The Language of Vampyr

a reply to: Direne

The crash i was referring to was the one suggested at Sialk ;

...non-terrestrial artifacts have been discovered and identified from the site of Gisel and the crash site in Sialk. The abundance of extraordinary biological findings, which coincided with the peak of UFO sightings in the area, has encouraged some team members to believe that those bodies have a special meaning for the visitors.

But anyway, with regards to Jiroft that was actually first plundered by the locals and a good many interesting burial artifacts turned up on the black market, before the authorities stepped in and i haven't seen much from there since, a better case in point for what you suggest is the large cave complex in Anatolia announced at the start of this year, which was actually discovered two years previous and fully explored and examined before public announcement, and still no public entrance and only photos taken around the entrances, think of the money they could have made though live discovery on the History channel.

The beacons are interesting but of course i'd like to see more specific evidence, i have considered an embedded monitoring and regulation system left behind here from visitation, capable not only of observing but also influencing through direct sensory inter-action, a system that could bring on the dancing greys and so much more.

Possibly also capable of phoning home if anything particularly interesting to report, but unlikely to be required as navigation beacons, in my opinion. I wouldn't like to see any dug up if there are such because beacons are important in the festival of ghosts.

originally posted by: Direne
I do agree with you. In particular when those scientists are doing science as long as they are paid for and, more specifically, when they are so inconsistent as to bend their backs in front of a guy who thinks himself he is the King of Sweden. It seems those scientists's science is suspended from time to time. It is a bad science the one which is divorced from Logic.

There is a logic in constitutional monarchism, one that hangs upon the implicit understanding that the monarch is the servant of the people and not the other way round. It is a deeply duplicitious dynamic but I would have no difficulty in showing my own respect for the Queen, I wouldn't wish to be her for the world, trapped without choice in an ivory tower due to some archaic sense of tradition and duty. In it's own mutated way, that's admirable and she is nothing more than the product of her breeding, I don't mock the afflicted. I wouldn't bow, and I certainly wouldn't curtsey, no prize is worth that, but I can find respect for her.

Of course, service should be it's own reward, and there lies the difficulty, because it so seldom is, or is even perceived to be.

originally posted by: Direne
For the CAFB Exchange the scenario was quite different: no need to guess whether the signal was from a natural or artificial source, for the signal was coming directly from the object in front of your eyes. You send your signal, and the object replies back. You perform a frequency hopping, and the object does the same.

Think of a modulated signal consisting of beeps which show a pattern, like Morse code. You receive the signal, you know it is artificial, but unless you know what Morse code is, you'll never understand the message.

I suspect we're not talking about a full blown Close Encounters of the Third Kind jamming session.

Repetition of same for same or repeat then variation? Mimicry or learning?

Here where I live, over the past few years, it has become usual for us to have a period of early Spring warmth followed by a drop in temperatures before they start their normal ascent towards summer. As a result of this, you often find that the birds, bees and insects get all frisky only to lose their first brood to the cold. Similarly, people in their homes and places of work, turn off their central heating, only to turn it back on when the nip hits the air again. At my place of work this caused confusion for the Red Admiral butterflies that had crawled into the nooks and crannies for a safe, secure winter. The light was right and the heating fooled them into thinking it was safe to come out anew. The problem is, to take flight, they need the energy that the Sun, directly or in residual form gives to them. The first one, was defiant, and tore his wings to pieces trying to do it alone. The second was reluctant, but I was able to cup him between my palms, he then just stepped into the centre of my hand and spread his wings, sitting there as I took him outside. He waited a while and took flight. By the third one, he and I both knew what to do, I put my palm open before him, he felt my heat and stepped on board.

originally posted by: Direne
It is my conclusion that there are more of those beacons, and that they are located according to a specific pattern, so I guess someone is just going beacon after beacon till they recover all of them. You do not plant beacons on the planets nearby, as you can easily map them using telescopes and probes. However, how would you signal specific areas on a planet that is some 5 light years away from your home planet? You need to use beacons to help those coming after you to navigate that planet.

