Prophecies and Hypotheses - What should we expect from contact cases?June/July, 2014 CE4 Corner Article Draft

This is a draft of my article for The CE4 Corner - July/August, 2014

Prophecies and Hypotheses - What should we expect from contact cases?

(c)2014 by Craig R. Lang, MS CHt

www.explorewithhypnosis.com

Comments are always welcome

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In recent weeks, I have been the recipient of a storm of e-mails regarding the Billy Meier case. The mega-dialog began with a note from an advocate and representative of Billy Meier in the English-speaking world. In his note to a large e-mail list regarding the Billy Meier case, he stated that he believes the Meier case to be the only legitimate case of ET contact, and was critical of other UFO investigative organizations for ignoring it.

Needless to say, a significant, rather acrimonious dialog ensued, escalating until finally put to rest with a peace call from the MUFON executive director. Following the peace agreements, as it were, I received an e-mail asking some interesting questions. Since in my book, The Cosmic Bridge, I state that any valid hypothesis needs to provide verifiable predictions and tests, what did I think would constitute tests of the Billy Meier case? To me, this raises a greater question - what would constitute validation tests of any contact case?

How can we validate a "Secret" experience, which only the experiencer has undergone? At its very core the contact experience seems designed to confound the scientific method? Yet to satisfy the criteria of science, we need to apply exactly that method to the alleged events of the contact.

Generally speaking, the MUFON field investigation process is designed to do exactly this. Field investigation of sightings and close encounters has evolved quite a bit in the nearly twenty years I have been involved with MUFON. From a relatively informal process, it has evolved a rather high degree of rigor. While there is probably a ways to go, the intent is to maintain a very high degree of integrity in the collection of data and interactions with the witnesses/experiencers of the phenomena.

Validation Criteria

There are several areas of validation that, alone or in combination, make a sighting or encounter case credible (or otherwise). These include (but are not limited to) some of the following criteria

1 - Consistent narratives from each witness

The narrative must pass tests of forensic interviewing. These are quite well documented in the MUFON field investigator manual, so I won't go into great detail on them here.

2 - Corroboration from other witnesses

The best sightings involve multiple independent witnesses. In these cases, the witness accounts must agree to a high degree of detail when elicited under clean forensic interviewing techniques (a'la the MUFON FI Manual).

3 - Physical evidence

Any ground traces, physical objects, or other evidence must be carefully acquired, and associated with a solid investigation. The chain of acquisition and custody needs to be clearly documented and verified, from its origin to/through the collection and analysis process. Anything short of that casts significant doubt on the validity of the case.

4 - Photographic evidence

Photographs need to be thoroughly documented and combined with investigation results as described above. They need to be subject to the same evidence documentation and custody criteria as physical evidence. It needs to be clearly established that the photographs are/could-not-be hoaxed, requiring investigation and analysis of the camera, metadata (for digital photographs) and related information. For a photograph to be taken as legitimate evidence for an anomalous event, these criteria must all be met.

5 - In cases of contact (or abduction), where information is obtained from the  entities with which/whom the experiencer has allegedly interacted, that information needs to be clearly captured during the witness interview, and/or recorded as quickly as possible. And here is where contact research gets particularly interesting.

Testing Contactee Claims

In many cases of UFO abduction, I have heard claims made supposedly by the visitors themselves. These include their location of origin (e.g. another star system, dimension, time, etc.), the nature of their mission, their purpose for being here, etc. When distinct information has been provided, it is often possible to compare that information with the best information we have to date. This suggests several hypothesis tests for the narrative.

ü  The "Origin Test"

in many cases, a location of origin for the beings is claimed. Is it possible to verify whether or not that location exists? Are there, or could there be, planets surrounding that star? We are just beginning to be able to detect planets around other stars. Thus, as our capabilities advance, we should be able to verify ever more clearly whether or not a life-supporting world might be present at that location.

Some potentially testable origin claims have been offered to date.

·         In the Hill abduction case, Marjorie Fish's analysis of the Hill star map has suggested Zeta Reticulii as a possible location of origin.

