Sensation! We have just managed to contact representatives of extraterrestrial civilizations! For the first time, we managed to get answers to all the questions asked from aliens !!! Sensation? Of course … But such a message could be printed every week.
In the archives of the Scientific Research Association "Cosmopoisk" there is a databank of people claiming that they are in contact with the Computer Center. There are already more than 7 thousand contactees, and this number is constantly growing! What is the percentage of truth here? Is it possible to check the messages of certain contactees based on subjective assessments?
Immediately, we note that here and below, the concept of contactees will be understood not only those who, according to ufological classifications, participated in contacts of the 3rd kind, but also the widest layers of people who receive (or claim to receive) the most diverse information from the most various sources.
Among the most interesting and important for us retelling of information could be named fortunetellers, clairvoyants, religious figures and, what is especially important for us, the authors of chronicle messages describing the cases of contacts with gods, saints or aliens in past centuries. The historical archives of all continents are simply overflowing with such descriptions, and entire branches of history, theology and paleouphology are largely based entirely on them.
There are at least 3 ways to check the validity of historical messages.
First, this is the effect of personal trust in the informant: if the studied previous messages turned out to be reliable, then the degree of trust in the investigated message is also high …
Secondly, the message is checked for contradictions with the existing messages of other contactees, psychics, sorcerers, blessed and other non-traditional sources of information …
Thirdly, the message is checked against the data of modern sciences (physics, chemistry, mechanics …), with the description of other independent witnesses of historical events, given by them in the annals, archival records, with archaeological or archival finds, etc.
Promotional video:
Using the example of one of the rather typical contactees, the artist Andrei (Andre) Ernstovich SIBERT (contactee experience since the end of July 1994, lives in Yoshkar-Ola), all three methods can be applied.
1) Sibert quite soberly evaluates everything he said, sometimes even critically refers to the information transmitted by him (although in general he does not question the alien origin of those with whom he communicates telepathically). As a storyteller, he himself is credible.
2) Compared to other contactees, there is a lot of overlap and repetition (although plagiarism is almost impossible, most contactees do not know each other). The same "handwriting", the same typical requests from "extraterrestrials", similar theses about the need to save the earthly civilization, etc. Of course, there are some nuances: Sibert is an excellent artist (most contactees eventually start drawing and visualizing the information received, but most, unlike Sibert, draw in the style of graftism), perhaps that's why the main information comes to him in a schematic form. As for the "native language" in which aliens sometimes communicate with Sibert, "for some reason" he almost literally conveys Eastern esoteric terms known to any connoisseur of mysticism. They may argue that the terms are just brought to us from the outside,but … why then aliens communicate not in the classical, for example, ancient Chinese language, but in an eerie "hodgepodge" of various popular mystical movements, as if composed by modern experts (and at the same time there is complete confidence that the compiler is not Sibert).
3) Despite the presence of dozens of pages of small-sized text, it is difficult to cling to specific data (general phrases about humanism are indisputable, and “concrete facts” about living conditions on other planets are unverifiable for us - for now, at least). Several specific data in Siebert's texts are "blunders" from the point of view of scientists. For example, the distance from the Earth to the planet of its “respondents” mentioned by Sibert (in terms of kilometers to the generally accepted value - about 100 GigaParsec) is much greater … the size of our Universe (the size of which, according to the latest astronomical data, is about 6 GigaParsec). One can argue that earthly astronomers can be mistaken, but … not by several orders of magnitude!..
The Bible says: "Many will come under my name … Do not believe them" …
In general, everything is very much like a protracted rally on the part of some modern bored esoteric hypnotists who are able to inspire thoughts and feelings at a distance. But such specialists (of course, talented) on Earth, at best, can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and such as Sibert only in our card index and in Russia alone there are about 7 thousand people! Where to get so many hypnotists? And why do those need all this?
Of course, there are possible exceptions among the contactee messages, which cannot be verified by any of the above methods. There are many reports in paleouphology that cannot be verified for any of the points; This is especially true of cases when the story about the contact is given by the contactee himself or by a previously unknown author, who has this message - the only one (the author simply did not care about other topics, and it is difficult for us to form our own opinion about the source of information, sometimes the same is impossible if he, the source man, was also little known to his contemporaries or the descriptions of his contemporaries were emasculated by the censors).
