 
212

Cults, Conspiracies and Criminal Enterprises: An Overview by Randy Gonzalez

## Cults, Conspiracies and Criminal Collusions:

## An Overview Of

## Willful Conspiratorial Belief Systems

### By

### Randy Gonzalez

Adventures in the Pseudo-sciences

©2019 Randolph A. Gonzalez. All rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced, displayed, modified or distributed without the express prior written permission of the copyright holder. Original Unabridged Version.

Chapter Contents:

Chapter 1 - Anti-Thinking versus Critical Analysis in Belief Acceptance Page 3

Chapter 2 – Belief Systems and Threat Potential Page 13

Chapter 3 – Creativity in Collusive Criminality Types Page 23

Chapter 4 - Deceptions in Devious Designs Page 33

Chapter 5 – Evil in the Ambitions of Human Intentions Page 43

Chapter 6 – Fabricating the Ruse for focused Fixations Page 53

Chapter 7 - Gullibility in Willful Susceptibility Page 63

Chapter 8 - Haunted Habits from Hidden Ideations Page 73

Chapter 9 - Investigative Analytics in Inventive Inquiries Page 82

Chapter 10 - Jigsaw Puzzles Jest Evidentiary Judiciousness Page 93

Chapter 11 - Kidnapping the Collective Consciousness Page 103

Chapter 12 - Killing the Collective Consciousness Page 113

Chapter 13 - Logical Deduction in Rational Inquiry Page 123
Chapter 14 – Mindful Musings in Premeditated Malevolence Page 133
Chapter 15 – Nexus of Nebulous Notions – The Zombie Effect Page 143

Chapter 16 – O.P.U.S. – Obsessive Compulsive Postulations Page 153

Chapter 17 – Quantum Queries in Curious Complexity Page 163

Chapter 18 - Planetary, Political and Paranormal Postulations Page 173

Chapter 19 – Confirmation Bias – Hope Springs Eternal Page 183

Chapter 20 – Perceptions of Reality Shape Theory Page 193

Chapter 21 – Cultic Collusions in Self-centered Illusions Page 203

Chapter 1 - Anti-Thinking versus Critical Analysis in Belief Acceptance

**Anti-thinking** , as used here, refers to individual choices, in the personal decision-making process, whereby one does not apply critical thinking skills. Contemplation within the neural networks selects less cumbersome deliberations. Attention, reflection and creative inspiration are suspended in favor of immediate intellectual gratification. This is done freely and for the sake of the individual's willingness to accept superficial assertions. You choose your actions based on your thoughts, from your private ideations, to achieve your own interests, goals and objective. That is the basis of psycho-physical human activities, liberation from thought to action. People choose their particular proclivities based on personal preferences, for better or for worse.

**Anti-thinking** is lazy, slothful, stupid and undisciplined satiation for self-indulgent lures disguising inner amative seductions. Along the way, irrationality is chosen to support one's ends as perpetrated by persistent means. Later, if challenged for an invalid position or policy, caught in an illicit, or otherwise exposed. Anti-thinking becomes an alibi. One need only conjure the magic of some even more irrational excuses. Such as blaming, sacrificing and accusing someone or something else. It requires very little effort on your part. From such deliberate actions, you allow fallacies of inference, hasty generalizations and faulty conclusions to serve as evidence, facts and ultimate truths. Bias reigns supreme in your search for constant subjective validation.

For many, external sources of information, especially multi-media **"edutainment"** pass for "credible authenticity". For the most part, these contain egregious falsehoods, sensationalism, and glamorized fallacies. Such prejudices are allowed to influence the shallow nature of thinking processes. And, this is done on purpose. It allows for an escape from societal responsibility and accountability. Since people enjoy a good ruse, and promotion of communal deceptions by preferential inclination, people are very good at trickery. Especially in group settings, where all too often from cults to terrorist factions, associations devise the mythology of myriad illusions. Sometimes we call this propaganda. Cross-culturally, when accepted large scale, we might refer to this as orthodox doctrine. Other times, we may simply say this is "group think", "herd mentality", "group mind", and "mob think" within communal collusions.

In other spheres, some of us even go so far as to postulate the possibility of **"mind control"** , or **"brain washing"**. Anti-thinking continues the proselytizing of diverse myths, misconceptions and unfortunate metaphors. This means a failure on your part to question the validity of people, places and things within the social processes. From this lack of logical, rational and realistic application, deception is given broad based opportunity to manifest all magnitude of interpersonal trickery. In contrast, thought criticality would be an introspective methodology of pro-thinking, where critical analysis of original research applies to cautious investigations. And, issues are ruthlessly proved or disproved. Regardless, we are our nature. People typically pursue the path of least resistance. Our duality of both good and evil presents us with competitive choices.

**Pro-thinking** or **critical thinking skills** , follows a cerebral rubric as sometimes mirrored in the real world of practitioner based criminal investigations. Of which experienced knowledgeable rationality offers a model for logical, systematic and methodically competent inquiries. Creative and inventive, in-depth thinking requires strenuous mental alacrity. This suggests the reality of serious innovation beyond fictional characterizations, within mental matrix of a well-differentiated personality. As a critical aspect of logical processing for deductive rationality, one controls investigative bias to every extent possible. We can willingly suspend our personal feelings, emotions and for the sake of objectivity in evidentiary discovery. The question is do we want to?

This kind of thinking procedure entails **profound common-sense thoughtful** exercises, as an exhaustive intellectual endeavor. He or she questions all things. An investigation is fact driven and requires patient perseverance to achieve some semblance of validity. One is encumbered by the energy required to carry out the discovery. By serious query, observation and perception, careful analysis considers the facts in evidence, if they exist at all. Ensuring factual evidentiary exhibits prove the assertion at issue; an investigation pursues ruthlessly tracing and tracking, while staying on the trail of verifiable information sources. This necessitates mentally following the logic of an assertion. In these procedures, one searches information pathways, discovers meanings, collecting viable data, and assembling supporting correlations.

In short, the quest is to think individually. Step outside the anti-thinking and express that willfulness in a multi-dimensional context. On the inside of us, we are connected to intricate processes of existence. By surreal ideations, we manufacture impressions, conceptions, and perceptions. From dreams and fantasies to wakefulness and everything in between, people create their "mindset". Yet, they become lazy, slothful and mediocre over time, place and setting. Investigators must know the difference.

On the outside, we're interpreting and projecting causal relationships for a conception of a physical realm. We desire to make sense of a worldly order accepted as fixed and static in time. Nonetheless, our query to define oneself in terms of the hidden things becomes troublesome. To make sense of these self-imposed psychic "gardens of Eden" and affirm our unique personhood is often viewed too simplistically. To establish presence as an authentic and responsible human being requires a hunt for the truth.

In other words, smart versus stupid. Acting in stupid ways is a choice. You are not a superficial echo of someone else's dogmatic mantra steeped in social psycho-babble. You must realize your inherent potency by virtue of human energy's potential. One's "mind" is more powerful than any weaponry. In fact, the "mind" is the weapon against the ignorance of social warfare. Here, "mind" is conceived as a fabrication of the brain. By which neural networks design a matrix of thinking of greater or lesser understanding.

The matrix of thoughts is created by brain chemistry. To this end, they need a mirror to reflect the conscious, preconscious and subconscious foundations for ideation. From here, we might conclude "mind" means a complexity of ideation whereby cerebral energies bring together an organized composition of thought patterns. Put them in strings of energetic consciousness for processes which enable environmental interactivity. For the sake of the "mindset", you fabricate your own personal design.

From your persona, the total essentiality of experience provides enduring neural structures to advance thought forms. Closer to the point though, brain power is the primary personal weapons system. Add to this, the self-willed ability to be a liberated forthright free thinker. Proactive thought is crucial to social survival. Plus, being able to articulate those thoughts is vital to communal interactivity. So that, to explain our role in life, we need to do the hard tough work of pro-thinking or critical analysis on a day to day basis. While doing so, we don't accept superficial cover stories.

Overall then, anti-thinking is suggested here as the opposite of pro-thinking. That is, for anti-thinking, you willingly accept fuzzy logic, faulty inference and lazy hasty conclusions because you really don't want to work too hard at your thinking. As a result, you accept the average, the ordinary or the second-rate bargain basement fallacy of inference. Absent the proof of the evidence, you're naïve position allows for the belief in nebulous claims as to the nature of reality. Very simply, you accept things at face value without testing the data for viability and veracity. At this juncture, the basic rubric offers "anti" as going against something, as opposed to "thinking", or reasoning power.

In other words, personal decision making that goes against the intellectual processes. By which, you miss the subtle innuendo, deceptive metaphor or double entendre in figures of speech. Why do you do that, because it's easier. On top this, there's the additional factor that we often overlook. You need to do your own credible research. Test the information, the assertion or alleged evidence. Where is the evidence? For many, this becomes a lifelong engagement of neglectful behavior. Exercising one's brain power, to discern between myth and reality, is often relegated to others. Shortcuts are quick, painless and simplistic. Convenience that's trouble-free

When considering speculations upon the social-economic-political spheres of cults, conspiracies and collusive criminal enterprises, anti-thinking becomes easier. We'd rather think "herd-like" and avoid the pitfalls of serious insight. Issues such as these can be reduced to bumper sticker slogans. More often, they are templates oozing the sexiness of **"profiling"** , **"psychic investigations"** or **"gradients of evil"**. On some grand metaphorical scale, the comfort is in the seduction to oversimplified thinking. We like effortless undemanding "equations" that simplify human behavior. However, the sticky part comes when such shortcomings devolve into social policy.

The press, politicians and proselytizers, including those from academia and the pulpit, enjoy the clever catchphrases, **reductionistic illusions** and **biased subjective validation**. Through this maze of interactions, we eventually encounter a diversity of belief systems. Included here, are the wide variety of human groupings that fabricate cultic fascinations in the occult, the supernatural and the paranormal. From there, we can travel all the way around the planet to encompass all manner of collusive intrigue. Whereby, you can include terrorist factions and other organized criminal collectives.

In brief, we should want to understand, in every given situation, the particulars of the situation at hand. Given a set of circumstances, involving people, places and properties, what are the implications? What do we know for certain and how do we know it? Forget the irrelevant, the immaterial and ineffectual diversions. Avoid the useless inept assertions based on **subjective conjecture**. As such, our devotion evolves around examining the factual matters pertinent to the pursuit of logical inferences. So, if at all possible, we regulate our temperament and control of egoistic self-indulgence. Very often, so called "experts" proclaim the viability an argument based on their own self-centered claim to special knowledge. That might be true depending on the person's particular credentials. But, then again, contentions might be false. Declarations as to the truth of an issue may be completely based on playing a guessing game.

The guessing game contends you won't bother to investigate the assertions. Therefore, who ever is professing the declaration succeeds by default. Instead of that, we look for the evidence trail and follow the direction where ever it leads. From which, we avoid fallacies based on feelings, emotions and personal sensitivity. Investigatively, energies transcend between the real and the unreal and distinguish fact from fiction. For this reason, investigators need proof. Gathering significant data, assembling information and evaluating the records, provide the basis upon which provability survives. While we search for evidentiary criteria, in order to support a problem solving equation. We must examine the data and substantiate viable verifications. In the meantime, all of us must be alert to the myriad deterministic assertions regarding human behavior.

People lie, make things up and strive to be "right" no matter what. People are extremely capable of fabricating alibis to cover intentions. Alibis are excuses. Really good ones get believed. Deterministic preconditions allow for excludability from accountability and responsibility for one's actions. That is, some obscure external cause led to the subsequent effect of an eventual incident. In other words, in criminality, the allegations devolve to the accusation that someone or something else is at fault. However, from a **classical criminological perspective** , this sense suggests the opposite is true. Personal culpability, premeditation and willful deliberation are responsible for every successive action. You make choices in spite of other factors. Many speculations about criminal causation are confusing and often logically inconsistent.

None the less, if said often enough, believability works its magic. For all the fairy tales we tell, myth, magic and metaphor get confusing. Yet, repetition creates the illusion of reality. If someone seems like they know what they're talking about, then illogically it follows they must be correct. Right? Plus, if they get seriously emotional about the alleged controversy, that sounds even better. They can appeal to our emotions. Because now, we've added the elemental senses of sound to sight. We see the falsehood, hear it, and think about it. In time, we want to believe the fallacious assertion. Mere suggestion might be sufficient to fool us. Long term, we might become believers. Some adherents to certain belief systems form alliances with extreme associations. Outcomes may prove dangerous to communal interactions. Overall though, critical thinking is hard work. That's why most people try to avoid such exercises. However, if you want to be a credible investigator if you have to ask difficult questions.

Within criminal behavior potentiality, illegal prospects permeate every potential human action. While some choose to avoid anti-social behaviors. Others, by comparison embrace their illicit inclinations. Some commit crimes others find more covert ways to satiate their innate prurience. To the process of an investigation, we want to apply pro-thinking or deductive reasoning to our investigation. In that context, our efforts focus reason, basis and rationality. A hypothesis is created about the incident under inquiry. Once formatted, the data is tested in contrast the actuality being presented. What are the known facts? After that, we assess the viability of the original hypothesis. If our theory falters, then we reconsidered the original configuration. From here, you keep working until the pieces fit realistically the relevant set of evidentiary artifacts.

Very often though, we get trapped by logical inconsistencies. And, try to stereotype from the fixation that everyone and everything fits neatly into simple building blocks. Consistent similarities offer the patterns for easy solution to complex problems. For some, the invention of scales, templates and profiles provide simplistic notions for the framework of causation. When that's done, basic sketches become the generic outlines for hasty conclusions. As a result, pitfalls in thinking exude the murkiness for fallacies of inference. In the failure to strive for objectivity, bias succeeds in providing deception.

Failing to have sufficient proof for a particular argument suggests alternatives. Each of us looks for options that meet our expectations. People seek out patterns that are consistent with personal inclinations. We want validation for the ideas that we have. Unfortunately, that's not always a successful venture. None the less, our basis for any investigative inquiry must stick to the facts at issue. Human behavior follows the pursuit of individual thinking processes. Everyone has an agenda, public and private in scope. Thinking is an entire intricate world within each human being. As a result, more often than not, we come close to a kinship with something called the "argumentum ad populum". This is better known as arguing on the basis of collectivist beliefs.

This relates to our mutual acceptance of what one said to another. A lot of people listen to the allegation. Before you know it, the assertion has been accepted as factual. If it sounds plausible, then it follows, illogically of course, that such an instance must be the truth. Appealing to the mass acceptance of a certain proposition suggests it must right. Does that sound logical? Well, actually no it shouldn't. Everything involving people should be subject to further investigative analysis.

That's because a whole bunch people can be grievously in error. As a group, people make fervent appeals across a communal spectrum. They hope their position will be reinforced by increasing numbers of believers, followers or adherents. Accounts can be observed when it comes to religious and anti-religious positions taken by many diverse groups. These include so called cults, gangs and related organized criminal elements. In criminality, one of the alibis becomes that of pointing at others. Someone else did it, you might say. Or for that matter, maybe a group of people did something. Such an assertion suggests innocence by a fallacy of inference. If everyone is doing it, then it must be okay to get away with it. This leads to a hasty generalization of culpability.

Allegations about a claim have to be supported by relevant and credible evidence. Facts must be secured and sought for every possible aspect. This applies to the discernment of probable anti-social intentions. That includes various erroneous media of communication as well as physical threats. That said, how do we go about reading the potential threat to society from the individual, the group, or those who lead the group. What means do we utilize to assess a cult, gang or terrorist entity?

In the process, how do we filter through a conspiratorial contention that charges widespread cover-up? Across the social spectrum, people abide in the relish of a good story. Plots, schemes and intrigues capture the imagination. Regardless of societal level, educational achievement or environmental placement, people profess beliefs that might be based on falsehoods. Legends, myths and fair tales contrive to entertain us. But, very often we allow these fantasies to become realistic. Alleged intellectuals or advanced degreed persons can think, act and verbalize some pretty stupid viewpoints. If in doubt, then find a faction of so called experts or seemingly intelligent people. You can do this on any college or school campus, government meeting or corporate board room. Likewise, the same configuration can be seen among mass media purveyors. Or, those with special spiritual knowledge purporting the canonicity of some doctrine.

The point is, human beings are highly fallible. No one has cornered the market on knowledge and wisdom. In addition, we don't demand profound insight for critical thinking in support of the facts. You might be amazed by what you see and hear in terms of bias, prejudice and preconceived notions. We conjure a ruse from the depths of our thoughts. Stop, look and listen to people talking. Listening is vital to any communication exchange. And yet, too many times, we fail to be attentive to the information flowing aground us. What do you hear in any given conversation? It's not what goes into a person that is of concern. Instead, it's what they do with their thoughts that count.

Their maintenance of an aversive standing could influence public policy, affect students in classrooms or bring about acts of war. Not to forget the hatred that stems from various sects and factions around the globe. From which conspiracy theories are often made against governments, corporations and religious associations. Accusations come and go and charges assert all manner of collusive possibilities. For the investigator, you have to look below the surface into the depths of human nature. What is real and what is surreal? Well, that's why some follow a reasoned investigative methodology.

In the classical perspective, from the classical school of criminology, the foundation of intention rests upon free will. Personal freedom in the purposes, aims and objectives that follow self-indulgence aligned with the prurient pursuit for self-gratification. By simple observation, we manifest these tendencies every day. Look around you given whatever organizational entity you happen to survive within.

Within the phases of an investigation, the objectives focus on the allegations that have come to light. A multiplicity of purposes is behind the assertions in question. What those mean, along with their attendant motivations, pervade the impetus for answers. An assertion is made. Evaluation is undertaken. Introspection searches the emotional basis intertwined with the logical mechanisms of deductive ability. The factors involved are chased to the exclusion of all possibilities. For the fundamental basis of an investigation certain objectives underscore the scope and extent of the mission. If this is an intense prospect, whereby we allow the senses to become distracted. Then we endeavor to control our tendency to invoke an excessively emotional reactivity.

To this end, we conduct inquires and formulate a strategy to unveil the mystery that has been presented. Yes or no, did something happen? For example, we may want to establish whether or not a crime has been committed. If so, what is the nature of the violation of public law? On the other hand, perhaps a personal injury has occurred. If so, then how must we proceed to ensure an equitable solution? Regardless, an investigative process may ensue. And, we must apply the facts and deal with the known variables involved. To sort things out, rather than react emotionally distraught about the issue. We follow certain basic guidelines and use our thinking processes.

These may include the skilled application of rational energies to exact a truthful calculation. Psychic energy, as well as physical exertion, comes to bear on the effort to establish the elements involved in the query. An investigator wants to identify as many constituent components in the controversy as possible. He or she strives to put the puzzle pieces in perspective. By gathering the facts, evidence and articles of connection, researchers move toward provability. Using the framework of a criminal event, the investigator desires to determine the criminal nature of the analysis.

From that juncture, one surveys the probabilities for linkages, interactions and causal relationships. Cause and effect traverse the myriad correlations between people and their actions. You look for the subtleties within the mental maze of human inclinations. Motive, means and opportunity are superficial. Their application is only a beginning point. Much more is yet to follow in association with human complexity. One must sense the boundaries that crisscross the mysterious intricacy of human thinking. Everyone has a motive, all have the means and each can target an opportunity.

We can't forget that people are cunning, clever and treacherous. From which, they'll use anything and anyone to advance their agenda. Always, there's more to meet the senses than the eyes can see. Or, for that matter, even comprehend at any given moment in time. Hidden behind smokes screens, people collude for all manner of purposes. As to this aspect, identification and apprehension of people, places and properties become paramount in achieving solvability. Identify issues, gather the evidence, and distinguish the facts from the fiction. Establish the parameters of the investigative efforts and ensure the eventual resolution of the controversy in question.

Instead of a pretext to superficiality, one ought to consider the intent. That is to say, who has the willfully formed intention to carry out the actions involved? From the standpoint of knowingly choosing, with malice aforethought and premeditation, who had the capabilities. Intent is focused, directed and engaged with personal meaning and purpose. Of those qualities often ascribed to one's investigative ability, significant is the value of critical thinking. In this regard, deductive reasoning builds a flexible foundation in a workable hypothesis. Each probable explanation is subject to verification in the application of validated techniques. Whatever fails the test of verifiable provability, and then in that instance, we reassess what we have. Examine the element from a different perspective, angle or amplification. Or, we discard that which is an illusion.

We must be cautious as to our own biases. That's because we all have them. Nothing is absolutely perfect in all respects. Not even our thinking processes. Inside, we're very selfish, indulgent and self-centered. Each wants to prove himself or herself correct in every assumption. Everyone thinks his or her point of view is the most viable. Each forgets the illusions that surround a three-dimensional conception of the world. Just because the sky isn't falling doesn't mean it can't. Self-interest remains at the core of personal being. Cognitive bias colludes with various kinships to prove consistent individual absoluteness at all times. That's not possible and doesn't even fit a logical framework. Emotion, sentiment and desires infuse the viability of perfect conclusions. However, there are many who will do anything to be right. Subjective validation pervades every argument to pursue personal gratification.
Chapter 2 – Belief Systems and Threat Potential:

The basis for a threat potential resides in the complex interaction of one's prurient passions that are reinforced from the influence of salacious intentions. These are stimulated by the senses for the sensate acquisition of self-indulgent desires. All behaviors and subsequent acts are intended to fulfill the impetus of libidinous instigations. People carrying out intentions for the sake of personal gain, self-gratification or private satiation in our encounter with other competitive interests. As such, believers come in a multitude of shapes, sizes and sightings. Within our complex and extraordinary thinking processes, we manifest believability in a range of personal interests. A smaller part goes public to satisfy communal necessities in collective conformity.

What is a threat? Does such a perception possess valid instruction for subsequent actions? Of course such things do. Everywhere you go, what you see, think and eventually act upon, everything is connected to a threat potential, large and small. Living is challenged by dieing. Another way of looking at the concept is in relation to social survival. We may think, and therefore, we are. Regardless, each of us thinks in order to exist. That's a challenge. Whether by warning, menace or intimidation, we strive to survive. And, once asleep at night, we do not escape the dreamland interference. Instead, we labor in slumber to work out the problem-solving processes of ideation.

Threats are perceived contingent on ideation that forms from the basis of the supporting belief system. If you fear death, then you need a heaven or hell to arbitrate the distinction. If you exercise the spiritual divinity of free will, then you need good and evil to assure the psychic balance between the two. On the other hand, if you believe you are determined by everything outside of you, then you can let others do your work for you. Don't worry, you can blame and claim the alibis and excuses that are freely rewarded. That's because, in the midst of our so called "civility" as "civilized" humans, we're all looking for excuses not to be responsible or accountable.

On a larger scale, in terms of personal lifestyle, you need to struggle with an evolving conception of life and death to discern feeling, meaning and usefulness. Life fights to overcome death. In that, we find the metaphors of eros and thanotos at war. Each of us maintains such a belief system. Such collections of thoughts may change over time.

As to the variety of threatening possibilities, manifested in the reactivity to stress and stains of living, we seek dangers, risks and hazards on our quest through the journey of life. To these many things, we search for meaning by which our belief systems can be reinforced, validated and expanded to others. Whether that happens to be the supernatural, paranormal or extraterrestrial, believing is nearly the same as seeing. For many, it's a simultaneous projection of thought. While some are willing to look at options, and might decide to alter their behaviors. Others, who feel threatened, or perhaps want assuredness for the correctness of their belief system, may not change very much. In fact, most of us don't transform very much any way.

Even over hundreds of years, countless wars, social upheavals, and philosophical innovations, people are basically consistent in their self-indulgence. We remain comfortable for the most part in all the mystical conjecture we can conjure. This of course sets up the folly in which we pursue a vast range of mysticisms. Frequently, we're not too receptive to those who challenge our beliefs system, and by extension, our lifestyle connected to that scheme of believing. Maybe just small increments of change occur over time. At most, many of us work very hard to ensure little serious psychological progress actually takes place. People get so good at playing roles, accepting the superficial and pursuing fiction over facts, that we end up believing in the ruse we've fabricated. Suddenly, evidence is replaced by illusion.

Where people see dangers, they envision intimidation, risks and menaces to their own beliefs, safeguards and subsequent behaviors. Criminals, for instance, evaluate the deterrent value of a particular act. To that end, they are very good at assessing gain over risk for their self-gratification. So called "law abiding" citizens, who haven't been caught yet at something, do the same mental processing. What's the risk, and what's the gain? Or, where the pleasure outweighs the pain, therein resides the gain. For group orientations, such as cults and certain extreme factions, "tribal" collusions allow for the acceptance of self-imposed superiority. Here, "tribal" is applied in the sense of the group. Where insiders are accepted and outsiders are viewed with suspicion. You can be part of the "in-group", as opposed to the negative sanctions ascribed to the "out-group". This may involve viewpoints configured around religious, ethnic, racial, familial, ancestral, or clannish interactions. Cults, as such, follow similar patterns.

Whereas, herein, a cult takes on the viewpoint of a group outside the communal mainstream of ongoing social interaction. For them, beliefs appear to outsiders as bizarre, misguided, unorthodox, extremist, fraudulent, excessive, non-conforming to community standards, as well as other definitional depictions. Likewise, when someone uses the term "cult" they might be expressing their own fears, wishful thinking or whatever else the word causes of a perilous reaction in their thoughts. None the less, a "cult" suggests something outside conventionality. By contrast, there will be criticism of other selected associations that appear to be "cult-like", but do not reflect a religious orientation. In isolation from others, such a particular faction reflects a cut off from community members who are seen as threatening. Animosity underscores and suggests an "us versus them" defensiveness in their thinking processes.

Defensively, there are occasions where perceiving a threat forms the basis for justifying aggressive actions toward non-group participants. This might be specific persons of a particular opposing belief system or culture and so forth. We find excuses for our egotistical excesses, extreme expressions and outlandish exhibitions. More often than not, we reinforce each other to sanctify pious, arrogant and dogmatic pretensions. Such rationalizations, in order to protect the group's interests, allow for the selection of scapegoats as objects of culpability. This of course does not mean that an individual's, or group's, feelings of positive self-confidence is a precursor to anti-social actions. One is pro-social while the other is anti-social. People do things because of the choices they make by way of their personal ideations.

Violence in response to a perceived threat is a premeditated act of willfulness. With malice aforethought, intentional motivation and subsequent action, individuals as well as groups inflict harm out of a profound sense of adverse self-centeredness. Yet, for many years, decades, and generations, westernized conceptions of behaviors have been greatly influenced by deterministic philosophies. From a societal standpoint, a kind of collectivist reductionism wants to break behavioral complexities into a multitude of sub-components. That is, taking the whole person, and reducing him or her to a victimized entity, adversely influenced by external uncontrollable forces.

People, however, are not robots to be brainwashed into becoming some kind of automaton, without willful self-determined motivations. Instead, we live, work and recreate with others, interact and think for ourselves. One's mindfulness suggests the liberation in conscious intentional actions. Humans are complex and made up of intricate evolving components that span vast neural networks. From which, their thinking forms a diverse psychic puzzle of ideation. So that, over time, humans assert the freedom of their choices to unleash the potency of their innate energies. At times, those energetic forces are directed toward communal complicity.

Such as, our pursuit of collective mutual engagement with others. Like joining a particular association or sect. In the process, no doubt, we make bad choices and as a result commit grievous breaches of social conformity. Criminality is the mirror of the other side of civility. However, they're both connected to the same process. At times, all persons can be dangerous, in either a hierarchy or sphere of consensus, regardless of race, gender or ethnicity. No matter how civil we project we are, on the other side of the face, there's self-interest afoot. A cost-benefit analysis conception of the world. Regardless, by way of accountability and responsibility, we remain culpable for our acts.

On a more devious slant to our behaviors, we embrace certain peculiarities to us as individuals. One might say each has his or her dark side. This echoes the other self stalking and competing in the selectivity. Within the internal mental matrix, there are clandestine sources. Archives of cerebral manifestation steeped in sensate undisclosed potentiality. Layer upon layer the mysteries unfold.

For each of us, he or she has a special subjectivity as to choosing among possibilities. We often risk the probability that ideas become fixated and beliefs turn rigid. When they do, people may act out patterns that are adversely suspicious of others, destructive, and collectively counter productive. Say for instance, you might want to join a cult because of the pretentious "advertising", or whatever. Perhaps even a gang. You did this because there are special things inside you. Things you put there that need explanation and exposure. In pursuing these endeavors, we find the necessity to enjoy hedonistic adventures. As such, the mind is "sculpted", like the artist sculpts a work of art.

Whether you are to be or not to be, as a famous quote might allude, might not be the question we should ask. Perhaps, that's not relevant enough a question. The ultimate question could be: are you who you think you are? In trying to figure that intricacy out, how many of yourselves to you comprehend? And, based on that, what is it about a cult, gang or terrorist group interests one or more of your thinking processes? Overall, what is the whole of the individual human "mind" as composed to the totality of his or her parts? That is, as opposed to looking at just one aspect. Well, that's the really puzzling conjecture about the mystery of human thinking. In addition, what's seriously working inside your thinking that you allow the allure of certain factions or sects?

What are you looking for, where do you go to find information, and when will you discover it? Might be never. All such things could take a lifetime. Never the less, analyze for instance, the oft heard excuse that someone did something due to "peer pressure". Maybe the example is a cult group that a person leans toward. Or, the instance could be gang membership recruitment, as well as campus splinter groups. Then again, you could include "hate groups" in addition to the others. If one suggests that "peers" drove a person to do a particular act, then you'd have to amplify that speculation in broader terms. In other words, you'd have to apply that to every situation people engage in across the entirety of communal interactivity and the world.

Rather than find excuses for anti-social behaviors, why not test the truth of a matter. Compare and investigate the logical fallacies being asserted. So called "peer pressures" affects everyone at every phase of socio-economic and political interaction. Peers are everywhere. We all must deal with them, and with whom, we all make choices. According to a number of credible criminological sources, criminals do not commit crimes because of pressures related to a cohort of other people. A person picks and chooses his or her associational complicities. Very often, we make poor choices in the process. Even so, people move toward that which they desire, yearn or crave. All depends on what you're looking for. One chooses to affiliate contingent upon his or her inclinations to satiate personal proclivities. Things that involve salacious aspects of danger, risk, and the forbidden present opportunities for self-indulgent seduction. An affinity for a particular grouping satisfies particular needs.

Within the convolutions of multi-dimensional thinking processes, we configure the necessities we envision for our own aggrandizement. Needs, wants and desires must find outlets. In terms of cults, conspiracies and organized criminal collusions, like other human associations, we must take into account the responsibility the individual. All too often, social sensitivities want to mitigate the culpability of one's crimes. Each and every person is accountable for subsequent anti-social behaviors. Breaches of the law require sanctions. For which, he or she bears the liability for his or her collusions. For the individual person, one gains a sense of power, control and dominance by inclusion in the associated activities. Affiliation to the party of one's preference provides degrees of amative satisfaction. Again, given the dual nature of human beings, one good and one evil, choosing among options is burdened upon our sense of blameworthiness.

Disruptive, selfish and rebellious social engagements reflect the individual's disdain for playing by the rules, conforming or otherwise accepting certain sanctions. Naturally, we have to keep in mind, there are times and occasions when we don't play by the rules. Or, we buck the chain of command, oppose oppressions or go against the established conformity. And, to this end, the actions link to a just, valid and righteous cause, for which we accept the consequences. Herein though, our focus is on the nature of criminality as connected to associational conspiracies. Within this context, people don't always accept responsibility for acts that breach lawful processes. More often than not, they choose to avoid being answerable. Instead, they blame something or someone else. Somehow, they claim they were "forced" to commit an anti-social act.

They'll laugh and poke fun at others to escape grown-up behaviors. Some will even try the ruse of explaining maladaptive disruptions as justifiable "rage" against contrived social inequities or societal injustices against them. Bottom-line however, when you get down to what really matters. A person freely makes choices based or his or her own perceptions about life and his or her role in the surrounding social processes. Rather than accepting their own accountability, violators typically look for scapegoats, alibis and myriad excuses. Scams, frauds and hoaxes run the gambit of cunning ploys. Hedonistic intentions weigh the consequences and evaluate the gains of the anticipated events. To this end, confidence, reinforcement and recognition link to an affiliation with the group selected for the carnality of personal self-aggrandizement.

Powerful surges of psycho-sexual vibrant psychic energy dynamically reinforce the seductive qualities we imagine through individualized self-willed solicitation. In the process, we believe what we want to believe in order to satisfy our aims and purposes. Each of us craves the ability to reach out and touch the things we ought not to touch. Decision-making is ours for the taking though. We can if we want to, but some do and some don't. That's because, in a given situation, the risks are greater than the actions to achieve the intended gain. Once we decided to do this or that, and the risks are reasonable, then we'll go to any lengths to ensure our subjective validation. Such self-interests cut across every spectrum of social intercourse.

Both rich and poor alike. Especially those who think their high enough in the social strata to step outside social constraints. Perhaps they see that material goods give them power so they can dominate others. Or, especially those who perceive themselves as more educated than certain groups. From bottom to top, and everything in between. Regardless of socio-economic spectrum, we're all driven by our private motivations toward personal acquisitions. So that, more and more, one seeks to quench the self-induced yearnings to satiate particular amatory proclivities. In our latent adolescent delinquency, people challenge their own maturity. For at least one aspect of the varied competing selves, richly diverse on the inside of our thinking processes.

In other aspects, we strive to bring under our control our duality for good and evil. Okay, maybe evil's too strong a word for the projected sensitivities of some. Let's just say bad behavior, how about that instead? Regardless, most often, we do such masquerading exercises quite well. From desire for the objective, through the manifold functions of skillful ability, we lurk for each seductive opportunity. At the same time, we got others fooled including ourselves. Yeah, certainly many of us deny our profound inclination for the abject persona of self-interests. Surely, no doubt, a lot of people proclaim their on self-righteousness. Alright, what ever makes you feel good.

Within the framework of our "Jekyll-Hyde" personalities, our public face goes out in front. It, as an egoistic construct so to speak, conjures the pretext of social decorum. No matter, we strive to cooperate because it's to our advantage for social cohesion. While, behind the scenes, the private face configures the real motivations. As an Id construct, it likes to assert the amative energies of libidinous stimulations.

Whatever similarities you whish to link to the duality of human beliefs, one good and one evil. You can use Cain and Abel, Jekyll and Hyde, Eve and Lilith as well as many others. One can discover amusing replications in our creativity of gods and goddesses. Whereby we contrive an intricate array of myth, mysticism and metaphor. All of which address issues of belief, faith, conviction and obedient devotion. Everyone has their particular area of special emotional attachment. When threatened, people can become exceedingly aggressive and strike at that which threatens their accepted principles. In a group, in which others on the outside might perceive cultic activities, conspiratorial intentions or organized criminal collusions, group faith can transform. When it does, it generally betrays the real hidden motivations of ardent destructiveness.

So, believability has potential adverse consequences because gullibility is not far behind the fabricated assertion of being misguided by this or that. Regardless, selfishness orchestrates a supporting role, while egocentricities pursue self-gratification. We accept that freely and to the benefit of our own intentions for probable gain. Honing in on the pretext of "stupidity", gullible notions search for reinforcement. Very quickly, you find them in specious concepts and nebulous theories. As offered herein, "stupidity" is a clever seduction to nonsensical notions, whereby we escape communal responsibility for our actions. That can be found in the wide-spread use of various fallacies of inference. Otherwise, suggested here to be "anti-thinking". Or, quite simply, you believe something to be true and you accept it without question. To that end, a person allows for personal deception in order to set the stage for convenience in creative excuses.

People can justify anything. Explanations serve to substantiate one belief over another. From there, we follow the contrived purposes for ritualized behaviors. Human behavior reflects rituals of some sort that have meaning to individuals and groups. Thinking processes, for instance, follow a more personalized ritualistic conception within the framework of cerebral ideations. Now, there are those who ascribe the term "ritual" to certain modes of criminality. That is shortsighted. Examples include so called "lust murders", "ritualized killings", the alleged modes of "serial killers" and so forth. In the reality of criminal nature, all illicit and illegal exhibitions pursue the reflection of rituals, ceremonies and rites of passage. These of course reinforce the connected believability to a particular dogma, doctrine or dictum in one's personalized conjecture.

Aside from political or policy making agenda, personal bias and subjective validation, what else is behind every claim of that which doesn't come with definitive evidence? As humans, we believe in something all too easily and sometimes say it's a matter of faith. Let's say for instance, such things as the supernatural, extra-terrestrial, or paranormal. Those nebulous areas of believability we proclaim so freely. This often occurs in various academic endeavors that begin with a theory. But, at the same time, later on, we don't demonstrate the provability of the conjecture.

Along the way, especially as such applies to human behavior, the scientific method fails us. Sure, works out okay in a laboratory when dealing with say physics, chemistry or biology. However, in cases involving human nature, we've allowed our hypothesis to become flawed by the obsession we place on ascribing mathematical precision to human actions. That is, humanistic proclivities fail the validity within the scientific community and falters on the rift between acceptability and incredulity.

And, for that matter, whenever you assert something to be true, when it applies to human beings, you run risk of proving the error of your own false assumptions. Plus, if it doesn't come with clear, credible and convincing evidence, then we ought to put it in the aforementioned mystical and mythic frameworks. Along with that, let's include any assertions associated with psychic detective work, ghost hunting, behavioral profiling and measuring scales of evil. In short, we should, as capable and skilled investigators, vigorously pursue authentic avenues of logical deduction.

When we don't think rationally, people put in peril the threat of defective and deficient conclusions. Conspiracies theories are good examples. For that, investigations become damaged, ineffective and incoherent. In the process, that mysterious group of "they" is often rounded up like some gang of usual suspects. By the way, who are they? More often than not, there's a quickness to claim the "government" is behind every conspiracy. In that sense, they're the "they". Then gain, where's evidence? Which ought to suggest to us by now, if a tale is too good to be true, then the story is untrue. More likely is the probability that someone is promoting their own motives. None the less, we seem to be driven to find the secret behind the mystery, regardless of the facts.

Fact driven scenarios ought to pursue the truth of any issue. No matter where that leads, or what results such efforts produce, since the objective is to be objective. Naturally, this is where we derail our attempts to expose a communal problem. A train wreck takes places because we're injecting our feelings, emotions and sensitivities to a poignant process of problem solving. Investigative resources, whether public or private, strive to substantiate viability in serious confrontation with known verifiable corroborations. Unfortunately, this may not always produce a desirable outcome.

As a consequence, findings must always insist on the factual basis of the allegations. At least, in so far as to how much we actually know. By doing this, we are freely choosing not to practice ignorance in our arrogance. Because if we decide to light torches, grab pitchforks and storm the castle with false assumptions, then we're accepting the foolishness of our own stupidity. For instance, if elements of a particular instance suggest collective or organized criminality, then we contend the actuality of a defendable allegation. If an act of criminality has occurred, then we proceed with appropriate lawful prosecution. Basically, we should query the emphasis of the attendant circumstances. To which, we respond by asking how do we know and what do we mean?

In practice, the typical criminal justice mode of inquiry imagines a series of basic questions. These include, but are not limited to, what is the basis of the suspicion? What evidence supports our contention? What threat exists? What information do we have? For this, you should get the idea that the "what" question is essential. Certainly, we may pursue the standard rubric of who, what, where, when, why and how. Then again, each of us should remain cautious of the "why" question. That part could inevitably lead to circular arguments, inconclusive conjecture and faulty conclusions.

Asking the question why a certain thing happened or was committed attempts to discern motive. From a legal perspective, that's pretty much irrelevant. Given the complexity of human thinking processes, we may never know the motive. In fact, the perpetrator may work very diligently to cover up his or her hidden purposes. On the surface, like the metaphor of the iceberg, we see only a small portion of the total psychic multi-dimensional mass within a person's mental matrix. To this, what's presented is most likely a cover story for the true beliefs buried inside the individual. We may never comprehend another person's deeply buried feelings, desires or cravings.
Chapter 3: Creativity in Collusive Criminality Types:

Investigatively, one should bear in mind the extraordinary creativity of human beings. We'll say anything, do anything and be anything to achieve our personal interests. People are very skilled at deception, distraction and diversion. Lie, cheat and swindle resides alongside faith, hope and charity. Often, we'll fabricate a pretext and immediately, when challenged, bring in some irrelevant information. In this regard, caution is necessary before arriving at any conclusion about a group, faction or sect. As an example, belief systems reflect a philosophical perspective that might be erroneous in a very broad spectrum of application. To believe might also mean to deceive.

All of this depends on the situation under consideration. As to group convictions, which might be membership in a cult or terrorist cell, confidence or conviction may be fixated from wrongful doctrinal interpretations. Obsessions about being right could supercede actions regarding civility within a communal connection. Factual evidence might be completely overlooked and speculations about the "truth" misleading. Trust in the admonition of celestial certainty for the promise of cosmic eternity offers seduction to the commission of "righteous" causes. Of which, we freely choose the belief.

To this end, based on your accepted level of confidence in group assurances, upon selected persuasiveness, you may choose certain modes of action. You search for validation of your ideas, as well as passion and fervor for the belief system. For some, that means wearing an explosive vest and detonating it in a crowded marketplace. Dedication to the cause means different things to different people. Others choose to shoot it out with the police, giving rise to the notion that many call "suicide by cop". In actuality, it is the last act of defiance in having the final say.

If you or your group, not unlike a commonality shared with gangs or cults, insulate thinking to a narrow-minded fixation. As a consequence, you might be doing the same thing your suspected opposition is doing. You might not agree because, in your case, you would claim the argument by special circumstances. In other words, you situation is different, since you represent the mainstream, right? From that, followed by a proclamation as to the veracity of metaphysical forces, those beyond the viability of normal senses, you could assert a fictitious point of view.

To which, one might respond that sometimes the facts can be skewed to the advantage of the one claiming a proof. For the group, this means one is right and the others are wrong. People can muster the pretext for the sanctity of their assemblage over that of others. Groupings sometimes crowd the company of rationality versus the illogical. Sure, there's no doubt we endeavor to prove our assertion in contrast to the background of subjective validation. Yet, we should work to put things in proper perspective. Such as when we're trying to prove a point, an issue, an event or a case in question. Maybe you're looking to substantiate the threat of a particular cultic activity. In the process, you hunt down the facts of the particular situation. So, what do the facts tell us?

Evidentiary artifacts are crucial to our investigation. Again, from the real world of criminality, cases can be found where our search for validity sought to apply the scientific aspects of a forensic analysis. Recently however, forensic evidence has been called into question in more than a few cases. As such, legal scholars have challenged the notion that forensic reports remain unbiased and impartial. However, "expert" oriented reports are developed from investigative analyses conducted by human beings. For this reason, we can at least suspect some probability for error. In past instances, some researchers have pointed out that serious errors occurred. And, thereby as a result rendered the evident to be deficient in regard to the facts.

Well, this is a good reason for ensuring that every investigator work very hard to substantiate the allegations in question. In most cases, that's what we attempt to make certain. Aside from that, no systematic effort of human action is completely foolproof. There will be occasions in which miscalculations can be expected. None the less, our investigative endeavors try to remain non-judgmental, unprejudiced or otherwise not predisposed to preconceived notions. No doubt the challenge remains for each of us to keep our bias in check. Naturally, it goes without saying that a credible investigation pursues the authenticity of its own veracity. To ensure justice and safeguard the community, criminological scrutiny attempts to maintain vigilance against intolerance, discrimination and narrow-mindedness. At the same time, a healthy sense of skepticism about human behavior is vital to the investigative process.

As to the issue relative to the burden of proof, what do you know about your intended target of inquiry? A cumbersome yoke of provability spells out the need for a high degree of credible assurance. Whether you're an official investigator, or a concerned citizen, what do you know to be true and how do you know these things? For the sake of argument, you could be an informant, eye witness, victim, complainant or other important information provider to the legal system. None the less, the weight of evidence is on you, the accuser. Whereas the defendant, or the accused, on the other hand, has nothing to prove or disprove. Plus, keep in mind, another question. What are lawfully able to do to bring about a charge and subsequent legal prosecution? You can't just pick seemingly "meaningful" random patterns and determine them to make logical sense.

Real patterns of behavior and subsequent results actually have to make sense. In other words, who, where, when and what are the facts of the attendant situation? Sure, lots of questions are involved. That's what we call a part of seeking the truth of an allegation. Certainly, you can listen to all manner of conjecture, speculation and inferential fallacy you want. The air-waves, cyberspace and visual broadcasts are rife with speculations, gossip and guesswork. Bottom-line, in the real world, where the criminal justice is concerned, you've got to prove it. At the same time, you're saddled with the load of evidentiary necessity. To which, we attempt to apply a range of forensic examinations, in order to ensure viability for authenticity in reliable confirmation.

Additionally, we could probably agree people believe strange things. When they do, we let our senses fall to trickery. At the same time, the three dimensional world becomes mirrored by illusions. For the truth, if it existed in the specific case at all, it often gets twisted. A light in the sky becomes an alien invasion, or at least, some kind of extraterrestrial conspiracy. By comparison, for the sake of imaginative excitement, we'll picture the government behind all kinds of plots and schemes. Or, better yet. Consider the allegation of demonic influences. A selected group, with a different belief system, based on gossipy hearsay blather, becomes suddenly tagged by the word "cult". Well, there it is. From that illogical process, we now have a full blown "satanic" cult threat to our community, right? For those confused, misdirected and intentionally antagonistic, they'll say all manner of allegation. Frequently influenced by personal bias, prejudice and misinformation, people allow logic and reason to take a vacation.

Keep in mind, for every interpersonal prurient dysfunction, there's more than likely a similar dysfunctional belief system at work behind the scenes. By that, the suggestion is offered as to the private and personal agendas of the participants. Someone wants to promote an idea. To this, no one knows for certain the depths of the thoughts by which we manufacture the innovation of our own deceptions. By this, it is meant here that assertions of truth are typically projected from the fallacies of inference people conjure in defense of their beliefs. Most often, these reflect the mythology we fabricate to explain mysterious, paranormal and extra-dimensional misconceptions. Religiosity remains a good example. However, we don't just stop there in our fascination with myriad "conspiracies". While some confederations strive to allegedly proselytize altruistic purposes. Others, instead, pursue more illicit inclinations.

A biased point of view instigates the flow, intensity and direction for the collusive interactivity among several people. Across the social spectrum, there many examples. Perhaps, for instance, there's a group of college professors who secretly cooperate to bring about some particular scheme of research. This has many ramifications, from copyright violations to outright fraud in a particular theory. Or, maybe a faction of politicians plot to create "favorable" legislation that ends up costing taxpayers more than anticipated, and thereby increases the necessity of more taxation. Also, this could likewise apply to media entertainment as well, as in news reporting. Then again, we can't overlook the various sub-sects of religious movements. Often these begin as so called "cults". You might even suspect well-meaning public servants, in a particular agency, of manufacturing a facetious theory in order to ensure continued funding.

Endlessly, we can consider the range of various conspiratorial activities among human beings. As such, that only scratches the surface. From there, we can examine the broader scope of illegal collusions. Some more blatant than others. Such as gangs, hate groups, so called cults, terrorist cells and other organized criminal associations. No matter what the excuse, these are willful processes of ideation to achieve personal aims. One or more persons intend to configure a structural framework for the satiation of self-interests. There's an objective in mind by which a mission formulates around an innate amative configuration. Later, as the foundational psycho-sexual processes foment, the particular set of individuality become a communal consensus.

If two or more people conspire to commit a criminal act, then we can say they are all equally guilty of a conspiracy. From the standpoint of reality, whether or not a conspiracy is real or surreal remains another aspect of our inquiry. Many of us will see conspiracies from different perspectives. Whether the scam is an educational money machine, or a religious televised con game, people make their choices. Again, these behaviors involve freely chosen decisions to commit such actions. Aside from the legal implications, the thinking processes are important to the investigative aspects of knowingly intending to commit criminality. Of course, we add malice aforethought to reflect the premeditated nature regarding the cause-effect continuum. None the less, as mentioned earlier, among the different kinds of conspiracies, we can't dismiss the vast financial deceptions. Especially those that take advantage of the American economic system.

At times, we may focus on the self-willed greed to cheat, rip-off and trick others by way of unregulated frauds. In doing so, we allow a selective level of self-deception to enter the mental picture. From such human invented shams and racketeering sources, depositors might lose their savings and financial institutions might fail. Retirement and pension investments might be raided. There may be fuel and fertilizer scams and vast assortment of internet hoaxes. In meantime, some other "public enemies", like gangsters, some cult leaders, terrorist dubbed "guerilla fighters", and other assorted hate mongers, might be publicly transformed into a "heroic" depiction. Since a few large organizational structures, like businesses and certain governmental entities, commit collusive conspiracies, we allow ourselves to be seduced by "media edutainment".

With our seduction comes the illusion that conspiracies become narrowly defined and fit a generic template. Sleight of hand diverts our attention. Anti-thinking ensues, fallacies forget the facts and conclusions become hasty and generalized. And, "profiles" are developed for simplistic solutions. In a very short period of time, we've been distracted by one more illusions. That's why some people believe gangs are the result of immigration policies or lack of socio-economic opportunity. And with this, many accept that terrorists, who kill indiscriminately, with ease and impunity, are "freedom fighters". However, in reality criminal behavior is as diverse as our imagination can summon.

If that's not enough, consider the paranormal, psychic phenomenon, UFO cover-ups, occultic fascinations, and demonic interferences. Don't forget either; once you throw in the demonic, you've got another whole field of speculative invention. You know, lions, tigers and bears, oh my! But wait, you've got to also toss in conspiracies about "one world government" or the "new world order" and particularly the elusive "illuminati". Naturally, the list of various kinds of conspiratorial activities could be exhaustive. At this point, we may want to consider categories of conspiracies. That is to say, let's divide these areas of human thinking, as pertains to collusive criminalities, into types, kinds or broad classes. If so, what would this division look like? Here, you have to be creative.

For the skilled investigator, who prefers logic to fantasy and guesswork, how would this framework appear? Making evidence your initial standard for proof, to be substantiated by forensic analysis, where would you venture to gather the truth? You could propose that those cultic allusions to the paranormal would be one category to consider. That is, all the things that lurk in hidden realms beyond reality. Or, perhaps those phenomenon that fall within the scheme of metaphysics. Another might include those of a political nature, like one world government, or the intelligence community covering up an assassination and whatever else you can imagine. Let's say, for instance, we could have three primary areas: the paranormal, the political and the planetary. To which, you could simply say the "3-P's" of conspiratorial activities.

