December 31, 1997
Ark, Laura, Frank, Alice
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Yxtorra.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: The immediate business at hand is that I feel that I am being taken advantage of by the contractor working on my house. I know that you guys said to go ahead and get the work done on my house, but I don't think this guy is gonna do it. He's got the money and I am left holding the bag.
A: Then be a "pest."
Q: You mean harass, fuss and complain?
A: No, keep after him. What about those "squeaky wheels?"
Q: Well, if I do that, do we see the energy surrounding the situation, that the work will be done right, it will be finished, and I will be happy with the work?
A: Two out of three; you choose.
Q: Okay, anything about the situation to keep my eye open for particularly?
A: License.
Q: His license? Get his license number? Anything else?
A: No.
Q: Okay, the next issue, we have now given him all our money and we are now broke and we have a lot of stuff to take care of in January. What do you see, or can you give us any pointers in terms of employment or income potential that we can activate at the moment?
A: Lesson learned is why you gave all your money prior to job; follows!!
Q: Okay, the lesson is learned. Now, advice!
A: Wrong! You are hasty by nature.
Q: Well, he doesn't have ALL the money, there is still money in escrow...
A: How many prospects interviewed?
Q: In terms of what? Contractors or job?
A: Yes.
Q: Job?
A: Both.
Q: Well, on the contractor business, I called a lot of companies that would not work on my house because of its age. I am confused!
A: Only you can confuse you.
Q: (Ark) Can you add anything to this subject, something that we can do that we didn't think about?
A: Only if you prompt.
Q: (Ark) I don't know how. (Laura) Are we going to hear from UCF?
A: You should take the "bull by the horns." It is wrong for you to think you are not in control, ultimately.
Q: Okay, in terms of contact, what bull are you speaking of?
A: Obtaining position.
Q: Well, we were going to do something back at the end of November, but you said 'patience pays.' So, we have been waiting to see what would come about. So, we haven't made any definite moves, thinking that something would open, however we see that we need to do something here.
A: November was November. Patience was needed in order to avoid mistiming faux pas.
Q: Okay, so now is the time to contact and say something?
A: Yes.
Q: Any other suggestions?
A: Be powerful; sell thyself.
Q: I want to ask if the falling of the picture and the stopping of the clock was as a result of Ark's mother coming and giving us a message?
A: Yes.
Q: Is she alright?
A: Yes.
Q: Did she finish what she was supposed to do?
A: Too complex a concept for this medium.
Q: Since we haven't had a session since we went to Mexico, I would like to point out that we were not able to get the divorce in Mexico, nor were we able to arrange any other kind of legal maneuver. So, why did you encourage us to go? We didn't accomplish anything except spending money!
A: Nonsense!
Q: Well, what can YOU say we accomplished except that Ark gave his lecture and we messed around and had a good time...
A: Yes...
Q: Is anything going to come out of this trip to Mexico that we don't yet see?
A: Wait and see.
Q: And, we did not see any ufos except maybe that little blip on the photograph I took from the plane window. We looked and asked around some, but no ufos! I was very disappointed!
A: Silly woman! You know better! What you saw and what you perceive in your 3rd density conscious memory are two different things! Why was Anna ill? Why the nosebleed?
Q: We didn't mention to anybody that she had a nosebleed and she never had a nosebleed before. We figured it was just from being on the plane. Okay, so what happened?
A: Hypnotist. Not you.
Q: Take her to a hypnotist that is not me?
A: Yes. And you too.
Q: Well, I was sick when we got there that night. I was so sick I was shaking. I had to go to bed. Okay, anything else you want to say about Mexico?
A: Not unless you ask.
Q: Let me ask one question: did something happen in Miami, in the air, or after we got there?
A: Yes.
Q: In Miami?
A: Find out.
Q: (Ark) How can we find out without going to hypnotist?
A: Not likely.
Q: They said for me not to do it. Why?
A: Impartiality needed.
Q: (Ark) I would like to know if it is at all relevant, because a lot of things happen that are irrelevant for the future?
A: It is. [break for New Year's]
Q: It is now 1998. Do you guys have any predictions or comments for the new year?
