A miss for the C's?

othree

othree

Jedi
Would it not be fair to start a thread about the C's misses as well, to discuss and trace the accuracy of the information coming through?

The C's said that the chances for Trump to win were pretty good and that he would institute martial law for a brief time after the election, but I think we can say with some confidence that this is unlikely to happen at this point?

Session 10 October 2020:​


Q: (L) Okay, here's the $64,000 question: Is Trump going to win the election?

(Joe) We asked that last time!

(Andromeda) They said yes.

(Joe) They said there's a very good chance.

(L) Are his chances getting better?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) How likely is it that there will be some major public chaos or civil chaos if Trump wins?

A: Very likely and will lead to martial law.

Q: (Joe) Imposed by Trump.

(Pierre) Yeah.

(Joe) So he's going to fulfill the role that they have given him of dictator! But is a lot of the chaos...

(L) One suspects that it may have been planned that way: he's being driven into the corner by all of the events in order to do what they want him to do.

A: Yes
Click to expand...

cassiopaea.org

Session 10 October 2020

Session Date: October 10th 2020 Laura, Andromeda, and Artemis at the board Pierre, Joe, Chu, Ark, PoB, Scottie, Niall, Noko the Wonderdog, the Lunar Module, Princess Leia Q: (L) Alright... A: Hello children of Cassiopaea. Q: (L) And who do we have with us this evening? A: Nighhillaea of...
cassiopaea.org cassiopaea.org

 
I’ve thought about this also and think we should not assume winning the election means the same as winning the presidency.

‘Election’ means to select or make a decision by a group of people. Trump won the election (received the most votes) he did not win the presidency game. I think these are two different things. Were there a few assumptions made here without teasing out the details?

Also if you look at the specifics of the dialogue it still lines up. Trump won the election and it is likely leading to martial law, irrespective of who brings it on.
 
Trump did indeed win the election, from a certain point of view. However, one must read carefully the questions and answers and not read into them. It is about the probabilities. The future is not set in stone, it is fluid.

For instance:
(L) Are his chances getting better?
A: Yes
Which means the probability of winning at the time the question was asked was increasing (for instance from 50% to 51.2% or from 71% to 75%, doesn't matter).

then:
Q: (Joe) How likely is it that there will be some major public chaos or civil chaos if Trump wins?
A: Very likely and will lead to martial law.

That is, what would happen if one of the possibilities did occur.

One cannot read absolutes into probabilities.
 
othree said:
Would it not be fair to start a thread about the C's misses as well, to discuss and trace the accuracy of the information coming through?

The C's said that the chances for Trump to win were pretty good and that he would institute martial law for a brief time after the election, but I think we can say with some confidence that this is unlikely to happen at this point?
Click to expand...

Why not wait until January 20 before creating a thread 'Another miss for the C's'?

I can understand that you're disappointed as many of us here are, but I think it is much too early to be knocking the C's for creating false hopes. In the end he who will occupy the White House will have won, albeit after an interregnum of military rule (martial law).

The fog of covert war is not letting us know the score right now.
 
For a micro-second, I thought about putting a bet on Trump winning when I first read that session. But immediately, I realised that it didn’t mean anything. I believed he would win the election, and I knew they wouldn’t let him have it.

They didn’t ‘miss’ on that one, they got it right. He won.

And then there was civil unrest.

As for martial law, let’s ‘wait and see’. We’re not out of the woods yet.
 
No, I'm not disappointed by the C's if this was what was meant. I have no expectations about their predictions and am fully aware that what they say may never come to pass. They put out a number of doozies, or skewed information in the past.

But I think if one wants to analyze what is coming through the channel objectively, then one should also look at the misses, not just the hits. Otherwise it's a skewed view.

Yes, I understand that Trump could have still won, I am pretty sure that he won the election by a landslide, this is less what I was pointing out about the C's predictions. What I meant more was everything that they said would happen afterwards: that he would institute martial law and would fulfill the role of a dictator. Well, he can't do neither the dictator nor martial law, if he won't be president anymore ...
 
gottathink said:
I’ve thought about this also and think we should not assume winning the election means the same as winning the presidency.

‘Election’ means to select or make a decision by a group of people. Trump won the election (received the most votes) he did not win the presidency game. I think these are two different things. Were there a few assumptions made here without teasing out the details?

Also if you look at the specifics of the dialogue it still lines up. Trump won the election and it is likely leading to martial law, irrespective of who brings it on.
Click to expand...

This sounds to me like trying to interpret what the C's said to fit what happened ... and to make it look like another hit for them ... yes, there is room for interpretation looking back, but the thread was clearly all about Trump specifically. But we will see.
 
Well, it looks like he did win the vote but "Deep Fake State" manipulated the voting outcome. Then this scenario is still very possible:

Q: (Joe) How likely is it that there will be some major public chaos or civil chaos if Trump win

A: Very likely and will lead to martial law.
Click to expand...

On the other hand one can ask why Trump has not acted yet. You have seen the checkpoints the military is setting up (not only) in Washington DC?!
 
