One significant "miss" is the C's prediction that George W Bush would remain in office beyond his term, attempt to become a fuhrer and would in fact die in office. That's a pretty specific prediction that definitely did not occur, and I think a useful one to cite in the "misses" category.
C's Misses?
- Thread starter othree
- Start date
One significant "miss" is the C's prediction that George W Bush would remain in office beyond his term, attempt to become a fuhrer and would in fact die in office. That's a pretty specific prediction that definitely did not occur, and I think a useful one to cite in the "misses" category.
The concept of a “miss list” is somewhat altered after the last session given that some predictions are made to prevent catastrophe. Essentially what the C’s are doing is giving the game away which seems to remove some of the unfair advantage 4d STO have.
Did you not mean 4d STS?
In my opinion, the concept of a "miss list" is very useful from the perspective that this whole project is called "The Cassiopaean Experiment".
For example, an experiment to determine whether a pill works or not would not include only the instances in which the pill works as intended.
If we disregard the misses because we automatically interpret them as hits that were diverted by human intervention, this means the predictive information provided by the C's is not falsifiable. Which is fine, but then it seems very odd to call it an "experiment" in my opinion.
I realize that this thread starts with a biased approach and a lot of self-importance.
The Cass. have said they are not infallible and that they too are learning.
I would not take lightly this almost more than 20 year experiment with a huge volume of articles, books and material where hits and misses are mentioned. Proposing a top “list of mistakes" seems rather trivial to me, unless it is something really creative.
When mentioning making some predictions to avoid a catastrophe, I see it more like s a strategy to disable the magic trick by exposing it so that it loses its effect.
In sum, this all reminds me of parts of what Castaneda writes in “A Reality Apart” when he mentions The controlled blunder: "My Will controls the blunder of my life." ... "Once a man learns to see, he is alone in the world with nothing but blunder.... "but then when he learns to see he realizes that he can no longer think about the things he looks at and if can't look at the things you look at everything becomes unimportant."
Una Realidad Aparte
Sobre el desatino controlado: “Mi Voluntad controla el desatino de mi vida” …”Una vez que un hombre aprende a ver, se haya solo en el mundo sin nada más que desatino… “pero luego cuando aprende a ver se da cuenta que ya no puede pensar en las cosas que mira y si uno no puede mirar las cosas que mira todo se vuelve sin importancia”.
I don't understand why a list of misses would be considered to be trivial, unless one considers only the hits to be valuable. In an objective experiment, both the hits and misses are equally valued because the goal is to arrive at the truth of the matter, rather than to arrive at one particular destination.
My impression is that some people dislike the idea of a list of misses because this might "invalidate" the C's in the minds of some people. But to me, their predictions are not what has provided the greatest value, rather it is their insight into how our reality and our mind works, which are things that can be self-verified.
Not really, is not that some people dislike the idea, it’s because there is so much to the predictions from the Cs that things that has been misses in the past actually were not a miss, but it took us some time and different events to figure that out, such as weather events being symbolic and so on, there is not point on doing a list for misses since we can’t really determinate if something was really really a miss, also in the recent session they mentioned also that they predict something in order to stop from happening. So is very ambiguous. However we do always have in mind not to take the answers as something set on the stone, there could always be corruption due to assumptions from the people present in the sessions, but that was more the case in the old sessions compare to the new ones.
I think that although the idea sounds good (misses vs. hits), in reality, that in and of itself is leaning heavily on 3D thinking. If everything in our reality is symbolic, and if many of the Cs' answers are also symbolic, then we cannot often tell for sure the degree of certainty. Many times the fault seems to have been with the persons asking biased questions, or "user-error" (the people interpreting the answers too literally). Deciding on the credibility of the source, we have the obstacle of our own credibility as recipients/observers. So, some humility is always good here, I think.
For me it's a bit of a futile exercise. It either helps you in your life, or it doesn't. It either resonates with you, or it doesn't. And it either teachers you to stay open to new data and interpretations, and to work hard... or it doesn't!
It also reminds me of, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.” I lost count of how many times I've been utterly wrong about something (predictions, observations, deductions, whatever). Yet, I know I'm reliable and trustworthy in some areas too, and that I've been right as well. The same goes for everyone, I think, so we shouldn't forget that it's not so black and white!
The main point is, do your homework, and don't idealize the Cs. Many people have come and gone with criticisms and an "I got you!" attitude, but so far, none of them were able to provide anything better. It was much easier to criticize than to do the heavy amount of work required to get even remotely near. So, again, perspective helps, IMO.
For me it's a bit of a futile exercise. It either helps you in your life, or it doesn't. It either resonates with you, or it doesn't. And it either teachers you to stay open to new data and interpretations, and to work hard... or it doesn't!
