Rey Hernandez, Scientific Study of ET Contact and the Paranormal |412|

Wow, interesting! See, I can't explain why or what the aliens are. I really DON'T want to believe. I don't know why, I mean it makes sense there would be "others" out there. I was just telling what I saw & what happened, because one day somebody might need to know this weirdness.
Its like we have a kind of psychological/cultural coating that gets striped from us if we believe properly - and then where are we? Naked and alone? No, but its a hard transition to make. Its okay to have safe or even thrilling intellectual ideas about ET (whatever that may mean to us) - but make that a visceral engagement and that becomes another thing entirely.

What is real and normal can never be the same thing again - and that's traumatic - ontological and existential shock.

In an important sense you are saying not that your don't want to believe, but you don't want to know - the shock of confronting non-conforming knowledge will send us into denial if we think that knowing is a threat to our sense of self and reality. Its self-protective. This why initiation into the Mysteries is traumatic and dangerous and was done under guidance (human or spirit).

These days we get slammed with what are seemingly random acts of violence against our sense of the normal - and we react because there's no conscious sense of context or guidance or support. But there is, almost always. If we could see deeply and trust, maybe we'd behave differently?
 
Hey Alex I am not sure what you mean by unprecedented here. Non-human intelligence has been interacting with humans for a hell of along time - and manipulating dreaming and waking consciousness. What we do have is an unprecedented level of reporting of it. It may be true that there is more of it going on, but we can't be sure of that. However it does seem that as though there something that is intensifying - in the sense that we seem to have entered a phase of relative crisis.

Some argue that ET is a mask for a deeper non-human consciousness. That seems to be the direction that Hernandez is looking - and its one I presently prefer. If we remember that what has been reported may be only a fraction of people effected (including those who don't disclose and those who are not conscious of any experience) we could be talking a substantial portion of a population - and to what end?

Generally it seems that the experiences are positive and the intent is to influence thought and behaviour in a way I regard as a kind of accelerated way of cutting through the density of materialism (intellectual and moral errors) - a kind of collective course correction. But even so, I sense it is more complex than that too.
How do we know who contacted who? Why do we assume the alien intelligence contacted us and manipulated our awareness?

Isn't it equally likely that we opened our awareness (i.e. manipulated our own consciousness) and discovered alien intelligence?

But the latter wouldn't be a paranoid conspiracy theory.

If I go on vacation to a nice cabin in the woods, and , for the first time open the back door and look out at all of the trees and squirrels, do I say that the trees and squirrels opened the door and made me look at them for some possibly sinister purpose?
 
Its like we have a kind of psychological/cultural coating that gets striped from us if we believe properly - and then where are we? Naked and alone? No, but its a hard transition to make. Its okay to have safe or even thrilling intellectual ideas about ET (whatever that may mean to us) - but make that a visceral engagement and that becomes another thing entirely.

What is real and normal can never be the same thing again - and that's traumatic - ontological and existential shock.

In an important sense you are saying not that your don't want to believe, but you don't want to know - the shock of confronting non-conforming knowledge will send us into denial if we think that knowing is a threat to our sense of self and reality. Its self-protective. This why initiation into the Mysteries is traumatic and dangerous and was done under guidance (human or spirit).

These days we get slammed with what are seemingly random acts of violence against our sense of the normal - and we react because there's no conscious sense of context or guidance or support. But there is, almost always. If we could see deeply and trust, maybe we'd behave differently?
***
Well, it's kind of like this (for me), I am the type of person who warns others; points things out of importance. I don't keep good things to myself, I like to share. Dangerous things I'm real loud in pointing out.

However, I also don't like ridicule AND if someone even tries, I will bring it. I will force them to see & admit, I will challenge them to a bet.... or whatever. One of us is going to be right AND I want to know which one of us it is.

With UFO's well, WTH, just WTH. You have nothing, so you just look like a fool from the jump. The only people you can tell are people who know you very well (& if you have a thing for honesty/like I do)... well, then they know you saw this. That's when they start w/the "I wish I could see them!" "God, you are so lucky!"

So then you're off to the races w/ NO, you don't want this.

