A miss for the C's?

XPan

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

One sentence says it gallantly :headbanger:

(was I thinking in my earlier post here, fumbling around in a sort of twilight zone with...oh... far too many words !?) :scared:

Of course there has to be a margin in everything predicted, as the Now (here on earth) is such a highly dynamic realm, with many possible strings attached.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
One sentence says it gallantly :headbanger:

(was I thinking in my earlier post here, fumbling around in a sort of twilight zone with...oh... far too many words !?) :scared:

Of course there has to be a margin in everything predicted, as the Now (here on earth) is such a highly dynamic realm, with many possible strings attached.

Not only that, but the future is OPEN. Thank goodness.
 

Luks

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
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:
In my humble opinion, an honest and precise summary.

BTW. I think, people often misinterpret C's, because they are under various illusions, which cannot be said about C's.
C's refer very precisely and literally. Of course, you always have to remember their perspective that makes up their point of view, this point of view lies in the 6D STO reality. In my opinion, they are very brilliant and specific, and, rather, we are the ones who should "jump to" them than they to us.
 

lilies

The Living Force
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?
I think, the C's answers follow a very precise flow of logic. Just like logical electric circuits in school. Often a participant answers a question, which the reader mistakes for the C's answer: (my comments are in blue)

Session 10 October 2020:

Q: (L) Okay, here's the $64,000 question: Is Trump going to win the election?
*{this is question "A" to the C's, which remains "on hold" to be answered, when others jump into the conversation:}

(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?
*{This is question "B": another active query "on hold"}

A: Yes
*{Question "A" OR "B" has been answered.
If this was a yes to Question "B":
"(L) Are his chances getting better?"
that is still perfectly valid! For example if Trump had a 25% chance of winning 4 months before the session and now at the time of the session his chances improved to 35%, this perfectly means a valid mathematical yes to: "his chances getting better." }


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.
{Trump won the election. For us, its normal to assume that he remains in the Oval Office then, yes? But the Deep State steps in, turns the country upside-down and kicks Biden into Trumps rightful place. So Biden showed in to become prez, but patriots get very angry about the Steal, so "there will be some major public chaos or civil chaos". Which the C's answered.
Nobody asked if Trump remains in office after he wins the election, because normally a US president goes to the Oval Office if he wins.. in an "Old Normal" world, to which we were accustomed. That was the lesson for us here.}


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...
{These are the participants discussing the topic, not the C's answering.}

(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.
{I underlined what the C's, I think, chose to answer with a perfectly logically valid "Yes" below. They must observe the Law of Free Will. Also the rest here of what Laura says, lines up perfectly with the C's (logically valid and preserving Free Will) Yes answer. Read back what was said. }
A: Yes


Joe and Pierre said that, not the C’s.
Exactly! Thank You!

Whenever there is the "danger" of breaching the Law of Free Will, I think, the C's answers become very carefully configured to remain A perfectly logical answer and A valid answer and also they remain within the Law of Free Will. If their answer would endanger the questioner - would be a direct answer giving top secret Deep State info or the answer would prevent learning lessons, then they choose A logically perfectly valid answer, which preserves the questioner's Free Will, like: "Semi." "Maybe." "Vague.", etc..
Or they usually give a clue, which is perfectly on topic in their 'Vast Dictionary of Logically Valid Meanings Pertaining To The Topic', so that the clue given might result in a hopefully fruitful understanding later.

Here on Earth, in STS Land, we know politicians all too well, who skillfully avoid giving any straight answer in a full interview to protect their employers interest (Deep State). Lawyers do the same on most occasions for very selfish and dishonest reasons.

The C's however are showing us, how giving logically valid answers and - for our protection - giving us non-straight logically valid answers are done in an STO way, perfectly preserving our Free Will.
 

Neil

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Somewhat related, in terms of misses for the C's, this prediction from 2004 always stood out to me.
Q: (Perceval) Will Bush continue on as President?

