As an Oklahoman by birth, the events of April 19, 1995 are very close to my heart. The story goes that Timothy McVeigh, acting alone, set off an improvised truckload of explosive and brought down the Murrah Federal Building, killing over 160 people. 

A variety of theories regarding these events have been created over the years as new evidence has presented itself. A new film which I had the privilege to view over the weekend presents some of these.

A Noble Lie: Oklahoma City 1995 investigates many of the holes in the official narrative of the OKC bombing through interviews with police officers, victims, experts, and even politicians. Many of these people step forward with stories and experiences which would seem to suggest that Timothy McVeigh had accomplices which were never brought to justice. Some evidence even suggests that he was working for the government in a false-flag operation. Events such as Ruby Ridge and the siege at Waco had added fuel to the fire burning between the government and nationwide militia/constitutionalist forces. It is logical that the government would want to calm this dissension by casting "right-wingers" in a bad light.

The only issue I immediately took from the film was that in certain segments, the actual filmmakers were interviewed with the same gravity as the experts and witnesses that the filmmakers were supposed to be learning from. I'm sure that the reasons for this were to build narrative where there was no convenient expert witness, but interviewing the filmmakers smacks of an author citing his own prior work to defend his hypothesis. 

All in all, A Noble Lie is a must-see if you want to learn more about the OKC bombing, the mysterious murders which followed it, the government sponsored tests which blow the "lone truck bomb" theory out of the water, and the government which continues to cover "someone's" tracks to this day. 

Over the last decade, there have been vast increases in the amount of electronic surveillance, CCTV cameras, and (soon-to-be) military grade drones operating in our the Western democracies. But do governments stop there? Is mind-reading our next big concern? 

The other day I was driving in Baltimore and noticed this billboard, advertising for Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance, an organization operating out of Upland, California since 2005. Their website states that their mission is to educate and help those suffering from "organized stalking and remote electronic assaults", specifically government sponsored mind reading/control and psychic attacks. The group's mission goals seem benevolent enough: helping those who are suffering from these psychic and electronic intrusions and who also have limited resources or are homeless.

Their descriptions of these attacks, however, left me wondering exactly what these "victims" are suffering from. Here are some of the symptoms listed from freedomfchs.com's homepage:

There are other symptoms listed, but the above seem to be the main occurrences which might point to psychic interventions. Compare these with some of the symptoms commonly associated with schizophrenia (taken from webmd.com):

No doubt Freedom FCHS's intentions are well placed, but I wonder if they are treating victims of telepathy or of schizophrenia. Despite the well-documented attempts of US and other forces to train an efficient telepathic soldier/spy, little headway has ever been made in these attempts. Human beings at their present level of technology seem incapable of controlling psychic abilities. Certainly there are functions of the mind that we have yet to understand, but most of the time these abilities seem scarce and unrepeatable. 

The possibility of extraterrestrial beings being able to decode the human mind seem somewhat far-fetched as well. Besides the inherent complexity, non-rationality, and unpredictability of the mind, I just don't see the evidence for telepathic activities taking place on a massive scale on earth. If the military-industrial complex could psychically coerce citizens into obedience, then what would be the need for the kinds of vast and subtle manipulations which come from the military-entertainment complex? Why would our presidents need to spend time crafting just the right slick statements and truisms if, with the flick of a switch or the concentration of some brain-in-a-jar, we could be turned into the popular and derogatory image of "We The Sheeple"? No, I think the fact that I am writing this and you are reading this is proof enough that mind-control or psy-warfare is the stuff of delusion and fiction.

At the recommendation of a friend I dug up a very ambitious film from the Unarius Academy of Science, which Wikipedia describes as:

Some of the ideas expressed in the film are, I believe, indicative of attitudes widespread in the New Age movement.

With the obvious and overly simple moral of "Don't be a jerk and commit genocide for no reason", "The Arrival" is a science fiction film with quite enchanting visuals, yet it is only science fiction. It relies on a couple of faulty principles that I will explain.
Firstly it assumes that technological advancement will necessarily entail moral progress, but I think this is a foolish principle. The film shows us visually just how far of a moral difference lies between us and the people of the stars. Human beings are spear-chucking cavemen and the star children descend in psychedelic spaceships. But there is no evidence that morality advances along with technology. With the invention of atomic power came the first uses of atomic warfare. Unmanned aircraft are utilized in the slaughter of third world children.
Secondly the belief system purports that souls are independent of bodies and immortal, and that the act of reincarnation cycles souls through different bodies all throughout time. While this is a beautiful idea that certainly has appeal, I think that politically it is an ineffective one to have. Even if it is true, the idea tends to encourage an indifference to the problems of the here-and-now in favor of a slow progression from life to life until nirvana is reached. I am unconvinced that meditation and enlightenment are the right courses of action in a world where there is real destruction and suffering happening all the time.
Third, there is a constant belittling of "the ego" or "the self" which I find quite unsettling. I'm no Randian Objectivist (a philosophy that borders on sociopathy) but I don't think the dignity and worth of the individual can be overstated. If we are to live in a just society, we must base it on the principle that no person is a means to an end.

