How did you build trust in Cassiopaea?

[irjO]

Just to add something to what Genaro81 posted; So far the track records of the Cs have been incredible good, taking into consideration that, like someone before said is not a black and white situation. The fact that they have a really good track record doesn’t mean that all the information they provide is correct in a sense. And that sense is our perspective or assumptions (like myself and others pointed out before) there are cases that information is encoded because of our free will to accept information, or sometimes is correct but we don’t comprehend the answer due either because the question wasn’t formulated correctly, or we are, again, “assuming” that the answer we got is incorrect because the data we got proves otherwise and it could be the case that is not really correct. And there are instances where in reality we have proved that the answer they provided to us is incorrect, BUT it is incorrect because of corruption due to our assumptions, strong believes or emotions. Which itself has to do with free will at the end.
Saying all that, as you can see, there is a reason of why the Cassiopaean experiment is called an experiment after all, because it’s just an experiment, which turned out to have really good results overall.
So, I recommend you to look it that way as well.
Regarding the Shroud of Turin, you are making an assumption that is real where in reality there are zero proof of having the image of the real “Jesus” printed on it, and I put that on quote because the Jesus as we know it, didn’t exist and that’s already proven not just by Laura, but other scholars as well. (And latter confirmed by the Cs) besides all information that Chu pointed out as well. So, the Shroud of Turin could be real, yes of course, now, is it from “Jesus”?, certainly no, but could be from someone who looked like the character described in the Bible and that’s it.

 

[Honzap]

It is not about putting a check mark next to everything that has been said and shared.

It is the thing of making us think rather hard on our own with everything that it entails. And in that way helping us to develop ourselves "in our own time and on our own dime". You only get back what you invest in.

Anything taken literally means no to a very little difference to what has been shared a thousand years ago as a gospel to uneducated folk by the clergy. And C`s themselves said something to the point of "not deify them" in the past.

 

[Goemon_]

Regarding the Shroud of Turin, you are making an assumption that is real where in reality there are zero proof of having the image of the real “Jesus” printed on it, and I put that on quote because the Jesus as we know it, didn’t exist and that’s already proven not just by Laura, but other scholars as well. (And latter confirmed by the Cs) besides all information that Chu pointed out as well. So, the Shroud of Turin could be real, yes of course, now, is it from “Jesus”?, certainly no, but could be from someone who looked like the character described in the Bible and that’s it.

I can certainly agree with your overall reasoning. But it could be more precise.

"Jesus as we know it, didn't exist..." It seems to me that you can't prove that something doesn't exist. But if you have no evidence to assert that something exist you have no theory, you have just a belief, and you are the one that need to find evidence to make a theory.

"...that’s already proven not just by Laura..." Following my previous reasoning, Laura and others have demonstrated that there is no historical evidence of the existence of "Jesus as we know it" as you put it.

"So, the Shroud of Turin could be real, yes of course, now, is it from “Jesus”?, certainly no, but could be from someone who looked like the character described in the Bible and that’s it."

There we get to the theory presented in Hienrich's links on this bibleetnombres website.

I have read through about 80% of the first link.

The writer says that there is evidence that the shroud is from Jesus because of some technical analysis where you can see a lot of correspondences to Jesus, namely marks that must come from the spear received by Jesus, marks from the spine crown, etc. There is also the idea that from the technical analysis, the way the figure appeared on the shroud couldn't appear if the shroud was left on a body too long which comes handy to speculate that the disappearance of Jesus after three days is the only way it could have happens. This last part looks like bad reasoning to me. There could be numerous reason for the shroud to be removed from a corps, I think.

The writer's reasoning is then that, this peculiar way of execution is not known except for the description of the execution of Jesus as depicted in the new testament.

To prove or disprove this theory one as, first, to look at the "evidences" presented. Looking at who did the analysis and how, for one thing. I'm not going to do that as this is not a matter of interest to me.

Now if someone does that and find that those evidences are well founded we then could conclude that the Turin shroud comes from someone executed in a similar manner as the depiction of the execution of Jesus in the new testament. That's when you could conclude that the C's statement was wrong. That would be, at least, a reasonable supposition.

That still wouldn't prove that the Turin shroud came from Jesus. There we can look at Laura's work to see the details of how the text of the execution of Jesus was likely made and put in the new testament.

Does that make some sense ?

 

[hobnob]

by the way: how do you select a part of text to reply?

After inserting quotes, I place the cursor in a position to highlight certain parts of the text, and then delete.

 

[Wandering Star]

You may be interested in reading the next page.

I hope your browser translates it well into your language.

EL EVANGELIO DE CESAR

El Evangelio de César – discubriendo al Cristo histórico – Hace veinte años, el estudioso italiano Francesco Carotta comenzó a sospechar que la narrativa del Evangelio del Nuevo Testamento se…

dejister.wordpress.com

 

[Mytja]

You may be interested in reading the next page.

I hope your browser translates it well into your language.

EL EVANGELIO DE CESAR

El Evangelio de César – discubriendo al Cristo histórico – Hace veinte años, el estudioso italiano Francesco Carotta comenzó a sospechar que la narrativa del Evangelio del Nuevo Testamento se…

dejister.wordpress.com

There's also an excellent series of articles on the subject by a certain substack author named John Carter, published on SOTT too:

The Gospel of Mark Antony - 1 - The Jesus Question -- Sott.net

Who was Jesus Christ? There's less agreement on that then you'd expect. There are three basic camps on the subject. The largest are those who assume, without giving the matter a great deal of thought, that two thousand years ago there was some...

www.sott.net

 

[Alejo]

Well that’s the problem I think. It IS clear. I think this is perhaps a phenomenon that flew under the radar. The question now becomes: how many questions and answers have been distorted this way? Does that require some kind of double checking or second guessing to gain certainty? So, the questioning has to be without prejudice. Certainly many questions have been asked without prejudice, but… all?

I would say that perhaps quite a bit, Laura mentions them in The Wave series, because she parted from ignorance, but it was her focus on the truth that lead her to take those answers and work them through on her own, to refine the process, catch her mistakes, revisit her assumptions and continue. The focus of the experiment wasn't to write gospel from the lips of God, per se, but rather to seek clues to continue on the search for answers. As I understand it that is.

Remember that the process of learning is one that has a destination of ignorance, from the point of view of going from a place where you know, to a place where you don't know... learn, and then leave that place for another you don't know. Put another way, the quest for knowledge is for light, but that means that you have to pierce thought the darkness that is, darkness is your destination (and journey) in your quest for light.

I think it was even asked once of the C's, the level of accuracy of the material gained by this channel, and the answer wasn't 100%, and it's the human element, that was the source of the inaccuracy, if I remember correctly. They also explicitly suggested not to deify them, I believe one of the reasons, among several, was for this very fact.

On a different note, I was thinking about this for a while, and the idea occurred to me that, the work we do here is the rest of the answers to the C's. They're so economical in their delivery, and leave things so open, that those tiny answers, are the seed for larger answers that we may create through our own work. So, the work that we do, networking, researching and so on, is the rest of the answer, in that sense, the notion of "Us in the future" takes on a whole new level, IMO.

 

[Alejo]

the mechanism you propose, i.e. that the answer comes from the subconscious of the asker, has never been evoqued in the sessions. it is, of course, a reasonable answer, but using an ouja board to extract something from your subconscious cannot be called a supraluminal method as ark has formulated it. your answer makes the whole cass phenomenon an earthly trick, worth of c.g. jung, who also has its portion of unexplainable...

I think it has been evoked in the sessions, and in The Wave (I think if you're really interested in this topic, reading that series would serve you well). And why couldn't it be called superluminal method? though I think it's a technicality, but it does remain a way to communicate with an aspect of existence that we're otherwise completely disconnected from, the best we can do is dreams. Yes, an earthly trick for sure, but still pretty awesome.

when reading the cass answers, i really believed that they gave valid answers, independent of my or anybodies expectations. i know this is not how the physical world works, but i was ready to accept the assumption of the existence of the ether to explain the superluminous communication. i even started a thread on the ether.

The answers are valid, but are they the truth? I think it depends on your assumptions when asking a question.

you answer makes me clearly doubt the validity of the cass experiment, should it be only a method to reveal the subconscious.

Well, I disagree. I think it's fascinating that the experiment provides such results, in that sense, it's not only valid but successful. It actually invites the user to revise his or her assumptions and truly understand the process of exchanging information, asking a question, lies and truth, and so much more.

Not understanding the process through which a result was obtained in an experiment, doesn't invalidate it, it's simply that the mechanics of it have to be understood more thoroughly. I think the defying, or expecting the C's to deliver gospel or prophecy, actually constricts the channel, because one is ultimately having a conversation with oneself, closing oneself to the truth.

And I think that's part of the issue, perhaps, the C's experiment was never designed or intended as a way to end the work on our own, to get all the answers, rather it was intended to jump start it. So they wouldn't delivery final answers, but clues and pointers.