About interdimensional attributes of Giselians, I do not believe such a thing exists. What happens is that they influence somehow your senses and make you get to an altered state of consciousness. There is a good reason for this, I guess: it is in that state that they can try to communicate with humans. And they do it with images (visions?) that humans do not know how to interpret. Not that humans are dumb, rather, interspecies communication is extremely complicated. You don't always understand your cat.

Examining the sites, I am stuck, I see nothing to suggest that they are extraterrestrial in any other sense than they are looking "beyond" the immediate. Alien perhaps.

What is it about them that suggests to you that they were created from a perspective (evolved?) outside the biosphere? Or that they are designed to communicate with anyone or anything outside of the biosphere? I need further pointing because I cannot see what you seem to be able to see and what I do see, that is not how I recognise it...the beacon aspect, I can sort of see that, inter species, yep, cosmic communications, tick again, but still, the perspective though, as you say, distorted, comes from within the biosphere and seems to be directed to within the biosphere...but I am open to what I myself am lacking in perspective to amend my current appreciation.

I really don't know. We may be looking at entirely different things as well as at them in different ways.

a reply to: snowman22
Hey Snowman22:

hell when my 13 yr old boxer pit had to be put down due to cancer, i gave my house keys to my vet and said send one of your techs to get my dog while i am at work i do not want to know or see. I didn't want to beak that trust that my dog had with me that i would never intentionally harm him. since it is not possible to explain to an animal why you had to break the bond you had with them. basically the last memory the dog would have experienced would be killing him, i did not want that.

Though this seems quite out of context to this thread (but on reviewing the thread, what isn't and what is, hereabouts?), I have to question your stated motivations, hereabouts. You had this dog all his life, and you wouldn't think it a betrayal to NOT be there to hold his paw, in his greatest time of need, to see him on his way, a decision you made, but could not look him in the eye over, and escort him out of this life?

Is it about your memory of him, or his memory of your taking care of him, really?
tetra

originally posted by: abeverage
a reply to: Direne


Fear is a construct of the mind over the uncertainty and unpredictability of the future. Danger is real, fear however is an irrational response to previous stimuli typically creating anxiety and worry over possibly non-threatening concerns...

Do not fear, Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain

Vanish into the night with me
we're racing heartbeats
feel the power arrest me
like shadows of concrete (shadows of concrete)
got to get away got to escape from the daylight
I can see the way the painted beneath the moon
hold on for dear life until it's all gone
we'll come alive and set fear on fire,

we'll set fear on fire...

Hey Abeverage: I beg to differ on this point, though your points are usually great, this one I find a little far off.
Fear is not irrational under many circumstances, fire being the primary and the one you have used here, and then described as irrational. On the contrary, fear of fire, as well as fear of many, even most things, is hardly irrational, as fire will not only kill, but do so quite painfully.

Most fear is actually based in primitive fight of flight mechanisms of species survival. THAT is the primary root of fear, and serves quite a purpose, necessary and essential.
tetra

Ms. Direne: I am so enjoying your commentary, from Neutrinos to T. Gondhii. Please keep it up. I am fascinated. Perhaps I have missed it, but just how does any of that figure into the invention of an anti-language, not understood by the general population surrounding those using it, which seems to put its creation and use into more of a weaponry status?
Sincerely,
tetra50

a reply to: tetra50

just how does any of that figure into the invention of an anti-language?

Let's forget, for a moment, the fascination that the existence of intelligent life forms of non terrestrial origin exerts on our souls. Actually, let's put our souls on ice, suspended. Now, let's approach the research on them the way you do when you study ancient cultures or groups of people from other times like Minoans, ancient Greeks, Aztecs, or any of the many groups you have so far identified on Earth. Let's use the tools that both anthropology and archaeology put at our disposal, and let's begin our research by investigating whatever material remnants are available.

The first and essential thing when studying those cultures and civilizations is this: we assume they were humans and, hence, we adscribe to those groups the essential properties of human beings, and we take for granted biological and physical processes. That is, you are studying human beings and, as you are humans yourselves, you base your research on those basic principles. This is a must, for there is nothing preventing you from taking this approach.

