What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

Seventhson · Post by **Seventhson** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:31 pm

I am rereading his old books, including "Communion" and his new one "Secret School" and wondered what Jeff and the crew have to say about the guy. His website is quite intense and seems like perfect fodder for the gristmill here. On the one hand I want to believe he''s a total charlatan and the other I am like Mulder - I want to believe... And I wonder why a man who seems to want to prevent an apocalyptic armageddon and new Holocaust would LIE to us --- and whether it might be a canard-like set of parables cloaked in postmodern abduction cultural psychology meant to open our eyes. Or if the man is, as he says, just telling his true story... Any insights friends???

Connut · Post by **Connut** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:41 pm

Hi, Seventhson. I've met and talked with Whitley and my intuitive sense tells me he's a good soul. (Having gone through child abuse, I have a really acute sense for evil). I think he's been bashed around a lot and for a long time and isn't willing to play the victim. He's a long time meditator and has some powerful experiences as a result. You obviously don't have to take my word for it, but I think there is a lot of truth in what he has to say. Hope that helps, Connut

Rigorous Intuition · Post by **Rigorous Intuition** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:58 pm

I haven't read his books, and only a few of his posts, so my limited impression is based largely upon second-hand judgements. But the sense I have is that he is, as Connut said, a good soul. I'm unsure where he stands now on the nature of the abduction experience. I believe initially he viewed it as essentially positive - invasive, though for our own good - but I think his perspective has modified time. I'd love to hear more from people who know his work better than I do.

Avalon · Post by **Avalon** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:03 pm

I don't know what to make of him. I don't know if he really knows what to make of himself, though given some things he's written at his website it seems like he's more sure about what is happening these days. I do know that when I've seen him on TV he gives me the willies. I'm not sure what it is that I'm responding to, but I tend to trust my instincts when that happens.

GDN01 · Post by **GDN01** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:02 pm

I suggest everyone read his latest journal post <a href="http://www.unknowncountry.com/journal/?id=190">A New World, If We Can Take It.</a> It's a long read and a lot to digest. I'm not sure that I can even paraphrase it in a way that will make sense! Strieber presents information from two different books, "Sinister Forces" and "Hair of the Alien", as two books that have blown his mind. And he feels something huge and devastating is coming our way. I find him very convincing.

Seventhsonjr · Post by **Seventhsonjr** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:44 pm

I wanted to keep this bumped for a few days and maybe discuss this essay of his --- and so that others who pass through can weigh in. According to what he claims are his "visitor's" words_ Strieber is a "chosen one". Chosen, apparently, to deliver a message to humanity that we are heading for destruction and that they wish to help us face that or, I guess, prevent it. I find the notion that "other" beings or spirits or entities - if such things exist -- MIGHT want to help us -- to save the earth for themselves as well as humanity; to save the world from the insanity. But if they have such extyraordinary power as descvribed by Streiber --- why didn't they kidnap George Bush as a achild. Don't they reads the history books? Don't they know the spirals of history? And why are they doing weird almost ritual abuse like rectal probes on their "chosen one" (checking his diet? his digestive functioning? -- why not just hook something to his toilet outflow pipe? Why tirtore the poor guy? Or suppose, like in the X Files there is a human-"visitor" alliance of evil with the dark forces of the BFEE. Could Strieber be a disinformation experiment? A unwitting tool of the black forces used to innoculate us to the truth that these forces are sinister? Unfortunately I tend to be very very open to mystical and supernatural concepts and so am very much happy to be at this site learning and expecially to get Jeff's very insightful perspective on all of this. ---- BUT - the BIG BUT: I have less time lately for posting and even reading and wondered too if others had read much or had any links debunking Strieber or if anyone knew anything about his background (military? intel? army brat? what?) that might clarify the possibilities of his being an agent of change, a charlatan opportunist, or a dupe disinformationist. Or the real deal telling the truth. I haven't read his essay yet but will weigh back in when I get a chance to.. Hope others will too. Seventhson

nashvillebrook · Post by **nashvillebrook** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:04 pm

but i think he's not willing to say all are good. he's got some new material called The Key that has to do with a visitation by a mysterious stranger. kind of a fish-out-of-water person, but not MIB. it's where his head is now from what i can tell from listening to dreamland. his interview style is pretty hurky jerky, he's much better being the interviewee. but i'll concur with those who say he's straight up. much of his experience seems to be of the post-armageddon variety and he's very interested in global warming. he's never seemed to be driven by anything other than concern. he's never been a gamer, i suppse you could say.