Believing that otherworldly beings will arrive preaching good will and reincarnation is not only overly optimistic, it is foolhardy. When the human race does make official First Contact, we should expect things not to become simpler, but infinitely more complex. We will be stepping into a vast world of intergalactic politics that will make the subterfuge and stalemates entertained by earthly governments look like playground games.

Maybe I am being too hard on Unarius and other New Age movements interested in extraterrestrial life and space exploration. For example, I am interested in the possibility of telepathically connecting with intelligent extraterrestrial life. Time will tell and more avenues will have to be explored. If you are a New Age advocate and have different ideas, please leave a comment or otherwise get in touch with me. I would love to explore this further.

Ok, the title is a little sensationalized, forgive me. "Photograph of Me With Live Terrestrial Reptilian" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Last weekend I attended a local reptile expo with a friend. I talked to a couple of vendors who seemed open to the possibility of advanced extraterrestrial life taking reptile forms.

Just as human beings evolved from less-advanced ape creatures (cousins of which still swing in the earth's trees), it is perfectly possible that beings of extraordinary technology and intelligence could have evolved from any number of animal origins, including the class Reptilia.

I attended this expo because study of these lower forms of terrestrial animals may lead to discoveries relevant to their extraterrestrial relatives. Now, don't flush your little Lizzy down the toilet any time soon, fearing her advancement into a full-blown shapeshifter. These semi-domesticated critters seemed harmless, although they seemed to lack the kind of mammalian warmth exhibited in the personalities of fur-covered pets. Perhaps if I spent more time with them I would change my mind.

Reptile researcher or pet owner? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

With the recent scandal around James Tracy's questions regarding the Sandy Hook shooting, I would like to run a thought experiment about just how easy it would be to create a news story.

An international story occurring in another country would be no sweat. The party who creates the story would never have to step foot outside their studios. Some quick footage from a basement or some stock footage and you've got a story. Put any caption you want underneath a picture of the skyline of some foreign looking city, add some "interview" footage and ta-da. And one news source would be the only one necessary. Most of the images, interviews, etc that all the big news agencies run come from one source. Get one station to break a headline and the others will be playing the same 2.5 second sound bites on loop before you know it. Any contrasting media from the story's supposed country of origin would, of course, never get to the screens of Americans except for the small amount of people that are already plugged into alternative news accounts.

However, when we try to imagine creating a news story from scratch on American soil, things get a bit trickier. This would involve keeping a tight grip on the actual geography where the story was "taking place". A narrative would have to be enforced from the very first moment.

Obviously, the national news services would have to be given priority to entering the site. The national news is the most firmly controlled because it is the most centralized. Local news reporters from newspapers and local stations would have to be kept at a serious distance in order that they not gain information that would be harmful to the official narrative. The media objects (pictures, videos, eyewitness reports) that makes it to the public are always carefully chosen, but in the case of a created event, these selections would be even more closely scrutinized.

Finally, an effective way to dissuade critical examinations of the events and surrounding media coverage (as well as investigative pursuits by authorities) would have to be arranged. It's here where an especially tragic story is helpful. One effective way to silence questioners would be to avoid their questions, instead aiming ad hominem attacks against those who are not "suitably reverent".

In conclusion, creating a media incident in the U.S. would be difficult, but not impossible. I hope that, in time, some of the legitimate questions surrounding Sandy Hook will be answered.

For James Tracy's article see:
http://memoryholeblog.com/2012/12/24/the-sandy-hook-massacre-unanswered-questions-and-missing-information/

I, Raymond A. Cole, declare these four actions to the be the cornerstone of my work in the future. I waited to create this website for a long time, but I cannot sit on my hands any longer. My efforts from this point on will be dedicated to the following:

1) Researching - Further research of texts, video or audio documentations, and personal accounts of extraterrestrial or otherwise paranormal incursions into the society of earth people. Also important will be presentation of legitimate findings and my own speculations and conclusions on this site. I want to make clear now that these speculations may change. I'm wrestling with big and complex topics, and as the information available to me changes, my conclusions may change. I do promise to keep my readers up-to-date with the most relevant, informed research I can provide.

