Yet another, very, very interesting thread. It may not appear so to most people, but that's only because they lack proper background information to
connect the dots.
Here are some pieces of info that you may need in order to bring some meaning into this little story:
ufoexperiences.blogspot.com...
Above story may read like a superb science-fiction (the best of science fiction is always close to the reality, trust me; I'm a fan of SF myself
),
but there's much more in it than may appear at first glance. For one, Ingo Swann has credentials that the best of "psychics" can only dream
of. A circumstantial proof at best, I know, but it carries some weight nonetheless.
There are also some other bits of information that closely relate to his story. All of them still circumstantial, but they allow Ingo's story to hold
water.
What I find particulary interesting is the common thread between Ingo's story and this topic - the concept, the scene, the players, and the feeling
of psychological experiments conducted in both cases.
Pay close attention to Ingo Swann's
Mr. Axelrod, and then compare his behaviour to the behaviour of the man stalking diana. Do they seem
strangely similar, or what?
But, enough of giving rational explanations. Here are some general feelings of background intent I have about this.
It's hard to explain, but I'll give it a try.
Those in the know know that every event can be viewed as a game in which players have some rules to follow, gains, and penalties, depending on how
they play the game, which rules they follow, and which they don't.
Remember that Matrix scene when Neo has to jump from one building to another? Morpheus says to Neo: "
What you must learn is that these rules
are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken."
All of this stuff is well known within Game Theory - a specilized field in mathematics that deals with "games". Like in
"war games", "economy
games", "political games". Feel free to pick your favorite game.
Game Theory is heavily used in today's world to model behavior of both individuals and societies alike. It's still pretty crude, but it shows the
general direction in which modern society "should be pushed" to bring complete and total control over this planet's resources.
When I say resources I don't mean just oil, water, minerals and the such. I also mean "human resources" as a very specific, higly organized,
irreplacable form of energy resource. You can't effectively control lower organized resources (like animals, plants, minerals, and the rest) without
some intermediary between "higher" and "lower" levels. The level of "human resources" is that intermediary between the "higher" (human and
above) and the "lower" levels ("lower humans", animals, and below).
It's a simple pyramidal scheme. And we all know that "secret-society-boys" like to brag about pyramids and "all seeing eyes", don't we? How many
of them trully understand what they are talking about? Very few I'd guess... But that's not the point here.
Those who strive for such control see humanity as an energy resource. If you can look through their eyes for just a moment, you will see that they
have a
very rational approach. There's not a speck of emotion in their view. Actually, it's as rational as cattle farming. No surprises
there.
Now, the really interesting question for me is what side the guys conducting this particular study are on. The problem with answering that question is
that the "higher" in the hierarchy you get, the harder it is to descern between the "good" and the "bad" guys. The probability states that they
are the "bad" guys, but you can as easily have a "good" guy masquerading as a "bad" one. Once inside a pyramidal scheme, you can't show your
true self, or you're fried. Just another of the rules. Sad, but true.
So, to conclude...
[edit on 29-2-2008 by elendal]