However, if you were to study a group of, say, bonobos by using the tools of archaeology and anthropology you would certainly arrive to wrong conclusions about them. You would conclude something like "these humans were certainly retarded, primitive, and unable to create a culture or civilization". Using your research tools you will get it all wrong about bonobos. It is only when you realize these bonobos are non humans that you start getting right: now you
dismiss archaeology and anthropology, and use other tools (ethology, zoology, etc.). Now yes: you get them right, you learn about them.

What about ETs? What will you use to study them? Birds fly. Humans too. Do you use the same approach when studying the behaviour and nature of birds that you use when studying humans? No, you don't. You know that some biological processes that apply to humans do not apply to birds, and you know that cognitive processes are totally different in both species. What to do for ETs? Are you sure you can use anthropology and human cognitive sciences to study their nature?

Does human psychology apply to ETs, too? What about virology? Do you study viruses using psychology, cognitive sciences, archaeology, ethology? Viruses show quite intelligent behaviour, they organize in quite complicated ways, they adapt quickly to environmental changes, and they exploit available resources in a most efficient way. To study them, you use molecular biology and biochemistry (actually, all of your reserch on virus is not directed to understand their motivations, but to anihilate them). Or, If you apply biology and cognitive sciences to study geophysical processes as if they were biological entities you'll end up taking those lights as intelligent beings, like in Hessdalen.

Again, I ask, can we use virology to study ETs? Will we gain any insight about them? The point I want to make is this: you probably are getting ETs wrong if you make basic assumptions which are yet to be proven as valid. You've never seen one, hence assuming they are biological beings will make you conclude weird things about their supposed biology. Sit by a highway and try to explain the strange behaviour of those life forms call "cars"... your final report will be certainly funny, I guess. Walk in the night and watch those glowing lights hovering over that nuclear missile silo. Take notes, take pictures, watch them carefully. What are your conclusions?

You will arrive to the same conclusions your ancestors did in the past: that the storm is a God, the God of wrath and anger; that the stars are goddesses, that the forest is alive, that dead people visit you dressed like clouds... or that ETs are non terrestrial beings from another planet or dimension.

Time to get the soul out of ice, lest it will freeze: try to approach ETs as if they were symbols; their behavior alone is simply not informative. Symbols is what they are, for you to read. Symbol systems cannot be learnt using biology, anthropology, archaeology. Use linguistics instead. Shift the paradigm.

(Try to read the Minot-1968 events in reverse order. The symbols were there. Try to read your MUFON reports backwards. "We were driving home when all of a sudden a glowing light appeared that..." should be the last sentence to read in any sighting report. Believe me.)

originally posted by: Direne
Time to get the soul out of ice, lest it will freeze: try to approach ETs as if they were symbols; their behavior alone is simply not informative. Symbols is what they are, for you to read. Symbol systems cannot be learnt using biology, anthropology, archaeology. Use linguistics instead. Shift the paradigm.

(Try to read the Minot-1968 events in reverse order. The symbols were there. Try to read your MUFON reports backwards. "We were driving home when all of a sudden a glowing light appeared that..." should be the last sentence to read in any sighting report. Believe me.)

I'm not sure that I agree, or disagree. This is a tough one. Not all glowing lights are the same and there is a need to distinguish between the various forms which requires greater discussion of the experiences involved in such encounters. There is, from what I can gather, some need to understand why we see the lights and whether our seeing them is representative of a signal to us, collectively or as individuals. While we may be able to appreciate that our selves as individual systems are ill-equipped to process some bands of the light or EM spectrum efficently, or rather, that in our evolutionary quest for short-term individualistic survival we have over ridden some processing abilities required for longer term adaptations, that does not mean that we are incapable of understanding the signals being communicated to us by re-engaging with those faculties.

