Exopolitical vs Social Inception?

[bbow73]

Exopolitical Inception
William Tompkins, Dan Burisch, Charles Hall, Bill Uhouse (even the Maria Orsic story) reference receiving psychic downloads of information.

Social Inception
Ed Dames , Richard Alan Miller, and Courtney Brown and others make reference to the conscious mind (wielding the imagination) as a threat to artificially influencing information from remote viewing, astral projection and channeling. Social Psychologists have even suggested that the same artificial influence can color our own memories, even under hypnosis.

What do you think is going on?
Both? Neither?

Are there testimonies as to a recipient of a Exopolitical inception or someone using an extra sensory perception having a reliable method of separating the conscious imagination?

How do you scrutinize the difference between the two if the source doesn't even know?

[bbow73]

okay, forget political correctness.

I think there are a lot of big name people in the UFOlogy circuit that go beyond sharing experiences, observations or findings and promote their interpretation* of the material intermingled with the material. The problem is the interpretations are largely conceived from ignorance and the perception bias' of our mental filters. Specifically this is a problem of MISINFORMATION as opposed to DISINFORMATION.

This is the problem I addressed earlier that I think obscures the line between a UFOlogist and a spiritual guru. In addition, I recently heard a sociologist (a generous title since she seemed to be a person that merely paid for a degree and decided to write a book) conduct herself in a very unprofessional way by presenting her observations mixed with her interpretation of the populations she studied (the UFOlogy community). This is professionally unethical.

The other part of the problem is that I think there are fans of UFOlogy that can't discern between the presented data and the presenter's interpretation.

One of the things I really value about the Project Camelot interviews happens to be the journalistic integrity, a hard line separation between subject and object (Tom studies grammar - Tom is the subject and grammar is the object). Project Camelot conducts and interview, the object may include an interpretation within their interview but Project Camelot only conducts the interview. It is up to the audience to draw responsible conclusions. You will often hear Kerry Cassidy say, "that's interesting" or present a counter point of view from another testimony, instead of saying, "well I know the real truth and this is the way it is".

I would like to know if people think I am wrong and why. FWIW, I've experienced a lot of pain in the 'waking up' process and I'm hoping that I can return the painful (but beneficial) favor in a similar 'waking up' journey.

*If they want to share their interpretations/theories, that's fine. But it needs to be presented separately from the source material.