 

[Penderecki]

dear penderecki, thank you for your answer. i have a question concerning the image above. i believe i have seen it before, but do not remember where. i then checked on tineye, and there were over 3200 results. so this did not give me the origin of the image. do you happen to know its first apparition? i also saw for a short instant a face when closing eyes. merci.

I will get back to you on this asap.

 

[Penderecki]

dear penderecki, thank you for your answer. i have a question concerning the image above. i believe i have seen it before, but do not remember where. i then checked on tineye, and there were over 3200 results. so this did not give me the origin of the image. do you happen to know its first apparition? i also saw for a short instant a face when closing eyes. merci.

the link:

Le Saint Suaire

Le Saint Suaire à la lumière des Ecritures

www.bibleetnombres.online.fr

 

[Penderecki]

dear penderecki, thank you for your answer. i have a question concerning the image above. i believe i have seen it before, but do not remember where. i then checked on tineye, and there were over 3200 results. so this did not give me the origin of the image. do you happen to know its first apparition? i also saw for a short instant a face when closing eyes. merci.

I don't know where it first appeared, in the article, I think, whose link was posted in this thread (sse above) , but I reposted it for you, hope it works.

 

[Penderecki]

dear penderecki, thank you for your answer. i have a question concerning the image above. i believe i have seen it before, but do not remember where. i then checked on tineye, and there were over 3200 results. so this did not give me the origin of the image. do you happen to know its first apparition? i also saw for a short instant a face when closing eyes. merci.

Here is part two, the website is in French but the translating option is included.

Le Saint Suaire: part 2

Le Saint Suaire à la lumière des Ecritures

www.bibleetnombres.online.fr

 

[verdad]

dear alejo, no, it is not clear.

the mechanism you propose, i.e. that the answer comes from the subconscious of the asker, has never been evoqued in the sessions. it is, of course, a reasonable answer, but using an ouja board to extract something from your subconscious cannot be called a supraluminal method as ark has formulated it. your answer makes the whole cass phenomenon an earthly trick, worth of c.g. jung, who also has its portion of unexplainable...

when i read replies to questions, i am indeed looking for answers, but not from the subconscious of the asker.

when reading the cass answers, i really believed that they gave valid answers, independent of my or anybodies expectations. i know this is not how the physical world works, but i was ready to accept the assumption of the existence of the ether to explain the superluminous communication. i even started a thread on the ether.

you answer makes me clearly doubt the validity of the cass experiment, should it be only a method to reveal the subconscious.

this statement does not invalidate the enormous work done by laura, her books, sott, the forum. but before i live with the implications of your answer, i would have liked to see it confirmed by laura, even if she is, as always, very busy.

i was also interested in the scientific answers of the cass to the ark questions. do i have to assume that ark also knew, unconsciously, of the answers to his technical questions? if so, then my explanation by krishnamurti that a question already contains the answer would habe been vindicated without recourse to supernatural effects...

and what remains mysterious is how the expectations of the questioner are translated into ouja board answers. here, we come to uri geller. therefore, the mystery remains...

let me conclude:
- the image on the turin shroud remains real, to me...
- christ as an egregore would alreay be sufficient for me
- the world remains mysterious to me
- my cat is hungry...

I saw this interesting comment from Henrick and thought yes there is a possibility that the C's have lied that there is no Jesus but to advance the study and with further future sessions Jesus may exist as well as that it was all a 7 density joke after all in 7 density there are no limits and everything exists including a Jesus, anything is possible isn't it?

 

[Nienna]

It seems to me that your question isn't really related to the Turin shroud, but rather to faith in general.

I think that it is more "beliefs" than "faiths" in heinrich's case.

(And remember that around here, we DO take things as hypotheses, not THE truth. "10% inspiration, 90% perspiration". So, homework is needed before we can decide on what seems the most plausible, and it's always open to new data).

Yep! And the Cs have told us over and over that they are not here to hand answers out like candy. They are here to help us to think and do our own research. They have told us NOT to deify them.

I, for one, do not take the Bible as a true source of information. Nor the word of the God of the Bible. If enough research has been done, you find out that Yahweh was a tribal god of the Jews who was promoted by the priests as the one true god.

Learning is fun! It may put a few sacred cows out to pasture, but we are better off without them, or so I think.

 

[verdad]

Jesus Christ is real and so is Satan...so it is acceptable to believe and pray to Jesus I don't see why that is wrong.