A classic example in this case in paleouthology could be called the description made by Ezekiel, who began to write memories of his own contact, while still under the psychological influence of what happened. There is nothing wrong with the latter circumstance, especially since due to the prompt presentation of his memoirs, Ezekiel left a very detailed description of what happened to him.
So much so that paleouphologists, primarily Joseph F. Blumrich, used the texts of Ezekiel as a technical description and seemed to be quite successful in deciphering them. Deciphering or, more precisely, Blumrich's interpretation of the design of the aircraft seen by Ezekiel was done quite successfully, so much so that, in the opinion of the designers, the project of the apparatus depicted by Blumrich could really fly. But on the other hand, the reconstruction of the apparatus was carried out precisely by specialists in the field of aviation, and since the description of Ezekiel can be interpreted in many places very broadly and ambiguously, it would be quite possible to imagine a situation in which the designers are trying to fit the facts one way or another and bring them together own ideas about flying vehicles and an ancient description, squeezing one into another.
Until the end, it was not possible to do this - in the proposed design of the alien device there were several vulnerabilities, such as the long supporting legs of the device (either not a very successful constructive solution, or incorrect translation of the text and its interpretation). In other words, in the final version, the project does not raise doubts that it will fly (since the days of the pioneer of gliding, Otto LILIENTHAL, it has been known that, in principle, any thing can be made to fly), but one can doubt that this is actually the optimal project (and this is what a machine made by a highly advanced civilization must be in order to fly as well as Ezekiel describes it.)
Blumrich's rather professional work can only be welcomed, especially since, along the way, when deciphering the description, the designers came up with the idea of an interesting engineering design for a wheel capable of rolling in two directions at once, and even patent it. However, the last circumstance, among other things, cannot be considered direct proof of the truth of the descriptions of events made by Ezekiel. It is difficult to make further assessments of the veracity in these descriptions using the above three criteria, since Ezekiel was only the only witness of what he saw. Disputes about the veracity of eyewitness reports are generally excluded, because he is canonized by the church …
In the 1980s, one of the most classic contactee stories was rightfully considered the one told to the country by Viktor Petrovich KOSTRYKIN from Nalchik. He claimed to have been aboard a UFO in 1968 and 1970, describing in detail the external and internal structure of alien vehicles. These descriptions, which became classical for the young Soviet ufology, began to wander in handwritten versions and photocopies throughout the USSR.
But after a few years it turned out that in fact the descriptions of Kostrykino's "UFO" coincide with the description of the plywood model of the spaceship made for the filming of the film "From the Silver Planet" in 1977-78; the film was shot based on the famous novel by Jerzy Zulawski by a Polish TV company. The model of the ship with the inscription "VVGG-2" (the name of the TV company), as unnecessary, the Poles left on the mountain pass, photographs of the "landed UFO" got on the pages of newspapers …
Immediately there were those who presented a photo of a strange design as proof of Kostrykin's stories, and those who debunked the stories of this contactee. It seemed that the fact was obvious: Kostrykin's stories were one to one "licked" from the external data of the plywood structure, therefore, Kostrykin simply decided to use the "contraption" he had seen. Decided short-sightedly. But on the other hand, Kostrykin saw this UFO long before the filming of the film and the construction of the model! True, the latter is known only from the words of Kostrykin himself. But if this is so, then it is unlikely that the Poles made their own model, focusing on the testimony of a local Nalchik eyewitness, most likely someone specially slipped a fake … For what?
So it is still not clear who Kostrykin was, and what his stories really were - a successful invention of the contactee himself, a provocation of opponents of leakage of information about contacts or something else …
The numbers are relentless. Among the huge number of modern UFO sightings and contact situations, it would well be possible to find both similar observations and similar situations. But it is precisely the large number of such modern messages that makes it possible to draw new qualitative conclusions.