The process with which I imagined my "Temporal Snicket Maker" to work utilises naturally occuring bio-chemical processes driven by EMR and NIEMR interacting with each other. Hence the twin bands of activity in the illustration I used. That illustration does not depict the complexity of interaction that is required to make a Snicket though, and I will carefully reflect on whether I feel comfortable explaining that further...it's as much a revelation to me that my reasoning is sound as anything else, and I have to keep checking with my much more grounded brother, that what I have proposed, and the processes that I believe are involved, are based on legitimate logic. I cannot just throw that information out there without thorough reflection and I am assessing that information systemically, however it continues on, or is a development of an idea, or conceptual model relational to UAPs as a human experience that I have been working with for some time, I wouldn't like to imply that I have plucked it out of thin air (no pun intended) or that it came as a revelation, it was totally born from reflexive practice.

Anyway, David Schon observed that a (social) system learns when it "acquires new capacity for behaviour". This applies both to us as a human social system, but also with General Systems Theory, to the biosphere as a system that both is boundary numerous sub systems, as well as bounded to other systems, all of them interacting and influencing an almost inconceiveable whole. Now, while it is possible that these signals are nothing to do with us, and that the light is just something that happens here and there, to this person or that person, does not mean that that is where the story ends, because whether we like it or not, something is being communicated and denying that doesn't get us anywhere, whereas accepting that we have got the signal confused provides us with both opportunity and leverage.

For example, the Hessdalen case, the metaphors used to describe some of the earlier eye witness sightings highlight a degree of concensus that was interesting to me. While there was obviously an expectation of a flying saucer or UFO which the experience confirmed, the lack of consistency in the design of the craft that the mind chose to project confirmed that it was projection. The consistency was in the movement though, and in another thread where Bybyots mentioned the notion of Lighter Than Air, that sort of brought it into being for me. The anomalous behaviour is noted, subconsciously, something moving distinctly from cloud or wind movement, that draws attention and forces the mind to give it form through concentration. There is something there though, it is not all imagination, but the imagination is stimulated by the experience clearly. How and in what way the imagination is stimulated depends upon the level and type of interaction involved, as well as predispositions of the individual human systems and their relationship to their environment, etc, etc.

Back to what Schon said though about capacity for new behaviour, if we accept that there is a process, naturally occuring that leads to say an excitation of the atoms. That excitation can be temporary, the stimulus departs and the atoms have not gone up to the next energy level and therefore return to their pre-stimulated state or they get sufficient energy to transform to the next level. Either way, the very presence of those atoms encourages excitation and oscillation.

For over a hundred years now though, we have been increasingly creating less natural means by which to excite and oscillate, and as an unintended consequence, largely driven by ignorance, we seem to be propagating this phenomenon. When considering the Rendlesham case, for instance, I did start to wonder what would happen if, rather than this process occuring naturally via a mutual attraction of sorts, it was being forced which led to a ecosystem crisis expression of some kind and hence the damage to Burroughs. But, I really don't know, I am simply trying to contribute constructively, and I hope that you appreciate that.

a reply to: tetra50

You are missing my point.

Danger is very real. But fear is a choice.

Overcoming that primitive response helps alleviate anxiety and allows you not to be paralyzed (when fight or flight fail). I could have a fear of sharks as they are extremely dangerous, but I am more likely to slip in the tub then ever have an encounter with a shark. That primitive fear is what needs to be overcome and rationalized.

When Direne was asking about what do you fear what purpose did it serve?

...fear of Aliens or the unknown is completely irrational and unnecessary, is there potential danger (of the unknown) absolutely, Aliens? (possibly). But that fear of the unknown can create anxiety, paranoia, and mistrust as it is an abstract danger that leads the mind. Being in a state of fear is what keeps populations easily controlled by abstract threats of disease or wars or terrorism.

Have no doubt that Fire is dangerous but understanding that Fire is dangerous and how to act (vs reacting) is very different than having a fear of fire...

a reply to: abeverage
I couldn't agree with you more. This was a great further explanation, and I appreciate your giving it.
tetra

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: tetra50

just how does any of that figure into the invention of an anti-language?

Let's forget, for a moment, the fascination that the existence of intelligent life forms of non terrestrial origin exerts on our souls. Actually, let's put our souls on ice, suspended. Now, let's approach the research on them the way you do when you study ancient cultures or groups of people from other times like Minoans, ancient Greeks, Aztecs, or any of the many groups you have so far identified on Earth. Let's use the tools that both anthropology and archaeology put at our disposal, and let's begin our research by investigating whatever material remnants are available.