At this point, it must be conceded that a perfect set of classifications will not suffice. There are too many erratic possibilities. So, any framework must be flexible. Those variables identified here are for discussion and investigation purposes. As in:

  1. The Paranormal – telepathic, psychic, clairvoyant, mystic, mystical, spiritual, magical, supernatural, divine, unworldly, extra-dimensional, cults, etc. (i.e. gods, goddesses, demons, warlocks, you name it);

  2. The Political – socio-economic-communal interests that may include government, affairs of state, public policies, political inclinations, official cover-ups, and other aspects related to states and nations; private sector; (i.e. official authority or private enterprise, as in organized crime, gangs, cults and terrorist cells);

  3. The Planetary – UFO's, multi-dimensional beings, time travelers, visitors from another world, extra-terrestrial creatures, space invaders, and whatever;

You'd need to keep in mind that within these three classifications, a multitude of issues could be covered. In the broadest sense, the paranormal could include everything from animal anomalies (i.e. big foot, yeti, lock ness monsters and chupacabra), to poltergeist and satanic cults. From there, you could add the occult, religious beliefs of all kinds, and anything else of a supernatural nature. Sure, some very religious people will react to this and not in a positive way. Because for some devout traditional western believers, as well as some non-western adherents, being included with the devil, the occult and all those demonic minions, is not a pleasant thought.

Regardless though, the point is, if you believe in something that is based on a concept of "faith" absent concrete evidentiary artifacts. Plus, can't be proved by factual tangible evidence, and does not give rise to credible acceptance in the scientific community. Then, more than likely you're belief system is within the realm of the paranormal. Which are those things and entities beyond natural reality. In other words, the mystical, metaphysical and the magical. But, for the sake of a credible real-world investigation, we're not interested in simplistic conjecture. We want proof. And to this, you need to keep in the forefront the facts of the case. In a conspiracy or a criminal solicitation, the investigator assesses whether or not two or more people engage in a criminal activity. To this end, the objective is to identify the process, means, mechanisms, and materials by which the criminals agree, conspire, combine or confederate to commit an offense contrary to public law. So, confidence or "faith" is in facts.

After all, we have to compare and separate the delusional, mystical and fabricated against the reality of what we know for certain. One can't be confused by hate speech, propaganda by talk show hosts, simplified formulistic thinking, or other sleight of hand diversions. People are good at deception, in fact, we are so skillful, we even fool ourselves. In so doing, a person or group of persons can eventually convince themselves of anything and everything. With actual criminality, to discern the criminal act, we have to know the details of each factual situation. A constant reality check is crucial. And, when discerning the threat potential in the rubric under consideration, who are the key players and what is their agenda? Well, again, we have to gather evidence. Then, at some point, we'll have to prove it in a court of law. So, a logical, rational and deductive process must pursue realistic, verifiable and tangible issues case by case.

Back to basics, for the criminal investigator, we're stuck with the laborious, tedious and time consuming hunt for provability. Such efforts work to ensure the credible collection of information, instrumentalities and interrogatory probabilities. Time, materials, resources and personnel reach critical levels. Purposes focus on collecting factual matters, constructing a tentative and flexible hypothesis and a discerning preliminary conclusion. At the same time, we remain adaptable to the variables involved. Within this framework, credibility in objective reasoning is essential. To this end, energies steer clear of news story sensationalism, political agendas and any other aspects of community expediency. An investigation takes patience and persistence.

Objectivity, although not perfect in our thinking processes, due to our personal biases, reminds us to keep ourselves under control. Your excitement about the latest gizmo, gadget or gimmick must always give precedence to the reality of proof. That is to be considered in view of the possibility that we may draw hasty generalizations based on a restrictive formula, fallacies of inference and emotional reactivity. With regard to the paranormal category, as indicated earlier, one could add a number of parameters. Every alleged "proof" must be subjected to intensive forensic scrutiny.

Generally, the term "paranormal" applies or at least refers to those things that are viewed as being "weird", as well as unusual experiences. Well, for that matter, how do you define "weird" when it comes to the human race? People are strange creatures to begin with. And, that's a pretty broad category for any aspect of speculation. None the less, the scientific community agrees that, aside from folklore, popular culture and wishful thinking, the "paranormal" has no basis in relation to scientific evidence.

In actuality, which lives within the realm of certainty, we are so good at being strange, we fool ourselves. Deception is very human. Trickery, sham and pretext are triplets that follow everyone from one place to another. For each of us, a sense of our own conditioned bias colludes to implicate our personal complicity. And for this, we are unique in conjuring all manner of psychic, mystic and mythical inventions. Self-deception follows in the path of our egoistic intentions. People can be extremely imaginative in the misrepresentation of individual perceptions of reality

As to the issue of what constitutes the "paranormal", an answer might depend on who you ask. For instance, from an investigative standpoint, we might conclude that this idea involves incidences, occurrences and beliefs whereby there is a pretense toward "forces or agencies" beyond a scientific validation. For which, you might ask, is this incident accepted by the credible scientific community? If so, will it withstand examination in a court of law? In other words, we can't prove the existence by precise measurement, logical specificity or evidentiary artifacts. Such allusions based on creative illusion, might be the result of cleaver invention, wishful thinking or plain old ignorance. With these areas, one could likewise tie-in aspects related to the occult.

With the paranormal, you may want to bring in the attendant associations for belief in human special powers, hidden mysticism, incantations and so forth. Like the Jedi knight who can control energy and project special psychic powers. Or, the warlock who claims to assert the ability to invoke magical influences. Don't forget, humans are exceptionally clever, sneaky and conniving. In many ways, people enjoy play-acting, role-play and other costumed performance. Instead of being a psychic, as one might claim, he or she might be just a good actor or actress. From time to time, many people enjoy acting out a part. As a matter of fact, we could say, every day in many situations, we play different roles. Always keep in mind the human predilection toward prestidigitation. Sleight of hand is the clever staging of "magic tricks" to ruse an onlooker.

As in a "cold reading" for example, if you throw out enough conjecture, chances are, you might get something right. Sometimes, in the real world, that occurs among people who ought to know better. For instance, as in going from "psychic detectives" to "criminal profilers". How many criminal cases have been solved? Why believe in the truth if you can believe what you want, in order satiate your own bias? Those watching, wanting to accept the mirage, and convinced of the illusion, most will in all likelihood accept what they see as valid. From there, the danger for faulty assumptions becomes all too real for them. This happens daily in all walks of life, as in academia, government, the media, the pulpit and the entertainment industry, to name a few. All too frequently, we suspend logic, reason and rationality because we need to reassure our conception of a faith, trust and reliance in something unseen, hidden, secret and mystical.

By contrast, with the Paranormal, in the Political category, we could consider governmental conspiracies, both real and imagined, along with various aspects of private sector corporate or gangland organized crime. You could have overlapping intersections with all three of the categories, since none is absolute or exclusive of the other. For example, one or more people might believe the U.S. government has conspired to hide alien space craft. If so, then you may conclude the "political" has bisected the "planetary". Regardless, if there's evidence of criminality, then we pursue an investigation, apply scientific methodology and seek prosecution.

Again, the hard work of evidentiary processing comes into play. Within this framework (the "Political"), those curious socio-economic societal processes that span civil and social interactivity would be included. At the same time, we consider that some levels of human action may involve bona fide illicit collusions, cover-ups and corruption. On the other hand, some suspicions might be completely false, foolish and fictional. None the less, the intent here is to create a classification that broadly encompasses a range of criminal collusions particular to the public and private sectors. The purpose is to sort out the criminal conspiracies from the folly of fantasy.

Finally, with the planetary category, one may add another wide open area for extensive analysis and assessment. On the inside of this rubric, the conception can be risky as to what you add. That is of course, in the reality, we are trying to relate this issues to a credible violation of the criminal laws. As in fraud, cons and other contrived schemes. A number of us understand that con artists are at work everywhere. No matter how seemingly plausible their conjecture appears, we're suspicious.

Here, you could expound upon the stretch of belief systems that are associated with ufology, extra-terrestrial entities, planetary visitors, ancient calendar "predictions", strange evolutionary progressions, crypto-zoology, ancient civilizations on lost continents, alien cloning of earthlings, and so on. All jokes aside, the sky's the limit and so is the earth's natural course of actions. So, a flying spacecraft that cannot be identified ought to be investigated. Even though some will conclude its evidence of alien colonization, we still investigate. Because in criminology we're searching out criminality. In so doing, the purpose is to establish reliable physical evidence. Not simply wishful thinking that some galactic civilization has come here as our friends.
Chapter 4 - Deceptions in Devious Designs

Take for instance, the UFO fanfare. The very notion that some galactic race has visited this planet goes back over fifty years. A number of people are convinced, in spite of the serious lack of evidence. Others typically assume that the space invaders are vastly superior to us. To this, they would compare humans to cattle and so forth. That is to say, we often hear how low in the food chain we rank. Or, you'll listen to someone proselytize how primitive we are as a species. For some us, this reflects the advocate's personal bias, steeped in the carnality of their egocentric salacious dysfunction.

For many though, ufology is a very sensitive issue for which their sense of believability isn't supposed to be challenged. Subjective validation becomes more important than factual evidence. For contemporary times, people relish in the myth, magic and psycho-metaphor of such illusionary deceptions. You'll always find those who are very passionate about alien encounters no matter what evidence your counter-argument presents. For them, believing is seeing what one wants to perceive.

On one level, without any authentic investigation, a number of people buy into the craze by listening to others. Individually, most have never experienced anything close to a UFO encounter, let alone an alleged alien abduction. But, instead, they listen to the tales, legends and story telling of others around them. By close association, movies, television and internet help spread the lore of myriad fables.

Inside us, we tend to want to believe that behind a particular phenomenon, there is something controlling, directing and processing toward a definitive outcome. You know, like one cosmic intelligent designer who knows all, sees all and is all, rightly divining the truth for each of us. And, to this end, we want it to evolve as a simple easily understood formula driven result. So that we can apply one size fits all to every situation we encounter. Unfortunately, what we get is deception by our own means. We fool ourselves by pursuing fallacies of inference toward hasty generalizations. The event, trend or experience takes on feeling, emotion and distorted meaning. As such, if we can't immediately attach an excuse, a reason or rationality, we'll make it up. These things work in at least two directions. We're being conned and someone else is conning us, relying on our gullibility factor and their greed factor. We even con ourselves in the process.

Our personal con-jobs can be very real to us. In effect, human ideations, from fantasy to reality, can be quite scary. As an example, one could evaluate the allegations of "Alien Abductions" (Planetary Category) as a potential starting point for a journey into personal deception. Within this framework of cultic or conspiratorial collusions, some scientific experts assert an organic basis for such beliefs. In other words, our brain becomes an extraordinary means for cerebral entertainment. Aside from the mass acceptance of such things, some investigative viewpoints follow a different path as to our collective delusions. In fact, it is suggested that mystical encounters, astral projections, and other psychic experiences, including alien abductions, are connected to the firings inside the temporal lobes. As to this, the imagination plays a significant role.

Arousing within us the desirable attributes of amative satiation, some of us pursue our inner creative abilities to varying forms of extreme thought. Not to mention of course, extreme types of action. Belief systems can embrace many aspects of the paranormal, the political and planetary. Once accepted along a scheme of subjective bias, widespread receptivity infuses with public perceptions. Among abductees, one tends to find very imaginative people who strive to articulate their sense of creativity. Seeking commonality among others, it is no surprise they can find support groups. On top of that, it is likewise not surprising that you find enterprising persons who take advantage of these opportunities. Among these types, we used to call them "snake oil salesmen".

Today though, the pretender, swindler or quack, often comes equipped with a Ph.D. to really confuse the investigative processes. While some occupy the hallowed bastions of academia, others are free agents proselytizing some related sales gimmick. Whereby, alleged gurus, shamans and similar sages will close in to capitalize on the very essence of human potential. As such, examples of various "alien abductees" include artists, writers and musicians, who are very creative. More often than not, this innate originality for psychic innovation leaves room for suggestibility and all manner of deception. By way of electro-magnetic patterns, wavelengths and electrical firings, with chemical interactivity, the human brain is very much an extraordinary organ. Such energy fluctuations can significantly enliven our "mind's eye" beyond a three-dimensional configuration.

Among us earthlings, communal belief systems hold fast to the idea that our planet has been, and continues to be, visited by alien beings. By the way, why are they always perceived as having human-like physical structures? Ever think about that? Every description you generally hear, as on television, in movies, from alleged "eye witnesses", and proclaimed "abductions"; aliens are typically described as humanoid. To argue the pretext of a bipedal primate arriving here from another galaxy ought to seem astronomical. If so, why would they look similar to us? Wouldn't different evolving processes preclude such a possibility? For some us however, it's in fact illogical. In actuality, throughout the history of animal life on this planet, how many species have evolved into humans? Evaluate the thousands of years that have transpired.

Well, the answer is, just one such species has evolved. And, there haven't been several different versions of that particular one. That species, if you're still thinking about it, is us of course. Perhaps, when we project similarities like that and ascribe aliens similar descriptions as ours. Maybe we're being a little arrogant. Could be we're projecting a reflection of ourselves into the vast mirror of cosmic wishful thinking. That is, for us humans, we see ourselves in everything around us. Such a notion is self-centered, egoistic and self-indulgent. Not to forget, it's also deceptive. To people, humans are the measuring instrument against which all things seem to be compared.

Any way, considering that people tend to collect stuff, like various inanimate artifacts, it's surprising none of the alleged "alien abductees" has ever produced any authentic physical evidence. A question then becomes, where's the proof? In spite of the necessity to produce viable physical evidentiary artifacts, or any viable scientific data, a large segment of society remains adamant in the acceptance of such beliefs. Many proclaim as "real and credible" so called "alien abductions".

In relation to an inclination toward cultic activities, for instance, as well as hallucinations regarding "alien abductions", we may be witnessing the over activity of the human brain's energetic creativity. While some find cults offensive, for whatever personal agenda, others find them seductive. Still, with aliens, a number of very imaginative people have traveled the galaxy at the "invitation" of alien visitors. For that matter, the human "mind" is an extraordinary chemical process.

Naturally, for the skeptical investigator, common sense tends to chase after the con job that lurks in the shadows. At which point, common sense transforms to nonsense. Who's doing the scam, we might inquire further? Supporting such paranormal, political or planetary belief systems suggests attention to whether or not fraud is involved. Frequently, it is, because if it's too good to true, then it's false. If so, then a crime may have been committed. And, if we determine a crime has been committed, or a criminal solicitation has occurred, then we investigate further. Along the way, it's good to keep in mind that people make things up. For one reason or another, usually fear about their own belief system, humans will substitute fantasy for reality. Targets of trickery provide opportunities for the implementation of filling in irrelevant information.

For many of us, we are self-protective, especially in a group sense, where we think we might be threatened as to our comfortable frame of reference. In a self-righteous mode of believing this myth or that one over there, people can be concerned with how they "must" conform others to their point of view. In some cases, take an academic oriented person for instance, he or she might read someone else's theory. After which, accepting it as fact, the academician may want to alter the theoretical construct to fit his or her particular outlook. Over time, that theory, in newer hands, transforms into a "rule of law" for better or for worse. Before you know it, the speculative nature has gone from hypothesis to scholarly conclusion. How many times have you heard that come across in a televised interview with an alleged expert? Similarities occur in the political context of a religious viewpoint regarding a opposing belief system, as in a suspected "cult".

Back in the rubric of the planetary phenomena, while some suggests it's probable that life exists elsewhere in the universe, it's not probable they can get here through interplanetary flight. Or, even want to talk in the first place. So, if our listening devices are not picking their voices, then maybe they don't want to talk to earthlings. Sure it could happen, perhaps one day, well it might, you think? But, for now, our problem is an investigative one. What are the elements of the crime? From which, we should be focused on whether or not criminality is at play. Sometimes, we may not immediately recognize the deceptive processes taking place. Either in ourselves or that of others, ploys within the three categories ( **paranormal, political and planetary** ) might distract us. As a result, we could miss the tactical deceptions in use against applications of common sense.

Wait, did you hear that? Not so fast. Common sense? Alright then, let's move on, if we accepted a logical framework based on the factuality of the problem at hand. Now, add to that, logic, sound judgment, reason, rationality, and analytical deduction. Naturally, as humans, we're going to find it challenging to suspend personal bias completely. And, to that, each of us will certainly pursue a certain amount of subjective validation. We'll always be tainted by our private motivations. However, where does that take you? For the investigator, you come back to the typical basic rubric and apply the scientific method to your methodology. That's because you want the facts at issue, not conjecture. So, a simple framework relates to the traditional inquiry, as in: who, what, where, when, and why. The chase is to find the fact.

To this, in the forgoing format, investigators typically add the concept of **'how'** to the scheme of reference. This is done to at least address aspects relative to the manner, means and mechanism associated with criminal actions. And, in most cases, you discover the equation yields the phrase – 5WH. That gives a six part configuration and a foundational basis by which to ask questions. Adding the **"how"** question elongates the query to assert the essence of knowing to what extent the action took place. Still though, there are others who would add two more elements to this investigative equation. This culminates in an eight part series not necessarily to be followed in a specific order.

From here, you could add **"Observation" and "Action taken"**. Thus, the format now becomes – 5WHOA. To this layout, one might consider the logical deductive processes of combining a streamlined forensic methodology, sometimes loosely referred to the so called "scientific method". In the beginning, a theoretical basis is necessary. That would be the preliminary formulation of a working hypothesis, premise or theoretical development. A theory is configured based on what is known at a certain point in time. Later, that changes. From there, one goes about testing his or her theory on an ongoing basis. In many cases, you would want to consider the forensic implications at the beginning. In other words, what does the evidence say? To the theory part, we add evidence collection, and again assess the forensic implications. Data assembly is important, as information fuels the process. Evidentiary components are critical.

With the theory of transference in play, we consider exchanges among people, places and things. These exchanges set the stage for transference of information that may be related to evidence. What are the connections, linkages and interactions? Testing, analysis, and assessment remain vital to this process. After which, we attempt to interpret the data and come to a set of preliminary conclusions. Whereby, along the way, we ignore fallacies of inference and stick to the necessity of proof. Key to this is asking someone how do you know? And, on top of that, what do you mean?

As to logical fallacies, people enjoy deception. You snooze you lose. But, we like it that way. Thinking is placed on auto-pilot and feelings are allowed free reign. Of which, we're have become accustomed to nonsensical "arguments" in mainstream societal interactions every day. In the process, we don't challenge faulty assertions. As a result, these scamper along their psychic merry way confusing the issues at hand. At the same time, fallaciousness in logic allows us to create anti-thinking.

That is, **anti-thinking** , as opposed to **pro-thinking** , does not use logic and reason, but is pretty much emotionally based. Frequently, we find this framework within the planetary, political and paranormal schemes. Often, we do this in a personally selective process of seeing what we want to see, and believing what we want to believe. In the end however, we keep asking, where's the evidence and what does it tell us?

In contrast to a search for factual authenticity, (like the truth, go figure) based on scientific methodology, on many occasions, people in general don't want to know the facts. Nor, will they look for them. That would require effort. Most are satisfied with a superficial explanation. For instance, many of us act as though we are taking part in a **"cold reading"**. This procedure involves professional manipulators. Such broad based speculation is at work in all three categories ( **planetary, political and paranormal** ).

At times, not to mention a few other areas, like criminology and associated pseudo-sciences, we act as though we are performing "cold readings". Again, as in many other fields of inquiry, in the criminal justice field, people who ought to know better, buy into spurious assertions and nebulous notions. For the con artists, or propagandist, the gambit involves asking a lot of general questions, hoping to get enough feedback to make some well-calculated guesses. If you throw out sufficient volumes of infotainment, then sooner or later, you're likely to hit on something. When you do, people might believe you.

Along these same lines of inquiry, you could compare the simplistic notions of "criminal profiling" and "psychic investigations". These approaches can operate in a similar manner as do cold readings or fortune telling. You have to instigate the presentation general enough to keep the interest of others. Once you have a captive audience, who want to be "true believers", then you have ripe opportunities to expand your deception. That's because if we desire something to be true, we'll do that which is necessary to make our wish become reality. Our self-deception, whether officially sanctioned or privately instilled, knows few boundaries.

So, as to the pretender, you keep things generic and simple. While doing so, you remain upbeat, positive and sound like you know what you're talking about. You express a sense of confidence, hence the word "con". Listeners will fill in the blanks as they become "believers". Also, if you happened to guess something correctly about a specific case, then you're followers are likely to remember that. We tend to remember the miniscule droplets of right answers, and forget the avalanche of wrong answers. The three part basis is simplicity, generality and functionality.

In this mentally complex rubric of our self-satiation, the rest of us will forget the misses. Failure is not an option. We may ignore the mistakes because many us seek the security of being right. None of us want to be wrong if we can avoid such pitfalls. All the conjecture on your part will claim the hits. There will be subtle hints of success in a "number" of instances. Over time, the social consciousness can overlook the facts and fuel the fantasies. Humans like storytelling, legends and fairytales. So, if it's too good to be true, then in all likelihood, we'll probably believe it.

Very astute inquisitors skillfully assess body language, verbal cues and physical facial indicators. Not to mention of course, a discreet sensitivity to feeling and emotions. For the con artist, these manifestations of psycho-sexual-physiological exhibitions are essential aspects to be utilized when ever possible. Capitalizing on these factors, and this really means capitalizing, skillful schemes calculate the reliability of human gullibility. People want a sense of certainty when faced with the harsh realities of life and death. Every day struggles suggest uncertainty. In a mythical sense, the two opposing forces, eros and thanotos, struggle with each other with the realization that one will win. Our fear is that we know someday death wins out and life loses.

Bottom-line though, after all is said and done, you can carefully analyze another person all you want. You might have some wins and you probably will have some losses. At the same time, you can develop all the "scales", the "templates" and "gradients" of human predictability you can conjure. Nothing is foolproof or failsafe. And, no means of "profiling" brings about a perfect basis of understanding, interpretation and reliability. There are no faultless and flawless means of forecasting human behavior. But, to some extent, some people are good at their guesswork some of the time. Being clever is all too human, depending upon the objective in the target of opportunity. Regardless of all else to be considered, we humans can be extraordinarily opportunistic.

To counteract the anxieties of life's challenges, logical thinking processes might give way to illogical perceptions around us for the satiation of our amative belief systems. In facing reality, there exists the harsh notion we may not like what see. Many people sometimes open the door to alternatives that may be fictitious in nature. However, such fabrications help reinforce that which we desire to be true. Naïve simplistic thinking, in order to reinforce a non-critical level of acceptance, provides the self-imposed justification for our own deception. Myriad examples come to mind in those replications we invent outside the normal physical frame of reference. Promises about the viability of the paranormal, planetary and political conspiracies reassure the uncertainty that might be unnerving. We want to believe in the things we cannot know for certain.

Everyone is susceptible to the self-imposed suspension of belief. That's why investigators must be on guard constantly as to their own subjectivity. Impartiality and detachment remain difficult exercises in mental alacrity. For some us, this revolves around the nexus of skeptical inquiry. Cognitive bias, which we allow to influence us all, is an actuality that requires our consistent control. Thinking patterns frequently invite a sense of distortion connected to our thought processes. For instance, in asserting the illicit behavior of a particular group, we might tend to overly generalize their behavior with sordid exaggerations. Some of us impute to the associations in question as committing all manner of "sin" and "evil". This dichotomy of neural processing becomes a transformation into various psychic distortions.

There is no suggestion at this juncture as to any hint that **"brainwashing"** or **"mind control"** causes person to surrender complete control to someone else. Instead, the intention contained herein endeavors to stay close to the tenets of classical criminology, or sometimes termed the choice theories of criminality. As such, with regard to **"brainwashing"** , one must remain suspicious in terms of an investigative capacity. To suggest something called **"mind control"** is to mediate and lessen the impact criminal actions have on the victims. At the same instant, such a notion summons an alibi or excuse the criminal uses to justify his or her illegal inflictions.

If you assert that someone has been subjected to some instigation of mental control, that suggests their every thought, neural process, and by consequence, subsequent actions have come under another's skillful manipulation. For you, the implication fosters the idea that the target subject has terminated possession over his or her socio-economic, political and philosophical beliefs systems. More often than not, when we say things like "mind control", we are likely referring to mass media marketing persuasion. However, that's not always the case, since there are more sinister allusions lurking on the sidelines.

As to marketing strategies, this of course sometimes means the willful acceptance of social propaganda for materialistic purposes. In a broader sense, the terms "mind control" and "brainwashing" are frequently misleading and confusing. Whatever your conception of mind control, whether from cultic collusion to government conspiracy, and anything else you can add, there's a realization that many implications can be offered. If you ask a person a basic question as to what they think mental manipulation means, then what would you get as a response? In all likelihood, the answers could run the gamut of communal interactivity. This might include things like religious extremism, humanistic potential and self-help groups, or some factional form of mysticism.

When it comes to imagining conspiratorial solicitations, the imagination can go to amazing leaps and bounds, and invite all manner fantastic visualization. None the less, as concerned in this discussion, **"brainwashing"** is restricted to the primary issue that one person exercises complete and unquestioned control over another, without that person's consent. Whereby, the controller dominates the entire psychological, sociological and physiological interactions of the person who is controlled. This does not include any aspects of the real or pretended threat of violence to coerce another person.

To act in a certain way, given life threatening attendant circumstances, based on the fear of violent retribution, extortion and other forms of severe intimidation, are a different matter entirely from the implications of **"brainwashing"** or **"mind control"**. Actions may be based on the need for survival given the situation at hand. Inflicting **"mind control"** over someone becomes an amazing and peculiar range of speculation. In fact, what we've created with the erroneous use of such terms is a lot of confusion.

In the mainstream of popular reductionist thinking, a number of theorists have allowed the widespread dissemination of hasty generalizations. Again, fallacies of inference can lead to fictitious assumptions that others hold out as the truth. By not questioning whether of not the facts substantiate provability, many have allowed the acceptance and use of ambiguous terminologies. There's always a tendency, especially among people who ought to know better, to leap to untenable conclusions.

Yet, in the usual reactivity of public perception, sometimes reinforced by academic bias and erroneous news casting, members of certain groups are often characterized as being under some kind of psychological control. In addition to the **"brainwashing"** aspect, some may assert additional socio-economic explanations, which may elude an understanding of the essential cause-effect motivational intentions. Frequently, such descriptions fail to acknowledge the complicitious nature of personal self-deception. Of those who join, or otherwise subscribe to beliefs of associated criminal enterprises, extreme philosophical orientations, or conspiratorial cultic relationships, one cannot overlook the elementary factors of self-deception for personal proclivities.

Self-deception for the sake of self-promotion and even self-acceptance covers a wide range of interpersonal activities. Joining a particular faction, for instance, has its attractiveness for private and hidden reasons. From cultic exclusivity to self-help gurus, gangs and gangsters, and religious extremism, including myriad allegedly "scientific" research efforts, people can be exceptionally willful in their erroneous intentions. For the investigator, one cannot overlook the probability of exceptional fallacies in another person's illusive behaviors. Exploitation comes in many forms. Assorted ploys configure misleading implications in order to achieve personal objectives.
Chapter 5 – Evil in the Ambitions of Human Intentions

Evil, or the other side of human nature, forges a deceptive mirror by which we often fail to see our own reflection. Mild, medium and major ruses conjure diverse purposes for individual scales of competitive advantage. Mirror, mirror on the wall, you think, as well as others do, at some point in time, you're the most important of them all. As to the issues suggested regarding "mind control" possibilities, and even "brainwashing", which are no doubt debatable. We cannot overlook the evil ambitious inclinations of those who desire to manipulate others to achieve their personal objectives. Human intentions are self-centered. For some of us, the notion of evil has several connotations.

In the thinking of many people, the concept of evil takes on demonic overtones, with vivid and fantastic anthropomorphic images. You can easily imagine all the Halloween-like characterizations of demons, goblins and devils. But, aside from speculative, creative and literal translations of ancient mythologies, suffice it to say, we're talking about malevolence as willful mental aspects of human ideation. So here, the suggestion is one slanted toward doing harm to other people because one chooses to do so. Descriptors can be applied such as, wickedness, sinfulness, and particularly malice aforethought.

Along these lines, people knowingly manifest the clever wickedness of imaginative creativity. These conceptions can be seen in the many examples replicated within the rubrics of various conspiracies (i.e. **planetary, political and paranormal phenomena** ). From this framework, on an investigative level, we seek to expose the cons, the tricks and schemes with regard to criminal culpability, unlawful collusions and illicit solicitations. In relation to the control of someone's "mind" or "brainwashing", clever manipulation of data, information and reported incidents, conveniently foster confusing hype, unsubstantiated lore and legend, and oversimplification through misinformation.

Through inventive publicity, seductive marketing or sensational, as well as dramatic depictions, carnival atmospheres can be created to invite communal support for extraordinary claims. You can hear every possible superficial rendition on a daily basis. From advertising to news reporting, we use a variety of metaphors to characterize a particular issue. More often than not, coverage of a particular controversy can easily provoke reactions by the manner in which certain words are used.

On the aspect of "groupthink", for instance, as connected to cults, conspiracies and collective criminal enterprises, " **evil"** intentions can materialize among numerous people with similar interests. This means collectively, the membership finds fault with those who do not belong to their special faction. To the most seemingly bizarre extremes, from hate speech and homicide, to oppression and genocide, splinter groups of every sort can foster all manner of malice and mayhem toward others judged different from them. Thinking with the herd serves the needs of group membership. Inside the framework of the association's safe mediocrity, many will purposely desire to solidify their superficial thinking around the neural fabric of generalized consensus.

**Evil** may take on the reflective identification for the sake of acceptance. Points of view might be skewed. Even though, in a communal sense, across the societal landscape, we need valued opinions, learned viewpoints and constructive criticisms. Yet, negativism toward others becomes derisive and destructive. Instead, we should expect an opinion to be that which approaches an advanced level of expertise. This refers to a higher order of thinking in application and generally reliable acceptance. In other words, in reasoning a particular issue, or solving a specific human problem, one must ensure the viability of evidentiary criteria. Facts, as opposed to fiction, or for that matter supernatural fabrications, must be placed into evidence, tested and verified be authentic and credible. Otherwise, we're playing an illusionary flirtation with fallacies.

At the same time, as investigators our pursuit relentlessly presses for the truth. We gather the facts and assess the relative level of **evil** purposes. And, a question you must demand is, where's the evidence? Likewise, add to that; is the assertion testable beyond a reasonable doubt? By contrast, are you dealing with false assertions? We are constantly asked and reminded to consider the source of any assertion. You can be on one side of a debate, ascribing **"evil"** to a particular group. For example, you were complicitious with others because you think the assembly in question is a cult. As such, you somehow picture "demonic" motivations in their nature due to their alternative appearances, peculiar beliefs and strange behaviors. Then again, on the other hand, you could be on the other side of the spectrum, where you're in an alleged "cult", sect, or religious group. Okay, so now, as a member, it's your turn to criticize the conventional conformity, orthodoxy and traditionalism of the particular social setting.

In "groupthink" spiteful thinking invites alliances. With an alliance, any opposition can be suppressed in most cases. That happens in academia as well as the workplace. Sometimes, we erroneous call it peer pressure. None the less, **Evil** has a knack for surfacing with the all the clever ruses of the best intentions. Even among the most benign gatherings, we find tiny instances of collective collusion built around fallacies of inference. Nearly always, if you look close enough, you'll witness such things mirrored in the three P's ( **planetary, political and paranormal phenomena** ).

So, perhaps it is a good idea to consider broader implications than some mystical notion of what evil actually is. Again, the issue is human nature. Within this scope, the concept regards malevolence as that which people contrive to do out of selfishness. When they do it, they are injuring another person. To this rubric, one might allow that evil has divergent levels. Some forms include lying to safeguard one's position in a given context, such as perjury or false statements in an official proceeding. In another way, evil can be types of aggression, as in acts of extraordinary violence.

Consensus can be so strong that one actually accepts willingly there's a spaceship (UFO) following a comet. Pursuit of aliens and government cover-ups are rife with such assertions. For the UFO behind the comet, members are willing to commit suicide in order to spiritually board the flying craft. Why? Because an alleged mystic said so and they accepted the con as an article of "faith". Gaining agreement among the membership is not all that difficult under the right conditions. You can find numerous examples of such uncritical acquiescence to an illogical point of view in various walks of life.

Religious fundamentalism, across the gamut of philosophical endeavors, poses additional examples in the exploits of the supernatural. Some researchers call this kind of thinking, as the phenomenon already mentioned as "groupthink". Absent the clarity of profound insightful analysis, groups foster a potent sense of collectivism. Within this gambit, thinking processes are seldom intensely investigative, supported by hard evidence or spurred by forensic analysis. Instead, adherents strive to achieve accord and compromise. Out of fear regarding one's unique psycho-sexual dynamics in personal authenticity, more than likely you'll find solidarity in "groupthink".

With a failure to critically assess the assertions being made, people allow their seductions to be reinforced by sensitivity to their perceived lack of vulnerability. Dysfunction reinforces the necessity of perceiving a self-righteous sense of acceptable functioning. By failing to see the fallacy of their invulnerability, for the sake of group compromise, people assume they can't be in error. After all, if there's solidarity in the collusion of communal expectations, then how can we be wrong? We must be right if others agree with us, right? Well, for that matter, probably all of us think we're infallible to some degree when we unite in a cause. And yet, still, obsessive conformity can travel down the perilous road to social, political and economic disaster. Concerned urban vigilance for the necessity of public safety can be transitioned into murderous disregard for civil rights and protections afforded under the U.S. Constitution.

Information transforms into a distortion so that the groups cohesiveness can be maintained. Logical deduction is replaced by emotional appeals based on superficial assertions. Badly configured analogies attempt to support selected points of view. The illusion of immunity against facts to the contrary reinforces the ability to make significant miscalculations. Poor choices conspire with insufficient evidentiary criteria from the basis of selfish motivations for personal gain. Fallacies of inference smoke screen the factual nature of reality into a fabrication of illicit conjecture. From the shadowy realms of hidden agendas, the salacious figments of the collective imagination deny the authenticity of proof that disagrees with the consensus. Insert here any example you can imagine, from hate groups and government cover-ups to religious extremists.

Over time, place and circumstance, adherents work diligently to reinforce each other's rhetorical incoherence into a defendable ideology. By **"good works"** , **"faithful service"** and **"defense of the people"** , in service to a "higher calling", sinister intentions lurk in the dimly enlightened corners of the shared consciousness. For the sake of conformity, consistency and continuity, members willingly embrace the contradictory elements of the group's sacred tenets. Ritual substantiates the sacramental devotion for the "greater good". These often energetic efforts can be understated, covert and seemingly benign. At the same time, who would question the lofty intentions of the group? Coerced by various means to play the game, members adhere to the dogma. Groupthink schemes to suppress opposing dissensions that detract from the code of beliefs.

Cults, conspiracies and criminal enterprises, invite the complicity of herding the thinking processes into one size fits all situations. It happens at every societal level, regardless of educational attainment. Again, we can return to an earlier example of this when we overly generalize inferences from a generic template, based on spurious statistical data. Sometimes, this is called a " **profile"** , which is more or less a sketchy silhouette of broad based generalizations. Of which, one cannot narrowly define specifics to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Often you encounter the misuse of statistics within this confusing rubric by investigators taking shortcuts. Frequently, by the ill virtue of malevolent intentions, groups will bring about adverse consequences. A profound sense of proactive communal problem solving never seems to be the objective.

Illusions work in different ways depending on the objective of the particular group. From a multi-media standpoint, by contrast to hate mongering factions fomenting left and right of the center political spectrum. You could say, for example, that in a certain large city gang activity is out of "control". But, what does that really mean? Is it a conspiracy of gangs or government to take over a city? Out of control has many implications. Forget the fact that gangs and organized crime has been around for quite a long time. And, such cultic collusions have always been here ever since the first landing of Europeans in the new world. Because wherever people go, they take criminality with them. None the less, is the former assertion an unfortunate selection of word phrases? Sure, most often that's the case in news reporting. Instead, in realty, maybe that describes a failure of the particular political system to provide essential public safety services.

Regardless, through a continuum of constant bombardment of irrelevant conjecture, demonization of individuals and other groups can be pervasive. Naturally, if such actions go unquestioned or unchallenged, the sinister activities manifest into larger adverse implications. With the front of solidarity, plus the blatant facetious assertions of faulty analogies, forceful and deadly encounters can be significantly instigated. Whereby public demonstrations, for instance, serve to over-ride any semblance of a balanced debate for the surrounding critical issues affecting social policy. By way of moral pretext, cultic behaviors proclaim the righteousness of their mission. Because the group believes something to be valid, just and credible, anything they agree upon is easily rationalized for the sake of their sense of "morality". How scary is that?

After a while, in any given situation, think about the implications of "drinking the water" downstream of the herd so to speak. Have you ever thought about that? You're consuming potentially contaminated materials (i.e. bogus data in collusion with others) in the format of fictitious information. If you do indulge in poisoned doctrine, then everything that follows is probably tainted by misleading notions that result in an ambiguous inference. From there, the deconstruction of logical deduction transforms into a mythology of thinking. We already know from personal experience that you don't have to have actual know-how to cite an opinion. Throughout U.S. society many are considered experts who've never actually been in the field, up close and personal, in terms of real practical knowledge. For a lot of us, guessing is a good thing.

But, as humans, we do this every day. People fill-in the blanks where factual data is missing. Imagination, creativity and innovation are suspended in favor of being just like "them", a part of the group. You feel accepted, part of something you think meaningful and validated based on your feelings, emotions and desires. One might question whether or not this is some type or form of cowardice. That is to say, a way of keeping your thoughts within the scheme of your perceptions and aligned with others. That way, you won't be criticized. Instead, you'll accomplish your objectives. Could it be the case when humans collaborate around a "tribal" or communal prospect?

If, for instance, you accept a certain conspiracy theory as fact, then how valid is that perspective in relation to the real world? Consider the rubric, the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. What's the agenda? Look around, stop and listen, what are people saying in the course of a conversation? Any clues come up? How spurious is their conjecture? Such a prospect could apply to just about anything you can think of, from academia to terrorism. Seems as though humans allow themselves to be highly susceptible to their own pretext of gullibility. Well, perhaps FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is plotting the interment of U.S. citizens in a detention camp. Hence, a government conspiracy within the **political** framework. Some have gone to great lengths to "prove" that form of supposition. Certain extremist groups point in the direction of so called "proofs" or "facts" taken out of original context.

Evil in the ambitions of human intentions suggests a widespread contrived effort to deceive, ruse and misinform communal collectivism. All are affected to some extent in dealing with others. This offers the viewpoint that people make things up as they go along. Not only do we fill in the open spaces when vacant, but also to the extent needed to meet personal objectives. People like patterns to fit their beliefs. In some ways, we want to believe so much that we'll accept whatever specious notions come our way. At the same time, in spite of the facts, we'll believe the contrary. Some things, even though unproved or accepted by the scientific community, gain wide acceptance. Over time, the most nebulous theory might be pursued as the universal truth. In brief, evil ambitiousness partakes of an unholy communion with immorality, malicious intentions and criminal inflictions. To question the viability of an assertion takes courage.

Is gossip about a person, region or race any different? Does it also apply to an alleged cult, conspiracy or criminal collusion? This often is in cahoots with rumor, hearsay and word of mouth tattle. Why? We do this in order to safeguard and otherwise protect our private individual interests. Personal gain, whether singular, group oriented, or both, provides the motivation for subsequent intentions, as well as inflictions. In a sense, each of us is in bondage to a duality inside our thoughts. One good and one not so good, where holy virtues grapple with unholy seductions. An investigator should consider the prospect that all of us, including him or her, are dealing with a maze of hidden psycho-dynamic issues. Because of such a concrete motive many not be easily discernable.

It's as though we've accepted enslavement to our emotions, passions and obsessions. When we act as such, we are ensuring our own welfare and benefit. Whether we are professor, politician, preacher or the press, everyone chooses his or her course of action. This means our subjective validation for the sufficiency of cognitive bias must be satiated. Then again the same applies to the criminal, hate monger and extremist. What is the gain? That's the key investigative question. Gain versus the risk of either doing or not doing a premeditated action. In the unfolding saga of human history, terrorism for instance, not unlike other organized criminal enterprises, serves the purposes to enrich the individual, the group or both. In one form or another, terrorist acts have been carried out by individuals, governments and groups. Extremism can be a potent expression of a belief system that coalesces around group anti-thinking cohesiveness.

Around that, the idea of group think, one can venture into horrendous inflictions against others based on illusionary notions. Not because of peer pressure or some other external factor, but instead, because that's what particular people were looking for at that time. In a particular case, situation or circumstances, willful intentions are exactly that. Purposely rational, calculated and intended causal actions toward others. People can do tortuous things for any reason that meets their needs, objectives and gain. To investigate such incidents, we address cause-effect patterns of behavioral connections to look for clues. As such, the investigator has an obligation to be as objective as possible. Once again, this comes back to evidence and the relevant facts of the case.

As hard as it is, remaining detached to pursue a logical quest for revelation can be challenging for most of us. Our efforts in uncovering criminal activities behind cultic, conspiratorial and other illicit group enterprises rely upon ordinary normal explanations for what seems like unnatural phenomena. Yet, in reality alleged unexplained occurrences relate to a meaningful process of natural events. Cause-effect continuum relies on factual detection of the material factors. Our problem stems from the necessity to prove the issues at hand within a lawful framework. That is, two or more persons conspired to commit a crime as defined in a statutory provision. For some in the field of law enforcement, the term **"Racketeering Activity"** comes to mind, along with notions about the concept of a **"conspiracy"**.

Most often though, you mention "Racketeering" and people conjure mental images of the mafia, a particular ethnic group or some reference to traditional organized crime. In a broader sense though, it could refer to any group of people motivated for illegal gain. This does not leave out religious sects, anti-religious movements, or hate groups. For this matter, neither does such a term overlook gangs, terrorist organizations, extreme ideological persuasions, and the support groups or persons that fund them. All depends on whether or a crime or crimes are being committed. By lawful assertion, **"Racketeering Activity"** means attempting to commit, committing or conspiring to commit a criminal act. By inclusion, this also refers to actions taken to solicit, coerce or cause others to be intimidated. Activities that violate the criminal statutes involve efforts at solicitation as well, such as sexual exploitation and so forth.

Organized crime refers to a number of criminal activities perpetrated by divergent associations. From gangs to terrorists, religious factions to militia groups, these collusions typically involve conspiratorial instigations. Likewise, by comparison, so in fact is it possible that **"conspiracy theorists"** are capable of similar behaviors. In fact, group criminality is not far off in the totality of the collective thinking processes. Especially when they organize numerous people into the self-interest of their believability in weird or bizarre beliefs. How many frauds, cons and scams you think possible when people promote a certain point of view? Not unusually, we'll assert some manifestation of **"evil"** when something goes terribly wrong. Beliefs systems can be extraordinarily potent and powerful. Critical thinking can be deliberately put on hold, pending the pursuit of more prurient passions.

" **Evil"** as a deterministic entity outside the human species is always a seductive invitation. Unfortunately, all too frequently, supposedly educated people, or people who ought to know better, will say and do stupid things. Unbelievably, many will adhere to some irrationality that conveniently evades the truth. Or, more importantly the never ending search for that which is true. In addition, they will also commit themselves to foolish beliefs that encompass nonsensical conspiratorial activities. Even among the most educated in the educational system, there's no guarantee you'll find less bias, less prejudice or even less gullibility. In other words, once your mind is made up, and you have the academic degrees to prove it, why change?

In academia for instance, you're free to pontificate on any subject, at any time and any place and make people think you know what you're talking about. Most often, in an open discussion, we hear people claim the relevance of their subjectivity. Sometimes that means their own credentials as an "expert". A fallacy of inference enters the debate and that claims special circumstances for beliefs. Particularly, those areas for which you know little about, right? We hear people talk about **"evil"** as if it were a person. Well, that's another story in itself. None the less, when someone says he or she is **"evil"** , or the cult group committed a grievous **"evil"** , what does that mean? Is it possible this is simply code for a metaphorical reference? Of course it is. We describe people, places and properties as **"evil"** when we don't fully comprehend the malevolent nature of their atrocities. Then again, we may choose not to know the extent of human malevolence.

In the ambitions of human intentions, we can conclude that there are divergent manifestations for a concept of evil. Or, simply the self-centered intentions of every human being on the planet. Ideation begets fantasy, while flights of fancy conjure amazing fictions of story telling. Among those who ought to know better, we allow our seduction into the realm of weird and strange beliefs. This of course expresses the essential duality of human nature. Within the framework of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal,** a number of possibilities exist for imaginative deceptions. None the less, like the mythology of **mind control** or **brain washing** , many will persist in chasing the illusion of the so called **"Manchurian Candidate"**. Such ideas craft great fictional movies and dramatic television dramas but little else.

We'd like to think that anyone can voluntarily surrender their free will. Nevertheless, based on credible long term research, that's science fiction and not reality. Unfortunately, due to our aversion for deeply profound thinking, based on facts in evidence, supported by actual proof, we typically enjoy fairy tales. That is, most of us like to skim the surface and play among the mythic adventures of hasty generalizations. Of which, we base our assumptions on fallacies of inference. Oversimplification allows us to utilize trouble free thinking in our choices. From studying rats, we can easily make the jump to mental presumptive light speed and zoom to human applications. Has anyone ever stopped and considered that rats aren't the same as people?

Can you imagine that? Regardless though, take for instance an experiment where scientists ignite jolts of electricity into rat brains. During their experimentations, the researchers manipulated the rats akin to playing with remote control cars. Once that extraordinary fete has been accomplished, someone can assert they've created robotic living organisms. In order to do that, you'd have to consider the extraordinary capacity for us to replicate an individual's brain code. Researchers would need to transform complex electrical pulsations to manipulate neural impulses. At a minimum, this would include a person's perceptions, feelings, memory storage and decision-making. Yet, the human brain is far more complex and vastly more intricate than a computer system. Plus, thinking is highly individualistic. Thus, cultic mind control is an illusion.
Chapter 6 – Fabricating the Ruse for focused Fixations:

In cultic conspiracies, you will find collusive behaviors for planned objectives. Not infrequently factional membership coalesces around key elements within thinking processes. These relate in a very broad sense to issues of power, control and domination. Intentional inflictions seek satiation for the sake of material gain. Instances of anti-social behaviors, as related to cultic factions, come in several forms. Some occurrences are demonstrated by the intentional formation of street gang affiliations. Sure, there are those who will adhere to the usual deterministic diversions. That is, family dysfunction, poverty and peer pressure, and so on, as excuses for collusive criminal behavior. Rather than the reality, this is of course means rational choices for criminal behaviors.

In other words, people are involved in fabricating the ruse for focused fixations on their choice of criminal proclivity. These are well-planned passions for target criminality, with fabricated cover stories, that smokes screen the real reasons. In practice, we can witness the various forms of such controversial communal collectivism. Hate groups are one type of collusion by which we scheme our self-interests for certain illicit selectivity. Communal alliances of an adverse nature span the social spectrum for fixated belief systems. Of our own free will, we join into alternative group connections for better or for worse consequences. Still others are characterized by their terroristic associations, extreme religious ideologies and related organized criminal enterprises.

An interesting side note to all this is the absence of definitive materials in the context of academic investigation. Most likely you will not find a college criminal justice text that gives much consideration to things like cults, satanic rituals, extreme ideological fundamentalism, organized criminal solicitations similarly connected to subversive criminal ventures. Typically, discussions tend to narrowly focus on the broader topics of say organized or terrorism in general. Texts seem to compartmentalize discussion. Whereby, a separate focus is directed toward gangs as different from the mafia or a terrorist group. None the less, the motivational factors are similar. It's about the gain to be had from such factional group thinking. People are not **"brainwashed"** or even put under some form of **"mind control"** , let alone **"driven"** to assume such affiliations. Personal gain remains paramount in terms of conspiratorial group inclinations.

Basically, the suggestion relegates to the lowest common denominator of personal self-centeredness on the part of everyone. Whether one is a member of an academic intelligentsia, or just a regular everyday hard working laborer, immediate gratification is essential. At least that's what we've allowed ourselves to believe. Each and everyone one us laments the essentiality of the simplistic. Remember the good old days? Sure, supposedly that was a utopia of euphoric ease with limited complications. However, if you think about it, every era has its own problems, complications and intricacies.

To say that "mind control" drove someone to commit a certain atrocity is trouble-free reasoning in order that thinking becomes uncomplicated. Minimalism is the road map to the straight and narrow reductionist sense of facetious conjectures. So, what is interesting about all the aforesaid is that in the realm of an academic context, not much is considered in terms of the "3P's". Or, otherwise known here as the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , for the sake of exposing conspiracies of one sort or another.

None the less, hope springs eternal in the ongoing search for quick answers that produce extraordinary revelations of morally meaningfully insights. Irrational beliefs, strange ideologies and conspiratorial mysteries will persist and annoy some us so long as people remain on the planet. Pseudoscience will masquerade in varied forms of alleged research and investigative effort. You'll find vestiges of myth, magic and metaphor in all organizations, because people are there to spin the stories.

Among the so called "elite" of the socially enlightened, college educated and real world practitioners, erroneous supposition collides with critical thinking. This is done often. Sometimes we call the conjecture **"urban legends"**. Suspected high levels of intelligence are no guarantee of one being foolproof against deception. And yet, every day, we look to allegedly bright people for answers to the great mysteries of life and death. For reasons known uniquely to each of us, we give significant authority to those who seem like authorities. Why else would our culture have so many "experts"? Ever wonder how you get to be an "expert" in the American culture? Smart people trick themselves as well as the rest of us. Those considered to be well-educated, brainy and all around brilliant have a tendency toward smartness in subject specific areas. That is to say, sure they're very bright in their particular field of study. Likewise, in practice, they remain uniquely qualified and competent. Well, then again, maybe.

Yet, there are no guarantees. Outside their particular sphere of expertise, they might be exceptionally ill-equipped, incompetent and downright stupid. To ponder real factual fundamentals of particular issues that effect everyday living could betray the senses of the gifted intellectual. One could find him or her outside their field. Exceptionality applies to everyone. We're good in some things and very poor in other things. Investigatively, in a problem-solving dilemma, many of us go after the easy path of least resistance. Our thinking heads for the simplistic. That's why we invent things like **profiling, psychic investigations and scales of evil**. Is there any wonder why there's suggested herein a rubric such as: the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal?** For all the goofy notions, you've got to have categories for the non-sense.

Irrational belief systems, based on personal thinking for personal interests, insist on being everywhere. While some are harmless, others are dangerous. No matter where you go or what you do, you'll collide with anti-thinking at some point. Again, high IQ is no guarantee for certainty in reliability for the sake of the truth. Many of us are job specific. That is, as mentioned earlier, we're specialists in our respective fields of study. That's one reason why many law enforcement officers cringe at the sight of another "expert". Especially, if that alleged "expert" has "all the answers" to solve an investigative dilemma. Whereby, officers, behind the scenes, realize the "expert" has never worked in the criminal justice field. Particularly, where any practical experience of a real-world nature is lacking. However, in academia that happens all the time.