A: Until he dies.
In the context of the rollout of the overt national security state in response to the events of 9/11, one could argue that metaphorically speaking Bush is still president, and the trajectory that was initiated with the Patriot Act and some of his policies has just continued to gain momentum without deviation until the present day. Furthermore, it would be rather interesting if Bush dies as part of the forecasted "triple bad day" coming up, where everything is supposedly going to go bad for the PTB, and his death happens to coincide with the demise of the Deep State. That's not how the average reasonably intelligent person would interpret this prediction. As a 3D person looking for 3D explanations of 3D events, that's not how I would interpret this prediction and it's definitely a miss. If you take a more symbolic and nuanced view, it offers something interesting to chew on...
 

othree

Padawan Learner
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:
Sorry, but you seem to have missed this post of mine: A miss for the C's?

As to this "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 seem to be projecting here from yourself onto me.

When it comes to Trump my stance aligns most with Brandon Smith from alt-market.us who says that the difference between Biden and Trump are only marginal: one of them is a globalist, the other one is surrounded by globalist advisors. So, the choice is really between having totalitarianism immediately, or possibly have it be possible postponed. So, my thinking was veering between "if we have to have fascism, then let's bring it on, and let's get over with it as soon as possible, so let's have Biden" and between thinking that truth should win and so that Trump should be recognized as the legitimate winner. But I was prepared for both possibilities.

Those are and were my thoughts on the matter. Since I do not know you and have never exchanged them with you, I don't see how you could assume to know what I was really thinking or hoping for.

I've been reading C's material for more than 12 years, have reread it twice, now am about to do it a third time, so I'm well aware of the doozies they had: when it came to diet, or information about Jesus Christ. Those are the two I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are more. Given that, it's surprising that no one has started a thread about their failed predictions yet, if this community is about seeing "reality as it is" and not as we want it to be.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
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?

Maybe, but I think you should try and find a better example of a miss than this.

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

So on Oct. 10th his chances were "getting better". Note, my comment "They said there's a very good chance [last time]" was not accurate. Last time I asked and they said:

Q: (Joe) What are the odds of Trump winning the US election?

A: Good.

So there was a "good" chance on Oct. 10th that he would "win the election". And in fact, he did, probably by a large margin. However, we can presume that between Oct 10th and election day the plans for rigging were changed to ensure an "official" defeat, which is what happened.

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.

They didn't say that Trump would "institute martial law for a brief time after the election". They responded to my very general and speculative question:

"How likely is it that there will be some major public chaos or civil chaos IF Trump wins?" with "very likely, and will lead to martial law". So the martial law was:

a) dependent on him winning

b) the establishment not rigging the election enough to allow him to win

c) there being serious enough protests to justify martial law

As we've noted many times before, predictions are pretty difficult when free will still exists and can only really be based on probabilities, which can of course change due to free will. Also, very often in responses, the Cs prefer not to say exactly what will happen, partly because it's not easy to do so, and partly because they have always said that it's better if we watch things unfold for ourselves, because in that way we learn more and avoid anticipation, which can lead to an unnecessarily large let down (as we've seen in this case).
 
Last edited:

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
When it comes to Trump my stance aligns most with Brandon Smith from alt-market.us who says that the difference between Biden and Trump are only marginal: one of them is a globalist, the other one is surrounded by globalist advisors

Trump was/is VERY clearly a nationalist and isolationist (by American standards). You and Brandon Smith don't seem very good at geopolitics, or politics in general.

it's surprising that no one has started a thread about their failed predictions yet, if this community is about seeing "reality as it is" and not as we want it to be.

Our job of seeing "reality as it is", has always been largely independent of the Cs, because they have always maintained that that is the PRIMARY task before US, not them. So I can't see how scrutinizing their 'miss' rate would have any an bearing on that. It would be like going back and crtitiquing/blaming your shrink's advice - advice that was based on the limitations of your own self-knowledge - because YOU keep failing to get your life in order. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Somewhat related, in terms of misses for the C's, this prediction from 2004 always stood out to me.

The rest of that exchange:

Q: (Perceval) Will he be assassinated?

A: Not likely.

Q: (Galahad) Will he try to become a permanent leader, a Furher?

A: Will try.

Q: (Galahad) Is he sick and will he die from his illness?

A: No...

Q: [Discussion about him being made sick or dying from other reasons.]

A: There are many ways to die.

That last is very cryptic, and I think we should have always interpreted that segment in that way. You can probably imagine what they were getting at.
 

T.C.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I've been reading C's material for more than 12 years, have reread it twice, now am about to do it a third time,

Have you read The Wave?

