Archive for the ‘The Model’ Category

CIA man talks about UFOs and ET

7 July 2016

Another book recently published that I’ve read through is titled “Anonymous: CIA Agent Reveals the Truth about UFOs.”

An older UFO researcher named Ronald Garner put it out, apparently at the request of the person who was interviewed. This person was interviewed for a radio show, or series of shows, by Linda Moulton Howe in 1998, about three years after his security oath expired. It concerns events of 1958 to 1960 that “Anonymous” participated in, as an Army officer also working as a CIA analyst. This person seems bona fide, but has had his life threatened, so refuses to identify himself.

He was involved in analyzing reports of UFO and ET sightings mostly from abroad. He also got a tour of Area 51 and participated in three briefings of Richard Nixon (Vice President at that time) and Ike Eisenhower.

The Oval Office as not having much luck getting good data about UFOs and ET though its own intelligence people, the CIA. The various military groups involved were being very tight-lipped, and the people really in charge of Area 51 (S-4) were telling them almost nothing.

While visiting Area 51, Anonymous personally witnessed 6 “flying saucers,” three identified as “alien” and three identified as “German.”
He also saw the Gray they were holding prisoner there, and saw an “alien autopsy” film of a six-fingered “light gray.”

From my data, the craft that crashed at Roswell were manned by scientists from Zeta Reticuli. They were “peaceful” in so much as they were just doing research for some project. Back home they were having some genetic problems relating to being forced to clone bodies in order to reproduce. One of their dead reincarnated on Earth as a human, and that’s where this data comes from.

The book itself is very poorly edited and is mostly just interview transcripts with a few photographs of the public people involved.

The following facts are established in this interview:

  • The President, and elements of the CIA, knew about UFOs and their connection to both ETs and Germans, from at least as early as 1947. They knew almost nothing, however, about ET. And they talked very little about the Germans.
  • The U.S. had several captured craft and one live ET. They were kept at Area 51. Who controlled that area is not totally clear.
  • The “defeated” Germans lived in Colombia, Argentina, above ground and in underground bases, and also underground in Antarctica. Hitler was among those who got moved to South America before the end of the war. There is some indication that the German saucers gave the Germans a certain amount of leverage in creating refuges for their top people.
  • Forrestal sent Byrd on a military expedition against the German/ET positions in Antarctica which was notoriously unsuccessful. Forrestal wanted to make the whole thing public, went somewhat crazy over not being allowed to, and was finally killed in an “accidental fall.” It was made clear by this CIA asset that he was told that the CIA killed Forrestal.
  • This CIA asset knew of only two types of ET and about four or five types of craft (counting two or three as German) at the point that his association with the CIA was terminated (at his request).

We have photographs of both these types, and they are likely the two most significant non-human ETs involved with Earth. Photos of “human” ETs would do us no good, as they look just like humans so could always be disputed as being posed. But photos of the other races are likewise lacking. I am a little mystified about this. There are plenty of drawings of them, so it seems likely they exist. And the human Zeta mentions the Reptilians as being a formerly hostile race in their system who left them sterilized and forced them to develop cloning methods in order to provide new bodies. The exact nature of the Reptilians, the Draco, Mantids and the Avians remains very unclear. The last three seem to include ruling groups. There are also the Sasquatch, but they only get mentioned occasionally. All these groups – to the extent that they are real – obviously wish to keep themselves secret from the general public.

All I can contribute to all this is that, from the research that I am aware of, it is VERY likely that various ET races exist and that some retain “Space Opera” capabilities and have some interest in Earth.

Our best strategy seems to be to rehabilitate our spiritual abilities so that we are able, at some point, to survive anything they can throw at us.

These various other races themselves, though much older than ours (we are a synthetic group anyway, with no long history on this planet) and thus technically more advanced, are likely to be, for the most part, as bad off as we are morally and spiritually. We were all involved with them in one way or another before we came here, and our condition is quite reflective of their condition, though perhaps a bit more “crazy about life” due to our short body life span. There is no particular reason to assume that they could – or would be willing to – help us very much, certainly not spiritually. There is moderate reason to think that they might want to take advantage of us in various ways. This is all part of what we still need to figure out.

