Why do we use Ouija board? To screen out the external disturbance. In particular to make it more difficult for satellites, or other programming signals coming from human and hybrid technology, when and if they come, to affect the message. At least two persons are needed. No rituals. Critical thinking, sometimes, joking, often coffee, fresh minds, loud discussion, and the board.

Thinking in terms of possible quantum physics involved in mind-matter interactions it is clear to me that the methods we use are more likely to be robust and shielded against deliberate bombarding from outside by mind controlling signals.

On the other hand, talking directly to "Mind-God" as Swerdlow does is more susceptible to interference. For example, a weak outside EM signal can be talking directly to a tiny implant in our teeth, and we will take it for an Oversoul....

I can't take Swerdlow seriously. Why? I am a scientist. I look at things in a somewhat different way than other people. I am more critical. I am even more critical than most of my colleagues. So, when I see a statement like this

"Any channeled information is crap. It is 100% disinformation."

"All channeling is disinformation." And "channeling is a satellite transmission."

I get very suspicious. Why so?

I immediately see that he speaks plain nonsense - in THESE sentences. But when I see someone speaking nonsense in a couple of sentences, and when this somebody is so affirmative - THEN I can't take this person seriously in all the rest.

What are the facts? What are the possibilities?

All right, there is a possibility that some (most?) of the channeling TODAY comes via satellites or other means of programming. That IS possible.

The next question is : WHY?

The evident answer is: to twist, to disinform, via New Age-type naive people.

Can the Cassiopaean channeling come the same way?

It is not so easy. We are not naive. We are critical. We think, we analyze. We test and research.

Could SOME of our "communications" have been influenced this way?

YES. There is such a possibility.

Can ALL, or even 95% be received this way?

NO. Because there are too many instances in which the Cassiopaeans were answering questions to which normal "satellite type" of intelligence, without being able to instantly read the minds of everyone on this planet, could not have had access.

Therefore, I think, Stewart's statement that ALL channeling is crap and disinformation, and that 95% is via satellites shows that

a)He is not able to think logically, b) he is not interested in discovering the truth.

And this is the main difference between our approach. While we are ready to question everything, and ALWAYS look for new facts, other individuals declare "WE KNOW THE TRUTH". Here it is! And then we find one or another easily detectable nonsense statement that is claimed to be absolute, and this discredits everything else they say.

I think it is more probable that OUR channeling is similar to old channeling, known for ages. My Mother was talking to spirits using a porcelain dish. Spirits were talking to her. She was scared. She was not in new age, she was a little old lady. There was no point for satellites to waste their energy and computing power to talk to my Mother.

You see what I mean? The devil, as always, is in the details.

Whenever someone claims: "All white is black" - I get suspicious. And I am turned off to everything else they say. Not because "white being black" is impossible, we know there ARE paradoxes, but BECAUSE the person uses this three letter word: "all".

As for parallel realities. Yes, probably this is part of the clue. As for satellites trying, once in a while, their dirty tricks - yes this is possible. And we ARE taking it into account. But ALWAYS we are trying to apply our 3rd density logical thinking, our 3rd density "judgment". This 3rd density reality check is NEVER SUFFICIENT when dealing with 4th density forces, but it is ALWAYS NECESSARY. Which means, in practical terms: 1) ALWAYS USE IT TO THE MAX. 2) NEVER THINK THAT YOU CAN RELY COMPLETELY ON IT ALONE!

What I want to state clearly: this channeling, the Cassiopaean channeling IS different than other channeling. It was different from the very beginning, it continues to be so, and it will continue to be different. We may give it a name: Critical Channeling. It is such by an intent, not by a chance. It is a channeling in which, by an intent, the messenger is as important as the message itself. They are inseparably entangled in a quantum way; an interfering quantum amplitude. They form a oneness, a whole. To separate the message from the messenger would be, in this Cassiopaean quantum experiment, like closing one hole in a double slit experiment. You close one hole, and the whole pattern is different, not just a part of it.

What is this "Critical Channeling?" In what way is it different than other channeling?

