Author Topic: Whitley Strieber  (Read 204 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AZZERAE

  • FOLLOW YOUR OWN STAR
Whitley Strieber
« on: September 02, 2019, 11:07:58 am »
I'm a Whitley Strieber super fan. If you happen across any new interviews with him, or anything else really, please share it with me here.

AZZERAE

  • FOLLOW YOUR OWN STAR
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2019, 12:31:05 pm »
I'm listening to this while I work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiVQuy1ZNZQ

AZZERAE

  • FOLLOW YOUR OWN STAR
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2019, 01:07:11 pm »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiVQuy1ZNZQ

Holy crap! At the 24 minute mark, this dude is talking about pigs eating people in the woods! Terrifying.


AZZERAE

  • FOLLOW YOUR OWN STAR
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2019, 09:28:33 pm »

Metron

  • ||*~the propinquity of moving electrons~*||
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2019, 06:20:36 pm »
I'm 3 chapters in to his new book:



Some observations, as mostly what he's done is revisit the terms and events of his 1986 New York city and upstate cabin visitations.

~ The physical effects that both he, his guests, and his neighbors saw completely confirm the visitors.

~ The visitations oft times occur with grays as well as deceased loved ones present as Anne discovered reading the Communion letters.

~ The visitors may well have been speeding up our technology from within the military and private sector to facilitate better communication/understanding.

~ Events surrounding TTSA confirm the very recent "quickening" of disclosure.

~ Whitley goes into far more depth on his family history with the military and even Roswell.

~ He claims he was given data on Roswell at the instruction of "someone(s)" in the system.

~ The central theme as evidenced also by Dr, Jeffrey Kripal's preface is that the visitors may have always been with us and seek a dialog with  but not domination of us.

~ That last part is referenced in terms of how European "visitors" overwhelmed the Incas and Aztecs.

~ Do we feel overwhelmed by SOMETHING yet?

~ That may be an almond-eyed Pizarro or Montezuma if history rhymes but doesn't repeat.

~ I'm interested and engaged by his retellings...more later...

Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2019, 09:24:37 pm »
Does he ever address the greys-as-future-humans-time-travelling theory a la HG Wells Man of the year 1 million/Morlocks

Metron

  • ||*~the propinquity of moving electrons~*||
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2019, 10:13:16 pm »
Does he ever address the greys-as-future-humans-time-travelling theory a la HG Wells Man of the year 1 million/Morlocks

I haven't read anything like that yet, I'll post updates as I go.

He spends quite a bit of time on the "Kobolds" or small blue men. Apparently they are well know nto residents of Bavaria in Germany where there are many small mine shafts.

https://youtu.be/DNvR8SW3Dcs

...and...picking up on our founder's comments in Ballgrab - they also grabbed his junk in the middle of the night to remind him that he still has fear of them. He reported the feel of a claw-like hand, then when he struggled it left a scratch down the side of his leg as a reminder that he still has fear of them.

Subtle bunch, aren't they?

I mean you grab my junk and scratch me while I'm asleep and there will be some fear generated- how droll of them to offer such a blatantly disrespectful "lesson"...

All this because they seek to "communicate" with us. There was significant discussion of their means of perception being input based or fractal, versus how we are more output based and see solid objects, as opposed to the mathematical formula or atomic structure of them. The larger point was made that crop circles are fractals with embedded messages, nothing "earth-shaking" there, but it's still a darned good read.


Metron

  • ||*~the propinquity of moving electrons~*||
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2019, 10:40:11 pm »
Continuing on an interesting theory as to who or what these miners/Kobolds may be...

They tend to appear in concert with the grays as "helpers", but Zeta Talk offers up a more complete thesis:

http://www.zetatalk.com/newsletr/issue690.htm

Quote
Where the snake creatures had control of gravity, their slave labor force did not. The Trolls were 3rd density slaves, as were the Dwarfs of Tibet.ZetaTalk Insight 11/28/2015: Europe has been home to many aliens and the Annunaki in the past, including the large fat snake aliens,  highly Service-to-Self, who lifted large stones for the Annunaki, and the little trolls who lived in tunnels and were technologists.