The Model: Latest Developments

21 May 2012

My earlier article, for reference.

While the political scene continues to percolate, and for the most part is not being covered by any reliable information source, I have been pushing my “new model” for understanding human life out onto the web.

A danger sign disguised as futurism – Russia 2045

The 2045 website was just recently launched. Here’s a link.

Though it purports to be a “brand new” approach to the future of humanity, spearheaded by innovative Russian academics, what do you know?: It’s a dot com website!

It looks pretty Russian. Except for the Ray Kurzweil and Dalai Lama endorsements. Who’s really behind it? Perhaps time will tell.

Their major project is to “reverse engineer the human brain.”

So close! Yet, so far.

I sent a little missive to the email address for this project. I warned them that this whole line of reasoning could turn out to be very unwise. They responded the next day with one sentence: “Please never write to us again.”


I hope my readers will understand the problem I’m looking at, assuming The Model has any validity whatsoever (see next section):

  1. If the brain is not actually what produces human consciousness, then reverse engineering it will just get you a much better robot.
  2. If human consciousness is immortal, then why don’t we just remember how to make better robots? It’s got to be in someone’s memory somewhere.

The people putting up the money for this project should be aware of these two points. So what is their honest reason for supporting this project? I invite your comments on the matter. (Comments are, however, reviewed by me before posting.)

A Lawyer and Psychologist wannabe researches past lives

Robert T. James is an interesting fellow. And he got more interesting when he agreed to apply his hypnotism training to someone who wanted to know if they had lived before. According to the regression, she had.

I found out about his little site some time ago, but had not had the time to take the plunge. Yesterday I bought a copy of his eBook for $6 and started reading through it.

This was serious!

In two separate studies, starting about 1994 (he didn’t publish until 10 years later) and involving roughly 150 separate people, he attempted (and for the most part managed) to cover some of the biggest questions posed by The Model:

  • What are the chances that patients make these stories up?
  • How can you tell the stories are real?
  • If they are real, what really happens when someone dies?
  • When someone picks up a new body?
  • Between the time someone dies and when they pick up a new body?
  • What gives past life knowledge therapeutic value?
  • Can inspecting past lives be harmful?
  • How much training does the therapist (or researcher) need?
  • How far back can people be regressed?
  • Have human beings ever lived as animals or as animal-like creatures?

He touches on ALL these topics in his book. And is never heavy-handed about it. He’s a skeptic without an agenda, except to contribute to the science of human psychology. And he has. Too bad no psychologists seem to have paid any attention to his book. (To be fair, there are a few academics who study this; Mack and Stevenson were the most prominent.)

Furthermore, his work validates The Model.

To review the basics:

  1. Human consciousness does not die with the body; it is continuous.
  2. The memories are there; just a bit hard for most to access.
  3. It is very common to hang over the body a bit after it dies.
  4. Beings generally try to pick out a baby based on their preferences.
  5. Beings demonstrate a tendency to find each other again.
  6. The between-lives experienced is cloaked.
  7. When asked about many “secrets” of life, patients under hypnosis respond that they are “not supposed to tell.” Someone out there is trying to keep it a secret!
  8. We do have experience as other life forms, usually before earth.
  9. Yes, there have been aliens who crashed their space ships here and died.

Get the idea?

Yes, the universe really is a wild and crazy place where many things are possible that someone wants you to think aren’t possible. And that’s my point about the first topic of this article.

Life as a Process

11 May 2012

Most recently my head has been buried in matters related to computer programming.

So why this waxing philosophic?

  1. It is time – past time really – to take a new look at the world around us.
  2. Programming languages are based on certain philosophic principles.
  3. When you write programs for the purpose of understanding how to do it, you run into these principles.
  4. If you have prior philosophic training, you may find these principles interesting, rather than just annoying or dogmatic.

In addition, I have just come off reading some Courtney Brown books, and I have also immersed myself in the movement to re-invent life on earth in a more sensible way.


