I spent yesterday fine-tuning the previous day's entry, in which I presented very good evidence that Mathew Franklin Whittier was the real author of the poem, "Annabel Lee." And take note that if you read this blog on the day it was published, you aren't getting the full impact of it (nor are you getting me at my best, as a writer). For better or worse, I usually post them immediately, and then work on them--as I re-read them, and as this sparks additional insights--for the next day or two.
If Mathew wrote "Annabel Lee"--and given that proof admits of degrees, I have now proven it to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"--then he wrote "The Raven," and co-authored "A Christmas Carol," as well. If he did that, then he was also a significant force behind the scenes in 19th century American literature, and I am his reincarnation. (I'm not saying those things follow logically--I'm saying I have the evidence to fill in the gaps.) And if I am his reincarnation, then reincarnation exists. If reincarnation exists, we had better re-think a whole bunch of things.
Now, it seems to me that everybody assumes there is some kind of automatic process whereby a person who can prove something, is given five gold stars and the Seal of Approval by Society; and conversely, if a person doesn't have said stars and seal, he or she has failed to prove it. I think we are taught this in grade school, or even in kindergarten, and most of us never question it until the grave. (For all I know, if we fashion our own world in the astral realm, we may not even question it afterwards.)
Some part of me stubbornly clung to this idea for many years. Build a better mousetrap, and they will come. Industry is rewarded with success, and all of that.
What I have found, is that there is a sort of groping mass mind, and only whatever that mass mind accepts, will be accepted as real by its members. As to the degree to which governments and other entities (like banks and large corporations) manipulate that herd instinct in humanity, it's not my purpose to delve into that question. Go to Lee Camp, for that. He'll give you a few laughs and set you straight on it. But just this herd instinct, alone, is powerful enough to keep you in poverty and obscurity, if you try to present an idea that it rejects.
I've recently mentioned that I sent an introductory e-mail to the state historian here in Maine, who is an expert on Portland history. Mathew was a resident of Portland for a little over 20 years, and I thought he might have an interest. I even reproduced the letter for you, in the blog entry. Not surprisingly, I didn't hear back from him. (If I ever do, I'll report it, here.)
Yesterday, I caught a lecture on YouTube by a fellow who has studied the levels of various gasses on Mars, as reported by the probes we have sent, and the study of Martian rocks. The studies are publicly available, he says, but it took him awhile to find them. He says that the level of the gas Xenon is over twice the level found on earth; and that the only place one finds something similar, is at the nuclear test sites. He says it is clearly a "weapons signature," and that there is no other explanation.
Here is the cut-and-paste URL for that lecture:
It opens with a graphic of an alien, a la "Aliens," standing in the middle of the stage, who then inextricably collapses. The title which follows is extravagant. So you are given the impression, at the outset, that it is entirely flakesville. But the lecture, itself, features a slightly rotund, balding, bespectacled fellow calmly and rationally speaking at a podium, with slides. And not knowing the science of the thing, I will say there are only two rational explanations: either it's complete and utter nonsense, or he has proven that Mars was destroyed by two massive nuclear blasts, perhaps 500 million years ago (as I recall the lecture). There is no middle ground.
This might be interesting even if there wasn't any additional evidence. But I have also watched a presentation in which high-resolution NASA images from the Rover were examined. In those images, one can find objects which are clearly not natural. (And no, they weren't left by the damned Rover.) Scouring one image, at high magnification, I found one that the presenter hadn't even mentioned. It's a metal pole, rectangular in shape and curved, with a different colored tip, sticking out of the ground. It cannot possibly be natural. I believe I saved it somewhere on my hard drive, let me see if I can find it...
If you do an internet search on this jpg file, you can find the high-resolution original in which I found it:
Or, the direct link is:
So, assuming the lecture was on a sound basis, we have two strong pieces of evidence bearing on the one theory, and I would say if they don't prove it outright, they certainly merit being taken seriously. Official Society does not take them seriously, at all. The people giving the lectures should be in front of large, academic audiences, and they should be prominent in both professional and lay publications. They aren't. They're guys on YouTube, and one of them is introduced by an animated alien who collapses on stage.
