Weighing the Frequencies
Although there is nothing more that needs to be said about Añjali’s tunnels and failed expedition, one of her tweets was noteworthy:
“The standard of credibility is set so high for those who come forward, it’s unattainable/nonmaintainable. It’s dehumanizing.”
As Jack Brewer often writes, everything begins and ends with standards of evidence. Indeed, there is no other basis to distinguish between delusion and reality.
In law, the standards of evidence provide a basis to measure claims. A criminal conviction must be established with evidence that proves an act beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence is necessary for civil verdicts. Facts may be established through clear and convincing evidence, substantial evidence, or credible evidence. At minimum, at least “some evidence” is needed – there must be a rational basis for one’s assertion.
Scientific evidence is generally taken to be anything tending to refute or confirm a hypothesis. Evidence establishes what one is justified in believing or what it is reasonable for one to believe. Consideration of evidence may be influenced by a person’s assumptions or beliefs, so confirmation is important before evidence is accepted.
The standards vary according to the type of proceeding, but the burden of proof always rests with the party advancing the fact at issue. It is not enough to say that something cannot be disproved. A basic threshold must be established. Credibility might depend on how much of a threshold can be met, but it is not dehumanizing.
Mark Richards provides some lessons in the way that evidence is reviewed. He claims that he had been a captain in the Not-So-Secret Secret Space Program. He grew up playing with chocolate loving alien raptors and fought in heroic space battles until eventually he was framed for murder. This site disputes that account but it is the factual matters that are at issue. Those facts can be analyzed and discussed. We can debate whether Mark has provided any proof of his claims, but there is at least some common understanding of what that means.
In contrast, Añjali effectively states that if the standards of evidence are too difficult, she can dispense with them altogether. Facts are based on personal frequency rather than any objective measure. Experience is fluid. If there is no tunnel, no missing time, and no corroboration, something could have happened ‘that could make it all true.” When one reality does not work out change, the channel and switch realities.
Some scientists have written that “resonance — another word for synchronized vibrations — is at the heart of not only human consciousness but of physical reality.” Even if that premise is accepted, and physical reality is complex in ways we have yet to fully discover, it does not negate the importance of evidentiary standards
Without standards of evidence there is no way to determine what is being understood or experienced. One problem with relying on frequencies as an ultimate standard is that discussion – the possibility of a shared experience – is precluded. If you cannot see the tunnel, spaceship, or alien it is your fault. Your frequency is too low. You are stuck in “nonevolved theory.”
Sarah says, “You guys can’t speak to interdimensional ETs because your frequency is too low. You want contact . . . do the work and stop crying about it. Contact happens when one elevates their energy field.” But never fear. There is a solution
There’s ancient secrets and techniques that have been hidden from humanity in attempts to keep them asleep and from understanding their past incarnations as ETs and their lives on other planets along with keeping them from accessing their divine powers which allow them to astral project and realm walk along with connecting to ETs and spirits
I’m offering a multidimensionality course teaching the same secrets and techniques I use to speak to ETs and Spirits.
It apparently does not matter if you have a practice that is valid for you, whether it be zen meditation or prayer. Frequencies are frequencies.
If experience alone is the standard, then what is a measure of truth? I once worked with adolescents who had suffered psychotic or schizophrenic breaks. They were definitely experiencers, but what they experienced is far different than that advanced in UFO culture.
To Adams, Añjali is unbalanced. To another Añjali may be speaking for the higher beings. Any assertion is equally valid if the only standard is yourself or if something resonates with your frequency.
It is interesting to note that with both Añjali and Sarah Adams, higher frequencies seems to lead directly to using the threat of lawsuits to respond to critics or those who have somehow wronged them. If that doesn’t work, blocking someone on social media might be the next best thing.
When I wrote that courts are not a way to gain emotional or spiritual satisfaction, Sarah replied, “The 3d life is to be balanced with the spiritual life not to be ignored. Yes you know I take showers and do 3D stuff too.” There might be a difference between showers and lawsuits. Courts are not a way proclaim that you have a spiritual vision or “goddess energy.” I have no problem with 3D thinking. I like the way that Adams sometimes quotes people like Eugene Debs, the socialist organizer and war resister.
In any event, frequency seems like it can be used as a defensive mechanism or a weapon depending on the mood. Adhering to evidentiary standards does not negate personal experience, but is the only thing that gives experience a context.
|⇧1||I have no problem with 3D thinking. I like the way that Adams sometimes quotes people like Eugene Debs, the socialist organizer and war resister.