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:51 pm

I can't say about Streiber...but this article is about the two books. The Levenda book does not have any apocolyptic content, but that is the theme of the essay. As for hair of the alien? I wonder... Reports of visits by "night hags" have been going on for centuries. they aren't hags, I guess, and the only thing I know for sure is that I, who am perfectly willing to be so visited by such entities whom I promise not to bite unless they like that sort of thing...alas, never receive such visits. anyway, the hairs. Those more scientific than myself can confirm this, but I don't think you can extract DNA from hair, only from the bits of follicle that cling to the ends. In addition, even if you could, it makes absolutely zero sense that the hair shaft itself would contain different DNA. Not as a "construct", not in any way. It makes more sense that you'd see weird patterns within one "type" of DNA. DNA is what controls the production of, among other things, hair, so you'd have to have some DNA turning on, then turning off and letting another kind take over. All to produce unique hair? Of course, if you simply contaminated the samples....In any event, if I'm right that dead hair cells contain no DNA, then it doesn't even matter. And as for a missing gene supplying HIV immunity? News to me. Anyone else ever heard of this? But I haven't read the book, so maybe it's not as simplistic as Streiber makes it sound. As it stands, I think it doesn't even make sense. I don't even assume aliens would have "DNA" like earth life forms, unless they somehow seeded this planet. Plus, this sort of visitation has been going on for centuries. They are this advanced but can't synthesize the DNA they need? In fact, the "hardware" explanation for alien experiences is not satisfying to me for many such reasons. For example, why does he need to suck the "robot alien's" breast? Oh well. I worry about all the various "armaggedon" warnings that keep popping up. I think John Mack may have been the first to notice this aspect of abduction experiences. This, of course, before he was run over by a car in England. Lots of warnings but all with different content. No consistent message. It seems to me that, the "others", or the "others" in connection with their human partners, or humans pretending to be "others" are trying to get an idea that the end of the world is coming. There are only two possible reasons for this. One, is that the end of the world is coming. If they were THAT hellbent on going through all of these machinations to warn us of this, I'd think they'd put out a clearer, more consistent message. Two, THEY WANT segments of the population scared and hopeless. Think about it, if there is no hope except, perhaps, for alien intervention, might as well give up and just ride out the storm. Although I see the powers that be as having a very clear motive for such, I'm left confused as to why all the strange techniques of going about it. Most of these experiences are very bizarre and non-linear and not believable enough by the mainstream to really have the effect I'd think they want, namely, pacification. So I'm left without a convincing explanation. But whatever the reality is, Streiber, by his own admission, is defintely a part of that plan.

rapt · Post by **rapt** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:14 pm

You should give Streiber more credit Dream. He has had some true ET experiences which gives him some credibility. Read a couple more of his journal entries. Not all fact but he gets it. The DNA sample from hair is convincing to me; the DNA in question is IN the dead hair, but represents (controls) the entire organism. A sample out of millions of them in the body if you will, all identical. On the subject of modifying DNA, I read a fascinating article recently which pointed out that a lot of our (human) DNA is "excess code," stuff that is not used at all but is carried along thru the generations anyway. It was determined that this code (even the active part)could not have been created/designed here on Earth but originated off-planet. Not sure how that determination was made but it was peer-reviewed and passed muster. Finally, my last challenge to bits of your earlier post. You said, "why does he need to suck the 'robot alien's' breast?" He made that as clear as he could when he speculated that many other subjects of this same exercise in extraction of genetic material had indeed sucked the alien breast and were rendered amnesiac as a result. Going back hundreds of years. The author himself said that he had refused to suck as requested and bit instead. So he remembered. I'm fascinated. I need to find those two books.

Avalon · Post by **Avalon** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:37 am

Streiber doesn't actually go into any sort of "chosen" riff in that essay. Are you thinking of something he's written elsewhere? I found it maudlin, rambling and full of fearmongering speculation. When I see something like this passage: Because, in taking their semen and their eggs, we would be taking more than their spirits, even; we would be taking the very essence of the species, and with every such extraction, removing not just the potential for a single creature, but whole lines and vast expressions of the species, echoing down the ages. Indeed, they might want the best of what we have to offer, and have the means to find it. It might not be just healthy genes that they are taking, but what is best in us, the children who, if born among us, would have guided us and lifted us, and enabled us, also, to progress to maturity in the stars. all I can get from it is a sense of profound depression talking, talk that is bound to throw him into an existential funk. Let's channel our Inner Dr. Ruth and realize this -- every wet dream, every period DOES THE SAME GODDAMN THING! Wipes out that entire future line that could have issued from your loins from that egg, that sperm. Millions of your future descendents vanished from the probability lines in this reality. Sheesh. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> Then there's his heavy breathing over "It involves a connection between the first UFO sightings and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not hypothetical or based on questionable documents. It is simple, easily provable fact" Took me 30 seconds to work out on the back of an envelope that there's just two people between me and Fred Crisman, and the same with me and JFK through a different chain, and that's without even trying hard. I'm sure there are other lines of connection, and I'm sure I'm no more than 2 people away from Kevin Bacon too by at least 2 lines of connection. And that means that for most of you, those connections are just as common, whether you can diagram it or not. Chalker's been discussing his book a lot at UFO Updates recently. Some of you might want to read some of the threads there and see if anyone else is posing the same questions to him that you're thinking of. <a href="http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/latest/">www.virtuallystrange.net/...es/latest/</a>

