Many years ago, in the early 70's when I was attending community college, I found myself accidentally the president of what was left of an ecology club. There were six members, and none of them wanted to lead it, and I was too young and stupid to decline the honor. So in the first meeting, I stood up with my friend, Jeff--the vice president--in front of four other people, and went about discharging my duty. The first order of business was, of course, an introduction--and I was so nervous, I introduced myself as Jeff, and Jeff as myself.
Now, I perhaps have a right (being a member of the human race), to call your attention to something I saw recently on History Channel's "Ancient Aliens" series. It is just too good to pass up. A scientist is being interviewed, and he is speaking of "five scientists." I can't remember what these five scientists he is referring to did, or said--I could look it up online, where I found the following image. Probably they all agreed regarding some fine point of alien conspiracy theory. But note how many fingers he is holding up...
This isn't just a trick of screen capturing an instant. He really held up four fingers while illustrating his point. And I am being very good, in not making any quips about neuroscience and hand/finger control. Then again, this is the University of Florida (I went to rival Florida State, myself.) I blame the director, the editor and the producers for this, not the scientist, himself. Everybody does goofy things. If you are a cameraman, you bring it to the attention of the director. The director asks for another "take." Actually, anyone on the crew who notices it, can bring it to his attention. And if proper instructions aren't given to the editor, he or she notices it and brings it to the director's attention. If it gets past everybody, the producers, themselves, catch it in the final screening.
That means, this mistake is impossible. It makes me wonder whether whoever is producing this show, wants to make these people look stupid, by way of discrediting the true portions of the material. Why else would one of the experts have hair standing straight up on end, like he just put his finger in a light socket? There's another image in my mind from one of these shows, where the latter fellow is holding up a little figurine of a weird-looking alien from an ancient civilization, and the expert and the figurine actually look quite similar. But it would take too long to find that one...
Then there is David Wilcock, the purported reincarnation of Edgar Cayce, who does look very much like Cayce in his youth. I don't know what to make of him. He's obviously very, very bright, and he tells us he is psychic, and used to give readings. He seems to be into conspiracy theories, and aliens, and everything except what Cayce, himself, was actually into--especially as regards Cayce's Christian devotion. This last is particularly troubling, to me, when considering his reincarnation claim. Again, I really don't know what to make of him, or what he's into. But given that he seems to be (brilliantly) all over the map, I'm not sure how much perceived credibility he adds to the show.
I am nearly finished exploring my past-life involvement, as Mathew Franklin Whittier, in the 1834/35 New York "Transcript." There is just some work to do figuring out when he started reporting for this fledgling paper. I have proven he was there, to the extent it was possible without his name showing up somewhere. That may also happen, as I hope to obtain a dissertation about the editor through interlibrary loan. "Stay tuned." Best-case scenario, there will be a footnote which says, "It is said that the brother of the poet Whittier worked on this paper during its formative years." But really-speaking, the evidence I already have for this is extremely strong.
Through a circuitous route of dot-connecting, if Mathew was working on that paper, then my speculation and intuitive past-life memory that Mathew was the original author of "The Raven," rather than Edgar Allan Poe, becomes much stronger. I will not actually connect those dots for you, here. It must be seen in the context of my entire book, to be appreciated. I have learned the hard way not to isolate out certain pieces of evidence for the convenience of skeptics, who can't be bothered to read my entire book (because, perchance, they don't believe me in the first place). When I do that, they only conclude what they already believe.
But the dots are there, and are well-connected--and I've done what I just said I've done.
What, actually, distinguishes me from these presentations on the "Ancient Aliens" series? Am I not another "fringe conspiracy theorist," except my own theory particularly suits my megalomania, inasmuch as I claim the historical person as my own past-life self; and his accomplishments as my own past-life accomplishments?
My answer would be another question--did you unconsciously, unthinkingly, add the word "merely" in front of "fringe conspiracy theorist?" Because obviously, in the technical sense, from the perspective of mainstream society, I am a theorist, and I am on the fringe. I am not really concerned with a "conspiracy," unless it be a "consiracy of one." But from the society of those folks in the largest portion of the bell-curve, I could be fairly lumped into that category.
Well, I'm kind of tired of that whole issue of what I'm accomplishing, and what I accomplished--and how I was then, and am now, ignored for my trouble.
After all, there are five prominent scientists who are convinced that my case is genuine.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Music opening this page: "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who,
from the album "Who's Next"