Possible Key to Understanding the Phenomena

Kathy Kasten is an experienced writer/researcher who delved extensively into the UFO phenomenon and related subject matter. Her resume includes acting as staff liaison on the Human Subjects Protection Committee while employed at the University of California at Los Angeles. She contributed the following article in response to inquiries from The UFO Trail:
  

Possible Key to Understanding the Phenomena

by Kathy Kasten

Thursday, June 28, 2012

In 1995, after I had researched and written articles on mind control for a national magazine, I decided to mount a campaign to petition the U.S. National Institutes of Health to intercede on behalf of human targets of what I called covert field testing of mind control technology.  It involved soliciting testimonies from the public.  To my surprise, some of the respondents claimed interactions with entities of an alternative reality (EARs).  At the time, no one investigating the so-called Abduction Scenario was reporting an intersect between mind control and telepathic communication with EARs.  However, an intersect was being claimed by mind control targets.  I thought I was alone in this opinion.

That is, until I heard an interview with an expert who detects electronic harassment of targeted individuals.  During that interview, Roger Tolces, the expert, stated he thought telepathic contact reported by humans interacting with EARs could in fact be the result of synthetic telepathic technology.  A method of electronic harassment.  For the first time, I realized there were others who might hold the same opinion as myself.

Leaving aside the very real possibility of electronic harassment and accepting interaction with EARs, it means the UFO research community will have to become more sophisticated in separating the signal from the noise.  Meaning UFO researchers will have to deal with the possibility of contact/interaction between humans and EARs.  UFO researchers are already dealing with the problem of tracking down what is open sky testing of exotic/experimental aircraft and what observers are reporting as the flight of an extraterrestrial craft.  Again, separating the signal from the noise.  There is quite probably real phenomena embedded in the noise.

Why bring up abduction, or better yet, interactions with EARs and UFOs and humans if the claim of extraterrestrial craft flying around the skies implies something or someone is flying it?  The question goes directly to the problem, the problem being that it has been over 60 years since the term UFOs, and the implication of extraterrestrials visiting the planet has never been proven definitively.  There are rumors, myths, testimonies to the response that there is evidence.  I have to report to having just watched a History Channel program called “Secret Access” which claimed it would provide irrefutable proof.  What I saw was reenactments and flashes of pieces of paper stamped Confidential.  Some talking heads being impassioned and providing their opinions.  Fuzzy lights flashing between the trees in the woods.  Did anyone know for sure what they were looking at; experiencing?  They were all very sincere and were convinced they knew just what they were looking at.  How can the witnesses be so sure?

In order to get at the real phenomena we will have to begin to understand just what is human perception and how it functions.  Albeit, not an easy task.  To begin with, the only device recording the experience - whether light in the sky, light blinking on and off through the trees in the woods or someone claiming an entity standing in their bedroom as they emerge from a deep sleep.  The reports are influenced by the observer’s worldview, the initial viewpoint of the observer/experiencer.  The interview and background education of the interviewer is considered crucial to the report.  However, so far the interview process has not evolved with our understanding of the human mental and psychological processes.  The interview process will need to be more intensive.  The usual questions that have been asked are whether the individual providing testimony has been drinking, taking drugs; whether the individual is a trained observer, i.e., police, military, etc.  This type of profiling of a “witness” does not nearly cover the circumstances needed to determine the conditions and mental states influencing the observer.  

A new model of interviewing will need to be developed.  Before discussing a model, we need to take a wild ride into the changes happening in astronomy/cosmology/neurology.  One of the discoveries of research into human perception was defining what Universe is, so far as we understand it.  What that means is most of the time what appears to be happening “out there” is really happening “in here.”  Humans are continually projecting from “in here” to “out there.”  This is important to understand and pay close attention to.  It is not the way the world has been perceived.   Hopefully, the following will lead to a new understanding as to how the world really works and help us strip away false notions.  

The first new rule: the universe does not exist in a state independent from the observer.  That new rule is according to Robert Lanza, M.D., scientist and author of “Biocentrism.”  This is how Dr. Lanza defines the revised worldview: “We carry space and time around us like turtles with shells.  The Universe is comprised of billions of spheres of reality, a melange whose scope is breathtaking.  Strikingly, anything you don’t observe directly exists only as potential - or more mathematically speaking - as a haze of probability.  Nothing exists until it is observed.”  Dr. Lanza goes on to state that while we are in the process of sorting out the fact that time and space don’t exist without us, our reality will feel like a bit of madness.

According to Dr. Mark Robert Waldman, the madness comes from the fact the human brain generates every type of belief.  Each human brain constructs its own version of reality and is biased by its experience of perceptual, cognitive, emotional, and social beliefs, resulting in a limited view of reality of what actually exists “out there.”  In other words, an individual worldview is shaped by neurological, physiological, psychological and sociological experiences.  This is common to all humans.  Both the interviewer and interviewee are influenced by their own worldview.  A trained observer might do a little better with controlling what he perceives, but it depends on mood, what was previously eaten, whether the water was cleared of toxins or they brushed their teeth.  Yes, it is true.  Toxins affect human perceptions.  Not just drugs and alcohol.

The ride we are taking is going to get even wilder.  Scientists and cosmologists have postulated there is a condition of universe called dark matter and dark energy.  One of the searches for dark matter is taking place underground in Minnesota.  The experiment is exhibiting a paradox.  The experiment is called Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS).  It is attempting to detect Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS).  The researchers think they found evidence of dark matter but are not sure because there may have been a signal but they couldn’t conclude if in fact it was a signal.  Well, no wonder we can’t figure out whether extra normal phenomena is “real” or not, because if there are weak particles attempting to interact with our world, should we be wondering if this the method another world is emerging into ours?

Other researchers are attempting to describe multilevel universes.  Again, they have encountered paradoxes.  The discussion of multilevel universes is too vast a subject to be covered in this article.  However, when I let go of my limited worldview and begin to wander into new territory, I have to wonder if the Matrix, Zero Point, Multilevel Universes are all part of the phenomena physicists are calling dark matter and dark energy.  A glimpse into Alternative Realities (ARs), as it were.  

One more point, searching for dark matter and dark energy isn’t only taking place “out there.”  A research team at the Washington School of Medicine in St. Louis is claiming dark energy resides in the human brain (The Brain’s Dark Energy”, by Marcus E. Raichle, Scientific American, March 2010, pages. 44-49).  Using positron-emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging, Dr. Raichle has uncovered the fact that the brain is never “at rest.”  When not focused, the brain goes into a state Raichle calls “default mode network" (DMN).  It is a state of readiness, waiting in case it needs to react to novel or unexpected inputs.  DMN is necessary because the brain receives very little data externally and is continuously interacting within itself.  According to Raichle, “(I)n years to come the brain’s dark energy may provide clues to the nature of consciousness.  As most neuroscientists acknowledge, our conscious interactions with the world are just a small part of the brain’s activity.  What goes on below the level of awareness - the brain’s dark energy, for one - is critical in providing the context for what we experience in the small window of conscious awareness.”  Raichle concludes that new theories regarding data on cells, circuits and neural systems are necessary to explain how the DMN serves to organize its dark energy.  “Over time neural dark energy may ultimately be revealed as the very essence of what makes us tick.”

I am going to suggest that EARs who make their appearance in our reality are able to create the energy to emerge into our worldview for a short time, do whatever they need to do to attract our attention, and then dissipate back into their separate reality.  Further, I suggest it takes cooperation - whether consciously or subconsciously - between the entity and the human mind.  At this juncture, the duration is very short and is filtered through the human mind’s perception of reality.  For example, a pilot thinks he sees a craft he cannot identify.  At first, just a glimpse.  A flicker across neurons.  Moments later, the conscious mind steps in and provides details.  What those details consist of is determined by the worldview of the observer.

What if we humans want to cooperate to hold the appearance for a longer duration?  Or, understand how we humans precipitate the conditions under which an EAR can make its appearance?  Perhaps, the answer lies in some of the protocols developed by Joseph McMoneagle based on his remote viewing experiences.  The protocols describe steps that can be taken to facilitate contact with alternative realities.  McMoneagle’s remote viewing protocols are supported by Raichle’s research, with one caveat.  Raichle’s research has determined that the mind is never “at rest.”  Instead of the protocol’s requirement that the mind be “at rest,” the mind should be unfocused, in default mode.  Idling.  Waiting.  Ready in case something happens.  Suspended between consciousness and subconsciousness.  The protocol calls for an understanding of the “hard-wiring of the brain.”  The very research Raichle is conducting in his laboratory.

During the DMN state, if there is a flicker of something across the neurons - at the subconscious level -, it is recorded and stored for later interpretation by the conscious mind.  Micro seconds later, the conscious mind/the ego will attempt to ascribe meaning - using the observer’s worldview.  The ascribing of meaning by the ego should be discouraged by the observer.  Only the flicker of whatever is attempting to manifest should be encouraged.  According to McMoneagle, the ego only muddies the event.  We now come to the hard part.  Creating, or understanding, the language the subconscious mind uses to communicate with the conscious mind.  It would take an entire book to provide specifics and methods to document the research now being developed to understand how we humans function in our physical reality and who we really are.

What does this mean for a completely new approach to solving the UFO phenomenon?  First, I am proposing that the human personality, worldview and physiology is influencing what the “witness” is experiencing.  That goes for all involved: The witness.  The interviewer.  Anyone with an opinion related to the experience.  Even if it is reported as a “light in the sky.”  One side note: alcohol is not the only thing ingested that can cause temporary hallucinating or delirium and cause a subjective experience.  First of all, most individuals are in and out of a hallucinatory state during their entire lifetime.  The state is called awake hallucinating.  One of the causes is bromides.  Bromides are in many different consumer products.  It builds up in the human body over time and eventually may inhibit iodine enzyme metabolism.  Where do these bromides come from?  They come from food, especially bread, drinking water, toothpaste, mouthwash, flame-retardants, hair dye and other sources.  All these chemicals will need to be part of testing to determine whether the witness was induced into a possible hallucinatory state and caused the witness to experience something out of the ordinary.  Plus, the usual other factors now included in ruling out what is to be included in a report of a sighting.  

Experiencing an awake hallucination should not mean that the event that took place is not “real” (meaning taking place in the agreed upon reality), but real in the alternative state sense of the word.  Alternative states may be where the events start and then emerge into our agreed upon reality.   

For the time being we will have to be satisfied with glimpses of our own and alternative realities.  What we will have to do is to take responsibility for how our minds react to the glimpses.