FOTCM Logo
Cassiopaea
  • EN
  • FR
  • DE
  • RU
  • TR
  • ES
  • ES

Swerdlow Controlled via Satellite? or “reductio ad absurdum”

Note: Many people have written to ask us about the claims of Stewart Swerdlow, a fellow who claims to have participated in clandestine government projects located at the Montauk Air force/Naval facility. Among these claims are: “Any channeled information is crap. It is 100% disinformation” and “All channeling is disinformation.” While we do agree that there is a “Stargate Conspiracy” and that much, if not most, channeled material is either part of a human engineered program or the influences of negative forces, we believe that we have taken such forces into account in our own experimental work in accessing expanded states of consciousness.

Update, November 16, 2007: It seems that Swerdlow’s website has undergone some dramatic changes and the pages formerly linked from this page no longer exist. However, Swerdlow’s claims can be found on the webarchive. There you will read the following:

Cassiopaea & Dr. Puharich
Posted: March 12, 2001

Have you read any of the Cassiopaea material? Most of it seems to be good information, have not detected any real disinformation. They say Nibiru is really a cluster of comets, that appear to be a planet. They are a result of our companion brown star going through the Oort Cloud. And they’re due here by 2012. Along with the “realm border crossing” wave, which would take some of us into 4th density. And of course the lizzies are waiting on the other side, ready to control those of us who make it through. The rest will re-incarnate here, after the decimation. The cycle begins again.

Now they, the Cassies, don’t appear to be associated with the Council of Nine, but I’m suspicious. It seems that the Ra Material may have its genesis in the Council of Nine (as Ra himself is one of the nine principles, is he not?) and the channellings did not come through until the LL Research folks visited Dr. Puharich! So am suspicious of this source. Yet the Cassies say that particular channelled material is about 64% or 61% accurate. They place their own at about 71% as far as I recall.

After years of studying all kinds of material and being on several paths, including Bhakti Yoga, I’m almost ready to throw all of out the window and go back to a simple life. It is very frustrating.

Can you shed any light on all this? I know this is a lot to ask, but the way is dark and full of pointy protrusions.

Stewart’s Reply: Any channeled information is crap. It is 100% disinformation. Anything that was associated with Dr. Puharich is also disinformation, as he was an Illuminati programmer and controller. Anything that refers to going to different densities is New Age disinformation. You mentioned that you want to throw it all out the window and go back to a simple life — not a bad plan. Hope this answers your questions.

Ark addresses the primary claim of Swerdlow in the following remarks:

I can’t take Swerdlow seriously. Why? I am a scientist. I look at things in a somewhat different way than other people; I am more critical; I am even more critical than most of my colleagues. So, when I see a statement like this: “Any channeled information is crap. It is 100% disinformation.”
“All channeling is disinformation.” and “channeling is a satellite transmission.” I get very suspicious.

Why so?

I immediately see that he speaks plain nonsense – in THESE sentences. But when I see someone speaking nonsense in couple of sentences, and when this somebody is so affirmative – THEN I can’t take this person seriously in all the rest.

What are the facts? What are the possibilities? Alright, there is a possibility that some (possibly even most?) of the channeling TODAY comes via satellites or other means of programming. That IS possible.

The next question is : WHY? The evident answer is: to twist, to disinform, via New Age-type naive people.

Can the Cassiopaean channeling come the same way, i.e. via satellite or some other kind of transmission?

It is not so easy: we are not naïve; we are critical; we think, we analyze, we test and research.

Could some of the Cassiopaean communications have been influenced this way?

Yes, there is always such a possibility.

Can all, or even 95%, be received this way?

No. Why “no”?

Because there are too many instances in which the Cassiopaeans were answering questions to which the normal “satellite type” of intelligence, without being able to instantly read the minds of everyone on this planet, could not have had access.

Therefore, I think, Stewart’s statement that ALL channeling is crap and disinformation, and that 95% is via satellites shows that:

a)He is not able to think logically,
b) he is not interested in discovering the truth.

And this is the main difference between our approach and the approach of so many others, including Swerdlow. While we are ready to question everything, and always look for new facts, other individuals declare “WE KNOW THE TRUTH. Here it is!” And then we find one or another — or many – easily detectable nonsense statements that they have claimed to be absolute, and this discredits everything else they say.

For example: My Mother was talking to spirits using a porcelain dish that moved around the table indicating letters. “Spirits” were talking to her and they told her things that were accurate and she was scared. She was not a part of the “New Age”, she was a little old lady. There was absolutely no point for satellites (and those who operate them) to waste their energy and computing power to talk to my Mother or any of the probable millions of other individuals who have done similar things for ages.

You see what I mean? With just this example, what Stewart Swerdlow has claimed to be the unequivocal truth, has been shown to be nonsense and logistically impossible. The devil, as always, is in the details.

Whenever someone claims: “All white is black” – I get suspicious and I am turned off to everything else they say. Not because “white being black” is impossible: we know there are paradoxes; but because the person uses this three letter word: “all”.

As for parallel realities; yes, probably this is a clue. As for “satellites trying”, once in a while, their dirty tricks – yes this is also possible. And we are taking all of these things into account. We are always trying to apply our logical thinking, our educated “judgment” to what we are doing, but we do not forget that this 3rd density reality check is NEVER SUFFICIENT when dealing with 4th density forces; but it is ALWAYS NECESSARY. This means, in practical terms:

1) ALWAYS USE IT TO THE MAX.
2) NEVER THINK THAT YOU CAN RELY COMPLETELY ON IT ALONE!

What I want to state clearly is: this channeling, the Cassiopaean channeling IS different than other channeling. It was different from the very beginning, it continues to be so, and it will continue to be different. We may give it a name: Critical Channeling. It is such by intent, not by a chance. It is channeling in which, by intent, the messenger is as important as the message itself. They are inseparably entangled in a quantum way; an interfering quantum amplitude; they form a oneness, a whole. To separate the message from the messenger would be, in this Cassiopaean quantum experiment, like closing one hole in a double slit experiment: you close one hole, and the whole pattern is different, not just a part of it.

What is this “Critical Channeling?” In what way is it different than other channeling?

The Cassiopaean channeling has the characteristics of a scientific experiment. Nothing that is received is taken for granted. Everything is subjected to analysis, comparison to what is known by ordinary means, (and research to find out if necessary), and some things are outright rejected as noise if that is indicated. Some things require “interpretation” when it is noticed that it is “close” but not exactly “spot on” accurate. Hypotheses are formulated about such occurrences to try and discover what the “filter” is and how to adjust the “reading instrument” to account for that filter.

The many variables of each session are noted and analyzed, including who is present, what mood they are in, the weather, the subject vis a vis those present, and so on. Information that is unverifiable is set aside until it either can be verified or discarded.

Think of scientists in their lab, working on the great laws of the universe. They perform an important series of experiments. They are trained professionals, they know their stuff, they know their laboratory equipment and its quirks. But they are also human beings. Once in a while someone will make some dirty joke, once in a while they will have to discard a series of data, because mice have messed up their equipment during the night. Now, think, what advantage it would be if they would write in their paper the dirty joke, include the mice data, the ink blobs etc. etc.

That is not the way of science. And the Cassiopaean experiment will proceed as a scientific one with scientific standards in mind. The Cassiopaean channeling is Critical Channeling. It is in this respect that it is DIFFERENT from other channeling. And it will stay so.

The difference is in the approach. We are searching for the truth. Swerdlow is sure that he knows it, and he would like to impose it on other people, or manipulate other people, into believing what he says.

When Stewart Swerdlow states something — he claims it comes from Oversoul and God-Mind – but when someone else dares to have a different way of finding the truth – it is necessarily “100% disinformation” and “crap.” That just isn’t logical.

We try to share our thoughts, our protocols, our research behind the scenes, and when necessary, we are ready to learn and change. And that is what is most important: this attitude of being open.

What if Swerdlow is right? Even if I consider it as highly improbable, what if he IS right? Can he be right?

Of course, being a scientist, and using my brain in order to judge, I had to consider also this possibility, however improbable it may it look to me, and I concluded that he cannot be right.

Here is my reasoning: it goes via “reductio ad absurdum” – which is often used in logic and in mathematical proofs. You assume something to be true, and then by a chain of logical deductions you come to the conclusion that your assumption cannot be true. Somewhat tricky – but useful.

Applying this method to Swerdlow and his claim that “all channeling is 100% disinformation because it is coming via satellite”, let us suppose it is true. In order to be true it must include the capability of reading and controlling EVERYBODY’S mind at ALL times.

But if that is the case, then why would Swerdlow himself be exempt from this control?

Therefore, by logic, Swerdlow is also being influenced by programming and by satellites (if everybody is, then so is he).

If so, then what he writes — even about channelling is skewed.

Finally, because he is so loud, and so sure, about this subject, which is logically impossible, it is a logical conclusion that what he is saying is NOT true, which leads us to conclude that it is disinformation.

So we see that starting from the assumption that he is right (satellites affect everybody) we come to the conclusion that what he says is wrong (because he is simply repeating the satellite disinformation).

So, here we have reductio ad absurdum.

But we can go even further. Can we see a reason why Swerdlow would propagate such evident nonsense? Why?

Well, here we can have a hypothesis too. If, as we know by the above analysis, NOT ALL channeling is from satellites, that SOME channeling can provide us with real information from “benevolent higher beings”, from “us in the future”, or from “Mind-God and Oversoul”, call it as you will, then it is only natural that there will be forces trying to discredit TRUE channeling.

So, we have solved one problem here. Since Swerdlow calls channellers disinformation agents, and if he is right, or even partly right, then we have reasons to suppose that Swerdlow himself is an agent of those forces.

There is one more exercise in logical reasoning and critical thinking that comes to mind. Swerdlow is not clear about what channeling is, so let me take as a particular example the use of the Ouija board, as described on our pages.

Why do we use a device similar to a Ouija board?