Expertise in the field of criminal justice is crucial to say the least. An investigator must possess a healthy sense as to the duality of human nature. And, at press conferences refrain from saying stupid things that aren't supported by facts or forensics. Plus, as to human nature, we give credence to the fact that people have a good side and bad side. No matter who they are, they're psyche is both good and evil. From which should flow a vigorous penchant for skeptical inquiry. As in other investigative processes, conspiratorial configurations require careful analysis. Likewise, a body of knowledge is more than a stockpile of data. Serious critical thinking remains essential to the analytic case work. Take for instance an external viewpoint versus and internal perspective. By this, it is meant that the investigator considers a classical criminological standpoint. One based on free will coupled with rational choice and emotional influence.

None of this should be construed to suggest we are driven solely on the basis of pure logic. When someone says, "think logically", what they really means is "use critical thinking skills". Or, when you hear the standard refrain, "think outside the box", as well as "be transparent", you're being asked to go deeper in mental applications. Because, in the totality of cerebral processing, multidimensional factors come into play. Logic, reason and rationality run in conjunction with feelings, emotions and desires. As such, gut intuitive apprehension remains essential.

A human being does not function simply on a logical framework of reference to make any and all decisions. Instead, inside us there is bias, prejudice and self-interest. To do differently, that could be interpreted as limited "two dimensional thinking". This is the kind of thinking that hates people simply because they look different, have opposing ideologies, or don't conform to conventional interpretations of consensual **"morality"**. Likewise, it is akin to partisanship that never deviates from the party line.

On the contrary, we are multifaceted in our thinking processes, whereby emotion does play a key role. However, for those who choose to focus on peripheral alibis, excuses and hasty causal explanations, there is an imbalance of feeling versus rationality. To be external in a given perspective is to assert a positivistic point of reference. That is to say, once again, a viewpoint that looks for deterministic factors outside the sentient being. Over the illusionary periphery, many of us desire certainty.

For within the confines of biased certainty, there is comfort and reassurance. In this vein, we look for easy answers to reinforce our preconceived notions. Irrational beliefs will persist no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. With a perception based entirely on an externality of focus, you can allow your seduction toward myriad misconceptions. From the bias of "intellectual prejudice", seemingly smart people assume they're always correct in their assumptions.

Once they're convinced of that, they'll seek converts with whom they can be extremely convincing. Others will follow because they think he or she has found the "right" answers to life's vexing questions. With zeal toward external phenomenon, by which things just simply occur, and people have limited control, superstitions can run amuck. Hence, the door is opened to simplistic interpretations such as ESP, extra-sensory perception, psychic detective work, witchcraft and so forth.

" **Intellectual attribution bias"** can be dangerous. On one hand, we see ourselves as exceptionally talented, adept and skilled. After all, given our particular field of study, aren't we the smart ones? Forget the fact that we're narrowly defined by our subject specific domain. Whereas, with this image of ourselves as knowing special things, we assume we're always rational, apply logic and avoid emotional influences. Meanwhile, on the other hand, we see others as being driven by their feelings. They don't use logical deductive powers like we do, right? Plus, we're free of the merciless ravages of personal self-interest, right again huh? Absent the facts and the application of the forensic sciences, we're at a loss to prove intent in the perpetration of criminality.

Such arrogance fosters abuse, divisiveness and violence. Spurious notions as to cause and effect reality can lead to persecutions, wars and genocide. Yet, you hear assertions based on such perceptions every day. Mainstream media is rife with these allusions. Governmental operations are full of "subject matter experts". But, what are they experts in? Do you ever ask what do they know and how do they know it? But wait; have you ever examined the facts of the case at hand? For instance, if a major incident occurs, then you simply summon an **"expert"**. But, during the course of the discussion, would you challenge the predisposition of the presenter? Would you weigh their testimony against their expertise and question the validity of the content?

Well, if you're like most people, the answer is no. For the most part, we just take things at face value and hope to muddle through the day. If it works for us, then we're happy. What that really means is some kind of personal gain. Unfortunately, in some cases, as in a potentially dangerous communal situation, adherence to a narrowly defined ideological persuasion might prove fatal. You could compare here, within the rubric of such cultic activity, drug cartels, gangs, and terrorist organizations.

Once again, we have a flash back to an earlier period in the field of criminology. Back a century or two ago, the classical school of criminology asserted a free-will conception of personal responsibility. However, in a post-modern "victimization" oriented culture, we seem to do everything we can to defuse any semblance of accountability. For most of us, we don't even want to think for ourselves. We like others to do that.

Once we hear something, about this group or that one, why do further investigative analysis? After all, that would entail gathering the facts. And, when the evidence is finally in, that's not the end of it. You test the data and challenge the original theory. Many want short cuts though. In the process, we typically desire immediate gratification in the quickest and simplest way possible. This reflects our egoistic intentions for private purposes. In the tenets of classical criminology (also known as rational choice theory), this is akin to the hedonistic calculus proposed over a century ago. Inside this notion is the idea of maximizing pleasurable results to the extent possible.

The ruthless pursuit of definitive evidence is time consuming and laborious. It is easier to criticize, ostracize and victimize than to ensure the validity of evidentiary artifacts. On top of that, beliefs remain reinforced by other perceptions that cling to a particular definition of morality and meaning. One can easily find, within the scheme of a daily routine, people make all kinds of spurious claims. For that, you generally find minimal substantive evidence. More often than not, we can place these viewpoints within the framework of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal.**

In a so called modern age, one wonders at the attraction a person might have for a very narrowly defined point of view. Again, history leaves tell tale signs of repetitive instances. On the outside looking in, the average person (if there is such a creature) might conclude membership requires a touch of lunacy. Or, something psychological might be wrong with that particular person. For him or her who joins an alleged cult, there is the instant admonition toward the over-zealous adherent.

Just like the recent convert to a particular ideology, the "new guy" seeks to change the world, bring about a social revolution or work to hasten the "end times". Others might be inclined for the intrinsic utilitarian values of the materials goods. We all have our reasons. However, mental illness, in a clinical sense, is seldom at play in this context. A private willfulness toward the group's lifestyle engenders the seduction. Due to one's personal inclinations, the attraction to an organization fits his or her private desires, needs and cravings. Whatever the proclivities, the satiation will be satisfied. Individual psycho-sexual dynamics vary from one to another. This allure might be so potent that no one will be able to rationalize non-involvement on the "seekers" part. In some case, as a result of such collusion, child abuse, murders and terrorism are historic examples.

All of such tragic instances reflect willful instigations. In the beginning, you move toward a group for both superficial and cryptic reasons. Your intentions are your purposes for what you do. Regardless, you still make choices. For the religious or quasi-religious faction, early on one evolves a sense of adoration for the leader. After a while, a guru replaces the deification of some other cosmic entity in favor of a more earthly manifestation. Similar kinds of references could be ascribed to the extremist sects that practice murder bombings. Or, for that matter, the gangs and related criminal groupings that carry out drug trafficking, arms smuggling, hate mongering and so forth. For each organization, there are initiation and continuity rites, levels of rank and related organizational mandates. Everywhere, you see rituals and ceremonies.

Sooner or later, principles are subordinate to the so called "leader". Cultic affiliation can move from a perceived utopian sense of collectivism to an autocratic system of oppression. Going in, you thought the group would foster peace, harmony and wellness. A person is even enamored by the noble purposes of the mission. Over time, what you found instead was devolution into a kind of miniature police state. An autocratic system of top down thinking permeates the framework. Activities in due course can become unhinged from the original agenda of social well-being. Conformity finds consensual deformity in anti-thinking processes. Through a process of systematic indoctrination, to which believers willing attest, the viewpoints become skewed with complicitious participation. An eagerness to succeed may result in murderous behaviors.

This means of course that law enforcement must remain vigilant, although skeptical until evidence proves the case at hand. With regard to the suspect grouping, rationality and logic are frequently scammed in the desire for personal and collective gain. With gangs for instance, not unlike cultic affiliations elsewhere, cover stories evolve. Some might say these are "urban legends" of a sort. A kind of "Robin Hood" image might unfold. None the less, the ruse becomes compounded by an ever willing sensationalism on the part of the vast "edutainment" industry. Sometimes, in reference to the most degenerative genocidal actions of certain terrorist groups, you hear a familiar media or academic response. When was the last time you heard someone say, "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist?" Wouldn't it be nice if such self-centered criminal behaviors were so easily explained by such simplistic notions?

Some of the most vicious street gangs have defended their criminality on the basis of a country's immigration policies, bad parenting, fragmented families, urban poverty and class warfare. You know, you've heard the argument, the "haves versus the have nots". You never hear the end of the excuses, the mitigations and ruses. None the less though, many swallow the baseless psycho-babble that passes as unimpeachable truth. Most often, the average person, or mediocre investigator allows media driven trivialities to supercede factual investigative processes. But, on the other hand, the savvy practitioner who ascends to higher levels of investigation will ensure a methodical discovery of the facts. That's the mode of the superior investigator. For best results, we want evidence, tangible proofs, clear and convincing data, whether for or against the issue.

The concept of "urban legends" is allowed sway and influence in what ought to be superior critical thinking. A credible investigation cannot afford the laxity to be found in fallacies of inference and a rush to a hasty generalization. Critical inquiry from a skeptical standpoint should underscore the necessity of pursuing the facts. Over many years, we've concocted our belief systems from many sources. Most of which arrives to the forefront of our mindset via prejudices, bias, and unsubstantiated speculation. How often do you take all the pieces of the puzzle, sit down and analyze the parts as a contiguous whole? More often than not, you'll likely take a piece of the gambit one aspect at a time. Rather than a continuum that maintains connectivity.

From a certain body of data, we will frequently make an effort to find that information which supports of our personal preconceived notions. In spite of our pretended level of intelligence, we take the self-centered course of action first. And, there is no reason to believe that the academic elite are immune to their predilections toward factors associated with: the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal.** We all tend to filter the world through a filtration system from a maze of theories, guesses and speculative assumptions. In terms of the forgoing categories (the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal),** there appears to be an inverse correlation between belief and investigative thinking skills. For those who invest time and energy in factual, rational and logical discovery, they appear to be less susceptible to the pseudoscience of certain beliefs.

We know from available research, as cited in the forgoing, that there's a difference between what we believe and our overall intelligence potential. Given individual variations in educational level and academic achievement, there may be no guarantee for immunity from superstitious inclinations. And, depending on the particular population group, regardless of how smart we think we are, some of us are prone to accept bizarre speculations. Avoiding the delicate issue of I.Q., researchers have suggested there might be a distinction found among the highly educated. But, then again, that's not necessarily true in all cases. We're susceptible to fallacious of inferences that lead to hasty generalizations. From which, investigative processes might be flawed.

From an investigative perspective, we must endeavor to be tactically, interactivity and technically as proficient as possible. If we don't know something, then we must find out what that something is and know where to go. With tactics, we want to utilize creative, cunning and clever practices and procedures that work in the real-world. For the sake of interactivity, as a practitioner, each of us desires to understand our limitations, but enhance and advance our particular filed of knowledge. Outside our narrow field of skill set, we're cautious about over-extending. That's why we seek out expertise where necessary, such as the medical examiner or the forensic technician. However, within our specific domain, energies are directed toward greater insight into our specialization. Caution is warranted when we deviate from what we know.

In other words, say for instance, when the academician seeks to project his or her "special insight" from armchair research, a problem could erupt and result in defective conclusions. Crossing sensitive boundaries of inquiry, a researcher might not be in an allied field closely related to the one under study. Others, with an empirical data base and practical application, could know otherwise. In fact, you might be extraordinarily adept at utilizing a maze of resources, interviews and whatever else to bolster your theory. Or, for that matter, your story. Sure, you could even be the world's most successful crime writer. Then again, you may never have been in the real-world up to your elbows in the grit, grim and primordial goo of human tragedy. Those outside the field of criminology, for example, who are not practitioners, tend to trod on tenuous territory when they give their "expert opinion". So, if you're outside your sphere of credibility, then you ought to be cautious as to what you assert to be true and authentic.

Thus, within our field of criminological practitioners, we're quite sensitive to those outside our domain who choose to speculate on the nature of criminality. What is factual and what is bogus separates the distinction between fantasy and reality. On the side of reality, that's where we'd prefer to argue the relative interests of theoretical considerations. Those hypothetical inferences are to be tested against the practicality of proof. In addition, being technically proficient means we never stop learning our tradecraft. So, for the investigator there's a necessity to be technically and tactically proficient in the matters that pursue evidentiary criteria. As such, there are several key points about the issue of fabricating the ruse for focused fixations. These are:

  1. Psycho-dynamically, our carnality is at stake if things get too complicated. We might actually have to think and feel on a deeper level. In spite of evidence to the contrary, people prefer shortcuts. Quick and easy solutions to complex issues. Trouble-free "answers" that sound good. In other words, irrational beliefs are typically reinforced for the sake of instant self-gratification.

  2. Our sensual nature enjoys the seduction of simplicity. People often say, "keep it simple", "cut to the chase" and "what's the bottom-line?" Commercials, bumper stickers, news sound bites, campaign slogans, headlines and other means of infotainment are short snippets along these fuzzy lines. People quote recklessly the brevity of alleged deeper meanings from extraordinarily profound philosophical viewpoints. Anything intricate can be made undemanding.

  3. To satiate human needs for feeling and meaning in life, things must fit a preconceived template that somehow relates to moral dogma for meaningful existence. Enter the religiosity of any given denomination, sect, faction or cult. And, keep in mind, "smartness" doesn't equate with rationality at all times. Allegations of common sense does not ensure discernment or discretion.

  4. Deception is a very human aspect of interpersonal and intrapersonal behavior. We relish in juicy gossip, urban legends and creative story telling. We're always hopeful that whatever we imagine will certainly be true.

  5. Cognitive bias strives to safeguard the privatization of subjective validation. We want something to be right, so we will find the "evidence" to make that wish come true. Externality of focus evades and suppresses internal insight.

Chapter 7 - Gullibility in Willful Susceptibility:

In reference to the forgoing, suppose the five key points are actually gelled down to one central concept of willful gullibility. From that, we compress the notion of voluntary deceptions by accepting a couple of basic parameters. Some have argued a fundamental perspective of a four point scale in terms of why people believe in certain things. Typically, this means weird and strange beliefs. To condense this concept further, let's say we are really talking about self-gratification, simplicity and meaning. For the average person, who appreciates their passionate lack of caution, the ease of personal credulity is a very friendly face in the mirror. Unfortunately, when we look there, many of us like what we see. Susceptibility is obstinate in a pretext to bias.

Ever wonder why it is so easy to spread a rumor? Plant gossip or foment storytelling? For that matter, what about a series of "chain letter emails" alleging a certain issue to be "true and credible"? This is sometimes referred to as an "urban legend". To be fully aware of facetious fabrications or specious claims, one must investigate below the surface of any allegation or conjecture. However, in our egocentric defense against veracity, we allow our culture, a particular conforming worldview and a thinking pattern to seduce us. Personal propensity must fit a certain mode of acceptance. For the vast majority of us, we are skilled at rationalizing our own belief systems on a regular basis. Yet, when another viewpoint conflicts, many are not open to opposing perspectives.

In the primacy of thinking, where premeditated thought for purposeful intentions precludes authenticity, we are easily swayed toward the dimness of insightful revelation. To skew data in our favor, serves to confirm our bias and judgmental attitudes in spite of evidence to the contrary. All too often, even among seasoned investigators, personal issues cloud good judgment. If you're unwilling to expend the energies necessary to unveil the essential evidence, then you're willing to accept false notions about reality. Solvability factors in any investigation are crucial. Not nonsense, foolish conjecture or unsubstantiated assertions. Proof must be considered vital to any inquiry. So, no matter where the evidentiary trail goes, you must be willing to venture in that direction.

Gullibility in willful susceptibility, when it comes to self-gratification, simplicity and meaning, safeguards against the torture of having to think critically. People accept the surreal pleasantries of belief in disbelief. In terms of meaning as used here suggests that which is reinforcement for us individually. In other words, we have a belief system and we don't won't that jeopardized for any reason. As a result, we travel great distances along mental pathways to make certain our belief system remains in tact. Over time, we might even cling to irrational beliefs in order to feel safe on the inside. Sometimes, in our own particular domain or specialty we assert our brand of officiousness. Whereby, if not open to counterarguments or proofs to the contrary, one is likely to become fixated within a particular scheme of thinking. Being right becomes essential. Whether true or false, in a given scenario, our inclination is to allow ourselves to be open **(gullible)** to unconfirmed proclamations **(susceptibility)** and avoid being in the wrong.

People look for acceptability in the patterns of personal ideation. To see a particular blueprint or outline tends to be essential to one's outlook on his or her life. Through efforts directed toward subjective validation, we establish our personal basis for reliability in our thinking processes. Disbelief or challenges to belief creates problems for us. In response to which, we're not very comfortable with that sense of not knowing. Often, this means a person is likely to fill the blanks so that things make sense. Belief is a humanistic inclination that human beings share with each other. Believing in something gives rise to a sense of faith in things seemingly outside our immediate control. By contrast, serious investigative inquiry is not necessarily a more enticing task.

To insist upon verifiable evidence, for many people, seems to go against the grain of communal conformity. Collectivism is well-defended across the spectrum of societal interactions. Upon encounter with a skeptic, who might have a flare for cynicism, may provoke the believer to question his or her viewpoint internally. There are a number of people who place great weight upon anyone deemed an "authority". In trying to prove one's perspective this so called "expert" may be cited as a "credible" source. Now, the alleged "authority" might in fact be credible and prove a viable reference. None the less, whatever the assertion, there is the necessity of factual and authentic provability. At issue is the actuality in evidentiary artifacts that substantiate the veracity of the allegation. No one wants to have their position challenged if at all possible.

Along these lines, consider the framework of our penchant for being seduced by things we desire to be true. In lieu of the consideration for alternative explanations, viewpoints or evidence to the contrary, many of us are threatened by opposing arguments. It's the stuff on the outside of us that gives us problems. Internally, we've already decided what ought to be true. Within the vast dimensions of time and space, we conjure that which seems to fit our perspective. Regardless of whether it's mystical, romantic and other worldly, it makes sense to us. As in the trilogy of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal,** investigators must keep in mind the notion of the swindle, the con and the sleight of hand. Or, what we used to call "confidence games". Whereby, one or more persons perpetrate the willful deception of others for personal gain.

Many times, we speak of a "cause" of something that appears to present an effect. After which, somebody says they have "evidence". Once again, we come face to face with the **rational perspective that extraordinary conclusions demand exceptional proofs**. That means, more often than not, you produce the physical evidence. To go with some "proof" of a commission or omission, from television we might even toss in the typical fictional equation of motive, means and opportunity. That is to say, the "smoking gun" is right there because so and so claims he or she saw it, know it somehow or was told it by someone. Or, he or she asserts "eye witness testimony" as some credible source of alleged knowledge and authority. But, that in and of itself says really nothing about the provability of the particular phenomenon we're dealing with.

Where's the evidence for things falling into the scheme of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**? As such, the cause-effect equation is intricate that intersects with our need for believability. Causation is a complex set of factors that do not normally render easily to quantified solutions of a trouble-free nature. The etiology of a suspected unusual incident requires patient investigative inquiry. This is exceptionally true when confronting the various forms of human behavior. There are very divergent aspects to human intentions for any activity. Of which, there is no single definitive answer for every possibility. For a given set of circumstances, there could be a variety of multi-causal factors that suggest a number of interactive influences.

To say minimally for instance, that **Area-51** (Groom Lake, Nevada **,** what's the zip code there?) is a top secret base where secret experiments take place, the public can't know about it and strange flying objects appear in the sky, is one thing. While that may or may not be true, to add in the mix the notion that of a "government conspiracy" (read cover-up) is afoot (i.e. **Political** overtones) doesn't seriously explain anything. So what? Well, for some the "fact" that it's secret is contrary to the allegation that the public has a "right to know". For many, that just can't be, you think? If so, then that's "proof" the government is up to something and it must be exposed, right?

Fallacies of inference, argument from faulty reasoning based on erroneous notions, are often done on purpose. Failing to ensure the facts of the case serve our prurient needs for subsequent gullibility in willful susceptibility. Gullibility is lack of caution and is equated with a sense of personal credulity or naiveté. For a mature person, in a modern age, one does not need to be seen as immature in his or her thinking processes. Unfortunately, throughout society we do this kind of thinking every day. In order to ensure or own particular perspective, we will make certain we avoid strenuous intellectual exercises. As an investigator, if you want to find answers to the fundamental basis of your inquiry then you will ask serious probing questions. You won't waste your time with fluffy undemanding or fuzzy questioning methods. Nor, will you avoid testing your data through the applicability of forensic analyses and associated processes.

From there, as you gather all the known facts, study the issues presented and discern the evidence available, you should conduct a thoroughly methodical probe for authenticity of the allegations at hand. An investigator is an inquisitor. He or she tests everything alleged to be true and accepts nothing at face value. More frequently though, emotional reactivity clouds veracity. In the judicious decisions to be acted upon later, fallacies of inference connect to faulty conclusions. However, from an investigative standpoint, investigators cannot afford facetious arguments that lack critical thinking skills. Investigations require the application of deductive reasoning which becomes absolutely essential. On the contrary, in collusive collectivity with others, as in group cohesiveness, the opposite occurs. We tend to desire the less vital path toward finding the "truth". That suggests a social climate, as well as cultural context, in which conformity, dogmatic obedience and less than critical thinking are valued more highly.

For that issue, we'll digress on the subject of aliens for this section. Credulity factors fold into diverse obsessions with **Area-51** , **Aliens** in particular and **Alien Abductions** in general. It's worth the digression to expound further. From many reports, the wickedness of these invading extraterrestrials, which've traveled light years across the galaxy, include doing unspeakable things to humans. So, in this regard, suppose you are called to investigate a report of an **Alien Abduction** or perhaps just **Aliens** misbehaving. What do you infer? And, where to you start? What do you ask? People have claimed **Aliens** took sperm samples, fetuses, DNA and so forth. Not mentioned here of course, many other artifacts have allegedly been harvested from humans. To what end, you might ask? Who knows? Any way, as an investigator let's say you start from the logical position of evidence. Where's the proof? That's because if you apply logic, rationality and reason, then the result renders the probability of something else having occurred. Say for instance like a bad dream, exhaustion, traumatic real-life experience, stress, etc.

In actuality, as in all forms of belief, religion, philosophy and other forms of ideology, every modern aspect of human creed, values and lifestyle is based on opinion. Beliefs systems are constructed around someone's point of view. Whether or not such a view of reality is valid remains to be proved. It is, to paraphrase as ancient writers have said, that which comes out of us is what really counts, as opposed to that which goes in from the outside. We filter what we need and claim what we want. For that purpose deep within our willful intentions, myriad cults, conspiracies and criminal enterprises evolve. Included here, are the illusions and deceptions fostered around **Area-51, Aliens** and **Alien Abductions**. What's really scary is that the human mind is so complex that we can project a fantasy into reality and make it seem so real. Once we convince ourselves, then we'll work to convince everyone else. As mentioned earlier, there are a couple key elements essential to the collusions and the ruses we project. Again, in brief summation, subjective validation for cognitive bias needs:

  * Immediate satiation in self-gratification is essential to feeling good

  * Keep it so simple that a trouble-free "reason" will suffice in lieu of evidence

  * Avoid critical analysis and logical deduction in application to the problem

  * Feeling and meaning are more important than evidence to the contrary

  * Hopefulness in constant anticipation belief systems are never challenged

To this end, explanation of cause and effect must have simplicity, in order to be palatable. Why apply common sense? Things just can't be that complicated or multi-dimensional, right? There must always be an answer, you think? Around us, the world must fit a template, formula or equation. A scale or gradient has to be in place so we can measure that which we expect. Especially, if anything has to do with human behavior and human thinking processes, we must have conclusions where none may exist. So, as a result, we fill in the blanks if there are gaps in the sensory experience.

In our obsession for the perception of our "lack of earthly" competence, and dislike for our human dysfunctions, people seek an externalist's view for alternatives. Basically, we must not like ourselves very much for all the psycho-babble conspiratorial nonsense we make up. If not for gods and goddesses, then the devil made you do it, and so forth. Thus, we arrive at the psycho-sexual obsessions most have with the schemes of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal.** These three areas account for the vast range of communal eccentricities that multitudes readily accept as the truth.

As in the field of criminology for instance, determinists look for something outside of you that made you commit the crime (e.g. poverty, socio-economic adversity, bad parents, peers, abuse, impulsivity, etc). The list is nearly endless. In prurient enthrallment, people crave sensate fixation upon their myriad shortcomings. Thus, we can't be the architects of all the things that have happened on the planet. Instead, there must be an extraterrestrial explanation. To counteract our salacious affinity for the rejection we put upon our very existence, options outside of us must exist.

If they don't, then we will create them and fabricate the ruse of our extraordinary deception. For instance, apparently, according to many, we couldn't have evolved out of primordial energetic essence. As an alternative, we had to have some divine power perform majestic metaphysical creativity from a cosmic source.

In addition, some would assert that super beings (aliens) came here from distant galaxies, in order to replicate breeding stock or whatever. Perhaps, willfully in our shame about our bodies, beliefs and brains, we allow our seductions to assume some higher powers manages the cosmos for us. As such, these mysterious forces must somehow be much more competent than we. In human story telling, unexplained phenomenon has typically taken on many divergent models, reflective of our inner neural processes.

From legends and lore of old, in one manifestation or another, whether gods, demons or time travelers, people have sought deterministic external explanations for their perceptions of unexplainable experiences. More recently though, as with other imaginary events throughout the ages, an anthropomorphic rationale is provided. We input human characteristics on the things we think should satiate the need for higher powers. Sometimes, on a more human level, it's a cult, terrorist cell and even an organized crime group. But, from afar, in a planetary framework, many would have us believe ancient astronauts descended from the heavens to share great knowledge and superior capabilities. From one time period to another, a number of believers will proselytize the ongoing earthly interference by allegedly "higher life forms".

All of this relates quite importantly to everyone's sense of gullibility in willful susceptibility. Our basis for any belief is opinion. Yours, theirs and the collective exchange among others, and finally the historical transmission of that believability. What makes it potent is the alleged divinity we ascribed to it. It's not what comes from the outside that is innovative. Rather instead, it is very much that which comes from the inside of our thinking that is far more significant. Regardless whether you infer aliens, terrorists, satanic cults or organized crime operations, the devil and hobgoblins, you still have various enterprises of human origin. There doesn't exist sufficient credible forensic evidence to prove veracity in any given case one may cite.

Regarding the **Planetary** manifestations of gullibility in purposeful subjective validation, evidentiary artifacts are typically insufficient. What you end up with is that there may or may not be criminal activity in the works. As such, you conduct a thorough investigative analysis and attempt to arrive at a logical conclusion. Where there is a question of legality, you might be investigating organized crime activity, terroristic well-planned illusions to faulty cause and effect assumptions. Or, there may be a scam, a fraud or some other effort in progress in order to con the public. Whereas, in an investigative posture, we are dealing with psycho-sexual dynamics of human thinking processes. Human imagination is a potent story telling projection system. As to this, there is ample reason to believe that, by way of very strong belief systems, a self-made reality becomes a very real physical realm. In other words, if we want something to be true seriously enough we can create the objective for which that belief is a certainty.

As to the present case in point, the UFO realm of mysterious events is fascinating. For the investigator caught up in any controversy like this, the mission is to uncover the facts of the case in question. If you're a police officer, then you ought to know better. You should exercise a well-informed sense of skeptical inquiry. The fact that you see something is exactly that, you saw something. So, what was it? And, if the investigator happens to witness such an event, detailed notations are essential. Not guess work, but just the facts as you can relate the manner and scope of observation.

For instance, if you on an occasion see "strange lights in the sky", or some "football field sized aerial object" floating overhead, make careful investigative observations. The fact that you saw an aerial occurrence doesn't mean you also saw life forms within the illuminated configuration. Where possible, gather the evidentiary artifacts, apply forensic analysis, use your power of logical deduction, think critically and otherwise prove the allegations at hand in conjunction with lawful parameters.

Information, identification and interrogation come to bear on the issue. In this regard, there are perhaps approximately ten key points to ponder. Here are some primary assertions from one investigative controversy analyzing the UFO phenomenon:

  1. alleged physical evidence has been sketchy as to be non-existent, much has been fabricated, conjured up, smoke screened or contrived;

  2. the weight of scientific validity, as to credibility in a court of law, to meet the test of scientific validation, fails to satisfy the legal parameters necessary for authenticity in provability;

  3. assertions for alien inspired construction of ancient monuments falters in any effort to substantiate credence in actual physical indicators;

  4. many would proclaim the inability or incompetence of the human species to have the intellectual capacity for historical innovations; you really have to think about that in a very reflective sense;

  5. contributions to human evolutionary processes for historical creativity are often denied in favor of supernatural phenomenon; this is insulting to critical thinking investigative personnel;

  6. contentions about sightings, so called "trace evidence", physical contact (purporting telepathic communication; which ought to be a clue to one's psychological state of being), and actual experimentation (alien kidnapping, which should be a crime involving local, state and federal law enforcement) have never proved any degree of authenticity;

  7. some investigators, seeking factual points of reference, rely on the power of innovative thinking by those who believe they've had some kind of UFO related experience; in others very vivid imaginations;

  8. on a subconscious level, imaginative ideation by which people create extraordinary mental experiences become contrived within a psychic framework and eventually become a reality;

  9. under hypnosis, those claiming an "abduction experience" have "learned' about their "kidnapping" by way of an application of someone's hypnotic processes; at this juncture, one would have to wonder about the concept and practice of hypnosis as it applies to particular individuals;

  10. for the investigator, some have considered the probability that some people are uniquely suggestible and receptive to another's power of suggestion; there's a high prospect that UFO experiences stem from the potency of individual creative thinking; current scientific investigations do not currently support the validity of alien kidnappings;

For a moment now, have you ever wondered who has jurisdiction? That's typically relevant in any given investigative process. In addition to jurisdiction, what about thorough documentation? Suppose you're working the night watch. Could be in the corporate security environment, in a public service agency, or some other protective service delivery setting. What are the investigative protocols should you receive a complaint of a kidnapping? Only in this case, the "victim" tells you he or she was abducted during their sleep from their bedroom inside their home. And, on top of that, the kidnappers were aliens. Now what? Your complainant is without a doubt sincere, rational and very descriptive of the experience. Abductees have generally been lucid, stressed and capable of reciting some detail. The answer is yes. Of course you take a report and you document the incident to the extent necessary to the particular investigation.

Meanwhile, as to your skeptical fortitude for getting at the truth, you remain detached from the process whereby others might over-react and commit an act of "fight or flight". Fight in this case might mean you try to discourage the person from believing what they want to believe in the first place. This is not your task. Besides, you don't know one way or the other, do you? No, as a keen researcher of human nature, you instead apply the power of logical deduction, investigative analysis and search for alternative possible answers. Has a crime occurred and was the victim injured in any manner? Could a scam be underway whereby a criminal conspiracy is at play? Some will scoff and others with try to get away from the situation as fast as possible. But, in your case, as a savvy investigator you're rally interested in the study of human behavior.

Aliens, UFO's and related **Planetary** , **Political** and **Paranormal** activities stem from a history of social transitions. From the cold war era, to post modern times, inventive urban legends invite lurid communal seductions. We humans have an exceptional penchant for myth, magic and metaphor. At the same, many of us relish the option for clever deceptions. Movies, news reporting sensationalism and inventive "eye witness" story telling have fostered an extraordinary illusive form of societal genre. Around this varied extraterrestrial prospect, cultic beliefs are colorfully creative. A number of people accept the notion that bipedal entities, more intelligent than us, came here and taught us the facts of life. The extent of this gullible susceptibility recognizes few conventional limitations. So, go ahead say it, the sky's the limit.

Part of the cultic obsession often points to a place called Roswell, New Mexico. For adherents at this juncture of time and space, the government allegedly recovered alien artifacts and has been engaged in a massive cover-up ever since that time. This began in 1947 and continues to the present. Because so many of us want to believe in gods, goddesses and demonic influences, we lurk in the ally ways of wishful fabrications. Do you find it interesting that aliens sometimes look like demonic life forms? Or, better yet, why do they have a macabre resemblance to us? You know, walk upright, breath air, and have bipedal body forms. Most often, if you look further into this amazing saga you'll find that much is based on fallacies of inference resulting in faulty generalizations. Plus, you witness spurious notions fomenting speculative conjecture, supported by fantasy thinking and manipulative scams, which are at the core of the UFO cult.
Chapter 8: Haunted Habits from Hidden Ideations:

In association with fantasies that become reality, all of us have covert thoughts that we will never reveal to others. Such reflects our concealed intentions for the exhibition of personal drives for private satiation. Hidden ideations are very simply the myriad layers of human thought that result in conscious thinking processes. Veiled, buried and sometime unknown, these cerebral sensations have the potential for either good or evil, war or peace, truth or fiction. Although intricate and complex, the inner workings of the human mind are not that simple to understand. Yet, the haunting habits of it all relate to the simplicity we try to associate with such innate neural transmissions. Our minds, configured by two hemispheres of brain interaction, lean to many possibilities.

In our haunted habits, resurrected from psychosexual schemes generated within, every kind of belief system is possible, even in a post-modern society. Amulets, a rabbit's foot, and whatever else you can conjure, collide with forensic analysis. Western mentality marvels over advances in technology, while indulging in speculations about the paranormal or extraterrestrial origins. From there, at the juncture of time and space, it is the responsibility of the investigator to make logical sense of it all. Where's the evidence you should ask? We are forewarned about the weird things people are likely to say, do and believe because that's what they want. More often than not, a scientifically oriented person in one field crosses over into another. This is frequently the case in the culture of an industrialized setting. While technology abounds, believability confounds.

Without warning, he or she may easily move toward accepting an "urban legend" absent any credible investigative inquiry. This is an everyday occurrence. Belief without finding the facts occurs just because someone else said so. Seeing or hearing is believing, regardless of whether or not one proves an issue beyond doubt. Or, as in the earlier context, the believability of a "UFO" sighting may be proclaimed. Now, some of us must admit that if you saw something that you'd never seen before, can't explain its origin and is outside your specific domain, thinking gets fuzzy. A specific reference point is not present. For instance, whatever you saw definitely wasn't a commercial airliner. At that point, you could conclude you have seen something that doesn't fit the usual framework. Basically, a "UFO" is exactly that, an "unidentified flying object".

As an inquisitor, you would understand that the "eye-witness" no doubt saw what he or she thought they saw, attached personal perception, and at the same time, connected personal feeling and meaning to the event. Doesn't mean the incident proved anything one way or the other as to anything of the paranormal. An investigator can accept that notion as an initial foundation building starting point.

However, proof is in the evidentiary factors that require scientific validation. Basically, we're looking for physical evidence. If an aerial phenomenon doesn't meet your criteria for this physical realm, then it doesn't signify it's from another planet. It just indicates your witness saw something that doesn't fit the familiar. Or, has extra-terrestrial origins. In all probability, the only planet for the object's origin is ours. At this juncture, from purely from an inquiry standpoint, what are some commonalities?

  * Eye-witness accounts are skewed by individuality, based on personality, thinking processes, and internal desires for personal self-gratification, conditioning history, learning experiences and wishful ideations for personal acquisition. Okay, this is the holistic complexity of human nature and neural processes.

  * Keep in mind cause and effect are related to willful seductions toward that which we allow to seduce us. Mysteries come from within the person. Fantasy sometimes finds its way out of the human psyche into the real world. More often than not, there's usually a naturalistic explanation for an event.

  * While complainants appear rational, lucid and seemingly logical, alleged Alien encounters and associated abductions relate to deeper held psycho-dynamic complexities likely invented by creative thinking.

  * Most likely, and according to many researchers, the affinity people have for UFO's and cultic behaviors connected thereto, relate to the history of the Cold War. All of sudden, post World War II, aliens form outer space appeared.

  * When you're looking skyward, and you're fretful about the future (i.e. World War III, atomic war, spies, terrorism, etc), you just might see things you've imagined in atmospheric configurations. In fact, people are seekers of patterns and concrete explanations about their environment. So much so, that we tend to fill in the blanks in simplistic ways when we can't find an explanation.

  * Given the weighty responsibility of a credible investigator, one must keep in mind the widespread belief in such cultic activities. These beliefs may serve as the basis for detrimental social activities. In other words, criminal conspiracies.

  * For the investigator, a key ingredient is the determination as to the criminal nature of the cultic activity taking place. So, you must ask, what laws, if any, are being violated? As a criminal conspiracy, two or more conspirators agree to perpetrate or bring about an effect that leads to the commission of an unlawful act. This could suggest that an unlawful act is or has occurred at some point in time, or an unlawful means has been committed for lawful gain.

In a criminal conspiracy, you find what might be characterized as haunted habits from hidden ideations. From this, it is suggested that one is haunted in the sense of being preoccupied with a particular need. As in being notorious, famous, noticed or not at all, depending on the individual's psycho-sexual dynamics. Likewise, there is the habitual persistence in proving oneself right, as well as the group, along the framework of subjective validation. Beliefs can be dangerous. Cognitive bias substantiates the necessity of bringing forth the hidden revelations from self-centered ideations.

Thinking, if obsessed long enough on a particular fixation, could be willfully manifested into a desired objective for attainment and release in self-gratification. All that to say that people fabricate their own carnal ideas and carry them out if the opportunity arises. Within the psychic scheme of individual secrecy, people plot and connive to bring about their concealed motivations. In this regard, a person or persons might endeavor to foster the scam of the **Planetary** , the **Paranormal** and the **Political** for their own private gain, or that of the group.

Imagine all the sales, promotions and personal gain that have been harnessed from books, movies, television, cable news networks, and conventions and so on. A lot of history has come and gone since the year 1947 in Roswell, New Mexico. How much, you wonder, has been contrived as clever schemes to defraud the well-meaning believer? Well, the imaginary smokes screen has been pretty successful.

Cultic behaviors are not something new. Neither is fraudulent activity that goes with them. Whether you're talking the **Planetary** fixation, or some perversity of faith, as in extreme religious fundamentalism, humans fostered one fringe element after another. None the less, we remain very good at re-inventing historical perceptions. Or, for that matter, many enjoy the flirtation with outright revisions of historical points of reference. As with previous offbeat, seemingly non-mainstream inclinations in varied groupings, a variety of diversity replicates in modern society. A few investigators would concur that "conspiracy" thinking with subsequent action, as well as successive "proof" they purport to exist, is as prevalent as ever before. While we cannot ignore credible evidence as to a criminal conspiracy in the making, society is presented with innumerable allegations that fail in sufficiency for proof by evidentiary criteria.

Investigators no doubt are confronted by one point of speculation upon another. Naturally, it's one thing to have a theory and another to actually prove it. However, this is not breaking news. Somehow and somewhere someone is going to assume this is a current more recent obsession. As a result we will re-invent over and over our mythologies from one age to the next. The manner by which a number of factions assert some kind of spiritualistic transformation linger from past to present. Here, with schemes of the paranormal or supernatural, like human ideation, the cosmos is the limit. These can be admonitions about "end times" or "global jihad", or even one religion at war with others to replace another religion as that one is the only religion.

Cultism, from the similar noun, cult, if you take a step back and seriously focus on social interactions, human story telling through time, and collusive collectivism, presents historic commonalities. In a word, the term can represent a sect, denomination, political party, faction or related organizational affiliation. Frequently, cult, cultic and cultism reflect our obsession with the supernatural. As in religion for instance, an aspect of philosophical belief systems, spirituality is formulated around opinions that become dogmatic over time and place. These speculative ideations are transient until such time they become localized into a communal interactivity of social acceptance. Early on, they are seen as misguided, unorthodox and extremist in nature and sometimes deadly.

And, as any investigator might normally conclude, cults, conspiracies and conspiratorial schemes have been around for quite some time. There's nothing new here, just the re-invention of ancient ideas in a modern context. Different images conjured up to promote the myth, magic and metaphor of a diverse time in history. What is or is not alleged about a "cult" is subject to anything else we might invoke in terms of individualistic and group thinking. It is based on opinion. What would be really interesting and effective in any discussion, should be a point where personal bias and exaggerated opinion do not detract from facts in evidence.

Wow, wouldn't that be great? Do you ever get weary of the misdirected subjectivism? As in the emotional arguments that offer no solution, but only complain? Believers of one sort or another tend to provoke their psycho-sexual drama, perhaps prurient manifestation, relative to an assumption reflective of things metaphysical. In other words, people are quick to proclaim substance where there is no essence to their assertion. In fact, one could argue that all philosophical viewpoints are metaphysical in nature. To that end, much is offered upon speculation, absent credible provability.

That is to say, such notions are relegated to a thought processing realm, whereby personal opinion, reinforced by wishful thinking, evolves in regard to a personal belief. From there, a person assumes faith in their cognitive bias, in order to explain phenomena they don't fully understand or possess verifiability for. More often than not, this is based on speculation by way of generalized assumptions. In doing so, conspiracies of the **Planetary** , the **Paranormal** and the **Political** become the basis for alleged proofs.

For the investigative mindset, a generalized assumption should be analyzed within the contextual framework of its psychological fabric. Along side this, one must demonstrate the efficacy of what constitutes the truth within a physical realm. For any matter, people can present an imperative in relation to "proof" based on ideology, which is opinion generated from metaphysical arguments. This may or may not seem plausible. Frequently, and to some degree frighteningly, subjective validation suborns faulty generalizations not sufficiently validated by careful observation, analysis and logical deduction. For self-serving reasons, people project their need for a conspiracy from a privatized world view. When done, this can be the basis for claiming cultic conspiracies on the basis of, once again, the **Planetary** , the **Paranormal** and the **Political**.

As to the notion of the **Planetary** , in reference to alien invasion, breeding or ancient construction projects, many will advocate the need to inculcate such anomalies into their belief system. For that, they may even assert religious connotations, psycho-dramatic influences of a mystical nature, end-time scenarios and so on. With regard to those objects observed in the heavens, mind-set helps set the stage for wishful projections of ideology. But, what do we really see up there? Most of us do not have a clear or well-defined knowledge base of atmospheric conditions or the sky above. Thus, we are able, if we really want to see something different, to actually see something different. Very often people fail to realize just how imaginatively creative human beings are. While most see but fail to observe, anything is possible if sensory notations go unchallenged.

Why? Because we want to feel, key word is to feel, that something larger than us is up there in the cosmos. To observe a "UFO" of sorts is to fantasize about the wide spectrum of life's evolutionary forces. A lot of us feel better knowing there's an existence beyond this one. People wonder that there must be some bipedal species, like us, with special knowledge about the cosmic somewhere out there. And, for some reason, they want to befriend planet earth. Up in the sky, we claim we witness an incredible sight over some earth bound formation. Well, aside from the fact that the universe is pretty incredible, was it an entity from another world? Who the heck knows? So, in reality, you might have seen strange cloud formations, a satellite or perhaps a meteor.

What's the relevance of this point? Skepticism, a profound inclination toward disbelief, should be the same answer each time. Evidence of any kind should be subjected to the most intense forensic analysis possible. This means the application of critical thinking skills. A practiced empirical basis for skeptical queries at every possible opportunity must be applied. How do you know for certain and what do you mean by your certainty? Proof insists on incredulous observation, experimentation and instrumentation. For example, in some instances, investigators have claimed UFO sightings near volcanic formations. Later, further investigative analysis suggested more naturalistic explanations such as large bird species in flight. Sensory observations can be fooled by our thinking patterns. Caution is warranted at each step of the investigative process in order to ensure that logic is well-applied to the given situation. Before reaching any tentative conclusion, an investigator must rule out all other possibilities.

Haunted habits from hidden ideations suggests the strong inclination to see things from one particular spectral array of intended self-interest. Things keep coming up, so you invent ways to cope with the persistent thoughts you keep having. For the guru, spiritual guide, leader of a sect, or inquisitive conjurer of paranormal expertise, one projects a particular feeling of insight. Further down the road of personal experience, or lack thereof, you decide to put your ideas to work. He or she believes that an answer has been found to some individualistic perplexing question about life's mysteries. Thus, an alleged belief system moves into the spectrum of communal interaction. Along this continuum of interactivity follower tend to move toward cultic activities they desire.

With the **Planetary** types of alleged experiences, thinking can be so pervasive over a long period of time, (i.e. since about 1947) given constant dramatic portrayal, that many eventually accept such notions without question. It is most probable that cross-cultural encounters, based on shared experiences prone to graphic depictions, have more in connection with edutainment than actual extraterrestrial origins. People can share a sense of common traits that in reality reflect the myriad interaction of social media, urban legend and folk lore, we come to accept them as real.

Take for instance supposed "alien abductions" again. An examination by small grey humanoid-like creatures from outer space, under the watchful eye of a taller one, more likely is the product of very creative imaginations. From available investigative sources, there appears ample support that a commonality of so called alien encounters suggests instead the dream-scape of extensive representation from movies, television, books, magazines, and so forth. Of course, many will proclaim that if so many people have such shared familiarity in "close encounters", then that alone offers "proof", right? No not really. Naturally, for those who know better, and especially those who ought to know better, such an assertion is just the opposite. It is not proof at all.

Another element in the investigative equation is the power of suggestion to foster a collective acceptance of far reaching ideologies. In the early history of cultic activities, a number of sources offered the possible promise of hypnosis as an investigative tool. Unfortunately, questions arise as to whether or not such a tool is actually part of the problem. That is, using this form of "mind" exploration might be more likely to create what some investigators consider the creation of false memories.

As an altered state of thinking unfolds willfully, during a hypnotic session, one is very likely to be susceptible to the hypnotist's suggestive interactions. Ideas, images and illustrations foster the necessity of acquiesce toward the powers of suggestion. Add to that the notion that many people want to be helpful and ensure they cooperate fully during the session. Of this nature, one feels good. This is due to the character of the brain being extraordinarily open to cues from the setting, the people present, the hypnotist running the "session" and other social and environment processes. What is unreal and created by the neural networks becomes real later on.

Within the vast realm of the "cubic mind" so to speak, there resides an endless depth of psychosexual dynamics that defies easy understanding. In a very general sense, maturation of the personality, and hence the rest of the human entity, is extraordinary essential to its evolutionary survival in the individual life cycle. Where need finds reason to unfold in discovering a targeted objective, perception colors and fills in the spaces where reality blurs with fantasy. Well, at least that's the conjecture suggested here.

Need to believe finds belief and the perception of that belief system objectifies images of one nature or another. Maturity of the individual contends for the successful integration of knowledge, understanding and wisdom in the mental growth processes on a personal basis. Where adolescence clings to an infantile world view, not very differentiated or grown-up, then mystical notions can find irrational explanations. Listening to the echo of one's thoughts, inside his or her head, discerns the sound of each attendant meaning therein. To do that, skepticism is critical.

Objectification of the ideation invites the necessity to bring into existence the means to an end. Regardless of what that entails, this includes the entire gamut of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. That perceived end is the production of subsequent mechanisms by which gratification can be achieved. From this, a plan of action evolves from personal intrapsychic premeditation, with rational forethought and willful intention. Yes, the premeditation might be buried deep in the subconscious and only revealed by the dream state. But, the pre-planning was there. Here, rational means rational to the individual. You may witness the aftermath of the plan of action implemented. Results may be horrendous. And, you may even say that was "crazy", "sick", "demented", or "foolish". None the less, to the individual creator that was not the case.

For contemporary American society critical thinking has been conveniently tossed aside. Relegated to an inferior status, feelings and emotions become more the communal necessity of social acceptance. When most of us don't get the answers we want, we strike back in abusive ways non-factual ways. If others disagree with our perspective, its common practice to attack them personally, reduce the arguments to the irrelevant and overlook the facts of the case. Reductionistic inclinations often miss the real nature of the whole picture by which one is viewing the attendant situation.

Holistic constructs that scan all the parts of an interrelated case study observe the entirety of the interactive equation. Yet, to the contrary, spewing the bilge of multiple fallacies of conjecture, post-pubescent attempts at feeble intellectualism cling to the superficial dissections of separated tidbits. Bits and pieces of conjecture fail to account for the complexity of the whole and how the whole came together. Absent from this is a cold, serious and objective pursuit of validated principles, grounded in factuality, that lead to practical applications. One must carefully scrutinize any assertion.

Usually social discourse devolves to guttural utterances of simplistic emotionally arrogant appeals to biased perceptions. Inadequate analogies often cloud the controversy by illusive language comparing things that are not the same in quality or quantity. And, when ever we witness an extraordinary event we tend to make it more colorful to fit our individual needs. People add and exaggerate where they think necessary.

Whether cultic, gangster, terroristic or other organized criminal collusion, the bottom-line is prurient self-interests for the sake of libidinous intentions. Looks, or the superficial materiality of the instant, count more than the learned analysis of the entire attendant circumstances. Since the current advent of inventive 20th century cultic story telling in 1947, at Roswell, New Mexico, followers of mythic traditions have glamorized narcissistic tendencies by their grandiose claims of other world special knowledge.

Of their resentful encounters with skilled skeptical criticism, cultic celebrants react negatively and often fall prey to their own misguided victimization. Unmasking fraud after fraud, or scam upon scam, and crime upon crime, does not dissuade, discourage or otherwise dispel dedicated beliefs. The acceptability of one sensational fairy tale after another shares universality from culture to culture.

Forsaking evidentiary artifacts, in favor of willful sanctification in well-purposed deceptions, whether obvious or hidden, serves baser needs and desires for personal proclivities. While one is purposefully self-centered, others would argue an externality of cause and effect relationships. That's because we often don't want to see the reality of our own collusion in the more corrupt villainy of our sordid natures. For those of us from a different investigative posture, individual personality, and by inclusion personal belief systems, form very early in life. From those experiences onward, fantasy plays a significant role in the formation of ideology and subsequent thinking processes. Over a lifetime, we are constructing a personal legend of needs, desires and inclinations. Thinking involves conflict internally for years to come. Voices that say controversial things inside your neural networks and demand answers to difficult questions.

Anti-social behaviors evolve from the internal confrontation with one's thoughts unless reconciled. For the sake of which, each of us fabricates where ever necessary to ensure our needs are met. Thus, if you want to believe in UFO's for whatever wish fulfillment required, then you'll likely acquiesce to associated cultic folklore. To this end, you're probably going to accept notions about a higher power running the galaxy, as well as your life. When that happens, and collectivism grips conformist adherence, a group or social mindset is difficult to alter. In a sense, on a salacious level, one does not have to be responsible for his or her actions if there are external excuses. To fantasize for instance that ancient astronauts came to earth to breed humans says more about the individual than the reality of such an event. One's libidinous dysfunctions are betrayed rather than the realty of interstellar incubation to create a race of earthlings.