A: In Pensacola, for but one example, it is still only 1997.
Q: Very cute! Okay, so it is not new year around the entire globe, and you have made your point about time. However, soon, everyone will agree that it is 1998, and then it will be, in fact, 1998. So, do you have, for those waiting with baited breath, anything to say about the upcoming year. Of course, I know all the psychics and channels are busily posting all their direful predictions about photon belts, null zones and whatever... a whole new series of dates for this will come, I expect...
A: Are you not yet tiring of such drivel?
Q: Yes, I am extremely tired of such drivel, but you have given some very good predictions in the past, and some that were dead wrong. And, speaking of dead wrong predictions, let me ask: on one occasion you said that the number of people left alive after the flood of Noah was 19 million and on another occasion you said 119 million. Now which is the correct figure?
A: Either.
Q: Well, it can't be either!
A: Yes it can... all is as the perceiver perceives.
Q: I think I liked you better when you were a little more linear!
A: We never were. As that is not for you. Not any more than it is for the company executive to don diapers!
Q: Yes, but... I feel like we are going around in circles and we get vague answers. Yes, we understand the necessity for such answers in some cases, but there are other things going on that we would like to deal with in a little more direct manner.
A: You get into trouble when you presuppose the nature of the answers to the questions.
Q: Well, it still comes back down to...
A: No, no... get your mother to read!
Q: (Alice) You want me to read back the answers? To go back?
A: Nature.
Q: (A) We have this idea to put some of the sessions on the internet. Is it a good idea?
A: Okay, but book deal looks more prosperous if it includes participation by all three of you. Internet, when utilized cautiously and properly leads to this. Ark's credibility enhanced, not diluted.
Q: So, in other words... Ark's credibility enhanced? Utilize Ark's credibility? Is that what you mean?
A: No.
Q: (A) I think that the idea is that I could be afraid that using my name in this context could dilute my credibility, and they say it is not the case...
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Okay, this was one question...
A: You are burgeoning quantum physicist, and, as such, have the opportunity to be the "trailblazer."
Q: (A) Yes, there was this physicist working with Ra, why did he die, what was behind that?
A: Ask yourself about what you suspect.
Q: (A) I am asking myself about what I suspect, and I suspect that he was silenced like Marinov. Is that the case?
A: Intuition is a necessary and valuable tool in trailblazing.
Q: (A) The next thing is that we were discussing putting some of the information about the death of Marinov onto the Skywatch...
A: Who tried to suppress you?
Q: Nobody, but my intuition is that we should not.
A: Right. Ark knows caution is the friend of sustenence. Laura knows "tossing caution to the four winds" as her compatriot! Balance equals perfection.
Q: But! How can you balance between telling and NOT telling about Marinov to Skywatch. (A) Balance means putting something, but not necessarily that....
A: Does Laura wish to have dear loved ones kidnapped?
Q: No, I DON'T want to have my loved ones kidnapped!
A: Be cautious and patient.
Q: (A) I want to interrogate you guys for a while. Are you ready?
A: When are we not?
Q: Good. Now, at some point you said when we asked about the Ra Material, you gave the number that it was 63 per cent accurate. Do you confirm this now?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, I want to know exactly how you got this number 63, how you computed it, why is it 63 and not 62 or 64?
A: The divination process always breaks down to mathematical processes, as this is the only true universal language.
Q: But, I want to know what mathematical process you were using to get this number 63?!
A: Add the total number of words published, divide the sum total by the number reflecting accurate conceptualizations.
Q: Okay, if we have 100 words, and 25 are used in the description of a concept that is accurate, is that what you mean?
A: Close.
Q: Okay, how do you determine an accurate conceptualization? (A) How do you determine if a given word is accurate?
A: By the verity of the issuer.
Q: So, words, even though words can mean different things, the verity of the speaker can give...
A: Yes, because if monitored in a state of pure non- prejudice, the accuracy level will be perceived correctly.
Q: (A) Can we go, word by word, through Ra material, remove the incorrect words and leave only what is correct?
A: Not necessary for reason just given.
