What is this site?
It’s my personal website containing articles on various fringe topics. These topics include aliens, metaphysics, the matrix control system, conspiracy, and alternative science. My writings have been on the internet since 1998. I designed and coded this site. It runs on the Textpattern content management system.
What is the purpose of this site?
To help people avoid the many pitfalls and dead ends on the path of awakening, empower them with clear and practical spiritual knowledge, and speed them along their path of truth seeking. I want to share what I have learned, the positive and the negative, to reduce the time and suffering people go through if it ends up being useful in their journey. I also aim to unravel important mysteries and point out hidden or suppressed knowledge in the fields of science, music, history, and mythology for the sake of connecting more dots for people.
Where do you get your info?
Most of it comes from personal experience, insight, pondering, and applying critical thinking skills. Some material comes from personal discussion and correspondence with friends. These I correlate with outer sources of information like books, websites, videos, and articles by others.
Regarding published sources, here are my primary influences (or major points of resonance if I discovered them after the fact):
1) Law of One (Ra material) – books I/II/III
2) The Cassiopaean Transcripts (read my warning first)
3) Bringers of the Dawn – Barbara Marciniak
4) Gnosis, volumes I/II/III – Boris Mouravieff
5) The Toltec Teaching Series – Theun Mares
6) The writings of Michael Topper, Rudolf Steiner, and Paul Brunton
See my Recommended Reading list for further suggestions. As for my education, I did four years of undergraduate physics and electrical engineering, which took me through quantum physics, electrodynamics, linear algebra, vector/tensor calculus, and partial differential equations.
What’s with the name “Montalk”?
My real name is Tom. “Montalk” is an online handle, a play upon the word “Montauk”. I have no connections with the Montauk Project, and chose the name only because it was a tongue-in-cheek way of indicating the conspiracy angle of this site. It was also one of the few names left on hotmail that hadn’t been taken when I signed up for an email account in 1997.
Since most people now know me either by Tom or by Montalk, I sometimes combine these into Tom / Montalk. But since I can’t use slashes in social media handles, it becomes TomMontalk and then some people began thinking Montalk is my last name. It’s not, but the whole point of names is to identify someone, so if Tom Montalk is how people identify me then I guess it serves its function.
What’s the origin story of this site?
In 1997, I typed a 25 page essay called “So What’s Going On?” to copy and hand out to my high school friends and classmates. It was a grand summary of my conspiracy and UFOlogy research. My conclusion at the time, which I still subscribe to, is that the New World Order is colluding with aliens and was subservient to them, and that their master plan was to replace us with a new breed of human-alien hybrids.
Around that time, I saw the movie Hackers. It inspired me to learn how to code. I picked up a random coding book at the store and it happened to be HTML, which is used to code websites. So I signed up for free hosting with tripod.com and built my first site, called “WCRT: Web of Conspiracy, Reality, and Truth” which was a rewritten version of my essay divided into several sections. Later I started adding individual articles to the site, and numerous links.
My ‘friends’ pranked me by contacting tripod.com about a fake issue, resulting in the site getting deleted. So I built a new one at angelfire.com, with a new design, and continued adding articles.
Eventually in 2002, I registered the name montalk.net and got my own paid hosting. Since my audience had grown significantly, I began taking things more seriously. It was no longer a little blog for sarcastic ranting, but an actual service that helped people.
In 2004, I redesigned the look of montalk.net with a blue, black, orange theme. With some minor facelifts since then, the theme still stands today in 2022. Somehow I had managed to create a theme that survived the Web 2.0 rounded bubbly look that became the craze years later, and without trying, be back in style afterwards when trends shifted to the clean linear flat look that I’d already had for a decade. Been pretty happy with the prophetic nature of this design.
Can you elaborate on how you arrived at your views?
I get my research mostly from personal experience and observation, logical deduction and critical thinking, insight, and intuition — in that order. Half of the rest comes from books, textbooks, articles, websites, documentaries. And the remaining comes from anecdotes, observations, and insights relayed by others. So in correlating this data pool and weighing the credibility of each, checking for possible errors, eliminating inconsistencies, finding holes and modifying the theory accordingly, what I am trying to do is make the best fit curve to the data, that which is contradicted by none of the data, the theory that explains it most elegantly and allows for predictions that can be verified or insights that can be checked against further study. It doesn’t mean I’m right, it just means I’m as right as can be for now.
It’s a more flexible form of the scientific method. I make my observations, form a hypothesis as to what could be going on, then over time that hypothesis is tested and I form a conclusion as to how to make an improved hypothesis. Traditional science does similar, except nowadays (and for quite some time) it throws out observations that don’t fit theory instead of modifying theory to fit the data, you know the whole “if I can’t measure it then it can’t exist” mentality which is like saying “my ruler is only a foot long, therefore that tree over there can only be a foot tall because I can’t measure the rest” — humorous exaggeration but you get my point. The problem with certain skeptics is that their rationalizations are sometimes more ludicrous than the very thing they are trying to discount, which is due to a stubborn bias that subjectively keeps raising the bar for what constitutes sufficient proof so that none is sufficient to prove their bias faulty. What’s worst is when, instead of testing a hypothesis, they ridicule the hypothesis as impossible and contrary to the status quo, and therefore refuse to even test or examine it. That is contrary to the scientific method.
Regarding proof, there is personal proof and inner knowing that is not universal “hard” proof but definitely enough to convince the one it happens to. Take lucid dreaming for instance. Can I prove to you and the world that I have lucid dreams? No, it’s an internal phenomenon. A scientist is trained to keep himself out of the experiment, therefore he is not allowed to lucid dream himself to get the proof, rather he can merely measure and observe someone who claims to be. In that case, he will never get the proof he or she needs.
The same goes for synchronicity, shaping your thoughts and feelings to shape what experiences you attract, etc. where proof can only be found through personal experience. You can document a synchronicity but it always leaves room for doubt for someone else who refuses to believe due to that person missing the personal context of it.
I have enough experience in these matters to be convinced that this stuff is real. And the anecdotes of others I consider plausible if they are trustworthy individuals of sound mind and I cannot find probable reason for their being mistaken. Or maybe the theory is wrong, but the observations upon which they are based are real and therefore useful. And the observations themselves are counter-examples to what Academia considers possible, therefore I have personal proof that there is more to reality than the secular authorities admit.
Regarding the idea of thoughts and emotions projecting outside us and directly shaping the probability distribution of immediate probable futures, that gets into the more exotic aspects of quantum physics and electrodynamics not discussed in textbooks but supported by a larger collection of indirect evidence. The works of physicist David Bohm and Rupert Sheldrake come to mind here. In court of law, indirect evidence can settle cases if there is enough of it despite no single piece being hard proof. Same here, if all that’s considered is what you have seen with your own eyes or published in some textbook, your world view will be limited to the size of a matchbox. Critical thinking helps stitch things together, but the energy and time required to do a good job discourages people who prefer structuring their beliefs on what is convenient rather than what is true.
How do you know you’re not spreading disinformation?
The best I can do is act on my experience, intuition, and logic, keeping what rings true and is logically sound until something better comes along. Rather than look for what’s right with an idea, I focus on what’s wrong with it because disinformation is a lot of truth with a little bit of lies and looking for the lies is therefore the proper procedure to follow. Looking only for what’s right is a recipe for wishful thinking, as that leads to confirmation bias. Looking to falsify something is way easier and more efficient. Sure, it’s not a failsafe method, but I correct mistakes as soon as they reveal themselves.
Why are there so few footnotes in your writings, shouldn’t you be citing all your sources?
I do that for several good reasons.
First, because most of the time they’re not sources but correlations that I discover after the fact. When I make a new observation or get a new idea, I search to see if anyone else has said it. If so, it helps with confirmation but it wasn’t the actual source of my idea. Even if they said it years before I did, I can’t honestly cite it as a source.
Second, because it feeds into people’s blind trust of authority. They take footnotes as a measure of scholasticism, with footnote salads being the most scholarly and therefore authoritative.
But sources can themselves be bunk, so the presence of citations means nothing by itself. And too many people are too lazy to investigate each source to find out if the sources are legit.
Each source then cites a myriad of earlier sources, and the tree of sources grows exponentially with each layer. People don’t have the time for that, so they settle on trusting it blindly, taking the presence of footnotes to mean it’s sufficiently baked up and factual. Well, I think that’s wrong and dangerous and I don’t want to feed into it.
People need to stop trusting authority and rely more on experience, experiment, intuition and reasoning. That’s why I prefer to write as if I were putting out working hypotheses for people to test against their own knowledge and future experiences.
Third, you can’t cite something as a source if what you took from it is the opposite of what it says. For example, if a book concludes with, “All aliens are therefore benevolent” and my takeaway from that is, “Then that means there definitely are negative aliens” (because the author shows numerous signs of being a programmed disinformation agent, and is therefore lying) then I got the idea of negative aliens existing from that book, but the book never said it. So I can’t cite it as a source.
Fourth, an idea may be the result of reading between the lines of multiple “sources,” such that their synergistic combination leads to a novel viewpoint that isn’t contained in, let alone advocated by, any of these sources alone. Therefore no single source can be cited as the originator of the idea.
And fifth, it’s not always possible to excerpt or cite specific pages of a book when the entire body of work by an author, read and digested in whole, is needed to support a particular idea. That is, nothing in isolation can be pointed to, as it’s everything together from which a picture emerges.
For these reasons, I only sometimes put footnote citations in my writings when it’s absolutely necessary let alone possible. I prefer instead to put a “Further Reading” list at the end of articles, as a mix of indirect or correlating “sources” that when all are taken together and read between the lines, back up what I said in the article. It’s why I have an extensive Recommended Reading section.
Why do you write with such an authoritative tone?
That’s a misperception. In accordance with the scientific method, most of my ideas are written in the form of a hypothesis for the sake of the reader. A hypothesis is an idea put forward to be tested, in this case by the reader. Hypotheses are always written in the form of a direct statement, such as “ice melts when placed in hot water.” They are not written in wishy washy language like “in my opinion, there is a possibility that ice will melt in hot water, but I don’t know for sure so please make up your own mind.”
It is a given that what people read on the net, they should test before accepting it. If they have to be told to make up their own minds, then they are still depending on authority for them to do that. I expect readers to have a mind of their own and take my ideas into consideration rather than automatically accepting them based on perceived authority. And they should do this without my having to command them into doing that; it should be an unspoken understanding. If the idea works and fits and they can’t disprove it, then they are free to go with it. If they have a problem with the idea, then they should be able to explain exactly what’s wrong.
So since they ought to treat everything as a hypothesis anyway, for the sake of conciseness I prefer to write my ideas in the form of direct statements and let people make up their own minds, as they should. I have my own personal proof and good reasons for what I write, but I can’t always transfer that to the reader. So I pose my conclusions as hypotheses, which respects the reader’s freewill and stage of learning. If they’re ready, the lightbulbs will go off as everything they’ve accumulated up until that point starts falling into place.