The first and essential thing when studying those cultures and civilizations is this: we assume they were humans and, hence, we adscribe to those groups the essential properties of human beings, and we take for granted biological and physical processes. That is, you are studying human beings and, as you are humans yourselves, you base your research on those basic principles. This is a must, for there is nothing preventing you from taking this approach.

However, if you were to study a group of, say, bonobos by using the tools of archaeology and anthropology you would certainly arrive to wrong conclusions about them. You would conclude something like "these humans were certainly retarded, primitive, and unable to create a culture or civilization". Using your research tools you will get it all wrong about bonobos. It is only when you realize these bonobos are non humans that you start getting right: now you
dismiss archaeology and anthropology, and use other tools (ethology, zoology, etc.). Now yes: you get them right, you learn about them.

What about ETs? What will you use to study them? Birds fly. Humans too. Do you use the same approach when studying the behaviour and nature of birds that you use when studying humans? No, you don't. You know that some biological processes that apply to humans do not apply to birds, and you know that cognitive processes are totally different in both species. What to do for ETs? Are you sure you can use anthropology and human cognitive sciences to study their nature?

Does human psychology apply to ETs, too? What about virology? Do you study viruses using psychology, cognitive sciences, archaeology, ethology? Viruses show quite intelligent behaviour, they organize in quite complicated ways, they adapt quickly to environmental changes, and they exploit available resources in a most efficient way. To study them, you use molecular biology and biochemistry (actually, all of your reserch on virus is not directed to understand their motivations, but to anihilate them). Or, If you apply biology and cognitive sciences to study geophysical processes as if they were biological entities you'll end up taking those lights as intelligent beings, like in Hessdalen.

Again, I ask, can we use virology to study ETs? Will we gain any insight about them? The point I want to make is this: you probably are getting ETs wrong if you make basic assumptions which are yet to be proven as valid. You've never seen one, hence assuming they are biological beings will make you conclude weird things about their supposed biology. Sit by a highway and try to explain the strange behaviour of those life forms call "cars"... your final report will be certainly funny, I guess. Walk in the night and watch those glowing lights hovering over that nuclear missile silo. Take notes, take pictures, watch them carefully. What are your conclusions?

You will arrive to the same conclusions your ancestors did in the past: that the storm is a God, the God of wrath and anger; that the stars are goddesses, that the forest is alive, that dead people visit you dressed like clouds... or that ETs are non terrestrial beings from another planet or dimension.

Time to get the soul out of ice, lest it will freeze: try to approach ETs as if they were symbols; their behavior alone is simply not informative. Symbols is what they are, for you to read. Symbol systems cannot be learnt using biology, anthropology, archaeology. Use linguistics instead. Shift the paradigm.

(Try to read the Minot-1968 events in reverse order. The symbols were there. Try to read your MUFON reports backwards. "We were driving home when all of a sudden a glowing light appeared that..." should be the last sentence to read in any sighting report. Believe me.)

I agree completely that we cannot necessarily use our own biology or psychology, anthropology or even archeology to understand what is not the same as us.

However, no matter how the context of "life" changes definitions and therefore, understanding, it seems to me that this equally applies to symbols and language/communication, perhaps even more so. That being said, everything you've said there seems to apply to symbols/language/communication, as well.

a reply to: Anaana

I do really appreciate your explanation. In fact, I feel we are talking the same "language" right now. It never rains by chance, I mean, the sentence "and suddenly, it rained" is false. Rain (to rain) is the conclusion of a physical process, and processes do not happen by chance. Rain belongs to the system called "air physics", with its rules, and axioms. To believe in rain is not part of a particular belief-system. The question is whether ETs are like rain, or not. Are ETs part of a belief-system, or are they part of a process within a system you have not yet identified?