Q: (A) Okay, I want to read a sentence: 'The first, the Great Pyramid was formed approximately 6,000 of your years ago.' I want to go through this word by word. The word 'the,' accurate or inaccurate?
A: Accurate.
Q: 'First.'
A: Inaccurate.
Q: 'The.'
A: Neuter.
Q: 'Great.'
A: Accurate, in this case because of conventional agreement.
Q: Now, you describe a word as neutral, but in the mathematical algorithm you gave for computing the numbers, you didn't mention neutral words, so, what do you do with neutral words?
A: They belong to the 37 percent as they cannot be counted subjectively as accurate.
Q: 'was'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'formed'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'approximately'
A: Accurate.
Q: 6,000
A: Accurate.
Q: 'Of.'
A: Neuter.
Q: 'Your.'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'years.
A: Accurate.
Q: Okay, if we apply the same formula to the C's, your material, what percentage would you give?
A: Not up to us to measure.
Q: Okay, you gave, concerning the pyramid the following sentence: 'The Great Pyramid was built by Atlantis 10,643 years ago.' Is it accurate?
A: Not as you state.
Q: The question was: what year was it built, and the answer was 10,640 years ago. And it is inaccurate? Is it also inaccurate when we read original transcripts. (L) Yes, I think there is a problem. You confirmed the Ra material on a point that contradicts what you gave yourselves!
A: Problem is not with "us," problem is trying to compare to different frames of reference.
Q: Okay, let's read the sentence word by word...
A: Not point, as you have not even achieved an accurate reading as pertains to literacy. Remember!!: "Frames of reference." Look for clues in terms of definition.
Q: I don't understand what you are saying. Either it was built 10,643 years ago or it was built 6,000 years ago.
A: Stupidity is enhanced by haste.
Q: (A) In this material...
A: Formed/built... you think it means the same thing, eh???
Q: It was built before it was formed? (A) According to this Ra material, was never built at all, it was formed by thoughts... Well, we are talking about facts, numbers.
A: If your house at 6322 Montana Avenue is remodeled, then it takes a new form. Now, reread sentences in question carefully.
Q: 'The first, the Great Pyramid, was formed approximately 6,000 of your years ago. Then, in sequence, after this performing by thought of the building or architecture of the great pyramid, using the more local or earthly material rather than thought form material to build other pyramidal structures.' Now, C's say: 'The Great Pyramid was built by Atlanteans 10,643 years ago.' The problem with this sentence is, we are not specific - we know we mean the Great Pyramid at Gizah. Okay...
A: No, Laura, no no no no !!!!! If your house is remodeled in 1998, is that when it was built?
Q: No, that is not when it was built. Did the sentence you took out of the text say Atlanteans? (A) Yes, first you asked when and then by whom...
A: Atlantean Descendants, not Atlanteans!!
Q: (A) No... once it was said by descendants, and once it was said by Atlanteans. (We check and find that it did say 'Atlantean descendants and NOT Atlanteans.) Can we use this process to analyze all the material?
A: You can, but senior citizenhood awaits its completion.
Q: Is there some issue about asking this question of accuracy that needs to be addressed? One main thing is: the presence of certain persons. Some sessions were more accurate than others depending upon who was present...
A: You got it!!!
Q: Therefore, it would be difficult to assess an accuracy rating for the C's themselves...
A: Bingo!
Q: But, we CAN assess the material itself, keeping in mind that some parts can be more accurate than others...
A: 71.7.
Q: Okay, that takes into account corruption from different people, typos, reconstruction, and so forth. And, the same applies to the Ra Material... (A) Okay, suppose I have a sentence that the Great Pyramid was built 10,000 years ago, but really it was built yesterday, and you would give 70 per cent accuracy to this statement.
A: No.
Q: But only one word is inaccurate...
A: You are searching for a concrete formula within a vacuum of abstraction. The only way to get an accurate measurement is to wait until you can include the sum total of all the words, then determine accuracy as a percentage of the total. With the total of all words, and each individual word as the unit of measurement. And on that note, until the next time, Good Night.
End of Session
Ark, Laura, Frank, Alice
Q: Hello.