Also, when you sit alone in the dark to think; What does this all mean? You got nothing. Okay you saw a UFO and the "creatures". Now what?

Where are they from? I don't freakin know.
What do they want? I don't freakin know.
Would they lie/ would they be honest? I don't freakin know.

So, you are kind of left with let's analyze their actions. They creep around, scare the ever loving hell out of people, they didn't offer me tea! AND the main freak said (thought out) we were equal to toad poop.

WHICH BTW, makes me wonder about people who say "they are nice". WHY is that all nice? Do they have anything to show for their "nice"? I haven't seen anything. I was nice, I wanted to be friends.

See my problem here? They didn't solve anything for me. Hey, maybe they are working with governments, in which case I say.. well THAT'S JUST GREAT. Just great (apply sarcasm).
 
Its like we have a kind of psychological/cultural coating that gets striped from us if we believe properly - and then where are we? Naked and alone? No, but its a hard transition to make. Its okay to have safe or even thrilling intellectual ideas about ET (whatever that may mean to us) - but make that a visceral engagement and that becomes another thing entirely.

What is real and normal can never be the same thing again - and that's traumatic - ontological and existential shock.

In an important sense you are saying not that your don't want to believe, but you don't want to know - the shock of confronting non-conforming knowledge will send us into denial if we think that knowing is a threat to our sense of self and reality. Its self-protective. This why initiation into the Mysteries is traumatic and dangerous and was done under guidance (human or spirit).

These days we get slammed with what are seemingly random acts of violence against our sense of the normal - and we react because there's no conscious sense of context or guidance or support. But there is, almost always. If we could see deeply and trust, maybe we'd behave differently?
***
I thought I'd show you how it feels to see a UFO because nobody actually gets it (unless they have seen one). So, I made you a video. Turn on your speakers, enlarge your screen. Then, imagine you are minding your own business when all of a sudden THIS suddenly is flying over your head in a saucer. yeah, like YOU'D tell anyone.

Enjoy:
 
How do we know who contacted who? Why do we assume the alien intelligence contacted us and manipulated our awareness?

Isn't it equally likely that we opened our awareness (i.e. manipulated our own consciousness) and discovered alien intelligence?
there seems to be considerable evidence for the ancient alien hypothesis (for lack of a better term). this would include accounts that directly say this as well as some frontier science work with DNA.
 
***
I thought I'd show you how it feels to see a UFO because nobody actually gets it (unless they have seen one). So, I made you a video. Turn on your speakers, enlarge your screen. Then, imagine you are minding your own business when all of a sudden THIS suddenly is flying over your head in a saucer. yeah, like YOU'D tell anyone.

Enjoy:
The vid is not available! Bugger! I was so keen to see it. BTW I have seen 2 for sure and maybe 4.
 
See my problem here? They didn't solve anything for me. Hey, maybe they are working with governments, in which case I say.. well THAT'S JUST GREAT. Just great (apply sarcasm).
ET doesn't solve any problems. They create them. If you are part of the nuts and bolts brigade ET arriving here will disrupt the social order in so many ways. No government wants that. No economy wants that. That doesn't mean nuts and bolts ET isn't real, just that their presence has to be managed. They are here for material benefit, so they will fit into the materialistic play book - hence dealing with political and economic power.

If you think ET is more metaphysical then intrusion into our reality on a shared or collective level represents traumatic inflection points on a cultural level. If that intrusion is confined to individuals the trauma is spread and the process of change mediated. Metaphysical ET does not give a fig for physical structures and conventions. That is why 'ordinary' folk are involved.

For me we are dealing with both, with the metaphysical using the physical as masks or metaphors - because they need a model to manifest through. I think Jeff Kripal is right when he says that the sci fi movie is really the foundation of modern religion - but you gotta read his work before you use that idea.
 
What accounts? What frontier DNA research?
An excerpt from an Atacama Mummy article I wrote. This is not the only case...

