Some weeks ago I had a conversation with an experiencer. He expressed his frustration that he was having trouble knowing what was really going on, and stated that we can’t really know or do a thing because ‘ET controls the narrative’. ET decides when contact takes place, what happens, and what we remember.

It reminded me of the story of another experiencer who, about a decade ago, was receiving telepathic messages to go outside, and follow a UFO. Sure enough, there was a UFO outside, and he started following it wherever it went. This lasted for hours, and he got quite frustrated. The moment he decided to give up, a being appeared explaining to him that none of what had happened was real, that it was just a virtual reality experience. Karla Turner coined the term ‘Virtual Reality Scenario’ for those experiences.

The question who controls the narrative is one worth paying attention to. Abductees, e.g., often have implanted memories and screen memories. There also are the Virtual Reality Scenarios described above, where one believes to have experienced something, but only the emotional response to it is real, the actual series of events isn’t.

So, does ET control the narrative? And, if so, what can we do about it?

We asked our panel for their comments.

UFO
Encounter

*

Thomas Minderlé

Deciphering the alien mystery is a daunting task. We’re chasing after a suspect who alters the memories of his victims, who uses an intimate knowledge of human psychology to craft his lies, who has the power of invisibility and precognition, and who normally hides out in a parallel dimension beyond our reach. Like the wind, he is invisible, but by the swirling of the dust we can know something of him.

Aliens are known liars. If an abductee or contactee is given wordy explanations about who these beings are, where they come from, and why they’re here, chances are high that these are half-truths meant to manipulate our opinion and knowledge of these beings.

Hostile aliens lie to disguise themselves as benevolent forces and butter up their victims, pacify them, keep them cooperative, and cover their own tracks. Benevolent aliens may lie to stay within the boundaries of our belief systems, and they may be protecting themselves from enemy factions trying to discover their identities and activities. We are as children, being told bedtime fables by one adult and malicious lies by another. So, nothing aliens say can be taken at face value. We have to dig deeper.

What abductees and contactees themselves say can’t be taken at face value either. That’s because they may be remembering screen memories, or were shown a staged scene meant to mislead, or the entire experience was a hallucination induced telepathically or technologically by alien, occult, or shadow military forces.

Our task is to distinguish between real experiences and fake ones, real events and staged ones, honest truths and clever half-truths, benevolent forces and hostile ones pretending to be benevolent. Essentially we have to apply Sherlock Holmes-level sleuthing to extract meaningful conclusions from fragmentary and circumstantial evidence.

My approach would be to begin by looking at the objective aspects of a case.

1) Was the encounter physical, or did it all happen in the person’s mind? This would be answered by security camera footage, GPS tracking, third party observation, and the intactness of locking methods used to tie oneself to the bed. If the target was present the whole time, then it was likely an induced hallucination.

If the camera malfunctioned and failed to record, then that suggests something physical may have happened. For several years I used a voice-activated digital audio recorder to catch anomalous activity at night, and despite being disciplined in changing the batteries regularly, I would occasionally forget to do so and the very next morning I would wake up with classic signs of having been abducted like our pet cat being visibly disturbed and seeming traumatized, unexplainable marks on the body, soreness, mental discombobulation, and vague dream fragments of aliens and ships and underground bases.

The fact that the abductions waited until the batteries ran out, or that I forgot the change batteries the night it happened, is an example of an objective detail from which we can glean something about aliens and their limitations, something that may not be part of the narrative they’re trying to shape. For instance, we can glean that they don’t like being recorded, which implies they make a noise or create some kind of electronic interference that leaves an undeniable record of their intrusion. Why would they care if they did leave such evidence? Well, that question leads to further implications they’d rather us not think about, since doing so might lead to realizations and discoveries that unravels their advantage. Maybe they are time travelers and the bigger the footprint they leave, the more they destabilize their lock on our timeline. Maybe they’re tiptoeing around a metaphysical freewill law, which implies that there’s a higher authority they cannot ignore. If that’s the case, then maybe by asserting our freewill and demonstrating resistance to alien intrusion, that makes it legally difficult for them to keep going. This is what I mean by sleuthing, to use an objective data point (recorder fails on night of abduction) to make some educated guesses.

2) If the encounter was physical (meaning aliens actually showed up and person actually went somewhere with them) then what was the person told and shown? What do they remember? Whatever it is, we have to ask why. If the individual remembers only seeing a light shining through the window and the bed suddenly being surrounded by bald headed beings, but nothing further then we ask why that scene, and why did the memory end so soon? This memory gives away that an alien intrusion happened (bald heads) and it lacks the content and directed purpose of a screen memory. If it were a screen memory, it would either cover up that an abduction happened at all (false memory of seeing some owls in the room) or it would be a directed deception (gray alien looking lovingly into the eyes and radiating such wisdom and caring with a touch of sadness of having lost their home-world to a nuclear apocalypse, as a popular false narrative of theirs goes). But just seeing a light and some bald heads in the room and nothing further, that seems like a genuine memory fragment. And so we can conclude that it likely was genuine.

On the other hand, if the abductee casually remembers what happened during the contact, vividly and clearly, we have to ask why? Why allow this individual to remember when most abductions are covered up with screen memories and memory erasure? Did aliens forget to wipe memories? No, they wanted the person to remember and perhaps to report it. Why? So that it would enter into the abduction research data pool. Why? So that it would shape public perception of the alien presence. Negative alien factions want us to know that aliens exist and are contacting or taking people, but that it’s for benevolent reasons; they’re staging experiences to present a Disney version of the story. Why condition humanity into adopting that viewpoint of aliens? To prepare us for an eventual alien disclosure on their part. Meanwhile, if a benevolent alien group makes contact with an individual and allows him or her to retain memories of the encounter, that would be evidenced by the veracity of what was said and shown. For example, they might mention the problem of