2) Connecting - A major reason that I started this website was to contact like-minded individuals out there. Online, there seems to have been a general dearth of stimulating conversation since the early 2000s or so. As more and more people ditched their personal websites and opted for preset templated Facebooks and Myspaces, much of the high-quality (and FREE) information available has been neglected or, even worse, deleted. Let's start a new conversation group of people who don't all agree, but discuss with courtesy and open minds.

3) Creating - Besides the content of this website, I hope that I can use my video and audio skills to create original content for this website. Through Youtube and other sites, I want to make this conversation (maybe the Most Important Conversation) go completely viral. People are more likely to give some good time and thought to something if they've been made interested by an engaging piece of media.

4) Combating - Of course, the final goal of all this work is to define exactly what kind of problem we're facing in the world today so that we can change the world for the better. This is the end goal, and if my website can make just one person stop and think about their place in the most important struggle in our world, then I've done my job.

These four tenets will be my guide. It's going to be a heck of a ride. I can already tell.

Regardless of how I feel about certain aspects of his theories, here's some sage advice from someone who's been damn persistent and is certainly onto something, as the ridiculous reaction from mainstream news sources has proven. See 7:34 to skip the house tour.

The debate has raged for all of time: Are human beings essentially either good or evil? Do they desire to help each other or are they essentially selfish creatures, capable of gross misuse of power?

Philosophers and Theologians have come down on both sides of the argument. Economists have also given us theories of Capitalism that describe the system as a channeling of the worst trait of humans: greed.

I think what is important in this discussion for our purposes is realizing the effects of this argument on our theories about Reptilians. If we believe that human beings are essentially evil, or capable of great evils, then much of the Reptilian theory can be dismissed. Why would we need Reptilians to explain tragedy and oppression if humans are perfectly capable mass murderers?

Yet modern research has shown that living organisms often do better when they cooperate and work in a harmonious system. Ecologist Gregory Bateson wrote that Darwin's mistake was focusing on competitive survival, while the truly valuable trait for creatures to have is a sense of flexible organization within their environment (see Form, Substance, and Difference by Bateson). Humans are also capable of great amounts of empathy in normal circumstances.

In stressful circumstances, however, this can change. In these cases, a human being relies heavily on the part of the brain known as the "reptilian" brain, which, according to neuroscientist Paul MacLean is an ancient foundation of the modern brain. This part of the brain is the most basic, limited to controlling vital functions and simple instincts such as self-preservation. In some stressful incidents, human beings are capable of great feats of strength and sometimes, regrettable violent episodes.

But is it possible to explain away organized evil and democide (as R.J. Rummel termed state-sponsored murder) with concepts of self-preservation or instinctual reaction? I think not. The holocausts of states are methodical and planned. As a human being I would not , for reasons of decency and rationality, destroy or hinder the life of another. Humans are no doubt fallible, and for this reason, no person or group could consistently provide a society with positive security. Indeed, how can we reasonable allow the very existence of states when we believe that no person should hold unlimited and violent power over another. Clearly there is Something at work in our world trying to grasp and maintain power--Something that is willing to use inhuman means in its insidious quest.

ICKE. Love him or hate him, David Icke is the foremost proponent of the theory that reptilian extraterrestrials are running things here on earth. This brilliant British documentary, 'David Icke, The Lizards, and The Jews', follows him on a book signing/speaking tour.

A large portion of the film's runtime is given to opponents of Icke, who accuse him of antisemitism and attempt to thwart Icke at every turn. These "culture warriors" no doubt have good intentions, but it is rather interesting to watch their frustrated attempts to convince business owners and radio hosts to cancel Icke and, when that plan meets limited success, lamely "pie" the author in a public setting. They consider this a small victory, yet they only serve to hurt their own position. Icke, despite his seemingly strange views, is open to rational debate and defense of his position. The young protesters resort at last to what is essentially a public spectacle topped off by an immature practical joke.

Many who are new to the idea of reptilian incursions on earth quickly dismiss the proposition as preposterous. As the documentary shows, Icke has been laughed at for decades. Laughter is possibly even natural at such a original and alternative idea. Yet if Icke's and other's theories are only good for a good laugh, why has Icke become an international superstar? And more telling, why would "legitimate" groups organize in order to attack his ideas? There is something dangerous about Icke's ideology, and it's not just the possible antisemitism.

As far as the antisemite claim goes, Icke does often attack the Rothschilds and other powerful families in history, yet he doesn't give anyone in power a free pass. The Bushes and the British Royals are certainly far from Jewish, and they are his favorite targets. Opponents of Icke cite attendance at his lectures by neo-Nazi organizations. But we cannot judge an idea based on its supporters. If we are to be logical, we must take on the idea itself. Even simple ideas can be twisted and used for the purposes of alternate ideologies.