Moreover, these large-scale single nucleotide, block indel and structural variants in no way constitute simple ‘novel genetic variations’ as the article frames them; rather they involve [Bhattacharya et al.; Whole-genome sequencing…]:
i. 3,356,569 single nucleotide variations (SNVs),​
ii. 518,365 insertions and deletions (indels), and​
iii. 1047 structural variations (SVs) were detected as compared to a human reference genome.​

None of this was even mentioned in the Halcrow Article. The only time it was alluded to, the above variance was downplayed as part of a desperate grasp at the plausible deniability of ‘nitrate exposure’ and to question the haplogroup and human they used as the genomic reference. In other words, desperate rhetoric. Again, show me the precedent for such large scale and functional ‘mutation’. To make the implication that this is not a mystery is just plain old agenda-spinning ignorance. To suggest that no morphological feature of this artifact should have served to raise a scientific question at all, is corrupt in its crafting. The DNA simply serves to confirm this.

In order to place this DNA divergence into perspective – this genetic distance represents slightly more than the separation break between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal, at about 3 million base pairs.2 This represents 300,000 years differential evolution at the Scally/Sykes rate of observed natural genetic mutation.3 4 Three hundred millennia of evolution comprised inside one single generation of in-species birth. Technically, we encountered a completely new species of man in the case of Ata. However, we panicked so badly as to how to spin this information for damage control (as are the Halcrow Article authors now), we failed to take note of the scientific observation. An observation just as exotic in nature as the discovery of Denisova hominins, Homo naledi, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis. Finding human DNA inside a set of remains, does not logically constrain our conclusion therefore to that of the remains being modern human, as the article has incorrectly contended. Each of the four predecessors just listed, as it turns out all have human DNA in them – this does not serve to make them modern Homo sapiens.

The study of this little mostly human foetus could serve to turn our understanding of the mechanisms underpinning evolution upon its ear, or advance us decades into the future of our understanding of speciation. Yet, we think it is ethical to bury this evidence back in the ground. Much like having the Royal Navy sink Darwin’s ship HMS Beagle, replete with all his work, because it did not pay its port departure fee. I swoon at such virtuous action!

Halcrow Article experts, query your human genetic representative, Michael Knapp. Have him email me with even ONE SINGLE precedent for a single generation mutation which has attained this level of variance from its parental genome – and lived long enough to be analyzed as a creature for that matter. In fact, I challenge all the study authors to explain to me – one highly involved in genetic studies, just how this 3.4 million SNV genetic distance was attained in a single generational reproductive context. I await your expert response.
 
An excerpt from an Atacama Mummy article I wrote. This is not the only case...

Moreover, these large-scale single nucleotide, block indel and structural variants in no way constitute simple ‘novel genetic variations’ as the article frames them; rather they involve [Bhattacharya et al.; Whole-genome sequencing…]:
i. 3,356,569 single nucleotide variations (SNVs),​
ii. 518,365 insertions and deletions (indels), and​
iii. 1047 structural variations (SVs) were detected as compared to a human reference genome.​

None of this was even mentioned in the Halcrow Article. The only time it was alluded to, the above variance was downplayed as part of a desperate grasp at the plausible deniability of ‘nitrate exposure’ and to question the haplogroup and human they used as the genomic reference. In other words, desperate rhetoric. Again, show me the precedent for such large scale and functional ‘mutation’. To make the implication that this is not a mystery is just plain old agenda-spinning ignorance. To suggest that no morphological feature of this artifact should have served to raise a scientific question at all, is corrupt in its crafting. The DNA simply serves to confirm this.

In order to place this DNA divergence into perspective – this genetic distance represents slightly more than the separation break between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal, at about 3 million base pairs.2 This represents 300,000 years differential evolution at the Scally/Sykes rate of observed natural genetic mutation.3 4 Three hundred millennia of evolution comprised inside one single generation of in-species birth. Technically, we encountered a completely new species of man in the case of Ata. However, we panicked so badly as to how to spin this information for damage control (as are the Halcrow Article authors now), we failed to take note of the scientific observation. An observation just as exotic in nature as the discovery of Denisova hominins, Homo naledi, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo floresiensis. Finding human DNA inside a set of remains, does not logically constrain our conclusion therefore to that of the remains being modern human, as the article has incorrectly contended. Each of the four predecessors just listed, as it turns out all have human DNA in them – this does not serve to make them modern Homo sapiens.