ZetaTalk Insight 6/14/2014: One theory is a relationship to hominoid aliens from Sirius, dwarf sized, who lived in Tibet and have since died out, a dexterous life form, a servant. This was a type of short squat hominoid, which mankind interpreted to be dwarfs. A colony was established in Tibet, as they evolved on a planet with thin air. Not being native to the Earth, they have died out, but live in legend. These hominoids were allowed to be servants to the snake lords as all were in the Service-to-Self.


Metron

  • ||*~the propinquity of moving electrons~*||
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2019, 11:05:22 pm »
Whitley also talks about his time as a young child when he was put in a military psychological program which involved he and other children being "tested" in a Skinner box...

For those who like context today, lol...





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOgowRy2WC0

A human-sized version for the gubmint to "play" with, no wonder he had some issues growing up...

https://io9.gizmodo.com/did-b-f-skinner-really-put-babies-into-boxes-5946822

Quote
And meanwhile, Skinner also invented the "air crib," which he tested on his daughter Deborah, and which also came to be referred to as a "Skinner Box." As Marc N. Richelle explains in his book B.F. Skinner: A Reappraisal:In 1943, the Skinners decided to have a second child. After his wife had remarked that she somewhat dreaded the constraints of the first year, Skinner decided to do something to alleviate the burden. He analysed the ways babies were cared for and considered possible simplifications, while improving comfort, social interchange and the mother's satisfaction. The solution was the aircrib, or "baby-tender" as he called it. This was a spacious compartment, mounted on a wheeled table, with a large glass window, temperature and air control, in which the baby could stay naked and comfortable, kept in the presence of the mother wherever she was working in the house. A strip of sheeting covered over a canvas, which served as a mattress; this could be moved to a clean section as needed by simple cranking. The baby, rather than suffering from excessive cover or from being wet, or simply from being awake and alone, could move freely, in an optimally stable atmosphere, and in permanent visual contact with the mother at times when the latter was busy and would not be able to pick the baby up....

A few parents adopted the device for their own child, but it never became really popular. It had a period of renewed success — a moderate one, since only a few hundred units were sold — between 1957 and 1967 when they were produced by a small company. Occasionally, a former "box-raised baby" would be in a Skinner audience and would come up to him with a happy smile at the end of the lecture.

Illustration for article titled Did B.F. Skinner really put babies into boxes?
Skinner wrote about his invention for the Ladies Home Journal's October 1945 edition, and his article was given the unfortunate title "Baby in a Box." (You can read his article in its entirety here.) He describes the temperature-controlled box in which the naked baby sits, and then adds that the box does include some sort of training:

A wider range and variety of behavior are also encouraged by the freedom from clothing. For example, our baby acquitted an amusing, almost apelike skill in the use of her feet. We have devised a number of toys, which are occasionally suspended from the ceiling of the compartment. She often plays with these with her feet alone and with her hands and feet in close cooperation.

One toy is a ring suspended from a modified music box. A note can be played by pulling the ring downward, and a series of rapid jerks will produce Three Blind Mice. At seven months our baby would grasp the ring in her toes, stretch out her leg and play the tune with a rhythmic movement of her foot.

We are not especially interested in developing skills of this sort, but they are valuable for the baby because they arouse and hold her interest. Many babies seem to cry from sheer boredom-their behavior is restrained and they have nothing else to do. In our compartment, the waking hours are invariably active and happy ones.

In his October 1945 article, Skinner also responds to the critics who say that in his box, the baby "would be socially starved and robbed of the affection and mother love, which she needs." He retorts:

This has simply not been true. The compartment does not ostracize the baby. The large window is no more of a social barrier than the bars of a crib. The baby follows what is going on in the room, smiles at passers-by, plays "peek-a- boo" games, and obviously delights in company. And she is handled, talked to, and played with whenever she is changed or fed, and each afternoon during a play period, which is becoming longer as she grows older. The fact is that a baby will probably get more love and affection when it is easily cared for.

You can decide for yourself whether this set-up would be good for a baby — as compared, say, with the current vogue for "baby bjorn" style papooses and things. It definitely feels very 1950s and possibly a bit too sterile and mechanistic — even if it's not true that the babies were being trained or experimented on in the same way that Skinner's rats were.