A: Hello.
Q: And who do we have with us this evening?
A: Yxtorra.
Q: And where do you transmit through?
A: Cassiopaea.
Q: The immediate business at hand is that I feel that I am being taken advantage of by the contractor working on my house. I know that you guys said to go ahead and get the work done on my house, but I don't think this guy is gonna do it. He's got the money and I am left holding the bag.
A: Then be a "pest."
Q: You mean harass, fuss and complain?
A: No, keep after him. What about those "squeaky wheels?"
Q: Well, if I do that, do we see the energy surrounding the situation, that the work will be done right, it will be finished, and I will be happy with the work?
A: Two out of three; you choose.
Q: Okay, anything about the situation to keep my eye open for particularly?
A: License.
Q: His license? Get his license number? Anything else?
A: No.
Q: Okay, the next issue, we have now given him all our money and we are now broke and we have a lot of stuff to take care of in January. What do you see, or can you give us any pointers in terms of employment or income potential that we can activate at the moment?
A: Lesson learned is why you gave all your money prior to job; follows!!
Q: Okay, the lesson is learned. Now, advice!
A: Wrong! You are hasty by nature.
Q: Well, he doesn't have ALL the money, there is still money in escrow...
A: How many prospects interviewed?
Q: In terms of what? Contractors or job?
A: Yes.
Q: Job?
A: Both.
Q: Well, on the contractor business, I called a lot of companies that would not work on my house because of its age. I am confused!
A: Only you can confuse you.
Q: (Ark) Can you add anything to this subject, something that we can do that we didn't think about?
A: Only if you prompt.
Q: (Ark) I don't know how. (Laura) Are we going to hear from UCF?
A: You should take the "bull by the horns." It is wrong for you to think you are not in control, ultimately.
Q: Okay, in terms of contact, what bull are you speaking of?
A: Obtaining position.
Q: Well, we were going to do something back at the end of November, but you said 'patience pays.' So, we have been waiting to see what would come about. So, we haven't made any definite moves, thinking that something would open, however we see that we need to do something here.
A: November was November. Patience was needed in order to avoid mistiming faux pas.
Q: Okay, so now is the time to contact and say something?
A: Yes.
Q: Any other suggestions?
A: Be powerful; sell thyself.
Q: I want to ask if the falling of the picture and the stopping of the clock was as a result of Ark's mother coming and giving us a message?
A: Yes.
Q: Is she alright?
A: Yes.
Q: Did she finish what she was supposed to do?
A: Too complex a concept for this medium.
Q: Since we haven't had a session since we went to Mexico, I would like to point out that we were not able to get the divorce in Mexico, nor were we able to arrange any other kind of legal maneuver. So, why did you encourage us to go? We didn't accomplish anything except spending money!
A: Nonsense!
Q: Well, what can YOU say we accomplished except that Ark gave his lecture and we messed around and had a good time...
A: Yes...
Q: Is anything going to come out of this trip to Mexico that we don't yet see?
A: Wait and see.
Q: And, we did not see any ufos except maybe that little blip on the photograph I took from the plane window. We looked and asked around some, but no ufos! I was very disappointed!
A: Silly woman! You know better! What you saw and what you perceive in your 3rd density conscious memory are two different things! Why was Anna ill? Why the nosebleed?
Q: We didn't mention to anybody that she had a nosebleed and she never had a nosebleed before. We figured it was just from being on the plane. Okay, so what happened?
A: Hypnotist. Not you.
Q: Take her to a hypnotist that is not me?
A: Yes. And you too.
Q: Well, I was sick when we got there that night. I was so sick I was shaking. I had to go to bed. Okay, anything else you want to say about Mexico?
A: Not unless you ask.
Q: Let me ask one question: did something happen in Miami, in the air, or after we got there?
A: Yes.
Q: In Miami?
A: Find out.
Q: (Ark) How can we find out without going to hypnotist?
A: Not likely.
Q: They said for me not to do it. Why?
A: Impartiality needed.
Q: (Ark) I would like to know if it is at all relevant, because a lot of things happen that are irrelevant for the future?
A: It is. [break for New Year's]
Q: It is now 1998. Do you guys have any predictions or comments for the new year?
A: In Pensacola, for but one example, it is still only 1997.
Q: Very cute! Okay, so it is not new year around the entire globe, and you have made your point about time. However, soon, everyone will agree that it is 1998, and then it will be, in fact, 1998. So, do you have, for those waiting with baited breath, anything to say about the upcoming year. Of course, I know all the psychics and channels are busily posting all their direful predictions about photon belts, null zones and whatever... a whole new series of dates for this will come, I expect...
A: Are you not yet tiring of such drivel?
Q: Yes, I am extremely tired of such drivel, but you have given some very good predictions in the past, and some that were dead wrong. And, speaking of dead wrong predictions, let me ask: on one occasion you said that the number of people left alive after the flood of Noah was 19 million and on another occasion you said 119 million. Now which is the correct figure?
A: Either.
Q: Well, it can't be either!
A: Yes it can... all is as the perceiver perceives.
Q: I think I liked you better when you were a little more linear!
A: We never were. As that is not for you. Not any more than it is for the company executive to don diapers!
Q: Yes, but... I feel like we are going around in circles and we get vague answers. Yes, we understand the necessity for such answers in some cases, but there are other things going on that we would like to deal with in a little more direct manner.
A: You get into trouble when you presuppose the nature of the answers to the questions.
Q: Well, it still comes back down to...
A: No, no... get your mother to read!
Q: (Alice) You want me to read back the answers? To go back?
A: Nature.
Q: (A) We have this idea to put some of the sessions on the internet. Is it a good idea?
A: Okay, but book deal looks more prosperous if it includes participation by all three of you. Internet, when utilized cautiously and properly leads to this. Ark's credibility enhanced, not diluted.
Q: So, in other words... Ark's credibility enhanced? Utilize Ark's credibility? Is that what you mean?
A: No.
Q: (A) I think that the idea is that I could be afraid that using my name in this context could dilute my credibility, and they say it is not the case...
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Okay, this was one question...
A: You are burgeoning quantum physicist, and, as such, have the opportunity to be the "trailblazer."
Q: (A) Yes, there was this physicist working with Ra, why did he die, what was behind that?
A: Ask yourself about what you suspect.
Q: (A) I am asking myself about what I suspect, and I suspect that he was silenced like Marinov. Is that the case?
A: Intuition is a necessary and valuable tool in trailblazing.
Q: (A) The next thing is that we were discussing putting some of the information about the death of Marinov onto the Skywatch...
A: Who tried to suppress you?
Q: Nobody, but my intuition is that we should not.
A: Right. Ark knows caution is the friend of sustenence. Laura knows "tossing caution to the four winds" as her compatriot! Balance equals perfection.
Q: But! How can you balance between telling and NOT telling about Marinov to Skywatch. (A) Balance means putting something, but not necessarily that....
A: Does Laura wish to have dear loved ones kidnapped?
Q: No, I DON'T want to have my loved ones kidnapped!
A: Be cautious and patient.
Q: (A) I want to interrogate you guys for a while. Are you ready?
A: When are we not?
Q: Good. Now, at some point you said when we asked about the Ra Material, you gave the number that it was 63 per cent accurate. Do you confirm this now?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, I want to know exactly how you got this number 63, how you computed it, why is it 63 and not 62 or 64?
A: The divination process always breaks down to mathematical processes, as this is the only true universal language.
Q: But, I want to know what mathematical process you were using to get this number 63?!
A: Add the total number of words published, divide the sum total by the number reflecting accurate conceptualizations.
Q: Okay, if we have 100 words, and 25 are used in the description of a concept that is accurate, is that what you mean?
A: Close.
Q: Okay, how do you determine an accurate conceptualization? (A) How do you determine if a given word is accurate?
A: By the verity of the issuer.
Q: So, words, even though words can mean different things, the verity of the speaker can give...
A: Yes, because if monitored in a state of pure non- prejudice, the accuracy level will be perceived correctly.
Q: (A) Can we go, word by word, through Ra material, remove the incorrect words and leave only what is correct?
A: Not necessary for reason just given.
Q: (A) Okay, I want to read a sentence: 'The first, the Great Pyramid was formed approximately 6,000 of your years ago.' I want to go through this word by word. The word 'the,' accurate or inaccurate?
A: Accurate.
Q: 'First.'
A: Inaccurate.
Q: 'The.'
A: Neuter.
Q: 'Great.'
A: Accurate, in this case because of conventional agreement.
Q: Now, you describe a word as neutral, but in the mathematical algorithm you gave for computing the numbers, you didn't mention neutral words, so, what do you do with neutral words?
A: They belong to the 37 percent as they cannot be counted subjectively as accurate.
Q: 'was'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'formed'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'approximately'
A: Accurate.
Q: 6,000
A: Accurate.
Q: 'Of.'
A: Neuter.
Q: 'Your.'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'years.
A: Accurate.
Q: Okay, if we apply the same formula to the C's, your material, what percentage would you give?
A: Not up to us to measure.
Q: Okay, you gave, concerning the pyramid the following sentence: 'The Great Pyramid was built by Atlantis 10,643 years ago.' Is it accurate?
A: Not as you state.
Q: The question was: what year was it built, and the answer was 10,640 years ago. And it is inaccurate? Is it also inaccurate when we read original transcripts. (L) Yes, I think there is a problem. You confirmed the Ra material on a point that contradicts what you gave yourselves!
A: Problem is not with "us," problem is trying to compare to different frames of reference.
Q: Okay, let's read the sentence word by word...
A: Not point, as you have not even achieved an accurate reading as pertains to literacy. Remember!!: "Frames of reference." Look for clues in terms of definition.
Q: I don't understand what you are saying. Either it was built 10,643 years ago or it was built 6,000 years ago.
A: Stupidity is enhanced by haste.
Q: (A) In this material...
A: Formed/built... you think it means the same thing, eh???
Q: It was built before it was formed? (A) According to this Ra material, was never built at all, it was formed by thoughts... Well, we are talking about facts, numbers.
A: If your house at 6322 Montana Avenue is remodeled, then it takes a new form. Now, reread sentences in question carefully.
Q: 'The first, the Great Pyramid, was formed approximately 6,000 of your years ago. Then, in sequence, after this performing by thought of the building or architecture of the great pyramid, using the more local or earthly material rather than thought form material to build other pyramidal structures.' Now, C's say: 'The Great Pyramid was built by Atlanteans 10,643 years ago.' The problem with this sentence is, we are not specific - we know we mean the Great Pyramid at Gizah. Okay...
A: No, Laura, no no no no !!!!! If your house is remodeled in 1998, is that when it was built?
Q: No, that is not when it was built. Did the sentence you took out of the text say Atlanteans? (A) Yes, first you asked when and then by whom...
A: Atlantean Descendants, not Atlanteans!!
Q: (A) No... once it was said by descendants, and once it was said by Atlanteans. (We check and find that it did say 'Atlantean descendants and NOT Atlanteans.) Can we use this process to analyze all the material?
A: You can, but senior citizenhood awaits its completion.
Q: Is there some issue about asking this question of accuracy that needs to be addressed? One main thing is: the presence of certain persons. Some sessions were more accurate than others depending upon who was present...
A: You got it!!!
Q: Therefore, it would be difficult to assess an accuracy rating for the C's themselves...
A: Bingo!
Q: But, we CAN assess the material itself, keeping in mind that some parts can be more accurate than others...
A: 71.7.
Q: Okay, that takes into account corruption from different people, typos, reconstruction, and so forth. And, the same applies to the Ra Material... (A) Okay, suppose I have a sentence that the Great Pyramid was built 10,000 years ago, but really it was built yesterday, and you would give 70 per cent accuracy to this statement.
A: No.
Q: But only one word is inaccurate...
A: You are searching for a concrete formula within a vacuum of abstraction. The only way to get an accurate measurement is to wait until you can include the sum total of all the words, then determine accuracy as a percentage of the total. With the total of all words, and each individual word as the unit of measurement. And on that note, until the next time, Good Night.
End of Session