In 1989-1996, Cosmopoisk specialists studied the descriptions of more than a hundred modern contactees. As a rule, in their stories, the latter focus on describing the design of a UFO and retelling their own dialogue with the aliens, if any. Since we cannot be sure that we know for sure both the real UFO schemes and the real goals of visiting the Earth, the only criterion by which it is possible to accurately assess the reliability of an event is the degree of correlation between messages. That is, it would be reasonable to assume that the stories of contactees who have been inside different UFOs should not differ from each other more than the stories of those who were inside the same type of objects, and possibly inside the same unidentified object. And a comparison of contactee messages did reveal a clear correlation here,but … only where contactees relied entirely on their own eyes and ears.
As an example, one could cite the stories of voluntary or involuntary visitors to objects of an easily recognizable shape: a three-star, an Adamskiy object, a cigar-shaped ship … In all the cases described, among the drawings of eyewitnesses, the outer contours and some interior rooms are quite well guessed, and the difference is visible only in details: the number of seats, the shape of the instruments, the location of the windows, etc. But different contactees described the rooms in which they were not, as a rule, in completely different ways; as a rule, they received such information, either explicitly or implicitly, from the aliens themselves.
That is, in some cases, the contactees did not hide and even emphasized that they saw the finished schemes at the ufonauts, in other cases the source was not mentioned. Perhaps the contactees did not remember the source of the origin of the information or did not consider it necessary to mention it, but in about half of the cases they claimed that they independently learned about the arrangement of engines and other rooms closed to the eyes of a casual passenger. What is it: forgetfulness, dishonesty on the part of contactees, or deliberate instilling of disinformation on the part of ufonauts?
In other words, ordinary earthly people who have been inside the same UFOs described their appearance and internal structure as much the same as ordinary people without technical education and good visual memory could do. More or less the same contactees described the UFO rooms, inside which they were themselves, but a completely different picture was observed when describing the inner rooms hidden for the eyes, the principle of UFO flight, the principle of operation of the engines, the purpose of the flight, i.e. whatever the aliens "confidentially" communicated to the contactees. From which we can conclude that the messages of the aliens, including information about who they are and where they come from, in most cases turns out to be deliberate misinformation on the part of the aliens themselves.
TRUTH COEFFICIENT
Thus, the degree of truthfulness in the stories of the aliens can be assessed as not exceeding 10-20% of the total amount of information, and most likely this percentage is (however regrettable it is to report) - 1-5%. The author of these lines reported these figures on May 8, 1996 at the 2nd Cosmopoisk Congress (which, I must say, caused a very predictable response from some "contactees"). At that time, the specific figure of the "truth rate" in the analysis of polls was about 1.5% …
Six months later, at the next scientific readings of the UFO Center, similar figures were reported by a representative of the Bulgarian ufologists. They surveyed 150 contactees, a useful way out - only 2 people in whom they are absolutely sure, or 1.3% …
It would not be out of place to recall the research of A. Bogdanovsky, who checked contactees and psychics with the question of finding a missing person. Neither the questioner nor the respondent knew that the missing person had already been found by the police. Nobody said "I don't know." The result of the survey: out of 110 people, 1 indicated the place correctly, 52 - declined to answer, 57 - indicated the wrong place. Here the useful yield is 0.9%.
Most of the ufologists who took part in the surveys of absentee contactees also pointed to similar numbers. In other words, if the results coincide in three independent studies, does this not indicate a real trend !?
The conclusion that most often comes to the mind of scientists is that all contactees are simply crazy. But unbiased research suggests that this explanation, convenient for official science, does not always work. According to V. Azhazha's data, reported by him at a conference in Dnepropetrovsk, out of 108 contactees examined by doctors, 47 had schizophrenia, respectively, 61 contactees were normal (within the limits of an ordinary average person). The study did not clearly reveal whether schizophrenia was the "cause" of the contact or its consequence, observations of such people suggest that both options are possible …
Thus, if we take into account that about 45 percent of contactees are sick, 1-5 percent tell the real truth (i.e. is it in contact with a truthful VC?), It turns out that the rest, namely a little more than half, are sincerely mistaken, receiving disinformation from somewhere outside!..
WHERE IS THE FIRST SOURCE?