You state that

not all glowing lights are the same and there is a need to distinguish between the various forms

I agree. You are asking for a rationalisation of the phenomena called "glowing lights". As long as those glowing lights do not show intelligent behaviour and intentionality, you can easily cope with them using your system called "air physics" (or condensed state physics). This would be the case for Hessdalen lights. Sure you have not yet identified the physical process behind those lights, but sure you will once you undertake the necessary research on the very grounds of physics. The question, again, is this: do those lights happen by chance or, rather, are they like rain?

The process with which I imagined...

I am assessing that information systemically...

conceptual model relational to UAPs as a human experience

us as a human social system

Systems consist of processes and, as you state, being human is also a system. Are ETs a system, too? Or are they a process within a system? They are clearly not a belief-system, that is, as per your words

there is something there though, it is not all imagination

This forum has a thread about control systems. A control system requires processes to be executed on inputs; it also requires a control feedback loop, noise, and outputs. It requires an observer to validate the outputs (or at least to experience those outputs). However, does that system also require an intelligent being to feed the system with inputs? In my view, this is a legitimate and deep question: actually, we are asking the same when we ask whether the system called "Universe" requires an intelligent being called "God".

What about the system "glowing lights" or "UFOs"? Do they require intelligent beings as inputs? If you happen to prove UFOs and glowing lights behave in an intelligent way, it follows they require inputs and, hence, they are part of a control system where you are the observer.

UFOs (and glowing lights) sightings do not happen by chance: they are like rain. You do see an airplane by chance, but the airplane is not there by chance; there is a flight plan, flight corridors, an ATC, procedures, communications etc. for an airplane to be just there where you spot it. It belongs to the "air traffic control" system. Are UFOs the same or, on the contrary, they just are there... by mere chance? In my view, it is a mistake to tackle any UFO sighting as a per chance sighting. It is wiser to consider the entire process as part of a system, a system which includes you, both as the observer and the observed.

a reply to: abeverage

that Fire is dangerous but understanding that Fire is dangerous and how to act (vs reacting) is very different than having a fear of fire...

I agree, abeverage. Fear comprises some 10% of real danger. The other 90% is just "force multiplier effect" created (implanted?) in your brain. My point is that we tend to discuss whether aliens are angelical beings or demons or good souls or evil souls, and we forget we are the aliens for them. Under that condition, they aliens are prone to feel fear, too. Unless they are robotic artifacts, of course.

a reply to: tetra50

everything you've said there seems to apply to symbols/language/communication, as well.

Indeed, tetra50, indeed. In fact, what I am saying is that the whole contact paradigm should be treated from the communications theory. Let's leave the maths for a later moment, for the moment in which experiments are due to verify hypotheses. No need to start studying atoms and particles now. Let's start analyzing the lattice because the very nature of the lattice defines what particles (and hence, what processes) are allowed within our system. Let's do
some statisical mechanics (actually, statistical field theory) to define the overall properties of our system, and only later, let's go to the labs to test our assumptions and hypotheses and prove them valid or false. There are no patterns in the sightings, despite some efforts by some researchers. Well, this is not true: there is a pattern. It is called "Brownian motion". Good.

Let's do what we do when we study Brownian motion, let's do some statistical field theory and see what happens.

TMA

originally posted by: Direne


I agree, abeverage. Fear comprises some 10% of real danger. The other 90% is just "force multiplier effect" created (implanted?) in your brain. My point is that we tend to discuss whether aliens are angelical beings or demons or good souls or evil souls, and we forget we are the aliens for them. Under that condition, they aliens are prone to feel fear, too. Unless they are robotic artifacts, of course.

Good and Evil are arbitrary to the agenda of the being or beings or culture, or civilization. What one deems as evil another may see beneficial or benign, good or possibly even great...Like Bacon...

Speaking of Fear and implanted in your brain...

Tell me Direne why is FL studying Echopraxia? I wonder would being able to "mirror" actions into a being via radio waves be a lot like making meat puppets...And how does Echopraxia fit in with Dream recollection?

Hmm I seem to recall some strangeness involving a tourettes like syndrome can't imagine a device that could beam neurological impulses mirroring the same effects in several individuals...12 Teens all develop a physiological tick like tourettes

With such a weapon not only could you generate fear, but you could literally move the crowd or individual without their consent.