The study of this little mostly human foetus could serve to turn our understanding of the mechanisms underpinning evolution upon its ear, or advance us decades into the future of our understanding of speciation. Yet, we think it is ethical to bury this evidence back in the ground. Much like having the Royal Navy sink Darwin’s ship HMS Beagle, replete with all his work, because it did not pay its port departure fee. I swoon at such virtuous action!

Halcrow Article experts, query your human genetic representative, Michael Knapp. Have him email me with even ONE SINGLE precedent for a single generation mutation which has attained this level of variance from its parental genome – and lived long enough to be analyzed as a creature for that matter. In fact, I challenge all the study authors to explain to me – one highly involved in genetic studies, just how this 3.4 million SNV genetic distance was attained in a single generational reproductive context. I await your expert response.
TES,
Where is your paper published? Peer reviewed?
 
please watch her presentations and tell me what you think. it would really help me out if someone could do a detailed fact check of the micro biologists and other DNA researchers she references
I'm not going to watch that whole thing. It's bizarre gibberish. The ranting of a wannabe cult leader nut job. I find it disturbing that the woman talks to children and encourages them to be sucked into her fantasy life.
 
please watch her presentations and tell me what you think. it would really help me out if someone could do a detailed fact check of the micro biologists and other DNA researchers she references
I am less interested in her citations than the substance of what she asserts. Rodwell has been around long enough to not be sloppy about 'faked' references. She would know they would be checked.

Does what she says make sense? It does. Is it real and true? No idea. What Rodwell assets violates the normal notion of what is real and okay. But that is exactly what you'd expect from ET contacts and communications. Information provided has to be transgressive to be of value - and relevant to the experience. There is no way ET is going to validate our norms.

We might be annoyed that Rodwell talks as if the matter has been settled. It may be for her, but not for her audience - and hence her presentation can seem to be manipulative. There is a stench of 'truer believer' about the performance. But that does not invalidate it. That's mere aesthetics.

In a personal encounter I'd like Rodwell to respect my skeptical position and not talk to me as though I accept what she says is real and true. But the video is not a personal encounter. Its part of what Rodwell does as a living. So she is selling a POV that may or may not be real. That's what you do under the circumstances.

I have downloaded the whole show. I skipped through it and found nothing that radically offends. I didn't like being talked at - but I wasn't there. Is she right? No idea - but I favour maybe. Is she crazy? No.
 
I am less interested in her citations than the substance of what she asserts. Rodwell has been around long enough to not be sloppy about 'faked' references. She would know they would be checked.

Does what she says make sense? It does. Is it real and true? No idea. What Rodwell assets violates the normal notion of what is real and okay. But that is exactly what you'd expect from ET contacts and communications. Information provided has to be transgressive to be of value - and relevant to the experience. There is no way ET is going to validate our norms.

We might be annoyed that Rodwell talks as if the matter has been settled. It may be for her, but not for her audience - and hence her presentation can seem to be manipulative. There is a stench of 'truer believer' about the performance. But that does not invalidate it. That's mere aesthetics.

In a personal encounter I'd like Rodwell to respect my skeptical position and not talk to me as though I accept what she says is real and true. But the video is not a personal encounter. Its part of what Rodwell does as a living. So she is selling a POV that may or may not be real. That's what you do under the circumstances.

I have downloaded the whole show. I skipped through it and found nothing that radically offends. I didn't like being talked at - but I wasn't there. Is she right? No idea - but I favour maybe. Is she crazy? No.
Here's a problem - I'll bet you I can find someone equally as certain and claiming equal contact knowledge and authority who says thing that are 180 degrees opposite of what Rodwell says.

Care to take the bet?
 
