Tuning In (Documentary)

[Nathaniel]

A documentary in several parts about the controversial topic, channeling.

Regardless of your views I think some of you will find this interesting, if not mildly entertaining, depending on your perspective.

It's interesting to note that the people who claim to channel these entities were interviewed separately and had no prior knowledge of the questions being put forth - yet the information given is startlingly consistent, in some cases exact.

This is also the case with the information I have been given during my conversations with Jed and is also the case with many other channeled entities like
Seth, Seth Material - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abraham, Esther Hicks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and Ra, The Law of One (Ra material) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

They all give the same information, something skeptics fail to address completely.

 

[Randall]

Here's another "documentary" but with better actors ...​

​

 

[Nathaniel]

Am I to assume you believe these people are actors? And that you know this for certain? Or are you just guessing?

Even John Keel says he experienced conversations with channeled entities in The Mothman Prophecies which for some reason seems to be an exception to this 'instant ridicule' mentality. I genuinely wonder why that is?

If you wish to contribute to this particular mode of thinking wherein fringe topics (including Ufology) are casually dismissed and reduced to a laughing stock, all with no real effort being made to dive that little bit deeper, then that's entirely your choice and I wish you all the best in your own quest for answers.

That is a god awful film, by the way.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Actually, I thought the movie K-PAX was excellent. JMO.

 

[Randall]

If you wish to contribute to this particular mode of thinking wherein fringe topics (including Ufology) are casually dismissed and reduced to a laughing stock, all with no real effort being made to dive that little bit deeper, then that's entirely your choice and I wish you all the best in your own quest for answers ... That is a god awful film, by the way.

K-Pax wasn't all that "awful". After all, how bad could it be if Kevin Spacey and the Starman himself Jeff Bridges were in it? And by the way, I seldom "casually dismiss" anything. The problem I have with channeling, besides the fact that no verifiable information beyond the range of what we already know has ever been produced, is that the process itself has never been proven to be actual communication from some entity that is separate from the channeler.

So although scientists often claim that anecdotal evidence is the lowest form of evidence, channelling is even lower, even lower in fact than hypnotically assisted recall ( Recovered Memory Therapy ). At least with anecdotes we don't have to first prove that our sense of vision is real first, and with RMT we don't have to prove that the phenomenon of memory is real either, plus there is evidence that certain techniques used in RMT can help a person focus on and recall real events. I've seen nothing to indicate that channeling comes close to that level of verifiability.

The factors above mean that the evidence for UFOs and the evidence for channeling aren't even of the same class, let alone of equal merit. For example a radar-visual report of a UFO involves an external stimulus rather than a purely internal experience, and radar evidence is completely objective instrumented verification of materially real objects.

The day one of these channeled entities can provide us with plans for a working antigravity drive without making trite excuses, or even doing something as definitive as what Prot ( Spacey's character in K-Pax ) did to provide verification, that will be the day that I'll consider channelling as something more than spontaneous improvisation. Even just verifiable evidence that channeling is a genuine form of communication would be helpful. But we have none of that.

Nevertheless, I'm still open to being shown any verifiable evidence that channeling represents some form of communication between the channeler and some other remote entity. However don't expect me to start watching hours upon hours of videos and reading a stack of books. I've spent more than enough time doing that already. If there is evidence of the type requested above, then please provide the link or citation, and if it's a video, please include the time code of the relevant segment.

 

[Nathaniel]

I guess it's quite easy to dismiss any channel as an actor. I understand from your perspective because you have had no personal experience with it.

It's quite frustrating for me sometimes because I know I've presented this forum with something legitimate (not necessarily this documentary, although I personally believe it to be genuine too) in that Samantha, my friend, who had absolutely no knowledge or interest in anything to do with consciousness/spirituality etc beforehand, began giving me exactly the same basic message as the aforementioned entities - and this was all before I'd discovered anything about anything else.

Things like,

- We are a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality
- We are split into several parts, leaving a part of us back 'home' if you will
- Time as we understand it does not exist, there is actually only one moment in creation. Everything you experience is the same moment
from a different point of view
- We belong to 'soul groups'
- We create our own reality
- We are here because we chose to be
- In our 'energy state' we can change our form and create anything we can imagine

These are just a few points that remain consistent throughout. Like I've said many times, the channeling is just a small part of the experiences I have had since I began meditating back in August 2012 that prove to me conclusively that there is at least some truth to all this.