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:43 am

Well, yes, I understand DNA...just not two types in one strand of hair. That didn't make sense. As you put it: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A sample out of millions of them in the body if you will, all identical.<hr></blockquote> But Strieber says that the book in question says there is MORE THAN ONE DNA type in the hair. In addition, dead hair, in earthly mammals anyway, doesn't contain DNA, only the follicles. So having different types of DNA as it progresses up the hair makes no sense. Here is an admonition about proper collecting of hair for DNA samples. THe site I got this from is also useful for those of you who are thinking of taking up the hobby of raising Boer Goats. Ahem..yes...well, same principle. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Hair strands without follicles do not contain DNA and cannot be tested.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.canadianboergoat.com/CBGAEnglish/sample_taking.htm">www.canadianboergoat.com/...taking.htm</a> Here's Strieber's description of the hair sample DNA: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The hairs have been DNA tested and the results are incredibly odd. In the root, rare Basque mitochondrial DNA was found. Farther up the shaft, DIFFERENT DNA was found, this time rare Chinese mitochondrial DNA. In addition, CCR5 gene deletion appeared to be present. This rare anomaly confers immunity to HIV and other viruses.<hr></blockquote> By the way, for what it's worth, Khoury didn't pull the hairs out of the woman's head, he found them...well, I'll let this site tell it: <a href="http://ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html">ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Once he realized the women were gone, he tried to clear his throat by drinking water. It didn't work. Then he had an urge to go to the bathroom. He realized that his penis felt very painful. Standing in the bathroom, he pulled back the foreskin and found two thin blond strands of hair wrapped tightly around. He struggled to unravel the pieces of hair as the pain became an intense burning sensation. Finally he managed to removed the two pieces of hair and immediately put them in a small sealable plastic bag.<hr></blockquote> Now, you may think I'm mocking him here, but actually it's when embarrassing and nonsensical details are introduced into a narrative that I find it more convincing, or at least convincing that the narrator of the event believes it to be true. I certainly wouldn't say anything like that unless I thought it was true. However, why did he assume it was hair? Now, if you go to the site, it simply says they took the sample from the hair and does not mention the second type of DNA that Strieber mentioned. I guess someone with the book will have to settle this one. By the way, I wasn't knocking Strieber, only questioning one of the books he was discussing. Now, continuing my internet search: here is Chalker himself on the testing of the hair sample: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You seem to have completely misunderstood the DNA findings, if you have studied them. The shaft hair sequence was not a composite of caucasian and asian DNA sequences. It was an asian sequence with rare asian mongoloid aspects. This was confirmed closer to the root. The root seqence was caucasian with the rare basque gaelic aspects. We are not talking about composite DNA sequences that one would expect from the kind of generational intermarrying between different ethnic groups, as you are describing above. I get into some footnote discussion of the controversies involved with race determinations via DNA in my book, but it is not the answer you are suggesting.<hr></blockquote> Someone else on this site might be better able to tell if this makes any sense but it doesn't make sense to me. He says the asian mongoloid aspect was confirmed at the shaft but then he says at the shaft it was Caucasian with basque/gaelic aspects. I can't tell if he's saying there were two distinct DNA types or that these things were all within a single strand (well, two samples, but the presumption is that all cells have the same DNA) oh, it came from a bulletin board exchange here: <a href="http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/aug/m17-015.shtml">www.virtuallystrange.net/...-015.shtml</a> Finally, here is Chalker's site: <a href="http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/">theozfiles.blogspot.com/</a> I emailed him and asked about the DNA extraction. If he is making this claim, surely this basic objection of mine can't be right. I linked to this discussion as well. Maybe he'll pop in.

Bill C · Post by **Bill C** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:04 am

Greetings from down under This is a brief response as I understand from Jeff Wells the author of Rigorous Intitution that he would like to interview me for the site and maybe that process will address the issues that are coming up. However on the issue of extracting DNA from hair shafts, this has already come up elsewhere and I will add my response here: > I've been peripherally involved several times in attempted hair > analysis related to samples purported to be bigfoot hair. > > Most people don't know it, but you can't get usable DNA for > analysis from hair. Unless the hair has been yanked out by the > roots and still has follicles attached, there is no DNA present. > And the DNA in the follicles tends to decay with time. This not correct. Certainly it is much more difficult getting DNA from human hair shafts, but the FBI are doing it, and my APEG team utilised these FBI experimental protocols to develop the test procedure that was applied to the Khoury sample. I think maybe you are focused on nuclear DNA which is indeed very problematical in shaft samples. This preliminary study was focused on mitochondrial DNA which exists in quantities 200 to 500 times that of nuclear DNA, and is hence more easily detected in an aged or compromised sample, the kind of thing that is often found in a crime scene, and dare I say, maybe in some "alien abduction crime scenes" . The other problem is the inhibitory effect of the pigment melanin on the PCR process. The FBI protocol outlined, for example, in "Extraction, PCR Amplification and Sequencing of Mitochondrial DNA from Human Hair Shafts" by Wilson et.al, BioTechniques, Vol. 18. No. 4 (1995) is specifically applied to hair shafts. This allowed the FBI etc to extract DNA from such crime scene evidence as shed hair, ie. hair without follicles/roots. Until this development, yes, DNA extraction was limited to hair follicles/roots. While our phase one work took into consideration the possible impact of melanin, it turned out to not be a significant issue because there was very little melanin present. We did have a hair strand with hair root/follicle and this aspect became the subject of our Phase two study. We intentionally initially focused on the shaft, as this could be replicated, which we did in Phase 2. The root part however was going to be a one off therefore we delayed doing that. The results of that work have been summarised on my site for some time, reported in summary form again in recent and current articles in the International Reporter, the MUFON UFO Journal, and the Australasian Ufologist, but is now reported fully in my book "Hair of the Alien". Sorry for the plug again. However in the book I have gone to some trouble to give both a simple presentation of the science and also the full methodology in the appendix for those who wish those details. I encourage you to read about the case, particularly in its detailed form As a final point of clarification the FBI protocols which the experienced PhD biochemists used as a basis for the analysis utilises hair shafts that have roots/follicles. There were 2 fragments of hair, one with and one without. We felt the smaller piece without the root was a degraded fragment of the other thus we concentrated on the longer piece of hair shaft with the root to maintain adherance to experimental protocols. For those seeking various takes on this case and further commentaries from me on this and other issues you can visit my humble blog: <a href="http://theozfiles.blogspot.com">theozfiles.blogspot.com</a> As I am trying to respond to as many genuine enquiries as possible, and the sheer volume to date is rather large, and given I'm heading of to China shortly for a research & relaxation trip, you hopefully forgive me if I don't respond to every query. Maybe the interview part may adress things. Best wishes, Bill Chalker

Al Gomas · Post by **Al Gomas** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:23 am

How funny that this topic comes up here. Lately, I have taken to scanning the stars and saying a little prayer to the aliens each night before going to bed.

Dreams End · Post by **Dreams End** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:27 am

Thanks, if you read the responses, Bill. I look forward to the book.

Bill C · Post by **Bill C** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:27 am

Hi, I'm just getting use to this site and I did not see some of the responses and queries pertinent to the issue creating confusion. Basically - not a book plug <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"> well yes it is, because it has got all the detail - there were 2 phases to the DNA work. We got rare asian mongoloid DNA from the shaft near the root. We got replication of this closer to the root. From the root we got rare basque/gaelic results. This was bizarre as we were expecting more of the same, abeit strange enough to get rare asian mongoloid DNA in a blonde hair shaft. Albinoism, hair dying etc were not answers to that. Hetreoplasmy phenomena was not an explanation for the diferences between shaft and root. This was all on mitochondrial DNA. It was predictably more difficult getting nuclear DNA results in the root section, but the results we got were very suggestive of the presence of the CCR5 deletion factor. All this in one piece of hair. Explanation? Nothing is certain, but at this stage the key biochemist working with me (PhD, widely published in the scientific literature and at the cutting edge of biochemical research) felt it was somesort of analogue of advanced cloning techniques we are just seeing now since 2000. A reminder that the hair sample came from an incident in 1992 well before these advanced cloning techniques were flying. I am not beating the drum of certainty here, just trying to highlight potentially provocative results, and arguing that alien abduction claims, particularly those that might have physical evidence, and more particularly evidence of a biological nature that might be amenable to DNA testing. Regards, Bill Chalker

rigorousintuition.ca

What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

Whitley

Re: What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

Whitley

Re: What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

Re: What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

whitley thinks 'his' implant is good for him

Re: whitley thinks 'his' implant is good for him

DNA and hair plus other topics

Six degrees of Kevin Bacon

Re: DNA and hair plus other topics

Response from Bill Chalker author of "Hair of the Alien

Re: What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

Re: What is the word on Whitley Strieber?

Further clarification