Session 30 September 1994

[palestine]

Hello, I have a very basic question in regard of this bit:

Q: (L) How many years ago did the flood of Noah occur?

A: 12656. (10,662 B.C.)

I would like to understand what the 10662 BC date precisely refers to.

If I am not mistaking, the flood of Noah refers to the water drop, by Mars, on the planet. It has been said that the water was dropped "in the form of snow". It was then "gradually released, as water, in the oceans".

C's say, in another session:

Session 22 October 1994

A: It is a very broad representation. It simply means that there was a cataclysmic event that did envelop the whole planet at that time and that those that were ready to experience that as part of their soul development without exiting the body, were warned ahead of time. But not by trying to manipulate events, but by simply allowing faith to let them acquire knowledge and being naturally drawn into position to experience what they needed to experience to survive the event.

This suggests that the flood of Noah - so the 10662 event(?) - will be best understood as "a cataclysm" that did "envelop the planet".
Thinking a bit of this last bit, indicates that the flood of Noah is a traumatizing event & a cataclysm.

The 10662 event may refer to:

• the apparition of Mars, before it started dropping its water
• the water drop in form of snow
• the gradual release of the water
• all three motions

Thank you!

 

[axj]

The 10662 event may refer to:

• the apparition of Mars, before it started dropping its water
• the water drop in form of snow
• the gradual release of the water
• all three motions

That planetary cataclysm had at least three parts if you look in other sessions as well.

Here is a summary (10900 BC should probably be replaced with 10662 BC):

Post in thread 'Atlantis'

Aug 6, 2025

To sum up what I understand now about the timeline of the final destruction of Atlantis (only from the C's sessions):

10900 BC
- comet cluster impacts
- physical pole shift and axis shift of the Earth
- the plasma discharge from Mars probably caused the gravitational and other changes
- probably the time when the lithosphere became more "plastic" and more easily "reshapeable" (accelerated continental drift?)

40 years later
- deluge of water from Mars
- collapse of the water vapor canopy

Unknown year, enough time for Atlantis to recover after the comets and...

• axj

• 

 

[palestine]

That planetary cataclysm had at least three parts if you look in other sessions as well.

Here is a summary (10900 BC should probably be replaced with 10662 BC):

Post in thread 'Atlantis'

Aug 6, 2025

To sum up what I understand now about the timeline of the final destruction of Atlantis (only from the C's sessions):

10900 BC
- comet cluster impacts
- physical pole shift and axis shift of the Earth
- the plasma discharge from Mars probably caused the gravitational and other changes
- probably the time when the lithosphere became more "plastic" and more easily "reshapeable" (accelerated continental drift?)

40 years later
- deluge of water from Mars
- collapse of the water vapor canopy

Unknown year, enough time for Atlantis to recover after the comets and...

• axj

• 

Thank you very much @axj

I have been trying, indeed, to produce a chronology such as the one you did. I read all those posts and it's very interesting.

I am trying to get the basic dates a bit set. Please don't laugh, but yeah, I have been stumbling upon this session:

(Pierre) Let's shift to a more cheerful topic: cometary bombardments. So we discussed the death of the woolly mammoths due to a cometary bombardment. I would like to know about the transfer of water from Mars to planet Earth, when did it occur relative to this cometary bombardment? How many years before, how many years after?

A: Within 40 years more or less.

Q: (Pierre) So cometary bombardment, and then Mars water transfer?

And so I was picturing:

10702 - cometary bombardment
10662 - Mars interaction

Rather than:

10662: comet impacts
10622: deluge

So you would assert, with certainty, that the second model is the correct one? Sincerely asking!

Too: the 10900 date refers to "the final destruction of Atlantis" - and it has been said that it was because of the crystals. And so, if I may ask: why wouldn't you automatically set the crystals under 10900? I feel that this would even be the only event, that could be written under 10900 with certitude?

I trust that you have been studying those matter extensively. Here, I am trying to double-check what can be said with certainty, and what cannot. Thanks for your thoughts if you'd like to. I feel that we are deducing things, but that it cannot pass the test at 100%. Just a feeling, I may be wrong, etc.

And I don't imply or go the way that the whole picture is wrong - very much the opposite.

Thank you

 

[axj]

And so I was picturing:

10702 - cometary bombardment
10662 - Mars interaction

Yes, that makes more sense since the flood (water from Mars) occured about 40 years after the comets, according to the C's. We also do not know whether the 400-500 phantom years are included in these numbers, so the exact dating is quite messy.

And so, if I may ask: why wouldn't you automatically set the crystals under 10900?

The C's said that Atlantis recovered somewhat after the comet impacts and the Mars interaction before being destroyed by the crystals.