Even if it's not what I have been to lead to believe it is, it is something and I feel it's such a shame to discard it as though it were irrelevant.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I wouldn't necessarily dismiss anything immediately, the fact the universe exists and we are alive and thinking in it are so fantastic really that anything else shouldn't be too hard to accept. However, as Ufology pointed out, it's just that channeling is so lacking in evidence. I even think many paranormal things cannot be proven because they may emanate from somewhere that isn't quite 'here' and therefore any measuring devices 'here' cannot properly measure anything partly from 'there'. This isn't a well thought-out idea but nevertheless it's the seed of one.
Perhaps there is something inherent in paranormal phenomena that makes it impossible to prove using normal science.

But back to channeling, I get that you are saying people without knowledge of eachother are reporting identical information that they supposedly channeled. That to me is similar to the fact that 'abductees' often describe very similar places and procedures. Problem is, we only really have the abductees word for any of it and that is why I have a lot of problems with alien abduction. It's not that I don't think it could be taking place, on the contrary, if ET is really here, I think it's almost a given they could be capturing us for study. But until a third party films an abduction taking place I will have it in the old grey basket and until something more solid comes from channeling, it will have to go in the same place - but I stress that that is not dismissing it, just waiting for more evidence.

 

[Randall]

I guess it's quite easy to dismiss any channel as an actor. I understand from your perspective because you have had no personal experience with it.

You're missing my point. Even if it is actually happening, it's not producing information of significant value, or evidence that the process is what the channelers claim it to be.

It's quite frustrating for me sometimes because I know I've presented this forum with something legitimate (not necessarily this documentary, although I personally believe it to be genuine too) in that Samantha, my friend, who had absolutely no knowledge or interest in anything to do with consciousness/spirituality etc beforehand, began giving me exactly the same basic message as the aforementioned entities - and this was all before I'd discovered anything about anything else.

Things like,

- We are a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality
- We are split into several parts, leaving a part of us back 'home' if you will
- Time as we understand it does not exist, there is actually only one moment in creation. Everything you experience is the same moment
from a different point of view
- We belong to 'soul groups'
- We create our own reality
- We are here because we chose to be
- In our 'energy state' we can change our form and create anything we can imagine

These are just a few points that remain consistent throughout. Like I've said many times, the channeling is just a small part of the experiences I have had since I began meditating back in August 2012 that prove to me conclusively that there is at least some truth to all this.

All the above shows is that even worse than producing anything of significant value, it's producing the same trite commentary we get from junk psychology and New Age gibberish.

Even if it's not what I have been to lead to believe it is, it is something and I feel it's such a shame to discard it as though it were irrelevant.

It's only not irrelevant to the extent that there exists the behavior, condition ( whatever it is ) itself, which has yet to be fully understood, and this makes it part of the overall subject matter. In ufology channeling has to do with alleged contact with alien entities. Therefore it would be as irresponsible for a ufologist to ignore that the claims exist as it would be to accept that information imparted is accurate. If you want this sort of thing to be taken seriously, there are two kinds of evidence that would help.

1. Verifiable and compelling evidence that channeled communication is actually taking place.
2. Verifiable information about something previously unknown that can be objectively substantiated.

If you can do either of the above then you can claim James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, and you will no doubt become a worldwide celebrity. Until then, I would suggest that you start taking a hardline approach to verifying the channeled information by comparing it to other sources such as genuine psychology, psychiatry, science, philosophy, and history. Apply critical thinking by asking if the information represents any sort of knowledge or revelation or creative power that is beyond the capability of the channeler. For example, returning to the movie K-Pax, the knowledge and behavior of the entity was shown to be well beyond the capability that the subject had ever exhibited.

 

[Nathaniel]

Ufology - Junk psychology or not, the information given is the same. Again, most of this comes from people who had no previous interest in 'spirituality', including my friend. She/Jed could have just as easily told me the moon was made of cheese and we're all care bears but she/Jed gave very specific information (such as that which I listed above) which I later discovered to be consistent with the information given by other channeled entities.

Just because you don't understand something does not make it gibberish.

After all, it wasn't too long ago we thought the earth was flat.

 

[Randall]

Ufology - Junk psychology or not, the information given is the same. Again, most of this comes from people who had no previous interest in 'spirituality', including my friend. She/Jed could have just as easily told me the moon was made of cheese and we're all care bears but she/Jed gave very specific information (such as that which I listed above) which I later discovered to be consistent with the information given by other channeled entities.

Just because you don't understand something does not make it gibberish.

After all, it wasn't too long ago we thought the earth was flat.

• Assuming I don't understand doesn't make it not gibberish either.
• Please consider the advice in my previous post. If you can provide such evidence please do so. We'll all be that much further ahead.

If you are working with any of these channelers or do channeling yourself, then I'm open to working with you toward a fuller understanding of what is actually happening. Are you in a position to do this or is your intent just to relay information in the hope that we'll take it at face value without questioning its validity?