October 23, 1999
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Eggoram.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: I want to you have lost a fan because he was not happy with what he considered to be "internal inconsistencies" in that you were NOT favorably disposed toward hallucinations produced by substances such as Mescaline and Ayahuasca, but yet you recommend Melatonin because it is a hallucinogen. Then, you said that spiritual powers could not be obtained through chemicals or plant type means, but then said that Melatonin exercises psychic abilities. Could you comment on this?
A: Several comments: First of all, "fan" is short for "fanatic." Secondly, melatonin does not force an alteration in physiological brain chemicals, as do mescaline, peyote, LSD, etc. Accessing the higher levels of psychical awareness through such processes is harmful to the balance levels of the prime chakra. This is because it alters the natural rhythms of psychic development by causing reliance on the part of the subject, thus subjugating the learning process. It is a form of self-imposed abridging of free will. Melatonin simply allows the system to clear obstructions in the brain chemistry naturally, thereby allowing the subject to continue to learn at a natural pace. And, it is by no means unimportant that melatonin is a natural body hormone. The other substances mentioned are, at least in part, synthetic, with the exception of peyote. But even that is not a natural ingredient of the human physiological being. And besides, we have already discussed the importance, or lack thereof, of those who pass judgment upon this exercise, or communication.
Q: Okay. Going in another direction, we have just recently learned that there is a fellow named Randell Mills who claims to have discovered or written the Grand Unified Field Theory. Is this in fact, true?
A: If he has, where is the evidence?
Q: We ordered the book! A hundred bucks, too! It's on its way as we speak!
A: Theories must be successfully tested to be valid according to your scientific convention. Otherwise, they are merely hypotheses, and anyone can do that, for 100 dollars a pop, we might add.
Q: Well, he does seem to have a lot of support...
A: Support is not confirmation. A completed, valid Unified Field Theory does indeed exist among 3rd density STS, but it is held in the strictest secrecy!
Q: Along that line, Ark is getting really sick of programming. He has put in his CV in dozen or so places, but there are a lot of places he can't work because he isn't a citizen yet.
A: Citizenship can be expedited, explore at once.
Q: Is there something else we can explore at once regarding employment so he doesn't have to do this programming. Working as a physicist would be nice.
A: Yes, but it may also be limiting, though in a different way.
Q: Do you have any suggestions?
A: There are many such opportunities in the area.
Q: Well, give us a couple of words to focus our search?
A: Interstate 4.
Q: Don't hang up on us here now! This is serious!
A: Where have you looked?
Q: In all the obvious places, of course. Lockheed, NASA, universities, etc. (A) Okay, I was advised to contact this Phipps, and we had an exchange, but he was not able to explain one thing that I was asking. Finally he gave up and said that it would be the end of our communication because he wanted to have his "private life," and he apologized for his errors! The question is, of course, whether there is anything of value, and how to find it, in this work of Phipps. This contact with Phipps was unsatisfactory. He couldn't answer questions, wouldn't answer questions; there are several possibilities here: one is that what he was writing was crap.
A: When one confronts one of a "showman's" nature, it usually ends in frustration. Sometimes, someone near them is able to offer more concrete answers.
Q: (A) Yet, I was advised to contact this guy by you!
A: Yes, because sometimes the trail leads to pay-dirt, even if not immediately. Remember, this is a puzzle, not a road map.
Q: Well, maybe something WILL result from this contact and conversation. Maybe the comments you have made will be read by someone else. You just never know. (A) Yes, it's a puzzle. But, this Phipps presents Maxwell Equations with extra terms, which probably is wrong, but there may be something to this. It may show the way. My hypothesis is that what he has said about Maxwell Equations is wrong, but it shows a way toward something that can work. Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: We learned that Leedskalnin supposedly wrote a book back in 1949. (F) He did? I bet he didn't reveal his secrets! (L) No, but it is interesting anyway. We ordered it. We read parts of it from the internet, and it is written in rather archaic language, or he had some problems explaining things in English, but it is about basic principles he was investigating. We want to play with some of his experiments at some point. (F) Is there anything about spinning? (L) No, but I figured out what the airplane seat was for by reading some of his experiments. (A) Is there any experiment in this book that would show us the way toward UFT, or better, a way out of standard physics? Or, are his experiments just standard things, but since he did not know the laws of physics, he may have misinterpreted his results? He was amazed by the behavior of magnets, but the experiments were standard? Well, we will have to see. I wrote to this anti-gravity group and asked them if there was one, just one, repeatable experiment that I can do myself, which cannot be explained by standard theories. Is there one?
A: Is there such an experiment, yes. But one needs the necessary equipment, and that is difficult to come by. One needs the means to supply the adequate power for an artificially created EM field.
Q: (A) But that would mean that what is in this book by Leedskalnin is just normal experiments because, for the most part, they just use car batteries.