Because the use of a Ouija board type instrument is very effective at screening out external disturbances, in particular it makes it more difficult for satellites, or other programming signals coming from human and hybrid technology, when and if they come, to affect the message. At least two persons are needed, no rituals, no altered state of consciousness, full critical thinking, sometimes joking, often coffee, fresh minds, loud discussion, and the board. Thinking in terms of possible quantum physics involved in mind-matter interactions it is clear to me that the methods we use are more likely to be robust and shielded against deliberate bombardment from outside by mind controlling signals. On the other hand, talking directly to “Mind-God” as Swerdlow does is more susceptible to interference. For example, a weak outside EM signal can be talking directly to a tiny implant in our teeth, and we will take it for our Oversoul….

So, by logical thinking and by critical analysis we came to a working hypothesis. But, please, do not jump to the conclusion that we have solved all problems. Important problems are still out there and need to be addressed. The above analysis does not tell us at all WHICH channeling (if any at all) is legitimate. It gives indications. To answer this question a full analysis, that takes into account not one but many aspects, is necessary. Completely different methods must be used. If A is an opponent of B, and if we find that A is wrong, that does not mean that B is right! To see whether B is right or not – is a different problem.

Let me just note that we were discussing many times C’s channeling, on these pages and with other groups, and even our present “dissidents” have admitted openly that these C’s have an amazing record.

Update:

Following the posting of the above remarks, we received a communication from an individual who requests that his/her name be withheld, known to us, and whose Internet presence is established and respected, stating the following:

Let me clear up some things about Swerdlow, for what it’s worth. I’ve had personal contact with [individuals close to] Swerdlow. From [these contacts] I have learned that there is someone who “taught” Swerdlow what little he knows. See, during Swerdlow’s prison term, [this individual] came into contact with him and took pity, becoming his mentor and teaching him some of what [the individual] had spent a lifetime learning. After getting out of prison, he chose the path of betrayal and capitalized upon what he had learned without giving [his teacher] any credit. He spun a tale of fiction using primary sources such as Preston Nichols’ material to hide his past and become a pseudo-hero in the metaphysics-conspiracy field, all to make money over something he neither developed nor asked for permission to sell.

FYI, this [individual] is sincere and non-contradictory in what [is] said, and is fluent with the basis of everything Swerdlow “teaches/sells” on his site, and then some. [This individual] taught Stewart only PART of what [the individual] knew, because this person didn’t trust him entirely. That’s why Stewart’s at an intellectual doldrum now…he’s used up what he was taught, and must now rely upon imagination and some skill to make up the rest.

Stewart’s a smart guy, but in a sociopathic sense: charming, deceiving, beguiling, and cunning. Narcissistic/sociopathic in many ways. Ever wonder about the many contradictions on his site? Why some info is good and others is outright false? It’s because he’s playing with half a deck of info. Sure, he’s spent some years doing research into the conspiracy field so that he appears to know what he’s talking about, but he makes up a lot of it as well without caring if it contradicts other statements of his.

Janet Swerdlow, on the other hand, is not a partner in his crime, or else she doesn’t know it. Look at the material she writes…it’s clear and consistent. Swerdlow’s is erratic and contradictory. In my opinion, he has little credibility in anything he says, because the individual who taught him proved to me that there was so much more.

So as for him discounting the validity of the C’s, I throw that rejection right out the window along with his credibility. In sum, You can believe him if you want, that’s your free will, but I’ve made my statement on the matter from what I know.

Additional comments to “Reductio ad absurdum” by Laura added July 2005

It has recently been brought to my attention that there is an “ex-Cass Group” member who is posting rather libelous remarks about us on Internet Discussion boards. A reader sent these comments to me, and there is really only one remark that has any significant bearing on our work, and which I would like to address, the rest is just simply opinion (libelously written, at that) which seems to have developed from the singular problem of perception. Here is what was said:

From: OPie: I was also one of those who transcribed the original sessions. And, yes, when they were published on the website they had been changed. One was changed considerably. She had been charged with this by others before, and until I saw it happen first-hand, I didn’t believe it was true. I figured she changed punctuation or corrected things, but that’s not what happened with the sessions I transcribed. […]

Now the problem with this is that if she changed the two that I transcribed, how many more of the sessions were tampered with? If you find one piece of work that’s bogus, how can you trust the rest? […]

Allow me to give some background context in which to address this accusation.

As Ark has written above,

…the Cassiopaean channeling has characteristics of a scientific experiment. Think of scientists in their lab, working on the great laws of the universe. They perform an important series of experiments. They are trained professionals, they know their stuff, they know their laboratory equipment and its quirks. But they are human beings. Once in a while someone will make some dirty joke, once in a while they will have to discard a series of data, because mice have messed up their equipment during the night. Now, think, what advantage it would be if they would write in their paper the dirty joke, include the mice data, the ink blobs etc. etc.

That is not the way of science. And the Cassiopaean experiment will proceed as a scientific one. With scientific standards in mind. The Cassiopaean channeling is Critical Channeling. It is in this respect that it is DIFFERENT from other channeling. And it will stay so.

In the first few years of the experiment, I fell way behind in transcribing because I had so many things on my plate that I could barely keep up. A group member who regularly attended sessions offered to help me with transcribing, so I sent her home with a few tapes. When she emailed the transcripts back to me, and told me it was so “fast and easy” and she didn’t understand why it was so time consuming for me to do it, I just figured that she must be a faster typist than I was and I didn’t think too much about it.

BUT, when I read them, I found that what she had transcribed did NOT mesh with my memory of the session.

Okay, that’s a problem. Maybe I remembered wrong, but I didn’t think so. I got the tape out and sat down to listen to it while going over the written words in front of me. Sure enough, my friend had skipped entire words – even phrases – that she apparently deemed immaterial to the context, but which were crucial to the meaning of the C’s answer. In other places, she had written “not” when it was not there, or had omitted a “not” that was actually there. This was really disturbing because it completely reversed the meaning of what the person was asking, and thus, reversed the answer the C’s gave!

Just to make sure that it wasn’t ME who was unable to hear what was being said, I asked a couple other people to listen with me while going over the transcript. Seems that I wasn’t in a state of delusion: the errors were really there.

What was obvious was that this member – who was otherwise very talented – was unable to transform spoken speech into written speech accurately. Not only was there a problem with missing words or words put in that were not there, the text was full of dangling participles and either devoid of punctuation, or had the wrong punctuation. This often had the result of changing the sense of what the person was saying. Here, I need to make it clear that I am talking about the discussion of the attendees, as well as their questions, and not the C’s answers which are a different matter. There was also a repeating problem of the wrong person being designated as having said something when it was actually someone else who had said it. All of these problems changed the meaning of many things and I was very dismayed to realize that I couldn’t just go in and fix a couple of things, I had to actually just do the whole thing over again.

I theorized that part of the problem must be because she had just gone through it so fast. I asked her how she had gone about the process. She told me that she had just typed up the written notes, and then had fast forwarded over those parts, actually listening only to the questions, and typed them in rapidly. I then explained what had happened and she became very upset. I had to replay some parts of the tape to her, stopping it and starting it so she could really hear what kinds of errors she had made, and she was in a state of shock that her mind had done this. Well, she excused it as being “in a hurry” or being “stressed” and so on. I agreed that this was a reasonable explanation, and just made up my mind that she ought to stick to what she did best and leave the transcribing to me even if it took me awhile to get around to it.

I pondered this event for some time after, wondering if it really was just lack of patience and stress. Sure, we know that this can profoundly affect what a person hears or sees, but was it that simple? I had also noticed that this person seemed to be able to “hear” some people at the sessions better than others because what they said was more accurately transcribed than what someone else said. I was also aware of the person’s feelings toward the individuals whose words were inaccurately reported, and there was a definite corelation. It seemed that there was a sort of “hearing bias” based in emotional bias and it was a very strange thing to observe indeed.

Now, let me say that I KNEW, without a doubt, that this individual was sincere and not deliberately messing up the transcripts. I knew she wasn’t consciously trying to slant the text to make one person look good, and another look stupid. And yet, there were “reading errors” in her “machine,” so to say.

Now, in transcribing the C’s sessions, there is a significant problem: The notes are often “messy” because a person will start writing letters, then assume that they know what the C’s are going to say, and will rush ahead to complete a word, while the C’s are actually spelling out something quite different. Then, if the person realizes that they have anticipated and written the wrong word, they then may try to make the correction, which makes them fall behind, and it is impossible to catch up. They skip words, drop words, and even invent words. So, relying on the notes is not possible either. We generally try to have several people taking notes at once (if possible), hoping that what one person may miss, will be caught by another person. This is actually an interesting exercise. During a session, we frequently stop and have each person read back what they have written, and the differences are quite startling!

22 July 00
Q: (I) [Attempts to read back remark with some difficulty.]
A: Suggestion: try to inscribe letters without trying to break into words while writing. Otherwise, you will lose step!
Q: (I) That’s right! I’m trying to anticipate what they are going to say. (L) And the interesting thing about this exercise is, it conditions your mind to NOT anticipate!
A: Which is good, indeed.

(I should mention that this excerpt came from a session attended by a group of women members of the Cass group who had traveled from all over the country to meet each other. Even though a couple of them later dropped out of the group, none of them has ever suggested that the session was presented inaccurately at all even though it was slightly edited for clarity. I should also mention that dozens of people have attended sessions and helped with note taking, and none of them have ever said that the transcripts were inaccurate or “altered.”)

The problem comes down to this, you simply can NOT transcribe fast, and you MUST compare notes, and even then, it can have errors that require correcting. There is NO short cut. You have to listen to every word, every letter, and type it exactly as it is heard. THEN, you have to go back over it and try to get the exact sense of what the person is trying to say, and convert it into a decent sentence for the sake of the reader. Believe me, that is not easy. Nobody talks in complete, grammatical sentences. And if I typed it exactly the way the person talked, nobody would understand a thing with all the dangling participles, interrupted with “Uh” or changes of direction and subject. In some cases, this sort of thing had to be retained because the person speaking changed direction several times, bringing in several threads, and the Cs would respond to ONE of these, and not the rest… and then the other people present would respond to something else the person had said that the C’s did not respond to, which then led off in a different direction, so in order for it to make sense, I have often had to type it exactly as it was said, no matter how confusing. I think many readers who have read the transcrips have seen a few such examples.