TES,
Where is your paper published? Peer reviewed?
Quashing Study of Ancient Artifacts Violates a Basic Human Right

This is an editorial, not a scientific research publishing. It is critique of one of the studies which came out on that human remain. But this little critter is not the only thing which has been studied. Excerpt

The [ancient or anomalous] artifact exists in a temporarily indivisible duality: it is simultaneously both a physical object and a public domain information set. The asset or cultural ‘owner’ of the artifact only owns the physical item; they do not own the information which it contains – nor do they bear the right to restrict access to such information. This is a type of easement, similar to a property easement which is administered for the benefit of everyone, and not just the property title holder.
Each of these dual entities involves differing legal, moral and ethical implications; and until they are separated by study and documentation of the contained intelligence into the public domain, no one party can claim authority over both sides of this unique duality. Maintaining this duality in pressure upon obfuscating governments and institutions will ensure the competition and efficacy of science. Both the physical object owner and the public information owners will want analysis completed in as expedient a fashion as is reasonable. Lawyers are you listening? Because such a case is going to be tried, and eventually won.
 
I'm not going to watch that whole thing. It's bizarre gibberish. The ranting of a wannabe cult leader nut job. I find it disturbing that the woman talks to children and encourages them to be sucked into her fantasy life.
I really want good evidence. I wouldn't label her that way but for sure its not at all clear what is being claimed. I do find in that group a kind of naivete that is easy to ridicule. Buyer beware, etc.
 
An excerpt from an Atacama Mummy article I wrote. This is not the only case...

Moreover, these large-scale single nucleotide, block indel and structural variants in no way constitute simple ‘novel genetic variations’ as the article frames them; rather they involve [Bhattacharya et al.; Whole-genome sequencing…]:
i. 3,356,569 single nucleotide variations (SNVs),​
ii. 518,365 insertions and deletions (indels), and​
iii. 1047 structural variations (SVs) were detected as compared to a human reference genome.​

None of this was even mentioned in the Halcrow Article. The only time it was alluded to, the above variance was downplayed as part of a desperate grasp at the plausible deniability of ‘nitrate exposure’ and to question the haplogroup and human they used as the genomic reference.

In order to place this DNA divergence into perspective – this genetic distance represents slightly more than the separation break between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal, at about 3 million base pairs.2 This represents 300,000 years differential evolution at the Scally/Sykes rate of observed natural genetic mutation.3 4 Three hundred millennia of evolution comprised inside one single generation of in-species birth. Technically, we encountered a completely new species of man in the case of Ata.


I don't understand why you believe these SNV's and indels are very unusual. If this occured in a single generation, supposedly through toxins...well ok, that does sound like a very poor explanation. However, isn't it true that humans already have easily this degree of natural variation both in terms of indels and snvs. Indeed, we have more than this!

There about 3 billion base pairs in a human genome and supposedly there is a 1% snv variance, on average, between a randomly selected person and the reference genome. How does a 3.3 million snv variance represent 300,000 years of evolution at the assumed rate of mutation for a population when we can find even more variation between you and me?!

I assume both my facts and math are wrong somewhere. Because if you are right, then there is another problem: why didn't anybody else notice?!
 
I don't understand why you believe these SNV's and indels are very unusual. If this occured in a single generation, supposedly through toxins...well ok, that does sound like a very poor explanation. However, isn't it true that humans already have easily this degree of natural variation both in terms of indels and snvs. Indeed, we have more than this!

There about 3 billion base pairs in a human genome and supposedly there is a 1% snv variance, on average, between a randomly selected person and the reference genome. How does a 3.3 million snv variance represent 300,000 years of evolution at the assumed rate of mutation for a population when we can find even more variation between you and me?!

I assume both my facts and math are wrong somewhere. Because if you are right, then there is another problem: why didn't anybody else notice?!
Core question SQ

Yes, the variance of the human genome is .6% (Wikipedia Human Genome Variation) when you take the entire array of humanity and assign it a single species. However this is apples to oranges to what is being compared with this artifact.

The nucleotide sequences of the modern human versus Neanderthal/Denisova/Floresiensis vary by only .3%
The nucleotide sequence of the modern human versus Chimpanzee vary by only 1.2%

So are we saying that most humans are not even homo sapiens at all, but a completely separate species even more distant than Neanderthal, Floresiensis and Denisova?... shoot, most humans are even are half way to Chimpanzee!!!?

No, it is not linear math like this. Many variations are simply trivial.