A: More power than that is needed, because the grid is too weak for substantive results.
Q: (A) But, when he was building this Coral Castle, apparently he was using such effects! What power was he using?
A: Sound waves.
Q: (A) How was he producing these sound waves?
A: Through correlation of rocks and power source, obtained "illegally." Instrument was similar to a tuning fork, but energized to a level that was lethal if one were to come in contact with it, or its ground.
Q: (A) Have we been discouraged from experimenting here?
A: No.
Q: (L) Did he use this tuning fork while sitting in his suspended swing?
A: Yes, because to do otherwise would have been fatal!.
Q: (L) Where did he illegally obtain this power source?
A: Tapped into high energy power lines.
Q: (L) So, he was an energy pirate! But, that certainly makes it less mysterious! (A) Can we obtain the necessary equipment? I know what we need.
A: Be careful.
Q: (L) No kidding! I don't want to vaporize! (A) We will experiment on Percy. (L) No! Not the poor doggie! (A) I have one more question. I want to ask about time. We have been told several times that time is subjective, time does not exist. On the other hand, we are told again and again about electromagnetic phenomena. Now, the problem is, electromagnetism is governed by Maxwell Equations, and you have to write Maxwell Equations with time as one of the variables because it is all about how EM fields propagate in time. I am totally confused. I don't know how to do EM theory without time. I haven't the slightest idea. And, this silly Phipps, wanted to replace time, and he advocates something that he calls "proper time." Proper time is something that is an individual time rather than a universal time that is inclusive of everyone; so there is this proper time that is individual; every particle has its own time. I want to know how to do physics without time. At least how to start. Or electromagnetism without time. Maxwell equations are about time. Einstein's relativity is about space AND time. How to do physics without time?
A: So many questions, one at a "time," please.
Q: (A) Can equations of electromagnetism be written without using time as we use it?
A: Yes.
Q: Should we discard this time that is in the present equation altogether, or replace it by something else?
A: Reinterpret. It is subjective, therefore fluid, or variable. In other words, open to many interpretations.
Q: (A) I want to ask about the theory that I developed with Blanchard that was recently criticized by a third referee of a journal. The paper was rejected. Essentially, the referee was, in a sense, partly right. I am not completely convinced that what we have done is going in the right direction. I spent on this ten years going in a certain direction, but then the development has stopped. The problem is that I don't understand Quantum Theory. Trying to understand Quantum Theory, we developed this theory in which part of the world is classical and part of the world is quantum. But, of course, we don't know which part of the world is classical. Stapp was thinking that it was mind, consciousness; Penrose thinks it is gravity. The question is: is this theory that we were developing with Blanchard, for ten years or even more, is it a step forward, or is it just crap like this Phipps produced? Can it be made a step forward by completing it?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, if it can be a step forward, the main question that we don't know the answer to is: what is classical? Gravity or consciousness or something else? What? Or, perhaps everything is classical...
A: Classical negates consciousness, regarding the mind as merely a function of chemical functions and electrical impulses occurring within a vacuum, rather than being interfaced with the rest of creation at all levels of density and all dimensions, which is of course, the case. Gravity is the "glue which binds all aspects of reality, physical and ethereal. Nothing would exist without consciousness to perceive it. Classical physics assumes, among other things, that consciousness and "the brain" are one and the same, or that one exclusively facilitates the other. In actuality, the brain is merely that conduit which facilitates conscious expression in the physical state of human 3rd density states and similar manifestations.
Q: (L) I would like to ask a sort of general question: since we have this website and a fairly good amount of visitation, but it has become sort of a forum, so to speak. Most of the basic concepts are on the website. I am little by little getting other things up; most of it is already in the transcripts; but once in awhile there is expansion needed, such as the subject of hallucinogens this evening; but, for the most part, the pretty basic things are there and are being discussed. My question is: is there a particularly fruitful direction that these sessions ought to take from this point on?
A: Just let them flow, as always.
Q: (L) I seem to be lacking a particular element in my diet, but I am not sure what it is. Can you tell what it is and the best source to get it?
A: What is the problem that makes you believe there is a lacking?
Q: (L) I have this irregular system and I believe I have a hormone problem.
A: What sort?
Q: (L) Just what I said. Irregular. That's as specific as I want to get!
A: Calcium, potassium is a little off balance. And you are prone to experimentation based on impatience.
Q: I want to ask a secret question.
A: No. Share with forum.
Q: I can't! It's a personal question!
A: You have the ability to receive answers to such inquiries in an equally "personal communication."
Q: (A) About the programming, I can do it as long as I am well paid. But, in a university, you have access to journals and books and so forth. But, maybe I don't need it. (L) Is the job situation stable?
A: It is stable, if tedious.
Q: It's certainly that. Good night.
A: Good night.