Well, there I was, looking at the fact that this friend and group member, who was so willing to be helpful, and whose sincerity could not be doubted in ANY sense whatsoever, obviously was not able to transcribe the tapes accurately because of a) a hearing problem; b) a patience problem; and c) an obvious internal bias problem. The the end result was that it took me longer to correct the transcript than it would have taken me to transcribe the tape in the first place. I decided that it was better if I just do it myself.

So, a few years later, again, I fell behind in transcribing. By this time, we had the Cass group and there were three people who volunteered to transcribe. So, copies were made of six sessions (I didn’t want to send out the original tapes), and each of these three people got two sessions to transcribe each. You could say it was a sort of “test.” Well, one of them was unable to do hers at all because the tapes were messed up. Rather than recopy them, since I was anxious to get them done, I just did them myself. The second person did hers and sent them back, and there wasn’t any problem. I just did a check, reorganized the punctuation of the questions, made sure that the proper attributions were made as to who was speaking (she hadn’t been present and could not know whose voice was whose), and there was no issue at all.

HOWEVER, the two sessions that went to the Third Person came back with problems that were acknowledged by the individual, some of which seem to be of the same sort as the ones described above when the member who actually was physically present at the sessions was unable to transcribe accurately! For some bizarre reason that I still can’t quite understand, this individual was incapable of actually HEARING what was being said on the tape. And here, I don’t mean that it was “un-hearable,” but that what was being said somehow got twisted when it went in her ears and connected with her brain. Damndest thing I ever saw. The individual wrote to me about her transcribing problems as follows:

From: “Linda D***”
Subject: Re: Mailing tapes
Date sent: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:38:37 -0800

[…]

A couple of things.

First, the background noise on the tapes was REALLY loud, and seemed to get louder when something important was being discussed (interesting, isn’t it?). There are a couple of places where I couldn’t understand Ark. It wasn’t his accent; it was a combination of him talking very quietly and the background noise being so loud. On the second tape (August 10), I got smart and put ** where I couldn’t hear what was being said.

The first tape (August 7) had a spot in it where there was nothing recorded for a while. Then it picked back up right about the time I’d decided it was finished. Then when it ended, it simply ended. No goodbye or anything (actually, so did the 2nd tape). But the first one had a very strange ending. You were basically concluding the session and asking if there was anything you needed to know, should have asked, and so forth. The answer was “Hold on to me”, then there was a sound like a heart beating, which became very loud, and the tape ended. On the answer, I’ve put the spaces in. It chould have been “Hold on, tom. M…” or “Hold on to m…”. I don’t know since it ended. […]

The second tape was a little better quality than the first, though there were still a couple of areas where I couldn’t decipher what was being said — one in particular where Ark apparently asked a question, but I couldn’t hear it (I say “apparently”, because all of a sudden there was an answer).

Before I send the tapes back, I’ll try to listen to them straight-through (as opposed to stopping and starting) with the transcripts in front of me and make sure I didn’t miss anything. In the meantime, I thought I’d get them back to you right away; maybe between the two of you (or your notes from the sessions, if you have any), you can fill in any missing spots. If I find anything I’ve missed after listening to the tapes, I’ll correct the transcripts and E-mail the corrected copies to you.

When I went over the transcripts she had sent, there were many problems that made her effort almost useless. Naturally, I had the original tape and not a copy to work from, but that is exactly the point. With all the problems noted by the individual herself, how can she even say, with such libelous certainty:

From: OPie: I was also one of those who transcribed the original sessions. And, yes, when they were published on the website they had been changed. One was changed considerably. She had been charged with this by others before, and until I saw it happen first-hand, I didn’t believe it was true. I figured she changed punctuation or corrected things, but that’s not what happened with the sessions I transcribed. […]

Now the problem with this is that if she changed the two that I transcribed, how many more of the sessions were tampered with? If you find one piece of work that’s bogus, how can you trust the rest? […]

Notice how the first sentence above even implies that she has done more than two sessions… and how she does not even acknowledge the many problems she had with the tapes and with hearing, and so on.

Well, just to make the point, I am going to put her original transcripts side by side with the corrected ones here, and will have further comments to make after the reader has had a chance to judge for themselves: (Note that I will remove names of the “innocent” in BOTH transcripts below)

File as transcribed by Linda D 8/7/2001 Laura, ArkQ: Hello, hello, hello. Is anyone there?

A: Hello.

Q: You’re supposed to watch, just to see what it does. (A) I will. Do you have a name? Tell us your name.

A: Daohha.

Q: Did you ever have a body of your own?

A: No.

Q: Are you here to … what are you here for?

A: Cassiopaea.

Q: Are you the 6th density beings who transmit through Cassiopaea?

A: Yes.

Q: I would like to point out that six days have gone by and no money came and, in fact, our world is a disaster. Well, actually our world is not a disaster. It’s a lot cleaner than it was, but we still are confronted with some real issues as to which way to go and what to do next.

A: Money will come.

Q: All right. What was behind … what forces were behind Vincent’s action? Were they simply 4th density manipulation, plus was there any Satanic cult activity behind his activities?

A: No.

Q: Was there any … was he, in fact, loaded with attachments, as I saw him in the viewing?

A: Yes.

Q: What was the source of these attachments?

A: Rituals.

Q: All right. What is the motivating factor behind his pushing for me to discover where the “grail” is buried? Was it simply his own desire to discover it?

A: Yes.

Q: Was he programmed to ask this question or to seek this?

A: Yes.

Q: What would have been the consequences if he had been able to squeeze the answer out of me?

A: Death to you.

Q: Sh … was he even remotely aware of that possibility?

A: Yes.

Q: Apparently he wasn’t sufficiently aware of it to really believe it, I would think. He thinks it’s still a game.

A: Yes.

Q: He doesn’t really understand how serious it is, that if you really get close to the secret, you die.

A: Yes. Nor have you.

Q: So that’s why you guys don’t answer a lot of questions.

A: Yes.

Q: Well, that’s a good enough reason, I reckon – to keep us alive.

A: Offee talking (check tape)

Q: What? (A) Who gave the orders … (L) Who gave the orders to Vincent? (A) Who is behind … OK, we know he was programmed.

A: 4th density.

Q: Let me ask this, since he was programmed, and that with the information he wanted to obtain, is it in fact true that 4th density STS either doesn’t know or cannot access this secret?

A: Yes. L: And they are as anxious for it to be discovered … in fact, they are the MOST anxious …

A: Yes.

Q: Hmm. Well, let’s get back to the money situation. I know you say money will come. It needs to come fairly soon.

A: Each question says the same thing.

Q: (A) It doesn’t make any sense. (L) Each question says the same thing. In other words, money will come. Is that it?

A: Yes.

Q: Are we supposed to continue trying to seek ways and means? I mean, that seems to be a natural and proper thing to do.

A: Yes.

Q: I mean, putting energy out seems to be like … we’ve got to do it. I mean, if you just sit there and think, “Oh, I don’t have to do anything and money will come; that’s not a good way to be.

A: Yes.

Q: Do you have any hints or specific areas that we could put our effort out?

A: Basic research lot field.

Q: Doesn’t make a lot of sense. Basic research lot field. (A) Basic research

A: Others propose

Q: Others propose, I guess, right? Propose it to others .. Propose it to others?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) Who? (L) Well …Let me ask while I’ve got you here this silly question B** has got going on. Don’t you laugh, honey. What he is saying is … B*** is reading some material that suggests that this planet is a breeding ground for aliens, and the life cycle of the aliens, as in the Reptilians or whatever, may mimic something, such as a preying mantis. It also alludes to the suggestion that the underground of the earth is kind of a dormant stage for the female, and it is the male that is returning or that does return at the end of each epoch, and that the focus of this appears to be the great pyramid, and that if we move to STO – it doesn’t say those words but it’s the same – much terror can be avoided as the return of the male dragon will die for love for the female. Okay. Is the earth a breeding round for some kind of aliens as suggested in this passage?

A: No.

Q: Hmm. So this stuff that this guy has made up about this is like right out of his darkest nightmares. I mean the worst possible spin that could be put on what he has come up with. It’s already bad enough. So Bruce really ought to forget this and just get some sleep at night, huh?

A: Yes.

Q: What is the source of this type of material? I mean, what kind of energy is behind it?

A: STS mind control signal.

Q: What is it designed to do?

A: Reach those that are programmed to receive.

Q: Let me ask you this – If some of these STS programming signals that are going out … I mean, I’m assuming that some of them come from 3rd density. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Do they actually have, like, some place on the planet where these guys read science fiction books and get these really crazy theories and stories that they put together with sort of fiendish glee, and then convert them via computer into the programming code that gets beamed out into people’s heads, while they sit there and fall down on the floor laughing at what they have just done?

A: Yes.

Q: (Chuckling) That’s sick. (A): Why? Wouldn’t you do it if you had the … (L) If I had the facility and abilities and I was sick like that … if I was sick like that, sure. I mean, just take a whole HP Lovecraft novel, convert it into the programming signal and beam it out – and people are saying, “My God, the aliens told me … it’s just like HP Lovecraft said. Oh, my God!” Can you imagine? (A) And it works. (L) Sure does, doesn’t it? (A) And we see what this guy _____ said to us about this _____ (igloo?) What he is saying, I think is true … they have these capabilities … (L) Yeh. (A) Inducing these states, you know, and it’s coming, and there will be massive programming. (L) Yup. (A) And it’s coming pretty soon. (L) What are Ophanic intelligences, as Vincent understands them?

A: 4D STS.

Q: Hmm. Well. We recently had a major attack from a bunch of Jews who were claiming that we were anti-Semitic because we didn’t believe their religion, but we did believe they were special, which was king of a weird twist to that whole thing. Ummm … is this something that we should just back … I mean, you don’t normally advise, but you know, I’ve been having thoughts about just simply pulling the material down off the site completely and just leaving the subject behind. This is what I’ve been thinking, and I would like to know if the future looks brighter with respect to ourselves if I do that.