·         In the Billy Meier case, the claim is that his visitors came from a star somewhat beyond the Pleiades star cluster.

I suspect several other cases exist, which also provide similar claims.

When the claim is that "They" originate from another time or dimension, it becomes difficult to impossible to prove. Thus the "origin test" has minimal use in the more metaphysical or other-than-physical origin claims. Yet in my view, we need to document these claims thoroughly, so that as our technology advances sufficiently we might be able to test/verify them in the future.

ü  The "Prediction Test"

Many experiencers describe being shown specific prophecies of events on Earth, to happen in the near future. When such predictions occur, are they objective forecasts of events to occur, are they metaphorically true, are they some type of warning parables, or do they have another explanation? If they are predictions, then we need to carefully record the events, locations and dates, to verify as the time comes to pass, whether or not the events occurred as predicted.

If they don't then is it clear why? Were they conditional on other actions - human or otherwise - occurring before the predicted moment? In the Judeo-Christian tradition, prophecy is generally not a specific forecast of events, but rather a warning to society - "Change your ways or else "x" will happen" (and usually "x" is rather unpleasant).

ü  The "Technology Test"

Many experiencers also describe observing extraordinary technoogy, or being given specific information about science, engineering, mathematics, etc. In such cases, is it possible to verify the information? Again, it may not be possible to fully verify with present knowledge, yet it should be thoroughly documented so that in the future, if/when the capability develops, this knowledge can be verified.

In addition, the investigators need to establish whether the experiencer had been exposed to the advanced knowledge prior to the event? While someone with an eighth-grade education may not have formal training in quantum physics, perhaps they have a deeper understanding or exposure to it than even the experiencer, his/herself knew.

Subjective Considerations

Many other logical tests could be probably applied to a specific experiencer narrative. But in the end, the account is often largely subjective. It is the story of what the person has experienced. And assuming that the experiencer is telling the truth as he/she believes it, then for them it is true - regardless of whether or not it is objectively verifiable. In such cases, the account probably needs to be taken at face value, added to the massive body of data already present and left at that. Even then, it is valuable as statistical or correlative material for future researchers.

Applying the Tests

So how can we apply these tests to the case of Billy Meier, or any other contact claims? Fortunately, Meier case and similar Pleiadean/Plejaren contact cases, as well, offer some testable claims.

1) The Meier case is the only legitimate case of contact

This claim is potentially easy to test. If any other cases cases of contact or abduction turn out to be true, then at least part of the case is falsified. Since I work with experiences on a regular basis, I see some cases that are rather clearly supported by evidence. This alone would suggest to me that the "exclusivity claim" is false, casting doubt on the whole Meier scenario.

2) The visitors come from a world just beyond the Pleiades star cluster.

If this is true there should be a star system at that location which would include at least one habitable world. As long as the claims state that this world is a physical place, then at least in this aspect, the Meier case provides a scientifically testable prediction. Otherwise, it ceases to be within the realm of science and becomes metaphysical - essentially a form of religion.

3) Specific predictions in contact prophecies

Assuming the prophecies are thoroughly documented, and include events to occur in the relatively near future, it should be possible to track these and verify whether they actually come topass. While I am not very familiar with the Meier prophecies, presumably others are, and could provide validation tracking of any predictions.

These are just a few potential ways to validate/falsify contact scenarios. They provide a few ways to determine whether we are being visited, by whom, for what reason, and from what origin. It is a quick look into a realm of contact, a study of prophecies and hypotheses.

Cultures and Circles - How do non-hierarchical organizations govern themselves?

In the last few years have been a journey into a brave new world, indeed. From a neat, tidy world of corporate hieararchy, I have transitioned into the world of self-employment - a world of alternative and complimentary healers and of spiritually-based organizations and a business called Explore with Hypnosis. What I love about this world is that, for the most part, there is no boss. Diffuse though it may be, we all serve with one goal, and one focal point - spirit and the betterment of our world. 