End of session
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Eggoram.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: I want to you have lost a fan because he was not happy with what he considered to be "internal inconsistencies" in that you were NOT favorably disposed toward hallucinations produced by substances such as Mescaline and Ayahuasca, but yet you recommend Melatonin because it is a hallucinogen. Then, you said that spiritual powers could not be obtained through chemicals or plant type means, but then said that Melatonin exercises psychic abilities. Could you comment on this?
A: Several comments: First of all, "fan" is short for "fanatic." Secondly, melatonin does not force an alteration in physiological brain chemicals, as do mescaline, peyote, LSD, etc. Accessing the higher levels of psychical awareness through such processes is harmful to the balance levels of the prime chakra. This is because it alters the natural rhythms of psychic development by causing reliance on the part of the subject, thus subjugating the learning process. It is a form of self-imposed abridging of free will. Melatonin simply allows the system to clear obstructions in the brain chemistry naturally, thereby allowing the subject to continue to learn at a natural pace. And, it is by no means unimportant that melatonin is a natural body hormone. The other substances mentioned are, at least in part, synthetic, with the exception of peyote. But even that is not a natural ingredient of the human physiological being. And besides, we have already discussed the importance, or lack thereof, of those who pass judgment upon this exercise, or communication.
Q: Okay. Going in another direction, we have just recently learned that there is a fellow named Randell Mills who claims to have discovered or written the Grand Unified Field Theory. Is this in fact, true?
A: If he has, where is the evidence?
Q: We ordered the book! A hundred bucks, too! It's on its way as we speak!
A: Theories must be successfully tested to be valid according to your scientific convention. Otherwise, they are merely hypotheses, and anyone can do that, for 100 dollars a pop, we might add.
Q: Well, he does seem to have a lot of support...
A: Support is not confirmation. A completed, valid Unified Field Theory does indeed exist among 3rd density STS, but it is held in the strictest secrecy!
Q: Along that line, Ark is getting really sick of programming. He has put in his CV in dozen or so places, but there are a lot of places he can't work because he isn't a citizen yet.
A: Citizenship can be expedited, explore at once.
Q: Is there something else we can explore at once regarding employment so he doesn't have to do this programming. Working as a physicist would be nice.
A: Yes, but it may also be limiting, though in a different way.
Q: Do you have any suggestions?
A: There are many such opportunities in the area.
Q: Well, give us a couple of words to focus our search?
A: Interstate 4.
Q: Don't hang up on us here now! This is serious!
A: Where have you looked?
Q: In all the obvious places, of course. Lockheed, NASA, universities, etc. (A) Okay, I was advised to contact this Phipps, and we had an exchange, but he was not able to explain one thing that I was asking. Finally he gave up and said that it would be the end of our communication because he wanted to have his "private life," and he apologized for his errors! The question is, of course, whether there is anything of value, and how to find it, in this work of Phipps. This contact with Phipps was unsatisfactory. He couldn't answer questions, wouldn't answer questions; there are several possibilities here: one is that what he was writing was crap.
A: When one confronts one of a "showman's" nature, it usually ends in frustration. Sometimes, someone near them is able to offer more concrete answers.
Q: (A) Yet, I was advised to contact this guy by you!
A: Yes, because sometimes the trail leads to pay-dirt, even if not immediately. Remember, this is a puzzle, not a road map.
Q: Well, maybe something WILL result from this contact and conversation. Maybe the comments you have made will be read by someone else. You just never know. (A) Yes, it's a puzzle. But, this Phipps presents Maxwell Equations with extra terms, which probably is wrong, but there may be something to this. It may show the way. My hypothesis is that what he has said about Maxwell Equations is wrong, but it shows a way toward something that can work. Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: We learned that Leedskalnin supposedly wrote a book back in 1949. (F) He did? I bet he didn't reveal his secrets! (L) No, but it is interesting anyway. We ordered it. We read parts of it from the internet, and it is written in rather archaic language, or he had some problems explaining things in English, but it is about basic principles he was investigating. We want to play with some of his experiments at some point. (F) Is there anything about spinning? (L) No, but I figured out what the airplane seat was for by reading some of his experiments. (A) Is there any experiment in this book that would show us the way toward UFT, or better, a way out of standard physics? Or, are his experiments just standard things, but since he did not know the laws of physics, he may have misinterpreted his results? He was amazed by the behavior of magnets, but the experiments were standard? Well, we will have to see. I wrote to this anti-gravity group and asked them if there was one, just one, repeatable experiment that I can do myself, which cannot be explained by standard theories. Is there one?
A: Is there such an experiment, yes. But one needs the necessary equipment, and that is difficult to come by. One needs the means to supply the adequate power for an artificially created EM field.
Q: (A) But that would mean that what is in this book by Leedskalnin is just normal experiments because, for the most part, they just use car batteries.