A: Yes.

Q: I mean, I know it’s courageous and all that, but it’s not necessary. I mean, what’s said is said on the site. (A) I had another idea, which I was checking, and we can put one or two pages out and put it on a different website that we have, which is not linked … not associated with Cassiopaea in any way, and we can just … instead of being on Cassiopaea, these pages will be on the _______ website, and you can always read the pages by clicking, go in there, then come back, and it would give us a kind of legal advantage, so that in case someone decides to attack, it would be not on Cassiopaea pages. (L) Yeah, well, I think that discretion at this point is probably the better part of valor. (A) What do you mean “discretion”? (L) In other words, not telling everything you know. (A) Right. (L), But,

A: Good idea. L: Well, the thing was, I put it up …

A: Jews will be destroyed anyway. L: Well, that’s not friendly. So, it is better to pull it all down and leave them alone, let them fry in their own juices and do their own stupid things, and let them destroy themselves; because there’s nothing anybody can do anyway? (A) Right. (L) I mean, there’s no point in trying to … (A) No gain. (L) There’s no gain for us, no gain for them, and …

A: Yes.

Q: Well, anyway. Well, that’s pretty depressing. Have you got any questions about what you’re working on that you were going to ask? I mean, we need to ask questions to groove or something. (A) Um-m. (L) I mean, just … (A) Um hm. (L) I don’t really have any. We need to keep the … need to work this. (A) The thinking … (L) Yeah. (A) Okay, we what you do … okay, I don’t have today questions. I didn’t do my homework. We were so busy with this _________ and so on. So, okay, we should continue ________. So we will be coming back. (L) Yeah, I need to work.

A: Yes. Root is strong because of prior grooving.

Q: Okay. And we answered Bruce’s question, and I can’t think of any particular thing, and I think I’ll just go in and take that page down … do it tonight. The whole Jewish thing.

A: Yes.

Q: All right then. Thank you very much. And, unless you have something that you know we need to know, or any questions that should have been asked that we haven’t asked … (A) Right. (L) That’s important now, please tell us.

A: Hold on to me … (no further recording, though it is not the end of the tape)

Transcript as corrected by Laura8/7/2001 Laura, Ark

Q: Hello, hello, hello. Is anyone there?

A: Hello.

Q: You’re supposed to watch, just to see what it does. (A) I will. Do you have a name? Tell us your name.

A: Daohha.

Q: Did you ever have a body of your own?

A: No.

Q: What are you here for?

A: Cassiopaea.

Q: Are you the 6th density beings who transmit through Cassiopaea?

A: Yes.

Q: I would like to point out that six days have gone by and no money came and, in fact, our world is a disaster. Well, actually our world is not a disaster. It’s a lot cleaner than it was, but we still are confronted with some real issues as to which way to go and what to do next.

A: Money will come.

Q: All right. What was behind … what forces were behind Vincent’s [Bridges] action? Were they simply 4th density manipulation?

A: Close.

Q: Was there any Satanic cult activity behind his activities?

A: No.

Q: Was there any … was he, in fact, loaded with attachments, as I saw him in the viewing?

A: Yes.

Q: What was the source of these attachments?

A: Rituals.

Q: All right. What is the motivating factor behind his pushing for me to discover where the “grail” is buried? Was it simply his own desire to discover it?

A: Yes.

Q: Was he programmed to ask this question or to seek this?

A: Yes.

Q: What would have been the consequences if he had been able to squeeze the answer out of me?

A: Death to you.

Q: Sh … was he even remotely aware of that possibility?

A: Yes.

Q: Apparently he wasn’t sufficiently aware of it to really believe it, I would think. He thinks it’s still a game.

A: Yes.

Q: He doesn’t really understand how serious it is, that if you really get close to the secret, you die.

A: Yes. Nor have you.

Q: So that’s why you guys don’t answer a lot of questions?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, that’s a good enough reason, I reckon – to keep us alive. (A to L) Who gave the orders … (L) Who gave the orders to Vincent? (A) Who is behind … We know he was programmed. 4th density? (L) Let me ask this, since he was programmed, and that was the information he wanted to obtain, is it in fact true that 4th density STS either doesn’t know or cannot access this secret?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And they are as anxious for it to be discovered … in fact, they are the MOST anxious?

A: Yes.

Q: Hmm. Well, let’s get back to the money situation. I know you say money will come. Um. It needs to come fairly soon.

A: Each question says the same thing.

Q: (A) That doesn’t make any sense. (L) “Each question says the same thing.” In other words, money will come. Is that it?

A: Yes.

Q: So, we’re just supposed to keep doing what we think is right and not worry? That’s crazy.

A: Yes.

Q: Are we supposed to continue trying to seek ways and means? I mean, that seems to be a natural and proper thing to do.

A: Yes.

Q: I mean, putting energy out seems to be like … we’ve got to do it. I mean, if you just sit there and think, “Oh, I don’t have to do anything and money will come; that’s not a good way to be.

A: Yes.

Q: Do you have any hints or specific areas that we could put our effort out?

A: Basic research lot field.

Q: Doesn’t make a lot of sense. (A) Basic research?

A: Yes. Others propose

Q: I guess propose it to others?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Well. (A) We can put an announcement on the web that we are looking for a foundation.

A: Yes.

Q: (L)Let me ask while I’ve got you here, some questions from a member of our group. He is reading some material that suggests that this planet is a breeding ground for aliens, and the life cycle of the aliens, as in the Reptilians or whatever, may mimic something, such as a preying mantis. It also alludes to the suggestion that the underground of the earth is kind of a dormant stage for the female, and it is the male that is returning or that does return at the end of each epoch, and that the focus of this appears to be the great pyramid, and that if we move to STO – it doesn’t say those words but it’s the same – much terror can be avoided, as the return of the male dragon will die for love for the female nymph. Okay. Is the earth a breeding round for some kind of aliens as suggested in this passage?

A: No.

Q: Hmm. So this stuff that this guy has made up about this is like right out of his darkest nightmares? I mean the worst possible spin that could be put on this? It’s already bad enough. So we really ought to forget this and just get some sleep at night, huh?

A: Yes.

Q: What is the source of this type of material? I mean, what kind of energy is behind it?

A: STS mind control signal.

Q: What is it designed to do?

A: Reach those that are programmed to receive.

Q: (L) Let me ask you this – If some of these STS programming signals that are going out … I mean, I’m assuming that some of them come from 3rd density. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Do they actually have, like, some place on the planet where these guys read science fiction books and get these really crazy theories and stories that they put together with sort of fiendish glee, and then convert them via computer into the programming code that gets beamed out into people’s heads, while they sit there and just – you know – fall down on the floor laughing at what they have just done? I mean, is this possibly something that is going on [meaning in secret mind control experiments]?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) That’s sick! (A): Why? Wouldn’t you do it if you had the opportunity? (L) If I had the facility and abilities and I was sick like that? IF I was sick like that, sure. I mean, just take a whole HP Lovecraft novel, convert it into the programming signal and beam it out – and people are saying, “My God, the aliens told me … it’s just like HP Lovecraft said. Oh, my God!” Can you imagine? (A) And it works. (L) Sure does, doesn’t it? (A) And we see what this guy RC is telling us about this egroup, and it is… What he is telling us, I think is true … they have these capabilities … [Referring to mind control signals being utilized in rock music, rock concerts, etc] (L) Yeah. (A) Inducing these states, and it’s coming, and there will be massive programming! (L) Yup. (A) And it’s coming pretty soon. (L) What are Ophanic intelligences, as Vincent [Bridges] understands them? The ones he calls upon with his 30 calls to the aethyrs?

A: 4D STS.

Q: Hmm. Well. We recently had a major attack from a bunch of Jews who were claiming that we were anti-Semitic because we didn’t believe their religion, but we did believe they were special, which was kind of a weird twist to that whole thing. Ummm … is this something that we should just back – I mean, you don’t normally advise, but you know, I’ve been having thoughts about just simply pulling the material down off the site completely and just leaving the subject matter alone. This is what I’ve been thinking, and I would like to know if the future looks brighter with respect to ourselves if I do that.

A: Yes.

Q: I mean, I know it’s courageous and all that, but it’s not necessary. I mean, what’s said is said on the site. (A) I had another idea, which I was checking, and we can put one or two pages out and put it on a different website that we have, which is not linked – not associated with Cassiopaea in any way – and we can just – instead of being on Cassiopaea, these pages will be on a different website. And you can always read the pages by clicking, going there, then come back, and it would give us a kind of legal advantage, so that in case someone decides to attack, it would be not on Cassiopaea pages. (L) Yeah, well, I think that discretion at this point is probably the better part of valor. (A) What do you mean “discretion”? (L) In other words, not telling everything you know. (A) Right.

A: Good idea.

Q: (L) Well, the thing was, I put it up … [unfinished remark was “to help” because of my deep sympathy for the Jews… but the C’s cut in before I finished]

A: Jews will be destroyed anyway.

Q: (L) Well, that’s NOT friendly! So, it is better to pull it all down and leave them alone, let them fry in their own juices and do their own stupid things, and let them destroy themselves; because there’s nothing anybody can do anyway? (A) Right. (L) I mean, there’s no point in trying to … (A) No gain. (L) There’s no gain for us, no gain for them, and nothing we can do.

A: Yes.

Q: Well, anyway… That’s pretty depressing. (to Ark) Have you got any questions about what you’re working on that you were going to ask? I mean, we need to ask questions to groove or something. (A) Um-m. (L) I mean, just … (A) Um hm. (L) I don’t really have any. We need to keep the … need to work this. (A) The thinking … (L) Yeah. (A) Okay, we what we will do … I don’t have today questions. I didn’t do my homework. We were so busy with these other matters and so on. So, okay, we should continue another night. So we will be coming back. (L) Yeah, I need to work.

A: Yes. Root is strong because of prior grooving.