This goes along with social acceptance of collectivist oriented communion in a consensus of conventional speculation. Cultic cosmologies, gangster and terroristic complicities frequently rely on the gullibility of outsiders. Whatever reason groups rationalize is accepted without question. But, if you listen closely, then you will hear the ruse of the deception. As such, the admonition is, where there is no proof, all one has to do is fill in the gaps in psychobabble. Plus, on the outside, from the contemporary perspective of deterministic thinking, there's a communal sense of predetermined factors that influence the so called motive, means and opportunity. That indicates there's always a simple explanation or a trouble-free formula that explains everything.
Chapter 9 - Investigative Analytics in Inventive Inquiries:

If you're going to play the role of an investigator, then you have to be creative intellectually. Your objective is to collect all the facts by searching for the truth of an issue in question. So called opinion evidence, or an appeal based on alleged authority are not exceptionally sufficient and exclusionary beyond all probabilities. In fact, someone else's viewpoint is exactly that. A viewpoint which is likely tainted by personal bias. Even so called "expert" opinions are subject to challenge in a court of law. At least two sides get to argue their point of view about the "evidence". What may appear as "scientific" may in fact be based on "pseudoscientific" assertions.

For the most part, people relish in the simplistic in order to explain the complex. Why? Because it's easier that insisting upon scientific applications. If you hear something often enough, then you begin to accept it. Unless you dig deeper and ask serious introspective questions. You hear it said over and over in any kind of drama, news reporting or public discourse, where there is the portrayal of an investigative process. On a smaller scale, the uncomplicated formula spins a tale such as, if the suspect has motive, means and opportunity, then it follows he or she did it.

On a much larger scale, an allegation of an alien space craft crash landing in Roswell, New Mexico, followed by a government conspiracy, follows the same rubric. Unfortunately, we've allowed multiple generations to accept at face value the superficial and surreal as the factual and the real. Naturally, such things go along with an unhealthy preponderance of acceptability for a sense of social tolerance for everything. Not to forget of course, absent clear and convincing evidence, these conjectures prove nothing. Without the proof, how can you assert an extraordinary claim?

This includes the gamut of fuzzy and faulty reasoning from the standpoint of fallacies of inference that devolve to hasty generalizations. When, in point of fact, we should be questioning every assertion as to the viability of its suggestion against the evidence at hand. Motive, means and opportunity for any assertion only skim the surface of an initial inquiry. For which, there should be a profound introspection devoted to exceptional critical analysis. An investigator has to consider that any claim regarding the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal,** more than likely includes a scam.

However, to the contrary of deterministic proselytizing, a formalized set of primary forces within the individual is extraordinarily moved by self-willed creativity. Free will in the totality of the human being is at work through a rational thinking system. In other words, a person chooses freely to commit a fraud (i.e. a crime) or collude in same to believe in this or that in order to satiate the primary forces with their ideation. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's the believability that's important. Hence, the design to ensure deception and avoid common sense on purpose connects to an adherence toward schemes depicted in the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**.

These three categories are of course suggested as broad groupings. Within them, a number of types could be sorted for further consideration. Care should be exercised however, in the manner by which we label various human behaviors or belief systems. It is all too tempting to over-generalize and assume hasty generalizations regarding any attempt to fully understand why people say or do certain things. The magical notions of the brain remain extraordinarily mysterious and elusive. Thinking is multidimensional and reflects a complexity not easily discerned by the most skilled investigator. In relation to such groupings of belief systems, which link typologies to believability, further inquiry is always warranted to the exclusion of all possibilities. An investigator must ensure he or she identifies those artifacts capable of supporting proof. Attaching nebulous descriptors that are rarely well-defined by those who use them, does not aid the investigative process. Instead, the issues get murkier within the context of the surrounding debate.

This is especially true when trying to comprehend premeditated intentions from the bottomless pit of human thinking. To perpetrate social advantage by one person over another, anything is possible. This applies particularly to criminal behavior as well. For instance, in the aftermath of some illicit event, we are quick to "name" the perpetrator's actions. All too frequently, we characterize people as being "sick", "spooky", "whacky", "scary", "lunatic", or "crazy". Yet, these are not clinical terms and misguide not only the true intention of our rhetoric, but also the degree by which we accept hasty generalizations. Likewise, to say someone is "anti-social", "schizophrenic" or "narcissistic" relate to therapeutic diagnoses.

At best for the lay person, outside the clinical setting, these are misunderstood, overused and ill-defined verbiage applied by the general public. But, due to wide-spread repetitive insistence for subjective validation in simplistic understanding, we toss around such words in a cavalier manner. Our self-centeredness (narcissistic as some would say) desires immediate gratification. Post modern quick fixes, instant pleasure and self-serving neediness, have evolved from successive cycles of constant reinforcement for trouble-free assumptions about cause and effect reality. An inquiry relies upon analysis from being as objective as humanly possible. This is not always easy.

However, from the past two generations to the present, it's no wonder that people avoid the primacy of critical thinking to ensure intellectual elevation. Academically speaking, insistence upon developing wisdom and understanding hasn't evolved as a hallmark of social intercourse. The profound practice of serious critical analysis has given way to an assembly line of feel good diversions. So it's become all too easy to attach a label and move on. Upon asserting the need to ensure cognitive bias in being right, regardless of the certainty involved, one encounters a never ending confrontation with gullibility for accepting a lack of provability. For a large number of persons today that means an expectation of entitlement and on the spot gratification.

As a result, why think? Thinking is laborious when you must dig deeper into the neural strata of layers built up over time. Or, for younger non-thinkers, there may be little or no depth at all. Just feel good about how you feel and that should be the end of any debate, right? Making soundly professional inquires doesn't work that way. Logical methodology is important. Evidence is critical to the process, as well as an intuitive ability to think creatively. Acquiescence to stupid points of conjecture are not relevant to an inquiry. This means fallacies of inference on your part, which ought to be controlled to the best of your abilities. That's because as a practitioner you should know better. On the other hand, if illogical assertions are displayed on the part of the opposing characters involved, then you must be quickly perceptive and inventive. Unfortunately, all too often, when a so called "expert" makes a claim, many fail to accept the challenge of skeptical analysis. From that, few conduct their own research. Feeling trumps meaning and nothing to the contrary will convince you of the fallacies you might be inferring.

Across the broad spectrum of American social interactivity, serious intellectual engagement, reinforced by logically rational processes, appears woefully absent. Nearly anything involving the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal,** can pass as supposed "evidence" or "factual". The myriad scams communal collectivism is only constrained by the psychic forces of the imagination.

Naturally, these can be extraordinary. As a result, fallacies of inference have become the mainstay of mainstream communication in anything remotely connected to pop culture. In particular, biased points of view are manipulated to support the sleight of hand tactics employed in cults, gangs, terrorism and other criminal enterprises. Regardless of the cover stories, the press releases, or the rationalizations to justify what they do, there's always a hidden agenda in terms of the real story.

Certain types of group "leaders" are well adept at skillful exploitation of the alleged facts or no facts at all. It's a matter of clever prestidigitation or the skill of using careful means of psycho-trickery. This happens in spheres of potential influence where you might think the opposite might prevail. For instance, such is very similar in news reporting, political commentary, pulpit piety and academia.

Many simply rely on inventive rhetoric to build up the particular perspective. From that, deception can manifest misinterpretation. Myth, magic and metaphor go hand in hand. Groups, factions and sects are fully cognizant of their techniques they utilize to do this. Magicians in the entertainment business do the same thing. All too frequently magical techniques are used to deflect our attention away from true meaning of what is being presented. Our sensory systems are highly susceptible to deception.

Generally speaking, in the theoretical construct of "neural adaptation" for example, when exposed to a continued stimulating process of various kinds, for a period over time, we tend to lose our focus or intense inspection on that thing. As such, this becomes a challenge for concentration on the primary issue before us. We get distracted by other intervening aspects of sensory stimulation. Briefly, we miss the slight of hand tactics because we've accepted the distraction. Neural mechanisms adapt over time and our concentration moves on to something else. Magicians know this and so do con artists. Of which, criminals find myriad possibilities to exploit opportunities for personal gain. These seductions come in all sizes, shapes and schemes.

Perpetrators of questionable cultic activities, conspiratorial illusions and other criminal enterprises use all manner of venue, public and private, to promote their myriad belief systems. From the town square to meeting halls, places of worship, government forums, media outlets, blogs, social networks, college classrooms and so on. False prophets, feel good gurus, self-help specialists, imposters and pretenders of all kinds wander the social spectrum looking for "converts", "followers", "adherents" and "true believers". They will find them because the harvest is usually plentiful.

On the internet, telecast and other media settings, many claim to be "experts" on something. You can even see the word "expert" somewhere under their televised projection cleverly printed next to their name. And so, once the claim of personal "authority" is in, their alleged assertions of some "expertise" will probably go unchallenged. As a result, misdirection, if successful, can be quite convincing to the general public, as well as people who ought to know better.

People who ought to know better include the savvy investigator who wants to know the facts not the fictions. If a crime has occurred for instance, then the "ought to know better" person might be a chief of police, a county sheriff, or other supposedly professional law enforcement official. Worse yet, at the press conference the person might be an elected official who, in all probability, does know the facts. If it's your case or it's landed in your jurisdiction ("landed" doesn't refer to a flying saucer), then you have a responsibility to act responsibly. By doing that, your efforts to conduct a credible investigative process, applying competent analytics by way of inventive inquiries, means you exercise judicious articulation and sound judgment.

As said earlier, fictitious assertions are based on fallacies of inference. Faulty assumptions are the result of your failure to exercise critical thinking. And, perhaps we might add here, your willful dereliction to apply logical deduction. The bona fides of everyone associated with any controversy should be questioned and never accepted at face value. Every theory must be tested. No matter what you do, you must be prepared for people act stupid anyway. "Act" is the key word. In spite of evidence to the contrary, most people are going to accept and believe what they desire to believe. Overall, in the great scheme of human interactions and social collectivism, people enjoy the salacious tingle of acting naïve while being wholly self-serving.

Investigative analytics in inventive inquiries suggest the need to prove all things associated thereto beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, for their own particular desires, people are people. Never the less, we remain consistently a very gullible species. Why question their expertise of an alleged "expert" who says he or she is an "expert"? Especially if they appear on a major news network, right? In the end, you have to ask, who do you trust? The correct answer when it comes to any assertion of opinion, absent credible evidence, should be nothing and no one.

Once you look into an issue, you have a public obligation and personal commitment to do an effective job of inquiry. At least according to some of us, from an ethical perspective, one must endeavor to ensure a competent, material and relevant methodology. So, at some point, you have to put on your thinking cap and think creatively. An inquiry of an official nature, for research purposes or other reasons, rests upon the credibility of the investigator in applying both art and science to the scrutiny. Collecting the facts in as much detail as possible aims to identify the issues at hand. One question that often comes to mind is whether or not a crime has in fact occurred.

With cults, conspiracies and related criminal enterprises, an investigative process of an official nature must examine the elements of criminality. Has a crime or crimes occurred? If so, what are they? Is it just a matter of people acting stupid in their assertions of some anti-social or unconventional belief system? For instance, the artful willingness of a perpetrator to extract money from adherents is not new. Confidence games, swindles and extortions schemes are historic criminal activities.

At a given point in time, during the course of the investigation, you could encounter a number of criminal activities that violate statutes regarding fraud, theft, false or misleading advertising, extortion, embezzlement, marketing schemes, tax evasion, public corruption, practicing without licenses, and range of overlapping fraudulent practices. The investigation could involve racketeering, smuggling, human trafficking, as well as all kinds of so called confidence games. For humans, the art of the con can be skillfully implemented from credit card thievery to murder. In most con games, not unlike conspiratorial belief systems, as in the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , the art of getting money or property or indentured servitude, as in slavery, becomes a very sinister process of willful hedonistic perpetration on others.

In the forgoing mention of criminal actions, in terms of potential crimes, only a few have been suggested. Those were primarily in relation to property crimes. Crimes against the person, in regard to physical injury and death are also significant possibilities. A wide range of criminality could be exposed, including sexual abuse, sexual battery, and murder. Anything is possible and the investigator must keep an open mind as to all the bizarre possibilities that could exist. With inventive ingenuity, the con artist, the guru, the self-help merchant, the conspiracy theorist, and the gangster are quite convinced you want to believe in what he or she has to offer. Swindling others comes in many forms and manifests in clever cover stories for media consumption.

Criminals can be very clever in their criminal creativity. For that reason, you as the investigator must be cleverer than they are. They will use all manner of propaganda to pull in the followers for the sake of their own personal satiation. There will be contrived cover stories to smoke screen their premeditations. Words, actions and enterprises will be surrounded by insulating layers to safeguard in the inner sanctum of the key members of the group. Whether in reference to gangs, dangerous cults, terrorist groups or related criminal enterprises, the bottom-line is profit continuity and the reinforcement of amative ideations. In other words, perpetrators are getting off on their perpetration and making a profit in the process. Like a giant onion, to use a simple metaphor, you have to peel away the layers of deception and discern the real from the unreal.

With us humans, as we are growing up from childhood, we learn to place value on what grownups tend to proselytize as the "truth". This of course does not mean we forfeit the free will of our own evolving ideations. Children are credulous in so many ways. That is, naïve, unsuspecting, trusting and innocent to a certain degree. We let things stand as substantial points of reference in relation to credibility as offered by those in authority, elected officials, school teachers and so forth. But, as adults, it's time to grow up and act in mature profoundly introspective ways. Given enough time, people allow themselves the seduction of intellectual laziness. With a vast information ocean surrounding us coming from so many "edutainment" sources, we let ourselves be seduced by easy thinking in trouble free ways. As such, we accept nonsense as common sense.

Essentially, an investigator is making every effort to remain detached, unbiased and uncommitted to the outcome of any inquiry. This would be particularly essential in claims related to the Paranormal and so forth, including investigative interference by alleged "psychic detectives". In terms of the **Planetary** , as related to the other elements of this trinity, the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , an inquiry strives to reveal the relevant matters of evidentiary criteria. Generally, this means physical evidence. As to this point, regarding allegations of "alien abduction", or "brainwashing" by associated government cover-ups, reporting witnesses have to show more than mere conjecture.

Take for instance, the assertion of an "alien abduction". With the probability that there could be life on another planet, how would you prove that? Simply, it's not provable and remains theoretical. On top of that, common sense suggests, just like our investigative processes, we look at a chronological time-line of possibilities and theorize the actuality of such an event being possible. Such as, the space-time-distance configuration, whereby thousands of years, perhaps several human lifetimes for an entity to even reach this planet is more likely the reality. Even a signal from the closest star system could take centuries or hundreds of years through the vast depth of space.

Regardless though, in spite of the enormous lack of probability relative to the ease by which interstellar travel could be accomplished, there is likely a more down to earth explanation. That is, something else of a terrestrial nature has happened to the witness, whereby he or she has manifested a belief akin to his or her fantasy ideations. As coping mechanism, he or she has transformed the surreal into the real.

For one thing, similarities in abduction storytelling have a lot to do with vivid imaginations of very creative and high anxiety prone people. For a second thing, television, movies, cable TV, special channels depicting all manner of the **Planetary** conceptions have been around for a very long time. Thirdly, from a history of motion picture depictions, theatre movie serials and comic books, we can find all the necessary elements of alien descriptions as well as "alien kidnapping". Not to mention of course, con men and women of all descriptions, for the sake of their own self-gratification, continue to sell their specious notions regarding alien visitations.

Making an inquiry into a complaint regarding some form of harm to a person or several persons, or related mysterious event, requires careful and skillful interpersonal interaction. Condescending, unprofessional and otherwise intimidating confrontation is unnecessary and does not contribute to a knowledgeable investigation. People are where they are at a given point in time because that's where they've chosen to be. Everyone evolves differently from others. For the non-criminal justice practitioner, serious methodological procedures, applying scientific inquiry, are usually lacking. On a very basic level the serious inquiry ought to question the expertise of those involved. Here, the necessity of discerning criminality is fundamental. Is this a fraud, a con game, a financial scam, or some kind related organized criminal conspiracy?

The real-world practitioner, such as law enforcement personnel, in either public or private investigative services, endeavors to make cautious inquiries and avoid the pitfalls of spurious notions. More often than not, the investigative incompetence of the so-called expert "UFO hunter", "Alien Abduction investigator" or other **Planetary** sleuth, commit serious deficits in the processes of logical deduction or lack thereof. So, at some point, the inquiry must delve into the purposes behind the "expert" claims. What is the truth, who do you trust and how do you know it to be true? Again, abductees and devotees must disclose the full range of evidentiary criteria relevant to the case at hand. In particular, physical evidence is critical and adherents must cite their scientific validity.

Very basically, during an inquiry, what are the observations of the participants that can be noted across a spectrum of truth and deception? If observing an alleged "expert researcher", or perhaps even a "psychic detective", working with "abductee clients", then careful analysis of technique, capabilities and interpersonal skill are important. Don't overlook the fact that the so called researchers, therapists and other behavioral scientists claim "special knowledge" and proficiency in dealing with a range of human behaviors. If so, then what are their credentials? Is it possible they've been conned? Or, maybe they want to believe in the same things as the clients do. Thus, credibility has been compromised. Although, some might have very impressive credentials. As such, many questions remain as to what are their bone fides might be in this particular realm of inquiry regarding the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**? A good inquiry ensures a healthy sense of skepticism for every claim asserted.

While an "expert" might appear very sincere about his or her quest, investigative incompetence does not support erroneous subjective validation. This is a habitual affinity we seem to have in the rationalization of an irrational perspective. Because someone alleges to speak from pretended authority does not mean their viewpoint is necessarily correct. Frequently, even among investigators who ought to know better, conjecture asserts that theory should fit observations. Or, observation conforms to the original theory. By extension, occurrences develop in wishful thinking whereby an observation is altered in order to satisfy that which is observed. These are examples of what some of us would characterize as "anti-thinking" where we believe what we want to believe. Fallacies of logic characterize much of the public discussion and debate regarding the trilogy of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**.

During sessions with "clients", the "researcher" should never lead them or suggest to them the answers he or she wants. That merely replicates poor investigative skills. Sometimes, the devotee in connection with an abductee, related group or other adherents, will purposely plant suggestive information to achieve the end result. Unsubstantiated conjecture does not prove the efficacy of any contended belief. Frequently, you might even hear the enthusiast assert that the witness involved has "nothing to gain' by giving his or her testimony on any of the aspects connected with the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal.** The inference of course, which is a fallacy, is that because there is no gain, and then you have to accept the information at face value as authentic. Meanwhile, during the interpersonal exchange, you are likely to encounter potent appeals to emotion to reinforce belief systems that are biased and non-evidentiary.

This is a gross fallacy perpetrated on the inquiry. There is an illusion that somehow one's motives can be trusted without question if there is no discernable gain to be had from the testimony being given. On the contrary, everyone has something to gain and it may not be obvious as to what that is at that particular point in time. Never the less, even if a person does not appear to have a hidden purpose or premeditated intent, it doesn't mean their thinking processes are error free. Once again, you can apply similar illogical proclamations to the wide spectrum of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal.** Fallacies of inference are rampant in every day conversation. Naturally, the investigator persists in the relentless search for credibility and evidence.
Chapter 10 – Jigsaw Puzzles Jest Evidentiary Judiciousness:

In dealing with the critical issues associated with the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , one must be cautious with regard to one's own sense of the jigsaw puzzle. In others words, preconceived notions influence the sanctity of competent investigative procedures. Veracity and methodology are important. So is the process of logical deduction and rational interpretation. You have to ask yourself, 'does this sound logical?' If not, then what's the agenda? Who stands to gain? When something appears too good to be true, then in all likelihood it is too good to be true. Jigsaw puzzles are complex and that's why they are puzzles. Enigmas, brainteasers, and riddles have interrelated parts and present varied convolutions. One must look at the totality of circumstances and analyze the entirety of the case under investigation.

Over and over again, that's exactly what purveyors want. Perpetrators want things to seem mysterious and other worldly, as in extreme ideological sects or cults that premeditate an alleged "war" on non-believers. Adherents form a community of "believers" so that positive reinforcement continues the innumerable claims. Through repetitiveness, the redundancy provokes a process of constant reinforcement. This process of communal collectivism remains largely outside the scientific community and avoids where possible systematic and technical validation. Furthermore, the mass media also plays a part in the eventual substantiation.

Motivations of would be "experts" in the realm of the unexplained, mysterious or extra-dimensional, are not that dissimilar from other alleged belief systems like terrorism. Don't forget, extremists and fringe cultic behaviors are committed to justifying their "mission". This is a dominion of determined perpetration in which there are no innocent bystanders. In a very literal sense, but also figuratively speaking, anyone can be a target. Terrorists, as in similar groupings, are "inspired" by a range of divergent motivational factors. From a highly self-centered rationalistic perspective, such factions function from an opportunistic posture. Targets are selected for maximum gain. That is, costs and benefits are weighed against the risks involved.

As jigsaw puzzles jest evidentiary judiciousness, inquiry must be on guard against the commentary of the social jest or joust, depending on the allegiance adherents have to a particular belief system. Be alert to the prank, hoax or banter in play. While some believe very sincerely in their personal perspective (i.e. UFO's, ghosts, demonic possession, crypto zoology, alien adductions, etc), others are on the con to perpetrate their schemes. These might even be the gurus, ringleaders, or outspoken proponents. Communal support can be widespread in this process of disinformation. The overall effect has national implications in terms of public policy and the acquiescence of political forces. In addition, from one generation to the next, mythic traditions are passed on. Many competing elements within a giving community can add to the conjecture, as well as fallacies of inference that lead to hasty generalizations.

As such, scientific and forensic analytic techniques can be pushed to the sidelines in favor of so called "testimonials" that may prove false. If you have ever watched a televised production on aliens and UFO's for instance, you have probably noticed the constant use of this practice. To say something often enough with conviction eventually connotes others are likely to believe it. This means interviews, commentary and opinion pieces from a personal standpoint based on projected "authority". Therein resides the speculation of the jest in the evidentiary judiciousness or lack there of. In addition, frequently you will find the puzzling notion that seemingly highly intelligent people believe some of the strangest things. Credentialed academics are among the leading characters within the context of this human drama.

There is a great appeal to emotional needs among the people involved in the framework of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. For the "leaders" promoting such claims and recruiting adherents, they understand this process. Cult groups, as well as other aspects of religiosity, value the effectiveness of deploying communal reinforcement of testimonial "experiences". This serves the basis of what some call confirmation prejudice or "anti-thinking". It is the willful selectivity for one's thinking processes to otherwise confirm personal bias. Your fears set up psychic roadblocks toward anything that which contradicts your beliefs.

As an investigator, you must be clearly and creatively thinking about how you might apply logical processes to the deductive means of the relevant, material and competent data you acquire. You're always on guard against the fraud of deceptive belief systems, because you're trying to solve the jigsaw with facts. In addition, you give important credence to the avoidance of fallacies that lead to hasty generalizations. Evidentiary judiciousness suggests analyzing allegations from the perpetrator's standpoint of purposeful intentions to achieve an amative objective.

You have to wonder about the backgrounds of your complainants and witnesses, as well as your victims. Are they absolutely believable and without a doubt would they be profoundly credible in a court of law based needed evidentiary criteria? If a person has a particular experience within a certain communal setting, what do the neighbors say? How about friends, relatives and co-workers? A "neighborhood" canvas is critical to gather additional detailed information. One has to wonder, if an individual is being "victimized" by aliens, then has that happened to the rest of the neighbors? But, apply that question to the entire planet. Statistically speaking, would the numbers add up? Once again, as a trustworthy investigator, you put yourself in the position of understanding the facts. When you do that, you say to others that you won't buy fabrications.

Most of us have fantasies. A great number allege belief in the supernatural via religious ideologies. While seemingly rational, many of us want to act them out and bring to life the ideations we create in our private realms. Some might offer the concept that past lives coupled with an exploration of one's dreams might assist in the revelatory process. To many, using hypnosis for instance, to delve into the credibility or alleged credible nature of alien abductions, only complicates the puzzle. A pseudo-scientific approach, as in criminal profiling and physic paranormal investigations, does not meet the same standards of reliability as required in the scientific community. Fraud and a range of related deceptive practices are no doubt at the core of many alleged alien abductions. Others are fabricated by con artists seeking to advance an agenda. In many cases, it is highly probable, not just in alleged alien encounters, that hypnosis can input false memories and reinforce wishful thinking by gullible people.

Within the scheme of the **alien abduction cult** , false memories can be instigated, during the scheme of **"hypnosis"** , by unscrupulous "self-help" purveyors who desire to produce a specific result, in order to advance their own agenda. In other words, ideas are suggested during the **"session"** in which both parties, the **abductee** and the **"advocate"** desire the viability of their individual subjective validation. All of which stems from the initial premise of mutual arguments in support of cognitive bias. So, at one end of the investigative spectrum, you might be dealing with a con artist. Clever people can invent and suggest to receptive audiences divergent magical expectations. A savvy investigator must discern the various factors given a particular case.

At the other end of a particular instant, you might be dealing with a highly sensitive, vulnerable and creative person who really needs to express their inner ideations. And yet, absent a definitive set of scruples, some people who advance a bias will take advantage of them. Sleep phenomenon that creates a kind of mindful paralysis is the most likely suspect in the invention and psychodynamic experience of alleged **"alien abductions"**. This is realm of profound creativity. So much so, that energetic activations, or firings, within the cerebral networks of the frontal lobes can urge the creation of all manner of psychic experiences, abduction scenarios or demonic presences.

If dealing with a **fraud** , as in criminal activity, then the investigator should consult the applicable statutory regulations. An assessment of the criminal laws, alongside licensing and certification requirements, should be considered very seriously. We cannot overlook the fact that within the scope of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , scams and schemes are highly probable with numerous ramifications. At the farthest edges of communal collectivism, some religious beliefs play a significant role in the perpetuation of fanciful illusions that excite and expound upon instigated imaginary forces.

It's reasonable to consider that with extreme ideological belief systems, including the **UFO, Area-51 and Alien** encounter realms or cults, you will observe the contrived fringes of human surrealistic manifestations. Likewise, the investigator will be able to analyze the variety of mystical and mythical influences people of such persuasions allow in their thinking processes. As such, the implication for criminality should be carefully evaluated in relation to the subsequent violations of statutory prohibitions.

In a **"scheme to defraud"** for instance, as may be reflected in certain state statutory provisions, one must evaluate the interaction between the participants. Did a crime actually occur, if so, what were elements of the criminal activity? Did someone use their official status, licensure, pretended authority, or academic credentials to entice another into an unlawful relationship? To that extent, what are the facts? Not suppositions or conjectures, or this belief versus that belief, but what are the evidentiary factors? Forget **"political correctness"** or someone's pretext of **"social status"** , did a crime occur or not? If so, regardless of the socio-political implications, will you pursue the case?

Never the less, a statute may fit the circumstances under scrutiny, depending on the specific elements. Typically, if there is ongoing behavior that sought to deprive another of something with value, and false pretenses were used, a crime or crimes may have occurred. On the other hand, a person claiming an **alien abduction** , by contrast, would be considered a **"kidnapping"** , including possibly other crimes. Plus, if experiments were conducted on various bodily orifices, then maybe there's medical malpractice.

But, a systematic ongoing series of acts that are coupled with intent to defraud others, where property or materiality is transferred, and personal gain is achieved, along with misrepresentations, such could be indicative of a con game in progress. This suggests no doubt that the investigator must be inventive during the course of an inquiry. Without judgmental abhorrence toward adherents and gurus of such communal aberrations, one must apply a profound sense of critical thinking. Again, skeptical inquiry is always required. And, the professional investigator will know how to do that.

In point of fact, an assertion into science fiction could be more rationally explained by what's going on inside a person's thinking processes. That is, as opposed to what's going on outside of them. Or, science fiction out there in the cosmos, is more likely understood in terms of science fact relative to personal ideation. All too often, we want to explain away events in terms of externalities in opposition to internal neural instigations. In the culmination of the brain fostering a "mind", in order to make sense of the world, many potential psychic projections are probable. Thus, belief systems run the gamut of global interpersonal interactivity. Some of them are dangerous, others are benign. Regardless, people make their choices as to how they will play life's games. Meanwhile, investigators attempt to stay vigilant as to which presents the greater threat.

Elemental to this process is being savvy enough to detect that a crime has occurred because a scam is afoot, regardless of the showmanship involved. In view of the schemes by which people use various resources to conjure illusions, whereby **"** **jigsaw puzzles jest evidentiary judiciousness"** , requires cautious logical processes. In face to face confrontation with a claim of some extraordinary ramifications, one must investigate fully the essential nature of the declaration. Generally speaking, people desire to see patterns that suggest a commonality of conclusive causal relationships. Again, we return to the notion that all of us have a tendency to safeguard subjective validation.

In so doing, human nature willfully contrives to make certain such an eventuality falls into place. Hence, those who see conspiratorial activities perpetrated by governmental forces, invent creative mythologies to support the bias of their alleged convictions. Likewise for instance, by associated inclination as part of their cover story, a gang, cult or other organized criminal enterprise concocts a pretext. Within the plot of the pretext resides inventive story telling. Causal connections between adverse social conditions may be fabricated to insulate the criminality from further scrutiny. Basically, when two or more people conspire to perpetrate some scam, they naturally arrange deceptions.

To ensure looking more deeply into the background of the suspected grouping, an investigator considers several key points in the allegations being made. For one thing, we must seriously be on guard against superstitious thinking processes that masquerade as facts instead of fiction. Here, in linkage to that, you want to analyze the basis of all incoming information sources. Assessment of the data is as important as collection of the data. If the data is slanted toward a particular ideology, point of view or philosophical perspective, we should be skeptical and apply calculated logic to the issue.

Fallacies of inference are notorious for misdirection in the erroneous comparison of dissimilar analogous situations, things or positions. We must ask a series of questions that elicit definitive information. Are the sources valid and does the information fit in the scope of fact or fantasy? Is there scientific forensically validated support for the claims being made? What evidence supports the conjecture? Frequently, in any given debate about any issue you care to imagine, participants are likely to select the data that most likely substantiates their point of view. At one end of the psycho-babble social mythology of perpetual cognitive bias, a group might assert their "victimization".

This is of course is an offensive posture used by divergent factions to thwart the investigative processes. You find this in contemporary society in various forms, such as group protests or picketing due to a perceived alienation, as opposed to "alien nation". None the less, some use "discrimination" quite indiscriminately and often trump the race card, racial profiling or prejudice to shut down debate. Such action is a means to discredit the opposition, any dissenting viewpoint or investigative questioning of the group's tactics and intentions. From this standpoint, any group can allege their isolation from mainstream because they're being picked on for one reason or another. Our inquiry must compare the factual nature of the claims to the reality of the evidence.

However, all the investigator really wants to know is the truth involved in the associated actions, claims or professed allegations. Whether or not the pretext of the abusive countermeasures by a particular sect, gang or faction is true remains a matter of lawful determination. Of which, such accusations may or may not be logically connected to the controversy at hand. At any rate, we need to keep in mind that magical thinking, or wishful thinking, has a proclivity to support the fallacies of its illogical suppositions. Any claimant in a controversy, relative to a conspiracy or other collective collusion has to withstand the test of forensic examination on the basis of logical analysis.

From the first sequence of considerations mentioned in the forgoing, a second major area of exploration contends with the necessity for evidentiary certainty. In pursuing a sequence of solvability factors, you go where the evidence trail leads or points. Not where you want it to go, but where it really suggests a higher certainty than your bias would conclude. You observe carefully the interactions and interrelationships of people, places and properties. What is the truth and how do you know it? Again, to restate the chronology here, the first significant stage is the analysis of data and the sources from which it is discovered. Secondly, the examination of the evidence and how it connects to the first stage becomes part of the continuum and search for validation.

In the overall preponderance of evidentiary considerations, which holds stronger corroboration over other assertions to the contrary? When people make claims of one thing or another, what level of reasoning are they using? To this extent to prove their perspective, examine whether or not they are using logical deductive procedures to support their allegations. If not, then perhaps a con game is in the works.

To the investigator, so called **"weirdness"** of every day occurrences, by which people get tangled in various experiences, should be evaluated in relation to the reality of the attendant circumstances. Much of what we do as critical thinkers is to analyze the incident in question and verify the evidence available. When we do that, we are attempting to make sense out of a claim that may or may not be valid. Thus, the "language" of interpersonal communication skills becomes critical. In so far as validity, one starts with the endeavor to comprehend the mechanisms by which a person communicates. That is, verbal, written and bodily modes of expression. Look for the way in which someone advocates a particular viewpoint. In the typical feedback loop of communication between two or more persons, what is being said?

Such represents an initiation of the investigative aspects which then search for artifacts of critical value. Solvability factors must connect to a logical solution of the puzzle, based on replication or reconstruction for the sake of proof. To this end, do not be mislead or intimidated by position, rank, possessions, politics, etc, as to the claimant's alleged background or credentials. A person's claim of "authority" should always be carefully evaluated. As an example, someone may assert a posture based on personal belief, strong emotion and prejudice. That, coupled with a claim of some **"authority"** , plus false causation, can be proclaimed by anyone. That's dangerous.

People, no matter how smart they think they are, make errors in thinking. For things that seem out of the ordinary and characterized as weird, some have defined that by a three-part consideration. "Out of this world" assertions invite intensive scrutiny. When compared to scientific validity, the investigator should seek out the experts in the given field and ascertain the acceptability of such claims. Although in time, a weird belief or theory may become eventually accepted, our focus is on the present investigation and how that compares in view of the consistent reality around us. Three key factors may play a role in this process, as you proceed along a prescribed continuum:

  1. Is the claim unacceptable within the specific field of study;

  2. Is the assertion rationally probable given the likelihood of an occurrence;

  3. Is the declaration mostly subjective and unsubstantiated;

Conspiracies appear to permeate every level of social interaction and span the socio-economic spectrum from top to bottom. Myriad misunderstanding, misdirection and miscalculations occur every day. In speech, behavior and interactions of all sorts, people project fascinating broad sweeping generalizations. Even though one might argue that people in general are mistrusting of governmental institutions, we should further analyze their propositions carefully. It's probably a good thing that people question communal and political entities, traditional belief systems, mainstream conventionality, as well as group-think, factional exclusivity and cultic movements. However, we need to examine the scope and extent to which most people actually make serious queries. Idle chitchat, clumsy social banter and unbridled mockery are not very scientific. Yet, all too often, in the daily social intercourse of cultural milieu, witty repartee passes as fact.

While skepticism from an enlightened investigative posture is healthy, its evil twin is misguided "skepticism" that doesn't seek out the evidentiary proofs. This of course would be necessary to remove any shadow of doubt. It's the kind of argument that reinforces some salacious necessity to achieve self-gratification at a baser level. Failing to substantiate an argument by way of provability, through application of technical methodology, leads to facetious conclusions. More or less it is miscalculated nonsense that simply expresses the weaknesses behind trouble-free thinking. Quaking so to speak, with a tinge of paranoia, a **"conspiracy theorist"** tends to diverge away from the acceptable pathways of the critical thinker theorist with a hodgepodge of bit of pieces. What may appear as "factual" are instead fragments stuck together haphazardly.

In this regard, the near joking framework of conspiratorial explanations skims the surreal surface for easy answers. Rather than accept a reasonable explanation that has been logically concluded, the conspiracy theorist needs an alternative explanation. An answer salaciously follows some mysterious cause-effect spectrum so that one more easily makes sense out of perception. Humans tend to want some kind of sense out of the world around us. In the process however, we provoke much self-deception in order to achieve the satiation of our preconceived notions. Seeking patterns in things we think we know and witness in the external world suggests the inclination toward believability. Whether or not an event actually occurred, may depend on the belief system we claim. People want templates to keep things simple. Disbelief is difficult.

In order to ensure some level of a "belief system", fabricated to meet the satiation of a particular group, myth making has become an ongoing process. This is nearly a cottage industry in the U.S. Extreme and bizarre forms of mystical thinking transform historical references into a different manufactured version of reality. All of which stems from fallacies of inference often based on illogical analogies designed to meet individual and group needs. Among the sagas and legends in the pretext of believability, many factions have concocted specious notions to support their ideologies. Inside the schemes of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , there is potential criminological danger, depending on the level of extremism associated therein. You simply take in a world-view and examine atrocities committed by one assemblage against another. Regardless of your political persuasion, consider the commonality connected to illogical thinking.

All you have to do is observe the behaviors of certain cults, gangs and terrorist organizations. Take an objective analysis to the extent you possibly can and suspend judgment. What becomes fascinating, if you're watching the interplay between various splinter groups and governmental interactions, is how public officials react. Some groups are tolerated more that others. For instance, take the hate mongering among some dissidents groups throughout the country. There appears to be an imbalance regarding public policy. Yet, it doesn't matter if you view the spectrum from left to right. Or, for that matter, right to left in terms of social, political and economic ideologies. Whether on one side of the societal spectrum or the other, extremism can be deadly.

With regard to the **Political** category of fringe thinking and behavior, a conspiracy can be invented to serve a wide range of personal and organizational goals. Again, we understand from an investigative posture, that hidden agendas always contain the aspects of original intent. Various re-inventions of historical chronologies serve the distorted proclivities of those who make them up. Premeditation spans the thinking continuum from start to finish. For example, you might theorize that early European explorers arrived in North America long before Asian migration occurred. If so, then you can foment another variation contrary to scientifically accepted research. In the process, you will likely gain adherents to your myriad fallacies and faulty conclusions.
Chapter 11 – Kidnapping the Collective Consciousness:

Kidnapping the collective consciousness suggests the ruses by which people and groups conjure myriad social deceptions for the amative sake of personal gain. Most often, this means a con job to perpetuate some pecuniary advantage on the part of the associated con artist. Some of the gamesmanship can be relatively harmless, as in the pursuit of UFO cultism, conventions and carnival festivities. On the other hand, others can be quite dangerous as in gangs and terrorist groups.

All depends on the individual and collectivist agenda of the person or persons involved. Naturally, one must consider there are other forms of material and psychological satiation people get from the perpetuation of such activities. Collective consciousness represents the common everyday communal interactivity by which most of communicates. To which, frequently our powers of logical deduction seem seriously diminished. We have to examine who stands to gain what in the process.

To assert a hypothesis, as indicated earlier, that departs from the acceptance within the mainstream scientific community, is to foster a mythology that evades factual probability. Unfortunately, as people clamor to ensure the viability of their self-interests, believability discovers all manner of facetious ideology. Myth making is what groups can become very adept at doing within the scheme of community linkages.

For those who make the choice to trespass the lawful normalcy of a particular shared human cooperative, they do so of their own freewill. For the investigator, the challenge is finding a clear cut violation of law. And yet, the investigator must realize that deceptions of all kinds are consistent with human behavior. The individual's and the group's consensus of "personality" reflect desires to satisfy a sense of subjective validation. Needs for self-gratification enliven the pursuit of biased perspectives.

For so called "experts", speculation about external causes to the contrary, mystical determinism, coupled with wishful thinking about a "single bullet theory", runs short on evidentiary articulation. More often than not, the official inquiry into a disruptive faction's activities can become influenced by a single causation hypothesis. Whereby, multiple special interests are vying for social attention in the promotion of an ideological point of view. An investigation can become "socially hijacked" by such interests.

An appeal to psychodynamic conceptions, where externalities of causation are appealing about the criminality of a group, can be used to explain everything you want them to. To want a certain perception, or a wish to come true, you can make certain your particular perspective does in fact come true. This too, from an investigative posture, can be a reactive form of **kidnapping the collective consciousness**. Bias collaborates with its symbiosis in subjective validation. So, we find the "proofs". Frequently, we also find, by instant appeal to a "celebrity status", and alleged "expert". Sometimes, with regard to group interactivity, you might hear an "expert" talk about how a person "lost" their will to resist. As a result, their identity became merged with group identity.

Overall, as the story goes, people allegedly "caught" up in cultic collaborations are said to have lost control over themselves. Phraseology like "mind control" become tossed about as if it were some kind of scientific verification or psychiatric diagnosis. Now, come on, how does a person simply lose their will power? That perspective is, as the word "simple" implies, too simplistic. It does not explain the complexity of human ideation. Again, this is a metaphysical illusion others would call "brain washing". If you've every heard a "cult expert" say something like that, then your task is to look further. Strain your mind to critically ask what credentials on the part of the "expert" allow for such a claim. An "unconventional faction" outside the mainstream of social intercourse most likely gains the animosity of the surrounding social structure. To say it is a "cult" is close to expressing opposition to its existence.

Thus, a "cult" is viewed with the powerful ability to control the "minds" of its adherents. Not to forget of course, some "cultic" behaviors, like organized crime groups, are dangerous to the social order and should be investigated. As to "mind control", mental hijackings don't occur by some mysterious ethereal force that suddenly steals the person's will to resist the temptation. In certain cultic collusions, such as particular religious beliefs, individual and group thinking travel the fringe of extremist perspectives for particular purposes. Believers follow these grandiose opinions, or dogma, because that is what they're interested in doing. These are willful inclinations that express interior thinking of the individuals who join together to perpetrate a specific ideology. When they do, they willing contrive the mutual coalescence of the group. It is self-indulgent behavior for the sake of personal gratification with group specific intentions.

In terms of a basic foundational conception of communal interactivity, a "religious group", and by extension the belief system that unfolds, is often seen as essential to community well-being. Religion in general suggests a self-imposed psycho-dynamic connection to paranormal convictions. These stem from acceptance of opinions regarding an existence beyond the physical framework of reality. Such inclinations concern the nature of the divine involvement in the affairs of human existence. Within the scope of most social settings, people tend to have a proclivity for a normative acceptance of some philosophical cohesion on the basis of an extra-dimensional existence.

For the individual, as well as the group's sense of identity, "religious" connectivity often means a perception of a supernatural externality. In general, many would like to have faith in something larger than themselves for philosophical reasons that may not be fully definable in absolute terms. The humanistic sensitivity toward a divine power in the cosmos appears to offer some kind of basis for a "moral code". In addition for believers, there are feelings of relief that come in the form of a standard for living, psychological reinforcement and a shared mindset to support a way of thinking.

Once you venture out of an accepted mode of mutual believability within a given cultural setting, one might experience an uncomfortable posture of dissenting viewpoints. Criticism, suspicion and conspiracy thinking reflect communal apprehensions regarding unconventional standpoints. Again, in the realm of perceived cultic behaviors, one could argue that certain branches of mainstream religions, or any belief systems that gains acceptance, once started as a "cult". However, that could've been a hundred years ago. And, it took decades for sect to transform into an accepted social grouping.

That aside, more to the focus, "cults" on the extreme fringe of the mainstream, may behave with a commonality akin to gangs, terrorist factions and other organized criminal enterprises. While one pursues the supernatural, another promotes a more terrestrial agenda. All efforts move the troupe toward a consolidation of the ideology around the sensation of ideological exclusivity. Typically, this means a process of alienation from the more centralized thinking processed of a diverse social setting. From isolation and restricted mutuality with non-adherents, indoctrination may become more intense.

What is it we know about the individual's collusion of his or her thoughts to ensure viability in the assertion of exceptionality? In an investigation do we not consider a reversal of the usual cause-effect continuum? That is to say, looking in reverse of the mechanisms toward the layers of the thinking processes may sometimes indicate a more profound intentional instigation. Going from effect to the other side of cause, precipitous to the materiality we see in the subsequent result. In other words, the internal ideation has already anticipated the eventual effect in an external reality. One's internal thinking has willfully functioned to the gainful necessity of doing the maladaptive act. And thus, by doing that, through the complicated conduits of neural impetus, one knows what one does, in spite of the consequences whereby harm is transposed.

On an individual scale, a brain's basis for an exploration of the self ought to, by sheer acceptance of an inquisitive mindset, suggests multiple layers of ideation. Even among the lowest societal levels of **slow to evolve** members, mindset is at work every day. By **'slow to evolve'** , or more or less **un-evolved** , suggests a lack of maturation in one's progress toward a better version of oneself. This mentions the productive conception about growing, improving and changing with a sense of exceptional insight by enlightened improvement of thoughtful progressions. To evolve, one must assert the criticality of productive skeptical inquiry about his or her relationship to the rest of the world. In so doing, a person continues to explore ways to improve. And, when applicable, utilizes the skill set of logical deduction in all possible degrees of rationality.

As such, those who are purposefully fixated in a particular mindset, such as UFO or conspiracy theory cults, might tend to limit their psychodynamic progressions. Reasons for doing this could have all manner of explanations. Obsessions may often provide comfort, relief and reinforcement for what others find seemingly illogical. Why change, if where you are is comfortable. Layers, levels or whatever you wish to ascribe, configure a multidimensional world within a world, for unique purposes of achieving degrees of self-gratification. Successive cubic spaces that geometrically expand by willful instigation. Within the hemispheric organic nature of the brain, very likely resides the capacity to innovate all manner of paranormal excitation. Naturally, you might suspect extraordinary speculation as to this point. But, what if all the realms of mystical expectations are sheer inventions of contrived mindfulness?

Consider the patterns of myriad electromagnetic wavelengths within two hemispheres of the brain. Whereby, a scientist is able to provide neural options for creativity by stimulating certain regions of the brain. Encased inside a secure container we call a skull, a person lives in a private world. There are no lights on inside this place. Unless of course, during the dream state, we invent them. It is a **"Necrospace"** , as some might call it. A psychic landscape in which unlimited creations transform over psychic terrains with no boundaries. Wherein, a duality of cerebral configurations housed in two components contrive to create something extraordinary called the **"mind"**.

When amplified by way of laboratory experience, an electronic impetus could be anticipated by one's mindfulness and stimulate self evolving experiences to enter the **"Necrospace"**. Or, as used here, 'necro' suggests the death instinct which is a reminder of our mortality, and 'space' offers the idea of the eternal dreamful experiences of sleep. For this, we could suggest that people struggle for a life time, with their inner conflict of life versus death. Together, integrating and activating the hemispheres when we go there, we enter a kind of "death state" until we awaken. Our physical nature becomes in a sense comatose. For some, electromagnetic instigation of the brain provides the basis for inferring a paranormal experience. Others, more inclined toward a non-religious world-view may conjure up UFO adventures or alien abductions.

In the perception for a culmination of unusual or otherworldly experiences, one might conclude that an individual, as well as a group collective, conjures that which fits his, her or their particular thinking processes. When we get creative, people can manufacture limitless adventurous discoveries by way of cerebral innovation. Particularly as this might be applied to the dream state or **Necrospace**. There are no limitations to the human imagination. None whatsoever that we know of, which means the intricacy is boundless. That's how exceptional we are as a humanoid species. Unique, individual and creative, as well as positive, negative and dangerous. At the same time though, people can be unusually cruel, wicked and evil in the conjuring of sinister and tortuous inflictions on others. When unified within a "group think", willfully plotting against another group or individuals, people are capable of the most bizarre proclivities.

For one's pursuit of the paranormal, "group think" invites the individual into complicity for thinking that benefits both the proselytizer, as well as the adherent. Within the scheme of religious experiences, which also ascribe to a supernatural world view, there are a number of instances in which the individual is duped by fraudulent activities. In the long run, one cannot completely calculate the individual's loss of personal dignity, let alone the financial hardship of an ideological scam. It could be said that when someone cons you, and it's in the context of ideology, there's a significant probability you'll become distrustful. Then again, maybe not. There are no absolute guarantees of anything. However, it may take time for you to realize the folly of your organizational selectivity and the ideology you have adopted. You might get conned again.

Investigatively, you should be alert to your own susceptibility. When you view the many factions that proclaim some kind of divine interactivity, you may eventually uncover what could be a well-conceived superficiality. Inside, there could be criminal activity from sexual assault to theft or worse. The shallow level to which the organizational framework widens depends on the particular entity, the setting and the people involved. In many ways, religions of all kinds reflect the larger societal culture in which they operate. Divergent groups that span the socio-economic spectrum offer different challenges from an investigative standpoint. You need to know what you're dealing with at the outset and decide how far you're willing to go.

Beliefs systems remain basic to cultural transformations. Erosion into criminality requires immediate investigation. You, as an investigator, no doubt have some perspective relative to your ideological views about life, as well as all the subcategories that attach to that. These beliefs may affect your investigative efforts to varying degrees. While one attempts to maintain objectivity for the sake of factual discovery, there is no foolproof means by which you're not going to be affected in some way. So, you must decide to be as objective as humanly possible. Because another aspect in this regard about the paranormal, are the contrived deceptions of the fake faith healer. The con artist knows that religious groupings provide a kind of safe haven for all manner of dogmatic fakery, bogus gurus and slippery pretexts for healing the sick. With the storefront of religiosity, a "church", which could be a "cult", can serve as a fraudulent base of operation, as well as a social buffer from the outside world's scrutiny.

Once again, the investigator must be able to discern with differentiation what laws have been violated. After that, he or she must connect the dots. That is, in connection with the skillful art of the con he or she investigates, provability must substantiate the cause-effect linkage between events and consequences. Fraudulent schemes suggest the willingness of the perpetrator to take unlawful advantage of others. Anything is possible within the imaginative nature of the criminal. And yet, one would ask, why? That is the proverbial question of all times in relation to criminality. Criminologists struggle with such answers as if someday we will know all the reasons. Why was the crime perpetrated when the criminal could've used inherent abilities more productively? Legitimate courses of action were either uninteresting or required too much work.

Get rich quick schemes are more lucrative if you deceive enough people. For the con artist, he or she devotes much time and effort to maximize his or her con with exertion of exceptional psychodynamic energies. You'd think with all the ability to be creative and ingenious one might find more positively productive outlets. And, he or she may become so adept at such presumed abilities that they might willingly acquiesce to their own seduction. If so, these people can be quite dangerous. This attendant proclivity could be very prevalently infused among those who collect a following. Adherents become convinced of the "righteousness" of the calling or cause for which the group becomes associated. It's a two-way street that works for believers and con artists.

With all the resourcefulness, aptitude and cleverness, some wonder why one chooses a life of inventing ways to steal from others. When, if applied, the criminal could invest such resources into pro-active endeavors. Primarily, the gain, with a lesser degree of guilt, from the target objective satiates that private inner proclivity. For a number of criminals they might event tell you it's about the money, others want the power. And, there are some who desire the money and power. Yet, this is only the surface in developing a basic acceptance that criminality is a matter of choice. Acceptance is offered instead of understanding. Because, in long run, you'll never know for certain, with perfect insight and accuracy, why a person or persons did what they did. Power and control, through domination and manipulation aid the criminal in getting what he or she wants. A life of crime is about being in control. A special savory ingredient in the design of criminality is the criminal's ability to keep people under control.