I have been trying, indeed, to produce a chronology

There is a thread on this topic as well:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/threads/cassiopaean-chronology-cosmology.55314/

 

[palestine]

Thank you very much @axj for the answers.

We also do not know whether the 400-500 phantom years are included in these numbers, so the exact dating is quite messy.

I hope that it's not the case. This would make it difficult indeed. What I see here is that the C's provided dates. I had the inkling that if you were right about phantom years, it would be because of the session date (correct me if I am wrong!): the session took place in 1994, so that phantom years would act at this level. (That's because the C's provided plain dates - 10662, 10900, so the phatom years would only be possibly acting on the session's date).

The C's said that Atlantis recovered somewhat after the comet impacts and the Mars interaction before being destroyed by the crystals.

Thank you. This left me confused, because if the flood took place in 10662, the crystal event ("after the flood") have been dated 10900. Well, you see the idea!

In the session, it's said "approximately", "from 50K to 10900". I am left thinking that the 10900 would be approximate. Unless you have another idea?

There is a thread on this topic as well:

I have been searching this thread, too, and I could not find more "certainties" in regard of the exact dates. From what I have been noticing, the 10662, the 10900, the +40years - have been extensively studied by you guys. I am grateful about it, because even if we cannot set the exact dates, you have been studying all the steps.

My feeling is that all that could be found about it, was done, and that there are still uncertainties. That's why I am studying this right now. Well - with the hope of being able to lay down precise answers, in order to get an even better view of the events.

I was hoping that we could be able to build a more exact sequence for the Younger Dryas. And so, thank you for your answers. You and others (such as Gaby) are researching topics that are too technical for me. The axis tilts, the orbits, etc. I don't have knowledge about those elements. So, overall, I am left with what is accessible to my mind... I end up studying the basics: the dates, the comets and the water dump. So thank you again! Let's keep those studies fresh!

 

[Thassa]

Q: He [Jesus] lived his entire life in Palestine?

A: Near. In that general area. The Bible is not entirely accurate.

_________________________

I found this answer an oddity.
Wasn't Jesus Christ actually Julius Caesar?
"Near [Palestine]. In that general area" doesn't suggest anywhere near Rome or Western Europe.

 

[Nienna]

Q: He [Jesus] lived his entire life in Palestine?

A: Near. In that general area. The Bible is not entirely accurate.

_________________________

I found this answer an oddity.
Wasn't Jesus Christ actually Julius Caesar?
"Near [Palestine]. In that general area" doesn't suggest anywhere near Rome or Western Europe.

If you have read through the other sessions, and the Wave (as you stated in your introduction that you have done), you may have noticed that especially in the beginning of the sessions the Cs were very careful of not infringing on the free will of those present at the sessions. There was a very definite bias towards Jesus being real. So the Cs were very cagey in their answers to these questions.

In the 9 June 1996, Laura mentions this:

Q: (L) It was said that he was the priest king of Salem, which became Jerusalem, and that he had neither father nor mother, and that he came into being by his own will. Are any of these parts of the story correct?

A: No.

Q: (L) D4's next question: what did Paul say during his out of body experience, and why were these things not 'lawful for a man to speak?'

A: Jesus said: "Give to Caesar that which is Caesars."

Q: (L) How does that apply to this question?

A: Ponder for learning.

Laura’s note: This last exchange above takes on an all-new meaning in light of the recent (2013) discoveries that point to Julius Caesar having been the real “Jesus”.

fwiw

Added: Also, the Cs have very strongly told us that we need to research and think for ourselves and know that Laura is a very inquisitive person, she would take their comment that the Bible is not entirely true to get her to want to research the Bible and find out what was not entirely true about the Bible. And it worked extremely well.

 

[Thassa]

If you have read through the other sessions, and the Wave (as you stated in your introduction that you have done), you may have noticed that especially in the beginning of the sessions the Cs were very careful of not infringing on the free will of those present at the sessions. There was a very definite bias towards Jesus being real. So the Cs were very cagey in their answers to these questions.

In the 9 June 1996, Laura mentions this:


fwiw

Added: Also, the Cs have very strongly told us that we need to research and think for ourselves and know that Laura is a very inquisitive person, she would take their comment that the Bible is not entirely true to get her to want to research the Bible and find out what was not entirely true about the Bible. And it worked extremely well.

Yes. On the be

If you have read through the other sessions, and the Wave (as you stated in your introduction that you have done), you may have noticed that especially in the beginning of the sessions the Cs were very careful of not infringing on the free will of those present at the sessions. There was a very definite bias towards Jesus being real. So the Cs were very cagey in their answers to these questions.

