Well, you're in charge; what is this? What's going on?" And, you can't answer them. You have lost credibility as the authority.
(F) And, none of the answers you can come up with are safe. It offends the church because they can't explain it. It offends the scientific community because they can't explain it.
(L) Yes, the church calls everything they can't explain "The Work of the Devil."
(T) Which one?
(L) We think we have come up with an answer. Are we anywhere on the right track?
A: Maybe.
Q: (L) Anything further you would like to add to what we have said?
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, we have really kind of worn out the subject at this point. Going on to the labyrinth at Chartres Cathedral, we have the idea to reproduce this and use it. (J) Is this in the same line as the concept of the spiral and spinning?
A: Maybe.
Q: (L) Which figure would be the most advantageous to use, the spiral, the cho ku rei or the labyrinth?
A: You did not ask preliminaries.
Q: (L) What is the source of this labyrinth?
A: Open.
Q: (L) What preliminaries do you want? Who built it?
A: Open.
Q: (L) What preliminaries do you want?
A: We would ask the same of you.
Q: (J) Great! (L) What we want to know about this particular figure is if it is beneficial to walk, to use...
A: Okay, now we are on the right track! Up to you to discover.
Q: (L) So, you are not going to give us anything on the spiral, we have to play with it.
A: And experiment, that is one method for learning.
Q: (T) Well, it wasn't a real good question as to whether or not I was going to do anything with it as a group, I was already going to do something with it. (L) Well, then they are not going to tell us anything if that is already in the works. (T) I knew it as soon as I picked up the book, I said "We've got to do this. This is not a choice here, this is something we've got to do." (L) Okay, is there any information you can give us about this figure. What does it mean? [Displays written glyph given to Jan by Ken Eagle Feather.]
A: Creator implies importance.
Q: (L) So, the person who drew this implied importance?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is it, in fact, important or significant?
A: Open.
Q: (T) What do the symbols mean? (L) Well, the sideways figure eight is the symbol for eternity, this is just a triangle... (J) Is it an equation... (T) Is it a formula?
A: One question at a time.
Q: (L) Is it a formula?
A: The creation is, because it was created.
Q: (T) What does the triangle symbolize?
A: You are not grasping message.
Q: (J) I guess not. (L) Well, I got that the guy who drew it wanted it to be seen as mysterious and wanted to imply that there was something important and mysterious about it when, in fact, it is just a meaningless drawing?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Okay, so it has no meaning whatsoever?
A: Incorrect.
Q: (L) It has meaning, the meaning the person who drew it implied into it. In terms of being a mathematical formula, I can tell you right now that it is not that.
A: Ask creator for meaning.
Q: (T) So, only the person who drew it knows what it means. (L) Because he is the one who drew it. Without the meaning he gave it, it has none.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Next question. Are you still with us?
A: As always.
Q: (L) Thank you. There is a phenomenon going on today where a lot of people have accused their parents of childhood abuse which is later proven to be false, and it causes a lot of problems. This has led to a lot of problems about the practice of hypnosis...
A: Preconceived notions by biased therapists, i.e. the improperly used power of suggestion.
Q: (L) This has led to much speculation that all UFO abduction memories are false memories, and that hypnosis, itself, in general is a useless or flawed technique. Is there any possibility that many of the people who think that they have been abducted by aliens are merely responding to the suggestions of the therapists?
A: Two concepts at once.
Q: (L) Is there any possibility that certain people think they have been abducted and they have not?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is it possible for a therapist to suggest these ideas into someone's mind through hypnosis and have them...
A: Yes.
Q: (T) It can work the other way around, too. (L) What do you mean?
A: What do you mean?
Q: (T) You asked if some people who think they have been abducted were actually abused and they said "yes." (L) No, that's not what I asked. (T) What did you ask. (L) I asked if some people thought they had been abducted who had not been abducted, or if some people thought they had been abducted and the idea had been planted in their mind by the therapist. And, they said "yes." (T) Okay, have some people who thought they have been abused not been abused. The same question only using the word abused, instead of abducted?
A: Already answered yes.
Q: (L) But, the next question is: Are there some people who have been abducted who think they have been abused?
A: All combinations exist.
Q: (L) Is there any... (T) It depends on the therapist and what the therapist believes as to the results of the therapy... (J) Yeah, are relying heavily on Freud?
A: No. Depends upon actions of therapist, not beliefs.
Q: (L) Is there any particular personality type that is more likely to be abducted than another?
A: Ridiculously open question.
Q: (L) Well, I didn't want to lead! (J) We have an anniversary coming up. (L) Yeah, I know. The sixteenth. (J) No, I mean OUR anniversary, Terry's and mine. (L) Oh. (J) Your anniversary is on the 16th and ours is on the 17th.
A: Same.
Q: (L) What do you mean, "same?" (J) Well, you would have started on the evening of the 16th but worked into the early hours of the 17th.
A: Yes.
Q: (J) Good grasp of Time! (L) Okay, back to the question. What I want to know is; in all of the articles I have been reading about abduction, there are many that claim that persons who experience abduction are of such and such a personality type, i.e. fantasy prone. Well, I am definitely not a fantasy prone personality and I don't think the others here are either.
A: What is a "personality type?"
Q: (L) Well, I don't really think there is such a thing if you want to get down to it. (T) Let's just say that the personality types are something developed by individual researchers to pigeonhole people for statistical analysis. It really has nothing to do with abduction itself. (J) Or anything else.
A: Good one, Terry!
Q: (L) I was talking to my cousin the other night when I was up in the boondocks, and we were talking about abductions and UFOs and space/time and so forth. He made the remark that he thought that it was very likely that there was another universe where this one "ends" in which the constant of light was the "minimum." Is this a valid or usable concept?
A: Too simplified.
Q: (T) What did they tell us before about the speed of light? That the speed of light is a "time" measurement and time only exists in our illusion, therefore there is no speed of light. (L) So, there would be a state where the constant was not a "speed" but just what is. There is no speed of light because there is no time.
A: All imaginable combinations exist because they are imagined!
Q: (J) I like that. (L) Okay, on December 9, 1965, there was a reported UFO crash at Kecksburg, Pennsylvania. This was purported by the military to be a crash of a Soviet spy satellite. There is a lot of stuff that has gone around about this and it was even portrayed on "X-Files." Was the event that occurred on December 9, 1965, in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania, a crash of a UFO?
A: Define please "UFO?"
Q: (L) A UFO as in "Alien space craft."
A: Close.
Q: (L) It was not a Soviet spy satellite?
A: No.
Q: (L) Now, you say "close." What, specifically, was it?
A: We have taught you new methods of imaging, we are patiently waiting for you to use them!
Q: (L) What do you mean "new methods of imaging?" (T) To talk about it? (L) We don't know enough about it... that's all we know. (T) Well, working with what we know about it we could probably talk it out and figure out what it was.
A: Density 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, now, how does the concept of "craft" apply here?
Q: (L) Was it a projection? A trans-dimensional atomically remolecularized object?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) Piloted by, I would assume, the Grays? (T) Not necessarily.