In any case, rumors spread like wildfire that Skinner had kept his daughter in a box and done experiments on her, and that she'd turned psychotic as a result. Or even, that she'd committed suicide. In his 1983 autobiography, Skinner complains about a whisper campaign, which he feels "fostered by clinical psychologists who found it useful in criticizing behavior therapy." His healthy, happy daughter was constantly surprised to hear that she was dead or insane. And Skinner reports that his phone rang just as he was falling asleep, with a young man's voice asking him, "Professor Skinner, is it true you kept your daughter in a cage?"

In fact, Deborah is fine — she lives in London, where she's an artist. And by all accounts, she and her father got along well until his death in 1990.

Beyond Freedom and Dignity

So what's going on here? Skinner was a polarizing figure, and people seized on the "baby in a box" thing as an easy way of discrediting him, in a nutshell.


As Lauren Slater documents in her book Opening Skinner's Box, Skinner's actual research illuminated something basic about behavior: that we respond better to variable reinforcement than to regular rewards. If we only get the reward every once in a while, we will continue to exhibit the behavior that leads to the reward for way longer, and we'll be way more addicted to it. Skinner also seemed to show that all sorts of behaviors — not just involuntary ones like salivating, like Pavlov's dogs — could be triggered in response to rewards or stimuli.

In other words, Skinner showed that creatures (possibly including people) are not separable from environments. We behave in certain ways in response to the rewards we receive, and — as anybody who's ever has a compulsive behavior like playing a game all night will attest — we're capable of behaviors that we don't entirely control. This, in itself, is a threat to many of us who want to believe that humans are ultimately masters of our destiny rather than products of our circumstances.


But then Skinner went further, in a couple of ways. First, the "air crib" was just one of the ways that he publicly advocated for a more scientific approach to life. When that same daughter, Deborah, went to school, Skinner decided that old-fashioned education methods were too inefficient — children who gave the right answer weren't rewarded fast enough to reinforce the lesson. So he came up with a plan for "programmed instruction," where flesh-and-blood teachers could be supplemented by, in essence, teaching machines.

As Alexandra Rutherford explains in Beyond the Box: B.F. Skinner's Technology of Behavior from Laboratory to Life, 1950s-1970s:

Programmed instruction was an approach in which students were exposed to course material in small incremental steps via frames presented in a box-like apparatus. They were required to generate a response to a question about the material, and could then immediately compare their response to the right answer. The presentation of the material was finely tuned to ensure very few mistakes, on the principal that getting the right answer — right away — was maximally reinforcing.

In other words, the kids would be steered to the right answer about the material they'd just read, and then would be "rewarded" by realizing they'd gotten it right, thus encouraging them to keep getting right answers. Some people worried that by trying to shape students' answers and reward them for responding the right way, Skinner's devices would encourage conformity and discourage independent thought.


But Skinner didn't just advocate for more "scientific" methods of child-rearing — he also wrote some far-reaching works of philosophy that argued for a utopian vision of a world controlled by behavioral scientists rather than politicians. He wrote a number of books, notably Walden Two and Beyond Freedom and Dignity, which argued that to solve problems like pollution, overpopulation and the threat of nuclear war, we need to adjust human behavior.

It's like one half Asimov's psychohistory, one half benign totalitarianism. Here's Skinner, from Beyond Freedom and Dignity:


What we need is a technology of behavior. We could solve our problems quickly enough if we could adjust the growth of the world's population as precisely as we adjust the course of a spaceship, or improve agriculture and industry with some of the confidence with which we accelerate high-energy particles, or move toward a peaceful world with something like the steady progress with which physics has approached absolute zero (although both remain presumably out of reach.) But a behavioral technology comparable in power and precision to physical and biological technology is lacking, and those who do not find the very possibility ridiculous are more likely to be frightened than reassured. This is how far we are from "understanding human issues" in the sense in which physics and biology understand their fields, and how far we are from preventing the catastrophe toward which the world seems to be inexorably moving.

There's something irreducibly Space Age about Skinner and his preoccupation with finding scientific ways to run everything. He contributed more than most people realize to our understanding of behavior — and his focus on rewards rather than punishments as a means of shaping behavior was actually quite benign. Some people are even trying to bring back the "Air Crib" for their babies nowadays, in fact. But still, you can kind of see why some of Skinner's ideas creeped people out.

Sources:
Beyond the Box: B.F. Skinner's Technology of Behavior from Laboratory to Life, 1950s-1970s by Alexandra Rutherford
B.F. Skinner: A Reappraisal by Marc N. Richelle
Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments Of The Twentieth Century by Lauren Slater
"The Ultimate Challenge: Prove B. F. Skinner Wrong" by Paul Chance, Behav Anal. 2007 Fall; 30(2): 153–160.
The Psychology of B F Skinner by Kyle E. Ferguson and William O'Donohue


Metron

  • ||*~the propinquity of moving electrons~*||
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2019, 11:07:29 pm »


Metron

  • ||*~the propinquity of moving electrons~*||
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2019, 02:09:28 am »
 ;)

You have a droll sense of humour Padre, they're just not blue enough you see! ::)


Metron

  • ||*~the propinquity of moving electrons~*||
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2019, 06:18:36 pm »
Found and entirely relevant to "A New World":

https://theunexplained.tv/episodes/edition-420-whitley-strieber

The return of world-famous author/contactee/visionary Whitley Strieber on his latest book "A New World" and his after-death contact with his life-partner Anne...

And in a marvelous turn fo the tables, Whitley is interviewed on his own program!

https://www.unknowncountry.com/dreamland/jeremy-vaeni-goes-after-whitley-on-a-new-world/

Jeremy Vaeni returns to Unknowncountry, this time hosting Dreamland in order to discuss A New World with Whitley. And what a discussion it is! Jeremy brings his deep knowledge to what turns out to be one of the most powerful discussions either host has ever participated in. With all his years of experience as a close encounter witness and researcher, Jeremy knows the questions to ask that others don’t, with the result that this is among the most exciting and penetrating interviews we’ve ever posted on this site.

You may think that you’ve already heard everything Whitley has to say about A New World, but he hasn’t had to deal with too many questions this deep and this frank. Tremendously exciting stuff, and a real window into the meaning of the visitors and what conscious contact is likely to entail.

This show is presented without commercials and is fully available to all listeners.


 :)





Metron

  • ||*~the propinquity of moving electrons~*||
Re: Whitley Strieber
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2019, 06:53:34 pm »
Observations from chapters 4-6...

Whitley addresses his implant mystery, how he's come to terms with it and provides some fascinating granularity we'd lacked before. The key theme is Anne's insistence that it is a "gift", perhaps confirmed by his revelation that the implant opened a slit of vision next to his rught eye where he sees words racing by, as if on a giagantic screen dump or massive "crawl":



But he insists the words have enhanced and guided hos writing and research, even more since his wife "passed over"...

Of course we learn his implant was meteoric and we revisit how it jumped and moved when a surgeon unsuccessfully put scalpel to it. There's a creepy incident at 3 AM with MIBs at his apartment in San Antonio where he recognizes on of them as a special child he's seen in a DOD "gifted" program back in the 90s. The two men explain the repositioning of his implant and query if he plans to remove it, then disappear after he says "no".

A trip to the Lakota Indian Reservation at Pine ridge follows where Whitley is able to see, through closed eyes, an alternate gauzy reality that he compares to Homer's "Asphodel" or land of the dead - an alternate or parallel reality perhaps. He jumps to a teleportation incident that Jaques Valee observed involving  him at Contact. Back at Pine Ridge and there's a UFO incident that all present confirm. The back and forth is odd in this section, but there's an incident when a Lakota standing next to Whitley informs him that in his presence he can see graves and bones of his ancestors under the soil. The theme is that the visitors perhaps come from or travel through this alternate gauzy reality.




Whitley returns to his cabin in 1986 for an episode of "who let the dogs in" -said dogs being the grays.



They run around his cabin and under his bed and there ensues a reverie about possible parallel lives he and Anne may be living. He returns to an incident described in "Communion" when he was driving his son's childhood friend home in New Jersey and they became entangled in an alternate or Twilight Zone universe so real the boy tried to leap from the car and upon returing to his ral home tells his father of the incident, Whitley wryly noting that the late Rod Serling coincidentally lives only a few miles way.



Chapter 6 was perhaps his least cohesive, but he made his case that stacked universes or dimensions are entirely plausible and, at least in his life, easily experienced.