11-05-2009, 12:55 PM
I've seen several different explanations for why channeled material has material that seems just plain wrong, or unbelievable.
One theory, from Don Elkins' book Secrets of the UFO, is that "UFOnauts" are telling the truth about their experience in some kind of alternate universe, alternate timeline, or different plane or density of reality than ours. Elkins speculated earlier in the book that densities co-exist because each has a different distance between the atomic nucleus and its electron shells. He described the situation in physics as similar to multiple TV transmissions which could be tuned in with a receiver.
A second possibility that Elkins described is that UFO's, for instance, are sometimes metaphysical and do not have physical reality in our experience; unless they choose to have it. If the point is to get attention while leaving open free will, sometimes the UFO's will deliberately choose just enough physical reality to remain ambiguous. The purpose is to provide an increased opportunity for people to draw their own conclusions based on faith. If I remember right, Handbook for a New Paradigm also discusses this concept.
A third theory is that reports about concepts such as moon bases are literally accurate in our own scientifically measurable reality, but are concealed by political conspiracies. This is a popular topic on the Internet these days, isn't it!
A fourth possibility is that "bad news" material is not true, but is an interjection by negative entities who use fear to build their own service-to-self hierarchies.
A fifth is that "bad news" is just one potential future outcome. If we have enough positivity as a species, the bad news won't happen.
A sixth is that the sources of the channeled messages are just plain confused, as if we looked out the window and thought a rustling tree branch was a person but nobody was there.
And a seventh is that the alleged channeling is a conscious or unconscious artifact of the recipient's confusion. If the channeler happened to watch Star Trek last night while eating curry, they might rant about pepper-powered phasers tonight. This in turn could either be a deliberate lie of a conscious manipulator, or some kind of mental illness of a hallucination. Secrets itself has quotes from UFO sources claiming that some human UFO reports are nothing but hallucinations without any meaning.
Each of these causes of "unbelievable" reports such as moon bases leads to a different interpretation. Some interpretations leave the sources as credible, some leave the moon bases as true, some both, some neither.
I don't have the relevant Ra citations at hand, perhaps someone else could add them here.
One theory, from Don Elkins' book Secrets of the UFO, is that "UFOnauts" are telling the truth about their experience in some kind of alternate universe, alternate timeline, or different plane or density of reality than ours. Elkins speculated earlier in the book that densities co-exist because each has a different distance between the atomic nucleus and its electron shells. He described the situation in physics as similar to multiple TV transmissions which could be tuned in with a receiver.
Quote:George Hunt Williamson, an anthropologist of considerable reputation, began reporting UFO contact in the early ’50s. He published several books about his contactee experiences, none of which were seriously given credence or consideration by his peers. The books contain much that we still consider untrue: the UFOnauts had told Williamson that the Sun was not a “hot, flaming body” but a cool body, and that we had two moons, one a “dark” moon which was unseen. He was told, moreover, that the moon we already know about had an atmosphere and water. Obviously, none of these statements make sense.
But let us back up a bit and look at these statements again considering not our third density alone but also those densities which interpenetrate ours.
Since most of the UFOnauts are in a reality displaced from ours, it is quite possible that they are experiencing these described conditions. In fact, if the Williamson book, THE SAUCERS SPEAK!, is read keeping the physical and mental variants of these displaced realities in mind, the material makes quite a bit of sense.
A second possibility that Elkins described is that UFO's, for instance, are sometimes metaphysical and do not have physical reality in our experience; unless they choose to have it. If the point is to get attention while leaving open free will, sometimes the UFO's will deliberately choose just enough physical reality to remain ambiguous. The purpose is to provide an increased opportunity for people to draw their own conclusions based on faith. If I remember right, Handbook for a New Paradigm also discusses this concept.
A third theory is that reports about concepts such as moon bases are literally accurate in our own scientifically measurable reality, but are concealed by political conspiracies. This is a popular topic on the Internet these days, isn't it!
A fourth possibility is that "bad news" material is not true, but is an interjection by negative entities who use fear to build their own service-to-self hierarchies.
A fifth is that "bad news" is just one potential future outcome. If we have enough positivity as a species, the bad news won't happen.
A sixth is that the sources of the channeled messages are just plain confused, as if we looked out the window and thought a rustling tree branch was a person but nobody was there.
And a seventh is that the alleged channeling is a conscious or unconscious artifact of the recipient's confusion. If the channeler happened to watch Star Trek last night while eating curry, they might rant about pepper-powered phasers tonight. This in turn could either be a deliberate lie of a conscious manipulator, or some kind of mental illness of a hallucination. Secrets itself has quotes from UFO sources claiming that some human UFO reports are nothing but hallucinations without any meaning.
Each of these causes of "unbelievable" reports such as moon bases leads to a different interpretation. Some interpretations leave the sources as credible, some leave the moon bases as true, some both, some neither.
I don't have the relevant Ra citations at hand, perhaps someone else could add them here.