Q: Okay. And we answered B’s question, and I can’t think of any particular thing. And I think I’ll just go in and take that page down … do it tonight. The whole Jewish thing.

A: Yes.

Q: All right then. Thank you very much. And, unless you have something that you know we need to know, or any questions that should have been asked that we haven’t asked … (A) Right. (L) That’s important now, please tell us.

A: Hold on to me.

End of Session

File as Transcribed by Linda DAugust 10, 2001 Ark, Laura

Q: Hello?

A: Hello.

Q: And who do we have with us this evening?

A: Viaggmoi.

Q: And where do you transmit through?

A: Cassiopaea.

Q: I would like to ask if we can ask some questions about Vincent Bridges and Jay Weidner.

A: Yes.

Q: What are their intentions toward us?

A: Bad.

Q: What are their plans?

A: Sipprormt (A) What? What? It doesn’t make sense. (L) It wasn’t a word? What are their plans? Q: Sippoutgag. (A) What? What do you … (L) Sip? Pout? Gag? (A) What is sip? (L) Sip means to take a drink of something – sip something. Sip? Out? Gag? What are they going to sip?

A: Knowledge.

Q: Oh, they took a sip of knowledge – or they’re going to take a sip of knowledge?

A: Yes.

Q: And this sip of knowledge is going to make them pout and gag? (A) What is pout? (L) To just … (shows physically). Who are they going to get this sip of knowledge from that is going to make them pout and gag?

A: Lawyer.

Q: In other words, they’re going to find they do not have a leg to stand on?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, are Vincent and Jay … or is one … is Vincent … I think I asked this already, didn’t I? Is he really connected to these Satanic people?

A: Yes.

Q: Was he connected to them close to the inner circle?

A: No.

Q: Is he really an initiated Sufi?

A: No. Karma is coming.

Q: Do we have anything to be concerned about where they are concerned?

A: No.

Q: Do we need to take any further actions like putting more information on the website, any other things than what we are currently doing or have already done?

A: Yes.

Q: What?

A: Some more web info. (A) What? Some more what? (L) Web info. (A) Oh. (L) Should I put on the Perseus site what we have discovered about Vincent? A report on his claim to fame?

A: No.

Q: What, in specific, on the web?

A: Files make him (L) Files make him what? A: Sick. Move to gag.

Q: In other words, I should put something else that would drive him to go to an attorney? Make him madder?

A: Yes.

Q: Should I post Jay Weidner’s letter from this morning?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) What’s the point? (L) To make him go to an attorney? I don’t know. What’s the point – I don’t get it? (A) What’s the point of making him go to an attorney? (L) Well, an attorney may tell them that they are crossing dangerously into the lines of being subject to a lawsuit themselves.

A: Yes.

Q: And I could also post Vincent’s article or the letter he wrote himself about slander and libel.

A: Yes.

Q: Well, I don’t like the idea of doing any of those things. They make me feel yucky. So why are you telling me to do them?

A: How do you think Vincent will feel?

Q: Well, he’ll obviously feel more yucky that I will. ** Nothing’s bad, seeing as I feel he lied. See if they send any more blasts in the morning. Hmmm…. (A) I don’t think they said … if they decided to organize a conference, OK, they are somehow … will be in touch with these other people. And that takes ** to organize. (L) They’re not organizing anything. Did you notice them organizing anything at all so far? They have no idea what they’re doing. All they’re doing is running a con job. They’re taking people’s money. That’s all they’re doing. (A) Well, for me, it’s hard to believe …. (L) That’s all they’re doing. Is all this just a con job to put themselves in a position to take people’s money?

A: In part.

Q: Well, I just can’t imagine what was going through that man’s mind when he wrote that E-mail. I mean, that man is like … I mean, I simply can’t conceive of the type of consciousness that could occupy a physical body that could write that type of an E-mail. You know, it passeth my understanding.

A: STS love.

Q: Service to Self love. Well, boy, he must be exploding on himself, or imploding or whatever. OK. Is Infinity Publishing a … I don’t know how to ask this question. We found this place called Infinity Publishing, where it’s like print-on-demand, you know, have total control of the product, blah, blah, blah, and we think this is a pretty good way to go. Should we be focusing on this book deal right now, since we can do it this way, since we’ve been working on it. Should we continue to push on this or should we just push away and do something else?

A: Do it now!!!!

Q: Are we going to get any decent sales for our books?

A: Yes!!!!

Q: Are we going to be able to survive this flame war and attack from Vincent and Jay Weidner?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: They will open the door to fame.

Q: What? How can that be possible? Huh? (A) From slandering us?

A: No, but have contacts who will be interested.

Q: (A) They have … who? (L) They have contacts that will be interested. That’s weird. Well, what do you want to ask them? Anything in particular? Is B*** an STS agent?

A: No.

Q: Do we have an STS nasty agent on our list?

A: Yes.

Q: How many?

A: Two.

Q: Have they been there a long time or are they recent?

A: One each.

Q: (A) One what? (L) One each. One has been there a long time and one recent. Is anyone on the list forwarding the list mail to Vincent?

A: No.

Q: I didn’t think so. They’re all pretty **. (A) There are two different agents? (L) Yeah. Is J** R** involved in Satanism?

A: No.

Q: Who killed Jon Benet Ramsey? (Long wait, then laughter) (L) They won’t answer that … thought I’d slip that one in real quick. Well, was J** R** involved with that, as Vincent suggests?

A: Close.

Q: Do you mean he was close to it or involved with it?

A: Close to it.

Q: Was he involved with it in the sense of something that brought it about?

A: No.

Q: Hmmm. Let me see here. Let me think. Any questions you want to ask? There was something I was thinking about earlier today that I wanted to ask. Oh, so many questions I want to ask. I think about them, then when I sit in here, my mind goes completely blank. Well, do you have any messages for us tonight? Is there anything that we should be asking that we haven’t asked? Something around the corner that we don’t see that we ought to see, because we’re both so tired – we’ve been working so hard all day. Cut us some slack here. Consider it asked (long pause). Is B** an agent?

A: No.

Q: (Laughing) Who would I think of next? (A) ** check tape or notes. Couldn’t hear tape. (L) Oh, is M** an agent?

A: Yes.

Q: Is T** an agent?

A: No.

Q: Hmmm. (A) I think that it is good to have an agent, because if you have an agent, you are kind of … you know … (L) Yes. And they don’t **, and if the one we’ve got isn’t sending stuff out to Vincent, we’ll just keep him. (A) Right. Because ** agent ** we don’t know who that agent .. OK? (L) What happened to P**, by the way? God, she went off the deep end. (A) She .. the second time, right? (L) Yeah.

A: Racial obsession!

Q: (A) What? What? (L) Racial obsession. (A) What does that mean? (L) Well, she’s obsessed with this Nordic business. (A) Oh. (L) You know, she’s blonde and blue-eyed and she’s special – she’s chosen. (A) Oh. (L) She’s the one. (A) OK. And if she’s the one, and she’s not appreciated as the one … (L) She’s going to trash anyone who doesn’t appreciate her. Yes, that’s pretty much what S** was saying. P** has this mission and … (A) Um-hmm. (L) And she’s got to figure out what this mission is, and it’s to save our buns, I guess. Are we supposed to build some sort of technological device to take us into 4th density?

A: Possibly.

Q: Is the building of them that will do it or the devices themselves? I have a feeling it’s the building and the knowledge that’s going to do it.

A: Yes.

Q: Acquiring the knowledge to be able to do it puts you there. Awareness binds you to the reality. And I was reading this story by Plato about the cave today, and this whole thing is just so amazing. (A) What cave? (L) Plato’s Cave, you know, you know … the shadows on the wall and everything, and he really said some interesting things there – a completely analogy of 4th density, all right there … (A) Well, in fact, when the C;’s mention Rodin **, whatever they are. (L) Yeah .. (A) And ** (check tape). (L) Well, I saw this thing in the mirror, this gadget that shot out this beam or whatever, was that the true, you know, image of some kind of a time machine or time-transiting device, or was that something that Vincent was projecting into my mind?

A: Good catch.

Q: Yeah, when I saw that picture on his webpage, I knew he’d been projecting that. He was sitting there focusing on it so I would see it. I told you, I showed it to you, didn’t I? That was what I saw, that twisted up figure 8 thing. I couldn’t figure it out, what in the world it was. Is there an object buried in France I’m supposed to find?

A: Yes.

Q: Are we doing to find it?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell us what year we’ll be finding it.

A: Two (tape ended and was blank for some time) Then picked back up:

A: Holy grail.

Q: What is the holy grail? (Tape noise gets very, very loud here; can’t hear any voices)

Q: Huh. I don’t know if they were drawing something or just playing. Guess they’re not going to answer that one. Hmmm. Well, anything you want to ask? (A) Yes. It’s pretty fun to be talking, so we’re talking … it’s fun. So my question is, first, I want to know, should I continue friendship with this R** guy?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) Is it a good idea to write papers with him?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) All right.

A: He is knowledgeable in diverse ways. He will help you.

Q: (L) He doesn’t seem so knowledgeable right now, does he? (A) Well, he does more practical things. He has some things that I don’t know, but is able to control ** his mathematics. (L) OK. (A) And this is what I can do. Okay? (** Ark apparently asks question, but the background noise drowns it out).

A: Yes.

Q: (A) In other words, is that a kind of **? Oh, but I want to know why, because I have no idea why ** (L) Why the I Ching was so dead set against Motorola, boy …

A: Give it time and you will see.

Q: (L) Give it time and you will see. So … well, do we have any big explosions coming up in Israel? Do we have any volcanoes going off or any earthquakes or anything of real significance going on on the planet here?

A: The solar activity is slowing down.

Q: So I guess that kind of means no. Are we doing to get hit by a comet or an asteroid? (A) When? (L) When what? When are we going to get hit by a comet or an asteroid? They won’t tell us that. (A) Why not?

A: Knowledge does protect.