In programming we have this term “object.” It means “an instance of a class.” If that doesn’t clarify things for you, I don’t blame you. But I’m going to keep this light; I’m not going to resort to my Webster’s. A “class” is a pattern for an object. Like a gene is a pattern for a protein. An “instance” is an actual example of something created from a class. A person is an “instance” of his genetics, in this sense. And the browser window you are reading this in is an instance of the various classes that were specifically designed to make browser windows. The “browser program” defines the process, as a series of steps, for creating and working with a browser window.


We usually think of an object as a thing that doesn’t “change” unless a process acts upon it. This is a convenient and workable way of thinking, but at its core it is flawed. If the objects all around us – including us – were not in a constant state of change, they would all disappear. In macro terms, we are constantly changing position in every frame of reference except our own. And in micro terms, we now know that atoms and subatomic particles are, in fact, in constant motion.

Thus from the point of view of a human in material existence, it even requires a process of some kind for objects to appear to remain the same. Without some sort of continuing process, an object would vanish as soon as the process creating it finished. This actually happens in programming.

For example, for my systems analysis class I wrote a little program that simulates how a grocery checkout system works. When the clerk holds an item over the scanner, the scanner detects the bar code of the item and sends it to a database. The database responds with data about the item, which the system temporarily stores in an ITEM object. This data is then inspected and processed, if necessary (does the item need to be weighed? etc.), and when that is done, the item data is copied over to the INVOICE object, and the ITEM object is destroyed. The ITEM object does not appear again until a new item is scanned, and the process is repeated.

Physically, a shopping basket is being emptied of items, which are being handled, one-by-one by the cashier, and are then put into a shopping bag. So, the physical items simply get handled and moved to a new location, while the logical ITEMS get created, inspected, and destroyed over and over.

In both cases, we are talking about process. But for me, the life cycle of an ITEM in a checkout program really brought it home for me. The continued existence of ANY OBJECT depends on a continuing process. You could even call an object a process.

This is definitely what LRH tries to get across in his book Fundamentals of Thought.

And similar ideas are expressed by other teachers who lean in the direction of metaphysics. These ideas are now even invading the realm of particle physics.


An example of this problem is the attitude of science to the concept of spirit.

Academically trained writers have trouble with spirit. They reason that, since the spirit has no physical properties, it could not rightly be said to “exist.”

I stood in my kitchen one day not long ago, just after reading such a discussion, and watched the wind blowing around the bushes and trees outside. And I thought, “spirit is like the wind.” After all, I realized later, the word comes from a word for “breath.”

And certainly, no one would argue that “wind” doesn’t exist! But “wind” is a name for a process. The process involves the movement of air from an area of higher pressure to an area of lower pressure. We don’t study wind and rain as “things” (I hope). We study them as processes. And that is really the only way to study spirit.

Everything is a process

But according to my earlier discussion, what, in fact, is NOT a process?


The postulate of an “unchanging object” is in fact a matter of mere intellectual convenience. Within certain frames of reference, or rules of play if you want to use a game analogy, certain objects can be thought of as non-changing unless acted upon by a process that changes them. But this is simply intellectually convenient. It is not, ultimately, the truth of what is going on.

The truth is that everything is a process. Some processes are relatively insignificant in most games, and can be ignored. Others are more significant. But to overlook this truth is to make a major error.

Particle physics has had two major approaches.

One approach involves creating a very small space in which a lot of energy is added in. This tends to “expose” processes that are normally very private. In this way they have discovered “particles” with very short lifetimes that normally are created and destroyed inside of other particles.

The other approach has been to create a very small space in which a lot of energy is drained out (usually by cooling). The matter inside this space tends to simplify, or act more like it would under “ideal” conditions. You get superconductivity, superfluidity and other phenomena that indicate that the various processes in matter start to cease to interfere with each other, or in fact can be “turned off.”

However, this is nothing, in my mind, compared to the various experiments in what we currently call the “paranormal” during which “solid objects” have been observed to appear and disappear (materialize and dematerialize) according to the will of someone with “psychic powers.”

Scientific study of spiritual phenomena

If science is willing to entertain the possibility – as they have had to do in particle physics – that the subject they are studying is basically a process and not an “object,” then we may have an entrance point to the problem of how to study the spirit.

Particle physicists are now well aware that what they are basically studying is a process, and that what they are perceiving are the effects of this process. When asked to give a name to this process, they usually come up with “nature.” They could have just as easily come up with “god” or “spirit.” Conceptually, there is really very little difference. The main difference is that “nature” is conceived to be a totally unbiased agent of change, whereas “god” is considered to have attitudes about things. I think, though, if we really looked into it, we would find that “nature” also has attitudes about things.

If spirit is best thought of as a process, then the only real question is to what extent “spirit” and “nature” are equivalent concepts. To the extent that they are (surprise!) science has really been studying spirit all along! And spiritualists have also really been studying nature all along.

While the spiritualists are ready to concede this point, the scientists, for the most part, are not. The path to such a concession could be – and I hope it is – shorter than previously thought.

Larry Discovers Courtney Brown

4 May 2012

Courtney Brown website page

It’s Late

2AM. Or is that early? The point is, Mr. Brown seems to think that it’s getting a bit late, too.

So he’s taking his message to the masses via, most recently, Project Camelot. And that is how I ran across him.

Courtney Brown is a math PhD who studies remote viewing through a non-profit institute that he created for this purpose. He has also done some of his studies privately.

“Remote viewing” is one of several forms of semi-causative super-perception techniques. Remote viewing (RV) was originally developed by the military specifically for investigative purposes.

According to Dr. Brown’s theory of remote viewing, the trained viewer will pick the correct target even though he is not given any overt hint of what that target is. This is because of the actual connectedness of existence. In other words, the ability includes the ability to discover the target without being told what it is, as long as someone will eventually decide what it is. If we were totally “connected” we would be able to perceive everything that “is.” Disconnection is an illusion that we have enforced upon ourselves for some purpose, but greater levels of connectedness are always possible, though it is a strain for humans to do this.

In this way, all existence, which is really just a collection of considerations, is ultimately available to be perceived. That includes all perceptions of what has happened (or patterns we have experienced in the past) and all perception of what might happen (patterns we expect to experience in the future). To see any of these non-local experiences is simply a problem of extending perception.

Findings, briefly stated

  • The asteroid belt formed after a planet exploded.
  • Mars is inhabited and has been for a long time.
  • Jesus arranged things so that he was not the person who got crucified, though most observers thought it was.
  • It is likely that a major “disruptive” event will happen on earth this year.
  • Advanced ET civilizations are a reality.

Dr. Brown – rightly, I think – believes that these findings are significant.

They, in fact, add up to a whole new take on how life works.


In Dr. Brown’s video about Jesus, he mentions the Seth material – recommended to him by a friend – as an inspiration for that project. This material was dictated by “Seth” via Jane Roberts, mostly to her husband, from 1963 to 1983.

I have mentioned the “Hubbard material” as an inspiration for my work. The books he wrote were all penned in the 1950s, except for the Way to Happiness, and his fiction, of course.

In the 1960s through 1980s most of his written work was presented as either Bulletins or Policy Letters, and have since been published as books. The Bulletins are contained in 13 volumes comprising, I believe, over 6,500 pages. The Policy Letters are contained in 11 volumes, consisting of roughly 5,500 pages. And if all of his lectures were transcribed (most of them are), this would amount to an additional 100 volumes, approximately.

None of Hubbard’s work was channeled. It is all either research findings, attempts to explain those findings, descriptions of how to do things correctly, or musings that serve – usually – to illustrate his major points.

It is obvious that both of these individuals devoted many years to their work, believed in it, and thought it was important enough to record and publish.

Seth, for all intents and purposes, founded the New Age.

And Hubbard, in addition to founding Dianetics and Scientology, hoped that his work would help usher in a New Civilization.

If there is any time left to heed these teachers, it starts now.

Take your pick, or study both of them.

Here are some parallels between what Brown believes his research is demonstrating and what Hubbard believed his research was demonstrating:


  • Experience in the physical universe is based on a perception of solidity.
  • When we look deeply into matter – or the mind – we find no real solidity there; we only find a perception of it.
  • Our feelings of being trapped or restrained all stem from this perception of solidity; it is, ultimately, a false perception.
  • The discipline of remote viewing (Brown) or auditing (Hubbard) lead to the realization of the above truths. That realization takes time to occur; years.
  • What Hubbard found that Brown has not yet mentioned is the sense of personal freedom and restored ability that following this discipline can provide to a being.
  • In these “new” truths, or realizations, lie the key to a new level of existence that is lighter, but no less challenging, that what we currently experience. It could enable us to end the sense of being in a “downward spiral.”

The Model

25 April 2012


In engineering and science, objects of study or design are called systems. This is a very general word that you have probably seen used in expressions such as: “computer systems,” “the solar system,” “star systems,” “power systems,” “weather systems,” etc.

As the social sciences have moved towards engineering paradigms, they have also used this concept in their work. So, not only can you have a “nervous system,” you could also have a “habit system,” an “economic system,” or a “political system.”

Engineering and the sciences rely on a feature of physical and biological systems that they have noticed: predictability. Prediction is a big part of human life and survival in general, so there is little wonder that the sciences would be concentrating on technologies of prediction. One such technology is computer simulation. But for computer simulation to work, the system being simulated must first be turned into a mathematical model. Thus, this term – used with this meaning – has also entered the modern vocabulary.


In this discussion, we don’t need to take up the technical details of how models are constructed. I just want to go over how they are used, and how we tend to use them without even thinking about it.

Ordinary people use models all the time, but don’t always call them that. The rules for polite conversation could be considered a model. The rules for impolite conversation could be another model. A word could be considered a model for what it represents, though it would be more correct to call the definition of the word the model, and the word just the name for the model.

Broadly, a model is our concept of something. Take evil. One person’s model for evil could be “the work of the Devil.” Another person could see evil as the result of operating on disastrously incorrect data. A third person could see evil as the result of accidents or mistakes.

When you ask these three people “what should be done about evil in the world?” you will get three very different answers. What you should really ask them first is: “What do you think causes evil in the world? Then, they’d give you their models. Their answers to the other question would probably make sense relative to the model each was using.

Thus, the decision-making process can be greatly influenced by the model being used for the system that is being discussed. For good communication and better understanding, we want these models openly stated. Secret models will cause trouble.

The Human Problem; the Human Model

Is the human a problem? Many people think so. Many people can’t even understand themselves, much less their spouse, their children, their boss, or politicians. They make bad predictions based on their imperfect understandings (like: Obama will end the war in Afghanistan if he becomes president) and then regret the decisions they made based on those predictions. Most people would love to have a better understanding of “human,” and this relies, to some extent, on having a better model for “human being.”

body-brain model

Body-Brain Model


We can think of a person as just an animal body. This has worked, to some degree, in medicine. If all medicine wants to do is fix bodies, then it can do a lot based on the body model. The details of this model are incredibly complex, but the upper-level definition of this model is simple: The human is a biological machine (organism).


The body model only takes us so far. Philosophers have always spoken of the mind, so we are used to talking about it, even though no one has exactly “seen” one. Medicine assumes that the mind totally resides in the brain. But this model is insufficient to account for a large variety of non-medical phenomena. Thus the work of Freud, etc., “fills out” the brain model of the mind into something more conceptual but more useful.

Though neurology, strictly speaking, continues to reject the Freudian and other concept-based mind models, the Freudian model is the basis, I have been lead to understand, for the whole field of modern marketing and PR. We have a nephew of Freud’s, one Edward Bernays, to “thank” for this “revolution” in the business world. You can tell, no doubt, that I doubt the wholesomeness of this development. I cannot, however, deny the fact that it has worked. And that workability gives the Freudian model some validity.

According to Freud and his followers, the mind has parts. The neurologists have tried to map these parts to locations in the brain. But the psychologists and others don’t care about that. They just want a model that will predict human behavior better.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics

robot and controller

NASA remote-controlled work robot.

Computer scientists, spurred on by science fiction writers and god knows what else, have always been interested in the possibility that a computer could be programmed to “act more human.” This is artificial intelligence. In its more limited application, all AI is trying to do is to get machines to figure out how to learn. Now, strictly speaking, all animals can learn, not just humans. But, this has been one of the AI goals.

Another direction for AI has been the subject of human replacement. In some situations, it has been argued, a robot could do a better job than a human. This might be because a machine could be built to withstand environmental factors that would be fatal to humans. Or it might be because the machine would not “get scared” like a human might, or might not “get tired” or “get bored.” Though much of this work has led to machines with human-like body capabilities, there has been another branch of this work that has gone in the direction of care-giving and education. In these applications, emotional awareness, even emotional expression, is desirable. But how do you get a machine to learn human emotions? Believe me, folks; they are attempting this!

robot human

Human look-alike robot.

Remote-controlled Robots

So far, the biggest advances have been made in the field of remote-controlled robotics. A recent example, as ominous as it is, is the drone bomber. But there have been many such devices designed, built and used. So we know their model is workable.

The high-level parts of this model are diagrammed below.

remote control diagram

Basic remote control model.

They consist of:

1. The robot as a machine only. This would correspond to the human body, alive but unanimated.

2. The local machine control system. This would correspond to the brain. It is essentially an electronic computer. It runs on “firmware” (semi-permanent software).

3. A communication link. We have no name for this in any human model, except maybe for some mystical models which speak of a “silver thread.”

4. A remote control console. This would correspond to the mind. Note that the mind runs on a combination of software and input from a control person. Also note that the mind contains a copy of the brain’s “firmware.” Ideally, every single perception, command, action, and result is recorded for possible later analysis and software improvement. Thus, the mind also needs a memory system.

5. The control console operator. Not pictured in the diagram, this is in some ways the most important part of this model. This guy is supposed to be in control of the entire system, determining its every waking move.

The following diagram gives a more fanciful depiction of this model.

robot ape

Remote-controlled fighting monster from Japanese magazine.

Practical Considerations

There is still something missing in this model. What if something happens to the console operator? What if he has to go to the bathroom? What if somebody sneaks up behind him and bops him on the head? What if he gets so emotionally involved in the activity that he passes out? What if the hardware is damaged?

For a “mission critical” application, the console operator needs some sort of backup system. By empirical observation it has been found that such a backup system exists. It is more or less attached to the body. Its exact nature is not totally known. Conceptually, it can be thought of as another console and console operator, but one designed to never go offline. This console operator is not responsible for any high-level decision-making. It is designed only to protect the hardware in the event of loss of higher-level control. In exchange for not being “brainy” this operator must stay alert 24-7. It monitors all vital body functions. It sends warnings when the bladder or gut are full, or when the stomach is empty. It has certain override powers in the event that the higher level does not respond to repeated warnings.

In general, this operator has capabilities similar to the high-level operator. But it plays (usually) a subordinate role in the system. Its console also has recording capabilities, but they do not necessarily include all data from the higher level operator. The higher-level operator has access to all the data in the lower-level console, but it is protected. Access is only granted under certain special conditions.

So there is a certain amount of autonomy between the senior and junior control systems. This is a significant advance over a one-controller system, but is gained at some cost.

The Proposed Model

proposed model

This, then is the high-level system model for a human being that I propose; except, I didn’t really propose it. I just gave it the name “model for a human being.” This is mostly Hubbard’s work. He knew about robotics when he began writing about the human mind in the 1950s. Asimov’s Three Laws, for example, were first published in 1942. He also had ties with ONI; but that’s another story.

My illustration attempts to give the Scientology terms for the main parts of this model, along with analogous New Age terms. I cannot guarantee that all these terms are correctly matched. If you read this and see obvious mistakes, let me know!

Here is the list in text form, expanded to include the engineering terms mentioned above:

  • Thetan; spirit; senior console operator; higher self.
  • Analytical mind; senior control console; higher mind.
  • Control beams; communication link; silver thread.
  • Genetic entity; junior console operator; lower self.
  • Reactive mind; junior control console; subconscious mind; lower mind.
  • Brain; embedded controller; 6th & 7th chakras.
  • Body; machine; lower chakras.

I will not take up the ramifications of this model in this article. But needless to say, at the expense of some increased complexity, it predicts a far broader range of observed human behavior and capability than does a simpler model. We have not even explored the most obvious ramifications of the probable fact that both the thetan and the genetic entity are immortal spiritual beings.