A: ! If you prefer.
Q: (T) Well, if it was a craft as they have been telling us, brought in from 4th density, it would be the Lizards or someone else of the other side, the [Orion} Union.
A: The point is the mode of transfer.
Q: (L) Okay, so it may be that it didn't crash there, it was... did something happen and something came through the dimensional curtain? Is that it? (T) Well, it didn't crash, it landed! Or materialized, or became solid. (L) I think NORAD tracked it. (J) It was seen as a fireball.
A: Colder.
Q: (T) Okay, this is just a theory, a thought, just something I am throwing out here, nothing positive... the military was "Johnny on the spot." They made a big production of hauling it out of there and threatening everyone. What if it was put there, or sent here for them? No that it crashed, but it was something being sent from there to there and the Uncle came and picked it up?
A: No.
Q: (L) The point is the "mode of transfer." (T) The point is that it was "cross density." (J) Well, we know that they all are "cross density." (T) No, not all of them, some of them come from this density. (L) The point is the "mode of transfer." What are they trying to say? (T) It was materialized here from 4th density. It didn't fly here. (L) Okay, it was not a UFO because it never "flew." (T) The trail that was seen coming in was it materializing into the atmosphere. (L) Actually, it was materializing in the same spot, the atmosphere moved. (T) There was a visible path left... (J) I think we should stop using the term "UFO."
A: Isn't this fun?!
Q: [Laughter and groans] (L) Okay, what is the point? (T) The point is the "mode of transport." (L) Okay, it was projected through the dimensional curtain; it was a time traveler...
A: The point is why look for "nuts and bolts." Do you want to join Gene and his cronies? [Gene is MUFON person with extreme materialist view of UFOs. They all come from other planets, period.]
Q: (L) So, in other words... are you saying that something happened and the military went in and DIDN'T get anything?
A: No.
Q: (T) Okay, we are trying to figure out the "mode of transport" and why it was significant. (L) Was this something that the military knew was going to happen at that place and that time?
A: Maybe, but still not issue behind this query.
Q: (L) Well, what is the issue? I just wanted to know if the blasted thing was a UFO or a spy satellite? Was it not a crash? (T) It was REPORTED as a crash, but we don't know if it crashed or landed. (J) We don't know what really happened. (L) Was it a crash of a craft?
A: What defines "crash?"
Q: (L) Did it do something it didn't want to do? [Laughter] A crash is when you go bongo-zongo without intending to.
A: Do thought forms crash?
Q: (L) I guess not. (J) Okay! It was a thought form; it came through the density and yet they hauled something away on a truck. What did they haul away on a truck? Or, did they haul away something?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What did they haul away? (Susan) Thoughtform! [Laughter]
A: Sorry! 64,000 dollar question!
Q: (L) I hate it when they do that! (T) What did they haul away. They hauled away an object...
A: How do you learn if we don't?
Q: (J) What?
A: Do "that!"
Q: (J) I guess the point is that we don't really know what the military moved!
(L) We don't know if they hauled anything away at all. It is all rumor.
(J) Exactly.
(T) The only thing known is that on December 9, the residents of Kecksburg, PA saw something come down, or thought they saw something come down...
(J) A light come down...
(T) They saw the military come in...
(J) And they saw something come out...
(T) And they saw the military take something away...
(J) So, what does that tell you?
(T) There are residents who said they saw a large, metallic object in the woods, and we only know what they said they saw... Most of the town and the police department and the fire department did see the military come in because they commandeered the fire department...
(L) Okay, here's what we know (reading): "The case in question involves the alleged crash of the so-called 'Kecksburg UFO' recently featured in magazines and even re-enacted on television. The 'acorn' shaped object supposedly fell to the ground in Western Pennsylvania on December 9, 1965. As the story goes, Air Force search teams cordoned off the wooded area and hauled a large object away. It was later reportedly seen at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio..." (How come everything goes to Wright-Pat, for God's sake! What a boring place!)
"One suggested identity for the mysterious intruder was the Soviet Cosmos 96 satellite which actually did fall back into the atmosphere that day. But, according to Air Force spokesmen, that craft had plummeted 12 hours earlier over another part of the planet. It was a shame, of course, because Cosmos 96 would have been a wonderful UFO...
“In May of 1991 the Pittsburg Press decided to verify the Air Force claims on its own. Toward that end, reporters obtained official space tracking data from the archives of NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain. The decades old data finally arrived in the form of 8 snapshots of the satellite's orbital position. The last snapshot, when projected forward into space and time by a leading satellite watcher who does not want his name revealed, seemed to confirm the official Air Force account. But, going on a hunch and tapping my own expertise in space operation and satellite sleuthing, I decided to check the data myself. The released tracking data could not be positively identified with pieces of the failed probe. Why in the world would our government lie?
“In the 1960's U.S. Military intelligence agencies, interested in enemy technology, were eagerly collecting all the Soviet missile and space debris that they could find. International law required that the debris be returned to the country of origin. The hardware of Cosmos 96 was it's special missile warning shielding; too valuable to give back. Hardline skeptics still doubt that anything at all landed in Pennsylvania. Robert Young, an investigator from Harrisburg, keeps finding new 'holes' in the claims of witnesses. 'I am now more convinced than ever that nothing came down in Kecksburg,' he says. And, arch-skeptic, Phillip Klass..." [Hooray, Phil!] "...attributes the NORAD data to foul-ups, not cover-up.
“But those of us who study the relationship between U.S. Military Intelligence and the former Soviet Union, still wonder, after all, what better camouflage than to let people think the fallen object was NOT a Soviet Probe, but, rather, a flying saucer. The Russians would never suspect; the Air Force laboratories could examine the specimen at leisure and, if suspicion lingered, UFO buffs could be counted on to maintain the phony cover story protecting the real truth."
And that is all we know about the purported Kecksburg landing.
(T) Why would anyone fly in a small, acorn-shaped capsule?
(L) They wouldn't want to fly in it. And, remember, it can appear very small on the outside but be huge on the inside.
(T) And, they hauled something away that may or may not have... whatever it was, it went over! Something went over at that time. My folks saw it when it passed over the Great Lakes! I missed it. I was over at a friend's house. We walked out of the house ten minutes after it happened and everybody was saying: "Did you see that! Did you see that!" How about this: The mode is the important thing. Let's just lump all non-human types under the word "alien."
(J) Let's use "non-terrestrial."
(T) No, you can't use "non-terrestrial." Could this have been a human experiment using technology from WWII, from the Einstein work, the Philadelphia Experiment Work, could they have been messing with something and it came down where it wasn't supposed to?
(L) Good question!
(T) It was described as a small acorn-shaped capsule, a lot like what we were shooting up at that time on rockets... (J) That's right! (L) Is Terry on to something here?
A: Maybe...
Q: (T) Was this a continuation of the Philadelphia and Montauk work?
A: Now this poses some interesting questions, does it not?
Q: (T) Yes it does. That was 30 years ago!
A: Do you want to be the ones who tear away the veil?
Q: (T) Sure! I'm always into veil tearing!
A: Are you sure that is wise?
Q: (T) If we don't start tearing some veils away from some of these questions, we are not going to be able to progress much farther. You keep toying with this and then you tell us it is too dangerous.
A: Not point. It is okay to learn truths for yourselves, is it wise to do it for all others?
Q: (L) Is this another one of the things we can't tell. (T) No, I think that was more aimed at the fact that it is okay for ME to learn truths, but do I want to expose you all here... (L) No, I think it is more that other people don't want to know it... (J) Or aren't ready. (L) If the government is, in fact... (T) Well, that was 30 years ago, and if it was a...
A: Who is the "government?"
Q: (T) Well, I suppose that if we saw a list of names of who is the real government, we wouldn't know who any of them were! They are certainly never on the ballot.
(L) Okay, what we have so far is that this was not a UFO in the sense of being a craft, but that it may have been an object that the government was playing with in their own little experiments in moving things through space-time... (J) And they weren't real good at it. (L) They screwed up! Okay, next question: Is it possible to create resistance to abduction by generating sound? Like an internal sound?
A: Vague.
Q: (L) Well, this article I was reading said that different people used several techniques where they think it has helped them to halt or avoid abduction by "aliens." One is to generate an "internal" sound, a high-pitched "thought hum," and another is to invoke angelic spirits such as the Archangel Michael, and another is to "Just Say No," and these people think they have avoided being abducted thereby. Are any of these usable techniques?
A: Potpourri.
Q: (T) Sweet smelling dried flowers are potpourri.
A: Sage, salt, ooohm, any other rituals you like?
Q: (L) In other words, nothing works? (T) It's not going to stop them! I keep a heavy shield around the house and all that stuff and they still get through!
A: How about the hula hoop dance with green peppers stuck up your nose! [Hilarious laughter]
Q: (T) Thirty-three times! Mirth! [Tom French sits at board]
(TF) Frank, what is it you feel that you do here?
(L) Ecstasy! Sorry!
(Frank) Well, you will feel it shortly. It is not like you feel anything, really.
(L) When you put your fingers on, usually just two, you want to put them on lightly but firmly. You don't want to create any drag, yet you want contact. Most people usually put too much pressure or not enough and it either leaves them behind or they stop the motion.
[Returning to topic of resisting abduction] Well, the rest of the UFO loonies are not going to want to hear this because they all like to think that they have all kinds of techniques of resistance and they have these psychotronic weapons and machines, and they think they are all-powerful with tricks up their sleeves...
(T) Mike has a UFO detector in a cigarette pack.
(TF) What?!
(L) Yeah. Mike F, our nemesis.
(T) He has an electronic thing he carries around in a cigarette pack which he says beeps or something when UFOs are in the area!
(Frank) It is funny that you should mention that because when we were at the MUFON meeting in Clearwater, I did hear a distinct, high-pitched beep coming from him.
(TF) Who did he say it to?
(L) Oh, he's told everybody!
(J) Is it anything like a B.S. detector?
(TF) Now, if I start reading out the lyrics from "Born to Run," you know there's something wrong.
(T) It's a lizard. [Discussion of lizards, roaches and toads]
(L) Alright, now, reading about the Linda Cortile case, the woman supposedly abducted out of a high-rise apartment building; rumored to have taken place in the sight of Javier Perez de Cuellar and his bodyguards and driver. (TF) The U.N. guy. (L) Was the man who witnessed this really Javier?
A: Yes, but not only one.
Q: (L) So, there were others? Okay, of the two people who were supposed to be the bodyguards of the "VIP," one of them exhibited some extremely bizarre behavior after this event. What was the cause of this bizarre behavior? Was it him trying to freak-out Linda Cortile, or was he simply freaked out himself?
A: Simple shock.
Q: (L) So, he was having a hard time dealing with it himself. During the discussion of this case, it seems that this particular incident really involved a mass abduction because a number of women in the neighborhood have subsequently claimed that they not only were abducted at the same time on the same night, but that during the course of time that they were being taken to this craft, they saw other women walking out on the street together. Was this, in fact, a mass abduction?
A: Some was hysteria.
Q: (L) Do mass abductions ever occur?
A: Open.
Q: (L) Did Linda Cortile make up any of this story.
A: Open.
Q: (T) Is Budd Hopkins ever going to come out with the story?
A: Open.
Q: (L) I read a recent article by a woman named Dr. Hulda Clark, and she claims that all cancer, depending upon certain variations, is caused by parasites.
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, if Hulda Clark's theory isn't it, what is the cause of cancer?
A: There are many causes.
Q: (L) Well, the reason I asked is because TG has had to go back to Houston for tests because of pain in his arm. Is this, or is he heading toward, a recurrence of his cancer?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is there anything that can be done in that situation? [Tom suggests that he and Frank work alone and Laura removes her fingers.}
A: Open.
Q: (Susan) In the bodywork I have been doing, I have found myself doing a lot of spiraling on people's bodies. I have been getting great results, but I was wondering about the difference between moving clockwise and counter- clockwise?
A: Careful!
Q: (Susan) Well, I better not do that anymore! (L) No, they just said to be careful. (Susan) Well, is there any difference between clockwise and counter-clockwise?
A: Suggest learn more.
Q: (Susan) How do I learn. (Tom to Frank) Do you feel it moving and your fingers sort of follow or do you feel something generating through your fingers telling them where to go? (F) No, I don't feel anything generating through my fingers. (L) No, none of us feels anything at this point. Which is not to say that the fingers involved are not moving the planchette [plastic disk]. It is just wholly unconscious.
A: Need energy flow.
Q: (L) I guess they are saying that they need the energy flow of the different people or that the movement is an energy flow through us. There have been occasions where the planchette has flown off the table out from under everybody's fingers. Anything else, Sue? (Susan) Yes, from whom do I get this training?
A: Look, listen, open!
Q: (L) Okay, you can experiment on me!
A: Carefully.
Q: (Susan) Is there any danger in doing this?
A: Maybe.
Q: (T) Is it because the spiral pattern creates an energy flow that is too strong for the person?
A: Close.
Q: (T) Has this technique been used before?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Is it being used now by anyone besides Susan?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Is this someone in our area?
A: Open.
Q: (L) Any other questions? (TF) Last time I asked about the mountain dream. I would like to know if there was anything behind my father's "M" dreams? Dreams in which he was repeatedly terrorized by the letter "M." (L) You asked that the last time and I think they said it had something to do with the war.
A: Open.
Q: (L) Anything before we shut down? (T) What was the purpose of the attack that we were under? (L) The purpose?
A: Already told you this.
Q: (T) Here? (L) It's in the transcript. (J) Yes. It's in the transcript, did you read it? And I thought it was very interesting. I didn't realize that you guys were doing the session, and right at the point where it says "Terry needs to discuss..." the phone rang and it was us calling. (L) That whole issue was ....
A: To discover.
Q: (L) They said at that time that the attack was to break up the group and that all attack was essentially rooted in attack on faith. Did you read that part? (T) Yes, but it didn't make sense. (L) Well, they said if you look back over the pattern, all attack is an attack on faith.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) What faith were they attacking?
A: Open. Discover.
Q: (T) Was I being prevented from learning something about the information gathering process?
A: Up to you to discover.
Q: (L) Well, it will sort itself out. (T) It wasn't an attack on the group. And it wasn't an attack on me that would really make a difference one way or another. Was it a practice attack? (TF) Who was behind the mask at the Veiled Prophet Ball? It is a coming out ball in St. Louis for debutantes. (L) Is it someone who is dressed up? (TF) They are just there and preside over the ball.
A: Victor Moeller.
Q: (TF) This is before I was born. (J) Interesting that they give a name! (TF) Can't get much more specific than that! It was 1958.
A: Goodnight.
End of Session
Frank, Laura, Terry, Jan, SV, Tom French and Cherie Diez.
Q: Hello.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Who do we have with us?
A: Tqv.
Q: (L) What does TQV mean?
A: Was interrupted. [We were using a new table which required several adjustments. We finally gave up and got out the old table.]
Q: (L) Okay, what is your name, please.
A: Tora.
Q: (L) And, where are you from?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: (L) As you can see, we are doing the board this evening.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) We think it is a little more convivial. When Frank is zonked out, he can't participate.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Okay, we have a number of questions. Is it alright to start questioning now?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is there a Jewish conspiracy to subjugate the world?
A: Not Jewish, we have told of this extensively before, curious that you should need review so soon!
Q: (L) The only reason I ask this question is because JW was here for a long time today and [Laughter and groans] I whipped out my Dachau memorial book and laid it in his lap and we got into the thing, and he is just so convinced that there is a Jewish conspiracy to dominate and rule the world that I just thought I would throw the question out to see what further comments might be made about it other than the obvious. Thank you so much for that response. Next question: In reading about crop circles; I know that we have been told that they come from sixth density, but I would like to know the exact mode or mechanism by which they are made. Is it like electromagnetic imprinting, is it like a whirlwind. Can you tell us a little bit about how they are actually physically created?
A: Field transfer.
Q: (L) What kind of field?
A: Magnetic.
Q: (L) Are they transferred directly from sixth density to third density?
A: No.
Q: (L) Are they manifested by an object that has come into third density, such as a craft of some sort?
A: No.
Q: (L) Can you give us a clue here?
A: We can give "clue."
Q: (L) Okay, what is the clue?
A: See Hoagland.
Q: (L) What does Hoagland say? (T) He says that basically what we see in this density is a 3rd dimension reflection of 4th dimension and that it can be seen mathematically by looking at the cloud patterns on the different planets. If there was not another dimension above us, circular would be circular and the circular motion of the clouds would be maintained, but if it is a transfer from fourth density to third density, when you are looking at a fourth density object, what the third density version of it would look like would show a hexagonal figure with angles to it, and that the photographs from the Voyager Probe that show that the cloud patterns from the North and South poles of most of the planets are not circular, they are hexagonal. (L) Okay, in sixth density, what are crop circles?
A: Thoughts.
Q: (L) Who is thinking these thoughts?
A: Yours truly.
Q: (L) Okay, if they are thoughts... (J) They are messages so they could be thoughts before they are messages. (T) Well, they have described sixth density as pure energy, therefore there is nothing physical in sixth density to reflect back through the densities. So the only thing that can come from there to here is thought. Because, that is all there is there. (L) So, it is a field transfer of thought. (T) So, when sixth density thinks and they pass that down, most likely skipping fifth density to fourth density, and then stepping down from fourth to third, we end up with a three dimensional crop circle. But what does a crop circle look like in fourth density?
A: "Look" is not point.
Q: (L) What is the point?
A: You need visual stimuli in order to remember.
Q: (L) Oh! (J) What did it say, you need visual... ? (L) So, in other words, these are thoughts designed to make us remember by looking at them?
A: Yours is a physical dependent existence.
Q: (J) Yes! (L) Okay, if we made diagrams of the crop circles, and put them up on the wall and looked at them or meditated on them, would they do anything to our brains, our electromagnetic patterns, or would they bring up information from within for us?
A: Not likely.
Q: (L) Well, what are we supposed to do with them?
A: Nothing in particular.
Q: (L) Are they doing something to us? (T) I had a feeling it was going that way...
A: Wait and see.
Q: (L) Okay. We have been talking a bit about the maze on the floor of Chartres Cathedral...
A: Your media resists, why? Suggest discussion.
Q: (L) The media resists crop circles and I know this is so because when I went to the Library to research them, there was not a single, solitary book, magazine or article on the subject of crop circles in the entire county system.
(J) There wasn't anything in Barnes and Noble either.
(L) Now, the two books on the subject I do have, I had to order special. Why would the media resist crop circles?
(Susan) The same reason they resist everything else. (
F) But, they don't resist everything else as much as crop circles.
(T) Are we looking at this from the wrong perspective? They're not resisting or overlooking them any more than anybody else does. We were just told that crop circles themselves were not important to us.
(F) I don't think that is what they meant.
(L) I said what are we supposed to DO with them, and they said nothing in particular.
(F) And then you asked if they were going to have any effect on us and they said "Wait and see."
(T) Could this be because no one is supposed to pay any attention to them? Is this part of it. Maybe we are looking for something that is not there by saying "Oh, the media does not recognize them and do a bunch of stories about them and alert everybody to them. Maybe they are not supposed to. Maybe the circles are supposed to work on their own without major attention.
(F) I don't think so.
(L) Here is something I got of the net recently. "To some people, the circles which began appearing about a decade ago represent the handiwork of extraterrestrial invaders or crafty tradesmen bent on mischief after an evening at the pub, or even hordes of graduate students driven by mad professors. To others, the circles suggest the action of microwave generated ball lightening, numerous whirlwinds or some other peculiar atmospheric phenomena. These scenarios apparently suffered a severe blow late last summer when two elderly landscape painters, David and Doug admitted to creating many of the giant, circular wheat field patterns that cropped up over the last decade in southern England. The chuckling hoaxers proudly displayed the wooden planks, ball of string, and primitive sighting device they claimed they had used to construct the circles.
But this newspaper orchestrated, widely publicized admission didn't settle the whole mystery. Gerald Hawkins, a retired astronomer who now divides his time between an apartment in Washington and a farm in Woodville, felt compelled to write last September to Dave and Doug, asking how they managed to discover and incorporate a number of ingenious, previously unknown, geometric theorems of a type that appear in antique textbooks, into their "artwork" in the crops. He concluded his letter as follows: "The media did not give you credit for the unusual cleverness behind the designs and the patterns."
And then he says that he is finding ratios of small whole numbers that precisely match the ratios defining diatomic scale. These ratios produce the eight tones of an octave in the musical scale corresponding to the keys on the piano. That was surprise number one, he said. He began looking for geometrical relationships among the circles, rings and lines and then he found that measurements reveal that the ratio of the diameter of the large circles is drawn so that it passes through the centers of the three original circles to the diameter of one of the original circles, and is close to 4 to 3. What he discovered were geometric relationships which simply are not taught anymore in the modern math. And yet, essentially he says that these guys that came forward and claimed that they did it could not possibly have done it.
(F) Well, the thing that is so strange to me is that since 1992 there hasn't been any reporting in the American media about this phenomenon at all. (Laura to Tom) Is there any way you could check that? [Tom is a reporter with a major newspaper.]
(TF) I already have. (L) You have? What have you found?
(TF) There's not a lot.
(L) What is it and what does it say? When?
(TF) I didn't notice the dates. I didn't notice if there was any turned out after 1992...
(F) There's not...
(TF) I liked my photo so much I had someone check it out. One of the librarians. Some things you call up you get material that is that thick... {Indicates large file thickness] this is only this thick. [Indicates tiny file thickness]
(L) So, there is something?
(TF) But I don't know what years any of it is.
(F) Well, it is not after 1992, I can assure you because I have been keeping very close track.
(TF) I know it hasn't been in the news. I don't remember seeing anything in the news for several years.
(F) It hasn't been here, but it has been in Britain.
(TF) Right!
(F) It is very strange when we are hooked up to the cable news channels that there has been a television black-out on it here. The other thing is Linda Howe showed the new ones from 1994 and they are more spectacular than any that have appeared. Now, if these artists are still going around doing this...
(T) This is strange, Michael made me copies of Cornet's lecture and Linda Howe's lecture [on crop circles]. When I played the tapes, the Cornet tape was fine. Mike's equipment is good. But the Linda Howe lecture didn't record. I have two hours of black with flashes of light crisscrossing the tape. I called Mike and told him and he said, oh boy, I did it late at night and must have hit the wrong switch.
(L) Well, I hate to get paranoid, but, do you suppose this Dave and Doug were set up to make this claim so that the media would have an answer they could tout and then just drop the whole thing? If so, why?
(F) Because it's too frightening. I remember in 1991 and 1992 this thing was heating up and heating up.
(TF) That's true.
(F) It was unusual because this type of subject matter is usually not attended by the mainstream media to any great extent. When there is a big UFO wave there might be a little blurb about strange lights reported by various people. This subject was actually focused upon by all of the major networks, it was on all of the major wire services, it was everywhere. All of a sudden, these two drunken artists appeared and they all said: "Oh! That's it! Okay, forget about it." That was so strange because my impression of journalists has always been, at least it used to be, that they want to dig up the truth, and here, mere placebo, surface type explanations that don't explain anything and which are not adequate, suddenly caused them to lose interest. It would be like Watergate: "Oh, the 18 minute gap... well, Mary what's-her-name stepped on the pedal. Oh, okay, no problem!" Obviously that didn't happen! This just didn't make logical sense for those of us who had looked at the crop circles, and even people who don't follow this type of subject matter closely, who I have talked to, people who brush off the subject of UFOs, have told me that this explanation just doesn't add up! These two guys did all of this under the noses of thousands of researchers who were trying like the dickens to see anything that happened in the middle of the night - in the middle of this, a simple, ridiculous if you get right down to it, explanation is offered and the whole subject is brushed off?!
(J) And, the explanation would only work if the crop circles were within their physical reach logistically speaking.
(F) Well, not only that, if you have ever calculated what is involved, they started in 1973 with just a handful throughout the summer and by 1992 it was hundreds all over the planet. These guys would have to be working non-stop, 24 hours a day, flying all around the globe... [laughter] ...and I thought, how can they accept this brush-off explanation? The other thing is, you would expect, obviously if that were the true explanation, as crazy as it seems, if they could actually, physically do this all by themselves, which is physically and mathematically impossible, but never mind that; it has happened since then. If these two guys are pulling a hoax and nobody is going to pay any more attention, why would they bother to continue to do it each and every summer since that time. Wouldn't somebody catch them by now? There are just a hundred arguments against this explanation that come to mind. Yet, in this country it is completely ignored. My own theory is that it is too sensitive an issue. Here is something that can be photographed.
(L) It proves that there is somebody else out there.
(F) It doesn't prove it...
(J) there's something else going on...
(F) I don't think it proves it, but it makes it very hard to ignore. As I have stated before, my father was a physicist and he was also a skeptic. A very brilliant man... when we would see on television... I remember one night in particular, we saw a very comprehensive segment on crop circles, and he actually got angry when I pointed out to him that this phenomenon seemed awfully bizarre, awfully intense, widespread and so on. He tried to brush it off: "Oh, I think it is a fad," were the words he used. This is a scientist!
(L) He dove headfirst into the deepest river in the world! Denial.
(F) Like a whirlwind is going to form a pattern like an intricate geometric figure? Come on! Sure! He grasped that whirlwind theory and when I pointed out to him that this was not logical, he got angry which I perceived as fear. Being very defensive because it stabbed into the heart of his whole life's work.
(L) That right there is the answer, culturally speaking.
(F) Exactly!
(L) It stabs into the heart of materialism.
(F) In this country somebody does not want this to be reported on because you can't brush it off. You can brush off UFOs... well, not if you really study the issue, but if you don't pay too much attention to it you can brush it off...
(J) Because there is no physical evidence. You have evidence with crop circles. They are there. You can see them.
(L) And, they are astonishing! Just to look at them is astonishing!
(F) Any of them, really, except for the very simplest ones, I mean, just using pure, simple logic, who would have the time, the energy, the expertise to do these things...
(J) And to do it in the dark, without any light...
(F) And in just short periods of time! It just doesn't make sense. Just imagine, Mr. French, it is your assignment to go out into the wheat fields of England, in the dark and to make this intricate figure...
(TF) I would ask them to do it for me and show me how they did it!
(F) Right!
(Susan) I don't know if it was Sightings or Encounters, but one time they had a segment on crop circles in Mexico, and they even appear on rock cliffs...
(F) Yes, and it's happening in Puerto Rico. And, the alleged report on this one was that Army type vehicles came in and destroyed it so people couldn't see it. Which leads me to believe, with my suspicious mind, that somebody doesn't want this stuff going on, for whatever reason.
(L) Yes, what are you going to do with a population that suddenly asks you: "Well, you're in charge; what is this? What's going on?" And, you can't answer them. You have lost credibility as the authority.
(F) And, none of the answers you can come up with are safe. It offends the church because they can't explain it. It offends the scientific community because they can't explain it.
(L) Yes, the church calls everything they can't explain "The Work of the Devil."
(T) Which one?
(L) We think we have come up with an answer. Are we anywhere on the right track?
A: Maybe.
Q: (L) Anything further you would like to add to what we have said?
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, we have really kind of worn out the subject at this point. Going on to the labyrinth at Chartres Cathedral, we have the idea to reproduce this and use it. (J) Is this in the same line as the concept of the spiral and spinning?
A: Maybe.
Q: (L) Which figure would be the most advantageous to use, the spiral, the cho ku rei or the labyrinth?
A: You did not ask preliminaries.
Q: (L) What is the source of this labyrinth?
A: Open.
Q: (L) What preliminaries do you want? Who built it?
A: Open.
Q: (L) What preliminaries do you want?
A: We would ask the same of you.
Q: (J) Great! (L) What we want to know about this particular figure is if it is beneficial to walk, to use...
A: Okay, now we are on the right track! Up to you to discover.
Q: (L) So, you are not going to give us anything on the spiral, we have to play with it.
A: And experiment, that is one method for learning.
Q: (T) Well, it wasn't a real good question as to whether or not I was going to do anything with it as a group, I was already going to do something with it. (L) Well, then they are not going to tell us anything if that is already in the works. (T) I knew it as soon as I picked up the book, I said "We've got to do this. This is not a choice here, this is something we've got to do." (L) Okay, is there any information you can give us about this figure. What does it mean? [Displays written glyph given to Jan by Ken Eagle Feather.]
A: Creator implies importance.
Q: (L) So, the person who drew this implied importance?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is it, in fact, important or significant?
A: Open.
Q: (T) What do the symbols mean? (L) Well, the sideways figure eight is the symbol for eternity, this is just a triangle... (J) Is it an equation... (T) Is it a formula?
A: One question at a time.
Q: (L) Is it a formula?
A: The creation is, because it was created.
Q: (T) What does the triangle symbolize?
A: You are not grasping message.
Q: (J) I guess not. (L) Well, I got that the guy who drew it wanted it to be seen as mysterious and wanted to imply that there was something important and mysterious about it when, in fact, it is just a meaningless drawing?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Okay, so it has no meaning whatsoever?
A: Incorrect.
Q: (L) It has meaning, the meaning the person who drew it implied into it. In terms of being a mathematical formula, I can tell you right now that it is not that.
A: Ask creator for meaning.
Q: (T) So, only the person who drew it knows what it means. (L) Because he is the one who drew it. Without the meaning he gave it, it has none.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Next question. Are you still with us?
A: As always.
Q: (L) Thank you. There is a phenomenon going on today where a lot of people have accused their parents of childhood abuse which is later proven to be false, and it causes a lot of problems. This has led to a lot of problems about the practice of hypnosis...
A: Preconceived notions by biased therapists, i.e. the improperly used power of suggestion.
Q: (L) This has led to much speculation that all UFO abduction memories are false memories, and that hypnosis, itself, in general is a useless or flawed technique. Is there any possibility that many of the people who think that they have been abducted by aliens are merely responding to the suggestions of the therapists?
A: Two concepts at once.
Q: (L) Is there any possibility that certain people think they have been abducted and they have not?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is it possible for a therapist to suggest these ideas into someone's mind through hypnosis and have them...
A: Yes.
Q: (T) It can work the other way around, too. (L) What do you mean?
A: What do you mean?
Q: (T) You asked if some people who think they have been abducted were actually abused and they said "yes." (L) No, that's not what I asked. (T) What did you ask. (L) I asked if some people thought they had been abducted who had not been abducted, or if some people thought they had been abducted and the idea had been planted in their mind by the therapist. And, they said "yes." (T) Okay, have some people who thought they have been abused not been abused. The same question only using the word abused, instead of abducted?
A: Already answered yes.
Q: (L) But, the next question is: Are there some people who have been abducted who think they have been abused?
A: All combinations exist.
Q: (L) Is there any... (T) It depends on the therapist and what the therapist believes as to the results of the therapy... (J) Yeah, are relying heavily on Freud?
A: No. Depends upon actions of therapist, not beliefs.
Q: (L) Is there any particular personality type that is more likely to be abducted than another?
A: Ridiculously open question.
Q: (L) Well, I didn't want to lead! (J) We have an anniversary coming up. (L) Yeah, I know. The sixteenth. (J) No, I mean OUR anniversary, Terry's and mine. (L) Oh. (J) Your anniversary is on the 16th and ours is on the 17th.
A: Same.
Q: (L) What do you mean, "same?" (J) Well, you would have started on the evening of the 16th but worked into the early hours of the 17th.
A: Yes.
Q: (J) Good grasp of Time! (L) Okay, back to the question. What I want to know is; in all of the articles I have been reading about abduction, there are many that claim that persons who experience abduction are of such and such a personality type, i.e. fantasy prone. Well, I am definitely not a fantasy prone personality and I don't think the others here are either.
A: What is a "personality type?"
Q: (L) Well, I don't really think there is such a thing if you want to get down to it. (T) Let's just say that the personality types are something developed by individual researchers to pigeonhole people for statistical analysis. It really has nothing to do with abduction itself. (J) Or anything else.
A: Good one, Terry!
Q: (L) I was talking to my cousin the other night when I was up in the boondocks, and we were talking about abductions and UFOs and space/time and so forth. He made the remark that he thought that it was very likely that there was another universe where this one "ends" in which the constant of light was the "minimum." Is this a valid or usable concept?
A: Too simplified.
Q: (T) What did they tell us before about the speed of light? That the speed of light is a "time" measurement and time only exists in our illusion, therefore there is no speed of light. (L) So, there would be a state where the constant was not a "speed" but just what is. There is no speed of light because there is no time.
A: All imaginable combinations exist because they are imagined!
Q: (J) I like that. (L) Okay, on December 9, 1965, there was a reported UFO crash at Kecksburg, Pennsylvania. This was purported by the military to be a crash of a Soviet spy satellite. There is a lot of stuff that has gone around about this and it was even portrayed on "X-Files." Was the event that occurred on December 9, 1965, in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania, a crash of a UFO?
A: Define please "UFO?"
Q: (L) A UFO as in "Alien space craft."
A: Close.
Q: (L) It was not a Soviet spy satellite?
A: No.
Q: (L) Now, you say "close." What, specifically, was it?
A: We have taught you new methods of imaging, we are patiently waiting for you to use them!
Q: (L) What do you mean "new methods of imaging?" (T) To talk about it? (L) We don't know enough about it... that's all we know. (T) Well, working with what we know about it we could probably talk it out and figure out what it was.
A: Density 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, now, how does the concept of "craft" apply here?
Q: (L) Was it a projection? A trans-dimensional atomically remolecularized object?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) Piloted by, I would assume, the Grays? (T) Not necessarily.
A: ! If you prefer.
Q: (T) Well, if it was a craft as they have been telling us, brought in from 4th density, it would be the Lizards or someone else of the other side, the [Orion} Union.
A: The point is the mode of transfer.
Q: (L) Okay, so it may be that it didn't crash there, it was... did something happen and something came through the dimensional curtain? Is that it? (T) Well, it didn't crash, it landed! Or materialized, or became solid. (L) I think NORAD tracked it. (J) It was seen as a fireball.
A: Colder.
Q: (T) Okay, this is just a theory, a thought, just something I am throwing out here, nothing positive... the military was "Johnny on the spot." They made a big production of hauling it out of there and threatening everyone. What if it was put there, or sent here for them? No that it crashed, but it was something being sent from there to there and the Uncle came and picked it up?
A: No.
Q: (L) The point is the "mode of transfer." (T) The point is that it was "cross density." (J) Well, we know that they all are "cross density." (T) No, not all of them, some of them come from this density. (L) The point is the "mode of transfer." What are they trying to say? (T) It was materialized here from 4th density. It didn't fly here. (L) Okay, it was not a UFO because it never "flew." (T) The trail that was seen coming in was it materializing into the atmosphere. (L) Actually, it was materializing in the same spot, the atmosphere moved. (T) There was a visible path left... (J) I think we should stop using the term "UFO."
A: Isn't this fun?!
Q: [Laughter and groans] (L) Okay, what is the point? (T) The point is the "mode of transport." (L) Okay, it was projected through the dimensional curtain; it was a time traveler...
A: The point is why look for "nuts and bolts." Do you want to join Gene and his cronies? [Gene is MUFON person with extreme materialist view of UFOs. They all come from other planets, period.]
Q: (L) So, in other words... are you saying that something happened and the military went in and DIDN'T get anything?
A: No.
Q: (T) Okay, we are trying to figure out the "mode of transport" and why it was significant. (L) Was this something that the military knew was going to happen at that place and that time?
A: Maybe, but still not issue behind this query.
Q: (L) Well, what is the issue? I just wanted to know if the blasted thing was a UFO or a spy satellite? Was it not a crash? (T) It was REPORTED as a crash, but we don't know if it crashed or landed. (J) We don't know what really happened. (L) Was it a crash of a craft?
A: What defines "crash?"
Q: (L) Did it do something it didn't want to do? [Laughter] A crash is when you go bongo-zongo without intending to.
A: Do thought forms crash?
Q: (L) I guess not. (J) Okay! It was a thought form; it came through the density and yet they hauled something away on a truck. What did they haul away on a truck? Or, did they haul away something?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What did they haul away? (Susan) Thoughtform! [Laughter]
A: Sorry! 64,000 dollar question!
Q: (L) I hate it when they do that! (T) What did they haul away. They hauled away an object...
A: How do you learn if we don't?
Q: (J) What?
A: Do "that!"
Q: (J) I guess the point is that we don't really know what the military moved!
(L) We don't know if they hauled anything away at all. It is all rumor.
(J) Exactly.
(T) The only thing known is that on December 9, the residents of Kecksburg, PA saw something come down, or thought they saw something come down...
(J) A light come down...
(T) They saw the military come in...
(J) And they saw something come out...
(T) And they saw the military take something away...
(J) So, what does that tell you?
(T) There are residents who said they saw a large, metallic object in the woods, and we only know what they said they saw... Most of the town and the police department and the fire department did see the military come in because they commandeered the fire department...
(L) Okay, here's what we know (reading): "The case in question involves the alleged crash of the so-called 'Kecksburg UFO' recently featured in magazines and even re-enacted on television. The 'acorn' shaped object supposedly fell to the ground in Western Pennsylvania on December 9, 1965. As the story goes, Air Force search teams cordoned off the wooded area and hauled a large object away. It was later reportedly seen at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio..." (How come everything goes to Wright-Pat, for God's sake! What a boring place!)
"One suggested identity for the mysterious intruder was the Soviet Cosmos 96 satellite which actually did fall back into the atmosphere that day. But, according to Air Force spokesmen, that craft had plummeted 12 hours earlier over another part of the planet. It was a shame, of course, because Cosmos 96 would have been a wonderful UFO...
“In May of 1991 the Pittsburg Press decided to verify the Air Force claims on its own. Toward that end, reporters obtained official space tracking data from the archives of NORAD at Cheyenne Mountain. The decades old data finally arrived in the form of 8 snapshots of the satellite's orbital position. The last snapshot, when projected forward into space and time by a leading satellite watcher who does not want his name revealed, seemed to confirm the official Air Force account. But, going on a hunch and tapping my own expertise in space operation and satellite sleuthing, I decided to check the data myself. The released tracking data could not be positively identified with pieces of the failed probe. Why in the world would our government lie?
“In the 1960's U.S. Military intelligence agencies, interested in enemy technology, were eagerly collecting all the Soviet missile and space debris that they could find. International law required that the debris be returned to the country of origin. The hardware of Cosmos 96 was it's special missile warning shielding; too valuable to give back. Hardline skeptics still doubt that anything at all landed in Pennsylvania. Robert Young, an investigator from Harrisburg, keeps finding new 'holes' in the claims of witnesses. 'I am now more convinced than ever that nothing came down in Kecksburg,' he says. And, arch-skeptic, Phillip Klass..." [Hooray, Phil!] "...attributes the NORAD data to foul-ups, not cover-up.
“But those of us who study the relationship between U.S. Military Intelligence and the former Soviet Union, still wonder, after all, what better camouflage than to let people think the fallen object was NOT a Soviet Probe, but, rather, a flying saucer. The Russians would never suspect; the Air Force laboratories could examine the specimen at leisure and, if suspicion lingered, UFO buffs could be counted on to maintain the phony cover story protecting the real truth."
And that is all we know about the purported Kecksburg landing.
(T) Why would anyone fly in a small, acorn-shaped capsule?
(L) They wouldn't want to fly in it. And, remember, it can appear very small on the outside but be huge on the inside.
(T) And, they hauled something away that may or may not have... whatever it was, it went over! Something went over at that time. My folks saw it when it passed over the Great Lakes! I missed it. I was over at a friend's house. We walked out of the house ten minutes after it happened and everybody was saying: "Did you see that! Did you see that!" How about this: The mode is the important thing. Let's just lump all non-human types under the word "alien."
(J) Let's use "non-terrestrial."
(T) No, you can't use "non-terrestrial." Could this have been a human experiment using technology from WWII, from the Einstein work, the Philadelphia Experiment Work, could they have been messing with something and it came down where it wasn't supposed to?
(L) Good question!
(T) It was described as a small acorn-shaped capsule, a lot like what we were shooting up at that time on rockets... (J) That's right! (L) Is Terry on to something here?
A: Maybe...
Q: (T) Was this a continuation of the Philadelphia and Montauk work?
A: Now this poses some interesting questions, does it not?
Q: (T) Yes it does. That was 30 years ago!
A: Do you want to be the ones who tear away the veil?
Q: (T) Sure! I'm always into veil tearing!
A: Are you sure that is wise?
Q: (T) If we don't start tearing some veils away from some of these questions, we are not going to be able to progress much farther. You keep toying with this and then you tell us it is too dangerous.
A: Not point. It is okay to learn truths for yourselves, is it wise to do it for all others?
Q: (L) Is this another one of the things we can't tell. (T) No, I think that was more aimed at the fact that it is okay for ME to learn truths, but do I want to expose you all here... (L) No, I think it is more that other people don't want to know it... (J) Or aren't ready. (L) If the government is, in fact... (T) Well, that was 30 years ago, and if it was a...
A: Who is the "government?"
Q: (T) Well, I suppose that if we saw a list of names of who is the real government, we wouldn't know who any of them were! They are certainly never on the ballot.