Q: (A) What? (L) Knowledge does protect. Well, is Vincent doing any of his workings to try to harm us? I mean, is he out there with his robes on, and drawing his pentagrams, and chanting, and calling to the Ophanic intelligences to slam lightning and thunder down upon our heads?

A: Close.

Q: Is he getting frustrated that it isn’t working?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) I want to know what is the effect of his relation to Lady Sekhmet? (L) What do you mean? (A) His wife. (L) Oh, you’re wondering how he’s getting along with her right now after he did are this stuff? Is she beginning to see through him in any way?

A: Yes.

Q: Is she furious with him for being a jerk (laughter)?

A: Yes.

Q: Was he deliberately trying to put the love bite on T**?

A: Yes.

Q: What were his motives?

A: Control.

Q: Well, I just … how many people are they going to have attend their conference?

A: 26.

Q: 26? (Laughter). All right. So .. yes, we’re sleepy

Tape stopped recording – nothing on Side 2, though it was indicated on the tape.

Transcript as Corrected by LauraAugust 10, 2001 Ark, Laura

Q: Hello?

A: Hello.

Q: And who do we have with us this evening?

A: Viaggmor.

Q: And where do you transmit through?

A: Cassiopaea.

Q: I would like to ask if we can ask some questions about Vincent Bridges and Jay Weidner.

A: Yes.

Q: What are their intentions toward us?

A: Bad.

Q: What are their plans?

A: Sip prormt

Q: (A) What? What? It doesn’t make sense. (L) That wasn’t a word. What are their plans?

A: Sip pout gag.

Q: (A) What? What do you … (L) Sip? Pout? Gag? (A) What is sip? (L) Sip means to take a drink of something – sip something. Sip? Out? Gag? What are they going to sip?

A: Knowledge.

Q: Oh, they took a sip of knowledge – or they’re going to take a sip of knowledge?

A: Yes.

Q: And this sip of knowledge is going to make them pout and gag? (A) What is pout? (L) To just … (demonstrates). Who are they going to get this sip of knowledge from that is going to make them pout and gag?

A: Lawyer.

Q: In other words, they’re going to find they do not have a leg to stand on?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, is Vincent really connected to these Satanic people?

A: Yes.

Q: Is he connected to them close to the inner circle?

A: No.

Q: Is he really an initiated Sufi?

A: No. Karma is coming.

Q: Do we have anything to be concerned about where they are concerned?

A: No.

Q: Do we need to take any further actions like putting more information on the website, any other things than what we are currently doing or have already done?

A: Yes.

Q: What?

A: Some more web info.

Q: (L) Should I put on the Perseus site what we have discovered about Vincent? A report on his claim to fame?

A: No.

Q: What, in specific, on the web?

A: Files make him sick move to gag.

Q: (L) In other words, I should put something else that would drive him to go to an attorney? Make him madder?

A: Yes.

Q: Should I post Jay Weidner’s letter from this morning?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) What’s the point? (L) To make him go to an attorney? I don’t know. What’s the point – I don’t get it? (A) What’s the point of making them go to an attorney? (L) Well, an attorney may tell them that they are crossing dangerously close over the lines of being subject to a lawsuit themselves.

A: Yes.

Q: And I could also post Vincent’s article or the letter he wrote himself about slander and libel.

A: Yes.

Q: Well, I don’t like the idea of doing any of those things. They make me feel yucky. So why are you telling me to do them?

A: How do you think Vincent will feel?

Q: Well, he’ll obviously feel more yucky that I will. I’ll think about it and see how I feel in the morning. See if they send any more blasts in the morning. (A) I think they said they will. If they decided to organize a conference, they will be in touch with these other people. And it takes their energy to organize. (L) They’re not organizing anything. Did you ever notice them organizing anything at all so far? They have no idea what they’re doing. All they’re doing is running a con-job. They’re taking people’s money. That’s all they’re doing. (A) Well, for me, it’s hard to believe. (L) That’s all they’re doing. Is all this just a con job to put themselves in a position to take people’s money?

A: In part.

Q: Well, I just can’t imagine what was going through that man’s mind when he wrote that E-mail. I mean, that man is like … I mean, I simply can’t conceive of the type of consciousness that could occupy a physical body that could write that type of an E-mail. You know, it passes my understanding.

A: STS love.

Q: Service to Self love. Well, boy, he must be exploding on himself, or imploding or whatever. OK. Is Infinity Publishing a … I don’t know how to ask this question. We found this place called Infinity Publishing, where it’s like print-on-demand. We’ll have total control of the product, and we think this is a pretty good way to go. Should we be focusing on this book deal right now, since we can do it this way, since we’ve been working on it. Should we continue to push on this or should we just back away and do something else?

A: Do it now!!!!

Q: Are we going to get any decent sales for our books?

A: Yes!!!!

Q: Are we going to be able to survive this flame war and attack from Vincent and Jay Weidner?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: They will open the door to fame.

Q: What?! HOW can that be possible? Huh? (A) From slandering us?!

A: No, but have contacts who will be interested.

Q: (A) They have … who? (L) They have contacts that will be interested. That’s weird. Well, what do you want to ask them? Anything in particular? Is B** an STS agent [as suggested by T** B** and Vincent Bridges]?

A: No.

Q: Do we have an STS nasty agent on our list?

A: Yes.

Q: How many?

A: Two.

Q: Have they been there a long time or are they recent?

A: One each.

Q: (A) One what? (L) One each. One has been there a long time and one recent. Is anyone on the list forwarding the list mail to Vincent?

A: No.

Q: I didn’t think so. They’re all pretty good. (A) There are two different agents? (L) Yeah. Is J** R** involved in Satanism [as claimed by Vincent Bridges]?

A: No.

Q: Who killed Jon Benet Ramsey? (Long wait, then laughter) (L) They won’t answer that … thought I’d slip that one in real quick. Well, was J** R** involved with that, as Vincent suggests?

A: Close.

Q: Do you mean he was close to it or involved with it?

A: Close to it.

Q: Was he involved with it in the sense of something that brought it about?

A: No.

Q: (L to A)Any questions you want to ask? There was something I was thinking about earlier today that I wanted to ask. Oh, so many questions I want to ask. I think about them, then when I sit in here, my mind goes completely blank. Well, do you have any messages for us tonight? Is there anything that we should be asking that we haven’t asked? Something around the corner that we don’t see that we ought to see? Because we’re both so tired – we’ve been working so hard all day. Cut us some slack here. Consider it asked (long pause). Is B** an agent?

A: No. Q: (L) Oh, is M** an agent?

A: Yes.

Q: Is T** an agent?

A: No.

Q: A) I think that it is good to have an agent. Because if you have an agent, you kind of know. (L) And they don’t send another one in. And if the one we’ve got isn’t sending stuff out to Vincent, we’ll just keep him. (A) Right. Because you see, an agent will know who’s an agent. (L) What happened to P**, by the way? God, she went off the deep end! (A) She did it the second time, right? (L) Yeah.

A: Racial obsession!

Q: (A) What? What? (L) Racial obsession. (A) What does that mean? (L) Well, she’s obsessed with this Nordic business. (A) Oh. (L) You know, she’s blonde and blue-eyed and she’s special – she’s chosen! (A) Oh. (L) She’s the one! (A) OK. And if she’s the one, and if she’s not appreciated as the one … (L) She’s going to trash anybody who doesn’t appreciate her. Yes, that’s pretty much what S** was saying. P** has this mission and she’s got to figure out what this mission is, and it’s to save our buns, I guess. Are we supposed to build some sort of technological device to take us into 4th density?

A: Possibly.

Q: Is it going to be the building of them that will do it, or the devices themselves? I have a feeling it’s the building and the knowledge that’s going to do it.

A: Yes.

Q: Acquiring the knowledge to be able to do it puts you there. Awareness binds you to the reality. And I was reading this story by Plato about the cave today, and this whole thing is just so amazing. (A) What cave? (L) Plato’s Cave, you know. You know,the shadows on the wall and everything. And he really said some interesting things there – a completely analogy of 4th density. All right then … (A) Well, in fact, when Tony Smith mentions Rodin coils – whatever they are – and toroidal structures – they will probaly be important at some point. (L) Yeah .. (L) When, I saw this thing in the mirror, this gadget that shot out this beam or whatever, was that the true image of some kind of a time machine or time-transiting device, or was that something that Vincent was projecting into my mind?

A: Good catch.

Q: Yeah, when I saw that picture on his webpage, I knew he’d been projecting that. He was sitting there focusing on it so I would see it. I told you, I showed it to you, didn’t I? That was what I saw, that twisted up figure 8 thing. [laughter] I couldn’t figure it out, what in the world it was. Is there an object buried in France I’m supposed to find?

A: Yes.

Q: Are we going to find it?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell us what year we’ll be finding it.

A: Two (tape ended and was blank for some time then picked back up with a segment of what sounded like a heartbeat)

Q: What is the object?

A: Holy grail.

Q: What is the holy grail?

[Tape noise gets very, very loud here. Planchette was spinning around and drawing figures.]

Q: Huh. I don’t know if they were drawing something or just playing. Guess they’re not going to answer that one. Well, anything you want to ask? (A) Yes. It’s pretty fun to be talking, so we’re talking … it’s fun. So my question is, first, I want to know, should I continue friendship with this R*** guy?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) Is it a good idea to write papers with him?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) All right.

A: He is knowledgeable in diverse ways. He will help you.

Q: (L) He doesn’t seem so knowledgeable right now, does he? (A) Well, in these more practical things, he has some things that I don’t know. But he is not able to control his mathematics. And this is what I can do. But he is doing things that are practical.

A: Yes.

Q: (A) In other words, they are kind of important? Oh, but I want to know why, because I have no idea why [our question about] contacting Motorola was bad? (L) Why the I Ching was so dead set against Motorola, boy … [laughter]

A: Give it time and you will see.

Q: (L) Give it time and you will see. So … well, do we have any big explosions coming up in Israel? Do we have any volcanoes going off or any earthquakes or anything of real significance going on on the planet here?

A: The solar activity is slowing down.