What are the implications, if Mars was inhabited 500 million years ago, and it destroyed itself with nuclear weapons? Obviously, the move to de-arm gets a big boost, while the weapons industry takes a big hit. But beyond that, our sense of time is vastly expanded, as we recognize that we, ourselves, may not be the first. We may, actually, not be so advanced. We might have to revise our values. Clearly, technological advancement without concomitant spiritual advancement, leads to destruction. We might want to rethink the path we're on.
If I, in my past life as Mathew Franklin Whittier, was the real author of "Annabel Lee" (which I wrote to my beloved Abby, "Abigail P---"), what are the implications? Again, it means that, aside from what MFW meant for 19th century literature, reincarnation is real. It means we all reincarnate, and are constantly doing so. It means, for example, that we are dealing with nuclear weapons with the mindset of a man or woman in the 19th century, or earlier. The biggest weapon in the 19th century was a cannon. It couldn't destroy the planet. But emotionally, we, most of us, are treating nukes like cannons, because past-life emotions rule our present-day intellects, without our realizing it.
Obviously, this is only one of many implications. If reincarnation is real, the entire Materialistic paradigm needs to be thrown out on the curb, and we have to start over. We have to start over in science, religion, psychotherapy, medicine, and just about every other social institution and sphere of life. If, for example, reincarnation is real, then karma is real, and "sanskaras" (or "samskaras") are real. Sanskaras are mental impressions, the basis for experience, perception, and behavior; and, in particular, for addiction. If you do something, it carries forward into your next lifetime, and beyond. The action creates a mental impression which also carries forward. That impression presses to be re-experienced, and it will do so--your supposed free will notwithstanding--until you re-enact it. The influence of sanskaras can be resisted, but you had better have some willpower, and you had better catch the thing early. For most people, that process snowballs--over a number of lifetimes--until you finally get an addict. There are numerous types of addicts--some are addicted to drugs, some to sex, some to money. They all commit crimes, sooner or later. The crimes committed by the money addicts--including the weapons dealers--are bringing us to the brink of annihilation (like what happened on Mars). We had better understand reincarnation, and karma, and sanskaras, before it's too late.
Now, this fellow lecturing about Mars at least had an audience. I can't even get an audience. I have a very, very small audience in this blog--you and perhaps 10 other people, based on my stats. I have had over half a million people, as an audience for my documentary, "In Another Life: Reincarnation in America." But that's for the viral versions of my show. I haven't had the heart to watch one of those all the way through, to see what they have cut out, but I do periodically post a comment on them, directing viewers to my own original posting. Only something like 1,700 people have watched mine. One viewer thanked me (having seen my notice under a viral version), and mentioned that it was "more complete." So they must be cutting it. One of them particularly pisses me off--they cut out my company logo, "Gold Thread Video Productions," as all of them do--but then this fellow had the gall to speed up the title, because he got bored, I suppose, with how long it was taking. So my introductory music, under the title, sounds like the "Chipmunks." What balls! Meaning, what disrespect.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Edgar Allan Poe changed "Abigail P---" to "Annabel Lee," and published something Mathew had presumably shared with him privately. But somehow, when Poe went to publish "The Raven," he found that Mathew had already submitted it under "----- Quarles," and he had to act fast. So, being very clever, he convinced someone that he was the author (after all, he had a copy of it), and, as I gather, he arranged for it to be published first, in another paper.*
This brings to mind the last words of the Australian ranger for Jurassic Park, just before he was eaten by the velociraptor: "Clever girl!"
Dickens, who stole Mathew and Abby's manuscript to self-publish as "A Christmas Carol," was an even crappier person. My research indicates that he destroyed the reputation of a reviewer, who dared to point out that Dickens had plagiarized "David Copperfield" from yet another author.
These were not nice guys. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear; and "By their fruits, you will know them." That is to say, not counting the fruits they have stolen, only their own. Spiritually (if not technically), Poe could not have written "Annabel Lee"; nor could Dickens have written "A Christmas Carol." Their very reputations are built on these poems, which, spiritually, were out of their league. Take "Annabell Lee" and "The Raven" from Poe, and what do you have? Some Stephen King-like horror fantasy, which, as Mathew suggested, makes your flesh crawl. It's hard to say, exactly, how much one would have to take away from Dickens, because it appears that he was constantly stealing. But, say, take away "David Copperfield" and "A Christmas Carol," and (not being a student of Dickens' works), you have a bunch of sensationalized stories of the London underworld. We have plenty of TV like that, today. Here's what psychic Andrew Jackson Davis had to say on the subject:
Now our opinion is that, so far from Mr. Dickens being at all qualified for philosophical inquiry, the long habits of his literary life have very much disqualified him for the search after any great truth. Mr. Dickens has not been seeking after truth so much as after the melodramatic and grotesque in effect. He has mixed so much, in pursuit of material for his fictions, with the lowest and most corrupt and degraded of the London populace; with cadgers, and costermongers, and touters, and swindlers, and artful dodgers, for his Quilps, his Fagans, and Dick Swivelers, that his mind has become nearly ruined for any other department of inquiry. Wherever he goes, he looks for low cunning, and sordid trick, and base motive, and a false and fictitious state of things.
Note that Davis avoids any mention of "A Christmas Carol," which would seem to be the one glaring exception. Davis met with Mathew privately in 1854; but whether they discussed this topic is unknown.
One would think that, with good evidence such as I presented yesterday, all I'd have to do is to make a few phone calls. Well, I'm still waiting to hear from the Maine state historian; but have I tried contacting anyone else? I have two different groups to draw from--paranormal investigators, and historians. This actually cuts my chances in half, rather than doubling them, because the paranormal investigators will say, "That's history, it's outside my area," and the historians will say, "that's the paranormal, it's outside my area."
Yes, I've tried. Remember, I began researching my documentary in 1997--over 20 years ago, now--and I began researching my past life as Mathew Franklin Whittier in 2009. Let me see...Carol Bowman has shown no interest (except that she was featured in the documentary, and granted me an interview). I sent Jeffrey Mishlove, of "Thinking Allowed," a working copy of my documentary, but he had had only criticisms (not taking into account that I had hardly any funding to work with). Dr. Jim Tucker blithely dismissed my evidence for the MFW case, as did author Tom Shroder. (At least Shroder, at that time an editor for the Washington Post, did admit that it was well-written.) Dr. Rupert Sheldrake wrote me back a few polite words, being too busy. Dr. P.M.H. Atwater, being a near-death experiencer, conveniently couldn't read anything on electronic formats. Some, of course, never wrote back. Other various and sundry lesser-lights haven't taken my study seriously, though they may quote it as an example of poor research. I've tried a few historians, too, whose names I have forgotten--you know, experts on Dickens, that sort of thing. One of them, Dr. Natalie McKnight, has her own theory about Dickens' authorship of the "Carol," which has far less evidence supporting it than mine does. I get the impression that she has been ostracized by her colleagues, just for that much. She refused to cite my study, as not being "directly relevant," even though it clearly was.
Dr. Chris Bache, of Youngstown University (a professor of religion), wrote me that he had enthusiastically recommended my documentary to 35 of his colleagues.** But when I couldn't in good conscience cross-recommend his book, because of his use of psychedelic drugs and hyperventilating (excuse me, "hypertrophic breathing"), he wouldn't have anything more to do with me, even to the extent of not bothering to ring me up when he was visiting a mutual acquaintance in the little town of North Myrtle Beach.
There are probably others I've forgotten. I interviewed quite a number of big names, in the paranormal field (including Dr. Tucker) for my internet radio show, "Metaphysical Explorations." I didn't mention my own work to them, but you'd think one or two might have looked me up and expressed a reciprocal interest. After all, I was obviously intelligent enough to engage them in a conversation at their own level for an hour, which suggests I am not simply a crackpot.
One can take only so much rejection. It's like picante sauce--you don't want to overdo it, lest you get indigestion. As I indicated recently, from time to time I will cast my bread on the waters. But this is an e-book for which I have been able to induce only a literal handful of people to spend a measly $12.00; which now has a sequel, that not a single person has even looked at, to my knowledge.
And I can prove that Mathew Franklin Whittier co-authored "A Christmas Carol," and wrote both "Annabel Lee" and "The Raven." I can also prove that I'm his reincarnation.
One would think I would be worth giving the time of day. Speaking of which, it is now 6:02 a.m. and time to start mine. The question of fate of the world will, I suppose, have to wait.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*I find it particularly interesting that he was not able to convince his former editor, George Graham, who gave him a handout, instead. Presumably, Graham knew his handwriting, and had seen his poetry.
**Nothing ever came of that recommendation.
Audio opening this page from the film,
"Planes, Trains and Automobiles"