I don’t see any problem with looking at various things the C’s have said that didn’t seem to add up, or that we still don’t understand to this day.

But the devil is always in the details, and your posts in this thread serve as a perfect example of that. That for anyone to do any serious research into interpreting the meaning of bodies of work, right down to specific sentences and words, a person needs to have ‘cleaned and calibrated their reading instrument’.

You were unable to distinguish between things said by the C’s and things said by those present at the session. And each time it’s pointed out to you and clarified, you move the goal posts and bring up ‘other’ examples. But again, you don’t bring up specific quotes for analysis, you bring up a general gist that is personal to you.

This replying to each of your points will therefore become a never ending task, unless you explore the programmes that are running inside you that are causing these posts of yours and you start to look and think critically, in a more open-minded way.

You MUST get a grasp of the importance of how much work needs to go into yourself to see things as they are before you can start to look at and think about the works of other people. Otherwise it isn’t going to matter how many times you ‘read the C’s material’.
 

Windmill knight

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Not only that, but the future is OPEN. Thank goodness.

My thought as well. The thing is that we humans are so obsessed with the idea of destiny and knowing in advance 'how the movie is going to end' - as if it was a foregone conclusion, just like when you watch a pre-scripted movie - that we underestimate how much open the future really is. For some reason it's a concept hard to swallow. It's as if we always had a tendency to see the future as already written somewhere, and wouldn't it be great if we could just have a glimpse to that book... Maybe it's because an open future implies personal responsibility for our decisions as well as the anxiety of uncertainty?

But the future is not 100% open because there is a limit to what is possible. If you think about all the things the Cs have predicted, the general trends are certainly all there. It's just the details of what happens when and how that aren't always there, but to their credit they really did warn almost from the start that people shouldn't believe in fixed predictions. Therefore, when they are asked about something so specific, the answer comes with the understanding that it is just a probability. And it couldn't be any other way, because if there is such a thing as free will (and there is), then the future is always open to a great extent.

In the context of the rollout of the overt national security state in response to the events of 9/11, one could argue that metaphorically speaking Bush is still president, and the trajectory that was initiated with the Patriot Act and some of his policies has just continued to gain momentum without deviation until the present day. Furthermore, it would be rather interesting if Bush dies as part of the forecasted "triple bad day" coming up, where everything is supposedly going to go bad for the PTB, and his death happens to coincide with the demise of the Deep State. That's not how the average reasonably intelligent person would interpret this prediction. As a 3D person looking for 3D explanations of 3D events, that's not how I would interpret this prediction and it's definitely a miss. If you take a more symbolic and nuanced view, it offers something interesting to chew on...

I have as well thought in the past about this example and the interpretation you offer. If it's correct, then it comes as a reminder that the Cs never say anything that is not designed to make us think and learn, rather than 'giving away candy', as they themselves once put it. What would be the point of saying stuff that would simply satisfy our curiosity?

Having said that, I too thought Trump was going to win the election easily and I thought the Cs were confirming just that. Until the day on which the media declared Biden the winner - that's when I started to think the opposite. Because of the 'I saw it on tv therefore it's real' mentality. So I certainly sympathize with people being disappointed.
 

othree

Padawan Learner
Trump was/is VERY clearly a nationalist and isolationist (by American standards). You and Brandon Smith don't seem very good at geopolitics, or politics in general.
You on the other hand are excellent at human interaction and at showing appreciation towards readers of sott.net.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
You on the other hand are excellent at human interaction and at showing appreciation towards readers of sott.net.

Thanks, I try my best. Seriously though, do you think that Sott.net or this forum is like an online shop in a capitalist utopia where the customer must always be right regardless of how rudely they behave? The customer can always be right as long as they provide two things in return: an honest exchange and politeness. Can you honestly say you provide both?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

othree

Padawan Learner
Thanks, I try my best.
You're welcome. Interactions with you are always so heart warming and full of kindness.

Unfortunately, I can't give back in kind, and have to point out that you also don't seem to be a very good reader, or at least not when it comes to Brandon Smith's material, which is sometimes reposted on sott.net. If you were paying attention to what Brandon was saying, then you'd know what your pointing out that Trump is a nationalist does not negate neither my statement nor what Brandon thinks about him.
 
Top Bottom