Q: So I guess that kind of means no. Are we doing to get hit by a comet or an asteroid? (A) When? (L) When what? When are we going to get hit by a comet or an asteroid? (L to A) They won’t tell us that! (A) Why not?

A: Soon!

Q: Yeah, well soon to you guys could be in the next millennium! [laughter] (A) Soon! “Money will come soon!” (L) Yeah! What exactly do you guys mean by “soon?” (A) Eight days? Six days? They are having problems with time! [Laughter.]

A: Money will come very soon!!

Q: Do we need to play the lottery for that? [Laughter.] (A) We know what to do. We are not sure about putting these things on the web. Probably we can put something. (L) Yeah. I think we ought to just drive him over the edge. Let’s push him harder, just for the fun of it. [Laughter.] Knowledge protects, so we will put the knowledge out there.

A: Knowledge does protect.

Q: (L) Well, is Vincent doing any of his “workings” to try to harm us? I mean, is he out there with his robes on, and drawing his pentagrams, and chanting, and calling to the Ophanic intelligences to slam lightning and thunder down upon our heads? A: Close. Q: Is he getting frustrated that it isn’t working?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) I want to know what is the effect of his history on his relation to Lady Sekhmet? (L) What do you mean? (A) His wife. (L) Oh, you’re wondering how he’s getting along with her right now after he did all of this stuff? Is she beginning to see through him in any way?

A: Yes.

Q: Is she furious with him for being a jerk [laughter]?

A: Yes.

Q: Was he deliberately trying to put the love bite on T**?

A: Yes.

Q: What were his motives?

A: Control.

Q: Well, I just … how many people are they going to have attend their conference?

A: 26.

Q: 26? [Laughter]. All right. So…

A: Goodbye.

Q: Yes, we’re sleepy

End of Session

Aside from blocks of text that she simply did not hear, or which may have been unclear on the copied tape, the reader may notice that Linda failed on a couple of occasions to make breaks between the words of the C’s and the words of the individuals present, and also, on a couple of occasions, attributed words of those present to the C s or vice versa. She also included “false starts” which we always exclude. These occur for a number of reasons. The C’s may start out to say one thing and then indicate that it is “cancelled” or *I* may call out the wrong letters and then correct myself on tape saying something like “nope, wrong letter,” or something. This person had actually transcribed those remarks as part of the transcript! Now, it is also true that, in some cases, the C’s will actually correct me, and I have never seen any reason to include all the correcting that goes on in the transcripts. Those people who have actually attended sessions have a very good idea of the problem because they are put on the spot to take notes, to keep up with the C’s, and it is funny and sometimes embarassing to people to realize how poor their listening skills really are. My objective in presenting the transcripts is to make it as easy to read what was conveyed, after determining the accuracy, than to burden the reader with all the “spilled coffee” and mouse droppings, as Ark puts it. It is not, after all, “Holy Writ.”

In any event, again, I had to fix and edit the sessions to make it readable. This is normal in one respect or another. Indeed, in some cases, the questions are clear and well-formed which results in answers that don’t take 20 questions to get to, and no editing at all is required. What was also telling was that even after reading hundreds of sessions, she was unable to reproduce the exact Q: and A: format which was developed for very specific reasons, including ease of global formatting and text searching. Until you have spent years transcribing and working with this material, you have no idea of the difficulties it presents.

Now, no doubt this individual kept copies of what she had transcribed and is perfectly convinced that what she typed was exactly what was on the tape despite the fact that she had explained that she was unable to complete the transcribing (and I WAS able to complete it from the original tape). It was, and at the same time it wasn’t for the reasons given above. It had not been cleaned up, formatted, false starts removed for clarity, and so on. These things are normal parts of the experiment, justified by very good reasons and experience, and great care is always taken to retain the MEANING of the material while, at the same time, making it easy for the audience to follow. Not everyone is experienced in dealing with raw data. Bottom line is, the text is clean, and the MEANING is fully conserved and I have the tape and can prove it. But it was then (and still is) very hard for me to tell someone who has volunteered to do something to help me, that their help is no help at all, that in fact, they have messed up and what they have produced is not only incorrectly formatted (one wonders why THAT was a problem?) but normal rules of transcription were not even utilized. Anyone who has ever done medical transcription (I have) knows what those rules are. But, I didn’t want to upset her the way the other person who had this problem had been upset, so, I just politely thanked her for her efforts, and didn’t ask her to do any more transcribing. That is my fault. I probably should have told her at the time that she did not transcribe either accurately or correctly. But she had so many issues going on in her life that I didn’t want to burden her with any criticism at all since, in spite of the burdens she was carrying, she had been willing to help out.

Now, I would also like to add that, in more recent times, I have been going back over both the original tapes and notes, comparing them, making sure of accuracy of transcription on MY part, and annotating them so as to get rid of as many errors as possible. In some cases, I am adding footnotes that include the “false starts” and corrections, but this text will be for specialists and not the general reader. This is an overwhelming task, to say the least, because of the many hundreds of pages of text, and will take some time. And yes, I HAVE found errors of transcription on my part. There aren’t many, but they do exist, as do typos.

In some cases, we have had to ask the C’s questions about previous sessions to clarify places where both tape and notes are lacking. We aren’t perfect, and sometimes somebody fails to turn the tape recorder back on after a break and entire segments of discussion with the C’s are lost. Usually, we have notes to reconstruct the session, but not always.

There are also cases when the C’s tell me something and instruct me NOT to publish it, that it is for my own information. They also will occasionally make suggestions about how to present certain material that does not include the exact question and answer sequence that was gone through in order for me to learn it.

I have also had to consider the evident fact that, in many cases, the C’s have said things “in code” in earlier stages, that I later, with additional information and training, had to then decode!

Now, having read all of the above, let us look again at what “OPie” has written:

From: OPie: I was also one of those who transcribed the original sessions. And, yes, when they were published on the website they had been changed. One was changed considerably. She had been charged with this by others before, and until I saw it happen first-hand, I didn’t believe it was true. I figured she changed punctuation or corrected things, but that’s not what happened with the sessions I transcribed. […]

Now the problem with this is that if she changed the two that I transcribed, how many more of the sessions were tampered with? If you find one piece of work that’s bogus, how can you trust the rest? […]

Aside from the fact that this individual misses a major point that I, as “Myself in the Future,” am perfectly within the protocol of translator when I format the transcripts according to a set criteria, or insert explanatory words. Indeed, the raw data does exist, but it is just that: raw data. What’s more, it is my work, my experiment and, if you like, my higher consciousness. If this individual feels that I am “cheating” when I correct or edit for ease of reading, then she never understood the C’s or the experiment at all.

What seems to be true is that this individual has a sort of flatland view of the C’s experiment and it is very difficult to add depth to it. Certainly, if one is dealing with deliberate falsification of FACTS, there could be an accusation of “bogus.” But let us remember what we are dealing with here: years of work and experimentation, and further refining, research and feedback. We are NOT dealing with Holy Writ. We are dealing with translation of ideas and developing understanding.

The individual in question made a choice, somewhere along the way, that she wanted “Holy Writ” and then goes through some intellectual exertion to justify this a priori “like” or decision. The terminus a quo of this individual is, apparently, a desire to “believe in” something. She wants God to speak, and speak clearly and correctly from the beginning, and if he/she doesn’t, then all is garbage. There is no consideration of the need for expanding the receptacle to accommodate the mysteries, or the necessity for a translator to improve skills and pass that added improvement on to the audience.

The chief problem is that this former member always took her present self as a competent judge of how the universe should be. She does not seem to comprehend that, in an experiment, we are seeking to expand knowledge and it requires work and self-development and networking and input of data from others. Indeed, we have to consider ourselves somewhat competent at something in the beginning, that is, provisionally competent, but then, we must never consider ourselves unconditionally competent for all things. This relates to something that Richard Muller has written about Science:

Scientific training doesn’t keep your senses from fooling you, but a good scientist doesn’t accept the impressions his senses deliver. He uses them as a starting point, and then he checks, and double checks. He looks for additional evidence, and for consistency among his measurements. A scientist differs from other people in that he knows how easily he is fooled, and he goes through procedures to compensate.

This error of taking herself as unconditionally competent to judge actually seems to be the root of her transcribing (and other) issues. She had a priori beliefs and assumptions, and certainly this influenced what she was hearing. It is also interesting that this is the very same factor that has been at the root of those few individuals who have left the cass group, now QFS.

Members of QFS have witnessed this battle between subjectivity and objectivity several times, but, it can be said that, until the individual engages it themselves, they cannot know the “life or death” taste of it. When the emotional reading errors “win” and the individual believe the lie about their unconditional competence, the downhill slide then is rather rapid. Gurdjieff described this phenomenon quite accurately:

“It often happens that, having stopped before some barrier, usually the smallest and the most simple, people turn against the work, against the teacher, and against other members of the group, and accuse them of the very thing that is becoming revealed to them in themselves.

“Sometimes they repent later and blame themselves, then they again blame others, then they repent once more, and so on. But there is nothing that shows up a man better than his attitude towards the work and the teacher after he has left it. Sometimes such tests are arranged intentionally. A man is placed in such a position that he is obliged to leave and he is fully justified in having a grievance either against the teacher or against some other person. And then he is watched to see how he will behave. A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man’s nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?

What we have seen, again and again, is the barrier of taking oneself too seriously, and the firm belief that one can acutally think with a flawed or damaged reading instrument. What is astonishing is the fact that people, with lifetime track records of failures and unhappiness continue to think that they can actually think and make accurate assessments about the world. They never stop to consider the fact that the wide variance between their dreams of what they COULD have accomplished in their lives, and what they actually have done, could relate in some way to “reading errors,” that they do not read their environment, their reality, accurately. And the only way to fix reading errors is in a group with frequent shocks to the “reading instrument.”