I believe that this:

forgottenlanguages-full.forgottenlanguages.org...

is what Direne's most recent post refers to...

So, who is running these experiments Direne, and how does FL know about them?

------------Sorry - been trying to fix link and still can't get it to work----------------

Right - if i can't fix link, go to the FL website (link to that is in OP of the thread), and look for a post on May 13th, 2015 with "Rainbow Ufology" as part of the title...

a reply to: Bybyots

Koyaanisqatsi

a reply to: abeverage

With such a weapon not only could you generate fear, but you could literally move the crowd or individual without their consent.

You already have that weapon. It is called "mass media".

The involuntary repetition or imitation of another person's actions is a neurological disorder known as echopraxia. Sonochemistry is concerned with understanding the effect of ultrasound in forming acoustic cavitation in liquids, resulting in the initiation or enhancement of the chemical activity in the solution. Benzodiazepines enhance the effect of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) at the GABAA receptor, resulting in sedative, hypnotic (sleep-inducing), anxiolytic (anti-anxiety), anticonvulsant, and muscle relaxant properties.

If you can formulate variants of benzodiazepines which can be activated via radio waves you'll arrive at this:

Sonodynamic Weapons - Sonochemically induced altered states of consciousness

There, your weapon. The military-industrial paradigm did long ago change to include pharma companies.

a reply to: lostgirl

who is running these experiments Direne, and how does FL know about them?

The experiments are run by the same guys who think national security is an outdated concept and that what we need is a planetary security scheme. The same technopaths that gather in Silicon Valley and that believe they are gifted to run the world, just because they made a lot of money too early in their lives to even have the opportunity to have a life. The guys that are truncated pyramids, for their will to be rich truncated their souls, too. The guys for whom money is not enough and wish to control. Those who traded their souls off for power.

As for your second question, there is a quite active black market where people trade information. Each head of a data center of each key company in whatever industry sells that information. The world today is just a network of data centers linked to each other. You simply need to buy or steal that information and then perform correlations.

This is possible for just one reason: the will to control is contagious for humans. The new apple in paradise is just information. We are the serpent. Those head of data centers are the new Eves. The sin is always the same.

originally posted by: Direne

As for your second question, there is a quite active black market where people trade information. Each head of a data center of each key company in whatever industry sells that information. The world today is just a network of data centers linked to each other. You simply need to buy or steal that information and then perform correlations.

This is what I had begun to suspect...

Thank you for being so forthcoming - as an insatiably curious person, I can't express my appreciation for your willingness to answer the questions we have been posing lately!

It must seem to you as if you are being interrogated, and I apologize for that - it's just that there is so much at the FL website which incites curiosity that I feel compelled to go on asking questions...

...of course, I will understand if you reach the point that you no longer wish to provide answers

So, what is the "Joint Human Exobiological Defense Program" and who is involved?

Also, in the bibliographies of some FL articles, there are reference titles listed which 'look' (except for being written in white) the same as the 'in house' referenced titles that can be found in FL archives, yet those posts are not in the archives -
- Why is that? Are those articles written for a particular reason or recipient?

Thank you..

a reply to: Direne
Hiya, Direne! How about some meat? Not mystery meat like at primary, but something, well...meaty! Hugs.

originally posted by: Direne
Are ETs part of a belief-system, or are they part of a process within a system you have not yet identified?

There was a short programme on BBC Radio 4 this afternoon about the Indian mathematician Aryabhata.

Aryabhata (Sanskrit: आर्यभट; IAST: Āryabhaṭa) or Aryabhata I[1][2] (476–550 CE)[3][4] was the first of the major mathematician-astronomers from the classical age of Indian mathematics and Indian astronomy. His works include the Āryabhaṭīya (499 CE, when he was 23 years old)[5] and the Arya-siddhanta.

en.wikipedia.org...

One comment that caught my ear, was that "in those days" you were only expected to present your results, not your workings out. My workings out are a mess.

My answer, from my current perspective, would be both. It depends though what you define ETs to be, we haven't really dealt with that. Alien is of reasonable ancient usage referring to foreigners or outsiders, a well-known example being the Alien Benedictine, French monks in Britain, but extraterrestrial has much more flexibility of meaning. What I mean by extraterrestrials could be entirely different to someone else's understanding of the term.

Has the biosphere been penetrated by ETs (by something "outside")? Yes, millions of times. Are those ETs little grey men? Not in my opinion.

originally posted by: Direne
I agree. You are asking for a rationalisation of the phenomena called "glowing lights". As long as those glowing lights do not show intelligent behaviour and intentionality, you can easily cope with them using your system called "air physics" (or condensed state physics). This would be the case for Hessdalen lights. Sure you have not yet identified the physical process behind those lights, but sure you will once you undertake the necessary research on the very grounds of physics. The question, again, is this: do those lights happen by chance or, rather, are they like rain?

originally posted by: Direne
Systems consist of processes and, as you state, being human is also a system. Are ETs a system, too? Or are they a process within a system? They are clearly not a belief-system, that is, as per your words.

originally posted by: Direne
This forum has a thread about control systems. A control system requires processes to be executed on inputs; it also requires a control feedback loop, noise, and outputs. It requires an observer to validate the outputs (or at least to experience those outputs). However, does that system also require an intelligent being to feed the system with inputs? In my view, this is a legitimate and deep question: actually, we are asking the same when we ask whether the system called "Universe" requires an intelligent being called "God".

I am sure that you have heard of the psychiatric phenomenon of "Influencing machines", "they", I think, should be considered in relation to W Ross Ashby's work with General Systems Theory.

Ross Ashby was one of the original members of the Ratio Club, a small informal dining club of young psychologists, physiologists, mathematicians and engineers who met to discuss issues in cybernetics. The club was founded in 1949 by the neurologist John Bates and continued to meet until 1958.

The title of his book An Introduction to Cybernetics popularised the usage of the term 'cybernetics' to refer to self-regulating systems, originally coined by Norbert Wiener in Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine.

The book dealt primarily with homeostatic processes within living organisms, rather than in an engineering or electronic context.

Earlier, in 1946, Alan Turing wrote a letter[7] to Ashby suggesting that Ashby use Turing's Automatic Computing Engine (ACE) for his experiments instead of building a special machine. In 1948, Ashby made the Homeostat.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

For his entire working life, starting as a medical student at St Bartholomew’s hospital in London, Ross Ashby kept a journal, noting down his thoughts and ideas. Beginning in 1928, it spanned his career of 44 years and would eventually cover 7,400 pages. In 2003 all 25 volumes were gifted to the British Library who spent 5 years digitalising the archive that is now available on line.

Ashby, prior to coming up with idea for the homeostat suffered a mystery illness that caused a fever.

In a space between the last entry of his journal before he became ill and the one that begins to describe his idea for the homeostat, is a scribbled note.

Was it febrile reaction to enormous cortical readjustment?
I don't know. But I felt as if I had "swallowed a rainbow".
And the next page [859-860] contains the essential discovery.

www.rossashby.info...

originally posted by: Direne
What about the system "glowing lights" or "UFOs"? Do they require intelligent beings as inputs? If you happen to prove UFOs and glowing lights behave in an intelligent way, it follows they require inputs and, hence, they are part of a control system where you are the observer.

originally posted by: Direne
UFOs (and glowing lights) sightings do not happen by chance: they are like rain. You do see an airplane by chance, but the airplane is not there by chance; there is a flight plan, flight corridors, an ATC, procedures, communications etc. for an airplane to be just there where you spot it. It belongs to the "air traffic control" system. Are UFOs the same or, on the contrary, they just are there... by mere chance? In my view, it is a mistake to tackle any UFO sighting as a per chance sighting. It is wiser to consider the entire process as part of a system, a system which includes you, both as the observer and the observed.

I agree. Entirely.

originally posted by: Direne
Well, this is not true: there is a pattern. It is called "Brownian motion". Good.

Very good indeed. Thank you for that. That is totally wonderful.