Very often, in studies of all types of contacts, it is possible to unequivocally prove that contactees use words, terms, quotes, etc. in retelling of received messages that they obviously could not know. One of the striking examples is the report of the German psychiatrist Richard BLANK, who was engaged in research on the mental state of sorcerers in Central Africa. (Sorcerers and shamans who whisper complete nonsense during the ritual very often resemble the method of “receiving signals from space” by our psychics. So, once, observing the Kenyan sorcerer Mwabambe in a deep trance, from all the incoherent monologue of the sorcerer, he managed to record the strange phrase “People of the planet, do not touch the atom, cell and space!”The phrase was uttered by Mwabambe in pure German, although he himself not only does not know this language, but is also completely illiterate.["Trud-7" 1997, February 14, p.24].
It can be argued that in this and in many other cases, the information to the contactee really came from the outside, possibly from the head of a nearby specialist (as in the case of Blank). Sometimes, the necessary specialist is not nearby, and in this case the source of information with equal probability can be located both on our planet and on a foreign planet - the method of direction finding of mental telepathic transmissions has not yet been developed …
Why the inhabitants of other worlds and UFO pilots, to put it mildly, mislead us is a separate topic for conversation. It can only be noted that they have all the moral rights, for understandable reasons, to hide from our civilization primarily technical details.
The pattern of contact for thousands of years has not undergone significant differences, except for the fact that earthly contactees have become more technically literate, and the aliens stop calling themselves gods (perhaps the latter occurs as a consequence of the former). It can be assumed that the degree of trust in contacts and the general direction of the disinformation policy also did not undergo significant differences over several thousand years. This means that only taking this circumstance into account can we consider the chronicle references to contacts with godlike beings in the distant past. Speaking more specifically, for example, in the already well-known case described by Ezekiel, it can be argued that one can only trust what the person describing has seen visually with his own eyes (of course, adjusted for the author's education and the psychological factor).
And, on the contrary, one should treat with great suspicion the descriptions of the interior decoration of the "divine ships" and the stories of the "gods" themselves. The last rule can be applied to modern analogous descriptions (however, this does not mean that they should not be taken into account at all; of course, they should be analyzed taking into account the above).
One way or another, contactees do contact with someone, but these “someone” are not at all who they claim to be …
With all this, a categorical prohibition on the possibility of telepathic contact with the VC should not be tolerated in any case. Who knows what high technologies we ourselves will achieve, whether we will not be able to transmit messages to our star-planters ourselves, or (why then send star-sailors?) Immediately into the minds of the local natives, fishing for the necessary information, at the same time leaving the necessary information disinformation (a common practice of politicians, possibly interstellar politics too). Nothing prohibits other more advanced civilizations from doing the same with us.
If this is so, then our task is to first understand - how to protect ourselves from other people's influence, then figure out - "why", then - "how", and only then it will become clear - "who" …
And finally advice:
1) First of all, look for evidence that they have a "gift of contacting." If there is material evidence, good. But if the contactee honestly says that “there is no such evidence” (instead of not slipping you some supposedly alien nail), then such a confession, first of all, should speak not about the hopelessness of the case, but about the decency of the respondent.
2) When communicating and working with contactees, do not trust them, as well as information received "from outside". Don't take this information as a basis, just take it into account. Information should not be “thrown into the trash bin”, but “put on the back burner”. If it turns out that at least something of what the contactee said has come true, it is worth extracting everything that was said and re-reading what he stated earlier.
3) In order to be able to verify the readings of the contactee, be interested in the verifiable data. It may be “living conditions on planet N”, but the verification time for such a message may be delayed (although it was the messages of Adamskiy and other contactees who claimed that Venus is a resort planet that were able to refute the Soviet probes “Venus”). It is best to be interested in the exact dates of UFO arrivals, the forecast of events on Earth and other objective events and facts that the respondent obviously cannot know.
4) Never mistrust contactees. First of all, assume that there are people in front of you who sincerely want to tell you something important. But if you feel that your respondent changes his testimony, dodges in order to attract your attention as much as possible, worries when you leave him, “pulls your energy”, uses you “as a vampire victim,” “bring in” such an interlocutor to the "black list" by sharing this news with "Cosmopoisk" (where the list of contactees is created).
Vadim Chernobrov