This infant has to be compared to a reference Haplo Group for its population (its parental group) - not to the entire array/history of mankind/Neanderthal. The inferred pace of the mutations in this creature far exceed the Roach-Glusman human mutation rate of 1 per 100,000,000 base pairs every 20 years. It was out of place, time and genome. The study then further classified these as 'single generation mutations'

...likely of Chilean descent, and its genome harbors mutations in genes (COL1A1, COL2A1, KMT2D, FLNB, ATR, TRIP11, PCNT) previously linked with diseases of small stature, rib anomalies, cranial malformations, premature joint fusion, and osteochondrodysplasia (also known as skeletal dysplasia).

So this was a single generation mutation of unprecedented magnitude - not a creature resulting from hundreds of thousands of years genetic drift. It was anomalous enough that they felt compelled to have to manufacture an explanation.
 
Last edited:
Core question SQ

Yes, the variance of the human genome is .6% (Wikipedia Human Genome Variation) when you take the entire array of humanity and assign it a single species. However this is apples to oranges to what is being compared with this artifact.

The nucleotide sequences of the modern human versus Neanderthal/Denisova/Floresiensis vary by only .3%
The nucleotide sequence of the modern human versus Chimpanzee vary by only 1.2%

So are we saying that most humans are not even homo sapiens at all, but a completely separate species even more distant than Neanderthal, Floresiensis and Denisova?... shoot, most humans are even are half way to Chimpanzee!!!?

No, it is not linear math like this. Many variations are simply trivial.

This infant has to be compared to a reference Haplo Group for its population (its parental group) - not to the entire array/history of mankind/Neanderthal. The inferred pace of the mutations in this creature far exceed the Roach-Glusman human mutation rate of 1 per 100,000,000 base pairs every 20 years. It was out of place, time and genome. The study then further classified these as 'single generation mutations'

...likely of Chilean descent, and its genome harbors mutations in genes (COL1A1, COL2A1, KMT2D, FLNB, ATR, TRIP11, PCNT) previously linked with diseases of small stature, rib anomalies, cranial malformations, premature joint fusion, and osteochondrodysplasia (also known as skeletal dysplasia).

So this was a single generation mutation of unprecedented magnitude - not a creature resulting from hundreds of thousands of years genetic drift. It was anomalous enough that they felt compelled to have to manufacture an explanation.
Sooo the reference class is its haplogroup. Ok. Than obviously other questions arise.

But without a good understanding of how the whole genome works, this sounds quite challenging. As you said, its not a simple linear progression. By that i mean detecting design. Although it would seem in time answers ought to be obvious -- if they aren't already!

Single generation mutations? Uhh, lol ok well that seems like an odd way to describe it.
 
Core question SQ

Yes, the variance of the human genome is .6% (Wikipedia Human Genome Variation) when you take the entire array of humanity and assign it a single species. However this is apples to oranges to what is being compared with this artifact.

The nucleotide sequences of the modern human versus Neanderthal/Denisova/Floresiensis vary by only .3%
The nucleotide sequence of the modern human versus Chimpanzee vary by only 1.2%

So are we saying that most humans are not even homo sapiens at all, but a completely separate species even more distant than Neanderthal, Floresiensis and Denisova?... shoot, most humans are even are half way to Chimpanzee!!!?

No, it is not linear math like this. Many variations are simply trivial.

This infant has to be compared to a reference Haplo Group for its population (its parental group) - not to the entire array/history of mankind/Neanderthal. The inferred pace of the mutations in this creature far exceed the Roach-Glusman human mutation rate of 1 per 100,000,000 base pairs every 20 years. It was out of place, time and genome. The study then further classified these as 'single generation mutations'

...likely of Chilean descent, and its genome harbors mutations in genes (COL1A1, COL2A1, KMT2D, FLNB, ATR, TRIP11, PCNT) previously linked with diseases of small stature, rib anomalies, cranial malformations, premature joint fusion, and osteochondrodysplasia (also known as skeletal dysplasia).

So this was a single generation mutation of unprecedented magnitude - not a creature resulting from hundreds of thousands of years genetic drift. It was anomalous enough that they felt compelled to have to manufacture an explanation.
I'm going to be very interested in getting your take on the upcoming interview with mary rodwell. she was hitting me with a lot of DNA stuff that sounded amazing but at the same time left me feeling like I needed a fact checker :)
 
Top