It also reminds me of, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.” I lost count of how many times I've been utterly wrong about something (predictions, observations, deductions, whatever). Yet, I know I'm reliable and trustworthy in some areas too, and that I've been right as well. The same goes for everyone, I think, so we shouldn't forget that it's not so black and white!
The main point is, do your homework, and don't idealize the Cs. Many people have come and gone with criticisms and an "I got you!" attitude, but so far, none of them were able to provide anything better. It was much easier to criticize than to do the heavy amount of work required to get even remotely near. So, again, perspective helps, IMO.
i may be naive, but the cass experiment has become very important to me, in spite of it being not rational and not compatible with classical physics.
to me, the cass are a breakthrough in chanelling, and they have always been prudent in their affirmations, at least as regards events already having taken place.
the miss list is indeed very important to enable me to examine their credibility. please see my input concerning the linceul de turin.
if we cannot trust 6 d, why bother??
Yes, I also want to believe, but I understand that questions that have to do with channeling there are many factors that can intervene with the result, it takes a lot of physical-mental hygiene and that is why you have to check everything that is channeled, personally that is what impresses me most about this experiment and is the pillar of FOTCM; Also,I think that the previous answers seem to me enough. Now if I understand correctly, you want to prove the credibility of the Cassiopeans, or you just want to prove your theory of the mantle of Turin.? I don't know, but if we stick to the facts there is a huge probability that Jesus did not exist, that Caesar is that person and that the mantle of Turin therefore is not of "Jesus" but of another person and well the rest is history, so I would not say that it is a mistake of the Cassiopeians. But as they themselves have said, they do not communicate with us "to prove that they exist", nor that they are infallible.
I maintain that a list casts doubt on the credibility of the experiment because it is not an inorganic laboratory chemistry experiment, quite the contrary. But this is just my opinion.
Your ‘evidence’ that the C’s are wrong about the shroud of Turin is that you once read a book that made a case that you thought was convincing.
In other words, what the C’s said goes against your beliefs.
If that’s the best you can come up with as to why you can’t trust the C’s, then you might as well not bother continuing in this discussion.
I see that many of the responses are in the line of "the misses are not misses" and "reality is symbolic", etc.
The C's said that George W would remain president beyond his term, attempt to become a fuhrer, and would die in office. This seems like a pretty straightforward prediction that is a "miss", and not symbolism.
As many have said, perhaps this was a future event that was diverted because the C's presented it as a possibility. And I'm not arguing against that at all. But in that case, the information is un-falsifiable (as I mentioned previously) and it seems weird to call it an experiment. That was my only point. Something that is not falsifiable cannot really be an experiment.
Your point about the old sessions vs the new ones is a good point, as the George W prediction is a very old one, I actually remember reading it in the 90s or 2000s when W was still in office.
The C's said that George W would remain president beyond his term, attempt to become a fuhrer, and would die in office. This seems like a pretty straightforward prediction that is a "miss", and not symbolism.
As many have said, perhaps this was a future event that was diverted because the C's presented it as a possibility. And I'm not arguing against that at all. But in that case, the information is un-falsifiable (as I mentioned previously) and it seems weird to call it an experiment. That was my only point. Something that is not falsifiable cannot really be an experiment.
Your point about the old sessions vs the new ones is a good point, as the George W prediction is a very old one, I actually remember reading it in the 90s or 2000s when W was still in office.
As with everything in life... there is a lot of noise and disrubtion, which might cause the message to be muddled. I always take everything with a grain of salt. The usefullness is in providing pointers to possible areas I can turn my attention to. There are many things pointed out in the sessions that I could have never imagined in my wildest dreams.
Prediction has always been iffy given the dynamics of reality. I can't say I totally buy the prediction to prevent disaster explanation as the argument becomes reculsive and unflasiable, but will give them the benefit of the doubt :)
Prediction has always been iffy given the dynamics of reality. I can't say I totally buy the prediction to prevent disaster explanation as the argument becomes reculsive and unflasiable, but will give them the benefit of the doubt :)
XPan
The Living Force
Do we really know how much influence George W had after the end of his official position as a president ? (Kind of like Obama appears to have a very high influence under the Biden administration despite him being out of office since a long time)
I mean if things the Cassiopaean channel to us - also contain aspects of symbolic nature - then the threshold or boundaries are not as sharp or defined as it looks like (giving more leeway for interpretation, but also containing the hidden aspects of our 3D linear time - the periods of time necessary take time unfold in order 'fully' to be understood / e.g. it takes time until a picture reveals more of its hidden content - along the road as we learn more, and learn how to integrate the many pieces and fragments of information.
It is like information with several bottoms sections. Not everything makes all sense at the same level when the information was given to us.