Tycho said:
Well, it looks like he did win the vote but "Deep Fake State" manipulated the voting outcome. Then this scenario is still very possible:



On the other hand one can ask why Trump has not acted yet. You have seen the checkpoints the military is setting up (not only) in Washington DC?!
Click to expand...

Yeah, and winning isn't the same as being the president, I think one ought to be very careful with reading the words used to ask the question and the answer that comes through. Did Trump win? yes, does that mean he will be allowed to be president? no, did him winning meant martial law and totalitarianism? yes it did, because it meant that the establishment had to mobilize to steal the election and establish draconian measures to do so, and whoever protests now will fall victim to said measures, and considering the amount of people that voted for Trump, it might even mean massively repressive measures and prosecution.

I don't see this as a miss at all, specially when one considers that there must be several possibilities being calculated by the PTB, I can imagine several people seeing a second Trump presidency as useful, to carry on demonizing him and widening the gap of polarization in the country. But him being ousted worked just as well if not better, now they have the domestic terrorism card, which does the same.

In summary, Trump did win but he won't get to be president.
 
Tycho said:
Well, it looks like he did win the vote but "Deep Fake State" manipulated the voting outcome. Then this scenario is still very possible:



On the other hand one can ask why Trump has not acted yet. You have seen the checkpoints the military is setting up (not only) in Washington DC?!
Click to expand...

Maybe (I wonder)

That we didn’t keep (so much) in mind an aspect - that the various timeline versions are fluid and changeable - yet intimately woven (connected) with the dynamics that dwell in the events of now

Which can change the nuances of how “tomorrow” turns out. How do we look onto outspoken predictions of events in the future ? (In terms of vibrational energy)


To happen or not to

What I mean is - that Marshall Law may not be ruled out - but could be initiated through a different sets of events - just not in the exact way we thought would or could happen.

Is too narrow thought fixation, a possible source of energy which goes ‘against’ the natural fluidity of the universe - which is so complex - and yet so effortless in its nature ?

Not everything happens in exact manners as spoken or predicted, even by the C’s. (And that is not a contradiction in my opinion). Sometimes details and aspects shift, while the essence of a timeline still remains largely preserved ?

But are interconnected to the energies that dwell in the dynamic flow of our present time.

The interactions, the changes, alterations, and even the lack of mounting events, alter the patterns of what we see and perceive “from here” as possible future outcomes.

If the human earthly mind

which translates information in many different ways, yet would at least keep one sector (or layer) free from buzz - like a “Zen Zone” whose nature has a natural sense of “cosmic fluidity”

... perhaps we may sense a greater wealth of information connecting past-presence-future, and with it even greater sensitivity. Becoming aware, to understand what needs to be done (or refrain from doing) - in a situation, when it is vital to understand ?

A certain level of flexibility in viewing C’s predictions (hints) I think is needed to be kept in mind ?

Bambi on ice 🦌

I am not sure if i hit the right words here, as i am try to form words out of a lingering feeling whose contents are not strictly fixated. It feels for me a bit like “Bambi on Ice”

💕
 
Last edited:
othree said:
What I meant more was everything that they said would happen afterwards: that he would institute martial law and would fulfill the role of a dictator.
Click to expand...

Joe and Pierre said that, not the C’s.

Please note, I’m not die-hard defending every thing the C’s have ever said. But having been here almost ten years, othree, you must know by now that when analysing sessions and specific quotes from the C’s, accuracy is paramount: only then can interpretations have any chance of coming close to correct.
 
othree said:
This sounds to me like trying to interpret what the C's said to fit what happened ... and to make it look like another hit for them ... yes, there is room for interpretation looking back, but the thread was clearly all about Trump specifically.
Click to expand...

I think you interpreted the C’s words and the entire exchange in the recent sessions in a way that gave you reassurance that Trump was going to win, and when what you mistook for a guaranteed result didn’t happen you were disappointed. You are not alone - many of us here felt the same way. But most of us have now moved on to revisit the sessions and separate our assumptions from what was actually said. You on the other hand seem to prefer to believe the C’s were wrong rather than that you were.

But if you read carefully what exactly was said you’ll see the C’s never guaranteed an outcome. In fact, they specifically said that Biden’s presidency would lead to an almost immediate descent to totalitarianism, which means Biden becoming the president was always a possibility.

The C’s have repeatedly said that it’s impossible to give 100% accurate predictions.

Then there is the fact that the question to the C’s was whether Trump was going to win, not whether he was going to become president. He won but the election was stolen from him, and this scenario was not a part of the questioning process.

Not to mention that the C’s didn’t say Trump was going to impose the martial law but that his win was going to most likely (!) lead to it. It may in fact be Biden who will impose it. In the below exchange it was Joe who said the martial law was going to be imposed by Trump. Not the C’s:

Laura said:
Q: (L) Okay, here's the $64,000 question: Is Trump going to win the election?

(Joe) We asked that last time!

(Andromeda) They said yes.

(Joe) They said there's a very good chance.

(L) Are his chances getting better?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) How likely is it that there will be some major public chaos or civil chaos if Trump wins?

A: Very likely and will lead to martial law.

Q: (Joe) Imposed by Trump.

(Pierre) Yeah.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom