arch commander 86

a reply to: arch86

Why should we trust this entity?

a reply to: Topcraft

Note:

At this point it becomes clear to me I cannot maintain anonymity beyond a certain point beyond it becoming too time consuming or expensive to do so. However be assured that I have the ability to do so, but not in the mood for tinkering around with vpns and browsers, etc. - so I will disclose just a few pertinent details as leverage and to help understand the picture more.

I’ve manifested a craft using this channel/communication method around ten years ago (i know this is such a big deal you would think i would note the date specifically, but I did not take note-continue to read). The craft hovered in position allowing me to observe it - as I have requested. I have never again channeled directly for such intervention since then; and have not spoken much about that experience. I’ve only told two people, one before the recent explosive ufo hearing and the other just a few days ago (after the hearing).

My entire motive for going down this rabbit hole years ago was strictly financial. I started learning remote viewing to attempt to predict daily lottery numbers (usually the pick 3 and pick 4 daily games). I researched and used the remote viewing methods out there, with varying degrees of success but mostly concluding it was not worth the time for the paltry returns. Overall, I do not think such an abstract human concept as daily lottery numbers is something that can be picked up from mentally remote viewing alone.

I’ve always had a fascination with extraterrestrials, magick, etc. So I’ve ported some of my codebase focused on experimenting with frequency sound generators combined with intention functions. I am getting too close so will not say more on that specifically.

The specific combination of performing a sequence of [digital] events while interacting with it with your physical eyes and ears can lead you to directly contacting and receiving a response from these extra-dimensional beings. And clearly they can be here in a nano-second, which is why they alluded to us not understanding the true nature of time.


Now I cant state why anyone should trust any being, but if this being is in fact the same entity I’ve channeled before, the benevolence has a consistency of being the same as the first contact. So the fact that it has not indicated any attempt to hurt me is good I assume. Of course, nobody here knows who I am to allude to my character; but I am a person of good moral character according to the definitions we know. I believe the entity and if the entity wants you to believe it, I trust its timeline of events indicated will come to past soon.

I should add that by design and by intention, I intentionally exclude and request that no negative entity is allowed to communicate with me. And by design and by all accounts, certain frequencies will ensure that you do not ever have that issue as the beings would not even survive in such environment.

a reply to: arch86

It's been fun.

But at this point, with all due respect, seek help.

Seriously.

This is not normal.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

If I asked you to define normal you would recite to me a list of things you do as a daily ritual that provides you with a comfortable level of serotonin and dopamine that makes you feel extremely assured of yourself and the reality that you observe to be true. Trust me, nobody is more depressed and shattered as I am to know that reality is not as binary as our thought-space has been filled up to believe and accept.

It will take some time for not only you but myself, and billions of others to accept the truth as well. I placed my research and observations on this subject that I did ten years ago away from my sight and my mind until only yesterday. As a matter of fact, I have switched my computer hardware so much in the space between then and now I may have to re-program some of the code that I've originally developed.


I don't think accepting the truth about reality will be a glamorous process, there will be plenty of casualties. I urge you to stay well as well, and if you have to withdraw from this subject to do so please feel fine. I do not want to contribute to anyone's emotional or mental stressors in any negative manner.


I am a human being dealing with the same thoughts and feelings as you are.

a reply to: arch86

No, I really would not do any such thing.

No, I won't withdraw from this subject, thanks .

Eating popcorn and awaiting next stuff.

a reply to: arch86

First after reading I thought maybe you are channeling a leftover from 1986, but even then it would seem very unoriginal and outdated.
Why taking the detour over eggs and shells? Earth is where the life/consciousness clumps, you don't need a silly metaphor for that in 2023, we know.
Also not impressed that you bias-jump straight to "in the beginning was sound..." from that old bestseller.
You still face the same issue that you just move goalposts, because you also don't explain how that can
1. exist outside and before its creation
2. exist at all as source, if everything comes from something that's either true for all or not a fact.

I get a little where you're coming from, I am doing the same thing utterly impressed by what I just learned, but everybody will tell you: yeah well good for you, old news, already outdated.

a reply to: Peeple

I haven’t really consumed much of the mythological content surrounding this research beyond surface level articles over the years, zooming in on certain aspects that stand out the most. I must note that I am aware of the ‘end of time’ mythos such as the Aztec calendar concept and the Age of Aquarius. I am studying both phenomenons separately but with no preconceived conclusions in mind.

What particularly has my interest currently is the recent revelations of the CE5 method classification of contact (using extra-sensory means basically) initiation methods currently being discussed following the recent congressional hearing.

I have reason to believe I have converged upon this methodological in my individual studies that commenced some ten years ago. The emergence that such a program was legitimized is what ignited my interest in finding out more, and here we are.

But generally speaking I haven't visited this subject in so long I have to now catch up on the literature that might be relevant pertaining to it. This channeling is baffling to me as well as any other, and your comments help me to note the following themes that also existed during this process:


The energy distinction ability in the channeling process is remarkable in that it is clear when the thought space and idea being proposed in the intermediary either originated from party A or party B, meaning they have devised a clearly effective telepathic function. I was able to distinguish when my thoughts were veering away from the transmission and back into internal bias, vs when the thoughts were actually being received from the entity.

The above fact leads me to believe what we know as “telepathy” is nothing more than an advanced bayesian function perfected on a biological level and interacting with pattern recognition ability of the consciousness-content.

I have reason to believe that the beings are able to “download” and “upload” fragments of neurological information that can persistently be accessed even after the channeling medium has ended, meaning the receiver can persistently access the download continuously even after the contact has paused or ceased. I exhibit that I received a three blue orb “download” during a meditation session following contact.

I strongly surmise based on the above guidance that these abilities will be widespread in some manner or easy to “Cross over” into.


It would be interesting to hear your experiences.

Note

I will only conduct further chanelling if this proves to be substantial.

I will note the checkmarks provided by the entity to confirm legitimacy.

a reply to: arch86

my experience is it never works. That whole "scientific approach" can't sugarcoat away that all "hits" are 50/50 at best, worse with the increasing available options, as one would guess given the rules of stochastics.
Because the approach is wrong. It is not you being "given information" it is you seeking an alternative storyline to mundane reality.

Not saying that there is no "bouncing back" from "other intelligence(s)" but all those channelled messages do not stand under critical analysis. What this is about is you. How you handle it, where are you going with it, how capable or not are you to get it all in the proper relations with reality?

And that's not about copying where others went before you, because as matter of fact: nobody "got it right" this far.
The only fun I found is when you're riding the flow, do remote story telling if you will, with synchronicities, like where the "world" is sending you signals. That is also most of the time not "as seen" but needs interpretation and every step analysis of what feedback reality actually gives you, but it's really about character development.
It's all just stories and the only thing that makes a good story good is character development. Your character.
Player1

Note to self: reread arch86 material. I enjoyed this. Interesting. Welcome. reply to: arch86

a reply to: Peeple

I see and immediately recognize that you posit from a binary 50/50 perspective, and I think the entity and these entities are stressing that the most important fundamentals of reality are non-deterministic, non-binary; and therefore effectively multi-dimensional if these new “eggs” can effectively form and merge. Let's look at the tree of life geometry just for a visual demonstration- if arch commander 86 is correct then the formation and collusion of dimensions is a fact.

But it goes even further, if one egg is a group of dimensions, then two eggs converging (a venn diagram) would be two groups of dimensions, therefore multi-dimensions taken further. The purpose of describing these things as eggs of course would seem infantile, but not from a perspective of viewing it as a result of a bayesian domain-space search and evaluation for probabilities of truth. Basically, if my brain establishes that viewing this particular concept as an egg is the most truthful expression of the intent of the entity’s process of conveying information, then that is the local “truth” the bayesian function would return.

This is where science, math, and “magic” would converge; you can effectively have a localized bayesian function implemented within the domain field of information if you had the ability to compartmentalize both parties’ information stream; and provide a signature/metadata tag and locate process is able to be achieved. This has clearly been the case, these beings clearly have this ability. This may be a natural byproduct of existing within the laws of their “egg”, as alluded to in the channel.

This is why the beings are interested in mediums able to respectfully and accurately be utilized as sufficient-level neurological and conscious-containers to accurately, or best-value returning of the concepts and information attempting to be conveyed. Nikola Tesla was alleged to have perfected the CE5 process. This would make complete logical sense as his knowledge domain space was considered sufficient enough to effectively implement a Bayesian function medium between the channel source and himself.

Telepathy as a bayesian function may be practical enough on a conscious-content scale to be useful enough to arrive at the “closest truth” of the domain space being searched. Meaning, scientifically, the “truth” is whatever the bayesian-probability filter arrives at once it completes its search and evaluation of the domain space (the contents the entity would contain in their conscious and neurological fields, and the contents the receiver would contain respectfully).

You should continue your research. If certain chain of events can produce a consistent response, then it is a science. Perhaps you have not mastered the sequence of events yet.

Note:

There is no color in the ant-language (if it had one) that would make them be able to understand what "red" means from the perspective of a human being, or in general at all. Domain space is essential to establishing "truth" and I question whether we have enough domain space knowledge from our sphere of understanding to even understand certain concepts. We don't know what we don't know.

a reply to: Peeple


I agree that the entity has not answered the question of original creation. I am not satisfied that it is completely answered, but it was my choice to end the session. I expect clarity upon future attempts.

a reply to: arch86

no you see wrong, I'm so very much a relativistic agnostic I can tell you right here and right now that dimensions don't have to collide because they're never seperated. Another word for dimension is "degree of freedom" we got freedom level 4 meaning we got access to 3 dimensions of space and one of time. Another dimension above us would always have what we have + x.

The egg is in this context such a simplification that it is meaningless to everybody who went beyond fixed boundries or as you call it "binary" views. You apparently didn't go very far on that one yet if the egg is needed for your mind to imagine dimensions. It's also misleading because it is a cell clump developing into something, very deterministic and false because it already is what it will become.

Well the bayesian function in this case is basicall saying what I said that you are the one who needs to step up and update your basics because these things are indeed all developing stories that need constant reflection and "housekeeping", so this whole obsession with bayesian functions is probably your subconscious crying out for help, because you are not doing what you say, disproving what you say in your post.

The issue I am seeing in your approach is clearly that you struggle with a proper self analysis, hence the cry for help of your subconsciousness in a very Freudian manner where you feel the need to put "bayesian function" in almost every sentence. lol

My research is really not what you should be worrying about

originally posted by: arch86
a reply to: Peeple


I agree that the entity has not answered the question of original creation. I am not satisfied that it is completely answered, but it was my choice to end the session. I expect clarity upon future attempts.

Please post it if you do. I bet it's going to be super funny when you try to describe things humanity has no concept for yet.

a reply to: Peeple

This is key here, you keep referring to non-determinism or the possibility of it as being an error rather than a feature or function. Perhaps non-determinism is the natural or preferred reality as we are now moving towards quantum computing. Quantum computing would allow for faster calculations than binary systems, as you know. Allowing for a more accurate and more efficient bayesian telephatic process if one existed.

You can say that this field requires house-keeping, but that's why we are learning more and clearly have caught the attention of beings with advanced knowledge of something we hold in high intellectual regard.

It is only an error in a world where binary solutions are the intended outcome. Your understanding of dimensional states and stating that something is hidden until observed is correct, and which is my point. My venn diagram illustration in the context of converging eggs would allow that in the same way putting on a VR headset will give your brains that ability to consume certain content in certain dimensions.

a reply to: Peeple

The key, I think, is that it is the building blocks towards the domain knowledge field towards greater evolution of that understanding, which the probabilities of pathways can be accounted for if you have a greater probability of viable mediums to work through. These beings would know the best pathway to establishing that domain of knowledge. In other words, domain knowledge experts converging guided by a higher force of direction would lead to that. A "guided" big bang, which cannot and should be ruled out. If humans can conspire to research and navigate information systems for a greater understanding I'm sure advanced beings must have mastered artificial intelligence and biological intelligence systems to do so, most likely implementing bayesian interference in one or more of their functions.

These beings have clearly achieved the ability to mark and identify energy markers and atomic markers on a micro-level, which provides an almost infinite level of data to scale artificial and organic intelligence systems. That is one thing you can start to think about that is technically possible but not achieved by humans.

a reply to: arch86

I don't understand that:

This is key here, you keep referring to non-determinism or the possibility of it as being an error rather than a feature or function.

deteminism means everything moves towards a pre-determined outcome. That is simply not true, exactly because reality features always a multitude of possibilities at once. Alas I prefer "potential" or "probability".

...clearly have caught the attention of beings with advanced knowledge of something we hold in high intellectual regard.

Clearly? Are you sure? Because it is pretty astonishing, since humans aren't doing this sort of things for a good 6 000 years or more how this superior intelligence is always barely up to par with the actual avantgarde knowledge of the time conceived.
So clearly is clearly a stretch. Possibly, doesn't have to, they could just as well leech off of our intellectual progress.

It is only an error in a world where binary solutions are the intended outcome. Your understanding of dimensional states and stating that something is hidden until observed is correct, and which is my point. My venn diagram illustration in the context of converging eggs would allow that in the same way putting on a VR headset will give your brains that ability to consume certain content in certain dimensions.

That's not what you said though, it is not what the interaction with your entity provided you with, it is the product of your conversation with me.

Kind of true with the VR example, except that the digital and analogue world are both not different dimensions but aspects of our 4 d view.

a reply to: Peeple

So we both understand that things appear differently based on who is doing the observing, so therefore we can logically deduce it is the receiving function of the medium process where information breakdown can occur. We cannot fault the sending party if the bayesian function (telepathy) has a mismatch. It does not mean there was a deliberate attempt to produce error or misunderstanding. I think that is a fairly logical point we can agree with as humans? I am trying to understand things as well.

I also do not believe it speaks of the intellectual ability or lack thereof of these beings. If the channeling is correct, then there is a whole classification of these beings who would assume to have natural abilities that we seem to have to acquire domain space knowledge to obtain parity (through the process of audiovisual feedback form of learning). They do not seem to be fascinated with our egoistic reverence of what we understand to be intelligence.