IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

"Abductions" and Birth Memories

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Mon Apr 12 17:09:58 EST 1999


(...SKIP.)
>that the undeveloped fetal brain cannot contain memories. 
And when is that when it is not developed yet?
I had thought that just in order to be a brain it already had
developed quite a bit.

Apart from that the idea to say that because someone imagined some
abduction, therefore all did, sounds like someone saying one apple is
bad and therefore all apples on Earth are.

Just that something sounds very unlikely is not telling me that it
never took place.

And if someone tells me something odd I might not be that interested
in if I can make someone else tell me such but more in who it is who
tells me that stuff and what else he tends to tell.

So if I have some Esoterik-freak staggering out of the shrubs full to
the brim with some witch drug mix and telling me the Horned One just
blew into the shrubs, though I would not exclude that there actually
was some deer around I would not think that much off it, but if I had
someone where usually all he tells me is fact being rather disturbed
and telling me about an odd experience I might take it ways more
serious.

>But neuroscientists in the past few years have shown that there is an
>"emotional memory" centered in the amygdala, which preserves a record of
>the first few years of human emotional life, including pre-natal events.
Why just there and why just one?
The main emotion generators seem to run thousands of emotion programs,
and it would amaze me if older ones would not also start out long
before birth.
Most basolateral amygdala emotional programs to me registered of
mammal age and some of before that, while there are many rank-fighting
programs that registered to have originated in historic ages long
before the mammal ones were even around.

Apart from that telepathic contact with embryos was not an idea of
neuroscientists, but I guess it to be a concept thousands of years
old. And that children born a couple of months earlier are not devoid
of emotions is not exactly THE great secret recently uncovered.

> By the age of three or four the declarative memory, 
Why do you call it that?
>centered in the hippocampus,

> and other developing rational faculties provide the beginnings
>of what we call conscious existence. 
Nonsense.

One year olds I met were conscious that they existed, and with some I
could also exchange words.

Many two year olds already tend to use "I" in verbal communication and
ask me about the world around and some of them are quite astonishing
in what they all understand.

I asked the person who first taught me "seeing" how far he recalls
backwards, and he said he is not sure, but older than half a year and
younger than one year - and it is in this period that I perceived
babies to go from "breast seeking bio-machines" to powerful
personalities crawling around and then going around on two legs.
By the end of one some already are able to speak some words, and
understand quite a lot more.

Several others I met recall back till about 2 and a half years.

Though I heard of someone not recalling anything before 8, I figure
that that is rare.

There are also many people with memories from before birth.

Guess you simply never tended to curl up when young in bathtubs till
you got too huge for that and watched the program show going off
there, nor had malaria short of death reminding you a bit of the time
before being born late, and because you have no data in your systems
registering back to before birth and some others do not have it, they
believe that no one else can have it.

>But we can recall the "missing time" of our emotional memory indirectly, during traumatic incidents, 
"WE" do not have THE emotional memory, but different sectors, and if
we want emotional data we tend to pop LSD till the basolataeral part
of the amygdala is high enough to run a limbic shortwiring, then go
via the second to the third emotion generator, and eventually maybe
segregate, to contemplate the observed emotional data without having
the stuff disturb in the own systems too much.
To us that sounds ways more effective than waiting for the next trauma
to come by, especially till likely thata would be having to do with
stuff in the first and third emotion generator being different.
It might save considerable time to not wait for the next trauma, but
call up the base programs about whatever it is that sucks,
irregardless if there are causing-events memory files attached to that
or not, and reprogram around till it does not suck that much.
If we were to wait for everything till the next traumatic event to get
at stuff from previous ones, we might find that rather crazy.
And also rather impractical.

But we find it nice that your wes are are generalizing your methods
for the Acid Popes 4IIs

>and I believe also when we fantasize in uninhibited ways -- as in a CE3 abduction
>fantasy.

When we fantasize about them, 
we tend to assume that they are a "little" more advanced 
in subatomic tuning than magicians of Earth tend to be, possibly by
several billion years of exploring such, 
and that also they might feel morally too low to like some utterly
primitive person abuse other persons and intrude into them against
their will.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Apart from that there are enough people wanting them to intrude.

We believe that for thousands of years contacts with others have been
there between magic healers of Earth and whom they call spirits (from
here and other places) and that if spirits had wanted data in that
time or now, there were and are enough to get it.

And having the choice between some primitive sense censored
power-hungry Westie, and a practicer of magic with for humans powerful
transcending range capacities, used to tune (in)to and through odd
ranges and by his belief not likely to mess around with the data he
gets to the disadvantage of others,
I am not sure what someone would have from choosing the Westie.
Most of his data should be around in the internet anyway.


That's like the difference between a practicer of magic and a neuro.

If with a neuro it interests me where he is, with most of his
knowledge likely I do not even need to talk to him, 
but can check out a load of books and internet stuff and maybe ask
some other people.
While with a practicer of magic here, he might be the only one I know
who has knowledge about certain energy ranges and their use. 
So if he is not wanting to tune with me for that, bad luck for me, and
if he croaks unless I try to risk necromancer stuff to get at a
littlee of the data, it might be gone for me.
While with a scientist he might have written it down, so wether he
croaks or not might not be that relevant for me.

(Maybe that is also why neither seems to have a high 
abduction rate. ;-)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>The matrix is evident from the earliest human times in the shaman's "vision trance," 
?

> the phenomenon of bonding with a symbolic or actual parent-figure, usually the
>mother. 
When they are inside there should already be a lot of bonding, and
when they are outside I am not sure if in the start there might not be
ways more openings for bondings than with older babies (ever tried to
hold a very young baby and an older one, and observed the reactions?)

>in which sixteen volunteers were hypnotized and
>given imaginary UFO or CE3 (for Close Encounters of the Third Kind)
>abductions.
Now?

>more like enlightened...

>a few of their narratives contained echoes of unpublished abduction cases
>that the Imaginaries could not possibly have known about, because the
>investigators had shared them with me privately.

>Was it telepathy?

I thought he went on about being  enlightended, then he should know
about that.

I don't need to be enlightened to check out a little about  few
telepathic capacities, nor does it take much magic knowledge to
observe when someone is hypnotized enough to reach telepathically
highly receptive stages.

More likely he is about as enlightened as a sense censored Westie and
does not even understand part of the words he uses.


> For clarity and simplicity, I use the terms "CE3" and "abduction" interchangeably throughout.

>   CE 3                      Close encounter/third kind - UFO occupants observed

So to observe another person is the same as that person abducting you?
What clarity and simplicity indeed.
Like the rest.


And, BTW, concerning that someone is not good in describing something
and therefore it must be his fantasies (not that I exclude that many
of the abduction stories were):

For the first two or three years I lived here someone might have asked
me what the colour of the house is and I would not have known. 
Till this day I could not describe what the front of it looks like
from first floor upwards.   So I guess by that logic that would make
it my fantasies that I live here or what.

Someone in here had the concept that for some test stuff one should
imagine a whole row of houses, and I realized that I could not picture
three in a row. Does that make that Berlin has more than three of them
a hallucination?

Maybe not everybody is that good and that interested in optics that
they'd bother to know what a lot of other stuff looks like exactly.

That does not necessarily make that it is not there.

If someone insists that one has to know what something looks like some
might rather try a guess for it than to admit that they do not know,
and hope that the guess comes close enough 
or figure that the other one is not likely to find out anyway. 



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net