Kidnapping the collective consciousness abducts a willing mindset. People seek out what they want to find and believe what they desire to accept. To the audience of believers, the alleged guru, or acclaimed "expert", asserts a fallacy of inferential thinking designed to invite dissent. Often times, the purveyor of illogical thinking process, which are done purposely, proclaim unsubstantiated causes for unconnected effects. A lot of times the self-proclaimed "investigator", or alleged "investigative journalist", invites conspiratorial thinking by simply planting the idea of a cover-up. This is easy for the social "magician", especially with regard to the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. In this framework, skepticism is typically criticized for its opposition.

Belief is a self-imposed process and may be constructed upon many factors. Regardless, it is this very process of discovering a "belief system" that is just as important as arriving at a final conception of the truth. A conclusion requires a theory and a theory demands proof. In other words, the search for that which is true, and that which reflects an acceptable conception of reality, demands an inquiry based upon critical thinking. Finding the truth invites you to think about how you know it. The perception of a particular reality should necessarily attract proactive rationality.

Whereas multi-dimensional reality operates with exceptional independence from human ideation, thoughts attempt to intersect such actuality by remote access. The mode by which acquisition is constructed becomes a matter of logical deduction in the application of the "scientific model" of inquiry. As suggested herein, an abbreviated form of this interactive connectivity would be: initial belief based on sensory processes (inner ideation from experiential precepts), data collection based on subjective necessity, controlled bias based theory construction, test theory from scaled down bias based perceptional constraints, draw conclusions within limited subjective validation needs, analyze conclusions, engage counter argumentations, and test some more.

A well-reasoned investigation affirms the ability of the investigator to look deeper than the superficial assertions that are based on little or no evidentiary artifacts. Innate capacities for insightful inquiry insist upon perceiving judiciously through sensory stimulations. And yet, in spite of our best intentions, investigations get tainted by the eccentricities of human nature. Therein resides the dilemma of discovery in that by investigating something, we bring ourselves into the overall process.

In the process of investigating alleged illegal "cultic" activities, the investigator must again evaluate his or her own belief system. To that, he or she would balance training, education and experiential elements into the complexity of personal ideation. Plus, we are of many psycho-dynamic and physical intricacies, which include an intuitive component. Of intuition, you could add the "spiritual" element of a unique understanding you bring to the process. One would do this as a savvy inquisitive individual to the extent necessary to fully accept the foundation basis of the investigative process. As to the spiritual dimension, well that's up to you and what you believe is the nature of your reality.

However, caution is warranted in any investigative process. Obviously, it should be noted that you avoid displaying your personal feelings, shortcomings, fears and other emotional characteristics that might suggest ignorance on your part. To make stupid statements from an emotionally defensive starting point does not aid and ensure a competent investigation. When you don't know a particular aspect of the allegations in question, it's best you simply keep your mouth shut. Your mission is gathering the facts, finding evidence, deciding which laws were violated and avoiding the irrelevant. In order to avoid some limitations on bias or prejudice, remain focused on the objective.

We should attempt to keep in mind that "cults" come in many forms, sizes and shapes, and composed of many people from all walks of life. Often, the term is used to speak derisively by one group who is contemptuous of another group. Sometimes we hear complaints about so called religious groups. But, non-religious groups can share the same characteristics. If we are looking for commonalities, and these are by no means exclusive, you could say there are some basic associative considerations. For one thing, the particular faction in question seeks separation from the larger social grouping. This might often suggest "us against them" in a kind of group-specific "group think".

To say "herd mentality" applies is too simplistic, misleading and non-definitive from an informed investigative posture. So, you must dig deeper. Primarily, a "cultic" association wants anonymity from others, in order to ensure the secrecy of their operations. These may or may not be legal. In addition, another aspect relates to a kind of energy intensity in the transference of indoctrination techniques. Such measures may be overt or very subtle. None the less, the training of the recruit serves the foundational processes of keeping the member in the group.

Pressures of various kinds work to place increased anxiety on the members. Through sometimes rigorous physical and mental exercises stress is amplified and used to instill allegiance. Along with memorization and study of group dogma, ideology or mythic illusions, people find acceptance for their perceptions about their life. Isolation and humiliation are often employed to reinforce the solidarity within the group. Interactivity is heightened by using fear tactics, information control and demanding commitment. On the outside of the group, adherents are warned about the "evils" that threaten them, such as the police, the surrounding community, government, and other institutions. For the believer, he or she is getting certain personal needs met by this overall sense of connection. There is a willingness to submit or be seduced by the group.

For serious investigators, who are people who ought to know better, one must steer clear of nebulous notions such as "insanity", "brainwashed", "crazy", "monster", "nut", "crackpot", or any other inadequate poorly informed descriptor. Sometimes, in the media or in academia, you hear a supposedly educated person describing "cultic" members in those terms. This usually comes from people outside the field of criminology, with little or no investigative credence and actual field experience. As such, be wary of these kinds of irrelevant diversions. Again, you have to bring your self-imposed subjective sense of validation under control. Think about it for a moment.

When you look at some of the accepted mainstream Middle Eastern and western religious beliefs for instance, wouldn't those be considered strange by an outsider? By someone who didn't agree to their "accepted" dogma, couldn't they make similar criticisms? After all, many claim personal salvation in many denominations proclaiming special knowledge of supernatural or paranormal conceptions. One could compare similarities from the larger societal beliefs systems that claim conviction in heaven, hell, angels, devils and deities, damnation, and many other extra-dimensional speculations. And, typically, what do you find in terms of top down "management", or the overall control of the group itself? Some would say "leadership" in this context, but for others the term "leadership" means something special. Something positive, productive and proactive with good intent. Instead, with "cultic" practices, "leadership" tends to be oppressive in nature and very authoritative. So called charismatic gurus tend to use their interpersonal skills to maximum advantage for the subjugation of the membership.
Chapter 12 - Killing the Collective Consciousness:

Even so, as some con artists plan, organize and implement their scams, believers remain free to pick and choose their mode of believability. Willingly, for personal needs and desires, adherents play "follow the leader" given their particular beliefs, coupled with the necessity to ensure intra-psychic gratification. Some would argue to the contrary and assert some type of mental defect, as to a person joining some kind of cultism. For them, it is the pretext of self-delusion, in order to avert their own inclinations.

None the less, to say that some kind of "mental dysfunction" or "illness" is at work is misleading and inferentially faulty. Among those who join fringe movements of a perceived "cultic" nature, there is a sense of voluntariness. To state otherwise, would be to condemn us all to a programmed state of existence. Each of us has our own individual set of character distinctions that define, refine and redefine personality.

To conjure a notion of mystical deterministic compulsion, simply stated this suggests an inability to think for ourselves. In the process, you constrain personal accountability in selections we make in our living, working and recreating environments. Mental functioning is not a "hard wired" state of existence. Such is an erroneous comparison of the human thinking processes. Cerebral manifestations fluctuate in a nano-speed dynamic world of self-creation and change moment by moment.

Typically, cultic affiliations run the gamut of the three categories, the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. You can find similar characteristics among various groupings from gangs to terrorist cells, including religious extremism and corporate collusive elitism. Much of this has been previously mentioned. A frequent example for some proponents of the deterministic perspective would suggest "peer" influence as a causative factor. As to this point, advocates would suggest such interactivity plays a powerful role in the selection for joining one group over another.

Yet, one must be cautious to assume and accept the limitations of this conjecture. For the sake of simplistic answers to complex human interactivity, pop culture proclaims a trouble free resolution in the form of one's need to belong to a "family". Supposedly, by way of this inference, the adherent lacked such "warm, loving and caring" affiliation in the formative stages of early development. Okay, so what?

In the regard, the myriad mythological assumptions of the general public seem to defy rationality all too often. Pop culture appears steeped in the necessity of legend and lore. Current communal collectivism reinvents age-old concepts to ensure trouble-free puzzle plasticity for quick answers. With cultic affiliations, as with gangs for instance, the typical assumption claims motivation for membership stems from belongingness needs. But, the complexity runs much deeper to the core of one's personality. The inference suggests an unproblematic linkage from joining the group to the gang members past. That is, since the gangster or cult member was deprived during the formative years, its "natural" they would seek out some association with that group. What was it though about the particular ideology? Was it power, control, dominance and communal excitement? For the individual, the group provided psychic sustenance.

Investigatively, the serious inquirer should have a problem with that assumption. Because, if the solution is too good to be true, easy to find and no other possibilities exist, then there could be serious flaws in the conclusions derived. Facts are for investigators, while fictions are for fiction writers. By extension, we could likewise compare affiliations across the spectrum of beliefs connected to the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. You join a group because you make your own choices as to the essence of your own psycho-dynamics. To the extent needed by the individual, one could argue generally that we seek that which reinforces our own mindset. In other words, the recruit is searching for something inside them and they will find alliances for what they seek. Group membership offers acceptance at different levels of interaction.

Likewise, various factions, including gangs, terrorist groups, hate groups and religious cults, share a hierarchy of authority and opportunities for recognition and reinforcement. Caution is warranted with a healthy dose of skepticism. That's because not everyone who shares similar upbringings or related beliefs systems join gangs or go to UFO conventions. One's upbringing is not necessarily the all encompassing precursor to unconventional or anti-social behaviors. By contrast, how one goes about making choices in order to satiate their own particular proclivities is a little more relevant. Social instability, socio-economic status, patterns of abuse and so forth do not provide a definitive basis for group selectivity. Coercion, abduction and intimidation do not essentially or absolutely define the necessity for cultic induction.

Yet, at times, these intentional perversities collude in different ways, whereby people allow their seduction into anti-societal behaviors. As investigators, we ought to know better and should accept the fact that people are selfish and seek to gain what they do not have and want. That perception pervades the senses from consciousness to unconsciousness and resides most often behind the locked doors of one's mentality. Thus, with an intentional preponderance for the necessity of immediate gratification, anticipated expectations for short-term gain invites conspiratorial variations. To say that people are driven, in the direction of deriving some uncontrollable self-retribution, because of some disadvantage is trite, cliché and overly simplistic.

For those who assert the overwhelming individual influence of social alienation, you must counteract that deterministic view with facts. An investigation cannot be allowed to be misguided by irrelevant fallacies of inference. Some will assert that society's obsession with material and social success "drives" people to behave and believe in all manner of conspiratorial activity. By inclusion, this notion likewise proclaims the alibi that some people are "forced" to collude with criminal association. Being deprived of something psychologically pleasurable or physiologically tangible does not necessarily mean you go out and join a gang or become a terrorist.

Conspiratorial activities, regardless of whether they fall within the rubric of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , should be regarded as willful instigations that may or may not be anti-social, credible threats and criminal collusions. These are organizations, like others in conventional society, which can be quite convincing, articulate and well-financed. When law enforcement intervention addresses criminal activity, the groups can be very resilient and adapt as needed. They will adapt as needed to assert their dogma and actions unique to their organizational structure. As a system of religious or other philosophical doctrine, a group's sense of themselves reflects a complicity of divergent orthodoxy. We should be prepared to address the collective intent once they have coalesced within a particular "mindset" of collectivism. An individual's personal testimony of his or her own ideation is a matter of personal consciousness in the choices one makes, which becomes group consensus or "group think".

This does not mean a person becomes "brainwashed" or gives up control over oneself to the group. On the contrary, people have a sense of their consciousness for what they are doing at any given point in time. However, externality of observation, given the extent of our own subjectivity, definitive absolute understanding of their individual and group intentions may not be possible. Except from a superficial perspective, one can make efforts to discern the probability. We may never know ultimately the true subconscious extent of the collusive "mindset" of cults, conspiracy theorists, ufologists or organized criminal collusions of various kinds. Evidence can be elusive, enforcement might be less than cost-effective and manpower may not be available. Given constraints on local law enforcement, viable official efforts could be severely limited.

Regardless though in the meantime, con artists use subterfuge as a tricky stratagem by which the criminal collusion endeavors to deceive believers as well as onlookers. Double-speak, rhetorical hyperbole, and clever fallacies of inference maneuver the deception away from reality. An investigator must guard against his or her own susceptibility. In an investigative posture, one strives to determine the nature of criminality as reflected in criminal law statutes. Failing to attach significant meaning to the specificity of statutory violations, civil litigation or regulatory procedures may be an alternative. A conspiratorial case investigation usually considers the probable instigation of two or more persons perpetrating illegal actions.

As two or more persons labor to persuade their ruse, you try to evaluate the prospective gain from the bogus operations. What is the most likely benefit one or more persons might achieve from the fraud being perpetrated? Enrichment comes to the membership, as well as the upper echelons of the hierarchy, in multidimensional aspects. People get their needs met in different ways. Unlawfully, you take something from someone and then channel that to what appears to be a "noble cause". Rewards satiate gratifications both psychologically and physically. On some occasions the end result might appear legal, but the means by which that was achieved could be illegal. For instance, a particular sect uses illegal commodities gained through smuggling, robbery or burglary, etc, converted to cash, services or property. And, then donates the takings to a charitable organization or some public cause.

Subterfuge becomes part of the invented illusion whereby people are conned within a framework of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. From a childlike point of view, some people feel a need to believe what they see and hear forsaking logical investigation. Particularly, as is the case with the internet, one sees images and one tends to believe without questioning the convincing nature of the presentation. Given the nature of **cyberspace** for instance, the corresponding nature of criminal activity has changed to some degree. With such technology, the speed by which we process information and the amount of information transacted, sets the stage for more enhanced forms of trickery. People want to trust what they see in their computer screens.

It is as though we have allowed technology to provide everything for us except a grounded basis in common sense. For example, what we don't know for certain, we fill in the spaces where doubt leaves blanks. To view information, as it affects people, places and properties, necessitates a high degree of rational judgment that insists upon a coherent set of provable principles. But, when you think about it, rationality is something that's totally up to us to safeguard. You can't ensure in cyberspace that people will act with a savvy sense of logical applications. How is it we do that? Well, we want something from the external environment based on desires we believe we need. Very quickly, this group or that guru provides answers we want to hear.

In the engagement between our internal faculties and application to the outside world, the human species enjoys clever inventiveness. Interactivity in a techno-world following a post industrial revolution with post modern expectations, offers opportunities for the rampant spread of opinion as fact. Evidentiary criteria of a scrupulous nature are easily evaded by the fast paced expansion of data delivery. So much information is streamed so quickly that little or no scientific or forensic basis is applied in a consistently logical manner. Hence, pseudo-science can get out of hand. Likewise, the rigorous instigation of a meticulous investigation, built through painstaking efforts, does not often happen. When we hit a stumbling block within the dynamic structure of social interactivity, most of us are willing to do unreliable guesswork. Basically, this comes down to a situation where if we don't know the facts, we invent them.

A logical approach to an investigation involving the framework of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , must always ensure a search and discovery of the facts. That goes without saying a whole lot more. It's just basic to the investigative processes. From there analysis and subsequent proof are essential. Investigative analytics necessitates being able to solve a mystery. So, in a sense, you ought to have an inclination toward enjoying a good mysterious story. Evidence is crucial and conjecture is debatable. That's why the investigator needs a keen sense of the complex, because people weave webs of ideated intentions that get convoluted.

With that in mind, an inclination toward appreciating a good ambiguity, or story telling situation, one should ensure a penchant for the dark side of human behavior. Because we never know for certain the depths of human deception, you shouldn't be surprised at the bizarre things people are willing to believe. For the curious researcher, no matter what the socio-economic and education status of a person, humans can believe some extraordinarily strange things. This relates to the intricacy of human thinking processes, which are quite multi-layered and very unique to the individual.

In this regard, two key questions typically come to mind. These include how do you know and what do you mean? How do you know something is true? Who says so? What proof do you have? After all, if you assert something to be true, reliable and credible, then apparently you can prove without question what you are saying. How do you know a certain thing? Does evidence represent precisely what you can prove and thereby discern a law has been violated? Next, what do you mean? You have to define the parameters by which you claim factuality, as well as supporting data or other information.

The opportunity to commit an illicit act of fraud, scam, hoax, or anything else, is based upon target selection, probable and perceived gain, and intentional perpetration for self-gratification on the part of the criminal. In the traditional method of searching for a motive, one may encounter unnecessary distractions. The search for a motive often leads to an elusive pursuit of superficial inconclusive speculation. That's because we can never know with absolute certainty what the perpetrator was really thinking. Motivational forces can be asserted as smoke screen to deceive.

Often within the interactivity of communal collectivism, black and white thinking colludes in a projective assertion for the efficacy of one's own belief system. This interpersonal communication exchange declares an ideology to the exclusion of others. Illogical applications in support for personal self-centered purposes arrive at the juncture of social communicative processes. Attitudinal prerogatives allege an individual's own ideas, emotions and sentiments that contend contrary viewpoints are erroneous. When one does not stress the search for the truth or viable testing of theory, along with relevant supporting factual evidence as essential to an investigative process, most likely you're looking at a probable deception. Of which, you must beware.

A person can argue his or her opinion based on "ancient scrolls" for instance all day long. And yet, such "affirmations" of a hollowed tradition through colorful story telling does not prove the existence or prior existence of the metaphysical allegations claimed in the particular dogma or doctrine. One can argue a code of belief very convincingly and yet not be able to prove substantially the declaration for which they stress believability. In some cases, doctrinal proclamations are mere cover stories for criminal activity. Evidence to affirm a particular point of view in terms of criminality must eventually be shown to prove an offense has occurred. If so, then the various types of evidence must be gathered to support the case at hand if at all possible. Investigative processes confirm or disavow whether or not a violation of law has in point of fact occurred.

As an investigator, your personal feelings, emotions and belief systems are for the most part irrelevant to the outcome of the case. You must substantiate the "corpus delicti" by demonstrating the nature of the criminality by virtue of the facts involved. Additionally, there must be a legal basis for which one or more members of a group are to be charged and arrested. Thus, you have a fact pattern reflective of a criminal nature, the presence of a criminal interaction of one or more persons, a state of criminal activity occurred because of criminal behavior, and subsequent injuries suffered. One must insist upon the provability of accusations in question. Malice aforethought, premeditation and intentional performance connect to the establishment of the cause-effect continuum of criminality. And, everyone has a frame of mind conducive to illicit behavior.

With that in mind, preconceived notions as to culpability in a particular case must be carefully balanced in avoidance of excessive bias. Again, excessive bias means already forming your opinion as to the cause-effect results of the investigation prior to conducting your investigation. In other words, you already decided in your opinion of what happened, without fully knowing all the facts, that a crime occurred and who the guilty parties are. Caution for the investigator should be exercised when ever an investigative process does not clearly result in definitive evidence. That is, you arrive at a crime scene, receive a complaint or obtain field intelligence; you need to avoid making any final conclusions, because other factors may affect the outcome.

As to that point, we will never completely escape our biases in regard to a particular set of events, people or places. Yet, we endeavor to the extent possible to control them for the sake of the investigation. This becomes especially clear when confronting the fallacy where persons argue from their perspective regarding the nature of "ignorance". Sometimes, we refer to this posture as "argumentum ad ignorantiam". This is a fallacy in regard to whether or not the facts support an assertion under consideration. Basically, the claim being made is supposed to be true because it hasn't been proved wrong. However, on closer inspection we might discover that a credible investigative process has not been done, or is pending completion. Absent that, the facts have not been brought into the full spectrum of solvability and could eventually prove or disprove the claim.

The burden of proof undergoes a shift away from solvability in the direction of satisfying personal biases. Individual prejudice, or subjective validation, pursues the idea that since the investigator hasn't proved it so, or can't disprove it, then it must follow the issue may or may not have happened. Depending on the superficial rationalization, a person can make any claim, no matter how bizarre or far reaching. Also, in order to plug in the mental spaces between what is known and unknown, inventive thinking can fill the gaps very quickly. In the process of human thinking, you desire to believe what you want to believe in spite of the facts of the case, to reinforce your belief system. One eventually theorizes what he or she projects as believability for the satiation of privately held desires. When confronted with information to the contrary, you might realize that in reality there is no credible evidence to support what you believe. Then what do you do? Alter your belief system? Well, ultimately that's up to you for choices you make.

Along with those instances of selectivity in which you choose to believe either this or that, you no doubt want to ensure the actuality of the specific circumstances. Reality and its close affinity to the truth, or as close as humans might get, requires an important degree of provability. Now, once again it should be pointed out, the focus here is not a person's individual belief system that is called into question. Believe in anything you want. Assert the advocacy of any ideological perspective you care to align yourself with. However, one caution is that you should be tolerant of those who might choose to disagree. So, you should question any dogma, doctrine or dissertation.

Question everything out there in the known universe. However, the perspective presented here is when "beliefs" become the cover story to perpetrate scams, schemes and sinister activities. Each of us should endeavor to insist upon the facts that are relevant, material and competent to the controversy in question. In a criminal investigation for instance, the investigator wants to provide the prosecution sufficient probative evidence to establish the basis of a "corpus delicti". In application to issues regarding cults, conspiracies and associated criminal enterprises, the investigative standard should be no less rigorous in scope, sequence and systematic application.

As used in the old days of investigations, the "corpus delicti" is basically the substantial basis in fact that an illicit activity, contrary to law, has been committed against another person, entity or community process. It may be civil or criminal or both. The point though is that someone or a group of people perpetrated a criminal enterprise in which someone suffered injury. With cults, gangs, terrorist groups, organized crime and other "group" activities, one or more persons carried an illegal venture of some kind. Very simply, this could be fraud exercised within any of the three categories of community interactivity, such as the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**.

An offense or conspiratorial series of offenses must be shown to exist by the evidence discovered during an investigation. As such, proof becomes incumbent upon the investigative efforts. Likewise, yet somewhat differently, on the other side of the issue at hand, adherents of a particular perspective ought to be able to substantiate their point of view. In this sense, "corpus delicti" works on both sides of the issue at hand. For those seeking to enlist believability in their ideological standpoint, the person or group should be able to verify their alleged findings through a "body of facts".

From an investigative perspective, "corpus delicti" suggests being able to pull together the essential facts relative to the controversy at hand. It is the facts of the crime that argues the viability of the investigative methodology. Overall, the investigator seeks to discover the "body of facts" that demonstrate without question that a criminal act or criminal conspiracy has occurred. This is likewise connected to the physical evidence that can be produced to substantiate an allegation. Evidentiary credibility comes in several interrelated forms of competent materiality referred to as types of evidence. All too often, those with limited investigative skills quickly assert a very superficial claim of "evidence", in order to prove the subjective nature of their claims. In actuality, the alleged "evidence" might be that of some so called "expert" or "eyewitness".

Several types of evidence include direct evidence. Direct evidence that is probative in nature stems from the information provided by witnesses that identify the suspect or suspects involved. A witness or complainant can positively state a connection between the criminal and the criminal activity. Real evidence by contrast, represents the physical aspects of the case. The physical nature of the criminality is identified by way of the real evidence produced by the investigation. Later on, during the course of the investigation, "demonstrative" evidence may assist in the provability of the investigative assertions. These could be photographs, video tapings, audio recordings, maps, drawings, crime scene sketches, etc, that tend to support the testimony of witnesses.

In addition, sometimes it becomes necessary to use "circumstantial" evidence. And, this form of confirmation as to the suspect's complicity can be all other evidence other than direct evidence. It is a matter of logical deduction in the interpretation of the connection that probably exists between the crime and the defendant. In other words, by considering the indirectness of the evidence and the linkage to the defendant, a rational interpretation of the known facts results in a conclusion. Finally, expert witnesses are called into the case to render an opinion which is called "expert opinion evidence". Depending on the setting in which and "expert" is used, the viability is subject to challenge. In a legal proceeding, the courts would determine who the "expert witness" is based on a person's education, experience, unique skill level and so on.
Chapter 13 – Logical Deduction in Rational Inquiry:

Within the traditional framework of investigative inquiry, one of the objectives an investigator once considered was the means by which to apply critical thinking skills. In this process, the criminality is identified, the criminal or criminals are located and the facts are assembled to prove complicity. Evidence is crucial along with the methodical means by which the evidentiary artifacts are gathered. The role of logical deduction in rational inquiry plays a significant foundational aspect. As a collector of factuality, the investigator puts together a tentative hypothesis or theory of the case. Theories may change over time, depending on what the evidence shows. If you test your assumption or premise against the evidence and it doesn't hold up then change it.

By the process of deduction, preferred by some of us, you typically begin your inquiry by assembling a generalized perception of the case. From a universal theory, or generalization based on presumption, you apply that configuration to the specific situation. Within this perspective, you are attempting to comprehend whether or not the theory explains the instance you are dealing with. Overall, the logical deduction is an effort to assert a theoretical construct relative to your particular situation. It is from this juncture you set out to test the theory and see if it is valid. Caution is always warranted that we ensure limitations on our particular set of cognitive bias.

Do the parts of the puzzle come together in a cohesive and coherent whole? The theory is subjected to limitless testing to ensure validation based on the evidence, not your theory. Your theory may be grossly in error and might have to undergo alteration. So, you avoid trying to find evidence that reinforces your original construction. The idea of logical deduction in rational inquiry pertains to things like rules of evidence, chain of custody in collecting and testing evidence, as well as techniques in application. Within the scope of the so called "scientific method" you are following methodical procedures by applying consistent rules, accepted ideas of reality, and techniques for forensic applicability. Abstract thought or contemplation of the specific incident requires that hypothetical circumstances are later subjected to credible validation.

However, as an investigator, whether public, private or hobby orientation in your investigative efforts, you have to remain alert at all times. Stay keenly aware of the high probability for rhetorical hyperbole within the schemes and scams of social commentary. All forms and sub-forms of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , are contrived uses of rhetoric mostly for the purposes of provoking feelings. Adherents to a particular cause or persuasion want to evoke a strong impression in order to bolster their case. Facts may be nonexistent. As a researcher starts down the pathway of reason, facts might get confusing. Sorting out the entanglements requires methodical effort. When you reason a problem-solving matter, you suspend emotionalism temporarily. As a person of conscience and integrity, you desire to be perfectly honest in your efforts. Too many dysfunctions in our personal lives frequently spill over into or professional exercises. As such, the splash of arrogance and selfishness clouds the process of discovery.

Most people don't want to do that because they desire and crave to accept what is the most uncomplicated solution or answer to something complex. Emotional reactivity is the aim, in order to ensure a quantity of subjective validation for self-satiation. Deliberate and calculated use of exaggeration about a particular phenomenon is purposeful from the standpoint of willful instigation. Premeditation, will malice or compassion aforethought, by way of willful intention, are driving forces within our thinking processes. Don't be fooled by the alleged benevolence of contrived innocence or naiveté. People know what they are doing at some psycho-sexual dimension of ideation.

One must bear in mind that no amount of publicity, celebrity endorsement or political interference validates the credibility of any assertion or claim of innocence against the guilt of complicity or collusion. Social collectivism would like solidarity in the framework of cognitive bias by application through fallacies of inference. It's up to you to investigate the probability in contrast to the reality of whether or not factual materiality applies in the relevancy of cause-effect provability. One good rule of thumb is that you don't have to work too strenuously to outwit the average person. Today, as never before, superficiality of thought and expression do not stretch deeper than immediate gratification of personal proclivities. When engaged in public discourse, it seems as though "average" is actually well below any semblance of what ought to be perceived as being average. To be credible with oneself is a good starting point.

Human behavior labors in the aftermath of precipitous ideations. We think it and then figure out ways to act upon the thinking. Whether the intention is good or evil, pro-social or anti-social depends on us. Actions come in the followup expression to the thoughts we creatively invented. To provoke the intensity of provocative interactive interpersonal communication, one must indulge in deep insightful thinking. If for instance theoretical physicists can conceive of multiple dimensions through time and space, then it should follow that the brain does also. As such, thinking interacts up and down a scale of calculated intensity that only the creator can imagine. That is to say, the brain functions in an expansive framework of multidimensional thinking processes. Deconstructing preconceived notions about our universe stirs the prurient fears of not knowing things. When we don't know, we elect to make hasty choices. In the process, some of us might get abducted by aliens. Others find illicit cover-ups by governments.

To think logically in an effort of rational deductive inquiry, requires hard work. Generally speaking, we'd prefer not to do that if the choices are relatively easy. Thus, social interactivity devolves along a dangerous landscape of shallow superficial bias. It is exceedingly laborious to proceed along a spherical landscape of mind where the psycho-sexual dynamics change moment to moment. We invent resistance and defensiveness. Variables in the cause-effect continuum instigate problems. Such is a psychic minefield. Certainty chases after its opposite number of uncertainty to gain assurance of some validity. Doubt becomes an ongoing debt for which we often are not prepared to collect. As a result we take short cuts and thereby attempt to make sure we're on the correct pathway to understanding the nature of things around us.

For the investigator, old thinking patterns must be constantly upgraded, productively altered and more proficiently evolved. You must evolve as a person within your personality in a more authentic and less self-centered capacity. Some might call this a climb to the pinnacle of self-actualization. Whereby in the search for the truth, you methodically ensure the reality of the evidence. For the sake of provability, you seek and deeper logical answer if possible. A really good investigator strives for logical sphere of thought patterns with limited prejudicial interference. As you investigate a communal connectivity of questionable concern, as in the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , you must take steps to ascend to a higher introspective level.

In the reality of a three dimensional context, it is one thing to conceive of alternate dimensions, extrasensory experiences and conspiratorial manifestations. And, it is exceptionally another thing to actually prove them. People outside their domain of expertise very often make the tactical error of intruding into the realm of the competent investigator. While the former is typically very emotional about a sensually personal issue, the latter pursues scientific validity. What is real and what is not real depends on the evidence that span the spectrum of evidentiary requirements to substantiate criminal activity. Conjecture is one thing, conclusion is quite another.

For the sake of personal satiation, people frequently project the necessities for self-gratification in the magical desires of wishful thinking. Fantasy comes to fruition in the ideation of the smoke and mirrors of overly self-indulgent imaginations. On the fringe of conspiratorial assertions, adherents will skim over the superficial appearance of concrete methodology allegedly supported by scientific evidence. However, so often is the case that the facts are drastically deficient in the certainty of the final conclusion. For instance, grainy photographs, contrived sketches, jerky movies, hazy pictures and anecdotal allegations present imprecise provability in the overall schemes of the Planetary, the **Political** and the **Paranormal**.

As an investigator, you not only want to accept and comprehend the level of the thinking involved, but also discern what the evidence says. Listening to the scope and extent of the interpersonal communications are important to analyzing the intentions, purposes and aims of the speculations. Thinking precedes the utterances of the individual's and the group's particular ideology. This philosophical inclination within a particular viewpoint (i.e. UFO's, paranormal activity, cover-ups, conspiracies, etc.), underscores the creed, the dogma and the belief system. From the thinking processes flows the ideation which seeks to reinforce the framework of the associated enterprises. At the same time, people involved can be quite convinced of their perspective.

With limited knowledge of what we know about the natural world, we must use caution in ascribing all kinds of believability to things out of this world. Likewise for that matter, the mysterious aspects of the so called paranormal realm demand rigorous scientific validation. Of that which we cannot explain, it makes no sense to argue the provability of nothing out of nothing. If so, then maybe a scam is at work.

From within the rubric of the attendant argumentation, one wonders as to the vociferousness by which people will defend the indefensible. Think about relevance, materiality and competence in each aspect of the query. Absent the relevance of essential materiality for a matter, the debates become frivolous and without substantiation or competence. Once again, you have to question the intentions of the personalities involved, whether it is paranormal, planetary or political. Today, most people are not accustomed to the applications of rigorous inquiry. Instead, many are more interested in chasing personal gain in some materialistic remuneration. Others, who venture into illicit collusions, may achieve personal satiation via non-materialistic gain.

Follow the paper trail so to speak. Where does the money tree grow best in terms of who get what? Fame, fortune, notoriety, attention, a sense of value, and so forth? All these egoistic indulgences have value. That is to say, who gains or profits from the collusive endeavor? Rewards or gratification comes in many forms and depends on who is involved. Each level of hedonism stimulates each person differently. Take a murder mystery for example. An investigator may wish to apply the amative nature of the cause effect instigation of this killing event. This is the ultimate crime of personal self-indulgence in the seduction of the psychodynamic nature of the individual. What do you look for? To identify the killer, you look for as much evidence as you can find, right? Likewise, such should be the model for every inquiry. You should develop the most intense and detailed scrutiny you can exert during the course of your analysis.

Generally speaking, what solves a homicide? Information flow is the key and that relates to evidentiary artifacts, witness testimony, and suspect identification. In a sense, the contrast can be illuminated by information, identification, and instrumentation in the analysis of many factors. From discovery of allegations to the scene of the crime, and initial theory development, the foundation is constructed upon basic elements. These include such things as: cause-effect interactions, evidence collection, specimen examination, witness cultivation, and incriminating correlations. Along the way, we must be cautious as the emergence of fictitious interjections of myth and lore. An example would be the fictional portrayals of movies that people allow to influence thinking.

As an investigator, you have to consider that people need some type of fictitious conceptualization of their surroundings in order to find **"thrill in the swill"**. In other words, the phraseology here references the earlier expression of **"cognitive bias"**. Sure, after a while you begin to see the repetitive nature of human deception. For that, bias likes the companionship of **"subjective validation"**. Simply stated, we each have a viewpoint on how the world "should" be explained, and we really don't like others upsetting that for us. Unless of course you consider that we are productively evolving as differentiated and self-reliant people. Okay, so at this point, the whole framework of deceptive thinking takes on a special kind of redundancy.

Deductively, you've been here before. In the thrill, there is adventure, seduction and ecstasy in the ruses we configure. Easy answers and shortcuts to critical thinking are summoned to make things seem overly simplistic. As such, a serious intellectual deficiency results as evidence remains elusive. Supposedly mature and smart people fall prey to con artists, charlatans and fakes. For the sake of the swill, the conception of "pigswill" or slop and garbage come to mind. This is the conception of modern day thinking processes that are weakly defended and emotionally charged.

With a lack logic, authenticity and reason, beliefs fall among the communal thorny thickets of foolish self-centeredness. Among the rocky roads of life, some fall off the strenuous path of self-discovery in their search of for the truth. Because serious investigation is hard work, some choose the easy path that doesn't require too much psychic energy. Usually, that means someone else does their thinking for them. And again, you ask, what is that suggestion of the "thrill of the swill"? Self-deception is purposely contrived within its psycho-dynamic structure. Verbal garbage contrives to rationalize all manner of inferential fallacy. In so doing, swill takes on a kind of macabre veil of believability. We do this because it's convenient and not laborious.

**Subjective validation** in faulty provability of a particular conjecture (conspiracy theory), generally surfaces when we allow biases to make hasty generalizations. In drawing an early connection between two or more events, in association with people, places and things, most of us have a purpose in mind. We want to be right. To be wrong is not comforting and to overlook the cause-effect relationship helps support our view. Lack of evidence is not a problem. We simply fill in the blanks where needed.

In a conspiracy, proof of the alleged conspiracy tends to emerge from a provable pattern of linkages between two or more people. An investigator strives to connect these linkages, make sense out of the interactions and draw a line between the points of reference. Along the way, evidence is assembled. People, places and properties in question or under suspicion cross paths. People and events connect to those intersections where there are evidentiary artifacts that demonstrate such interactions. To ensure logical deduction for a rational inquiry, the factual basis should be emphasized consistently. More often than not, most people will relegate their speculation to a mundane and superficial level. The savvier inquisitor will ceaselessly insist on provability. Criminality is inventive and manifests into myriad schemes and scams. Urban legends and hoaxes are transpiring everyday on the internet. Many fall prey to the variations.

Given the human penchant for a good story, the stage is set for a mystery when one tells another and two convince others of their veracity. As one or more people attempt to draw others into the ruse, a story telling of sorts spins from the interactive dynamics. Solicitation to fall for the confidence scheme takes on many disguises from the simple to the complex and runs the gamut of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. Several persons in a given situation may solicit, induce, entice, conspire and seduce others to the temptation of the fascinating tale being told. Somewhere along this progression the investigator has to discern whether or not a crime or crimes have been committed. Meanwhile as the saga unfolds, a conspiracy may evolve into a cult.

For the investigator, the task is to remain focused on the nature of the illegality. In terms of a criminal law violation, a determination as to specific crimes attempted or committed must be proved. In all probability, a good guideline might be to consider whether or not an assertion suggests the plausibility in relation to allegations at hand. Credibility of evidence supports the reality of the contentions people claim to be valid. In addition, another perspective is to contemplate the essential viability of the accusations in question. Very complicated conspiracies require long term planning, large numbers of personnel, extensive deployment of material resources and an efficient time-line to completion. So, the more complex the conspiracy, the lesser the possibility that such is true and factual. Yet, people will persist regardless of the evidence, in order make their perceptions come true and support the believability of their bias.

A predisposition to prejudicial assertion is not foreign to human thinking. Generally speaking, we should keep in mind that an illogical impossibility is often preferable to a clear and convincing probability. With the broad reach of proliferation of alleged experts, you would think the opposite would be true. With that, you might also consider that subjectivity for selfish validation would be kept to an absolute minimum. Unfortunately, that is not the case. But then again, there is no guarantee for any sufficiency of rational discernment on any subject. Seldom is the truth relevant in most human actions.

Bias runs rampant as humanity continues to devolve toward the prurient passions of self-satiation in the myriad seductions of supernatural belief systems. We seem to always be reaching for the stars, as if we to see a god's face among the clouds. As such, the debate will continue with regard to any aspect of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. Finding the truth if it's out there, will always remain a challenge for the skilled and competent investigator. For him or her, hidden agendas must be exposed.

Looking skyward, people will find all manner of conjecture upon which to extrapolate some fanciful pontification about living and dying. To support outlandish claims, whether it involves demons, men in black conspiracies, or alien abductions, people mix beliefs with science to conjure the acceptability of facetious arguments. Collectively and individually, we want to be right about what we believe. With acquiescence to group consensus, things only get worse, as extreme viewpoints seek justification.

Since people operate largely from assumptions about the world around them, there is a sense of power in their collusive efforts. We move closer toward those groups that reinforce what we think ought to be correct, true and viable. In complicity, "ring leaders" like to perceive themselves as potently divine in their all-knowing prognostications. This extends a measure of divine qualities to the other members. Once you have all the knowledge you need, you don't need anything else.

If everyone in the group believes he or she is right, then why go through any steps that require rational deduction in logical inquiry? Once you ascribe planetary omniscience outside the control of humans, or government conspiracies beyond the governed, then anything is possible. As some point, accountability and responsibility need not be rigorously applied to ensure evidentiary factuality. It is unnecessary to gather the facts and weight the evidence when you already have all the "answers".

In the aftermath of clever cunning deceptions, other people suffer from the arrogance and selfishness of the premeditated scams and schemes. More often than not, people, particularly those who champion the extremisms of belief, conjure the reckless neglect of factual deduction. For all intents and purposes, we are what others do not see. That is, the hidden motives, cloaked by the publicity of magical thinking, harbor the malevolence of human darkness. With criminals, whether guru or adherents in collusive collectivity, if one believes he or she is absolutely right then facts are not relevant. Errors in thinking are contrived to serve the hunger for self-satiation. A person can easily play the role of saint, at the same time he or she desires the fanfare of a devil.

Many times in the discourse of public interaction, people argue the believability of an issue (i.e. the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** ) from an emotional basis. They will endeavor at great length to reinforce their position, or justification for why something ought to be true. Non-believers will be held in contempt. As such, any disagreement or opposition with that perspective is often met with resentment or worse. Criminals in particular, who are mainly not much different than the rest of us, think they should be treated in special ways. A sense of entitlement to egoistic whims rationalizes the erroneous reinforcement of the almighty self-image and feelings of self-worth.

Think logically about it for a moment. Why should any of this come as a surprise? After decades of criminal behavior theory, study and application, along the varied manifestations of cults and conspiracies, we should know better. But, we ignore the reality that people don't change all that much. With human intentions, not much ever does. When self-image is threatened, criminality finds ways and means by which to cover its tracks. Sages, devotees and alleged "experts" come in all sizes, shapes and sentimentalities. They are very clever in getting what they want.

Whenever someone raises a controversy and suggests a conspiracy, it becomes necessary for proof to rise above the level of mere wishful thinking. For instance, with suspicion of a political cover-up, the accuser has to be held accountable for proving the factuality of his or her allegation. A trail of connections, linkages and association should lead to the facts that prove or disprove the dispute in question. Evidence ought to prevail in support of probable violations of statutory provisions. Probable cause must establish sufficiency of reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.

A conspiracy investigation is a complex multi-faceted process that involves the seeking of the truth based on the facts. The conspiracy itself concerns an illegality in violation of the criminal laws. In making logical inquiries, you are not looking for feel good, emotionally supportive and personally subjective reinforcement for a biased viewpoint. Conspiratorial activities are collusive actions that suggest a plot, a scheme or an act of treachery. Not only that, but once you have credible facts in place, then you have to prove criminality. In connection with such, people who allege belief in "conspiracies" may commit illegality by what they do to convince others.

From an investigative and criminological perspective, persons in a conspiracy or maybe cultic activity might collude to commit an assortment of crimes. So, in the realm of "conspiracy theories", with the possibilities for many ramifications, there are lots of schemes that span the spectrum of communal interaction. Has a crime occurred? Well, that is something for the investigator to figure out.

In order for such to occur, as in a planetary plot for human extinction, many elements must come together. This includes many people, places and things interacting to take over the human race. To bring about the successful invasion of the planet by alien forces, a number of "super-human actions have to be employed successfully. All this must be done with or without official government detection. Or, with government complicity, many people and aliens have to be employed without others finding out.

If evidence fails to effectively substantiate the allegations of a true and credible conspiratorial linkage, then investigative efforts may be dealing with a fraud, scam, hoax, and so on. Fallacies of inference that lead to hasty generations are rampant in society today. As such, a lack of viable credence in the efficacy of the assertions suggests a con. The entire enterprise could be a criminal conspiracy to defraud people. Connectivity to someone and something needs to substantiate the cause-effect relationship. Failure of the evidence to prove a linkage suggests the probability of fakery.

For the investigator, you should ask such things as: would this allegation require supernatural phenomenon and powerful occult forces to accomplish the conspiracy? What about the intricacy as well as secrecy required in pulling it off? Where taking over the world is concerned, such is an unlikely prospect. At all times, facts have to be distinguished from probability, and evidence from fanciful conjecture.
Chapter 14 – Mindful Musings in Premeditated Malevolence:

A mindful musing in premeditated malevolence suggests the duality of purpose that people use to disguise their hidden agendas. Often, this ruse contrives to fabricate a tale that perpetrates fallacies of inference for deceptive purposes. Story telling traditions are historic and continue to this date to foster all manner of myth, magic and metaphor. Gods, goddesses, genies and gurus continue to populate the landscape of alleged civilized societies. Mindfully purposed to achieve self-centered ends, communal musings stir innate carnality in calculated wickedness. People get excited for the satiation of their own ponderings, in order to achieve personal proclivities of private inclinations.

Up front and out in public there is at least one viewpoint advocated by an individual or group that does not always conform to logical deduction or scientific validation. And yet, behind the scenes, more menacingly in the privacy of their inner sanctums, a person or persons have supplementary objectives to betray the trust of others. The press does it, politicians and preachers do it and the public accepts it. One of the problems in discovering the truth rests upon the ability to uncover the real nature of the belief system, the evidence and viability for which one advocates an issue.

Another problem is pseudo-scientific speculation that is frequently allowed to pass public inspection into social reception without much challenge, debate or verification. For most of us, one can easily put together enough "scientifically" sounding words, using special key words and phrases, and pass off a lie as the truth. Multi-media mechanisms move very quickly from one perspective to another, and eventually onto the next top story. Validation of the previous notion typically gets away and hides among the rest of the unsubstantiated hasty generalizations with faulty conclusions.

Communal consensus offers myriad options for believability in one thing or another. In some cultures, you don't get a list of options; you get one choice or face punishment for disbelief. For the most part to some degree, in more open and supposedly liberated cultures, the challenge is from multiple competing interests. You may not be threatened with stoning for instance, but instead there are subtle influential pressures. Someone or some group wants you to believe in their point of view. As such, persuasion takes on divergent forms of individual and group pressures.

People seek the comfort and consensus of others. For many, this makes them feel good. At the same time, they gravitate in the direction that best fits their sense of believability. Many of us will do whatever is necessary to ensure our point of view is "valid" and "correct", regardless of what that takes. In return others seek to ensure collusion in communal cohesiveness and invite others to follow them. There are so called "peer pressures" that surround us from different outlooks, perspectives and situations. And, it's up to you to make the right choices, in spite of the influences. The point is, we are exposed to countless forms of information streams, some subtle and some overt. Whether over the edge advertising, the zealous fad of the moment, or political campaign ruses, you have to accept accountability for alleged truths you embrace.

But, hold on a second. Don't think for a minute that "peer pressure" is deterministic by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing outside your physical nature determines your actions. Humans are rational, thinking and motivated creatures, very much different as a species from the animal kingdom. People have purposes for the things they do. Likewise, people are selfish, deceptive and cunning. However, on the other hand, if you're looking for excuses, you can use the "peer pressure" scam as a default position to escape responsibility. Wherever you go, work, play and so forth, "group think" is building complicity at every opportunity to sway your ideologies. Colleagues, friends and associates do not make us believe anything. We do that of our own free will.

None the less, you are answerable for the beliefs and activities in which you engage. Human efforts to believe in something follow a natural process of individualized neurologically purposed curiosity. A few pursue these endeavors with a healthy semblance of skepticism until such time the facts are either proved or disproved. We know, say and do things for the sake of validating thinking processes. Unfortunately, dangerous cults, conspiracies and criminal enterprises become attractive possibilities to coalesce mutually receptive ideations for satiation of innate desires. As such, people give willing credulous authenticity to the realms of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. In these efforts, we choose the company with which we interact to meet internal necessities. To this end in the context of a post-modern world, one wonders at the global stupidity encompassing the human race. Pretenses to gullibility run rampant. You have to wonder, are we devolving as a species. Most likely the answer is yes.

We will not progress, prevail and evolve as more credible, advanced and authentic beings until we accept innate reality of our willful premeditations. We think therefore we decide our courses of actions in life. In making free choices individually and uniquely, we choose our private, public and personal outcomes. The faulty premise that unseen forces outside of us determine the fate of our individual consequences rests upon the mystic illusion of learned helplessness. Large numbers of people desire the explanation of some invisible gods and goddesses, or alien ancestors to secretly manipulate human existence. To be puppets for supernatural puppeteers who pull our strings, is abject prevarication for shirking accountability in social responsibility. Then again, it seems masses of the populace want exactly that, someone to control them.

On the contrary though, people who desire liberation in the freedom of their ideations must ensure well-supported profound insightful points of view. Vigorous pursuits in a more qualified and competent search for the facts demands rigorous inquiry. For instance, what does the evidence say? Will there be a serious effort to seek out the validity of each and every assertion other proclaim? Whether malevolent misdirection, mayhem or murder, you propose extraordinary claims, then you must be ready to defend those declarations by exceptional evidence. For the opposing perspective of deterministic fateful non-self-determination, being at the mercy of ghosts, gremlins and goblins is an unsavory prospect. Such is a kind of victimization mentality that pretends we are predetermined by forces beyond our control. Simply put, we are not.

As individuals in any society, we have a noble personal responsibility to think productively and advance the human species wherever possible. Okay, well at least think proactively with higher singular potential as an educated life form. And yet, here's the unfortunate counter-perspective on the forgoing. What if the human race, or sizeable segments thereof, is actually devolving in the sense of intellectual capacity? This frightening prospect may demonstrate the increased and continued gullibility for acceptance of fictional notions as realities. Is it reasonable to assume there is a growing contemporary "pop cultural stupidity" among the populations of the world? And if so, would that devolution contribute to increased believability in the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**? Not to mention of course the prospect of dangerous cults, conspiracies and criminal collusions of assorted deceptive typologies.

Consider "stupidity", as in the foolishness of fallacies of inference, or the devolution of thinking skills for a moment. Well, actually if you follow the direction mentioned here, you'll probably want to ponder this notion much longer. The long term implications can be scary. If the old adage about use it or lose it is true, then not using thinking skills fades away too. For the many who fail to apply serious insightful ideations, from the basis of profoundly effective inquiry, reasoning seems to be a lost art. Public discourse appears to be chiefly conducted on the basis of guesswork. So, in the devolution of human thought processes, the intent here is to express concern for the backward sense of the associated evolutionary mechanisms. That is to say, as it pertains to the superficiality of human thought expressiveness, there's a serious lack of depth. This is where human beings pass through stages of descent to primitive and primordial forms over time.

At the same, the age-old preoccupation with the personal gain of material obsessions looms larger than ever. Not to forget of course the key component of excessive emotionalism in the place of cool, calm and collected rationality. In the craving to satiate the sensual contrivance to gain tangible acquisitions, people are quick to quench the thirst for subjective validation. All too the rush to achieve "proof" at any cost or by any means can be justified at the expense of others. The limerant seduction at the nexus of human ideation assembles so easily the perpetration of myriad hasty conclusions upon fallacies of inference. From that juncture, people make deliberate choices for better or for worse, but regardless, always for their own sense of self-satisfaction.

Quenching the hunger of the libido has always been the preferred credo for the pretext in sanctification of the individual's point of view. No matter what the belief system, anyone is capable of anything, as well as the dire consequences that follow. In that special capacity to invent the believability of fictions instead of facts, people relish in simplistic explanations. That gives aid and comfort to the short sightedness of foolish, nonsensical and specious arguments. From the benign to the dangerous, this relates to simple-minded conceptions of things like religious extremism, in addition to cosmic revelations about human origins. At the baser level of conjuring the myriad possibilities, the realm of the supernatural offers an abundance of "believable" assertions steeped in myth, magic and metaphor. This of course, fuels untruths instead actuality and foolhardiness of communal acceptance. Silliness in public policy soon follows.

Stupidity is a clever pretext for irresponsibility and fear of being held accountable. Such premeditated aberrations leave countless examples around the globe. From every culture to the status aspirations of the allegedly cultured, humans reflect the configurations they've crafted. For the sake of it people will contrive any conjecture to secure the most expedient alibi. The illusion of silliness, immaturity and foolishness scams the communal context with intricate deceptions. To that, one must ask, in the midst of all the tomfoolery of social buffoonery, is it possible Homo sapiens are de-evolving? More directly, let's just simply say the human race is in the throes of de-evolution.

As to that historic notion of evolution, or even the mythic conception of creation, what if they're both wrong and way off course? What if we've greatly deceived ourselves on both issues and neither explains much of anything? To evolve means grow, progress, advance and change. With some very notable exceptions, most people aren't very concerned about a profound, well-differentiated effort to change themselves. Forget ascent to exceptional heights of intellectual consciousness. Few of us, over time, endeavor to create a more "evolved" version of ourselves.

As to creation, that suggests we can produce, generate and otherwise form something extraordinarily inventive. Well, some do, but then again, that is a small group of thinkers and doers who zealous pursue their enrichment of their minds. Meanwhile, the vast majority eke out a subsistence of limited progression in the explorations of serious ideations. Instead, we seem to cling to myth, magic and metaphor in the assertion of simple explanations for amazing and bizarre situations and events. Fallacies of inferential preference chase demons, demigods and other assort deadly delusions.

Everyone lies to themselves about something and most often it is about who we are inside ourselves. On the outside, we also lie to everyone else. Where we should be finding solutions to complicated questions of human existence, for the betterment of personal uniqueness, we fight each other for the glory of self-gratification. In our duality of thinking complexly, there is a delicate, devious and dangerous balance between the instinctual "self" versus the preferential "self". One is emotion, feeling and reaction, while the other is logic, reason and deduction. In that struggle to satiate authentic viability of the basic self, we make choices between fact and fantasy. Where mature integration is essential, courage gives way to indulgence in make-believe.

Good and evil manifest and transmute by intentional behaviors into such things as cults, conspiracies and the illicit range of transnational criminal enterprises. Effective story-telling fabricates cover stories to cloak the real intentions, often sinister, of the individual and the group. Criminal collusions conspire in numerous forms. And, they include such well-crafted activities that include the full range of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. From that, we get back to the question at hand as related to mystical kinds of inferential fallacies. Is the human race de-evolving as such might relate to illuminated thought processes connected to critical thinking? Pursuit of facts instead of falsehoods, with supporting evidence, remains lacking.

For some us, the prospect is chilling, disturbing and seemingly highly probable. There serious dangerous to ignorance and simplified subjective validations that evade reality. There appears to be, from the standpoint of an observational perspective, a gradual regression taking place among humans. Again, go back and review some of the conspiracy theories of modern times and assess the thoughts and beliefs connected to some of those specious assertions. Also, look at a few of the ideologies associated with the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. Generally, there's a trend toward greater social dependence, entitlement and greedy consumption. Contrast that with a self-initiated well-educated perseverance for productive, creative and disciplined independence. Or, as most practice, a preoccupation with lazy thinking.

Very basically, in the conception of evolution, a species "evolves" in an industrious progression toward betterment of subsequent offspring. In other words, the original version transforms to become a more "evolved" or changed form of the former. In the process, the begetting creates higher life forms, right? Individually, given the freedom to alter toward continual improvements, a person should succeed in becoming successful in the reinvention of one's individuality. Now, the discussion here is focused on thinking skills within the context of a larger social unit, such as a society. However, in reality for the masses, the preference degenerates toward simplistic nearly primordial ideations. This instead is that which flirts with myth, magic and pretense to stupidity. There are always exceptions with those smaller numbers of people who challenge conventional mediocrity and strive to enlighten themselves. Nevertheless, for the majority profound intellectual evolutionary trends do not appear rampant among people throughout the world.

The basic concept behind the suggestion of mindful musings in premeditated malevolence includes an element of the macabre. Such a notion offers the conceptualization of human nature's prurient carnality to pursue the darker side of behavior. It is somewhat ghoulish and grisly to know that we endeavor to manipulate others so that we feel more comfortable with ourselves. In cultish proclivities for example, people in groups go to great lengths to dominate, intimidate and otherwise control member's activities, beliefs and subsequent behavioral inclinations. Vicious recriminations and vindictive criticisms rail against opposing arguments.

Of course that dispositional preference is not limited to cults, conspiracies or other related criminal enterprises. Not so criminal, yet perhaps deceptively unethical, we find such pressures for communal conformity prevalent in many organizational groups. Conflict is avoided by collusive attempts to stifle authentic argumentation with rational provability. You could cite such examples as school and college faculties, student associations, political parties, the workplace, and many others.

In all cases, people choose their associational configurations. From beliefs in alien invasions and abductions, to the end times of prophetic finality and collisions with phantom planets, we go to great lengths to substantiate the far-fetched nature of ideological prevarications. We are fully capable in concocting all kinds of myth ideations. Such selfishness in self-deception, on a simplistic level, cannot take no for answer. At the same time, we can't leave others alone to be individualized or offer dissent. Mindfulness is an awareness and sensitivity to the world around us, in which we consciously try to control the flow of psychic energy in generation of productive information.

Today, as never before, it seems likely there is a profound sense of regressive and counter evolutionary thinking trends. Or, the serious lack of critical thinking skills with investigative competence. Memberships in most factions, whether formal or informal, appear to embrace varied forms of faulty and foolish conclusions. In general, people give the impression they are more likely to encourage and accept weaker, less substantiated, points of view. The social processes appear inclined toward weaker dependent perspectives, whereby relationships are emotionally dependent upon passivity, fear and helplessness. As a result, people don't want their world-view or cosmology questioned. Factuality, reinforced by credible scientific evidence is often shunned.

Consider individuation of human nature, or the presumed productive progression of human energy derived from thinking processes. If we are to be more enlightened and thereby more evolved, less tribal and mythically dependent, then we have to ascend to higher levels. In mind, body and soul or spirituality, we must aspire to more than the conventional mundane existence. As an objective, we ought to persevere strenuously toward an elevated status of intellectual development. In lieu of commanding that component of one's primary "self" that is rational, logical and evidence driven, most of us devolve to the persuasiveness of others, like magicians and conmen. Why think individually when you can easily rest on someone else's efforts? Stop, look and pay attention to those around you. What are they saying and doing? Are they acting in stupid, selfish and socially inept ways? Evaluate the pretext of interpersonal arrogance.

We are not as a species evolving exponentially to cosmic heights. There are too many fables, myths and occulted perversions by which we ascribe allegations of "truth". At the same time, it seems we are becoming more mesmerized by the externality of deterministic forces, as in the supernatural, that we allow to reinforce passive weakness for a lack of self-determination. Socially regressive tendencies toward a collective mentality relishes in psycho-dynamic fallacies. Subjective validation from cognitive biases has been allowed to permeate our basic institutions. In an intentional cowardly sense of existence, humans accept the devaluation of individuation and rely on others to think for them. This is done in part so that the masses, subservient to the pseudo elite, or so called experts, can rely on emotions rather than logical explanations.

We know from an historical perspective that "human" civilizations have risen and collapsed. Societies have grown, expanded and vanished over eons of time. Political policy making often reflects a consensus that somehow we are eternal. And, given that perspective, politicians and social theorists assume people will simply be here forever. What makes us think that today we are any different from our past? The ongoing cycle of humans continuing to populate the earth could be short lived. What if that's true? That is to say, suppose the human race is doomed to become extinct. Could the first signs be how we express ourselves in the social setting? At present, some of us evaluate the behaviors that have become translated into public discourse and activities. What we often find is the high probability of de-evolution by the way people carry out daily actions.

Social interactivity, compounded by personal motivations within communal connections, is an altogether difference scale of behavioral factors. One can be exceptionally talented and yet socially inept. Another can be a brilliant theoretical physicist and a very mean and abusive family member. People think and behave in order to satiate their own private needs. The manner by which we relate to others outside the "workplace" constitutes different modes of thinking for personal gratification. When compared against the working world of industrial, governmental and commercial competition, enlivened by creativity, a certain percentage of individuals can produce significant innovations. And yet, for the vast majority of people, a rudimentary day to day existence does not ensure extraordinary evolutionary advancement of the human race. Most people will not endeavor to rise above an average level.

Within domain specific environments, individuals might be quite brilliant. But, outside their particular sphere of understanding, all manner of mythology has many possibilities for influence. Religious beliefs are a good example of the potential for human destructiveness even by seemingly educated people. A basic common sense understanding of human nature ought to suggest that so called modern societies will never live in a state of utopic bliss. As such, alleged civilized cultures do undergo changes, but not necessarily for the betterment of everyone in the culture. With the populations that have grown and expanded over time, adaptability to environmental conditions relies on the application of intellectual capacities. By thinking outside the normal showcase of things around us, we improvise, adapt and overcome.

Serious individuals endeavor to do thoughtful problem solving. Fact driven and results oriented, energies are directed with mature and clear-headed ascent toward self-actualization. The process of psycho-dynamic individuation offers greater reward, than simplistic contentment with the mundane, the ordinary or the commonplace. This does not in any way infer material acquisition, but instead mental differentiation. Feelings, emotions and desires are controlled by disciplined intelligent capacity for the sake of rational behaviors. To improve oneself in a private and personal self-evolving process, simply demands hard work. For the great masses of people, believing in the simplistic is much easier than exercising intense multidimensional thinking. Acquiring higher levels of knowledge requires active participation in diligent effort.

Facts are one thing and superstitions are quite another. Likewise, critical methodology and analysis, or the process of scientific validation, is utilized to affirm or disavow any theory, philosophy or dogma. You ought to be able to present and otherwise replicate credibility to your argument, assertion or perspective. Unless you can demonstrate the factuality of any issue, by way of evidentiary artifacts, then you are likely unable to substantiate your point of view. Without viable proof of authenticity, you are merely exercising conjecture and speculation. Upon the sheer nature of any viable subject matter, no one should ever be taken simply at their lowest level of allegation. That is to say, one's mere mention of a point view is their opinion, not necessarily the absolute truth. On a foundational basis, all matters purported to be true must be proved.

To be authentic, an investigative process must remain, to the extent possible, objective, non-judgmental, scrupulous and professionally detached. That part of the self, which ascribes so much vigor to emotion, must be controlled steadfastly. Instead, that other aspect of the personality in an individual, should strive to ensure rational introspection for the sake of logical deduction. And yet, no one is perfect. An investigator must require evidence be offered for any claims unlikely to be true. More often than not, belief in a fairy-tale claim is connected to a lack of quality information. Many times, the gullibility for accepting an improbable notion is tainted by a lack of energetic effort. That failure to uncover the seemingly mysterious nature of a phenomenon usually leads to faulty conclusions. For which, one sometimes demonstrates stupidity.

In order to know that something is true and exists within a three-dimensional context, we must actually demonstrate that such is really possible by virtue of the evidence. An attitude of doubt or a position of incredulity, presupposes a posture of pursuing a healthy mode of inquiry, not a destructive one. Plus, from an historic angle, one endeavors to perform what skepticism means, that is, a consideration of alternative possibilities, or explanations. From that position, we make queries to "look for" or seek "to consider" a more material and concrete aspect of enlightenment. It's a positive approach to serious inquiry based upon reason. That reasoning process about the existence of evidence is proactive and productive toward rational considerations. A skeptical attitude tempers the negative and emotional reactivity that doubt might resurrect within the scope of the senses. Wholesome suspicion promotes the vitality of an open mind.
Chapter 15 – Nexus of Nebulous Notions – The Zombie Effect:

Cognitive bias, the temptation to deception of our own free will, typically conspires fraudulently to ensure subjective validation. If left unquestioned, unchecked and unbalanced invites the darkness of the most devious aspects of human nature. Now, take that to a fundamental extreme and incorporate such into a dogma of ideological tyranny. Where can you take it? Well, depending on your domain of influence, you can export into the most hallowed of ivy towered collusions. At one end, with seemingly noble intentions, you can call it the "cultic" basis for educational accreditation. Or, you can manifest such speciousness into the sacred grounds of religiosity. The nexus is the core relationship between fantasy and truth and where the line is drawn. From ideated fantasy into a purposed perversion of reality, we find in history past and present, mass murders and ritual suicides for the sake of selfishly insidious assertions.

Nebulous notions intersect the reality against the contrast of the make-believe. In defense, to enhance skepticism on a grand scale promises the rapture of greater understanding and potential wisdom. By opposite effect, to seek lesser modes of inquiry and accept superficial simplicity encourages ignorance. To have no sense of natural disbelief, without provability, is to find no comfort in the wisdom of growth and maturity. An investigator follows a line of query supported by enriched procedures of an educated and experienced mindset. A thoughtful sleuth does not leap into a situation without seeking the facts at hand. Skepticism as to the simple contentions people make is met by skillful analysis. Will the claim hold up under thoughtful scrutiny?

Authentic skeptical inquiry, or even quiet mindful reflection, whether loud or silent, is seriously relevant to a credible investigative query. It involves a whole spectrum of genuineness in testing the veracity of certainty within a given framework. At every step of the way, evidence must be gathered, and evaluated scrupulously and without a lazy bent toward simplemindedness. This has nothing to do with education, socio-economic status, environmental situations or alleged I.Q., but instead with a solemnity of authentic credibility. It is an honesty of introspection that looks at the facts from a non-judgmental and methodical standpoint. For all intents and purposes, you are the personification of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson wrapped inside one person.

As an investigator, you have to be a cut above the mundane, exceptional, and creative and learn to question all the speculative inferences that come your way. Particularly, pay attention to those that border on hastily crafted conclusions. Even your own theories should be constantly reassessed and examined frequently. More often than not, the intention is not to prove a theory correct, as it is to prove the assumption as an error in thinking processes. You begin with the facts at hand. Here's where the investigator needs to have his or her "house" in order. Confidence, differentiated personality, independent thinking and capacity for privatized critical analysis are very relevant.

Personal mindset is precarious during any investigation. We might be unduly influenced by others. Authority figures, supervisors, political processes, news media and the general public could adversely affect the methodology and the conclusions. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and expect you to join ranks with them. In particular, when investigating issues and aspects related to the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , differentiation of self becomes essential. He or she must insist upon a personal perspective that is not dependent on others for approval. Instead, one is interdependent in terms of the interpersonal exchanges and not dependent.

With group dependency, one is vulnerable to the influence and intimidation of others. You are under constant pressure to conform. For many, within this stress comes acceptance of potentially dangerous fallacies of inference. An un-evolved person is highly susceptible to the power, control and domination factors tyrannized upon him or her by another. Being dependent on acceptance, praise and approval of others, which includes the investigator, diminishes the credibility of the investigative process. Poorly constructed features of a person's self, absent the strength of individuality, entice one to quickly change to appease, conform and avoid conflict.

Deceit and manipulation cut across the spectrum of group interactivity, from cults to organized crime and conspiracies. That includes revered institutions. A person might be extraordinarily brilliant in one narrow range of personal expertise. That is no guarantee they are smart in another area. In fact, they may be quite stupid and the investigator has to be wary of alleged "experts" who may want to assist the investigation.

With a distinctness of a confident well-differentiated personality, the non-anxious investigator insists on the provability of any allegation. One must ensure and safeguard his or her thinking pursues logical methodologies. By the uniqueness of self-confidence, the researcher asserts a strong belief in one's commonsensical application of rational ideations to problem-solving issues. He or she does not acquiesce to the pressure of the group simply be accepted. For him or her, it's not about being a "part of the team" if the team is wrong, unethical or misinformed. Yet many, due to their own "self" weaknesses, will do exactly that. They want to belong, so they will go along to get along where other people are concerned. We have to bear in mind, as in some organizations, the "team" might be grossly dysfunctional due to fear, incompetence and tyrannical management. There are no perfect groups that have resolved all their shortcomings.

People allow themselves to become gullibly seduced into nebulous beliefs and specious conspiracy theories by their own choices. The magic bullet or mystic secret answer to everything entices the quick and easy solution. Not to forget of course, because people think they need attention, recognition, material gain and salacious fusion with others, each moves toward some variation of cultic-like collusions. To test the viability of a conception in a nexus for nebulous notions, you can quietly observe the next organizational meeting you attend. Be it seminar, training session, club meeting or other type of organization, you will find "group think" in powerful fluctuation.

While some "herding" collectivism is socially benign at one level, others are dangerously extreme at opposite ends of the communal spectrum. Within these connections, people can be very selfish, greedy and deceptive. Human hedonism is limited only by the imagination. In the broad scheme of psychosis, or abnormality of the psyche, along a psycho-sexual continuum, many manifestations are probable. From lesser to greater extremes of aberration, dysfunction and dangerousness, people can fantasize about the most bizarre kinds of things and put them into action. Persons of all ages are capable of the most heinous forms of behavior. With more excessive inclinations, some people are interested in suspending their more compassionate ideations. As such, their preference leans in the direction for the use of power and control actions to dominate others. A cultic environment provides the setting whereby opportunities can be utilized to subjugate the willing acquiescence of those involved.

With cults, conspiratorial groupings, and sects of all kinds, the opportunity for collectivistic conformity becomes significantly sinister. As people associate around a philosophy, there is always the predisposition to exaggerate the efficacy of the belief system. At the nexus of communal complicity comes the foundational speculation for questionable dogmatism. Again, for the sake of personal satiation, people will typically believe what they want to believe. No matter what the facts, if you want something bad enough, you will invent the justification for such a position.

Within the faction or clique, the "leadership", or pretense to such, enjoys the powerful essence of god-like energy. To be in charge, stimulates the drive to assert dominion over the grouping. No doubt, his or her egotistical tendencies will attempt to persuade the rest into an obedient allegiance. By embracing some mystic ideology, cause-effect relationship, or special knowledge, the ring leader proclaims control. For those who share the proclivities for advancement of themselves, at the expense of others, they will subvert altruistic interests. This includes those within the group interactions.

Inside this framework of mutual alliances, feelings often trump rationalizations. When emotions run high, logical abilities shutdown and facts get discarded. It is very difficult to see through the conspiracies of the "asocial" individual who seeks to manipulate the rest of the congregation. By "asocial" you can insert any other label of comparable attribution if you so desire. Than might include anti-social, sociopath or psychopath, as well as the very broad category of narcissist. From a logical standpoint, you have to be alert to any actions that restrain or defame criticism, personal freedom, and critical analysis.

Factions that involve a person or persons, using others for his, her or their sole gratification represent potentially criminal enterprises. You have to search for the appropriate applications of the law. Wherever you find severe forms of mental and physical discipline, formulated around a nexus of alleged "leaders", you likely have a cultic conspiracy of gangster-like proportions. Such collusions include bizarre conspiracy theorists, terrorists, organized crime operations and religious extremism. This becomes more profound when such factors include adherents refusing to be individually self-reflective and thoughtfully liberated. Instead, the membership insists on strong emotional fusion coupled with intense obedience. Obsessive admiration, exploitation and manipulation are ingredients for a nexus of nebulous notions.

In the exceptionality to the broader mosaic of ethical principles and practices, noble ideologies can be perpetrated for personal agenda. And, there's always a hidden agenda behind the façade of presumed altruism or good intentions. With any pretext for "doing good" or "saving humanity" from some mythic apocalypse, someone is getting something out of it. This doesn't mean the intentions and subsequent results are necessarily bad. Yet, given human nature, the consequences are potentially negative in the long run. Personal as well as group gain rests at the heart of every seemingly mysterious phenomenon. So, a good question to ask would be who is getting what out of all this? This conception applies significantly to the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** issues of post-modern communal interaction. As people crave attention to meet subjective desires and satiate personal proclivities, anything is possible.

As an investigator, you can choose what you believe for whatever you want to accomplish. It's all up to you and the particular needs, desires and cravings that you deal with. But, bear in mind, no one does anything for the sake of others without getting something in return. As such, name your conspiracy. In the process, figure out whose needs are being met. Often, as mentioned before, the alleged leader of an issue, faction, association, becomes a guru of sorts. Once in that capacity, followers suspend rationality of voluntary thinking for his or her alleged "vision" or "visions". For the sake of the group, or "herding collusion" in a sense, fusion for acceptance, relationship cohesiveness and appreciation are allowed to be subverted. Because most people need attention to fill voids of need and desire, they willing forsake logical discourse.

As to the aforesaid, now consider the mass outcome of the communal collectivism. With cultic variations of one scheme or another, people willing put on their " **zombie** " persona. Why be responsible when you can do something illicit, deviant or illegal, and then find a convenient excuse. Possibilities of such antics are endless and often depicted in graphic reality by a range of post-modern media. The " **zombie effect** " is the result of prolonged suspended rational thinking along a productive continuum of evolving proactive thought processes. Simply stated, people act dumb, do foolish things and relegate their discerning intellectual progressions to the lowest common denominator. By various degrees, the zombification of people operates on different levels. It all depends on their socio-economic-political status as to their level of deception.

We can know this so easily by watching politicians, listening to armchair theoreticians, and the news media in particular. Not only do you have that, but listen to the way people talk about life, politics, social issues and seriously relevant topics. People are more concerned about the coming apocalypse, the end times or a conspiracy for one world government. Of this, conspiracy theories are particularly an important clue to the lack of consistent reasoning applications. Critical thinking frequently vaporizes into instant gratification in the lust for a quick answer. A feeding frenzy to satisfy the hunger of quick and informal answers to complexity devolves systematically.

Various forms of "infotainment" serve the biases of reckless answers. The "fast food for limited thought" with a "drive through" mentality means instant psycho-sexual placation for a cerebral "happy meal". Usually, the source, albeit questionable, comes from someone else, who did the same thing the questioner did. He or she accepted without reservation absent analysis what somebody else said. Likewise, the over-simplification of the most complicated or heinous human acts become easily reduced to some kind of inane slogan or catch phrase for ease of passing comfort.

If you don't force your brain cells to work regularly, tirelessly, vigorously and with well-focused examination, "zombification" sets in. From that point onward, you regress in a "zombified" slide in devolution to a primitive state of existence. Rhetorical hyperbole, which runs rampant in the usual day to day interpersonal exchanges of social intercourse, doesn't help either. Exaggerated speech appeals to emotional reactivity. Logic is frequently suspended in favor of credulity in uncomplicated acceptance. You can easily succumb to the stupidity of trite phrases and worn-out clichés. Never the less, illicit cults, conspiracies and terroristic criminalities haunt us from past to present.

Often such techniques can serve to vent a person or group's anger or get attention to be noticed, achieve hidden agendas, assert arrogance of belief, instigate revenge and retaliation, or satiate some other aspect of subjective validation steeped in prejudice. Purposeful tactics of unsophisticated ideations contrive to make world events, life and the cosmos fit into very compacted trouble free explanations. The easiness of instant pleasure helps people hang on to potentially erroneous matters of believability. Once challenged about a revered belief held by an individual or group, the reaction by the believers is likely to be very defensive, hostile and heedlessly reactionary.

Primarily here, this obsession with self-serving beliefs versus facts that prove the contrary, concerns the symbolic reference to "zombie-like" behaviors. Dangerous cult-like obsessions tend to get very robotic with deadly consequences. Yeah sure, the term "zombie" is a metaphor, as used here to raise concerns about human social devolution, and poke fun at human gullibility for salacious pleasures. As such, "zombie" also refers to the slothful "viral infection" of the neural networks by which feeling, emotions and desires over-ride critical thinking. Not only that, but the neural laziness that clouds relevant decision-making in contributions for social advancement.

And yet, aside from the feel good laziness of anti-thinking, the " **zombification** " of the human species suggests other associated possibilities. This also means an intense preoccupation with being overly self-centered, gluttonous consumption of a poisoned food system, and foolishly juvenile entertainment. In this regard, the " **zombie effect** " includes references to the robotic, automaton, stupid, foolish, silly, reckless and irresponsible behaviors that stem from several sources. Heinous and terrifying complicities find subtle ways to subvert the essentiality of evidentiary necessity.

In addition, of further social concern there's the related issue of the devolution of the human species. Given current studies, one could argue that human made disasters, extreme conspiratorial excessiveness, wide-spread biologic contaminations, and severe climatic disruptions, are presently invoking a kind of social atmosphere where people behave in " **zombified** " ways. In response to such possibilities members of the scientific community, social and behavioral researchers and public safety services already study various contingency plans referred to as the " **zombie apocalypse** ".

The efficacy of proof driven factuality can be conveniently avoided if one group shouts louder than another. Or, you're called an infidel, blown up and assassinated in a holy war to evade the criticality of truth, righteousness and otherwise embrace selfishness for unsubstantiated beliefs. Self-effacing deterministic assumptions, based on fallacies of insinuation, all too readily drive passionate zealousness for the perpetration of falsehoods, mythologies and dogmatic obsessiveness. Gangsterism flourishes to proclaim the right of justification for what the group wants as envisioned by the "leadership" at the moment. In a "zombified" setting, people will act stupidly based on what makes them feel good at the time, and they will ensure they are right and you are wrong.

In the face of such bogusly grandiose childishness among humans, researchers have to be alert to the depths of deception and heights of frivolousness for stupidity. The " **zombie effect** " comes in many forms, images and ghoulish manifestations. Primary defenses against you are fortified by an unhealthy intensity of arrogance, yet drenched in false assertions. That obnoxious self-aggrandizement flirts with varying degrees of what clinicians might call psychopathic and narcissistic. Maybe in actuality it's a combination of both within the personality of the people with which you must deal. Just keep in mind there are no excuses for illegitimate, illegal or injurious behaviors. People are not corrupted by others; they are corrupted by their own self-interests.

You can't afford to think like herded masses. Cultures are devolving and the human species is not becoming more civilized. You're either an individual who freely thinks and evaluates his or her investigative processes, or you conform to the ritual of the organizational constraints. Effectiveness and proficiency depend upon what you want and desire for your problem solving continuum. You can be a maverick who thinks outside the proverbial box, or you can satiate the needs of others. Regardless of your choices though, logical deduction remains part of your weaponry at all times, along with critical thought processes, well-defended by your intellectual transformation.

Plus, intuitively, skepticism is your ally and cynicism is your backup. But, you must keep things in balanced perspective and search for the evidence. With every investigative confrontation, both within and outside your organizational configuration, you will be challenged. Con artists are very good at what they do and they're everywhere. Their followers are equally complicit in perpetration of their ideologies. Cults, conspiracies and criminal enterprises cloak their insidious arrogance in so many disguises, you have to dig deeper into each layer of deceit. An investigator must maintain as much objectivity as he or she can effectively manage within the framework of his or her own distinctiveness. In other words, as an investigator you must think differently.

Criminal collusions look for opportunities to maximize some kind of gain that is to the advantage of the perpetrators. Be it ideology for material goods or power, personal gain of an adverse nature is the motivational impetus. Responsibility for the well-being of oneself and others, in the advancement of evolutionary transformation is not at the top of list. Unlawful cultic collaborations are contemptuous of individuality.

Along with this contrivance of adverse cultic collusions, there is the reflection on the " **zombie-effect** ". This can be seen in a willingness to forego logical investigative and well-thought out endeavors for the sake of simplistic feel good answers. Now, one must bear in mind if possible, Hollywood has its version of " **zombies** ", and public safety and emergency services frameworks have another. Currently, the " **zombie apocalypse** " used by governmental services concerns disaster and disease outbreaks.

In the former type, that of movie making, there is the fictional representation that replicates inventive screenplay writing. Naturally, driven by media hype, the public has a variation on that view. However, as used here, the term means the failure of a person or group to evolve toward higher levels of thought and action, through application of critical thinking processes and pro-social interactivity. In other words, an individual or group will often act stupid, foolish and hateful whenever convenient and advantageous.

To aspire to ascend to more sophisticated planes of psycho-physical exceptionality, suggests that a person strives for differentiated liberation. That is, to seek a better version of oneself through mental, physical and spiritual transformation. To seek higher dimensions of oneself through differentiation of the whole person, and thereby become a more mature thinking adult, is a very challenging persona quest. Most will not do it, because such a journey requires significant sacrifice and a long time to make the trip.

Investigative analysis can be applied on all levels of societal interaction, from academic exercises to criminal investigations, as well as cosmic assessments. Aside from all that, such personal procedures are a self-willed process, freely chosen, for the maximization of personal growth and individual advancement. In addition, one's travel through life is an exploration of self-discovery for which a person takes responsibility of his or her existence. Intentionally, without excuse or justification, the individual evolves maturely in credible and authentic ways, and is not fused into the anonymity of the group. He or she is always seeking ways to improve and grow. Thus, one distinguishes himself or herself by insisting on the believability of sincere provable claims asserted to be true by weight of evidence. In this regard, you must be willing to pay the price for individuality in pursuit of evidentiary criteria to substantiate unique claims.

Back to the " **zombie effect** ", it's a metaphor to suggest people play stupid so that they can escape responsibility and accountability for their actions, and live in the smallness of their dysfunctions. They act robotic in the acceptance of mere conjecture that sounds good and offers uncomplicated specious explanations. Various factions as a group collective act stupidly in various ways, sometimes they're dangerous. Such intentional behaviors contravene the necessity of productive progression for the betterment of those involved, or the societal configurations that surround them. Devolution sets in. Naturally, within a populated setting, people are challenged to be different in their thinking rather than "herd" around a coalition fused by unsubstantiated dogma.

Dumbing down of social situations reinforces the " **zombie effect** " and fosters opportunities for people to willingly accept anything as credible. In the seduction of group coalescence, people allow themselves to be drawn in to processes that have been described as "coercive persuasion". This readily applies to the conception of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. Adverse cultic behaviors can be seen in the pressures one submits to. As suggested previously, a person or persons allows feelings of stress, which we all have, to be used against them. Tactics within this rubric utilize isolation, depravation and simplified repetitive processes.

As in the forgoing, modern governmental education can be said to use similar techniques. Not only that, but the tactical imposition is much more pervasive. Group adherence to control the person may also employ historical revisionism, alleged social necessity and illogical simplicity of explanation. From a conspiratorial standpoint, another ingredient might be a convenient "enemy" for which the group uses as scapegoat. This might be combined with the promise of "family acceptance".

Attentiveness, praise, affection and well-being in group cohesion are used in distorted ways. As one's new identity within the sect develops, he or she becomes part of the "elite", the "chosen", or the "saved". The entrapment encircles the person and the group by very subtle and salacious means. Meanwhile, at the same time, information exchange is highly condensed, well-controlled and severely restricted. Conformity is absolute and any form of variation in individuality is looked upon suspiciously.
Chapter 16 – O.P.U.S. – Obsessive Compulsive Postulations – Oh My:

**O.P.U.S.** , or just OPUS, is the obsessive-compulsive postulation in unsubstantiated subjectivity, describes the persistent affinity for subjective validation at any cost. It is anti-thinking which relates to simple, unproven and trouble-free acceptance of anything without critical analysis. Metaphorically speaking, this is part of the " **zombie effect** ". Such cognitive bias is pervasive at every level of society in terms of a failure by many to critically analyze events, circumstance and situations.

People want to believe things to be true with the hard work proving the truth. To that end, they will trust in something no matter what is presented to contrary. Plus, they will accept at face value anything they think comes from a "credible source". Skepticism is often viewed with disdain and hostility. From an investigative standpoint, in order to gather information, conduct a viable inquiry and assess the data, a skillful examination necessitates diligent and patient efforts on the part of the investigator. You gather the facts, form a hypothesis of the inquiry, observe and analyze the data sources, critique the information with care and caution and preliminarily summarize the results.

Rushing to a hasty conclusion renders questionable results. Likewise, desires, feelings and reactivity run counter to effective rationality. For the majority of people on the planet, the communal collectivism of each group association strives to ensure that everything about their lives is okeydokey, acceptable and downright plausible. We often make reasoning errors by accepting opinions of others, including our own, as the final word on any matter in question. And yet, the world is filled with self-promoting mystics, gurus and soothsayers. Most of them however, are vicious predators plotting and scheming to take advantage of anyone who will listen. Every kind of ruse imaginable can be found within the rubric of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**.

For the artful investigator, dealing with conspiratorial reactivity in response to unique complaints of one nature or another, summons the resolve to be curiously objective. One remains fascinated by the manner with which people can be so easily manipulated. As they allow themselves to be seduced by con artists that come in all varieties, focus is always on the evidence. What can prove the "proof" in the disproof of any conjecture? Everyone likes a good story, as variation of old themes come and go with the times.

As to the existence of the "truth", there might be many possibilities. When belief is challenged, and provability stumbles for a good acceptable explanation, people are likely to look for a cosmic or supernatural account. When it comes down to a demand that a person or group submit substantial proof, you're might encounter the sudden inability for them to deliver tangible materiality. To believe in the truth of any proposition based on the qualifying and provable criteria at hand, regardless of the scientific data, remains a troubling prospect. A person might prefer a more undermining justification.

Many who reflect upon unusual occurrences appear more likely than not to suspect something sinister lurks in the shadows. Around every corner, and behind every curtain, there's a plot or a scheme in which there's a government cover-up. For a lot people, it's a matter of comforting importance to concede to the unverified and even the terrifying. That's because being in doubt is more threatening to basic belief systems that not believing at all. No one wants to be in doubt about much of anything around them. So, the extra-terrestrial, paranormal and political conspiracies are readily acceptable.

Given that perspective, there are plenty of others who enjoy the likelihood of attracting believers to their cause. Uncertainty troubles the social mainstream, doubt disturbs politicians, and the populace becomes frightened. We don't want to think we can't explain things, or solve any dilemma, so we find scapegoats, like aliens, goblins and the "new world order". If there are global disasters, then powerful forces must be behind the calamities. With much of the conspiratorial thinking, it's not so much about finding solvability factors, as its more about overlooking the evidentiary criteria.

Instead, it is much easier to suspect a divine agency of some sort, or human puppet masters are involved in devious ways. To explain what appear to be meaningless acts of violence or mysterious unexplainable events, cognitive bias follows the less cumbersome route of easy description. We'll pose individual and collusive generalizations. In the aftermath, we feel a need to immediately find a motive, even hidden ones. And, in the process, we'll hold someone responsible before an inquiry can be fully conducted. Even after that, if we don't accept it, we won't believe it anyway. There's no guarantee people will accept the results of our in-depth analysis and comprehensive investigation. Across the social spectrum, to be part of the in-group, in pursuit of tribal rituals, most people will accept what they're told without intelligent verification.

In the relentless chase of **OPUS** (obsessive-compulsive postulations in unsubstantiated subjectivity), a majority would prefer the cosmic forces of the universe be under our immediate control, highly predictable and universally agreed upon. Most of us are so egoistic that we think everyone should agree on the foundations of everything to the exclusion of anything disagreeable. And to that extent, communal collaborations will negate individuality in any form deemed objectionable. Human share a notorious ability to enforce the herd mentality of commonly shared illusions.

Into this rubric, we often find conspiratorial assertions supportive of a singular cause-effective continuum, or perhaps the "magic bullet", or even a "silver bullet". And, to feel safe without unpretentious complications, we'll try to force others to believe likewise. By weight of collectivistic sanction of accepted "status quo rules", quite a few would like things very simply codified, deterministic and autocratically sanctioned. Yet, in the reality of a trustworthy investigation, one must insist upon the truthfulness of all claims by the substantiation of relevant materiality. In short, the investigator assumes that nothing is true until proved credible, believable and without question.

Reducing observations, investigations and communications to the lowest common denominator helps provide a sense of group security. So often, we see the misguidance asserted in trouble-free ways in the varied usages of fallacies of inference. This contrivance of simple mindedness, as well as mutual acceptance without exception, can be viewed in divergent contexts across the spectrum of human interactivity. It is especially contrived regarding conspiratorial collusions, but not exclusively so, as represented by the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** framework.

Unhealthy dependence by an individual or group, in order to reinforce divisive perspectives in dogmatic ideologies, comes in many forms. We find they reside in dangerous associations, from neighborhoods to national and international affiliations. While some are deadly organized crime confederations, others are dysfunctional and fraudulent cultic delusions. Fusions into deterministic mindsets are costly and fatal for the person, the community, the culture and the society in which they go unchallenged. As individuality is suppressed, creativity discouraged and dissent negated, corrupt and unwholesome communal exchanges reinforce social fragmentation. Such is the result of corruption in thinking processes where reality is replaced by fiction.

To reinforce erroneous conceptions of the cosmic order, no matter how small a scale that might be, people most likely will become more entrenched in their belief system when challenged. When threatened by facts to the contrary, increased effort is frequently directed at the validation of one's subjectivity. One tactic is to defend yourself by appealing to some allegedly "authoritative opinion", which might be the latest news story, or public official. Along with that, one may also cite an assertive highly opinionated "expert", maybe even a psychic, in defense of a belief.

Cognitive bias strives to support the conjecture of prejudicial outlooks so that we can be right about our unproven point of view. As such, the basis for OPUS is the feel good desire to interpret evidence or lack thereof that is favorable to your inclination and not the opposing standpoint. To ignore or misinterpret evidence that is unfavorable, serves to "prove" the closely held allegation without having to change. And, because an opinion poll suggests a certain percentage of people believe in UFO's doesn't prove the existence of extraterrestrials. Of course, that might be cited as supporting "evidence".

The fallback and failsafe explanation for things that are improbable and unrealistic are safe domains for the ease by which a mystery can be accepted. Where there is a coalition of unquestioned believability with a sympathetic and supportive network, you can encourage a centralized belief system. If everyone thinks the same way, then why question anything that might be to the contrary. Fearfulness for your inner most troublesome anxieties can, at your insistence, preclude the use of rationality for provability through facts instead of fictions. Fear justifies mythical thinking because it's easier to do than question the unknown and risk disbelief.

A reasonable investigative process asks to see the available evidence, with serious determination to remain differentiated from a "herd mentality". As an investigator, mature individuality in differentiated self-confidence is essential. One cannot acquiesce to the forceful abuse of political, peer or organizational sanctions if contrary to the truth. There cannot be leaps to unfounded or unsupported propositions that espouse a biased predisposition. And yet, an open mind is encouraged within the scope of a creative and inquisitive nature. Critical thinking as always works diligently to examine the claims put forth. When an inquiry is forced to view things in a certain way, from preconceived notions, the end result might be skewed into untenable falsehoods.

Obsessive compulsions for unsubstantiated postulations, to ensure self-centered subjectivity, help encourage the lazy, the inept, the unskilled and the undifferentiated remain comfortably ignorant in naïve realms of thinking. Immature conjectures, steeped in the backwash of inferential fallacies lead to erroneous generalizations, and enhance the growing stupidity factor in human devolution. As such, faulty notions about how life, the world and the cosmos work with regard to conspiratorial thinking aids the subsequent "zombie effect". None of the non-sense people erroneously proclaim does anything to promote the future well-being for a higher level of human evolution.

Instead, the timid, meek and thoughtfully weak admonition of scared and uniformed people, in mutually dependent frameworks for survival at any cost, hastens the regression of humanity. Yet, for the investigator that's simply not good enough. Whether he or she is a public or private inquisitor, simplistic thought processes remain woefully deficient and adverse to his or her investigation. For him or her, to be credible means you have to be incredible. More intense scrutiny is required to fully investigate complex issues and evolve more effectively as a believable human being. Self-evolution is hard work.

An imaginatively competent and creatively skilled investigator realizes that conspiracies by governments demand a high level of expertise. In addition to that, a talented degree of competence and secrecy are essential to special operations, particularly where national security is concerned. Secret operations have to be extraordinarily compartmentalized and rely on operatives sworn to absolute secrecy. By contrast, sinister and very dark notoriously "evil" operations, based on media guesswork, are fantasy driven. Now, think about it. For all those large scale ominous conspiratorial accusations, what would logic dictate? How about this? The more complicated the assertion of a conspiracy, and the more bizarre the tale, the more likely it didn't occur. Do you really think government bureaucracies are fully staffed with super competent tacticians, with horrific demented intentions, where every single one of them can keep a secret? So, if lots of people have to be involved in a hugely complex scenario, to keep things in the shadows, then in all probability the supposed conspiracy never happened.

To insist upon a worldview cloaked in myth, magic and metaphorical mysticism is to enjoy an amative flirtation with faith in sufficient potency of supernatural deterministic influences. After all, for a lot of people we are inevitably controlled by all kinds of mysterious external manifestations. Humankind is frequently seen as being robotic, to be manipulated on the strings of a puppet master. By cult, fate, and cosmos, powers beyond our capabilities get credit for all manner of global occurrences. Mythology in many forms remains a convenient scapegoat to blame for human shortcomings.

Such standpoints see things in perfectly black and white terms of strictly good and evil forces warring for control and dominance of humanity. Part of this kind of thinking involves people who like to explain things as simply as possible. By fallacies of inference, hasty generalizations account for everything. They salaciously embrace the mystical connections of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. Within this scheme, one links the dots between extraordinary phenomenological events and covert operatives, plotting, scheming and deceiving the masses.

By contrast to a perspective influenced by religiosity, or superstition, one can instead employ the exactitudes of reason, evidence and careful observation. By the certitude of an effective and efficient investigation, you avoid looking, acting and saying stupid things without authentic provability. Logical methodology that follows rigorously rational efforts to uncover evidence liberates the investigative processes from the primitive restraints imposed by emotional subjectivism.

Healthy skepticism, supported by balanced cynicism, and reinforced with critical analysis, works in favor of the mature investigator. Ensuring the collection of relevant, material and competent factuality, the researcher is called upon to question all things and prove those issues true that can be substantiated. This in no way suggests one dismisses any claim outright without some level of inquiry.

That is because every claim or assertion might have alternative explanations that suggest something very real, perhaps illicit, ought to be fully investigated. But, keep in mind with every investigation, at any particular level of communal interaction; you are up against an expanding consensus of credulously irrational thinking. For the investigator, reason and respect for evidentiary requirements remain an effective means to deal with irrationality. Such criticality rests upon a commitment to rational efforts.

Every investigation must warrant serious inquiry that ensures the truth is revealed. Superstitious obsessions have an effect both inside the organizational structure in which the investigator operates and from the outside as well. In what might be described as foggy notions that cling to suspiciousness about the nature of the world, organizational constraints, peer groups, and a host of others, are sometimes tempted to interfere with your mission. You must not be dissuaded, continue doing a credible job with the courage of your convictions and stay differentiated from the herd mentality.

Misery of communal consensus enjoys conformity. Many people willfully indulge in illusionary fixations on assorted paranormal phenomena every day as they join with others. Such actions are pervasive and freely done contrary to the prudence or illusionary properties of the matter or action at hand. Along the passage of every trail in child-like ways, without grownup inquiry, we've allowed the acceptance of spurious pseudoscientific explanations for important aspects of life and death. From historic philosophies, we've tried to make scientific so-called studies in the "behavioral sciences". That nearly sounds like an oxymoron. Human behavior continues to be analyzed as though it can be encapsulated into a simple uncomplicated formula.

Unfortunately, that's not very easy, because thought changes with every contemplated ideation. Predictions of any kind are simply that, predications suggestive of probabilities. Similarly, entertainers and fortune tellers offer gross generalities which so often seem to mean to the individual unique specificity for one person in particular. The conception that one size fits all or one template profiles every possibility is foolishly unfeasible. Do the sun, the moon and the stars dictate what a person does?

To protect one's position on any given subject, say for instance pertaining to a conspiracy, supernatural event, or government cover-up, a person is likely to resist information to the contrary. Most of us will do whatever is necessary to safeguard the illicit nature of own deception and position on an issue. We seek to project informational countermeasures that aid in seeing connections or patterns between cause and the effect, whether or not such association exists. We will protect our opinion. Behind the scenes, we assume there must be someone pulling the strings. From incident to causative agent, our thinking desires quick and trouble-free access to immediate confirmation. A focus of our subjectivity is for tailoring the answers after the fact.

From casual conversation to deliberations affecting public policy, or enforcement of laws, many of us rely on the alleged veracity of others. When we do that, very infrequently do we question the source of the information provided. So for example, not being onsite when the event in question took place, we will make assumptions that might be incorrect. We do that as though we were there, when in fact we have absolutely no idea what happened. From there, one error leads to another. Compounding the complexity of social interactivity in stupidity, the truth suffers.

People want desperately to be seen, heard and included by others. That's a problem for problem-solving, and affects all levels of society. Beliefs can be dangerous and erroneous beliefs deadly. At other times, we may not be privy to the police investigation or in the courtroom during the trial. Yet, that does not deter our foolishness with fallacies of inferences manufacturing hasty generalized conclusions. None the less, we still assume a particular reality about what we think is a perception of a reality.

Emotional willfulness often attests our affinity for fantasy that becomes a pretext to reality. By simply asserting a contentious argument to be credible does not make it so. Even if we "invent" evidence to the contrary, there may not be a definitive cause-effect relationship. Regardless, we're like to find one. A number of people defend much of their proclamations on that which is reported by media outlets. Not to forget movies and so called documentaries as well. Some are very biased in a particular direction. Directors and producers have hidden agendas just like the rest of us. Too many people rely on information provided by others, rather than their own in-depth investigation. All too easily, people embrace pseudoscience more quickly than real science.

As a result for the immediacy of attention, obsessive postulations in unsubstantiated subjectivity flirt seductively with passionate naiveté. With this, comes the familiar expectation of not being held accountable for the "baloney and sausage" one tries to get others to consume. Such a diet of consistently swallowing anything that looks like "factuality", invites the deterioration of authentic and trustworthy thought processes. That's part of the ongoing divisiveness that assists societal devolution as far as thinking processes are concerned. Immediate indulgence for hurried and undemanding answers precludes the necessity of careful analysis. For one reason or another, social bystanders who know better, do not always raise objections to speculations in stupidity.

Instead, collectively as social consensus, we seem to reward stupid thinking, or as used herein, **anti-thinking**. This intentional process of cerebral dullness anticipates the self-indulgence of instantaneous satisfaction. Why, because that's the short cut in the personal expectation of hedonistic simplicity. And for the most part, across the mass spectrum of superficially contrived societal discourse, there is a strong sense of specious subjectivity. Imaginations go willingly undisciplined in the course of any daily activity in which people interact. Sadly thought, it is all too easy to provoke people from their mundane day to day existence into the depths of erroneous thinking patterns.

Highly educated people are no different from others who are less credentialed, when it comes to irrational beliefs, absurd propaganda, or faulty assumptions. Emotionalism is frequently allowed to run rampant with feelings that direct reactivity as opposed to rationality. Suspension of logically intuitive capacities purposely contrives to accept the more comfortable route of travel. With reactionary postures, a person's I.Q. is no guarantee of logical inference through well thought out deductive processes.

For the sensate pleasurableness of quick satiation in the carnality of self- contentment, people in general want to see some mythic fabrication in all of life's mysteries. So, while some fabricate the dogmas of illusion, others enjoy the magic of showmanship. Overall, everyone gets what they want, some get fooled and they like the psychic stimulation. Mythology comes in all manner of deception. Meanwhile, others get different rewards. Often that means some form of materiality or physicality in the materiality. The dimensional context is unique to the individual, and yet it is all gain of some kind. Along this spectrum, many have convinced themselves, no matter what, they are right.

With a self-centered perspective of entitlement to be justified, the slothful ideologically gluttonous person imbibes in unconscionable and anti-social behaviors. Constant self-focus and preoccupation with external deterministic influences, many conveniently play pretense to the role of their own "victimization". Criminals, once caught, are good at this strategy. All kinds of excuses, alibis and "profiles" can be magically conjured for quick and easy defenses. Likewise, con artists who blame others for their irresponsible and poorly thought out choices act in similar ways. The list of probable collaborators in the schemes of unsubstantiated belief systems is lengthy. They are also dangerous cultists, terrorists, gangsters and "alien bounty hunters".

While "hunting" aliens for bounty or booty, all depends on one's outlook, sometimes they get abducted by aliens. Later, "survivors" of these mysterious excursions cleverly and convincingly try to defend their point of view. Others will believe them and join forces, with an expectation of eventual world domination of some sort. But wait, while it might not be aliens, the conspiracy could be something else and originate inside the hollow core of the earth itself. Inside the planet, creatures of all kinds with primordial origin and demonic intentions plot against the human race. Maybe that's not the threat either. Could it be the criminal conspiracy is a one world government?

Regardless of the accusations, the schemes, and the fantasies, an investigator must always remain close to the facts and not his or her ego. Analysis of the issues at hand requires consistent proof by way of rational validity. None the less, many engineer thought patterns that collude toward the amative contentment of manipulation and conning. By linkage to that, alleged smart people might be adept at defending their faulty belief systems. However, that does not mean necessarily they apply the rigors of legitimacy with supporting factual evidence. People distract themselves by the search for external causation. The fateful determination of every action in one's life, by some outside force, is a never ending perilous journey. It is risky because a person very often refuses to look within and fortify the necessity of self-understanding.

The "O.P.U.S" equation, reflective of human nature, is very much the adverse echo of the self-centeredness in obsessive compulsive postulations for unsubstantiated subjectivity. At the core of primordial motivations, it's basis is intentionally constructed upon the fear of life in confrontation with death. So many manifestations emanate from this nexus. Within this framework are the contrived workings of eerie forms of deception, capitalized upon by dysfunctional gambits. Contrived from a basis of self-aggrandizement, reinforced by the tendency to look for feeling and meaning in all things, trickery abounds in the arrogance of myth, magic and metaphor. From emotional needs in fusion with the confused safety of collectivistic expectations, multitudes easily submit to the dark "conspiracies" of deceptive meanings in perplexing events. Most want to see and hear about patterns of wide-spread malevolent collusions. In so doing, the world is viewed as a collaboration of evil "corporate-government" sorcerers. Yet, they remain invisible to the rest of us. Confirmation bias runs wildly over the planet.
Chapter 17 – Quantum Queries in Curious Complexity:

Subjectivity for confirmation bias lingers in the neural spectrum of finding "facts" after the "fact" to ensure the previous "facts" remain the same preconceived biased "facts". In hindsight complicity, one gathers the collaboration of other like-minded theorists to make certain the final outcome is what was originally suspected. As people associate collectively in the direction of a singular mindset, the fusion of dependent necessity safeguards the preconceived fallacies. As the universe might be conceived as infinite, and no knows for certain, there is no limit to the range of human stupidity.

As suggested previously in relation to the "zombie effect" and the O.P.U.S. configuration, stupidity means intentional ignorance. This doesn't mean people can't be smarter and more factual in their authenticity. It means that people are analytically lazy and prefer the well-beaten path of shortcuts. Such is achieved by way of non-critical thinking due in part to excessive reactivity to feelings and emotions. It is a willful personal failure of persistent due diligence. A lot of people are amatively self-seductive in their slothfulness of thought. They fail to ensure a high degree of fact finding.

Again, for the cautious researcher, investigative capacity becomes tempered by a sense of healthy skepticism. Such measures involved in the search for truth, should be maintained and balanced with one's mature insightful and well-differentiated competence. Yet, while a person is a complex mix of intricate psycho-physiologically dynamic processes, there's no guarantee of perfect objectivity. As an investigator, he or she will try to insist on insightful progress to greater levels of understanding. We are not always successful at doing that. People want to confirm through their feelings, desires and emotions that there are answers for everything to be reassured.

Quantum queries suggest the magnitude of curiousness in terms of unraveling the complexity. In other words, a good investigation of a mysterious nature invites a lot of questions. Although every question might not be answered satisfactorily, by the evidentiary artifacts at hands, none the less, the queries or the thoughtful probing continues as long as necessary. You analyze what you have in the present. As such, the inquiries may lead to tedious details and require strenuous efforts. Psycho-dynamic complexity of human nature and human behavior necessitates such in-depth probing.

With quantum queries, curiosity becomes complex in terms of objectives for achieving probable solutions. One must work effectively to avoid the pitfalls of stupidity. Around every corner even the best detectives sometimes allow themselves be seduced to erroneous conjectures. Methodology must establish focus without too much bias. If the inquirer has fixed beliefs about particularities related to the case, then compromise of investigative integrity could result. One of the challenges to investigative analysis of a given issue, particularly within the rubric of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , concerns which particular topic you are dealing with. By linkage from an official standpoint, what crime, if any, has been committed? Behind this context, are there are there positive or negative political implications of special interests?

In addition, is the allegation related to a dangerous cult, terrorist threat, or gangster oriented criminal enterprise? As such, what statute can be utilized against the potential threat or actual illicitness that may be unfolding? Tactical methods may need to adapt contingent upon the nature of the query. The investigator's sensitivities and prejudices fluctuate and must be kept under close scrutiny. Different assertions and allegations of cult or occult activity may require investigative understanding of the particular belief system involved. Rationality and comprehension of differences and similarities may stimulate solvability factors in divergent directions of problem solving. Effective investigations are constructed on well-founded information and identification.

In solving the problem, the process of the effort is as important as the focus of the content. For this reason, quantum suggests the smallest detail be analyzed and forensically assessed to every extent possible. The whole complexity is composed of multifaceted components and each must fit the patterned realistically. In such an effort of query, one seeks to pull all the information together cohesively. No matter where the evidence trail leads, do you follow the facts? And by doing so, do you lessen the impact of any element of stupidity, corruption and superstition compounded by self-indulgent subjectivity? Yet, you have to ask yourself, are you mature enough to carry out a level of inquisitiveness that fosters a well-founded intelligent conclusion? While some prefer ignorance, superstition and ideological slavery, others prefer a quest for liberation through reason, knowledge and wisdom. If you desire absurdities instead of the reality of reason, then you have to be prepared for the adverse nature of the consequences.

Conducting a comprehensive investigation takes time, effort and patience, as well as thoughtfully reflective interpretation for subsequent documentation. Likewise, a willingness to be open-minded assists in that perspective as well. You can't afford to be an "anti-thinker". Along with that, there will always be times of irritation when assessing the frameworks asserted by the nebulous natures of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. None the less, intuitive differentiation must remind us to have patience when dealing with the "all knowing" gurus of some specious ideology or cultic collusion. More often than not, whether found in the sacred sanctity of academia, or the communes of contrived consecration, the investigator remains tolerant and enduring.

Cultic collaborations might have the hedonistic potentiality for sinister possibilities by being readily protective of purposeful narrowness in cosmic interpretations. In terms of "cultic" the implication here refers to extremist views of an anti-social nature, unsupported by scientific evidence, and likely intolerable of non-believers, or alternative viewpoints. It is suggestive of beliefs systems that use unsubstantiated conjecture without the hard facts of reliable credence. Hence, the broad inclusion falls within the scheme of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** conspiratorial assertions. An investigation should consider a wide range of related inclusiveness.

With the proselytizers, within this conceptualization of deceptive practices, you encounter the familiar frequency of conscientious fraudulent behaviors. If you look deeper and watch carefully, you will most likely detect the superficiality. But, you have to peer beyond the veneer. A part of the inquisitive effort is to peel away the fictions and reveal the trickery, as most of the time the gambit is about financial gain. Material acquisition is not always the premeditated instigation. Gain means different things to different people, as self-gratification comes in many forms. And, "racketeering" is consistently a major aspect of many fraudulent belief systems.

An effective investigation reflects the maturity of the investigators. Is it realistic that a researcher or an investigator, including those who teach, would be maturely confident in their investigative processes? One would expect so, and yet, hope springs eternal. Non-judgmental approaches are vital. When you make an inquiry you are avoiding any pitfalls that stumble into the distractions of ridicule, resentment or reactionary sentiment. Issues and matters that are highly emotional require grown-up patience.

From an official perspective and framework, an inquiry follows a well-found legally appropriate continuum of relevant fact finding. All too often, such efforts are distracted by deceptive tactics on the part of perpetrators, and misguided perceptions of non-official "participants". Non-practitioner types of critics aside, responsiveness necessitates the objectivity of clear-headed thinking, reinforced by the search for credible evidence, and substantiated through forensic analysis. At least that's a beginning point in a comprehensive probe. Likewise, within the scope of interpersonal social intercourse, you do what you need to do and remain differentiated, well-reasoned and logical. You have to ensure a capacity for deducing rational aspects of the relevant issues. Personal feelings and bias are to be reserved for non-essential pastime flirtations.

A genuinely objective investigation requires balanced assessment as free as possible from nebulous conjecture. Obviously, that's not always possible for all of us. But, we must try as best we can. Cultic collusions and potentially criminal activities invite the investigator to exercise exceptionally serious levels of scrutiny. The welfare of those involved may be in jeopardy, depending on the situation being analyzed. Of necessity, you have to control your anxieties and passions for the sake of uncovering the truth. What you believe is not particularly important or even relevant, when it comes to the facts of the case. In actuality, you can believe anything you want, but avoid subjective validation for the sake of your special interests. That's a major challenge in itself.

Initially, an inquiry wants to address the reality of the allegation being made. Is it real at all? Or, does such a thing demand you accept it on faith alone? Okay fine, if that's as far as you want to go. But, is "faith" alone a credible basis for a valid inquiry? No it isn't, not if you are seeking the essential nature of the truth. Faith in reason is one thing, faith in the supernatural, UFO's, and ghosts, without evidence, is quite another. "Faith" in the confidence of reliable outcomes, in trusted processes has greater assurance. So, do you think whatever is being said comes anywhere near the scope of reality? Does such a claim have validity and profess a qualified degree of common sense? Sure, everyone has an opinion on something, and everyone wants to be an "expert" in everything, but that's not possible. In the realm of fringe or pseudoscience, no matter how entertaining, is the basis to found in factuality? Anything that is asserted as a basis of substantiation needs to be questioned. Alleged facts and figures require effective verification.

For the investigator, whether or not he or she is from the realm of "fringe sciences" (aka pseudoscience), requires even more cautiousness. But, then again, one must be shrewdly self-evolved in highly disciplined ways to begin a process of person ideological evolution. That is not easy, as the pull to devolution is strong. You simply can't look for others to show you mysterious pathways to higher thinking. You're on your own unless you are fortunate enough to collaborate with like-minded skilled practitioners.

You have to find that path yourself and develop a healthy perspective of avoiding dependence on others. Along the way, incredulity, in search of the reality of people, places and things, is a virtue. Even if your claim to expertise is from the field of any "ologies", like criminology for example, you must be watchful. This is especially true if you claim credence and affinity from the spheres of psychology or sociology.

Be aware of your propensity for smug piety and ruthless arrogance. Vigilance is required in the face of the inevitability of people's intentional bent toward stupidity. You can never undervalue the necessity of being on guard for the number of stupid people functioning in the environment at any given moment. Some of us use the metaphor of the "zombie apocalypse" for that reason. In the blink of any eye, seemingly intelligent people can turn viciously ignorant, arrogantly selfish and dangerously destructive.

Take for instance, in reference to a hierarchy of needs, the potentiality of individuality in private proclivities toward primeval psychopathy. At the basic foundation, there is the essential carnality of self-survival, or often touted as "survival of the fittest". No matter what, people will seek their own level of sustained existence in spite of you. Follow that salaciousness with the need for amative assurance of safety and security. And maybe at a third level of conceptualization, layer that with the prurience of self-belongingness.

At this tier of hierarchal ideations, anything is possible if one feels he or she must do anything to ensure his or her existence. That gives rise to another tiered manifestation of human fantasy, which is the need to be noticed, loved, appreciated, "respected" and otherwise infused with influence in the lives of others. A presumed "expertise" is asserted, with frequent claims to "authority". Here is the spectrum of perverse flirtations with self-esteem dependencies. Daily you no doubt witness the links to which humans will travel to achieve this quadrangle of inter-dependency on others. In the mundane monotony of social intercourse, many freely assert countless acts of stupidity.

Among pseudoscientists, you can be assured of frequent interruptions across the social landscape by those desirous of a spotlight. Self-seeking, un-evolved and excessively materialistic, as well as the madness of confirmation bias, many will seek their myriad self-satiations. While the lights hover "brightly" over their pretended illumination, because they feel vitally important to humankind, a lot them proclaim special possession of "hidden knowledge", "taboo practices" or "sacred revelations" and so on. And yet, investigative analysis suggests a skeptical process of logical deduction by careful assessment of the evidence. A constant and consistent perseverance to uncover the reality of a matter at issue resists the easy influence of emotional subjectivity. Constructing common sense conclusions based on non-judgmental observations given the evidence, drives the fundamental rationality of the investigation.

Still though we must keep in mind, critical thinking is not a well-practiced art form. And, around us, we will be encircled by a wide-rand of belief systems. Many of these will taint and otherwise contaminate the analytic efforts. Along with that, not a whole lot has changed in terms of basic human nature. People, regardless of their educational credentials, still believe in strange things. There's nothing really new in terms of human trickery, con games and quackery, ever since the beginning of human history in communal collectivity. Deceptions span the continuum of human interactions, from politics to religion. With a really good set of deceptive skills, it is more than likely a guru or shaman will appease great numbers of people.

Since, in today's post-modern world, most people do not desire to think critically, skeptically or introspectively. The pretext of stupidity, selfishness and lazy acquiescence to just about anything, degrades societal institutions, hastens devolution and weakens the evolving progression of the human species. Convincingly, by what might seem compelling "evidence", you might be lured to the darkness of a ruse. Witchdoctors of all kinds entice us for that which they claim can brighten all the questions with one simple answer. And, as an investigator, be cautious, as you might "see" a pretext for "reliability" in the bogus psychobabble. Move closer though and examine in detail the evidence in support of the facts. As some have said, do the math. Test the conjecture and insist upon your own discovery. Figures of speech sometimes cloak the figures in the miscalculations of bogus formulas, templates and related prejudicial fallacies of inference.

During an investigation, we encounter the intricacy of cleverly designed fabrications. People are deceptively clever, but reading through the façade is important. In subsequent analysis however, does the supposition have support in the data available? Social interactions, for private purposes, not only promulgate myths and misconceptions, but also relish in the notions of being fashionably superstitious, as well as arrogantly misinformed. Just about any newspaper or news show headline suggests that perspective, as well as the story that masquerades as news. Exaggerated metaphor frequently entices our thoughts toward faulty interpretations of the information presented.

Fear of self, fear of non-validation and fear of exposure, apparently play a role in the ongoing conjecture of false perceptions about reality. By contrast, proactive differentiation in the never ending hunt for evidentiary provability, supported by healthy skepticism, challenges what most people want to believe. Deterministic admonitions proclaim all kinds of strange and weird conspiratorial associations. Yet, at the same time, good investigators cannot dismiss the relative probability for illicit and illegal collusions. For the criminologist in the field, when the law is broken, then action must be taken. But, what happens when people act stupid? Well, there's generally no law for that.

Profoundly serious investigative inquiry appears to suffer the dismal devolution of easily accepted and untested fallacies of emotional consensus. Even among those claiming to be smart people, there is a laziness of receptivity for unproven and invalid analogies for poorly framed arguments. The pretext to facts and figures is easily distorted toward fabricated biases of "experts" or the subjects of an inquiry. Of course the criminal conspirator is very clever in using such speculation to his or her advantage. He or she quickly surmises what the "audience" or the inquisitor is looking for.

In the end, we should want to know what the facts say. Does the data show clear and convincing proof of a particular assertion? None the less, as an investigator you are dealing in areas of human nature where feeling good is critical. Emotionalism in a post-modern society embraces superstitions, myths and ancient magic because reality is often too painful or challenging to expend energies. That realism is the stress and strain of thinking deeply into the greater reaches of thoughts. And also, it's about provoking exceptional change in oneself. The transcendence delves into regions of "mind" whereby two hemispheres of cerebral collusion create a "mindset" of complexity.

Deception provides the smokescreen behind which hides the lurking pretext to stupidity. Like a "social virus" large numbers embrace their ignorance. Witless oblivion attracts the crowded assembly of herded bias, prejudice and ill-conceived notions. Superstition abounds evermore in the make-believe of a credulous society. In an era of ruse to an information explosion, mysticism cloaks the laziness of largess in opposition to the search for wisdom, understanding and maturity. Introspection, from the intensity of willful insight, labors strenuously against the external fabrications of contrived deterministic admonitions of the arrogantly misinformed. Make no mistake, those who think they know the answers, might only know questions they want to ask. As in all that has gone before, there is nothing new in terms of human intentions.

While people in general, especially those in the U.S., have no excuse to play stupid, many do, and do it well, so that they can escape personal responsibility and communal viability. And yes of course, there's always the snobbery of those who pretend to the many characterizations of altruistic motivations. Human nature appreciates the boundless unlimited potential of warring between the stretches of good and evil. By eluding the trustworthiness of authenticity in uninhibited credibility, multitudes can feed the happiness of painless self-indulgence. Don't forget, some have warped and twisted the pain so that it feels good. And thus, by so doing, pain becomes their pleasure. Hope springs eternal in the naiveté of selfish simplicity for easy answers. From constant flirtation with hedonism devolution has already set in. like a spreading infection, as mentioned earlier, the "zombie effect" devalues the nature of anything.

But for a few brave ones, valiant souls, who refuse to succumb to the wiles of earthly excesses for immediate gratification, visionary innovation protects for a short timeframe. Smug piety lusts after the arrogance of hypocrisy. However, time is running out. How much longer can the human species prevail? Some save the many, while the many save nothing for any. Perhaps arbitrarily, one out of four, as if a parallel to an ancient sower, strives to ascend the heights of insight and transformation. Thereby, the one attempts every effort to evolve into a better more advanced version of the former template. However, for the others, the thorns and thistles, rocks and barren treks, deny creative criticality. And yet, in the imagined acceptance of myth, magic and metaphor subterfuge, the masses acquiesce to their roles of divergent victimization.

Whether over functioning or under functioning, the dysfunction of the collective juvenile nature of easy belief promotes the debasing carnality of the social carnival. Keep in mind the perspective here does not in any way degrade, discourage or defame the unabashed vital essentiality of healthy sexuality. On the contrary, an evolving sense of openness in one's non-hypocritical sexual nature remains serious to the illumination of psychodynamic transformation. Well-defined individual sensuality, liberated and progressing, enlivens the senses for insightful illumination. However, the dark side of that potency becomes dangerous in what can be called "diabolis sexualis".

Regardless though all have their conception of sexuality. Most often, it has not progressed much from high school and teenage years. Never the less, in your investigative processes, who do you believe? That's your call. Facts ought to drive the healthy suspiciousness of self-educated skepticism. As to the allegorical reference to a "zombie apocalypse" or the "zombification process", you make the decisions about the scope and extent of your investigative efforts. People will believe what they sense makes them feel good about themselves. Therein resides the nexus of the problem for gathering viable information for data analysis. It's tainted by human bias.

The "stupidity virus" is rampant across the globe. Anti-social gluttony pervades both public and private institutions. America has not cornered the social marketplace in the excesses of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. As human cattle herd together in following illusions as someone else's chattel, their slow and deadly regression spurs social deterioration. UFO's, conspiracies, cultic proclivities, ideological extremism, and organized criminal enterprises spread their "viral" pathogenic behaviors. Objectification in deterministic fallacies spins the fantasies of poorly contrived social policies. The anti-thinking processes grip the purposely limited imaginations of community collaborations, whereby falsehoods deny factuality.

Quantum queries in curious complexity means investigative exercises must go deeper, deeper and much deeper into the detailed analysis of every possible aspect of the enquiry. Confirmation bias must be assailed viciously and subjective validation immunized against the infectiousness of satiated ignorance. Sufficiency of evidence is respectful of no limitations as to its viability for eventual discovery. Each conjecture must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny beyond the mere pretended sufficiency of one's faith.

Solid proof is essential in every possible application. Yet to the contrary of the myriad social pretexts of "science" and "technology", we collectively continue to communicate in stupid ways. Hence, the hypocrisy in behaviors relative to the concept of quantum queries in curious complexity. By mirror replication, our conjecture reflects our steadfastness to taint the evidentiary outcomes with well-flavored conclusions by which our theories were prejudiced by observational biases. Outside our thinking processes, the "world exposes itself" to us, and we interpret based on our perceptions. Too the many who dare not risk the ridicule, the simplicity is all too comfortable. We've come to rely on the embracement of superstitious self-indulgence in lieu of provability.

From that equation, the multi-dimensional framework of thinking delves deeply within the archives of privately individual psychodynamics. Realty has the misfortune to being assessed by us and gets distorted in the process. Whether conjuring the varied aspects of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , a part of us wants things to be that which we think they ought to be. So, in a sense, the question is not "to be or not to be", it's the simplification of just being what we want it to be. Most of us would rather risk the dangers of well-defended ignorance, than stand and fight against the odds of not being right. As such, we labor to change the likelihoods in our favor.

Skewed thinking processes deliberately conspire in the stupidity of the day. Folly of conjecture, followed by silliness of assertion, is frequently infused with the foolhardiness for trouble free solutions. And in that abjectness of idiocy, few among us question the constant affront by the fallacies of inference. The elephant in the room of social debate remains cleverly in the shadows behind the emotionalism of fabrication. Many of us do this in order to ensure our needs our met in terms of the things we want to believe. Belief is a very strong motivational force we have inflicted upon ourselves for self-serving purposes. Invoking a particular ideology to defend a theory, for a particular conclusion, should signal the red flag of suspiciousness on the part of the investigator.

Purporting "evidence" in support of a special claim requires valid corroboration in order to substantiate the assertion. Person to person gossip does not validate the issue as "scientific proof". None the less, the infotainment of "news" sources is rife with one story begetting another and masquerading as the truth. Often we tell fascinating stories as though storytelling somehow demonstrates "forensic" legitimacy.
Chapter 18 - Planetary, Political and Paranormal Postulations:

Psychobabble, in the many manifestations of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal,** spreads across a globally devolving social dystopia. Of the many contrived illusions, proselytized by ideological extremists, investigative processes confront destructive barriers to the potential for advancing authenticity, rationality and reason. Emotional reactivity and the inability to manage its collective collusions reinforce the de-evolutionary processes of a species doomed to extinction.

For some of us, we fear our efforts are fruitless, without impact and meaningless in the long run. As anybody paying attention to what passes as reliable investigative inquiry? After all, who is really paying any degree of responsiveness and which ones really care? Does anyone seriously, purposely and reliably desire to ascend to a higher plateau of profound introspection? And thereby, from that objectively analyze the facts? Evolutionary transcendence appears woefully in regression.

For the post-modern investigative methodologies, the determined practitioner encounters the face of "evil" that wears many masks. A scale of deception places no limits on the wicked intentions of others. Whether in open discovery of cults, conspiracies or criminal enterprises of one faction or another, filtering through the blather can be quite daunting. And yet, you must pay close attention to the clues at all times. Often it is frustrating to get to the substance of the matters.

While surrounded by the largess of the irrelevant, the immaterial and the incompetent, the serious query frequently suffers the influence of social expediency. Communal storytelling, conjuring fearful bias, and mythic thinking, does not ensure the credibility of factual sustenance in terms of reliable authentication. Proof is in the substance as opposed to the semblance of intentional assertion. And, to the suggestion of "evil", it is the mention of the malevolent intentions of human nature.

Within these cerebral archives live the lowest of motivations, cloaked behind the façade of decency. Such purposes ride the descending gradations of cruelty and meanness. Premeditated maliciousness contrives ruses of everything imaginable that intends harm others. Of primal consequences, the gambit delves into conjurations pretended in disguises of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal.**

When we hear reports of so called "epidemics" or, "it's out of control" or, "it's the worst incident in history", of this or that, what do we think? Do you seriously undertake your own critical analysis of a cause-effect inquiry? Or, rather, do you simply accept the conjecture at face value without further application of critical thinking? Well, most people do not dig deeper, and that's the problem in social discourse today. Is it really true? For instance, when an agency or organizational administrator, for their own self-aggrandizement, (i.e. politician, police chief, business leader, reporter, etc.) states something like that, what do they really mean, and how do they know? We have to keep in mind personally, and especially when dealing with others, that we are fully capable of tricking our own belief systems to satisfy private biases. Whenever a seemingly outlandish claim is openly advocated, one must remain suspicious.

The more extraordinary the assertion, in all likelihood, there is a problem with the facts. Serious examination of issues, propositions and speculations, are significantly absent across the broad spectrum of societal interactions, coupled with interpersonal communications. Today, it is so easy to assert something deficient in evidence as standalone factuality. And yet, in the vast stretches of the information age, such analytic processes are more critical than ever. We need to rigorously apply our most detailed investigative skills, ensure proper forensic testing and conduct controlled examination of the alleged evidentiary artifacts. Window dressing in the pre-textual effort to sound more credible often includes trying to sound authentic. That is, using language borrowed from other fields to make it appear that the questionable data is more factual.

Magical thinking or superstitious fixations typically reside at the basis of personal persistence in assuming something is valid, when in fact, it may be completely fictitious. The more someone needs to have personal proclivities, desires and yearnings satiated, the greater the probability for fictional perceptions. Along with that, also comes the need to claim one belief system over another in a "tribalistic" fashion. Personal dysfunctions in negativistic efforts to connect with others for selfish reasons, unveils inclinations to make one more noticeable, "valued" and get attention. By contrast, a well-differentiated inquisitor, forsakes the "fame and fortune" of impressing others. He or she is one who is confidently self-disciplined, pursues the facts, and makes strenuous efforts to be distinctly separate and individualistic in personal perspectives and actions.

For the investigator, responsible and accountable self-reliance, fortified by maturity and self-evolution, is important to the reliability for the query. You have to work hard to guard against the pitfalls of accepting the hearsay of others, or the "heresy" of wanting to be the "rebel" for a misguided cause. The competent sleuth understands the essentiality of developing a capability for separating oneself from the "herd", the mainstream and the conventional. Easy acceptance of simplistic answers to complex questions does not mean the case is solved necessarily. In confrontation with nebulous notions about any given phenomenon, or collusive behaviors, the researcher must carefully weigh the emotional content of the speculations, as influenced by the self-interests at hand.

To be a good investigator you have to exercise a mature sense of self-control and personal insight into oneself. Risk taking and inviting ridicule are part of the communal dynamics that can be quite daunting. Simply put, others may not like you because you are different. Not only that, as the possible productive attributes are many, there is also the element of depth perception and ongoing enlightenment. Or, what you might say getting to the bottom of who you really are. This of course is complex. Because when criticisms come your way, like the vast majority of the populace, you might get scared. If that happens, then you could be fearful enough in acquiesce to the "majority rule".

In an ideal inquiry, you process the data to every extent possible, based on the quality and quantity of informational factors you receive. Solvability factors transform as analytic capacities become more enhanced. You make critical inquiries, ask questions, assess verbal and non-verbal indicators, listen cautiously and insist on a healthy sense of skepticism. Hopefully, along the way, how you think is just as important and what you think. Your belief system is one thing, but your intuitive sense of controlled objectivity is essential to the efficacy of problem solving. The truth is sometimes hard to find.

As you filter the information flow, your responsiveness stays firmly connected to logical aspects of productive thinking. Any yet, one always must keep in mind, when dealing with people in the real world, very little follows an ideal course of actions. Lots of inquisitive wannabes will project all many of hasty generalizations. People remain influenced to varying degrees by the emotional attachment to the issues at hand. Less than perfect circumstances typically get in the way. There are always glitches somewhere along the line and plenty of opposition to assert negative aspects.

It's always fascinating how negative people can be about any elements in the scheme of an investigative process. There will usually be resisters, saboteurs and detractors during the course of an inquiry. Some will come from within the organizational framework, as well as those encountered during the investigation. And yet, a good investigator will prevail against the obstacles. Determination with a high sense of credibility for evidentiary artifacts and rationality are critical. One must bear in the forefront of thinking that not much changes in terms of human nature. People are responsible for their actions, especially when they want something. However, competing schools of thought may provoke a more deterministic model of behavior.

Extremist ideologies, which include cults, conspiracies and collusive criminal enterprises, use extraordinary means to gain adherence to the belief system. As such, one might encounter organized crime, terrorist faction or cultic fixation. While some use physical violence, others use psychological manipulations. Aside from the fact that the threat or use of physical violence is very psychologically fearful, more subtle means are willfully employed. Extremists of one sort or another motivate adherents to become isolated from normal and conventional interactions. Separation for socially diverse linkages creates "elitism" and "exclusivity" for the sake of power and control.

Excuses for whatever conjecture might be proclaimed are intended to ensure some form of gain to the central "leadership". Controlling people, whether in organized crime, or communal exceptionality, is seldom done with altruistic intentions. On the contrary, typically the motivations are steeped in personal gain at some level of selfishness. Abusive actions toward others are about hedonistic self-gratification. Certainly, you will witness all kinds of self-serving rationalizations that constantly insulated by myriad fallacies of inferences. By way of clever conjecture, ideologies are defended by inventive pop culture psychobabble and cunning "new age" alleged revelations.

Overall, as an investigator you understand that proof is in the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. There can be no doubt where the evidence bears things out. But, for the determined believer, insistent upon his or her confirmation bias, real confirmation may not be a primary factor in believability. Followers of a certain point of view have convinced themselves that the illusion is more important. Whatever seduction they choose, in the end, reality has become more threating than the illusion.

Behind the deception reside the many faces of manipulative arrogance. History is filled with examples of those who would attempt control of others to achieve their ends. From anti-religious extremists, to interplanetary gurus and anti-government dissidents, doctrines of every sort have come and gone. By pretext of some "non-conformist heresy", many have contrived to stage-manage the thinking of others. Perhaps a good comparison to the bizarre antics of life might be the circus or the carnival. In the sideshows, you encounter all manner of unusual barking of bias in self-indulgent falsifications. And yet, deviance of any sort is a delicate balance between freedom and criminality.

Who decides what is deviant and harmless? Or, what social collaborations determine which deviations to be dangerous? Regardless, for the need of attention within group cohesion, small numbers of people willingly join together to engage and experience solidarity. Unanimity is enjoined, sometimes devoid of facts, in order to satisfy preconceived notions. Such confirms partiality for selected preferences. Cleverly, skilled con-men maneuver others by sleight of hand. By the intersection of the supernatural with science fiction, people can be misled to their deaths. Meanwhile, the chase of aliens helps people cope with questions about the "ultimate plan of the universe".

The power of consensus can be potently seductive. If a person has inkling they might be right about something, then they're likely to find those who agree. Acquiescence is reinforced out of individual prejudice in order to be accepted. In unanimity against opposing persons outside the group, cohesiveness encourages conformity to avoid the perception of deviance. From information obtained upon entry into a particular faction, the presuppositions are confirmed by trouble-free ideological acceptance. Informational conformism is often emotionally driven to meet superficial introspective needs. People in general all too frequently deny what they see, in order be a part of the group.

Given a person's perspective, as might be tempted, or tainted, by their belief system, many will seek consensus in mutual favoritism. If you think for instance you're getting a "free gift", then you'll probably want to connect with those involved. By presumed "authority" those who seemingly have special inside knowledge, "secrets" can be very convincing frauds. Because of that, people want to be special and associated with the "cosmic" answers to the life and death and eternity. No matter what the great prize seems to be, the burden of proof for extraordinary claims rests with claimant.

To meet the provability of asserted claims, the advocate of such positions must show the validity and prove it. None the less, many of us cling to what we've already accepted as the reality of a given proposition and feel that settles it. For that scheme, a large number, by way of a strange mixture of religiosity, conjecture and personal precepts, adhere to what they think is their believability. From inputting designs that aren't there, to "seeing" hidden "secret agents", many people try to affix their own unproved and untested conjecture in a framework the truth. Very often, human beings, prone to extraordinary efforts at self-deception, will find "evidence" to prove them right.

While some aspects, on a limited scale might come close to being true, with regard to the "conspiratorial" assertions of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , most are not. Much of the guesswork is simply that. This of course does not mean more malevolent intentions of criminality are not at work. As criminals can be quite inventive, manipulative and skillful, caution is always warranted. As such, this is where the investigator must be wary of unsubstantiated assumptions. Going deeper is important, while one peels back the layers. Frequently, a significant degree of falsehood enters public discussion about any bizarre, unusual or out of the ordinary incident.

If something sounds spooky, weird, "sci-talk", or sounds other worldly, then a lot of people are likely to move closer. Their efforts to embrace the unproven assumptions are to make them feel better about their place in the cosmos. Much of what we do is about self-gratification. A clever sounding mantra presents opportunities for adherents to emotionally attach for personal amative reasons. Ghosts, gods and goblins, with global domination purposes, seem to help appease the necessity of real authentic investigation. Yes, surely, as some would assert, "investigations" are conducted. But, proof continuously hangs on the facts that are presented into evidence.

If one is in "pain" about this or that or whatever, then their projective efforts with specious arguments are likely to be quite extraordinary and "out of this world". Unusual things provoke many of us to become more selfish than we already are. When things seem off balance, unsafe and unusual, people get scared. From that, they want things to make sense. And so, reality gets twisted by irrationality.

World domination by mysterious forces makes for entertaining novels, movies and television shows. Yet, if you make such an assertion, then how do you prove it? With that, once you think you can prove it, and then what do you do? Do you launch an insurrection, start a revolution, over-through the government, or go to court and sue? It is one thing to say something really important and extraordinary exists. By contrast, it's quite another thing to set into motion the chain reaction to bring about a transformation. With the sky falling and the world imploding, who do you enlist to turn back the tides of the sinking continents? Well, you do your best to survive, or not.

Although notions about a particular conspiracy are sometimes fun, more often than not, sufficiency of evidence is lacking. However, again this does not detract from the reality of serious dangers presented by cults, terrorist groups and related criminally organized enterprises. Where criminality exists by expression of collusive extremism, thorough investigative processes are warranted. When such claims, or accusations, are reflection of about conspiratorial possibilities, investigative analysis is critical.

The depths of human primordial wickedness understand no limitations. Attempts to apply persistent measures of solvability factors require skilled expertise. One thing to keep in mind is basic to the process. Plots, schemes and subversions happen every day. Some are benign, while others are extremely dangerous. Those that violate statutory provisions must be vigorously investigated with the full measure of the law. And yet, the competition for scarce resources plagues the viability of lawful discovery.

None the less, we want to keep in mind, the old idea about con artists. That is, if it's too good to be true, then it's probably not true. Along with that, given a criminal opportunity for illicit gain, there will always be someone who'll risk the pain. Such a perspective applies to a number of things. In the diverse behaviors of human beings, people are highly capable of anything. Viable inquiries consider the perspective that human thinking can envision a wide range of possibilities.

For instance, one aspect is the size of the conspiracy. Conspiratorial allegations requiring large numbers of people, suggests the less likelihood of being true. When an incident is complex to pull off, involves long term planning and precise execution, such an action most likely is an illusion. We have done this societally on so many levels, for so long, that people seldom question the viability of main stream assertions.

Through fantasy, dreaming and obsessive bias, many easily deceive themselves. Instead of critical analysis, emotions serve to justify myth, magic and metaphor with personal reality, and subsequently replace the facts. As a result, the more such nonsense is accepted as "common sense", the less likely misconceptions will be questioned. Deep within the unconscious mindfulness resides the darkness of devious complexity. So much so, odds are the creator of such things believes his or her own lies. And, layered cunningly in repressed reserve are those deceptive conceptions for cognitive bias. With such depth of concealment, the ruse becomes contrived rationality.

By inducement, feel good receptivity, or reward of some kind, the possession of "special knowledge" is uniquely born by conspiratorial confabulators. Such inclinations from selfish motives stem from the perpetrations of many ideological proclivities. To make noise and show of what one thinks he or she knows, or pretends to know, is to provoke further superficial reflection upon sensory stimulation. Any appeal to emotional reactivity to stimulate the senses beyond the point of logical analysis, likely instigates acceptance of delusions. These come in many forms and fashions.

As a good investigator, regardless of what you believe, the incredulous nature of the investigation requires using one's "baloney detection" kit. With a human penchant toward hogwash, tripe and nonsense, we should be factually curious. Primarily, the process emphasizes an analysis of the source or sources of alleged claims. The reliability of the purported data is compared with other similar claims. Critical thinking demands consideration of the logical implications. Is there evidence to support the allegations at hand? Does the conjecture make sense in the normal scheme? And if it seems to appear genuine, does it seem to fit within a framework of common sense?

Methodical investigative consistency strives to prevail against scams, plots and schemes and outright illegal contrivances. Reasonableness in trustworthy applications of provability ought to rise above the credulous and the gullible. As some are willing to kill for what they believe, others are prepared to perpetrate fraud. Non-thinking, anti-thinking or any failure to apply critical thinking skills foster the fallacies of misguided conclusions. Today, this applies nearly every aspect of communal interaction.

Bogus conjecture is the ruse of the day, as people easily embrace their fearful dysfunctions in self-gratifying simplicities. All too simply, many hasten the path of least resistance to re-enforce preconceived notions. Fear, self-induced, has a way of negating the ascendency to higher levels of thought. Consistent effort is required during every moment of one's life to ensure cerebral streams enliven thought processes. In so doing, one is engaged in the stimulating experience to strengthen ideations. A person's ultimate challenge, through strenuous mental and physical exertion, is to evolve toward a greater manifestation of personal transformation. It's the elevated plane of reality.

Cults, conspiracy theories and associated criminalities are related collusions instigated by human intentions. Someone has a bias or prejudice about something. So, they'll try to make certain that others do likewise. People think they need group approval. Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't try to make your "reality" someone else's by any means of force, threat or abuse. Or, never force unsubstantiated claims on others absent provable evidence. To that end, in the process of your collaborations, don't breach the accepted statutory prohibitions against criminal behaviors.

Against the folly of fallacies of followers, the shrewd investigator applies advanced levels of thinking. A pretext to "leadership" finds gurus seeking the following of the foolish flock. However, using a creative methodology, supported by logical frameworks, inquiries are directed to thoroughly scrutinize every allegation in question. Avoiding the illogical and the emotional by consistent systematic applications, one strives to bypass the irrelevant, the immaterial and the incompetent. Keep in mind there is much incompetence in slothful lazy thinking these days.

In fact, from the standpoint of frequent observation, there is a significant level of stupidity throughout the varieties of social engagement. Even more so now, as never before, the necessity of reason is critical. Too much emotionalism, particularly in the lust for superstitious explanations, beyond human power, frequently passes as part of contemporary problem-solving. Transformed and differentiated thinking is a long term mental experience that requires drastic alterations. None the less, the utilization of critical thinking must be directed proactively to cut through facetious layers of social hypocrisy. This requires an unconventional mode of behavioral instigation on the part of the investigator. He or she has to be prepared to take risks.

Risk is part of the game and means we think outside any pretext for constrained parameters. One who is willing to face dangers, threats and perils of interpersonal interactivity, ought to be willing to risk crossing boundaries of conventionality. That is because the quest is about finding as close proximity as possible to the truth. And, to this end, selflessness is a valuable part of the inquiry. In other words, it's not all about you. It's only about you to the extent you transform effectively. Persistent methodological analysis may offend purveyors of "political correctness" and communal conformity, as well as organizational expediency. Typically, during the aftermath of a highly stressful event, many are more than willing to suspend any semblance of rationality.

For the sake of themselves, to invite the attention to their plight, emotional reactivity finds sinister ways to forsake rationality. Typically, the loudest whiner gets the sound bite on the six o'clock news. Or, he or she is the first to call a press conference and pontificate on the "motive". Meanwhile, around him or her, the timid and frightened find excuses to mentally cohabitate and collude with them. As people choose to change and evolve of their own free will, or to the contrary, we must consider the probability of deviant shortcomings. Many will not alter their thinking and subsequent lifestyle.

They remain foolishly child-like, stupidly complacent, and devolve in destructive ways. For selfish motivations, a person is capable of anything. Some plot schemes for various fraudulent activities, while some plan the physical demise of others. For this, there are many possibilities for personal and group expression. As extremists, they will say, do and contrive all manner of anti-social behaviors. Another's person's perspective on the external world is highly personal and self-driven. As such, investigator's endeavor to consistently dig deeper than what the surface might suggest.

Beyond the immediate layer of superficiality, people inculcate belief systems for that which meets their needs. Reasons vary for the kinds of things people seek to believe. For many, the trappings of religiosity are quite inviting. Such ideologies provide the fundamental basis of projecting cognitive biases. For example, the perception of a "divine plan" for the cosmos, invites speculation about the other-worldliness of paranormal phenomenon. In this, the gods or goddesses, or whatever, have designed an eternal rubric. From such a gambit, by which humans might war against enemy "pawns", a supernatural chess game pits believers against non-believers. Someone has to lose.
Chapter 19 – Confirmation Bias – Hope Springs Eternal:

In your investigative efforts, you sometimes wonder why people frequently think so foolishly. There are many reasons, much of it relates to the culmination of thoughts into verbiage based on biases. People are an extraordinary amalgamation of mystical thoughts, fantasies and mythic fabrications. We don't always choose to be logical and rational. Our premeditated prejudices pervade the sensory realm with all kinds of mythic aberrations, reinforced by emotional wishful thinking. Commonly, patterns appear in ghostly forms where nothing really exists. Given the need to be simplistically satiated, things are accepted as believable where evidence is deficient.

For contemporary times as these, one might consider, given the availability of the information age, credible individual research for the facts would be important. You would think that thinking would embrace thoughtful query of a more contemplative nature. And yet, we often find that fictional thinking outweighs laborious introspection. The probability that observations are influenced by theoretical assertions, which may be erroneous, spans the reaches of every social level. Likewise, wishful thinking becomes reactive emotionalism, whereby the observed changes what he or she observes. This is done so that the outcome fits what the speculator originally envisioned.

Neither anecdotes nor rumors make for the kind of foundational construct that helps substantiate the validity of a claim. On the other hand, supporting evidence from relevant sources does assist in the process of proving or disproving allegations. None the less, you let a good rumor get started, and before you know it, the information is transformed. It's very easy to make something out of nothing, as in a fallacy of inference rushing the believability of a hasty conclusion. People, places and things have been wrongly accused, persecuted and misidentified throughout the history of humankind.

Ideological divisiveness comes in many forms. Found throughout every social structure of every community on the planet, extreme forms of thinking manifest in a variety of human encounters. All too often, such "togetherness" fosters friction in fabricated fictions. While some might be seen as benign, others can be quite counterproductive to human progress. Pensive, brooding and fearful, thoughtless self-absorption permeates the factional gatherings of many collective endeavors.

Cultic believability relishes in the intentional purposes of safeguarding pretentious adherence to primordial storytelling. Prehistoric revisionism in post-modern society capitalizes psychologically and materially across a broad range of commercialized interests. If actions are not grossly illicit, to the extent such behaviors violate community norms, then communal interests are not typically opposed to such humanistic interactions. When majorities do not perceive a threat exists, most people ignore the variety of group activities that transpire. But, when competitive interests are challenged, communal wellbeing seems threatened, conflict becomes a real potentiality.

In the pursuit of the "sacredness" of confirmation bias, many scurry about in the personal debasement of excessive emotionalism. On this trek, as frequently traveled by others down the well-worn passages of pretended stupidity, feelings must "feel good" in the pursuit of simple explanations, explainable patterns and material predictability. No one wants to sense life is unsafe or out of control. Life is to be easily explained and conveniently experienced with limited exposure to psychological hardships. And, in the course of such efforts, there must be some master designer behind it all.

Many do not want to understand the intricacies of human behavior to the extent that purposes have dangerous motivations. Deadly incentives from personal proclivities come with life terminating consequences. Where character colludes with calamity, anything is possible. Hope springs eternal that torturous actions by human malevolence can be explained away with simple formulas. Of troubling concern to the investigator remains the resistance contrived to avoid one's self-evolving transformation. People lie, deceive and hurt others, psychologically, physically, and perhaps spiritually. Humans like good storytelling. Over time, such traditions become fixated personal convictions.

From "saints and sinners", to conjectures about good and evil, the cursed and blessed struggle in the divide between the believability of logic and faith. As to "faith", one does need proof in the validity of evidence, but only non-thinking acceptance of nebulous notions. Specious speculation is ageless and transcends one generation to another. Whereas at one time, demons tortured souls, in another time aliens abduct tormented psyches. Issues of confirmation bias, along with hopefulness that springs eternally, have long been the challenge of investigative processes. Illusions of superstitious inclinations are allowed to infiltrate the discourse toward evidentiary artifacts.

Mythic flirtations, unquestioned by the validity of logical inquiry, often over-ride the efficacy of exposure to viable evidence. Connecting the dots of validation, from one point to another, are interrupted by the selfishness of confirmation bias. Rumors, assumptions, and contrived anecdotes do not substantiate conjecture as truth. And yet, the stupidity of the masses, illegality of gangsters, corruptness of politicians and self-indulgence of terroristic cults constantly claim the arrogance of their egoistic justifications. Fallacies of inference abound in every aspect of public interactivity. Foolish and faulty comparisons are hastily conned in myriad schemes to fabricate false conclusions. And, oh wait, don't ever, for a moment, forget the sleight of hand deceptions of the mass media.

Investigators have a responsibility to provoke thinking to the highest possible level of sophisticated inquiry. Naturally, such ascent toward intuitive sophistication is relative to the sub-cultural context in which the investigator operates. One must know the differences, distinctions and the exhibitions necessary for such thoughtful inquiry, given the environmental connections. And, he or she must exhibit competence of skilled capability in each action. Sometimes, he or she will frighten the less motivated and those more inclined to self-induced ignorance. One should note that witlessness recognizes no boundaries of socio-economic or political lines of demarcation.

Much purposeful folly is found in places of supposed academic loftiness. At any rate, your transforming sense of creativity ought to disturb those less driven around you. People should wonder what you're going to do next. Whether such is positive or negative, the immediacy of fearful concern is irrelevant. They have their own problems which they must deal with, or maybe not. Most simply need to grow up, become mature and think critically, using increased rationality. Any yet, the continuity of what matters are the subsequent actions that transform the investigative processes.

With so many illusions of superstitious thinking, over-indulgence in gross materiality of consumption, and little commitment to expanded ideations, truthful investigative discovery can be stifled. Often, people need to be jolted, spurred and inspired to evolve productively beyond the magical and the gullible. Fear of past and future consequences, the hope of heaven and the fear of hell, stifle the liberation of the human spirit for careful inquiry. With demands and desires, cravings and proclivities, each diversion purposely cloaks the free willingness to become a better version than the original personality.

For most people, weak, un-evolved, self-medicated in so many ways, they remain in a time warp of easy gullibility. Stalled in the past, their lack of rectitude and resolve must be torn down, while you show the way, the wisdom and willingness. You must demonstrate that situations, barriers and distractions are not as bad as one might conjure, perceive and project. In the present, the profoundness of the moment, by living close to what is now, each experience becomes an adventure. Imagination must stir the creative forces of the will to propel investigative innovation with continuous stimulation. One must consider the probabilities alongside a common sense framework.

Personal bias regarding a certain perspective can devolve to a level of abject destructiveness. At one end of a linear perspective, for instance, a cult "mind melds" the gullibility of group cohesion in "group think" for the safety of the "herded" collusions. Like another group, which pursues conspiracies, as in a government cover-up of crashed alien spacecraft, "solidarity" is provoked by a commonality of personal interests. Some are benign and some are dangerous. Some we call terrorists, or gangsters, while other we consider in less sinister aspects. None the less, the viability of what's claimed always demands critical analysis. Further inspection must be entertained.

An investigator must bear in mind, no matter what level or scope of an investigation, people become very reaction when beliefs are threatened. Any confrontation provokes reactivity as opposed to responsibly logical deductive processes. Acting out stupidly is preferred to mature proactive analysis of challenging issues. When faced with any potential endangerment to preconceived notions about how the world, it is likely you'll encounter superstitious thinking. Beliefs shape perceptions which may be faulty. Of course, that runs the gambit of **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**.

Methodology is vital to the investigator. Detective work is a search for the truth. In his or her queries, the inquisitor seeks to unravel the layers of the assertion. An investigation is an examination, research and exploration of the facts. Sometimes this becomes confusing and distracting. As one appears to be doing "scientific" things, the gathered onlookers allow themselves to believe such actions are scientific. Any "experimental hypothesis" regarding interactions with life requires curious analysis from a factual basis. And thus, if you disguise your system of believability with layers of scientific sounding words, then all you've done is make the conceptions sound good.

To make something sound plausible does not mean that such a thing is true. No matter how often you compare apples and oranges you still have apples and oranges. But, all too often that's the kind of social commentary you get. Too frequently, in the world of infotainment the "class clown" becomes the "ideological icon" of the day. Likewise, in the fallacies of conjecture, fascination and fixation with cults, conspiracies and criminal enterprises collude in self-centered realms of personal aggrandizement. Assumptions about the meaning of life's mysteries span the spectrum of expectations. Through strongly held perceptions, misdirection can influence outcomes. As one accepts a set of "delusional beliefs" on the basis of faith, he or she cannot expect others to do likewise. When a dominant personality, or several such personalities, offer dire warnings against non-believers dangerous consequences might follow.

Shared ideations that are not well-founded on evidentiary sufficiency ought to be questioned by investigative personnel. Investigative functions cannot overlook the possibilities for criminal coordination at deeper levels. Intervention might be needed. On some occasions in social intercourse, contrived misbeliefs and hallucinations can become blended within the scheme of normal behaviors. Self-centeredness for attention getting satiations generally reflects adolescent flirtations. However, today, there is no guarantee that most people will grow up. In most cases, many will not progress farther than the high school prom. It is important as individuals mature, hopefully, that somewhere along the line common sense supports the viability of growth in wiser perspectives. So called "cherished beliefs" that skim the fringes of superstition absent evidence for substantiation, reinforces a false worldview of reality.

Superstitious admonitions about conspiratorial behaviors of the government, for instance, or terroristic factions for another, may or may not be true. As said earlier, conspiracies do occur. Yet, the maker of such claims has the burden of proof upon him, her or them, if from within some kind of association. But, then again, so what do you mean by all that? You can point your fingers upward and claim the sky is falling all day long. Or, suggest the U.S. government plotted to bring down an entire commercial site for the purpose of war, or oil or territorial imperatives. Who cares?

What actions are adherents planning to take to keep the "cosmic order" in perfect balance and harmony? In other words, for the sake of the "belief system" and the story being told, what courses of action, if any, will the individuals or groups take? Maybe there's nothing more than the feel good solidarity of people getting together who share a certain fantasy world. Then again, perhaps something more illicit or sinister is at work. For the sake of a particular viewpoint, criminality could be hiding behind the scenes. Two or more people joining together in an intimate connection could be uniting around a dominantly strong authority figure. This guru might have malevolent intentions in mind. As hope springs eternal for the need of subjective validation, a following ensues.

Confirmation bias knows only those limits placed on it by the human imagination. Appeals to an idea of an "authority", like a god, a concept, or a human, occur daily. Many like to call up a higher power to validate their conjecture. Regardless, such summoning of magical insight does not prove the viability of any particular theory or claim. So, from the standpoint of a strongly held psychodynamic juncture, the parties involved may disconnect from the surrounding community framework. That is, anti-social behaviors become the preferred mode of performance instead pro-social interactivity. Subjectivity is more important than the challenge of debate and verification of beliefs.

As one labors a lifetime to make sense of the surroundings, the landscape changes, and shapes form images that create doubt. Fear foments around the any threat of doubtfulness. And, in the process, reason is replaced by fabrication, deception and emotional reactivity. To make sense of the suspected "cosmic order", patterns are expected and belief systems formulated. If they are not found, then conceptions create configurations to ensure the subjectivity of biased ideations. In spite of lacking evidentiary artifacts to support many conspiratorial assertions, people persist in making unusual, unsubstantiated and extraordinary claims. Not much has changed down through the history of the human species. Of which, the efficacy of any claim depends on the insistence to ensure provability. Without sufficiency of credible verification, multitudes cling to myriad speculations about the paranormal, the supernatural and inter-planetary. Fallacies of inference flock to the fuzzy notions of confirmation bias.

Whether you're an alien hunter, cultist inquisitor or conspiratorial pursuer, the depths of the conjecture should be investigated thoroughly. Even skeptics should keep an open mind and allow for a diversity of viewpoints. Likewise, believers should afford doubters the same flexibility, openness and separate sphere of distinction. Equal basis for claim and subsequent proof ought to yield an uncompromising quest for the truth. A reliable tenet to ensure is that an unexplained event is not necessarily inexplicable. Some curious enigmatic incident does not equal automatically an explanation by way of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. Oftentimes, many assert since a bizarre occurrence cannot be easily explained, then the result must be mysterious. Undiscovered provability by insufficiency of evidence, doesn't infer proof is undiscoverable.

Mysteriousness many times, driven by our credulousness, seeks the simplicity of quick and trouble-free justification. Simple answers are preferred. So, if you can't explain strange "hieroglyphics" on cave walls, you might conclude space aliens did it. Additionally, it's okay to believe in something, or for that matter, anything you want to believe. But, then it follows you ought to investigate further, debate the issues involved and pursue logical avenues of constructive thought. All of this is underscored by emotional restraint and reinforced by rational deliberation. All discussions on any consideration of alternative explanations should be fully explored. Analysis is crucial in order to substantiate the viability of an authentic and credible investigation. A healthy skeptical perspective should rationally move credulity to certainty.

On the surface all that sounds good, right? Wishful thinking at best, as one anticipates the other being wrong. As human nature pursues its own justifications, subjectivity colludes with the emotional comfort ensuring a sense of "certainty". Even at this juncture, the savvier sages among us know that hope always springs eternal on every side of a controversial discussion. Its hopeful people might simply agree to disagree. And yet, that is not always going to happen. At one end of extremism, you can witness ideological destructiveness in terroristic factions, cultic exclusivity and organized criminal enterprises. Believers, non-believers and wannabe-believers delve into a wide spectrum of worldly mysteries. In doing so, there is reactive diversity with a penchant for the viability of preconceived notions. In the long run, not much will change, because it never has. People enjoy the simplicity of the safe mediocrity of communal conformity.

By reason, factuality, and contemplation of reality, the assessment of a certain set of allegations, should follow a logical framework. For the investigative processes, the inquisitor pursues a rational construction of lawful inquiry. In confrontation with a complaint of falsehood, scam or fraud for any conjecture, the investigator strives to address the existence of a criminal conspiracy. Primarily, such a suspicion suggests that two or more people have allied themselves for the purposes of criminal activity. Any manner of illicit activities could be involved. And whether or not the transaction devolves to the actual criminal event, the collusion remains punishable.

Associated with that effort, the intent to commit a violation of the criminal laws would have to be proved. And that means the investigation would need to establish conspirators intended to commit a crime. There must convincing evidence to establish the criminal nature of the conspiracy. Preparatory conduct, by which several people contemplate fraudulent activity, purposeful deception and unlawful intentions, could conceivably unfold from any range of human interactions.

Preparatory conduct, by which several people contemplate fraudulent activity, purposeful deception and unlawful intentions, could conceivably unfold from any range of human interactions. Given the nature of the potential configurations, conspiracies can become complex investigatory enterprises and very controversial to prosecute. Crucial evidence far beyond the mere existence of gossip or hearsay conjecture is vital to an investigation. Part of that process relates to determining at what point a lawful investigation is needed. Information gathering is extremely important.

At one end of the conspiratorial crime continuum, street gangs, terroristic affiliations and other organized criminal collusions are part of the criminal intricacy. As that interactivity flows farther along, the nature of criminality finds other levels as deviously sinister. Complicities develop collaborations that span ideological, political and socio-economic components of across a broad social spectrum. From edutainment to food processing, from belief systems to corporate monopolies, a host of interconnected agreements interact for purposes of gainful enrichment. The investigative challenge is uncovering the illegality present within the scheme of the interactions.

When a crime is detected or suspected (e.g. fraud, forgery, con game, theft, robbery, militant activity, etc.), investigative processes focus on the "elements of the crime". In so doing, these factors, along with the evidentiary artifacts, serve as the basis of the criminality. From there, the investigator considers the statutory requirements that define the crime in question. Do conjectures or activities regarding the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** indicate criminality? Well, that depends on the evidence, including the conduct of those involved in the framework of allegations. An investigator must be cautious, yet committed to a thorough logical investigation.

From an investigative standpoint, the inquirer usually begins with a theory or basic hypothesis. Which, for the determined inquisitor, ought to be constructed as rigorously objective a possible. While none of us can be perfectly, and without error, objective and strictly unbiased, we endeavor to maintain the stability of common sense. But unfortunately, given our own beliefs, our theories often influence the nature of our observations. That is, in an effort to make sense out of the context of the issues, most of us rely on the subjectivity of our perceptions. Although you make an effort to remain rational, sometimes you might allow emotions to cloud conclusions.

Likewise, pseudo-scientific sounding conversations, without evidence, do not mean what one says results in a "scientific" understanding. Most often this suggests opinions based on what someone else has proclaimed. This in turn is that which suggests something others have asserted. And, that is pretty much hearsay of varying degrees. The burden of proof is on the proof of what is or isn't. As such, we keep asking ourselves, "does that seem logical?", or "is it consistent with the way the world works?" None the less, all of us are susceptible to the nature of human behavior. In the overall process of social interactions, people want simple answers to complex frameworks.

As humans, many continuously try to make sense out of a world that may not always make sense. This allows for mystical or superstitious belief systems. Rather than seeing things as they are, or what they are not, people tend to relegate causality to trouble free simplicity. With emotion frequently linked to self-centered arrogance, a person is going to be "right" no matter what the facts say to the contrary. And in the process, if no one asks well-reasoned probing questions, then who cares? The conjecture stays in place, unless rational analysis is carefully applied. Many will not question the assertions.

By not questioning on a serious well-informed, educated and rational basis any puzzling phenomena, is an amusing aspect of human beings. It's as though multitudes would rather be ignorant and hopeful, than truthful and reliable. Why human thinking fills in the gaps so quickly, and in the process accepts shams, scams and schemes, remains an age-old question for investigators. In response, some would say such is more about being "right" than being wrong. And that relates to arrogance, as well as lazy thinking. A failure to produce credible evidence in support of a mysterious occurrence, often leads to subjective rationalization. The absence of verifiable provability does not typically bar the adherent from coming up with something else. As we seek to find meaning to reinforce our feelings, we'll make it up if necessary.

Creative explanations get conveniently inventive. Contingency plans stand ready to be quickly deployed in case logical arguments to the contrary surface. Faulty thinking from an undisciplined mindset finds patterns of meaning, while conspiracies lurk in the shadows. And, while the mind purposely draws hasty conclusions to mediate between two brains, once an issue goes public, the media will take up the slack. Before you know it, a con artist becomes a hero, a Robin-like caricature of social invention. Or, a so called serial killer is transformed into a victim, while the real victim is ignored. Likewise, an alleged "whistleblower" changes from traitor to "freedom fighter". In similar ways, ghosts, goblins and gremlins become messengers for the gods.

In the eras of human history, people have always sought to fabricate a pattern of coincidences, in order to satiate believability. Ancient manuscripts for instance have done likewise. Later transformed into foundational ideological dogma, ancient writings, which once tried to explain the world in colorful word pictures, have taken on literal translations. Some have fostered "jihad" of the most sinister intentions. Others have instigated oppression, censorship and suppressions of freedoms. The metaphysics of interpersonal communications contrive to interpret inconclusive data by fallacies based on misinterpretation and misinformation. To relish in comfortable mediocrity of safety and security, in a hierarchy of desires, finds refuge in many sectors of human interactivity. It is easier to find escapism in unproven mysticism, rather than be in doubt about the world around you. Perhaps that is why it is preferable to believe superstitiously, than diligently flush out the facts that may prove you wrong.
Chapter 20 – Perceptions of Reality Shape Theory:

From self-centered necessity, to ensure communal fusion with others, many inject their undifferentiated perceptions into a failsafe point of view. For what reality ought to be, a person will conceive a theory of the outcome, in order to explain the unexplainable. For most people, everything must make sense to each one's sensory array. When confronted by the imperceptible nature of things, feeling attaches to meaning. Explanations must be found. Perception, unless we are careful, influences the theory we construct. In the process, there is a high probability of bias. While the looks of things could be deceiving, the conjecture might be misleading and distracting.

Reality does not shape itself to passively conform to our whims of each moment. Regardless of our efforts, if the evidence doesn't support our original notion, template or formula, then we must alter the perception we preferred. The burden of proof is on the person or groups alleging the veracity of their claims. In today's world, there are droves of declarations. And yet, that which is observed is changed by the actuality of the observation. As one investigates an allegation, particularly where illicit activity and corruption might be suspected, an investigation must apply skilled analysis.

Many people have a need to belong and merge themselves into the consensus thinking of others. It's an underlying proclivity toward self-gratification. Part of that is an attempt to have a sense of self, or a complete self, where self-evolving effort is lacking. The neediness reflects that which is not being met elsewhere. At one time or another, people will join groups of every kind to somehow complete themselves. Some of these associations are productive and some are destructive. In so doing, people are given a feeling of acceptance, connection and whatever else they need. Membership feels like "home", it's comfortable, supportive and likely confirms preconceived notions.

The arrogance by which we presuppose our self-importance reflects the fragility by which rationality hangs in the balance. As one projects his or her fixations to others, the more likely the logical basis of any discussion degenerates. Frequently to reinforce the perspective we've chosen, some will utilize emotional language and inappropriate analogies. Super charged emotive discussions, rhetorical hyperbole for instance, do nothing to logically deduce or advance the definitive evidence needed.

From celebrity idolization to UFO fixation, the hunger to complete unmet inner desires finds fruition in all manner of unproductive diversity. Not in every case however, but for the great masses of people in general. And, there's an egoistic persistence in self-deception by the prejudices perpetrated by dogmatic ideologies. Personal enlightenment, in aspiring to become a more mature, well-differentiated and evolved version of individuality, eludes the majority. Instead, it is as though are intellectual frameworks have become more clouded by superstitious thinking.

In postmodern society, we are quick to invent "heroes", "experts" and gurus of every description. Because we think they know what they are talking about, because they sound good, an in-depth analysis is overlooked. As we identify with anti-thinking. We continue to shape and promote the misinterpretations about our world. Confusion about who we are, what we are and where we are going troubles the psycho-dynamic progression of self-evolution. As such, the clock is ticking in the demise of the human species.

In prehistoric times, to the industrial era, immense pressures came to bear for ensuring basic survivability through competitive resilience. One found possibilities in creativity, inventiveness and changing from static to dynamic perspectives. You had to act decisively from a strategic standpoint to solve your problems productively. Willful patience in deliberately choosing to self-evolve and change, in order to survive had potential serious consequences. If you chose not to be different and solve your problems based on reality, then you risked life or death consequences.

Today, in an information age, there are some who continue to find challenges to transform themselves. These few work very hard to analyze, think beyond the normal range, and imagine an extraordinary personal transmutation. However, that is not the case for the vast majority. Unfortunately, **anti-thinking** abounds everywhere. Without the challenges of thoughtfully bringing about one's own transformation, intellectual capacity descends to dangerous regressions. A failure to thinking critically is just one aspect of neurological degradation, as there are many. The cerebral processes must be stimulated, challenged and fortified in every way possible. Other factors are critical, as one consider the effects upon individual psycho-physical renovation. To name a few, a person should consider unhealthy dietary practices, gross consumerism with excessive materiality, over-consumption, and dangerously contaminated food systems.

As a consequence of accepting unchallenged superficiality in an "infotainment" age, and bogus dogmatic beliefs systems, we should expect a certain amount of devolved thinking. Ignorance is its own reward for immediate gratification. Little wonder stupidity plays a significant social role in the degradation of logical thinking processes. People act stupid because it works for them. Most often they continue their process of confirmation bias, since very few seriously challenge their superficial conjecture. Very often we interpret perceptions against the background of our fantasies. Unfortunately, that can be counterproductive when projected into the seriousness of an investigation.

By contrast, competent investigators pursue the evidence trail. Within the rubric of the cause-effect connections, relative to the evidentiary artifacts at hand, higher order thinking is essential. Rational well-reasoned instigations of an investigative continuum, thoughtfully constructed upon the tenets of scientific methodology, must trump superstitious obsessions with the factual nature of reality. While most experiences in the real world are investigable, through valid applications of logical deduction, some things might be questioned given a deficiency of evidence. To go in search of the veracity, means a willingness to travel all the way to the end of the process.

Along the way, in discerning criminality, and whether or not a crime has occurred, the process of inquiry is as important as the truth of the conclusion. Validity of questioning the issues at hand ought to require a rigorous effort. Methodology strives to achieve a stronger sense of objectivity than the taint of bias. We should be reminded to control emotional reactivity in favor of logical responsiveness. Pursuant to a complaint, whether officially initiated, or in response to alleged victimization, one pursues viable understanding attendant circumstances. An assertion relative to the varied aspects of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** , are to be well-defined given the elements of accusations involved. Finding the truth is not always easy.

A well-intentioned means of inquiry is in development in order to build a foundation upon which facts can be separated from fictions. And, if fictions be found, that speculative falsehood can be rectified logically. Reduced to a reasonable basis of understanding, each element should be weighed against the totality of inferences. And yet, given the immediacy by which satiation must be fulfilled, a rush to judgment frequently occurs. But, common sense must prevail in sensible ways.

However, there is never any guarantee that anyone at any given time will use common sense. Perceptions, often reinforced by emotions, shape and pattern the expression of reality and subsequently actions. From this framework come numerous illogical ways of explaining the range of social interactions. As such, the conjecture frequently harbors faulty reasoning processes. Thinking all too often is skewed to the perspective of the thinker. Many times, from these fallacies actions fuel bad decisions and horrific choices. According to global research organizations one in three Americans struggle with some type of mental disorder every day, in contrast to other nations. If the data is correct, then what should you expect in terms of what people might tell you? So, who is normal? Well, one answer is you cannot trust anyone absolutely, caution is critical.

Caution is warranted in any investigative process to avoid any leap of faith into any conclusion. If one out of three people are challenged in their own thinking, then could that be the tip of the proverbial human iceberg? How many more people convince themselves they are right and others are wrong? From anxiety to paranoia, it is more likely that at least one out of two will be encumbered by devolving thought processes. In a lifetime of experiences, both good and bad, it is highly probable everyone has or will have problems with their thinking. A self-evolving individual, who works very hard to become a better version of the original self, is among a small number. A limited few will accept the responsibility to change themselves in productive ways.

Over time, the majority of people do not change very much. Instead, the chances are just the opposite that they will regress. The devolution of the human species is an alarming prospect for the survival of the humankind. As part of the regressive tendencies, people use superficial unsubstantiated assumptions about what is true versus what is untrue. Magical thinking clouds an issue with fallacies that find short cuts to hasty generalizations. At present, studies suggest the U.S. is at the top of the list on the planet for mental health problems. On top that, in post-modern times, belief in alien abductions, past-life experiences, out of the body journeys and vast government conspiracies remain at an all-time high. Where is the enlightenment of an evolving species? What has become of applying scientific methodology to finding the analyzing the evidence? That is, you persist in discovery the provability of an assertion. It is typically called an investigation, by which you gather the facts and seek out the relevance of the data.

In an investigation, you pursue the particulars to prove or disprove the issues at hand, given the nature of a particular situation. Details become the specifics regarding allegations and assertions so that a logical and relevant process is appropriately implemented. Along the way, and earlier on, an investigator formulates a preliminary flexible theoretical perspective on the nature of causality. Later, as he or she proceeds rationally, the reality of the situation may present options for alteration of the original perspective. Nonetheless, of critical concern is the lack of such effort being utilized in supposedly a more enlightened framework of human evolution. However, across the globe, not a whole lot appears to suggest leaps and bounds of social change.

For the pretense of human "civilization", some observe just the opposite. That is, humans are not changing, but instead regressing in ways that might be considered a growing prospect for extinction. The burden of proof more often than not appears over-shadowed by excessively metaphorical language. As emotion replaces rationalism, magical thinking pervades social discussion. Fallacies of emotional conjecture agitate the legitimate questioning of whether or not something is true or false. Sentiment expresses the inner excitement a person expresses about a reaction he or she has for personal ideations. A particular passion is a fabrication from personal fiction.

According to current research data from various sources, beliefs about the supernatural, the paranormal and the extraterrestrial cover a wide spectrum of American society. Just look at, for example, the never-ending debate over "intelligent design" versus "evolution". Expand a little on that sphere of thinking and factor in the deification of faithful convictions in a "higher all-knowing power". Mix in large numbers of people who believe in miracles and "answered prayer" from supernatural forces. In all likelihood, these kinds of psychological expressions represent a significant majority of the U.S. population. So far you have gods and goblins within the context of the human thinking processes from sleep to awakened state of life. Now, add to that the probability of mental illness involving a majority of citizens. With such manifestations, you have quite a scale of believability in all manner of things. Conspiratorial one-world governments give way to UFO visitations of one sort or another.

For these reasons, as well as many other rational purposes, where humans are involved, critical thinking and coherent analysis are more important than ever. For an era in which we pretend the human species is supposedly enlightened, well-educated, socially sophisticated, economically advanced, and politically astute, beliefs in the **Planetary** , the **Political** and **Paranormal** conspiratorial mysticism has increased. Because of this, every effort to invest healthy skepticism about any belief system ought to be invoked at every opportunity. Investigative procedures must provoke serious in-depth questioning and discovery of evidentiary artifacts. What is scary is the probability that people will believe anything. According to the CDC, one in two people will develop some form of "mental illness" in their lifetime. That could be a small number.

As an investigator, one must be keenly aware of the vast practices of erroneous supposition promulgated throughout the social networks. Herded paranormal enclaves, cultic contrivances, religious extremism, and politically driven hidden agendas should encourage careful inspection. It would seem plausible to keep in mind that nothing is ever what it is held out to be. Deeper somewhere in the thoughts being conveyed resides something more. While some might dismiss a conspiracy theory as being foolish, the shrewd investigator cautiously looks beyond the superficial inference. What else remains concealed from view that may or may not reveal something more sinister?

What might appear as "ideated paranoia" that is conceived to represent an exaggeration of reality by the believer, expresses a special desire to accept something extraordinary. For instance, from criminological viewpoint, such edgy thinking could signal the potentiality of more destructive actions later on. Vigilance is important. Amazing claims of a bizarre reference ought to be assessed in reasonable ways. Provability relies on actually being able to substantiate claims involved. To believe in something of a higher nature, or the "higher power" inclination, warrants closer inspection, especially as such might be relevant to psychological development. If large numbers of people are on the fringe of a "mental illness", then the prospect of false causation and erroneous conclusions could be magnified exponentially. At any given moment, someone is fully capable of coming up with sheer nonsense. Allowed a certain amount of time for such foolishness to have an effect, and before you know it, the repetition of the fallacy has gained momentum within social structures.

Inside the framework of cultic collusions of varied conspiratorial types, or within the reaches of associated criminal enterprises, an inquiry should consider the reach of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. It is pervasive, particularly in American society, as previously suggested. There are far more complicities than one might imagine. All of which are salaciously engaged in their own enrichment and eternal sanctification. With a kind of self-flagellating zealousness, some might say "sadomasochism", many quickly embrace the proverbial hunt of answers at any price. In doing this relentless chase define the world, and the cosmos, in extraterrestrial terms, "group think" finds solace in the collective contrivance of pretended solidarity.

From an investigative perspective, for the sake of evidentiary viability, we search for the facts. Nonetheless, as we confront our own belief systems, the thinking of others challenges us. Sometimes, the criminality of tyrannical thinking, especially in the religious realm, acts of violence may threaten our very existence. If we take into account the range of psychological discomfort, the extent of superstitious beliefs, and the probability of faulty thinking, then the challenge of rationality is significant. In actuality, the whole of society is affected by personal self-interests. Regardless though, some of us are capable of a skillful and fact driven investigation. That prospect also comes with varying degrees of criticality in actual on-scene application.

By affiliated partisanship of "conforming beliefs", whether one explains causes and effects by UFO intervention, or by miraculous intercession, the essentiality of such basis is an appeal to a supernatural dominion. Sheepishly cowering in the shadows of personal doubt, to forsake the genuineness of creative originality, multitudes clamor for the succor of painful accountability for individuality. Responsibility in one's maturely gauged insightful quest for the application of reason is thus relegated to mythical prospects. Cultic collusions of every kind suffer the devolutionary insistence for the simplicity of ignorance and subjective validation. Life can be explained by the commercialization of feel good sound bites with the simplicity of easy explanations.

All too frequently, by the conjecture of misguided superficiality, one may be commonly excused by the pretense of alleged "expertise". That is, by cloaking oneself behind a clever cover story, smokescreen of believability in pretended evidence, or outmoded ancient doctrine, people deceive in order to achieve.

Deception is greatest game humans can play, and in so many ways, we do it so well. Daily, we provoke intimidating and controlling efforts toward others perceived as "non-believers", or simply "outsiders". Yet, by careful application of logical thinking processes, the inquisitor ought to allow a healthy sense of skepticism guide his or her investigation. Any matter under research or investigation should receive cautious scrutiny, with the application of methodical reasoning. For a species to evolve, transformations must take place in extraordinary ways.

Investigating the possibility of a crime event, or series of criminal collusions, necessitates use of so-called scientific methodology. It is not so much that one claims criminology to be an exact science, even though scientific analyses are used in forensic applications. A criminal investigation may use a number of resources from various sciences to assess evidentiary artifacts. For the investigator though, what is meant here is the thinking skills used on a maturely self-differentiated level. To analyze solvability factors, logical efforts are applied to deduce the reality of the issues at hand.

Investigators should seek to scrutinize claims, events and situations to the exclusion of, or answers to, all questions related to the possibilities involved. Basically, this regards the focus on evidence from the facts pertaining to what is being asserted. Provability is crucial. If you assert something to be true, then prove it so. Such a method or methods consider the appropriate logical applications to the efficacy of the claims. For instance, in view of a certain claim that a particular group has special insight about a phenomenon, and the alleged leader has the ultimate answers, then one might be suspicious.

Adoration of a particular person in a group, representing a group, or holding oneself out as a "spokesperson" for a group, should invite suspicion. Where a mystical reference to a person or faction, about some metaphysical wisdom is declared, grownup skepticism is warranted. Failure by a sect of any sort, whether religious or political, to fully disclose all interests, foreign and domestic, should signal further inquisition.

An average investigative effort only sees what is needs to see in order to satiate the researcher and the academic, organizational and other self-interests involved. Hidden agendas are always present somewhere lurking in the shadows. However, a superior investigation ascends to higher levels of inquiry, above average, and aware of biases, and the necessity of impartiality. Credibility is achieved by being rationally thorough.

Rational expenditures of time and energy for the sake of enlightened self-evolution are seldom the intellectual commodity many people prefer. It's all too easy to feel the comfort of more simplistic thinking processes. The inherent wealth of thought moves carefully through the wise accumulation of well-founded investments. Thinking can be impoverished or abundant, depending upon the laborious progression of the thinker. Unfortunately, the thinking processes of most, in the post-modern era, are severely and very poorly misplaced. Social interactivity in deficient efforts is often reinforced by collective collusion in ever debasing emotionalism. Such is all too willful.

The ability to think, reason and understand has become seriously retarded in favor of the salaciousness of "feel good" perceptions. Willful patience to pursue an adventure of evidentiary discovery, through committed focus, has been replaced by immediate gratification. Emotional receptivity translates rapidly into devolving psychological misinterpretation and debased reactivity. From the greedy investment banker, to the "five finger" discount shopper, to the office bully, all are conspiratorial, and all believe in the mythology of their arrogance. Few are deeply introspective and fearlessly skeptical.

So, as an investigator, one must delve to greater depth of factual interpretation of any assertion from any human being. Sizing up any given situational encounter requires the persistence to seek what is real, and expose what is false. Falsehoods stem from failing belief systems that suffer the confrontation of opposition of debate, evidence to the contrary and provability of the facts. As such, an absence of facts does not prove a fallacy of inference for the expense of mere conjecture. For the individual, selfishness invites the easy seduction to misunderstandings about the nature of the world.

The thrill of the mythic expectations that foster the illusions of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal** conspiracies, give value to otherwise dull or uninteresting personal experiences. Lacking devotion to creative processes, and a sense of human species duty to self-evolve, multitudes hasten their psychic regression. People want to find feeling and meaning in their lives. They want to be noticed, valued and seen smarter than they are. An unevolved person, who fails to do the hard work of personal transformation, will search for any means to feed that inner hunger. Many of them desire the stimulation of the amative surge of fictional believability; they will commit any action necessary to ensure the confirmation of the biases and deception.

Along a continuum of what might be characterized as a form of "evil", significant numbers of people willfully assert their conspiratorial collusions. Profit for such expressions, and the subsequent continuity, can be concocted on an individual basis or as a part of an organized crime association. Regardless, these collusions merge both abstract and concrete expectations in desire for personal gain. The concept of "evil' can be viewed as having many aspects, from smaller acts to larger horrendous genocidal aberrations. No doubt, everyone has their reaction to the mere mention of "evil".

Nonetheless, it is a human scale of intentional infliction of falsehoods. The complicity spans a spectrum of unethical, malevolent and criminal behaviors. As a concept, "evil" devolves from the fraud of the con artist, as in guru fixated cultic behaviors any kind. Or, to the horrors of organized crime, and state sanctioned terrorism, individuals and groups perpetrate their purposeful seductions of "evil". If one is uncomfortable with using such a term, then think in terms of wicked, sinful, revolting, dishonorable, greedy, self-indulgent, arrogantly self-righteous, and smugly pious.

Further, perpetrations of nonsense in the form of unproven conjecture, whether for ghosts, goblins or galactic gratifications, people intend to harm others for personal gain. That is the basic essence of "evil" within the scope of human nature. Such is the crucial beginning point to question the viability of any claim of "truth". Humans are a manifestation of good and evil, and, as an investigator, sorting it all out is part of the mission. Such represents a salacious expression of personal power, with malice aforethought and purposeful intention to swindle, hurt or destroy another.

Rational choice exercises the power of individual willfulness, or group cohesiveness, to get something or more of something. It is greedy and gluttonous to fulfill that which one or more people do not have, but feel they must have, in spite of what happens to others. Much of the time, energies are expended in external efforts for materialistic ventures. Yet, internally, satiation of the psychological element is the stronger surreal impetus for inner gratification. Proof of fallacy in the fantasy comes in the illusion of possessing more tangible properties. The all-knowing guru has his or her following, along with money translated into power. Similarly, the gang has its enforcers, while the ufologists have conventions, publications and the media, and so on. Many others rely on corporate and institutional conformity to perpetrate their deceptions.
Chapter 21 – Cultic Collusions in Self-centered Illusions:

Aside from the malevolent skills exercised to con and trick others, particularly great masses, many willingly accept superficial conjecture without question. Cultic collusions of every kind, from UFO affiliations or terrorist cell collaborations, rely on the gullibility of belief. However, the process of willful anti-thinking in spite of facts to the contrary spans the spectrum of social interactions. As hopeful simplicity is never ending, because simplistic conjecture is preferred to hard in-depth research, so is the degree to which people go to believe anything. They do it since that makes them feel good.

Fallacies of inference hastily dash mindlessness into the blather of foolish conclusions on a daily basis. News headlines are filled with journalistic sleight of hand, some by incompetence and others on purpose. For instance, if crops circles suddenly appear on someone's farmland, then many rush to claim the veracity of "proof" that aliens left a "calling card". While the media toys with silly speculations from alleged experts, ufologists gather with enthused amative endorsement. Very few will stop and consider the technology required to cross a galaxy, in an advanced spacecraft, just to disrupt or destroy someone's crops. What about the economic loss to the farmer?

You mean an advanced life form came all this way, found this little planet, and couldn't figure out the language sufficient enough to communicate with earthly beings? As many people will surrender their rationality for the sake of believing in something greater than themselves, like aliens, some will conspire to con the gullible. The media, politicians, social pundits, pop culture gurus and so forth will spin whatever "sells". The angle they play depends on what's in it for them. In a materialistically obsessed global community, believability has nothing to do with the evidence or the reality.

At any given moment, in any given situation, an investigator should never forget the probable level of absurdity in terms of human beliefs. Belief systems span the spectrum of human perceptions. Observations of the external world, in an attempt to interpret, define and provide meaning relative to sensory experiences, are important to the survivability of an allegedly thinking species. Such as believing things evolve over time in the life of the believer. By investigating aspects of believability, cognitive experiences ought to validate all claims as to the rationality of subsequent interactions.

However, more often than not, the contrary proves more salaciously appealing. Amative urges from primal inceptions of self-centeredness adheres tenaciously to subjective validation. Instead of research and validation for a particular claim, people want desperately to believe something without proof. Frequently, the shortest distance between two points at issue is a deceptive shortcut. We will focus on that which is perceived the closest to allegedly proving our particular perspective.

Relying too much on feelings, the emotional impetus is allowed to drive many us toward an illusion without the influence of reason. Where gods control the fate of one's misfortune, because they work in "mysterious ways", others prefer alien ancestry in their DNA. Prior to ensuring the efficacy of proof, by rigorously applying scientific methodology, many will quickly tell "story tales" to safeguard their believability. And by "scientific methodology, it is meant the utilization of rational processes to deduce a reasonable conclusion based on the factuality of evidence.

In short, for most people it remains more important that they feel right about their assertions than be proved correct by evidentiary verification. They want to "feel good" and believe the universe is the way they constructed it. That's like inventing all manner of deity to make certain that someone higher is responsible. Many people lack the courage of believing in themselves, and insisting on doing hard work in conducting an investigation. So, there's got to be a scapegoat or an alibi out there somewhere.

We don't often insist on conducting a systematic investigation of any issue. More often than not, many of us are fast to make an appeal to "authority". Due to a selfish perception that a certain person occupies a special status, we take what they say as valid. That is, we accept what others claim at face value, and usually without much inquiry. Storytelling is a long historic, in fact ancient tradition from the dawn of time.

Filling in the blanks where evidence is lack, people makeup "picture tales" to explain their environment. Reality becomes a matter of guesswork or lack of sufficient knowledge. In support of that comfortable sleight of hand, one often finds it convenient to bring outside sources into the argument. Unfortunately, discordant conjecture rules the day in post-modern America for the egoistic assurance of cognitive bias. Argument from the standpoint of ignorance in any situations quickly devolves to an appeal to an "expert witness". However, who says the alleged expert is right?

At this point, we find ourselves reacting on the basis of our preferred belief. That perspective is tainted because it is biased. Due to the superficiality of our limited inquiry, many simply throw stuff out and hope is sticks. We've appealed to our partialities for one "proof", and summoned an alibi, an "expert", for a second "proof". Using the rule of threes, as viewed her, now you go on to a third "proof". That is argument by "abuse"; you make it personal and you accuse the opposing view for a "lack of faith". All you've done so far is avoid the rigors of the investigative process.

Yet, "faith" is not proof because it does not prove anything. There's no substantiation of any confirmation offered in the chain of evidentiary artifacts. You've offered opinion. Let's say for example, you see lights up in the sky and conclude a planetary visitation is in progress. What's your evidence? If for instance you don't know what something is, why call it anything at all? If you can't explain the phenomenon, then you should investigate comprehensively before assuming anything.

Not knowing something doesn't mean you have to invent something. Regardless, that won't discourage most people. If you do make things up, you begin arguing from the standpoint of ignorance. Stupidity is contributory to the devolution of the human species. Such a state of being is dangerous because you fill in the blanks of doubtful thinking with non-truths. Instead, you could apply a preliminary hypothesis, develop a tentative theory and set about testing the claim by gathering the facts. Theory, investigation and analysis, evidence collection and testing, factual applications and interpretation, assist in working toward provability. Discussion and debate are also necessary.

A simplistic assertion of ignorance cannot make a leap to a conclusive claim of certainty without verification. Authentication requires knowledge, which entails corroboration. To call in a witness for our defense, we have to be very careful. Eyewitness testimony is significantly fallible and not foolproof, including that of our own pretended validation. Failures in human perception speak loudly to the fact that humans are not reliable for their interpretations of environmental occurrences. Likewise, working behind the scenes of subjective thinking, our beliefs appear to get more entrench, and less rational when challenged by facts to the contrary. To have a nice simple explanation, unfettered by complexities, that fits a cosmic pattern for believability, keeps the universe basic, and makes more sense to a lot people. Devolved thinking is preferred.

When one or more people try to make sense out of something that seems nonsensical, then the result is likely to be misguided and erroneous conjecture. Absent a steadfast adherence to rational interpretations, emotions are allowed free reign. The devolution of thinking processes to the most basic recourse does not typically follow a strenuous strain of logical analysis. Not to mention of course, a thorough investigation is seldom instituted. In the framework of a collective environment, collectivist thinking in which most agree with the consensus is accepted superficially. Essential desire for most people is to enjoy the ravages of devolved thinking where evidence has little value.

Such is more reason for the investigator to inquire as to every possibility. Without questioning the assertions profoundly at first encounter, speculations abound without solid grounds for believability in subsequent exchanges. Later, very little effort inspires the adequate conduct followup research. Alleged "evidence" without verification, remains loose and sketchy. Group cohesions, solidarity of communal convictions and unity of factional ideologies of one sort or another, involve people who are of seemingly good intentions. Nonetheless, they can become quite dangerous.

Cultic collusions in self-centered illusions involve people of from many lifestyles, socio-economic statuses and educational diversities. Similarly, wealth and success demonstrate neither wisdom nor intellectual advancement. People will inevitably believe strange things that defy evidence to the contrary. Not to forget of course that vast numbers will not even bother to look for evidentiary artifacts. For the majority of humans on the planet, rather than commit to a long journey of self-exploration in mature authenticity, the veneration of improbable ideologies is more safely preferred.

From belief systems organized around mythological propositions, from cultic collaborations, and extraterrestrial mysteries, many accept an illusion more than a reality. To most, discovery stops there, steeped in the "faithfulness" that all questions are mysteriously answered. Anyone not accepting such notions, such as skeptical inquirers, are somehow condemned to a torturous demise in the afterlife. Yet, in the real nature of things, no one can begin to prove such fables. These kinds of untenable and incompatible "faiths" render the species toward increasingly self-destructive ways. No further effort is inclined to investigate further. Group solidarity around a variant of collective self-centeredness fosters organized divisiveness very dangerously.

From the "paradise lost" to the "lost continent unclaimed" in some corner of the pop cultural spectrum, large numbers of people very quickly accept specious conjectures. Conspiracies are easily projected from within the primal depths of nearly everyone's carnal bias. Again, because of the foolishness that hope springs eternal in the "plan" of some cosmic deity, hidden forces that have all the answers, subjective validation overshadows profound factual analysis. For the investigator, whether by adverse political interference or not, what does it take to go the extra effort in revealing the facts?

Sometimes you wonder, in the aftermath of a horrendous human tragedy, with warning signs signaling early intervention, why the investigator didn't go further. The horrible chain of events might be cultic exploitation, a real criminal conspiracy, or even a terroristic collusion. However, we got a glut lot of alleged "expertise" in an **"edutainment"** environment that seeks to satisfy every issue in superficially simplistic terms. Nowadays, everyone is a self-proclaimed expert at something. With little or no practical experience, anyone can "consult" on just about anything.

Today's mass marketing schemes are insidious. From A to Z, you are confronted with a dizzying array of sales gimmicks for anything you can think of, particularly in the realm of the occult and the pseudosciences. As an astute inquisitor, you have to stay vigilant at all times, no matter where you are. In the process, you question every aspect of your investigative efforts and remain flexible in terms of theories and conclusions. Overall, it seems like for every web site you enter you are immediately inundated with an onset of advertisements before you can actually get to the exploration of any facts.

Between **"selfish individual think"** and **"group think"** , in today's world of immediate gratification, one person can gain the appearance of legitimacy for a foolish line of "anti-thinking" very quickly. If you use frequent appeals to the pretense of "expertise" for anything, then sooner or later, you can gain a foothold and muddle any debate. Feelings, strengthened by the tenacity of self-importance, alleged data that proves nothing, and obsessive emotionalism, willfully drive the power of the nonsensical argument. Without well-established proof, or simply over-looking well-documented history of substantiated facts, a person can quickly gain the upper hand for their very narrow perception of reality. You throw out a whole bunch of circular arguments, poorly constructed analogies, and "either-or" conjectures, and most people accept that.

For a significant number of people, any superficial source of alleged information, such as from the "news media", or "infotainment" world, is sufficient to reinforce preconceived notions of personal interest. Because it is a matter of private consideration in support of a closely guarded belief, there is a high probability of its fallacy. Especially, if the information provided agrees with a person's particular perspective. Yet, to receive the information and test its viability by rigorous means typically does not happen.

Cults, conspiracies theories, and assorted criminal enterprises rely on thinking fallacies to substantiate their questionable perspectives. As a result, more often than not, beliefs will likely conflict with reality. An investigator cannot underestimate at any given point in time and place the number of people exercising thinking fallacies. The nature of what is real is frequently clouded by **magical thinking** , or simply **anti-thinking**. a refusal to pursue evidentiary attributes results in debasing subjectivity.

Such thought processes are allowed influence by a number of factors, such as mythology, magic and dogmatic mysticism of some metaphysical ideology. Most often such is not one in which a wise and mature person assesses higher degrees of enlightened investigation. When we engage the surrounding environment, the reality of that setting is affected by what we think of it, how such is observed and the questions posed. Cultic collusions in self-centered illusions address the biases we bring to the inquiry. An evolved thinking species ought to be in a state of higher ascendency.

Whether rendered a "cult" or "cultic" in by external expression, the investigator should carefully analyze the cohesive nature of "collective thinking", or the "herd mentality. One might consider the "cultic" aspects in a broad sense of the terminology. This may be applicable to a diverse range of encounters, from academia to communal associations. Consider the divergent possibilities. Actions may be pragmatically assessed in an approach to a particular group setting or a "neighborhood" canvas.

To address the fundamental basis of a quality investigation, a reasonable expectation would be one characterized by dependable information. Unfortunately, the regurgitation of specious information, neither tested nor supported by factuality, misguides inquiries to faulty conclusions. Whether religiously related, or simply a fundamental attribute of a particular gathering, "cultic" behaviors can be described for a number of human interactions. Again, healthy skepticism in any encounter is always warranted.

Suspiciously, mature analysis of any proclamation by anyone ought to ensure a persistent hunt for proof. Why believe anything? What matter of conjecture can be substantiated by testing? Cultic collusions of one nature or another seek to advance the self-interests of the believers, the initiates and proselytes to bolster their self-centered illusions. As mentioned previously, frequently anti-thinking, or stupidity, is allowed to forsake reason and embrace the malady of simplistic assumptions.

Conspire to comingle the assertions of another, presumed to be an "authority" or "expert", into a bizarre mix of opinion and magical thinking, and one travels the route of cultic inclinations. By inclusion, insist upon a strongly flavored personal interest, backed by selfishness and an absence of evidence, and you have a very arrogant perspective on promoting subjective validation. There are numerous examples. Take a look at news reporting, religious beliefs and other desires of unevolving people.

One could expand the definitions of cults, or collusions, to include diverse group behaviors. From mainstream conformist activities of pop culture, to simple-minded portrayals of clichés and stereotypes in various media, to extraordinarily dangerous terroristic affiliations pretending religiosity, deception comes in myriad forms. All of the interactions come down to narcissistic aspects of immature human selfishness.

To get immediate satiation and gratify the impulsivity of the moment, for personal gain, humans are capable of anything. Relieving anxiousness, lessening the anxiety of stressful experiences, and increasing more pleasurably secure feelings, relates to underlying primal energies within the individual. Unfortunately, as a primitive structure of ideation, problems are not easily resolved through simplistic primordial expectations. Yet, nonetheless, rational coordination of such inclinations leans toward "quick fix" obsessions with easy answers to complex situations or mysterious events.59

For the investigator, it is advisable to be alert and suspicious of affiliations where individuals coalesce around a strong central base of "leadership". Where the alleged "leader" is venerated mystically or paranormally, healthy skepticism about group activities should be carefully analyzed. When dogma asserts the "infallibility" of interpretation, or "proof" in supposed "evidence", skepticism is vital.

Investigative queries ought to follow the evidence trail to its logical completion in view of the evidence, provability and validation of the claims. With any assertion that becomes a doctrine, and turns into a belief systems, proof is essential. Where is the evidence? Once a dogma and its alleged leadership gain a following, what is the nature of the thinking processes in terms of insightful objectivity of the results?

Is anyone allowed to questions the data presents, or its lack thereof? You might consider a few typical factors as soon the adherents begin to assemble. These include interactive processes that are laced with heavy amounts of emotionalism, along with the pretense to self-righteousness, or doing the "greater good". This would also include someone saying they are "exposing the truth" of a "conspiracy".

Additionally, as someone asserts they have discovered the "ultimate reality", or "discovered secrets", and nothing more need be said, done or investigated, one should be alert, skeptical and cautious. As such, an inquiry cannot overlook the capitalistic perspective in marketing the particular ideology. Who stands to gain what in the manifestation of the gambit? Cultic collusions in self-centered illusions traverse many directions of collaborative interactivity among human beings.

There are diverse aspects of cult-like oriented behaviors. One could argue a variety of typologies in terms of collusive beliefs that manifest conspiratorial intentions. Purposefully contrived, believability aims to achieve utilitarian aggrandizement for the perpetrators. As gurus come in all shapes, sizes, points of view, and objectives for self-glorification, an investigator should assess the range of complicities.

Within the scheme of superficial thinking in post-modern society, cognitive biases are at the forefront of social discourse. In depth analysis, critical thinking, scientific verification and evidentiary substantiation, are usually lost in the scope of human interaction. In broader application for investigative purposes, cultic collusions can span the spectrum of very intense subjective validation.

From academic settings, to media pundits and political institutions, the reach of illusionary conjecture includes a broad nature of the **Planetary** , the **Political** and the **Paranormal**. The basic trilogy can be fascinating as well as dangerous. Evidence of any assumption, translated into a theory, and subsequently into persistent thinking processes, or dogmatic doctrine, ought to be scrutinized skeptically in light of available proof.

As a precautionary note, an investigator needs to constantly remind himself or herself, that any viewpoint contrary to a particular ideology will be met with opposition. It cannot be assumed that everyone will embrace an opportunity to be proved wrong. Regardless, the investigator pursues the facts to a logical conclusion, no matter where the investigation might lead. Organizationally, publically, and individually, as well as in and community group settings, most people do not relish in a challenge to their belief system. In a selfishly unevolved manner, belief will be defended in spite of the facts.

The idea that their beliefs might questioned is disturbing to many people. And to that measure, many people do not like to be proved wrong once they have accepted their perception of the world. By narrowing the sphere of their perspective, disallowing alternative fact driven viewpoints, and elevating the centrality of a "cultic personality", individuals and groups can be dangerously intolerant of others.

Additionally, add to that the exaltation of a "leader", including frequent appeals to "authority" as validation around that allegiance, and the investigator encounters a serious challenge. In a devolving society, where intellectual enlightenment and progressive maturity are not essential nor praised, fantasy is translated into reality. Because of acting stupidly, a debasing process of magical thinking unfolds.

Mythical fascinations obsess in a "cosmic" hope that springs eternal, and colludes with a surreal acceptance in the "inerrancy" of doctrinal interpretations. An insidious vengeance against skeptical inquiries, or any questioning whatsoever, often translates into severe levels of societal intolerance. Pop cultural inclinations instigate a high probability that others will suffer due to their curious disbelieving inquiries. In time, an "us versus them" mode of conspiratorial agreement asserts its exclusivity.

By cohesion in segregation of the "non-believers" or the "infidels", factions decide who becomes ostracized. In the hypocrisy of some belief systems, pretexts to tolerance become actions of intolerance. There are divisive and counterproductive possibilities in any such ideology. In a cultic setting, where the demands insist on undisputed conformity, a lack of individuality and freedom of thought, along with allegiance to central authority, behaviors can descend to deadly consequences. Where the "elite" are in charge, possess the power, control socio-economic and informational factors with unquestioned loyalty, human nature becomes dangerous.

Cultic collusions, taken in the broadest sense of interpretation, reflect the selfishness of subjective illusions, and cater strenuously to biased unsubstantiated worldview perspectives. In that, investigative processes are built upon an insistence to cautiously search for provability of any such mysterious assertions. Many often hope, pray and claim faith in the supernatural, the interstellar or the paranormal, in order to protect the simplicity of wishful thinking. Societal regression, and hence devolution of the human species, prefers trouble free fixations in ideological worship, rites and ceremonies consistent with limited factuality and emotional reassurance.

Yet, going beyond the superficial, and avoiding the safe conforming collaborations of collectivist acquiescence, the shrewd analyst prefers a more rigorous and logical approach. One who conducts a rationally methodical inquiry focuses on delving to much deeper levels of thoughtful application. To the contrary though, this is not contemporary practice in post-modern society. Emotion frequently trumps logic. Immature reactivity overrides the essentiality of evidentiary substantiation. This is generally the reaction when confronted by facts contrary to selfish interests of your viewpoint.

By growth and maturity, the reasonable efforts would be to change and alter the erroneous worldview if facts prove otherwise. From there, one investigates further, develops the data, and advances one's educational processes through creative learning and experience. Forensic validation is essential by way of skeptical query and the harmonious balance between rational deduction and cynical inclination. For the mature self-evolving individual, committed to personal enlightenment and differentiated transformation, energy is expended to enrich the thinking processes.

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the current state of affairs for the human species. Across a large spectrum of the population, a devolving instigation perpetrates self-destruction with unnecessary expenditures of futile efforts in acts of stupidity. Most people become entrenched in their belief systems whereby they ruthlessly protect them. Cultic thinking and subsequent collusive factional interactivity permeates every layer of the communal framework. Any individual, or any group, religious or nonreligious clique remains fully capable of perpetrating erroneous and malevolent consequences. Adherence to a belief system is not without the probability of communal dangers, as others may be subjected to persecution, excommunication and worse.

 Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C.H., _Criminal Investigation – Ninth Edition_ , (Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2010), pages 6-7;

 Swanson, C.R., Chamelin, N., Territo, L., Taylor, R., _Criminal Investigation – 10_ th _Edition_ , (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009), pages 48-49;

 Samenow, S., _Inside the Criminal Mind_ , (New York, NY: Crown Publishing, Inc, 2004), pages 212-213;

 Swanson, C., Chamelin, N., Territo, L., Taylor, R., _Criminal Investigation – Ninth Edition_ , (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009), pages 50-51;

 in reference to www.skepdic.com/cults.html;

 Baumeister, R. F., _Evil – Inside Human Violence and Cruelty_ , (New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1997), pages 140-141;

 Alexander, J. B., Groller, R., Morris, J., _The Warrior's Edge_ , (New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1990), page 20-21;

 Samenow, S., _Inside the Criminal Mind_ , (New York, NY: Crown Publishing, Inc, 2004), pages 40-41;

 Shermer, M., "Why People Believe in Conspiracies – A skeptic's take on the public's fascination with disinformation", Scientific American Magazine, September 10, 2009;

 Waters, R., Editor, "The Burden of Proof Will Weigh More Heavily On Crime Labs", Forensic Magazine, August-September, 2009, page 8;

 Rosoff, S., Pontell, H., Tillman, R., _Profit Without Honor – White Collar Crime and the Looting of America_ , (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2010), pages 12-13;

 O'Hara, C.E., O'Hara, G. L., _Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation – Sixth Edition_ , (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1994), pages 20-21;

 Carroll, T., _The Skeptics Dictionary_ , online data base, "Paranormal", Copyright 2009;

 Blackmore, S., "Alien Abduction", Published in New Scientist, 19 November 1994, pages 29-31, from the online website of Dr. Susan Blackmore;

 Shermer, Michael, "What will E.T. Look Like?", _Scientific American_ , November 2009 issue;

 Volonino, L., Anzaldua, R., Goodwin, J., _Computer Forensics – Principles and Practices_ , (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007, pages 42-43;

 Kitaeff, J., _Forensic Psychology_ , (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2011), pages 131-132;

 Trivers, R., "The Elements of a Scientific Theory of Self-Deception", Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, New York Academy of Sciences, pages 114 – 117;

 Feldman, R. S., **Understanding Psychology – Sixth Edition** , (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2002), pages 540-541;

 Keller, L., "Fear of FEMA", Intelligence Report, Spring 2010, Issue 137, The Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL, pages 13-14;

 Kitaeff, J., _Forensic Psychology_ , (New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 2010), page 117 – 133;

 Horgon, J., "The Myth of Mind Control – Will Anyone Ever Decode the Human Brain?", Discover Magazine, October 29, 2004, The Myth of Mind Control, Mind & Brain;

 Shermer, M., "Why People Believe Weird Things: Excerpt", from The Work of Michael Shermer, www.michaelshermer.com, from the book of the same title; 2010;

 Shermer, M., _Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time_ , (New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, 2002), page 233;

 Shermer, M., "Why People Believe Weird Things: Excerpt", from The Work of Michael Shermer, www.michaelshermer.com, from the book of the same title; 2010;

 Maxmen, J.S., Ward, N.G., _Essential Psychopathology and Its Treatment – Second Edition – Revised for DSM-IV_ , (New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1995), pages 58-59;

 Horowitz, F., Grant, E, et al, National Geographic Channel, "Is it Real: UFO's?", a National Geographic Television and Film Production, Night, Inc., 2005,

 Schmalleger, F., Criminal Law Today – An Introduction With Capstone Cases – Third Edition, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2006), pages 118-119;

 Potok, M., _"The Paranoid Style"_ , in reference to an article appearing in the Intelligence Report Magazine, Fall 2010, Issue 139, by the Southern Poverty Law Center;

 Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., _Juvenile Justice – Third Edition_ , (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishers, Inc., 2007), pages 94-95;

 Halpern, J., "The New Me Generation", The Boston Globe, September 30, 2007;

 O'Hara, C. E., O'Hara, G. L., _Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation – Sixth Edition_ , (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1994), pages 407-409;

 Carroll, T., _The Skeptics Dictionary_ , online data base, Skepdic.com, "Alien Abduction – Abduction and Rape? Copyright 2009;

 Spindlove, J. R., Simonsen, C. E., Terrorism Today – The Past, The Players, The Future – Fourth Edition, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson – Prentice Hall, 2010), pages 13-14;

 Carroll, T., _The Skeptics Dictionary_ , online data base, "Communal Reinforcement", Copyright 2009; topic area last updated 12/09/10;

 Carroll, T., _The Skeptics Dictionary_ , online data base, "Alien Abductions", Copyright 2010; topic area last updated 12/09/10;

 Blackmore, S., "Alien Abductions", New Scientist, 19 November 1994, 29-31;

 Shermer, M., _"Why People Believe Weird Things"_ :, an except, a preface to the Second Edition, _Why Smart People Believe Weird Things_ , www.michaelshermer.com;

 Zaitchik, A., "Taking Aim" an article relative to an imaginary past regarding "white people" and their origins, **Intelligence Report** magazine, Spring 2011, Issue 141, pages 15-16;

 Rosoff, S., Pontell, H., Tillman, R., _Profit Without Honor – White Collar Crime and the Looting of America_ **,** (New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 2010), pages 205-206;

 Hitt, J., "This is Your Brain on God", Wired – On News Stands Now, online publication, Issue 7.11, November, 1999, pages 1 of 5;

 Mallory, S. L., _Understanding Organized Crime_ , (Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2007), pages 42-43;

 Clifford, R. D., _Cybercrime: The Investigation, Prosecution and Defense of a Computer-Related Crime_ , (Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2006), page 19-20;

 Eilopulos, L. N., _Death Investigation Handbook – A Field Guide to Crime Scene Processing, Forensic Evaluations, and Investigative Techniques,_ (Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 1993), pages 195-196;

 O'Hara, C. E., O'Hara, G. L., _Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation – Sixth Edition_ , (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1994), pages 17-18;

 Swanson, C.R., Chamelin, N., Territo, L., Taylor, R., _Criminal Investigation – 10_ th _Edition_ , (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009), pages 48-49;

 O'Hara, C.E., O'Hara, G. L., _Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation – Sixth Edition_ , (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1994), pages 19-21;

 Eliopulos, L. N., _Death Investigation Handbook – A Field Guide to Crime Scene Processing, Forensic Evaluations, and Investigative Techniques,_ (Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 1993), pages 127-128;

 Bowen Theory – "Differentiation of Self", The Bowen Center for the Study of the Family, Washington, D.C., 2012;

 Smith, R., "Differentiation of Self", Difficult Relationships – A Daily Newspaper Column, 25 March 2006,

 Wade, C., Tavris, C., Psychology – Eighth Edition, (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson – Prentice Hall, 2006), page 275;

 Shermer, M., "Why People believe in Conspiracies - A skeptic's take on the public's fascination with disinformation", Scientific American Magazine, September 10, 2009, page 1 of 2 pages; Scientific American website online;

 Nusca, Andrew, "Four Reasons Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories", September 10, 2009, Smart Planet CBS Interactive, Inc., online interactive resources;

 Shermer, Michael, "The Baloney Detection Kit", Skeptic Magazine, Video Broadcast by RDFTV, Upper Branch Productions, Inc., June 2009;

 Frances, A., First, Michael B., Your Mental Health – A Layman's Guide to the Psychiatrist's Bible, (New York, NY: Scribner Publishers, 1998), in reference to shared beliefs, pages 318-319;

 Whitbourne, S. K., "What Psychology can tell you about Extraterrestrial Beliefs", Psychology Today Magazine (online), June 12, 2010;

 Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E., Criminal Law Today – Firth Edition, (New York, NY: Pearson, 2014), pages 103-104;

 Center for Disease Control and Prevention, "U.S. Adult Mental Illness Surveillance Report", September 2, 2011, Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga.

59 Alexander, F., MD, Ross, H., The Impact of Freudian Psychiatry, (Chicago, IL: Phoenix Books, The University of Chicago Press, 1973), pages 8-10;