In the 9 June 1996, Laura mentions this:


fwiw

Added: Also, the Cs have very strongly told us that we need to research and think for ourselves and know that Laura is a very inquisitive person, she would take their comment that the Bible is not entirely true to get her to want to research the Bible and find out what was not entirely true about the Bible. And it worked extremely well.

That's true.
On the beginning of the session that bias was stated.
I didn't know they would give wrong answers on purpose just to respect beliefs. I rather reckoned that, in such cases, they would just refrain from answering.

Maybe I thought so because in the first sessions they had already spoken plenty of gory things, making me think they were already set on speaking any uncomfortable truths, such as the lizard's pleasure for torture.

 

[palestine]

Yes. On the be



That's true.
On the beginning of the session that bias was stated.
I didn't know they would give wrong answers on purpose just to respect beliefs. I rather reckoned that, in such cases, they would just refrain from answering.

Maybe I thought so because in the first sessions they had already spoken plenty of gory things, making me think they were already set on speaking any uncomfortable truths, such as the lizard's pleasure for torture.

When given a precise date for confirmation, it happened that the C's answered "close". Much later, it is discovered that they calculate from a different perspective and that the gap was huge

But their statements weren't "false".

"In the general area"... I may raise stupor with my take, but I wouldn't think it would be wrong than to use a 1000km flexibility.

Well, if we picture an extremely knowledgeable person (a C), busy with many complicated things, and that we would ask him... "Where was Jesus located? Palestine?"

Answer would be, from a disinterested (bored, busy,...) person: "well... more or less.. that's the general area"..."a starting point"... "Not Greenland"

Does it make sense? Just trying to make sense of your inquiry with something that would make sense.

 

[Thassa]

When given a precise date for confirmation, it happened that the C's answered "close". Much later, it is discovered that they calculate from a different perspective and that the gap was huge

But their statements weren't "false".

"In the general area"... I may raise stupor with my take, but I wouldn't think it would be wrong than to use a 1000km flexibility.

Well, if we picture an extremely knowledgeable person (a C), busy with many complicated things, and that we would ask him... "Where was Jesus located? Palestine?"

Answer would be, from a disinterested (bored, busy,...) person: "well... more or less.. that's the general area"..."a starting point"... "Not Greenland"

Does it make sense? Just trying to make sense of your inquiry with something that would make sense.

I guess "general area" was referring to the Roman Empire area of influence.

Thus, "near" to Palestine in terms of political influence, not of space distance.

I guess that's it

 

[Liliea]

I found this answer an oddity.
Wasn't Jesus Christ actually Julius Caesar?
"Near [Palestine]. In that general area" doesn't suggest anywhere near Rome or Western Europe.

In fact, the answer is correct because Laura was referring to the Jesus spoken of in the Bible, the Jesus she knew at that time and whom many continue to interpret as the Jewish Jesus (which is why they do not specify that he is from Palestine). In sessions after this one, the questions surrounding the topic change, as does the context of the research. That is why the knowledge we have on the subject is expanding and deepening in the answer, and it is also why the sessions are better understood if read chronologically; otherwise, they lend themselves to confusion, which happens a lot.
If you want to better understand a specific topic and do so more quickly, you can go to the session search engine by topic and read it chronologically and specifically. It is a great tool.

Cassiopaean Session Transcripts Search

cassiopaeatranscripts.org

 

[Thassa]

In fact, the answer is correct because Laura was referring to the Jesus spoken of in the Bible, the Jesus she knew at that time and whom many continue to interpret as the Jewish Jesus (which is why they do not specify that he is from Palestine). In sessions after this one, the questions surrounding the topic change, as does the context of the research. That is why the knowledge we have on the subject is expanding and deepening in the answer, and it is also why the sessions are better understood if read chronologically; otherwise, they lend themselves to confusion, which happens a lot.
If you want to better understand a specific topic and do so more quickly, you can go to the session search engine by topic and read it chronologically and specifically. It is a great tool.

Cassiopaean Session Transcripts Search

cassiopaeatranscripts.org

I access it every day!
Every day I ready at least one session.

 

[palestine]

I access it every day!
Every day I ready at least one session.

My fav quote about Jesus is the "beige beret" one

 

[Thassa]

My fav quote about Jesus is the "beige beret" one

I remember that.
But I had not understood.
I know green beret is worn by the Special Forces.
But I didn't find symbolism related to a beige beret.

Could you tell me what they meant?

 

[palestine]

I remember that.
But I had not understood.
I know green beret is worn by the Special Forces.
But I didn't find symbolism related to a beige beret.

Could you tell me what they meant?

Hello,

I understood it as is, so a classification "type", bound to 6th density (so it's difficult to say if it has a meaning, symbolism).

Yes, true, the green berets. The "beret" may be an allusion to this. For reason yet unknown, the beige color seems associated, too. If you have any idea...

So I really don't know!