Each person’s circumstances will be specific to them, but the progress up the staircase is always one step at a time, and the first step is this initial struggle to overcome the incredible control of one’s emotional subjectivity so as to be able to see your mechanical self through the eyes of others on the same path in order to get an objective view. This is crucial and is, as Gurdjieff described it: the first initiation. To be able to assess the reading errors of one’s own physical being, is the thing that enables a person to measure themselves, without which ability, they can never measure anything else. The degree of struggle probably has a lot to do with the level of distortion of the centers which depends on many factors, including the person’s fundamental make-up put together with influences from family, society, and so on.

In this sense, the role of what we call “The Mirror,” group input, which is adapted from the work of Boris Mouravieff, is absolutely crucial.

This brings me to Robbie Burns wonderful little poem: “To A Louse On seeing one on a Lady’s bonnet at Church.”

When we read this little masterpiece, we can almost see the louse crawling in the unconscious lady’s bonnet, a lady we are brought to understand gives herself some airs and her illusions of grandeur are crawling with lice.

Burns inserts a bit of social satire in the piece with the exaggerated indignation he uses to describe the contrast between the vulgarity of the louse and the social pretensions of the lady. Burns outrage is actually mockery of the lady herself which we learn when he suddenly drops his pose of disturbed onlooker and names the lady, a simple country girl: Jenny. At this point, his remarks become somewhat pitying because he is telling us something very deep about that part of her that could be real and not pretentious and self-righteous, but how difficult it is to awaken it:

O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An’ foolish notion
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us
An’ ev’n Devotion.

For those of you who might have trouble translating this dialect, it is simply saying that the gift of being able to see ourselves as others see us would save us from many errors and foolish thoughts and ridiculous or hurtful behavior and we would most certainly cease being devoted to those things that shore up and support our illusions about ourselves.

In recent times, I have pondered this issue of how people react to what they perceive as “criticism” and how some people can “get it” and some people simply cannot. This latter type, as soon as they face the pooled observations of the group which point out to them their “blunders” and “foolish notions” and “airs in dress an’ gait and Devotion,” withdraw immediately into the “right man syndrome.”

They are “right,” everyone else is wrong, their case is special and unique, and that is that.

They will argue and nitpick and so on. And we know what this comes from: the energy of the emotional center has been aroused and usurped by the intellect to fuel its frenzied and frantic need to “self-calm” They MUST stop this “bad feeling” at all costs, and if the only way they can stop it is to make everything and everyone out there “wrong” about them. As Mouravieff wrote:

“When it comes to the other centres, the misuse of the negative parts takes much more insidious forms, which entail more serious consequences for our minds as well as our bodies. That is how the negative part of the intellectual centre nourishes jealousy, afterthoughts, hypocrisy, suspicion, treachery, etc. The negative part of the emotional centre receives all the disagreeable impressions and serves as a vehicle for negative emotions, for which the keyboard is very large, ranging from melancholy to hate. We shall have occasion to go deeper into the problem of negative emotions. [Such emotion] represents one of the major obstacles to esoteric evolution.”

What seems to be so is that it is generally individuals who have been “disenfranchised” or who feel helpless and at the mercy of the forces of life – whether they manifest through other people or random events – are those who are most likely to erect such barriers against negative emotions. They feel acutely their own inability to have an effect in the world, and they turn their creativity inward to create and maintain their illusions, their “blunders” and “foolish notions” and “airs in dress an’ gait and Devotion.”

Self-calming illusions thrive on certain mechanical characteristics of human beings. The first characteristic is “absolute certainty.” In this sense, it is a sort of terminal consciousness in which development is stopped because real growth and development includes, of necessity, uncertainty and risk.

The gift of being able to see ourselves as others see us would save us from many errors and foolish thoughts and ridiculous behavior , and we would most certainly cease being devoted to those things that shore up and support our illusions about ourselves. Gurdjieff discussed the problem with some specificity in Ouspensky’s “In Search of The Miraculous”:

Only two people dropped off who, exactly as though through some kind of magic as it seemed to us, suddenly ceased to understand anything and saw in everything that G. said misunderstanding on his part, and, on the part of the rest, a lack of, sympathy and feeling. This attitude, at first mistrustful and suspicious and then openly hostile to almost all of us, coming from nobody knew where and full of strange and quite unexpected accusations, astonished us very much.

“We made everything a secret”; we failed to tell them what G. had spoken of in their absence. We told tales about them to G., trying to make him distrust them. We recounted to him all talks with them, leading him constantly into error by distorting all the facts and striving to present everything in a false light. We had given G. wrong impressions about them, making him see everything far from as it was.

At the same time G. himself had “completely changed,” had become altogether different from what he used to be before, had become harsh, requiring, had lost all feeling and all interest for individual people, had ceased to demand the truth from people; that he preferred to have round him people such as were afraid to tell him the truth, who were hypocrites, who threw flowers at one another and at the same time spied on the others.

We were amazed at all these and similar talks. They brought with them immediately a kind of entirely new atmosphere which up to this time we had not had. And it was particularly strange because precisely at this time most of us were in a very emotional state and were particularly well disposed towards these two protesting members of our group.

We tried many times to talk to G. about them. He laughed very much when we told him that in their opinion we always gave him “wrong impressions” of them.

“How they value the work,” he said, “and what a miserable idiot I am from their point of view; how easily I am deceived! You see that they have ceased to understand the most important thing. In the work the teacher of the work cannot be deceived. This is a law which proceeds from what has been said about knowledge and being. I may deceive you if I want to. But you cannot deceive me. If it were otherwise you would not learn from me and I would have to learn from you.”

“How must we speak to them and how can we help them to come back to the group?” some of us asked G.

“Not only can you do nothing,” G. said to them, “but you ought not to try because by such attempts you will destroy the last chance they have of understanding and seeing themselves. It is always very difficult to come back. And it must be an absolutely voluntary decision without any sort of persuasion or constraint. You should understand that everything you have heard about me and yourselves are attempts at self-justification, endeavors to blame others in order to feel that they are in the right. It means more and more lying. It must be destroyed and it can only be destroyed through suffering. If it was difficult for them to see themselves before, it will be ten times more difficult now.”

“How could this have happened?” others asked him. “Why did their attitude towards all of us and towards you change so abruptly and unexpectedly?”

“It is the first case for you,” said G., “and therefore it appears strange to you, but later on you will see that it happens very often and you will see that it always takes place in the same way. The principal reason for it is that it is impossible to sit between two stools. And people usually think that they can sit between two stools, that is, that they can acquire the new and preserve the old; they do not think this consciously of course but it comes to the same thing.

“And what is it that they most of all desire to preserve? First the right to have their own valuation of ideas and of people, that is, that which is more harmful for them than anything else. They are fools and they already know it, that is to say, they realized it at one time. For this reason they came to learn. But they forget all about this the next moment; they are already bringing into the work their own paltry and subjective attitude; they begin to pass judgment on me and on everyone else as though they were able to pass judgment on anything. And this is immediately reflected in their attitude towards the ideas and towards what I say. Already ‘they accept one thing’ and ‘they do not accept another thing’; with one thing they agree, with another they disagree; they trust me in one thing, in another thing they do not trust me.

“And the most amusing part is that they imagine they are able ‘to work’ under such conditions, that is, without trusting me in everything and without accepting everything. In actual fact this is absolutely impossible. By not accepting something or mistrusting something they immediately invent something of their own in its place. ‘Gagging’ begins – new theories and new explanations which have nothing in common either with the work or with what I have said. Then they begin to find faults and inaccuracies in everything that I say or do and in everything that others say or do. From this moment I now begin to speak of things about which I have no knowledge and even of things of which I have no conception, but which they know and understand much better than I do; all the other members of the group are fools, idiots. And so on, and so on, like a barrel organ. When a man says something on these lines I already know all he will say later on. And you also will know by the consequences. And it is amusing that people can see this in relation to others. But when they themselves do crazy things they at once cease to see it in relation to themselves. This is a law. It is difficult to climb the hill but very easy to slide down it. They even feel no embarrassment in talking in such a manner either with me or with other people. And chiefly they think that this can be combined with some kind of ‘work.’ They do not even want to understand that when a man reaches this notch his little song has been sung. […]

“A man may think for a long time and quite sincerely that he wants to work and even make great efforts, and then he may throw up everything and even definitely go against the work; justify himself, invent various fabrications, deliberately ascribe a wrong meaning to what he has heard, and so on.”

“What happens to them for this?” asked one of the audience.

“Nothing-what could happen to them?” said G. “They are their own punishment. And what punishment could be worse?

I have had to work very hard, to study, to develop, to expand my knowledge base of the “language” I am attempting to translate. I’m not perfect – no one is – but I give it my best, and I submit myself to the network to catch errors. When some new data comes in and suggests that changes are necessary, I am willing to make those changes. I don’t feel that I have to be “right” all the time, and I certainly do not insist that “just because the C’s said it, it must be so.” In fact, as I have often said, if the C’s say it, it needs to be checked.

Translators must be trained; they must not only know the other language, they must know how to regulate the degree of fidelity with the source text, how to tell what degree and type of fidelity is appropriate in specific use contexts, how to receive and deliver translations, how to find help with terminology, and so on. All of this suggests a long period of training and preparation. A Translator channel is someone who has studied these things, who knows these things, and who, most importantly, governs their channeling-translating behavior in terms of this knowledge. This knowledge is ideological. It is controlled by Cosmic ideological norms.

To know, via reason, what those Cosmic norms prescribe and act upon them is to submit to the original intent. To become a translator-channel of truly Higher Cosmic Consciousness is to be hailed as a translator by the “invisible hand” of the Universe.

If you want to become a translator-channel, you must submit to the translator’s role of learning the language in an expert way; you must submit to being directed by what the Cosmic ideological norms inform you is the true spirit of the source author, and to convey that spirit unchanged to the target language.

I have certainly had to deal with the fact that, in the early days of the C’s experiment, I, too, had assumptions that had to be laid aside, and most definitely, in my particular case, this very well may have influenced the “translation.” I have endeavored to correct these errors, to restore the true spirit of the source author. That is my job as the translator of the material, as the presenter of the information to the “target audience.” And I will continue to do it as I see fit, as I am directed to do by the “invisible hand” of the Universe.

Related Articles: