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.
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.
Some articles contradict each other, what gives?
Older articles are less accurate than new ones, and so they may contradict the new ones. I’m working on getting everything up to date and consistent.
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.
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. Since most people now know me either by Tom or by Montalk, I sometimes combine these into Tom / Montalk or simply Tom Montalk for ease of reference.