It would take a lot of space and time to describe it in details. One day we will do it. But for now, let me just make this observation: the Cassiopaean channeling has characteristics of a scientific experiment. Think of scientists in their lab, working on the great laws of the universe. They perform an important series of experiments. They are trained professionals, they know their stuff, they know their laboratory equipment and its quirks. But they are human beings. Once in a while someone will make some dirty joke, once in a while they will have to discard a series of data, because mice have messed up their equipment during the night. Now, think, what advantage it would be if they would write in their paper the dirty joke, include the mice data, the ink blobs etc. etc.

That is not the way of science. And the Cassiopaean experiment will proceed as a scientific one. With scientific standards in mind. The Cassiopaean channeling is Critical Channeling. It is in this respect that it is DIFFERENT from other channeling. And it will stay so.

The difference is in the approach. We are searching for the truth. Swerdlow is sure that he knows it, and he would like to impose it on other people, or manipulate other people, into believing what he says. When he states something - it comes from the Oversoul and God-Mind. But when someone else dares to have a different way of finding the truth - it is necessarily "100% disinformation" and "crap."

We try to share our thoughts, and when necessary, we are ready to learn and CHANGE. And that is what is most important. This attitude of being open.

What if Swerdlow is right? Even if I consider it as highly improbable, what if he IS right? Can he be right?

Of course, being a scientist, and using my brain in order to judge, I had to consider also this possibility, however improbable it may it look to me. And I concluded that he cannot be right. Here is my reasoning: it goes via "reductio ad absurdum" - which is often used in logic and in mathematical proofs. You assume something to be true, and then by a chain of logical deductions you come to the conclusion that your assumption cannot be true. Somewhat tricky - but useful.

Applying this method to Swerdlow and his claim that "all channeling is 100% disinformation because it is coming via satellite". Let us suppose it is true. In order to be true it must include the capability of reading and controlling EVERYBODY'S mind at ALL times.

But if that is the case, then why would Swerdlow be exempt from this control?

Therefore, by logic, Swerdlow is also being influenced by programming and by satellites (if everybody is, then so is he). If so, then what he writes is skewed. And, because he is so loud, and so sure, about this subject, for no valid reason, it is a logical conclusion that what he is telling is NOT true, that it is disinformation.

So we see that starting from the assumption that he is right (satellites affect everybody) we come to the conclusion that what he says is wrong (because he is simply repeating the satellite disinformation). So, here we have reductio ad absurdum.

But we can go even further. Can we see a reason why Swerdlow would say such evident nonsense? Why?

Well, here we can have a hypothesis too. If, as we know by the above analysis, NOT ALL channeling is from satellites, that SOME channeling can provide us with real information from "benevolent higher beings", from "us in the future", or from "Mind-God and Oversoul", call it as you will, then it is only natural that there will be forces trying to discredit THIS channeling. So, we have solved one problem here. He calls channellers disinformation agents, and if he is right, or even partly right, then we have reasons to suppose that Swerdlow is an agent of those forces.

There is one more exercise in logical reasoning and critical thinking that comes to mind. Swerdlow is not clear about what channeling is, so let me take as a particular example using the Ouija board, as described on our pages. Why do we use a Ouija board? To screen out the external disturbance. In particular to make it more difficult for satellites, or other programming signals coming from human and hybrid technology, when and if they come, to affect the message. At least two persons are needed. No rituals. Critical thinking, sometimes, joking, often coffee, fresh minds, loud discussion, and the board. Thinking in terms of possible quantum physics involved in mind-matter interactions it is clear to me that the methods we use are more likely to be robust and shielded against deliberate bombarding from outside by mind controlling signals. On the other hand, talking directly to "Mind-God" as Swerdlow does is more susceptible to interference. For example, a weak outside EM signal can be talking directly to a tiny implant in our teeth, and we will take it for on Oversoul....

So, by logical thinking and by critical analysis we came to a working hypothesis. But, please, do not jump to the conclusion that we solved all problems. Important problems are still out there and need to be addressed. The above analysis does not tell us at all WHICH channeling (if any at all) is legitimate. It gives indications. To answer this question a full analysis, that takes into account not one but many aspects, is necessary. Completely different methods must be used. If A is an opponent of B, and if we find that A is wrong, that does not mean that B is right! To see whether B is right or not - is a different problem.

Let me just note that we were discussing many times C's channeling, on these pages and with other groups, and even our present "dissidents" have admitted openly that these C's have an amazing record.