A: More power than that is needed, because the grid is too weak for substantive results.
Q: (A) But, when he was building this Coral Castle, apparently he was using such effects! What power was he using?
A: Sound waves.
Q: (A) How was he producing these sound waves?
A: Through correlation of rocks and power source, obtained "illegally." Instrument was similar to a tuning fork, but energized to a level that was lethal if one were to come in contact with it, or its ground.
Q: (A) Have we been discouraged from experimenting here?
A: No.
Q: (L) Did he use this tuning fork while sitting in his suspended swing?
A: Yes, because to do otherwise would have been fatal!.
Q: (L) Where did he illegally obtain this power source?
A: Tapped into high energy power lines.
Q: (L) So, he was an energy pirate! But, that certainly makes it less mysterious! (A) Can we obtain the necessary equipment? I know what we need.
A: Be careful.
Q: (L) No kidding! I don't want to vaporize! (A) We will experiment on Percy. (L) No! Not the poor doggie! (A) I have one more question. I want to ask about time. We have been told several times that time is subjective, time does not exist. On the other hand, we are told again and again about electromagnetic phenomena. Now, the problem is, electromagnetism is governed by Maxwell Equations, and you have to write Maxwell Equations with time as one of the variables because it is all about how EM fields propagate in time. I am totally confused. I don't know how to do EM theory without time. I haven't the slightest idea. And, this silly Phipps, wanted to replace time, and he advocates something that he calls "proper time." Proper time is something that is an individual time rather than a universal time that is inclusive of everyone; so there is this proper time that is individual; every particle has its own time. I want to know how to do physics without time. At least how to start. Or electromagnetism without time. Maxwell equations are about time. Einstein's relativity is about space AND time. How to do physics without time?
A: So many questions, one at a "time," please.
Q: (A) Can equations of electromagnetism be written without using time as we use it?
A: Yes.
Q: Should we discard this time that is in the present equation altogether, or replace it by something else?
A: Reinterpret. It is subjective, therefore fluid, or variable. In other words, open to many interpretations.
Q: (A) I want to ask about the theory that I developed with Blanchard that was recently criticized by a third referee of a journal. The paper was rejected. Essentially, the referee was, in a sense, partly right. I am not completely convinced that what we have done is going in the right direction. I spent on this ten years going in a certain direction, but then the development has stopped. The problem is that I don't understand Quantum Theory. Trying to understand Quantum Theory, we developed this theory in which part of the world is classical and part of the world is quantum. But, of course, we don't know which part of the world is classical. Stapp was thinking that it was mind, consciousness; Penrose thinks it is gravity. The question is: is this theory that we were developing with Blanchard, for ten years or even more, is it a step forward, or is it just crap like this Phipps produced? Can it be made a step forward by completing it?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, if it can be a step forward, the main question that we don't know the answer to is: what is classical? Gravity or consciousness or something else? What? Or, perhaps everything is classical...
A: Classical negates consciousness, regarding the mind as merely a function of chemical functions and electrical impulses occurring within a vacuum, rather than being interfaced with the rest of creation at all levels of density and all dimensions, which is of course, the case. Gravity is the "glue which binds all aspects of reality, physical and ethereal. Nothing would exist without consciousness to perceive it. Classical physics assumes, among other things, that consciousness and "the brain" are one and the same, or that one exclusively facilitates the other. In actuality, the brain is merely that conduit which facilitates conscious expression in the physical state of human 3rd density states and similar manifestations.
Q: (L) I would like to ask a sort of general question: since we have this website and a fairly good amount of visitation, but it has become sort of a forum, so to speak. Most of the basic concepts are on the website. I am little by little getting other things up; most of it is already in the transcripts; but once in awhile there is expansion needed, such as the subject of hallucinogens this evening; but, for the most part, the pretty basic things are there and are being discussed. My question is: is there a particularly fruitful direction that these sessions ought to take from this point on?
A: Just let them flow, as always.
Q: (L) I seem to be lacking a particular element in my diet, but I am not sure what it is. Can you tell what it is and the best source to get it?
A: What is the problem that makes you believe there is a lacking?
Q: (L) I have this irregular system and I believe I have a hormone problem.
A: What sort?
Q: (L) Just what I said. Irregular. That's as specific as I want to get!
A: Calcium, potassium is a little off balance. And you are prone to experimentation based on impatience.
Q: I want to ask a secret question.
A: No. Share with forum.
Q: I can't! It's a personal question!
A: You have the ability to receive answers to such inquiries in an equally "personal communication."
Q: (A) About the programming, I can do it as long as I am well paid. But, in a university, you have access to journals and books and so forth. But, maybe I don't need it. (L) Is the job situation stable?
A: It is stable, if tedious.
Q: It's certainly that. Good night.
A: Good night.
End of session