Having said that, I have found that spiritual, healing and non-hierarchical organizations tend to have the same issues as any other organization. While we may seek to be part of a collective soul, field consciousness, spirit of unity - there are many names for it - each organization is made up of humans. Humans have viewpoints, egos and emotions. And so, like any organizations I have ever worked with in corporate America, the spiritual healing world finds the same problems of team building, group management and interpersonal dynamics. 

In our own organization, The Circle of Healing Arts, we have been studying possible ways of more efficient decision making. We have looked at a number of ways, including the coop and communal models of the early1900's, a board-and-committees model of present day business, and a few others. In the process we have discovered the same question as any other spiritual, new-age or healing-focused organization. How do we combiner business and spirit in a way that gets things done while maintaining the integrity of the organization? 

This has all led me to become interested in one big question. How do non-hierarchical organizations manage themselves? How does a leaderless organization get business done? And how does such an organization avoid chaos. 

There is one difference between the corporate world and that of the healing and spiritual oriented organization. In the corporate world, there is usually some degree of hierarchy. At the top is the CEO and/or the chairman of the board. Further down the food chain are varying degrees of management - ranging from almost none in the tiniest startups to many layers of unwieldy bureaucracy in the most behemoth organizations. In the corporate world, At the end of the day, it is results that count. Regardless of how the organization is structured, each person within it is accountable for their work. The CEO is accountable to the owner, investors or stockholders. Managers and/or directors are responsible to the directors, and so on down the hierarchy. 

This chain of accountability is built in to even the flattest of organizations - it's part of the culture. If absolutely necessary, a manager or director can step in and impose order. For better or for worse, such as during a crisis, sometimes the boss has to call the shots. Yet, in a non-hierarchical world, there is no boss. Thus, in crisis mode, who fills that role? 

In more than one new-age organization I've seen, we had the abrupt and brutal realization that non-traditional though we might be, we were still a business. Like any business, we ultimately had to provide value and quality results to our customers (clients). We also had to balance income and expenses, pay the bills, market ourselves, etc. We had to organize meetings and conduct the work of the organization. This sometimes led to conflicts of philosophies, styles, personalities, etc. 

So how does a new-paradigm (whatever that means) organization run itself? Is there a president? is there a board of directors? I've been reading a number of business case studies on-line, from business and new-age journals, etc. Many talk about how the non-hierarchical structure for a business is a concept fraught with peril. Yet I have also seen it work.

The largest organizations I've read about, which embodied non-hierarchical principles have been diverse entities such as the Occupy movement, the software organization Mozilla, and many semi-private or non-profit foundations. Among them are non-business entities such as Alcoholics Anonymous. So, again I ask, how do they do it? And how can organizations such as some that I belong to at the present time do the same?

One interesting book I've been reading is Calling the Circle, by Christina Baldwin. Diane, one of the healers in our coop, suggested it as a possible idea, and I believe it has a lot of merit. It combines a certain amount of structure, yet retaining a consensus-driven, non-hierarchical approach - perhaps the best of both worlds.

In Calling the Circle, Christina Baldwin gives a methodology for conducting leaderless - or as she puts it, shared leadership - councils for decision making and problem solving. She says that the council circle is one of the oldest forms of governance in humanity, what she says is the First Culture. And her claim is that by returning to this form of communication/meeting, we can again solve problems that have bedeviled our current culture.

According to Baldwin, we now are in what she calls the Second Culture - comprised of hierarchical governance, with a designated leader or leadership structure, and the rest who do the following. She states that by integrating the council structure into the modern world of business, government and spirituality, we can create the Third Culture, a return to some of the First Culture principles, bringing their benefit into our present-day world.

Baldwin provides distinct rules and procedures for conducting a circle. She has combined these into a trademarked process she calls PeerSpirit. We are currently studying this as a possible way to run coop meetings. It will be interesting to see what works, what doesn't, and how we might adapt this methodology to the  operations of The Circle of Healing Arts. 

Meanwhile, I wonder if Christina Baldwin's Peer Circle methodology would have interesting applications in other areas of life. As I/we study it more, learning the ins and outs of this Third Culture, the results will be fascinating to see. Maybe we will begin to see the answer to the question, how can non-hierarchical organizations govern themselves?