(L) Okay, what we have so far is that this was not a UFO in the sense of being a craft, but that it may have been an object that the government was playing with in their own little experiments in moving things through space-time... (J) And they weren't real good at it. (L) They screwed up! Okay, next question: Is it possible to create resistance to abduction by generating sound? Like an internal sound?
A: Vague.
Q: (L) Well, this article I was reading said that different people used several techniques where they think it has helped them to halt or avoid abduction by "aliens." One is to generate an "internal" sound, a high-pitched "thought hum," and another is to invoke angelic spirits such as the Archangel Michael, and another is to "Just Say No," and these people think they have avoided being abducted thereby. Are any of these usable techniques?
A: Potpourri.
Q: (T) Sweet smelling dried flowers are potpourri.
A: Sage, salt, ooohm, any other rituals you like?
Q: (L) In other words, nothing works? (T) It's not going to stop them! I keep a heavy shield around the house and all that stuff and they still get through!
A: How about the hula hoop dance with green peppers stuck up your nose! [Hilarious laughter]
Q: (T) Thirty-three times! Mirth! [Tom French sits at board]
(TF) Frank, what is it you feel that you do here?
(L) Ecstasy! Sorry!
(Frank) Well, you will feel it shortly. It is not like you feel anything, really.
(L) When you put your fingers on, usually just two, you want to put them on lightly but firmly. You don't want to create any drag, yet you want contact. Most people usually put too much pressure or not enough and it either leaves them behind or they stop the motion.
[Returning to topic of resisting abduction] Well, the rest of the UFO loonies are not going to want to hear this because they all like to think that they have all kinds of techniques of resistance and they have these psychotronic weapons and machines, and they think they are all-powerful with tricks up their sleeves...
(T) Mike has a UFO detector in a cigarette pack.
(TF) What?!
(L) Yeah. Mike F, our nemesis.
(T) He has an electronic thing he carries around in a cigarette pack which he says beeps or something when UFOs are in the area!
(Frank) It is funny that you should mention that because when we were at the MUFON meeting in Clearwater, I did hear a distinct, high-pitched beep coming from him.
(TF) Who did he say it to?
(L) Oh, he's told everybody!
(J) Is it anything like a B.S. detector?
(TF) Now, if I start reading out the lyrics from "Born to Run," you know there's something wrong.
(T) It's a lizard. [Discussion of lizards, roaches and toads]
(L) Alright, now, reading about the Linda Cortile case, the woman supposedly abducted out of a high-rise apartment building; rumored to have taken place in the sight of Javier Perez de Cuellar and his bodyguards and driver. (TF) The U.N. guy. (L) Was the man who witnessed this really Javier?
A: Yes, but not only one.
Q: (L) So, there were others? Okay, of the two people who were supposed to be the bodyguards of the "VIP," one of them exhibited some extremely bizarre behavior after this event. What was the cause of this bizarre behavior? Was it him trying to freak-out Linda Cortile, or was he simply freaked out himself?
A: Simple shock.
Q: (L) So, he was having a hard time dealing with it himself. During the discussion of this case, it seems that this particular incident really involved a mass abduction because a number of women in the neighborhood have subsequently claimed that they not only were abducted at the same time on the same night, but that during the course of time that they were being taken to this craft, they saw other women walking out on the street together. Was this, in fact, a mass abduction?
A: Some was hysteria.
Q: (L) Do mass abductions ever occur?
A: Open.
Q: (L) Did Linda Cortile make up any of this story.
A: Open.
Q: (T) Is Budd Hopkins ever going to come out with the story?
A: Open.
Q: (L) I read a recent article by a woman named Dr. Hulda Clark, and she claims that all cancer, depending upon certain variations, is caused by parasites.
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, if Hulda Clark's theory isn't it, what is the cause of cancer?
A: There are many causes.
Q: (L) Well, the reason I asked is because TG has had to go back to Houston for tests because of pain in his arm. Is this, or is he heading toward, a recurrence of his cancer?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is there anything that can be done in that situation? [Tom suggests that he and Frank work alone and Laura removes her fingers.}
A: Open.
Q: (Susan) In the bodywork I have been doing, I have found myself doing a lot of spiraling on people's bodies. I have been getting great results, but I was wondering about the difference between moving clockwise and counter- clockwise?
A: Careful!
Q: (Susan) Well, I better not do that anymore! (L) No, they just said to be careful. (Susan) Well, is there any difference between clockwise and counter-clockwise?
A: Suggest learn more.
Q: (Susan) How do I learn. (Tom to Frank) Do you feel it moving and your fingers sort of follow or do you feel something generating through your fingers telling them where to go? (F) No, I don't feel anything generating through my fingers. (L) No, none of us feels anything at this point. Which is not to say that the fingers involved are not moving the planchette [plastic disk]. It is just wholly unconscious.
A: Need energy flow.
Q: (L) I guess they are saying that they need the energy flow of the different people or that the movement is an energy flow through us. There have been occasions where the planchette has flown off the table out from under everybody's fingers. Anything else, Sue? (Susan) Yes, from whom do I get this training?
A: Look, listen, open!
Q: (L) Okay, you can experiment on me!
A: Carefully.
Q: (Susan) Is there any danger in doing this?
A: Maybe.
Q: (T) Is it because the spiral pattern creates an energy flow that is too strong for the person?
A: Close.
Q: (T) Has this technique been used before?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Is it being used now by anyone besides Susan?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Is this someone in our area?
A: Open.
Q: (L) Any other questions? (TF) Last time I asked about the mountain dream. I would like to know if there was anything behind my father's "M" dreams? Dreams in which he was repeatedly terrorized by the letter "M." (L) You asked that the last time and I think they said it had something to do with the war.
A: Open.
Q: (L) Anything before we shut down? (T) What was the purpose of the attack that we were under? (L) The purpose?
A: Already told you this.
Q: (T) Here? (L) It's in the transcript. (J) Yes. It's in the transcript, did you read it? And I thought it was very interesting. I didn't realize that you guys were doing the session, and right at the point where it says "Terry needs to discuss..." the phone rang and it was us calling. (L) That whole issue was ....
A: To discover.
Q: (L) They said at that time that the attack was to break up the group and that all attack was essentially rooted in attack on faith. Did you read that part? (T) Yes, but it didn't make sense. (L) Well, they said if you look back over the pattern, all attack is an attack on faith.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) What faith were they attacking?
A: Open. Discover.
Q: (T) Was I being prevented from learning something about the information gathering process?
A: Up to you to discover.
Q: (L) Well, it will sort itself out. (T) It wasn't an attack on the group. And it wasn't an attack on me that would really make a difference one way or another. Was it a practice attack? (TF) Who was behind the mask at the Veiled Prophet Ball? It is a coming out ball in St. Louis for debutantes. (L) Is it someone who is dressed up? (TF) They are just there and preside over the ball.
A: Victor Moeller.
Q: (TF) This is before I was born. (J) Interesting that they give a name! (TF) Can't get much more specific than that! It was 1958.
A: Goodnight.
End of Session
