This image has always fascinated me. It is of course the enititiy 'Lam' which wicked man extraordinaire Aleister Crowley claimed to have summoned in the early twentieth century. He had apparently contacted this entity through a series of magical rites entitled the Almantrah Working. One of the reasons that this image has fascinated me is the uncanny resemblance it bears to another fairly striking drawing of another Entity that was encountered by a man some 60 odd years after LAM.
This is the face of the female entity that Sci-fi writer/Alien Abductee Whitley Strieber claimed to have encountered in his best selling Communion. As has been pointed out by others long before me, you can't help but see a resemblance. Very strange indeed. But I guess thats the world of the Fortean for you. I will leave you with these photos to look over for now.
Further/Recommended reading to learn more:
Posts
19 comments:
They are similar -- in a fashion. Most people reporting contact with the typical 'Gray' being usually dwell on the eyes, noting how large and exceptionally black they are. The Crowley sketch doesn't have this characteristic at all.
I think humans have a natural urge to gift imagined demons/aliens/whatever, with large craniums, as that would seem to represent vast knowledge and wisdom (which is actually not true, as having a larger brain does not automatically = superiority in areas of intelligence).
Even in old sci-fi films, many of the aliens have larger than average skulls -- even before the Betty and Barney Hill Case helped boost the 'little-man/big-head' meme into the mainstream conscious.
That's a great point. Or maybe the 'ET's' just have some really kick ass shades that they forgot to put on the day it was summoned by Crowley?
Well, Streiber does mention that he got the impression that the visitors were actually wearing some kind of suit.
Oh thats right, I had completely forgotten about that. That's pretty funny as I was only kidding
Yeah. It's also touched on in the film (which I'm kind of whatever about), though not as blatantly as in the books. There is a part where the bottom half of the visitor's face is removed and there is an insect-like mouth/jawline beneath it.
Yeah I can relate to that sentiment. I found the book to be really fascinating, and have always admired that Strieber (say what you want about him) has always been hesitant to say exactly where the 'Visitors' are from. That's something about him I have always respected. As for the movie yeesh, Christopher Walken is funny in a way but I was not a big fan of the movie over all.
One thing that is disappointing about the book is how much relies on hypnotic regression.
Yeah that is an issue for sure. I'm not 100% sure how I feel about hypnotic regression in general, but when it comes to the 'alien' abduction phenomena I think it can cause more harm than good. But this is coming from someone who has only read the reports and not done any actual 'field' study so take it for what it's worth, hell after all it's just my opinion and I could certainly be wrong. But with the whole 'Emma Woods' shenanigans still relatively fresh in my mind I have to question hypnotic regression's efficacy.
Not to mention Carol Rainey's articles and documentary rough cuts on Hopkins (who is in a significant chunk of Communion).
Too true. But to me that just exemplifies a wider problem with Fortean topics and Ufology especially, namely the lack of 'credentials'. Of course we are dealing with such a potentially (pardon the pun) alien phenomena that its very difficult to have someone that is credentialed deal with these topics. That doesn't mean that a little bit of impartiality can't be applied. Like I have pointed out in earlier posts, many of the 'Ufologists' out there definitely have their pet theories and seek out the information to justify it. Rather than letting the data lead them to the answer, no matter how mundane it may turn out to be.
But the data itself is often questionable (particularly in hypnosis), which presents an even further problem.
That's true. Of course this has lead some, like Vallee, Keel, and the late Mac Tonnies, to speculate if this is done intentionally on the part of our 'visitors' in order to confuse the issue. But you can't at the same time rule out just plain human error. One could go crazy trying to figure out which is which.
Well, I'm only speaking of hypnosis 'data' right now. If hypnosis itself isn't reliable, how can claims brought forth from hypnosis be considered reliable?
I see what you're saying. That's tough question to answer. My gut reaction would be to say that it couldn't be, unless there was some kinds of strict guidelines for the use of hypnosis. Even then that wouldn't be enough, because I don't think we have a good enough grasp of how our consciousness functions. Definitely not enough to be playing around in someone else's mind. I know that there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that hypnosis could be used for smoking cessation or losing weight. Not exactly the same thing as deciphering a person's psyche.
No, you're right. Their might be some good in the use of hypnosis, but to use it as evidence -- it's just riddle with too many holes. The typical argument that people under hypnosis are in an extremely susceptible state applies. Television, books, and the internet have provided too much exposure to this 'phenomenon' for it not to linger somewhere in just about everyone's mind. Often times, those having recall of abduction through hypnosis have actually gone into the session thinking it was an alien abduction, therefore possibly tainting the outcome.
These days I'm more interested in abduction claims that are remembered events, and events in which 2 or more people are involved.
I can definitely agree with that. It's certainly the least credible of evidence that can be put up. I have read a number of stories of people that are able to consciously recall their abduction accounts. In her book Taken, the late abduction researcher/experiencer Karla Turner relates the stories of a number of women abductees, the majority of which are able to consciously recall their experiences. Although to be fair human memory isn't infallible either. So hopefully notes are able to be made as quickly after the event as possible.
Indeed.
Thanks for the dialog =)
No sincerely thank you. I really enjoyed it a lot. I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me!
I can share my experience. After having assisted to a holotropic breathing therapy session, some really cristal clear "rememberings" of several abductions i had suffered came to my mind.
they can be as true or as false as the ones "recovered" in an hypnotic session...
Post a Comment